I read the earlier post about the Kingfisher smoker which implemented a
side pocket of water, ostensibly to keep the food moist. I understand
the premise of that and have replicated it with pouring the coals
around a throw-away baking tin full of water, so the basin is directly
beneath the meat to be grilled. Obviously one needs to replenish the
water. I got this from a reputable grilling text, but I've read other
texts that suggest water evaporates too rapidly to permeate the food,
and I can imagine that happening too.

Unfortunately there was no control for this experiment: we were
grilling a brined turkey. The brining caused it to retain its own
moisture so I have no idea if the basin was useful at all.

Any opinions?

- XN

sxoidmal wrote:
> I read the earlier post about the Kingfisher smoker which implemented
> a side pocket of water, ostensibly to keep the food moist. I
> understand the premise of that and have replicated it with pouring
> the coals around a throw-away baking tin full of water, so the basin
> is directly beneath the meat to be grilled. Obviously one needs to
> replenish the water. I got this from a reputable grilling text, but
> I've read other texts that suggest water evaporates too rapidly to
> permeate the food, and I can imagine that happening too.

This has to be one of the biggest myths in cooking, and demonstrates the
lack of scientific knowledge and the tight embrace of old wives tales by
many purported "experts" : To wit, you can add moisture to meat during the
cooking process. External heat during the cooking process creates a high
internal pressure which drives moisture out of the intracellular spaces of a
tissue, like muscle. So how the heck does adding a beer can of water, or a
pan of water, or a tub of water create enough opposite pressure to drive
water back INTO those spaces. Answer: IT CAN'T. I wish mythbusters would
do a BBQ special on busting these kind of cook-foolery old-wives tales.

> ... The brining caused it to retain its own
> moisture so I have no idea if the basin was useful at all.

The brining adds "extra" moisture. This creates a deFacto "reserve" of
moisture which compensates for the natural loss of moisture during the
cooking, grilling, or Qing process. The result is -- ta dah -- a juicier
boid.

NO, the basin was of no use at all, EXCEPT as a heat deflector or a thermal
mass. Each of those functions are useful in their own unique ways.

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:31:14 -0500, Dave Bugg > wrote:

> This has to be one of the biggest myths in cooking, and demonstrates the
> lack of scientific knowledge and the tight embrace of old wives tales by
> many purported "experts" : To wit, you can add moisture to meat during
> the
> cooking process. External heat during the cooking process creates a high
> internal pressure which drives moisture out of the intracellular spaces
> of a
> tissue, like muscle. So how the heck does adding a beer can of water, or
> a
> pan of water, or a tub of water create enough opposite pressure to drive
> water back INTO those spaces. Answer: IT CAN'T. I wish mythbusters
> would
> do a BBQ special on busting these kind of cook-foolery old-wives tales.

So what you are saying is that the whole "water smoker" concept is a scam
of sorts? The bullet smokers all have pans you are supposed to fill with
water or some other liquid to keep the meat moist. But you are saying the
only thing the pan does is keeping the meat from getting direct heat?

--
//ceed ©¿©¬

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>
> This has to be one of the biggest myths in cooking, and demonstrates the
> lack of scientific knowledge and the tight embrace of old wives tales by
> many purported "experts" : To wit, you can add moisture to meat during
> the cooking process. External heat during the cooking process creates a
> high internal pressure which drives moisture out of the intracellular
> spaces of a tissue, like muscle. So how the heck does adding a beer can of
> water, or a pan of water, or a tub of water create enough opposite
> pressure to drive water back INTO those spaces. Answer: IT CAN'T. I wish
> mythbusters would do a BBQ special on busting these kind of cook-foolery
> old-wives tales.

I have to respectfully disagree. It is all in the method used.

What happens when you exercise? Your pores open up and you sweat, losing
moisture to the surrounding air. If you add enough moisture to the cooking
pit, it is possible under the right circumstances for the water to
penetrate. The trick is getting the pores to open. What you have to do is
wiggle the meat, same is it would be moving while exercising. Not easy to
do with a roast, but fairly simple with poultry.

Best results are found using the 10/5 method. Every ten minutes, you open
the cooker and wiggle the wings and legs vigorously for five minutes. this
gets the bird moving, thus opening the pores to absorb moisture. Be sure to
keep a good size pan of water near the fire so it will evaporate.

I know some of you may be skeptical, but it works. You just have to prove
it to yourself by trying it. You'll soon be a convert and do this with all
your barbecue. Important: Don't go more than 10 minutes at rest or the
meat will start to dry again.

"ceed" > wrote in message
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:31:14 -0500, Dave Bugg > wrote:
>

> So what you are saying is that the whole "water smoker" concept is a scam
> of sorts? The bullet smokers all have pans you are supposed to fill with
> water or some other liquid to keep the meat moist. But you are saying the
> only thing the pan does is keeping the meat from getting direct heat?

And acting as a heat sink, yes.


D
--

ceed wrote:

> So what you are saying is that the whole "water smoker" concept is a
> scam of sorts?

Yup.. big-time, rock-n-roll, fuzzy-headed science scam.

> The bullet smokers all have pans you are supposed to
> fill with water or some other liquid to keep the meat moist. But you
> are saying the only thing the pan does is keeping the meat from
> getting direct heat?

Yeah. The only thing they are good for is providing thermal mass and to
deflect direct radiation from the heat source..... And IT AIN'T JUST ME
SAYING IT. It's a science thing.

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

ceed wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:31:14 -0500, Dave Bugg > wrote:
>
>> This has to be one of the biggest myths in cooking, and demonstrates the
>> lack of scientific knowledge and the tight embrace of old wives tales by
>> many purported "experts" : To wit, you can add moisture to meat
>> during the
>> cooking process. External heat during the cooking process creates a high
>> internal pressure which drives moisture out of the intracellular
>> spaces of a
>> tissue, like muscle. So how the heck does adding a beer can of water,
>> or a
>> pan of water, or a tub of water create enough opposite pressure to drive
>> water back INTO those spaces. Answer: IT CAN'T. I wish mythbusters
>> would
>> do a BBQ special on busting these kind of cook-foolery old-wives tales.
>
>
> So what you are saying is that the whole "water smoker" concept is a
> scam of sorts? The bullet smokers all have pans you are supposed to
> fill with water or some other liquid to keep the meat moist. But you
> are saying the only thing the pan does is keeping the meat from getting
> direct heat?


Yes, of course. You didn't think otherwise, did you ?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


> I have to respectfully disagree. It is all in the method used.
>
> What happens when you exercise? Your pores open up and you sweat,
> losing moisture to the surrounding air.

What does this have to do with dead meat, Ed?

> If you add enough moisture
> to the cooking pit, it is possible under the right circumstances for
> the water to penetrate. The trick is getting the pores to open.

Even if you could make dead meat sweat, it ain't about putting moisture into
sweat glands. It is about moisture contained at the intracelluar level.

> What you have to do is wiggle the meat, same is it would be moving
> while exercising. Not easy to do with a roast, but fairly simple
> with poultry.

Again, just plain silly.

> Best results are found using the 10/5 method. Every ten minutes, you
> open the cooker and wiggle the wings and legs vigorously for five
> minutes. this gets the bird moving, thus opening the pores to absorb
> moisture. Be sure to keep a good size pan of water near the fire so
> it will evaporate.

LOL.... Now I get it, this is a joke. You had me going, man.

