Sous Vide: Recipes, Techniques & Equipment (Part 5)

[mjc]

[Moderator's note: this continues the discussion from Sous Vide: Recipes, Techniques & Equipment (Part 4)]


As I mentioned above I was planning to make a Wagyu Brisket Sous Vide. I setup the sous vide equipement with an Auber PID and a Waring roasting oven which I got on Sale + Coupon from Bed and Bath. I Drilled Holes in the lid for the temperature probe and the aquarium circulator.



I cooked a turkey breast sous vide once before and I think there is a post about it somewhere in this thread. I did that one the stove in a Le Creuset Oven, but since this was an entire 10lb brisket and would cook for 48 hours, I figured I needed a better setup.

Here is the brisket cooking. Before adding it to the bags, I divided it into three pieces, seasoned, and seared it.




I decided to set the bath to 144F. Seems that people cook the brisket at a wide range of temperatures and times. After reading Under Pressure, I was kind of nervous to cook it at 135, but after re-reading Douglas' guide, I think I would try the next one at that temp.

It turned out pretty well. I've never cooked a brisket before. At my first dinner I served the leanest part with a sauce bordelaise, turned glazed carrots, chanterelle mushrooms, and potato gratin. The meat was really tender, and not dry, but not all that moist either.

I liked the less lean part better. I served the middle piece a different day, just about the same way (changes to shitake mushrooms/Julienned carrots). This piece was a little bit pinker and more juicy.



I dropped and pretty much ruined camera just before the last picture.

I've got the third piece in the freezer.

[MikeTMD]

I got some New Zealand Grouper, and made this:

Sous-vide Poached Grouper, Broccoli Stems, Enoki Mushrooms Fricasse, Shitake Foam, Red Wine Quail Egg, Truffle Salt :

broccoli stems were spoached SV with Long Bali Peppercorns and butter @ 77C/4 hours,

grouper cooked SV with a touch of espelette and French truffle salt @ 61C/15 min,

Enoki mushrooms were quickly caramelized and pan braised,

Shitake foam was made with cream and lecithine,

quail egg was SV in red wine @ 63C for about 45min.

Observations:

- I much prefer 85C/3 hr for roots/hard veggies;

- Grouper is EXTREMELY sensitive to SV temps, in fact I tried it @ 61C, 62C and 63C, any temp above 61C resulted in tougher texture;

- truffle salt is a superb seasoning for SV applications, and is highly recommended;

- SV quail eggs are hard to peel;

Does anybody have an opinion/suggestions on the latter issue?

Edited January 10, 2009 by MikeTMD (log)

[infernooo]

One reason I cooked this at such a high heat 150/160 was because of this article:

From : http://amath.colorado.edu/~baldwind/sous-vide.html

Tough Meat

When cooking tough meats, two processes are of particular importance: the dissolving of collagen into gelatin and the melting of solid (saturated) fats.

Before sous-vide cooking, the dissolving of collagen into gelatin required cooking meat well done (between 160°F/70°C and 180°F/80°C) and holding it at that temperature for a couple of hours. The reason being that while collagen begins to dissolve at 131°F (55°C) [Thi06], it must be held at that temperature for 12--72 hours to have a significant effect---something impossible to achieve with conventional cooking methods. However, thanks to sous-vide's precise temperature control, it is both possible and quite common to cook tough cuts of meat for 24--48 hours at 131°F (55°C).

While collagen will begin to dissolve at 131°F (55°C), only 5--10% of the saturated fat in pork and beef will melt at that temperature. Nearly 60% of the saturated fat in pork and beef, the saturated fatty acid palmitic, melts at 145°F (62.8°C). The remaining 30--35%, the saturated fatty acid stearic, melts at 157°F (69.6°C). So in order to melt the saturated fat in pork and beef, it must be heated either above 145°F (62.8°C) or 157°F (69.6°C), depending on how much of the fat you want to melt.

