Sous Vide Steak

[ElsieD]

Glad to see I can drop the baking powder when browning my steaks.  I too could taste the baking soda.

[nickrey]

After many iterations, I sear straight from the sous vide cook with the following parameters:

1. I use an iron, fully-seasoned wok heated over a wok burner to the hottest it will go.
2. The outside of the steak has to be dried (I use paper towels).
3. No oil in the pan, I oil the outside of the steak.
4. A light sprinkle of salt is added to the oiled steak prior to searing.
5. The sear on each side is very brief.

I've also done a deep fry sear and that is also excellent.

[btbyrd]

My thought has always been that if you have to resort to chemical solutions to your browning problem, your pan's not hot enough. Put down the bicarbonate and step away from the dextrose. 

[jmacnaughtan]

If you don't have a massive power output on your burner, add some butter to the pan.  It'll help with the colour and taste better (as long as you don't burn it).

 

Although, for thicker steaks, I now use the Alain Ducasse method.

[boilsover]

10 hours ago, jmacnaughtan said:

If you don't have a massive power output on your burner, add some butter to the pan.  It'll help with the colour and taste better (as long as you don't burn it).

 

Although, for thicker steaks, I now use the Alain Ducasse method.

 

Actually I do have up to 180K Btu available, and I'm with you about butter.  Because of the high temps I'm using with searing the SV'd steaks, if I want butter/diacetyl flavor, it gets ghee and oil for the sear, and then a little whole or compound butter at the finish.

 

The Ducasse/Fat Guy method was also my mom's (wife of the butcher) --the crust is incredible.  Personally, I prioritize that crust ahead of the (relative) lack of gradient with SV.  

 

Now I'm thinking of a la Mom/Ducasse, except starting with the raw steak chilled...

 

Next "Steak SV" question:  I have had good luck with "marinating" steaks overnight in a vacuum cannister with olive oil, garlic and herbs.  I think the acids in the oil improve the texture, and the aromats infuse the meat.  I have not noticed this texture improvement with my SV cooks, but the flavor infusion has been OK.  Do you SV experts think you get equal or greater benefits from doing that in a non-vacuum SV bag in a 1-2 hour SV cook?   In other words, do you get much, besides heat, that you wouldn't get from a vacuum marinade?

 

[btbyrd]

The benefits of vacuum marination are much exaggerated. But if you like doing an overnight marinade with herbs and oil, it also works quite well in a bag, vacuum or otherwise.  This has the added bonus of allowing you to drop the meat straight "from the marinade" into the water bath. In an herb/oil marinade, time is what matters most, not temp... so a 1-2 hour SV cook won't compare to a 12 hour marinade. There's not a real substitute for time. Well... that's not entirely true...

 

The best way to accelerate marinade uptake using vacuum is to use meat that has been Jaccarded or needled. Meat is dense. It is not like a sponge, and won't "suck up" marinades appreciably faster under vacuum. However, if you poke it through with hundreds of channels using a Jaccard, things change. You can get radically faster marinade/brine/whatever penetration using vacuum machines in conjunction with Jaccarding. I haven't heard this technique discussed, though I'm sure people have thought about it before. For lack of a better term, I call it "vacuum injection" of brines or marinades, given its similarity to ordinary, non-vacuum injection brining.

 

But back to herb oil marinades... This Thanksgiving, I made two quarts of herb oil that I used to confit all the turkey. I basically fried a bunch of thyme, sage, marjoram, rosemary, bay, and herbs de provence at a very low temperature (under 250) in extra virgin olive oil and took it off the heat just before the bubbles stopped. There were some chili flakes in there too. Once it cooled to room temp,  I strained it and used it all over everything. Sometime I'm going to experiment and create something similar using culinary essential oils (inspired in part by Dan Patterson's book with Mandy Aftel).

 

 

[boilsover]

21 hours ago, btbyrd said:

The benefits of vacuum marination are much exaggerated... Meat is dense. It is not like a sponge, and won't "suck up" marinades appreciably faster under vacuum.

 

Hmmm, do you have any data supporting this?

 

I certainly get that needled tissue will take up marinade faster than non-, but I question whether meat is so dense that it will not absorb marinade faster under vacuum.  It would seen to me that, while not significantly porous, there is clearly enough "room" for water and salt (and blood, serum and lymph) to pass through and between muscle cells, and vacuum would aid with that, even without needling.

 

I guess I have to run a little test.

 

In this connection, I've heard it's the practice of markets like Costco and Walmart to needle pretty much everything.

Edited December 20, 2017 by boilsover (log)

[rotuts]

Well for Steak  id consider 

 

going here and look over their U-Tube vids :

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpFuaxD-0PKLolFR3gWhrMw/videos

 

there is a lot of fun here and

 

over time they have dropped their SV temps for Steak.

 

they are Meat Eaters and  sometimes go fishing .

 

take it or leave it.

 

very entertaining I think

 

after a glass or two of MR

 

and Ive learned quite a bit from them.

 

Up to You !

 

 

[Paul Bacino]

@btbyrd

 

"using culinary essential oils (inspired in part by Dan Patterson's book with Mandy Aftel)."

 

I just got some.. to play with not sure what I'll do

[btbyrd]

2 hours ago, boilsover said:

 

Hmmm, do you have any data supporting this?

 

Sure. Genuine Ideas did a blog post on this called "Vacuum Marination Sucks" that provides a good overview. If you want to go down the meat science journal rabbithole, researchers at the University of Georgia and the USDA have repeatedly (1) found (2) that vacuum levels have no effect on the uptake of marinade by chicken. They conclude that "vacuum pressure during tumbling, as is widely practiced commercially, may not be necessary. The underlying principles for using vacuum pressure may be erroneous and should be examined further." Another study on the effect of vacuum marination on fish found that ""contrary to conventional industry belief, vacuum (9.2 kPa) during tumbling did not affect uptake of marinade." These articles suggest that the perceived benefits of marinating in a vacuum tumbler actually come from the tumbling, not the vacuum.

 

I have yet to put a vaccum selaed bag of marinating meat in my dryer, but I can't say that I haven't considered it.

Edited December 20, 2017 by btbyrd (log)

[boilsover]

3 hours ago, btbyrd said:

 

Sure. Genuine Ideas did a blog post on this called "Vacuum Marination Sucks" that provides a good overview. If you want to go down the meat science journal rabbithole, researchers at the University of Georgia and the USDA have repeatedly (1) found (2) that vacuum levels have no effect on the uptake of marinade by chicken. They conclude that "vacuum pressure during tumbling, as is widely practiced commercially, may not be necessary. The underlying principles for using vacuum pressure may be erroneous and should be examined further." Another study on the effect of vacuum marination on fish found that ""contrary to conventional industry belief, vacuum (9.2 kPa) during tumbling did not affect uptake of marinade." These articles suggest that the perceived benefits of marinating in a vacuum tumbler actually come from the tumbling, not the vacuum.

 

I have yet to put a vaccum selaed bag of marinating meat in my dryer, but I can't say that I haven't considered it.

 

 

 

I've read these linked sources.  None addresses beef.  The first is almost completely devoid of data, and the illustrations appear completely fictional, apparently designed to support the conclusion.

 

The second, about chicken, actually acknowledges that vacuum *does* increase uptake in beef:  "The vacuum tumbling process has been shown to increase marinade uptake in the meat (Young and Lyon, 1997; Young and Smith, 2004) and improve cook yield (Young and Lyon, 1997; Young et al., 2004)."  Here, the time period was only 1 hour.

 

The third linked study, also about chicken,  had a marination time period of only 30 minutes.

 

The fourth addressed halibut.  Unfortunately, all I could access was the abstract, which indicates that testing vacuum uptake wasn't the focus of the article.

