5 BBQ Myths Debunked (video)

[bbqwizard]

You make several good points.

However I'd simply point out the following hypothetical test with regard to some of your statement above, and no, as a health care proffesional who is familiar with head and neck radiation, I do not disagree with the gist of your post.

If many of us, who have not been irradiated, were handed the following labels:

1. hickory
2. pecan
3. oak
4. peach
5. apple
6. cherry
7. Mesquite

and given a blind test, the intent being to attach the correct label to individual plates of barbecued meats, and then proceeded to smell 7 plates of smoked chicken, 7 plates of pork, and 7 plates of beef, cooked using the above named woods....

How many of us would be able to put the correct wood label onto each plate for a perfect 21/21 or 100% score?

Many of us would get the Mesquite plates right.

But beyond that, I tend to believe that the degree of accuracy would drop.

And since smell and taste are indeed quite related, as you have already pointed out, the results and "success" of separating and assigning the correct label to each plate, would no doubt not be expected to be any better in a taste test.

The above tests could be accomplished with as much time needed, hours for example, for the aroma or taste of the prior plate to dissipate and again I doubt the results of attempts to attach the appropriate label to each plate would be good.

Another interesting point is this:

I wonder how many of those companies selling us "wood chips, or wood chunks" and such labeled "hickory", "cherry", "apple", etc, how much of that bag is actually as labeled. Or did they slip a few chunks of "apple" into that bag of "cherry"?

This post really makes me want to do this test and have people try and guess... Maybe do this with the bbq association or a few couples, or... Seriously, this sounds fun. Now just need to find the time.

 

[Demosthenes9]

Agree with much of what you said. In setting up a taste test, would definitely include a cleansing of the palate between samples. To address flavor on fingers, use frill picks on the meats.


As for the ""something is different about this one", vs the other two, doesn't make for a positive identification"; what is the purpose of the test ? Is it to see how much the persons know about flavor profiles of each wood ? Or is it to test the hypothesis that "wood is wood," "smoke is smoke," and there's no difference as far as flavor is concerned? The latter is what is being tested. If




As to the various scenarios for the taste test, yes, there would be mixed results. Some percentage of people just can't distinguish tastes for whatever reason. They are outliers and really don't matter to be frank about it. For all the others, sure, some will have more discerning palates than the others. In the tests, the closer the beers are in taste to each other would help you classify just how accurate each person's palate is, but again, that isn't what the test would be designed for.

True.

But many factors come into play.

It would also depend upon how much time passed between each tasted sample.

If the first beer was still on the tongue and palate, and remainder of the oral cavity of the subject, it might be tougher for him to answer correctly.

BBQ tends to linger or leave an aftertaste. And since smell is a big part of taste, even the act of getting some of it onto your hands could influence your discerning capabilities when you went to eat the next sample.

But just saying that "something is different about this one", vs the other two, doesn't make for a positive identification, which to me is a big part of all of this.

However lets go back to your suggested testing method, using beer or BBQ.



OK, now give them three cups, with one, two, three or four different possibilities.

1.Cups A, B, C all have the same beer.

Some of the subject would misidentify even this.

2. Cups A and B have the same beer, while cup C has a different beer.

Depending upon how close in taste beer C is to the beer in cups A and B, many of the subjects would fail here too.

However if the beer in cup C was remarkably different in taste, then it would be easier to identify as "different" from "at least one" of the samples A or B, or both.

However some would still misidentify that A and B were the same beer.

3. Cups A and C have the same beer in them, but cup B a different beer.

Again, depending upon how marked the difference in taste is, you can expect people to misidentify that A and C as well as B were or were not the same beer.

4. Cups A, B and C all have a different beer in them. Again, some would get it right, and identify that there are three different beers. But some would identify two beers as opposed to 3. And some might only identify one beer and insist that all three cups had the same beer in them.

Cups B and C had the came beer in them, but cup A had a different beer. Again, perhaps not all of the taste testers would even identify this.

So lets extrapolate this to the 7 different woods I mentioned in an earlier post.

Just being able to tell "there's something different about this one", only goes so far.

And to top it off, not everybody will even be able to tell that "there is something different about this one", if the choices are say, "Hickory, Pecan and Oak". Or "Apple" "Peach" and Cherry".

 

[jham0077]

The smoke tasting and/or beer tasting would be very dependent on ones palate. Someone that chugs Natural Light and thinks the McRib is good stuff probably wouldn't know chit from shineola.
BUT, if anybody wanted to go get some beer and fire up the smoker so we could could move on with this little experiment, I think I could sacrifice and suffer through the process of sampling beer and Q.:wink:

 

[SlowmotionQue]

Agree with much of what you said. In setting up a taste test, would definitely include a cleansing of the palate between samples. To address flavor on fingers, use frill picks on the meats.


As for the ""something is different about this one", vs the other two, doesn't make for a positive identification"; what is the purpose of the test ? Is it to see how much the persons know about flavor profiles of each wood ?

To at least a minor degree.

This would be necessary in order to be able to "tell a difference" over anything other than "two different" woods.

For example, anyone with normal abilities can tell the "difference" between salt and sugar or tell that the two are "different". Same with sugar and pepper.

But how many can tell the difference between the smell of smoke coming from oak vs hickory vs pecan, or food prepared using the smoke from each?

Or is it to test the hypothesis that "wood is wood," "smoke is smoke," and there's no difference as far as flavor is concerned? The latter is what is being tested.

But because there are only a handful of different woods which are in common use for cooking in the U.S. , I count 7, and some of those woods may not even be available at the local Home Depot for some of us depending upon where we live, well then yes, if the choices are much narrower than those seven I mention, then from an ability of the average person to smell or taste the difference between those few examples, from a practical standpoint, wood just might be wood.

In other words, limit his choices, and he may not be able to tell a difference in the smoke coming from any of those few choices, and thus "smoke would be smoke" for him.

So is "smoke, smoke"?

Depends. If you only have access to a smaller range of woods, and they all smell very similar when they burn, to the point where it's next to impossible for you to tell the difference in the smoke between them with any consistency, well then yeah, smoke just might be smoke. To you anyway.

As to the various scenarios for the taste test, yes, there would be mixed results. Some percentage of people just can't distinguish tastes for whatever reason. They are outliers and really don't matter to be frank about it. For all the others, sure, some will have more discerning palates than the others. In the tests, the closer the beers are in taste to each other would help you classify just how accurate each person's palate is, but again, that isn't what the test would be designed for.

What would it be designed for?

The smoke tasting and/or beer tasting would be very dependent on ones palate. Someone that chugs Natural Light and thinks the McRib is good stuff probably wouldn't know chit from shineola.
BUT, if anybody wanted to go get some beer and fire up the smoker so we could could move on with this little experiment, I think I could sacrifice and suffer through the process of sampling beer and Q.:wink:

Hats off to you sir.

You are astute enough to see the urgency of this matter, and have unselfishly volunteered your services for the advancement of science.:grin:

 

[Demosthenes9]

To at least a minor degree.

This would be necessary in order to be able to "tell a difference" over anything other than "two different" woods.

No, not really. The persons don't have to know anything about the flavor profiles. All they need to do is taste them and say "those two taste the same" or "those two taste different".

For example, anyone with normal abilities can tell the "difference" between salt and sugar or tell that the two are "different". Same with sugar and pepper.

Then that would answer the question that is being tested. Again, go back to what started all this, the claim that "wood is wood", "smoke is smoke" and that smoke from woods don't impart different flavors.

But how many can tell the difference between the smell of smoke coming from oak vs hickory vs pecan, or food prepared using the smoke from each?

I would wager that a lot of people could. Another test. Fire a smoker up tomorrow and burn some hickory in it. Ask some people to just stand there and smell it's goodness. Fire the same smoker up the next day with some Mesquite. Ask the same people to once again stand there and smell it's goodness. then ask them if today's smoke smells different than yesterdays. I'd wager that a huge percentage would say "yeah, it smells quite different".

