The Podcast for Episode 104 just concluded and CandySueQ was good enough to touch base on my question concerning the use of heating pellets in our pellet poopers as usable fuel. The topic hasn't really been discuss a whole lot since I've been here, but it's been debated on other forums ad infinitum. The problem is it always comes down to opinion, why one person or group won't and why the other persons or groups will and do burn them.
The debate really starts with the state of the pellet industry in general. I'm not in the business, I only know what I read and hear. I'm also a Lumberjack Pellet user and have quizzed them directly about it as well. Here seems to be the issue. Cooking pellet manufacturers really are not regulated by any given authority. They are largely self regulated voluntarily through organizations such as the Pellet Fuel Institute which does look at the pellets used for heating primarily for adherence to EPA emissions standards. But again the operative word there for cooking pellets is voluntary, apparently the EPA nor anyone else could care less about cooking pellets so who really knows whats in them at all.
So what's the controversy? Well for one, heating pellets are cheaper, a lot cheaper. I buy my cooking pellets for Lumberjack on a large bulk buy basis for somewhere around $0.37/lb. Heating pellets are half that or less. Secondly, and I'll admit controversially, when you burn pellets above say 250* and for sure above 300*, the burn pot is literally burning at an almost continuous rate, it's quite an inferno if you've ever looked at one burning that hot. Bottom line, so the argument goes, is that everything is consumed in that inferno. There is literally no smoke, the fuel's smoke making ability is long gone by that time. You are left then with the combustion gases as potentially harmful. Unless heating pellets, which apparently are regulated by EPA emissions standards, are producing poisonous gases then why not use them for high temp cooking? Trust me at those temperatures you're not getting any smoke affects anyway, it's just convection heat.
Of course the manufacturers, and I use Lumberjack as my source, aren't going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. With heating pellet consumption down and cooking pellet prices on the rise, they aren't going to volunteer any real meaningful information to either confirm or deny this issue, why would they? What I would like to know, as a consumer is this, is there some test data or scientific fact concerning the potentially dangerous or unhealthy use of heating pellets in pellet cookers?
Sorry for my musing, but this issue seems to have a lot of detractors and very few so called experts who have sound data that would convince the consumer of potentially harmful affects of heating pellet use in cooking food. Just looking for the facts mam, just he facts.
The debate really starts with the state of the pellet industry in general. I'm not in the business, I only know what I read and hear. I'm also a Lumberjack Pellet user and have quizzed them directly about it as well. Here seems to be the issue. Cooking pellet manufacturers really are not regulated by any given authority. They are largely self regulated voluntarily through organizations such as the Pellet Fuel Institute which does look at the pellets used for heating primarily for adherence to EPA emissions standards. But again the operative word there for cooking pellets is voluntary, apparently the EPA nor anyone else could care less about cooking pellets so who really knows whats in them at all.
So what's the controversy? Well for one, heating pellets are cheaper, a lot cheaper. I buy my cooking pellets for Lumberjack on a large bulk buy basis for somewhere around $0.37/lb. Heating pellets are half that or less. Secondly, and I'll admit controversially, when you burn pellets above say 250* and for sure above 300*, the burn pot is literally burning at an almost continuous rate, it's quite an inferno if you've ever looked at one burning that hot. Bottom line, so the argument goes, is that everything is consumed in that inferno. There is literally no smoke, the fuel's smoke making ability is long gone by that time. You are left then with the combustion gases as potentially harmful. Unless heating pellets, which apparently are regulated by EPA emissions standards, are producing poisonous gases then why not use them for high temp cooking? Trust me at those temperatures you're not getting any smoke affects anyway, it's just convection heat.
Of course the manufacturers, and I use Lumberjack as my source, aren't going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. With heating pellet consumption down and cooking pellet prices on the rise, they aren't going to volunteer any real meaningful information to either confirm or deny this issue, why would they? What I would like to know, as a consumer is this, is there some test data or scientific fact concerning the potentially dangerous or unhealthy use of heating pellets in pellet cookers?
Sorry for my musing, but this issue seems to have a lot of detractors and very few so called experts who have sound data that would convince the consumer of potentially harmful affects of heating pellet use in cooking food. Just looking for the facts mam, just he facts.
Comment