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.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

Serving pulled pork for the super bowl tomorrow. Picked out a 10lb
picnic when the butcher convinced me to switch to two Boston butts. He
said pork would be far more tender and better than I've done before. I
slather with mustard and cover with rub. I'll cook at 225 for about
8hrs.
Was he right?
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic


"Barry" > wrote in message
...
> Serving pulled pork for the super bowl tomorrow. Picked out a 10lb
> picnic when the butcher convinced me to switch to two Boston butts. He
> said pork would be far more tender and better than I've done before. I
> slather with mustard and cover with rub. I'll cook at 225 for about
> 8hrs.
> Was he right?


Yes
--
Lew/+Silat

  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Feb 6, 5:01*pm, Barry > wrote:
> Serving pulled pork for the super bowl tomorrow. Picked out a 10lb
> picnic when the butcher convinced me to switch to two Boston butts. He
> said pork would be far more tender and better than I've done before. I
> slather with mustard and cover with rub. I'll cook at 225 for about
> 8hrs.
> Was he right?


Both would be about the same in tenderness. Both are heavily marbled
with gobs of fat. Picnic might have some more flavor, as it's got a
funny bone running through it.
Just take it to 190° to 195° internal. It should break up nicely at
that temperature. Be prepared for a stall in temp at 160° and it
doesn't seem like it wants to budge, while the collagen breaks down.
It'll begin it's rise in any event.
8 hours might not do it. Barry, give it 10-12 hours on the cooker for
planning purposes. (It'll hold well if it's done earlier.)
Enjoy the pork, and the game. May the team with the most points win!
Pierre
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Feb 6, 3:14*pm, Pierre > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 5:01*pm, Barry > wrote:
>
> > Serving pulled pork for the super bowl tomorrow. Picked out a 10lb
> > picnic when the butcher convinced me to switch to two Boston butts. He
> > said pork would be far more tender and better than I've done before. I
> > slather with mustard and cover with rub. I'll cook at 225 for about
> > 8hrs.
> > Was he right?

>
> Both would be about the same in tenderness. *Both are heavily marbled
> with gobs of fat. *Picnic might have some more flavor, as it's got a
> funny bone running through it.
> Just take it to 190° to 195° internal. *It should break up nicely at
> that temperature. *Be prepared for a stall in temp at 160° and it
> doesn't seem like it wants to budge, while the collagen breaks down.
> It'll begin it's rise in any event.
> 8 hours might not do it. *Barry, give it 10-12 hours on the cooker for
> planning purposes. *(It'll hold well if it's done earlier.)



No reason to cook it that low though, can up the heat and be done
faster. 275F is no problem for butts.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33,326
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:01:09 -0800 (PST), Barry wrote:

> Serving pulled pork for the super bowl tomorrow. Picked out a 10lb
> picnic when the butcher convinced me to switch to two Boston butts. He
> said pork would be far more tender and better than I've done before. I
> slather with mustard and cover with rub. I'll cook at 225 for about
> 8hrs.
> Was he right?


Yes. Assuming the butt and the picnic came from the same pig, the
butt is better. It's easier to pull, cooks more evenly, and is less
work to separate meat from fat/skin. The yield is much better as
well.

-sw


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,851
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), tutall >
wrote:

>
>No reason to cook it that low though, can up the heat and be done
>faster. 275F is no problem for butts.


I've done them at 350 with excellent results
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic


"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), tutall >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>No reason to cook it that low though, can up the heat and be done
>>faster. 275F is no problem for butts.

>
> I've done them at 350 with excellent results


I get more sleep at 250.


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Feb 6, 7:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), tutall >
> wrote:


> >No reason to cook it that low though, can up the heat and be done
> >faster. 275F is no problem for butts.

>
> I've done them at 350 with excellent results


Didn't want to scare him.