Or, even think of your own experience. have you ever walked up on someone else smoking, taken a nice deep breath and said "Ah, I love the smell of mesquite". You would be more of an expert and could identify the right name, but just the fact that you can smell the difference proves the point.

But because there are only a handful of different woods are in common use for cooking, I count 7, and some of those woods may not even be available at the local Home Depot for some of us depending upon where we live, well then yes, if the choices are much narrower than those seven I mention, then from an ability of the average person to smell or taste the difference between those few examples, from a practical standpoint, wood just might be wood.

Again, that's not the case. That a person can't identify the flavor profiles of woods by name doesn't mean that they can't taste the difference. That's kind of been my point.

What would it be designed for?

The claim that started all this was that "wood is wood", "smoke is smoke", that smoke from one species of wood tastes the same as smoke from another species.



Your test basically is a "How much of an expert are you wrt flavor profiles of different woods".

My test has a different aim, it's to answer this: "Does all wood smoke have the same flavor profile? Or do different woods produce different flavors" ?

 

[MisplacedTexan]

Where do I sign up to be a volunteer for this BBQ / Beer taste test!

I would be very interested in sampling 21 plates of BBQ and 3 different beers!

Although, I may have to sample everything 2 - 3 times to ensure accurate results!

 

[SlowmotionQue]

.....<snip>

My test has a different aim, it's to answer this: "Does all wood smoke have the same flavor profile? Or do different woods produce different flavors" ?

What's it matter if the average person can't tell or detect the difference and can't taste it?

They may or may not. But from a practical standpoint, if one cannot tell the difference then what does it matter?

For those people, smoke is smoke.

This discussion reminds me of some of the old total harmonic distortion arguments amongst some audiophiles back in the day.

Some of the differences, were inaudible. Yes, they were measurable with sensitive instruments. But to most human ears, some of it, indeed most if not all of it, could not even be heard.

Was there a difference? Yes. But the average person could not perceive it.

 

[Demosthenes9]

What's it matter if the average person can't tell the difference?

They may or may not. But from a practical standpoint, if one cannot tell the difference then what does it matter?

This discussion reminds me of some of the old total harmonic distortion arguments amongst some audiophiles back in the day.

Some of the differences, were inaudible. Yes, they were measurable with sensitive instruments. But to most human ears, some of it was inaudible.

If most people couldn't tell the difference between different woods in the test, that would be a result. The test would have worked and done what it was designed to do.

And yeah, same type of thing with videophiles and 720 vs 1080p.

 

[SlowmotionQue]

If most people couldn't tell the difference between different woods in the test, that would be a result. The test would have worked and done what it was designed to do.

Not according to what you say the aim of the test would be.

Yes, I'd agree that if most people couldn't tell the difference between different woods in the test, that would indeed be "a" result.

However I understood you to say that the "aim" of your test, or what your test was designed to do was:

...My test has a different aim, it's to answer this: "Does all wood smoke have the same flavor profile? Or do different woods produce different flavors" ?

If a result of "most people couldn't tell the difference between woods in the test", was obtained, well then that would not necessarily meet what you say would have been the "aim" of the test, and thus the test would not have done what it was designed to do.

Such a result would not definitively answer whether or not all woods produce different flavors.

It wouldn't answer that question one way or the other.

But rather that particular result, would only indicate that even "if" they do produce different flavors, then "most" of the people in your test, could not taste it.

And practically speaking, for those people, in terms of taste, smoke would be smoke.

However while a result of "most cannot tell the difference" is just "a" result, it at the same time, leaves the possibility that "some" in the test, have successfully matched each meat with the wood that it was smoked with.

Now how many of that "some" who successfully did that, may have done so through nothing more than a guess, would have to be considered as well.

This brings us back to those 7 common woods used for smoking.

The odds of successfully matching all 7 woods with their respective meats through smell and taste would of course be considerably higher than matching 2 different woods with two different meat samples.

While I know of no formal testing where average consumers were asked to distinguish between the smell of different types of wood smoke or the taste of barbecue done using various woods, I would not expect that the average consumer, would be able to consistently tell the difference unless the difference were a marked difference.

And yeah, same type of thing with videophiles and 720 vs 1080p.

I'm not surprised.

...I would wager that a lot of people could.

Depending upon the background of the group of people, and which woods you were asking them to distinguish between, that wager could be a perilous one.

Many people just aren't into barbecue at all and eat it only during holidays and not even all holidays. They soak wood chips from whatever bag of wood chips was on sale. That's if they even use wood chips.

If test subjects are coming from that group, well then I feel even more confident in my predictions. Especially if Mesquite were not among the test woods.

If there is a difference in taste between the other 6 choices, or that other 6 bags of wood chips they're having a sale on, well then they likely never noticed it. And still won't.

Another test. Fire a smoker up tomorrow and burn some hickory in it. Ask some people to just stand there and smell it's goodness. Fire the same smoker up the next day with some Mesquite. Ask the same people to once again stand there and smell it's goodness. then ask them if today's smoke smells different than yesterdays. I'd wager that a huge percentage would say "yeah, it smells quite different".

Yes, I conceded earlier that Mesquite would likely be easier for many to pick out of a lineup. And yes, they may not know what to call it. But even so, they'd likely know that it was "different" from for instance, peach.

This much I mentioned earlier.

Or, even think of your own experience. have you ever walked up on someone else smoking, taken a nice deep breath and said "Ah, I love the smell of mesquite". You would be more of an expert and could identify the right name, but just the fact that you can smell the difference proves the point.

Again, with the exception of Mesquite, out of the 7 common woods used for smoking in the U.S, hickory, oak, pecan, apple, cherry, peach, Mesquite, my wager would be that most people will not be able to tell the difference in smell between them until they got to Mesquite.

Again, that's not the case. That a person can't identify the flavor profiles of woods by name doesn't mean that they can't taste the difference. That's kind of been my point.

I'm not saying that they necessarily even have to know the woods by "name".

You could even assign each wood a "number" and each of the 7 plates of meat a "number" as well. Forget the name.

And my bet is that many if not most of the subjects tested, would not even be able to successfully match up the numbers.

In other words,

"this is smoke from wood number one. take a whiff.

and then

"in front of you are 7 plates. take a whiff and a taste of all 7. Now, which of the 7 was smoked with wood number one?

and then go on down the line, letting the subject smell smoke from wood number 2, put the 7 plates in from of him, let him smell and taste them, and then have him tell you which plate was smoked using wood number 2.

Proceed in like manner testing the subject using smoke from woods 3,4,5,6 and 7.

If one really wanted to make it interesting, then don't eliminate any of the plates for the next test, but offer up all seven plates each time a smoke sample was whiffed by the subject. Leave all seven plates in the game after each whiff of smoke, but rearrange their order.

My bet is that until you got to Mesquite, the average subject would fail miserably.

I'd also bet that many would whiff one plume of smoke number one, or on down the line, and would assign that same plume of smoke to say plate #6 on one try and plate #4 on another.

Finally one could randomly repeat the smoke samples and ask the subject "have you smelled this smoke earlier in this test? If so then which number was it?" Some will answer incorrectly there too.

 

[ChrisBarb]

Not sure I could differentiate between various fruit woods. But I sure as hell could taste mesquite.

 

[pjtexas1]

just my .02, not trying to get into the argument. i mostly burn post oak in my offset and pecan in my charcoal cookers. i never really pay attention too much but yesterday when i dropped a couple of wood chunks on the hot coals i could definitely tell it was pecan vs post oak. i will have to try to pay attention the next time i drop some cherry on the coals to see if it smells different to me. i am really enjoying this conversation.

 

[SlowmotionQue]

Not sure I could differentiate between various fruit woods. But I sure as hell could taste mesquite.

What you're describing is part of my point.

But let me say though that no, I don't believe that every tree on this planet smells the same when it burns.

But what I am saying is that if there were six different smoke samples offered up to a subject, he might identify all 6 as different, or he may only identify 5. Or 4, or 3 or they may all smell the same to him, in which case none of them would be "different". At least not to him anyway.

If 1,3 and 5 are actually different woods, but those three smell the same to him, then he'd only identify or seperate a total of 4 different smells out of the 6 possible different woods.

If 1, 3, 4 and 5 all smelled the same to him then he'd only identify 3 different smells.

If only woods 1,3,4 and 5 were available to him whenever and wherever he bought smoke wood, well then for him.....smoke would be smoke.

 

[Muscrat]

Mesquite. We're finished here.

BOOM!!!!

That's what I'm screaming. Mainly cause I have 200 acres of it!!!

 

[mikebrinda]

After reading all this, and more elsewhere, I am convinced of one thing:

BBQ and fishing have a whole lot in common.

 

[IXL]

Where were these two guys when I was in high school? There's about 85% of a pretty good term paper just in the last couple of pages of this thread.

 

[Demosthenes9]

heh, this is getting to be like a bad Rocky movie where each of us take turns landing haymakers :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Not according to what you say the aim of the test would be.

Yes, I'd agree that if most people couldn't tell the difference between different woods in the test, that would indeed be "a" result.

However I understood you to say that the "aim" of your test, or what your test was designed to do was:



If a result of "most people couldn't tell the difference between woods in the test", was obtained, well then that would not necessarily meet what you say would have been the "aim" of the test, and thus the test would not have done what it was designed to do.

Such a result would not definitively answer whether or not all woods produce different flavors.

It wouldn't answer that question one way or the other.

But rather that particular result, would only indicate that even "if" they do produce different flavors, then "most" of the people in your test, could not taste it.

And practically speaking, for those people, in terms of taste, smoke would be smoke.

However while a result of "most cannot tell the difference" is just "a" result, it at the same time, leaves the possibility that "some" in the test, have successfully matched each meat with the wood that it was smoked with.

Now how many of that "some" who successfully did that, may have done so through nothing more than a guess, would have to be considered as well.

The test does answer the question and it does so in more ways than one. First, as you note, perhaps only a very small percentage of people would be able to tell the difference between all of the woods or some of them. This would answer the technical question of whether or not the woods gave off different flavors. Since at least SOME people could tell the difference, the answer would be "yes".

As you noted, there's a practical component as well. If the vast majority couldn't taste a difference between the woods, then for "practical purposes", "wood is wood, smoke is smoke". Again, question answered.


In reading your responses and thinking about them, it dawned on me that the test in question would tell us even more once you go in and start sifting the data. Forgive me here as it's been quite some time since I sat through a Marketing or Stats class, so I'm more than a bit rusty and not up on the correct terminology. But, as with any kind of poll/test, the more tests/results the better. As the data set increases, you can begin to make more and more inferences from that data.


On one hand, you can start dividing people into groups based on their ability to differentiate. On one side you'd have a group who can't tell a difference between any of the woods. On the other end of the spectrum, those who were able to differentiate all the woods. In the middle groups you'd have people of various levels of success.

From that data, you could then start to compare one species of wood to others. Or even groups of woods to other groups. For example, the data might indicate that X % of people have no trouble distinguishing between peach and hickory. Or that y% can taste a difference between pecan and apple.

Digging further into the results, it might turn out that certain woods are really close in flavor and difficult to distinguish between one or the other.

This brings us back to those 7 common woods used for smoking.

The odds of successfully matching all 7 woods with their respective meats through smell and taste would of course be considerably higher than matching 2 different woods with two different meat samples.

While I know of no formal testing where average consumers were asked to distinguish between the smell of different types of wood smoke or the taste of barbecue done using various woods, I would not expect that the average consumer, would be able to consistently tell the difference unless the difference were a marked difference.

Will address below...

Depending upon the background of the group of people, and which woods you were asking them to distinguish between, that wager could be a perilous one.

Many people just aren't into barbecue at all and eat it only during holidays and not even all holidays. They soak wood chips from whatever bag of wood chips was on sale. That's if they even use wood chips.

If test subjects are coming from that group, well then I feel even more confident in my predictions. Especially if Mesquite were not among the test woods.

If there is a difference in taste between the other 6 choices, or that other 6 bags of wood chips they're having a sale on, well then they likely never noticed it. And still won't.

