# What's your impression of sous vide?



## jonfields (Jul 7, 2015)

What's your impression of sous vide? Would you order meals that have been sous vide already that would be quicker to prepare/easy to heat up & eat?


----------



## chris.lawrence (Oct 19, 2009)

I've done a lot of sous-vide cooking, and I will claim very dogmatically, that it is the superior way to cook meat and fish. If you know your temps you have absolutely no issue getting the most flavorsome, tender and wonderfully cooked joints. I can't imagine anyone would have any reason to dislike something sous-vide unless it's reinforced with misinformation or a bad personal experience caused by badly done processes. The only issue with it is you need good kit to get reliable results, and that can be expensive for the home cook. And it does require a greater investment in time, but nobody sous-vides in a rush! If you're in a rush, you would eat something pan-fried!


----------



## jonfields (Jul 7, 2015)

I see. I tried sous vide cooking for my steaks tonight for the first time and it was quite good! Probably not perfect since I just did it in a pot with a thermometer, adjusting the heat to keep the temperature steady.

I see that you're a former chef. Do you think regular consumers like it or dislike it for the most part? Are people turned off by the technique since it's cooked in a bag & might seem less natural? Given you're in the Netherlands, I would expect that it's much more popular there than here in the US.


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

I'm a food enthusiast in the US and own two sous vide units from Anova. There are many different reasons I favor sous vide cooking in certain applications, and some of them have nothing to do with the flavor of the food. The ability to hold a perfectly soft boiled egg for an hour.. while waiting for your guests to arrive is an example of one of the practical benefits. I will say however, you cannot achieve many of the benefits trying to use a range with a thermometer, it simply isn't accurate enough. You really have to be accurate within about 1 degree F sometimes for hours. Eggs are one of the most dramatic examples of this.. if you sous vide an egg (no bag needed, they come with their own!) for an hour and a half.. look at the dramatic differences in just minor temperature changes:





  








sousvideeggs.jpg




__
eastshores


__
Jul 8, 2015








We recently did our first steaks sous vide. We did two cuts, a sirloin as well as a filet. The filet is the shining example of the two because it is much less forgiving using traditional technique than a well marbled steak. You didn't say how you finished your steaks, but one thing sous vide removes from the equation is the maillard reaction that gives us that beautiful tasty crust. So we used clarified butter and got a large cast iron skillet absolutely smoking hot and seared the finished steaks about 40 seconds on each side. Also, with sous vide cooking there is no need to "rest" your steaks - you can take them from the bag straight into a smoking skillet and the window of time you have to do this with perfect result is huge.


----------



## chris.lawrence (Oct 19, 2009)

jonfields said:


> I see. I tried sous vide cooking for my steaks tonight for the first time and it was quite good! Probably not perfect since I just did it in a pot with a thermometer, adjusting the heat to keep the temperature steady.
> 
> I see that you're a former chef. Do you think regular consumers like it or dislike it for the most part? Are people turned off by the technique since it's cooked in a bag & might seem less natural? Given you're in the Netherlands, I would expect that it's much more popular there than here in the US.


Hi Jon, I've used sous-vide in three restaurants, professionally. One in a Michelin star rest in Manchester, UK, one in 5* resort in Greece, and another in France, only the Michelin star rest stated on the menu that it was sous-vide, and it was one of the attractions for the guests, although that was when it was fairly new. The other restaurants just did it as standard. Never had any issues with guests disliking the technique, as that would make them look very ignorant! Is this an issue in the US?


----------



## kingfarvito (May 7, 2012)

chris.lawrence said:


> Hi Jon, I've used sous-vide in three restaurants, professionally. One in a Michelin star rest in Manchester, UK, one in 5* resort in Greece, and another in France, only the Michelin star rest stated on the menu that it was sous-vide, and it was one of the attractions for the guests, although that was when it was fairly new. The other restaurants just did it as standard. Never had any issues with guests disliking the technique, as that would make them look very ignorant! Is this an issue in the US?


Not an issue that I've ever seen. Although I will say as a cook I dont like to use sous vide for steaks, fish, or things of that nature. However it does have its areas where ot shines.


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

Search the forum for "issues" re sous vide. Fingers crossed this thread won't go that way...


----------



## jonfields (Jul 7, 2015)

I thought sous vide is best for proteins? If you don't use it for steak or fish, what do you use it for? Chicken or veggies?


----------



## jonfields (Jul 7, 2015)

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. It seems much newer here compared to Europe, which makes sense given it was invented there. For example, I think Europe has a lot more things in the freezer section of the grocery store that has been sous vide (based on what I've read), but the US doesn't really have much. I'm new to sous vide, so just trying to learn more about it. It's an interesting concept, but I wasn't sure how people who don't really know about sous vide would think of it.

Also can you sous vide almost anything and have it taste good (maybe with a bit of searing)? Like vegetables, etc. Can you do rice or pasta or risotto as well? I thought you might know given your experience


----------



## kingfarvito (May 7, 2012)

jonfields said:


> I thought sous vide is best for proteins? If you don't use it for steak or fish, what do you use it for? Chicken or veggies?


I like to use it for eggs and lunch meat mostly

You can cook eggs to only set the whites and have a perfectly runny yolk.

Or, I like to tie turkey breast and toss it in the cyrovac with garlic, thyme, and black pepper at 155. You can run it over the slicer after that. Super juicy turkey sandwich.

You know things that would be hard to do in any other way. I feel like most cooks should be confident cooking a steak or fish in a pan or on the grill.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

My impression?

It's nothing more than poaching, that's all.

I don't think it saves labour, money or time, as you have to factor those three items into getting the product into the bag and prepared before you can re-thermalize it.

It makes sense for larger items, which was what it was invented for-- originally to poach foie gras with a minimum of wieght loss.  Then the Euros figured it was a good way to heat up mass production food  for hospitals and prisons (look up the Knacka system).  It only gained popularity once the price of vacuum  machines    got to be under $8000  dollars


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

I love ya Pump, but that is a really surface level interpretation. And I don't have anything against poaching as a technique either. But precise temp cooking and poaching only have a lack of crust in common.


----------



## flipflopgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

I remember as a kid bringing a pan of water to boil and tossing in a Boil-n-Bag entree for an after school snack.
Straight from the HEB freezer section to ours.
They retailed at around 10 cents per box.
Meatloaf in tomato sauce was pretty ok.
Brand name Banquet....which is still in the frozen food biz pumping out low grade chicken pot pies and such.

I will give the SV fans the point for actually cooking instead of reaheating....
You can argue all day long and still cannot disprove the fact that the more things change the more they stay the same.

mimi


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

Just like this thread...


----------



## flipflopgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

AllanMcPherson said:


> Just like this thread...


Lol ;-)

mimi


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

Another aspect of sous vide that is not accomplished with traditional poaching is that there is no loss of nutrient/flavor. Take for instance a vegetable that is boiled/poached - you can't argue with the fact that some amount of nutrient and flavor is lost to the poaching liquid during the cooking process. Under vacuum seal that is not possible. Vegetables tend to have a slightly more intense flavor when cooked sous vide from my tests.

At the end of the day it's a technique. I think it's often pushed as a superior technique to some traditional methods, but really that's left up to the individual consuming the end result to decide. There are some things that you can accomplish with sous vide that are just plain not possible using a traditional method but that is what technique is all about.


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

jonfields said:


> What's your impression of sous vide? Would you order meals that have been sous vide already that would be quicker to prepare/easy to heat up & eat?


_*My impression?*_

SV is great technique to have more *consistency* on certain type of cooking.

For example, to get perfect medium rare seared duck breast, or steak, every time.

Or getting perfect soft boiled egg, or hard-boiled egg with runny yolk.

I am not saying that those are not possible with traditional cooking, but using SV, that would be easily achievable.

_*Would you order meals that have been sous vide already that would be quicker to prepare/easy to heat up & eat?*_

SV is just a technique, and it's just one part of the equation. You still need to do more, like *searing* the SV'ed steak.

So, it's not just heating-up then eat 

But, would I order a meal if it is stated has been cooked SV? Absolutely yes.

Why yes? Because I would expect the done-ness (for example) would be precise, I won't expect overcooked meal!


----------



## spanky (Jul 10, 2015)

flipflopgirl said:


> I remember as a kid bringing a pan of water to boil and tossing in a Boil-n-Bag entree for an after school snack.
> Straight from the HEB freezer section to ours.
> They retailed at around 10 cents per box.
> Meatloaf in tomato sauce was pretty ok.
> ...


Other than both utilizing a water bath there is absolutely no similarity between "boil in bag" entrees and sous vide.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

eastshores said:


> Another aspect of sous vide that is not accomplished with traditional poaching is that there is no loss of nutrient/flavor. Take for instance a vegetable that is boiled/poached - you can't argue with the fact that some amount of nutrient and flavor is lost to the poaching liquid during the cooking process. Under vacuum seal that is not possible. Vegetables tend to have a slightly more intense flavor when cooked sous vide from my tests.


Well, yes that point is true. However, no one said that you have to poach in gallons and gallons of liquid, no one said that liquid had to be water, and no one said you had to throw out that liquid once your item was poached......

Take for example a fairly standard procedure I learned in my apprenticeship, the poaching of fish: The fillets would be placed in a buttered sauteuse, perhaps a garnish added, and "liquid" (wine or fumet or stock) added, the sautesue covered with the foil wrapper from a butter block, and the pan placed in the oven for a few minutes. The liquid in the sauteuse never exceeds 80 C, so yes it is poaching. The fillets are gently removed, the liquid reduced, mounted with butter, and this resulting sauce napped over the fillets.

The argument that traditional poaching results in loss of flavor or nutritional value can be had, but the resulting liquid is consumed along with the protein.

Meh, 6 of one, and 1/2 dozen of the other. Personally, I can't justify the cost of a vacuum machine, the vacuum bags, the circulator, and the additional labour involved getting that item in the bag and then out of the bag


----------



## flipflopgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

jonfields said:


> What's your impression of sous vide? Would you order meals that have been sous vide already that would be quicker to prepare/easy to heat up & eat?


Yes @spanky .....you are absolutely correct.
I did stick with the topic (see above for a memory refreshment)
Altho IMO joining Chef Talk and wasting your very first post on trying to school another member is kinda lame.
If you will use the search function and read a few of the heated debates on this subject you may find my post to be a bit ironic as well as amusing.
Carry on.

mimi


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Sous vide cooking gives me great results in cooking. It also gives me great entertainment. I find it amusing to see people get so emotionally *raw (* /img/vbsmilies/smilies/redface.gif ) in a such a simple cooking concept.
[h1]"Onsen tamago" has been around for centuries. It is low and slow egg cooking in Japan in natural hot water which keeps constant precise temperature. "White cut" chicken in Chinese cooking too has been around for centuries. It is cooking low and slow in hot water using the natural law of thermal dynamics of water to prevent overcooking the chicken.[/h1]
Sous vide = cooking in hot water controlled by an electronic thermostat. What's the big deal here?

dcarch


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

I don't think there's a big deal. Like I said.. it's just another technique to throw in the bag should have you the equipment and inclination to do it. There are real and tangible benefits to it but I think the reason some people get up in arms about it is that sous vide has been pushed in media as this new miraculous molecular gastronomy super technique.. which dwarfs all other methods of cooking.

That simply isn't true and really in my opinion no one should stand firmly on either a pro or anti view of sous vide. It's extremely clear that sous vide is a viable and legitimate technique, with chefs like Thomas Keller utilizing it heavily. It's also extremely clear that James Beard award winning chefs all over the world can cook proteins without the use of sous vide and deliver products that are worthy of that recognition.


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

East, thank you!


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

eastshores said:


> .... It's also extremely clear that James Beard award winning chefs all over the world can cook proteins without the use of sous vide and deliver products that are worthy of that recognition....


A-yup. _* And *_without the added cost of those stupid (deleted) vacuum bags or the labour it takes to pack and seal those items in the bags.

Where poaching in bags does make sense is with larger items, but for a'la carte it is an exercise in waste.


----------



## mike9 (Jul 13, 2012)

I sous vide small scale at home - an old school crock pot, a PID and Ziploc vaccum bags.  Corned beef is the best I've ever made, fish is perfect, I haven't tried eggs, but I might.  Not as convenient as an Anova, or Sansaire, but it didn't cost a lot to put together either.


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

foodpump said:


> A-yup. _* And *_without the added cost of those stupid (deleted) vacuum bags or the labour it takes to pack and seal those items in the bags.
> 
> Where poaching in bags does make sense is with larger items, but for a'la carte it is an exercise in waste.


Vacuum bag cost almost nothing and using kind of vacuum chamber takes only seconds to pack and seal !


----------



## lasagnaburrito (Jun 9, 2015)

From what I hear, the reason for SVing is to break down connective tissue in proteins to make them more tender, while working at precise temps that aren't going to "char/hurt"; the meat in any way since it's just hot water and water movement, with nothing actually touching the meat itself.

Afterwards it seems you're still supposed to cook the meat.  I hear that a"reverse-sear" (w/e that is), is what really makes the SV meat great!  I saw an article from "amazingribs.com" which talked all about this.


I've been very interested in SV, but I'm still wondering the full applications, and it does seem to be a "protein thing," since all it's doing is breaking down stuff, and not "Cooking....." apparently?

As others have mentioned SV is very low and slow, just like BBQ or crock pot foods.


Everyone has their preference though, so if you want to try it, I would say get a cheap circulator (I see the home ones around 200$ or so), and try it out!

Good luck!


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> From what I hear, the reason for SVing is to break down connective tissue in proteins to make them more tender,


Uh-huh.... vacuum packing doesn't do that, it just vacuum packs. However, someone about 800-900 years ago figured out that moist heat with longer cooking temps will break down connective tissue--no vacuum packing involved.


LasagnaBurrito said:


> .. while working at precise temps that aren't going to "char/hurt"; the meat in any way since it's just hot water and water movement, with nothing actually touching the meat itself.
> 
> I don't follow. 350 F is a precise temp, it's usually what you roast meats at, and meat won't char at that temp unless you have it touching metal or have a naked flame directly on the meat. Then again, I've roasted meats (duck brst, fish, small birds, etc) at temps of 450 or higher without charring either.
> 
> The "water movement" has no effect in food sealed in bags or containers. Water is recirculated back through the heating device to maintain temperature--just like a hot water heating system in a house....


----------



## lasagnaburrito (Jun 9, 2015)

foodpump said:


> Uh-huh.... vacuum packing doesn't do that, it just vacuum packs. However, someone about 800-900 years ago figured out that moist heat with longer cooking temps will break down connective tissue--no vacuum packing involved.


You quoted 2 of my posts, what doesn't vacuum bags do?

I heard it has something to do with the circulation of the water and the low heat, but are the bags needed? They just are there to protect the food from getting wet I would assume. I'm sure you could do without the bags and get similar results, or maybe not...


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> From what I hear, the reason for SVing is to break down connective tissue in proteins to make them more tender, while working at precise temps that aren't going to "char/hurt"; the meat in any way since it's just hot water and water movement, with nothing actually touching the meat itself.


No, I don't believe that's the reason for SVing. Any slow cooking technique will break down connective tissue in proteins, and, done right, will make them more tender. And unless you really don't know how to cook, no cooking technique should char/hurt the meat - unless that's your goal, obviously.

And in SVing, something does touch the meat: the poaching liquid that was placed with the meat in the plastic bag. There are many other cooking techniques like that: En papillote is one. Poaching is another.

SVing does cook the meat. It cooks it very slowly and for a long time, which means the cooking is uniform. That can be challenging to get with other cooking techniques. Reverse sear means the searing is done at the end of the cooking process, rather than at the beginning. Once you achieve the uniform "medium-rare" inside of the steak in SV, you can quickly sear it. The result is a steak that is perfectly medium rare with very thin seared layers on each side, as opposed to thicker grayish layers on a grilled or pan fried steak with sometimes a raw center. This may sound like I'm saying SV is better than grilling? I'm not, in fact I prefer grilling. I'm just saying that is the advantages of SV as presented by the SV enthusiasts.



LasagnaBurrito said:


> Afterwards it seems you're still supposed to cook the meat.


No, the meat is cooked. You just need to sear it to caramelize the surface because it'll taste better that way. But after SVing, the meat is cooked.



LasagnaBurrito said:


> I've been very interested in SV, but I'm still wondering the full applications, and it does seem to be a "protein thing," since all it's doing is breaking down stuff, and not "Cooking....." apparently?


No, no: SV _is_ a cooking technique. You can use SV for veggies, fruits... anything really.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> You quoted 2 of my posts, what doesn't vacuum bags do?
> 
> I heard it has something to do with the circulation of the water and the low heat, but are the bags needed? They just are there to protect the food from getting wet I would assume. I'm sure you could do without the bags and get similar results, or maybe not...


You're right, I should have clarified. Vacuum bags by themselves don't break down connective tissue. Heat--moist heat, and longer cooking times will do this.

What you need to do is get more familiar with moist heat methods--poaching and braising in particular. If you read some of my above posts, you will understand that you don't need to poach in gallons and gallons of plain hot water--just enough liquid to cover the item is sufficient, and you can choose your liquid--wine, stock, fumet, anything really.

I'm also trying to make it clear that the only reason the water circulates, is so it passes through the immersion circulator, which heats up/maintains the water temp. at the setting you had it for. For instance, I can poach cheesecake, a terrine, or flan caramel in a water bath, the water never moves or circulates, yet I will get consistant and great results with this method.

Meh, I respectfully disagree with F. Fries. S.V. is not a cooking method, the cooking method is poaching--poaching under vacuum to be sure, but still poaching.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Vacuum has nothing to do with sous vide.

dcarch


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Really?

So items are NOT vacuum packed and then put in a water bath?


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

foodpump said:


> So items are NOT vacuum packed and then put in a water bath?


Eggs aren't! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif but yes, "sous vide" translated from the French term is "in vacuum" so that is by and large what sous vide means. There are actually cold applications of sous vide - for instance water melon can be prepared sous vide which creates a dense and concentrated product without ever applying heat.

We could argue all day over the precise meaning of the term, but the reality is that most people that have an understanding of what it means to "cook something sous vide" associate a product in a vacuum sealed bag being placed into a water bath that has a precisely controlled temperature. You might be technically correct to say they cooked it by poaching it in a plastic bag that was sealed under pressure, but isn't that a bit pedantic?


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

foodpump said:


> Really?
> 
> So items are NOT vacuum packed and then put in a water bath?


