Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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: |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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: |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pulling, pork butt -vs- picnic | Barbecue | |||
How can you tell a picnic from a butt? | Barbecue | |||
butt vs picnic | Barbecue | |||
Why Boston Butt | Barbecue |