Dangers of thawing and refreezing

[prehistorik]

In various places, I have read the same two health warnings about thawing meats:

1. The first is that you should always thaw meat in the fridge, never at room temperature. 

2. The second is that you should only thaw raw meat once, so you should never put raw meat that has been thawed back into the freezer.  (This even means the time in between buying frozen meat and placing it in the fridge should be short enough that the meat does not thaw in transit.)

One reason given was that both thawing slowly in the fridge, and thawing only once, retains the meat juices better, making the meat less dry, more tasty and more nutritious.

But I only want to focus on the second reason, which is that bacteria have less chance of proliferating.  Outside of the fridge the proliferation of micro-organisms occurs extremely quickly.  When you thaw large pieces of meat in the open air, it is possible that the outside of the meat is already at room temperature, while the inside is still frozen. 

And when freezing meat a second time, the meat has to be frozen quickly.  If the inside of the meat does not freeze quickly enough, micro-organism can keep multiplying in the core until all the meat eventually freezes.  When thawing again, this increased biomass can grow larger once more.  That is why freezing must happen extremely quickly, and must occur at a temperature of at most -24 °C (-11 °F), which is a temperature lower than what most freezers can handle, -18 °C (0 °F).

Now on this forum the dangers of micro-organisms are generally downplayed.  Still, I would like to eat my meat with as little proliferation of micro-organisms as possible.  I am not yet convinced by the benefits of "high meat".  Also, in paleolithic times the entire animal would normally be eaten almost immediately after it was hunted.  Even if raw meat was eaten after several days in the paleolithic era, after freezing the cellular structure of meat is completely damaged by the expanding ice crystals, so decay of frozen raw meat should happen much faster than fresh raw meat. 
 
What are your thoughts? 

I would prefer scientific arguments over anecdotal evidence ("I eat refrozen meat all the time and nothing bad ever happened"), but if the latter is all you have that would also be useful. 
 
(This issue is very relevant at the moment:  I only have access to frozen grass-fed beef, and from one company only.  They package muscle meats in small portions, but I just ordered organs.  Because delivering organs is unusual for them, they want to vacuum-seal the organs as a whole, as they said it was easier for them.  But a lot of organs such as liver are huge, and way too much for me to eat in a few days.  This would mean I would have to refreeze the organs again, something of which I doubt the safety.  I will try to arrange if thet can deliver smaller portions, but would like to hear your thoughts.)

[TylerDurden]

First of all, palaeolithic hunters would not have eaten the entire animal in one go, soon after the kill. Most hunters in tribes need to range for miles in order to find their prey and hunt them down. It is customary for hunters in such tribes to eat some of the raw organ-meats immediately after the kill, but then they have to take the carcass back. Secondly, they had food-scarcity in those days, with many days without access to prey because of bad weather, winter, famine or whatever - when they did get a kill, it would often be  huge animals such as  wild aurochs or mammoths etc, which could not possibly be eaten all in one go.

Re vacuum-packs:_ Vacuum-packs are ideal as they make the meat last longer. But they need to be put in the freezer. I've left vacuum-packed raw liver in the fridge, not the freezer, and the gases that build up, tend to burst the bag after a couple of weeks or so.

[goodsamaritan]

Why would I refreeze meat? 
The most I would do is put leftovers in the refrigerator.
Then eat it.

[JaX]

I'm wondering, if I order 1/2 grassfed beef, and they vacuum seal it, how long will it stay in the fridge?

Is frozen-then-thawed grassfed meat better than fresh grain finished, for eating raw? What would be best to do, long run?

[RawZi]

    It might depend on YOUR body.  I don't like previously frozen meat at all.  I don't like grainfed, but I'd sooner eat an occasional meal of raw grainfed not previously frozen then the other.  I wish people didn't have an obsession with grain and there wasn't any being fed to animals.  Animals would not choose it with plenty of other foodstuff not held away from them.

[rafonly]

that was really thoughtful, prehistorik

at this moment in historik time, can't find a better thought to add to it

[prehistorik]

Why would I refreeze meat? 
The most I would do is put leftovers in the refrigerator.
Then eat it.

Because another health warning that I have read accompanying the previous two is:

3. You should never leave meat in the fridge (meaning at < 7°C (45 °F)) for longer than two days.  Cooked meat can be stored longer, 3 to 4 days, ground meat shorter. 

