Sous Vide Cooking, Baby!

[SRW1000]

It's been a while since my last test, but I tried something new tonight - meatloaf! I've had a hankering for some for a few months now, and thought I'd try a test. Two batches, one standard the other sous vide, and try them side by side.

Well, the standard meatloaf turned out great, baked at 350 for 1.5 hours. The top was nice and brown, and the inside was really moist.

The sous vide version was a disaster. I had formed it into a loaf shape, and figured I'd cook it at 155 degrees for two hours, then pull the loaf out of the bag and bake it in the oven at 350 for about 20 minutes. That sounded like a good plan, but after two hours the consistency of the meatloaf was a cross between oatmeal and pudding. Absolutely revolting. I cut the bag open and poured the mixture into a loaf pan and put it into a 400 degree oven for 20 minutes, and tried it, but it was still too runny. Returned it to the oven at 300 degrees for another 15 minutes, and then left it in the oven to see if it would firm up.

Flavor-wise, there was no difference. Because the sous vide version didn't hit as high of a temp, the onions remained much more crispy, but there was no taste difference between the two.

So, in summary, there's no reason what so ever to cook meatloaf via sous vide. It's extra work, and the results are no better than the standard, baked version.

Scott

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Interesting... and funny story how you describe the oatmeal pudding.

I need to get my setup back out and try some more stuff.

 

[SRW1000]

Yes, please give something a shot and report back. I definitely recommend chicken breasts if you haven't tried them yet. Transformative.

The sous vide meatloaf turned out better after letting it continue to bake in the oven after turning off the heat, probably for another 40 minutes. It rescued it, but it still wasn't any better than the traditional version.

Oh well, nothing lost, and it's always fun to try something new.

 

[mechman]

That was a funny story!

 

[SRW1000]

In celebration of finding a new job, my wife let me purchase the Avid Armor chamber vac that I had posted earlier in this thread.

Here's a link for the product page: Avid Armor Ultra Series USV32 Chamber Vacuum Sealer System

It came a week or two ago, and I have to say it's a pretty impressive unit. Even though it's half the weight of the commercial ones out there, it's still solid, and seems well-built. I like that they include an a replacement gasket and sealing bar to help extend the life of the unit without having to order those parts. It features adjustable vacuum times and sealing times to account for different items and bags.

The next challenge will be to find 4 mil bags for it. While Avid Armor prides themselves as being an American company, the vac and their bags are, unfortunately, made in China. I'm not concerned about the vac, but I'd prefer to buy bags made in the USA, or at least North America.

The advantage for sous vide is that with a vacuum chamber you don't need to dry off the food before sealing and you can also add sauces (such as barbeque, soy, teriyaki, etc.) to the bag and not have to worry about liquids leaking into the machine or keeping the bag from sealing.

For tonight, we had asparagus, cooked with butter in the bag. Turned out great. The asparagus retains all of the flavor, the small amount of liquid is sublime and mixed perfectly with the butter. It's one of those dishes that really shines with sous vide. After cooking you can serve as is, throw it on the grill for a char, or even just give it a quick fry in the pan.

I'll report later on other saucy or wet results with this new vacuum sealer. If anyone has any questions or suggestions on what to try, let me know.

Scott

 

[Sonnie Parker]

So I guess I'm not seeing the advantage of this $600 vacuum sealer over the one I paid maybe $150 and has worked like a charm for several years.

 

[SRW1000]

So I guess I'm not seeing the advantage of this $600 vacuum sealer over the one I paid maybe $150 and has worked like a charm for several years.

That's a fair question. Here are some of the benefits:

