On 12/20/2010 4:28 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:51:19 -1000, > wrote:
>
>> On 12/19/2010 7:22 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> The temperature you cook it at defines how evenly cooked it is.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> This is entirely correct however, simply stating a truth doesn't really
>> say anything about why one should cook a roast at 250 but not 200 or 170
>> degrees. Your simple truth would seem to imply the it's better to roast
>> at a lower temperature to reduce the temperature difference between the
>> roast's surface and it's center.
>>
>> You're worried about microbes but I'd feel perfectly safe with a heavily
>> salted roast set in a 200 degree oven for a few hours.
>>
>> As it goes, I don't know how low you can go with this - few people have
>> experience with this slow roasting technique - including me. That said,
>> my experimentation with this has pretty much convinced me that anything
>> above 300 degrees is too high if you're aiming for a roast that's medium
>> rare.
>
> Frankly, those people who have "perfect" rare produce a perfectly
> AWFUL piece of meat AFAIC. I want my meat charred or at least crusty
> brown on the outside and rare on the inside. To get that, there is a
> "transition", which I do not disapprove of.

That's what I like as well. I have a 5 lb roast. Would I still follow
the same method? high temp to start for 15 min then lower for the
remaining time?
>
> I think that a piece of meat that is rare from the center all the way
> to the outside might as well be slathered with tanning lotion and
> served with a parasol.
>

This made me chuckle...

--
Currently reading: Finals over! Yay for an A in organic chem and a B in
Human Anatomy and Physiology. Now what to read?