PDA

View Full Version : 72-Hour Sous Vide Ribs: Are they worth it? You bet your @$$.



Zwiefel
08-13-2013, 10:12 PM
After considerable sh1te-talking by forum members, I decided to try the sous vide ribs. I must now admit that it wasn't sh1te-talk at all.

full rack of pork ribs, cut into 2-rib sections and bagged:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2866/9478812787_26e48d8852.jpg

Into Sous Vide @130 for 72-Hours:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2870/9481622606_baaa92bee5.jpg

Time for a bit of crust formation, seasoning ribs before introduction to the high-heat:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5447/9507248906_0d44d17350.jpg

First time I've ever grilled fully-cooked food before:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7287/9504448141_822fa0b01d.jpg

20 Minutes for a bit of Hickory smoke:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5504/9507242010_87421bf21d.jpg

Service:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2885/9504445729_b5e5977731.jpg

I must say...I've never had better ribs. I've had ribs as good though, but I doubt the people who made those ribs put as little effort into it as I did. Incredibly simple. Stupid proof even.

MuchoBocho: Thanks for getting me into this...best thing that's happened to my kitchen since jKnives.

vinster
08-13-2013, 11:44 PM
That looks awesome! If it's not too late, can we get a picture of what the inside looks like?:biggrin:

Zwiefel
08-13-2013, 11:48 PM
That looks awesome! If it's not too late, can we get a picture of what the inside looks like?:biggrin:

Too late for tonight...but I have 1 pair of ribs left, I could do a cold photo of those. Next time I'll probably drop the temp to 125ish. Still learning how to do this.

Lucretia
08-14-2013, 12:06 AM
One thing I've wondered about with sous vide...does the fat render out? Or are you left with fatty ribs?

This was recent a batch off the smoker--fat pretty much gone, but very moist, and you could suck the meat off and leave a clean bone. Just curious--how does it compare with what you see with sous vide?


17995

Zwiefel
08-14-2013, 12:37 AM
One thing I've wondered about with sous vide...does the fat render out? Or are you left with fatty ribs?

This was recent a batch off the smoker--fat pretty much gone, but very moist, and you could suck the meat off and leave a clean bone. Just curious--how does it compare with what you see with sous vide?

I'm certainly not a rib expert...I probably only eat them 3-4 times per year. However, my wife is very picky about fatty foods and she said, "these are the best ribs I've ever had."

Here are two photos that show how cleanly the bone pulls away from the meat--in the background.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5465/9508133200_c44c1160c5.jpg

Also, the internal color of the meat...clearly not overcooked and gray. After looking closely at the color, I might keep my 130F in the future...it were darned tasty :)http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/9508131226_c1fcaba78e.jpg

Hopefully, this helps answer both questions.

Lucretia
08-14-2013, 05:39 PM
Just trying to understand here--isn't 125-130 degrees an optimum range for bacterial growth, and below the safe temperature for pork? Maybe it's taken care of by the long duration at temp?

Just got "Modernist Cuisine at Home" from the library, so time to do a little reading.

Glad they came out well for you!

Zwiefel
08-14-2013, 10:31 PM
Good question/comment Lucretia!

You demonstrate a correct understanding of current USDA guidelines :doublethumbsup: ...however, those are poorly designed. Actually, this very topic is addressed in MC@H in the section starting on page 60. I'm uncertain if it's the same section, but they talk about how the USDA guidelines pretty much ignore time and reduce the problem to one of temperature, which is an oversimplification--as you suggested with your question, that this is a multi-dimensional topic.

Also, trichinosis is quite rare (heh) these days. I think the number is 1 in 10,000 pigs. The number for salmonella in eggs is 1/20,000. I like those odds pretty well as I doubt I will ever eat 10,000 eggs nor 5,000 pigs.

Finally...even the USDA has lowered the recommended temp for pork to 140/145F, from the ridiculous 165F it had been for 30ish years.


Just trying to understand here--isn't 125-130 degrees an optimum range for bacterial growth, and below the safe temperature for pork? Maybe it's taken care of by the long duration at temp?

Just got "Modernist Cuisine at Home" from the library, so time to do a little reading.

Glad they came out well for you!

gic
08-14-2013, 11:46 PM
Here is the official word:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf

for pork/beef at 130 it takes 121 minutes for pasteurization to occur, I think, therefore we are probably safe with even 24 hours :- )

seriously, do you think 72 hours is really necessary??

I usually do steak at 131 for 24 hours in my sous vide machine...

Zwiefel
08-15-2013, 12:10 AM
Gic,

I honestly dont know. I didnt see a big difference between 48 and 72. Im just starting to learn this stuff and Im following the advice Im getting. I can say that with goat, 24 to 48 hours made a HUGE difference.

Thanks for the link, Ill follow it tomorrow to get a better understanding.

Z

mzer
08-15-2013, 09:50 AM
I would guess that any overcooking you are seeing in these ribs is from the sear stage and not from being too well done at 130. FWIW, I've never heard anybody say that long cooking at anything below 130 is safe, and it isn't trichinosis at that level you worry about.

Also, cooking steak for 24 hours is almost always a bad idea, unless you are talking about tough meat, it is going to get soft.

Mucho Bocho
08-15-2013, 10:02 AM
As Zwiefel stated, you can pasturize foods at lower tempatures that USDA guidelines. Tought meats (chuck, short rib, tri-tip) all require a minimum of 72hrs s the enzymes in the meat need time to make the meat tender. Mzer, ytour correct about tender cuts. Here is a chuck roast that has been cooked 72hrs.

http://i1051.photobucket.com/albums/s426/dennismpintoii/chuck.jpg (http://s1051.photobucket.com/user/dennismpintoii/media/chuck.jpg.html)

mzer
08-15-2013, 10:10 AM
No, they really don't require a minimum of 48 hours to get tender. What they require is a combination of time and temperature that produces the desired texture. There seems to me to be a tendency to want to go as low and long as possible so as to create the most interesting texture possible, or the one furthest from "normal" without much regard to finding the most pleasing texture. For example, pork belly cooking temps seem to be ever decreasing, yet for my palate they decrease in quality pretty quickly under 65 or so. There is also the whole menu writing thing. Listing your hours is impressive!

Mucho Bocho
08-15-2013, 10:22 AM
Mzer, You will not get fork-tender medium rare chuck or Rib tender in under 48hrs. Sure you could cook the meat at a higher temp for shorter time but you'll not get a consistent medium rare center after sear.

Not trying to be argumentative but I don't think people cook foods a low temperatures hap hazardously. As you know if you apply too much heat youíll denature the myosin protein (breaking of hydrogen bonds that gives proteins their particular structure).

Prove me wrong and Iíll eat my words.

Here's a shot of Pig jowl after the same 72hr treatment

http://i1051.photobucket.com/albums/s426/dennismpintoii/belly2.jpg (http://s1051.photobucket.com/user/dennismpintoii/media/belly2.jpg.html)

Mrmnms
08-15-2013, 10:25 AM
M B, did you use any baking soda on the skin of that jowl. They both looked A++

Mucho Bocho
08-15-2013, 10:26 AM
Mrmnms, Yep, Yep you know it! ;-)

bkdc
08-15-2013, 11:52 AM
Wow that looks sooooo good! Someone recommend me a home-use sous vide machine! Are people using the DorkFood controller?

boomchakabowwow
08-15-2013, 12:09 PM
72 hours? seriously?

amazing. the photos are really well done as well.

are they worth spending an extra 68 hours? are they better than slow and low cooked, smoked ribs done in 4 hours?

i think ribs need a bit of "tooth". the meat shouldnt shake off the bone. i braise mine slow and low, and then finish in big smoke and grill them for color. my braise leaves me with an awesome sauce that i cook down to dress the ribs.

well done Z.

Mucho Bocho
08-15-2013, 03:21 PM
Thanks Boom. Just pics off my iphone 5. I agree with your Rib comments completely. If the bone slides out of the meat, they are over cooked, all be it delicious. The meat in professional ribs should stick a little to the rib but you should not have to chew like a dog to get it off. Ribs are one of the few things I do not SV.

1.) Peel off membrane, trim out the St Louis Cut, rub with a little yellow mustard and dry rub. leave open in refrigerator for a day to form a pellicle.

2.) Put in 225 degree smoker, cook/smoke for an hour 90 min. Wrap in allumnium foil (Texas Crutch), continue cooking (braising) for another hour.

3.) Remove from foil, remove water pan from smoker and cook for another hour until you can start to see the tips of the bonest poke out of the meat. Add dry rub, sauce and cook and another 20 minutes until the sauce dries up a little on the meat.

Mucho Bocho
08-15-2013, 03:35 PM
Here are few other shots of Sous Vide cooked 72hrs
Short Ribs

1802218023

Chuck
{ATTACH=CONFIG]18024[/ATTACH]

Eye Round
18025

Zwiefel
08-15-2013, 03:44 PM
Wow that looks sooooo good! Someone recommend me a home-use sous vide machine! Are people using the DorkFood controller?

I used the dorkfood plus crockpot for these, total cost about $130. This kind of cooking is stupid-proof.

