"Frogleg" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 22:18:31 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:
>
> >Would hate to live without my 'fridge (and freezer compartment).
>
> This has been an interesting discussion. I realized I keep a lot of
> things in the 'fridge that might be stored at room temperature (but
> *not* in July :-)
>
> I'm now considering the question in the light of convenience. That is,
> before domestic refrigeration/freezing, a good part of each day's
> meals would have to be cooked and eaten on that day. Nothing like
> having a turkey sandwich in January from slices frozen in November, or
> economizing on effort and expense by cooking two casserole dishes and
> freezing one. Unless the food safety folk are talking through their
> hats, last night's unrefrigerated pasta and meat sauce miay be dubious
> as this morning's breakfast, much less lunch or dinner. Even with
> canned/preserved stuff, once the container is open, many items go
> 'off' rather quickly.

Last nights unrefrigerated pasta will not be dubious this evening, and even
the meat sauce if well cooked, stored in as small a jar as possible with a
closed lid (to minimise oxydation and contamination) will hold very well
for a day or two out of the fridge, if you have a cool spot to put it in.
Evidently if you mixed the sauce in the pasta and leave everything in the
serving dish on the counter in august (or in an overheated flat) you get a
dessicated mess overnight, which won't kill you if you can chew it ;-)

Let's not forget that conditions of life were quite different then from
now, and that people knew far better what could be held, in what
conditions, and how long. And let's also not forget that these people were
raised in conditions of hygiene that were far less stringent than they are
today, and so could far better cope with the slight contamination levels
they faced and modern sanitation practices (and they are far more stringent
in the USA than in most of Europe) lowered our tolerance level to these
contaminants. (I don't say it's bad.) I just remember that in the 1970s
still some things were routinely done to food that would be absolutely out
today.

> We have whole cookbooks of 'leftover' recipes, based on the idea that
> Tuesday's roast becomes Thursday's hash, and Sunday's chicken,
> Wednesday's chicken salad.
>
> It must have been *very* hard work to shop for and prepare relatively
> 'new' meals each day.

Absolutely not, a lot of cooked meals can be kept a few days without
refrigeration if you respect these basic rules :
- If you at all can, use a preservation method, canning, laying underwater,
coating with fat, honey or salt, dessicate... etc.
- Keep different items separate
- Pack tightly in as small a jar as will fit, trying not to leave pockets
of air in the product
- Cover lightly, not airtight
- Store cool and far from drafts
- Know well the tolerance of your products, some hold overnight, some hold
a few days and some hold a few weeks.

And most cookbooks before refrigeration give the tolerance of the finished
product, stating how long the product keeps.*

Hope this helps,

--
Salutations, greetings,
Guiraud Belissen, Chteau du Ciel, Drachenwald
Chris CII, Rennes, France

In article >, Christophe Bachmann
> wrote:

> a lot of cooked meals can be kept a few days without
> refrigeration if you respect these basic rules :
> - If you at all can, use a preservation method, canning, laying underwater,
> coating with fat, honey or salt, dessicate... etc.
> - Keep different items separate
> - Pack tightly in as small a jar as will fit, trying not to leave pockets
> of air in the product
> - Cover lightly, not airtight
> - Store cool and far from drafts
> - Know well the tolerance of your products, some hold overnight, some hold
> a few days and some hold a few weeks.

I'd agree with all this, but I'd add, don't keep meat stored in a
plastic bag. Don't even allow the butcher to give it to you.

As I said above, I don't own a freezer, and apart from the fact that I
occasionally catch salmon that I'd like to keep, I don't miss one.

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:50:05 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
> wrote:

>Last nights unrefrigerated pasta will not be dubious this evening, and even
>the meat sauce if well cooked, stored in as small a jar as possible with a
>closed lid (to minimise oxydation and contamination) will hold very well
>for a day or two out of the fridge, if you have a cool spot to put it in.

Two points: A "cool spot" may be hard to come by in many
climates/seasons. Since I was thinking about the era before
refrigeration, it would also be before air-conditioning, which usually
isn't used to cool lower than about 70F anyhow. Second, food storage
guidelines, conservative to be sure, in the US dictate that cooked and
many raw foods can be kept between 40F and 140F (4C to 60C) for no
longer than 4 hours to avoid possibly harmful bacterial growth. These
'rules' are guidelines for home food storage and requirements for
restaurants. While my house is quite cold, it's all well above 4C,
except in the 'fridge.

>Let's not forget that conditions of life were quite different then from
>now, and that people knew far better what could be held, in what
>conditions, and how long.

Hmmm. They knew "far better" about the causes and effects of
food-borne illness (and death)? I don't think so. Scientists and
researchers had a hard time selling the 'germ theory' about the cause
and spread of disease -- how could something you can't see hurt you?
The world before knowledge of 'germs' was far from germ-free.

> And let's also not forget that these people were
>raised in conditions of hygiene that were far less stringent than they are
>today, and so could far better cope with the slight contamination levels
>they faced and modern sanitation practices (and they are far more stringent
>in the USA than in most of Europe) lowered our tolerance level to these
>contaminants. (I don't say it's bad.) I just remember that in the 1970s
>still some things were routinely done to food that would be absolutely out
>today.

