Quantcast
A potential sous-vide candidate?
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: A potential sous-vide candidate?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rockport, TX
    Posts
    4,892

    A potential sous-vide candidate?

    Gordon Ramsay came to me in a dream.

    Totally serious. I don't know if it was the Fish and Chips with peas and a beer I had for dinner, or because I watched Masterchef, but he fed me a dish that had PERFECT beans in it.

    They were soaked, and then cooked in an immersion circulator to keep them from being agitated, and they were perfect.

    Ok back to the real world. Is this really possible? I can't figure out why it wouldn't produce the most perfect beans ever time after time, yet I've never heard of sous-vide beans.

  2. #2

    JohnnyChance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    3,000
    Haha, I don't see why not. Plus you can put some good stuff in the bag with them so they absorb those flavors more intensely than other methods. They still like to take on moisture during cooking, even after soaking, so you would need to get the right amount of water in each bag so they can hydrate. Unless you are saying dont bag them, just put them in water with the circulator, which could probably also work. But then chefwatson would have a major problem with it because the beans wouldnt be in a vacuum.

    I googled it and found some results. Got a circulator? Give it a shot!
    "God sends meat and the devil sends cooks." - Thomas Deloney

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    76
    Look... all I was saying is, sous vide is NOT a cooking technique. That is all! Sous vide is mearly the task of vacuum sealing something. Cooking with an immersion circulator is simply the act of poaching. Yes the circulator allows for a more controlled poach but, it is poaching nonetheless. You are still poaching something that is sealed in the bag... that just happens to be sous vide. The only time you are sous vide-ing something is when you are vacuum sealing it, not when you are cooking it.

  4. #4

    JohnnyChance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    3,000
    And all I was saying is that the entire process has now (technically correct or not) become known as sous vide. I know it is french for under pressure, but to me and most everyone else I have talked to, the most important part of the definition and the thing that separates its from every other cooking method, is the long, slow, controlled cook at a much lower than normal temperature.

    I am sorry for being argumentative and I can understand how you prefer the technical definition, but I am just going by what my colleagues and coworkers prefer, and what my customers identify with.
    "God sends meat and the devil sends cooks." - Thomas Deloney

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    76
    "the most important part of the definition and the thing that separates its from every other cooking method, is the long, slow, controlled cook at a much lower than normal temperature."

    Which in a liquid other that fat... is poaching. It is as simple as that and calling it anything else is misleading and incorrect.

    If you put meat in a court-bullion is that poaching or sous vide? whether you drop an egg in the shell or crack it open and put it in the liquid... it is still poaching. You and your coworkers are misinformed and your customers with your definition wouldn't know the difference.

    The thing that sets it apart from other forms of cooking is sealing it in the bag under vacuum.

  6. #6

    JohnnyChance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    3,000
    Oh well. Agree to disagree then.


    Sorry for the hijack Eamon.
    "God sends meat and the devil sends cooks." - Thomas Deloney

  7. #7
    The alleles created by mutation may be beneficial

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Hampton Roads, VA
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by chefwatson View Post
    "the most important part of the definition and the thing that separates its from every other cooking method, is the long, slow, controlled cook at a much lower than normal temperature."

    Which in a liquid other that fat... is poaching. It is as simple as that and calling it anything else is misleading and incorrect.

    If you put meat in a court-bullion is that poaching or sous vide? whether you drop an egg in the shell or crack it open and put it in the liquid... it is still poaching. You and your coworkers are misinformed and your customers with your definition wouldn't know the difference.

    The thing that sets it apart from other forms of cooking is sealing it in the bag under vacuum.
    Calm down buddy, the common association of sous vide is the process of sealing something and poaching it in an immersion circulator. While you might be right about the technical definition, there's no need to get snooty about it.

    Also if you know how to cook an egg to 145 degrees exactly without using an immersion circulator, let me know.

  8. #8
    Senior Member ThEoRy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Jersey
    Posts
    2,767
    Quote Originally Posted by chefwatson View Post
    Look... all I was saying is, sous vide is NOT a cooking technique. That is all! Sous vide is mearly the task of vacuum sealing something. Cooking with an immersion circulator is simply the act of poaching. Yes the circulator allows for a more controlled poach but, it is poaching nonetheless. You are still poaching something that is sealed in the bag... that just happens to be sous vide. The only time you are sous vide-ing something is when you are vacuum sealing it, not when you are cooking it.

    Ohhh I'm sorry that's incorrect. Sous-vide is a cooking technique just as roasting, braising, sauteing, frying etc are.

    If you are poaching something in a vacuumed bag it is cooking sous vide. There is still a vacuum or absence of air in the bag so it is still under vacuum and is being cooked under vacuum the whole time hence being cooked sous vide.

    We do have some lovely parting gifts though, Bob tell him what he's won...



    On topic though yes, you can cook beans sous-vide.
    Starting this harvest I'm a starving startling artist/
    Lyrical arsonist it's arduous spitting this smartest arsenic/

  9. #9

    ecchef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hell Lite; aka Okinawa
    Posts
    3,027
    What about those those frozen "boil in the bag" veggies from years ago that were all about convenience. Those things were a long ways away from poached. Sous Vide or not?

    Anyway...It is a little strange that this technique as applied to beans hasn't surfaced before. Seems like it should work really well. Who's gonna be the first?
    Not me...don't have the equipment


    Hmmm....found this.... http://www.aquick.org/blog/2010/07/2...e-black-beans/
    Though I could not caution all I still might warn a few; Don't raise your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools. - Robert Hunter

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    1,297
    Okay, more technicalities. If you actually had the food under a vacuum, it would "cook" itself, just like a beaker of water boils at room temperature when you evacuate a certain amount of air out of a bell jar. Of course, it wouldn't actually cook, because it would still be at ambient temp. All of the water would boil out of the food. When you bag the food, you are merely sucking out the excess air contained in the bag and maybe a bit in the food and sealing the food up. I would suspect that the pressure in the bag is not significantly lower than ambient pressure. Actually, there is a way to cook an egg at exactly 145 degrees without an immersion circulator. Just get to an altitude where water boils at 145 degrees and let her rip. Of course, you would probably pass out from hypoxia before you had a chance to eat your egg. Nah!!!! Now what were you guys saying about actually using the technique for cooking regardless of the terminology?
    P.S. As you can't compress water, I don't know how much good trying to evacuate a bag full beans and the cooking liquid would do you. Plus at some point once the air was gone, you would be evacuating your cooking liquid. This sounds more akin to cooking a Stouffers frozen entree low and slow.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts