I have a 10# pork shoulder filling the bottom rack of my el cheapo brinkman,
smoking for the last 4 hours. I now want to add a brined, halved chicken to
the top rack.

Will the fat rendering out of the chicken detrimentally affect the pork on
the bottom rack? Should I move the pork to the top and the chicken to the
bottom?

Thanks,

James

James wrote:

> I have a 10# pork shoulder filling the bottom rack of my el cheapo brinkman,
> smoking for the last 4 hours. I now want to add a brined, halved chicken to
> the top rack.
>
> Will the fat rendering out of the chicken detrimentally affect the pork on
> the bottom rack? Should I move the pork to the top and the chicken to the
> bottom?

Chicken is the one that will show streaks, so you've got it right
putting the chicken on top.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Reg wrote:
>> Will the fat rendering out of the chicken detrimentally
>> affect the pork on the bottom rack?
>
> Chicken is the one that will show streaks, so you've
> got it right putting the chicken on top.

Flavor is not the most important issue in this case.

Putting a raw chicken above partly-already-cooked meat is a
health safety factor. _Especially_ at _low_ temperatures.
I wouldn't do it.

ll wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>>>Will the fat rendering out of the chicken detrimentally
>>>affect the pork on the bottom rack?
>>
>> Chicken is the one that will show streaks, so you've
>> got it right putting the chicken on top.
>
>
> Flavor is not the most important issue in this case.
>

I do believe the above reference is to appearance, not flavor.

> Putting a raw chicken above partly-already-cooked meat is a
> health safety factor. _Especially_ at _low_ temperatures.

Nope. As long as both the beef and pork are fully cooked,
there are no safety issues. It's strictly a matter of taste.
I did this yesterday with some lamb and chicken and it came out
fine.

> I wouldn't do it.

Doesn't mean much, frankly. Both home cooks and restaurants do
this all the time without problems.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

ll wrote:

> Flavor is not the most important issue in this case.
>
> Putting a raw chicken above partly-already-cooked meat is a
> health safety factor. _Especially_ at _low_ temperatures.
> I wouldn't do it.

The low temperature of a pit is hot enough to destroy the primary pathogens
that are a risk in poultry.
Dave

In article >,
Dave Bugg <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote:
>ll wrote:
>
>> Flavor is not the most important issue in this case.
>>
>> Putting a raw chicken above partly-already-cooked meat is a
>> health safety factor. _Especially_ at _low_ temperatures.
>> I wouldn't do it.
>
>The low temperature of a pit is hot enough to destroy the primary pathogens
>that are a risk in poultry.

Huh?

Which pathogens are not killed at cooking temps?


Chuck Demas

--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
| \___/ | http://world.std.com/~cpd

Charles Demas wrote:
> In article >,
> Dave Bugg <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote:
>> ll wrote:
>>
>>> Flavor is not the most important issue in this case.
>>>
>>> Putting a raw chicken above partly-already-cooked meat is a
>>> health safety factor. _Especially_ at _low_ temperatures.
>>> I wouldn't do it.
>>
>> The low temperature of a pit is hot enough to destroy the primary
>> pathogens that are a risk in poultry.
>
> Huh?
>
> Which pathogens are not killed at cooking temps?

Chuck, I think you mis-read my post. I said
"The low temperature of a pit is HOT enough to destroy the primary...."
Dave

In article >,
Dave Bugg <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote:
>Charles Demas wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Dave Bugg <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote:
>>> ll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Flavor is not the most important issue in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Putting a raw chicken above partly-already-cooked meat is a
>>>> health safety factor. _Especially_ at _low_ temperatures.
>>>> I wouldn't do it.
>>>
>>> The low temperature of a pit is hot enough to destroy the primary
>>> pathogens that are a risk in poultry.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Which pathogens are not killed at cooking temps?
>
>Chuck, I think you mis-read my post. I said
>"The low temperature of a pit is HOT enough to destroy the primary...."

1. OP was using a Brinkman smoker.

2. How low is the temp of the pit you're thinking of?


Chuck Demas

--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
| \___/ | http://world.std.com/~cpd

Charles Demas wrote:

> 1. OP was using a Brinkman smoker.
>
> 2. How low is the temp of the pit you're thinking of?

Anywhere from 160F to 1 billionF.... I'm still not following why my original
reply was a problem.

In article >,
Dave Bugg <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote:
>Charles Demas wrote:
>
>> 1. OP was using a Brinkman smoker.
>>
>> 2. How low is the temp of the pit you're thinking of?
>
>Anywhere from 160F to 1 billionF.... I'm still not following why my original
>reply was a problem.

Because I think that the pathogens that might cause problems
with chicken are killed at those temperatures.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Which pathogen do you see as a problem.

BTW, won't a Brinkman smoker have a chamber temperature above
200F ?


Chuck Demas

--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
| \___/ | http://world.std.com/~cpd

On Mon, 3 May 2004 03:44:45 +0000 (UTC),
(Charles Demas) wrote:

>In article >,
>Dave Bugg <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote:
>>Charles Demas wrote:
>>
>>> 1. OP was using a Brinkman smoker.
>>>
>>> 2. How low is the temp of the pit you're thinking of?
>>
>>Anywhere from 160F to 1 billionF.... I'm still not following why my original
>>reply was a problem.
>
>Because I think that the pathogens that might cause problems
>with chicken are killed at those temperatures.
>
>Perhaps I'm wrong. Which pathogen do you see as a problem.
>
>BTW, won't a Brinkman smoker have a chamber temperature above
>200F ?

Don't worry, Dave. I'm as confused by all this as you are.

-sw

Charles Demas wrote:

> Because I think that the pathogens that might cause problems
> with chicken are killed at those temperatures.
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong. Which pathogen do you see as a problem.
>
> BTW, won't a Brinkman smoker have a chamber temperature above
> 200F ?

Chuck, I think you didn't understand my original reply, so I'll paraphrase:
"The pit temperature will be plenty high enough to kill any germs". I think
you should carefully re-read my original reply :-)
Dave

Thanks for the quick replies; it all came out great. I was a little worried
the chicken fat would adversely affect the taste of the pork, but it didn't
seem to bother it at all.

James

>
> Will the fat rendering out of the chicken detrimentally affect the pork on
> the bottom rack? Should I move the pork to the top and the chicken to the
> bottom?

James wrote:
> Thanks for the quick replies; it all came out great. I was a little
> worried the chicken fat would adversely affect the taste of the pork,
> but it didn't seem to bother it at all.
>

Great!! Truth is, nobody here knew for sure and were hoping you'd be the one
to try it and report back.

j/k

D
--

Charles Demas wrote:
> In article >,
> Dave Bugg <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote:
>
>>Charles Demas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1. OP was using a Brinkman smoker.
>>>
>>>2. How low is the temp of the pit you're thinking of?
>>
>>Anywhere from 160F to 1 billionF.... I'm still not following why my original
>>reply was a problem.
>
>
> Because I think that the pathogens that might cause problems
> with chicken are killed at those temperatures.
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong. Which pathogen do you see as a problem.
>
> BTW, won't a Brinkman smoker have a chamber temperature above
> 200F ?
>
>
> Chuck Demas
>

Charles, I suspect your last name is mispelled.

Duwop wrote:

> James wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the quick replies; it all came out great. I was a little
>>worried the chicken fat would adversely affect the taste of the pork,
>>but it didn't seem to bother it at all.
>>
>
>
> Great!! Truth is, nobody here knew for sure and were hoping you'd be the one
> to try it and report back.
>
> j/k
>
> D

The other night, I bbq'd some chicken UNDER some ribs, and it was the
best chicken I've ever had.