|
Chemmy posted:That's the temperature for rare steak. That is just about the temperature for warm raw steak, when I want a "black & blue" steak I don't even bother with the sous vide I just season and sear it.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
I'm making 72-hour short ribs (129F), and I have a question about sous vizzle interruptus. I'd like to take my circulator over to a friend's house for the evening to make some shrimp and fish and whatnot, but I would also not like to ruin my ribs. If I put a lid on the pot and wrap it with a towel or two, am I likely to cause myself any distress if it's not being maintained for 4-5 hours? My belief is that it'll be fine, since it'll be like doing a cooler sous vide, but 129F is a little on the low side so I thought I'd double check. The ribs are foodsavered, rather than vacuum ziplocked, which also gives me some confidence for no reason that I could explain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
I think it would be easier to chill the shortribs in an ice bath and store in the fridge, then resume (and restart the clock) when you return.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:I think it would be easier to chill the shortribs in an ice bath and store in the fridge, then resume (and restart the clock) when you return. OK, that's doable, though I would dispute that it's easier! Will push them a little out of dinner time when they complete but I have the feeling that 70 vs 72 hrs isn't going to make a noticeable difference in the output. Thanks. While I'm posting: I'd like to do scampi butter for the shrimp, but I'm not sure that the garlic will have time to mellow in that short a period of time. Should I precook the garlic, or am I worrying for nothing. I guess the garlic is chopped pretty finely...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
I just ate some beef ribs that I puddled for 72 hours at 140F, which I grilled after they cooled down a bit. They were fantastic - tender and incredibly beefy. I made a jous/gravy/sauce from the bag drippings, which was completely unnecessary as the meat was tasty and moist enough. Served them with smashed potatoes and sauted green beans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
I started this great looking rib last night. Its about 1.2lbs. I had a hard time deciding between sous vide and smoking it but I went with sous vide so I wouldn't have to babysit it. I have done 72hr short ribs a few times now so I am considering 48hr this time to test it out. Plus, I'm feeling a little impatient...  
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
I think short ribs are better at 48 hours/144f, myself. They get a little too soft by 72.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I think short ribs are better at 48 hours/144f, myself. They get a little too soft by 72. I think I have it sitting at 135 which is what I had it at for the 72hr cooks. Would you suggest bumping it up to 144 when I get off tonight?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
72 hours is too much. Go with 48. I just did a chuck roast for 48 hours, served with polenta and red onion jam. It went over really well with Mrs Creature and her friend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Is there much benefit to doing sous vide for baby back ribs in place of or in conjunction with smoking on the grill? Anyone tried it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
I've tried babybacks without smoking and it tasted OK but nowhere near as good as just smoked. Combining both techniques seems like it could be pretty good.
OBAMNA PHONE fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
I've got some short ribs in for 72 @ 129, per one of the Serious Eats posts; I'm hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I've got some short ribs in for 72 @ 129, per one of the Serious Eats posts; I'm hopeful. You have to eat around the fat, but it tastes pretty good!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
novamute posted:Is there much benefit to doing sous vide for baby back ribs in place of or in conjunction with smoking on the grill? Anyone tried it? I've done a dry rub for 48 hours and finished them on a hot grill for about 20 minutes and they came out pretty great. The dry rub got all into everything while it cooked, and it gives a nice reduction for sauce after.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:You have to eat around the fat, but it tastes pretty good! Yeah, I was worried about it being under-rendered. Worth moving it up for the last while to help with that, I wonder?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Yeah, I was worried about it being under-rendered. Worth moving it up for the last while to help with that, I wonder? A better sear/blowtorch job than what I pulled may give better results as well, I was a bit timid with it. I'm not necessarily advocating upping the temp. The texture of the ribs was something I've never had before and I still demolished them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Knowing you're going to eat short ribs in 48 to 72 hours is a double edged sword.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
novamute posted:Is there much benefit to doing sous vide for baby back ribs in place of or in conjunction with smoking on the grill? Anyone tried it? Over the last two weekends, I've done both baby back and the beef short ribs sous vide, followed by 3-4 hours smoking at a low-temp, with fantastic results. I roughly followed the Chef Steps recommendations you can get to if you sign up for this free "course": https://www.chefsteps.com/classes/barbecue/landing#/ The short version - sous vide the baby backs for 4 hours at 167, then dust with rub and smoke/grill for 3-4 hours at 176 (if you have an electric smoker) or as low as you can get if it's charcoal. I have a big green egg, so I aimed to keep the temp around 200, and smoked/grilled for 2 hours. Make a vinegar-based mop, and your own barbecue sauce and they will be amazing. The short ribs were similar - sous vide at 144 for 60 hours, then dust with rub and smoked/grilled for 3 hours at 200. They were so tender that I had to tie some of the meat to the bones, so I might do 48 hours sous vide next time, instead of 60. They were also super super tasty. I'll keep using this method and refining it as I get better at regulating low temps with the egg (I've only had it for two weeks now). Babyback pics (sorry for the blurriness):  
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Kalista posted:Over the last two weekends, I've done both baby back and the beef short ribs sous vide, followed by 3-4 hours smoking at a low-temp, with fantastic results. I roughly followed the Chef Steps recommendations you can get to if you sign up for this free "course": https://www.chefsteps.com/classes/barbecue/landing#/ Thanks! drat that looks good. Planning on making my own barbeque sauce for the first time too. I keep seeing baby back rib recipes online where they are done for 12-24 hours at ~145 in the sous vide but they seem to all finish with just a few minutes on the grill for caramelization or a smoke gun. Since I won't have a very tight control on the smoker temp the internal temp will probably be getting up past 167 there anyway so a shorter time at a higher temp for the sous vide prep seems appropriate. I can just sous vide it tonight, pull it out, slap the rub on, and chill it until it goes on the grill tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Kalista posted:The short version - sous vide the baby backs for 4 hours at 167, then dust with rub and smoke/grill for 3-4 hours at 176 (if you have an electric smoker) or as low as you can get if it's charcoal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
SubG posted:That's cool and all, but you pretty much might as well just finish them in the oven if you're going to puddle before smoking---you're not going to get much smoke ring formation after the meat hits about 60 C/140 F. You'll get some condensation of smoke on the surface of the meat, so it'll smell smokey and that contributes to the overall experience or whatever, but if you really want to sous vide smoked ribs you're better off smoking until the meat hits like 140 and then finish in the puddle machine. Pretty much this. I did a pork butt this weekend in the smoker until it hit 160 then bagged it, sous vide at 167 for 24 hours, then finished quickly in the smoker at a high temp to stiffen the bark back up. Came out really well with a great smoke ring. I've heard of people doing a 72 hour sous vide at closer to 150 but I've never tried it. I want my pulled pork to still have some bite and I feel like the longer lower cook might be too mushy. I've also done this process with tea smoked duck and similarly had excellent results. One caveat to this method: The area around the sous vide will reek of smoke and the water will turn brown. This is because smoke can permeate some bags (not sure about the thicker food saver bags, I use a cryovac that uses the thinner bags without the corrugation that food saver bags have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Random Hero posted:I started this great looking rib last night. Its about 1.2lbs. I had a hard time deciding between sous vide and smoking it but I went with sous vide so I wouldn't have to babysit it. And here are the results of the 48hr cook with some roasted brussel sprouts and mashed potatoes: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Want dat in me. edit: gone, hope it works! geetee fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
geetee posted:Want dat in me. I'll take it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Food safety question. I'm doing ribs for 24 hours @ 165F. Started yesterday, everything was fine this morning (about 16 hours in), but I went out to run errands today and when I got back the water temp read on the anova was around 120F. I don't know why, or for how long, this temperature drop happened. What's the verdict on the safety of the food? It'd be a real bummer to have to throw everything out and prepare something new for dinner. Edit: When I checked on the ribs there weren't any funky smells, so we ate them and they were suuuuper delicious and tender. I'll post a food poisoning trip report should the need arise. Although now it looks like my Anova won't heat water, so I guess I'll have to send customer service an email about that. Breadnought fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
If it sat at 165 for a while, it'd probably be safe for a good long time, even at temps between 90-120. That initial cook killed most of the bacteria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Botulism spores survive that temperature easily, are probably quite happy with the vacuum sealed environment, and start growing between 50-122 degrees F (fastest at 95). Not all strains of botulism produce an odor. That said, since you found it at 120 it probably wasn't in that (highly un-ideal upper bound) danger zone for long and it's almost certainly fine. Just wanted to note that simply having cooked something at a high temp doesn't mean you've killed off everything. Spore-forming bacteria are hardy motherfuckers. Since you ate it already, do keep us updated should you become paralyzed and/or die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Don't botulism spores die in your stomach anyway, like with honey ? As in: botulism is only bad when you inhale it, and for babies ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Spatule posted:Don't botulism spores die in your stomach anyway, like with honey ? As in: botulism is only bad when you inhale it, and for babies ? The botulism spores survive and procreate at the danger temp, creating the neurotoxin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
I don't think that answers his question at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Hed posted:I don't think that answers his question at all. The neurotoxin is the danger, the spores/bacteria we can kill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Spatule posted:Don't botulism spores die in your stomach anyway, like with honey ? As in: botulism is only bad when you inhale it, and for babies ? The spores themselves are harmless, yes. When presented with the right environment (warm, oxygen-free, and full of tasty food) the spores germinate - becoming active bacteria again. So if you let your food sit there in the bag for a long while after cooking, you could potentially create a happy place for botulism bacteria - which will then go on to produce some wonderful botulinum toxin, a tiny amount of which can cause paralysis or death. Fun!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:The spores themselves are harmless, yes. When presented with the right environment (warm, oxygen-free, and full of tasty food) the spores germinate - becoming active bacteria again. So if you let your food sit there in the bag for a long while after cooking, you could potentially create a happy place for botulism bacteria - which will then go on to produce some wonderful botulinum toxin, a tiny amount of which can cause paralysis or death. Fun! Botulinum is lethal at one microgram. That toxin is why you either need to have your food reach a proper internal temp within 4 hours or eat it quickly (e.g. 20-30 minute salmon at 120F). If you throw a super thick meat sphere into a sous vide at 131 and it takes 12 hours to reach 131 internally the pasteurization has not occurred in a safe amount of time. It's also possible that some botulism spores can survive pasteurization and reactivate! Douglas Baldwin suggests freezing after heating to combat this but I've never done it. On that topic, research over the past few years is beginning to show the whole "inside of a muscle is sterile" thing is not always true (and false enough to worry, at least for me). One should always cook meat to a proper internal temperature. Not even counting jaccarded, transglutimased, or brined meats, the sterility of the interior only applies to live, healthy animals. Improper butchering or trimming, missed vascular or lymphatic disease can lead to contamination of the interior of the muscle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
granpa yum posted:Botulinum is lethal at one microgram. Or just not worry about it unduly because there are about 35 cases of botulism per year in a country with a population of 300,000,000, which means you're roughly as likely to contract botulism as you are to be killed by a terrorist or a shark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Or just not worry about it unduly because there are about 35 cases of botulism per year in a country with a population of 300,000,000, which means you're roughly as likely to contract botulism as you are to be killed by a terrorist or a shark. Yeah, but most people aren't doing anything that risks botulism except for eating canned foods. There is risk and people should try to minimize it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
You learn something new every day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Most of the studies I've seen suggest that the major C. botulinum risk associated with sous vide cooking is not during the cooking itself but rather in vacuum sealed foods refrigerated improperly after cooking (e.g. stored at temperatures over 4 C) for prolonged periods. I'd be interested in seeing data demonstrating germination and growth at sous vide temperatures over typical sous vide timescales (e.g. a couple hours to 72 hours or so at the outside).
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
SubG posted:Most of the studies I've seen suggest that the major C. botulinum risk associated with sous vide cooking is not during the cooking itself but rather in vacuum sealed foods refrigerated improperly after cooking (e.g. stored at temperatures over 4 C) for prolonged periods. I'd be interested in seeing data demonstrating germination and growth at sous vide temperatures over typical sous vide timescales (e.g. a couple hours to 72 hours or so at the outside). Yeah, most of the stuff I've read is along these lines (and I assume is why Baldwin recommends the cook-freeze method). It's interesting that there is not a terrific amount of sous vide safety research considering it's been around for decades
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Speaking of risk and ignoring it: I just cooked the worst possible quality bone-in ribeye I could find into unicorn meat ! EDIT: a few seconds in boiling water to kill any surface bacterias was the first step. I suppose you could grill the steak first. 1h at 39C 1h at 49C 2h at 54C 30 sec/side on the grill Don't do this at home I guess. It was as tender and tasty as most dry-aged meat I've ever had. When I cooked this meat the usual way in the past (dump on the grill, let warm up under foil for 30min or so), it was tough to the point of being inedible. Spatule fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Spatule posted:Speaking of risk and ignoring it: Did you just make this up or got the idea from somewhere else? I'm so confused. Also, I'm entirely lost on grilling a steak for 30 minutes... under foil? Please advise because this sounds like insanity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 21:19
|
|