# "Medium rare" birds.



## cornelius (Oct 29, 2011)

A couple of months ago I cooked dinner for my brother, his girlfriend, and her son. I did one of my favorite "lazy" preparations of a young chicken: dismember it, put it in a 9x11 glass baking dish over a bed of sweet onions, season (Johnny's, Hungarian Paprika, and, oh, about a ton of freshly minced garlic. Well, okay, about a head.) and bake. (or roast?)

Anyway, I pulled it out when it was done (lovely, juicy, and tender, about 165 degrees) let it rest while I made the gravy (yum, onioney garlickey chicken gravy)  and finished the sides, then served it. The meal was going wonderfully until said girlfriend made this disgusted noise, and exclaimed "This chicken is RAW!" 

When I asked her what she meant, she pointed to the red around the bone of the leg she had been eating. She then said "I don't want to offend you, but this needs to go back in the oven." She then cranked the oven up to 350, and put hers and her son's portions back in for another half hour, which, in my opinion, completely ruined it. Chicken jerky. And, whether she wanted to offend me or not, she did, though I did not say so.

I also didn't bother to explain to her that salmonella and most other nasty critters die instantly at  165 degrees, and in any event, grow on the outside of the meat. So barring parasites or simple rotten meat, as long as the outside is done to at least 165 degrees, you could eat the middle raw and be safe. Chicken sushi with the surface seared would be kinda disgusting, but it wouldn't hurt you. In any event, there was no danger whatsoever from my chicken, and if I had cooked it to the point where she would have been satisfied, it would have been way overdone.

I have noticed this seems to happen more with young birds. For example, the meat around the bones of the legs and thighs of a 12 pound turkey is more likely to be red than that of a 25 pound turkey. The best explanation I have seen is that the bones of young birds are more porous, and therefore the marrow seeps out and colors the meat, though I have no solid evidence that this is actually the case. And most chickens you find in the supermarket these days are (were?) quite young. In any event, it seems to happen more with young birds.

This is the first time I have encountered such a reaction, though. I have made this for many people over the years, and have, before this, never had a complaint. In fact, several have made a point to say they quite enjoyed it. Some were quite effusive in their praise, in fact.

So, I am wondering. How "well done" do you cook your birds? Have you encountered complaints like this, and if so, has it gotten you in the habit of overcooking your birds to avoid them, or do you just ignore such things and cook your birds until they are done, and let the chips fall where they may?


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

More than you could imagine. Try this one on for size.....Cooking Coq au Vin (French chicken with wine) for 300 people and several plates come back with the very same comment...."this chicken is raw..." Although it was cooked for plenty of time.

After processing the chickens are frozen. Any leftover blood that has not been drained from the animal will travel to the bone discolor it and make it look as though the meat is not cooked. Happens a lot.  Education is the key....but I know some people are grossed out by it.


----------



## koukouvagia (Apr 3, 2008)

I wouldn't take it personally, we are taught in our society to cook poultry and pork thoroughly and I don't blame anyone for wanting their meat cooked through.  To tell you the truth I don't particularly like to see red on my chicken either, no offense to you.

Come to think of it, I like my beef medium rare but have several friends who like it cooked through.  I don't take offense to that either.


----------



## sherbel (Sep 10, 2011)

Please don't be offended, but you are dis-informed in regards to some food safety issues, in particular your belief that Salmonella and other 'nasty critters grow on the outside of the meat". That is not true.

Salmonella is found in the digestive tracts of poultry, and is found even in so called "organic" chickens. Chickens that are chilled in water are often actually being given a bath in fecal soup, and that soup can find it's way deep into the bird, not just on the outside. Campylobacter is also common in chickens, and the current science calls for an internal temperature of 180 degrees (F) for safety. Your statement that chicken that reaches 165 degrees on the surface is safe to eat is very wrong.

So with all due respect, I can't find fault with a parent wanting their child to eat food that is prepared safely. Although the appearance of redness near a chicken bone doesn't necessarily indicate an undercooked bird, it isn't something that I would eat. Nor would I serve undercooked chicken to guests.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

A couple of thoughts:

First off, while the recommended internal temperature of chicken is 180 you do not want to cook it to that point. It will continue cooking while resting, and become dried out if you do. In fact, most of us nowadays consider 180 final temperature as equal to a dry bird. So you cook it to a lesser point, and let it continue to the safe point.

Second, (or, perhaps, this should have been first), the key is *internal* temperature, not *surface *temperature. The procedure is to insert the thermometer probe halfway into the thickest part of the meat, being sure to not contact bone.

So, a roasted chicken with an internal temp of 165, allowed to rest, should wind up well into the 170s. Call it 175 for the sake of discussion. While not as high as USDA recommends, I wouldn't worry about it. If the juices run clear the chicken is done.

With a surface temp of 165, however, who knows what the internal temp is? Considerably lower, though. And certainly not high enough to be considered safe. (According to CDC, btw, it requires sustained temperatures of 175 to kill the baddies). Cooking is defined at that point at which, due to the application of heat, the cells undergo a permenant, non-reversible change. That point happens to be 165F. Which means if that's the temp you reached on the surface, technically the chicken is first starting to cook at that point.

That aside, there are two other factors in play. Those of us of a certain age (and, in many cases, our children) were brought up to believe that red around the bone did, indeed, mean an undercooked (not raw, but undercooked) bird. And, we actually were taught to overcook chicken as well. If juices were flowing, the bird wasn't done.

Neither of those factors are true, not with modern birds, and most likely not in the day, either. But you can't easily overcome food biases that were ingrained at a young age.

Now then, if the chicken you served was actually cooked through (based on your experience as a cook), then your measuring system needs modifying, because that didn't happen at 165. As to the rest, you're not going to change her mind, not at this late date. So just chalk it up to one of those things. Next time, make her a steak instead.


----------



## dc sunshine (Feb 26, 2007)

Good words KYH.

"undercooked pork:" i.e. still a little pink inside.  My mother (76) refuses to eat it, while Dad (80) loves it as much as I do.  I've never h=had a bad reaction, as has been said, it's the ingrained thoughts that can put people off, no matter how you explain it to them.

Eh!  If they are coming - serve Sashimi


----------



## teamfat (Nov 5, 2007)

http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Bloody-chik.html

mjb.


----------



## sherbel (Sep 10, 2011)

The pictures of the "safe" chicken look utterly revolting to me. But although I cook chicken thoroughly, it's not dry and overcooked; it's tender and juicy. There seems to be a pervasive (trendy?) desire to cook proteins _just_ to the edge of being cooked, so that they're "juicy" (never mind the taste/texture), not just chicken (and evidently turkey), but shellfish and fish as well. Scallops that are raw in the center? Chicken with blood flowing, pork that's cool and quivering in the center.....just not my thing. It's not just a food safety thing issue, it's my preferred way of cooking (most) meat, having nothing to do with old fashioned ideas....nor with ego.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

First off, does anyone know what the HTI&M is? This is the first time I've ever heard of it.

Other than that, I couldn't agree with you more, SherBell. None of that chicken looks appetizing. And I don't just mean around the bones.

Take a look at figure 2, for instance. Testing might reveal that the breast meat is safe, meeting all approved bacterial levels. But it's certainly not cooked. Most people would look at it and consider it raw. As well they should! It was only "cooked" to 155F.

I've long objected to the raw trend, and wish the celebrity chefs would stop pushing the concept. Watch when any of them cuts into a piece of meat they identify as medium, or medium rare. Fact is, most of the time the center isn't even rare. It's raw, with blood dripping out.

Don't misunderstand. If somebody enjoys eating raw or ultra rare meat, poultry, and fish, let them do so. Just don't tell me it's cooked, when it so obviously isn't.

The ultimate in this, IMO, is the "correct" way of cooking tuna: overcooked on the outside and raw on the inside. Just who made that rule? There is no reason it can't be cooked all the way through, and still be moist, tender, and flavorfull.

The simple fact is, something can be cooked through without being well done. It would be nice if some of these celebrity chefs would learn that lesson.


----------



## maryb (Mar 21, 2008)

The chicken in those pictures is NOT done. I cook to 170 generally and let it rest. If there is some reddish pink around the bones I explain to people that it is a chemical reaction and not uncooked chicken. If they question it put a thermometer in an uncut portion.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

How about simply rare (or "blue"), as in Amagi Shamo? /img/vbsmilies/smilies/licklips.gif


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

How about it, FF?

If you like it that way that's all that counts. But "blue" is not the same as "rare." Blue is not cooked, but is, rather, barely warmed through. At base, it is raw.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

KYHeirloomer said:


> How about it, FF?


Goes to show how cultural taste can be!

As for blue, it also involves a quick searing (few seconds) on both sides, too, right? Looking at the chicken picture, I'd say it was torched rather than seared, but still I'd call it blue, wouldn't you? The skin is browned, and some (albeit not much) of the flesh is cooked.


----------



## Iceman (Jan 4, 2011)

OK. I guess I need some educating now. What exactly is the attraction of undercooked chicken? Did I miss that point in culinary time where cooking chicken became rocket surgery? I remember it as a simple series: cook, rest/relax, cut, serve and eat. Have times/procedures changed? I guess sometimes it aint'e all so bad being a vegetarian/vegan.

Hey _*FF*_, is that a pic of chicken or tuna? If that's chicken _*OMG!!!*_ No chance in chances am I serving or eating that.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

IceMan said:


> Hey _*FF*_, is that a pic of chicken or tuna? If that's chicken _*OMG!!!*_ No chance in chances am I serving or eating that.


It's chicken. My point was that the only reason we do not eat raw chicken is cultural. We've been brainwashed, since our young age, to believe that raw chicken is DANGEROUS (oooooh!!!!). The truth is, the stuff WE get from OUR supermarket, which WE call chicken, is dangerous raw. But real chicken, farm raised in normal and healthy conditions, does not present that danger. Many other cultures eat raw chicken.


----------



## Iceman (Jan 4, 2011)

OK then. I'm happy for you, being able to eat what you like. A good while ago I saw an early Anthony Bourdain TV show where he would travel around and eat cultural stuff. He was somewhere in SE Asia. They took some kinda bird, small goose or big duck or something else, but it wasn't a chicken. They just killed it and packed it in a _"mud and other stuff" crust-ball_; sorta like a "salt-dome ball", but with dirt, mud and leaves. They didn't clean it out or pluck it or anything. They packed it and put it in a hot fire full of coals. Later, they took it out, cracked it apart and ate it. It was nasty. Anyway, I guess people eat what makes them happy.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_As for blue, it also involves a quick searing (few seconds) on both sides, too, right?_

Yes, that would be correct, FF. Seared or charred lightly, but the rest uncooked. Indeed, if the term applied to fish (I've never heard it done so), the modern "correct" way of cooking tuna would be blue.

And, again, so there's no confusion, I have no objections to anyone eating meat that way, if that's their preference. My concern is pretending it's anything other than raw. If not all, certainly most of the TV celebrity chefs would plate the chicken in your bottom, left-hand photo, and call it medium-rare or even medium. That's what I object to.

The funny thing is that friends of mine who do like their steak blue never claim that it's cooked. Maybe that's why they don't have cooking shows?


----------



## Iceman (Jan 4, 2011)

I don't think so. I've never seen a TV show where chicken wasn't cooked through completely. Maybe in some kinda competition, but then it's been refused or sent back or the contestant got booted. Duck is the only med-rare I've ever seen. 


> If not all, certainly most of the TV celebrity chefs would plate the chicken in your bottom, left-hand photo, and call it medium-rare or even medium.


----------



## cornelius (Oct 29, 2011)

SherBel said:


> ...and the current science calls for an internal temperature of 180 degrees (F) for safety. Your statement that chicken that reaches 165 degrees on the surface is safe to eat is very wrong.


Of course I would never serve chicken that had merely been seared on the outside to 165 degrees, I was simply exaggerating to make a point. However, my reason for saying this is as a result of a rather lengthy conversation I had with an FDA food inspector, who assured me it was so. She also said she knew it was silly, but she couldn't bring herself to eat any ground meat at all, because it tests so high in bacteria, ground meat being basically _all_ surface area compared to intact animal parts. So, even though she knew intellectually it was perfectly safe, she saw the numbers when she did her tests, and those numbers were _so_ much higher when it came to ground meat. So no ground meat for her. Because the bacteria grows on the surface of the meat.

Regarding realistic cooking, 165 degrees (internal temp) is perfectly safe even according to the FDA, which tends to err on the side of caution: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/UCM260394.pdf

As to fecal soup, even if this is the case, (and I would remind you a marinade works through osmosis, and therefore will not work without ample salt) campylobacter dies after two minutes at 158 degrees, (70 degrees centigrade) which will certainly occur if the poultry is cooked to 165 degrees before it is removed from the oven. http://foodsafety.suencs.com/223

E. coli (which is a bacteria normally associated with fecal contamination) dies at 160 degrees. I could go through the whole list, but to make a long story short, by the time the poultry gets to 165 degrees, the nasty little critters, whatever they are, are dead.

