Dave the Cook

I cooked Inventolux's chicken last night, using four boneless breasts. Two were prepared according to Invento's techinique; two others were prepared according to slkinsey's allusion to ziplock bags - one was tied, one was not: I used a 12-inch saute pan for poaching, and attached a probe thermometer to monitor the temperature of the water: The breasts were poached for 35 minutes at about 145 F. I didn't have a flame tamer (for some reason, they've become scarce), so 140 was the lowest stable temperature I could manage. I let the temperature rise to about 150 before putting the chicken in the pan. The temperature dropped to about 130, then rebounded to 145 within a few minutes. Despite careful preparation, enough air remained in the packages to make them slightly buoyant, so I used a steamer basket to keep them submerged: The packages were massaged briefly and rotated every seven minutes. At the 35-minute mark, I removed the packages: I quickly inserted a digital themometer into one each of the wrapped and bagged breasts. The wrapped breast had an internal temperature of 125F; the bagged breast was 139F. I let them rest for five minutes, then opened all the packages. I cut one each of the wrapped and bagged breasts in half (wrapped on left, bagged on right): I finished off the wrapped breasts in an already-hot pan: It took about three minutes to bring them to an acceptable point. Comments and observations: 135F is not very hot. (As a basis for comparison, my tap water is at 113F.) I was able to massage and turn the packages with my bare hands without lingering discomfort. Thirty-five minutes is not sufficient, at this temperature, to cook the chicken to an aesthetically acceptable point. Unfortunately, my camera did not focus on the meat in the photo above (it seems to have captured the tongs perfectly instead). But even in this flawed depiction, the glistening, uncooked flesh is apparent. I am not sure if 135F (which eventually the meat would have achieved in a 135F-water scenario, after perhaps 50 or 60 minutes) would be acceptable or not; the meat in the 139F breast was what I would consider just barely done. The flesh had just solidified; any less done and I wouldn't have dared serve it to unadventurous types (of which I had three last night). Even then, I was blessed by subdued lighting. Given the wrapping and the tying, it is impossible to determine doneness with any accuracy. Indications of doneness (opacity and flexibility of meat) can only be guessed at -- it would be an educated guess, but a guess nevertheless. Continued experience with this technique would probably help. The added flavor components (buttermilk, aromatics, lemon zest, etc.) adhered to the wrapped breasts very well. The bagged-tied showed a little of this phenomenon; the bagged only breasts did not at all. However, there was little discernable difference in taste of the meat. When finishing the meat off in the skillet, I did not remove the adhering components; this made for a fragile but tasty crust, mildly reminiscent of a tandoori-preparation. No packages leaked. Whatever pressure might be developed inside a "sealed" container (I am now convinced that it is minimal) is not sufficient to rupture the closure of a ziplock bag (this was a "freezer-style" construction, which comprises slightly heavier plastic than the standard bag). Comparing the finished temperature of the chicken packaged in different ways convinces me that proximity to heat source (the hot water) is far more significant than any pressure that might develop inside the package. The wrapping (five layers of commercial-quality plastic) provided significant insulation. I don't doubt that addtional cooking time would have brought them to a condition similar to the bagged breasts. At 145F, anyway, I would call this a successful method, at least on techincal grounds. The appeal of this technique for boneless chicken breasts eludes me. The result is (or could be, I am sure) a perfectly tender, perfectly cooked piece of chicken (with an interesting moist coating). But the preparation is a pain in the ass, and I already know how to cook this meat to this state with far less trouble. If I had a FoodSaver, I might soften this judgment somewhat. However (and maybe we can turn this thread back to its original intent), I can see how much sense it makes for confit, especially if you have a FoodSaver, or some other way to create minimally-sized, liquid-tight pouches. Although I am still dubious of the temperature (for safety reasons), I don't see why this wouldn't be an acceptable, possibly superior, way to confit duck legs with a minimum of fat, at say 160F. But then, maybe we already knew that?

How strange! Though the order is different, this is my reading list for the last two weeks as well! Finished Bobby Gold last night (didn't cry; possibly -- possibly -- some minor welling); started Death of a Doxy following a respectful interval.

Thanks for that. In other words, it's not significant, especially once you take the expansion of the plastic into account.

OK, I'm going to try this tonight. inventolux, could you be a little more specific about the chicken? Bone-in whole breast? Boneless half breast? When you say "tie...like a roast" do you mean roll the breast into a cylindrical shape as well? Do the other ingredients get piled on top, wrapped inside, or distributed as evenly as possible? Any tips on maintaining such a low temperature for half an hour? Double boiler?

I agree. I am not absolutely conviced that the technique doesn't work, though I have my doubts. I know that Sandor Zombori uses this techique for rack of lamb, but lamb at 135F is quite different from chicken at 135F. But if it does work, I am sure that we don't have a good explanation of why.

What if the chicken breast is 1/8 th of an inch thick? What temperature would you cook that to? If you go to a 165f internal? If so, then you will have one dry as a bone bird. Typically I cook chicken breast to 155, unless it's been brined. In that case,you can go a littlle higher. But again, you're not answering my question.

inventolux: Have you ever checked the internal temperature of the chicken breast during or immediately after cooking? If it ever gets higher than 135F, 1) I'd be very surprised; 2) it would go a long way towrds convincing us skeptics. That would prove that you are obtaining elevated pressure. I don't have McGee with me, but if memory serves, I think the coagulation temp is about 150 -- but you would need several minutes at that temperature to effect full coagulation. Below that, I'm with Sam -- ewww. edit: for clarity

That's not sublimation, is it? Sublimation is solid to gas, bypassing the liquid phase.

