Re: "By Product" Charcoal?
- From: "Brick" <hrbrickerNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:36:06 GMT
On 26-Jul-2011, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nunya Bidnits wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Nunya Bidnits wrote:
Until I opened your message, I thought you were talking about an
experience similar to one I had recently.
I opened a new bag of lump, dumped a bunch into the grill and did a
double take. It looked like they'd used an assortment of the "By
Products" of a construction site. There were charcoalified (highly
technical term) short pieces of 2"X2", 1"X4" and 2"X4" lumber in the
mix. My first thoughts were 'I hope they didn't use arsenic based
pressure treated wood and then, since much construction grade lumber
is spruce, I don't think I want to use this stuff'. I shoveled it
out of the grill and back into the bag.
I've never run into that before. I suppose I could have picked out
the obvious construction stuff but, I still didn't want to use it.
It's sitting in the shed waiting 'till I make a decision on its
fate. Maybe I could take up metal work, buy a forge and use it
BTW, it's a bag of Royal Oak, marked Star Grill Old Fashion Lump
I doubt I'll ever buy that stuff again.
I've read in this forum that Royal Oak is good stuff and Cowboy is
to be avoided because of the problem you just described... burnt
I haven't used either brand (when I needed lump, avoided Cowboy
because of this forum's advice).
This "construction waste"
Your term, not mine.
is normally scraps of unfinished hardwood
flooring and trim material, mostly oak and nothing at all to be
concerned about. Whether scrap tailings from the beginning of the
milling process, or further along after the material has been
profiled, it's still plain old oak.
But the long-tme regulars here who have high credibility IMO have
warned about the poor quality including undesirable woods, non-wood
ingredients, and concern about chemical contaminants in Cowboy brand
specifically. I'll stick with their recommendations.
Has anyone actually confirmed the wood species of one of those oddly
shaped lumps of carbon? Does the species really matter when all that is
left is carbon?
I hate this kind of discussion because it usually starts a flame war, but
what the hell? Carbon is carbon; that is true. However, the density of the
'lumps' has a lot to do with it's burning properties. For instance, very
hardwoods like oak and hickory convert to very heavy lump as compared
to white pine which converts to very light almost airy lump. In our example,
'Cowboy' is mostly light pieces of varying density and thus burns 'funny'.
Mesquite on the other hand is fairly dense and thus burns predictably and
I can't think of a better use for all that trash lying all over Texas. As
taste, I've never noticed any particular taste from any lump I have used
with the exception of some 'Cowboy' that had some raw wood pieces in
it. Everyone is invited to visit "The Naked Whiz" for the definitive word on
all things 'charcoal'.
Brick(I'm sticking to that story for the time being.)
- Prev by Date: Re: "By Product" Charcoal?
- Next by Date: Re: "By Product" Charcoal?
- Previous by thread: Re: "By Product" Charcoal?
- Next by thread: Re: "By Product" Charcoal?