The 2 paragraphs talk about 2 cooking ranges... 131 (which several people have done, including the beef ribs) and the higher temps to melt saturated fat. Since my personal trainer would normally want me to stay away from beef DUE TO saturated fat, I thought this test would see what happens if this PALMITIC and STEARIC was removed from the meat. Only problem is to determine IF IN FACT saturated fat was indeed removed. And from close up pictures of the flat slices, you can see there's plenty of connective tissue still in the meat. Any most telling to me is that this morning in my home kitchen was a 1/2 pan with all the au jus from the last bag of brisket. I fully expected it to be congealed fat (75-78 deg room temp) but it was almost yummy enough to drink. There was just a tiny thin scum layer on the top but nothing that resembled cold grease. If it (the fat?) wasn't in the bag, then was it still in the meat?

We cook an already awesome smoked brisket AND beef short rib on our smoker, so I don't see much value in using sous vide for these meats. I'd like to try more brisket flat at a lower temp just to experience that. It would be nice to hear from anyone who has an idea as to the fat issues.

More pics available directly from my gallery section:

http://www.jaymer-que.com/gallery/?Qwd=./B...umbs&Qis=M#qdig

jaymer...

←

Anyone ever give you any answers to your questions/findings Jaymer?

[nathanm]

There is no other place for fat to be than in the meat or in the bag. So if it is not in the bag, it is still in the meat.

Cooking meat at or above the melting temperatures does not necessarily mean that you will drain or render all of the fat out of the meat. Fat is bound up in fat cells. The fat cells are usually surrounded by other meat tissue. Melting the fat changes the taste and mouthfeel, (which is the point Douglas Baldwin was making) but even if melted it it can remain bound in the tissue.

The most effective techniques for rendering involve fine chopping the meat and fat in a meat grinder or even a blender or food processor - for example here on recipe gullet.

Mechanically breaking up the meat assures that the fat can leak out of fat cells. Of course that is for rendering. This approach defeats the purpose you seem to be after - which is rendering fat from meat that is still intact.

That is best accomplished by either trimming fat away (before cooking, or on your plate), or cooking at even higher temperatures for a long period of time. However, this will create dry meat - indeed dry meat is exactly what you get after rendering. Removing a little fat is fine, but ultimately if you want rich beef taste with moist tender meat, there has to be some fat present.

Finally, I will point out that brisket is actually not that fatty. There is a thick fat cap on brisket, but if that is trimmed away the remaining meat is actually quite lean. There is connective tissue in brisket - but that is mostly collagen and not very high in fat. In fact, this is one of the challenges in cooking brisket - it is easy to make it too dry.

[slkinsey]

Finally, I will point out that brisket is actually not that fatty.  There is a thick fat cap on brisket, but if that is trimmed away the remaining meat is actually quite lean.

Just for the sake of completing Nathan's comments... we should mention that the foregoing is true of the first cut (aka "flat) part of the brisket, and not as much true of the second cut (aka "deckle") part of the brisket. The latter can be quite fatty throughout (which is why it is so delicious!).

Edited January 10, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[e_monster]

One reason I cooked this at such a high heat 150/160 was because of this article:

From : http://amath.colorado.edu/~baldwind/sous-vide.html

Your pictures look like the meat was delicious. I recommend trying at 135F some time so that you can compare the results. From the pictures and temperature, I would guess that the taste texture was along the lines of a braised brisket. Certainly yummy but quite different from what you would get at a lower temp. At 135F (more so than 147F), the texture will be radically different. The texture will be more like fork-tender roast beef than it will be like brisket--fork tender but with the meat maintaining its 'integrity' for lack of a better word--very tender but not falling apart.

Just a thought.

[Christian Conkle]

Just a little post by way of self-introduction. Having come across this thread, and thence into the little world of sous vide, a few months ago, I eventually got tired of just reading, and went on a little buying spree: an Auber WS-1500, the Foodsaver V3825 from Costco, and an Aroma brand 15-cup rice cooker from Walmart. I'm just about entirely happy with all three of them so far; the cooker could be a tiny bit deeper, and the Foodsaver could use roll material a bit more efficiently, but I think this trio will serve me pretty well for now.

My quantitative side has been going through withdrawal since I started graduate study in the humanities, so one of my first projects was to tune the PID using the most quantitative-ish guidelines I could find: those from the eBook Practical Process Control: Proven Methods and Best Practices for Automatic PID Control. Once I realized that the cooker is better modeled as an "integrating" process--when the heater's on more than about 20% of the time, the temperature continues rising without stabalizing at some particular temperature--I filled the cooker up to the "2.4L" line (actually more like four liters) and took some very simple measurements with a kitchen timer and the temperature display on the Auber.