(If this is true, this might explain why Tyler's bag ruptured after keeping it for weeks in the fridge.)  I have never eaten meat that has been in the fridge for weeks for this reason.  At most meat of a few days old.  At this moment I am eating thawed raw meat and I am willing to consider that the health risks of eating fresh or unfrozen raw meat are overblown, but I am still dubious about eating meat that has been lying in the fridge for days, let alone weeks. 

The problem, as I described, is that the leftovers might be very large, if the farm only wants to deliver whole organs:  a cow liver for example weighs about 5 kg (11 lbs), too large to eat at once.

Assuming a primitive tribe had 150 to 200 people, a whole cow contains an amount of edible material that could have been eaten in at most a day or two.  Even the Native Americans used smoke to drive off the flies when drying jerky for pemmican, as flies are what happens if you leave meat lying around, an image which is hardly appetizing and does not suggest to me that eating weeks-old meat was normally done.

(By the way, be warned vacuum-sealing while useful is not a guarantee against spoilage!  Some air always gets trapped inside.)

So do people here refreeze their meat?  And how many days do people here store leftovers in the fridge? 

[TylerDurden]

I've stored some things like raw suet for months in the fridge, and, despite not being in the freezer, it only got a little mouldy and greeny-brown  on the surface. Come to think of it, I left some raw suet out of the fridge for weeks as well, without issues.

I rarely refreeze and only if I've forgotten to eat the food when otherwise occupied.

Re tribes:- I remember being told that Palaeolithic tribes were only c. 50 humans, on average.

[Satya]

3. You should never leave meat in the fridge (meaning at < 7°C (45 °F)) for longer than two days.  Cooked meat can be stored longer, 3 to 4 days, ground meat shorter. 

(If this is true, this might explain why Tyler's bag ruptured after keeping it for weeks in the fridge.)  I have never eaten meat that has been in the fridge for weeks for this reason.  At most meat of a few days old.  At this moment I am eating thawed raw meat and I am willing to consider that the health risks of eating fresh or unfrozen raw meat are overblown, but I am still dubious about eating meat that has been lying in the fridge for days, let alone weeks. 

I think you mean >7°C.

I never refreeze meat.  Some meat I get fresh, and I eat it fresh.  Meat I buy frozen stays frozen until I eat it that day.  I buy most of my meat from one farm, and they are not super close, so freezing is better option for me, as this farm has the best meat I have ever tasted.  The liver I buy is sliced in a one pound pack, so no worries about not using it all.  Prepared raw meat I eat within 2 days.

The paleolithic was marked by colder climates and glaciation.  Frozen food was probably pretty common, and hey, it's a good storage method for ancient humans.  In fact, the last ice age ended with the end of the paleolithic.  It was only with warmer temperatures that agriculture was possible.  So I too think this idea of never frozen meat is kind of overblown and historically unrealistic.  Eat some fresh, great.  But frozen meat is very paleo too.  Any large kill would freeze over time, which enabled eating it over time.  Win win situation.

It may be why cooking began.  Thaw meat by the fire, some of it gets cooked.

[prehistorik]

Just to be clear:  I am talking here about the potential hazards of thawing meat (and then storing it for a long time), not of freezing meat.  I have no problems with freezing meat.  (I do not have any choice anyway, all my grass-fed beef is frozen.)

[lex_rooker]

Still, I would like to eat my meat with as little proliferation of micro-organisms as possible.  I am not yet convinced by the benefits of "high meat". 

I guess at this point I would ask WHY you would want food with as few micro-organisms as possible.  What makes you believe that this is bad or unnatural?

Also, in paleolithic times the entire animal would normally be eaten almost immediately after it was hunted.  Even if raw meat was eaten after several days in the paleolithic era, after freezing the cellular structure of meat is completely damaged by the expanding ice crystals, so decay of frozen raw meat should happen much faster than fresh raw meat. 

What makes you believe that the food our ancestors consumed was always freshly hunted, and that we were not scanvengers and opportunists eating whatever came our way in whatever state of rot and decay it was found.
 

I would prefer scientific arguments over anecdotal evidence ("I eat refrozen meat all the time and nothing bad ever happened"), but if the latter is all you have that would also be useful. 

I find the whole premis absurd.   

You want "scientific" evidence.  I can give you lots of "scientific" studies that state that carbohydrates are the proper foundation for human health, yet that emperical evidence that you seem to find less convincing shows that people who eat a carbohydrate based diet have the poorest general health, the most degenerative diseases, and shortest lifespans in the world.  What makes you believe that "scientific" evidence related to the freezing of meat is any more reliable.

