Rate And Comment On This Charcoal: Click Here
Commentary
Introduction
This leads us to the second reason for this update to our review. Kamado is selling these samples on eBay. Click here to see a screen capture of the eBay auction as it appeared on the eBay web site on December 12, 2007. As you can see, the ad contains photos of at least two different types of charcoal! There are three-inch long pieces in some of the photos, while other photographs show the 1.5-inch ribbed extrusions which are almost certainly the original and excellent Philippine charcoal. So which charcoal do you get when you order a sample to try it yourself? Again, we decided to obtain some of these samples to see for ourselves. (Hint, you get the three-inch pieces.)
And finally, on December 20, 2007, Kamado posted this on their discussion forum, to clarify the terms of their satisfaction guarantee:
A Little History
The first type was sold intermittently in the 2003-2005 time frame and was labeled product of the Philippines. In 2006, they sold a second type of coconut charcoal briquettes which was labeled product of Thailand. Finally, in 2007 they sold a third type of coconut charcoal briquettes labeled product of Indonesia. It appears that each time the product changed, it took a turn for the worse. The Philippine charcoal was a great product (we gave it our highest rating), low on ash, long on burntime, hard durable briquettes that survived shipping abuse. The Thailand charcoal produced large volumes of ash, and much of it arrived at customers' doorsteps damp, moldy and crumbled. Finally, the Indonesian charcoal produced the largest volume of ash we had ever tested, burned for a very short time, and the briquettes were fragile and subject to shipping damage.
Now, it appears that Kamado is selling yet another batch of coconut charcoal briquettes. So, let's take a look at it and see how it does.
The Charcoal -- Packaging, Condition, Appearance
Upon physical inspection of the briquettes themselves, we can verify that this is not simply the exact same Indonesian charcoal which we reviewed in August of 2007. Those briquettes had a hole down the center which was about 0.4 inches in diameter while these briquettes have a hole 0.3 inches in diameter. We don't know if this charcoal is from the same manufacturer using different equipment, but clearly the briquettes at the very least have come from a different batch.
The eBay auction advertises that the box will contain 11-12 pounds of charcoal. We weighed the charcoal in the box and then sorted it into whole pieces, broken pieces, and fines which were unusable. Here's the results:
The 1.9% fines is an improvement over the box of charcoal we reviewed in August, 2007. However, the eBay auction advertises that the box will contain "No fines, or tiny pieces and dust...." It also states that the contents will be "100% usable." Also, as you can see, the box was 0.2 pounds less than the 11-12 pounds advertised. Perhaps Kamado should modify their ad to indicate 10-11 pounds and "almost no fines." Also, as we have seen before, the amount of "fines" you end up with is entirely dependant on the treatment your charcoal gets in shipping due to the fragility of the charcoal. And we can only chuckle about the claim on the eBay auction that the charcoal is "Clean handling. You can pick up a piece of Kamado coconut shell charcoal in your hand and put it in your grill and there will be almost no trace in your hand." We can assure you that handling this charcoal will indeed leave a mess on your hands.
What about the physical appearance of the briquettes? Many of the Indonesian briquettes from August, 2007 were crooked, cracked, mis-shapen, bringing into question whether or not the briquettes were actually extruded. These briquettes are no better, as you can see in the photos below:
This again calls into question whether these briquettes are actually extruded or if they are just being molded.
To then calculate the volume of a hexagonal cylinder with a hole down the middle, you subtract the volume of the hole which is given by the area of the circle times the height of the solid, or 3.14 x R**2 x H, where R is the radius of the hole.
We also measured and compared the density of the Indonesian and Philippine charcoal briquettes in our August 5, 2007 review. We found that the Indonesian charcoal was about 16% less dense than the original Philippine charcoal. We calculated that the density of this new charcoal is exactly the same as that of the Indonesian charcoal. Thus this new charcoal is also 16% less dense than the Philippine charcoal. (To calculate the density of the briquettes, you merely need to calculate the volume of a hexagonal cylinder with a hole down the center, which we explain in the table to the right. Then you divide by the weight of the briquette and you have the density.)
Finally, we found one other interesting briquette in the box, as you can see below. Essentially what we found was a chip of wood that had found its way into the briquette. It was sticking out slightly less than we show in the photograph, but it really makes you wonder how a chip of wood could have survived extrusion under heat and pressure. This just adds even more weight to the argument that these briquettes are molded, not extruded. More on this later.
Burntime
Ash Production
This ash production problem becomes even more apparent when you look at the volume of ash produced per hour of burntime. Because of the double whammy of high ash production and low burn time, this new charcoal produces about 240% more ash per hour than the previous worst charcoal, save for the Indonesian coconut briquettes. The ash production is truly staggering. The following photo shows the enormous amount of ash produced by only 6 of these new charcoal briquettes:
Now try to imagine the quantity of ash that would be produced by a cooker filled with these briquettes for an overnight cook. Truly staggering. We were barely able to keep our large Big Green Egg cooker going for an overnight cook with the 2007 Indonesian charcoal before the ash completely blocked the airflow. With this charcoal producing roughly 25% more ash than the 2007 Indonesian charcoal, we feel it will not be usable for long overnight cooks.
Before we leave the topic of ash production we'd like to look at the subject of ash content of this charcoal in a little more detail. There have been statements made on the Kamado discussion board that the ash content depends on how the raw material was carbonized, implying that the high ash production of this latest type of Kamado extruded coconut briquettes is due to poor manufacturing, i.e., it is just a "bad batch". To quote, "The ashiness of the charcoal is strictly a product of how the coconut shells were burned down." However, this is not actually true. Ash is mineral matter, such as clay, silica and calcium and magnesium oxides, both present in the original raw material (wood or coconut shell) and picked up as contamination from the earth during processing. At the time that the wood is cut or the coconut shell is harvested, they contain a certain amount of ash. This original amount of ash will be left after combustion whether you burn the wood/coconut shell down to ash, or convert the wood/coconut shell to charcoal and then burn the charcoal down to ash. If the raw material is not properly carbonized, then the finished product will contain more of the volatile organic compounds that are normally driven off in the carbonization process. However, the final product will still contain exactly the same amount of ash as if the raw material had been properly carbonized. In other words, carbonization does not remove ash from the wood or the coconut shells during the process of converting it to charcoal. Hence, the ash content of charcoal has very little to do with the process used to make the charcoal unless you contaminate the source material or deliberately add some other materials to it.
So, what is the ash content of this latest Kamado extruded coconut charcoal? It can easily be determined by heating a weighed sample to red heat in the presence of air to burn away all combustible matter. The residue left behind is the ash. You then merely calculate what percentage the weight of the ash is of the weight of the original sample. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations report on charcoal indicates that pure coconut charcoal contains about 1.5% ash. A survey of several coconut charcoal manufacturers reveals claims of ash content in the 1.8-5.0% range for their products. Our original tests indicated that the ash content of the Indonesian Kamado coconut charcoal briquettes was 18.2%. This is not surprising in view of the tremendous amount of ash it produces. The ash content of the original Philippine extruded coconut charcoal sold by Kamado was about 3.0%. Again, this is not surprising in view of the very small amount of ash produced by the Philippine charcoal.
So, to calculate the ash content of this new charcoal, first we heated our charcoal sample in an oven for 2.5 hours to drive off the moisture. We checked the weight of the sample periodically and stopped when the change in weight was only 3 grams in 30 minutes. We then burned the charcoal inside of a large cooker with plenty of airflow and allowed the sample to burn completely to ash. We then weighed the remaining ash and calculated that the ash content of the original sample was a staggering 26.2%. So to summarize:
So why this incredible amount of ash? We can only speculate, but what makes the most sense is that these briquettes are not extruded, but rather molded. Molded briquettes need large quantities of binder to hold them together. It would seem that the addition of this binder to the raw coconut material is responsible for all the ash. But whatever the reason, over one quarter of this new charcoal is ash!
Maximum Temperature
For the 2007 Indonesian Kamado coconut charcoal, we measured 990 degrees with a Tel-Tru thermometer inserted into the dome of a medium Big Green Egg ceramic charcoal cooker. With this new charcoal, we were only able to get 860 degrees. We have run this test on dozens of brands of lump and extruded coconut charcoals, and 860 degrees only ranks as "average" on the range of temperatures that we have measured. Obviously, this is not "50% hotter" than other brands of charcoal. Also, this new Kamado coconut charcoal does not burn "50% hotter" than the lowest maximums we have ever measured.
On the other hand, if you interpret this statement to mean that the temperature of combustion measured right down in the burning charcoal is "50% hotter" than other charcoals, then let's see what that brings. Although it is hard to imagine a charcoal that can't produce top temperatures in the cooking chamber could be actually burning at a higher temperature than other charcoals, we have the ability so let's look. Whereas this is not a test that we routinely run, we have run it against Kingsford briquettes and Royal Oak American hardwood charcoal. If there is any brand of charcoal that meets the definition of "typical store-bought briquettes", it is Kingsford, and Royal Oak American hardwood charcoal is a very good brand of lump charcoal.
So, how did we measure the temperature of burning charcoal down in the actual region of combustion? We simply piled up some charcoal in our medium Big Green Egg ceramic charcoal cooker and then used a Thermoworks WD-08467-64 High Temperature Ceramic Fiber Insulated Probe inserted into the burning charcoal in the heart of the fire. This probe is capable of measuring temperatures up to 2500 degrees F. Here are the results we obtained:
So once again, Kamado coconut charcoal does not burn "50% hotter" than other charcoals, whichever definition of "burns hotter" you wish to use.
One additional observation we made in our August 5, 2007 review is that the Indonesian charcoal became very fragile after burning. In fact, after our maximum temperature test, we allowed the charcoal to cool and then we tried to stir the charcoal to knock the ash off for the next burn. What we found was that most of the charcoal briquettes crumbled to powder and thus were unusable. This new charcoal appears not to suffer from this fault. After our maximum temperature test was run and the charcoal cooled, we were able to stir it up and knock off the ash without destroying all the remaining charcoal. A small consolation to offset the poor burntime, perhaps.
Smoke, Odor and Food Flavor
Completely odorless? Not all all. Burning coconut charcoal produces a relatively strong, sweet and pleasant odor until, like most charcoal, it is completely ignited and burning hot. Then, like all most charcoal, there is less odor. During our test burn to determine the burn time of this charcoal, we could smell the charcoal burning during the entire burn. But what is the significance of this? It relates to their next claim regarding flavor.
The eBay auction claims that this charcoal "Imparts no taste or flavor of its own, so when you add smoke woods, the only taste you will get is what you choose to add. For the first time, you will be in full control of how your food tastes." Perhaps this is one of the more important characteristics of a charcoal: How does it affect the flavor of the food? We did a side-by-side blind test comparing Kamado coconut charcoal with Royal Oak lump charcoal made from American hardwoods. We grilled chicken tenders and the submitted them to our tester for comparison. Both the tester and we agreed that the Kamado extruded coconut charcoal imparted a stronger flavor to the chicken than the Royal Oak charcoal did. The flavor was great and we liked it, but the claim that it "imparts no taste or flavor of its own" is simply not true.
Additives and/or Fillers
This explains the wide variation in ash production and burn times between the different types of coconut briquettes that Kamado has sold. The different manufacturers who have been supplying Kamado with coconut briquettes have apparently been adding various amounts of filler to their products, despite Kamado's claims that their coconut briquettes contain no filler. It also explains how Kamado was able to reduce the price of their charcoal from $11.99 in 2003 for the high-quality Philippine charcoal to $7.99 in 2008 for their current low-quality charcoal.
Conclusion
To view reader ratings of all brands, Click Here.
Other Information
Unusual or Unique Statements
Statements From The Bag
Lighting Instructions
Photos Of Contents
See Commentary.
|
About This Review
If you are unfamiliar with our testing procedures, you may wish to read
How We Review Lump Charcoal before reading this review. Also, you can read
How We Score Lump Charcoal to learn about our scoring system.
Prices listed in our reviews are current as of the date of the review. We do not attempt to keep these prices current.
The conclusions and final rating given any charcoal are based upon the opinion of the author. We recommend that you use our rating only as a guide. You should read the entire review and decide what is important to you in making any buying decision.
Performance ratings are designated with stars, 1 star being the worst
and 5 stars being the best:
Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon at the bottom right corner. Click on the icon to display the image in a new larger window. If you wish to ensure that you are seeing photographs the same way that we are seeing them, we recommend that you calibrate your monitor to a PC-normal gamma of 2.2. You should be able to see the difference between blocks A, B and C below, as well as the difference between blocks 3, 4 and 5.
This review is protected by Copyright and may not be reproduced in part or as a whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author. You can use the "Email The Whiz" link at the bottom of any of our webpages to contact us about using material from this review.
|
You can support this website by shopping at The Naked Whiz Website Store and Amazon.com