I'm looking for pros and cons about the Bradley digital smoker. Also
where is the best place to get the best deal on one should I decide to go
that way. I do not plan to do much hot smoking although it appears it will
do hot smoking. I mainly want to smoke sausages, cheeses and jerky. So most
of what I will be doing is cold smoking. I'm sure I will be tempted to try
my hand at some hot smoking/cooking. I've wanted to try to smoke fish,
poultry, beef and pork.
Right now I use a modified gas grill, I removed the guts and use a hot
plate to make the smoke then run the smoke through a duct to the grill. It
works pretty well but you have to keep adding wood every half hour or so and
its difficult to control the temp. Then you have to wait till the newly
added wood starts smoking. I think it takes much longer this way than a
continuous smoking process.
TIA
Greg




--
'Stupidity should be painful'

"Pensrock" > wrote in message
> Right now I use a modified gas grill, I removed the guts and use a hot
> plate to make the smoke then run the smoke through a duct to the grill. It
> works pretty well but you have to keep adding wood every half hour or so
> and its difficult to control the temp. Then you have to wait till the
> newly added wood starts smoking. I think it takes much longer this way
> than a continuous smoking process.
> TIA
> Greg

Cheaper to buy a bigger pie plate for the smoker. Put it right inside the
grill in cooler weather. I use a mix of sawdust and chunks and get a
couple of hours from a load.

I don't really know much about the Bradley, but buying their wood pucks gets
pricey if you do a lot of cooking; not so bad for cold smoking a few times a
year. Cost about $1 an hour to run based on 20 minutes per disk. For less
money, buy their smoke generator for $169 and use it with your modified
grill of a big cardboard box..

Pensrock wrote:

> I'm looking for pros and cons about the Bradley digital smoker. Also
> where is the best place to get the best deal on one should I decide to go
> that way. I do not plan to do much hot smoking although it appears it will
> do hot smoking. I mainly want to smoke sausages, cheeses and jerky. So most
> of what I will be doing is cold smoking. I'm sure I will be tempted to try
> my hand at some hot smoking/cooking. I've wanted to try to smoke fish,
> poultry, beef and pork.

For cold smoking the Bradley is a good value, especially if
you value your time. It's exceptional in that it can keep a very
low temperature. It's very steady all on it's own, without the
constant tinkering that most smoker setups require to keep such
a low temp.

It's very expensive though, relatively speaking. The little
prefab wood pucks cost about a buck an hour of running time.
You should work out your total costs over time and decide from
there.

How many hour per week will it get used? I run my smokers,
both hot and cold, at least 20 hours per week. Sometimes a
lot more. At $1 per hour it would cost me at least $1000
per year. That's the cost of a high end grill, every year,
forever. Too much in my book. So I use the Bradley only for
cold smoking and other much more economical units for hot
smoking.

--
Reg

"Reg" > wrote in message
...
> Pensrock wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for pros and cons about the Bradley digital smoker. Also
>> where is the best place to get the best deal on one should I decide to go
>> that way. I do not plan to do much hot smoking although it appears it
>> will do hot smoking. I mainly want to smoke sausages, cheeses and jerky.
>> So most of what I will be doing is cold smoking. I'm sure I will be
>> tempted to try my hand at some hot smoking/cooking. I've wanted to try to
>> smoke fish, poultry, beef and pork.
>
> For cold smoking the Bradley is a good value, especially if
> you value your time. It's exceptional in that it can keep a very
> low temperature. It's very steady all on it's own, without the
> constant tinkering that most smoker setups require to keep such
> a low temp.
>
> It's very expensive though, relatively speaking. The little
> prefab wood pucks cost about a buck an hour of running time.
> You should work out your total costs over time and decide from
> there.
>
> How many hour per week will it get used? I run my smokers,
> both hot and cold, at least 20 hours per week. Sometimes a
> lot more. At $1 per hour it would cost me at least $1000
> per year. That's the cost of a high end grill, every year,
> forever. Too much in my book. So I use the Bradley only for
> cold smoking and other much more economical units for hot
> smoking.
>
> --
> Reg
>

Yeah but the real beauty of the Bradley is that it can operate as either a
smoker and/or oven, with our without smoke. For example, smoking a boston
butt can take 12-16 hours in my Bradley, but I only apply smoke for the
first 4 hours when doing a butt. So yes, you may be operating the Bradley
for 16 hours, but it certainly doesn't cost you $16 for those 16 hours.
Generally foods will only absorb smoke the first few hours of the smoke,
after that you're just wasting smoke. You can get the Bradley wood pucks
directly from Amazon with free shipping for .75 cents per hour (not $1/hr).
Smoking a boston butt (4 hrs) for example, costs me $3 in pucks. You also
have to keep in mind that the Bradley produces some pretty fine smoke, and a
little bit goes a long way. When hot smoking salmon (one of my favorites) I
generally only apply 2.5 hours of smoke, even though it is in the smoker for
5-7 hours in all. So while you may be operating your smoker for 20 hrs per
week, do you require smoke for all 20 hours? probably not.

I don't find the Bradley any more expensive to operate than any other
smoker, when you figure in the cost of lump charcoal and/or flavored wood
chunks used in other smokers. Just buying meats on sale and smoking larger
batches at a time and you can more than make up for the cost of the wood
pucks, imho.

Matt

"Reg" > wrote in message
...
> Pensrock wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for pros and cons about the Bradley digital smoker. Also
>> where is the best place to get the best deal on one should I decide to go
>> that way. I do not plan to do much hot smoking although it appears it
>> will do hot smoking. I mainly want to smoke sausages, cheeses and jerky.
>> So most of what I will be doing is cold smoking. I'm sure I will be
>> tempted to try my hand at some hot smoking/cooking. I've wanted to try to
>> smoke fish, poultry, beef and pork.
>
> For cold smoking the Bradley is a good value, especially if
> you value your time. It's exceptional in that it can keep a very
> low temperature. It's very steady all on it's own, without the
> constant tinkering that most smoker setups require to keep such
> a low temp.
>
> It's very expensive though, relatively speaking. The little
> prefab wood pucks cost about a buck an hour of running time.
> You should work out your total costs over time and decide from
> there.
>
> How many hour per week will it get used? I run my smokers,
> both hot and cold, at least 20 hours per week. Sometimes a
> lot more. At $1 per hour it would cost me at least $1000
> per year. That's the cost of a high end grill, every year,
> forever. Too much in my book. So I use the Bradley only for
> cold smoking and other much more economical units for hot
> smoking.
>
> --
> Reg
>

Yeah but the real beauty of the Bradley is that it can operate as either a
smoker and/or oven, with our without smoke. For example, smoking a boston
butt can take 12-16 hours in my Bradley, but I only apply smoke for the
first 4 hours when doing a butt. So yes, you may be operating the Bradley
for 16 hours, but it certainly doesn't cost you $16 for those 16 hours.
Generally foods will only absorb smoke the first few hours of the smoke,
after that you're just wasting smoke. You can get the Bradley wood pucks
directly from Amazon with free shipping for .75 cents per hour (not $1/hr).
Smoking a boston butt (4 hrs) for example, costs me $3 in pucks. You also
have to keep in mind that the Bradley produces some pretty fine smoke, and a
little bit goes a long way. When hot smoking salmon (one of my favorites) I
generally only apply 2.5 hours of smoke, even though it is in the smoker for
5-7 hours in all. So while you may be operating your smoker for 20 hrs per
week, do you require smoke for all 20 hours? probably not.

I don't find the Bradley any more expensive to operate than any other
smoker, when you figure in the cost of lump charcoal and/or flavored wood
chunks used in other smokers. Just buying meats on sale and smoking larger
batches at a time and you can more than make up for the cost of the wood
pucks, imho.

Matt

Matt wrote:

> "Reg" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>For cold smoking the Bradley is a good value, especially if
>>you value your time. It's exceptional in that it can keep a very
>>low temperature. It's very steady all on it's own, without the
>>constant tinkering that most smoker setups require to keep such
>>a low temp.
>>
>>It's very expensive though, relatively speaking. The little
>>prefab wood pucks cost about a buck an hour of running time.
>>You should work out your total costs over time and decide from
>>there.
>>
>>How many hour per week will it get used? I run my smokers,
>>both hot and cold, at least 20 hours per week. Sometimes a
>>lot more. At $1 per hour it would cost me at least $1000
>>per year. That's the cost of a high end grill, every year,
>>forever. Too much in my book. So I use the Bradley only for
>>cold smoking and other much more economical units for hot
>>smoking.
>
>
> Yeah but the real beauty of the Bradley is that it can operate as either a
> smoker and/or oven, with our without smoke. For example, smoking a boston
> butt can take 12-16 hours in my Bradley, but I only apply smoke for the
> first 4 hours when doing a butt. So yes, you may be operating the Bradley
> for 16 hours, but it certainly doesn't cost you $16 for those 16 hours.
> Generally foods will only absorb smoke the first few hours of the smoke,
> after that you're just wasting smoke.

And the magic is where?

Any smoker can do this. The more/larger the wood chunks, the longer
the smoke time. Less = shorter. It's not like the Bradley has some
exclusive "variable smoke time" feature.

