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 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.

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

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

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"?

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.

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 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

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. :-) My original post
specified non-rural living. People have been clumping up in cities for
millennia, far from root cellars.

I beg to differ, the house my father grew up in, located in Queens county, part
of New York City, had a root cellar. At the base of the cellar stairs was a
wooden door that opened into a chest high, sand floored area about three cubic
yards in volume. This area remained cool in the hottest of summers and was for
storeing vegetables, etc. Many other old houses I have been in in cities of
New Jersey have also had such root cellars in them. You couldn't get
everything into an ice box and root cellars are not just for country folk.

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:

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

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

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:19:34 GMT, Frogleg wrote:


Yeah, but...how many urbanites have a "cool cellar," then or now?

Well, the Goodman of Paris makes a number of references to putting
things into the cellar to cool. He was an urbanite.

Take a look at a household book, like that written by the Goodman of
Paris. (A 15th-century merchant, writing instructions for his
inexperienced young bride.)

Ahh. Trust a man to tell a woman what to do...

It's rather sweet, really. He was an older man who had been married
before, and she was a teenager who was very conscious of her ignorance
of household matters. He also expected that she would outlive him,
and marry again. He spent quite a few pages describing how to have a
happy marriage, before continuing on to the practicalities of killling
fleas and buying geese and making mutton stew.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/goodman.html


Would *you* eat a rabbit that had been hanging in 85 degrees for a
week? Outside a smokehouse, I mean.

No, but we haven't established that the temperature would be that
high. According to various sources, a properly-constructed root
cellar can maintain temperatures in the 50s (Fahrenheit) during the
summer. In any case, the point is that *they* would eat such a
rabbit.

I guess my original point was that (obviously) people have been able
to survive and be nourished for millennia without domestic
refrigeration, but it's sure a lot easier today (happy dance).

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

We are very fortunate, foodwise.

In many ways, yes.


Robin Carroll-Mann
"Mostly Harmless" -- Douglas Adams
To email me, remove the fish