PDA

View Full Version : Is charcoal , charcoal ?


Twisted T's Q
09-01-2015, 08:48 AM
everything the same except the cooker... For example if your using the same kind of charcoal but the difference is the cooker ( 270 cabinet , battle box, meadow creek, pbc, wsm , ect, ect ) does the food really taste that much different ? I know in the pbc you get the juices dripping on the coals and you can get the same effect in the wsm if you want, but other than that is there really much difference in taste and quality ?

ButtBurner
09-01-2015, 09:11 AM
My Akorn cooks pork butts a lot juicer than my kettle if that's what you are asking

Fwismoker
09-01-2015, 09:25 AM
Taste will always vary with different high/ or lower airflow in cookers and also with the amount of fuel it burns in relation to amount of airflow.

It will also vary with the amount of exhaust in relation to how much fuel used.

Flavor will vary if the meat can see the fire or not. I don't mean dripping juices but flavor created from a good maillard reaction on the surface. Also the profile of said meat to the direct heat source affects taste (example) If I hang chicken I will get different flavor than if i spatchcock skin side down over the exact same fire and temp.
So direct/indirect differ.

jbounds286
09-01-2015, 09:33 AM
i think the profilers profile of the flavor profile that youre looking for will differ with the profile of the smoker

Fwismoker
09-01-2015, 09:36 AM
i think the profilers profile of the flavor profile that youre looking for will differ with the profile of the smoker

I think i'm getting poked. :boink: :rolleyes:

krex1010
09-01-2015, 11:19 AM
i think the profilers profile of the flavor profile that youre looking for will differ with the profile of the smoker

Exactly

Twisted T's Q
09-01-2015, 03:02 PM
interesting, thanks guys...... anyone else ?

pjtexas1
09-01-2015, 03:12 PM
I'll answer to what I think the question is...
If all else is the same except the material used to build the cooker it should taste the same. I don't see insulation, ceramic, metal making meat tasting any different. That being said airflow or lack of may cause other issues that may affect taste in good or bad ways.

IamMadMan
09-01-2015, 04:47 PM
You will have minor differences in flavor from the material the charcoal is made from. Charcoal has been converted to a carbon fuel, but it is not pure carbon, so the the remaining impurities will give some flavor whether it be good or bad. With briquettes you may also get some flavoring from the binders and stabilizers (calcium, starches, borax, mineral char, limestone, sodium nitrate, and sawdust.

A reverse flow smoker will hold the smoke around the meat longer to give flavor, but in my personal opinion a straight flow wood burner gives the best flavor to the meat. However sometimes we trade flavor from a straight flow for the convenience of using an insulated reverse flow vertical. I am guilty of this, but at 63 you lose the desire to sit up all night and tend the fire.

buccaneer
09-01-2015, 05:18 PM
Taste will always vary with different high/ or lower airflow in cookers and also with the amount of fuel it burns in relation to amount of airflow.

It will also vary with the amount of exhaust in relation to how much fuel used.

Flavor will vary if the meat can see the fire or not. I don't mean dripping juices but flavor created from a good maillard reaction on the surface. Also the profile of said meat to the direct heat source affects taste (example) If I hang chicken I will get different flavor than if i spatchcock skin side down over the exact same fire and temp.
So direct/indirect differ.
Be careful of pseudo gobbledeegook. Charcoal is made from different woods and can be quite varied in the remaining content from that source, and they can and do produce independant flavor impartation.<see what I did there?>
Flavor development , from Maillard reaction has absolutely no relationship with the directness to the fire, contrary to the above claim. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It has to do with temperature and humidity.
Humidity is effected by the cooker by means of air flow, that smidgeon is true.
You will have minor differences in flavor from the material the charcoal is made from. Charcoal has been converted to a carbon fuel, but it is not pure carbon, so the the remaining impurities will give some flavor whether it be good or bad. With briquettes you may also get some flavoring from the binders and stabilizers (calcium, starches, borax, mineral char, limestone, sodium nitrate, and sawdust.
^^^ Oops, stated more eloquently that mine but yes, ditto
A reverse flow smoker will hold the smoke around the meat longer to give flavor, but in my personal opinion a straight flow wood burner gives the best flavor to the meat. However sometimes we trade flavor from a straight flow for the convenience of using an insulated reverse flow vertical. I am guilty of this, but at 63 you lose the desire to sit up all night and tend the fire.
^^^ We now get into murky waters for the straight wood and reverse flow we enter the science realm of carbon and H20 bonding applications and so on. I am thinking it will be true mostly tho

AClarke44
09-01-2015, 05:50 PM
Be careful of pseudo gobbledeegook. Charcoal is made from different woods and can be quite varied in the remaining content from that source, and they can and do produce independant flavor impartation.<see what I did there?>
Flavor development , from Maillard reaction has absolutely no relationship with the directness to the fire, contrary to the above claim. Zero. Nada. Zilch.It has to do with temperature and humidity.
Humidity is effected by the cooker by means of air flow, that smidgeon is true.

^^^ We now get into murky waters for the straight wood and reverse flow we enter the science realm of carbon and H20 bonding applications and so on. I am thinking it will be true mostly tho

:shocked: uh oh! I feel a tense discussion coming! You know Keith is the Mr. Miyagi of coal and fire burn right Danielson? :laugh:

Decoy205
09-01-2015, 05:58 PM
I do think different charcoals impart different flavors on the food. I agree it depends on what the charcoal is made from. I've learned I do not like he flavor of cowboy lump I'm not sure what wood they use but I like my food better with royal oak or Stubbs. This is more so when smoking with it grilling is not as much of a difference but I still notice it.

Fwismoker
09-01-2015, 06:08 PM
Be careful of pseudo gobbledeegook. Charcoal is made from different woods and can be quite varied in the remaining content from that source, and they can and do produce independant flavor impartation.<see what I did there?>
Flavor development , from Maillard reaction has absolutely no relationship with the directness to the fire, contrary to the above claim. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It has to do with temperature and humidity.
Humidity is effected by the cooker by means of air flow, that smidgeon is true.

^^^ We now get into murky waters for the straight wood and reverse flow we enter the science realm of carbon and H20 bonding applications and so on. I am thinking it will be true mostly tho


LOL, OK Buc....LMAO

I don't know where to start to correct your incorrectness :noidea:

1) the only time charcoal affects flavor is when it's not fully carbonized, some lumps for example aren't and will impart the wood's flavor. Different charcoal of different densities etc..will burn different temps and lengths. You were a little right on that. :shocked:

2) A better more pronounced maillard reaction ABSOLUTELY does happen more cooking with direct heat vs indirect. If it doesn't then stop grilling, griddleing....try searing your steak in a cabinet smoker :crazy: What you need to do is go stand in the sun for a few hours in 90* and then do the same thing when it's 90* in the shade and tell me which one gives you a burn.

3) Everything else i said about air flow is absolutely true. If the airflow didn't matter then a kamado would put out the same profile as WSM.



Maybe science works backwards down under. :becky: Anyways even though you know how much i love to battle you it's not happening today. For now i'll let you think you're right because I know you're most comfortable in that role. :razz:

buccaneer
09-01-2015, 06:27 PM
LOL, OK Buc....LMAO

I don't know where to start to correct your incorrectness :noidea:

1) the only time charcoal affects flavor is when it's not fully carbonized, some lumps for example aren't. Different charcoal of different densities etc..will burn different temps and lengths.

2) A better more pronounced maillard reaction ABSOLUTELY does happen more cooking with direct heat. If it doesn't then stop grilling, griddleing....try searing your steak in a cabinet smoker :crazy:


Maybe science works backwards down under. :becky:

Maybe you work backwards pal.
Okay, let's see you come up with something more that making a God like statement as evidense.
Explain what happens to reaction between amino acids and sugars in radiant heat versus in non radiant heat?
You have already backpedalled here once.


Flavor will vary if the meat can see the fire or not. I don't mean dripping juices but flavor created from a good maillard reaction on the surface. <snip for relevance>
So direct/indirect differ.

Also, explain how searing is related to The Maillard Reaction?
That is a cracker right there.

Tell us specifically.
What is the difference in Maillard Reaction when a chicken thigh is on a grill in direct heat at 260f compared the what the amino acids and sugars do indirect at a temperature of 300f???

You seem pretty happy to tell newbies and even superb experienced cooks here what the gospel is, you even stepped in to cowgirl a time or two, so I am giving you that chance to show us that you aren't just blowing smoke.
I'll give you ten minutes to google.
:thumb:

Fwismoker
09-01-2015, 06:47 PM
No i'm eating dinner Bucc and i'm burnt out on dealing with smart people like yourself.... You're right i'm wrong. You're good looking and i'm un attractive.

pjtexas1
09-01-2015, 07:44 PM
I must have missed some history...:heh:

redwingsphan
09-01-2015, 08:17 PM
LOL, OK Buc....LMAO

I don't know where to start to correct your incorrectness :noidea:

1) the only time charcoal affects flavor is when it's not fully carbonized, some lumps for example aren't and will impart the wood's flavor. Different charcoal of different densities etc..will burn different temps and lengths. You were a little right on that. :shocked:

2) A better more pronounced maillard reaction ABSOLUTELY does happen more cooking with direct heat vs indirect. If it doesn't then stop grilling, griddleing....try searing your steak in a cabinet smoker :crazy: What you need to do is go stand in the sun for a few hours in 90* and then do the same thing when it's 90* in the shade and tell me which one gives you a burn.

3) Everything else i said about air flow is absolutely true. If the airflow didn't matter then a kamado would put out the same profile as WSM.



Maybe science works backwards down under. :becky: Anyways even though you know how much i love to battle you it's not happening today. For now i'll let you think you're right because I know you're most comfortable in that role. :razz:

I can't speak to much here, but your 90* in the shade analogy is false. Fires that anyone is cooking on do not give off uv.

Fwismoker
09-01-2015, 08:24 PM
I can't speak to much here, but your 90* in the shade analogy is false. Fires that anyone is cooking on do not give off uv.

This is more where i was going. Read it, very good info


http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/thermodynamics_of_cooking.html

buccaneer
09-01-2015, 08:58 PM
You can run, but you cannot hide.
Maybe you work backwards pal.
Okay, let's see you come up with something more that making a God like statement as evidense.
Explain what happens to reaction between amino acids and sugars in radiant heat versus in non radiant heat?
You have already backpedalled here once.


Also, explain how searing is related to The Maillard Reaction?
That is a cracker right there.

Tell us specifically.
What is the difference in Maillard Reaction when a chicken thigh is on a grill in direct heat at 260f compared the what the amino acids and sugars do indirect at a temperature of 300f???

You seem pretty happy to tell newbies and even superb experienced cooks here what the gospel is, you even stepped in to cowgirl a time or two, so I am giving you that chance to show us that you aren't just blowing smoke.
I'll give you ten minutes to google.
:thumb:


This is more where i was going. Read it, very good info


http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/thermodynamics_of_cooking.html
Posting a website that contradicts your claim is a good start.
I've read it, and I have UNDERSTOOD it, and therein lies the difference.
For you to prove you know what you are talking about, answer these questions. Otherwise all will know you are just reading stuff, misunderstanding but coming after people with your psuedo science.

1)Explain what happens to reaction between amino acids and sugars in radiant heat versus in non radiant heat?



2)Also, explain how searing is related to The Maillard Reaction?
That is a cracker right there.

3)Tell us specifically.
What is the difference in Maillard Reaction when a chicken thigh is on a grill in direct heat at 260f compared the what the amino acids and sugars do indirect at a temperature of 300f???


Should be easy.

Fwismoker
09-01-2015, 09:00 PM
Buccs honestly I'll never get baited by you ever again. Go argue with someone else...aint gonna be me.

Besides I believe you'll have your hands full in your WP post.

smoke ninja
09-01-2015, 09:04 PM
You can run, but you cannot hide.




Posting a website that contradicts your claim is a good start.
I've read it, and I have UNDERSTOOD it, and therein lies the difference.
For you to prove you know what you are talking about, answer these questions. Otherwise all will know you are just reading stuff, misunderstanding but coming after people with your psuedo science.

1)Explain what happens to reaction between amino acids and sugars in radiant heat versus in non radiant heat?



2)Also, explain how searing is related to The Maillard Reaction?
That is a cracker right there.

3)Tell us specifically.
What is the difference in Maillard Reaction when a chicken thigh is on a grill in direct heat at 260f compared the what the amino acids and sugars do indirect at a temperature of 300f???


Should be easy.



Silence.

His majesty will tolerate no more of this insolence.

