HOME > Chowhound > Home Cooking >

Food Safety Question: Homemade chicken/ vegetable stock at Room Temperature

lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 03:11 AM

I left some stock at room temperature for 4 hours. It was made from chicken breasts and vegetables in a Crock Pot.

Should I toss this? Will boiling it before use make it safe?

Thank you.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. bushwickgirl RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 06:08 AM

    Was it actually at room temp for four hours or was it cooling down in the slow cooker after you shut it off? Either way, your stock is most likely contaminated. Your stock was held between 40° and 140° for four hours, if at room temp; that's four hours in the temperature danger zone. Stock needs to be cooled down rapidly and refrigerated promptly. If you shut off the slow cooker, and you ran it on high, which could be upwards of 300° depending on your model, and the stock was cooling in the cooker, it still may be ok, but this is just speculation on my part. Next time put on a timer, leave the kitchen light on, put a note on your pillow, tell someone, whatever, just so you won't forget.

    Stock is a perishable product with the potential for rapid bacterial growth. Even with proper handling, I always bring stock to a boil again before using in other dishes. Boiling your stock again may kill off the multitudes of bacteria that have reproduced in it, but why take a chance.

    I tend to play fast and loose with food safety sometimes, but in this case I would toss it.

    1. Chemicalkinetics RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 06:29 AM

      To be honest, it also depends what "room temperature" we are talking about. A cool room temperature like 60 degree F or (15 degree C) is much better than say a warm room temperature like 100 degree F (or 37 degree C).

      Boiling the stock for a few minute will kill the bacteria. However, some bacteria produce toxins as they multiply, and those toxins cannot be destroyed by boiling.

      "Staphylococcus (Staph)

      Staph bacteria grow very rapidly, especially in foods with high protein content such as meat, beans, and dairy products. When these foods are not properly kept hot or cold, the bacteria multiply and produce a toxin that cannot be destroyed by additional cooling or cooking. Once the contaminated food is eaten, the poison affects the digestive tract."


      That being said, it is likely to be ok than not. It is really up to you.

      5 Replies
      1. re: Chemicalkinetics
        bushwickgirl RE: Chemicalkinetics Oct 10, 2011 07:01 AM

        But chem, 60 degrees is still 20 degrees above safe holding temp and into the danger zone. Sure, bacteria will multiply more slowly at a lower temp, but they're still multiplying.

        "those toxins cannot be destroyed by boiling." This is my biggest concern here and why I'd personally toss it. You can't know if the product is, or to what extreme, contaminated.

        Regardless, it's up to the OP. Then there's the adage, "when in doubt..."

        1. re: bushwickgirl
          Chemicalkinetics RE: bushwickgirl Oct 10, 2011 07:28 AM

          Definitely, 60 degree is still a temperature where organisms can survive and mutliple. The salt content in the stock also makes a difference. It will be more difficult for bacteria to multiple in a highly salted stock (not that you should salt your stock for that reason).

          On the other hand, there are often bacteria in our foods. The question is how much is in there. The way I was thinking is that if the stock was made at boiling condition, then the pot and its content would be "sanitized" for hours. So it should start with very little bacteria in the first place.

          I just googled "when in doubt" and found so many "when in doubt" quotes. It looks like the original poster went with this one:

          "When in doubt, one can rarely go wrong by going public.

          James E. Rogers "


          I like this one:


          Laurence J. Peter


          4-hours does seem like a long time.

          1. re: Chemicalkinetics
            bushwickgirl RE: Chemicalkinetics Oct 10, 2011 07:48 AM

            My personal favorite is "when in doubt, punt."

            1. re: Chemicalkinetics
              lafouchow RE: Chemicalkinetics Oct 10, 2011 11:43 AM

              Great link.

