Weber Fuel Recommendation?


 
Scott C.

Scott C.

TVWBB Super Fan
I went to lunch with some clients to the Weber Restaurant this week, and got to talking to the top chief about their grills, and my 22" WSM. I noticed they were not using Kingsford, which I thought was recommended with the WSM, and asked what they were using.

He said they only use Hardwood Lump Charcoal, and winced when I said I was using Kingsford. He held up a empty bag so I could take a photo of it, to track it down and try some, but he essentially said Kingsford was some nasty stuff. Took me by surprise. I mentioned the manual specifically recommended briquette charcoal, and he said the Lump would be fine in a WSM, and that's what he uses himself in his. To give it a try and I'll never look back.

Is Kingsford really that bad? I wish I could post a photo of the bag, but it's brown (Tan) and says:

BBQ Wood Flavors
100% Natural
Hardwood
Lump Charcoal

Anyone familiar with this brand?
 
Since I must be dense this morning (splitting headache), can you give us a much bigger hint? Thanks
 
If it's the same bag I've seen it's Food-service generic lump. My local Montgomery market carried it a few years ago. It's basic lump, similar to RO but more expensive.
As far as using K, I don't. I started with lump (RO) and never looked back.:wsm:
Weber likes using K cause it's predictable for just starting out I guess??

Tim
 
Chris. I seen that also but those are from 03-04.
The bags do look similar to the one I used, but it did have Restaurant or Food-service printed on the bag.( I think :) )

Tim
 
Chris and Bob, thanks for the links, but it's none of those. The words "BBQ Wood Flavors" is set behind flames, but the color of the bag is the same, so it very well could be commercial. I was so mesmerized with my good luck in catching his attention for a few minutes and I didn't asked for a source. I thought with the pic, I'd have no problem finding the stuff.

If someone with a picture hosting account wants to PM me their email, I'd be happy to email them the photo. Why can't we post pictures here?
 
I know a lot of folks prefer lump but I think saying Kingsford is nasty is a bit of a stretch. I havent had a single complaint about my bbq and have a few trophies on the mantle and always use Kingsford. I actually find that most of the lump I have tried gives a chemical flavor. I do use lump once in a while but not often. I think we as bbq cooks tend to get attached to what we use or what we like and sometimes will talk down on the other guy. I honestly dont care what the next guy uses as long as his food is good.
 
Daryl - D.B. said:
I know a lot of folks prefer lump but I think saying Kingsford is nasty is a bit of a stretch. I havent had a single complaint about my bbq and have a few trophies on the mantle and always use Kingsford. I actually find that most of the lump I have tried gives a chemical flavor. I do use lump once in a while but not often. I think we as bbq cooks tend to get attached to what we use or what we like and sometimes will talk down on the other guy. I honestly dont care what the next guy uses as long as his food is good.
Click to expand...

Me too!
I don't have any trophies, but I know I don't like using the K:wsm:
And can respect others that do.

Tim
 
I personally prefer RO lump, but I think a lot of the bad rap that Kingsford gets comes from those who used it more than six years ago when they used a petroleum based binder which did have a nasty aroma and taste. They have modified the formula several times since then and now have an excellent product.
 
Bob Bass said:
Scott,

Do these flames look familiar, not the rest of the package, just the flames... http://www.thinkcbw.com/_images/grills/hardwoodchips.png
If so, willing to bet it's their commercial line. They do business as both BBQ Wood Flavors and Barbeque Wood Flavors
Click to expand...

Bob, that's it. As to the guys comments, I'm just sharing what he said. I've never tried anything else, hence the question. Doesn't hurt to try something new once in a while though.
 
When I went to the Weber Grill quite a few years ago, they used Kingsford for grilling but used lump charcoal for smoking. Not sure if that has changed recently.

I use Kingsford in my WSM for the reasons stated in this article. To each his own. But many competitors have had their lunch handed to them by guys using an 18.5" WSM and a bag of Kingsford. :wsm:
 
but he essentially said Kingsford was some nasty stuff.

Wow, that guy is full of $h1t .How can he make that kinda statement?


Peter
 
MattP said:
For those of you who don't care for the KBB, have you ever tried KComp?
Click to expand...

I did a few times when on sale and liked it. The one thing I noticed is that it just keeps burning till complete ash. I can always save RO lump or briqs for the next cook by shutting down all the vents. The KComp doesn't work that way, at least on my WSM in the backyard.

Tim
 
GlennAlbea said:
I personally prefer RO lump, but I think a lot of the bad rap that Kingsford gets comes from those who used it more than six years ago when they used a petroleum based binder which did have a nasty aroma and taste. They have modified the formula several times since then and now have an excellent product.
Click to expand...

Now see Glenn, I'm the opposite.
I used BBK forever till they changed the formula in 06 or so. I used it on my off-set cause the price was reasonable and I would go thru a 25# bag in one sitting. I always added fully lit chimneys during a session and the smell/smoke wasn't that bad on the old formula.
I tried a few bags of the new stuff on my OTG and didn't care for it at all. The burn times didn't last as long as the old bag and the smell from the thick black smoke in the chimney made me walk away.
That's why I never used it in my WSM.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top