Dilemma - meat done too early


 
J

John VB

New member
Two butts (8 and 7 lb), and a huge brisket (16.5 lb), finished this morning, and I hadn't expected them to finish that quick. They're in a cooler now, but I doubt I can hold them until dinner time - do I pull/slice them up, put in pans, and hold in oven, or should I leave them intact in the foil, and pull later? Will there be any negative effects from storing in foil for what could be up to 10 hours?

Any help is appreciated!

Thanks

John
 
I'd pull/slice and put in a pan and put in the fridge. To reheat I'd add some apple juice (my preference), or lightly sauce, cover the pan tightly and put it in the oven to heat.
 
I'm with Steve--pull the pork, cool, fridge, reheat. The brisket I'd cool and reheat whole were it me.

It's best to cool fairly quickly. The meats can come out now. Unwrap the brisket and stick on a rack in a roasting pan or on a sheet pan and stick on the counter for 30 min or so to begin cooling. (The rack allows for better air circulation.) Save any juices from the foil. After 30 min or so, stick the brisket (still in its rack/pan arrangement) in the fridge, loosely covered, and allow to cool completely.

Meanwhile, remove the pork and unwrap and allow to begin cooling. Pull them as usual, but put the pulled meat shallowly in pans so that it will cool more quickly (chilling the pans in the fridge or freezer ahead of time can help). When possible, put the pans into the fridge, loosely covered, leaving them till the meat is cold. At that point you can, if you wish, combine the meat into one pan for reheating later, and/or package whatever meat you'll not be serving for storage in the freezer.

For reheating, drizzle the brisket with a little of the saved juices, or with stock mixed with a little unsalted melted butter, or with juice, place a remote probe in the brisket, cover the pan tightly, and reheat (@ 300F) to an internal of 145-150. Rest 5 min; slice, serve.

For the pork you'll be serving for dinner, toss with a little juice, as Steve suggests, or a vin-juice combo, or a little sauce, and reheat, tightly covered (also @ 300F). Stir once, well, after about 20 min, and again 10 min or so thereafter, recovering the pan each time. Reheat till hot.
 
Kevin's response should be a sticky or in a FAQ somewhere. seems liike the same question comes up about once a week or so.

John
 
I think most definitely a lot of these doctrines need new mindsets attached. Per a couple of new releases:

From Carl Custer at FSIS:

The NACMCF paper you referenced was part of an attempt to revise the 140°F minimum holding temperature to a more scientifically-based one (E.g. FSIS had 130°F as the minimum cooking temperature since 1977 and it's Cooling Directive issued ~1987 had 130°F as the starting point -- these were based on the upper reaches of Cl. perfingens multiplication.) FWIW, in the CFP committee, there was serious political opposition from several States to keep the 140°F temperature. A compromise of 135°F was eventually reached.

And--from the current FDA Food Code:

Time – maximum up to 4 hours
(B) If time only, rather than time in conjunction with temperature control, up to a maximum of 4 hours, is used as the public health
control:
(1) The FOOD shall have an initial temperature of 5ºC (41ºF) or less if removed from cold holding temperature control, or 57°C (135°F) or greater if removed from hot holding temperature control;
 
True, true. Qutie right, Jane. Carl was on the team at FSIS that originally proposed the 130 upper limit for the danger zone many years ago, in the 70s IIRC. (Carl just retired btw, a month or two ago.)

Politics shouldn't--but does--play in and with safety protocols. Several states freaked when the science-based 130F was proposed. So they compromised at 135--as noted in the Food Code quote you posted. It's been 135 politically and by statute for years (though every food safety professional I am in contact with uses 130).

The various Fed websites continue to tout 140 as the number and it is felt by those I am in contact with (and I quite agree) that this is because the various authorities assume consumers too ignorant of proper thermometer use to post the actual number. As I said in a post elsewhere, "The USDA [FDA, ServSafe, etc.] has always set their recommended temps well above the actual safety level and this is widely known. It took them more than 30 years to lower their pork temps to something closer to reasonable from the 180 they always touted (they are still too high). They have always made the assumption that some consumers might use an inaccurate thermometer and it is with that criterion they set their temps. It is the CYA (and then some) approach to food safety. They have never done much to educate the public properly, apparently preferring to assume the public can't be trusted with correct information. They continue not to recognize rare as an option for beef [steak] rather than educate the public about the (vanishingly small) possibility of a problem, and what conditions and circumstances would need to be present for that very slight possibility to become more likely.

I would not tell someone not to follow the USDA guidelines if they so choose [although I'll reiterate; 135 has been in the Food Code for some time]. I tell people what I do. I follow the same science that the USDA does. I do not, however, pad my numbers under the assumption that the person(s) asking me are stupid."

I understand the rationale at play here. But it does no good to 'distill' the numbers inaccurately to the public because ignorance is assumed if they are not then going to stress the importance of thermometer use and other key issues--and I mean really stress them, soup-to-nuts: the importance of temping; the need to monitor the part of the item being temped in the spot most likely to cool (or heat up) first--usually the surface (during resting and hot- or cold-holding); the importance of rapid cooling--and of not cooling in bulk; the uselessness of bimetal analog therms for temping thin items like burgers and chicken breast; the whys and wherefores of cross-contamination--the list goes on and on.

Fine if they want to 'err on the side of caution' with their erroneous numbers. I have no problem with anyone wanting to use a higher figure to be on the safe side. But to neglect highlighting the other (equally or more important) information is a dereliction, imo. Consumers (who they apparently think unable in the first place) are going to dig through their cluttered websites? Where are the Public Service Announcements on TV? Why haven't they funded curricula to be included in the science programs of elementary and secondary school kids? Why is the 'information' bandied about the various food websites and blogs still based on assumption, conjecture and myth? Why is the safety info I and others post on this board and elsewhere not household information by now? It's 2007!
 
Probably the biggest oversight is the quick cool down topic. FSIS overlooks this completely on their website, but their website also has incorrect information on it. Stirring foods every 5-10 minutes, laying food out on a large sheet pan, using an oscillating fan, and food grade safe plastic containers frozen are three ways to effectively get your hot foods down to a reasonable temperature for chilling in the fridge. I used to put foods in the freezer for client's all the time, stirring four or five times in a half hour period.

I also agree that the external part of the foods need to be monitored as they cool quicker and faster than the internal areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top