"Piedmont" wrote
I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low N slo
means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so, have you
also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the differences if any?


Man, that's pretty cool for my definition of L&S. My definition goes all
the way up to about 275, tho I prefer to cook briskets and butts at about
225, which I definitely consider low and slow.

What the hell do you want to cook there, Piedmont?

John in Austin

JakBQuik wrote:

"Piedmont" wrote

I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low N slo
means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so, have you
also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the differences if any?



Man, that's pretty cool for my definition of L&S. My definition goes all
the way up to about 275, tho I prefer to cook briskets and butts at about
225, which I definitely consider low and slow.

What the hell do you want to cook there, Piedmont?

John in Austin


Agreed, I usually keep it around 250dF

--
Steve

Who was the first person to say, "See that chicken there... I'm gonna
eat the next thing that comes outta it's ass?"

JakBQuik wrote:

"Piedmont" wrote

I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low N slo
means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so, have you
also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the differences if any?



Man, that's pretty cool for my definition of L&S. My definition goes all
the way up to about 275, tho I prefer to cook briskets and butts at about
225, which I definitely consider low and slow.

What the hell do you want to cook there, Piedmont?

John in Austin


Agreed, I usually keep it around 250dF

--
Steve

Who was the first person to say, "See that chicken there... I'm gonna
eat the next thing that comes outta it's ass?"

I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low N
slo means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so, have
you also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the differences if any?
--
From: Piedmont, In northern South Carolina! Nestled between the Blue
Ridge Mountains and the Atlantic Ocean! Home to the Catawba Indian Nation!

BBQ USA - A free community group at MSN.com,
http://groups.msn.com/BBQUSA/_whatsnew.msnw
You'll find many links here that all relate to BBQ in one way or
another. Feel free to become a member and post pictures, share a recipe
or just browse the links!

Piedmont wrote:
I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low N
slo means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so, have
you also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the differences if any?

[Disclaimer: I'm no Q expert, I have a few tricks I'm pretty good
at but still have a mountain of learning to climb]

180-200 is pretty low, but it begs the question "where is the temperature
being taken?".

Once I got a remote thermometer that I could plop down at the grate
level (mine's at the base of the chimney of my offset), I found that
trying to maintain 200F using the thermometer in the lid of the
smoker was (a) terribly inconsistent and (b) too damn low for
practical cooking. (My offset is an "NBS", aka New Braunfels
Silver Smoker, aka Char-Broil Silver Smoker).

My definition of low and slow has become "around 250F at
grate level". Experimentation above and below has taught
me, for my particular cooker and lump (Lazarri's hardwood
oak lump), that it's just too hard to maintain below around
225F and not worth the trouble, and not a big deal to run
at 275F if you're not watching closely.

So I aim at 250F at the grate level, don't mind it if it
spikes up to 265-275F and let it run as low as 225F without
worry. [In a previous note, ask Google Groups, I found that
the addition of a simple baffle to the firebox opening made
my offset able to maintain a 250F-ish temperature for 4 hours
with a single load of lump and minimal damper tending. I'll
be doing a brisket again at some point so I'll figure out
how much of a hassle it is to reload lump and get stable again]

The results don't vary that anyone can tell inside this range.

Oh, and, as we roll into Thanksgiving week, let me just say
that I'm once again thankful for shelter over my family, food
on our table, and enough domestic safety that we can quibble
over politics and Q. My thanks especially go out to those
families that have fathers, mothers, sons and daughters
active in harm's way this year (and I can't begin to express,
even in spoken words, my appreciation for those families
that have lost a member in the last couple of years).

Cheers -
Dana

Piedmont wrote:
I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low N
slo means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so, have
you also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the differences if any?

[Disclaimer: I'm no Q expert, I have a few tricks I'm pretty good
at but still have a mountain of learning to climb]

180-200 is pretty low, but it begs the question "where is the temperature
being taken?".

Once I got a remote thermometer that I could plop down at the grate
level (mine's at the base of the chimney of my offset), I found that
trying to maintain 200F using the thermometer in the lid of the
smoker was (a) terribly inconsistent and (b) too damn low for
practical cooking. (My offset is an "NBS", aka New Braunfels
Silver Smoker, aka Char-Broil Silver Smoker).

My definition of low and slow has become "around 250F at
grate level". Experimentation above and below has taught
me, for my particular cooker and lump (Lazarri's hardwood
oak lump), that it's just too hard to maintain below around
225F and not worth the trouble, and not a big deal to run
at 275F if you're not watching closely.

So I aim at 250F at the grate level, don't mind it if it
spikes up to 265-275F and let it run as low as 225F without
worry. [In a previous note, ask Google Groups, I found that
the addition of a simple baffle to the firebox opening made
my offset able to maintain a 250F-ish temperature for 4 hours
with a single load of lump and minimal damper tending. I'll
be doing a brisket again at some point so I'll figure out
how much of a hassle it is to reload lump and get stable again]

The results don't vary that anyone can tell inside this range.

Oh, and, as we roll into Thanksgiving week, let me just say
that I'm once again thankful for shelter over my family, food
on our table, and enough domestic safety that we can quibble
over politics and Q. My thanks especially go out to those
families that have fathers, mothers, sons and daughters
active in harm's way this year (and I can't begin to express,
even in spoken words, my appreciation for those families
that have lost a member in the last couple of years).

Cheers -
Dana

On 21-Nov-2004, "JakBQuik" wrote:

"Piedmont" wrote
I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low N slo
means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so, have you
also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the differences if any?


Man, that's pretty cool for my definition of L&S. My definition goes all
the way up to about 275, tho I prefer to cook briskets and butts at about
225, which I definitely consider low and slow.

What the hell do you want to cook there, Piedmont?

John in Austin

You cite some odd numbers there Piedmont. I cook 'pulled products' to 190°
internal. Ain't going to happen if the fire is only 180°. 225° works okay, but
you're talking about maximum cooking time. There's not much differential
between 225° cook temp an 190° finished product. I'm not going to argue with
those that cook that low, because it works real well. I cook at 275° to 350°
because I'm to lazy (or can't afford enough beer) to tend the fire much longer. I
get most of my meat to pullable temp in 6 - 7 hours, give or take. The resulting
texture pleases me, so nuff said. I've been pulling cooked spares out of the
freezer for the last couple of days and my only compaint is that my stomach
capacity doesn't do them justice. Gonna eat some smoked tenderloin today,
thin sliced on an Italian Baguette. I'm going to steal some of Fosco's thunder
from awhile back when he presented a creation with two meats, two cheeses
and some olive spread. Me and SWMBO ate for two days on that thing and the
last piece was as good as the first.

--
Brick(DL5BF, WA7ERO, HS4ADI)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 21-Nov-2004, "JakBQuik" wrote:

"Piedmont" wrote
I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low N slo
means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so, have you
also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the differences if any?


Man, that's pretty cool for my definition of L&S. My definition goes all
the way up to about 275, tho I prefer to cook briskets and butts at about
225, which I definitely consider low and slow.

What the hell do you want to cook there, Piedmont?

John in Austin

You cite some odd numbers there Piedmont. I cook 'pulled products' to 190°
internal. Ain't going to happen if the fire is only 180°. 225° works okay, but
you're talking about maximum cooking time. There's not much differential
between 225° cook temp an 190° finished product. I'm not going to argue with
those that cook that low, because it works real well. I cook at 275° to 350°
because I'm to lazy (or can't afford enough beer) to tend the fire much longer. I
get most of my meat to pullable temp in 6 - 7 hours, give or take. The resulting
texture pleases me, so nuff said. I've been pulling cooked spares out of the
freezer for the last couple of days and my only compaint is that my stomach
capacity doesn't do them justice. Gonna eat some smoked tenderloin today,
thin sliced on an Italian Baguette. I'm going to steal some of Fosco's thunder
from awhile back when he presented a creation with two meats, two cheeses
and some olive spread. Me and SWMBO ate for two days on that thing and the
last piece was as good as the first.

--
Brick(DL5BF, WA7ERO, HS4ADI)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

JakBQuik wrote:
"Piedmont" wrote

I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low N slo
means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so, have you
also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the differences if any?



Man, that's pretty cool for my definition of L&S. My definition goes all
the way up to about 275, tho I prefer to cook briskets and butts at about
225, which I definitely consider low and slow.

What the hell do you want to cook there, Piedmont?

John in Austin


Went I first started Qing years and years ago, one of the first books I
read was the Smoke N Spice cookbook. I initially tried to follow their
instructions about going to just slightly higher than the finishing temp
of the meat. But, in my experience, it took waaayyy to long. I simply
didn't want to put that much time into it. So, I have been qing at
around 250. Well it had been awhile since I'd read through Smoke N Spice
so I did a little review last night and reminded myself about their
temps of Lo N Slo. Got me to wondering how accurate their techniques
were so I posted to see if anyone actually did it that way!

--
From: Piedmont, In northern South Carolina! Nestled between the Blue
Ridge Mountains and the Atlantic Ocean! Home to the Catawba Indian Nation!

BBQ USA - A free community group at MSN.com,
http://groups.msn.com/BBQUSA/_whatsnew.msnw
You'll find many links here that all relate to BBQ in one way or another.
Feel free to become a member and post pictures, share a recipe or just
browse the links!

Piedmont wrote:
I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low
N slo means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so,
have you also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the
differences if any?


Major difference is that it takes all day and night to produce edible BBQ at
those temps.

No need. Just burn the book next time you cook and forget the low and slow
philosophy.

Those ridiculously low temps are more suited to cold smoking than
barbecuing.

250 to 350 are acceptable BBQ temps. But don't listen to me, I'm just a
newb.


TFM®

Piedmont wrote:
I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low
N slo means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so,
have you also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the
differences if any?


Major difference is that it takes all day and night to produce edible BBQ at
those temps.

No need. Just burn the book next time you cook and forget the low and slow
philosophy.

Those ridiculously low temps are more suited to cold smoking than
barbecuing.

250 to 350 are acceptable BBQ temps. But don't listen to me, I'm just a
newb.


TFM®

TFM® wrote:

Piedmont wrote:

I was reviewing the cookbook, Smoke N Spice, it says that to cook low
N slo means 180-200 degrees. Is there anyone here doing this? If so,
have you also done it at around the 250 mark? What were the
differences if any?



Major difference is that it takes all day and night to produce edible BBQ at
those temps.

No need. Just burn the book next time you cook and forget the low and slow
philosophy.

Those ridiculously low temps are more suited to cold smoking than
barbecuing.

250 to 350 are acceptable BBQ temps. But don't listen to me, I'm just a
newb.


TFM®


I agree, I'm doing my best work at an average of 250. Just getting
paranoid I guess after all these years! (Grin) It had been a few years
since I read thru the book and thought, well hey, maybe someone does it
that way and it works, but the few times I tried it, I gave up as it was
going waaayyyy too long for my patience! Plus, there's just something
about that 250 mark that seems to bring out the best flavor, at least to me.

Peace and Love, (just being figurative here TFM, newly weds that ya are!)

Piedmont

" BOB" wrote in message . ..

I still want to understand how one can get pork butt up to pulling temperatures
(approx 190-195) or brisket up to "fork tender" (about the same temps) when
you're cooking at 180°+ a little temps.

BOB

Bob-

I dunno, I stopped trying for 180 - 220 pit temp a long time ago!

Rob

Rob wrote:
" BOB" wrote in message
. ..

I still want to understand how one can get pork butt up to pulling
temperatures
(approx 190-195) or brisket up to "fork tender" (about the same temps) when
you're cooking at 180°+ a little temps.

BOB

Bob-

I dunno, I stopped trying for 180 - 220 pit temp a long time ago!

Rob

I caught your reference to the higher temps. My remark wasn't really directed
to you. I have been reading the lower temp thing in several groups/forums and
just had to repeat myself here. I'm still waiting for one of the 180° to 200°
fanatics to explain the *new* physics that must be involved.

BOB

I cook between 185 to 200.

When I add wood it will go up to 200 then I let it burn down to 185.

about 1 1/2 to 2 hours.

60 pounds of buts about 12 hours.

600 pounds about 14 to 16.

Its always very jucy and not greasey.

You can put it in your mouth and it will disaper like sugar candy.

I have sliced it but just fall aparts.

I have 600 lb Butts on the smoker now for Thankgiving.

A round 4:00 AM I will put on 14 Turkeys

They will be done arond 11:00

I would have never thought of BBQ for Thanksgiving but the order keep

on coming

Larry


On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:04:52 -0500, " BOB" wrote:

Rob wrote:
" BOB" wrote in message
. ..

I still want to understand how one can get pork butt up to pulling
temperatures
(approx 190-195) or brisket up to "fork tender" (about the same temps) when
you're cooking at 180°+ a little temps.

BOB

Bob-

I dunno, I stopped trying for 180 - 220 pit temp a long time ago!

Rob

I caught your reference to the higher temps. My remark wasn't really directed
to you. I have been reading the lower temp thing in several groups/forums and
just had to repeat myself here. I'm still waiting for one of the 180° to 200°
fanatics to explain the *new* physics that must be involved.

BOB