question about cooking indirect - how far away from flames


 
P

Pinny

TVWBB Super Fan
I've seen alot of people ask this question in various forms but I've never seen it answered. How far away from the flames do you want to put your food when trying to avoid direct heat?

For example, on a kettle, if I've filled half of it up with coals, can I cook on the entire other half or would I want to maybe leave an inch (or two or three) to avoid heat drafts from the coals right in the middle of the grill?

Or on a gas grill, alot of times they'll have a burner running the circumference of the grill. If the area inside that burner was for example 10x10 inches, how much of that area would be useable for grilling indirect? All 10x10 inches? Or maybe just the inner 9x9 or 8x8?

Thanks for the replys,
Pinny
 
I think what most probably do (I do) is use all the available space that is not directly above the heat source--if necessary--and know that once or twice whatever is being cooked is going to have to be rotated or shifted around so that cooking is even. E.g., if I was doing, say, a dozen chicken thighs, then at least once I'll shift positions of those that are closest to the heat with those that are farthest. The ones between them I'll either leave alone or rotate in place. If doing, say, a pork loin roast, I'll rotate the roast so that side side closest to the heat is now farthest.
 
Are you rotating because you're afraid some of them will dry out faster that the others or because you want them to get even heat?
 
My understanding was that direct heat dries meat out quicker than indirect heat. How far away from directly above the flames does the meat need to be to avoid this added "drying out?" 1cm? 1in? 2in? 3in?
 
Overcooking dries meat out. The farther the distance the more leeway (i.e., time) you have.

Put a 1-inch slab of rib-eye over direct coals,say, 3 or 4 inches away and, flipping once in the middle and cooking 4 or 5 minutes on each side, you'll have juicy med-rare steak. The coals farther away and it will take longer; the coals closer and it will take less time; very close heat and you'll likely need to flip quite frequently so that the exterior of the steak doesn't overcook.

So too with an indirect roast--but there is much more leeway since it is indirect. Rotating during cooking so that cooking is more even is necessary in most cases. Unless the heat is scorchingly high (and therefore too hot) the side facing the heat at first should not dry excessively at all. It will dry a bit but moisture will keep coming to the surface. The moisture, coupled with the natural sugars in the meat and some acids, is what will cause caramelization (browning) to occur which is what will make the roast very flavorful. Rotating will allow this to occur on the other side as the first side cools some.
 
Hey Kevin, thanks for the replies. I wasn't being clear. I didn't mean how much vertical space are you supposed to have between the coals and food, rather have far offset should the food be from directly over the heat source?

Imagine if you will:


------xxxxxFOOD-----
COALS


In the above diagram, how wide of a distance should the xxxxx's be in order to avoid the direct heat drafts from the coals or gas burners? 1cm? 1in? more?

I hope I'm being clearer this time.
 
Got you the first time. I wrote what I did in response to that using a direct scenario first, then an indirect, to illustrate differences in distances and those ramifications.

Cooking 1 cm or 1 inch away from the heat, indirect, is not going to 'dry' the meat--unless you leave it there and overcook it. It is relative to the heat being put out. If the heat is high then cooking close to the heat, even if indirect, is going to cause that side--especially the portion closest to the heat--to cook faster. Rotating sooner is definitely in order. If the heat is low--or the meat is farther from the heat so the effect is similar--then one has more time before rotating is necessary. But drying out? I just do not think of it in those terms. Meat cooks quicker over direct heat than over indirect. It cooks quicker indirect if the heat is high than it cooks indirect if the heat is low. Drying occurs once overcooking begins.
 
Doing a drive by here.
icon_biggrin.gif
Pinny, this might help.
icon_wink.gif
 
Kevin, are you saying the whole purpose of cooking indirectly is simply for temperature control? That instead of cooking a brisket indirect for several hours, you could really cook it directly at a much lower temperature (ie: 200 instead of 275) for the same amount of time and theoretically all should be well?
 
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying; additionally, that indirect is what affords some sanity because if you're cooking thick and/or tough time is a major issue. If cooking thick and/or tough time is required.

Cooking direct means one side is gettimg more exposure to the heat than the other(s). Flipping is required to even out cooking. The closer the meat is to direct heat the more often the meat will need flipping.

It's been many years but I've cooked briskets direct--plus butts, ribs, cuts of chuck. I still (on occasion, in a couple places I go) cook ribs direct when an open pit is all I have to cook on.
 
So really, cooking indirectly affords two results:

The first result is that by keeping the food farther from the heat source, you will be cooking the food at a lower temperature than you would were you to place the food right above the coals.

