Would hate to live without my 'fridge (and freezer compartment). But
this convenience has only been available for maybe 70 yrs -- a
eyeblink in historical time. I know that rural folk in the US had root
cellars and often harvested ice from a pond to supply an underground
facility of some sort, but what did regular ol' people do in, say,
London or NYC to store food? I've always thought of daily shopping as
a charming habit of the French, but people lived in hot climates with
no refrigeration for most of human history. What are historical
foodstuffs that could be preserved for more than a couple of days? Is
fresh milk common? How 'bout the current emphasis on fresh veg/fruit?
What *can* be kept without refrigeration?

On 2/8/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
"Frogleg" > wrote:

> Would hate to live without my 'fridge (and freezer compartment). But
> this convenience has only been available for maybe 70 yrs -- a
> eyeblink in historical time. I know that rural folk in the US had root
> cellars and often harvested ice from a pond to supply an underground
> facility of some sort, but what did regular ol' people do in, say,
> London or NYC to store food?

Icebox in some cases - ice would be delivered on a weekly basis. You can
see them in some antique shops/junk shops in the US sometimes.

The rest was preserved food - an ancestor of mine lived on a barrel of
pickled herring while at University in the 1870's. Dried, and preserved,
canned food in most cases, too. An in season the market would have some
fresh foods, too.

>I've always thought of daily shopping as
> a charming habit of the French, but people lived in hot climates with
> no refrigeration for most of human history. What are historical
> foodstuffs that could be preserved for more than a couple of days?

Dried beans, rice, meat. Pickled vegetables, canned foods as well later on.

>Is
> fresh milk common? How 'bout the current emphasis on fresh veg/fruit?
> What *can* be kept without refrigeration?

Good question. I know curry can cover up the taste of "off" meats -
probably not the primary use, but it still works for this well.

The knowledge about a balanced diet is relatively recent, too - people
pretty much ate what was available.

Bonjour Frogleg,

Well I know that a lot of stuff was preserved: dried fruit, salted meat
etc. Honey and salt are both extremely good preservatives, as is
fermentation. Hence alcohol (also kills bugs in the water), yogurt and
cheese. Keeping things under oil also works. Our wonderful gourmet
sun-dried tomatoes in olive oil is a very effective way to keep them for
several months. Pickling is also worth a mention. So a huge raft of
fresh food can have their shelf-life extended.

Here in the UK pasturised milk is standard but in the rest of Europe UHT
seams to be the norm and a lot of yogurt is drunk too. (This annoys me
on holiday cause tea with UHT milk is not the same as pasturised.)

The other thing about diets long ago is that they were a lot more
seasonal. You only got fruit and veg when they were in season and grown
locally.

In victorian times the big houses had ice houses but that is the first
refrigeration I know about in the UK.

What I wonder about is what did the Italians cook before America and
particularly the tomato was discovered?

Yours,
Helen

Note: The email address has a bit of a fudge in it.

On 2/8/04 6:45 PM, in article
, "Helen McElroy"
> wrote:

> What I wonder about is what did the Italians cook before America and
> particularly the tomato was discovered?

I read about a recipe for pasta pre-tomato - had butter, olive oil and
parmisano-reggiano cheese on it. Sounds good - but I could see that if this
recipe were accurate why Tomoato sauce took over!

Does anyone know if pesto or Alfredo sauce was pre Marinera?

In article >, Bromo
> wrote:

> On 2/8/04 6:45 PM, in article
> , "Helen McElroy"
> > wrote:
>
> > What I wonder about is what did the Italians cook before America and
> > particularly the tomato was discovered?
>
> I read about a recipe for pasta pre-tomato - had butter, olive oil and
> parmisano-reggiano cheese on it. Sounds good - but I could see that if this
> recipe were accurate why Tomoato sauce took over!

