Direct heat and indirect heat techniques reconciliation

The definition of direct/ indirect needs to be defined so there can be an intelligent discussion on the topic.

I liken it to sun and shade. If the meat has sunshine (fire) shining on it then it's direct and if it has solid shade (a solid object ) in the way or off to the side then it's indirect.

Direct can be grilling (close proximity) or low heat direct which still gives meat the texture it needs but still allows slow cooking.

Even if what i call a "holy diffuser" is used the meat is still seeing lots of fire even though it's partially shaded
 
And/Or when fat renders directly into the coals. I've never stuck my head into the pits at Scott's but I would assume that in the majority of those pits you have mop sauce dripping into live coals.
 
Direct heat means suspending the meat directly over live coals without flame so that as the meat is mopped the liquid dripping from the meat causes steam to rise. That being said, it doesn't mean that the meat or coals can't be moved to a side under the meat during the cooking process. In fact, that is a common practice at least at some point in the cook because the meat will usually need to rest and be kept warm.

Cooking 40 whole pork shoulders or a couple of whole hogs mean a lot of residual heat, much more than will be created when cooking one or two pork butts. At the BBQ restaurant I worked at many years ago, we would cook about 40 shoulders a night with direct heat for about 9 to 10 hours. After that, we would close down the cooker to let residual heat continue to cook the meat and keep it warm until service time at about 11am the next day. So, the amount of meat that is cooked can certainly change the process.
 
Just out of curiosity is there a good "open pit" cooker that one could shovel hot coals into the old school way? Not a UDS but a proper, larger open pit cooker.
 
rdstoll said:
Just out of curiosity is there a good "open pit" cooker that one could shovel hot coals into the old school way? Not a UDS but a proper, larger open pit cooker.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen one of these in action but it has the right configuration for direct heat and open pit barbecue.

http://www.asadorcubano.com/

dandovueltacasicocinado2.jpg
 
rdstoll said:
Just out of curiosity is there a good "open pit" cooker that one could shovel hot coals into the old school way? Not a UDS but a proper, larger open pit cooker.
Click to expand...
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FcTamq3OAE"]Hot to Build a Pit BBQ for $250 - YouTube[/ame]
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: gtr
I forgive the use of the word "reconciliation," as this is one of the dastardly finance chores that I prefer not to consider on my own time... :)

With that said, in my mind BBQ is still done the same way. Now we put baffles, tuning plates, offset fireboxes, water pans, etc., where in the past, they used physical space (distance from the coals to the pit), and burned down coals. We still do this today. It works great, but a lot more labor intensive. Also, the cooking temps are basically the same. Our pits today are just more portable, efficient, safer, etc., but the old saying that it's the cook, not the pit still applies.


However, when I see the word "direct," I am thinking of actual flame or heat source in very close relation to the meat. Almost the exact same argument as grilling versus BBQ.
 
The only difference, Noah, is that all that "new" stuff works to prevent the drippings from the meat to hit the hot coals. That IS the difference in flavor profile between "old style" open pit cooking and all the new closed cookers.
 
qman said:
The only difference, Noah, is that all that "new" stuff works to prevent the drippings from the meat to hit the hot coals. That IS the difference in flavor profile between "old style" open pit cooking and all the new closed cookers.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that I would agree with that. Slept too much in Physics class, so I don't know the exact terminology, but I'd think that there is a difference in the type of heating.

Here's my basic thought. Take a 2 inch thick ribeye and stick it in a smoker at 225 well away from the heat source and take it up to 130. You'll end up with a nice roasted piece of Prime Rib.

Take the exact same 2 inch thick ribeye and put it over a direct heat source and you'll have a ribeye steak with a taste and texture that's much different than the Prime Rib.
 
Demosthenes9 said:
I'm not sure that I would agree with that. Slept too much in Physics class, so I don't know the exact terminology, but I'd think that there is a difference in the type of heating.

Here's my basic thought. Take a 2 inch thick ribeye and stick it in a smoker at 225 well away from the heat source and take it up to 130. You'll end up with a nice roasted piece of Prime Rib.

Take the exact same 2 inch thick ribeye and put it over a direct heat source and you'll have a ribeye steak with a taste and texture that's much different than the Prime Rib.
Click to expand...
OK, I did not express myself very well. I was assuming that everyone understood we were talking about old style bbq pits. The meat would typically be at least 24 inches from heat source, and heat source would not be a grilling fire. Did not mean to imply that a bed of coals close enough to produce sear and grilling was involved.
 
How is this for an old school covered smoker - 1892 BBQ -Pic courtesy of Cottonwood County Historical Society. Interesting to see how things developed into our modern cookers.

1892BBQ-PiccourtesyofCottonwoodCountyHistoricalSociety_zps3fc89d26.jpg
 
and how far down we have came those dudes are wearing coats & ties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheHojo
Direct Heat Meatloaf
2
Replies
22
Views
940
PitRow
PitRow
TheHojo
Direct Heat Cooker
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
ssv3
ssv3
F
Are direct heat cookers the next “big” thing?
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Dweverett
D
N
"Chud style" direct heat spares
Replies
16
Views
2K
TheHojo
TheHojo
TheHojo
Shoulder Clod Over Direct Heat
2
Replies
24
Views
995
bschoen
B
Back
Top