And then posted...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ????