# Cure uptake with immersion brining



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

Following on from a recent thread on here…

I smoke quite a bit of bacon however I do almost all of it using dry cure. I have wet brined some bacon with mixed success however for this I have been blindly following the recipes of others. 

When dry curing it is straightforward to calculate the maximum possible amount of Nitrite that can be in your bacon as it cannot exceed the total amount added with the cure. If not all of it penetrates then at least you will end up with less than the desired cure and not more.

After my recent wakeup call – where I found that a common commercial brand of cure over here, when used as directed actually exceeded the EU maximum levels for both Nitrite and Nitrate, I am finding myself asking some basic questions again. Also the large differences in the various brines that are quoted (on here and in published curing books) is adding to my unease.

When using an immersion cure there is relatively so much nitrite added to the brine that the potential for exceeding the maximum permitted levels would at least seem a possibility. The calculations all seems to depend on a figure that is being quoted that says you only get a 10-12% take up of cure from the brine into the meat.  I am not currently disputing this is fact but I am just looking for a credible scientific source where this has been quantitatively demonstrated. 

It is probably staring me in the face and I have just missed it, but if any of you can point me to a credible document/paper where this has been shown to be the case I will feel much more comfortable.

Thanks

Wade


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Use an equilibrium brine and you won't have to worry about it.

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/124590/universal-cure-calculator#post_833396


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

That is an option certainly - even if a little patronising. I think what is more important than me personally worrying about it is that we need to fully understand the brining calculations being quoted on here, and so it would be good to have some credible quantitative evidence that show that the 10-12% figure being used is a valid assumption. If it is there will be some credible published evidence out there somewhere to support this. I am just asking for a link to it.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

As I explained in the other thread, the only way to know for sure is to weigh.
The 10% that was used in the equation *IS NOT* an assumption of what actual pick-up or gain will be, but in that example, we know that, *AT* 10% gain, we're within the limit.
The greater the gain. the higher the ppm nitrite.

So, either pull it at 10% or calculate the maximum amount of gain that's within the 200ppm limit and pull it then.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Maximum % pick-up (or gain) = (200ppm x total weight of the brine solution ÷ weight of the nitrite x 1,000,000) x100

So, using the numbers from the other thread.....

200 x 14456=2891200
24.8 x 1000000=24800000
2891200 ÷ 24800000= 0.11658064516
0.11658064516 x 100=*11.67% gain*, maximum, to stay within the 200ppm nitrite limit.


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

OK Martin. I understand what your calculations are saying. They do assume though that the 10% gain weight is equivalent to a corresponding 10% uptake of Nitrite, and that there is no active accumulation of Nitrite within the cells themselves nor selective blocking from it crossing the cell membranes.

If you are assuring us that the diffusion throughout the meat mass is uniform then that is great - but some published quantitative conformation that this is the case would be reassuring.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Simply put, it's the government's nitrite limit and the government's equations to determine compliance with that limit.
They set the limits based on science.


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

That's great to hear. If you can post up the link to the government site where this calculation is specified then that would be great and my question will be answered. 
	

	
	
		
		



		
			






Cheers

Wade


----------



## bama bbq (Jan 19, 2015)

Wade,

I have found over the years, information is passed down as factual knowledge.  When someone wants to question the knowledge to determine if they are truly facts they run into resistance.  (e.g. The World is FLAT!)

Len Poli has some pretty good stuff on the subject.  About 3/4 of the way down on the linked page the discussion on pickling cure starts.  He cites his sources for your own investigation.  I hope this helps.  Enjoy!  http://lpoli.50webs.com/page0001.htm

I normally dry cure my bacon.  What I find interesting is if only 10% of the cure is absorbed in a pickling cure that sounds like an awful lot of wasted cure (90%).


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 19, 2015)

Wade said:


> I am just looking for a credible scientific source where this has been quantitatively demonstrated.


Me too.

The only official source referenced ad nauseam everywhere I looked was the Processing Inspectors Handbook. Which surprise-surprise lists two formulas/methods for the same immersion process - see at the bottom. One is the intuitive formula, the other one uses the mysterious pickup factor. So...same process can give you two different nitrite levels in meat. Which is malarkey obviously. 

The first method (the one using the 10% pickup) is meant for large pieces of meat that will not reach equilibrium in the short time the assembly line processors afford. The second one is a equilibrium method, where the meat stays in brine until the nitrite level in meat equalizes the level in the brine.

So if you use the a brine like in the other thread and leave the meat in long enough you could reach over 1000ppm in the meat. That would be a nice red piece of meat. Ofcourse someone could argue: don't wait for equilibrium, pull the meat out at 10% weight gain.  The assumption being the only nitrite in meat is in the 10% brined absorbed. That is nonsense. The cells have absorbed salt and cure ions at a rate that cannot be easily correlated with the amount of water absorbed. Osmosis is a beetch.

Here it is the excerpt from the handbook:

*Nitrite in Immersed Products*

In immersion curing, the submerged meat or poultry absorbs the cover pickle solution, slowly,

over a long period of time. There are two recognized methods for calculating the allowable

ingoing amount of nitrite in immersion cured products. The method used depends on the

mechanism of movement of nitrite within the meat and/or poultry/pickle system and into the meat,

meat byproduct, or poultry tissue itself.

! *Method One*

The first method assumes that the meat or poultry absorbs not more than the level of

nitrite in the cover pickle. Hence, the calculation for nitrite is based on the green weight

of the meat or poultry (as is the case with pumped products), but uses percent pick-up as

the percent pump. The percent pick-up is the total amount of cover pickle absorbed by

the meat or poultry. It is used in the calculation for immersion cured products in the same

way percent pump is used in the (previous) calculation for pumped products.

< *Calculation Formula *(using % pick-up)

lb nitrite × % pick-up × 1,000,000 = ppm

lb pickle

! *Method Two*

The second method assumes that the submerged meat, meat byproduct, or poultry and the

cover pickle act as a single system. Over time, the ingredients in the pickle, such as nitrite

and salt, migrate into the meat, meat byproduct, and poultry until levels in the tissue and in

the pickle are balanced. This system is actually very complex and dynamic, with

components in constant motion, but it will reach and maintain a state of equilibrium.

Therefore, the calculation for ingoing nitrite is based on the green weight of the meat

block, using the percent added as a relevant amount.

< *Calculation Formula *(using the green weight and pickle weight)

lb nitrite × 1,000,000 = ppm

green weight (lb) meat block + lb pickle


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

*Procesing Inspectors Calculations Handbook*

One must be VERY careful when using the handbook, it's intended for inspection personnel only and not the general public so it's incomplete in terms of some critical information.
Unfortunately, that has led to a LOT of folks misinterpreting some of the information in the handbook.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

As I said, It's easy to find instances of folks not understanding the handbook. :biggrin:


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 19, 2015)

Yeah, this is not about the handbook. Please explain why in an equilibrium (weak) brine the meat picks up a lot more nitrite than the weight gain would explain, but in full strength brine won't. The only difference is the concentration of curing salt, which would even accelerate the osmosis process for the full strength brine.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Let's see your examples.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 19, 2015)

Use the case discussed in the Prague Powder #1 thread yesterday.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Yeah, we used the ingoing nitrite limit set by the government and the government's equation to determine compliance with that limit.
The equation is just as important as the limit, they go hand in hand.


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

atomicsmoke said:


> The assumption being the only nitrite in meat is in the 10% brined absorbed. That is nonsense. The cells have absorbed salt and cure ions at a rate that cannot be easily correlated with the amount of water absorbed. Osmosis is a beetch.


I am happy with Martin's logic and his calculation however you have hit precisely on one of the areas that worries me. It does make the assumption that the Nitrite is absorbed by uniform passive diffusion. Many years ago I worked in pharmaceutical research and am aware just how selective cells can be with what they actively take up and what they can block. I only worked with living cells though and I have no idea what the situation will be with a slab of "dead" pork. Some quantitative reassurance that there is no active biological mechanism where Nitrite is selectively accumulated within the cells would be comforting.


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

Bama BBQ said:


> Wade,
> 
> I have found over the years, information is passed down as factual knowledge.  When someone wants to question the knowledge to determine if they are truly facts they run into resistance.  (e.g. The World is FLAT!)
> 
> ...


Thanks Bama - I will take a look. It may be in there.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

I think the issue here boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of an ingoing nitrite limit.
Obviously, every piece of meat is different, every piece of meat may absorb ingredients differently. I don't think anyone will argue with that.
The reality is that you can't do an indepth scientific analysis of every piece of cured meat.
So, with that in mind and for practicality, the government has set an ingoing nitrite limit (that it has deemed safe)  and the method to calculate compliance with that limit.


----------



## daveomak (Jan 19, 2015)

Wade said:


> I am happy with Martin's logic and his calculation however you have hit precisely on one of the areas that worries me. It does make the assumption that the Nitrite is absorbed by uniform passive diffusion. Many years ago I worked in pharmaceutical research and am aware just how selective cells can be with what they actively take up and what they can block. I only worked with living cells though and I have no idea what the situation will be with a slab of "dead" pork. Some quantitative reassurance that there is no active biological mechanism where Nitrite is selectively accumulated within the cells would be comforting.


OK.... now put your head around a previously frozen piece of meat where the cell walls have been ruptured from ice crystals....


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

Let us not turn this thread into a confrontation from any side. On the surface the calculation contains "sound" logic however it does appear to rely on the big assumption that the Nitrite uptake is directly proportional to the weight increase. This has not been clarified yet - however if we can find a government reference (or other reputable scientific paper) that confirms that this is the way to calculate the Nitrite uptake, then we would need to take that as said. If not, then I think the jury still needs to be out on this one.


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

DaveOmak said:


> OK.... now put your head around a previously frozen piece of meat where the cell walls have been ruptured from ice crystals....


Now that would probably make the assumption more likely to hold true I think. Not all of the cells may be ruptured though so may even add to the uncertainty.


----------



## daveomak (Jan 19, 2015)

Pops has mentioned, in an old thread where....   The USDA or FDA did testing on their curing solutions and uptakes and certified them as either SAFE or GRAS....  I can't remember....  but the analysis of the meat met their "nitrite uptake criteria"....


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

DaveOmak said:


> Pops has mentioned, in an old thread where....   The USDA or FDA did testing on their curing solutions and uptakes and certified them as either SAFE or GRAS....  I can't remember....  but the analysis of the meat met their "nitrite uptake criteria"....


So now comes the task of finding which one of his 5.5K posts that it is in - LOL


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

There are any number of published papers or books on the subject of nitrite/nitriate and meat curing, but again, one must understand the concept of calculable ingoing nitrite for regulatory purposes..
It's not a measure of the actual nitrite in the meat, the only way to determine that is through laboratory analysis.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

For some explanation (and sources) on how regulatory nitrite/nitrate limits were determined, see the following.......

The Health Effects of Nitrate and N-Nitrso Compounds 548 pages.


Happy reading!!! :smile:


----------



## wade (Jan 20, 2015)

Bama BBQ said:


> Wade,
> 
> I have found over the years, information is passed down as factual knowledge.  When someone wants to question the knowledge to determine if they are truly facts they run into resistance.  (e.g. The World is FLAT!)
> 
> Len Poli has some pretty good stuff on the subject.  About 3/4 of the way down on the linked page the discussion on pickling cure starts.  He cites his sources for your own investigation.  I hope this helps.  Enjoy!  http://lpoli.50webs.com/page0001.htm


Lots of good information there. I have checked out the site before however I have now taken a closer look at his references. Unfortunately his one about nitrite is inconsistent with what he is saying in the text... In the text he is quoting that in CFR Title 9 318.7 

"_Parts per million (ppm) of restricted curing ingredients *permitted in curing solutions*... Sodium or Potassium Nitrite 220/120 ppm in bacon_"

What the CFR actually says is...

"_The use of nitrites, nitrates, or combination shall not result in more than 200 parts per million of nitrite, calculated as sodium nitrite,* in finished product*_"

Which unfortunately is not necessarily the same thing.


DiggingDogFarm said:


> As I explained in the other thread, the only way to know for sure is to weigh.
> The 10% that was used in the equation *IS NOT* an assumption of what actual pick-up or gain will be, but in that example, we know that, *AT* 10% gain, we're within the limit.
> The greater the gain. the higher the ppm nitrite.
> 
> So, either pull it at 10% or calculate the maximum amount of gain that's within the 200ppm limit and pull it then.


Now an interesting thing that is included in the same regulation is that the stronger brine using a figure of 10% is mentioned. However ONLY in the context of *brine pumped* bacon

"_2 lb to 100 gal pickle *at 10 percent pump level*_". This, like dry curing, would effectively deliver a known amount of the cure to a known amount of meat with no risk of exceeding the desired Nitrite levels. There is no mention of immersing in a 10 x concentrated brine until there is a 10% increase in weight though.

