what strikes me as odd about this discussion is that part of the point of
slow and low is to take an otherwise almost completely tough hunk of meat
and render it edible... so what if you raise the price per pound to double,
you get good eating for say $2.50 per pound instead of that $7.00 lb steak,
what is so hard about comparing finished cost of a picnic roast to a cut of
meat that will cost you more? Lee
--
If you want to discuss top posting please email me privately, lets not
clutter the news group, thanks*****


..

--
Have a wonderful day

"Theron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brick" > wrote in message
> ter.com...
>>
>> On 4-Oct-2009, "Theron" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Duwop" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Oct 4, 3:19 pm, "Theron" > wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'm not aware
>>>
>>> That's painfully obvious Kent.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> I'm not quite sure what you're saying. However, there has not been a
>>> post
>>> on
>>> this NG that compares the cost of BTUs of different fuels we use when
>>> smoking or grilling.
>>
>> In the six years I've been here, you're the only one that ever thought it
>> was relavant. Nobody that seriously cooks, gives a big rats AXXX
>> about the btu/hr of fuel. Not even the commercial folks care.
>>
>> Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)
>>
>>
> I think when the fuel cost of smoking a pork shoulder is greater than the
> cost of the meat we should consider that important. You bet the commercial
> folks care about that.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>