Kingsford R&D lab trip report now available
- Thread starter Chris Allingham
- Start date
A.D.Letson
TVWBB Fan
Thank you very much for the article. It's good to have unbiased information to compare. And I would definitely like to be invited to that pot luck.
Tom Hinkle
TVWBB Super Fan
Excellent job, Chris. Thanks. I posted a link to your article on the About.Com BBQ forum. It sounds like the main points are to use less preheating time and less air flow than the old formula in order to get the longer burn times.
I'm still working on my stockpile of old Kingsford, but I'll need to get more charcoal soon, so I'm glad to see the new product will be successful.
I'm still working on my stockpile of old Kingsford, but I'll need to get more charcoal soon, so I'm glad to see the new product will be successful.
Informative article...
In the real world it just doesn't quite match with my repeated tries with the new product although I've tried many of the adjustments...it doesn't "drive through" the finished cook time like the old product...meaning there seems to be less margin for error when it comes to its interaction with variables outside of a controlled laboratory that would influence a long term cook...amount of meat, temperature, wind, air leakage of your WSM, amount of beer consumed by the cook, and so on...
While I've had to do more "babysitting" of my WSM with the new product at about the 12 hour mark and beyond...my conclusion is that the new product itself (not the company - well deserved for many reasons) has received a bit too much criticism...the product, while not as consistent in my experience, is most certainly "do-able" on long, slow cooks...it just requires a bit more vigilance which isn't thrilling but hey, there's not much you can't use if you pay close attention to air control...
In the end, an information packed article...a superb addition to the information we all need to work out our adjustments.
In the real world it just doesn't quite match with my repeated tries with the new product although I've tried many of the adjustments...it doesn't "drive through" the finished cook time like the old product...meaning there seems to be less margin for error when it comes to its interaction with variables outside of a controlled laboratory that would influence a long term cook...amount of meat, temperature, wind, air leakage of your WSM, amount of beer consumed by the cook, and so on...
While I've had to do more "babysitting" of my WSM with the new product at about the 12 hour mark and beyond...my conclusion is that the new product itself (not the company - well deserved for many reasons) has received a bit too much criticism...the product, while not as consistent in my experience, is most certainly "do-able" on long, slow cooks...it just requires a bit more vigilance which isn't thrilling but hey, there's not much you can't use if you pay close attention to air control...
In the end, an information packed article...a superb addition to the information we all need to work out our adjustments.
Dwain Gleason
TVWBB Fan
Kelley from Kingsford came to the Sugar Creek, MO BBQ contest last weekend and walked around and chatted with many of the teams there. He noticed our row of six WSMs and probably spent somewhere around 20 minutes chatting with us about their new product and our experiences with it.
I think this was the same Kelley that Chris met during his visit, as he was very familiar with the site and talked about the visit quite a bit. We talked alot about the things mentioned in the conclusion of the article - getting the coals into the unit faster, etc.
We were all very impressed by Kingsford coming out to the contest - they did hold a demonstration after the cook's meeting for anyone interested in more about the product, but that was when it was time for me to start getting pork butts into the smokers. It was nice to see them involved in the competition BBQ scene, and Chris - once again, your article really demonstrates a great commitment to the WSM community. Thanks!!!
I think this was the same Kelley that Chris met during his visit, as he was very familiar with the site and talked about the visit quite a bit. We talked alot about the things mentioned in the conclusion of the article - getting the coals into the unit faster, etc.
We were all very impressed by Kingsford coming out to the contest - they did hold a demonstration after the cook's meeting for anyone interested in more about the product, but that was when it was time for me to start getting pork butts into the smokers. It was nice to see them involved in the competition BBQ scene, and Chris - once again, your article really demonstrates a great commitment to the WSM community. Thanks!!!
David Collier
TVWBB Fan
Thank you Chris! Just now had a chance to read your report. Good information and a well done summation of the pros and cons for the new product. I had already purchased 200 lbs of the old before it was gone, so it may be a few weeks before I try the new.......Less pieces to start, and the start time should be reduced. I like the idea about the less ashes as this is usually a problem, I like 20 hours and more to smoke multi-butts here in the Shennandoah Valley of Virginia!! Thanks, DC
Michael G. (Canada Mike)
TVWBB All-Star
My thanks as well - it was an interesting and well-written report. Balanced and open-minded. (And this from a university professor!) Up here in Toronto, it's easier to find Royal Oak since Home Depot sells it, but if I run across Kingsford, I'll grab some bags.
