Taste Differences

[quedog]

In another thread I mentioned a taste difference my family noticed between my first pork butt done on the KK and previous ones done on my old metal kettle setup. Here is my original comment:

The biggest difference we noticed from the old kettle setup was a lack of a funny aftertaste that seemed to accompany everything cooked low and slow on the kettle. My theory is that the kettle holds much less fuel and burns through it much faster so you have to ad fuel at least every couple hours. Every time you add a new load of fuel it goes through a cycle of volatile compounds and impurities burning off as the charcoal heats up. Over the course of a long cook it adds an off taste to the food. Since the KK only goes through that cycle once at the beginning of the cook and most of the compounds may evaporate before the food goes on the food tastes much cleaner.

What do you guys think?

I have 3 main suspects:

1 - The difference in both the amount of fuel used in each cooker setup and the way the fuel is added. Neither cooker has a full load of lit fuel at the beginning of the cook. For the KK all of the fuel is added to the cooker before the fire is lit. The fuel capacity of the kettle is smaller and it uses more fuel per hour. Unlit charcoal is added to the fire about every 2 or 3 hours. I'd say that overall the KK used less than half of the charcoal required by the kettle for the same cook. I'd also like to propose that since all of the fuel is in the KK at the beginning, by the time the KK is up to temp and food added all of the charcoal is hot, even though it is not all lit, and the hot charcoal has already released a fair amount of the volatile compounds that may affect food taste. With the kettle setup cold charcoal is added to the fire several times during a long cook. Every time the cold charcoal is added there is lots of smoke and the smell you get when you first start a fire. Could the addition of cold charcoal during the cook affect food taste?

2 - The off taste may come from the drip pan being hotter in the kettle. Neither setup has grease from the food dripping into the fire. The kettle setup I have is this:

http://www.smokenator.com/

The drip pan sits to the side of the fire and the meat above it. So the drip pan is pretty close to the steel baffle that has a fire on the other side of it. In my KK set up I had the heat deflector stone between the fire and the drip pan. The drip pan should be exposed to far less radiant heat in the KK setup. At the end of a kettle cook the stuff in the drip pan is pretty nasty. The rendered fat is brown looking. I've only done the one cook in my KK so far but the drip pan looked very different. Sure, there was some stuff pretty charred and stuck to the pan, but the fat was still clear and nice looking. Could the difference in the heat exposure of the drip pan cause a difference in the taste of the meat?

3 - I used more expensive charcoal in the KK. In the past I have used whatever lump was cheap at the hardware store, usually Pioneer or Cowboy. This Spring I heard about the Halls Hill charcoal and I decided to order a bag. They are close enough to me that I could drive over and pick up a load if I thought it worthwhile. I used the Halls Hill charcoal for the cook. Could the difference between a premium and an inexpensive charcoal cause a taste difference in taste of a pork butt?

One more tidbit, no smoke wood was added during this cook, it was charcoal only.

So, which do you guys think had the biggest affect on the taste of the food?

You can tell I'm very curious about this. I was expecting the main advantages of my new KK to be that I could leave it alone for longer and that it would be easier to control during the cook. I was not expecting the food to taste so much better. I would like to have a better idea what causes the difference so I can take full advantage of it.

[Syzygies]

Re: Taste Differences

I liked the answer from Dennis in a different thread: The KK uses less fuel, hence yields reduced fuel off-tastes. (I paraphrase.)

Coming from a different ceramic cooker (a troubled starter marriage that fell apart) I expected that I already knew how to "drive" a KK. I didn't, really; a KK has significantly better insulation, so one is indeed more miserly with fuel.

The use of unlit charcoal is potentially the Achilles heel of any ceramic cooker. In contrast, old-school barbecue involved a separate fire, to get hardwood embers ready. In practice, for high temperature cooks I gauge exactly how much fuel I'll want (like calculating the arc of an artillery round) and it is fully lit when I cook. For low temperature cooks I prefer the best charcoal I can get, which is either good lump, or (ideally) the coconut charcoal Dennis will soon be selling again.

There's the rate of burn, as Dennis notes. One also gets different combustion byproducts in different burn scenarios. A very slow burn may produce fewer harsh volatiles? I'm guessing.

One psychological note:

Over-thinking all this is part of the arc of mastering a ceramic cooker. Soon you'll have all the right instincts, it will be unbelievably easy, you'll just cook. I'm rather OCD myself, I've been there, I'm not judging here.

Two equipment notes:

[1] I bought a second charcoal basket from Dennis. I keep the spare on a terra cotta plant saucer in the garage. This allows me to switch between two fuels (in my case, oak and coconut charcoal) with as little handling as possible of the precious and partially used low-and-slow fuel.

[2] For low & slow smoke flavor I drill three 1/8" holes in the bottom of a two quart cast iron "smoke pot", fill with chips or chunks of smoke wood (usually apple or hickory or both) and seal the lid with flour-water paste squeezed out of a ziplock with nicked corner. I then set this on the fire. I'm getting a very small fraction of the potential smoke from a much larger quantity of wood than one would burn out in the open. It tastes different. (Like programming languages, one needs to try both alternatives to come to an informed decision, though plenty of people are eager to debate alternatives they haven't tried.)

Part of my cooking philosophy is to look for and exercise any opportunity at selection. This doesn't require skill, just resolve. Parts of food taste better than other parts of food; pick the parts that taste better. This is why I remove the green germ from garlic. This is why I'd rather have a smoke pot select the best 10% of the potential smoke from smoking wood. A different burn produces different volatiles, this is the same as my answer to your original question: The S L O W charcoal burn in a KK tastes better.

[johnnyboy]

Re: Taste Differences

The drip pan sits to the side of the fire and the meat above it. So the drip pan is pretty close to the steel baffle that has a fire on the other side of it. In my KK set up I had the heat deflector stone between the fire and the drip pan. The drip pan should be exposed to far less radiant heat in the KK setup.

Quedog, This comment is only meant as an addition to Dennis and Syzygies comments; not meant to discount them in any way, shape, or form. You make a great point mentioning use of the heat defelctor stone in the KK. In my comment on the other thread I mentioned use of drip pan versus non-use of drip pan. I believe I forgot to mention heat deflector stone. I agree, a drip pan sitting on a heat deflector stone over a hot fire will result in less grease burning than drip pan alone. To take it one step further I've been known to add a bit of water or beer to the pan; which again sits on heat deflector stone. I like using beer as I think its steam adds to the flavor.

With everything said, let it be known my experience is from using an off brand POSK (Piece of Sh!# Kamado). My marriage too fell apart. In pieces, literally. I like your words Syzygies!!

[quedog]

Re: Taste Differences

Thanks for the comments guys! Alice's low and slow cook number 2 is in progress now. It will be my first overnighter. Everything is identical to the first cook except that I am using less expensive charcoal. I want to see if I can taste the difference and also I don't want to use up my good stuff just yet. The BBQ Guru will babysit for me overnight and even though I didn't have any real problems the first cook, getting this one started went much better. I have a lot better feel for the top vent settings already.

By the way Syzygies, Dennis mentioned your method of salting based on the weight of the meat on the phone when I was discussing purchasing the KK. I found it in the old forum posts and have used it in these 2 cooks. I am very happy with the results I have so far. Thanks for sharing!

Johnnyboy, Alice looks quite fetching in the pajamas you made for her. I noticed my wife patting Alice as she walked past this evening. I believe she is as impressed with her as I am.

[mguerra]

Re: Taste Differences

Maybe too late for this comment but for the BBQ Guru, if doing a low temp cook, you want the sliding damper on the blower barely open to less than 1/4 of the total opening. Otherwise your temps are likely to overshoot. Unlike the Stoker, which closes off the fan opening when it is not blowing, the Guru blower port stays open all the time. It just doesn't blow all the time. A fully open Guru will allow WAY too much air flow to maintain low temps.

[quedog]

Re: Taste Differences

Thanks for the tip mguerra, I have been reading old posts about using the Guru and Stoker. I thought I would have to close down the fan damper based on what others have said, but I didn't have to this time. I started a small fire, closed up the KK and let the Guru bring it up to 225 slowly. I noticed on my first cook that the top vent really had a big affect, if it is open much at all the natural draft will be too much. This time I had the top vent barely cracked, a bit less that 1/8 turn. Once the temp stabilized and I put the pork but on it stayed rock steady for about 18 hours. Then I noticed the temp dropping so I opened it up and saw that most of the charcoal was gone. I used the cheap stuff this time, it didn't last as long and the basket probably wasn't completely full. I added more lump and closed her back up. The wind had picked up and she went up to about 230 before coasting back down to 225.

I have the small 4 cfm fan for my Guru. On their web site they recommend the 10 cfm model for the KK but I know several folks on the forum use the small fan. Maybe it has a smaller throat and doesn't need to be closed down as much. Or maybe I just got lucky with my top vent setting today. I took note of how the wing on the vent cap lined up with the tiles on the lid so I will be able to repeat the setting. I expect it may change as the vent gasket gets some wear though.