The Pink Smoke Ring

[Chris Amirault]

In the interest of introducing a topic on the question of smoke rings, I've got a confession to make. I've been using my new Bradley smoker now for a while, and I'm currently at 188F with my third butt. Over in the "Behold My Butt!" topic, I posted about my first effort, and in response to these photographs, Ron posted this comment:

Looks delicious to me, although it's a slightly different color than what I'm used to seeing.  There's usually some pink tint in the flesh (and/or smoke ring, too) that doesn't seem to be there.  Am I wrong or, perhaps, just not seeing it in the pics?  Maybe it's a function of the Bradley?  Am I just wack?

←

I went back, looked at the photos, looked at the meat, and then posted this response about the "intensely thick pink smoke ring." Problem solved -- or, at the very least, avoided. I'm now convinced that I answered Ron's good question inaccurately, and it's been bugging me ever since. Pinkish tinge? Maybe. But "intensely thick pink smoke ring"? No way, bucko. (Sorry, Ron!)

A month ago, I smoked butt #2 in the Bradley, and no amount of fiddling with my color perception allowed me to make the assertion above. The butt was a smoky, tender pile of porky love, but it had no pink smoke ring at all.

Last night, when I was getting my Bradley going for the overnight smoke of butt the third, I grabbed the hotel pan I bought at a yard sale last week, filled it with water, and replaced the smaller water pan that came with the smoker. And then I had a thought about that pinkish tinge on #1.

You see, the first time I smoked my butt, I had not kept a close eye on that water pan, and that meant that the smoking wood pucks (the "bisquettes," as they're called) would pile up in that pan and back up the entire line. That meant that individual pucks would sit too long (over the twenty minute limit) on the heating plate, unable to slide down into the full water pan. That is to say, that as each puck sat there an extra ten or fifteen minutes waiting for the others in the water pan to disintegrate it would burn and not merely smoke.

My second time, I set the alarm twice during the night to dump the water pan out and make sure that there was no stacking of the smoldering pucks -- which had the effect of preventing any of the pucks from burning. Ditto last night: using that large hotel pan and plenty of water, none of the pucks stacked up, and that meant that all of them smoked for 20 minutes and none of them burned. Both times, my butt hasn't had even a tinge of pink on it, and when I pull this one later today, I'm very sure I won't find one inside.

So, this morning, I woke up, had a bit of crow for breakfast, and grabbed Harold McGee. On page 149 of On Food and Cooking, McGee writes,

Meats cooked over wood, charcoal, or gas flames... often develop "pink ring[.]" This is caused by nitrogen dioxide (NO2) gas, which is generated in trace amounts... by the burning of these organic fuels.

This sent me to the eG Forums search engine, which lead me to nathanm's far more extensive explanation over in the "Anatomy of a Beef Brisket" topic (click here for the full post):

Smokers [like a Bradley smoker] use small wood chips which are burned on a hot plate smoke generator.  Generally they smolder at fairly low temperature (under 600F) and do not produce enough nitric oxide to create a smoke ring.  In order to get a smoke ring you need to burn at a higher temperature - either with solid wood, or pellets or another source which is really burning (600F to 750F usually). ...

The high combustion temperature produces nitrogen dioxide gas that penetrates the meat and creates the smoke ring.  It works best if the meat surface is moist, and as a result happens early in the cooking process.  Here is an explanation by a meat scientist at Iowa State University.

[snip]

The red smoke ring in the meat is similar chemically to the red color in meat cured with sodium nitrite or sodium nitrate (also known as prague powder, tender quick, curing salt, pink salt).    These curing salts do produce a pronounced taste in fully cured meat - the taste of cured meat (i.e. ham versus pork, summer sausage versus fresh sausage).  However is not clear to me from what I have read whether the cured taste of curing salts is related to color change - i.e. nitrogen dioxide gas and curing salt both create the color, but the cured meat taste has more to do with the concentration of the curing salt itself and its interaction with the meat proteins, not the chemical reaction that causes color change. 

