Friends:

The lovely Mrs. and the girls presented me with a Traeger BBQ 075 for father's
day. I always wanted a wood pellet grill/smoker, and this fits the bill
perfectly. I set it up, filled it with oak pellets and smoked up a batch of
baby backs to break it in. It does nice work (although it seemed to use a lot
of pellets even on the low "smoke" setting).

I'm looking for any tips I can get to make the most of this beast. Any thoughts
would be appreciated! Please remove the obvious s*p*a*m blocker to reply
directly.

Thanks!

Marc
Marc Goldstone
Paramedic and Attorney Extraordinaire (Both. Really. Just ask my mom!)
"I don't have to chase ambulances ... I get to ride in them!"
"Sure, I may be in the service of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial."

"CigarLawyer" > wrote in message
...
> Friends:
>
> The lovely Mrs. and the girls presented me with a Traeger BBQ 075 for
father's
> day. I always wanted a wood pellet grill/smoker, and this fits the bill
> perfectly. I set it up, filled it with oak pellets and smoked up a batch
of
> baby backs to break it in. It does nice work (although it seemed to use a
lot
> of pellets even on the low "smoke" setting).
>
> I'm looking for any tips I can get to make the most of this beast. Any
thoughts
> would be appreciated!

First of all, congrats! Can't wait to hear of future successes!

Two suggestions:

1. I have no idea, Marc on your level of expertise regarding BBQ but you
really ought to read the FAQ of the board:

http://www.eaglequest.com/~bbq/faq/

2. Buy stock in whichever company makes the pellets for your Traeger. They
have a great reputation for making good Q, but you are hooked into buying
their product forever.

John in Austin

CigarLawyer wrote:
> Friends:
>
> The lovely Mrs. and the girls presented me with a Traeger BBQ 075 for
> father's day. ...

Congrats. What a score!!

> I'm looking for any tips I can get to make the most of this beast.
> Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Go to the BBQ FAQ http://www.eaglequest.com/~bbq/faq2/toc.html

The faq will give you the information that applies to bbq, regardless of the
tool. The fundamentals will remain the same. As to specifics about Traeger
operation, I know there are a few that have experience with the beastie.
Dave

JakBQuik wrote:

> 2. Buy stock in whichever company makes the pellets for your Traeger. They
> have a great reputation for making good Q, but you are hooked into buying
> their product forever.

Yes but, if you use a charcoal rig you have to buy charcoal
forever. If you use a wood fired rig, you have to buy wood forever.
Etc...

There are some units that use 100% proprietary supplies that are only
available from a single source. But even those could be worth using,
especially if you're in business and the benefits of use outweigh the
costs.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:12:36 GMT, Reg > wrote:

> If you use a wood fired rig, you have to buy wood forever.
>Etc...

Most of the wood I have cost me nothing more than some gas for my
chain saw and some time spent in the company of my dog.

>There are some units that use 100% proprietary supplies that are only
>available from a single source. But even those could be worth using,
>especially if you're in business and the benefits of use outweigh the
>costs.

I'd say that investing in something that operates only one commodity
available only from one supplier is a bad investment, even for--or
especially for--a business.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> Most of the wood I have cost me nothing more than some gas for my
> chain saw and some time spent in the company of my dog.

Yeah, me too, except for the dog part. Charcoal is a different story.
That's a significant recurring cost, like pellets.

> I'd say that investing in something that operates only one commodity
> available only from one supplier is a bad investment, even for--or
> especially for--a business.

It doesn't work that way. That's a matter of cost/benefit analysis,
which can only be done by plugging in real numbers.

In my case, I replaced about 15-20 labor hours per week with a unit
that costs $5 per hour total to operate including supplies, amortization,
and energy costs. Given that my loaded labor cost is around $15 per
hour, it saves money every day it's in use.

If the supplier goes out of business and I have to revert to operating
without it, I'm no worse off than I was before. In the meantime,
it's well worth the money.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Reg wrote:
> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>> Most of the wood I have cost me nothing more than some gas for my
>> chain saw and some time spent in the company of my dog.
>
> Yeah, me too, except for the dog part. Charcoal is a different story.
> That's a significant recurring cost, like pellets.

But freely available from numerous sources, not just one. This is the point
you seem to be ignoring a bit much and where your logic is/was failing
>

> It doesn't work that way. That's a matter of cost/benefit analysis,
> which can only be done by plugging in real numbers.
>
> In my case, I replaced about 15-20 labor hours per week with a unit
> that costs $5 per hour total to operate including supplies,

Ah, LABOR, first time you've brought that up. Until now you've been saying
material cost=material cost

> amortization, and energy costs. Given that my loaded labor cost is
> around $15 per hour, it saves money every day it's in use.

