At a recent dinner, one of the guys at our table decided not to order the lamb because it was cooked sous vide, French for under vacuum. The meat is vacuum sealed in plastic and then submerged in water at sub-boiling temperature for an extended period of time. I guess this is all the rage now in the gourmet world.

From a microbiology point of view, this seems to be a method of cooking that is toying with danger! There is always the possibility that a small number of Clostridium botulinum bacteria may be present in the food item. In the absence of oxygen, and in the presence of nice and warm toasty temperatures for up to 24 hours, the bacteria can produce the toxin that causes botulism.

I have actually had lamb this way before and I remember it being very tender and uniformly textured, but I missed the nice sear around the edges. Oh, and I didn't get botulism.

Has anyone else tried meat cooked sous vide? What did you think? Worth the risk?

Hmm...I wonder if I can get blowfish cooked sous vide?

Like you I like my meat burnt (at least on the outside). I do not think there is a danger to sous vide. It just is not appealing to me. I would rather eat a piece of lamb raw.

Clostridium is not the worry; it's Escherichia.

You should try reading Thomas Keller's book on sous-vide called "Under Pressure." There's a foreward by Harold McGee. While the book outlines potential hazards in cooking sous-vide, it also discusses how it can be safer if performed properly.

quote:

Originally posted by mitPradikat:
At a recent dinner, one of the guys at our table decided not to order the lamb because it was cooked sous vide, French for under vacuum. The meat is vacuum sealed in plastic and then submerged in water at sub-boiling temperature for an extended period of time.

So your guy always cooks his lamb until its internal temperature reaches 100C? And they accuse the English of boiling the hell out of meat.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dave Tong BBP,

Dave, who is that addressed to?

It was a response to the original poster, specifically to the complaint about it being cooked at sub-boiling point.

Ah okay. Also I don't think that mit nor Cellar_Fiend understand the point of sous-vide cooking. It's used to more closely control the final temperature of the food and prevent it from overcooking. If you want lamb medium-rare, you have the water temperature at 140F, seal the lamb in the bag and sous-vide it. The temperature of the lamb can't exceed the water temperature, and therefore will be a nice red from the center to the edge. It is possible to "overcook" by holding at that temperature for too long. It changes the texture of the meat and could get mushy if you hold it there for hours.

Anyway, for those that like the "crust" (and flavour) from searing meat, you can undercook it sous-vide (maybe to 130-135F for the lamb I mentioned above), rest, take the meat out of the bag and then sear over high heat.

Have not tried it at home, but have enjoyed this style of cooking at restaurants many times. Love the tenderness of the meat when done correctly.

quote:

Anyway, for those that like the "crust" (and flavour) from searing meat, you can undercook it sous-vide (maybe to 130-135F for the lamb I mentioned above), rest, take the meat out of the bag and then sear over high heat.

Thanks for the clarification. I think that if the meat were seared quickly it would be more to my liking, and worth another try of this type of cooking at the restaurant. I would never trust myself to try this at home.

Bonsoir,
Sous vide cooking is not new… it exists more than 30 years…If someone have the expertise.. no problem…

Regards
from the Netherlands

Ornellaia