Extruded Coconut Charcoal at Zier's in Wilmette

madcow1 wrote:If anyone is interested, I will be getting some coconut shell charcoal in a week or two. If the specs are correct it will be of the same quality as the 2003 batch from the Phillipines. It's being made available through the KamadoKomodo company. I've agreed to be a distribution point in Chicago. Only 40 or 45 boxes per pallet, I've gotten commitments for 15 so far. Can't tell you when the next shipment will be in the states. Each box is 22 pounds and perfect for the low and slow BBQ's. You could check out the Naked Whiz's site for reference and reviews.I also have one of the Komodo's in the store to view-fully functional!

madcow1 wrote:It should be anywhere from $24 to $30 per case, 22lb each. I will know more after I get the invoice. Thanks, Dave

Cathy2 wrote:For the uninformed, what benefits will I realize from the coconut extruded charcoal?

Naked Whiz wrote:This rather unique charcoal is made from coconut shells that are carbonized, screened to size, mixed with binder, extruded into logs and then dried. In case any of you are scratching your heads thinking you've seen something like this before, you are right. It is reminiscent of the Chinese lump sold by Wal*Mart a few years ago. Here is a link to a web page that discusses a similar process for making briquettes from sawdust: Sawdust Briquette Charcoal

The charcoal comes in a box which is always a good thing, as the lump is protected from damage during shipping. The lump is stacked in layers and packaged in plastic bag, protecting everything around it from charcoal dust.

This lump is a bit of a challenge to light. Ok, it is the most difficult to light charcoal we have ever tested. It took 7 sheets of newspaper in our chimney starter test. However, we saw a photo in the Kamado newsletter showing this charcoal being started in a chimney starter with all the pieces sitting on end. We tried again with this method, using a single layer on end and it took 6 sheets of newspaper. (The previous record was 5 sheets of newpaper.) We also tried starting the charcoal in our small ceramic cooker using 3 small pieces of starter block. It lit fine, but the fire was quite slow to spread. Needless to say we were a bit perplexed at the statement in Kamado's newsletter which says this charcoal is "easy to light".

When we first tested this charcoal, we didn't make observations on how much ash a charcoal produces, but what about the "ashless" and "virtually ashless" claims in the Kamado newsletter?. Since this review was first published, we of course have started measuring ash production and this charcoal produces a very low amount of ash. Not ashless, but indeed very low on ash.

We found this charcoal was lower in smoke than many lumps, but not smokeless. When we came in from testing this charcoal, we smelled of smoke just like we do with all the other brands we tested. It is a pleasant smoke, not terribly distinctive, but to our nose it has a bit of a perfume quality to it. (That's good, by the way.) And like most lumps, during the initial lighting smoke was produced, but after the charcoal was burning, THEN it was virtually smokeless.

Ever the curious tester, we decided to see if we could get a flashback with this charcoal. Normally we don't do this test, but like we say, we were just curious. Yes, you can get a flashback off of this charcoal, so treat it with the same care as you would any brand of charcoal. But we digress....

So, does this stuff burn a long time? You bet your briquette, it does. This is one of the top 2 charcoals for burn time that we have ever tested. (Editor's note: Since this review was published, we have reviewed over 30 other brands of lump charcoal. This charcoal is no longer in the very top rage, but nevertheless, its burn time was High compared to other lump charcoals.) In a comparison test we did in which we burned equal weights of charcoal, this charcoal burned about 1.5 times longer than typical hardwood charcoals and about 2 times longer than Kingsford. This is because of the high fixed carbon content (FCC) of this charcoal. Roughly speaking, you can equate this high FCC with the density of the charcoal. Pick up a piece and it's downright heavy. All that carbon in the charcoal is available to burn, resulting in longer burn times than charcoals with lower FCC.

So, it burns a long time, but how is it on high temperature cooking? We already stated that the fire was slow to spread, but patience paid off as the fire got our small ceramic cooker up to 730 which is about as high as we can get it. However, we needed a large quantity of the charcoal burning to get to this high temperature, just like any charcoal. You have to remember that high fixed carbon content means the charcoal contains a lot of heat. It doesn't mean you get all the heat at once. The fire is actually quite slow to spread, nowhere near as fast to get to high temperatures as less dense charcoals.

The Kamado newsletter says that food will have a mild and unique taste. Kamado encouraged us to do a taste test, so we said we'd try. We won't claim to have a discriminating palate, but we tried. We cooked a 1/2 inch thick slice of chicken breast over the Kamado lump and one over BGE (Royal Oak) lump. Same times and temps, just two lumps and two cookers. For verification purposes, we allowed our wife to participate. We both agreed without hesitation that the Kamado lump gave the chicken a stronger smokier taste than the BGE (Royal Oak) lump. Personally, to our tastes, this is goodness. To those who prefer as little smokiness in their food's flavor as possible, this lump would not meet that requirement.

We did have one unique observation, something we had never seen before. The inside of our cook had a light gray color after cooking with this charcoal. (See photos below.) You could wipe it off and see it was a very fine powder. We contacted the manufacturer and we decided that this was just a thin coating of very fine ash.

And finally, what about that stove-top test that appears at the end of the Kamado newsletter? Well, frankly we didn't have the nerve to conduct such a test indoors, afraid that the wife might object. So we chickened out and bought a cheap hotplate and conducted the experiment in the garage. As you can see from the photos below, the Kamado charcoal burned without smoke. But so did the chunk of oak lump and a Kingsford briquette, so we are not sure what this "test" proves.

Overall, this is a great long-lasting charcoal that gives food a great taste. It is hard to light, so if that is important to you, you might want to try a different lump. We give this charcoal our Highly Recommended rating.

stevez wrote:Put me down for 2 boxes.

WillG wrote:It was actually the naked whiz review that confused me, because even though the kamado product is listed under the "extruded" category, the actual review (as quoted above) keeps referring to it as lump. It sounds to me like this extrusion process is similar to how kingsford makes theirs, though this is clearly a superior product. So my question to the smokers is would I use this instead of regular hardwood in my wsm, or mixed in, or is it something more appropriately used in grilling?

Thanks, Will

madcow1 wrote:The extruded coconut charcoal is in. Those of you who have expressed interest let me know how much and when you want to pick it up. Yes we accept Amex/Visa/Mc.If the mods. wish to delete this portion I understand: I can be reached at 847-251-4000. If you randomly show up to buy some and you have already responded let us know, their isn't much of this left to sell( I want some!).I'm gonna use some in my smokehouse to smoke half a dozen pork loins today--should be ready for sale tomorrow( or piping hot for this evening).

madcow1 wrote:Those of you who have expressed interest let me know how much and when you want to pick it up.

aschie30 wrote:Gary -

Are you trying to tell us that you munched the coconut charcoal thinking it was a blackberry?