Martin, is it possible that you are mixing up the 2 methods and applying the concentrated pump brine calculations with the immersion cure, on the assumption that a 10% increase in water take up with immersion is equivalent to a 10% increase due to pumped brine?

Thanks for your other reference too. If you know that your method is described in there could you point me to the relevant pages? As you say there are over 500 pages and I started reading in bed last night but kept falling asleep


----------



## wade (Jan 20, 2015)

DiggingDogFarm said:


> For some explanation (and sources) on how regulatory nitrite/nitrate limits were determined, see the following.......
> 
> The Health Effects of Nitrate and N-Nitrso Compounds 548 pages.
> 
> ...


I had another crack at the first part of it this morning and the part that discusses "Methods of adding Nitrite to meat products" does not seem to discuss weight increase using the immersion technique. https://archive.org/stream/healtheffectsofn004248mbp#page/n59/mode/2up

I will continue reading though as it contains lots of great general information.







Points for sharing such an interesting reference


----------



## wade (Jan 20, 2015)

Until we get positive credible confirmation that the assumptions used in this technique are valid I think we should be very careful in suggesting on this forum that it is used. The basic questions that I have at the moment are:

The assumption that the only uptake of Nitrite will be that which is directly proportional with the weight increase of the meat. This does not seem to take into account:

Simple diffusion of the highly concentrated brine throughout the existing interstitial meat fluids - thus not necessarily leading to an increase in weight. 
Any selective uptake or blocking of nitrite by intact cells
The effect of large scale cell rupture if meat had previously been frozen - this is likely to increase the effects of simple diffusion
The accuracy of the weighing of the meat when measuring any weight increase that does take place - consistency between weighing

If you do assume that the only uptake of Nitrite is directly proportional to the increased meat weight (??) then a 5% inaccuracy in the weighing would result in a 50% difference in the resulting cure concentration.
No apparent supporting documentation that shows this method reliably produces the expected residual levels of Nitrite in the end product.

I am happy to revise my opinion though if the evidence is forthcoming.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

[QUOTE name="Wade"]
Now an interesting thing that is included in the same regulation is that the stronger brine using a figure of 10% is mentioned. However ONLY in the context of *brine pumped* bacon
"_2 lb to 100 gal pickle *at 10 percent pump level*_". This, like dry curing, would effectively deliver a known amount of the cure to a known amount of meat with no risk of exceeding the desired Nitrite levels. There is no mention of immersing in a 10 x concentrated brine until there is a 10% increase in weight though.

Martin, is it possible that you are mixing up the 2 methods and applying the concentrated pump brine calculations with the immersion cure, on the assumption that a 10% increase in water take up with immersion is equivalent to a 10% increase due to pumped brine?[/quote]

_"*Nitrite in Immersed Products* 
* Method One*
The first method assumes that the meat or poultry absorbs not more than the level of
nitrite in the cover pickle. *Hence, the calculation for nitrite is based on the green weight
of the meat or poultry (as is the case with pumped products), but uses percent pick-up as
the percent pump.* The percent pick-up is the total amount of cover pickle absorbed by
the meat or poultry. It is used in the calculation for immersion cured products in the same
way percent pump is used in the (previous) calculation for pumped products."_

PICH, Page 22


[QUOTE name="Wade"]
Thanks for your other reference too. If you know that your method is described in there could you point me to the relevant pages?[/quote]

My method? What do you mean?


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

Wade said:


> Until we get positive credible confirmation that the assumptions used in this technique are valid I think we should be very careful in suggesting on this forum that it is used. The basic questions that I have at the moment are:
> 
> The assumption that the only uptake of Nitrite will be that which is directly proportional with the weight increase of the meat. This does not seem to take into account:
> 
> ...



I said that the book contains SOME relevant information, not all the information.
I think you'll need to contact the FDA and the FSIS directly and ask them to back-up their rules and regulations.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

Or contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency...Canadian rules and regulations are similar....

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/me...-4/annex-c/eng/1370525150531/1370525354148#c2


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

Wade said:


> Until we get positive credible confirmation that the assumptions used in this technique are valid I think we should be very careful in suggesting on this forum that it is used. The basic questions that I have at the moment are:
> 
> The assumption that the only uptake of Nitrite will be that which is directly proportional with the weight increase of the meat. This does not seem to take into account:
> 
> ...



On what credible basis do you assume that all this wasn't taken into account when nitrite/nitrate limits were set?


----------



## wade (Jan 20, 2015)

DiggingDogFarm said:


> _"*Nitrite in Immersed Products*
> *Method One*
> The first method assumes that the meat or poultry absorbs not more than the level of
> nitrite in the cover pickle. *Hence, the calculation for nitrite is based on the green weight
> ...


Thanks Martin, this does address one of the questions. It does not confirm the main assumption regarding weight increase being proportionate to Nitrite intake though. All that this is confirming is that the meat will not accumulate Nitrite to greater concentrations than is in the brine. That is good - however that just limits the total uptake by the meat to the concentration of the brine - which is *much* higher than the desired end residual Nitrite levels.


> I said that the book contains SOME relevant information, not all the information.
> I think you'll need to contact the FDA and the FSIS directly and ask them to back-up their rules and regulations.





> Or contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency...Canadian rules and regulations are similar....
> 
> http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/me...-4/annex-c/eng/1370525150531/1370525354148#c2


Unfortunately the link you provided above does not seem to support the assumption that the increased weight caused by immersion is proportional to the Nitrite uptake. The only references to weight increase being used in the calculations are for injected brine - which would make sense.

You have mentioned a couple of times that I should contact various agencies regarding the questions I have about the cure calculation that you posted. I think I am doing my best to ascertain that the calculation you posted is valid - however it is you who are posting it, and therefore I would assume that you already have the published evidence to hand to back it up. All I am doing is asking to be pointed to it.

Cheers

Wade


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

Wade,

It's the policy of this forum that in cases of food safety FDA and USDA rules and the like be followed...or at least recommended.
Nitrate/nitrite limits have been posted here countless times. They are the regulators' numbers, not my numbers, and only the regulators can back those numbers up.
If you're not comfortable with that then maybe you should do your own research and set your own limits.


----------



## wade (Jan 20, 2015)

DiggingDogFarm said:


> Wade,
> 
> It's the policy of this forum that in cases of food safety FDA or USDA rules and the like be followed...or at least recommended.
> Nitrate/nitrite limits have been posted here countless times. They are the regulator's numbers, not my numbers, and only the regulators can back those numbers up.
> If you're not comfortable with that then maybe you should do your own research and set your own limits.


That is absolutely correct. _*I have no question about the published limits*_. It is the method and calculation that you posted that I am questioning - and the more I have looked into it the more concerned I am becoming. It is making a *big* assumption regarding the weight increase of the meat while it is in the brine being directly proportional to the amount of Nitrite that is in the meat - and therefore the residual nitrite in the end product. When using such high concentrations of brine, logic suggests that simple diffusion would play a significant role in final Nitrite levels and this is not necessarily related to any increase in weight of the meat. Without any evidence to the contrary it would appear likely that this method/calculation could result in significantly *higher* concentrations of residual Nitrite than the published limits permit.

As your calculation for residual Nitrite appears to be based in part on the increase in meat weight while it is in the brine, I am simply asking for credible evidence that this is actually the care. All the evidence I have seen so far relates only to injected brine techniques and not for immersion.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

There's a lot to this Wade, and yes, it's certainly possible that more than 200ppm of nitrite will be absorbed into the meat (or that more nitrite will be in the meat due to reduction of nitrate....700ppm ingoing nitrate in permitted in immersion cured products), but let's not forget that immersion curing takes time and that the nitrite begins reducing with the curing action.
Permitted residual nitrite is 200ppm. The only way to confirm residual nitrite is through laboratory analysis.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 20, 2015)

How long does it usually take for the meat to pick up 10% in weight?


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

That depends on lot of different factors....concentration of the brine, temperature, composition of the piece of meat and how it's cut, etc.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 20, 2015)

DiggingDogFarm said:


> That depends on lots of factors....concentration of the brine, temperature, composition of the piece of meat and how it's cut, etc.



For a belly, full strength brine (4oz/gallon)...roughly 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks?

Once is at 10% what's next? Smoke? Or does it have to wait for the curing process to be completed?


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

Depends on the belly. Weighing is the way to go.


----------



## wade (Jan 20, 2015)

Ok so are we agreeing that using this method we do not actually know how much residual Nitrite is in the meat at the end of the cure and that we do not know of any credible sources that have actually tested it?

The original Prague Powder #1 thread was only dealing with Nitrite but I agree that I have not specifically stated only Nitrite in this thread. Even if we do consider Nitrate as well it still does not alter the permissible Nitrite limits.

It just concerns me that with this method there are a lot of potential unknowns.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

I use 156ppm for almost everything...and I don't think twice about it. :biggrin:


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 20, 2015)

DiggingDogFarm said:


> I use 156ppm for almost everything...and I don't think twice about it. :biggrin:


That's what you aim for, but with the full strength brine are you sure that is what you get?


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 20, 2015)

I don't immersion brine cure anymore and even if I did, I have no reason to worry, I don't fear nitrite the way some folks do.
If one is scared of immersion curing, then maybe the use of a cure accelerator will put one's mind at ease, maybe!!!!
Or, use a different method of curing.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 20, 2015)

Wade said:


> Ok so are we agreeing that using this method we do not actually know how much residual Nitrite is in the meat at the end of the cure and that we do not know of any credible sources that have actually tested it?
> ....
> 
> It just concerns me that with this method there are a lot of potential unknowns.



I agree. In my opinion it shouldn't be recommended for home use especially after seeing it in many places presented without the advice on weight pickup monitoring. People might assume 10% is what the meat will pick up regardless of length of time in brine. The handbook says briskets are allowed 20% so I imagine much higher pick up is possible.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 20, 2015)

Wade,

Is nitrate (not nitrite) commonly used in UK (and EU)? My impression was it's rarely used due to unpredictability of the nitrate-nitrite conversion.


----------



## wade (Jan 20, 2015)

Yes. Both Nitrate and Nitrite are permitted in commercial cured meats in Europe, including bacon. I only use Nitrite in bacon though. We have too many traditional regional preserved meat products in all corners of the European Union who have been using Nitrate since before the beginning of time that I think the EU would have a problem if they tried to ban its use. A lot of the local independent producers in the UK are now proudly stating that theirs is Nitrate free, however I don't think that many end customers really understand the difference between Nitrite and Nitrate. The dilemma is whether to put it on the ingredients list as "Nitrite" or "E250" as both are looked upon with lack of understanding and suspicion!


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 20, 2015)

Wade said:


> Yes. Both Nitrate and Nitrite are permitted in commercial cured meats in Europe, including bacon. I only use Nitrite in bacon though. We have too many traditional regional preserved meat products in all corners of the European Union who have been using Nitrate since before the beginning of time that I think the EU would have a problem if they tried to ban its use. A lot of the local independent producers in the UK are now proudly stating that theirs is Nitrate free, however I don't think that many end customers really understand the difference between Nitrite and Nitrate. The dilemma is whether to put it on the ingredients list as "Nitrite" or "E250" as both are looked upon with lack of understanding and suspicion!


The Es are clearly the scare over the pond. People bend over backwards to avoid them even when they are harmless or even beneficial (E-101 vitamin B2).


----------



## pops6927 (Jan 22, 2015)

Wow, sounds like a bunch of mad scientists debating the Theory Of Everything!  
	

	
	
		
		



		
			






First off, all pork products are previously frozen and thawed in the US; frozen for 30 days minimum to kill trich.  This is why the government was able to issue newer temp guidelines on cooking raw pork; any commercially-raised pork has that.  Home-raised pork, not previously frozen, needs to follow the older temp regs or freeze for 30 days or more, and most certainly wild pork, laden with pathogens, the same.  

I know my dad had his cured and smoked meats sampled and tested by NYS every month for over 40 years, and his curing was deemed safe.  He immersed his bacons and anything under 2" thick, and pumped anything more than 2" thick, then immersed.  HIS curing time was 21 to 45 days, ave. 30 days, for everything.  He had an entire filing cabinet, and boxes downstairs, of reports from the State Lab in Albany that analyzed his cured meat products.  Inspectors had told me that they broke down the product and could tell exactly how long it had been cured, smoked, cooked, final temp reached, chemical analysis of ingredients, and so on and so on. 

I did my own testing trying to re-create his curing methods for over a year, running many batches, until I got the lowest effective curing amount over a 1 - 30 day curing process that did the job.  I remember reading some of my dad's notes from the 40's, his attempts and failures.  He'd cure in earthen crocks in the store cellar, and use different combinations of ingredients.  One common problem was getting the cure around the bone until he discovered how to inject the brine into the meat.  Another was stippling; whereas the meat would have cured and uncured dots all through it; he was using salt peter.  Upgrading to sodium nitrite solved that problem.

Dad's argument to the Gov't was that he could use less cure for a longer time and achieve the same results but with a more tender, less chemical, taste.  The Gov't concurred that, in highly competitive markets, that you could cure essentially in 2 or 3 days using the maximum cure allowed; but using ¼ the cure could still be done effectively over a longer period of time, so that is what I went on, and that is what my "Pop's Brine" is based on.  It is safe, does the job, tenderizes the meat, and you don't have to worry about exceeding the limits of maximum cure.  

As far as 10% pump goes, that is what is normally injected into a piece of pork before it leaks out; basically all it can hold.  You increase the weight by 10%.  That is not the important part.  It is the curing properties of the brine determines the outcome of the product.  My brine is safe enough it can be injected as much as you want and it will work but not over-cure the product, making it toxic and inedible.  

I get my information from Butcher Packer on brine strength:













Cure no 1.jpg



__ pops6927
__ Jan 22, 2015






Per gallon maximum equates to 3.84 oz. per gallon of water.  One ounce is approximately a heaping tablespoon by my scale, a level tablespoon is .88 oz.  So, 1 tablespoon per gallon of water is a fair measurement that will not toxify the meat or even come close.  I have zero chemical analyses to back this up; it is common sense and proven that it will cure the meat effectively and no, don't have the ppm or anything else.  It is safe, it works, that's all I need to know.

I do add additional ingredients; i.e. plain salt and sugars or sugar substitutes, but this is in addition to the cure concentration, not in conjunction with it and not affecting the concentration levels.  I first put in the curing salt, then add the water by gallon measurement, then add the additional ingredients.  These are to your taste preference.

In other words, it is not rocket science, it is curing meat safely and effectively and has a safety factor of not going to the maximum, to have patience and curing for a longer period of time with a milder brine.  Although debating fervently on this subject is entertaining and bordering on the subjective measure of patience (or, rather, impatience),  it proves nothing whatsoever and again I discourage doing it, just raises temperatures in body heat and mouth-frothing.   Let's all relax and enjoy curing and smoking meats by whatever methods used, discourage fervent debates, and most importantly helping others to understand not to exceed maximum levels for their own safety and well-being.  This, as members, is all our obligations to our newer guests and members.


----------



## inkjunkie (Jan 22, 2015)

After reading, more like attempting to, this I am half tempted to bail on my upcoming bacon attempt.


----------



## bladebuilder (Jan 22, 2015)

Well spoken Pops! I have read every word of this thread. I am by no means well versed in the subject, nor scientifically backed, but as an intelligent bystander, trying to quantify an exact formula with a natural product is gonna end in frustration and headaches caused by the ingestion of too many grain based, fermented/distilled beverages! Consider some of the variables... Temperature, meat density (fat percentage, muscle density, meat thickness) ambient air density/pressure, times, elevation, hell even moon phase and position (it affects the ocean, why not a bucket of brine?? All will have an effect on the process' out come.

I agree there is a difference between government guidelines from different countries. Understanding where/how they came up with their numbers, and if those levels are indeed safe, is a worthy quest for sure. Do you trust everything your government says? Me? Not so much. I would however put more weight into results from independent labs, using proper testing methods, and yielding results and recommendations medically safe. The maximum/minimum range of acceptable levels are as they are to account for variables, the way I read into it, to be able to say "I have 143 ppm nitrites in my bacon, because I used "X" weight of "Y" ingredients in my "Z" weight of meat is a hopeful result. It aint gonna happen!! I don't over think it! I am confident, that in a given piece of meat, samples taken along its length or thickness, from the fat, or the lean meat portions, will not have the same ppm. It will likely be in a range of plus or minus, but will never be exactly the same throughout. Too many variables.

What I am concerned with, and I expect others are, is if 200 ppm is deemed safe by lets say the US government regulatory body, but another governments values say "xxx" ppm is acceptable. I what to know what the long term effects of operating on the high side of either of those numbers could be. I'm sure the test results are there somewhere. And the process used to obtain those values. But I have a feeling that the results will show that a lot of samples were tested using the same inputs and processes, ending in a resultant range of plus or minus results that fall within the "deemed acceptable" levels, and then the published results are just an average range of the results if the methods and quantities laid out are followed.

I am enjoying the read none the less, and am curious as to where it leads. :)

EDITED: Didin't want a statement intended as a variable, assumed to be factual.


----------



## daveomak (Jan 22, 2015)

Thanks Pops......    I looked for that for 2 hours the other day......     I've got it copied now.......

Dave


----------



## susieqz (Jan 22, 2015)

yow! you guys are all master chemists. i'm not sure i understand what i'm reading but i'm doing it in the hope some of this skill rubs off.


----------



## wade (Jan 22, 2015)

Thanks Pops. That is a good explanation of your cure. One of my concerns from the original thread was the suggested usage of cure that was 1715 Ppm Nitrite to end up with a residual Nitrite Ppm of 171.5 and to do this you left the meat in the cure until the meat had increased in weight by 10% - however I see that reference to the weight increase now seems to have been removed from the thread.

Just for my own piece of mind I have contacted my local food testing laboratory and am about to do some comparative cures and have them lab tested for residual Nitrite Ppm. Pops - as you mentioned that you had not had any chemical analysis done on your current method, would you mind if I also included it as one of the cures? 

I will publish the methodology on here for comment before I start  and then publish the lab results at the end. From what has been said I am fully expecting the 10% uptake rule to be confirmed, however this would help to further confirm it.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 22, 2015)

Tip of the head gear to you Wade for being inquisitive and be ready to offer time and personal expense for the benefit of others. Saw the "smoked salmon" study. Looking forward to this.


----------



## bladebuilder (Jan 22, 2015)

Looking for ward to the results!


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 22, 2015)

Bladebuilder said:


> .... but another governments values say 500 ppm is acceptable.




What government?


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 22, 2015)

Wade said:


> One of my concerns from the original thread was the suggested usage of cure that was 1715 Ppm Nitrite to end up with a residual Nitrite Ppm of 171.5 and to do this you left the meat in the cure until the meat had increased in weight by 10% - however I see that reference to the weight increase now seems to have been removed from the thread.




What was removed and in exactly what post?


----------



## bladebuilder (Jan 22, 2015)

No government in particular, and 500 could have been another number. It was to be taken as a variable, not a specific. I can adjust my post if you like.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 22, 2015)

It's up to you, it's your post.

You posted....


Bladebuilder said:


> I agree there is a huge difference between government guidelines from different countries.



And then posted...


Bladebuilder said:


> ....if 200 ppm is deemed safe by lets say the US government regulatory body, but another governments values say 500 ppm is acceptable.




There are differences, but in most cases I wouldn't call those differences "huge" and just because one limit is higher than another doesn't mean that the higher limit is unsafe.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 22, 2015)

Pops,

From your post
"First off, all pork products are previously frozen and thawed in the US; frozen for 30 days minimum to kill trich.  This is why the government was able to issue newer temp guidelines on cooking raw pork; any commercially-raised pork has that.  "

Huh? Are you sure? Even "fresh" labelled cuts? That people take home and might freeze again?

Trichinosis is eliminated if the pork is cooked at 145, no need to freeze the meat.


----------



## bladebuilder (Jan 22, 2015)

DiggingDogFarm said:


> It's up to you, it's your post.
> 
> You posted....
> 
> ...


Post edited. I also said "I what to know what the long term effects of operating on the high side of either of those numbers could be." I didn't say unsafe.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 22, 2015)

Yes, I said unsafe.
I would also say that the question of safety is implied.


----------



## bladebuilder (Jan 22, 2015)

Of course its implied. That is the whole basis of the thread is it not?

You also said "I use 156ppm for almost everything...and I don't think twice about it. 
	

	
	
		
		



		
			






" Prove it!

This is my point. You cant. You can calculate and work to achive results in that range based on past published data. but there are too many variables for you or anybody to say "156 ppm" You are aiming to be close to that, but I'm bloody well confident you won't hit it.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 22, 2015)

Prove that I don't think twice about it???
I didn't come here to prove anything.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 22, 2015)

Bladebuilder said:


> ....I'm bloody well confident you won't hit it.




Again folks are not understanding the concept of calculable ingoing nitrite.

And again...someone comes along who assumes that the regulators haven't taken the variables in account when the set the limits.

This is beating a dead horse! Every so often someone comes along thinking that they're real smart and that NO ONE has ever thought about the concerns that they're thinking about!!! 

These questions have been asked many times before, folks! 

It's essentially being alleged that the regulators ignored the concerns presented here...with ZERO proof that has happened!!!!!!!


----------



## bladebuilder (Jan 22, 2015)

So why is that thread turning into a sh!t flinging exercise?

For what its worth, I have no proof of anything, nor does anybody here. We are all working with products, and trying to hold to published, tested values, in an effort to do things safely. I don't want any bad blood.

Wade is trying to find published data. Great. He is in a different country with different published safe limits. This forum maintains the US published values. Great. So will I.

And again...someone comes along who assumes that the regulators haven't taken the variables in account when the set the limits.
Don't assume I believe the regulators haven't considered the variables. I understand that quite well... They have set "LIMITS" They have said that if a process is used, and the amounts used are accurate, the finished product will be within those "LIMITS"

It's essentially being alleged that the regulators ignored the concerns presented here...with ZERO proof that has happened!!!!!!! Who made this allegation? Essentially?

If I somehow offended you, that was not my intent. I respect your opinion, and input on the forum. But don't understand the argumentative tangent this thread is heading down.


----------



## susieqz (Jan 22, 2015)

play nice, kids.


----------



## pc farmer (Jan 22, 2015)

susieqz said:


> play nice, kids.



I agree.   Be level headed adults.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 22, 2015)

I don't understand the argument either.
It wasn't my idea.
It seems to have started in retaliation to a post I made in another thread.
Tests will be completed and results will be spewed (as they've been in the past)...but unless the REGULATORS are directly confronted to defend their limits and methods...we won't have the answers that some seek.

:deadhorse:


----------



## inkjunkie (Jan 22, 2015)




----------



## wade (Jan 22, 2015)

DiggingDogFarm said:


> It seems to have started in retaliation to a post I made in another thread.





Bladebuilder said:


> Wade is trying to find published data. Great. He is in a different country with different published safe limits. This forum maintains the US published values. Great. So will I.


As this is a US based forum I too respect the US published values. In most cases they are pretty similar anyway. 

There is no "retaliation" here Martin. I was simply asking for the published data to support what appears/appeared to be a curing method based upon the collective wisdom of other forum posts. Some of my questions have been answered by the links to the excellent references you and others have given - but others have not. I am not questioning the validity of the regulator's limits, simply the methodology and assumptions described here for the immersion cure method and how we know that the published limits are being adhered to. The assumed 10% cure uptake with the immersion method still appears to be a published documentation grey area and I have not seen where the regulators confirm that this is the case - but maybe I have just missed it..

Even Pops, who is regarded as the definitive voice of curing on here, says in his post that he has no chemical analysis to show what the cure Ppm levels are following his current methods -  "It is safe, it works, that's all I need to know".

You mention Martin that "Tests will be completed and results will be spewed (as they've been in the past)..". Could you point me to one of these other tests as it may give me some useful background information as a starting point.


----------



## pops6927 (Jan 22, 2015)

Wade said:


> .
> 
> Even Pops, who is regarded as the definitive voice of curing on here, says in his post that he has no chemical analysis to show what the cure Ppm levels are following his current methods -  "It is safe, it works, that's all I need to know".


I don't, but my dad had 40 years of monthly testing verifying ¼ amount of maximum cure is sufficient and approved - for all that, "....that's all I need to know".  

Gentlemen, PLEASE calm the rhetoric down and play nice as respectful members.  Intelligent discussions are WONDERFUL; ignorant, rude, disrespectful and argumentative ones are not and can not be further allowed to continue.  Thank you for delving into this so deeply, probably far deeper than necessary, but keep it simple, respectful and intelligent.


----------



## pops6927 (Jan 24, 2015)

[h3]  [/h3]

Y'all are taking the ppm from the measurement of curing salt to water.  However, one thing you're forgetting.  Curing salt is 93.75% plain salt; only 6.25% is nitrite.  You must refigure your ppm by the amount of nitrite only, not curing salt total.  This brings all calculations into alignment.  Once your curing brine concentration is sufficient to do the job, then it will always be the same concentration.  To round it off, instead of 3.84 oz. of curing salt, let's just use 4 ounces of curing salt to 1 gallon of brine is maximum cure.  Now, if I use ¼ of that amount, then the brine will always be that concentration amount.  Nothing will change that concentration.  So that is how I know for a certainty that my curing brine does not, and will not, exceed safe levels of concentration.  The only way to do that is to increase the amount added or to reduce the amount of water it is being added to.

Secondly, the obsession with the "10% pump" is irrelevant.  When you add curing brine to meat, the absorption is going to happen.  A "10% pump" is a calculated figure that pork will hold approx. 10% more weight by pumping in the brine so it's curing from the inside-out as well as the outside-in so it won't spoil, but the concentration of nitrite to water doesn't change.  The concentration is, and will always be, the same.  The 10% pump is for what weight is added, not the brine concentration.  In other words, if you add 10% weight to the product during curing, you need to remove 10% weight during cooking or the product will be deemed "water-added".  That is all it is.  Different cooking methods will extract water from the processing in different amounts.  That is why there is 10%, 20%, even 30% water-added cooked ham products for deli slicing use.  (30% you can almost wring out the slices of cooked ham before putting it in your sandwich, lol!).  You are not increasing or decreasing the ppm concentration of the curing brine, that remains constant.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 24, 2015)

From pops
"Y'all are taking the ppm from the measurement of curing salt to water.  However, one thing you're forgetting.  Curing salt is 93.75% plain salt; only 6.25% is nitrite.  You must refigure your ppm by the amount of nitrite only, not curing salt total.  This brings all calculations into alignment. "
-----

We did take into account the fact that nitrite is only 6.25%.

4oz/gallon, 3 gallons, 13lbs of meat
4x3x28gx0.0625/(3x3800+13x454+4x3x28)=
1191ppm.


----------



## susieqz (Jan 24, 2015)

pops, thanks. at last, something i understand !


----------



## daveomak (Jan 24, 2015)

atomicsmoke said:


> From pops
> "Y'all are taking the ppm from the measurement of curing salt to water. However, one thing you're forgetting. Curing salt is 93.75% plain salt; only 6.25% is nitrite. You must refigure your ppm by the amount of nitrite only, not curing salt total. This brings all calculations into alignment. "We did take into account the fact that nitrite is only 6.25%.
> 
> 4oz/gallon, 3 gallons, 13lbs of meat
> ...


4 x 28.3 (gms in 1 ounce)  x  0.0625 % = 7.07gms nitrite

3 galx 8.35 #'s/gal = 25#'s + 13#'s = 38#'s x 454 = 17,250 gms....   

7.07 / 17,250 = .000410  ...   or *410 Ppm *.......

If my numbers are correct.....  Did I forget anything ????


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 24, 2015)

DaveOmak said:


> 4 x 28.3 (gms in 1 ounce)  x  0.0625 % = 7.07gms nitrite
> 
> 3 galx 8.35 #'s/gal = 25#'s + 13#'s = 38#'s x 454 = 17,250 gms....
> 
> ...



4oz cure/gallon x 3 gallons if brine =12 oz of cure


----------



## daveomak (Jan 24, 2015)

I didn't know it was 4 oz. PER gallon....  I thought it was 4 oz. in 3 gallons....


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

Following on from a recent thread on here…

I smoke quite a bit of bacon however I do almost all of it using dry cure. I have wet brined some bacon with mixed success however for this I have been blindly following the recipes of others. 

When dry curing it is straightforward to calculate the maximum possible amount of Nitrite that can be in your bacon as it cannot exceed the total amount added with the cure. If not all of it penetrates then at least you will end up with less than the desired cure and not more.

After my recent wakeup call – where I found that a common commercial brand of cure over here, when used as directed actually exceeded the EU maximum levels for both Nitrite and Nitrate, I am finding myself asking some basic questions again. Also the large differences in the various brines that are quoted (on here and in published curing books) is adding to my unease.

When using an immersion cure there is relatively so much nitrite added to the brine that the potential for exceeding the maximum permitted levels would at least seem a possibility. The calculations all seems to depend on a figure that is being quoted that says you only get a 10-12% take up of cure from the brine into the meat.  I am not currently disputing this is fact but I am just looking for a credible scientific source where this has been quantitatively demonstrated. 

It is probably staring me in the face and I have just missed it, but if any of you can point me to a credible document/paper where this has been shown to be the case I will feel much more comfortable.

Thanks

Wade


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Use an equilibrium brine and you won't have to worry about it.

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/124590/universal-cure-calculator#post_833396


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

That is an option certainly - even if a little patronising. I think what is more important than me personally worrying about it is that we need to fully understand the brining calculations being quoted on here, and so it would be good to have some credible quantitative evidence that show that the 10-12% figure being used is a valid assumption. If it is there will be some credible published evidence out there somewhere to support this. I am just asking for a link to it.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

As I explained in the other thread, the only way to know for sure is to weigh.
The 10% that was used in the equation *IS NOT* an assumption of what actual pick-up or gain will be, but in that example, we know that, *AT* 10% gain, we're within the limit.
The greater the gain. the higher the ppm nitrite.

So, either pull it at 10% or calculate the maximum amount of gain that's within the 200ppm limit and pull it then.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Maximum % pick-up (or gain) = (200ppm x total weight of the brine solution ÷ weight of the nitrite x 1,000,000) x100

So, using the numbers from the other thread.....

200 x 14456=2891200
24.8 x 1000000=24800000
2891200 ÷ 24800000= 0.11658064516
0.11658064516 x 100=*11.67% gain*, maximum, to stay within the 200ppm nitrite limit.


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

OK Martin. I understand what your calculations are saying. They do assume though that the 10% gain weight is equivalent to a corresponding 10% uptake of Nitrite, and that there is no active accumulation of Nitrite within the cells themselves nor selective blocking from it crossing the cell membranes.

If you are assuring us that the diffusion throughout the meat mass is uniform then that is great - but some published quantitative conformation that this is the case would be reassuring.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Simply put, it's the government's nitrite limit and the government's equations to determine compliance with that limit.
They set the limits based on science.


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

That's great to hear. If you can post up the link to the government site where this calculation is specified then that would be great and my question will be answered. 
	

	
	
		
		



		
			






Cheers

Wade


----------



## bama bbq (Jan 19, 2015)

Wade,

I have found over the years, information is passed down as factual knowledge.  When someone wants to question the knowledge to determine if they are truly facts they run into resistance.  (e.g. The World is FLAT!)

Len Poli has some pretty good stuff on the subject.  About 3/4 of the way down on the linked page the discussion on pickling cure starts.  He cites his sources for your own investigation.  I hope this helps.  Enjoy!  http://lpoli.50webs.com/page0001.htm

I normally dry cure my bacon.  What I find interesting is if only 10% of the cure is absorbed in a pickling cure that sounds like an awful lot of wasted cure (90%).


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 19, 2015)

Wade said:


> I am just looking for a credible scientific source where this has been quantitatively demonstrated.


Me too.

The only official source referenced ad nauseam everywhere I looked was the Processing Inspectors Handbook. Which surprise-surprise lists two formulas/methods for the same immersion process - see at the bottom. One is the intuitive formula, the other one uses the mysterious pickup factor. So...same process can give you two different nitrite levels in meat. Which is malarkey obviously. 

The first method (the one using the 10% pickup) is meant for large pieces of meat that will not reach equilibrium in the short time the assembly line processors afford. The second one is a equilibrium method, where the meat stays in brine until the nitrite level in meat equalizes the level in the brine.

So if you use the a brine like in the other thread and leave the meat in long enough you could reach over 1000ppm in the meat. That would be a nice red piece of meat. Ofcourse someone could argue: don't wait for equilibrium, pull the meat out at 10% weight gain.  The assumption being the only nitrite in meat is in the 10% brined absorbed. That is nonsense. The cells have absorbed salt and cure ions at a rate that cannot be easily correlated with the amount of water absorbed. Osmosis is a beetch.

Here it is the excerpt from the handbook:

*Nitrite in Immersed Products*

In immersion curing, the submerged meat or poultry absorbs the cover pickle solution, slowly,

over a long period of time. There are two recognized methods for calculating the allowable

ingoing amount of nitrite in immersion cured products. The method used depends on the

mechanism of movement of nitrite within the meat and/or poultry/pickle system and into the meat,

meat byproduct, or poultry tissue itself.

! *Method One*

The first method assumes that the meat or poultry absorbs not more than the level of

nitrite in the cover pickle. Hence, the calculation for nitrite is based on the green weight

of the meat or poultry (as is the case with pumped products), but uses percent pick-up as

the percent pump. The percent pick-up is the total amount of cover pickle absorbed by

the meat or poultry. It is used in the calculation for immersion cured products in the same

way percent pump is used in the (previous) calculation for pumped products.

< *Calculation Formula *(using % pick-up)

lb nitrite × % pick-up × 1,000,000 = ppm

lb pickle

! *Method Two*

The second method assumes that the submerged meat, meat byproduct, or poultry and the

cover pickle act as a single system. Over time, the ingredients in the pickle, such as nitrite

and salt, migrate into the meat, meat byproduct, and poultry until levels in the tissue and in

the pickle are balanced. This system is actually very complex and dynamic, with

components in constant motion, but it will reach and maintain a state of equilibrium.

Therefore, the calculation for ingoing nitrite is based on the green weight of the meat

block, using the percent added as a relevant amount.

< *Calculation Formula *(using the green weight and pickle weight)

lb nitrite × 1,000,000 = ppm

green weight (lb) meat block + lb pickle


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

*Procesing Inspectors Calculations Handbook*

One must be VERY careful when using the handbook, it's intended for inspection personnel only and not the general public so it's incomplete in terms of some critical information.
Unfortunately, that has led to a LOT of folks misinterpreting some of the information in the handbook.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

As I said, It's easy to find instances of folks not understanding the handbook. :biggrin:


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 19, 2015)

Yeah, this is not about the handbook. Please explain why in an equilibrium (weak) brine the meat picks up a lot more nitrite than the weight gain would explain, but in full strength brine won't. The only difference is the concentration of curing salt, which would even accelerate the osmosis process for the full strength brine.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Let's see your examples.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Jan 19, 2015)

Use the case discussed in the Prague Powder #1 thread yesterday.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

Yeah, we used the ingoing nitrite limit set by the government and the government's equation to determine compliance with that limit.
The equation is just as important as the limit, they go hand in hand.


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

atomicsmoke said:


> The assumption being the only nitrite in meat is in the 10% brined absorbed. That is nonsense. The cells have absorbed salt and cure ions at a rate that cannot be easily correlated with the amount of water absorbed. Osmosis is a beetch.


I am happy with Martin's logic and his calculation however you have hit precisely on one of the areas that worries me. It does make the assumption that the Nitrite is absorbed by uniform passive diffusion. Many years ago I worked in pharmaceutical research and am aware just how selective cells can be with what they actively take up and what they can block. I only worked with living cells though and I have no idea what the situation will be with a slab of "dead" pork. Some quantitative reassurance that there is no active biological mechanism where Nitrite is selectively accumulated within the cells would be comforting.


----------



## wade (Jan 19, 2015)

Bama BBQ said:


> Wade,
> 
> I have found over the years, information is passed down as factual knowledge.  When someone wants to question the knowledge to determine if they are truly facts they run into resistance.  (e.g. The World is FLAT!)
> 
> ...


Thanks Bama - I will take a look. It may be in there.


----------



## diggingdogfarm (Jan 19, 2015)

I think the issue here boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of an ingoing nitrite limit.
Obviously, every piece of meat is different, every piece of meat may absorb ingredients differently. I don't think anyone will argue with that.
The reality is that you can't do an indepth scientific analysis of every piece of cured meat.
So, with that in mind and for practicality, the government has set an ingoing nitrite limit (that it has deemed safe)  and the method to calculate compliance with that limit.


----------



## daveomak (Jan 19, 2015)

Wade said:


> I am happy with Martin's logic and his calculation however you have hit precisely on one of the areas that worries me. It does make the assumption that the Nitrite is absorbed by uniform passive diffusion. Many years ago I worked in pharmaceutical research and am aware just how selective cells can be with what they actively take up and what they can block. I only worked with living cells though and I have no idea what the situation will be with a slab of "dead" pork. Some quantitative reassurance that there is no active biological mechanism where Nitrite is selectively accumulated within the cells would be comforting.


OK.... now put your head around a previously frozen piece of meat where the cell walls have been ruptured from ice crystals....


----------

