Talk:Doneness

Page move

I was about to write an article titled Temperature (meat), searched under the obvious terms, and found that for some reason, only "medium rare" had an article. Rather than re-invent the wheel, i propose to move this page to Temperature (meat), and add redirects for Doneness as well as each of the specific degrees mentioned on the page (one for "Medium rare" will be automatically created). After the page move I'll do the necessary cleanup to make it general to all the degrees of doneness. MCB 01:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed assertion about room temperature

It's not the case that raw meat "has only been exposed to room temperature". Meat remains raw up to the temperature where the proteins begin to denature. The ranges shown for the degrees of doneness are for the center of a cut of meat measured by a meat thermometer; they're not the cooking temperatures. --MCB 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Until the livestock becomes meat, the temperature is quite often above room temperature in some parts of the world, and well below that of room temperature in others. If you have a room which is 135 degrees, by all means the mean would be evenly medium-rare, but without any of the browning that contributes so much to savory qualities of meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.225.247 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How is rare safe?

The article says, The USDA recommends a temperature of at least 145°F (63°C) to prevent foodborne illness. But medium is the first level which reaches 145. How then, is it that so many people eat rare steak without incident? I once even saw someone order a hamburger rare, which just about made me fall over. Are they just taking a risk each time they eat it? --Birdhombre 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the short answer is that the government standard, like many such, is overconservative. Of course there's a risk -- there are risks in everything, including getting out of bed or crossing the street. But in this case it's a pretty small risk. The government also warns against eating raw fish (e.g., sushi and sashimi) and shellfish (e.g., oysters), but many millions of people do it every year. It's not that the government is wrong, per se, but it's a matter of understanding the nature and probability of the risk. Personally, I order my steaks and burgers medium rare. --MCB 21:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The government standard, as MCB states is conservative. Plus, most red meat doesn't have much bacteria internally, they primarily live on the surface, so just getting the outside of the meat hot is enough. I really wouldn't recommend rare hamburgers, though, because those bacteria from the surface will have been spread throughout the burger during preparation, making this somewhat more risky than eating a rare steak. JulesH 17:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Are they just taking a risk each time they eat it?" Dude, you're taking a risk each time you drive to work. Yes, people who are eating very rare meat are taking a risk, but here's the thing: sanitation and food safety standards in this country are so stringent that the risk is minescule. I'm more likely to get run over by a bus than to get food poisoning from an "undercooked" piece of beef. I could eat a steak raw right out of the butcher's case and not get sick. Anyway, life involves risk. Nobody's saying you have to eat rare or raw meat, but understand that it's a lot safer than the over-zealous government guidelines would have you believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.136.139 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take my chances with a piece of RAW meat. Rare, sure. Raw puts you at the mercy of every food-borne illness on the list. 64.148.241.133 (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet you probably eat raw fruits and vegetables, no? The 2006 North American E. coli outbreak was due to contaminated spinach and iceberg lettuce. Think about it... --MCB (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8675.php --Lycan1841 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Foodborne illness" is a media myth. 97.76.251.90 (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Infomation about other countries reccomendations about cooking

something I noticed in my trip to the USA in 2002, was that even though when I had a steak a a resteraunt and asked for it to be rare, it was much more cooked than a steak of simmilar size that was requested to be cooked rare in Australia. This could potentialy mean that the reccomendation to not have rare meat may only apply to the USA. potentialy even moreso if you take into account the fact that people in places that still serve meat rare would possibly build up resistance to the small amounts of the less harmful bacteria that is found in rare meat because they would be exposed to it more.

It could also just mean that Australia has regulations for beef cattle that mean we dont need to worry as much about having our meat done rare. But whatever the reason is, it might be an idea to make some kind of referanced note if any verifiable infomation can be found. --124.168.197.253 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Chances are you went to a restaurant that takes the USDA guidelines far too seriously. They might have been sued for a food poisoning case and instructed the cooks to ignore customer requests and overcook everything. It's a pity, and it's one reason I don't order steak when I go out to eat. I'm the only person I trust to cook my steaks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.136.139 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I heard on a trivia game on the radio that "People with more of this in their lives tend to order their meat more rare," with the answer being money. If this is true, it would be an interesting factoid to add to the article, unfortunately, however, "I heard it on the radio" doesn't quite cut it for a citation. Has anyone heard of this, or have an idea where to verify such a thing? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 16:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where you heard such a thing but I love my steaks and hamburgers rare. I'll even go so far as to say I love steak tar-tar even though I've never had it before. I mean, seriously. Raw cubes of prime grade steak covered in hollandaise sauce. No choice but to love it.Alex (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Page name

As the article is currently written, it really is entirely about beef. It should either have a similar level of content added about other types of meat, or be renamed to Temperature (beef). Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I could, this weekend, start working on adding more information about chicken, pork and lamb/sheep. I would appreciate some help from others, though. I imagine we'll need more then the USDA reference pages for citations, for one.Alex (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A Little History?

It would be interesting to know when the USDA decreed that Americans shouldn't eat meat cooked medium rare or less (I'm sorry, but calling something that's medium "medium rare" doesn't make it so). It seems to me that only large chain restaurants follow these guidelines stringently; when I go to my local tavern they cook it how I darn well want it...mostly. Anyone else notice this trend? XINOPH | TALK 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was in regards to ground meat. Any unground beef can safely be eaten at rare, and steak tartar is actually prepared with raw beef and eaten without being cooked. You can also eat lamb rare (med rare recommended for ideal tenderness and flavor) and pork has been declared safe for at least medium. Alex (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated temperature

What is the source for this information? There is no citation...is this a common deviation from traditional?Sottolacqua (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even make sense. 145F in beef will not produce "a warm red center, otherwise pink". -- Cyrius|✎ 09:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm the temperatures given for the different levels of doneness, having been ServeSafe certified by one of my former employers (a buffet restaurant chain) and confirmed by two local sit-down casual dining places that I worked as a chef at. To answer another question further up the page, rare doesn't cause food borne illness in steaks and other uncut, unground pieces of meat because bacteria cannot travel to the center of the cut, wherein ground meat is more dangerous due to the fact that the outer layer of the meat, the portion subject to exposure to bacteria, is mixed in with all the other parts of the meat. Unfortunately I cannot offhand produce any citations other then my own experience as a professional cook (3 years) and as an amateur cook (15 years). Alex (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. government has an information fact sheet on beef, including temperature as it relates to doneness, can be found here http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FactSheets/Beef_from_Farm_to_Table/index.asp Alex (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Table overhaul

To avoid previous problems with original research and informal sources, I turned to a well-known reference book (The Field Guide to Meat) for temperature ranges and summarized its description of the gradations (to avoid copyvio) and adjusted the information in the table accordingly. I also removed the USDA column since the ranges there were not found in any of the USDA sources mentioned; instead, USDA uses a minimum safe temperature for each meat, which is mentioned in its own paragraph. --MCB (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Time parameter

Isn't it that the recommended temperatures not only need to be reached but be sustained over a certain time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.197.221.226 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It's recommended they "rest" for three minutes, but that's like the nurse telling you to stick around ten minutes after a flu shot: precaution, but not necessary. Sailorknightwing (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

entrecote medium???

That's hardly medium...That's way closer to rare...Not even medium rare.. 68.38.197.76 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The drying section is bullshit

It is written that "Well done cuts, in addition to being brown, are drier and contain little or no juices. Note that searing (cooking the exterior at a high temperature) in no way "seals in the juices" – water evaporates at the same or higher rates as unseared meat."

That makes no sense as the meat loses the most of its juice when it gives away the juice as a result of slow cooking. Sealing helps the steak to hold its juice. The water evaporation has very little effect. I can cook perfectly juicy steaks that are well done. The trick is to seal first and then cook under lower temperature and let the steak rest at the end. I think praising rare meat is just a result of british/french snobbishness... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.105.82.216 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not disputing your ability to cook a great steak, it has been well established in many controlled tests that searing in no way "seals" in juices. dtype (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Doneness Mike Cline (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Temperature (meat) → Meat temperature – WP:NATURAL disambiguation fits here much better. "Temperature" is not even a term of art in the field so that it would be more recognizable to the specialists; this title is, as far as I can tell, intended just as a neutral descriptive one, so it should really be at "meat temperature". No such user (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:NDESC. Definitely seems like a better title to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Per below, "Doneness" sounds like an even better title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• What about move to Doneness? It's already a redirect, and it seems to be the actual topic of the article; temperature (along with color, etc) seems to be a function of doneness, not the other way around.... Dohn joe (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  I thought it was a neologism, but on a re-check, that actually is the term of art, recorded by dictionaries. It is certainly more apt, and I would support it. Interesting reading here:

  During the writing of Modernist Cuisine, our editor-in-chief Wayt Gibbs pointed out to me that, according to the Webster's Third New International unabridged dictionary, 'doneness' is officially not a word. My response was that it ought to be, and unless there was another word that communicated my meaning just as clearly, then I would insist that we make 'doneness' a word. [Editor's note: We later discovered that the word is indeed included in the 2002 addenda to Web3.]. Cuchullain? No such user (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• As clumsy as "doneness" sounds, it's probably the best name for the article. Neither meat temperature not the current title accurately or completely represent the topic of the article. Would "meat doneness" be overkill? Google likes it. —  AjaxSmack  03:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

  I like it too. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY would favor it, as bare "doneness" perhaps sounds too vague (and neo-logisticky). No such user (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – "Doneness" would increase the potential scope of the article to include non-meat foods, whereas "Meat temperature" would keep the article's scope upon meat temperatures only. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

English Wiki versus American Wiki

The description of meat doneness here is the American description and not a universal global description. There was previously other nationality descriptions, at least French and Chinese, that were reverted. If we want to ban the use of foreign words here, that is fine, though it should be acceptable to have numbers. Unless there is objection, I would like to add back in the Chinese number system for describing meat doneness. Thoughts?Sthubbar (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly object, as I did the first time. English Wikipedia is a resource in English – all of its varieties – about all things global. Where culturally relevant, we also include the terminology in other languages, however, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it should not elaborate on foreign terms, particularly not the ones irrelevant to the subject.
Meat doneness is a broad culinary term chiefly related to steaks, which are broadly a phenomenon from the Western cuisine. Why would we elaborate on Chinese terminology for that? Even the blog you wanted to use as the source [1] admits that much: a steak in China (typically at a Western steak house). And where the end would be? There are terms for meat doneness in probably hundreds of world languages, why stop on Chinese?

French terms are still in the article, because they can be demonstrated to be culturally relevant, and because those terms are used in haute cuisine restaurants. And a reference for that statement can be found, e.g. (Bob Ashley (2004). Food and Cultural Studies. Psychology Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-415-27038-0.) : the steak is a deeply nationalized foodstuff, 'a basic element' of the cuisine of France. And that's probably as much of foreign terminology I'd expect to found in this article. No such user (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No such user, I understand your point about not putting hundreds of languages on this page and agree to not put any Chinese characters on the page. My point, is that in some cultures, words are not used to describe doneness, instead numbers are used. We could add explanatory text such as "Some areas of the world use numbers instead of words to describe meat doneness, for example China." Something like:

Beef, veal, lamb steaks and roasts doneness scale

America	China	Haute-Cuisine	Description	Temperature range
Extra-rare or Blue			Very red	46–49 °C	115–120 °F
Rare	#3	Saignant	Red center; soft	52–55 °C	125–130 °F
Medium rare	#4	À point	Warm red center; firmer	55–60 °C	130–140 °F
Medium	#5	Demi-anglais	Pink and firm	60–65 °C	140–150 °F
Medium well	#7	Cuit	Small amount of pink in the center	65–69 °C	150–155 °F
Well done		Cuit	Gray-brown throughout; firm	71  °C	160  °F
Overcooked		Trop cuit	Blacken throughout; hard	>71 °C

Something like that would be fine, in my opinion. No such user (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doneness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160324025715/http://www.iabeef.org/degreesofdoneness.aspx to http://www.iabeef.org/degreesofdoneness.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

McGee

This entry needs to be corrected. As a very experienced grill cook in high end restaurants I can tell you this McGee person doesn't know what he's talking about when it goes to cooking steak. First off the juices in meat are not water based, so how water evaporates is totally moot. The juices are fat based, so searing does in fact seal in these juices which are the ones you want to keep, not water based juices which will be lost. This why lean cuts are drier when cooked then fat cuts of meat.

The problem many people have with cooking steaks has to do with their methods. The heat of the grill drives the fat away from the heat source making it rise to the surface of the meat. The higher the temperature the faster the fat is driven to the surface. Well done steaks are usually dry because lazy or inexperienced grill cooks use too high a heat and cook the steak too quickly driving all the fat out of the meat in the process. Then they don't let the meat rest long enough to allow the juices to redistribute in the meat. If you ever cut a steak and see juices come bubbling out of it that's the steak drying out because it hasn't rested long enough, and isn't a sign of a properly cooked steak.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gezzer58 (talk • contribs)

@Gezzer58: I moved your comment to the talk page where it belongs; articles are not the place for editorializing. While your input is appreciated, please note that our articles are based on published reliable sources rather than on personal knowledge, no matter how deep your level of expertise was (and we do not have means to verify it(. That being said, feel free to point to a better source than Harold McGee, although he seems to be an expert on the matter of food chemistry. Perhaps the source was misinterpreted here? (I don't know, I don't have access to it nor I claim expertise on the matter at all). No such user (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Translation of the terms from English to French (for instance, 'saignant' for 'rare')

Where are the translations in this article based on? I know some sources that state that 'saignant' is closer to 'medium-rare' than 'rare', the latter is written in the article (the same applies to 'a point' which is then a synonym for 'medium'). I'm wondering if the current information in the article is all correct. 213.124.174.59 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)