Nonnymus wrote:
> Shawn wrote:
>> Nonnymus wrote:
>>> Shawn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey! You're blowing our marketing program here.
>>>> We figured out a couple of decades ago that the only way to rid
>>>> ourselves of this nusance weed was to create a global market for
>>>> it.
>>> I think that the finest Porterhouse I ever ate was at some
>>> restaurant in Austin, back in the 70's. The steak was grilled over
>>> Mesquite coals and served with a ladle of Pintos in a tin plate. I've
>>> had many steaks in my life, including Angus steers that
>>> started out life after weening on corn/hay/drylass and hung for 30+
>>> days before cutting. Never, have I had a finer steak than that
>>> night in Austin, and I've never been able to recreate it.
>>
>>
>> That's probably the difference. Once it has burned down to coals,
>> the flavor mekkows a lot. Most folks don't go to the effort of
>> pre-burning before adding to the smoker.
>>
>> If you pre-burn to coals first, I think you can get acceptable Q
>> from just about any non-processed hardwood. (with the exception of
>> Cowboy lump. (Who knows what they put in that stuff))
>
> I think this is true for about any wood. FWIW, I almost always cooked
> on pre burn when I was more active in grilling and smoking. I
> presently am limited in smoking to my Bradley, which uses compressed
> wood pucks, fed onto a heater every 20 minutes. The heater seems to
> be a reasonable compromise between lump and pre burn, since you get a
> good smoke flavor without much creosote or tars. In the case of the
> Mesquite pucks, however, I don't like the flavor as much as the
> traditional pre burn Mesquite. I don't understand the "why," of
> this, but have about given up using the Mesquite pucks and am
> sticking to Apple, Alder and the "special blend."


I actually prefer hill country post oak myself.