Now with the labor factored in I think you'll find less resistance to your
model in a business setting.

But without labor? Forget it, saying wood cost = pellet cost=coal cost
overlooks the single source issue too much.

For the home user I'd still say it's an issue to be aware of at the very
least.

Dale
--

Duwop wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>>Yeah, me too, except for the dog part. Charcoal is a different story.
>>That's a significant recurring cost, like pellets.
>
> But freely available from numerous sources, not just one. This is the point
> you seem to be ignoring a bit much and where your logic is/was failing

Pellets are available from many sources. Were you aware of that, Dale?

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:08:53 GMT, Reg > wrote:

>Duwop wrote:
>
>> Reg wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, me too, except for the dog part. Charcoal is a different story.
>>>That's a significant recurring cost, like pellets.
>>
>> But freely available from numerous sources, not just one. This is the point
>> you seem to be ignoring a bit much and where your logic is/was failing
>
>Pellets are available from many sources. Were you aware of that, Dale?

You keep changing the terms of the discussion here, first by throwing
labor into the equation when you were initially discussing the cost of
supplies. Now you're sidestepping a crucial element in the discussion,
one that you yourself introduced:

"There are some units that use 100% proprietary supplies that are only
available from a single source. But even those could be worth using,
especially if you're in business and the benefits of use outweigh the
costs."

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Reg wrote:
> Duwop wrote:
>
>> Reg wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, me too, except for the dog part. Charcoal is a different
>>> story. That's a significant recurring cost, like pellets.
>>
>> But freely available from numerous sources, not just one. This is
>> the point you seem to be ignoring a bit much and where your logic
>> is/was failing
>
> Pellets are available from many sources. Were you aware of that, Dale?

Heating pellets certainly, didnt know that pellets appropriate for cooking
were. Had anyone mentioned that? Others had asserted that cooking pellets
were available only from one source, and hadnt seen that challenged. My
apologies if so. Not the first time I've been off base, hell, just starting
to get really good at it.


--

Reg wrote:

> Yes but, if you use a charcoal rig you have to buy charcoal
> forever. If you use a wood fired rig, you have to buy wood forever.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of folks produce their own charcoal and get the wood
for free :-)

Dave

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> You keep changing the terms of the discussion here, first by throwing
> labor into the equation when you were initially discussing the cost of
> supplies.

Labor is a key part of the equation, given that I clearly referred
to a business context. You didn't realize that business involves
labor cost calculations?

> Now you're sidestepping a crucial element in the discussion,
> one that you yourself introduced:

Sidestepping what?

> "There are some units that use 100% proprietary supplies that are only
> available from a single source. But even those could be worth using,
> especially if you're in business and the benefits of use outweigh the
> costs."

Perhaps you could be more specific about what part of the above statement
you object to. It's not in any way clear to me at this point.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:08:53 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>
> >Duwop wrote:
> >
> >> Reg wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah, me too, except for the dog part. Charcoal is a different story.
> >>>That's a significant recurring cost, like pellets.
> >>
> >> But freely available from numerous sources, not just one. This is the
point
> >> you seem to be ignoring a bit much and where your logic is/was failing
> >
> >Pellets are available from many sources. Were you aware of that, Dale?
>
> You keep changing the terms of the discussion here, first by throwing
> labor into the equation when you were initially discussing the cost of
> supplies. Now you're sidestepping a crucial element in the discussion,
> one that you yourself introduced:
>
> "There are some units that use 100% proprietary supplies that are only
> available from a single source. But even those could be worth using,
> especially if you're in business and the benefits of use outweigh the
> costs."

I've looked at Bradley smokers lately and they use a compressed wood biscuit of
sorts which auto feeds into the unit. I think it would be totally feasible to
reproduce them on your own.

_________
ht_redneck

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Maybe, maybe not. A lot of folks produce their own charcoal and get the wood
> for free :-)

I only wish I was in a position to do that myself. It would probably
also involve living in the woods somewhere, which sounds pretty good
to me.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Tyler Hopper wrote:

> I've looked at Bradley smokers lately and they use a compressed wood biscuit of
> sorts which auto feeds into the unit. I think it would be totally feasible to
> reproduce them on your own.

I've tried. There are some technical challenges involved, mostly
having to do with making the pucks properly. They have to be the
right weight and dimensions or they won't feed properly. They're
also designed for a fairly specific burn rate.

The short version of the story: it's not that easy. I'd like
to hear any experiences others have had trying to do it.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:46:29 GMT, Reg > wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>> You keep changing the terms of the discussion here, first by throwing
>> labor into the equation when you were initially discussing the cost of
>> supplies.
>
>Labor is a key part of the equation, given that I clearly referred
>to a business context. You didn't realize that business involves
>labor cost calculations?
>
>> Now you're sidestepping a crucial element in the discussion,
>> one that you yourself introduced:
>
>Sidestepping what?
>
>> "There are some units that use 100% proprietary supplies that are only
>> available from a single source. But even those could be worth using,
>> especially if you're in business and the benefits of use outweigh the
>> costs."
>
>Perhaps you could be more specific about what part of the above statement
>you object to. It's not in any way clear to me at this point.

You said it might be a good idea to buy a pellet stove even if the
pellets were 100% proprietary and "available from a single source."
Then, when Duwop said that charcoal is "freely available numerous
sources," you said, "Pellets are available from many sources." But you
began the discussion by postulating a pellet stove that used pellets
from a single source.

Here it is. You know, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I just
wouldn't ever buy a pellet stove that required me to feed it pellets
from a company that could go out of business tomorrow.

>Duwop wrote:
>
>> Reg wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, me too, except for the dog part. Charcoal is a different story.
>>>That's a significant recurring cost, like pellets.
>>
>> But freely available from numerous sources, not just one. This is the point
>> you seem to be ignoring a bit much and where your logic is/was failing
>
>Pellets are available from many sources. Were you aware of that, Dale?
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:46:29 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>
>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>"There are some units that use 100% proprietary supplies that are only
>>>available from a single source. But even those could be worth using,
>>>especially if you're in business and the benefits of use outweigh the
>>>costs."
>>
>>Perhaps you could be more specific about what part of the above statement
>>you object to. It's not in any way clear to me at this point.
>
> You said it might be a good idea to buy a pellet stove even if the
> pellets were 100% proprietary and "available from a single source."
> Then, when Duwop said that charcoal is "freely available numerous
> sources," you said, "Pellets are available from many sources." But you
> began the discussion by postulating a pellet stove that used pellets
> from a single source.

I never said pellets were proprietary, but now I understand
the confusion. The proprietary units I was referring to were
things like the Bradley line.

> Here it is. You know, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I just
> wouldn't ever buy a pellet stove that required me to feed it pellets
> from a company that could go out of business tomorrow.

I completely understand why someone would be reluctant to buy any
machine that uses specialized supplies, especially single source
ones. There needs to be a really solid business case to justify it.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:51:11 GMT, Reg > wrote:
> Trees in San Franciso are in pretty short supply. Those that
> aren't in Golden Gate Park are some sort of imported, foo-foo,
> designer landscaping trees. And those in GGP aren't very good for
> smoking.

Who's in SF? And why are they not able to go to a tree trimmers yard? Bet
they can get eucalyptus free. <BG>.



--

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:54:33 -0700, "Duwop" >
>>
>> Who's in SF?
>
> Reg.
>
> -sw

Well hell, another bayareaite, didnt knowit.

What, that's Louis, Nathan, Eddie, Reg, myself, there another sometime guy I
cant remember his name and two dipshits I won't bother to name.

Mebbe we could do a one time bbq competition team or something. I dunno.

--

Duwop wrote:
> Steve Wertz wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:54:33 -0700, "Duwop" >
>>
>>>Who's in SF?
>>
>>Reg.
>>
>>-sw
>
>
> Well hell, another bayareaite, didnt knowit.
>
> What, that's Louis, Nathan, Eddie, Reg, myself, there another sometime guy I
> cant remember his name and two dipshits I won't bother to name.

Perhaps you're trying to remember my name?
There's also James over in Walnut Creek.

> Mebbe we could do a one time bbq competition team or something. I dunno.

Hey, there's a competition in Fairfield in August:

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/article...news/news6.txt

Cheers,
Dana

Steve Wertz wrote:


>>Mebbe we could do a one time bbq competition team or something. I dunno.
>
>
> I've got a round trip ticket to most anywhere in the US burning a
> hole in my pocket (since I didn't go to Pittsburgh today). The
> only equipment I have in SJ is a leftover Weber kettle given to my
> brother.
>
> <sigh> I guess I'll have to be the judge. Where's my napkin?

Hey, I'll supply a NB Silver and share the entry fee if a
reasonable team can be collected for this upcoming local
event:

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/article...news/news6.txt

I'd learn a bunch, I'm sure ;-)

Dana

In article >, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:31:43 -0700, "Duwop" >
> wrote:

> >and two dipshits I won't bother to name.
>
> Kent and his poodle.
>
Keeerist! SF just lost a ton of respect in my book!
Y'all oughta do something about that....

monroe(get a rope)