MEAT EXTRACTS AND SIMILAR PREPARATIONS, INCLUDING STUDIES OF THE METHODS OF ANALYSIS EMPLOYED. CHEMICAL EXAMINATION. OBJECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. For several years past the Division of Foods of the Bureau of Chemistry has examined many of the meat extracts and so-called meat juices. During the winter of 1905-6 a complete analysis of more than thirty meat preparations was made. While the work was in progress, several questions were raised which demanded further study and consequently delayed the publication of the results. The object of the investigation was to determine the condition and quality of meat preparations, many of which are widely advertised and highly recommended for invalids. The need of standards for judging the merits of such preparations is evident, and the fact that complete analyses of American meat preparations are not available makes the publication of the results obtained desirable. The tentative standards for meat extracts and meat juices, peptones, and gelatin, as prepared by the Committee on Food Standards of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, are given under the appropriate captions. The samples which were analyzed in this investigation, were purchased on the retail market in the winter of 1905-6 and represent the market conditions prior to the passage of the meat-inspection act by Congress June 30, 1906, and the enforcement of the same by the Bureau of Animal Industry. It is well known that products of this class vary somewhat from year to year, and, moreover, different results may be obtained on the same sample by the application of different methods. As the same treatment was given to all of the préparations included in this report their relative values are fairly indicated. In connection with the descriptive table are given such comments as the manufacturers or agents of the various preparations offered when the analyses were submitted to them. Royal Specialty Company, New York, N. Y. Bovril (Ltd.), London, England. (Park and Tilford, agents, New York, N. Y.) Beef Jelly, Mosquera Extract of Beef. The Mosquera-Julia Food Company, Detroit, Mich. 15911 Bouillon Capsules 15963 Bovril, Seasoned. 15976 16040 Essence of Beef.. (Agents, Parke, Davis & Co.) Brand and Company (Ltd.), Mayfair, Vauxhall, S. W. H. K. Mulford Company, Philadelphia, Pa. Armour and Company, Chicago, Ill. The Bovox Company, Boston, Mass. American Beef Extract Company, Boston, Mass. The London Essence Company, London, England. Murdock Liquid Food Company, Boston, Mass. The Maggi Company, Kempttal, Switzerland. (J. P. P. B. Rose. (General agents, Chapman, Green and Armour and Company, Chicago, Ill. Ph. Rudisch. (Cheppe and Schur, agents, Third avenue American Malted Meat Company, South Milwaukee, The Arlington Chemical Company, Yonkers, NY. AL n't ad once a COMMENT BY MANUFACTURERS. .08 ogul zorque') orq tai't wrword Howr ei il neobal login/, lo mond The analyses of the commercial products examined were referred, to the manufacturers or their agents, and the following extracts from the replies received are submitted. ft /. -bodiom tortib The letters addressed to the American Beef Extract Company, Boston, Mass.; American Malted Meat Company, South Milwaukee, Wis.; Cibils Company, New York City; W. B. Hurd and Company, 18, Cedar street, New York City, and to Chapman, Green and Company, Chicago, Ill., were returned unclaimed. The following manufacturers replied, but offered no criticism of the analyses: The Bovinine Company, 75 West Houston street, New York City; the Murdock Liquid Food Company, Boston, Mass.; Fougera and Company, 90 Beekman street, New York City, and the Liebig's Extract of Meat Company. From the following manufacturers no reply was received: Swift and Company, Chicago, Ill.; G. H. Hammond Company, Chicago, Ill.; Cibils Company, New York City; Royalty Specialty Company, New York City; The Bovox Company, Boston, Mass.; The London Essence Company (W. B. Hurd and Company), 18 Cedar street, New York City; Ph. Rudisch (Cheppe and Schur, agents), Third avenue and Sixtieth street, New York; American Malted Meat Company, South Milwaukee, Wis. THE ARLINGTON CHEMICAL COMPANY. No. 16041. The analysis submitted by you evidently refers to the preparation, Beef Peptonoids Powder, formerly manufactured by us, but which was superseded June 1, 1906, by an entirely different form, under the name of Dry Peptonoids (Soluble). This was done after several years' experimentation demonstrated that we could increase the nutrient value, improve the taste, and render the powder entirely soluble. The old form, Beef Peptonoids Powder, has been taken off the market and all stock in hands of the trade taken up. Therefore we believe that the publication of an analysis of this obsolete preparation can be of no possible interest to anyone, and that the composition of the form now in use and on the market should be determined and published by you. * * * We believe, in view of the facts as given herewith, that in justice to us, and in order that the object of the Bureau of Chemistry be accomplished, an analysis of the Dry Peptonoids (Soluble) should be made by you and published in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress cited in your letter. [In accordance with the request of The Arlington Chemical Company, the following analysis of the "Dry Peptonoids (Soluble)," as made by their chemist, December 15, 1906, is given in this connection:] Comment by authors.-The writer was informed that as the entire. report represented the samples on the market in the winter of 1905-6 it would not be just to other manufacturers to bring the work up to date in one ease alone The results are very different from what we should expect, and from results which we have obtained in our experience with these products. › The most striking feature is the low results you report on kreatin and kreatinin. As a matter of fact we find that it makes a great difference which method is used in deter mining total kreatinin. The method we use in this laboratory is the modification of Folin's method as suggested by Grindley and Woods. From our experience we presume that the method you use is the same as that outlined in the proposed methods for the cooperative work on the sample of beef extract sent out June 3, 1907. Our results on this cooperative work, as well as our analyses of several other samples, give materially lower figures for total kreatinin a by the method furnished us by Mr. Cook in his letter of June 3 than by the method of Grindley and Woods. We also note that the percentage of proteid as determined in fluid extract of beef is not proportional to the proteid as determined in solid extract. Inasmuch as one is made from the other by mere solution in water, we are unable to find an explanation for this difference, assuming that both were determined by the same method. We note also that the total nitrogen in these two preparations is not proportional. Among other features that we note we shall mention only the unusually high moisture in Soluble Beef. It is considerably higher than our records. Comment by authors.-The fact that some of the results vary with the method used has already been discussed, and this is especially the case with kreatinin. As the same method was applied to all the samples reported, no injustice is done. The percentage of moisture and total nitrogen in the solid and fluid extract are proportional, but the percentage of total proteids in the fluid extract is lower than in the solid extract. This, however, is compensated for by a correspondingly higher percentage of meat bases. This may be due to the failure of the tannin-salt reagent to precipitate all of the proteid, and consequently a higher meat base result is obtained. BOVRIL LIMITED. No. 15909. We have to thank you for your favor of September 21, but we can not help thinking that there has been a misunderstanding somehow, for our standard for moisture and ash in Johnston's Fluid Beef is 32 per cent and 19 per cent, respectively. A careful analysis of the last three batches made has given— We are under the impression that the sample you have analyzed is a cordial and not the original Johnston's Fluid Beef. The latter is a paste standardized as above, whereas the cordial is a liquid prepared with a higher percentage of moisture for convenient use in saloons, etc. Comment by authors.—The product reported under No. 15909 was labeled as "Johnson's Fluid Beef." Owing to the statement of the manufacturer, a new sample was obtained on the market and the moisture and ash determined again. This sample contained 38.62, per cent of water and 13.18 per cent of ash. a See Tables II, IV, and IX. |