Katra wrote:
>
> Elizabeth Reid wrote:
>
>>Frogleg > wrote in message >. ..
>>
>>
>>>"When in doubt, throw it out" is *such* a good guideline. Even to know
>>>enough to ask the question implies one knows the meat's safety/taste
>>>may be compromised. UDSA/FDA/other recommendations may err on the
>>>cautious side, but I don't want to cook a dish and wonder, start to
>>>finish, while eating, and when waking the next day if I should make
>>>sure I'm able to dial 911 in the middle of stomach cramps. Much less
>>>that my name is going to be in the paper as host of a Ptomaine Picnic.
>>
>>I use this guideline. My husband makes fun of me and my
>>paranoia, as he thinks I throw out food that is perfectly fine.
>>However, before he met me, he used to get 'the stomach flu'
>>at least twice a year. Mysteriously, in the seven years we've
>>been together he hasn't had it once. He's probably right
>>that I do sometimes throw away food that's fine, but I'd
>>rather toss dubious food than toss my cookies!
>>
>>Beth
>
>
> It's also more economical... :-)
> Tossing $10.00 worth of food vs. a $600.00 ER bill?
>
> You do the math. <G>
>
> I have insurance so ER only runs me $75.00 co-pay, but still....
>
> K.
>


I would wash the meat, and then cook it thoroughly. If it stinks when I
cook it, I would throw it out. Any bacteria will be killed during cooking.

If it smelled OK but I still didn't quite trust it, I'd pressure cook it
and make a big batch of chicken soup. I'm not sure that even streptococcus
toxin (the most heat stable spoilage product I can think of) will survive
half an hour in a pressure cooker.

Best regards,
Bob

Frogleg wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:51:13 -0500, Bob Pastorio >
> wrote:
>=20
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Robin > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I purchased chicken thighs at Costco, and wasn't able to get home for=
=20
>>>>about 4-5 hours. It sat in the car, local temps are about 60-65 degre=
es. =20
>>>>Got it home, put in fridge, now two days later, assuming its still go=
od, =20
>>>>need to cook up now before more time goes by. Would you toss it or u=
se=20
>>>>it? Can you tell by odor alone if its ok?
>>>
>>>Toss it. According to the US Department of Agricultu
>=20
> <snip quote>
>=20
>>><http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/FAQ/hotlinefaq.htm#6>
>>
>>The meat didn't instantly leap from 25F to 65F. It would take the=20
>>better part of a few hours to get up to those temperatures if it were=20
>>just sitting out. In a sealed package with a plastic wrapper over a=20
>>styrofoam tray, with the meat pressed together as Costco does it, the=20
>>temperature wouldn't rise appreciably for quite a while. It's packaged =

>>that way just for that eventuality.
>=20
>=20
> Did we ever learn if the chicken was originally frozen or just in a
> refrigerator case? I think those are supposed to be around 40F.

Commercial packaged chicken isn't "frozen," it's "superchilled."=20
That's the silly trade term. It's "superchilled" to a rocklike texture=20
and bears a remarkable resemblance to "frozen" chicken. The poultry=20
and fish cases at Costco are generally kept at 33F to 35F. The=20
"superchilled" granitic chicken is put into the cases as delivered.=20
The poultry packers discovered that superchilling their products=20
killed some bacteria, seriously slowed others and extended the shelf=20
life in stores.

We don't know the beginning temperature of the product as purchased in=20
the post, nor do we know the final temperature as it was put into the=20
fridge.

> 5 hrs
> in a car (where it would probably be a good deal warmer than the
> ambient 60-65F mentioned)

We have no way of knowing that. Was it sunny? Was the car closed? Was=20
the chicken in the path of an operating heater? Was it in a cardboard=20
box with other cold foods? We have no way of knowing from the original=20
post.

> would be plenty of time to make *me*
> suspicious.
>=20
>>Some science that flies in the face of "common sense":
>><http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents2001/time-temp-calculations.html>

> This is for cooked food, presumably starting out with 1 itty bitty
> bacteria, not for raw chicken. Since a startling percentage of chicken
> sold in the US has an appreciable amount of Salmonella bacteria to
> start out with, the 'safe' time at various temperatures on this chart
> has no practical relevance.

Yes, it's for cooked food but it makes two important points. First;=20
that there isn't much bacterial contamination in cooked food (so=20
cooking it drastically reduces and controls that "appreciable" amount=20
of bacterial contamination, see last reference below) and, second; the=20
growth rate isn't as fast as most people think. If the chicken=20
actually did get to 65F, the total number of bacteria would double in=20
2 hours thereafter. But that doesn't matter because cooking it to more=20
than 160F makes it safe.

In my original note, I sent the same thing twice. My mistake. Here's=20
what I meant to send the first time. This other chart deals with=20
thawing frozen birds at room temp. While we don't know that the=20
chicken necessarily was frozen when purchased, the situation vis a vis=20
bacterial growth in frozen and room temp thawed chicken is germane=20
here. This is a small part of the paper, for full details, go to:
<http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Thaw-counter.html>

<<<<<<<< begin quote >>>>>>>>>>>>

Differences in bacterial population before freezing and after thawing=20
were assessed. The aerobic plate count, Enterobacteriaceae, and=20
pseudomonad populations of the skin of uninoculated chickens did not=20
increase when the chickens were thawed on the counter in less than 10=20
hours to an internal temperature of 40F within the breast. The most=20
notable observation was that there was a small increase (0.5 log10=20
CFU/g) in the population of pseudomonad bacteria (spoilage bacteria)=20
when the chicken was thawed under refrigeration, which took about 55=20
hours.

In another part of this study, chickens were inoculated with=20
Salmonella hadar in order to assess the effect of the different=20
thawing methods on the growth of this microorganism. It was shown=20
that there was a slight decrease in the population of Salmonella=20
hadar-inoculated chickens frozen and thawed at room temperature to an=20
internal temperature of 40F within the breast. This same decrease was=20
noted in chickens frozen and thawed in flowing water and in=20
refrigeration. This latter observation demonstrates the reduction in=20
cell numbers because of freezing injury and the inability of this=20
strain of salmonellae to grow below 45F.

In summary, the research study by Jim=E9nez et al. (1999) supports the=20
previous study by Klose et al. (1968). The USDA is correct to allow=20
raw meat, fish, and poultry to thaw at room temperature. There is no=20
risk in thawing these products at room temperature.

<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>

From another paper:
<http://www.hi-tm.com/homeprep/home-VI.html>
<<<<<<<<<< begin quote >>>>>>>>
Keeping food at 50F for a short period of time, say 1 hour, is a=20
spoilage problem, not a food safety problem."
<<< snip >>>

[And, if the food is held at 50F or more and it noticeably spoils, can=20
it be made safe?]

If Raw Food Is Spoiled
High numbers of spoilage bacteria in raw food will NOT make you sick.=20
When food spoils microbiologically, the spoilage microorganisms grow=20
on the surface until they totally cover the surface, perhaps 2 to 3=20
layers deep. At this point, surfaces of foods such as meat, poultry or=20
fish feel "slimy", and there can be 20,000,000 to 50,000,000=20
microorganisms per gram or per square inch of food. This is when=20
hamburger smells sour and turns brown, and fish and chicken turn slimy=20
and have very objectionable odors. The growth of spoilage bacteria on=20
green onions harvested during a wet growing season causes the onions=20
to become slimy, and yellow onions to become soft.

***When spoiled food is cooked above 160F to make it safe,*** it may=20
have a foul odor. For this reason, spices and herbs have been added to=20
food throughout the centuries to mask the off-flavors and off-odors of=20
spoiled or partially spoiled food. [***emphasis mine]
<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>

Pastorio

Just because cooking spoiled food kills the bacteria does not make it safe to
eat. Bacteria also produce toxins that cannot always be neutralized by
cooking.

DJS0302 wrote:
>
> Just because cooking spoiled food kills the bacteria does not make it safe to
> eat. Bacteria also produce toxins that cannot always be neutralized by
> cooking.

Like botulism???? <G>

K.

Katra wrote:

> DJS0302 wrote:
>
>>Just because cooking spoiled food kills the bacteria does not make it safe to
>>eat. Bacteria also produce toxins that cannot always be neutralized by
>>cooking.
>
> Like botulism???? <G>

Well, botulism is one that produces a toxin. But cooking gets rid of
it. That's why the USDA says to cook home-canned foods for 10 minutes
before service. But you aren't likely to find botulism in raw chicken
since it's an anaerobe.

There's a difference between pathogenic (harmful) and spoilage
bacteria. They function independently of each other. Simultaneous but
different processes.

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
> Katra wrote:
>
> > DJS0302 wrote:
> >
> >>Just because cooking spoiled food kills the bacteria does not make it safe to
> >>eat. Bacteria also produce toxins that cannot always be neutralized by
> >>cooking.
> >
> > Like botulism???? <G>
>
> Well, botulism is one that produces a toxin. But cooking gets rid of
> it. That's why the USDA says to cook home-canned foods for 10 minutes
> before service. But you aren't likely to find botulism in raw chicken
> since it's an anaerobe.

I knew that. :-) It's most common in canned foods, not fresh raw, and
anaerobes produce gas which causes the ends of the cans to bulge. Never
EVER eat a bulgy can! Don't even open it.

But, are you sure that Botulinum toxin is destroyed by cooking? I
understood that it was not???

>
> There's a difference between pathogenic (harmful) and spoilage
> bacteria. They function independently of each other. Simultaneous but
> different processes.
>
> Pastorio

Well, does not "hanging" beef for 40 days cause a mild amount of
spoilage and breakdown of the meat and contribute to tenderness? This is
one reason that dad has sworn off beef. He believes that "aged" beef is
rotten and full of carcinogens.

No, this is not MY belief, but I find his viewpoint interesting... :-)

K.

--
>^,,^< Cats-haven Hobby Farm >^,,^< >^,,^<

"There are millions of intelligent species in the universe, and they are
all owned by cats" -- Asimov

Custom handcrafts, Sterling silver beaded jewelry
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...s&userid=Katra

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:11:48 GMT, "Jack Schidt®"
> wrote:

>
>"Reg" > wrote in message
.com...
>> Katra wrote:
>>
>> > Personally, if they still smelled ok, I'd cook them up for the chooks.
>>
>> Odor isn't a reliable indicator for pathogens, so you shouldn't depend
>> on it.
>>
>> If this were me: I would definetely not serve them to guests. I'd probably
>> eat them myself though, because they're fine in all likelihood.
>>
>> I see it this way... it's one thing to take a risk for myself, even if
>it's
>> small. It's quite another thing to involve others.
>>
>
>
>Amen. I bend the rules when it's just cooking for me. Especially rule F,
>as in 'fff-ffff', for when something hits the floor.
>
>Jack San-i-terry
>
i thought there was some kind of five-second rule. if it hasn't been
on the floor for more than five seconds, back into the pot it goes.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:29:46 -0500, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>Ed wrote:
>>
>> On 15 Dec 2003 22:15:34 GMT, (PENMART01) wrote:
>>
>> >Spelling is not sentence structure, you moroon.
>> ^
>> ?
>>
>> HTH,
>> --
>> Kenneth
>
>(laugh) I have no idea what you two are arguing about, but moroon
>is classic Bugs Bunny.
>
>nancy

i tend to agree. but sometimes you're dealing with the 'lose/loose'
phenomenon.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:11:48 GMT, "Jack Schidt®"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Reg" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >> Katra wrote:
> >>
> >> > Personally, if they still smelled ok, I'd cook them up for the chooks.
> >>
> >> Odor isn't a reliable indicator for pathogens, so you shouldn't depend
> >> on it.
> >>
> >> If this were me: I would definetely not serve them to guests. I'd probably
> >> eat them myself though, because they're fine in all likelihood.
> >>
> >> I see it this way... it's one thing to take a risk for myself, even if
> >it's
> >> small. It's quite another thing to involve others.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Amen. I bend the rules when it's just cooking for me. Especially rule F,
> >as in 'fff-ffff', for when something hits the floor.
> >
> >Jack San-i-terry
> >
> i thought there was some kind of five-second rule. if it hasn't been
> on the floor for more than five seconds, back into the pot it goes.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Uh, as I said in another post, chooks are chickens.
They eat carrion and maggots. It's awfully hard to poison one...

