Jump to content

Sous-Vide or Not Sous-Vide, That is the Quest: Shun.


bbhasin

Recommended Posts

I am interested in learning more about 'sous-vide' cooking and restaurants in the DC Metro area that use this cooking method. All I know at the moment is that the food is cooked in vacuum sealed plastic bags immersed in water at a constant temp of just below boiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in learning more about 'sous-vide' cooking and restaurants in the DC Metro area that use this cooking method. All I know at the moment is that the food is cooked in vacuum sealed plastic bags immersed in water at a constant temp of just below boiling.

Citronelle uses this method for short ribs. Or did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly is overused, but I would not say that it does not have its place.

Name one thing in the world that's "overused" that doesn't have "its place" in limited quantities.

I grew up on this boil-in-bag garbage, and I'm calling sous-vide cooking out for the complete, total, 70s-era, TV-dinner bullshit that it has yet-again become. Remember I said this five years from now.

Restaurants should pay ME to eat it.

Cheers,

Rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am not a fan of sous vide. I have had dishes cooked sv from some of DC's best chef's where I thought the texture is almost always "wrong" or "off" even when the item is crisped or finished so it has a crust etc. It seems to be a method that in gemeral takes food away from its natural state, and lets not get technical, cooked in not natural but that is not what I am referring.

Having said that, I just had 3 dishes made SV that amazed me: Eola's 24 hour SV pork heart and Nick Stefanelli's "speck and lardo sous vide" where the resultant items had a very toothy texture and were also tender as well {although the speck was merely very good while the lardo beyond category}.

If I had more dishes like this, I would say that in general it is a good thing if used well. But the best I can say right now is that in maybe 40 or 50 SV dishes I have had, I have had 2 wonderful ones and 1 very good ones and somewhere between 37 and 47 blah to bad ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am not a fan of sous vide. I have had dishes cooked sv from some of DC's best chef's where I thought the texture is almost always "wrong" or "off" even when the item is crisped or finished so it has a crust etc. It seems to be a method that in gemeral takes food away from its natural state, and lets not get technical, cooked in not natural but that is not what I am referring.

Having said that, I just had 3 dishes made SV that amazed me: Eola's 24 hour SV pork heart and Nick Stefanelli's "speck and lardo sous vide" where the resultant items had a very toothy texture and were also tender as well {although the speck was merely very good while the lardo beyond category}.

If I had more dishes like this, I would say that in general it is a good thing if used well. But the best I can say right now is that in maybe 40 or 50 SV dishes I have had, I have had 2 wonderful ones and 1 very good ones and somewhere between 37 and 47 blah to bad ones.

i had my first experience of sous vide cooking at El Celler de Can Roca in Girona maybe five years ago, and it was pretty exciting, unconventional and really delicious. there's a good chance i will never get back and an equal chance that i will never again encounter sous vide chefs who are as expert as the Spanish in this technique. i think you really have to immerse yourself in it and experiment to get the most out of it, and that is typically not the way restaurants in these parts work.

on a lesser note, because it's more a garnish than anything else, i think foam has gotten a bad rap around here. don't know the extent to which they are being used now, but they showed up at several restaurants in barcelona and were impressive. i've had good foam here, too, at palena, for one, but most of the foams i've encountered since aren't the combination of essential flavor and air they are meant to be and all too often collapse into a puddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think foam has gotten a bad rap around here.

 
I have never had a foam that I though added textural/flavor interest to a dish that the actual ingredient did have in itself. Again, my prejudices are well know. The best foams I have had were at Alto when Scott Conant was cooking and it was a very special wine dinner and he was definitely involved with the dinner intimately in the kitchen. I remember thinking to my self after tasting, IIRC, a sous vide cooked tortellini stuffing with a reggiano foam, can't I just have some braised meat and some gosh darned shaved Reggiano?

I am a luddite at heart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting project if you have a little skill and interest.

Here's a better one:

Call out the restaurants who are using the sous-vide technique - not the ones using it as an adjunct, but the ones using it as a primary means of cooking (or purchasing their semi-cooked products).

Sous-vide is to restaurants what steroids are to baseball. It is going to be one of the great culinary scandals of this decade, and I want you to remember that I said this - not five, maybe not ten, but twenty years from now. My words are marked here for posterity.

In case you think I'm anti sous-vide, I happen to think it may just be the best possible solution to school lunches - not to mention airlines, trains, hospitals, banquets, the military, and other lowbrow AFO (away-from-oven) scenarios. I also happen to think human growth hormone (call it "steroids" if you want to) is a Godsend to anyone - especially the elderly - who has muscle wasting from surgery, injury, disease, etc.

But both steroids and sous-vide are being abused as substitutes for talent at the highest level, foisted upon an enthusiastic but unknowing fan base.

Five years ago I wrote this, and I stand by it to this very day, regardless of whether or not I stand alone.

Cheers,

Secretariat.

P.S. Enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A note to restaurateurs and chefs everywhere:

Unless you're in charge of food on an airline, hospital, school cafeteria, catering operation, or prison system, don't spend too much time or money over-committing to sous-vide cooking in the long term, because I'm going to spend a fair amount of time dismantling the fallacy of "this generation's microwave oven" which is the single biggest problem facing fine-dining restaurants today - mainly because of critics who are not discerning enough to recognize when it's being abused.

I'm not saying I can't be fooled some of the time, especially when it comes to vegetables which can be done quite well using this method, but when all proteins start coming out at the same temperature and consistency (i.e., meats like a fucking brick, fish like a fibrous mush), and you think you can get away with "adjusting the temperature of the water" or "leaving it in for a bit longer" or "finishing it on the grill on both sides instead of one" or "drowning it in sauce," well ... the sad thing is that you probably CAN in the short term. But in the long term, you can't and you won't, and I'm not going to let you.

Go back to school, learn how to cook, and you've been given fair warning. This is enough to make me want to STAY HOME and do it better myself.

Rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be that chefs, not unlike other management types, are enamored with new technology and think that it will solve all of their problems? The adaptation of sous-vide reminds me of a former customer that I had that once said its software, it can do anything, well it can't, and one cooking method cannot be adapted to all foods. Whether software or sous-vide, the technology should be used for what it does best, not tried to shoehorned into some sort of panacea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem isn't the use of sous vide, because when done properly, it's a great technique. There are a lot of great chefs who use it. And I don't understand how meat comes out "like a fucking brick"...that's not because of the use of sous-vide, but perhaps the overuse of some other worldly substances...transglutaminase comes to mind.

By the way, I love my Sous Vide Supreme.

And no, they don't pay me to say that nor do they give me anything for free.

Dismantle away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't get the anti-sous-vide thing. It's not about the technique, it's about the food. Does it appear on your plate with good flavor, texture and appearance? Eat it and enjoy! Is the flavor off? Texture mushy? Is it colorless and unappealing to the eye? Send it back, complain to the chef, or simply take your business elsewhere. That's true whether it's cooked sous-vide, in a pan, in the oven, or on a grill. OK, so maybe you've had a bunch of bad meals cooked sous-vide. I'm sure you've had some pretty crappy pan-fried food, too. Are you going to campaign against pans?

Focus on the food on the plate. Let the kitchen worry about how it gets there. If chefs hear, often enough, that the stuff coming out of their sous-vide bags sucks, they'll move on to something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't get the anti-sous-vide thing. It's not about the technique, it's about the food.

I believe that what Don is complaining about is that too many kitchens are using it as an easy way to consistent results, but consistently bad. I have no problem with the technique, but I do have a problem with its current application, I think that a piece of fish poached gently in stock has a superior flavor, texture, and complexity over those that are cooked in a bag, but on the other hand many vegetables cooked via sous-vide are superior to those that come in contact with water (whether boiling, or steam).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focus on the food on the plate. Let the kitchen worry about how it gets there. If chefs hear, often enough, that the stuff coming out of their sous-vide bags sucks, they'll move on to something else.

Technique matters from another perspective: there have been articles written about how many plastic tasting spoons go into landfills thanks to a busy night in a large, successful restaurant. Sous-vide bags also increase the amount of non-biodegradable material used in local businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what he's complaining about, but the focus should be on the bad food. Let the chefs worry about the technique.

Exactly.

Do you mean the chefs assembling the food in the cry-o-vac bags and shipping it to the restaurants, or the drones in the restaurants heating and storing it for future use and/or finishing it for final prep?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious that your feelings about sous-vide being "a cancer" in the restaurants where you've dined are quite strong. Personally, I'm more offended by the lack of the ability to properly salt food - it's much more widely pervasive and has ruined more of my meals than improperly used sous-vide cookery.

And to extrapolate that to mean the sous-vide should not be allowed to be a tool in the hands of a chef who knows how to use it properly doesn't make that much sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious that your feelings about sous-vide being "a cancer" in the restaurants where you've dined are quite strong. Personally, I'm more offended by the lack of the ability to properly salt food - it's much more widely pervasive and has ruined more of my meals than improperly used sous-vide cookery.

And to extrapolate that to mean the sous-vide should not be allowed to be a tool in the hands of a chef who knows how to use it properly doesn't make that much sense to me.