You worry about freezing and thawing as a veritable hot bed of cellular destruction and bacterial activity which you want to avoid, yet most meat his hung and "aged" for days or weeks before being packaged and sold so that enzyme and bacterial action will soften the tissue and make it more tender.  You pay a substantial premium for aged steaks in some of the classiest restruants in the world.

Almost all bacteria are on the surface and then work their way toward the middle.  There is very little in the way of bacteria in the center of the meat.  If you really want a load of bacteria then eat ground meat - fresh or frozen - it's loaded with bacteria.  By grinding it we've created lots of surface area for the bacteria to multiply and thrive.

Most of us have little problem eating ground meat yet become concerned that freezing will some how degrade the food because of the "ruptured" cells.  Grinding, chewing, aging, enzyme breakdown (which starts the moment the animal dies), all cause massive cellular destruction.  In deed, tissue breakdown is the whole point when something dies.  I have no access to "freshly killed" meat that I can eat while it's still warm.  Everything I can purchase, "fresh" or frozen, was killed days, weeks, or months ago and is well into the process of decay regardless of the method of storage. Bacteria may be slowed down by freezing but they do not stop multiplying.  Some may disagree, but to me freezing is a trivial concern.

To avoid bacteria is to avoid life.  Bacteria are everywhere, and for the most part we have a beneficial symbiotic relationship with them.  Take away bacteria and our health suffers significantly.  Just look at the huge market in pro-biotics.  One of the best things you can do for your health is throw away the Lysol, Clorox, and other modern "antibacterial" nonsense.  By the way, if you're worried about decay and bacteria you better not eat any cultured milk products (yogurt, kiefer, butter milk, sour milk, cheese of any kind), or fermented foods (wine, beer, pickles, cabbage, peppers, salsa, and a host of others).

Our ancestors ate most of their meat in some state of decay.  And no matter how "fresh" the kill, they ate their food off the ground using dirty rocks and sticks as their plates and cutlery.  You and I are here which is a testament to the fact that we humans are robust enough to handle this "filthy" environment and indeed thrive in it.  It is modern advertising, in their attempt to sell us products that we don't need and are actually destructive to us and our environment, that has given us "germ phobia".

I certainly believe in bacteria and viruses and know that they are the cause of some deadly diseases.  What I've come to understand is that often it is the modern processing (canning, the feeding of grain to grass eaters, etc) that create the environment for the nasties to thrive and multiply.  The every day bacteria that cause the normal decay and breakdown of dead tissue either has little effect on our health, or more often than not, are beneficial.

I was tickled when I saw AV on television on some Doctor's show.  He was championing eating meat, eggs, and other foods raw.  The doctors on the show reeled in horror and cautioned the audience about the evils of salmonella and other nasty bugs, and that anyone following AV's example could be risking their lives.  What the doctors failed to mention was that the most recent outbreak of salmonella was in peanut butter, the one before that was spinach, the one before that was strawberries.  The only E-Coli outbreaks have come from grain fed animals, most of whom where given massive doses of antibiotics in effort to control an artificially created pathogen from our modern feed lot processing.

I think I'll stick with my rotting and decaying raw grass-fed meat thank you very much.....

Food for thought,

Lex

[prehistorik]

I do not have "germ phobia".  However, I contracted a case of mononucleosis apparently after sharing a glass of water with someone.  After a week of horrible fever and flu-like symptoms, this little thing called Epstein-Barr virus has caused me to be ill for almost an entire year, suffering from intense headaches, throat pain, neck pain, chest pain, tiredness and concentration problems, on a daily basis.  I am still not recovered, and things are not getting better.  When (my) gums bleed, this also caused by bacteria (this is a known fact).  So for me, the existence of germs is very real and in-my-face. 

Nevertheless, this thread was not about if humans can withstand germs (I am already eating a 100% raw beef diet and do not need convincing), nor about the putative dangers of freezing (like I wrote already, I am not concerned now fearful about freezing), but mostly about what conditions and time spans it takes for germs to reach a dangerous level after thawing.  Or do you believe there is no such level and would you therefore also eat for example months old meat, say, with flies, mold, maggots and what have you (serious question)? 

(Aged meat, as far as I know, is hung in cold temperatures.  Chicken meat is different apparently, in that it has a different (porous?) structure than beef meat that allows bacteria to enter inside without grinding it.  I was already avoiding all of the cultured or fermented foods you mention.)

I am not sure, but I think the idea that early hunter-gatherers were scavengers is still a minority opinion.  The word is "hunter-gatherers" for a reason.