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

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>
>> This has to be one of the biggest myths in cooking, and
>> demonstrates the
>> lack of scientific knowledge and the tight embrace of old wives
>> tales by
>> many purported "experts" : To wit, you can add moisture to meat
>> during
>> the cooking process. External heat during the cooking process
>> creates a
>> high internal pressure which drives moisture out of the
>> intracellular
>> spaces of a tissue, like muscle. So how the heck does adding a beer
>> can of
>> water, or a pan of water, or a tub of water create enough opposite
>> pressure to drive water back INTO those spaces. Answer: IT CAN'T.
>> I wish
>> mythbusters would do a BBQ special on busting these kind of
>> cook-foolery
>> old-wives tales.
>
> I have to respectfully disagree. It is all in the method used.
>
> What happens when you exercise? Your pores open up and you sweat,
> losing
> moisture to the surrounding air. If you add enough moisture to the
> cooking
> pit, it is possible under the right circumstances for the water to
> penetrate. The trick is getting the pores to open. What you have
> to do is
> wiggle the meat, same is it would be moving while exercising. Not
> easy to
> do with a roast, but fairly simple with poultry.
>
> Best results are found using the 10/5 method. Every ten minutes,
> you open
> the cooker and wiggle the wings and legs vigorously for five
> minutes. this
> gets the bird moving, thus opening the pores to absorb moisture. Be
> sure to
> keep a good size pan of water near the fire so it will evaporate.
>
> I know some of you may be skeptical, but it works. You just have to
> prove
> it to yourself by trying it. You'll soon be a convert and do this
> with all
> your barbecue. Important: Don't go more than 10 minutes at rest or
> the
> meat will start to dry again.

Huh?
http://www.bettina-werner.com/sqf/im...tnugget-sm.jpg
Better view here...
http://www.trimpe.org/jr/pictures/grain-of-salt.jpg

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > Best results are found using the 10/5 method. Every ten minutes, you
> > open the cooker and wiggle the wings and legs vigorously for five
> > minutes. this gets the bird moving, thus opening the pores to absorb
> > moisture. Be sure to keep a good size pan of water near the fire so
> > it will evaporate.
>
> LOL.... Now I get it, this is a joke. You had me going, man.
>
> --

He had me going too, Dave, until his last point about opening the cooker
every 10 minutes. I was thinking, well, dayam, what is the point in that -
OH! ROFL.

kili

kilikini wrote:

> He had me going too, Dave, until his last point about opening the
> cooker every 10 minutes. I was thinking, well, dayam, what is the
> point in that - OH! ROFL.

He is a pip. That's what makes him Ed :-)
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

"Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> sxoidmal wrote:
> > I read the earlier post about the Kingfisher smoker which implemented
> > a side pocket of water, ostensibly to keep the food moist. I
> > understand the premise of that and have replicated it with pouring
> > the coals around a throw-away baking tin full of water, so the basin
> > is directly beneath the meat to be grilled. Obviously one needs to
> > replenish the water. I got this from a reputable grilling text, but
> > I've read other texts that suggest water evaporates too rapidly to
> > permeate the food, and I can imagine that happening too.
>
> This has to be one of the biggest myths in cooking, and demonstrates the
> lack of scientific knowledge and the tight embrace of old wives tales by
> many purported "experts" : To wit, you can add moisture to meat during
> the cooking process. External heat during the cooking process creates a
> high internal pressure which drives moisture out of the intracellular
> spaces of a tissue, like muscle. So how the heck does adding a beer can
> of water, or a pan of water, or a tub of water create enough opposite
> pressure to drive water back INTO those spaces. Answer: IT CAN'T. I
> wish mythbusters would do a BBQ special on busting these kind of
> cook-foolery old-wives tales.
>
> > ... The brining caused it to retain its own
> > moisture so I have no idea if the basin was useful at all.
>
> The brining adds "extra" moisture. This creates a deFacto "reserve" of
> moisture which compensates for the natural loss of moisture during the
> cooking, grilling, or Qing process. The result is -- ta dah -- a juicier
> boid.
>
> NO, the basin was of no use at all, EXCEPT as a heat deflector or a
> thermal mass. Each of those functions are useful in their own unique
> ways.