It didn't. Tomato sauce in Naples is only one of many, many ways to eat
pasta. Pasta con ceci, pasta e fagioli (pasta with chickpeas, pasta
with borlotti beans) for example. Pasta e burro (which is what you
describe) is still common now. So is pasta con aglio, olio e
pepperencino - with garlic, oil and chile.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Frogleg wrote:

> Would hate to live without my 'fridge (and freezer compartment). But
> this convenience has only been available for maybe 70 yrs -- a
> eyeblink in historical time. I know that rural folk in the US had root
> cellars and often harvested ice from a pond to supply an underground
> facility of some sort, but what did regular ol' people do in, say,
> London or NYC to store food?

I can talk about central New Jersey in the 40's.

The ice man came around in his covered truck with the thick walls
every fifth or sixth day in the winter (some people froze their own
then) and every other day in the summer. He would cut off a piece just
the right size to fit in my grandparents' ice box. Sometimes when the
weather was hot, he'd give the kids slivers of that thrillingly cold
ice to suck on and cool off.

> I've always thought of daily shopping as
> a charming habit of the French, but people lived in hot climates with
> no refrigeration for most of human history.

That may be why "bread is the staff of life." It would stale but it
wouldn't spoil dangerously. There were neighborhood stores back then
that carried commodity inventories. Butcher shops. Bakeries.
Greengrocers. All separate, so shopping was an expedition. And each
store took longer than today because the storekeepers retrieved the
stuff rather than the customers. You told them what you wanted and
they walked to get it. Typically, they wrote the prices down on the
paper bag you were going to take your groceries home in and totaled
the order at the end. All cash or on a tab to pay later.

> What are historical
> foodstuffs that could be preserved for more than a couple of days?

Family and friends canned and dried foods in season to use the rest of
the year. Dried, salted beef and other meats.

> Is
> fresh milk common?

Milked our own until we moved into the city. Then it was delivered
every third day. Also delivered were baked goods from a company called
"Dugan's."

> How 'bout the current emphasis on fresh veg/fruit?

Lots of seasonal stuff. Roots and leaves like spinach in winter. Fruit
from the cold room. Potatoes, onions, apples, tomatoes hung from the
rafters still connected to the vines. Killed chickens as needed and as
they outlived their egg-producing lives.

> What *can* be kept without refrigeration?

Oil-packed confits (chicken, duck, goose, red meats), pickled anything
(pig's feet, etc.), dried anything (apples, peaches, tomatoes, green
beans, fish, etc.). Grains like wheat berries and cracked corn for
polenta. Dried salamis and sausages. Some cheeses. Tomato paste (juice
and pulp cooked way down) packed into 1/2 pint jars and canned. Dry
cookies (biscotti, etc.).

Pastorio

"Bromo" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/8/04 6:45 PM, in article
> , "Helen McElroy"
> > wrote:
>
> > What I wonder about is what did the Italians cook before America and
> > particularly the tomato was discovered?
>
> I read about a recipe for pasta pre-tomato - had butter, olive oil and
> parmisano-reggiano cheese on it. Sounds good - but I could see that if
this
> recipe were accurate why Tomoato sauce took over!
>
> Does anyone know if pesto or Alfredo sauce was pre Marinera?

There is no such thing as Alfredo sauce. If you are referring to the dish
Fettuccine Al' Alfredo, it was invented by Alfredo at his restaurant in Rome
in the 1920s. It has nothing in it BTW which requires refrigeration. Just
the butter needs to be kept cool. For more information check he
http://www.ristorantealfredo1907.com/

Pesto does predate the arrival of the tomato - actually it almost certainly
predates the Romans and a bunch of other cultures.

Charlie

>> What are historical foodstuffs that could be preserved for more
>> than a couple of days?
> Family and friends canned and dried foods in season to use the rest
> of the year. Dried, salted beef and other meats.

Eggs - untreated, a few weeks; preserved with a sealant like isinglass,
a few months.