            2. re: bushwickgirl
              cowboyardee RE: bushwickgirl Oct 10, 2011 07:32 AM

              Not to get too pedantic (or so I say as I charge full steam into pedantry), but the 'danger zone' is sort of an oversimplification. It works as a rule of thumb because it's easy to remember and apply. But just for example: a thin liquid medium like stock is actually not in any real danger from bacteria at 130 degrees held indefinitely, and not in much danger at 120-130. A more viscous liquid (or solid) meanwhile could be in danger from bacterial contamination at 120 or 130 if held there long enough.

              Likewise, staph reproduce significantly slower at 60 degrees than they do at, say, 90. Basically, the 'danger zone' rule was formulated around the notion that you can hold a contamination-prone foodstuff at the riskiest temperature range (about 85-105, depending on the bacteria) for 4 hours and still have food that's reliably safe.

              Your question earlier was very pertinent - did the stock slowly cool to room temp over a period of a few hours before those '4 hours' started, or was it just held off the heat for 4 hours before being refrigerated? And when it was refrigerated, was it cooled rapidly or just kept in a large container and put in the fridge? Was the stock uncovered at any point while it sat out? Did anyone stick a just-licked spoon in the pot? Is the cook feeling sneezy?

              The basic point, I guess, is the little details actually do matter quite a bit in determining the likelihood of staph-bourne food poisoning (as Chem points out, anything else of consequence can get killed or denatured through bringing the stock to a high temperature again and holding it there for a few minutes).

          2. e
            ediblover RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 07:52 AM

            I wouldn't toss it. Forget the specific science for a moment, since this doesn't even pass the common sense test.

            When you're at a party, how long does the food stay out?

            How long does food stay out at a buffet?

            Here's the big one: Your stock was covered, right? Odds are the cooking process killed off whatever was potentially harmful. So...

            8 Replies
            1. re: ediblover
              Chemicalkinetics RE: ediblover Oct 10, 2011 08:12 AM

              "When you're at a party, how long does the food stay out?"

              That is silly. In a party, you drink enough alcohol to kill off all the germs inside your body.

              P.S.: this is a joke.

              1. re: ediblover
                bushwickgirl RE: ediblover Oct 10, 2011 08:34 AM

                The suggestion that the stock was covered (only the OP knows for sure) makes it more likely that the stock may have passed it's prime, as the temperature of the liquid would have been maintained at a higher unsafe point, rather than without the lid, which would have allowed the stock to cool a bit more rapidly, but not well enough to prevent bacterial growth. Then there's also the question of possible air borne contamination on food left uncovered...

                It's not the cooking process and the temperature in the slow cooker while the stock was simmering that's the issue here; it's the lack of improper and timely cooling after the stock was off the heat.

                At this point, it's impossible to know the condition of the stock without testing it. Since this equation has unknown variables, as cowboyardee pointed out, tossing specific science out the door isn't the answer.

                1. re: bushwickgirl
                  cowboyardee RE: bushwickgirl Oct 10, 2011 08:40 AM

                  But keeping the pot covered also prevents contamination from live staph in the first place, which is a good deal more important in this case than a marginal difference in the rate of cooling.

                  1. re: cowboyardee
                    bushwickgirl RE: cowboyardee Oct 10, 2011 09:05 AM

                    So, the devil is in the details here, but I see the OP has decided to toss.

                    I did mention air borne...

                    1. re: bushwickgirl
                      scoopG RE: bushwickgirl Oct 10, 2011 10:36 AM

                      Have to agree with everything bushwickgirl has said here. Stock is problematic. While there are many bacteria that get killed during cooking, some of them produce toxins and it these toxins are not inactiviated at cooking/boiling temperatures.

                      1. re: scoopG
                        cowboyardee RE: scoopG Oct 10, 2011 12:53 PM

                        You refer to staph aureus. It requires both a portal of contamination and enough time in favorable conditions to multiply and then secrete its enterotoxin. Food poisoning isn't magic or alchemy. The question in this case is 'was the stock left out long enough that staph could be a problem?" The actual answer isn't 'of course' but 'it depends.' 4 hours was not necessarily long enough to be any danger if there was low risk of contamination in the first place and the stock was quickly brought to a safer temperature after those 4 hours.

                        American food safety courses have long been teaching information that is drastically oversimplified and not based in sound microbiology.

                        1. re: cowboyardee
                          scoopG RE: cowboyardee Oct 10, 2011 03:03 PM

                          Four hours in the food danger zone (40-140 F) is well more than enough for me.

                          1. re: scoopG
                            cowboyardee RE: scoopG Oct 10, 2011 03:30 PM

                            But is it enough for the microbial processes we're discussing? I don't personally care whether any individual chooses to play it extra safe with foodbourne illnesses. People with medical conditions (already ill, GI issues, immunosuppressed, pregnant, etc) are wise to do so. I'm just trying to give a more realistic idea of the actual factors in food safety. People are surprisingly resistant to this information.

                            The 'danger zone' rule is a very simplistic account of the complex relationship between various bacteria, time, and temperature.

              2. lafouchow RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 07:55 AM

                Thanks for all the feedback...I am tossing it! After the crockpot cooled down, it was probably at around 65 degrees.

                1. Kajikit RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 08:41 AM

                  Honestly, I'd guess that it would be just fine. Crockpots are designed to hold a LOT of heat and to be very well insulated. That ceramic crock takes hours to heat up (which is why they warn you NOT to put anything frozen into it - it sits there incubating goodness knows what for hours before it gets hot enough to sterilise itself), and just as long to cool off again. If the lid was on and nobody messed with it after that, then the stuff was sterile and there's nothing to grow.

                  Broth is a good bacteria growth medium - but the bacteria has to get in there first! A boiling pot is sterile, and if the lid is on it and STAYS ON IT, it's not very likely that anything germy is going to get in in a few hours.

                  1. iheartcooking RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 09:09 AM

                    Is it too late to weigh in? THROW IT OUT! I can't believe people on here were even entertaining the thought of keeping it...

                    3 Replies
                    1. re: iheartcooking
                      cowboyardee RE: iheartcooking Oct 10, 2011 09:15 AM

                      Why are you shocked? There are plenty of circumstances where something can be left at room temp for 4 hours and still be perfectly safe. And other circumstances where it wouldn't be. The rule of thumb here is just that - a rule of thumb.

                      1. re: iheartcooking
                        Chemicalkinetics RE: iheartcooking Oct 10, 2011 09:32 AM

                        Believe it.


                        1. re: iheartcooking
                          jaykayen RE: iheartcooking Oct 10, 2011 02:17 PM

                          I can't believe anyone is entertaining the thought of throwing it out.

                        2. k
                          kerosundae RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 09:34 AM

                          honestly, it was in the danger zone in terms of temperature and it was held there for way enough time for danger to rise.
                          However, honestly, I have never rapid-chilled stock by stirring it in ice water and putting it away immediately. I've only ever left it there to cool at room temperature, and sometimes would forget to put it away overnight, like I do with all leftovers.
                          I've always consumed it. I make stock about once a week from various animals. I should probably stop pushing my luck, but right now am too apathetic about the idea of death by food poisoning to make the extra effort.

                          1. alkapal RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 10:42 AM

                            i realize now that my stomach must be used to a lot of things most people would toss. LOL.

                            2 Replies
                            1. re: alkapal
                              Chemicalkinetics RE: alkapal Oct 10, 2011 11:14 AM

                              When you said "I", do you mean me? Because I do that too. :)

                              1. re: Chemicalkinetics
                                alkapal RE: Chemicalkinetics Oct 10, 2011 11:30 AM

                                sure, ceekay! if people only knew, they'd probably gasp in horror. "you did WHAT?!"

                            2. Fowler RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 10:49 AM

                              In a blog posting last April, Michael Rhulman swore up and down one can make chicken stock and leave it out at room temperature all week because when one reheats the stock that kills off all of the bacteria.

                              I think that is crazy talk, but he is the expert; not me.

                              8 Replies
                              1. re: Fowler
                                ylsf RE: Fowler Oct 10, 2011 11:48 AM

                                This is a link the the blog post mentioned by Fowler. It was since updated to make reference to a NYT article about the same subject, anyone have a link to the NYT article?


                                1. re: ylsf
                                  lafouchow RE: ylsf Oct 10, 2011 11:56 AM


                                2. re: Fowler
                                  bushwickgirl RE: Fowler Oct 10, 2011 01:54 PM

                                  Michael has obviously clarified his position; he leaves the stock in a 200° oven overnight, as noted in his formula, states that his kitchen temp in the winter is cool enough for stock left out, but in the summer heat, the stock spoils. He states that stock should be boiled again before using, admonishes the bacteria fearful, but goes on to discuss the possibility of heat stable toxins developing in stock that's not refrigerated.

                                  Sour stock is an issue for me, simply due to it's off flavor ad how that effects the soup or sauce bottom line. The presence of heat stable toxins is a bigger issue, as this could make one quite ill. Michael presented this info for the highly concerned, and to clarify his stock making technique.

                                  I personally don't leave stock out unrefrigerated overnight, as my kitchen is very warm year round, and I don't like my stock to sour. As far as chilling down stock rapidly, I do that when I'm making a few to many gallons, not a few quarts. I strain, cool (on counter) and refrigerate within an hour or so. I boil before using. I don't think much about toxins developing, simply because I follow the drastically oversimplified information I learned in food safety courses in culinary school.

                                  (Not bashing you in the least, cowboyardee, I largely agree with your stance, and appreciate your knowledge and input.) The rub is the "it depends" school of thought.

                                  Here's the link to the NYT article Michael Ruhlman mentioned as the food science authority:


                                  1. re: bushwickgirl
                                    cowboyardee RE: bushwickgirl Oct 10, 2011 03:50 PM

                                    No offense taken. You know I enjoy and learn a lot from your posts.

                                    The 'no more than 4 hours in the danger zone rule' actually serves its purpose perfectly well when applied to thousands of culinary professionals cooking thousands of meals for millions of people. But the principle in that case is to provide a rule that is both easy to remember and errs pretty far on the side of safety - to prevent foodbourne illnesses over a huge number of potential exposures.

                                    Individual isolated cases to be eaten only by a few people aware of the risks can be evaluated a bit differently. In this case, the risk to one's health may well be lower than, say, a day of skiing. Of course, that depends on a few of those little details the OP hasn't told us about.

                                    1. re: cowboyardee
                                      alkapal RE: cowboyardee Oct 10, 2011 04:54 PM

                                      cowyboy, please check your blog link. i'm getting an error.

                                      1. re: alkapal
                                        cowboyardee RE: alkapal Oct 10, 2011 05:02 PM

                                        Thanks for the heads up. Changed it a bit. Seems alright now. Not sure what the problem was.

                                        1. re: cowboyardee
                                          bushwickgirl RE: cowboyardee Oct 10, 2011 05:06 PM

                                          It's fine on my end. I'll take a good look at your blog; I remember you discussing the challenge in one of your posts.

                                          1. re: cowboyardee
                                            alkapal RE: cowboyardee Oct 10, 2011 05:43 PM

                                            yep -- you're good to go!

                                  2. c
                                    CharlieTheCook RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 02:06 PM

                                    Toss it.

                                    1. greygarious RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 02:21 PM

                                      I have often let soup and other things cool on the counter in 65ish room temp, uncovered, for upwards of 4 hours and have not been sickened.

                                      1. ipsedixit RE: lafouchow Oct 10, 2011 09:31 PM

                                        For what it's worth, I would have kept it with no worries whatsoever.

                                        I hope at least your kitchen pipes enjoyed the good chicken stock.

                                        Show Hidden Posts