or Connect
ChefTalk.com › ChefTalk Cooking Forums › Cooking Discussions › Food & Cooking › "Medium rare" birds.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Medium rare" birds. - Page 2

post #31 of 54
Respects his ingredients...

Yes.  Not the only right choice, but certainly one of them.  A respectable choice, if you will.

 

BDL

post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornelius View Post

 

hana-oto-8.jpg


'swhat I was talkin' about.talker.gif

 



The picture that accompanied your comment.

 

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #33 of 54
Respects his ingredients...
 
That's fine. But he can respect them on his own dime, not on mine.

 

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #34 of 54

Brilliant. I completely agree. I am however, a capitalist, moreso than a chef/cook with an attitude/ego. Oh yeah, I have attitudes and a serious ego, but never do I let them get in the way of earning.  

 

I'm still not at all getting the point/attraction of eating raw chicken. 

post #35 of 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer View Post

What happened to the customers pays for and gets what they want?

 

Ya beat me to it, ChefRoss. Trust me, if I was told I couldn't have it prepared the way I wanted it because it upset the chef's sensibility there would be a scene. Just who do those arrogant SOBs think they are?

 

There's got to be a line between being an arrogant SOB and becoming a slave to any of your clients' whims. In Koukouvagia's example, I agree with the Chef.

 

In France, a rich tourist once went into a restaurant, ordered the most expensive bottle of red wine for €5,000, a glass of coke, and proceeded to mix the coke with the wine in his glass. The Chef came out of the kitchen and personally asked the client to leave his establishment on the spot. I thought what the Chef did was very respectable, and I can only hope that had I been in his shoes, I would have had the courage to do the same. 

 


Edited by French Fries - 11/26/11 at 2:03pm
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceMan View Post

I'm still not at all getting the point/attraction of eating raw chicken. 


Do you get the point/attraction of eating raw fish? Do you realize all of that is just cultural? What I mean is, if you were born in a culture where they served raw chicken, you'd most probably enjoy it without giving it a second thought. And if you were born a few decades earlier you'd probably have written that same comment about fish. 

 

 

post #37 of 54

OK. So I'm not all that hip on a lot of cultural things. I personally don't enjoy raw meats. I've had most all raw meats as dishes, and I don't much care for them. I do enjoy rare steaks, as long as they are of highest quality, and heated through. As an example, I've got very little use for a low-grade rib-eye cooked rare that is tough. I don't want rare and tough prime rib. I do not enjoy rare and cool or cold fillet. I've had the highest grades of sushi and tuna, Those don't do much for me either. Is that a problem with my "culture"? NO, maybe it's that I just don't like it. Maybe other people want, for whatever reason, cooked meat too. Unless there's something wrong with you, or you are independently wealthy, I think you should give paying people what they ask for. At least I do. I'm funny like that. 

post #38 of 54

IceMan, your tastes and your culture are yours, and there's no problem with them. You and you alone decide what you like or don't like to eat. However, if you know you don't like eating raw fish, and you know the highest grades of fish don't do much for you, then you're not going to go out to a fancy sushi restaurant, order sashimi grade fish and ask the Chef to cook it all the way through, are you? That's all I'm saying. If you ask a Chef to do something that goes against his beliefs, his ethics, his vision, his art, don't be surprised or offended when he refuses to do it. 

 

post #39 of 54

LOL. OK. Ethics? Think whatever makes you happy my friend. It's all good. This stuff just cracks me up though. We're talking "food on a plate" here. We're talking people paying from $9.99 to $300 a seat. For me and my opinion, I don't care if it's the $1.99 "Blue-Plate-Special" at a greasy spoon, people should get whatever they want, however they want it, because it's their $1.99, and restaurants are in business to provide that for them. Chef egos should be checked at the service door. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by French Fries View Post... If you ask a Chef to do something that goes against his beliefs, his ethics, his vision, his art, don't be surprised or offended when he refuses to do it. 

Great TV on tonight, the chi.gif won, I had a nice evening w/ Mrs.Icicle, and this thread. It's AG all the way. 

 

post #40 of 54

Gotta question for you, French Fries.

 

Posit this: You're hosting a backyard cookout for friends and family. Because the Lotto just came in, it's steak all the way; ribeyes on the grill. As it turns out, your cousin Joe, neice Mary, and her boyfriend Maurice all like their steaks well done.

 

Here's the question: Do you invite them to go join a different party? Cause that's what you're implying. That because you're the one doing the cooking you have the right to determine how your guests will eat their food. And they're not even paying for it.