>> What *can* be kept without refrigeration?
> Oil-packed confits (chicken, duck, goose, red meats), pickled anything
> (pig's feet, etc.), dried anything (apples, peaches, tomatoes, green
> beans, fish, etc.). Grains like wheat berries and cracked corn for
> polenta. Dried salamis and sausages. Some cheeses. Tomato paste (juice
> and pulp cooked way down) packed into 1/2 pint jars and canned. Dry
> cookies (biscotti, etc.).

For an expanded list in that spirit from around here in about 1812,
look at the rhyming catalogue "My Shop Bill" by the poet-shopkeeper
Peter Forbes of Dalkeith, on my "Music of Dalkeith" pages. (Forbes
saw himself as a spinoff of Burns, and was probably the inventor of
Burns Night).

It's hard to read to the end without drooling and you certainly can't
buy most of that at Tesco or Lidl in Dalkeith now. Refrigeration might
have reduced the diversity of products on sale as much as it widened it;
labour-intensive preservation techniques became economically unviable.

========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:45:56 +0000, Helen McElroy
> wrote:

>Well I know that a lot of stuff was preserved: dried fruit, salted meat
>etc. Honey and salt are both extremely good preservatives, as is
>fermentation. Hence alcohol (also kills bugs in the water), yogurt and
>cheese. Keeping things under oil also works. Our wonderful gourmet
>sun-dried tomatoes in olive oil is a very effective way to keep them for
>several months. Pickling is also worth a mention. So a huge raft of
>fresh food can have their shelf-life extended.

>The other thing about diets long ago is that they were a lot more
>seasonal. You only got fruit and veg when they were in season and grown
>locally.
>
>In victorian times the big houses had ice houses but that is the first
>refrigeration I know about in the UK.

Yes, but what did, say, the Dickens family and their neighbors eat? It
appears that 'historic' and 'traditional' recipes must have been
*severely* limited. And/or cooking and shopping a truly full-time job.

Milk can't be kept for long. Soft cheeses, too, are highly perishable.
Any sort of fresh meat, fish, or poultry. Most fresh veg, outside of
the 'root' category. There must have been a lot of dependence on
grains and beans, which can be stored for quite some time. And
'preserved' everything. No wonder spices were so prized!

Frogleg muttered....

> Would hate to live without my 'fridge (and freezer compartment). But
> this convenience has only been available for maybe 70 yrs -- a
> eyeblink in historical time. I know that rural folk in the US had root
> cellars and often harvested ice from a pond to supply an underground
> facility of some sort, but what did regular ol' people do in, say,
> London or NYC to store food? I've always thought of daily shopping as
> a charming habit of the French, but people lived in hot climates with
> no refrigeration for most of human history. What are historical
> foodstuffs that could be preserved for more than a couple of days? Is
> fresh milk common? How 'bout the current emphasis on fresh veg/fruit?
> What *can* be kept without refrigeration?

Oysters, amazingly, last longer than you might estimate (asnd were very
popular in the US Midwest/Southwest far from the sea.

.....an interesting side note:

In the US Southwest, the Busch family of St. Louis, owners of the brewery
of the same name, contributed greatly to the spread of ice for home use.
In the 1880s or thereabouts, the company built ice plants in cities spaced
along the major rail lines which carried there then unpasteurized beer to
local markets. Chilled beer in barrels travels well. Hot beer went bad
quickly and might even explode. Extra ice from the ammonia process ice
plants wasa profitable and popular sideline.

At about the same time, the family had built in Dallas, a growing city, the
still existent Adolphus Hotel, named for a family member

"Bromo" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> On 2/8/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
> "Frogleg" > wrote:
>
> >I've always thought of daily shopping as
> > a charming habit of the French, but people lived in hot climates with
> > no refrigeration for most of human history. What are historical
> > foodstuffs that could be preserved for more than a couple of days?
>
> Dried beans, rice, meat. Pickled vegetables, canned foods as well later
on.

Pressure and heat canning was invented by Mr. Nicolas Appert around 1792
IIRC, before then there was no canned food as we know them.
But they had a surprising variety of ways of preserving most anything :
Smoking, Drying, Salting, Pickling in vinegar or brine, cooking with
sugar - honey, fermentation, etc... which can be applied to a surprising
variety of foodstuffs. One need not, evene now, have a refrigerator to live
quite well, when one knows the tricks.

> >Is
> > fresh milk common? How 'bout the current emphasis on fresh veg/fruit?

Yes, at that time man-hours weren't so expensive, and among lots of
'little' occupations you could find people selling goods from door to door,
even such common goods as milk or water.

> > What *can* be kept without refrigeration?

Most everything with the appropriate treatment, Cf. supra

> Good question. I know curry can cover up the taste of "off" meats -
> probably not the primary use, but it still works for this well.

It was most clearly not, you have recipies in the 'ménagier de Paris',
inter alii, to gauge the freshness of a cut and salvage *slightly* off
meat, with a very clear recommendation that in doubt the whole cut should
be tossed away without hesitation.

> The knowledge about a balanced diet is relatively recent, too - people
> pretty much ate what was available.

Absolutely not, the knowledge about a balanced diet is a very old concern
indeed, even the roman have a few theories about the question. They may not
be as scientific nor as efficient as ours, but a cook from roman times on
would have known which spice to add to what item, how to balance foodstuffs
in a meal and so on...
That is not to deny that most everyone ate most whatever was available, and
couldn't be so picky about their diet for lack of income, but to the
learned and the affluent the knowledge was there.

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

In article >, Olivers
> wrote:

> Oysters, amazingly, last longer than you might estimate (asnd were very
> popular in the US Midwest/Southwest far from the sea.
>
Indeed. I buy them often from Cuan, in Strangford Lough in Ireland.
They supply all the supermarkets in the UK and most of the main
restaurants throughout the far east. The interesting thing is that they
are not refrigerated. They will keep for about ten days without
refrigeration, because they stay alive. If an oyster's alive, it's
okay. If it's dead, it ain't. (This is partly why I said something rude
to someone on this ng about stewed oysters. I know they're okay if
they're in the shell, and not otherwise.)

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

..
>
> > The knowledge about a balanced diet is relatively recent, too - people
> > pretty much ate what was available.
>
> Absolutely not, the knowledge about a balanced diet is a very old concern
> indeed

I totally agree. One of the curious things about spending a lot of
one's time travelling in the very poor parts of the world is that poor
people, unless they sink into famine, generally know how to eat a very
balanced diet indeed. And to make it taste very good too.

I'm afraid that the one area that I and the crews I work with (I've
travelled across Central Asia and Central Africa with them) dread to
have to go to because of food which tastes horrid and is unhealthy
is....

Sorry. I can't say it.

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 22:18:31 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:

>Would hate to live without my 'fridge (and freezer compartment).

This has been an interesting discussion. I realized I keep a lot of
things in the 'fridge that might be stored at room temperature (but
*not* in July :-)

I'm now considering the question in the light of convenience. That is,
before domestic refrigeration/freezing, a good part of each day's
meals would have to be cooked and eaten on that day. Nothing like
having a turkey sandwich in January from slices frozen in November, or
economizing on effort and expense by cooking two casserole dishes and
freezing one. Unless the food safety folk are talking through their
hats, last night's unrefrigerated pasta and meat sauce miay be dubious
as this morning's breakfast, much less lunch or dinner. Even with
canned/preserved stuff, once the container is open, many items go
'off' rather quickly.

We have whole cookbooks of 'leftover' recipes, based on the idea that
Tuesday's roast becomes Thursday's hash, and Sunday's chicken,
Wednesday's chicken salad.

It must have been *very* hard work to shop for and prepare relatively
'new' meals each day.

"Frogleg" > wrote in message
...

