The application of wood smoke is usually the last process after the meats are properly cured in salt and sugar. The pieces are suspended in a convenient room and underneath is built a fire of hard wood, which is kept smouldering as much as possible in order to produce the maximum of smoke and minimum of heat. Oak, maple, and hickory woods are most highly prized for this purpose, since they develop on burning a rich aroma which imparts to the flesh a delicate flavor.
The object of curing the meat is, first, to prevent decay; second, to impart the flavor of the well known condiments mentioned above, and third, to favor the development of the enzymic action which has the property not only to make the meat more aromatic than it otherwise would be, but also more pleasant to the taste.
The curing of meat in this respect may be compared to the development of a cheese, except that the enzymic action in the case of meat is one of minimum extent, while in the case of cheese it is one of maximum intensity. In addition to the condimental substances above mentioned spices of different kinds are sometimes added. Vinegar is also used at times as a condimental substance and is, to a certain extent, also a preservative substance, but vinegar is chiefly used in the preservation of vegetable substances rather than meats in bulk. For meats which are spiced as well as preserved as above, vinegar is often used as one of the ingredients, intended as a condimental substance. No other substances than those mentioned above are necessary to the proper curing of meat, but convenience of application and certain other considerations have led packers of meats, when not prevented by law, to abandon the old methods to a certain extent and substitute what is known as the quick-aging process described below.
Preservation by Means of Non-condimental Chemical Preservatives.
—The use of non-condimental chemicals in the preservation of meat is practically an industry of the last quarter of a century. Up to that time the use of non-condimental chemicals was practically unknown in the meat industry. The chemicals employed are those known as germicides. In the quantities used they neither impart a taste nor odor to a preserved meat, but by their germicidal properties prevent the development of organic ferments and thus make the preservation of meat far more certain and very much less expensive. By the use of some chemicals the salting, sugaring, and smoking of preserved meats may be done with very much less care, in a very much shorter time, and at a very greatly reduced expense. For this reason the practice has gained a great vogue, not as a means of benefiting the consumers, but rather as a means of enriching the packer and dealer. Chemical preservatives are also highly objectionable because they keep meats apparently fresh, while in reality changes of the most dangerous character may be going on. They thus prevent the display of the red light danger signal.
Preservatives Used.
—The principal chemical preservatives used in the curing of meats are borax and boric acid and sulfite of soda. There are many other chemical preservatives which have been employed, but these are by far the most useful, the most certain, and the most widely employed. Borax and boric acid, of the two classes, are by far the more common. Sulfite of soda is used more as a preservative of color, and is probably found more frequently on fresh than on preserved meats. Borax has the property of paralyzing fermentative action and thus securing immunity from decay. Its use, however, tends to diminish the palatability of the meat because of its restraining influence upon the condimental method of preservation described above. The meats are more quickly preserved, require less condimental substances, and the borax probably inhibits, to a certain degree, the enzymic action of a favorable kind, described above.
The use of any kind of a chemical preserving agent on meat is most reprehensible, no matter what they may be. Unfortunately, experts differ respecting the influence of these chemical preservatives upon health. The users of chemical preservatives have employed experts of known fame and distinction to testify in favor of these products, while the consumer, perhaps, is not able to go to the expense of securing expert testimony, and, therefore, as respects numbers of witnesses, at least, chemical preservatives have an advantage. In a case of this kind the accused must be considered guilty until proven innocent. It is not sufficient to prove in a given case that borax is not injurious. If it be proven that it is injurious in a single case conviction must ensue. There is no doubt of the fact that the injurious character of borax, even in small quantities, has been fully established, and therefore any amount of testimony to the effect that in individual cases it has not produced injurious results is of no value whatever. If a citizen be robbed and in the course of the prosecution it be shown that there are a million citizens who have not been robbed by this criminal the evidence would be of no value. If it has been shown that the individual citizen has been robbed the prisoner is convicted. No expert would testify that borax has never been injurious,—even those who appear in its favor admit that, but plead that it is generally used in small quantities, and, therefore, cannot be harmful.
The Argument of Small Quantities.
—The fallacy of the argument for small quantities is so evident that it needs only to be presented in brief form to show the intelligent and thinking people of this country the fallacy of the claims of experts in favor of chemical preservatives.