Far worse than any of that is the horrendous temperature in which red wines are served in most places. Does it really have to be that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far worse than any of that is the horrendous temperature in which red wines are served in most places. Does it really have to be that way?

I'd be remiss if I didn't agree with you, and (as most probably know) I've railed against this for years. However, until people begin SENDING WINES BACK FOR BEING TOO WARM, the problem will continue. This can be done very politely, and what I usually do is ask them to stick the glass (or bottle) in the freezer for about five minutes. Still, until a critical mass of people begin complaining about this, it will continue. This is worth a separate topic if there already isn't one.

But sous-vide is a much more insidious problem, and few are fully aware of its reach into the fine-dining arena. It has its place, just as modern technology has its place in winemaking, but its abuse and overuse have become rampant, and diners - even educated diners - have yet to figure it out. My thoughts on this subject may be derided by some people now, but all I'll say is: I'm confidently on record. Someone needs to be the first to say this: Let it be me, and let's look back at this thread in five or ten years. (I say "five or ten" because one cannot overestimate the blindness of the general dining population - refer to Bobby's Crab Cakes.)

Cheers,

Rocks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be remiss if I didn't agree with you, and (as most probably know) I've railed against this for years. However, until people begin SENDING WINES BACK FOR BEING TOO WARM, the problem will continue. This can be done very politely, and what I usually do is ask them to stick the glass (or bottle) in the freezer for about five minutes. Still, until a critical mass of people begin complaining about this, it will continue. This is worth a separate topic if there already isn't one.

There is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36-Hour Short Ribs

slow cooked in a red wine sauce. Probably the best thing on the menu.

I'll call ya, 'n Ray's ya dubble, pardner.

Happy Tra(va)ils,

Rocks.

P.S. WHEN is a restaurant writer going to do an exposé on just how many restaurants in town are using this lazy technique? Todd Kliman wrote about its prevalence, but he didn't portray it as abusive; I view it as the single biggest problem facing fine dining today. It's an insidious weed, not unlike a silent cancer, and if you think otherwise, ask yourself this: when is the last time you've heard of a restaurant boast of using sous vide on their menu? It's always "long-cooked," or "72-hour braised." Yeah, right.

For the umpteenth time: It's GREAT for prisons, remote army bases, maybe even the frozen food section at Safeway. But for restaurants charging an arm and a leg for a dish and taking my hard-earned money for it? Screw you!

P.P.S. And just for the record, I'm on record about this almost four years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the chicken might have been cooked sous-vide before being finished in the oven, but it was still delicious roast chicken, brined for 24 hours before being cooked, and moist throughout - including the thickest portion of the breast meat.

The sous-vide technique is why it was as delicious as you say. (Well that and it was likely very high quality chicken, I would imagine). I don't mean to be overly harsh here, Don, but you might want to do some further investigation into the sous-vide method and how it allows food to be cooked ahead of time and then finished in the oven without any degrade in quality. The reason they finished it in the oven was more than likely to get a nice sear on it, which sous-vide doesn't allow for on its own. That's why when cooking a protein sous-vide you either blast it in an oven preheated to hot as Hades or in a cast iron skillet that is, again, as hot as a goddamn volcanic eruption. Because of the extreme temperatures being used during these final steps, you don't end up cooking the meat any further. Meat cooks from the outside in, meaning that the skin gets a browned, crispy exterior before the inside even has a chance to heat up any further. And since you have cooked the meat to a precise inner temp already during the sous-vide process, you get the best of both worlds every time: Juicy, tender and flavorful meat with a perfectly browned crust.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sous-vide technique is why it was as delicious as you say. (Well that and it was likely very high quality chicken, I would imagine). I don't mean to be overly harsh here, Don, but you might want to do some further investigation into the sous-vide method and how it allows food to be cooked ahead of time and then finished in the oven without any degrade in quality. The reason they finished it in the oven was more than likely to get a nice sear on it, which sous-vide doesn't allow for on its own. That's why when cooking a protein sous-vide you either blast it in an oven preheated to hot as Hades or in a cast iron skillet that is, again, as hot as a goddamn volcanic eruption. Because of the extreme temperatures being used during these final steps, you don't end up cooking the meat any further. Meat cooks from the outside in, meaning that the skin gets a browned, crispy exterior before the inside even has a chance to heat up any further. And since you have cooked the meat to a precise inner temp already during the sous-vide process, you get the best of both worlds every time: Juicy, tender and flavorful meat with a perfectly browned crust.