Many people are squeamish, I realize. This is probably why poultry is typically overcooked in many restaurants. However, I was certainly not endangering anyone's child through ignorance. As I said, the FDA tends to err on the side of caution, and according to them, red by the bone or no, that chicken was thoroughly cooked and perfectly safe.

I know you said what you did in an effort to educate, are probably repeating what you were taught, and I am not offended. In today's litigious society, the food service industry has adopted a "cover your butt" stance in restaurants, culinary schools, and food certification exams. Hence it is almost impossible to get a medium rare burger, or even an over-easy egg in a restaurant. I don't blame them for doing so, I just think it is a shame they had to.


----------



## cornelius (Oct 29, 2011)

French Fries said:


> How about simply rare (or "blue"), as in Amagi Shamo? /img/vbsmilies/smilies/licklips.gif


'swhat I was talkin' about./img/vbsmilies/smilies/talker.gif


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Cornelius, we can argue the science all day. But if that picture is what you were talking about, then your brother's girlfriend is 100% correct. That chicken is raw, no two ways about it.


----------



## sherbel (Sep 10, 2011)

We will have to agree to disagree, I think. As a former HACCP trainer for institutional food service managers, I have a very different view of the science; a science that is highly dynamic, particularly with the rise of antimicrobial resistance and bacterial mutation. Having said that, I am by no means any kind of expert in this field. I will say that the 'cover your butt' stance really came into play after the death of a child from E. Coli 0157:H7 and in my opinion, that is an excellent reason for such a stance.

(By the way, your comments on how a marinade works have no connection to what I was mentioning; the contamination with bacteria-laden fecal matter of the water with which some poultry is chilled is a simple physical contamination, not a function of marinating.)

I too love a rare burger, and in my own home, for my own consumption, with meat that I've ground myself....I take my chances. In the final analysis, it's all about understanding and then mitigating risk to the best of one's ability.



Cornelius said:


> Of course I would never serve chicken that had merely been seared on the outside to 165 degrees, I was simply exaggerating to make a point. However, my reason for saying this is as a result of a rather lengthy conversation I had with an FDA food inspector, who assured me it was so. She also said she knew it was silly, but she couldn't bring herself to eat any ground meat at all, because it tests so high in bacteria, ground meat being basically _all_ surface area compared to intact animal parts. So, even though she knew intellectually it was perfectly safe, she saw the numbers when she did her tests, and those numbers were _so_ much higher when it came to ground meat. So no ground meat for her. Because the bacteria grows on the surface of the meat.
> 
> Regarding realistic cooking, 165 degrees (internal temp) is perfectly safe even according to the FDA, which tends to err on the side of caution: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/UCM260394.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## rekonball (Sep 13, 2011)

I remember on one of those wife swap shows one of the family never cooked their meat and their bodies were used to it, but after the swap this other woman cooked their food for the first time and they of course loved it. Personaly I like my meat cooked I don't mind my beef rare or even tartar but my wife,thats a different story she will only eat it if it's over well done dry,shoe leather. Some people just have their habbits and you are not  going to change them. I remember one person who wanted a well done N.Y. strip she got one and because she didn't know how to order it or she did't want to seem difficult to the waiter she sent it back not once not twice but three times. Some people seem to think that cooks automaticaly know how they want their meat they would rather send it back than tell the waiter how they actually like it. I ended up frying it for five minutes after it was well done, it was a mess, she told the waiter it was the best she ever had, how, I don't know. Don't take it personally people are just really picky about their food.


----------



## maryb (Mar 21, 2008)

Even in home raised chicken the salmonella is there. It comes in the eggs from the hatchery and is prevalent in all american chicken unless someone takes the time to eradicate it and raise their own chickens for generations.


----------



## koukouvagia (Apr 3, 2008)

Rekonball said:


> I remember on one of those wife swap shows one of the family never cooked their meat and their bodies were used to it, but after the swap this other woman cooked their food for the first time and they of course loved it. Personaly I like my meat cooked I don't mind my beef rare or even tartar but my wife,thats a different story she will only eat it if it's over well done dry,shoe leather. Some people just have their habbits and you are not going to change them. I remember one person who wanted a well done N.Y. strip she got one and because she didn't know how to order it or she did't want to seem difficult to the waiter she sent it back not once not twice but three times. Some people seem to think that cooks automaticaly know how they want their meat they would rather send it back than tell the waiter how they actually like it. I ended up frying it for five minutes after it was well done, it was a mess, she told the waiter it was the best she ever had, how, I don't know. Don't take it personally people are just really picky about their food.


