Smoking vs. Smoking and Grilling


 
M

Mac Mayhew

TVWBB Member
Has anyone tried to smoke a Boston Butt directly on their WSM by removing the water pan completely? Because the grate is so far above the coals, I can't imagine that burning it will be an issue. I ask because most authentic barbecue places around here actually cook their shoulders with direct heat, with the meat far above the coals and wood. The result is a taste that is both smoked and grilled, which I believe is quite different than just adding smoke.

I haven't tried it, although I am curious if anyone has and what the results were like.

I have spatchcocked chickens and grilled them directly over hardwood charcoal on my kettle and the results were tremendous, as the meat juices had a chance to actually drip on to the coals.
 
I have done so without the water pan, came out great, also flipped the butt mid way through cooking as well. was juicy, good bark.
 
I would be interested in seeing how this works out. I would think the problem would be to get the inner rendering done and up to temp adequately without burning the heck out of the outside? That's exactly why you use indirect heat for thicker cuts. Let us know how your test works out.
 
Thanks for the input. I may give this a try. I'm familiar with indirect vs. direct and know when to use what. However, since the meat would be so far from the coals if you direct grilled on the top rack of the WSM (maybe 2 feet or so), I think that the risk of flare ups would go down significantly.

Michael, as you've tried it before, how did the taste of the two methods compare? Do you have a preference? I'm sure doing it with the water pan in place is much easier, but if the taste improves without it, it may be worth the extra effort.
 
I did it once on a small pork butt. The bark came out good but it didn't come out as tender. I couldn't get the temp under 300.
 
That's essentially how the old guys cooked. They put the coals right under the pork and it turns out great. Many believe that the pork fat hitting the coals contributes to the authentic BBQ flavor.
 
Mac Mayhew said:
Thanks for the input. I may give this a try. I'm familiar with indirect vs. direct and know when to use what. However, since the meat would be so far from the coals if you direct grilled on the top rack of the WSM (maybe 2 feet or so), I think that the risk of flare ups would go down significantly.
Click to expand...

Mac, have you tried this yet? I'm curious about the outcome. If you haven't tried, don't forget to take pictures when you do!
 
The Ugly (or Upright) Drum Smokers generally do it this way. I think I read a spec' of at least 24" from the coals to the cooking grate.

I do beef roasts and whole chickens on the WSM top grate without any pan or diffuser underneath. It seems that with a pork butt it would work but only if you are very careful with fire control. I like a big water pan with pork butts because it lets me be lazy and not really touch the smoker for about 12 hours.
 
I've had some family things come up and haven't been able to try it yet. I'm still interested in trying this method, and see if there are any real differences in taste. I'm sure it will be a little more effort to keep the fire under control.
 
There's an old school BBQ place called Scott's in Hemingway, SC that cooks whole hogs with the old school direct cinder block pit setup.

They've been featured on the tv show Man Fire Food and I believe an article in the NY Times as well. So that is close to the method you are describing so obviously it can work well.

I personally would have to agree with Jim W in that I like using some water in the pan because the temp control is excellent and it allows me not to look at the smoker for a long time.
 
I've been to Scott's BBQ a couple of times. Excellent! There is a similar place in NC called Skylight Inn in Ayden. I believe that folks from both places have cooked together in contests fairly recently.

I agree that using the water pan in the WSM works quite well and results in excellent barbecue. And it certainly makes it easy. However, I really do want to try it without the water pan to see if the taste is different/better. I fully expect there to be more work involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top