Barbecue myths?


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We generally accept that spice flavors can be pulled into meat right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Um, no we don't. Not if you're talking rubbing ahead of time, or just rubbing in general. What flavors might get 'pulled' into meat are fairly immaterial. Now, flavor-brining, that's a different scenario. But it takes time to be very effective.

What people say about ground meat, etc., I'm not concerned with. People say a lot of things, Jerry's point for this thread in the first place.

Sure, it's due to surface area. Smoke flavor is made up of hundreds of different chemical combinations and particulates. Volatilization of smoke along with tiny particulates carry the smoke hither and yon and it sticks to various things (including inside your nose, which is why many Qers talk about the differences between smoking then eating the meat immediately vs. eating it the next day, when smoke has been more removed from the body, clothing, etc.). The aroma (or odor, as the case may be) is so permeating that concentration and source are virtually indistinguishable to the human nose. And smoke concentrated on a surface of food makes in impossible to tell that it's only on the food's surface. Smoke aroma/odor continues to volatilize for some time.

That the smoke seems to be right in the meat/cheese/whatever doesn't mean it is. Again, given enough time - plenty of time - and given the necessary porosity, and given the needed more closed environment, it's possible that some elements of smoke penetrate meat. But we generally do not smoke very long (even butts) and the environmental conditions do not support claims of 'penetration'. It's possible that traces of this and that in smoke might get pulled into the meat during the post-cook resting/cooling phase, but this would be fairly negligible and in no way near the elements on the surface and those that volatilize in the air.
 
Myth:

ANYBODY can set up a wsm and make bbq with it.

Sorry, just blowing off a little steam after seeing something.
icon_mad.gif
It's no wonder these cookers cost so #@$^ much!
icon_frown.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jerry P.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think it is ALL about opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it's not all about opinion, John. Meat absorbs smoke or it doesn't. Spritzing and mopping keep meat moist or they don't. Chicken is safe to eat at 160 degrees or it isn't. These are completely different questions than whether or not pulled pork is better with or without sauce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

re: chicken temperature.. this is my point . USDA says point blank 165 degrees for chicken to be safe. Washington State University says 160 degrees, although "most people prefer the texture when white meat is cooked to 170, 180 for dark meat, and 165 for ground".
Which one is "fact" regardless of temperature? My fact is chicken that has red is not safe, but at 160 it probably does have red. Good luck with your search. Just a difference of opinion I guess on where that hazy line is between fact and opinion.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">USDA says point blank 165 degrees for chicken to be safe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not. But USDA says this to consumers. Food safety in terms of temp is a time @ temp thing, but the USDA dumbs down their info because it's a simpler, CYA approach.


For poultry (a 7D log standard) the operative times are thus:

Temp Reached/Minimum Time for Chicken/Min Time for Turkey

140/ 35 Min / 33.7 Min
145/ 13 Min / 13.8 Min
150/ 4.2 Min/ 4.9 Min
155/ 54.4 Secs/ 1.3 Min
160/ 16.9 Secs/ 26.9 Secs
165/ <10 Secs/ <10 Secs

Times for meat and further info on pasteurization is in this post.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My fact is chicken that has red is not safe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is not a fact. You're certainly entitled to your own opinions - and if you don't like red chicken you don't have to - be we are not entitled to our 'own' facts.

The fact is that chicken can be red around and near the bone and be perfectly safe. If you - and me - find that unappetizing, we can certainly refuse it. But cooked to correct internals the chicken is safe, a fact.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by John Frailey:
Good luck with your search. Just a difference of opinion I guess on where that hazy line is between fact and opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep

...and even if you can verify something without queastion, you still have to verify it for yourself....whether you read it here or anywhere. Someone could be using all the big words and sounding so smart, yet be so full of @^&%.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My fact is chicken that has red is not safe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is not a fact. You're certainly entitled to your own opinions - and if you don't like red chicken you don't have to - be we are not entitled to our 'own' facts.

The fact is that chicken can be red around and near the bone and be perfectly safe. If you - and me - find that unappetizing, we can certainly refuse it. But cooked to correct internals the chicken is safe, a fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dang, how did I miss that, Kevin? Of course, now, you might have some recent college grad open the can of "stuff" they were fed in philosophy class. I hope not, though. That stuff stinks.
 
Fact. Opinion. I use the standard definitions definitions I learned in elementary school, Dave. No grad degree nor philosophy required.
icon_smile.gif


It would be unfortunate if this thread devolved into something other than what the OP intended, not to mention the likelihood of Chris A getting p. o'd.
 
Not trying to devole anything guys. I have always trusted my sources, which are generally the USDA Food Safety website, various University Food Safety sites et al and see what they say about it. I stand by that. See y'all.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
Fact. Opinion. I use the standard definitions definitions I learned in elementary school, Dave. No grad degree nor philosophy required.
icon_smile.gif


It would be unfortunate if this thread devolved into something other than what the OP intended, not to mention the likelihood of Chris A getting p. o'd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that. It will suit me just fine if we can stick to the age old definitions of truth, fact, opinion and myth. I reckon any debate should really be over what's good science and what's not, assuming someone claims it's science to begin with. Speaking of, Any more myths anyone want to take on? There's more, I guarantee....
 
I'm sure there are...

John, time at temp for pathogen kill is long established science. The times and temps above (and the ones for meat I include in the post I linked to) are based on the very same science that The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the public health agency that's part of the UDSA, uses. They're responsible for ensuring that the nation's commercial supply is safe and handle much of the science involved that informs the decisions the USDA makes, and that goes into the FDA's Food Code. (Time and temp tables are part of the Food Code. I'd be happy to send you - or anyone else - the pdf of the Code.)

Much of the info on the USDA's site is consumer oriented. The science is removed (no time at temp discussion, single, higher numbers for safe internals are given, the top end of the safety zone is listed as 140, these sorts of things). The same holds for the consumer portion of the FDA's site, though they have a site within geared toward professionals and the real numbers can be found there. Again, though, it's all in the Food Code.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Much of the info on the USDA's site is consumer oriented. The science is removed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I now understand why they might want to do that.
icon_biggrin.gif
 
Kevin, I would love to have the pdf. I am used to time temp as it applies to pressure canning/ altitude/acidity etc but for years have been frustrated working through extension services trying to find something other than the USDA (as you guys called it) consumer response. I have a stack of recipes I would love to pressure can but have been unable to find a way to insure their safety, at least through the paths I have taken. Mind you it has not been a 24/7 search but sort of gave up on it then run into it again in the smoking arena.
\Thanks for your response and offer. And thanks fopr the Science lesson
icon_redface.gif
 
I have met Alton Brown and watched his shows for years. I have bought his cook books and quite honestly find his methods somewhat wanting. His explanation of why things do what they do may be valid but in cooking his recipes I find that there are not always the best direction.

I was a bit esoteric in my discussion of the MAGIC of cooking. Although I am a believer in MAGIC. I find that the ability of a mere mortal to produce great food must in fact be MAGIC.
Kevin is the master of logic and his direction is impeccable. I have also been trained in the classic cooking methods, although no where near the degree others here have accomplished.

More to the point of the original question of the poster. There are obviously many opinions as to the "proper " way to BBQ. Many of the "true ways" are based on tradition and not necessarily on best practice today. BBQ as I understand it is an old tradition based on need and available cooking methods. I doubt very much that BBQers 100 years ago had any idea of the products we use today. We can learn from those who choose to share their knowledge, but in reality TRUE BBQ MYTHS probably were never written down and told only to the neighbors.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave Russell:
That stuff stinks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This thread is starting to stink. I'm closing it. No offense to the original poster, it's not your fault. Let's move on.

Regards,
Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

 

Back
Top