Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

BBQ: Tenderness vs. Smoke Flavor


skay99

Recommended Posts

When you eat at a BBQ restaurant what is more important to you...tenderness or smoke flavor? I ask because a lot of BBQ joints in my area wrap their butts and briskets in foil and then hold them at temp in a warming cabinet. But it seems to me that the condensation created inside the foil waters down the smoke flavor in the meat but the meat is so tender and juicy. I'm just curious as to what others feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am assuming that when you give the choice between smoke flavor and tenderness you don't mean total absence of either one. So for me texture is better because I like meat that only has a hint of smoke and a pleasure to chew. The exception is for dried or cured meats where I prefer a stronger smoke profile.

I'm a plant-rights activist... I only eat meat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a tough call. i like both but i think smoke would have to be the number one consideration. BUT.... i have had tender with not alot of smoke and THAT was equally good.

but... there is something about the taste that smoke imparts to meat that draws me to it... tender or otherwise. LOL

i am always looking for alot of smoke in BBQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking "excellent taste with terrible consistency" vs "excellent consistency with terrible taste" I'll take taste (or eat somewhere else!).

If we're talking "excellent taste with okay consistency" vs "excellent consistency with okay taste" I'll take taste.

I do think BBQ needs to have both but I'd rather eat something that's dry over something with no flavor.

This is my skillet. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My skillet is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it, as I must master my life. Without me my skillet is useless. Without my skillet, I am useless. I must season my skillet well. I will. Before God I swear this creed. My skillet and myself are the makers of my meal. We are the masters of our kitchen. So be it, until there are no ingredients, but dinner. Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken though, from what I have read and from many years of smoking food, the smokiness is more of an olfactory sensation than one of taste. So it is the rub/marinade or seasoning that you actually taste and none of the smoke... which only releases molecules as the food is presented and as you chew. So I take to mean the lack of smokiness to be not necessarily lack of taste. My opinion is it is easier to compensate for "taste" that is short than for food texture and mouthfeel.

I'm a plant-rights activist... I only eat meat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting thought, docdix, but I'm afraid it's impossible. The vast majority of flavor is olfactory.

The reason we perceive certain things as having "taste" that is distinct from "odor" is because human physiology allows us to enjoy what is called "retronasal olfaction" - meaning that, in addition to bringing scent molecules to our olfactory sensors through the front of our nose, we also send scent molecules "up the back way" to the olfactory sensors as we chew. Here's the interesting thing: when we sense an odor "orthonasally" (through the nose) it seems like it comes from without and is perceived as a "scent"; whereas when we sense an odor retronasally, we perceive that the sensation comes from within, as "flavor" arising from the mouth.

All of which is to say that the motion that the rub is "tasted" and the smoke is "smelled" is a false dichotomy. They are both primarily smelled.

Edited by slkinsey (log)

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting thought, docdix, but I'm afraid it's impossible. The vast majority of flavor is olfactory.

The reason we perceive certain things as having "taste" that is distinct from "odor" is because human physiology allows us to enjoy what is called "retronasal olfaction" - meaning that, in addition to bringing scent molecules to our olfactory sensors through the front of our nose, we also send scent molecules "up the back way" to the olfactory sensors as we chew. Here's the interesting thing: when we sense an odor "orthonasally" (through the nose) it seems like it comes from without and is perceived as a "scent"; whereas when we sense an odor retronasally, we perceive that the sensation comes from within, as "flavor" arising from the mouth.

All of which is to say that the motion that the rub is "tasted" and the smoke is "smelled" is a false dichotomy. They are both primarily smelled.

I agree in a sense but with the exception of the four basic tastes... five if you want to include umami. Evidence for this is that patients who have temporary Anosmia (lack of smell), do retain a bland perception of the basic tastes but none of the nuances of any other flavors. Hence when seasoning food when you have a cold, let someone taste it.

I'm a plant-rights activist... I only eat meat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...