Harry Soo's 145° chicken...thoughts?

[BruceB]

I cook chicken breast to 155 then pull them and foil them and let them rest about 15 minutes, usually they rise to 160 and they are fine. I think 145 is a bit low. I take thighs to 170 and let them rest in foil for about 15 minutes.

[Q-Dat]

Don't just take Harry's word for it. Here on are a bunch of references from the USDA that back him up.

http://thebbqcentralshow.com/harry-soos-chicken-method/

[jlrichar]

As hard as this is to believe Harry has it right. Most meat temp recommendations are also paired with times. The higher the temp the shorter the time it needs to be there. Since Harry is keeping his foul at 145 for a full ten minutes that will kill salmonella, and most other things. I will try to find the chart I saw once that explains this better than my coffee deprived brain can.

[landarc]

The Chinese and Japanese routinely cook chicken to 140F and it is fine if you source good chicken. I cook whole chickens to 150F and the texture and moisture is far better in the breast than 160F. I have never, in 30+ years sickened a person.

But, for food service in restaurant or catering, I cook to 160F just to meet the guidelines.

[Smoker21]

I've been doing it for years. It makes for some really juicy yard bird As long as the juices run clear has been my rule of thumb. I also check that the meat isn't still pink around the bones.

JD

[Vision]

This could be interesting on breasts, but on thighs the texture wouldn't be good IMO.

[Smoothsmoke]

IDK what to think of this, but I had Soo's chicken thighs at a comp once, good eating for sure!

[Ron_L]

Originally Posted by Q-Dat

Don't just take Harry's word for it. Here on are a bunch of references from the USDA that back him up.

http://thebbqcentralshow.com/harry-soos-chicken-method/

I couldn't find a way to see the full report for any of those, but I admit that I didn't try too hard But, it looks to me that only the last one is applicable. The first deals with salmonella growth in live poultry and the middle three deal with cooling of ground chicken.

Originally Posted by jlrichar

As hard as this is to believe Harry has it right. Most meat temp recommendations are also paired with times. The higher the temp the shorter the time it needs to be there. Since Harry is keeping his foul at 145 for a full ten minutes that will kill salmonella, and most other things. I will try to find the chart I saw once that explains this better than my coffee deprived brain can.

OK, assume that Harry did the research and the various bacteria, etc. in chicken is killed by cooking to 145 and holding for at least 5 minutes. I still question the texture. Breasts at 155 are still somewhat rubbery and thighs at 165 are not as tender as they are at higher temps.

Plus, what does the juice from chicken at 145 (for 10 minutes) look like. KCBS judges are taught to look for clear juices and can refuse to eat an entry if the juices are pink. That's not a risk that I want to take.

[Gore]

As stated earlier, the lethality of salmonella is a function of both temperature and time. This has been mentioned various times. Here is an old post by Knucklhed:

Originally Posted by KnucklHed BBQ

Alrighty folks... 'setcher lil hearts at ease - Most of the USDA's "blah, blah, blah" is designed so the that the average burger flipper can remember it -

Let me ask this question though, would you consider chicken kept at 137 for an hour to be:
A) Lethal - WTH are you trying to do to me man????
B) Just right! Bring it on, I'm hungry fo' that!

FDA says... Good to go! What???? AYFKM???!!!! (Are you freaking kidding me??)

Now, I'm not saying that the taste & texture will be what you want, but - technically, safe.


From USDA.gov - pages 5 - 16: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/...try_Tables.pdf

Times for given temperature, fat level, and species needed to obtain
7-log10 lethality of Salmonella*
------------------------------------ fat%=9 ------------------------------------
Temperature (
o
F) Time for Chicken Time for Turkey
136 74.8 min 67.6 min
137 59.7 min 55.3 min
138 47.7 min 45.4 min
139 38.3 min 37.3 min
140 30.8 min 30.8 min
141 24.9 min 25.5 min
142 20.1 min 21.1 min
143 16.3 min 17.4 min
144 13.2 min 14.4 min
145 10.7 min 11.9 min
146 8.6 min 9.8 min
147 6.9 min 8 min
148 5.5 min 6.5 min
149 4.3 min 5.2 min
150 3.3 min 4.1 min
151 2.5 min 3.2 min
152 1.8 min 2.4 min
153 1.4 min 1.9 min
154 1.1 min 1.5 min
155 51.4 sec 1.3 min
156 40.7 sec 1 min
157 32.2 sec 49.7 sec
158 25.4 sec 40.3 sec
159 20.1 sec 32.7 sec
160 15.9 sec 26.6 sec
161 12.6 sec 21.6 sec
162 10 sec 17.5 sec
163 <10.0 sec 14.2 sec
164 <10.0 sec 11.5 sec
165 <10.0 sec <10.0 sec

