PDA

View Full Version : Chicken Safety - Pasteurisation - Myths


JohnHB
05-29-2013, 01:17 AM
It seem that the many brethren hold a misconception that chicken to be safe must be cooked to a minimum of 165F. At 165F chicken is almost pasteurised instantly and is therefore considered safe. Consider this if you cook your chicken for 150F for about three minutes it is pasteurised to the same except as cooking it to 165F. This is demonstrated in chart shown here under. Obviously It is much more moist cooked to 150F versus 165F. But hey why listen to me I am a chartered accountant that likes to cook. So I have copied an article from a much learned source below. So stop the bull dust about food safety if you do not understand the science!
John

SERIOUS EATS
Sous-Vide 101: Low-Temperature Chicken
Posted by J. Kenji López-Alt, April 14, 2010
About the author: J. Kenji Lopez-Alt is the Chief Creative Officer of Serious Eats where he likes to explore the science of home cooking in his weekly column The Food Lab. You can follow him at @thefoodlab on Twitter, or at The Food Lab on Facebook.

Sous-Vide Chicken Breast

There is a misconception about food safety, and particularly as it applies to low-temperature water bath cooking (often inaccurately referred to as "sous-vide" cooking*). The thought process goes something like this:
*Sous-vide refers only to the vacuum-packing aspect, which, while it often goes hand in hand with low-temp water baths, it is not the defining characteristic of the cooking technique.
Point 1: Industry-standard food safety instructions refer to the range between 40°F and 140°F as the bacterial "danger zone," and recommend not allowing any foods to sit within that range for any longer than four hours.
Point 2: Low-temperature cooking often takes place in temperature ranges within this "danger zone." For example, cooking a steak for several hours at 130°F.
Conclusion: Low-temperature cooking is unsafe.
It seems reasonable to make such an assumption, but it ignores one important factor: industry standards for food safety are designed to be simple to understand at the expense of accuracy. The rules are set up such that anybody from a turn-and-burner at Applebee's to the fry-dunker at McDonald's can grasp them, ensuring safety across the board.
But for single-celled organisms, bacteria are surprisingly complex, and despite what any ServSafe chart might have you believe, they refuse to be categorized into a step function. A number of factors, including saltiness, sweetness, moisture, and fat content can affect growth, not to mention the effects of temperature are much more subtle.
For instance, take a look at the graph below. The data was taken directly from the USDA's guide to obtaining a 7.0 log10 relative reduction in salmonella in chicken. For those of you who don't know what a 7.0 log10 relative reduction is, it's the bacterial equivalent of sticking a stick of dynamite in an anthill. The vast majority of the baddies become harmless, dead, ex-baddies.
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b579/jhbanks/null_zps6864825e.jpg
Essentially, the red line in this graph indicates how long a piece of chicken needs to be cooked at a specific temperature in order to be deemed safe for consumption. So, for example, we see that at 165°F, the chicken is safe pretty much instantaneously (hence the 165°F minimum internal temperature recommendation by the USDA—they are being very conservative and assuming you will bite into it the second it reaches that temp). Whereas at 140°F, the chicken needs to be held for 35 minutes to be safe.
Now with a conventional oven, this chart is totally useless. Since your cooking environment is much higher than your desired final temperature there is no way to hold your meat at a steady low temperature—it hits 140°F, then continues to go up and up and up. So the best you can do is take the center to 165°F to ensure that the entire piece of chicken is safe to consume, by which point it's already expelled a great deal of its moisture.
Low-temperature cooking changes all of that. With a temperature-controlled water bath, you have the ability to not only cook chicken to lower temperatures, but more importantly, to hold it there until it's completely safe to consume.
What does this mean for a home cook? It means that you no longer have to put up with dry, 165°F chicken.
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b579/jhbanks/null_zpse7b1dc2a.jpg
Chicken cooked to 140°F, like the one in the photo above, is just as safe as chicken cooked to 165°F, and incomparably moister and more tender. It glistens with moisture as you cut it. It practically oozes juices into your mouth as you chew. Bad image, I know (sounds like the food writer's version of chewing with your mouth open), but it's the only way I can explain how much better chicken is this way.
Of course, straight out of the bag, the chicken has not reached temperatures high enough to precipitate the Maillard reaction, so you'll still need to finish it off on the stovetop. I cooked the chicken above on the skin-side in canola oil, though butter works well too.
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b579/jhbanks/null_zps44cbd6b8.jpg
And as for skin and bone being on or off, I prefer to keep the skin on just because I love crispy skin, and browning chicken without skin will always leave you with a stringy layer, no matter what you do. Skin lets you brown without sacrificing texture.
I found little difference between chicken cooked bone-in vs. bone-off. With traditional cooking methods, the bone helps insulate meat from the high cooking temperatures. Not a problem with a water oven. Feel free to go boneless if you so desire.
Cooking at even lower temperatures is safe and possible, however at a certain point, the meat starts to take on an off-putting jelly-like texture. For me, 140°F has all the moisture I want without losing the feel of pan-roasted chicken.
Finally, the last drawback with cooking chicken in a water bath is that you develop very little fond—the flavorful browned bits that stick to your pan when you sear meat. The bad news is that this makes forming a pan sauce impossible. The good news is that the reason those flavorful bits aren't on the pan is because they are still right in the chicken where they belong. A sauce made from a separate stock or a vinaigrette-style dressing do my chicken just fine.
While the recipe that follows is easiest with a controlled water bath, feel free to use my cheap and easy cooler hack to do it ghetto-style.
Continue here for Sous-Vide Chicken with Sun-Dried Tomato Vinaigrette »
Printed from http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/04/sous-vide-basics-low-temperature-chicken.html
© Serious Eats

