meat

1. The edible flesh of animals, especially that of mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry.
2. The edible part, as of a piece of fruit or a nut.
3. The essence, substance, or gist: the meat of the editorial.
4. Slang. Something that one enjoys or excels in; a forte: Tennis is his meat.
5. Nourishment; food: “Love is not all: it is not meat nor drink” (Edna St. Vincent Millay).
6. Vulgar Slang.
   1. The human body regarded as an object of sexual desire.
   2. The genitals.

[Middle English mete, from Old English, food.]

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

1. Something fit to be eaten: aliment, bread, comestible, diet, edible, esculent, fare, food, foodstuff, nourishment, nurture, nutriment, nutrition, pabulum, pap, provender, provision (used in plural), sustenance, victual. Slang chow, eats, grub. See ingestion.
2. The most central and material part: core, essence, gist, heart, kernel, marrow, nub, pith, quintessence, root¹, soul, spirit, stuff, substance. Law gravamen. See be.

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.

Definition: core, gist
Antonyms: exterior, exteriority, outside

For more information on meat, visit Britannica.com.

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

1. flesh and other tissues of farm animals for human consumption.
2. the edible parts of nuts or fruit seeds. Called also kernels.

• m. and bone meal — meat meal that contains more than 4.4% phosphorus because bones have been included; used as a protein feed supplement.
• conditionally admissible m. — see freibank system.
• m. inspection — examination of all meat sold for human consumption to ensure that it is wholesome and free from any disease that might be communicated from the animals to humans. Includes antemortem examination of the living animal, examination of the carcass, the head and the viscera.
• m. intoxication — hepatic encephalopathy.
• m. juice ELISA — a serological test for Salmonella spp. that measures the presence of antibody in ‘meat juice’ collected from the diaphragm after slaughter. Widely used in Europe for monitoring infection prevalence and herd status in national control/eradication programs for salmonella infection in pig herds.
• knackers’ m. — meat from animals dead on arrival or of insufficient quality to go into the human food chain; killed at a separate establishment. It is not always possible to keep this meat separate from butcher's meat—illegal substitutions are serious offenses but the rewards are high.
• m. meal — a by-product of meat-packing or abattoir industries containing about 50% protein but varying depending on the material included and whether preparation is by a wet-cooking or tankage process, or a dry-cooking method. A popular protein supplement for all classes of livestock. Use for food-producing animals now restricted because of the risk of transmitting the agents causing spongiform encephalopathies.
• mechanically recovered m. — meat harvested by putting a carcass through an industrial process to separate it from the bones, instead of carving it off by hand knife.
• m. packing plant — abattoir.

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.

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.

For other uses, see Meat (disambiguation).

This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2009)

Varieties of meat.

Meat is animal flesh that is used as food.^[1] Most often, this means the skeletal muscle and associated fat, but it may also describe other edible tissues such as organs, livers, skin, brains, bone marrow, kidneys, or lungs.^[1] The word meat is also used by the meat packing industry in a more restrictive sense—the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, etc.) raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish and poultry.

Contents 1 Etymology 2 History 3 Growth and development of meat animals 3.1 Genetics 3.2 Environment 3.3 Nutrition 3.4 Human intervention 4 Biochemical composition 4.1 Main constituents 4.2 Red and white meat 5 Production 5.1 Transport 5.2 Slaughter 5.3 Dressing and cutting 5.4 Conditioning 6 Spoilage and preservation 7 Methods of preparation 8 Nutritional benefits and concerns 8.1 Cooking meat 9 Ethics of eating meat 9.1 In vitro and imitation meat 10 Environmental impact 11 See also 12 References 13 Footnotes 14 External links

Etymology

Look up meat in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

The word meat comes from the Old English word mete, which referred to food in general. Mad in Danish, mat in Swedish and Norwegian, and matur in Icelandic which also means 'food'.

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.

History

See also: History of agriculture

Meat constituted a substantial proportion of even the earliest humans' diet, paleontological evidence suggests.^[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:

• Sheep, originating from western Asia, were domesticated with the help of dogs prior to the establishment of settled agriculture, likely as early as the eighth millenium BC.^[3] Several breeds of sheep were established in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt by 3500–3000 BC.^[3] Presently, more than 200 sheep breeds exist.

• Cattle were domesticated in Mesopotamia after settled agriculture was established about 5000 BC,^[4] and several breeds were established by 2500 BC.^[5] Modern domesticated cattle fall into the groups Bos taurus (European cattle) and Bos indicus (zebu), both descended from the now-extinct Aurochs.^[4] The breeding of beef cattle, cattle optimized for meat production as opposed to animals best suited for draught or dairy purposes, began in the middle of the 18th century.^[6]

• Domestic pigs, which are descended from wild boars, are known to have existed about 2500 BC in modern-day Hungary and in Troy; earlier pottery from Jericho and Egypt depicts wild pigs.^[7] Pork sausages and hams were of great commercial importance in Greco-Roman times.^[7] Pigs continue to be bred intensively as they are being optimized to produce meat best suited for specific meat products.^[8]

Modern agriculture employs a number of techniques, such as progeny testing, to make animals evolve rapidly towards having the qualities desired by meat producers.^[9] 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.^[9] Methods of genetic engineering aimed at improving the meat production qualities of animals are now also becoming available.^[10]

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.^[11] Ever 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.^[11] Examples include the various antelope species, the zebra, water buffalo and camel,^[12] as well as non-mammals such as the crocodile, emu and ostrich.^[13] Another important trend in contemporary meat production is organic farming which, while providing no organoleptic benefit to meat so produced,^[14] meets an increasing demand for numerous reasons.

Growth and development of meat animals

Agricultural science has identified several factors bearing on the growth and development of meat in animals.

Genetics

Trait	Heritability[15]
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.^[16] 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.^[16] Genetic analysis continues to reveal the genetic mechanisms that control numerous aspects of the endocrine system and, through it, meat growth and quality.^[17]

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.^[18] To enable such manipulation, research is ongoing (as of 2006^[update]) to map the entire genome of sheep, cattle and pigs.^[18] 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.^[19]

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,^[19] although this is not yet practical on a commercial scale.

Environment

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.^[19] Depending on their size, body shape and insulation through tissue and fur, some animals (e.g. pigs) have a relatively narrow zone of temperature tolerance and others (e.g. cattle) a broad one.^[20] Static magnetic fields, for reasons still unknown, also retard animal development.^[20]

Nutrition

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 carcass composition.^[21]

The composition of the diet, especially the amount of protein provided, is also an important factor regulating animal growth.^[22] Ruminants, who may digest cellulose, are better adapted to poor-quality diets, but their ruminal microorganisms degrade high-quality protein if supplied in excess.^[23] 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.^[24]

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.^[25] In Australia, for instance, where the soil contains limited phosphate, cattle are being fed additional phosphate to increase the efficiency of beef production.^[26] 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.^[25] 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.^[25] 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.^[24]

Human intervention

Meat producers may seek to improve the fertility of female animals through the administration of gonadotrophic or ovulation-inducing hormones.^[27] In pig production, sow infertility is a common problem, possibly due to excessive fatness.^[28] No methods currently exist to augment the fertility of male animals.^[28] 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.^[29]

Growth hormones, particularly anabolic agents such as steroids, are used in some countries to accelerate muscle growth in animals.^[29] 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,^[30] and have other effects on the composition of the muscle flesh.^[31] Where castration is used to improve control over male animals, its side effects are also counteracted by the administration of hormones.^[29]

Sedatives may be administered to animals to counteract stress factors and increase weight gain.^[32] The feeding of antibiotics to certain animals has been shown to improve growth rates also.^[32] This practice is particularly prevalent in the USA, but has been banned in the EU, partly because it causes antibiotic resistance in pathogenic microorganisms.^[32]

Biochemical composition

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.^[33] Even between animals of the same litter and sex there are considerable differences in such parameters as the percentage of intramuscular fat.^[34]

Main constituents

Adult mammalian muscle flesh consists of roughly 75 percent of water, 19 percent of protein, 2.5 percent of intramuscular fat, 1.2 percent of carbohydrates and 2.3 percent of other soluble non-protein substances. These include nitrogenous compounds, such as amino acids, and inorganic substances such as minerals.^[35]

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).^[36] There are several hundred sarcoplasmic proteins.^[37] Most of them – the glycolytic enzymes – are involved in the the glycolytic pathway, i.e., the conversion of stored energy into muscle power.^[38] The two most abundant myofibrillar proteins, myosin and actin,^[39] are responsible for the muscle's overall structure. The remaining protein mass consists of connective tissue (collagen and elastin) as well as organelle tissue.^[35]

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),^[40] or intramuscular fat, which contains considerable quantities of phospholipids and of unsaponifiable constituents such as cholesterol.^[40]

Red and white meat

Meat can be broadly classified as "red" or "white" depending on the concentration of myoglobin in muscle fiber. 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 fiber type: Red meat contains more narrow muscle fibers that tend to operate over long periods without rest,^[41] while white meat contains more broad fibers that tend to work in short fast bursts.^[41]

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.

