Hello all,

I am a novice bbq'er, using a bar-b-chef offset smoker. I am learning a
lot smoking/bbq'ing every weekend!

question regarding wood chunks.

I am using royal oak lump charcoal. I notice that is gives off a good
amount of smoke as it gets going. It also adds smoke as I add more unlit
coals for longer smokes.

When it comes to adding some wood chunks for some extra smoke, should I
be soaking them, or not soaking them?

thanks!

Paulbill

I don't soak my wood chunks and I have great results. I remember reading a
website that did an experiment on soaked vs. non-soaked wood chunks and it
showed that the soaked chunks really didn't soak up that much water (the
author cut a chunk in half to show the depth of the water ring). A positive
side effect of not soaking is that it won't introduce water to your
charcoal.

Ron, NC

"Paulbill" > wrote in message
t...
> Hello all,
>
> I am a novice bbq'er, using a bar-b-chef offset smoker. I am learning a
> lot smoking/bbq'ing every weekend!
>
> question regarding wood chunks.
>
> I am using royal oak lump charcoal. I notice that is gives off a good
> amount of smoke as it gets going. It also adds smoke as I add more unlit
> coals for longer smokes.
>
> When it comes to adding some wood chunks for some extra smoke, should I be
> soaking them, or not soaking them?
>
> thanks!
>
> Paulbill

"Paulbill" > wrote in message
t...
> Hello all,
>
> I am a novice bbq'er, using a bar-b-chef offset smoker. I am learning When
> it comes to adding some wood chunks for some extra smoke, should I be
> soaking them, or not soaking them?

IMO, it should never be soaked. Just add potential for acrid smoke.

Paulbill wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am a novice bbq'er, using a bar-b-chef offset smoker. I am learning a
> lot smoking/bbq'ing every weekend!
>
> question regarding wood chunks.
>
> I am using royal oak lump charcoal. I notice that is gives off a good
> amount of smoke as it gets going. It also adds smoke as I add more unlit
> coals for longer smokes.
>
> When it comes to adding some wood chunks for some extra smoke, should I
> be soaking them, or not soaking them?
>

I cut and dry most of the wood I smoke with. I've tried soaking and not
soaking. I can't tell the difference, so I don't soak anymore. If I
can't tell the difference, I don't need the added step or added planning.

Matthew

> Paulbill wrote:
> > When it comes to adding some wood chunks for some extra smoke, should I
> > be soaking them, or not soaking them?

I don't bother to add chunks, seems that the lump gives off enough smoke for
my taste.

When I did use chunks, I'd soak them overnight, read one guy that kept them
in a bucket with a little light mineral oil on the water to keep skeeters
from breeding.

Most here seem to think it's a bad idea. Seemed okay to do back when though.


D
--

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Paulbill" > wrote in message
> t...
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am a novice bbq'er, using a bar-b-chef offset smoker. I am learning
> > When it comes to adding some wood chunks for some extra smoke, should I
> > be soaking them, or not soaking them?
>
> IMO, it should never be soaked. Just add potential for acrid smoke.

My experience is the same. Chunks and fruit branches as they are. Wrap
chips in foil and poke a few pencil holes in the pouch to let the smoke
out, without letting the chips burn. Either way, ya don't need a lot.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

On 13-Aug-2005, Paulbill > wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I am a novice bbq'er, using a bar-b-chef offset smoker. I am learning a
> lot smoking/bbq'ing every weekend!
>
> question regarding wood chunks.
>
> I am using royal oak lump charcoal. I notice that is gives off a good
> amount of smoke as it gets going. It also adds smoke as I add more unlit
> coals for longer smokes.
>
> When it comes to adding some wood chunks for some extra smoke, should I
> be soaking them, or not soaking them?
>
> thanks!
>
> Paulbill

Since most everyone is addressing the subject of soaking or not soaking wood
chunks, I'll jump on the subject of Royal Oak Carcoal. Compared to a fire with
a fresh oak log on it, Royal Oak gives off very little smoke. In terms of acrid or
very strong smoke, it produces very little. Adding additional fuel to a substantial
fire produces barely discernible additional smoke. Adding additional (cold) fuel
to a nearly spent fire is about the same as starting form scratch and is not reco-
mmended.
--
The Brick said that (Don't bother to agree with me, I have already changed my mind.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Thanks all for the info!

Getting up at 4am to start my fire for the pork butt. Have some pecan
chunks to add later, unsoaked from the consensus..

Paulbill

"Paulbill" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks all for the info!
>
> Getting up at 4am to start my fire for the pork butt. Have some pecan
> chunks to add later, unsoaked from the consensus..
>
> Paulbill

How did it come out?

I've tried it both ways and honestly I haven't seen a noticeable
difference. Once I even just loaded a grill with nothing but lumps of
mesquite, that was a mistake. The food was so carcinogenic it made my
tongue tingle - it was completely inedible and had to be tossed.

People suggest soaking for a full day ahead of time and tossing a few
lumps into the burning coals to add some smokiness. That kind of smoke
is fine, but the acrid burn-off I saw other people talking about is
different: that's what happens when fat drips onto the charcoal.
That's the stuff you don't want.

There's so much mythology behind grilling. If I have a question about
something, I just try it out myself because there's too much "this guy
I know tried that" and "I think I read this somewhere" information
available. I try it myself and keep notes.

- XN

sxoidmal wrote:
> I've tried it both ways .....

Uh... tried WHAT both ways. It does help to leave a bit of the text to
which you are replying. I think I agree with some of what you're saying,
but I'm just not sure :-)
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Smoked a pork butt today. Came out great. cooked it for ~12 hrs, wrapped
in foil after 10hrs. Decided to not soak the pecan chunks, and they came
out great. They smoldered just great, and did not flame up. Threw about
6 chunks on over about 6 hrs.

thanks for the help and info.

Paulbill

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:33:24 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>sxoidmal wrote:
>> I've tried it both ways .....
>
>Uh... tried WHAT both ways. It does help to leave a bit of the text to
>which you are replying. I think I agree with some of what you're saying,
>but I'm just not sure :-)

I've tried soaking chunks for a full day. A buddy of mine asked,"Why
do you want to do that? The wood is dead, it won't suck up much
water". I decided to show him by spltting one of the chunks open.
There was about 1/8" of water penetration in a 3" block on each end
and the middle was bone dry,... man, did I feel like a twit. That wee
bit would have steamed out in about an hour or less.

Have a look at http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/woods.html#soak .

His results are about the same as mine. He was just smart enough to
take pictures.

Frank

<Free Wheelin' Franklin> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:33:24 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>>sxoidmal wrote:
>>> I've tried it both ways .....
>>
>>Uh... tried WHAT both ways. It does help to leave a bit of the text to
>>which you are replying. I think I agree with some of what you're saying,
>>but I'm just not sure :-)
>
> I've tried soaking chunks for a full day. A buddy of mine asked,"Why
> do you want to do that? The wood is dead, it won't suck up much
> water". I decided to show him by spltting one of the chunks open.
> There was about 1/8" of water penetration in a 3" block on each end
> and the middle was bone dry,... man, did I feel like a twit. That wee
> bit would have steamed out in about an hour or less.
>
> Have a look at http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/woods.html#soak .
>
> His results are about the same as mine. He was just smart enough to
> take pictures.
>
> Frank

Ahh, science.