Yesterday afternoon, I fired up the Bradley for its first cooking. I
chose 24 wings, which I vacuum marinated for 2 hours in apple juice,
garlic and a little salt. That's just a vacuum variation of my
traditional marinade, so outside of 2 hours vs. overnight, it wasn't a
variable. They were rubbed with EVOO just before placing them on the racks.

The wings went onto 2 racks, set in the center at 240f, with 4+2 pucks
of apple for smoke. I did them 3 hours, which gave me an internal
temperature of 170f on my radio remote probe. I did it with the damper
almost closed off and with the used marinade in the water pan.

The results were absolutely excellent, and as if I'd been cooking them
this way all my life. The only thing I will be experimenting and
possibly changing is the outside of the wings. They were so moist that
they literally were dripping. The outside was tan from the smoke, but I
think it'd be a tad prettier if I'd finish them off on the grill for
about 10 minutes on a high direct heat to dry the skin a tad and give it
more of a scrunch when you bite in.

Today, I put 2 racks of ribs on at 200f with the timer set to look in on
them at 6 hours. They're cooking with 8 +2 pucks of Pecan with the
damper about 1/4 open to see if it gives them a bit more crust than the
wings. They were marinated in vacuum overnight in apple juice and some
spices I threw together. This morning, I ground on black pepper when
they were on the rack.

Something also I noticed that is really great about the Bradley, is how
well the racks fit into a dishwasher.
--
---Nonnymus---
In the periodic table, as in politics,
the unstable elements tend to hang out on
the far left, with some to the right as well.

The Bradley puck feeder requires two non-burned pucks to push #3 and
more onto the heating element. When the hopper is empty and the smoking
has ended, the last two pucks remain on the slide to the heater.They
sell aluminum "dummy" pucks for this purpose, but I haven't gotten them
yet. That means if you want to feed in 4 pucks to the smoker, you need
to load the hopper with 6. The downside to the Bradley design is that
the next-to-last puck gets partially consumed because of the heat of the
one on the heating element. It's really no big deal, but the aluminum
dummy pucks would stop that small bit of waste.

So far, I'm really impressed with the puck and heater concept. Like all
of us, I've used preburned coals generally for my old smokers and have
experimented with briquettes and lump. The most bitter smoke is that
from wood chips heated over a fire, such as in foil or a covered pan,
IMHO. The sweetest so far was the preburned wood, such as hickory
coals. Right now, I'd have to swear that the Bradley puck system gives
me a sweeter and cleaner smoke than any I've had before over all these
years. I'm really impressed. A side benefit is that between cranking
the damper down pretty tight and the water pan that catches the burned
pucks, the smoker does a darned good job at giving a high humidity- as
in an R2D2. I've just dumping my used marinade into the pan, and it
seems to give the humidity a little bit of flavor in and of itself.

I also went out to Bass Pro Shops today and got a second set of 4 racks.
The idea is that you can invert one rack on top of another, doubling
the amount of thin meat, such as fish or jerky, that you can smoke in
one sitting.

Nonny

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:58:16 -0800, Nonnymus wrote:
>
>> The wings went onto 2 racks, set in the center at 240f, with 4+2 pucks
> ...
>> They're cooking with 8 +2 pucks of Pecan with the
>
> What is the meaning of the "x+y pucks" notation?
>
> -sw

--
---Nonnymus---
In the periodic table, as in politics,
the unstable elements tend to hang out on
the far left, with some to the right as well.

On 11-Dec-2006, Nonnymus > wrote:

> Yesterday afternoon, I fired up the Bradley for its first cooking. I
> chose 24 wings, which I vacuum marinated for 2 hours in apple juice,
> garlic and a little salt. That's just a vacuum variation of my
> traditional marinade, so outside of 2 hours vs. overnight, it wasn't a
> variable. They were rubbed with EVOO just before placing them on the
> racks.
>
> The wings went onto 2 racks, set in the center at 240f, with 4+2 pucks
> of apple for smoke. I did them 3 hours, which gave me an internal
> temperature of 170f on my radio remote probe. I did it with the damper
> almost closed off and with the used marinade in the water pan.
>
> The results were absolutely excellent, and as if I'd been cooking them
> this way all my life. The only thing I will be experimenting and
> possibly changing is the outside of the wings. They were so moist that
> they literally were dripping. The outside was tan from the smoke, but I
> think it'd be a tad prettier if I'd finish them off on the grill for
> about 10 minutes on a high direct heat to dry the skin a tad and give it
> more of a scrunch when you bite in.
>
> Today, I put 2 racks of ribs on at 200f with the timer set to look in on
> them at 6 hours. They're cooking with 8 +2 pucks of Pecan with the
> damper about 1/4 open to see if it gives them a bit more crust than the
> wings. They were marinated in vacuum overnight in apple juice and some
> spices I threw together. This morning, I ground on black pepper when
> they were on the rack.
>
> Something also I noticed that is really great about the Bradley, is how
> well the racks fit into a dishwasher.
> --
> ---Nonnymus---

Just a note here Nonny. While vacuum marinade is not to be discounted. One
must remember that the typical marinade is meant to cause physical de-
composition of the meat. While short periods of vacuum marinade wll
result in saturation of the meat with the marinade, it will not cause the
physical transformation of the cell structure of the meat. With this in
mind,
vacuum can be an important tool in your reperatoir.

--
Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

Thank you for the reply, and I see your point. I guess that what I do
when vacuum marinating quickly with apple juice is preferable to me, in
the case of what I'm trying to do. I personally do not like meat that's
been marinated in papaya juice to cause it to become more tender, for
instance. To me, it becomes mushy and I'd prefer to chew a little harder
than to have the texture changed. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, but I
just don't like meat that has been actually tenderized by a marinade.

In the case of the apple juice, I've found that an hour or so for
chicken or overnight for ribs gives an extremely moist meat with just a
little bit of a sweet taste that goes well with smoke. Maybe, since
apple juice is slightly acidic, a longer time would result in chemical
changes to the meat, but the shorter time just makes it juicy. I've
done no research into the changes in meat texture as a function of
acidity or papaya, so if anyone has more observations, I'd sure enjoy
reading about them.

Nonny

wrote:
> On 11-Dec-2006, Nonnymus > wrote:
>
>> Yesterday afternoon, I fired up the Bradley for its first cooking. I
>> chose 24 wings, which I vacuum marinated for 2 hours in apple juice,
>> garlic and a little salt. That's just a vacuum variation of my
>> traditional marinade, so outside of 2 hours vs. overnight, it wasn't a
>> variable. They were rubbed with EVOO just before placing them on the
>> racks.
>>
>> The wings went onto 2 racks, set in the center at 240f, with 4+2 pucks
>> of apple for smoke. I did them 3 hours, which gave me an internal
>> temperature of 170f on my radio remote probe. I did it with the damper
>> almost closed off and with the used marinade in the water pan.
>>
>> The results were absolutely excellent, and as if I'd been cooking them
>> this way all my life. The only thing I will be experimenting and
>> possibly changing is the outside of the wings. They were so moist that
>> they literally were dripping. The outside was tan from the smoke, but I
>> think it'd be a tad prettier if I'd finish them off on the grill for
>> about 10 minutes on a high direct heat to dry the skin a tad and give it
>> more of a scrunch when you bite in.
>>
>> Today, I put 2 racks of ribs on at 200f with the timer set to look in on
>> them at 6 hours. They're cooking with 8 +2 pucks of Pecan with the
>> damper about 1/4 open to see if it gives them a bit more crust than the
>> wings. They were marinated in vacuum overnight in apple juice and some
>> spices I threw together. This morning, I ground on black pepper when
>> they were on the rack.
>>
>> Something also I noticed that is really great about the Bradley, is how
>> well the racks fit into a dishwasher.
>> --
>> ---Nonnymus---
>
> Just a note here Nonny. While vacuum marinade is not to be discounted. One
> must remember that the typical marinade is meant to cause physical de-
> composition of the meat. While short periods of vacuum marinade wll
> result in saturation of the meat with the marinade, it will not cause the
> physical transformation of the cell structure of the meat. With this in
> mind,
> vacuum can be an important tool in your reperatoir.
>

--
---Nonnymus---
In the periodic table, as in politics,
the unstable elements tend to hang out on
the far left, with some to the right as well.

