Soaked or dry wood chips?

Hiker

Which wood is your favorite and do you soak the chips?  Do you change your approach with different meats?

GrateEggspectations

No soak. Read the Meathead article. 

https://amazingribs.com/more-technique-and-science/more-cooking-science/myth-soak-your-wood-first

JohnInCarolina

Don’t soak!  

Post oak for beef, apple wood for pork, cherry mixed in from time to time for color.  

GrateEggspectations

...Oh... and hickory is my fave!

littlerascal56

Only use chunks in egg. Hickory, pecan, apple.  Don’t soak, fist sized pieces are good.

dmchicago

When you soak the chips, the Royal Oak users win.

saluki2007

No need to soak. Experiment and find out what works for you. I like fruit woods for pork and chicken. Oak for beef. 

Surveyor_Egg

I used to soak.  Longer period of white smoke is all I ever achieved from it.  Now I go dry. 

pgprescott

No soak. That said, soaking can be useful if your fire has crept up a bit too high as the soaked chips can actually serve to quench the fire a bit and lower your temp. More of a life hack than a normal technique. 

stlcharcoal

If wood absorbed water, then Columbus's boat would have sunk.  You can soak seasoned/kilned chunks for a month, you'll never penetrate more than about 1mm

Chips absorb a little because of where they are broken apart, but that evaporates quickly.  

Since you have to put your smoking woods in before the plate setter,drip pan, meat, thermometers, etc, I usually run some water over them quick.  That gives me an extra minute so im not fanning smoke out of the way to see.

Photo Egg

stlcharcoal said:

If wood absorbed water, then Columbus's boat would have sunk.  

After caulking, the seams (indeed, the entire hull) would be covered with hot pitch (below the water line, often the caulked seams would be filled with paint or white lead above the water line). This was known as "paying" the hull.

Some ships boats in the 1600s were tarred on top of the caulking, which made the tarred portion black or very dark brown in colour. Usually just the bottom portion was tarred although sometimes the entire boat would be tarred on the outside.

Less often ships boats might be coated with a mixture of powdered lead and tallow. This didn’t last as long as the tar because the tallow would be scraped off in handling the boat but it had the added advantage of protecting the hull of the boat from marine organisms, particularly algae, barnacles and toredo worms that bored through the wood making holes that could let water in.

Tarring was used more often in colder, northern waters where it was much easier to get tar while tallow and lead was used more in warmer summer waters where marine growth was a bigger problem.

TEXASBGE2018

Photo Egg said:

stlcharcoal said:

If wood absorbed water, then Columbus's boat would have sunk.  

After caulking, the seams (indeed, the entire hull) would be covered with hot pitch (below the water line, often the caulked seams would be filled with paint or white lead above the water line). This was known as "paying" the hull.

Some ships boats in the 1600s were tarred on top of the caulking, which made the tarred portion black or very dark brown in colour. Usually just the bottom portion was tarred although sometimes the entire boat would be tarred on the outside.

Less often ships boats might be coated with a mixture of powdered lead and tallow. This didn’t last as long as the tar because the tallow would be scraped off in handling the boat but it had the added advantage of protecting the hull of the boat from marine organisms, particularly algae, barnacles and toredo worms that bored through the wood making holes that could let water in.

Tarring was used more often in colder, northern waters where it was much easier to get tar while tallow and lead was used more in warmer summer waters where marine growth was a bigger problem.

And knowledge is power!!!!!!

northGAcock

Soaking chips is a wasted effort. Smoke on.

Photo Egg

TEXASBGE2018 said:

Photo Egg said:

stlcharcoal said:

If wood absorbed water, then Columbus's boat would have sunk.  

After caulking, the seams (indeed, the entire hull) would be covered with hot pitch (below the water line, often the caulked seams would be filled with paint or white lead above the water line). This was known as "paying" the hull.

Some ships boats in the 1600s were tarred on top of the caulking, which made the tarred portion black or very dark brown in colour. Usually just the bottom portion was tarred although sometimes the entire boat would be tarred on the outside.

Less often ships boats might be coated with a mixture of powdered lead and tallow. This didn’t last as long as the tar because the tallow would be scraped off in handling the boat but it had the added advantage of protecting the hull of the boat from marine organisms, particularly algae, barnacles and toredo worms that bored through the wood making holes that could let water in.

Tarring was used more often in colder, northern waters where it was much easier to get tar while tallow and lead was used more in warmer summer waters where marine growth was a bigger problem.

And knowledge is power!!!!!!

We have an older ship docked here in Galveston, http://www.galvestonhistory.org/attractions/maritime-heritage/1877-tall-ship-elissa-3, and have toured it several times and photographed special events on the ship.
Learned lots of history about it over the years. It's actually mind blowing how small many of those ships were that sailed the open seas. I guess this explains the sheer number of ship wrecks back then. Had to be scary as sh*t...

stlcharcoal

Photo Egg said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

Photo Egg said:

stlcharcoal said:

If wood absorbed water, then Columbus's boat would have sunk.  

After caulking, the seams (indeed, the entire hull) would be covered with hot pitch (below the water line, often the caulked seams would be filled with paint or white lead above the water line). This was known as "paying" the hull.

Some ships boats in the 1600s were tarred on top of the caulking, which made the tarred portion black or very dark brown in colour. Usually just the bottom portion was tarred although sometimes the entire boat would be tarred on the outside.

Less often ships boats might be coated with a mixture of powdered lead and tallow. This didn’t last as long as the tar because the tallow would be scraped off in handling the boat but it had the added advantage of protecting the hull of the boat from marine organisms, particularly algae, barnacles and toredo worms that bored through the wood making holes that could let water in.

Tarring was used more often in colder, northern waters where it was much easier to get tar while tallow and lead was used more in warmer summer waters where marine growth was a bigger problem.

And knowledge is power!!!!!!

We have an older ship docked here in Galveston, http://www.galvestonhistory.org/attractions/maritime-heritage/1877-tall-ship-elissa-3, and have toured it several times and photographed special events on the ship.
Learned lots of history about it over the years. It's actually mind blowing how small many of those ships were that sailed the open seas. I guess this explains the sheer number of ship wrecks back then. Had to be scary as sh*t...

They had the replicas of two of Columbus's ships here in STL for a few weeks.  They was a lot smaller than I though it would be.  In the Mississippi-- which isn't anything like the ocean--it was still kind of scary how much it was getting rocked around.  It's not like there are any rooms or anything either......it's the deck, a little covered area, and the storage area below.....that's it!

http://www.thenina.com/

nolaegghead

Whenever you soak a chip, god kills a kitten.  Or not.  Who knows, really.

mEGG_My_Day

stlcharcoal said:

Photo Egg said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

Photo Egg said:

stlcharcoal said:

If wood absorbed water, then Columbus's boat would have sunk.  

After caulking, the seams (indeed, the entire hull) would be covered with hot pitch (below the water line, often the caulked seams would be filled with paint or white lead above the water line). This was known as "paying" the hull.

Some ships boats in the 1600s were tarred on top of the caulking, which made the tarred portion black or very dark brown in colour. Usually just the bottom portion was tarred although sometimes the entire boat would be tarred on the outside.

Less often ships boats might be coated with a mixture of powdered lead and tallow. This didn’t last as long as the tar because the tallow would be scraped off in handling the boat but it had the added advantage of protecting the hull of the boat from marine organisms, particularly algae, barnacles and toredo worms that bored through the wood making holes that could let water in.

Tarring was used more often in colder, northern waters where it was much easier to get tar while tallow and lead was used more in warmer summer waters where marine growth was a bigger problem.

And knowledge is power!!!!!!

We have an older ship docked here in Galveston, http://www.galvestonhistory.org/attractions/maritime-heritage/1877-tall-ship-elissa-3, and have toured it several times and photographed special events on the ship.
Learned lots of history about it over the years. It's actually mind blowing how small many of those ships were that sailed the open seas. I guess this explains the sheer number of ship wrecks back then. Had to be scary as sh*t...

They had the replicas of two of Columbus's ships here in STL for a few weeks.  They was a lot smaller than I though it would be.  In the Mississippi-- which isn't anything like the ocean--it was still kind of scary how much it was getting rocked around.  It's not like there are any rooms or anything either......it's the deck, a little covered area, and the storage area below.....that's it!

http://www.thenina.com/

Had those same boats in Memphis a few years back .  I was somewhat shocked at how small they were.  Here are some not so good pics:


Oh - and I don’t soak smoke wood. I like Apple, peach, cherry and pecan. Alder for salmon. 

unoriginalusername

GrateEggspectations said:

No soak. Read the Meathead article. 

https://amazingribs.com/more-technique-and-science/more-cooking-science/myth-soak-your-wood-first

Agreed. Also like placing on the bottom grate for smouldering clean smoke 

HeavyG

stlcharcoal said:

Photo Egg said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

Photo Egg said:

stlcharcoal said:

If wood absorbed water, then Columbus's boat would have sunk.  

After caulking, the seams (indeed, the entire hull) would be covered with hot pitch (below the water line, often the caulked seams would be filled with paint or white lead above the water line). This was known as "paying" the hull.

Some ships boats in the 1600s were tarred on top of the caulking, which made the tarred portion black or very dark brown in colour. Usually just the bottom portion was tarred although sometimes the entire boat would be tarred on the outside.

Less often ships boats might be coated with a mixture of powdered lead and tallow. This didn’t last as long as the tar because the tallow would be scraped off in handling the boat but it had the added advantage of protecting the hull of the boat from marine organisms, particularly algae, barnacles and toredo worms that bored through the wood making holes that could let water in.

Tarring was used more often in colder, northern waters where it was much easier to get tar while tallow and lead was used more in warmer summer waters where marine growth was a bigger problem.

And knowledge is power!!!!!!

We have an older ship docked here in Galveston, http://www.galvestonhistory.org/attractions/maritime-heritage/1877-tall-ship-elissa-3, and have toured it several times and photographed special events on the ship.
Learned lots of history about it over the years. It's actually mind blowing how small many of those ships were that sailed the open seas. I guess this explains the sheer number of ship wrecks back then. Had to be scary as sh*t...

They had the replicas of two of Columbus's ships here in STL for a few weeks.  They was a lot smaller than I though it would be.  In the Mississippi-- which isn't anything like the ocean--it was still kind of scary how much it was getting rocked around.  It's not like there are any rooms or anything either......it's the deck, a little covered area, and the storage area below.....that's it!

http://www.thenina.com/

And imagine living below decks with ankle to knee deep bilge water full of feces and vomit sloshing all around in heavy seas for weeks at a time. Good times for sure.

stlcharcoal

HeavyG said:

stlcharcoal said:

Photo Egg said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

Photo Egg said:

stlcharcoal said:

If wood absorbed water, then Columbus's boat would have sunk.  

After caulking, the seams (indeed, the entire hull) would be covered with hot pitch (below the water line, often the caulked seams would be filled with paint or white lead above the water line). This was known as "paying" the hull.

Some ships boats in the 1600s were tarred on top of the caulking, which made the tarred portion black or very dark brown in colour. Usually just the bottom portion was tarred although sometimes the entire boat would be tarred on the outside.

Less often ships boats might be coated with a mixture of powdered lead and tallow. This didn’t last as long as the tar because the tallow would be scraped off in handling the boat but it had the added advantage of protecting the hull of the boat from marine organisms, particularly algae, barnacles and toredo worms that bored through the wood making holes that could let water in.

Tarring was used more often in colder, northern waters where it was much easier to get tar while tallow and lead was used more in warmer summer waters where marine growth was a bigger problem.

And knowledge is power!!!!!!

We have an older ship docked here in Galveston, http://www.galvestonhistory.org/attractions/maritime-heritage/1877-tall-ship-elissa-3, and have toured it several times and photographed special events on the ship.
Learned lots of history about it over the years. It's actually mind blowing how small many of those ships were that sailed the open seas. I guess this explains the sheer number of ship wrecks back then. Had to be scary as sh*t...

They had the replicas of two of Columbus's ships here in STL for a few weeks.  They was a lot smaller than I though it would be.  In the Mississippi-- which isn't anything like the ocean--it was still kind of scary how much it was getting rocked around.  It's not like there are any rooms or anything either......it's the deck, a little covered area, and the storage area below.....that's it!

http://www.thenina.com/

And imagine living below decks with ankle to knee deep bilge water full of feces and vomit sloshing all around in heavy seas for weeks at a time. Good times for sure.

I heard the after party at Butt Blast 2018 was like that.

Ham_Bone

Hiker said:

Which wood is your favorite and do you soak the chips?  Do you change your approach with different meats?

I enjoy using; pecan, apple, & hickory. I would always soak my chunks for 24 hours, but now I add my chunks dry. It never made a difference.

Hans61

Also bury your chunks or chips in the lump to get better smoke don’t just throw on top that will ignite and burn away much faster

stlcharcoal

Hans61 said:

Also bury your chunks or chips in the lump to get better smoke don’t just throw on top that will ignite and burn away much faster

But if you light from the top, the fire might never make it down that low.  And if you are metering the oxygen, they're not going to burn any faster.  Burning away faster takes more oxygen and will create a higher temp......and at 225 or whatever, they're not burning any faster on the top than they would be on the bottom.

I had a 16hr butt cook the other day that all the lump on the front half of the fire box burned off.  On the back half, the charcoal was still black and the wood (chunks and chips) were still brown.  That's happened to me on the XL before, but never the large.....kind of weird.

I always light from the top in the middle, then stuff 4-6 chunks right in the middle.  Then I'll scatter some chips to fall down into the lump.

BGEChicago

I have to use peach wood for pork ribs (wife) but for beef ribs (and I'm not even from Texas) it would be sacrilegious not to use true Texas post oak! 

Ozzie_Isaac

I soak my wood in bourbon.

Hans61

https://youtu.be/ANO6Anc9XwQ

About 45 seconds in is where I remembered most recently seeing talk of burying the chunks. You don’t want them at the bottom obviously cause you want the smoke in the first few hours.

The summit cooks like an egg or other kamado so I think the lesson translates, though I can’t dispute @stlcharcoal’s comment I do put a lot of stock in Harry Soo’s tips, he’s a very accomplished pit master :-)

Hiker

Where do you buy your wood chunks?

stlcharcoal

Hans61 said:

The summit cooks like an egg or other kamado so I think the lesson translates, though I can’t dispute @stlcharcoal’s comment I do put a lot of stock in Harry Soo’s tips, he’s a very accomplished pit master :-)

I agree.  I just think a lot of these theories keep coming over from the guys that came up on WSM's, kettles, and bullets.  They get a kamado, do the same thing, and it works just fine......but it would work the other way too.  Kamados are so easy that you have to work to screw something up.

stlcharcoal

Here's the pairing sheet for our woods......and some chips vs. chunks stuff.  Keep in mind this is quick and easy point of sale for the average consumer.




Here's a good pairing page (and someone that helped me make the chart above.)  

https://grillinfools.com/blog/2009/04/01/smoke-wood-what-kind-is-best-well-it-depends/

Ozzie_Isaac

stlcharcoal said:

Hans61 said:

The summit cooks like an egg or other kamado so I think the lesson translates, though I can’t dispute @stlcharcoal’s comment I do put a lot of stock in Harry Soo’s tips, he’s a very accomplished pit master :-)

I agree.  I just think a lot of these theories keep coming over from the guys that came up on WSM's, kettles, and bullets.  They get a kamado, do the same thing, and it works just fine......but it would work the other way too.  Kamados are so easy that you have to work to screw something up.

I must be a hard worker.  I have screwed up my fair share of cooks.  Usually when I try to get fancy.

unoriginalusername

Hans61 said:

https://youtu.be/ANO6Anc9XwQ

About 45 seconds in is where I remembered most recently seeing talk of burying the chunks. You don’t want them at the bottom obviously cause you want the smoke in the first few hours.

The summit cooks like an egg or other kamado so I think the lesson translates, though I can’t dispute @stlcharcoal’s comment I do put a lot of stock in Harry Soo’s tips, he’s a very accomplished pit master :-)

Saw this last year which is what prompted me to switch from wet wood on top to dry wood on the bottom.  It does smoke find on the bottom in the first few hours.  happy with the results using this approach, not going back