I'm outta here, thanks Wade for the testing! After 5 strokes, the only thing I don't understand is any understanding.... :)
The frustrating thing about this discussion Ghengis, is that Atomicsmoke and I TOTALLY AGREE with what you have posted above. The recipe does look to be totally out of whack however DDF was supporting it as being valid for immersion curing based upon the "Method 1" calculation in the Handbook - which uses the 10% take up factor. He continued to support it throughout the thread and later provided the evidence from the Handbook to support this method and calculation. At this point, when you have one prominent member supporting this brine method, (which appeared to be validated by the USDA) and another prominent member widely recommending a brine which has almost 10x less cure in it (that he assures us had been commercially tested in the past) what else can you do to determine which is correct - but test?
There was no test even needed
A simple cursory observation of the brine recipe revealed the nitrite to be out of whack by a factor of approximately 12.
To actually test such an lopsided recipe, respectfully, amounted to an exercise of the obvious.
DDF has a wonderful brine recipe generator on his website. If the purpose was to test the "10% assumption" a solid brine recipe known to be within the guidelines would have been the preferred and reasonable choice.
At least the product post-test would have been safe and edible to all members of the family, not just the mother in law.
Hi Ghenges
As soon as I read DDF had supported the Prague Powder #1 recipe -- I had that sinking feeling, I was certain I was wrong -- a misplaced decimal in my calculator.(little wonder DDF has kept his beak out of this clusterflop)
I took your 5.47kg brine weight and extrapolated that at a 10% inclusion rate this 5.47kg of brine would be sufficient to produce 54700 grams of product.
In my opinion the tests should be done on full size bellies and hams first to validate the cure recipes, then tested with small sized pieces if the desire is to provide a tutorial for curing small sized pieces.
The frustrating thing about this discussion Ghengis, is that Atomicsmoke and I TOTALLY AGREE with what you have posted above. The recipe does look to be totally out of whack however DDF was supporting it as being valid for immersion curing based upon the "Method 1" calculation in the Handbook - which uses the 10% take up factor. He continued to support it throughout the thread and later provided the evidence from the Handbook to support this method and calculation. At this point, when you have one prominent member supporting this brine method, (which appeared to be validated by the USDA) and another prominent member widely recommending a brine which has almost 10x less cure in it (that he assures us had been commercially tested in the past) what else can you do to determine which is correct - but test?
Hi Ghenges
Wade,
My father often cautioned me never to ask another man what he paid for something, it was none of my business.
Please ignore if the question is out of line, but what does the testing cost per sample?
Hi MartinThere's a lot that I could point out here, but especially, the residual nitrite and nitrate permitted in the finished product* (after all processing) is 200 ppm nitrite and 500 ppm nitrate.
Nitrite is extremely reactive, and the heat used in thermal processing (smoking and cooking) increases the reactivity. Because of this, the amount of nitrite detectable in the finished product* is allegedly expected to be a fraction of what it was after the curing stage.
In other words, the level of nitrite should be much lower at the time of consumption.
* This is an important point that's emphasized by the regulators.
There's a lot that I could point out here, but especially, the residual nitrite and nitrate permitted in the finished product* (after all processing) is 200 ppm nitrite and 500 ppm nitrate.
Nitrite is extremely reactive, and the heat used in thermal processing (smoking and cooking) increases the reactivity. Because of this, the amount of nitrite detectable in the finished product* is allegedly expected to be a fraction of what it was after the curing stage.
In other words, the level of nitrite should be much lower at the time of consumption.
* This is an important point that's emphasized by the regulators.
Hi Martin
I am sorry but I disagree with you there. Everything I read in the handbooks suggests that the "finished product" is referring to the end of manufacture and at the point of sale - not at the point of consumption.
Thanks for posting that Martin and I see you have underlined certain words. Remember that we are discussing bacon in this thread.
Your extracts refer to the "finished" product a lot however when I read it I cannot see where it defines the "finished product" as being at the point of consumption. It does say that the finished product after processing COULD be a cooked ready to eat turkey breast - but that would still be at the point of sale. Most bacon is sold uncooked (at least here in the UK).
You have also highlighted the words "home curing" however this only appears to be referring to the supply of meat-curing preparations for people to use in home curing (e.g. Cure #1 or #2 etc) and it also does not define what is meant by "finished meat product". I would not necessarily interpret what it says as being after it has been cooked and is on the plate.
Remember that we are discussing bacon in this thread.
Yes I agree if people want to discuss that further. I don't think that I will be initiating it though.
A new thread needs to be initiated with definition of the goals of the continuing saga.