I know from experience that too much acidity will cause chicken to
toughen up rather than tenderize. Some time back I did three different
marinades on a "family-size" package of boneless/skinless chicken
breasts. The ones that were soaked in a marinade based on apple cider
vinegar were noticeably stringier than the other ones. One of the other
two marinades only had a bit of lemon and lime juice for acid. The
third marinade was yogurt-based, so probably not very acidic at all.

Some time back I saw a good article and series of pictures that show
what "meat tenderizers" do to meat over time. Suffice it to say that
the results of the longest contact time were not pleasant to look at or
contemplate. Basically meat mush. I can't find the link right now, but
I'm sure the article is still out there somewhere on the web.

Bob
===============================
In article >,
says...
> In the case of the apple juice, I've found that an hour or so for
> chicken or overnight for ribs gives an extremely moist meat with just a
> little bit of a sweet taste that goes well with smoke. Maybe, since
> apple juice is slightly acidic, a longer time would result in chemical
> changes to the meat, but the shorter time just makes it juicy. I've
> done no research into the changes in meat texture as a function of
> acidity or papaya, so if anyone has more observations, I'd sure enjoy
> reading about them.
>

Here's an article that talks about the issues. Not the one I originally
saw, but pretty informative:

http://www.taunton.com/finecooking/pages/c00157.asp

That whole site seems to be an excellent resource.

Bob
===========================
In article >,
says...
> I know from experience that too much acidity will cause chicken to
> toughen up rather than tenderize. Some time back I did three different
> marinades on a "family-size" package of boneless/skinless chicken
> breasts. The ones that were soaked in a marinade based on apple cider
> vinegar were noticeably stringier than the other ones. One of the other
> two marinades only had a bit of lemon and lime juice for acid. The
> third marinade was yogurt-based, so probably not very acidic at all.
>
> Some time back I saw a good article and series of pictures that show
> what "meat tenderizers" do to meat over time. Suffice it to say that
> the results of the longest contact time were not pleasant to look at or
> contemplate. Basically meat mush. I can't find the link right now, but
> I'm sure the article is still out there somewhere on the web.
>
> Bob
> ===============================
> In article >,
> says...
> > In the case of the apple juice, I've found that an hour or so for
> > chicken or overnight for ribs gives an extremely moist meat with just a
> > little bit of a sweet taste that goes well with smoke. Maybe, since
> > apple juice is slightly acidic, a longer time would result in chemical
> > changes to the meat, but the shorter time just makes it juicy. I've
> > done no research into the changes in meat texture as a function of
> > acidity or papaya, so if anyone has more observations, I'd sure enjoy
> > reading about them.
> >
>

yetanotherBob wrote:

> Some time back I saw a good article and series of pictures that show
> what "meat tenderizers" do to meat over time. Suffice it to say that
> the results of the longest contact time were not pleasant to look at or
> contemplate. Basically meat mush. I can't find the link right now, but
> I'm sure the article is still out there somewhere on the web.
>

Glad you brought this up, YAB. Please usually find
the pictures pretty enlightening.

<http://forums.egullet.com/index.php?showtopic=40548#acid>

Most people swear off meat tenderizers after
seeing it.