I think we're simply dealing with this: poach a chicken breast with aromatics in a water-tight container at 135F. So, to come back to my original concern: I believe you when you say that you've never made anyone sick. I think that is a testament to your skill -- and your luck. I'm not sure I'd want to give it to my kids. And I'm still wondering about the texture. Anybody know at what temperature chicken breast protein coagulates?

Chicken wrapped in plastic is not under any appreciable pressure. So nothing in the environment (short of a chemical reaction of a type not usually provoked by this ingredient list) ever gets hotter than 135F. Maybe Charlie's chickens are germ-free, and his kitchen is sterile, but 135 is in the "danger zone" that home cooks are always being warned about, and with good reason. And, though I'd be willing to try it, I'm not sure that chicken breast at 135 is going to have a very appetizing texture. I'm certain that the dark meat of chicken at that temperture would be considered inedible by most people.

Are you sure about this temperature, inventolux? I'd be wary of chicken cooked only to 135F, and especially wary if it was held there for a long time. It's a wonderful environment for growing bacteria.

So what should I have called them, Lily?

Not really. But, when I was growing up my father sat to my left at the head of the table and if I chanced to have my left elbow on the table I would soon receive the tines of his fork to remind me of proper manners. But did he use his left hand, or his right?

And of course, now when I see attractive, nubile and topless young things, I'm going to have yet another eGullet Moment. Thanks a lot, Adam. Even though they're a different clone, I assume they ripen off the tree like a Cavendish. Is this correct? They're still pretty firm right now. Thanks for the ideas, katherine, carswell and beans. I think for this first bunch, we'll just get acquainted and eat them out-of-hand. Those Chez Panisse tartlets sound good, though.

Archie, I was with you all the way, until this. 1/2" Curls? Were you being poetic describing the appearance of the red pepper cut in short thin strips or do you actually curl them, a la carrot curls? I use one of those eyelash curler thingies that looks like it escaped from the "cure" scene in A Clockwork Orange. Seriously, if you take thin slices (radially oriented with respect to the stem) from the shoulder of a bell pepper, they look like curls.

Crawdads in the gumbo, eh? That would make my great-grandmother wig! As you may guess, crawfish never made an appearance in our gumbo. Everyone has their way. We always did a combination of shirmp, crab, chicken, sausage, and oysters. I've never met an oyster that I could love, so my mother eases up on them for my consideration. Jimmy Banos only indluces chicken in his gumbo. It's good and all, but I think the omission is punishable by law. Who's on hot sauce and gumbo file (fee-lay) detail? I thought it would be fun just to heap the little red critters on a sheaf of newspaper in the middle of a picnic table, have people roll up their sleeves, and dig in. I've used them in etouffee, but not in a gumbo, though I have no objection -- I like your approach. I think the essence of gumbo is to celebrate what's plentiful at that time, in that place, so like many great soups, it's familial, seasonal and regional. After Thanksgiving, I make it with turkey. After Christmas, I use ham to give it some smoke and extra richness. But the truth is, I have yet to meet a gumbo I didn't like. My favorite combination is sausage and shrimp: rice in the bottom of a deep bowl, ladle on the soup, then float a tablespoon or two of snowy white crabmeat on top. Garnish with a sprinkling or chiffonade of an appropriate herb and 1/2" curls of red bell pepper.

Good point. I reserve that treatment for cucumbers:

There's somewhere else? This happens to me too! I shall have to make an effort to run to the 'puter (at home or at work) and post next time it does. Examples, people! (No offense, Katherine, but if I can't do better by my red bananas than your reassuring advice, I might as well give this thread over to "eG vu.")

On the way home today, I had what is becoming so common an occurence, i have given it a name: the eGullet Moment. An eGullet Moment is when something -- an ingredient, a name, a technique -- reminds me of something I read on the boards. Now, this in itself is not unusual. To qualify as an eG Moment, I must be struck with a particular type of memory lapse: one that allows me to remember that something is important, but not why. So I walk into the grocery store, and ther at the head of the produce section, is a heap o' red bananas. "Red bananas!" I say to myself. "I just read about them." Of course, this being an eGullet Moment, I couldn't remember what I had read, only that I had. But so great is my faith in the Mother of All Food Sites that I bought some anyway. I have faith in you, oh my eGulls. Don't let me down. Don't put the lie to my certitude. Don't dick around with my dogma. What do I do with these things?

If I spend more than eight bucks for a bottle, I have to present proof of a Special Occasion to the Keeper of the Checkbook. Thanks, Lady T. If you're agreeing with me, I must be starting to get the hang of this wine thing.

I'm sure you know that I wasn't entirely serious, Lily. With the chicken and sausage, it does seem like you've got an inland/Layfayette kinda thing going on. The crawfish, being from the bayou and all, let you maintain thematic consistency. But I would never pass up a nice plump shrimp.

I was hoping somebody would chime in on Spanish wines. I just don't know them that well. Thanks.

What I've found is that the spices in the gumbo tend to obliterate any attempt at subtlety on the part of the wine. Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your assistance. For something inexpensive, I like Rosemount Grenache-Shiraz. The grenache fruit is a nice contrast with the roux and file, and the Shiraz has some spice to it. Or something earthier (and a little more expensive): Yalumba Bush Vine Grenache Some Zins work, too. Maybe one of the less fancy Ravenswoods? I don't know whites for gumbo, but I'd try an Alsatian or Washington Gewurz. OTOH, this might be an occasion where some oak would be welcome, so maybe a Chardonnay? Edit to add: a slightly off-dry Riesling might work, too.

No one seems to be bringing crawfish.

Thanks for a great post, Zephyrus. The foie club does sound amazing. If I undestand correctly, you drank all the wine. But maybe you could remember some details about it?