canned meat

[svrn]

Canning Meat 2 yr results

do you think this could be done without cooking it? I feel like it would work even better since when when bacteria digest cooked food you get a toxic byproduct but when bacteria digest raw food its just predigested for you and therefore even better than it was before.

[achillezzz]

You cant just can raw meat and let it sit for 2 years.. it needs to breath to be still good to eat its called high meat.
I heard someone on this board saying its because some aerobic/anerobic bacteria reasons? what are those anybody who is familiar with those terms can elaborate on it?

[eveheart]

Pressure canning is nothing new. It's been around since about the mid-1800s or something like that. The idea of sterilizing the food at higher-than-boiling temperatures and then making sure that oxygen is excluded prevents botulinum toxin from growing. Making sure that the vacuum seal is still good is one way to check to see that oxygen didn't get into the jar. Boiling the food after opening the can also helps prevent botulism. Everything that Bubba said in the video was accurate with regards to preserving food by pressure canning.

Breakdown of raw meat with oxygen is what creates high meat. The bacteria that makes high meat needs oxygen, plus the bacteria that creates the toxic bacteria doesn't grow in oxygen.

[svrn]

so it needs to be cooked?

[eveheart]

so it needs to be cooked?

... or aired, if raw.

The whole idea of preserving is to keep the meat from changing how it is. The guy in the video is talking about a method of preserving meat that is called canning. Here's a link about potted meat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canned_meat (canning is the US word for potted). There are other methods of preserving meat, like salting, smoking, drying, freezing. They all rely on preventing bacterial action from changing the meat.

OTOH, making high meat is about letting the meat go through a beneficial change by allowing the growth of beneficial bacteria to change the meat.

[svrn]

what does it being "aired" mean?

[eveheart]

what does it being "aired" mean?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aired

[aLptHW4k4y]

...when bacteria digest cooked food you get a toxic byproduct but when bacteria digest raw food its just predigested for you and therefore even better than it was before.

I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it doesn't make much sense to me.

[svrn]

I originally got it from aajonus on his "doctors" appearance on youtube. Also it makes sense. If you eat some rotting raw meat youll be fine vs. eating rotten cooked meat will make you very sick.

[aLptHW4k4y]

If you eat some rotting raw meat youll be fine vs. eating rotten cooked meat will make you very sick.

Now I'm curious how you came to this conclusion :-)

[HIT_it_RAW]

Now I'm curious how you came to this conclusion :-)

Many here will confirm this from personal experience. Including me

As for the general subject of this topic. Am i the only one who finds this video slightly DISGUSTING?

[aLptHW4k4y]

That doesn't prove it's because bacterial byproducts are more, or less toxic..

[eveheart]

Please allow me to oversimplify:

There are probiotic bacteria, yeasts, and enzymes in and on foods in their natural states. In the presence of air, these organisms break down food in a more-or-less gut friendly way. Sealing the food to exclude air promotes the growth of other decomposing agents.

Heating food kills all the bacteria, yeasts, and enzymes. Then, unless the food is packaged in a preserving habitat (such as in a vacuum-sealed canning jar, in salt, in a freezer, etc.), gawd-knows-what bacteria, yeasts, enzymes, fungi, etc., will consume the food in order to decompose it.

Decomposition is a good thing, and it's how the cycle of nature works. It's just that the products of decomposition don't all make good eats.

[aLptHW4k4y]

Heating food kills all the bacteria, yeasts, and enzymes. Then, unless the food is packaged in a preserving habitat (such as in a vacuum-sealed canning jar, in salt, in a freezer, etc.), gawd-knows-what bacteria, yeasts, enzymes, fungi, etc., will consume the food in order to decompose it.

Yes but why wouldn't this happen to raw food?
What I'm trying to understand is, if you leave cooked and raw food side by side in same conditions, why would bacterial byproducts be significantly different?
Cooked food is already kinda decomposed, so that it's easier and faster for bacteria to further decompose it. But it doesn't mean that their metabolites will be any more toxic than those of bacteria eating the raw food.

[HIT_it_RAW]

my own oversimplification: crap in crap out. if the bacteria feed on toxic (cooked) meat there endproducts wil also be toxic.

[eveheart]

Yes but why wouldn't this happen to raw food?
What I'm trying to understand is, if you leave cooked and raw food side by side in same conditions, why would bacterial byproducts be significantly different?
Cooked food is already kinda decomposed, so that it's easier and faster for bacteria to further decompose it. But it doesn't mean that their metabolites will be any more toxic than those of bacteria eating the raw food.

You might need to learn a lot more about bacteria and also about what happens when cells are heated. For example, cooked food is not "kinda decomposed" - it is denatured. Side-by-side raw food and cooked food are not in the same conditions. And, it sounds as if you are saying that bacteria is a toxic by-product of decomposition, rather than understanding that it is an agent of decomposition. It's time to whip out the ol' high school biology book and review the pages on bacteria, fermentation, cells, decomposition - aw heck, re-read the whole book. Once you remember what you learned back then, much of the scientific topics that are discussed on this forum will make sense.

[aLptHW4k4y]

When you cook food, starch for example decomposes to simpler sugars. Protein gets denatured so that the peptide bonds are uncovered and easier to access. That's what I meant by "cooked food is kinda decomposed", it's broken down to simpler substances, so that bacterial decomposition will be faster. In raw food bacteria first need to denature proteins, break down starch, etc, so it's slower.
I'm not sure how you got that I was saying bacteria themselves are a product of decomposition though, even if I don't remember absolutely anything about biology, logically it's wrong. My English is not perfect so I could've said something wrong though.

[aLptHW4k4y]

my own oversimplification: crap in crap out. if the bacteria feed on toxic (cooked) meat there endproducts wil also be toxic.

You can't conclude things just like that. Even if the input to bacteria is toxic for us humans, it doesn't mean that it's toxic for the bacteria, and that their output will be toxic for us.
Consider bacteria that turn milk into yogurt for example; they convert lactose to lactic acid, making milk less toxic to lactose intolerant people.

[svrn]

Yes but why wouldn't this happen to raw food?
What I'm trying to understand is, if you leave cooked and raw food side by side in same conditions, why would bacterial byproducts be significantly different?
Cooked food is already kinda decomposed, so that it's easier and faster for bacteria to further decompose it. But it doesn't mean that their metabolites will be any more toxic than those of bacteria eating the raw food.

The bacteria can't properly digest the cooked meat for the same reason we can't. Cooked food is unnatural and neither of our bodies are able to process it in a healthy manner.

[aLptHW4k4y]

Wow really, I'm puzzled how you can just pull stuff out of thin air like that..

Why is now cooked food unnatural? What if it was cooked in nature, e.g. in a wild fire, or hot spring. What I understand from your statement, is that it will be healthier to eat a cow that was caught in a naturally caused wild fire (not baked by you), even though the meat will essentially be same as if I cooked it at home in the oven.

[svrn]

Its not that it's not natural, just not natural for us to consume. We are not genetically adapted to eating cooked since we only had control of fire for such a tiny portion of our human existence. Plus, if no other animal in the wild eats cooked food what should make us so special.

[aLptHW4k4y]

Fine. So you say that since something is not natural for us to eat, it's not natural for bacteria either. Because we're so similar to bacteria? Or how else did you come to that conclusion?

[cherimoya_kid]

Cooked meat that has rotted is pretty disgusting.  I'd be afraid to eat it, just from the smell.  It might be safe, but...it smells awful.

[Iguana]

Wow really, I'm puzzled how you can just pull stuff out of thin air like that..

Why is now cooked food unnatural? What if it was cooked in nature, e.g. in a wild fire, or hot spring. What I understand from your statement, is that it will be healthier to eat a cow that was caught in a naturally caused wild fire (not baked by you), even though the meat will essentially be same as if I cooked it at home in the oven.

You’re right that fire happen sometimes in nature. Thus, animals can find once in a way some food that has been grilled in a wildfire or on the lava after a volcanic eruption. But this happens relatively seldom and you won’t commonly find cooked food 3 times a day.

This is an interesting point, and we can infer it’s the reason why there are detoxination processes in the form of bacterial and viral illnesses. These processes are likely to be – and as a matter of fact, really appear to be - adapted to small occasional intake of grilled or cooked food. But they are just overwhelmed by constant intakes of large amounts of cooked food and they tend to runaway in such conditions, becoming dangerous or even deadly.     

[aLptHW4k4y]

Cooked meat that has rotted is pretty disgusting.  I'd be afraid to eat it, just from the smell.  It might be safe, but...it smells awful.

Raw rotten meat doesn't smell any better.. I've come across plenty of rotting dogs, cats, birds, etc, none smelled pretty.