Harry Soo's 145° chicken...thoughts?

[Smokey Al Gold]

I'm no mad bbq scientist but especially when kettle frying I've taken chicken to 180+ and still had it be juicy and tender. I wouldn't want to risk cooking chicken to 145 just to see if its more tender or juicy and end up contracting cooties or something like that.

[Dignan]

Originally Posted by bigabyte

I see this has turned into just a safety discussion, but I'm still not quite sold on the tenderness thing. It should be more tender at both lower temps and higher temps than at 145. 145 is right in the middle of the tough meat temps. It may be tender in the sense that you can chew it, but among all temps of doneness, that should be less tender than temps lower, and temps in the 180+ range.

This is and isn't true….Cuts that are high in connective tissue, such as legs/thighs in chicken and brisket/short ribs/shoulder in beef, have completely different cooking profiles than cuts that are very low in connective tissue, such as breast in chicken, and tenderloin/strip steak/rib eye in beef. At lower temperatures, the cuts that are high in connective tissue will be relatively tough compared to cuts low in connective tissue. As the internal temperature rises, there will be a point were all of the cuts will become tough and overcooked. But when the cuts that are high in connective tissue reach optimum internal temperatures for breaking down connective tissue, they will become tender again. Cuts of meat low in connective tissue will never become tender again. Chicken breast, Ribe Eye, etc.. will never become tender again at higher temperatures because there is not enough connective tissue to break down and turn into gelatin.

[Dignan]

This table of temperatures and times was taken from following USDA link.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/...try_Tables.pdf

This also is an informative link:

http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/04/s...tml?ref=search

[bigabyte]

Originally Posted by Dignan

This is and isn't true….Cuts that are high in connective tissue, such as legs/thighs in chicken and brisket/short ribs/shoulder in beef, have completely different cooking profiles than cuts that are very low in connective tissue, such as breast in chicken, and tenderloin/strip steak/rib eye in beef. At lower temperatures, the cuts that are high in connective tissue will be relatively tough compared to cuts low in connective tissue. As the internal temperature rises, there will be a point were all of the cuts will become tough and overcooked. But when the cuts that are high in connective tissue reach optimum internal temperatures for breaking down connective tissue, they will become tender again. Cuts of meat low in connective tissue will never become tender again. Chicken breast, Ribe Eye, etc.. will never become tender again at higher temperatures because there is not enough connective tissue to break down and turn into gelatin.

I used to believe this as well, until I finally challenged myself to prove it.

Your statement about "cuts high in connective tissue being relatively tough compared to cuts low in connective tissue" is true both at lower temps and higher temps. Yes, it's true, you can take a low connective tissue piece of meat like a tri-tip or pork loin and (pardon the expression) "cook it like a brisket" and it will come out very tender, in fact, compared to the higher connective tissue pieces of meat it is even more tender. The same difference as when cooked to lower temps, i.e. a brisket flat cooked to 120 degrees internal is actually relatively tender, but not as tender as a tri-tip cooked to 120. By the same token, however, a brisket cooked until it is probe tender (180+ degrees) is similarly less tender than a tri-tip cooked until it is probe tender.

Do a search for "like a brisket" and you will see that multiple brethren have proven this with multiple cuts of meat.

[bigabyte]

Actually, here's a good link to help you get started on temps and tenderness for both low connective and high connective pieces of meat, which I referenced above! Feel free to cotnribute more to all that if you wish.

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=124163

[bigabyte]

All things said, however, I'm intrigued by the idea that a longer hold at a 145 temp may cause the meat to become tender. I'm not discounting it. I'm just saying I am skeptical is all. The thing I am most skeptical of is whether a simple 10 minute hold is enough to break it down to being tender. It's long enough to kill bacteria, obviously, but it's another thing entirely to say that is the time needed to make a piece of meat that should be tougher than normal at that temp break down to being tender in just 10 minutes. Thus why I question it.

I've never been one to blindly follow. I've also always been quite open to the idea of being wrong, so long as someone can back it up. Usually folks can't back it up and it has to be "tried". I'm not all that keen about the idea of trying it, but after all of the safety discussions my primary concerns have been alleviated.

We also need to know for sure that Harry holds the chicken at 145 as opposed to simly wrapping it at 145 and continuing to cook it. The meat may still be rising in temp, changing things entirely. Thus some clarification is needed.

[Dignan]

That's interesting, I'll definitely check out the links. I'm wondering if that's because Tri-tip, while lower in connective tissue, has enough that if cooked to high enough temperature, there is enough to break down and tenderize. It's definitely higher in connective tissue than rib-eye and strip steak. I would have a hard time believing that you could cook a rib roast "like a brisket"... but what do I know? Thanks for the links!

[Dignan]

Originally Posted by bigabyte

All things said, however, I'm intrigued by the idea that a longer hold at a 145 temp may cause the meat to become tender. I'm not discounting it. I'm just saying I am skeptical is all. The thing I am most skeptical of is whether a simple 10 minute hold is enough to break it down to being tender. It's long enough to kill bacteria, obviously, but it's another thing entirely to say that is the time needed to make a piece of meat that should be tougher than normal at that temp breaks down to being tender in just 10 minutes. Thus why I question it.

I've never been one to blindly follow. I've also always been quite open to the idea of being wrong, so long as someone can back it up. Usually folks can't back it up and it has to be "tried". I'm not all that keen about the idea of trying it, but after all of the safety discussions my primary concerns have been alleviated.

We also need to know for sure that Harry holds the chicken at 145 as opposed to simly wrapping it at 145 and continuing to cook it. The meat may still be rising in temp, changing things entirely. Thus some clarification is needed.

It's more tender than at 165 because it hasn't toughened up as much and there is less moisture loss. Just like a rib-eye will be more tender at 130 than 160. The ten minute hold is simply for safety, not to tenderize. The muscle fibers will not have constricted as much as at 160. It will be juicier and more tender. I have done multiple experiments in a sous-vide machine at 140, 150, 160, and 170 degrees with chicken breast. It consistently will be tougher and less moist as the temperature is raised. The temperatures are not high enough to break down enough connective tissue in the breast to tenderize.

[bigabyte]

Originally Posted by Dignan

It's more tender than at 165 because it hasn't toughened up as much and there is less moisture loss. Just like a rib-eye will be more tender at 130 than 160. The ten minute hold is simply for safety, not to tenderize. The muscle fibers will not have constricted as much as at 160. It will be juicier and more tender. I have done multiple experiments in a sous-vide machine at 140, 150, 160, and 170 degrees with chicken breast. It consistently will be tougher and less moist as the temperature is raised. The temperatures are not high enough to break down enough connective tissue in the breast to tenderize.

That makes sense, comparing it to sous vide at those temps. Heck, even without sous vide, I could agree that 145 should be more tender than 165 for possibly any meat (I'm still not sure I want to say the toughness range is universal). I guess what got me early on in this thread was the idea of cooking chicken to 145 to get it more tender than at 165, when all you really need to do is take that meat to, say, 185, and avoid all of the concerns with...

I love threads like this.

[JimF]

I tweeted Harry telling him about this thred and asking him this question. Here is his response

"Yes, TIME and TEMP. Salmonella dies 100% at 118 degrees. All the 15 common pathogens die between 105-129 based on a timescale. I blame if on Dr. Vijay Juneja, the USDA scientist who published his findings used to establish the FDA tables! LOL :-)"

[Ron_L]

Originally Posted by JimF

I tweeted Harry telling him about this thred and asking him this question. Here is his response

"Yes, TIME and TEMP. Salmonella dies 100% at 118 degrees. All the 15 common pathogens die between 105-129 based on a timescale. I blame if on Dr. Vijay Juneja, the USDA scientist who published his findings used to establish the FDA tables! LOL :-)"

He said all that in the interview on BBQ Central. My question is how does he sold the chicken at 145? If it's in his WSM, the WSM temp is going to be higher than 145 (275 if his past posts are still accurate) so the temp will continue to climb. He mentioned in the interview that he would take the chicken off at 145, wrap and foil and let it sit for 10 minutes. That's not holding it at 145 since the IT will probably climb for a bit then slowly drop.

Also, is he doing this for thighs and breasts?

Finally, any idea how he handles the skin?

[Pappy Q]

I wouldn't eat it or serve to anyone else

[Boshizzle]

The only time I refused to sample an entry while judging was an under cooked chicken thigh. If I don't think it's done, it won't go in my mouth. The first requirement of a cooking contest is that the food actually be cooked.

When I cook chicken, I like to cook it to the tenderness I desire and that never happens at 145* internal. So, whatever.

[JohnHB]

I am surprised at both the knowledge demonstrated and on the other side head in sand ignorance. Yes salmonella can be eliminated at lower than 160F, cooking at 145F does mean slimy or tough product (the opposite in fact). Yes I do BBQ products above 145f at time and I do enjoy crisp skins and burnt bits on my marinated chicken things. One just needs an open mind.
The French charcuttie chefs have been sell chicken products cooked sous vide at temperatures no more than 145f for decades. They do not want to lose moisture and money by drying products.
I cook chicken & turkey breasts at 144F and they are moist with a fantastic texture. I provide below an extract from Douglas Baldwin - he is a highly regarded food scientist. A google search on him will produce a bunch of interesting information.
From Douglas Balwin
Traditionally, light poultry meat is cooked well-done (160°F/70°C to 175°F/80°C) for "food safety" reasons. When cooking chicken and turkey breasts sous vide, they can be cooked to a medium doneness (140°F/60°C to 150°F/65°C) while still being pasteurized for safety.

Boneless Chicken or Turkey Breast
Salt and Pepper
Remove any skin from the breast and reserve for garnish or discard. Reserved skin can easily be crisped using either a salamander/broiler or with a blowtorch.

If brining, place the poultry meat in a 5% salt water solution (50 grams per 1 liter) in the refrigerator for 30 minutes to 1 hour. (If tenderizing with a Jaccard, do so before brining.)

Rinse and dry with paper towels. Then season with Kosher/sea salt and coarse ground pepper. Vacuum seal breasts (one per bag). The breasts may be frozen at this point until needed.

To cook and pasteurize, place (thawed) breast in a 146°F (63.5°C) water bath for the times listed in Table 4.1. [After cooking, the breasts may be rapidly cooled in ice water (see Table 1.1) and frozen or refrigerated at below 38°F (3.3°C) for up to three to four weeks until needed.]

Remove breast from plastic pouch and dry with a paper towel. The meat can then be served as is or browned slightly by using either a very hot pan (with just smoking oil) or a blowtorch. Serve immediately (garnished with crisped skin).

Pasteurization Time for Poultry
(starting at 41°F / 5°C and put in a 134.5–149°F / 57–65°C water bath)
134.5°F 136.5°F 138°F 140°F 142°F 143.5°F 145.5°F 147°F 149°F
Thickness 57°C 58°C 59°C 60°C 61°C 62°C 63°C 64°C 65°C
5 mm 2¼ hr 1¾ hr 1¼ hr 45 min 35 min 25 min 18 min 15 min 13 min
10 mm 2¼ hr 1¾ hr 1¼ hr 55 min 40 min 35 min 30 min 25 min 20 min
15 mm 2½ hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 50 min 45 min 40 min 35 min 30 min
20 mm 2¾ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr 55 min 50 min 45 min 40 min
25 mm 3 hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 1½ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr 60 min 55 min
30 mm 3¼ hr 2¾ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr
35 mm 3¾ hr 3 hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1½ hr
40 mm 4 hr 3¼ hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1¾ hr
45 mm 4½ hr 3¾ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 2 hr
50 mm 4¾ hr 4¼ hr 3¾ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr
55 mm 5¼ hr 4½ hr 4 hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2¾ hr
60 mm 5¾ hr 5 hr 4½ hr 4¼ hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr
65 mm 6¼ hr 5½ hr 5 hr 4½ hr 4¼ hr 4 hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr
70 mm 7 hr 6 hr 5½ hr 5 hr 4¾ hr 4½ hr 4¼ hr 4 hr 3¾ hr
Table 4.1: Time required for at least a one million to one reduction in Listeria and a ten million to one reduction in Salmonella in poultry starting at 41°F (5°C). I calculated the D- and z-values using linear regression from (O’Bryan et al., 2006): for Salmonella I used D606.45 = 4.68 minutes and for Listeria I used D605.66 = 5.94 minutes. For my calculations I used a thermal diffusivity of 1.08×10-7 m2/s, a surface heat transfer coefficient of 95 W/m2-K, and took β=0.28 (to simulate the heating speed of a 2:3:5 box). For more information on calculating log reductions, see Appendix A.

[DubfromGA]

Originally Posted by smokeisgood

Speaking as someone who lived through Salmonella poisoning from undercooked chicken years ago, I'm here to tell ya....I ain't eating it!!!

Total agreement !!!