Please explain this "clay saucer vs water" idea.


 
Alyssa H

Alyssa H

TVWBB Member
My first WSM should be here on Thursday and I'm so excited. I've been reading everything i Can find and watching videos and am ready to smoke. But this water vs clay saucer has me stumped.

Can someone explain, in simple newbie terms, why I would want to use this saucer method? I'm sure there is some informative thread someone can link me too. Some pictures or video would be even more helpful.

Thank you so much!
Alyssa
 
There's all kinds of threads, Alyssa, and I believe one is at the top of the wsm mods forum. All kinds of opinions, as well, but basically the saucer or any mass in the pan helps stabilize temps, especially in case of windy weather. Water does that as well, of course, but uses more charcoal and a lot of folks have a problem with a messy water pan. I've never really got that, but mama had me washing dishes by hand at a pretty young age. (By the way, spraying some Pam on the pan will make clean up a little easier.)

Anyhow, if you try the clay pot base, don't expect it to keep your temps from rising any more than if you had just foiled an empty pan to catch the drippings, once the meat gets hot, especially if you're using something other than Kingsford Original in the blue bag. I sometimes think that folks think their clay pot base is magically holding down temps several hours into a cook, when really, it's just that the Kingsford (original) is starting to get ash build up. I suggest using your wsm pretty much as Chris teaches in the informative part of the site, and by all means, start with water in the pan. Try any and everything to see for yourself, though. Just realize that a new cooker runs hot, and there's no better heat sink than water. If you want to cook over 275*, then I'd just foil the top of the pan to catch the drippings.

Congrats on your new cooker!
Dave
 
Hi Alyssa, and welcome!

Here's an article from "the informative part of the site", as Dave puts it. :)

Using A Water Pan In The WSM

It does not specifically mention clay saucers, but they are used in lieu of filling the existing pan with some other media like sand, rocks, concrete, gold nuggets, silver coins, etc. (I'm kidding about those last two.)
 
For the life of me, I don't understand the water pan helping with anything. I have only used a clay pot from day one, and can hold temps under 200 to well over 300 if I wish, though most of my cooks are in the 225 to 275 range. Control the heat with the vents at the bottom and cook away. It will take several cooks to start to understand amount of charcoal and lit charcoal to use as well as learning how to use the air vents, when to start cutting back etc. I think the primary reason for the clay pot or water pan, filled or not, is a barrier between the fire and the food..........................d
 
Since we are in the new forum I thought I would add that while temps can be kept between 200-300 with a clay disk, one must also build and control the fire differently for those two temps. While I'm not a water user, I will point out that water helps lessen that fire variability by having a greater tolerance.
 
For the life of me, I don't understand the water pan helping with anything. I have only used a clay pot from day one.

Bingo!!!!

Water can be a tool as is foil or anything else. Try it sometime then you can make fun of it!
 
I use the water pan to hold my clay saucer. lol

Seriously, my very first cook I used water in the pan. After cleaning everything up, I decided I won't be doing that again.
I went with the water pan wrapped (tightly) with foil the next couple of cooks. Which was also bad because the drippings burned in the bottom of the water bowl.
Now bring on the clay saucer. With the water pan & clay saucer wrapped in foil, I'm now a happy camper and set in my ways.
 
I wish I had a nickel for every time this topic came up and it's on almost every BBQ forum you read, it's like the fat side question. I know, I asked the same question myself and the answer is always going to be the same, try it all and decided which one works best for you. :D
 
Don Reed said:
I wish I had a nickel for every time this topic came up and it's on almost every BBQ forum you read, it's like the fat side question. I know, I asked the same question myself and the answer is always going to be the same, try it all and decided which one works best for you. :D[/QUOTE

Not quite like the fat side up question. Not much difference there, but there's advantages and disadvantages to water or not or clay pot base or not, but some folks will never know the difference in temp control over 14hr+ butt cooks comparing all because they haven't done it all....or only cooking one or two butts every so often vs. cooking two or a case at least every month of the year....or the difference in the bark texture, and the controversy there about dry heat. Anyhow, it's not so cut and dry, but I put more stock in what folks say when I know they've done it all and have something to add other than the fact that they don't like cleaning up after a cook.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
 
I think I've tried just about everything except the empty foiled only pan, my reasoning behind my answer is everyone will promote what they use and as you know what works for person may not work all that well for another. besides I usually cook more chicken and butts than anything else so I skip the water for the higher temps for chicken but can maintain 255-260 with no problem for butts.
 