I am fully aware about the health dangers of carbohydrates, as I am now following a raw beef diet.  Empirical evidence is also what I mean by science:  the ill health of people following carbohydrate-based diets is also science.  But there is a difference between anecdotal evidence and large-scale evidence.  I fully understand that you are pissed-off by previous scientific results, but that just means science can make mistakes and needs correction, not that anecdotal evidence is preferrable (after all you can also find anecdotal evidence in favor of veganism).

If the feeding of grain to grass eaters is indeed the main cause of germs, that poses quite a restriction on my diet. This is the reason I am only eating beef at the moment.  I only have access to grass-fed beef from one company, no other grass-fed meats.  Even getting them to deliver organs or suet is a whole ordeal.  Since you are also doing a similar beef diet with great results, I have great hope this is still a healthy diet for me.  But still I am curious, have you (often) eaten raw grain-fed chicken, raw grain-fed pork, and so on, and do you think it would be safe for me to eat such things?

[wodgina]

 Your wrong 'Mono' isnt caused by a virus but from poor health. Also who said the 'gathering' part of hunter/gathers was only for  plants why not for rotting carcasses.
Did you even read lex's reply?! Geez he already mentioned grainfed beef can have ecoli. Weve also talked about the benefits of 'high' meat at length on this forum...

[TylerDurden]

The scavenger theory is actually very popular. This is partly because it is linked to the even more popular expensive tissue hypothesis - the notion is that apemen ate high amounts of fat, especially marrow and brains , by bashing open the skulls and bones of carcasses (the meats having already been devoured by predators). This is supposed to have been the only way to get enough high-quality nutrients needed for the expansion of human brain-size.

[prehistorik]

Mononuclosis is indeed caused by the Epstein-Barr virus, which is one of most well-studied viruses in medicine.  I had my blood tested for the presence of IgG and IgM antibodies for Epstein-Barr, so with all respect you do not know what you are talking about.  Of course poor health is a contributing factor but not the cause.

I read Lex's reply fully, took the time to respond to each point, then reordered and coalesced the replies into one post.  I most definitely do not like the tone with which you are addressing me, as I have tried to be civil during all my posts on this forum.

Lex both claimed that germs are not dangerous and that grain-fed animals carry more germs, and I was wondering which of these weigh more heavily in his opinion with regards to eating grain-fed meats.

[TylerDurden]

Re grainfed meat:- Well, it's not only a question of bacteria, but the fact that grainfed meat is nutritionally inferior , with the animals having been fed artificial hormones etc.

[Satya]

Nevertheless, this thread was not about if humans can withstand germs (I am already eating a 100% raw beef diet and do not need convincing), nor about the putative dangers of freezing (like I wrote already, I am not concerned now fearful about freezing), but mostly about what conditions and time spans it takes for germs to reach a dangerous level after thawing.  Or do you believe there is no such level and would you therefore also eat for example months old meat, say, with flies, mold, maggots and what have you (serious question)? 

That is the nature of internet discussions - they evolve.  When I wrote about freezing in general, it was in response to what others had said about it, not your original post (and I suppose it would have helped if I had quoted the text).  Look at the nootropic drugs thread, for instance.  Now it is all about eating brains instead of taking drugs.  I am afraid that is just the nature of conversation - whether written or in person.

[JaX]

Lex both claimed that germs are not dangerous and that grain-fed animals carry more germs, and I was wondering which of these weigh more heavily in his opinion with regards to eating grain-fed meats.

I've experimented with raw and grainfed chicken and pork and did not have any problems..

According to AV, parasitic infections/viruses/bacteria are good for us, since they eat away at toxins. Think of your societies of cells inside your body, where it is all survival of the fittest. If there is a parasite, the parasite will inevitably destroy and eat away at the weakest cells (the toxin ones) which can't protect themselves properly. AV does mention, though, that you need a good food (nutrition) source and you need to be able to eat, so the dead toxic cells can be replaced by new ones: Synthesis of new cells has to be faster than the destruction of old/toxic cells. AV is very specific saying that bacteria are needed more than ever in our toxic world today, since they help with getting rid of some of the toxins - Ironically, we are also in an age when we sterilize, pasteurize, sanitize, irradiate and cook our foods more than ever.


