What we don’t know

Unknown is a recorded state in BBQHQ, not an empty field — because an empty field gets filled in by the next person who wants the page to look complete. These are the gaps that matter, what they block, and what would close them.

• What do the Traeger, Kamado Joe and Ninja manuals actually specify about temperature ranges, supported configurations and permitted use?

  high · partially answered

  These are the primary sources for their own equipment, and until they are read, BBQHQ's pellet-grill, kamado and electric cooker records rest on general architecture knowledge rather than on the makers' own specifications. The electric case matters most: only a manufacturer instruction can establish whether a given appliance may be used in an enclosed space.

  Tried so far: BBQHQ retrieved and read the Ninja Woodfire OG900 owner's guide in full, and the Weber charcoal owner's guide. Traeger's manuals directory returns 404 and its support knowledge base returns 403; Kamado Joe has not yet been attempted. Weber's Q-series gas owner's guide has since been retrieved and read in full, which leaves the kamado and the pellet grill as the two cooker families in the catalogue with no manufacturer document behind them. That is worth stating precisely, because the gap's title suggests a general absence and the absence is now specific.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Kamado Joe owner manuals and technique guides
  • Traeger manuals via a route that does not require automated fetch

• How does AHDB's UK cutting specification actually divide the beef and pork carcass, cut by cut?

  high · partially answered

  Cut localisation is one of the product's distinguishing capabilities and it cannot be done from memory. BBQHQ left every UK/US mapping 'approximate' or unmapped because this had not been read — and one of the mappings it wrote anyway turned out to be wrong.

  Tried so far: SIX specifications now retrieved in full. The beef and lamb-leg group: Rump B005 (rump and picanha steak), Rump V003 (rump cap), Sirloin V005 (sirloin steaks, standard trim) and Leg L017 (boneless lamb leg steaks). The lamb forequarter and loin followed: Forequarter L003 (shoulder, half, bone-in), Loin L018 (Barnsley chops) and Forequarter L029 (Lamb Henry's). The Meat Purchasing Guide's remaining specifications have not been worked through, and no UK BRISKET or PORK SHOULDER specification has been read — which is now the sharper form of this gap, because the lamb side is no longer the weak one.

  What this holds back: Brisket, Lamb shoulder

  Where the answer probably is

  • AHDB Meat Purchasing Guide, remaining beef specifications — brisket above all
  • AHDB pork cutting specifications, which remain entirely unread
  • AHDB Beef Yield Guide
  • AHDB whole-leg and butterflied-leg lamb specifications, which would close the last lamb mapping

• How do the US retail cut charts and IMPS specifications name and bound the cuts that UK butchery divides differently?

  high · answered

  The counterpart to the UK gap, and for a long time the binding constraint on the whole cut-localisation feature. With British cuts described from British specifications and nothing equivalent on the American side, every US mapping stopped at approximate or overlapping and none could say the anatomy was identical.

  Tried so far: BBQHQ established that ams.usda.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated clients for both the published Series 100 PDF and the 2020 draft, and that the Beef Checkoff cut pages do the same. The SAME USDA-published documents were then retrieved from the Internet Archive, where they download intact — the block was on one route, not on the document.

• What non-manufacturer sources publish cooking durations for the foods in the core catalogue?

  high · answered

  Every duration in the original catalogue traced to one publisher, Weber. That is a legitimate primary source for its own equipment but it made each timing claim single-sourced, which capped confidence at 'limited' however many pages agreed with each other.

  Tried so far: Four independent non-manufacturer publishers retrieved: Clemson Cooperative Extension (poultry and fish), AHDB Simply Beef & Lamb (beef and lamb by thickness and doneness), the National Pork Board (pork by thickness and bone state, grilled and smoked) and Meat & Livestock Australia (oven roasting, registered as an incompatible method).

• What credible local, institutional and academic sources document the traditions in the catalogue — their practices, their regional variation and their histories?

  high · partially answered

  Every tradition record in the original catalogue was a draft with no characteristics, because BBQHQ had retrieved no cultural or historical sources at all. That was the correct state and it was also a hard blocker: without sourcing, the traditions surface could say nothing substantive, and the temptation to fill it from general knowledge is exactly the failure the cultural safeguards exist to prevent.

  Tried so far: Ten traditions are now sourced from government cultural bodies, a national history archive, a university oral-history project and peer-reviewed anthropology. The Brazilian half of this question has since been answered. Visit Brasil returns 403 and the Ministry of Tourism article requires authentication, both still true, and the academic route through SciELO worked — Maciel's 'Churrasco à gaúcha' (Horizontes Antropológicos, 1996) was retrieved and read in full. THE PHILIPPINES REMAINS THE WHOLE OF THIS GAP. One bounded attempt was made: the National Commission for Culture and the Arts publishes no page on inihaw that could be located, and what surfaced instead was peripheral — a Senate committee note on the Philippine Culinary Heritage Act, Philippine Information Agency features on Filipino Food Month, and a municipal tourism page for Agoncillo, Batangas describing inihaw na tawilis grilled over coal or coconut husk. None of those is a cultural-institution account of inihaw as a practice, and BBQHQ will not build a tradition record out of a food-month press release.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Brazilian academic or state-level cultural documentation on churrasco gaúcho
  • Philippine National Commission for Culture and the Arts, on grilling practice

• What Brazilian institutional or academic sources document churrasco gaúcho — the fire arrangement, the cuts, the salting, and the relationship to picanha?

  high · answered

  Churrasco is the tradition readers are most likely to arrive at from the cut side, because picanha is the cut most asked about across butchery systems. BBQHQ could tell a reader what to ask a butcher for and nothing about what the cut was for.

  Tried so far: Tourism bodies were tried first: Visit Brasil returns HTTP 403 and the Ministry of Tourism's gaúcho article is behind an authentication wall. The approach then changed to the academic literature, which was not blocked at all.

• Does any authoritative technical source publish a brisket cooking DURATION under stated conditions, rather than a per-pound rule of thumb?

  high · partially answered

  Brisket is the most-searched cook in American barbecue and the one where a wrong answer costs a whole day. BBQHQ obtained the physics — a sourced pit range and a sourced collagen conversion endpoint — and the only duration any retrieved source offers is 'one hour per pound', which Texas A&M itself attributes to 'many guidelines' rather than asserting. The missing middle was then obtained: the stall is sourced, at 150–170 °F and about six hours at a 230 °F pit, with a controlled experiment behind the mechanism. That accounts for most of the width of the published window and is the strongest support the refusal has. It still is not a duration. BBQHQ's published window remains arithmetic on a rule of thumb across a weight band, now labelled as derived from a rate rather than said only in prose.

  Tried so far: Four independent non-manufacturer publishers (Clemson, AHDB, National Pork Board, MLA) were checked and none gives a brisket timing at all. Texas A&M's meat science barbecue material was then retrieved, which supplies pit temperature, collagen conversion, point-versus-flat composition and a 50% yield figure — and, for duration, only the per-pound rule. The barbecue-science literature followed, and Greg Blonder's stall experiments were retrieved: onset at 150–170 °F, about six hours' duration at 230 °F, and evaporative cooling established by a sponge-versus-fat control. That publication is advertising- and affiliate-funded, had every commercial incentive to state a cooking time, and states none. A sixth publisher was checked afterwards, and it is the one that is hardest to explain away. Canada Beef's foodservice cut specification card for brisket is written for people who cost and schedule commercial kitchens, states a weight range of 10-12 lb / 4.5-5.4 kg that sits squarely inside this profile's envelope, names 'low and slow' as the cut's main technique in those words, and carries a complete method for an 11 lb brisket — which cooks to 165 °F, then to 180 °F, and never states a duration at any point. The four earlier silences could each be read as a body not considering timing its job. A document whose readers schedule service, giving a full method for a specific weight and still refusing a clock, is evidence that the number is not knowable rather than merely unpublished. Six publishers now, and the two most motivated to print a time — a barbecue publication funded by readers and a foodservice card funded by caterers — are the two that most conspicuously do not.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Published pitmaster methodology with stated conditions and an identifiable author
  • Meat science literature on cook time to a stated collagen endpoint at a stated pit temperature
  • Controlled measurement, which may be the only route

• Does any authoritative source state a resting time for barbecued or grilled poultry?

  high · partially answered

  Chicken is the largest block of unplannable questions left in the catalogue. Five poultry profiles — whole chicken, both thigh records, breast and wings — carry no sourced rest guidance between them, and the whole-chicken profile plans only because BBQHQ labels its own reasoning as reasoning. The search for resting evidence found figures for beef from two levy boards and a specialist, and nothing at all for poultry: FSIS attaches its three-minute rest to whole cuts of beef, pork, lamb and veal and gives poultry an instantaneous 165 °F with no rest, and neither AHDB nor MLA covers birds. So the absence is not an oversight in the search; it may be that nobody publishes one.

  Tried so far: FSIS's safe-temperature chart attaches a rest only to whole cuts of beef, pork, lamb and veal, and gives all poultry 165 °F instantaneous. AHDB publishes beef and lamb guidance and no poultry guidance. MLA is a red-meat body. The Clemson poultry factsheet gives handling and endpoints and no rest. AmazingRibs argues against resting generally and does not treat poultry separately.

  Where the answer probably is

  • British Poultry Council or Red Tractor poultry guidance
  • US National Chicken Council consumer material
  • A university extension service poultry factsheet that addresses resting specifically
  • Australian Chicken Meat Federation

• Does any authoritative publisher state a barbecue cooking time for beef short ribs?

  high · open

  Beef short ribs are the only food among BBQHQ's most-requested cuts with no cooking profile at all, and they are not an obscure cut — plate short ribs are among the most recognisable things in Texas barbecue. BBQHQ can say precisely WHICH cut somebody means and nothing about how long it takes.

  Tried so far: FOUR ATTEMPTS OVER A LONG PERIOD, ALL NEGATIVE, AND THE PATTERN IS THE FINDING. Certified Angus Beef's bone-in plate short ribs page lists its recommended methods as 'Braise, Sous Vide, Slow Cooker' and states no temperature, time or endpoint. Its smoked short ribs recipe could not be retrieved — the page returns navigation furniture to every automated route tried. Beef. It's What's For Dinner catalogues plate short ribs as a cut and files timings under grilling and oven-roasting guidelines that do not include it. Texas A&M's barbecue pages, which supply BBQHQ's brisket yield, cover meat selection and barbecue science and give no short-rib timing. THE AMERICAN BEEF INDUSTRY DOES NOT PUBLISH A BARBECUE TIME FOR THE CUT AMERICAN BARBECUE IS MOST FAMOUS FOR. Where it writes about short ribs at all it writes about braising them, which is a different cook and cannot be transferred.

  What this holds back: Beef short ribs

  Where the answer probably is

  • A university meat science extension publication on smoking beef plate ribs specifically
  • A state beef council's barbecue material, as distinct from the national checkoff's
  • A competition barbecue body or culinary institute publishing a measured cook
  • Texas A&M AgriLife beyond the barbecue pages already read twice

• What guidance exists on defrosting meat for a barbecue, and on cooking it from frozen?

  high · open

  Two questions readers ask often — how to defrost meat for a barbecue, and whether it can be cooked from frozen — and BBQHQ holds nothing on either. An earlier coverage check treated unrelated safety guidance in the same territory as answering them, so a carbon-monoxide rule appeared to answer a question about defrosting. That has been corrected. The questions were always unanswered; only the reporting was wrong.

  Tried so far: The over-claim was found while checking the handling group, and the cause was fixed rather than the symptom. No retrieval attempted.

  Where the answer probably is

  • FSA guidance on freezing and defrosting
  • Food Standards Scotland consumer advice on defrosting

• Does any institutional publisher state a cooking time for meat cubes on a skewer, and does it say what size the cubes are?

  high · open

  Kebabs are among the most common things on a British or Turkish barbecue and BBQHQ can now describe one, name its safety endpoint and explain its geometry without saying how long it takes. The evidence problem is specific rather than general: a skewer's cook is governed by the size of the individual cube and by how tightly the pieces are packed, and a publisher who gives a time without stating either has given a number that cannot be applied. That is a higher bar than most foods in this catalogue need, and it is the right one here.

  Tried so far: Not searched for directly. The food was added so that mangal's skewered meat had something to point at, and the duration question is recorded from the moment it became real rather than after a retrieval. What is already known from the sources BBQHQ holds: Food Standards Scotland names 'burgers, sausages and kebabs' together at 75 °C, so the ENDPOINT is sourced and the food is safe to publish; Go Türkiye describes şiş kebab and çöp şiş in craft detail — skewer material, meat, cut — and gives no times at all, which is characteristic of cultural sources; and the same silence covers sate, where the Indonesian Ministry of Tourism describes the bamboo skewers and the charcoal fire and never the clock.

  What this holds back: Lamb kebab pieces, Turkish mangal grilling

  Where the answer probably is

  • AHDB, which publishes British lamb grilling times by thickness and might extend to cubes
  • A Turkish or Middle Eastern culinary institution documenting şiş kebab as craft rather than as heritage
  • A grill manufacturer's chart, which is where most of this catalogue's per-form timings come from
  • A university extension service on skewer or kebab safety, where piece size would matter for the endpoint too

• Does any institutional publisher state a GRILLING duration for prawns, scallops, squid or mussels?

  high · open

  Six of BBQHQ's twelve seafood foods can be given a window and six cannot, and the six that cannot are the ones people put on skewers at a barbecue. 'how long to cook king prawns in the shell on a barbecue' and 'how long to cook scallops on a barbecue' are both asked frequently, and both are answered with a cue and an honest refusal. Every fish in the catalogue is timed by a rate per inch of thickness; nothing analogous exists for a prawn, and the geometry is the reason — a prawn is not a slab and its thickness does not govern its cook the way a fillet's does.

  Tried so far: THREE PUBLISHERS WERE ASKED AND ALL THREE DECLINED, IN DIFFERENT WAYS. Clemson Cooperative Extension publishes a dedicated seafood factsheet, retrieved in full for this question: it gives cues for every one of these foods and its only figures are 3-5 minutes to boil or steam a pound of shrimp and 3-4 minutes for scallops with no method stated at all. The page names boiling, steaming, frying and baking and never names grilling — from the publisher whose FISH factsheet carries explicit grilling setup instructions, so the omission is a choice rather than an oversight. The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute's grilling brochure was re-read end to end: it distinguishes shellfish from fish on heat — shellfish want a hot grill — instructs a basket for smaller shellfish, and gives grilling times for exactly one shellfish, crab legs, which are sold cooked and are being REHEATED rather than cooked. The Food Standards Agency gives cues for prawns, scallops, crab, lobster and bivalves and states no time for any food. WHAT WAS REJECTED: the retrievable material that does give prawn and scallop grilling times is recipe sites, retailers and magazine columns, and this catalogue does not take a cooking time from a recipe average.

  What this holds back: King prawns in the shell, Peeled king prawns, Scallops, Squid, Mussels in the shell

  Where the answer probably is

  • Seafish (the UK Sea Fish Industry Authority) — a public body, and the most likely British institution to publish shellfish handling guidance
  • A Sea Grant programme with a shellfish extension remit — Maine, North Carolina or Louisiana
  • An Australian or New Zealand seafood authority, where prawns on a barbecue are mainstream enough that a national body may have written it down
  • A university food science department publishing measured cook times for cephalopods, where the texture question is genuinely researched

• Which publishers give grilling durations for the twenty-three foods most recently added — the chillies, the brassicas, the maize breads, the turkey, the duck and the offal?

  normal · open

  BBQHQ has repeatedly been able to describe a food well before it could find a published cooking time for it, and this records the latest set rather than folding them into an earlier one. The composition has changed, though, and the change is worth stating: the produce and seafood gaps were about foods nobody had published on. Several of these are foods that are published on constantly — whole turkey is one of the most written-about cooks in the English-speaking world — and the problem is that almost all of it is oven roasting, which is a different heat arrangement from anything this catalogue models. A turkey time from a magazine is not a barbecue time, and importing one would be worse than having none. The poultry additions are not unsafe for lacking it: turkey, duck and chicken all inherit their jurisdictional endpoints from their species, and an endpoint is what governs safety while a duration only governs planning.

  Tried so far: No new retrieval was attempted for these specifically; the available retrieval effort went to flavour, marinade science and accessory safety, which were the areas where BBQHQ was asserting things on nothing. That is a deliberate ordering — an unsourced safety claim is worse than an absent duration — and it is recorded here so the choice is visible rather than looking like an oversight.

  What this holds back: Whole turkey, Turkey breast joint, Chicken leg quarter, Duck leg, Whole duck, Whole quail, Ox heart, Chorizo, Whole okra, Whole jalapeños, Padrón peppers, Halved artichokes, Brussels sprouts, Whole cauliflower, Mango cheeks, Halved apples, Halved plantain, Pita bread, Corn tortillas, Arepas, Seitan slices, Whole crab, Whole squid

  Where the answer probably is

  • Poultry levy boards and marketing bodies, several of which publish barbecue-specific rather than oven guidance for whole birds
  • The land-grant extension network beyond the two services already held, for the vegetables
  • Fisheries and seafood marketing bodies for crab and squid, the same class of publisher that supplied the salmon side

• How far into meat does a marinade actually penetrate, and which publisher has measured it?

  normal · open

  This is the single most repeated quantitative claim about marinating — that it reaches only one to three millimetres, that overnight soaking changes nothing deeper than the surface — and BBQHQ cannot find it in an institutional source. It appears in test-kitchen writing and on hobbyist sites, both of which measured something and neither of which is the tier of publisher this catalogue admits for a number. The peer-reviewed review retrieved for this question describes the mechanism in detail, including salt drawing liquid out by osmosis and the solution then being absorbed, and states no depth anywhere. So the guidance says marination is substantially a surface treatment, which the mechanism supports, and prints no figure — which is unsatisfying and is the honest position. A reader wanting to know whether an extra six hours will help deserves a measured answer rather than a number BBQHQ read on a blog.

  Tried so far: The Rahman et al. 2023 review in Food Quality and Safety was retrieved and read against this question specifically; it is a review of marination ingredients and gives no depth. Searches surfaced peer-reviewed work on NaCl diffusion in beef — including simulation and tumbling studies in Food Research International and Meat Science — which is the right literature and sits behind paywalls. The extension services BBQHQ holds for marinating cover safety and give no measurement.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Meat Science / Food Research International papers on NaCl diffusivity in muscle tissue, several of which appear to state depths directly
  • University extension publications on marination that cite laboratory work rather than repeating practice
  • Any regulator or institution stating a depth in the course of a safety instruction about surface treatment

• Which publishers give grilling guidance for swordfish, monkfish, lobster, oysters and octopus specifically, rather than for 'fish' as a category?

  normal · open

  BBQHQ holds two fish rates — Weber's and the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute's — and both are stated for 'fish' without naming a species. Applying them to cod and salmon was a narrowing the catalogue could defend, because those are the ordinary flaking fish the rules were plainly written about. The five foods this gap covers are the ones where that defence fails. Swordfish and monkfish are atypically dense and have almost no flake; a lobster's window is a minute wide; an oyster's endpoint is a mechanical event rather than a temperature; and an octopus does most of its cooking in a pan before it ever reaches a grate. Stretching a general fish rate over any of them would be arithmetic dressed as evidence, so no duration is published for any of the five. The catalogue still describes each one's structure, failure mode and endpoint cue, which is what it can establish without a publisher.

  Tried so far: The ASMI document already held was re-read against the five foods before this gap was raised: it covers salmon, halibut, cod, crab and scallops, and none of these. The one thing it did yield was the whole-side-of-salmon window, which had been sitting held and uncited for a long time and now sits behind the whole-side-of-salmon cooking profile. No new publisher has been retrieved.

  What this holds back: Swordfish steak, Monkfish fillet, Halved lobster, Oysters in the shell, Octopus tentacles

  Where the answer probably is

  • Seafish (UK) species guides, which publish per-species handling and cooking guidance
  • US regional seafood marketing bodies of the same kind as ASMI, for Atlantic and Gulf species
  • Appliance manufacturers' grilling charts, several of which list seafood by species rather than as one row

• Which publishers give grilling durations for the common vegetables and fruits that the two extension-service documents do not cover?

  normal · open

  Iowa State University Extension and North Dakota State University Extension are the whole of BBQHQ's evidence for how long a vegetable takes over fire, and both were read to exhaustion when the first fifteen produce records were built. Broccoli, carrot, beetroot, leek, fennel, butternut squash, garlic, pak choi, chicory, king oyster mushroom, watermelon, fig and lemon appear in neither. The catalogue can still say a great deal about each — what shape it is, what that shape does to heat, which of its two materials burns first, how it fails — and it cannot say how long, so it does not. The alternative was to read a duration across from the nearest modelled vegetable, which is the borrowing BBQHQ refuses in meat and seafood and which is no more defensible here.

  Tried so far: The two documents already held were re-read against the new list before this gap was raised, which is how the count of fifteen covered vegetables was established. No new publisher has been retrieved. The obvious direction is more of the same kind — the extension network has dozens of member services and several publish their own grilling guides — and the reason that is promising is the reason the existing two were admitted: they are institutional, they state their conditions, and they can be cited whole rather than mined.

  What this holds back: Broccoli florets, Cauliflower steak, King oyster mushrooms, Whole carrots, Whole beetroot, Halved leeks, Fennel wedges, Butternut squash slices, Whole garlic head, Halved pak choi, Halved chicory, Whole aubergine, Whole jacket potato, Watermelon wedges, Halved figs, Halved lemons

  Where the answer probably is

  • Other US land-grant university extension services publishing grilled-vegetable guidance
  • UK or EU horticultural or produce-marketing bodies publishing cooking guidance by vegetable
  • Appliance manufacturers' published grilling charts, which BBQHQ already admits for other foods

• Which authority publishes a cut specification for farmed or wild venison, in any modelled territory?

  normal · open

  BBQHQ requires that a steak from a mammal names the market cut it is sold as, because 'venison steak' is not a thing you can buy — it is a category, and the counter will hand you haunch, loin or shoulder under that one word, which cook nothing alike. BBQHQ models UK, US and AU butchery for cattle, pig and sheep and models nothing at all for deer. A venison steak was written, hit that rule, and was removed along with the species rather than fabricate a deer cut system to get past it. Venison is the most requested absent food in the red-meat set and it stays absent until a specification exists to name its cuts.

  Tried so far: Not yet retrieved. The gap was raised by the food-breadth programme at the point of refusal, and the deletion was taken in preference to guessing. The candidates below are named from the same class of publisher that supplied the existing cattle, pig and sheep specifications — a levy board or a trade body publishing a carcase-to-counter cutting specification — and none has been opened.

  Where the answer probably is

  • British Deer Farms and Parks Association / Wild Venison Quality Assurance cutting guidance
  • AHDB or equivalent levy-board venison cutting specification, if one is published
  • USDA Agricultural Marketing Service institutional meat purchase specifications for game, if venison is covered

• Which authority publishes consumer electrical-safety guidance for mains-powered outdoor cooking appliances, in any modelled territory?

  normal · partially answered

  BBQHQ has long recognised an electrical safety domain — mains power outdoors, cables, water and residual current protection — and it has never held a rule, because a safety domain of that kind requires a jurisdiction behind it and BBQHQ models no electrical authority anywhere. The smoker records made the absence concrete rather than theoretical: an electric cabinet smoker runs from mains power, in the weather, for ten hours, on an extension cord across a garden, and its maker specifies a 30 mA residual current device and an earthed outlet. That instruction is currently filed as equipment guidance because it is a manufacturer's instruction rather than a national one, and it is the correct filing for a maker's words about its own appliance. What is missing is the other half — a wiring or consumer-safety authority stating what the requirement is for everybody, which is what would let the electrical domain open properly.

  Tried so far: Raised at the moment the first mains-powered smoker acquired a rule and had nowhere jurisdictional to put it. A later pass retrieved the first candidate source named below, and found a second publisher giving the same advice independently.

  What this holds back: Digital electric cabinet smoker

  Where the answer probably is

  • Electrical Safety First (UK) consumer guidance on outdoor electrical appliances
  • BS 7671 / IET consumer-facing summaries of RCD requirements for outdoor sockets
  • US Consumer Product Safety Commission guidance on outdoor extension cords and GFCI

• How does IMPS Series 200 specify lamb leg, shoulder, loin chops and rack, so UK lamb cuts can be mapped to US ones?

  normal · answered

  Beef and pork were unblocked and lamb was not, so the UK/US asymmetry has narrowed to one species rather than disappearing. Every UK lamb cut in the catalogue is still marked as having no US equivalent — which is honest and is not the same as knowing there is no equivalent.

  Tried so far: The Internet Archive capture of IMPS_200_Fresh_Lamb_and_Mutton truncated at exactly 1,048,576 bytes on every attempt, with an invalid cross-reference table; two filename variants returned 404. Retrying the archive was then abandoned in favour of the publisher. ams.usda.gov's IMPS index lists the series directly, and an ordinary HTTP request retrieved BOTH the 2022 edition (1,574,654 bytes) and the 2014 edition (1,235,836 bytes) intact and complete on the first attempt — each of them larger than the point the archive capture died at. The 403 previously recorded for ams.usda.gov did not recur. The truncation was a property of one damaged capture and the block was a property of one route; neither was a property of the document.

  What this holds back: Leg of lamb, Lamb shoulder, Lamb loin chop, Lamb leg steak

• What are typical thickness figures for the foods in the catalogue, as opposed to typical weights?

  normal · partially answered

  Thickness governs cooking time more directly than weight does, because heat travels from the surface inward. BBQHQ found that almost every source published weight and almost none published thickness, which made BBQHQ's estimates wider than they needed to be.

  Tried so far: Three sources have been found that publish times BY thickness rather than by weight — AHDB for beef and lamb, the National Pork Board for chops, and Clemson and Weber for fish per inch — which addresses the practical need for flat cuts. What is still missing is thickness for irregular foods: a whole bird has no single thickness, and no retrieved source states a depth to the thickest part of the thigh.

  What this holds back: Whole chicken

  Where the answer probably is

  • AHDB and NAMI cutting specifications, for stated portion thicknesses
  • Direct measurement, which may be the only route for whole birds and joints

• What Philippine institutional or academic sources document inihaw — grilling practice, the foods grilled, and the social setting?

  normal · open

  The catalogue's coverage of South East Asia rests on one Indonesian source. Filipino grilling is a major live-fire tradition and BBQHQ holds nothing on it at all, so it is absent rather than thin — which is worse, because absence is invisible to a reader.

  Tried so far: Searches restricted to the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, the National Historical Commission and the Philippine tourism board returned no page on inihaw or ihaw-ihaw. No tradition record has been created, because creating one would assert that BBQHQ knows the tradition exists in the form it would describe.

  Where the answer probably is

  • National Commission for Culture and the Arts, Filipino Food Month material
  • University of the Philippines food-studies work

• What charcoal and grill does yakitori use, and what is its documented history?

  normal · open

  Binchōtan charcoal and the konro grill are the two things every popular account of yakitori mentions, and the one government source BBQHQ retrieved mentions neither. So the yakitori record describes seasonings, parts and settings and says nothing about the fire — which is a strange shape for a live-fire cooking record and an honest one.

  Tried so far: Web Japan's NIPPONIA feature on yakitori, published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the most likely source for both, returns HTTP 403 to automated requests.

  What this holds back: Yakitori

  Where the answer probably is

  • Web Japan NIPPONIA, by a route other than automated fetch
  • Japanese MAFF regional cuisine material

• What is the documented history of Korean grilled meat — neobiani, bulgogi and galbi — and how is the charcoal managed?

  normal · open

  The Korea Tourism Organization page supports the practice and the setting well and makes no historical claims at all. The Korean Cultural Centre UK booklet almost certainly carries the history and could not be read.

  Tried so far: The Korean Cultural Centre UK Hansik booklet downloads but its text layer could not be extracted. The Korean Food Promotion Institute's English pages cover the institute's remit rather than dishes.

  What this holds back: Korean grilled meat

  Where the answer probably is

  • Korean Cultural Centre UK Hansik booklet, in a readable format
  • Korea.net cultural features on neobiani and bulgogi

• What internal temperatures do British sources give for rare, medium and well done beef, as a culinary rather than a safety matter?

  normal · open

  BBQHQ can now state Australian doneness temperatures from MLA and can only compare them with British convention informally, which leaves the claim that Australian doneness differs only half supported. AHDB publishes times per doneness level without publishing the temperatures those levels correspond to, so the British half of the comparison is genuinely missing rather than merely unfetched.

  Tried so far: AHDB's Simply Beef & Lamb grilling guides give times per doneness level (rare, medium, well done) and no corresponding internal temperatures.

  Where the answer probably is

  • AHDB steak how-to guides and thermometer guidance
  • UK culinary training standards material

• Why do Weber and the National Pork Board give non-overlapping smoking times for pork spareribs, and which conditions differ?

  normal · open

  This is BBQHQ's cleanest example of two competent publishers contradicting each other on one food, and the product currently reports the disagreement without being able to explain it. The likely cause is a cooker-temperature difference that only one source states — but a plausible explanation is not evidence, and publishing one would be inventing the reconciliation.

  Tried so far: Weber gives 3–4 hours 'indirect low' for a 2½–3½ lb rack without stating a temperature; the National Pork Board gives 5–7 hours at a stated 225–250 °F without stating a rack weight. Neither states both variables, so the axis on which they differ cannot be identified from what they publish.

  Where the answer probably is

  • A third independent publisher stating rack weight AND cooker temperature together
  • Weber's definition of its own 'low' heat level in degrees

• Which federal instrument is Clemson Cooperative Extension restating when it gives ground beef 155 °F, where USDA FSIS gives consumers 160 °F?

  normal · partially answered

  Two credible American publishers give different minimum internal temperatures for the same food, five degrees apart, and a reader who follows the lower one is following advice BBQHQ cannot vouch for. BBQHQ read the FDA Food Code and established where the lower figure comes from: 68 °C (155 °F) for 17 seconds is section 3-401.11(A)(2), a requirement on retail and food service businesses. What is still not established is whether CLEMSON is restating that instrument — its factsheet gives the number and attributes it to nobody. The distinction between the two regimes is now modelled, and BBQHQ's US ground-beef guidance is unchanged and still traces to FSIS, because a person cooking at home is who that figure is written for.

  Tried so far: Found while retrieving the Clemson beef factsheet for grilling times; the factsheet states the figure without attributing it. The FDA Food Code 2022 was then retrieved in full — fda.gov refuses one route and answers another — and confirmed the figure, its scope and its standing. The Food Code half of the question is answered. A further attempt established that the question is not answerable from these documents: the beef, pork and lamb factsheets were each read to the end looking specifically for attribution, and all three carry author credits, a pesticide disclaimer and a South Carolina caveat and cite NOTHING for any food-safety figure. The SAME PATTERN then appeared a second time — Clemson gives whole cuts a FOUR-minute rest where FSIS gives three — so this is a systemic property of the factsheet series rather than one stray number. A four-minute holding time at 145 °F is a row in Food Code §3-401.11(B), the whole-roast table, whose stated origin is USDA/FSIS Appendix A; that is a documented twin and not a citation, and it does not cover steaks, which Clemson applies its four minutes to. Provenance is NOT inferred from the match.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Clemson HGIC editorial staff. It is established that the factsheets themselves cite nothing, so this is now the only route that could close it
  • Clemson HGIC editorial contact, which may be the only route to the attribution
  • South Carolina's adopted retail food code, if Clemson is restating state law rather than the federal model

• What do Philippine national cultural institutions document about inihaw and live-fire cooking, and how can their material be retrieved?

  normal · open

  Inihaw is one of the most widely practised live-fire traditions in the world and BBQHQ has no record for it at all, which is the honest state but not an acceptable permanent one. An initial search found nothing; a later one found the reason rather than the evidence — ncca.gov.ph returns 403 to every automated client tried, including an ordinary browser user agent, and the National Museum's Filipino food exhibition page discusses ingredients and presentation without describing cooking methods. Creating a tradition record from the general-interest articles that ARE reachable would assert that BBQHQ knows the shape of a practice it has read nothing institutional about.

  Tried so far: ncca.gov.ph returns HTTP 403 to automated requests on every path tried, including its Filipino Food Month material and its search endpoint. nationalmuseum.gov.ph is reachable and its Pagkaing Filipino exhibition page does not discuss cooking methods. Earlier searches of the national cultural and historical commissions returned nothing. The reachable material is general-interest food writing, which does not meet the standard BBQHQ enforces for a published tradition. A LATER ATTEMPT at the manual-browser route this gap names as the likely answer could not proceed: the browser automation extension was not connected, so no interactive retrieval was possible. That is a fact about the tooling and NOT further evidence about the document — the rule this gap has carried from the outset cuts both ways, and a second failed route does not make the NCCA material any less likely to exist. Searches for NCCA inihaw material through general web search returned only the commission's institutional pages and third-party encyclopaedia entries.

  Where the answer probably is

  • NCCA material retrieved by a person with a browser, which the 403 suggests would work
  • University of the Philippines or Ateneo scholarship on Filipino foodways
  • National Museum of the Philippines exhibition catalogues, as documents rather than web pages
  • Philippine Department of Tourism, which publishes institutionally on regional food
  • Archium Ateneo — the Ateneo de Manila journal repository, reachable, whose Fernandez holdings are the right material in the wrong format
  • A Doreen Fernandez article with a machine-readable text layer, or her books as texts rather than as scans

• Does any source state a resting time for lamb steaks, chops or cutlets, as opposed to lamb joints?

  normal · partially answered

  The shape of this gap is what makes it interesting. AHDB DOES publish a lamb rest figure — 15–20 minutes, covered with foil — and it is explicitly for a JOINT: leg, shoulder, breast, shanks or rack. BBQHQ holds two lamb PORTION profiles, a leg steak and a loin chop, and reading a joint figure onto a 2 cm chop is exactly the geometry error the resting check exists to refuse. MLA has a resting guide for beef and, when checked, none for lamb. So both lamb profiles refuse to plan while a lamb rest figure sits in the catalogue, unusable, which looks like a bug and is the model working.

  Tried so far: AHDB's roast-lamb guide gives 15–20 minutes for joints only. Its lamb GRILLING guide gives times per thickness and no rest, matching the silence its beef grilling guide keeps. australianlamb.com.au's cooking-times page was retrieved and contains no resting guidance of any kind; a resting page equivalent to the beef one does not appear to exist on that site.

  Where the answer probably is

  • AHDB Simply Beef & Lamb, a lamb equivalent of its grilling guides that addresses resting
  • Meat & Livestock Australia's lamb site, if a resting guide is published there
  • Beef + Lamb New Zealand consumer guidance

• What are the hot-holding requirements in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, as distinct from England?

  normal · answered

  BBQHQ applies a 63 °C holding floor to every reader whose territory is GB, and the instrument behind it is the Food Safety and Hygiene (ENGLAND) Regulations 2013. Wales and Northern Ireland have parallel instruments and Scotland's regime differs — Scottish food hygiene law has never included the English chill-holding offence in the same form. The figure is very probably the same in all four; 'very probably' is not a standard BBQHQ accepts anywhere else, and a single UK jurisdiction covering the whole of GB is what makes the overreach invisible. This is the same shape of error as treating FSANZ as a country, caught on the other side.

  Tried so far: The England instrument was retrieved in full from legislation.gov.uk. The other three came from the same host on the first request each — so this gap was a retrieval nobody had attempted rather than a document nobody could get, which is not the first time that distinction has mattered. All four state 63 °C. Wales and Northern Ireland mirror England's offence-framed paragraph 6 with the same two-hour once-only defence; Northern Ireland's CHILL-holding defence runs to four hours where England's runs to two, and Scotland's schedule is drafted differently again, giving 63 °C as a permitted method rather than an offence floor and adding an 82 °C reheating requirement the other three do not carry. The four records are kept separate because agreeing today is not being one rule. Looking for these also turned up the larger error the gap had not suspected: the FSA has not covered Scotland since 2015 and Food Standards Scotland publishes a different consumer figure.

  Where the answer probably is

  • The Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006, Schedule 4
  • The Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 2006
  • The Food Hygiene Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006
  • FSA and Food Standards Scotland business guidance, which may state the figures without the instruments

• Does any UK food authority publish a hot-holding TEMPERATURE addressed to people cooking at home, as opposed to food businesses?

  normal · open

  Every British reader who asks the planner about holding food hot is shown 63 °C from catering law, correctly labelled as a rule addressed to businesses. BBQHQ has established that there is nothing else to show them: the FSA's consumer barbecue guidance does not mention hot holding at all, and Food Standards Scotland's says 'keep hot food hot and cold food cold until you're ready to eat' with no temperature attached. The United States has a consumer figure from two independent publishers — Clemson and Texas A&M AgriLife both give 140 °F — so the asymmetry is real rather than a search failure, and a British reader is currently offered a business instrument because their own authority has published no alternative.