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l520/smokeninjabbq/Tim_O_Brien__The_Chicken_King2_zpsk68jvgfx.jpg (http://s1121.photobucket.com/user/smokeninjabbq/media/Tim_O_Brien__The_Chicken_King2_zpsk68jvgfx.jpg.htm l)

buccaneer
09-01-2015, 09:04 PM
Buccs honestly I'll never get baited by you ever again. Go argue with someone else...aint gonna be me.

Besides I believe you'll have your hands full in your WP post.


Wait, who is baiting.
You made a false set of claims.
You have been doing it for a year, and I am simply calling on you to substantiate that you aren't just trying to appear like the lord of the chook bbq by misquoting science from layman websites but that you actually are guiding with knowledge.
Answer those simple questions.

buccaneer
09-01-2015, 09:05 PM
:laugh: @ Smoke Ninja!

That's GOLD!

:laugh:

Fwismoker
09-01-2015, 09:06 PM
:hand:

pjtexas1
09-01-2015, 09:30 PM
C'mon, don't the mods have a tough enough gig as it is?:becky:

buccaneer
09-01-2015, 09:33 PM
C'mon, don't the mods have a tough enough gig as it is?:becky:

Absolutely nothing has occurred that would need the mods.
Everyone has remained civil and on topic.
The real problem with mod harrassment is when people run to the mods for help when no infraction has occurred.

grantw
09-01-2015, 10:03 PM
Just Incase were going to make it back on topic, I would say all the different design cookers I have cook differently with the same coal. I don't think ones better than the other just different. The only reason you will see me posting a WSM is the best cooker has a lot to do with the cost of the thing , it looks purdy, and does a dam fine job.

jbounds286
09-01-2015, 10:34 PM
all i know...is every time i smoke chicken or burgers.....it doesnt get that nice crust/sear on it like it does when its directly over flame(in contact with griddle)

cseymour45
09-02-2015, 03:22 AM
2) A better more pronounced maillard reaction ABSOLUTELY does happen more cooking with direct heat vs indirect. If it doesn't then stop grilling, griddleing....try searing your steak in a cabinet smoker :crazy: What you need to do is go stand in the sun for a few hours in 90* and then do the same thing when it's 90* in the shade and tell me which one gives you a burn.


Well get your cabinet smoker up to 500 + degrees and by golly it will sear.

I'm not taking sides in this argument, it does have me thinking though. When you are directly cooking over an open fire you are probably charring instead of searing, very high temperatures past whats needed for a 'sear'.

Also, your shade statement is all about UV rays ''The sun is very hot so it emits radiation at many different wavelengths. The surface can be approximated as a blackbody at 6000 K. A normal orange flame may burn at 600 K or so. It isn't hot enough to radiate UV rays but it does radiate in the visible and infrared parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.'' some physics nerd quote.

cseymour45
09-02-2015, 03:29 AM
Humidity is effected by the cooker by means of air flow, that smidgeon is true.

Yep, thus creating different cooking speeds / textures / taste, answering a large portion of the original question.

BBQchef33
09-02-2015, 08:38 AM
I suggest the pissing contest comes to an end if it hasn't already... :mod:

And just to add to the ontopic..

My spicewine and pbc both use charcoal only. I use both to cook mainly chicken.
Usually spatchcocked and the flavor profile of each is vastly different.

Twisted T's Q
09-03-2015, 11:51 AM
I suggest the pissing contest comes to an end if it hasn't already... :mod:

And just to add to the ontopic..

My spicewine and pbc both use charcoal only. I use both to cook mainly chicken.
Usually spatchcocked and the flavor profile of each is vastly different.

thank you, and witch flavor do you prefer the spice wine or pbc ?

smoke ninja
09-03-2015, 04:53 PM
Flavor development , from Maillard reaction has absolutely no relationship with the directness to the fire, contrary to the above claim. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It has to do with temperature and humidity.
Humidity is effected by the cooker by means of air flow, that smidgeon is true.

I would see it different. According to the amazingribs.com article Keith posted radiation transfers energy better than convection. Heres the authors example :

"Also, radiant heat delivers more energy than convection heat. Let's say you have two gas grills. On one grill, the two burners on the right side are on full and two burners on the left are turned off. The air temp on the left side, the indirect heat side, might be 325F as convection flow of air from the right side circulates over the left side. Let's put a steak and a big honkin prime rib roast on the left, indirect side.

On the second grill you have all four burners on medium and the air temp on the both sides is also 325F. Let's put a steak and a roast on this grill too. The steak's bottom will brown better on the second grill because it is above direct radiant heat which is imparting more energy than the first grill where the heat is from convection air. But by the time the roast is done, it will be blacker than a mourning hat."

Direct cooking should have more radiant energy, at the same temp, than indirect cooking. The greater energy transfer to the outside of the meat will result in more Maillard reaction.

Interested in your take on this


I can't speak to much here, but your 90* in the shade analogy is false. Fires that anyone is cooking on do not give off uv.

Its not UV it infrared thats doing the work in this case.

Ive spent more hours than most in the sun, it definitely feels hotter.

buccaneer
09-03-2015, 09:57 PM
I would see it different. According to the amazingribs.com article Keith posted radiation transfers energy better than convection. Heres the authors example :

"Also, radiant heat delivers more energy than convection heat. Let's say you have two gas grills. On one grill, the two burners on the right side are on full and two burners on the left are turned off. The air temp on the left side, the indirect heat side, might be 325F as convection flow of air from the right side circulates over the left side. Let's put a steak and a big honkin prime rib roast on the left, indirect side.

On the second grill you have all four burners on medium and the air temp on the both sides is also 325F. Let's put a steak and a roast on this grill too. The steak's bottom will brown better on the second grill because it is above direct radiant heat which is imparting more energy than the first grill where the heat is from convection air. But by the time the roast is done, it will be blacker than a mourning hat."

Direct cooking should have more radiant energy, at the same temp, than indirect cooking. The greater energy transfer to the outside of the meat will result in more Maillard reaction.

Interested in your take on this




Maillard Reaction is a process that happens between proteins, carbohydrates, sugars like D-ribose, D-glucose, D-fructose, α-lactose and sucrose, and amino acids.
The PACE that it occurs depends on temperature, not as Fistwacker (sp) claimed that the food needs to be/ or is better directly over the fire/looking at the fire.

Think about it.
If that were true, why would Franklins briskets have that glorious bark???
It just is not true.
Maillard Reaction occurs in pressure cookers FFS.:doh:.

Does meat benefit from direct heat?
Sure, but that wasn't the simple claim. DIrect exposure to fire also skyrockets the carcingens that cause cancer.(acrylamide production)
Maillard browning is a chemical reaction. Most chemical reactions are accelerated by heat and Maillard browning is no exception. The higher the temp, the faster your meat will brown. So, if you get a shielded cooking position hot enough like in an offset, and you cook long enough, you will get Maillard Reaction.
Same when we make a stock or a gravy, long slow low heat develops Maillard Reaction.

Furthermore, to ridicule the claim a little more realistically, imagine cooking pizza on a kamado.We set a barrier between the fire and the pizza.Cook at 800F. Gorgeous pizza and crust, heaps of Maillard Reaction in no time.
Now do it according to the "God Of Chooks" method and make it tastier by "getting more Maillard Reaction" by cooking it on the grate directly over the fire.:doh:
See what I mean now?

I hope this clears the matter up.

Fwismoker
09-03-2015, 10:16 PM
I NEVER said you don't get Maillard reaction with convection heat. I said you get better (more pronounced) maillard reaction flavor from direct radiant heat. Go ahead and cook a chicken indirect @ 350* or cook it 350* grilling from a distance and tell me which you like better.

If bucc wants to use his kamado pizza analogy and sear a steak @ 800* he can have at it :laugh: Might be a tad over cooked :shock:

I'll personally use a CI pan via conduction heat or close to fire using some good old fashion radiant heat (I love my carcinogens) :grin:
BTW, his analogy with the pizza uses conduction heat on the crust via a stone and the cheese's brown pretty easy with the convection heat.

The Franklin brisket analogy? If anything is cooked as long as a brisket is of course will develop the bark with that much time in the cooker but most bbq meats aren't cooked 10 hours.



Meats don't need to be cooked to black over hot coals or fire to get the benefits of a good browning with direct heat.


Back to the original topic. You get vastly different tastes with direct, indirect or griddle type cooking. People want to split hairs have at it but it doesn't change the FACTS. I personally love all the methods. In my UDS with a holy type diffuser it allows a blended type of heat which combines some indirect and some direct. I also like cooking direct over a fire but controlled from a distance. I also like using rotisserie over direct where it mixes things up through the rotation. I also like griddle cooking and searing my steak in a hot cast iron skillet.

