My oak is the kind we refer to as wood. It’s probably red oak because there is a red oak lane near me, but I don’t really know. I’m looking to get optimum to take down a big maple that has grown through the wires leading to my house. That will be a lifetime supply.
I’m perfectly happy to have any discussion about wood and wood varieties that you want… oak, cherry, walnut, mahogany, you name it.
You must be the Marcel Deiss of barbecue… site is more important that variety! If location was more critical to the flavor than wood type then people wouldn’t obsess about pecan vs oak vs hickory, they’d just ask for any hardwood from, say, the Texas panhandle. And no matter where you grow cherry or apple, their lighter flavor smoke will not resemble the heavier quality of hickory, let alone mesquite. Or olive.
Maybe I should take a page from OP Andrew’s experience and make myself a Manhattan (for this spirited discussion).
Seriously? You don’t believe in DNA?
guys - this is really easy to research. it’s only controversial to folks that that aren’t willing to think about it and research the issue.
So pecan wood and mesquite wood grown a couple of miles apart in central Arizona are going to be more similar to one another than AZ pecan wood is to pecan wood grown in North Carolina?
Hmm.
So if I used French cherry wood for my wine instead of French oak it’ll be more like French oak than if I used American oak?
we’re talking about the resulting smoke on the meat.
Well my point is the type of wood you use to smoke, as long as it’s a dried fruit/nut wood, is somewhere irrelevant, but yet here we are arguing about location vs type of wood as a material factor. I want to know how far you’re willing to take this. It clearly appears, (but correct me if I’m wrong) that you agree that the type of wood, not the terroir of the wood, is more important when it comes to aging wine. But apparently this doesn’t apply to the microscopic particles emitted by woods during the extremely complex combustion process.
Here’s a fairly scientific breakdown, informed by someone with vastly more cooking experience than I. I’ve excerpted a few highlights for you as well (and yes I realize he references location, but only in the context of how little it all matters:
Which wood?
Cured (dried) hardwoods with low sap are the best for barbecue, especially fruit and nut woods. They all have slightly different flavors, and it is impossible to describe them. The internet is full of guides attempting to describe the flavors of different woods. They remind me of the florid descriptions wine lovers use. Most of them are just copied and pasted from website to website. I don’t find these descriptions very useful. Frankly, I think most of it is a bunch of hooey. More barbecue mythology.
First of all, there are different kinds of each wood. For example, there’s shagbark hickory, scrub hickory, pignut hickory, red hickory, and more. There’s post oak, white oak, black oak, live oak, pin oak, and more. The climate the tree is grown in can impact flavor. Hot climate drought-stressed Texas oak grown in sand tastes different than cool climate Michigan oak grown in river silt. Furthermore, the amount of bark and can significantly impact flavor. How long it has dried and the percent water left in the wood significantly impacts flavor and aroma. And most importantly, the temperature of the fire, humidity of the cooker, and fuel type have a massive impact on flavor. Then throw your spice rub and sauce into the taste profile. Oh, I almost forgot, then there’s the meat. Yakima Valley Washington Apple might taste one way on pork, but will taste entirely different on beef or turkey. Can you taste a smoked rib with Meathead’s Memphis Dust and Sweet Baby Ray’s sauce and tell me what wood was used? Get real.
Stop obsessing over which wood to use. Pick one and stick with it for a while. The quality of the meat, the spice rub, fire control and cooking temp, the meat temp, and the sauce impact the final taste profile far more than the name on a bag of wood. Once you have everything else under control, then you can experiment with different woods.
I have to say, this thread took a turn I wasn’t expecting.
I’m open minded. Got some references to actual chemical analysis of the smoke? Otherwise it sounds a little like opinions on wine glass shape ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
how long have you been on the internet?
yeah, this!
the implication is to not obsess about wood species because where the wood is from will have a greater effect in any event.
that’s what that link talks about.
i told you i’d get flamed for this.
old habits die hard.
Me at work today:
Not necessarily. M Berto, in all of his wisdom, quoted AmazingRibs.com, which is run by… Meathead, the guy I quoted re: briquettes:D
and i was referencing the work of dr blonder, who is the science advisor to amazingribs - so we’re all on the same page.
I’m sure you noticed the part in the linked article where he wrote: "Here’s the best I can do based on the woods I have used.
•Mild (best for foods that are not heavily seasoned or sauced). Alder, apple, cherry, grape, maple, mulberry, orange, and peach.
•Strong (best for strong flavored foods with lots of spice and/or sauce). Hickory, mesquite, oak, pecan, walnut, and whiskey barrel.
I avoid mesquite. It can be harsh, bitter, and pungent. Hickory is the tried and true mate for pork, but some people find it too aggressive and occasionally it can taste bitter. Fruit woods tend to impart a sweetness, but this may just be the power of suggestion because we know fruit to be sweet."
Not a word about where the trees grew or a suggestion to seek out woods from particular regions; clearly, he’s accepts to the proposition that certain woods have identifiable characteristics. Alan’s deoxyribonucleic acid at work.
“here’s the best i can do” is because the premise is don’t obsess about wood. the reason he/they write that is that there are other factors in play. no one ever said buy wood from a certain place.
the reality is that depending on the wood, there are other complicating factors that blur the lines of the species. therefore, the wood species, in and of itself, isn’t as important as several other factors, some of which are determined by terroir, so to speak.
Here is again where you lose me. I can get that certain species of woods from different areas will behave differently. Mesquite in Texas is different from Mesquite (Koa) in Hawaii. But way before the internet information overload age, I came up with a personal list of woods from trial and error that mirrors the above list. It’s why I discontinued the use of Hickory in favor of Oak and Pecan. It’s why I like to use Cherry for Chicken as I like the flavor and particularly the color imparted by the smoke. In fact do this experiment, smoke a chicken over Cherry and smoke a chicken over Apple. You will see the chicken has a very different color (Oak produces a beige/tan skin, Hickory Dark Brown). If it was all about where the wood was grown, then you believe that chicken cooked over cherry which has a pronounced reddish tint, would also look red when cooked over an oak tree from the same site. I get the red color on ALL Cherry wood regardless of the origin of the wood and regardless of whether I use logs, chunks, chips or shavings.
first, no clue about color, but creosote has a large hand in that aspect, so worth looking into that.
second, i didn’t say it was all about where the wood comes from. i said, in the context of smoking for meats, the “where” is a major factor that may override the species. the takeaway is that species - in and of itself - is not worth putting rules around. and certainly as it relates to oaks, cherries, etc. which seemingly fall into a narrow and interchangeable band of substitute woods for each other.
i mean, just one tiny example; look at this thread about which wood(s) to use for chicken:
cherry, pecan, maple, apple, oak, mesquite, and combos of same…