"Jesse Skeens" > wrote in message
om...
> Anyone here like throwing thier ribs into a cooler for an hour or
> so after smoking? Looking for a way to get mine a little more tender
> but I don't want them steamed at all either. Did a search here but
> didn't find conclusive evidence for either way (although did see less
> people saying they don't)
>
> Jesse

Folks here will often foil just about what ever they cook, wrap in towels and
put in a cooler for a while.

I don't believe that qualifies as steamed.

"Jesse Skeens" > wrote in message
om...
> Anyone here like throwing thier ribs into a cooler for an hour or
> so after smoking? Looking for a way to get mine a little more tender
> but I don't want them steamed at all either. Did a search here but
> didn't find conclusive evidence for either way (although did see less
> people saying they don't)
>
> Jesse

Folks here will often foil just about what ever they cook, wrap in towels and
put in a cooler for a while.

I don't believe that qualifies as steamed.

On 22 Jul 2004 11:13:06 -0700, (Jesse Skeens)
wrote:

>Anyone here like throwing thier ribs into a cooler for an hour or
>so after smoking? Looking for a way to get mine a little more tender
>but I don't want them steamed at all either. Did a search here but
>didn't find conclusive evidence for either way (although did see less
>people saying they don't)
>
If you want them more tender, try cooking longer at a lower temp.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> If you want them more tender, try cooking longer at a lower temp.

I'd second that.

Storing cooked meat in an insulated cooler is a great technique, I use
it all the time. It's makes life easier, especially when cooking for
large groups.

It does change the texture of the meat somewhat though. It will soften
the bark and add a slight steaming effect to the meat. That may or
may not matter depending on the meat and your tastes.

I think that some people have come to see the step as a requirement
though, any usually it's not. If I can, I prefer to pull it off
the heat, tent and rest it for a few minutes, then serve. There's
no actual requirement to stick it in a cooler.

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

Reg wrote:
> I think that some people have come to see the step as a requirement
> though,

Exactly! Man someone usually comes through and says what I've been thinking
butunable to voice well. Buncha smart doods here.


--

Reg wrote:
> I think that some people have come to see the step as a requirement
> though,

Exactly! Man someone usually comes through and says what I've been thinking
butunable to voice well. Buncha smart doods here.


--

Duwop wrote:

> Buncha smart doods here.

That's a fact. I keep a close eye on this group. A lot of good
information passes through these hallowed gates.

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

Duwop wrote:

> Buncha smart doods here.

That's a fact. I keep a close eye on this group. A lot of good
information passes through these hallowed gates.

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

Duwop wrote:
> Reg wrote:
>
>>I think that some people have come to see the step as a requirement
>>though,
>
>
> Exactly! Man someone usually comes through and says what I've been thinking
> butunable to voice well. Buncha smart doods here.

Why, thank you!

;-)

Duwop wrote:
> Reg wrote:
>
>>I think that some people have come to see the step as a requirement
>>though,
>
>
> Exactly! Man someone usually comes through and says what I've been thinking
> butunable to voice well. Buncha smart doods here.

Why, thank you!

;-)

Reg > wrote in message m>...
> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> I think that some people have come to see the step as a requirement
> though, any usually it's not. If I can, I prefer to pull it off
> the heat, tent and rest it for a few minutes, then serve. There's
> no actual requirement to stick it in a cooler.

I see what you mean, part of why I was asking. Everyime I read about
foil it seems like its looked on as a "cheat". But I thought maybe
the cooler method was different than actually cooking with the foil
on. I assume it imparts some of the same tenderizing/steaming effects
but less so. Anyways if its not necessary then I'll focus my efforts
elsewhere (temp and time)

Jesse

On 25 Jul 2004 03:52:12 -0700, (Jesse Skeens)
wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson > wrote in message >. ..
>> On 22 Jul 2004 11:13:06 -0700, (Jesse Skeens)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Anyone here like throwing thier ribs into a cooler for an hour or
>> >so after smoking? Looking for a way to get mine a little more tender
>> >but I don't want them steamed at all either. Did a search here but
>> >didn't find conclusive evidence for either way (although did see less
>> >people saying they don't)
>> >
>> If you want them more tender, try cooking longer at a lower temp.
>
>The last batch I did was 240 for 5 hours, so what might be a better
>range? 6 hours at 225? Seems like if you cook too long then they dry
>out. Guess its a fine line between the two.
>
240 for 5 hours seems about right. I cook ribs until I can bend them
back on themselves and the rack cracks.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"

On 25 Jul 2004 03:52:12 -0700, (Jesse Skeens)
wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson > wrote in message >. ..
>> On 22 Jul 2004 11:13:06 -0700, (Jesse Skeens)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Anyone here like throwing thier ribs into a cooler for an hour or
>> >so after smoking? Looking for a way to get mine a little more tender
>> >but I don't want them steamed at all either. Did a search here but
>> >didn't find conclusive evidence for either way (although did see less
>> >people saying they don't)
>> >
>> If you want them more tender, try cooking longer at a lower temp.
>
>The last batch I did was 240 for 5 hours, so what might be a better
>range? 6 hours at 225? Seems like if you cook too long then they dry
>out. Guess its a fine line between the two.
>
240 for 5 hours seems about right. I cook ribs until I can bend them
back on themselves and the rack cracks.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"

"Jesse Skeens" > wrote in message
m...
> Kevin S. Wilson > wrote in message
>. ..
> > On 22 Jul 2004 11:13:06 -0700, (Jesse Skeens)
> The last batch I did was 240 for 5 hours, so what might be a better
> range? 6 hours at 225? Seems like if you cook too long then they dry
> out. Guess its a fine line between the two.
>

Did they use a tenderizer to "cheat"?

I like the steaming for a half hour with 1/4 cup fruit juice for flavor.
Then back to the rack for a tiny bit of sauce.

...
> > > On 22 Jul 2004 11:13:06 -0700, (Jesse Skeens)
> > The last batch I did was 240 for 5 hours, so what might be a better
> > range? 6 hours at 225? Seems like if you cook too long then they dry
> > out. Guess its a fine line between the two.
> >
>
> Did they use a tenderizer to "cheat"?
>
> I like the steaming for a half hour with 1/4 cup fruit juice for flavor.
> Then back to the rack for a tiny bit of sauce.

I have no idea if they used a tenderizer or not. I might try thr half
hour foil thing though.
I've done it before for longer and they got too tender. As far as the
juice goes how do you
apply it? Just wrapped the ribs and pour the juice on top?

Jesse