Fred, Just sprinkle a little ash on the side of the piece you serve the purists so they an tell it has been cooked over a wood fire.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
"I'm not from your planet, monkey boy!"
All that ash tells us purists it was not prepared properly! [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
Egon
"Properly"?
I take offense at that, Egon.... it's the end result that matters, isn't it? You could even see the meat turning pink where the "smoke" had seeped in.
[img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
Done right you have no ash on the meat! [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
Now done properly may just encompass a very wide range of methods for which there is no right answer!
Egon [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] :
Egon... ALL THAT ASH?????
I don't recall sugesting burying the meat in cinders. My intent was to suggest a trace of ash such as is often the case with "REAL" fires, just enough to give the illusion that wood or charcoal were used rather than gas. Since in cooking/eating the end result is what is important not how you arrive there, the trace of ash would be to allow psychological comfort on the behalf of those who need to be reassured that wood or charcoal was involved.
Recall that some of the early automobile bodies were built in coach works by workmen who had been building for horse drawn applications. They put buggy whip holders on the automobiles just as they had always done. While "TRADITION" has its place, the proof of the pudding, or BBQ or grilled meat, is in the eating. I suggest that a "TRACE" of ash would be all that was required to camoflage a properly gas grilled delight such that so called "purists" would not be able to tell the difference.
If you can assure me that there is never a trace of ash getting on your masterieces then I suppose you could do an A-B comparison of gas vs wood/charcoal grilled meat and be unable to reliably determine which was which even without the camoflage. This presumes that lliquid smoke or even soaked wood chips are allowed with the gas unit. the chips can be in a container and not "in the fire."
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
"I'm not from your planet, monkey boy!"
Pat:
Obfusication:{ spelling.}
Ash is definetly an indication of poor cooking practice!!
Liguid smoke just ain't smoke.
The benifts of a true wood - to hot coals - to a seared both sides - to a slow heat finish just can't be duplicated by the hot C3 torch!
Of course the preperation of of the coals and the hydrating fluid required in such a process may have some influence! [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
Egon.
Unfortunatley we have no convenient means of having a blind taste testfor interested TBN folk. My claim is that "properly done" gas cooked meat with either liquid and or wood chips can stand up quite well in blind taste tests. You might be surprised to see some "purist" picking his favorite and loudly proclaiming it to be superior because of the delicate nuances of flavor imparted by real fire (charcoal) only to be lauged at by onlookers who can see the labels on the plates of samples and know he is selecting GAS COOKED meat and procaliming it to be superior.
Been there, done that.
DId the same thing with turkey meat, light versus dark and got dyed in the wool light meat adherents to select dark meat and procalim it the best because it tastes better and is LIGHT MEAT only to have selected dark over the light. Of course with blindfolds removed they instantly reverted to eating light meat because of their entrenched bias (food fetish.)
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
"I'm not from your planet, monkey boy!"
Too danged bad y'all can't come to agreement! NOT!! [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] That's what makes life exciting. Keep on striving for perfection because regardless of how good you get somebody is still going to put ketchup on their steak!! [img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] Generally speaking you smoke with hardwoods only. This helps solve the ash problem. Use dried wood for the most flavor. Good idea to saok them down before using them for smoking to keep them from burning up all at one time. Next decide if you are going to cold smoke, cure under 200 degrees, or actually BBQ the meat 225 to 275 degrees and have it ready for eating the same day. For red meats use mesquite, although I personally dislike the flavor, oak(red, white, blackjack, and pin), same story on flavor, or hickory, which is my favorite. I use maple as well especially red or sugar maple. For fish and fowl use alder, apple, cherry, peach, grape vine, a little maple (white or sugar) crab apple, pear. The fruit woods concentrate sugars when they dry and impart a somewhat milder almost charcoal filtered taste to the meat without overpowering it. Contrary to popular opinion Liquid Smoke is smoke. Captured, liquified and filtered smoke in fact. The secret to success in using any smoke at all is to not over do it. Doesn't take a chord and a half of wood to smoke a briskit; onaly a handfull or two in reality. I like to use my nice dry wood, the same as I plan to make smoke with for providing the heat source. Heat can be supplied with propane, electricity, or charcoal however. If you all do smoke something you don't like give me a call; I'll eat it! [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]
Phil Foreman
aka Paws or
CPL Kass Irons, CSA
Quartermaster and Company Cook Mosby's Raiders
www.ohiocampcooks.org
pawclaws, Any comments on the difference in results if the bark was stripped off prior to use in smoking? I've heard comments that some folks can taste the difference of bark stripped when it was green vz when it was well aged.
So, are you about the most patronized guy at the whole camp?
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
"I'm not from your planet, monkey boy!"
Never heard that! [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] I don't think there would be an appreciable difference though. Bark is very permeable and designed for aeration so removing it should not speed up the drying process. Drying the wood leaves concentrated sap (sugars) behind in the shrunken cellular structure of the wood and will tend to somewhat "sweeten" the smoke when dried wood is used. I think it would take a highly trained set of taste buds to distinguish the time the bark was removed; but, would be based undoubtedly on the sweetness or bitterness of the smoke. If I plan to remove the bark I wait until I am ready to use the wood because the bark protects the wood from bugs and weather. I save the bark for tinder or just leave it on the smaller pieces and use it whole. Most patronized guy? Probably, yes; but the most patronized person would have to be Miss Rosebud!! She runs the massage parlor at the local Sutlers! [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote