My freezer is full, can I can chicken stock without a pressure cooker.

A Google search for recipes comes up with that need a pressure cooker.
--
================================================== =======================
In the world of advertising there¹s no such thing as a lie, there¹s only
the expedient exaggeration.
================================================== =======================

In article >,
The Wolf > wrote:

> My freezer is full, can I can chicken stock without a pressure cooker.


No. According to "Putting Food By," chicken broth/stock must be pressure
canned at 10 pounds for 20 minutes (pints) to 25 minutes (quarts); the
Ball Blue Book agrees. Since they're two of the top preserving
references, I'd go with that.

Note also the National Center for Home Preservation, which bases its
article on a US Department of Agriculture bulletin:
<http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_05/stock_broth.html>

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

On 12/23/2003 9:34 PM, in article
, "Scott"
> opined:

> In article >,
> The Wolf > wrote:
>
>> My freezer is full, can I can chicken stock without a pressure cooker.
>
>
> No. According to "Putting Food By," chicken broth/stock must be pressure
> canned at 10 pounds for 20 minutes (pints) to 25 minutes (quarts); the
> Ball Blue Book agrees. Since they're two of the top preserving
> references, I'd go with that.
>
> Note also the National Center for Home Preservation, which bases its
> article on a US Department of Agriculture bulletin:
> <http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_05/stock_broth.html>

I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?

My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)
--
================================================== =======================
In the world of advertising there¹s no such thing as a lie, there¹s only
the expedient exaggeration.
================================================== =======================

The Wolf wrote:
>
> On 12/23/2003 9:34 PM, in article
> , "Scott"
> > opined:
>
> > In article >,
> > The Wolf > wrote:
> >
> >> My freezer is full, can I can chicken stock without a pressure cooker.
> >
> >
> > No. According to "Putting Food By," chicken broth/stock must be pressure
> > canned at 10 pounds for 20 minutes (pints) to 25 minutes (quarts); the
> > Ball Blue Book agrees. Since they're two of the top preserving
> > references, I'd go with that.
> >
> > Note also the National Center for Home Preservation, which bases its
> > article on a US Department of Agriculture bulletin:
> > <http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_05/stock_broth.html>
>
> I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?
>
> My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)

Statistics can only predict results in an aggregate, not to an
individual. Heard of a Bell Curve? And just remember, even if the
chances are 1:100,000 that if you happen to that "1" for you it's 100%
certain.

B/

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...

|
| I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?
|
| My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)

If you try, have your next of kin report the results ;-)

The Wolf wrote:

> I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?
>
> My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)

Dunno. If you want to play with fire, mix one part soup to one part
vinegar and BWB.

David
;-)

In article >,
The Wolf > wrote:

> I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?
>
> My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)

At one time, people didn't know anything about all sorts of food safety
techniques and devices, and most people lived. That doesn't mean that we
don't now know better, and can avoid many of the things that WERE making
many sick or, um, metaphysically challenged.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| The Wolf > wrote:
|
| > I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?
| >
| > My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)
|
| At one time, people didn't know anything about all sorts of food safety
| techniques and devices, and most people lived. That doesn't mean that we
| don't now know better, and can avoid many of the things that WERE making
| many sick or, um, metaphysically challenged.
|

And way back when they didn't have all these nasty little bugs that are so
much more resistant to antibiotics and other things that require more
intense handling - but then the safety guidelines are just that -
guidelines. If decided to ignore them, at least have the courtesy to let
others you share with know.

Dave wrote:

> And way back when they didn't have all these nasty little bugs that are so
> much more resistant to antibiotics and other things that require more
> intense handling - but then the safety guidelines are just that -
> guidelines. If decided to ignore them, at least have the courtesy to let
> others you share with know.

They did have C. botulinum, and that's plenty enough.

David

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:52:59 GMT, Scott >
wrote:

> The Wolf > wrote:
>
>> I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?
>>
>> My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)
>
>At one time, people didn't know anything about all sorts of food safety
>techniques and devices, and most people lived. That doesn't mean that we
>don't now know better, and can avoid many of the things that WERE making
>many sick or, um, metaphysically challenged.

I agree with Scott. I used that "my mother never scrubbed everything
that touched raw chicken" for a while until I realized a) she was
lucky and b) she didn't get chicken from giant factory operations
2,000mi and several days away. Now that we *know* we're taking
chances with improperly preserved/prepared food, it's just common
sense to Do the Right Thing. It would be interesting to know the
stats on old-timey food poisonings of various sorts. When the company
got sick and Uncle Dave just "upped and died" after a holiday meal, no
one called in the CDC. Now, 2 people die and a dozen are sickened at a
church picnic, and it's front page news.

