PDA

View Full Version : Reverse Smoked Brisket


WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 01:25 PM
Thought I would share my method for cooking what I consider the most succulent,tender,juicy smoked brisket ive ever made/tasted. It involves using a water oven to cook the brisket to 133F for 20 hours. If your not familiar how to cook with a water oven you can find the technical/safety info here: http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html

After the 20 hours it goes into the smoker thats set to 175F and smoked with apple wood for 4-6 hours till internal temperature of 145-148F is reached. I rub my briskets with a basic rub after it comes out of the water oven and i use a spray bottle to baste it with pressed apple juice during the 4-6 hour smoke.

If your concerned with pathogens read the link above for pasteurization time/temps.

I know alot of old school pit masters here wont approve of the methods but i feel pictures are worth a thousand words.

http://s10.postimg.org/tcx59wsq1/P3265610.jpg


http://s10.postimg.org/fxa4kgk89/P3265633.jpg


http://s10.postimg.org/s1tzf6mi1/P3265652.jpg


http://s10.postimg.org/r23ojh7c9/P3265644.jpg


http://s10.postimg.org/9q3by1dux/P3265651.jpg

Bludawg
04-03-2013, 01:40 PM
Interesting! Looks very good!

MS2SB
04-03-2013, 01:46 PM
Certainly not a traditional method, but that certainly looks good. I think that WoodPelletSmoker has acutally designed a temp controller that allows for a similiar technique to be used all on the smoker.

landarc
04-03-2013, 01:51 PM
So, and I am generally open to new ideas, but, I have to ask.

Was the brisket significantly better than a traditional smoked brisket? We're talking 26 hours of cooking, is it worth the time?

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 01:54 PM
Certainly not a traditional method, but that certainly looks good. I think that WoodPelletSmoker has acutally designed a temp controller that allows for a similiar technique to be used all on the smoker.

I suppose you could do it all in the smoker but it would certainly need to be wrapped in foil for the duration of the long low temp cook. You could also pre smoke instead the post smoke.

BobM
04-03-2013, 01:56 PM
Looks great!

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 01:57 PM
So, and I am generally open to new ideas, but, I have to ask.

Was the brisket significantly better than a traditional smoked brisket? We're talking 26 hours of cooking, is it worth the time?

By far better. You have breakdown at 145F internal where traditionally would take 190F-200F internal. As for time, in the water oven its pretty much set it, and forget it.

landarc
04-03-2013, 02:11 PM
By far better. You have breakdown at 145F internal where traditionally would take 190F-200F internal. As for time, in the water oven its pretty much set it, and forget it.
But, was the end result better, was it more tender, more flavorful, more something?

jmoney7269
04-03-2013, 02:18 PM
Nice looking cook. To me it appears your slicing from the point back. In the 2nd pic with 2 slices, the fat doesn't appear to be very well rendered. It could be just the picture. But the serious question that awaits is: Why do something for 26 hrs that can be done in 6 or less with the same results. Yes your method sounds wonderful, and I would love to try it but most of us just refuse to cook for the long. But a very interesting concept! Good thread

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 02:20 PM
But, was the end result better, was it more tender, more flavorful, more something?

Define "more tender". It was as tender as any traditional low and slow cooked brisket with the exception of being juicy like a medium steak. As far as more flavorful...I think so. But again, define "flavorful" there flavorful inside with more juices, and theres flavorful outside with rubs and smoke.

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 02:25 PM
Nice looking cook. To me it appears your slicing from the point back. In the 2nd pic with 2 slices, the fat doesn't appear to be very well rendered. It could be just the picture. But the serious question that awaits is: Why do something for 26 hrs that can be done in 6 or less with the same results. Yes your method sounds wonderful, and I would love to try it but most of us just refuse to cook for the long. But a very interesting concept! Good thread

I guess the pics dont do it justice in that department. Or maybe i wasnt clear on what texture i was shooting for so let me be more specific. I wanted something very tender and juicy that can be pulled apart with very little effort, but I prefer a bricket that can be sliced thin and chopped. Im not a fan of shredded beef brisket. Pulled pork is another story.

landarc
04-03-2013, 02:30 PM
Well, that is an interesting conundrum isn't it. Out here in California, most folks (until recently) considered tender to be a medium rare steak, and more flavorful as a similar thing. That is to say, not cooked to 200F or more, and relying as much on retained water-based moisture, to define moist and tender. For many of us who love brisket, the flat is not meant to be dripping with juices like a steak, it is meant to be on the leaner side, but, with an easy pull, that you never find in a steak. Flavor is a similar thing, and I speak of flavor from the beef, a medium rare steak has one taste, a brisket has another, just as pot roast is yet again different.

