Yeah that’s the other thing worth noting. It both tastes and looks better, presentation might not be as important for a home cook although I always try to take that into account. For OP though it looking better is a byproduct of it tasting better.
Color is really important to how we perceive flavors. A little turmeric in a banana-heavy smoothie not only goes OK flavor-wise, but it makes it Laffy Taffy yellow instead of off-white, so you're anticipating the banana flavor just a bit more.
What do you anticipate when you visualize grey meat?
Bad hospital food, so I guess just hospital food, but OP implied they are really care about flavour, and asked about why from a flavour perspective you would brown your meat hence my previous answer
NECESSARY? No
However, if you want a browned meat texture and flavor, yes.
The reaction needed to brown meat happens above the boiling point of water. You just can't get that to happen in a wet environment in a slow cooker.
If I make chilli I brown the meat before I add it to wet ingredients in the slow cooker.
>The reaction needed to brown meat happens above the boiling point of water.
The Maillard reaction actually happens below boiling point too, just at a much slower rate and actually benefiting from the presence of water. It is part of what gives slow-cooked liquid colour and flavour.
It’s isn’t absolutely necessary, but it does enhance the flavor and texture. That said, you might like the dish just fine without going to the extra trouble of browning the meat. Give a try and see what you think. Lots of people skip browning at least some of the time because they’re busy or because the effort didn’t make enough of a difference to them to matter. Good luck!
Thank you. I feel like this is one of those practices that makes a huge difference in theory, but I’ve never experience more than maybe a 10% difference in flavor. And maybe I just seasoned my food better that day.
Most of the time I don’t bother because it’s not worth smoking out my kitchen.
yeah i’ve noticed the same thing lol. everyone says it’s this vital unskippable step to a perfect roast or whatever but i swear it tastes the exact same. you’re likely throwing so many spice mixes or whatever in with it that it doesn’t end up mattering anyways
I've had those unseared roasts other people cook. It tastes like flavorless white people food you would get at an Irish Catholic potluck church dinner, but to each their own. Maybe you are now learning that you have duller taste buds? Do you smoke cigarettes?
It's better but not necessary. I'm lazy and don't want to use pans to sear meat and then washing them , so I toss everything in my slow cooker straight from the fridge
You don't get the maliard reaction without it, but in the dishes where I want that, I'll pop the finished meat under the broiler after and get the crispy texture to go with it. I like it better that way.
I agee that this is the way to do it. Easier in my opinion and you are really able to flavor that you want — I think more so because the meat is falling apart already and you’re able to brown more surface area. It’s how I do my Birria.
searing gives flavor.
You'll have better flavor with a sear. You can try to make it up by adding other stuff I guess (which will give a different flavor). If you have a pretty complex stew already, you'll probably be ok.
>[Caramelization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caramelization) is an entirely different process from Maillard browning, though the results of the two processes are sometimes similar to the naked eye (and taste buds). Caramelization may sometimes cause browning in the same foods in which the Maillard reaction occurs, but the two processes are distinct. They are both promoted by heating, but the Maillard reaction involves amino acids, whereas caramelization is the [pyrolysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis) of certain sugars
Check the sources too, in case you're a "don't trust Wiki" people. The flying butcher article just used poor wording.
The two are not the same. If the two were the same there wouldn't be two...
The MR is a reaction involving amino acids and sugars.
Caramelization is the browning of sugars involving higher temps and oxygen.
So let's talk about a few concepts that get a little mixed up, but the short answer is that it has nothing to do with "sealing in" juices (sort of).
Searing is the act of applying abrupt heat. Searing does not imply a specific temperature... and it doesn't always result in a crust.
What is a crust? A crust is the caramelization or pyrolysis of sugars... and this is yet a different reaction from Maillard.
What is Maillard reaction? Maillard is the non-enzymatic formation of melanoidin compounds from amino acids and sugars. Melanoidins are the compounds that give browned meat its savory flavor.
Ok.... Maillard happens at 280ºF. Pyrolysis happens at around 350ºF. In between is the sweet spot where Maillard and caramelization form a nice golden brown crust... this is more about flavor than anything else.
Now... with respect to "sealing in"... the steak is still permeable, this is why basting works. But what happens at higher temperatures is that heat drives the moisture inward to the center of the steak and the reduction of steak juices, aromatics, butter, etc. during basting, will increase the potency of the flavors going into the steak. So it's not the case that the juices are "sealed" by any change in the exterior. It is the case that temporarily the temperature gradient of the steak being cooked from the outside in causes moisture to pool toward the center, and that resting the steak allows it to slowly redistribute so that when you cut into the steak the even distribution means that there is no concentrated mass of moisture at the center that will spill out all at once.
I suppose also when the steak is basting in its own juices, some degree of osmosis is occurring where the steak juice, aromatics, butter, salt, etc., in the pan are reducing, becoming more hypertonic than the juice in the steak, resulting in osmosis pulling in the hypertonic basting compound... and this continues to happen as the steak juice in the pan reduces further and further.
I've done it both ways and honestly I didn't really notice a difference so mostly I skip that step. That being said if I'm making a more complicated dish with several elements to be prepared (bacon, sautéed aromatics, etc) then I go ahead and sear the meat. Might as well
I don't sear the meat first anymore either. It's a pita. I don't have time for fussy steps anymore.
Searing will add umami flavor. But for a braise, you add lots of nonfussy ingredients to get that umami flavor anyway -tomato paste, Worcestershire sauce, soy sauce, etc.
I've made hundreds of stews and braises and can't honestly say I can tell a difference if you sear the meat first or not.
For Dutch oven based braises (rather than crockpot), you can cook it uncovered in the oven to brown the meat instead of doing it as a separate step beforehand. Just stir it every hour or so. What's good about this method is it browns all the ingredients on top not just the meat. Still, can't tell if I can tell the difference in flavor, but it is easy enough to do so I do it. It gives the meat and the cooking liquid a deeper color for sure, which is nice.
In many cases, I can absolutely tell the difference -- and it's why I don't do it often. Preference thing. I usually want my meat browned, but don't want the sauce caramelizing on the sides of the pot.
Nothing is a sin in cooking if you are willing to eat it when you're done. If you're cooking for others then the same would apply. If a sear matters to no one then skip it.
Its about tge Maillard reaction (searing of meat). Brown equals flavour. I typically brown everything in small batches before adding to the stewpot. If you're too stressed to do it, then add in a couple beef bouillon cubes.
It’s not a cardinal sin and has nothing to do with juices. It’s a part of creating flavor depth. When I first started cooking I would make beef stew without searing it.. over time I adopted the coat in flour and sear method. It really does make a better end product. It’s not completely necessary though and a dish can still be very tasty without doing it.
It’s just more flavor, I find it worth the time for some things more than others. Like if I’m throwing together a lazy chicken curry I’m not doing anything on the stove first. For a proper beef stew or something, I’d absolutely take the extra time no matter the marbling (or lack of)
I have tossed raw roasts into the crockpot and also seared the roast before the slow cooker. IN MY OPINION they are different foods. The former is chilled and then thin sliced for a deli type meat. The latter is the pretty meat plate on the table.
If I'm shredding the meat after (which is usually the case), then I don't bother, but I do try to keep the top of the meat above the liquid so that the top browns as it braises. If I'm serving the meat somewhat whole or in chunks (like stews) then I sear first.
It will still taste good if you don't, so if you feel lazy then don't worry about it.
Cooking is about making what you enjoy in the way that you like. You can try it out both ways and see if you taste a significant difference.
It’s not necessary, but I did a taste test with my chuck roasts. The seared one tasted noticeably better & I would take the time to sear future roasts. But that’s all subjective so I’d do your own taste test.
Yes. Do it.
It does nothing to "seal in juices", that is meaningless. What it does do is cause a Maillard reaction on the surface of the meat.
The Maillard reaction is a reaction between heat, sugar and amino acids that create new substances that happen to be delicious.
A consistent browning on the surface of meat is indicative of a good Maillard reaction and will be much more flavorful.
There won't be a huge difference in the texture and taste of the beef, but if you want a nice rich gravy, you really do need to sear the beef cubes first. My old trick is to drop all the beef cubes into a ziploc bag that has about 1/2 cup of flour and a teaspoon each of salt and pepper. Zip it shut, shake it around and then sear that beef well. If you use a wok or other large surface pan and an inch of oil in the pan, you can get it all done in about 2 batches. Don't mess with it, just set it in the pan and leave it alone for several minutes before you give the pan a good shake around to flip and mix the beef around. let it sit another few minutes, then shake it around one more time, and one more leave alone for another few minutes.
After that, dump it into the slow cooker. Pour beef broth into the hot pan and stir to get up all the bits. Pour that in the slow cooker and you are golden. Proceed with the rest of the recipe. The browned flour on the beef chunks will take your gravy to the next level.
A Dutch oven lets you sear then slow cook in the oven, with more Maillard reaction around the outside. u/significantdrawer734 is right, caramelization and the Maillard reaction are basically the same thing. They look the same, smell the same, taste the same: delicious.
[https://www.seriouseats.com/why-pressure-cookers-are-better-than-slow-cookers](https://www.seriouseats.com/why-pressure-cookers-are-better-than-slow-cookers) has a terrible URL title but it's a great Kenji Lopez-Alt article. About halfway down, there's 3 pictures of beef stew; I know which one I'd prefer.
They're really not the same. Similar in some ways, sure. But why be inaccurate? Oversimplifications are what lead people to believe browning seals in juices.
Yeah, I exaggerated for effect there, pardon my hyperbole. But analyzed from a culinary perspective (as opposed to say a chemist's perspective) they're more similar that different.
"Nothing is ever necessary" is what my inner nihilist tells me.
But if you feel like being lazy when you cook, don't be surprised when your food comes out tasting lazy.
It has nothing to do with "sealing in the juices". Browning it just gives it a... browned flavour. Which most people would consider desirable.
You know that lovely, appetizing grey color boiled meat gets? No? That's why we brown it.
Also looks more appealing
Yeah that’s the other thing worth noting. It both tastes and looks better, presentation might not be as important for a home cook although I always try to take that into account. For OP though it looking better is a byproduct of it tasting better.
Color is really important to how we perceive flavors. A little turmeric in a banana-heavy smoothie not only goes OK flavor-wise, but it makes it Laffy Taffy yellow instead of off-white, so you're anticipating the banana flavor just a bit more. What do you anticipate when you visualize grey meat?
Bad hospital food, so I guess just hospital food, but OP implied they are really care about flavour, and asked about why from a flavour perspective you would brown your meat hence my previous answer
And has more texture!
Technically, browning induces the Maillard reaction, producing complex and highly flavorful proteins that significantly flavor the dish.
One day we'll get through a cooking thread without somebody name dropping the goddamn maillard reaction.
Perhaps. BUT NOT THIS DAY!!!!
When people start a thread saying they’re too lazy to brown their meat, sometimes ya gotta name drop.
Nicely stated
And conversely, not browning the meat and vegetables before braising or using a slow cooker results in bland, washed out food.
Also of note, if you don't sear you have nothing to deglaze. No fond = just bad wine flavor instead of all the tastyness you generally get.
Nah, wine doesn't rely on fond in order to add good flavour. It's either good wine or it isn't.
NECESSARY? No However, if you want a browned meat texture and flavor, yes. The reaction needed to brown meat happens above the boiling point of water. You just can't get that to happen in a wet environment in a slow cooker. If I make chilli I brown the meat before I add it to wet ingredients in the slow cooker.