I sometimes put a 1/2 gallon can with one can of beer and one can of apple
juice right in front of the firebox outlet on my NB offset. It gives off a
nice smell, but I can't really tell any difference in the flavor or texture
of the food.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message . ..
>
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> >
> > This has to be one of the biggest myths in cooking, and demonstrates the
> > lack of scientific knowledge and the tight embrace of old wives tales by
> > many purported "experts" : To wit, you can add moisture to meat during
> > the cooking process. External heat during the cooking process creates a
> > high internal pressure which drives moisture out of the intracellular
> > spaces of a tissue, like muscle. So how the heck does adding a beer can of
> > water, or a pan of water, or a tub of water create enough opposite
> > pressure to drive water back INTO those spaces. Answer: IT CAN'T. I wish
> > mythbusters would do a BBQ special on busting these kind of cook-foolery
> > old-wives tales.
>
> I have to respectfully disagree. It is all in the method used.
>
> What happens when you exercise? Your pores open up and you sweat, losing
> moisture to the surrounding air. If you add enough moisture to the cooking
> pit, it is possible under the right circumstances for the water to
> penetrate. The trick is getting the pores to open. What you have to do is
> wiggle the meat, same is it would be moving while exercising. Not easy to
> do with a roast, but fairly simple with poultry.
>
> Best results are found using the 10/5 method. Every ten minutes, you open
> the cooker and wiggle the wings and legs vigorously for five minutes. this
> gets the bird moving, thus opening the pores to absorb moisture. Be sure to
> keep a good size pan of water near the fire so it will evaporate.
>
> I know some of you may be skeptical, but it works. You just have to prove
> it to yourself by trying it. You'll soon be a convert and do this with all
> your barbecue. Important: Don't go more than 10 minutes at rest or the
> meat will start to dry again.
>
>

Great info. I think I'll try that method next time I do chickens. Not only moist, but thin and trim. Yummy.

ROFLMAO, good one Ed.

--
Al Reid

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:55:48 -0500, Dave Bugg > wrote:

> ceed wrote:
>
>> So what you are saying is that the whole "water smoker" concept is a
>> scam of sorts?
>
> Yup.. big-time, rock-n-roll, fuzzy-headed science scam.
>
There goes the whole "Beer Can Chicken" concept as well I guess (except
for the fact that it seems to work great having the chicken stand up like
that while cooking)?

>> The bullet smokers all have pans you are supposed to
>> fill with water or some other liquid to keep the meat moist. But you
>> are saying the only thing the pan does is keeping the meat from
>> getting direct heat?
>
> Yeah. The only thing they are good for is providing thermal mass and to
> deflect direct radiation from the heat source..... And IT AIN'T JUST ME
> SAYING IT. It's a science thing.
>
Ok, since this is science I would not know how to prove you wrong, or
right for that matter. I'll just have to accept it. But how come medical
literature tells you that the skin holds more moisture when the relative
humidity is high? I guess you would say that it's because it's living
human skin tissue not being cooked, to which I would reply: "You haven't
been to south central Texas in August"


--
//ceed ©¿©¬

Dave Bugg wrote:
>
> ceed wrote:
>
> > So what you are saying is that the whole "water smoker" concept is a
> > scam of sorts?
>
> Yup.. big-time, rock-n-roll, fuzzy-headed science scam.
>
> > The bullet smokers all have pans you are supposed to
> > fill with water or some other liquid to keep the meat moist. But you
> > are saying the only thing the pan does is keeping the meat from
> > getting direct heat?
>
> Yeah. The only thing they are good for is providing thermal mass and to
> deflect direct radiation from the heat source..... And IT AIN'T JUST ME
> SAYING IT. It's a science thing.
>

.... and act as a temperature fuse/limiter. If the fire is too hot, the
boiling off of water will help to bleed off the excess energy thus
holding the temperature down. A sand filled pan will just get hotter and
hotter.


-CAL

> > The bullet smokers all have pans you are supposed to
> > fill with water or some other liquid to keep the meat moist. But you
> > are saying the only thing the pan does is keeping the meat from
> > getting direct heat?
>
> Yeah. The only thing they are good for is providing thermal mass and to
> deflect direct radiation from the heat source..... And IT AIN'T JUST ME
> SAYING IT. It's a science thing.

Since I switched from water to sand in that pan, I've noticed much higher
temps in my ECB...my probe under the top rack regularly reaches 300 now,
when 250 used to be a challenge. Maybe I'm just better with fire, but I
suspect the sand has something to do with it. And, I don't have to clean out
that damn water pan anymore.

-John O

cl wrote:
>
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>>ceed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So what you are saying is that the whole "water smoker" concept is a
>>>scam of sorts?
>>
>>Yup.. big-time, rock-n-roll, fuzzy-headed science scam.
>>
>>
>>>The bullet smokers all have pans you are supposed to
>>>fill with water or some other liquid to keep the meat moist. But you
>>>are saying the only thing the pan does is keeping the meat from
>>>getting direct heat?
>>
>>Yeah. The only thing they are good for is providing thermal mass and to
>>deflect direct radiation from the heat source..... And IT AIN'T JUST ME
>>SAYING IT. It's a science thing.
>>
>
>
> ... and act as a temperature fuse/limiter. If the fire is too hot, the
> boiling off of water will help to bleed off the excess energy thus
> holding the temperature down. A sand filled pan will just get hotter and
> hotter.
>


Which is the reason that I can't get my WSM over 212 degrees?


NOT!

While there some energy is absorbed by the water as it boils, the amount
absorbed is going to be inconsequential when compared to the heat that
is going around the water pan. I have run my WSM over 400 degrees with
water in the pan.

Matthew

ceed wrote:

> There goes the whole "Beer Can Chicken" concept as well I guess
> (except for the fact that it seems to work great having the chicken
> stand up like that while cooking)?

Vertical roasting is a great concept --- which is what beer-can chicken is,
after all: a method of vertical roasting. It provides more heat to the
inner cavity of the bird creating a cooking effect which is much more even.

> Ok, since this is science I would not know how to prove you wrong, or
> right for that matter. I'll just have to accept it. But how come
> medical literature tells you that the skin holds more moisture when
> the relative humidity is high? I guess you would say that it's
> because it's living human skin tissue not being cooked, to which I
> would reply: "You haven't been to south central Texas in August"

ROTFLOL!!!!! The real reason is that the ability to allow evaporative
cooling via sweat glands is diminished. The outside of the skin gets covered
with sweat and water unable to dry off.

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

cl wrote:

> ... and act as a temperature fuse/limiter. If the fire is too hot, the
> boiling off of water will help to bleed off the excess energy thus
> holding the temperature down.

I agree. It can help to do that.

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Which is the reason that I can't get my WSM over 212 degrees?
>
>
> NOT!
>
> While there some energy is absorbed by the water as it boils, the
> amount absorbed is going to be inconsequential when compared to the
> heat that is going around the water pan. I have run my WSM over 400
> degrees with water in the pan.

In a real life application, the role of the water pan IS limited, just as
you stated, Matthew. But if we could make a large enough water pan and fit
it tight enough....... But then you'd have steamed brisket [shudder] ie,
stew meat. :-)

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

John O wrote:

> And, I don't have to clean out that damn water pan anymore.

LOL

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

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> sxoidmal wrote:
>> I read the earlier post about the Kingfisher smoker which implemented
>> a side pocket of water, ostensibly to keep the food moist. I
>> understand the premise of that and have replicated it with pouring
>> the coals around a throw-away baking tin full of water, so the basin
>> is directly beneath the meat to be grilled. Obviously one needs to
>> replenish the water. I got this from a reputable grilling text, but
>> I've read other texts that suggest water evaporates too rapidly to
>> permeate the food, and I can imagine that happening too.
>
> This has to be one of the biggest myths in cooking, and demonstrates the lack
> of scientific knowledge and the tight embrace of old wives tales by many
> purported "experts" : To wit, you can add moisture to meat during the cooking
> process. External heat during the cooking process creates a high internal
> pressure which drives moisture out of the intracellular spaces of a tissue,
> like muscle. So how the heck does adding a beer can of water, or a pan of
> water, or a tub of water create enough opposite pressure to drive water back
> INTO those spaces. Answer: IT CAN'T. I wish mythbusters would do a BBQ
> special on busting these kind of cook-foolery old-wives tales.

However the "pan of water" will in-fact create a moist cooking environment which
will tend to reduce the drying of the meat. In essence if the water container is
kept full (not allowed boil off) the food is "steamed" rather than dry roasted.
Add moisture - you're 100% correct - prevent some of the drying, yes.


