Help - Sous Vide

[Tim Hayward]

I'm researching an article on 'The Sous Vide Debate'.

I know it's been argued on many boards and it seems, frankly, to provoke random schism and ferocious namecalling.

I'm writing for regular punters here, not chefs or deep foodies, and I'm really struggling to get an honest take on it. I mean, surely this is just boil-in-the bag, not the bloody Albigensian Heresy.

Save my sanity. Help me 1) understand it and 2) understand why it pisses people off so much.

[Andy Lynes]

You should give Marco Pierre White a call. On page 157 of White Slave he talks about a scuffle that broke out in 1990 between the Harveys brigade and Roux chefs. Apparently the Harveys lot were taunting their rivals by calling them "Boil-in-the-bags", a reference to the Roux empire's use of sous vide to supply food to their various lesser city restaurants. So its a "debate" that has been ongoing for some time now.

[Tim Hayward]

...On page 157 of White Slave he talks about a scuffle that broke out in 1990 between the Harveys brigade and Roux chefs. Apparently the Harveys lot were taunting their rivals by calling them "Boil-in-the-bags", a reference to the Roux empire's use of sous vide to supply food to their various lesser city restaurants. So its a "debate" that has been ongoing for some time now.

←

That's what I'm driving at. Surely, after 16 years one could expect some sort of concensus about whether it's a good or bad thing.

Will there always be an adverse reaction to it from chefs (because it undermines their role)? How have punters reacted to it - can anyone tell the difference?

I mean, being logical, it's a technology that could bring better quality food to more people - most of whom probably can't tell even if there is a difference. But if chefs are never going to like it and, I'm guessing, it's not going to be popular with food media either, then it's always going to be a 'debate'.

Is it god's gift to diners but a thorn in the side of the culinary establishment - or is it just boil-in-the-bag?

[Charlie O]

I've been intrigued by the threads in the Cooking section and have just started playing around with the technique at home. What I want to investigate more is the different sorts of texture that can be achieved. I've only cooked salmon using sous vide but the results were great, though hard to describe: tender and almost raw and yet cooked at the same time. I don't, however, believe that this is a technique that will really take off in the home kitchen.

Will there always be an adverse reaction to it from chefs (because it undermines their role)? How have punters reacted to it - can anyone tell the difference?

I don't think you can be absolute about it - there will be some chefs who will dismiss it (likewise, I recall that Escoffier refused to cook on anything apart from charcoals) and others who will be taken with the technology and some of the benefits it offers.

I also don't think it will be the way for cooking meat in restaurants - a close reading of the huge Sous Vide thread reveals that only some cuts of meat are suitable.

[Zoticus]

Is it god's gift to diners but a thorn in the side of the culinary establishment - or is it just boil-in-the-bag?

←

I think it's both. Allegedly, it can be used as a distinct technique that yields up original preparations, or it can be used to control portions, centralize production, and minimize staff and wastage.

Unsurprisingly, chefs seem to dislike the latter use. Regarding the former, I've heard a lot spoken but seen little evidence of it. The now ubiquitous sous-vide pork belly used be called 'braised' and tasted just as good, if not better, to my humble palate. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt of the value of sous-vide for banqueting, which has seen a marked improvement in the last decade.

[TheBacchus]

Your right - some of the results sous-vide can have on both taste and texture is absolutely phenomenal.

Salmon - as mentioned above - yields completely unique results to salmon cooked using 'traditional methods'. Cooked sous-vide it appears uncooked and has a texture more like smoked salmon but a taste that is very true to the cut and is full of flavour. Obviously this is because the fish retains 100% of its nutrients and natural flavour by being cooked in this way.

Also, i disagree with the statement that some chefs consider this cooking method 'cheating' or that it requires less skill. On the contrary there is an art to it just like other cooking means such as braising, grilling, roasting and poaching. For example, try cooking a piece of salmon sous-vide for 13 minutes at 50 degrees and then try cooking it at 60 degrees for 10 minutes - completely different results.

I think that Chefs are starting to realise that sous-vide DOES have a place in the kitchen and that many are starting to utilise advances in technology to apply these to the dishes they produce.

Here's an interesting thought - over the years there have been many professional kitchen appliances that have made their way through to the domestic kitchen. I, for one, can certainly remember the day that i got my first slow-cooker, first juicer, first espresso machine etc

If professional kitchens continue to innovate and use technology to find new ways of cooking, such as sous-vide, it cant be long before a sous-vide/slow cooked recipe appears in one of the many cookbooks we see coming out? As soon as this happens surely there will be a demand created by people wanting to impress friends at dinner parties and home with their new party piece recipe? And as quick as you can say 'out with your oven' immersion circulator baths for the domestic kitchen will be at a department store near you!

[Tim Hayward]

The now ubiquitous sous-vide pork belly used be called 'braised' and tasted just as good, if not better, to my humble palate. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt of the value of sous-vide for banqueting, which has seen a marked improvement in the last decade.

←

So all this belly pork I've been having recently is SV?

I was wondering where that suddenly sprang from. In the last year or so it's been everywhere.

Does this means that last year's lamb shanks were SV too?

[Tim Hayward]

Your right - some of the results sous-vide can have on both taste and texture is absolutely phenomenal.

Salmon - as mentioned above - yields completely unique results to salmon cooked using 'traditional methods'.  Cooked sous-vide it appears uncooked and has a texture more like smoked salmon but a taste that is very true to the cut and is full of flavour.  Obviously this is because the fish retains 100% of its nutrients and natural flavour by being cooked in this way.

OK. I'm hearing salmon, I'm getting strong suspicions about belly pork.

Sorry to use you as an unpaid researcher but what else works well?

Also, i disagree with the statement that some chefs consider this cooking method 'cheating' or that it requires less skill.  On the contrary there is an art to it just like other cooking means such as braising, grilling, roasting and poaching.  For example, try cooking a piece of salmon sous-vide for 13 minutes at 50 degrees and then try cooking it at 60 degrees for 10 minutes - completely different results.

I need to hit my McGee.

[edsel]

Also, i disagree with the statement that some chefs consider this cooking method 'cheating' or that it requires less skill.  On the contrary there is an art to it just like other cooking means such as braising, grilling, roasting and poaching.  For example, try cooking a piece of salmon sous-vide for 13 minutes at 50 degrees and then try cooking it at 60 degrees for 10 minutes - completely different results.

I need to hit my McGee. ←

McGee is a great general reference on cooking times/temperatures, but the Joan Roca book is more specific to Sous Vide.

[erica graham]

OK. I'm hearing salmon, I'm getting strong suspicions about belly pork.

Sorry to use you as an unpaid researcher but what else works well?

Pigs cheeks work well too.....

[TheBacchus]

I think that most top chefs have been using sous-vide to cook meat and fish for some time now. What is really exciting is seeing chefs cooking veg and even stocks using sous-vide methodology although some time restrictions start to make it a bit absurd (72 hour stocks anyone?)

I went to Tragabuches in Spain a few weeks ago and was pretty intrigued to see entire dishes cooked using sous-vide - a quick look in the kitchen revealed 3 circulator baths - one each for meat, fish and veg. A bit extreme? Well in my opinion it comes down to one thing - taste. That is what customers are paying for wherever or whatever they eat - the best meat, the best fish, the best carrot or whatever. If one restaurant or chef believes that the best way is sous-vide then why not.

One of the best arguments on sous-vide is one where the ingredient is so synonymous with a particular type of cooking that it is deemed impossible to question.

Try this. A steak - good old fashioned sirloin or rump, 100% synonymous with a grill save for the recent trend of finishing them in an oven. My friends argued that the entire beauty of a steak on the grill could never be equalled or bettered by sous-vide, something we put to the test.

61.5 degrees cooked for 20 mins followed by a quick searing in a hot pan (Maillard Reaction). Bearing in mind there is no resting time as with a steak cooked at high temperatures the time to cook this classic dish is pretty much the same.

And the results? Well there were 6 hungry men who ate the 'sous-vide steak' and a pretty impressive 5 preffered it cooked this way (the six doesnt even count cause he's weird).

They thought the meat was perfectly cooked (a given because of the controlled temperature), but also the taste of the meat was better, it was more succulent, it had a softer texture and left a much cleaner palatte. Whatever the outcome of these ongoing debates there are 6 converts right there.

Other things i've personally cooked sous-vide?:

Chickens (whole) as per MPW (which he was doing in the early 90's!)

Steaks

Any fish

Scallops (gives a very gelatinous texture almost like a gelee)

Carrots

Parsnips

Lamb (racks)

Lamb (legs - 36 hours!)

Pork

Potatoes

Foie

Onions

And i have so far resisted the temptation to come home from the pub and cook yesterdays leftover shepherds pie sous-vide as well as my saturday morning bacon buttie sous-vide.

Some things you just dont mess with......

[Zoticus]

For example, try cooking a piece of salmon sous-vide for 13 minutes at 50 degrees and then try cooking it at 60 degrees for 10 minutes - completely different results.

