rib sweat?

[jeff davidson]

Brian's "water, mop or not" thread helped me recall that in Mike Mill's Peace, Love and BBQ, he presents his recipe for for "Grand World Champion Ribs". Over the course of the recipe, Mike states "Ribs 'sweat' about three times during the smoking process. The pores of the meat open and this allows moisture to escape. This is when seasoning from the dry rub and the smoke itself are reasbsorbed into the meat. When their sweating, mop or mist them with some apple juice and sprinkle them with a little more Magic Dust".

Do you find ribs "sweat"? Do you look for this moment to mop and add rub?

 

[Matt B.]

Meat doesn't have pores as far as I know. I don't know where the whole meat pores thing got started, but there are no pores in meat.

That said, I usually mop or baste at the halftimes.

Edit: To really answer the question, I'll add that I don't know anything about sweating ribs. It could happen, though.

 

[j biesinger]

I recall reading that very quote early on in my bbq journey. My initial reaction was "wow...I got to look for sweat, this is important info."

a couple year later, I'm more inclined to think the whole statement is complete BS.

1) we know meat doesn't have pores. Maybe he means the meat is more porous at certain times, either way...why would it become more porous at the exterior drys and shrinks?

2) why would it "sweat" only at certain times during the cook? and why three times?

3) if the ribs are "sweating," wouldn't that mean fluids are moving out rather than moving in? He even states "allowing moisture to escape." My reaction would be to avoid mopping when the ribs are "sweating," but , then again, maybe that's why I haven't won back-to-back MIM's.

either way, it quickly proved to be impractical knowledge. Its impossible to know exactly when ribs are "sweating" save for some kind of infrared webcam with a windshield wiper installed inside the smoker.

Mike might believe his in his statement, but I highly doubt its based on any kind of actual data.

 

[Jim Lampe]

I never sweat when making ribs....
my mouth waters though....

 

[jeff davidson]

Here's my take: In the same recipe, he suggests checking the ribs every 20 minutes or so. The first time I made the recipe, I did indeed notice moisture coming out of the ribs (almost boiling) a couple of times during the cook and I dutifully followed his directions.

I think Mike knows that meat doesn't have pores but its an analogy (anthropomorphism?) for what's happening. Mike's recipe yielded some of the best ribs I've ever made and he certainly has the competition and restaurant chops. Were the ribs great because I misted with apple juice and added rub when the ribs were sweating? Or is the rest of recipe so strong it doesn't really matter. I'd guess Mike might not know himself though in reading his book, you get the sense he takes a systematic approach to such things...Given my experience, if I were to cook in competition, I'd look for rib sweat...


my god, 10 edits, I can't write any more...

 

[K Kruger]

Yet another example whereby I'm astounded by the lack of knowledge of people who should seemingly know better. Is it that difficult to research the 'facts' one wishes to include in a book? Are there no competent editors at the publishing house?

Moisture collects on the surface of any meat being cooked. (There are no pores.) This happens continuously throughout the cooking process (as long as the meat isn't overcooked to the cardboard stage); it can start pre-cook due to the salt drawing moisture to the surface.

Neither rub nor smoke is 'absorbed' during cooking, let alone 'reabsorbed'.

Food Science 101.

 

[Shawn W]

Yet another example whereby I'm astounded by the lack of knowledge of people who should seemingly know better. Is it that difficult to research the 'facts' one wishes to include in a book? Are there no competent editors at the publishing house?

Why would you need the facts checked when it's written by an expert?

I know it drives you nuts and I am glad you call a spade a spade and appreciate the time you spend correcting false info. I'd personally rather learn the science than perpetuate bad info.

But really, WHY should they know better? Some BBQ experts seem to be artists, or perhaps Shaman is a better term. They try to make sense of their years of experience then articulate it in a way that makes sense to them. That some of the facts they state are completely wrong doesn't invalidate good info, tips, recipes founded on years of experience. If it works it works even if they don't factually understand why.

Maybe BBQ is big enough for artists, shaman AND food scientists.

 

[K Kruger]

But really, WHY should they know better?

Because, first, if they actually paid attention much of the erroneous information is self-evident as obviously erroneous; second, if one is a 'master', self-styled or lauded by fans as such, wouldn't it be worth actually understanding that which one is a master of? It's all pretty simple stuff.

I agree that errant 'facts' don't necessarily invalidate good info, tips and recipes. But after 'years of experience', that so little that is so evident is learned, that what might have been maybe an hour's worth of research, tops, was not undertaken, that editor(s) don't employ or require fact-checking - well, I'd be embarrassed. No, the use of the erroneous to support a position does not necessarily invalidate the position, nor does it remove the successful wins and book sales. But if one is self-, product-, or book-promoting, I think one owes it to one's potential purchasers, fans, etc., to be accurate, especially when the information is so easily obtained.

 

[jeff davidson]

Neither rub nor smoke is 'absorbed' during cooking, let alone 'reabsorbed'.

Are there veins of water and fat throughout the meat and some of the bubbling is coming from those veins? (I have no idea). If so, would rub travel down the veins into the meat? (again, I have no idea).

Really, the only thing I'm sure of is that his recipe yielded terrific ribs. As good as anything I've tasted as a judge.

 

[K Kruger]

I've always heard good things about his recipe.

There are deposits of soft fat in the meat which soften further and render during cooking. Additionally, connective tissue (which surrounds muscle fibers) renders as well. Water is in and around the cells of the meat fibers.

When the meat is heated the proteins in the meat coagulate, which means they uncoil and then reconnect in a different configuration. When proteins coagulate, they squeeze out part of the liquid that they trapped, and in the spaces between the individual molecules. The heat that surrounds the meat (from whatever one is using to cook with - oven, grill, etc.) forces the liquids toward the center of the meat. Squeezed liquids near the surfaces end up on the surface where they drip off or evaporate.

Though some flavor volatiles from the rub or smoke might move into the meat this wouldn't really happen until the meat is removed from the cooking device, as it cools and juices redistribute.. Still, little if any would end up in the meat very far; rather, solubilized volatiles would remain on or very near the surface.

 

[j biesinger]

man, this stuff is got to be some of my favorite stuff to discuss...

Because, first, if they actually paid attention much of the erroneous information is self-evident as obviously erroneous; second, if one is a 'master', self-styled or lauded by fans as such, wouldn't it be worth actually understanding that which one is a master of? It's all pretty simple stuff.

I don't know Mike Mills but he seems like a decent enough guy. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt when I said he probably believes his statement. However, he is trying to sell a book, which always make me skeptical. Who's to say these guys (Mills, Kirk, etc) don't throw things out there for that "who knew? gee whiz" reaction.

and like Kevin states "it pretty simple stuff." The basics are pretty easy but they have to maintain their master status so they throw things out there so they appear to have ultimate expertise. Maybe they over complicate things because people expect bbq to be complicated.

there are some aspects of bbq that I struggle with, but I never see them addressed in any book. so I'm left to assume even the masters struggle with it too. They'd rather invent straw men to attack.

 

[K Kruger]

Maybe they over complicate things because people expect bbq to be complicated.

There you go.

 

[Scooter B]

Honestly I'm always interested when I hear of "experts" throwing out advice to the masses. It always reminds me of the wine tasters who end up selecting $11 bottles of wine in blind taste tests.

The mechanics of meat cooking are fairly simple and understood. Remember... there's always someone at the Fall Fair who buys the knives or sham-wow's from the hucksters. Sometimes being told something is better is half the illusion.

 

[jeff davidson]

Originally posted by K Kruger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe they over complicate things because people expect bbq to be complicated.

There you go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's an oversimplification. I don't think Mike Mills wrote about meat pores on page 58 (or wherever it is) of his book to sell more books. More than any other bbq books I've read, you get a sense of the author and that the author is a decent man.

Just for grins, I googled "meat pores". It seems there are some scientific papers making use of the term:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16345160

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...65375a66b0c0b5007215

I duuno, I'm a computer scientist, not a food scientist, but it seems to me these and other articles argue that pores form during the cooking process.

If one defines pores as a result of increased porosity (the spaces in a material), is it possible that cooking low and slow increases porosity and leads to pores? If so, does it make sense that the increased porosity is more conducive to rub and smoke?

again, I have no idea, just asking the questions...

 

[K Kruger]

I think that's an oversimplification. I don't think Mike Mills wrote about meat pores on page 58 (or wherever it is) of his book to sell more books. More than any other bbq books I've read, you get a sense of the author and that the author is a decent man.

I really don't think it is an oversimplification. However, I don't think that Mills write about 'meat pores' to 'sell more books'. I think he wrote about meat pores because he glommed on to the copious misinformation out there and just reprinted it as if it were true (as many other 'masters' have). No bother checking it out - no fuss, no muss - simple, off to the presses. At the risk (once again) of being slammed and flamed: this is intellectual laziness, especially since it is so easy to discover.

On the articles: No, the don't argue about 'pores', despite the rather fractured terminology, grammar, nomenclature, and cohesive writing in the linked pieces. They are looking at porosity, not 'pores' - not the same thing. Regardless, that porosity increases during cooking does not mean that 'absorption' increases - or even occurs.

I'm not sure that any of this matters. Mills doesn't understand it, apparently, nor do several other 'masters'. It seems few have ever really spent the time to look at it closely. Maybe Mike is very much a 'decent man' (along with Paul and Bill and several others) - I have no comment on their 'decency'. That they, among others, do not seem to pay very close attention to what they are doing to the point that they actually learn some real facts to impart to their readers or followers I find disheartening. Many people - there are many members of this very board - do this as a matter of course simply by paying attention and then asking questions, if needed, to clarify what they experience. How difficult is that?

Sorry, that someone is a 'good guy' or 'decent' - or whatever - does not, imo, absolve them of the responsibility to provide actual facts, state opinions as opinions if that is what they are, if they are using those facts (or 'facts') to sell themselves or product(s).

"Sometimes being told something is better is half the illusion."

 

[jeff davidson]

I was narrowly reacting to the comment "Maybe they over complicate things because people expect bbq to be complicated." I don't think that was Mill's motivation and complicating bbq recipes solely because people expect bbq to be complicated is not something I'd ascribe to Mike or any other decent person. It seems to me at its root to be a dishonest practice.

I do agree with your points about a writer's responsibility and think you're right, it's probably something Mike heard and never bothered to check.

Despite your casual dismissal of the scientific articles, it seems to me that at the molecular level, meat (like every material) is porous and therefore has pores. It seems that you think cooking increasing porosity, widening the pores in meat. Are you saying the widening of the pores is still too small to accommodate rub and smoke and you have the scientific data to back this up?

 

[K Kruger]

I have no idea about Mill's motivation but I do think that Q is unnecessarily complicated by many who have something to sell (Mills might not be one of them, I have no wish to categorize here): buy my book(s) and/or buy my product(s) and you too can barbecue like a pro.

I did not 'dismiss' the articles casually. But 'having pores' and porosity are not the same thing, not in the commonly accepted definition of the term - but it hardly matters. Vernacular varies. If Mills wants to equate the two, fine. Cooking can increases porosity (porosity is the measure of void spaces in material) because of the way applied heat interacts with, in this case, meat proteins and fat. It does not follow - and is so obviously errant prima facie - that if moisture is escaping (as you note, correctly, in the OP, that it does), there is no way that rub and smoke can be 'reabsorbed' during the process. It would go against the most elementary of principles. As j questions, upthread, "if the ribs are 'sweating', wouldn't that mean that fluids are moving out rather than in?' [Yes, it would.]

This is not directed at you, jeff (I quite welcome being challenged) - but were I to write a book or create a website to sell my products, would I get the same unquestioning pass on the 'facts' that the 'masters' get? Hmm. I wonder. I have written recipes that are, ime, pretty much well received. Many write me directly for recipes, help with recipes, help with procedures, help with clarifications. I've helped many comp teams that have done well. I have no books nor products to sell. Were I now to write a book or create a line of rubs would I get the same deference?

Maybe I would. I would certainly hope not.

 

[jeff davidson]

I would guess, as I stated above, that Mike knows that meat doesn't have pores and he's referring in a colloquial fashion to the void spaces in material.

Mike notes in his recipe that the meat sweats (I guess completing the pore metaphor) 2-3 times over the course of the cook. If that's correct, the ribs must stop sweating. Perhaps when the ribs stop sweating, rub is carried into the meat by the receding water? And perhaps smoke is absorbed into the same spaces?

I'd like to see your reply, but then I think we'll have run this to ground. It's been a pleasure tossing it back and forth. I'd be remiss in not taking this opportunity to thank you for the knowledge you bring to the board and the pleasure I've derived from your advice and recipes.

 

[j biesinger]

Mike notes in his recipe that the meat sweats (I guess completing the pore metaphor) 2-3 times over the course of the cook. If that's correct, the ribs must stop sweating. Perhaps when the ribs stop sweating, rub is carried into the meat by the receding water? And perhaps smoke is absorbed into the same spaces?

the problem is that he recommends mopping/basting when the ribs are sweating. I suppose one could interpret it to mean: therefore the flavor will be absorbed directly after sweating, but that's never explained.

I was narrowly reacting to the comment "Maybe they over complicate things because people expect bbq to be complicated." I don't think that was Mill's motivation and complicating bbq recipes solely because people expect bbq to be complicated is not something I'd ascribe to Mike or any other decent person. It seems to me at its root to be a dishonest practice.

whether it was intentional or not on Mr Mill's part, he did indeed make a statement that has spawned apparent confusion on at least me and you. I'm the kind of person that needs facts and needs to understand the process that I'm trying to master. Mills et al, make things extremely difficult when they casually throw bad info onto the heap that is the internet. My head spun crazily at the start, and resulted in a ton of bad bbq. Call it resentment, but I'm going to question someone's motives when they make bogus claims.

Certainly its one quote from an excellent book, so the argument that he did it to sell books is weak at best.

This is not directed at you, jeff (I quite welcome being challenged) - but were I to write a book or create a website to sell my products, would I get the same unquestioning pass on the 'facts' that the 'masters' get? Hmm. I wonder. I have written recipes that are, ime, pretty much well received. Many write me directly for recipes, help with recipes, help with procedures, help with clarifications. I've helped many comp teams that have done well. I have no books nor products to sell. Were I now to write a book or create a line of rubs would I get the same deference?

one of my favorite books is Harold McGee's. Kevin, don't read this as some hollow praise, but I would love to see a book that catalogs what is known about the process of bbq. I can't say that it would have helped me avoid making bad bbq at the start, but it probably would have sped my arrival at the conclusion that bbq is just cooking.

To go off on another tangent, maybe my last statement is the crux of the issue. It is because most of these master pitmen, learned bbq and not cooking, that they have an overly complicated view of the process? I'm not sure of Minion's background, but I listen to him, and I get the feeling he's read McGee.

 

[Bob Haskins]

From what I have heard and read I think most of these guys tend to over simplify the process not over complicate.
There are many great chefs in this world who have no idea what's happening once they turn ont the heat but they get great results nontheless.
Personally it does not bother me if someone does not always accurately articulate their techniques and reasoning.
We're all big boys here, no one needs the Q police to nurse maid us.