# 3-day sous-vide short ribs smell yeasty?



## sousvideerryday (Dec 15, 2014)

I recently got an Anova and this is my first time making short ribs. I'm wondering if I did something wrong and they possibly might not be edible due to weird smell/colour. 

I seasoned them with salt and pepper on one side only and cooked them at 130°F for 3 days, I have no vacuum sealer so I used the water displacement method with Glad freezer bags. When I first put them in as the water bath was coming back up to temp the display on the Anova froze at 126° and I didn't notice till half an hour later, I unplugged it and plugged it back in, the temp had gone up to 156°, yikes! So I removed hot water and added cold water till it was at 130°. The next day I opened a bag and ate a small sliver to see if they were overcooked, it was still pink & tender, so I put it back and left it for 2 more days.

Today I took out the bag I had opened 2 days ago and seared the ribs, putting the other 2 bags in a bowl of ice water to chill. The first thing I noticed before I seared the ribs was that there was a somewhat odd, slightly yeasty odor when I opened the bag. I figured nbd, they'll be fine after searing. So I sear them and take a bite... weird flavor. Now I've never had plain short ribs seasoned with only salt and pepper as these were so I'm wondering if it's just the flavor of the ribs themselves or some bacteria that may have grown due to air bubbles in the bag or too low temp or improper submersion of the bag despite me checking on them regularly and topping up with hot water. 

I ended up spitting out my first bite out of fear because I've had food poisoning a few times before and don't want to repeat the experience.

The second thing I noticed is that the juices in some bags were red and some were brown. Why is this? I opened and smelled the other bags after they had been in the chill bath a while and couldn't detect any variation in odor between the red and brown bags, maybe cause they were too cold by then. 

The ribs are all chilled and waiting in the fridge as I'm too scared to eat them. Are they still safe to eat?


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

I'm thinking you ran into possibly two different issues. First, with a long cook like this, you really want to ensure that the product is in constant contact with the water bath. You also might want to check your temp. Most of the red meats I looked up in Under Pressure start at 140F. Modernist Cuisine also has a short article on doing 72 hour short ribs.. in which they cook at 144F for 2.6lb but also point out..


> While you can use a zip-top bag when cooking many sous vide recipes, longer cooking times, such as what is called for here, require using a vacuum sealer. Vacuum sealing is safer, more reliable, and will prevent oxidation and off-flavors.
> In fact, when cooking sous vide for such extended periods, we often double vacuum seal the meat.


Perhaps you had some level of oxidation, or possibly you had areas of meat that never reached proper temp. Personally, I wouldn't eat it given the off smell, but that is because I trust my nose more than anything (except when hunting for mushrooms)


----------



## sousvideerryday (Dec 15, 2014)

Thanks! When doing a quick google search on temps for sous-vide short ribs I saw one website saying you could go as low as 130 so I figured the lower the better because I like rare meat. I'll know for next time! At this point do you think it's too late to salvage them by cooking them for a while longer at a higher temp? Or is it not even worth it cause they're not properly vacuum sealed and the bacteria won't all get killed? Can I just straight out fry them till medium or even well done in that case so I won't have to throw them out?


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

I'd advise you to consult online CDC and FDA guidelines for temperatures required to destroy common food borne pathogens. The basic rule is "when in doubt.. throw it out"


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Try this the next time.

A pot of boiling water.

Pour the boiling water in the bag to sanitize.

If you use seasonings, steam them first.

The beef, freeze the surface of the beef, and dip into boiling water for a few seconds, then use clean tools to put the beef into the bag and sous vide. 

You should be OK. 

You will get amazing short ribs that cannot be done any other way.

Beef is regularly consumed raw, It is the exterior which you need to sanitize.

dcarch


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

Wow, I don't think you need to hide that website name, that is crappy advice to cook three days under 60c. That is also some wonky temp Flux you got early on, that would have gotten my dubious bells ringing early. The other thing to consider here, in spite of my thinking you should just chalk this up to R @D, salting the beef for a long cook will, give you a quasi corned beef, so it won't come off as "fresh" no matter what.


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

AllanMcPherson said:


> The other thing to consider here, in spite of my thinking you should just chalk this up to R @D, salting the beef for a long cook will, give you a quasi corned beef, so it won't come off as "fresh" no matter what.


Seconded.. salt is not applied for seasoning, in almost any sous vide situation but certainly not a 72 hour cook.


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

Koukouvagia said:


> Dude your ribs went bad. What a waste of a good product, a cow had to die so that you could do a science experiment that requires 3 full days of electricity. I don't understand the point of this.


Don't be so quick to dismiss this. Maintaining a temp of 140F in a water bath for 72 hours doesn't require that the heating element be on all the time, just as keeping your refrigerator or freezer at temp doesn't require constant power.

I know it seems strange. Just maybe give it a chance until you've had properly cooked sous vide meat and then make a decision.


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

I believe that your basic problem was bad sanitation.

Understand that the lower the temperature the more difficult it is to kill (deactivate) yeast, mold and bacteria. 

Flash boiling (par-boiling) to sanitize the surface of the meat then using sanitized tools and bag (as already suggested), not your hands, to manipulate the meat would have probably helped.

The meat should not be punctured (introducing bacteria inside the meat) for this to work as well.

additional food safety precautions would be to use irradiated or treated spices (most are).

I am guessing here that the salt prevented some microorganisms from proliferating while encouraging others, similar to what salting does to cheese.  In this case souring bacteria and mold would have grown rather than yeast.

Luc H.


----------



## flipflopgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

You can kill every bacteria both inside and out but it's the toxin spores you need to worry about.
When in doubt throw it out.

mimi


----------



## laurenlulu (Sep 9, 2012)

You kept your meat in the danger zone for 3 days, no bueno


----------



## alaminute (Aug 22, 2013)

laurenlulu said:


> You kept your meat in the danger zone for 3 days, no bueno


Second this, danger zone is technically 41-138 but it's really just easier to say 40-140. Inside of this range is where bacteria and parasites flourish, nothing should be inside of those parameters for more than seven hours, including cooling times. Sounds like a fermentation project [emoji]128540[/emoji]


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

This sort of thing was done in the early days but I would amazed to see anybody recommend that low temp that long. Like I say, I would be really curious about who published that recipe. If you don't want to look to it, you might want to shoot that site a note of concern.


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

This reference suggest 134F or 56.5C for 48 to 72hres for sous-vide beef spareribs:

http://www.sousvidesupreme.com/en-us/sousvide_cookingtemperatures.htm

(55C or 131F is the lowest I would go for this technique)

For this to work though, good sanitation practices is key.

Luc H.


----------



## chefboyog (Oct 23, 2013)

alaminute said:


> Second this, danger zone is technically 41-138 but it's really just easier to say 40-140. Inside of this range is where bacteria and parasites flourish, nothing should be inside of those parameters for more than seven hours, including cooling times. Sounds like a fermentation project [emoji]128540[/emoji]


41-138
Where do you get that " technical" number?
And the 7 hr timeframe can you reference a source for me?


----------



## maryb (Mar 21, 2008)

When in doubt throw it out an doff odors are your first clue something went badly wrong. Toss them before you poison somebody!


----------



## alaminute (Aug 22, 2013)

So general from usda




  








image.jpg




__
alaminute


__
Dec 16, 2014








And you totally got me on the numbers135 to 41 from maricopa food handler site. whoops, no Harold McGee but it's somethin




  








image.jpg




__
alaminute


__
Dec 16, 2014


----------



## alaminute (Aug 22, 2013)

Another oops, also from the maricopa site saying six hours




  








image.jpg




__
alaminute


__
Dec 16, 2014







Thanks for calling me out OG, now I know better [emoji]128521[/emoji]


----------



## teamfat (Nov 5, 2007)

I've also heard that the 40 - 140 is actually a degree or two off on each end, but it is easy to remember.

mjb.


----------



## chefboyog (Oct 23, 2013)

alaminute said:


> Another oops, also from the maricopa site saying six hours
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you @alaminute Not really calling you out but I like more sources for my own needs, thanks muchly I will look into this Maricopa.

The 6 hour timeframe is very interesting to me, it is the cumulative time that matters though.

What people need to understand, without getting too technical, is that food needs to be cooled as fast as possible, and heated/ reheated as fast as possible also.

A couple degrees on either end, meh, even then I would call BS to to the science, unless I can see some studies that are easy that replicate and are peer reviewed.

I've only ever heard 40-140. Im sure there is more to it than that and different bacteria require different factors.

I've read some disclaimers on temp outside of the box at Modernist Cuisine dot com, Im sure there are more disclaimers in the print but I don't have a copy and can' t see getting it in the near future. Hard to navigate that site on my phone Id quote it but some other time.

Learning about food safety is fun times.

Toxoplasma anyone?

Even sounds awesome.


----------



## teamfat (Nov 5, 2007)

If you really are bored but interested in the danger zone, here's some info.

http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/februarymarch-2004/the-danger-zone-reevaluated/


----------



## chefboyog (Oct 23, 2013)

Im so bored Im browsing Chef Talk, and replying to nonsense threads haha.

Thanks for link.


----------



## chefboyog (Oct 23, 2013)

@teamfat

Thanks so much great link.
Most recent reference in that I could see is from 1997, but a very good article nonetheless.

"Some temperatures included within the commonly cited "danger zone" are not dangerous, and others not included within this "zone" are dangerous under some conditions."- link above

Common sense prevails.


----------



## teamfat (Nov 5, 2007)

chefboyOG said:


> @teamfat
> 
> Common sense prevails.


You mean like keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold?

mjb.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

The whole "temperature danger zone" idea from the 50's is obsolete.  It's widely accepted that it's perfectly safe to cook at 130 for three days.  I've cooked maybe one ton of meat that way with no issues.  But I wouldn't do it without a vacuum sealer.  In general terms food borne pathogens are killed at 165 for a few seconds.  But 130 is enough to kill them, it just takes a lot longer.  That's what pasteurization is, sanitization at lower temps than are needed for sterilization.

Getting the air out is good, but probably not for the reason most think.  Even a good commercial chamber machine isn't getting all the air out, lots still remains and can come out of the food.  But evacing the atmo pulls the bag in tight against the food. You need the entire chunk of meat in contact with the water at all times to avoid a gas embolism.  You need a good seal so that once you've pasteurized the food no new bacteria can get in to contaminate things.

130 for 72 hours is great for ribs.  But you do have to take care that you don't let the temp fall below that for long.  It sounds like the OP may not have sealed the meat properly, let it cool too much, not worked clean or a combination of all three.  There are often "odd" odors from things long cooked SV, but generally they dissipate pretty quickly.  If it still smells funky I probably wouldn't risk it.

For future reference bear in mind you have to be careful to seal stuff very well and get all the atmo out of the bag for long long cooks.  And you need a SV machine capable of maintaining a tight window of temp.


----------



## chefboyog (Oct 23, 2013)

Phaedrus said:


> The whole "temperature danger zone" idea from the 50's is obsolete. It's widely accepted that it's perfectly safe to cook at 130 for three days.
> 
> 130 for 72 hours is great for ribs. But you do have to take care


I don't think that it is time to call the danger zone obsolete. Maybe the one from 1950, but not the one from our food safety programs. I believe that you @Phaedrus may have sufficient information to believe this, and enough experience, talent, and care to execute the dish as you mention. I just think it is a bit rash to throw the whole danger zone out the window. Especially when learning new techniques such as sous vide. And I mean new to us, the OP an I and others who will read this, not the industry as a whole. We need guidelines to follow or we end up killing people.

Can you reference the widely accepted recipe for 3 days @ 130 for me please? The inly recipe I have is from modernist website, I may have missed it or it may be in the book...

Sous vide is on my short list if technique to conquer and ribs is in the shorter list of what to do.

http://modernistcuisine.com/recipes/72-hour-braised-short-ribs/

"Cooking the ribs at 62 °C / 144 °F for 72 hours will result in a tender, flaky meat with a pink hue, but you may prefer a different color or texture. By varying the cooking time and temperature, you can produce dramatically different textures. For example, to achieve the color and texture of medium-rare steak, cook the ribs for 72 hours. For something in between, cook the ribs at 60 °C / 140 °F, as we did in this recipe. For a very flaky temperature similar to a traditional braise, cook them at 88 °C / 190 °F for just 7 hours."

Them ribs look Gooooooooood!

I cant wait to try some!


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

I used to do over 24 hr cooks at this temp range all the time, especially in the first two years of working with low temp cooking. There is an appeal to eating a braising cut that comes off as med rare, for sure. And to be honest, I will occasionally still do this for home use.

That said, this sort (under 60 c) of cooking is the only time I have had failures of sous vide. That is, the meat coming off as, well, off. MY sanitation is solid, and my vac bags are stored safely, and cut as I need them. It was a very small portion of the time, probably about what you would get with corked wine. Still enough to notice.

My personal rule is not to do cooks over 4 hours or more under 60.5 c. Especially with products for sale. Again, that is a personal, better safe than sorry position. I understand the science behind the safety of super low temp, but there are so many points of contact that I can't control. 
http://www.heritageradionetwork.org...es-Episode-189-Sous-Vide-and-Fireball-Whiskey

here is a link to an excellent podcast looking at some concerns of sous vide cooking (though not long cooks).


----------



## rick alan (Nov 15, 2012)

I find my oxtails loose a lot of aroma after 2 hours cooking, and as you know it really takes 4-5 hours simmering to get them tender.  I have VP oxtails in the freeze right now and considering SV to prep them. 

How would you guys in the know handle them from the freezer thru the SV process?

Rick


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

Aside from time and temp (where I would go high 60's, for a day, check and at that point) I would consider thawing first. Not for anything with to do with the cooking per se, but I have had issues with frozen meat thawing and wrecking the tension in the bag as they thaw. You might need to re pack


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

Phaedrus said:


> ... That's what pasteurization is, sanitization at lower temps than are needed for sterilization. ...


I understand that posts often fall on semantics with participants nick picking at correct wording which often spirals in rants and what not. By pointing this out I may cause this effect but it is very important not to confuse these three words:

Pasteurization means to kill all pathogens while leaving many microbes alive (sous vide will do this)

Sanitization means to kill many microbes on a working surface (it's a numbers game, the surface is not sterile nor does it mean pathogens are dead)

Sterilization means to kill all microbial life (as in canning and surgical tools).

Time/temperature tables for cooking and reheating are calculated to pasteurize the food, in sous-vide it simply prevents proliferation which means that cooking @56 C for 72 hours will discourage pathogenic microbial growth (but other non-pathogenic micro-organism may and will grow). The food will be safe if no pathogens were on the surface to start with and will smell and taste good if few of the other microorganisms aren't there at the beginning as well.

As already known, no amount of cooking will destroy toxins.

Luc H.


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

AllanMcPherson said:


> Aside from time and temp (where I would go high 60's, for a day, check and at that point) I would consider thawing first. Not for anything with to do with the cooking per se, but I have had issues with frozen meat thawing and wrecking the tension in the bag as they thaw. You might need to re pack


As with slow-cookers, I would never start with frozen meat for this technique. It would mess the temp/time calculation. At the very least I would quickly bring the thawed meat to temp in warm/hot water then let it cool down to sous-vide temp.

Luc H.


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

It depends on what effect you are going for, something like cut oxtail, that you are looking for a long tenderization of, if you just tack an extra hour or two on the time. Like I say, I don't recommend it.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Baldin has written copiously on pasteurization times and Keller uses many long cooked recipes. As does Heston Blumenthal.


chefboyOG said:


> I don't think that it is time to call the danger zone obsolete. Maybe the one from 1950, but not the one from our food safety programs. I believe that you @Phaedrus may have sufficient information to believe this, and enough experience, talent, and care to execute the dish as you mention. I just think it is a bit rash to throw the whole danger zone out the window. Especially when learning new techniques such as sous vide. And I mean new to us, the OP an I and others who will read this, not the industry as a whole. We need guidelines to follow or we end up killing people.
> 
> Can you reference the widely accepted recipe for 3 days @ 130 for me please? The inly recipe I have is from modernist website, I may have missed it or it may be in the book...
> 
> Sous vide is on my short list if technique to conquer and ribs is in the shorter list of what to do.


Baldin has written copiously on pasteurization times and Keller uses many long cooked recipes. As does Heston Blumenthal. I'm out the door in a minute and can't reinvent the wheel in just a very short post but check out Daniel Baldwin's website on SV and his book. He's a math PhD and he lays out the science pretty well. I can find you more culinary sources but suffice to say it's very very common and quite safe if done correctly.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Luc_H said:


> I understand that posts often fall on semantics with participants nick picking at correct wording which often spirals in rants and what not. By pointing this out I may cause this effect but it is very important not to confuse these three words:
> 
> Pasteurization means to kill all pathogens while leaving many microbes alive (sous vide will do this)
> 
> ...


I chose my word a little carelessly, that's true. But let me correct the section in red: Pasteurization does_ not_ kill all pathogens. Sterilization does (eg pressure canning). Think about it; if all pathogens were killed pasteurized milk would be shelf stable. But it's not. We're aiming for a 6D reduction in bad bugs, not total elimination.


----------



## chefboyog (Oct 23, 2013)

@Phaedrus

Not asking you to reinvent the wheel man! Just looking for the best places to get more info besides Modernist, I look forward to seeing some Keller, Blumenthal, Baldwin recipes.


----------



## teamfat (Nov 5, 2007)

One thing that made me smile was the comment about cooking at 130 degrees for 3 days so the beef would be rare.  It just seems odd to have rare beef after that long.

Not sure if I'm going to jump on the sous vide wagon in the future, but it might happen.

mjb.


----------



## chefboyog (Oct 23, 2013)

image.jpg




__
chefboyog


__
Dec 18, 2014












  








image.jpg




__
chefboyog


__
Dec 18, 2014








Wow I have some serious reading to do now thanks a lot!

131 seems to be the magic number haha

Thanks again Im excited for some vide


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Sous vide does not mean cooking at low temperature.

You can sous vide at any temperature.

Sous vide means precision cooking temperature control, which allows you to cook very close to danger zone.

Sous vide means safe cooking. You want the meat to be at 165F? That's what you will get, the entire piece of meat. No need to probe around with a thermometer. No other cooking method can give you  that kind of assurance, so most of the time you over cook just to be safe.

dcarch


----------



## chefboyog (Oct 23, 2013)

" so most of the time you over cook just to be safe" 

Whaaat? Why over cook? And why 165 meat?

And sous vide just means under vacuum. Its French. Oh thats a confusing one the meanings of whatnot, but Im drinkin and digress quickly.


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

Phaedrus said:


> I chose my word a little carelessly, that's true. But let me correct the section in red: Pasteurization does_ not_ kill all pathogens. Sterilization does (eg pressure canning). Think about it; if all pathogens were killed pasteurized milk would be shelf stable. But it's not. We're aiming for a 6D reduction in bad bugs, not total elimination.


Milk is not shelf stable because it is only pasteurized which means that the heat/time applied kills 99.9% of pathogenic bacteria (in microbiology the is always uncertainty of large numbers) but not 99.9% of all microorganisms.

Unopened milk may curdle after it's expiry date and may/will taste bad but it won't make you sick because all the pathogens are killed, only nuisance/souring microbes remain. That is the purpose of pasteurization and why it is different than sterilization which means 100% kill of ALL microbes (which included pathogens by default).

This works because pathogens are more susceptible to heat than other microbes. The temp/time tables are mostly based on the heat resistance of pathogens.

When it comes to sterilization, 125C (higher than boiling water) and pressure is required to kill everything.

Luc H.


----------