If any meat was on MY floor for more than 5 seconds, it'd be cat food. :-)

K.

--
>^,,^< Cats-haven Hobby Farm >^,,^< >^,,^<

"There are millions of intelligent species in the universe, and they are
all owned by cats" -- Asimov

Custom handcrafts, Sterling silver beaded jewelry
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...s&userid=Katra

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:44:22 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:11:48 GMT, "Jack Schidt®"
> wrote:
>>
>>Amen. I bend the rules when it's just cooking for me. Especially rule F,
>>as in 'fff-ffff', for when something hits the floor.
>>
>>Jack San-i-terry
>>
>i thought there was some kind of five-second rule. if it hasn't been
>on the floor for more than five seconds, back into the pot it goes.

My interpretation of the rule is that it goes into my mouth, but the
pot is as good a destination as any if it's not cooked through.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:41:52 -0600, ravinwulf >
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:14:10 -0500, "Saerah Bennett"
><anisaerah@worldlinkisp.****spamcom****spam> wrote:
>
>>
>>Katra wrote in message >...
>>>Uh, chooks are chickens... :-)
>>>That is what I suggested she feed them to.
>>>
>>>Chickens eat maggots and carrion, etc. It's VERY hard to poison them
>>>with spoiled food! LOL!
>>>
>>
>>um, isnt it kind of, well, wrong to feed chicken to chickens?
>>or something.
>
>LOL Well, maybe....
>
>OTOH, I knew an African Gray parrot who loved Mrs. Winner's fried
>chicken. She lived in our office and frequently got bits of whatever
>people were eating for lunch that day; if you didn't let her taste,
>she drove you crazy sighing heavily every time you took a bite and
>begging. It's one thing to be able to ignore those sad eyes your dog
>makes; it's quite another to ignore a critter that says, "Give me a
>bite please, sweetheart" when she wants something. <g> I can still see
>her sitting on her perch, gnawing with obvious relish on a drumstick
>she had clutched in her foot. :-)
>
>Regards,
>Tracy R.

birds of a feather *fress* together.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:41:52 -0600, ravinwulf >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:14:10 -0500, "Saerah Bennett"
>><anisaerah@worldlinkisp.****spamcom****spam> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Katra wrote in message >...
>>>>Uh, chooks are chickens... :-)
>>>>That is what I suggested she feed them to.
>>>>
>>>>Chickens eat maggots and carrion, etc. It's VERY hard to poison them
>>>>with spoiled food! LOL!
>>>>
>>>
>>>um, isnt it kind of, well, wrong to feed chicken to chickens?
>>>or something.
>>
>>LOL Well, maybe....
>>
>>OTOH, I knew an African Gray parrot who loved Mrs. Winner's fried
>>chicken. She lived in our office and frequently got bits of whatever
>>people were eating for lunch that day; if you didn't let her taste,
>>she drove you crazy sighing heavily every time you took a bite and
>>begging. It's one thing to be able to ignore those sad eyes your dog
>>makes; it's quite another to ignore a critter that says, "Give me a
>>bite please, sweetheart" when she wants something. <g> I can still see
>>her sitting on her perch, gnawing with obvious relish on a drumstick
>>she had clutched in her foot. :-)
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tracy R.
>
>birds of a feather *fress* together.
>
>your pal,
>blake

hehe. i just had a lenny bruce moment

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL


" I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have
weapons
of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
Ari Fleischer
7/9/2003

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:11:54 -0500, "Saerah"
> wrote:

>
>blake murphy wrote in message ...

>>birds of a feather *fress* together.
>>
>>your pal,
>>blake
>
>hehe. i just had a lenny bruce moment

high praise indeed.

your pal,
blake