Water amounts affecting evenness in smoker


 

Dave Russell

TVWBB Honor Circle
Just wanted to pass on an observation I made from the last two cooks. Basically, I've been working on getting my temp up higher when doing the four butterflied bird cooks I often do. Last two cooks I started with only one tea kettles worth of boiling water, or less than a gallon. Not much added to that until later in the cook.

For one thing, despite the amount being so small I've learned that salting or brining is completely unnecessary if cooking two butterflied bird to a rack, breast to breast as I do. By the way, turning the rack the right direction will help keep the drumstick positioned where it won't hang much past the pan. I try to keep the birds no larger than about four pounds, five pounds tops.

Anyway, the thing about using less than a gallon of water is that not only does the chicken not seem to cook any quicker, the bottom rack birds are done a little sooner than the top rack birds and evenness of cooking starts to suffer a bit.

The wife is picking me up another tea kettle for my rib smoke this afternoon.
 
Nobody here eats the skin but me and with a full cooker I get more evenly cooked chicken, not to mention juicier results. Maybe it's that the '09 water pan hangs just over the coals and thus steams more than the old pan, but there's definately a difference. Maybe not the consensus here, but I know I'm not alone in my observations. Wouldn't matter though. After getting my bullet I went a year too long before trying poultry with water in the pan.
icon_confused.gif
 
Not saying (you) can't have juicy chicken any other way. I'm also prone to open the throttle in the kettle and get 'em done asap. Is it AS juicy that way? No way... but still very moist and fantastic, assuming not overcooked. Me likes the crispy skin then but the Missus prefers low-n-slow with more time in the smoke.

My comment though was in regards to chicken being "juiciER" in the wsm with water in the pan, whether the OE '09 pan or the Brinkman pan which will both boil the water off faster than the old shallow pan that hung higher above the coals. Your results or other smokers and set-ups may vary, but there's plenty of pitmasters who like some steam in the cooker. Whatever works for ya, though. Cook wet or dry.
wsmsmile8gm.gif
 
Dave,

What's your take on your process? Are you saying the steam produced from the water pan makes chicken juicy or is it because the chicken is cooked at a lower temp? Or both? I'm new to smoking and the wsm.

T
 
Well i know i smoked fantastic food with the pan...After a while i went dry. Still good. But i know alot of Primo users still adds a water pan to there setup for some long smokes. I havent used water for a long time but i think i need to go back and try the basic´s. Im with you Dave.
 
Dave, one way to answer your question is to do side by side comparisons. This would be hard without a second WSM. But , like the rest I don't use water. It's "dealers choice". You do what you feel works for you
 
My experiences tell me that a clay saucer is a better heat sink than a pan of water is. The clay saucer will never evaporate. It will never spill. And clean up is quick and easy. Just my two cents.
 
You might prefer it but--
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The clay saucer will never evaporate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> is precisely why it is less effective and less efficient as a heat sink.
 
Like Kevin said, it's hard to beat water as a heat sink. The phase change from liquid to steam takes quite a bit of energy for 1-2 gallons of water, much more than heating even a huge lump of clay.

On the other hand, a foiled clay saucer makes cleanup roughly 1000% easier. I really don't concern myself too much with a heat sink unless I'm trying a very low cook or cold smoke, but the benefits of clay are hard to beat most of the time.

Back to the original post: how can a waterpan not make the cook take longer? And if 1 gallon of water is good, wouldn't 2 be better? Also, wouldn't starting with hot water defeat the purpose of using water at all?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tashvi:
Dave,

What's your take on your process? Are you saying the steam produced from the water pan makes chicken juicy or is it because the chicken is cooked at a lower temp? Or both? I'm new to smoking and the wsm.

T </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

T, like a lot of things, you got to find out what works for you. If you want "good" chicken skin, by all means don't smoke your birds with water in the pan unless you're gonna take measures using pans and braising liquids to tenderize the skin mid or post smoke.

As to temps, I don't think there's any magic low temp that all of a sudden makes the chicken more moist. However, there's something to be said for cooking at low to moderate temps, the temps you'll have to use anyway if you use water in the pan. For instance, if you smoke a rib roast you'll get more of the meat cooked to your preferred doneness if cooking low-n-slow vs. high heat. Obviously not a factor with chickens though, especially if butterflied. It can make for more evenly cooked and thus juicier turkey breasts though. That's for sure. (By the way, a buddy of mine recently sent me a pic of a turkey breast he cooked low-n-slow with water in his bullet and it was amazingly juicy. The cook just reaffirmed his "return" to cooking slow with water in the pan, and he's now even using a water pan in his Primo some!)

To get back to the water in the pan though, yes, a water smoker adds moisture to the environment, although to varying degrees depending on the set-up. The friend of mine that I mentioned above says that guys that use the water smokers on the bbq circuit are the ones that are much less prone to foiling than the ones who cook dry. As to why so many bullet users here on the bullet forum "see" no difference, I think few have cooked enough with different methods to actually see for themselves, no disrespect intended.

As to water smoker set-ups though, the rate of steaming is not a constant thing and the proximity of the water to the fire and temp of the fire matters. Compare the old wsm pan with the newer '09 pan that hangs low to the coals. One will notice that the evaporation is significantly faster with the new deep Weber pan compared to the Brinkman pan that sits higher above the coals, and the old wsm pan sits even higher above the coals than that! If you're familiar with the kettle accessory called the "Smokinator", the drawback of the little water pan it uses is that it has to be refilled quite frequently because it's sitting right on top of the fire. Does it turn the kettle into a water smoker though? Sure it does. Just not anything like cooking on a bullet, though.
wsmsmile8gm.gif


Like I said though, the fire matters as well. Not too long ago someone posted about doing an 18 hr. butt cook where they never had to add any water to the pan after filling initially. Same exact set-up as my rib and chicken cooks but that's a MUCH slower rate of evaporation than how I cook ribs and chicken with the vents mostly open. I'm making a more moist environment that slows down the moisture loss as the meat cooks. As to other benefits, obviously water in the pan helps moderate temps and I find I can get cleaner smoke which translates to better flavor. Also, because of the heat transfer of steam I think that cooks proceed a bit quicker, assuming same temps, of course. Hold your hand over a bullet vent with steam coming out of it and you'll want to remove it quicker than if the heat is dry. Right?

Anyways, sorry for rambling, but I'd just encourage you to try different things and see for yourself. I love chicken off the kettle cooked 350*+ as well. If cooking butterflied birds like that though I'm gonna brine or at least do a dry brine.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> but the benefits of clay are hard to beat most of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I can't say I find any benefits to clay myself. For me cleanup is a breeze with water (lift out pan; rotate my body 90?; dump; done), though the only time I use it is for bacon (and the odd butt), but at those times I want more reliability - which water provides.

I get how clay works for others. Just doesn't for me.

Hot water is used when one wants to shorten the come-up but still have the heat sink benefits - or when one needs a sink but it's cold outside.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon Des.:
Back to the original post: how can a waterpan not make the cook take longer? <span class="ev_code_RED">It actually will speed up the cook some, assuming same temps, of course.</span> And if 1 gallon of water is good, wouldn't 2 be better? <span class="ev_code_RED">You'll use a bit more charcoal but my thinking was that I could get higher temps with less water but still provide some steam to the cooker.</span> Also, wouldn't starting with hot water defeat the purpose of using water at all?
icon_confused.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
 
Sorry all if I'm oversimplifying or missing the point, but is the question back to the age old water vs. none for moistness of the meat? Also, how did we get to water vs. clay for a heat sink?
In my opinion, and only that, the quicker you get birds to temp, the more moisture you will retain. That said, many believe a more moist cooking condition will result in a more moist product. In my few years reading others' experiences here and cooking myself, I don't see any benefit to water over dry. The objective negative is additional fuel usage and increased cooking times.
That said, I think we sometimes overanalyze process even after we find what we like but I guess we wouldn't be here if we were satisfied with good enough
icon_smile.gif
 
James, You're right on. Rather spend my fuel money on more cooking time than heating water to provide me some kind of safety net. Foiled water pan works for me. It has been said on this site many times before. Water in the pan does not necessarily mean you're going to have a moist product. What determines a moist product is time and temp. I know a local bbq place that pumps moisture into its smoker. The ribs come out falling off the bone. Actually they are smoked and sort of steamed.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by James Harvey:
Sorry all if I'm oversimplifying or missing the point, but is the question back to the age old water vs. none for moistness of the meat? Also, how did we get to water vs. clay for a heat sink?
In my opinion, and only that, the quicker you get birds to temp, the more moisture you will retain. That said, many believe a more moist cooking condition will result in a more moist product. In my few years reading others' experiences here and cooking myself, I don't see any benefit to water over dry. The objective negative is additional fuel usage and increased cooking times.
That said, I think we sometimes overanalyze process even after we find what we like but I guess we wouldn't be here if we were satisfied with good enough
icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

James, thanks for reciprocating by expressing your candid opinion and observations. Because of your last point, I think it behooves us all to be able to do so in a honest, respectable manner without fear of dismissals or belittling...so thanks. Your points are well taken.

Regarding your claim that the quicker you get birds to temp the more moisture you'll retain, I'd suggest trying something a little different if you're done trying to cook with water. I know that it can get awfully cold up where you're at and I'd be more prone to skip the water as well.

If you haven't tried it, you owe yourself giving the Chris Lilly loaf pan chicken recipe a shot. Not only do the birds cook in their own juices, but the moisture in the pans to begin with is the apple sauce-worster slather that drains off the birds. Nobody can deny that butterflied birds cook faster and more evenly, but the loaf pan birds are juicier still. Lilly suggests the moderate temp of 300*, and you can either use the grill or the bullet without water. Use more smoke than usual since the birds are whole in the pan. Let me know what ya think, and Merry Christmas!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the birds cook in their own juices, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would be a simple braise, pretty basic stuff.
 

 

Back
Top