I've had undercooked chicken in my teens and since then, chicken has to be well done for me.
Does this chicken look undercooked to you?
- Thread starter mattyfez
- Start date
I've had undercooked chicken in my teens and since then, chicken has to be well done for me.
Phew! I knew those reports were fake news.
What he isn't telling you is that he's posting while glued to his porcelain throne.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 15,425
It's bad mkay
Why would you roast a chicken in a bag
You wouldn't want it to escape half way through.
You can't really tell just from looking at it. Quite often on chickens now, you get some of the marrow leeching through the bone, which can give a red-ish hue to the meat close to the bone.
Invest in a decent thermometer like a Thermapen. Will tell you instantly if it needs longer. No guessing, no cutting open and wondering. Pays for itself in putting mind at rest and not ruining decent meat.
Invest in a decent thermometer like a Thermapen. Will tell you instantly if it needs longer. No guessing, no cutting open and wondering. Pays for itself in putting mind at rest and not ruining decent meat.
Er.. poultry is meant to be cooked to minimum of 74c.
Last edited:
The problem is there's quite a margin between undercooked and overcooked. Whilst no-one obviously wants undercooked chicken, overcooked chicken can ruin a meal by being tough to eat - especially if it's chicken breast. You can get away with the thighs/wings being cooked a bit more.
This is why it's always useful to have a good temperature probe, the internal temperature never lies.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2015
- Posts
- 4,222
I've been cooking it this way for eons and never once got ill. According to them I should cook to steak to 63°c, sod that!
Yeah this is complete and utter ********, though.
What makes something safe to eat is the temp it is cooked at and the time it is held at that temp. 74C for chicken is instant safety.
Cooking to 65c, which is what they temp will be with carry over cooking after pulling at 62 ish requires 4 minutes to kill any pathogens.
You can safely cook chicken below that temp, as long as you hold it for long enough that pasteurization takes place.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/__opt__aboutcom__coeus__resources__content_migration__serious_eats__seriouseats.com__images__2015__06__20150610-sous-vide-chicken-guide-36-764d00a5cb1c44f7a9b60f16b0e1c6ef.jpg)
The Food Lab's Guide to Sous Vide Chicken Breast
Cooking chicken breast sous vide is hands down the best way to ensure it comes out tender, juicy, and full of flavor. Here's our complete guide to making sous vide chicken breasts.
Beef is more dense than chicken, which is why you're able to eat it rare. The pathogens don't really go past the outer layer. Same reason you can have steak tartare safely.
Also you've linked the US site, the UK one also lists temps and times (although it only lists the max time required, not the minimum).
Last edited:
Just lucky then soo far.
You're right, killing bacteria is a function of temperature and time. 74c is instant safety as you say. But post above never mentions anything about resting for long enough at 63. You need to hold it at the temp, not getting cooler, for about 20 to 30 minutes.Yeah this is complete and utter ********, though.
What makes something safe to eat is the temp it is cooked at and the time it is held at that temp. 74C for chicken is instant safety.
Cooking to 65c, which is what they temp will be with carry over cooking after pulling at 62 ish requires 4 minutes to kill any pathogens.
You can safely cook chicken below that temp, as long as you hold it for long enough that pasteurization takes place.
The Food Lab's Guide to Sous Vide Chicken Breast
Cooking chicken breast sous vide is hands down the best way to ensure it comes out tender, juicy, and full of flavor. Here's our complete guide to making sous vide chicken breasts.www.seriouseats.com
Beef is more dense than chicken, which is why you're able to eat it rare. The pathogens don't really go past the outer layer. Same reason you can have steak tartare safely.
It doesn't get cooler for at least 10 minutes, it's called carry over cooking where the heat from the outer parts (which are well over 65c) continue to cook it internally.
Also it's 4-10 minutes @ 65c. Not 20-30.
Last edited:
Wrong. Time increases logarithmically the lower the temp.
"To kill bacteria, food must reach a specific core temperature for a required amount of time, with standard guidance recommending 70°C for 2 minutes (or equivalent, e.g., 60°C for 45 mins, 75°C for 30 seconds, 80°C for 6 seconds). The "danger zone" for bacteria growth is 5°C–60°C (40°F–140°F), making rapid heating crucial.
Key Time-Temperature Combinations (Core Temp)
80°C (176°F): 6 seconds
75°C (167°F): 30 seconds
70°C (158°F): 2 minutes
65°C (149°F): 10 minutes
60°C (140°F): 45 minutes "
Last edited:
Not wrong.
There are plenty of standards and you've used the food.gov one which takes a very conservative stance, same as they say you should cook all steaks to 63c+ which is idiotic. I did mention them only listing the max time. Your own post invalidates your claim of 20-30 mins and proves what I said (4-10).
Here's a more accurate/realistic table of what's safe with poultry, and this is from an American source with much worse safety in the production process.
Pasteurization Time for Chicken With 5% Fat Content (7-log10 lethality)
| Temperature | Time |
| 136°F (58°C) | 68.4 minutes |
| 140°F (60°C) | 27.5 minutes |
| 145°F (63°C) | 9.2 minutes |
| 150°F (66°C) | 2.8 minutes |
| 155°F (68°C) | 47.7 seconds |
| 160°F (71°C) | 14.8 seconds |
| 165°F (74°C) | Instant |
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2015
- Posts
- 4,222
No run of luck lasts > 20 years. You do you though, I'll stick with the way I'm cooking it.