Dave Schwartz
TVWBB Fan
I just saw a video where spareribs were seared on the grill over high heat, similar to a steak, before placing in the smoker. Has anybody ever tried this?
Searing Ribs First?
- Thread starter Dave Schwartz
- Start date
Tim Clendenning
TVWBB Pro
Hey Dave, never tried but i would think that searing the ribs first would prevent most of the smoke and possibly the rub from penetrating the meat?
What was the purpose of searing first, did the video explain why?
Windy City Smokers
What was the purpose of searing first, did the video explain why?
Windy City Smokers
David Willis
TVWBB Member
I have and it turned out great. I took a class from a chef from the Culinary Institute of America and he recommended searing EVERYTHING before smoking (Brisket, Butts, Ribs, EVERYTHING). We did a brisket and it looked like the grill was going to explode. Temp read over 600 degrees and we used tongs to position every side of the brisket to be seared. Ribs were a bit easier, but because we did use a bit of brown sugar, it looked like we were burning it. He stood there confident though and said don't worry...but we did.
After searing, we moved the meat to a smoker and slow cooked as normal. The brisket was the juiciest I've every had. Ribs were tender, but not as big a difference as the brisket. His reasoning was if you start low, you end up losing a lot of your moisture because it is seeping out the meat and down cooker. More popular with steaks (sear, then cook with cooler temps until desired doneness), but same premise.
Even though we seared the meats and they appeared, well, burned to a crisp, after smoking the skin seemed to relent a bit and came out "normal. Not burned it at all. He compared it to what happends of you burn yourself (or get sunburn), then sweat. At first the skin is tight and dry, but as you sweat, the moisture gets in the area and softens it. Good smoke ring, not as much bark as I'm used to, though.
Anyway, I do it on all big cuts (butts, briskets), but since the difference on ribs was there, but not as remarkable, I vary with them. If you mist or foil, you'll get closer results (and he was sort of against foiling because you were then just braising, not smoking). 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of another...whatever gets you the results.
Try it, though, especially on big cuts!
After searing, we moved the meat to a smoker and slow cooked as normal. The brisket was the juiciest I've every had. Ribs were tender, but not as big a difference as the brisket. His reasoning was if you start low, you end up losing a lot of your moisture because it is seeping out the meat and down cooker. More popular with steaks (sear, then cook with cooler temps until desired doneness), but same premise.
Even though we seared the meats and they appeared, well, burned to a crisp, after smoking the skin seemed to relent a bit and came out "normal. Not burned it at all. He compared it to what happends of you burn yourself (or get sunburn), then sweat. At first the skin is tight and dry, but as you sweat, the moisture gets in the area and softens it. Good smoke ring, not as much bark as I'm used to, though.
Anyway, I do it on all big cuts (butts, briskets), but since the difference on ribs was there, but not as remarkable, I vary with them. If you mist or foil, you'll get closer results (and he was sort of against foiling because you were then just braising, not smoking). 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of another...whatever gets you the results.
Try it, though, especially on big cuts!
Tim Clendenning
TVWBB Pro
Ok Dave, that sounds good. I might have to give that a try. I can see how searing might lock in the moisture for a better result at the end.
Windy City Smokers
Windy City Smokers
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Neither the rub nor smoke 'penetrates' the meat. For rub flavors to do much penetration the rub must be made with substantial salt and applied long before smoking--one day to as many as several, depending on the item, like one does with curing. Smoke adsorbs, it doesn't really absorb (i.e., penetrate), except superficially, in typical smoking. (For smoking of cured items, especially with long cold- or hot-smoking times, post-adsorbtion absorbtion is more likely.)
The CIA instructor is correct--to a point. As at least a few of us here have noted, low/slow is fine but lower/slower is rarely better--or even as good, for precisely the reason noted: more juices have more time to seep out or evaporate. What searing does is speed up the cook, something you can also do, without searing, by simply smoking at a higher temp from the get-go, something several of us do.
I don't sear ribs, butts and briskets--I just smoke at higher temps. But I often sear chuck roasts destined to eventually be braised, before smoking first. Even though I still smoke at higher temps, searing develops surface flavors that, because I'm only smoking for a little while (not till done) then braising, would otherwise go undeveloped.
That is why, also, steaks are seared: Searing causes caramelization of the surface and creates hundreds of flavors. Same premise, yes--searing steaks means more rapid cooking.
Some moisture loss occurs during searing, btw. Searing does not in any way seal the surface or lock in moisture.
The CIA instructor is correct--to a point. As at least a few of us here have noted, low/slow is fine but lower/slower is rarely better--or even as good, for precisely the reason noted: more juices have more time to seep out or evaporate. What searing does is speed up the cook, something you can also do, without searing, by simply smoking at a higher temp from the get-go, something several of us do.
I don't sear ribs, butts and briskets--I just smoke at higher temps. But I often sear chuck roasts destined to eventually be braised, before smoking first. Even though I still smoke at higher temps, searing develops surface flavors that, because I'm only smoking for a little while (not till done) then braising, would otherwise go undeveloped.
That is why, also, steaks are seared: Searing causes caramelization of the surface and creates hundreds of flavors. Same premise, yes--searing steaks means more rapid cooking.
Some moisture loss occurs during searing, btw. Searing does not in any way seal the surface or lock in moisture.
Dave Schwartz
TVWBB Fan
Here is the link to the video that I saw this on. This was posted on Roadfood.com.
http://www.viddler.com/surfinsapo/videos/22/
http://www.viddler.com/surfinsapo/videos/22/
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Yup, Mike. Another myth--just like soaking wood and corn. It was disproved in the late 1800s but lived on; it was disproved again the 1930s but lived on. Harold McGee disproved it again in the early 80s but... .
