Sous Vide - before or after smoking

[Sherry Williamson]

From the Food Lab.........."Is it better to apply that smoke before or after cooking sous vide? Well, according to folks like Meathead Goldwyn, author of the eponymous book on the science of barbecue, the flavorful compounds in smoke will adhere to and penetrate raw meat much better than they will cooked meat. This is true, but I find that the amount of smoke flavor I get out of a post–sous vide session in the smoker is plenty for my taste buds, and smoking at the end makes the process so much more efficient. I'll stick to the post–sous vide smoke."

Does this still hold true..........everything I have been able to find on your site states sous vide first........cook later

[shify]

Neither. Sous vide in the middle. Smoke-Sous Vide-smoke. The first smoke give you the most flavor and also gives you a smoke ring if you care. The smoke after SV reinforces the smoke and then also sets the bark

[Potkettleblack]

It depends on the amount of smoke you can put on things. When I was using pellets or chips on my gasser, both. On my Grilla, I do either or both. It really depends on what I expect out of what I’m cooking.

If if I had a KBQ, I might sous then smoke. I don’t have a heavy smoke smoker, so pre and post produces superior results.

[hogdog6]

I must concur Potkettleblack (my SV mentor). With my KBQ smoke after is how I roll, always satisfied with the smoke flavor.

[EdF]

@Hogdog what poppet approach?

[hogdog6]

EdF I run the top poppet about 1/2 and the bottom full open

[Troutman]

Both before and after. Been plenty of cooks on here where comparisons to either/or confirms it.

[HouseHomey]

Wacha talking about Willis??

[Fire Art]

Either or and both

[BBQ_Steve-O]

I used to do before and after, but to be honest, I didn't notice a big difference in pre-smoking. Lately, with a few exceptions, I've mostly been smoking after and I'm happy with the results.

[Potkettleblack]

I’m gonna add a thing that is both completely obvious and almost always overlooked. Preference is personal. What I think of as adequate smoke may be either completely untasteable to someone else or may be acrid and burnt tasting. and your perception of smoke may be changed considerably Day by Day. So, really, there’s no single answer that works best every time for everybody.

As an aisde, in my SV group, they’ve been discussing pre-post-both with regard to SVQ for years with no consensus.

also, in support of Kenji, from a processing point of view Sous then Smoke is the simplest. OTOH, I’m a pellet smoker, so QVQ is not that much more work. JKLA is, IIRC, smoking on a kettle, so might not want to fire up two sets of briquettes.

[Troutman]

Well you lost me in all the ABCDEFG, but your are correct it's ALWAYS a matter of taste. Although I love my pellet pooper for it's convenience and size (it happens to be my largest cooker), the smoke profile for most meats is just not there for our tastes. My wife and I prefer a rather strong, but not acrid, smokiness to our meat. I call it "stick burner" smokiness.

So knowing that, I want the tenderness of SV and the gentle but steady way it relaxes the proteins and renders fat, plus as much smokiness crammed into the meat as possible to achieve a "barbecue" equivalency. Pre-smoke because I feel that's where your going to achieve the most bang for the buck, and post to shore up the bark and try to get a bit more of what we want in the finished product.

It's a long process for sure. A lot of cooks don't want to go through all that. We've talked about the QVQ pastrami 72 hour + smoking recipe ad nauseam (actually got one in the bath now), it in my opinion produces as good a product as I can cook, much better than conventional. But if you skip the pre-smoking and just have a quick post-smoke it's not the same animal. And again that's my taste. Others may experiment and disagree. I don't think there is ever any one way to skin the cat.

So put that in you HIJKLMNOP pipe and lite her up !!!!

[hogdog6]

It’s all about what tastes good to you! GFEDCBA. 😜

[Sherry Williamson]

Thank you for your replies...….I did do a sirloin tip...…..smoked for 2 hours and then sous vide for another 10. It was really good but was curious to see if it made a difference by reversing the process. I have The Food Lab book and it stated that it really made no difference...…..then the note about Goldwyn....so a tad confused. I received Goldwyn's book today.... I have always rested my meat...…...this apparently is a myth...…..so much for that ;-)…….I would take a smoked pork butt, wrap it in a towel and place it in a cooler for 2-3 hours. You learn something new every day.

[Moscuba]

There are no rules to adding smoke; it's an art.

Smoking before give a subtle flavor and little aroma (aroma is a flavor attribute).

It depends on what you are cooking. Adding smoke to something that is supposed to smell smokey before Sous Vide will not work.

Smoking red meat prior to Sous Vide on a large cut to add smoke and will work but the smoke flavor will be less. I suspect because of "nose taste" is gone. Very little smell remains after Sous Vide. Also, you need to be good at pre-smoking as the time/temp comes into play.

You can cool smoke before for a "ring" and smoke after for a finish. It's not an "either" decision.

Smoking after is my preference for red meats. I can Sous Vide to the bottom range of medium (almost rare) and smoke for a long time and give it a crust and end up with a tender medium that people look at and insist it's too rare because it's so juicy and pink.

Delicate things are completely different. Salmon Mi Cuit and other fish needs to me cold smoked (very cold, under 70 degrees) before sous vide and the sous vide time needs to be adjusted by minutes based on the temp. of the cold smoke).

Cheers, enjoy and don't worry because even disappointments will be tasty!