Pressure cooker vs cooking sous vide for stew, braise, etc.

[rotuts]

I thought was passed on to me today about PC vs SV for stews, braise, etc and I had no idea about

the difference in the " final taste " of each method, side by side.

are there people here that have studies both for taste-on-the-plate.

time, method, etc aside?

each method must have its own strengths.

Heston B. did a TV series for the BBC or so on improving food: at a childrens hospital, the movie theater, on the Airplane and get this The Nuclear Submarine.

yum. he did a stew for the HMS Defiant. but never showed the RX. the crew loved it. it had the advantage that all the SV could be done on shore.

it was accepted. then you saw large SV sacks of Beef, Carrots, Onion in separate SV sacks loaded on the HMS.

of course he blind tested this SV Stew with the Captains Wife and CPO's Wife first on shore they loved it

so SV "Braise - stew" vs PC for final Taste-on-the-Plate

sorry: PC = Pressure Cooker.

Edited September 29, 2013 by rotuts (log)

[weinoo]

What's PC?

[patrickamory]

pressure cooker?

[rotuts]

sorry, yes the Pressure Cooker.

[weinoo]

Ahhh - thanks. A little slow today.

But shouldn't any "final taste" include a traditional braise as well?

[Martin Fisher]

Yes, but you know that you MUST have a $300 pressure cooker that doesn't vent aroma and flavor to do it correctly, anything short of that will not do.

[rotuts]

just looking at Pressure Cooker vs SV.

if you wanted it to be PC vs SV vs "Braise (TR.) that would be fine too.

but im after PC vs SV for now. of course TR braise would win as we would have sooo much time to:

inhale the delicious aromata while cooking ( No Joke ) and Pull a Cork or Two while waiting ( )

[weinoo]

Well, I've had short-ribs braised sous-vide, and they were pretty damn good.

But at home, I'd rather get the aroma of a TR braise.

[sigma]

Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. A combination on one plate is really nice a lot of the time.

[rotuts]

Each has its own strengths and weaknesses

and they are .......

[sigma]

Pressure cookers are faster and the sauces tend to be richer because of the better extraction at slightly higher temperature and the ability to use less moistening liquid. On the downside, they court stringiness a lot of the time, and the flavors tend to be a little muddled. Also, while when done well the sauces are quite clear, they can get murky as the vegetables and bones are breaking down quickly.

Sous vide allows you to have interesting textures, but it takes a longer time and, and this is just personal, it tends to lack a bit of the nuance of flavor that traditionally cooked food has. A friend, who is a Michelin starred chef, remarked that you can cook a bird sous vide perfectly, but the truth is that the best part of a bird are the little burned crusties that you get when you roast one on a spit. The same goes for braises, there are little nubs and bits of soft, caramelized fat that make some dishes shine.

Traditional has what you would imagine. Familiar tastes you can coax into great richness, but also the loss of a lot of aromatics and an underlying dryness.

Take the best you can from each.

[rotuts]

excellent points thank you

[gfweb]

I tend to SV tough meats a long time...then sear...then add pan-cooked flavor in some form or another (eg mushrooms, browned onions etc and bright spices)

[rotuts]

also excellent idea. what Im after

I guess on HMS Submarine there is not a lot of extra time to enjoy the aromata, nor a cellar, even a lower shelf cellar to Pull a Cork while waiting for dinner.

[JoNorvelleWalker]

also excellent idea. what Im after

I guess on HMS Submarine there is not a lot of extra time to enjoy the aromata, nor a cellar, even a lower shelf cellar to Pull a Cork while waiting for dinner.

According to the LA Times, bars in British subs serve ale on tap, so yes, no corks.

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/18/business/fi-submarine18

[rotuts]

I knew the R.N. wasnt dry, but figured the sub might be different.

[nickrey]

The concept of throwing everything in a pan or pressure cooker and cooking it homogeneously can lead to a muddying of taste and texture. For this reason many chefs prepare elements separately and then combine them in the final product. If you want an element of marination you can combine, refrigerate, and reheat.

Since I got my first sous vide cooker, I've often cooked a protein to my desired texture and then combined it with a separately prepared sauce which often includes vegetables. If I'm adding mushrooms I'll most often fry them separately in butter to give a better crunch. Heston Blumenthal and others will often add onions at different stages of the cooking process to allow for complexity in taste/texture.

The key is understanding your ingredients, how they respond to cooking, and how they will combine to achieve the end product you are after.

If I want coherent chunks which retain texture and taste of the initial ingredient, I'll typically use sous vide followed by an extremely hot sear. If I want shredded meat for whatever reason, I'll use a pressure cooker.

[sigma]

The concept of throwing everything in a pan or pressure cooker and cooking it homogeneously can lead to a muddying of taste and texture. For this reason many chefs prepare elements separately and then combine them in the final product. If you want an element of marination you can combine, refrigerate, and reheat.

Since I got my first sous vide cooker, I've often cooked a protein to my desired texture and then combined it with a separately prepared sauce which often includes vegetables. If I'm adding mushrooms I'll most often fry them separately in butter to give a better crunch. Heston Blumenthal and others will often add onions at different stages of the cooking process to allow for complexity in taste/texture.

The key is understanding your ingredients, how they respond to cooking, and how they will combine to achieve the end product you are after.

If I want coherent chunks which retain texture and taste of the initial ingredient, I'll typically use sous vide followed by an extremely hot sear. If I want shredded meat for whatever reason, I'll use a pressure cooker.

This is overly reductive. Your comment is based on the idea that there is a quantitative difference in goodness between the outcomes, when it really breaks down to preferences at a given time. It's easy to wax poetic about keeping the "texture and taste of the initial ingredient," though you are mistaken in thinking you are preserving texture when you are simply choosing a different alteration, and to hold that as a standard. One could just as easily go on about preserving the taste of the dish in question, and since a lot of the great ones, the bourgignons, the daubes etc tend to be, well, muddied, then the sous vide versions can be dismissed as pale imitators. Really, it is better to think of them as having different strengths, which is why different methods are chosen, and not just when somebody wants shredded meat. That is really understanding your ingredients, your history and how to combine the two.

[nickrey]

The concept of throwing everything in a pan or pressure cooker and cooking it homogeneously can lead to a muddying of taste and texture. For this reason many chefs prepare elements separately and then combine them in the final product. If you want an element of marination you can combine, refrigerate, and reheat.

Since I got my first sous vide cooker, I've often cooked a protein to my desired texture and then combined it with a separately prepared sauce which often includes vegetables. If I'm adding mushrooms I'll most often fry them separately in butter to give a better crunch. Heston Blumenthal and others will often add onions at different stages of the cooking process to allow for complexity in taste/texture.

The key is understanding your ingredients, how they respond to cooking, and how they will combine to achieve the end product you are after.

If I want coherent chunks which retain texture and taste of the initial ingredient, I'll typically use sous vide followed by an extremely hot sear. If I want shredded meat for whatever reason, I'll use a pressure cooker.

This is overly reductive. Your comment is based on the idea that there is a quantitative difference in goodness between the outcomes, when it really breaks down to preferences at a given time. It's easy to wax poetic about keeping the "texture and taste of the initial ingredient," though you are mistaken in thinking you are preserving texture when you are simply choosing a different alteration, and to hold that as a standard. One could just as easily go on about preserving the taste of the dish in question, and since a lot of the great ones, the bourgignons, the daubes etc tend to be, well, muddied, then the sous vide versions can be dismissed as pale imitators. Really, it is better to think of them as having different strengths, which is why different methods are chosen, and not just when somebody wants shredded meat. That is really understanding your ingredients, your history and how to combine the two.

I think you have mixed up my expression of my preference with an instruction on what must be done.

Try substituting personal preference for quantitative (or even qualitative) and you are closer to my point.

We all have different preferences and it should ever be thus.

[ePressureCooker]

The concept of throwing everything in a pan or pressure cooker and cooking it homogeneously can lead to a muddying of taste and texture. For this reason many chefs prepare elements separately and then combine them in the final product. If you want an element of marination you can combine, refrigerate, and reheat.

Maybe I'm unusual for a pressure cooker aficionado, but I find it nearly impossible to just throw everything into the pot together to cook. I'm always doing various steps, like caramelizing the vegetables / mirepoix first, browning meat separately, adding ingredients at the end - very few of my dishes are chuck everything in together with no "layering" preparation. I also find myself combining various techniques increasingly, for example, parboiling potatoes and then finishing them off for a roast in the oven, or partially cooking a chicken in the pressure cooker to get that lovely softened quality to the meat, and render the chicken skin, and then finishing it off in the oven to crisp up the rendered skin.

[EnriqueB]

I've prepared similar dishes SV, conventional stew, and PC. Not side-by-side but sequentially. For example, I've done oxtail SV (100 hours @ 60ºC, as per MC), braised (7 hours @ around 85ºC, as per TK, French Laundry), and PC (1 hour @ around 120ºC). I consider these are simply different dishes, especially SV vs the other two.

There are essential differences between the methods. First, the chemical reactions taking place in tough meats at 60 and 120ºC are the main difference. At 60ºC juiciness and colour are retained, but it takes absurd times to transform collagen to gelatine. If you are willing to wait that time, the result is, IMO, incredible, with a mixture of features of traditional tender meat (redness, juiciness, tenderness) and the stronger taste of a tough cut and the nice mouthfeel of gelatine. Increasing temperature starts to draw moisture out of the meat and the red colour turns to brownish/grey. This is only compensated in traditional stews by the transformation of collagen to gelatine, which makes the meat "feel" tender at the mouth. But, organoleptically, the meat is completelly different from the 60ºC one. Juiciness and colour changes take place up to around 75ºC, any higher temperature will not change things much for them, whereas the hidrolysis of collagen takes place exponentially faster as we continue to increase temperature. That's why the traditional stew will not be so much different from the pressure-cooked one at around 120ºC, but can be cooked much faster.

But when cooking at 60ºC you don't produce the wonderful sauce that you get at 80ºC and higher, as much less juice and collagen is extracted from the meat. So, if you want a result closer in that sense to a traditional stew you have to work extra to create a delicious "jelly-like" stock, and them integrate the elements somehow (but integration cannot be as good as traditional). You also cannot add vegetables to the SV bag, as they need a higher temperature to break down their pectine walls, so again you need to work out those component separatelly.

In both SV and PC methods you cannot easily add items to the dish as it is cooking, depending on their different cooking times, as you can in a traditional stew. You cannot easily verify "doneness" neither.

At the end, you get quite different results. Preferring one or another boils down to personal preference or the result you're looking for. I like all three, choosing one or the other just depends on the time I have available and/or the exact result I want for a given dish.

[Anna N]

I've prepared similar dishes SV, conventional stew, and PC. Not side-by-side but sequentially. For example, I've done oxtail SV (100 hours @ 60ºC, as per MC), braised (7 hours @ around 85ºC, as per TK, French Laundry), and PC (1 hour @ around 120ºC). I consider these are simply different dishes, especially SV vs the other two.

..............

I just want to say thank you for this explanation. I found it very enlightening.

[rotuts]

EnriqueB

also a big thank you. I learned a lot and will add that knowledge to my cooking

your response is what this forum is about.

thanks again.

[ePressureCooker]

+1 on the thank you to Enrique for that explanation. Very interesting.

There are essential differences between the methods. First, the chemical reactions taking place in tough meats at 60 and 120ºC are the main difference. At 60ºC juiciness and colour are retained, but it takes absurd times to transform collagen to gelatine. If you are willing to wait that time, the result is, IMO, incredible, with a mixture of features of traditional tender meat (redness, juiciness, tenderness) and the stronger taste of a tough cut and the nice mouthfeel of gelatine. Increasing temperature starts to draw moisture out of the meat and the red colour turns to brownish/grey. This is only compensated in traditional stews by the transformation of collagen to gelatine, which makes the meat "feel" tender at the mouth. But, organoleptically, the meat is completelly different from the 60ºC one. Juiciness and colour changes take place up to around 75ºC, any higher temperature will not change things much for them, whereas the hidrolysis of collagen takes place exponentially faster as we continue to increase temperature. That's why the traditional stew will not be so much different from the pressure-cooked one at around 120ºC, but can be cooked much faster.

But when cooking at 60ºC you don't produce the wonderful sauce that you get at 80ºC and higher, as much less juice and collagen is extracted from the meat. So, if you want a result closer in that sense to a traditional stew you have to work extra to create a delicious "jelly-like" stock, and them integrate the elements somehow (but integration cannot be as good as traditional). You also cannot add vegetables to the SV bag, as they need a higher temperature to break down their pectine walls, so again you need to work out those component separatelly.

I can't provide any information as to sous vide, never having done it, but I can add re the pressure cooking and the gelatinization issue (versus traditional methods) I can always get far more gelatinized stock than I can ever manage with stovetop methods. Pressure cook chicken bones and scraps for 90 minutes to make stock, and its going to be practically rock hard from the gelatin after refrigeration overnight. Cook a whole chicken for 20 - 25 minutes in the pressure cooker, and the cooking liquid is going to be pretty firm, after refrigeration. Even if I just cook chicken parts for a few minutes, I'll get some gelatinization. I never got those kind of results from traditional cooking methods, well, unless I simmered stock for a long time, and even then, I don't remember getting so much gelatin as I do now. And gelatinization means not only connective tissues breaking down (thereby reducing what many of us would call "gristle" / inedible parts in tougher meat cuts), but increased flavor.

[EnriqueB]

+1 on the thank you to Enrique for that explanation. Very interesting.

There are essential differences between the methods. First, the chemical reactions taking place in tough meats at 60 and 120ºC are the main difference. At 60ºC juiciness and colour are retained, but it takes absurd times to transform collagen to gelatine. If you are willing to wait that time, the result is, IMO, incredible, with a mixture of features of traditional tender meat (redness, juiciness, tenderness) and the stronger taste of a tough cut and the nice mouthfeel of gelatine. Increasing temperature starts to draw moisture out of the meat and the red colour turns to brownish/grey. This is only compensated in traditional stews by the transformation of collagen to gelatine, which makes the meat "feel" tender at the mouth. But, organoleptically, the meat is completelly different from the 60ºC one. Juiciness and colour changes take place up to around 75ºC, any higher temperature will not change things much for them, whereas the hidrolysis of collagen takes place exponentially faster as we continue to increase temperature. That's why the traditional stew will not be so much different from the pressure-cooked one at around 120ºC, but can be cooked much faster.

But when cooking at 60ºC you don't produce the wonderful sauce that you get at 80ºC and higher, as much less juice and collagen is extracted from the meat. So, if you want a result closer in that sense to a traditional stew you have to work extra to create a delicious "jelly-like" stock, and them integrate the elements somehow (but integration cannot be as good as traditional). You also cannot add vegetables to the SV bag, as they need a higher temperature to break down their pectine walls, so again you need to work out those component separatelly.

I can't provide any information as to sous vide, never having done it, but I can add re the pressure cooking and the gelatinization issue (versus traditional methods) I can always get far more gelatinized stock than I can ever manage with stovetop methods. Pressure cook chicken bones and scraps for 90 minutes to make stock, and its going to be practically rock hard from the gelatin after refrigeration overnight. Cook a whole chicken for 20 - 25 minutes in the pressure cooker, and the cooking liquid is going to be pretty firm, after refrigeration. Even if I just cook chicken parts for a few minutes, I'll get some gelatinization. I never got those kind of results from traditional cooking methods, well, unless I simmered stock for a long time, and even then, I don't remember getting so much gelatin as I do now. And gelatinization means not only connective tissues breaking down (thereby reducing what many of us would call "gristle" / inedible parts in tougher meat cuts), but increased flavor.

That's absolutelly true, ePressureCooker, and one of the reasons why stocks are better cooked in a (non-venting, spring valve) presssure cooker. Another reason is that aromatic volatiles are better retained, and yet another one that slight Maillard reactions take place, which improve flavour. In fact, "white stocks" are never "that white" in the pressure cooker. And, if you look for very subtle flavor & aroma, SV or low-temp traditional are better, for example I prefer those methods for vegetable & fish stocks.

On the other hand, for stews I don't always want the strong gelatin extraction of the pressure cooker, and I may prefer a bit less gelatin in exchange of a not-so-dry meat.