Our First Real Modernist Discussion

>With that said....can you help me understand the charts on page 193 and 194. I think I understand the chart >about meat roasts. Do those temps include any red meat?

Yes, those times include any red meat.  Remember, the charts are not exactly about ideal meat cooking time, just about salmonella reduction.  Those times show the times necessary for a 6.5D reduction IN PATHOGENS, not necessarily about how meat is done.  Remember, beef is servable RAW.  I.E. no cooking at all, I.E. 0D salmonella reduction.  The idea is that beef that has been properly treated won't be harboring any nasties, so killing the nasties isn't a big deal.

Furthermore, the red meat chart is only talking about the meat's exterior.  (It makes that note in the chart on the previous page in the beef entry) Since beef (and such) are not known to harbor salmonella internally, the standard applies only to the outside surface, which could have been contaminated at the butcher's.  This doesn't make a lot of difference if you are going low-temp, because at 54 degrees C, after 1H 54M (beef chart, line 1) the meat will be cooked anyway.  However, imagine you have a whole ribeye you want to serve as tartare, but you don't trust the butcher where you got it to use clean cutting boards.  You want a 6.5D reduction because you think he touched your tartare with his chicken hands.  You put it in a 60 degree C bath for 11 minutes, 34 seconds, and it will still be raw, but you will have
your 6.5D reduction in SURFACE pathogens, so you can go ahead and start dicing.

(One note: a case in which this does not apply to all meats is wild game.  It can have worms, or mites, or other weird shit that this chart doesn't address.)

>The one about chicken is really giving me a hard time, but I guess it is a result of being taught 165 F is the >temp you have to cook poultry to NO EXCEPTIONS. 

Yeah, its hard to unlearn something that's been drummed into your head so hard.

>Am I reading the chart right? If I cook a chicken breast to 131 F and hold it there for 39m and 31s it is safe to >eat?! As a home cook can I achieve that accuracy with a conventional oven?


Yes, your reading it right.  But no, you can't really do that in a home oven.  The thermostats in those things are not very reliable, and the problem gets a lot worse at low temperatures.  Having said that, we tried it at Woodlands.  This is before these charts came out, and we cooked a chicken at 140 for like 12 hours in a convection oven.  We didn't serve it, but we did eat it.  It was nicely cooked, and very moist, and none of us died.

>Why are the sous vide times different? I don't remember reading anaerobic pathogens being harder to kill. 

Not sure why they are different.  I would guess that maybe poultry has lower density so the heat travels through faster, but I couldn't tell you.  It could also be something as simple as each of those charts came from a different researcher, with slightly different findings.  Science can be frustrating like that.


>How would I use the pasteurization recommendations in a home kitchen scenario? And is the fish freezing >recommendations how you make sushi grade fish and is that the only way to make sushi grade fish?     

As far as the pasteurization recommendations, I would say its sous-vide or nothing.  That really seems to be what they are gunning for.

As far as sushi-grade fish, yes, the freeze is the only way you can be guaranteed of pathogen/parasite free fish, but in the real world, you don't worry about it that much.  I eat and serve raw fish (at home) all the time and don't worry about that.  In life there is risk, and not everything has to be pasteurized.  You just don't serve it to pregnant women or babies (2 demographics that I avoid as a matter of course anyway.)

Great to hear from you, little sister.  I am through chapter 2 of Fisherman's Ocean.  He is still piling on the basics, nothing practical yet, but I'll keep you posted.