J is correct.
To expand a bit further, Tim:
Kevin- While I don't disagree with you (you obviously know much more about all this than I do), I still have a very difficult time accepting your statement: "Internal temp doesn't have much to do with doneness"
Believe me, this is common. Internal temps are bandied about with such intensity in so many places and for so long, that acceptance of my statement is not the norm. (Alas, I forge on...
)
Not sure why, but it is so deeply ingrained in my mind. Chicken breasts are done at 165. Beef is done at 135. Etc. It seems like there has to be some official, unequivocal, data point to turn to to know if something is done.
Well, I was speaking of barbecue, particularly red meat barbecue, but this opens the door to a larger point.
Chicken breasts can be done at temps lower than 165 (much lower, actually - more about this shortly), and, though the same holds for the dark meat of chicken, it is often not so palatable at lower temps, but this depends on how long it was cooked (not the final temp - and more about this shortly).
If I was served a typical steak cooked to 135 internal I would send it back as overcooked.
In terms of barbecue, we usually think of 'done' as when the item in question is tender and moist. This, however, despite what one reads hither and yon, can occur at a variety of temps. And this is precisely what I mean when I say that internal temp doesn't have much to do with doneness. It doesn't. The amount of time is the key, not the internal temp. One temp or another might correlate with 'done', i.e. tender and moist, but it does not
cause tender and moist - the time the item has cooked does, and this time is relative to the item, its size (especially its thickness), the overall cooktemp it cooked under.
I guess my question would be: what do we mean by "done"? Done as in safe to eat? Done meaning that it is most tender? Done in that it tastes the best?
To answer my own question, I am looking at safety when it comes to chicken. However, when it comes to beef, I'll admit that I'm being naive when looking for an official number to turn to for the DONE stamp of approval. As long as my beef isn't seeping blood, or ice cold in the center, I'm happy. So I really should be focused on tenderness (via probe) it seems.
Well, in terms of barbecue, yes you should.
Beef, btw, does not 'seep blood'. When slaughtering occurs blood is drained from the carcass. It is not blood one sees on one's plate. It is myoglobin - not the same thing.
This is not to say that internal temp always means nothing. If you know your cooker and know your meat, temp can certainly mean something. Many accomplished comp cooks work at this very thing (I had a discussion with Jim Minion about this years back): If one sets up the cooker the same way each time, fires it the same way each time, uses as best one can the same types of cuts (many comp cooks are quite specific about grades, sizes, etc.), quite often an internal temp (within a rather narrow range) can be use to indicate 'done'. However, this should not be confused with and does not mean that this temp caused done. It just correlated with it, based on the oft-repeated circumstances, items, and parameters employed.
People are very funny when it comes to chicken - as if it alone is something to be very concerned about. Though it is true that chicken can be (and often is) contaminated throughout the carcass, there are numerous other bacterially oriented problematic issues that occur with it - and every other cut of meat one might cook.
I suppose my summary would be: once you pass the "safety temp", temperature is only a very rough guide. You should pull the meat when it feels as tender as you would like it to be (easy to pull, etc).
Does that sound about right?
Well, yes. But safety temps are not carved in stone, as one might be led to believe reading umpteen hundred - thousands! - of posts, websites (including the FDA's), books, articles, food packaging labels and so forth. This is NOT the case. Specific temps - like chicken breast at 165 (ridiculous, imo - I never take them that high!), or pork at 160 - or whatever they're pushing these days - is neither the be-all, end-all, to safety, nor is accurate.
Pasteurization - the process of heating (cooking, perhaps) food items to the point where they are safe to consume, is a process of time. A given temperature - for a specific period of time, or longer - is when pasteurization occurs. Higher temps mean much shorter times. This is why specific, high temps are repeated so often: it's easy to do, conveniently dumbed down for the masses, easy to repeat - over and over again, ad nauseum.
This is possibly only confusing you further. Rather than go on any longer than I have - this is probably enough to digest in one sitting - let me point you to another post specifically on pasteurization. It is somewhat lengthy, but I think it is clear (I hope so anyway). It may help you understand more fully what I am saying. If you have any questions about anything above, post them in this thread. If you develop questions regarding the pasteurization thread, post them there.
It might take a couple read-throughs if you are unfamiliar with this sort of thing, but I think you'll get the difference between reality and the oft-repeated fairly readily. The post is
here.