--
Reg

On 12-Dec-2006, Nonnymus > wrote:

> Thank you for the reply, and I see your point. I guess that what I do
> when vacuum marinating quickly with apple juice is preferable to me, in
> the case of what I'm trying to do. I personally do not like meat that's
> been marinated in papaya juice to cause it to become more tender, for
> instance. To me, it becomes mushy and I'd prefer to chew a little harder
> than to have the texture changed. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, but I
> just don't like meat that has been actually tenderized by a marinade.
>
> In the case of the apple juice, I've found that an hour or so for
> chicken or overnight for ribs gives an extremely moist meat with just a
> little bit of a sweet taste that goes well with smoke. Maybe, since
> apple juice is slightly acidic, a longer time would result in chemical
> changes to the meat, but the shorter time just makes it juicy. I've
> done no research into the changes in meat texture as a function of
> acidity or papaya, so if anyone has more observations, I'd sure enjoy
> reading about them.
>
> Nonny

< snip a bunch>

Nonny, you have already discovered the magic in vacuum
marinading. The period of time that works for you, is the proper
time to use. I haven't yet obtained a vacuum container, but will
soon. I think there's a three piece set that I had my eye on. It'll
be good for my old foodsaver to do some work again. It only gets
used to vacuum breadcrumbs and spices in mason jars these
days. I then keep the jars in the freezer, (23 cu/ft)

I haven't vacuum marinated any birds yet. I usually brine mine
for a day or even two. Hound's brine definitely changes the texture,
but I like the results I get. From your description, I suspect that
you would not appreciate my brined birds.

Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)

wrote:

>
> Nonny, you have already discovered the magic in vacuum
> marinading. The period of time that works for you, is the proper
> time to use. I haven't yet obtained a vacuum container, but will
> soon. I think there's a three piece set that I had my eye on. It'll
> be good for my old foodsaver to do some work again. It only gets
> used to vacuum breadcrumbs and spices in mason jars these
> days. I then keep the jars in the freezer, (23 cu/ft)
>
> I haven't vacuum marinated any birds yet. I usually brine mine
> for a day or even two. Hound's brine definitely changes the texture,
> but I like the results I get. From your description, I suspect that
> you would not appreciate my brined birds.
>
> Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)

I have a couple of the 3-piece cannister sets, and the big one holds 2
dozen wings. When packed with wings, it really doesn't take that much
apple juice to fill it. What's cool is seeing the bubbles rise from the
wings when you pull the vacuum. I guess that it's air trapped under the
skin. This might sound nuts, but something else I've done is to
repeatedly pull and discharge the vacuum after pouring in the juice. In
my simple mind, it's the air pressure that "forces" the juice into the
meat. If both are at standard pressure, there's no difference and the
juice has to just diffuse into the meat. By pulling a vacuum, you
expand or (maybe) even rupture some of the cells in the meat. Then,
when you release the vacuum, the air pressure lets the juice take the
place of the evacuated air. Dunno if I'm nuts or not, but it's fun to
play with.

I also have the flat container they actually market for vacuum
marinading. It's good for small amounts of flat food, but frankly, I
get more mileage and save juice by using one of the vacuum containers
most of the time.

I have a good friend who typically marinates with oils, such as Italian
salad dressing. I'm not knocking his food at all, but for some reason I
prefer water based things like apple juice (never cider, as mentioned as
a caution in another post). When he does chicken wings, he also has an
orange juice baste he does up and is darned good on wings. What I've
been toying around with is the idea of using orange juice as a marinade,
but adding just a tad of baking soda to neutralize the acid OR cooking
some orange zest in oil and then using it as the marinade. Dunno if
you've tried it, but something like that might be interesting, too,
When I do this noble experiment, my plan is to use test strips from my
pool to get the pH to in the 7's.

--
---Nonnymus---
In the periodic table, as in politics,
the unstable elements tend to hang out on
the far left, with some to the right as well.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:47:11 -0800, Nonnymus >
wrote:

>When I do this noble experiment, my plan is to use test strips from my
>pool to get the pH to in the 7's.

You might want to consider making the first batch a bit smaller, maybe
use a hot tub instead.

Ha! Let me rephrase that for you, Kevin:<grin>

When I do this noble experiment, my plan is to use the same test strips
(not previously used) I customarily use to test the pH of my pool. I
will remove a drop of the orange juice to which I've added a small
amount of sodium bicarbonate (after stirring and letting any CO2
escape), and drip it onto the appropriate area of the test strip,
comparing the color change to the one on the container (of the test
strip and not the orange juice container or the container (printed
cardboard box) of sodium bicarbonate). The resulting color should
indicate the pH of the solution, and should it fall within the range of
~7<pH<8, I will consider the solution (of citrus juice and sodium
bicarbonate) to be sufficiently neutral so that it might not affect the
texture of the chicken meat. One possible concern might be that while
the test strips are designed to test (relatively) clear (non turbid)
water, the color of the citrus juice, such as Orange juice, might skew
the results. Since the citrus juice being under test (Orange juie) has
a light orange color, it would tend to make the (chemically reactive
part) test strip slightly more orange in color. That would skew the
results toward the more alkaline range (pH > 7.6), hence the allowance
of a range of alkalinity as to much as 8 to allow for this anticipated
(not proved by test) color shift in the test strip. I will also check
to be sure that the test strips are within the expiration date (before
and not after) printed on the side of the test strip's bottle. One
other concern you might have is that the test strips might have been
exposed to the moisture in the air, hence rendering their results
progressively less conclusive. In that case, the bottle I propose using
was opened less than a month ago and during that time, there has been no
precipitation here in Henderson (Las Vegas) Nevada. The average
humidity this time of year is about 25%, so I believe any concern of
that nature should be reasonably slight.

I can flesh this idea out a bit more, if it's unclear.

All in fun. . . Nonny

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:47:11 -0800, Nonnymus >
> wrote:
>
>> When I do this noble experiment, my plan is to use test strips from my
>> pool to get the pH to in the 7's.
>
> You might want to consider making the first batch a bit smaller, maybe
> use a hot tub instead.

--
---Nonnymus---
In the periodic table, as in politics,
the unstable elements tend to hang out on
the far left, with some to the right as well.

In article >,
says...
> > Some time back I saw a good article and series of pictures that show
> > what "meat tenderizers" do to meat over time. Suffice it to say that
> > the results of the longest contact time were not pleasant to look at or
> > contemplate. Basically meat mush. I can't find the link right now, but
> > I'm sure the article is still out there somewhere on the web.
> >
>
> Glad you brought this up, YAB. Please usually find
> the pictures pretty enlightening.
>
> <http://forums.egullet.com/index.php?showtopic=40548#acid>
>
> Most people swear off meat tenderizers after
> seeing it.
>
Yep, that's pretty gross, all right. I recall seeing another series of
photos, but this one definitely gets the point across. Thanks for the
link.

Bob

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:02:49 -0800, Nonnymus >
wrote:

>Ha! Let me rephrase that for you, Kevin:<grin>
>
>When I do this noble experiment, my plan is to use the same test strips
>(not previously used) I customarily use to test the pH of my pool. I
>will remove a drop of the orange juice to which I've added a small
>amount of sodium bicarbonate (after stirring and letting any CO2
>escape), and drip it onto the appropriate area of the test strip,
>comparing the color change to the one on the container (of the test
>strip and not the orange juice container or the container (printed
>cardboard box) of sodium bicarbonate). The resulting color should
>indicate the pH of the solution, and should it fall within the range of
>~7<pH<8, I will consider the solution (of citrus juice and sodium
>bicarbonate) to be sufficiently neutral so that it might not affect the
>texture of the chicken meat. One possible concern might be that while
>the test strips are designed to test (relatively) clear (non turbid)
>water, the color of the citrus juice, such as Orange juice, might skew
>the results. Since the citrus juice being under test (Orange juie) has
>a light orange color, it would tend to make the (chemically reactive
>part) test strip slightly more orange in color. That would skew the
>results toward the more alkaline range (pH > 7.6), hence the allowance
>of a range of alkalinity as to much as 8 to allow for this anticipated
>(not proved by test) color shift in the test strip. I will also check
>to be sure that the test strips are within the expiration date (before
>and not after) printed on the side of the test strip's bottle. One
>other concern you might have is that the test strips might have been
>exposed to the moisture in the air, hence rendering their results
>progressively less conclusive. In that case, the bottle I propose using
>was opened less than a month ago and during that time, there has been no
>precipitation here in Henderson (Las Vegas) Nevada. The average
>humidity this time of year is about 25%, so I believe any concern of
>that nature should be reasonably slight.
>
Well, sure, if you want to do a half-assed job of it.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:12:21 -0500, yetanotherBob wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>> Some time back I saw a good article and series of pictures that show
>>> what "meat tenderizers" do to meat over time. Suffice it to say that
>>> the results of the longest contact time were not pleasant to look at or
>>> contemplate. Basically meat mush. I can't find the link right now, but
>>> I'm sure the article is still out there somewhere on the web.
>>>
>>
>> Glad you brought this up, YAB. Please usually find
>> the pictures pretty enlightening.
>>
>> <http://forums.egullet.com/index.php?showtopic=40548#acid>
>>
>> Most people swear off meat tenderizers after
>> seeing it.
>>
> Yep, that's pretty gross, all right. I recall seeing another series of
> photos, but this one definitely gets the point across. Thanks for the
> link.
>
> Bob

A local meat chain sells a ton of marinated meat and chicken. When they
first opened, their product was decent, but the last few times we bought
the product it was over marinated and mushy....I marinate my own now...that
stuff was nasty.
--
DavidG-

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Nonnymus" > wrote in message
...

>
> The results were absolutely excellent, and as if I'd been cooking them
> this way all my life. The only thing I will be experimenting and possibly
> changing is the outside of the wings. They were so moist that they
> literally were dripping. The outside was tan from the smoke, but I think
> it'd be a tad prettier if I'd finish them off on the grill for about 10
> minutes on a high direct heat to dry the skin a tad and give it more of a
> scrunch when you bite in.

> I did it with the damper almost closed off and with the used marinade in
> the water pan.

You might want to try leaving the the damper at least half open. This will
allow a lot of the moisture to escape the smoker. You'll end up with a much
better tasting and looking (smoked rather than steamed) product.

You may also find that keeping the Bradley damped down will cause the
"pucks" to swell up from the moisture and jam your feeder.

Good luck... sounds like you're having fun with it!

-P

One of the keys to getting crisper skin on poultry in a smoker such as
a Bradley is to leave the vents open more. Poultry contains more
moisture than beef or pork, so you need to open your vents more when
smoking poultry, to allow the extra moisture to excape. If you keep
the vents closed down too much, you'll get rubbery skin, and excess
moisture inside the smoker cabinet.

If your concerned about not getting enough smoke with the vents open
more, then simply add a few extra bisquettes, for more smoke time. And
be sure to pick up a set of aluminum dummy pucks from ebay to save a
couple wood bisquettes each time you fire up your Bradley.

good luck,


Pete & Kathy wrote:
> "Nonnymus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > The results were absolutely excellent, and as if I'd been cooking them
> > this way all my life. The only thing I will be experimenting and possibly
> > changing is the outside of the wings. They were so moist that they
> > literally were dripping. The outside was tan from the smoke, but I think
> > it'd be a tad prettier if I'd finish them off on the grill for about 10
> > minutes on a high direct heat to dry the skin a tad and give it more of a
> > scrunch when you bite in.
>
> > I did it with the damper almost closed off and with the used marinade in
> > the water pan.
>
> You might want to try leaving the the damper at least half open. This will
> allow a lot of the moisture to escape the smoker. You'll end up with a much
> better tasting and looking (smoked rather than steamed) product.
>
> You may also find that keeping the Bradley damped down will cause the
> "pucks" to swell up from the moisture and jam your feeder.
>
> Good luck... sounds like you're having fun with it!
>
> -P