Reg, it's very curious that Paul Bertoli would suddenly arise in this
thread.
I've met Paul several times at Oliveto, and I have two of his cookbooks,
though not the curing one you mentioned. I immediately reserved the book at
our local library.
He is also, as I'm sure you know, leaving Oliveto and forming a business
which makes and distributes cured meat, "Fra'Mani".
I'm sure you have the following, but for everyone else, look at:
http://www.oliveto.com/chef.html
and scroll down to Paul.
Kent

"Reg" > wrote in message
. com...
> Kent wrote:
>
>> Thanks Reg, for the above post. I've been trying to straighten out the
>> math. I am going to buy the book from Morton.
>>
>> Prague #1 and #2 have 1 ounce nitrite/lb salt. Morton's TC has .08
>> ounce/lb. Prague #1 and #2 have .0625 ounces nitrite/ounce salt, or
>> 6.25%. Morton's TC has .005 oz. nitrite/ounce salt, or .5%.
>>
>> Prague #1 and #2 have 00015625 ounce nitrite/25 lb meat, or 156.25 parts
>> per million, by weight. Morton's TC has .0000125 ounce/25lb meat or 12.5
>> parts per million by weight.
>
>
> Right on all counts.
>
>> If you add salt to either prague powder you come up with the ppm ratios
>> you mention. TC has a lower relative concentration of nitrite because
>> that much more salt is added into the cure, with a ratio of nitrite to
>> salt one
>> tenth that of prague powder.
>
>
> Key point there. TQ contains much more salt, so in order to get
> above 100 PPM in nitrite you'd have to add so much TQ that it
> wouldn't be edible. Too salty. That's why I use prague #1 instead
> of TQ. It's much more versatile.
>
> The above begs some important questions. It should be asked
> therefore, what is a reasonable minimum level of nitrite? How
> much do you need to achieve adequate preservation, and does
> TQ suffice in achieving this?
>
> Unfortunately, all of the coverage in the US code (CFR)
> has to do with *maximum* allowable levels. There's no
> mention of minimums. If you're goal is to use the proper
> amount of nitrites this you'll have to consult other
> sources.
>
> If you're interested in investigating it there are some solid
> mathematical models out there. There's a free program called
> Pathogen Modeling Program that employs these models to predict
> various pathogen growth outcomes.
>
> PMP is available he
>
> http://ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=6784
>
> It's based on the following models, some of which include
> sodium nitrite as an input parameter:
>
> - Growth models> for Aeromonas hydrophila, Bacillus cereus, Clostridium
> perfringens, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella,
> Shigella flexneri, Staphylococcus aureus, and Yersinia enterocolitica.
>
> - Time-to-Toxigenesis model for Clostridium botulinum on fish.
>
> - Time-to-Turbidity models for Clostridium botulinum.
>
> - Non-thermal inactivation/survival models for Escherichia coli O157:H7,
> Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Staphylococcus aureus.
>
> - Thermal inactivation models for Clostridium botulinum, *Escherichia
> coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes.
>
> - Gamma Irradiation models for Salmonella typhimurium, Escherichia
> coli O157:H7 and "Normal" flora in meats.
>
> - Cooling/Growth models for Clostridium botulinum and Clostridium
> perfringens.
>
> After creating many models and experimenting with the nitrite
> parameters you'll see that nitrite begins to have a measurable
> effect on botulinum at around 40-50 PPM. This effect is
> magnified by a factor of three by about 100 PPM or so. However
> with salmonella, nitrite doesn't begin to have a significant
> impact until it's above about 100 PPM.
>
> When you see these effects in action, the industry standard
> of around 150 PPM makes very good sense.
>
>> All of this works with direct injection or arterial curing because all of
>> the nitrate in your cure ends up in what you are curing.
>>
>> It strikes me that all of this falls apart when you brine. The amount of
>> nitrite in the brine depends on the total volume of brine you are using
>> with
>> a given concentration, the weight of the meat in the brine, and how much
>> of
>> the nitrite and nitrate gets into the meat during the brining period.
>> Each
>> type of meat would have a different absorptive ratio depending on
>> species,
>> fat and muscle characteristics and so forth.
>
>
> Yes, the above applies to "direct addition" only, i.e. adding
> it directly into a mix of ground meat.
