Introduction to Bacon & the Art of Living

The story of bacon is set in the late 1800s and early 1900s when most of the crucial developments in bacon took place. The plotline occurs in the 2000s, with each character referring to a natural person and actual events. The theme is a kind of “steampunk” where modern mannerisms, speech, clothes, and practices are superimposed on a historical setting. Characters interact with one another with all the historical and cultural bias that goes with this. The period of technology it covers is breathtaking. Beginning in pre-history, it traces the development of curing technology until the present, where bacon curing is possible without adding nitrites.

---

Aron Vecht: His Curing Method and Businesses

1 April 1920

Dear children,

Since the Boer War ended, Minette and I returned to New Zealand often. We even considered moving there for a time, but our lives and times are tied to Africa. I did not mind this. The thought of being continents removed from you is too much to contemplate. On the other hand, it is Africa I fell in love with from my youth when I crossed the interior of South Africa many times riding transport. The ancient cultures and technology of the mysterious peoples, intricately connected to the land in a way that Europe has lost, mesmerised me as I could see in their comings and goings a way of life altogether appealing to me. In the end, Africa did not push me away as it does so many Europeans – she welcomed me and introduced me to her innermost secrets. I don’t think this had anything to do with being born here – she initiated it when I responded with awe and thankfulness, and in doing so, she continued to reveal more, drawing me ever closer. This is an experience I will write about when I’m done with the great work of Bacon & the Art of Living.

Curing: The Recent History

The work on the impact of Aron Vecht is best evaluated and understood in the context of what was happening in meat curing around the world. You know that from your earliest recollections, my great passion has been to understand bacon curing. It was the purpose of my trip to Denmark and England where I was introduced to much of the bacon story. We see the brilliance of Aron Vecht most explicitly when we view it from within the context of the industrialisation of bacon curing. I begin this letter, therefore, with an overview of the progression of bacon curing by the late 1800’s.

-> Dry Cured Bacon

The most ancient development was dry-cured bacon. This bacon curing system existed for hundreds of years and included only dry ingredients and later dry ingredients with wet brine added. The principal objective was to dry the bacon quickly using copious amounts of salt to remove moisture before bacteria and enzymes break too much of the meat fibres down, and the flesh breakdown could overtake the curing process. (Dry Cured Bacon)

–> The Empress of Russia’s Brine

During the time of Catherine the Great of Russia, salt was heavily taxed. She had an active interest in the latest developments in food technology, and the excessive cost of salt was a significant concern for her. It was under her rule that she or someone in her court suggested that instead of discarding old used brine, the brine should be boiled, impurities removed, and used repeatedly. Her brine, the Empress of Russia’s Brine, contained salt, sugar and saltpetre. Bacterial reduction of saltpetre (nitrates) to nitrites in the old brine would have caused the curing of subsequent batches to be sped up considerably.

Westphalia hams were famous for using the Empress of Russia’s brine from a time before it was introduced in Ireland and the cold smoking process, unlike anything being done at the time when “chimney smoking” was the order of the day.

-> Mild Cured Bacon

Mild Cured Bacon was the first significant progression from this, where the power of the old brine was used to speed up curing, allowing for a “milder cure” by removing the salt before the bacon was dried and smoked. They also used sal prunella as curing salt, which contained sulphite and resulted in paler bacon than what the public was used to, but it lasted longer with the sulphites and the much-improved infrastructure required by the system. The invention was by the chemist William Oake from Northern Ireland sometime before 1837. (William Oakes Mild-Cured Bacon and Mild-Cured Bacon and the Curers of Wiltshire)

-> Sweet Cured Bacon

The Harris family in Calne gave us Sweet Cured bacon in the 1840s (Chapter 13.02.01: Sweet Cured Harris Bacon!), which did not use the old brine. Still, hot smoking was the critical feature that sped curing sufficiently that less salt was needed, resulting in less dry and far less salty bacon. Sweeter! The result was Sweet Cured Harris Bacon. Keep in mind that pale bacon was becoming the norm.

-> Ice-Cured Bacon

Before the Wiltshire cure was firmly established, the Harris operation launched Ice Cured bacon, incorporating refrigeration technology into meat curing.

-> Pale Dried Bacon

In response to Oake’s Mild Cured Bacon, Pale Dried Bacon was likewise developed by the Harris Family under John Harris in the 1890s. (Chapter 13.06.00: Harris Bacon – From Pale Dried to Tank Curing). It was dried without smoking and rendered pale and dry bacon, similar to mild cured bacon that could last a long time.

-> Wiltshire or Tank-Cured Bacon

Wiltshire Curing or Tank Cured Bacon was invented by the Wiltshire curers in the closing years of the 1800s or early 1900s. It was identical in almost every way to the mild cured technique of William Oake from Ireland, except that they progressed from pale bacon to the cured colour that bacon was known for. (Harris Bacon – From Pale Dried to Tank Curing).

-> Auto Curing (A progression from American Rapid Curing)

Auto Curing was invented by William Harwood Oake, the son of William Oake from Limerick in Ireland, who created mild curing (Chapter 12.01.1: William Oakes Mild-Cured Bacon and Chapter 12.01.2: Mild-Cured Bacon and the Curers of Wiltshire). William Harwood Oake, in all likelihood, was one of the people who brought mild curing to England when he opened a curing operation with two partners in Gillingham, Dorset. Tank curing was probably independently incorporated into the Harris operation when they got the technology from Denmark. However, the basics of Auto-Curing were not developed by Oake but by an English team of researchers in America under Robert Davison. Davison developed the American Rapid Cured system in 1843, and Oake’s Auto Cure system was a progression of this system. (Oake Woods & Co., Ltd., Rapid – and Auto-Cured Bacon)

-> The Direct Addition of Nitrites

A revolution followed that saw the direct addition of nitrite to curing brines under American leadership, replacing all these systems. In Prague, Ladislav Nachmüllner invented the first curing brine legally sold containing sodium nitrites in 1915. The system was made famous around the globe by Griffiths Laboratories. The direct addition of nitrites to curing Brines is covered in two letters in Bacon & the Art of Living, namely The Direct Addition of Nitrites to Curing Brines – the Master Butcher from Prague and The Direct Addition of Nitrites to Curing Brines – The Spoils of War.

Aron Vecht and Henry Denny

Within the grand story of bacon, two other developments fit into the time before Harris invented Pale Dried bacon in the 1890s, namely the progression of the singeing of pork by Henry Denny and the incorporation of this into Oake’s Mild Cured system by Dutch master curer, Aron Vecht. Vecht’s method also involved a slight temperature adjustment for refrigerated shipping. Two things set Vecht’s system further apart. One was his pork-raising techniques; secondly, he worked out a simple method by which his system could be applied universally so that he would retain control over it. This aspect of control leads me to discuss his method in the same letter as his businesses.

I learned about Vecht in New Zealand. He reportedly covered these islands from north to south on horseback. In all likelihood, the reality is that he probably used the train. When a New Zealander, Dr. James Anderson, asked me if I knew him, I did not. Jim and Nick Harris told me not only about Vecht, the Dutch Master Curer, the travelling Jew and adventurer, who claimed to have invented his form of mild cured bacon, but also introduced me to him.

Aron Vecht, like Henry Denny and, truth be told, like William Oake, took elements of curing systems already in use, improved them slightly by incorporating greater mechanisation and fused them into a better, complete, holistic system.

It was in studying his curing method that I discovered the vital progression by Henry Denny related to singeing, without which significant industrialisation would not be possible. Vecht’s business models and method allowed him to create Earth’s most extensive curing operations. It would only be the direct addition of nitrites to curing brines that would overtake these developments, but even then, Vecht’s work on refrigeration would stand.

Aron Vecht: His Business

Aron Vecht was involved in several business ventures, mainly related to refrigeration and meat. He set up the mess pork production business with his brother in Holland 1879. We know that sometime before 1889, he was in business with Samuel Hamburger, Ellias Levi, and Carolina Wolff in the Dutch town of Ede. (Anderson)

He focused on the supply of mess pork worldwide and, later, traditional bacon production using his curing and pork-raising methods. He retained control by patenting the key features of his curing system and raised capital by creating the Intermarine Supply Company. International distribution was handled by Trengrouse & Co.

He used a combination of contracts that forced his partner companies to use his curing method and trademarks, which he linked to his curing method to ensure control over the bacon operations he got involved in. Vecht took out patents in 1894 in New Zealand related to the singeing of pigs and the preservation of meat. His method of preservation was called the “Vecht Mild Cure Process.” (For a comprehensive discussion on what this curing method was, see What was the Vecht Curing method?) He masterfully tied the patent to his bacon brand. Dr. James Anderson points out that one was “Morepork,” traded under Vecht & Stokvis. Apart from Morepork, he used the brand York Castle. The patents were presumably owned by his business in New Zealand, which he had with William Stokes called the Christ Church Meat Company, Ltd. (1)

Vecht’s Trademarks

I was first alerted to the trademark from a liquidation sale advertised in The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW, Tue 29 Jun 1909). This is important because it shows that a link was made between his trade mark and method.

The notice read as follows:

---

MESSRS. STEWART and MORTON, at NOWRA, on account of THOMAS MARRIOTT, Esq., Liquidator of the Shoalhaven Co-operative Bacon Curing Company, Limited in Liquidation).

BACON CURING FACTORY at Bomaderry, N.S.W., and other Assets of the above Company, consisting of the following:

1. 4 acs 1 road 18 perches, being lots 9 and 10 of Section 33, on Deposited Plan No. 2880, in the Town of Bomaderry, Parish of Bunberra, county of Camden, TORRENS TITLE million to reservations in Crown Grant), with Factory premises and fixed plant and machinery thereon, as per schedule No. 1
2. Movable Plant, Office Furniture, Horses, Wag-gone, Carts, and Harness, as per Schedule No. 2.
3. License to use exclusively in NSW. process for curing Bacon known as “Vecht Mild Cure Process.”
4. “York Castle” Trade Mark for Bacon.

Items 1 and 3 are under mortgage, on which there is a Band of £2050, with Interest at a 5 per cent, per annum, from 2nd June 1900, owing, and will be sold subject thereto.

Item 3 Is held under certain Deeds and Documents, which, together with the Mortgagee over Items 1 and 3, may be inspected at the Offices of Messrs. Perkins. Stevenson, and Co., of 122 Pitt-street, Sydney, Solicitors.

The Vecht Mild Cure Process was tied to the Christ Church Meat Company and Vecht and Stokes individually as is clear from the further provision in the notice that “any Assignment of Item 3 is subject to consent of ARON VECHT, WILLIAM STOKES, and the CHRIST CHURCH CHURCH MEAT COMPANY, Limited.”

Lists of the Plant, etc may be inspected, at the Office of THOMAS MARIOTT, Esq. and the Auctioneers, at Nowra, and at the Offices of Messrs. PERKINS, STEVENSON, and CO., Solicitors, Sydney.

---

So far, there is no direct link between the “York Castle” trademark for bacon and the “Vecht Mild Cure Process“, even though the fact that they are joined in one notice raises the possibility that they were somehow connected.

The connection becomes clear when we examine events related to a trademark dispute after the passing of Vecht but related to Stokvis. William Stokvis of Brussels instituted legal action against Barnes Bacon Company Ltd. (Mr WJ Gale being the managing director at this time). The lawsuit related to the use of Vecht’s curing formulation for bacon and hams in 1936. The plaintiff alleged the unlawful use of the trademark, and he claimed that this secret method was allegedly used for bacon made under this trade name when, in reality, so he alleged, it was not always used. Two tradenames were involved in the agreement: “York Castle” and “More Pork. The lawsuit was reported in The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia), 16 Jun 1936.

From a lawsuit related to the York Castle trademark in New South Wales, Australia, and despite it taking place sometime after Vecht’s passing, we get further insight into how he managed his intellectual property. The trademark and his secret method of curing went hand-in-hand. Only the Vecht Mild Cure Process could be used to produce the York Castle brand of bacon. Vecht would receive monetary compensation for every pig so cured in a territory. (2)

Dr. Anderson wrote that Vecht used the “York Castle” trademark in NSW and the “Yorick” trademark in Victoria. He also sent me a copy of the Victoria Government Gazette from October 1900, where the trademark was published.

I found the Yorick poster from A Legal History of Lithography by Dr. Amanda Scardamaglia. It shows that the brand was used before Vecht registered it in 1900. It could have been an older brand that he took over. It is a notable example of old bacon branding. Interestingly, the bacon is advertised as “special mild”. It appeared before Vecht arrived in Australia in ’94. What the “English system” would reference is a matter of great interest. It sets the background for Vecht’s presence in the Victorian market.

Let’s return to the publication in the Victorian Government Gazette in 1900. Dr. Anderson commented, “Vecht used the ‘York Castle’ trademark in NSW and the ‘Yorick’ trademark in Victoria.” The Victoria Government Gazette was published in October 1900, where the trademark appeared. Dr. Anderson commented that “the date is interesting because the following month it was reported in New Zealand that Vecht was on his way to South Africa. Perhaps the Victorian government was slow to publish?” (Private correspondence with Dr. Anderson) The timing was of great interest to me. In my previous letter, I dealt with what was happening in South Africa at this time that could have created such an emergency or necessity for him to leave behind in great detail. (Chapter 14.03: Aron Vecht)

The Intermarine Supply Company

The Intermarine Supply Company, registered in London, conducted the business in New Zealand and Australia. An article that appeared in several newspapers in New Zealand at the time (1893) gave the following background to this company. At least as Vecht portrayed it, it is “an international organisation which supplies the fleets of the great marine powers and the large fleets of the European mercantile marine with “mess” pork. The Company has factories in every large producing country in the world, and as everywhere, they find that the local demand for pork, as well as the growth of bacon curing factories, ultimately competes with the mess-pork factories.” As a result of this they “are always on the lookout for fresh fields and new countries suitable for the production and manufacture of their staple.”

I suspect it was set up to pool capital to set up the production entities required to supply distribution companies such as Trengrouse. Its primary function was probably to finance the capital equipment requirement for the curing method created by Vecht and to work with local suppliers. I see no evidence that it ever had factories operating in its own name.

One newspaper reported that “Mr. Vecht himself has had considerable experience as a pioneer, and New Zealand will not be the first new country he has exploited on behalf of his organisation. In conjunction with his brother, he introduced the now great industry of pig raising for mess pork manufacture into Holland in 1879, and his success in the various countries with which he has been connected led to his being selected upon it being decided to open in New Zealand if the conditions were found suitable. Mr. Vecht conducted the necessary preliminary experiments at Waitara, where the Egmont Freezing Company afforded every facility. . . . . . The requirements of the manufacture are that the pigs should be hard and firm-fleshed, but these were soft in the fat and Mr Vecht consequently did what the suppliers will in the future have to do — ‘topped them off’ for a fortnight on hard food, chiefly sharps. After this fortnight’s hardening up the pigs were killed in a cooling room made expressly for the purpose and prepared by the process which was originally the secret of Mr Vecht’s Dutch Company.” (The Bush Advocate, 1893)

Dr. Anderson did a comprehensive study of his work in New Zealand, and I shared his entire paper, which he shared with me under the notes.

Aron Vecht: The Incorporation of Temperature into Cured Transport

When refrigeration was introduced into international trade, its impact on meat quality was unknown. People opted for the less harsh conditions of chilling temperatures and tried to avoid freezing the meat. A drawback of mild cured bacon is that it does not last on long sea voyages under chilled conditions. By the time Aron Vecht arrived on the scene, the English market had become used to mild cured bacon as opposed to heavy salted, which was the kind of meat produced under the Rapid Cure process of Robert Davison. An attempt was made to use the sea voyage for the curing, but this was too expensive due to the volume of brine required per pig carcass. Famously, the Harris brothers from Calne were also involved in such a scheme, which did not work out for them. To try and preserve the meat, they packed the pork on ice. The Waikato Argus, who reported on this in 1901, said that lowering the temperature below 32^o Fahrenheit (0^o C) has ‘invariably faded the flash into a pale, unpleasant colour and alienated the affections of the British matron.”

The Waikato Argus reported on this progression by Vecht as follows: “Now, however, by what may be called a triumph of transit and cure, a most promising and important trade has begun between New Zealand and England. By employing the Vecht curing process, a New Zealand firm is shipping pigs from that distant colony, placing them in refrigerators with a temperature of 20^o Fahrenheit (-6^{o C),} and curing them here on the banks of the Thames with apparently perfect success.” Vecht, as a refrigeration expert, would have adequately used constructed cooling aboard the vessels. I doubt that his pork was packed in ice. This, along with the antiseptic fluid that he injected, preserved the carcass perfectly, and when it was cured in London for bacon, the results were perfect!”

The article continued that “this success is obtained by first treating the carcase, before they leave New Zealand, by the Vecht curing process, which allays the action of the cold, and so sterilises the flesh as to prevent the changes which have hitherto interfered with the successful curing at Home of what is grown abroad.” (3)

Messrs Trengrouse and Co.

The Waikato Argus also provides more information about trading bacon cured with the Vecht method. It reported that “Messrs Trengrouse and Co., who are colonial shippers on a huge scale and the British agents of Armours, of Chicago, are encouraging this new process, and prophesy for it a vast influence on the bacon trade.” (3)

The mention of the agents of the legendary firm of Phil Armour is of interest, as is the link between Armour’s company and the propagation of Vecht’s method of curing. Armour pioneered freezer technology for meat distribution in America and owned probably the most extensive curing works in Chicago worldwide. Likewise, Vecht was an expert in refrigeration and a master meat curer. At this time, Phil Armour was carefully plotting to introduce sodium nitrite directly as a curing brine. I have often wondered why Armour did not embrace Rapid Curing developed in America, which he must have been very aware of or even Auto Curing, which was the progression by Oake’s son. Probably not wanting to be left out of the vast and lucrative international bacon trade, Armour must have seen Vecht as a brilliant ally to secure bacon for his business while avoiding the expensive curing systems such as Auto Cure, which Armour knew would be replaced by the direct addition of nitrite to curing brines. I think he had the far more inexpensive system of Armour in the eye from very early, and even in terms of that, he probably knew nitrite curing (direct addition of nitrites) would soon overtake even Vecht’s system.

Armour had his eye on a completely different commodity than bacon in the first place. His goal was the distribution of mess pork. The vehicle seemed to be Trengrouse and Co., and the manufacturing system behind the trading form was Vecht’s Intermarine Supply Company.

Aron Vecht: His Complete System

In New Zealand, Dr. James Anderson elucidated the secret Vecht method of curing. He told me that “his mild-cure method of preserving pork involved first roasting and cooling the carcass, which was then injected with an antiseptic fluid invented and patented by him (Vecht). It involved hanging the carcass for 13 seconds in a furnace, bathing it in cold water and removing the two outer skin layers. ‘This removes the sweat glands of the pig … and the layer of fat next to the skin having been melted in the furnace saturates the thin paper-like inner skin, and when suddenly cooled hermetically seals the pig.’ The carcass is then split in two and the spine removed, allowing the serum to escape and finally treated with salt at such a temperature as to render the chloride constituent inoperative, thus retaining the albumen that is lost in the ordinary salting method. A newspaper article in New Zealand on 18 September 1893 reports an interview done by Aron Vecht where he describes his curing method first-hand. (4)

In his description, he uses a phrase that stands out. He describes the process similarly to what Dr. Anderson related to me. He mentions nothing of a vacuum vessel as in the Rapid Cure system of Robert Davison or the Auto Cure equipment of William Henry Oake. He states that his antiseptic brine is “pressure injected into the carcass, which becomes wholly impregnated, and the curing is complete.” (4)

His method relied on treating the animals immediately before slaughter and immediately post-slaughter and on applying his patented injection fluid. Henry Denny invented the process employed by Vecht for the singeing of pork in Ireland. I will deal with this subsequently.

Vecht gave details in his interview with a reporter in New Zealand. (4) He said that the animal is allowed to cool down after slaughtering. His method of curing allowed for “year-round” application. His system is not to be confused with those of William Henry Oake (dry curing) or Robert Davison (auto curing). That his patented blend of antiseptics would not impact the meat colour is certain. Only one molecule can cure meat: nitric oxide, derived in all quick curing systems from sodium nitrate, which is turned into sodium nitrite. His goal was not to make bacon. His goal was mess pork, and mild cured bacon has always been associated with pale bacon. (William Oakes Mild-Cured Bacon and Mild-Cured Bacon and the Curers of Wiltshire)

The 1894 interview with Vecht (Interview with Aron Vecht 1894) removes all doubt that he knew the Oake system of mild curing very well. I suspect it may have been Vecht’s recollections that preserved the name William Oake and how he invented Mild Curing.

It is known that Vecht used the dry-cured system that did not require the construction of curing baths in some instances. This method is explained in great detail further in the article. He probably used Oake’s system more fully when he later entered the bacon market in Australia, but not even this is certain because bacon, at this time, was pale.

What we know for sure about his method is the following:

In conjunction with his brother, he introduced the now great industry of pig raising for mess pork manufacture into Holland in 1879. Here, he invented the first step of his total system: finishing the pork before slaughter. The intended final product was mess pork.

The Intermarine Supply Company was established as an international organisation that supplied the fleets of the great marine powers and the large fleets of the European mercantile marine with “mess” pork. Vecht reported that the Company has factories in every large producing country globally. They find everywhere that “the local demand for pork, as well as the growth of bacon curing factories, ultimately competes with the mess-pork factories, they are always on the lookout for fresh fields and new countries suitable for the production and manufacture of their staple.”

In an 1894 (Interview with Aron Vecht 1894) interview he expanded on the countries where the system was in use, which he describes as “a large factory . . . in operation at Toronto in Canada, and the system was greatly used in Holland, Denmark, and many parts of England. Five firms now possessed the right to use it, one of which was the Intermarine Supply Company, which was also the patentee of the process at present in use at Islington and the bacon and bams sold here were exactly the same as those sent to the Home markets.” He said the patented differentiator was the antiseptic brine to be injected. The invention of the singing of the pigs was Henry Denny, and the mild cured system was William Oake.

The three-fold system of antiseptic-singeing-mild curing was not the system’s only unique feature. Bush (1893) reports, “Mr Vecht conducted the necessary preliminary experiments at Waitara, where every facility was afforded by the Egmont Freezing Company. . . . . . The requirements of the manufacture are that the pigs should be hard and firm fleshed, but these were soft in the fat and Mr Vecht consequently did what the suppliers will in the future have to do — ‘topped them off’ for a fortnight on hard food, chiefly sharps. After this fortnight’s hardening up, the pigs was killed in a cooling room made expressly for the purpose and prepared by the process which was originally the secret of Mr Vecht’s Dutch Company. ”

Let us return momentarily to his distribution system through Trengrouse & Co..

Messrs Trengrouse and Co

I referred you to the Waikato Argus, which did an article on his life from where we got the all-important information on the temperature during the shipment of the meat. The same article mentions that Vecht’s products were sold through the firm of Messrs Trengrouse and Co. They are described as colonial shippers on a vast scale and the British agents of the Armour Packing Company from Chicago, encouraging his new process. They were, in all likelihood, the link between Intermarine Supply Co and the market. The trading was done through one firm, and another was responsible for supply. This brings us to the next fascinating aspect of this remarkable man’s life: his link to the legendary provisions and general commission merchants of Messrs Trengrouse and Co.

The firm was officially called Trengrouse, H & Co., described as “Provision Agents and General Commission Merchants.” Their address was 51, 55, Tooley Street, London, S.E. The firm was established in 1875 by Henry Trengrouse and his brother, who retired in 1908. They had agents in Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Cardiff, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Dunedin, (N.Z.), Monte Video, Buenos Ayres, and specialised in butter, cheese, bacon, eggs and canned goods. They claim to have pioneered the trade in New Zealand and Australia in dairy products. Most important for our purposes is that they were the agents for Armour & Co. from Chicago, and by 1914, they had been Armour’s agents for upwards of thirty years. (1914 Who’s Who in Business) This means that Phil Armour probably set them up and dealt directly with them. Phil passed away at the turn of the century.

The grandfather, Henery Trengrouse, after whom he was named, was a legendary figure in his own right. He devoted his life to inventing several methods to improve safety aboard ships after he witnessed a ship sinking with a tragic loss of life close to his hometown when he was a young man. (5) Adventure and perseverance ran in the family and, I am sure, accounted for their success in no small way! (Chapter 14.05: The Grandfather of Henry Trengouse: Foundation of Principle)

Intermarine Supply Company seems to have been producing for Trengrouse and Co..

Messrs Trengrouse and Co. in South Africa

Years ago, when I wrote about David Graaff’s Armour – A Tale of Two Legends, I speculated that Philip Armour’s agents must have visited Cape Town. The basis of my speculation was the global reach of Armour’s network and the fact that Phil himself made his money starting in the Californian Goldfields, and I could not imagine that he sat idly by with the discovery of gold and diamonds on the Rand and Kimberley respectively in South Africa. Further, the link between De Villiers-Graaff visiting Chicago in 1892, where Armour pioneered refrigerated meat transport and refrigeration for the meat trade in general through cold storage works, coupled with De Villiers Graaf’s focus on this from that time onwards, is just too much to be coincidental. I have gone to great lengths over many years to find the details of the agents for Armour, but with no luck whatsoever. Not even a hint!

Until Dr. James Anderson informed me about Aron Vecht, I could not discover the agents’ names for Philip Armour. Introducing me to Vecht led me to the discovery of the agents of Armour being Messrs Trengrouse and Co, who did not do business with Combrinck & Co. (Later the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Co. of De Villiers Graaff) as I suspected but with Langeberg Foods on canning, presumably from the Boland town of Wellington in the Cape Colony.

I know Langeberg Foods very well and will take this up with them directly as well as secure the book where the reference is made -> Langeberg: 50 Years of Canning Achievement, 1940-1990 – Page 27, D. J. Van Zyl, 1990

Vecht In Context

I have often wondered what the international trade in bacon looked like at the beginning of the 1900’s and what I’ve learned is that there is little difference with the trade today. Vecht’s techniques to secure his bacon empire are still valid today. I initially wanted to deal with the curing of Vecht and Denny in one letter, but there is too much to cover in one go. So, I decided to leave the story of the development of the singing of pork for my following letter. I will summarise the three letters devoted to Aron Vecht by giving an example of the combined Vecht/Denny system.

In our discussion of Vecht we must not lose sight of the fact that Vecht’s process was a short-lived attempt by the Dutch (Vecht) and the Americans (Armour) to wrestle away control of the international bacon market from the British. Over the years, I have wondered why Phil Armour did not try to assert his influence on the lucrative bacon trade not just through exports to Britain (which they did on a large scale) but also in the international bacon trade. In almost ten years of research, I never encountered them apart from sending bacon from the USA to England. This all changed with the mail from Dr. Anderson and looking into the life and career of Vecht.

I speculate their agents found an ideal ally in the Dutch curer, Aron Vecht. Vecht combined several known (and patented) curing processes, created his own version of mild cure, ostensibly predicated upon refrigeration and an invention by the Irish firm of Henry Denny that automated the singeing process of the carcass which we will look at in my following letter. I suspect his allegiance with Armour possibly led him to become an expert in the newly developing art of refrigeration. He may have already been interested in this before he came into contact with the Armour Meatpacking company in Chicago. His curing process would have suited Armour in that it was far less capital intensive than the based firm of Oake-Wood’s autocue. Despite not being as fast in curing as was accomplished with the autocue equipment, it was a progression on the mild curing process of the inventor of the original method, William Oake, father of the Oake who was a partner in Oake-Woods.

The link with a unique bacon brand is a stroke of genius and something, I am sure, that was carefully deliberated. Before this time, bacon was differentiated by the particular method of curing. As I explained initially, these would have been dry-cured, sweet-cured, mild-cured, pale-dried or auto-cured. There is evidence of Harris going after people using the name “pale dried bacon”, but the advent of refrigeration effectively levelled the playing field as many options became available to produce bacon with far less salt than was traditionally done under the dry-cured system.

Another essential point about Armour must be made. A few years ago, I came across a reference to a secret trial in the use of sodium nitrite done at a packing plant in Chicago. The year was 1905. This was done before its use was legal in any country on earth. I speculated that Phil Armour carried it out as very few people would have had the audacity to have tried it. I reported on this experiment in an article, and shortly after this, all references to it were removed from the publications I cited, and I could not get hold of the source documents. I know the author of the article where this reference appeared. He is a prominent person in a leading role in European meat-curing circles, and I understand why this reference was removed.

This is pure speculation on my part, but it has a tone of credibility. I think Armour jointly performed the trial alone or with the key meatpackers in Chicago of Gustav Swift and Edward Morris. I extensively wrote about this in The Direct Addition of Nitrites to Curing Brines – The Spoils of War. The experiment would have been spectacularly successful and, I believe, was done on the back of experiments done in German agricultural research centres for years before 1905.

With them having known about the work on nitrites, I believe the process of Vecht suited Armour well as a kind of a “placeholder” without engaging a firm like Oake-Woods and locking them into the Auto Curing system which was the leading system internationally at the time as far as it is patentable. Indeed, it was the most widely used international patented system of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

There is an “air” of the thinking of Armour, Swift and Morris in the preamble to a meat science group formed by them, also in the early 1900s, where their mission was stated as being “to reduce steers to beef and hogs to pork in the quickest, most economical and the most serviceable manner.” The process they had in mind here was nitrite curing.

It was a critical turning point in the history of curing. The Americans spectacularly took the lead when, following the First World War, Griffith, the American Chicago-based company, became the evangelist of the direct addition of nitrite to curing brines, a riveting saga that I uncovered and wrote extensively about in the article which I just now sited. So, anticipating what is to come in the direct addition of nitrites to curing brines, there would have been no point in investing in any of the “indirect curing processes” of the English, Danes or Dutch.

There is evidence that the Chicago meatpackers were preparing for this curing revolution for several years, and the Griffith Laboratories was a vital participant who had to be ready to handle the Public Relations of what was to come. They took note of public perception related to nitrites and had to be careful how they introduced the matter to the public. Besides, they had to ensure that using nitrites directly in meat curing was legalised. All this was carefully orchestrated, explaining why they never fully committed to curing systems that dominated the world before 1905. Supporting the Vecht system would have been a perfect “placeholder.”

Was the use of the curing technique of Vecht as deliberate as I present it here? I suspect it but have no direct evidence to that effect. Is it a likely scenario, considering the full spectrum of information from that time? I believe so! At least it warrants keeping the possibility in mind as we progress our efforts to understand the grand story of the development of bacon!

In Conclusion

I am thrilled that you continue to live so close to the meat trade, to which I have dedicated my life and the history to which I am discovering more daily!

Lots of love,

Your dad.

---

---

(c) eben van tonder

---

Notes

Note 1: Liquidation Sale Notice

The notice of the liquidation reads as follows:

MESSRS. STEWART and MORTON, at NOWRA, on account of THOMAS MARRIOTT, Esq., Liquidator of the Shoalhaven Co-operative Bacon Curing Company, Limited in Liquidation).

BACON CURING FACTORY at Bomaderry, N.S.W., and other Assets of the above Company, consisting of the following:

1. 4 acs 1 road 18 perches, being lots 9 and 10 of Section 33, on Deposited Plan No. 2880, in the Town of Bomaderry, Parish of Bunberra,county of Camden, TORRENS TITLE million to reservations in Crown Grant), withFactory premises and fixed plant and machinerythereon, as per schedule No. 1
2. Movable Plant, Office Furniture, Horses, Wag-gone, Carts, and Harness, as per Schedule No. 2.
3. License to use exclusively in NSW. process for curing Bacon known as “Vecht Mild Cure Process.”
4. “York Castle” Trade Mark for Bacon.

Items 1 and 3 are under mortgage, on which there is a Band of £2050, with Interest at a 5 per cent, per annum, from 2nd June 1900, owing, and will be sold subject thereto.

Item 3 Is held under certain Deeds and Documents, which, together with the Mortgagee over Items 1 and 3, may be inspected at the Offices of Messrs. Perkins. Stevenson, and Co., of 122 Pitt-street, Sydney, Solicitors.

Any Assignment of Item 3 is subject to consent of ARON VECHT, WILLIAM STOKES, and the CHRIST CHURCH CHURCH MEAT COMPANY, Limited. Lists of the Plant, etc may be inspected, at the Office of THOMAS MARIOTT, Esq. and the Auctioneers, at Nowra, and at the Offices of Messrs. PERKINS, STEVENSON, and CO., Solicitors, Sydney.

By order. THOMAS MARRIOTT, Liquidator, ‘

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW, Tue 29 Jun 1909)

Note 2: York Castle Bacon

The York Castle Trademark is of huge interest. William Stokvis of Brussels instituted legal action against Barnes Bacon Company Ltd. (Mr WJ Gale being the managing director at this time). The lawsuit related to the use of a secret curing formulation for bacon and hams in 1936. The plaintiff alleged the unlawful use of the trademark and he claimed that this secret method was alleged to be used for bacon made under this trade name when in reality, so he alleged, it was not always used.

The judge said in the judgement that York Castel bacon has been sold for years throughout New South Wales and that the secret mild cured formulation was attached to it. An agreement was entered on 20 March 1922 in which Stokvis gave Barnes Bacon Company Ltd. the right to use the secret curing formulation and the trademark for 10 years in exchange for monetary compensation for every pig so cured in New South Wales. In addition, Stokvis agreed in June 1922 to pay James Macgregor (an expert in mixing the cure and supervising the curing) half of the royalties received from Australia and New Zealand. Two tradenames were involved in the agreement being “York Castle” and “More Pork.”

In June 1922, JM Watt became the owner of the trademark limited to New South Wales and in January 1926, its scope was extended internationally. Watt dies in 1926 and the partnership created in 1928 ceased in 1928. In 1929 Stokvis became the owner of the trademark. He subsequently renewed the trademark till 1949.

It was established that pork was cured for a period by Barnes Bacon Company Ltd using a curing method, different from the secret mild curing method, yet, the secret curing method was attached to the trade names. Key witnesses were Messrs. WJ Gale, A Robertson, WJ Read, and Colin C Gale. The judge regarded the witness of all except Colin C Gale as unreliable.

So far it’s all of little interest or direct bearing of our historical consideration of various curing methods. One of the legal counsels referred to a previous case between Orange Crush (Australia) and Cartell (41 C.L.R. 282) where the high court found, by majority decision, that the pickle had lost its identity in the final product. The judge did not accept the point as being applicable in this case, but it is of supreme importance for our current consideration.

It has been my contention for many years that unless a specific piece of equipment, fully protected under patent laws is attached to a certain curing or other processes; or, unless a trademark is linked to a process and the agreement between the licensor and the licensee specifically links the method of curing and the trademark, if the outcome is equal, any process loses its identity in the final product and a process or formulation without a trademark so linked to it or the use of patent-protected equipment, curing methods or any meat processing methods are essentially unprotectable.

It is interesting that the judge accepted the argument of WJ Gale that “a different cure is only a matter of the first pickle that is put into bacon.” Judgement was in favour of the plaintiff.

The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) · 16 Jun 1936, Tue · Page 6

Note 3: From The Waikato Argus, Friday, November 22, 1901.

The issue of temperatures takes a front and central role in the saga. The following newspaper article deals with this.

“Frozen pigs are arriving in England from New Zealand, to be ‘borne cured’ for the British breakfast table (say the Daily Mail). This explanation is that the world is short of pigs, and as people still insist on eating pork the shippers and curers are straining every nerve to reach the remotest parts where the pig is sold. This is why England is buying bacon from Siberia, Russia, Denmark, Holland, Canada, the United States, Australia, and a score more of our colonial friends and foreign rivals. Hitherto this foreign bacon has always arrived in England already cured, and since it is ‘mildly cured ’ to suit the British palate, a very large portion of the bacon sold to the householder is slightly tainted. To prevent this numerous attempts have been made to put the dead pig into ice and turn him into bacon on arrival in England. But the lowering of the temperature below 32deg Fahrenheit (0 deg C) has ‘invariably faded the flash into a pale, unpleasant colour and alienated the affections of the British matron. Now, however, by what may be called a triumph of transit and cure, a most promising and important trade has begun between New Zealand and England. By employing the Vecht curing process, a New Zealand firm is shipping pigs from that distant colony, placing them in refrigerators with a temperature of 20 deg Fahrenheit (-6 deg C), and curing them here on the banks of the Thames with apparently perfect success. This success is obtained by first treating the carcase*, before they leave New Zealand, by the Vecht curing process, which allays the action of the cold, and so sterilises the flesh as to prevent the changes which has hitherto interfered with the successful curing at Home of what is grown abroad. Messrs Trengrouse and Co., who are colonial shippers on a huge scale and the British agents of Armours, of Chicago, are encouraging this new process, and prophesy for it a vast influence on the bacon trade.”

Note 4: Interview with Aron Vecht

Note 5: The Grandfather of Henry Trengouse: Foundation of Principle

Note 6: Effect of Singeing on the Texture and Histological Appearance of Pig Skin

---

References

Dr James Anderson (personal correspondence between him and Eben)

 

The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 – 1931) ,Thu 24 Dec 1908

De Beer, G., Paterson, A., and Olivier, H.. 2003. 160 Years of export. The History of the Perishable Products Export Control Board.

The Bush Advocate. Thursday, May 11. New Outlet for Farmers, Volume IX, Issue 777, 11 May 1893, Page 2

Dommisse, E.. 2011. Sir David Pieter de Villiers Graaff: Sakeman en Politikus aan die Kaap 1859 –1931.

Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country, Vol. LXXIV July to December 1866

Ice & Refrigeration, Vol 20, Jan – June, 1901

The Jewish Voice, St. Louis, Missouri, Friday, December 04, 1908

Jewish Herald (Vic. : 1879 – 1920),  Fri 22 Jan 1909

Journal of the Royal Society of the Arts, no 3078, Vol LX, 17 November 1911

Lebrecht, N. 2019. Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, 1847-1947. Simon and Schuster

Molander, E.. 1985. Effect of Singeing on the Texture and Histological Appearance of Pig Skin. Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Department of Meat Technology and Process Engineering, 11 Howitzvej, DK-2000 Copenhagen F, Denmark

1894, New Zealand, Patents, Designs and Trade-Marks

The Standard, London, Greater London, England, Saturday, November 16, 1889

The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)16 Jun 1936, Tue

The Waikato Argus, Friday, November 22, 1901