Sous vide chicken without an internal temperature of 165What temperature should I use for sous-vide chicken breasts?Can I sous-vide meat (at a temperature between 40ºF and 140ºF) for more than four hours?Dry sous vide steakHow to Sous Vide Filet Mignon to Medium RareHow to Sous Vide Chicken Wings?Sous Vide FrustrationsSous Vide chicken for reheatingIs it safe to cook large cuts of meat sous vide?Safety: Keeping sous-vide cooked chicken in vacuum
Do living authors still get paid royalties for their old work?
Writing/buying Seforim rather than Sefer Torah
Stuffing in the middle
Are required indicators necessary for radio buttons?
What animal has fat with the highest energy density?
How can I describe being temporarily stupid?
Starships without computers?
What is the evidence on the danger of feeding whole blueberries and grapes to infants and toddlers?
How did Apollo 15's depressurization work?
Chord with lyrics - What does it mean if there is an empty space instead of a Chord?
How big would a Daddy Longlegs Spider need to be to kill an average Human?
Does C++20 mandate source code being stored in files?
How do slats reduce stall speed?
Why didn’t Doctor Strange stay in the original winning timeline?
Why should someone be willing to write a strong recommendation even if that means losing a undergraduate from their lab?
What can I do to keep a threaded bolt from falling out of it’s slot
Unsolved Problems (Not Independent of ZFC) due to Lack of Computational Power
How to think about joining a company whose business I do not understand?
Maximum number of pairwise linearly independent vectors
Use of vor in this sentence
I think my coworker went through my notebook and took my project ideas
Why don't sharp and flat root note chords seem to be present in much guitar music?
In xXx, is Xander Cage's 10th vehicle a specific reference to another franchise?
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) - but how do I find the meaningful error messages in APT's output?
Sous vide chicken without an internal temperature of 165
What temperature should I use for sous-vide chicken breasts?Can I sous-vide meat (at a temperature between 40ºF and 140ºF) for more than four hours?Dry sous vide steakHow to Sous Vide Filet Mignon to Medium RareHow to Sous Vide Chicken Wings?Sous Vide FrustrationsSous Vide chicken for reheatingIs it safe to cook large cuts of meat sous vide?Safety: Keeping sous-vide cooked chicken in vacuum
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I am new to sous vide food. I am cooking a chicken breast. I have read that chicken requires an internal temperature of 165 Fahrenheit. However the recipe only requires a temperature of 150F.
https://recipes.anovaculinary.com/recipe/chicken-breast
How does this not cause food poisoning?
We checked the internal temperature after an hour and it was only 130F. Is this safe to eat?
chicken sous-vide
add a comment |
I am new to sous vide food. I am cooking a chicken breast. I have read that chicken requires an internal temperature of 165 Fahrenheit. However the recipe only requires a temperature of 150F.
https://recipes.anovaculinary.com/recipe/chicken-breast
How does this not cause food poisoning?
We checked the internal temperature after an hour and it was only 130F. Is this safe to eat?
chicken sous-vide
add a comment |
I am new to sous vide food. I am cooking a chicken breast. I have read that chicken requires an internal temperature of 165 Fahrenheit. However the recipe only requires a temperature of 150F.
https://recipes.anovaculinary.com/recipe/chicken-breast
How does this not cause food poisoning?
We checked the internal temperature after an hour and it was only 130F. Is this safe to eat?
chicken sous-vide
I am new to sous vide food. I am cooking a chicken breast. I have read that chicken requires an internal temperature of 165 Fahrenheit. However the recipe only requires a temperature of 150F.
https://recipes.anovaculinary.com/recipe/chicken-breast
How does this not cause food poisoning?
We checked the internal temperature after an hour and it was only 130F. Is this safe to eat?
chicken sous-vide
chicken sous-vide
edited 2 hours ago
Mike
1601 gold badge1 silver badge8 bronze badges
1601 gold badge1 silver badge8 bronze badges
asked 23 hours ago
marshmarsh
2021 silver badge10 bronze badges
2021 silver badge10 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The reduction of bacterial growth, and thus food safety, follow a logarithmic pattern that factors in temperature plus time. During sous vide cooking, lower temperature are frequently used for longer times. Employed correctly, this renders food safe. For an excellent explanation see the work of Douglas Baldwin.
1
Specifically in this case Table 4.1 for poultry pasteurization douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Table_4.1
– Luciano
10 hours ago
1
J Kenji Lopez-Alt's explanation is perhaps somewhat more approachable: seriouseats.com/2015/07/…
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
However, this answer doesn't answer the ultimate question of whether that chicken is safe to eat. If it was only at 130F after an hour, it is not safe to eat. It should be cooked at least another hour until it reaches 150 and sits there for 3 minutes.
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
@AlexReinking while you are correct that after an hour, chicken at 130F is not safe (according to the linked charts), your conclusion is not necessarily required. I realize you are basing your answer on the OP, but just for informational purposes... Firstly, the thickness of the chicken breast has to be taken into account, so it is impossible to judge the time without that information. Also, according to Baldwin, it could be made safe as low as 134.5F, as long as it was held there long enough.
– moscafj
4 hours ago
1
@moscafj - Reading your chart, at 134.5F and 5mm thickness, it takes two hours and 15 minutes to be safe and goes up with thickness from there. OP stated that they checked the temperature after one hour of cooking (less than half the time) and it was below that.
– Alex Reinking
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The link says for "soft" chicken you should let it go to 140F for 1.5 to 4 hours.
You checked at 1 hour and it was below that (130F) ... so you need to cook it some more.
This link gives the same temperature for chicken and explain why the lower temperature is acceptable when cooking for longer time
Edit: Good link for the temperature safety thing.
Where does it explain the lower tempature is ok? I see lower tempatures listed with the same cook times. But I don't understand how cooking at lower then 165 would ever result in an internal tempature higher. I don't see anything explaining why a lower tempature is ok. Just articles saying do it.
– marsh
22 hours ago
oops! I edited my post for the proper link.
– Max
11 hours ago
@marsh 165 isn't "safe" so much as "idiot-proof," in that it almost instantly kills the desired quantity and types of bacteria. The bacteria can also be killed to the same degree at lower temperatures, but it takes significantly longer. That process is called "Pasteurization," which you may recognize from milk—it's exactly the same process that makes your milk safe to drink for so long.
– Kevin
55 mins ago
add a comment |
The other answers are correct regarding why that temperature is okay for sous vide, but I just want to clarify why it's not good enough when using other cooking methods.
As moscafj suggested, you need the meat to spend a certain amount of time at any particular temperature to actually kill off enough pathogens, and this is where sous vide acts quite differently from most other cooking methods.
The key difference is that sous vide never exposes any part of the meat to higher temperatures than the target temperature, so you get a lot of time right near that temperature; whereas more traditional methods typically involve exposing the meat to far higher temperatures, so the meat will be shooting right past that minimum safe temperature in a short amount of time. For example, when cooking on the grill, it might be exposed to air that's 450°F or more, so if you measure the meat at 165°F, it might have only been at a safe temperature for a minute or two — which is just enough time to kill those pathogens. (Also note the carryover effect.) If you had pulled it off the grill at 150°F, it would only have just entered the safe region, so few of the pathogens would be killed before you start cooling it again. On the other hand, you can't leave it on the grill for much longer, because it will quickly attain the texture of cardboard. Sous vide will never pass the target temperature, though the texture will degrade if you wait a really long time.
All that being said, sous vide does take a bit longer to get the meat up to the target temperature in the first place — and the colder or thicker your piece of meat when you put it in, the longer it takes. Even if your water temperature reached 150°F a minute after you put the chicken in, the meat itself will be far below that temperature for quite a while. So no, chicken that's at 130°F is still coming to temperature, and you have to cook it for longer because it needs to actually spend time at your target temperature. It may only need around 6 minutes at 150°F, but it needs to get there first.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "49"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcooking.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f100806%2fsous-vide-chicken-without-an-internal-temperature-of-165%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The reduction of bacterial growth, and thus food safety, follow a logarithmic pattern that factors in temperature plus time. During sous vide cooking, lower temperature are frequently used for longer times. Employed correctly, this renders food safe. For an excellent explanation see the work of Douglas Baldwin.
1
Specifically in this case Table 4.1 for poultry pasteurization douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Table_4.1
– Luciano
10 hours ago
1
J Kenji Lopez-Alt's explanation is perhaps somewhat more approachable: seriouseats.com/2015/07/…
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
However, this answer doesn't answer the ultimate question of whether that chicken is safe to eat. If it was only at 130F after an hour, it is not safe to eat. It should be cooked at least another hour until it reaches 150 and sits there for 3 minutes.
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
@AlexReinking while you are correct that after an hour, chicken at 130F is not safe (according to the linked charts), your conclusion is not necessarily required. I realize you are basing your answer on the OP, but just for informational purposes... Firstly, the thickness of the chicken breast has to be taken into account, so it is impossible to judge the time without that information. Also, according to Baldwin, it could be made safe as low as 134.5F, as long as it was held there long enough.
– moscafj
4 hours ago
1
@moscafj - Reading your chart, at 134.5F and 5mm thickness, it takes two hours and 15 minutes to be safe and goes up with thickness from there. OP stated that they checked the temperature after one hour of cooking (less than half the time) and it was below that.
– Alex Reinking
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The reduction of bacterial growth, and thus food safety, follow a logarithmic pattern that factors in temperature plus time. During sous vide cooking, lower temperature are frequently used for longer times. Employed correctly, this renders food safe. For an excellent explanation see the work of Douglas Baldwin.
1
Specifically in this case Table 4.1 for poultry pasteurization douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Table_4.1
– Luciano
10 hours ago
1
J Kenji Lopez-Alt's explanation is perhaps somewhat more approachable: seriouseats.com/2015/07/…
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
However, this answer doesn't answer the ultimate question of whether that chicken is safe to eat. If it was only at 130F after an hour, it is not safe to eat. It should be cooked at least another hour until it reaches 150 and sits there for 3 minutes.
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
@AlexReinking while you are correct that after an hour, chicken at 130F is not safe (according to the linked charts), your conclusion is not necessarily required. I realize you are basing your answer on the OP, but just for informational purposes... Firstly, the thickness of the chicken breast has to be taken into account, so it is impossible to judge the time without that information. Also, according to Baldwin, it could be made safe as low as 134.5F, as long as it was held there long enough.
– moscafj
4 hours ago
1
@moscafj - Reading your chart, at 134.5F and 5mm thickness, it takes two hours and 15 minutes to be safe and goes up with thickness from there. OP stated that they checked the temperature after one hour of cooking (less than half the time) and it was below that.
– Alex Reinking
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The reduction of bacterial growth, and thus food safety, follow a logarithmic pattern that factors in temperature plus time. During sous vide cooking, lower temperature are frequently used for longer times. Employed correctly, this renders food safe. For an excellent explanation see the work of Douglas Baldwin.
The reduction of bacterial growth, and thus food safety, follow a logarithmic pattern that factors in temperature plus time. During sous vide cooking, lower temperature are frequently used for longer times. Employed correctly, this renders food safe. For an excellent explanation see the work of Douglas Baldwin.
answered 22 hours ago
moscafjmoscafj
33.1k1 gold badge51 silver badges96 bronze badges
33.1k1 gold badge51 silver badges96 bronze badges
1
Specifically in this case Table 4.1 for poultry pasteurization douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Table_4.1
– Luciano
10 hours ago
1
J Kenji Lopez-Alt's explanation is perhaps somewhat more approachable: seriouseats.com/2015/07/…
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
However, this answer doesn't answer the ultimate question of whether that chicken is safe to eat. If it was only at 130F after an hour, it is not safe to eat. It should be cooked at least another hour until it reaches 150 and sits there for 3 minutes.
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
@AlexReinking while you are correct that after an hour, chicken at 130F is not safe (according to the linked charts), your conclusion is not necessarily required. I realize you are basing your answer on the OP, but just for informational purposes... Firstly, the thickness of the chicken breast has to be taken into account, so it is impossible to judge the time without that information. Also, according to Baldwin, it could be made safe as low as 134.5F, as long as it was held there long enough.
– moscafj
4 hours ago
1
@moscafj - Reading your chart, at 134.5F and 5mm thickness, it takes two hours and 15 minutes to be safe and goes up with thickness from there. OP stated that they checked the temperature after one hour of cooking (less than half the time) and it was below that.
– Alex Reinking
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Specifically in this case Table 4.1 for poultry pasteurization douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Table_4.1
– Luciano
10 hours ago
1
J Kenji Lopez-Alt's explanation is perhaps somewhat more approachable: seriouseats.com/2015/07/…
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
However, this answer doesn't answer the ultimate question of whether that chicken is safe to eat. If it was only at 130F after an hour, it is not safe to eat. It should be cooked at least another hour until it reaches 150 and sits there for 3 minutes.
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
@AlexReinking while you are correct that after an hour, chicken at 130F is not safe (according to the linked charts), your conclusion is not necessarily required. I realize you are basing your answer on the OP, but just for informational purposes... Firstly, the thickness of the chicken breast has to be taken into account, so it is impossible to judge the time without that information. Also, according to Baldwin, it could be made safe as low as 134.5F, as long as it was held there long enough.
– moscafj
4 hours ago
1
@moscafj - Reading your chart, at 134.5F and 5mm thickness, it takes two hours and 15 minutes to be safe and goes up with thickness from there. OP stated that they checked the temperature after one hour of cooking (less than half the time) and it was below that.
– Alex Reinking
3 hours ago
1
1
Specifically in this case Table 4.1 for poultry pasteurization douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Table_4.1
– Luciano
10 hours ago
Specifically in this case Table 4.1 for poultry pasteurization douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Table_4.1
– Luciano
10 hours ago
1
1
J Kenji Lopez-Alt's explanation is perhaps somewhat more approachable: seriouseats.com/2015/07/…
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
J Kenji Lopez-Alt's explanation is perhaps somewhat more approachable: seriouseats.com/2015/07/…
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
1
However, this answer doesn't answer the ultimate question of whether that chicken is safe to eat. If it was only at 130F after an hour, it is not safe to eat. It should be cooked at least another hour until it reaches 150 and sits there for 3 minutes.
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
However, this answer doesn't answer the ultimate question of whether that chicken is safe to eat. If it was only at 130F after an hour, it is not safe to eat. It should be cooked at least another hour until it reaches 150 and sits there for 3 minutes.
– Alex Reinking
4 hours ago
1
1
@AlexReinking while you are correct that after an hour, chicken at 130F is not safe (according to the linked charts), your conclusion is not necessarily required. I realize you are basing your answer on the OP, but just for informational purposes... Firstly, the thickness of the chicken breast has to be taken into account, so it is impossible to judge the time without that information. Also, according to Baldwin, it could be made safe as low as 134.5F, as long as it was held there long enough.
– moscafj
4 hours ago
@AlexReinking while you are correct that after an hour, chicken at 130F is not safe (according to the linked charts), your conclusion is not necessarily required. I realize you are basing your answer on the OP, but just for informational purposes... Firstly, the thickness of the chicken breast has to be taken into account, so it is impossible to judge the time without that information. Also, according to Baldwin, it could be made safe as low as 134.5F, as long as it was held there long enough.
– moscafj
4 hours ago
1
1
@moscafj - Reading your chart, at 134.5F and 5mm thickness, it takes two hours and 15 minutes to be safe and goes up with thickness from there. OP stated that they checked the temperature after one hour of cooking (less than half the time) and it was below that.
– Alex Reinking
3 hours ago
@moscafj - Reading your chart, at 134.5F and 5mm thickness, it takes two hours and 15 minutes to be safe and goes up with thickness from there. OP stated that they checked the temperature after one hour of cooking (less than half the time) and it was below that.
– Alex Reinking
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The link says for "soft" chicken you should let it go to 140F for 1.5 to 4 hours.
You checked at 1 hour and it was below that (130F) ... so you need to cook it some more.
This link gives the same temperature for chicken and explain why the lower temperature is acceptable when cooking for longer time
Edit: Good link for the temperature safety thing.
Where does it explain the lower tempature is ok? I see lower tempatures listed with the same cook times. But I don't understand how cooking at lower then 165 would ever result in an internal tempature higher. I don't see anything explaining why a lower tempature is ok. Just articles saying do it.
– marsh
22 hours ago
oops! I edited my post for the proper link.
– Max
11 hours ago
@marsh 165 isn't "safe" so much as "idiot-proof," in that it almost instantly kills the desired quantity and types of bacteria. The bacteria can also be killed to the same degree at lower temperatures, but it takes significantly longer. That process is called "Pasteurization," which you may recognize from milk—it's exactly the same process that makes your milk safe to drink for so long.
– Kevin
55 mins ago
add a comment |
The link says for "soft" chicken you should let it go to 140F for 1.5 to 4 hours.
You checked at 1 hour and it was below that (130F) ... so you need to cook it some more.
This link gives the same temperature for chicken and explain why the lower temperature is acceptable when cooking for longer time
Edit: Good link for the temperature safety thing.
Where does it explain the lower tempature is ok? I see lower tempatures listed with the same cook times. But I don't understand how cooking at lower then 165 would ever result in an internal tempature higher. I don't see anything explaining why a lower tempature is ok. Just articles saying do it.
– marsh
22 hours ago
oops! I edited my post for the proper link.
– Max
11 hours ago
@marsh 165 isn't "safe" so much as "idiot-proof," in that it almost instantly kills the desired quantity and types of bacteria. The bacteria can also be killed to the same degree at lower temperatures, but it takes significantly longer. That process is called "Pasteurization," which you may recognize from milk—it's exactly the same process that makes your milk safe to drink for so long.
– Kevin
55 mins ago
add a comment |
The link says for "soft" chicken you should let it go to 140F for 1.5 to 4 hours.
You checked at 1 hour and it was below that (130F) ... so you need to cook it some more.
This link gives the same temperature for chicken and explain why the lower temperature is acceptable when cooking for longer time
Edit: Good link for the temperature safety thing.
The link says for "soft" chicken you should let it go to 140F for 1.5 to 4 hours.
You checked at 1 hour and it was below that (130F) ... so you need to cook it some more.
This link gives the same temperature for chicken and explain why the lower temperature is acceptable when cooking for longer time
Edit: Good link for the temperature safety thing.
edited 11 hours ago
answered 23 hours ago
MaxMax
11.3k1 gold badge19 silver badges27 bronze badges
11.3k1 gold badge19 silver badges27 bronze badges
Where does it explain the lower tempature is ok? I see lower tempatures listed with the same cook times. But I don't understand how cooking at lower then 165 would ever result in an internal tempature higher. I don't see anything explaining why a lower tempature is ok. Just articles saying do it.
– marsh
22 hours ago
oops! I edited my post for the proper link.
– Max
11 hours ago
@marsh 165 isn't "safe" so much as "idiot-proof," in that it almost instantly kills the desired quantity and types of bacteria. The bacteria can also be killed to the same degree at lower temperatures, but it takes significantly longer. That process is called "Pasteurization," which you may recognize from milk—it's exactly the same process that makes your milk safe to drink for so long.
– Kevin
55 mins ago
add a comment |
Where does it explain the lower tempature is ok? I see lower tempatures listed with the same cook times. But I don't understand how cooking at lower then 165 would ever result in an internal tempature higher. I don't see anything explaining why a lower tempature is ok. Just articles saying do it.
– marsh
22 hours ago
oops! I edited my post for the proper link.
– Max
11 hours ago
@marsh 165 isn't "safe" so much as "idiot-proof," in that it almost instantly kills the desired quantity and types of bacteria. The bacteria can also be killed to the same degree at lower temperatures, but it takes significantly longer. That process is called "Pasteurization," which you may recognize from milk—it's exactly the same process that makes your milk safe to drink for so long.
– Kevin
55 mins ago
Where does it explain the lower tempature is ok? I see lower tempatures listed with the same cook times. But I don't understand how cooking at lower then 165 would ever result in an internal tempature higher. I don't see anything explaining why a lower tempature is ok. Just articles saying do it.
– marsh
22 hours ago
Where does it explain the lower tempature is ok? I see lower tempatures listed with the same cook times. But I don't understand how cooking at lower then 165 would ever result in an internal tempature higher. I don't see anything explaining why a lower tempature is ok. Just articles saying do it.
– marsh
22 hours ago
oops! I edited my post for the proper link.
– Max
11 hours ago
oops! I edited my post for the proper link.
– Max
11 hours ago
@marsh 165 isn't "safe" so much as "idiot-proof," in that it almost instantly kills the desired quantity and types of bacteria. The bacteria can also be killed to the same degree at lower temperatures, but it takes significantly longer. That process is called "Pasteurization," which you may recognize from milk—it's exactly the same process that makes your milk safe to drink for so long.
– Kevin
55 mins ago
@marsh 165 isn't "safe" so much as "idiot-proof," in that it almost instantly kills the desired quantity and types of bacteria. The bacteria can also be killed to the same degree at lower temperatures, but it takes significantly longer. That process is called "Pasteurization," which you may recognize from milk—it's exactly the same process that makes your milk safe to drink for so long.
– Kevin
55 mins ago
add a comment |
The other answers are correct regarding why that temperature is okay for sous vide, but I just want to clarify why it's not good enough when using other cooking methods.
As moscafj suggested, you need the meat to spend a certain amount of time at any particular temperature to actually kill off enough pathogens, and this is where sous vide acts quite differently from most other cooking methods.
The key difference is that sous vide never exposes any part of the meat to higher temperatures than the target temperature, so you get a lot of time right near that temperature; whereas more traditional methods typically involve exposing the meat to far higher temperatures, so the meat will be shooting right past that minimum safe temperature in a short amount of time. For example, when cooking on the grill, it might be exposed to air that's 450°F or more, so if you measure the meat at 165°F, it might have only been at a safe temperature for a minute or two — which is just enough time to kill those pathogens. (Also note the carryover effect.) If you had pulled it off the grill at 150°F, it would only have just entered the safe region, so few of the pathogens would be killed before you start cooling it again. On the other hand, you can't leave it on the grill for much longer, because it will quickly attain the texture of cardboard. Sous vide will never pass the target temperature, though the texture will degrade if you wait a really long time.
All that being said, sous vide does take a bit longer to get the meat up to the target temperature in the first place — and the colder or thicker your piece of meat when you put it in, the longer it takes. Even if your water temperature reached 150°F a minute after you put the chicken in, the meat itself will be far below that temperature for quite a while. So no, chicken that's at 130°F is still coming to temperature, and you have to cook it for longer because it needs to actually spend time at your target temperature. It may only need around 6 minutes at 150°F, but it needs to get there first.
add a comment |
The other answers are correct regarding why that temperature is okay for sous vide, but I just want to clarify why it's not good enough when using other cooking methods.
As moscafj suggested, you need the meat to spend a certain amount of time at any particular temperature to actually kill off enough pathogens, and this is where sous vide acts quite differently from most other cooking methods.
The key difference is that sous vide never exposes any part of the meat to higher temperatures than the target temperature, so you get a lot of time right near that temperature; whereas more traditional methods typically involve exposing the meat to far higher temperatures, so the meat will be shooting right past that minimum safe temperature in a short amount of time. For example, when cooking on the grill, it might be exposed to air that's 450°F or more, so if you measure the meat at 165°F, it might have only been at a safe temperature for a minute or two — which is just enough time to kill those pathogens. (Also note the carryover effect.) If you had pulled it off the grill at 150°F, it would only have just entered the safe region, so few of the pathogens would be killed before you start cooling it again. On the other hand, you can't leave it on the grill for much longer, because it will quickly attain the texture of cardboard. Sous vide will never pass the target temperature, though the texture will degrade if you wait a really long time.
All that being said, sous vide does take a bit longer to get the meat up to the target temperature in the first place — and the colder or thicker your piece of meat when you put it in, the longer it takes. Even if your water temperature reached 150°F a minute after you put the chicken in, the meat itself will be far below that temperature for quite a while. So no, chicken that's at 130°F is still coming to temperature, and you have to cook it for longer because it needs to actually spend time at your target temperature. It may only need around 6 minutes at 150°F, but it needs to get there first.
add a comment |
The other answers are correct regarding why that temperature is okay for sous vide, but I just want to clarify why it's not good enough when using other cooking methods.
As moscafj suggested, you need the meat to spend a certain amount of time at any particular temperature to actually kill off enough pathogens, and this is where sous vide acts quite differently from most other cooking methods.
The key difference is that sous vide never exposes any part of the meat to higher temperatures than the target temperature, so you get a lot of time right near that temperature; whereas more traditional methods typically involve exposing the meat to far higher temperatures, so the meat will be shooting right past that minimum safe temperature in a short amount of time. For example, when cooking on the grill, it might be exposed to air that's 450°F or more, so if you measure the meat at 165°F, it might have only been at a safe temperature for a minute or two — which is just enough time to kill those pathogens. (Also note the carryover effect.) If you had pulled it off the grill at 150°F, it would only have just entered the safe region, so few of the pathogens would be killed before you start cooling it again. On the other hand, you can't leave it on the grill for much longer, because it will quickly attain the texture of cardboard. Sous vide will never pass the target temperature, though the texture will degrade if you wait a really long time.
All that being said, sous vide does take a bit longer to get the meat up to the target temperature in the first place — and the colder or thicker your piece of meat when you put it in, the longer it takes. Even if your water temperature reached 150°F a minute after you put the chicken in, the meat itself will be far below that temperature for quite a while. So no, chicken that's at 130°F is still coming to temperature, and you have to cook it for longer because it needs to actually spend time at your target temperature. It may only need around 6 minutes at 150°F, but it needs to get there first.
The other answers are correct regarding why that temperature is okay for sous vide, but I just want to clarify why it's not good enough when using other cooking methods.
As moscafj suggested, you need the meat to spend a certain amount of time at any particular temperature to actually kill off enough pathogens, and this is where sous vide acts quite differently from most other cooking methods.
The key difference is that sous vide never exposes any part of the meat to higher temperatures than the target temperature, so you get a lot of time right near that temperature; whereas more traditional methods typically involve exposing the meat to far higher temperatures, so the meat will be shooting right past that minimum safe temperature in a short amount of time. For example, when cooking on the grill, it might be exposed to air that's 450°F or more, so if you measure the meat at 165°F, it might have only been at a safe temperature for a minute or two — which is just enough time to kill those pathogens. (Also note the carryover effect.) If you had pulled it off the grill at 150°F, it would only have just entered the safe region, so few of the pathogens would be killed before you start cooling it again. On the other hand, you can't leave it on the grill for much longer, because it will quickly attain the texture of cardboard. Sous vide will never pass the target temperature, though the texture will degrade if you wait a really long time.
All that being said, sous vide does take a bit longer to get the meat up to the target temperature in the first place — and the colder or thicker your piece of meat when you put it in, the longer it takes. Even if your water temperature reached 150°F a minute after you put the chicken in, the meat itself will be far below that temperature for quite a while. So no, chicken that's at 130°F is still coming to temperature, and you have to cook it for longer because it needs to actually spend time at your target temperature. It may only need around 6 minutes at 150°F, but it needs to get there first.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
MikeMike
1601 gold badge1 silver badge8 bronze badges
1601 gold badge1 silver badge8 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Seasoned Advice!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcooking.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f100806%2fsous-vide-chicken-without-an-internal-temperature-of-165%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown