Humidity versus Bark on Backwoods Smoker

[jimchall]

After starting with a Hasty Bake, I spent that last 10 years slow cooking on the Big Green Egg. I recently moved to a Backwoods Smoker because I wanted to try smoking in a more humid environment with the built in water pan. I've been happy with the results so far except for the fact that I don't get the kind of bark that I've come to love as one of my favorite parts of pulled pork and brisket (and even ribs). Does anyone have any suggestions? Should I stop the water halfway through the cook?

Many thanks!

[Jerod Broussard]

I read in one of Meatheads articles that a competition cook waits to put water in the pan until after he has the bark established that he wants.

[vandy]

The only question I have to that response is wouldn't that still steam off some of your bark?

[Jerod Broussard]

No, it's less than wrapping once you have established bark. Almost every piece of meat I cook gets wrapped with zero problems with bark at serving. Only exception is very full brisket cooks in the PBC that make it all the way without wrapping.

[vandy]

That sir is a very good question, I will be watching this thread to see some of the answers you get .

[Potkettleblack]

With what Jerod has said, consider that bark is a drying process. That's why the recommendation is not to wrap until after the stall if you are going to crutch. You won't get searing until the moisture has evaporated or boiled off. Bark is essentially searing slowly, and more deeply. So, yeah, I'd keep the moisture low or out until you have the bark you want. Then go as moist as you want.

[ecowper]

Harry Soo says that he never uses water because he doesn't get good bark formation. On the WSM, he puts sand in, rather than water. Gives the same heat sink effect as water, without all the humidity in the cook chamber.

[vandy]

You guys are giving me some good ideas. So let me ask this, if I were to cook a pork butt I would start out without any water in the cooker and then once my bark is formed I would put a water pan I am guessing under the meat in a pan to add some moisture to the meat. Is there an internal temp that you would recomend before adding the water pan.

[ecowper]

Hey vandy If you are going to do it that way, I'd say you would want to do it after the stall .... like 170-180. I'm about to try out Harry Soo's idea of sand in my water tray on the WSM. I cooked a pork butt where I didn't put water in until I hit 175 and the bark looked really solid. Only problem was that, without water, I struggled maintaining the cook chamber temp. That heat sink is really critical on the WSM.

[vandy]

That sounds good, my Lang 36 really likes to cook at 250 to 275. I have tried cooking at 225 and I can hold the temp there but I have not been as impressed with the results as I am when I let it go to at least 250.

[Potkettleblack]

The idea with the sand is to add thermal mass to the cooker. Like a pizza stone or thick walls on your cooker.

[vandy]

I think the water pan would make a good heat sink and add some moisture in the cooking chamber after I have formed a good bark on a butt and possibly lower the temp of the meat a little if I am cooking at 275 but I don't think I would do this for ribs. I know other Lang users have said that they cook at 225 like DWCowles but then I have read that you should cook at the temp that your cooker likes to run at and for me my Lang loves to run at 250 to 275 on a low and slow so I think the next time I cook some ribs or even a butt I will let it run in that range and see what happens. The 250 to 275 is when I get the best smoke out of the stack, just a light blue or almost invisible smoke but if I go down to 225 the smoke gets heavier and darker. The meat just does not taste as good at the lower temps, and I am monitoring the temps a grate level with a Thermoworks thermometer which is the older version of what is now the Termo Q but it is very accurate. After the cooker has been heating up for a couple of hours the temp on the Thermoworks and the thermometer on the front of the Lang are usually very close, within about 10 degrees of each other with the Lang thermometer reading a little higher than the Thermoworks.

[Spinaker]

jimchall Get rid of the water pan all together and let that Backwoods buck. . They do nothing but braise and ruin bark.(with a few very small exceptions.) There are much better options to get moisture into the meat than giving it a smoke/steam bath. Just my 2 cents.

Bark is king in BBQ!

[DWCowles]

I have never used a water pan

[vandy]

That is kind of what I thought too DW. I have not done a butt on my Lang yet but I thought when I do that I would not use a water pan to find out what it will turn out like. I will let you know of course when I do.

[Breadhead]

After starting with a Hasty Bake, I spent that last 10 years slow cooking on the Big Green Egg. I recently moved to a Backwoods Smoker because I wanted to try smoking in a more humid environment with the built in water pan. I've been happy with the results so far except for the fact that I don't get the kind of bark that I've come to love as one of my favorite parts of pulled pork and brisket (and even ribs). Does anyone have any suggestions? Should I stop the water halfway through the cook?

Many thanks!

Hmmm... You know your BGE never wants or needs a water pan. You know building bark in a BGE at 225° is simple. You know butts & briskets come out very moist, never dry. You know you never need to use the Texas crutch in a BGE, unless you didn't start your cook early enough.

With the BGE vs your Backwoods smoker you have a real estate problem. I can only get 2 packers and 4 pork butts in my large BGE. I assume you get more meat in your backwoods smoker. I hope you figure out your moisture situation on that cooker. I'm sure there is a best practice type solution.

Good luck...👍

[jimchall]

Thanks Breadhead! Backwoods capacity is awesome! I think the added moisture makes for more tender butts and briskets than my BGE, and they taste smokier too. Now if I could just get that awesome bark too....

[DWCowles]

I have never used a water pan in the Lang 48" Deluxe reverse flow stickburner. The bark is always excellent also the moisture. NEVER had dry meat come out of it. Oh...I fell to mention the flavor is always excellent too.
Nothing is like cooking with all wood.

[vandy]

I am going to cook without water or a crutch on my Lang and just find out what it will do. I know the ribs that I cooked without any liquid turned out great.

[RonB]

I had a cheap bullet smoker many years ago. I used it once or twice, but never had good results, so I stopped using it. Back then I couldn't go online to learn how... Anyway, it came with a water pan and I remember that there was a layer of rendered fat on the surface of the water in the pan after the cook. My first thought was how can moisture be added to the bullet if the water is covered by a thick layer of fat. I guess the "benefits" of additional moisture end as soon as enough fat drips into the pan to cover the water.
Of course, I now know that moisture is only one reason for the water pan, but does it make sense that there is no additional moisture added after the water is covered by the fat drippings?

[PaulstheRibList]

The other issue in a cabinet style cooker is airflow. There is a lot less airflow. In a stickburner, air is rocketing through there! So if you want dry bark, there is nothing like a stickburner!

In my WSM, it's less so. I've cooked with and without water. What I find with water is I can open the vents more and get a cleaner fire, but still keep the temps where I want.

In my new vault, less air flow. I'm on cook 2 on the new vault, and I'm still low on the learning curve.