I find your method interesting, just I have the methods and ideas that Nathan Myhrvold has been putting forward. They differ considerably from the tradition of BBQ, but, from a results point of view, they have great merit.

To be clear, I have generally not liked meats prepared sous vide/water oven style, with the exceptions of chicken (amazing) and lobster (great). I do love many vegetables and fruit prepared sous vide for some reason. Of late, pork belly and steak are all the rage to do in water ovens out here, and I find them to be reliably disappointing. I dislike both the texture and flavor of the meat in these types of cooks. Hence my questions.

CharredApron
04-03-2013, 02:39 PM
Nice looking cook. To me it appears your slicing from the point back. In the 2nd pic with 2 slices, the fat doesn't appear to be very well rendered. It could be just the picture. But the serious question that awaits is: Why do something for 26 hrs that can be done in 6 or less with the same results. Yes your method sounds wonderful, and I would love to try it but most of us just refuse to cook for the long. But a very interesting concept! Good thread
What....are you kidding 26 hours of continuous beer drinking, wow I am going try this method. Maybe even have some time for JD

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 02:48 PM
Well, that is an interesting conundrum isn't it. Out here in California, most folks (until recently) considered tender to be a medium rare steak, and more flavorful as a similar thing. That is to say, not cooked to 200F or more, and relying as much on retained water-based moisture, to define moist and tender. For many of us who love brisket, the flat is not meant to be dripping with juices like a steak, it is meant to be on the leaner side, but, with an easy pull, that you never find in a steak. Flavor is a similar thing, and I speak of flavor from the beef, a medium rare steak has one taste, a brisket has another, just as pot roast is yet again different.

I find your method interesting, just I have the methods and ideas that Nathan Myhrvold has been putting forward. They differ considerably from the tradition of BBQ, but, from a results point of view, they have great merit.

To be clear, I have generally not liked meats prepared sous vide/water oven style, with the exceptions of chicken (amazing) and lobster (great). I do love many vegetables and fruit prepared sous vide for some reason. Of late, pork belly and steak are all the rage to do in water ovens out here, and I find them to be reliably disappointing. I dislike both the texture and flavor of the meat in these types of cooks. Hence my questions.

I agree with you on the textures of some things cooked in water ovens. Especially meats cooked for insane long cooks like 72 hour short ribs. They come out like mushy sawdust. I draw the limit to 20-24 hours for beef and 30 hours for pork butts to an internal temp of 155F you can pull the bone right out.

As far as 26 hours, dont forget im forgetting about it for 20 hours and only really paying attention for the 4-6 hours its in the smoker.

RAYSOR
04-03-2013, 02:53 PM
looks great!

landarc
04-03-2013, 03:04 PM
I had forgotten about the short ribs experience, that was horrible. Yum, beef pudding!

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 03:08 PM
I had forgotten about the short ribs experience, that was horrible. Yum, beef pudding!

Hurry get a patent before JELLO does!

JS-TX
04-03-2013, 04:24 PM
Interesting, I don't doubt that you enjoyed it and I'm sure it was flavorful. However, it certainly doesn't have a smoked brisket appearance and the AJ pairs much better w/pork IMO. I do think you can accomplish the exact same thing in less time @higher temp.

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 05:06 PM
Interesting, I don't doubt that you enjoyed it and I'm sure it was flavorful. However, it certainly doesn't have a smoked brisket appearance and the AJ pairs much better w/pork IMO. I do think you can accomplish the exact same thing in less time @higher temp.

Next time i will try to find pictures of your briskets so i will know what smoked brisket is supposed to look like. Sorry if i offended you.

---k---
04-03-2013, 06:42 PM
Interesting. Im sure it produces tasty results.

How much smoke and rub flavor does the meat take on since it doesn't get applied until after the meat has been cooked to 133*.

Also, have you had brisket in any of the Texas Meccas? I found that I didn't know what good brisket was supposed to taste like until I had.

drbbq
04-03-2013, 07:09 PM
Interesting idea. I've had the conversation with a sous vide loving chef friend and we agree that it's a close relative to the low slow traditional cooking we do in a BBQ pit with relation to the meat breakdown. But the color that makes a brisket look like it's BBQ'd is best done at the beginning of the cook, so why not smoke it for 6 hours and then into the sous vide. Seems it would work similarly but might have a nice smoke ring.
At any rate I like guys that try new stuff and you sure did.

Panther5150
04-03-2013, 07:24 PM
Looks great

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 07:24 PM
Interesting idea. I've had the conversation with a sous vide loving chef friend and we agree that it's a close relative to the low slow traditional cooking we do in a BBQ pit with relation to the meat breakdown. But the color that makes a brisket look like it's BBQ'd is best done at the beginning of the cook, so why not smoke it for 6 hours and then into the sous vide. Seems it would work similarly but might have a nice smoke ring.
At any rate I like guys that try new stuff and you sure did.

I tried the smoke first approach with both hot and cold smoking and in both cases found that not only does it stink your house up because smoke aroma's penetrate bags, but also as the liquids release from the meats, it mixes with the smoke layer and basicly turns into liquid smoke. I found it to be artifical in taste and stale. Smoking after seems to be the best approach in all my tests. Also maybe its hard to see but there is about an 1/8" smoke ring that did form in the amount of time it went from 133F to from what i read to be 140F being the cut off for smoke ring formation.

martyleach
04-03-2013, 07:35 PM
I have a friend that swears by it but I find the meat too mushy for my taste. In fact, it was my whole family. He gave us flap meat and flank steak.

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 07:48 PM
I have a friend that swears by it but I find the meat too mushy for my taste. In fact, it was my whole family. He gave us flap meat and flank steak.

Dont take this the wrong way but mushy is due to user error from a prolonged cook time. For example, I will use corned beef as an example since its brisket. Most recipes you will find people cook for upwards of 48-72 hours which will definitely give you mushy brisket. I do all my corned beef briskets no more then 24 hours and they come out perfect everytime. Never mushy.

boiler93
04-03-2013, 08:30 PM
Doesn't look mushy to me based on the pics. Sounds like you thoroughly enjoyed the the cook and the end result. Keep up the great work!

hnd
04-03-2013, 10:42 PM
had a friend prepare a brisket the same way. he is a coworker who is very much into the water cooker stuff. it was good...it looked similar and didn't really have much of the traditional brisket taste or feel. there wasn't much rendering of fat even though it for the most part fell apart. it basically tasted like the best roast beef i'd ever had....like the best roast beef by FAR. we all agreed at work.

WareZdaBeef
04-03-2013, 11:34 PM
No idea how your co worker could smoke a brisket for 4-6 hours and come out tasting like roast beef.:loco:

Fo Sizzle My Nizzle
04-04-2013, 12:05 AM
Interesting website and that Baldwin guy has a nice looking head of hair!! I'm definitely interested in trying some of the techniques in my kitchen but not so much in my smoker just yet.

iowasmoker
04-04-2013, 01:02 AM
As i professional chef i use sous vide cooking daily for meats and vegetables. Trying foods prepared this way for the first time is like experiancing your first crush all over again. We sear beef short ribs, deglaze the pan with red wine ,veal stock, and djion mustard then reduce it down, cool it add it with the ribs in the vac sealer and cook at 145 f for 48 hours. The short rib comes out medium like a steak but it has the big gelatinous flavor of braised meat. It is unlike any other meat experiance. I can taste this brisket as i type. Nice cook.

jeffjenkins1
04-04-2013, 01:19 AM
Hmm, few post and, well... I have cooked a lot of BBQ, cooked professionally as a chef and would never come into a sous vide forum and suggest that smoking before vacuum sealing would make the meat more flavorful than sous vide alone. Not saying I doubt it, well, yes I am.

Jeff

Pyle's BBQ
04-04-2013, 01:21 AM
I'd like to know how much equipment and space this type of cooking takes. Yes, it is a different way to cook but is it really worth the time and space?

iowasmoker
04-04-2013, 02:10 AM
Very little space. Like tqo feet of your kitchen.

iowasmoker
04-04-2013, 02:14 AM
Also our short ribs are not mushy. The chef probably cooked them too high.they are melt in your mouth but it takes a good 5 or six chews.

westy
04-04-2013, 02:54 AM
Sounds very interesting. Definately not traditional but sounds tasty. Thanks for posting.

WareZdaBeef
04-04-2013, 08:36 AM
Hmm, few post and, well... I have cooked a lot of BBQ, cooked professionally as a chef and would never come into a sous vide forum and suggest that smoking before vacuum sealing would make the meat more flavorful than sous vide alone. Not saying I doubt it, well, yes I am.

Jeff

Who said anything about smoking before sous vide being more or less flavorful then without? I merly suggested that smoking before sous vide the smoke layer gets pulled out of the meat with the juices and creates a liquid smoke of sorts. It leaves in my opinion, a stale artificial smoke taste/smell. To say you have more smoke flavor if you smoke before vs after makes no sense because after smokeing all those juices left in the bag contain a good % of the smoke layer you had just added.

Buried In Smoke
04-04-2013, 09:29 AM
I have no experience with this type of cook, so I am only speculating based on my background. In my opinion, smoking first would indeed pull the ring, and and thus the flavor causing that artificial liquid smoke taste. Nice cook. Thanks for sharing.

MisterChrister
04-04-2013, 09:43 AM
That looks delicious, I'd kill a HUGE pile of that brisket! Thanks for posting this!

WareZdaBeef
04-04-2013, 09:54 AM
I seem to be getting some flack about muscle fiber breakdown at these low temps, and also about smoke ring.So I went through my pictures and found some more that may give a better idea.

http://s18.postimg.org/phdb5clix/P3265636.jpg


http://s18.postimg.org/f9zd6ooop/P3265655.jpg

JS-TX
04-04-2013, 01:25 PM
Next time i will try to find pictures of your briskets so i will know what smoked brisket is supposed to look like. Sorry if i offended you.

Come on now, I didn't get offended at all. I'm just saying it doesn't look like smoked brisket that I'm/many people are used to seeing.. just stating the facts. Cool?

Ryan Chester
04-04-2013, 01:46 PM
Good, bad, or indifferent..I love your out of the box experiment. I always thought that sous vide would be a great method for reheating meat also. Being sealed in a bag, they would not lose moisture durring the re-heat process. Thank for sharing!

drbbq
04-04-2013, 07:41 PM
Those new pics look great!

landarc
04-04-2013, 08:00 PM
Also our short ribs are not mushy. The chef probably cooked them too high.they are melt in your mouth but it takes a good 5 or six chews.
As I stated before, I am very familiar with sous vide. For me, some of the meats just don't work for my palate. And I have eaten plenty of food by some of the best chef's in the country. Including some who are noted for their sous vide cooking of meats.

But, I do like the idea of what was done with this cook, and have an interest in the idea. I am not going to go out and buy a water oven just yet, but, it is a piece of equipment I have wanted for some time. I happen to think chicken, for instance, is vastly better tasting and eating from sous vide, than any other method of cooking. Because I see some similarities, such as dense lean protein, fine connective tissue, narrow section and low moisture inherent to the meat, I can totally see this working for brisket.

Bbq Bubba
04-04-2013, 08:05 PM
Really?

Heres 15 hrs and it tastes like brisket. :thumb:

landarc
04-04-2013, 08:18 PM
Really?

Heres 15 hrs and it tastes like brisket. :thumb:
Weird, it looks like brisket too

WareZdaBeef
04-04-2013, 08:45 PM
Really?

Heres 15 hrs and it tastes like brisket. :thumb:

Really what?

I like the nice bark you got on your brisket. I admit, I would have liked to get more bark on mine but i tend to go alittle crazy with the spray bottle.

Limp Brisket
04-04-2013, 08:57 PM
I'll fire up my stick burner and whip that ass in 6 hours. Your brisket looks fine though.

shirknwrk
04-05-2013, 12:43 AM
I've done it with chuck eye... good results. It is my favorite way to do tri-tip. 12 hrs. in the water oven (reserve the juices) and sear on the egg. Tender, wall to wall pink (no well done)... no smoke flavor, though.

