An hour! You must have humongous breasts. 
4 Likes
They are the biggest!
2 Likes
I quite agree but the majority here like breasts for chicken salad. Poor me.
2 Likes
And suddenly, we made that left turn at AlbuquerqueâŚ
More seriously, I got a 3-pack of boneless, skinless breasts for this venture that weighed in at 3.2 pounds.
4 Likes
These are what Iâve been calling Frankenchicken breasts for years. Doesnât matter if theyâre BISO or boneless - theyâre often Frankenstein-sized chickie boobies.
3 Likes
I was trying to remember your name for the big 'uns! B
1 Like
Iâve posted a chart like this before - by early 21st century grown chickens were 4.6 times as massive as chickens 50 years before, and over twice as massive as those 30 years before.
Itâs been almost 20 years since this graphic was made. Are todayâs chickens even bigger?
Edit - replacing image with an uncropped version crediting the study authors.
2 Likes
I wouldnât be surprised if they were.
1 Like
Something that has me kind of scratching my head is⌠One store in my area (national chain) has these HUGE chicken breasts, whereas this other smaller (family owned) chain grocery store has small ones.
Iâll buy them from whomever is running a sale that week. If the chicken breast is too big, Iâll cut it down (prior to freezing).
1 Like
2 Likes
Interesting vid - thanks for posting.
Heâs a bit repetitive, though, and he hit one of my pet peeves - apparently doesnât understand the difference between descendant and ancestor (6:01, he says the âscary wolf is a direct descendant of this tiny dogâ).
1 Like
This discussion reminds me of a friend whose uncle was so uptight he insisted his family refer to chicken breasts as chicken chests.
3 Likes
Then he probably wasnât a big fan of the Congreve poem The Mourning Bride, either.
Unless he misquoted the famous line in the same way a lot of people doâŚ
This oven method works great when you want to make a quantity for shredded chicken to use now and some to freeze for later meals.
2 pounds (4 boneless, skinless breasts - also works with bone-in) chicken â place in small roaster
Combine and pour over chicken, turning to coat:
2 T. olive oil
1 T. red wine vinegar
1 T. fresh lemon juice
Season with:
1/2 â 1 tsp. oregano -âsomeâ sprinkled over each breast after liquid mixture
Salt & pepper â 2 rounds of the roaster with salt shaker, 1 round with pepper
Marinate 30 minutes while oven preheats to 350 degrees. Roast 30 â 35 minutes with lid on. Check with instant thermometer that each is fully cooked -160-165 degrees.
Allow to cool slightly, then shred. Re-add cooking marinade after shredding â chicken will absorb it.
Credit Chowhound CuriousCat May 15, 2012 for the concept; all measurements were âsomeâ in that old post and Iâve fine-tuned / quantified a bit to our taste.
3 Likes
Fwiw, Iâm friendâs who was a sous chef at Daniel and he believes thereâs no better method to prepare breasts for chicken salad than sous vide.
1 Like
What a wealth of information yâall are, and have been, and continue to be.
My many thanks to all contributors to this thread.
1 Like
Can one simulate sous vide without having a sous vide device at home?
Thatâs essentially what I did. Heavily salted the water in a regular pan, got it up around 150°F and added the chicken. Gave the heat a boost to get it back up to about 150°F while stirring, then let it go at 150°F until the chicken got to 150 internal, then brought the water to about 165°F until the chicken passed 160.
It worked pretty well, I think, but it required frequent checks on the water temp until I was satisfied it wasnât bouncing around so much, and even then as the chicken warmed the water temp started rising again and I did need to reduce flame height several times, until the final adjustment up to 165°F.
Would I want to cook a thick steak (bagged) to 123F° this way? Thatâd probably take way too long, so, no. But Iâd do the chicken again this way, after trying some of the other good suggestions above.
1 Like
You can do short sous-vide cooks by pouring water heated to the appropriate temperature (or slightly above to account for heat loss) into a cooler or other well-insulated vessel and submerging your food in it. Itâs imprecise, but works in a pinch for smaller items that only need a short time at a given temp. Youâll want to make sure your vessel holds a large enough quantity of water than adding the (cold) food doesnât drop the temp too precipitously.
1 Like
Thatâs a lot easier than what I did (2 comments up). My kitchen hot water runs about 125°F. If I dumped 170 pounds of water (roughly 20 gallons) in a largish cooler, a few pounds of steak would barely move the needle on the water temp. Might have to withhold a gallon and heat additionally, then add it after I see how the steaks and the water contacting the inside of the cooler affect temp.
1 Like