If you're cooking the chicken at fairly low temps, then you're probably not going to need to be resting that chicken very long. This definitely supports Harry Soo's chicken. It also suggests very strongly that most salmonella problems are due to cross-contamination, rather than cooking temps.

As Landarc mentions, the high cooking temperatures required for chicken are regional. They are the result of our high throughput chicken processing. In many other countries, chicken is cooked rare to medium rare. Bob mentions Asian countries, but it is also true of Slavic countries.

[Ron_L]

Originally Posted by Gore

As stated earlier, the lethality of salmonella is a function of both temperature and time. This has been mentioned various times. Here is an old post by Knucklhed:

145 10.7 min 11.9 min

If you're cooking the chicken at fairly low temps, then you're probably not going to need to be resting that chicken very long. This definitely supports Harry Soo's chicken. It also suggests very strongly that most salmonella problems are due to cross-contamination, rather than cooking temps.

As Landarc mentions, the high cooking temperatures required for chicken are regional. They are the result of our high throughput chicken processing. In many other countries, chicken is cooked rare to medium rare. Bob mentions Asian countries, but it is also true of Slavic countries.

Thanks, Gore... i was looking for that.

Actually, it goes against what harry says. He says in the comments at the BBQ Central site this...

Just a clarification: When you hold, you have to hold it at 145 degrees. Holding does not mean you let it cool down for 5 minutes. I am more risk adverse so I hold it at 145 degrees for a full 10 minutes which is double the Juneja 2007 Study recommended time.

Based on the chart that Knucklhed posted, the recommended time at 145 is 10.7 minutes.

But again, let's assume that chicken from a reliable, clean source is safe at that temp, and we as cooks are able to buy from a source like that. I still question the texture.

[swamprb]

Did he mention if he was brining or not?

[Ron_L]

BTW, if you read the original doc linked above it shows that beef should be at 130 degrees for a minimum of 121 minutes in order to reach the safe level of salmonella but we don't bat an eye about cooking beef to 120 or 125.

[luke duke]

Originally Posted by Bludawg

It's only a matter of time before he kills somebody salmonella don't die until 160.

Not necessarily true.

[Jaybls]

Harry is on to something. Here's the science behind his technique: At 140°F, a hold time of 35 minutes is necessary for chicken (with 12% fat) to be sufficiently pasteurized, and safe to eat. The leaner the chicken, the less time it has to be held. 1% fat requires 25 minutes at 140°F to be safe. Chicken heated to 155°F IT need only be held at that temp for 1 minute before it's "safe." Why then does the USDA suggest 165°F? One reason is that's the temp Salmonella dies a quick death. Another, it's a "keep it simple" solution that most people can adhere to. If your thermometer is off, or you pull it off a little early - say 160°F - you're still safe. I cook my chicken to 155-160°F and it's perfect.

[Gore]

Originally Posted by Ron_L

Thanks, Gore... i was looking for that.

Actually, it goes against what harry says. He says in the comments at the BBQ Central site this...



Based on the chart that Knucklhed posted, the recommended time at 145 is 10.7 minutes.

But again, let's assume that chicken from a reliable, clean source is safe at that temp, and we as cooks are able to buy from a source like that. I still question the texture.

I didn't see or hear what he said, but the study seems to back him up. I don't think we're all in agreement about a reliable, clean source of chicken. From all I've read, the local farm that kills and preps their chickens themselves have about a 1 in 10,000 shot of being contaminated by salmonella, yet any of the big manufacturers that you get in your local supermarket have about a 1 in 3 shot of being contaminated. Yet it is the former that are considered to be unsafe and unreliable and the latter that are considered safe.