"Smoke In My Eyes" revisited. (10.07.2004)


 
Jim Lampe

Jim Lampe

TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Paging through many older posts, I came upon this one that really got me thinking...
It actually took me three times to read it through and understand what the posters were trying to convey.
I found the discussion very interesting. Great points all around.
Take a step back in time and you may learn something... I certainly have.
 
I read it too and am still like....
huh.jpg
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">rather have a root canal than ponder that post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now see, I just completed one and I beg to differ!
icon_biggrin.gif
 
I am sure that there are some valid points there, but it seems to me that the best cooks know their equipment well, stick to a routine that works for them, keep the temps low and put a lot of love in it. In my humble and novice opinion, love trumps science in food every time. Maybe that is because I am not experienced enough and don't know enough food science. It just seems that every time I have tried to stick to methods and techniques, my food has turned out ok, but not as good as when I went with the bbq is done when it's done theory. I do want to commend Mr. Lampe on digging through the archives to bring this to us. I don't think I would have ever dug that far back.
 
Very interesting thread - thanks for the links. Us new guys would never have been likely to see it.

To avoid creosote and get the proper balance of flavor, I cut generous pieces of wood and let it burn on top of the coals until it is "engulfed but not consumed" with flame - like what you see in the BRITU recipe - before assembling the smoker. I think that the light colored, aromatic smoke that this method produces for the first few hours of the cook makes all the difference in the world. This lets the flavor of the wood come through without tasting like a bonfire. It lets Pecan taste nutty, Cherry taste sweet, and oak and hickory can exhibit their unique complexities without being overshadowed by the harsh stuff produced by the first stages of combustion. To me, the pre-burn makes all the difference.
 
"Avoiding smoke is more consequential than choice of smokewood or smokewood amounts. I've seen posts obsess over choices and amounts and even size of smokewood, and I simply haven't found these considerations terribly important..." Dean Torges

I'm not to the point of avoiding smoke altogether, but I have learned this year that even with the wsm (not only an offset that burns wood for 100% of the cook) proper technique for GOOD smoke is much more important than the amount of wood used.

I've tried different methods, and burying the wood in the coals really seems to produce the best smoke. The worst thing you can do is add wood during a cook, even if it's one small chunk at a time and you only use a third of the wood that I'll bury in the coals. No, I almost forgot. The worst thing you can do is to preburn one chunk at a time,BUT NOT NEARLY LONG ENOUGH, and add to the coals during a cook.
 
"If you are making wood smoke during bbq, if wet smoke attaches to your wet meat, you are flavoring it with creosote and the product will be bitter." Dean Torges

A couple things came to mind here. First of all, my first rib cook when I absolutely RUINED three racks of ribs on my stickburning offset by bad smoke w/ lots of mopping. Maybe the mopping was more of a component to the bitter taste than I thought.

The other thing that comes to mind is the "wet smoke" you get when you use the water pan. There's definately a consensus that water in the pan will lessen the meat's smokiness to a degree, but then you seem to end up w/ more creosote inside the dome, or at least the flakes that can end up on your meat on a long cook. I guess that's creosote, so how do you reconcile that?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Matt B.:
To avoid creosote and get the proper balance of flavor, I cut generous pieces of wood and let it burn on top of the coals until it is "engulfed but not consumed" with flame - like what you see in the BRITU recipe - before assembling the smoker. I think that the light colored, aromatic smoke that this method produces for the first few hours of the cook makes all the difference in the world. This lets the flavor of the wood come through without tasting like a bonfire. It lets Pecan taste nutty, Cherry taste sweet, and oak and hickory can exhibit their unique complexities without being overshadowed by the harsh stuff produced by the first stages of combustion. To me, the pre-burn makes all the difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response to "pre-burning" from another thread:

"Start charcoal (10-15 lbs.) and 4 chunks of white oak and 2 chunks of cherry wood (about the size of a tennis ball) at least 1 hour before cooking meat. All fuel should be started in a chimney-style starter, no starter fluid, and all must be gray/white hot." Mike Scrutchfield, regarding his BRITU method

In my experience, you actually will get far worse smoke by preburning UNLESS you burn as long as Mike suggested. If you were putting the wood on an offset that had plenty of air to the fire, sure, the better engulfed in flames the cleaner the smoke, BUT, in the oxygen deprived environment of the wsm, if you put fully flaming wood on the fire, it snuffs out and puts off a lot of nasty smoke.

I suspect some folks think they're doing themselves a favor, but the reason you don't get objectionable results is that thankfully the offending smoke doesn't last long. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact it's bad smoke, even if it's for a short duration. Smoking w/ an offset is so different than w/ a wsm. I put my splits a couple at a time on top of the firebox so they will almost instantly ignite when it's their turn to burn.

"Very little smoke will be visible. Don't worry about that! You'll get the flavor..Forget about how much smoke is coming out of the cooker. If you've got the wood you like in there burning cleanly, the flavor will be in the meat."
Mike Scrutchfield on his BRITU method
 
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..
icon_smile.gif
 
"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.

In the first sentence he says he can't tell the difference between "Kingsford and hickory"...."or lump and no charcoal at all." I'm thinking, yep, you said it, Dean. No palate at all
icon_confused.gif



In his next sentence though, it starts to make sense: "Once hardwood is used for cooking past the stage where it smokes, the species is difficult to destinguish..."

Sounds like he's talking about wood preburned to coals, and in that case, I can't taste a difference either. Forgive me though. I can't resist the old bbq smoker mantra: "If you don't use wood, it ain't no good."
icon_biggrin.gif
...and just lump is lame, but that's just my two cents.
 
I totally agree Dave... I smoke meat because I love that smoky taste. I just can't tell one wood smoke from another. However it's really a blessing. What wood to use is one less thing to worry about... lol
icon_smile.gif
 
Searching through the archives for pics of a freezer/smokehouse conversion I posted long ago and uncovered this thread instead. I've since been digitalized myself, agree with those who prefer headaches and root canals, and now believe that if an idea can't be converted to text message size, it's not worth the bother.
icon_smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top