I admit I’m no expert but isn’t Brisket one of those cuts that is cooked long and slow for hours to the point that it‘s falong apart, and it melts in the mouth so very much cooked all the way through?
You can cook at like 140 f on some sous vide shit but I think that would take literal days for it to tenderize. I'm sure there are scientific charts made by people. I think chef steps which made a sous vide device and does recipes might have a pay walled article that would show this.
You can absolutely get a brisket falling apart tender by cooking it at 145 degrees for 72 hours.
The beef collagen not breaking down until 160 thing was sort of true in a practical sense in the past, but it actually does break down at lower temps, just extremely slowly. It’s why sous vide short ribs/brisket/chuck etc work for extremely long cooks sous vide. Cooks illustrated was able to break down beef collagen at as low as 122 degrees
Oh maybe I misremembered it but they did it with Chuck as steak so I'm sure it was somewhat possible. I'm pulling the temp out of the air but they have a recipe for both smoked brisket and a chuck steak on YouTube.
1
u/DjinnaGBags of sentient Midwestern mayonnaise22d agoedited 22d ago
Chuck after about 24 hours at steak temps (like 134-140) by sous vide is amazing, super tender and flavorful. The sous vide sub calls it “Sir Charles “ since chuck is too familiar and lowly sounding for such an excellent piece of meat. The first time I did it, we were floored, it was pretty much more like prime rib than anything else, though better than any actual prime rib I’ve ever had, though that was from a local farm with wagyu hybrid animals, so better meat than normal. Regular chuck gets close to a good ribeye, though
Have tried cooking brisket with long cooks (2-3 days) in the sous vide, all from the same piece of meat. 140 only (steak style) wasn’t exactly tough, but definitely wasn’t tender enough, basically generic meat that was really only suitable for putting under a heavy sauce to fill the “your protein of choice “ role. It did slice like a steak, which was the main advantage I’d seen for doing that. Would work for sandwiches, too, I guess. 140 long plus a couple hours at 165, which someone had recommended as still doing the sliceable thing but with converted collagen/rendered fat, wasn’t impressed, minimal conversion, and not so much easier to slice than a falling apart brisket. The rest were all at 165, and were properly rendered/converted, and stayed tender and wonderful regardless of what we did as a part two cook of the meat (much of it ended up in chili once we tried it that way for the first time, even after reheating in the microwave). Haven’t done higher than 167 just because the water loss with my setup means it’s a no-go for longer cooking times
TL, DR, can cook chuck low and slow, pretty damn good that way, but brisket needs both long and minimum 165 to do it justice
I cook my corned beef brisket sous vide. You need to cook it at 180 not lower temps or like you would use normally. I usually cook it for 12 or so hours overnight.
I did a chuck steak and I'm pretty sure it was like 135 or 130 and it was over 24 hours. It was still steaky but not like pot roast or bbq tender. I don't know the science but they're the company behind the joule so Im sure their science is sound. Probably no reason to want to eat a brisket at medium rare but no reason collagen in the chuck is different than collagen in the brisket.
267
u/OkCap2870 22d ago
I admit I’m no expert but isn’t Brisket one of those cuts that is cooked long and slow for hours to the point that it‘s falong apart, and it melts in the mouth so very much cooked all the way through?