Barbecue myths?
- Thread starter Jerry P.
- Start date
- Status
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
You need a water pan in the smoker to keep the meat moist.
I don't really know the science behind it, but maybe someone will chime in, or you can do a search and come up with a kazillion explanations already posted.
I don't really know the science behind it, but maybe someone will chime in, or you can do a search and come up with a kazillion explanations already posted.
Gary H. NJ
TVWBB Platinum Member
"Great barbecue doesn't need any fancy seasoning, just plenty of smoke!"
Ugh.
And: "The ribs are great at this place. The meat just falls off the bone!"
Ugh.
And: "The ribs are great at this place. The meat just falls off the bone!"
Tim L.
TVWBB Pro
Great topic/question. And some great responses already. Jim's right though...I hate oversauced bbq, but those KC'ers seem to love it.
And Derek's got a great point too...there are plenty of meat's you can cook direct and they turn out great, even better. Just ask mr Lampe! And tri-tip, zero benefit to low n slow in my opinion.
I'll add: bbq will get you girls. True, they hover around. But once the foods gone..they're gone too.
And Derek's got a great point too...there are plenty of meat's you can cook direct and they turn out great, even better. Just ask mr Lampe! And tri-tip, zero benefit to low n slow in my opinion.
I'll add: bbq will get you girls. True, they hover around. But once the foods gone..they're gone too.
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
A guy that goes by "Smoky" Hale says that the cooker temp should be below the boiling point of water for optimum results.
Think four pork butts in the wsm take long at 235? Try 210. That's a LONG cook, and in Mr. Hale's book there's a pic of a piece of his necessary bbq equipment: a barber chair that reclines to horizontal. Reclining in it, he calls this one of his five basic barbecuing positions. I don't know, but I hope he uses sunscreen.
Think four pork butts in the wsm take long at 235? Try 210. That's a LONG cook, and in Mr. Hale's book there's a pic of a piece of his necessary bbq equipment: a barber chair that reclines to horizontal. Reclining in it, he calls this one of his five basic barbecuing positions. I don't know, but I hope he uses sunscreen.
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
Mesquite makes the best smoke.....uh huh, sure, I've grilled with it.
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jerry P.:
Thanks for the responses but for the most part, these are opinions. I'm looking for verifiable facts like smoke not being absorbed but rather adhering to the meat's surface. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Take a smoked pork loin with a really nice smoke ring. If you carefully slice a piece and don't let the slice come in contact with the juices in the pan, the taste buds of a normal person should be able to verify that the smoke flavor did not absorb as far as the smoke ring went. Just sayin'....haven't actually tried it, though.
Thanks for the responses but for the most part, these are opinions. I'm looking for verifiable facts like smoke not being absorbed but rather adhering to the meat's surface. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Take a smoked pork loin with a really nice smoke ring. If you carefully slice a piece and don't let the slice come in contact with the juices in the pan, the taste buds of a normal person should be able to verify that the smoke flavor did not absorb as far as the smoke ring went. Just sayin'....haven't actually tried it, though.
Gary H. NJ
TVWBB Platinum Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">bbq will get you girls. True, they hover around. But once the foods gone..they're gone too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pretty funny. For the gurls, better get yourself a guitar...
Pretty funny. For the gurls, better get yourself a guitar...
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jerry P.:
Thanks for the responses but for the most part, these are opinions. I'm looking for verifiable facts like smoke not being absorbed but rather adhering to the meat's surface. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The essence of TVWB forums articulated to a T.
Thanks for the responses but for the most part, these are opinions. I'm looking for verifiable facts like smoke not being absorbed but rather adhering to the meat's surface. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The essence of TVWB forums articulated to a T.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Hold on. Some things here are not opinions. If one needed a water in a pan to keep the meat moist then those who don't use water, or don't use a pan - including all the panless stickburners - would never cook moist meat.
Low and slow is not the only way to go. Granted some people are clearly of the opinion that low/slow is better - fine, all are entitled to preferences. However, there are those (fewer in recent years) that say - or at least said - that low/slow is required for tough meats. Clearly it isn't. One might dispute whether high heat can or should be called 'barbecue' - fine again - but it is quite obvious that one can cook tough meats at temps higher than 'normal'. Smokey Hale might well think that 'optimum results' are achieved if the cooktemp is kept below the boiling point of water. In some cases I would agree. But not all. However he and I would agree on this opinion that the results are 'optimum'.
Nothing 'seals in juices' - not searing (okay, this is more grilling, roasting, or pan-frying), not a mustard slather, not rubs.
Another myth: That internal temp (or whatever number) = tender. It clearly does not. Time at temp = tender. We can clearly see this by cooking, say, brisket or short ribs sous vide - at cooktemps of, say, 136 or 140. Which brings up another myth - that rendering does not occur at lower temps. It does. It just takes much longer.
On the smoke absorption and smoke absorption stopping at X temp fronts: Well, it surprises (and unnerves) me how so many 'masters' trot out the first canard, and sometimes the second (though this is mostly relegated to the less seasoned cooks who are simply repeating what they've read too many times to count on the Net). One would think they (the 'masters') have cooked often enough and for long enough and actually observed and learned from their successive/progressive cooks but this is often not the case.
Smoke is made up of particulates of various sizes and volatile gasses. The particulates are easily adsorbed, i.e., they stick to things fairly easily. Particulates do not absorb very easily into fairly dense objects (like meat) - especially when the heating of the object (like meat) is pushing moisture out. This is simple physics.
I recall some well known barbecue guy or another making the case for smoke absorption many years ago on one of the cbbqa pages - replete with diagrams and whatnot - about how cells (like those in meat) in the presence of various things (gasses, particulates, whatever) will 'seek' balance, as it were, i.e., the gasses surrounding the meat in the presence of the meat will seek penetration - to balance things out, sort of like how brining works. Though it sounds plausible prima facie, it does not make sense, not in the scenarios in which the vast majority of barbecuers cook. Unlike cooking in a vacuum (like sous vide), or immersion (like brining), barbecuing (grilling, etc.) is cooking in a draft. Volatiles - being, well, volatile - zip up and out with the draft forthwith. With nothing to contain them - to 'hold' them around the meat, there is no opportunity nor need for 'balance'. Physics. This dynamic may be different in some situations that most of us would not create: for example, slow smoking a country ham, say, in a very low draft, low temp smoking house, for a significant period of time (like many days), might set up a scenario where actual absorption of volatiles is possible (but not, likely, particulates) because of the contained nature of the space and the relatively copious amount of smoke.
Then there are the non-Q-only myths...the Danger Zone top end being 140?, hot food dropping to less than 140 for even a moment needing to be pitched, the 'once the food is cooked it is safe' myth...
Low and slow is not the only way to go. Granted some people are clearly of the opinion that low/slow is better - fine, all are entitled to preferences. However, there are those (fewer in recent years) that say - or at least said - that low/slow is required for tough meats. Clearly it isn't. One might dispute whether high heat can or should be called 'barbecue' - fine again - but it is quite obvious that one can cook tough meats at temps higher than 'normal'. Smokey Hale might well think that 'optimum results' are achieved if the cooktemp is kept below the boiling point of water. In some cases I would agree. But not all. However he and I would agree on this opinion that the results are 'optimum'.
Nothing 'seals in juices' - not searing (okay, this is more grilling, roasting, or pan-frying), not a mustard slather, not rubs.
Another myth: That internal temp (or whatever number) = tender. It clearly does not. Time at temp = tender. We can clearly see this by cooking, say, brisket or short ribs sous vide - at cooktemps of, say, 136 or 140. Which brings up another myth - that rendering does not occur at lower temps. It does. It just takes much longer.
On the smoke absorption and smoke absorption stopping at X temp fronts: Well, it surprises (and unnerves) me how so many 'masters' trot out the first canard, and sometimes the second (though this is mostly relegated to the less seasoned cooks who are simply repeating what they've read too many times to count on the Net). One would think they (the 'masters') have cooked often enough and for long enough and actually observed and learned from their successive/progressive cooks but this is often not the case.
Smoke is made up of particulates of various sizes and volatile gasses. The particulates are easily adsorbed, i.e., they stick to things fairly easily. Particulates do not absorb very easily into fairly dense objects (like meat) - especially when the heating of the object (like meat) is pushing moisture out. This is simple physics.
I recall some well known barbecue guy or another making the case for smoke absorption many years ago on one of the cbbqa pages - replete with diagrams and whatnot - about how cells (like those in meat) in the presence of various things (gasses, particulates, whatever) will 'seek' balance, as it were, i.e., the gasses surrounding the meat in the presence of the meat will seek penetration - to balance things out, sort of like how brining works. Though it sounds plausible prima facie, it does not make sense, not in the scenarios in which the vast majority of barbecuers cook. Unlike cooking in a vacuum (like sous vide), or immersion (like brining), barbecuing (grilling, etc.) is cooking in a draft. Volatiles - being, well, volatile - zip up and out with the draft forthwith. With nothing to contain them - to 'hold' them around the meat, there is no opportunity nor need for 'balance'. Physics. This dynamic may be different in some situations that most of us would not create: for example, slow smoking a country ham, say, in a very low draft, low temp smoking house, for a significant period of time (like many days), might set up a scenario where actual absorption of volatiles is possible (but not, likely, particulates) because of the contained nature of the space and the relatively copious amount of smoke.
Then there are the non-Q-only myths...the Danger Zone top end being 140?, hot food dropping to less than 140 for even a moment needing to be pitched, the 'once the food is cooked it is safe' myth...
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
That may be you best post* Kevin! In one post, you neatly summed up several of your finest points and threw a few new ones at us.
*certainly its your best post that I have read in my short time around here
I'll see if I can add more fuel to the pyre, without too much redundancy.
1) I go bonkers when I read about various ways to keep meat moist, like marinades, water pans, mops, sprays, etc. Water, in the meat, is bound up in the protein strands. When a protein is overheated it has no choice but to release that water, by that same account anything you do to the meat isn't really going to add to that water that the protein is wrapped around. Meat boiled in water can easily dry out, so why would a water pan be inherently better than that? Imagine cooking a soaked sponge, as it warms it slowly contracts, over a certain temp it wrings itself out completely. Would a slightly more humid cooking environment stop this from happen? Would spraying a bit of apple juice on it help?
2) salting your meat before cooking dries it out. Salt actually helps the protein strands hang on to the water longer when overcooked. I also see this issue with salt, brought up in regards to steaks, which makes little sense since the single best way to improve a steak is to dry age it, which reduces its water content by a significant amount. Lastly (I learned this from Kevin) that we perceive moisture in our mouth, and salt makes us salivate, which we perceive as moist meat.
3)smoke ring is caused by wood smoke. stuff in smoke can certainly create a ring, but so can other things, and rings can happen in ovens without smoke.
i try hard to stay on the fringe and just read what everyone else has to say, free to judge and condemn in the comfort of my living room, but in this case i have to say....
kruger and biesinger are true voices of logic and reason in a field plagued with myth and mysticism. i'd love to believe there's some magic to all this, and clearly some are better than others under seemingly identical conditions, but the science is the same from any point of view.
maybe i shouldn't post when i've been drinking, but seriously........
kruger and biesinger are true voices of logic and reason in a field plagued with myth and mysticism. i'd love to believe there's some magic to all this, and clearly some are better than others under seemingly identical conditions, but the science is the same from any point of view.
maybe i shouldn't post when i've been drinking, but seriously........
Russ Sylvester
TVWBB Pro
The one that REALLY makes me cringe is the one that says that smoking meat is carcinogenic. Even my wife pops up with this one every now and then. I'm tempted to try to find definitive proof from somewhere that it's not, print it out, put it in a plastic sleeve and display it every time I cook/compete. My standard answer right now is that if my smoker is carcinogenic then so is your kitchen oven. They both produce heat.
The other one I hear all the time at comps is that ALL Q MUST have sauce. Usually when I hear that one in a conversation I just kind of nod my head knowing that they don't understand. I used to try to tell people that some of the very best Q I've ever had had no sauce at all but I've pretty much given up.
Russ
The other one I hear all the time at comps is that ALL Q MUST have sauce. Usually when I hear that one in a conversation I just kind of nod my head knowing that they don't understand. I used to try to tell people that some of the very best Q I've ever had had no sauce at all but I've pretty much given up.
Russ
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The one that REALLY makes me cringe is the one that says that smoking meat is carcinogenic. Even my wife pops up with this one every now and then. I'm tempted to try to find definitive proof from somewhere that it's not, print it out, put it in a plastic sleeve and display it every time I cook/compete. My standard answer right now is that if my smoker is carcinogenic then so is your kitchen oven. They both produce heat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
along those lines, the nitrate/nitrite issue is a good one too. All the time, I hear people saying they try to avoid nitrates. I was at a deli counter and a lady asked if the roast beef was nitrate free. I was incredulous. I wonder if she buys nitrate free celery?
As far as I have read, there's only a slight possible danger. Certain conditions, like high heat or low pH, can possibly combine protein and nitrates into nitrosamines which may be a carcinogen. To date, no one has been able to show that ingesting nitrosamines has a direct link to cancer. And there is some evidence to suggest our own gut produces nitrates, assumedly to prevent growth of botulinum.
along those lines, the nitrate/nitrite issue is a good one too. All the time, I hear people saying they try to avoid nitrates. I was at a deli counter and a lady asked if the roast beef was nitrate free. I was incredulous. I wonder if she buys nitrate free celery?
As far as I have read, there's only a slight possible danger. Certain conditions, like high heat or low pH, can possibly combine protein and nitrates into nitrosamines which may be a carcinogen. To date, no one has been able to show that ingesting nitrosamines has a direct link to cancer. And there is some evidence to suggest our own gut produces nitrates, assumedly to prevent growth of botulinum.
MKEvenson
TVWBB Wizard
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JeffS:
i try hard to stay on the fringe and just read what everyone else has to say, free to judge and condemn in the comfort of my living room, but in this case i have to say....
kruger and biesinger are true voices of logic and reason in a field plagued with myth and mysticism. i'd love to believe there's some magic to all this
........ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I firmly believe in Magic. And I'm glad you brought it up. Science is great and helps explain how things work and how things are... but Magic is an art, and cooking is an art, just look at all those beautiful cook books, ART. I think that it's gotta be magic , that me, a mere mortal can help turn a raw piece of tough meat into a succulent morsal of flavor.
Merlin, where are you when we need you?
Mark
i try hard to stay on the fringe and just read what everyone else has to say, free to judge and condemn in the comfort of my living room, but in this case i have to say....
kruger and biesinger are true voices of logic and reason in a field plagued with myth and mysticism. i'd love to believe there's some magic to all this
........ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I firmly believe in Magic. And I'm glad you brought it up. Science is great and helps explain how things work and how things are... but Magic is an art, and cooking is an art, just look at all those beautiful cook books, ART. I think that it's gotta be magic , that me, a mere mortal can help turn a raw piece of tough meat into a succulent morsal of flavor.
Merlin, where are you when we need you?
Mark
- Status