7 ms·

Wait until the author finds out how prosciutto is made. You take the (raw) hind leg of a pig, cover it in salt, and hang it in a cool dry place for 9 months to

Wait until the author finds out how prosciutto is made. You take the (raw) hind leg of a pig, cover it in salt, and hang it in a cool dry place for 9 months to two years. Then you take it down, scrape off all the mold, slice it thinly, and enjoy its deliciousness. That's right, prosciutto is raw pork that was left unrefrigerated for months or years until covered in mold.

TheRealPomax 4y ago
Right, so: you take the kind of raw meat that is so thick that any contaminants you might get during carving is surface contamination, then cover it in a substance that kills any bacteria or molds that it comes into contact with, making sure to use enough salt to prevent subsequent contamination for as long as it takes for the surface to dry and form an impenetrable layer, and then we let it age for however long we like because it is now physically impossible for surface contaminants to make it into the meat anymore. Which is completely different from leaving wet meat to just hang out at room temperature for many hours.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Also, obligatory step with most of these things: smell it. If it smells bad, throw that example out. We survived for a few hundred thousand years without an ability to see or quantify microbiology. Our noses are pretty damn effective.
  - mumblemumble 4y ago
    That "we" in "we survived" is doing an awful lot of work. "We" also survived many rounds of bubonic plague and suchlike. Those who didn't, though, presumably don't get to count themselves among that "we". For the purposes of these kinds of conversations, I think I might prefer some sober estimates of costs and benefits over platitudes.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      If the goal is 0% mortality, then your life is going to suck. Personally, I prefer low-enough mortality and a life well-lived.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - msla 4y ago
        > Personally, I prefer low-enough mortality and a life well-lived. A nice euphemism for a life that ends with massive diarrhea.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        Might as well go out with a bang.
      - mumblemumble 4y ago
        I didn't suggest 0% mortality, nor did I ask for a strawman response to my comment. I specifically suggested "sober estimates of costs and benefits".
        ethbr0 4y ago
        You absolutely asked for a strawman by appealing to emotion. ;) Those poor hundreds of millions dead from bubonic plague, a valuable lesson on the importance of food safety standards!
        mumblemumble 4y ago
        That was not an appeal to emotion. That was pointing out that observing that some portion of humanity survives is blatantly talking past the stated purpose of these kinds of measures, which is to reduce the size of the portion that doesn't. If your floor on what is acceptable is, as the "we survived" standard implies, the base continuance of the species, then you're effectively allowing that even a situation like what happened in the movie Threads is acceptable and it would not be ethical to try and prevent such a situation from happening. On the other hand, if that isn't actually what you believe, then you should construct rhetoric that is consistent with your actual position.
  - TheRealPomax 4y ago
    We also died a lot. If it smells bad, it might be bad, or it might actually be fine because we took creating food to a new level once we discovered fermentation could actually make things tasty. The same goes for hams, really. Some curing yields things that your nose would go "throw this away!" to, and it couldn't be more wrong. Some Iberico and Parma can smell quite terrible, even if once trimmed it's not just safe but incredibly delicious.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      We died more. But there's a bit of medical science that's also accrued in the intervening millennia, so apples and oranges. The one that always gets me is olives. How the hell did people figure out how to make them edible? And why?!
      - TheRealPomax 4y ago
        The why is presumably "there are a million trees with these things, how can we eat them". The how has a number of equally "we will never know" theories, all of which make some kind of sense =P
noefingway 4y ago
Just like good old country ham here in the US. I get one every year, been eating it since I was a kid. Dry, crusty, some mold on the outside. Clean it off an slice it, or soak it for a couple of days then bake it. Either way it's staple here on the farm.
mc32 4y ago
Or: https://montagne-hautlanguedoc.com/recettes-de-cuisine-traditionnelle-de-france/recettes-de-gibiers/faisandage/ https://montagne-hautlanguedoc.com/recettes-de-cuisine-tradi... Faisandage. Also, this is BS: "Peking duck, which also owes its name to a romanized name for Beijing" No, it is no more Romanized than "Beijing"... One is Wade-Giles, the other Pinyin Romanization.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  Use vs. reference. 'Peking' is a romanized name for Beijing. So is 'Beijing.' Had the author said "a romanized name for 'Beijing,'" then you would have a had a point. Sure, you could use '北京,' but that is unnecessarily confusing.
  - mc32 4y ago
    That's my point, they're both "romanizations" One is one type, the other another. There have been other romanizations as well and in addition there are things like bopomo. And, yes, it would make sense to me to say Peking is a romanized transliteration of the Chinese character for the locale [in the mandarin dialect.]
    - vehemenz 4y ago
      The author raises the point about 'Peking' because many people don't know that it's a romanization of Beijing. You are suggesting that the author is incorrect to omit the commonly known romanization? Develop the argument.
      - zerocrates 4y ago
        They just want it to say "an alternative romanization of Beijing" or something like that instead. As written it sort of implies that "Peking" is the result of romanization while "Beijing" is not.
        jacobr1 4y ago
satvikpendem 4y ago
The salt inhibits growth. It's no different than curing and salting other meats, it's perfectly safe. See also, dry aging, it doesn't necessarily sit in a fridge yet it's still safe as long as you cut off the pellicles.
Aunche 4y ago
First of all, the salt kills all the harmful bacteria. I don't know how true this is, but it's said that mammal meat is denser than poultry meat, bacteria can't grow inside of it (or at least have a lot more difficulty growing inside. Duck prosciutto is a thing too though, so maybe it's just chicken?