High heat is necessary for searing, as you know. This actually causes more moisture loss--at the surface--than more moderate heat does.
High heat is necessary for searing, as you know. This actually causes more moisture loss--at the surface--than more moderate heat does.
Bill Freiberger
TVWBB All-Star
On "Good Eats" Alton Brown disproved that searing seals in juices. He took two steaks that weighed the same and seared one of them before baking them both in the oven. He removed the steaks when they reached the same internal temperature (the seared one reached that temp a little sooner). They both weighed basically the same after being cooked so they each lost about the same amount of moisture during cooking.
Also, I suspect that you'd get less of a smoke ring if you seared the meat since the smoke ring stops forming at 140*.
Bill
David Willis
TVWBB Member
Kevin (or anyone...)
What do you attribute the juicyness of the brisket done this way (searing)? I guess there are several variables here since it was not side by side with something I've done at home. Quality of meat? Reduced cooking time? Placebo?
What do you attribute the juicyness of the brisket done this way (searing)? I guess there are several variables here since it was not side by side with something I've done at home. Quality of meat? Reduced cooking time? Placebo?
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
I'm guessing that it is the reduced cooking time--though certainly meat quality can be a factor. I'm basing my guess on my experience, my knowledge of food chemistry and my understanding of how the tastebuds/brain act/react to various food/taste stimuli. I'm not going to say I know the answer to your question, but based on these issues, and on the experience over many years of cooking the progressively leaner meats that have been, unfortunately, demanded by American consumers, that's my response. Perhaps I'm wrong. It's harder to wager a guess (or to 'know') having not been present when you cooked the brisket you described.
Even today, though, one uses a different approach in terms of temps when one cooks Prime brisket vs. Select, or when one cooks supermarket ribs vs. ribs from a pastured Berkshire pig. At least I do anyway. The better marbled Prime and fattier Berk ribs call for lower/slower cooking than does the Select or the market ribs.
Another variable might be at play. Normally I use the term 'caramelization' pretty loosely; I'm not going to here.
Caramelization, the chemical reactions that occur when sugar is heated to the point that its molecules break apart, creates hundreds of new flavor compounds and causes the browning we associate with the word.
Maillard reactions, similar though more complex, that also cause browning, occur when heat is applied to a carbohydrate (free sugar) molecule with the presence of protein or an amino acid. Maillard reactions are what are primarily responsible for the color and flavors of roasted, grilled and sauteed meats, bread crusts, unsweetened chocolate--items that are not mostly sugar, though, in the case of rubbed meats or, for another example, doughs (like cookies) that have a large sugar component, caramelization can also occur, depending on the cook temps. Caramelization begins to occur at temps of 330 and above; Maillard reactions start lower, somewhere between 230 and 250.
Maillard browning reactions, especially, due to their complexity and the vast number of flavor compounds created during the process, are largely responsible for how we react to foods that have undergone this process. One can cook a steak, for example, or, say, a dinner roll, in such a way that it is cooked to 'done' but not browned. The difference, though obvious, is pretty remarkable, and our taste buds (and brain) react much differently when tasting the two. The complexity and number of the flavors developed due to Maillard reactions cause increased 'tastiness', increased salivation, and an increased perception of 'full-flavoredness' because of how our tastebuds/brain reacts to this type of browning. With steaks, for example, it can make them seem more moist, even though they in fact have lost a bit more moisture at the surface due to being seared.
Even today, though, one uses a different approach in terms of temps when one cooks Prime brisket vs. Select, or when one cooks supermarket ribs vs. ribs from a pastured Berkshire pig. At least I do anyway. The better marbled Prime and fattier Berk ribs call for lower/slower cooking than does the Select or the market ribs.
Another variable might be at play. Normally I use the term 'caramelization' pretty loosely; I'm not going to here.
Caramelization, the chemical reactions that occur when sugar is heated to the point that its molecules break apart, creates hundreds of new flavor compounds and causes the browning we associate with the word.
Maillard reactions, similar though more complex, that also cause browning, occur when heat is applied to a carbohydrate (free sugar) molecule with the presence of protein or an amino acid. Maillard reactions are what are primarily responsible for the color and flavors of roasted, grilled and sauteed meats, bread crusts, unsweetened chocolate--items that are not mostly sugar, though, in the case of rubbed meats or, for another example, doughs (like cookies) that have a large sugar component, caramelization can also occur, depending on the cook temps. Caramelization begins to occur at temps of 330 and above; Maillard reactions start lower, somewhere between 230 and 250.
Maillard browning reactions, especially, due to their complexity and the vast number of flavor compounds created during the process, are largely responsible for how we react to foods that have undergone this process. One can cook a steak, for example, or, say, a dinner roll, in such a way that it is cooked to 'done' but not browned. The difference, though obvious, is pretty remarkable, and our taste buds (and brain) react much differently when tasting the two. The complexity and number of the flavors developed due to Maillard reactions cause increased 'tastiness', increased salivation, and an increased perception of 'full-flavoredness' because of how our tastebuds/brain reacts to this type of browning. With steaks, for example, it can make them seem more moist, even though they in fact have lost a bit more moisture at the surface due to being seared.
Dave Schwartz
TVWBB Fan
Hi Mike,
I have been to Poeta's but still find myself getting most of my meat from Costco or Sam's. I did a brisket flat from from Costco last week and it came out great.
Dave
