Some of the points that Dean made in his post I didn't totally understand. I don't mean to be critical of his post but more my lack of knowledge of the subject matter. However I totally agree with the following points.
" My palate isn't the most sensitive in the culinary world, but it tells me that I'd be hard-pressed to distinguish a butt cooked with Kingsford and hickory or Kingsford and oak or Kingsford and ash or Kingsford and apple or lump charcoal and no smokewood at all. Once hardwood is used for cooking past the stage where it smokes, the species is difficult to distinguish on the final product, and other factors, such as the quality of the meat, rub choices, spice quality, and temperature schedule or maintenance mean more to the final result." Dean Torges.
I am 64 years old and have cook with wood most of my life. I have never been able to distinguish the difference in the flavor between oak wood, pecan wood, apple wood, cherry wood, or any other hardwoods on the flavor of the meat being cooked. In fact, I never thought much about it until I became a member of this forum. I just didn't have the palate to pick up the different taste of smoke on the final product. Especially meat that's been cook using charcoal for heat and adding different types of wood for flavor.
I wonder if there has ever been a test conducted where difference smokes were used to cook one type of meat and people were then asked to name the wood that was used to flavor the meat. The results would be interesting...
I'm not trying to start an argument nor am I questioning anyone else's ability to distinguish smoke flavors, I'm just pointing out that choice of wood is not a major factor in my barbecuing and that I agree with Dean on the above passage.
Thanks to Jim Lampe for bringing my attention to this old thread..