  Tried so far: The FSA's 'BBQ food safety' guidance was retrieved in full through the GOV.UK content API and read end to end: it covers preparation, cross-contamination, cooking, serving and leftovers, states its own reach as England, Northern Ireland and Wales, and gives no hot-holding temperature and no maximum hot-hold duration. Its numerical time limits run the other way — leftovers into a fridge or cool bag within one to two hours, eaten within 48, reheated once until steaming hot. Food Standards Scotland's barbecue and cooking pages were read in full and reach the same shape by a different route: an instruction with no figure, plus the 75 °C cooking check and leftovers within two days. safefood, the all-island body for Ireland and Northern Ireland, returns HTTP 403 to every client tried and is the obvious next candidate.

  Where the answer probably is

  • safefood (Ireland / Northern Ireland), currently 403 to automated clients
  • FSA business guidance written for very small caterers, which may state a consumer-facing equivalent
  • NHS or Public Health Agency consumer material on keeping cooked food hot
  • Welsh Government food-safety material, if distinct from the FSA's

• Should BBQHQ model Canada as a jurisdiction, given that Health Canada's whole-bird poultry endpoint is 82 °C against the American 74 °C?

  normal · answered

  This is a gap in the MODEL rather than in the evidence, and it was found by evidence arriving. Chicken Farmers of Canada's cooking chart — the best-shaped poultry duration source BBQHQ holds, and the only one that times bone-in portions by weight — states 74 °C for pieces and 82 °C for a whole bird. Eight degrees is not a rounding difference and it is not a disagreement either: it is a second national convention, of exactly the kind BBQHQ keeps apart by jurisdiction. BBQHQ models no Canadian jurisdiction, so the rules correctly refuse to record the figure as an endpoint and it survives only as a note on an observation. The duration rows from the same chart are used and the temperatures beside them are not, which is defensible and slightly odd, and it is worth deciding rather than leaving.

  Tried so far: The figures were read on chicken.ca, which attributes them to Health Canada and is a levy body restricted from the safety domain — so it cannot establish them itself. Adding the jurisdiction properly needs the Health Canada instrument, not the levy board's restatement of it. Note the cost of doing so: the chooser derives its territory list from the safety rules, so a Canadian territory would change the planner's denominator again, and it should be added because Canadian readers deserve their own figures rather than to move a number.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Health Canada's safe internal cooking temperatures page
  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency material on poultry

• What fraction of a raw pork shoulder survives a long barbecue cook as pulled or sliced meat?

  normal · partially answered

  Pork shoulder has the best portion evidence in the catalogue — Michigan State states it three ways by appetite — and the party planner refuses it anyway, because that portion is a COOKED weight and nothing states how much of the raw weight survives. This is the single record that would turn the best-evidenced food in the quantity model from a refusal into an answer.

  Tried so far: The National Pork Board publishes a general figure — 'one pound of raw pork equals approximately 12 ounces of cooked pork' — with no method, temperature or duration attached, and the cuts that body sells most of are chops and loins cooked for twenty minutes. It is recorded as evidence and deliberately attached to no food, so the planner cannot reach it: applying 75% to a ten-hour shoulder would understate the shopping weight by about a third, in the direction that leaves people hungry. Texas A&M publishes a brisket yield and no pork equivalent. THE PORK BOARD'S OWN SHOULDER MATERIAL WAS CHECKED DIRECTLY: its pork shoulder brochure was retrieved and read in full and gives cooking rates — 45 minutes per pound barbecuing, 30 roasting — serving suggestions and nutrition panels, and states no yield of any kind; its pulled pork page likewise. So the body that exists to promote this cut, in the two documents it publishes about this cut, does not say how much of it survives cooking. That is a checked absence rather than an unexamined one.

  Where the answer probably is

  • A university meat science programme measuring cooking loss on a SMOKED shoulder specifically
  • A competition or catering body publishing measured pulled-pork yields
  • USDA ARS, if a future release adds a smoked or barbecued preparation method

• How much cooking surface does one portion of a given food occupy on a grate?

  normal · open

  Cooker capacity is established — 2,342 cm² for a 57 cm kettle, 1,613 cm² for an 18-inch kamado — and it is currently unusable. An area divided by nothing is nothing: without a footprint the planner cannot say how many burgers fit, how many loads a party needs, or whether one cook is plausible, and it refuses all three. This is now the SINGLE blocker on batch planning.

  Tried so far: Weber states that its 57 cm kettle fits thirteen burgers, which across the same page's 2,342 cm² implies 180 cm² each — more than double the footprint of a 10 cm patty. So the manufacturer's own example cannot be reverse-engineered into a footprint, and it is recorded as an example rather than a measurement. Food records carry mass and thickness and no diameter or plan area, so the footprint cannot be derived from the catalogue either.

  Where the answer probably is

  • A specification or trade standard stating patty and sausage dimensions
  • AHDB or IMPS cutting specifications, which state some cut dimensions
  • Manufacturer accessory documentation — rib racks and baskets state what they hold

• For which other foods does a preparation difference change the published cooking evidence?

  normal · open

  BBQHQ can compare cooks by how the food was prepared, and exactly one food currently uses that comparison. Spatchcocked against whole chicken, wrapped against unwrapped ribs, whole against filleted fish, skin-on against skin-off poultry — all are real distinctions that change a cook, and BBQHQ holds no source that times BOTH sides of any of them. Being able to make the comparison before there is evidence to fill it is the right order, and it is not a finished job.

  Tried so far: The corn case works because ONE publisher timed both preparations on one chart row, which is what makes them comparable rather than merely different. That shape — one source, two preparations, everything else held constant — is what any further preparation evidence has to have, and it is rarer than it sounds: most publishers pick a preparation and time only that.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Manufacturer charts that time spatchcocked and whole birds separately
  • Extension publications comparing wrapped and unwrapped rib cooks
  • A controlled comparison from a specialist publication with a stated method

• Does anybody publish how much clearance a piece of food needs from its neighbours on a grate?

  normal · open

  A physical footprint is established for one food, and the same work proved that it is not a capacity: dividing a 2,342 cm² grate by a 81.7 cm² patty gives 28, and Weber says 13 fit the same grate. The factor of two IS the spacing, and nobody states it. Until somebody does, BBQHQ's own geometry can only produce a ceiling, and practical batch counts have to be borrowed from whichever manufacturer happens to publish an example for that exact cooker.

  Tried so far: Manufacturer capacity examples state a COUNT for a specific model and never the reasoning behind it, so they cannot be generalised or transferred. Cooking guides state thickness and time. The AMSA cookery guidelines specify sample preparation in detail and say nothing about arrangement on a cooking surface, because their samples are cooked in controlled equipment rather than packed onto a grate.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Manufacturer manuals showing food placement with dimensions rather than photographs
  • Commercial catering equipment specifications, which must state pan and rack loadings
  • Any controlled study of grate loading and cooking uniformity

• What authoritative source describes how fuel quantity, moisture and combustion state govern a solid-fuel cooker's temperature and smoke?

  normal · open

  Six published troubleshooting causes rest on it: charcoal going out for want of fuel mass, damp fuel, a fire too small to reach a searing temperature, wet or unseasoned wood, too much wood at once, and grease igniting independently of the food. Each is ordinary barbecue knowledge and none of them is in a document BBQHQ holds. Manufacturers describe lighting and extinguishing; nobody retrieved so far describes the middle.

  Tried so far: Weber's charcoal owner's guide covers lighting, damper control and extinguishing, and does not discuss fuel quantity against target temperature or fuel moisture. The claim that airflow governs charcoal heat was built from its damper instruction and carries the inference explicitly; it cannot be stretched to cover fuel mass.

  What this holds back: The charcoal keeps going out, The charcoal grill will not get hot enough, The smoker is producing thick white smoke

  Where the answer probably is

  • A charcoal or briquette manufacturer's technical documentation
  • Combustion or solid-fuel appliance literature
  • A specialist publication with a controlled fuel-quantity experiment

• What culinary-science source describes surface moisture, protein adhesion to hot metal, and grate crowding?

  normal · open

  Five published causes rest on it: skin that will not crisp because the surface is wet, a crowded grate steaming rather than searing, food tearing because it was turned before it released, and cold or dirty bars. These are among the most useful things a troubleshooting page can say and none of them traces to a retrieved sentence.

  Tried so far: The catalogue's culinary-science holdings are about timing and endpoints rather than surfaces. AmazingRibs is the most likely publisher and is restricted from the safety domain, which does not block a texture claim; no relevant article has been retrieved.

  What this holds back: Chicken skin is rubbery, Food sticking to the grate

  Where the answer probably is

  • A food-science publisher on the Maillard reaction and surface drying
  • Extension material on grilling technique rather than food safety
  • A specialist publication with a controlled sticking or crowding test

• Does any publisher state whether grilled vegetables need a resting step, in either direction?

  normal · open

  144 planner combinations — every sweet pepper and every corn cob — refuse for missing rest, and the refusal may be describing the model rather than the food. Nobody writes a resting step for a grilled pepper, and the honest reading of that is not obvious: it may be that a pepper does not rest, or that vegetable cookery writers do not discuss the question. BBQHQ cannot tell those apart from silence, and the difference decides whether 144 combinations are unlockable or permanently and correctly refused. THE ONE THING BBQHQ MUST NOT DO IS GUESS, because guessing here means inventing a zero-minute rest for a whole food class.

  Tried so far: ASKED PROPERLY, THIS GOT NO ANSWER IN EITHER DIRECTION. Three Michigan State University Extension articles on grilling vegetables were read in full — Vegetable grilling tips (2015), Grillin' vegetables (2014) and Eight tips for grilling fruits and vegetables (2013) — and none states any post-grill resting, covering or standing step for any vegetable. The nearest instruction in the three is for FRUIT: allow cooling time before serving because of high water content, which is about handling heat rather than resting and is stated for fruit. The NDSU and Iowa State vegetable documents BBQHQ already holds are likewise silent. A SEARCH SUMMARY CLAIMED MSU PRESCRIBES A FIVE-TO-TEN-MINUTE COVERED STEAMING STEP AFTER GRILLING; three retrievals show it does not, and it is recorded here so it is not chased again.

  Where the answer probably is

  • A culinary-science publisher addressing whether vegetables rest, rather than a nutrition-focused extension article
  • A vegetable levy body or produce marketing board with cooking technique guidance
  • Any source that states serve-immediately for grilled vegetables in those words — which would be an explicit no-rest statement and would unlock 144 combinations

• How wide may a thickness envelope be before its two ends stop describing one cook?

  normal · open

  Two rules about thickness envelopes are established — no point envelopes, and envelopes must tile rather than overlap — and set no ceiling on how WIDE one may be. The thick pork chop direct profile covers 25-42 mm, which is a 1.7x span in the dimension that governs cooking time more than any other. Every observation it cites is at 38 mm. A later conversion audit surfaced a Weber row at 25 mm giving 8-10 minutes against the profile's 12-35, and the two figures are disjoint without either publisher being wrong: a chop at one end of the band genuinely cooks faster than a chop at the other. The band is asserting that they are one cook. The same question applies wherever an envelope is wide — the rib-eye reverse sear spans 26-50 mm on evidence at 38 and 50.

  Tried so far: THIS FOUND THE QUESTION RATHER THAN ANSWERING IT, and deliberately did not answer it by splitting the band. A third pork chop profile at 25-31 mm would rest on one publisher from the day it was written, and deriving its bounds from a single 25 mm point through the T-4/T+5 rule would produce 21-30, which overlaps the thin chop's 15-24 and breaks the tiling rule. So the Weber row is converted, held, and its disposition states that the hold is on the band position rather than on the number — a test a later review can check. What would settle this is either a publisher timing a chop between 25 and 31 mm, which would justify a band, or a stated policy on maximum envelope width, which is a modelling decision rather than a retrieval.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Any publisher timing a pork chop between 25 and 31 mm, which would give a middle band two publishers instead of one
  • AMSA cookery guidelines on how far a stated thickness may be generalised
  • A second publisher at 25 mm, which would make the low end of the band answerable on its own terms

• Does any publisher other than Weber time a steak thicker than 26 mm over two-zone or reverse-sear heat?

  normal · open

  Every thickness-indexed steak row BBQHQ holds from a non-manufacturer stops at 20 mm — AHDB at 2 cm, Clemson at ¾ inch. Above that the catalogue has Weber and nothing else, so the thicker the steak a reader has actually bought, the thinner the evidence behind the answer. It is also the band where the cooking method changes: a 35 mm steak is the one that genuinely needs two zones, which is the technique BBQHQ most wants corroborated.

  Tried so far: TWO ROUTES, BOTH INFORMATIVE FAILURES. Canada Beef publishes exactly the wanted object — a thickness-indexed grilling chart at a stated 400 °F — and prints it as an IMAGE with no text layer, so the rows cannot be read and the source is registered 'inaccessible' rather than cited. Canada Beef's bone-in rib steak lesson WAS readable and states its thickness in bones ('1-, 2- or 3-bone thickness'), which no source in the catalogue lets BBQHQ convert to millimetres, and describes a 30-minute indirect cook at 160-180 °C rather than a 10-18 minute two-zone one. A levy-board sweep across AHDB, MLA, Beef + Lamb New Zealand and Bord Bia surfaced no chart reaching past 20 mm.

  Where the answer probably is

  • The Canada Beef grilling-time chart in any text-bearing form — a print PDF, an accessible table, or the same figures restated in its own prose
  • A meat science extension publication measuring thick-steak cooking, where AMSA's cookery guidelines already establish the vocabulary
  • A national beef body outside the five already checked, publishing by thickness rather than by cut

• Does any publisher other than Chicken Farmers of Canada time a bone-in chicken thigh over DIRECT heat?

  normal · open

  This is the gap whose negative result is the most interesting, and it should not be closed by weakening the question. BBQHQ holds three publishers on bone-in thighs and TWO OF THEM COOK THEM INDIRECT — Weber at 30-40 minutes, Clemson at 20-30. Chicken Farmers of Canada is the only one that puts them over direct heat, and it is therefore the only evidence behind the direct profile. Either direct-grilled bone-in thighs are genuinely a minority technique among publishers who state their conditions, or the corroboration exists somewhere BBQHQ has not looked. The two possibilities call for different next moves and the evidence does not yet separate them.

  Tried so far: The University of Minnesota Extension grilling chart — the one extension document known to carry a cut-by-cut time table — returns HTTP 403 to every automated route tried. The National Chicken Council was retrieved in full and cannot be used: it gives thighs and drumsticks 'about 25 to 30 minutes on the grill' with NO piece weight anywhere on the page and no heat configuration for that row, and every bone-in poultry profile in this catalogue is defined by a mass band because the evidence behind it is mass-indexed. Its figure would have CONFLICTED with CFC's 14-20 minutes rather than corroborated it, which is precisely why the decision to hold it was taken on the stated conditions rather than on the numbers.

  Where the answer probably is

  • The UMN Extension grilling chart by a route that is not blocked
  • A poultry levy body outside Canada that indexes grilling times by piece weight — the British, Australian or New Zealand equivalents of the CFC chart
  • An extension service publishing a direct-heat poultry technique with stated piece weights

• Does any publisher other than Weber time a spatchcocked whole chicken over direct heat?

  normal · open

  Spatchcocking is the single preparation with the largest published effect on a whole bird's cooking time — 45-55 minutes against 60-90 for the same bird intact — and BBQHQ's entire evidence for it is one manufacturer's technique page. It is also the scenario where corroboration would pay twice: the profile already carries a rest figure and already plans, so a second publisher would move it straight to fully supported.

  Tried so far: ONE BOUNDED PASS FOUND THE BEST CANDIDATE YET, UNREADABLE. Iowa State University Extension's AnswerLine carries a spatchcock article; Iowa State is already a publisher in this catalogue and is independent of Weber, so it would have been a genuine second voice. The canonical URL returns HTTP 404 to the automated route and web.archive.org is unreachable from here, so the second route could not even be attempted. Its text is visible in search results and was NOT written down: a search snippet is not a retrieval, and BBQHQ refused the same shortcut for IMPS and for Health Canada. Worth recording before the next attempt: on what is visible, it appears to describe roasting at 400-450 °F to 165 °F in the leg and to state its time RELATIVELY — about fifteen minutes less than an unspatchcocked bird — which is neither a barbecue nor a window, so it may well not have corroborated the profile even if read. That is a prediction to check, not a finding. AND THE NEAR MISS IS THE USEFUL PART. Chicken Farmers of Canada's grilling table was re-read row by row: thirteen rows, and the only whole-bird entry is an intact unstuffed 1.5 kg bird. No spatchcocked, butterflied, flattened or halved entry exists. Mississippi State Extension's broiler barbecue guide is the closest institutional document found and describes birds SPLIT INTO HALVES — backbone and breastbone both removed — cooked over one layer of coals for 1.5 to 2 hours. A half bird is not a flattened whole one, and citing it would have manufactured a cross-publisher conflict out of a preparation difference.

  Where the answer probably is

  • A poultry levy body's technique material rather than its cooking-time table, where spatchcocking is more likely to appear
  • An extension service publication on grilling whole birds that names the preparation
  • A second manufacturer, which would corroborate the technique without corroborating the publisher type

• Does any publisher other than AHDB and Clemson time a lamb loin chop AND state its thickness?

  normal · open

  Both lamb chop bands already carry a rest figure and already plan, so each is one publisher away from being fully supported — the highest-value pair in the single-publisher dossier. The obstacle is specific and repeatable: the publishers who time lamb chops do not state a thickness, and BBQHQ's two chop profiles tile at 16-24 mm and 25-38 mm, so a figure with no thickness cannot land in either. BBQHQ had to REMOVE a lamb chop publisher for exactly this reason, and adding one back on a vague thickness would repeat the error it corrected.

  Tried so far: HALF OF THE EARLIER OBJECTION IS WITHDRAWN, THE CUT SYSTEM HAVING BEEN CHECKED INSTEAD OF ASSUMED. Hybu Cig Cymru's figure was rejected partly because it is for CUTLETS, reasoning from the American mapping, where US rib chops are only approximate to the British loin chop because IMPS separates rack from loin by item number. That is a fact about the US specification and not about a Welsh levy board writing for British readers. On the British side 'lamb cutlet' resolves UNIQUELY to the British loin chop, the cut record carries 'Lamb cutlet' as an alias, and the equivalence note already records — sourced to AHDB's own grilling guidance — that 'British retail uses chop and cutlet for the same distinction far less consistently, and AHDB's cooking guidance treats them together'. THE PUBLISHER BEHIND THIS PROFILE TIMES CHOPS AND CUTLETS TOGETHER. So terminology is not the blocker and never was; thickness is the whole of it. HCC's six minutes total against AHDB's 12-16 at 20 mm is itself evidence of that: a cutlet is a smaller object, and without a stated thickness there is no band for it to enter. FOR THE RECORD. Hybu Cig Cymru's barbecue page gives 'around 3 minutes on each side' and states no thickness. Beef + Lamb New Zealand's loin chop page returned a socket hang-up and then an empty body on a second attempt, so it is unread rather than unhelpful. MLA's lamb table was re-read and is oven roasting per 500 g apart from a rack-of-lamb barbecue row, which is a different cut. AHDB and Clemson each hold one band and cannot corroborate each other.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Any levy board publishing lamb chop times BY THICKNESS, in the shape AHDB already uses for beef steak — this is the only shape that can close the gap
  • A cutlet time WITH a stated thickness, which AHDB's own equivalence note makes admissible to the chop profiles
  • NOT the Beef + Lamb New Zealand loin chop page: attempted twice, empty body both times
  • NOT Bord Bia: HTTP 403

• Should the UK cooking endpoint rule apply to whole cuts, or should nine profiles stop attaching it?

  normal · answered

  The safety rules attached to a profile are rendered as the provenance behind the endpoints a reader is shown, so a rule attached to a profile it does not cover is a citation pointing at the wrong instrument. A sweep of all 32 profiles found ten such mismatches. One — a sausage profile attaching the US GROUND BEEF rule, whose own list of forms excludes sausage — was plainly wrong and is fixed. The other nine are all the UK cooking endpoint rule attached to steak, chop, whole-muscle and joint profiles, and they are NOT plainly wrong: the rule's form list omits whole cuts, which looks like a deliberate encoding of the form-first principle that a British reader may eat a rare steak and may not eat a rare burger. Whether the omission is the model's position or an authoring oversight is a question about the FSA's document, not about these nine profiles, so it is asked here rather than answered by editing.

  Tried so far: The wider class was found while fixing the sausage case, and is recorded here rather than changed on the spot. The nine affected profiles are pork chop, thick pork chop, pork tenderloin, sirloin steak, lamb steak, thick lamb steak, lamb chop, picanha and pork shoulder. Safety guidance is filtered by food form independently, so the endpoints a reader is shown are unaffected; what is affected is which instrument the citation names. BBQHQ's own checks now report the mismatch as a warning so the count cannot drift while the question is open.

  Where the answer probably is

  • The FSA cooking time and temperature guidance re-read specifically for its scope over whole cuts
  • The FSA's less-than-thoroughly-cooked burger guidance, which is the instrument that draws the whole-cut distinction explicitly

• Does any authority publish a reheating METHOD, or a reheating temperature addressed to consumers?

  normal · open

  Twenty-six of the questions readers ask are HOW to reheat a specific barbecued food, and BBQHQ can answer only to what STANDARD — once, steaming hot — because that is all either UK authority publishes. The gap between those is the whole difference between 'partial' and 'strong' for that family, and it is a gap in the guidance rather than in BBQHQ's reading of it: the FSA and Food Standards Scotland were both read in full for exactly this question. Scotland's regulations give 82 °C, which binds food businesses and is not addressed to a reader reheating their own leftovers. What is missing is a consumer figure and any statement about oven, microwave, grill or pan.

  Tried so far: Both UK consumer barbecue pages were read in full. Neither attaches a temperature to reheating and neither names a method. Both wordings are recorded exactly. The FSA's 70 °C for two minutes is a COOKING endpoint for raw food and was deliberately not carried across. Candidate sources not yet read are the FSA's general leftovers guidance outside the barbecue page, and the equivalent American, Canadian and Australasian consumer pages.

  Where the answer probably is

  • FSA general guidance on chilling, freezing and reheating leftovers, outside the barbecue page
  • USDA FSIS leftovers and food safety fact sheet
  • Health Canada and FSANZ consumer leftovers guidance

• What do the American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand authorities publish to consumers about barbecue leftovers?

  normal · open

  BBQHQ's leftovers surface currently answers a British reader and tells everybody else that it holds nothing for them. That is the correct behaviour and it is not a good permanent position: the same demand exists in four other markets BBQHQ already models safety for, and the American figures in particular are known to differ — FSIS publishes a refrigeration duration in DAYS where the FSA publishes 48 hours, and a reheating temperature where neither UK authority publishes one.

  Tried so far: This was deliberately not opened. Retrieval was bounded to what the 52 blocked intents need, and all 52 are universal rather than market-specific, which resolves to the primary market. Raised rather than pursued so it can be priced later.

  Where the answer probably is

  • USDA FSIS — Leftovers and Food Safety
  • Health Canada — safe food storage
  • FSANZ and New Zealand Food Safety consumer leftovers guidance

• Does any publisher state a cooking time and an internal endpoint for a barbecued sausage?

  normal · partially answered

  The sausage is the most-cooked item on a British barbecue and BBQHQ did not model it for a long time. It has one publisher's timing — Weber UK, 5-6 minutes a side over direct low heat — attached to a merguez recipe rather than stated as a general rule. THE ENDPOINT HALF OF THIS GAP WAS ANSWERED BEFORE IT WAS RAISED, which is the part worth reading: the gap as first written said that no retrieved source states an internal temperature for a sausage, and three did.

  Tried so far: Levy bodies, the FSA and extension services were searched for sausage grilling guidance, and one manufacturer page was retrieved. The IMPS frankfurter specification gives a length and a diameter requirement and no cooking guidance of any kind — it is a purchasing document. THE QUESTION THEN SPLIT IN TWO AND HALF OF IT WAS ANSWERED FROM THE CATALOGUE. Endpoint: Food Standards Scotland gives 75 °C and names 'burgers, sausages and kebabs'; FSANZ gives 75 °C and names 'chicken, sausages and hamburgers'; Health Canada gives 71 °C and names 'burgers, meatballs and sausages'. Three independent publishers, three jurisdictions, sausages named in each. Duration: still one publisher. Australian Pork Limited was retrieved and states a 2 cm thickness and 8-10 minutes, but cooks on a barbecue FLAT PLATE, which is a different surface from the grate and one BBQHQ does not model. Clemson's dedicated sausage factsheet (HGIC 3513) was retrieved and gives neither a time nor a temperature — a checked silence from the publisher most likely to have broken it. safefood is blocked at 403 on two hostnames across repeated attempts, and would have supplied a fourth endpoint rather than a first duration.

  What this holds back: Sausage

  Where the answer probably is

  • A levy board or meat processor publishing sausage grilling times on the GRATE, with a thickness or a piece weight
  • An extension service treating sausages as a grilled food rather than as a handling-and-storage question
  • The safefood guidance by a route that is not 403, which would add a fourth endpoint publisher and no duration

• Does any institutional publisher describe cooking a flatbread on a BARBECUE GRATE, as distinct from a griddle, a tandoor or an oven?

  normal · open

  Flatbread is registered as a food with cooking guidance and no cooking window, which is a state BBQHQ is comfortable with only when the reason is written down. The evidence that exists is for other surfaces: Colorado State gives 2-3 minutes per side on a hot GRIDDLE, and Michigan State observes that naan is traditionally cooked in a tandoor — a clay oven whose walls the dough is stuck to, which is about as far from a grate as live-fire cooking gets. A grate is a third thing again: intermittent contact, bars rather than a plane, and fat dripping from whatever else is on it.

  Tried so far: Searched across university extension services, government food agencies and grill manufacturers for evidence on breads over fire. What came back was recipes rather than technique: extension services publish flatbread RECIPES that end at a griddle or an oven, and the grill manufacturers that publish pizza technique in detail do not extend it to thin breads. Illinois Extension mentions warming pita on a grill in passing and gives no time. The gap is narrower than it looks — BBQHQ does not need a recipe, it needs somebody institutional to say what happens to a 2-8 mm sheet of dough over bars — and nothing retrieved says that.

  What this holds back: Flatbread

  Where the answer probably is

  • A grill or pizza-oven manufacturer publishing flatbread technique with the same specificity Weber gives pizza
  • A culinary school or hospitality institution documenting tandoor and griddle breads comparatively
  • A national food body in a market where flatbread over live fire is everyday — Turkey, India, Iran, Mexico
  • An academic study of dough puffing, which would give the mechanism rather than a time

• Does any authoritative publisher time a tuna steak seared rare, or state a culinary doneness convention for tuna as distinct from fish generally?

  normal · open

  Every fish rule BBQHQ holds assumes cooking through to opaque, and for cod, trout, bass and mackerel that assumption is uncontroversial. For tuna it is a minority case: searing the faces and leaving the centre raw is mainstream practice, and the six-to-twelve minute window BBQHQ derives from the general fish rate will produce a steak most readers asking the question did not want. BBQHQ publishes the cook-through figure because it is the one the evidence supports and says so on the page, but the page is answering a narrower question than the reader asked.

  Tried so far: NOT SEARCHED FOR DIRECTLY — the gap was found by deriving the tuna window rather than by looking for tuna evidence, and it is registered before any retrieval so that the next attempt starts from a question rather than from the same surprise. What is already known: none of the three publishers behind BBQHQ's fish rates — Weber, Clemson, ASMI — distinguishes tuna from fish in general, and all three state cooked-through endpoints. The parallel case in this catalogue is beef, where an open question asks the same thing about rare and medium and has been open for some time; a source that answered one might well answer the other, since both are asking a publisher to describe a doneness below the one safety guidance assumes.

  What this holds back: Tuna steak

  Where the answer probably is

  • A seafood marketing body in a market where seared tuna is standard — Australia, New Zealand or Japan
  • A culinary school or hospitality-training institution publishing doneness stages for fish
  • A food science text on protein denaturation in tuna, which would give the physical basis rather than a time
  • Whatever answers the open question about British doneness conventions, which is the same shape of question about beef

• What manufacturer service documentation describes burner obstruction, gas connection faults and regulator failure?

  normal · partially answered

  Gas is the one area where the manufacturer is unambiguously the authority, and BBQHQ holds a charcoal owner's guide and an electric appliance manual and no gas grill manual at all. Three published causes concern gas equipment faults, and two of them sit under a safety escalation — which is exactly where reasoning from first principles is least acceptable.

  Tried so far: BBQHQ HELD NO GAS BARBECUE MANUAL AT ALL — the Weber guide in the catalogue was for charcoal and the Ninja manual for an electric appliance. TWO DOCUMENTS WERE THEN RETRIEVED AND THE MANUFACTURER HALF IS DONE. Weber's Q-series gas owner's guide (71728) supplies more than the gap asked for: the match test that separates an ignition fault from a gas-supply fault, the venturi-nest mechanism by which a barbecue smells of gas without leaking any, the blocked-port symptom set behind uneven heat, the soapy-water leak procedure with its terminal instruction to stop using the appliance, a five-minute relight interval, and the four-step response to smelling gas. Liquid Gas UK's Consumer Guidance Sheet 39 supplies the fuel-system half a manufacturer may not rule on generally: regulator service life, replacement on wear, and the prohibitions on forcing, tampering, adjusting and buying second-hand. THE STATUTORY HALF FAILED. HSE's LPG material governs small commercial and industrial BULK installations and is not consumer barbecue guidance — a scope mismatch rather than a retrieval failure, and worth recording so nobody registers it again. Gas Safe Register is the right body and its site refused two separate URLs with the same bot interstitial.

  What this holds back: The gas grill heats unevenly, I can smell gas at the barbecue

  Where the answer probably is

  • Gas Safe Register's BBQ safety and LPG pages, blocked to every automated route tried and readable by a person with a browser
  • A UK fire and rescue service's gas barbecue guidance, which would be statutory and is a different host from the one that refused
  • The Office for Product Safety and Standards on LPG appliance recalls or safety notices
  • A second manufacturer's gas manual, to make the appliance claims two-publisher rather than one

• What electrical supply does a gravity-fed charcoal cooker require — voltage, wattage, and whether its maker specifies a residual current device or an earthed outlet, as Masterbuilt does for its electric cabinet smoker?

  normal · open

  The gravity-fed cooker is the only charcoal cooker in this catalogue that stops working when the power does, and that is the single most decision-relevant fact about it for somebody choosing between one and an offset. BBQHQ can say the controller and fan are electrically powered, because the source calls them digital and a fan. It cannot say what they draw, whether the cooker will run off a battery station on a campsite, or what the maker requires of the socket — and the same manufacturer publishes exactly those figures for its electric smoker, so the asymmetry is a retrieval gap rather than an absence in the world.

  Tried so far: The Gravity Series 1050 product specification and the maker's start-up guide were both retrieved and read in full. Neither states a voltage, a wattage, or any electrical requirement; the start-up guide's only instruction about the controller is to turn it on after the fire starter is lit. The assembly manual PDF was not reachable.

  What this holds back: Gravity-fed charcoal cooker

  Where the answer probably is

  • The Masterbuilt Gravity Series assembly and operating manual PDF, by a route other than automated fetch
  • The regulatory rating plate photographed on a retail listing

• Is the Argentine parrilla a distinct cooker architecture — an adjustable grate over a coal bed fed from a separate brasero — or the Spanish word for the grill at an asado?

  normal · open

  BBQHQ holds one retrieved statement about the parrilla and it is a TERMINOLOGY statement: the City of Buenos Aires names the cook the asador and the grill the parrilla. That supports exactly what it says and no more. The things that would make parrilla an architecture rather than a translation — a grate raised and lowered on a crank or a chain, a separate firebox where logs are burned down to coals before being raked under the food, V-channel bars draining fat away from the fire — are all describable and none of them is documented in any source BBQHQ has retrieved. Adding the family on the strength of the terminology observation would mean inventing a machine's anatomy from its name, which is the specific failure the evidence model exists to prevent.

  Tried so far: The Buenos Aires city asado material already in this catalogue was re-read and supports terminology only. Retrieval found the architecture described mainly by grill retailers, whose interest in the answer is direct and whose accounts do not agree with each other on the mechanism.

  Where the answer probably is

  • An Argentine or Uruguayan cultural institution describing the apparatus rather than the meal
  • An Argentine manufacturer's own specification for a domestic parrilla
  • Academic work on the asado as material culture

• What is a konro, in a source that is not a retailer — its construction, its fuel, and its relationship to the yakitori grill and to binchōtan charcoal?

  normal · open

  This is the same blockage that already keeps the yakitori tradition thin, arriving from the equipment side. The open question about yakitori fire and fuel records that Web Japan's NIPPONIA feature — the Ministry of Foreign Affairs source most likely to describe both binchōtan and the konro — returns 403 to automated requests, and that JNTO's yakitori guide mentions neither. The risk here is specific and worth naming: the easy move is to model the konro as a small rectangular charcoal grill, which is true and is also the sentence that erases everything culturally particular about it. A Japanese cooking apparatus described from a British product listing is not a record of a Japanese cooking apparatus.

  Tried so far: Inherited from the open question about yakitori fire and fuel, which the culture work raised and which remains blocked at the same document. No new route has been found.

  What this holds back: Yakitori

  Where the answer probably is

  • Web Japan NIPPONIA, by a route other than automated fetch
  • Japanese MAFF regional cuisine material
  • A museum or academic account of Japanese charcoal braziers

• Does any jurisdiction publish a food-safety endpoint for grilling halloumi, or is it correctly 'not applicable'?

  low · open

  Halloumi is a pasteurised-milk cheese eaten hot or cold, so a cooking safety endpoint may genuinely not apply. Recording it as simply unknown would leave it waiting for evidence forever; recording it as not applicable without checking would be an assumption. The distinction is exactly what the knownness model exists to hold.

  Tried so far: Not attempted at the time. The FSANZ, FSA, MPI and USDA material since retrieved covers meat, poultry and seafood; none mentions cheese cooked over fire.

  What this holds back: Halloumi

  Where the answer probably is

  • FSA guidance on cheese and dairy
  • Cyprus or Greek national food authority guidance on halloumi specifically

• Does any authoritative source state a resting or holding time for a whole barbecued brisket?

  low · partially answered

  This is the narrowed successor to the brisket duration gap and it is the more tractable half. BBQHQ cannot establish how long a brisket takes and does not need to in order to plan one usefully: a cook that can be finished early and held to a known temperature floor is plannable even when its duration is a nine-hour window, which is the whole argument for the finish-early strategy. What is missing is the REST. The 60–120 minute figure the profile publishes is BBQHQ's reasoning, and the published joint-rest guidance now in the catalogue — MLA at 10–20 minutes, AHDB at 20 or more — is about a domestic roast and is not transferable to a 4–7 kg piece cooked for twelve hours.

  Tried so far: Texas A&M's barbecue material gives pit temperature, collagen conversion, composition and yield, and no rest. AmazingRibs argues against resting generally and its experiments are on a 13.5 oz ribeye and a 2.2 lb pork loin, neither of which bears on a brisket. The hot-holding instruments state temperature floors for food generally and say nothing about brisket or about quality. Texas A&M's barbecue science pages were re-read specifically for this and they are silent on rest duration, holding temperature, holding duration, wrapping and slicing timing alike — they link out to third-party articles about resting, and a link is not a citation. What that DID obtain is the HOLDING half: AmazingRibs documents the faux-cambro method — preheat an insulated cooler with about three gallons of hot water for thirty minutes, dump it, towel, foil-wrapped meat in a disposable pan, second towel — and reports measuring meats well above 150 °F after three hours. That is a documented practice with a measured duration from a specialist publisher restricted from the safety domain, so it supports the METHOD and may not supply the floor. The REST duration remains BBQHQ's own reasoning and nothing retrieved so far has touched it.

  Where the answer probably is

  • Texas A&M AgriLife meat science publications beyond the barbecue pages already read
  • Certified Angus Beef or a US beef checkoff technical publication on holding whole cuts
  • Peer-reviewed work on extended hot-holding of cooked beef and its effect on texture

• Is the Santa Maria grill an architecture BBQHQ should model — a crank-raised grate over an open bed of red oak coals — and is it distinct from the parrilla or a regional expression of the same idea?

  low · open

  The TRADITION is well documented and the APPARATUS is not, which is an unusual shape and the reason this is a hold rather than an addition. The Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce publishes the history, the red oak, the tri-tip and top-block sirloin, the salt-pepper-and-garlic seasoning and the pinquito beans — and says nothing whatever about the grill. Every account of the crank-raised grate that retrieval found is published by somebody who sells one. So BBQHQ would be describing a mechanism from vendor copy while the one institutional source is silent on it, and the honest position is to hold. If it is later added, the tradition and the architecture are separable and the tradition is the better-evidenced half.

  Tried so far: The Santa Maria Valley Visitor and Convention Bureau's introduction to Santa Maria style barbecue was retrieved and read. It describes the meat, the wood, the seasoning, the accompaniments and the history back to the mid-1800s, and contains no description of the barbecue apparatus at all.

  Where the answer probably is

  • A Californian university extension or historical society account of the grill itself
  • A museum or archive holding on Central Coast ranch barbecue