> You can get the Bradley wood pucks
> directly from Amazon with free shipping for .75 cents per hour (not $1/hr).
> Smoking a boston butt (4 hrs) for example, costs me $3 in pucks. You also
> have to keep in mind that the Bradley produces some pretty fine smoke, and a
> little bit goes a long way. When hot smoking salmon (one of my favorites) I
> generally only apply 2.5 hours of smoke, even though it is in the smoker for
> 5-7 hours in all. So while you may be operating your smoker for 20 hrs per
> week, do you require smoke for all 20 hours? probably not.


Given that the OP said he'd use it mostly for cold smoking, this
won't always apply, will it?


> I don't find the Bradley any more expensive to operate than any other
> smoker, when you figure in the cost of lump charcoal and/or flavored wood
> chunks used in other smokers. Just buying meats on sale and smoking larger
> batches at a time and you can more than make up for the cost of the wood
> pucks, imho.


Even at 0.75 an hour it's still about 10 times what I spend using
wood chunks. Compare it to an equivalent insulated oven type smoker
such as cookshack, smokintex, etc, that don't need proprietary
supplies.

Plus you have to get the expensive little pucks exclusively
from Bradley. They're patented. If they go out of business
your smoker because a warming oven.

Plus with all it's moving parts it's got reliability problems
that other units never will. I can say this from experience
having had to replace the rather cheaply made and not very
durable smoke generator unit.

I like the Bradley. I use it regularly. I just have a realistic
view of it's strengths and weaknesses.

--
Reg

Matt wrote:

>
> Yeah but the real beauty of the Bradley is that it can operate as either a
> smoker and/or oven, with our without smoke. For example, smoking a boston
> butt can take 12-16 hours in my Bradley, but I only apply smoke for the
> first 4 hours when doing a butt. So yes, you may be operating the Bradley
> for 16 hours, but it certainly doesn't cost you $16 for those 16 hours.
> Generally foods will only absorb smoke the first few hours of the smoke,
> after that you're just wasting smoke. You can get the Bradley wood pucks
> directly from Amazon with free shipping for .75 cents per hour (not $1/hr).
> Smoking a boston butt (4 hrs) for example, costs me $3 in pucks. You also
> have to keep in mind that the Bradley produces some pretty fine smoke, and a
> little bit goes a long way. When hot smoking salmon (one of my favorites) I
> generally only apply 2.5 hours of smoke, even though it is in the smoker for
> 5-7 hours in all. So while you may be operating your smoker for 20 hrs per
> week, do you require smoke for all 20 hours? probably not.
>
> I don't find the Bradley any more expensive to operate than any other
> smoker, when you figure in the cost of lump charcoal and/or flavored wood
> chunks used in other smokers. Just buying meats on sale and smoking larger
> batches at a time and you can more than make up for the cost of the wood
> pucks, imho.

Matt has given you a very good answer, and I heartily concur. I've been
the full route of everything from a little Weber grill as a youngster to
a masonry pit to SS gas grill and IR grill. I got a Bradley about 8
months back and absolutely love its simplicity and versatility. It
produces results that equal or exceed even a well designed masonry pit.
The only difference is that burning coals or charcoal give you a smoke
ring, where the Bradley doesn't. Taste is not an issue- just that smoke
ring some folks value as a measure of quality.

I also modified the Bradley with a digital differential thermostat that
regulates the heater instead of the Bradley thermostat. That's the
smartest thing I've done in a long while. The differential thermostat
begins to ramp down the hood temperature when the meat reaches within
25f of the setpoint, and by the time the meat equals the setpoint, the
hood temp is at that value as well.

I liked it so well I just had one sent to my son, along with a
differential thermostat kit.

Nonny

--
---Nonnymus---
You don’t stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.

Nonnymus wrote:

> Matt wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah but the real beauty of the Bradley is that it can operate as
>> either a smoker and/or oven, with our without smoke. For example,
>> smoking a boston butt can take 12-16 hours in my Bradley, but I only
>> apply smoke for the first 4 hours when doing a butt. So yes, you may
>> be operating the Bradley for 16 hours, but it certainly doesn't cost
>> you $16 for those 16 hours. Generally foods will only absorb smoke the
>> first few hours of the smoke, after that you're just wasting smoke.
>> You can get the Bradley wood pucks directly from Amazon with free
>> shipping for .75 cents per hour (not $1/hr). Smoking a boston butt (4
>> hrs) for example, costs me $3 in pucks. You also have to keep in mind
>> that the Bradley produces some pretty fine smoke, and a little bit
>> goes a long way. When hot smoking salmon (one of my favorites) I
>> generally only apply 2.5 hours of smoke, even though it is in the
>> smoker for 5-7 hours in all. So while you may be operating your
>> smoker for 20 hrs per week, do you require smoke for all 20 hours?
>> probably not.
>>
>> I don't find the Bradley any more expensive to operate than any other
>> smoker, when you figure in the cost of lump charcoal and/or flavored
>> wood chunks used in other smokers. Just buying meats on sale and
>> smoking larger batches at a time and you can more than make up for the
>> cost of the wood pucks, imho.
>
>
> Matt has given you a very good answer, and I heartily concur. I've been
> the full route of everything from a little Weber grill as a youngster to
> a masonry pit to SS gas grill and IR grill. I got a Bradley about 8
> months back and absolutely love its simplicity and versatility. It
> produces results that equal or exceed even a well designed masonry pit.
> The only difference is that burning coals or charcoal give you a smoke
> ring, where the Bradley doesn't. Taste is not an issue- just that smoke
> ring some folks value as a measure of quality.
>
> I also modified the Bradley with a digital differential thermostat that
> regulates the heater instead of the Bradley thermostat. That's the
> smartest thing I've done in a long while. The differential thermostat
> begins to ramp down the hood temperature when the meat reaches within
> 25f of the setpoint, and by the time the meat equals the setpoint, the
> hood temp is at that value as well.
>
> I liked it so well I just had one sent to my son, along with a
> differential thermostat kit.

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.

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".

--
Reg

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.

Nonny

--
---Nonnymus---
You don’t stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.

Nonnymus wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>> 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.

There you have it. Everyone has to evaluate the value proposition
for themselves. For me, the sheer volume of hot smoking that I
do puts it in the unnecessarily expensive category. I'd end up
spending enough on supplies to buy several new smokers every
year for little added benefit. Other units can do the same
thing much cheaper.

Cold smoking is a different story, mostly because it's so labor
intensive. The extra expense for the supplies is more than made
up for in labor savings. I just deal with the downside of it. I
won't haul the Bradley to onsite catering events because it's so
cheaply built. I'm very careful with the smoke generator because,
among other things, it's fragile. It has plastic gears so it
needs to be kept scrupulously clean, etc.

I'm not as down on the Bradley as it may seem, I just don't
impart benefits on it that it doesn't really have. My hardcore
bbq friends would never touch the thing, but I've recommended
it to my more casual bbq pals who find the convenience worth
the added expense. It's a matter of truth in advertising.
I tell them what it can/can't do, how much the actual costs
are, and they make the decision for themselves.

--
Reg

Reg wrote:
> Nonnymus wrote:
>
>> Reg wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> There you have it. Everyone has to evaluate the value proposition
> for themselves. For me, the sheer volume of hot smoking that I
> do puts it in the unnecessarily expensive category. I'd end up
> spending enough on supplies to buy several new smokers every
> year for little added benefit. Other units can do the same
> thing much cheaper.
>
> Cold smoking is a different story, mostly because it's so labor
> intensive. The extra expense for the supplies is more than made
> up for in labor savings. I just deal with the downside of it. I
> won't haul the Bradley to onsite catering events because it's so
> cheaply built. I'm very careful with the smoke generator because,
> among other things, it's fragile. It has plastic gears so it
> needs to be kept scrupulously clean, etc.
>
> I'm not as down on the Bradley as it may seem, I just don't
> impart benefits on it that it doesn't really have. My hardcore
> bbq friends would never touch the thing, but I've recommended
> it to my more casual bbq pals who find the convenience worth
> the added expense. It's a matter of truth in advertising.
> I tell them what it can/can't do, how much the actual costs
> are, and they make the decision for themselves.
>

Well said, Reg. I've not been inside my smoke generator's mechanism, so
I cannot comment on its ruggedness.

Nonny

--
---Nonnymus---
You don’t stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:05:45 -0700, Nonnymus > wrote:

>Reg wrote:
>> Nonnymus wrote:
>>
>>> Reg wrote:
>>>
>> I'm not as down on the Bradley as it may seem, I just don't
>> impart benefits on it that it doesn't really have. My hardcore
>> bbq friends would never touch the thing, but I've recommended
>> it to my more casual bbq pals who find the convenience worth
>> the added expense. It's a matter of truth in advertising.
>> I tell them what it can/can't do, how much the actual costs
>> are, and they make the decision for themselves.
>>
>
>Well said, Reg. I've not been inside my smoke generator's mechanism, so
>I cannot comment on its ruggedness.
>
>Nonny

I can rig my Kamado [#7] to cold or hot smoke, but it's a real
procedure that neither the K or I enjoy very much. The Bradley makes
it drop-dead easy. So I blow a few bucks on NHL rejects . . . I'll
live.

Harry

Harry Demidavicius wrote:

> I can rig my Kamado [#7] to cold or hot smoke, but it's a real
> procedure that neither the K or I enjoy very much. The Bradley makes
> it drop-dead easy. So I blow a few bucks on NHL rejects . . . I'll
> live.
>
> Harry

These guys can make it a snap. http://www.thebbqguru.com/

Nonny
--
---Nonnymus---
You don’t stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.