TheRealPomax 4y ago

Right, so: you take the kind of raw meat that is so thick that any contaminants you might get during carving is surface contamination, then cover it in a substance that kills any bacteria or molds that it comes into contact with, making sure to use enough salt to prevent subsequent contamination for as long as it takes for the surface to dry and form an impenetrable layer, and then we let it age for however long we like because it is now physically impossible for surface contaminants to make it into the meat anymore. Which is completely different from leaving wet meat to just hang out at room temperature for many hours.

ethbr0 4y ago
Also, obligatory step with most of these things: smell it. If it smells bad, throw that example out. We survived for a few hundred thousand years without an ability to see or quantify microbiology. Our noses are pretty damn effective.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  That "we" in "we survived" is doing an awful lot of work. "We" also survived many rounds of bubonic plague and suchlike. Those who didn't, though, presumably don't get to count themselves among that "we". For the purposes of these kinds of conversations, I think I might prefer some sober estimates of costs and benefits over platitudes.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    If the goal is 0% mortality, then your life is going to suck. Personally, I prefer low-enough mortality and a life well-lived.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - msla 4y ago
      > Personally, I prefer low-enough mortality and a life well-lived. A nice euphemism for a life that ends with massive diarrhea.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        Might as well go out with a bang.
    - mumblemumble 4y ago
      I didn't suggest 0% mortality, nor did I ask for a strawman response to my comment. I specifically suggested "sober estimates of costs and benefits".
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        You absolutely asked for a strawman by appealing to emotion. ;) Those poor hundreds of millions dead from bubonic plague, a valuable lesson on the importance of food safety standards!
        mumblemumble 4y ago
        That was not an appeal to emotion. That was pointing out that observing that some portion of humanity survives is blatantly talking past the stated purpose of these kinds of measures, which is to reduce the size of the portion that doesn't. If your floor on what is acceptable is, as the "we survived" standard implies, the base continuance of the species, then you're effectively allowing that even a situation like what happened in the movie Threads is acceptable and it would not be ethical to try and prevent such a situation from happening. On the other hand, if that isn't actually what you believe, then you should construct rhetoric that is consistent with your actual position.
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  We also died a lot. If it smells bad, it might be bad, or it might actually be fine because we took creating food to a new level once we discovered fermentation could actually make things tasty. The same goes for hams, really. Some curing yields things that your nose would go "throw this away!" to, and it couldn't be more wrong. Some Iberico and Parma can smell quite terrible, even if once trimmed it's not just safe but incredibly delicious.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    We died more. But there's a bit of medical science that's also accrued in the intervening millennia, so apples and oranges. The one that always gets me is olives. How the hell did people figure out how to make them edible? And why?!
    - TheRealPomax 4y ago
      The why is presumably "there are a million trees with these things, how can we eat them". The how has a number of equally "we will never know" theories, all of which make some kind of sense =P

noefingway 4y ago

Just like good old country ham here in the US. I get one every year, been eating it since I was a kid. Dry, crusty, some mold on the outside. Clean it off an slice it, or soak it for a couple of days then bake it. Either way it's staple here on the farm.

mc32 4y ago

Or: https://montagne-hautlanguedoc.com/recettes-de-cuisine-traditionnelle-de-france/recettes-de-gibiers/faisandage/ https://montagne-hautlanguedoc.com/recettes-de-cuisine-tradi... Faisandage. Also, this is BS: "Peking duck, which also owes its name to a romanized name for Beijing" No, it is no more Romanized than "Beijing"... One is Wade-Giles, the other Pinyin Romanization.

vehemenz 4y ago
Use vs. reference. 'Peking' is a romanized name for Beijing. So is 'Beijing.' Had the author said "a romanized name for 'Beijing,'" then you would have a had a point. Sure, you could use '北京,' but that is unnecessarily confusing.
- mc32 4y ago
  That's my point, they're both "romanizations" One is one type, the other another. There have been other romanizations as well and in addition there are things like bopomo. And, yes, it would make sense to me to say Peking is a romanized transliteration of the Chinese character for the locale [in the mandarin dialect.]
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    The author raises the point about 'Peking' because many people don't know that it's a romanization of Beijing. You are suggesting that the author is incorrect to omit the commonly known romanization? Develop the argument.
    - zerocrates 4y ago
      They just want it to say "an alternative romanization of Beijing" or something like that instead. As written it sort of implies that "Peking" is the result of romanization while "Beijing" is not.
      - jacobr1 4y ago

satvikpendem 4y ago

The salt inhibits growth. It's no different than curing and salting other meats, it's perfectly safe. See also, dry aging, it doesn't necessarily sit in a fridge yet it's still safe as long as you cut off the pellicles.

Aunche 4y ago

First of all, the salt kills all the harmful bacteria. I don't know how true this is, but it's said that mammal meat is denser than poultry meat, bacteria can't grow inside of it (or at least have a lot more difficulty growing inside. Duck prosciutto is a thing too though, so maybe it's just chicken?