> It must have been *very* hard work to shop for and prepare relatively
> 'new' meals each day.

And clean and wash and iron and sew and...

That's why domestic help was much more common back then. It wasn't a luxury;
it was a necessity.

--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://kanyak.com

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:31:58 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:

>Unless the food safety folk are talking through their
>hats, last night's unrefrigerated pasta and meat sauce miay be dubious
>as this morning's breakfast, much less lunch or dinner. Even with
>canned/preserved stuff, once the container is open, many items go
>'off' rather quickly.

The food safety folk (quite rightly) are being conservative in their
warnings. "When in doubt, throw it out".

There's also a difference between food left overnight on a counter in
a warm kitchen, and food put away in a cool cellar (or pickled or
potted). We know that medieval people did eat leftovers. There are
cookbooks with recipes that use cold roast meat, and other recipes
that say things like, "And this pie will keep for four days...".

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.) The food section of the book is online
at:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Mediev.../Menagier.html

He says things like, "a hare is good for 15 days in winter, but 7 or 8
days in summer, if kept out of the sun". He also makes a lot of
references to salted meats.

Four centuries later, Mrs. Beeton is making similar statements.

"BUTTER may be kept fresh for ten or twelve days by a very simple
process. Knead it well in cold water till the buttermilk is extracted;
then put it in a glazed jar, which invert in another, putting into the
latter a sufficient quantity of water to exclude the air. Renew the
water every day."

"Have ready a large saucepan, capable of holding 3 or 4 quarts, full
of boiling water. Put the eggs into a cabbage-net, say 20 at a time,
and hold them in the water (which must be kept boiling) for 20
seconds. Proceed in this manner till you have done as many eggs as you
wish to preserve; then pack them away in sawdust. We have tried this
method of preserving eggs, and can vouch for its excellence: they will
be found, at the end of 2 or 3 months, quite good enough for culinary
purposes; and although the white may be a little tougher than that of
a new-laid egg, the yolk will be nearly the same. Many persons keep
eggs for a long time by smearing the shells with butter or sweet oil:
they should then be packed in plenty of bran or sawdust, and the eggs
not allowed to touch each other."

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...ton/household/


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps,

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

In article >,
Robin Carroll-Mann .> wrote:

> 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.)

Very late 14th century, actually.

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

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:58:35 GMT, Robin Carroll-Mann
.> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:31:58 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:
>
>>Unless the food safety folk are talking through their
>>hats, last night's unrefrigerated pasta and meat sauce miay be dubious
>>as this morning's breakfast, much less lunch or dinner. Even with
>>canned/preserved stuff, once the container is open, many items go
>>'off' rather quickly.

>There's also a difference between food left overnight on a counter in
>a warm kitchen, and food put away in a cool cellar (or pickled or
>potted). We know that medieval people did eat leftovers. There are
>cookbooks with recipes that use cold roast meat, and other recipes
>that say things like, "And this pie will keep for four days...".

Yeah, but...how many urbanites have a "cool cellar," then or now?
Right now, it's about 40F outside (and not a great deal warmer
indoors, considering the price of natural gas), and quite possible to
stick a secure box in a shady spot to store that 4-day pie. Come the
end of July, when the average high temperature is 89F (32C) and the
low not much cooler, "this pie" would last about 45 minutes
unrefrigerated before growing fur. A lot of these historic
cookbook/household books come from northern Europe where "room
temperature" to which red wine was to be warmed was about 55F (13C).
>
>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...


>The food section of the book is online
>at:
>http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Mediev.../Menagier.html
>
>He says things like, "a hare is good for 15 days in winter, but 7 or 8
>days in summer, if kept out of the sun". He also makes a lot of
>references to salted meats.

Interesting site. Thanks for the URL.

Would *you* eat a rabbit that had been hanging in 85 degrees for a
week? Outside a smokehouse, I mean.
>
>Four centuries later, Mrs. Beeton is making similar statements.
>
>"BUTTER may be kept fresh for ten or twelve days by a very simple
>process. Knead it well in cold water till the buttermilk is extracted;
>then put it in a glazed jar, which invert in another, putting into the
>latter a sufficient quantity of water to exclude the air. Renew the
>water every day."

Yes, new "butter bells" are sold today. A friend with a rural past
mentioned keeping milk bottles in bowls of water. Evaporative cooling
is common in low-humidity areas. I very much doubt whether 85 degree
water in 55% humidity would significantly cool/preserve anything.
>
>"Have ready a large saucepan, capable of holding 3 or 4 quarts, full
>of boiling water. Put the eggs into a cabbage-net, say 20 at a time,
>and hold them in the water (which must be kept boiling) for 20
>seconds....

Yeah, but...would you want to make an omelet from them?

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
always quite liked chipped beef on toast (when it was real beef, not a
sort of thin-sliced sausage), but I'm not sure I'd like it every day.
In fact, I thoroughly enjoy the option of having a variety of foods
and ingredients every day.

I have a minor interest in 'seasonal' local foods in preference to
Mexican tomatoes in December, but I suppose I don't want to be limited
to potatoes and cabbage all winter long. My supermarket eggs keep for
a month or more. My (refrigerated) leftovers are edible for several
days. I can nearly always buy fresh milk and meat and not have to
consume them on the spot. Or preserve them.

We are very fortunate, foodwise.

In article >, Robin
Carroll-Mann .> wrote:

> There's also a difference between food left overnight on a counter in
> a warm kitchen, and food put away in a cool cellar (or pickled or
> potted).

I couldn't agree more. Every french family, as well as having a fridge,
tries, if it can, to have what they call a "cave". You can only
translate this as "cellar", but what it really means is a cool place
with a constant temperature where you keep vegetables, fruits and
cheese. In my London apartment I use a place under the front stoop
where they used to keep coal. (I don't even have a freezer).

I find that French cheeses bought in supermarkets only become edible
after one or two weeks in my "cave". I buy my vegetables once a week,
and keep them there. Much better than a fridge.
The wine is just beside them, and the two are the same temperature.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:

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

If you lived in the country it wouldn't take that much work to dig some
sort of cellar.

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article >, Christophe Bachmann
> wrote:

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

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

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

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:33:59 GMT, David Friedman
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Robin Carroll-Mann .> wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
>Very late 14th century, actually.

True. That's what I get for writing from memory instead of
double-checking.


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

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:39:08 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:
>
>> Would *you* eat a rabbit that had been hanging in 85 degrees for a
>> week? Outside a smokehouse, I mean.
>
>If you lived in the country it wouldn't take that much work to dig some
>sort of cellar.
>
In the American midwest those cellars served two purposes. Year
'round root cellar and warm weather tornado shelter. Some are simply
dug a foot or two into the ground with a door slanted up the mound of
earth that's then put over it. Where there were actual basements
(upper midwest) there were frequently dug out chambers with the walls
left as earth and a door separating them from the main basement to be
used as the root cellar.
--
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless

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

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:39:08 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:
>
>> Would *you* eat a rabbit that had been hanging in 85 degrees for a
>> week? Outside a smokehouse, I mean.
>
>If you lived in the country it wouldn't take that much work to dig some
>sort of cellar.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>- Store cool and far from drafts

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

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

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

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

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

Frogleg wrote:

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

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

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

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

Pastorio

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

"Frogleg" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:58:35 GMT, Robin Carroll-Mann
> .> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:31:58 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:
> >
> >>Unless the food safety folk are talking through their
> >>hats, last night's unrefrigerated pasta and meat sauce miay be dubious
> >>as this morning's breakfast, much less lunch or dinner. Even with
> >>canned/preserved stuff, once the container is open, many items go
> >>'off' rather quickly.
>
> >There's also a difference between food left overnight on a counter in
> >a warm kitchen, and food put away in a cool cellar (or pickled or
> >potted). We know that medieval people did eat leftovers. There are
> >cookbooks with recipes that use cold roast meat, and other recipes
> >that say things like, "And this pie will keep for four days...".
>
> Yeah, but...how many urbanites have a "cool cellar," then or now?
> Right now, it's about 40F outside (and not a great deal warmer
> indoors, considering the price of natural gas), and quite possible to
> stick a secure box in a shady spot to store that 4-day pie. Come the
> end of July, when the average high temperature is 89F (32C) and the
> low not much cooler, "this pie" would last about 45 minutes
> unrefrigerated before growing fur. A lot of these historic
> cookbook/household books come from northern Europe where "room
> temperature" to which red wine was to be warmed was about 55F (13C).

You don't need a full cool cellar, just use good stone, or good earth to
build your house and it will still be far cooler inside than out in summer.
Many houses were quite cool in summer (and quite damp in winter, you can't
get everything).

> >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...
>
>
> >The food section of the book is online
> >at:
> >http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Mediev.../Menagier.html
> >
> >He says things like, "a hare is good for 15 days in winter, but 7 or 8
> >days in summer, if kept out of the sun". He also makes a lot of
> >references to salted meats.
>
> Interesting site. Thanks for the URL.
>
> Would *you* eat a rabbit that had been hanging in 85 degrees for a
> week? Outside a smokehouse, I mean.

85 degrees, certainly, if you speak in Celsius that would kill most
anything, but seriously, I still have to see a kitchen from ante 1900 where
the temperature is as high as 30° (85°F) please remember that 60 cm (2') of
stone or earth (sorry don't know the technical name of the mix of clay and
straw used to build in the timberframe construction) combined with small
windows quite nicely keeps heat and extreme cold at bay. Oftentimes, old
homes have kitchen cupboards that are anywhere from 15°C to 18°C (around
60°F - 65°F) year in year out.

> 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
> always quite liked chipped beef on toast (when it was real beef, not a
> sort of thin-sliced sausage), but I'm not sure I'd like it every day.
> In fact, I thoroughly enjoy the option of having a variety of foods
> and ingredients every day.

There I can only concur with you, with the proviso that a lot of indigenous
foodstuffs have been forgotten in this era of exotic standardised cooking.
I think among others of quince, nettles, and a lot of difficult to use
things that are totally phased off our tables. People in ancient times have
more variety than one could think if you just remove all non indigenous
products from the current offer.

> I have a minor interest in 'seasonal' local foods in preference to
> Mexican tomatoes in December, but I suppose I don't want to be limited
> to potatoes and cabbage all winter long. My supermarket eggs keep for
> a month or more. My (refrigerated) leftovers are edible for several
> days. I can nearly always buy fresh milk and meat and not have to
> consume them on the spot. Or preserve them.

Potatoes and cabbage, and before Columbus not even potatoes, but you forget
a whole lot of winter greens like beets, spinach, swiss chard, and root
vegetables like turnips, swedes plus the preserved autumn fruit, like
apples and pears, all the dry goods like grain, beans and peas, etc... You
still have quite a little variety,
And yes you could have milk all year long, and as for meat you can have
small animals slaugthered quite regularly (hen, rabbits) and in autumn you
could swap meat from your one slaughter with your neighbours who'ld
slaughter their hog a week earlyer or later and thus have fresh pork quite
often. In France, King Henry IV said that under his reign each family
should have a hen in the pot every week.

> We are very fortunate, foodwise.

With that I must absolutely agree, my point is just that ancients had
tricks to stretch whatever was available as far as could do, and thus were
not just worse off than we are, but ate very differently and sometimes not
bad at all, and one cannot imagine food in the past as just our food minus
lots of things. (I don't say you do, just that it is very common.)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KAcey

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

--
Outgoing messages checked with Norton Antivirus 2003.

Kacey Barriss wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Pastorio

On 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