Tell me more ×
Seasoned Advice is a question and answer site for professional and amateur chefs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 4 down vote favorite
1

I am just about to start experimenting with Sous Vide cooking. My plan is to start out with some very simple equipment (A PID controller and a kettle) and slowly build up until I have made my custom awesome Sous Vide cooker. (I'm an robotic engineer, so I'm looking forward to this bit).

To start with, I'd just like to try the simplest Sous Vide recipe I can. Something that:

  • Requires low accuracy
  • Is safe for a pregnant woman
  • Takes less than 2 hours

What meat is reliable for a first sous-vide attempt, and can be cooked in such a short time?

share|improve this question
Unfortunately recipe requests are off topic here at Seasoned Advice, because they are essentially subjective. Google will be able to provide you with plenty of sous-vide recipes. I would suggest something involving chicken breasts as they cook in around 45 minutes in a 60ºC sous-vide bath. – ElendilTheTall Sep 3 '12 at 13:07
@ElendilTheTall - What if I change the wording? – Rocketmagnet Sep 3 '12 at 13:27
Sure: something along the lines of 'what foods can I cook in a sous-vide in under 2 hours' might be more appropriate. – ElendilTheTall Sep 3 '12 at 13:53

3 Answers

up vote 2 down vote

I would direct yourself to this handy table from Dave Arnold who is somewhat of a figurehead in sous vide cooking

http://www.cookingissues.com/uploads/Low_Temp_Charts.pdf

It will show you the differences in textures and doneness for different proteins and even eggs and give you an idea of what you would need to do. I have built two DIY immersion circulators thus far and have had good success using a well insulated cooler and zip top bags. I would also suggest you direct yourself to http://www.chefsteps.com/ to learn more about technique.

share|improve this answer
up vote 1 down vote

No question in my mind -- if you want it done in under two hours and don't need precision, I'd go with some form of undersea critter. Shrimp come to mind, and a demonstration video can be found on youtube.

share|improve this answer
Thanks Bruce. It's funny though, from the very small amount of reading I've done on sous-vide fish, I thought they required the most precision. – Rocketmagnet Sep 4 '12 at 22:12
I would say that a crustacean is maybe more forgiving then a piece of fish but even then we're talking more about timing then actually making use of the benefits of sous vide cooking. Sous-vide cooking for things like fish and other delicate proteins is more about precision then convenience. The true benefits of sous-vide cooking are better seen with long (12h+) cooking times IMO. – Brendan Dec 5 '12 at 19:33
up vote -3 down vote

This is at your own risk, there clearly is a risk of food poisoning.

I've done this with thinish meat (3/4" or less), beef and salmon, and short term, under an hour. As people have pointed out, don't do this for things that you want to cook for long periods, etc.

If you have hot tap water, you can do beef and salmon in it. You probably want to finish it on the bbq or broiler, but you can get most of the cooking done just by putting the food in a baggy in a bowl, and running a trickle of hot tap water into it. Now you do need water that is too hot to stick your hand in, but not into the scald range (so somewhere around 120 deg f).

I've done both, and then finished on the bbq or broiler, to heat a little further, and brown the outside. I've been happy with it.

I now own a machine. But either build your own, or spring for a Sous Vide Supreme, the thing I got is kinda lame.

share|improve this answer
Cooking for prolonged periods within the danger zone (40-140F) is NOT a good idea. This is called incubation, and it is an invitation for pathogens to party and multiply. I am forced to down-mark this answer for being a safety hazard. – SAJ14SAJ Dec 4 '12 at 23:59
Related question: cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28787/… – Jefromi♦ Dec 5 '12 at 1:25
-1: As SAJ14SAJ and even you say, this is not safe. And it's not a good idea to suggest unsafe cooking practices to the whole internet, especially when the question was asked by someone pregnant. I'm editing your answer to make the warning much more prominent. – Jefromi♦ Dec 5 '12 at 1:27
-1 because the question specifically called for an answer safe for pregnant women. – Carey Gregory Feb 17 at 6:58

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.