Some of the links on this forum allow SMF, at no cost to you, to earn a small commission when you click through and make a purchase. Let me know if you have any questions about this.
I'm shopping for my first pellet smoker. Currently using a WSM. Many of these pellet smokers feature a "smoking" tempe setting which seems to be lower than where I've traditionally smoked at (225 - 275). Or you can turn it up to a specific temp setting.
I get it that a pellet smoker produces less smoke flavor, but why a separate smoke setting? Does this mean it doesn't produce any smoke when used at temps like 225 - 275? I don't want to have to smoke at 170 - 190 (this is what the Mak1 says).
As I understand it at higher temps the pellets burn to quickly to produce a good smoke. The addition of an external smoker either tube or tray solves this problem. Lower temps allow the pellets to smolder rather then burn. Hope this helps. Someone will chime in with a clearly more detailed explanation.
Do any of them have a secondary burn chamber that is fed and fired at a lower rate to produce smoke while you also achieve your desired cooking temp with your primary burn chamber? Give the people what they want.
As I understand it at higher temps the pellets burn to quickly to produce a good smoke. The addition of an external smoker either tube or tray solves this problem. Lower temps allow the pellets to smolder rather then burn. Hope this helps. Someone will chime in with a clearly more detailed explanation.
The Camp Chef Woodwind, which I own, has a low as well as a high smoke setting along with various temperature settings. The Low Smoke Setting is used for smoking foods at an average temperature of 160˚F and will produce a large amount of smoke. The High Smoke Setting is used for smoking foods at an average temperature of 220˚F. This setting will also produce large amounts of smoke.
175˚F - 400˚F: There are 25˚F increment settings from 175-400˚F. Select any temperature and the grill will control the temp within 15˚ of the selected temperature.
And lastly the High Setting: This setting can be used to achieve temperatures up to 500˚F depending on the ambient temperatures.
If you were to supplement with an Amazin Pellet Tube or Tray at the 175 - 400˚ settings you should be satisfied with the amount of smoke for your needs.
It's a versatile smoke/grill with 13 cooking settings. After much research and a recommendation from Jeff I went with this unit.
Yep, the Camp Chef Woodwind is a leading candidate. The difference between almost all of them comes down to smaller features, and not always comparable. Just gotta decide...
The RecTec pellet smokers will pulse the fan while on the Lo setting with a feature they call Xtreme Smoke. This allows the pellets to smolder while the fan is off. I get solid smoke flavor when I use this feature. Any temps over 250 won't give you a lot of smoke flavor.
They recently updated all their grills. I've had the 680 for over a year and have been happy with it so far.
I started with a WSM and you may be disappointed with the flavor difference between the two. The convenience of the pellet smoker is huge but it comes at a cost of lighter smoke. I'd almost call it a cleaner smoke. I almost always use 100% hickory pellets. I can't detect much smoke flavor using blends.
Marianski:
Cold Smoking
Cold smoking at 52-71° F (12-22° C), from 1-14 days
Warm Smoking
Continuous smoking at 73-104° F (23-40° C), from 4-48 hours depending on the diameter of the meat, humidity 80%, and medium smoke.
Hot Smoking
Hot smoking is the most common method of smoking. Continuous smoking at 105-140° F (41-60° C), 0.5-2 hours
The only thing I will add is that you might not worry about smoking at lower temps than you are used to. Pellet grills tend to cook food faster than other smokers at a given temp due to the fact there is more convection. I find that if I cook at 200F on my Memphis I get the same results as 225 compared to my other smokers.
And if at all possible, try to taste some food from a pellet grill before you buy one, to see if it's something you'd like.
Marianski:
Cold Smoking
Cold smoking at 52-71° F (12-22° C), from 1-14 days
Warm Smoking
Continuous smoking at 73-104° F (23-40° C), from 4-48 hours depending on the diameter of the meat, humidity 80%, and medium smoke.
Hot Smoking
Hot smoking is the most common method of smoking. Continuous smoking at 105-140° F (41-60° C), 0.5-2 hours
Thank You Dave!
I did a search for 'Cold Smoking Temperatures' and it brought me straight to your post.
I'm experimenting with my set-up, no heat, just a row of pellets in the AMNPS in my mod.
My ambient is ~70-71° And my box was at 85° but I put a box fan back there to blow from behind and dropped the heat to 80° inside the MES 30 (in the shade).
My aluminum dryer tube is cool, so any pellet heat seems to be dissipating well.
So I find myself in the Warm Zone today.
In order to do true Cold Smoking, I suppose it's going to require Night Smoking.
Glad to have the defined ranges though. Thank You! :)
You are welcome... That's the definition from the Eastern Europeans and their "Sausage Forum"... I figure that's what our ancestors did when they got here since that was all they knew... Fat still melts at the same temp, maybe.. They didn't have "Hot House Pigs" to butcher like we do... Sad the "No Fat" craze screwed up the pigs...