I'll look into it. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sous-vide technique is why it was as delicious as you say. (Well that and it was likely very high quality chicken, I would imagine). I don't mean to be overly harsh here, Don, but you might want to do some further investigation into the sous-vide method and how it allows food to be cooked ahead of time and then finished in the oven without any degrade in quality. The reason they finished it in the oven was more than likely to get a nice sear on it, which sous-vide doesn't allow for on its own. That's why when cooking a protein sous-vide you either blast it in an oven preheated to hot as Hades or in a cast iron skillet that is, again, as hot as a goddamn volcanic eruption. Because of the extreme temperatures being used during these final steps, you don't end up cooking the meat any further. Meat cooks from the outside in, meaning that the skin gets a browned, crispy exterior before the inside even has a chance to heat up any further. And since you have cooked the meat to a precise inner temp already during the sous-vide process, you get the best of both worlds every time: Juicy, tender and flavorful meat with a perfectly browned crust.

I recently acquired a home sous-vide device, and have been experimenting with a number of recipes and techniques provided by Kenji Lopez Alt (www.seriouseats.com)

Before I began tinkering, I knew about the precise temperature control the method provides, but I did not know it allows you to leave the food in the water bath well after the desired internal temperature has been reached. ("Well after" can mean three hours plus.) Easy to see the appeal of this method in a professional kitchen.

I also learned the cooking temperature can also produce a range of textures depending upon the protein involved.

One of my favorite uses has been to keep mashed potatoes warm. The method produced potatoes that tasted as if they had made minutes before.

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but I would wager many restaurants use sous vide, but don't announce it. If my memory serves me correctly, Rose's Luxury brines and then sous-vide's their chicken before they deep fry it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only point I see you're making is that like any other technique, it's up to the individual to use it properly. That's a fine point but it's also one I never disputed, nor is it one I disagree with.

JSnake, I'm not going to get into this all over again - there are hundreds of posts here about this. My problem with sous-vide is primarily one of texture - especially with animal proteins - secondarily one of temperature, and I'm going to leave it at that - your picture showed me nothing.

Ponder this, and then I'll let you have the final word: There have been *dozens* (I was going to say "hundreds," but I decided to be conservative and say "dozens") of times when I've been served a dish - often fish - with a texture that shouldn't be there. I've asked my server, "Do you know if this was cooked sous-vide?" And the answer has invariably been, "Yes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JSnake, I'm not going to get into this all over again - there are hundreds of posts here about this. My problem with sous-vide is primarily one of texture - especially with animal proteins - secondarily one of temperature, and I'm going to leave it at that - your picture showed me nothing.

Ponder this, and then I'll let you have the final word: There have been *dozens* (I was going to say "hundreds," but I decided to be conservative and say "dozens") of times when I've been served a dish - often fish - with a texture that shouldn't be there. I've asked my server, "Do you know if this was cooked sous-vide?" And the answer has invariably been, "Yes."

The method is certainly not to everyone's liking. Kenji discusses sous-vide chicken breasts at length, and I can certainly understand different textures can be off-putting to some.

That said, I prepared an aged boneless rib-eye sous-vide, and I was incredibly pleased with the result. The meat was cooked to a perfect medium rare throughout, without any overcooked/tough spots. Of course, browning is necessary to achieve the great crust most of us look for. The method also prevents over-cooking, and that's important when a $28 cut of beef is on the line.

I did try salmon filets as well, and while they were perfectly cooked, the texture was a bit soft for my taste.

Pork chops turned out perfectly as well. Since pork is so lean now, I find it is easy to overcook if I pan fry, roast, or grill it. I roasted a pork loin last night, and went over my desired temperature by a mere 6 degrees, and the result was a tough piece of pig.

BTW, thanks for moving my post to a much more appropriate area. I'm always amazed by the depth and quality of this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenji's sous vide recipes are top notch. I've made his pork belly for bao buns, pork chops, steaks, chicken breasts and thighs, and carrots. Next project is sausages -- and I want to make those from scratch since I was given the KitchenAid sausage stuffer attachment for Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The method is certainly not to everyone's liking. Kenji discusses sous-vide chicken breasts at length, and I can certainly understand different textures can be off-putting to some.

I've got to add one more thing: The one animal protein that I've been more-and-more surprised with is ... chicken breasts. It started with Nick Palermo's fried chicken at Old Angler's Inn - he par-cooked it sous-vide before frying it, and I *loved* it.

Don't forget: I ordered the chicken last night *after* knowing it was prepared sous-vide, and it was very good.

There's something about vegetables that respond very well to this technique; there's something about fish that doesn't. And there are people who use the technique well (R.J. Cooper, who you haven't heard the last of (yes, you can consider that kind-of sort-of breaking news)), and those who don't.

Cathal Armstrong *hates* the technique. Eric Ziebold feels it has its place, but is overused and often abused. I'm biased, but not prejudiced - I've had one-too-many good sous-vide chicken dishes to write it off for all animal proteins. I just don't know if it's the technique itself, or chefs that haven't been properly trained in using it - and I can't pretend to give you the correct answer. But I know from an extreme collection of data points that there are a *lot* of bad sous-vide meals out there, being served in restaurants, for a *lot* of money.

BourbonSteak, if I'm not mistaken, starts their steaks off sous-vide as well - when I first got the kitchen tour from David Varley, we stood in front of the sous-vide machine, and he used the euphemism "butter bath."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2016 at 7:54 PM, DonRocks said:

JSnake, I'm not going to get into this all over again - there are hundreds of posts here about this. My problem with sous-vide is primarily one of texture - especially with animal proteins - secondarily one of temperature, and I'm going to leave it at that - your picture showed me nothing.

Ponder this, and then I'll let you have the final word: There have been *dozens* (I was going to say "hundreds," but I decided to be conservative and say "dozens") of times when I've been served a dish - often fish - with a texture that shouldn't be there. I've asked my server, "Do you know if this was cooked sous-vide?" And the answer has invariably been, "Yes."

Again, and I mean this respectfully, I truly do, but the only thing you've demonstrated to me is that you've only experienced misuse of the technique. Saying your problem with sous vide is with the texture only tells me that you have a misunderstanding of the very mechanics under which this cooking method operates. Sous vide allows the chef to cook the food at a precise temperature for a precise period of time. It's not the same thing at setting your oven to 350 degrees and walking away. Oven temperatures cycle up and down and vary because when you set an oven you're basically telling it to cook at somewhere averaging where you set it.

If you set a sous vide circulator to 135 degrees for a medium rare steak, it will stay that temperature. It won't go above or below for even a second. Not even by a tenth of a degree. But food texture and doneness is not just a measurement of temp, it's dependent on time too. A fish cooked longer than, say, 45 minutes or so at 118 degrees absolutely will come out mushy and kinda gross. Cook it for roughly 20 mins though and there's a world of difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2016 at 9:02 PM, JSnake said:

Again, and I mean this respectfully, I truly do, but the only thing you've demonstrated to me is that you've only experienced misuse of the technique. Saying your problem with sous vide is with the texture only tells me that you have a misunderstanding of the very mechanics under which this cooking method operates. Sous vide allows the chef to cook the food at a precise temperature for a precise period of time. It's not the same thing at setting your oven to 350 degrees and walking away. Oven temperatures cycle up and down and vary because when you set an oven you're basically telling it to cook at somewhere averaging where you set it.

If you set a sous vide circulator to 135 degrees for a medium rare steak, it will stay that temperature. It won't go above or below for even a second. Not even by a tenth of a degree. But food texture and doneness is not just a measurement of temp, it's dependent on time too. A fish cooked longer than, say, 45 minutes or so at 118 degrees absolutely will come out mushy and kinda gross. Cook it for roughly 20 mins though and there's a world of difference.

Sigh, I'm not going to get sucked into this, but I saw this post after finishing my other one, and I will add that there's something very different about the way animal proteins break down under low-and-slow heat.

JSnake, you essentially just told me I don't understand the mechanics of how a television set works, and then in the very next sentence, you explain to me how to turn on a television set - that's what you just did in your first paragraph. Do you honestly think there's *anything* you just wrote that I didn't know decades ago? Sous-vide is a technique that was first described in the 1700's.

AAARGH! If someone who knows chemistry or biology wants to come onto this thread and discuss the cellular breakdown of various foods, I'd be interested; otherwise, I have to stop here for my own sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the cellular breakdown of various foods...

Cooking for Geeks.  Chapter 4.  Time & Temperature: Cooking's Primary Variables.

I recall chit-chatting with some Frenchman from Cuisine Solutions  almost 10 years ago at a saucy champers tasting or whatever and while I conceeded that SV certainly has its merits, he grumbled that SV fish is a waste of both fish and plastic.  I concur.

If a professional cook needs the resources of a vacuum machine, bags, more than 30 minutes and a circulator to cook a piece of fish, they might get a nose bleed crunching the minutiae of fish type flesh varieties, thickness and other organic variables that make 1 piece of fish different from another and beckon the practical theory of human senses being able to fiddle with the damned thing without a dental dam around it.  Though a hobbyist could be forgiven as its a way to pass the time.

A good technician always blames their tools.  But a competent cook shouldn't need that many gadgets to cook a pieces of fish consistently well.   Practice, discipline and technique are just as useful and probably more marketable skills than pressing buttons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...