What they said. The "sealing in the juices"stuff is nonsense, but browning gives you flavors you don't get otherwise.
>The reaction needed to brown meat happens above the boiling point of water. The Maillard reaction actually happens below boiling point too, just at a much slower rate and actually benefiting from the presence of water. It is part of what gives slow-cooked liquid colour and flavour.
TIL.
Searing doesn’t seal in anything. It *does* create flavors you won’t get any other way.
It’s isn’t absolutely necessary, but it does enhance the flavor and texture. That said, you might like the dish just fine without going to the extra trouble of browning the meat. Give a try and see what you think. Lots of people skip browning at least some of the time because they’re busy or because the effort didn’t make enough of a difference to them to matter. Good luck!
I’ve seared my pot roast and not seared my pot roast. They tasted exactly the same IMO. Both were delicious.
Thank you. I feel like this is one of those practices that makes a huge difference in theory, but I’ve never experience more than maybe a 10% difference in flavor. And maybe I just seasoned my food better that day. Most of the time I don’t bother because it’s not worth smoking out my kitchen.
yeah i’ve noticed the same thing lol. everyone says it’s this vital unskippable step to a perfect roast or whatever but i swear it tastes the exact same. you’re likely throwing so many spice mixes or whatever in with it that it doesn’t end up mattering anyways
Do you smoke cigs? Maybe you have trouble tasting?
I've had those unseared roasts other people cook. It tastes like flavorless white people food you would get at an Irish Catholic potluck church dinner, but to each their own. Maybe you are now learning that you have duller taste buds? Do you smoke cigarettes?
I don’t smoke as a matter of fact. Why so angry? It’s my pot roast and I can cook it how I want to.
It's better but not necessary. I'm lazy and don't want to use pans to sear meat and then washing them , so I toss everything in my slow cooker straight from the fridge
You don't get the maliard reaction without it, but in the dishes where I want that, I'll pop the finished meat under the broiler after and get the crispy texture to go with it. I like it better that way.
I agee that this is the way to do it. Easier in my opinion and you are really able to flavor that you want — I think more so because the meat is falling apart already and you’re able to brown more surface area. It’s how I do my Birria.
It's how I do carnitas
Nah
Nah. It's fine.
searing gives flavor. You'll have better flavor with a sear. You can try to make it up by adding other stuff I guess (which will give a different flavor). If you have a pretty complex stew already, you'll probably be ok.
It's a small flavor boost. It doesn't seal in juices.
you are slow cooking something, ALL the juices are coming out. it just adds a small amount of flavor.
Searing caramelizes the meat making it taste better. Color = flavor. Gray meat = bland.
What sugar is in meat?
https://www.theflyingbutcher.com/blog/understanding-maillard-reaction-for-better-grilling-and-roasting
Yeah, Maillard reaction. Not caramelizing. Caramelizing is with sugar
They are literally the same thing. Did read the article? There are sugars in meats. Just not the refined sugars you're thinking of.
>[Caramelization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caramelization) is an entirely different process from Maillard browning, though the results of the two processes are sometimes similar to the naked eye (and taste buds). Caramelization may sometimes cause browning in the same foods in which the Maillard reaction occurs, but the two processes are distinct. They are both promoted by heating, but the Maillard reaction involves amino acids, whereas caramelization is the [pyrolysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis) of certain sugars Check the sources too, in case you're a "don't trust Wiki" people. The flying butcher article just used poor wording.
They are not the same thing. Stop spreading this nonsense already, mate.
