Re: Microwave BBQ recipe?
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that was
> a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry Kool
> Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on.
Liquid smoke was also used.
> Can't
> find it on Google--anyone remember?
I vaguely remember that. A couple of people tried it and said
it was actually pretty good.
--Tedward
Dave Bugg
A tired attempt at a cross-posted troll.
Cross-posting kept intact for credit as a chain-letter.
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan
Mercellus Bohren
oooo...credit! How's that work?
Lynn from Fargo
wrote:
> "Bobs yer uncle" <mcgrisw...@aol.com> wrote
None the less authority than whatzisface at Cook's Illustrated of
America's Test Kitchen fame has given a go ahead nod to Liquid Smoke.
That's what it is. Smoke is a vapor and it that water is cooled
until it condenses and the remaining liquid is smoke. Nothing is
added, it's just concentrated. Doesn't replace the beautiful char on
BBQ and the crusty edges, but you can do it inside in the winter
without a $1500 grill top range.
Lynn in Fargo
whose Mom used it in the olden days (1950s)
Wallace
"Lynn from Fargo" <lynn...@i29.net> wrote in message
news:62cb6d4c-185c-498d...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Shouldn't you just save some of the juice from smoking butts or ribs?
Dave Bugg
> On Nov 18, 3:50 pm, "The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@eio.com>
> wrote:
>> "Bobs yer uncle" <mcgrisw...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>>> A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that
>>> was a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry
>>> Kool Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on.
>>
>> Liquid smoke was also used.
>>
>>> Can't
>>> find it on Google--anyone remember?
>>
>> I vaguely remember that. A couple of people tried it and said
>> it was actually pretty good.
>>
>> --Tedward
>
> None the less authority than whatzisface at Cook's Illustrated of
> America's Test Kitchen fame has given a go ahead nod to Liquid Smoke.
Which is just further confirmation of why I regard their comments, reviews,
and recommendations with a bit of a grain of salt.
> That's what it is. Smoke is a vapor and it that water is cooled
> until it condenses and the remaining liquid is smoke.
No, it is the by-product of smoke, commonly referred to as creosote.
> Nothing is
> added, it's just concentrated. Doesn't replace the beautiful char on
> BBQ and the crusty edges, but you can do it inside in the winter
> without a $1500 grill top range.
Grilling ain't bbq.
--Bryan
Liquid Smoke brand (Colgin's) has vinegar in it. As someone who cooks
over wood on a regular basis, I think that the stuff is best left on
the grocer's shelf. I guess it does go well with Kool-Aid though.
> Lynn in Fargo
> whose Mom used it in the olden days (1950s)
My mom made some nasty things too.
--Bryan
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>>>> A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that
>>>> was a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry
>>>> Kool Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on.
>>>
>>> Liquid smoke was also used.
>>>
>>>> Can't
>>>> find it on Google--anyone remember?
>>>
>>> I vaguely remember that. A couple of people tried it and said
>>> it was actually pretty good.
>>>
>>> --Tedward
>>
>> None the less authority than whatzisface at Cook's Illustrated of
>> America's Test Kitchen fame has given a go ahead nod to Liquid Smoke.
Who's the troll NOW, bucko?
> Which is just further confirmation of why I regard their comments,
> reviews, and recommendations with a bit of a grain of salt.
>
>> That's what it is. Smoke is a vapor and it that water is cooled
>> until it condenses and the remaining liquid is smoke.
>
> No, it is the by-product of smoke, commonly referred to as creosote.
Yeah, right.
Troll: One who posts false information hoping to get "helpful"
corrections. (It's either that, or you should check your
nonsense before posting to the usenet. I always do.)
--Tedward
Nunya Bidnits
> Lynn from Fargo wrote:
clips
>> That's what it is. Smoke is a vapor and it that water is cooled
>> until it condenses and the remaining liquid is smoke.
>
> No, it is the by-product of smoke, commonly referred to as creosote.
>
>> Nothing is
>> added, it's just concentrated. Doesn't replace the beautiful char on
>> BBQ and the crusty edges, but you can do it inside in the winter
>> without a $1500 grill top range.
>
> Grilling ain't bbq.
(stupid crossposting deleted)
But grilling is acceptable content in this group. At least last time I
checked.
Liquid smoke is creosote? OK, then please cite proof.
I'm not a fan of the stuff, but there was a recent food network program
where they showed weird food science stuff and debunked myths, hosted by Ted
Allen, although I don't recall the name of the program, it seems to be off
the air now. They did a test where they took two groups of NYC firemen and
fed them both barbecue spareribs, one prepared traditionally over a wood
fire in smoke, and one prepared in an oven using liquid smoke. Then they
blind tested them to see which they thought was authentic. The majority of
them picked the liquid smoke product as authentic.
MartyB in KC
CaveMan
"Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in message
news:he20e3$1dh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> (stupid crossposting deleted)
No you didn't.
>
>
> MartyB in KC
>
Nonny
here since I have the means to do real smoking.
In the piece mentioned about the test of liquid smoke vs. real
smoking, I think its reasonable to factor in the time limits,
facilities limit and cost limit imposed on so many folk. Not
everyone lives on 6 acres, has a window opening onto a fire
escape, has a balcony/patio or can afford the time to do it
"right."
Even Alton Brown made some liquid smoke on his show once, using a
clay "chiminea(sp?)" and inverting a cold lid to condense the
moisture and cause it to drip into a receptacle. In that case, I
saw little difference in that version of smoke and what would
condense on a cold piece of meat during a cold smoking in my own
Bradley.
--
Nonny
What does it mean when drool runs
out of both sides of a drunken
Congressman's mouth?
The floor is level.
Nunya Bidnits
Oops. My Bad.
Did now.
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg said:
>> Lynn from Fargo wrote:
> clips
>>> That's what it is. Smoke is a vapor and it that water is cooled
>>> until it condenses and the remaining liquid is smoke.
>>
>> No, it is the by-product of smoke, commonly referred to as creosote.
>>
>>> Nothing is
>>> added, it's just concentrated. Doesn't replace the beautiful char
>>> on BBQ and the crusty edges, but you can do it inside in the winter
>>> without a $1500 grill top range.
>>
>> Grilling ain't bbq.
>
> (stupid crossposting deleted)
>
> But grilling is acceptable content in this group. At least last time I
> checked.
I never said it wasn't. Read the content again. I was referring to the use
of bbq in the context of grilling. Now please show me where I stated that
the post shouldn't have been made.
> Liquid smoke is creosote? OK, then please cite proof.
Easy. Take some scrapings of hardened creosote from a chimney. Put the
scapings into a water. Soak overnight. Taste. Voila... liquid smoke.
> I'm not a fan of the stuff, ...
Neither am I, but I've used it in some recipes. That doesn't change the fact
that LS is creosote in solution.
> ....but there was a recent food network
> program where they showed weird food science stuff and debunked
> myths, hosted by Ted Allen, although I don't recall the name of the
> program, it seems to be off the air now. They did a test where they
> took two groups of NYC firemen and fed them both barbecue spareribs,
> one prepared traditionally over a wood fire in smoke, and one
> prepared in an oven using liquid smoke. Then they blind tested them
> to see which they thought was authentic. The majority of them picked
> the liquid smoke product as authentic.
So? A good many folks think the McRib is the height of bbq ecstasy. But if
you think the oven/LS comparison is an equivalent to real bbq, believe me, I
won't try to dissuade you from that opinion. If you don't think that it is
equivalent, then why did you bring it up?
Dave Bugg
> Liquid smoke is creosote? OK, then please cite proof.
Proof? You can't tell me you don't know how the carbon deposits in
chimneys -- which we call creosote -- is formed? Just in case:
From
http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/creosote_from_wood_burning_causes_and_solutions
"The gases leave the burning wood with the smoke. If the smoke is cooled
below 250 degrees F, the gases liquefy, combine, and solidify, forming
creosote. Creosote takes several forms, all bad. As a liquid, it can run
down the insides of pipes and chimneys, oozing out of any openings. It can
form a hard layer coating the insides of pipes and chimney liners. It can
form into a fluffy substance that plugs pipes and breaks off and falls down,
filling low spots in piping. It is the cause of most chimney fires and the
main reason chimneys and pipes have to be cleaned and inspected
periodically."
Liquid smoke is a dilutent of creosote kept in solution.
cybercat
"The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@eio.com> wrote in message
news:he209c$dbd$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
Another fucking bbq freak speaks.
Piet de Arcilla
> On Nov 18, 3:50 pm, "The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@eio.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Bobs yer uncle" <mcgrisw...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > >A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that was
> > > a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry Kool
> > > Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on.
>
> > Liquid smoke was also used.
>
> > > Can't
> > > find it on Google--anyone remember?
>
> > I vaguely remember that. A couple of people tried it and said
> > it was actually pretty good.
>
> > --Tedward
>
> None the less authority than whatzisface at Cook's Illustrated of
> America's Test Kitchen fame has given a go ahead nod to Liquid Smoke.
> That's what it is. Smoke is a vapor and it that water is cooled
> until it condenses and the remaining liquid is smoke. Nothing is
> added, it's just concentrated.
Concentrated carcinogens, I'll warrant.
Nunya Bidnits
>>>
>>> Grilling ain't bbq.
>>
>> (stupid crossposting deleted)
>>
>> But grilling is acceptable content in this group. At least last time
>> I checked.
>
> I never said it wasn't. Read the content again. I was referring to
> the use of bbq in the context of grilling. Now please show me where I
> stated that the post shouldn't have been made.
You didn't. Nor did I say you stated what you just made up.
>
>> Liquid smoke is creosote? OK, then please cite proof.
Well that's not what I had in mind when I asked for a cite, but never mind.
>
> Easy. Take some scrapings of hardened creosote from a chimney. Put the
> scapings into a water. Soak overnight. Taste. Voila... liquid smoke.
>
>> I'm not a fan of the stuff, ...
>
> Neither am I, but I've used it in some recipes. That doesn't change
> the fact that LS is creosote in solution.
>
>> ....but there was a recent food network
>> program where they showed weird food science stuff and debunked
>> myths, hosted by Ted Allen, although I don't recall the name of the
>> program, it seems to be off the air now. They did a test where they
>> took two groups of NYC firemen and fed them both barbecue spareribs,
>> one prepared traditionally over a wood fire in smoke, and one
>> prepared in an oven using liquid smoke. Then they blind tested them
>> to see which they thought was authentic. The majority of them picked
>> the liquid smoke product as authentic.
>
> So? A good many folks think the McRib is the height of bbq ecstasy.
> But if you think the oven/LS comparison is an equivalent to real bbq,
> believe me, I won't try to dissuade you from that opinion. If you
> don't think that it is equivalent, then why did you bring it up?
Just because it was an interesting development. Are you saying I shouldn't
have brought it up for some reason? Do you see one logical bit which says I
agreed with the comparison, and if you got out of it that I said I thought
it was equivalent, you're a much more creative reader than I.
It just points out that people can be fooled fairly easily. Nowhere at all
did *I* say it was a comparison to real barbecue, I explained a comparison
someone else had done. Let me know it that's a problem for ya.
MartyB in KC
Nunya Bidnits
> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>> Liquid smoke is creosote? OK, then please cite proof.
>
> Proof? You can't tell me you don't know how the carbon deposits in
> chimneys -- which we call creosote -- is formed? Just in case:
>
> From
>
http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/creosote_from_wood_burning_causes_and_solutions
>
>
> "The gases leave the burning wood with the smoke. If the smoke is
> cooled below 250 degrees F, the gases liquefy, combine, and solidify,
> forming creosote. Creosote takes several forms, all bad. As a liquid,
> it can run down the insides of pipes and chimneys, oozing out of any
> openings. It can form a hard layer coating the insides of pipes and
> chimney liners. It can form into a fluffy substance that plugs pipes
> and breaks off and falls down, filling low spots in piping. It is the
> cause of most chimney fires and the main reason chimneys and pipes
> have to be cleaned and inspected periodically."
>
> Liquid smoke is a dilutent of creosote kept in solution.
Well I didn't ask for a cite on how creosote is made, I asked for one that
shows liquid smoke as sold as a seasoning is creosote. In other words, I'd
like to see a cite of the last sentence you wrote in your post. It just
doesn't sound quite right. The information you posted only describes
creosote, not liquid smoke. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm asking for a
cite. There's a difference.
MartyB in KC
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
> None the less authority than whatzisface at Cook's Illustrated of
> America's Test Kitchen fame has given a go ahead nod to Liquid Smoke.
> That's what it is. Smoke is a vapor and it that water is cooled
> until it condenses and the remaining liquid is smoke. Nothing is
> added, it's just concentrated.
<
<Concentrated carcinogens, I'll warrant.
Actually they go out of their to remove most of them,
and it is actually safer than grilling. You and that
troll Dave Bugg might to Google how it's made.
It ain't creosote.
--Tedward
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that was
> a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry Kool
> Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on. Can't
> find it on Google--anyone remember?
Still no recipe! Doesn't anyone remember it?
--Tedward
Nunya Bidnits
>
> oooo...credit! How's that work?
Observe...
You are credited with being a pest.
<plonk>
David Harmon
<dave...@yahoo.com> wrote,
>Lynn from Fargo wrote:
>> That's what it is. Smoke is a vapor and it that water is cooled
>> until it condenses and the remaining liquid is smoke.
>
>No, it is the by-product of smoke, commonly referred to as creosote.
It is still the same stuff that gets absorbed from smoke by the meat,
isn't it? If not, what chemically is the difference?
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg crossposted (deleted):
>> I never said it wasn't. Read the content again. I was referring to
>> the use of bbq in the context of grilling. Now please show me where I
>> stated that the post shouldn't have been made.
>
> You didn't. Nor did I say you stated what you just made up.
Then what was the purpose of stating: " But grilling is acceptable content
in this group. At least last time I checked."
>>> Liquid smoke is creosote? OK, then please cite proof.
>
> Well that's not what I had in mind when I asked for a cite, but never
> mind.
>
>>
>> Easy. Take some scrapings of hardened creosote from a chimney. Put
>> the scapings into a water. Soak overnight. Taste. Voila... liquid
>> smoke.
>>
>>> I'm not a fan of the stuff, ...
>>
>> Neither am I, but I've used it in some recipes. That doesn't change
>> the fact that LS is creosote in solution.
>>
>>> ....but there was a recent food network
>>> program where they showed weird food science stuff and debunked
>>> myths, hosted by Ted Allen, although I don't recall the name of the
>>> program, it seems to be off the air now. They did a test where they
>>> took two groups of NYC firemen and fed them both barbecue spareribs,
>>> one prepared traditionally over a wood fire in smoke, and one
>>> prepared in an oven using liquid smoke. Then they blind tested them
>>> to see which they thought was authentic. The majority of them picked
>>> the liquid smoke product as authentic.
>>
>> So? A good many folks think the McRib is the height of bbq ecstasy.
>> But if you think the oven/LS comparison is an equivalent to real bbq,
>> believe me, I won't try to dissuade you from that opinion. If you
>> don't think that it is equivalent, then why did you bring it up?
>
> Just because it was an interesting development.
Fine.
> Are you saying I
> shouldn't have brought it up for some reason?
Nope.
> Do you see one logical bit which says I agreed with the comparison,
Yes, by virtue of including that bit with no comment as to disagreeing with
what the bit concluded, ie oven roasted with LS was preferred to actual bbq.
>and if you got out of it that I said I thought it was equivalent, you're a
>much more creative reader than I.
You were the one that included the bit without explanation as to why nor
with any comment as to agreement or disagreement. I also stated "If you
don't think that it is equivalent, then why did you bring it up?" As you can
read, I asked for further clarification and you provided one. There was no
creative reading involved, just the reading of the words which you wrote.
> It just points out that people can be fooled fairly easily. Nowhere
> at all did *I* say it was a comparison to real barbecue, I explained
> a comparison someone else had done. Let me know it that's a problem
> for ya.
Fair enough. I kinda figured that had to be the case which is why it
surprised me that you included it without any explanation as to why. The
only problem is the snide and patronizing tone implied in your last
sentence. If you have a problem with me, state it up front to my face
instead of the crap that you seem to be throwing my way in several of your
posts.
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg crossposted:
As intended. Crossposting re-added.
>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>> Liquid smoke is creosote? OK, then please cite proof.
>>
>> Proof? You can't tell me you don't know how the carbon deposits in
>> chimneys -- which we call creosote -- is formed? Just in case:
>>
>> From
>>
> http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/creosote_from_wood_burning_causes_and_solutions
>>
>>
>> "The gases leave the burning wood with the smoke. If the smoke is
>> cooled below 250 degrees F, the gases liquefy, combine, and solidify,
>> forming creosote. Creosote takes several forms, all bad. As a liquid,
>> it can run down the insides of pipes and chimneys, oozing out of any
>> openings. It can form a hard layer coating the insides of pipes and
>> chimney liners. It can form into a fluffy substance that plugs pipes
>> and breaks off and falls down, filling low spots in piping. It is the
>> cause of most chimney fires and the main reason chimneys and pipes
>> have to be cleaned and inspected periodically."
>>
>> Liquid smoke is a dilutent of creosote kept in solution.
>
> Well I didn't ask for a cite on how creosote is made, I asked for one
> that shows liquid smoke as sold as a seasoning is creosote.
The same process that creates creosote is the same process that creates
liquid smoke. Wood smoke that is introduced to a cooled surface to create a
precipitate of the particulates.
> In other words, I'd like to see a cite of the last sentence you wrote in
> your
> post. It just doesn't sound quite right. The information you posted
> only describes creosote, not liquid smoke. I'm not saying you're
> wrong, I'm asking for a cite. There's a difference.
I have no cite as I have not looked for one; the process of creating LS is
identical to the process of creating creosote. I'm sure a lot of folks have
observed the same. But let me ask: Aside from allowing the precipitate to
harden, what is the difference between how creosote is formed and how LS is
made? If there is a difference, I'm not aware of it.
Dave Bugg
Nope. What is absorbed into the meat...creating the reddish "smoke ring" are
the nitrates and nitrites which interact with the myoglobin.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_smoke
"During the manufacturing process, smoke condensates, tar, and ash are
removed from the solution. By removing the tar from solution, the
carcinogen level can be reduced considerably."
--
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
- Yogi Berra explaining how to get to his home
which can be reached regardless of which branch
of the fork you take
Bobs yer uncle
wrote:
> "Bobs yer uncle" <mcgrisw...@aol.com> wrote
This isn't exactly it, but what I've tried from memory--you take some
ribs, like those country style ones that are already cut up for you,
and you boil them in some water with a little salt, meat tenderizer
and Accent (tm) then you put them in the microwave until they start to
sing, and curl up a little. Then you put your "rub" which is made of
cherry Kool-Aid (the trick is to use the name brand Kool-Aid, no cheap
imitation "knock offs") some seasoning salt and some Liquid Smoke,
then you crisp them up nicely under the broiler (that's the top heater
in your oven), serve with a nice BBQ sauce like Kraft's (again spend
the extra money on the "real thing") and enjoy!!!!
I like to serve them with Van De Kamp's baked beans and sometimes I'll
splurge and buy an extra large container of cole slaw from Kroger's.
PS: If the ribs are too chewy, it means you haven't boiled them long
enough.
Bobs yer uncle
Forgot to mention that you just use the unsweetened Kool-Aid powder,
you don't actually use the drink mixed up except when your ribs are
done and you need something to wash it down with.
Mark Thorson
>
> David Harmon wrote:
> >
> > It is still the same stuff that gets absorbed from smoke by the meat,
> > isn't it? If not, what chemically is the difference?
>
> Nope. What is absorbed into the meat...creating the reddish "smoke ring" are
> the nitrates and nitrites which interact with the myoglobin.
If that's the case, what causes the smoke ring
in smoked fresh meats, which have not been treated
with curing salts?
Dave Bugg
Again: the nitrates and nitrites in the smoke interacting with the
myoglobin. Now, please tell me where I mentioned curing salts?
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
> > >A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that was
> > > a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry Kool
> > > Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on. Can't
> > > find it on Google--anyone remember?
>
> > Still no recipe! Doesn't anyone remember it?
>
> > --Tedward
>
> This isn't exactly it, but what I've tried from memory--you take some
> ribs, like those country style ones that are already cut up for you,
> and you boil them in some water with a little salt, meat tenderizer
> and Accent (tm) then you put them in the microwave until they start to
> sing, and curl up a little. Then you put your "rub" which is made of
> cherry Kool-Aid (the trick is to use the name brand Kool-Aid, no cheap
> imitation "knock offs") some seasoning salt and some Liquid Smoke,
> then you crisp them up nicely under the broiler (that's the top heater
> in your oven), serve with a nice BBQ sauce like Kraft's (again spend
> the extra money on the "real thing") and enjoy!!!!
>
> I like to serve them with Van De Kamp's baked beans and sometimes I'll
> splurge and buy an extra large container of cole slaw from Kroger's.
I'm kinda partial to Bush's baked beans. This is sorta like Coke
and Pepsi.
> PS: If the ribs are too chewy, it means you haven't boiled them long
> enough.
<
<Forgot to mention that you just use the unsweetened Kool-Aid powder,
That was pretty clear already. Putting the Kool-Aid drink on ribs
would be just plain silly.
I'll probably try the recipe this weekend and if I do, I'll post the
results to the chatrooms.
--Tedward
Steve Pope
>David Harmon wrote:
[liquid smoke]
>> It is still the same stuff that gets absorbed from smoke by the meat,
>> isn't it? If not, what chemically is the difference?
Yes.
>Nope. What is absorbed into the meat...creating the reddish "smoke ring" are
>the nitrates and nitrites which interact with the myoglobin.
The "smoke ring" is the result of nitrogen gases combining with
myoglobin and occurs in some (not all) BBQ'ed, smoked-infused meat.
The smoke infusion itself (of meat, or vegetables for that
matter, which contain no myoglobin) contains the same substances as
are in liquid smoke. Not identially the same, I am sure --
any difference in process results in some different
chemistry -- but substantially the same.
Steve
Mercellus Bohren
tool
David V. Loewe, Jr
<e...@eio.com> wrote:
>"Bobs yer uncle" <mcgri...@aol.com> wrote
>
>> > >A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that was
>> > > a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry Kool
>> > > Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on. Can't
>> > > find it on Google--anyone remember?
>>
>> > Still no recipe! Doesn't anyone remember it?
>> This isn't exactly it, but what I've tried from memory--you take some
>> ribs, like those country style ones that are already cut up for you,
>> and you boil them in some water with a little salt, meat tenderizer
>> and Accent (tm) then you put them in the microwave until they start to
>> sing, and curl up a little. Then you put your "rub" which is made of
>> cherry Kool-Aid (the trick is to use the name brand Kool-Aid, no cheap
>> imitation "knock offs") some seasoning salt and some Liquid Smoke,
>> then you crisp them up nicely under the broiler (that's the top heater
>> in your oven), serve with a nice BBQ sauce like Kraft's (again spend
>> the extra money on the "real thing") and enjoy!!!!
>>
>> I like to serve them with Van De Kamp's baked beans and sometimes I'll
>> splurge and buy an extra large container of cole slaw from Kroger's.
>
>I'm kinda partial to Bush's baked beans. This is sorta like Coke
>and Pepsi.
>
>> PS: If the ribs are too chewy, it means you haven't boiled them long
>> enough.
><
><Forgot to mention that you just use the unsweetened Kool-Aid powder,
>
>That was pretty clear already. Putting the Kool-Aid drink on ribs
>would be just plain silly.
Why not just put red food coloring on?
>I'll probably try the recipe this weekend and if I do, I'll post the
>results to the chatrooms.
--
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass"
Ian Anderson
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg <dave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> David Harmon wrote:
>
> [liquid smoke]
>
>>> It is still the same stuff that gets absorbed from smoke by the
>>> meat, isn't it? If not, what chemically is the difference?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Nope. What is absorbed into the meat...creating the reddish "smoke
>> ring" are the nitrates and nitrites which interact with the
>> myoglobin.
>
> The "smoke ring" is the result of nitrogen gases combining with
> myoglobin and occurs in some (not all) BBQ'ed, smoked-infused meat.
No, it is not. It is as I stated.
> The smoke infusion itself (of meat, or vegetables for that
> matter, which contain no myoglobin) contains the same substances as
> are in liquid smoke. Not identially the same, I am sure --
> any difference in process results in some different
> chemistry -- but substantially the same.
Not at all, Steve. Now, if you put cold meat into a pit, or use heavy smoke,
you can get a precipitate -- a lot of pit masters refer to it as
"creosote" -- from the smoke that is the exact same as liquid smoke. What
infuses into the meat during bbq is not the same as LS. In fact, once you
get past the bark, there isn't much of anything resembling a 'smoke' taste.
Nick Cramer
Observe...
You are credited with cross-posting! LOL
--
Nick, KI6VAV. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their
families: https://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/ Thank a Veteran!
Support Our Troops: http://anymarine.com/ You are not forgotten.
Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~ USMC 1365061
Bobs yer uncle
wrote:> >"Bobs yer uncle" <mcgrisw...@aol.com> wrote
But red food coloring won't react with the mycoglobin the way that
Kool-Aid does.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Dave Bugg <dave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Nope. What is absorbed into the meat...creating the reddish "smoke
>>> ring" are the nitrates and nitrites which interact with the
>>> myoglobin.
>> The "smoke ring" is the result of nitrogen gases combining with
>> myoglobin and occurs in some (not all) BBQ'ed, smoked-infused meat.
>No, it is not. It is as I stated.
Well, I do agree that nitrite ions are formed when nitrogen
gases reach the moisture within the meat. Not so sure about
nitrates.
>> The smoke infusion itself (of meat, or vegetables for that
>> matter, which contain no myoglobin) contains the same substances as
>> are in liquid smoke. Not identially the same, I am sure --
>> any difference in process results in some different
>> chemistry -- but substantially the same.
>Not at all, Steve. Now, if you put cold meat into a pit, or use heavy smoke,
>you can get a precipitate -- a lot of pit masters refer to it as
>"creosote" -- from the smoke that is the exact same as liquid smoke. What
>infuses into the meat during bbq is not the same as LS. In fact, once you
>get past the bark, there isn't much of anything resembling a 'smoke' taste.
Interesting. So basically, you are saying that liquid smoke
contains a certain fraction of the compounds that were in the original
smoke, whereas typical BBQ is infused with a substantially different
fraction of the compounds from the smoke, and so they are very different.
I can't disagree with this; I know they are somewhat different, but
I wouldn't have guessed the difference to be "creosote" vs. "non-creosote".
Thank you for this information.
I apologize for not noticing the crossposts (dings self);
if I post further to this topic it will be just to RFC.
Steve
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> >>
> >> David Harmon wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It is still the same stuff that gets absorbed from smoke by the
> >>> meat, isn't it? If not, what chemically is the difference?
> >>
> >> Nope. What is absorbed into the meat...creating the reddish "smoke
> >> ring" are the nitrates and nitrites which interact with the
> >> myoglobin.
> >
> > If that's the case, what causes the smoke ring
> > in smoked fresh meats, which have not been treated
> > with curing salts?
>
> Again: the nitrates and nitrites in the smoke interacting with the
> myoglobin. Now, please tell me where I mentioned curing salts?
Where do the nitrates and nitrites in smoke
come from, assuming wood that has simply been
dried, and not treated with anything? Nitrates
and nitrates are oxidizers, so why would they
even be emitted by heated wood chips, rather
than being consumed by oxidation reactions with
other components of the wood, like cellulose?
David Harmon
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote,
>The "smoke ring" is the result of nitrogen gases combining with
>myoglobin and occurs in some (not all) BBQ'ed, smoked-infused meat.
Nitrogen gas is 80% of air, so why isn't there a smoke ring
from nitrogen gas in the roast I baked in my oven?
Nunya Bidnits
Then you don't do a very good job of understanding the difference between
reporting something, advocating it, and agreeing with it. I simply reported
on what I had seen in a program. Try to grasp that fact.
>
>> and if you got out of it that I said I thought it was equivalent,
>> you're a much more creative reader than I.
>
> You were the one that included the bit without explanation as to why
> nor with any comment as to agreement or disagreement.
And from that you couldn't figure out that I was reporting, and not
agreeing, disagreeing or advocating what it said? That's too bad, I think
almost anyone would have figured that out.
>I also stated
> "If you don't think that it is equivalent, then why did you bring it
> up?" As you can read, I asked for further clarification and you
> provided one. There was no creative reading involved, just the
> reading of the words which you wrote.
The reading of words in which you inserted the notion that somehow I was
agreeing or advocating what I reported, which I clearly did not.
>
>> It just points out that people can be fooled fairly easily. Nowhere
>> at all did *I* say it was a comparison to real barbecue, I explained
>> a comparison someone else had done. Let me know it that's a problem
>> for ya.
>
> Fair enough. I kinda figured that had to be the case which is why it
> surprised me that you included it without any explanation as to why.
It really didn't need an explanation. The discussion had gone to liquid
smoke, and I reported something I had seen relative to barbecue, liquid
smoke, and whether people could tell the difference in one particular test.
> The only problem is the snide and patronizing tone implied in your
> last sentence. If you have a problem with me, state it up front to my
> face instead of the crap that you seem to be throwing my way in
> several of your posts.
Fuck off, you've turned into a jerk. It's a shame, I used to admire you, you
were the defacto leader of this group, and you stuck up for what was right
and keeping it on track. Now, apparently you're just a combative, flaming,
troll following curmudgeon who spends most of his time alienating people and
primarily getting into flame wars with whatever troll owns you lately.
It's a shame.
MartyB in KC
Nunya Bidnits
> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>> Dave Bugg crossposted:
>
> As intended. Crossposting re-added.
Yanno what, prick? I didn't post to that fucked up rec.food.cooking for a
reason, and you have no right whatsoever to add it back to my post. You've
become an asshole. And an internet bad citizen to boot, oh flaming troll
following buffoon.
Fuck this thread, I just asked for a cite on something and you again become
an ass.
And your crosspost was deleted, as it should have been to begin with. Don't
you ever add another recipient to one of my posts ever again. You know damn
good and well only jerks do crap like that. If I had wanted to post to that
troll and flame infested cesspool, I would have done it, and I didn't, and
if you don't respect that, fuck you.
Nunya Bidnits
> "Nunya Bidnits" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Mercellus Bohren said:
>
>>> oooo...credit! How's that work?
>>
>> Observe...
>>
>> You are credited with being a pest.
>>
>> <plonk>
>
> Observe...
>
> You are credited with cross-posting! LOL
ROFL! True enough, my bad, but at least it went where the perp could see it.
MBKC
--Bryan
You are just the sort of slob I had in mind when I devised a creative
punishment for the 9-11 mastermind, KSM.
An ignorant dude who precooks ribs in the microwave, rubs them in Kool-
Aid, slathers them with Kraft sauce, and eats them with plenty of
canned pork'n beans and Kroger's coleslaw could serve his country
well. The terrorist could be put in a deep pit and folks like you
could defecate on him from above. I can't imagine a meal that'd
produce nastier scat. You could wait until he was starting to dig in
to a plate of Halal goat meat, and right onto his head and his plate
would fall a load of porky hellishness.
--Bryan
Nonny
"Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in
message news:he2l5t$ib6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dave Bugg crossposted:
>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>> Liquid smoke is creosote? OK, then please cite proof.
>>
>> "The gases leave the burning wood with the smoke. If the smoke
>> is
>> cooled below 250 degrees F, the gases liquefy, combine, and
>> solidify,
>> forming creosote. Creosote takes several forms, all bad. As a
>> liquid,
>> it can run down the insides of pipes and chimneys, oozing out
>> of any
>> openings. It can form a hard layer coating the insides of pipes
>> and
>> chimney liners. It can form into a fluffy substance that plugs
>> pipes
>> and breaks off and falls down, filling low spots in piping. It
>> is the
>> cause of most chimney fires and the main reason chimneys and
>> pipes
>> have to be cleaned and inspected periodically."
>>
>> Liquid smoke is a dilutent of creosote kept in solution.
No comment on the personal stuff or flames, guys. What I recall
from Chemistry 3xx was the process of FRACTIONAL distillation.
There, by cooling vapors at decreasing temperatures, it was
possible to condense different fractions of the vapor. This is
what Oil companies do, what distillers do etc. No comment but a
question: is it possible that the creosote we find in chimneys is
a superfraction of the distillate, where liquid smoke is just one
of the fractions?
For instance, Bradley sells their smoker and pucks on the theme
that by not letting the pucks burn, but just smolder at a low
temp, far less creosote is formed and the smoke is "sweeter."
--
Nonny
What does it mean when drool runs
out of both sides of a drunken
Congressman’s mouth?
The floor is level.
Nonny
"Bobs yer uncle" <mcgri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5096cbe7-1896-4b33...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
What happened to using Saltpeter for maintaining the color of
meat?
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> David Harmon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is still the same stuff that gets absorbed from smoke by the
>>>>> meat, isn't it? If not, what chemically is the difference?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. What is absorbed into the meat...creating the reddish "smoke
>>>> ring" are the nitrates and nitrites which interact with the
>>>> myoglobin.
>>>
>>> If that's the case, what causes the smoke ring
>>> in smoked fresh meats, which have not been treated
>>> with curing salts?
>>
>> Again: the nitrates and nitrites in the smoke interacting with the
>> myoglobin. Now, please tell me where I mentioned curing salts?
>
> Where do the nitrates and nitrites in smoke
> come from, assuming wood that has simply been
> dried, and not treated with anything?
It is a by-product of the combustion process. Please find a book on curing
and smoking of meats. This is not special, unique, or tightly held
knowledge.
> Nitrates
> and nitrates are oxidizers, so why would they
> even be emitted by heated wood chips, rather
> than being consumed by oxidation reactions with
> other components of the wood, like cellulose?
Why would they not? If your suppositions were true, then why would any
by-products of wood smoke exist at all in the face of combustion? Obviously,
combustion of wood is not a complete combustion, otherwise there would be no
visible smoke or measurable particulates or the range of gases that are
emitted.
sf
OK, I get that you don't like Dave. Let me get this straight... you
*didn't* start this cross posting? If so, thank you for clarifying.
Please strip rfc from the xpost list any chance you get.
Thank you.
--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg said:
>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg crossposted:
>>
>> As intended. Crossposting re-added.
>
> Yanno what, prick? I didn't post to that fucked up rec.food.cooking
> for a reason, and you have no right whatsoever to add it back to my
> post.
<laughing> I didn't add it to your post, I added it to mine. Since you
replied to me originally and by use of your logic, then you had no right to
delete the crossposting from MY post.
BTW, You left the crossposting in with this reply you made. Thanks, now I
don't need to add it back in.
> You've become an asshole. And an internet bad citizen to boot,
> oh flaming troll following buffoon.
You forgot to call me the spawn of satan and a boor.
> Fuck this thread, I just asked for a cite on something and you again
> become an ass.
The 'cite' thing was explained. I have no idea why that would make you
respond as you have.
> And your crosspost was deleted, as it should have been to begin with.
> Don't you ever add another recipient to one of my posts ever again.
Or what? BTW, when I reply to anything you write, that reply is MY post. I
have no ability to add a thing to anything YOU post.
> You know damn good and well only jerks do crap like that. If I had
> wanted to post to that troll and flame infested cesspool, I would
> have done it, and I didn't, and if you don't respect that, fuck you.
You jumped into the thread after I did when the thread was crossposted.
Nobody MADE you post, nor did anyone change anything you sent here to any
other NG. The fact that you can't control what and how I post seems to have
upset you. Since I do not control your emotions, your choice to behave as
you are is not my responsibility.
Dave Bugg
....Snip of apologist nonsense made as purported reasonable responses.
> Fuck off, you've turned into a jerk. It's a shame, I used to admire
> you, you were the defacto leader of this group, and you stuck up for
> what was right and keeping it on track. Now, apparently you're just a
> combative, flaming, troll following curmudgeon who spends most of his
> time alienating people and primarily getting into flame wars with
> whatever troll owns you lately.
<snicker> Whether I have changed is a matter of individual perception. That
you personally disapprove of and are upset about how I participate is your
problem, not mine. I don't care about anyone's perception of me anymore than
I care about whether my eating meat bothers vegetarians or whether my
owning guns makes a gunphobic nervous and upset.
Rather than simply ignoring whatever I post or even kilfiling me, you choose
to behave in the very way that you state that you deplore, as is evidenced
in various posts lately and by the paragraph above. Very curious, that.
During the past 8 weeks two major events have occured 1. I was involved in a
near fatal (for me and my son) car crash which WAS fatal for the driver
that ran a stop sign. It undid all of the progress I made from my back
surgery in June. I was scheduled to return to work. Oral medications are
now useless against the pain. Next Tuesday I visit a pain specialist to
decide how best to infiltrate my spine with catheter-delivered medications,
perhaps using an infusion pump.
2) Jill and I have suffered the deaths of two family members, her mother and
one of my brothers.
I state this, Rich, because your disapproval is nothing compared to other
things. I have been posting over these last weeks to have a distraction, not
to meet your needs. It was not my wish to alienate you or anyone else, but
thems the breaks.
Dave Bugg
What? No flames? That's what burns off creosote formation isn't it?
> ..... No comment but a
> question: is it possible that the creosote we find in chimneys is
> a superfraction of the distillate, where liquid smoke is just one
> of the fractions?
Yup. That's what I believe it is.
Dave Bugg
>
> I state this, [Rich], ....
Sorry, Marty, about screwing up the name.
Mark Thorson
There will be copious amounts of carbon monoxide
in smoke. Carbon monoxide is not completely
burnt, and it can in fact be used as a fuel gas
as is the case in synthetic gas made from coal.
If there were gaseous nitrates or nitrites in
the smoke, that would be a powerful oxidizer.
Why would they not combust with the carbon
monoxide? That would be like having a stream
of hydrogen combined with a stream of oxygen
in the presence of a flame.
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
[Redacted!]
Please, this is a family chatroom I'm posting to.
--Tedward
Food Snob®
wrote:
> "--Bryan" <class...@brick.net> wrote
No it isn't. It's a Usenet group.
>
> --Tedward
--Bryan
WTF
<e...@eio.com> wrote:
-->"--Bryan" <clas...@brick.net> wrote
-->
-->> > > >A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that
-->> > > >was
-->> > > > a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry Kool
-->> > > > Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on.
-->> > > > Can't
-->> > > > find it on Google--anyone remember?
-->>
-->> > > Still no recipe! Doesn't anyone remember it?
-->>
-->> > > --Tedward
-->>
-->> > This isn't exactly it, but what I've tried from memory--you take some
-->> > ribs, like those country style ones that are already cut up for you,
-->> > and you boil them in some water with a little salt, meat tenderizer
-->> > and Accent (tm) then you put them in the microwave until they start to
-->> > sing, and curl up a little. Then you put your "rub" which is made of
-->> > cherry Kool-Aid (the trick is to use the name brand Kool-Aid, no cheap
-->> > imitation "knock offs") some seasoning salt and some Liquid Smoke,
-->> > then you crisp them up nicely under the broiler (that's the top heater
-->> > in your oven), serve with a nice BBQ sauce like Kraft's (again spend
-->> > the extra money on the "real thing") and enjoy!!!!
-->>
-->> > I like to serve them with Van De Kamp's baked beans and sometimes I'll
-->> > splurge and buy an extra large container of cole slaw from Kroger's.
-->>
-->> > PS: If the ribs are too chewy, it means you haven't boiled them long
-->> > enough.
-->>
-->> Forgot to mention that you just use the unsweetened Kool-Aid powder,
-->> you don't actually use the drink mixed up except when your ribs are
-->> done and you need something to wash it down with.
-->
-->[Redacted!]
-->
-->Please, this is a family chatroom I'm posting to.
-->
-->--Tedward
-->
This is USENET, this is a newsgroup not a chatroom. Now say it with me "n e w s
g r o u p' , feel better now?
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
The usenet is just a bunch of chatrooms that can cross talk.
--Tedward
Dan Abel
"Dave Bugg" <dave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> > Dave Bugg said:
> >> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> >>> Dave Bugg crossposted:
> >>
> >> As intended. Crossposting re-added.
> >
> > Yanno what, prick?
> You forgot to call me the spawn of satan and a boor.