>
> The key to understanding how to achieve predictable and
> consistant nitrite levels through brining is in understanding
> equilibrium of the solutes (nitrites, salt, sugar)
>
> When you first put the meat in the brine, the meat will
> contain 0% nitrites, and the solution will contain some
> non-zero amount. X percent.
>
> After a long enough period, the meat and the brine will both
> contain the same level of nitrites. They will have achieved
> equilibrium, and the nitrite level in the brine will be
> diminished somewhat because of the water that naturally occurs
> in meat. The actual level will be the above mentioned X, minus
> some amount, which will vary based on the ratio of brine to meat.
>
> So, in order to achieve the desired predictability you can't
> use "short" brining methods, you have to keep it in the brine
> for the full amount of time required for equilibrium (which
> can be accelerated by injecting, obviously). That's
> point #1.
>
> Point #2 is that you have to take the water contained in
> the meat into account in your calculations. Here's a sample
> calculation that takes that factor into account.
>
> As an example, we'll use an 8 pound brisket which is
> being made into pastrami. For water percentage of the meat
> we'll use 65% by weight. Salt content of the brine is 3%
> by weight. Sugar is 2% by weight. Target nitrite level
> will be 150 PPM.
>
> First, calculate the amount of salt to add.
>
> 1 gallon water = 8.3 lbs
> Weight of water in meat = 0.65 x 8 = 5.2 lbs
> 3 gallons of water = 25 lbs (rounded off)
> Weight of brine water + water in meat = 25 + 5.2 = 30.2 lbs
> 30.2 x 3% = 0.91 lbs salt
> 30.2 x 2% = 0.60 lbs sugar
>
> Knowing the weight of the brine and the meat you
> can calculate the amount of curing salts required.
>
> Weight of meat = 8 lbs
> Total weight of brine = 30.2 + 0.91 + 0.60 = 31.71 lbs
>
> Lbs of nitrite = 150 PPM x (total brine weight + meat weight)
> --------------------------------------------
> 1,000,000
>
> Lbs of nitrite = 150 PPM x (31.71 + 8)
> ---------------------
> 1,000,000
>
> Lbs of nitrite = 0.0059565
>
> That's pure nitrite. Now we'll figure the amount of
> prague #1 this entails. As you've noted, prague #1 is
> 6.25% nitrite.
>
> 0.0059565 / 0.0625 = 0.0953040 lbs of prague #1
>
> Converting to grams:
>
> 0.0953040 prague #1 x 16 oz x 28.35 grams = 43.2 grams
>
> Finally, deduct the amount of salt in the prague powder
> to get back to 3%.
>
> 43.2 grams prague #1 - (97.5 percent salt * 42.2 grams prague #1) =
> 40.5 grams salt to deduct = 0.09 lbs salt to deduct
>
> Adjusted salt amount = 0.91 lbs - 0.09 lbs = 0.82 lbs salt
>
> Final recipe:
>
> 1 8 lb brisket
> 3 gallons water
> 0.82 lbs salt
> 0.60 lbs sugar
> 43 grams prague #1 (rounded off)
>
> Plus any other ingredients you use in your
> pastrami recipe
>
> As to your question about variablity due to differences
> in the meat, experimenting with the above formula should be
> enlightening (spreadsheets work well here).
>
> You'll see that varying the meat water content % up or down a
> few ticks has only a very small effect on the final numbers.
> It's not really a significant factor.
>
>> Any thoughts about this would be welcomed. I find very little on the
>> internet about brine curing with nitrites and nitrates.
>>
>
> There are very few texts available *anywhere* that cover this
> issue in adequate depth other than professional and academic
> texts, which are very expensive and can be difficult to decipher.
>
> I recommend "Cooking by Hand" by Paul Bertolli. It's an eye opener
> in the area of cured meats, and it's packed with lots of other
> great info, too.
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609608932/qid=1149013017/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0409680-2890544?s=books&v=glance&n=283155>
>
> He also improves on some of the aspects of curing that Kutas
> covers. That's no insult to Kutas, it's just that he's been gone
> a long time and the field has been continually improving, as all
> fields do.
>
>> Again, sorry for the confusion
>
> I didn't see any confusion on your part, just some good
> analysis.
>
> --
> Reg
>