Thanks,
Michael
Thanks,
Michael
Yes, that's the same Kelly I met with. A few weeks after my visit he mentioned that he had been on a business trip in which he visited a couple of barbecue competitions in Missouri.
Regards,
Chris
Chris, balanced article. I liked it.
Anybody else notice that they emphasized "more quality ingredients" a lot. Perhaps higher concentration of high quality ingredients is a more apt description since they shaved 10% of the weight off each bag. Doesn't that mean less total mass of ingredients? Slick marketing because they charge the same price and supply less product. Now I'm splitting hairs.
Michal G. Check out Loblaws @ Centrepoint mall. They get a once a year shipment each spring. On Saturday they had about 30 bags worth, freshly piled on the shelves. 8kg / 18 lb bag was $14. Yeah, its like getting hosed. It costs just as much as a good quality lump but with all the talk, I decided I had to try it. If it doesn't work out, I can always start my WSM with it.
Anybody else notice that they emphasized "more quality ingredients" a lot. Perhaps higher concentration of high quality ingredients is a more apt description since they shaved 10% of the weight off each bag. Doesn't that mean less total mass of ingredients? Slick marketing because they charge the same price and supply less product. Now I'm splitting hairs.
Michal G. Check out Loblaws @ Centrepoint mall. They get a once a year shipment each spring. On Saturday they had about 30 bags worth, freshly piled on the shelves. 8kg / 18 lb bag was $14. Yeah, its like getting hosed. It costs just as much as a good quality lump but with all the talk, I decided I had to try it. If it doesn't work out, I can always start my WSM with it.
The "high quality ingredient" is mostly wood char (ground-up lump charcoal), which is very lightweight.
Their position is that you get the same number of briquettes per bag as before, and since the product is used by volume, not weight, you get the same number of uses per bag as before. They claim it lasts longer than before. Price is the same as before. So overall they're claiming you get better performance for the same price, even though it now weighs 10% less.
I've made this extreme hypothetical example in another thread:
Say Kingsford produces a new product made only of wood char and corn starch binder. It performs as well as the old product, offers the same number of briquettes per bag and therefore the same number of uses per bag, and it sells for the same price as before. But it weighs half as much as before and produces half as much ash.
Is that slick marketing or just a better product?
Regards,
Chris
Morgan Sziraki
TVWBB Pro
Sound like both to me
I hope it is a product improvement. And I admit I'm not a good judge of this product change because I've only used it once before. From a strictly non-science perspective, I'll observe that while you can combust mass, you cannot burn volume.
I was attempting to show the similarities to a pattern of corporate behaviour in consumer products companies that have mature products. They've built a product, and gained a steady market share with their mature product. After the market share plateaus, the company looks for other ways to make more money (because products that maintain market share / profitability are not as valuable as ones that are gaining profitability). So they shave a bit off the product formula A and get formula B. Nobody can tell the difference between formula A and formula B. Plus, the get the product costs go down by a fraction, driving profitability up. Eventually, the corporate forces kick in again and formula C is required. Formula C & Formula B are close enough, but its now a noticeable difference between C & A.
The market share crisis hits the company around about formula G or H, when consumers say "Hey, my BBQ produces too much ash / soot, and has an off-taste" or "Hey my clothes aren't as white." Customers experiment with other products. Then the company needs to do a major product overhaul, such as re-launch the product with "New & Improved" badges and maybe even go back to Formula A to rebuild market share. Sometimes they even go to extremes like putting little blue balls in the soap, or put grooves on the back of the briquette so customers can see the difference
I hope the new product works for you. Its a non-factor for me, because Kingsford in big bags is extremely scarce in Canada. As noted above, I found a big bag and bought it just to try out how the MM works with Kingsford. I may even try an overnight cook this weekend just to see how different it behaves from either Royal Oak lump or Maple Leaf Lump. They're not as cost effective as the 2x24 bags at Home Depot USA, but both of those brands are easy to find locally, and year-round and they are priced on par with Kingsford.
I was attempting to show the similarities to a pattern of corporate behaviour in consumer products companies that have mature products. They've built a product, and gained a steady market share with their mature product. After the market share plateaus, the company looks for other ways to make more money (because products that maintain market share / profitability are not as valuable as ones that are gaining profitability). So they shave a bit off the product formula A and get formula B. Nobody can tell the difference between formula A and formula B. Plus, the get the product costs go down by a fraction, driving profitability up. Eventually, the corporate forces kick in again and formula C is required. Formula C & Formula B are close enough, but its now a noticeable difference between C & A.
The market share crisis hits the company around about formula G or H, when consumers say "Hey, my BBQ produces too much ash / soot, and has an off-taste" or "Hey my clothes aren't as white." Customers experiment with other products. Then the company needs to do a major product overhaul, such as re-launch the product with "New & Improved" badges and maybe even go back to Formula A to rebuild market share. Sometimes they even go to extremes like putting little blue balls in the soap, or put grooves on the back of the briquette so customers can see the difference
I hope the new product works for you. Its a non-factor for me, because Kingsford in big bags is extremely scarce in Canada. As noted above, I found a big bag and bought it just to try out how the MM works with Kingsford. I may even try an overnight cook this weekend just to see how different it behaves from either Royal Oak lump or Maple Leaf Lump. They're not as cost effective as the 2x24 bags at Home Depot USA, but both of those brands are easy to find locally, and year-round and they are priced on par with Kingsford.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point...but I think you're implying that less mass means less combustion and less energy output, but I'm not sure that's true. I imagine it's possible to replace an old ingredient with a new one that results in a product weighing 10% less than before but is the same physical size and is therefore used in the same volume as before and has the same energy output as before.
What I'd really like to do is send some old and new K to a lab and have it tested to see how many BTUs per pound each product produces. I asked Kingsford if they had this info, but they said they didn't. I had found a reference on the Web to old Kingsford producing 9700 BTU/lb, but they said they had no info to back that up because they don't test that way.
Regards,
Chris
Yes, that's the gist of my point. The air in the groooves is not combustible mass.
The long-winded second part was that companies evolve the formulation of their consumer products over time for many reasons, and profitability / cost reduction is at the top of that list. Kingsford may very well be a notable exception to that rule of thumb, but I'm skeptical.
I hypothesize that the new version of the product is a return to an older formula with the mass saving grooves for cost efficiency / higher margins. Without a BBQ enthusiast subpoena, I don't know how I could prove it though
Got the investigative juices flowing now. That would resolve the concern about getting less mileage out of a low / slow cook with a fixed volume of charcoal.
I remember doing this type of test in high school. We measured the heat output of burning peanuts - did it by measuring how much the water temperature changed in a test tube held above a burning peanut.
Again, I'm skeptical. Kingsford invests that heavily in product development and R&D and ?Overlooked? measuring its heat output (a high school level science experiment). Come on, its a BBQ cooking fuel product competing with gas alternative that is measured in BTU's. They're hiding stuff here.
No matter. You could do a home version of this with your cooker, and save the lab fees. Use your cooker with a fixed measured mass of of charcoal, and a measured amount of water in the pan. Measure increase in water temperature after coals have expired. Repeat with old & new, after cooker has cooled (or two at once if you're gifted with two WSM's).
I don't recall the math we used to convert that to BTU's but someone on the web will.
Alternative configuration to the accuracy of the BTU yield:
Use the charcoal chimney on the charcoal grate, no water pan, and line the middle section of the cooker with foil to provide a heat reflector to capture radiated heat from the chimney. Put a covered water pot on top grate with a Polder Probe in it. WSM shell will shield out wind heat losses, and provide a better control of variables.
Both experiments would miss the heat "leakage" of the exhaust gases swooping around the pot / water pan and out the exhaust port, but that's reflective of a low & slow cook (i.e. real world performance).
Come to think of it, with a combination of the WSM mods, you can do a really good job of this little experiment.
p.s. I did a 20 hour long cook with my bag of new Kingsford. I rate it as top marks for temp consistency, Good for longevity, Poor for ash production - nearly a full bowl; by the end it was just shy of choking off the air intakes. Of course, this is a sample of one.
Footnote: I realized after posting that BTU measures the peak heat production, not the total heat produced from a set amount of fuel. Like peak horsepower versus miles per gallon. Nevertheless, experiment can be adapted to measure the efficiency of the fuel. My guess is there's less total heat per bag...
Kingsford has been handing out a flyer at barbecue competitions that address many of the questions posed by consumers about the new product. The specific issue of reduction in mass being balanced by an increase in more energy-producing wood char to achieve a lighter product that burns as long or longer than before is discussed on page 2, end of column 1 and top of column 2.
It also specifically mentions Btu, something Kingsford would not tell me about before, so I will follow up on that point with my contacts.
New Kingsford fact sheet PDF
Regards,
Chris
It also specifically mentions Btu, something Kingsford would not tell me about before, so I will follow up on that point with my contacts.
New Kingsford fact sheet PDF
Regards,
Chris