You can use curing salts to create a smoke-ring like effect, and many people do that for barbeque. Purists regard this as a "fake smoke ring".

←

So, it's clear that I was wrong in my response to Ron: this is indeed a feature of the Bradley system -- so long as you keep the pucks off the heating plate for the appropriate amount of time. (Even when they linger, however, the plates never burn at a high enough temperature to produce sufficient NO2 for a seriously pink ring.) It's also clear that, with a little help from some of the curing salts I've got, I could indeed create that ring.

But that leaves the question that nathanm dangled:

There are two points of view you can take on the lack of the smoke ring.  On one hand, the smoke ring is traditionally used to judge the quality of the smoking in barbeque contests and the like.  So from that standpoint a smoker that does not produce a smoke ring may seem inferior. 

On the other hand it is not clear to me that it is really necessary for flavor - I am not sure you could tell the difference if you tasted blindfolded.  It would be interesting to find out in a carefully controlled test.

Is the smoke ring desirable? Why? Would curing produce a superior butt with the ring, or would the curing salts produce an undesirable effect? Purists, SSBs, and others, please weigh in!

[Luckylies]

I'm no expert, but I find a smoke ring to be a good sign when I'm in the back yard bbq'ing, it shows me that the smoke flavor has penetrated the meat. For competitions the judges are not allowed to judge based on, or according to smoke ring size-- the use of certain agents can artificially produce a thicker ring (like certain curing salts). i like the ring, what can I say? its pretty

[Chris Amirault]

But if I'm reading McGee's book and nathanm's post correctly, a "smoke ring" doesn't indicate that the smoke has penetrated. You can get what McGee calls "pink ring" without smoke (he mentions "poultry cooked in a gas oven," e.g.) and, as my Bradley has demonstrated, you can get smoke penetration without a pink ring. It's a completely different chemical process involving the gas produced from burning and not smoking organic compounds.

Actually, it seems like "smoke ring" is a misnomer: it should be a "nitrogen dioxide ring," really. I guess that's why McGee calls it a "pink ring," and not a "smoke ring," eh?

[Luckylies]

But if I'm reading McGee's book and nathanm's post correctly, a "smoke ring" doesn't indicate that the smoke has penetrated. You can get what McGee calls "pink ring" without smoke (he mentions "poultry cooked in a gas oven," e.g.) and, as my Bradley has demonstrated, you can get smoke penetration without a pink ring. It's a completely different chemical process involving the gas produced from burning and not smoking organic compounds.

Actually, it seems like "smoke ring" is a misnomer: it should be a "nitrogen dioxide ring," really. I guess that's why McGee calls it a "pink ring," and not a "smoke ring," eh?

←

Sure, sure, fine, it's not that I don't agree intelectually but... have you ever seen a pink ring on something from the oven?

[rooftop1000]

So does this mena that when I think I have failed...by having no pink ring... it might just mean I got the smoker temp low enough for a change??

tracey

[Chris Amirault]

Sure, sure, fine, it's not that I don't agree intelectually but... have you ever seen a pink ring on something from the oven?

←

So does this mena that when I think I have failed...by having no pink ring... it might just mean I got the smoker temp low enough for a change??

←

Yes, I certainly have, and yes, it would seem!

[snowangel]

I almost never get the pink ring, and my stuff of quite smokey. Wonder if the lack of the ring is due to my smoker set-up (ultra low-tech Weber kettle with an oven thermometer and the meat thermometer I inherited from my grandmother? I generally hold temps at 225, and always use a drip pan, filled with water and ice (yes, the ice melts, so let's just call it a water pan).

But, I figure, I have such a good time smoking, and an even better time feeding people stuff that they can was poetic about who cares if I have a pink ring.

Note: If I get the ring, it's only occasionally, and only with butts or sometimes turkey, but it's not consistent. I wonder if the type of wood could make a difference? Chunks or chips or pucks?