You're the spawn of Satan and a boar.
Have you ever microwaved boar? How about BBQ?
Oh, BOOR! You certainly aren't a boor!
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Dan Abel
sf <sf.u...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:34:27 -0600, "Nunya Bidnits"
> <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Dave Bugg said:
> >> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> >>> Dave Bugg crossposted:
> >>
> >> As intended. Crossposting re-added.
> >
> >Yanno what, prick?
> >And your crosspost was deleted,
I went back and followed this thread. It's not Bidnit's thread. He
jumped in with a question. In three replies, he announced that he
deleted the crossposts each time. He failed twice. Are there any
lessons on how to delete crossposts?
:-)
> OK, I get that you don't like Dave. Let me get this straight... you
> *didn't* start this cross posting? If so, thank you for clarifying.
> Please strip rfc from the xpost list any chance you get.
The original post was to that football group, the one with all the
trolls. It involved ribs in the microwave with a KoolAid rub.
Anyway, it was amusing for a couple of days, but I'm done with the
Bidnits.
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>> Nitrates
>>> and nitrates are oxidizers, so why would they
>>> even be emitted by heated wood chips, rather
>>> than being consumed by oxidation reactions with
>>> other components of the wood, like cellulose?
>>
>> Why would they not? If your suppositions were true, then why would
>> any by-products of wood smoke exist at all in the face of
>> combustion? Obviously, combustion of wood is not a complete
>> combustion, otherwise there would be no visible smoke or measurable
>> particulates or the range of gases that are emitted.
>
> There will be copious amounts of carbon monoxide
> in smoke.
So?
> Carbon monoxide is not completely
> burnt, and it can in fact be used as a fuel gas
> as is the case in synthetic gas made from coal.
So?
> If there were gaseous nitrates or nitrites in
> the smoke, that would be a powerful oxidizer.
Really? You sure? <snicker>
> Why would they not combust with the carbon
> monoxide?
Why should they?
> That would be like having a stream
> of hydrogen combined with a stream of oxygen
> in the presence of a flame.
The next time a piece of wood resembles a russian Energia launch vehicle,
I'll be sure to keep it out of my pit.
Dave Bugg
> In article <t4mdnSlrDsU0ppvW...@giganews.com>,
> "Dave Bugg" <dave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg said:
>>>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>>>> Dave Bugg crossposted:
>>>>
>>>> As intended. Crossposting re-added.
>>>
>>> Yanno what, prick?
>
>> You forgot to call me the spawn of satan and a boor.
>
> You're the spawn of Satan and a boar.
Thanks, Dan. Now my life is complete :-)
>
> Have you ever microwaved boar? How about BBQ?
Naw, the refuse to get inside. Squealed something about a lack of room.
Quite petulant beasties, actually.
> Oh, BOOR! You certainly aren't a boor!
Whew!!!, I was hanging for a bit there.
Bobs yer uncle
wrote:
> "Bobs yer uncle" <mcgrisw...@aol.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that was
> > > > a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry Kool
> > > > Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on. Can't
> > > > find it on Google--anyone remember?
>
> > > Still no recipe! Doesn't anyone remember it?
>
> > > --Tedward
>
> > This isn't exactly it, but what I've tried from memory--you take some
> > ribs, like those country style ones that are already cut up for you,
> > and you boil them in some water with a little salt, meat tenderizer
> > and Accent (tm) then you put them in the microwave until they start to
> > sing, and curl up a little. Then you put your "rub" which is made of
> > cherry Kool-Aid (the trick is to use the name brand Kool-Aid, no cheap
> > imitation "knock offs") some seasoning salt and some Liquid Smoke,
> > then you crisp them up nicely under the broiler (that's the top heater
> > in your oven), serve with a nice BBQ sauce like Kraft's (again spend
> > the extra money on the "real thing") and enjoy!!!!
>
> > I like to serve them with Van De Kamp's baked beans and sometimes I'll
> > splurge and buy an extra large container of cole slaw from Kroger's.
>
> and Pepsi.
>
> > enough.
>
> <
> <Forgot to mention that you just use the unsweetened Kool-Aid powder,
>
> would be just plain silly.
I know that, but recipes are hard.
And I was kidding about drinking the Kool-Aid, that's for the kids.
Get yourself a nice six-pack of Bud, or better yet, Bud Lite, because
pork meat can have fat.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nitrates
> >>> and nitrates are oxidizers, so why would they
> >>> even be emitted by heated wood chips, rather
> >>> than being consumed by oxidation reactions with
> >>> other components of the wood, like cellulose?
> >>
> >> Why would they not? If your suppositions were true, then why would
> >> any by-products of wood smoke exist at all in the face of
> >> combustion? Obviously, combustion of wood is not a complete
> >> combustion, otherwise there would be no visible smoke or measurable
> >> particulates or the range of gases that are emitted.
> >
> > There will be copious amounts of carbon monoxide
> > in smoke.
>
> So?
Carbon monoxide is a gaseous fuel.
> > Carbon monoxide is not completely
> > burnt, and it can in fact be used as a fuel gas
> > as is the case in synthetic gas made from coal.
>
> So?
Again, the point is that cabon monoxide is a gaseous fuel.
It can be oxidized further to carbon dioxide, with
a considerable release of energy.
> > If there were gaseous nitrates or nitrites in
> > the smoke, that would be a powerful oxidizer.
>
> Really? You sure? <snicker>
Yes. It is elementary chemistry. Nitrous or
nitric oxide gases are powerful oxidizers.
> > Why would they not combust with the carbon
> > monoxide?
>
> Why should they?
Because mixing a fuel with an oxidizer
provides the necessary chemistry for combustion,
in the most ignitable form (gases). Combine
that with a source of ignition, and it's hard
to see how it would not ignite, if there were
really nitrates or nitrites in smoke.
> > That would be like having a stream
> > of hydrogen combined with a stream of oxygen
> > in the presence of a flame.
>
> The next time a piece of wood resembles a russian Energia launch vehicle,
> I'll be sure to keep it out of my pit.
Ah, okay. That's how you refute the silly
notion that a fuel and an oxidizer mixed
in gaseous form in the presence of a source
of ignition can burn. Brilliant. Maybe
you should be teaching chemistry, instead of
the fools that taught me.
Dave Bugg
> Ah, okay. That's how you refute the silly
> notion that a fuel and an oxidizer mixed
> in gaseous form in the presence of a source
> of ignition can burn. Brilliant. Maybe
> you should be teaching chemistry, instead of
> the fools that taught me.
No, that's how I refute silly know-it-alls who equate classroom chemistry
and refined chemicals with woodburning and bbq.
As I said before, there are many books dealing with smoking and curing that
will help you complete your knowledge.
Dave Bugg
>..... Maybe
> you should be teaching chemistry, instead of
> the fools that taught me.
Been there done that. But I'm sure you can teach bbq and smoking and curing
to the rest ofus.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > Ah, okay. That's how you refute the silly
> > notion that a fuel and an oxidizer mixed
> > in gaseous form in the presence of a source
> > of ignition can burn. Brilliant. Maybe
> > you should be teaching chemistry, instead of
> > the fools that taught me.
>
> No, that's how I refute silly know-it-alls who equate classroom chemistry
> and refined chemicals with woodburning and bbq.
Yes, when challenged, you respond with bluff and
bluster rather than facts. You seem to think
you can shout down facts with ridicule.
> As I said before, there are many books dealing with smoking and curing that
> will help you complete your knowledge.
I already have plenty of books which cover the
curing and smoking of meat from the scientific
point-of-view. If there was a significant
contribution of nitrates or nitrates from smoke,
they would mention it. They do not. Here's a
small sample from my library (more could be
provided, but that's clearly not necessary):
Quoting from _The_Meat_We_Eat_ by Romans and Ziegler,
11th edition, page 587:
"Where wood is subjected to destructive distillation
it yields inflammable gases, a strongly acid aqueous
distillate and a quantity of tar. The residue is
wood charcoal. The aqueous distillate contains methyl
(wood) alcohol mixed with acetic acid and acetone and
a little methyl acetate and is known as pyroligneous
acid (liquid smoke)."
Quoting from _The_Science_of_Meat_and_Meat_Products_
by Gillespie, page 314:
"Among the chemicals which have been identified in
smoke are aliphatic acids ranging from formic through
caproic; primary and secondary alcohols; ketones;
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and other aldehydes;
phenols; creosols; and a mixture of waxes and resins."
Quoting from _Processed_Meats_ by Kramlich, Pearson,
and Tauber, page 68-69:
"Wood consists of 40 to 60% cellulose, 20 to 30%
hemicellulose, and 20 to 30% lignan. During thermal
decomposition of wood or wood sawdust, a temperature
gradient temporarily exists between the outer surface
and the inner core. The outer surface is being
oxidized and the inner surface is being dehydrated
before it can be oxidized. The temperature of the
outer surface is slightly above 212F during the
dehydration process. Carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, and some volatile organic short-chain
organic acids, such as acetic, are being released
during the dehydration or distillation process.
When the internal moisture level in the center of
the sawdust approaches zero, the temperature rapidly
rises to 570 to 750F. Once the temperature falls
within this range, thermal decomposition occurs and
smoke is given off. Actually, most of the changes
in wood of any consequence to smoke generation
occur between 390 and 750F. In the temperature
range 390 to 500F, the release of gases and a sharp
increase in the amount of volatile acids is evident.
Between 500 mand 590F, pyroligneous liquor and some
tars are produced. As the temperature reaches 590F
or above, lignan is decomposed, yielding phenol and
its derivatives."
From page 70:
"As soon as the smoke is generated, numerous
reactions and condensations occur. Aldehydes and
phenols condense to form resins, which represent
about 50% of the smoke components and are believed
to provide most of the color of smoked meats."
Michael Press
"The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@eio.com> wrote:
Manson family.
--
Michael Press
Dave Bugg
...nothing pertinent, which includes his quickly googled list of books and
wikipedia quotes.
Beea
"Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4B070A15...@sonic.net...
> I already have plenty of books which cover the
> curing and smoking of meat from the scientific
> point-of-view. If there was a significant
> contribution of nitrates or nitrates from smoke,
> they would mention it. They do not. Here's a
> small sample from my library (more could be
> provided, but that's clearly not necessary):
>
<Snip-a-bunch-of-hot-air<<
Yeah, but what happens when you use food grade propane?
Dave Bugg
<snork> I wasn't going to bring that up myself.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote...:
>
> ...nothing pertinent, which includes his quickly googled list of books and
> wikipedia quotes.
No, actually. Every one of the quotes came from
my personal library of books on food science.
And I could quote many more, if there were reason to.
But of course, caught with your pants down, I didn't
expect a better defense from you. You do not understand
the basics of the chemistry of meat smoking or curing.
I'll grant that you may be skilled in curing or smoking
a piece of meat. Perhaps even more skilled than I am.
But you do not understand squat about the underlying
science, because you lack a basic understanding of science.
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote...:
> But of course, caught with your pants down,
<snork> No, but it's good to know what you're prowling around looking for.
> expect a better defense from you. You do not understand
> the basics of the chemistry of meat smoking or curing.
Tsk, tsk. You have no idea what I know simply because I refuse to spend time
dealing in exhaustive argument with a Kent wannabe (or are you just another
Kent sockpuppet?) What I know about you is that you dig through google in a
desperate search for something to provide a supporting quote which then fail
to do so. Heck, you don't even use the books recognized as primary
references for smoking or barbecue.
> I'll grant that you may be skilled in curing or smoking
> a piece of meat. Perhaps even more skilled than I am.
Hell, no, you are the king. I'm a mere peon.
> But you do not understand squat about the underlying
> science, because you lack a basic understanding of science.
<snicker> I bow to the master. How's it going with that food grade propane?
Hahahahahhahahahahahaha
David V. Loewe, Jr
<mcgri...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 5:21�pm, "The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@eio.com>
>wrote:
>> "Bobs yer uncle" <mcgrisw...@aol.com> wrote
>> > > >A few years back, someone posted a recipe for microwaved ribs that was
>> > > > a classic. All I remember was that it involved using a cherry Kool
>> > > > Aid rub to overcome the inevitably gray color the ribs took on. Can't
>> > > > find it on Google--anyone remember?
>>
>> > > Still no recipe! Doesn't anyone remember it?
>> > This isn't exactly it, but what I've tried from memory--you take some
>> > ribs, like those country style ones that are already cut up for you,
>> > and you boil them in some water with a little salt, meat tenderizer
>> > and Accent (tm) then you put them in the microwave until they start to
>> > sing, and curl up a little. Then you put your "rub" which is made of
>> > cherry Kool-Aid (the trick is to use the name brand Kool-Aid, no cheap
>> > imitation "knock offs") some seasoning salt and some Liquid Smoke,
>> > then you crisp them up nicely under the broiler (that's the top heater
>> > in your oven), serve with a nice BBQ sauce like Kraft's (again spend
>> > the extra money on the "real thing") and enjoy!!!!
>>
>> > I like to serve them with Van De Kamp's baked beans and sometimes I'll
>> > splurge and buy an extra large container of cole slaw from Kroger's.
>>
>> I'm kinda partial to Bush's baked beans. �This is sorta like Coke
>> and Pepsi.
>>
>> > PS: If the ribs are too chewy, it means you haven't boiled them long
>> > enough.
>>
>> <
>> <Forgot to mention that you just use the unsweetened Kool-Aid powder,
>>
>> That was pretty clear already. �Putting the Kool-Aid drink on ribs
>> would be just plain silly.
>
>I know that, but recipes are hard.
>
>And I was kidding about drinking the Kool-Aid, that's for the kids.
>Get yourself a nice six-pack of Bud, or better yet, Bud Lite, because
>pork meat can have fat.
I miss beer...
--
"Though these wounds have seen no wars
Except for the scars I have ignored
And this endless crutch, well it's never enough
It's been the Worst Day Since Yesterday"
- Flogging Molly
RegForte
> No, actually. Every one of the quotes came from
> my personal library of books on food science.
> And I could quote many more, if there were reason to.
>
> But of course, caught with your pants down, I didn't
> expect a better defense from you. You do not understand
> the basics of the chemistry of meat smoking or curing.
>
> I'll grant that you may be skilled in curing or smoking
> a piece of meat. Perhaps even more skilled than I am.
> But you do not understand squat about the underlying
> science, because you lack a basic understanding of science.
If you think anyone actually believes that, you're completely
delusional.
You've been busted at this game so many times I've lost count.
Your main tactic is to try to weave together enough pseudo-scientific
garbage that the uneducated won't know the difference and *may*
be baffled by the bullshit. That's all you do. You're a one
trick pony.
Problem is you've gone too far, on too many occasions. The "Food
Grade Propane" thread is just one example, but it was significant
in the sheer clarity that it brought. Even little children could
see the shell game going on.
--
Reg
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > No, actually. Every one of the quotes came from
> > my personal library of books on food science.
> > And I could quote many more, if there were reason to.
> >
> > But of course, caught with your pants down, I didn't
> > expect a better defense from you. You do not understand
> > the basics of the chemistry of meat smoking or curing.
> >
> > I'll grant that you may be skilled in curing or smoking
> > a piece of meat. Perhaps even more skilled than I am.
> > But you do not understand squat about the underlying
> > science, because you lack a basic understanding of science.
>
> If you think anyone actually believes that, you're completely
> delusional.
Just because you say so? Without any factrs
to back you up?
> You've been busted at this game so many times I've lost count.
> Your main tactic is to try to weave together enough pseudo-scientific
> garbage that the uneducated won't know the difference and *may*
> be baffled by the bullshit. That's all you do. You're a one
> trick pony.
I cited directly relevant quotations from
respectable scientific literature. Just because
it uses words like "aldehyde" and "pyroligneous"
that you don't understand does not make it
either "pseudo-scientific" or "bullshit".
> Problem is you've gone too far, on too many occasions. The "Food
> Grade Propane" thread is just one example, but it was significant
> in the sheer clarity that it brought. Even little children could
> see the shell game going on.
I cited evidence to confirm everything fact
I asserted. No critic could cite any evidence
to refute even the slightest detail. You lack
the ability to tell the difference between
reliable sources of information, such as the
food science books I quoted, and unreliable
sources -- even if someone had attempted to
cite an unreliable source to refute my references,
which so far nobody has.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark Thorson wrote...:
>
> > But of course, caught with your pants down,
>
> <snork> No, but it's good to know what you're prowling around looking for.
>
> > expect a better defense from you. You do not understand
> > the basics of the chemistry of meat smoking or curing.
>
> Tsk, tsk. You have no idea what I know simply because I refuse to spend time
> dealing in exhaustive argument with a Kent wannabe (or are you just another
> Kent sockpuppet?) What I know about you is that you dig through google in a
> desperate search for something to provide a supporting quote which then fail
> to do so. Heck, you don't even use the books recognized as primary
> references for smoking or barbecue.
In other words, you can't cite any reliable sources
to back up your assertion that nitrates or nitrites
from smoke are responsible for the smoke ring.
There's hardly any nitrogen in wood, and what little
nitrogen it has is in the reduced form, not oxides
of nitrogen (like nitrates and nitrites).
When I quote from books written by professional
food scientists, you sneer at them because they're
not the kind of books you've ever seen. They're
not the kinds of books you'd find at the local
Barnes & Noble or your local city library. You'd
only find them at a university research library or
the departmental library of a food industry laboratory.
I go to these books first because they are my sources
for questions about food chemistry. In this case,
I looked up what these sources have to say about the
composition of wood smoke. And they have lots to say.
But they didn't mention nitrates or nitrites in smoke
at all. These same books have large sections on the
actions of nitrates and nitrites in meat curing, but
they aren't mentioned at all in the sections on
smoke.
> > I'll grant that you may be skilled in curing or smoking
> > a piece of meat. Perhaps even more skilled than I am.
>
> Hell, no, you are the king. I'm a mere peon.
You're worse than that. You are a fool.
You actively resist being educated, then parade
your ignorance as though it was something to be
proud of.
> > But you do not understand squat about the underlying
> > science, because you lack a basic understanding of science.
>
> <snicker> I bow to the master. How's it going with that food grade propane?
> Hahahahahhahahahahahaha
I thought I finally got you to agree that there
is such a thing as food-grade propane and butane.
Are you now backing off of that?
Dave Bugg
Mark Thorson wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mark Thorson wrote...:
>>
>>> But of course, caught with your pants down,
>>
>> <snork> No, but it's good to know what you're prowling around
>> looking for.
>>
>>> expect a better defense from you. You do not understand
>>> the basics of the chemistry of meat smoking or curing.
>>
>> Tsk, tsk. You have no idea what I know simply because I refuse to
>> spend time dealing in exhaustive argument with a Kent wannabe (or
>> are you just another Kent sockpuppet?) What I know about you is that
>> you dig through google in a desperate search for something to
>> provide a supporting quote which then fail to do so. Heck, you don't
>> even use the books recognized as primary references for smoking or
>> barbecue.
>
> In other words, you can't cite any reliable sources
> to back up your assertion that nitrates or nitrites
> from smoke are responsible for the smoke ring.
In other words, I'm waiting for you to produce anything, googled or
otherwise, to dispute what has long been accepted within the food science
community. The googled sources that you cut-n-pasted failed to do anything
other than to show that smoke caan turn the outside of meat a dark color.
> There's hardly any nitrogen in wood, and what little
> nitrogen it has is in the reduced form, not oxides
> of nitrogen (like nitrates and nitrites).
Woah, there's some big gaps there, Bubba. Answer this: What by-product of
wood combustion can form soluble nitrogen dioxide onto the surface of meat?
> When I quote from books written by professional
> food scientists, you sneer at them because they're
> not the kind of books you've ever seen.
No. I sneer because you have such a desperate need to massage your ego, that
you would claim to have books which you seem to think are a marker of a Food
Whiz. What's laughable is that you fail to note that you come across more
like a bottle of Cheese Whiz.
> They're
> not the kinds of books you'd find at the local
> Barnes & Noble or your local city library. You'd
> only find them at a university research library or
> the departmental library of a food industry laboratory.
OMG. You continue to prove my point. ROTFLOL!!!!
> I go to these books first because they are my sources
> for questions about food chemistry. In this case,
> I looked up what these sources have to say about the
> composition of wood smoke. And they have lots to say.
> But they didn't mention nitrates or nitrites in smoke
> at all. These same books have large sections on the
> actions of nitrates and nitrites in meat curing, but
> they aren't mentioned at all in the sections on
> smoke.
<snicker> And you just can't help yerself, can ya bubba? What do these books
have to say about nitrogen dioxide?
>>> I'll grant that you may be skilled in curing or smoking
>>> a piece of meat. Perhaps even more skilled than I am.
>>
>> Hell, no, you are the king. I'm a mere peon.
>
> You're worse than that. You are a fool.
And you are a shank-puller.
> You actively resist being educated
I love education. But I find that a rather odd comment from someone who
considers educational superiority a fast trip to Google University.
>... then parade
> your ignorance as though it was something to be
> proud of.
You agreed to allow me to parade you around, so why complain now?
>> <snicker> I bow to the master. How's it going with that food grade
>> propane? Hahahahahhahahahahahaha
> I thought I finally got you to agree that there
> is such a thing as food-grade propane and butane.
> Are you now backing off of that?
I'd love to see a cite for that.
nailsh...@aol.com
september.invalid> wrote:
> Liquid smoke is creosote? OK, then please cite proof.
Marty, no proof can be cited as liquid smoke > IS NOT < creosote.
Hard to think that anyone here hasn't found a little flake of creosote
off their pit on a piece of chicken or other meat. It is quite bitter
and doesn't taste like smoke at all.
There is a ton of easy to find info on how LS is made, refuting any
validity that is it simply creosote. Nor is it made (or formed) the
same way as creosote is in your pit exists as referenced in this
group.
CITE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_smoke
DAGS "what is liquid smoke" and "liquid smoke" and it is easy to see
the difference. Making LS is quite scientific.
It is made from real smoke, but has the tars, resins, and particulates
filtered out after capturing the smoke in water vapor.
Robert
Dave Bugg
> DAGS "what is liquid smoke" and "liquid smoke" and it is easy to see
> the difference. Making LS is quite scientific.
> It is made from real smoke, but has the tars, resins, and particulates
> filtered out after capturing the smoke in water vapor.
So, LS is made the same way creosote starts out, it just filters out the
solids. That's exacly what liquid creosote is. One can do the same by
grabiing a glob of the hardened stuff, soaking it in water with a tiny bit
of acid, like vinegar, and once the glob has gone to solution, filter it
through a media.
nailsh...@aol.com
> So, LS is made the same way creosote starts out, it just filters out the
> solids. That's exacly what liquid creosote is. One can do the same by
> grabiing a glob of the hardened stuff, soaking it in water with a tiny bit
> of acid, like vinegar, and once the glob has gone to solution, filter it
> through a media.
Dunno... you might have a point. It is like saying crude oil from the
ground is gas. Distilling it, filtering it, homogenizing it for
repeatability, and put in necessary additives for stability are the
only things that make if different from gas.
Same with whiskey. If I am taking the gist of your post correctly,
then similarly, there is really no substantial difference between
whiskey and wort.
Robert
Dave Bugg
> On Nov 21, 6:31 pm, "Dave Bugg" <davebu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So, LS is made the same way creosote starts out, it just filters out
>> the solids. That's exacly what liquid creosote is. One can do the
>> same by grabiing a glob of the hardened stuff, soaking it in water
>> with a tiny bit of acid, like vinegar, and once the glob has gone to
>> solution, filter it through a media.
>
> Dunno... you might have a point. It is like saying crude oil from the
> ground is gas. Distilling it, filtering it, homogenizing it for
> repeatability, and put in necessary additives for stability are the
> only things that make if different from gas.
Well...in a way. Although the refining process for LS isn't quite so
refined. Alton Brown had a good demonstration of making homemade LS
> Same with whiskey. If I am taking the gist of your post correctly,
> then similarly, there is really no substantial difference between
> whiskey and wort.
Now you're just trying to sic the whiskey afficionados on me. :-)
Mark Thorson
I didn't Google any sources for the composition of smoke.
As I said before, those quotes came from books in my
library. These books were written by food scientists
specializing in meat. They list the major components
of smoke and many of the minor components. Oxides of
nitrogen such as nitrates and nitrites are not among them.
> > There's hardly any nitrogen in wood, and what little
> > nitrogen it has is in the reduced form, not oxides
> > of nitrogen (like nitrates and nitrites).
>
> Woah, there's some big gaps there, Bubba. Answer this: What by-product of
> wood combustion can form soluble nitrogen dioxide onto the surface of meat?
You're the one making that claim. Why are you asking
me to back up your claim?
> > When I quote from books written by professional
> > food scientists, you sneer at them because they're
> > not the kind of books you've ever seen.
>
> No. I sneer because you have such a desperate need to massage your ego, that
> you would claim to have books which you seem to think are a marker of a Food
> Whiz. What's laughable is that you fail to note that you come across more
> like a bottle of Cheese Whiz.
And then you fall back on ridicule when respectable
sources of information don't support you. When you
are refuted by facts, you always fall back on ridicule
and distraction. What you can't do is back up your
assertions with facts. Facts only support one side
of this question.
> > They're
> > not the kinds of books you'd find at the local
> > Barnes & Noble or your local city library. You'd
> > only find them at a university research library or
> > the departmental library of a food industry laboratory.
>
> OMG. You continue to prove my point. ROTFLOL!!!!
Again, appealing to ridicule rather than reason.
I have cited the relevant passages from solid
authorities, and you have nothing equivalent
you can respond with. That's why your only defense
is ridicule. You don't have another option.
> > I go to these books first because they are my sources
> > for questions about food chemistry. In this case,
> > I looked up what these sources have to say about the
> > composition of wood smoke. And they have lots to say.
> > But they didn't mention nitrates or nitrites in smoke
> > at all. These same books have large sections on the
> > actions of nitrates and nitrites in meat curing, but
> > they aren't mentioned at all in the sections on
> > smoke.
>
> <snicker> And you just can't help yerself, can ya bubba? What do these books
> have to say about nitrogen dioxide?
>
> >>> I'll grant that you may be skilled in curing or smoking
> >>> a piece of meat. Perhaps even more skilled than I am.
> >>
> >> Hell, no, you are the king. I'm a mere peon.
> >
> > You're worse than that. You are a fool.
>
> And you are a shank-puller.
>
> > You actively resist being educated
>
> I love education. But I find that a rather odd comment from someone who
> considers educational superiority a fast trip to Google University.
As I stated before, the quotes I used on the
composition of smoke came from books in my library,
not Google. But if Google is what it takes to impress
you, I suppose I could come up with some links.
Books by reliable authorities are what impress me,
which is why I quoted from them. Perhaps I should
have anticipated that you reject book learning.
> >... then parade
> > your ignorance as though it was something to be
> > proud of.
>
> You agreed to allow me to parade you around, so why complain now?
>
> >> <snicker> I bow to the master. How's it going with that food grade
> >> propane? Hahahahahhahahahahahaha
>
> > I thought I finally got you to agree that there
> > is such a thing as food-grade propane and butane.
> > Are you now backing off of that?
>
> I'd love to see a cite for that.
This is a posting of mine:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/ae3fc8162b09a7e7?dmode=source
To which you responded with:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/fff7de432b24f5d1?dmode=source
which seemed to indicate that you accepted
that food-grade propane and butane do exist.
But, of course, you only raised this subject
to pull the spotlight off your assertion that
the smoke ring is caused by nitrogen compounds
from smoke. When I provided quotes about the
composition of smoke from scientific sources,
you had to come up with some sort of distraction
to disguise the fact you had been refuted.
You need to hide this because it undercuts your
ability to pose as an expert on meat.
Dave Bugg
> To which you responded with:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/fff7de432b24f5d1?dmode=source
> which seemed to indicate that you accepted
> that food-grade propane and butane do exist.
Bwahhaha. Really? That's what you thought? Please keep that as proof that
you have an inability to comprehend sarcasm when it slaps you upside the
head. I have never met anyone so desperate for acceptance that they see
riducile as an ally.
> But, of course, you only raised this subject
> to pull the spotlight off your assertion that
> the smoke ring is caused by nitrogen compounds
> from smoke. When I provided quotes about the
> composition of smoke from scientific sources,
> you had to come up with some sort of distraction
> to disguise the fact you had been refuted.
> You need to hide this because it undercuts your
> ability to pose as an expert on meat.
So you really believe that there is no form of nitrogen is wood smoke? I
want to give you one more chance to consult your 'books' on Google. I
retired from the Chelan-Douglas Health District after 16+ years. One of my
projects was working with the WA State Dept. of Ecology on clean air issues
with regard to wood smoke. I'll put up some cites, but I want to make sure
this is your final say-so.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > to pull the spotlight off your assertion that
> > the smoke ring is caused by nitrogen compounds
> > from smoke. When I provided quotes about the
> > composition of smoke from scientific sources,
> > you had to come up with some sort of distraction
> > to disguise the fact you had been refuted.
> > You need to hide this because it undercuts your
> > ability to pose as an expert on meat.
>
> So you really believe that there is no form of nitrogen is wood smoke? I
> want to give you one more chance to consult your 'books' on Google. I
> retired from the Chelan-Douglas Health District after 16+ years. One of my
> projects was working with the WA State Dept. of Ecology on clean air issues
> with regard to wood smoke. I'll put up some cites, but I want to make sure
> this is your final say-so.
I didn't say _no_ nitrogen, but I certainly find
it hard to believe that there is sufficient oxidized
nitrogen to be responsible for the smoke ring.
My own reliable sources don't indicate any form of
oxidized nitrogen as being present in smoke, which
reinforces my belief.
I've been waiting for you to cite a credible source
for your assertion, but you consistently respond with
insults and ridicule, not facts. You must understand
that a naked assertion from someone who sneers at the
scientific literature cannot be accepted on your own
word. Let's see some of these citations you claim exist.
Dave Bugg
> I didn't say _no_ nitrogen,
Basically, you did. That's why I asked several times. Now you're
back-peddling.
> but I certainly find
> it hard to believe
That's what I love about you, Mr. Thorson, it is all about what you BELIEVE.
>.. that there is sufficient oxidized
> nitrogen to be responsible for the smoke ring.
And yet you have never defined what YOU believe is a sufficient amount.
Before I post the first bit of information, would you be so kind as to tell
us what YOU believe are 'sufficient' level of oxides to accomplish the task
of nitrate and nitrite formation within the muscle.
> My own reliable sources don't indicate any form of
> oxidized nitrogen as being present in smoke, which
> reinforces my belief.
Let's examine just this post.
1. You state above that you 'didn't say *no* nitrogen'.
2. You have continuously lectured us on the undeniable reliability of your
spectacularly specialized scientific books.
3. Your spectacularly specialized scientific books do not indicate any form
of nitrogen oxides, which 'reinforces' your belief.
Which belief is that, Mr. Thorson? The belief in your books, the belief in
science, or the belief in your own beliefs?
Well, I guess your sources aren't sufficient to the task.
> I've been waiting for you to cite a credible source
> for your assertion, but you consistently respond with
> insults and ridicule, not facts.
I am treating this as entertainment, Mr. Thorson. I want you to be clear as
to what you are asserting.
> You must understand
> that a naked assertion from someone who sneers at the
> scientific literature cannot be accepted on your own word.
The fact that I sneer at you, Mr. Thorson, does not equate to my sneering at
the scientific literature. The fact that I sneer at the pretentious,
pseudo-elitist jabberings of someone who claims to possess spectacularly
specialized scientific books (unverified) is *not* sneering at science.
>.... Let's see some of these citations you claim exist.
Patience, my friend. First, answer your brand, new attempt at creating some
wiggle room just in case your spectacularly specialized scientific books are
wrong. What is the amount of oxides required to begin the catalyst for
creating a smoke ring? Of course, we will expect citations of the scientific
literature to back up that 'belief' of yours.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > I didn't say _no_ nitrogen,
>
> Basically, you did. That's why I asked several times. Now you're
> back-peddling.
No, I didn't. You are using what is called a "straw man"
argument. You are claiming I said something I did not say,
then attacking that. You do this because you can't get any
traction disputing my actual words.
As I said earlier:
"There's hardly any nitrogen in wood, and what little
nitrogen it has is in the reduced form, not oxides
of nitrogen (like nitrates and nitrites)."
I don't dispute that small amounts of nitrogen compounds
will be present in wood smoke, but I have consistently
questioned whether they are present in sufficient quantity
to cause the smoke ring.
> > but I certainly find
> > it hard to believe
>
> That's what I love about you, Mr. Thorson, it is all about what you BELIEVE.
Believe, based on the scientific literature, not the
rantings of a poseur.
> >.. that there is sufficient oxidized
> > nitrogen to be responsible for the smoke ring.
>
> And yet you have never defined what YOU believe is a sufficient amount.
> Before I post the first bit of information, would you be so kind as to tell
> us what YOU believe are 'sufficient' level of oxides to accomplish the task
> of nitrate and nitrite formation within the muscle.
Any amount which is comparable to the levels deposited
by nitrate or nitrite curing salts
> > My own reliable sources don't indicate any form of
> > oxidized nitrogen as being present in smoke, which
> > reinforces my belief.
>
> Let's examine just this post.
> 1. You state above that you 'didn't say *no* nitrogen'.
Yes, do you dispute that? If so, please provide a link
to the posting where I said *no* nitrogen.
> 2. You have continuously lectured us on the undeniable reliability of your
> spectacularly specialized scientific books.
Another strawman. If you dispute that this is a dishonest
strawman, please provide a link to the posting where I said
"undeniable reliability". I merely consider them reliable,
as compared to non-scientific literature. It is a virtue
of science that there is a winnowing-out process to discard
wrong ideas. It is even possible that new science has
emerged since the books I have were published.
> 3. Your spectacularly specialized scientific books do not indicate any form
> of nitrogen oxides, which 'reinforces' your belief.
Yes, the composition of smoke has been extensively studied
by food scientists who specialize in meat. Nitrogen
compounds in smoke are not even mentioned in the food
science literature I have read, even though the importance
of oxidized nitrogen compounds in meat curing has been
recognized for a long time, and methods for quantifying
such compounds in gases has also existed for a long time.
> Which belief is that, Mr. Thorson? The belief in your books, the belief in
> science, or the belief in your own beliefs?
>
> Well, I guess your sources aren't sufficient to the task.
Just because you say so? I think not.
> > I've been waiting for you to cite a credible source
> > for your assertion, but you consistently respond with
> > insults and ridicule, not facts.
>
> I am treating this as entertainment, Mr. Thorson. I want you to be clear as
> to what you are asserting.
No, that's not true. You are trying to uphold your
reputation as an "expert" on meat and barbeque.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that you might be
more skilled than me at barbequing and smoking a
piece of meat. But no amount of skill make you also
an expert on meat science.
It's like the corner garage. They might be perfectly
competent to replace the cylinder head on my car.
But that does not mean they are competent to _design_
a new cylinder head. That would require knowledge of
combustion fronts, strength of alloys, etc. that they
don't have. A mechanic is not a scientist nor an engineer.
> > You must understand
> > that a naked assertion from someone who sneers at the
> > scientific literature cannot be accepted on your own word.
>
> The fact that I sneer at you, Mr. Thorson, does not equate to my sneering at
> the scientific literature. The fact that I sneer at the pretentious,
> pseudo-elitist jabberings of someone who claims to possess spectacularly
> specialized scientific books (unverified) is *not* sneering at science.
>
> >.... Let's see some of these citations you claim exist.
>
> Patience, my friend. First, answer your brand, new attempt at creating some
> wiggle room just in case your spectacularly specialized scientific books are
> wrong. What is the amount of oxides required to begin the catalyst for
> creating a smoke ring? Of course, we will expect citations of the scientific
> literature to back up that 'belief' of yours.
Again, you're trying to re-cast the question into
something else. You are the one claiming that the
smoke ring is caused by nitrogen compounds from
smoke. If you have reliable evidence, let's see it.
I'm willing to be refuted if the data is good.
For some obscure reason, though, I am the only person
in this discussion who quotes reliable sources of
information, or inndeed, any information at all.
You have been nothing but -- dare I say it -- blowing
smoke. There's an old saying in chemistry, "In God
we trust, everybody else bring data."
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg wrote:
> I don't dispute that small amounts of nitrogen compounds
> will be present in wood smoke,
Ok. So we both agree on that.
> but I have consistently
> questioned whether they are present in sufficient quantity
> to cause the smoke ring.
Since whatever quantity of N.O.s are changed by the moisture of the meat
into nitric acid which is absorbed into the meat and interacts to form the
nitrates and nitrites, wouldn't you agree that much depends on smoke
levels... amount of exposure to the smoke?
>> And yet you have never defined what YOU believe is a sufficient
>> amount. Before I post the first bit of information, would you be so
>> kind as to tell us what YOU believe are 'sufficient' level of oxides
>> to accomplish the task of nitrate and nitrite formation within the
>> muscle.
> Any amount which is comparable to the levels deposited
> by nitrate or nitrite curing salts
And how would you measure comparability between what is absorbed via such
salts vs. the amount of interaction caused by the nitric acid?
>>> My own reliable sources don't indicate any form of
>>> oxidized nitrogen as being present in smoke, which
>>> reinforces my belief.
>>
>> Let's examine just this post.
>> 1. You state above that you 'didn't say *no* nitrogen'.
>
> Yes, do you dispute that? If so, please provide a link
> to the posting where I said *no* nitrogen.
Read above. You stated that you are relying on your information which YOU
said "don't indicate any form of oxidized nitrogen". If I misread you, I
apologize.
>> 2. You have continuously lectured us on the undeniable reliability
>> of your spectacularly specialized scientific books.
>
> Another strawman. If you dispute that this is a dishonest
> strawman, please provide a link to the posting where I said
> "undeniable reliability". I merely consider them reliable,
> as compared to non-scientific literature. It is a virtue
> of science that there is a winnowing-out process to discard
> wrong ideas. It is even possible that new science has
> emerged since the books I have were published.
I was being sarcastic, Mark. But, fair enough.
>> 3. Your spectacularly specialized scientific books do not indicate
>> any form of nitrogen oxides, which 'reinforces' your belief.
>
> Yes, the composition of smoke has been extensively studied
> by food scientists who specialize in meat. Nitrogen
> compounds in smoke are not even mentioned in the food
> science literature I have read, even though the importance
> of oxidized nitrogen compounds in meat curing has been
> recognized for a long time, and methods for quantifying
> such compounds in gases has also existed for a long time.
This is where it is hard to accept you at face value, Mark. You state the
books you find reliable fail to mention N.O.s, and you have argued for that
point, or of minimal and non important availability of N.O.s as a catalyst
for smoke ring production. But then you go on to say that "...the importance
of oxidized nitrogen compounds in meat curing has been recognized for a long
time.." So, there are enough N.O.s to be important to the curing of meat,
but not enough to produce a smoke ring?
>>> I've been waiting for you to cite a credible source
>>> for your assertion, but you consistently respond with
>>> insults and ridicule, not facts.
>>
>> I am treating this as entertainment, Mr. Thorson. I want you to be
>> clear as to what you are asserting.
>
> No, that's not true. You are trying to uphold your
> reputation as an "expert" on meat and barbeque.
I claim no expertise at either meat or bbq. But even so, what does this
topic have to do with my ability to cook meat?
> I'm perfectly willing to concede that you might be
> more skilled than me at barbequing and smoking a
> piece of meat. But no amount of skill make you also
> an expert on meat science.
Talk about a straw man. Even if I had no education, had the IQ of an amoeba,
and needed to use velcro instead of shoe laces, the issue of whether I can
cook has no relation to the topic at hand.
>>> You must understand
>>> that a naked assertion from someone who sneers at the
>>> scientific literature cannot be accepted on your own word.
>> The fact that I sneer at you, Mr. Thorson, does not equate to my
>> sneering at the scientific literature. The fact that I sneer at the
>> pretentious, pseudo-elitist jabberings of someone who claims to
>> possess spectacularly specialized scientific books (unverified) is
>> *not* sneering at science.
>>
>>> .... Let's see some of these citations you claim exist.
>>
>> Patience, my friend. First, answer your brand, new attempt at
>> creating some wiggle room just in case your spectacularly
>> specialized scientific books are wrong. What is the amount of oxides
>> required to begin the catalyst for creating a smoke ring? Of course,
>> we will expect citations of the scientific literature to back up
>> that 'belief' of yours.
>
> Again, you're trying to re-cast the question into
> something else. You are the one claiming that the
> smoke ring is caused by nitrogen compounds from
> smoke.
The debate I have focused on with you, Mark, is whether or not wood
combustion produces N.O.s. The seperate but related issue of the
relationship of wood produced nitrates and nitrites via NOXs is one that I
believe occurs.
These are from my old files while woorking on the DOE clean air project.
I've cut off some of the length of some lists to save space.
This is a pamphlet based on the information compiled by our working group.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/92046.pdf
The final version of a draft I made up for local counties distribution
http://www.nwcleanair.org/pdf/aqPrograms/woodHeating/woodSmokeandYourHealth.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
Wood Smoke Characteristics Part 1
This information was published in 1993 EPA Report, A Summary of the
Emissions Characterization and Noncancer Respiratory Effects of Wood Smoke,
EPA-453/R-93-036 It can be ordered from the EPA at (919)-541-5344.
Chemical Composition of Wood Smoke
Species g/kg wood Carbon Monoxide
80-370 Methane 14-25
VOCs (C2-C7) 7-27 Aldehydes
0.6-5.4 Formaldehyde 0.1-0.7
Acrolein 0.02-0.1 Propionaldehyde
0.1-0.3 Butryaldehyde 0.01-1.7
Acetaldehyde 0.03-0.6 Furfural
0.2-1.6 1.6 Substituted Furans 0.15-1.7
Benzene 0.6-4.0 Alkyl Benzenes
1-6 Toluene 0.15-1.0
Acetic Acid 1.8-2.4 Formic Acid
0.06-0.08 Nitrogen Oxides (NO,NO2) 0.2-0.9
Sulfur Dioxide 0.16-0.24 Methyl chloride
0.01-0.04 Napthalene 0.24-1.6
Substituted Napthalenes 0.3-2.1
Much more was included in the list. I can re-post its entirety if desired
1 Some species are grouped into general classes as indicated by italics.
2 To estimate the weight percentage in the exhaust, divide the g/kg value by
80. This assumes that there are 7.3 kg combustion air per kg of wood. Major
species not listed here include carbon dioxide and water vapor (about 12 and
7 weight percent respectively under the assumed conditions.
3 At ambient conditions; V = vapor, P = particulate, and VIP = vapor and/or
particulate (i.e., semi-volatile).
4 DeAngelis (1980)
5 OMNI (1988)
6 Lipari (1984), Values for fireplaces.
7 Edye et al (1991). smoldering conditions; other substituted furans include
2-furanmethanol, 2 acetylfuran, 5 methyl-2furaldehyde, and benzofuran.
8 Value estimated for pine from Edye et al (1991) from reported yield
relative to guaiacol, from guaiacol values of Hawthorne (1989) and assuming
particulate organic carbon is 50% of total particle mass.
9 Steiber et al (1992), values computed assuming a range of 3-20 g of total
extractable, speciated mass per kg wood.
10 Khalil (1983)
11 Hawthorne (1989), values for syringol for hardwood fuel; see also
Hawthorne (1988).
12 Core (1989), DeAngelis (1980), Kalman and Larson (1987).
13 From one or more of the following studies: Cooke (1981), Truesdale
(1984), Alfheirn et al (1984), Zeedijk (1986), Core (1989), Kalman and
Larson (1987); assuming a range of 7 to 30 grams of particulate mass per kg
wood when values were reported in grams per gram of particulate mass.
Similar assumptions apply to references 14,15 and references 17-19.
14 Core (1989), Kalman and Larson (1987)
15 Watson (1979), Core (1989), Kalman and Larson (1987)
16 Rau (1989), Core (1989)
17 Core (1989)
18 Standley and Simoneit (1990); Dehydroabietic acid values for pine smoke,
lupenone and isopimaric acid values for alder smoke and friedlin values for
oaf: soot.
19 Nestrick and Lamparski (1982), from particulate condensed on flue pipes;
includes TCDDs, HCDDs, H7CDDs and OCDDS.
20 Burnet et al (1986); one gram of acid = one equivalent of acid needed to
reach a pH of 5.6 in extract solution.
--------------------
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 5:269-282, 2002
CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION AND POLLUTANT DISTRIBUTION
Woodsmoke is a complex mixture of numerous gases and respirable fine/
ultrafine particles of varying inorganic/organic composition and diameter
(Pierson et al., 1989; U.S. EPA, 1993; Nolte et al., 2001). Smoke generated
from burning wood is thought to consist of over 200 chemicals and compound
groups, which are contained in an effluent that is almost entirely in
the inhalable size range (Cooper, 1980; U.S. EPA, 1993). Woodburning
stoves, furnaces, and fireplaces emit significant quantities of toxic
compounds,
including respirable particulate matter (PM) with diameters <10
?m (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen and sulfur oxides (NOX and
SOX), aldehydes, PAHs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chlorinated
dioxins,
and free radicals (Cooper, 1980; Dasch, 1982; Lao, 1983; Tuthill,
1984; Sexton et al., 1986; Traynor et al., 1987; Lachocki et al., 1989;
Koenig
& Pierson, 1991; Hildemann et al., 1991; Koenig et al., 1993; U.S. EPA,
1993; Larson & Koenig, 1994; Nolte et al., 2001).
Under normal usage conditions, woodburning devices create indoor
pollution (Lao, 1983; Sexton et al., 1986; Traynor et al., 1987; Samet et
al.,
1987, 1988). It has been reported that both airtight and non-airtight stoves
release fine/ultrafine-sized PM, CO, and PAHs directly within the indoor
environment (Traynor et al., 1987). Concentrations of PM as great as 820
?g/m3 (U.S. EPA standard for PM10 is 150 ?g/m3 for a 24-h period, not to be
exceeded >2% of the time) have been measured indoors from non-airtight
stoves over a 24-h period (Traynor et al., 1987). In addition to that amount
released directly inside the home, a large percentage (i.e., 70%) of outdoor
woodsmoke from chimneys actually reenters the house and permeates
neighboring dwellings (Pierson et al., 1989). Many circumstances, including
improper installation, negative indoor air pressure, and downdrafts,
facilitate
entry of incomplete combustion products back into the home (Pierson et al.,
1989; U.S. EPA, 1994). Since individuals typically spend 60-70% of their
out-of-work time at home (Szalar, 1972; Chapin, 1974; Sexton et al., 1986),
indoor woodsmoke potentially represents a major source for human exposure.
-----------------------------
Inhalation Toxicology, 19:67-106, 2007
WOODSMOKE HEALTH EFFECTS: A REVIEW 69
TABLE 1
Major health-damaging pollutants from biomass combustion
Compound Examplesa Source Notes Mode of toxicity
Inorganic
gases
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Incomplete
combustion
Transported over distances Asphyxiant
Ozone (O3) Secondary reaction
product of nitrogen
dioxide and
hydrocarbons
Only present downwind of fire,
transported over long distances
Irritant
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
Again, the entire list editied.
-----------------------------
Indoor Air: Potential Health Risks Related to Residential Wood Smoke, as
Determined under the Assumptions of the US EPA Risk Assessment Model
Kirpal S. Sidhu
Health Risk Assessment Division, Michigan Department of Public Health,
Lansing, Mich., USA
John L. Hesse
Health Risk Assessment Division, Michigan Department of Public Health,
Lansing, Mich., USA
Arthur W. Bloomer
Health Risk Assessment Division, Michigan Department of Public Health,
Lansing, Mich., USA
Residential wood smoke contains inorganic and organic particulates, ash, car
bon monoxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[b]fluoran
thene, benzo[ghi]perylene, and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene), phenols and sulfur
dioxide. Benzo[a]pyrene and formaldehyde are classified as group B2 and
group B1 carcinogens, respectively, by the United States Environmental Pro
tection Agency. Reported concentrations and potential health risks of the
released contaminants are discussed. In general, wood smoke is an irritant
to the eyes, nose, and the respiratory tract. It has the potential to cause
chronic respiratory problems. Because there are indications that wood smoke
may cause adverse effects on human health, exposure to this source of air
pollution should be minimized.
Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 2, No. 2, 92-97 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X9300200204
-------------------------------------------
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
>
> >> And yet you have never defined what YOU believe is a sufficient
> >> amount. Before I post the first bit of information, would you be so
> >> kind as to tell us what YOU believe are 'sufficient' level of oxides
> >> to accomplish the task of nitrate and nitrite formation within the
> >> muscle.
>
> > Any amount which is comparable to the levels deposited
> > by nitrate or nitrite curing salts
>
> And how would you measure comparability between what is absorbed via such
> salts vs. the amount of interaction caused by the nitric acid?
I dragged out my copy of Heller's, and their recipe
for a dry-cured beef brisket has 1 pound of curing
salt for 100 pounds of beef. Let's scale this down
for 1 pound of meat, to estimate the amount of nitrate
needed to produce 1 pound of smoke ring, then based on
that calculate how much volume of smoke would be needed.
Assume 0.01 pounds, and that it's all sodium nitrate.
(Not likely a correct assumption, but close enough to
be in the ballpark.) There's 113 grams per ounce, so
0.01 ounce = 0.28 grams. Sodium nitrate has an atomic
weight of about 28 grams/mole, so that's about 0.034
moles. Avogadro's law gives us 22.4 liters per mole
of gas (that's at 0 degrees, but we'll ignore that
for now), so that's 0.76 liters of NO2 gas to make
1 pound of smoke ring, if that's how smoke rings are
made.
Smoke isn't pure NO2. Your reference indicates 7.3 kg
of combustion air to obtain 0.2 to 0.9 grams of NOx.
Assuming an atomic weight of 28 grams/mole for air (an
approximation based on N2 gas), 7300/0.9 = 8100 moles
of air. Assuming NO2 gas with an atomic weight of 46,
0.9/46 = 0.02 moles. So, it's about 8100 moles of air
to get 0.02 moles of NO2, a ratio of 8100/0.02 = 405,000.
The amount of smoke needed to make 1 pound of smoke ring
would be approximately 0.76 x 405,000 = 308,000 liters.
And that's only the smoke absorbed by the meat. You'd
also have to produce additional smoke which doesn't get
absorbed by the meat, but I have no estimate for how much
waste smoke you'd need to get that 308,000 liters.
How do we know this doesn't happen? It's because if
that's how smoke rings were made, you'd hear a loud,
almost deafening, hissing sound as that piece of meat
sucked up all that smoke.
Mark Thorson
Assuming an atomic weight of 28 grams/mole for air (an
approximation based on N2 gas), 7300/28 = 260 moles
of air. Assuming NO2 gas with an atomic weight of 46,
0.9/46 = 0.02 moles. So, it's about 260 moles of air
to get 0.02 moles of NO2, a ratio of 260/0.02 = 13,000.
The amount of smoke needed to make 1 pound of smoke ring
would be approximately 0.76 x 13,000 = 9880 liters.
And that's only the smoke absorbed by the meat. You'd
also have to produce additional smoke which doesn't get
absorbed by the meat, but I have no estimate for how much
waste smoke you'd need to get that 9880 liters.
That's still a huge amount of smoke to be absorbed
by meat to create 1 pound of smoke ring.
Dave Bugg
> And that's only the smoke absorbed by the meat. You'd
> also have to produce additional smoke which doesn't get
> absorbed by the meat, but I have no estimate for how much
> waste smoke you'd need to get that 308,000 liters.
>
> How do we know this doesn't happen? It's because if
> that's how smoke rings were made, you'd hear a loud,
> almost deafening, hissing sound as that piece of meat
> sucked up all that smoke.
Interesting. However, the process as I understand it doesn't require
absorbtion of smoke by the meat, as I made mention a couple of times.
According to both Martin Lersch and Harold McGee, recognized food scientist
who have each looked at this issue, "When wood or coal burns, small amounts
of nitrogen dioxide is formed which dissolves in the surface of the meat,
thereby creating nitrous acid. The acid diffuses further into the meat, and
when converted to nitric oxide it reacts with myoglobin to form a stable
pink colored molecule."
Total smoke absorption doesn't seem to be the issue, only smoke exposure.
I saw his discussion, a few months back ,on smoke rings in meat, and othe
bbq relate meat questions, at the Home of Barbecue website:
http://www.homeofbbq.com/2008/04/interview-martin-lersch-of-khymos.html
Martin Lersch keeps a blog at http://blog.khymos.org
Harold McGee also dicusses this in his book 'On Food and Cooking'.
What do you think?
Mark Thorson
>
> Interesting. However, the process as I understand it doesn't require
> absorbtion of smoke by the meat, as I made mention a couple of times.
> According to both Martin Lersch and Harold McGee, recognized food scientist
> who have each looked at this issue, "When wood or coal burns, small amounts
> of nitrogen dioxide is formed which dissolves in the surface of the meat,
> thereby creating nitrous acid. The acid diffuses further into the meat, and
> when converted to nitric oxide it reacts with myoglobin to form a stable
> pink colored molecule."
He says that based on what? He has data?
> Total smoke absorption doesn't seem to be the issue, only smoke exposure.
>
> I saw his discussion, a few months back ,on smoke rings in meat, and othe
> bbq relate meat questions, at the Home of Barbecue website:
> http://www.homeofbbq.com/2008/04/interview-martin-lersch-of-khymos.html
>
> Martin Lersch keeps a blog at http://blog.khymos.org
>
> Harold McGee also dicusses this in his book 'On Food and Cooking'.