 

 If you ask a Chef to do something that goes against his beliefs, his ethics, his vision, his art,

 

Is that how we justify being a prima donna nowadays?

 

For cripes sake, we're talking about a hunk of fish that a customer wants cooked in a manner she feels makes it edible. Accomplishing that might involve a little vision and art. Barely searing the outside and leaving the inside raw entails neither---unless you consider slavishly following food fashion as visionary and artistic.

 

A cook's job is to make other people happy with food. A professional cook's job is to do that for money. That's the whole job. And you don't accomplish that by imposing your taste on on the people paying the bills.

 

And, if it isn't obvious, I totally disagree with both you and the French chef about that wine. I don't care if it's a E5,000 Cote d' Rhone, or a US$2.99 bargain bin bottle, once I pay for it it's mine, and I can do anything I want with it.

 

And if you were born a few decades earlier you'd probably have written that same comment about fish. 

 

This is probably the most cogent thing you've said in this discussion. But it more proves my point than your own.

 

Eating raw fish certainly is a cultural thing in Japan. In the United States it isn't; rather it reflects a change in food fashion. Twenty years ago we called raw fish "bait." Ten or a dozen years ago we started to serve tuna seared & raw. Tomorrow it will be who knows? Where are the ethics, beliefs, vision, and art in any of that? Indeed, seared & raw tuna is mundane and commonplace, because it's the way everybody serves it (except those who insist the only "right" way is as tartare). But that doesn't make it right, or best. It merely reflects fashion.  

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #41 of 54

I cook my chicken definitely to well done but the gamey birds out there are always better less cooked.

post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer View Post

Gotta question for you, French Fries.

 

Posit this: You're hosting a backyard cookout for friends and family. Because the Lotto just came in, it's steak all the way; ribeyes on the grill. As it turns out, your cousin Joe, neice Mary, and her boyfriend Maurice all like their steaks well done.

 

Here's the question: Do you invite them to go join a different party? Cause that's what you're implying. That because you're the one doing the cooking you have the right to determine how your guests will eat their food. And they're not even paying for it. I often have steak parties at my house and we cook the steaks to order.  Most greeks wouldn't dream of eating meat unless it's burnt and stringy.  I can recall many times walking into a restaurant and being told that they don't serve or have what I'm asking for.  At a high-end restaurant where they have a reputation on the line they are well within their rights to serve the food as they see fit. 

 

 If you ask a Chef to do something that goes against his beliefs, his ethics, his vision, his art,

 

Is that how we justify being a prima donna nowadays? Would you walk into a museum and demand to see a painting that is not on display?  No because the curator has set up the exhibits as he sees fit. 

 

For cripes sake, we're talking about a hunk of fish that a customer wants cooked in a manner she feels makes it edible. Accomplishing that might involve a little vision and art. Barely searing the outside and leaving the inside raw entails neither---unless you consider slavishly following food fashion as visionary and artistic. I'll be honest, my request was half-hearted.  I very much wanted to eat the tuna as the chef wanted to prepare it however at the time I was pregnant and was not allowed to consume undercooked meat or fish.  For what it's worth I love seared tuna, the texture of the raw creamy flesh pairs well with the flavorful textured sear. If I didn't mind being refused why do you?

 

A cook's job is to make other people happy with food. A professional cook's job is to do that for money. That's the whole job. And you don't accomplish that by imposing your taste on on the people paying the bills. True, but perhaps the chef in question isn't worried about paying the bills. 

 

And, if it isn't obvious, I totally disagree with both you and the French chef about that wine. I don't care if it's a E5,000 Cote d' Rhone, or a US$2.99 bargain bin bottle, once I pay for it it's mine, and I can do anything I want with it. Yes I agree.  But you of all people should know a thing or 2 about putting effort into creating a good product.  When you go through the trouble of lovingly growing your own produce, slaughtering animals that you have cared for, or scouting the market for the freshest seafood then you might feel that the ingredient needs to be honored.  Essentially the chef owns the tuna that I wanted to order.  He refused to sell it to me because he either couldn't bring himself to cook it in a way that doesn't honor the fish's life or he didn't want to put his reputation on the line.  Either way I'm fine by it and I chose something else on the menu.

 

And if you were born a few decades earlier you'd probably have written that same comment about fish. 

 

This is probably the most cogent thing you've said in this discussion. But it more proves my point than your own.