I agree with the others that you should at least try using water to get a better understanding of how it is used. However, after a few cooks with water, I went to using only a foil-wrapped 14-inch clay saucer without the water pan and I've never looked back. I added a few washers to the lower bracket fastener so the clay saucer sits where the water pan used to sit. Personally, I don't think water does anything to help with how moist or juicy your food turns out (except for maybe ribs). It has much more to do with your cooking temperatures and the temperature of your food when you remove it from the smoker.

Here's why I don't like using water. One, although there are bigger problems to have, you have a liquid mess to deal with afterwards after using water. That's a pain to get rid off and clean up in my opinion. Two, since water boils at 212 degrees and typical smoking temperatures are above that, the water will eventually boil off and you have to refill it and be mindful of the water levels. Three, and this is just my opinion, the constantly dropping water level is continually less and less effective as a heat sink since you have less and less water from the boil off. Finally, I use an automatic temperature control for longer cooks, and I've found that with a foiled saucer and no water, the ATC brings the smoker up to temp more quickly and keeps the temps more consistent throughout the cook.

As others also said, we all tend to promote what we each use and are familiar with so there's no right or wrong way. Try it different ways and go with what works best for you. Above all, just have fun with it. Good luck.
 
I've used water and I've used a clay saucer multiple times each. I think each has their merits. I agree with others to try it and see which one you prefer for what you're cooking.

Kinda like lump vs briquettes. Trim a butt or not. Foil or not. Fat up or down (already mentioned above), etc, etc. Try it and see how you and your family/friends like it.

Most of all - have fun.
 
Last edited:
Last summer I pretty much swung over to the clay saucer. Worked with that in various cooks including vertical rack turkey, butt, brisket, chicken thighs, fish and so on. I liked this method for everything but ribs. Cooked beef ribs, St. Louis ribs, baby backs and the meatier loin backs from Costco with and without water. The one thing that I continually noticed was how my smoker locks in a temperature (250)with water in the pan and it just stays there. Depending on the length of the cook I believe there is a correlation between a full pan of water and a ring of fuel. As one burns down the other evaporates. Dave Russell has also pointed out Kingsford fuel ashes over during cooks. This may be considered oddly enough as a method of temperature stability also.

I have added Nomex and I have a second top vent for when I want to wind up the heat but I'm still amazed at the stability water provides.

Don...I bought a 15" metal disk, thanks for your input and I will be working with that this year. I have not done enough with it yet to say much other than it seems to work well but I have not cooked ribs yet.

I recognize the moisture does not impart itself into the meat but the moist environment water creates works for me and my dry rub ribs. I do not care for the clean up but I love the end result.
 
Last edited:
Gary S said:
Last summer I pretty much swiung over to the clay saucer...The one thing that I continually noticed was how my smoker locks in a temperature (250)with water in the pan and it just stays there. Depending on the length of the cook I believe there is a correlation between a full pan of water and a ring of fuel. As one burns down the other evaporates...Kingsford fuel ashes over during cooks. This may be considered oddly enough as a method of temperature stability also...I'm still amazed at the stability water provides...I recognize the moisture does not impart itself into the meat but the moist environment water creates works for me and my dry rubs ribs. I do not care for the clean up but I love the end result.
Click to expand...

I sort of highlighted the best of your post, Gary. Great insights and I share the same observations.

I was reviewing notes from past butt cooks, and it would really be cool if I could get the crisp bark of a dry cook (when everything goes really well) with the temp stability and evenness of cooking I get from a water pan cook. That's basically it in a nutshell for me, so it just depends...

Regards,
Dave
 
I have talked with some good teams that use a high dollar offset, brand I won't mention, and they put an aluminum pan of water in with the briskets and butts until wrapped for the added moisture. Maybe an offset needs it while a WSM doesn't, don't really know. I do know that ribs, in my opinion, benefit from the moisture. Heck, I spritz them with water and/or apple juice while cooking so it makes sense that water in the pan would help, at least until they are foiled.
 
J Hoke said:
I have talked with some good teams that use a high dollar offset, brand I won't mention, and they put an aluminum pan of water in with the briskets and butts until wrapped for the added moisture. Maybe an offset needs it while a WSM doesn't, don't really know. I do know that ribs, in my opinion, benefit from the moisture. Heck, I spritz them with water and/or apple juice while cooking so it makes sense that water in the pan would help, at least until they are foiled.
Click to expand...

As BBQ cookers go, I think that the wsm has a pretty moist environment, even without water in the pan. Big offsets have a lot more air movement and some even have built-in water reservoirs, so yes, there's something to the amount of moisture in a pit...but a water pan in an offset typically won't simmer and produce the kind of steam all around the meat like one in a wsm. Also, the 18" wsm water pan is so close to the fire that it steams off much faster than the one in the 22", (or the old wsm with the shallow pan, for that matter). And all that steam does in fact take the crispness out of the bark. All you can do is to trim fat best you can and/or you can also cook a little faster. Gary Wiviott says that he cooks in the 250-275* zone for just that reason, and says he doesn't care about temp spikes. He uses water in the pan, though. Even with water though, at the higher temps it's still easier to overcook meat hanging out past the edge of the pan.
 
There is also one other consideration when talking WSM with water and that is the design of the 22" water pan. I found dealing with 3 gallons of water in the shallow bowl to be a huge PIA. It is also largely responsible for the bad reputation of high fuel consumption and finally disposal. The 18 WSM on the other hand with the Brinkman pan is easier to handle, requires a smaller more managable container and is less to dispose of. I seldom fill my Brinkman pan more than 2/3rds full at any time and only 1/2 full on a rib cook. Overall that just makes water easier to deal with.
 
Gary S said:
There is also one other consideration when talking WSM with water and that is the design of the 22" water pan. I found dealing with 3 gallons of water in the shallow bowl to be a huge PIA. It is also largely responsible for the bad reputation of high fuel consumption and finally disposal. The 18 WSM on the other hand with the Brinkman pan is easier to handle, requires a smaller more managable container and is less to dispose of. I seldom fill my Brinkman pan more than 2/3rds full at any time and only 1/2 full on a rib cook. Overall that just makes water easier to deal with.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, Gary, and yes, the big cooker is more hassle to deal with than the 18" wsm. No hot squats unless you want a hernia, bigger grates to clean, and no, the Missus doesn't want the big water pan in the house for clean up.

However, personally, I don't find water in the big wsm pan to be much of an issue for me. I just spray it with Pam and that seems to help it come reasonably clean pretty quick with little effort. I find that the cooker is a fuel hog for the simple fact that there's so much more surface area, and that's mainly from the added height, especially all the extra distance from the fire to the grates. I'd just as soon use water than do the fold and crimp foil bit, but basically, since I like the dry pan bark better and temp control better when cooking dry, I only use water for overnights and ribs. From what I understand though, with decent fire control the pan on the big cooker doesn't run out since it's farther from the fire, at least if the cooker has enough meat in it and drippings supplement the water. That also makes me think that the cooker makes less steam than the little wsm, and that's a good thing for the bark. But as I discussed after my last big butt cook, I don't think I'll be cooking full cases over a dry pan since the water in the pan evens out things for me. I want every butt I smoke for friends and neighbors to end up as perfect as I can, and the water just provides a bit of insurance against an uneven fire. On the other hand, if I've got "great BBQ holiday weather" and only cooking four butts, I'm going dry and cooking a bit faster. I can get that cook done in 12 hours, no problem, and last ones I did like that were fantastic.

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

 

Back
Top