Zwiefel
08-15-2013, 03:50 PM
72 hours? seriously?

amazing. the photos are really well done as well.

are they worth spending an extra 68 hours? are they better than slow and low cooked, smoked ribs done in 4 hours?

i think ribs need a bit of "tooth". the meat shouldnt shake off the bone. i braise mine slow and low, and then finish in big smoke and grill them for color. my braise leaves me with an awesome sauce that i cook down to dress the ribs.

well done Z.

Thanks!

This is SOOOO much easier than the grill/smoker...just toss it in and check the temp a few times/day to make sure its going ok. Could also leave them in the fridge/freezer until you are ready, then crust'em. Awesome ribs in under an hour....not an option with the smoker version :)

They are the best ribs Ive ever had. The bones were held in place firmly, but the meat comes off with gentle pressure. There was decent tooth as well, but certainly not chewy. The texture is different from mid-rare beef...much more firm than the color in the photo suggests...I dont understand the science as well as MB, but something happens to the meat that you wouldnt expect based purely on the color.

mzer
08-15-2013, 07:32 PM
Mzer, You will not get fork-tender medium rare chuck or Rib tender in under 48hrs. Sure you could cook the meat at a higher temp for shorter time but you'll not get a consistent medium rare center after sear.

Not trying to be argumentative but I don't think people cook foods a low temperatures hap hazardously. As you know if you apply too much heat youíll denature the myosin protein (breaking of hydrogen bonds that gives proteins their particular structure).

Prove me wrong and Iíll eat my words.

Here's a shot of Pig jowl after the same 72hr treatment

http://i1051.photobucket.com/albums/s426/dennismpintoii/belly2.jpg (http://s1051.photobucket.com/user/dennismpintoii/media/belly2.jpg.html)

To get fork tender and to get tender are two different things, of course, and to my taste, I prefer 48 hour short ribs, which are steak tender, or 8 hours at 82 to the 72 hour low temp ones which consistently have a mealy feeling in my mouth. I also think that fork tender doesn't work so well when the fat hasn't broken down, and that is what comes with longer cooking at lower temps. Finally, the desire to make everything fork tender reminds me of pre nouvelle cooking where the food was designed for people without teeth. One texture for everything. That isn't to say that I haven't had good extra long cooked meats, but thinking back to the best modern cooking I've had, while it is almost always cooked sous vide, it is never ultra long and low. Just my opinion, of course.

Zwiefel
08-15-2013, 07:53 PM
Awesome PDF! Glad to see the USDA has gotten it together with TT tables instead of just T :)

This will also help to allay fears I've heard from some folks about the safety of this technique.

Great share, thanks!


Here is the official word:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf

for pork/beef at 130 it takes 121 minutes for pasteurization to occur, I think, therefore we are probably safe with even 24 hours :- )

seriously, do you think 72 hours is really necessary??

I usually do steak at 131 for 24 hours in my sous vide machine...

Zwiefel
08-15-2013, 08:05 PM
I would guess that any overcooking you are seeing in these ribs is from the sear stage and not from being too well done at 130. FWIW, I've never heard anybody say that long cooking at anything below 130 is safe, and it isn't trichinosis at that level you worry about.

Yes, the little bit of gray is from the grill for sure. I was too lazy to get the smoker going, but next time I'll put them at the far end of the smoker (where it's coolest) and see if I can't smoke them for 30-60 minutes, then put the crust on. I'm hoping that will help develop a smoke ring.

If not trichinosis...then what? I'm not a pro so I don't have much education about that.

Next time I do pork ribs, I think I'll take 1/2 out at 48 hours so I can do a side-by-side.



i braise mine slow and low, and then finish in big smoke and grill them for color. my braise leaves me with an awesome sauce that i cook down to dress the ribs.

I did make a sauce from the drippings/marinade in the bags. It's in the small glass bowl on the right in the service photo. Reduced the drippings about 75%, added some butter, lemon juice, salt, and pepper...was satisfactory, esp for my first attempt at a pan sauce in 10+ years.

mzer
08-15-2013, 08:16 PM
Next time I do pork ribs, I think I'll take 1/2 out at 48 hours so I can do a side-by-side.





I'm not trying to imply that longer is necessarily worse, just that there seems to be a tendency to exploit new technologies to the fullest, which is great, but sometimes we don't test to see what we like best, rather than what is most unique. As long as we keep testing, then we are doing well.

Zwiefel
08-15-2013, 08:18 PM
I'm not trying to imply that longer is necessarily worse, just that there seems to be a tendency to exploit new technologies to the fullest, which is great, but sometimes we don't test to see what we like best, rather than what is most unique. As long as we keep testing, then we are doing well.

Exactly, precisely what was on my mind :)

If one likes it better or the same at 48, why not save 24 hours. If.

panda
08-15-2013, 11:01 PM
i'd like a plate of that please.