I disagree here. Sure, some might grab whatever is on sale, but it's possible that while they might taste a difference, they aren't overly partial to one or the other, so they grab what is cheapest.

Yes, I conceded earlier that Mesquite would likely be easier for many to pick out of a lineup. And yes, they may not know what to call it. But even so, they'd likely know that it was "different" from for instance, peach.

This much I mentioned earlier.

Cool.

Again, with the exception of Mesquite, out of the 7 common woods used for smoking in the U.S, hickory, oak, pecan, apple, cherry, peach, Mesquite, my wager would be that most people will not be able to tell the difference in smell between them until they got to Mesquite.

I haven't tried any kind of testing with all the woods, but I can tell you for sure that a couple of friends and family members have no trouble distinguishing between the smell of burning hickory and apple or the taste.

I'm not saying that they necessarily even have to know the woods by "name".

You could even assign each wood a "number" and each of the 7 plates of meat a "number" as well. Forget the name.

And my bet is that many if not most of the subjects tested, would not even be able to successfully match up the numbers.

In other words,

"this is smoke from wood number one. take a whiff.

and then

"in front of you are 7 plates. take a whiff and a taste of all 7. Now, which of the 7 was smoked with wood number one?

and then go on down the line, letting the subject smell smoke from wood number 2, put the 7 plates in from of him, let him smell and taste them, and then have him tell you which plate was smoked using wood number 2.

Proceed in like manner testing the subject using smoke from woods 3,4,5,6 and 7.

If one really wanted to make it interesting, then don't eliminate any of the plates for the next test, but offer up all seven plates each time a smoke sample was whiffed by the subject. Leave all seven plates in the game after each whiff of smoke, but rearrange their order.

My bet is that until you got to Mesquite, the average subject would fail miserably.

I'd also bet that many would whiff one plume of smoke number one, or on down the line, and would assign that same plume of smoke to say plate #6 on one try and plate #4 on another.

Finally one could randomly repeat the smoke samples and ask the subject "have you smelled this smoke earlier in this test? If so then which number was it?" Some will answer incorrectly there too.

Again with the matching. I'm not asking them to match and matching or not matching doesn't accurately test the question. hell, I can't smell cheeses then taste cheeses and correctly match which smell went with which taste. But I sure can taste some Mozz and then some Jack and tell you that they are different cheeses.


Simple straight forward test. here are two pieces of meat that have been smoked. Do they taste the same or do they taste different ? <cleanse palate> here are two more, same or different ? <cleanse palate> Here are two more, same or different? <cleanse palate> Here are yet two more, same or different ? ...

 

[mikebrinda]

For what it's worth:

https://tmbbq.com/what-i-learned-at-brisket-camp

 

[BigKing]

I've noticed the difference in smells when using different woods on the PBC but I wouldn't be able to tell them apart in a blind taste test, although I haven't used mesquite yet.

Not sure if this is because the charcoal is still the primary driver of the cook as opposed to an all-wood cook.

 

[Jason TQ]

Has this transitioned into one of those "spanking machine" threads yet??

..............oh this........this isn't WP?..........sorry..........

Clearly these tests will never happen in the capacity to get an actual statistically significant sampl size, but the idea certainly is fun :-D. I'd guess the folks that say they can tell the difference could get maybe ~50% correct when trying to identify 6 different woods.

But even if you setup the test once (say 6 cookers, 6 woods types or whatever you want to test) and they got more correct (or less correct) that still isn't a significant sample size for a person (on either side) to say "I told you so" :-D.

Not sure what that number of tests would be yet, but again......I certainly like the idea of it happening.

 

[dummy que]

The smoke tasting and/or beer tasting would be very dependent on ones palate. Someone that chugs Natural Light and thinks the McRib is good stuff probably wouldn't know chit from shineola.
BUT, if anybody wanted to go get some beer and fire up the smoker so we could could move on with this little experiment, I think I could sacrifice and suffer through the process of sampling beer and Q.:wink:

slap yah some locust or walnut on your smoker i garentee you will be able to tell the dif. different woods give different flavors the cemistry of smoke demands it