The second result, and more major benefit, is that by keeping the food farther away from the heat source, you mimizize the uneven distribution of heat. If you placed a piece of chicken right above a burner, the bottom would quickly char and the top would barely cook. But by placing that chicken several inches over to the side of the burner, the heat will hit the chicken from many more angles and thereby cook the chicken more evenly. (Of course even in this case the chicken may still have to be rotated from side to side.)

Is this correct?
 
Yes to tour question.

The heat heating the chicken from more angles is going to occur if cooking in aa covered grill set-up.

In your first scenario, the bottom will quickly char if the heat is fairly intense. If it isn't (say, you don't have much lit below the chicken or the distance is great) actual charring will take some time but, correct, the bottom will cook more quickly than the cooler top (which is made cooler still because of evaportion). This is why flipping is necessary if cooking direct.
 
Not to draw this out forever but I want to get it clear...

To answer my original question of, "How far away from the heat source should you keep your food in order to affect indirect cooking," the answer is: (in a closed cooking enviroment) that the farther away from the heat source, the more evenly the heat will disperse and the food will cook.

If I were to persist, "What's the minimum amount of distance from the fire that's neccessary to cook something that needs to be cooked indirectly?" The answer would be: Nothing absolutely must be cooked indirectly. The indirect method of cooking is a merely a method for convenience. If you can't cook sufficiently indirectly, you can substitute by cooking on a (much) lower direct fire and rotating and flipping the food frequently.

How's that sound? I really appreciate you explaining this to me Kevin!
 
Originally posted by Pinny B.:
Not to draw this out forever but I want to get it clear...
Click to expand...
I think you should draw out something long enough till you understand it sufficiently for you. That's what makes information useful, turns it into knowledge.

To answer my original question of, "How far away from the heat source should you keep your food in order to affect indirect cooking," the answer is: (in a closed cooking enviroment) that the farther away from the heat source, the more evenly the heat will disperse and the food will cook.
Click to expand...
Within reason, yes. One wants to keep in mind that heat rises; that it will seek an escape if possible; that the interior surfaces of a closed grill will reflect heat, especially those surfaces above the level of the heat source. So, position accordingly.

If I were to persist, "What's the minimum amount of distance from the fire that's neccessary to cook something that needs to be cooked indirectly?" The answer would be: Nothing absolutely must be cooked indirectly. The indirect method of cooking is a merely a method for convenience. If you can't cook sufficiently indirectly, you can substitute by cooking on a (much) lower direct fire and rotating and flipping the food frequently.
Click to expand...
Yes.

At first look I wanted to say No, that it was more than that. But it really isn't at all. I just haven't really thought of it that way in some time. But till covered cooking was invented or discovered, people cooked direct all the time in order to make best use of the heat, and either flipped frequently or had inedible food. Some distance from the fuel is required (so one doesn't fry one's hands and so that flare-ups don't char the meat irretrievably from the get-go) but that was figured out early on in the history of cooking over live fire.

This reminds me of this:











These pics show one of my first whole hog cooks (1982?). For this cook, my soon-to-be brother-in-law dug a pit in the ground with his backhoe then overfilled it with seasoned oak. We had quite the bonfire. He made spits and welded a frame for the spits to rest on. When the pile had burned down to below the surface of the ground I put the pigs on. The fire was HOT, so hot that we put metal panels in the pit to reflect some heat so that I could get close enough to rotate the spits. I used a paintbrush attached to a 10- or 12-foot long 2x2 in order to baste. I'd run up to the spits (thickly gloved) and rotate them every 15 min, get back out of the heat then immediately baste with my extended brush and a 5 gal basting mix I'd made. Obviously, the pigs were cooked direct the entire time. I knew the skin would char and crack and curn badly but I also knew it would protect the meat inside. The pigs took 18 hours to cook (rotated every 15 throughout the cook) and they were absolutely delicious. I fed 400 people with those and 120 chickens I cooked on grills; salads supplied by an uncle who had a catering truck.

So, yes, convenience. Even cooking it tougher and certainly more hands-on when cooking direct--especially if what you're cooking is big!
 
Kevin you've really cleared this up for me. Having the chance to speak it out at length has given me alot of clarity and reassurance which I'm sure will translate into some much better bbq.

P.s. While I have your attention still, any last tips and tricks on indirect cooking?

Thanks so much!
 
Nothing in particular--particular tips are more apposite to a discussion of a particular cook.

See the link upthread that Bryan posted. It's a good description by David on a low/slow set-up for indirect kettle cooking.

Also: Know your ingredients. Does what you plan to ccok cook more conveniently indirect or is the result you're looking for better achieved cooking direct even though less convenient? Is what your cooking suited well to lower cook temps or would higher be better? If you're not sure or if others' perspectives would be helpful in determining how you want to cook the item you've chosen, ask questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top