Kingsford: Really more burn time?

[ssv3]

I think what it comes down to is marketing vs reality.

The marketing says that in laboratory tests under controlled conditions with hundreds of samples... you could probably get the new briqs to burn exactly the way they say. That, to me, is cherry-picking.

The reality is that when someone who has been using the old briqs for years buys the new formula briqs for the first time- they will be shocked at the differences in burn time and temp and probably ruin some good meat while they either look for a better alternative or tune their ingrained personal cooking style and techniques to the new briqs, which lets be real, are only a product of Kingsford looking for a way to make cheaper briqs.

I have been using both Kingsford and Royal Oak for a long time, and after seeing this, I think i'm going to be strictly RO from now on.

And that's all I have to say about that.

This and...

As mentioned, kind of like the EPA estimated MPG on a sticker but YMMV.

 

[grantw]

kbb burns hotter than royal oak i get up here in canada for sure, also smoking meats is not comon place here so i take what i get, yesterday there was one bag of kbb and one bag of royal oak so thats what i bought....

 

[ajstrider]

I think this is a loaded question. Briquettes are so much more dense than lump. Are you comparing pound to pound, or volume to volume. I bet if you went pound to pound, you wouldn't find much difference. But since those little KBB briquettes are dense, you can get a lot of burn time per volume which is how most people measure since they just fill up their basket.

 

[PappaOscar]

I use lump exclusively in my ceramic cooker. Burns hot and long, plus alot less ash.

 

[J-Rod]

I use Kingsford in my uds's, lump in my Akorn and horizontal drum smoker. Both have their pros and cons, as well as application. I never noticed a huge difference in burn times, but for the price it's hard to beat KBB as a fuel for the UDS. As for the turpentine stink, it's all about letting the pit settle in after lighting the coals. That smell goes away, and I never taste it in my Q, and I'm pretty particular about flavor!

 

[bbqgeekess]

The weight of the charcoal needs to be considered when comparing lump to KBB. KBB briquettes are more dense and the resulting fire basket full is heavier than a basket full of lump. Having to add more lump mid cook to the fire basket doesn't mean it necessarily uses more lump than KBB, if weight/density is considered. There is also more airspace between piece of lump than the uniform briquettes--so lump needs to be packed.

 

[smoke ninja]

Are we still talking about using junk fuel for our cookers? Quality food and prep deserves clean burning fuel. That is most often achievable with lump charcoal. Most bricks out there are laden with "other materials" than cooking coal. Never had I experienced better response to the taste of the Q than when I switched form Bricks to Lump. Me I use Royal Oak Nature-Glo.

This makes me laugh. Elitism. I have seen scrap building wood in some lump. That is usually pine. I understand the ash and if your adding to live fire. Those are real advantages.

If I ran a stick burner wrong I may not like using wood as a fuel. That doesn't make wood a bad fuel choice. It just means I don't know how to use it.

Don't project your failure as truth.

 

[mtbchip]

Cowboy=scrap building materials.

Elitism: If what you call my post elitism...... great. You keep dumping what you want for fuel in your cooker and I will use the "elite" stuff from Royal Oak. As far as the OP, yes, the bricks are far less efficient and create more ash than lump for me.

I guess our brethren smoke ninja "knows how" to use bricks better than I do. Good on you!

 

[smoke ninja]

:flame::flame::flame::flame::biteme:

 

[Rusty Kettle]

Wow to each their own but I have tried royal oak and kbb I like kbb better and it burns more consistently never had any funny taste in my food. They all put odd stuff in the charcoal lump or briquettes unless you make your own briquettes or lump you don't know what is in it. Both can be done but how many of us really care to do that? I don't care and kbb cooks fine never had any taste issue. I do not care ro it's ok but not my favorite I even got some pieces in my bag that were not carbonized completely. RO is alright but never consistent which is common in most maybe not all but most lump charcoal. Unusable extra weight increases the cost per pound of lump. Kbb has never let me down. The flavored Kingsford is junk it does not burn right or light easily I wound up mixing kbb in to burn it. Once lit it burns fine but not flavor difference for me. To each their own but kbb will always be king of charcoal in my home.

 

[deguerre]

PatioDaddio did a nice comparison of Kingsford Comp VS Stubbs (The two I always buy for briquettes) awhile back:

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1888016&highlight=charcoal+comparison#post1888016

And a review of KBB VS Comp:

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1518553&highlight=charcoal+comparison#post1518553

I will get lump on occasion too, and sometimes will even start with wood chunks themselves in the chimney.

 

[Bigrolltide1877]

Seems to me like royal oak burns longer than kbb and the meat taste better. On my last bag of kbb once thats gone im going to try out stubs. But i want be using kbb anymore. gonna use royal oak bricks and lump, stubs.

 

[TexasTex]

Kingsford is great for dogs, brats and burgers at the beach. Anything else, I'm using lump with wood. Plain and simple.

Awesome site though.