I'm not sure if that's what dcarch meant, but for the sake of precision: vacuum packing does not create a vacuum. A vacuum is a space devoid of matter. There's no such thing in a vacuum packed bag. Vacuum packing only means removing the air out of a bag.

You can also do sous vide using the water displacement method - which does not require vacuum packing. 


foodpump said:


> Meh, I respectfully disagree with F. Fries. S.V. is not a cooking method, the cooking method is poaching--poaching under vacuum to be sure, but still poaching.


My point was that when you sous vide an item you are cooking it. It seems like @RedBeerd Cantu was under the impression that sous vide was not cooking the items.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> are the bags needed? They just are there to protect the food from getting wet I would assume. I'm sure you could do without the bags and get similar results, or maybe not...


You add fat or broth to the items you put in the bag. Without bag, you would need the entire liquid in the tank to be flavorful. With bags, you can use water in the tank, and a few Tbspns of the flavorful poaching medium inside the bag. Also, without bag, the item's flavor would be diluted in the tank's liquid. The bag helps concentrate the flavor.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

foodpump said:


> Really?
> 
> So items are NOT vacuum packed and then put in a water bath?


Absolutely not. Sous vide is not cooking in vacuum, and not putting food "under pressure".

You use a vacuum machine to remove as much air as possible to facilitate better thermal conduction, not really to create a vacuum or pressurized environment. As a matter of fact many people sous vide just use the immersion water displacement concept to squeeze out air by natural water pressure.

Sous vide is a fancy French word for a shockingly simple cooking method, that is, cooking with an extremely good thermostat. No more and no less.

What is good about the extremely good thermostat is that it will allow you the ultimate food safety in the guarantee that your food can be cooked to the exact temperature you want, right next to the "danger zone" if you so desire. Something you can't do with any other method. There is only one way to be food safe using normal methods, you overcook part of the food.

dcarch


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

By the way.. for anyone wanting to make the jump into cooking with an immersion circulator, amazon is having their "Prime Day" sale and you can get an Anova circulator that is regularly $179 for $139.99


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

foodpump, you can call precise temp cooking poaching all you want.  But you are wrong.  I can call Crock pots bbq, too.  Or EZ bake ovens the same as Rational ovens.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

[quote name="dcarch" url="/t/8

Sous vide is a fancy French word for a shockingly simple cooking method, that is, cooking with an extremely good thermostat. No more and no less.

dcarch
[/quote]

Actually, any French speaker will tell you,
Sous=under
Vide=vacuum

Then again all web resources will tell you that sous vide entails cooking in some form of an airtight container, and about half will tell you that the container is under vacuum, hence the french term "sous vide".


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

foodpump said:


> [quote name="dcarch" url="/t/8
> 
> Sous vide is a fancy French word for a shockingly simple cooking method, that is, cooking with an extremely good thermostat. No more and no less.
> 
> dcarch


Actually, any French speaker will tell you,
Sous=under
Vide=vacuum

Then again all web resources will tell you that sous vide entails cooking in some form of an airtight container, and about half will tell you that the container is under vacuum, hence the french term "sous vide".[/quote]
You are correct in the French language. You are also correct that originally (historically) vacuum was considered part of the sous vide idea.

But scientifically, it is not possible to create pressure in a flexible plastic bag. Try it. Use the most powerful vacuum machine to draw a vacuum in a plastic bag. At the end if you measure the pressure, it will be the same as atmospheric pressure. You can only create vacuum (pressure) in a rigid container.

Again, neither vacuum nor pressure is needed to keep precise temperature setting.

dcarch


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

I'm a French speaker. Sous-vide means under vacuum, correct, because it was originally thought that by using a vacuum packing machine you were creating a vacuum in the bag, but it has since been shown that there's no such thing. You do use an air-sucking machine to remove the air from the bag, but when doing so, the bag collapses around the items and poaching liquid, leaving no space at all for sous-vide (vacuum). In a vacuum packed bag, there is no vacuum.

A vacuum is a space devoid of matter. You would need a pretty sturdy container to contain a vacuum - not a plastic bag, that collapses when you remove the air from it.

[EDIT: Just realized I'm pretty much saying the same thing dcarch already said.]


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

French Fries said:


> I'm a French speaker. -------


Happy Bastille Day! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif

dcarch


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

AllanMcPherson said:


> foodpump, you can call precise temp cooking poaching all you want. But you are wrong. I can call Crock pots bbq, too. Or EZ bake ovens the same as Rational ovens.


O.K. Why am I wrong?

Poaching is done at temps from 65-85 c in some kind of liquid. Fair enough? Precise temp or not, that is the cooking method. The technique for s.v. Is to put item in a bag, suck the air out, seal the bag, and immerse it in water of a set temp. Below the boiling point. Sound familiar? Technique and cooking method are not the same.

Look, using you suggestions of ovens, I've baked bread in just about every type of oven imaginable. The cooking method is baking--dry heat with no moisture or fat. I can use a convection, a deck, a Rational, a wood fired stone beehive oven or an Ez-bake oven (my sister got one of those for christmas, didn't last long after I took it apart). But the cooking method is the same


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

French Fries said:


> ....since been shown that there's no such thing. You do use an air-sucking machine to remove the air from the bag, but when doing so, the bag collapses around the items and poaching liquid, leaving no space at all for sous-vide (vacuum). In a vacuum packed bag, there is no vacuum.
> 
> A vacuum is a space devoid of matter. You would need a pretty sturdy container to contain a vacuum - not a plastic bag, that collapses when you remove the air from it.
> 
> [EDIT: Just realized I'm pretty much saying the same thing dcarch already said.]


FF, you are speaking along the lines of physics and what would be considered a "perfect vacuum" - our handy dandy food savers that suck air out of the bag are in fact creating a vacuum, which simply means it is changing the air pressure inside the bag. Commercial vacuum chamber sealers create an even better vacuum but in either case the product in the bag is under the effect of an atmospheric pressure change due to the vacuum - this is why melon can be compressed this way and is still considered sous vide. So no offense, but I think the literal translation is accurate.


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *dcarch*
> 
> But scientifically, it is not possible to create pressure in a flexible plastic bag. Try it. Use the most powerful vacuum machine to draw a vacuum in a plastic bag. At the end if you measure the pressure, it will be the same as atmospheric pressure.


I don't agree at all. If the seal of a vacuum sealed bag is compromised air will come rushing into the bag until it reaches equilibrium with the surrounding atmospheric pressure, it does that because of the vacuum present.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

eastshores said:


> FF, you are speaking along the lines of physics and what would be considered a "perfect vacuum"


No, I am not talking about a perfect vacuum, I am talking about a vacuum, perfect or not. You cannot create a vacuum with a flexible container, that's just basic physics! If the pressure outside is bigger than the pressure inside, then the bag collapses, leaving no space inside - therefore no vacuum. If the container was rigid enough to withstand the pressure difference between outside and inside the container then you could create a vacuum. 


eastshores said:


> our handy dandy food savers that suck air out of the bag are in fact creating a vacuum, which simply means it is changing the air pressure inside the bag.


No they are not (creating a vacuum). A vacuum is a SPACE devoid of matter (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vacuum). Food savers are removing the air and collapsing the bag, leaving no space devoid of matter behind. As dcarch pointed out, the pressure inside the bag after removing the air is exactly the same as it was before removing the air.

I'm having difficulty understanding what you believe is going on in a bag after you remove the air out of it. Do you think your vacuum sealer removes the air but leaves an empty space instead, therefore leaving the same volume inside the bag? A simple test will show you that's not the case: suck the air out of a zip lock for example with your mouth, and the bag will collapse, to the point that it will be empty. No space left = no vacuum. Or were you under the impression that the food saver was changing the pressure of the liquid inside the bag? That's... just not happening.

I have a few questions for you:

1) Do you think there's air left after you vacuum pack a bag?

2) Do you think there's empty space left after you vacuum pack a bag?

3) Do you think the pressure of the liquid inside the bag has changed after you vacuum pack the bag?

(the answer to all 3 questions should be 'no')


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

eastshores said:


> I don't agree at all. If the seal of a vacuum sealed bag is compromised air will come rushing into the bag until it reaches equilibrium with the surrounding atmospheric pressure, it does that because of the vacuum present.


That is true. Air will rush in if you cut a hole in the bag. The reason for that is because the bag material is not completely flexible. If you take a tennis ball, cut a hole and squeeze the air out by hand. The moment you let go of your hand the ball will suck the air back in. It does not mean there was vacuum inside the ball before.

In your example of compressing melon, it is possible because the melon is porous in structure. You can in fact create good vacuum and differential pressure if you bag a whole chicken and pull air out with a vacuum. The reason is because the rib cage of the chicken is empty and rigid.

The opposite is true also. You can never pressurize a balloon which has extremely flexible rubber. However, you can pressurize a soda bottle because the bottle does not stretch.

dcarch


----------



## lasagnaburrito (Jun 9, 2015)

Kind of skimmed through these replies, but here is Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

*Vacuum* is space that is devoid of matter

The word stems from the Latin adjective _vacuus_ for "vacant" or "void".

An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[sup][1][/sup]

Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a _perfect_ vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or *free space*, and use the term *partial vacuum* to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space.

In engineering and applied physics on the other hand vacuum refers to any space in which the pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure.[sup][2][/sup] The Latin term _*in vacuo*_ is used to describe an object as being in what would otherwise be a vacuum.

The _quality_ of a partial vacuum refers to how closely it approaches a perfect vacuum. Other things equal, lower gas pressure means higher-quality vacuum. For example, a typical vacuum cleaner produces enough suction to reduce air pressure by around 20%.[sup][3][/sup]Much higher-quality vacuums are possible. Ultra-high vacuum chambers, common in chemistry, physics, and engineering, operate below one trillionth (10[sup]−12[/sup]) of atmospheric pressure (100 nPa), and can reach around 100 particles/cm[sup]3[/sup].[sup][4][/sup] Outer space is an even higher-quality vacuum, with the equivalent of just a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter on average.[sup][5][/sup] According to modern understanding, even if all matter could be removed from a volume, it would still not be "empty" due to vacuum fluctuations, dark energy, transiting gamma- and cosmic rays, neutrinos, along with other phenomena in quantum physics. In modern particle physics, the vacuum state is considered the ground state of matter.

*Pressure ranges of each quality of vacuum in different units*

Vacuum qualityTorrPaAtmosphereAtmospheric pressure7601.013×10[sup]+5[/sup]1Low vacuum760 to 251×10[sup]+5[/sup] to 3×10[sup]+3[/sup]1 to 0.03Medium vacuum25 to 1×10[sup]−3[/sup]3×10[sup]+3[/sup] to 1×10[sup]−1[/sup] High vacuum1×10[sup]−3[/sup] to 1×10[sup]−9[/sup]1×10[sup]−1[/sup] to 1×10[sup]−7[/sup] Ultra high vacuum1×10[sup]−9[/sup] to 1×10[sup]−12[/sup]1×10[sup]−7[/sup] to 1×10[sup]−10[/sup] Extremely high vacuum<1×10[sup]−12[/sup]<1×10[sup]−10[/sup] Outer space1×10[sup]−6[/sup] to <3×10[sup]−17[/sup]1×10[sup]−4[/sup] to < 3×10[sup]−15[/sup] Perfect vacuum000

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what does this mean to us?

Basically, unless you're in a black hole, you wont experience what is known as a "perfect vacuum," and even then we aren't 100% sure that's the case.

We are looking at "partial vacuum."

The problem isn't creating a void, the thing we are looking to remove is "the air." Air is evil, which is why we use vacuum sealers to stop oxidation in our foods.

The question is, does food oxidize at a faster rate under heat? By removing air does this stop the oxidation? Is this also one reason why we don't have some sort of "searing" on the meat, regardless of the temp?

I did try to look up what kind of pressure these commercial vacuum-sealers like "Foodsaver" put out, but couldn't find anything except http://www.pump-n-seal.com/comparison.htm

which goes by hg in inches which has to do with mercury displacement. From wiki it has to do with mmhg, so I'm not sure where inches came from....

If anyone knows conversions that would be great, but too tired to figure it out now.


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

You know what.. I'm not going to get into a debate on the physics of a vacuum and whether or not what is done using a vacuum chamber or food saver meets the popular opinion here.

How about the terminology referring to vacuum packaging. Which wikipedia defines as:

"*Vacuum packing* is a method of packaging that removes air from the package prior to sealing".

Suffice it to say that definition is all that is needed in the discussion of sous vide cooking.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

eastshores said:


> How about the terminology referring to vacuum packaging. Which wikipedia defines as:
> 
> "*Vacuum packing* is a method of packaging that removes air from the package prior to sealing".


Yes! I wholeheartedly agree with that.


----------



## chefbuba (Feb 17, 2010)

popcorn1.gif




__
chefbuba


__
Jul 16, 2015


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> We are looking at "partial vacuum."


No - and other than making the statement, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. There's no partial vacuum in sous vide. There's no vacuum at all. There's no difference in pressure between the outside of the bag and the inside of the bag.


----------



## lasagnaburrito (Jun 9, 2015)

French Fries said:


> No - and other than making the statement, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. There's no partial vacuum in sous vide. There's no vacuum at all. There's no difference in pressure between the outside of the bag and the inside of the bag.


That is what the sealers do, apply a vacuum to the product, a partial one, as outlined by my comment above. Where the range falls it TBD.

Unless there is a leak in the bag, the contents will stay under pressure, with no air, or minimal air, in the bag.

What do you think it does?

As for



> here's no difference in pressure between the outside of the bag and the inside of the bag.


http://www.mindtrekkers.mtu.edu/docs/TrashBagandVacuum.pdf



> * 4. Turn on vacuum. It should quickly suck all the air of the bag, making it so your volunteer is "vacuum sealed" in by lowering the air pressure inside the bag, the air pressure outside is greater and presses on them. *
> 
> 5. Have them try to move.
> 
> ...


For some reason i thought this was an MIT study, but the facts are still the same.

But again, a lot of people in here are believing what they want, and that's okay, but we aren't actually presenting "facts," and this will not get us anywhere.

In reality, There is no point in me posting further, I just wanted to hear people's opinions on SV, not hear a bunch of arguments about what is, or is not a vacuum, and nothing to do with the actual topic of SV.

Carry on peeps!


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

The sealers apply a vacuum to the product so that the air inside the bag is sucked in by the sealer. The result does NOT leave a vacuum inside the bag!! A vacuum would be left inside the bag if the bag didn't shrink when you vacuum sealed it, and that's only possible with a rigid container.

When you vacuum clean your house, you apply a vacuum on the floor so that the dust is sucked in by the vacuum cleaner. The result does NOT leave a vacuum inside your house!!

Look let's keep this simple: 

1) A vacuum is a space devoid of any matter. 

2) Show me a photograph of a vacuum packed item prepped for sous vide, and point to the space devoid of matter - it should be clearly visible. 

3) Try using a food sealer on a bag full of air. Once you're done, show me the empty space inside the bag.


----------



## lasagnaburrito (Jun 9, 2015)

French Fries said:


> The sealers apply a vacuum to the product so that the air inside the bag is removed. The result does NOT leave a vacuum inside the bag!!
> 
> When you vacuum clean your house, you apply a vacuum on the floor so that the dust is removed. The result does NOT leave a vacuum inside your house!!
> 
> ...


If you actually read my first post from wiki, all of these answers would make sense.

You also didn't read the post that shows that these vacuum sealers apply pressure, nor the post in my second post..

Your vacuum analogy doesn't make sense, because you are applying a small vacuum to your OPEN house, it's like saying you're vacuum sealing a food saver bag with a vacuum cleaner, you're not going to do anything to it, because it's nto sealed.. If you applied your entire house under vacuum, with no way for air to get in the house (a giant bag), it would be under pressure, just like the experiment they did in my second post, which shows humans under pressure in the bag, and just like the meat we are sealing in the bag, but more so, because the food in the bag is sealed tight.

From my first post 


> In engineering and applied physics on the other hand vacuum refers to *any space in which the pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure.*[sup][2][/sup] The Latin term _*in vacuo*_ is used to describe an object as being in what would otherwise be a vacuum


So in Physics and Engineering, A vacuum is "any space in which the pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure."

Again, I'm not here to argue this, nor do I know why I even looked at your reply, especially if you aren't going to even spend the time to read my replies, and understand what's going on. Instead you are just commenting the same thing that was said in a previous post. Go do your own research, and form your own opinion. I might be wrong, but you're not convincing me, nor have you provided ANY credible material, like I have.

Have a good one man, enjoy.


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

All this to say that the French translation got it wrong? But using a translator "vacuum packed" is still translated as emballé sous vide .. sous vide is still the appropriate term. Even Thomas Keller's book is titled "Under Pressure - cooking sous vide" I hope we are done with this lol


----------



## lasagnaburrito (Jun 9, 2015)




----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> If you actually read my first post from wiki, all of these answers would make sense, which is something I should have said in my second post, because it was clear then, you didn't read it.
> 
> You also didn't read the post that shows that these vacuum sealers apply pressure, nor the post in my second post..
> 
> ...


Actually I did read your posts and the links they contained, they just don't disprove my point at all, contrary to what you seem to believe.

But you didn't address my own post??? --> Can you show me a photograph of a vacuum sealed bag and point to the empty space in it? Can you use a food saver to apply a vacuum to a bag full of air and show me the empty space left inside the bag?


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

eastshores said:


> All this to say that the French translation got it wrong? But using a translator "vacuum packed" is still translated as emballé sous vide .. sous vide is still the appropriate term. Even Thomas Keller's book is titled "Under Pressure - cooking sous vide" I hope we are done with this lol


The French who initially gave it the name "sous vide" got it wrong. Every other country correctly translating this wrong terminology got it just as wrong as the French originally got it wrong.

Now let's all place a raw steak in a hot pan to "seal in the juices"!!! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif


----------



## lasagnaburrito (Jun 9, 2015)




----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> "*Conclusion: The weight of the atmosphere is on our shoulders, we just don't notice it. When the pressure is lower inside the trash bag than the pressure outside the trash bag you notice this change and can feel the atmospheric pressure. *"


When it comes to science, there is no room for opinions.

*"The weight of the atmosphere is on our shoulders, we just don't notice it " *That quote basically explains the apparent contradictions in various observations.

The reason why you don't feel the 14 lbs/in sq on our body is because we also have developed identical opposite pressure to counter act that atmospheric pressure. Ever experienced your ears popping in an airplane? You will literally explode if you are not wearing a space suit in outer space.

