lump charcoal modification


 
J

Jeff Fried

New member
I tried lump recently and put a layer of foil with holes poked in on the grate to prevent small pieces from falling through. This worked perfectly - temp was easy to adjust with vents and coal (Cowboy brand) burned much slower than expected - in fact, after 6 hours there was still half ring unconsumed. I closed all vents including top to snuff fire and next day I threw 1/2 lit chimney on top of the coal - and got another 5 hour burn from it. Can't see the reason to go back to Kingsford.
 
I'm right there with you. After using lump (usually Royal Oak) for the first time I've never used briquettes again, even for grilling.

I think lump is better in every aspect. I've found it easier to light, easier to maintain temp, leaves minimal ash, consumes less fuel, gives meat a better flavor and is just more fun to use.
 
Two have mentioned low ash production. Why is this important to you? Not trying to put you on the defensive, just trying to understand why you see it as a benefit.

I would never say that lots of ash production is a benefit of using briquettes, but I've never thought of it as a detriment in the WSM, either.

What are your thoughts?

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:
Two have mentioned low ash production. Why is this important to you? Not trying to put you on the defensive, just trying to understand why you see it as a benefit.

I would never say that lots of ash production is a benefit of using briquettes, but I've never thought of it as a detriment in the WSM, either.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,
Chris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pictured: The aftermatch of one heaping chimney of Kingsford after a sub-250 four hour smoke.

DSCN1893a.jpg


Bob
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris Allingham:
Two have mentioned low ash production. Why is this important to you? Not trying to put you on the defensive, just trying to understand why you see it as a benefit.

I would never say that lots of ash production is a benefit of using briquettes, but I've never thought of it as a detriment in the WSM, either.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,
Chris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chris, Although i didn't mention it i'll voice my opion about it. What i have seen with the ash problem and Kingsford is more of the ash staying on the brigs verses falling off and down to the bottom of the bowl. When burning lump i just gently kick one of the legs and the ash just falls right off. With Kingsford it seems to stick together/on the briqs and more of a PITA to get it off the burning briqs thus hindering the airflow. Kingsford the last couple of years has really been producing alot more ash than it used to IMO. Seems it went downhill ever since the plant burned down.
P.S. Bob, That's a really big picture.
icon_eek.gif
 
I use lump exclussivly myself (Maple Leaf) and second everything John said about it.

I'm honestly not sure wether it produces less ash as I have never used Kingsford before, but I would think one of the main benefits of less ash would be not having to get rid of so much garbage.
 
I second the "not having to get rid of so much garbage" benefit. I didn't really start using lump for the lower ash, but it is nice to not have to dispose of any more ash than I need to.
 
When i used kingsford, the only problem with the excessive ash production was with really long cooks (over 20 hrs), or in cold and/or windy weather. In those circumstances, ash build-up would rise up to the grate and choke off the air.
With lump (People's Woods) i get ridiculously low ash, sometimes not even needing to dump before re-loading.
With such a huge disparity in ash, it sure would be interesting to see a chemical analysis on what all that kingsford residue consists of.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by michael mc:
With such a huge disparity in ash, it sure would be interesting to see a chemical analysis on what all that kingsford residue consists of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here you go Sir.
 
What I have noticed is that I need less smoke wood with lump to get a good favor in the meat. I do have to watch the temps more with lump, but the adjustments made happen more quickly. It lites faster then Kingford. It cost more and I think one weber chimney full of kingsford will last a lot longer then lump. At the end of it all there are way to many pros and cons of each to determine with one is best.
icon_biggrin.gif
 
For me the low ash production is a big deal. Now for the people who clean their bullet everytime it probably doesn't matter, but for those of us who only clean it when it really needs it, it definitely makes a difference. When you compare how many times you can smoke with kingsford briquettes vs a quality lump before having to clean out the ash, it's cleaning your bullet once a month vs once a week. Kingsford almost produces as much ash as the volume of briquttes used. When you use good lump you may get 5-10% the volume of the lump.

Ater a year it's 50 lbs of ash vs 10 lbs. and cleaning your bullet out 10 times instead of 50. Benefit? I'd say so...

Anton

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris Allingham:
Two have mentioned low ash production. Why is this important to you? Not trying to put you on the defensive, just trying to understand why you see it as a benefit.

I would never say that lots of ash production is a benefit of using briquettes, but I've never thought of it as a detriment in the WSM, either.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,
Chris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
 
Anyone ever do a cooking time test of lump vs. briquettes? Because it seems to me that a bag of lump, while weighing 1/3 that of Kingsford, will burn much longer. Although lugging Kingsford bags around is great exercise, I will use lump due to laziness, not ash buildup concerns.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jeff Fried:
Anyone ever do a cooking time test of lump vs. briquettes? Because it seems to me that a bag of lump, while weighing 1/3 that of Kingsford, will burn much longer. Although lugging Kingsford bags around is great exercise, I will use lump due to laziness, not ash buildup concerns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jeff, On average i get 21-22 hrs out of 10 lbs of Lump. A full ring of lump is about 8-9 lbs just depends how tight you pack it in. A Weber chimney full of Kingsford weights 6 lbs, so 20 lbs of lump goes alot farther than 20 lbs of Kingsford.
icon_wink.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Anton:
Now for the people who clean their bullet everytime it probably doesn't matter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So I'm in that category. I clean out the ashes after every use. I'm such a neat freak that I'd be cleaning it out regardless of whether I use briquettes or lump, but that's just me. I wash the water pan and the cooking grates, brush off the ash from the charcoal grate and charcoal chamber, and brush off all interior surfaces of any flakes or ash.

So I can see your point that if I wasn't going to clean after each use, less ash production would mean less cleaning overall.

Not sure I get the 50 lbs of ash vs. 10 lbs. Do you pay by weight to have your garbage hauled away? Can't imagine that would amount to much hassle spread out over an entire year.

Thanks for sharing your views, Anton--I learned something new!
icon_smile.gif


Regards,
Chris
 
If you live in one of those areas where you can pick up Kingsford on the cheap there is likely no way lump can come close in the cost department.

For me Kingsford costs $0.50/lb on a good day ... Maple leaf lump (MLL) costs $1/lb ... I think they cost near the same to operate the WSM or MLL might even be a bit cheaper so I prefer the lump hands down.

I picked up a bunch of Royal Oak Plus briquettes for just under $0.30/lb this fall ... we'll see how that works out.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jeff Fried:
Anyone ever do a cooking time test of lump vs. briquettes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There is this article on the Naked Whiz that compares various brands of lump and Kingsford briquettes:

Comparison of burn times and ash production

What's confusing about the Naked Whiz article is that most of the results are based on burning charcoal by weight, while in reality we burn charcoal by volume (using a chimney starter as a measuring cup, or filling the charcoal chamber 1/2 full or heaping full). Later in the article, there's a confusing chart and some text that attempts to convert the burn time results from weight to volume. When viewed this way, Kingsford was in the middle of the pack--two lump samples were better, two were worse. The two better samples were Kamado extruded, which is a highly compressed product, even more dense than Kingsford, and Wicked Good charcoal, whose claim to fame is long burn times. Both have limited distribution in the US. The two worse samples were Big Green Egg lump and Cowboy.

Another question I have about the article is that they tried to maintain a temperature of 450*F during the test. For my purposes, a range of 225-250*F would be more meaningful, because it's when I'm cooking overnight in this temp range that I really care about burn time.

In addition, there is a sidebar in Cook's Illustrated magazine from July/August 2005, p.14, titled "What's the Hottest Charcoal". They filled 6-quart chimneys with lump or briquettes. They fitted the cooking grate of an unspecified grill (probably a Weber kettle, since that's what they use on their TV show) with 7 thermocouples and recorded heat levels in 5 minute intervals. They ran the test a dozen times and analyzed the data. From the article:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The results were startling. In every test, the briquettes burned as hot, or hotter, than the hardwood (charcoal). In grilling tests, the fires produced nearly identical heat for about 30 minutes--enough time for most quick grilling tasks. From there on, the hardwood coals quickly turn into piles of ash, while the briquettes slowly lost heat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a chart in the sidebar that shows how the temperatures went with the lid on the grill (I assume top and bottom vents were left wide open). It shows briquettes hitting 500*F after 20 minutes, then dropping along a fairly straight path to 50*F at 4 hours 10 minutes. For lump, 450*F after 20 minutes, then dropping down a much steeper path to 50*F at 1 hour 50 minutes.

At least the Cook's sidebar uses the right measure in their test--volume--but they do an uncontrolled burn, which is not what we do in the WSM. We fill the charcoal chamber with fuel and use the Minion Method and vent settings for a controlled burn. In this regard, the Naked Whiz test is better--at least they adjusted the vents in the small Big Green Egg (oxymoron?) to maintain 450*F as long as they could, then stopped the timer when it reached 300*F. Also, we don't know what brands of briquette or lump they used. I would assume they used Kingsford, but running Kingsford against Wicked Good would be a different race than running Kingsford against Cowboy, as the Naked Whiz showed.

It's all interesting stuff, but it points out that there are many variables to take into account. For example, Bryan noted that he can get more lump in the charcoal chamber by packing it in tightly. Sometimes when I fill a chimney starter with briquettes, I shake them down inside, sometimes I don't. It's variables like these, along with various fuels, that make it hard to compare one person's results with another's.

I like the wisdom of Jim Minion's comment on this subject in another thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No matter what you cook on or use for fuel there are trade offs. If you use Kingsford, you have steady temps and predictable burn times. Trade off is more ash than some other charcoals, so you deal with it.

If you use lump there can be shorter burns, some heat spikes and higher fuel costs but you have less ash. Still have to deal with those conditions.

BBQ is learning to deal with the situation that's presented to you.

I have been using Kingsford for a lot of years and can not complain about the results. I also use lump regularly and as anything else it's not equal in quality and results based on the material that the lump is made from.

Learn to deal with the condition you are presented with because under different weather conditions you will get different results.
Low and slow is about how you handle the conditions as they present themself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Regards,
Chris
 
Big difference between Kingsford and Hump Lump? Ash build up isn't that important an issue to me, the food just plain taste better! Kingsford leaves more of "it's flavor" in the food. Hump Lump leaves more of the foods flavor, smoke wood, and whatever you seasoned it with come out. Everyone I cook for that has had both noticed a difference without me saying anything. Is it worth the extra money? To me, yes, to others, maybe not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top