or Connect
SmokingMeatForums.com › Forums › Smoking Supplies & Equipment › Charcoal Smokers › Lump Charcoal v/s briquettes...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lump Charcoal v/s briquettes...

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

Which do you prefer?  I have yet to try lump, but have read numerous great reviews on the internet.  I am new to this site, so this has possibly been discussed, if so, lead me in the right direction, if not, let's discuss.  For the past few months that I have been smokin', I have been using a combination of charcoal briquettes (Kingsford) and wood chips and wood pieces (mesquite) i/n my Chargriller DUO with side fire box.  I just purchased a charcoal starter today, interested in trying it out this weekend.  Might be doing a turkey on Saturday for Christmas dinner.

post #2 of 11

The only experience I have had with lump was mesquite, and I will tell you that I will never use it again for fuel in a smoker. It's fine for open pit/grilling, but in a closed smoker, the smoke flavor from the mesquite lump was very heavy...almost inedible, and I like a lot of smoke. Lump does produce a much hotter fire than charcoal, and also much less ash, which is a huge plus if you're rolling out an all night smoke with beef brisket or pork butt.

 

I've heard a lot of good about oak lump, though.

 

 

Eric

post #3 of 11

I love to cook/smoke with lump.  As Eric said, it does burn hotter; however, in a smoker you can control that with air flow regulation.  Briquettes produce a lot of ash because they have a bunch of binders in them, so even though they appear cheaper, you're not getting the same bang for your buck (read BTU's/$).  Lump also produces the smoke ring w/o added wood chunks.

post #4 of 11

In my opinion the most important thing is the ability to keep the smoke chamber temps steady.  If you use lump you may need to use a smaller amount and add less when you refuel the smoker.  Both are nice steady burns.  You might want to check the ingredients in the briquettes you are using, you might be surprised.

post #5 of 11

I use both...sometimes I mix them together...

 

  Have fun!!

 

Craig

 

 

33 002.JPG

post #6 of 11

Once upon a time I was a briquette guy. Then I discovered lump, fought with lump, figured out how to use lump, and became a lump guy. Both are good choices btw.

post #7 of 11

Lump.biggrin.gif

post #8 of 11

Lump in the SFB, it produces less ash which make it easier to maintain temp.

post #9 of 11

I use Kingsford Blue Bag for grilling and bringing my smoker up to temp and cleaning grates.  When I put the meat on to smoke, I switch to Royal Oak Lump.

 

Try both and see what you think. 

 

This is one of those questions which will always elicit differing answers.

 

Good luck and good smoking.

post #10 of 11

I used to use Kingsford as well, but I found that lump is the only way to go.  I use Ozark Oak.  It does burn hotter, but it is just wood, and that's it.  No fillers/binders to alter flavor.  I combine it with wood chunks and come out with great results.  I think that arguments can be made for both, I just like using lump for the "all natural" benefit.  It really comes down to personal preference.

post #11 of 11

I like Royal Oak lump burns hotter with less ash. If you prefer briquettes try Stubbs all natural briquettes much better than Kingsford, you can get these at Lowes.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Charcoal Smokers
SmokingMeatForums.com › Forums › Smoking Supplies & Equipment › Charcoal Smokers › Lump Charcoal v/s briquettes...