Oversmoking: Cook's Illustrated explains

Cook's Illustrated, in the Aug. 2011 issue, did an experiment with two kettles of chicken.

Both started with two chunks of wood. When the wood burned out 45 minutes later, one kettle got two more chunks. The other got no more wood.

The chicken with wood/smoke throughout the cook was reported to be "bitter and sooty," while the chicken with just initial smoke had "just enough smoky depth."

Their explanation: Smoke has water and fat soluble compounds. As meat cooks, water evaporates and fat drips away, diminishing the meat's ability to continue absorbing smoke flavor. After that, smoke not absorbed by the meat is deposited on the outside of the meat, where the heat breaks it down into harsher flavored compounds.

I can't vouch for the science, but Cook's is usually pretty reliable. In any event, it's interesting.

Makes sense for sure and Cook's know their stuff without a doubt. The end result answer has always been known ("don't over-smoke") but knowing why it happens is more important than just knowing not to do it. I'd be interested to know how this relates to a variety of meats and or their weights etc...too.

Chris, thanks for the explanation. It's always good to know WHY a certain way is best, and why a certain method is WRONG.

This also helps to explain why no matter how clean a fire you burn in a stickburner, the chicken will probably be better off in a cooker like a wsm that runs out of smoke before the birds are done.

Thanks!

Thanks for posting that Chris,can't have too much information!

I haven't read that article/issue yet, but I question how the test was executed.

Adding smoke to the cook after 45minutes means that the wood started burning while the chiken was cooking. Many folks wait for the initial dense white smoke to burn off, and only put their meat on when they see "sweet blue".

I think a more helpful test would have been to smoke a chicken each in separate cookers, using 1 vs. 2 vs. 4 chunks of wood (or the equivalent ratios by weight) to see if there was a different in flavor. Does anyone know if that was part of their analysis?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ashish debroy:
I haven't read that article/issue yet, but I question how the test was executed.

Adding smoke to the cook after 45minutes means that the wood started burning while the chiken was cooking. Many folks wait for the initial dense white smoke to burn off, and only put their meat on when they see "sweet blue".

I think a more helpful test would have been to smoke a chicken each in separate cookers, using 1 vs. 2 vs. 4 chunks of wood (or the equivalent ratios by weight) to see if there was a different in flavor. Does anyone know if that was part of their analysis? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ashish, you're right. Adding wood in the middle of a wsm chicken cook isn't good form.

A good experiment would be one smoker with four chunks from the start, and another with four of the same as well....only two at the start, and two later on.

I'd point out that meat doesn't aBsorb smoke though. I think the word for it is aDsorption.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Their explanation: Smoke has water and fat soluble compounds. As meat cooks, water evaporates and fat drips away, diminishing the meat's ability to continue absorbing smoke flavor. After that, smoke not absorbed by the meat is deposited on the outside of the meat, where the heat breaks it down into harsher flavored compounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems very poorly thought out as it goes against most of what I know about smoking.

When cold smoking, one takes great care to ensure the surface of the meat is dry and tacky (pellicle formation). This gives the smoke a surface to adhere to as smoke is never absorbed. I find that wet surfaces, not dry ones, tend to accumulate bitter flavors. And the whole thing about heat breaking down the smoke into harsh compounds seems totally baseless.

I caution reading too much into their experiment and especially their conclusions.

So I received my issue in the mail, and was not impresed by the way it was designed/executed. The result was predictable - if you add wood in the middle of the cook, your meat will be "smokey" not smoked. That's what happens when Yankees bbq

A little off topic, their review of coolers was quite half-hearted. They reviewed somewhat obscure coolers - no comparison of more popular brands like Yeti, Coleman, igloo, etc. Oh well. I've thought CI is going down the tubes, and I think I may be right.

Now back on topic

I would love for someone on here to take a more "scientific" approach to this. By burying the wood, would it then heat more slowly and have hot coals above it, to burn up anything that may cause harsh components from throwing the fresh wood on top ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A little off topic, their review of coolers was quite half-hearted. They reviewed somewhat obscure coolers - no comparison of more popular brands like Yeti, Coleman, igloo, etc. Oh well. I've thought CI is going down the tubes, and I think I may be right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, their better articles are all from the past. I just got the subscription (They had an article about extracts I really wanted to read!) this year and have been very disappointed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSMcdowell:
I would love for someone on here to take a more "scientific" approach to this. By burying the wood, would it then heat more slowly and have hot coals above it, to burn up anything that may cause harsh components from throwing the fresh wood on top ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Josh, I think that I've settled into what I feel might be the best way to manage the wood. A while back, someone here (maybe J.B?) mentioned something about wood that was buried losing it's flavor characteristic and that had gotten me to thinking about whether burying all the wood under the lit was such a good thing.

Well nowadays, I'm burying a little around the outside of the ring, at least for long cooks, but I'm starting off with three chunks, size depending on what I'm smoking, placed on top around the edges after lighting the better part of the top, and that seems to last a good while.

Too much wood obviously isn't good, and it's best to wait for "sweet blue", but I feel that the worst offender in the pursuit of sweet smoke on the wsm is adding wood in the middle of a cook....no matter how tempting it is when the smoke peters out before I want it to.

Yes, I know the feeling. The smoke runs out and you feel like it wasn't enough! I try to get all the smoke in early as well.

For this test, I guess you could just fire a kettle with how ever many chunks, and then later fire a second kettle and move the chicken over.

Yep, sounds like a plan.

Gotta run, but speaking of smoked chicken, try some sassafrass sometime if you get your hands on some.