Why do we use water

[Jerry N.]

Why do we use water in the WSM? I realize it keeps the temp down for that low and slow cook, but wouldn't it be better to just use the air vents to keep the fire in check and thus keep the temp down? I feel like I'm cheating using water.

 

[Bill Hays]

Jerry, here's just one of the many threads on this subject that can be found under "Search" at the top of the page.

http://tvwbb.101inc.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000131

 

[Bill Hays]

Let me just throw this in here ~ Water or sand acts as a heat sink to help keep the temp down. Water has to be replentished where sand doesn't. On a long cook, sand will allow the temp in the WSM to rise higher than with water.(Debatable) Use neither if you want to cook chicken. (again, debatable) Water in the pan adds moisture to the food while smoking. (Dryer cuts of meat probably bennefit from this)

What you will find is that there are allot of different ideas on this subject and that you'll have to judge for your self what works for you. Hopefully, these points and those under the search section will help.

Let us know what you decide and how your cooks turn out. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bill

 

[Doug D]

Even on a cool day like today-- around 60*-- one full Weber chimney of charcoal will bring the temp of an empty WSM to 325* with a dry water pan. Filling the water pan gives the equivalent of about 8 lbs. of meat's worth of heatsink, which will allow the cooker to run at around 250*, vents wide open, given the aforementioned ambient outside temperature.

Using sand will give the same result up to a point, but sand can continue to absorb heat and rise above the 212* that water is limited to, reason being that, at 212*, water turns to vapor, and, therefore cannot rise any further in temperature.

So it's not "cheating" to use water, or any other material for that matter, in the pan. On the contrary, the WSM-- and all "water smokers"-- are designed to use some form of heatsink to maintain temps in the "low & slow" BBQ range.

I wouldn't count on water vapor maintaining, or contributing in any significant way, to the moisture level of the meat-- it's the fat content that performs that function in true BBQing.

 

[Tom Barineau]

I have yet to try the sand, but would like to try it. When you use it, do you use the Weber water pan or a Brinkman pan?
And how much sand do you use--full pan?

 

[Doug D]

I think the general consensus is that the WSM pan is the better of the two for sand, the Brinkmann ending up being a bigger heat problem in the long run-- it's better left to using it with water. Fill the WSM pan about 3/4ths full of sand-- enough that you can make a depression in the middle-- and then cover with foil and form it to the depression so grease doesn't run off the edges. I guess you could just use less sand in the Brinkmann pan, but...

 

[Bill Hays]

Tom, I only have the Weber pan but I've read where many that have both pans will use the Weber for sand and the Brinkman for water because of it's additional capicity ~ Probably won't have to refill it. As far as how much sand, 3/4 to 7/8th full leaving an area in the center for the juices to collect (After you've lined it with a couple of layers of 18" wide HD foil of course.)

 

[Tom Barineau]

Thanks, guys. Will bring some home some washed masonry sand and try it the next time I use the WSM. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

 

[Doug D]

I would recommend play sand from HD or Lowe's-- it's already clean, and regarded as safe to use.

 

[Jerry N.]

Thanks for the great input. I basically bought my WSM for one thing - ribs. I'll try the sand next time. I like to go about 6 to 7 hours for about 3-4 racks of baby backs. I just bought a WSM because I felt even more like I was cheating with my other smoker. It was a 7 in 1 unit. Basically, I would burn one pan full of charcol and wood and when that would start to lose it's heat, I would just turn on the gas and cook it the rest of the time. The ribs did turn out good, but I'm a purest at heart.

It still seems like I could choke the fire a little and not have anything in the pan. Has anyone tried that? I'd love to experiment more, but the meat does cost some money so I can't go too crazy.

 

[Doug D]

If you were doing 3 or 4 pork butts, I'd say give it a try. But ribs just don't have that kind of mass-- I'd still want something in the pan.