So to the OP...Fuel being the same and cookers being different YES it makes a huge difference on flavor/outside texture depending on the cooker and how you use the cooker. Example I might cook a tri tip indirect and then sear it over the grill portion of one of my cookers, that same tri tip i might use my rotisserie and get good even cooking but then stop the rotation over the fire and brown each side further at the end.


Something many people don't understand is there is a major difference between temperature and heat and that plays a huge role in how our food turns out.

AClarke44
09-03-2015, 10:24 PM
Fistwacker! Lol. :laugh:
Anyway I've read that acrylamide production can happen when baking bread or making french fries. Also that it is a byproduct of the Maillard Reaction. I don't know enough so I'm not taking sides just stating what I read.
I do have a question though. When cooking in a vertical cooker with no diffuser like in a UDS or PBC, where does that fall in the direct/indirect category. I mean common sense says it's direct but if it's a lower heat cook, say under 300 what's the affect of the acrylamide production and Maillard reaction?
I may not be a asking that right, again I'm just trying to understand.

buccaneer
09-03-2015, 10:28 PM
I NEVER said you don't get Maillard reaction with convection heat. I said you get better flavor or it from direct radiant heat. If bucc wants to use his kamado pizza analogy and sear a steak @ 800* he can have at it :laugh: Might be a tad over cooked :shock:

I'll personally use a CI pan via conduction heat or close to fire using some good old fashion radiant heat (I love my carcinogens) :grin:

Meats don't need to be cooked to black over hot coals or fire to get the benefits of a good browning with direct heat.

:scared: Wait! :scared:

Where is the :violin::violin::violin::violin:
about you being 'baited', and how you would never be "baited" by the evil uncle Buccs again???:doh:



Flavor will vary if the meat can see the fire or not. I don't mean dripping juices but flavor created from a good maillard reaction on the surface.

This statement is untrue and incorrect.
The problem you have is you are not understanding what you are reading. My examples above explain why that statement is incorrect, but you just fail to grasp it.

buccaneer
09-03-2015, 10:37 PM
Fistwacker! Lol. :laugh:
Anyway I've read that acrylamide production can happen when baking bread or making french fries. Also that it is a byproduct of the Maillard Reaction. I don't know enough so I'm not taking sides just stating what I read.
I do have a question though. When cooking in a vertical cooker with no diffuser like in a UDS or PBC, where does that fall in the direct/indirect category. I mean common sense says it's direct but if it's a lower heat cook, say under 300 what's the affect of the acrylamide production and Maillard reaction?
I may not be a asking that right, again I'm just trying to understand.



It's true that acrylamide is produced by Maillard Reaction, and along with baking bread or other carbs it is also produced when we apply enough high heat to even preserved meats like bacon(nitrite cured) or salami.
So, it is about temperature with those.
http://search.proquest.com/openview/acb2e9187ea16b650b1357d4b653d6e5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar

buccaneer
09-03-2015, 10:41 PM
Something many people don't understand is there is a major difference between temperature and heat and that plays a huge role in how our food turns out.
Definition Heat:the quality of being hot; high temperature.
Definition :the degree or intensity of heat present
:noidea:

I note you went back and edited your post again after reading a rebuttal.
That makes the thread confusing.

Fwismoker
09-03-2015, 10:49 PM
If your meat can "see the fire" meaning direct heat yes you flavor will be different.

I'm gonna leave you to your splitting hairs now bucc. Play nice with the other children or we'll have to call the authorities.

buccaneer
09-03-2015, 10:53 PM
If your meat can "see the fire" meaning direct heat yes you flavor will be different.

I'm gonna leave you to your splitting hairs now bucc. Play nice with the other children or we'll have to call the authorities.

Check in tomorrow to see who has gently kissed your bottom with 'thanks":becky:
:drama:

:hand:

Ron_L
09-03-2015, 10:59 PM
Have you boys forgotten this already??

I suggest the pissing contest comes to an end if it hasn't already... :mod:



Now knock it off!

Shagdog
09-03-2015, 11:10 PM
I cooked on a UDS for years.. Direct over the coals.. Chicken at 350, 375. I understand that you feel this is the best because it's what you know, Kieth, but I gotta tell ya, the flavor, the bark, the everything is better in my Shirley with an indirect radiant heat. No one that tasted meat off those 2 cookers side by side would pick the barrel. The fact that you don't actually use anything other direct fire cookers make me question how you can be so absolutely certain that your way is the best way. Holy crap you should see the bark I can get. The malliard reaction works perfectly well without seeing the heat, thank you.

Fwismoker
09-03-2015, 11:10 PM
When cooking in a vertical cooker with no diffuser like in a UDS or PBC, where does that fall in the direct/indirect category. I mean common sense says it's direct but if it's a lower heat cook, say under 300 what's the affect of the acrylamide production and Maillard reaction?
I may not be a asking that right, again I'm just trying to understand.

When you hang in the PBC or UDS you're using direct heat but you're also changing the profile of the meat so the larger cross sections so to speak aren't getting taking the brunt of that radiant energy. If you laid the same meats on the cook grate the result would be dramatically different.

Andrew when i hung those butts @ 450* I had a holy diffuser in and since i hung them i could get away with those temps but if i didn't use that diffuser to break up the direct heat and if i would have had them on a grate the grate would have burnt them and they would have gotten too much direct heat on the them and burnt.

Like i said there's temp and then there is heat.

Fwismoker
09-03-2015, 11:13 PM
I cooked on a UDS for years.. Direct over the coals.. Chicken at 350, 375. I understand that you feel this is the best because it's what you know, Kieth, but I gotta tell ya, the flavor, the bark, the everything is better in my Shirley with an indirect radiant heat. No one that tasted meat off those 2 cookers side by side would pick the barrel. The fact that you don't actually use anything other direct fire cookers make me question how you can be so absolutely certain that your way is the best way. Holy crap you should see the bark I can get. The malliard reaction works perfectly well without seeing the heat, thank you. Convection heat...not direct radiant. Like i said i'm not talking about cooking something for hours but the stuff you can cook direct with shorter cooks. I'll take a bird spatched over a fire then in a offset, I'll take a ton of different foods over being cooked in a offset. If I want a brisket or something sure i love offsets. You don't know it but i also have a remodeled cooker ( you haven't seen) and it uses wood and i can cook direct or indirect with it.

I've cooked years with offset cooking (I know it well) and never said one was better than the other shagdog. I do like using blended heat cooking hotter than 350.... more like 450-550 sometimes along with roti over fire like i said but too each his own. Never made claims as to the best.

AClarke44
09-03-2015, 11:16 PM
When you hang in the PBC or UDS you're using direct heat but you're also changing the profile of the meat so the larger cross sections so to speak aren't getting taking the brunt of that radiant energy. If you laid the same meats on the cook grate the result would be dramatically different.

Andrew when i hung those butts @ 450* I had a holy diffuser in and since i hung them i could get away with those temps but if i didn't use that diffuser to break up the direct heat and if i would have had them on a grate the grate would have burnt them and they would have gotten too much direct heat on the them and burnt.

Like i said there's temp and then there is heat.

I understand how a diffuser works. My question was more about trying to understand acrylamide production. Basically it seems that it is worse when cooking over direct heat like a sear. I was wondering if less was produced when cooking over direct heat but lower temp such as with a vertical smoker/barrel.

Fwismoker
09-03-2015, 11:25 PM
I understand how a diffuser works. My question was more about trying to understand acrylamide production. Basically it seems that it is worse when cooking over direct heat like a sear. I was wondering if less was produced when cooking over direct heat but lower temp such as with a vertical smoker/barrel.

Life's too short to worry about that crap imo. Unless you're charring the heck out of your food and that's all you eat then enjoy your food without worries. JMO :becky:

AClarke44
09-04-2015, 06:58 AM
You are probably right. This thread just got me thinking about it. I really don't understand it enough anyway.

Blue Smoke BBQ
09-04-2015, 09:57 AM
Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts, at times people react with what appears to be anger. I feel it is more passion for one of the best hobbies that exists!
I have learned a lot from all of you and I truly appreciate it.
Keep the passion folks and keep cooking and learning!

Bludawg
09-04-2015, 10:25 AM
There is CHARCOAL & there is BRIQUETTES all the stuff in Briquettes can alter the taste. Not so with CHARCOAL as it is the Carbon from wood with all the Flavor compounds gasified out of it. That said not all CHARCAOL is created equal cooking it right will affect the burn rate.

FWsmoker is correct although Komado style cookers IMO have a higher level of humidity going on as compared to steel. The size of the pit can also affect flavor the smaller it is the more concentrated the smoke is to the meat.

Twisted T's Q
09-04-2015, 12:48 PM
so if I get a 270 smoker or a Humphreys smoker there will be a good bit of difference in the taste of my food compared to say a pbc or uds using kbb charcoal ?

buccaneer
09-04-2015, 04:06 PM
There is CHARCOAL & there is BRIQUETTES all the stuff in Briquettes can alter the taste. Not so with CHARCOAL as it is the Carbon from wood with all the Flavor compounds gasified out of it. That said not all CHARCAOL is created equal cooking it right will affect the burn rate.

FWsmoker is correct although Komado style cookers IMO have a higher level of humidity going on as compared to steel. The size of the pit can also affect flavor the smaller it is the more concentrated the smoke is to the meat.

Charcoals also come with different odors, and impart flavor, so don't imagine it is a pure fuel and all are the same.

Briquettes also are not the same in the world, and the usage if English varies too. If you say 'charcoal' outside the USA, it will never be be interchangable with briquettes, It has a meaning, and that is the charred wood product. Briquettes there are made of anthracite coal, cornstarch, and borax. Nitrate is added to help the charcoal ignite more quickly, and lime to help it assume a white, ashy appearance when hot.
Here they are made using fossil fuels, coal.

buckhorn_cortez
09-04-2015, 07:43 PM
I would see it different. According to the amazingribs.com article Keith posted radiation transfers energy better than convection. Heres the authors example :

"Also, radiant heat delivers more energy than convection heat. Let's say you have two gas grills. On one grill, the two burners on the right side are on full and two burners on the left are turned off. The air temp on the left side, the indirect heat side, might be 325F as convection flow of air from the right side circulates over the left side. Let's put a steak and a big honkin prime rib roast on the left, indirect side.

On the second grill you have all four burners on medium and the air temp on the both sides is also 325F. Let's put a steak and a roast on this grill too. The steak's bottom will brown better on the second grill because it is above direct radiant heat which is imparting more energy than the first grill where the heat is from convection air. But by the time the roast is done, it will be blacker than a mourning hat."

Direct cooking should have more radiant energy, at the same temp, than indirect cooking. The greater energy transfer to the outside of the meat will result in more Maillard reaction.

Interested in your take on this


Heat is transferred through three methods: conductive, convective, radiant.

In very simple terms -

Conductive heat transfer is done through the direct contact between two materials.

Convective heat transfer is through the movement of air.

Radiant heat transfer is through electromagnetic waves. In cooking, this is usually through infrared or microwaves.

No single type of heat source "has more energy."

In the example given, the heat sources are not identified fully or correctly.

The first example is mostly correct in that the heat is primarily convective, but there will be some heat transfer through conduction because the meat is sitting on a grill; and some heat will also be radiant from the metal of the surrounding cooker.

However, all three sources will be in equilibrium because the convective heat has heated the grill and surrounding metal to approximately the same temperature - that of the convective air. The convective air heat temperature is only limited by the heat source, the temperature it is set at, and conduction of the heat from the inside of the cooker to the outside.

If you have a highly insulated cooker with no air exchange, and let the cooker go long enough, it will reach equilibrium and the convective air will be the same temperature as the heat source.

Generally, this does not happen because you have intake and exhaust of air so that the incoming cold air has to be heated. The air exchange keeps the "convective heat" at a lower temperature because it is never allowed to reach equilibrium with the radiant sources and conductive surfaces.

In the direct heat example, the meat is also being heated by three sources. The key idea that everything is attempting to be in equilibrium. If the heat source is charcoal, and it is fully developed to a grey state, the "direct heat" is really radiant heat + convective heat + conductive heat as the meat is sitting on a grill and touching a conductive surface.

So in reality, "direct heat" is: conductive, convective, and radiant.

I will guarantee that if you have 1,000 F convective air - whatever you put in the cooker will cook extremely fast and will develop Maillard reactions and will caramelize sugars just as rapidly as the "direct heat" example.