Is charcoal , charcoal ?

T

Twisted T's Q

is one Smokin' Farker
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
941
Reaction score
448
Points
0
Location
West Virginia
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 ?
 
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.
 
i think the profilers profile of the flavor profile that youre looking for will differ with the profile of the smoker
 
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.
 
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.
 
Fwismoker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
IamMadMan said:
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.
Click to expand...
^^^ 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
 
buccaneer said:
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
Click to expand...

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


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:
 
Last edited:
Fwismoker said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
Fwismoker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
 
Fwismoker said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
You can run, but you cannot hide.
buccaneer said:
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:
Click to expand...


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


http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/thermodynamics_of_cooking.html
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Charcoal offset vs kamado
Replies
4
Views
434
WeberWho
W
T
Pitts & Spitts adjustable charcoal grill. Reviews?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Nuco59
N
F
Honest Feedback, Charcoal cooker vs Offset
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Lynn Dollar
Lynn Dollar
Headgear
Pellet Grill Smoke Flavor
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Headgear
Headgear
R
Coals burned down vs charcoal
Replies
11
Views
671
SmokinAussie
SmokinAussie
Back
Top