"Frogleg" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:52:59 GMT, Scott >
> wrote:
>
> > The Wolf > wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?
> >>
> >> My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)
> >
> >At one time, people didn't know anything about all sorts of food safety
> >techniques and devices, and most people lived. That doesn't mean that we
> >don't now know better, and can avoid many of the things that WERE making
> >many sick or, um, metaphysically challenged.
>
> I agree with Scott. I used that "my mother never scrubbed everything
> that touched raw chicken" for a while until I realized a) she was
> lucky and b) she didn't get chicken from giant factory operations
> 2,000mi and several days away. Now that we *know* we're taking
> chances with improperly preserved/prepared food, it's just common
> sense to Do the Right Thing. It would be interesting to know the
> stats on old-timey food poisonings of various sorts. When the company
> got sick and Uncle Dave just "upped and died" after a holiday meal, no
> one called in the CDC. Now, 2 people die and a dozen are sickened at a
> church picnic, and it's front page news.
>
>
Why did it become ok again to eat eggs, sunny side up? Everyone was
freaking out about salmonella at one time.
Ken

In article >,
Frogleg > wrote:

> I agree with Scott. I used that "my mother never scrubbed everything
> that touched raw chicken" for a while until I realized a) she was
> lucky and b) she didn't get chicken from giant factory operations
> 2,000mi and several days away. Now that we *know* we're taking
> chances with improperly preserved/prepared food, it's just common
> sense to Do the Right Thing. It would be interesting to know the
> stats on old-timey food poisonings of various sorts. When the company
> got sick and Uncle Dave just "upped and died" after a holiday meal, no
> one called in the CDC. Now, 2 people die and a dozen are sickened at a
> church picnic, and it's front page news.

Foodborne illness was quite common, and it still is--but it's rarely
recognized as such unless the person gets REALLY sick. People often
think they have a "stomach flu"--but there's no such thing. Influenza is
a respiratory illness; though nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea can
sometimes accompany it, gastrointestinal symptoms are rarely prominent,
except sometimes in children.

You'd be surprised at how common foodborne illness actually is: there
are an estimated 76 million cases each year in the United States (Mead
PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, et al. Food-related illness and death in the
United States. Emerg Infect Dis 1999; 5:607--25.).

I think that those who dismiss food safety, saying that they've never
become sick as a result of their practices, are largely unaware of
what's actually happening.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:05:09 GMT, Scott >
wrote:

>You'd be surprised at how common foodborne illness actually is: there
>are an estimated 76 million cases each year in the United States (Mead
>PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, et al. Food-related illness and death in the
>United States. Emerg Infect Dis 1999; 5:607--25.).

That seems to be an incredibly high number. And as the paper says,
these figures are *estimates*. You can't blame *everything* on that
chicken salad. :-) I assume numbers that high would include
food-RELATED illness -- allergic reactions, simple overeating,
diabetic episodes, etc. I know if I ate as much batter-dipped,
deep-fried fish as I'd like, I'd become very sick indeed.
>
>I think that those who dismiss food safety, saying that they've never
>become sick as a result of their practices, are largely unaware of
>what's actually happening.

This is probably true. After all, the most significant 'advances' in
reducing disease are clean water and thorough hand-washing.

In article >,
Frogleg > wrote:

> That seems to be an incredibly high number. And as the paper says,
> these figures are *estimates*. You can't blame *everything* on that
> chicken salad. :-)

Sure, but with a number that high, even if there is a significant
statistical error, it's still a very big number--scores of millions of
cases.


> I assume numbers that high would include
> food-RELATED illness -- allergic reactions, simple overeating,
> diabetic episodes, etc. I know if I ate as much batter-dipped,
> deep-fried fish as I'd like, I'd become very sick indeed.

Nope. From the article (published by the CDC): "We estimate that
*foodborne diseases* cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000
hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year."
(emphasis added) The sources they include in this figure are illnesses
related to foodborne bacterial, parasitic, and viral infections.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:54:49 GMT, Scott >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Frogleg > wrote:

>> I assume numbers that high would include
>> food-RELATED illness -- allergic reactions, simple overeating,
>> diabetic episodes, etc. I know if I ate as much batter-dipped,
>> deep-fried fish as I'd like, I'd become very sick indeed.
>
>Nope. From the article (published by the CDC): "We estimate that
>*foodborne diseases* cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000
>hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year."
>(emphasis added) The sources they include in this figure are illnesses
>related to foodborne bacterial, parasitic, and viral infections.

I don't want to trace the reference again, but I believe figures
between 6 and 81 million were mentioned. 76 million is approx. one
quarter the population of the US (of course, there'd be individuals
with more than one occurrance). Since "under reporting" is mentioned,
these *are* estimates and assumptions. I was very surprised when I
looked up Salmonella on the CDC site to find a report of under 200
confirmed cases in one year (late 90s). Of course one can easily
triple or quadruple that for illnesses that were put down to "stomach
flu" and never reported at all. Still, the figures seem highly
speculative.

However, it can't hurt to wash your hands often, and cook,
preserve,store, and prepare foods according to recommendations.

On 12/26/2003 8:31 AM, in article
, "Ken Anderson"
> opined:

> "Frogleg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:52:59 GMT, Scott >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Wolf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?
>>>>
>>>> My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)
>>>
>>> At one time, people didn't know anything about all sorts of food safety
>>> techniques and devices, and most people lived. That doesn't mean that we
>>> don't now know better, and can avoid many of the things that WERE making
>>> many sick or, um, metaphysically challenged.
>>
>> I agree with Scott. I used that "my mother never scrubbed everything
>> that touched raw chicken" for a while until I realized a) she was
>> lucky and b) she didn't get chicken from giant factory operations
>> 2,000mi and several days away. Now that we *know* we're taking
>> chances with improperly preserved/prepared food, it's just common
>> sense to Do the Right Thing. It would be interesting to know the
>> stats on old-timey food poisonings of various sorts. When the company
>> got sick and Uncle Dave just "upped and died" after a holiday meal, no
>> one called in the CDC. Now, 2 people die and a dozen are sickened at a
>> church picnic, and it's front page news.
>>
>>
> Why did it become ok again to eat eggs, sunny side up? Everyone was
> freaking out about salmonella at one time.
> Ken
>
>

When I was a kid and played in a drum corp they gave us salt pills before
the fireman's parades.

Now they say that is the WORST thing to do. When did that change?
--
================================================== =======
"If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect
a rain of ruin from the air the like of which has never
been seen on this earth," President Harry S. Truman.
================================================== =======

The Wolf wrote:
> On 12/26/2003 8:31 AM, in article
> , "Ken Anderson"
> > opined:
>
>
>>"Frogleg" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:52:59 GMT, Scott >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Wolf > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I wonder if these recommendations are overkill?
>>>>>
>>>>>My mother never had a pressure cooker and I turned out ok :-)
>>>>
>>>>At one time, people didn't know anything about all sorts of food safety
>>>>techniques and devices, and most people lived. That doesn't mean that we
>>>>don't now know better, and can avoid many of the things that WERE making
>>>>many sick or, um, metaphysically challenged.
>>>
>>>I agree with Scott. I used that "my mother never scrubbed everything
>>>that touched raw chicken" for a while until I realized a) she was
>>>lucky and b) she didn't get chicken from giant factory operations
>>>2,000mi and several days away. Now that we *know* we're taking
>>>chances with improperly preserved/prepared food, it's just common
>>>sense to Do the Right Thing. It would be interesting to know the
>>>stats on old-timey food poisonings of various sorts. When the company
>>>got sick and Uncle Dave just "upped and died" after a holiday meal, no
>>>one called in the CDC. Now, 2 people die and a dozen are sickened at a
>>>church picnic, and it's front page news.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why did it become ok again to eat eggs, sunny side up? Everyone was
>>freaking out about salmonella at one time.
>>Ken
>>
>>
>
>
> When I was a kid and played in a drum corp they gave us salt pills before
> the fireman's parades.
>
> Now they say that is the WORST thing to do. When did that change?

Late sixties, early seventies. The best thing that ever happened to the
work force in the south. Way to much salt for the human system when only
water and a decent diet are needed. Too many people today depend on
electrolyte replacement drinks when water will do the good thing for you
and keep you hydrated. If you're interested do this: weigh yourself in
the morning before exercising or doing strenous labor; weigh yourself
again at the end of the day. If you've lost five pounds or more you have
lost too much water. Drink lots of water before doing the same thing the
next day. Lay off the coffee, cold drinks, iced tea, and the sports
drinks. The caffeine in coffee and tea and the sugar in other drinks can
help dehydrate you. If you use sports drinks do a four cups of water to
one cup of sports drink routine to keep your electrolyte levels up.

Most of my clients here in humid, hot SW Louisiana are using the weight
thing to keep workers from getting ill from the heat. It works.

George, wearing his safety consultant hat (hard hat that is)