Defining Barbecue

[Fat Guy]

On a thread in the New York forum about the barbecue restaurant Blue Smoke, I made the statement that pastrami is barbecue. This rapidly developed into a debate about the definition of barbecue, which I think is better addressed here.

Let me put forth a definition of barbecue and we can work from there. I favor Southern usage that employs the term barbecue mostly as a noun, to refer to the product resulting from the action of the verb barbecue. However, most of the best work that has been done definitions-wise has involved the verb, so that's where I'll start. Chris Schlesinger's definition, from his book Smoke and Spice:

"A process whereby a large cut of tough meat is cooked by the smoke of a hardwood fire at low temperatures (210 degrees or less) for a long period of time, with doneness determined by the meat's tenderness."

The noun would be the finished product, of course.

I'd include a rack of ribs as "large." I'd include a whole chicken as large but not tough, and sausages as neither. That is to say, I don't think smoked chicken or sausages are barbecue -- I think they're just smoked chicken and smoked sausages.

[hollywood]

I don't see why the meat has to be tough to begin with. It can be be but why is tough a requirement?

[col klink]

"A process whereby a large cut of tough meat is cooked by the smoke of a hardwood fire at low temperatures (210 degrees or less) for a long period of time, with doneness determined by the meat's tenderness."

I mostly agree with this principle. Though I tend towards Texas style BBQ, this definition misses a flavoring agent like a sauce, a mop or a dry rub. If you take a brisket right out of the cryo-vac and onto the smoker/pit, you're just smoking it and I believe this goes with any large cut of meat. I'm also with Hollywood, I don't believe the cut has to be tough, take for instance pork shoulder. It's not tough and I'll be damned before anyone says a smoked shoulder with a little additional love isn't BBQ.

As for chicken not being BBQ, I'm not sure where I stand even if you flavor it.* But what about a smoked turkey? Or an ostrich? I bet ostrich legs are awlfully damn tough and big. Wait, before we go anyfurther, should we limit the species of meat?

* side note: would brining alone make it BBQ? Let's say you brine a shoulder and then smoke it without a rub, mop or sauce, is that BBQ?

[Fat Guy]

Pork shoulder is, in my opinion, tough. Pork loin is not.

The reason I support that part of Schlesinger's definition is that it helps to differentiate barbecue from smoked-meat in general. Smoking to add flavor does not alone make barbecue, it just makes smoked meat. Barbecue requires smoking for flavor and tenderness.

I also don't see the sauces, rubs, mops, etc., as integral to barbecue at all. Texas barbecue is often made with salt-and-pepper only. Likewise, smoking a whole hog equals barbecue even without a sauce. Then again, Texas barbecue is often cooked at temperatures up near 600 degrees, which presents a problem for the Schlesinger definition.

[Schielke]

I have issue with the "cooked by smoke" part of the statement. Unless you are cold smoking, you are not cooking with smoke. BBQ as we know it is cooking at a low temperature in a smoke filled environment.

[Fat Guy]

Good point.

I suggest all who participate offer a definition at the end of each post.

[tighe]

I have issue with the "cooked by smoke" part of the statement.  Unless you are cold smoking, you are not cooking with smoke.  BBQ as we know it is cooking at a low temperature in a smoke filled environment.

Smoke may not be integral to the cooking but I would argue that it is integral to the flavoring and texture that in part defines barbecue. I could cook a rack of ribs at 210 degrees in my oven and then slather it with sauce, but no serious barbecue officianado would consider that 'the real thing'. The only difference though is lack of smoke.

[Fat Guy]

The term I've seen bandied about that seems useful here is "smoke-cooked." Also does not the cold-smoked versus hot-smoked dichotomy have some validity?

[NewYorkTexan]

I think it is hard to define barbecue without appreciating regional influences on the definition. I tend to use the broad definition of meat slow cooked for hours using an indirect heat method and a hard wood fuel source. For it to be barbecue, it has to involve a large piece of meat. You can smoke a pork chop, but you can not barbecue one.

I do not think it has to involve tough pieces of meat to accuracy use the verb barbecue. If you put a rib roast on a smoker with an off-set fire box would the end result be barbecue or smoked prime rib, I vote barbecue.

I am going to email this thread to Robb Walsh, author of one of my favorite books, Legends of Texas Barbecue and see if he will offer his insights.

[Schielke]

I have issue with the "cooked by smoke" part of the statement.  Unless you are cold smoking, you are not cooking with smoke.  BBQ as we know it is cooking at a low temperature in a smoke filled environment.

Smoke may not be integral to the cooking but I would argue that it is integral to the flavoring and texture that in part defines barbecue. I could cook a rack of ribs at 210 degrees in my oven and then slather it with sauce, but no serious barbecue officianado would consider that 'the real thing'. The only difference though is lack of smoke.

Very true, but I was not trying to take smoke out of the equation. If you could do it in a smoke filled oven, you would be BBQing in my book.

Ben

[Varmint]

This is another example of debating something that is irrelevant. Barbecue is what it is. It's self-defined by the product. You can reach some commonality of ingredients and techniques among different types of barbecue, but the variables ultimately overwhelm the dogma.

For example, is wood necessary for it to be barbecue? If so, then the majority of NC barbecue joints aren't serving barbecue, because they're doing it over gas or electric cookers. Wood may be essential to "authentic" or "the best" barbecue, but I'm not going to tell the proprietors of Coopers Barbecue in downtown Raleigh that what they're serving isn't barbecue.

To be called "barbecue", I'd argue that it must be red meat (i.e., mammalian). It can't be poultry or fish. In those instances, the term "barbecue" is more of an adjective -- e.g., barbecued chicken. I've heard of goat, beef, pork, mutton, and lamb referred to as barbecue.

It must be cooked relatively slowly over low heat. This technique is essential, rendering the fat and other connective tissue.

Ultimately, barbecue is what we say it is.

[Fat Guy]

But don't we define words in order to know their meanings? How can we use a word intelligently without knowing what it means? Even if barbecue is defined by the product, that's still a definition or series of definitions.

I wouldn't say wood is essential to barbecue as a heat source, but it certainly is essential to have smoke. A gas or electric cooker with wood or wood chips us sufficient, I think, to qualify as barbecue. Another flaw in Schlesinger's definition.

But so far that's the only definition I see on this topic. Let's hear some others.

[Varmint]

I wouldn't say wood is essential to barbecue as a heat source, but it certainly is essential to have smoke. A gas or electric cooker with wood or wood chips us sufficient, I think, to qualify as barbecue.

But must the smoke be derived from something external, such as wood chips? Can the smoke be obtained from the rendered fat, burning on the cooking element?

[Fat Guy]

Beats me. Does that work?

[Varmint]

Unfortunately, many NC barbecue restaurants do it just that way. Their argument is that the wood doesn't really add that much of a flavor to the meat, particularly once it's chopped and seasoned. I think that this approach results in a flawed and far less tasty barbecue, but it's still considered barbecue to most people.

[Fat Guy]

I'll go with "most people are wrong" on that one.

[Varmint]

Here's some additional guidance:

California BBQ Association

[col klink]

But must the smoke be derived from something external, such as wood chips?  Can the smoke be obtained from the rendered fat, burning on the cooking element?

Damn straight, otherwise it's grilling and we all know grilling isn't BBQ. Even if it's slow cooked, you might as well be using a standard oven.

I'm also with the "most people are wrong, well not wrong, just ignorant" crowd.

[Varmint]

I'll go with "most people are wrong" on that one.

But that's the very problem with coming up with a definition in the first place. Put a plate of chopped pork seasoned with vinegar and red pepper in front of each of 1,000 North Carolinians. Assume that the pork was cooked over a gas cooker without the use of wood. Don't tell them how it was cooked. Ask them to identify the product in front of them. You'll get 998 responses of "barbecue" (the 2 holdouts just moved here from NY and wouldn't recognize any barbecue). They call it barbecue because of what it is, not how it was cooked. It may be a lesser version of barbecue, but to call it anything different is inappropriate.

[hollywood]

the 2 holdouts just moved here from NY and wouldn't recognize any barbecue

[Varmint]

I hate to admit this, but the very first time I cooked a pig, I did it over gas. I slow cooked it for 12 hours, being very careful to keep the temperature low during the first 4 hours. After I flipped the critter onto its back, I basted it from time to time with a typical Eastern NC style vinegar-based sauce. I pulled the pork off. I crisped up the skin. I cut it into the meat. I added a bit more sauce.

Did this meat have a smokey flavor? Yes, it did.

Was it barbecue? Absolutely. Many of my guests told me it was the best barbecue they ever had (I'm guessing they hadn't had a lot of great barbecue).

Was it authentic, full-flavored barbecue? No way. It was still barbecue, however.

Oh, and don't worry. I'll be cooking over wood in October.

[col klink]

Put a plate of chopped pork seasoned with vinegar and red pepper in front of each of 1,000 North Carolinians.  Assume that the pork was cooked over a gas cooker without the use of wood.  Don't tell them how it was cooked.  Ask them to identify the product in front of them.  You'll get 998 responses of "barbecue" . . .

I'm so sorry.

[Fat Guy]

They call it barbecue because of what it is, not how it was cooked.  It may be a lesser version of barbecue, but to call it anything different is inappropriate.

So would you say that anything anybody calls barbecue is barbecue? For example, it is nearly universal in America to refer to oven-baked ribs with sweet sauce as barbecue. Is that barbecue?

[col klink]

Likewise grilled chicken quarters drenched in tomato syrup. A LOT of people would call that BBQ.

[Varmint]

For example, it is nearly universal in America to refer to oven-baked ribs with sweet sauce as barbecue. Is that barbecue?

To say that it's universal in America to refer to those ribs as barbecue is wrong. In fact, until I moved to the South over 20 years ago, I never heard of the word "barbecue" used as a noun that is a type of food. I would say that the majority of people may actually refer to those ribs as "ribs." Another group would call them, "barbecued ribs." Others would call them "barbecue." Only people who live in the barbecue regions or who have learned of the traditions from those areas would refer to it as barbecue. I'd argue that we're talking about a fairly small minority.

If you put a plate of NC barbecue in front of someone in Texas or Oregon or Maine, they'd just stare at it and wonder why they're being served cat food. If I recall correctly, FG, that's what your initial impression of NC barbecue was.