This is another brand of charcoal that we discovered on Facebook in one of those "Which lump charcoal is best?" threads. But not only
is this brand of charcoal new to us,
the species of wood it is made from is also new to us. JURK charcoal is made from Acacia, which
according to the manufacturer,
"
...in Brazil
is an invasive species, has an incredibly fast growth rate, high yield and dense propagation,"
thus making it a good candidate for making charcoal. Further, the
International Union for Conservation of
Nature says:
"Acacia mearnsii is a fast growing leguminous (nitrogen fixing) tree. Native to Australia, it is often used as a commercial
source of tannin or a source of fire wood for local communities. It threatens native habitats by competing with indigenous
vegetation, replacing grass communities, reducing native biodiversity and increasing water loss from riparian zones.
It's uses include tannin for the production of soft leather, resins, thinners and adhesives, the timber for building materials, charcoal for fuel,
and the pulp and wood chips are used to produce paper. We provide for your enlightenment, a map showing
the location of Brazil above right. And to the right, we provide a photo of an acacia tree.
But enough about acacia. Let's see what Acacia wood charcoal is like and how it performs.
As usual, our first step is to dump the bag out onto the ground and sort it into small, medium and large pieces, as well as
the chips and dust at the bottom of the bag. We also look for scrap, uncarbonized wood, and other interesting objects.
We found no scrap or interesting objects, but we did find a few pieces that were less carbonized than the overall bag.
Here's how the bag broke down into the various sizes:
Large |
4.1 pounds |
23.3% |
Medium |
6.3 pounds |
35.8% |
Small |
4.8 pounds |
27.3% |
Chips/Dust |
2.4 pounds |
13.6% |
|
|
|
Total |
17.6 pounds |
|
|
There was a good amount of large and medium size pieces. The 13.6% by weight of chips and dust
is Average compared to other brands. Overall, the size distribution was good, but not great.
Next up is the lighting test where we see how many sheets of newspaper it takes to get a fire
established in a standard chimney starter. JUNK charcoal took 2.5 sheets of newspaper, which is
Very Low compared to other brands, so it is quite easy to start. While the charcoal was burning
in the chimney starter, there was quite a large volume of tiny sparks rising from the fire. There
was no popping, but a fair amount of crackling due to the sparks. The smell of the smoke was
relatively mild and had a slight perfume characteristic to it.
Once we have a roaring fire going in the chimney starter, we dump the burning charcoal into a cooker
to measure the maximum temperature that the charcoal will burn at. In this case, JURK charcoal
burned at 847°F, which is only Average compared to other brands.
In our burn time test, we light the charcoal with a MAP/Pro torch. There was significant popping and sparking,
so as always, exercise care when lighting any lump charcoal with a gas-fired torch. The burn time was only
Average compared to other brands. The ash production was Very Low compared to other brands.
We'll add in one more bit of information for JURK charcoal. We don't often "taste test" each brand of
charcoal, but because JURK charcoal is made from a wood we've not come across before, we thought we should give it
a taste. We cooked a spatchcock chicken over just the JURK charcoal and with no rubs or sauces to see how
the smoke flavored the bird. The taste was mild, but we think some folks may find a slight chemical taste
as is typical for many South American charcoals. We don't think you would notice it if you add a smoking
wood, rub and/or sauce, but it is there.
So, JURK charcoal is easy to light, which is always nice in a lump charcoal. The ash production was very
low which makes it ideal for long cooks. But the size distribution, maximum temperature and burn time were
all just average compared to all other brands. Taking everything into consideration, we give JURK charcoal our Above Average rating.