RemoGaggi
05-29-2013, 01:34 AM
Great article. Thank you for the information.

buccaneer
05-29-2013, 02:13 AM
Good luck John, And good article.
I've quoted food science here, along with the benefits of hot and fast and pulling at lower temps but until Kirk did it, zero traction.
I hope more people try it, makes for a far better result.

creekwalker
05-29-2013, 03:05 AM
Very interesting. Would it be possible to bring chicken up to a certain temp in a smoker, transfer to a water bath to bring it up to 140, then sear it, and get the same benefits? (Along with the benefits of wood smoke, or, as in a UDS, wood and fat smoke.)

Titch
05-29-2013, 03:10 AM
Very interesting. Would it be possible to bring chicken up to a certain temp in a smoker, transfer to a water bath to bring it up to 140, then sear it, and get the same benefits? (Along with the benefits of wood smoke, or, as in a UDS, wood and fat smoke.)

Cold smoke then water bath, sear then water bath are both very acceptable and used methods.

JohnHB
05-29-2013, 05:37 AM
Very interesting. Would it be possible to bring chicken up to a certain temp in a smoker, transfer to a water bath to bring it up to 140, then sear it, and get the same benefits? (Along with the benefits of wood smoke, or, as in a UDS, wood and fat smoke.)

Titch is correct but why. Really if you bring your product by smoker to 150F & hold for a few minutes (3-4) it is pasteurised. Why do more!!!
John

JohnHB
05-29-2013, 05:46 AM
I think that if all read my favourite poem before they started to revert to past tradition we could move forward.
John

The Calf Path
by S.W. Foss

One day, through the primeval wood,
A calf walked home, as good calves should;

But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail as all calves do.

Since then three hundred years have fled,
And, I infer, the calf is dead.

But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.

The trail was taken up next day,
By a lone dog that passed that way.

And then a wise bell-wether sheep,
Pursued the trail o'er vale and steep;

And drew the flock behind him too,
As good bell-wethers always do.

And from that day, o'er hill and glade.
Through those old woods a path was made.

And many men wound in and out,
And dodged, and turned, and bent about;

And uttered words of righteous wrath,
Because 'twas such a crooked path.

But still they followed - do not laugh -
The first migrations of that calf.

And through this winding wood-way stalked,
Because he wobbled when he walked.

This forest path became a lane,
that bent, and turned, and turned again.

This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load,

Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.

And thus a century and a half,
They trod the footsteps of that calf.

The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
The road became a village street;

And this, before men were aware,
A city's crowded thoroughfare;

And soon the central street was this,
Of a renowned metropolis;

And men two centuries and a half,
Trod in the footsteps of that calf.

Each day a hundred thousand rout,
Followed the zigzag calf about;

And o'er his crooked journey went,
The traffic of a continent.

A Hundred thousand men were led,
By one calf near three centuries dead.

They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day;

For thus such reverence is lent,
To well established precedent.

A moral lesson this might teach,
Were I ordained and called to preach;

For men are prone to go it blind,
Along the calf-paths of the mind;

And work away from sun to sun,
To do what other men have done.

They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in, and forth and back,

And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.

They keep the path a sacred grove,
Along which all their lives they move.

But how the wise old wood gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf!