Barry, smaller cuts like ribs seem to do better at the lower temps,
but big chunks of meat like butt or brisket? Not so much. Crank er up
to whatever is easy on your cooker. On raw wood, mine runs hot, so I
save raw wood for things that can:
A. take a lot of smoke
B. tale a lot of heat.

Brisket and butts! And chix, don't forget the chix.



  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,851
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 01:31:08 -0800 (PST), tutall >
wrote:

>>
>> I've done them at 350 with excellent results

>
>Didn't want to scare him.
>
>Barry, smaller cuts like ribs seem to do better at the lower temps,
>but big chunks of meat like butt or brisket? Not so much. Crank er up
>to whatever is easy on your cooker. On raw wood, mine runs hot, so I
>save raw wood for things that can:
>A. take a lot of smoke
>B. tale a lot of heat.
>
>Brisket and butts! And chix, don't forget the chix.
>
>


Sure, very logical if you think about it. The meat needs some time at
160 degrees for the collagen to break down. On a thin rib, it hits
and passes 160 very fast so you don't get the reaction needed if you
cook at a high temperature. With a butt with a cross section of 6" or
more, it takes a while for the heat to penetrate, for the fat to
render, so the collagen is breaking down for some time, much longer
than the thin strips.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On 2/6/2010 6:01 PM, Barry wrote:
> Serving pulled pork for the super bowl tomorrow. Picked out a 10lb
> picnic when the butcher convinced me to switch to two Boston butts. He
> said pork would be far more tender and better than I've done before. I
> slather with mustard and cover with rub. I'll cook at 225 for about
> 8hrs.
> Was he right?


Barry
My favorite is BB, to me it has a good flavor, probably the fat, it is
very tender,

by the way, thick sliced butt is 'pork steak' and pork steak grilled is
fantastic and tender and juicy! I often by BB on sale and have it
sliced so i can get cheap pork steaks.

Mike
--
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r

http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/

(mawil55)


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,847
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

In article >,
piedmont > wrote:

> by the way, thick sliced butt is 'pork steak' and pork steak grilled is
> fantastic and tender and juicy! I often by BB on sale and have it
> sliced so i can get cheap pork steaks.
>
> Mike


Geez, how come I never thought of that? :-)
I have hams sliced all the time for cheap ham steaks.

Thanks for the epiphany! Our local Grocery store will pretty much
always slice things for me if I ask nicely. <g>
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33,326
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:52:50 -0500, piedmont wrote:

> by the way, thick sliced butt is 'pork steak' and pork steak grilled is
> fantastic and tender and juicy! I often by BB on sale and have it
> sliced so i can get cheap pork steaks.


Tender? Your idea of tender must be different than mine. I find
them very difficult to eat.

-sw
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Feb 7, 4:31*am, tutall > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), tutall >
> > wrote:
> > >No reason to cook it that low though, can up the heat and be done
> > >faster. 275F is no problem for butts.

>
> > I've done them at 350 with excellent results

>
> Didn't want to scare him.
>
> Barry, smaller cuts like ribs seem to do better at the lower temps,
> but big chunks of meat like butt or brisket? Not so much. Crank er up
> to whatever is easy on your cooker. On raw wood, mine runs *hot, so I
> save raw wood for things that can:
> A. take a lot of smoke
> B. tale a lot of heat.
>
> Brisket and butts! And chix, don't forget the chix.


Its been going at 280-300 for 5.5 hrs now and already at 180. Thinking
that I should wrap them in foil and let sit in smoker for a couple
more hours at lower temp. Make sense?
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,847
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:52:50 -0500, piedmont wrote:
>
> > by the way, thick sliced butt is 'pork steak' and pork steak grilled is
> > fantastic and tender and juicy! I often by BB on sale and have it
> > sliced so i can get cheap pork steaks.

>
> Tender? Your idea of tender must be different than mine. I find
> them very difficult to eat.
>
> -sw


You may be over cooking them.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic


"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 01:31:08 -0800 (PST), tutall
> >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I've done them at 350 with excellent results

>>
>>Didn't want to scare him.
>>
>>Barry, smaller cuts like ribs seem to do better at the lower
>>temps,
>>but big chunks of meat like butt or brisket? Not so much. Crank
>>er up
>>to whatever is easy on your cooker. On raw wood, mine runs hot,
>>so I
>>save raw wood for things that can:
>>A. take a lot of smoke
>>B. tale a lot of heat.
>>
>>Brisket and butts! And chix, don't forget the chix.
>>
>>

>
> Sure, very logical if you think about it. The meat needs some
> time at
> 160 degrees for the collagen to break down. On a thin rib, it
> hits
> and passes 160 very fast so you don't get the reaction needed if
> you
> cook at a high temperature. With a butt with a cross section of
> 6" or
> more, it takes a while for the heat to penetrate, for the fat to
> render, so the collagen is breaking down for some time, much
> longer
> than the thin strips.


IOW, are you saying that if you force the temp past the collagen
break-down stage through too much heat, that it won't break down?
Interesting. I'd never considered that.

--
Nonny

ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated, sophisticated,
and articulate person who has absolutely no clue
concerning what they are talking about.
The person is typically a media commentator or politician.




  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic


"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:52:50 -0500, piedmont wrote:
>
>> by the way, thick sliced butt is 'pork steak' and pork steak
>> grilled is
>> fantastic and tender and juicy! I often by BB on sale and have
>> it
>> sliced so i can get cheap pork steaks.

>
> Tender? Your idea of tender must be different than mine. I
> find
> them very difficult to eat.
>
> -sw


the comments about temperatures passing through the collagen
break-down stage too rapidly. . . could the cooking technique of
the pork steaks be the issue here?

--
Nonny

ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated, sophisticated,
and articulate person who has absolutely no clue
concerning what they are talking about.
The person is typically a media commentator or politician.


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Feb 7, 10:33*am, Barry > wrote:

>
> Its been going at 280-300 for 5.5 hrs now and already at 180. Thinking
> that I should wrap them in foil and let sit in smoker for a couple
> more hours at lower temp. Make sense?-


Not to me. What do you think that will accomplish? If you tell me
juicyness, just slap yourself upside the head for me okay? Have you
ever, ever heard of a dried out pork butt? It's almost impossible to
accomplish. I've overcooked (by normal standards) enough to
know. ;-) , ones I've cooked till 215 were still great eating and
moist as hell.
I keep them on till they hit 195-200 (I like the extra rendering
longer cooking does) take em off and sit on the counter till they cool
enough to pull.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Feb 7, 1:59*pm, tutall > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 10:33*am, Barry > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Its been going at 280-300 for 5.5 hrs now and already at 180. Thinking
> > that I should wrap them in foil and let sit in smoker for a couple
> > more hours at lower temp. Make sense?-

>
> Not to me. What do you think that will accomplish? If you tell me
> juicyness, just slap yourself upside the head for me okay? Have you
> ever, ever heard of a dried out pork butt? It's almost impossible to
> accomplish. I've overcooked (by normal standards) enough to
> know. ;-) , ones I've cooked till 215 were still great eating and
> moist as hell.
> *I keep them on till they hit 195-200 (I like the extra rendering
> longer cooking does) take em off and sit on the counter till they cool
> enough to pull.


OK thanks for the slap!
When I go to pull it, I assume I should remove what's left of the fat
cap?
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,609
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic



"Nonny" > wrote in message
>
> IOW, are you saying that if you force the temp past the collagen
> break-down stage through too much heat, that it won't break down?
> Interesting. I'd never considered that.


Yes, you need the temperature (about 160) but you also need the time. Go
too fast, like grilling, and it won't tenderize.

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33,326
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:38:18 -0600, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:52:50 -0500, piedmont wrote:
>>
>>> by the way, thick sliced butt is 'pork steak' and pork steak grilled is
>>> fantastic and tender and juicy! I often by BB on sale and have it
>>> sliced so i can get cheap pork steaks.

>>
>> Tender? Your idea of tender must be different than mine. I find
>> them very difficult to eat.

>
> You may be over cooking them.


No. Undercooked, overcooked, "perfectly cooked", they're a PITA to
eat as "steaks.

-sw


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,360
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic


On 7-Feb-2010, "Nonny" > wrote:

> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 01:31:08 -0800 (PST), tutall
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> I've done them at 350 with excellent results
> >>
> >>Didn't want to scare him.
> >>
> >>Barry, smaller cuts like ribs seem to do better at the lower
> >>temps,
> >>but big chunks of meat like butt or brisket? Not so much. Crank
> >>er up
> >>to whatever is easy on your cooker. On raw wood, mine runs hot,
> >>so I
> >>save raw wood for things that can:
> >>A. take a lot of smoke
> >>B. tale a lot of heat.
> >>
> >>Brisket and butts! And chix, don't forget the chix.
> >>
> >>

> >
> > Sure, very logical if you think about it. The meat needs some
> > time at
> > 160 degrees for the collagen to break down. On a thin rib, it
> > hits
> > and passes 160 very fast so you don't get the reaction needed if
> > you
> > cook at a high temperature. With a butt with a cross section of
> > 6" or
> > more, it takes a while for the heat to penetrate, for the fat to
> > render, so the collagen is breaking down for some time, much
> > longer
> > than the thin strips.

>
> IOW, are you saying that if you force the temp past the collagen
> break-down stage through too much heat, that it won't break down?
> Interesting. I'd never considered that.
>
> --
> Nonny


Collagen + temperature + time = gelatin = true.
Gelatin + temperature (neg) + time != collagen = true.
Collagen will convert to gelatin but gelatin will not convert
to collagen.

--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,360
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic


On 7-Feb-2010, Barry > wrote:

> On Feb 7, 4:31*am, tutall > wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 7:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), tutall >
> > > wrote:
> > > >No reason to cook it that low though, can up the heat and be done
> > > >faster. 275F is no problem for butts.

> >
> > > I've done them at 350 with excellent results

> >
> > Didn't want to scare him.
> >
> > Barry, smaller cuts like ribs seem to do better at the lower temps,
> > but big chunks of meat like butt or brisket? Not so much. Crank er up
> > to whatever is easy on your cooker. On raw wood, mine runs *hot, so I
> > save raw wood for things that can:
> > A. take a lot of smoke
> > B. tale a lot of heat.
> >
> > Brisket and butts! And chix, don't forget the chix.

>
> Its been going at 280-300 for 5.5 hrs now and already at 180. Thinking
> that I should wrap them in foil and let sit in smoker for a couple
> more hours at lower temp. Make sense?


No! Let it go to 190 + before wrapping and holding,

--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,360
Default Boston Butt vs Picnic


On 7-Feb-2010, piedmont > wrote:

> On 2/6/2010 6:01 PM, Barry wrote:


.. . .

> Barry
> My favorite is BB, to me it has a good flavor, probably the fat, it is
> very tender,
>
> by the way, thick sliced butt is 'pork steak' and pork steak grilled is
> fantastic and tender and juicy! I often by BB on sale and have it
> sliced so i can get cheap pork steaks.
>
> Mike
> --
> piedmont,


Ditto what piedmont said. I also have some butt cut into country
ribs that I use in a variety of dishes from roasted country ribs to
chili.

--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pulling, pork butt -vs- picnic Heavy_Smoker Barbecue 18 02-08-2009 02:05 PM
How can you tell a picnic from a butt? Paulbill Barbecue 26 25-10-2005 09:52 PM
butt vs picnic bc Barbecue 3 22-08-2005 02:18 AM
Why Boston Butt LT Barbecue 6 21-07-2005 02:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"