Turkey dilemma

FrenchTart said:
Yes...I messed up that spelling and typing a lot. Very nice use of a pithy tone in response.

I meant ballotine and galantine.

The most important point was that requiring a crux of keeping the bone in the meat when cooking in order to achieve optimum texture and flavour means that you are doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

No, the most important point is that ceteris paribus, a joint will be more flavoursome and more tender with the bone in without it.
 
FrenchTart said:
The most important point was that requiring a crux of keeping the bone in the meat when cooking in order to achieve optimum texture and flavour means that you are doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

Not at all, any cook worth their weight knows how advantageous it is to roast with bone in.

If I cooked 2 pieces of fore rib of beef exactly the same, one bone in and one not, the bone in would have a better flavour. Simples. Same goes for poultry, and pork, and probably just about an other meat.

Cooking boned meat isn't an issue at all, but to suggest that saying cooking bone in is an excuse for lack of skill or meat quality is just naive.
 
HeadlessChicken said:
Not at all, any cook worth their weight knows how advantageous it is to roast with bone in.

If I cooked 2 pieces of fore rib of beef exactly the same, one bone in and one not, the bone in would have a better flavour. Simples. Same goes for poultry, and pork, and probably just about an other meat.
Click to expand...

This is an over-simplification and to some degree a debunked myth of cooking.

The marrow in the bone can provide additional flavour. Aside from that the only difference leaving the bone attached makes is to keep the meat attached to it cooler - which can be useful if you're cooking meat at too high a temperature as many do.

HeadlessChicken said:
Cooking boned meat isn't an issue at all, but to suggest that saying cooking bone in is an excuse for lack of skill or meat quality is just naive.
Click to expand...

There is nothing inherently wrong with cooking meat on the bone. That isn't what I'm trying to say at all. What *is* wrong is the false statement by Participant that it is a fast track to "drier and less flavoursome meat". It isn't unless you're relying on the cooling effect of the presence of the bone to make up for cooking the meat badly.
 
Last edited:
My statement used relatives. You've acknowledged the flavour advantage, so that part of my statement you've already agreed with. The only unresolved issue is whether or not bone in gives a moister result than bone out, cooking method otherwise being equal. I believe it does.
 
Participant said:
My statement used relatives. You've acknowledged the flavour advantage, so that part of my statement you've already agreed with. The only unresolved issue is whether or not bone in gives a moister result than bone out, cooking method otherwise being equal. I believe it does.
Click to expand...

The presence of marrow can indeed provide a nice improvement to flavour - but this can be replicated extremely easily with other ingredients. Of course, it may be easier to just cook on the bone but it is certainly not a requirement and you can achieve equally good results cooking on or off the bone.

With regards to the 'moisture content' of the meat I've tested it myself (which is obviously subjective) and read about it in various places comparing methods. I don't have time to dig out everything but I believe one of the first articles I read was on AmazingRibs. Their methods are rather psuedo-scientific at times but they do tend to have results that can be reproduced consistently.
 
Wouldn't bother with crown, they go dry whatever you do, even brining.

Ask your local butcher what he can do for you, he might be able to get a small turkey but generally no, you can't get one for 3 people (3lb bird).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom