Dave the Cook

I'm open to anything Guajolote has to suggest, but what about something Southern that's not slow-cooked pig, like a big pot o' gumbo and rice? Or shrimp and grits, or jambalaya?

Lily: I had the same question, but being a gardener of limited skill and experience (tomatoes and herbs only), I assumed that I was just ignorant. But I didn't see any drainable saucers at the landscape store. As for drilling, I don't know, and he didn't say. Drilling stuff this soft seems dicey, though I suppose there are appropriate tools. I don't think your comment is the least bit silly. As one of the patron saints of SSBs, Mr. Brown needs to be held to a pretty high standard of exactitude. 'twould be sad were we to find out he had feet of, er, terra cotta. Nevertheless, I missed a crucial part of the instructions, so I can't say that the technique is faulty. Wolfert: the pot is not soaked; I think this is strictly a radiation thing. But I will say that the chicken was exceedingly moist.

This would be white body radiation, I assume?

But my mind's not made up! What do you think of the method?

Another clarification: when I say breast up, I mean vertically. The chicken sits on its tail. (I knew I should have taken pictures.) The chicken (and flour) browned, although there were some areas where the flour was still dry, and just baked -- it looked like the browned flour some people do in quantity to keep around for making roux. If I understand what Brown is trying to accomplish, it's to create an oven within an oven, and smooth out temperature spikes due to oven cycling. Also, with the heated pot, you move the effective source of radiance closer to the food, which should promote browning. All of this makes sense. But I think you're right; the steam just fights this, effectively keeping the temperature lower. And now, I hang my head, having just realized that Brown's design includes a vent -- the drain hole in the saucer. Well, my saucer doesn't have a drain. Next time, I'll put the chicken on the saucer (it's 12-1/2 inches), and turn the pot over it -- the pot does have a drain. I'm sorry if my description doesn't make a lot of sense, and that I keep having to amend it. Should I take some pictures, or is it clear now? Or do you think this is not worth pursuing?

Sorry, I left out the part that said to put the flower pot and lid in the oven during preheating. He's very clear on this issue (AB is big on flower pots; his f-p smoker is in the book, too, and he briefly reminisces about Good Ol' Days, an Atlanta restaurant of 70s-80s vintage that cooked and served nearly everything in unglazed terra-cotta). Putting unglazed, unsoaked terra-cotta in a hot oven will almost certainly break it. The flour: I don't know. After brining, you oil the bird, then toss it in a paper bag with flour and spices. My guess is that it's an attempt to give the skin some crust in lieu of last-minute browning. But the instructions also say to put the chicken in the pot breast up. Since the flour trick would require additional fat (the initial oiling is just to get the spice mixture to adhere, I think) from the chicken to form a crust, you would think breast down (allowing the fat in the thighs and legs to trickle across the skin) would be more effective. In case you can't tell, I also think the recipe is strange. And as a serious AB fan, I am more than puzzled. Thanks for the baking soda tip. I'll try it before I toss the reeking pot out front next to the garden (a rusty pickup truck on cinderblocks -- right, fifi?)

I didn't know that there was a trick until fifi said so. I read about it in Alton Brown's new book Gear for Your Kitchen (review in The Daily Gullet soon, I hope). You put a brined, spiced-and-floured, 3- to 4-pound chicken into a lidded, unglazed, unsoaked terra-cotta pot, and put the pot in a relatively hot oven -- 450 F, I think. When the temperature of the bird reaches 150 F, you take it out of the oven and let it sit undisturbed until the temperature hits 165. I was disappointed. Brown says, in effect, it's his roast chicken -- you know, the one you do when you want it to be right. Because of that, I'm going to try it again. Everybody, and every recipe -- within reason -- deserves a second chance, right? Edit: I'm slow on the uptake here. But you can see that he's modified his technique for the recipe in the book. I don't think it's much of an improvement.

If I recall, the Tramontina has an aluminum sandwich bottom. Is there any indication as to how thick the aluminum component is?

Funny you should ask. Just the other day, I roasted a chicken in a flowerpot. Seriously.

You're right about lawsuits, of course. Even a suit without merit is expensive, time-consuming and potentially damaging. Truth, as they say, is the first victim. I've never done chicken in a slow cooker, as I suspected that the outcome would match your description. But I'm tempted by Chef Fowke's preparation, and will try that soon.

For purposes of food safety, it doesn't matter how quickly it gets to temperature. The chicken will be at an elevated temperature for hours. That's where your margin of safety comes from. (You don't like the Formal Geese? )

I didn't mean to scare anyone off the idea of slow-roasted chicken. I think it's a good idea, as long as you're careful -- though you should always be careful, and especially with chicken and chicken products. Let me repeat the numbers: In case I haven't been clear, in my opinion, this is a perfectly safe way to cook a chicken. It is as valid (from a safety standpoint) as 40 minutes at 450, or 75 minutes at 350. Wolfert, as we used to say around here, if you are comfortable and have the time: how do you feel about depriving your fans of a safe, delectable method of preparing chicken because magazines don't trust their readers? Or have I got that wrong? I think it's sad.

According to Rival (manufacturers of the original Crock Pot): Their FAQ is here.

That's what Wolfert's method does, doesn't it?

From the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition: From elsewhere on the same site: In other words, by the time you get the living, breathing bird, there's a chance it's already infected. There's also a chance you, as the "processor" in your example, might just make it worse.

I'm not going to tell you to ignore the FDA. But I'll point out that the FDA has to deal with the lowest common denominator; it is their job to err on the side of caution. Look at how difficult it is to find the answer to a simple question like: at what temperature do salmonella bacteria die? The FDA would rather be damn sure you kill all the bugs, so they don't tell you. They only recommend overcooking. Thermometers lie, they're subject to misuse, people sometimes behave stupidly. The FDA has to account for this, and more, in their guidelines. That's OK with me; nuance is not their forte, nor is it their mission. But as a cook, nuance is a valuable tool, and with proper information, I can employ it to better effect. Three minutes at 140 F will kill salmonella. It is killed instantly at 160. Of course, the concern is that not all of the bird will get to 160, and you can't check every millimeter to be sure. But if you're roasting at 160, I'd say every bit of your chicken will spend a lot more than three minutes at 140 -- half an hour is more like it. I'd eat chicken cooked this way without trepidation (especially if you were doing the cooking, Paula). Now, tell me how to roast at 160. It's intriguing, because theoretically, you chicken would never be overdone; you could hold it there indefinitely while you made the gravy and mashed the potatoes. But my oven won't reliably go lower than 170 . . . (For the record, salmonella might be less of a concern than campylobacter, the the leading cause of bacterial diarrhea in the U.S. There are probably numbers of cases in excess of the estimated cases of salmonellosis . . .)

Other than for aesthetic reasons, if you're cooking your bird to 160 F (for example), why does it matter how it got there? Edit: fixed quote

Thanks for your report, SM. I'm glad the brining didn't go overboard. IMO, the most dramatic results come with turkey and chicken breast. Maybe they could be candidates for your next excursion. Check out the Best Chicken Ever thread for ideas. As for the Polder: yes, they really are great -- wait till you use one on a grill or in a smoker! If you've got a probe that works, protect it like the treasure it is. I don't know if there was a bad batch or what, but for a while it seemed like there were an awful lot of failures. (BTW, the probes are interchangeable among most of the major brands.)

This "article" is so riddled with errors as to be dangerous. A few: It's been an awfully long time since charcoal was made from anything but wood, especially activated charcoal. Brown sugar, sugar made from cane, and confectioner's sugar are most certainly "processed," in the sense that they are purified from raw cane or beets (without, as far as memory serves, the use of animal products). Of these, brown sugar is the most highly processed. Turbinado is not raw sugar. Despite the repetitive implication, keeping kosher has nothing to do with being vegetarian. If I were Jewish, I'd be amused. Or offended. Only vegetable waxes may be used on vegetables sold in the US, unless animal origin is clearly labeled on the wholesale container. Unless bees and lac beetles count. Most wax is carnauba.

Exactly. How can you lose?

In my opinion, yes, at five days you are on the verge of wet curing. But real curing is usually done at much higher concentrations, so invoking the word "cure" is descriptive, rather than technical. I'm not saying that this is bad, but for sure it's going to be hammy. Maybe that's what the recipe intends. Brining is pretty formulaic: it's less iffy, for instance, than a recipe that calls for "medium" heat (don't you always wonder how close your "medium" is to the author's?). In brining, this much of this kind of meat + this much salt = a repeatable result. Many recipes call for brining whole loins two to four days. If you want pork flavor to predominate, I think that's too long, but it's really a matter of taste. I would go two days maximum. After that, you're going to get something less like roasted pork and more like ham. And yes, there is a theoretical limit to brining: eventually all the liquids will come to equilibrium. But because you're mucking around with the physical structure of the meat proteins, and they're undergoing slow but fairly constant change, that's going to take a long time. You'll have gotten the maximum seasoning value from brining long before that stage is reached. On the other hand, I suspect that in the Chez Panisse recipe, those protein changes are part of the effect you're after. So my advice to you, SM, is to do the recipe as it's written. Otherwise, you'll never know what the author was trying to do. If it comes out too hammy, or to salty, you can change it next time. And please let us know what happens.

Shooting fish in a barrel seems ordinary, yes. But fish, in a barrel, with mucilage is not to be missed, I think.

My wife and daughter run from the room if they even hear me cutting through the ribs!

Chilling is not necessary. Back when McD was using fresh cut fries they never chilled them between fryings. It's the way I've been shown by a couple of people and the way I've always done it. Perhaps it has to do with the shock of chilled potato hitting the hot shortening. The counter to that is the chilled potatoes bring down the heat quicker, lengthening the shortening's recovery process. Next batch I will try without chilling the potatoes. I think it's all about browning: Chilling will dehydrate the surface of the potato. Less moisture means less steam, which means the surface can get hotter than 212 F more quickly. The cold fry dunked in the hot oil might (I'm not certain of this) evaporate any remaining surface moisture more quickly than if it was warm. Chilling converts some of the starch to sugar, though not a lot. The fries will brown a bit better if this step is included. How much conversion takes place will depend on how long you leave them in the fridge.