nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Why 72 hours?

robert.c.brown15

So why only 72 hours for short ribs? I assume Modernist cuisine or chefsteps attempted longer times and didn't notice any difference. Any attempts at 2 to 4 week sous vide cooks? Waste of time/product? I have heard of 100 hour oxtail. That is the longest cook time I've heard of. Just curious...

Find more posts tagged with

Everything Else

Comments

seijoed

Here was the original discussion -

http://forum.chefsteps.com/discussion/comment/5619/#Comment_5619

seijoed

I know

I heard of the 100h about a few weeks afterwards - here actually

robert.c.brown15

72? So close! Why stop? YOU WERE ALMOST THERE!!!!

seijoed

I think Chris mentioned it, it wasn't really improving anything, I 've just done the oxtail 72

robert.c.brown15

I thought you did it? I guess not. What kind of diminishing returns? Dry meat?

seijoed

I think it was mentioned before that it becomes diminishing return on investment going past those times on certain cuts.

The 100h oxtail is something I have been wanting to try