Water in the pan??


 
J

Jason Robert

New member
I have a question about putting water in the pan. I see with some recipes they say to not put water in the pan, especially with poultry. I will be using my WSM for the first time this weekend and will be smoking Jamaican Jerk boneless skinless chicken breasts. Most of what I see calls for not putting water in the pan for chicken breasts. Do you all subscribe to that or should I use water.

As a novice smoker I am not sure of when and why to not use water or to use water for that matter. I was under the impression you need the water to keep the meat moist but it looks like that isn't always the case. What do you guys think?

Thanks,
Jason
 
Some use water, others don't. You really need to try it both ways for yourself and see what you prefer. I never use water because I don't believe the small amount of water that evaporates and enters the air stream inside the smoker does anything to make the meat moist, it simply travels out through the top vent and is gone.
 
Yeah, try it once with water and once without. I did this and I will never use water again. Just causes a mess and makes clean up difficult and smelly. I didn't see much of a difference anyway, basically, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Best method is just to foil your pan.
 
Like Max, I used water once and used the foiled clay pot base once. I'll never use water again. Plus, you don't have to clean or re-foil the clay pot base after every use.
 
I always use water for low&slow smoking. Makes keeping the temps 225-250dg easy. For higher temp cooks like poultry I don't use water. I use water for about everything else.


Dan
 
There you go Jason lots of opinions for and against. If you are doing boneless skinless chicken I would go with the water unless you're brining like Dave says. It can't hurt ...and you need to try it for yourself. I love water for ribs but not so much for everything else. With chicken skin on I would not consider using water.

There is no shortcut for experience:wsm:
 
Thanks guys for all the info. I think since this is my first time using the WSM I may use water, since that is how I have done it in the past while makeshift smoking. That said I am definitely going to start experimenting without water since that seems to be the general concensus around here. Thanks again and I'll post pics when it's done.
 
Al Silverman said:
The water is merely used as a heat sink to prevent temp overshoots. It does not add moisture to the meat.
Click to expand...

You are correct Al as far as the interior of the meat. When talking of big cuts of meat as in....pork shoulders, briskets, ribs and such, it will add moisture to the exterior of the the cuts as in the "bark"! Water is a great heat sink and a good tool for cooking below 275ish. Jason, using water will help with your bbq texture and even out cook temps along with a "clean burning fire" vs a smoldering fire with no water. As far as chicken without skin, water is fine. If cooking any cuts of chicken with skin, if you are not above 325ish the skin won't benefit anyway. Using water is not all that messy, spray or wipe the pan with oil before filling and you can dump and wipe out with a couple of paper towels to clean. It doesn't have to be spotless to use again, no different than the rest of the cooker! I have cooked with the WSM every which way possible more than a "time or two". Make your own decisions based on experience!

Have fun :wsm:
 
I smoked the chicken without water yesterday and it came out perfect! Thanks for all the info everyone! That was my first smoke with the WSM and I am already thinking about the next one! I will definitely experiment with the water and it looks like as I move on to longer slower smokes I will incoporate the water. Thanks again guys and I will be asking more questions soon.
 
Last edited:
Al Silverman said:
The water is merely used as a heat sink to prevent temp overshoots. It does not add moisture to the meat.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that to add to what G. Wade said, the reality is that the added moisture helps things to cook more evenly. And I don't just mean that the bark is slower to overcook compared to the inside of the meat. Wade's completely right. The difference can be obvious, depending at what cooking temp, but particularly with ribs at any and all temps, in my experience. However, I also mean that if you have several cuts on the cooker they tend to cook more at the same rate. In other words, let's say that you get a spike on the left side of the door where it might not seal too good. Well, water in the pan or not, anything is going to cook faster over that spot. Water in the pan is 212* from one side to the other though, and although that won't help much with things hanging out past the pan on a crowded grate, it definitely helps to some extent, and especially with what's over the pan where ideally, it should be. But take this from a guy that is more prone to cook four or more butts than only two, or just as prone to cook six slabs of ribs as three. No, I'm not the avg. backyard bbq guy, but the only thing that aggravates me more than when things finish at all hours of the afternoon is having end(s) of rib slabs way overcooked or a butt getting charred on one side. Yes, that happened on my last butt cook with a case of eight on and no water. Thankfully, it wasn't to the point of tasting burnt, but the point is that this has never, ever, happened to me with water in the pan. But on the other hand, I've had great results without water in the pan. Personally, I don't care to go that route though, unless maybe I'm foiling or cooking well over 250*.

The particular charcoal used matters substantially in regard to this issue, though. I prefer lump, but Kingsford, particularly in the blue bag, is prone to ashing over and this serves to flatten out the bell curve of the temp changes over the course of a cook. Also, briquettes are easier to manage in terms of the evenness of the fire across the grate. There's no denying that, but I like my lump, and there's no comparison to Kingsford several hours into a cook. If I open the vent, the temp is going to start to climb, no matter if it's several hours into the cook, or not, water in the pan or not. With Kingsford, if opening the vents doesn't help, I go and get my rubber mallet to tap on the legs and see if that helps. If it seems like I'm chasing rabbits, I'm really not. I'm just explaining why Kingsford works for a lot of folks that don't use water in the pan. Also, I'm sure that some folks have had the same experience as me. My 18.5", in particular, cooks so dang slow with water in the pan and Kingsford that I don't dare try that for butt or brisket cooks by day anymore. Like I said though, I like lump, and so unless you're using an ATC, I think there's no better heat sink than one that stays no hotter than 212*, particularly if cooking overnight on a long cook.

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

 

Back
Top