WareZdaBeef
04-05-2013, 01:19 AM
I've done it with chuck eye... good results. It is my favorite way to do tri-tip. 12 hrs. in the water oven (reserve the juices) and sear on the egg. Tender, wall to wall pink (no well done)... no smoke flavor, though.

12 hours in the water oven i find gives more of a prime rib/steak flavor/texture. You need atleast a good 20 hours+ to get that breakdown at such low temps where you still have some pink color.

Bbq Bubba
04-05-2013, 06:38 AM
I will admit im not that familiar with your technique but seems that science would state that at 145, theres just no way that the fat has had a chance to break down?

WareZdaBeef
04-05-2013, 11:20 AM
I will admit im not that familiar with your technique but seems that science would state that at 145, theres just no way that the fat has had a chance to break down?

You may want to go read up on this technique or get new glasses because i dont understand how you can not see in the second last pic how well broken down the fat is. The fat cap could literally just fall off, its like gelatin.

Here is a video of a pork butt i had cooked in the water oven for 30 hours at 155F. This is only a 10 degree difference then the beef.

http://youtu.be/YysV1l4X83s?t=5s

landarc
04-05-2013, 12:36 PM
Bubba, it is all about time versus temperature and how even a mild rise in temperature works on the proteins. It would normally work, that at higher temperatures, reaching 145F would not change the proteins enough to result in fully breaking down the membranes. However, proteins do break down at lower temperatures, in fact, as low as 110F, it just takes time. So, by bringing a piece of meat up to 145F and holding it there, exactly, for 20 hours, you are effectively applying enough heat to break down the proteins, but, by cooking in an environment of 145F for a long time, the texture is controlled somewhat. Of course, by going too long, the cellular structure breaks down, and the meat turns to mush.

Fo Sizzle My Nizzle
04-05-2013, 12:43 PM
After checking out the douglas baldwin site mentioned in the OP (did I mention this guy has a great head of hair?), I'm intrigued enough to research some more to see if this could be another way for me to cook a good dinner in the kitchen this upcoming fall. I wouldn't mind food geekin a little bit. Although I may have to steer clear of the BBQ rib recipe...YIKES!!!

WareZdaBeef
04-05-2013, 12:49 PM
Bubba, it is all about time versus temperature and how even a mild rise in temperature works on the proteins. It would normally work, that at higher temperatures, reaching 145F would not change the proteins enough to result in fully breaking down the membranes. However, proteins do break down at lower temperatures, in fact, as low as 110F, it just takes time. So, by bringing a piece of meat up to 145F and holding it there, exactly, for 20 hours, you are effectively applying enough heat to break down the proteins, but, by cooking in an environment of 145F for a long time, the texture is controlled somewhat. Of course, by going too long, the cellular structure breaks down, and the meat turns to mush.

Dont forget that holding any meat at 110F for more then 2-3 hours is dangerous. Mine was held at 133F for 20 hours, not 145F. I had gradually let it go from 133F to 145/148F in the smoker over the course of 6 hours to get a slight smoke ring and a nice mellow smoke flavor. I say mellow because ive noticed that with any par-cooked meat smoke does adhere, but not as much as starting from room temp or lower. I find this to be a good thing because i never worry about the meats tasting like a house fire from over smoking.

landarc
04-05-2013, 12:57 PM
Yes, I was not suggesting 110F was a good idea, but, science suggests that most proteins denature at temperatures around 110F, therefore cooking to 145F does not preclude tender meat or rendered fat.

Although, if you have a really good vacuum packer, I would suspect that you could cook meat to 110F safely.

WareZdaBeef
04-05-2013, 01:24 PM
Yes, I was not suggesting 110F was a good idea, but, science suggests that most proteins denature at temperatures around 110F, therefore cooking to 145F does not preclude tender meat or rendered fat.

Although, if you have a really good vacuum packer, I would suspect that you could cook meat to 110F safely.

While proteins may start to break down at such low temps, it would take an extremely long time. And it all comes down to pasteurization and the temps and time it takes. If memory serves me, beef needs to brought and held to 131.5 for X amount of time before its considered to be pasteurized. Anything below that would have to be consumed within 2-3 hours or you risk your health. I would never suggest anything lower then 125F for longer then 2 hours and even that to me is still Moo'ing.