Dimitri

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:16:12 -0500, Dimitri > wrote:

> However the "pan of water" will in-fact create a moist cooking
> environment which
> will tend to reduce the drying of the meat. In essence if the water
> container is
> kept full (not allowed boil off) the food is "steamed" rather than dry
> roasted.
> Add moisture - you're 100% correct - prevent some of the drying, yes.

In the end the big question is: Will the meat be less dry with a full
water pan than without it? If yes, it doesn't matter if a water pan adds
moisture or not, it has the desired effect which is to reduce the drying
of the meat during smoking.

--
//ceed ©¿©¬

"ceed"
<ceed@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqr stuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote
in message newsp.svj48wzp21xk10@bobdello...
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:16:12 -0500, Dimitri > wrote:
>
>> However the "pan of water" will in-fact create a moist cooking environment
>> which
>> will tend to reduce the drying of the meat. In essence if the water
>> container is
>> kept full (not allowed boil off) the food is "steamed" rather than dry
>> roasted.
>> Add moisture - you're 100% correct - prevent some of the drying, yes.
>
> In the end the big question is: Will the meat be less dry with a full water
> pan than without it? If yes, it doesn't matter if a water pan adds moisture
> or not, it has the desired effect which is to reduce the drying of the meat
> during smoking.
>
> --
> //ceed ©¿©¬

Bingo - not add but keep moisture not 100% but more than dry roasting.

I have an electric water smoker and I have come to use a reverse process. I
start out with no water in the water pan. When the meat is the right color and
temperature I add the water to "slow" the cooking and hold a temperature. I find
this very useful when I want to have the food ready at a specific time.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

> However the "pan of water" will in-fact create a moist cooking
> environment which will tend to reduce the drying of the meat.

If it does, it is insignificant. Meat will dry out even if submerged in
water whilst cooking. All that has to happen is to have the intracellular
pressure gradient, caused by heat, to rise above the external pressure that
keeps moisture trapped between the cells, and -- voila -- moisture will
escape into dry air, moist air, and water.

> In
> essence if the water container is kept full (not allowed boil off) the
> food is "steamed" rather than dry roasted. Add moisture - you're
> 100% correct - prevent some of the drying, yes.

Steamed, boiled, or dry roasted, it's all the same .... it is the heat that
causes meat to lose moisture, not the lack of surrounding moisture. Besides,
the original OP and discussion wasn't about "slowing" moisture loss, it was
about water pans adding back moisture INTO the meat.

To All:

Aside from heat, the single biggest factor causing meat to dehydrate, is
moving air. Air movement is accelerated by heat --- the higher the heat,
the more air movement there is inside the cooking chamber -- oven, pit,
whatever. This is one of the least understood principals by folks when they
are cooking meat. Meat will stay moist when exposed to extremely high heat
for short periods of time. Or, as in the case of bbq, meat will stay moist
when exposed to low heat for longer periods of time. There is a balance
between heat and time that has to be observed.

Here's another aspect regading the internal moisture of meat: Why do we
say "BBQ is done when it's done"? One factor: the amount of collagen
surrounding each muscle fiber of the tough meats we use is never known.
Shoot, like most of y'all, I can start to pull out pork shoulders from the
pit -- same basic weight -- and there'll be a few that are just no quite
where I like 'em to be. While internal fat is part of this process, it is
more dependent on the amount of collagen. That is why lean and tender meats
can't be 'Qd without turning them to jerky -- too little collagen, as well
as to little fat.

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

ceed wrote:

> In the end the big question is: Will the meat be less dry with a full
> water pan than without it?

No. A careless pit-tender will have a cooking chamber full of dry meat with
or without a water-pan if proper pit tending is ignored.

> If yes, it doesn't matter if a water pan
> adds moisture or not, it has the desired effect which is to reduce
> the drying of the meat during smoking.

I will get identical results with or without a water pan: it ain't the
tool, it's the user which will screw up the meat.