You are welcome... That's the definition from the Eastern Europeans and their "Sausage Forum"... I figure that's what our ancestors did when they got here since that was all they knew... Fat still melts at the same temp, maybe.. They didn't have "Hot House Pigs" to butcher like we do... Sad the "No Fat" craze screwed up the pigs...
I dunno, Fat free pigs would make for some mighty skinny bacon.... :confused:
After putting a box fan behind things, the temperature dropped to near ambient and I tracked it for 4 1/2 hours until the single row burned out finally. But it stayed about 2 degrees above ambient, mostly around 77° on a 75° day. (If thermometers can be believed) And I got continuous TBS from the stack, which was my reason for burning a row of pellets.
So I was happy.
So much so, I pulled more Flounder for a night smoke tonight and have it curing. Planning on an 8 hours long cold smoke on some. Hickory fuse, with Alder dust lay over, in the AMNPS.
In 1956 the University of Illinois released a short instructional film called “Pork People Like.” It starred the fictional character “Frank Farmer” who was producing lean hogs for market. Or, as the film put it “hogs that will make the buyer happy” because they’re “not over fat but long and meaty.” The second star of the film was the “American Housewife.” Shown shopping at the supermarket, the film explains that this “determined young lady” is the person “everyone in the meat industry … is trying to please.” As she strolls down the meat aisle turning her nose up at fatty pork cuts, she serves as a grave warning to the intended audience of the film: farmers who still raised hogs the way only a handful do now — outdoors, in dirt pens, and pasture-based systems. Keep raising fat pigs, the film says, and you’ll find your own profits growing lean.
At the time the film was made, the roughly 88 percent of women whose primary duties resided within the home — raising children, cleaning and cooking — were voting for leaner cuts of meat at the grocery store. They were passing up marbled pork chops with an ample ribbon of lard down the back for chicken breasts and lean beef steaks. The prevailing wisdom of the day was that vegetable fats like Crisco worked better, were healthier and more economical. With physical labor on the decline and a population increasingly accustomed to affordable staples, women whose job it was to feed their families didn’t want to overfeed fat or waste money on lard that would cook away to drippings in the pan. Concerned with declining sales, the pork industry set out to help hog farmers bring pork that appealed to consumers to the market again. At first, the shift was a positive one. Frank’s meat-type hogs in the mid-1950s were fatter than our fattest pigs today, but leaner than what had come before. They provided bang for American families’ food buck without compromising flavor — no one needs two full inches of backfat, anyway.
But since Frank Farmer originally took his meat-type hogs to market for the camera, many American consumers have grown even more health conscious, and remain leery of products they perceive of being high in “bad” fat, which had become synonymous with animal fat. So, even as pigs grew thinner, consumers continued to equate pork with fatty excess and demanded it become leaner still. What started as a PR campaign for pork resulted in bland, unforgiving meat that upon cooking doesn’t render enough fat to keep a layer of lipids on the pan. We engineered pigs for consumers who wanted leaner meat, and now we have a tasteless product that many don’t want to buy.
Fifty years later, we’ve begun to rethink our ways, and a handful of pork producers are trying to breed pigs that provide the kind of pork only the tastebuds of the oldest Americans have experienced, but there’s no simple solution. Not only has the way pork tastes changed radically, the way it’s raised has as well. Going back isn’t as simple as flinging open the barn doors.
Fat isn’t just good for flavor, after all. The hogs of yore also had the fat coverage needed to weather the elements of their environment. Without it they’re ill prepared to thrive outdoors. When farmers in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s bred hogs capable of producing the type of pork American shoppers wanted, they also moved their operations indoors where temperatures could be regulated and creature comforts supplied. Barn space is an expensive commodity, so swine living areas shrunk significantly as changes were made, and previously used fields were turned over to other forms of food production. In 30 years time, the U.S. was breeding half as many pigs, while at the same time doubling output through more productive breeding practices and meatier carcasses.
Which all sounds good until you realize that while we were busy meeting consumer demand we weren’t busy learning from our mistakes. Fifty-seven years after Frank Farmer made his debut, the National Pork Board — the entity now responsible for pork’s public image — is at the marketing drawing board again. Their last PR campaign, “The Other White Meat,” resulted in the very problems we’re trying to fix — hogs that produce meat so lean American consumers are turned off by the quality. So now they’ve devised another plan that promises little more than a band-aid. The group partnered with the beef industry to rename cuts of pork after high end beef steaks, hoping to attract consumers back to pork after years of dried-out chops for dinner.
Hey, I was raised on dried out Pork Chops. And Liver better suited for shoe soles.
My Mom was so talented, she could burn water.
How do you get a kid to eat it? In two words: Required Eating.
But I survived. Much to the dismay of many... :p
