Specifically a pork chop dish i make for work. If i try and research on my own what the temp of a medium rare pork chop is the most common answer is always 145°. Both chefs i work with do not agree with this. One chef recommends a range of 120°-125°, using touch as your primary indicator then the thermometer as more of like a second opinion. Eventually i got comfortable with this but now the other sous chef i work with is telling me thats more like a medium, so ideally i should go for like 110°-115° for medium rare, she also doesnt really agree with using a thermometer for this instance and to only go by touch and how it looks. She hasnt specified how these temps should look or the temp and just told me to do my own research but when doing that i get a completely different answer from them. So what the fuck? Im getting pissed off just writing this like why not just fucking tell me instead of having me do this shit like cmon whats the point in telling me im wrong all the time if youre not even gonna teach me how to do it right? Its bullshit dude
>>21712398>sheThere's your answer.
>>21712398There's a lot of conflicting information about cooking pork, because safety standards regarding it have changed a lot. It used to be prone to trichinosis infection so it had to be cooked all the way through. This hasn't been an issue in a couple decades because the infection has mostly been eradicated in livestock (in first world countries at least), but it's taken time for people to settle on new standards, so you're gonna find a lot of varied opinions about how it should be cooked. 145 is the "official" safe temp, but a lot of people have been going lower lately. Personally, I aim for around 130 plus resting time, but that's just for home eating. It's gonna depend on the cut too. But since you're cooking in a restaurant presumably, you're just gonna have to ask her directly how she wants it cooked and tell her to demonstrate it, and if she's not willing to then tell her you're going to keep cooking it the way you have been because she won't communicate.
>>21712398 Chefs like pork and chicken cooked well below food safety standards. Michelin starred pork and chicken breast is pink and well below 140 or 165 respectively. But enforcing the standards costs way too much and destroys the foodslop economy so the government lets them do it. They don't have to measure temperatures with a thermometer and the government looks the other way. You're eating undercooked meat at restaurants.
>>21712398If someone told me to cook it to a certain temperature but only go by touch and claims using a thermometer is wrong but wont elaborate futher I'd just ignore anything that person said. Clearly a retard.
Ignore the woman, listen to the man.
if it’s pork you should over cook it, disgusting animal loaded with parasites, which is why is almost cooked slow
>>217124843rd worlder detected. parasites in pork haven't been a problem in developed countries in ages.and no, it's not always cooked slow. fatty pieces like pork shoulder and ribs are cooked slowly. lean pieces like loins and chops are not, and are perfectly safe to eat medium-medium rare if you don't live in a shithole.
Tell your chefs that they are stupid. Use a thermometer. >hurr I'm just too good to take measurementsno fuck off
>>21712398>medium rare pork chop
>>21712486we not eating loins and chops gang, i’m not poor like op