Production

Main articles: Animal slaughter, Slaughterhouse, and Butchery

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.

Transport

Upon reaching a predetermined age or weight, livestock are transported en masse from the farm to the slaughterhouse, a process called "live export". Depending on its length and circumstances, this exerts stress and injuries on the animals, and some may die en route. Apart from being arguably inhumane, unnecessary stress in transport may adversely affect the quality of the meat.^[42] 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.^[43] 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.

Slaughter

Animals are 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.^[44] In most forms of ritual slaughter, stunning is not allowed.

Draining as much blood as possible from the carcass is necessary because blood causes the meat to have an unappealing appearance and is a very good breeding ground for microorganisms.^[45] The exsanguination is accomplished by severing the carotid artery and the jugular vein in cattle and sheep, and the anterior vena cava in pigs.^[46]

Dressing and cutting

After exsanguination, the carcass is dressed, that is, the head, feet, hide (except hogs), excess fat, viscera and offal are removed, leaving only bones and edible muscle.^[47] Cattle and pig carcasses, but not those of sheep, are then split in half along the mid ventral axis, and the carcass is cut into wholesale pieces.^[47] The dressing and cutting sequence, long a province of manual labor, is progressively being fully automated.^[47]

Conditioning

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.^[48]

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.^[49] 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,^[50] causing it to lose water ("weep").^[51] 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^[52] – 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,^[53] 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.^[53] As the muscle pigment myoglobin denatures, its iron oxidates, which may cause a brown discoloration near the surface of the meat.^[51] 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.^[54]

Spoilage and preservation

Main article: Meat spoilage

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.

Methods of preparation

A spit barbecue at a street fair in New York City's East Village.

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, and pastrami. Meat can also be molded or pressed (common for products that include offal, such as haggis and scrapple) and canned.

Nutritional benefits and concerns

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2009)

Typical Meat Nutritional Content
from 110 grams (4 oz or .25 lb)

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

Further information: Nutrition, Foodborne illness, Health concerns associated with red meat

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, iron and riboflavin.^[55] Muscle tissue is very low in carbohydrates and fibers. ^[56][57] 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 (to provide calories for hard work) is being reversed by consumer demand for meat with less fat (for a more sedentary lifestyle).

Red meat, such as beef, pork, and lamb, contains many essential nutrients necessary for healthy growth and development in children but US study has suggested that eating a diet high in red meat and dairy products is linked to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer ^[58]. Nutrients in red meat include iron, zinc, and protein.^[55] Most meats contain a full complement of the amino acids required for the human diet. Fruits and vegetables, by contrast, are usually lacking several essential amino acids. It is for this reason that people who abstain from eating all meat need to plan their diet carefully to include sources of all the necessary amino acids.^[59]

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.

In recent years, concerns have been raised over the use of meat as a regular part of the human diet. In a large-scale study, the consumption of red meat over a lifetime was found to raise the risk of cancer by 20 to 60 percent, while causing adverse mutations in DNA.^[60] 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.^[60] 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;^[61] 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,^[62][63] breast cancer,^[64][65] osteoporosis,^[66][67][68] and prostate cancer,^[69] although some evidence suggests that risks of prostate cancer are unrelated to animal fat consumption.^[70]

Meat has been correlated to increased risk of heart disease^[71] and diabetes,^[72] with the risks of heart disease being three times greater for 45-64 year old men who eat meat daily, versus those who are vegetarian, according to one survey.^[73] A large-scale study in 2008 also found that eating two or more servings of meat a day increases the risk of suffering from excessive fat around the waist, high blood sugar, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure by 25 percent compared to those who had two servings of meat a week or less.^[72][74] One famous study, the Nurses' Health Study, followed about 100,000 female nurses and their eating habits. Nurses who ate the largest amount of animal fat were twice as likely to develop colon cancer as the nurses who ate the least amount of animal fat.^[75]

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.

