Sous Vide

Unfortunately live langoustines here are far more expensive than lobster.
You can buy frozen langoustine meat but I think not the same species.

After Bill's comment I looked up octopus sv recipes. But when I went to f-monger only had baby octopus. Did those (sv for 1 hour, then toss with lemon/evoo and char)- very good, but it's not hard to keep baby octopus tender.

Did my first sous vide dry aged ribeye, came out perfect (129F for hour, then quick sear). But not too hard to do that on grill (with reverse sear), and lots quicker. But if I was doing for a big dinner party (and knew everyone was ok with medium rare) would be a great way to do 6-12 steaks at once

[Jenise]

Went to a dinner party last night where an Anovo sous vide machine was in use. I really like it's compact style (it's more so than my Senova). Butter poached baby lobster tails made an exemplary first course (130, one hour) over vermicelli with tarragon, and pork tenderloin (more cooked than I would have liked it) with mushrooms made an appearance in a later course.

In order to please a crowd with tastes ranging from rare to well or medium well, start with the water bath at the temp for the most well-done. Put in however many steaks need to reach that doneness, and sous vide long enough to get the interior to that temperature. Then, cool the water bath to the temp needed for next most well done you need and add those steaks to the ones already in, and sous vide long enough to get them to temp. Repeat this process for the most rare, then sous vide long enough for the last ones into the pool to achieve the tenderness sous vide allows. As long as the interior reaches the temp for the doneness desired, even well-done fans will be happy. The tenderizing effect will continue even after the bath has been cooled for the next step.

People have mentioned searing with a blow torch. I have had steaks torch finished and seared in clarified butter. Seared in butter produces a much better crunchy browning. Remove from the bag, dry with paper towels, salt and pepper, and into the sear, without letting the meat cool between the sous vide and the sear.

So Jim, are you saying that the first steaks in the water bath won't cook any more during the time they are left in at a lower temperature? They'll just hold no matter how long they remain in the water?

My understanding of sous vide is that it confers two advantages, exquisite control of doneness, and tenderness imparted by long cooking times.

The first ones into the pool will get to the desired doneness as soon as the interior reaches the required temperature. There is no additional cooking required to get to the proper doneness, however the tenderness of the well-done steaks will continue to improve over time, even at the cooler temperatures used for the less well-done.

For already tender cuts such as Porterhouse, no tenderizing time is needed. Follow the steps I outlined, and you are ready for the searing as soon as your rarest pieces come up to temp. Required time to interior doneness is dependent on the thickness of the piece of meat; estimates are available at the sous vide seller's web sites.

I have not done roasts yet, but steaks can be left in too long. I experimented with flank steak; four hours was great, but at six hours, the texture went south, approaching mushy.

If temperature X is required for "well" then water of temperature X is the only thing that matters; no amount of time in water of temperature Y (Y less than X) is going to change it. (Jim says it may continue to tenderize, but that is not doneness.)

[David M. Bueker]

So I did those extra thick pork chops with the sous vide, and they were much better. I erred on the high side of water temp, and next time will keep it a bit lower, but it really did work quite well. I am finding that the food needs more (than normal) seasoning on it before it gets bagged, but it's all good!

David, what did you set the temp for and how long did it take? And did you sear them after cooking?

I did skin-on boneless chicken thighs a couple of nights ago using a Michael Voltaggio recipe. They were bagged with some fresh thyme and butter and then put into the sous vide bath for an hour and a half at 150 degrees. The recipe calls for chilling them quickly (in an ice bath) and then keeping them cold until just before serving. At that point, you put them into a pan with hot canola oil, crisp the skin, flip them, and then keep them in the pan until they're warmed through. Gotta say, this did not work for me. Everything went fine until I put them in the hot pan with the canola oil. As soon as they went into the pan, a bunch of liquid cooked out and sizzled away, preventing the skin from crisping. I had dried the thighs with paper towels but this did not seem to make a difference. On top of that, the skin stuck to the pan, so it was difficult to turn them without leaving it behind. When I took them out, they were fine, but certainly no better than chicken thighs cooked any other way. They were served on a bed of "risotto" made as per the Julia Childs recipe in Mastering the Art of French Cooking. The rice was more distinctive than the chicken. Looking back at this, it's possible I put too much butter in the bags with the chicken, and that may account for the excess liquid cooking out of the chicken. (It browned a bit, so that also makes me think it was butter.). I guess we'll see if I ever try this one again.

...Everything went fine until I put them in the hot pan with the canola oil...

Perhaps putting them under the broiler would be a better approach?

Good idea, Howie - in retrospect, that might have worked better.

...Everything went fine until I put them in the hot pan with the canola oil...

Perhaps putting them under the broiler would be a better approach?

I was going to suggest that they could be grilled on the BBQ, but if the sous vide process loosened the sins and your grill wasn't clean and oiled (like mine is - at least a couple of times a year) they might well stick too. Your suggestion might be better, howie, but I think the basic issue is if they aren't going to be better than a marinate and grill chicken, why bother with the SV?

You can cook meat too long (according to Kenji at Serious Eats) where meats start to break down, but window for most things is pretty wide- for steaks & chops 45 minutes to 4 hours. I've done carrots at 183 and then lowered (with ice) to 140 for meat and the carrots stayed in water; my plan for the next time we have folks for steaks is to poll re doneness in advance, and then follow Jim's method. A lot easier to do that for 10-15 people than try to do on grill alone, this way can have entire grill on high for searing everything.

Mike, too bad about the chicken thighs. I've only done breasts (with herbs but no butter) and the skin crisped great, but thing you might be right about the butter.

Good pork medium rare (130) is pretty incredible. Even the USDA is okay with 130 if for 30 minutes (at set temp, so figure 30 minutes from minimum for that doneness for a chop or tenderloin). I did pork tenderloin (with shallots, thyme, parsley) for 2+ hours then quick sear, incredibly juicy and flavorful. Way kind of perfect for me- vacupacked that AM, stopped by house on way back from a meeting at 3:30 and started Anovabath, got home at 5:45 and seared so Betsy could leave for a meeting at 6:30.

About the butter in the bag...

I don't remember the source, but someone who claimed to have experimented wrote that if you add fat to the bag, you will end up with liquid fat strongly flavored by any herbs you use. The implication was that herb flavor intended for your protein ended up in a puddle of fat at the bottom of the bag instead.

I wonder about the recommendation to chill the chicken thighs. Was this sold as a way to enhance the dish in some way, or so that the chicken could be prepared a day or more ahead of time? I think the skin would crisp better if it was dried off, seasoned and seared right out of the water bath, at that temperature.

If done for convenience, I'd try chilling and storing the bag in the refrigerator, then bringing it back up to temp in the sous vide bath before final searing.

I definitely will not include any butter if I make this again. That likely would work out much better.

On the chilling, Jim, I am guessing that the idea is to maintain the sous vide texture through the searing process. According to the recipe, it takes something like 8 - 10 minutes to sear, and I could see how that might overdo that chicken if it weren't cold.

Now I'm getting tempted to try it again....

[David M. Bueker]

David, what did you set the temp for and how long did it take? And did you sear them after cooking?

I did 145 degrees F for a first attempt, as my wife is a little touchy about pink pork. The chops stayed in for about 90 minutes, then got a quick sear.

Next time I will be dropping the temp.

Reviving this thread (was it really so long ago?)

Todays (UK) Guardian newspaper food magazine in its regular column where readers ask food questions, deals with Is it worth trying sous-vide at home?

see https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/m ... tchen-aide

Here we have a great number of ready prepared foods and I have tried several meats cooked sous-vide*. They are very soft, trying to carve a joint is difficult because the meat just shreds under the knife. I avoid them now, the meat is too soft, there's nothing to bite.

*They come in the thick plastic bag they've been cooked in in a deep foil tray which you cut open and deposit the contents in the foil dish and put in oven. Example at https://www.marksandspencer.com/smokeho ... /p60071022

[Jenise]

Peter, that's the reason I don't love all things sous vide. Filet mignon, already super-tender, doesn't need it. But New York strips, which are kind of tough to my palate, do benefit.

However, what you're describing is just overcooked. There are two goals in sous vide, doneness and tenderness. Doneness is achieved by the temperature limit you set it at, while tenderness is achieved by time. Too much time = too much tenderness and that sawdust texture you're talking about. Doesn't have to turn out like that.

One thing sous vide does well is a foie gras torchon. Traditional way is to lightly simmer a 'log' of foie gras in a small pot of Sauternes. The sous vide allows you to effect the same thing, but using only a modest amount of wine surrounding the FG and leaving the rest of the wine to lighten the day of the cook!

I wouldn't judge sous-vide based on supermarket takeout.
I think the article moaning the expense of the "kit" is only applicable if you really aren't into cooking. The only thing really necessary is the actual precision cooker, which are now under $100. You can just use ziplocks and water displacement method if you don't have vacuum sealer (but I think sealer is worth it just for freezing). If I can spend $100 on food for a dinner party, think I can splurge for a tool that will last years.
I don't use SV every day or even every week, but it is my favorite method for salmon, pork chops or tenderloin, carrots, and several other dishes. I do sometimes use it for steaks, but not always (but it;s great for multiple diners with different doneness- do everything at 125, then take out the done rare to MR steaks and turn up to 138-140 for 20-30 minutes to get rest to medium) The butter poached lobster is doable without sous vide, but man it's easier with it.
I'd love to try the foie gras
SV is not for everyone and certainly not for every dish, but it has its place.