Another problem with avoiding germs is, the immune system is built with the purpose of actively fighting bacteria, and people who live too sterile not only have decreased level of immune system (use it or loose it ), but they also have a much higher risk of autoimmune disorders. Since the immune system doesn't have anything to fight, it begins attacking itself (the body).
That's why there today is a type of medical treatment which involves infecting people with a parasite or other bacteria so their immune system gets something to "attack" other than itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy

Helminthic therapy is the treatment of autoimmune diseases and immune disorders by means of deliberate infestation with a helminth or with the ova of a helminth. Helminths are parasitic worms such as hookworms. Helminthic therapy is currently being studied as a treatment for several (non-viral) auto-immune diseases including Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, asthma, and ulcerative colitis. Autoimmune liver disease has also been demonstrated to be modulated by active helminth infections.

Louis Pasteur (the guy who invented pasteurization and discovered the germ theory of disease) even admitted on his dead bed: "It's not the germ. It's territory."... He admitted this to Claude Bernard, who was a follower of Antonie Bechamp's school of thought: that disease can arise from within the body, and depends on several conditions of the body. "Pleomorphism" is the theory that bacteria can change its shape very drastically, such as change from one type of bacteria to another, or even arising from completely benign structures which are found inside every cell.

Here are some useful links:

http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/pleomorphism-1.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiomorphic


Some primal dieters take it so far that they recommend you eat sh*t.. Only from organic grassfed animals, of course.. You don't want toxins from grainfed feedlot animals lol. However, if you are very thin (you don't have some excess fat) then it probably isn't a good idea since it will be hard for your body to replenish cell eaten by the bacteria/parasite at a fast enough rate... That is, considering you even get a germ at all

[lex_rooker]

Prehistorik,
Certainly no disrespect to you or anyone else intended.  It is just that your original post was so full of implied assumptions, and based on a premis, that from my experience is false, I just couldn't help myself in replying.

Lex both claimed that germs are not dangerous and that grain-fed animals carry more germs, and I was wondering which of these weigh more heavily in his opinion with regards to eating grain-fed meats. 

Apparently you didn't read my post all that carefully:

I certainly believe in bacteria and viruses and know that they are the cause of some deadly diseases. 

I think it is pretty clear that I understand that bacteria and viruses cause disease.  As far as cattle being fed an unnatural food like grain creating an environmnent where a natural relativley harmless bacteria like E-Coli can mutate into a pathogenic form, you can find a reference here:
http://www.texasgrassfedbeef.com/your_health.htm  which states in part:

"E. Coli: Livestock fed corn silage and animal byproducts are more likely to carry E. coli 0157:H7 than other livestock, such as grass-fed livestock (Herriott, D.E., D.D. Hancock, et al. (1998) Journal of Food Protection 61(7):802-7).   
The gastric juices in the human stomach destroy 99.99% of the normal type of E. coli found in grass-fed livestock.  A high percentage of the acid resistant E. coli from grain-fed livestock will survive the same acid bath in the human stomach and can cause major health problems. (Diez-Gonzalez, F., T.R. Callaway, et al. (1998) Science 281(5383): 1666-8.)

However, I contracted a case of mononucleosis apparently after sharing a glass of water with someone.

So this wasn't a problem with a tainted food supply?  This was a known human pathogen passed from one person to another?

Aged meat, as far as I know, is hung in cold temperatures.

Not sure what difference refrigeration makes when I clearly stated (as others did) that bacteria continue to grow and multiply even when the meat is frozen.  Refrigeration barely slows it down.

Nevertheless, this thread was not about if humans can withstand germs (I am already eating a 100% raw beef diet and do not need convincing), nor about the putative dangers of freezing (like I wrote already, I am not concerned now fearful about freezing), but mostly about what conditions and time spans it takes for germs to reach a dangerous level after thawing.  Or do you believe there is no such level and would you therefore also eat for example months old meat, say, with flies, mold, maggots and what have you (serious question)? 

I think it's pretty clear that I'm on the side that "germs reaching dangerous levels" is irrelevent. Everything we eat, drink, or touch is full of all sorts of bacteria and viruses.   People of various cultures eat termites, maggots, mold, and decaying food, including meat, all the time.  My post was about asking you WHY this was an issue for you at all, and then gave some support for my belief that it is both futile and probably unwise to be overly concerned about putrafactive bacteria in our food as we easily handle these common bacteria and that in most cases they are important to our health. 

The fact that you can contract Epstein-Barr virus, Rhino virus, hepatitis, or a host of other diseases from a carrier of a disease is a nonsequitur and has nothing to do with common bacteria found in food.  In fact, there was a study that showed that the bacteria common to breaking down food actually creates an environment in the food that is hostile to pathogenic bacteria and viruses.

You are certainly free to disagree with my arguments.  I only offer them in the spirit of provoking thought and discussion.

Lex

[prehistorik]

Certainly no disrespect to you or anyone else intended. 

Actually, I was not referring to you.  But never mind, I don't want to press the issue, as I would like to remain on good terms with everyone on this forum.

Yes, Wikipedia also mentions studies that E.Coli is more common in grain-fed cattle in its raw foodism entry.  But also mentions other studies with conflicting results.  However, I think you are right about grain-fed meats having bacteria in dangerous amounts, though Kristelle also mentioned elsewhere that she also has eaten supermarket meats raw without problems.  I take it you have never eaten grain-fed raw.  Too bad that I can then only eat beef, as I would prefer also to eat other raw meats, and not to rely on a single company. 

So this wasn't a problem with a tainted food supply?  This was a known human pathogen passed from one person to another?

EBV can be passed through kissing or sharing kitchen utensils.  Point taken about the fact that there is a difference between putrefactive bacteria and pathogenic bacteria.

Not sure what difference refrigeration makes when I clearly stated (as others did) that bacteria continue to grow and multiply even when the meat is frozen.  Refrigeration barely slows it down.

I have read that refrigeration slows bacteria to a crawl, while freezing stops bacteria action completely.

My post was about asking you WHY this was an issue for you at all, and then gave some support for my belief that it is both futile and probably unwise to be overly concerned about putrafactive bacteria in our food as we easily handle these common bacteria and that in most cases they are important to our health.

It is an issue because the company from which I order wants to deliver organs as a whole, but a lot of organs are huge, and way too much for me to eat in a few days.  I have eaten fresh or recently thawed raw meat (steak tartare) or fish (herring) before, but have no experience with eating raw meat that has been in the fridge for long periods of time / weeks.  Everything I have read suggests that this is dangerous.  So, for reassurance and to gather other viewpoints, I wanted to ask others about how long they store their meat in the fridge and so on.

(Also, sometimes there is a gap in their delivery, and I need to have something else to eat in the meanwhile.  I do not know what would be good, should I eat grain-fed and take the risk?)

[goodsamaritan]

Just to be clear:  I am talking here about the potential hazards of thawing meat (and then storing it for a long time), not of freezing meat.  I have no problems with freezing meat.  (I do not have any choice anyway, all my grass-fed beef is frozen.)

How about when the meat gets to you, you chop it up in meal sizes then you freeze.
Then defrost only what you are to eat.

[wodgina]

Prehitorik does everybody infected with EBV get ill? that was my point. You see I have had chronic problems with cold sores for about 25 years... since going raw 2 years ago I have cured them. Many people infected with the virus never get them only people with impaired immune systems or eating poor diets.

I think a crap diet a well a your ancestor's crap diet are the cause of your 'mono' I believe your antibody test but EBV didn't make you ill.

[prehistorik]

Okay wodgina6722, I would agree with that assessment:  the cause is EBV + bad immune system.  My bad immune system was likely caused or influenced by poor diet, but I also had a lot of stress at the time and irregular sleeping habits.

I have never had cold sores, but very occasionaly have had aphtous ulcers in the past.

[prehistorik]

Another issue is that I need to buy a another (bigger) freezer soon, and need to decide between a freezer and fridge/freezer combination.  If thawing outside of the fridge is not an health risk, I would not need a fridge/freezer combination, but only a freezer, which would be less expensive.  I would not even need a freezer if Lex is correct, I could just leave the meat lying around on the floor.   That would save me some money.

[lex_rooker]

...if Lex is correct, I could just leave the meat lying around on the floor.   That would save me some money.

Never said that decaying meat can be kept indefinetly.  It gets consumed by bacteria if nothing else and turns to liquid ala roadkill.  I just stated that the bacteria itself was not a problem and in most cases is a benefit.

I always thaw outside the refrigerator though once I make my food mix I store it in the fridge for 4 to 6 days at a time depending on how much I make.  Bacteria does grow in the fridge and after 6-7 days it can taste a bit sour - especially since I take the day's ration out early in the morning so that it is room temperature by the time I'm ready to eat it in the afternoon.

In my case I opted for the freezer and keep 2 to 3 months food stored.  I bring out enough food for several days at a time, thaw, mix, and store that small amount (8-12 lbs) in the fridge until I consume it.  I think my freezer is a 10 cu ft model and it easily holds a couple of hundred pounds of frozen meat.  The space I need in the refrigerator is only about the size of a typical lunch box less than 1/2 cu ft.

Lex