Ah! many things this tale might teach -
But I am not ordained to preach.

drjiveturkey
05-29-2013, 07:34 AM
Question. When you say it needs to be held at 140°F for 35mins, is that the the water bath temp or internal temp of the chicken? If its the chicken how do you determine when the internal temp hits 140°F to start your timer?

Hawg Father of Seoul
05-29-2013, 08:06 AM
I think it is the texture of a used breast implant that turns people off.

JohnHB
05-29-2013, 08:30 AM
Question. When you say it needs to be held at 140°F for 35mins, is that the the water bath temp or internal temp of the chicken? If its the chicken how do you determine when the internal temp hits 140°F to start your timer?

Firstly if you re BBQing why consider 140F? If you are using water bath then check the tables available on Baldwin's web. With sous vide I cook turkey breasts for 4hours at 144F. They are pasteurised.
With my BBQ if I want to pasteurise when my Maverick records 150F I continue for around 5 minutes and I also know the chicken is pasteurised.
John

Jason TQ
05-29-2013, 08:54 AM
I'm not doubting this science, but just wanted to ask a question as I'm an idiot :razz:. So that temperature scale is just for sous vide? If so it is saying that if the water temp is 165 then pretty much as soon as the chicken is placed into the water bath it is pasteurized (basically a few seconds)? Does the size piece of chicken matter into this timing chart?

cpw
05-29-2013, 09:01 AM
I'm not doubting this science, but just wanted to ask a question as I'm an idiot :razz:. So that temperature scale is just for sous vide? If so it is saying that if the water temp is 165 then pretty much as soon as the chicken is placed into the water bath it is pasteurized (basically a few seconds)? Does the size piece of chicken matter into this timing chart?

I think it means when the IT of the chicken hits 165 it's safe.

BisonStew
05-29-2013, 09:05 AM
Thanks for the article, I always enjoy reading Kenji's articles on Serious Eats, his kitchen/grill tests always questions food myths that are out there, i.e. flipping a burger once vs multiple times

CharredApron
05-29-2013, 09:23 AM
Thanks John for the Information. I am trying a water bath test right now @ 123 and rising want to see what my crock pot with water in it will max out at on warm
Jed

Jason TQ
05-29-2013, 09:50 AM
I think it means when the IT of the chicken hits 165 it's safe.

Thanks. That makes more sense. It was mentioned that "Essentially, the red line in this graph indicates how long a piece of chicken needs to be cooked at a specific temperature in order to be deemed safe for consumption." So I read that as 'when cooking at 165 the chicken is safe instantly'. But really once it hits 165 internally immediately the chicken is safe. Vs say once the internal temp hits 140 it needs to stay at 140 for at least 35mins to be pasteurized. At least that is how I'm reading it now......

See I am a little slow :loco:

cpw
05-29-2013, 10:42 AM
Thanks. That makes more sense. It was mentioned that "Essentially, the red line in this graph indicates how long a piece of chicken needs to be cooked at a specific temperature in order to be deemed safe for consumption." So I read that as 'when cooking at 165 the chicken is safe instantly'. But really once it hits 165 internally immediately the chicken is safe. Vs say once the internal temp hits 140 it needs to stay at 140 for at least 35mins to be pasteurized. At least that is how I'm reading it now......

See I am a little slow :loco:

This chart falls pretty much in line with what Harry Soo was talking about on the BBQ central show awhile back. He was saying he takes his thighs to 145 or 150 (I don't recall) and holding them there for several minutes to make them "safe."

creekwalker
05-29-2013, 11:13 AM
Titch is correct but why. Really if you bring your product by smoker to 150F & hold for a few minutes (3-4) it is pasteurised. Why do more!!!
John

The reason I asked if my complicated proposal (hot smoke--water bath--sear) would work is that I wondered if it might achieve something like the unique combination of unprecedented moistness and tenderness that's described in the article (combined with hot smoking flavor). If I brought chicken in my smoker up to 150 and held it for 4 minutes [glad to have that information, incidentally, in any event], I would certainly expect it to be more moist than mine usually comes out--but wouldn't expect it to be as tender as mine normally is, let alone anything like as tender as the chicken described, almost ecstatically, in the article. Or is there something (I hope) that I'm missing?

Thanks! I realize that a lot of the questions you're getting from us on this "new" and exotic subject are an unfortunate combination of ignorant and convoluted...

Whistler
05-29-2013, 01:47 PM
Thanks for the detailed info, very interesting article!

Cooking for myself is one thing but trying to serve "pink" chicken with that texture to others has (in my experience) been notoriously unsuccessful as they do not perceive it as "done". Right or wrong they want what they want and I make no effort to force my preferences on others. Much like rare steak it's not a taste shared by everyone subsequently I cook it they way they want it and keep my opinions to myself, nothing to be gained by disparaging a guest/customer. Nice to have a greater understanding of the science for those open to the experience however.

Hawg Father of Seoul
05-29-2013, 02:15 PM
Thanks for the detailed info, very interesting article!

Cooking for myself is one thing but trying to serve "pink" chicken with that texture to others has (in my experience) been notoriously unsuccessful as they do not perceive it as "done". Right or wrong they want what they want and I make no effort to force my preferences on others. Much like rare steak it's not a taste shared by everyone subsequently I cook it they way they want it and keep my opinions to myself, nothing to be gained by disparaging a guest/customer. Nice to have a greater understanding of the science for those open to the experience however.

It's not "done" it is just less likely to make you sick.

That being said, I have yet to cut in to a waygu packer with out making a carpaccio from the deckle.

Bbq Bubba
05-29-2013, 02:40 PM
I think it is the texture of a used breast implant that turns people off.

Agreed.

If your chicken is dry at 165 your cooking it wrong.

YMMV. :wink:

Bludawg
05-29-2013, 04:09 PM
I'm with Bubba on this. I have a Rule with two things That I like Hot & Juicy but If I see Blood I aint eatin'... and one of 'ems poultry:roll:

ddweatherholtz
05-29-2013, 05:21 PM
I can cook to 165 and have very very moist chicken, even breast. Im not taking a chance on under 165 chicken. BTW I am a Food Safetey instructor and I know the concept of which he speaks of, but not gonna even entertain the idea myself.

Butt Rubb'n BBQ
05-29-2013, 05:28 PM
You got that right. I ain't going to eat none of their chicken. 165 for me

Slamdunkpro
05-29-2013, 05:37 PM
I do a lot of sou vid cooking and while the article is correct as far as food safety, chicken, especially white meat has (to most people, myself included) a very unpleasant mouth feel below 150 degrees.

ddweatherholtz
05-29-2013, 05:38 PM
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Chicken_from_Farm_To_Table/index.asp

Pretty much what I go by

JohnHB
05-29-2013, 05:39 PM
Thanks for the detailed info, very interesting article!

Cooking for myself is one thing but trying to serve "pink" chicken with that texture to others has (in my experience) been notoriously unsuccessful as they do not perceive it as "done". Right or wrong they want what they want and I make no effort to force my preferences on others. Much like rare steak it's not a taste shared by everyone subsequently I cook it they way they want it and keep my opinions to myself, nothing to be gained by disparaging a guest/customer. Nice to have a greater understanding of the science for those open to the experience however.

At an internal temperature of 150F+ chicken isn't pink. It changes colour around 140F.
Let me be clear I don't care what temperature you like cooking your chicken to. You should cook it for your tastes. What I am saying is that once you have determined the internal temperature has been held at 150f for the required time to pasteurise you can stop worrying about the chicken safety. AND stop all the bull dust that it MUST hit 165F.
John

JohnHB
05-29-2013, 05:49 PM
I think it is the texture of a used breast implant that turns people off.

I am afraid that I cannot afford buying the "used breast implant" to conduct an adequate trial.:grin:
I love chicken cooked many ways. My target after safety is good texture and juicy and if it has skin, then crisp skin. I am usually successful.
John

buccaneer
05-29-2013, 06:00 PM
If you don't even know the temperature that myoglobin denatures at, then I would not publicly pipe up with criticism about the colour of safely cooked chicken, coz it ain't a good look for ya brothers.
( Dept of applied chemistry and biotechnology, University of Okayama has some interesting work on it)
I have been gently trying to help with this for over a year but just want to re state here before this becomes a dogpile of posts dumping "I'm not eating anything bloody" when all that the OP is trying to do is help. More science and information is NEVER a bad thing.

I like filet of beef raw, blue or rare.
I would never do anything but happily cook it to well done yet moist for a guest who likes it that way.
I consider it a chitty thing to do, a graceless and low thing, to go on about how it is ruining the meat to the person who likes it that way.
The exception is that male humor we share when we all kid each other and pile in.

So I ask those who feel that their emotional response (revulsion at the IDEA) control their typing fingers here and not pile in with bias opinions that fly in the face of actual science, lest a decent thread go down in flames.
It is a useful and interesting thread, to those open and willing to improvement and change.
If you are going to stick to what you already do, this thread is not for you.
^^^Hey, was that poetry?

JohnHB
05-29-2013, 06:00 PM
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Chicken_from_Farm_To_Table/index.asp

Pretty much what I go by

Thanks Doug. One needs to keep in mind that the USDA needs to provide an ultra conservative view that all the population even idiots understand.
I see that they also state:
"For safety, the USDA recommends cooking hamburgers and ground beef mixtures such as meat loaf to 160 °F as measured with a food thermometer. Cook all organ and variety meats (such as heart, kidney, liver and tongue)
to 160 °F. Cook all raw beef steaks and roasts to a minimum internal temperature of 145°F as measured with a food thermometer before removing meat from the heat source. For safety and quality, allow meat to rest for at least three minutes before carving or consuming."
I can tell you that I do not cook my steaks to an internal temperature of 145F. I love my steak medium rare and that is approximately 130F. What do you do. Do you blindly follow USDA?
John

landarc
05-29-2013, 06:34 PM
I would agree with Slamdunkpro, that for most of us here in the US, chicken cooked below around 150F is rather an unpleasant texture. As is raw chicken, which I found to be quite challenging. I tend to cook my chickens to 150F or just a little higher for most Asian preparations, and then higher, for BBQ/Western grilling. Part of that is expectation of the audience, part of that is technique.

That being said, the most recent transcendent chicken experience I have had in recent memory, almost certainly was sous vide, then seared, and it was truly one of the best dishes I have eaten in the past few years. The texture, flavor, moisture, were all spot on. The skin was seared and crispy, which suggests a hybrid method.

deguerre
05-29-2013, 06:36 PM
I'm kinda digging the ghetto cooler method followed by a sear...

Bludawg
05-29-2013, 07:07 PM
Would you cook Chicken over your Ribs?? I have had Food Poisoning exactly 3 times in my life. All three times revolved around questionably cooked chicken. Call me a Prud, a through back or a Closed Minded Yankees SOB if you want but I aint going down that road again. I hope you never have to experience that.. EVER, if you do it will change your mind about cooking until it is 165+ I guarantee it!!

deguerre
05-29-2013, 07:37 PM
Would you cook Chicken over your Ribs?? I have had Food Poisoning exactly 3 times in my life. All three times revolved around questionably cooked chicken. Call me a Prud, a through back or a Closed Minded Yankees SOB if you want but I aint going down that road again. I hope you never have to experience that.. EVER, if you do it will change your mind about cooking until it is 165+ I guarantee it!!

Not with chicken. The guy used a rack of lamb in his example. And yes, I've had food poisoning twice. Once from Domino's and the second from Wendy's. Not pleasant.

landarc
05-29-2013, 07:42 PM
Not that I do it, but, theoretically, there is nothing wrong with cooling chicken over ribs, if they are both cooked to at least a pasteurization point along the way. I don't do that, because I like my ribs to taste like pork, and my chicken to taste like chicken.

Although, I do roast chicken over potatoes, and pork over beans, so there is that.

chicagokp
05-29-2013, 08:33 PM
So, I cooked chicken today. Hot N Fast. Brined and then rubbed witih SM Season All and SM Pecan. I cooked at 425 with KBB and a few cherry chunks. I backed the head down a touch since the SM Pecan has a fair amount of sugar.

I pulled when the breast was 142 internal very close to the breast bone. The main part of the breast was 150. I rested for 5 min before cutting up for serving. The juices ran clear when carving.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y182/Phariss/bbq/2013%20cooks/chook/76CA914C-AE2A-4C68-8E9E-B8A0DF5D01DD-2131-00000292FB25F30F_zpsafac7226.jpg


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y182/Phariss/bbq/2013%20cooks/chook/71386097-F7C7-4BFE-B9A9-D5F6AB98D306-2131-00000293044D246D_zpsc5308fd5.jpg

The bird was moist, tender and delicious. I don't think you need to take it to 165, but this is a free country, do as you please.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y182/Phariss/bbq/2013%20cooks/chook/3A0F7CFE-BBDA-4488-AE8A-29006904A7B8-2131-000002930B279EC5_zps1b23188d.jpg

buccaneer
05-29-2013, 08:47 PM
Mouth is watering.

ddweatherholtz
05-29-2013, 08:51 PM
When it comes to chicken I just don't want to mess around. I get a few chefs here and there who want to sous vid but when it comes to my food safety class its 165. When it comes to health Dept restaurant inspections 165 is the only number sous vid or not. Also I believe all bbq associations require chicken cooked until 165 and held at 140.

chicagokp
05-29-2013, 09:01 PM
When it comes to chicken I just don't want to mess around. I get a few chefs here and there who want to sous vid but when it comes to my food safety class its 165. When it comes to health Dept restaurant inspections 165 is the only number sous vid or not. Also I believe all bbq associations require chicken cooked until 165 and held at 140.

I get it. It was only recently the FDA said Americans could serve pork at 145 degrees from the previous temp of 160. I'm sure at some point it'll change for chicken.

buccaneer
05-29-2013, 09:10 PM
Ironic that while this takes forever to change, eggs remain the most common culprit of domestic food poisoning.
Chicken is to blame?:heh:
Nope.
Speed of food science reaching Moms and Dads....who still crack eggs on edges instead of flat surfaces.
On one hand it is retarded delivering information on what IS safe, on the other about what isn't.

JohnHB
05-29-2013, 09:24 PM
When it comes to chicken I just don't want to mess around. I get a few chefs here and there who want to sous vid but when it comes to my food safety class its 165. When it comes to health Dept restaurant inspections 165 is the only number sous vid or not. Also I believe all bbq associations require chicken cooked until 165 and held at 140.

Well what temperature do they require for beef both cooked & holding. If they (the chefs) are following the USDA it will require a cooked temperature of 145F AND I DO not WANT TO EAT IN THEIR RESTAURANTS!!!!!

JohnHB
05-29-2013, 09:34 PM
I think I need to make my purpose clear again. I am not suggesting at what temperature you want to cook chicken for your consumption - that is your personal choice.
What I object to is a bunch of the brethren that insist that chicken must be cooked at 165F+ to make it safe. One needs to pasteurise the chicken to make it safe and that can occur at lower temperatures (e.g. by holding it at 150F for say 5 minutes).
Why can't we all agree that chicken shouldn't be eaten unless it is cooked enough to pasteurise it!
John

landarc
05-29-2013, 11:16 PM
I can agree to that. Then again, I ate it raw.

Whistler
05-29-2013, 11:50 PM
At an internal temperature of 150F+ chicken isn't pink. It changes colour around 140F.
Let me be clear I don't care what temperature you like cooking your chicken to. You should cook it for your tastes. What I am saying is that once you have determined the internal temperature has been held at 150f for the required time to pasteurise you can stop worrying about the chicken safety. AND stop all the bull dust that it MUST hit 165F.
John

Maybe it's my old eyes but that first pic in the article looks pink to me. I think I complimented the interesting science of the article and I agree completely; "I don't care what temperature you like cooking your chicken to". Don't believe I commented on safety at all, my comment was what I'm able to successfully serve. Easy big fella, do what thrills ya' :biggrin1:

CharredApron
05-29-2013, 11:58 PM
"The juices ran clear when carving" Let em rest and carve away!

buccaneer
05-30-2013, 12:01 AM
Pink isn't the color of bacteria, it's the hue of myoglobin.

Toriwasa, which I have eaten quite a few times.
http://geoffmackay.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/chicken-sashimi.jpg (http://geoffmackay.com/2010/09/geoff-mackays-food-of-the-day-chicken-sashimi/)

CharredApron
05-30-2013, 12:09 AM
^^^What he said^^^

Whistler
05-30-2013, 01:09 AM
Pink isn't the color of bacteria, it's the hue of myoglobin.

Toriwasa, which I have eaten quite a few times.
http://geoffmackay.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/chicken-sashimi.jpg (http://geoffmackay.com/2010/09/geoff-mackays-food-of-the-day-chicken-sashimi/)

Still didn't say pink was bad and to each his own but break that out for the boys around the pit and they'll want to know when I'm going to cook it or put it on a hook. I'd try it but in the immortal words of "Ol Bob "it ain't bar-b-que". I'm still agreeing with you guys, not sure where we're crossing wires except all the science in the world won't convince most of my guests/customers to eat it. Is what it is I suppose and not trying to pick a fight, have fun I'm done. :tape:

JohnHB
05-30-2013, 01:20 AM
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b579/jhbanks/null_zps8383e17d.jpg

JohnHB
05-30-2013, 01:21 AM
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b579/jhbanks/null_zps6a3f3319.jpg

buccaneer
05-30-2013, 01:39 AM
You're only done when the juices run clear.
Get back in here.:wink:

JohnHB
05-30-2013, 02:03 AM
I am still here with you Bucc !!!!

JohnHB
05-30-2013, 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddweatherholtz
When it comes to chicken I just don't want to mess around. I get a few chefs here and there who want to sous vid but when it comes to my food safety class its 165. When it comes to health Dept restaurant inspections 165 is the only number sous vid or not. Also I believe all bbq associations require chicken cooked until 165 and held at 140.

