Grilling & Smoking: Wood? Briquets? Chunks?

[jsolomon]

I did a quick google for silicone dioxide and didn't find anything right off so I gave up. I do remember that the specific heat capacity of water is something like 4.xxx whereas most other things are 2 or less, most things less. If I have that right. (I deep forgetting if specific heat capacity is the one that takes mass into account. It has been too many years since physics. )

Yeah... you have that heat of vaporization going on, too. That keeps the water around to act as a heat sink. It is a complex situation.

Most folks assume that the pan of water is there to keep the meat moist. While it may do some of that (I have my doubts), the main reason it is there is to help maintain a steady even temperature.

According to these guys, the specific heat of water is 4186 J/kg*K and silica sand (quartz sand) is 295 J/kg*K, but quartz is also 2.6 g/cm^3, where water is 1.00

So, you can pack a lot more sand, mass-wise, but water still wins out if you want that long, slow braise-type heat that melts collagen and is oh, so yummy.

So... I guess the moral is saline beats silicone? Damn, I still like mine naturally marbled.

[Human Bean]

I don't want to go there on the silicone!

My continued ability to pay the rent depends very much on silicon, but not at all on silicone, so I tend to notice those typos.

Thanks to jsolomon for setting the record straight, and keeping things (mostly) on track.

[Al_Dente]

I haven't seen much in this thread on timing. Is there any opinions out there on when in the smoking process the smoke would make the most effective impact? In other words, is it more advantageous to create a lot of smoke at the beginning and not concern yourself with it so much toward the end?

I don't have a great deal of experience with smoking yet (I've done a handful of butts, some duck, and did some oysters once on a weber bullet), but I tend to go for soaked chips in foil on top of the fire at the beginning, and then maybe drop a large chunk or two of wood to smolder on the edge of the fire through the remainder of the cooking. Seems to me that most of the smoke effect would take place early on. No?

[fifi]

Thanks to jsolomon for setting the record straight, and keeping things (mostly) on track.

I am laughing because what started out as a discussion of fuel choice digressed into a physics discussion. And I echo a big thanks to jsolomon. I was too lazy to look it up and do the math. I will plead that my reference books are at the office. Yeah... that's the ticket.

You are correct Al_Dente. The smoking occurs early on. I have even read that after about 140F (is that right?) the meat doesn't really take up any more. I have taken to putting the meat on right out of the fridge on the recommendation of one of our resident geniuses some time ago. The thought is that, from then on, you are just adding fuel for heat. Those that use wood all the way may dispute this. I haven't done a comparison.

[mnebergall]

I have even read that after about 140F (is that right?) the meat

I'd be interested in the basis for this theory. Why does temperature effect the rate at which food absorbs smoke? If it is true, my guess would be that the surface of the food reachs 140F much quicker than the interior. Are folks wasting a lot of effort by keeping their smokers stocked with hickory during the entire cooking process?

[Human Bean]

When grilling, any smoke you get is from burning grease that drips from your meat.

Drifting off-topic yet again, but anyway...

When first seeing this comment, I nearly lost my lunch. I cannot let it pass without comment.

Ewww. Noooo. Oop, ack, ptui.

The comment is largely true, and is the basis of gas grilling (an abomination IMHO, but that's a different topic). The whole idea of burned fat flavoring the food is very wrong.

When grilling, I try not to get burned fat influencing the flavor. Usually this means rather more intense but indirect heat. (Again IMHO), burned fat adds a vile and obnoxious flavor to the meat (or whatever).

Traditional smoking woods like hickory, mesquite, etc, add a very nice flavor to the food; burned fat is just awful, and the main problem that the average griller is oblivious to. I use wood chips to add flavor and try to avoid burned fat.

When grilling, it's usually not possible to completely avoid fat dripping onto the fuel, but I'd contend that it does not improve the results, and should be avoided as much as possible.

[Richard Kilgore]

Okay, H. Bean, I got the yuk message...but just how do you keep the fat from dripping and burning on your grill?

[fifi]

I have to agree with you on this one, human bean. I have been to too many cook-outs where the griller is intent on having this happen to add "that smoky flavor". ICK! Burned fat is just acrid and gross.

Like I have said, I am not much into grilling so I don't know how you keep this from happening. I am beginning to suspect, after watching various hosts, that there is a "cult" of cranking up the grill, taking great pride in how many BTUs are generated, and proceeding to cremate everything in sight. Is this a "Macho Man" thing?

[Dave the Cook]

I have even read that after about 140F (is that right?) the meat

I'd be interested in the basis for this theory. Why does temperature effect the rate at which food absorbs smoke? If it is true, my guess would be that the surface of the food reachs 140F much quicker than the interior. Are folks wasting a lot of effort by keeping their smokers stocked with hickory during the entire cooking process?

I have research on this, but I can't get my hands on it for a while.

In the meantime, maybe one of you mathematically-inclined types can figure out the time for an eight-pound, 40 F mass to reach 140 F at a depth of, say, 3/16 inch, in a 225 F chamber?

[Human Bean]

...but just how do you keep the fat from dripping and burning on your grill?

Depends on what you're cooking. Indirect heat is what you want to avoid fat dripping on the fuel. It's not always possible.

I do my grilling in one of those ubiquitous Weber kettles. The instruction manual with the grill is useful.

For example, whole chickens or turkeys are done entirely with indirect heat, with wood chips providing smoke. The grill has rails that let you put the charcoal on two sides of the grill with nothing in the center. In the middle, I put an old roasting pan with some water in it. This prevents the drippings from burning. It also prevents using the drippings for gravy, but that's a sacrifice I endure.

Fish (or, say, trimmed chicken breasts) is usually not a problem except for fatty fish like salmon; try not to let the dripping fat get on the coals by creative arrangement of the fish and fuel.

Chicken parts with skin on is trickier; again try to avoid dripping on the charcoal. I don't generally do those, because I just don't like them that much.

But then, there's burgers. Lots of tasty fat that can turn into awful smoke when hitting the coals. I try to keep most of the coals around the outside edge of the grill, and the burgers more in the middle. It's not really possible to avoid fat hitting the coals, but it can be minimized. I usually use some hickory chips in an improvised foil tray to add smoke flavor, but sometimes just throw the chips on the coals. I don't soak them; I don't see why it's worthwhile for fast-cooking foods.

[fifi]

In the meantime, maybe one of you mathematically-inclined types can figure out the time for an eight-pound, 40 F mass to reach 140 F at a depth of, say, 3/16 inch, in a 225 F chamber?

Hopefully, someone can do that. My brain is too atrophied to attempt it. One of my heat transfer buddies has a finite element analysis program that would do a helluva job on this question but he is out on vacation.

Dave... Does the research that you have on this have anything to do with the condensation of various components of wood smoke?

(edit to add Dave's post since there was a concurrent post that could be confusing.)

Edited June 10, 2004 by fifi (log)

[Human Bean]

I am beginning to suspect, after watching various hosts, that there is a "cult" of cranking up the grill, taking great pride in how many BTUs are generated, and proceeding to cremate everything in sight. Is this a "Macho Man" thing?

Probably so. But turning a burger into a carbonized piece of shoe leather isn't macho, it's just sad. (Well, maybe not if you're a Macho Man that enjoys carbonized shoe leather, but I expect there are few of these on eG).

[Human Bean]

Regarding the issue of smoke absorbtion, 140 degrees F, etc, mentioned earlier, I suggest checking the BBQ FAQ which has way more information about barbecue (but relatively little about grilling) than could possibly be posted here. I'm too laz...er, TIRED at the moment (really!) to dig into this massive document for the answer about smoke penetration, temperature, etc, but from past readings, I think it's in there somewhere.

I can mention one tidbit, linked here (scroll down to #10), where they suggest NOT subjecting cold meat to smoke, lest creosote or other bad stuff condense on the meat.

[fifi]

I can mention one tidbit, linked here (scroll down to #10), where they suggest NOT subjecting cold meat to smoke, lest creosote or other bad stuff condense on the meat.

Oh dear... I wish you had not even brought this up.

Creosote is the name used for a variety of products that are mixtures of many chemicals; those products include wood creosote, coal tar creosote, coal tar, and coal tar pitch. Creosotes do not occur naturally in the environment; they are created by high-temperature treatment of beech and other woods (wood creosote) or coal (coal tar creosote), or from the resin of the creosote bush (creosote bush resin).

This is from this site.

If you really start thinking too much about this information and all of the alarmists, you would never smoke or grill meat again and would only eat boiled pap. Man has been cooking meat over wood fires for millenium. Even with the relatively recent reversion to cooking meat over burning wood, we are not dying in the streets. If I live a couple of years less for eating BBQ... well, it is worth it. Anyway, there is also the preservative powers of these "noxious compunds" that probably saved many of our ancestors from food poisoning.

[dls]

I have even read that after about 140F (is that right?) the meat

I'd be interested in the basis for this theory. Why does temperature effect the rate at which food absorbs smoke? If it is true, my guess would be that the surface of the food reachs 140F much quicker than the interior. Are folks wasting a lot of effort by keeping their smokers stocked with hickory during the entire cooking process?

This may provide something of an answer.

[Dave the Cook]

I have even read that after about 140F (is that right?) the meat

I'd be interested in the basis for this theory. Why does temperature effect the rate at which food absorbs smoke? If it is true, my guess would be that the surface of the food reachs 140F much quicker than the interior. Are folks wasting a lot of effort by keeping their smokers stocked with hickory during the entire cooking process?

This may provide something of an answer.

Thanks, dls.

This backs up the Smoke Ring information, and adds a bit more.

[mnebergall]

So the exercise is to keep the surface of the meat below 140F for as long as possible in order to maximize smoke absorption. Ways to do this include putting the meat in the smoker right out of the fridge and keeping the smoker temp as low as possible for as long as possible.

[ScooterQ]

As I understand it, what stops at 140º is the chemical reaction that creates the smoke ring. That reaction is about preservation and color really - the nitrates in the smoke creating the pink of the ring. Smoke will still accumulate on the food for as long as it's in the smoker, adding flavor. IMO, as long as you don't overdo it you can keep on adding wood for the duration of the cook.

On the fuel question, the link below is a piece on wood grilling by Steven Raichlen that originally appeared in the NY Times. Good stuff.

Grilling with Wood