Recent test of Charcoal Heat Output - Cooks Illustrated


 

P Bart

New member
Here's the link to a recent test with types of Charcoal, from the people at Cooks Illustrated/America's Test Kitchen.
Click here for charcoal test

They are well respected, and I really like their creativity, methodology and results for what they do.

Take away from it what you will, but up here in MI, even summer nights can get cold, so the heat is sapped a bit quicker than those of you in milder climes. I usually use a mix of charcoals anyway, but I will be now be using a higher percentage of briquettes in long cooks, if not 100%.

Don't get me wrong, the WSM definitely extends the fuel, but on hardwood with 'er bottled up and vents way down, I still have to add fuel a few times. Your mileage may vary...

For flavor issues, my results have been that the fruitwood smoke is by far the strongest element in the process, and I have to be careful to control that, with little to no impact from the charcoal on flavor.

But we all have our favorite things, this is just some more interesting info.
 
I am not a BBQ scientist, engineer or anything BBQ, other than a guy who likes to eat Q..........however, in reading the article from Cooks Illustrated, it seems to me that their advice would only pertain to a 'Weber Style Grill' and not a enclosed Smoker.

Here would be the big difference to consider.

In a Weber grill under their test specs, it would appear to me that the tests of briquets vs. lump would have access to all of the oxygen that they naturally could use in combustion.

In other words, their test for burn lengths and temps. were in a non-contained heat vessel (the weber grill).

Were they to have tested in oxygen contained systems, like any smoker, then I would consider their conclusions to be more valid, at least for a contained smoker (which limits the amounts of oxygen that can get to the combustion source).

For a weber grill, they are right on in their conclusions.

For a weber type smoker, I am not sure the same conclusions would apply.

I am sure someone who knows more about this than me, will add some real commentary.
 
They do not mention what brand lump was tested. There are many threads on this forum regarding the different burn times of different brand lump. Personally I know I can get at least 8 hours out of a full ring of Wick Good Weekend Warrior.

It really boils down to individual preferences. Myself, I don't care for all the unknown fillers in briquettes.

In the end all that matters is that you're out there cooking good BBQ no matter what your fuel choice.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wick Good Weekend Warrior </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chris, you must use massive weights of Weekend Warrior to get an 8 hour burn! Or you're an "egger".... ; )

There's a nice review of WW here: as well

Wicked Good Charcoal: Wicked Good Boston Butt
 
The results make sense based on their methodology. They used one 6-quart chimney of each type of charcoal, and they burned it in an uncovered grill. Six quarts of briquettes are likely to contain more energy than 6 quarts of lump. Obviously, results would be very different if you packed the WSM charcoal chamber tightly with lump or briquettes and did a controlled burn as we do.

Regards,
Chris
 
I've had no issues getting ten to twelve hours out of a fully packed ring of WG WW lump running at @275 lid temp. Not to mention virtually no ash... This thing makes me think theoretical versus real life application.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris S Lewis:
Personally I know I can get at least 8 hours out of a full ring of Wick Good Weekend Warrior. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chris, do you use water in the pan? You should be able to almost get double that with WG lump. I never used the WGWW lump, but have used the WG comp lump many times over the years. With the WG comp and or Humphrey's, I usually get 15-16 hrs. out of a full packed ring, aprox 9lbs. of lump, coking at 250º-265º lid temps.
 
Yup, using water in the pan. But I said "at least 8 hours", usually more like 10-12 hours or more.

And P Bart, I'm using an 18" WSM.

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:
The results make sense based on their methodology. They used one 6-quart chimney of each type of charcoal, and they burned it in an uncovered grill. Six quarts of briquettes are likely to contain more energy than 6 quarts of lump. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe that 6Q of briquettes will weigh more than the equivalent volume of lump. If they had done the test by weight the results might have been quite different.
 
I use both lump and briquettes, and while the test thermometers may be 100% accurate, the lump just seems to look a glowing red hot in the chimney faster than the briquettes do to my eyes.
 
briquettes and lump are the same thing just in different forms. with charcoal they grind up the bits and pieces and carbonize them. with lump they dont grind up the bits and pieces and before they try and carbonize them. lump will often contain bits of this and that that are unrecognizable along with semi charred wood. semi charred wood can be bad if it is from various sources especilly not quite cured sources meaning it can be greenwood.

personally i have found plastic, cigarette filters, fibrous materials, rocks, and some totally unkown items. its kinda why i stopped using lump. the one incident that really got me was lighting up the lump got it going pretty good but the top wasnt fully lit dumped it in the kettle put some burgers on and billows of dark black smoke started pouring out with the smell of burning plastic. evidently one of the workers had tossed in a piece of plastic probably a drink bottle thiking it would disolve in the fire. result was ruining about 2 pounds of burgers and having to power wash my kettle.

so i stick with kingsford its less liekly to have junk in it. i dont have to pre-sort each bag before use and i cant tell the difference between it and lump.

taken from: http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/charcoal.html

Briquettes

Briquettes are a manufactured charcoal product. The best-selling brand of briquettes in the United States is Kingsford Charcoal Briquets, the original charcoal briquette, shown in this photo.

I once saw an episode of "Unwrapped" on the Food Network that showed how Kingsford Charcoal Briquets were made. Leftovers from wood and paper processing (branches, bark, and sawdust) are screened and then chopped to a uniform size before being "roasted" in oxygen-controlled retorts—sort of like ovens—at 600-1,800°F. The resulting char is mixed with other ingredients before being molded into the familiar briquette shape, dried, and bagged.

Briquettes are a convenient, inexpensive source of fuel for the WSM. The general consensus is that briquettes tend to burn longer and more consistently than lump charcoal, but not quite as hot. The consistency of briquettes is due to the fact that they are an engineered product, essentially made using a "recipe" that can be duplicated over and over again.

Briquettes frequently contain other ingredients in addition to charcoal to improve the performance characteristics of the product. As a result, they leave behind a considerable amount of ash, which is of concern in cookers that can't accommodate ash build-up. (Fortunately, the WSM is not one of these.)

It's the "other ingredients" part of briquettes that get some folks worked up. "Petroleum by-products", "toxic waste", or "fillers", they say. Well, let's take a closer—and more rational—look at the facts.

The only required "other ingredient" in a briquette is a binder, usually a starch of some sort that holds the crushed charcoal together when it's compressed into those little pillow shapes. The problem is that this basic briquette may not light very easily, or burn very hot, or burn very long. So, manufacturers add more "other ingredients" to improve the performance characteristics of their products.

Here is the official ingredient list for Kingsford Charcoal Briquets from a company press release, including the purpose of each ingredient in parentheses. The explanation after each ingredient is my own.

Wood char (Heat source)
This is simply the wood by-products I mentioned above, burned down into charcoal—almost pure carbon. In the case of Kingsford, they use woods like fir, cedar, and alder that are local to the regions in which they operate—Burnside and Summer Shade, Kentucky; Glen, Mississippi; Belle, Missouri; Springfield, Oregon; and Beryl and Parsons, West Virginia.

Mineral char (Heat source)
This is a geologically young form of coal with a soft, brown texture. It helps Kingsford burn hotter and longer than a plain charcoal briquette. As with the wood, Kingsford heats this material in an oxygen-controlled environment, eliminating water, nitrogen, and other elements, leaving behind—almost pure carbon.

Mineral carbon (Heat source)
This is anthracite coal, the old, hard, black stuff once commonly used for home heating. It helps Kingsford burn hotter and longer than a plain charcoal briquette. It's already 86-98% pure carbon, but once again, Kingsford processes it in an oxygen-controlled environment, leaving behind—almost pure carbon.

What exactly is coal, you ask? "Nasty stuff," some folks say. Well, coal is a fossil fuel, most of which was formed more than 300 million years ago. To make a really, really long story short: Plants and trees died, sank to the bottom of swampy areas, accumulated into many layers, then geologic processes covered the stuff with sand, clay, and rock, and the combination of heat and pressure converted it into what we call coal.

So, coal is really old plant material that can be processed into almost pure carbon. Charcoal is wood that is burned down into almost pure carbon. Not much difference, in my book. End of coal lesson.

Limestone (Uniform visual ashing)
Limestone creates the pretty, white coating of ash you see after lighting the briquettes. Limestone is a sedimentary rock consisting of calcium carbonate—also found in egg shells, antacids, and calcium dietary supplements.

Starch (Binder)
As mentioned above, starch is used to hold briquettes together, and is found in corn, wheat, potatoes, and rice.

Borax (Press release)
Borax is used in small amounts to help briquettes release from the molds. But isn't Borax a detergent? Well, yes, it is, but it's actually a naturally-occurring mineral that is non-toxic in the quantities we're talking about in a briquette. It consists of sodium, boron, oxygen, and water. You already know what oxygen and water are. Sodium is a common element found in lots of stuff we eat, including salt. Boron is an element that is necessary in small quantities for plant growth. Borax is commonly used in cosmetics and medicines.

Sodium nitrate (Ignition aid)
This is the same stuff used to cure meat. According to Robert L. Wolke, professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh, sodium nitrate gives off oxygen when heated, helping the briquettes to light faster.

Sawdust (Ignition aid)
Sawdust burns quickly, helping the briquettes to light faster.
Did you notice there was no mention of "petroleum by-products" or "toxic waste"? What about "fillers"? Looks like every ingredient is there for a purpose—to improve the performance of the product.

My message to you is this: Don't let people scare you away from briquettes, Kingsford or any other brand. They're a perfectly good product to use for making great barbecue!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon Merka:
so i stick with kingsford its less liekly to have junk in it. i dont have to pre-sort each bag before use and i cant tell the difference between it and lump. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ya think so? All the junk is ground up so you can't see it.
icon_biggrin.gif
Been using lump since day one. Only thing I ever find is a rock here and there. Not hardly an issue at all.
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 JMGarciaJr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris Allingham:
The results make sense based on their methodology. They used one 6-quart chimney of each type of charcoal, and they burned it in an uncovered grill. Six quarts of briquettes are likely to contain more energy than 6 quarts of lump. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe that 6Q of briquettes will weigh more than the equivalent volume of lump. If they had done the test by weight the results might have been quite different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This is also mentioned in the CI article...that most people use charcoal by volume (i.e. measured in a chimney), not by weight. So again, their results make sense.

Regards,
Chris
 

 

Back
Top