• Bags are much, much cheaper. Since they don't need to be textured to channel out the air like the FoodSaver style ones are, they're much loss costly to produce. For example, a pack of 44 one quart FoodSaver bags is currently selling for $19.99 on Amazon. For $25.69 you can get 200 quart size chamber vac bags
• You can easily freeze liquids in bags. While you can freeze liquids with a FoodSaver, it typically involves either freezing the liquids ahead of time, or carefully timing the seal process to avoid sucking any liquids into the machine. Since the chamber vac pulls all of the air out of the chamber, it doesn't pull liquid out of the bags. This allows you to easily preserve soups, stews, gravies, and sauces and also marinate meats without fuss. And it also allows you to make instant pickles! (Well, not quite instant, it takes about a minute.) Some of this can be done with regular vacuum sealer if it allows for an external jar adapter
• It's a much more powerful unit. While a FoodSaver-type sealer might pull 20-24Hg, a chamber vac will get to around 28-29Hg, which is close to the perfect 30Hg vacuum. That may not sound like a big deal, but it can make a difference for things like ground meat. No matter how hard I massaged my meat bag (sorry, poor choice of words there), there would always be pockets of air left in bags, which can lead to small sections of freezer burn. With the higher power of the chamber vac, and the more flexible bags, that should be a thing of the past
• The units often have adjustable settings, so more fragile foods don't get crushed. You can get a similar effect with a FoodSaver type, if it includes a pulse function or you have great timing at hit the seal button at the perfect time.
• They're generally better-built machines, with most of them meant for restaurant use. While the normal sealers can last a long time, it's not uncommon to see lots of complaints about them only lasting a few years before they stop working. Chamber vacs are a long-term investment.
• You can do fun stuff with the chamber vac that just can't be done with a regular sealer. An example is compressed fruits, which not only makes them look semi-translucent and jewel-like, but also concentrates the flavor:

(Regular watermelon on the left, compressed watermelon on the right)
Article can be found here: Anthology of compressed fruits (under vacuum)
​

So, there are advantages of a chamber vac, but I'm more than willing to admit it's not necessary for everyone. I looked at it as both a tool that does stuff a regular sealer can't, but also as a fun gadget that not many people are aware of.

Scott

 

[Sonnie Parker]

So in this case you come close to getting what you pay for, if you do a lot of vacuum sealing.

 

[SRW1000]

Yeah, if you consider the savings per bag over time, and the slightly better results, along with it being likely that it will last longer.

But even considering all of those things, it's probably not worth the additional cost for the vast majority of people.

If I'd have to liken it to something more familiar to this forum, it's sort of like buying amps and separates over an AV processor. Sure, the receiver is probably fine for most people, but the amps can last for a long, long time allowing you save some money by just upgrading the preamp. Will it save you money in the long run? Maybe.

But the trip along the way is more fun with the more expansive option.

Call it the curse of the enthusiast.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Amen to that!

 

[SRW1000]

It's been a while since I posted any results, so here's some pictures of tonight's meal. For the last couple of years, Costco has been offering deals on boneless pork loins between Thanksgiving and Christmas, with the price per pound ending up being about $1 per pound. It's a fantastic deal, and I cut one up into chops and a couple of roasts, then sealed and froze them for future use.

This was one of the loin roasts from 2019, which I had generously sprinkled with Bavarian seasoning before sealing, and then cooked for 5.5 hours at 145 degrees. The upper left picture is straight out of the bag after cooking, so it's not all that pretty or appetizing. The upper right is at a different angle but after using the Su-VGun (this is sooooo much fun to use!), and the bottom picture is of the first few slices:

And the results? Fantastic! Such a good pork flavor, and absolutely fork-tender. The pictures make it look like it's a little dry, but that wasn't the case at all, just not a great picture; each piece was nice and juicy. The outside char really brought out the flavor of the meat, and it only needed a shake of salt to complete the flavor profile.

Sides (not pictured) were broccoli and parsley potatoes. I'm mentioning them because the potatoes were also made sous vide, but I cheated with them. I grabbed a can of sliced potatoes, threw them in a vacuum pouch with salt, butter, and parsley , then vacuum sealed the bag and tossed them in the water bath with the pork for five hours. They turned out really, really good. the butter was mostly absorbed by the potatoes, and the little bit of liquid left was thick enough to drip over them once they were plated. The results were much better than I had expected, and this will be a new method that I'm going to be using much more frequently in the future.

I've made pork loins sous vide before, and this turned out to be one of the better ones. Now that I've got the vacuum chamber sealer, I want to experiment with adding some barbeque sauce and liquid smoke to one of these.

Scott

 

[SRW1000]

Happy Easter, everyone.

As a special treat this morning, I made some Starbucks-style sous vide egg bites. It's something I always wanted try. It's such a versatile process that it can easily be adapted to what you have on hand. I happened to have some leftover turkey bacon from Saturday, so I combined that with some eggs, dehydrated green onions, diced gouda cheese, heavy whipping cream, tarragon, thyme, salt, and pepper. Instead of cream, you can use mayonnaise, cream cheese, cottage cheese, yogurt, or similar products. And for fillings, it's just about any savory ingredient, it's really up to personal taste. If you have company, the toppings can even be customized to each guest.

