Coals burned down vs charcoal

[rctyler89]

I've seen a lot of videos online with Carolina-style bbq burning wood down in burn pits, and then moving the coals underneath their meat (see https://youtu.be/ySKXF75Cdcs). I haven't really seen this asked anywhere, but for those that have tried it, is there a noticeable difference in flavor when using real wood coals from burned down logs instead of lump charcoal? If not, why go through the trouble of burning down coals if you can just throw a bag of charcoal down that's going to give you consistent heat for 12+ hours? I've used my WSM to smoke plenty of meats over charcoal and chunks of wood, but I'm thinking now of trying it out with burned coals instead.

 

[charcoalwilly]

I wondered the same awhile back and made a burn barrel to try it out. I have also cooked on Santa Maria style grill with wood only. I was amazed at how much wood it took to get a decent amount of coals.

Not worth it in my opinion if you are using quality lump charcoal. The one advantage though is you can avoid the smoldering startup smell of charcoal

 

[rctyler89]

I wondered the same awhile back and made a burn barrel to try it out. I have also cooked on Santa Maria style grill with wood only. I was amazed at how much wood it took to get a decent amount of coals.

Not worth it in my opinion if you are using quality lump charcoal. The one advantage though is you can avoid the smoldering startup smell of charcoal

Thanks, was it smokier in taste compared to the lump charcoal? Or about the same?

 

[thirdeye]

When I was a little boy, for real barbecue we always used hardwood coals from oak or mesquite (we had plenty of both). For grilling we used charcoal but not often briquettes because mesquite lump charcoal was available in 40 pound bags imported from Mexico.

It's tough to answer about the flavor of one over the other because when cooking over coals, we did not add chunks of flavor wood. Much later in the '80's adding flavor wood added another layer of flavor. And by 2000 or so, there were more brands of charcoal available, and flavor wood was very common. When I switched from steel pits to ceramic cookers, I only used lump charcoal. When I added drums to my arsenal I continued using lump. But in the last 10 years I started burning a combination of briquettes and lump in the drums.

From experience, I totally agree about the work involved in pre-burning wood, and cleaning up the ash.

 

[Itsdone]

Is this about making charcoal from wood or burning wood down into coals? Thread topic suggests burning wood down into coals, not making charcoal from wood.

 

[charcoalwilly]

Thanks, was it smokier in taste compared to the lump charcoal? Or about the same?

Could not taste the difference so long as the charcoal was fully lit (and not smoldering). I still think charcoal + a few wood chunks is the way to go.

Sounds basic, but one thing I have learned on my Meadow Creek BBQ42 chicken cooker is the importance of a lid in capturing the smoke flavor of fat dripping on coals. If you grill over embers without a lid (like a Santa Maria), sometimes you can barely taste the smoke flavor.

 

[SmoothBoarBBQ]

I think it was more about logistics than flavor. You can cut down a tree today and burn it down to coals to make good BBQ. Making charcoal is actually a time consuming process, so it was just easier to make coals from green wood.

 

[jeffshoaf]

I'm from and in an area where when someone says "barbeque", the assumption is that they're talking about NC Lexington-style pork shoulders or butts cooked over embers from hickory burnt down in a separate barrel or pit, so I've had plenty of it and can confirm that it does have smoke flavor. Several of the restaurants in this area have been featured on my favorite cooking show (Man Fire Food) and their pits are either enclosed with doors to access the cooking chamber or have lids.

I have a big Santa Maria/Argentinian grill. I haven't done low and slow on it but I do mostly grill with wood instead of charcoal on it. I get plenty of smoke flavor on/in my food even with kiln-dried wood, but I must admit that I always have a split or two burning along with the embers.

 

[Itsdone]

I think it was more about logistics than flavor. You can cut down a tree today and burn it down to coals to make good BBQ. Making charcoal is actually a time consuming process, so it was just easier to make coals from green wood.

How does burning seasoned wood down to coals differ from green wood? Obviously green wood is going to smoke like hell, and nasty smoke im sure.

 

[rctyler89]

Is this about making charcoal from wood or burning wood down into coals? Thread topic suggests burning wood down into coals, not making charcoal from wood.

Correct, I'm asking about the flavor of the traditional wood burned down to coals flavor as compared to lump charcoal

 

[Big Andy]

How does burning seasoned wood down to coals differ from green wood? Obviously green wood is going to smoke like hell, and nasty smoke im sure.

We used seasoned oak firewood from the year before, and small pieces of green hickory when we used to cook a hog for july 4th. The oak was available, but by the time it burnt down to coals there wasn't much heat left. the hickory provided plenty of that. We usually cut down a smallish hickory tree that wouldn't need splitting.

 

[SmokinAussie]

Logistically it's too hard for me, so it's just lump charcoal.

I'd love to try a burn down pit. I just don't have the space. Also with neighbours on every side and open fires being frowned upon in suburban areas, it's just going to cause trouble.

I'd think a burn down pit and coals would do a better job.