Dave Bugg wrote:

>> Doesn't Q in the USA mean low and slow with smoke?

> Not necessarily. The part about 'with smoke' is optional and not
> required.

This is what led me to confusion, I believed Q'ing involved smoke. Thanks
for claryfying, Dave

> Open pits for bbq, as are common in North Carolina for
> example, are designed to minimize smoke. Smoke is a by-product of
> fire that is controlled. It is treated as a spice, as flavoring. You
> can use smoke as a flavoring in several cooking methods: grilling,
> roasting, bbq.

True. If there weren't smoke, or the smell of burning wood/charcoal, one
could just use an oven broiler.

> Cooking with smoke does NOT equal bbq.
> Smoking, which is a curative/preservative process (sausages for
> example) is different than bbq, which is a cooking process.

But when people says "I have smoked a chicken" they don't mean this, they
mean they have barbecued it with smoke and not for preservation, but for
taste? No? If I'm non totally wrong there are 2 kinds of smoking: the one to
make, for example, smoked cold cuts (as the ham you told before) so that
they preserve well and can be eaten later, and the smoking which instead is
a kind of cooking process for itmes to be server as soon as cooked?

--
Vilco
Mai guardare Trailer park Boys senza
qualcosa da bere a portata di mano

Brick wrote:

> Many thanks for that translation effort Vilco. I got a lot out of it.
> I appreciate your signature block also. It fits right in with this
> crowd.

LOL, thank you Brick
--
Vilco
Mai guardare Trailer park Boys senza
qualcosa da bere a portata di mano

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:06:06 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Fri 02 Oct 2009 12:46:58a, ViLco told us...
>
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>>> Doesn't Q in the USA mean low and slow with smoke?
>>
>>> Not necessarily. The part about 'with smoke' is optional and not
>>> required.
>>
>> This is what led me to confusion, I believed Q'ing involved smoke.
>> Thanks for claryfying, Dave
>>
>>> Open pits for bbq, as are common in North Carolina for
>>> example, are designed to minimize smoke. Smoke is a by-product of
>>> fire that is controlled. It is treated as a spice, as flavoring. You
>>> can use smoke as a flavoring in several cooking methods: grilling,
>>> roasting, bbq.
>>
>> True. If there weren't smoke, or the smell of burning wood/charcoal, one
>> could just use an oven broiler.
>>
>>> Cooking with smoke does NOT equal bbq.
>>> Smoking, which is a curative/preservative process (sausages for
>>> example) is different than bbq, which is a cooking process.
>>
>> But when people says "I have smoked a chicken" they don't mean this,
>> they mean they have barbecued it with smoke and not for preservation,
>> but for taste? No? If I'm non totally wrong there are 2 kinds of
>> smoking: the one to make, for example, smoked cold cuts (as the ham you
>> told before) so that they preserve well and can be eaten later, and the
>> smoking which instead is a kind of cooking process for itmes to be
>> server as soon as cooked?
>>
>
>No, grilled ribs are not "barbecue", but I like them equally well. I have
>a cast iron "smoker box" in my gas grill. It adds enough smoke flavor to
>satisfy me, as long as I maintain a low temperature and grill long and
>slow.

I had one of those, well, still do. Just got a V shaped one and that
works even better. Fits low into the grill. Do not Q with it, but it
is good with grilled chicken, fish, and meat on the grill.

IIRC, there are tow smoking processes: Cold smoking and Hot
smoking. Cold smoking, often used for Salmon, as an example,
must be cured first of the meat will spoil. Hot smoking will
cook the meat also, so it can be labeled "fully cooked". Here is
a moderately informed article about it:

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Exact...ing?&id=108679

Best wishes and regards...

