I found, and looked at the following interesting video about roasting
chicken by America's Test Kitchen. The program is on public television.
Christopher Kimball is the publisher of "Cook's Illustrated", which we've
subscribed to for years.
We looked at the following video and tried it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfu_zZ3u9ys You spatchcock a chicken, and
bake breast side up in a 500F oven after stuffing butter between the skin
and the meat, particularly the breast meet to retain moisture in the breast
meat. Under the roasting chicken you put a 1" layer of thinly sliced
potatoes. All that goes into a 500F oven for 40 minutes at 500F.

It looked interesting on the video. It was a disaster here. There was
separation of the skin from the meat and the the meat did retain moisture.
The butter flavor overwhelmed the meat. It was so rich you couldn't eat much
without feeling the your arteries getting clogged. The disaster, however,
was what happened to the potatoes underneath the roasting chicken. The idea
was to ocapture the rendered chicken drippings into the potatoes and create
a flavorful potato. What happened resulted in a fatty gloppy mess you
couldn't retrieve in one piece, and what you wouldn't want to eat, if
you're at all fat concensious.

It was a disaster. IF you look at the video you can more or less see this
coming.

We'd suggest "don't do it". I like the idea of spatched cock chicken, though
I've had very little experience with it. Also, I like the idea of inserting
something between breast skin and breast meat that would retain moisture in
the meat.

Kent

On 2010-10-24, Kent > wrote:

> We'd suggest......

We being? You got a spatchcocked chicken in yer pocket?

nb

"Kent" > wrote in message
...
>I found, and looked at the following interesting video about roasting
>chicken by America's Test Kitchen. The program is on public television.
>Christopher Kimball is the publisher of "Cook's Illustrated", which we've
>subscribed to for years.
> We looked at the following video and tried it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfu_zZ3u9ys You spatchcock a chicken, and
> bake breast side up in a 500F oven after stuffing butter between the skin
> and the meat, particularly the breast meet to retain moisture in the
> breast meat. Under the roasting chicken you put a 1" layer of thinly
> sliced potatoes. All that goes into a 500F oven for 40 minutes at 500F.
>
> It looked interesting on the video. It was a disaster here. There was
> separation of the skin from the meat and the the meat did retain moisture.
> The butter flavor overwhelmed the meat. It was so rich you couldn't eat
> much without feeling the your arteries getting clogged. The disaster,
> however, was what happened to the potatoes underneath the roasting
> chicken. The idea was to ocapture the rendered chicken drippings into the
> potatoes and create a flavorful potato. What happened resulted in a fatty
> gloppy mess you couldn't retrieve in one piece, and what you wouldn't
> want to eat, if you're at all fat concensious.
>
> It was a disaster. IF you look at the video you can more or less see this
> coming.
>
> We'd suggest "don't do it". I like the idea of spatched cock chicken,
> though I've had very little experience with it. Also, I like the idea of
> inserting something between breast skin and breast meat that would retain
> moisture in the meat.
>
> Kent
>
>
A thought, if that's possible, Has anyone tried inserted a piece of foil
between the skin and the breast meat? There's lot's of fat there already.
The foil would keep the skin detached and allow it to brown, and it might
keep the moisture in the breast. When I try this again, I'm going to cook
the spatchcocked chicken on the grill.

Kent

Kent wrote:

> A thought, if that's possible, Has anyone tried inserted a piece of foil
> between the skin and the breast meat? There's lot's of fat there already.
> The foil would keep the skin detached and allow it to brown, and it might
> keep the moisture in the breast. When I try this again, I'm going to cook
> the spatchcocked chicken on the grill.

I frequently put stuffing between the skin and the breast meat.

Bob

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:28:13 -0700, "Kent" > wrote:

> It looked interesting on the video. It was a disaster here. There was
> separation of the skin from the meat and the the meat did retain moisture.
> The butter flavor overwhelmed the meat. It was so rich you couldn't eat much
> without feeling the your arteries getting clogged. The disaster, however,
> was what happened to the potatoes underneath the roasting chicken. The idea
> was to ocapture the rendered chicken drippings into the potatoes and create
> a flavorful potato. What happened resulted in a fatty gloppy mess you
> couldn't retrieve in one piece, and what you wouldn't want to eat, if
> you're at all fat concensious.
>
> It was a disaster. IF you look at the video you can more or less see this
> coming.
>
> We'd suggest "don't do it". I like the idea of spatched cock chicken, though
> I've had very little experience with it. Also, I like the idea of inserting
> something between breast skin and breast meat that would retain moisture in
> the meat.

The video ended for me when she was buttering the legs so I didn't see
it all. But I think you're right about too much fat even though she
said she took excess chicken fat off the bird. I have put butter
under poultry skin in the past, but not as much as she did and I
usually separate out most of the fat before I make gravy.

In any case, I'm not sure I'd want my chicken to rest directly on a
bed of potatoes because they wouldn't cook evenly. One of the
comments said they baked the potatoes for an extra 10 minutes. Do you
think that could have helped? I am not adverse to using a bed of
mirepoix vegetables if they're intended to make stock for gravy

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:34:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-10-24, Kent > wrote:
>
> > We'd suggest......
>
> We being? You got a spatchcocked chicken in yer pocket?
>
Sounds like he had a partner in the kitchen.


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:28:13 -0700, "Kent" > wrote:
>
>> It looked interesting on the video. It was a disaster here. There was
>> separation of the skin from the meat and the the meat did retain
>> moisture.
>> The butter flavor overwhelmed the meat. It was so rich you couldn't eat
>> much
>> without feeling the your arteries getting clogged. The disaster,
>> however,
>> was what happened to the potatoes underneath the roasting chicken. The
>> idea
>> was to ocapture the rendered chicken drippings into the potatoes and
>> create
>> a flavorful potato. What happened resulted in a fatty gloppy mess you
>> couldn't retrieve in one piece, and what you wouldn't want to eat, if
>> you're at all fat concensious.
>>
>> It was a disaster. IF you look at the video you can more or less see this
>> coming.
>>
>> We'd suggest "don't do it". I like the idea of spatched cock chicken,
>> though
>> I've had very little experience with it. Also, I like the idea of
>> inserting
>> something between breast skin and breast meat that would retain moisture
>> in
>> the meat.
>
> The video ended for me when she was buttering the legs so I didn't see
> it all. But I think you're right about too much fat even though she
> said she took excess chicken fat off the bird. I have put butter
> under poultry skin in the past, but not as much as she did and I
> usually separate out most of the fat before I make gravy.
>
> In any case, I'm not sure I'd want my chicken to rest directly on a
> bed of potatoes because they wouldn't cook evenly. One of the
> comments said they baked the potatoes for an extra 10 minutes. Do you
> think that could have helped? I am not adverse to using a bed of
> mirepoix vegetables if they're intended to make stock for gravy
>
> --
I failed to mention that the episode has three parts. When you go to part 1,
on the right side of your screen are buttons for part 2 and part 3. That's
worth watching if you've watched the first.

Kent

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:27:33 -0700, "Kent" > wrote:

> I failed to mention that the episode has three parts. When you go to part 1,
> on the right side of your screen are buttons for part 2 and part 3. That's
> worth watching if you've watched the first.

Thanks, I thought it was something my computer did.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Oct 24, 2:28*pm, "Kent" > wrote:
> I found, and looked at the following interesting video about roasting
> chicken by America's Test Kitchen. The program is on public television.
> Christopher Kimball is the publisher of "Cook's Illustrated", which we've
> subscribed to for years.
> We looked at the following video and tried it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfu_zZ3u9ys*You spatchcock a chicken, and
> bake breast side up in a 500F oven after stuffing butter between the skin
> and the meat, particularly the breast meet to retain moisture in the breast
> meat. Under the roasting chicken you put a 1" layer of thinly sliced
> potatoes. All that goes into a 500F oven for 40 minutes at 500F.
>
> It looked interesting on the video. It was a disaster here. There was
> separation of the skin from the meat and the the meat did retain moisture..
> The butter flavor overwhelmed the meat. It was so rich you couldn't eat much
> without feeling the your arteries getting clogged. *The disaster, however,
> was what happened to the potatoes underneath the roasting chicken. The idea
> was to ocapture the rendered chicken drippings into the potatoes and create
> a flavorful potato. What happened resulted in a fatty gloppy mess you
> couldn't retrieve in one piece, and what *you wouldn't want to eat, if
> you're at all fat concensious.
>
> It was a disaster. IF you look at the video you can more or less see this
> coming.
>
> We'd suggest "don't do it". I like the idea of spatched cock chicken, though
> I've had very little experience with it. Also, I like the idea of inserting
> something between breast skin and breast meat that would retain moisture in
> the meat.
>
> Kent

I don't spatchcock the bird, but do put a mixture of Balsamic vinegar,
basil, onion powder, garlic powder, salt. pepper
and a little EVOO under the skin. The skin is crispy. Don't know what
to tell you about the spuds. We do this chicken at least once a week
and bake it on the ceramic grill, and I have done it in the oven when
the weather is yucky.

On Oct 24, 2:33*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *"Kent" > wrote:
> > We'd suggest "don't do it". I like the idea of spatched cock chicken, though
> > I've had very little experience with it. Also, I like the idea of inserting
> > something between breast skin and breast meat that would retain moisture in
> > the meat.
>
> > Kent
>
> Spatching chicken works well, if you do it right.
>
> 500 degrees for 40 minutes??? What kind of crack were they smoking?
>
> The Picassa albums have a lovely, flavorful roasted spatched chicken
> complete with successful photographs.
>
> I'll eventually post the pics of the spatched game hens I actually BBQ'd
> in the pit. They worked well too. ;-)
>
> As for inserting stuff between the skin and breast meat, herb laced
> butter does work if you like butter, but again, not at those temps!
> Geeze.
>
> The hunks of fat from just inside of a chicken carcass work better, and
> they taste like chicken.
> --
> Peace! Om
>
> Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
> *Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or
> * * * no influence on society. -- Mark Twain

Is "spatching" and "spatched" acceptable abbreviation for
"spatchcocking" and "spatchcocked?" Just curious...I'm not a
chef...but it seems awkward.

N.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>
> Is "spatching" and "spatched" acceptable abbreviation for
> "spatchcocking" and "spatchcocked?" Just curious...I'm not a
> chef...but it seems awkward.

I think they sound ever sillier than the original word.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.