You can't get away with this in some higher end restaurants. I can't take my mother to a good steak house in NY because she will only eat beef well done and the steakhouses around here refuse to cook your steak beyond medium.

Last year I was refused at Michael Psillakis' restaurant when I ordered my tuna cooked through. They said "sorry but please choose something else on the menu, the tuna is sushi-grade." I understood completely.


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

Koukouvagia said:


> You can't get away with this in some higher end restaurants. I can't take my mother to a good steak house in NY because she will only eat beef well done and the steakhouses around here refuse to cook your steak beyond medium.
> 
> Last year I was refused at Michael Psillakis' restaurant when I ordered my tuna cooked through. They said "sorry but please choose something else on the menu, the tuna is sushi-grade." I understood completely.


Really???

Restaurants in New York will refuse to cook food for me because I order it done in a way that offends their food philosophy?

What happened to the customers pays for and gets what they want?

Has it really come to that?


----------



## siloway (Mar 24, 2011)

I knew a chef in France that used to "cook" strips of chicken in lemon, he'd just leave them to soak in lemon until the chicken turned white taking the apparence of being cooked, then he'd server it in thin strips with a green salad and croutons... tasted real good but what are the risks of that?


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Siloway, acid has the same effect as heat, and is the other way that food is cooked. That's the whole idea behind cerviche, for instance. So those chicken strips have the same level of risk as those cooked with heat. In other words, no problem.

_What happened to the customers pays for and gets what they want?_

Ya beat me to it, ChefRoss. Trust me, if I was told I couldn't have it prepared the way I wanted it because it upset the chef's sensibility there would be a scene. Just who do those arrogant SOBs think they are?

It's like Scott Conant's constant screaming about never serving fish with cheese. The fact is, that's not even true in Italy, let alone the rest of the world. But given his exposure level, if he yells it long enough eventually it will become a "rule." And all the culinary sheep will blindly follow it.

If we're gonna talk about rules, though, there's only one I worry about: It's my money. I'll spend it on what I want.


----------



## cornelius (Oct 29, 2011)

KYHeirloomer said:


> Cornelius, we can argue the science all day. But if that picture is what you were talking about, then your brother's girlfriend is 100% correct. That chicken is raw, no two ways about it.


What picture?


----------



## koukouvagia (Apr 3, 2008)

KYHeirloomer said:


> _What happened to the customers pays for and gets what they want?_
> 
> Ya beat me to it, ChefRoss. Trust me, if I was told I couldn't have it prepared the way I wanted it because it upset the chef's sensibility there would be a scene. Just who do those arrogant SOBs think they are?


I don't have a problem with it and I was the one that was refused. It only means that the chef respects his ingredient, the trouble he went through to get it and the cost of it.


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

> _Respects his ingredients..._


Yes. Not the only right choice, but certainly one of them. A respectable choice, if you will.

BDL


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Cornelius said:


> 'swhat I was talkin' about./img/vbsmilies/smilies/talker.gif


The picture that accompanied your comment.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_Respects his ingredients..._

That's fine. But he can respect them on his own dime, not on mine.


----------



## Iceman (Jan 4, 2011)

Brilliant. I completely agree. I am however, a capitalist, moreso than a chef/cook with an attitude/ego. Oh yeah, I have attitudes and a serious ego, but never do I let them get in the way of earning.  

I'm still not at all getting the point/attraction of eating raw chicken.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

KYHeirloomer said:


> _What happened to the customers pays for and gets what they want?_
> 
> Ya beat me to it, ChefRoss. Trust me, if I was told I couldn't have it prepared the way I wanted it because it upset the chef's sensibility there would be a scene. Just who do those arrogant SOBs think they are?


There's got to be a line between being an arrogant SOB and becoming a slave to any of your clients' whims. In Koukouvagia's example, I agree with the Chef.

In France, a rich tourist once went into a restaurant, ordered the most expensive bottle of red wine for €5,000, a glass of coke, and proceeded to mix the coke with the wine in his glass. The Chef came out of the kitchen and personally asked the client to leave his establishment on the spot. I thought what the Chef did was very respectable, and I can only hope that had I been in his shoes, I would have had the courage to do the same.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

IceMan said:


> I'm still not at all getting the point/attraction of eating raw chicken.


