BBQ Guru,No Water
- Thread starter Dante
- Start date
Todd Brazil
TVWBB Member
No water in the pan. It makes a HUGE differnce in temp control and charcoal longevity. In addition, water has no impact on the tenderness of the meat.
Gary Hodgin
TVWBB Super Fan
I run with and without water and can't tell any difference. The digi works less without the water so that's what I've been doing. Makes clean up easier a bit easier to. I'd suggest just foiling the pan. I keep my top vent completely open.
I emailed the guys at bbq guru about this and here's the response.
"I use water for certain cooks and run it dry with foil for others. The Guru works well both ways, the meat I am cooking determines the method I use.
Water in the pan for : brisket and pork butts
Foil in the pan for: chicken, loins, ribs etc."
I emailed the guys at bbq guru about this and here's the response.
"I use water for certain cooks and run it dry with foil for others. The Guru works well both ways, the meat I am cooking determines the method I use.
Water in the pan for : brisket and pork butts
Foil in the pan for: chicken, loins, ribs etc."
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
Andy Husbands and Chris Hart probably have more bbq clout than anyone on these boards, so here's what they have to say about it in their latest book:
"Our favorite is from the BBQ Guru and allows us to get a few hours of sleep at contests or during overnight cooking sessions at home without having to watch the smoker. Don't forget, though, you still need to keep that water pan full!" pg. 20, "Wicked Good Barbecue"
"Our favorite is from the BBQ Guru and allows us to get a few hours of sleep at contests or during overnight cooking sessions at home without having to watch the smoker. Don't forget, though, you still need to keep that water pan full!" pg. 20, "Wicked Good Barbecue"
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LarryR:
...I can tell no difference in my end products when using water... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Larry, I remember a post or two suggesting that the old wsm water pan was too small and too high over the fire to produce significant steam, compared to the newer wsm pan or set-up in a Backwoods or other much more expensive water smoker. So which water pan have you used?
Either way though, I'll never forget Lew's post a while back about a pork butt cook using water in the pan ('09+ wsm). He never had to add any water during the cook, and no surprise to me, it was a LONG one. Point is, if the water in the pan is just sitting there, there's not much steaming going on, so maybe that's why folks such as yourself don't notice a difference. What do you think?
...I can tell no difference in my end products when using water... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Larry, I remember a post or two suggesting that the old wsm water pan was too small and too high over the fire to produce significant steam, compared to the newer wsm pan or set-up in a Backwoods or other much more expensive water smoker. So which water pan have you used?
Either way though, I'll never forget Lew's post a while back about a pork butt cook using water in the pan ('09+ wsm). He never had to add any water during the cook, and no surprise to me, it was a LONG one. Point is, if the water in the pan is just sitting there, there's not much steaming going on, so maybe that's why folks such as yourself don't notice a difference. What do you think?
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LarryR:
I have the older WSM so it would be the smaller water pan. In my opinion,that would have to be a lot of steam coming off that new water pan to make a significant difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for the reply. The old pan would have to be filled up a good bit the way I cook. Heck, if cooking ribs my vents are quite often open for most of the cook. I don't advise letting the water get too low, but cooking with a decent fire, all I have to do to tell if there's any in the pan is put my hand over the vent.
I've cooked dry and with steam, slow, fast, and everything in between. Many ways to bbq and get great results, but the differences can be really obvious, depending on how you cook.
When I first started with the wsm I was starting with a few lit coals and shutting vents back 3/4's and such, but not any more, and the differences increased as I started cooking hotter. Of course, starting off with boiling water probably makes a difference as well. I haven't done any scientific experiments, but I bet my meat gets done quicker using a lot of steam. Sure know I have to remove my hand from the vent quicker.
It's nice to not have to wrap ribs to avoid a thick and chewy crust, cooking at the temps I cook at. You can cook slower in dry heat and avoid that, but mine just end up seeming to be more on the dry side.
I have the older WSM so it would be the smaller water pan. In my opinion,that would have to be a lot of steam coming off that new water pan to make a significant difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for the reply. The old pan would have to be filled up a good bit the way I cook. Heck, if cooking ribs my vents are quite often open for most of the cook. I don't advise letting the water get too low, but cooking with a decent fire, all I have to do to tell if there's any in the pan is put my hand over the vent.
I've cooked dry and with steam, slow, fast, and everything in between. Many ways to bbq and get great results, but the differences can be really obvious, depending on how you cook.
When I first started with the wsm I was starting with a few lit coals and shutting vents back 3/4's and such, but not any more, and the differences increased as I started cooking hotter. Of course, starting off with boiling water probably makes a difference as well. I haven't done any scientific experiments, but I bet my meat gets done quicker using a lot of steam. Sure know I have to remove my hand from the vent quicker.
It's nice to not have to wrap ribs to avoid a thick and chewy crust, cooking at the temps I cook at. You can cook slower in dry heat and avoid that, but mine just end up seeming to be more on the dry side.
Robert D Wise
TVWBB Member
With a DigiQ, silver bullet jacket and no water, top vents 1/2 closed (bottom vents all taped shut), I have gone 20 hours and still had briqs left!
M. Chesney
TVWBB Fan
With my DigiQ is use no water, I use a double foiled piedmont pan. Perfect results all the time.
Stuart Cassingham
TVWBB Fan
i run 2 cyber q's, no water in a foiled pan, heat taped bottom vents an top vent 1/2 open.. have run 20 hour cooks with a full ring with no problems what so ever...
Dave Penn
TVWBB Fan
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LarryR:
I have the older WSM so it would be the smaller water pan. In my opinion,that would have to be a lot of steam coming off that new water pan to make a significant difference. However, I'm not a scientist and don't even pretend to play one on TV
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
On a brisket cook a few months back, I filled the pan up with water to within 2" of the top. After 16 hours, it was still only 4" from the top. If you take the volume of air that went through that cooker over those 16 hours and divide it by the volume of water boiled off - subtracting the brisket drippings that ended up in the pan and replaced some of the water - you'd end up with a pretty minimal amount of added moisture. Doodly-squat plus-or-minus a doodle or doodle and a half, max. To me, the idea that the pan of water is adding a bunch of moisture to the cook just doesn't stand to reason. My water pan has been sitting on the workbench ever since.
But if a pan of water makes you feel like you're getting better results, by all means use it. Heck, pour in a couple bottles of Chateau Mouton Rothschild if it gets you where you want to go.
Dave
I have the older WSM so it would be the smaller water pan. In my opinion,that would have to be a lot of steam coming off that new water pan to make a significant difference. However, I'm not a scientist and don't even pretend to play one on TV
On a brisket cook a few months back, I filled the pan up with water to within 2" of the top. After 16 hours, it was still only 4" from the top. If you take the volume of air that went through that cooker over those 16 hours and divide it by the volume of water boiled off - subtracting the brisket drippings that ended up in the pan and replaced some of the water - you'd end up with a pretty minimal amount of added moisture. Doodly-squat plus-or-minus a doodle or doodle and a half, max. To me, the idea that the pan of water is adding a bunch of moisture to the cook just doesn't stand to reason. My water pan has been sitting on the workbench ever since.
But if a pan of water makes you feel like you're getting better results, by all means use it. Heck, pour in a couple bottles of Chateau Mouton Rothschild if it gets you where you want to go.
Dave
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave Penn:
On a brisket cook a few months back, I filled the pan up with water to within 2" of the top. After 16 hours, it was still only 4" from the top. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks so much for posting, Dave.
You're cooking too slow to notice any significant difference! Give the fire some air, and the water will evaporate much quicker, but not so quick that the pan has to be filled too often. I'll go about eight hours with my Brinkman pan before I add.
Very first water smoker I ever saw was a Backwoods that a team was so gracious to show me at a competition once in Nashville several years ago. I saw the water pan when they took a fatty out. It was practically boiling. Never will forget that.
You're not gonna get that on a wsm if you start a fire with 12 lit coals on top of unlit and add nothing but hot tap. We're talking apples and oranges at that rate of evaporation. I start a cook with 2/3 chimney lit, vents wide open, and boiling hot water. It makes a difference, believe me, and some folks (that foil) don't like it because bark development is obviously inhibited and delayed.
On a brisket cook a few months back, I filled the pan up with water to within 2" of the top. After 16 hours, it was still only 4" from the top. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks so much for posting, Dave.
You're cooking too slow to notice any significant difference! Give the fire some air, and the water will evaporate much quicker, but not so quick that the pan has to be filled too often. I'll go about eight hours with my Brinkman pan before I add.
Very first water smoker I ever saw was a Backwoods that a team was so gracious to show me at a competition once in Nashville several years ago. I saw the water pan when they took a fatty out. It was practically boiling. Never will forget that.
You're not gonna get that on a wsm if you start a fire with 12 lit coals on top of unlit and add nothing but hot tap. We're talking apples and oranges at that rate of evaporation. I start a cook with 2/3 chimney lit, vents wide open, and boiling hot water. It makes a difference, believe me, and some folks (that foil) don't like it because bark development is obviously inhibited and delayed.
Dave Penn
TVWBB Fan
Dave,
I should have clarified that my brisket was a low-and-slow cook. My DigiQ DX2 kept the WSM at 225-230 the whole time. For a HH cook I'm willing to entertain the notion that the water might actually boil, and do so at a rate that would add some moisture to the air. I use a water bath when I bake cheesecakes at 325 degrees; an oven has a much lower air turnover rate than any cook in a WSM but it's a similar effect to what you're trying to achieve when using a water pan in the WSM. I haven't ruled out trying the water pan again if I do a HH brisket or butts, but I don't foresee using it again for a low-and-slow.
Thanks for the feedback; I'm enjoying the discussion!
I should have clarified that my brisket was a low-and-slow cook. My DigiQ DX2 kept the WSM at 225-230 the whole time. For a HH cook I'm willing to entertain the notion that the water might actually boil, and do so at a rate that would add some moisture to the air. I use a water bath when I bake cheesecakes at 325 degrees; an oven has a much lower air turnover rate than any cook in a WSM but it's a similar effect to what you're trying to achieve when using a water pan in the WSM. I haven't ruled out trying the water pan again if I do a HH brisket or butts, but I don't foresee using it again for a low-and-slow.
Thanks for the feedback; I'm enjoying the discussion!
Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
Dave, going by my dome gauge, I probably don't cook much hotter than you do, but I do TRY to measure grate temp. Hard to do on my 18.5" when the top grate has two butts or a fairly large brisket on it, though. Any tips for locating your probe? Another thing I've been wanting to see is some temps and times from you guys that use ATC's. Mind sharing any for typical bbq cooks?
Dave Penn
TVWBB Fan
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave Russell:
Dave, going by my dome gauge, I probably don't cook much hotter than you do, but I do TRY to measure grate temp. Hard to do on my 18.5" when the top grate has two butts or a fairly large brisket on it, though. Any tips for locating your probe? Another thing I've been wanting to see is some temps and times from you guys that use ATC's. Mind sharing any for typical bbq cooks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dave,
Dome temps vs. pit probe temps vary quite a bit, mainly dependent on ambient temperature. If it's a$$-numbing cold - 0 or below - I'll see dome temps 20 - 30 degrees below probe temp, even in my garage where the wind isn't stripping away lots of heat. At more moderate temps it's typically in the 10 - 15 degree range. Take these with a grain of salt, though. I honestly don't pay much attention to the dome thermometer since I got my DigiQ, which was right after I got my WSM.
I'm not terribly meticulous about probe placement. I just make sure to keep it away from the meat and at the same height as the middle of the meat. I got snookered a few cooks ago; I couldn't figure out why the WSM wouldn't come up to temp even though the goals were going like gangbusters. After lifting the lid for a look-see, I noticed the pit probe was snuggled up against one of the chickens. I moved it and the pit temp reading shot way up, so I shut the top vent to help the DigiQ reel in the runaway pit. Other than that, I suppose you wouldn't want to put the pit probe in the middle of the lower grate if you had the water pan in; it might be in the "shadow" of the pan and read lower than the air swirling up and around the pan. Sometimes if the top grate is really crowded, I'll McGuyver-up a coat-hanger probe mount to suspend the pit probe in amongst the meat, but I haven't had to do that very often.
As far as cook times, whole chickens (4 - 4-1/2#) run about an 1-1/2 hours in a 230 degree pit to get the thickest part of the breast to 165 degrees. A whole turkey (15# or so) takes about 3 hours and some change at about the same pit temp. Brisket - I start testing for tenderness at about 185 degrees, and the last one worked out to about an hour per pound of whole packer with the fat cap trimmed down to about 1/4". I cook Tri-tips a bit hotter, at around 275 - 280. I think the last one I did was around 4# and took an hour and a half or so; I trimmed most of the fat cap off it. I haven't done butts on the WSM yet. I do them on an outdoor brick oven/smoker/grill I built. Like the dome temps, I don't pay super-close attention to time - I put the DigiQ in "Ramp" mode and set up the Maverick 732 and keep an eye on it that way.
I start my WSM using the Minion method, or variations of it. The longer the cook, the greater the ratio of unlit-to-lit I use. Take that into consideration when you look at my times. If you're starting with a full ring of fully-lit coals, your times will be somewhat shorter.
Hope this helps.
Dave, going by my dome gauge, I probably don't cook much hotter than you do, but I do TRY to measure grate temp. Hard to do on my 18.5" when the top grate has two butts or a fairly large brisket on it, though. Any tips for locating your probe? Another thing I've been wanting to see is some temps and times from you guys that use ATC's. Mind sharing any for typical bbq cooks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dave,
Dome temps vs. pit probe temps vary quite a bit, mainly dependent on ambient temperature. If it's a$$-numbing cold - 0 or below - I'll see dome temps 20 - 30 degrees below probe temp, even in my garage where the wind isn't stripping away lots of heat. At more moderate temps it's typically in the 10 - 15 degree range. Take these with a grain of salt, though. I honestly don't pay much attention to the dome thermometer since I got my DigiQ, which was right after I got my WSM.
I'm not terribly meticulous about probe placement. I just make sure to keep it away from the meat and at the same height as the middle of the meat. I got snookered a few cooks ago; I couldn't figure out why the WSM wouldn't come up to temp even though the goals were going like gangbusters. After lifting the lid for a look-see, I noticed the pit probe was snuggled up against one of the chickens. I moved it and the pit temp reading shot way up, so I shut the top vent to help the DigiQ reel in the runaway pit. Other than that, I suppose you wouldn't want to put the pit probe in the middle of the lower grate if you had the water pan in; it might be in the "shadow" of the pan and read lower than the air swirling up and around the pan. Sometimes if the top grate is really crowded, I'll McGuyver-up a coat-hanger probe mount to suspend the pit probe in amongst the meat, but I haven't had to do that very often.
As far as cook times, whole chickens (4 - 4-1/2#) run about an 1-1/2 hours in a 230 degree pit to get the thickest part of the breast to 165 degrees. A whole turkey (15# or so) takes about 3 hours and some change at about the same pit temp. Brisket - I start testing for tenderness at about 185 degrees, and the last one worked out to about an hour per pound of whole packer with the fat cap trimmed down to about 1/4". I cook Tri-tips a bit hotter, at around 275 - 280. I think the last one I did was around 4# and took an hour and a half or so; I trimmed most of the fat cap off it. I haven't done butts on the WSM yet. I do them on an outdoor brick oven/smoker/grill I built. Like the dome temps, I don't pay super-close attention to time - I put the DigiQ in "Ramp" mode and set up the Maverick 732 and keep an eye on it that way.
I start my WSM using the Minion method, or variations of it. The longer the cook, the greater the ratio of unlit-to-lit I use. Take that into consideration when you look at my times. If you're starting with a full ring of fully-lit coals, your times will be somewhat shorter.
Hope this helps.