I agree that over-sanitation/sterilization has gotten way out of hand,
and also that naturally-acquired immunity from mild exposure to many
diseases may indeed be beneficial. In fact, as far as I've been able
to determine, deaths and even serious illness (in the west) from food
sources is rather rare. However, just because something looks and
smells OK doesn't mean it isn't growing tiny critters.
>
>> We have whole cookbooks of 'leftover' recipes, based on the idea that
>> Tuesday's roast becomes Thursday's hash, and Sunday's chicken,
>> Wednesday's chicken salad.
>>
>> It must have been *very* hard work to shop for and prepare relatively
>> 'new' meals each day.
>
>Absolutely not, a lot of cooked meals can be kept a few days without
>refrigeration if you respect these basic rules :

>- If you at all can, use a preservation method, canning, laying underwater,
>coating with fat, honey or salt, dessicate... etc.

Yes, this is true of preserving foods. Does not apply to Sunday's
roast chicken. My (most recent) contention is that it would have been
a whole lot of *work* to not be able to shove something in the 'fridge
for a few days (or freezer for a couple of months).

>- Store cool and far from drafts

"Far from drafts?" Is this leftover meat sauce or a parekeet? :-)

>- Know well the tolerance of your products, some hold overnight, some hold
>a few days and some hold a few weeks.

I certainly keep more things in the 'fridge than strictly necessary.
Particularly when the ambient temperature is low. However, I don't
think I'd want to eat a mayonnaise-based salad (tuna, chicken, potato)
after a day unfrigerated. Pizza? Yes. Pasta with meat sauce? I don't
think so. In fact, outside of hard sausage, or country salt-cured ham,
I wouldn't be happy with any meat/fish/poultry thing, cooked or raw,
that had lingered untimely at room temperature, not matter how
well-covered.

>And most cookbooks before refrigeration give the tolerance of the finished
>product, stating how long the product keeps.*

I think I'll lean toward the USDA and CDC rather than Mrs. Beeton. :-)

Frogleg wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:50:05 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Last nights unrefrigerated pasta will not be dubious this evening, and even
>>the meat sauce if well cooked, stored in as small a jar as possible with a
>>closed lid (to minimise oxydation and contamination) will hold very well
>>for a day or two out of the fridge, if you have a cool spot to put it in.
>

Without getting into the specific and individual points, I'd like to
suggest looking around in Dr. Snyder's publications on his web site.
Some of our "everybody knows it" stuff isn't scientifically valid. I
had to do that most annoying of things after reading and testing some
of his notions: change my mind.

<http://www.hi-tm.com/html/pubs_reports.html>

Look at food storage info. Safe temps. Thawing foods. Mayo. Blew me away.

Pastorio

> Two points: A "cool spot" may be hard to come by in many
> climates/seasons. Since I was thinking about the era before
> refrigeration, it would also be before air-conditioning, which usually
> isn't used to cool lower than about 70F anyhow. Second, food storage
> guidelines, conservative to be sure, in the US dictate that cooked and
> many raw foods can be kept between 40F and 140F (4C to 60C) for no
> longer than 4 hours to avoid possibly harmful bacterial growth. These
> 'rules' are guidelines for home food storage and requirements for
> restaurants. While my house is quite cold, it's all well above 4C,
> except in the 'fridge.
>
>
>>Let's not forget that conditions of life were quite different then from
>>now, and that people knew far better what could be held, in what
>>conditions, and how long.
>
>
> Hmmm. They knew "far better" about the causes and effects of
> food-borne illness (and death)? I don't think so. Scientists and
> researchers had a hard time selling the 'germ theory' about the cause
> and spread of disease -- how could something you can't see hurt you?
> The world before knowledge of 'germs' was far from germ-free.
>
>
>>And let's also not forget that these people were
>>raised in conditions of hygiene that were far less stringent than they are
>>today, and so could far better cope with the slight contamination levels
>>they faced and modern sanitation practices (and they are far more stringent
>>in the USA than in most of Europe) lowered our tolerance level to these
>>contaminants. (I don't say it's bad.) I just remember that in the 1970s
>>still some things were routinely done to food that would be absolutely out
>>today.
>
>
> I agree that over-sanitation/sterilization has gotten way out of hand,
> and also that naturally-acquired immunity from mild exposure to many
> diseases may indeed be beneficial. In fact, as far as I've been able
> to determine, deaths and even serious illness (in the west) from food
> sources is rather rare. However, just because something looks and
> smells OK doesn't mean it isn't growing tiny critters.
>
>>>We have whole cookbooks of 'leftover' recipes, based on the idea that
>>>Tuesday's roast becomes Thursday's hash, and Sunday's chicken,
>>>Wednesday's chicken salad.
>>>
>>>It must have been *very* hard work to shop for and prepare relatively
>>>'new' meals each day.
>>
>>Absolutely not, a lot of cooked meals can be kept a few days without
>>refrigeration if you respect these basic rules :
>
>
>>- If you at all can, use a preservation method, canning, laying underwater,
>>coating with fat, honey or salt, dessicate... etc.
>
>
> Yes, this is true of preserving foods. Does not apply to Sunday's
> roast chicken. My (most recent) contention is that it would have been
> a whole lot of *work* to not be able to shove something in the 'fridge
> for a few days (or freezer for a couple of months).
>
>
>>- Store cool and far from drafts
>
>
> "Far from drafts?" Is this leftover meat sauce or a parekeet? :-)
>
>
>>- Know well the tolerance of your products, some hold overnight, some hold
>>a few days and some hold a few weeks.
>
>
> I certainly keep more things in the 'fridge than strictly necessary.
> Particularly when the ambient temperature is low. However, I don't
> think I'd want to eat a mayonnaise-based salad (tuna, chicken, potato)
> after a day unfrigerated. Pizza? Yes. Pasta with meat sauce? I don't
> think so. In fact, outside of hard sausage, or country salt-cured ham,
> I wouldn't be happy with any meat/fish/poultry thing, cooked or raw,
> that had lingered untimely at room temperature, not matter how
> well-covered.
>
>
>>And most cookbooks before refrigeration give the tolerance of the finished
>>product, stating how long the product keeps.*
>
>
> I think I'll lean toward the USDA and CDC rather than Mrs. Beeton. :-)

