Wall-to-wall BBQ shows this past week on Food TV. I enjoyed watching and
would love to be able to give up working and just cook BBQ all summer
(never going to happen 8-)

Anyways, I noticed that more than a few of the cooking teams used foil
on the meat during their competitions. As a matter of fact, a winning
person said her cooking method was 2 hours cooking without then 2 hours
with foil. (And then lots of sauce to boot).

Is this just an aberation of competition BBQing? Most of the folks here
seem to be against foiling the meat while cooking (maybe just wrapping
up after cooking to keep warm). Is this some defect in BBQ judging that
requires overly tender meat and very saucy?

"SpikeDad" > wrote in message
...
> Anyways, I noticed that more than a few of the cooking teams used foil
> on the meat during their competitions. As a matter of fact, a winning
> person said her cooking method was 2 hours cooking without then 2 hours
> with foil. (And then lots of sauce to boot).
>
> Is this just an aberation of competition BBQing? Most of the folks here
> seem to be against foiling the meat while cooking (maybe just wrapping
> up after cooking to keep warm). Is this some defect in BBQ judging that
> requires overly tender meat and very saucy?

All a matter of preference, no "one" best way to do it.

Personally I'm against foil since if I wanted to steam my meat I can think
of better ways to do it then put it in foil in my smoker. My thought is that
foil is merely an accelerative in that the meat sits in juice and steam and
thus cooks more rapidly then if it were simply bathed in hot smokey air.
Actually in tat regard it's a combination of braising and steaming ... but
definitely not smoking.

But in the end if you achieve your goals then more power to ya.

Jason in Dallas wrote:

> Personally I'm against foil since if I wanted to steam my meat I can
> think of better ways to do it then put it in foil in my smoker. My
> thought is that foil is merely an accelerative in that the meat sits
> in juice and steam and thus cooks more rapidly then if it were simply
> bathed in hot smokey air. Actually in tat regard it's a combination
> of braising and steaming ... but definitely not smoking.
>
> But in the end if you achieve your goals then more power to ya.

What Jason said...
Dave

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Jason in Dallas wrote:
>
>> Personally I'm against foil since if I wanted to steam my meat I can
>> think of better ways to do it then put it in foil in my smoker. My
>> thought is that foil is merely an accelerative in that the meat sits
>> in juice and steam and thus cooks more rapidly then if it were simply
>> bathed in hot smokey air. Actually in tat regard it's a combination
>> of braising and steaming ... but definitely not smoking.
>>
>> But in the end if you achieve your goals then more power to ya.
>
> What Jason said...
> Dave

Ditto

BOB

BOB wrote in alt.food.barbecue


>> Jason in Dallas wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I'm against foil since if I wanted to steam my meat I can
>>> think of better ways to do it then put it in foil in my smoker.>>


>> What Jason said...
>> Dave
>
> Ditto
>
> BOB

Double ditto. Nya, Nya

--
BigDog
To E-mail me, you know what to do.

In article >, BigDog
> wrote:

> BOB wrote in alt.food.barbecue
>
>
> >> Jason in Dallas wrote:
> >>
> >>> Personally I'm against foil since if I wanted to steam my meat I can
> >>> think of better ways to do it then put it in foil in my smoker.>>
>
>
> >> What Jason said...
> >> Dave
> >
> > Ditto
> >
> > BOB
>
> Double ditto. Nya, Nya

Triple trips megadittles in spades guys-neener neener neener

monroe(should we Xpost this to the rushlimbaugh NGs?)

Dave Bugg wrote:
>
> Jason in Dallas wrote:
>
> > Personally I'm against foil since if I wanted to steam my meat I can
> > think of better ways to do it then put it in foil in my smoker. My
> > thought is that foil is merely an accelerative in that the meat sits
> > in juice and steam and thus cooks more rapidly then if it were simply
> > bathed in hot smokey air. Actually in tat regard it's a combination
> > of braising and steaming ... but definitely not smoking.
> >
> > But in the end if you achieve your goals then more power to ya.
>
> What Jason said...
> Dave


Don't you guys claim the Ks produce superior results due to the greater
moisture retention? I guess mopping/spraying doesn't cause a steaming or
poaching effect either.

Why then is it bad to wrap the meat after the surface moisture is long
gone (and bark developed)? After you have gotten the maximum smoke
penetration all you have left is bring the rest of the meat/bones up to
temperature and soften the bark before glazing. If you like your ribs
to be crunchy or resemble jerky in texture then foil is not for you.

-CAL (doppler radar has picked up the echo of a shit storm coming)

cl wrote:

> Don't you guys claim the Ks produce superior results due to the greater
> moisture retention?

If it's *maximum* moisture retention you're after then you'll want to
poach your meat, not Q it. *Maximum* moisture retention in not one
of my criteria. Life's a tradeoff.

> I guess mopping/spraying doesn't cause a steaming or
> poaching effect either.

Who cares? You make it sound like everyone mops. Not true. The minimal
effect it may have is far outweighed by the amount of cooking time it
adds.

> Why then is it bad to wrap the meat after the surface moisture is long
> gone (and bark developed)? After you have gotten the maximum smoke
> penetration all you have left is bring the rest of the meat/bones up to
> temperature and soften the bark before glazing.

It's a myth that meat does not take up smoke above a particular
temperature (frequently cited as 140 F). If something is repeated
often enough some will mistakenly accept it as established fact.

> If you like your ribs to be crunchy or resemble jerky in texture
> then foil is not for you.

It's quite simple to cook meat low and slow without foil and not dry
it out. Just because you haven't figured out how to do it doesn't mean
it can't be done.

> -CAL (doppler radar has picked up the echo of a shit storm coming)

<yawn>

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Reg wrote:
>
> cl wrote:

> > If you like your ribs to be crunchy or resemble jerky in texture
> > then foil is not for you.
>
> It's quite simple to cook meat low and slow without foil and not dry
> it out. Just because you haven't figured out how to do it doesn't mean
> it can't be done.

> <yawn>

Sure it can be done but:

1) The outside texture is different with foil vs no foil (foil will
always be softer)
2) I never said that your ribs would be dry, just a different texture
3) I don't foil my ribs so you are speaking out of your ass. I actally
like a little 'meat' to my ribs

so Reg go back to sleep now.

-CAL

In article >, Reg
> wrote:

> cl wrote:

> > I guess mopping/spraying doesn't cause a steaming or
> > poaching effect either.
>
> Who cares? You make it sound like everyone mops. Not true. The minimal
> effect it may have is far outweighed by the amount of cooking time it
> adds.

mops are for floors. foils are for fencing. CAL is for ever being a
stoopid shite haid

> > Why then is it bad to wrap the meat after the surface moisture is long
> > gone (and bark developed)? After you have gotten the maximum smoke
> > penetration all you have left is bring the rest of the meat/bones up to
> > temperature and soften the bark before glazing.
>
> It's a myth that meat does not take up smoke above a particular
> temperature (frequently cited as 140 F). If something is repeated
> often enough some will accept it as established fact.
>
c(ock)l(icker) is an asswipe c(ock)l(icker) is an asswipe
c(ock)l(icker) is an asswipe c(ock)l(icker) is an asswipe
c(ock)l(icker) is an asswipe c(ock)l(icker) is an asswipe
c(ock)l(icker) is an asswipe c(ock)l(icker) is an asswipe

hmmm seems like an established fact to me.

monroe(plonk the tard and drive on)

SpikeDad wrote:

> Anyways, I noticed that more than a few of the cooking teams used foil
> on the meat during their competitions. As a matter of fact, a winning
> person said her cooking method was 2 hours cooking without then 2 hours
> with foil. (And then lots of sauce to boot).

I assume you're talking about ribs...

Google for something called the 3-2-1 method. It basically 3 hours
of no foil, 2 hours with foil, 1 hour without. I don't use it (or much
like it) so I won't expound further. The ideal in BBQ is to never use
foil for anything other than holding after cooking. Keep pursuing
that ideal and you'll find your cooking skills are improving along
with it.

> Is this just an aberation of competition BBQing? Most of the folks here
> seem to be against foiling the meat while cooking (maybe just wrapping
> up after cooking to keep warm). Is this some defect in BBQ judging that
> requires overly tender meat and very saucy?

One of the good things AFB is that there's not much discussion of
competition techniques. A lot of the stuff competition judges look for is
rather arbitrary, bordering on silly (no bubbles in the sauce, etc),
so it's not really info I'm looking for.

If you are interested in competition cooking here's a great forum

http://www.rbjb.com/rbjb/rbjbboard/

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Reg wrote:
> The ideal in BBQ is to never use foil for anything other than
> holding after cooking.

But:
1) If the O.P. is correct that most competition BBQers do it
and
2) _Most_ competition BBQers, at least in the big events,
are better cooks than _most_ home BBQers
then
Why do they do it?


> A lot of the stuff competition judges look for is rather arbitrary,
> bordering on silly (no bubbles in the sauce, etc)

I'm skeptical of that _as a generalized statement_ as you have made it.

Can you find some competition somewhere where some of the judges
have some oddball crierteria? Sure. "Local" events, sure.

But in big events where there is prize money involved, not common.

ll wrote:
> Reg wrote:
>
>>The ideal in BBQ is to never use foil for anything other than
>>holding after cooking.
>
>
> But:
> 1) If the O.P. is correct that most competition BBQers do it
> and
> 2) _Most_ competition BBQers, at least in the big events,
> are better cooks than _most_ home BBQers
> then
> Why do they do it?

I would disagree with the second statement. At the competitions I have
attended, I have not been impressed wtih the quality of the BBQ from the
competitors. I've been able to produce far superior food to the
often-times slimey (from being steamed rather than smoked), over-sauced
meats available from those who are proclaimed as "best".

Beth


--
The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or
cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men
who can dream of things that never were. --John F. Kennedy
our home page: http://www.IsleOfSky.net

When I do ribs cooking time is around 4 hrs.

The last 45 min or so I'll move them to a disposable pan and top with foil.
Makes a slight tenderness improvement.

__Stephen

"SpikeDad" > wrote in message
...
> Wall-to-wall BBQ shows this past week on Food TV. I enjoyed watching and
> would love to be able to give up working and just cook BBQ all summer
> (never going to happen 8-)
>
> Anyways, I noticed that more than a few of the cooking teams used foil
> on the meat during their competitions. As a matter of fact, a winning
> person said her cooking method was 2 hours cooking without then 2 hours
> with foil. (And then lots of sauce to boot).
>
> Is this just an aberation of competition BBQing? Most of the folks here
> seem to be against foiling the meat while cooking (maybe just wrapping
> up after cooking to keep warm). Is this some defect in BBQ judging that
> requires overly tender meat and very saucy?