Well what temperature do they require for beef both cooked & holding? If they (the chefs) are following the USDA it will require a cooked temperature of 145F AND I DO not WANT TO EAT IN THEIR RESTAURANTS!!!!

Well aren't you going to answer. You push USDA for chicken but will not respond on the USDA's view on beef. Probably because most of us and most restaurants cook beef at less than the USDA's recommendation of 145F!!!!!
Don't wimp out - come clean.
John

buccaneer
05-30-2013, 05:26 AM
I love this place, the spirit and humor here.

Smokey Mick
05-30-2013, 07:58 AM
Doods:doh:
Yall missing the pointy bit.
YOU can do this on BBQ and not have pink bits.

You can sous vide on your bbq yes indeedy.

If you have a bbq that can go from a searing 600F then be able to choke down to 150F within 30 minutes. You are there.

You can brown and hold for as long as you want.

An example, I get a BGE up to flames, Buzzard on indirect then lid down and start choking the fire.
First stage It will brown up ,,, Job done.
Next stage as the IT starts to rise I choke more to meet the desired IT temp.
Once I meet in the middle at 150 ish, I hold it there for as long as I want. Maybe an hour, maybe more and look Mom , No pink meat :caked:
Just pure white juicy meat.
Got to pick your cooks though as I Take my lump spit buzzard way beyond 165F as that's just the way I swing.:biggrin1: The Op is not chitting you, The technique is worth the knowing as it transcends to every other meat:wink:

Whistler
05-30-2013, 08:00 AM
You're only done when the juices run clear.
Get back in here.:wink:

Ha! That was good :loco: My juices were already running clear, had to hit the sack. Will be thinking of this tomorrow night when I put the chickens on the pit, heck I might even dig out a thermometer.

deguerre
05-30-2013, 08:20 AM
Well aren't you going to answer. You push USDA for chicken but will not respond on the USDA's view on beef. Probably because most of us and most restaurants cook beef at less than the USDA's recommendation of 145F!!!!!
Don't wimp out - come clean.
John

I'm not disagreeing with your premise John, because I do occasionally enjoy the blue rare steak - :mrgreen: - and I don't let my pork loin roasts go over 135 because they'll climb to 140. With chicken though I've got a psychological issue to deal with...:shock::wink:

dwfisk
05-30-2013, 08:36 AM
JohnHB, thanks for the article & info and to everyone else thanks for the dialog. My take home (learned sumpin here) is that 165* ain't magic; once you get to/above the "red line" chicken is pasturized and safe to eat, no matter how you cook to get there. I have always cooked chicken until juices are clear and I get the texture-moisture-taste I like and really have not had any trouble getting all three at about 165* (i.e. not dry, not rubbery, not cardboard) but its good to know that getting to 165* is not essential from a food safety standpoint. Thanks again.

ddweatherholtz
05-30-2013, 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddweatherholtz
When it comes to chicken I just don't want to mess around. I get a few chefs here and there who want to sous vid but when it comes to my food safety class its 165. When it comes to health Dept restaurant inspections 165 is the only number sous vid or not. Also I believe all bbq associations require chicken cooked until 165 and held at 140.

Well what temperature do they require for beef both cooked & holding? If they (the chefs) are following the USDA it will require a cooked temperature of 145F AND I DO not WANT TO EAT IN THEIR RESTAURANTS!!!!

Well aren't you going to answer. You push USDA for chicken but will not respond on the USDA's view on beef. Probably because most of us and most restaurants cook beef at less than the USDA's recommendation of 145F!!!!!
Don't wimp out - come clean.
John



145 for Beef and held at 140. Difference with beef is that the gamble is not as bad. eight out of 10 chickens were found to contain pathogens like salmonella and campylobacter. You can cook your food at what ever temp you want, it is like rolling dice! I prefer to stick with what will extend my life a bit and keep me off the toilet!!

Bludawg
05-30-2013, 10:09 AM
I love a Rare and a Blu Steak but I will not eat a Pink Burger. With Beef the bacteria is on the outside of the meat sereing will kill it. However once you grind it the bacteria is all through it anything pink is a Crap shoot and can make you fire out of both ends simultaneously.
Domestically raised Pork is much the same since the eradication of Trichinosis in the US. If it is a Wild Pig you have to cook it well because they are still carriers.
Poultry carries Salmonella it don't die until it gets to 165 and it is carried in the tissues of the critter, it can prove fatal in the very young and the elderly among us.
Cooking and Holding indefinitely; Two of my Food Poisonings came from Chicken that was held in a Warmer over 4 hrs. So I aint buying that either.