←

Completely different results for sure, but I would debate the desirability of eating 'just-coagulated' fish. Novel, perhaps, but hardly pleasant. Besides, low-temperature, moist-heat cooking in a hermetically sealed vessel is not new. What is new is the trend for cooking things that don't need to be cooked like this.

Pork belly, lamb shank, pig-cheeks, oxtail all require a long a low temperature cooking, and they lend themselves well to sous-vide. Fish, and very tender cuts of meat can be cooked sous-vide, but there's really much reason to so other than to be different. Indeed, the lengths gone to to accompany a sous-vide piece of protein with some kind of Maillard reaction flavour seems almost self defeating.

Finally, vegetables can be cooked this way with interesting results. This is probably the area with the most potential. For example, pisto (similar to ratatouille) stored for a few days sous vide looks and tastes much better than it would do otherwise.

[TheBacchus]

Completely different results for sure, but I would debate the desirability of eating 'just-coagulated' fish. Novel, perhaps, but hardly pleasant. Besides, low-temperature, moist-heat cooking in a hermetically sealed vessel is not new. What is new is the trend for cooking things that don't need to be cooked like this.

Pork belly, lamb shank, pig-cheeks, oxtail all require a long a low temperature cooking, and they lend themselves well to sous-vide. Fish, and very tender cuts of meat can be cooked sous-vide, but there's really much reason to so other than to be different. Indeed, the lengths gone to to accompany a sous-vide piece of protein with some kind of Maillard reaction flavour seems almost self defeating.

Finally, vegetables can be cooked this way with interesting results. This is probably the area with the most potential. For example, pisto (similar to ratatouille) stored for a few days sous vide looks and tastes much better than it would do otherwise.

←

I can understand your viewpoint but unless your basing 'hardly pleasant' on an actual experience i would urge you to try it first. Far from being unpleasant the results are in fact extremely good and pleasant indeed

I agree that it is nothing new to cook what are often seen as cheap or tough cuts of meat such as shanks for long periods of time but surely that highlights my point of the interesting and positive results you can achieve cooking lean cuts of meat like steaks in this way.

And what is the difference between searing a steak and finishing it in the oven and cooking steak sous-vide and finishing with searing?

Also agree with the veg - endless possibilities there. I shall be trying your tip soon!

[Zoticus]

I can understand your viewpoint but unless your basing 'hardly pleasant' on an actual experience i would urge you to try it first.  Far from being unpleasant the results are in fact extremely good and pleasant indeed

←

No, I've eaten a fair bit of this kind of thing, and for me it's a trade off between uniformly soft texture, and flavour. Horses for courses, I suppose, but I can't help thinking that chewing has, rather unfairly, become bad manners in restaurant dining rooms.

And what is the difference between searing a steak and finishing it in the oven and cooking steak sous-vide and finishing with searing?

Not much, which was sort of my point.

[Benjamin]

I think that to describe it as sous vide cooking is wrong, as the revelation in commercial kitchens is slow water baths which hold the temperature exactly what you require for exactly how long you like, there for providing the perfect slow cooker - as for sous vide, thats just there to keep all the juices and flavours in and to ensure that it cooks evenly by removing any air. Boil in the bag its not as it should never boil - defeats the object.

as for just set fish, its absouloutly superb, when you take any fish over 40 degrees it brings out the proteins in the flesh and changes the texture, if cooked at 40 degrees you still achive the 'translucent' stage and poached fish to perfection.

[TheBacchus]

Good point Benjamin

For me it is because of these new machines that sous-vide has had a 'renaissance' of late after suffering from bad press in the 80's. That bad press related to facts that are diminished now due to the introduction of advanced technologies such as the superb machines produced by Roner that have 0.1 degree control and water circulation

I think the massive distinction is also between which side of the fence you fall on with regard to uses:

I disagree (from a food/restaurant perspective) with the use of these technologies (immersion circulators and vacpacs) and techniques (sous-vide) as methods of mass production or storage

I whole heartedly agree with the use of the above as a means of cooking to achieve superior results with food - marinating, seasoning or whatever, a piece of meat, fish or veg and IMMEDIATELY cooking this to achieve the desired effects that you can achieve with controlled low-temperature cooking.

For me this is the application that professional and amateur chefs are raving about and should not be confused with the former application

[Zoticus]

as for just set fish, its absouloutly superb, when you take any fish over 40 degrees it brings out the proteins in the flesh and changes the texture, if cooked at 40 degrees you still achive the 'translucent' stage and poached fish to perfection.

←

This encapsulates the problem for me: sous-vide/low-temp cooking rests on the assumption that 'perfect' is synonymous with 'just coagulated' protein.

Personally, and I wouldn't go as far as claiming knowledge of 'perfection', a piece of good salmon placed skin side down in a hot pan and put in the oven until it's 'medium-rare' has a lot more going in terms of complexity and interplay between its various components, than the uniformity of a low-temp cooked piece of the same.

I'm not ruling out that this method can produce superior methods, I just don't think that the term 'perfectly cooked' can be reduced to 'just coagulated'.

[TheBacchus]

Zoticus has a point - everyone has their preferences. We are talking about the difference between someone ordering their steak rare and someone ordering it medium to well because they 'dont like blood'.

Perhaps the reason people talk about perfection is not because it it the perfect way to cook something. In my opinion it is because it is the method that is as true to the original form as possible without simply serving it raw. You retain all the nutrients, moisture and content of your protein - cook it in a controlled and gentle environment to achieve a safe level at which to consume it whilst adding all the benefit to the protein by way of seasoning or marinates

Put like that is incredibly sterile and un-romantic but i think it helps explain the difference between the meaning of the superlatives that are often linked to discussions about sous-vide

Strip everything away and i think most people would agree that sous-vide has its place in any kitchen as a means of cooking and that in the right context new technologies can be used to produce innovative and exciting ways to cook food. Furthermore i think the proof is in the (sous-vide) pudding when you look at the proponents of my theory Juan Roca, Feran Adrian, Heston Blumenthal, Anthony Flinn, Willie Dufresne, Thomas Keller and so on and so on

[offcentre]

I've never really come across sous vide before and have never knowingly eaten anything cooked this way.

I am finding this very interesting and will read the more in-depth threads.

It got me thinking about raw foodies, who don't heat anything above 68 degrees or something like that. My partner has recently experimented with 'going raw', much to my displeasure, and has combined this with a move to vegetarianism too. However, if I can cook her a nice piece of salmon at 50 degrees I don't think she's going to complain.

Very interesting folks.

[Silly Disciple]

For me it is because of these new machines that sous-vide has had a 'renaissance' of late after suffering from bad press in the 80's.  That bad press related to facts that are diminished now due to the introduction of advanced technologies such as the superb machines produced by Roner that have 0.1 degree control and water circulation

←

The machines have been there for quite a while. what Roner produces is nothing more than a circulating water bath, much like what Lauda, Julabo, Haake and other firms have been selling for about 20 years for laboratory applications. There's nothing in particular that makes Roners better or worse than these other circulators.

[naebody]

Have a vague memory that the waiters at Tom Aikens make some theatre of opening sous vide bags at the table. (While Googling to try and confirm this, I strayed upon this pretty good article).

Speaking generally, I agree with TheBaccus that this discussion needs a clearer distinction between the culinary and the financially motivated.

The whole argument can be summed up by saying that sous vide, when used principally for preservation, is a bad thing because food is generally best when fresh. When it's used as a shortcut, it can be a workable but far from ideal solution in an under-resourced professional kitchen. And, when used solely as a cooking technique, it's possible to achieve results that, while perhaps not to everyone's taste, are interesting nonetheless.

There's a big difference between the slow-cooked squab available at El Celler de Can Roca and a boil-in-the-bag moule mariniere at my local catastropub. While no sane person should argue against the former, it is the latter that pisses people off, and has given the procedure its bad rep.

Edited September 14, 2006 by naebody (log)

[TheBacchus]

succint and right on the button - good point!

Quite right about the equipment too - there are plenty of good makes out there. Personally i use the Roner in the restaurant and the excellent Clifton at home which is much more practical because it has a self-contained bath. It sits on the shelf very nicely next to the juicer and gets used about once or twice a week as part of my 'repetoire' of home cooking; sometimes my food will be grilled, sometimes roasted, sometimes pan-fried and sometimes.....what is it? sous-vided

This also emphasises my point about it entering the domestic kitchen. I think it wont be long before one of these manufacturers comes up with a circulator that is within the right price bracket and gets it into a high street retailers catalogue at which point the marketing will really take off...maybe

[Matthew Grant]

Need to get a decent priced and suitable vac pac machine in the high street first. I know cheap ones exisit but from what I've read they re not particularly good for sous vide cooking.

[ravelda]

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has a good kit a) what you need, b) what brands and where to get the necessary kit, and c) overall cost?

Any ideas Matthew?

[erica graham]

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has a good kit a) what you need, b) what brands and where to get the necessary kit, and c) overall cost?

←

Is this to try out at home, or for commercial use?

If you just want to play with the method and experiment without commiting a shed load of cash then a search on ebay scientific instruments will get you started for relatively little ( and you'll be amazed at what scientific kit you can actually buy!!)