i picked up a bag of lump charcoal, not really sure why but i did. if anything from what we know of lump vs briquette it is lump you shouldn't be
lump vs. briquette charcoal. i have a weber so ash is not a concern on low and slow. i have seen it up to 50 off! in the end, they're left with large lumps of coal
lump tends to burn hotter because of the inconsistent sizes, makes more airflow around them. lump creates less ash. briquettes burn more
charcoal (lump, not that manufactured shit) tastes better than gas, but you have to keep tending the smoker - with gas 'smokers' you can just set it up & forget
i have been using regular briquettes on the weber kettle for about two years. light up lump vs briquette if i want a very hot grill then lump charcoal is great.
i'm pretty new to this stuff, and i'm attempting to use lump coal. i've successfully barbequed in the past with briquettes, but i cannot for the
edit: i also ignored the sub i was in until nowi smoke with stubbs briquettes and grill with royal oak lump charcoal. im pretty confident that
what if you start with a base of lump hardwood charcoal (i.e. royal oak, b&b, whatever 100 hardwood lump non briquettes you find).
i cook with charcoal on my broil-king keg (have not made the leap to a pellet rig), and have been using lump this summer, but charcoal in has been
do you guys prefer to use natural lump charcoal, or briquettes to smoke on? sorry if this is an ignorant inquiry, i'm new here. thanks.
i think this all comes down to taste. for the most part, lump charcoals burn hotter and cleaner/woodier but less evenly and consistently than
my experience with lump is that it tends to burn much hotter and less evenly than briquettes. i've read many a debate about the off-taste that briquettes can give
i've been smoking for a good bit now on my vertical charcoal smoker. i've got some slight mods to it and it's pretty good for now. i've always
not as good as lump charcoal for flavor, but they burn longer and even. i think its just more charcoal dust per briquette when they compact it.
briquettes vs hardwood lump charcoal. hi all, yesterday i smoked 3 racks of st louis style ribs using the 3-2-1 method which came out amazing but it was also
i use briquettes for smoking as it burns more evenly over time and is easier to maintain a certain heat range. lump charcoal has large pieces and small pieces and
so just got my first smoker that requires charcoal vs pellet. one thing i noticed is charcoal burns faster than i anticipated altho i used kingsford
i usually stick to regular kingsford or royal oak lump. i like them better than regular charcoal, but will need to take their different burning characteristics into
start the fire with lump charcoal, then put unlit briquettes on top and let what prompted the barbecook decision versus the standard weber?
folks that use kamado-style smoker grills (big green eggs, etc) for example, will generally go with lump charcoal because there is less potential for it to clog the
i would agree that lump should have more of these compounds that briquettes. but i wouldn't say it is enough for smoking most meats. 2.
the natural chunk seems to burn out a lot faster. but i will always swear by my chimney starter. 1. share.
heat: gas grills only get as hot as you can turn the dial. charcoal grills can get so with lump charcoal (i like big green egg brand) than kingsford/ briquettes. 3.