BeansBaxter
05-30-2013, 10:29 AM
Poultry carries Salmonella it don't die until it gets to 165...

The USDA tables (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/rdad/fsisnotices/rte_poultry_tables.pdf) show that for a worst case of 12% fat chicken you can achieve 7-log10 lethality of salmonella at a temperature as low as 136º F if held for 81.4 min.

At temperatures greater than 163º F the same 7-log10 lethality is instantaneous. In other words, time and temperature are both important variables.

More importantly, there is good science to prove that salmonella indeed will die at temperatures below 165º F

Cooking and Holding indefinitely; Two of my Food Poisonings came from Chicken that was held in a Warmer over 4 hrs. So I aint buying that either.

If the chicken was held at temperatures below ~130º F than that's not surprising. If the chicken was properly held at 140º F or higher than you probably need to look elsewhere for the culprit of your illness. As you can see on the chart linked above, 35 minutes at that temperature and you would have 7-log10 lethality of salmonella.

Of course, if the chicken wasn't prepared properly then holding it at a safe temperature isn't going to remedy the situation.

Bludawg
05-30-2013, 10:50 AM
OK but I still aint going there, I'm a firm believer there is such a thing as Junk science... do the words "Man Caused Global Warming" ring a Bell:twitch: maybe we should extinguish our cooking fires:loco: :icon_shy

deguerre
05-30-2013, 10:51 AM
Brine your chicken in Clorox, perhaps?

Bludawg
05-30-2013, 11:32 AM
:eusa_clapBrine your chicken in Clorox, perhaps?:laugh::laugh:

BeansBaxter
05-30-2013, 11:43 AM
OK but I still aint going there

I'm not saying you have to go there, I'm just saying you could if you wanted to. I certainly wouldn't want to eat chicken that was cooked for 81.4 minutes at 136º F; the texture would be horrible.

I'm a firm believer there is such a thing as Junk science...

As I happen to have some professional experience with sterilization, I can confirm that the USDA tables I linked to are definitely not "junk science".

do the words "Man Caused Global Warming" ring a Bell:twitch:

It's going to take a heck of a lot longer to cook your chicken if that's your heat source. :wink:

JohnHB
05-30-2013, 05:40 PM
It seems we maybe winning in that it is moving to a concensus one should make sure chicken is cooked so that it is SAFE and that its temperature may not necessarily reach 165F. Further many like their chicken well cooked and that is clearly a personal choice.
The brethren provide a great forum for a discussion that can proceed with intelligence and humour.
John

JohnHB
05-30-2013, 05:41 PM
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b579/jhbanks/null_zps98979bf6.jpg

deguerre
05-30-2013, 05:44 PM
It seems we maybe winning in that it is moving to a concensus one should make sure chicken is cooked so that it is SAFE and that its temperature may not necessarily reach 165F. Further many like their chicken well cooked and that is clearly a personal choice.
The brethren provide a great forum for a discussion that can proceed with intelligence and humour.
John

Ja! Naturlich mein freund. Dieser platz ist NICHT kaputt!!!

buccaneer
05-30-2013, 08:10 PM
einige der Mitglieder sind gebrochen obwohl:razz::wink:

ddweatherholtz
05-30-2013, 08:13 PM
Ich selbst bin nicht gebrochen!

buccaneer
05-30-2013, 08:49 PM
When it comes to chicken I just don't want to mess around. I get a few chefs here and there who want to sous vid but when it comes to my food safety class its 165. When it comes to health Dept restaurant inspections 165 is the only number sous vid or not. Also I believe all bbq associations require chicken cooked until 165 and held at 140.
ddweatherholtz;Ich selbst bin nicht gebrochen!

Sie sind auf jeden Fall gebrochen, aber Sie können repariert werden:wacko:

CharredApron
05-30-2013, 10:24 PM
Sie sind auf jeden Fall gebrochen, aber Sie können repariert werden:wacko:
Ich bin völlig kaputt, kann nicht wieder aufgebaut werden :mrgreen:

buccaneer
05-30-2013, 11:42 PM
:pound:

JohnHB
05-31-2013, 02:57 AM
:grin::grin:hey you argumentive ficken Verstand Ihre gemeinsam handeln und sprechen Englisch:grin::grin:

deguerre
05-31-2013, 08:45 AM
Welcome to Der Deutscher BBQ !

CharredApron
05-31-2013, 08:57 AM
Welcome to Der Deutscher BBQ !
ja und ein Rowdy Gruppe sind wir