I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.

Here are the temperatures (in degrees F) of the stock and the cooling water
initially, after 15 minutes, and after 45 minutes:

Initial 15
Minutes 45 Minutes
Stock 160 85
75
Cooling Water 64 71
72

So most of the cooling took place within the first 15 minutes. At 45
minutes, it was essentially as cool as it was going to get (without changing
the cooling water). 75 degrees is pretty much room temperature. The rate of
cooling is going to change depending on the time of year and the temperature
of the incoming tap water. The greater the initial temperature difference
between the stock and the cooling water, the faster it will go. In mid
winter, my tap water was at 43 degrees, but I didn't measure stock cooling
at that time. In summer, my tap water will be even higher than it is now.

Some other parameters... the stock pot is a tall copper one, 8 inches in
diameter and 10 inches tall. There was between 3-1/2 and 4 quarts of stock
in the pot.

I suspect the results wouldn't have been quite so good with a low wide stock
pot, or one made of another material. With a low wide pot, I think there is
less surface area exposed to the cooling water, and there will be less total
cooling water in the tub. You can only fill the tub up to about the same
level as in the pot, or the pot will "float away". Using a trivet under the
pot is even more important on a low wide pot, as a greater percentage of the
available cooling surface area is on the bottom compared to a tall narrow
one.

I always strain the stock, then cool it. That is the method recommended in
all the cook books I have, and they also say not to cool totally covered or
the stock can turn sour. Regarding the initial stock temperature of 160
above, that is after straining, which cooled it off a bit. The temperature
coming off the stove was more like 170 (or even up to 180... I don't
remember what I saw).

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:G2r1g.2526$_s5.1079@trnddc04...
>I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
>described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
>grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
>about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
>digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
>surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.
snip
> ( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in order
to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the pot.
Janet

Janet Bostwick wrote:
> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
> news:G2r1g.2526$_s5.1079@trnddc04...
> >I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
> >described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
> >grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
> >about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
> >digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
> >surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.
> snip
> > ( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
> In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
> minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in order
> to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the pot.
> Janet

With an 8" dia. stockpot, I doubt this would make much difference. It
might in a wider pot, but if you got much of a temperature differential
within the pot, it would create a small current between hot and cold
and do the stirring for you. Might make you feel better though!

"salgud" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Janet Bostwick wrote:
>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
>> news:G2r1g.2526$_s5.1079@trnddc04...
>> >I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
>> >described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
>> >grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
>> >about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
>> >digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
>> >surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had
>> >thought.
>> snip
>> > ( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
>> In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
>> minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in
>> order
>> to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the
>> pot.
>> Janet
>
> With an 8" dia. stockpot, I doubt this would make much difference. It
> might in a wider pot, but if you got much of a temperature differential
> within the pot, it would create a small current between hot and cold
> and do the stirring for you. Might make you feel better though!
>
Undoubtedly I would feel as though I was contributing. ;o} Still, it would
be interesting to know whether the naturally forming currents would surpass
the artificially induced ones in efficiency.
Janet

salgud wrote:
> Janet Bostwick wrote:
> > "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
> > news:G2r1g.2526$_s5.1079@trnddc04...
> > >I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
> > >described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
> > >grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
> > >about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
> > >digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
> > >surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.
> > snip
> > > ( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
> > In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
> > minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in order
> > to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the pot.
> > Janet
>
> With an 8" dia. stockpot, I doubt this would make much difference. It
> might in a wider pot, but if you got much of a temperature differential
> within the pot, it would create a small current between hot and cold
> and do the stirring for you. Might make you feel better though!

When heating milk for yogurt, I use a pyrex 2-qt "cup", then cool the
yogurt down with a water bath in the kitchen sink. The 2 quart
container is about 8-9" across, and when I stand over it and gently
swirl the milk with the probe, the cooling takes about half the time of
allowing it to stand undisturbed.

Of course, that's only about 4" depth of liquid in there, so maybe that
would make a difference.

maxine in ri

maxine in ri wrote:
> salgud wrote:
> > Janet Bostwick wrote:
> > > "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
> > > news:G2r1g.2526$_s5.1079@trnddc04...
> > > >I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
> > > >described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
> > > >grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
> > > >about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
> > > >digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
> > > >surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.
> > > snip
> > > > ( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
> > > In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
> > > minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in order
> > > to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the pot.
> > > Janet
> >
> > With an 8" dia. stockpot, I doubt this would make much difference. It
> > might in a wider pot, but if you got much of a temperature differential
> > within the pot, it would create a small current between hot and cold
> > and do the stirring for you. Might make you feel better though!
>
> When heating milk for yogurt, I use a pyrex 2-qt "cup", then cool the
> yogurt down with a water bath in the kitchen sink. The 2 quart
> container is about 8-9" across, and when I stand over it and gently
> swirl the milk with the probe, the cooling takes about half the time of
> allowing it to stand undisturbed.
>
> Of course, that's only about 4" depth of liquid in there, so maybe that
> would make a difference.
>
> maxine in ri

Stirring it continually might significantly effect the cooling rate,
since you'd be exposing the hot liquid to the room temp air (increasing
the surface area in contact with the air) while it's also being cooled
by the water bath. But stirring the broth occasionally would not have
nearly as much effect.

Janet Bostwick wrote:
> "wff_ng_7" > wrote
>I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
> >described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
> >grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
> >about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
> >digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
> >surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.
>
> In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
> minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in order
> to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the pot.

That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.



Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
> Janet Bostwick wrote:
> > "wff_ng_7" > wrote
> >I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
> > >described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
> > >grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
> > >about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
> > >digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
> > >surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.
> >
> > In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
> > minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in order
> > to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the pot.
>
> That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
> instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
> that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
> contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
> stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
> how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
> was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
>

And your stock *stays* sterile as it cools down? What do you add to
it, Clorox?

--
Ernest

"ewdotson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Sheldon wrote:
>> Janet Bostwick wrote:
>> > "wff_ng_7" > wrote
>> >I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
>> > >described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall
>> > >wire
>> > >grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water
>> > >to
>> > >about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
>> > >digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
>> > >surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had
>> > >thought.
>> >
>> > In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
>> > minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in
>> > order
>> > to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the
>> > pot.
>>
>> That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
>> instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
>> that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
>> contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
>> stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
>> how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
>> was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
>>
>
> And your stock *stays* sterile as it cools down? What do you add to
> it, Clorox?

Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you be
concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
bandages, until you open them.

Doug Kanter wrote:
> "ewdotson" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Sheldon wrote:
[snip]
> >>
> >> That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
> >> instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
> >> that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
> >> contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
> >> stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
> >> how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
> >> was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
> >>
> >
> > And your stock *stays* sterile as it cools down? What do you add to
> > it, Clorox?
>
> Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
> you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
> later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you be
> concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
> bandages, until you open them.

It was Sheldon who brought up the sterility of his stock, not me. It
was that specific claim that I was addressing, as it struck me as
rather ludicrous.

--
Ernest

"Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
...
snip
> Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
> you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
> later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you
> be concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
> bandages, until you open them.
I was only thinking of the most efficient way to cool a body of liquid by
the method described. I recently heard of someone pouring hot concentrated
stock over ice in a strainer as a way of capturing the fat. Has anyone
tried that?
Janet

"Sheldon" > wrote:
> That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
> instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
> that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
> contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
> stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
> how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
> was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.

I figured rfc's resident twit would eventually check in.

I challenge the twit to produce a well recognized (if not authoritative)
reference condoning his method. Why not start with showing that the stock is
sterile. Most recipes recommend temperatures well below the boiling point,
and even cooking at the boiling point does not guarantee sterility. Most
recipes also recommend cooling NOT covered.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:c9t1g.2541$_s5.2357@trnddc04...
> "Sheldon" > wrote:
>> That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
>> instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
>> that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
>> contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
>> stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
>> how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
>> was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
>
> I figured rfc's resident twit would eventually check in.
>
> I challenge the twit to produce a well recognized (if not authoritative)
> reference condoning his method. Why not start with showing that the stock
> is sterile. Most recipes recommend temperatures well below the boiling
> point, and even cooking at the boiling point does not guarantee sterility.
> Most recipes also recommend cooling NOT covered.

Why do you feel it needs to be sterile?

"Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>> I challenge the twit to produce a well recognized (if not authoritative)
>> reference condoning his method. Why not start with showing that the stock
>> is sterile. Most recipes recommend temperatures well below the boiling
>> point, and even cooking at the boiling point does not guarantee
>> sterility. Most recipes also recommend cooling NOT covered.
>
> Why do you feel it needs to be sterile?

I don't.

It is Sheldon claiming that because it is sterile, therefore there are no
worries about organisms growing in it during a slow cooling process. I
believe in a prior thread Sheldon even proposed leaving the pot out on the
counter overnight. I don't believe the stock is sterile to begin with, and
any additional pathogens introduced by speeding up the cooling are not as
important as getting the stock out of the dangerous (fast growth)
temperature range as quickly as possible.

I have yet to see a good source condoning Sheldon's method. On the contrary,
I've come across numerous recognized and authoritative references advocating
quick cooling methods.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

wff_ng_7 wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote:
> > That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
> > instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
> > that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
> > contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
> > stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
> > how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
> > was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
>
> I figured rfc's resident twit would eventually check in.
>
> I challenge the twit to produce a well recognized (if not authoritative)
> reference condoning his method. Why not start with showing that the stock is
> sterile. Most recipes recommend temperatures well below the boiling point,
> and even cooking at the boiling point does not guarantee sterility. Most
> recipes also recommend cooling NOT covered.

This stock cooling business is a very old topic, anyone with the grey
matter to seach the archives will find tons of info.... way back from
when rfc'ers could actually cook.

Stock remains sterile for a long time while the fat layer remains
unbroken, IDIOT! Anyone working in my kitchen poked into my stock I'd
whack their hand off with a cleaver... actually I'd fire their dumb ass
on the spot.

But don't feel lonely, you totally useless waste of protoplasm... VERY,
VERY FEW here can actually cook... perhaps fewer than the fingers of
one hand, and that is a fact... proven once again right here in this
thread. Not to worry, wff-JERK, you ain't one of the fingers (LOL),
you ain't even good enough to be dirt under my finger nail... each day
I forget more about cooking than you will ever know in your entire
lifetime, you wff-NEWBIE piece of shit <g>

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .


confit
[kohn-FEE, kon-FEE]
This specialty of Gascony, France, is derived from an ancient method of
preserving meat (usually goose, duck or pork) whereby it is salted and
slowly cooked in its own fat. The cooked meat is then packed into a
crock or pot and covered with its cooking fat, which acts as a seal and
preservative. Confit can be refrigerated up to 6 months. Confit d'oie
and confit de canard are preserved goose and preserved duck,
respectively.

© Copyright Barron's Educational Services, Inc. 1995 based on THE FOOD
LOVER'S COMPANION, 2nd edition, by Sharon Tyler Herbst.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote:
> This stock cooling business is a very old topic, anyone with the grey
> matter to seach the archives will find tons of info.... way back from
> when rfc'ers could actually cook.
>
> Stock remains sterile for a long time while the fat layer remains
> unbroken, IDIOT! Anyone working in my kitchen poked into my stock I'd
> whack their hand off with a cleaver... actually I'd fire their dumb ass
> on the spot.

> But don't feel lonely, you totally useless waste of protoplasm... VERY,
> VERY FEW here can actually cook... perhaps fewer than the fingers of
> one hand, and that is a fact... proven once again right here in this
> thread. Not to worry, wff-JERK, you ain't one of the fingers (LOL),
> you ain't even good enough to be dirt under my finger nail... each day
> I forget more about cooking than you will ever know in your entire
> lifetime, you wff-NEWBIE piece of shit <g>
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

This last paragraph is really what the issue is all about for Sheldon...
it's not about stock, it's not about cooking, and it's not about food. It
about Sheldon's emotional problems where he has to be "king of the hill" to
show his "superior" knowledge and abilities. If anyone dares offer an
alternative viewpoint, he invariably responds with pejoratives to belittle
that person... among them in this thread: pinhead, dago, faggot... in other
threads: WOP, mother****er, etc.

Classic bullying, in my opinion. He must have some severe insecurity issues
to have to resort to this kind of behavior, week after week, month after
month, year after year.

One might be able to just ignore his behavior if it wasn't so pervasive, and
if he weren't so emphatic in spouting plainly false information, over and
over. Above he again states that stock is sterile. Far from it, but you'll
never convince him, you'll never get him to admit he is wrong.

Last night I went to the library to return some books that were due, and
while browsing came across an interesting book by a person that writes a
column in the Washington Post food section. It's called "What Einstein Told
His Cook 2" by Professor Robert L. Wolke of the University of Pittsburgh.
Though he is not a "food safety expert", he is very knowledgeable on
scientific issues, and is very good at explaning them in terms a layman
(excluding Sheldon) should be able to understand. He puts quite a bit of
humor into his explanations.

When I got home, it occurred to me to look and see if there was anything
about stock in this book. Sure enough, there's several pages on the topic
(p. 303-312). The book is largely in a question and answer format, and one
of the questions is explicitly about the sterility of stock. He discusses
why stock is definitely not sterile, and the science behind it. I'd suggest
that Sheldon read that section (or another source), but of course, as I said
above, that is really not the issue here.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote:
> In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
> minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in
> order to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of
> the pot.

I usually do that, but not this time... I was busy enjoying music on Foni
tis Helladas... otherwise known in English as the Voice of Greece, over
shortwave. Not a word of English, but great Greek music. Not that I
understand any of it, but that doesn't matter.

I did stir at the 15 minute mark, both in the pot and in the tub, but that's
all. I did also stir at the very beginning and end just to get accurate
temperature readings, but that wouldn't affect the cooling rate.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

wff_ng_7 wrote:
> I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
> described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
> grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
> about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. [snip]
>
What's missing from this thread and from the prior one on this subject
is the notion that there is any problem in search of all these
solutions. Who has ever had a problem? I make stock, I strain it into
other containers and let them cool on the counter. When they have
cooled a little a put them in the refrigerator. Big deal. If I'm
going to have a large volume I turn the fridge's temp control down a
few degrees to minimize heating up the other stuff in the fridge.
(Someone suggested that is ineffective. Maybe, depending on how much
you turn it down, but it certainly can't hurt.)

> I always strain the stock, then cool it. That is the method recommended in
> all the cook books I have, and they also say not to cool totally covered or
> the stock can turn sour. [snip]

You strain the stock because the solids have given their all to the
liquid and you need to throw them away. Removing them obviously helps
the cooling process as well. You leave it uncovered because that also
lets it cool faster. This ain't rocket science, nor does it need to
be. -aem

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wff_ng_7 wrote:
>> I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
>> described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
>> grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
>> about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. [snip]
>>
> What's missing from this thread and from the prior one on this subject
> is the notion that there is any problem in search of all these
> solutions. Who has ever had a problem? I make stock, I strain it into
> other containers and let them cool on the counter. When they have
> cooled a little a put them in the refrigerator. Big deal. If I'm
> going to have a large volume I turn the fridge's temp control down a
> few degrees to minimize heating up the other stuff in the fridge.
> (Someone suggested that is ineffective. Maybe, depending on how much
> you turn it down, but it certainly can't hurt.)

Actually, the pot *will* heat the fridge up more than you want, and turning
the thing colder probably won't help much.



> This ain't rocket science, nor does it need to
> be. -aem
>

But, I agree with this. Sticking the pot in a sink of cold water isn't such
a bad idea, and analyzing the process is slightly interesting, but enough
already.

Doug Kanter wrote:
> "aem" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
[snip] I make stock, I strain it into
> > other containers and let them cool on the counter. When they have
> > cooled a little a put them in the refrigerator. Big deal. If I'm
> > going to have a large volume I turn the fridge's temp control down a
> > few degrees to minimize heating up the other stuff in the fridge.
> > (Someone suggested that is ineffective. Maybe, depending on how much
> > you turn it down, but it certainly can't hurt.)
>
> Actually, the pot *will* heat the fridge up more than you want, and turning
> the thing colder probably won't help much.

Pay attention, Doug. Did I say I put the hot pot in the fridge?
-aem

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>> "aem" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
> [snip] I make stock, I strain it into
>> > other containers and let them cool on the counter. When they have
>> > cooled a little a put them in the refrigerator. Big deal. If I'm
>> > going to have a large volume I turn the fridge's temp control down a
>> > few degrees to minimize heating up the other stuff in the fridge.
>> > (Someone suggested that is ineffective. Maybe, depending on how much
>> > you turn it down, but it certainly can't hurt.)
>>
>> Actually, the pot *will* heat the fridge up more than you want, and
>> turning
>> the thing colder probably won't help much.
>
> Pay attention, Doug. Did I say I put the hot pot in the fridge?
> -aem
>

Sort of maybe I read too fast why didn't you say so thanks. :-)