THE MANUFACTURE OF TOMATO PRODUCTS TEXT

of species of micro-organisms. In tomatoes we have a number of species of molds; we have a great many different species of wild yeasts, many of which produce by-products of a disagreeable character; and we have a number of species of bacteria, chief among which are the lactic acid and acetic acid types, which change the tomato pulp from a sweet product, as it should be, to a sour one. The objections of the government are therefore more confined to the by-products which are produced by the growth of these germs than to the germs themselves. It is the contention that the by-products produced in tomato products by many of these germs are such as to be classed as a filthy, putrid, decomposed vegetable substance. Just how many of these germs a product may contain before it is sufficiently decomposed to be classed as filthy and putrid is a question. The government tries to play safe in the matter, and give the packer a fair deal. When they condemn a tomato product as unfit for food it isn’t because it contains only an average quantity of micro-organisms, but because the number of germs present, and the decomposition produced, is such as to indicate extreme laxness in sanitation and lack of care in the manufacturing processes, or the admittance of quite a large percentage of rotten material. The spoilage may be either primary or secondary, that is, it may be due to the use of a lot of partly rotten, moldy tomatoes at the start, which were not carefully sorted, or it may be due to fermentation which takes place in the factory, caused by extreme delay or by unsanitary equipment. In primary spoilage the mold is usually very high and the yeasts and bacteria may be low, while in secondary spoilage either the yeasts or bacteria, or both, will be high, and the molds may be low. This will be explained further later in this chapter. Government Regulations When the government regulations on tomato products were first published it was stated that for catsup the microscopical counts should not run above the following: Molds in 25% of the microscopic fields. Yeasts and spores—25 in 1/60th cubic millimeter. Bacteria—25 million per cubic centimeter. It was also stated that pulp which was to be converted into catsup should not contain more than half this number of micro-organisms, as allowance must be made for the increase due to concentration. The fact that pulp and catsup can be made to keep within these limits has been demonstrated a number of times, but I have yet to see a season’s run, all of which, or even 50% of which, will come within these limits. It is easy enough to run individual batches which by careful supervision over the sorters will have a very low count of molds, etc., but regardless of the precautions a man will take to safeguard himself, there is almost bound to be at some time in the season some manufactured goods that will run over these limits. The packer, however, should keep these limits in mind as an ideal to work to, not on one batch, but on a season’s run, but it is not an easy goal to attain, and in my opinion the government doesn’t expect it to be attained very often. The packer has to contend with a glut of tomatoes in September almost every year; it is difficult to get good help to do the sorting and to supervise the sorting; unfavorable weather conditions make the tomatoes moldy and full of rot; delayed shipments come in in very bad condition; machinery breaks down at the most unexpected times, and necessitates delay in the factory at critical moments; the help get careless about the cleanliness of the equipment, and run through some goods before the unclean parts are discovered; accidents occur in the power plant and the plant may have to run on inadequate steam for two or three days, etc., etc. Every packer has been up against these things, but as a rule pure food inspectors have not, and they are sometimes slow to appreciate the packers’ side of the case. This is particularly true of local health inspectors who have had no experience with food manufacturing problems, and sometimes permit a packer to receive a lot of unfavorable and unjust newspaper publicity. The heads of the government pure food departments, that is, the high officials of the Bureau of Chemistry, intend to play very fair with canners, and it must be admitted that they will go a long way with a man who is making an honest and determined effort to pack his goods in the right way, and who is taking advantage of the opportunities he has to post himself on modern methods of packing his products. The packer should remember that the product of a plant that is run in an unsanitary way is always under suspicion by the government, and that shipments from these plants are the ones which are apt to be watched by the government agents. The government can go into any railroad office, whether government or privately controlled, ask the agent to show them the bills of lading on shipments, and notify their inspector at destination to take samples of the car on arrival. Getting back to the subject of established limits for micro-organisms, in the fall of 1916 the government authorities named the point at which they were recommending condemnation proceedings. The notice, which was issued by the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, stated that at the present time they were not advising condemnation of tomato products unless the micro-organisms exceeded at least one of the following counts: Molds in 66% of the microscopic fields. Yeasts and Spores—125 in 1/60th cubic millimeter. Bacteria—100 million per cubic centimeter. This is a long way from the limit of 25 on each count, which the government formerly stated should not in their opinion be exceeded. At the same time, however, Mr. Howard of the Bureau of Chemistry made a statement to the effect that they still considered it possible under manufacturing conditions to make these products to comply with the original 25–25–25 limit, and that it was their intention to approach the original limits more closely. It should not be understood that the government thinks that products which run below the higher limits are good enough, because they decidedly do not, but at present they are not recommending for condemnation those products which run below these figures. State Food Officials What about the state pure food boards? Do they follow the government lead in this matter or act according to their own