water pan, empty pan, saucer?

[Rusty]

I am new to the WSM. I have owned a 2009 18 WSM for a month or so now. I have cooked a few boston butts and had great results.
What surprises me is the amount of folks here that are using a clay saucer instead of the water bowl. I keep reading post after post about this. However, when I look in the polls section of this forum, I read where almost half still use the water bowl with water. There isn't an option to choose clay saucer in the poll, but still it is clear that a lot of folks still prefer the water bowl with water.
I am trying to figure out what method would be best for me. I will mostly do long cooks like 12+ hour cooks for buston butts and 6-8 hour cooks for baby backs. I am assuming that you can get longer cooks without using water. Is this true? My concern for these cooks using a saucer is the lack of moisture and heat control/temp spikes.
What are your opinions and experiences?

 

[Larry D.]

Yes, theoretically you can get a longer cook without water, because a certain amount of your heat (using water) goes to boiling away the water. I don't believe using water actually increases the moistness of the meat, nor do I believe that using beer, adding spices to the water, etc. changes the flavor of the meat... so I don't miss using water. Water in the pan is basically a means to moderate changes in the temperature, since it acts as a heat sink. On the other hand, the worst temperature spike I ever had was when the water pan boiled dry during an overnight cook. On the whole, I much prefer using the "Piedmont Pan" arrangement. Once the temperature has settled in, I don't have to worry about watching the water level, and I don't have greasy water to dispose of afterward. If you do try any of the no-water methods, don't try to chase the temperature by making frequent vent adjustments. Make small changes, and give them time to take effect. Otherwise you can get into a yo-yo situation with the temperature and drive yourself batty.