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

> The formula for heat transfer is:
>
> Q/t = kA (Th-Tc)/d
>
> Q/t is the rate of heat transfer, like Btu's per hour, k is the thermal
> conductivity of the conducting material (like your copper pot), A is
> the area the heat is being transferred across (square inches or square
> feet usually), Th (the h should really be a subscript) is the
> temperature on the hot side (inside your pot of broth), Tc (the c
> should really be a subscript) is the temp on the cold side (in your
> tub), and d is the thickness of the pot wall (probably in inches).
>
> Basically, all the formula says is that the rate of heat transfer is
> increased if the pot wall is a good conductor, like copper, by
> increasing the temperature differential between the contents of the pot
> and the contents of the tub, by increasing the area over with the
> transfer is taking place or by decreasing the thickness of the wall in
> between.
>
> So all of the factors you mentioned come into play here.
>
> For you scientific/mathematical types, since the temp of the broth is
> constantly falling, this formula becomes a differential equation to
> account for the fact that as the broth temp falls (and, if you want to
> get really detailed, the temp of the water in the tub rising, maybe),
> Th keeps changing. Fun stuff, for us nerds!
>

As I recall, altitude also plays some small part in this, as does static vs
moving liquids.

Larry T

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

"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# )

"salgud" > wrote:
> The formula for heat transfer is:
>
> Q/t = kA (Th-Tc)/d
....

> So all of the factors you mentioned come into play here.
>
> For you scientific/mathematical types, since the temp of the broth is
> constantly falling, this formula becomes a differential equation to
> account for the fact that as the broth temp falls (and, if you want to
> get really detailed, the temp of the water in the tub rising, maybe),
> Th keeps changing. Fun stuff, for us nerds!

I actually did consider looking some of this up... my degree in mechanical
engineering covered at lot of this stuff... 30+ years ago. But a seat of the
pants analysis was enough! ;-)

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

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

"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# )

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

"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?

"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:
>> 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# )

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

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:sCt1g.8555$JY5.243@trnddc01...
> "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# )
>

I don't agree with leaving it on the counter for longer than it takes for
the hot pot to be safely placed on the next surface, but the fact is,
Sheldon's still alive, and who knows how long he's been doing this? Not
important, though. You encounter more potential pathogens in other places
each day than you'll EVER find in a pot of broth that's been off the stove
for a few hours.

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.

"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

Doug Kanter wrote:
> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
> news:sCt1g.8555$JY5.243@trnddc01...
> > "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# )
> >

Is it possible this method could cause serious brain damage? Dogturd
may be alive, but his brain obviously is not!

>
> I don't agree with leaving it on the counter for longer than it takes for
> the hot pot to be safely placed on the next surface, but the fact is,
> Sheldon's still alive, and who knows how long he's been doing this? Not
> important, though. You encounter more potential pathogens in other places
> each day than you'll EVER find in a pot of broth that's been off the stove
> for a few hours.

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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
>

This is all very interesting, but if you're talking about a lot of stock,
like 3 or 4 gallons, you're going to need a lot of ice, and you may as well
just put the pot on a trivet in an ice chest, and bury it in ice.

"salgud" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
>> news:sCt1g.8555$JY5.243@trnddc01...
>> > "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# )
>> >
>>
>> I don't agree with leaving it on the counter for longer than it takes for
>> the hot pot to be safely placed on the next surface, but the fact is,
>> Sheldon's still alive, and who knows how long he's been doing this? Not
>> important, though. You encounter more potential pathogens in other places
>> each day than you'll EVER find in a pot of broth that's been off the
>> stove
>> for a few hours.
>

>
> Is it possible this method could cause serious brain damage? Dogturd
> may be alive, but his brain obviously is not!
>

I can't vouch for the nature of his life, only that he is still sitting up
and typing.

"Doug Kanter" > wrote:
> I don't agree with leaving it on the counter for longer than it takes for
> the hot pot to be safely placed on the next surface, but the fact is,
> Sheldon's still alive, and who knows how long he's been doing this? Not
> important, though. You encounter more potential pathogens in other places
> each day than you'll EVER find in a pot of broth that's been off the stove
> for a few hours.

There is a flaw in the logic that since Sheldon is still alive, that it must
be okay.

Many things end up being dangerous only part of the time. In those cases,
people tend to get a false sense of security that it then must be safe to
do. Take these two activities. If you take a gun, place it in your mouth,
and fire, there is a virtually 100% chance that you will be killed. On the
other hand, if you go speeding 90 mph through traffic, chances are you are
still going to survive. Because there is no immediate cause and effect
relationship, it may not appear to be risky. But statistically, if one
continues to drive 90 mph, one has a high probability of killing oneself.

I think a lot, if not most people have a hard time understanding statistical
chances of harm. They can't evaluate how risky something is, and whether the
risk is worth taking. Though many things might be a 1 in a 1,000 chance of
doing harm, we do thousands of things in our lives. Even at a 1 in a 1,000
chance of harm in any one activity, if you do enough of them, you are pretty
much guaranteed to get hurt.

I'm more willing to put my faith in someone well versed in the issues of
food safety than to be trusting some random idiot posting on the internet. I
know I am not a food safety expert, but the method I described to cool stock
is in line with what food safety experts advocate. Sheldon's method flies in
the face of such advice.

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

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:dev1g.132$gt.13@trnddc04...
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>> I don't agree with leaving it on the counter for longer than it takes for
>> the hot pot to be safely placed on the next surface, but the fact is,
>> Sheldon's still alive, and who knows how long he's been doing this? Not
>> important, though. You encounter more potential pathogens in other places
>> each day than you'll EVER find in a pot of broth that's been off the
>> stove for a few hours.
>
> There is a flaw in the logic that since Sheldon is still alive, that it
> must be okay.
>
> Many things end up being dangerous only part of the time. In those cases,
> people tend to get a false sense of security that it then must be safe to
> do. Take these two activities. If you take a gun, place it in your mouth,
> and fire, there is a virtually 100% chance that you will be killed. On the
> other hand, if you go speeding 90 mph through traffic, chances are you are
> still going to survive. Because there is no immediate cause and effect
> relationship, it may not appear to be risky. But statistically, if one
> continues to drive 90 mph, one has a high probability of killing oneself.
>
> I think a lot, if not most people have a hard time understanding
> statistical chances of harm. They can't evaluate how risky something is,
> and whether the risk is worth taking. Though many things might be a 1 in a
> 1,000 chance of doing harm, we do thousands of things in our lives. Even
> at a 1 in a 1,000 chance of harm in any one activity, if you do enough of
> them, you are pretty much guaranteed to get hurt.
>
> I'm more willing to put my faith in someone well versed in the issues of
> food safety than to be trusting some random idiot posting on the internet.
> I know I am not a food safety expert, but the method I described to cool
> stock is in line with what food safety experts advocate. Sheldon's method
> flies in the face of such advice.
>
> --
> ( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
>

I've had food poisoning - the whole emergency room routine. (Theory: Truck
stop chili). So, I'm obsessive about cleaning up after handling raw meats &
seafood, to the point where certain individuals in this house aren't allowed
to wash the utensils because they don't take it seriously. But, a pot of
broth that's been simmered for a number of hours? Intuitively, I just don't
believe that's a high risk 2-4 hours after the heat's been turned off. I
have no damned links to back that up - it's a hunch.

There are pathogens on your toothbrush, your hands, doorknobs, fruits &
vegetables, and money.

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.

In article >,
says...
> I've had food poisoning - the whole emergency room routine. (Theory: Truck
> stop chili). So, I'm obsessive about cleaning up after handling raw meats &
> seafood, to the point where certain individuals in this house aren't allowed
> to wash the utensils because they don't take it seriously. But, a pot of
> broth that's been simmered for a number of hours? Intuitively, I just don't
> believe that's a high risk 2-4 hours after the heat's been turned off. I
> have no damned links to back that up - it's a hunch.
>
>
Your hunch is backed up by science. The people who are most fearful of
germs and poisoning are the people who are most ignorant of the subject.
Now if you do not know the subject and want to be safe, then it makes
perfect sense to follow the recs of the "food safety experts," but the
fact is that they don't know the science either, and just parrot what
they have been taught. They go way overboard in recommending procedures
that go far beyond what is needed for safety. The idea is that it is
better for someone to boil longer than needed, or cool sooner than
needed, than to risk the chance that someone will not follow
instructions properly and have a problem. This started after WWII when
home canning was encouraged as part of the war effort, and there were
quite a few poisonings. The result was guidelines that went way beyond
what was needed. Sort of like recommending that for safe driving you
have to be in a car with 4 inch armor and 100 airbags.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

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. :-)

Does anyone here believe that Sheldon would admit that he'd been wrong and
accept responsibility if someone got food poisoning as a result of following
his advice?

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone here believe that Sheldon would admit that he'd been wrong and
> accept responsibility if someone got food poisoning as a result of
> following his advice?
>
> Bob
>

I suppose I might wager a dime on it. But that's it.

wff_ng_7 wrote:
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
> > I don't agree with leaving it on the counter for longer than it takes for
> > the hot pot to be safely placed on the next surface, but the fact is,
> > Sheldon's still alive, and who knows how long he's been doing this? Not
> > important, though. You encounter more potential pathogens in other places
> > each day than you'll EVER find in a pot of broth that's been off the stove
> > for a few hours.
>
> There is a flaw in the logic that since Sheldon is still alive, that it must
> be okay.
>
> Many things end up being dangerous only part of the time. In those cases,
> people tend to get a false sense of security that it then must be safe to
> do. Take these two activities. If you take a gun, place it in your mouth,
> and fire, there is a virtually 100% chance that you will be killed. On the
> other hand, if you go speeding 90 mph through traffic, chances are you are
> still going to survive. Because there is no immediate cause and effect
> relationship, it may not appear to be risky. But statistically, if one
> continues to drive 90 mph, one has a high probability of killing oneself.
>
> I think a lot, if not most people have a hard time understanding statistical
> chances of harm. They can't evaluate how risky something is, and whether the
> risk is worth taking. Though many things might be a 1 in a 1,000 chance of
> doing harm, we do thousands of things in our lives. Even at a 1 in a 1,000
> chance of harm in any one activity, if you do enough of them, you are pretty
> much guaranteed to get hurt.
>
> I'm more willing to put my faith in someone well versed in the issues of
> food safety than to be trusting some random idiot posting on the internet. I
> know I am not a food safety expert, but the method I described to cool stock
> is in line with what food safety experts advocate.

I agree, up to a point. This whole issue of safety, and food safety, is
being overdone these days as far as I'm concerned. Others have pointed
out that there are germs all around us, 24/7. If we think that by
removing them from our food, there won't be any, we're dillusional. If
I went to all the trouble that Alton Brown does to prepare poultry, I'd
just call a Hazmat crew in anytime I spotted the stuff and have it
removed, and the whole kitchen, if not the house, fumigated, sanitized,
then burned to the ground!

I'm told that back in the thirties, there was a sanitization craze
around babies. Babies should never touch anything that hadn't been
soaked in Chlorox then heated in an autoclave. Shouldn't crawl of
floors or rugs. Shouldn't ever be allowed to touch pets, much less go
outdoors except in a baby carriage or a car. Guess what? Those kids
whose mothers overdid the cleanliness thing had all kinds of medical
problems later on, when the started living more normally, because they
had no resistence to normal crud that lives all around us. Like
anything else, cleanliness can be carried to an unhealthy extreme.

I let my stock cool on the stove. When it's cool enough, it goes into
an ice cube tray, gets made into cubes, and goes in a plastic bag in
the freezer. So far, so good. And my brain still works, which is more
than dogturd can say!

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

Peter wrote:

> Your hunch is backed up by science. The people who are most fearful of
> germs and poisoning are the people who are most ignorant of the subject.
> Now if you do not know the subject and want to be safe, then it makes
> perfect sense to follow the recs of the "food safety experts," but the
> fact is that they don't know the science either, and just parrot what
> they have been taught. They go way overboard in recommending procedures
> that go far beyond what is needed for safety. The idea is that it is
> better for someone to boil longer than needed, or cool sooner than
> needed, than to risk the chance that someone will not follow
> instructions properly and have a problem. This started after WWII when
> home canning was encouraged as part of the war effort, and there were
> quite a few poisonings. The result was guidelines that went way beyond
> what was needed. Sort of like recommending that for safe driving you
> have to be in a car with 4 inch armor and 100 airbags.


If you go all the way back to the original post, the OP mentioned that
quickly-cooled stocks TASTED better than slowly-cooked stocks. The
slowly-cooled stocks were called "sour."

The discussion then morphed into what it's become, but it was originally a
discussion about taste, not about health risks.

Bob

"salgud" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> I agree, up to a point. This whole issue of safety, and food safety, is
> being overdone these days as far as I'm concerned.

Side trip: In this small town (Rochester NY), the evening news people go
apeshit and send out camera crews when some driver taps a parking meter with
his bumper. But, every now and then, they make a mistake and actually come
up with an interesting story. Last year, they talked to some (actual) smart
person from our county health department. This person did an experiment
which involved cleaning several countertops with various germicidal cleaners
available in supermarkets, and then somehow sampling what bacteria were
left. Interesting result: The cleaners did what they were supposed to:
reduce the concentration of pathogens per square cm, or however they measure
it. But guess what? Even if these products killed a large percentage, the
researcher found bacteria which refused to die, and they multiplied. In one
case, the countertop was as bad as before it was cleaned.

I wipe down the counters with a soapy sponge. If I've been preparing meat,
I use a capful of clorox on the sponge, then rinse down the counter. But,
I'm not gonna go nuts like that if a drop a little cooked oatmeal.

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>> I've had food poisoning - the whole emergency room routine. (Theory:
>> Truck
>> stop chili). So, I'm obsessive about cleaning up after handling raw meats
>> &
>> seafood, to the point where certain individuals in this house aren't
>> allowed
>> to wash the utensils because they don't take it seriously. But, a pot of
>> broth that's been simmered for a number of hours? Intuitively, I just
>> don't
>> believe that's a high risk 2-4 hours after the heat's been turned off. I
>> have no damned links to back that up - it's a hunch.
>>
>>
> Your hunch is backed up by science.

Not to send this off in yet another direction, but in various news sources
over the past week or two, there's been mention of a theory regarding
allergies, and why they're more prevalent now than 20-30-40 years ago: Some
kids live a life that's TOO clean. The immune system needs training.

In one of his routines, George Carlin comments that he's healthy because he
and his friends used to swim in the East River, with raw sewage floating
around.

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Peter wrote:
>
>> Your hunch is backed up by science. The people who are most fearful of
>> germs and poisoning are the people who are most ignorant of the subject.
>> Now if you do not know the subject and want to be safe, then it makes
>> perfect sense to follow the recs of the "food safety experts," but the
>> fact is that they don't know the science either, and just parrot what
>> they have been taught. They go way overboard in recommending procedures
>> that go far beyond what is needed for safety. The idea is that it is
>> better for someone to boil longer than needed, or cool sooner than
>> needed, than to risk the chance that someone will not follow
>> instructions properly and have a problem. This started after WWII when
>> home canning was encouraged as part of the war effort, and there were
>> quite a few poisonings. The result was guidelines that went way beyond
>> what was needed. Sort of like recommending that for safe driving you
>> have to be in a car with 4 inch armor and 100 airbags.
>
>
> If you go all the way back to the original post, the OP mentioned that
> quickly-cooled stocks TASTED better than slowly-cooked stocks. The
> slowly-cooled stocks were called "sour."
>
> The discussion then morphed into what it's become, but it was originally a
> discussion about taste, not about health risks.
>
> Bob
>

Have you ever noticed a sour taste like that in stock that you've made?

"salgud" > wrote:
> I agree, up to a point. This whole issue of safety, and food safety, is
> being overdone these days as far as I'm concerned. Others have pointed
> out that there are germs all around us, 24/7. If we think that by
> removing them from our food, there won't be any, we're dillusional.

I agree a lot of people go overboard with the food safety thing. But I think
a lot of that is driven by companies trying to sell one product or another.
I'm not convinced the bulk of the going overboard is driven by government
agencies or educational institutions. Do we really all need a color coded
set of cutting boards and knives, for example? Do we really need veggie
washes?

One of the things that tends to get me is the cross contamination issue. The
way it's presented tends to be a worse case scenario for absolute idiots.
Maybe it has to be that way... I've run into a lot of people in my day who
can't comprehend some of the most basic things. Does it matter if you use
the same cutting board and knife (starting clean) to first cut some
vegetables to be eaten raw, followed by some raw meat? Or does it matter if
raw meat is cut first, followed by vegetables that are going to be cooked in
a similar manner to the meat, if not with the meat? But trying to explain
the sequencing rules is just too hard to do, so complete separation becomes
the order of the day.

> I let my stock cool on the stove. When it's cool enough, it goes into
> an ice cube tray, gets made into cubes, and goes in a plastic bag in
> the freezer. So far, so good. And my brain still works, which is more
> than dogturd can say!

I guess it depends on whether you are meeting the "two hour rule", not that
one has to be so exact on this. The other advantage I find with a quick cool
is I can get the whole operation over and done with, and not risk getting
distracted with how long something has been left out. Minutes quickly turn
into hours when you forget about something and move on to other things.

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

wff_ng_7 wrote:
> [snip]
> I guess it depends on whether you are meeting the "two hour rule", not that
> one has to be so exact on this.

The only "two hour rule" I am aware of has to do with the minimum time
that should be allocated to sex. I seriously doubt there is such a
rule for cooking, or for leaving stock to cool. -aem

ewdotson wrote:
> Doug Kanter wrote:
> > ewdotson 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.
> > >
> > > 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

That's because you're a low IQ pinhead.... of course boiled liquid
remains sterile as it cools down, unless your stick your widdle maggoty
peeppee in the pot. What kind of faggoty name is Errrrrnest... isn't
it Ernesto... you filthy dumb dago douchebag.

Mr. Sheldon to you, putz.

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

Doug wrote:

> Have you ever noticed a sour taste like that in stock that you've made?

Only if it's been in the refrigerator more than a week or in the freezer
longer than several months. When I make stock, I generally refrigerate
about a quart of it and freeze the rest in muffin tins. (When they're
frozen I scrape off the fat and then pop them out into freezer bags.)

I cool stock fairly quickly by pouring it from one pot to another through a
succession of finer and finer strainers.

Bob