Lump Versus Regular Charcoal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
I've been bumping into posts in various places that trumpet the use of lump charcoal. However, since I haven't used lump before, it causes some questions.

1. Is there any difference in the steadiness of burn between the two types of charcoal?

2. I haven't found any lump charcoal in my area, so is it worth the effort to snoop out? True, I haven't been looking very hard around here--Bremerton/Silverdale, Washington. Is lump worth going the extra mile for?

3. How important is it for you that you're cooking on 100% wood versus one with filler. Does it make that much difference?

Lump or regular, all I know is after going to the PNWBA event last weekend in Seattle and looking at Roy Humprey's great pictures in the Advanced section a little while ago, I gotta cook somethin' this weekend! Cheers all!
 
Kyle,
After having trialed lump charcoal, and the all natural lump and briquets from Canada last year, I have decided to return to briquets this competition season.

My issues were two: Difficult to maintain even temperature and burn rate was too fast. Even using the Minion method, I was lucky to get six hours out of lump charcoal. With briquets, I could get 12-15 hours fairly regularly.

I know others will disagree, talking about all the fillers, etc, but, I like the results with good old Kingsford and cannot honestly tell the difference.

Dale
 
Dale (& Kyle):

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Despite several cooks with lump charcoal, for the life of me, I cannot see what all the fuss is about. For me anyway, it has been hard to manage from a heat standpoint, difficult to estimate burn times, and very little (and no better) flavor. If there is a strong advocate for the lump out there, I would appreciate them chiming in, as I'd like to learn from their experiences. That's my two cents, and thanks for bringing this up.
 
I am sold on lump. The problem that I had with charcoal was if I did not use a whole bag of charcoal for a smoke, the next smoke the charcoal seemed not to burn as well and maintain temp. Using lump, I just put new lump on top of old, light using minon method and I am off smoking. In the long run a 20 lb bag of lump is cheaper then 10 lb bag of charcoal. Of course I do not do competion cooking, just back yard cooking.

Dan L
 
I have used both and, like Dale, I have decided to stick with charcoal...good ole Kingsford. As far as filler, the only drawback is the increased ash leftover. Even using a full bag of Kingsford, there is plenty of room for the ash in the WSM. Besides, it's great for the garden!

Here is what I found with lump..........decreased burn times, scarce availability, twice the price(Dan, I just can't agree with your assessment of cheaper in the long run).

Having said that, I DO use lump when grilling. I like the higher heat and the faint smokey flavor is just right for beef.

For all of us, it becomes a personal choice. I say...whatever turns out better results for YOU is what you should use.
 
I use Kingsford in the WSMs for all the reasons stated above and I use lump in the ceramic cookers because the way you control temp and the ash issue. I don't find lump to be cheaper to burn considering it cost about $2.50 in charcoal to cook a brisket on Kingsford and the same cook on lump is about $7.50.
Jim
 
I've always used lump in the old Cook'n Caj'n. More a force of habit I think, and trying to further the difference between real BBQ and Grilling (which most of us Northerners call bbq anyway). In using my smoker, which is difficult to control temps, the lump has been great since it catches fast. But it doesn't seem to burn as long. With the WSM I will definitely try both.
As for price, I have been paying $9 or $10 for 20 lb bags of lump charcoal. How much is Kingsford? I thought it was right in that price range.
Availability...yes...it STINKS for lump. There's 1 place within a 50 mile radius that I've found, and they're sold out half the time. My last shipment came from Mass., I had my girlfriend load up her Tahoe with 20 bags.
As far as flavor goes, I always felt lump was more pure. But on the occasions I used briquettes, could I taste the difference? Nope.
A good friend swears by lump charcoal. I'll get his input and let y'all know. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
 
I use both and keep both on hand at all times. I like to use lump for grilling. I also will use lump to start a fire and then add charcoal briquettes on top. I like lump for chicken because of the higher heat and faster burn. Charcoal is for slower burns.

How's this for straddling the fence<G>

I've also got a Lazy Q with a brisket, 2 slabs of beef ribs, and 9 slabs of babybacks on right now.
 
Jerod....

Sam's sells 2 - 24lb. bags of Kingsford for under $10. Plus it is stocked year round.

The lump around here...Royal Oak, costs a little over $10 for 20 lbs.
 
until yesterday I would have argued with anyone about the use of Lump over charcoal. I had a hell of a time getting it to burn or raise to a good cooking temp. It may be the bag that I got at a KC BBQ store. It had lots of char, big pieces of wood. have been buying lump made here in MO. but saw this and thought, this store sell great stuff so this would be a good buy.

As far as cost. It seems that if I buy a 20 lb bag of charcol, I can only use it once for smoking, the next time it will not burn correct. So I have been using 10 lb bags, which feel the ring. But they cost almost the same as 20 lb. bag. Until yesterday I would have said I burned less lump then charcoal to smoke a butt. Things keep changing.

Dan L
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

 

Back
Top