Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«4 »
  • Post
  • Reply
a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I made a tiny tritip steak sous vide tonight. Here are my steps, pretty much in order:

Rub the steak with salt and let it sit for about two hours:


When time's nearly up, fill your cooler with hot tap water:


Put the steak in a ziploc bag, then mostly submerge it. Let the air out, then close the bag to make a near vacuum seal.


Submerge the bag. The temp is a bit low:


So we need to heat some water:


Add some boiling water to the cooler, and the temp is much better:


Shut the cooler and kill some time. A beer helps.


After about 45 minutes, add a bit more boiling water to keep the temp up:


After about 90 minutes, the steak is 130 degrees all the way through. Put it on a plate:


It looks kinda rubbery and grey, though. How are we going to get that awesome crust?


Oh. That looks exciting. Really exciting.


Hell yeah, using a propane torch.


Searing the crap out of the steak.


Giving the steak ten minutes to rest with a pat of butter and some black pepper:


It looks pretty great sliced. There's a little too much depth to the sear, though. A thicker steak and a lighter hand would be useful:


This is easily the best two-dollar steak I've ever had, and it was really fun to make. Using a larger steak would only make it better, as would being a bit more careful with the blowtorch while searing. All in all, though, tonight's sous vide experiment is a serious success. A ~six-ounce tri tip made for a delicious meal.

a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at Oct 14, 2013 around 01:43

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


BraveUlysses posted:

I've had a nice big short rib cooking for 48 hours @ 60* C, what's the best way for me to sear and make a sauce from the bag juice?

Sear it in the biggest skillet you've got. Get it really hot, then drop it in and turn it often. Once you've got the degree of brown you want, pull it out. Then add a bit of fat and some shallots or onions. Cook for a minute, then add some whisky to deglaze, scrape up the solids, then add the bag juice. Cook it down a little, then you've got your sauce.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Now that I've had a little practice, I've been able to get a decent sear with a torch. It takes a bit longer than a stainless steel pan, would, though.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


With a little practice, you don't get that unevenness.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


The patent is here:

https://www.google.com/patents/US84...ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA


I can't imagine this would stand up to a challenge - it looks essentially like every ad hoc circulator hobbyists have ever built. Then again, I'm not a patent attorney or anything, so who knows.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


It looks like the single, molded plastic housing is pretty key to the patent, so maybe not? It is pretty ridiculous that 'put well known technology inside a plastic shell' is patentable.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


The intro to Conan the Barbarian lied to us!

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Kenji Lopez-Alt just posted his comparison review of the Sansaire, the Anove, and the Nomiku. He prefers the Sansaire and Anova to the third, but there isn't a whole lot of difference between those two. It's a good rundown of the features of all three:

http://www.seriouseats.com/2013/12/...miku-anova.html

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


It should be fine - I've cooked in those trader joes pre-sealed packages without a problem.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation




Got some short ribs sitting at 129. I cut the corner away from the lid to a cooler, which I figured would help with energy efficiency.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I just grabbed a hacksaw. No need to get fancy.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I did my short ribs for 72 hours at 129, as detailed in the link last page. One of the bags was fine, but the other developed some kind of yellow film. It didn't smell off, but I got rid of them just in case. I couldn't find any references to this happening elsewhere.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Shbobdb posted:

If this technique works like other forms of slow-cooking, that sounds like it was suet. That's the good stuff.

I don't think it was suet - it was the wrong color (a bit too saturated) and much more filmy - looked like bacterial growth. Anyway, better safe than sorry - no need to spend a day with food poisoning over 8 dollars worth of short ribs.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I'm trying boneless pork ribs right now - 179 degrees, and I'm planning to leave them for maybe 8 hours, then cool them in their own liquid so they'll re-absorb some of it. I'm hoping for a tender, pulled sort of result.

179 seems like near the limit of the submerge in a ziplock method of vacuum sealing - the little bit of air left in the bags expanded quite a bit at that temp, and I had to sort of burp them and reseal. Maybe investing in a real vacuum bagger would be worthwhile after all.

EDIT: Blargh, one of the bones (the pork ribs weren't quite boneless) punctured one of my bags, and now I'm vizzling in 179 degree pork broth. Cleanup is going to be a pain.

a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at Jan 13, 2014 around 21:29

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


dotster posted:

Why so hot, I have a brisket that I was going to do this weekend and have shredded beef and some sliced and was only planning on doing 145-150F/48hrs. At those temps the meat still looks "done", no red, and is nice and juicy. I have seen recipes at 170F+ and am just trying to figure out what that gets me other than maybe dryer meat?

I went that hot because I wanted all the collagen to turn to gelatin, and I also wanted the cooking time to be fairly short. I just picked the ribs up this morning, and I'm planning to have them for dinner tonight.

Also, the higher temperature helps the muscle separate into bundles of fibers, and that's the texture I really like from pork ribs. Lower temps, and you get a smoother, more solid piece of meat - good for beef (that's how I like short ribs), but not what I'm looking for here.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


It's more like my initially submersion was inadequate. I put three of the ribs in each bag, so there were more little pockets for air. Once they'd been in the circulator for a while, the air all ended up in one place. Thus the 'burping.'

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


dotster posted:

So I puddled a peak roast at 160F for 24hrs and the results were ok/average. It was a bit dry, the fat was gelled pretty well and it mostly pulled apart easily, one of the muscles was a bit tough. I went hotter than I normally do trying to see what it would be like based off the conversation about going 170F+ a few days ago. Did I just not go hot enough to have it really fall apart in that amount of time? Any ideas?

I am prepping the brisket tomorrow to cook for this weekend and it is a very nice one so I would rather not screw it up. I was planning on doing 135-140F for 48 hrs but after reading this week I was thinking of going for a more traditional braised and doing 176F for 24 hrs but after this roast I am leaning back towards the lower temp.

160 is really just the edge of where collagan hydrolizes into gelatin over shorter time scales. Going a bit hotter would probably have yielded better results. The Potter book, Cooking for Geeks (available for free here: http://hdebooks.blogspot.com/2012/0...eff-potter.html), has a section on collagen hydrolysis and temperature that I've found really useful. You'd need to go a really long time at 160 to get all the connective tissue to become really soft.

a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at Jan 16, 2014 around 19:06

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I did pretty much the same thing yesterday, put a tri-tip roast in the bath for about 6 hours at 135. In the meantime, I ran some red potatoes through a ricer.

When the roast came out, I seared it in butter and canola in my enameled pan, removed it to rest, then tossed some shallots and mushrooms into the pan. After a couple of minutes, deglazed with cheap boxed red wine, added the bag juices from the tritip, and reduced by about 60%. I cut the tri-tip into cubes, tossed the cubes over mashed potatoes, then spooned the sauce overtop.

It worked really well, and given that you can pick up a roast for 8 bucks at trader joe's, already vacuum sealed, the dish will probably go into my everyday dinner rotation.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


It was good - maybe a bit tougher than I'd have liked, but after I cubed it, it provided a nice contrast with the mashed potatoes. It was certainly worth the eight-ish dollars I paid.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I did a flatiron steak for about two hours at 132 today, and goddamn was it delicious. I think I prefer it to strip or ribeye, honestly. So much flavor!

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


They're also a fixed size - the the Anova/Sansaire, you can just use any old container.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Go ahead and leave them in the package. I do it all the time, and it works out great.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I've got an Anova, and just using the ziplock bag immersion trick (or the presealed packages from trader joes or wherever) has been fine. I've felt no need at all for a real vacuum sealer.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


bear named tators posted:

We did the initial cook at 120 and all was well. Figured it would be a bit of a stretch to do the reheat at the same temperature. Do folks generally reheat via SV or is that pretty much just done on the first cook? Never had SV leftovers before.

What are you cooking that low? Practically raw steak?

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


This week, I'm trying out a 48 hour/135 degree tritip roast. 8 hours makes for a nice medium rare, but I'm hoping this longer time will make it really tender.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I thought it would have enough collagen in the muscle to benefit from longer, lower cooking times.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


The 48 hour tri-tip was actually really nice - noticeably more tender than the ones I've done for shorter times. I guess there's enough collagen to make a bit of a difference. It wasn't dry at all, either.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Torches are nice, and they work really well.

EDIT: Also they are fun.

a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at Feb 19, 2014 around 16:24

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


118 or 120 is about normal for taps up here.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I liked mine best at 48 hours, 144f. Sort of typical red wine/shallot/mushroom/leek sauce, over potatoes.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Yeah, unless the steak is super thick, I almost never let it go more than an hour or 90 minutes at 132.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Yeah, there's no need for pasteurization - just getting the steak to temp (which might only take like 45 minutes) before the sear is just fine.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


131 is more medium rare than blue.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


No Wave posted:

I know that - but saying that there's no purpose in puddling something at 131 for an hour is still, I think, not the case, as you're still cooking the meat in a manner that has potential benefits (texture/taste, not health) over just searing it.

Like, it's 5:30 PM and you have some steak you want to eat. Starting pasteurization at 2:00 PM might have been the better option, but puddling's still a viable option for eating.

Stop listening to these crazy people - there's no need to let a steak sit at 132 for six hours to pasteurize. It does nothing. It's not better. Actually, if you're cooking at below 130, it's probably worse - those are the temps at which some bacteria grow faster. And it's not like non-sous vide methods of steak cooking would pasteurize in a way that sous vide doesn't. If you're getting the core of your steak to 132 degrees on a grill, you're not letting it sit at 132 for six hours.


EngineerJoe posted:

Yeah you still get a perfectly done steak with minimal overdone parts which is almost impossible with searing.

I think you might be confused about what searing is.

a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at Feb 28, 2014 around 16:07

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Does anyone go for long cooking times below 130? I gave it try once, but tossed the result, and I've never really seen anyone encourage that sort of thing here. Definitely never seen anyone do anything around 110.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


deimos posted:

I guess I should've said, if you're not gonna pasteurize why worry about the time it takes? You're certainly not cooking anything.

What are you even talking about now? Pasteurization and cooking are different things entirely. A grilled steak is cooked, but not pasteurized. The milk in my fridge is pasteurized but not cooked.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Anyone got time/temp recs for scallops? I'm planning to do some up tonight.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


I just got a cheap coleman cooler and cut an anova-shaped hole in the lid - it keeps the heat in nicely and minimizes loss over long cooks. Cambros look more pro, but I have no idea why anyone would pick one of those over a cooler - they're more money and less insulation.

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


mine is blue

its pretty much the best one

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


Yeah, just wrap them in paper towels to get the surface moisture off. Don't worry about squeezing - you can't squeeze the moisture out of a cooked steak.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«4 »