I have. But only in the XL size.
I’m a lot more familiar with the science and sociology of human taste perception than you think.
We could go at your “does nothing” contention in a totally different way. We could bust out the gas chromatograph and peg whatever compounds in aromatics you contend cooks only pretend to taste. No need for double blind testing that way.
What then, when they’re present in BCC? I suppose then you’d quibble and dissemble about what CCE’s and Thimes and emglo’s thresholds are, and why they’re still making things up.
Do your endless beer taste descriptions also cry out for double-blind testing, or should you get the same credit you decline to give others?
I also note you’ve admitted never having tried making BCC, so others’ experience counts for less than yours? How is that?
Its pizza Saturday. Who gives a %%$$%. Im having so much fun . The zucchini has produced and is going on the pizza . Yes
1 Like
Calm down and relax (and you are not the only one who knows (and has worked) with GCs, MPLCs to detect volatile components/compounds - and btw you would most likely still need a blind test as the human detection limits aren’t clear for any compounds would be clear - if you can read German I highly recommend books from Thomas Vilgis around the general topic)
And of course my flavor descriptions of beer are very subjective (and just read wine descriptions about the same wine from to experts and you would think they have drunk two different wines). The same with the description from emglo about his taste of his chicken - it is very subjective which also means, and that’s were I disagree with you, that you can use it as an argument that BCC is in general working. What happens if somebody else doesn’t taste the aromatics in the chicken - BCC doesn’t work ? That’s why you would need a more objective way to use taste as an argument to proof anything
That looks a lot like Kaleo’s bird from here. I looked for the hole from the thermometer in the left thigh to confirm, but couldn’t find it.
See, I called it. Even if a large cohort tasted onion in a BCC, the only allium within a mile was in the can, and chromatography spiked for the associated compounds, you would doubt anyone who tasted onion in the bird.
And you’ve never even tried the method!
I think I’ll try this my next whole bird. Looks dang good.
1 Like
Huh. I think it looks far superior, especially with regard to the skin. 
Where did I say it is a hoax (and no science seems to be not in your bones but a new concept for you)
There are people who, like you, think science is an end in itself. Like you, they sometimes talk about science in order to further their biases. They refuse to accept X unless there are unanimous double-blind, or meta, or peer-reviewed studies. They know full well that the full tilt scientific treatments they disingenuously insist on likely will never be done.
Whether someone can taste aromatics in roasted chicken cooked this BCC way is but one ludicrous example. There may be a few people who can’t taste those compounds at all, and there may be people whose perception thresholds are met but cannot identify the taste. And we certainly know there are zealots at both ends of a bell curve who do or don’t taste, strictly as a matter of dogma.
The reason this example is ludicrous is that there are plenty of honest tasters of normal physiology who taste X in something (including aromatics in conventionally roasted chicken) and agree they’re tasting it. They may differ in acuity and degree, but this huge sample from the curve’s middle is itself an inductive empirical proof that X is there to be tasted. And it’s not subjective, in the sense of being being “better” or “worse”.
Years ago, I engaged in a debate with some other winemakers and somms about a curious little thing called a “wine key”. It’s a product made to momentarily dip into wines, the maker’s claim being that it “advances” wines to help consumers judge buying and optimal cellaring times. Some of the debaters–having never tried the thing–said it couldn’t possibly work. Others were skeptical, and called for trials before they could allow that it possibly did work. Still others were willing to try it; the ones who did mostly were intrigued, and all who tried it agreed that they could taste differences that developed with each successive dip. Of course no one was willing to bet the winery that Wine X was going to peak in Y years as the key would indicate. And waiting Y years to do a double-blind taste test would never be in the cards. However, the winemakers who used the key across numerous years of fermentation, blending and bottling seemed to think–unscientifically–that it helped in predicting how their new wines would age. The key was definitely not “doing nothing”. And IMO it was better at predicting than Robert Parker and other wine soothsayers.
It is interesting that you bring up wine tasting as I think that is a very good example for something like double blinded taste test as there are many studies that show that even experts don’t know much about wines and their taste profiles. There is the study from Brochet who showed that wine students couldn’t even distinguish red and white wine (when you add tasteless red dye)
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html
There are different studies from Hodgons who show similarly that when using blind taste test that experts would give very differnt results for the same wine when tested on different occasions
https://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2013/07/controversial-wine-judging-study-the-real-story
And we might have different opinions (and that is totally fine) but I agree with the Guardian that wine tasting is junk science
Overall I think we have to agree to disagree (otherwise we will go around in circles) and based on our personal experiences we have very different thoughts how to evaluate taste in an objective way
The thing about wine tasting is that the issue isn’t one-dimensional as it is here. It could be–if the tasting was solely to judge something like the presence of TCA. If experienced palates generally agree a wine is corked, there’s no point in running a controlled test. Same with an aromatic flavor in BCC.
Where wine judges lose credibility is with varietal and flavor descriptors, terroir, and the inevitable value judgments. Then it gets to be like parents at Little League games and you have to sort them out.
So I have made Beer Can chicken 100s of times and do love the method for the crispy skin and ease. I also do suggest having the chicken over low or no heat source, to avoid the flaming chicken - especially on a gas grill.
I add that gas grill comment because of your question in regards to the Big Green Egg. . . . The BGE in the picture I posted is a VERY recent gift (re-gift, I’m the 3rd owner at this point haha) so my BCC on a BGE is much more limited. I’ve done 3 so far (just got the Egg mid-May).
Here is what I did on the Egg . . . . I didn’t use the ConvEggtor at all (haven’t tried it yet but I was really only thinking about it for LONG cooks, not that that is right or what is recommended . . . I was just guessing and learning as I go). I did “try” to have more coals on one side of the Egg but I’m not sure how successful I was at that. So all three chickens have been cooked on the open grate (no deflector) on the “less coals” side of the Egg. I’ve been aiming for 400-450 and it takes about 50-60 minutes. So far they have all come out great and no fireballs.
What I’m hypothesizing is that with the superior air control in the Egg, the flare ups from any dripping chicken fat don’t ignite the same way as they do on a gas grill. We’ll see if that holds true going forward (because of course I will make many more Beer Can Chickens).
My feeling (again I’m a novice) is that I would not use both the Conveggtor and the Napolean setup. The Napolean setup would accomplish the same thing as the Conveggtor in having some barrier between the coals and the protein, so you’re double insulating the chicken from the heat essentially. That would be my first adjustment and see how that goes.
If it still isn’t nice and crispy skin all around, then I might try just the can and chicken and see what you think. I know you don’t get the added perk of potatoes cooking in dripping chicken fat (which is a fabulous thing) but you might be able to figure out what is going on . . . . .
Quadruple, as it turns out: ConvEggtor, wire grate, Napoleon drippan, Napoleon liner!
1 Like
I agree completely and apologize for not chiming in sooner.
My BCCs on my medium BGE were always done without the deflector plate. I went for lower temps like 275 and it took longer, but I got a nice smoke ring on the moist meat and skin was yummy. Higher temps definitely cook faster and get the skin crispy, but I could do about the same thing in the convection oven indoors.
I’ve never had a flare (that I know of) on any kamado cook when the door is closed, no matter the protein nor the temperature.
Bad news for vegans
I have a BBC stand (mom got it for me, I generally hate single use stuff) that holds the bird in place and a hole for the can. I find I get better result with no beer. I just like how it stands the bird up.
I know some folks who adore their BGE, and others who aren’t so into it. They aren’t cheap, but those I know who love would have spent double. Others would rather their money back. Thanks for posting your experiences with it and BBC.
1 Like
OK, tonight I ran a basic test for the steaming naysayers.
It turns out, at least on the Napoleon BCC rig, steaming does occur on the BGE set at 350F on direct heat. It’s definitely getting enough heat to boil. And within the first 10 minutes.
Much more obvious in video.
My next step is to measure a can’s liquid temperature using a long probe through the bird’neck and into the beer. Any bets on an hour+ cook at 350F direct? I’ll even throw in a double-blind garlic clove for honkman.
1 Like
LoL, dude, get your stuff in proper order.
Are you asking for guesses for the temperature of the boiling beer in the can? Since you’re at sea level and since beer is water with negligible sugar and ethanol content, my guess is 212 F.
