Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kristin Meredith]

Based on our very small sample testing, I believe some people can identify some woods on some meats (9 testers, 4 different pellets, one gas grill) The hickory pellets were 100% from Cookin' Pellets.  6 of the judges were KCBS judges and comp cooks (Fast Eddy was a judge so may have eaten the most que among us all).  Excerpts from our testing:

Fish  – the gas grill also one of the least liked, but surprisingly 7 out of  9 of the testers said they tasted smoke in the sample. No one was able to correctly identify any of the woods cooked on.

Hamburger – Once again, the testers tasted smoke in the gas grill burger.... Two testers correctly identified Cherry and one correctly identified Hickory.

Chicken – One person correctly identified Black Walnut, one correctly identified Cherry and two correctly identified Hickory.

Ribs – Two testers correctly identified Hickory.


So yes, some people can sometimes identify some woods.  Two things stood out to me in this testing:

1. Prior to testing, the majority of testers were convinced they would be able to identify the woods, especially hickory.  This showed me that most folks like to believe they have better taste buds than they do. After testing, most were dumbfounded that they could not correctly identify woods.

2.  A lot of the testers confused char with smoke as shown by the results on the hamburger and fish.

Again, since one of our judges was Fast Eddy, that may have skewed our results slightly, no way of knowing.

[bregent]

Kristen, I assume this test was performed with a pellet grill for the smoked samples?

[Kristin Meredith]

We tested four (4) different pellets: Black Walnut by BBQr’s Delight; The Other Outdoor Store’s 100% Cherry; Bear Mountain Maple; and Cookingpellets.com 100% Hickory.  We also used one gas grill for control  purposes.

We tested four sample products: Fish (dover sole); hamburger patties; chicken (breasts, boneless and skinless); and ribs (St. Louis style).  The meats were not marinaded or brined.  No rubs or sauces were used.  Simple seasoning of salt and pepper was added.

The pits used were: the Louisiana Whole Hog by Danson,;  the Memphis Pro by Hearthland; the Two Star General by MAK; the Traeger Jr. by Traeger; and a gas grill.  The longest cook was the ribs at about 6 hours.  We tried to give the samples as much “smoke time” as possible without overcooking them.

The samples were each placed in a styrofoam container with a number.  The judges were asked to take a piece of the sample.  They were then asked to taste the sample and answer questions for each numbered box.  This procedure was repeated five times (the 4 wood pellets and the gas grill) for each of the four meat samples.

So, to state another way -- a tester received a sample of fish cooked on walnut, cherry, maple, hickory and gas and was asked if they could identify any particular wood flavor from those 5 samples.  Repeat for the other 3 meats.

[Bentley]

We had the WholeHog, jimsbarbeque MAK 2 Star, a Traeger Jr (cant remember the Members Name) the Memphis Pro, and a neighbors gas unit.

[imahawki]

The point is, if you can't pass a double blind test, I don't believe you.  I'm not sure how rigorous Bently's test was but I bet it was sufficient for my conclusion that you can't taste the difference.

You have exactly summarized my feelings until I discovered Synesthesia, which is well-documented and tested.  You know how I feel—if you don't have data, all you have is an opinion.

But this Synesthesia thing turned me around.

Go ahead, though, hold to your view.  In the back of my mind I still support you.  Audio snobs, wine snobs, auto snobs, gun snobs, the entire spectrum of snobs give me a pain in my pork butt.  I would love to prove BS to anyone who says their sense of taste is that developed.  But, as of my exposure to the Synesthesia literature, I can't.

But you still don't have data, you just have identified a condition that could theoretically explain IF someone could taste the difference.  You have no data that someone CAN taste the difference.

[bregent]

OK thanks. Those results are not surprising to me at all. I'm sure most people can't taste the difference in pellet wood species in food cooked on a pellet grill, let alone identify the wood. That's the reason I only use one type of pellet.

I don't believe the same is true for food cooked on a stick or charcoal cooker where the flavor from the smoke is more predominate.   It would still be hard for most people to ID the species, but they could tastes a difference between them.

[Bentley]

And in my experience, over 100 Competitions either cooking or judging...Tasting many different teams food, cooked with many different hardwoods, mostly from stick burners & WSM's (and knowing what hardwood they used)...I am hear to tell you about the only one that stands out in taste is Mesquite, and for smoke smell, it and Hickory.

If you will research guaiacol...I believe is produced by any wood smoke...

I don't believe the same is true for food cooked on a stick or charcoal cooker where the flavor from the smoke is more predominate.   It would still be hard for most people to ID the species, but they could tastes a difference between them.

[kruz805]

I am a homebrew Judge and have read a lot about taste and smell along with attending HomBrew Con's on judging.  First off, everyone has unique thresholds different flavors and aromas.  I have met ppl that can identify diacetyl (off flavor in beer fermentation that smells and taste like butter) with just a small wiff when a bottle is open close to them.  For me, I need to look hard for it as I am somewhat blind.  So, using this info, I can say by our physiology alone, we can determine differences.  Now, one thing to note, it takes time to learn to sense the different flavors and aromas.  I for one do not eat bbq on a regular basis (once or twice a week) to be all that in tune with difference in smoke flavor.  I also do not have a way to cook identically on the same pit with different wood smoke.  What I can perceive from my bbq is subtle differences in flavors.  I am usually  (not all the time as your sense of smell and taste differ each day and from hour to hour) able to recognize mesquite and hickory on smoked foods.

Beer judging is broken down to aroma, color, flavor and mouth feel.  I would say that bbq can be broken down to aroma (smell), color (externally added), flavor (taste and effects perceived in the mouth - dryness, acrid, sweetness). 
This is what I perceive and may be different to others:
mesquite
A: strong smoke of burnt wood
C: deep mahagony to black (especially beef)
F: Strong smoke flavor with a burnt wood/charcoal character.  There is a unique flavor component that is hard to describe; very dry character

Hickory
A: Strong smoke most similar to that of bacon
C:  deep mahagony to black (especially beef)
F: Strong smoke flavor that is bacon like; sweeter than mesquite and not as dry as oak

Oak
A: smells like burning wood
C: red to deep mahogany
F: Taste like pure smoke with little woody character (think red wine that has been matured in barrels); Has a dry character that is more than Hickory and less than Mesquite

Pecan is basically has a subtle hickory character that has a mild nutty quality (I get it more on the Andouille I make than ribs)

Beech/alder
A: Mild clean smoke aroma
C; Alder will add a nice bronze character to seafood and cheese
F: taste the same to me and are subtle like a sweeter oak character with out the woody component

Apple/Cherry
A: Mild, clean smoke aroma that can have a sweet smoke smell
C: Cherry will add a red tingle to meats; apple will add a nice bronze color to cheeses
F: tend to add a clean smoke flavor that has a sweet flavor.

I think if you break down your senses, you might be able to identify some differences. 

That is what I have noticed and would like others input.

[kruz805]

But you still don't have data, you just have identified a condition that could theoretically explain IF someone could taste the difference.  You have no data that someone CAN taste the difference.

You can not provide data as smell and taste are unique to each individual.  You can only talk about what is perceived by a person(s).  What I sense and taste may not be the same as you.  Also, without a common idea of sensory terms and description, it becomes difficult to translate each other perceptions.  BJCP has done a great job at doing this for beer,  I have not seen any public info for bbq or smoking that is similar.

Also, just like beer, even on a chemical breakdown, many components can be identified and quantified.  This does not fully translate to what people sense with smell and taste.  An example is IBU (International Bitter Units) for beer. Most IPA bottled within the past few years having brewers out doing each other.  The interesting thing is a high IBU beer of 90 may not seem as bitter as another, say a 50.  This is because of several factors that combined and lower the overall bitterness perceived.  Where as the lesser beer may have factors that bring out the perceived bitterness.

[imahawki]

But you still don't have data, you just have identified a condition that could theoretically explain IF someone could taste the difference.  You have no data that someone CAN taste the difference.

You can not provide data as smell and taste are unique to each individual. 

Data would be constituted by a successful double blind test with a statistically significant outcome and sufficient population.  Same as with whether a power cord makes a stereo sound different.

[pmillen]

But you still don't have data, you just have identified a condition that could theoretically explain IF someone could taste the difference.  You have no data that someone CAN taste the difference.

True, all I have is data that some people can see wood flavors.  But knowing that's true makes it easier for me to believe that others have tasting abilities that enable them to identify the wood that was used to smoke something.

But I understand your point...the body of tasters may not be correctly represented by the earlier graph.  I don't know if they are.  I don't have that data.  That's why I said, "So, conceivably, there are people who can identify the wood that was used to smoke something."

[SparkyLB]

I guess I’m one of the select few but I can tell mesquite and hickory for sure. Using 100% pellets. I feel like those are pretty distinct flavors.

Hi, Ross.  Is it flavor difference, or "smack you in the face difference?"  I realize the answer might be a combination of the two; but I'm interested in your perspective. 

[Ross77]

Probably both. Mesquite to me is bitter/ashtray and yes it does “taste” different.

My wife can’t name specific wood tastes but she has commented that she didn’t like the smoke taste when I’ve used mesquite. And that’s just asking how she liked the food and not saying that I did anything different.

I always ask her what she thinks of the smoke flavor/intensity for every cook. She definitely prefers hickory and pecan. And tends to like less intense flavor.

[kruz805]

Data would be constituted by a successful double blind test with a statistically significant outcome and sufficient population.  Same as with whether a power cord makes a stereo sound different.

I agree to disagree.  Without an educated populist, you don't get the results.  xxxx, that is why Bud owns ~50% of the beer market in the US.  Average Joe would not no the difference in smoke character or origin from licking the inside of an ashtray.  Also, as it pointed out, there are poor perception descriptions for comparing flavors and aromas.  To get usable data you need people that have smoked and have tried various woods.  A basic terminology has to developed to allow the group talk in the same terms.  Finally you would have a hard time smoking the meats as you would need the same pits and temps all using a different wood.  Meat quality and weight would need to be close also.  At that point I would agree with you, then you would have a valid test to compare with. 

[Bentley]

And just based on that statement, she is the kind of person I would like to have when theses tests are done!


by Eric Meier The Carya genus (or what is more commonly referred to as Hickory) is divided into two main groupings: true-hickory, and pecan-hickory. Species in the true-hickory group tend to be slightly denser, and therefore a bit harder and stronger than the species in the pecan-hickory group.

She definitely prefers hickory and pecan. And tends to like less intense flavor.