aFire Coconut Charcoal nakedwhiz.com       Home       Lump Review Index       Quick Stats Date Of Review: January, 2010 Purchased From: Amazon Date Purchased: November, 2009 Price: $29.99 Weight: 18 pounds (See review!) Burn Time: Ash Production: Type of Wood: Coconut shell Strange Material?: None Scrap Lumber Pieces?: None Smell: See review Country of Origin: Vietnam Quick Links Contact Information: Click Here Conclusions and Final Rating: Click Here Rate And Comment On This Charcoal: Click Here Commentary A Note About This Review: As you will see when you read this review, we have rated it "Not Recommended" due to the fact that the box we obtained and two other boxes checked by a dealer were severely underweight. We sent an email to aFire and received a response indicating that they needed a few days to look into it. We waited 9 days for a reply, sent another email asking for status, and now have gone an additional 3 days without a reply from aFire. At this point, we can only think that aFire is selling mislabeled, underweight boxes of charcoal. This is serious enough, but made all the more worse by the extremely high price they charge for this product. As such, we will continue to rate this product "Not Recommended" until such time as aFire takes appropriate action to remedy the labeling/underweight problem. If the status of this issue changes, we will update the review accordingly. - TNW 03/04/10 Update: We emailed aFire and received a nice reply from the owner. She indicated that aFire maintains strict quality standards and that our report was the first they had of underweight boxes. She kindly sent us a replacement box. This box indeed contained 18 pounds of charcoal, but as you can see below, the box was obviously opened, the spacer was removed, the bag was opened and more charcoal was added. (The original box contained a 3-1/2" cardboard grid spacer in the bottom of the box. We assumed that this was for cushioning purposes.) The new box had no grid and as a result, contained 20 more briquettes than the original box. As you can see below, in the original box the inner bag was folded over the top and sealed. In our replacement box, the bag isn't folded over and sealed. Since the bag is sitting 3-1/2" lower in the box and contains 20 additional briquettes, the bag just isn't tall enough to be folded over once another 20 briquettes were added: The original box contained a 3-1/2" cardboard grid underneath the charcoal. The replacement box did not. The inner bag in the original box was folded over and sealed. Since the bag in the replacement box sits 3-1/2" lower in the box, it is no longer tall enough to fold over and seal. Needless to say, this begs the question, how did the carboard grid get into the first box if that extra space is needed to put a full 18 pounds of charcoal into the box? So at this point, we are not prepared to change the rating from Not Recommended. We suggest that if you buy a box of aFire charcoal, check to see if there is a spacer below the bag. Check to see if the bag is sealed. If so, your box may very well be underweight. If you care, you should weigh the contents of the box and then contact aFire and request a replacement box. We are interested in hearing from any aFire customers who have received underweight boxes and/or have contacted the company about the problem. - TNW Introduction As you all know, coconut charcoal is not really lump charcoal so why include it in the Lump Charcoal Database? Owners of ceramic charcoal cookers value quality coconut charcoal for it's low ash, reasonably long burn time, and its slow and steady burn for long, overnight barbecue cooks. Additionally, coconut charcoal can make the unique claim that no trees are cut down to make this charcoal. The charcoal is made from the shells of the coconuts, the fruit of the tree, if you will, rather than the tree itself. Unfortunately there has been a lack of quality coconut charcoal generally available in the U.S. market lately. Now, aFire Coconut Charcoal has shown up, so it's time to find out if aFire can fill the void. A Little History Before we get into this review, it might help readers to understand a little history of coconut charcoal briquettes. Most people first learned of coconut charcoal back in 2003 when Kamado first sold coconut charcoal from the Philippines. It was low on ash, long on burn time, hard durable briquettes that survived shipping abuse and burned with a characteristic sweet coconut smoke. However, since 2005 Kamado has only been able to sell inferior coconut briquettes that burn a short time and produce enormous volumes of ash. All Kamado coconut charcoal sold since the Philippine charcoal has received either "Below Average" or "Not Recommended" ratings in our reviews. We've been eagerly waiting for someone to produce quality coconut charcoal, so let's now take a look at the aFire coconut charcoal and see how it did. Packaging As you can see from the photo above and those below, aFire coconut charcoal comes in a vertical cardboard box. The carrying handle on top is a great idea. Being integrated into the design of the box, it is constructed from cardboard flaps and thus uses no plastic. The charcoal is packaged in a flimsy paper bag inside the box. In our box, the bag was torn in several places allowing charcoal granules to get out of the bag. In addition, you will find that underneath the charcoal is a cardboard grid that cushions the charcoal and helps it arrive in the stores with minimal damage. They could have left that out and had a smaller box, fitting more boxes into a container, so kudos the aFire for trying to protect the product. Note the handle integrated into the top of the box. Inside, the charcoal is contained in a paper bag which was torn in several places. Beneath the charcoal is this cardboard grid that cushions the contents. The Charcoal -- Condition, Appearance Our box of charcoal was sent via UPS, packed inside of a larger cardboard box with crumbled paper for padding. As you can see from the photo above, the box arrived in pretty good condition. Also below you can see the appearance of the charcoal in the box as we opened it. This is how the charcoal was packaged in the box from Amazon. Broken briquettes don't appear to be a problem. As you can see, there are none visible at this point. A closer look at the briquettes on top. The individual briquettes are about 1-3/8" tall by 1-15/16" in diameter. They have a 3/8" diameter hole down the center of them. Each briquette weighs about 43 grams or about 1.5 ounces. What is probably most surprising is that these briquettes are not very dense, far less dense than any other coconut charcoal we have tested. A closeup view of two briquettes. Yes, they really have a hole through them. You can see our neighbor's birdhouse through this briquette. Although the box is labeled as containing 18.0 pounds, as you can see in the following table, the box actually contains 16.2 pounds. (We sorted the box into whole pieces, broken pieces, and fines which were unusable.) Here are the results: Whole Pieces 15.7 pounds 96.6% Broken Pieces 0.3 pounds 1.9% Powder/Chips 0.2 pounds 1.5% Total 16.2 pounds Needless to say, selling significantly underweight boxes is a problem. We contacted a dealer who weighed two boxes that he had on hand. His boxes weighed 17.4 pounds, including the weight of the box. So we have three boxes from two different sources that are significantly underweight. We contacted the aFire company via their advertised email address and........ Here are photos of the whole pieces, the broken pieces and the dust: The whole pieces contained in the box. The broken pieces contained in the box. The dust contained in the box. Burn Time The burn time of this charcoal using our standard burn test in a closed ceramic charcoal cooker was not very impressive. In fact, it rated very low compared to most charcoals we have tested, although it was about in the middle of the coconut charcoals we have tested. (See the "Use For Grilling" section later on for more information about burn time when using this charcoal in an open grill.) Ash Content and Production We determine the ash content by burning a sample of the charcoal, and then determining what percentage the weight of the ash is of the original weight of the sample. aFire comes in at about 9.4% which is not bad, but nowhere close to the 3.1% ash content we have seen in the highest quality coconut charcoal. As for ash production, the volume of ash produced is quite high, worse than any lump charcoal we have ever tested save one. If you look at the volume of ash produced per hour of burntime, it is worse than any lump charcoal we have tested, period. Compared to other coconut charcoals we have tested, it is certainly better than most (except again for the one high quality coconut charcoal we have tested), but the volume of ash is enormous and could be a problem for cookers like the Big Green Egg which have bowl-shaped fireboxes. The ash left behind by burning 5 briquettes to determine ash content. Moisture Content The moisture content of this charcoal was 7.6% which is on the low end of the scale when looking at other coconut charcoals. Lighting The Charcoal This charcoal took 6 sheets of newspaper to light in our chimney starter test. This is very high compared to lump charcoal, but on the low end of the scale when looking at coconut charcoal. So, no complaints about being hard to light. One somewhat unusual observation that we did make regarding lighting this charcoal has to do with using a MAPP torch to light it. As we saw earlier, this charcoal is not very dense and has not been compressed under great pressure. It tends to be a bit crumbly if you press it between your hands. When lighting with a MAPP torch, bits and pieces of charcoal release from the briquette, ignite and fly away. So, while you don't really have to be too careful when using a MAPP torch to light most coconut charcoal, you might want to exercise a little more caution with this brand. Maximum Temperature We were able to get this charcoal up to 950 degrees in our standard maximum temperature test. This is high compared to all charcoals we have tested, and only one other brand of coconut charcoal burned hotter. (See the section "Use For Grilling" later on for more information about how hot this charcoal burns in an open grill.) One additional observation we have made in past reviews of some coconut charcoals was that the charcoal became very fragile after burning. After our maximum temperature test, we allow the fire to go out and the charcoal to cool, and then we try to stir the charcoal to knock the ash off for the next burn. What we found with aFire was that if you are reasonably gentle in your stirring, you can preserve a large portion of the leftover charcoal for your next fire. Smoke, Odor and Food Flavor This charcoal seemed to have different odors when burning under different conditions. While burning 5 pieces as a part of determining the ash content, we detected the unpleasant smell of burning cigars. When doing our maximum temperature test, the odor was acceptable but not the sweet pleasurable smell of quality coconut charcoal. As you will see later, we did our Smokey Joe test where we allow the charcoal to burn in an open grill (a Weber Smokey Joe) in order to measure the grilling temperature and time. We do this by placing the grill inside our garage very near the open door and then shield the grill from any breeze with a cardboard barrier. After the test, our garage was filled with a relatively strong and unpleasant odor for several weeks. We have not experienced this before with any of the briquettes we have tested, so you may wish to avoid using this charcoal on a covered or screened-in porch. As far as the flavor this charcoal imparts to food, we grilled some hamburgers on an open grill, and really didn't notice anything unusual. But of course, beef is known for standing up to strong smoke flavors such as mesquite, for example. So we also cooked some chicken in a kettle grill with the lid on, keeping the temperature at 325 degrees. The flavor that the chicken picked up was quite strong. The flavor was pretty much what you might expect from chicken cooked over charcoal, just quite strong. This might not be the charcoal for those who don't like smokey flavor in their food. While they might not find the results of hot grilling to be so strong, lower temperature cooking might be a bit much for them. Use For Grilling Ok, so what about using this charcoal for grilling. To look at this, we did our Smokey Joe test where we burn a single layer of charcoal in an open Smokey Joe cooker. We measure the temperature at the grid level to determine how hot it gets and how long it burns. We burned 28 of the aFire briquettes for this test, 46 Kingsford Surefire briquettes, 46 Kingsford Competition briquettes and 46 Wicked Good briquettes. We stopped recording when the temperature fell to about 270 degrees. Here's what we found: Clearly, the aFire and Wicked Good briquettes burn hotter and longer in an open grill than either of the Kingsford charcoals. After the initial 15 minutes, the Wicked Good Charcoal briquettes burn hotter than the aFire coconut, and overall the Wicked Good Charcoal briquettes burned for a longer time. While aFire does spike higher temps than Wicked Good charcoal briefly to start with, essentially Wicked Good Charcoal briquettes maintained a slightly higher temperature throughout most of the burn. The spiking nature of the aFire charcoal is due to the fact that for the first 30 minutes or so, it burns with open flames. After that, the flames disappear and the briquettes glow red and you can see the curve begins to smooth out. Compared To Traditional Briquettes If we go back and look at the key measurements that we make in charcoal reviews, Wicked Good Charcoal briquettes are a great choice when it comes to briquettes. How does aFire coconut charcoal stand up against Wicked Good Charcoal briquettes? Here's how:   Wicked Good aFire Coconut Fines 0.9% 3.4% Lighting 4.5 sheets 6 sheets Closed Cooker Max Temp 840° 950° Closed Cooker Burn Time 12.4 hours 10.4 hours Open Grill Burn Time 108 minutes 94 minutes Ash Production 900 ml 1200 ml Price w/ Shipping $1.16/lb $2.54 - $3.40/lb (Note: Shipping costs used came from the UPS shipping calculator, Amazon shipping costs, and Wicked Good Charcoal's ordering page. As you can see, Wicked Good Charcoal Weekend Warrior Briquettes win in most categories. If you want slow steady burning for overnight cooking or hot-burning briquettes for grilling, it would seem that Wicked Good Charcoal briquettes would be a better choice. They are cheaper and they perform better overall. There are also a number of "all-natural" briquettes available in stores (Royal Oak, Nature's Grilling, Stubbs, Picnic) which you may also wish to investigate. With no shipping to pay, these charcoals can be purchased for a fraction of the cost of aFire coconut charcoal. Purchasing and Pricing You can buy this charcoal from two different vendors on Amazon and one vendor we know of (Fred's Music and BBQ) on the web. With shipping (in our example, calculated to ship to our house), this charcoal costs between $40.63 and a jaw-dropping $54.42 for a so-called 18 pound box. Assuming you get 16 pounds like we did, this equates to between $2.54 and $3.40 a pound. By far, the most expensive charcoal we've ever tested. Claims Made On The Box So, how does aFire live up to the claims on their box relative to comparisons with lump charcoal? Here are the claims they make: Maximum Temperature: They claim aFire Coconut charcoal burns hotter than lump charcoal. They specify 420° C (788° F) for aFire and only 380° C (716° F) for lump charcoal. Of course, they don't say under what conditions these supposed temperatures were measured, but we suspect is was measured in an open grill, much like our Smokey Joe test. Burning Time: aFire claims 2.0 - 2.5 hours for aFire and only 1.5 - 2.0 hours for lump charcoal. Again, the conditions are not stated, but again we'll assume it was measured in an open grill. Ash Content: They claim aFire charcoal contains 0.1 kg of ash per kilogram of charcoal, while lump charcoal supposedly contains 0.2 kg of ash per kilogram of charcoal. Our testing over the years shows that many brands of lump charcoal burn hotter than the 950° F that we measured for aFire charcoal in a closed ceramic cooker. Clearly, aFire's claim is false as regards burning in a closed cooker. Our testing has also showed that lump charcoal burns far longer than aFire charcoal in a closed ceramic cooker. Another false claim, at least as it regards to using closed cookers. But what about on the open grill? Well, we performed our Smokey Joe test on some Cowboy lump charcoal so we could compare the grilling performance of lump vs. aFire charcoal. Here's what we found: Again as you can see, lump charcoal burns hotter and just as long as aFire coconut charcoal. As as for their claims of lower ash than lump, ash content is actually measured as a percentage of the total weight of the charcoal. We found aFire to contain 9.4% ash while a US hardwood lump charcoal contained 7.6%. And of course another measure of ash production is the volume of ash produced, something very important to owners of many ceramic charcoal cookers. aFire produces enormous volumes of ash, while most lump charcoal produces much less. Again, we have to rate this claim false. Conclusion Let's sum up our observations about this charcoal: Smell: Although a hint of the coconut charcoal smell, it doesn't have the sweet smoke of quality coconut charcoal. At times we found the smell to be somewhat unpleasant. Lighting: Moderately difficult, more difficult than most lump charcoal, but easier than most coconut charcoal. Burn Time: Worse than any lump charcoal we've tested, only 70% of the time of quality coconut charcoal. Ash Production: Worse than any lump charcoal. Far worse than quality coconut charcoal. Maximum Temperature: High compared to all charcoals overall, but not the highest. Poor Value: The most expensive charcoal we've ever seen. Ever. Whether you calculate price per pound or price per hour of burning, it is the most expensive charcoal we have ever seen. Again, ever. So, what rating for aFire coconut charcoal briquettes? While it performed well in some categories, it performed poorly in others. Were we going to give this charcoal a rating based on its merits, we'd probably give it our Below Average rating. It's just not that great and we probably would not buy it for our own use. However, in light of the issue of this company selling significantly underweight boxes, until this issue is resolved, we must give this charcoal our Not Recommended rating. To the left is the rating that our readers have given this charcoal. Now that you have read our review, if you have used this charcoal and would like to rate it and leave your comments, Click Here To view reader ratings of all brands, Click Here. Contact Information www.afireinc.com