Sous Vide Turning Chuck to Rib Eye

I thought people might be interested in a long blog post I wrote on tenderizing tough cuts of meat. It's built around a case study of figuring out how to feed a steak dinner to 16 people on a remote island for under $100, and gets into some research on enzymatic flavor development that you probably won't see anywhere else.

https://underbelly-nyc.blogspot.com/2014/08/sous-vide-series-high-steaks-for_15.html

That's a great read, thanks!

Amazing read, I already texted my meat supplier for a piece to experiment

With respect how does salt yield a corned beef like colour, what I assume you must mean by appearance (or "temperature" for that matter)??

Interesting post to say the least!

This might just be the thing to make me get into sous vide

I am not sure what the pre cook adds to flavour or texture? Is it really worth the risk? Even if it's very low?

great article.. the beer cooler sounds like an awesome ideal for a container that retains heat well.. was it easy to set up and mount in the cooler?

I've done a bunch of chuck sous vide , mostly roasts my guys call a French Roast. 24 -36 hours at 132. I do generally pre sear but not always. The meat is so tender when done, I'm not sure I'd appreciate the difference from the low temp pre cook.

I once had beef cheek that had been in sous vide for 24 hours. It was divine. Tender but not falling apart and so full of flavour. Must try it some time.

Sous Vide and Beef Cheeks. Yes. How did they cook it in the old days?

spoiledbroth said:

With respect how does salt yield a corned beef like colour, what I assume you must mean by appearance (or "temperature" for that matter)??

Interesting post to say the least!

Click to expand...

When you salt meat before a long cook, the salt has enough time to denature the proteins to the point that we'd call it curing. Beef will take on the characteristics of corned beef because you're actually making corned beef. The degree to which this happens will depend on a lot of factors. In some cases you might not notice it. But it's generally best to avoid salting before long sous-vide cooking.

rami_m said:

I am not sure what the pre cook adds to flavour or texture? Is it really worth the risk? Even if it's very low?

Click to expand...

The pre-cook does all the things that dry-aging does (besides concentrating flavors by desiccating the meat). But because of the higher temperature it works many orders of magnitude faster. It increases the tenderization by the same methods as aging, and it increases the level of dry-age kinds of flavors.

And of course, it's completely optional. You'll get great results without it. I just don't think the risks are significant, if you're careful about pasteurizing the meat's surface first. I summarized the bacteriology in the article. Basically, at 40°C, eColi populations double every 30 minutes. Which means that over the course of four hours they'll multiply by 256 times. So if you start with a pasteurized surface, which means the original number of pathogens on the surface have been reduced by 6.5D (10 to the minus 6.5 power, or 0.0000003), the pathogen population is still less than 1/10,000 was it was when the meat went into the bag. This is overkill (literally) by many orders of magnitude.

The dangers, however slight, aren't from pathogens directly, because any bacteria or virus will be killed by the cooking once you turn up the temperature. These long cooks always pasteurize the meat all the way through. Some bacteria, if the colonies become active enough, release heat-tolerant toxins that can make people very sick. I have never heard of this happening with a long sous-vide cook. The other issue is spoilage bacteria, which I address briefly in the blog. I have indeed heard of this problem showing up in the sous-vide bag, but always without a pre-pasteurization, and usually with some other funny business, like a long cook of meat that's been rolled (so there's contaminated surface on the inside, where it will take a long time to come to cooking temperature). The results of spoilage bacteria are disgusting but not life threatening.

Questions I'm more interested in are how big a difference does the pre-cook make? And is there a more optimum time or temperature? I'd like to do these experiments, or convince someone else to do them. All i can say now is that science supports the general idea, and that the results are really good.

ynot1985 said:

great article.. the beer cooler sounds like an awesome ideal for a container that retains heat well.. was it easy to set up and mount in the cooler?

Click to expand...

It's really easy, provided you don't do what I did.

I got a standard cooler with an uninsulated top, and decided to insulate it myself with spray-in urethane insulation. This was a terrible idea ... that insulation doesn't work properly in fully enclosed spaces, and I had to make a mess and jump through hoops and get scolded over the phone by a tech support lady with a chemistry PhD who may have threatened to hang up if I didn't promise to throw out the cooler and every piece of clothing I was wearing.

So ... either leave the lid uninsulated (people on eGullet say this works just fine) or get a higher end cooler with an insulated lid.

I made the cutout with a jig saw, and unscrewed the hinges, and that was that. For additional insulation and evaporation-slowing, you can cut out a piece of Reflectex (bubble wrap laminated with foil). This stuff works great on any S.V. container. I also got a little stainless steel rack sold by the Sous Vide Supreme people. Other people just buy a desk organizer rack at Staples and don't worry about it eventually rusting.

Funny, Chefsteps just uploaded a video on how to turn a chuck roast into something resembling a prime rib roast.

[video=youtube;nRR5sfs0gFQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRR5sfs0gFQ[/video]

I just did this and it turned out really well.

A 1kg slab of wagyu brisket in the sous vide at 62 degrees for about 22 hours, then dried (paper towel) and put in a 250 degree oven for 15 odd minutes. Very tender, full of flavour. Sous vide juices reduced and used in a pinot noir (Bannockburn FWIW) jus.

Even my 5yo (who does not like beef) asked for more.

$18/kg instead of $60-80 for prime cuts of wagyu.

Great idea. Thanks.

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?

Awesome write up! Have you had any issues with ziploc bags leaking during long cooks?

I've always used vacuum sealed bags. Can you use ziplock bags?

Nemo said:

I've always used vacuum sealed bags. Can you use ziplock bags?

Click to expand...

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.

chobint said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Nemo said:

I've always used vacuum sealed bags. Can you use ziplock bags?

Click to expand...

Ziplock style bags are useful if you don't own, don't want to own a sealer. Or sometimes if you want to seal liquids and all you have is a strip sealer. If you have a sealer then that is certainly the preferred alternative.

I currently have 2# of utility grade ribeye in for a 20 hr cook. Hoping to find some way to make this thing fit to eat.

chobint said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

daveb said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wens said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

paulraphael said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/comments/4ain86/steak_cooking_temperature_below_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.

chobint said:

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).

Click to expand...

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)

paulraphael said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

paulraphael said:

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)

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Trying to find a butcher now who will do the aging part in Chicago - any chance you've located somebody there, or still just have your New York source?

ecrphoto said:

Trying to find a butcher now who will do the aging part in Chicago - any chance you've located somebody there, or still just have your New York source?

Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply. I've bought beef in Chicago (my parents live there, and I sometimes cook for them over the holidays) and have mostly gone to the usual suspects, like Geppherth's. I haven't gotten anything dry aged there or had time to look into them doing it special for us. Some day I'd like to try this place. They might be a good bet.