Need help with corned beef brine and sodium nitrate amount..

[wheels]

NCPaul - I hope that you didn't think that my post was a dig at you (or anyone else for that matter). If it comes over that way I apologise.

Phil

[NCPaul]

I never took it that way; no apology necessary. It is frustrating to me to see a lot of bad advice on the internet; I emailed someone just last week requesting a post correction, which they made. I want people to learn how to cure meat and to learn how to do a lot of other things as well (as do you judging from your blog and the calculators you have posted). I just sent some curing salts to my brother. It is a fact to me that there is a narrow window of success and dangerous failure. You beyond most realize this. There are a lot of posts that start "what should I do?" I give my opinion, as do you, freely. This forum is the most scientifically based forum I've found and I would not have joined it if it wasn't (thanks to you and others). If I was in England, we'd have a beer and put it on BriCan's slate.

[BriCan]

This forum is the most scientifically based forum I've found and I would not have joined it if it wasn't (thanks to you and others). If I was in England, we'd have a beer and put it on BriCan's slate.

WSBCD

[NCPaul]

You'd be there with us of course. We'd need you and QWF to bring bacon butties. I hope you're feeling better.

[wheels]

Many thanks NCPaul. I think you've summed up very well what many of are attempting to do.

Phil

[Crush]

We took the meat out early as you guys suggested. You can see how it wasn't cured in the middle:



The major problem was it was TOO SMOKEY. It was also too dry. The thinner it shaved, the better it tasted with bread and mustard.











Overall I was very dissapointed with this recipe. The meat was not salty at all. It wasn't tender and moist. When reheated lots of juice spills out, but it doesn't stay suspended in the meat.

Again the smoke is very strong. It has a smoked flavor. Feels like it needs twice as less.

I have read people talking about throwing out their meat, while it isn't that bad, I still give it a 5/10. Any more smoke flavor and I'd throw it out.

Also the brisket was very thin. I read that it's pretty much not possible for these to come out moist.

When these came out of the smoker.. I thought for sure they would be insanely juicy. I foiled them, used the water bowl, never opened the lid. They seemed so juicy.

I then put it in the fridge, the juice solidified, and it's like 'i can't get the juice back'. It drains out when reheated.

I want to learn how to make a restaurant style corned beef or pastrami/Montreal smoked meat.

[wheels]

Isn't it annoying when a plan doesn't come off. However, given it's start in life I think you've done well.

I'll leave others to advise on the smoking/cooking as some of US members are experts in this field.

Phil

[Crush]

Isn't it annoying when a plan doesn't come off. However, given it's start in life I think you've done well.

I'll leave others to advise on the smoking/cooking as some of US members are experts in this field.

Phil

Yeah it could have come out much worse. At least it didn't taste funky at all.

Up here in Canada we don't smoke as part of our culture or in restaurants etc.

There is a bbg grill flavor, but man oh man there is a smoke flavor that's for sure. 2 different flavors. It was so smokey that it ruined the outer rub of my sirloin tip. I had nice brown sugar, salt, garlic salt, chili powder.. it was so promising just tasting it, but imagine smoke piercing through the sugar and salt particles and overtaking the flavor completely making it taste like like you rubbed burned wood on it. That's what it did.

I read that if I get the over powering smoke that I got, it means it was over smoked. When you put BBQ sauce on it, it actually makes it taste much better. It's like it interacts with the smoke. I'm not a bbq sauce fan though. I put the meat in cold as many recommended to do in order to get a smoke ring. The Weber Smokey Mountain didn't get up to 200 until 4 hours because I had it loaded full with large cold pieces of meat.

I like pizza, sausages, pastrami/corned beef/bacon/Montreal smoked meat.

If it was 70% less smoked, and had more salt, I bet I would have really liked it and upped it to a 7/10 rating.

Some people say you have to give it 4 days for the smoke flavor to 'settle' and calm down.. maybe I dunno.

Well I have a sausage stuffer now and can't wait to get started making a sausage. I am going to follow a recipe this time that is tried, tested, and true.

[Ianinfrance]

The bacteria certainly die from the heat, but the toxins they produce can be heat resistant so that doesn't help. You just stop their growth.

No, André. Botulism toxin is thermolabile. Ii will be destroyed by 10 minutes at boiling point.

There are three quite separate things to consider with botulism.

1. The spores. In alkaline & neutral conditions, they resist temperatures up to 125°C. In acid conditions, they die at BP. This is why botulism is dangerous in non acid foods, because sterilising at 100°C will NOT destroy the spores. An ordinary pressure cooker may work, but it's borderline.

2, The bacteria,. These hatch from the spores under favourable conditions (room temperature, more or less, and obey normal growth laws up to the killing temperature of about 55°C (lower when in acid conditions). When they die that can sometimes produce spores which stay inside the body, protecting them from heat. Under conditions of low partial pressure of oxygen (tins, vac pac, deep inside meat) they produce the botulism toxin, (botox).

3. Botox. This is the only dangerous "product". It's not a living entity, but an extremely powerful nerve poison, causing paralysis of various parts of the body. Even in tiny doses it can kill - I think the figure is that around 30% of all cases are fatal, but non fatal cases usually make a full recovery. It is thermolabile, ise destroyed by heating. The time taken to destroy it varies with temperature, but a good rule of thumb is that 15 minutes at boiling point will eliminate it all.

Sorry to be so blunt in contradicting you, but as someone who does a great deal of bottling, (after which foods are kept at low partial pressures of oxygen and room temperature) it was essential for me to be absolutely 100% sure of the facts.

[grisell]

Ian: I wasn't referring to Botulism specifically, but to bacterial toxins in general. Staphylococcus aureus produces a thermo-stable toxin for instance.

But of course you are right about Botulism and that's why I told him to refreeze the meat after cooking. I'm aware of the mechanism of Botulism but since his meat was refrigerated and kept for only a short period, I assessed the risk as minimal. In a more general perspective however, it's good that you brought this up. The major risk is within the extremely heat resistant Botulinum spores.

Blunt? That's just fine. I'm quite blunt myself...

[Ianinfrance]

Ian: I wasn't referring to Botulism specifically, but to bacterial toxins in general. Staphylococcus aureus produces a thermo-stable toxin for instance.[/quotr]
Which gives gut ache, vomiting and diarrhoea - unpleasant, but not serious. In the context of our hobby, the only serious risk (and that's serious but ultra rare) is from Botulism.

In a more general perspective however, it's good that you brought this up. The major risk is within the extremely heat resistant Botulinum spores.

Indeed. And that's the reason I decided to explain the facts meticulously. I'm a great believer in giving people the facts and then letting them decide what to do themselves.

However, forgive me once more for being blunt but your reply was misleading. You said:-

The bacteria certainly die from the heat, but the toxins they produce can be heat resistant so that doesn't help. You just stop their growth.

While I'm amazed by your excellent English, this sentence means that the toxins' growth is stopped. We both know that's not what you meant, but it's what you said. It's a general rule in English (which 90% of the Brits don't know either) grammar that the pronomial adjective (my, your, his etc) always refers to the last mentioned noun with which it agrees. So in what you wrote, "their" refers to toxins, not bacteria.

To come back to the brisket. If there had been botulism bugs in the middle of the meat (almost vanishingly improbable) and if the inadequate curing had left them alive and well and making toxins there, the long cooking would have killed the bugs and destroyed the toxins. So the meat would - at that time have been entirely free of risk of serious contamination. If the meat had once again been kept at room temperature for a long period, then there would possibly have been the potential for the bugs to hatch, reproduce and make their toxins. But it wasn't.

Basically we agree that there was no risk, what I was picking you up on was your comments about toxins which were possibly misleading, which could be serious in a forum talking about curing.

[grisell]

[---]
You said:-

The bacteria certainly die from the heat, but the toxins they produce can be heat resistant so that doesn't help. You just stop their growth.

While I'm amazed by your excellent English, this sentence means that the toxins' growth is stopped. We both know that's not what you meant, but it's what you said. It's a general rule in English (which 90% of the Brits don't know either) grammar that the pronomial adjective (my, your, his etc) always refers to the last mentioned noun with which it agrees. So in what you wrote, "their" refers to toxins, not bacteria.
[---]

I knew that! Same in Swedish. The original sentence used toxin...their in singular. I edited it to toxins...their after reading since I realized that there are more than one toxin and forgot about the ambiguity. However, I should have written the bacterias' growth.

(BTW, is it bacteria's or bacterias' or just bacteria in plural genitive? Or is it better to use a circumlocution like the adjective bacterial? )

[onewheeler]

As "bacteria" is a plural noun form it's "bacteria's". Like "children's". If we were talking about sausage/s, the position of the apostrophe would indicate whether it's one or more of them: "sausage's" singular, "sausages'" a string of them.

Pedantically,

Martin/

[grisell]

Thanks!

[Ianinfrance]

As "bacteria" is a plural noun form it's "bacteria's". Like "children's". If we were talking about sausage/s, the position of the apostrophe would indicate whether it's one or more of them: "sausage's" singular, "sausages'" a string of them.

Pedantically,

Martin/

Yup. Agree all along the line. I thought I was the only pedant here.