I just replaced the cheap thermometer on my smoker with a Tel-Tru. A vast
improvement, but had a "just curious" question. The thermometer has the
usual number gradiations, but the temperature range is also divided into
"Smoke" (150-250), "Barbecue" (250-350), and "Grill" (350+). I understand
the grill portion, but I've never heard a distinction made between smoke and
barbecue. Any exspirts like to expound on that subject? Thanks.

"SuzyQ" > wrote in message
. com...
>I just replaced the cheap thermometer on my smoker with a Tel-Tru. A vast
>improvement, but had a "just curious" question. The thermometer has the
>usual number gradiations, but the temperature range is also divided into
>"Smoke" (150-250), "Barbecue" (250-350), and "Grill" (350+). I understand
>the grill portion, but I've never heard a distinction made between smoke
>and barbecue. Any exspirts like to expound on that subject? Thanks.

Cold smoking (hams, bacon, etc, ) is done at about 90 to 100 degrees. I
don't know of anything truly done at 150. Most barbecue is done at 225 to
300.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:21:44 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"SuzyQ" > wrote in message
.com...
>>I just replaced the cheap thermometer on my smoker with a Tel-Tru. A vast
>>improvement, but had a "just curious" question. The thermometer has the
>>usual number gradiations, but the temperature range is also divided into
>>"Smoke" (150-250), "Barbecue" (250-350), and "Grill" (350+). I understand
>>the grill portion, but I've never heard a distinction made between smoke
>>and barbecue. Any exspirts like to expound on that subject? Thanks.
>
>Cold smoking (hams, bacon, etc, ) is done at about 90 to 100 degrees. I
>don't know of anything truly done at 150. Most barbecue is done at 225 to
>300.
>

Beef jerkey can be done at 150. Didn't Alton Brown do his salmon in a
cardboard box at 150? But, I've not ever heard a difference between
smoke and barbecue like this thermometer suggests, either...
TNW

SuzyQ wrote:
> I just replaced the cheap thermometer on my smoker with a Tel-Tru. A
> vast improvement, but had a "just curious" question. The thermometer
> has the usual number gradiations, but the temperature range is also
> divided into "Smoke" (150-250), "Barbecue" (250-350), and "Grill"
> (350+). I understand the grill portion, but I've never heard a
> distinction made between smoke and barbecue. Any exspirts like to
> expound on that subject? Thanks.

The lack of distinction is due to the same sloppy semantics that is
attributable to why folks say "barbecue" when they really mean "grilling".
What is even more confusing is the fact that the thermometer is waaaay too
generous with the temperature range of smoking.

Smoking is a *preservative* process; barbecue and grilling are *cooking*
processes. Some folks have muddied the waters even further by referring to
"cold" or "hot" smoking, which is a silly splitting of hairs and
meaningless. This muddiness comes from the wrongly held notion that
barbecue must have smoke -- and smoke flavor.

Some of the oldest traditions of 'Q in America have little, if any, relation
to smoke. North Carolina barbecue is sometimes referred to as bland because
wood is burned down to coals and shoveled under the grids of OPEN pits which
hold the hog. This leaves virtually no smoke to spice the flavor of the
pork. And yet the pig being picked is succulent, moist and tender, with
wonderful texture and mouth-feel.

Many of us --- and that includes me -- love to taste smoke in our 'Qd meats.
And so we add wood chunks, chips, branches, logs, pellets, biscuits, bark
and sawdust to produce some smoke with the heat of the cooking fire. THIS
IS NOT SMOKING. This is adding a flavor. It is no different than adding
any other kind of spice for flavoring. Grillers can also add some smoke
flavor to meat in this fashion -- although, due to the speed of the grilling
process, there will be more "flavor" from the smoke of burned fats than from
the wood product.

And this is part of the art of 'Q: What kind of pit-design should I use to
keep the smoke around the meat? How much smoke to produce? What kind of
wood for smoke flavoring? How long to keep the meat exposed to the smoke?
What kind of meat *should* be exposed to smoke? WHEN during the cooking
process should the smoke and meat get together?

The only two things -- besides meat -- that is needed for barbecue is the
cooking temperature and a wood fire. Smoke is simply a popular -- but
OPTIONAL -- seasoning. Unlike barbecue, however, temperature AND smoke are
REQUIRED for true smoking.

