Smokers (BBQ - not grilling)

[Fred W]

One more thought, as winter is closing in on us northerners... when you get around to doing those tenderloins, do a lot more than you can eat right away. Your using all that fuel and wood to make smoke, you could cook one little tenderloin or a half dozen or more with the same amount of effort and expense. Just foil wrap and freeze the rest and youll have delishious smoked goodies all winter long without having to brave the elements.

I love thin sliced smoke tenderloin as a healthier alternative to bacon for breakfast on Saturdays. Then I can still have my bacon on Sundays

PS - I agree. Thats a nice little cabinet smoker. You should be able to turn out some nice smoked meat, fish and cheese with that guy.

 

[Blind Squirrel]

All poultry, and chicken wings especially, need to be cooked at a higher temp than the 225F we typically use for smoking low and slow BBQ. Otherwise the skin never gets crispy or gets much color to it.

After smoking for 2 hours @ 225, they need to go on a HOT grill or under a broiler for 2-3 minutes each side to crisp up the skins.

 

[eflyguy]

I make jerky quite a bit - but I don't use meat that would be a good candidate for grilling or smoking. I look for "manager specials" of lean chunks of round. I have a slicer, and chill the meat in the freezer which makes it easier to slice, then marinade for a day or two before drying. Great snack to have around (I don't buy or keep "traditional" snacks around the house)..

 

[Fred W]

Oh - when I smoked the wings yesterday, I also added a mix of bourbon and apple juice to the water pan in the smoker. You know - for science.

There is also some difference of opinion of the value of using water pans at all.

I've tried it both ways and have come to my own conclusion that all it does is steam the meat instead of smoking it, and makes a gawd-awful mess of the inside of the smoker. Also, if you value the outer crust or "bark" in your BBQ (as I do) then you might want to forgo the steaming water bowl. You can still keep a dry drip pan to catch the rendering fat and keep it out of your heat/smoke source if you want.

The proponents of water bowls say it results in a more moist meat, and I suppose that may be true. But I've never had a complaint about moistness of any of the meats I've cooked without one. But try it both ways and see for yourself. Just different ways to skin the cat, which is what makes it all so much fun

 

[Bounce]

My brother is talking aboot smoking a turkey for Thanksgiving, so that could be interesting.

Did this turkey breast last @275º. I cook to internal temp using a digital probe. Smoker gauges are off many times and poorly placed. I use a probe or the grate on rack where the meat is to get a "pit" temp where the meat is (instead of at the top of a dome, or off to the side) and an internal probe for my "cook to" temp.

The foil isn't to "crutch"; simply to wrap and rest after done. Made a turkey sandwich yesterday and it was most excellent. Hickory chunked charcoal and hickory chips soaked in cold water for 24+ hours to sprinkle on top of the coals.

I agree with those that do NOT use a water pan. Makes things messy to clean up. Ruins the bark. Doesn't make the meat any moister than when avoiding over cooking using an internal probe instead of timing it.

I'm often the worst judge on the day of the smoke. I've been into the smoker enough that I can't taste the smoke in the meats. I have to rely others comments. The next day though...

 

[Knifemaker]

The two big reasons cited for using a water pan are....

1. To help control temperatures. Steam from heated water is 212F. It can't go higher unless pressurized. If your water pan is directly over your burning fuel, (which is where it should be) it also acts as a defuser if your meat is directly above the heat source.

2. It adds moisture to the cooking chamber. This of course depends on what type of smoker you have. In an offset or reverse flow like mine, air is moving fairly quickly through the cooking chamber, so a water pan wouldn't have that much of an effect. Also remember using charcoal and wood you're getting water vapor from the combustion. In propane, not so much, and electric none at all.

https://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/what_goes_in_the_water_pan.html

Many have substituted other materials for the water, like sand or clay.

