Cook a duck in a bag
Discussion
Why would you want to do this?
They were on sale at Tesco cheap (sorry I forget, but it was circa £7 for a decent sized one), so I got one, laughed at the 'Serves 4' bit, took it out of the bag, seasoned and roasted. It was basic, but tasty enough with thin brown crispy skin and tender meat.
Now to me you openly roast a duck to get rid of the thick layer of fat and brown it, so I can't see what was going to be gained by cooking it (as per instructions) in a bag.
True, it said 'open bag for final 30 mins of cooking', but that wasn't going to achieve much, I just used it to get a reasonably priced duck as they're usually much more for the normally only available Gressingham ones.
Anyone done one?
They were on sale at Tesco cheap (sorry I forget, but it was circa £7 for a decent sized one), so I got one, laughed at the 'Serves 4' bit, took it out of the bag, seasoned and roasted. It was basic, but tasty enough with thin brown crispy skin and tender meat.
Now to me you openly roast a duck to get rid of the thick layer of fat and brown it, so I can't see what was going to be gained by cooking it (as per instructions) in a bag.
True, it said 'open bag for final 30 mins of cooking', but that wasn't going to achieve much, I just used it to get a reasonably priced duck as they're usually much more for the normally only available Gressingham ones.
Anyone done one?
Edited by 227bhp on Friday 11th November 09:44
bigandclever said:
Pretty sure they say 'open the bag after 30 minutes cooking', not for the final 30 minutes. Anyway, these ducks are bred to have less fat than a 'proper' duck.
You're not very big and clever (I checked).I'm with you on the fat thing though maybe, there was no layer of fat (apart from the thin outer brown crispy one) when it was done, very lean for a duck.
The reason for these bags was apparently to reduce the risk of Campylobacter : http://www.co-operativefood.co.uk/food-matters/cam...
It also allows people to cook the chicken within in an inch of its life without it turning into something resembling sawdust.
The cooking time on these bagged chickens is ~ 1.5hours for 1.5Kg chicken which is over double the time I cook a similar sized chicken for (admittedly I cut the back bone out and flattened it but even that won't 1/2 the cooking time).
Just bin the stupid bag and cook it normally.
It also allows people to cook the chicken within in an inch of its life without it turning into something resembling sawdust.
The cooking time on these bagged chickens is ~ 1.5hours for 1.5Kg chicken which is over double the time I cook a similar sized chicken for (admittedly I cut the back bone out and flattened it but even that won't 1/2 the cooking time).
Just bin the stupid bag and cook it normally.
cornet said:
The reason for these bags was apparently to reduce the risk of Campylobacter : http://www.co-operativefood.co.uk/food-matters/cam...
It also allows people to cook the chicken within in an inch of its life without it turning into something resembling sawdust.
The cooking time on these bagged chickens is ~ 1.5hours for 1.5Kg chicken which is over double the time I cook a similar sized chicken for (admittedly I cut the back bone out and flattened it but even that won't 1/2 the cooking time).
Just bin the stupid bag and cook it normally.
Ah, we have an answer, thanks for that. So, chickens (and indeed ducks) for stupid people.It also allows people to cook the chicken within in an inch of its life without it turning into something resembling sawdust.
The cooking time on these bagged chickens is ~ 1.5hours for 1.5Kg chicken which is over double the time I cook a similar sized chicken for (admittedly I cut the back bone out and flattened it but even that won't 1/2 the cooking time).
Just bin the stupid bag and cook it normally.
I do wonder what they are like when cooked in a bag, but no-one seems to have done it! I imagined it to be paler and more fatty, but maybe not.
When I was young and more stupid than I am now I did eat undercooked chicken from a bbq, I was of course very ill and won't be going back there again.
I cook poultry now long and well, but discovered that you can get tender breast meat at the same time by turning the bird over when it reaches a certain point and carrying on cooking it that way. It browns the back and the juices run down into the breast which is less likely to overcook now it's at the bottom. The more fat ending up in the bottom of the pan means less consumed by me.
My way of knowing if it's done is if the meat falls off the bones of the legs and wings, if it's stuck on then it's not for me even if it is safe.
battered said:
cornet said:
Just bin the stupid bag and cook it normally.
So that you can spread Campylobacter all over the kitchen? Great idea.The bags are a bloody good idea for chicken. Less so for ducks as they are less prone to providing a home for Campy.
battered said:
cornet said:
Just bin the stupid bag and cook it normally.
So that you can spread Campylobacter all over the kitchen? Great idea.The bags are a bloody good idea for chicken. Less so for ducks as they are less prone to providing a home for Campy.
48k said:
I've been cooking chicken not in a bag for years and somehow managed not to give myself food poisoning. Have I just been luck then?
Yep. Campy is the biggest cause of food poisoning in the UK, most infections are in the home or catering following handling of raw poultry. Bagging a chicken costs 3/10 of SFA and fixes it with no detriment to the final product, if you follow the instructions. Yet it's "only there for the stupid". Just like seatbelts. It's Elf and Pastry gone mad.
But you were of the opinion that cooking a chicken would "spread Campylobacter all over the kitchen"
So why only whole chickens, why can people be trusted with legs, breasts etc.
Im not saying its a bad idea, I see the point. It's just stuff like this doesn’t teach people that raw chicken is to be handled carefully, education is better than censorship from the problem
So why only whole chickens, why can people be trusted with legs, breasts etc.
Im not saying its a bad idea, I see the point. It's just stuff like this doesn’t teach people that raw chicken is to be handled carefully, education is better than censorship from the problem
battered said:
cornet said:
Just bin the stupid bag and cook it normally.
So that you can spread Campylobacter all over the kitchen? Great idea.sidekickdmr said:
But you were of the opinion that cooking a chicken would "spread Campylobacter all over the kitchen"
"Can spread Campylobacter" is what I said. The point being that if it's in a bag then you can't.sidekickdmr said:
So why only whole chickens, why can people be trusted with legs, breasts etc.
Because whole chickens are generally destined for roasting in one piece. The bag makes sense. Portions are destined to be put in a pot so the bag has to be opened and the product handled. The bag doesn't control the hazard because the usage is different.Use of a bag reduces the risk to near zero for chickens cooked whole. Why is this a bad thing?
sidekickdmr said:
It's just stuff like this doesn’t teach people that raw chicken is to be handled carefully, education is better than censorship from the problem
It's the introduction of a control measure to control a hazard in an imperfect world occupied by humans. If all you do is educate as to the risks people will still be injured, because people are like that. Look at seatbelt laws. We should be educating people not to have accidents. Seatbelts just protect the stupid.battered said:
sidekickdmr said:
But you were of the opinion that cooking a chicken would "spread Campylobacter all over the kitchen"
"Can spread Campylobacter" is what I said. The point being that if it's in a bag then you can't.sidekickdmr said:
So why only whole chickens, why can people be trusted with legs, breasts etc.
Because whole chickens are generally destined for roasting in one piece. The bag makes sense. Portions are destined to be put in a pot so the bag has to be opened and the product handled. The bag doesn't control the hazard because the usage is different.Use of a bag reduces the risk to near zero for chickens cooked whole. Why is this a bad thing?
sidekickdmr said:
It's just stuff like this doesn’t teach people that raw chicken is to be handled carefully, education is better than censorship from the problem
It's the introduction of a control measure to control a hazard in an imperfect world occupied by humans. If all you do is educate as to the risks people will still be injured, because people are like that. Look at seatbelt laws. We should be educating people not to have accidents. Seatbelts just protect the stupid.It's the same old argument which you can apply to lots of things; seatbelts, smoking, sugar, hot drinks etc where we feel we have to force or warn people into doing things differently in order to protect themselves. Thankfully we aren't being forced to eat bagged birds and still have a choice.
One thing though and it's been there since my OP, no-one has said they've cooked one in a bag, or at least done it both ways and compared the results. I'm not prepared to potentially spoil my dinner finding out though!
227bhp said:
Not when it's people in the back with no belts on hitting the people in the front who may have.
I know...227bhp said:
Thankfully we aren't being forced to eat bagged birds and still have a choice.
Feel free to remove the chicken from the bag and also avoid eye protection when using power tools, as you see fit.227bhp said:
No-one has said they've cooked one in a bag, or at least done it both ways and compared the results. I'm not prepared to potentially spoil my dinner finding out though!
