question for the experienced smoker

[btcg]

THIRTEEN HRS. would be way way too long on my drum.

RLN

My cook there was about 8-9 lbs.

@ 235, it takes about 1.5 hours per pound, no matter what kind of smoker you're using.

He stated that his cooker cooks @ 225-240 once it's going. It'll be about the same time, unless he's looking at the meat alot, which is a common mistake.

 

[Boshizzle]

I have found that if I rub and then let the meat sit for a while, bark can suffer. It does offer a distinct taste though. So, if I am going to let the meat sit with rub overnight, I figure on adding a second layer of rub just before putting on the smoker. This actually allows for an excellent bark development because the rub forms a sticky surface that holds the second layer of rub in place.

You can slather, I don't and I feel my bark is fine. Some folks believe a mustard slather, or other liquid, I like Worcestershire when I do slather-ish a butt or brisket, will allow for more adhesion of rub and more bark.

One of the reasons a picture would help would be to determine what you are getting and what you would like. It can vary as some folks really don't like a lot of bark, but, they don't know that.

Here is a chuck roast with what I would call a moderate bark...

In my experience, Landarc identified the problem. As some have suggested too, a little more brown sugar just before putting on the smoker will help too.

 

[btcg]

Not so sure Bo. As Chris noted, all bark is is nicely done meat. Some dont even use rub.... just salt & pepper.

 

[Boshizzle]

Perhaps, but I worked at a joint when I was in high school that got great bark from nothing but salt and pepper. But, the seasoning was put on the meat after it was put in the smoker. But, personally, I have had bad luck with bark after rub sits on the meat over night.

 

[mykeystoy]

I find that there are a lot good points. Grill temps are taken at grill level (about 1/2" lower) I have seen what I want in a bark using this rub just not in person. So now I am down to not cooking it right or rubbing too soon. (that sounded dirty). I do look but not till I feel that that it is time to check the internal temps which I dont start till 8 hours or so and my wife hasn't let me have a free for all on things like remote thermometers yet. I do not pull the butt until the bone comes out nice and easy. It is possible that I may not be cooking long enough since at my temps it should take 1 1/2 hours per pound. Maybe I need to be a little less impatient for the goods to be on a plate.
Now that brings up another question I had thought that when the bone comes out easy it was done is there an exception to the rule or is that more like a guide line? I think that was all the questions back to me.

 

[btcg]

I find that there are a lot good points. Grill temps are taken at grill level (about 1/2" lower) I have seen what I want in a bark using this rub just not in person. So now I am down to not cooking it right or rubbing too soon. (that sounded dirty). I do look but not till I feel that that it is time to check the internal temps which I dont start till 8 hours or so and my wife hasn't let me have a free for all on things like remote thermometers yet. I do not pull the butt until the bone comes out nice and easy. It is possible that I may not be cooking long enough since at my temps it should take 1 1/2 hours per pound. Maybe I need to be a little less impatient for the goods to be on a plate.
Now that brings up another question I had thought that when the bone comes out easy it was done is there an exception to the rule or is that more like a guide line? I think that was all the questions back to me.

When a butt (or brisket) is between the 180-190 degree point, the process that breaks down the connective tissues in the meat occurs. Between 190-205 degrees, most meats are done.

So for many, the 190 mark means it's time to pull it and rest it.

I like to take it to 205, and my bark is much better at that temp.

Try taking it to 205.

 

[mykeystoy]

Noted!

 

[landarc]

Bill, you are right that he should be able to get a bark from meat alone, but, I am still not sure what the OP means by a good bark. I have heard the term over and over, yet I have met folks that once presented with meat have very different takes on what 'bark' means. There have been a few pics posted here, I wonder which one most looks like a good bark to the OP?

 

[btcg]

Bill, you are right that he should be able to get a bark from meat alone, but, I am still not sure what the OP means by a good bark. I have heard the term over and over, yet I have met folks that once presented with meat have very different takes on what 'bark' means. There have been a few pics posted here, I wonder which one most looks like a good bark to the OP?

Well Bob,

I think you, me, and Phub have all posted some pics of some pretty good looking bark.

But yes, what good bark means to him/others is relative.

One brother noted recently how he'll serve up his Q to some in his family, and they'll say:

"I'm not eating that, it's burnt... or I'm not eating that, it's pink."

It can be comical, sometimes.

But if the poster can maintain consistant temps, be mindful that it's gonna take 1.5 hours per pound, not open the lid too often, and pull @ 205 degrees, he'll be fine.

 

[landarc]

Indeedy Do

 

[bigabyte]

I think landarc and Boshizzle have good points here too. I do not let the rub sit overnight. When I started out, I let rub sit on overnight, then applied more before putting it on the smoker. Once I tried applying rub just before putting the meat on the smoker I stopped doing the overnight rub. I prefer the results when rub is applied just before cooking.

Having said that though, here's some experiences I recall from doing various experiments where I seasoned pieces of pork butt in various ways. I tested basic ingredients by using a simple rub of salt+sugar+ingredient to see how the ingredient worked on the pork. When these experiences are also paired up with the experiences of cooking butts with no seasoning at all, or a simple seasoning of just salt and pepper, I come away with this belief:

Regular salt and Kosher salt, along with regular granulated sugar (white or brown) will absorb fully into the meat, even if applied just before putting it on the smoker. Now, I also want to state that I have personally observed this when there were either no other ingredients i the rub, or very few other ingredients in the rub. What this tells me is 1)the salt and sugar dissolve long before they can develop a crust and get pulled into the meat, and/or 2)other spices/seasonings typically do not dissolve and can work as a block to prevent the salt/sugar from dissolving and absorbing into the meat.

Larger grains of salt or sugar can remain and become part of the crust, even with no other ingredients or very few other ingredients. By this I mean large chunks like sea salt, and turbinado sugar. Anything smaller gets absorbed unless there is enough other "gunk" to prevent it from going into the meat.

Plain meat makes for a great bark, but it could sure use some salt and sugar in my opinion. Other than that, the texture is great IMHO.

So, I think landard, Boshizzle and I are trying to say similar things, only from different experiences (or perhaps not). Landarc and Boshizzle are saying if you let the rub absorb the salt and sugar overnight, all you have left is the "gunk" and that prevents the formation of a good bark. I agree with this, as that gunk is coating the meat and keeping a moist "gunk paste" on the meat as opposed to making a good bark.

I also think there are other ways to look at it, like perhaps you are caking on too much rub, resulting in the gunk issue. Or those who suggest adding more sugar, they are suggesting this so that you have enough sugar that it can't all get dissolved and you get some sugar forming into the bark. Salt is also good here in my opinion, so maybe you should add more salt too!:laugh: Or maybe use larger grinds along with a smaller grind. Like I mentioned, the smaller grind will absorb very easily (depending on the "gunky" factor of your rub) while the larger grind takes more time.

There's more than one variable in just the rub/salt/sugar bark formula.

I've said quite a bit and am not sure if I said it in a way that will make sense, so I'll just leave it and this and see where this goes. I'm game for all of us learning a little bit about bark, hopefully I learn some more too.:thumb:

 

[landarc]

The interesting thing to me is that I have cooked a lot of meat on the kettle, in a smoker and over open flames and just have no real understanding of the science behind the development of the bark. Here is a photo of ribs cooked with nothing more than pepper and salt.

As we can see, there is no real bark here, the meat was very tender, had a good smoke color to it and tasted excellent. Actually, when I can get very high quality ribs, this is a method I like to use. But, no bark. The surface of this meat remained tender and had no hard or dry spots.

One of the reasons I like to use a heavier rub is the seasoning it adds, but, I believe the sugars and salt provide some sort of chemical soup that aids in making the bark. Part of why I think the salt alone did not work is that it does not maintain it's physical integrity during a long cook. Some forms of spices and sugars will not break down in the same manner or time as salt.

Going further, I am of the belief that when meats cook, some of the proteins denature and come to the surface of the meat. I have noticed that when I do not use a slather, the bark seems to be much more well integrated and seems to hold to the meat a lot better. This makes me think, that where the denatured proteins have the ability to grab onto particulates at the surface of the meat, they stay in contact just long enough to form a crust that stays bonded to the meat. In this example, I believe the crust is clearly not just coating the meat, it is attached.

This also supports my belief that dry rubs allow for a far better bark development than a liquid or paste coating, more often referred to as crust. This is quite distinct from bark, in my mind, as a crust is actually a lot more easily separated from the meat than bark is. I believe that this is largely in part to how proteins behave at the time they are at the surface of the meat.

 

[bigabyte]

Those ribs are very interesting indeed, there is no sort of "bark" at all, just flecks of pepper remaining.

On the plain butts or the salt/pepper seasoned butts I have made, the outside meat took on darker color, like your ribs did, but this meat had a firmer texture than what you describe with your ribs. It was not tender meat like what was inside the rest of the pork. All that was left on mine was specks of pepper, much like in your image, the salt had fully dissolved. When pulled, the dark outside meat kept together just like you expect on a regular cooked butt, and had a much more smokey and firmer texture. The areas around fat even had a slight crisp to them. This "bark" or "skin" (whatever you want to call it), was tastier on the butt with salt and pepper than the plain one of course.

I wish I had pictures still of all this...but I do not, so I am trying to describe it as best as I can.

Your ribs there, based on your description, did not have this sort of firmer outside meat like I experienced. It does make you wonder why.