See discussion that here:

https://smokingmeatforums.com/index.php?threads/water-pans-do-you-use-them-and-why.134823/

My only thought here is if you're using a water pan to add moisture, you really only need to use it when you've smoked the meat long enough that it no longer is providing its own moisture. Think of what the "stall" is...your meat sweating. Once it's past that adding moisture to the chamber would get more smoke on the meat in theory... (the reason many spray juice or water longer into a cook) But as mentioned, it won't get you the nice crusty "bark" on the meat, and most folks find that the best part.

Also depends on what you're cooking...skinless chicken breasts or a pork shoulder...

My only recommendation is to try using a water pan and not using one smoking the same size and type of meat, and see what you prefer....

 

[BikerGeek99]

Bounce brought something up that I'm kinda curious aboot (and that's one mighty tasty looking hunk of turkey ya got there, Bounce): soaking your wood chips.

Apologies if this has been previously discussed in this thread - I'm a lazy-*** and didn't go back and read all 1600+ posts in this thread.

To soak or not to soak. I'm interested to hear your thoughts / opinions / experiences.

 

[Bustanut joker]

Soaking them just slows the burn rate. At least for me.
Never really noticed if that increased the smoke.

 

[Knifemaker]

I don't see any point to soaking your wood

The wood won't produce smoke until it starts to burn. To do that it has to reach a temperature many times higher than the temperature of boiling water. Once the outside of the wood dispells that water, it can burn. Any "smoke" you see from water soaked wood is likely just water vapor and some lower burning creosotes in the wood. Thus you produce the kind of smoke you do not want.

Soak a big piece of wood overnight. Then cut it open...you'll see the water has only penetrated a 1/4" or so. Throw it on a fire and watch how quickly that water evaporates.

The only time soaking might help is if you're using a pan with the heat source directly below it, and you fill it with small wood chips. This will get the bottom layer burning first, and delay the burning of the chips piled on top....but then, only for a while, once the bottom layer gets burning, it will first dry out the wood above, then catch it on fire. So again you're just producing water vapor again.

So really no point.

 

[Fred W]

Yeah, I agree. There is no good reason for wetting the wood. It just makes the wrong kind of smoke.

If you read the experts' opinions (and I do recommend reading Meathead Goldwyn's books and web site, AmazingRibs.com) you'll come to realize that the kind of smoke that you are after is the thinnest of thin blue smoke, just like when burning wood in a woodstove. You want to avoid the big billowy white clouds, which is what you get by burning wet wood. If you want to extend the time between smoke wood additions you're better off just using bigger pieces of wood (chunks instead of chips) which should last 20 - 30 minutes before needing more.

 

[Bounce]

It's not to make more smoke. It's to extend the life of the chips, It slows the smoke from them so you don't have to add them as often. On a 15 hour smoke, that's a thing. If using lump charcoal, then the chips are an addition. Unlike using briquettes which then depend on the chips.

 

[Bustanut joker]

I agree Bounce. When I know it's going to be 15 to 20 hour run I always wet the wood.
No you idiots not what you're thinking.

I find if I don't I have to reload after 4 or 5 hours.

 

[Knifemaker]

It's not to make more smoke. It's to extend the life of the chips, It slows the smoke from them so you don't have to add them as often. On a 15 hour smoke, that's a thing. If using lump charcoal, then the chips are an addition. Unlike using briquettes which then depend on the chips.

I think that would be the question here, by "extend the life of the chips", what time periods are involved over dry chips? I really think it matters what the application is (what type of smoker and how the wood is placed) Charcoal briquettes burn at around 1800F....hardwood charcoal about 300F higher. Combustion temperature for wood is around 1300F.Water starts evaporating at anything above freezing, and boils at 212F.

So, I'd say if you got a nice hot bed of coals going and tossed on top of them equal handfuls of water soaked chips and dry chips, you could time the difference between when the wet chips burn compared to the dry ones in seconds.

If you have a metal dish above the coals, and it's at least hot enough for wood to cumbust on it, and did the same, I'd guess you're talking a few minutes at best.

I realize wet wood burns up slower, my question however is how much slower are we talking here? I need to see some science on this.

