Sodium Nitrite Cure -- Article
- Thread starter tjkoko
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjkoko:
And be informed that only one shotglass of botulinum toxin can wipe out the entire humanity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It can also do a lot of good for people too--other than botox! It's being used to treat several neuromuscular diseases and there is a lot of research going on regarding its use for neurological diseases.
Regarding nitrates and nitrites, I've been trying to find info lately on exactly how these salts work. I don't understand whether they: 1. directly destroy the protein coat of the endospore; 2. do not affect the endospore but make the environment such that germination is impossible; or 3. both of they above. I'm guessing #1. Kevin, any way you might get one of your microbio contacts to comment on this? I've been sifting through journal articles but since the information is so elementary it's difficult to find anything of quality.
And be informed that only one shotglass of botulinum toxin can wipe out the entire humanity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It can also do a lot of good for people too--other than botox! It's being used to treat several neuromuscular diseases and there is a lot of research going on regarding its use for neurological diseases.
Regarding nitrates and nitrites, I've been trying to find info lately on exactly how these salts work. I don't understand whether they: 1. directly destroy the protein coat of the endospore; 2. do not affect the endospore but make the environment such that germination is impossible; or 3. both of they above. I'm guessing #1. Kevin, any way you might get one of your microbio contacts to comment on this? I've been sifting through journal articles but since the information is so elementary it's difficult to find anything of quality.
this article is a bit over my head, but it is a study how nitrites work. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=203606&pageindex=1
I don't need to know the why/how, just that it works, but my google-fu is strong, so thought I'd try to help.
I don't need to know the why/how, just that it works, but my google-fu is strong, so thought I'd try to help.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Darrel Mc:
I don't need to know the why/how, just that it works, but my google-fu is strong, so thought I'd try to help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Darrel,
You're google-fu is the best I've seen because that was *exactly* what I was looking for (not the experiment they did, but their discussion afterward). I think this blurb from the paper answers my question:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There is no question that nitrite is a reactive molecule which can modify many cellular components. It is less clear which modification(s) actually contributes to the preservative action of nitrite </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In other words, nobody knows how they work
But, I did learn something...it doesn't "kill" the bacteria. It just inhibits outgrowth. The spores are still viable.
I don't need to know the why/how, just that it works, but my google-fu is strong, so thought I'd try to help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Darrel,
You're google-fu is the best I've seen because that was *exactly* what I was looking for (not the experiment they did, but their discussion afterward). I think this blurb from the paper answers my question:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There is no question that nitrite is a reactive molecule which can modify many cellular components. It is less clear which modification(s) actually contributes to the preservative action of nitrite </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In other words, nobody knows how they work
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Found it:
Me:
>Thanks. I guess I'm wondering more about the specifics of nitrites.
>Do they act directly on the bacteria and spores? Do they affect the
>meat which then prevents C bot growth? Do they kill vegetative C bot.
>and spores or just kill veg-state? Or are they only preventives/inhibitors?
Bob LaBudde:
1. Nitrate does not work by itself. First it must be converted to
nitrite via microbial action, e.g., by micrococci.
2. Nitrite functions to tie up iron in the muscle tissue and
sarcoplasma by forming a stable complex under heat. When nitrite
complexed to myoglobin is heated to, e.g., 160 F, the bond formed is
reasonably stable. This is why ham is pink and so are hot dogs and
bologna. It is also responsible for the special flavor. Other
compounds that form more or less stable compounds with meat iron are
carbon monoxide, sulfite and cyanide. Oxygen forms only a weak
complex, as hemoglobin and myoglobin were designed to exchange it.
3. In an anaerobic environment, bacteria need transition metals as
catalysts to perform their metabolism, which is more difficult in the
absence of oxygen. Consequently the nutrient iron is a key one for
determining metabolic rate.
4. Clostridia are either microaerophilic (e.g., perfringens) or
strictly anaerobic (e.g., botulinum). They are highly dependent upon
a source of iron to attain fast growth rates. Many other genera are
also limited by iron availability.
5. Clostridia must break down the bonds between nitrite and iron in
order to get at the meat iron source. This defines a period of
limited metabolic rate described by microbiologists as the "lag
phase" of growth. Once the iron has been released, Clostridia goes
into the maximum metabolic rate, or "exponential phase", of growth.
6. The more iron present, the shorter the lag phase for Clostridia.
This is why beef is at higher risk with respect to Clostridia than,
say, chicken breast.
7. If you apply nitrite without heating to above 150 F, the effect is
very minor, similar to salt in affecting Aw, but the quantity is so
low as to not matter much. The effect on ORP would also be minor at
the levels used.
8. I suspect sodium cyanide would be much better than sodium nitrite
as a Clostridium-static compound, because of its stronger bond to iron.
9. In a similar manner, nitrite will reduce the nutrient availability
of iron to humans. One of the reasons cured meats are implicated in
colon cancer may be that the nitrite preserves the iron against
microbial action until the colon, where Clostridia can then release
it over time and foster their subsequent growth.
These ideas about nitrite are mostly my own, and are not well known
or understood by food microbiologists who have researched Clostridia.
So you may find them somewhat at odds with conjectures made in papers
you might come across.
================================================================
Me:
>Thanks. I guess I'm wondering more about the specifics of nitrites.
>Do they act directly on the bacteria and spores? Do they affect the
>meat which then prevents C bot growth? Do they kill vegetative C bot.
>and spores or just kill veg-state? Or are they only preventives/inhibitors?
Bob LaBudde:
1. Nitrate does not work by itself. First it must be converted to
nitrite via microbial action, e.g., by micrococci.
2. Nitrite functions to tie up iron in the muscle tissue and
sarcoplasma by forming a stable complex under heat. When nitrite
complexed to myoglobin is heated to, e.g., 160 F, the bond formed is
reasonably stable. This is why ham is pink and so are hot dogs and
bologna. It is also responsible for the special flavor. Other
compounds that form more or less stable compounds with meat iron are
carbon monoxide, sulfite and cyanide. Oxygen forms only a weak
complex, as hemoglobin and myoglobin were designed to exchange it.
3. In an anaerobic environment, bacteria need transition metals as
catalysts to perform their metabolism, which is more difficult in the
absence of oxygen. Consequently the nutrient iron is a key one for
determining metabolic rate.
4. Clostridia are either microaerophilic (e.g., perfringens) or
strictly anaerobic (e.g., botulinum). They are highly dependent upon
a source of iron to attain fast growth rates. Many other genera are
also limited by iron availability.
5. Clostridia must break down the bonds between nitrite and iron in
order to get at the meat iron source. This defines a period of
limited metabolic rate described by microbiologists as the "lag
phase" of growth. Once the iron has been released, Clostridia goes
into the maximum metabolic rate, or "exponential phase", of growth.
6. The more iron present, the shorter the lag phase for Clostridia.
This is why beef is at higher risk with respect to Clostridia than,
say, chicken breast.
7. If you apply nitrite without heating to above 150 F, the effect is
very minor, similar to salt in affecting Aw, but the quantity is so
low as to not matter much. The effect on ORP would also be minor at
the levels used.
8. I suspect sodium cyanide would be much better than sodium nitrite
as a Clostridium-static compound, because of its stronger bond to iron.
9. In a similar manner, nitrite will reduce the nutrient availability
of iron to humans. One of the reasons cured meats are implicated in
colon cancer may be that the nitrite preserves the iron against
microbial action until the colon, where Clostridia can then release
it over time and foster their subsequent growth.
These ideas about nitrite are mostly my own, and are not well known
or understood by food microbiologists who have researched Clostridia.
So you may find them somewhat at odds with conjectures made in papers
you might come across.
================================================================
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
I am and will look at them.
I have an issue with the UMn article though:
The author states, "For centuries, meat has been preserved with salt. At certain levels, salt prevents growth of some types of bacteria that are responsible for meat spoilage. Salt prevents bacterial growth either because of its direct inhibitory effect or because of the drying effect it has on meat (most bacteria require substantial amounts of moisture to live and grow)."
Quite true.
But then, "Adding nitrite to meat is only part of the curing process. Ordinary table salt (sodium chloride) is added because of its effect on flavor."
The second statement contradicts the first, in a way, and isn't true. Salt is the primary agent of a cure. It is not simply "added because of its effect on flavor." One can cure without nitrite. One cannot cure without salt.
I have an issue with the UMn article though:
The author states, "For centuries, meat has been preserved with salt. At certain levels, salt prevents growth of some types of bacteria that are responsible for meat spoilage. Salt prevents bacterial growth either because of its direct inhibitory effect or because of the drying effect it has on meat (most bacteria require substantial amounts of moisture to live and grow)."
Quite true.
But then, "Adding nitrite to meat is only part of the curing process. Ordinary table salt (sodium chloride) is added because of its effect on flavor."
The second statement contradicts the first, in a way, and isn't true. Salt is the primary agent of a cure. It is not simply "added because of its effect on flavor." One can cure without nitrite. One cannot cure without salt.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
I have an issue with the UMn article though: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It may just be me, but many times I'm left shaking my head after reading "extension" articles (on many topics, not just meat curing). I find them really hit or miss.
I have an issue with the UMn article though: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It may just be me, but many times I'm left shaking my head after reading "extension" articles (on many topics, not just meat curing). I find them really hit or miss.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One can cure without nitrite. One cannot cure without salt </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Kruger, does salt (sodium chloride) inhibit botulinum bacteria as effectively as sodium nitirite???? In other words is salt as effective in preventing botulism as sodium nitrite??
Hey Kruger, does salt (sodium chloride) inhibit botulinum bacteria as effectively as sodium nitirite???? In other words is salt as effective in preventing botulism as sodium nitrite??
David Lohrentz
TVWBB Pro
Are you suggesting that the only reason to cure is to inhibit botulism? The primary reason to cure meats is because they taste d*mn good.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Lohrentz:
Are you suggesting that the only reason to cure is to inhibit botulism? The primary reason to cure meats is because they taste d*mn good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And, of course, its preservative function.
Are you suggesting that the only reason to cure is to inhibit botulism? The primary reason to cure meats is because they taste d*mn good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And, of course, its preservative function.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjkoko:
Hey Kruger, does salt (sodium chloride) inhibit botulinum bacteria as effectively as sodium nitirite???? In other words is salt as effective in preventing botulism as sodium nitrite?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am suggesting just what I stated: One can cure without nitrite, one cannot cure without salt. As David suggests, inhibiton of botulism is an adjunct, not a primary.
In the case of bacon, depending on the items used in the cure, botulism isn't a big concern if other protocols are adhered to. If, for example, one dry-cures cold with a sufficient amount of cure and for sufficient time, forms pellicle cold (or in a reasonably short time at room temp), or does so in the early stages of smoking), does not smoke at low temps for a long period, cools quickly post smoking, stores cold, cooks before consumption, a cure without nitrite is quite possible and fear of botulism is unwarranted. All protocols are important but salt is the primary--sodium chloride.
Hey Kruger, does salt (sodium chloride) inhibit botulinum bacteria as effectively as sodium nitirite???? In other words is salt as effective in preventing botulism as sodium nitrite?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am suggesting just what I stated: One can cure without nitrite, one cannot cure without salt. As David suggests, inhibiton of botulism is an adjunct, not a primary.
In the case of bacon, depending on the items used in the cure, botulism isn't a big concern if other protocols are adhered to. If, for example, one dry-cures cold with a sufficient amount of cure and for sufficient time, forms pellicle cold (or in a reasonably short time at room temp), or does so in the early stages of smoking), does not smoke at low temps for a long period, cools quickly post smoking, stores cold, cooks before consumption, a cure without nitrite is quite possible and fear of botulism is unwarranted. All protocols are important but salt is the primary--sodium chloride.
Salinity itself (in addition to its dessicating effects) can inhibit bacterial growth, even endospore formers (i've done it in the lab with Bacillus species in liquid media). I don't know the exact reason why it works, but increasing the osmolarity around any cell usually screws it up pretty bad (or, in the case of an endospore former, just prevents outgrowth). Not sure if the spores are still viable afterwards.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjkoko:
Salt, along with alcohol, estrogen, protein and sugar, are all osmotically active agents. They attract water and thus dehydrate stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, but that really has nothing to do with endospores. They're immune to dessication (err, they won't germinate in a dry environment). But the bug itself--its genetic material--stay very much intact inside the endospore and ready to go.
Interesting fact about endospores: Researchers recently revived 250 million year old endospores found in salt crystals found underground in New Mexico!
Salt, along with alcohol, estrogen, protein and sugar, are all osmotically active agents. They attract water and thus dehydrate stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, but that really has nothing to do with endospores. They're immune to dessication (err, they won't germinate in a dry environment). But the bug itself--its genetic material--stay very much intact inside the endospore and ready to go.
Interesting fact about endospores: Researchers recently revived 250 million year old endospores found in salt crystals found underground in New Mexico!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjkoko:
Thanks for the info. Can you name some common endospores for us lay persons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure what you mean by "common", but the two genera of bacteria that form endospores are Bacillus and Clostridium. The most common (well, the one we're concerned with here) is Clostridium botulinum--the one that produces botulism toxin. It is ubiquitous. Other interesting endospore formers might be Clostridium tetani, which, as you might guess, causes tetanus. Not sure how many species there are of either genera.
Thanks for the info. Can you name some common endospores for us lay persons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure what you mean by "common", but the two genera of bacteria that form endospores are Bacillus and Clostridium. The most common (well, the one we're concerned with here) is Clostridium botulinum--the one that produces botulism toxin. It is ubiquitous. Other interesting endospore formers might be Clostridium tetani, which, as you might guess, causes tetanus. Not sure how many species there are of either genera.