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

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>
>> However the "pan of water" will in-fact create a moist cooking
>> environment which will tend to reduce the drying of the meat.
>
> If it does, it is insignificant. Meat will dry out even if submerged in water
> whilst cooking. All that has to happen is to have the intracellular pressure
> gradient, caused by heat, to rise above the external pressure that keeps
> moisture trapped between the cells, and -- voila -- moisture will escape into
> dry air, moist air, and water.
>
>> In
>> essence if the water container is kept full (not allowed boil off) the food
>> is "steamed" rather than dry roasted. Add moisture - you're
>> 100% correct - prevent some of the drying, yes.
>
> Steamed, boiled, or dry roasted, it's all the same .... it is the heat that
> causes meat to lose moisture, not the lack of surrounding moisture.

Put a piece of meat on a rack in the Sonoran desert. Put an identical piece of
meat (sheltered) on a rack in an Amazon Rain forest - which will turn to Jerky?

An absurd example but it is more that heat that removes moisture - I am sure you
have experienced Freezer burn.


Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

> Put a piece of meat on a rack in the Sonoran desert. Put an identical
> piece of meat (sheltered) on a rack in an Amazon Rain forest - which
> will turn to Jerky?

Both. Time is the factor, along with air movement. Of course the Sonoran
desert will produce the best and quickest jerky :-)

> An absurd example but it is more that heat that removes moisture - I
> am sure you have experienced Freezer burn.

Nah... never. Ok, maybe a FEW times. I agree with you about other factors,
which I addressed in this thread a bit ago. :-)
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:02:17 -0500, Dave Bugg > wrote:

>> Put a piece of meat on a rack in the Sonoran desert. Put an identical
>> piece of meat (sheltered) on a rack in an Amazon Rain forest - which
>> will turn to Jerky?
> Both. Time is the factor, along with air movement. Of course the Sonoran
> desert will produce the best and quickest jerky

Proof below:

Sonoran-Style Marinated Pork

This unusual recipe is half jerky and half grilled pork. Don't worry about
exposing the meat to the air; the vinegar is a high-acid preservative.

10 Chiltepins (or more to taste), seeds removed and saved
10 dried red New Mexican chiles, stems removed, seeds removed and saved
3 large cloves garlic
1 teaspoon Mexican oregano
1 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup cider vinegar
1/2 cup water
1 small cabbage, chopped
Juice of 4 limes
4 pounds pork tenderloin, sliced into strips 1/4 to 1/2 inch thin
(for easier slicing, freeze the pork slightly, then slice)
Corn or flour tortillas

Boil the New Mexican chiles until they are soft. Add all the other
ingredients except the pork, chile seeds, and tortillas and puree in a
blender to make the marinade.
Add the seeds to the chile marinade and marinate the pork in the mixture
for an 1 hour. Hang the strips of meat over a clothesline in the sun and
arrange cheesecloth around them to keep the insects away. Dry the meat in
the sun for two days in dry weather and then refrigerate until ready to
use.
Grill the meat strips over mesquite wood for 1 to 2 minutes per side. Dice
the strips and spread the meat over thin flour or corn tortillas.. Spread
chopped cabbage over the meat and sprinkle lime juice over the top. Fold
the tortilla in half and serve.

Serves: 8

--
//ceed ©¿©¬

ceed wrote:

> Proof below:
>
> Sonoran-Style Marinated Pork

Hee hee. I'm saving this one

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

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> ceed wrote:
>
>> Proof below:
>>
>> Sonoran-Style Marinated Pork
>
> Hee hee. I'm saving this one
>
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/

Tell him to stop it I'm drooling.........


Dimitri

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:17:30 -0500, Dave Bugg > wrote:

>> Sonoran-Style Marinated Pork
> Hee hee. I'm saving this one

I've done this recipe several times with great success. It's very
important to get the pork slices thin (almost like with smoked salmon).
But then again: I'm in Texas which has nothing to do with the rain forest
whatsoever as pointed our earlier in this thread..



--
//ceed ©¿©¬

ceed wrote:

> I've done this recipe several times with great success. It's very
> important to get the pork slices thin (almost like with smoked
> salmon).

Do you slice the pork when it has been deeply chilled in order to make the
slicing easier?

> But then again: I'm in Texas which has nothing to do with
> the rain forest whatsoever as pointed our earlier in this thread..

Hey, I've been to Houston during the rainy season :-)

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:39:07 -0500, Dave Bugg > wrote:

> Do you slice the pork when it has been deeply chilled in order to make
> the
> slicing easier?

Yes, REALLY hard to slice it thin when it fully thawed.
>
>> But then again: I'm in Texas which has nothing to do with
>> the rain forest whatsoever as pointed our earlier in this thread..

> Hey, I've been to Houston during the rainy season

Houston? My wife calls Houston "The armpit of Texas". She is a Texan so I
guess she's allowed to say stuff like that. I'm imported, so I just nod
and...um.....agree..


--
//ceed ©¿©¬

>
> > But then again: I'm in Texas which has nothing to do with
> > the rain forest whatsoever as pointed our earlier in this thread..
>
> Hey, I've been to Houston during the rainy season :-)
>
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
>
Which is,by the way, Jan. 1 through Nov. 15 .
Jack

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> ceed wrote:
>
>> I've done this recipe several times with great success. It's very
>> important to get the pork slices thin (almost like with smoked
>> salmon).
>
> Do you slice the pork when it has been deeply chilled in order to make the
> slicing easier?

It's an old trick usually used when making home made jerky. The meat when
partially frozen will hold its shape and allow one to easily cut across the
grain. If done properly its like slicing a chunk of decent cheese.

Dimitri

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:45:19 -0700, "Duwop" >
wrote:

>"ceed" > wrote in message
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:31:14 -0500, Dave Bugg > wrote:
>>
>
>> So what you are saying is that the whole "water smoker" concept is a scam
>> of sorts? The bullet smokers all have pans you are supposed to fill with
>> water or some other liquid to keep the meat moist. But you are saying the
>> only thing the pan does is keeping the meat from getting direct heat?
>
>And acting as a heat sink, yes.
>
I use a [Weber disposable] pan with hot water in it to act as a heat
deflector. It also catches any grease drippings and makes clean ups
a snap. I harbor no illusions about it adding to the moisture content
of the food. Baking is another story.

Harry

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:00:08 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
>> I have to respectfully disagree. It is all in the method used.
>>
>> What happens when you exercise? Your pores open up and you sweat,
>> losing moisture to the surrounding air.
>
>What does this have to do with dead meat, Ed?
>
>> If you add enough moisture
>> to the cooking pit, it is possible under the right circumstances for
>> the water to penetrate. The trick is getting the pores to open.
>
>Even if you could make dead meat sweat, it ain't about putting moisture into
>sweat glands. It is about moisture contained at the intracelluar level.
>
>> What you have to do is wiggle the meat, same is it would be moving
>> while exercising. Not easy to do with a roast, but fairly simple
>> with poultry.
>
>Again, just plain silly.
>
>> Best results are found using the 10/5 method. Every ten minutes, you
>> open the cooker and wiggle the wings and legs vigorously for five
>> minutes. this gets the bird moving, thus opening the pores to absorb
>> moisture. Be sure to keep a good size pan of water near the fire so
>> it will evaporate.
>
>LOL.... Now I get it, this is a joke. You had me going, man.

Just can't fool you,eh, ED . . . .

Harry

"Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> [ . . . ]
> In a real life application, the role of the water pan IS limited, just as
> you stated, Matthew. But if we could make a large enough water pan and
> fit it tight enough....... But then you'd have steamed brisket
> [shudder] ie, stew meat. :-)

Wasn't it Archimedes who said, "Give me a water pan big enough and I'll
steam the world!"? Or sumpin like that.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

"Dimitri" > wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> > ceed wrote:
> >
> >> Proof below:
> >>
> >> Sonoran-Style Marinated Pork
> >
> > Hee hee. I'm saving this one
> >
> Tell him to stop it I'm drooling.........
>
Dave won't do this at his BBQ joint. The Health Dept would be on him like
flies on beef jerky!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !