On 4-Jul-2009, "Nunya Bidnits" >
wrote:

> In ster.com,
> Brick > typed:
> > On 3-Jul-2009, Tim > wrote:
> >
> >> My first attempt at pulled pork was disappointing - tasty, but
> >> disappointing because the pork was not very tender. Thanks to you, I
> >> tried again today with the following changes:
> >>
> >> - One 8# Boston butt ( instead of 2 6 1/2# )
> >> - Sand instead of water in the water pan, pan covered with foil ( I
> >> have to admit, I still don't understand why sand - but it worked )
> >> - Final internal temp of 188 instead of 165
> >>
> >> It only took me about 10 minutes to pull it apart using two forks.
> >> The only bad thing - it's not being served until tomorrow dinner, but
> >> I had a few samples pulling it ...
> >>
> >> One question: what should the smoker temp be if I I want ~190 for the
> >> final internal temp? I didn't let it go above 225 or 230 for the
> >> first 10 hours and the internal temp wouldn't go past 175. Then I
> >> let it go up to about 280 for the last hour and a half, and I
> >> finally got to 188.
> >>
> >> Enjoy your weekend!
> >
> > That butt just wanted more time. It was hung up at the plateau where
> > collagen starts to convert go gelatin. Eventually it has to reach pit
> > temperature if you let it go. That said, there's no need to cook butts
> > at that low a pit temperature. I cook mine at about 270F pit temp
> > and take them out to 185 to 200. I've had one or two get to 205F
> > before I got them out. Not a problem. Just got a little thicker bark
> > on it at the end close to the firebox. Cooking at 270°F, I generally
> > gets butts out in ~7 hours. Don't sweat the small stuff and always
> > remember, "It's all small stuff".
>
> So here's a question for everybody...
>
> Since you want pulled pork to be a good combination of savory bark and
> sweet
> white internal meat, it would seem that a good Maillard reaction is
> necessary to achieve the ideal "Mr. Brown - Miss White" state of affairs.
>
> It's my understanding that the Maillard reaction, a complex reaction
> similar
> to, but yielding better flavor than, carmelization, is based on a
> combination of protein, carbohydrate, and heat in excess of 314F and
> requires a dry surface. Carmelization is a less complex reaction which
> can
> take place at lower temps which is a reaction between heat and
> carbohydrates.
>
> Often pork is seasoned with sugars in the rub, greatly enhancing the
> amount
> of available carbohydrate from carmelization. It would seem that at the
> temps most of us use to cook pork, we get a lot of carmelization, but
> cannot
> achieve that extra-flavorful crusty bark of a Maillard reaction.
>
> This would seem to argue the case for hot-starting the pork.
>
> Injecting the pork would prevent this from happening since the surface
> needs
> to be dry, which also argues against any kinds of liquids being applied
> until the desired result is achieved.
>
> I hot started ribs today, 350 at 20 min, and then let the temp slide down
> gradually to about 250. It's giving me a very nice flavor. They aren't
> done
> yet, but testing from the tip pieces which are still a little tough
> reveals
> a very nice flavor.
>
> Comments, anyone?

Too complicated for me. My 'Q' is plenty good enough as it it.

--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)