"Hunter's " chicken

Has it been that long? It's Wednesday, and I haven't written since Saturday. That's odd. It's been a busy period, lots going on, and not much cooking that you haven't heard about already.
In planning tonight's dinner though, I began wandering in an aimless, mental way (do I ever think any other way), and began making connections about a food combination that doesn't really get much play.

What the heck is he talking about now? Well, "ham and eggs" or "ham and cheese," or "bacon and eggs," and the more subtle like "tomato and basil," that kind of thing. You know what I mean, the combinations that come to mind right away. Mac and cheese?

Well, there's a combination that I couldn't believe I missed. Then when I thought about it, I figured out why.

Chicken and rice. Think about it for a minute. "Arroz con pollo," or paella, or fried chicken with rice, or even coq au vin with rice. It seems to me that, with very few exceptions, when I'm served chicken, the starch that comes with it is rice. And it IS a good combination, don't you think? And then, as I racked my brain, I realized that there is no such combination in Italian cooking. Since "classic" Italian cooking calls for starch, followed by the protein with vegetables, and no starch, the chicken would have to be up front with the pasta or rice. I don't really know of chicken risotto, and honestly, it just doesn't sound appetizing. Nor do fried rice balls filled with chicken. But there was a combination that began to make sense to me. Cacciatore, or "hunter's" chicken.

Cacciatore is something we've all had. And everyone of us has had it differently. And every version is valid. Some years ago, I had reason to explore the origins of this dish in some detail (I know. I have weird hobbies. You don't know the half of it. Oh, wait. Some of you do). Well, "chicken cacciatore," originally had no chicken in it. It was "coniglio cacciatore," or "hunter's rabbit." And you know, that makes sense. A hunter out on the hunt is way more likely to find a bunny than a chicken. The bigger animals that they might bring down, like a boar, or what have you, were of course too big to eat for lunch or supper, and rabbits were everywhere. So, when it got time to eat, you took out your weapon of destruction, took out a couple of long eared, short tailed cats (and cats are short eared, long tailed wabbits), and got to work. You cooked them with whatever you foraged. So frequently, but not always, that involved mushrooms, and some wild herbs. Also - and this is why I LOVE being Italian - the hunters used the food staples they brought with them. I'm serious about this. Italian hunters would leave the home in the morning, with olive oil, garlic, and whatever else was around. Sometimes it would be dried tomatoes, sometimes fresh ones, or whatever was in the house.

This says something about my people, I'm just not sure what it says.

Anyway, so the components would change. That's why it's different. And I guess, somewhere along the line, someone decided "let's cook like we're in the great outdoors, but at home," and did it with a chicken, rather than a rabbit. (No, rabbit does NOT taste like chicken. And it sure doesn't look like it. If you're the kind of person who skeeves at a chicken that isn't cut into pieces, don't ever allow yourself to look at a skinned rabbit). The taste is undoubtedly different, but the use of very strong flavorings can bring the bland chicken alive. And because it's very saucy, you would want something like bread.... OR RICE! So, make up a pot of rice, and then make cacciatore. I'm going to talk about it very generally here, because there are a skazillion variations.

First, what parts of the chicken do you use? This is a cross between a sautee and a braise, so I like to use the thighs. They're juicier, they can stand up to the long cooking better, and they're manageable. Whole legs would do fine as well. I have trouble cooking drumsticks evenly and of course there is all that loss from the tips of the bones, so the pan gets very crowded. Breast meat overcooks. If you insisted on using poultry breasts, I would suggest using guinea hen. Or maybe pheasant.


Ok, here we go. If you can, salt your chicken parts the night before, like I've discussed in other blogs. If you can't, no big deal. Just do it before you're cooking, and pat them dry.

You're also going to need some aromatic vegetables and some sturdy ones. I love using mushrooms with chicken. For two pounds of chicken, I use a pound of sliced mushrooms, cremini or portabello are the ones I prefer. Also, chop up an onion, and if you have some fresh herbs, by all means, have them ready. Thyme, marjoram, oregano, rosemary, will all work with this.

What if you don't have mushrooms, or you don't like them? Some alternatives would be red peppers, fennel, or maybe cubed butternut squash, which will make things very sweet. Look for something solid, that can hold its shape over longer cooking. Stay away from greens, and asparagus. Peas are nice at the end, as a garnish, but they shouldn't be your main vegetable.

Ok, let's start cooking. I start by putting my chicken parts into hot oil that covers a big pan. I leave the pieces, skin side down, for about five minutes, until they just pick up some nice golden color. Then I cook them for another two minutes on the other side. It isn't a long cook, because they're gonna go back in the pan again.

Drain out most of the fat, but not all of it. The chicken fat that renders into the oil will flavor it some, which is a nice thing. Add your chopped onion and a bit of salt. When it loses that clear look and begins to take up a translucent look, add your vegetables. Cook them down until they start wilting. The time will vary, depending on your vegetable. And put in your herbs if you have them. Now, put the chicken on top of the vegetables, skin side UP, and you have to make your final choice about the dish: liquid. I like using tomato sauce, or chopped tomatoes, but you dont' have to. You can make a lighter, less hearty version by adding chicken stock. If you were feeling truly naughty, you could use cream. Think before you use cream, however. If you're cooking with red peppers, they're going to leach into the cream and make a very odd colored sauce. If you're fine with that, I'm fine with it. But if not, well.. stick to something else.
I should say you can also combine liquids. So, for example, if you don't want to be THAT profligate, use half cream and half stock. Or half stock and half tomato sauce. Half tomato and half cream is hard to pull off in a dish, because when the cream heats up, something happens with the acid in the tomatoes, and you get a tasty, but ugly MESS. Put in enough to just come up to the top of the vegetable bed, and cover the pot. Let this cook at a gentle bubble, for maybe fifteen minutes. I say "maybe," because you're going to have variation depending on how big the chicken thighs are (I was GOING to say "how big your thighs are, in which case I'd be cooking this for about a year), how old the bird was (careful folks), and many factors. "Bottom line " is that you have to poke the chicken with a fork or knife, and see if it's tender enough for you. If it is, after fifteen minutes, stop. If it's not, cook it more.

While this is happening, you can cook up a pot of rice on the other front burner of your stove. I like to put saffron in mine, but of course, you don't have to. And if you don't want to make rice, this is perfectly wonderful on pasta (in fact, if you make too much, you have a wonderful second meal coming up, as you shred the meat off of the remaining chicken, mix it with leftover sauce, and use it as pasta sauce. And since you're breaking the rules of Italian gastronomy anyway, put some cheese on it), and if you felt really ambitious and wanted to make polenta, or barley, or any starch you like, well, that's just fine by me.

So give this a try. The ability to brown and then braise a piece of meat on a stovetop will suit you well for further dishes. In fact, you are very much on your way to making potroast, which is really just this preparation , with a very large piece of beef, and stock only.

It's good to be back.