![]() |
|
Welcome to FoodBanter.com forums which provide access to the finest food and drink related newsgroups. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most newsgroup discussions and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics to the food related newsgroups, communicate privately with other FoodBanter.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support. |
|
|||||||
| Barbecue (alt.food.barbecue) Discuss barbecue and grilling--southern style "low and slow" smoking of ribs, shoulders and briskets, as well as direct heat grilling of everything from burgers to salmon to vegetables. |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
I picked up two boston butts from the butcher today. The fellow I usually get them from wasn't there today, and I had to try to explain what I needed to a fellow who only speaks German (which I don't). So he fired up the saw and cut me two nice pieces of pork shoulder, but they have alot of bone. It looks like part of the spine, and some flat bony pieces. I'm planning on having them on the K tomorrow for BBQ on Saturday afternoon. My question is, should I remove the bones? Leave them on and cook the pork 1.5 hours per pound still (they're 11-12 pounds each, with the bone)? Leave them on and cook the pork 1.5 hours per pound of meat, figuring the bones are a couple of pounds? Would the bones make the end result more flavorful? Thanks guys...I don't post often, but I _really_ appreciate everything I learn from your experience! Jeneen |
|
|||
|
Jeneen Sommers wrote:
I'm planning on having them on the K tomorrow for BBQ on Saturday afternoon. My question is, should I remove the bones? Leave them on and cook the pork 1.5 hours per pound still (they're 11-12 pounds each, with the bone)? Leave them on and cook the pork 1.5 hours per pound of meat, figuring the bones are a couple of pounds? Would the bones make the end result more flavorful? I prefer to have them with the bone in. Cook according to gross weight. The bone is a good clue to the doneness of the pork, as it pulls out of the meat easily when the pork reaches the pullable stage. IMO, it can make the 'Qing go a bit quicker due to the bone acting as a heat sink, but 1.5 to 2.0 hours per pound is still a good rough guage. Dave |
|
|||
|
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, it was written: I prefer to have them with the bone in. Cook according to gross weight. The bone is a good clue to the doneness of the pork, as it pulls out of the meat easily when the pork reaches the pullable stage. IMO, it can make the 'Qing go a bit quicker due to the bone acting as a heat sink, but 1.5 to 2.0 hours per pound is still a good rough guage. Dave Thanks! I'll keep the bones in, and report back. Jeneen |
|
|||
|
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, it was written: Jeneen Sommers wrote: I'm planning on having them on the K tomorrow for BBQ on Saturday afternoon. My question is, should I remove the bones? Leave them on and cook the pork 1.5 hours per pound still (they're 11-12 pounds each, with the bone)? Leave them on and cook the pork 1.5 hours per pound of meat, figuring the bones are a couple of pounds? Would the bones make the end result more flavorful? I prefer to have them with the bone in. Cook according to gross weight. The bone is a good clue to the doneness of the pork, as it pulls out of the meat easily when the pork reaches the pullable stage. IMO, it can make the 'Qing go a bit quicker due to the bone acting as a heat sink, but 1.5 to 2.0 hours per pound is still a good rough guage. Dave Update: The pork temperature was up to 195F after about 12-13 hours at 220, much sooner than I expected. I thought they still could have been cooked longer because there was more fat in the meat than I usually get, especially for 195F (temperature was taken in a big meaty part). I don't know if that had anything to do with the bone or not. I'm not sure what I would do different in the future - probably get the pork shoulders without bone since I haven't had trouble with that in the past. If I do get bone-in meat again, based on this experience, I'll probably try cooking it to a higher internal temperature, and risk having it overdone...just to see what happens. Or do you think that would be a huge mistake? Live and learn! Thanks for the help - Jeneen |
|
|||
|
Jeneen Sommers wrote:
Update: The pork temperature was up to 195F after about 12-13 hours at 220, much sooner than I expected. I thought they still could have been cooked longer because there was more fat in the meat than I usually get, especially for 195F (temperature was taken in a big meaty part). I don't know if that had anything to do with the bone or not. It sounds like it turned out fine. Dave |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Boston Globe reviews sushi and sake | anonymous@remailer.hastio.org | Sushi | 0 | 21-05-2004 08:45 PM |
| Boston butt pork roast | Frogleg | Mexican Cooking | 4 | 21-02-2004 02:22 PM |
| Fresh Boston Butt Ham or Pork Shoulder | SSMNITA@aol.com | Recipes (moderated) | 0 | 24-12-2003 03:26 AM |
| The small fat cap on a Boston Butt | Danny Hardesty | Barbecue | 4 | 19-10-2003 09:50 PM |
| Bones | Veracosa | Sushi | 12 | 13-10-2003 04:44 AM |