 

[bigabyte]

Here are some pics I have, but these are not of the plain butt I described above. These are the pieces of boston butt that were seasoned with just simple ingredients to see what the end result was with them. The rub applied to each piece was simply salt and the listed ingredient, that's it. There are both before and after pics so you can see the difference. If you look below the pic at the description there is a legend describing each piece. The pieces most relevant to this discussion are the first, 4th, 11th and 15th photos in my opinion. These were rubbed with simply salt and the listed ingredient. In the 11th and 15th photos, B Pepper means Black Pepper, so that piece was simply salt and black pepper. Also, my description of the results for these ingredients is in the thread link listed below, although I was not evaluating bark so I do not describe the bark on most of these, instead I was evaluating the ultimate flavor imparted/remaining after cooking.

The pic quality is not very great (it was a camera phone), and these pics were stashed away in my old camera's online picture albums, but luckily I can still find them!:becky:

http://pictures.sprintpcs.com/share.do?invite=wEwr8yzY8UaqykGhLkRx&shareName=MMS2
http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62646

 

[landarc]

My theory on the texture similarity of the meats is that there were two factors that affected the cook. One was that there were very high quality ribs, that I sought out for this particular cook. They were trimmed from the butcher, pastured local pork, heritage Berkshire hogs and cost me dearly. The other is that they cooked pretty fast, my record shows 225F and a rather unbelievable 4.5 hours on heat. The meat was cooked very evenly through, although the smoke left a ring, unlike many ribs that turn pink throughout. I think if I had done a longer cook the meat on the surface would be more like what you are describing.

My ideal pork shoulder would have a nice bark but a tender surface, this is probably contrary to what most folks think of bark. These ribs were, in part, an experiment to see how temperature in combination with surface treatment might have an effect on finished product. One of the things I really dislike in many rib and pork cook that I have eaten is the hard, dry, shards of pork, like eating planer shavings or mill shake. Bla!

I noticed that in your writeup, you noticed that many of the dried chile powder products, including paprika, lost their flavor other than heat. Obviously, since capsaicin is an oily compound, it is less likely to dissipate in cooking, but, I find it curious that the other flavors found in peppers would dissipate. Since these are more likely water soluble compounds, I wonder if there is some corollary between solubility in water and loss of intensity through the extended cooking time of BBQ.

I also am a strong believer in the importance of proper humidity in the cooking chamber, I don't believe this was emphasized before. I generally add two to three cans, essentially 30 ounces of water to any cook where I am not filling my kettle to capacity. When I smoke in the winter, I get better bark, especially during rain storms. I think this is because the added humidity discourages faster evaporation from the surface of the meat, giving the proteins more time to bind the rub into a bark which builds at the pellicle formed by the spices, herbs and proteins coming from the meat.

 

[btcg]

My theory on the texture similarity of the meats is that there were two factors that affected the cook. One was that there were very high quality ribs, that I sought out for this particular cook. They were trimmed from the butcher, pastured local pork, heritage Berkshire hogs and cost me dearly. The other is that they cooked pretty fast, my record shows 225F and a rather unbelievable 4.5 hours on heat. The meat was cooked very evenly through, although the smoke left a ring, unlike many ribs that turn pink throughout. I think if I had done a longer cook the meat on the surface would be more like what you are describing.

My ideal pork shoulder would have a nice bark but a tender surface, this is probably contrary to what most folks think of bark. These ribs were, in part, an experiment to see how temperature in combination with surface treatment might have an effect on finished product. One of the things I really dislike in many rib and pork cook that I have eaten is the hard, dry, shards of pork, like eating planer shavings or mill shake. Bla!

I noticed that in your writeup, you noticed that many of the dried chile powder products, including paprika, lost their flavor other than heat. Obviously, since capsaicin is an oily compound, it is less likely to dissipate in cooking, but, I find it curious that the other flavors found in peppers would dissipate. Since these are more likely water soluble compounds, I wonder if there is some corollary between solubility in water and loss of intensity through the extended cooking time of BBQ.

I also am a strong believer in the importance of proper humidity in the cooking chamber, I don't believe this was emphasized before. I generally add two to three cans, essentially 30 ounces of water to any cook where I am not filling my kettle to capacity. When I smoke in the winter, I get better bark, especially during rain storms. I think this is because the added humidity discourages faster evaporation from the surface of the meat, giving the proteins more time to bind the rub into a bark which builds at the pellicle formed by the spices, herbs and proteins coming from the meat.

:thumb:

 

[mykeystoy]

Thank you all for helping me figure it out. :idea:
I like the idea of seperating bark and crust, that had never occured to me. Crust is what I was looking for I think because too much bark makes my family complain about the toughness of it. The crust seems to help with that particular issue but if I differentiate between the two there isn't really a problem I just expected the crust to be firmer and less crumbly. This is apparently operator error.

Mike