# Immersion bacon curing - lab test results



## wade

*The purpose of the testing*

This thread is a summary of several threads about the calculation of cure update when *immersion curing*. These previous threads can be reviewed in full in the following threads:

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/176321/prague-powder-1

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/176415/cure-uptake-with-immersion-brining

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/176954/bacon-curing-validating-the-10-uptake-assumption

There are several immersion curing methods that are regularly quoted on here that use similar methodology - but which use very different initial brine strengths. One of these methods uses a very high initial brine strength (in the range usually associated with injection/pump brining) and relies on a % pickup factor when calculating the final cure concentration in the bacon. The other method uses a relatively low brine strength and relies on an equilibrium of cure being reached between the brine and the meat to achieve the desired final cure concentration.

Each of these brines is being promoted by forum members who are considered by others as being experienced in the process of curing, however as these methods use initial cure concentrations that are so very different from each other it is hard to see how both can achieve results that are within the USDA commercial guidelines for bacon. I have therefore tested both cure methods on two popular cuts of pork and have had the resulting bacon tested at UK government approved food testing laboratory.

*Brine #1*

The first of these curing brines and the applicable calculation is described in the "Prague Powder #1" thread. This uses a brine which is in the region of 10x the expected resulting residual cure strength - which is commonly used for the commercial production of injected/pumped bacon. The calculation then relies on a known %age of the cure in the brine being picked up by the meat whilst it in immersed in the brine. The UDSA Processing Inspectors Calculations Handbook  suggests that this %age is calculated by the increasing weight of the meat as it is immersed in the brine.

Quote from page 22 of the "UDSA Processing Inspectors Calculations Handbook" :

_"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_."
The calculation that it then applied to calculate the resulting Ppm (parts per million) in the bacon is as follows:

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

-------------------------------------------------
        lb pickle

Although there are references to this method in the handbook there appears to be a lack of credible evidence that this actually produces a resulting Ppm in line with the calculation

*Brine #2*

This is an equilibrium brine that is used by Pops6927  and is based upon a lower concentration of a brine that his father used commercially over 20 years ago. This uses a brine strength which is approaching 1/10th the concentration of Brine #1, however, like Brine #1, there appears to be a lack available evidence to demonstrate the resulting residual cure using this method.

*Brine formulations*  

The calculations from the threads use the following conversions when calculating the metric equivalents

1 US gallon = 3.78 litres
1 Cup of sugar = 240 g
1 Cup of salt = 273 g
1 Tbs Cure#1 = 17 g
Cure#1 = 6.25% Nitrite and 93.75% Sal

In the original threads I was showing the cure in mg/Litre however below these have been converted to mg/Kg for the purposes of calculating Ppm

*Brine #1* - as discussed by DDF in the Prague Powder #1 thread

  Per 3.5 US GallonPer 5 LitresCure #114 oz (397 g)150.04 gBrown Sugar2-5/8 cups (630 g)238.1 gSalt3/4 Cup (204 g)77.1 gWater5 Litres5 Kg
Brine #1 has a starting Nitrite concentration of 9.38 g in 5..47 Kg of final brine = 1,716 mg per Kg = 1,716 Ppm

*Brine #2* - Pops Low Salt Brine

  Per US GallonPer 5 litresCure #11 Tbs (17 g)22.49 gBrown Sugar1/2 Cup (120 g)158.7 gWhite Sugar1/2 Cup (120 g)158.7 gSalt1/2 Cup (136.5 g)180.6 g Water5 litres5 Kg
Brine #2 has a starting Nitrite concentration of 1.41 g in 5.52 Kg of final brine = 255 mg per Kg = 255 Ppm

*The method*

Whole pork belly and a whole Pork loin were each taken from a single pig (in order to minimise biological variation) and each of these were cut into joints of roughly 1 Kg each. Each of the brines were then tested using both belly and loin joints. One of each was immersed for 7 days and the other for 14 days. At the beginning of the trial a sample was taken from each of the pork cuts in order to measure any background Nitrite levels occurring naturally in the meat.













Pork in 1Kg cuts.jpg



__ wade
__ Feb 2, 2015





  

Single 20 litre batches of each of the brines were prepared and thoroughly mixed until all of the salts were dissolved and the the solutions were totally clear. 5 litres of the appropriate cure was then put into the curing containers for each pork joint. Each pork joint was cured in its own curing container, which had a tight fitting lid. 













Brine 1.jpg



__ wade
__ Feb 2, 2015


















Pops Brine Brine 2.jpg



__ wade
__ Feb 2, 2015






Samples of each of the brines were then taken and frozen, ready for testing













Cure Samples.jpg



__ wade
__ Feb 2, 2015






Each pork joint was then immersed in 5 Litres of brine which, in these containers, was "just enough to cover it"













Loin in Brine 1.jpg



__ wade
__ Feb 2, 2015


















Belly in Brine 1.jpg



__ wade
__ Feb 2, 2015






The containers were all then stored in the fridge whilst curing. Some of the containers are shown here.













Cure in Fridge.jpg



__ wade
__ Feb 2, 2015






Each day the joints were moved in the brine and the brine was stirred.

After 7 days one of the loins and bellies from each brine were removed from the fridge, rinsed and dried and then placed on a rack in the fridge for 5 days to allow any cure gradient to equalise. A sample of the brine was also frozen for testing. 

After 5 days a meat sample was taken from the centre of each joint which was then frozen ready for testing.

The brine after 7 days looked murky but there were no off smells detectable













Brine 1 Loin 7 days.jpg



__ wade
__ Feb 9, 2015






The same was done for the remaining joints after 14 days.

After 14 days all of the brines were looking decidedly murky with a distinct sediment on the bottom of each container. The smell was slightly meaty but was not unpleasant 













Brine 1 Loin 14 days.jpg



__ wade
__ Feb 16, 2015






*Experimental results*

*Brine**Meat**Days**Brine
Volume**In
Date**In
Weight g**Out
Date**Weight
Resting g**Weight %
Increase**Test Sample
weight (g)*                    #1Loin75 Litres02/02/201597709/02/201510456.96206#1Loin145 Litres02/02/2015109616/02/201511878.30194                    #1Belly75 Litres02/02/2015106109/02/2015117811.03238#1Belly145 Litres02/02/201599716/02/2015115015.35219                    #2Loin75 Litres02/02/201589609/02/20159566.70227#2Loin145 Litres02/02/201593016/02/201510007.53224                    #2Belly75 Litres02/02/2015108609/02/2015121712.06226#2Belly145 Litres02/02/2015102616/02/2015115912.96226                    
*Lab Test Results*

As there is a natural conversion between Nitrite and Nitrate in biological systems, as advised by the testing laboratories, Nitrite and Nitrate were measured in each of the samples order to determine the total cure uptake. 

*Brine #1*

Nitrite/Nitrate concentration in the brine over time. (0, 7 and 14 days)













Brine 1 mg_kg.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 10, 2015


















Brine 1 Weight Increase.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 10, 2015






Resulting cure levels in bacon













Brine 1 Pork Loin mg_Kg.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 10, 2015


















Brine 1 Pork Belly mg_Kg.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 10, 2015






*Brine #2*

Nitrate/Nitrite concentration in the brine over time (0, 7 and 14 days)













Brine 2 mg_kg.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 10, 2015


















Brine 2 Weight Increase.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 10, 2015






Resulting cure levels in bacon













Brine 2 Pork Loin mg_Kg.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 10, 2015


















Brine 2 Pork Belly mg_Kg.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 10, 2015






Summary of uptake. The axes have been adjusted to be the same in both graphs to make it easier to directly compare both of the methods. The horizontal area shaded in green is just for reference and shows the nitrite zone from 40 Ppm to 120 Ppm













Brine 1 extended axes.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 11, 2015


















Brine 2 extended axes.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 11, 2015






*Conclusions from Lab test data*

When immersed the loin and belly joints take up water at different rates - with the belly taking up the most.
Although the cure concentration in the brine reduced over time, the amount by which it reduced was consistent with an equilibrium being reached between the initial 5 litres of brine and the additional 0.7 litres of water from the meat tissues (meat being approximately 70% water)
The resulting cure within the meat using Brine #1 (% take up method) was between 550 Ppm and 600 Ppm after 7 days even though the weight increase was between 8%-11%. This level is 3-4 times the residual cure permitted by the USDA.
The resulting cure within the meat using Brine #2 (Pops equilibrium brine) was between 30 Ppm and 83 Ppm after 7 days and between 86 Ppm and 102 Ppm after 14 days. 14 days of curing in this brine resulted in a cure level which is almost mid point according to the USDA guidelines.

Based upon these test results, although the resulting bacon is unlikely to be harmful if eaten in moderation, the forum should consider carefully whether it is should continue endorsing the Brine #1 method as the resulting levels of cure were several times higher than the maximum USDA recommendations. At a minimum this should probably not be a method that is recommended to members who are new to curing.
Updated to change the word "Cure" to "Brine" in the conclusion to avoid confusion.

Updated to add the additional graphs with the same axis scales


----------



## bladebuilder

Wow!  Thank you Wade for doing this test. I have used Pops brine for all I have wet cured, that certainly hasn't been a lot compared to others here, But I am pleased Pops had it right, and to have it confirmed is bonus! It isn't surprising the results of cure #1 are higher, but I am surprised how high. I'm new to brining/curing. Its comforting to see those numbers. Thanks again.


----------



## daveomak

Good work Wade...


----------



## atomicsmoke

Great work Wade. Thank you for your effort and £ spent.


----------



## kc5tpy

Hello Wade.  You know I am just starting to get into curing.  Thanks for all the hard work and expense you went to to bring us these results.  Just really helpful to see these sort of verified results.  Keep Smokin!

Danny


----------



## pc farmer

Thanks for the time and effort that you put into this.

This proves that pops brine is VERY safe as he said it was.


----------



## JckDanls 07

Kudo's my friend...   I've been following the whole time awaiting results....  "For me", I've always used, and trusted , Pop's brine ...  

I would like to point out one thing Wade... (as to not create any confusion between actual  "cure #1 and cure #2)....  In the "Conclusions from lab test data" ...  could you change the wording so it will say *"Brine #1"* instead of  *"Cure #1"*  and then the same with *Brine #2* instead of *"CURE #2" *    .....     See where there could be possible confusion ??


Thumbs Up


----------



## supplysergeant

Many thanks Wade. I know this cost you quite a bit in time, money, and frustration. It is very comforting to have this type of data available. I'll sleep better knowing I'm feeding my family safe products.


----------



## bombdawgity

Wade, 
I would also like to say thank you. I followed the other thread and was glad to see you started a new one for the outcome. Thanks again for taking the initiative/time/money to research this. I've learned several things from this study.
Kyle


----------



## wade

JckDanls 07 said:


> Kudo's my friend... I've been following the whole time awaiting results.... "For me", I've always used, and trusted , Pop's brine ...
> 
> I would like to point out one thing Wade... (as to not create any confusion between actual "cure #1 and cure #2).... In the "Conclusions from lab test data" ... could you change the wording so it will say *"Brine #1"* instead of *"Cure #1"* and then the same with *Brine #2* instead of *"CURE #2" * ..... See where there could be possible confusion ??


Thanks for spotting that. I have updated it


----------



## wade

With all biological samples there will be variation and this is to be expected. From the moment each of the 20 litre brine stocks was split into the different joint samples they started on their own individual journeys. When looking at the cure remaining in the Brine #2 brines these were samples taken from different brine containers and were not sequential samples taken from the same brine container. Therefore is is not unexpected that variations from a "perfect" result will occur in a small number of samples. If the testing was performed using 10 or 100 joints at each stage for each brine then it would be expected that these small anomalies would smooth themselves out.

What is important here are the orders of magnitude of the figures and not the precise numbers themselves. Due to biological variation if this exact testing were carried out again it is probable that the precise numbers would be slightly different with meat from a different animal. The consistency of these results though are sufficient that questions need to be raised regarding the Brine #1 method. Personally I would also raise the question whether Pops should slightly increase the levels of Nitrite in his brine to bring the resulting levels up closer to the 120 Ppm.

