kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 14, 2014 16:37:05 GMT -5
Tender Quick and other curing salts have sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite in them - known carcinogens.
Yeah yeah yeah, I KNOW that "the dose makes the poison," but "cumulative load" (tiny amounts of the 300-400 most common chemicals to which we are exposed every. single. day.) can and often is just as damaging over the long haul.
There are plenty of recipes, suggestions and "how-to's" out there on the interwebz that will teach you how to cure bacon and other meats without chemicals. Just something to consider before you jump to the "chemical solution" first . . .
But as always, YMMV.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 14, 2014 16:39:02 GMT -5
Like legit pea meal Canadian bacon?? If so, what's your recipe? Finally got the pink salt so I can make it and have been looking around for good recipes. PS Try looking at $40/lb to get it shipped to you! No one in Florida sells it. No, not legit pea meal bacon. I don't quite remember what the difference is, but I don't think it's very different. I think that the recipe that I use could be adapted to pea meal bacon fairly easily. For the recipe, go to www.susanminor.org , go to Our Time Tested and Proven Recipes, then go to the curing forum, and look for Habanero Smoker's dry cure Canadian Bacon recipe. This recipe calls for Morton's Tender Quick, not pink salt. (If you know what pink salt is, I assume you realize that you can't just substitute it for Tender Quick.) It also calls for smoking the meat. If you don't have access to a smoker, you could just roast the meat in the oven on some kind of a rack to keep the meat off the bottom of the pan. Won't have that smokey flavor, but will be pretty good anyway. As an alternative, you could brush the meat with some liquid smoke to add some smokey flavor. That's probably what a commercial processor would do. I like this recipe because it's easy to just rub pieces of pork loin (with fat and silver skin removed) with the cure and throw then into the fridge for six days. One thing that I do differently is I do the 30 minute fresh water soak step three times, using fresh water each time. That brings the salt level down to where we like it. If you would like a sweeter flavor, I understand that Mallard Whacker's Maple Candian Bacon recipe is very good, also. I'm off to look up pea meal bacon and see what the difference is from what I've done. Ah. Thanks, but there's a difference. Main being the pea meal isn't smoked. Just cured/brined and then eaten. And you can opt not to roll it in pea meal (corn meal) before. It's delicious and the only true Canadian bacon I know. I've never seen what the states calls Canadian bacon in Canada...well, McDonalds probably still has it on the egg mcmuffins or whatever.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 14, 2014 16:41:16 GMT -5
I haven't seen a recipe for pea meal bacon yet without pink salt. Though I'm open to other options if it tastes the same. I live in an apartment so can't deal with any of the bacon you have to smoke. But I'll go out and say that I'm kinda ok if bacon is the undoing of me, at least I enjoyed every bite!
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Mar 14, 2014 17:16:35 GMT -5
I haven't seen a recipe for pea meal bacon yet without pink salt. Though I'm open to other options if it tastes the same. I live in an apartment so can't deal with any of the bacon you have to smoke. But I'll go out and say that I'm kinda ok if bacon is the undoing of me, at least I enjoyed every bite! OK, did some homework and figured out, as you said, peameal bacon is cured, but not smoked. A few other things that I noticed about the recipes I looked at. Many seem to call for maple syrup, black pepprcorns, and bay leaf, and they appear to be wet brined. All-in-all it seems like a process that someone without a lot of meat curing experience could handle without problems. You can find a variety of recipes if you google peameal canadian bacon cure recipes. I see that one of the recipes is by Michael Ruhlman, author of Charcuterie, one of the leading books on meat curing and sausage making. Pink salt and Tender Quick are very similar products. Both are salts that are used as a carrier for the meat curing agent, sodium nitrite in pink salt and a combination of sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate in Tender Quick. They can be used as substitutes for one another, but because of the different concentrations of the curing agents, you must adjust the quantity of the product you are using to the manufacturer's specification.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Mar 14, 2014 17:41:46 GMT -5
Tender Quick and other curing salts have sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite in them - known carcinogens. Yeah yeah yeah, I KNOW that "the dose makes the poison," but "cumulative load" (tiny amounts of the 300-400 most common chemicals to which we are exposed every. single. day.) can and often is just as damaging over the long haul. There are plenty of recipes, suggestions and "how-to's" out there on the interwebz that will teach you how to cure bacon and other meats without chemicals. Just something to consider before you jump to the "chemical solution" first . . . But as always, YMMV. Kittensaver, I've had a chance to read some of the information on "natural" cures, such as celery juice. Funny thing is that as those products react chemically with the food products they are curing, they turn into nitrites and the like. Only, they don't react as predictably or quickly as the "chemical solutions", so they are not quite as effective for commercial production. My overall conclusion has been that "natural" cures have virtually the same carcinogen risks as chemical cures and, in fact, "natural cures" are more risky to use due to their less predictable reactivity increasing the risk of botulism poisoning from inadequately cured meat products unless the person doing the curing is extraordinarily competent in their use. As a home meat processor, I'll stick with the less risky chemical solutions.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 17, 2014 14:20:39 GMT -5
Tender Quick and other curing salts have sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite in them - known carcinogens. Yeah yeah yeah, I KNOW that "the dose makes the poison," but "cumulative load" (tiny amounts of the 300-400 most common chemicals to which we are exposed every. single. day.) can and often is just as damaging over the long haul. There are plenty of recipes, suggestions and "how-to's" out there on the interwebz that will teach you how to cure bacon and other meats without chemicals. Just something to consider before you jump to the "chemical solution" first . . . But as always, YMMV. Kittensaver, I've had a chance to read some of the information on "natural" cures, such as celery juice. Funny thing is that as those products react chemically with the food products they are curing, they turn into nitrites and the like. Only, they don't react as predictably or quickly as the "chemical solutions", so they are not quite as effective for commercial production. My overall conclusion has been that "natural" cures have virtually the same carcinogen risks as chemical cures and, in fact, "natural cures" are more risky to use due to their less predictable reactivity increasing the risk of botulism poisoning from inadequately cured meat products unless the person doing the curing is extraordinarily competent in their use. As a home meat processor, I'll stick with the less risky chemical solutions. Well clearly to each his own (YMMV), as I have said many times before (and will say again). IMHO, there is a WORLD of difference between nitrates that are produced by a natural chemical reaction and nitrates produced in a laboratory and added to "food." For example, floride exists in nature - fair enough (so do nitrates). But the floride they put in toothpaste does NOT come from nature - it is the chemical by-product of a very toxic substance. Same with nitrates. But I freely admit that having lived through the worst of three devastating environmental illnesses (all chemically-based) and coming out on the other side, my world view is deeply colored by my experiences. Because of my experiences, I put everything I do (cooking, laundry, personal living, cosmetics, home remodeling, the garden, everything I put in-on-near my body and my living spaces, etc etc etc) through the "what would Mother Nature do" test. And I've been better for it. But again - YMMV!
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Mar 17, 2014 15:10:44 GMT -5
Kittensaver, I've had a chance to read some of the information on "natural" cures, such as celery juice. Funny thing is that as those products react chemically with the food products they are curing, they turn into nitrites and the like. Only, they don't react as predictably or quickly as the "chemical solutions", so they are not quite as effective for commercial production. My overall conclusion has been that "natural" cures have virtually the same carcinogen risks as chemical cures and, in fact, "natural cures" are more risky to use due to their less predictable reactivity increasing the risk of botulism poisoning from inadequately cured meat products unless the person doing the curing is extraordinarily competent in their use. As a home meat processor, I'll stick with the less risky chemical solutions. Well clearly to each his own (YMMV), as I have said many times before (and will say again). IMHO, there is a WORLD of difference between nitrates that are produced by a natural chemical reaction and nitrates produced in a laboratory and added to "food." For example, floride exists in nature - fair enough (so do nitrates). But the floride they put in toothpaste does NOT come from nature - it is the chemical by-product of a very toxic substance. Same with nitrates. But I freely admit that having lived through the worst of three devastating environmental illnesses (all chemically-based) and coming out on the other side, my world view is deeply colored by my experiences. Because of my experiences, I put everything I do (cooking, laundry, personal living, cosmetics, home remodeling, the garden, everything I put in-on-near my body and my living spaces, etc etc etc) through the "what would Mother Nature do" test. And I've been better for it. But again - YMMV! I agree, if I had experienced chemical sensitivity, my perspective would probably be very different from what it is. However, there seems to be a group of people who blindly think that "natural/organic" is always better. Some of the anti-GMO/anti anything not natural crowd, for example. But, it depends on your perspective. My Dad talks about growing up on the farm and getting 40 bushels of corn to the acre in a very good year. Now, with GMO seed and cost effective fertilizers, around 165 bushels per acre is average. And in recent years, the average yield in Iowa has been 180 - 183 bushels an acre. GMO seed and synthetic fertilizers have dramatically increased the world's food supply. The food supply is now so great that people can even have choices about whether they want to buy organic, or not. But, if those who seem to think they know better than those uninformed souls who don't eat organic/natural were allowed to control the food supply, we'd have to let about 3/4 of the world population die to get the population in line with the available food supply. And we'd have to tolerate shortages and famine on a regular basis. So, what's better? Banning all GMO/not natural products and letting people starve, or accepting that a larger food supply allows us to live long enough that we might suffer consequences from consuming GMO products?
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 17, 2014 15:22:16 GMT -5
Well clearly to each his own (YMMV), as I have said many times before (and will say again). IMHO, there is a WORLD of difference between nitrates that are produced by a natural chemical reaction and nitrates produced in a laboratory and added to "food." For example, floride exists in nature - fair enough (so do nitrates). But the floride they put in toothpaste does NOT come from nature - it is the chemical by-product of a very toxic substance. Same with nitrates. But I freely admit that having lived through the worst of three devastating environmental illnesses (all chemically-based) and coming out on the other side, my world view is deeply colored by my experiences. Because of my experiences, I put everything I do (cooking, laundry, personal living, cosmetics, home remodeling, the garden, everything I put in-on-near my body and my living spaces, etc etc etc) through the "what would Mother Nature do" test. And I've been better for it. But again - YMMV! I agree, if I had experienced chemical sensitivity, my perspective would probably be very different from what it is. However, there seems to be a group of people who blindly think that "natural/organic" is always better. Some of the anti-GMO/anti anything not natural crowd, for example. But, it depends on your perspective. My Dad talks about growing up on the farm and getting 40 bushels of corn to the acre in a very good year. Now, with GMO seed and cost effective fertilizers, around 165 bushels per acre is average. And in recent years, the average yield in Iowa has been 180 - 183 bushels an acre. GMO seed and synthetic fertilizers have dramatically increased the world's food supply. The food supply is now so great that people can even have choices about whether they want to buy organic, or not. But, if those who seem to think they know better than those uninformed souls who don't eat organic/natural were allowed to control the food supply, we'd have to let about 3/4 of the world population die to get the population in line with the available food supply. And we'd have to tolerate shortages and famine on a regular basis. So, what's better? Banning all GMO/not natural products and letting people starve, or accepting that a larger food supply allows us to live long enough that we might suffer consequences from consuming GMO products? www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-says-small-scale-organic-farming-only-way-toWell again tskeeter - YMMV. I come down on the side of Mother Nature, not a laboratory. For every article you could show me about the "world starving," I could show you an article about the short-sightedness and deep flaws in international food "production." It comes down to who you want to believe. Agree to disagree?
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Mar 17, 2014 16:40:37 GMT -5
I agree, if I had experienced chemical sensitivity, my perspective would probably be very different from what it is. However, there seems to be a group of people who blindly think that "natural/organic" is always better. Some of the anti-GMO/anti anything not natural crowd, for example. But, it depends on your perspective. My Dad talks about growing up on the farm and getting 40 bushels of corn to the acre in a very good year. Now, with GMO seed and cost effective fertilizers, around 165 bushels per acre is average. And in recent years, the average yield in Iowa has been 180 - 183 bushels an acre. GMO seed and synthetic fertilizers have dramatically increased the world's food supply. The food supply is now so great that people can even have choices about whether they want to buy organic, or not. But, if those who seem to think they know better than those uninformed souls who don't eat organic/natural were allowed to control the food supply, we'd have to let about 3/4 of the world population die to get the population in line with the available food supply. And we'd have to tolerate shortages and famine on a regular basis. So, what's better? Banning all GMO/not natural products and letting people starve, or accepting that a larger food supply allows us to live long enough that we might suffer consequences from consuming GMO products? www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-says-small-scale-organic-farming-only-way-toWell again tskeeter - YMMV. I come down on the side of Mother Nature, not a laboratory. For every article you could show me about the "world starving," I could show you an article about the short-sightedness and deep flaws in international food "production." It comes down to who you want to believe. Agree to disagree? Nope. I'm not disagreeing with you. For you, I believe, chemical free is the way to go. Meanwhile, your comments certainly indicate that you have considered that there might be other perspectives that could have some validity. To me, that puts you miles ahead of some of the self appointed environmental saviors who believe that only their, often poorly informed, point of view has any merit. My comments aren't a crticism of your viewpoint, or a disagreement with your views. Your balanced observations provided me the impetus to comment on some viewpoints that are less balanced than your's. (For example, I had to laugh at the press release issued a few years ago by self appointed environmentalist, Ed Begly Jr's. PR folks, annoucing his receipt of an electric powered bicycle as a birthday gift. Jeez, Ed. Did you even consider that a simple, human powered bicycle might be even more environmentally appropriate? Did you even consider that the electricity that your new bike uses might be generated by burning coal? A process that puts particulates in the air and possibly damages the ozone layer? And is mined under conditions that makes the people who mine the coal susceptible to black lung disease? Typical limosine liberal. Claims to be an environmental advocate, yet doesn't do what is truly environmentally sensitive.) While I believe that things such as GMO's and synthetic fertilizers provide some value to the organisms that live on this speck of dust hurtling through space. I also have some concerns about whether there may be consequences we don't yet understand associated with some of what we are doing. I have concerns about the over application of fertilizers, and the lack of biological diversity that have been the result of large scale farming. And, I'm not sure that we know whether, on the whole, any bad consequences might outweigh the more immediate and readily apparent, good consequences. Given the lack of definitive answers, and, in my case, lack of observable bad consequences, I'm just a little skeptical of the very absolute opinions expressed by some self professed experts.
|
|