That's just my take on it.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> The only two things -- besides meat -- that is needed for barbecue is the
> cooking temperature and a wood fire. Smoke is simply a popular -- but
> OPTIONAL -- seasoning. Unlike barbecue, however, temperature AND smoke
> are REQUIRED for true smoking.
>
> That's just my take on it.
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/

Many hears ago on the old Thead bbq list, this was brought up. Dwight Inman,
of Southwest Outdoor Cooking Systems, suggested that smoke was like a
condiment to be added according to personal taste. He was damned near
lynched for suggesting such a thing.

Last night I cooked three briskets on the SWOCS and used the smoke as a
condiment. Great brisket, but yes, it was an option.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> Last night I cooked three briskets on the SWOCS and used the smoke as
> a condiment. Great brisket, but yes, it was an option.

DAMMIT all Ed, ya gotta invite us over sometime :-)

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:18:18 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

(snipped a very well-written article)

>The only two things -- besides meat -- that is needed for barbecue is the
>cooking temperature and a wood fire.

Hm. I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue--at least not in the sense
of 'disagree'--but does barbecue require a wood fire? Isn't the
temperature and cooking time (Low 'n Slow!) the definitive factor?
I've been calling the ribs and chickens I've cooked on my watersmoker
'bbq' even though the fire is gas. Yes, I've used mesquite and
hickory chunks to make smoke--but as you say, that's a seasoning.

>Smoke is simply a popular -- but OPTIONAL -- seasoning.
>Unlike barbecue, however, temperature AND smoke are
>REQUIRED for true smoking.

Can you elaborate? More properly, would you? I certainly understand
the difference between smoking to preserve (cold smoking) and smoking
to cook (hot smoking, which I understood to be one form of
barbecuing)--and that smoke is often a flavoring for the meat (or
whatever) is being cooked in the barbecue style/temperature.


--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Last night I cooked three briskets on the SWOCS and used the smoke as
>> a condiment. Great brisket, but yes, it was an option.
>
> DAMMIT all Ed, ya gotta invite us over sometime :-)
>
> --
> Dave

Any time Dave. I made one to take to our company picnic, but since I was
cooking, it is just as easy to fill 'er up and freeze some for the future.
Since there was plenty of other food, the brisket lasted about 20 minutes.

See a new thread for some questions though

Denny Wheeler wrote:

> Hm. I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue--at least not in the sense
> of 'disagree'--but does barbecue require a wood fire?

Again, let me stress that my answers are my opinion only. I don't presume to
represent anyone else.

Traditionally, yes, barbecue must employ a wood fire In fact, if you look
at any competition, wood products -- logs, lump, briquettes, etc. -- are the
only fuels allowed for the cooking process.

> Isn't the
> temperature and cooking time (Low 'n Slow!) the definitive factor?
> I've been calling the ribs and chickens I've cooked on my watersmoker
> 'bbq' even though the fire is gas. Yes, I've used mesquite and
> hickory chunks to make smoke--but as you say, that's a seasoning.

In my belief system, supplemental fuels are fine. However, the problem
arises with the question: where does one draw the line? Is a crock pot or
electric oven ok, since they can cook low and slow? At what point do we
become dogmatic? After all, some have argued that if the orignal American
colonists had electricity or gas, wood might never have been employed for
bbq.

The problem with that argument is clear: barbecue *WAS* born of wood and
charcoal. It *IS* the traditional fuel. So it makes sense to become
insistant with the notion that wood play some sort of role in the process.

>> Smoke is simply a popular -- but OPTIONAL -- seasoning.
>> Unlike barbecue, however, temperature AND smoke are
>> REQUIRED for true smoking.
>
> Can you elaborate? More properly, would you? I certainly understand
> the difference between smoking to preserve (cold smoking) and smoking
> to cook (hot smoking, which I understood to be one form of
> barbecuing) ....

This is a good example at how twisted semantics have become, serving only to
confuse simple concepts.

I reject the term "hot smoking". The hot smoking was a phrase employed by
those who rigorously defend the notion that barbecue *must* have smoke. The
term is wrong because smoke is not hot enough to cook anything. It is the
heat used to *generate* smoke from uncombusted wood or wood products which
does the cooking. Smoke is simply along for the ride.

I maintain that "smoking" as it pertains to food, is a preservative process
by virtue of it's chemical nature. The usual object of smoking, is to
*avoid* cooking the meat, and great pains are taken to funnel smoke away
from the heat to the meat.

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/