PDA

View Full Version : Comment Card from Pork in Park MD


trohrs123
04-18-2011, 09:27 PM
Had one comment card regarding our chicken: "chicken was undercooked"
no other comments. I thought chicken was either cooked or wasnt which is raw. If the chicken was raw wouldnt a table captain be called over to inpspect to make sure the pink was not smoke? and if raw, shouldnt it be scored a "1"...well it was still scored a "6"...how could a chicken be "undercooked"= raw and still score a "6"
if anyone can help explain this I would appreciate it...maybe I dont remember my judges class instructions so well
thanks

Slamdunkpro
04-18-2011, 09:55 PM
Maybe they meant "tough" thinking that if you cooked it longer it would get more tender.

We got one that was for another team:crazy:

Finney
04-18-2011, 10:10 PM
Seriously? You think there is only raw and properly cooked?

Contracted Cookers
04-18-2011, 10:29 PM
Seriously? You think there is only raw and properly cooked?
mushy or reddish juice

Arlin_MacRae
04-18-2011, 10:33 PM
It was reiterated to us judges last weekend that if the juices ran clear it was cooked. If they were red it was undercooked. I'm betting he/she meant tough. Or they were stupid...

trohrs123
04-19-2011, 06:34 AM
Seriously? You think there is only raw and properly cooked?

nope...didnt say that ...what i said was it chicken is either cooked or raw... i said nothing about "properly cooked"
beef can be medium rare medium well etc
as far as i know you cant order chicken medium rare because that equals raw

trohrs123
04-19-2011, 06:36 AM
It was reiterated to us judges last weekend that if the juices ran clear it was cooked. If they were red it was undercooked. I'm betting he/she meant tough. Or they were stupid...

well thats what i am saying...i would think that if there was a question as to whether or not the chicken was cooked the table captain would be called to check for clear juices,,,so not sure what happened
and as far as I remembered that if juices did not run clear then you couldnt possibly get a "6" you would have to get a "1" or is that incorrect?

roksmith
04-19-2011, 07:13 AM
Here's what the KCBS says about undercooked meat.
Although I'm unclear on how a judge who refuses to eat the entry can score for taste or tenderness.


Under cooked meat poses a health problem and shouldn’t be eaten. A score of two (2)
through nine (9) should be given for taste and tenderness by the judge(s) who refuse to eat the entry.
This is not a disqualification and therefore should not be given a one (1). Assuming the entry has
already been scored for appearance, do not go back and change the score given for appearance.

Hub
04-19-2011, 07:33 AM
I would interpret the comment to mean needing more cooking to achieve best texture. Chicken cooked to 165 is "done" but may still be tough and stringy. Thighs are very forgiving of overcooking and can go to 180 with no harm done. Be sure to trim out the abductor tendon and any veins or cartlidge present.

Dan - 3eyzbbq
04-19-2011, 09:20 AM
Just curious, did you like your chicken? I mean maybe they didn't say it right, but could it have been undercooked and tough?

I wish I had gotten a comment card on my brisket for instance. Nothing lower than a 6 and I got 94th. Some feedback would have been nice.

ModelMaker
04-19-2011, 11:06 AM
My guess is that the score was for tenderness rather than taste or appearence.
Chicken can indeed be tough and still produce clear juices. Icall it undercooked also.
Just as a rack of ribs can be safe to eat temp wise but still short of being tender.
If all you have is raw and safley cooked, than you pry got the right score.
Ed

trohrs123
04-19-2011, 11:32 AM
Just curious, did you like your chicken? I mean maybe they didn't say it right, but could it have been undercooked and tough?

I wish I had gotten a comment card on my brisket for instance. Nothing lower than a 6 and I got 94th. Some feedback would have been nice.

i thought the texture was good although i think the color could have been a bit darker..they seemed a little pale
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/fbx/?set=a.1984859059470.2117133.1183074456

MoKanMeathead
04-19-2011, 12:16 PM
Your chicken looks OK but I don't think this judge was commenting on looks. We got a comment card from a judge last year that said "Chicken was a little tough to pull apart" and he gave a 3 in tenderness AND taste. As others have said, I think this jusdge didn't like your tenderness - and often the tenderness and taste scores are similar.

We have done much better after that comment and have been (in my opinion) over cooking our chicken - but thighs can take a little over cooking - I guess!

huminie
04-19-2011, 12:31 PM
Ya, I would interpret that as under-cooked as in needed to be cooked more to be tender...not that it was raw. You can have safely cooked/not raw chicken that is under-cooked, well cooked, and over cooked, just like any of the meats so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the judge was saying that under-cooked meant raw/unsafe.

I got 3 comment cards last weekend and they weren't real helpful either. Oh well.

Dan - 3eyzbbq
04-19-2011, 01:23 PM
i thought the texture was good although i think the color could have been a bit darker..they seemed a little pale
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/fbx/?set=a.1984859059470.2117133.1183074456

Nice looking box. I wouldn't put too much stock in that comment card or next time you'll get an overcooked one and then be really be confused!

Finney
04-19-2011, 01:37 PM
I would interpret the comment to mean needing more cooking to achieve best texture. Chicken cooked to 165 is "done" but may still be tough and stringy.

That's exactly what I would have 'taken' the comment to mean.

Crash
04-20-2011, 04:06 AM
Sorry, I'm going to rant now...long!

I have had a major issue with the way KCBS tells judges to score chicken for quite some time now. The whole "if the juices run red, it's undercooked" statement simply isn't true.

Case in point. In late 2010 at QueenCreek, AZ we tried out a modification of our chicken recipe. It involved injecting thighs with a liquid that was reddish. We injected our heavily-trimmed thighs liberally along each side of the bone in the middle of the meat. Added rub and cooked at 300 over coals. Temps were 180-185 internally on both sides of each thigh as they hit the turn in box (overcooked IMHO).

Here are our chicken scores from that event.

J1 8 8 7
J2 8 6 7
J3 7 8 7
J4 8 2 2
J5 9 9 9
J6 8 8 8

Comment card from J4 read "Juices ran red, afraid to taste". TC and the Rep both got involved and apparently really tried to get a T/T score from J4. Still, it was a no go and J4 never actually sampled the product.

Herein lies the issue, IMO. J4 reportedly never tasted the chicken. KCBS Judge Rule #3 states that "The judge will then score each entry for taste and tenderness, before moving to the next entry". That never happened.

I know that we learned in the two judging classes that we took to spit out unedible food discreetly in a napkin, as to not modify the other table judges scores. I wonder how J4's actions and involvement of the TC and Rep may have possibly affected the other judges scores on our turn-in.

In all fairness to KCBS, it was determined through the napkin test, that the juices did have a slight red tint to them on J4's sample. I do 100% respect the decision of the Reps and really only question J4. What I don't respect is the fact that I sent emails to members of the KCBS board to address the issue and.....hold on to your hat's folks.....I got absolutely no replies to my questions.

Not that it matters, but we finished 16th out of 37 in the Chicken category at the Queen Creek event after J4's score got dropped.

Two weeks later in the Tucson KCBS event, cooking 100% exactly the same way, we got lucky and finished 3rd out of 34 in the chicken category.

My opinion and my point is that there are rogue judges out there.....and be careful when you inject chicken with reddish stuff. :-D

Dan - 3eyzbbq
04-20-2011, 12:29 PM
Easy fix, just add yellow food dye into your red injection. Then it will be a shade of orange and they can't DQ you. Now, since I gave you that pearl of wisdom.....whats the red stuff?

ModelMaker
04-20-2011, 12:53 PM
In defense of the judge I too pry would have balked at eating chicken with red juice.
According to Rep Advisory 4.11 it looks like it was scored correctly.

4.11 Under Cooked Meat
Question: Uncooked meat doesn’t seem to violate any rules.
How do you score an entry if a judge refuses to eat their sample because it is undercooked?
Opinion: Under cooked meat poses a health problem and shouldn’t be eaten. A score of two (2)
through nine (9) should be given for taste and tenderness by the judge(s) who refuse to eat the entry.
This is not a disqualification and therefore should not be given a one (1). Assuming the entry has
already been scored for appearance, do not go back and change the score given for appearance.
NOTE: It’s not uncommon for smoked chicken to be pink, especially near the bone. This should
not be confused with undercooked meat. Use the “napkin” test (place paper towel against the
meat/bone; if it comes away pink, or red, it is undercooked.) February 17, 2006

My suggestion would be to alert the rep before turn in that you inject with red sauce and assure them that you will guaranty it will have reached safe cooking temps.
Ed

Crash
04-21-2011, 01:35 AM
In defense of the judge I too pry would have balked at eating chicken with red juice.
According to Rep Advisory 4.11 it looks like it was scored correctly.


Fair enough, I 100% respect that....but would you pick up a thigh sitting on a bed of parsley and begin to tear it apart looking for a reason to score it down? Or would you taste it, spit it out and then score down?

QansasjayhawQ
04-21-2011, 12:53 PM
This comment card is EXACTLY what the reps have been coaching the judges to avoid on the comment cards.

"Constructive comments that help the cook do a better job" are what are requested. That comment card never should have made it to you. It's worthless and has caused you unneeded concern.

When the judges are coached that the juices run clear the intent of the rules are 'no bloody chicken'.

It's very easy to tell the difference between blood that is soaked up by a paper towel and red seasonings. Try it sometime - they look totally different, even though they may be similar colors.

It is unfortunate that the scores of the other judges may have been affected by the one judge's opinion. Most judges I know actively try to avoid influencing the opinions of the others at their table during the judging process. There's no talking and everyone is to have their poker faces on. Score cards are usually at least attempted to be hidden from view. But if someone has a reaction or calls the table captain over before everyone's score is recorded, I can imagine that having a large impact on the scores of the other judges.