I did find this:

https://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/mythbusting_soaking_wood.html

Where they placed soaked chips in a foil packet and compared that to a packet of dry wood. Keep in mind wrapping the chips in foil and poking a few holes in not only limits the amount of oxygen to the wood, but also limits the speed the water can evaporate. Difference measured here was just under 30 minutes, not much of a delay if you're talking 15 hour cooks.....

Now where he put the wood into a loaf pan and filled it with water....I can see that being useful, as the time for all that water to boil out would be much longer...

 

[Bounce]

A Kamado smoker (what I'm using) also limits O2 in the cooking area. It's how it manages the temps.

An offset firebox is just the opposite and is why it burns through fuel at a higher rate.

Other designs tend to fall somewhere between those 2.

 

[eflyguy]

I've found no difference between using wet or dry chips or chunks. The smoke may die down but the end result is indistinguishable.

 

[Fred W]

An Kamado smoker (what I'm using) also limits O2 in the cooking area. It's how it manages the temps.
An offset firebox is just the opposite and is why it burns through fuel at a higher rate.

Other designs tend to fall someone between those 2.

No, not really. An offset smoker is still heat controlled by the amount of inlet air allowed to reach the fire. The exhaust is typically left wide open, and the length of the chimney is intentionally quite long to establish a good draft and keep the outflow going as fast as the inlet will allow.
The need to maintain such high smoke flow, and the reason that they coincidentally use so much more fuel, is in the intentional design of the offset; to remove the radiant heat source and cook the food with only convective heat and smoke. Because of that, and the long path that the heat and smoke travel, there are far more heat losses from the firebox and cooking chamber uninsulated metal surfaces. Even an uninsulated vertical smoker will be far more fuel efficient since the cooking meat is above the heat source.

The offset design is really intended to be used with a cheap fuel source (wood) where it doesnt matter much how inefficient the design is since the fuel literally grows on trees. We lazy 21st century BarBQuers use more expensive fuels (lump or briquette charcoal, or propane) strictly for convenience.

 

[Ndv21]

ok....I'm on the amateur side of the art of smoking. I've done a couple of briskets and spare ribs and the wife and family are still alive and seemed to enjoy it, so I call it a success. I don't have a proper and dedicated smoker, so I do all my mad science experiments on my Weber kettle performer.

I've been doing some research on having a dedicated smoker, and I feel like I'll go with an offset cooker, but I have been intrigued by the RecTec pellet grill. Haven't heard anything negative on it and based on reviews, it seems like it is preferred over the Treager grill. Don't know. My way of thinking is that with a pellet grill, I can set it and forget it while doing other chores around the house (aka tending to my 2 wild children) and for cooking larger quantities of food when having friends and family over. When I want to do a traditional cook (aka drink a ton of beer while tending the fire), I can use my weber grill since I would only be cooking something smaller just for the immediate family.

 

[Knifemaker]

The RecTec is pretty nice. Newer models have that "Extreme Smoke" button that gets more smoke going on low and slow cooks. Everything I've read has been good on them, and they have better features than the Trager. If you are looking for a "set and forget" smoker they are hard to beat. At around $1000 you get what you pay for here, they are really a bargain.You might find yourself using it for grilling too instead of your Weber...

 

[Bounce]

+1 one on multipurpose. Most smokers can be opened up to allow the temps to run away like on a grill so will grill as well as smoke.

(also, I liked the different posts above that helped me learn new things.)

 

[Fred W]

I run a pellet stove for part of our winter heat requirements each year. Wood pellets are an awesomely efficient and eco friendly heat source. My only concern with a pellet smoker is the limited number of sources for smoke flavor get pellets, but that number seems to be growing steadily. Plus, in a worst case scenario you could make your own pellets, though that would be expensive.

I like your thoughts about having and using different methods for different cooking needs. A Weber kettle can make a great small batch smoker, especially for short duration cooking like with lean meats, sausages, and poultry, and the forte of the pellet fed burner is the steady, constant heat angle, which envision would be fantastic for brisket and pork shoulders.

Id say go for it and please share your experiences when you do. Especially the BBQ pR0n!