Kate Connally wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
>>Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>>>Well, for me it's not health concerns. Rare poultry is just
>>>disgusting. Of course I don't want it over-cooked either but
>>>I like it well-done and about to fall off the bone.

This would be more than 180° and would be much more dry than the
currently suggested 165° in the thigh.

>>>Breast
>>>meat can be a little less well-done but has to be cooked through
>>>with no pink and the texture has to have changed from the raw
>>>or semi-raw texture to a cooked texture. That's why I hate
>>>chicken that's undercooked, it's the texture. Plus it's just
>>>not right to see blood in poultry.
>>
>>Right and wrong are meaningless terms in the kitchen. Here's why you
>>will increasingly see blood in poultry:
>><http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Bloody-chik.html>
>
> I don't buy it.

You don't buy what? The biology? The poultry-raising techniques? The
fact that immature bones are porous? That deep-chilling forces heme
through the bone? Those are facts.

> I've been cooking chicken for over 40 years
> and when I cook it at home there is never any "blood" or whatever
> near the bone.

Kate, chickens used to be killed at 12 weeks and they were mature at
that age. Now they're killed at 6 weeks because they grow faster - and
they're not mature; bones are not fully calcified. The science behind it
was spelled out on the page I cited. Go argue with them.

But understand that in the foodservice community, it's considered a
serious problem. It's also why store-bought rotisserie chicken is so
often dry. They cook it to the point where the darkness at the bone is
minimized. The way they do that is to cook it to more than 180°F in the
breast, sometimes all the way to 195°. That means dry chicken.

> Maybe it's safe to eat when you can see the
> "blood" as described in the article you quoted above but that's
> not the issue, as far as I am concerned. It may be "done" but it's
> not done enough for me.

And that's exactly what they said on that page.

>>>The only meat where I don't
>>>mind blood it beef, maybe lamb in certain circumstances. Pork
>>>and poultry should never be eve the slightest bit bloody.
>>>(Of course the pork thing comes from when I was growing up and
>>>people always cooked pork well due to the possibility of trichinosis.
>>>I understand that's not a concern nowadays and, in any case,
>>>is not the reason I like it well-done. It's due to having grown
>>>up not ever having rare pork.)
>>
>>"Rare" is a technical term. You misuse it.
>
> How so? Rare is when the meat is pink or red and bloody, is
> it not?

No. Pink and red define different degrees of doneness just by themselves.

It's been defined at least twice in technical terms with temperatures
and physical characteristics given in this thread alone. It's more exact
than that. Go upthread and see. These descriptions are technical terms
with very specific meanings.

Pastorio