-
So there was noticeable difference. (Sry for shit pics)
Like I said I had two chicken breasts in one zipper bag, submerged in water. Both were seasoned a bit with salt, pepper, chilli and curry powder. I let them sit in the water bath for about 1h30m, then I took one out of the bag and let it rest on some kitchen towel towel. The other I left in the bag and chilled it in a cold water bath. The image below shows the chilled breast on the left. You can see the moisture loss in the bag, it's almost non-existent.
Here I carved the chilled breast. It wasn't quite as cooked as I had expected it to be. It was tender, quite juicy and not at all very stringy. However the intense pink colour (which can't really be seen on this photo) and the still kinda slippery texture revealed that it was undercooked.
I still had to eat. I had prepared a salad with which I was going to eat the chicken, so I heated up a cast iron pan for about 10 minutes, added some oil and seared the non-chilled chicken breast to coat it with a bit of a crust. It was skinless breast so it wasn't that special a crust, but still worth putting on there.
Just look at that. Perfectly cooked all the way through (once again, the photo fails to demonstrate this). Nice and slightly crisp exterior with an extremely moist and tender interior. Not stringy at all, but still enough texture to make it feel like eating chicken. It was very good and definitely worth the wait. I guess because I didn't chill this breast it still had some time to keep cooking after I had pulled it out of the water bath. I don't think the hot pan sear did much in terms of done-ness.
You are reading a single comment by @Machine and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Machine
Do one normally, pan fry or whatever - the control.
Compare to your sous-vide.
I'm hoping there is little difference, as breast is dry and low in fat so the sous-vide would be a waste of time and money. But I could be wrong. Keen to hear about results.