First pork butt cook with New Kingsford


 
Chris Allingham

Chris Allingham

Administrator
Staff member
Cooked two pork butts last night using new Kingsford.

Meat weighed 17 pounds before trimming a couple of pounds of fat.

Used the Minion Method with a slightly mounded pile of charcoal + 15 hot coals on top, for a total of 13 lbs. 6 oz. Used two chunks of oak and 1 of hickory.

I counted 15 briquettes into a Weber chimney and banked them into a pile (not easy!) against one side of the chimney, then lit them with a Weber FireStarter cube.

After 10 minutes, the coals at the bottom of the pile were lit and the fire was licking the ones at the top and their edges were starting to catch. That was when I spread them over the unlit charcoal.

Filled the standard Weber water pan with cool tap water only at the start.

Started cooking at 9:00pm. Left all vents open until 200*F, then shut the bottom three to 25% each and made no further adjustments. By midnight the cooker had settled at 232*F and I went to bed.

Got up at 8:00am, cooker was running at 224*F. Flipped the butts and opened the bottom vents to 50% open.

Cooker continued to run 225-235*F until noon when the last butt was done.

So for this cooking session, the WSM ran 15 hours on new K with no need to stir the coals and no need to add more fuel.

Regards,
Chris
 
Chris, I am glad you had an excellent result.

Many of us may well have jumped the gun with our Kingsford comments. One thing I and perhaps many others had learned from this place is that you can always count on Weber and Kingsford. Any change is not easy to accept quickly when time has proved the quality, value and, predictability of the original product.

Your comment about filling the water pan once is notable. Perhaps for long cooks, most of us just need half a pan of water for the start up and settle in period. You appearantly allow the pan to run dry as I have done at times.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris Allingham:
Cooked two pork butts last night using new Kingsford.

Meat weighed 17 pounds before trimming a couple of pounds of fat.

Used the Minion Method with a slightly mounded pile of charcoal + 15 hot coals on top, for a total of 13 lbs. 6 oz. Used two chunks of oak and 1 of hickory.

Filled the standard Weber water pan with cool tap water only at the start.

Started cooking at 9:00pm. Left all vents open until 200*F, then shut the bottom three to 25% each and made no further adjustments. By midnight the cooker had settled at 232*F and I went to bed.

Got up at 8:00am, cooker was running at 224*F. Flipped the butts and opened the bottom vents to 50% open.

Cooker continued to run 225-235*F until noon when the last butt was done.

So for this cooking session, the WSM ran 15 hours on new K with no need to stir the coals and no need to add more fuel.

Regards,
Chris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just curious - how does this burn duration compare to similar previous cooks with the "Old Kingsford"?
 
I have yet to try the new kingsford...I still have the "classic" variety...just had to crack into a 2-24# bag last night to do 2 butts. I mix it half with the new charwood lump (sparks a lot though) smelling real good right now...

Aloha,

Greg
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike Batsarisakis:
Chris,

Just wondering, since you went to bed, whether or not you used the BBQ guru? Mike </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I don't use the Guru. I do it old school.
icon_smile.gif


Regards,
Chris
 
I cooked a 20# chuck for seventeen hours with a ring full of the new stuff. When I was finished I snuffed out the fire and still had coals left. (1/4 of a ring?) But I always use a three sided wind break, with a top.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rich_S:
Just curious - how does this burn duration compare to similar previous cooks with the "Old Kingsford"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>From my last three pork butt cooks:

#1) Four butts. Old K lasted 14 hours, then I added 40 more lit coals to get me to 17 hours.

#2) Two butts. Old K went 18 hours with two stirs of the coals to dislodge ash.

#3) Two butts. Old K went 15 hours with one stir of the coals.

I don't remember how much useful fuel remained after #2 or #3, just that a single load of old K took the butts to completion.

So this performance of new K seems a lot like #3 but no stir required. It was breezy so I was a bit worried about keeping the cooker temp up, but the cooker was in a somewhat sheltered location and apparently things went just fine while I slept for 8 hours.

For those interested, of the original 13 lbs. 6 ounces I started with, I ended up with 13.7 ounces of reusable whole and partial briquettes on the charcoal grate. I did not attempt to retrieve usable pieces from the ashes, though I saw some that slipped through the grate.

Regards,
Chris
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris Allingham:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rich_S:
Just curious - how does this burn duration compare to similar previous cooks with the "Old Kingsford"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>From my last three pork butt cooks:

#1) Four butts. Old K lasted 14 hours, then I added 40 more lit coals to get me to 17 hours.

#2) Two butts. Old K went 18 hours with two stirs of the coals to dislodge ash.

#3) Two butts. Old K went 15 hours with one stir of the coals.

I don't remember how much useful fuel remained after #2 or #3, just that a single load of old K took the butts to completion.

So this performance of new K seems a lot like #3 but no stir required. It was breezy so I was a bit worried about keeping the cooker temp up, but the cooker was in a somewhat sheltered location and apparently things went just fine while I slept for 8 hours.

For those interested, of the original 13 lbs. 6 ounces I started with, I ended up with 13.7 ounces of reusable whole and partial briquettes on the charcoal grate. I did not attempt to retrieve usable pieces from the ashes, though I saw some that slipped through the grate.

Regards,
Chris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good information. Thanks.

It would appear that the difference between the old and new Kingsford is small enough that it's easily overshadowed by all of the other variables (ambient temp, wind, amount of meat being cooked, variances within each batch of any type of charcoal, etc.)
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rich_S:

It would appear that the difference between the old and new Kingsford is small enough that it's easily overshadowed by all of the other variables (ambient temp, wind, amount of meat being cooked, variances within each batch of any type of charcoal, etc.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I concur. I'm done worrying. All of us who have done this for a long time know that unexpected things do happen on overnight cooks with temp and fuel consumption. We come up with an explanation the next day, but despite the corrective measures taken, at some point it happens again.

Hey - this is BBQ !
icon_smile.gif


Paul
 
Chris,
Just a quick question. Where do you take your temp readings from, dome or grate.

TIA

Rath *always takes temps for the grate kinda guy*
 
Good news and thanks for the update Chris. I agree w/ Paul looks like the original concerns are not such a big deal after all- mostly temp spikes/shorter burn times.

However, and I'm not trying to stir the pot... we were all worked up and now seem relieved that the new Kingsford is OK. Just remember Kingsford has us paying the same for a smaller bag of fuel!

Assuming Chris still used the same amount as with old K- are we so overjoyed it works okay that we forget Kingsford found a sneaky way to raise the price of charcoal through marketing? If it works the same as before, that answers our concerns. But shouldn't it work better since it cost more? Isn't that what Kinsgford says- that it "lasts longer"? Chris' findings about not having to stir fit in with what some of us speculated- that the grooves might allow more air space/surface area to the inner pile. If this continues to happen then that is a tangible benefit. But your still paying more. I'll stick with RO or lump for a while. Also, many places around here still have the old K left. I will eventually try new stuff, but will probably mostly buy RO if it continues to be cheaper than new K due to bag weight.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Don C.:
Chris,
Just a quick question. Where do you take your temp readings from, dome or grate.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>I use a thermometer mounted in the lid.

Regards,
Chris
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Willie H:
Just remember Kingsford has us paying the same for a smaller bag of fuel! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>New bags are the same physical size as before and contain approx. the same number of briquettes as before (subject to normal manufacturing variations). New briquettes are the same dimensions as the old ones. Price per bag remains about the same, subject to the price increases you see with everything these days due to higher fuel prices.

As such, you continue to use new K in the same volume as old K and should get the same number of uses per bag. The new product weighs less because of the Sure Fire Grooves and because it contains more lightweight wood char.

If you pay the same price as before, get the same number of uses per bag as before, and your personal experience in the backyard shows that it lasts as long as before, then I think it's more accurate to say "paying the same for a bag of fuel that works like before, but weighs 10% less and produces 10% less ash."

What we each have to figure out for ourselves is the "lasts as long as before" part. Some are saying that it does not. My single experience so far with the new product was fine. Time will tell.

As always, your mileage may vary!
icon_smile.gif


Regards,
Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top