no wood


 

Corey Elks

TVWBB All-Star
my family is getting tired of the smoke flavor. go figure. if i do a long cook in the wsm, with no wood and kingsford blue, will it taste like oven cooked or will it have a better flavor but not smokey? thanks
 
Try changing to a sweet wood like apple. Might help. If not then I am afraid they will have to go to therapy.
icon_smile.gif
 
Corey ur food will still taste great, the food will not taste like oven baked, in the oven its a moist heat food steams more, in the wsm its radiant heat which is a very dry heat.
Corey try this next time u bbq, mix k blue with k mesquite or hickory charcoal, about 80% blue & 20% mesquite or hickory which ever one u prefer.
 
i use 1 or 2 small chunks. gives me a taste without being overbearing. i suggest you try differant things until other like what they are tasting. i started out with a bunch of chunks and actually got sick. when i lowered the amount i'm now ok.
 
Corey - I'm with George: try it using just one or maybe two chunks of sweet wood. If they still don't like it, try it again but with NO wood. I've roasted a few cuts with nothing but lump, and the taste STILL beat oven-roasted.

Let us know what you decide and what the "taste-testers" think....

Barret
 
I found that lump gives off a bit more flavor than K. However I have better contol of temps with K. Vince
 
Originally posted by TravisH:
Even without any wood, the charcoal itself will impart some 'smoky' flavor.

So why do 99% of folks add wood to the charcoal?
icon_confused.gif


I've only used lump by itself once, if that tells you anything, but that was in an offset. Maybe all of the little smoke there was stayed in the top of the cooker and never circulated around the chicken. In other words, I can see how it could flavor meat a tad in a wsm, and if I ever try it, I'll probably do a low-n-slow rib or chicken cook with no water in the pan.

However, if I'm smoking butts or briskets, I'm gonna be doing just that: SMOKING butts or briskets....with some hickory, oak, apple, peach, and the like.
icon_wink.gif
 
Originally posted by Dave Russell:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TravisH:
Even without any wood, the charcoal itself will impart some 'smoky' flavor.
So why do 99% of folks add wood to the charcoal?
icon_confused.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>For even more smoky flavor.
icon_wink.gif
 
I crossed paths with a big time comp team (I think they just did extremly well at this years Jack). Anyways, I have it on good autority that they cook over kingsford only, no wood at all.
 
All right. Ya'll got me convinced I need to try this: I think I might do my next rib cook with the ORIGINAL BRITU method, or at least the part of burning the wood to coals with the lit charcoal in the chimney.

No wood in the cooker, no water in the pan, no foil, and we'll see how it turns out.
 
Originally posted by j biesinger:
I crossed paths with a big time comp team (I think they just did extremly well at this years Jack). Anyways, I have it on good autority that they cook over kingsford only, no wood at all.

J, so does lump give you any more flavor than K, or not? What about something like Stubbs briquettes?
 
Originally posted by Dave Russell:
I think I might do ... the part of burning the wood to coals with the lit charcoal in the chimney.
Essentially creating your own lump.

No wood in the cooker, no water in the pan, no foil, and we'll see how it turns out.
No foil? I take it you like burnt-on clean ups.

Originally posted by Dave Russell:
J, so does lump give you any more flavor than K, or not? What about something like Stubbs briquettes?
It's subjective. Some do, some don't. I haven't noticed a 'flavor' difference.

Stubbs is a good brand. Try a bag to see how you like it.
 
Originally posted by TravisH:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave Russell:
I think I might do ... the part of burning the wood to coals with the lit charcoal in the chimney.
Essentially creating your own lump."

I'd think so, but that's the original BRITU method and burning wood down to coals is old school pit bbq. Lots of folks say it's not the same as using lump.
icon_confused.gif


No wood in the cooker, no water in the pan, no foil, and we'll see how it turns out.
No foil? I take it you like burnt-on clean ups."

Foil in a pan w/ no water is a given. The reason I say "no foil" is no foiling for the cook to maximize any smoke flavor.

Originally posted by Dave Russell:
J, so does lump give you any more flavor than K, or not? What about something like Stubbs briquettes?
It's subjective. Some do, some don't. I haven't noticed a 'flavor' difference.

Stubbs is a good brand. Try a bag to see how you like it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've used all of the above. I've just not tasted side by side but so many lump fans insist it has so much more flavor....and then you read what J wrote about the K winning out.
icon_confused.gif
 
J, so does lump give you any more flavor than K, or not? What about something like Stubbs briquettes?

I have never cooked over kingsford, so I can not say either way. I was just relating a story that highlights some of the absurdity of KCBS. I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

I use mostly humphrey's charcoal. I have not noticed any taste difference between their briquettes and their lump.

A few years back, a few people around here was talking up "switching to lump." They claimed that there was a cleaner taste that allowed the rub and smoke flavors to be more pronounced. I switched to see and noticed zero difference. I assumed either the effect was totally overblown, or people were switching from crummy briquettes to good lump (I stuck to the same brand).
 

 

Back
Top