The eggs, cream, and spices were mixed together in my Vitamix, but you could just mix them in a bowl (the blender might make them a bit fluffier). Fillings were added to greased Pyrex jars, then filling added to the each one. I used six eggs for four jars. Here's where I made a couple of mistakes. First, I should have weighed out the egg mixture, but I thought I could eyeball it. That didn't work, and I over-filled the first two jars. That proved to be an issue, since pouring the extra into the remaining jars resulted in the egg mixture running down the sides. What a mess. The better process would have been to tare out the weight of the Vitamix container, and then divide by the number of jars, then weigh each one. Modern scales make that process a breeze.

The second issue is that the jars should have been bigger. I thought I'd try out my new vacuum chamber to seal the jars, but they were a bit too small, so the vacuum process actually caused them to boil and spill out of the jars, making a mess inside the chamber. Luckily, the inside of the chamber is stainless steel, so it was easy to clean, but it meant cleaning the jars again, for a second time.

The alternative process to this is to just fil the jars as normal, and seal the jars so they're just finger tight, skipping the vacuum process. This allows the air to escape the jars without exploding, and doesn't risk pulling any of the egg mixture out of the jars.

The eggs then cook at 167 degrees for one hour, after which you can eat them, or cool them in an ice bath and refrigerate for later. I made these last night, so opted for the later. They can last in the refrigerator for days, so it's easy enough to make them ahead of time. To reheat, you can either pop them in the microwave, or return them to the water bath long enough to heat up. I opted for the microwave.

Here's the other mistake I made, the jars on hand have openings that are smaller than the bodies o the jar. While they look nice, it makes it a pain to remove the eggs, and the only way to do it breaks them apart. hence I have provided no pictures since they were a chaotic mess. The ideal jars will have completely straight sides.

But what were the results? They were fantastic! I was a little worried that microwaving them would result in a rubbery texture, but they were soft, light, fluffy, and silky. Some of the cheese melted into the egg mixture, but there were still small chunks of cheese that remained melty smooth. The bacon and herbs were distributed nicely throughout the mixture, and the flavors carried through to each bite.

I will definitely be making these again, as the effort is minimal but the payoff is big, and makes for a wonderful egg-perience. Being able to make them ahead of time is a big bonus.

Scott

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Sounds good... where are the pics?

 

[SRW1000]

It was the wrong style jar, so they completely broke apart when getting them out o the jar, so not presentation-worthy.

Didn't affect the texture or flavor in any way, though.

 

[SRW1000]

Stopped at Costco this weekend, and they happened to have some beef short ribs for just over $4 per pound. This was a different cut than they usually have, and much cheaper than the normal $8 per pound price, so we thought we'd try them out.

Split the pack in two (they were too big to fit in a single bag), seasoned one with just salt and pepper, and added one packet of Savory Choice Beef Demi Glace to the other. Cooked both of them at 160 degrees for 24 hours. The first night we had the salt an pepper batch. They were so good, tender enough to cut with a spoon, but not so tender that they shredded apart when poking them. The beef flavor really stood out, and we were happy that we bought them. The other bag was chilled and then put in the refrigerator for two days.

The second bag was reheated for a couple of hours at 160 degrees. Since they were already cooked, they only needed reheating. Just cutting open the bag it was obvious that these were something special. The addition of the demi glace was enough to push these to another level. The salt and pepper version was really tasty, but combining the ribs with the sauce added an extra dimension of flavor that amplified the beefiness.

We will definitely be buying these again if they're still available. I ordered some short ribs from a restaurant a couple of months ago, and they were like tough, chewy, flavorless pot roast in comparison. Huge win for sous vide and Costco short ribs.

Apologies in advance for not including pictures. The wife was ready with the camera, but they started to pull apart when pulling them from the bag. Try as we might, there was just no way to arrange them in a way that would do the meal justice.

Scott

 

[Michael Scott]

I have a friend who is a FANATIC about Sous Vide. he always makes good meat with it, but I haven't taken the plunge yet

 

[SRW1000]

I have a friend who is a FANATIC about Sous Vide. he always makes good meat with it, but I haven't taken the plunge yet

That's cool. It's not the best technique for every kind of meat, but it is the best for certain kinds of meat.

There are lots of different immersion circulators out there now, so they're really affordable. Might be a good time for you to give it a shot.

My wife just stopped by our local Costco again this week and bought another package of the beef short ribs. They were priced under $4.00 a pound.

Scott

 

[SRW1000]

Been a while since I've posted anything sous vide related, so I thought I'd add some pictures from tonight.

A few days late, but here's a lower-sodium corned beef cooked at 160 degrees F for 18.5 hours:

The carrots and potatoes were roasted in the oven, and the cabbage was boiled in the meat juices.

At this temp the meat was still firm. Not shredable, but very easy to cut with a fork. Still moist, and the flavor was fantastic. I've made regular corned beef sous vide before, but it was way too salty. This was right at my salt limit, which is normally quite high.

I'd definitely make this one again.

Scott

 

[SRW1000]

Was out picking up a few last items for Christmas Eve and happened upon a prime rib roast for just over $5/pound. We snapped it up, cut it up into two smaller roasts and four thick steaks.

Made one of the roasts overnight for 14 hours at 131 degrees. Turned out great. Tender enough to cut with a fork with excellent beef flavor.

Roasted it for about 12 minutes at 425 degrees in the convection oven. Served with mashed potatoes and roasted carrots.

Scott

 

[mechman]

Yummy!!!

 

[SRW1000]

Happy New Year, everyone!

We decided to do a surf and turf for our special meal this year. First up, was a ribeye steak. But not just ordinary ribeye, this is a locally sourced Wagyu steak.

Three hours later at 132 degrees, and it comes out of the bag looking sort of anemic.

But that's what the torch is for, and five minutes later it looks much, much better:

While that was going on, I also had some scallops going for 30 minutes at 128 degrees. As a side dish, I made a simple rice dish with pecans, mushrooms, and peas, which made for a very nice accompaniment.

Here's the plated dish:

The ribeye was tender as can be, perfectly done at a medium rare. The char from the torch added a pleasant taste that was somewhat reminiscent of a charcoal grill flavor. The scallops were so soft you could have cut them with a spoon, not even close to being rubbery.

For anyone that has an interest in sous vide, I can't recommend the process highly enough. We've used ours at least 150 times over the past nine years, and the results continue to amaze. While it's not impossible to get a steak cooked medium rare, it's not easy to avoid the dreaded gray band using conventional methods. As for the scallops, it only takes seconds to go from tender to bouncy rubber in a pan, but sous vide makes it almost fool proof.

Scott

 

[Michael Scott]

soooooooooo, I think I need to drive down there for dinner lol

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Looks awesome. That's about three bites for me... we had leftover Tomahawks tonight... from last night... cooked on the charcoal Hasty Bake.

 

[SRW1000]

This one is for the adventurous amongst you, and not for anyone who might be particularly squeamish.

One of local home theater enthusiasts and I went in on 1/4 of a locally grown Wagyu steer last fall. As we were splitting up the cuts of meat there was liver and tongue to choose from. I picked the tongue, and so glad that I did.

Now, many people find the idea of eating tongue off-putting, but I've always been a fan of blood and tongue sausage (yes, I was raised in a very German part of the USA), and I've enjoyed buffalo tongue before, but had never made it myself.

I did my research on it and settled on 24 hours at 172 degrees.

Here's the before pic where it was still partially frozen and folded over on itself:

And here it is a day later and with the outer skin peeled off. (You don't want to eat the skin.)

I know, I know, it doesn't look that great. The next step was to slice it, but it was so tender that it wasn't easy. I also diced some of it up. The sliced were fried in a pan, getting a really nice and flavorful crust. The diced pieces were also fried up but with some chili powder. We then served them up as tacos for some of my wife's friends that joined us for dinner.

So, how did it turn out? Fantastic! The tongue had a super intense beef flavor, similar to pot roast. The meat was so soft you could easily cut it with a knife and the browned crisp edges were scrumptious. The chili powder obscured some of the beef taste, and I greatly preferred just plain salt and pepper.

So, if you've feeling adventurous some day and looking for something new and unusual, take a look at cow tongue. It's worth hunting for and preparing.

Scott

 

[Sonnie Parker]

The first thing I thought of was when I saw it with the skin peeled back was pot roast. Seems there is a lot of meat in the tongue.