
[Middle English mete, from Old English, food.]
| Meat | Internal Temperature | ||
| Beef, Veal, Lamb | chops, steaks, roasts | 125°F–135°F/52°C–57°C | rare |
| 135°F–145°F/57°C–63°C | medium-rare | ||
| 145°F–155°F/63°C–68°C | medium | ||
| 155°F–165°F/68°C–71°C | medium-well | ||
| 170°F/77°C | well done | ||
| *The USDA recommends cooking these roasts to 145 °F/63° C for safety. | |||
| Pork | chops or roasts | 155°F–165°F/68°C–71°C | medium |
| 170°F/77°C | well done | ||
| *The USDA recommends cooking pork roasts to 160 °F/71°C for safety. | |||
| Ground meat | 160°F/71°C | ||
Browse other meats: Introduction |
Browse other foods: Vegetables | Legumes | Fruits | Nuts and Seeds | Seaweeds | Mushrooms | Cereals and Grains | Fish | Crustaceans | Mollusks | Herbs, Spices and Seasonings | Meats | Variety Meats | Delicatessen Meats | Poultry | Dairy Products | Sugars, Cocoa and Carob | Fats and Oils | Binders and Leavenings | Coffee, Tea and Herbal Teas
For more information on meat, visit Britannica.com.
Generally refers to the muscle tissue of animals or birds, other parts being termed offal. 150-g portions of meat of all types are rich sources of protein and niacin; most are rich sources of vitamin B2 and iron; sources or good sources of vitamin B1.
Venison, horse meat, goose, and game birds are exceptionally rich in iron; pork is exceptionally rich in vitamin B1. The fat content and proportions of fatty acids differ considerably between individual carcasses, species, and cuts of meat.
See also beef, lamb, veal, pork, rabbit, hare, goat, horse, venison, duck, chicken, goose, partridge, turkey, pheasant, grouse, quail, pigeon; and heart, kidney, liver, oxtail, sweetbread, tongue, tripe.
noun
Idioms beginning with meat:
meat and drink to one
meat and potatoes
See also beat the meat; one's man's meat is another man's poison.
For most human beings, meat is a highly desired food, but it is more of a treat than a staple. Meat, whether obtained from hunted or domesticated animals, is more expensive than staple carbohydrate-rich foods because of the investment in land and labor required to produce it. This reality is often the justification for reserving meat, or the best parts of it, for those with higher status. In a majority of the world's cultures, this elite is men and, sometimes, the women and children attached to them. Furthermore, when there is enough meat to go around, the preferred parts, usually the muscle, go to these same individuals.
It is this special status of meat that makes it of particular interest in human culture, psychology, and cuisine. Meat is also the only class of food that is frequently formally proscribed by certain religions, cultures, or cultural subgroups.
Ambivalence and the Psychology of Meat
The stakes are high with meat. Meat is both the most tabooed—and the most favored—food across the human race, in both developed and traditional cultures. Meat is a magnet of ambivalence for human beings. It is meaningful, in both the positive and negative sense. Eating meat is both attractive and repulsive. Hunting, too, is problematic. It is a skilled accomplishment at the same time that it is a destructive act. Meat provides a food for humans that is more similar to humans than any other type of food. The similarity means that the biochemical composition of meat is much like that of humans, so that, by eating it, humans get all the nutrients they need. The meat of any mammal is a complete, or almost complete, food, in contrast to vegetable foods. But this similarity means that microorganisms living in the meat are also likely to find a happy home in humans. Meat is thus the most nutritive and most infective food humans eat.
You Are What You Eat
It is quite natural and sensible to believe that a person takes on the properties of the food he or she eats. In general, when A and B are mixed, the resulting product shows properties of both A and B, so why should this not occur when A eats B? The problem, of course, as understood through the lens of biochemistry, is that after digestion the components of various foods, foods as different as beef and bananas, are the same molecules: amino acids, sugars, and so on. From this perspective, the identity of an eaten food is lost by the time it is digested. Nonetheless, the belief remains, and it is present in the thinking of almost every traditional culture. This "principle" is behind such notions as eating owls improves vision, eating swift animals increases running speed, eating rapidly growing plants speeds up growth, and the appearance of foods, including their color, can influence humans' appearance. "You are what you eat" is not just a primitive superstition; it is believed, implicitly, by educated people in technologically advanced cultures.
It follows from "you are what you eat" that the consumption of animals will impart some of their animal properties to the person consuming them. Although many animals have desirable attributes, they all share the property of not being human. And it is a major theme, across cultures, that humans are superior to, and qualitatively different from, animals. Yet, consumption of animals, according to the "you are what you eat" principle, would render humans more animal-like, that is, less distinctively human. This belief contributes to human ambivalence about eating meat, and may partially account for the disgust aroused by animal foods in some people.
Meat and the Human Primate
Primates show substantial variation in the types of diets they consume; however, there is a general focus on fruits. Some, particularly large primates, move to a more folivorous (leaf-eating) diet, and some consume a moderate amount of small animals, including insects. The larger stomachs and colons that characterize folivorous animals contrast with the smaller colons and stomachs of the carnivores. Frugivores (fruit eaters) typically have a gut that lies between the carnivore and the folivore extremes, and this is what humans have. This type of gut, and the associated general-purpose set of teeth, are well suited to generalist or omnivorous feeding habits, which characterize humans and chimpanzees. Humans can be distinguished from other primates, including chimpanzees, in their ability to hunt animals larger than themselves. This hunting capacity, related to the movement from the forest to savannah environment, has major implications for human nature and human evolution. First, it introduces the possibility of a substantial amount of meat in the diet. In addition, the demands of hunting encourage elaborate communication and cooperative effort as well as the creation of weapons and the technology that goes with them. The yield that results from killing a large animal encourages sharing, communal eating, and preservation technologies. It is fair to say that the shift to a diet with more meat in it, with the inclusion of large animal hunting, was a major force in human evolution. In an important sense, meat as food has shaped human nature.
Meat in Traditional Society
It is presumed that the hunter-gatherer mode of existence, with varying degrees of reliance on vegetable and animal products, was the situation of Homo sapiens prior to the appearance of domestication and agriculture. However, this should be recognized as a presumption. Studies of the diverse range of existing cultures that rely to a large degree on hunting and gathering suggest that meat, even at this stage of human cultural and biological evolution, assumed a central role. Meat is generally the favored food, the center of celebrations and social gatherings, and the food selectively available to adult males, the most powerful and high-status members of most hunter-gatherer societies. This situation probably results from a combination of the caloric density of meat and the fact that meat, unlike any particular vegetable, is a complete food. On the other hand, the relative rarity of meat, which usually constitutes much less than half of the diet, encourages rules for its selective distribution.
Even among hunter-gatherers, however, there are signs of ambivalence to meat. Most food taboos of hunter-gatherers, and they are extensive, are about meat. Taboos are sometimes general, namely that certain types of animals are forbidden as food. On the other hand, most taboos are conditional, restricting the eating of meat, or certain parts (muscle, innards) to particular groups. Generally, the adult males get the greater amount of meat, get to eat the preferred animals, and get the preferred parts (usually muscle). But there are many exceptions to this general rule. Meat or animal taboos, whether in hunter-gatherer or technologically developed cultures, seem to have a few general characteristics. In what has been referred to as "zones of edibility," tabooed creatures tend to be those very close to humans (humans themselves, primates, or companion animals), those very different from humans, and/or those that are rarely encountered.
Domestication
Meat figures prominently in what might be called the two most important transitions in human evolution: the development of complex cultures and sophisticated technologies. Just as hunting had a major influence in shaping human nature, the combination of agriculture and domestication laid the foundation for high densities of humans and the subsequent elaboration of culture. By making the human food supply more independent of the seasons and of short-term extremes in weather, agriculture and domestication set the stage for major changes in human life. Domestication made it possible for humans to be the only mammals that could have continued access to the almost perfect mammal food of infancy, milk; it also frequently made meat a less scarce resource. Just as hunting helped encourage the upright posture, the development of hand skills, and major cognitive developments, agriculture and domestication of animals freed humans to develop a wide range of impressive technologies.
Meat in Developed Societies
The tables have begun to turn on meat in today's affluent, developed world. The excitement of meat hunting has given way to factory farming. The butchering of the carcass takes place out of sight of almost everyone, so that the skills involved in butchering as well as hunting are almost gone. The caloric density of meat has lost much of its appeal because the threat to human health is too many calories, rather than too few. Similarly, the nutritional completeness of meat is a less salient virtue, what with the great variety of plant foods available in any neighborhood supermarket. The epidemiological revolution has shifted health risks from minimal diets, unbalanced diets, and infections spread by humans through food and other products, to degenerative diseases like heart disease and cancer. And animal fat has been implicated as a risk factor for heart disease. Finally, the affluence of modern societies permits the development of great sensitivities to nature and the morality of using animals as food; with many options available, it is possible to allow moral concerns to influence diet. Vegetarianism is on the rise, for both moral and health reasons, and many of the nonvegetarians in the urban developed world are queasy about the actual process of killing animals. This attitude appears even in the slaughterhouse itself, where responsibility for killing the animals is diffused across a number of different people and roles. In Britain, the United States, and Canada, the human approach to meat has become increasingly ambivalent. The human primate still loves the taste and smell of meat, while cultural knowledge and sensitivities argue against it.
Disgust
Disgust is a powerful emotion, and animal products often arouse it. Almost all foods that are labeled as disgusting in a number of cultures are of animal origin. It is odd, because "dis-gust" means 'bad taste', and meat is one of the best-tasting foods to humans. It is odd also because, given the superior nutritional properties of meat, it should not be the target of the strongest negative food-related emotion.
Meat preference may be a human predisposition, but it is probably not present in infants. Ironically, there may be some predisposition to find meat disgusting, but this as well is not present in the first few years of life. Human infants eat, or at least try to eat, everything they can get into their mouth. Feces, the universal core of disgust, and itself an animal product, is attractive as a food to human infants, as it is to other young and adult mammals. Presumably the odor of decay, associated as it is with microorganism-infested meat, would be innately repugnant, but there is no evidence for an infant aversion to this odor. Nor is there evidence for such an aversion in other primates or mammals. By age two or three, in Western developed cultures (which have provided all of the data up to this time), children have a clear aversion to feces, and a variety of other animal products, especially those that are decayed. This is probably the result of toilet training, although there is no account available of the actual process through which this aversion to feces and decay is aroused.
The foods that are disgusting to adults, cross-culturally, are almost entirely of animal origin, beginning with feces and, for Americans, extending widely to many of the edible parts of animals. Indeed, considering all of the possible animal foods (insects, mollusks, reptiles, amphibians), it is quite remarkable that Americans consume only four or five species of mammals, a few species of birds, no amphibians and reptiles, a moderate number of the many species of fish, only a few types of shellfish, and no insects. Furthermore, the meats eaten by Americans exclude many parts of edible animals; consumption is almost exclusively limited to muscle, and, in general, not the heart or tongue, although these are muscles. So far as is known, this idiosyncratic selection of animals and animal parts as acceptable food has no nutritional or health basis.
These facts lead to the conclusion that disgust at animal products, and the avoidance of most animal products, has an ideational base; it is based neither on taste (most of the "disgusting" types of meat have never been tried) or actual health risks. It is the idea of eating lizards, cow eyes or intestines, or insects that is upsetting and expressed as disgust, somewhat parallel to the formal taboos in other cultures against the consumption of many types of animals or animal parts.
Humans are clearly adapted to a partial meat diet and to liking the taste of meat, especially when it is cooked. But there are some negative sides to meat eating. Perhaps most important is the threat of microbial contamination; because animals are more like humans than plants are, animals are more likely to harbor microorganisms that can afflict humans. This microbial load also makes animal flesh vulnerable to decay after death. Many have argued that the use of many spices originated as a culinary means of discouraging spoilage of meat. During the twentieth century most of the microbial risks were overcome with controlled raising, preparation, and storage of meats. However, as feeding a population of billions a diet with substantial amounts of meat became the goal, a new problem arose: it takes much more out of the environment to make a pound of meat than a pound of vegetable starch or fruits and vegetables. This was not much of a problem when there were fewer humans, and when animals were hunted rather than herded. For some it has become a serious issue that threatens the welfare of our planet.
Plants, of course, as the alternative food source, have their own problems. They are more likely to contain toxins, and they are less calorie dense and less complete nutritionally. As with the minimization of the microbial risks of meat consumption by technological rearing and preparation techniques, the risk of plant toxins can be reduced both by a culture-based selection of appropriate plant products to eat and by the development, through agriculture, of staple plant-based starches that are essentially toxin-free.
Meat and Vegetarianism
Most people in the Third World eat relatively little meat, mostly because of its cost and rarity. They would eat more if they could. On the other hand, in some religious groups, such as orthodox Hindus, all meat is prohibited. And within some meat-eating cultures, individuals or groups of individuals reject meat as food. This type of vegetarianism has a history that goes back at least to ancient Greece. Historically, this type of elective vegetarianism has been motivated primarily by moral or religious concerns, often having to do with negative reactions to the killing of animals or the psychological effects of consuming animals. Within many developed cultures, vegetarians invoke, in addition to moral, religious, or aesthetic concerns, worries about the long-term health effects of eating meat. Some vegetarians can be classified as either health or moral vegetarians, though most long-time vegetarians express a little of both motivations. Interestingly, moral vegetarians are more likely to find meat disgusting than are health vegetarians. When meat becomes disgusting, it is much easier to avoid it.
Vegetarianism seems to be growing in the Western world, impelled by health and moral motivations. For most people who choose this path, it is usually a long development over time, frequently a movement from rejection of a small category of animal products (for example, baby mammals or red meat) through larger and larger spheres of rejection (adding poultry, fish and shell-fish, eggs and dairy products, and nonfood animal products). For many, the sequence stops at some point along this trajectory. People also often slide backwards, either abandoning a particular level of rejection for a less stringent set of prohibitions or completely abandoning the vegetarian style.
Mad Cow Disease
Although in general Americans seemed to be the most concerned group about the diet-health link as the twentieth century ended, the advent of mad cow disease engaged Europeans more than Americans. Mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE]) is quintessentially about meat. Mad cow is doubly animal: it involves not only animal meat—beef—but also feed consumed by cows, animals that are normally vegetarian, that contains animal parts. Studies of risk perception by psychologists indicate that people tend to exaggerate risks when they are catastrophic, hidden, delayed, and not understood. Mad cow disease meets all of these conditions and adds the predisposition to be emotionally involved with foods of an animal nature. It is hard to believe that as much fuss would be made if this were mad broccoli disease. It is also just as likely that "mad broccoli disease," because it would not originate with diseased animals, would not lead to a delayed, unexpected, hideous, and certain, death.
Safe Meat Production
With the appearance in the 1990s of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE; more familiar to the public as "mad cow disease") in England and France, and the deaths caused by its spread to humans who ate meat from diseased cows, vigilance with respect to safe meat production became even more critical. In spite of research demonstrating that the disease had been spread in herds that had eaten feed that contained meat products, some feed suppliers in the United States were found continuing the practice in 2001, and, without enough USDA inspectors to monitor meat production from start to finish, the public cannot be sure that the meat they eat does not come from cows infected with BSE.
Robin Kline
Bibliography
Billing, J., and P. W. Sherman. "Antimicrobial Functions of Spices: Why Some Like It Hot." Quarterly Review of Biology 73 (1998): 3–49.
Chivers, D. J. "Diets and Guts." In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, edited by Ed S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, pp. 60–64. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Diamond, J. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: Norton, 1997.
Douglas, M. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge, 1966.
Fiddes, N. Meat: A Natural Symbol. London: Routledge, 1991.
Kass, L. The Hungry Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature. New York: Free Press, 1994.
Kelly, R. L. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995.
Miller, W. I. The Anatomy of Disgust. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Nemeroff, C., and P. Rozin. "The Makings of the Magical Mind." In Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children, edited by K. S. Rosengren, C. N. Johnson, and P. L. Harris, pp. 1–34. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Rhodes, R. Deadly Feasts: Tracking the Secrets of a Deadly New Plague. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997.
Rozin, P., and A. E. Fallon. "A Perspective on Disgust." Psychological Review 94 (1987): 23–41.
Rozin, P., J. Haidt, and C. R. McCauley. "Disgust." In Handbook of Emotions, edited by M. Lewis and J. Haviland, 2d ed., pp. 637–653. New York: Guilford, 2000.
Simoons, F. J. Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances from Prehistory to the Present. 2d ed., rev. and enl. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Tambiah, S. J. "Animals Are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit." Ethnology 8 (1969): 423–459.
Twigg, J. "Food for Thought: Purity and Vegetarianism." Religion 9 (1979): 13–35.
Vialles, N. Animal to Edible. Translated by J. A. Underwood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. (Original edition: Le Sang et la chair: Les Abatoirs des pays de l'adour. Paris: Fondation de la Maison des Sciences et l'Homme, 1987.)
Washburn, S. L., and C. S. Lancaster. "The Evolution of Hunting." In Man the Hunter, edited by R. B. Lee and I. Devore, pp. 293–303. Chicago: Aldine, 1968.
Whitehead, H. Food Rules: Hunting, Sharing, and Tabooing Game in Papua New Guinea. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.
—Paul Rozin
I have known many meat eaters to be far more nonviolent than vegetarians.
— Gandhi (1869-1948)
Tutor's tip: Our coach would "mete" (apportion) out the "meat" (the edible part of animals) at our meals before a track "meet" (sporting competition) to ensure we didn't gain weight.
LearnThatWord.com is a free vocabulary and spelling program where you only pay for results!
Eating meat sometimes indicates that one is getting to the heart of the matter or finally getting down to the "meat of an issue." Meat can also represent a bold and hearty grasp of the dreamer's needs.
| measly, meany, mean | |
| meat rack, meat ticket, meat tool |
1. flesh and other tissues of farm animals for human consumption.
2. the edible parts of nuts or fruit seeds. Called also kernels.

Meat is animal flesh that is eaten as food.[1] Generally, this means the skeletal muscle and associated fat and other tissues, but it may also describe other edible tissues such as offal.[1] Often, meat is used in a more restrictive sense—the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, lambs, etc.) raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish and other seafood, poultry, and other animals. Usage varies worldwide by culture, and some countries such as India have large populations that avoid the consumption of all or most kinds of meat. Game or bush meat is also generally distinguished from that produced by agriculture.
The consumption of meat has various traditions and rituals associated with it in different cultures such as kosher and halal and its production is generally regulated by state authorities as well. This article is mainly focused on that process from primary production to consumption.
The word meat comes from the Old English word mete, which referred to food in general. The term is related to mad in Danish, mat in Swedish and Norwegian, and matur in Icelandic, which also mean 'food'. The word "mete" also exists in Old Frisian (and to a lesser extent, modern West Frisian) to denote important food, differentiating it from "swiets" (sweets) and "dierfied" (animal feed).
One definition that refers to meat as not including fish developed over the past few hundred years and has religious influences. The distinction between fish and "meat" is codified by the Jewish dietary law of kashrut, regarding the mixing of milk and meat, which does not forbid the mixing of milk and fish. Modern Jewish legal practice (halakha) on kashrut classifies the flesh of both mammals and birds as "meat"; fish are considered to be parve, neither meat nor a dairy food. The Catholic dietary restriction on "meat" on Fridays also does not apply to the cooking and eating of fish.
The Latin word carō "meat" (also the root of 'carnal', referring to the 'pleasures of the flesh') is often a euphemism for sexual pleasure, effected from the function performed by fleshy organs. Thus 'meat' may refer to the human body in a sensual, or sexual, connotation. A meat market, in addition to simply denoting a market where meat is sold, also refers to a place or situation where humans are treated or viewed as commodities, especially a place known as one where a sexual partner may be found.
"Meat" may also be used to refer to humans humorously or indifferently . In military slang, "meat shield" refers to soldiers sent towards an enemy to draw fire away from another unit.
Paleontological evidence suggests that meat constituted a substantial proportion of the diet of even the earliest humans.[2] Early hunter-gatherers depended on the organized hunting of large animals such as bison and deer.[2]
The domestication of animals, of which we have evidence dating back to the end of the last glacial period (c. 10,000 years BP),[2] allowed the systematic production of meat and the breeding of animals with a view to improving meat production.[2] The animals which are now the principal sources of meat were domesticated in conjunction with the development of early civilizations:
Other animals are, or have been raised or hunted for their flesh. The type of meat consumed varies much in different cultures, changes over time, and depends on different factors such as the availability of the animals and traditions.
Modern agriculture employs a number of techniques, such as progeny testing, to make animals evolve rapidly towards having the qualities desired by meat producers.[23] For instance, in the wake of well-publicised health concerns associated with saturated fats in the 1980s, the fat content of UK beef, pork and lamb fell from 20–26 percent to 4–8 percent within a few decades, both due to selective breeding for leanness and changed methods of butchery.[23] Methods of genetic engineering aimed at improving the meat production qualities of animals are now also becoming available.[24]
Even though it is a very old industry, meat production continues to be shaped strongly by the rapidly evolving demands of customers. The trend towards selling meat in pre-packaged cuts has increased the demand for larger breeds of cattle, which are better suited to producing such cuts.[25] Even more animals not previously exploited for their meat are now being farmed, especially the more agile and mobile species, whose muscles tend to be developed better than those of cattle, sheep or pigs.[25] Examples include the various antelope species, the zebra, water buffalo and camel,[26] as well as nonmammals, such as the crocodile, emu and ostrich.[27] Another important trend in contemporary meat production is organic farming which, while providing no organoleptic benefit to meat so produced,[28] meets an increasing demand for numerous reasons.
Agricultural science has identified several factors bearing on the growth and development of meat in animals.
| Trait | Heritability[29] |
|---|---|
| Reproductive efficiency | 2–10% |
| Meat quality | 15–30% |
| Growth | 20–40% |
| Muscle/fat ratio | 40–60% |
Several economically important traits in meat animals are heritable to some degree (see the table to the right) and can thus be selected for by breeding. In cattle, certain growth features are controlled by recessive genes which have not so far been controlled, complicating breeding.[30] One such trait is dwarfism; another is the doppelender or "double muscling" condition, which causes muscle hypertrophy and thereby increases the animal's commercial value.[30] Genetic analysis continues to reveal the genetic mechanisms that control numerous aspects of the endocrine system and, through it, meat growth and quality.[31]
Genetic engineering techniques can shorten breeding programmes significantly because they allow for the identification and isolation of genes coding for desired traits, and for the reincorporation of these genes into the animal genome.[32] To enable such manipulation, research is ongoing (as of 2006[update]) to map the entire genome of sheep, cattle and pigs.[32] Some research has already seen commercial application. For instance, a recombinant bacterium has been developed which improves the digestion of grass in the rumen of cattle, and some specific features of muscle fibres have been genetically altered.[33]
Experimental reproductive cloning of commercially important meat animals such as sheep, pig or cattle has been successful. The multiple asexual reproduction of animals bearing desirable traits can thus be anticipated,[33] although this is not yet practical on a commercial scale.
Heat regulation in livestock is of great economic significance, because mammals attempt to maintain a constant optimal body temperature. Low temperatures tend to prolong animal development and high temperatures tend to retard it.[33] Depending on their size, body shape and insulation through tissue and fur, some animals have a relatively narrow zone of temperature tolerance and others (e.g. cattle) a broad one.[34] Static magnetic fields, for reasons still unknown, also retard animal development.[34]
The quality and quantity of usable meat depends on the animal's plane of nutrition, i.e., whether it is over- or underfed. Scientists disagree, however, about how exactly the plane of nutrition influences carcase composition.[35]
The composition of the diet, especially the amount of protein provided, is also an important factor regulating animal growth.[36] Ruminants, which may digest cellulose, are better adapted to poor-quality diets, but their ruminal microorganisms degrade high-quality protein if supplied in excess.[37] Because producing high-quality protein animal feed is expensive (see also Environmental impact below), several techniques are employed or experimented with to ensure maximum utilization of protein. These include the treatment of feed with formalin to protect amino acids during their passage through the rumen, the recycling of manure by feeding it back to cattle mixed with feed concentrates, or the partial conversion of petroleum hydrocarbons to protein through microbial action.[38]
In plant feed, environmental factors influence the availability of crucial nutrients or micronutrients, a lack or excess of which can cause a great many ailments.[39] In Australia, for instance, where the soil contains limited phosphate, cattle are being fed additional phosphate to increase the efficiency of beef production.[40] Also in Australia, cattle and sheep in certain areas were often found losing their appetite and dying in the midst of rich pasture; this was at length found to be a result of cobalt deficiency in the soil.[39] Plant toxins are also a risk to grazing animals; for instance, fluoracetate, found in some African and Australian plants, kills by disrupting the cellular metabolism.[39] Certain man-made pollutants such as methylmercury and some pesticide residues present a particular hazard due to their tendency to bioaccumulate in meat, potentially poisoning consumers.[38]
Meat producers may seek to improve the fertility of female animals through the administration of gonadotrophic or ovulation-inducing hormones.[41] In pig production, sow infertility is a common problem, possibly due to excessive fatness.[42] No methods currently exist to augment the fertility of male animals.[42] Artificial insemination is now routinely used to produce animals of the best possible genetic quality, and the efficiency of this method is improved through the administration of hormones that synchronize the ovulation cycles within groups of females.[43]
Growth hormones, particularly anabolic agents such as steroids, are used in some countries to accelerate muscle growth in animals.[43] This practice has given rise to the beef hormone controversy, an international trade dispute. It may also decrease the tenderness of meat, although research on this is inconclusive,[44] and have other effects on the composition of the muscle flesh.[45] Where castration is used to improve control over male animals, its side effects are also counteracted by the administration of hormones.[43]
Sedatives may be administered to animals to counteract stress factors and increase weight gain.[46] The feeding of antibiotics to certain animals has been shown to improve growth rates also.[46] This practice is particularly prevalent in the USA, but has been banned in the EU, partly because it causes antibiotic resistance in pathogenic microorganisms.[46]
Numerous aspects of the biochemical composition of meat vary in complex ways depending on the species, breed, sex, age, plane of nutrition, training and exercise of the animal, as well as on the anatomical location of the musculature involved.[47] Even between animals of the same litter and sex there are considerable differences in such parameters as the percentage of intramuscular fat.[48]
Adult mammalian muscle flesh consists of roughly 75 percent water, 19 percent protein, 2.5 percent intramuscular fat, 1.2 percent carbohydrates and 2.3 percent other soluble non-protein substances. These include nitrogenous compounds, such as amino acids, and inorganic substances such as minerals.[49]
Muscle proteins are either soluble in water (sarcoplasmic proteins, about 11.5 percent of total muscle mass) or in concentrated salt solutions (myofibrillar proteins, about 5.5 percent of mass).[50] There are several hundred sarcoplasmic proteins.[51] Most of them – the glycolytic enzymes – are involved in the glycolytic pathway, i.e., the conversion of stored energy into muscle power.[52] The two most abundant myofibrillar proteins, myosin and actin,[53] are responsible for the muscle's overall structure. The remaining protein mass consists of connective tissue (collagen and elastin) as well as organelle tissue.[49]
Fat in meat can be either adipose tissue, used by the animal to store energy and consisting of "true fats" (esters of glycerol with fatty acids),[54] or intramuscular fat, which contains considerable quantities of phospholipids and of unsaponifiable constituents such as cholesterol.[54]
Meat can be broadly classified as "red" or "white" depending on the concentration of myoglobin in muscle fibre. When myoglobin is exposed to oxygen, reddish oxymyoglobin develops, making myoglobin-rich meat appear red. The redness of meat depends on species, animal age, and fibre type: Red meat contains more narrow muscle fibres that tend to operate over long periods without rest,[55] while white meat contains more broad fibres that tend to work in short fast bursts.[55]
The meat of adult mammals such as cows, sheep, goats, and horses is generally considered red, while domestic chicken and turkey breast meat is generally considered white.
| Source | calories | protein | carbs | fat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| fish | 110–140 | 20–25 g | 0 g | 1–5 g |
| chicken breast | 160 | 28 g | 0 g | 7 g |
| lamb | 250 | 30 g | 0 g | 14 g |
| steak (beef top round) | 210 | 36 g | 0 g | 7 g |
| steak (beef T-bone) | 450 | 25 g | 0 g | 35 g |
All muscle tissue is very high in protein, containing all of the essential amino acids, and in most cases is a good source of zinc, vitamin B12, selenium, phosphorus, niacin, vitamin B6, choline, riboflavin and iron.[56] Several forms of meat are high in vitamin K2,[57] which is only otherwise known to be found in fermented foods[citation needed], with natto having the highest concentration.[57] Muscle tissue is very low in carbohydrates and does not contain dietary fiber.[58] The fat content of meat can vary widely depending on the species and breed of animal, the way in which the animal was raised, including what it was fed, the anatomical part of the body, and the methods of butchering and cooking. Wild animals such as deer are typically leaner than farm animals, leading those concerned about fat content to choose game such as venison. Decades of breeding meat animals for fatness is being reversed by consumer demand for meat with less fat.
Red meat, such as beef, pork, and lamb, contains many essential nutrients necessary for healthy growth and development in children. Nutrients in red meat include iron, zinc, vitamin B12, and protein.[56]
The table in this section compares the nutritional content of several types of meat. While each kind of meat has about the same content of protein and carbohydrates, there is a very wide range of fat content. It is the additional fat that contributes most to the calorie content of meat, and to concerns about dietary health.[citation needed]
Meat is produced by killing the animal in question and cutting the desired flesh out of it. These procedures are called slaughter and butchery, respectively.
Attesting to the long history of meat consumption in human civilizations, ritual slaughter has become part of the practice of several religions. These rituals, as well as other pre-industrial meat production methods such as these used by indigenous peoples, are not detailed here. This section will instead provide an overview of contemporary industrialized meat production in dedicated slaughterhouses from cattle, sheep and pigs.
Upon reaching a predetermined age or weight, livestock are usually transported en masse to the slaughterhouse. Depending on its length and circumstances, this may exert stress and injuries on the animals, and some may die en route.[59] Unnecessary stress in transport may adversely affect the quality of the meat.[59] In particular, the muscles of stressed animals are low in water and glycogen, and their pH fails to attain acidic values, all of which results in poor meat quality.[60] Consequently, and also due to campaigning by animal welfare groups, laws and industry practices in several countries tend to become more restrictive with respect to the duration and other circumstances of livestock transports.
Animals are usually slaughtered by being first stunned and then exsanguinated (bled out). Death results from the one or the other procedure, depending on the methods employed. Stunning can be effected through asphyxiating the animals with carbon dioxide, shooting them with a gun or a captive bolt pistol, or shocking them with electric current.[61] In most forms of ritual slaughter, stunning is not allowed.
Draining as much blood as possible from the carcase is necessary because blood causes the meat to have an unappealing appearance and is a very good breeding ground for microorganisms.[62] The exsanguination is accomplished by severing the carotid artery and the jugular vein in cattle and sheep, and the anterior vena cava in pigs.[63]
After exsanguination, the carcase is dressed; that is, the head, feet, hide (except hogs and some veal), excess fat, viscera and offal are removed, leaving only bones and edible muscle.[64] Cattle and pig carcases, but not those of sheep, are then split in half along the mid ventral axis, and the carcase is cut into wholesale pieces.[64] The dressing and cutting sequence, long a province of manual labor, is progressively being fully automated.[64]
Under hygienic conditions and without other treatment, meat can be stored at above its freezing point (–1.5 °C) for about six weeks without spoilage, during which time it undergoes an aging process that increases its tenderness and flavor.[65]
During the first day after death, glycolysis continues until the accumulation of lactic acid causes the pH to reach about 5.5. The remaining glycogen, about 18 g per kg, is believed to increase the water-holding capacity and tenderness of the flesh when cooked.[66] Rigor mortis sets in a few hours after death as ATP is used up, causing actin and myosin to combine into rigid actomyosin and lowering the meat's water-holding capacity,[67] causing it to lose water ("weep").[68] In muscles that enter rigor in a contracted position, actin and myosin filaments overlap and cross-bond, resulting in meat that is tough on cooking[69] – hence again the need to prevent pre-slaughter stress in the animal.
Over time, the muscle proteins denature in varying degree, with the exception of the collagen and elastin of connective tissue,[70] and rigor mortis resolves. Because of these changes, the meat is tender and pliable when cooked just after death or after the resolution of rigor, but tough when cooked during rigor.[70] As the muscle pigment myoglobin denatures, its iron oxidates, which may cause a brown discoloration near the surface of the meat.[68] Ongoing proteolysis also contributes to conditioning. Hypoxanthine, a breakdown product of ATP, contributes to the meat's flavor and odor, as do other products of the discomposition of muscle fat and protein.[71]
The spoilage of meat occurs, if untreated, in a matter of hours or days and results in the meat becoming unappetizing, poisonous or infectious. Spoilage is caused by the practically unavoidable infection and subsequent decomposition of meat by bacteria and fungi, which are borne by the animal itself, by the people handling the meat, and by their implements. Meat can be kept edible for a much longer time – though not indefinitely – if proper hygiene is observed during production and processing, and if appropriate food safety, food preservation and food storage procedures are applied. Without the application of preservatives and stabilizers, the fats in meat may also begin to rapidly decompose after cooking or processing, leading to an objectionable taste known as warmed over flavor.
Fresh meat can be cooked for immediate consumption, or be processed, that is, treated for longer-term preservation and later consumption, possibly after further preparation. A common additive to processed meats, both for preservation and because it prevents discoloring, is sodium nitrite, which, however, is also a source of health concerns, because it may form carcinogenic nitrosamines when heated.[72]
Meat is prepared in many ways, as steaks, in stews, fondue, or as dried meat like beef jerky. It may be ground then formed into patties (as hamburgers or croquettes), loaves, or sausages, or used in loose form (as in "sloppy joe" or Bolognese sauce). Some meat is cured, by smoking, pickling, preserving in salt or brine (see salted meat and curing). Other kinds of meat are marinated and barbecued, or simply boiled, roasted, or fried. Meat is generally eaten cooked, but there are many traditional recipes that call for raw beef, veal or fish (tartare). Meat is often spiced or seasoned, as in most sausages. Meat dishes are usually described by their source (animal and part of body) and method of preparation.
Meat is a typical base for making sandwiches. Popular varieties of sandwich meat include ham, pork, salami and other sausages, and beef, such as steak, roast beef, corned beef, pepperoni, and pastrami. Meat can also be molded or pressed (common for products that include offal, such as haggis and scrapple) and canned.
Ethical issues regarding the consumption of meat can include objections to the act of killing animals or the agricultural practices surrounding the production of meat. Reasons for objecting to the practice of killing animals for consumption may include animal rights, environmental ethics, religious doctrine, or an aversion to inflicting pain or harm on other sentient creatures. The religion of Jainism has always opposed eating meat, and there are also many schools of Buddhism and Hinduism that condemn the eating of meat. Some people, while not vegetarians, refuse to eat the flesh of certain animals, such as cats, dogs, horses, or rabbits, due to cultural or religious taboo. In some cases, specific meats (especially from pigs and cows) are forbidden within religious traditions. Some people eat only the flesh of animals which they believe have not been mistreated, and abstain from the meat of animals reared in factory farms or from particular products such as foie gras and veal.
A 1999 metastudy combined data from five studies from western countries. The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts".[73]
In recent years, health concerns have been raised about the consumption of meat increasing the risk of cancer.[74] In particular, red meat and processed meat were found to be associated with higher risk of cancers of the lung, esophagus, liver, and colon, among others, although also a reduced risk for some minor type of cancers.[74] Another study found an increase risk of pancreatic cancer for red meat and pork.[75] That study also suggests that fat and saturated fat are not likely contributors to pancreatic cancer. Animal fat, particularly from ruminants, tends to have a higher percentage of saturated fat vs. monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat when compared to vegetable fats, with the exception of some tropical plant fats;[76] consumption of which has been correlated with various health problems. The saturated fat found in meat has been associated with significantly raised risks of colon cancer,[77][78] although evidence suggests that risks of prostate cancer are unrelated to animal fat consumption.[79] However, many research papers do not support significant links between meat consumption and various cancers. Key et al. found that "There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer or all other causes combined."[80] Truswell reviewed numerous studies, concluding that the relationship of colorectal cancer with meat consumption appeared weaker than the "probable" status it had been given by the World Cancer Research Foundation in 1997.[81] A study by Chao et al. (2005) found an apparent association of colorectal cancer with red meat consumption after adjustment for age and energy intake. However, after further adjustment for body mass index, cigarette smoking and other covariates, no association with red meat consumption was found.[82] Alexander conducted a meta-analysis which found no association of colorectal cancer with consumption of animal fat or protein. [83] Based on European data (EPIC-Oxford study), Key et al. found that incidence of colorectal cancer was somewhat lower among meat eaters than among vegetarians.[84] A study within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition found that association between esophageal cancer risk and total and processed meat intake was not statistically significant.[85] The dissimilar findings indicate that caution is needed in considering claims of dietary links to cancer occurrence.
The correlation of meat consumption to increased risk of heart disease is controversial. Some studies fail to find a link between red meat consumption and heart disease[86] (although the same study found statistically significant correlation between the consumption of processed meat and cancer), while another study, a survey, conducted in 1960, of 25,153 California Seventh-Day Adventists, found that the risk of heart disease is three times greater for 45-64 year old men who eat meat daily, versus those who did not eat meat.[87][88] in 2010 involving over one million people who ate meat found that only processed meat had an adverse risk in relation to coronary heart disease. The study suggests that eating 50g (less than 2oz) of processed meat per day increases risk of coronary heart disease by 42%, and diabetes by 19%. Equivalent levels of fat, including saturated fats, in unprocessed meat (even when eating twice as much per day) did not show any deleterious effects, leading the researchers to suggest that "differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats."
A 2009 study by the National Cancer Institute revealed a correlation between the consumption of red meat and increased mortality from cancer and cardiovascular diseases.[89] This study has been criticized for using an improperly validated food frequency questionnaire,[90] which has been shown to have low levels of accuracy.[91][92]
In response to changing prices as well as health concerns about saturated fat and cholesterol, consumers have altered their consumption of various meats. A USDA report points out that consumption of beef in the United States between 1970–1974 and 1990–1994 dropped by 21%, while consumption of chicken increased by 90%. During the same period of time, the price of chicken dropped by 14% relative to the price of beef. In 1995 and 1996, beef consumption increased due to higher supplies and lower prices.
A recent study by the Translational Genomics Research Institute showed that nearly half (47%) percent of the meat and poultry in U.S. grocery stores were contaminated with S. aureus, with more than half (52%) of those bacteria resistant to antibiotics.[93]
Meat can transmit certain diseases, but complete cooking and avoiding recontamination reduces this possibility.[94]
Several studies published since 1990 indicate that cooking muscle meat creates heterocyclic amines (HCAs), which are thought to increase cancer risk in humans. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute published results of a study which found that human subjects who ate beef rare or medium-rare had less than one third the risk of stomach cancer than those who ate beef medium-well or well-done.[95] While eating muscle meat raw may be the only way to avoid HCAs fully, the National Cancer Institute states that cooking meat below 212 °F (100 °C) creates "negligible amounts" of HCAs. Also, microwaving meat before cooking may reduce HCAs by 90%.[96]
Nitrosamines, present in processed and cooked foods, have been noted as being carcinogenic, being linked to colon cancer. Also, toxic compounds called PAHs, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, present in processed, smoked and cooked foods, are known to be carcinogenic.[97]
Various forms of imitation meat have been created for people wishing to reduce or eliminate meat consumption for health, environmental, or ethical considerations, but who still wish to taste the flavor and texture of meat. They are typically some form of processed soybean, (tofu, tempeh), but they can also be based on wheat gluten or even fungus (quorn).
In vitro meat, also known as cultured meat, is animal flesh that has never been part of a complete, living animal. Several research projects are currently experimentally growing in vitro meat, but no meat has yet been produced for public consumption.[98] The goal is to grow fully developed muscle organs, but the first generation will most likely be minced meat products.
Various environmental effects are associated with meat production. Among these are greenhouse gas emissions, fossil energy use, water use, water quality changes, and effects on grazed ecosystems. The occurrence, nature and significance of these effects varies among livestock production systems.[99] Grazing of livestock can be beneficial for some wildlife species, but not for others.[100][101] Targeted grazing of livestock is used as a food-producing alternative to herbicide use in some vegetation management.[102] Meat-producing livestock can provide environmental benefits through waste reduction, e.g. conversion of human-inedible residues of food crops.[103][104] Manure from meat-producing livestock is used as fertilizer; it may be composted before application to food crops. Substitution of animal manures for synthetic fertilizers in crop production can be environmentally significant, as between 43 and 88 MJ of fossil fuel energy are used per kg of nitrogen in manufacture of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers.[105].
Meat consumption within Jewish religious traditions are controlled by the set of Jewish dietary laws Kashrut which allows meat that may be consumed according to halakha (Jewish law) and termed kosher and meat that is not in accordance with Jewish law and called treif. But further within the Judeo-Christian traditions lay Christianity where some followers of Christ within the exercise of that faith hold the consumption of meat as being divinely ordained within that faith and a part of being within their faith "For one believeth that he may eat all things: but he that is weak, let him eat herbs." "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" "And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you:"(Douay–Rheims Bible)
| The largest meat consumers (2003)[106] | |||
| Rank | Country | Consumption per capita (in kg) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States | 123 | |
| 2 | Spain | 121 | |
| 3 | Australia | 118 | |
| 4 | Austria | 112 | |
| 5 | Denmark | 111 | |
| 6 | New Zealand | 109 | |
| 7 | Cyprus | 108 | |
| 8 | Ireland | 102 | |
| 9 | Canada | 98 | |
| 10 | France | 98 | |
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Meats |
| Wikibooks Cookbook has a recipe/module on |
| Look up meat in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
idioms:
Nederlands (Dutch)
vlees, voedsel, kost, eetbaar gedeelte, essentie, diepte, liefhebberij
Français (French)
n. - (Culin) viande, chair, (fig) essentiel, nourriture (arch)
idioms:
Deutsch (German)
n. - Fleisch, Essen, Substanz
idioms:
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - κρέας, σφάγιο, σάρκα
idioms:
idioms:
Português (Portuguese)
n. - carne (f)
idioms:
Русский (Russian)
мясо, мякоть, еда, добыча, любимое занятие, снабжать пищей, отведать пищи
idioms:
Español (Spanish)
n. - carne, comida, meollo, sustancia, materia
idioms:
Svenska (Swedish)
n. - kött, (ätligt) innanmäte, (väsentligt) innehåll, kuk (vulg.), fitta (vulg.), villebråd, måltid
中文(简体)(Chinese (Simplified))
肉, 食物, 餐
idioms:
中文(繁體)(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 肉, 食物, 餐
idioms:
idioms:
日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 肉, 果肉, 身, 内容, 要点
idioms:
العربيه (Arabic)
(الاسم) طعام, لحم, وجبه الطعام الرئيسيه
עברית (Hebrew)
n. - בשר, בשר ושתייה, ארוחה (מיושן), אוכל מסוג כלשהו (מיושן), החלק האכיל של פירות, אגוזים, ביצים, רכיכות וכו', תוכן ממשי, התמצית או החלק העיקרי של, פעילות או מקצוע אהובים
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.