Meat, like any food, can also transmit certain diseases, but complete cooking and avoiding recontamination reduces this possibility.

A 2009 study by the National Cancer Institute revealed a direct link between the consumption of red meat and increased mortality. The study of more than a half million middle-aged and elderly Americans indicated that those who ate 4 ounces of red meat daily were 30% more likely to die within ten years. ^[76]

Cooking meat

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.^[77] 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%.^[78]

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.^[79]

Ethics of eating meat

Processed meat in an American supermarket

Main article: Ethics of eating meat

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 living 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 due to cultural or religious taboo, such as cats, dogs, horses, or rabbits. 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.

In vitro and imitation meat

Main articles: Imitation meat, In vitro meat

Various forms of imitation meat have been created to satisfy some vegetarians' and vegans' taste for the flavor and texture of meat. There is also some speculation about the possibility of growing cultured meat from animal tissue. Nutrition wise, imitation meat is comparable to animal meat, however they rarely contain the same levels of saturated fat and can often contain valuable minerals and vitamins while still containing approximately the same levels of protein as animal meats.^[80]

Environmental impact

Main article: Environmental effects of meat production

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. The FAO figure accounts for the entire meat production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in agricultural machinery, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.^[81]

Animals fed on grain need more water than grain crops.^{[citation needed]} 2009}} In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of grain fed meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1.^[82] The result is that producing grain fed animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds, and fruits. Environmental impact of grass grazing meat compared to agronomy would be a much more difficult comparison. The two modes of food production are not always in direct competition because non-arable land may be suitable for grazing and difficult to make arable.^{[citation needed]}

See also

Food portal

• Slaughterhouse
• Bushmeat
• Livestock/Domestication
• Food science
• Gristle
• Hormonal meat
• List of meat animals
• Culinary name
• Vegetarianism/Veganism/Ethics of eating meat
• Sinew
• Red meat/White meat

References

• Lawrie, R. A.; Ledward, D. A. (2006). Lawrie’s meat science (7th ed.). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1-84569-159-2. 