I've written up a little condensed step-by-step guide here. I spent two afternoons playing around, but having figured out how to do it, recording the data only takes a few hours.

Projects so far have included:

• Chuck roast, cut up and at 131 for 46 hours, served as part of a grab-bag Christmas dinner to positive reviews; I only managed to grab a bite or two and found it a bit dry, although the out-of-a-bag "au jus" sauce helped.
  
• Potatoes for french fries, parcooked with some butter at 181 for a few hours and deep-fried, to more positive reviews and frying oil all over the place. Incidentally, since we had the oil hot--I was home with family, and we never deep-fry--we just had to put some other stuff in. I stole some little pickle slices from the hamburger fixin' platter and dipped them in the onion ring batter (out of Joy of Cooking); they were fantastic.
  
• A few failed/insipid projects, notably the beef ribs at 135 for 48 hours. I hadn't trimmed them correctly; I've never worked with ribs before. The meat was wonderful, but surrounded by all sorts of inedible fat and connective tissue.
  

And finally, in the past two days, the real payoff successes:

• Tri-tip "steak" from Costco, bagged with salt and pepper and a little bit of bottled hibachi sauce, 135 for about 46 hours; browned with my new blowtorch and EVOO; bag liquids warmed, strained through a wet paper towel, reduced a little, and thickened with unsalted butter. Glorious! The connective tissue had broken down just the right amount; perfectly tender, but still some body; great flavor. I haven't had a proper hunk of beef in a long, long time. I only had about forty-five minutes to prep, eat, clean up, and go; no rush.
  
• Cheap boneless chicken breast. This was the other big reason for buying the system: weeknight chicken dinner 2 hours after coming home, with virtually no hands-on prep time. (I'll try putting in the chicken before leaving in the morning some day; I wonder what will happen?) Tonight, 148 for about 2 hours (got distracted); browned with the blowtorch and EVOO; bag juices warmed, strained, reduced a little, and thickened with cream. Served over jasmine rice. Next time I'll try using some chicken broth to produce more sauce; there was barely enough to cover the chicken, much less sauce the rice. But again, very good; more tender than the last one I made (at 146), very serviceable weeknight dinner.
  

Next projects? Well, I've got some more tri-tip and chicken in the freezer, already bagged. I've made a few 2-hour eggs, which are good but I haven't really learned to eat yet; I guess I'll have to have my grandmother show me. (20-hour eggs--I got distracted--don't work as well...) I'll try some vegetables, too; I'm looking around for decent really-cheap food sources in my area. I haven't summoned the courage to buy one of Costco's enormous chuck roasts or briskets and figure out how to cut and bag it.

[e_monster]

On Doug Baldwin's great website, the section on roast beef indicates that the meat needs to be less than 2.75 inches thick for safe cooking (at 131F).

Can anyone (Doug or Nathan) comment as to whether 2.75 inches is indeed the maximum thickness for a piece of beef to be cooked sous-vide. I'd love to try cooking a cross rib roast but the smallest I have found is about 4 inches thick -- and I'd hate to cut it into smaller pieces because I'd like to sear the outer fatty side after cooking.

I have a note in my notebook that 5 inches or less is safe. The source was this list but I haven't been able to find the posting that I got that number from -- so maybe I jotted it down wrong.

Thanks.

p.s. Doug, I followed your instructions for a flat-iron steak and my guests were blown away and wolfed it down. I served it with a brandy cream sauce made using the bag juices and the crispy bits that stuck to the pan during the searing.

[DouglasBaldwin]

As with every food safety question, it is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, the interior of intact beef muscle is essentially sterile and so the roast can be as large as you want. On the other hand, if the interior is not sterile and contains (a high initial load of) C. perfringens, then the coldest part of the roast should reach 54.4C/130F within 6 hours.

So, how big can a roast be if you want the center to reach 54.4C/130F within 6 hours? Well, it depends on how hot the water bath is, what the thermal dynamic properties of the meat are, the shape of the meat, and how "thick" the roast is (among other things). The higher the water bath temperature is above 54.4C/130F, the larger the roast can be. The more spherical the roast is, the larger it can be. If you want to cook in a 55C/131F water bath and the roast is approximately cylindrical then it can be up to 95--135mm/3.7--5.3in thick (depending on how close the roast is to a perfect cylinder and what the thermal diffusivity of the meat is (see Table A.9 of my guide)).

[nathanm]

As with every food safety question, it is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, the interior of intact beef muscle is essentially sterile and so the roast can be as large as you want. On the other hand, if the interior is not sterile and contains (a high initial load of) C. perfringens, then the coldest part of the roast should reach 54.4C/130F within 6 hours.

Yes, Douglas puts it very well.

The interior of intact muscle of virually all food animals is sterile from pathogens. Bacterial contamination is almost all external, and almost all fecal in origin.

So, if you have a hunk of intact beef muscle - i.e. a roast which has not been stuffed or cut open, or larded, or injected, then as Douglas says, there is no problem cooking it pretty much however you want.

To get a high load of C. perfringens in beef would be pretty hard to do. However if you did have a high load, AND you then follow FDA rules for what is "acceptable", then there is a limit of 5 to 6 inches.

Even that is unlikely to make you sick because C. perfringens dies easily with heat. Its spores do not reproduce well until heat shocked to 70C (well above the temperature where any sane person cooks a beef roast). So even in this very unlikely case the application of the rules is misleading.

But, just to be nit picky, with a high enough pathogen load, even that might not be enough. There is no "right" answer here.

The fact is that intact beef muscle is virually always sterile, so in practice you can cook big roasts sous vide without difficulty.

Yes there is some chance that you have the first case of non-sterile beef in history. Or maybe your butcher poked into the center of the meat with a knife that was dirty from cutting pork skin. On the other hand, maybe you get run over by a bus on the way home from the butcher shop - in fact that is statistically a lot more likely.

[e_monster]

So, how big can a roast be if you want the center to reach 54.4C/130F within 6 hours?  Well, it depends on how hot the water bath is, what the thermal dynamic properties of the meat are, the shape of the meat, and how "thick" the roast is (among other things).  The higher the water bath temperature is above 54.4C/130F, the larger the roast can be.  The more spherical the roast is, the larger it can be.  If you want to cook in a 55C/131F water bath and the roast is approximately cylindrical then it can be up to 95--135mm/3.7--5.3in thick (depending on how close the roast is to a perfect cylinder and what the thermal diffusivity of the meat is (see Table A.9 of my guide)).

←

So, it sounds like you and Nathan think that a roughly cylindrical (more like a tapered cylinder -- i.e. a cone with the pointy end chopped off) that is about 4.5 inches in diameter and 4 inches roast cooked in a 132F water bath should be relatively safe.

When vacuum-packed, the cross-section is likely to flatten quite a bit. The flattening is likely to make it wider but less thick. I would think that this would make it even safer.

Does that seem reasonable?

I tend to err on the side of caution.

Would you both feel comfortable cooking something like that for 24 hours? (I think you already answered that but want to double-check.)

[KennethT]

I have a question for all the technical experts out there - Douglas Baldwin, Nathanm, I hope you're out there!

I recently stumbled onto a paper which summarized a two day seminar given by George Pralus in David Bouley's test kitchen back in April, 2006. Some of the things Pralus was saying is a little contradictory to what I had learned from this thread, and from what I get from the 2005 FDA food code....

Pralus put a graph on the whiteboard showing temperature safety zones...

50-55C - danger zone

55-60C - tolerance zone

60-63C - start of pasteurization zone

> 63C - assured pasteurization zone

It was also stated that heat treatment only kills vegetative forms of pathogens if the core temp. reaches 60C.

I've been routinely doing flank steak for 24 hours at 55C - granted my lack of problems is not statistically significant....

Can anyone shed some light on this??? Thanks!

[DouglasBaldwin]

There is absolutely no problem cooking meat at 55C/131F. Most food pathogens stop growing by 45C/113F (Listeria, Salmonella, etc.), almost all the rest stop growing by 50C/122F and only C. perfringens is able to grow up to 53C/127.5F (and only because of a Phoenix phenomenon that is occasionally observable in laboratories). Certainly pasteurization takes longer at 55C/131F than it does at 60C/140F, but this is easily achieved in a water bath; besides, even the conservative 2005 US Food Code gives pasteurization times at 54.4C/130F (in section 3-401.11.B.2). Furthermore, the interior of intact beef muscle is essentially sterile and doesn't even need to be pasteurized (see discussion up thread).

[KennethT]

Thanks for your input - I didn't think there was a concern - but I was curious if anyone knew why Pralus was saying what he was saying...

[FoodMan]

Well I read this thread ove rthe past few months or so and have been looking for an IC on eBay off and on. After a failed acquisition (won it, got it and it did not work...I got my $$ back tho) I finally got a properly functional IC made by Lauda (Thanks Sam for your help and advice). I have not played too much with it but I did try a few things so far and I am looking forward to jumpo in to more serious lonjg temr cooking. I cannot wait to try some chuck or brisket at 135 for 48hrs. That is the most widely accpeted way of getting a properly cooked and flavorful tender piece of meat. Right?

Anyways here's what I tried so far:

- Initial test: I cooked two eggs for about 8 hours. I forgot what the temp was, but I followed e-monster's recipe from early on. this was done mostly to test the machine and make sure it maintains it's setting. It did, but the eggs yolk was a bit overcooked and the white was ok. I'm thinking a shorter period and hiher heat might be better.

- Pork chops. bagged with butter and seasoning and cooked at 140 for a couple of hours. Ver juicy and deliciuous with a slight pink color. I served these with braised red cabbage. I wish I had taken pictures of all this stuff, but I was still testing.

- Desserts seem a bit absent from this thread. I used a recipe from my Alinea book for persimmon cake and adapted it to make a chocolate/banana/coconut cake. This was cooked at 82C for 3.5 hours. It was sliced and served with toasted almonds and coconut foam. This was beyond delicious! My wife -who is very skeptical of the IC- loved it. It was rich and chocolaty. I would like to make it more cylindrical next time and be able to slice perfect rounds after it is CSV. Not sure how to do that yet, but a collagen suusage casing might be involved and I will post pictures next time.

- Mahi Mahi fillets. These were cooked a bit too high and too short. They tasted ok, but were a little tough on the outside and undercooked on the inside.

[e_monster]

- Initial test: I cooked two eggs for about 8 hours. I forgot what the temp was, but I followed e-monster's recipe from early on. this was done mostly to test the machine and make sure it maintains it's setting. It did, but the eggs yolk was a bit overcooked and the white was ok. I'm thinking a shorter period and hiher heat might be better.

A quick note about eggs, take a look at Doug Baldwin's great site -- he has pictures of eggs at different temps. When I am going to leave them in a long time (mostly just so that I can put them in before I go to bed and have some eggs ready for my wife when she wakes up), I will use 146 or 147F. The drawback to those temps is that the whites some of the whites will be very watery.

Interestingly, time at a given temp seems to have a bigger impact on the yolk than the white. At 147F, the yolk will be more set when left overnight than when cooked for 90 minutes. BUT, the whites won't be terribly much different.

My general pref these days is a 147 or 148F egg cooked for about 80 minutes

The freshness and origin of the eggs seem to make a huge difference in terms of the exact temperature that things set at.

I am still trying to figure out the way to get the ideal egg. I like the yolk of a 147F egg as it is after 80 minutes -- but want the whites to be slightly more set. I am thinking that the trick is probably two baths -- a high temp bath just under boiling for a minute and then into the 147F bath. I have explored this a little but haven't had the time to get it right.

Anyone else have some egg experiences to share. I'd love to find the secret to the truly perfect egg.

[nickrey]

After experimenting with different times and temperatures, I've decided I don't like sous vide eggs. The truly perfect egg is poached

[cigno1]

Has anyone tried Octopus yet? Keller's book says 5hrs at 77c, curious about the results.

chris

[KennethT]

Does anyone know where to get food grade closed cell foam tape for making temperature measurements with a needle proble? I know some people have used the closed cell weatherstripping, but I'm a bit concerned that there may be some toxic stuff in the adhesive...

Any thoughts or suggestions?

[AEK]

JB Prince sells it.

[Edward Dekker]

I purchased a package of the foam tape from JB Prince when I purchased my immersion circulator. The tape added so little to the order ($6) it was an easy addition. I have not tried to use the foam tape yet. (So little time so many things to cook and experiment with.)

The foam tape JB Prince sells appears to be a product they repackage from bulk rolls into a small coil in plastic bag. There is no manufacturer marking on the bag or the tape. It appears to be identical to the weather stripping available locally. (I have not tried to use the weather stripping for sous vide either.)

[howsmatt]

This is my first ever post. I recently left my job as a teacher to follow my passion for food. I cater privately and work at a high end steakhouse.

Thank you all for your great input on this site.

Some findings and questions:

1) chuck cooked for 30 hours really does come out like NY strip or filet. (135 degrees)

2) don't put citrus zest in the bag and try to make osso bucco- yuck.

3) eggs at 148 are great

4) sous vide magic and the people that work there are great.

5) For a tender steak (filet-NY etc.) I still prefer starting in a low oven, 250 or so, until the internal temp is 100-110 then searing. Much better flavour.

6) chicken breast at 148 is too cooked for me.

7) A rice cooker works WAY better than a crock pot with a PID. 7.5) apparently you can also make rice when you buy a rice cooker.

although I read this entire beast of a thread and the various links, I don't remember seeing the following answered:

If I cook a piece of meat at say 133 for a day or two, how long can I leave it out (in the bag or out) before it must be seared or chilled? (there is a reason that this would be convenient for me) I prefer not to sear first as I don't like meat cooked past medium-rare and I want the smell from the last minute sear.

If I took that same piece of meat and threw it straight in the fridge (assume the fridge went above 4 degrees here and there), would it be safe to eat? For how long?

[dougal]

Welcome howsmatt !

I'm sure a microbiologist will give a better answer eventually, but, as an initial response, my 'take' is that - if you intend storing for subsequent reheating - the faster you do the cooling, the better.

Turning that round, the slower you cool it, the shorter the 'shelf-life'.

Hence, from hot bath to cold bath is a much better bet than mere air-cooling, let alone cooling in a timed-out, and subsequently very slowly cooling hot bath.

I think that's the basic idea, but I wouldn't want to be the one to put numbers on it!

Edited January 29, 2009 by dougal (log)

[FoodMan]

Sorry for the semi-crappy pic. I had to use my Blackberry since my camera was nowhere to be found at the time.

I had to share my first serious SV attempt. 36-hour Shawarma style beef chuck cooked at 57C. It was marinated with red wine with alcohol cooked off, various shawarma spices and CSV with an onion wrapped in saran with ends open al la Keller. Pretty phenomenal, tender but not mushy, very much like a good beefy steak. I served it with pita among other things.

Quick question about reaheating chilled CSV items. How does it work? Say I cooked a steak or some chicken and quick chilled them in an ice bath and stored in the fridge. How do i properly reheat them for dinner without losing the benefit of CSV and without having to have to wait for an hour or two for it to come up to temp again in a water bath?

[slkinsey]

If you want it to stay the same, you need to reheat it in the water bath (not strictly true, but true as a practical matter). That said, getting things just up to temperature is pretty fast if they're already cooked and don't need to spend time at temperature. Also, a lot of the time you can reheat certain things CSV via more conventional means and still keep the benefits of SV cooking. I occasionally use SV chicken breast in omelets and things like that, and they seem to keep their SV juiciness and tenderness through the reheating with the eggs (probably what this means is that they wouldn't be fully cooked if I were using raw chicken in the same recipe).

IMO, it doesn't make much sense to cook-and-chill SV at home unless you are (1) planning on reheating in the water bath; (2) planning on serving the food cold; (3) it's something hammered through like SV duck confit; or (4) it's something you always planned on cooking partially SV and partially via conventional means (this is something that Keller does a few times in "Under Pressure" -- cook, say, veal breast a long time SV to convert the collagen without drying it out, then later on cooking it to a more conventional "doneness" to finish it for service).