"Frogleg" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:50:05 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
> > wrote:
>
> >Last nights unrefrigerated pasta will not be dubious this evening, and
even
> >the meat sauce if well cooked, stored in as small a jar as possible with
a
> >closed lid (to minimise oxydation and contamination) will hold very well
> >for a day or two out of the fridge, if you have a cool spot to put it
in.
>
> Two points: A "cool spot" may be hard to come by in many
> climates/seasons. Since I was thinking about the era before
> refrigeration, it would also be before air-conditioning, which usually
> isn't used to cool lower than about 70F anyhow. Second, food storage
> guidelines, conservative to be sure, in the US dictate that cooked and
> many raw foods can be kept between 40F and 140F (4C to 60C) for no
> longer than 4 hours to avoid possibly harmful bacterial growth. These
> 'rules' are guidelines for home food storage and requirements for
> restaurants. While my house is quite cold, it's all well above 4C,
> except in the 'fridge.

Please, these rules are very good for professional food care, and I like to
think that any restaurant does take *absolutely no* risk with food safety,
but let me state that these rules are absolutely overkill for most every
normal life situation.

> >Let's not forget that conditions of life were quite different then from
> >now, and that people knew far better what could be held, in what
> >conditions, and how long.
>
> Hmmm. They knew "far better" about the causes and effects of
> food-borne illness (and death)? I don't think so. Scientists and
> researchers had a hard time selling the 'germ theory' about the cause
> and spread of disease -- how could something you can't see hurt you?
> The world before knowledge of 'germs' was far from germ-free.

Don't make me say what I didn't.
They knew far better than today what can be held and how long, before
contamination goes from anecdotic or tolerable to dangerous. They didn't
know about germs but they knew that one wouldn't come ill after X days but
most certainly would after Y days and so they could take risks until X-1
days. Today, and mostly in the US the motto is *no risk* and so nobody
knows anymore what the limits are because when the first bacteria appear in
mostly harmless amounts the products are already thrown away.

Then again I don't say that security is bad, but when you have to take
risks or starve, you will take calculated risks and become good at taking
them, and when you don't have to so much the better.


> > And let's also not forget that these people were
> >raised in conditions of hygiene that were far less stringent than they
are
> >today, and so could far better cope with the slight contamination levels
> >they faced and modern sanitation practices (and they are far more
stringent
> >in the USA than in most of Europe) lowered our tolerance level to these
> >contaminants. (I don't say it's bad.) I just remember that in the 1970s
> >still some things were routinely done to food that would be absolutely
out
> >today.
>
> I agree that over-sanitation/sterilization has gotten way out of hand,
> and also that naturally-acquired immunity from mild exposure to many
> diseases may indeed be beneficial. In fact, as far as I've been able
> to determine, deaths and even serious illness (in the west) from food
> sources is rather rare. However, just because something looks and
> smells OK doesn't mean it isn't growing tiny critters.
> >
> >> We have whole cookbooks of 'leftover' recipes, based on the idea that
> >> Tuesday's roast becomes Thursday's hash, and Sunday's chicken,
> >> Wednesday's chicken salad.
> >>
> >> It must have been *very* hard work to shop for and prepare relatively
> >> 'new' meals each day.
> >
> >Absolutely not, a lot of cooked meals can be kept a few days without
> >refrigeration if you respect these basic rules :
>
> >- If you at all can, use a preservation method, canning, laying
underwater,
> >coating with fat, honey or salt, dessicate... etc.
>
> Yes, this is true of preserving foods. Does not apply to Sunday's
> roast chicken. My (most recent) contention is that it would have been
> a whole lot of *work* to not be able to shove something in the 'fridge
> for a few days (or freezer for a couple of months).

Could apply even to Sunday's leftover chicken ; carve as much meat as you
can from the bones, drop bones in stock-pot, reheat meat quickly and seal
with lard, should keep a few days, but it is far more risky than serve the
cold chicken monday noon, which will do without problem.

Life without a fridge can be a lot of work, but then again, people had to
do it, so they did it. Women mostly didn't work out, rich people often had
a maid, and work was done. Our modern times are very labour-saving and
that's a good thing too.

> >- Store cool and far from drafts
>
> "Far from drafts?" Is this leftover meat sauce or a parekeet? :-)

Drafts can suck up a lot of moisture, and bring in a lot of
micro-organisms, so just like parakeets sensitive food should be kept out
of them, except if you want it dry.

> >- Know well the tolerance of your products, some hold overnight, some
hold
> >a few days and some hold a few weeks.
>
> I certainly keep more things in the 'fridge than strictly necessary.
> Particularly when the ambient temperature is low. However, I don't
> think I'd want to eat a mayonnaise-based salad (tuna, chicken, potato)
> after a day unfrigerated. Pizza? Yes. Pasta with meat sauce? I don't
> think so. In fact, outside of hard sausage, or country salt-cured ham,
> I wouldn't be happy with any meat/fish/poultry thing, cooked or raw,
> that had lingered untimely at room temperature, not matter how
> well-covered.

Ah for a mayonnaise based salad I wholly agree with you, why did I say keep
things separate, pure mayonnaise can keep unrefrigerated quite some time,
potatoes or pasta too, the meat is the most sensitive ingredient. And as I
already stated when you don't have to take risks by all means don't take
them.

> >And most cookbooks before refrigeration give the tolerance of the
finished
> >product, stating how long the product keeps.*
>
> I think I'll lean toward the USDA and CDC rather than Mrs. Beeton. :-)

It seems our positions are not so far apart, I just would like to remember
that there were alternative means of doing things.
Once again, for everybody, play safe, know your limits, and do not take
chances with food, they did what they had to do, we don't have to.

--
Salutations, greetings,
Guiraud Belissen, Chteau du Ciel, Drachenwald
Chris CII, Rennes, France

the mayonnaise aspect - wouldn't that have a lot to do with whether
or not it was actually made with raw egg as an ingredient? A lot of the
taboos related to food poisoning (USA) from potato salad, etc. made with
mayonnaise were based upon the home made product using fresh raw eggs.

KAcey

Christophe Bachmann wrote:
> "Frogleg" > a écrit dans le message de
> ...
>
>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:50:05 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Last nights unrefrigerated pasta will not be dubious this evening, and
>
> even
>
>>>the meat sauce if well cooked, stored in as small a jar as possible with
>
> a
>
>>>closed lid (to minimise oxydation and contamination) will hold very well
>>>for a day or two out of the fridge, if you have a cool spot to put it
>
> in.
>
>>Two points: A "cool spot" may be hard to come by in many
>>climates/seasons. Since I was thinking about the era before
>>refrigeration, it would also be before air-conditioning, which usually
>>isn't used to cool lower than about 70F anyhow. Second, food storage
>>guidelines, conservative to be sure, in the US dictate that cooked and
>>many raw foods can be kept between 40F and 140F (4C to 60C) for no
>>longer than 4 hours to avoid possibly harmful bacterial growth. These
>>'rules' are guidelines for home food storage and requirements for
>>restaurants. While my house is quite cold, it's all well above 4C,
>>except in the 'fridge.
>
>
> Please, these rules are very good for professional food care, and I like to
> think that any restaurant does take *absolutely no* risk with food safety,
> but let me state that these rules are absolutely overkill for most every
> normal life situation.
>
>
>>>Let's not forget that conditions of life were quite different then from
>>>now, and that people knew far better what could be held, in what
>>>conditions, and how long.
>>
>>Hmmm. They knew "far better" about the causes and effects of
>>food-borne illness (and death)? I don't think so. Scientists and
>>researchers had a hard time selling the 'germ theory' about the cause
>>and spread of disease -- how could something you can't see hurt you?
>>The world before knowledge of 'germs' was far from germ-free.
>
>
> Don't make me say what I didn't.
> They knew far better than today what can be held and how long, before
> contamination goes from anecdotic or tolerable to dangerous. They didn't
> know about germs but they knew that one wouldn't come ill after X days but
> most certainly would after Y days and so they could take risks until X-1
> days. Today, and mostly in the US the motto is *no risk* and so nobody
> knows anymore what the limits are because when the first bacteria appear in
> mostly harmless amounts the products are already thrown away.
>
> Then again I don't say that security is bad, but when you have to take
> risks or starve, you will take calculated risks and become good at taking
> them, and when you don't have to so much the better.
>
>
>
>>>And let's also not forget that these people were
>>>raised in conditions of hygiene that were far less stringent than they
>
> are
>
>>>today, and so could far better cope with the slight contamination levels
>>>they faced and modern sanitation practices (and they are far more
>
> stringent
>
>>>in the USA than in most of Europe) lowered our tolerance level to these
>>>contaminants. (I don't say it's bad.) I just remember that in the 1970s
>>>still some things were routinely done to food that would be absolutely
>
> out
>
>>>today.
>>
>>I agree that over-sanitation/sterilization has gotten way out of hand,
>>and also that naturally-acquired immunity from mild exposure to many
>>diseases may indeed be beneficial. In fact, as far as I've been able
>>to determine, deaths and even serious illness (in the west) from food
>>sources is rather rare. However, just because something looks and
>>smells OK doesn't mean it isn't growing tiny critters.
>>
>>>>We have whole cookbooks of 'leftover' recipes, based on the idea that
>>>>Tuesday's roast becomes Thursday's hash, and Sunday's chicken,
>>>>Wednesday's chicken salad.
>>>>
>>>>It must have been *very* hard work to shop for and prepare relatively
>>>>'new' meals each day.
>>>
>>>Absolutely not, a lot of cooked meals can be kept a few days without
>>>refrigeration if you respect these basic rules :
>>
>>>- If you at all can, use a preservation method, canning, laying
>
> underwater,
>
>>>coating with fat, honey or salt, dessicate... etc.
>>
>>Yes, this is true of preserving foods. Does not apply to Sunday's
>>roast chicken. My (most recent) contention is that it would have been
>>a whole lot of *work* to not be able to shove something in the 'fridge
>>for a few days (or freezer for a couple of months).
>
>
> Could apply even to Sunday's leftover chicken ; carve as much meat as you
> can from the bones, drop bones in stock-pot, reheat meat quickly and seal
> with lard, should keep a few days, but it is far more risky than serve the
> cold chicken monday noon, which will do without problem.
>
> Life without a fridge can be a lot of work, but then again, people had to
> do it, so they did it. Women mostly didn't work out, rich people often had
> a maid, and work was done. Our modern times are very labour-saving and
> that's a good thing too.
>
>
>>>- Store cool and far from drafts
>>
>>"Far from drafts?" Is this leftover meat sauce or a parekeet? :-)
>
>
> Drafts can suck up a lot of moisture, and bring in a lot of
> micro-organisms, so just like parakeets sensitive food should be kept out
> of them, except if you want it dry.
>
>
>>>- Know well the tolerance of your products, some hold overnight, some
>
> hold
>
>>>a few days and some hold a few weeks.
>>
>>I certainly keep more things in the 'fridge than strictly necessary.
>>Particularly when the ambient temperature is low. However, I don't
>>think I'd want to eat a mayonnaise-based salad (tuna, chicken, potato)
>>after a day unfrigerated. Pizza? Yes. Pasta with meat sauce? I don't
>>think so. In fact, outside of hard sausage, or country salt-cured ham,
>>I wouldn't be happy with any meat/fish/poultry thing, cooked or raw,
>>that had lingered untimely at room temperature, not matter how
>>well-covered.
>
>
> Ah for a mayonnaise based salad I wholly agree with you, why did I say keep
> things separate, pure mayonnaise can keep unrefrigerated quite some time,
> potatoes or pasta too, the meat is the most sensitive ingredient. And as I
> already stated when you don't have to take risks by all means don't take
> them.
>
>
>>>And most cookbooks before refrigeration give the tolerance of the
>
> finished
>
>>>product, stating how long the product keeps.*
>>
>>I think I'll lean toward the USDA and CDC rather than Mrs. Beeton. :-)
>
>
> It seems our positions are not so far apart, I just would like to remember
> that there were alternative means of doing things.
> Once again, for everybody, play safe, know your limits, and do not take
> chances with food, they did what they had to do, we don't have to.
>

--
Outgoing messages checked with Norton Antivirus 2003.

Kacey Barriss wrote:

> the mayonnaise aspect - wouldn't that have a lot to do with whether
> or not it was actually made with raw egg as an ingredient?

No. It wouldn't. Mayonnaise has been made with raw eggs forever. Until
the early part of the 20th century, it was all that was available.
Then some industrious soul discovered that freezing the eggs let them
emulsify more oil. Then, later, they pasteurized the eggs to reduce
bacterial counts.

The environment in the container (pH, water activity) attenuate and
kill the bacteria. Mayo can safely be kept at room temp until use. The
only reason for refrigerating it then is because of the contaminants
we introduce on the knife. It isn't processed before being put into
jars for sale. Nature takes care of it for us.

> A lot of the
> taboos related to food poisoning (USA) from potato salad, etc. made with
> mayonnaise were based upon the home made product using fresh raw eggs.

And a lot of the taboos are wrong. There will be bacterial growth on a
hot day with chicken salad or egg salad, but that's not from the mayo.
It's from the other protein ingredients.

Pastorio

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:48:46 -0500, Bob > wrote:

>
>And a lot of the taboos are wrong. There will be bacterial growth on a
>hot day with chicken salad or egg salad, but that's not from the mayo.
>It's from the other protein ingredients.

And possibly from the hands of the maker and / or server. If their
hands look clean, many people feel they are clean. They put the
chicken pieces in to fry and wipe the hands off with a towel and go
right to mixing or setting out the potato salad. We must remember the
child component, too. Let a kid get near a table with food being set
out and you're going to have hands that definitely aren't clean
grabbing at it.
--
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless

Hit reply to email. But strip out the 'invalid.'
Though I'm very slow to respond.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:48:22 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
> wrote:

>
>"Frogleg" > a écrit

>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:50:05 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
>> > wrote:

>> >Let's not forget that conditions of life were quite different then from
>> >now, and that people knew far better what could be held, in what
>> >conditions, and how long.
>>
>> Hmmm. They knew "far better" about the causes and effects of
>> food-borne illness (and death)? I don't think so. Scientists and
>> researchers had a hard time selling the 'germ theory' about the cause
>> and spread of disease -- how could something you can't see hurt you?
>> The world before knowledge of 'germs' was far from germ-free.
>
>Don't make me say what I didn't.
>They knew far better than today what can be held and how long, before
>contamination goes from anecdotic or tolerable to dangerous. They didn't
>know about germs but they knew that one wouldn't come ill after X days but
>most certainly would after Y days and so they could take risks until X-1
>days. Today, and mostly in the US the motto is *no risk* and so nobody
>knows anymore what the limits are because when the first bacteria appear in
>mostly harmless amounts the products are already thrown away.

I disagree on the matter of 'wisdom of the Old Ones.' While chewing
on willow bark for pain and fevers turned out to be a good idea, myth
and superstition were, I believe, far more common. Since much
foodborne illness doesn't strke immediately, but after a delay that
may be days or even weeks, it would take a very clever Old One to
associate, say, hemorrhagic colitis with food eaten 3-4 days
previously. They knew how long to keep food? Yes, in terms of what
point it "went off" -- smelled or tasted funny -- or grew fur.

I agree completely, however, that a 'no risk' attidude is ridiculous.
When risk can be reduced by modest means, it makes sense. Keeping cold
food cold and hot food hot. Hand-washing. My chances of dying from a
medium-rare burger are infinitesimal, but I'd like to keep those short
bouts of "stomach flu" down to a minimum, too. "When in doubt, throw
it out" makes sense to me. I don't take 'sell by' dates as 'eat by',
but I don't keep ground beef in a "cool spot," either. We know a *lot*
more about how to avoid common, even mild, food-related illness, and I
want to take advantage.

In article >,
Frogleg > wrote:

> I disagree on the matter of 'wisdom of the Old Ones.' While chewing
> on willow bark for pain and fevers turned out to be a good idea, myth
> and superstition were, I believe, far more common. Since much
> foodborne illness doesn't strke immediately, but after a delay that
> may be days or even weeks, it would take a very clever Old One to
> associate, say, hemorrhagic colitis with food eaten 3-4 days
> previously.

I'm curious about this. My impression was that the overwhelming bulk of
problems from spoiled food involved food poisoning, with results
observable in hours, not weeks. How common and serious a problem is the
sort of long term effect you describe? How likely is it that techniques
which didn't risk food poisoning would result in a serious risk of such
effects?

--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:57:56 GMT, David Friedman
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Frogleg > wrote:
>
>> much
>> foodborne illness doesn't strke immediately, but after a delay that
>> may be days or even weeks, it would take a very clever Old One to
>> associate, say, hemorrhagic colitis with food eaten 3-4 days
>> previously.
>
>I'm curious about this. My impression was that the overwhelming bulk of
>problems from spoiled food involved food poisoning, with results
>observable in hours, not weeks. How common and serious a problem is the
>sort of long term effect you describe? How likely is it that techniques
>which didn't risk food poisoning would result in a serious risk of such
>effects?

You're asking 2 questions. According to:

http://www.vdacs.state.va.us/foodsafety/poisoning.html

the onset of different types of foodborne illnesses can range from
hours to weeks.

Or rather 1 (above) plus 2a and 2b. 2a: estimates of *mild*
food-related illness vary considerably. That is, thousands (millions,
by some estimates) of cases of "stomach 'flu" or other home-treated
digestive upsets are probably due to food contamination of some sort.
When they're not serious enough to warrant a vist to Dr. or hospital,
they go undiagnosed and do not generally become part of reliable
statistics. 2b: serious and life-threatening cases of e. coli
O157:H7, botulism, salmonella, etc. are rather rare. You're at least
ten thousand times more likely to be killed on the road -- driving,
walking, or cycling.

The real question isn't really "will it kill you?" (answer: only
occasionally), but wouldn't it be nice to reduce the hours and
discomfort of midnight bathroom visits? Not to mention dealing with
others suffering from "nausea, fever, headache, abdominal cramps,
diarrhea, and vomiting"?

In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:

> That is, thousands (millions,
> by some estimates) of cases of "stomach 'flu" or other home-treated
> digestive upsets are probably due to food contamination of some sort.
> When they're not serious enough to warrant a vist to Dr. or hospital,
> they go undiagnosed and do not generally become part of reliable
> statistics. 2b: serious and life-threatening cases of e. coli
> O157:H7, botulism, salmonella, etc. are rather rare.

I agree with all this (what a relief). But ,when travelling, you're
most likely to get ill from posh food. Street food (I'm thinking of
Central Asia and tropical Africa here) tends to be very safe - fried,
not kept for long. Cooked by people with no access to fridges and no
misuse of them. It's the salad or badly re-heated meal in your posh
hotel/restaurant that does for you.
L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In rec.food.historic I read this message from David Friedman
>:

>In article >,
> Frogleg > wrote:
>
>> I disagree on the matter of 'wisdom of the Old Ones.' While chewing
>> on willow bark for pain and fevers turned out to be a good idea, myth
>> and superstition were, I believe, far more common. Since much
>> foodborne illness doesn't strke immediately, but after a delay that
>> may be days or even weeks, it would take a very clever Old One to
>> associate, say, hemorrhagic colitis with food eaten 3-4 days
>> previously.
>
>I'm curious about this. My impression was that the overwhelming bulk of
>problems from spoiled food involved food poisoning, with results
>observable in hours, not weeks. How common and serious a problem is the
>sort of long term effect you describe? How likely is it that techniques
>which didn't risk food poisoning would result in a serious risk of such
>effects?

Guillan-Barre Syndrome can develop from campylobactor-related
illness. Botulism has a high mortality rate. Salmonella can
trigger arthritis in certain people. This is from memory; there
may be other risks.

Susan Silberstein

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:48:22 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
> wrote:

[Frogleg wrote]

>> >> It must have been *very* hard work to shop for and prepare relatively
>> >> 'new' meals each day.
>> >
>> >Absolutely not, a lot of cooked meals can be kept a few days without
>> >refrigeration if you respect these basic rules :
>>
>> >- If you at all can, use a preservation method, canning, laying
>underwater,
>> >coating with fat, honey or salt, dessicate... etc.
>>
>> Yes, this is true of preserving foods. Does not apply to Sunday's
>> roast chicken. My (most recent) contention is that it would have been
>> a whole lot of *work* to not be able to shove something in the 'fridge
>> for a few days (or freezer for a couple of months).
>
>Could apply even to Sunday's leftover chicken ; carve as much meat as you
>can from the bones, drop bones in stock-pot, reheat meat quickly and seal
>with lard, should keep a few days, but it is far more risky than serve the
>cold chicken monday noon, which will do without problem.

How often do you seal leftovers with lard? Or make chicken soup
immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken? Again, all this
is *possible*, but an enormous amount of work. How happy Mrs. Cratchit
must have been to find only a fragment of bone left from her Christmas
dinner goose! No more work in the kitchen *that* day, aside from
washing up.

>It seems our positions are not so far apart, I just would like to remember
>that there were alternative means of doing things.
>Once again, for everybody, play safe, know your limits, and do not take
>chances with food, they did what they had to do, we don't have to.

Let me shake your hand. :-) Just as soon as I wash it.

In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:

>
> How often do you

Snip
> make chicken soup
> immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken?

Almost every time I roast a chicken.

> Again, all this
> is *possible*, but an enormous amount of work.

What utter ********! If you can't be bothered with this tiny amount of
work I'm amazed that you bother going onto a food news group. What
dreary meals they must have chez frogleg.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:36:17 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>Frogleg wrote:
>
>>
>> How often do you
>> make chicken soup
>> immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken?
>
>Almost every time I roast a chicken.

Really? You prepare a chicken dinner, sit down and enjoy a nice meal,
clear the table, and start making chicken soup while washing up? Not
me. I *do* make stock/broth from leftover chicken, The next day, from
the refrigerated carcass, or maybe weeks later from saved scraps and
bones in the freezer. I never said it wasn't possible to utilize
leftovers; only that refrigeration and freezing made it a whole lot
easier.

>What utter ********! If you can't be bothered with this tiny amount of
>work I'm amazed that you bother going onto a food news group. What
>dreary meals they must have chez frogleg.

Why is this attack necessary? How would you assume that I was
"bothered with a tiny amount of work"? After a good meal, I prefer to
heave leftovers into the fridge, do some minimal clean-up, and join
guests or family for conversation. If your routine is to go back into
the kitchen and construct soup, fine by me.

*I* am amazed at the number of people who go onto a food (or other)
newsgroup to criticize and disparage. I originally posed the
'refrigeration' question thinking it appropriate for food.historic.
And so it has proved. I've read some new ideas (or historic ideas),
revised my thinking a bit, enjoyed reading (most) responses, and still
want to do a happy dance about having a refrigerator/freezer, and not
spending 4-5 hrs a day shopping and cooking and preserving. I've
learned a few things. I don't think I've been rude to anyone, 'though
I have disagreed on some specific points.

If I were entirely satisfied with all meals chez Frogleg, I would not,
indeed, pursue any further information.

In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:36:17 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> > wrote:
>
> >Frogleg wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> How often do you
> >> make chicken soup
> >> immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken?
> >
> >Almost every time I roast a chicken.
>
> Really? You prepare a chicken dinner, sit down and enjoy a nice meal,
> clear the table, and start making chicken soup while washing up? Not
> me. I *do* make stock/broth from leftover chicken, The next day, from
> the refrigerated carcass, or maybe weeks later from saved scraps and
> bones in the freezer. I never said it wasn't possible to utilize
> leftovers; only that refrigeration and freezing made it a whole lot
> easier.

Well, that's "immediately after preparing a meal of chicken" in my
book. Of cours I eat first. And I don't refrigerate the scraps while I
do so. I don't have a freezer (reasons of space, rather than
principal. But if I had the money and the space, I'd begin with a
dishwasher and get the freezer later). So I have to make the stock the
same day.
>
> >What utter ********! If you can't be bothered with this tiny amount of
> >work I'm amazed that you bother going onto a food news group. What
> >dreary meals they must have chez frogleg.
>
> Why is this attack necessary? How would you assume that I was
> "bothered with a tiny amount of work"? After a good meal, I prefer to
> heave leftovers into the fridge, do some minimal clean-up, and join
> guests or family for conversation. If your routine is to go back into
> the kitchen and construct soup, fine by me.

You don't need a fridge to make a soup. You can leave the bloody thing
there while you talk to your guests. If you had a fridge, you might put
it in the fridge, if you didn't, you might not. I remember seeing the
first fridge in our street: we - the kids - thought of it as a "machine
for making ice cubes" and we all went in to see it. If you don't have a
fridge you'll keep it in the pantry/meat safe. if you're going to make
soup from it it'll keep. No-one ever died from eating soup made from a
carcass that had sat in a pantry while the cook talked to his/her
guests.

>
> *I* am amazed at the number of people who go onto a food (or other)
> newsgroup to criticize and disparage.

Of course my response was robust. I hate being rude but if you publish
tosh like suggesting that a carcass won't wait while you chat to guests
without refrigeration, then you must expect tosh to be called tosh. You
can't publish nonsense to the whole world and expect no-one to tell you
that it's nonsense.

> not spending 4-5 hrs a day shopping and cooking and preserving. I've
> learned a few things.

Oh come off it. Do you think that's how long I spend? I even make my
own marmalade and honey but it ain't 4-5 hours a day.

You\re arguing on the world wide web. Expect world wide disagreement.
I don't want to hurt your feelings, but....

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article >,
Frogleg > wrote:

> How often do you seal leftovers with lard? Or make chicken soup
> immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken?

In our case, the latter is pretty standard. It's true that there is
often leftover chicken meat that goes into the refrigerator--but the
carcass goes into the soup pot. Similarly, when we are doing a medieval
cooking workshop, suitable trimmings tend to go into the soup pot. That
part isn't a lot of trouble.

Where we often do take advantage of modern technology is in transferring
the broth in the soup pot to the freezer, and only later making it up
into soup for dinner.

On the other hand, you also want to allow for scale economies. Keeping a
soup pot going, or doing various other things along the lines discussed,
makes a lot more sense when you are cooking for ten or twenty than when
you are cooking for two or four.

--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:55:46 GMT, David Friedman
> wrote:

> Frogleg > wrote:
>
>> How often do you seal leftovers with lard? Or make chicken soup
>> immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken?
>
>In our case, the latter is pretty standard. It's true that there is
>often leftover chicken meat that goes into the refrigerator--but the
>carcass goes into the soup pot. Similarly, when we are doing a medieval
>cooking workshop, suitable trimmings tend to go into the soup pot. That
>part isn't a lot of trouble.

Sure. I grew up reading a lot of material about an ever-simmering
stock pot on the back of the stove. Gack! What *that* must have been
like after 3-4 days! Are you talking about something like an SCA
feast? Today's chicken is tomorrow's soup? You betcha. As a
re-creation; as an amusement or experiment. But how would it be to
absolutely *have* to preserve/utilize/cook/eat all leftovers after
every meal? I don't understand modern complaints about turkey-fatigue
after Thanksgiving. Sheesh! It's not as if *we* have to consume
everything within 48hrs. Sliced meat for sandwiches, diced meat for
salad or casseroles, carcass for broth/soup are wonderful resources.
Owing to refrigeration and freezing, we can stretch these out for
quite some time.

In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:55:46 GMT, David Friedman
> > wrote:
>
> > Frogleg > wrote:
> >
> >> How often do you seal leftovers with lard? Or make chicken soup
> >> immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken?
> >
> >In our case, the latter is pretty standard. It's true that there is
> >often leftover chicken meat that goes into the refrigerator--but the
> >carcass goes into the soup pot. Similarly, when we are doing a medieval
> >cooking workshop, suitable trimmings tend to go into the soup pot. That
> >part isn't a lot of trouble.
>
> Sure. I grew up reading a lot of material about an ever-simmering
> stock pot on the back of the stove. Gack! What *that* must have been
> like after 3-4 days!

this is just for information, not to be rude. This is just what I do.
My fridge is so small the stockpot won't fit in.

I'll tell you what it's like. It's nice.

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:40:37 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:


>
>Sure. I grew up reading a lot of material about an ever-simmering
>stock pot on the back of the stove. Gack! What *that* must have been
>like after 3-4 days!

Delicious if done right. In fact my booya requires days of simmering.
I can do it in 48 hours if I rush it and never take it off the stove.
--
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless

Hit reply to email. But strip out the 'invalid.'
Though I'm very slow to respond.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:55:46 GMT, David Friedman
> wrote:

> Frogleg > wrote:
>
>> How often do you seal leftovers with lard? Or make chicken soup
>> immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken?
>
>In our case, the latter is pretty standard. It's true that there is
>often leftover chicken meat that goes into the refrigerator--but the
>carcass goes into the soup pot. Similarly, when we are doing a medieval
>cooking workshop, suitable trimmings tend to go into the soup pot. That
>part isn't a lot of trouble.

My thinking is much the same. While it is obviously *possible* to eat
reasonably well and without toxic effects in the absence of modern
domestic refrigeration, it seems to me it'd be a lot more trouble.
Maybe not to heave a chicken carcass into a pot of water after dinner,
but to have to replentish 'fresh' ingredients every day or 2, and make
sure each meal was either consumed immediately or within the same 1-2
day span.

A confit may be suitable for a northern European climate, but "cool
spots" are few and far between in summer in much of the US (and
south). I would be suspicious of chicken soup/broth that was left
unrefrigerated for even a few hours.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:00:59 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:

..
>
>How often do you seal leftovers with lard? Or make chicken soup
>immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken?

I've never done the former, but sometimes do the latter. Not much
work involved. I put a big pot of water on the stove, drop all the
meat (and sometimes some of the vegetable) leftovers in it. Takes
very little longer than putting it in the trash and less time than
packaging it for the 'frig.
--
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless

Hit reply to email. But strip out the 'invalid.'
Though I'm very slow to respond.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:04:39 -0600, lid wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:00:59 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:

>>How often do you seal leftovers with lard? Or make chicken soup
>>immediately after preparing a meal of roast chicken?
>
>I've never done the former, but sometimes do the latter. Not much
>work involved. I put a big pot of water on the stove, drop all the
>meat (and sometimes some of the vegetable) leftovers in it. Takes
>very little longer than putting it in the trash and less time than
>packaging it for the 'frig.

You have a point there. I'm not so well-organized. :-)

*My* original point was that reliable refrigeration/freezing makes
cooking (and shopping and food storage/safety) a lot easier. I live in
a so-called 'temperate' climate where a box on the front porch would
probably serve to keep food in Jan-Feb, but would turn everything into
toxic mush in Jul-Aug.