 

My curiosity has inspired me to cut 3 identical tritips (7 1/4oz) each.  One sits just in a shallow tray at ambient pressure, the second is under vacuum in a Vac-u-Vin cannister (shaken a few times to make sure marinade coats the cut) and the third one Jaccarded and in the same vacuum environment.  Equal volume of marinade in each.

 

Any bets on weight differences after 6 hours?  I'm not adding green dye to prime beef sorry.  You'll have to trust/excuse me reporting any taste differences.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by boilsover (log)

[btbyrd]

The Jaccarding technique I was suggesting is purely mechanical and relies on the use of the vacuum bag to push the marinade into the channels created by the needler. If you coat needled meat and put it in a vacuum chamber, there's nothing to press the marinade into the holes, so I wouldn't expect that to be a useful way to do it.

 

A quick reply to your other points: 

- I don't know why beef would be magically different than fish or chicken. If anything, I'd expect it to uptake even less marinade since it's more dense and robust than chicken and fish, which can be easily damaged at high vacuum levels.

- Genuine Ideas is legit, and I trust it more than intuitions, industry lore, and marketing nonsense put forward by manufacturers of vacuum marinaders/tumblers. Dave Arnold cites it; I don't feel bad about citing it either.

- Neither of the second set of sources that I linked to mention beef. The section you quoted is about chicken. That quote is also about the vacuum tumbling process, not vacuum marination per se. They attribute the difference in yield and uptake to tumbling rather than vacuum level. 

- As for the third study and its limited vacuum marination time, I don't think that matters. If you've ever made instant pickles or compressed watermelon in a vacuum machine, you know it only takes 30 seconds to shove a whole bunch of brine into something. It is almost instant. If there's no difference in uptake after 30 minutes, I don't think giving it more time is going to change things.

 

 

[boilsover]

3 minutes ago, btbyrd said:

The Jaccarding technique I was suggesting is purely mechanical and relies on the use of the vacuum bag to push the marinade into the channels created by the needler. If you coat needled meat and put it in a vacuum chamber, there's nothing to press the marinade into the holes, so I wouldn't expect that to be a useful way to do it.

 

A quick reply to your other points: 

- I don't know why beef would be magically different than fish or chicken. If anything, I'd expect it to uptake even less marinade since it's more dense and robust than chicken and fish, which can be easily damaged at high vacuum levels.

- Genuine Ideas is legit, and I trust it more than intuitions, industry lore, and marketing nonsense put forward by manufacturers of vacuum marinaders/tumblers. Dave Arnold cites it; I don't feel bad about citing it either.

- Neither of the second set of sources that I linked to mention beef. The section you quoted is about chicken. That quote is also about the vacuum tumbling process, not vacuum marination per se. They attribute the difference in yield and uptake to tumbling rather than vacuum level. 

- As for the third study and its limited vacuum marination time, I don't think that matters. If you've ever made instant pickles or compressed watermelon in a vacuum machine, you know it only takes 30 seconds to shove a whole bunch of brine into something. It is almost instant. If there's no difference in uptake after 30 minutes, I don't think giving it more time is going to change things.

 

 

 

By this logic, there should be almost no uptake at all.

Clearly, cut, exposed meat exchanges moisture with its environment.  While it is wrong to think of it as a sponge, it's also wrong to consider it not to absorb marinade.

[btbyrd]

Adsorbs marinade.

[boilsover]

5 minutes ago, btbyrd said:

Adsorbs marinade.

 

"Neither of the second set of sources that I linked to mention beef."

 

Mentions beef.  Feel better? 

Edited December 21, 2017 by boilsover (log)

[btbyrd]

Tomato, tomatillo.

[boilsover]

16 hours ago, boilsover said:

Any bets on weight differences after 6 hours?  I'm not adding green dye to prime beef sorry.  You'll have to trust/excuse me reporting any taste differences.

 

So, after 6 hours, the tray-marinated tritip weighed 1/4 oz more.  The vacuum one added just shy of 1/2 oz.  This is consistent with the Young & Smith 2004 chicken study.   I couldn't taste a difference, and I did not weigh after cooking.

 

I'm duplicating the test today with Jaccarded identical 7 1/4 oz triptips, one in the tray and one under vacuum.

 

Eating prime beef for science...  I hope you all appreciate my sacrifice...

Edited December 21, 2017 by boilsover (log)

[mgaretz]

From what I understand, meat, even beef, will take up a salt solution (brining) because the size of the salt molecules can penetrate the meat.  But for all the other stuff in a typical marinade (sugar, spices, oils, etc.) the molecules are too large to do anything but stay on the surface.  See here https://amazingribs.com/tested-recipes/marinades-and-brinerades/secrets-and-myths-marinades-brinerades-and-how-gashing-can

 

As to vacuum marinating, as @btbyrd mentions, vacuum pickling happens almost instantaneously but it does not happen when the vacuum is being held. The effect happens when the vacuum is released.  From what I understand the vacuum bursts the cells due to the boiling action, then when it is released the pickling solution rushes back in to fill the voids.  Whether this happens with a dense thing like beef to any extent is unlikely as even dense fruits and vegetables don’t take to vacuum pickling. In any case, do we want this to happen with meat?  And it would be vacuum and release cycles that did the trick.  In fact my chamber sealer has just such a marinating mode.  I’ve tried it, I don’t think it did anything. 

[boilsover]

31 minutes ago, mgaretz said:

From what I understand, meat, even beef, will take up a salt solution (brining) because the size of the salt molecules can penetrate the meat.  But for all the other stuff in a typical marinade (sugar, spices, oils, etc.) the molecules are too large to do anything but stay on the surface.  See here https://amazingribs.com/tested-recipes/marinades-and-brinerades/secrets-and-myths-marinades-brinerades-and-how-gashing-can

 

As to vacuum marinating, as @btbyrd mentions, vacuum pickling happens almost instantaneously but it does not happen when the vacuum is being held. The effect happens when the vacuum is released.  From what I understand the vacuum bursts the cells due to the boiling action, then when it is released the pickling solution rushes back in to fill the voids.  Whether this happens with a dense thing like beef to any extent is unlikely as even dense fruits and vegetables don’t take to vacuum pickling. In any case, do we want this to happen with meat?  And it would be vacuum and release cycles that did the trick.  In fact my chamber sealer has just such a marinating mode.  I’ve tried it, I don’t think it did anything. 

 

This is a useful article, very well thought out.  The concept makes complete sense that smaller molecules may penetrate the meat further than larger ones.  Marinades aren't really atomically monolithic, after all.  And of course it makes sense that salt may penetrate the furthest, by virtue of the different processes by which it penetrates.  But it obviously does not all remain on the surface.  Incidentally, the article also points up a flaw in using dye penetration as "proof" that meat is impermeable--the molecule size factor applies to the dyes as well.

 

I was not under the impression that marinade--vacuum or not--drove flavor components all the way through meat.  This would be a red...herring.  I'm content with the penetration depths this article appears to confirm:  1/16" to 1/8", depending on the molecules involved.  If I can increase that depth even by a small increment, that's something I probably want to do.  My tests so far would indicate that there is indeed slightly more uptake with a vacuum.

 

The article also raises implications for the utility of scoring or abrading meat prior to marinading.  More surface area exposed to the marinade, more and/or deeper uptake.

 

 

[btbyrd]

1 hour ago, boilsover said:

 

This is a useful article, very well thought out.  The concept makes complete sense that smaller molecules may penetrate the meat further than larger ones.  Marinades aren't really atomically monolithic, after all.  And of course it makes sense that salt may penetrate the furthest, by virtue of the different processes by which it penetrates.  But it obviously does not all remain on the surface.  Incidentally, the article also points up a flaw in using dye penetration as "proof" that meat is impermeable--the molecule size factor applies to the dyes as well.

 

 

If you'd like to read more about how dyes with different molecular sizes differentially penetrate meat, Genuine Ideas has a good blog post about it. He's also got some similar posts about nitrate penetration for cured meats, and a couple nice articles on brining. It's all worth a read.

 

EDIT: As it turns out, Greg Blonder (who runs Genuine Ideas) is the resident science adviser at Amazing Ribs. I suspected his involvement when I saw the dyes come out...

Edited December 21, 2017 by btbyrd (log)

[gfweb]

Seems to me  that nitrate penetration is a good analog for salt penetration in meat.  It isn't quick at all, something like 0.5  cm a day IIRC.

 

Oils probably don't get in meat at all; its a pretty aqueous environment.

 

 

[boilsover]

20 hours ago, btbyrd said:

 

If you'd like to read more about how dyes with different molecular sizes differentially penetrate meat, Genuine Ideas has a good blog post about it. He's also got some similar posts about nitrate penetration for cured meats, and a couple nice articles on brining. It's all worth a read.

 

EDIT: As it turns out, Greg Blonder (who runs Genuine Ideas) is the resident science adviser at Amazing Ribs. I suspected his involvement when I saw the dyes come out...

 

 

Well, all this talk about marinades and penetration caused me to dust off my copy of McGee.  He writes:

"The acid in marinades does weaken muscle tissue and increase its ability to retain moisture.  But marinades penetrate slowly...  The penetration time can be reduced by cutting meat into thin pieces..."Salt disrupts the structure of the muscle filaments.  A 3% salt solution dissolves parts of the protein structure that supports the contracting filaments, and a 5.5% solution partly dissolves the filaments themselves.  Second, the interactions of salts and proteins result in a greater water-holding capacity in the muscle cells, which then absorb water from the brine (The inward movement of salt and water and disruptions of the muscle filaments into the meat also increase its absorption of aromatic molecules from any herbs and spices in the brine.).  The meat's weight increases by 10% or more.  When cooked, the meat still loses around 20% of its weight in moisture , but this loss is counterbalanced by the brine absorbed, so the moisture loss is effectively cut in half.  In addition, the dissolved protein filaments can't coagulate into normally dense aggregates, so the cooked meat seems more tender.  Because the brine works its way in from the outside...so even a brief incomplete soaking can make a difference."

(Emphasis added)   So, I'm reading Harold to say that wherever (and to whatever depth) salt disrupts the muscle cells, those cells can absorb water which contains the aromatic molecules in a brine or marinade.   I'll ask him directly if he stands by this if you'd like...

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Smithy
Problem report addressed (log)

[FeChef]

On 12/18/2017 at 8:18 PM, Okanagancook said:

I use the 'Magic Browning Powder" (2 parts baking soda to 3 parts dextrose from a previous post by an Egullet member...forget who it was about a year or so ago).I sear my steaks in the same fashion as Chris Hennes.  Heat the cast iron pan to smoking (kitchen fan on and window open); unbag the steak and dry really really well; dump in the canola oil and let it get hot; put the steak in (steaks are cooked at 122F for about 45 minutes) and leave for about 45 seconds and flip for another 45.  I think thick steaks work the best and ours are usually 1 1/2 inches.

 

How well would this ratio work in a Dry Rub? Lets say i was going to substitute a 2:1 salt/sugar rub for this dextrose baking soda mixture. Apparently there is a product available for food service that is designed for adding to dry rubs called Maillose Dry which can be found here: http://www.redarrowusa.com/products/browning/maillose-dry/

 

Has anyone used this product, or know anything about it?

Edited January 10, 2018 by FeChef (log)

[mgaretz]

Most rubs have sugar in them.  If applied just before the sear it might work out, but if applied early I imagine most of the surface sugar is dissipated by the time you sear.  

 

As as I mentioned way up thread, I just use straight dextrose without the baking soda.

[Okanagancook]

I have not used the maillose-dry product and I am not sure what would happen if you used the baking soda/dextrose mix in a rub.  The Chinese use baking soda in marinades to tenderize meat so you may get some of that effect.  I guess you would have to try some on a small piece of meat.