The effective presentation of statistics is always difficult do and the axis chosen can be very influential on how they are interpreted. For the graphs above I simply let Excel choose the axis scales it wanted, and so it adjusted them to try to get graphs of the same size. Below I have recreated the graphs so that the axes scales are consistent, therefore giving a better direct comparison of the results and putting variations within the results in perspective.

The horizontal area shaded in green is just for reference and shows the nitrite zone from 40 Ppm to 120 Ppm













Brine 1 extended axes.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 11, 2015


















Brine 2 extended axes.JPG



__ wade
__ Mar 11, 2015






In response to Ghenges's question about pump brine concentration. This was information I received from the testing labs who questioned the low levels in Brine #2 - as they usually expect large scale bacon manufacturers to submit brine at the levels similar to Brine #1. All of these manufacturers though use injection/pump brining techniques and the labs are not aware of any using immersion commercially. This may be unique to the UK manufacturers and maybe not applicable in the USA.


----------



## supplysergeant

Wade said:


> With all biological samples there will be variation and this is to be expected. From the moment each of the 20 litre brine stocks was split into the different joint samples they started on their own individual journeys. When looking at the cure remaining in the Brine #2 brines these were samples taken from different brine containers and were not sequential samples taken from the same brine container. Therefore is is not unexpected that variations from a "perfect" result will occur in a small number of samples. If the testing was performed using 10 or 100 joints at each stage for each brine then it would be expected that these small anomalies would smooth themselves out.
> 
> What is important here are the orders of magnitude of the figures and not the precise numbers themselves. Due to biological variation if this exact testing were carried out again it is probable that the precise numbers would be slightly different with meat from a different animal. The consistency of these results though are sufficient that questions need to be raised regarding the Brine #1 method. Personally I would also raise the question whether Pops should slightly increase the levels of Nitrite in his brine to bring the resulting levels up closer to the 120 Ppm.
> 
> The effective presentation of statistics is always difficult do and the axis chosen can be very influential on how they are interpreted. For the graphs above I simply let Excel choose the axis scales it wanted, and so it adjusted them to try to get graphs of the same size. Below I have recreated the graphs so that the axes scales are consistent, therefore giving a better direct comparison of the results and putting variations within the results in perspective.
> 
> The horizontal area shaded in green is just for reference and shows the nitrite zone from 40 Ppm to 120 Ppm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brine 1 extended axes.JPG
> 
> 
> 
> __ wade
> __ Mar 11, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brine 2 extended axes.JPG
> 
> 
> 
> __ wade
> __ Mar 11, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In response to Ghenges's question about pump brine concentration. This was information I received from the testing labs who questioned the low levels in Brine #2 - as they usually expect large scale bacon manufacturers to submit brine at the levels similar to Brine #1. All of these manufacturers though use injection/pump brining techniques and the labs are not aware of any using immersion commercially. This may be unique to the UK manufacturers and maybe not applicable in the USA.


Well said, Wade. A very considerate response!


----------



## chef jimmyj

Interesting results. Thank you for your efforts Wade. Regarding the 625/660ppm vs. 200ppm residual Nitrite result, this was based on Brine #1 that contained Cure #1 consistent with the manufacturers recommended amount, 4 oz per Gallon Water. Is it possible that the max recommended Nitrite amounts for home use and commercial use be different? I don't think companies like SausageMaker would sell and recommend Cure amounts that would be toxic. I don't think following the recommended Cure #1 amounts should be discouraged on this forum but I do think any member responding to a newbies post encourage the new members to research curing meat in depth, before they attempt the process...Thoughts?...JJ


----------



## daveomak

I think, somehow, immersion cure and pumped curing brines have been confused...  Pops, help us out here....   when your dad's business was operating... was there such a thing as "needle injection" pumping machines......   or was everything submerged equilibrium brining....

I'm referring to mass production facilities....     Did your dad inject meats, other than ham legs...... was the brine a different make up.....


----------



## wade

Hi JJ

Regardless of the actual resulting Nitrite levels, I think that 600-700 Ppm Nitrite will still actually be safe to eat in moderation. A 250g portion of the bacon (1/2 pound) at 650 Ppm would only contain 0.162g of Nitrite and as the lethal dose of Nitrite for a 65 Kg human would be in the region of 4.6 g, you would therefore need to eat about 14 pounds of the bacon over a short period of time to receive a potentially lethal dose. However I don't know what the cumulative effects may be of eting it regularly over a long period of time.
 
As has been pointed out at various times on here, the UDSA guidelines actually only apply to the commercial manufacture of bacon and do not apply to bacon that is home produced. Therefore providing the cure manufacturers are selling it for home production then there is nothing stopping them from recommending cure dilutions that result in residual nitrite that exceed the USDA limits. The current rates of usage are probably traditional and proving you are not selling it then it is really up to you I guess what levels of Nitrite you feel comfortable eating. If you don't actually know the levels you are eating then then you will probably just be happy knowing/assuming that the levels recommended by the manufacturers are unlikely to do you any harm.

I think my main concern now is that people may use the Brine #1 calculation and, based upon the calculated results, think that they have a much lover Ppm in their bacon than they actually have.


----------



## atomicsmoke

The brine referenced here brine #1 (from the meat inspector handbook) was stated to work for pump or soak (immersion). Specifying that it should only be used for pumped and injected meat would avoid confusion.


----------



## chef jimmyj

Wade said:


> Hi JJ
> 
> Regardless of the actual resulting Nitrite levels, I think that 600-700 Ppm Nitrite will still actually be safe to eat in moderation. A 250g portion of the bacon (1/2 pound) at 650 Ppm would only contain 0.162g of Nitrite and as the lethal dose of Nitrite for a 65 Kg human would be in the region of 4.6 g, you would therefore need to eat about 14 pounds of the bacon over a short period of time to receive a potentially lethal dose. However I don't know what the cumulative effects may be of eting it regularly over a long period of time.
> 
> As has been pointed out at various times on here, the UDSA guidelines actually only apply to the commercial manufacture of bacon and do not apply to bacon that is home produced. Therefore providing the cure manufacturers are selling it for home production then there is nothing stopping them from recommending cure dilutions that result in residual nitrite that exceed the USDA limits. The current rates of usage are probably traditional and proving you are not selling it then it is really up to you I guess what levels of Nitrite you feel comfortable eating. If you don't actually know the levels you are eating then then you will probably just be happy knowing/assuming that the levels recommended by the manufacturers are unlikely to do you any harm.
> 
> I think my main concern now is that people may use the Brine #1 calculation and, based upon the calculated results, think that they have a much lover Ppm in their bacon than they actually have.


Makes sense and what I was hoping to hear. I think there is often an unnecessary high level of worry that a few degrees of Internal Temp, minutes of Time in the Danger Zone or a couple of mg of Cure too much or too little, will render a hunk of meat inedible or dangerous requiring that it be immediately trashed. There is a lot of room for error between 0.162g and 4.6g...
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





...JJ


----------



## atomicsmoke

Chef JimmyJ said:


> Makes sense and what I was hoping to hear. I think there is often an unnecessary high level of worry that a few degrees of Internal Temp, minutes of Time in the Danger Zone or a couple of mg of Cure too much or too little, will render a hunk of meat inedible or dangerous requiring that it be immediately trashed. There is a lot of room for error between 0.162g and 4.6g...:pot: ...JJ


Is the lethal dose the only concern? 500ppm will not kill you if eaten a few times but I doubt is good for one's  colon to fry every Saturday meat with such high levels.


----------



## chef jimmyj

atomicsmoke said:


> Is the lethal dose the only concern? 500ppm will not kill you if eaten a few times but* I doubt *is good for one's colon to fry every Saturday meat with such high levels.


We know the lethal dose but we don't know exactly which number is unhealthy. The USDA guideline for commercial manufacturer's is 200ppm. Is 210 a problem, 250, 300, more, less? Wade's experiment gave a result, 600+. While I trust he was accurate in his measuring and testing, will this result be consistent for all pork products? What about Beef or Poultry? The forum admin wants us to follow the USDA guidelines. In this case the Cure manufacturer's instructions " were " followed. Can anyone at SMF prove that the instructions common to most of the US Cure #1 manufacturer's, reputable websites, curing book authors and so on are wrong?   It is the responsibility of the individual to do their homework before attempting any technique or recipe. We can only put out the facts as we know them to be true and not get into a heated debate with anyone having a different opinion. It will be up to the individual to take things further and determine the most accurate information and act on it accordingly...JJ


----------



## cueinco

Wade, thank you very much for doing this work. As someone new to curing, it was confusing to see two very different approaches that would both "work", without understanding why they would work. Trying to match up results from the literature with experiences on this forum was confusing. This clears that up. Thanks again.


----------



## chef jimmyj

Guys it is important to understand with any technique your result may vary. The USDA guidelines have been around a long time and proven safe. Using Cure #1 at 4oz per Gallon Water has been a standard longer still. Again this is no reflection on Wades test but a single result of 600+ppm using the cure manufacturers recommendation of 4oz/gal does not invalidate a long term standard. This test does prove that  it is your responsibility to learn and have an understanding of how meats are cured before you attempt home production...JJ


----------



## rgautheir20420

Chef, I think that's the most important thing for others to take from these tests. The importance of understanding what you're making and how it's being made.


----------



## daveomak

Chef JimmyJ said:


> Guys it is important to understand with any technique your result may vary. The USDA guidelines have been around a long time and proven safe. Using Cure #1 at 4oz per Gallon Water has been a standard longer still. Again this is no reflection on Wades test but a single result of 600+ppm using the cure manufacturers recommendation of 4oz/gal does not invalidate a long term standard. This test does prove that  it is your responsibility to learn and have an understanding of how meats are cured before you attempt home production...JJ






How does that compute with the maximum ingoing nitrite of 120 Ppm or 156 Ppm rules....


----------



## chef jimmyj

DaveOmak said:


> How does that compute with the maximum ingoing nitrite of 120 Ppm or 156 Ppm rules....


----------



## wade

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveOmak*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that compute with the maximum ingoing nitrite of 120 Ppm or 156 Ppm rules....


Also don't forget that the manufacturers recommendations do not necessarily have to produce a product for home use that is within the USDA guidelines. The recommended Instacure Cure #1 quantities for home curing appear to go back a long way and this cure mix would not usually be used commercially for producing bacon. Commercially Nitrite is usually bought in its pure form in 25 Kg sacks _or larger_.

I suspect (though I don't have proof) that most manufacturers of Cure #1 and #2 simply mix them to the formula and state the recommended usage rates that follow all of the other manufacturers historical recommendations. It would be interesting to see how many have lab tested products that have been made using their mix. I hope some would have but I expect most bulk chemical manufacturers have not.

OK, it appears that this method of brining produces a higher level of Nitrite than the calculations predict, and that these exceed the USDA guidelines - but do they make the bacon product produced by this curing method unsafe? Probably not if eaten in moderate quantities. I think it is important though that people should be aware that the theoretical Ppm calculations and the final Ppm in the bacon may be very different and that they should not be tempted to use more than the manufacturers recommend.


----------



## wade

I do realise that this was a small number of tests, however the results from each set of samples were sufficiently consistent to indicate that they were a good indication of what was happening. Over the next few months I will be submitting more curing samples for lab testing as part of a commercial product that I am developing. Along with these I will also include some additional tests replicating the methods above. The samples will be much less comprehensive though and will only include the starting brine concentration and the end bacon Ppm. As these results become available I will add them to the thread.


----------



## Bearcarver

LOL----Morton's Tender Quick anyone???

Bear


----------



## wade

Lol Bear - don't you start 
	

	
	
		
		



		
			






. My wife is still complaining about me filling up the fridges with the last testing.


----------



## atomicsmoke

I am also proposing a 4 week whole belly experiment. Just to see if the ppms are still climbing after 14 days?

When can you start? LOL


----------



## daveomak

Wade, morning....   After re reading the FSIS handbook, I believe you assumed the 4 oz. / gallon solution was for immersion curing..   I believe it is for a 10% injection only and subsequent immersion of meats is not allowed... 

FSIS page 11...
There are some recently introduced processes, such as injecting emulsion into the meat or poultry;* and there are processes not specifically addressed in the regulations (such as immersion curing of products other than bacon).  *Nevertheless, the amount of curing solution permitted in these processes is also based on the green weight of the meat or poultry because FSIS believes that all the curing agent used is taken up by the meat or poultry. 
++++++++
The FSIS manual points to injection curing...  where "all the curing agent used is taken up by the meat"....   

Using the 4 0z. per gallon, that would lead to the conclusion of 187 Ppm nitrite in any injected meats injected at a 10% rate....   

That solution is not to be used for immersion curing ...  the USDA does not address immersion curing for any meats other than bacon...


----------



## atomicsmoke

DaveOmak said:


> Wade, morning.... After re reading the FSIS handbook, I believe you assumed the 4 oz. / gallon solution was for immersion curing.. I believe it is for a 10% injection only and subsequent immersion of meats is not allowed...
> 
> FSIS page 11...
> There are some recently introduced processes, such as injecting emulsion into the meat or poultry;* and there are processes not specifically addressed in the regulations (such as immersion curing of products other than bacon). *Nevertheless, the amount of curing solution permitted in these processes is also based on the green weight of the meat or poultry because FSIS believes that all the curing agent used is taken up by the meat or poultry.
> ++++++++
> The FSIS manual points to injection curing... where "all the curing agent used is taken up by the meat"....
> 
> Using the 4 0z. per gallon, that would lead to the conclusion of 187 Ppm nitrite in any injected meats injected at a 10% rate....
> 
> That solution is not to be used for immersion curing ... the USDA does not address immersion curing for any meats other than bacon...


It is for immersion too:

From the handbook: page 21-22

*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.

22

! *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


----------



## daveomak

If you go to page 23, you will see the proper way to calculate for immersion curing...    They have 800#'s pickle and 600#'s of meat...   and they add 0.25#'s of nitrite which is 4#'s of cure #1.....   4#'s in 1400 #'s = 178 Ppm.....   

Someone forgot to read farther through the FSIS manual.....  


In the pump pickle, 4 oz. cure #1 per gallon....   95 x 4 oz. = 383 oz. or 24 #'s cure #1 added to 95 gallons in the example Wade used.... 

There is a big difference between adding..


----------



## atomicsmoke

Someone forgot to read the Note :-)

_*"Note: *Method One is used for hams, shoulders, bellies, etc., because it takes weeks for these_

_large items to reach equilibrium. Method Two is primarily used with small items with large_

_surface areas such as pigs' ears, tails, snouts, etc."_

_method one is the one with % pickup._


----------



## DanMcG

Thank you wade for all the time and effort you've put in to this project. I've only had time to browse through every thing here but I'm looking forward to studying your results and getting in on the conversation. 
Again, Many thanks.


----------



## wade

Hi Dave

One of the purposes of this particular testing was to check the results of two *immersion* cures that were being supported by members of this forum. The first was the cure in the Prague Powder #1 thread that was being supported by Martin (DiggingDogFarm) for immersion brining (Brine #1), and the second was Pops brine (Brine #2) which is also regularly discussed on here. These are not my brines and I was not recommending or supporting either of them before the tests took place. Both appeared to be at such extremes of the cure concentrations that we just needed to check the validity of each. Martin was questioned at the time about the supporting evidence for the % uptake calculation and he pointed us to the Handbook. From reading it I think that the wording did supported his argument.

As JJ also mentioned earlier in this thread, the 4 ozs per gallon is a recommended brine by many of the manufacturers/distributors of Cure #1. I think the question you are alluding to is, should this brine *only* be used for injection/pumping or is it also valid for immersion curing - _as was being proposed in the Prague Powder #1 thread_?

I am currently preparing to sell my bacon commercially and so I have to provide the UK authorities with certified lab test results for the curing methods I use. From this test I know that I will *not* be using the Brine #1 immersion technique. If I was to immersion cure then Pops brine would be more appropriate, however I think that that would actually need the resulting cure PPM to be increased to around the 160-180 Ppm mark to ensure that it remained safe during prolonged smoking.


----------



## daveomak

atomicsmoke said:


> Someone forgot to read the Note :-)
> 
> _*"Note:* Method One is used for hams, shoulders, bellies, etc., because it takes weeks for these_
> _large items to reach equilibrium. Method Two is primarily used with small items with large_
> _surface areas such as pigs' ears, tails, snouts, etc."_
> 
> _method one is the one with % pickup._



It has been proven by Wade, the % pickup method does not work....  unless you want 700 Ppm nitrite in your meats.....   AND it is not safe to eat....  nitrite attaches to the red blood cells making it impossible for your blood to carry oxygen....    that causes internal organ failure...   like your heart or kidneys being deprived of oxygen...  maybe only 10% or 20% but to ignore that fact is STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE....  

Pops method is an equilibrium brining solution....   

The reason it states "for smaller items" is..... todays manufacturers do not have the time or the space to store thousands of gallons of pickle and meat for 2 weeks in a football field sized refrigerator....  Pops dad had the room and pops described the barrels and time his stuff sat in the cooler... 
It only makes sense that adding 1 tsp. of cure #1 to 5#'s of meat makes 156 ish Ppm nitrite in the meat.... AND adding 1 tsp. of cure #1 to 5 #'s of water make 156 ish Ppm nitrite in water... and adding 2 tsp. of nitrite to 10#'s of meat and water that given enough time all will equal out...    
 If you are in a hurry, make a 1500 Ppm solution of nitrite and inject at a rate of 10% green meat weight...  or a 3,000 Ppm nitrite solution and inject at a 5% green meat weight....   













EQUILIBRIUM BRINE THEORY.jpg



__ daveomak
__ Mar 12, 2015


----------



## atomicsmoke

Yes it was proven to produce high ppm ....that was the whole point of the exercise...duh.

Einstein might have anticipated this handbook when he defined insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results.


----------



## daveomak

I agree.... but that's in a 10% pumped....  For a 10% pumped it works perfect...


----------



## pops6927

ghenges said:


> Cure whole sides of bacon and whole hams as real world conditions absolutely dictate, replicate the tests many times -- then the tests will render data that will logically lead to conclusions that could be considered accurate and reliable._(duh?.............. that's exactly what the USDA regularly demands of every commercial producer of cured meats)_


As did my Dad's and was proven, through scientific testing and thorough critical examination for 40+ years, to be sufficient to cure all pork products effectively and to smoke at 225° 10 hours for partially cooked hams and fully cooked bacons, and an additional 26 hours for fully cooked hams.  Additional items until internal temp was 146°, proven safe and effective, with samples taken by the State every 30 day for 40 years, from 1946 until my dad's death in 1986.   The NYS inspection was replaced by USDA Inspection in the early 1970's.


