To what temp should a turkey thigh be cooked?

fergi

I'm cooking turkey thighs tonight and was wondering if 165 is ok for thighs by themselves?

Mattman3969

I personally like them about 180-190.  

bgebrent

165-170 as carry over cooking will take it to 175-180. 

fergi

Mattman3969 said:

I personally like them about 180-190.  

Is that because it taste better or a safety consideration?

bgebrent

165 is safe and moist.

SmokeyPitt

It is safe at 160, but IMO best to take it up to 180ish.  The thighs have more fat so it will cook off some of the excess.  It will still be moist at 180+ and the skin will be better. 

Chubbs

SmokeyPitt said:

It is safe at 160, but IMO best to take it up to 180ish.  The thighs have more fat so it will cook off some of the excess.  It will still be moist at 180+ and the skin will be better. 

Agree take it higher to take care of some fat. Will still be moist. 

fergi

Chubbs said:

SmokeyPitt said:

It is safe at 160, but IMO best to take it up to 180ish.  The thighs have more fat so it will cook off some of the excess.  It will still be moist at 180+ and the skin will be better. 

Agree take it higher to take care of some fat. Will still be moist. 

Thanks for the quick response! I'll cook them to 180.

Mattman3969

fergi said:

Mattman3969 said:

I personally like them about 180-190.  

Is that because it taste better or a safety consideration?

Texture.   I do the same with chicken thighs. They achieve the texture I like around 185ish.  I've run them as high as 200. 

fergi

BGnogin

I run them up to 185 or so also.  Renders the fat a bit more and makes the skin nice.  Bone in-skin on, Us
indirect around 325* for an hour or so. 

Darby_Crenshaw

safe at 140 actually.  but mushy

like chicken legs, most people seem to prefer them much firmer, 160 easily, sometimes as high as 180+

SGH

Darby_Crenshaw said:

safe at 140 actually.  

Now, now. The food police will pop your hand for this

bgebrent

Which is is why I recommended 165, way safe and moist.

Darby_Crenshaw

Which is why i emphasize that safety and quality are two different things 

it is "safe" at 140

it is mushy and rubbery at 140 though. So most of is take it much higher

saying that "165 is safe and moist" can seem to be saying (to those inclined to not pay attention) that 165 is the threshold for safe. 

nolaegghead

Here is some data from the USDA to effectively "pasteurize" chicken.  Temperatures are the lowest internal.  Keep in mind with the carryover cooking and typical lag in time between cooking and eating, you would be hard pressed not to meet any of the safe time/temp requirements...and these are fudged to the side of safety. 

You are more likely to get sick eating pre-packaged lunch meat or vegetables.  And more likely to contaminate those through cross contamination of something that you cook from a knife, hand, sink or cutting board.

SGH

nolaegghead said:

A lot of big numbers in there my friend

nolaegghead

SGH said:

nolaegghead said:

A lot of big numbers in there my friend

Perhaps....

nolaegghead

SGH said:

nolaegghead said:

A lot of big numbers in there my friend

....so

SGH

@nolaegghead
Now I'm buying a calculator and a dictionary

Darby_Crenshaw

that chart is for holding sous vide at a certain temp, no?

at 145 i can plunge and be "safe" in eight minutes

but when grilling, meat temp is rising. So when it hits 145, how long has it already been at 136, or 140 for example?

gdenby

I made a graph yesterday of the numbers posted. Took me some time to get used to the "done when temp hits X degrees," as opposed to safe to eat after a sufficient time at all sorts of temps.


The y-axis is in seconds.  From what I understand, most mammals and fowl can be cooked pretty much the same way fas far as safety goes.

This also assumes that the food is already contaminated enough that it needs a million fold reduction in bugs.

Darby_Crenshaw

My thinking is that by the time. Pork roast hits 145 at center, i don't need to keep it over the fire for a further eight minutes for it to be 'safe' because it's already been at 135 and higher for the requisite time. What's more, my roast wouldn't  flatline at 145 for eight more minutes, it would be climbing through 146, 147, 148 if i kept it on the grill

even if i pull it off at 140, it will carryover and sit at those temps (resting, no foil) long enough anyway

Pick a number and stick with it, i say.

logarithms may kick in for the food lab or sous vide, but they have no place at a grill

nolaegghead

Darby_Crenshaw said:

My thinking is that by the time. Pork roast hits 145 at center, i don't need to keep it over the fire for a further eight minutes for it to be 'safe' because it's already been at 135 and higher for the requisite time. What's more, my roast wouldn't  flatline at 145 for eight more minutes, it would be climbing through 146, 147, 148 if i kept it on the grill

even if i pull it off at 140, it will carryover and sit at those temps (resting, no foil) long enough anyway

Pick a number and stick with it, i say.

logarithms may kick in for the food lab or sous vide, but they have no place at a grill

Those numbers are just numbers for a six sigma reduction in pathogens.  But yes, there is a formula for SV where, based on the thickness, you can be reasonably sure the set point temp is reached throughout and you can hold it.  Most of the pathogens are on the outside of the meat - the part that heats up immediately when cooking by any means. 

Point is, the FDA "safe" recommended temperatures are bs.  Makes people overcook their food, to the detriment of quality.

Darby_Crenshaw

I'm the original "pathogens are on the outside" dude here! Don't take that away from me man!

Anyway....  published safe temps are based on an assumption that the cook is taking the temperature improperly, with an incalibrated thermometer, after mishandling the food, a food assumed in the first place to be swimming in pathogens

fishlessman

for turkey thighs, off the grill around 170 works for me for taste and texture. for safety theres that shuttle launching countdown sequence chart that was posted

jtcBoynton

"pathogens are on the outside"   Except with modern meat packing, needle tenderizing has helped to move some of the pathogens to the inside.  You used to be able to not worry about inside temps on a nice steak. Now I sometimes think twice before consuming that nice rare steak (think twice, but never stops me!).