Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Turning Chuck to Rib Eye

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by chobint View Post
    I gave this a whirl with Costco chuck, so I guess that would be usda choice? I have to say it turned out pretty decent but it seemed more like medium to me. If I could get it to resemble medium rare I think this would be a real winner. Are my eyeballs lying to me?
    What kind of bags did you use? I use ziplocs, and my results LOOK a little more cooked than they are. Not quite as pale a pink as your picture seems to show, but paler than what you'd expect from beef cooked to 55°C. I think this is from oxygen getting to the meat. Conversely, when people use a chamber vacuum machine, they report their meat looking more rare than they'd expect.

    I don't know to what degree (if any) this influences flavor. But 55C is the low end of medium rare, and is the lowest temperature that's safe for a long cook of any kind.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb View Post
    You own the temp setting. I like 129F for myself, 131F for a crowd. With SV you don't get the bleeding mess with med rare so can go a skoosh lower temp. Your chuck looks like 135ish but hard to tell with camera/lighting playing a role.
    129F is fine for meat that you'll cook for a couple of hours or so, but it's dangerous to go below 131 if fridge-to-table time will be more than 4 hours.

    Meat cooked for just a few hours at 131 will appear more rare, and be more juicy, than meat cooked at the same temperature for 12+ hours. Different approaches and benefits for different cuts.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Wens View Post
    Definitely can use ziplocks for short duration. I've heard rumors of bags leaking during longer cooks, and I've heard of people double bagging, but I've only cooked something longer than five hours once.
    I've used ziplocs many, many times for durations between 36 and 72 hours. Never had a leak from long, low cooking. The only times I've had leaks are when cooking for long(ish) durations at high temperatures, like when making vegetable stocks (over an hour, 85°C or higher). I double bag things if they're cooking at temperatures this high.

    Ziplocs also leak sometimes when you're defrosting food in them. This is a nuisance. I now double-bag before defrosting in a water bath. Or I'll defrost in the microwave or at room temperature.

    It's important to get the right ziplocs: you want ziploc-branded Freezer Bags, and the ones that have a regular zip ... no sliding plastic gizmo.

  4. #24
    chobint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Central OH
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by paulraphael View Post
    129F is fine for meat that you'll cook for a couple of hours or so, but it's dangerous to go below 131 if fridge-to-table time will be more than 4 hours.

    Meat cooked for just a few hours at 131 will appear more rare, and be more juicy, than meat cooked at the same temperature for 12+ hours. Different approaches and benefits for different cuts.
    I'm using a chamber sealer. I was also under the impression that 130 was the magic number for extended cooks when it came to sous vide safety. The internet does not seem to agree on the subject (just one example below).
    https://www.reddit.com/r/sousvide/co..._130_and_food/

    I conferred with my partner in crime who did the buying and prep for the cook (of course I'm blaming someone else ). The no-salt and pre-cook at 108 were not observed. I still added a ton of salt before the sear, but since I didn't follow the whole procedure I'm going to try again and see how it turns out.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by chobint View Post
    I'm using a chamber sealer. I was also under the impression that 130 was the magic number for extended cooks when it came to sous vide safety. The internet does not seem to agree on the subject (just one example below).
    I've rechecked my sources (including the Modernist Cuisine pathogen tables) and need to correct my earlier post. The pasteurization lower limit of 55°C / 131°F is an updated FDA recommendation, and not directly based on science. Most food scientists are concerned primarily with salmonella when pasteurizing meat; salmonella can be killed to pasteurization standards (eventually) at temperatures as low as 52°C / 125.6°F.

    So apologies for the overly conservative info, especially to DaveB, who I incorrectly corrected.


    Some other pathogens that MAY be of some interest (but not enough to lead to warnings from the Modernist Cuisine team):

    Bacillus Cereus reproduces up to 131F (no idea if this is ever a concern with beef)
    Campylobacter up to 113F
    C.Botulinum up to 119F
    C. Perfringes up to 126F
    E. Coli up to 121F
    Salmonella up to 117F
    Staphyloccus up to 122F

    (these are the highest temperatures at which these bugs reproduce ... it takes somewhat higher temps to actually kill them. Pasteurization temperatures need to be shown with time / temperature graphs)

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,293
    Quote Originally Posted by paulraphael View Post
    129F is fine for meat that you'll cook for a couple of hours or so, but it's dangerous to go below 131 if fridge-to-table time will be more than 4 hours.

    Meat cooked for just a few hours at 131 will appear more rare, and be more juicy, than meat cooked at the same temperature for 12+ hours. Different approaches and benefits for different cuts.
    Huh??? Where does this come from? Reference?

    131 is 55C, you'll be killing the microorganisms at that temp and infact the longer the better. I have do two 10hour cooks at that temp perfectly.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,293
    Quote Originally Posted by paulraphael View Post
    I've rechecked my sources (including the Modernist Cuisine pathogen tables) and need to correct my earlier post. The pasteurization lower limit of 55°C / 131°F is an updated FDA recommendation, and not directly based on science. Most food scientists are concerned primarily with salmonella when pasteurizing meat; salmonella can be killed to pasteurization standards (eventually) at temperatures as low as 52°C / 125.6°F.

    So apologies for the overly conservative info, especially to DaveB, who I incorrectly corrected.


    Some other pathogens that MAY be of some interest (but not enough to lead to warnings from the Modernist Cuisine team):

    Bacillus Cereus reproduces up to 131F (no idea if this is ever a concern with beef)
    Campylobacter up to 113F
    C.Botulinum up to 119F
    C. Perfringes up to 126F
    E. Coli up to 121F
    Salmonella up to 117F
    Staphyloccus up to 122F

    (these are the highest temperatures at which these bugs reproduce ... it takes somewhat higher temps to actually kill them. Pasteurization temperatures need to be shown with time / temperature graphs)
    Exactly... most microorganisms present in food actually stop reproducing at temps at or below 50C and start being killed off at temps above 50C... and are basically instantly killed at temps around 70C with a gradient of time/temp exposure which increases with a lower temp. So infact the lower the temp the longer you want to cook it.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    135
    I did this method again on a holiday trip to Chicago, this time with a chuck-eye that was not dry-aged (couldn't find a butcher there who would do it). All other details were the same. It came out well. Definitely less flavorful than the times I used aged, but still good.

    I think with this cut the cooking temperature will always represent a compromise. Lower temps = brighter flavors and colors. Higher temps = more melted fat, with less stringy / rubbery textures. The biggest drawback I find compared with ribeye is that there are some small parts of the chuck eye that are much tougher than the others, and have fat that's especially rubbery and hard to melt. Most of it turns out great though.

Posting Permissions

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