Foiling?...I don't get it.
- Thread starter Bill S.
- Start date
Larry Wolfe
Closed Account
Foiling is not necessary, very true. However, it does have it's advantages as a tool. It can decrease your cook time, helps provide consistent finished results, uniform doneness and retain moisture. YES, all of this can be done without foil, but foil realy helps decrease the margin in error in alot of cases.
Speeds up cooking, and holds in moisture, for braising, and aromatics and flavor liquids can be introduced when foiled.
Foiling a very thin fat cap flat, ensures a moist end product. Not everyone can get packers so they are left with over trimmed flats, that's where foil will save the day.
Foiling a very thin fat cap flat, ensures a moist end product. Not everyone can get packers so they are left with over trimmed flats, that's where foil will save the day.
George Curtis
TVWBB Olympian
it has its place but i'm finding myself using it less and less. above mentioned situations do apply to a point.
D. L. Whitehead
TVWBB Super Fan
Hi Bill,
To foil or not to foil... I've done it both ways with most cuts where foil is commonly used. I prefer foiling. But, foiling is not a requirement and good barbecue can be done without foil. I'm guessing that, if all barbecuers had an in-depth knowledge of the chemical process of collagen breakdown and of the latent heats of water, most would choose foiling.
What I find interesting is the often repeated argument that foiling is somehow cheating and is not true to original barbecue. That's one of those areas where, if a person wanted to stay true to original barbecue, they would likely find themselves in search of a cooked dead animal found in the aftermath of a forest or brush fire started by lightning. That's a likely scenario for the true, original barbecue.
Anything else that has developed since is not true to the original tenets of barbecue. That would mean: No modern meat market or grocery store. No porcelainized steel smokers. No manufactured charcoal--lump or briquette. No thermometers. No matches or piezo starters. On and on and on.
I think it's a shame for folks to close themselves off from any advancement in technology and/or process that may make their barbecue better. And, of course, what constitutes better is as variable as the preferences of those eating the barbecue.
###
To foil or not to foil... I've done it both ways with most cuts where foil is commonly used. I prefer foiling. But, foiling is not a requirement and good barbecue can be done without foil. I'm guessing that, if all barbecuers had an in-depth knowledge of the chemical process of collagen breakdown and of the latent heats of water, most would choose foiling.
What I find interesting is the often repeated argument that foiling is somehow cheating and is not true to original barbecue. That's one of those areas where, if a person wanted to stay true to original barbecue, they would likely find themselves in search of a cooked dead animal found in the aftermath of a forest or brush fire started by lightning. That's a likely scenario for the true, original barbecue.
Anything else that has developed since is not true to the original tenets of barbecue. That would mean: No modern meat market or grocery store. No porcelainized steel smokers. No manufactured charcoal--lump or briquette. No thermometers. No matches or piezo starters. On and on and on.
I think it's a shame for folks to close themselves off from any advancement in technology and/or process that may make their barbecue better. And, of course, what constitutes better is as variable as the preferences of those eating the barbecue.
###
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by D. L. Whitehead:
Hi Bill,
What I find interesting is the often repeated argument that foiling is somehow cheating and is not true to original barbecue. That's one of those areas where, if a person wanted to stay true to original barbecue, they would likely find themselves in search of a cooked dead animal found in the aftermath of a forest or brush fire started by lightning. That's a likely scenario for the true, original barbecue.
Anything else that has developed since is not true to the original tenets of barbecue. That would mean: No modern meat market or grocery store. No porcelainized steel smokers. No manufactured charcoal--lump or briquette. No thermometers. No matches or piezo starters. On and on and on.
I think it's a shame for folks to close themselves off from any advancement in technology and/or process that may make their barbecue better. And, of course, what constitutes better is as variable as the preferences of those eating the barbecue.
### </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorta reminds me of golf about 20 years ago when folks started using titanium and graphite. Some folks shunned the advances in technology (even though their 3 peice NASA engineered balls and metal woods hardly resembled the handcrafted balls and hickory sticks of 100 years ago.)
FWIW, I sometimes foil my BBQ and sometimes I don't.
Hi Bill,
What I find interesting is the often repeated argument that foiling is somehow cheating and is not true to original barbecue. That's one of those areas where, if a person wanted to stay true to original barbecue, they would likely find themselves in search of a cooked dead animal found in the aftermath of a forest or brush fire started by lightning. That's a likely scenario for the true, original barbecue.
Anything else that has developed since is not true to the original tenets of barbecue. That would mean: No modern meat market or grocery store. No porcelainized steel smokers. No manufactured charcoal--lump or briquette. No thermometers. No matches or piezo starters. On and on and on.
I think it's a shame for folks to close themselves off from any advancement in technology and/or process that may make their barbecue better. And, of course, what constitutes better is as variable as the preferences of those eating the barbecue.
### </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorta reminds me of golf about 20 years ago when folks started using titanium and graphite. Some folks shunned the advances in technology (even though their 3 peice NASA engineered balls and metal woods hardly resembled the handcrafted balls and hickory sticks of 100 years ago.)
FWIW, I sometimes foil my BBQ and sometimes I don't.
As above it's a tool. I like foiling buts now for just and hour or two after they hit 160 degrees, this allows you to collect the liquids to create great finishing sauce when you pull! I don't finish cooking in the foil, usually and hour is enough, I pour off the liquid, remove from foil and finish till done.
I get a fairly large quantity of liquid this way that's usually good for two cooks. I keep half in the freezer for the next cook and don't foil for example.
Doesn't effect the end result one way or the other IMHO.
I get a fairly large quantity of liquid this way that's usually good for two cooks. I keep half in the freezer for the next cook and don't foil for example.
Doesn't effect the end result one way or the other IMHO.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Quoting myself from elsewhere:
"Foil can be an effective tool. It isn't a must, but shouldn't be a 'must not' either. Too many briskets end up less than they could be because of some sort of 'keeping it pure' silliness. Again, it isn't required, but if one is cooking a potentialy problematic brisket --either because of the brisket itself or because of the conditions of the cook-- foil can work well to help achieve very good results. No foil at hand? Still don't want to use it during a cook? Fine. But then brisket irregularities or irregularities on cook conditions should be compensated for in other ways."
"Foil can be an effective tool. It isn't a must, but shouldn't be a 'must not' either. Too many briskets end up less than they could be because of some sort of 'keeping it pure' silliness. Again, it isn't required, but if one is cooking a potentialy problematic brisket --either because of the brisket itself or because of the conditions of the cook-- foil can work well to help achieve very good results. No foil at hand? Still don't want to use it during a cook? Fine. But then brisket irregularities or irregularities on cook conditions should be compensated for in other ways."
D. L. Whitehead
TVWBB Super Fan
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
Quoting myself from elsewhere:
"Foil can be an effective tool. It isn't a must, but shouldn't be a 'must not' either. Too many briskets end up less than they could be because of some sort of 'keeping it pure' silliness. Again, it isn't required, but if one is cooking a potentialy problematic brisket --either because of the brisket itself or because of the conditions of the cook-- foil can work well to help achieve very good results. No foil at hand? Still don't want to use it during a cook? Fine. But then brisket irregularities or irregularities on cook conditions should be compensated for in other ways." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Kevin,
My mother cooked untold number of beef chuck roasts. I can visualize her cooking them now. She browned them nicely in her big ol' skillet and, then, put the lid on the skillet and turned down the burner. I'm not sure she even owned a food thermometer. She cooked them "approximately" the time she knew was required and, then, started testing them with a carving fork for doneness. There was usually four distinct muscles in the cut. She would pierce each muscle segment and test for doneness. Two or three muscle segments usually got done before the last segment or two. She'd continue to test for doneness periodically 'til all segments were done. Then, removed from heat, the covered roast would rest 'til served. Pan juices may or may not have been used for gravy depending upon the menu.
Braising her chuck roasts were not at all unlike barbecue--except for the smoke. Dry heat cooking followed by moist heat cooking and testing for doneness by feel. She never smoked a piece of meat in her life, but I'll bet she could have if she'd wanted to. I'll bet she would have foiled and tested for doneness by feel.
###
Quoting myself from elsewhere:
"Foil can be an effective tool. It isn't a must, but shouldn't be a 'must not' either. Too many briskets end up less than they could be because of some sort of 'keeping it pure' silliness. Again, it isn't required, but if one is cooking a potentialy problematic brisket --either because of the brisket itself or because of the conditions of the cook-- foil can work well to help achieve very good results. No foil at hand? Still don't want to use it during a cook? Fine. But then brisket irregularities or irregularities on cook conditions should be compensated for in other ways." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Kevin,
My mother cooked untold number of beef chuck roasts. I can visualize her cooking them now. She browned them nicely in her big ol' skillet and, then, put the lid on the skillet and turned down the burner. I'm not sure she even owned a food thermometer. She cooked them "approximately" the time she knew was required and, then, started testing them with a carving fork for doneness. There was usually four distinct muscles in the cut. She would pierce each muscle segment and test for doneness. Two or three muscle segments usually got done before the last segment or two. She'd continue to test for doneness periodically 'til all segments were done. Then, removed from heat, the covered roast would rest 'til served. Pan juices may or may not have been used for gravy depending upon the menu.
Braising her chuck roasts were not at all unlike barbecue--except for the smoke. Dry heat cooking followed by moist heat cooking and testing for doneness by feel. She never smoked a piece of meat in her life, but I'll bet she could have if she'd wanted to. I'll bet she would have foiled and tested for doneness by feel.
###
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Foiling?...I don't get it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not to sound/come across brash here, but in order "too get it" you would have too use it, to understand that it has a place in BBQ and cooking.
Not to sound/come across brash here, but in order "too get it" you would have too use it, to understand that it has a place in BBQ and cooking.
Dave Hutson
TVWBB Super Fan
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike_M:
Consistency.
I use it because it produces consistent cook times & finished results. Which are handy when in a time crunch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
BINGO< we have a winner!!!! Try getting 20 butts and 20 briskets to finish at the same time!!! The foil is also necessary for holding large quantities of finished meat. I usually plan on having the meat done 2 to 4 hours ahead of time and holding in foil, in a cooler until I pull, slice. I agree, that on butts anyway, it does nothing to improve the end product because it softens up the bark. The juice it recovers and holds on a brisket is worth the loss of bark though!
Consistency.
I use it because it produces consistent cook times & finished results. Which are handy when in a time crunch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
BINGO< we have a winner!!!! Try getting 20 butts and 20 briskets to finish at the same time!!! The foil is also necessary for holding large quantities of finished meat. I usually plan on having the meat done 2 to 4 hours ahead of time and holding in foil, in a cooler until I pull, slice. I agree, that on butts anyway, it does nothing to improve the end product because it softens up the bark. The juice it recovers and holds on a brisket is worth the loss of bark though!
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
I don't have much to add because of D.L. and others' great points.
The key though is to know how to use it as a tool. I don't pull out my 14" slicer to cut a carrot nor do I use my 5.5" petty to slice a brisket. Having several good tools and knowing how to use each effectively is what makes a good cook.
Just like learning to bbq well without foil took time to learn, so does learning how to use it. I can see how someone could get complacent once they learn how to make satisfying bbq either with it or without it, but some of us like the challenge and learning of it ALL and are exploring ALL options. I'd hate to think I figured it all out at the young age of 36. what will I do for the next 40 years (if bbq doesn't kill me sooner)?
The key though is to know how to use it as a tool. I don't pull out my 14" slicer to cut a carrot nor do I use my 5.5" petty to slice a brisket. Having several good tools and knowing how to use each effectively is what makes a good cook.
Just like learning to bbq well without foil took time to learn, so does learning how to use it. I can see how someone could get complacent once they learn how to make satisfying bbq either with it or without it, but some of us like the challenge and learning of it ALL and are exploring ALL options. I'd hate to think I figured it all out at the young age of 36. what will I do for the next 40 years (if bbq doesn't kill me sooner)?
be careful if you are such a one to raise the purist topic as you will soon be sitting there around a pile of wood you cut with a hand hewn stone axe and a hole in the ground trying to light a fire with two sticks...
aluminum foil usage has nothing intrinsically worng with it. its no different than using the wsm itself or oven mitts so you dont burn your hands.
i would suggest trying it on a cook wrapping your meat with it at the appropriate time and see the result for yourself. i have tried and do not care for the results all that much when used in the manner you find most common in WSM.
i use foil on my big trailered smoker. i lay out sheets of it on top of the meat to protect it from falling ash and soot. whether it adds anything to the end result i dunno. but i do know that if i dont the meat tastes like i rolled it in a campfire.
aluminum foil usage has nothing intrinsically worng with it. its no different than using the wsm itself or oven mitts so you dont burn your hands.
i would suggest trying it on a cook wrapping your meat with it at the appropriate time and see the result for yourself. i have tried and do not care for the results all that much when used in the manner you find most common in WSM.
i use foil on my big trailered smoker. i lay out sheets of it on top of the meat to protect it from falling ash and soot. whether it adds anything to the end result i dunno. but i do know that if i dont the meat tastes like i rolled it in a campfire.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AL. T:
the only thing i did not care for with the foil was, no crunchy bark. I love that crunch </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yo Al - you use it as a tool. You don't have to finish in the foil. Pull her out and throw her back on bareback for the last couple hours and you won't know the difference. You've already created a bark up to the point you foil, it softens during that process. You open the foil dump and reserve the juices for your finishing sauce/prep and throw it back on to crisp up again.
The bark does not go away during foiling, it just softens. Then you dry it back out by pulling and finishing your cook out of the foil.
the only thing i did not care for with the foil was, no crunchy bark. I love that crunch </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yo Al - you use it as a tool. You don't have to finish in the foil. Pull her out and throw her back on bareback for the last couple hours and you won't know the difference. You've already created a bark up to the point you foil, it softens during that process. You open the foil dump and reserve the juices for your finishing sauce/prep and throw it back on to crisp up again.
The bark does not go away during foiling, it just softens. Then you dry it back out by pulling and finishing your cook out of the foil.