A new cooking(?) technique. It sounds intriguing.
Is it new? Worthwhile?
I do like the idea of concentrated watermelon.

Can a Tilia, http://www.tilia.com/
or similar vacuum packer do this?

I haven't posted the whole article, but you can get it by
registering or using http://www.bugmenot.com/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

Under Pressure

By AMANDA HESSER
Published: August 14, 2005


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/ma...pagewanted=all

A few weeks ago at Per Se, Thomas Keller's four-star restaurant in New
York City, a waiter set a salad of diced watermelon and hearts of
peach palm in front of me. ''This is watermelon that has been
Cryovacked,'' he explained. ''It's something new we're doing. I think
you will like it.''

This was a watershed moment on two accounts. First, because Keller had
indeed managed to make something as mundane as watermelon taste
different -- it had the crisp density of a McIntosh apple. But also
because American dining has reached the level of sophistication at which
a waiter will assume that a diner knows what ''Cryovacked'' is, and that
this knowledge will enhance the experience of tasting diced watermelon.

That won't be assumed here. ''Cryovacking'' is an industry term for
putting food in a plastic bag and vacuum-packing it. Sometimes the food
is then cooked in the bag. Other times, the pressure of the packing
process is used to infuse flavors into ingredients. The watermelon, for
instance, was vacuum-packed with 20 pounds of pressure per square
centimeter, to compact the fruit's cells and concentrate its flavor. It
had the texture of meat. Just the thing for backyard picnics.

Cryovacking, which is more often called sous vide (French for ''under
vacuum''), is poised to change the way restaurant chefs cook -- and like
the Wolf stove and the immersion blender, it will probably trickle down
to the home kitchen someday. Cryovacking has also given great momentum
to the scientific cooking revolution of the last five years. Chefs have
begun using techniques developed for industrial food production and
advances in science to manipulate the chemical make-up of proteins,
starches and fats to create new textures and flavors -- everything from
fried mayonnaise to hot gelatins.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

Dave S

"Dave S" > wrote in message
news:Y7SLe.2487$Hf6.541@trndny07...
>A new cooking(?) technique. It sounds intriguing.
> Is it new? Worthwhile?
> I do like the idea of concentrated watermelon.
>
> Can a Tilia, http://www.tilia.com/
> or similar vacuum packer do this?
>
> I haven't posted the whole article, but you can get it by
> registering or using http://www.bugmenot.com/
>

It is hardly new but seems to be gaining new acceptance as a "gourmet" as
well as a commercial cooking method. Not for the home chef, apparently,
because the equipment is quite expensive and it requires precise temperature
control that is beyond the home kitchen. I am tempted to try cooking an egg
at 64.5 degrees for 45 minutes!


--
Peter Aitken

In article >, "Peter Aitken" > wrote:
>"Dave S" > wrote in message
>news:Y7SLe.2487$Hf6.541@trndny07...
>>A new cooking(?) technique. It sounds intriguing.
>> Is it new? Worthwhile?
>> I do like the idea of concentrated watermelon.
>>
>> Can a Tilia, http://www.tilia.com/
>> or similar vacuum packer do this?
>>
>> I haven't posted the whole article, but you can get it by
>> registering or using http://www.bugmenot.com/
>
>It is hardly new but seems to be gaining new acceptance as a "gourmet" as
>well as a commercial cooking method. Not for the home chef, apparently,
>because the equipment is quite expensive and it requires precise temperature
>control that is beyond the home kitchen. I am tempted to try cooking an egg
>at 64.5 degrees for 45 minutes!

Careful! The bloody thing might hatch first. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

I tried it. Perhaps my temps were a bit off, but I ended up with a very
rubbery egg.


On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:46:34 GMT, Peter Aitken > wrote:
>
> control that is beyond the home kitchen. I am tempted to try cooking an egg
> at 64.5 degrees for 45 minutes!

"Hokan" > wrote in message
. ..
>I tried it. Perhaps my temps were a bit off, but I ended up with a very
> rubbery egg.
>

Hmm, not encouraging. How did you regulate your temp?


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

I put a big pot of water on the stove and brought it up to temp, then turned
down the heat, and:
1 waited 10 minutes,
2 test the temp with instant-read thermometer
3 If the temp was not right, goto 1.
4 drop in egg, set timer.


On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:49:48 GMT, Peter Aitken > wrote:
> "Hokan" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>I tried it. Perhaps my temps were a bit off, but I ended up with a very
>> rubbery egg.
>>
>
> Hmm, not encouraging. How did you regulate your temp?

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:16:06 +0000 (UTC), Hokan wrote:

> I put a big pot of water on the stove and brought it up to temp, then turned
> down the heat, and:
> 1 waited 10 minutes,
> 2 test the temp with instant-read thermometer
> 3 If the temp was not right, goto 1.
> 4 drop in egg, set timer.
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:49:48 GMT, Peter Aitken > wrote:
> > "Hokan" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >>I tried it. Perhaps my temps were a bit off, but I ended up with a very
> >> rubbery egg.
> >>
> >
> > Hmm, not encouraging. How did you regulate your temp?

How can a boiled egg be so complicated? This is too weird.... are you
trolling each other?

In article >, Peter
Aitken > wrote:

> It is hardly new but seems to be gaining new acceptance as a "gourmet" as
> well as a commercial cooking method. Not for the home chef, apparently,
> because the equipment is quite expensive and it requires precise temperature
> control that is beyond the home kitchen. I am tempted to try cooking an egg
> at 64.5 degrees for 45 minutes!

I read the original article, but didn't understand it. Are Chefs
preparing their signature dishes, say to 80% done, then cryovacking
them for final preparation when ordered at table? Then does it take 45
minutes or longer at low heat to finish the dish? I guess there's a
continuity in flavor, but certainly no gain in time. And maybe a step
toward selling those dishes in supermarkets, if the consumer can finish
the dish at low slow heat. I guess if you want the "real" "original"
flavor of an egg you'd just slurp down the albumin like the chick
does.

"Stark" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Peter
> Aitken > wrote:
>
>> It is hardly new but seems to be gaining new acceptance as a "gourmet" as
>> well as a commercial cooking method. Not for the home chef, apparently,
>> because the equipment is quite expensive and it requires precise
>> temperature
>> control that is beyond the home kitchen. I am tempted to try cooking an
>> egg
>> at 64.5 degrees for 45 minutes!
>
> I read the original article, but didn't understand it. Are Chefs
> preparing their signature dishes, say to 80% done, then cryovacking
> them for final preparation when ordered at table? Then does it take 45
> minutes or longer at low heat to finish the dish? I guess there's a
> continuity in flavor, but certainly no gain in time. And maybe a step
> toward selling those dishes in supermarkets, if the consumer can finish
> the dish at low slow heat. I guess if you want the "real" "original"
> flavor of an egg you'd just slurp down the albumin like the chick
> does.

The way I understand it is that the raw ingredients - meat, spices, etc. -
are vacuum packed and cooked for a long time at a relatively low temp. For
example lamb shanks might be cooked at 160 degrees f for 24 hours. They are
cooled carefully (following a specified regimen) and stored. For serving
they are reheated, opened, and served. Some procedures are more complex -
for example a piece of meat might be browned in a skillet before being
sealed and cooked. Some people use the sealing without cooking to change the
texture - for example "compressed" watermelon.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:53:05 GMT, Peter Aitken wrote:

> For
> example lamb shanks might be cooked at 160 degrees f for 24 hours.

They had a spot on Good Morning America talking about Cryovacking...
the man said a lamb shank takes 36 hours.