 

Eating raw fish certainly is a cultural thing in Japan. In the United States it isn't; rather it reflects a change in food fashion. Twenty years ago we called raw fish "bait." Ten or a dozen years ago we started to serve tuna seared & raw. Tomorrow it will be who knows? Where are the ethics, beliefs, vision, and art in any of that? Indeed, seared & raw tuna is mundane and commonplace, because it's the way everybody serves it (except those who insist the only "right" way is as tartare). But that doesn't make it right, or best. It merely reflects fashion.  Fashion, trend, change of attitude, you can call it whatever you want.  But I don't think that the US is on a trend.  Instead I believe Americans to be the most open-minded society on the planet.  Nobody appreciates the flavors of other cultures the way the americans do.  Try visiting Greece for example, on my island of Krete that are 2 chinese restaurants spaced a 2hrs drive apart.  The only people that go into these restaurants are tourists.  The locals roll their eyes and say "what am I gonna eat in there, rice?  No thank you."  Forget about finding a sushi joint, or an indian restaurant, or even a burger.  Raw fish is delicious, it's not a fad.


redface.gif

 

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply
post #43 of 54

Speaking for myself only, my "Beliefs,Vision, Ethics, and "Art" are geared towards providing pleasure, nutrition, and hopefully, some joy to the people for whom I'm cooking. I respect ingredients, but I respect family and customers more.

 

As for raw fish, when it's been masterfully cut into whisper-thin slices so that it swiftly warms in the mouth and releases it's flavors...it's wonderful. A vulgar slab of fridge-turgid tuna with a token sear is not, to me, a respectful use of that particular ingredient.

"The satisfactions of making a good plate of food are surprisingly varied, and only one, and the least important of them, involves eating what you've made" - Bill Buford, Heat

Reply

"The satisfactions of making a good plate of food are surprisingly varied, and only one, and the least important of them, involves eating what you've made" - Bill Buford, Heat

Reply
post #44 of 54

Come on guys we're talking about Michael Psilakis, certainly not a chef who who serve a "vulgar slab of fridge-turgic tuna with a token sear."

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply
post #45 of 54

Just as it's the restaurant's prerogative to prepare food in whatever ways it sees fit, and not prepare food in ways it doesn't, it's your prerogative to eat elsewhere.  If you'd prefer to eat at Stuckey's rather than the French Laundry, that's certainly up to you.  I fail to see it as an issue unless you owe me dinner.

 

Similarly, "whatever happened to the 'customer is always right?'" is misplaced.  Your money never conferred the right to have anything and everything you wanted.  Don't act so entitled. 

 

Speaking for myself only, my "Beliefs,Vision, Ethics, and "Art" are geared towards providing pleasure, nutrition, and hopefully, some joy to the people for whom I'm cooking. I respect ingredients, but I respect family and customers more.

 

What saves this is the limitation, "for myself only," but barely.  You've expressed yourself in such a way as to imply criticism of someone who does things differently.  You're certainly entitled to prepare and present food in your way and to please whom you care to please.  Whether or not your way is my way, doesn't make it superior to another way.  To my mind, the customer is frequently wrong, and there are limits to how far I would go as a pro to please a customer or will go as a home cook to please a friend, or family member. 

 

My culinary "artistic" vision is fairly relaxed, but there are things I won't do and you can't make me.  That doesn't make me good, kind or wise; but neither does it make me bad, cruel and stupid.  I don't always write that way, but do believe that cooking at a certain level is an art form and the artists are entitled to express their respective visions as they see fit.  You're entitled to agree or disagree, but you're not entitled to overdone fish -- at least not from me. 

 

Speaking of fish:  Very, very few North Americans would know good, well-prepared sashimi or sushi if it hit them in the head.  For that matter, neither would far too many "sushi chefs."  Sometimes sashimi and fish for sushi are properly sliced "whisper thin," and sometimes they are not.  Usually, they are not.  SherBel doesn't like tataki, a perfectly legitimate, "traditionally and authentically Japanese" way of preparing several different kinds of fish.  Koukouvagia likes it, and so do I; when and if she ever gets to SoCal, I'm taking her for omikase.

 

New rule:  If you don't like it, you don't have to eat it; but you don't get to criticize my taste unless you can demonstrate you know a helluva lot more than me.  

 

"Fridge-turgic" is a wonderfully turned phrase.  10 bonus points.

 

BDL


Edited by boar_d_laze - 11/27/11 at 5:38pm
post #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SherBel View Post

Speaking for myself only, my "Beliefs,Vision, Ethics, and "Art" are geared towards providing pleasure, nutrition, and hopefully, some joy to the people for whom I'm cooking. I respect ingredients, but I respect family and customers more...

OK, are there limits to your respect for family and customers?

 

Are there different limits for each; family or customers?

 

How do you handle a "family dinner", you're the host and cook, and one member of the "family" does not like (note: I said LIKE, not allergic to nor a medical restriction, simply a choice) the way you have prepared ??? dish, do you make a separate dish for them?

 

How do you handle your "soup kitchen" meals? Say someone doesn't like the Lima beans in the stew or prefers sautéed chicken breast instead of the stew, do you acquiesce to their choice?

 

Suppose you are serving, oh say, pecan crusted Tilapia with braised red cabbage on your buffet line and someone prefers steamed Tilapia with maple glazed carrots, do you acquiesce to their choice?

 

Are you implying that whoever is in charge of the home kitchen or restaurant/coffee shop/soup kitchen has no choice but to comply with the family member/customer's whim?


 

 

Chef,
Specialties: MasterCook/RecipeFox; Culinary logistics; Personal Chef; Small restaurant owner; Caterer
Reply
Chef,
Specialties: MasterCook/RecipeFox; Culinary logistics; Personal Chef; Small restaurant owner; Caterer
Reply
post #47 of 54

Some things are simply not worth the risk,  and serving undercooked poultry is one of them.  There are ways to have the bird cooked through without it drying out.   Good cooks should have no problem presenting perfectly done chicken that is both moist and flavorful. 

 

And in a restaurant, if the customer requests his food cooked to an unsafe doneness,  then he should be asked to sign a waiver releasing the establishment from and and all liability connected to the risk he is taking.  On the other hand,  if the customer wants his food cremated,  that is his prerogative too,  and the chef needs to be able to put his ego aside and just do it. 

"The pressure's on...let's cook something!"
 
Reply
"The pressure's on...let's cook something!"
 
Reply
post #48 of 54

Perhaps I've missed the point of this thread, I thought it was about "red at the bone" when the chicken was actually cooked to a normal, safe, temperature.

 

There is a BIG difference between cooking according to guidelines and ignoring guidelines.

 

Perplexedly, I've had the maddening experience of cooking Coq au Vin or Chicken Cacciatore  and ending up with "red at the bone" despite a 2-3 hour braise.

 

Interestingly, if I use boned chicken from the same lot, there is no red, so, for me, it has something to do with the bones, probably the lack of age.

Chef,
Specialties: MasterCook/RecipeFox; Culinary logistics; Personal Chef; Small restaurant owner; Caterer
Reply
Chef,
Specialties: MasterCook/RecipeFox; Culinary logistics; Personal Chef; Small restaurant owner; Caterer
Reply
post #49 of 54

So A., I'm going to agree with most; the chicken in pretty much every picture posted in this thread looks inedible to me.

 

B., There's a reason the culinary industry is also referred to as the foodservice industry. Food... SERVICE. If you're so brash and pretentious that you refuse to cook a paying customer's food to their  liking? You've completely missed the point of being a chef, and on that note, cooking something up an extra ten or so degrees isn't going to desecrate your "vision," if anything it's going to broaden the spectrum of people who will get to enjoy it with you.

 

C., I just mixed my expensive bourbon with cheap cola.. is this going to get me banned? lol.gif

post #50 of 54

I'm going to SoCal.

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply
post #51 of 54

OK. Just because I don't believe so much in "... If you ask a Chef to do something that goes against his beliefs, his ethics, his vision, his art, don't be surprised or offended when he refuses to do it."*, I called up some of the biggest steak-houses in Chicagoland to see what their stories were. 

 

I called and asked "... I will be coming in for dinner this evening and will be ordering a steak. Will it be of any concern for me that your chef will not make it "well done", as I like, for some reason?" All of the people answering the phones were very polite and answered that I could order any steak cooked any way I wanted. One hostess put a chef on the phone who replied, "If you would like to order a $58 piece of boot leather, I'll cook and serve you the best piece of boot leather you've ever had.". He continued, explaining that he would make any dish or steak they served any way I would like it. 

 

All four(4) of the chefs I was able to talk to, head chef working guys, not just any from line positions but the guys responsible when something happens, said no way in any however, was raw chicken of any type leaving their kitchens. 

 

Oh yeah, I'm sorry for not including this, I called seventeen(17) places.

 

* Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

post #52 of 54

I would not serve chicken that was not cooked. Acid effects the proteins in cerviche and it takes time. Bacteria reproduces very quickly, possibly faster than acid kills it, if it even does. I don't know, but I wouldn't do it.

post #53 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by boar_d_laze View Post

Just as it's the restaurant's prerogative to prepare food in whatever ways it sees fit, and not prepare food in ways it doesn't, it's your prerogative to eat elsewhere.  If you'd prefer to eat at Stuckey's rather than the French Laundry, that's certainly up to you.  I fail to see it as an issue unless you owe me dinner.

 

It's interesting that you mention The French Laundry. Bearing in mind that I have a great deal of admiration for Thomas Keller; a writer was having a meal at The French Laundry. 19 tasting courses, lots of wine, over a period of about 4 hours. The customer (the writer) left the table to use the washroom. Mr Keller became angry, and made sure that the customer's server let the customer know that he was angry...by leaving the table for a brief pee, he was interrupting the rhythm of the meal.  So in this instance, Mr Keller would evidently have preferred the customer's physical discomfort to a brief interruption of his "vision" for this meal. I don't get that, sorry. And it's my prerogative to spend my dining dollars where I wish, but I don't think it's required to imply that I would wish to eat junk, in fact I don't get the reference; don't see the relevance?

 

Similarly, "whatever happened to the 'customer is always right?'" is misplaced.  Your money never conferred the right to have anything and everything you wanted.  Don't act so entitled. 

 

 

What saves this is the limitation, "for myself only," but barely.  You've expressed yourself in such a way as to imply criticism of someone who does things differently.  You're certainly entitled to prepare and present food in your way and to please whom you care to please.  Whether or not your way is my way, doesn't make it superior to another way.  To my mind, the customer is frequently wrong, and there are limits to how far I would go as a pro to please a customer or will go as a home cook to please a friend, or family member. 

 

I implied no criticism. When I criticize, it's pretty obvious, believe me.

 

My culinary "artistic" vision is fairly relaxed, but there are things I won't do and you can't make me.  That doesn't make me good, kind or wise; but neither does it make me bad, cruel and stupid.  I don't always write that way, but do believe that cooking at a certain level is an art form and the artists are entitled to express their respective visions as they see fit.  You're entitled to agree or disagree, but you're not entitled to overdone fish -- at least not from me. 

 

"Bad, cruel, stupid"??? Huh? As for overdone fish, who wrote the rules, precisely, governing the acceptable methods of cooking tuna?

 

Speaking of fish:  Very, very few North Americans would know good, well-prepared sashimi or sushi if it hit them in the head.  For that matter, neither would far too many "sushi chefs."  Sometimes sashimi and fish for sushi are properly sliced "whisper thin," and sometimes they are not.  Usually, they are not.  SherBel doesn't like tataki, a perfectly legitimate, "traditionally and authentically Japanese" way of preparing several different kinds of fish.  Koukouvagia likes it, and so do I; when and if she ever gets to SoCal, I'm taking her for omikase.

 

I will eat tataki. In a Japanese restaurant, and If it's sliced fairly thinly. That's a personal taste, and it has nothing to do with every Tom Dick and Harry who run a restaurant serving nasty semi-raw fish not because they know what they're doing, but because it's the current fashion.

 

New rule:  If you don't like it, you don't have to eat it; but you don't get to criticize my taste unless you can demonstrate you know a helluva lot more than me.  

 

This thread started on the subject of undercooked poultry, specifically chicken. No where did I criticize anyone's taste, in fact it seems that you read a great deal into my post, the vast majority of it negative. Unfortunately, I can't change how you perceived my post, and I won't apologize for my personal opinions.

 

"Fridge-turgic" is a wonderfully turned phrase.  10 bonus points.

 

Thank you!

 

BDL



 

"The satisfactions of making a good plate of food are surprisingly varied, and only one, and the least important of them, involves eating what you've made" - Bill Buford, Heat

Reply

"The satisfactions of making a good plate of food are surprisingly varied, and only one, and the least important of them, involves eating what you've made" - Bill Buford, Heat

Reply
post #54 of 54
Quote:
...This thread started on the subject of undercooked poultry, specifically chicken.

Um, I believe that this thread started with correctly cooked poultry, specifically chicken, that exhibited red or reddish meat around the bone despite the fact that the final temperature was well above government standards, as I read it, the thread did not start with undercooked chicken, quite the contrary!

 

There is a marked difference in well cooked chicken demonstrating red around the bone and undercooked poultry

Chef,
Specialties: MasterCook/RecipeFox; Culinary logistics; Personal Chef; Small restaurant owner; Caterer
Reply
Chef,
Specialties: MasterCook/RecipeFox; Culinary logistics; Personal Chef; Small restaurant owner; Caterer
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Food & Cooking
ChefTalk.com › ChefTalk Cooking Forums › Cooking Discussions › Food & Cooking › "Medium rare" birds.