I have, they work. So have any number of people at retailers and manufacturers, before they came up with the bag and the cooking instructions. It's not the bag that causes people to screw up their dinners.
We have had a “Duck in a bag “ cooked per instructions and it was errrrrrrr OK bit thin on meat and went only 1 day and a couple of wraps after .
Not a patch on duck breasts we bring back from France , usually about 11oz /350g thick layer of fat which when rendered off is just right for roast spuds , cost about £5 each
Usually we bring back about 12/16 breasts , stick in the freezer , and these will last around 8 months .
My duck came without seat belts is this ok ?
Not a patch on duck breasts we bring back from France , usually about 11oz /350g thick layer of fat which when rendered off is just right for roast spuds , cost about £5 each
Usually we bring back about 12/16 breasts , stick in the freezer , and these will last around 8 months .
My duck came without seat belts is this ok ?
MX51ROD said:
We have had a “Duck in a bag “ cooked per instructions and it was errrrrrrr OK bit thin on meat and went only 1 day and a couple of wraps after .
Not a patch on duck breasts we bring back from France , usually about 11oz /350g thick layer of fat which when rendered off is just right for roast spuds , cost about £5 each
Usually we bring back about 12/16 breasts , stick in the freezer , and these will last around 8 months .
My duck came without seat belts is this ok ?
I reckon you'll be OK without the seat belts!Not a patch on duck breasts we bring back from France , usually about 11oz /350g thick layer of fat which when rendered off is just right for roast spuds , cost about £5 each
Usually we bring back about 12/16 breasts , stick in the freezer , and these will last around 8 months .
My duck came without seat belts is this ok ?
The smaller bag ones such as you describe are probably the equivalent of the £3 chickens - very juvenile and intensively farmed to put on weight very quickly, sold while still small. One feature of juvenile chickens and turkeys, I don't know about ducks, is that Campylobacter is an inherent problem with the birds. When young they naturally are infected with it, at basically 100% of the population. As a result the meat contains it, and you can't get away from that. Turkeys are not a problem because in order to get to the target weight they have to attain an age of several months (typically 10 months or so) and in this time they naturally eliminate Campy from their systems (mostly, at least). Chickens are slaughtered at between 5 and 6 weeks (yes, you read that right, 35 to 45 days) so they don't have time to eliminate the organism in the same way. Let them get to a year, sure, but nobody much wants a chicken slaughtered at a year old. Your bigger ducks with a high level of fat may well be of an age where Campylobacter is no longer an inherent problem. They will be older, that much is sure. I'm not sure how the incidence of harmful bacteria shifts over life in ducks. This will affect decisions as to whether a roasting bag is a worthwhile means of reducing food poisoning.
Nanook said:
I think you're getting a bit carried away with this.
Yeah, you're right, I know f* all about food safety. It's only my job.Nanook said:
Using an angle grinder without safety goggles is really in no way comparable to eating a chicken I've cooked properly and thoroughly in my oven.
You've just neatly illustrated the misconception that leads to most household food poisoning. It's not the chicken in the oven that makes you ill. It's the food poisoning bacteria that come off the bird before it is cooked and that end up on hands, utensils and work surfaces that are subsequently not sterilised and allow the uncooked bacteria to escape.Campylobacter is the most common source of food poisoning in the UK, pretty well all of it from chicken.
If you think food poisoning is no big deal, ask my former colleague, a young guy in his 30s who had 6 months off after Salmonella f*ed his nervous system. That was at a wedding reception.
But feel free to scoff at the ovenable bag, you're right, it's just b
ks made up by nanny state do-gooders who know nothing about food safety in the real world. Like me.I've just got back from Tesco with a non-cook in the bag chicken. All the cook in a bag chickens were exactly the same price and there was no mention of them being free range.
So I can only assume they are carefully farmed to be magically be the same price, or injected with water to equalise the weight, or some combination of both.
Neither is very appealing TBH.
So I can only assume they are carefully farmed to be magically be the same price, or injected with water to equalise the weight, or some combination of both.
Neither is very appealing TBH.
Gassing Station | Food, Drink & Restaurants | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff