View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2009, 04:15 PM posted to
Stormmee Stormmee is offline
external usenet poster
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,002
Default Fuel Cost Comparisons in Text format

what strikes me as odd about this discussion is that part of the point of
slow and low is to take an otherwise almost completely tough hunk of meat
and render it edible... so what if you raise the price per pound to double,
you get good eating for say $2.50 per pound instead of that $7.00 lb steak,
what is so hard about comparing finished cost of a picnic roast to a cut of
meat that will cost you more? Lee
If you want to discuss top posting please email me privately, lets not
clutter the news group, thanks*****


Have a wonderful day

"Theron" wrote in message

"Brick" wrote in message

On 4-Oct-2009, "Theron" wrote:

"Duwop" wrote in message
On Oct 4, 3:19 pm, "Theron" wrote:

I'm not aware

That's painfully obvious Kent.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. However, there has not been a
this NG that compares the cost of BTUs of different fuels we use when
smoking or grilling.

In the six years I've been here, you're the only one that ever thought it
was relavant. Nobody that seriously cooks, gives a big rats AXXX
about the btu/hr of fuel. Not even the commercial folks care.

Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)

I think when the fuel cost of smoking a pork shoulder is greater than the
cost of the meat we should consider that important. You bet the commercial
folks care about that.