ideas? Some follow the government and some do not. Some state officials are quite lenient while others are very strict. A product which one would pass as being all right, another would condemn. I have seen state officials condemn catsup which I am quite sure the government would pass, although it wasn’t as good as it should have been. If the manufacturer had cared to carry it to the courts there would have been an even chance of him winning out. However, the loss of prestige due to the publicity of such action is often greater than the loss of the manufactured goods would be and as a rule the manufacturer does not contest the case. Publicity is a powerful whip in the hands of the government and state officials. Checking Up Daily Runs What is the manufacturer to do about checking up his daily runs of pulp and catsup during the season? Is it better for him to send his samples to a commercial laboratory, or to employ an analyst to work at his factory, or to do the best he can in the sorting and in the factory routine, assuming that if he uses proper care here his products are sure to analyze all right and he doesn’t need to worry. This problem has been discussed a great deal. To employ an analyst on the place is usually rather expensive for a small packer if the man is fully competent to do the work, and unless he is, he is worse than useless. To send samples to an outside laboratory often involves considerable delay in getting the reports, and by the time the results are known the goods are stacked away and almost forgotten. If they ran high in micro-organisms there was some cause for it, and that cause should have been remedied at once, and probably would have been had the analysis been reported within a day or two. Therein lies the chief advantage of getting an analysis quickly. An analysis on products which have been run a week previously is, of course, better than nothing, but it is far from being satisfactory. The third method, that is, relying upon care in the factory and having no analysis made, was at one time recommended, but it is not now considered good policy. In a great many cases where this policy was adopted it was found out when it was too late that much of the goods that was thought to be all right was decidedly off. There were undiscovered errors in the manufacturing process, and they remained undiscovered because there was no means of checking them up. My advice in this matter is to have an analyst trained for this work and employ him at your factory if you are so far from a reputable analyst that it will take some little time to get a report. The Research Laboratories of The National Canners Association at Washington is undertaking the training of men in this analytical work for those companies that desire it. If the packer is close enough to a reputable analyst to get a report within a day or two he will find that such an arrangement is usually satisfactory, and he should rush his samples with all possible speed, and request the analyst to wire the report if the analysis is high. Then there is the problem of what laboratory to send samples to. Will any reputable chemical or bacteriological laboratory do for this purpose? Many packers have made a mistake right here, and the analyses they have received have been worse than nothing because they were not only grossly inaccurate but misleading. They have gone on thinking their goods were all right and have found out later by some accident that they were all wrong. Although an analyst may be a good microscopist and fully competent to do general bacteriological or biological work, he cannot possibly get a correct microscopical analysis on tomato products unless he is familiar with the Howard method as used by Mr. Howard. This means that he must use the exact technique that Mr. Howard uses in his laboratory. Every manipulation, no matter how slight, must be made in precisely the same manner that Mr. Howard makes it; otherwise the results are worthless. An analyst, in order to be competent to use the method, must either work with Mr. Howard until he can check him on all kinds of samples, or he must work with one of the analysts that have been closely associated with Mr. Howard in this work. If the analyst has had factory experience and can assist the packer in running down the causes of high counts, that is a great advantage. How to Interpret Analyses We will say that a sample of pulp taken from one of the daily runs has been sent to an analyst, and the report on it is as follows: Molds in 70% of microscopic fields. Yeasts and Spores—10 in 1/60th cubic millimeter. Bacteria—12 million per cubic centimeter. What does that analysis mean? The first item means that the analyst examined through the microscope 50 views of a thin layer of the pulp on a slide, and that out of these 50 views, 35 of them contained sufficient mold to count them as positive fields, so that molds were found to be present in 35 out of 50 fields, or in 70% of them. The second item means that from another prepared slide of this pulp (which slide is so ruled that the volume of liquid on any given space of it can be measured) there were found to be 10 yeasts and spores in 1/60th of a cubic millimeter. A cubic millimeter is about ⅕th of a drop, and 1/60th of a cubic millimeter is therefore about 1/300th of a drop—an exceedingly small quantity, almost inconceivable. The best way to conceive it is to think of one drop of pulp mixed in 299 drops of water, and a drop taken from this exceedingly dilute mixture. In this almost inconceivably small amount of pulp there were 10 yeasts and spores. The third item means that in the same slide in which the yeasts and spores were counted there were found to be 12 million rod-shaped bacteria in each cubic centimeter. A cubic centimeter is about 20 drops. More important to the packer than the above, however, is the interpretation of the analysis from the factory standpoint. What does it indicate about the way the tomatoes were handled and worked up? The molds are high and the yeasts and bacteria are low. It means that in all probability the tomatoes were not properly sorted, but that they were worked up rapidly enough after the sorting. It indicates primary spoilage, but little or no secondary spoilage. If there had been secondary spoilage, either the yeasts or bacteria or both would be high. It is a tip for the packer to watch the sorting belt closely. We will say that the report on another sample is as follows: Molds in 20% of the microscopic fields. Yeasts and Spores—70 in 1/60th C. M. Bacteria—110 million per C. C. What is indicated by that analysis? It shows that the tomatoes were probably sorted all right, and that the primary spoilage is probably small, but that there is a very strong indication of secondary spoilage, that is, spoilage which took place in the factory. Unless the tomatoes were extremely soft and partially fermented when they were run up, there was probably great delay at some stage in the manufacturing process, or some of the equipment was in a very unsanitary condition and the fresh goods became contaminated with fermented tomato substance which was carried over with it a little at a time. Suppose the analysis ran as follows: Molds in 20% of the microscopic fields. Yeasts and Spores—25 in 1/60th C. M. Bacteria—110 million per C. C. This also indicates secondary spoilage. The same conditions are indicated in this analysis as in the preceding one. The only difference is that instead of the fermentation being conducted by both yeasts and bacteria, it was conducted by bacteria alone. In other cases the yeasts and spores may run high and the bacteria low, indicating that the fermentation was one of yeasts, and not bacteria. If all three of the counts run high it indicates that either the tomatoes were very moldy and soft to begin with and were improperly sorted, or that they were both improperly sorted and that the pulped juice was improperly handled in the factory. It is almost a sure indication of primary spoilage, and points very strongly to secondary spoilage also. There has been considerable criticism of the Howard method of analyzing tomato products, and it cannot be denied that the method is far from being ideal. It is the best method that we have, however, and the packer can be sure of one thing, namely, that if his products are made right they will never show a high test by this method. It is true that all improperly made goods do not give a high test by this method, and that is one objection to it. These cases, however, are infrequent. The method of estimating all three counts has also been criticized as being unfair and not in accordance with the best bacteriological practice. If anything better was suggested the Bureau of Chemistry would no doubt be glad to adopt it, but so far as I know, no improvement has been offered. PART II The Manufacture of Tomato Catsup, Chili Sauce, Trimming Pulp, and Tomato Soup CHAPTER VIII A DISCUSSION OF PRESERVATIVE AND NON-PRESERVATIVE CATSUPS, AND THE MOST FREQUENT CAUSES OF INFERIORITY Unfavorable Publicity on Preservatives When the pure food movement first swept over this country the subject of preservatives got very wide publicity, and the sensational press fed the people up on the news that their food was being doctored with all sorts of chemicals. Tomato catsup came in for its share of this publicity, and the two preservatives most commonly used in catsup, namely, benzoate of soda and salicylic acid, were classed among the chemicals that were ruining our stomachs. Although salicylic acid has been ruled out, benzoate of soda is still being used to some extent. The great bulk of the catsup now being manufactured, however, is made without preservative, because packers realize that a good percentage of the public became prejudiced against preservatives of all sorts during the pure food agitation, and a great many are still prejudiced against even so mild and harmless a preservative as benzoate of soda. There are those who still maintain that this preservative is or may be harmful when used to the extent of one-tenth of one per cent, which is the permissible amount according to the federal law; however, the Remsen board appointed by President Roosevelt to decide the benzoate question unanimously decided that when benzoate of soda is used in condiments to the extent of one-tenth of one per cent it is perfectly harmless. It was even found to be perfectly harmless in much larger proportions. These facts, however, have never reached the masses, most of whom never heard of the Remsen board, and even if they had, a great many people would still remain prejudiced. Most packers think, therefore, that it is best to play safe and make their catsup without chemical preservative, relying solely upon sterilization to keep their product from spoiling up to the time the bottle is opened, and upon so called “natural” preservatives to keep it from fermenting after the cork is drawn. “Natural” Preservatives That these “natural” preservatives, when present in large quantity, as they sometimes are, may be more harmful to the stomach than a minute quantity of benzoate of soda, is surely a reasonable supposition. I have known of people getting sick directly after a meal by eating a good deal of catsup of high acidity on a steak and drinking milk along with it. At least the sickness was attributed to this combination, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable. A high acetic acid acidity will keep catsup as well or better than ⅒th of 1% of sodium benzoate will. There are catsups on the market made “without preservative” that would probably never ferment, even if exposed to the air for a year, because they contain so much acetic acid. The raw acetic acid is, of course, not permitted to be used, but a very strong distilled vinegar is used containing about 10% of acetic acid. The “natural” preservatives of catsup are the vinegar, sugar, salt, and spices. The vinegar probably exerts 80% of the preserving property, the sugar about 10% and the salt and spices together 10%. The sugar would have much greater preserving properties if it was present in higher concentration as in preserves or jelly. It is doubtful if the preservative properties of sugar are very great when it is only present to the extent of about 10 or 15%, and the product is of a liquid nature like catsup. Proper Acidity The proper thing for a packer of non-preservative catsup to do is to strike a happy medium on acidity; use enough vinegar to keep it under almost any conditions, but not so much as to almost entirely mask the tomato flavor and require sugar in such large quantity as to make the final product resemble tomato preserves. A good total acidity is 1.25%, figured as acetic acid. This figure includes both the acetic acidity of the vinegar and the natural acidity of the tomato. If a catsup is properly manufactured, this acidity should answer practically all