Water in the sand pan?


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim W.

TVWBB Fan
Not trying to seem like the clueless new guy, but I am.

Background- I love BBQ, but have only been grilling up to now. Hope to have a WSM within 2 weeks, since if I don't get one for my birthday I'll just buy it myself.

I've read lots on this web page plus the big KC BBQ Forum. I have definitely been convinced to get the WSM even though I started out looking for an electric or propane smoker.

So here's the heretical question: Water in the sand pan?

The issue of the stabilizing effect of sand has been discussed and it appears (contrary to what I would have thought) that it works very well. The next question whether you also want some moisture. If so, how about using the big water pan 2/3 full of sand, topped off with water. That would probably give a gallon of water which would steam off in the first few hours of cooking. Then don't bother adding more. My thought is the benefits of water without the extra tending.

Am I crazy or just ignorant?

Thanks,
 
Most folks would agree that you really don't need the water. The benefits of sand is in the cleanup. Of course an added benefit is you don't run out of water. I would recommend that you try water first, it is rather cheap. After that try sand covered in foil. Compare product and cleanup time and then make your decision. I use sand almost 100% of the time. In competition however I might switch to water because then I don't have to haul the sand to the cookoff.
 
I had a similar question a couple of months ago and Jim Minion (who, if you're new to this site, is an icon around here) replied: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Jim Minion
TVWB Hall of Fame
Member # 48

posted 02-04-2003 01:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer using water when doing brisket and ribs, I use sand for all poultry and pork butt.
This is a preference, I look for difference in bark on different meats and I believe a wet or dry cooks helps me achieve this.
Jim <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now he may have changed his approach, but it makes sense to me. I should confess that I have not yet tried sand and I still use the original WSM pan. Tending the water just doesn't seem to be a big deal with me. During my overnight cooks, I usually don't sleep very well anyway, so I invariably get up to check temps and while I'm at add water if needed.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dave Lewis:
[qb]...During my overnight cooks, I usually don't sleep very well anyway, so I invariably get up to check temps and while I'm at add water if needed. [/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That was one of my original reasons for looking for a gas or electric smoker, the ability to sleep while it cooked away. I do plan to sleep while it cooks. From many of the comments on this forum it seems like the Weber once dialed in will hold a stable temperature.

Obviously I won't try that until I am very familiar with the Weber's operation.

Thanks for the responses;
 
I have only used sand one time, my last cook with butts and baby backs. I really noticed no appreciable difference in temp stabilization. One thing though, my baby backs have usually taken 5.5 to 6 hours with water. This past cook they were done in just under 5 hours and a little dry. Don't know who to blame that on...certainly not me. BIG difference in cleanup time.
 
I used sand for the first time with my last cook. I left it alone at a fairly high temp (235?) for 5 hours. It stayed steady with no worrying about running out of water. I will probably not go back to water anytime soon. I don't think the food absorbs much (if any) moisture. Sand doesn't hold as much heat, but it doesn't boil off either. I think water tends to keep things around that 220? mark fairly well (212 on the bottom level) but sand is just easier to deal with. And with the vents, you can pretty much set whatever temp you want. I'm on the "sand team" now.
 
Hi Jim,
I have become a firm believer in the sand in the pan method. I posted a side be side test I did a while ago and thanks to Doug D I think I can provide a link to it. Hope it helps
Dave

sand vs water
 
Another virtue to sand is that if you want to lift the unit apart to get to the charcoal to knock off ash and add more briquets, you don't have to worry about spilling water.
 
Alright already, I'm gonna give the sand a shot even tho I am more than happy to trot down with my watering can every couple of hours.
Question is: What type of sand? Fine. Coarse. Medium. Is wet sand better than dry sand? Am I just complicating things unnecessarily?
 
Go to Home Depot and buy a bag of play sand (it's where the cement bags are). Play sand is already sanitized. Don't use wet sand because you'll be placing foil over the top of the pan to collect the drippings. It comes in a 20 lb bag for about $2. Line the inside of the pan with foil. Fill the pan two thirds full with sand so that you'll have a nice dip in the foil that covers the top. Replace the top foil after each cook. Couldn't be easier. The heavy duty wide foil will cover the whole top easily. Make sure you fold it under the lip so as not to restrict heat flow around the outside of the pan. Good luck, Cliff
 
The only fire concern you might have is if you overfilled the pan with sand and didn't leave enough area for the grease to drip into without overflowing the pan and getting into the fire. Fill 2/3rds full with sand and you won't have this problem.

I'm curious as to whether others feel they get a longer burn time out of their fuel when they use sand versus water. It would seem to me if the coals can burn slower to maintain the same temp than if you were using water, then they would also burn longer. Any thoughts ?

Paul
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul G.:
I'm curious as to whether others feel they get a longer burn time out of their fuel when they use sand versus water. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This should be the case, as sand cannot "consume" as much energy as water.

Regards,
Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

 

Back
Top