Tom


Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 02 Oct 2009 12:46:58a, ViLco told us...
>
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>>> Doesn't Q in the USA mean low and slow with smoke?
>>> Not necessarily. The part about 'with smoke' is optional and not
>>> required.
>> This is what led me to confusion, I believed Q'ing involved smoke.
>> Thanks for claryfying, Dave
>>
>>> Open pits for bbq, as are common in North Carolina for
>>> example, are designed to minimize smoke. Smoke is a by-product of
>>> fire that is controlled. It is treated as a spice, as flavoring. You
>>> can use smoke as a flavoring in several cooking methods: grilling,
>>> roasting, bbq.
>> True. If there weren't smoke, or the smell of burning wood/charcoal, one
>> could just use an oven broiler.
>>
>>> Cooking with smoke does NOT equal bbq.
>>> Smoking, which is a curative/preservative process (sausages for
>>> example) is different than bbq, which is a cooking process.
>> But when people says "I have smoked a chicken" they don't mean this,
>> they mean they have barbecued it with smoke and not for preservation,
>> but for taste? No? If I'm non totally wrong there are 2 kinds of
>> smoking: the one to make, for example, smoked cold cuts (as the ham you
>> told before) so that they preserve well and can be eaten later, and the
>> smoking which instead is a kind of cooking process for itmes to be
>> server as soon as cooked?
>>
>
> No, grilled ribs are not "barbecue", but I like them equally well. I have
> a cast iron "smoker box" in my gas grill. It adds enough smoke flavor to
> satisfy me, as long as I maintain a low temperature and grill long and
> slow.
>



--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 168 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter he http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message

On Oct 1, 11:50*pm, Dana K6JQ > wrote:

> I had dinner at a Texas Road House last week. *Nothing to write home
> about;

Kinda figgered it to be all hat, no cattle. Probably decent steaks and
sides with lots of sports on TV and a big round full bar that open on
the main seating area.

A good beer and food after work place.

On 2-Oct-2009, Gene > wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 02:11:35 GMT, "Brick" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >On 1-Oct-2009, Sqwertz > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:20:36 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote:
> >>
> >> > Smoking, which is a curative/preservative process (sausages for
> >> > example) is
> >> > different than bbq, which is a cooking process.
> >>
> >> Smoking does very little, if anything, to preserve food. And what
> >> little preservatives there are in smoke, most are considered toxic
> >> or otherwise not very healthy for you.
> >>
> >> -sw
> >
> >When I was a wee bairn, if your imagination can stretch that far,
> >we had a built to purpose smokehouse. It was a small building
> >separate from the house and barn, well away from any animal
> >production facilities. We also had a springhouse, but that's
> >another subject. The smokehouse was used in the fall after the
> >weather turned cool enough to promote butchering. Hams
> >were prepared for curing and hung in the smokehouse to cure
> >(dry). A small smoky fire was built in the middle of the floor.
> >As I understand it, the primary purpose of the smoky fire was
> >to control the flies. Everybody cooked with woodstoves in those
> >days and smoky flavor was to be avoided to the extent possible.
> >There was plenty of smoky flavor by accident without doing it
> >on purpose.
>
> Damn. So tell me, who really won the civil war?
>
> J/K bud

You're probably talking about the war of aggression that took
place when the cotton producers of the south had the audacity
to insist on marketing their product to Austria, France, Spain
and Italy for more money then the evil industrial capitalists of
the north were willing to pay. No one won that war. The South
was devestated and Southern cotton production was reduced
to a standstill for a number of years. By the time production
resumed, the damn yankees were in power and they sold the
cotton to Austria, France, Spain and Italy forcing the Northern
mill owners to ante up.

--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)

On Oct 2, 7:10*am, Duwop > wrote:
> On Oct 1, 11:50*pm, Dana K6JQ > wrote:
>
> > I had dinner at a Texas Road House last week. *Nothing to write home
> > about;
>
> Kinda figgered it to be all hat, no cattle. Probably decent steaks and
> sides with lots of sports on TV and a big round full bar that open on
> the main seating area.
>
> A good beer and food after work place.

*Precisely*. Steaks looked pretty good, actually.

Dana

Duwop wrote:
> On Oct 1, 11:50 pm, Dana K6JQ > wrote:
>
>> I had dinner at a Texas Road House last week. Nothing to write home
>> about;
>
> Kinda figgered it to be all hat, no cattle. Probably decent steaks and
> sides with lots of sports on TV and a big round full bar that open on
> the main seating area.
>
> A good beer and food after work place.

Last time I was at one of these down in San Antonio, my steak had
so much salt on it I asked if they grilled the salt block by mistake.

They are good for burgers, beer, and free peanuts, but that's about it.

--
DougW

In ,
DougW >spewed forth:
> Duwop wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 11:50 pm, Dana K6JQ > wrote:
>>
>>> I had dinner at a Texas Road House last week. Nothing to write home
>>> about;
>>
>> Kinda figgered it to be all hat, no cattle. Probably decent steaks
>> and sides with lots of sports on TV and a big round full bar that
>> open on the main seating area.
>>
>> A good beer and food after work place.
>
> Last time I was at one of these down in San Antonio, my steak had
> so much salt on it I asked if they grilled the salt block by mistake.
>
> They are good for burgers, beer, and free peanuts, but that's about
> it.

the rolls are pretty good too

"Nonny" > wrote in news:QnCvm.20951$6f4.20838
@newsfe08.iad:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I still can't figure out how the ribs came out edible in that
>> show,
>> though.
>>
>> Robert
>
> There was a dirty show on cable the other night where the gal
> screamed, yelled, thrashed about and appeared to have a far better
> time than I'd have thought she should have had. . . whether she
> did or not. Perhaps the ribs you saw cooked on the show were
> tough as leather, tasted like boiled pork with catsup and everyone
> rolled their eyes and moaned about how good they were. <grin>
>

You owe me a new keyboard. Love the sig by the way

ViLco wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't Q in the USA mean low and slow with smoke?
>
>> Not necessarily. The part about 'with smoke' is optional and not
>> required.
>
> This is what led me to confusion, I believed Q'ing involved smoke.
> Thanks for claryfying, Dave
>
>> Open pits for bbq, as are common in North Carolina for
>> example, are designed to minimize smoke. Smoke is a by-product of
>> fire that is controlled. It is treated as a spice, as flavoring. You
>> can use smoke as a flavoring in several cooking methods: grilling,
>> roasting, bbq.
>
> True. If there weren't smoke, or the smell of burning wood/charcoal,
> one could just use an oven broiler.
>
>> Cooking with smoke does NOT equal bbq.
>> Smoking, which is a curative/preservative process (sausages for
>> example) is different than bbq, which is a cooking process.
>
> But when people says "I have smoked a chicken" they don't mean this,
> they mean they have barbecued it with smoke and not for preservation,
> but for taste?

Actually, chicken is a tender meat and doesn't need to be bbq'd. Some will
do a slow roast. Many, like myself, will do a higher temperature roast in my
pit using wood and lump...that would be smoke with roasting.

> No? If I'm non totally wrong there are 2 kinds of
> smoking: the one to make, for example, smoked cold cuts (as the ham
> you told before) so that they preserve well and can be eaten later,
> and the smoking which instead is a kind of cooking process for itmes
> to be server as soon as cooked?

Terminology has been *******ized to mean individual things to individual
people, which has confused the communication process. Cold smoking IS
smoking. Hot smoking is a cooking process and is, in my opinion, an
unnecessary term. People will disagree, but when you ask someone what they
are 'hot' smoking, the explanation given will be one that describes a
cooking process.

If you tell me you are smoking a ham, that tells me that you are taking a
particular cut of a hog and hanging it to smoke while curing and preserving.

If you tell me you are bbqing a ham, that tells me that you are using the
products of wood to create fire, at a temperature which is high enough to
cook the meat, but low enough to break down collagen and tenderize the meat.

If you tell me you are grilling a ham, that tells me you are using an
appliance (pit, grill, etc) to apply high and direct heat to cook the ham.
For example, throwing some ham steaks on a grate of a gas grill.

If you tell me you are roasting a ham, that tells me that you are using high
and indirect heat (oven, grill, pit) to cook the meat. Smoke roasting? You
are adding wood to the mix during the cooking process.

If you tell me you are 'hot smoking' a ham, I don't know what the hell is
being talked about.

Thanks for listening, ViL.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

tspillman wrote:
> IIRC, there are tow smoking processes: Cold smoking and Hot
> smoking. Cold smoking, often used for Salmon, as an example,
> must be cured first of the meat will spoil. Hot smoking will
> cook the meat also, so it can be labeled "fully cooked". Here is
> a moderately informed article about it:
>
> http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Exact...ing?&id=108679
>
> Best wishes and regards...
>
> Tom

You are right, Tom, the term 'hot' smoking has been recently added to the
lexicon of made-up terms which is meaningless as to how cooking is being
accomplished. As I have said, 'hot' smoking is not a true smoking process.
It is a cooking process with smoke added. It is a confusing and unnecessary
term.

And if you would, please don't top-post. Thanks.
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Brick wrote:

> You're probably talking about the war of aggression that took
> place when the cotton producers of the south had the audacity
> to insist on marketing their product to Austria, France, Spain
> and Italy for more money then the evil industrial capitalists of
> the north were willing to pay. No one won that war. The South
> was devestated and Southern cotton production was reduced
> to a standstill for a number of years. By the time production
> resumed, the damn yankees were in power and they sold the
> cotton to Austria, France, Spain and Italy forcing the Northern
> mill owners to ante up.

That was indeed a large factor that led to the War. The north had little
agricultural capacity at the time and the south was becoming economically
independent from the United States. The economy in the north was faltering.
If one were to look solely at the issue of slavery as a cause, that issue
was hardly on the radar screen except for the Abolitionists (who were
considered by most northerners to be the equivant to the Earth Liberation
Front domestic terrorists of today). In fact, the issue of slavery was being
quietly resolved as an economic question, with renumeration given to those
willing to give up slaves. The south, itself, was becoming less entrenched
in slavery but wanted to be assured that adequate labor would be available
and ex-slaves would not be forced out of the south for resettlement
elsewhere, as Lincoln proposed.

We could go on to talk about States rights, Federal usurption of state
constitutions, the fact that Lincoln saw the War as a way of forcing Federal
control where it never was designed to exist by the Constitution or the
Founders, or the best places to eat bbq in Ft Myers Fl.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Dave Bugg wrote:
> tspillman wrote:
>> IIRC, there are tow smoking processes: Cold smoking and Hot
>> smoking. Cold smoking, often used for Salmon, as an example,
>> must be cured first of the meat will spoil. Hot smoking will
>> cook the meat also, so it can be labeled "fully cooked". Here is
>> a moderately informed article about it:
>>
>> http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Exact...ing?&id=108679
>>
>> Best wishes and regards...
>>
>> Tom
>
> You are right, Tom, the term 'hot' smoking has been recently added to the
> lexicon of made-up terms which is meaningless as to how cooking is being
> accomplished. As I have said, 'hot' smoking is not a true smoking process.
> It is a cooking process with smoke added. It is a confusing and unnecessary
> term.
>
> And if you would, please don't top-post. Thanks.

Sorry...

I post both on top and on bottom, depending upon the preferences
of the person I'm addressing. Personally, I prefer top posting,
since I can read the most recent post first and don't have to
scroll through stuff I've already read to get to the most recent
post. Others have different preferences. If I know what they
are, I'll try and respect their wishes.

I've seen many threads on this subject and don't wish to start
yet another interminable discussion on it...

Regards...

Tom


--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 169 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter he http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message

tspillman wrote:

> Sorry...

No apologies needed, Tom.

> I post both on top and on bottom, depending upon the preferences
> of the person I'm addressing.

Interlaced posting or bottom posting is a group thing, really. There are a
couple of folks who claim they can't bottom post due to equipment
limitations or some such crap....although they have no trouble reading posts
and posting back...and many of us just kill-file them because it is more
effort than needed to figure out to what and to whom they are replying.

> Personally, I prefer top posting,
> since I can read the most recent post first and don't have to
> scroll through stuff I've already read to get to the most recent
> post.

Well, that is mostly an issue of trimming, and I agree that trimming
unnecessary text is essential. If top-posting, not only do I still have to
scroll down to make sense of the conversational reply, but I have to
re-think the logical sequence of a conversation. Since I prefer to follow
the logical flow of conversation and read what is being responded to and
then read the answer/reply, I find it tedious to follow top-posting. Top
posting can work via email because one is intimately aware of what they had
written that. However within NGs, with multiple contributions to a thread,
there frequently needs to be a logical flow to the conversation which can be
followed...just as in verbal conversation.

> Others have different preferences. If I know what they
> are, I'll try and respect their wishes.

It's more of a group preference that has been long established. We even had
a poll several years back.

> I've seen many threads on this subject and don't wish to start
> yet another interminable discussion on it...
>
> Regards...
>
> Tom

I appreciate your thoughtful and civil reply, Tom.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

reading with a screen reader is different than posting with it, and this is
the only group of twenty i activley participate in that still gets upset
when they don't understand the concept of screen readers, if you want the
real explaination of this please email me and i will be happy to discuss it
with you, Lee

--
Have a wonderful day

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> tspillman wrote:
>
>> Sorry...
>
> No apologies needed, Tom.
>
>> I post both on top and on bottom, depending upon the preferences
>> of the person I'm addressing.
>
> Interlaced posting or bottom posting is a group thing, really. There are a
> couple of folks who claim they can't bottom post due to equipment
> limitations or some such crap....although they have no trouble reading
> posts and posting back...and many of us just kill-file them because it is
> more effort than needed to figure out to what and to whom they are
> replying.
>
>> Personally, I prefer top posting,
>> since I can read the most recent post first and don't have to
>> scroll through stuff I've already read to get to the most recent
>> post.
>
> Well, that is mostly an issue of trimming, and I agree that trimming
> unnecessary text is essential. If top-posting, not only do I still have to
> scroll down to make sense of the conversational reply, but I have to
> re-think the logical sequence of a conversation. Since I prefer to follow
> the logical flow of conversation and read what is being responded to and
> then read the answer/reply, I find it tedious to follow top-posting. Top
> posting can work via email because one is intimately aware of what they
> had written that. However within NGs, with multiple contributions to a
> thread, there frequently needs to be a logical flow to the conversation
> which can be followed...just as in verbal conversation.
>
>> Others have different preferences. If I know what they
>> are, I'll try and respect their wishes.
>
> It's more of a group preference that has been long established. We even
> had a poll several years back.
>
>> I've seen many threads on this subject and don't wish to start
>> yet another interminable discussion on it...
>>
>> Regards...
>>
>> Tom
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful and civil reply, Tom.
>
> --
> Dave
> What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
> you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan
>

wrote:
> I don't have cable, satellite or anything else but over the air TV and
SNIP
>
> Yet, I saw on camera the host (who the hell is this guy anyway besides
> a goofy host?) eat a rib that seem to have the right texture. Not
> cooked to mush, the meat seem to just hold together while it separated
> easily from the bone. From grilling??
>
> So... has anyone here tried grilled spares?
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Robert
>

You saw a commercial way of cooking, you can tell the fast cooked ribs
by, if there are leftovers, the next day they are tough again and would
need to continue cooking to be tender. Most rib tips are done that way
in the Chicago region.

Piedmont

wrote:
> I don't have cable, satellite or anything else but over the air TV and
> never had. It isn't unusual for my TV to go 2 - 3 days without being
snip
>
> So... has anyone here tried grilled spares?
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Robert
>

Sorry, I didn't mention this in last post, all the ribs I ever saw
cooked in real life and not TV were done directly over coals(briquettes)
and are cooked until meat pulls back on bone and are tender, you just
have to know how to cook over briquettes. Usually the ribs are mopped
and bbq sauce applied last 15 minutes or dunked into a pot of warmed bbq
sauce. I have done them this way with excellent results.

Piedmont

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 16 Oct 2009 06:35:51a, piedmont told us...
>
>> wrote:
>>> I don't have cable, satellite or anything else but over the air TV and
>>> never had. It isn't unusual for my TV to go 2 - 3 days without being
>> snip
>>> So... has anyone here tried grilled spares?
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>> Sorry, I didn't mention this in last post, all the ribs I ever saw
>> cooked in real life and not TV were done directly over coals(briquettes)
>> and are cooked until meat pulls back on bone and are tender, you just
>> have to know how to cook over briquettes. Usually the ribs are mopped
>> and bbq sauce applied last 15 minutes or dunked into a pot of warmed bbq
>> sauce. I have done them this way with excellent results.
>>
>> Piedmont
>>
>
> I don't have a smoker or a charcoal grill, but I do slow-cook spareribs in
> my gas grill with a cast iron box of wood chips. I don't claim this is
> BBQ, but the results are quite tasty. I use a dry rub the night before,
> then start them on the grill thenext day at ~230°F. I mop periodically
> with a mixture of water, vinegar, a small amount of sugar, and hot pepper
> flakes. Near the end of cooking I glaze them with a homemade sauce. Ribs
> vary so much that I don't actually time them. I guage their doneness by
> tenderness and the degree that the meat has pulled back from the bones.
>

My method is close, but I don't mess as much with the ribs. I rub them
with my own mixture of rub spices in the morning and wrap them in a
double piece of heavy-duty foil and put them in the fridge.

I take a hickory chunk and wrap it in foil and poke one or two holes in
the foil. I used to use a cast iron smoker box with wet chips, but my
gurus here taught me better. That goes on the fire side of the grill.

I keep the foil and put it under the ribs on the not-fire side of the
grill. It catches the fat and juices. After a while with the meat facing
up, I turn them over with the meat facing down and lying in the fat and
juices. I never have to baste with anything.

I don't sauce or glaze or mop. We much prefer "dry" here. I make my own
BBQ sauce for on the side, but DH eats them sauceless. He says they are
so good he doesn't need any.

BTW, it's a Texas style sauce using a tomato base and cider vinegar.
Spices were tweaked with the help of my afb gurus.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.