Do you get the point/attraction of eating raw fish? Do you realize all of that is just cultural? What I mean is, if you were born in a culture where they served raw chicken, you'd most probably enjoy it without giving it a second thought. And if you were born a few decades earlier you'd probably have written that same comment about fish.


----------



## Iceman (Jan 4, 2011)

OK. So I'm not all that hip on a lot of cultural things. I personally don't enjoy raw meats. I've had most all raw meats as dishes, and I don't much care for them. I do enjoy rare steaks, as long as they are of highest quality, and heated through. As an example, I've got very little use for a low-grade rib-eye cooked rare that is tough. I don't want rare and tough prime rib. I do not enjoy rare and cool or cold fillet. I've had the highest grades of sushi and tuna, Those don't do much for me either. Is that a problem with my _"culture"_? NO, maybe it's that I just don't like it. Maybe other people want, for whatever reason, cooked meat too. Unless there's something wrong with you, or you are independently wealthy, I think you should give paying people what they ask for. At least I do. I'm funny like that.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

IceMan, your tastes and your culture are yours, and there's no problem with them. You and you alone decide what you like or don't like to eat. However, if you know you don't like eating raw fish, and you know the highest grades of fish don't do much for you, then you're not going to go out to a fancy sushi restaurant, order sashimi grade fish and ask the Chef to cook it all the way through, are you? That's all I'm saying. If you ask a Chef to do something that goes against his beliefs, his ethics, his vision, his art, don't be surprised or offended when he refuses to do it.


----------



## Iceman (Jan 4, 2011)

_LOL._ *OK.* Ethics? Think whatever makes you happy my friend. It's all good. This stuff just cracks me up though. We're talking _"food on a plate"_ here. We're talking people paying from $9.99 to $300 a seat. For me and my opinion, I don't care if it's the $1.99 _"Blue-Plate-Special"_ at a greasy spoon, people should get whatever they want, however they want it, because it's _their_ $1.99, and *restaurants* _are in business to provide that for them._ Chef egos should be checked at the service door. 


French Fries said:


> ... If you ask a Chef to do something that goes against his beliefs, his ethics, his vision, his art, don't be surprised or offended when he refuses to do it.


Great TV on tonight, the  won, I had a nice evening w/ Mrs.Icicle, and this thread. It's _*AG*_ all the way.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Gotta question for you, French Fries.

Posit this: You're hosting a backyard cookout for friends and family. Because the Lotto just came in, it's steak all the way; ribeyes on the grill. As it turns out, your cousin Joe, neice Mary, and her boyfriend Maurice all like their steaks well done.

Here's the question: Do you invite them to go join a different party? Cause that's what you're implying. That because you're the one doing the cooking you have the right to determine how your guests will eat their food. And they're not even paying for it.

_ If you ask a Chef to do something that goes against his beliefs, his ethics, his vision, his art, _

Is that how we justify being a prima donna nowadays?

For cripes sake, we're talking about a hunk of fish that a customer wants cooked in a manner she feels makes it edible. Accomplishing that might involve a little vision and art. Barely searing the outside and leaving the inside raw entails neither---unless you consider slavishly following food fashion as visionary and artistic.

A cook's job is to make other people happy with food. A professional cook's job is to do that for money. That's the whole job. And you don't accomplish that by imposing your taste on on the people paying the bills.

And, if it isn't obvious, I totally disagree with both you and the French chef about that wine. I don't care if it's a E5,000 Cote d' Rhone, or a US$2.99 bargain bin bottle, once I pay for it it's mine, and I can do anything I want with it.

_And if you were born a few decades earlier you'd probably have written that same comment about fish. _

This is probably the most cogent thing you've said in this discussion. But it more proves my point than your own.

Eating raw fish certainly is a cultural thing in Japan. In the United States it isn't; rather it reflects a change in food fashion. Twenty years ago we called raw fish "bait." Ten or a dozen years ago we started to serve tuna seared & raw. Tomorrow it will be who knows? Where are the ethics, beliefs, vision, and art in any of that? Indeed, seared & raw tuna is mundane and commonplace, because it's the way everybody serves it (except those who insist the only "right" way is as tartare). But that doesn't make it right, or best. It merely reflects fashion.


----------



## kevin rayoni (Jan 19, 2011)

I cook my chicken definitely to well done but the gamey birds out there are always better less cooked.


----------



## koukouvagia (Apr 3, 2008)

KYHeirloomer said:


> Gotta question for you, French Fries.
> 
> Posit this: You're hosting a backyard cookout for friends and family. Because the Lotto just came in, it's steak all the way; ribeyes on the grill. As it turns out, your cousin Joe, neice Mary, and her boyfriend Maurice all like their steaks well done.
> 
> ...


/img/vbsmilies/smilies/redface.gif


----------



## sherbel (Sep 10, 2011)

Speaking for myself only, my "Beliefs,Vision, Ethics, and "Art" are geared towards providing pleasure, nutrition, and hopefully, some joy to the people for whom I'm cooking. I respect ingredients, but I respect family and customers more.

As for raw fish, when it's been masterfully cut into whisper-thin slices so that it swiftly warms in the mouth and releases it's flavors...it's wonderful. A vulgar slab of fridge-turgid tuna with a token sear is not, to me, a respectful use of that particular ingredient.


----------



## koukouvagia (Apr 3, 2008)

Come on guys we're talking about Michael Psilakis, certainly not a chef who who serve a "vulgar slab of fridge-turgic tuna with a token sear."


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

Just as it's the restaurant's prerogative to prepare food in whatever ways it sees fit, and not prepare food in ways it doesn't, it's your prerogative to eat elsewhere. If you'd prefer to eat at Stuckey's rather than the French Laundry, that's certainly up to you. I fail to see it as an issue unless you owe me dinner.

Similarly, "whatever happened to the 'customer is always right?'" is misplaced. Your money never conferred the right to have anything and everything you wanted. Don't act so entitled. 


> Speaking for myself only, my "Beliefs,Vision, Ethics, and "Art" are geared towards providing pleasure, nutrition, and hopefully, some joy to the people for whom I'm cooking. I respect ingredients, but I respect family and customers more.


What saves this is the limitation, "for myself only," but barely. You've expressed yourself in such a way as to imply criticism of someone who does things differently. You're certainly entitled to prepare and present food in your way and to please whom you care to please. Whether or not your way is my way, doesn't make it superior to another way. To my mind, the customer is frequently wrong, and there are limits to how far I would go as a pro to please a customer or will go as a home cook to please a friend, or family member.

My culinary "artistic" vision is fairly relaxed, but there are things I won't do and you can't make me. That doesn't make me good, kind or wise; but neither does it make me bad, cruel and stupid. I don't always write that way, but do believe that cooking at a certain level is an art form and the artists are entitled to express their respective visions as they see fit. You're entitled to agree or disagree, but you're not entitled to overdone fish -- at least not from me.

Speaking of fish: Very, very few North Americans would know good, well-prepared sashimi or sushi if it hit them in the head. For that matter, neither would far too many "sushi chefs." Sometimes sashimi and fish for sushi are properly sliced "whisper thin," and sometimes they are not. Usually, they are not. SherBel doesn't like _tataki, _a perfectly legitimate, "traditionally and authentically Japanese" way of preparing several different kinds of fish. Koukouvagia likes it, and so do I; when and if she ever gets to SoCal, I'm taking her for _omikase_.

New rule: If you don't like it, you don't have to eat it; but you don't get to criticize my taste unless you can demonstrate you know a helluva lot more than me.

"Fridge-turgic" is a wonderfully turned phrase. 10 bonus points.

BDL


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

SherBel said:


> Speaking for myself only, my "Beliefs,Vision, Ethics, and "Art" are geared towards providing pleasure, nutrition, and hopefully, some joy to the people for whom I'm cooking. I respect ingredients, but I respect family and customers more...


OK, are there limits to your respect for family and customers?

Are there different limits for each; family or customers?

How do you handle a "family dinner", you're the host and cook, and one member of the "family" does not like (note: I said LIKE, not allergic to nor a medical restriction, simply a choice) the way you have prepared ??? dish, do you make a separate dish for them?

How do you handle your "soup kitchen" meals? Say someone doesn't like the Lima beans in the stew or prefers sautéed chicken breast instead of the stew, do you acquiesce to their choice?

Suppose you are serving, oh say, pecan crusted Tilapia with braised red cabbage on your buffet line and someone prefers steamed Tilapia with maple glazed carrots, do you acquiesce to their choice?

Are you implying that whoever is in charge of the home kitchen or restaurant/coffee shop/soup kitchen has no choice but to comply with the family member/customer's whim?


----------



## amazingrace (Jul 28, 2006)

Some things are simply not worth the risk,  and serving undercooked poultry is one of them.  There are ways to have the bird cooked through without it drying out.   Good cooks should have no problem presenting perfectly done chicken that is both moist and flavorful. 

And in a restaurant, if the customer requests his food cooked to an unsafe doneness,  then he should be asked to sign a waiver releasing the establishment from and and all liability connected to the risk he is taking.  On the other hand,  if the customer wants his food cremated,  that is his prerogative too,  and the chef needs to be able to put his ego aside and just do it.


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

Perhaps I've missed the point of this thread, I thought it was about "red at the bone" when the chicken was actually cooked to a normal, safe, temperature.

There is a BIG difference between cooking according to guidelines and ignoring guidelines.

Perplexedly, I've had the maddening experience of cooking Coq au Vin or Chicken Cacciatore  and ending up with "red at the bone" despite a 2-3 hour braise.

Interestingly, if I use boned chicken from the same lot, there is no red, so, for me, it has something to do with the bones, probably the lack of age.


----------



## williamalbrecht (Nov 26, 2011)

So A., I'm going to agree with most; the chicken in pretty much every picture posted in this thread looks inedible to me.

B., There's a reason the culinary industry is also referred to as the food_service_ industry. Food... _SERVICE._ If you're so brash and pretentious that you refuse to cook a paying customer's food to _their _ liking? You've completely missed the point of being a chef, and on that note, cooking something up an extra ten or so degrees isn't going to desecrate your "vision," if anything it's going to broaden the spectrum of people who will get to enjoy it with you.

C., I just mixed my expensive bourbon with cheap cola.. is this going to get me banned? /img/vbsmilies/smilies/lol.gif


----------



## koukouvagia (Apr 3, 2008)

I'm going to SoCal.


----------



## Iceman (Jan 4, 2011)

OK. Just because I don't believe so much in _"... If you ask a Chef to do something that goes against his beliefs, his ethics, his vision, his art, don't be surprised or offended when he refuses to do it."***,_ I called up some of the biggest steak-houses in Chicagoland to see what their stories were.

I called and asked _"... I will be coming in for dinner this evening and will be ordering a steak. Will it be of any concern for me that your chef will not make it "well done", as I like, for some reason?" _All of the people answering the phones were very polite and answered that I could order any steak cooked any way I wanted. One hostess put a chef on the phone who replied, _"If you would like to order a $58 piece of boot leather, I'll cook and serve you the best piece of boot leather you've ever had."_. He continued, explaining that he would make any dish or steak they served any way I would like it.

All four(4) of the chefs I was able to talk to, head chef working guys, not just any from line positions but the guys responsible when something happens, said no way in any however, was raw chicken of any type leaving their kitchens.

Oh yeah, I'm sorry for not including this, I called seventeen(17) places.

_***_ *Not that there's anything wrong with that.*


----------



## edward (Dec 3, 2011)

I would not serve chicken that was not cooked. Acid effects the proteins in cerviche and it takes time. Bacteria reproduces very quickly, possibly faster than acid kills it, if it even does. I don't know, but I wouldn't do it.


----------



## sherbel (Sep 10, 2011)

boar_d_laze said:


> Just as it's the restaurant's prerogative to prepare food in whatever ways it sees fit, and not prepare food in ways it doesn't, it's your prerogative to eat elsewhere. If you'd prefer to eat at Stuckey's rather than the French Laundry, that's certainly up to you. I fail to see it as an issue unless you owe me dinner.
> 
> _It's interesting that you mention The French Laundry. Bearing in mind that I have a great deal of admiration for Thomas Keller; a writer was having a meal at The French Laundry. 19 tasting courses, lots of wine, over a period of about 4 hours. The customer (the writer) left the table to use the washroom. Mr Keller became angry, and made sure that the customer's server let the customer know that he was angry...by leaving the table for a brief pee, he was interrupting the rhythm of the meal. So in this instance, Mr Keller would evidently have preferred the customer's physical discomfort to a brief interruption of his "vision" for this meal. I don't get that, sorry. And it's my prerogative to spend my dining dollars where I wish, but I don't think it's required to imply that I would wish to eat junk, in fact I don't get the reference; don't see the relevance?_
> 
> ...


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

Um, I believe that this thread started with correctly cooked poultry, specifically chicken, that exhibited red or reddish meat around the bone despite the fact that the final temperature was well above government standards, as I read it, the thread *did not start with undercooked chicken, quite the contrary!*

There is a marked difference in well cooked chicken demonstrating red around the bone and undercooked poultry


----------