Footnotes

1. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 1.
2. ^ ^{a b c d} Lawrie, 2.
3. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 3.
4. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 5.
5. ^ Lawrie, 6.
6. ^ Lawrie, 7.
7. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 8.
8. ^ Lawrie, 9.
9. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 10.
10. ^ Lawrie, 14.
11. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 11.
12. ^ Lawrie, 11 et seq.
13. ^ Lawrie, 13.
14. ^ Lawrie, 11, citing Ollson, V., Andersson, I., Ranson, K., Lundström, K. (2003) Meat Sci. 64, 287 and noting also that organically reared pigs "compare unfavourably" with conventionally reared ones "in some respects."
15. ^ Table adapted from Lawrie, 17.
16. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 18.
17. ^ Lawrie, 19.
18. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 21.
19. ^ ^{a b c} Lawrie, 22.
20. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 23.
21. ^ Lawrie, 25.
22. ^ Lawrie, 26.
23. ^ Lawrie, 27.
24. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 30.
25. ^ ^{a b c} Lawrie, 29.
26. ^ Lawrie, 28.
27. ^ Lawrie, 31.
28. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 32.
29. ^ ^{a b c} Lawrie, 33.
30. ^ Lawrie, 35.
31. ^ Lawrie, 36 et seq.
32. ^ ^{a b c} Lawrie, 39.
33. ^ Lawrie, 94–126.
34. ^ Lawrie, 126.
35. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 76.
36. ^ Lawrie, 75.
37. ^ Lawrie, 77.
38. ^ Lawrie, 78.
39. ^ Lawrie, 79.
40. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 82.
41. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 93.
42. ^ Lawrie, 129.
43. ^ Lawrie, 130.
44. ^ Lawrie, 134 et seq.
45. ^ Lawrie, 134.
46. ^ Lawrie, 137.
47. ^ ^{a b c} Lawrie, 138.
48. ^ Lawrie, 141.
49. ^ Lawrie, 87.
50. ^ Lawrie, 90.
51. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 146.
52. ^ Lawrie, 144.
53. ^ ^{a b} Lawrie, 142.
54. ^ Lawrie, 155.
55. ^ ^{a b} http://www.beef.org/uDocs/whatyoumisswithoutmeat638.pdf
56. ^ Dietary Fiber
57. ^ Meatless Diet
58. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8119093.stm
59. ^ [1]
60. ^ ^{a b} Cross, Amanda (2007). "A Prospective Study of Red and Processed Meat Intake in Relation to Cancer Risk". PLoS Medicine (the Public Library of Science) 4 (12): e325. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325. 
61. ^ Nutrients, Vitamins, Minerals and Dietary Information
62. ^ Collins, Karen (2004-01-23). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4030557/ A highly preventable cancer: Diet, lifestyle may lower colon cancer risk]". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4030557/. Retrieved on 2008-07-21. 
63. ^ "What You Eat May Influence Colon Cancer Relapse". American Cancer Society. 2007-08-21. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_What_You_Eat_May_Influence_Colon_Cancer_Relapse.asp. Retrieved on 2008-07-21. 
64. ^ "Red meat 'ups breast cancer risk'". BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6523009.stm. Retrieved on 2008-07-21. 
65. ^ "Red and processed meat linked to breast cancer". breastcancer.org. 2007-04-16. http://www.breastcancer.org/tips/nutrition/new_research/20070416b.jsp. Retrieved on 2008-07-21. 
66. ^ Cornell Science News: Less meat may reduce osteoporosis risk
67. ^ Osteoporosis Prevention
68. ^ Osteoporosis
69. ^ "Nutrition and Prostate Cancer". University of California at San Francisco Medical Center. http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/medical_services/cancer/urologic/nutrition.html. Retrieved on 2008-07-21. 
70. ^ "Fats, Meat Unlikely to Impact Prostate Cancer Risk". Prostate Cancer Foundation. 2007-09-15. http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.3477239/k.CE1E/Fats_Meat_Unlikely_to_Impact_Prostate_Cancer_Risk.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-21. 
71. ^ Eating Meat: a Little Doesn't Hurt
72. ^ ^{a b} Meat, diet soda linked to heart disease - US study
73. ^ Meat consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease. [Prev Med. 1984] - PubMed Result
74. ^ Pass on Meat and Soda To Avoid Heart Disease According to Study | HealthyLivingTalk.com - Diet, Weight, Healthy Living News and Tips
75. ^ Animal Fat Is Tied To Colon Cancer - New York Times
76. ^ Daily Red Meat Raises Chances Of Dying Early
77. ^ http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/heterocyclic-amines National Cancer Institute - Heterocyclic Amines in Cooked Meats
78. ^ Heterocyclic Amines in Cooked Meats - National Cancer Institute
79. ^ PAH - Occurrence in foods, dietary exposure and health effects
80. ^ Nutritional Information Comparison for Meat
81. ^ Black, Richard (2008--09-03). "Shun meat, says UN climate chief". BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7600005.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-14. 
82. ^ U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Meats

Wikibooks Cookbook has a recipe/module on Meat

• American Meat Science Association website
• Qualitionary - Legal Definitions - Meat

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Dansk (Danish)
n. - kød

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    lige noget for en, at nyde noget

Nederlands (Dutch)
vlees, voedsel, kost, eetbaar gedeelte, essentie, diepte, liefhebberij

Français (French)
n. - (Culin) viande, chair, (fig) essentiel, nourriture (arch)

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    (fig) se repaître de

Deutsch (German)
n. - Fleisch, Essen, Substanz

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    etwas intensiv genießen

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - κρέας, σφάγιο, σάρκα

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    είμαι πηγή χαράς για

Italiano (Italian)
carne

idioms:

• meat and drink    causa di gran piacere

Português (Portuguese)
n. - carne (f)

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    ser tudo para

Русский (Russian)
мясо, мякоть, еда, добыча, любимое занятие, снабжать пищей, отведать пищи

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    доставлять огромное удовольствие кому-л.

Español (Spanish)
n. - carne, comida, meollo, sustancia, materia

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    una fuente de gran placer, ser algo placentero para

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:

• be meat and drink to    极大的享受

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 肉, 食物, 餐

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    極大的享受

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 고기, 만찬, 즐거움

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    대단한 즐거움의 원천이 되다

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 肉, 果肉, 身, 内容, 要点

idioms:

• be meat and drink to    何よりのものである

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.

To select your translation preferences click here.