Been looking at the Traeger site and they say it's not the temp it's some process of something breaking down and something happening. I would go back and find it in their Q&A but you guys probably already know. Reviews I have been reading people are saying they aren't able to sear because they are having a tough time getting the temp up enough.
Opinions?
I don't have a set yet, but some Pellet cookers go with 'GrillGrates' to assist in searing..
10.5 did a review on them in a recent newsletter. I'm sure some others will chime in..
Here is the Newsletter with the review on GrillGrates it is on page 4
http://www.susanminor.org/users/Hab/Executable_Files/Forum_Newsletters/Forum_Newsletter_Vol2_Issue2_Feb_2010.pdf
There are secrects to getting grill marks if that is important to you.
Thanks for the news letter.
After doing some more reading it might make sense to just pan sear then move to the grill. It will keep me from having to buy more stuff. Which is less fun, but no wife yapping.
I have the Treager and I am very happy with it. As far as searing or "grill marks", I do have my gasser next to the Treager, and do it for presentation only. Whatever goes on inside those pellet poopers gives a nice smokey, moist and flavorfull cook. I just did some chops tonight that were bagged up in CT with some Dizzy Rub for the night, this time too hungry for the sear. Some of the finest chops I have had!
Not one grill mark, and I did not miss it one bit.
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk250/smokinsoon/DSC00916.jpg)
Quote from: classicrockgriller on May 04, 2010, 09:29:46 AM
There are secrects to getting grill marks if that is important to you.
Gee, thanks for sharing ;D
That is awesome looking SS.
Allmost forgot, wifey is so pleased with the Treager, I would have to prove a "MAK" miracle before even thinking about that one!!! ;D :D
Looks Delicious SS.
Decisions decisions
Quote from: Smokin Soon on May 04, 2010, 08:56:15 PM
Allmost forgot, wifey is so pleased with the Treager, I would have to prove a "MAK" miracle before even thinking about that one!!! ;D :D
The Traeger is a great unit and one I would never bash. The wife felt the same way for the short period of time I had mine. IT was just by chance that I happen to be in the right place at the right time and was able to upgrade to the MAK. That said, everything that got better going from a Gasser to the Traeger seemed to have gotten even better going to the MAK. For the first few cooks I thought it was all in my head, internally trying to justify the added cost of the MAK but when the wife started mentioning that things tasted better, had a more smokey flavor, and that she liked the food even more, well that made me feel I made the right decision. I wish I had the Lil' Tex and the MAK side by side so I could tell for sure but it seems like even quick cooks like Steaks and Burgers come out with more smoke flavor.
Life is good either way, just being a pellethead is the key! Gearing up to try jerky for the first time as well as some Kummok's salmon using the cold smoke box on the side of the MAK. Hopefully it turns out as good or better than the last two batches in the OBS. I just picked up some smaller jerky trays that fit in the cold smoke box so I can get three racks of salmon in there.
1wired1,
The Traeger is a very nice pellet grill and if you can afford the $$$'s to "upgrade" to a mak, then besure and think about that one too.
Just make sure what you want is your decission.
1wired1,
TTN and CRG have given you good information. I too had a Traeger and then bought a MAK. Both are excellent units. Like TTN I will not say anything bad about a Traeger. They do a great job. I bought a MAK for two reasons. 1)Bob Tucker who owns MAK Grills offered me a good deal to buy one, test it and post my findings on this forum and 2)I was impressed with the digital controller that the MAK has.
It's all a matter of personal preference. I've smoked/cooked great food on a Traeger. Done the same with a MAK. Squirtthecat, Smoking Soon and CRG all own a Traeger and produce incredible food. The king of pellet grills, NePaS has both a Traeger and a MAK.
You won't be sorry with whichever you choose. Let's burn some pellets!
KyNola
1W1, the Treager or the MAK will sear... and, BOTH are great smokers (as is the Bradley).
We all have different "tools" and they all work pretty darn good if ya know how to use them..
The one thing I would tell you (and I know some will heartily disagree - it's just my personal opinion)...
I consider smoking and grilling to be two entirely different activities.
Get a "tool" for each.
Even if you get something that is GOOD at both, it will only be good for ONE at a time...
(grilling=medium to high heat, and smoking=very low to low heat)
When you entertain a crowd, you can't beat the versatility of being able to grill a "snackie" load of wings (or whatever..)
While your ribs (or whatever) are slow-smoking.
Awrighten.
Thanks for your responses. I will research and ponder while I save funds. In the mean time my father gave me his old propane grill that he wasn't using. I know propane is a bad word around here, but it will get me by until I find the pellet grill I want.
1w1
I agree 100% with Hal.
The question I have is why do you want to sear. Searing is really good for those high end steak eateries - they have to sear to get at least some good taste. Searing arguably does not "seal" in juices. Searing at best causes a Mailliard Reaction which causes changes in the protein (caramalizes sort of) to add mighty good flavor to the meat. Criss/Cross sear marks are overrated in my book for looks or for flavor. I have found that a lot of unaccomplished grillers in pursuit of perfect sear marks - quite often overcook the steak. One thing to remember, is that searing also arguably causes the meat surface to not accept smoke as readily. The colder the meat the better for smoke acceptance. Once cooked, (seared) the surface is said to not accept as much smoke. Just some thoughts!
I've become quite a big fan of the reverse sear lately in order to get more smoke flavor into the steak first, then at the end a few minutes on each side to get a little of the taste from the mailliard reaction. Course it helps not grilling on a gas grill with hot spots and flare ups where everything tends to end up with a nice sear, aka char.
Quote from: Caneyscud on May 17, 2010, 03:59:38 PM
I agree 100% with Hal.
The question I have is why do you want to sear. Searing is really good for those high end steak eateries - they have to sear to get at least some good taste. Searing arguably does not "seal" in juices. ...
It's not arguable, it's been well proven to be false. One of the reasons that so many classically trained chefs cling to and perpetuate the myth is because Escoffier bought into it before the data was in.
Caramelization via the Maillard reaction can add a lot of flavor. If it is reserved until near the end of the cooking period, it happens much more readily and efficiently and the resulting product will actually retain more moisture than if seared first. The exception would be people like me who order steaks char rare with a cold center. Then, in that rare instance, the only option is max heat from the get go. The best is to throw it directly on top of a rolling radiant flat top - no pan, just right on the surface, no lube needed. Sign of a really great steakhouse is one that can pull off char rare with a cold center, not many can.
QuoteI consider smoking and grilling to be two entirely different activities.
I agree...
Pontification Warning!!!
The same man who wrote this:
"Thus as the exterior pores contract, the moisture contained in the object [meat] cannot escape any more, but is imprisoned there when the pores close."
Also wrote:
"man is by nature a political animal." – one of the most misunderstood and misused quotes – but I digress.
None other than the Greek philosopher – one of the fathers of Western Philosophy – Aristotle. – in one of his few extant books, Meteorlogica. A little before Escoffier's time – 384 bc to 322 bc, Aristotle was comparing broiling to boiling in this part of the book.
And also before Escoffier was Justus von Liebig. His findings seemed to influence Escoffier and others of the time. Liebig was a German Scientist who in about 1850 seemed to be interested in the water soluble components of meat, considering them nutritionally important. He "invented" a meat (beef) extract that was commercialized and sold that eventually became bouillon. His research wasn't about steaks but how to get the best out of a piece of meat. Remember boiling/stewing was a popular way to cook at the time. As an offshoot of his developing a meat extract, he reported that when a piece of meat was introduced to boiling water, the albumen immediately coagulates on the surface, thereby sealing the meat from intrusion of the boiling water. Either he or others turned that around and said the coagulated crust would also hold juices in.
In the 1930, home economists disproved the theory of sealing in the juices by searing by searing and otherwise cooking pieces of meat and measuring the differences in the before and after weights. They found little difference. Usually the seared pieces lost more as a % of raw weight probably because the surface had been cooked more thereby driving off more moisture. There can be experiments where you cook the same steaks, but one piece is cooked slow and loses more weight and ending up with a yucky grayish beige piece of meat accompanied with little pools of insipid pink liquid – yum. But those pieces are usually cooked at a low temperature and need a longer time to reach temp. – cooking deeper into the meat – thereby causing more muscle fibers to weep. And it did not receive the Royal Maillard Reaction treatment.
The modern Molecular Gastonomist, Harold McGee published a book in 1984, On Food and Cooking, where he also dispels the belief in searing = sealing with essentially the same type of experiments. Besides, he says, what is the sizzle when searing and then further cooking the steak other than moisture escaping? What type of moisture is it and where is it escaping from? Well it ain't likely blood, a piece of meat contains little blood – the blood having long been drained from the carcass for sanitation reasons. That red stuff in the bottom of those styrofoam trays ain't blood – it might be leakage of some "enhancement solution, if you buy that type of meat, but the industry would call it weep or purge, and a cell biologist might call it sacroplasm. Yumm, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet! Those juices are what you find leaking out as one cooks meat. The meat fibers contract and squeeze out their sacroplasm. If you cook meat that's gonna happen, no matter what you do or wish.
So how can you guarantee a nice moist, steak? Not by searing or marinating (another pontification) but by selection and by not cooking it to "doneness". A lean steak is not likely to be moist unless it is close to raw. Look for them steaks with a lot of marbling. The most tender and juicy steaks come from the sirloin, the short loin, and the rib – and then don't overcome them. Or you can add butters and sauces like the French do to cover up their mistakes
Some myths can be as irritatingly persistent as ants at a picnic. When even the TV chefs, meat experts, and top Frenchie chefs are telling us'n amatuers to "sear each side quickly to seal in juices and retain succulence," how on earth are us'n amateurs ever supposed to learn? Especially since the searing notion holds a certain logical yet sexy appeal to us'n amatuer cooks like myself! Think about it. My Dad's Mom had a huge scar on her left shin. How did she get it? She cut herself with an axe when she was young. To stop the bleeding – her Dad quickly cauterized the wound (stopped the bleeding) by putting the fireplace poker in the coals and then pressing it against the wound to stop the bleeding. She said she didn't faint, but wished she had! Now that the faint of heart have recovered, ipso facto, why would the same principle not hold true with cooking meat? Wait let's see now. It was posted on the internet --- so it must be true --- backed up by the full force majeure of the Food Network (well except AB) as well as countless cookbooks. Hey, it sounds good and I don't want to take the time out to see for sure – so by golly gee whiz, it must be true. And you must be racist if you think differently!
No wonder the French took up on this idea! H E double hockey sticks, the French probably think that GM paid off all their government loans, since it was in a commercial. They specialize in pan-frying steaks for some reason. I guess they don't have much wood in their country! A steak should not hit a fry pan or a flat top or even an oven or salamander for that matters. At least NEVER in my house (it was the first and possibly the only change I have been able to make in my wife after we got married – she slowly pan-fried her "steaks"). Now if you bread and chicken fry it – now that's another story – and good eats! If you pan fry, you miss out on one of the world's greatest food – wood grilled steak – the God-given, yet polygamous marriage between raw meat, salt, pepper, wood fire, and SMOKE!!!! Ever wonder why the French developed all their sauces? In one French cookbook, I stopped count at about 100 sauces and butters that could be used on steak. The French need sauces – to counteract the lack of flavor because of all that pan frying!
Another thing that chaps my butt, is the incorrect use of the word caramelization! If I've read it once, I've read it a 1000 times – "sear and caramelize the outside" of your steak, roast, what have you! Yeh, it's a big word, but don't let it tempt, tantalize, and corrupt you – caramelization is merely the chemical reaction that occurs when any sugar is heated to the point that its molecules begin to break apart. Stated differently, sugar is the only thing that can be caramelized. All other browning occurs generally because of the chemical reactions involved in Maillard reactions – or charring (another name for burning). Yes, part of the Maillard reaction is the caramelization of sugar, but so many other things are happening, caramelization is just a minor component. Meat cannot be caramelized and neither can onions. When you put sugar atop a piece of bacon or a Crème brûlée and cook it until the sugar browns, that is caramelization!
Caney - Somewhat TIC.
Very nicely done! I agree 100% with all that you state, and I admit I mis-wrote "caramelization via the Maillard reaction". I know better, but it's how I think of it in practical terms. Hard to believe I am actually a career chemist and misuse such terms.
Historically, as I understand, it was von Leibig assertion on the action of searing that Escoffier subscribed to and did not question, and his many disciples followed.
Being entirely uncapable of childbirth, I think the aformentioned TV commercial brought me as close as I might ever come to really understanding a women's pain...
Seein' as how my eyebrow lifted clean up over my scalp, back over my skull, down my back, and checked my wallet...
Sure enough, a cursory FACT check fully explained the Marxist-induced episode.
At least it wasn't a Maillard Reaction.
Awrighten.