Thread: bradley digital
View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to
Nonnymus[_5_] Nonnymus[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
Posts: 383
Default bradley digital

Reg wrote:

> All well and good. Unfortunately it's not quite on point, or
> even correct, for several reasons.
> 1> The OP is asking about cold smoking. The point about
> not needing to use the pucks for 100% of the cooking time
> doesn't apply.

Granted, to some degree. When cold smoking, I usually have the damper
pretty well shut down and don't remove the nuts, bacon, steak or
whatever immediately upon expiration of the 20 or so minutes. I've
found that the smoke hangs around enough that even after an additional
20 or so minutes, there's some wafting out when I open the door. It's
not to save money, but simply there's no reason to waste smoke or hurry up.

> 2> His assertion that it's not more expensive to run than other
> units is wrong on it's face. It is. Cooking large quantities
> doesn't change that, either. It reminds me of the old joke: "Yes
> we're losing money, but we'll make it up on volume".

The cost of pucks is not a driving force with me. I'm not into wasting
money, but I appreciate the convenience of 'set and forget.' I don't
think you'll find an argument about which is cheaper, but I also don't
drive a car with the highest gas mileage, keep my house at a comfortable
temp year round, eat where I like and order what I want, and pay to
have the cable channels I enjoy.

With my use of the Bradley, I'd guess I might spend $100 a year on
pucks, compared to, say $20 a year on wood chips. For the additional
money, i can load in a smooth feeding supply when I put in the meat and
never have to fiddle with adding more. The smoke is controlled and has
less creosote than you'd get from smoking with non-preburned wood chips.
The convenience and results of the Bradley smoker is more important to
me than the minor cost of the pucks.


You donít stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.