JimnGin wrote:
As I've stated before, I've learned a wealth of info from this fine
group, and will always appreciate it! Heck, before coming across
alt.food.barbecue, I used a gas grill, or charcoal briquettes w/
lighter fluid, and BOILED ribs before "grilling" them. So, before I
break with the "accepted" smoking methods, as you can see, I'm kissing
butt, in an attempt to soften the blow of what I'm about to say! As
has always been stated here, and as most, if not all of the
professionals say, low and slow is the only (or at least the best) way
to go when smoking meat, such as ribs, brisket, and Boston butts for
pulled pork! This is the way I've always done the before-mentioned
meats- I always used the side fire box for the lump and wood/ chips,
and put the meat in the main body, separate from the heat. I've always
tried to maintain a steady temp of app 225-250 degrees, with a large
degree of success, in part to having done all the suggested mods to my
smoker! However, after several times of pulled pork taking 14+ hours,
ribs 4-6 hours, along with going through anywhere from 5-15 dollars
worth of lump, I decided to try a different method! I use a Char-
Griller Super-Pro, and decided to try lowering the charcoal grate to
it's lowest setting, and putting the lump on the far right side, and
the meat on the far left, under the stack. I've used this method for
ribs, pulled pork, and brisket. The results were interesting, if not
down right controversial! The ribs took about 2 to 2.5 hours, and IMHO
turned out far better, the pulled pork took about 5 to 5.5 hours,

Wow, you've *almost* discovered *genuine* barbecue.

and
I'd challenge any of you to tell the difference between pulled pork
smoked the traditional way vs. this way,

The *traditional* way is meat somewhere between 16 and 24 inches *above*
live coals produced from a hardwood fire. I can *always* tell the
difference between "traditional" and "internet" BBQ

and the brisket (It was a
piece of brisket left over from grinding it for burgers) took about
3.5 to 4 hours, and was as tasty and juicy as any you could imagine!
The temp during all of this was app 300-325. So- I guess the question
is- is there REALLY an advantage to smoking the traditional way (5-16
hours)

That's *not* traditional, that's internet bullshit. When I quit checking
temps in the pit I was never cooking below 300. 1.5 hours per pound is
bullshit. How long would it take to cook a ridiculously small 70 pound pig
at that rate?

vs. the way I've been doing it (2-5 hours)?! I know this flys
against everything I've ever read here,

Which is Usenet bullshit.


and may seem ridiculous to
most of you,

Not to me.


but I can with certainty, tell you that that the results
are no different- in other words, it has not been a case of "whatever
suits my tastes"! Both methods have produced the same results, it's
just that one did so in much less time, with much less lump!


TFM®