----------



## wade

I would just like to thank everyone who has morally supported me through this testing - both in the forum and in private. There are still some questions that need addressing, however I hope this has at least helped people to know what is happening when using either of the brines as immersion cures.

I think that we have shown, to most peoples satisfaction anyway, that the method used with Brine #1 will not result in and end product that falls within the USDA guidelines when used as an immersion brine. Is it still safe to eat? I am not qualified to give a difinitive answer on that but is unlikely to harm the average adult who is in good health when eaten in moderation? Would I eat it or give it to fiends and family? No I would not.

To see if the Brine #1 calculation works as 10% injection it would be necessary to perform separate et of tests with this brine pumped/injected.

The 10% cure take up being equivalent to a 10% increase in joint weigh when immersed has also been disproved, as in Brine #1 the meat had already taken up between 40%-45% of the initial cure strength with a weight increase of only 7%-8%. As you know this was one of the statements from the original Prague Powder #1 threat that both AtomicSmoke and I initially suspected as being incorrect.

Again, many thanks for your patience as the story slowly unraveled. 
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





Wade


----------



## pops6927

I'm outta here, thanks Wade for the testing!  After 5 strokes, the only thing I don't understand is any understanding.... :)


----------



## wade

Hi Ghengis

I am not going to get into long discussions with you as from what I have seen from your posts I suspect that you may have not fully read or understood the flow of the threads and therefore the purpose of the testing. From your last comments I think that we are actually concerned about exactly the same thing, however, for some reason, you appear to be trying to portray that I am thinking something different.

I will though correct a point that you have made above.

The meat samples were all single joints of ~1 Kg each and were each cured in 10 litre containers with 5 litres of brine. Not massive I know but the kind of size that many home curers here will be using. The photo that you have chosen to show above are 4 of the joints being displayed in a gastronorm tray for the photograph AFTER they have been cured, rested, cut in half and the test samples cut from the centre of each. The test samples are the ones vac packed at the back. To see the joints as they were actually cured please look back at the threads.


ghenges said:


> 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.


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?

I am sure that DDF has a number of great recipes, and I do intend trying some of them. These tests though were to check the one that he was supporting from the Prague Powder #1 thread and the accuracy of the Ppm calculation from the Handbook that he used.

Wade


----------



## wade

ghenges said:


> 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.


Hi Ghenges

Yes I think we agree. As an injection this would be suitable for 54.7 Kg of product and would probably result in the calculated Ppm. However in the thread it was being supported as an _immersion_ brine and part of the Ppm calculation included the 10% pickup based upon the weight increase of the meat. Like you, we thought that this just appeared wrong and needed questioning.

I agree that if being used for commercial purposes then full size bellies or loins would be ideal to test with. However this was being supported as a method for home curing where 1-2 Kg joints are probably more the norm. The testing was therefore designed to determine what would happen in a "typical" home curing environment. More test results would certainly be beneficial and as I will be sending a stream of bacon and salmon samples to the labs for testing over the next few months I intend to include some additional samples to check the reproducibility of these results.








Wade


----------



## smokin monkey

We'll Wade, :PDT_Armataz_01_09: just going to put my Tin Hat on before I join in on this one!!!!

Thank you for taking the time in carrying out these trials. 

I have read through all they posts on this thread, and a little amused at "some" of the replies you got.

It is my understanding, that you choses the two "Most Popular" or "Most Discussed" methods of Curing/Brining on the Forum. These two methods have had many searches or members pointing them "Newbies" to them. What you have done is  carried out your  own tests, at costs to you. From the results you have produced, it's surley down to each memeber to take the results and use them as they see fit. If they want to consume Bacon with high levels, then it's their choice, just pointing out that this level will no kill, was not you giving the Green Light to fill your boots with it, but just a statement of fact.

One last point, the trial sizes you conducted this tests on are the average size that most Home Smokers would use.

Once again, many people appreciate the effort you put in.

Steve


----------



## diggingdogfarm

Wade said:


> 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?



I told you before that it's not my method, it's the USDA's method.
Their nitrite limits and their methods of calculation.
If you have a problem with that, you need to communicate with the USDA!!!!!
It was referenced because that's the policy of this forum.
*Please, honestly and accurately call it what it is...thank you very much!!!*

I recommend the equilibrium curing method and I've pointed that out  several times, especially in the universal cure calculator thread.

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.*


----------



## wade

ghenges said:


> 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 Ghenges

Although the costs are not a secret I have decided to responded to you in PM as I do not want other members to start sending me welfare checks.


----------



## wade

DiggingDogFarm said:


> 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.


----------



## diggingdogfarm

Wade said:


> DiggingDogFarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


*Many of those finished products are ready-to-eat!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

The following confirms that the limits apply to products that are ready for consumption.....

*Code of Federal Regulations
Title 21, Volume 3
Revised as of April 1, 2014*

*TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER B--FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION (CONTINUED)*

*Sec. 172.170 Sodium nitrate.*

The food additive sodium nitrate may be safely used in or on specified foods in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:

(a) It is used or intended for use as follows:

(1) As a preservative and color fixative, with or without sodium nitrite, in smoked, cured sablefish, smoked, cured salmon, and smoked, cured shad, so that the level of sodium nitrate does not exceed 500 parts per million and the level of sodium nitrite does not exceed 200 parts per million in the [COLOR=#red]*finished product.*[/COLOR]

(2) As a preservative and color fixative, with or without sodium nitrite, in meat-curing preparations for the *home curing* of meat and meat products (including poultry and wild game), with directions for use which limit the amount of sodium nitrate to not more than 500 parts per million in the *finished meat product* and the amount of sodium nitrite to not more than 200 parts per million in the *finished meat product*.

(b) To assure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other information required by the Act:

(1) The label of the additive or of a mixture containing the additive shall bear:

(i) The name of the additive.

(ii) A statement of the concentration of the additive in any mixture.

(2) If in a retail package intended for household use, the label and labeling of the additive, or of a mixture containing the additive, shall bear adequate directions for use to provide a final food product that complies with the limitations prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section.

(3) If in a retail package intended for household use, the label of the additive or of a mixture containing the additive, shall bear the statement "Keep out of the reach of children".

*Sec. 172.175 Sodium nitrite.*

The food additive sodium nitrite may be safely used in or on specified foods in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:

(a) It is used or intended for use as follows:

(1) As a color fixative in smoked cured tunafish products so that the level of sodium nitrite does not exceed 10 parts per million (0.001 percent) in the [COLOR=#red]*finished product*[/COLOR].

(2) As a preservative and color fixative, with or without sodium nitrate, in smoked, cured sablefish, smoked, cured salmon, and smoked, cured shad so that the level of sodium nitrite does not exceed 200 parts per million and the level of sodium nitrate does not exceed 500 parts per million in the [COLOR=#red]*finished product.*[/COLOR]

(3) As a preservative and color fixative, with sodium nitrate, in meat-curing preparations for the *home curing* of meat and meat products (including poultry and wild game), with directions for use which limit the amount of sodium nitrite to not more than 200 parts per million in the *finished meat product*, and the amount of sodium nitrate to not more than 500 parts per million in the *finished meat product*.

(b) To assure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other information required by the Act:

(1) The label of the additive or of a mixture containing the additive shall bear:

(i) The name of the additive.

(ii) A statement of the concentration of the additive in any mixture.

(2) If in a retail package intended for household use, the label and labeling of the additive, or of a mixture containing the additive, shall bear adequate directions for use to provide a final food product which complies with the limitations prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section.

(3) If in a retail package intended for household use, the label of the additive, or of a mixture containing the additive, shall bear the statement "Keep out of the reach of children".

*And from the handbook....*
"Although nitrite and nitrate are calculated on an ingoing basis and the calculations are based on
the green weight of the meat/poultry, the use of nitrites, nitrates, or a combination must not result
in more than 200 ppm of nitrite, calculated as sodium nitrite, in the [COLOR=#red]*finished product*.[/COLOR]"

"The [COLOR=#red]*finished product*[/COLOR] (after processing) could be a cooked, [COLOR=#red]*ready-to-eat*[/COLOR] turkey breast , etc."

*More...*
https://www.google.com/search?q=res...ed&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## wade

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.


----------



## diggingdogfarm

Wade said:


> 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.



I am sorry but I disagree with you there.

*"Finished product" is emphasized, by FSIS,  in the handbook, Why? Because it's critically important!!!!!*
Here's a screen capture from page 32....













O4TuRFU.png



__ diggingdogfarm
__ Mar 14, 2015






I communicated with the FSIS a long time ago about the finished product definition and such (for confirmation.)


----------



## diggingdogfarm

Wade said:


> Remember that we are discussing *bacon* in this thread.



Then why are the loins included? 
This isn't the UK, USDA bacon regulations apply to belly bacon.
The calculation and analysis should also have been appropriately applied (rather than backwards and incorrectly... further confusing folks.)
Why do you keep referring to the original thread which wasn't about bacon?
What's the salt level of the pieces of meat..are they even consumable???

Listen, as I said, there's a LOT that could be discussed, but I need to step back, I have some serious health issues and I can't spend time arguing.
I wish this all would have lead to a constructive and FACTUAL discussion rather than an attempt to disprove and discredit......I think that we all would have learned a LOT more!!!!!

Good luck to all!!!


----------



## wade

ghenges said:


> A new thread needs to be initiated with definition of the goals of the continuing saga.


Yes I agree if people want to discuss that further. I don't think that I will be initiating it though.


----------



## atomicsmoke

Wade,

Despite the attempts made here to diminish the value of your experiment rest assured you made your point. 
As you can see from other posts many members understood what you've done and thanked you for that. They can read thru clutter and will take home the message they were looking for.
Thank you again.


----------



## daveomak

Seems you have not told us much about yourself......    Where you live....    What you accomplishments are in the curing and smoking pastime.... 
Stop into roll call and fill in the details, please....


----------



## wade

Hi Ghenges

I hope someone else on here understands what you are going on about. I must confess that I lost track of any point you were trying to make quite some time ago. You obviously have very strong views on this, which you are perfectly entitled to have, however forcefully stating an opinion does not necessarily make it any more correct than any other persons opinion on here. 

I am still somewhat surprised that in the 12 months that you have been registered here almost 80% of all your posts have only been in these threads. 
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





  . I am sure you have your reasons and no, you don't have to explain them.

What may help us further understand who you are and your background, maybe you could stop by Roll Call and put up a quick introduction of who you are, your interests and any smoking/curing experiences you have.

I think this thread has now gone as far as it can go, and so with the results posted I will now leave it for others to continue the discussion if they wish.

Cheers 
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





Wade


----------



## daveomak

Normally the mod team doesn't allow the "bad mouthing" of other members....    ghenges must be someone special to have been allowed to continue his member bashing....     My interpretation is, he has practiced this type of behavior previously on a different forum, until he was banned from there....    that would be a reasonable expectation of this forum...


----------



## bladebuilder

Amen


----------



## mike w

Wade, thanks for doing this. I finally got to read through all three threads.


----------



## smokin monkey

ghenges, put up or shut up.

Who are you, where do you come from and what are your credentials?

Smokin Monkey


----------



## bmaddox

Wow my head is officially spinning. That was a lot of information to digest. I guess I need to do some more reading on curing meats. Thanks Wade for taking it upon yourself to run some tests. I'm sure there are numerous arguments for and against any curing style.


----------



## pops6927

If you hadn't noticed, Ghenges has been banned forever now by the Admins.  No need to address his so-called 'arguements'.  Well, at least until he changes his IP address... again.

Thank you Wade for bearing with him until he could be banned, and likewise everyone else.  These decisions don't come easily, but are final when done.


----------



## atomicsmoke

Back to where it all started ....we probably hijacked the other thread.

Dave,
You claim.the 10% method was used as equilibrium method. I disagree. After 7 days the belly was at 11%, pickup a little more than what the book says, the loin at 7% yet they already had over 500ppm nitrite. I am pretty sure even at 10% the belly would have been close to 500ppm.


----------



## JC in GB

Thanks Wade.

This thread is a MUST READ for anyone wanting to do their own meat curing.

The charts and weights presented provide a treasure trove of good information on how to make a proper and healthy product at home.

I wish I had seen this before I made my own bacon.

I was particularly interested in the government testing that was performed.  The final cure numbers based upon weights of all components brought the math of this all together for me.  Once I understand the math, I am unstoppable!   ;)

Thanks again for such a  very informative post.


----------



## diggingdogfarm

chef jimmyj said:


> Good afternoon Dave, After further consideration of my above answer, I thought it sounded somewhat uncaring and dismissive. I looked into the use of the recommended 4oz per Gallon and wondered if the manufacturer/distributor supported their recommendation here is what I found...JJ
> 
> Taken from SausageMakers site regarding Insta Cure #1...http://www.sausagemaker.com/11200instacureand153no15lbs.aspx
> 
> Insta Cure[emoji]8482[/emoji] No. 1, a basic cure used to cure all meats that require cooking, brining, smoking, or canning. This includes poultry, fish, ham, bacon, luncheon meats, corned beef, pates and other products too numerous to mention. Formerly Prague Powder #1. Insta Cure[emoji]8482[/emoji] #1 contains salt and sodium nitrite (6.25%).
> 
> Use 1 level teaspoon per 5 lbs. ground meat. 5 lbs. of Insta Cure[emoji]8482[/emoji] will process approximately 2,400 lbs. of meat.
> 
> For a Basic Bacon/Ham Brine (without additional ingredients for flavor):
> 1 gallon water
> 4 oz (1/2 cup) InstaCure#1
> 1 lb 5 oz (1 3/4 cup) Salt
> 1.5 oz (2 1/4 Tbsp) Sugar
> 
> Click Here  to see the formula used for Nitrite Level (based on USDA formula) per gallon, using InstaCure#1 [PDF File].
> 
> BreakDown of Nitrite PPM per Gallon Brine (brine includes Water, Cure, Salt, Sugar)
> 
>  The following is for a BASIC BRINE for Pork and Beef Muscle Brining (Ham, Bacon, Brisket…etc) not Poultry.
> 
>  The current USDA Minimum is 125ppm and Maximum is 200ppm Nitrite for Brined/Pickled Meats that are spraypumped WITH 10% brine of their initial weight [aka ‘green weight’]).
> 
>  Currently our recommendation of 3 oz Cure#1 per gallon of Water yields 140ppm nitrite o 4 oz yields 188ppm..*. 3 & 4 oz ARE CORRECT and SAFE AMOUNTS!* *USDA Processing Inspectors' Calculations Handbook, page 7: Nitrite x 10% pump x 1,000,000 / weight of brine = ppm
> 
> First you need to find out how much Sodium Nitrite is in a specific amount of Cure. Let's say that we want to use 3oz of InstaCure#1. You have to find what 3 oz is in LBS, this is done by dividing 3 by 16 (because there are 16 ozs in a pound), this comes to 0.1875 lbs.
> 
> Cure #1 has 6.25% Sodium Nitrite. So, to find out how much Nitrite is in that 0.1875 lbs of Cure, multiply 0.1875 by that percentage as a decimal… 0.1875 x 0.0625 = 0.01171 lbs Sodium Nitrite in 3 oz Cure.
> 
> The ‘weight of brine’ is simply how heavy the water/brine is… One gallon of water weighs approximately 8.33 lbs.
> 
> Now to find the Parts Per Million (ppm), here is the formula: multiply nitrites by % pump by 1,000,000 and DIVIDE it by the weight of your brine.
> 
> Here is the ppm formula for 3 oz Cure#1: Nitrite x 10% pump x 1,000,000 / weight of brine = parts per million 0.01171 x 0.10 x 1,000,000 / 8.33 = ppm 0.001171 x 1,000,000 / 8.33 = ppm 1171 / 8.33 = ppm* 140 ppm nitrite in 1 gallon of water when using 3 oz of Cure#1. *
> 
> Here is the ppm formula for 4 oz Cure#1: Nitrite in 4 oz Cure #1 = (4/16) x 0.0625 = 0.015625 Nitrite x 10% pump x 1,000,000 / weight of brine = parts per million 0.015625 x 0.10 x 1,000,000 / 8.33 = ppm 0.0015625 x 1,000,000 / 8.33 = ppm 1562.5 / 8.33 = ppm *188 ppm nitrite in 1 gallon of water when using 4 oz of Cure#1. *
> 
> Minimum allowed by USDA is 125ppm for any useful curing action and maximum being 200ppm, remember that for a proper brine you will also need to have the correct amount of salt/sugar in the solution. A pork ham, will need to soak in a brine that is also about 60 degrees salinity so the base formula for your brine, so that it is at this level with the correct nitrite ppm will be:
> 
> 1 gallon water
> 
> 4 oz (1/2 cup) Cure #1
> 
> 1 lb 5 oz (1 ¾ cup) Salt
> 
> 1.5 oz (2 ¼ Tbsp) Sugar
> 
> This is a proportionate formula to the amount of water / nitrite, if you need half the amount of brine then cut all ingredients in half... if need twice the amount, multiple by 2. While salt, sugar and other ingredient amounts may be adjusted, proper curing time and amount Cure#1 must be followed.



After I pointed out the errors in their information, the PDF was eventually removed. 
Error, errors, EVERYWHERE!
https://www.smokingmeatforums.com/threads/who-can-spot-the-errors.137916/#post-951856


----------



## chef jimmyj

diggingdogfarm said:


> After I pointed out the errors in their information, the PDF was eventually removed.
> Error, errors, EVERYWHERE!
> https://www.smokingmeatforums.com/threads/who-can-spot-the-errors.137916/#post-951856



Thanks for the update. I deleted my post...JJ


----------



## skidog

Wow, Nice work Wade, It's fun reading threads with missing posts trying to figure out what's going on. Lol
Wade, I noticed in the original testing thread you said you were testing your dry cured recipe that you use. Care to share the results of that?


----------