"*When the pressure is lower inside the trash bag than the pressure outside the trash bag you notice this change and can feel the atmospheric pressure. *" That is because your lung is a cavity surrounded by a rigid rib cage which prevents pressure equalization.

Back on topic: Pressure and vacuum has nothing to do with the concept of sous vide. It is all about temperature.

dcarch


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

dcarch said:


> Back on topic: Pressure and vacuum has nothing to do with the concept of sous vide. It is all about temperature.
> 
> dcarch


Well.. that's like your opinion man.. Here's an excerpt by food scientist and author Harold McGee out of Keller's book on sous vide:

"This new heating method is the twenty-first-century version of the bain-marie, or water bath, which goes back to medieval times. It goes by the name sous vide, meaning "under vacuum," and it involves two new applicances and two basic steps. First you use a vacuum-packing machine to seal food tightly in a plastic bag. Then you immerse the bag in a water bath heated exactly to the optimal cooking temperature. The vacuum-packed bag hugs the food, protecting it from contact with the water while trasferring the heat directly from the hot water." ...

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

You did state, yourself, that a vacuum is space devoid of matter, however, you cannot point to that space devoid of matter inside a vacuum packed bag, because it just ... is not there!

There is no vacuum inside a vacuum packed plastic bag.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

eastshores said:


> "This new heating method is the twenty-first-century version of the bain-marie, or water bath, which goes back to medieval times. It goes by the name sous vide, meaning "under vacuum," and it involves two new applicances and two basic steps. First you use a vacuum-packing machine to seal food tightly in a plastic bag. Then you immerse the bag in a water bath heated exactly to the optimal cooking temperature. The vacuum-packed bag hugs the food, protecting it from contact with the water while trasferring the heat directly from the hot water." ...


That description is accurate. At no point does Harold McGee says there's a vacuum inside the bag though...??

This really isn't a matter of opinions. If you have more pressure on one side of a flexible material than on the other, you're not going to create a vacuum on one side of the material: instead, the material will move toward the side that applies less pressure. It really is basic physics.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

eastshores said:


> Well.. that's like your opinion man.. Here's an excerpt by food scientist and author Harold McGee out of Keller's book on sous vide:
> 
> "This new heating method is the twenty-first-century version of the bain-marie, or water bath, which goes back to medieval times. It goes by the name sous vide, meaning "under vacuum," and it involves two new applicances and two basic steps. First you use a vacuum-packing machine to seal food tightly in a plastic bag. Then you immerse the bag in a water bath heated exactly to the optimal cooking temperature. The vacuum-packed bag hugs the food, protecting it from contact with the water while trasferring the heat directly from the hot water." ...
> 
> /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif


100 % consistent with what I have been saying.

The part that confuses everyone is the statement "First you use a vacuum-packing machine to seal food tightly in a plastic bag." You use the vacuum machine to remove air, the purpose is not to create a vacuum. Don't forget one very basic scientific fact, water boils in vacuum at room temperature!

The statement "The vacuum-packed bag hugs the food, protecting it from contact with the water while trasferring the heat directly from the hot water." ...

"Vacuum packed" only means the food is packed by a vacuum machine. It does not mean it actually vacuum is created. "Microwave cooked" does not mean the food generates microwave.

Again, it is physically impossible to create vacuum with a flexible container. Airless yes. Water boils under vacuum then freezes. General Physics 101.

dcarch


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> What do you think it does?


It removes the air from the bag. Apply a vacuum cleaner, or a food saver to the opening of a bag, and you'll see the bag collapse until there's no more space inside. If there's no space, then there's no vacuum, since a vacuum is, according to you own words:


LasagnaBurrito said:


> *Vacuum* is space that is devoid of matter


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

Yes FF, I let go of that and I'll concede what your expounding on. Can we agree that sous vide still invokes the meaning of "under vacuum" as this is the term that is used for vacuum packing? In the end, it has nothing to do with maintaining an actual vacuum inside the bag. Rather, it is the method in which the air is removed from the bag and so the term is still appropriate. We have to call the technique something, and rather than saying "Yea, today I am cooking.. beef filet that has been sealed in a plastic bag which has had the air removed, then placed into a water bath that is maintained of a precise temperature via the use of an immersion circulator." .. I think I'll stick with "sous vide" /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

eastshores said:


> Yes FF, I let go of that and I'll concede what your expounding on. Can we agree that sous vide still invokes the meaning of "under vacuum" as this is the term that is used for vacuum packing? In the end, it has nothing to do with maintaining an actual vacuum inside the bag. Rather, it is the method in which the air is removed from the bag


Yes, I completely agree with that.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

eastshores said:


> ------ Can we agree that sous vide still invokes the meaning of "under vacuum" as this is the term that is used for vacuum packing? In the end, it has nothing to do with maintaining an actual vacuum inside the bag. Rather, it is the method in which the air is removed from the bag and so the term is still appropriate. ---"/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif


That's why some people are calling it "water oven" which is what it really is.

dcarch


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

dcarch said:


> That's why some people are calling it "water oven" which is what it really is.
> 
> dcarch


I've only seen that term used for units that were one piece with the circulator and water tub all built into a single appliance. My Anova is an immersion circulator, and I wouldn't call a pot full of water with my circulator in it a water oven personally. The vacuum packing is a completely separate part of the technique as well and not covered by that term.


----------



## cheftorres87 (Sep 7, 2014)

Ok all meat measuring aside.

SousVide is a wonderful technique that allows you to get great texture out of things that are normally difficult. AND WHILE POACHING IS SIMILAR, they are still different, and while I'm sure Harold McGee could explain the difference between the two much better I, I'll sum it up like this.

Poaching is cooking in a liquid, one in which the item cooked will leach out it's flavor/marinade into said liquid (which assuming it's not just water, you can later make a sauce out of). SousVide you keep all that intact, so the entire time it's cooking, it's cooking in it's own sweet juices or the Marinade you made for it.

In the meantime u can all cry and complain about what it is and isn't.

I know why people would hate on a technique that cooks at the perfect temp.


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

The essence of poaching is flavour and moisture transfer. The poaching liquid flavours the piece you are cooking, just as the cooked material flavours the liquid. In a "traditional" sv environment (sealed with aromatics and seasonings, if desired) this is not the case. The end results are radically different, you don't get the hydration or "bloat" of poaching. If you were to define poaching so broadly to include this, I would argue that that definition (low temp without browning?) would be so openended as to be functionally useless.

That's not to say you can't poach something with a circulator, you certainly can. But most applications of it certainly aren't.

For the record, I am 90% in agreement about sv's use in a large a la carte environment. I would have been 100% except for my experience running a steak house a couple of years ago. Our mix was easy 70% steak and seafood, with a little action split between pork t-loin, rack of lamb and chicken. When I came on I was surprised to see that the storage protocol for these items was to chamber seal once portioned. This came from a study they had done a couple years earlier that showed them the cost of sealing outstretched the waste they were seeing (I know, I know, but I wasn't involved in that process!). These lower selling items were trouble spots, throwing off timing , not coming out to my standards (when the owners considered these items afterthoughts, quite vocally, it was hard to motivate the crew to think otherwise). I brought in my circulator and started keeping around 8 orders up on all of these. Problem solved.

SV was also invaluable for the function menues we would run simultaneously with our regular menu.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

ChefTorres87 said:


> Poaching is cooking in a liquid, one in which the item cooked will leach out it's flavor/marinade into said liquid (which assuming it's not just water, you can later make a sauce out of). SousVide you keep all that intact, so the entire time it's cooking, it's cooking in it's own sweet juices or the Marinade you made for it.


Carefull there, your zipper may be pulled up, but your ignorance is showing...

Poaching is all about temperature. "Leaching of flavor" goes into the same garbage container as "searing to lock in the juices".

Let's take a classic example of poaching, one that is about 200 years old--crème caramal, a.k.a. flan caramel, a.k.a. custard:

-Eggs, milk, and flavourings are whisked together and poured into containers.

-Containers are set in a waterbath. That waterbath can never exceed 85 C, and cooks know this, because if it does, you will get a hard, gritty, and dense custard with many holes in it. Keep it below 85 C you get a wonderfull creamy smooth silky custard. Like I said, cooks have been doing this for a couple of hundred years now. No leaching of flavor......

Lets take another example, making hollandaise:

-Yolks, and flavourings are whisked in a bowl over hot water. If the water temp exceeds 85 C you will get scrambled eggs.

Like I said, the definition of poaching is moist heat cooking method, with temps never exceeding 85C. The rest is technique

I hope this helps.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

The most important thing about sous vide is that it is a simple cooking appliance. It is up to you to find ways and recipes to use it's unique capability, which is exact temperature control.

Sous vide:

1. a plastic bag to hold your food, the bag does not need to be vacuumed or pressurized, just airless. the bag can be reused.

2. a pot of water. It makes no difference what size or material the pot is.

3. an electric water heater.

4. food, it makes no difference the temperature of the food, the size of the food, the thickness of the food, it can be a totally frozen 20 lb turkey, or a couple of scallops.

5. a PID temperature controller.

A PID controller ($20) is amazing. It can learn the characteristics of your pot, temperature of the food, your kitchen, the wattage of your heater, and make automatic adjustments to keep the cooking temperature to within one degree accuracy, unattended.

"A *proportional-integral-derivative controller* (*PID controller*) is a control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems. A PID controller calculates an _error_ value as the difference between a measured process variable and a desiredsetpoint. The controller attempts to minimize the _error_ by adjusting the process through use of a manipulated variable."

Have fun cooking! Don't get so worked up with a simple (now cheap) cooking tool.

dcarch


----------



## lasagnaburrito (Jun 9, 2015)

dcarch said:


> When it comes to science, there is no room for opinions.


Science is all theories...... what are you saying "no room for opinions..."? People debate, and are wrong all the time, that is the nature of science, because until we are "100% certain" it's not "a fact," Even when it's "100% certain" something changes that completely destroys the original model. So nothing is actually 100%.

Just last year, or the year before, some 100(or so) year old scientist was given a high achievement award, because they finally figured out that his theory decades ago was correct, when thought wrong previously. I believe it also happened with Einstein and his "Theory of Relativity."

I don't know where you got this info though, but it's wrong. Really wrong... Science wouldn't be science if everything was taken as fact... Did you know that the "Big Bang Theory" is being looked at now because they are discovering that it maybe wasn't a star that exploded? Interesting "fact....?"

As for boiling and a vacuum, pressure and heat have a direct link, so by lowering the pressure, you also can use less heat, again, not a perfect vacuum.

Besides what you were talking about pressure on the human body in space, and in the bag, you still clearly ignored the fact that there is pressure in the bag, when doing SV.

IF SV is just about the heating method, then why even use a vacuum sealed bag? Why not throw in a zip lock bag, and call it a day? Why use in a bag in the first place????



> "Vacuum packed" only means the food is packed by a vacuum machine. It does not mean it actually vacuum is created. "Microwave cooked" does not mean the food generates microwave.
> 
> Again, it is physically impossible to create vacuum with a flexible container. Airless yes. Water boils under vacuum then freezes. General Physics 101.


The contents are under a partial vacuum, probably the "low vacuum" according to wiki, and then keep that vacuum in the bag. You're microwave analogy is awful, because the microwave produces, you guessed it, microwaves, in order to cook the food, in one place, and those microwaves go all over once you open the door. The waves still exist, they just are all over ht place now. Vacuumed sealed food doesn't mean the food is creating a vacuum, why would the food generate microwaves? If you create a vacuum in an order area it's still creating it, but in a wide area. It's like dumping a ton of water into your house to create a pool. It's going to be all over the floor because you don't "contain" it.

The problem is, you and others aren't understanding what a vacuum is, because you're thinking of a "perfect vacuum."

It's really not hard to Google search, and wiki gives plenty of information.

Besides, you're most likely never going to create a perfect vacuum, even in a lab, and even a black hole we haven't enough information about, have we recorded this info?

According to Physics and Engineering, as Wiki said A Vacuum is anything less than Atmospheric pressure.

For some reason, people in here don't like to do research, and there is so much assumptions and weird analogies to try and prove their point, when they don't understand what they are talking about.

There are plenty of applications that use partial vacuums in order to lower pressure, and heat, for applications. This isn't new stuff here... But again, people will still go with the theory of the perfect vacuum as what we know as a "vacuum";and they will continue to defend their stance to their last breath... Let them.. But they aren't correct.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

"Science is all theories...... what are you saying "no room for opinions..."? "

You are correct. We are basically talking about the same thing. Science is all theories, formulas, proofs, etc. All theories are either correct or incorrect. Opinions is about what is good and what is bad, Opinion for "democracy" for instance, I think is good, or I think it is bad. Therefore, can vacuum be created in a flexible plastic sous vide bag cannot be an opinion, it is either yes or no. Because all you need to do is measure the pressure with a gauge.

"As for boiling and a vacuum, pressure and heat have a direct link, so by lowering the pressure, you also can use less heat, again, not a perfect vacuum."

Sorry, that is incorrect. Pressure and heat has a relationship in an enclosed container. You heat up a capped bottle of water, and the pressure can cause the bottle to explode. Yet you can heat up your open kitchen to 1,000F, the pressure remains at one atmospheric pressure. Water boils in vacuum has to do with the laws of vapor pressure, not so much with heat.

"The contents are under a partial vacuum, probably the "low vacuum" according to wiki, and then keep that vacuum in the bag. "

Again, it is impossible physically to create a vacuum, or partial vacuum (or partial pressure) with a flexible plastic bag. Airless, yes. With a flexible bag, first you suck all the air out and the bag gets smaller, but no pressure and no vacuum, continue sucking you will be sucking water out next and the bag gets even smaller still no pressure or vacuum, at the end there will be a totally empty collapsed bag, but still no vacuum.

"IF SV is just about the heating method, then why even use a vacuum sealed bag?  Why not throw in a zip lock bag, and call it a day?  Why use in a bag in the first place????"    

Again, you are correct.  If you Google/search a little, you will see in fact that's what many people do, me included. No vacuum machine used. Just an open bag for sous vide.

"The problem is, you and others aren't understanding what a vacuum is, because you're thinking of a "perfect vacuum."    

It appears to me that it's the other way around.

"According to Physics and Engineering, as Wiki said  A Vacuum is anything less than Atmospheric pressure."

No.

"For some reason, people in here don't like to do research, and there is so much assumptions and weird analogies to try and prove their point, when they don't understand what they are talking about."

How true! fine example can be found right here.

dcarch


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

Foodpump, thanks for your last post.  You are correct, that is very much the formal concept of poaching, including use of molds, double boiling, etc.  As a broad "family" of cooking sv would fit comfortably in that realm. Glad you cleared that up, i really though you were speaking of the more common usage, and taking a shot at the same time.  Mia Culpa!


----------



## jonfields (Jul 7, 2015)

eastshores said:


> By the way.. for anyone wanting to make the jump into cooking with an immersion circulator, amazon is having their "Prime Day" sale and you can get an Anova circulator that is regularly $179 for $139.99


I saw that deal and bought my first Anova yesterday!


----------



## spanky (Jul 10, 2015)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> From what I hear, the reason for SVing is to break down connective tissue in proteins to make them more tender, while working at precise temps that aren't going to "char/hurt"; the meat in any way since it's just hot water and water movement, with nothing actually touching the meat itself.
> 
> Afterwards it seems you're still supposed to cook the meat. I hear that a"reverse-sear" (w/e that is), is what really makes the SV meat great! I saw an article from "amazingribs.com" which talked all about this.
> 
> ...


Look at it this way, all foods have a target temperature that you want to achieve to get optimal quality. Especially true for proteins. However, conventional methodology (direct or indirect heat) lacks precision. If I want to get a chicken breast cooked through to 140 degrees then I can apply a higher temperature on a stove or in the oven and remove it when it hits the target temp internally. However, because I've now applied heat in excess of 300 degrees for a long enough period to get the interior to 140, the exterior may be drier than I prefer. With sous vide, you create a bath with an ambient temperature exual to your desired internal temp. Having placed the chicken breast in the bag you're creating an environment where no part of the chicken exceeds 140 degrees and the texture is 100% consistent throughout with zero loss of moisture. Because this can be off-putting you can then sear the exterior briefly to gt a "finished" texture. This is just one example. I made some SV rib steaks the other night and finished them on the grill. The interior was buttery and perfect. Could I get the same result with a conventional grilling? Close, but not quite the same. And the effort with SV was next to none and a swing of 5 minutes one way or the other was irrelevant. No so with a grill.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

spanky said:


> .... With sous vide, you create a bath with an ambient temperature exual to your desired internal temp. Having placed the chicken breast in the bag you're creating an environment where no part of the chicken exceeds 140 degrees and the texture is 100% consistent throughout with zero loss of moisture.


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

Oh my gosh...I can't believe I've read the entire thread!

I felt like chiming in to several of the posts as I was reading. But I instead...I waited

What are my impressions of sous vide cooking?

I've had some wonderful examples of food prepared using the sous vide cooking method, I've also had a few poor examples too. Sous vide is a technique used in cooking...that's often combined with other methods. Some of the most impressive food I've eaten was prepared by Grant Achatz, in that meal some of the food was prepared using the sous vide method.

I recently purchased the Anova method but haven't used it yet as we're remodeling our kitchen...I'll get to it when we're done. What intrigues me about cooking sous vide is how you choose to break down the product, protein, fat and connective tissue.

I suppose there's a few thoughts I have in breaking the food down. When I smoke I try to maintain a precise temperature...this helps break down the protein, fat and connective tissue in the manner that I want. If the temperature fluctuates too much, or if the temperature is too high...my results are inferior to times when I had better temperature control.

When bbq'ing I'm cooking using a dry heat method. So to achieve a desired internal temperature of my product, within a reasonable amount of time to prevent bad bacteria from multiplying too quickly, I cook at a higher temperature than my desired temperature and call my product done when the internal temperature sweeps passed my target area. Is my cooking temp high than my desired temp, yes. When bbq'ing I want the fat and connective tissue broken down nicely (gelatin) without overcooking the protein itself (producing tough protein strands)...I do this by time at temperature...that's why we cook low and slow. If we simply hit the target area with a high heat method (ie:no time) then we won't break down the fat and connective tissue correctly. If we cook at a lower temperature, this can be good...but we need to increase the time in order to have the same effect. If we increase the time too much we have to worry about oxidation and formation of bad bacteria. Prolonged oxidation can cause fat to go rancid and cooking at low temperatures won't be high enough to kill bacteria instantly (that's why we go for prolonged times). The bacteria will die at lower temperatures...but the low temperature has to be held for prolonged time.

I just found this website and have only glimpsed at it so far...it seems good at a glance http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html

There's a lot of good reasons to venture into sous vide cooking...and they center around precise temperature control at desired time in order break down the entire product properly without overcooking. it's not about just low temperature...it's about being precisely low at minimum time required.

vacuum sealing is sealing under a vacuum...the vacuum action is in how it seals, not that it's in a vacuum in the bag. When you vacuum seal you can try to remove all the air, in doing so you may even partially compress the product in the bag...but you're not creating a vacuum in a bag.

my thoughts on the matter


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

LasagnaBurrito said:


> IF SV is just about the heating method, then why even use a vacuum sealed bag? Why not throw in a zip lock bag, and call it a day? Why use in a bag in the first place????


You don't have to use a vacuum sealed bag to sous vide.

In fact, as you mentioned, you can use zip lock bag and call it a day.

http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/simple-sous-vide-packaging

You can use other thing like canning jar, for example:

http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/a-complete-guide-to-sous-vide-packaging

So, SV is just about precise accurate temperature control (heating method).


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

jj


Josh71 said:


> You don't have to use a vacuum sealed bag to sous vide.
> 
> In fact, as you mentioned, you can use zip lock bag and call it a day.
> 
> ...


After reading this post, the scales have fallen from my eyes, I've had a paradigm shift.

You see, the N.American cook cannot abide the word "cook", they'd rather crawl head first into a bear den than call themselves a cook.

With this logic in mind, the N.American Chef cannot abide the word "Poach", meaning to cook by immersing the item in a liquid that is below 85C. You see, the current word for this cooking method is "Sous-vide".

Now it all makes sense....


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

Yea because Sous Vide is a N. American term. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif


----------



## gladius (May 26, 2015)

My apologies if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read every post in full, but beyond just convenience, a huge advantage of precision slow cooking is the ability to optimize for both doneness and tenderness. This applies whether you're cooking sous vide or poaching in a controlled butter bath or using a combi steam oven. With conventional cooking methods, you expose the outside of the food to a higher temperature than the desired doneness temperature, and you wait for that heat to radiate inward until the innermost part of the food reaches the temperature corresponding to the desired level of doneness. If you want to make something more tender, you have to cook it longer, resulting in a higher final internal temperature and overcooked food. If you want to make something less done, you need to cook it for a shorter period of time, resulting in less tender food. Try producing medium-rare yet fork-tender beef with conventional methods. You'll fail. Precision slow cooking makes it both possible and simple.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Many good posts here. Thank you.

There are so many fun things to try with a SV setup.

One of my favorite: 

Around Thanksgiving time, stores are almost giving away turkeys. I would buy a few big ones and SV the whole bird. Normally it takes 4 to 7 days to thaw a frozen turkey. If your refrigerator is not below 40F, your whole family can get sick (unfortunately, 25% ? 50%? of home refrigerators are above 40F).

With SV, you can cook the whole turkey from frozen to perfect done-ness 100% perfect. No thawing needed, no overcooking or under cooking, guaranteed.

All the turkey meat ready for sandwiches, A La King, salads etc. ------ for the whole year.

dcarch


----------



## harrisonh (Jan 20, 2013)

whether you know it or not, sous vide is used in some of the very best and the very worst restaurants in the business. It' just isn't known to the consumer. I use it all the time at home, and for catering and personal cheffing. I'm semi-retired, but I often will help friends and many use sous vide. A variation Is also used by many chain restaurants because your food is made in a factory, shipped in a plastic bag, and just receives it's final prep on location.

I saw one post that said sous vide is an american  term.
sous vide is a BRAND name that was so ubiquitous, that it is just now considered the "generic term" like Elevator, Kleenex, etc. We mean the same whether we're using polyscience, anova, sousvide, nomiku etc.

Negative atmospheric pressure in sous vide is not to change the boiling point, simply to suck the air out of the bag

in re some of the posts about vaccum bags:
The vacuum bags just prevent the items from floating around. If you just slowly submerge a partially closed zip lock and seal it only once the air is out you can get away with it and save money. You may want to have a few loose wire racks to prevent too much motion. You can also use a Foodsaver brand vaccum set you, you don't have to spend a lot of money. You don't need to buy a sous vide brand machine. There are plenty of hand held units that you can use in a pot, a cambro or my favorite option, a cheap 19 quart soda/beer cooler. You can also use an induction stovetop in the home to hold your product at very regulated temps.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

harrisonh said:


> sous vide is a BRAND name that was so ubiquitous, that it is just now considered the "generic term" like Elevator, Kleenex, etc.


That's incorrect. Sous vide is French for "Under vacuum." The name was used centuries before its culinary applications, and specialized culinary sous vide equipment manufacturers didn't even exist when "sous vide" was first used for culinary applications.


----------



## harrisonh (Jan 20, 2013)

Yes, I know what the term means.
But it is a TRADEMARKED BRAND NAME. That was chosen not because of it being under vacuum. but just as there is a difference between the literal meaning, the anagorical, and the anagogical meaning of scripture, there are different motivations for using certain terms. Also there are nuances of language that do not mean the same thing from one language to another. Sous vide is a trademarked name. It LITERALLY means under vaccum, but whether you use sous vide machines, which many of my friends use or whether you use polyscience like I do, there is NO negative pressure. Vacuum was the method to extract the air from the bags. There are people who use food saver vaccum bags and the very little negative pressure it can generate to marinate but the sous vide brand name air extractors aren't as good and neither are their bags Foodsaver bags has little air channels, sous vide brand bags don't

I know a lot of you guys are proud of reading books or watching a TV show.


----------



## chefbuba (Feb 17, 2010)

This is what this thread is starting to sound like.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Duuuude......

I was using vacuum packers back in the '80's that used automotive oil and filters. If you didn't change the filters, you smoked out the kitchen. No anagogical meaning of scripture here.


----------



## harrisonh (Jan 20, 2013)

Yes, I've done controlled temperature cooking for a while. I'm only talking about the recent trend.
I'm really sick of all this talk with people who have to be "one up".


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

foodpump said:


> jj
> 
> After reading this post, the scales have fallen from my eyes, I've had a paradigm shift.
> 
> ...


So, the limit is 85C?

How about 86C ... or 87C? ... still poaching?

If not, what is it then? Boiling?

Talking about temperature limit, Anova can be set to *99C* ... hehehe 

As per your definition, that's not poaching!


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

"Boiling" is, naturally at 100c (212 for that one country that hasn't figured it out yet)

"Simmering" is around 95 c.

If you understand anything about the temps that various proteins coagulate at, and what happens to them (proteins) at temps above that point, then you understand the concept of poaching.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

harrisonh said:


> But it is a TRADEMARKED BRAND NAME.


Do you have a source or link that shows that?

Kleenex is a word that was invented by a marketing person, that didn't mean anything. It later seeped into the langage to become a common word.

Sous vide is a common expression that had a meaning used in normal langage WAY before it was used by manufacturers.


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

foodpump said:


> "Boiling" is, naturally at 100c (212 for that one country that hasn't figured it out yet)
> 
> "Simmering" is around 95 c.
> 
> If you understand anything about the temps that various proteins coagulate at, and what happens to them (proteins) at temps above that point, then you understand the concept of poaching.


I don't know if I understood you correctly, but from what you wrote here ...

I got the impression that you said SV is just another fancy name of poaching ...


> My impression?
> 
> It's nothing more than poaching, that's all.


while you said that poaching is limited up to 85C ... which contradict the usage of SV which can be set to temperature up to 99C (at least with Anova).

Or probably you are now going to say that SV at 99C is also ... poaching 

OR are you now going to say that SV is poaching + simmering + (almost) boiling + whatever? So, then SV is not just poaching!


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Don't be a moron.

If you want to cook proteins in a 99 c waterbath, do it at home, not working for some Michelin star Chef.  You'll figure out quickly why you shouldn't do it-- on your time and your dime.

Just because a circulator has the capability to go to 99 C doesn't mean you cook foods at that temp.  Heck, my oven goes to 320 C (500 F) but that doesn't mean I bake at that temp.


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

foodpump said:


> Don't be a moron.
> 
> If you want to cook proteins in a 99 c waterbath, do it at home, not working for some Michelin star Chef. You'll figure out quickly why you shouldn't do it-- on your time and your dime.
> 
> Just because a circulator has the capability to go to 99 C doesn't mean you cook foods at that temp. Heck, my oven goes to 320 C (500 F) but that doesn't mean I bake at that temp.


I am not saying one won't do 99C sous vide, but 90C or 95C is applicable, for example when making ajitzuke tamago, to get consistent results. And 95C is not poaching, per your definition.

You see, I am just questioning your thoughts, your definition about sous vide which is just wrong, based on what you wrote already.

Sous vide is not just poaching, it's precise temperature control as already said by many others. It's just a simple concept, but probably that's too difficult for you to understand [emoji]128512[/emoji]

Pssst, if you want to know about using your oven to 500F, try to Google "how to make pizza" [emoji]128512[/emoji]


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

I use the circulator all the time as a slow cooker. I'm not a scientist at all, and I don't understand vacuums and such. I just heat seal the bag to keep the water out. On the way out the door I throw in some rib-eye steaks, corn on the cob, baby carrots, then set it and forget it. BTW cob corn, rubbed with soft butter, spices, and a little milk, oh my.

I really like doing beef, pork, and then stir-fry when I get home.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Josh71 said:


> Sous vide is not just poaching, it's precise temperature control as already said by many [emoji]128512[/emoji]


Uh huh.... And the precise temperture is achieved by what?

You forgot the bit about the hot water, didn't you?

But hey, precise temperture doesn't just pertain to sous vide. Take for example an Italian meringue, i've got a two degree tolerance between soft ball and hard ball stages in cooking the syrup (117-119 ). Out by a few degrees colder and the syrup isn't hot enough to cook the eggwhites, two degrees hotter, and the syrup clumps up in a ball at the bottom of the bowl.


----------



## jake t buds (May 27, 2013)

Thoroughly entertaining/ informative thread.

It went from "your impression of sous vide" to translating the french, definitions of vacuum including scientific charts and formulas, comparable techniques or the re-definition of technique, to popular usage of words. And an occasional insult to boot.

Neat.

P.S. is this a good starter?



I missed the amazon prime sale day.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

jake t buds said:


> Thoroughly entertaining/ informative thread.------------------------


Indeed.

When microwave oven first came out people got all emotional about it because they couldn't tell the difference between radioactivity and magnetic radiation.

"Under vacuum", "under pressure" totally confused many about sous vide and everyone gets worked up. I mean, it's nothing more than cooking at one single temperature by hot water, much simpler than a slow cooker, toaster oven, convection oven, combi oven, induction oven, pressure cooker --------.

Speaking of single temperature cooking, boiling is cooking at exactly 212F, no more and no less. Pressure cooker is at exactly 250F. Both using hot water.

dcarch


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

I'm still pondering if compression alone is to be considered within the nomenclature of "sous vide" .. in Keller's book "Under Pressure" there is a section devoted to vegetables and fruit, and one particular dish has no heat applied at all yet he felt it appropriate to include it in a book on nothing but "sous vide". Watermelon is compressed and then diced to resemble tar tar, then a speherized mango "yolk" is place on top. That's it!

One reason we banter so much about this term I think is that in the culinary world, new terms have to be morphed into the cultural, professional, technical and eventually common language that is in use and only after years of dust flying and hair pulling does a general acceptance emerge. Even then I'm sure we could nit pick just about any culinary term out there.

So what do you think? Do you have to use precise temperature control for sous vide, or can you just compress a melon _under vacuum_? Maybe Thomas Keller is sipping some tea lurking on this post and will chime in here! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

eastshores said:


> I'm still pondering if compression alone is to be considered within the nomenclature of "sous vide" .. in Keller's book "Under Pressure"-----------------------------------
> 
> So what do you think? Do you have to use precise temperature control for sous vide, or can you just compress a melon _under vacuum_? Maybe Thomas Keller is sipping some tea lurking on this post and will chime in here! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif


A very good question. That can create a lot of confusion in the discussion of sous vide "under pressure".

1. In physics, solids cannot be compressed in the normal way (making diamond using pure carbon with compression is different). Water is a solid in fluid state and cannot be compressed. If watermelon is 100% water and other materials, it cannot be compressed.

2. I believe the structure of watermelon is porous with micro bubbles of air. Just like a sponge with lots of air bubbles, which can be compressed.

3. With a sponge you can pressurize it to make it smaller. In a sealed bag, you will be able to measure a partial vacuum because the sponge pushes back. Once the seal is broken, the sponge will return to its original shape. The sponge will be identical to before compression, it is not "cooked " by pressure.

4. With watermelon, if you apply pressure, the air bubbles will be squeezed out by 14 lbs/sq in pressure. You will see a different texture and color. The volume of the watermelon will be smaller. However, if you measure the sealed bag, you will not be able to measure partial vacuum. This is because the structure of watermelon pulp has no rubbery spring back to push against air pressure. If you break the seal of the bag, the watermelon will not be the same as before, it will be smaller. The texture (mouth feel) and color of the pulp will be different, but the chemistry has not changed. It has not been "cooked" by pressure.

5. You can "cook" food with no normal heat applied. By friction as in using a blender to heat up food. By Boyle's Gas Law, if you compress air, you generate heat. But to get heat, you need to pressure very quickly and continuously like in a refrigeration cycle, the condenser coil gets very hot. This condition does not happen in SV food.

dcarch


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

foodpump said:


> Uh huh.... And the precise temperture is achieved by what?
> 
> You forgot the bit about the hot water, didn't you?
> 
> But hey, precise temperture doesn't just pertain to sous vide. Take for example an Italian meringue, i've got a two degree tolerance between soft ball and hard ball stages in cooking the syrup (117-119 ). Out by a few degrees colder and the syrup isn't hot enough to cook the eggwhites, two degrees hotter, and the syrup clumps up in a ball at the bottom of the bowl.


Temperature control ... to maintain the temperature is the same throughout the cooking process.

Temperature of what? In this case, the water.

*That's how the current sous vide works.*

Who knows, in the future, we can have other medium than water


----------



## johnpc (Jun 1, 2015)

Josh71 said:


> Who knows, in the future, we can have other medium than water


Not so crazy as it sounds. You wouldn't want to use ethylene glycol antifreeze but what about cooking oil? Oops, I forgot that there was water IN the bag which would boil. BUT, if you have a heavy-enough gauge pouch you could have a sous vide pressure cooker? FYI this is only my second post and if this thread is any indication there is an awful lot to learn here.


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

JohnPC said:


> Not so crazy as it sounds. You wouldn't want to use ethylene glycol antifreeze but what about cooking oil? Oops, I forgot that there was water IN the bag which would boil. BUT, if you have a heavy-enough gauge pouch you could have a sous vide pressure cooker? FYI this is only my second post and if this thread is any indication there is an awful lot to learn here.


Yes, oil is obviously one of the medium which can be used for sous vide, other than water.

But, I was thinking about gas like medium, like air or something [emoji]128512[/emoji]


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Josh71 said:


> Yes, oil is obviously one of the medium which can be used for sous vide, other than water.
> 
> But, I was thinking about gas like medium, like air or something [emoji]128512[/emoji]


My smoker is SV by convection air. It has a thermostat (SSR) controlled by a PID controller.

It is comical that SV is treated with such a big emotional deal. There are already many ovens on the market equipped with precision PID thermal controller.

SV = temperature control. It is not black magic. It will not make you an instant chef. It will not cause cancer and kill you. It is just a water oven.

dcarch


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Josh71 said:


> Temperature control ... to maintain the temperature is the same throughout the cooking process.
> 
> Temperature of what? In this case, the water.
> 
> ...


Precisely.

And that, --maintaining the temperature throughout the cooking process, is the definition of poaching.

Of course, many Chefs have poached in butter or oil, have for quite some time now.


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

You can also use the term "confit" to describe specifically poaching in oil or syrup.


----------



## cerise (Jul 5, 2013)

jonfields said:


> What's your impression of sous vide? Would you order meals that have been sous vide already that would be quicker to prepare/easy to heat up & eat?


Personally, I have not tried the method at home, nor have I seen it on a menu. What is your experience with same? Reheated anything would not what I would expect from a restaurant. I expect cooked to order (for lack of a better term). I would much prefer a spectacle like cooking fresh food on a salt block, if I want to be dazzled? I think the method is a passing fancy/trend. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

foodpump said:


> Precisely.
> 
> And that, --maintaining the temperature throughout the cooking process, is the definition of poaching.
> 
> Of course, many Chefs have poached in butter or oil, have for quite some time now.


Here we go again, running in circles.

Poaching bla bla... Simmering bla bla... Boiling bla bla... They are all maintaining the temperature at certain level throughout the cooking process, no?

So based on your latest definition, they are all the same.

Yupe, as you said, they are all poaching! [emoji]128512[/emoji]


----------



## eastshores (Oct 23, 2008)

Cerise said:


> Personally, I have not tried the method at home, nor have I seen it on a menu. What is your experience with same? Reheated anything would not what I would expect from a restaurant. I expect cooked to order (for lack of a better term). I would much prefer a spectacle like cooking fresh food on a salt block, if I want to be dazzled? I think the method is a passing fancy/trend. Just my humble opinion.


I would not expect to see an item listed on the menu as being prepared sous vide unless the establishment is trying too hard to be trendy. You certainly aren't going to find that at higher end restaurants that have been employing sous vide for years - it's not a passing fad or gimmick to those places.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

I don't know why this topic always seems to break down into an argument over the proper translation of the french words and whether vacuum is necessary. Colloquially I think we can agree that the term _sous vide_ is used to describe cooking something in a precisely controlled water bath. In actual practice this is usually done in a bag prepared with a chamber vacuum sealer but it can be done in a ziplock bag, no bag at all, a bell jar, etc.

I've been doing _sous vide_ at home for about five years and commercially for about three and a half. For some stuff it's a revelation, for other things it's a waste of time. For some things it's a time/labor savor and other times it's a way to get a product impossible to achieve with any other means. For example I like to do skirt @ 130 for 24 hours and brisket @ 130 for 78 hours. I don't know of any other way to get a medium rare cut to this degree of tenderness without _sous vide_. But some other stuff is just a convenience.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Josh71 said:


> Here we go again, running in circles.
> 
> Poaching bla bla... Simmering bla bla... Boiling bla bla... They are all maintaining the temperature at certain level throughout the cooking process, no?
> 
> ...