The two are not the same. If the two were the same there wouldn't be two... The MR is a reaction involving amino acids and sugars. Caramelization is the browning of sugars involving higher temps and oxygen.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287494
So let's talk about a few concepts that get a little mixed up, but the short answer is that it has nothing to do with "sealing in" juices (sort of). Searing is the act of applying abrupt heat. Searing does not imply a specific temperature... and it doesn't always result in a crust. What is a crust? A crust is the caramelization or pyrolysis of sugars... and this is yet a different reaction from Maillard. What is Maillard reaction? Maillard is the non-enzymatic formation of melanoidin compounds from amino acids and sugars. Melanoidins are the compounds that give browned meat its savory flavor. Ok.... Maillard happens at 280ºF. Pyrolysis happens at around 350ºF. In between is the sweet spot where Maillard and caramelization form a nice golden brown crust... this is more about flavor than anything else. Now... with respect to "sealing in"... the steak is still permeable, this is why basting works. But what happens at higher temperatures is that heat drives the moisture inward to the center of the steak and the reduction of steak juices, aromatics, butter, etc. during basting, will increase the potency of the flavors going into the steak. So it's not the case that the juices are "sealed" by any change in the exterior. It is the case that temporarily the temperature gradient of the steak being cooked from the outside in causes moisture to pool toward the center, and that resting the steak allows it to slowly redistribute so that when you cut into the steak the even distribution means that there is no concentrated mass of moisture at the center that will spill out all at once. I suppose also when the steak is basting in its own juices, some degree of osmosis is occurring where the steak juice, aromatics, butter, salt, etc., in the pan are reducing, becoming more hypertonic than the juice in the steak, resulting in osmosis pulling in the hypertonic basting compound... and this continues to happen as the steak juice in the pan reduces further and further.
I quit doing it. Makes a lot of mess and didn't seem to add anything.
I've done it both ways and honestly I didn't really notice a difference so mostly I skip that step. That being said if I'm making a more complicated dish with several elements to be prepared (bacon, sautéed aromatics, etc) then I go ahead and sear the meat. Might as well
I don't sear the meat first anymore either. It's a pita. I don't have time for fussy steps anymore. Searing will add umami flavor. But for a braise, you add lots of nonfussy ingredients to get that umami flavor anyway -tomato paste, Worcestershire sauce, soy sauce, etc. I've made hundreds of stews and braises and can't honestly say I can tell a difference if you sear the meat first or not.
For Dutch oven based braises (rather than crockpot), you can cook it uncovered in the oven to brown the meat instead of doing it as a separate step beforehand. Just stir it every hour or so. What's good about this method is it browns all the ingredients on top not just the meat. Still, can't tell if I can tell the difference in flavor, but it is easy enough to do so I do it. It gives the meat and the cooking liquid a deeper color for sure, which is nice.
In many cases, I can absolutely tell the difference -- and it's why I don't do it often. Preference thing. I usually want my meat browned, but don't want the sauce caramelizing on the sides of the pot.
Definitely not.
I've never done it and I've had no bad experiences. Could they be better? Perhaps, but don't fix it if it doesn't seem broke :P
The meat can be browned as it braises in the oven if it's not swimming in liquid, it works
Nothing is a sin in cooking if you are willing to eat it when you're done. If you're cooking for others then the same would apply. If a sear matters to no one then skip it.
Necessary? No. Necessary if you want some Maillard reaction flavors in your slow cooker? Yes.
Its about tge Maillard reaction (searing of meat). Brown equals flavour. I typically brown everything in small batches before adding to the stewpot. If you're too stressed to do it, then add in a couple beef bouillon cubes.
I don't think you're sealing in juices on a slow cook, but you're missing out on the caramelized flavor that'll make its way throughout your dish.
It adds depth to your flavor.
When my old slow cooker died I got the Cuisinart that also sautees so I don't have to dirty another pan.
It’s not a cardinal sin and has nothing to do with juices. It’s a part of creating flavor depth. When I first started cooking I would make beef stew without searing it.. over time I adopted the coat in flour and sear method. It really does make a better end product. It’s not completely necessary though and a dish can still be very tasty without doing it.
It’s just more flavor, I find it worth the time for some things more than others. Like if I’m throwing together a lazy chicken curry I’m not doing anything on the stove first. For a proper beef stew or something, I’d absolutely take the extra time no matter the marbling (or lack of)
I have tossed raw roasts into the crockpot and also seared the roast before the slow cooker. IN MY OPINION they are different foods. The former is chilled and then thin sliced for a deli type meat. The latter is the pretty meat plate on the table.
Necessary, no. Advised, yes. The flavor difference is quite noticeable and improved.
If I'm shredding the meat after (which is usually the case), then I don't bother, but I do try to keep the top of the meat above the liquid so that the top browns as it braises. If I'm serving the meat somewhat whole or in chunks (like stews) then I sear first.
No, but it tastes much better
It also in my experience helps the pieces of meat hold together while braising, as well as flavor enhancement
It adds flavor, but no it is not necessary.
It will still taste good if you don't, so if you feel lazy then don't worry about it. Cooking is about making what you enjoy in the way that you like. You can try it out both ways and see if you taste a significant difference.
I put coke in the slow cooker with meat. It carmelizes a little bit and it’s delicious.
It’s not necessary, but I did a taste test with my chuck roasts. The seared one tasted noticeably better & I would take the time to sear future roasts. But that’s all subjective so I’d do your own taste test.
Yes. Do it. It does nothing to "seal in juices", that is meaningless. What it does do is cause a Maillard reaction on the surface of the meat. The Maillard reaction is a reaction between heat, sugar and amino acids that create new substances that happen to be delicious. A consistent browning on the surface of meat is indicative of a good Maillard reaction and will be much more flavorful.
If you can, sear before the dice. This will help prevent over cooking. If your meat is already ground, you can sear it as a block.
There won't be a huge difference in the texture and taste of the beef, but if you want a nice rich gravy, you really do need to sear the beef cubes first. My old trick is to drop all the beef cubes into a ziploc bag that has about 1/2 cup of flour and a teaspoon each of salt and pepper. Zip it shut, shake it around and then sear that beef well. If you use a wok or other large surface pan and an inch of oil in the pan, you can get it all done in about 2 batches. Don't mess with it, just set it in the pan and leave it alone for several minutes before you give the pan a good shake around to flip and mix the beef around. let it sit another few minutes, then shake it around one more time, and one more leave alone for another few minutes. After that, dump it into the slow cooker. Pour beef broth into the hot pan and stir to get up all the bits. Pour that in the slow cooker and you are golden. Proceed with the rest of the recipe. The browned flour on the beef chunks will take your gravy to the next level.
Maillard reaction. That is the reason.
Is it necessary? No but I do it anyway because it's sterile and I like the taste
A Dutch oven lets you sear then slow cook in the oven, with more Maillard reaction around the outside. u/significantdrawer734 is right, caramelization and the Maillard reaction are basically the same thing. They look the same, smell the same, taste the same: delicious. [https://www.seriouseats.com/why-pressure-cookers-are-better-than-slow-cookers](https://www.seriouseats.com/why-pressure-cookers-are-better-than-slow-cookers) has a terrible URL title but it's a great Kenji Lopez-Alt article. About halfway down, there's 3 pictures of beef stew; I know which one I'd prefer.
They're really not the same. Similar in some ways, sure. But why be inaccurate? Oversimplifications are what lead people to believe browning seals in juices.
Yeah, I exaggerated for effect there, pardon my hyperbole. But analyzed from a culinary perspective (as opposed to say a chemist's perspective) they're more similar that different.
The user you agreed with was arguing they were the literal same thing, though.
Better flavor results from searing meat. See the "Maillard reaction" Be sure to deglaze the pan and add that to the pot as well.
Depends if you like boiled meat or not. Searing adds a bit complexity to the dish and also makes the meat look a bit more appetising.
Don't shame.
Boil a steak, then do it the right way with a sear.
"Nothing is ever necessary" is what my inner nihilist tells me. But if you feel like being lazy when you cook, don't be surprised when your food comes out tasting lazy.
It's also not necessary to use seasoning, if you don't like flavor
If you want it to have flavor, yes. If you like insipid food don't bother.