We have been aware for some time now that there are re-branded versions of PackServ's Picnic brand of charcoal, so naturally we were excited to receive samples for review. Just over three years have passed since our review of Picnic charcoal was posted and a lot of charcoal has passed under the bridge since then. We are now on our 57th review and we have a bit more experience and quite a few more brands to compare with any new charcoal we review. So let's see how Frontier charcoal stacks up.
While we don't have specific information about Frontier charcoal, we are told it is the exact same charcoal as Picnic brand. Assuming this to be true, Fontier charcoal is a blend of South American hardwoods, primarily Quebracho Rojo, Quebracho Blanco and Guayacan. Here is a link to some information about at least one species of Guayacan, also known as Soap Bush. Here is a link to some information about Quebracho also known as ax wood. We don't know which is which looking at the pieces of charcoal, but some pieces were very dense while others were less dense. If you look below at the photographs, you will find a photo of one of the denser pieces of charcoal. We compared this piece with a typical piece of Ozark Oak of approximately the same size. The Frontier piece was 70 grams in wieght, the Ozark Oak was only 30 grams.
As for size distribution of the pieces in the bag, this turned out to be quite disappointing. With no truly "large" pieces of charcoal in the bag, and less than 20% of the charcoal even qualifying to be called "medium," this charcoal would present problems for users of smokers and ceramic cookers where airflow is at a premium for keeping a low fire going and for achieving high temperatures for searing. (See the results of our "Pork Chop Test" below.) On the other hand, the amount of chips and dust is remarkably low, the lowest we have seen since we started actually weighing the charcoal for our reviews. So, we have to say the distribution of sizes was a big disappointment, especially if you compare these results with those of Picnic charcoal. Picnic charcoal had no small pieces, believe it or not. Only large and medium.
Large |
0.0 pounds |
0.0% |
Medium |
1.9 pounds |
18.3% |
Small |
8.1 pounds |
78.4% |
Chips/Dust |
0.3 pounds |
3.3% |
|
|
|
Total |
10.3 pounds |
|
|
Lighting this charcoal was a quite a bit harder than normal, requiring 5.5 sheets of newspaper in our chimney starter test. This is to be expected with denser woods, but this was towards the top of the range we have experienced with all brands of charcoal. While igniting in the chimney starter, the charcoal burned with moderate sparking/crackling and no significant popping. The smell produced by the charcoal is the typical mild pleasant South American hardwood smell that we have seen over the years.
In our burntime test, Frontier burned an average length of time, right in the middle of the range of times we have measured in our testing. It really stood out, however, in our maximum temperature test, achieving 1040 degrees, the highest temperature we have ever seen. During this test, where we allow the charcoal to burn with the air vents on our cooker wide open, there was lots of sparking and a fair amount of popping going on until the fire had burned for 10 minutes or so. At that point, all the sparking and popping died out. When lighting the charcoal with a MAPP torch, however, there was significant popping and we would not recommend using a MAPP torch to light this charcoal. As it is a blend, one or more of the species of wood is incredibly pop-prone and when you put the torch on one of those pieces, you'd better stop if you know what's good for you.
Ash production for this charcoal was also average, again right in the middle of the range we have observed.
As a result of comments made on an Internet forum regarding the amount of sparking and popping when trying to do a hot cook, we decided to revive our famous "Pork Chop Test." (Readers may remember when we cooked some pork chops using Kingsford Charwood which leaves a gritty residue on the food when used for searing.) Unfortunately, we were unable to confirm any problems with sparks leaving a residue on the food since we could not get the fire above 650 degrees. This was because at this point in the review, we only had smallish pieces of charcoal left for testing and we couldn't get the airflow we needed for a good hot sear. For the record, however, it was probably one of the best damn pork chops we've cooked in a while.
So in conclusion, we have to say we were quiet dissappointed with the size distribution. This along with only average burn time and ash production, concerns about sparks and popping while also very difficult to light means we can only give this charcoal our Average rating.