>
> What do you think?
A reasonable estimate of the amount of smoke necessary
to create a smoke ring by an oxidized nitrogen curing
reaction is in the range of about 100 to 1000 times
more than anything you can do in a barbeque. Unless
I made another math error.
Steve Pope
>A reasonable estimate of the amount of smoke necessary
>to create a smoke ring by an oxidized nitrogen curing
>reaction is in the range of about 100 to 1000 times
>more than anything you can do in a barbeque. Unless
>I made another math error.
Let's say you burn a pound of wood over four hours, and all of the
oxidized nitrogen gases produced are absorbed into the surface layer of
(let's say) a brisket resulting in (at most) three ounces of
nitrite-pinkened meat. Suppose there are no other watery substances
around to compete for the nitrous absorption (which I think follows the
experience of BBQ'ers who want a ring).
Let's also say to get pinkness the meat must be 2% cure.
So, you're saying you cannot get 2 grams of nitrogen gasses
out of burning a pound of wood? That there is always less than 0.5%
co-burning of nitrogen?
That does not seem like a lot of nitrogen burning to me.
Steve
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. However, the process as I understand it doesn't require
>> absorbtion of smoke by the meat, as I made mention a couple of times.
>> According to both Martin Lersch and Harold McGee, recognized food
>> scientist who have each looked at this issue, "When wood or coal
>> burns, small amounts of nitrogen dioxide is formed which dissolves
>> in the surface of the meat, thereby creating nitrous acid. The acid
>> diffuses further into the meat, and when converted to nitric oxide
>> it reacts with myoglobin to form a stable pink colored molecule."
>
> He says that based on what? He has data?
Do you? He certainly has the education, background, and credentials, as does
McGee.
>> Total smoke absorption doesn't seem to be the issue, only smoke
>> exposure.
>>
>> I saw his discussion, a few months back ,on smoke rings in meat, and
>> othe bbq relate meat questions, at the Home of Barbecue website:
>> http://www.homeofbbq.com/2008/04/interview-martin-lersch-of-khymos.html
>>
>> Martin Lersch keeps a blog at http://blog.khymos.org
>>
>> Harold McGee also dicusses this in his book 'On Food and Cooking'.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> A reasonable estimate of the amount of smoke necessary
> to create a smoke ring by an oxidized nitrogen curing
> reaction is in the range of about 100 to 1000 times
> more than anything you can do in a barbeque. Unless
> I made another math error.
And yet you have no data to back your theory up. You also stated that the
basis of your supposition was the volume of total smoke needed to be
absorbed by meat, not absorbtion of nitric acid due to oxides deposited on
meat. I think I'll trust the food scientists.
If you can provide specific citations of other food scientists proposing a
different method of smoke ring formation, I'll keep an open mind.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting. However, the process as I understand it doesn't require
> >> absorbtion of smoke by the meat, as I made mention a couple of times.
> >> According to both Martin Lersch and Harold McGee, recognized food
> >> scientist who have each looked at this issue, "When wood or coal
> >> burns, small amounts of nitrogen dioxide is formed which dissolves
> >> in the surface of the meat, thereby creating nitrous acid. The acid
> >> diffuses further into the meat, and when converted to nitric oxide
> >> it reacts with myoglobin to form a stable pink colored molecule."
> >
> > He says that based on what? He has data?
>
> Do you? He certainly has the education, background, and credentials, as does
> McGee.
Do you mean you believe him without checking
whether he has any data?
> >> Total smoke absorption doesn't seem to be the issue, only smoke
> >> exposure.
> >>
> >> I saw his discussion, a few months back ,on smoke rings in meat, and
> >> othe bbq relate meat questions, at the Home of Barbecue website:
> >> http://www.homeofbbq.com/2008/04/interview-martin-lersch-of-khymos.html
> >>
> >> Martin Lersch keeps a blog at http://blog.khymos.org
> >>
> >> Harold McGee also dicusses this in his book 'On Food and Cooking'.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > A reasonable estimate of the amount of smoke necessary
> > to create a smoke ring by an oxidized nitrogen curing
> > reaction is in the range of about 100 to 1000 times
> > more than anything you can do in a barbeque. Unless
> > I made another math error.
>
> And yet you have no data to back your theory up. You also stated that the
> basis of your supposition was the volume of total smoke needed to be
> absorbed by meat, not absorbtion of nitric acid due to oxides deposited on
> meat. I think I'll trust the food scientists.
Let's start at the beginning. Do you dispute that
a reasonable estimate of NOx compounds in smoke
is about 1 part in 13,000? If you do, what part
of the estimation do you dispute?
> If you can provide specific citations of other food scientists proposing a
> different method of smoke ring formation, I'll keep an open mind.
I already have, twice. Quoting from _Processed_Meats_
by Kramlich, Pearson, and Tauber, page 70:
"As soon as the smoke is generated, numerous
reactions and condensations occur. Aldehydes and
phenols condense to form resins, which represent
about 50% of the smoke components and are believed
to provide most of the color of smoked meats."
Mark Thorson
>
> So, you're saying you cannot get 2 grams of nitrogen gasses
> out of burning a pound of wood? That there is always less than 0.5%
> co-burning of nitrogen?
>
> That does not seem like a lot of nitrogen burning to me.
2 grams from a pound of wood? Not possible.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
Okay. The following states (table 4-1) that the acceptable
standard for NOx emissions from a wood burning fireplace is 1.3 grams
per kilogram of fuel:
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/bgdocs/b01s09.pdf
So that's a factor of two lower than I stated is required.
However, my estimate was based on needing 2% cure to achieve
curing and that is very high-sided -- the actual legal
limit of nitrites in commercial ham is (around) 0.1%.
So I am saying, it's possible. It's not a slam-dunk, and
a lot of BBQ ends up with no smoke ring. Probably if there
were an order of magnitude less co-burning of nitrogen
you would never see a smoke ring.
Steve
Mark Thorson
>
> So that's a factor of two lower than I stated is required.
> However, my estimate was based on needing 2% cure to achieve
> curing and that is very high-sided -- the actual legal
> limit of nitrites in commercial ham is (around) 0.1%.
2% of what? 2% of smoke is not the same as 2% of
a pickle cure solution, because the mass density of
smoke is about 1 kg/m3 and the mass density of the
solution is about 1000 kg/m3. There's a lot more
NOx available at the surface of the meat when immersed
in a pickle than when immersed in a gas.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
I disagree with this logic. The density of
smoke per cubic meter is not a factor in this calculation.
The important thing is how much of the NOx in the
smoke is captured by the surface of the meat. If the
smoke is slowly swirling around the meat for long
periods of time, the meat, being the only water-bearing
substance in the oven, will end up dissolving a large fraction
of the NOx. If the smoke is moving slowly enough, the
amount of NOx dissolved approaches equilibrium. Nox
captured by the meat and becoming dissolved ions does
not migrate back into the gas phase. The capture ratio
might approaches 100% if you smoke very slowly.
So I would say the percent cure in the smoke ring will be
the product of the following:
(1) Weight of wood burned
(2) Emission factor of NOx for wood-burners
(3) Percent of NOx captured by the meat
divided by the weight of the meat which exhibits the smoke ring
(which is a small fraction of the total weight of the meat).
When you calculate the above with reasonable numbers you get the
percentage cure, it does not depend upon the volume the smoke is
taking up, and it resembles the percentage needed to cure meat.
Steve
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. However, the process as I understand it doesn't
>>>> require absorbtion of smoke by the meat, as I made mention a
>>>> couple of times. According to both Martin Lersch and Harold McGee,
>>>> recognized food scientist who have each looked at this issue,
>>>> "When wood or coal burns, small amounts of nitrogen dioxide is
>>>> formed which dissolves in the surface of the meat, thereby
>>>> creating nitrous acid. The acid diffuses further into the meat,
>>>> and when converted to nitric oxide it reacts with myoglobin to
>>>> form a stable pink colored molecule."
>>>
>>> He says that based on what? He has data?
>>
>> Do you? He certainly has the education, background, and credentials,
>> as does McGee.
>
> Do you mean you believe him without checking
> whether he has any data?
I believe he has data. As a professional food scientist why wouldn't he?
>>>> Total smoke absorption doesn't seem to be the issue, only smoke
>>>> exposure.
>>>>
>>>> I saw his discussion, a few months back ,on smoke rings in meat,
>>>> and othe bbq relate meat questions, at the Home of Barbecue
>>>> website:
>>>> http://www.homeofbbq.com/2008/04/interview-martin-lersch-of-khymos.html
>>>>
>>>> Martin Lersch keeps a blog at http://blog.khymos.org
>>>>
>>>> Harold McGee also dicusses this in his book 'On Food and Cooking'.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> A reasonable estimate of the amount of smoke necessary
>>> to create a smoke ring by an oxidized nitrogen curing
>>> reaction is in the range of about 100 to 1000 times
>>> more than anything you can do in a barbeque. Unless
>>> I made another math error.
>>
>> And yet you have no data to back your theory up. You also stated
>> that the basis of your supposition was the volume of total smoke
>> needed to be absorbed by meat, not absorbtion of nitric acid due to
>> oxides deposited on meat. I think I'll trust the food scientists.
>
> Let's start at the beginning. Do you dispute that
> a reasonable estimate of NOx compounds in smoke
> is about 1 part in 13,000? If you do, what part
> of the estimation do you dispute?
I don't dispute it or confirm it. I simply find it a supposition based on
what you consider reasonable. McGee and Lersch have studied the issue and
have rendered their professional opinions. We know that nitrates and
nitrites can create the red coloration. We know that nitric acid can create
the nitrates and nitrites.
What is the data set presented by your book?
>> If you can provide specific citations of other food scientists
>> proposing a different method of smoke ring formation, I'll keep an
>> open mind.
>
> I already have, twice. Quoting from _Processed_Meats_
> by Kramlich, Pearson, and Tauber, page 70:
>
> "As soon as the smoke is generated, numerous
> reactions and condensations occur. Aldehydes and
> phenols condense to form resins, which represent
> about 50% of the smoke components and are believed
> to provide most of the color of smoked meats."
This quote, as I said earlier, appears more to the issue of outward
coloration of the bark of the meat, not a smoke ring. There is no indication
that the authors believe otherwise. Moreover, no specific data is given.
This is aside from the fact that HOW the phenols and aldehydes, by forming a
'resin', reacts with muscle tissue to create a pink coloration. In addition,
when you presented this quote, you also believed that NOX was not a part of
wood smoke because the book made no mention of it. Food scientists have made
specific quotes about the cause and creation of a smoke ring via nitric acid
absorbtion which, to me, is an adequate explanation. It certainly echoes
what is known about the effect of nitrates and nitrites in cures as they
contact myoglobin.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > Let's start at the beginning. Do you dispute that
> > a reasonable estimate of NOx compounds in smoke
> > is about 1 part in 13,000? If you do, what part
> > of the estimation do you dispute?
>
> I don't dispute it or confirm it. I simply find it a supposition based on
> what you consider reasonable. McGee and Lersch have studied the issue and
> have rendered their professional opinions. We know that nitrates and
> nitrites can create the red coloration. We know that nitric acid can create
> the nitrates and nitrites.
>
> What is the data set presented by your book?
Which book? My estimate was based on a recipe in Heller's.
I chose the dry-cured brisket because that's closest to
an external application of NOx to cure a piece of meat.
Most of the recipes in Heller's are pumped. However,
I notice in perusing the other recipes that one pound
of curing salt to 100 pounds of meat was consistently
being applied. They don't present the data by which
they determined that amount, but being in the business
of supplying meat curing salts I assume they had some
practical experience which led to that amount.
The figure of 13,000 was based on the data you presented,
from the 1993 EPA study. That provided the data for the
amount of combustion air and the amount of NOx compounds
produced, which leads to the figure of one part in 13,000.
I even chose the higher figure of 0.9 grams NOx per kg wood,
when the study gave a range of 0.2 to 0.9, just to give you
the benefit of the doubt.
You wouldn't try to cure meat with a pickle that dilute,
would you? And a liquid pickle would be about 1000 times
denser than smoke, so smoke is even more sparse as a curing
agent -- about a factor of a 100,000 too dilute to be
responsible for the smoke ring. Even if my assumptions
were off by a factor of ten here or there, NOx compounds
in smoke are still so dilute that there's no possible way
they could make a smoke ring.
> > I already have, twice. Quoting from _Processed_Meats_
> > by Kramlich, Pearson, and Tauber, page 70:
> >
> > "As soon as the smoke is generated, numerous
> > reactions and condensations occur. Aldehydes and
> > phenols condense to form resins, which represent
> > about 50% of the smoke components and are believed
> > to provide most of the color of smoked meats."
>
> This quote, as I said earlier, appears more to the issue of outward
> coloration of the bark of the meat, not a smoke ring. There is no indication
> that the authors believe otherwise. Moreover, no specific data is given.
> This is aside from the fact that HOW the phenols and aldehydes, by forming a
> 'resin', reacts with muscle tissue to create a pink coloration. In addition,
> when you presented this quote, you also believed that NOX was not a part of
> wood smoke because the book made no mention of it. Food scientists have made
> specific quotes about the cause and creation of a smoke ring via nitric acid
> absorbtion which, to me, is an adequate explanation. It certainly echoes
> what is known about the effect of nitrates and nitrites in cures as they
> contact myoglobin.
There you go raising the straw man again. I didn't say
no NOx, but I did not and still do not accept it as
being a significant amount. On the other hand, there's
loads of aldehydes and phenols -- about half of the smoke,
not one part in 13,000. They are major components of smoke,
not trace components.