Curry Recipes Online
Curry Chat => Talk About Anything Other Than Curry => Topic started by: mickyp on January 30, 2020, 10:32 AM
-
Ok, so i tried cooking Chicken tikka two ways, one at 180c for about 20 ish mins and the other at 290c for 5 mins each side, both were cooked ok. Other half said the tikka cooked at the lower temp was juicier, i agreed with that but thought the chicken cooked at the higher temp looked the part, slight charring at the tips, dont get me wrong it wasn't dry just a tad drier than the lower temp cooked chicken.
Just wondering as a tandoor oven is hotter than 290c but draws in air from underneath would that mean although the temp is high the air is more "moist", anyone have any thoughts, experience on this?
-
Planning to cook some chicken tikka (and perhaps some tandoori chicken) in my 800
-
Ok, so i tried cooking Chicken tikka two ways, one at 180c for about 20 ish mins and the other at 290c for 5 mins each side, both were cooked ok. Other half said the tikka cooked at the lower temp was juicier, i agreed with that but thought the chicken cooked at the higher temp looked the part, slight charring at the tips, dont get me wrong it wasn't dry just a tad drier than the lower temp cooked chicken.
Just wondering as a tandoor oven is hotter than 290c but draws in air from underneath would that mean although the temp is high the air is more "moist", anyone have any thoughts, experience on this?
Begin soapbox sermon>>>
The drier chicken was cooked to a higher internal temperature. In any protein that isn't cooked to the point of collagen breaking down (like American BBQ or stew) that is the only factor that figures into how moist a your end product is. When you cook at higher temperatures you risk overshooting your target internal temperature as your error bars are smaller (time in the appropriate zone).
Moisture is a function of how much water is in the protein. When you cook the proteins denature. They contract and they squeeze the water out. The higher you raise the internal temperature the more they contract and the more water is squeezed out. That is just biochemistry.
The only ways to ensure moist protein are blind luck and measuring the internal temperature of the protein. If you don't own and regularly use an instant read thermometer all you are doing is guessing.
<<<end soapbox sermon
Apologies for preaching. This one makes me a bit crazy.
-
In any protein that isn't cooked to the point of collagen breaking down [...] that is the only factor that figures into how moist your end product is.
Provided that all other factors remain constant.
The only ways to ensure moist protein are blind luck and measuring the internal temperature of the protein. If you don't own and regularly use an instant read thermometer all you are doing is guessing.
I don't think that "blind luck" can ensure anything, and certainly not moist protein (American ladies, please look away
-
Yep i have got a good, fast, temp probe, i was really relying on my past experience, obviously no one piece of chicken will be the same size as any other, i tend to cut the chicken pieces on the large size for the purpose of moisture retention and where i can keep them of a uniform size.
Also i have noticed one raw fillet can feel firmer / tougher than another, and the texture can also vary, never quite worked out how that happens,
-
All other things being equal - yes, that is a fair categorization that I should have included and will include next time I rant on this subject :smiling eyes:.
Certainly denaturing protein with acid (ceviche) falls out of scope. Brining possibly although I don't know if it just expands the temperature range in which perceived juiciness is acceptable. Something to look at when I have absolutely nothing else to do I guess.
Mickey - to your original question about humidity I found what looks like science on the subject. I did not read it in great detail but did skim it. It found, in beef, that humidity does play a role at extremely low cooking temperatures (80C) but did not at the other tested temperature of 204C.
Again, I did not read the entire paper so you may find some nuggets I missed or interpret it differently. It's a fairly dense read.
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/mmb/articles/2/1/334
-
The only ways to ensure moist protein are blind luck and measuring the internal temperature of the protein. If you don't own and regularly use an instant read thermometer all you are doing is guessing.
I don't think that "blind luck" can ensure anything, and certainly not moist protein (American ladies, please look away
-
Ensure was perhaps not the best word to use. Blind luck can result in a moist product. All other things being equal why do you think relying on internal temperature cannot ensure the protein is moist? At least more moist than the identical piece of protein cooked to a higher internal temperature
Not sure what led you to think that that was my position, Romain. Determining the internal temperature is probably the most reliable way of maximising the probability that any one particular piece of meat will be moist, but of course many other factors come into play, the most important being (to my mind) the provenance and subsequent treatment and preparation of the meat itself. However, I think it is fair to suggest that the average tandoori chef has neither the time, nor the need, to use an internal temperature probe
-
Mickey - to your original question about humidity I found what looks like science on the subject. I did not read it in great detail but did skim it. It found, in beef, that humidity does play a role at extremely low cooking temperatures (80C) but did not at the other tested temperature of 204C.
Again, I did not read the entire paper so you may find some nuggets I missed or interpret it differently. It's a fairly dense read.
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/mmb/articles/2/1/334
I'm still trying to reconcile the two parts of this sentence in the Abstract :
Steaks cooked at 80
-
Thank you Phil I will have a read, it makes me smile sometimes when you see people in third world cooking and they cook by handed down methods from their elders and somehow without the application of science they got it right.
-
Thank you Phil I will have a read, it makes me smile sometimes when you see people in third world cooking and they cook by handed down methods from their elders and somehow without the application of science they got it right.
Well, science started out as an attempt to formalise and codify the rules that govern the things that we and our ancestors have experienced in real life. After all, we wouldn't expect science to find that the best way to cook steak is to put it in a frying pan at -273C !
-
Ensure was perhaps not the best word to use. Blind luck can result in a moist product. All other things being equal why do you think relying on internal temperature cannot ensure the protein is moist? At least more moist than the identical piece of protein cooked to a higher internal temperature
Not sure what led you to think that that was my position, Romain. Determining the internal temperature is probably the most reliable way of maximising the probability that any one particular piece of meat will be moist, but of course many other factors come into play, the most important being (to my mind) the provenance and subsequent treatment and preparation of the meat itself. However, I think it is fair to suggest that the average tandoori chef has neither the time, nor the need, to use an internal temperature probe