# Smoke time vs heating time



## Mike (Jun 15, 2020)

There is a difference between the time smoke is being produced, and the  time heat is available.
I understand some folks might want a lighter smoke  over say 3 hours and some want smoke for all 3 hours.
Is there a general rule of thumb stating the ratio of smoke time to cooking time? - Mike


----------



## JC in GB (Jun 15, 2020)

I have never heard of such a  rule.  A stick burner runs smoke 100% of the time as does a pellet grill.  Electrics and charcoal units can be run with our without smoke.

The best advice I can give you is don't over-smoke your food.  Many beginners want to get a good smoke flavor on their BBQ so they run heavy smoke.  This results in a nasty, bitter product, kind of like an ex-spouse.   I couldn't resist but probably should have. 

You want a steady thin smoke during 2/3 of your cook.  If you want lighter smoke flavor run smoke for less time.   Some say that smoke flavor get less attached to meat as it heats up.

Hope this made some sense.

JC


----------



## zwiller (Jun 15, 2020)

^Well said.  TBS for whole cook is my take.


----------



## Gecko10 (Jun 15, 2020)

Here is how I do it on my Pit Boss 820. YMMV.

Smoke on P4-5 for 1.5-2 hrs. Finish at 320-350.


----------



## bill1 (Jun 15, 2020)

So Mike, are we answering your question, or have we totally misinterpreted what you were trying to get at? 

 If we knew what sort of cooker you own/prefer, we might give more relevant answers.  

I'm thinking you might have a pellet grill where most vendors have two "modes" of operating: a cook mode and a smoke mode??   If so, Gecko10's answer is heading in the right direction.


----------



## GaryHibbert (Jun 15, 2020)

I smoke my meat the entire time it's in the smoker.  But that's just how I like it.  If I didn't want smoke, then I'd just throw in on the gas grill.
How long you apply smoke is determined ONLY by the amount of smoke flavor YOU want--kinda like what color wine you drink with your meal.
Gary


----------



## SecondHandSmoker (Jun 15, 2020)

I'll throw in my 2 ¢ worth here.
If I am cooking for folks who have never ate smoked meats before, then I'll keep the smoke very light, about one to two hours for poultry, for example. 
However, I do maintain a constant chamber temp during those two hours and then for the remainder of the cook without any more smoke production.
Now, when I am cooking for self admitted die hard smoke junkies like myself, then I am rolling TBS the whole time while still maintaining the same chamber temp, say 225-250 for low and slow.


----------



## Inscrutable (Jun 15, 2020)

I’ve seen a few places say that meat stops absorbing smoke when it gets to about 120*
Not sure if valid.

On the egg it’s getting it the whole time, as I mix wood chunks in with the charcoal.
on the electric, I‘ll go for at least half the cook time on long cooks, the whole time on short ones.

Just play around with it yourself and see what suits your palate.


----------



## Mike (Jun 16, 2020)

bill1 said:


> So Mike, are we answering your question, or have we totally misinterpreted what you were trying to get at?
> 
> If we knew what sort of cooker you own/prefer, we might give more relevant answers.
> 
> I'm thinking you might have a pellet grill where most vendors have two "modes" of operating: a cook mode and a smoke mode??   If so, Gecko10's answer is heading in the right direction.


Bill and others - thanks for all the replies, and yes, I got an answer I like, which is "there is probably a minimum, somewhere around half the time, but it depends on how much smoke exposure you want to get the amount of smokiness you are looking for".

As for my set-up, it's a 10 gallon garbage can, heated by a 1000 Watt hotplate - Mike


----------



## JC in GB (Jun 16, 2020)

What are you using to control temp in that unit?

JC


----------



## SecondHandSmoker (Jun 16, 2020)

Inscrutable said:


> ’ve seen a few places say that meat stops absorbing smoke when it gets to about 120*



In addition to the 120*,  I've seen up to 170* before the meat pores close up thus hindering anymore smoke absorption.


----------



## Inscrutable (Jun 16, 2020)

Yeah, guessing this is not an exact science (no pun)


----------



## SecondHandSmoker (Jun 16, 2020)

Inscrutable said:


> Yeah, guessing this is not an exact science (no pun)



Yup.  
It's not exactly rocket science either.


----------



## 1MoreFord (Jun 18, 2020)

Inscrutable said:


> I’ve seen a few places say that meat stops absorbing smoke when it gets to about 120*
> Not sure if valid.





SecondHandSmoker said:


> In addition to the 120*,  I've seen up to 170* before the meat pores close up thus hindering anymore smoke absorption.



Meat absorbs smoke as long as it is cooking in smoke.

What stops is smoke ring formation.  It stops somewhere around 140°F meat temp.


----------



## bill1 (Jun 18, 2020)

The effect of pores is not an "open or shut" case either.  (Sorry couldn't resist.)  
I'm guessing here, but I suspect meat pores are the capillaries that wick meat moisture to the surface as the meat cooks.   I can believe they shrink with cooking just because with less water you have less surface tension keeping pressure on the capillaries.  But then again, less _water _in the capillaries means more room for _smoke_! (I love how I can convince myself of anything!) 

And there are multiple mechanisms to making meat taste smoky too besides porosity.  E.g. the water beading on the surface is effective at grabbing smoke and condensing out around it, just like a cloud raindrop forms by condensing around dust.  As 1moreFord notes, that doesn't just stop at 120 or 170F.   Then again I'd expect the effect to be more prominent in the early (cooler) part of the cook.  

Still, I suspect porosity is a major driver.  That's prob why_ pressure cooking _with smoke is SOOO effective...the increased ambient pressure enlarges the pores.  Similarly, I'd think vacuum-packing meat would shrink down the pores, and they might not snap back again when the bag is vented.  Can anyone with one of those vacuum bag thingies comment as to whether vac-packed meat seems _less_ likely to take smoke flavor when ultimately used?


----------



## SecondHandSmoker (Jun 19, 2020)

1MoreFord said:


> Meat absorbs smoke as long as it is cooking in smoke.
> 
> What stops is smoke ring formation.  It stops somewhere around 140°F meat temp.




I do believe that 

 Inscrutable
 and I were pointing out that there is alot myth and misinformation that exists out there.


----------



## SecondHandSmoker (Jun 19, 2020)

bill1 said:


> The effect of pores is not an "open or shut" case either.  (Sorry couldn't resist.)
> I'm guessing here, but I suspect meat pores are the capillaries that wick meat moisture to the surface as the meat cooks.   I can believe they shrink with cooking just because with less water you have less surface tension keeping pressure on the capillaries.  But then again, less _water _in the capillaries means more room for _smoke_! (I love how I can convince myself of anything!)
> 
> And there are multiple mechanisms to making meat taste smoky too besides porosity.  E.g. the water beading on the surface is effective at grabbing smoke and condensing out around it, just like a cloud raindrop forms by condensing around dust.  As 1moreFord notes, that doesn't just stop at 120 or 170F.   Then again I'd expect the effect to be more prominent in the early (cooler) part of the cook.
> ...



Thermophoresis is occuring the whole time during the cook.  As water continues to evaporate and cool the surface of the meat, the smoke particles will be attracted to the meat surface.

As for vac-packed meat, that does sounds like a good experiment to try out sometime,


----------



## Bearcarver (Jun 19, 2020)

In case anyone is still interested:
I keep my AMNPS putting out light smoke the whole time my meat is in My MES 40.
Never Heavy, but light the whole time.
I get up to 11 hours of light smoke from one load of Hickory in my AMNPS.

Bear


----------



## 1MoreFord (Jun 20, 2020)

SecondHandSmoker said:


> I do believe that
> 
> Inscrutable
> and I were pointing out that there is alot myth and misinformation that exists out there.



Really?  Sounded to me like y'all were both clueless and looking for guidance. 

Maybe y'all ole timer's round here know your own brand of humour and satire better than us newbies.


----------

