I have been told that smoking with fruit wood that has bark on it is poisonous. I also have been told that there is nothing wrong with using 'barked wood'- that it is only a matter of personal taste.
Which is true?
Asked
Active
Viewed 1,561 times
3 Answers
4
It depends on the wood if it is desirable or not to smoke with the bark still on the wood. I have had good results smoking with apple wood bark, but disgusting results with birch (birch bark gave off heavy soot).
Is it poisonous? Well, I am still alive, but that's anecdotal.
Tritium21
- 336
- 1
- 7
3
I have been smoking meats for some time now (the really hard part is keeping the rib-eyes rolled up tight and lit). But seriously, I have yet to be poisoned by any bark from any of the wood I have used, and I have used them all. I have heard that there are some potential carcinogenic issues if you are constantly eating heavily smoked meat, but I do not have any facts to base that on. I think the primary issue with tree bark is that it will typically add a bad flavor to the meat and make it taste much more ashy and sooty (not very technical terms). Also, if you are in a competition, the bark tends to make much more smoke which can throw the look of your meat off when presenting as well.
Overall, I would say it is a best practice not to use the tree bark. However, I cannot say that it is due to specific health risks.
geoffmpm
- 280
- 2
- 7
1
I have used bark on and bark off and I have never tasted any difference other than (of course) from the different types of wood. Also, I see loads of bark-on wood at most all of the smoke house/bbq restaurants around me and their stuff is fine. I think that if bark-on was any kind of health issue then they would be required by fda to remove the bark before using the wood.
Either way I don't believe it can be any worse for you than what you get in prepackaged foods from the grocery store.
In my humble opinion bark on or off shouldn't make any difference.
Blueyedevil
- 11
- 1