[Pam R]

My mind does not work in a scientific manner whatsoever. Trying to follow this theory, if I end up smoking my meat at too low a temperature, should there be a pink ring? The last time I smoked a brisket I didn't think I was getting the temp high enough. It was -35 C when I started it, and didn't warm up too much over the 12 or so hours it smoked. I kept liquid in the tray and I fed new charcoal in it all day long, trying to get the temp. up. In the end I had to wrap it in foil and toss it in the oven for a couple of hours. But it had a really intense pink ring. Is that contrary to what is supposed to happen?

[melkor]

My mind does not work in a scientific manner whatsoever.  Trying to follow this theory, if I end up smoking my meat at too low a temperature, should there be a pink ring?  The last time I smoked a brisket I didn't think I was getting the temp high enough.  It was -35 C when I started it, and didn't warm up too much over the 12 or so hours it smoked.  I kept liquid in the tray and I fed new charcoal in it all day long, trying to get the temp. up.  In the end I had to wrap it in foil and toss it in the oven for a couple of hours.  But it had a really intense pink ring. Is that contrary to what is supposed to happen?

←

Not at all contrary. In cold weather you make a bigger fire to try and get the smoker up to temp and in the process you create more smoke. Also, there are a bunch of theories I've read suggesting that the smoke ring is created before the meat gets up to a specific temperature (I've read different things ranging from 120 to 150 degrees F) - in cold weather with a smoker that's running cold, you've got a lot more time for it to create the ring.

[nathanm]

As discussed above the pink "smoke" ring is actually caused by the meat reacting with nitrogen compounds (primarily nitric oxide gas) in the smoke (see here or here.)

Many barbeque partisans believe that a smoke ring essential to true barbeque. This belief comes from the fact that many traditional barbeque methods tend to (but do not always) produce incomplete combustion that favors nitric oxide production.

Smokers that use smoldering chips or sawdust do not usually produce enough nitric oxide to make a smoke ring - you need the right combination of temperature oxygen content, which usually onlys occurs with burning chunks of wood.

The reaction is similar to the way that nitrate curing salts turn ham and other cured meats red to pink color. The smoke ring in barbeque is grenerally much lower concentration than what you get with nitrate salts.

In fact, one can get very good quality barbeque without nitric oxide or a smoke ring. However, it is hard to convince some traditionalists of this. Partly this is superstition (the smoke ring is widely believed to be a hallmark of quality), and partly it is style - if your favorite method produces a smoke ring then it is natural to think it is the ring that is important, when it may just be a side effect.

As pointed out by Harold McGee and others you can get a pink ring without any smoke if you cook over another source that produces nitric oxide (such as a gas oven with a badly adjusted flame).

In addition, nitrate curing salts can give the same effect. The salts will penetrate deeper (particularly if you put them in a brine, or if you vacuum tumble) and they will also be more intense.

Edited August 7, 2006 by nathanm (log)

[michael_g]

A few nights ago we smoke-grilled a turkey leg: just some wet hickory chips at the end of a grilling session, for thirty minutes, maybe an hour. (You can tell that we're exacting perfectionists, can't you?)

I'm not sure if we remembered to take a picture before, er, devouring it, but we had an intense pink ring, 1/2" or more. The meat tasted pretty smoky, too. Is a dying grill hot enough to produce this? Could something in the spice rub (there was no curing salt) do this? Or, like snowangel mentioned, maybe it has something to do with turkey meat in particular.

[slkinsey]

If burning at a higher temperature produces more nitrogen dioxide, which in turn leads to formation of the "smoke ring" -- this would argue in favor of offset-smokers where the actual burning takes place in a side-chamber and the hot smoke is then piped through a larger smoking chamber. Since the meat is not exposed to the radiant heat of the fire (and also because the smoke presumably loses some heat on its way through the smoking chamber) the fire can burn at a higher, nitrogen dioxide-producing temperature without cooking the meat too quickly.