Are we forgetting our temps?

Boiling can obviously be only at 100 c, simmering below that, typically at 95 c, and poaching --as I have said before under 85 c, typically between 65 - 85 c.


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

foodpump said:


> Are we forgetting our temps?
> 
> Boiling can obviously be only at 100 c, simmering below that, typically at 95 c, and poaching --as I have said before under 85 c, typically between 65 - 85 c.


No, I am not forgetting the temp, but you are. As you define sous vide = poaching, which I said that's incorrect. Simply because one can use sous vide beyond 85C or lower than 65C for specific purpose, that's a fact, and that's not poaching, per your own definition.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

I don't understand the confusion...sous vide is obviously poaching. It is precisely controlled poaching...nothing more. You add flavorings to the bag, whether it is fat, herbs, spices, whatever. This, in effect, become the "medium" you are cooking in ("butter" poached scallops, "olive oil" poached cod). Instead of heating up an entire sautoir filled with EVOO or buerre monte and constantly playing with it on the piano to keep the temp in line, you use just a few table spoons in a bag and set it in a circulator. 

I don't: 

A) understand the confusion

B) understand why people would get upset if it is called poaching

Whats the big deal? 

It's a fantastic technique. I'm quite happy to utilize it on a daily basis at my job, and even at home. Great flavor, consistent results, and I can do things that would be very challenging to do otherwise. It's great for proteins, obviously, but I find that vegetables are often neglected and can be quite superior done sous vide style. Less loss of flavor compounds and all that I suspect, but it can really make them shine. 

I will say that I disagree that it doesn't save money or labor or time though. In my practical experience, it absolutely does all those things. 

Sous vide is a technique. It is a newer technique, and one that is equally as valid and useful as any other technique. It has its uses. Its not the be all, end all of cooking. It shouldn't be used as a crutch, or as a replacement for knowing how to cook. But it allows a cook and a chef to achieve things that are impossible with any other cooking technique. Which is why it has been gaining steam for the last 15 years or so. 

I also think that there is natural blowback towards things that are new and different. People talk about the "art" being taken out of cooking--usually accompanied by some new technique or piece of equipment "they" don't deem worthy. What did the chefs say when gas ovens and stoves first became the norm? I'm sure many of them rebelled against it, instead thinking that wood burning stoves and ovens were the one true way. Now gas is normal. Gas is the standard, and now WOOD is trendy!!!! Hey, in 15 years, induction might be the standard. What will people think then? Does that take the soul out of cooking?  

Now we have sous vide, induction cooking, combi-ovens, etc. Robot coupes (which were once new), blenders (I'd be lost without my Vita Prep), mixers, microwaves, refrigerators, freezers. The list goes on. Each new generation gets new technology. Once a gas grill or gas stove was an abomination to some. If I use an electric sausage grinder to make a pate instead of hand chopping it am I taking the "soul" out of cooking. Am I removing the technique? I mean, a whole generation of chefs are about to grow up without knowing how to hand chop sausage!!!!

Careme would roll over in his grave--what would he think of gas stoves and robot coupes? 

This is the best time in history to be a chef. The availability of ingredients, the internet, the sheer KNOWLEDGE that is at our fingertips is shocking. I can get an answer to any question I have in an instant.


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

Someday said:


> I don't understand the confusion...sous vide is obviously poaching. It is precisely controlled poaching...nothing more. You add flavorings to the bag, whether it is fat, herbs, spices, whatever. This, in effect, become the "medium" you are cooking in ("butter" poached scallops, "olive oil" poached cod). Instead of heating up an entire sautoir filled with EVOO or buerre monte and constantly playing with it on the piano to keep the temp in line, you use just a few table spoons in a bag and set it in a circulator.
> 
> I don't:
> 
> ...


Well, you should read the entire thread from the beginning, people arguing about kind of specific term or word 

Oh if you are referring me for your line "_why people would get upset if it is called poaching_".

No, I am not upset, I am just questioning that. Because, this thread is more taken into defining the term of sous vide, the meaning, the language, and so on.

And I am having fun with that, if you know what I mean


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Josh71 said:


> No, I am not forgetting the temp, but you are. As you define sous vide = poaching, which I said that's incorrect. Simply because one can use sous vide beyond 85C or lower than 65C for specific purpose, that's a fact, and that's not poaching, per your own definition.


Look, if you want to exceed 85c in a waterbath, then its not poaching anymore.

The fact that most of the cooking done a'la sous vide under 85 c has convinced me that it is poaching, albeit in a bag with the air sucked out of it. When you go above 85c it's simmering or boiling in a plastic bag with the air sucked out of it. S. V. Is just a technique--a good one, but a technique, not a cooking method. And boilin, simmering poaching, steaming, baking, roasting, deep frying, etc. are all cooking methods

Personally I think Careme would have jumped on the bandwagon and added this technique to his arsenal. Gas cooking wasn't around, but coal fired ranges were "cutting edge"


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

foodpump said:


> Look, if you want to exceed 85c in a waterbath, then its not poaching anymore.
> 
> The fact that most of the cooking done a'la sous vide under 85 c has convinced me that it is poaching, albeit in a bag with the air sucked out of it. When you go above 85c it's simmering or boiling in a plastic bag with the air sucked out of it. S. V. Is just a technique--a good one, but a technique, not a cooking method. And boilin, simmering poaching, steaming, baking, roasting, deep frying, etc. are all cooking methods
> 
> Personally I think Careme would have jumped on the bandwagon and added this technique to his arsenal. Gas cooking wasn't around, but coal fired ranges were "cutting edge"


So, sous vide is not _just_ poaching then.

Oh, ok ....


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Not to drag on the linguistic aspect of sous vide, or to disagree with those of you who are more knowledgeable. Just want to show that some people like myself have a different understanding of some common cooking terms. May or may not be correct.

Poaching - at the end of poaching, add garnish, generally the recipes is complete. 

Sosu vide - most likely the recepe is only partially executed. There are more steps remaining.

Technique - Pepin showing how to slice an onion.

Method - using the blender to slice an onion.

---------------------------------------------

Sosu vide to me is a method, not a technique, (no skill other than pushing buttons), to cook meat (food) to the lowest desirable temperature with absolute assurance that food safety is not compromised. 

Tonight, I will be enjoying fork tender corn beef (thin slicing across grain not necessary) pulled pork style, 72 hours in the SV cooker. No other method except SV can achieve the same result (for me).

dcarch


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Look, there a finite amount of ways heat is applied to food--in other words, cooking methods.

You have dry heat cooking methods--radient, convection, etc, and you have moist heat cooking methods, where heat is transferred to the food item through steam, oil, or water.

There are however infinite methods of combining cooking methods.

Thus, s.v. 's method of how heat is applied is poaching--a cooking method; or boiling, another cooking method, in the rare cases of when s.v. Items are cooked at temps above 100c.

Does this clarify things?


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

foodpump said:


> Look, there a finite amount of ways heat is applied to food--in other words, cooking methods.
> 
> You have dry heat cooking methods--radient, convection, etc, and you have moist heat cooking methods, where heat is transferred to the food item through steam, oil, or water.
> 
> ...


Almost.

There are *only two* major different ways food can be heated up.

1. By microwave - There is no heat applied in this method. The heat is generated by the food. The food cooks itself.

2. By external thermal energy - It makes no difference what is the heat source, boil, broil, bake, fry, steam, grill, BBQ, poach, braise, sautee, sous vide ------------------------------ Makes no difference to food, call the cooking methods any name, any fancy name.

Temperature is temperature, food is not very smart. It can't tell if the heat is from hot water or from hot charcoal.

Depending on the BTU content (thermal mass, specific heat) of the heat source, air has little BTUs, moving air (convection cooking) has more BTUs, water has more than air.

Depending on the temperature of the heat source, the hotter it is, the more BTUs. However, water and steam cannot be hotter than 212F. And each oil has a different smoking and boiling point. If the oil, air, or water is at say 60F, your food can never get hotter than 60F (essence of SV).

The reason why it make no difference what the heat source is because there is a physical limitation that can not be changed, regardless of the heat source, it is the thermal conductivity of the food. Depending on the food, each has a conductivity index which is a constant. Hot oil, fire, air, water ----- cannot change conductivity . Once the surface of food is heated up, conductivity takes over, heat travels at a specific rate, regardless. Food has no way to tell the identity of the heat source.

Food only knows temperature and how long the temperature is applied, nothing else. Control both exactly and you'll have sous vide.

It is that simple.

dcarch


----------



## johnpc (Jun 1, 2015)

Someday said:


> This is the best time in history to be a chef. The availability of ingredients, the internet, the sheer KNOWLEDGE that is at our fingertips is shocking. I can get an answer to any question I have in an instant.


Well said! I would add to that it's also the best time to be a customer, consumer, supplier and everything else that's integrated with what you chefs, cooks and servers do. You are the Michelins of our collective Bugatti (had to keep everything French as this is a Sous Vide thread /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif).


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

foodpump said:


> Look, there a finite amount of ways heat is applied to food--in other words, cooking methods.
> 
> You have dry heat cooking methods--radient, convection, etc, and you have moist heat cooking methods, where heat is transferred to the food item through steam, oil, or water.
> 
> ...


Yes, it does clarify things, absolutely.

That sous vide is not _just_ poaching


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

_Sous vide_ isn't always poaching at all. If you put protein and oil in the bag you can't really call that poaching. What it it then- low t frying?/img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif Again, it's pointless to spend several pages arguing over whether or not it's poaching- who gives a damn what you call it?

To address the actual topic, I love using _sous vide_. It's not always the right tool for the job just like frying or roasting isn't always the right tool. There are several situations where _sous vide_ gets uses a lot.

1) Bulk prep- Often proteins will be done _sous vide_ in batches to shift time from the line to prep. This can work. You can do chicken in a circulator and pasteurize it; this is great because you don't half to worry about your airline going out undercooked.

2) Save time- The aforementioned airline or Chateaubriand can be cooked _sous vide_ and left the bath, then seared for presentation whenever you need it. This obviously saves a ton of time and gives great results.

3) Special effects- You can use _sous vide_ to do stuff that would difficult or impossible to do any other way. I've mentioned it before but you can do beef brisket that's medium rare yet tender enough to cut without a knife. You can also do spectacular things with eggs when the temp is precisely controlled.

Of course, it can also be a pointless fad. If you're just throwing stuff in the tank willy-nilly with no idea of what you're trying to accomplish then it's a waste. You also need to do some research and make sure you're doing it safely.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

dcarch said:


> Almost.
> 
> There are *only two* major different ways food can be heated up.
> 
> ...


Do you really think that the chosen cooking method has no effect on food?

Take, for example the lowly potato...

Is there a difference in texture between a:
boiled potato
baked potato
deep fried potato


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

foodpump said:


> Do you really think that the chosen cooking method has no effect on food?
> 
> Take, for example the lowly potato...
> 
> ...


Obviously different methods will have different effects, otherwise there would not be a need for different appliances.

The different effects are mostly from:

a) humidity of the air of the heating environment - dry air accelerates evaporation. Evaporation cools down the food.

b) moisture of the exterior of the food - wet food takes longer to be heated up due to evaporation,

c) porosity of the food - You can't make toast in boiling water.

d) chemistry of food - a fat cap on a roast will prevent evaporation and fat has different thermal conductivity.

But if you put food inside a container, and cook at identical temperature, the food will end up identical, regardless of cooking methods used.

You can achieve only 212F boiling potatoes. So if you boil, bake and deep fry potatoes all at 212F, the interior of the potatoes will be about the same taste and texture, but there will be slight difference because baking potatoes at 212F will take much longer to heat up the potatoes. As I said, timing changes food also, and that is 1/2 of the reason for SV.

dcarch


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

Phaedrus said:


> _Sous vide_ isn't always poaching at all. If you put protein and oil in the bag you can't really call that poaching. What it it then- low t frying?/img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif Again, it's pointless to spend several pages arguing over whether or not it's poaching- who gives a damn what you call it?


So if I place a Halibut filet in a pot of oil at a low temp, say 150F, that isn't poaching in oil? You'd call that low temp frying? I mean, I call it oil poaching, but whatever. Pretty sure that is a common thing in the industry.

Certainly a duck confit wouldn't be considered frying, would it?

Josh, I don't understand your point.

I don't know when you would do anything sous vide that is above poaching temp...I mean, even root veg I do at 185F. I consider that poaching. If you are going to go much above that, you might as well be using classic cooking methods because the benefits of sous vide won't translate. Duck confit, or braised beef, is going to have a very similar, fall-off-the-bone texture to classic braising at those temps. So much so that a classic braise would probably be better for that type of stuff anyways.

I can't think of any application of sous vide that I've done, both professionally and at home, that wouldn't qualify as poaching. I also guess I don't understand the blowback about the term--why is it an issue to call it poaching in the first place?


----------



## chefbuba (Feb 17, 2010)

I can't believe that there are five pages of this nauseating topic. Poach away!


----------



## gladius (May 26, 2015)

Someday said:


> Josh, I don't understand your point.


Someday, I think there are sort of two claims being debated, which might be the source of your confusion. One is whether it's meaningful to say that food cooked sous-vide is most analogous to food cooked by poaching. The other is whether it's meaningful to say that the *method* of sous-vide is analogous to the *method* of poaching.

I'm pretty sure Phaedrus's point regarding the first claim is that while sous-vide's applications are sometimes equivalent to the food produced by methods like poaching and braising and low temperature roasting, sous-vide is a distinct method with multiple applications, so it isn't meaningful to debate about which one specific conventional method sous-vide should be viewed as the equivalent of. You'd be comparing a method (poaching) that has a single application with one particular application of a method (sous-vide) that has several. Why shouldn't you say it's the equivalent of braising or slow roasting instead of poaching?

If you were talking about the second claim--whether it's meaningful to define "sous-vide" and "poaching" such that the method sous-vide falls under the broader category of poaching, then I think Phaedrus is saying no. Since no method besides sous-vide submerges a vacuum-sealed or nearly vacuum-sealed bag in a temperature-controlled water bath set to the desired doneness temperature, sous-vide is not identical to the method that any other name most narrowly conveys. Is sous-vide poaching? Not if we use "poaching" to mean cooking food in liquid at a constant sub-simmering temperature. Could we call it poaching but modify it to say "dry poaching, optionally accompanied by fat and/or aromatics and/or marinade and/or sauce, of food in a sealed, air-poor bag submerged in a water bath set to the desired doneness temperature"? Sure, but that doesn't seem any more or less meaningful than calling it some other particular method with an equivalent explanation of all the ways it differs from that method name's conventional meaning. We could just as meaningfully call sous-vide "pan-less frying..." or "oven-less roasting of food sealed in air-poor bags submerged in a water bath set to the desired doneness temperature." We're technically not lying as long as we redefine poaching, frying, and roasting from how we normally use them, but what's the point? Sous-vide is its own method of cooking.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

Gladius said:


> Someday, I think there are sort of two claims being debated, which might be the source of your confusion. One is whether it's meaningful to say that food cooked sous-vide is most analogous to food cooked by poaching. The other is whether it's meaningful to say that the *method* of sous-vide is analogous to the *method* of poaching.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Phaedrus's point regarding the first claim is that while sous-vide's applications are sometimes equivalent to the food produced by methods like poaching and braising and low temperature roasting, sous-vide is a distinct method with multiple applications, so it isn't meaningful to debate about which one specific conventional method sous-vide should be viewed as the equivalent of. You'd be comparing a method (poaching) that has a single application with one particular application of a method (sous-vide) that has several. Why shouldn't you say it's the equivalent of braising or slow roasting instead of poaching?
> 
> If you were talking about the second claim--whether it's meaningful to define "sous-vide" and "poaching" such that the method sous-vide falls under the broader category of poaching, then I think Phaedrus is saying no. Since no method besides sous-vide submerges a vacuum-sealed or nearly vacuum-sealed bag in a temperature-controlled water bath set to the desired doneness temperature, sous-vide is not identical to the method that any other name most narrowly conveys. Is sous-vide poaching? Not if we use "poaching" to mean cooking food in liquid at a constant sub-simmering temperature. Could we call it poaching but modify it to say "dry poaching, optionally accompanied by fat and/or aromatics and/or marinade and/or sauce, of food in a sealed, air-poor bag submerged in a water bath set to the desired doneness temperature"? Sure, but that doesn't seem any more or less meaningful than calling it some other particular method with an equivalent explanation of all the ways it differs from that method name's conventional meaning. We could just as meaningfully call sous-vide "pan-less frying..." or "oven-less roasting of food sealed in air-poor bags submerged in a water bath set to the desired doneness temperature." We're technically not lying as long as we redefine poaching, frying, and roasting from how we normally use them, but what's the point? Sous-vide is its own method of cooking.





chefbuba said:


> I can't believe that there are five pages of this nauseating topic. Poach away!


Why do you feel the need to post things like this? If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, then leave. Don't read it. We get it, you don't like sous vide. Anything else chef?


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

[quote name="dcarch" url="/t/8650

You can achieve only 212F boiling potatoes. So if you boil, bake and deep fry potatoes all at 212F, the interior of the potatoes will be about the same taste and texture, but there will be slight difference because baking potatoes at 212F will take much longer to heat up the potatoes. As I said, timing changes food also, and that is 1/2 of the reason for SV.

dcarch
[/quote]

Maybe hypothetically, but have you ever deep fried at 100 c/212 f? You'd get a limp,grease sodden fry, no cispy exterior,no steamy interior.

Bake a raw potato a 100 c? It would turn black


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Someday said:


> So if I place a Halibut filet in a pot of oil at a low temp, say 150F, that isn't poaching in oil? You'd call that low temp frying? I mean, I call it oil poaching, but whatever. Pretty sure that is a common thing in the industry.
> 
> Certainly a duck confit wouldn't be considered frying, would it?


Would call confit poached? Why not call it low temp frying? Jesus, by this point why continue to blather on about the definition? What does it matter? This thread has become a shitshow with virtually none of the posts addressing *the use *of _sous vide. _


----------



## gladius (May 26, 2015)

Someday now understands and is in agreement. See above.


----------



## dobzre (Mar 3, 2011)

Just don't do anything stupid with it like ice cream base... lazy and wasteful! Substituting good old fashioned cooking techniques with technology REALLY irks me.

Some of the best pieces of meat i've ever eaten were sous vide. Poached eggs? I dare you to find a better method.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

foodpump said:


> [quote name="dcarch" url="/t/8650
> 
> You can achieve only 212F boiling potatoes. So if you boil, bake and deep fry potatoes all at 212F, the interior of the potatoes will be about the same taste and texture, but there will be slight difference because baking potatoes at 212F will take much longer to heat up the potatoes. As I said, timing changes food also, and that is 1/2 of the reason for SV.
> 
> dcarch


Maybe hypothetically, but have you ever deep fried at 100 c/212 f? You'd get a limp,grease sodden fry, no cispy exterior,no steamy interior.

Bake a raw potato a 100 c? It would turn black[/quote]


foodpump said:


> [quote name="dcarch" url="/t/8650
> 
> You can achieve only 212F boiling potatoes. So if you boil, bake and deep fry potatoes all at 212F, the interior of the potatoes will be about the same taste and texture, but there will be slight difference because baking potatoes at 212F will take much longer to heat up the potatoes. As I said, timing changes food also, and that is 1/2 of the reason for SV.
> 
> dcarch


Maybe hypothetically, but have you ever deep fried at 100 c/212 f? You'd get a limp,grease sodden fry, no cispy exterior,no steamy interior.

Bake a raw potato a 100 c? It would turn black[/quote]
That is true, but we are not talking about different things.

Deep fry French fries at 100C will not give you crispy exterior, but inside will be the same as cooking in any other method at 100C.

Bake a raw potato at 100C will make the outside turn black is chemical oxidation, and again, the inside will be the same. The point is, food inside cannot tell what the heat source is, there is no way it can tell what generates the 100C.

Interesting that it does not matter how hot the fire is baking a potato, the fire can be 1000F, the inside of a potato can never be hotter than 212F. On the other hand, cooking a potato in steam, the inside of a potato can actually be hotter than 212F. Inside a pressure cooker, the potato inside can get to 250F.

dcarch


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

All hypothesis aside, who would eat a greasy, limp fry cooked in 100c oil? Who would actually pay money for a black (oxodised)potato?

If we didn't want crispy fries, then we wouldn't have them. This is why we have cooking methods like deep frying, grilling, and roasting. The surface of the food is just as important as the interior. Caramelisation not only provides colour, but great flavour as well. Which tastes better and why?: A well baked loaf of bread, or a steamed chinese bun?


----------



## rick alan (Nov 15, 2012)

There is a problem with Sioux Vide I noticed while in France.  Their equivalent of our Denny's serves food that is absolutely wonderful in comparison.  I had some duck breast though which came looking a perfect pink, but there was no juice.  The same happens with steak as I understand.  Kind of ruins the "perfect looking" result.

One meat where it may shine magnificently is turkey breast, as a cold cut.  In New Orleans I had the most wonderful slightly pink and translucent turkey breast imaginable, and I can only imagine this was done SV.

Rick


----------



## gladius (May 26, 2015)

That's not a problem with sous-vide categorically, but rather with using sous-vide for long cooking times. You get a lot of moisture loss in return for greatly increased tenderness. For poultry breast with modern birds, that's completely unnecessary. You should just be cooking the meat for one to several hours, and it should be one of the juiciest things you've ever put in your mouth. I suspect those restaurants greatly erred on the side of convenience for them at the expense of timing it properly. With steak, you don't lose a lot of juice if cooking an already tender cut for just a couple of hours. For tough cuts like chuck or short rib, people cook them sous-vide over several days to tenderize the meat. That makes a lot of sense if you want to cook a tough cut of meat to a tender medium-rare since conventional cooking methods can't give you both tender and medium-rare, but the long cooking time *will* result in a decent amount of moisture loss. There seem to be three solutions: (1) reserve the expelled juice from the bag and make a delicious pan sauce, (2) brine the meat before cooking, or (3) use a higher grade cut with more intramuscular fat.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

foodpump said:


> All hypothesis aside, who would eat a greasy, limp fry cooked in 100c oil? Who would actually pay money for a black (oxodised)potato?
> 
> If we didn't want crispy fries, then we wouldn't have them. This is why we have cooking methods like deep frying, grilling, and roasting. The surface of the food is just as important as the interior. Caramelisation not only provides colour, but great flavour as well. Which tastes better and why?: A well baked loaf of bread, or a steamed chinese bun?


I hope you didn't completely miss my point. I did not say to have deep fried potatoes at 100C oil, nor did I imply that baking potatoes at 100C is desirable.

I was only trying to say that "IF", a big *"IF"*, you subject food to the same temperature, the food would come out the same, regardless of source of heat (assuming also cooked at the same duration of time).

The only exception is microwave heating, because it does not follow normal conductivity law of thermodynamics.

dcarch


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Gladius said:


> That's not a problem with sous-vide categorically, but rather with using sous-vide for long cooking times. You get a lot of moisture loss in return for greatly increased tenderness. -------------.


Actually it's exactly the other way around. All meats when cooked at lower temperature will shrink much less, therefore juicier.

dcarch


----------



## gladius (May 26, 2015)

It's not at all the other way around, but you're right that meats cooked SV at lower temperatures have less moisture loss _compared to the same meats cooked for longer times_. Longer cooking times *and* higher temperatures yield more moisture loss. The meat in question was pink, so the problem was not that it was cooked at too high a temperature to support moisture retention. It was presumably cooked around 131-135F but for too long.


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

Someday said:


> Josh, I don't understand your point.
> 
> *I don't know when you would do anything sous vide that is above poaching temp*...I mean, even root veg I do at 185F. I consider that poaching. If you are going to go much above that, you might as well be using classic cooking methods because the benefits of sous vide won't translate. Duck confit, or braised beef, is going to have a very similar, fall-off-the-bone texture to classic braising at those temps. So much so that a classic braise would probably be better for that type of stuff anyways.
> 
> I can't think of any application of sous vide that I've done, both professionally and at home, that wouldn't qualify as poaching. I also guess I don't understand the blowback about the term--why is it an issue to call it poaching in the first place?


One thing is to make Japanese ramen egg "ajitsuke tamago", a kind of soft-boiled egg, the egg white will be pretty much solidified but the egg yolk is still runny.

There are a lot of techniques (or methods) to make this kind of egg. Boiling a few minutes then leave it, or simmering at medium-high, or boil then leave it with close lid, etc.

I thought why not use SV for _consistent result_.

So, I did some experiments with various temperature + timing, different size of egg, starting from fridge or room temperature, and so on.

I came with a set of _practical setup_ using SV: Large egg (about 145mm diameter), from fridge, 97C for 7 minutes (7m 30sec still produce acceptable result).

You might wonder, 97C? Why not boil it and find the right timing. Yes, you might do that too. But, I don't like boiling the eggs, because they will "jump" all around in the pot which sometimes crack them lol. SV at 97 doesn't make the egg jumping 

If I do at lower temperature, for example 85C, the egg yolk will be set and the egg white is still soft (although it is set). Tested 90C and 95C as well, and I am not satisfied with the egg white.

You can say that SV is not necessary to make this. That might be true. But, at least, for me this is one of *valid usage of SV*, as you can (may) set the Anova temperature up to 99C!


> why is it an issue to call it poaching in the first place?


I hope you understand that we are here *also* to debate the term SV, people were debating the aspect of "vacuum", the language, etc


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

When they incorporate precision digital temperature control, BBQ Guru, for the BGE, no one seems to have a problem, but for sous vide? instantly WW III breaks out!

There are many appliances have already incorporated digital temperature controls. 1 degree accuracy instead of 20 to 50 degrees of swing of all mechanical thermostats.

I also use my SV for making yogurt, clotted cream, ------------------. My smoker is PID controlled.

dcarch


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

I really want to get the PID controller for my Smokin-It Model #3 smoker, just been too lazy to research how to wire it in.


----------



## qzvar (Jul 28, 2015)

Fad.

A travesty to the cooking of a protein rivaled only by boiling it in pure water.


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)




----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

dcarch said:


> Almost.
> 
> There are *only two* major different ways food can be heated up.
> 
> ...


 I can't disagree with what you've said...but I would have to factor in method of heat transfer as well, from the BTU's produced and the food being heated to a temperature.


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

dcarch said:


> When they incorporate precision digital temperature control, BBQ Guru, for the BGE, no one seems to have a problem, but for sous vide? instantly WW III breaks out!
> 
> There are many appliances have already incorporated digital temperature controls. 1 degree accuracy instead of 20 to 50 degrees of swing of all mechanical thermostats.
> 
> ...


 Yep!  The whole thing about sous vide, is precise temperature control within water...rally nothing more.

Why is it about precise temperature control? Because you are trying to break down the protein in a specific manner. The problem comes when you look at cooking said meat. You also want to break down the fat and connective tissue in a specific way too. In order to break down the fat and connective tissue you need to maintain temperature over specified time. You can do this at higher temperatures over specified time but you run the risk of overcooking the meat itself. SV allows you to cook at a lower temperature than other dry heat methods for a long enough period of time so you don't over cook the meat.

SV is only about precision cooking.

Dcarch...I do enjoy my bbq guru...it just helps me cook low and slow with more precision. (I don't get what the problem is either???)

Can you tell me a little about the SV yogurt and clotted cream? Sounds delicious!


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

I've been perusing this thread for a while and have hesitated to comment because I will probably be called on for my lack of sous vide experience hence, ****Before you read my comment*****, let it be known that my perspective on food is from an industrial, food science and home cooking experience.  I have less experience than a noob entry level line cook in food service. 

That said:

My take is cooking is basically water (moister) management.  Cooking, define as the first time a fresh food encounters heat.

the success of grilling, sautéing, poaching, baking, frying, pressure cooking, etc is how to chase away water from the food (while applying heat) in a control fashion to obtain a consistent and tasteful result.  Burnt food translates to too much heat which leads to excessive surface drying which leads to chaotic Maillard reaction (browning).

Sous vide is a technique that prevents any surface evaporation from the food and juices while cooking.  A more similar technique to sous vide are canning and boil in bag foods with the only difference being the higher temperature involved (temperature must be precisely controlled during canning).

Poaching could be similar to sous vide if the food is always submerged but different since the poaching liquid is left to evaporate and change over time (adding liquid is sometimes required).  An evaporating liquid cools down which requires more heat to be applied than would otherwise be required for sous vide to keep the same temperature.

as to my thought on the technique, I fear that if time and temperature are not well controlled sous vide can be potentially hazardous. Food safety is crucial. It's not for the uneducated on the subject. Fine cuisine sous vide foods are interesting and have their place for creativity and uniqueness.  Today industrial food service are converting more to boil/heat in bag foods. The trend is growing.

Luc H.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

gonefishin said:


> Dcarch...I do enjoy my bbq guru...it just helps me cook low and slow with more precision. (I don't get what the problem is either???)
> 
> Can you tell me a little about the SV yogurt and clotted cream? Sounds delicious!


Using SV to make yogurt and clotted cream is absolute control of your final results.

Yogurt at 115F, 8 hours.

Clotted cream at 180F, 10 hours.

Both using a glass jar instead of bags.

dcarch


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Luc_H said:


> -------------------------- as to my thought on the technique, I fear that if time and temperature are not well controlled sous vide can be potentially hazardous. Food safety is crucial. It's not for the uneducated on the subject. Fine cuisine sous vide foods are interesting and have their place for creativity and uniqueness. Today industrial food service are converting more to boil/heat in bag foods. The trend is growing.
> Luc H.


Because you can control temperature to better than 1 degree accuracy in every part of the food, and if you are using the correct safety information for cooking temperature relative to the food you are cooking, your safety is guaranteed.

With regular cooking methods you are always guessing, even if you are using a good thermometer you can't be sure if you are actually hitting the center or the coldest spot of your food.

dcarch


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

dcarch said:


> if you are using the correct safety information for cooking temperature relative to the food you are cooking, your safety is guaranteed.


Nothing is guaranteed but nevertheless, you are driving my point that food safety knowledge is crucial and this is not for amateurs with amateur equipment.


dcarch said:


> With regular cooking methods you are always guessing, even if you are using a good thermometer you can't be sure if you are actually hitting the center or the coldest spot of your food.


In any technique the only way to be accurate in cooking safely is with a thermometer set at the core of the food. When writing and citing food safety cooking tables it is always as per core temperature so any cooking technique is a guessing game unless you can precisely measure the core of the food and holding time.

although nobody knowledgeable in sous vide would cook a frozen piece of meat, no matter how accurate and respectful you maintain the temperature and time required for the meat in question, the food will not be guaranteed as safe. It will probably require many more hours than called for. (it's a simple example of knowledge is power).

Cooking frozen meat in a slow cooker has been a food safety hazard in the infancy of that cooking technique. The temp-time table did not work. You will understand that fact if you read instruction that come with new slow cookers today.

Luc H.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Luc_H said:


> Nothing is guaranteed but nevertheless, you are driving my point that food safety knowledge is crucial and this is not for amateurs with amateur equipment.
> 
> _Using SV, you are guaranteed, all parts of the food, outside and inside to be what you set the temperature to be, within one degree of temperature, no guessing game._
> 
> ...


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

we can easily go into an argumentative circle here. 

I still disagree with the guaranteed safe part of SV but before I continue I need to understand your approach: Tell me your detailed method on cooking a turkey (let's say 12lbs) from frozen to cook using your sous vide method including any prep pre- and post-SV

Luc H.


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

What?  An argumentative circle on a sous vide thread?  Say it ain't so Joe...


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

Hi Luc!

Here's a website I found informative
http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Luc_H said:


> we can easily go into an argumentative circle here.
> 
> I still disagree with the guaranteed safe part of SV but before I continue I need to understand your approach: Tell me your detailed method on cooking a turkey (let's say 12lbs) from frozen to cook using your sous vide method including any prep pre- and post-SV
> 
> Luc H.


I am not sure what you are looking for. There is no mystery in SV cooking frozen turkey. It is shockingly simple minded.

I dump frozen turkey in a bag in hot water set at 145F. The machine knows how to keep the water temperature at 145F exactly, not 144F, and not 146F, for as long as I want. The entire turkey, can be small and can be very big, makes no difference, every molecule in the bird has no choice but to end up at 145F.

There is no detailed method to tell you. The only thing I can tell you is this, cooking frozen turkey will have the giblets cooked inside also.

dcarch





  








cold turkey 5.jpg




__
dcarch


__
Aug 4, 2015












  








cold turkey 4 .jpg




__
dcarch


__
Aug 4, 2015












  








whole turkey 2.jpg




__
dcarch


__
Aug 4, 2015












  








cold turkey 6.jpg




__
dcarch


__
Aug 4, 2015


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

your lack of understanding my question and simplistic answer (explanation) concerns me (if you were a chef or industrial technician).

I know now that your cooking temp is 145F

how much time would it take to cook a 12 lbs turkey from frozen to fully cook using your SV method?

How do you determine when the turkey is defrosted and the time required to fully cook it?


dcarch said:


> _I think the regular recommendation of thawing turkey in the refrigerator is high questionable. It can take up to a week and inside may still be partly frozen. Worst, a great many home refrigerators are above 40F degrees. _


As for the comment above, defrosting in the refrigerator is very safe (if not the safest method) because the refrigeration chain remains unbroken before cooking. As for a refrigerator being above 40F (4C) that should not (never) happen in a professional establishment.

Furthermore, if you cook your turkey at 145F (63C) you haven't crossed the danger zone yet.


dcarch said:


> _SV, because of high thermal conductivity of circulating hot water, allows the turkey to thaw and pass thru the danger zone much quicker than any other method.. _


Luc H.


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

Luc_H said:


> Furthermore, if you cook your turkey at 145F (63C) you haven't crossed the danger zone yet.
> 
> Luc H.


 Luc, have you had time to review the link I posted?

http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html

and...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878450X11000035

the 145 temp is good if you hold it long enough. Your conventional cooking temps suit dry methods of heat, where it's not possible to maintain a single temp from the heat source (water) to the core and hold this for a prolonged time. Harmful bacteria will die off at lower temperatures...but it's specified temperature for specified time that we really need to look at.

You bring up some good points, but I think you can benefit from reading the articles linked. This isn't to say that you'll be in complete agreement with anyone in particular...but you may have a better understanding of what sous vide cooking is...how it can be used...and what limitations are still there.

have a great week!

Dan


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

Let me cough this up now.... (it bothered me the whole time I was on the plane today and during cocktails then dinner with colleagues...) I confess I made a mistake: 145F (63C) is above the danger zone. I was wrong there. I mistakenly had 74C (165F) the temperature to kill salmonella as the limit in my head.

@gonefishin yes I am aware of the links you posted.

This one in particular http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878450X11000035

has the following section: _Table 2. Time sufficient to pasteurize meat, fish, or poultry in water baths from 55 °C/131 °F to 66 °C/150.8 °F _ was of particular interest. I wanted to compare the recommendations I asked above about the method for cooking a 12 lb frozen turkey. I thought the response to my question was going to be quicker but _hélas _it wasn't so. Now I show my hand of cards.

Assuming that the thickest part of a 12lb turkey is 70mm (2 3/4") i.e, the breast or thigh then it would require roughly 4hrs of cooking at 63C (145F) but that would be for a thawed/fresh bird. However how does one determine when the bird is thawed and start the cooking timer when placing a frozen bird in the bath? That was my REAL question but now the cheat sheet is out.

Luc H.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

@Luc H,

your lack of understanding my question and simplistic answer (explanation) concerns me (if you were a chef or industrial technician).

_The discussions about sous vide is more of sociological and psychological interest, not really about cooking. Because for some reason, there are many who insist on making this simple cooking method a huge topic when in reality Sous vide = cooking in temperature controlled water; no more and no less. Yes, simple answer. That is exactly what it is, a simple (set it, forget it) cooking method._

I know now that your cooking temp is 145F

how much time would it take to cook a 12 lbs turkey from frozen to fully cook using your SV method?

_I will never tell anyone how long. You do you own research about food safety. Frozen food can vary from 0 to 40 degrees in temperature. I can never tell how cold is your cold turkey._

How do you determine when the turkey is defrosted and the time required to fully cook it?

_If you are not sure, cook it longer. Because the temperature is controlled, it will not be overcooked. The beauty of SV, almost fool proof._

As for the comment above, defrosting in the refrigerator is very safe (if not the safest method) because the refrigeration chain remains unbroken before cooking. As for a refrigerator being above 40F (4C) that should not (never) happen in a professional establishment.

_Apparently you have not read my explanation of "danger zone" and you believe in the world is ideal. Refrigerator is not that safe. All advices you will read will tell you not to store food for more than a few days, even if they have been fully cooked._

Furthermore, if you cook your turkey at 145F (63C) you haven't crossed the danger zone yet.

_That statement makes no sense. With due respect, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry._

_dcarch_


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

dcarch said:


> _Apparently you have not read my explanation of "danger zone" ......_
> _...With due respect... _


The definition of the Danger Zone is precisely defined in Food Safety Textbooks and Governmental information: it is the temperature range where pathogenic MO can grow uncontrollably fast which is between 4 and 60C (40 and 140F). This range is a consensus of a worldwide body of scientific experts, it needs no other interpretation. Although I did not find your definition in this thread, if it differs from the standard definition your take on the subject is utterly irrelevant.

As for your _with due respec_t comment, it sounds highly sarcastic since it is obvious you did not take the time to read my previous post concerning my correction about the danger zone comment I made.

let my reiterate my point: I only asked to enlighten me on how you control for food safety while cooking a 12 lbs turkey from frozen using your all mighty SV method. However you have basically avoided answering this question. I hate to tell you this but IMO you shed doubts on your ability to SV safely yet I understand that what I think is not a concern of yours.

Thanks for the entertaining sparing of words.

Luc H.


----------



## chef tarlo (Jul 27, 2015)

Sous vide cooking is for cooks that haven't the confidence to cook to tempreture using traditional methods. I only use it for cooking southern fried chicken. Marinating the chicken in buttermilk and spices and cooking to 170 degrees before frying. Slow cooking sous vide changes the texture of prime cuts and makes them pasty.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

Chef Tarlo said:


> Sous vide cooking is for cooks that haven't the confidence to cook to tempreture using traditional methods...


... such as Thomas Keller, Joël Robuchon or Paul Bocuse. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/lol.gif


----------



## cheflayne (Aug 21, 2004)

French Fries said:


> ... such as Thomas Keller, Joël Robuchon or Paul Bocuse. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/lol.gif


Don't forget Chef Tarlo. He uses sous vide as well.


----------



## lagom (Sep 5, 2012)

Chef Tarlo said:


> Sous vide cooking is for cooks that haven't the confidence to cook to tempreture using traditional methods. I only use it for cooking southern fried chicken. Marinating the chicken in buttermilk and spices and cooking to 170 degrees before frying. Slow cooking sous vide changes the texture of prime cuts and makes them pasty.


You must be new here, welcome to cheftalk. [emoji]128077[/emoji]


----------



## josh71 (Jan 15, 2015)

cheflayne said:


> Don't forget Chef Tarlo. He uses sous vide as well.


Sorry, I must laugh at this ... LOL .... hahaha


----------



## keith grima (Jul 9, 2014)

It's amazing  . From the videos I watch I really love how the food keeps it shape and colours and the temp precision that comes with it is priceless. But I do not want to end up eating just sous vide =D


----------



## chef tarlo (Jul 27, 2015)

French fries, please show me  where Paul Bocuse  uses sous vide on his menu?


----------



## mike9 (Jul 13, 2012)

Showing us where he doesn't might be more appropriate since his name is ubiquitously linked with many of the top chefs who embraced sous vide years ago.


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

There is certainly no shortage of top rated chefs using the sous vide method in their repertoire.

Grant Achatz, Thomas Keller, Joan Roca, Ferran Adria, ...on and on. This is a list of chefs who are not famous because their faces are well known, as with celebrity chefs. This is a list of chefs that are well known because of their vision and execution of cuisine. The attention to the past, present and future of the food they cook and the evolutionary course that they each took to get to the present day is equaled by very few alive today. By having this expertise and vision, they are not only building their own legacy, but they are building the legacy of those to come tomorrow by giving them more.

To think that sous vide cooking isn't an accepted method with some of the worlds best chefs (do not read the words famous chefs) is to arrive at that decision in hast. This isn't to say that the sous vide method must be used to provide fine cuisine, nobody has said or implied this idea.

Thomas Keller : Lesson in Sous Vide

I would have to say again...there is nothing exciting or different about sous vide cooking, as I see it. It's about breaking down protein in a specific manner that cannot be accomplished with other methods of cooking. Why do I bbq instead of grill? Why would I braise instead of roast? How does my product differ when I roast at different temperatures?

Grant Achatz: Thanksgiving

Cooking is all about temperature control and time. The sous vide method allows you to be more precise, than other low temp methods, and cook at the minimum core temperature you want within the protein. But, because the minimum core temperature alone will not properly break down other fat and connective tissue, additional time is required at the specified/preferred core temp that you want.

One of the two most memorable meals I've had was cooked by Grant Achatz and his kitchen. I had recently bought myself a sous vide machine and can't wait to use it...but we're at the tail end of a kitchen remodel...so it will have to wait.


----------



## chefwriter (Oct 31, 2012)

I've tried reading most of this thread. Generally this makes me think of what the conversations must have been like when man discovered fire and found he had the option of eating cooked food instead of raw. It's new, it's different, requires some practice, not used by everyone right away, a few "experts" lead the way, other practitioners use it well while others burn everything and claim it's just as good. 

     Some day sous vide will be as accepted as roasting or poaching and no one would think to discuss it anymore.

Then again in the past few years has arisen the raw food movement.

Perhaps the more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

@Luc H.:

As for your _with due respec_t comment, it sounds highly sarcastic since it is obvious you did not take the time to read my previous postconcerning my correction about the danger zone comment I made.

_You are correct that I did not read your correction about "the danger zone" mistake. _

_I read your post #161, the last post of that thread at that time. I copied your post on my laptop, put the PC into sleep mode and went to work. I composted my response to your post #161 on the train on the laptop. When I got back from work, took the PC out from hibernation and posted my response copied from the laptop. At that time, my PC was still at post #161. It did not refresh the internet to your latest posts, and I did not read your subsequent posts. Therefore, there was no sarcastic intention on my part._

The definition of the Danger Zone is precisely defined in Food Safety Textbooks and Governmental information: it is the temperature range where pathogenic MO can grow uncontrollably fast which is between 4 and 60C (40 and 140F). This range is a consensus of a worldwide body of scientific experts, it needs no other interpretation. Although I did not find your definition in this thread, if it differs from the standard definition your take on the subject is utterly irrelevant.

_There was no attempt on my part to re-define or re-interpret "The danger zone" All I did was to explain my understand as to the way "the danger zone" was established. Again, with due respect, you are very wrong that my explanation_ on the subject is utterly irrelevant. _If it is your understanding that there is no germ activity outside of the danger zone, then you are spreading very incorrect safety information. The danger zone definition is statistical, and is somewhat arbitrary, based on the emphases on benefiting the weakest, the old and very young, and the food has minimum amount of acid and salt to discourage germ growth, etc. As I said, germs are active over a much wider temperature range._



_That said, for hundreds of years, for a billion people. Old and young, the Chinese have been enjoying roast pork, roasted ducks, white cut chickens all made the day before, hanging in tropical weather all day long. No one has gotten sick. In fact. It is still done today. But the __US__ bureaucrats are going to change that. They even tried recently to make it illegal to make cheese on wooden boards, a practice that has been around for thousands of years._



_I will not be surprised that they will set 140F as legal minimum temperature for sushi._

let my reiterate my point: I only asked to enlighten me on how you control for food safety while cooking a 12 lbs turkey from frozen using your all mighty SV method. However you have basically avoided answering this question. I hate to tell you this but IMO you shed doubts on your ability to SV safely yet I understand that what I think is not a concern of yours.

_You, like many others, have interesting opinions about the essence of SV. You are entitled to have that opinion. I try to apply, not to change the laws of thermodynamics, which are not subjected to matters of opinion._

_. _

Thanks for the entertaining sparing of words.

_You are welcome. Thank you, likewise. _

_dcarch_


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

I was not inclined in pursuing this discussion but I cannot ignore misinformation and especially when I am accused of spreading such information:

_If it is your understanding that there is no germ activity outside of the danger zone, then you are spreading very incorrect safety information._

This is a common misunderstanding with individuals that challenge the safety zone concept or don,t understanding basic microbiology: I specifically said the danger zone is about pathogenic microbes not about the microbial world as a whole. Just so you can read this correctly (although you took the time to copy paste this exact phrase) please carefully read this passage: _The definition of the Danger Zone is precisely defined in Food Safety Textbooks and Governmental information: it is the temperature range where *pathogenic* MO can grow uncontrollably fast which is between 4 and 60C (40 and 140F)._

_The danger zone definition is statistical, and is somewhat arbitrary, based on the emphases on benefiting the weakest, the old and very young, and the food has minimum amount of acid and salt to discourage germ growth, etc_

Correct except it's mostly about pathogens. It applies to food establishments because the last time I checked there is no discrimination on health status when it comes to restaurant service. The regulation is all encompassing for all hence there is a built in safety margin for the weaker part of the population. (like elevators... the actual maximum weight amount in the elevator is actually much higher than what is claimed on the sticker)

You are free to disregard any and all safety guidelines at home (which I think is what you do) but it is illegal for a licensed establishment to do so. My concern from the get go is simply that I have reservations on the correct application of food safety practices and guidelines with SV for the lay person. Professionals understand and (should) will seek out safe parameters

_That said, for hundreds of years, for a billion people. Old and young, the Chinese have been enjoying roast pork, roasted ducks, white cut chickens all made the day before, hanging in tropical weather all day long. No one has gotten sick. _I am very surprised that this is a verifiable fact. Over the ages I am certain many have been sick or died until the technique was perfected (today).

_I will not be surprised that they will set 140F as legal minimum temperature for sushi._

No that I am advocate of government bureaucracy but I am about science based regulation. As I implied before but will verbalized fully now (although not the subject of this thread). I don't think the Government will do that because the correct way to keep sushi safe is to control the cold chain and time-temp:

Fresh fish should be free from parasites, refrigerated quickly after harvest, stored for reasonable amount of time and kept below 4C until served.

To be safer, the FDA proposes to deep (flash) freeze fish and stored for a specific amount of time to kill parasites, thaw and served without breaking the cold chain.

and yes my opinions are my own.

Luc H.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

I was not inclined in pursuing this discussion but I cannot ignore misinformation and especially when I am accused of spreading such information:

This is a common misunderstanding with individuals that challenge the safety zone concept or don,t understanding basic microbiology: I specifically said the danger zone is about pathogenic microbes not about the microbial world as a whole. Just so you can read this correctly (although you took the time to copy paste this exact phrase) please carefully read this passage: _The definition of the Danger Zone is precisely defined in Food Safety Textbooks and Governmental information: it is the temperature range where_ *pathogenic* _MO can grow uncontrollably fast which is between 4 and 60C (40 and 140F)._



_I am totally confused by your argument, first, no where have I challenged the danger zone definition. All I am saying is that pathogenic MO can also grow outside of the danger zone, albeit slower. It seems to me that you disagree, and it seems to me that it is your believe that pathogenic MO can only grow inside the danger zone. _

_The danger zone definition is statistical, and is somewhat arbitrary, based on the emphases on benefiting the weakest, the old and very young, and the food has minimum amount of acid and salt to discourage germ growth, etc_

Correct except it's mostly about pathogens. It applies to food establishments because the last time I checked there is no discrimination on health status when it comes to restaurant service. The regulation is all encompassing for all hence there is a built in safety margin for the weaker part of the population. (like elevators... the actual maximum weight amount in the elevator is actually much higher than what is claimed on the sticker)



_Again, I am confused. Where do we disagree here?_

You are free to disregard any and all safety guidelines at home (which I think is what you do) but it is illegal for a licensed establishment to do so. My concern from the get go is simply that I have reservations on the correct application of food safety practices and guidelines with SV for the lay person. Professionals understand and (should) will seek out safe parameters

_I guess I am a bigger moron than I realize, just because I don't think it is wise to advise you on how long you should SV a turkey because I don't know your exact conditions, that I have been disregarding all safety guidelines! And where did I advise a licensed establishment to disregard safety guidelines?_

_That said, for hundreds of years, for a billion people. Old and young, the Chinese have been enjoying roast pork, roasted ducks, white cut chickens all made the day before, hanging in tropical weather all day long. No one has gotten sick._

I am very surprised that this is a verifiable fact.

Google "life span/life expectance". People in Hongkong, Macau, Singapore live the longest.

Over the ages I am certain many have been sick or died until the technique was perfected (today).

_Are you saying that today the technique has been perfected? The technique of serving food exposed to long danger zone conditions?_

No that I am advocate of government bureaucracy but I am about science based regulation.

_Not that I am saying they should abolish safety guidelines, I am saying they perhaps should be a little more scientific, like what they have done recently to change food safe temperature for pork. "When in doubt, throw it out " has caused us to waste 40% of our food while many people are starving._

_If they check the science, they may find that raw milk is safer then salad greens, and should not be made illegal. _

_dcarch_


----------



## luc_h (Jun 6, 2007)

I'm bowing out.

I've offered enough information.  The members can read what's informative from what's not.

trying to counter would be a disservice to the community.

Luc H.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

Not my intention to drag out this discussion any longer. However it would be irresponsible of me not to comment on food safety issues when I feel incorrect information is being said. I also want to apologize in advance, if my information turn out to be the incorrect one. I am here to learn from all you knowledgeable members in this wonderful forum:

In re-reading this thread, I just noticed this statement :

_@Luc H., "----Fresh fish should be free from parasites, refrigerated quickly after harvest, stored for reasonable amount of time and kept below 4C until served._

_To be safer, the FDA proposes to deep (flash) freeze fish and stored for a specific amount of time to kill parasites, thaw and served without breaking the cold chain.---"_

I don't believe that is true. All fish *can have parasites*, especially fresh water fishes. It does not matter if they are fresh or not.

In addition to specific time to freeze the fish, there is also specific temperature requirement (at least -4F) to minimize the parasitic danger. 4C is way way way too warm for that. BTW, many home freezers cannot reach below -4F to be effective.

Also, sushi, properly served, always breaks the "cold chain". Sushi should be served at near room temperature.

dcarch


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

While this has nothing to do with sous vide.....

Vancouver has no shortage of Sushi places, and it is common (as well as endorsed by the health dept) to freeze fish if it is to be conumed raw. This is done specifically to kill any parasites. Once the sushi is on the plate, the "chain of refrigeration" is terminated, just as grilling the fish would be the termination of the chain--the item is intended to be consumed right away.


----------



## dcarch (Jun 28, 2010)

foodpump said:


> ------- Vancouver has no shortage of Sushi places, -------


Oh yeah! I just came back from Vancouver. Went to a few. The one that was very good and reasonable was Nanaimo. I was there several times. Very busy place.

dcarch


----------



## lao0 (Dec 11, 2014)

As I appreciate food so much all i care about is the flavor of the food the taste and somewhat the quality. Sousvide can give some very precise cooking I can only respect that.


----------



## lodger (Aug 23, 2015)

Sorry if it's a silly question for most of you but can someone explain to me how a la carte restaurants uses sous vide, cause everywhere i'm reading they say minimum 1 hour or 2 for a steak... How is that possible that a guest should wait 1 hour and if the answer is they cook it sous vide before time then how can they serve it after searing it and give it a balanced heat inside???


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

I'm a pastry guy but I think they sous vide and hold the product. Then flash it. That's what I do at home.


----------



## lodger (Aug 23, 2015)

Thx panini but how can you control the heat inside the piece of steak or fish or whatever you're cooking? After flashing it like you said which means ieither pan frie to give it color or grill it...


----------



## allanmcpherson (Apr 5, 2007)

Lodger,

Not sure what what you mean by control the heat inside.  You would finish your protein hot and fast, like a black and blue steak.  If the inside of the piece of food is being seriously effected, you've done it wrong.  

Unless you are trying something like low temping steaks to mid rare and bringing them up to the customer's preference, I suppose.  

That said, from my experience, SV is not ideal for a la carte service, at least across the board.  If you are in a turn and burn situation I don't think it would be of a ton of value.  As I mentioned above, it can be a life saver for running function menus concurantly with your regular menu.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

AllanMcPherson said:


> Lodger,
> 
> Not sure what what you mean by control the heat inside. You would finish your protein hot and fast, like a black and blue steak. If the inside of the piece of food is being seriously effected, you've done it wrong.
> 
> ...


Usually steaks and other meats (and veggies too) are pre-cooked and then chilled in an ice bath. For service the protein is placed in a water bath (lower than the cook temp, so say like 120-130F) to re-heat. This is usually done when the customer orders it. Usually on the fire a finishing technique is used (searing, grilling, etc) to complete it.

Fish, at least in my experience, is done a la minute sous vide, since the temp is lower and the time is much less.

I think sous vide is beneficial is most a la carte services. I've employed it quite effectively many times, and currently do as well. I suppose in a extremely high volume situation it might no be tenable, but in a fine dining atmosphere I find it actually HELPS service from both a timing and consistency standpoint.


----------



## lodger (Aug 23, 2015)

Guys thx... Now that's what i was looking for)))


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

I think cook/chill on a steak is a big waste of time. You're not saving any time at all since you still have to bring the meat up to temp. The exception would be something like flank or skirt where you can give it maybe 10 hours @ 130 [sup]o[/sup] F to really tenderize it, then retherm it- that works extremely well. I've used it for steaks to save time for special situations. For example once for Mother's Day we did strips, batching them in the circulator about a dozen at a time. This basically shifted the work from the line to prep and allowed us to do the predictable wave of MW steaks in just a few minutes. The really nice thing is that most proteins that are "done" in 1/2/3 hours can be held in the bath for at least six or eight hours will little or no loss of quality (depending on the temp and what you're cooking, natch).

It really does help the timing, at Someday points out. You can do a Chateaubriand to MR and keep it at just that temp until you're ready, then finish it very quickly for example.


----------



## lodger (Aug 23, 2015)

So it's between cook-chill or flank-tenderize... Will try both!!!!!


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Well, it's not simply either/or. There are lots of way to use _sous vide_ but those are the ways that fit the most situations for me.


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

I have finally gotten around to using my immersion circulator. So far, I do like this thing! It's turning out some really nice, flavorful and delicious food. It can be a little strange for me at times to eat meat that is cooked med rare, yet tender as can be...with the fat and connective tissue broken down as well.

One of the latest that i cooked was a chuck roast cooked to 131f (30hours). It had the texture of a slow roasted prime rib, perhaps a little better even, and great beef flavor...it was really quite good! But I kept thinking...this isn't what chuck roast is like...it just isn't.





  








222222_zpselcs9ui9.jpg




__
gonefishin


__
Aug 28, 2015












  








22222_zpsr6i8rbj3.jpg




__
gonefishin


__
Aug 28, 2015


----------



## chefwriter (Oct 31, 2012)

Gonefishin-

_"One of the latest that i cooked was a chuck roast cooked to 131f. It had the texture of a slow roasted prime rib, perhaps a little better even, and great beef flavor...it was really quite good! But I kept thinking...this isn't what chuck roast is like...it just isn't."_

To me that is a strong argument for using sous vide: to accomplish the challenge of overcoming preconceived ideas of what certain foods have to be. Chuck roast is not like that because the standard cooking methods don't produce that end result. But you can with sous vide.

So from your picture you ended up making a chuck roast into a tender, medium rare steak with great texture and flavor. Congratulations. If I was using sous vide in a restaurant, your reaction is exactly what I would be looking for.


----------



## mike9 (Jul 13, 2012)

@gonefishin - how long did you cook that? It looks delicious /img/vbsmilies/smilies/thumb.gif


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

Mike9 said:


> @gonefishin - how long did you cook that? It looks delicious /img/vbsmilies/smilies/thumb.gif


 Hi Mike,

I thought I included the time with the temp...I went ahead and added it to the original post. The 131f cook was for 30hours.

Thanks,

Dan


chefwriter said:


> Gonefishin-
> 
> _"One of the latest that i cooked was a chuck roast cooked to 131f. It had the texture of a slow roasted prime rib, perhaps a little better even, and great beef flavor...it was really quite good! But I kept thinking...this isn't what chuck roast is like...it just isn't."_
> 
> ...


 Hi chefwriter,

I agree with everything you had said. I can certainly appreciate the benefits that sous vide is giving me...and I believe this is a very strong argument for the use of sous vide in some of my cooking. But when I'm eating medium rare spare ribs that are tender and delicious...it's a little strange too. Maybe not like eating some of the foods at Alinea or L2O...but still a change in thinking just the same.

My reaction was actually exactly what I was looking for as well...I'm just not sure I expected it to taste so good/img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

_Sous vide_ can really transform tougher but flavorful cuts of meat. The only caveat is that somethings -such as the connective tissue in beef short ribs- will not break down even with 72+ hours of low temps. You really need higher heat for those. But chuck is sublime.


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

I've been cooking a lot using my immersion circulator. All of the food is turning out really good. Below I'll post a picture of a sous vide turkey breast.

I removed the two breasts, seasoned, rolled and tied. I sous vide at 145f for 2 1/2 hours. Stuffing was made with leg quarters roasting on top. Skin was seasoned and roasted in oven at 400f, sandwiched between two layers of parchment and sandwiched between two cookie sheets.

Taste and texture was outstanding. Again, what a treat it is, to have this tool in my home.





  








turkey sous vide.jpg




__
gonefishin


__
Oct 18, 2015


----------



## ljokjel (Jul 1, 2009)

SV is great for certain things, not so great for others.

Some times it gives you a great financial bonus, others not.

One example of cost minimising is low temp fry, fat poach, confit or whatever you want to call it. Im gonna go with confit.

These are fictional numbers used used to explain a point.

If you want to confit 2kg of duck leg, you will need duck fat. By using SV its enough if you use 50g of fat, because the bag will ensure the fats contact with the leg at all time. Without the bag you will need 750g. !Fictional numbers! As an addition to spending less fat, it will also be safe, but most important (to me), a whole lot cleaner. Just take the bag out of the warm water, throw it into ice water to cool it down quicker and ensure hygiene (food safety and less waste), and pat it dry with a towel and have it ready to store in your fridge taking up the minimum amount of space possible. Yes, I know bags and additional work costs money.

If you choose to SV carrots to make staff food for three persons, its less wise.

Sous Vide is a tool just like any other tool in your kitchen. Equipment, technique or whatever. Whether or not you succeed depends on your skill, just as your success using a frying pan depends on your skill. Its an enormous asset in certain kitchens, and less in others where it simply wouldn't be profitable applying it. Be smart enough to learn something new, and good enough to find out whether or not you will profit from it, because that is what it is all about in the end. Profit.


----------



## rick alan (Nov 15, 2012)

gonefishin said:


> I've been cooking a lot using my immersion circulator. All of the food is turning out really good. Below I'll post a picture of a sous vide turkey breast.
> 
> I removed the two breasts, seasoned, rolled and tied. I sous vide at 145f for 2 1/2 hours. Stuffing was made with leg quarters roasting on top. Skin was seasoned and roasted in oven at 400f, sandwiched between two layers of parchment and sandwiched between two cookie sheets.
> 
> ...


I've had some magnificent sous vide turkey breast. It's a wonderful creation ljokjel. I'm guessing that is your stuffing on the right that looks like loaded mash potatoes. What is in it?

Rick


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

Stuffing was made by my wife, it's her mothers recipe.  Very simple and a softer dressing with some crispy tops. It's bread, celery onion, garlic, sage, salt, pepper, butter and a blended egg with some stock then leg quarters were roasted on top


----------



## gladius (May 26, 2015)

Phaedrus said:


> The only caveat is that somethings -such as the connective tissue in beef short ribs- will not break down even with 72+ hours of low temps. You really need higher heat for those.


You need to get up to the low 140s F for 72 hour short ribs to be fork-tender, but 48 hours in the mid 130s F works great if you're going for a steak consistency.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Gladius said:


> You need to get up to the low 140s F for 72 hour short ribs to be fork-tender, but 48 hours in the mid 130s F works great if you're going for a steak consistency.


That depends on what we're talking about when we say 'short ribs'. If you mean cut into longish chunks on the bone then _no amount_ of 130's will ever break down the connective tissue.


----------



## flipflopgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

gonefishin said:


> Stuffing was made by my wife, it's her mothers recipe. Very simple and a softer dressing with some crispy tops. It's bread, celery onion, garlic, sage, salt, pepper, butter and a blended egg with some stock then leg quarters were roasted on top


OT but this is my recipe only I use cornbread.

Tummy rumbling.

Going to crock pot a pork roast later.

Think we'll have dressing.....

mimi


----------



## rick alan (Nov 15, 2012)

flipflopgirl said:


> OT but this is my recipe only I use cornbread.
> 
> Tummy rumbling.
> 
> ...


The only things I'd add to it are chestnuts and cranberries on occasion.

Rick


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

flipflopgirl said:


> OT but this is my recipe only I use cornbread.
> 
> Tummy rumbling.
> 
> ...


 Sounds good with the cornbread...I'll give that a try!


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

Phaedrus said:


> _Sous vide_ can really transform tougher but flavorful cuts of meat. The only caveat is that somethings -such as the connective tissue in beef short ribs- will not break down even with 72+ hours of low temps. You really need higher heat for those. But chuck is sublime.


 Hi Phaedrus!

Have you sous vide beef ribs before at varying times and temperatures? Love to hear your experiences.

ChefSteps has a page on beef short ribs and varying time/temps. They've got a description of each method and an accompanying video that also worth the time. The video shows the cut and pull of each cook, while you can't get a taste...you can get a pretty good idea of how the cook went.


----------



## gladius (May 26, 2015)

Phaedrus said:


> That depends on what we're talking about when we say 'short ribs'. If you mean cut into longish chunks on the bone then _no amount_ of 130's will ever break down the connective tissue.


I've only used English cut with the bone removed, and it works perfectly.


----------



## michoutim (Dec 25, 2015)

WE have been doing sous-vide for over 2 years now.

It is only the 2 of us. So spending 2 days cooking a chunky piece of meat is of no use to us.

When using SV, check your approach. Either you want want to pre-cook scallops, then dip the bag in ice-cold water, refrigerate, then sauté it before serving the client, is one thing.

For domestic use, you cook it at the correct temp and serve it straight away, or at a lower temp and quickly panfry it.

In any case, there are pieces that I disliked (dry) such as turkey fillets, chicken breasts... and now I enjoy them, and my guests also.

I certainly do not regret my investment (I bought the Anova, from Texas, sturdy, no problem so far).

I'd suggest beginners start with a zip bag and a thermometer, digital, it won't be so precise, but hell! It will be good enough!

There is a free book in pdf on the net by Douglas Baldwin.

Keep in mind that he want everything pasteurised so his temps may be a bit high, you don't need that with a good immune system...

SV scallops are the best I ever ate... Translucent! Melt in the mouth!


----------



## rpooley (Dec 1, 2015)

I think it's kind of a cheap shortcut so people don't have to learn how to cook something properly.


----------



## chefbillyb (Feb 8, 2009)

This is a meatloaf I did Sous Vide. I made it flatter so it would cook evenly. I have also made, Turkey breast, Chicken breast, dbl cut pork chops, steak, top round, Baby back ribs and so on. When it comes to steak I agree with earlier posts that talked about a thick Filet Mignon would be the perfect example for Sous Vide cooking. Dbl cut pork chops are another meat that works well. All of the restaurants serving pork belly would be well advised to cook it Sous Vide. I sealed the ziploc bag using a water displacement method. I think the pic is before I did the WD method. I always do the meats in a air tight sealed bag. I didn't want the meatloaf to crush under the pressure of sealing the bag making it air tight......I finished the meatloaf under the broiler for a few minutes.





  








Sous Vide.jpg




__
chefbillyb


__
Dec 29, 2015












  








cooked meatloaf Sous Vide.jpg




__
chefbillyb


__
Dec 29, 2015


----------



## flipflopgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

Good lookin' loaf @ChefBillyB !

Perfect shape to slice for next day sandwiches (hands down our favorite way to enjoy meatloaf lol ;-)

mimi


----------



## jimmy9648 (Feb 20, 2016)

rpooley said:


> I think it's kind of a cheap shortcut so people don't have to learn how to cook something properly.


Hi,

Im New to this forum. I own a seasonal rest in a vacation area of new hampshir. I have been reading a great deal about sous vide but am a little ( probably a lot ) confused. I want to make a buttermilk fried chicken.. i own a rational ove. iwas thinking about pree cooking the chickening the oven or maybe par boiling. The I thought I could use sous vide. Now here is where my lack of experience comes to play. We are a small operation and I was hoping to make a large amount of chicken. then freezing the cooked bags.. reheat aa few as i need the in a microwave.. the sakingthem in buttermilk and cooking to order. Is this feasible. What I mostly read is the prep is for immediate use. I'm confuseded. Is there a book or information that i could get that explais sous vide from the view of a rest rather than the home cook where most of publications seed to be slated??? Just a thought if I can cook freeze reheat could this be applied to regular hamburgers??? anyone with any information I would appreciate hearing from you. jim


----------



## chefbillyb (Feb 8, 2009)

Jimmy9648 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Im New to this forum. I own a seasonal rest in a vacation area of new hampshir. I have been reading a great deal about sous vide but am a little ( probably a lot ) confused. I want to make a buttermilk fried chicken.. i own a rational ove. iwas thinking about pree cooking the chickening the oven or maybe par boiling. The I thought I could use sous vide. Now here is where my lack of experience comes to play. We are a small operation and I was hoping to make a large amount of chicken. then freezing the cooked bags.. reheat aa few as i need the in a microwave.. the sakingthem in buttermilk and cooking to order. Is this feasible. What I mostly read is the prep is for immediate use. I'm confuseded. Is there a book or information that i could get that explais sous vide from the view of a rest rather than the home cook where most of publications seed to be slated??? Just a thought if I can cook freeze reheat could this be applied to regular hamburgers??? anyone with any information I would appreciate hearing from you. jim


Hey Jim, welcome to Cheftalk! Think of Sous Vide as cooking in a air tight bag with low heat. The chicken can be cook Sous Vide and then cooked fast in a ice water bath then frozen for future use. If you want to make fried chicken just thaw, put into buttermilk and fry. I figure what your looking for is a way to get your fried chicken faster without having to go from raw to cooked.........hope this helped........


----------



## chefbillyb (Feb 8, 2009)

*POULTRY*  *Thickness**Temperature**Time*  inchcmFCminmax*White Meat*      Chicken Breast, bone in25146+63.5+2.5 hrs4-6 hrsChicken Breast, boneless12.5146+63.5+1 hr2-4 hrsTurkey Breast, bone in2.757146+63.5+4 hrs6-8 hrsTurkey Breast, boneless25146+63.5+2.5 hrs4-6 hrsDuck Breast12.5134+56.5+1.5 hrs4-6 hrs       *Dark Meat*      Chicken Leg or Thigh, bone in  165-17674-804 hrs6-8 hrsChicken Thigh, boneless12.5165-17674-802 hrs4-6 hrsTurkey Leg or Thigh  165-17674-808 hrs10 hrsDuck Leg  165-17674-808 hrs18 hrs


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

https://www.chefsteps.com/activities/can-t-f-it-up-fried-chicken

That might be a good place to start. I personally think they cook the chicken a little too high, but otherwise looks solid.


----------



## mike9 (Jul 13, 2012)

It works with a store bought chicken, but it's way too long for a free range bird, or a wild bird.  I'm going to shorten the time up next time I do a commercial chicken and see.


----------



## chefbillyb (Feb 8, 2009)

Mike9 said:


> It works with a store bought chicken, but it's way too long for a free range bird, or a wild bird. I'm going to shorten the time up next time I do a commercial chicken and see.


Mike, how long did you cook yours ?.....Big range from Min to Max on this chart.


----------



## rick alan (Nov 15, 2012)

Another one to look at, there is a shortened version also.http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/07/...the-food-lab-best-southern-fried-chicken.html

http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/07/the-food-lab-best-southern-fried-chicken.html


----------



## mike9 (Jul 13, 2012)

ChefBillyB said:


> Mike, how long did you cook yours ?.....Big range from Min to Max on this chart.


Billy the first time I did it I went with their time/temp schedule and it came out really well. The second time I used a free range bird and it was too long. I'm going to play around with it some more to dial it in. What I do like about sous vide is I can set a time on a phone app and walk away.


----------



## mike9 (Jul 13, 2012)

I sous vide a piece of pork loin yesterday - 144f for 4.5 hrs. then seared the outside in bacon drippings.  Perfectly moist medium edge to edge.  Served with orzo and a nice slaw.  The leftover is getting turned into Cuban sandwiches tomorrow.


----------



## chefbillyb (Feb 8, 2009)




----------



## annieskitchen (Sep 18, 2015)

Josh71 said:


> _*My impression?*_
> 
> SV is great technique to have more *consistency* on certain type of cooking.
> 
> ...


These are the reasons that I use the sous vide technique, too, plus:

Convenience. Because I live alone, I prefer to cook and freeze multiple individual portions, Sous vide is ideal for this.

I "finish" meats (usually by searing in a cast iron pan), making this a "freshly cooked" meat (as opposed to a frozen dinner).


----------



## frozenhawaiian (Feb 28, 2016)

jonfields said:


> What's your impression of sous vide? Would you order meals that have been sous vide already that would be quicker to prepare/easy to heat up & eat?


my impression is that at the moment it is what I like to call "hipster chic" that being said I think it certainly has it's place.


----------



## mike9 (Jul 13, 2012)

frozenhawaiian said:


> my impression is that at the moment it is what I like to call "hipster chic" that being said I think it certainly has it's place.


It's been around too long now to be that. With the price of technique coming way down it's a practical way to make better food. My current setup is a hot plate and a PID, but I do have a Joule coming my way this spring.


----------



## chefwriter (Oct 31, 2012)

I'd have to agree with Mike9. I was first introduced to it in 1985 while working in a hotel and while the chef wasn't interested I found it intriguing but the equipment we were shown was intended for large production. Price has certainly come down since then. Better availability simply means more people can take advantage. (Including but not limited to hipsters)


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

I would also add that sous vide isn't simply a way to prepare consistent meals ahead of time.  You have an opportunity to break down protein like no other method of cooking.  This gives you a variety of flavors and textures that weren't previously at your disposal...the creativity part is up to you.


----------



## mike9 (Jul 13, 2012)

For instance thick shoulder veal steaks are $2.99/lb this week - perfect for sous vide.  Lots of collagen to render out and some tough muscles to tender up.  This gives the opportunity to put a hard sear on them as opposed to just slow cooking them to death.  Big bonus here is you get pure flavor and collagen from the bag liquid and that is gold.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2016)

i have enjoyed this thread immensely, i came into it knowing just the basic understanding of the concept and now other than a list of times and temps im confident that i can sous vide anything 

though the finishing process timing of a few items may be a tricky thing to adjust to 

now to search for the Sous vide Horror story threads


----------



## chefbillyb (Feb 8, 2009)

Just got my cow back from my butcher. The cow was raised on pasture along with a hint of mashed potatoes and gravy. We have our pigs on pasture and there was no way the cow would stand for them getting all the good food. We have a lot of produce processors in our area. We could get a call to pick up tons of broken pallet corn on the cob, french fries and so on. Needless to say the cow got plenty of fat while growing up on the farm. I expect to see some nice marbling in all of the meat. This is a Rump roast that I will Sous Vide on Sunday. The roast looks to be well marbled. I'm looking forward to seeing how to come out. I'll Sous vide the roast at 131 degree for about 14 to 16 hours...





  








IMG_0109.JPG




__
chefbillyb


__
Sep 16, 2016











  








IMG_4859.JPG




__
chefbillyb


__
Oct 7, 2016


----------



## chefbillyb (Feb 8, 2009)

I took the Rump roast out of the water bath after 26 hrs. The roast was as tender as prime rib.





  








IMG_0768.JPG




__
chefbillyb


__
Oct 9, 2016











  








IMG_3729.JPG




__
chefbillyb


__
Oct 9, 2016











  








IMG_3143.JPG




__
chefbillyb


__
Oct 9, 2016


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

ChefBillyB said:


> I took the Rump roast out of the water bath after 26 hrs. The roast was as tender as prime rib.


Stunning. Wow.


----------



## stevepark (Apr 3, 2017)

Has anyone experienced using a large scale Sous Vide machine like 150 liters or 250 liters ?


----------



## marioowilson (Nov 1, 2020)

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. It seems much newer here compared to Europe, which makes sense given it was invented there. For example, I think Europe has a lot more things in the freezer section of the grocery store that has been sous vide (based on what I've read), but the US doesn't really have much. I'm new to sous vide, so just trying to learn more about it. It's an interesting concept, but I wasn't sure how people who don't really know about sous vide would think of it.

Also can you sous vide almost anything and have it taste good (maybe with a bit of searing)? Like vegetables, etc. Can you do rice or pasta or risotto as well? I thought you might know given your experience


----------

