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: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals. What I mean by coals
is not using a drip pan between meat and coals nor cooking in an offset.
Low and Slow would mean a controlled and smaller quanity of coals under
or around the meat, with line of sight between coals and meat vs a large
amount of coals piled up right under meat. I believe Low and Slow to be
originally to be contrived for barbecue only using coals. I would say it
is a cooler, but still a roasting technique. And I would also hazard an
assumption that the term originated in regards to cooking whole hog and
not briquettes but rather wood burned down to coals with don't ash over
as much as briquettes.

I have tried cooking butts, shoulders and poultry at very low
temperatures as in below 225F with with I felt were poor results.
Finding the much higher (350F+) temperatures rendered a much more
flavorful meat.


--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default What is Low and Slow...

On Mar 3, 5:06*am, piedmont > wrote:
> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals.


I believe you are making an overly narrow definition. And worse, a
highly personal one.

> I have tried cooking butts, shoulders and poultry at very low
> temperatures as in below 225F with with I felt were poor results.
> Finding the much higher (350F+) temperatures rendered a much more
> flavorful meat.



That's fine and good, why does that require you to change standard
usage?

I think you have a good message in here somewhere Mike, but it's been
lost by focusing on crap like language usage. Maybe focus more on "my
favorite technique is..." instead of what it's not? Include the set up
so others can try it for themselves as well. What's worked best for
you? What sort of fuel, etc.etc.

My large offset has a big main chamber, large enough to experiment
with this sort of thing. I've not done it too much, a couple of
turkeys and a roast or two. Never tried a butt this way. It does take
a bit of fussing and constant tending because of the small fuel
reserve. I've only used lump so far.



  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 3/3/2010 10:39 AM, tutall wrote:
> On Mar 3, 5:06 am, > wrote:
>> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
>> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals.

>
> I believe you are making an overly narrow definition. And worse, a
> highly personal one.


Correct, I am narrowing it down as IMHO the usage has become grossly
over used to include cooking with any technique and with any type
cooker. There by causing unaware and new barbecuers to come to wrong
conclusions about what LnS is and where it is most beneficial to use it.

And correct, it is a personal opinion hence the added IMHO in the
original statement.

>
>> I have tried cooking butts, shoulders and poultry at very low
>> temperatures as in below 225F with with I felt were poor results.
>> Finding the much higher (350F+) temperatures rendered a much more
>> flavorful meat.

>
>
> That's fine and good, why does that require you to change standard
> usage?


Because IMHO the usage has gone off the deep end and now people are
wanting to LnS chicken and turkey and in cookers with water pans or
offset cookers. Which is crazy.

>
> I think you have a good message in here somewhere Mike, but it's been
> lost by focusing on crap like language usage. Maybe focus more on "my
> favorite technique is..." instead of what it's not? Include the set up
> so others can try it for themselves as well. What's worked best for
> you? What sort of fuel, etc.etc.



I did include set up an that would be any cooker where meat is cooked
directly over coals or with coals set around but there is definite line
of sight. and best fuel would be wood burned to coals.

>
> My large offset has a big main chamber, large enough to experiment
> with this sort of thing. I've not done it too much, a couple of
> turkeys and a roast or two. Never tried a butt this way. It does take
> a bit of fussing and constant tending because of the small fuel
> reserve. I've only used lump so far.


OK, lump is good but are you cooking thru the offset or using the
cooking chamber with lump in it so the 'see's' the meat?


There are different techniques, grilling (thin and tender cuts), smoking
for preservation at very low temps and meat has been salted, barbecue
which is meat cooked over hardwood coals, etc...
I have many times concepts and techniques referred to that were for
other techniques, so now you have someone wanting to low n slow a turkey
at 150 F which could result in causing bacteria growth as the turkey
isn't properly salted before, using a cold smoke which is a preservation
tech and not hot smoking which is a cooking technique.

I found wordage is important working with people in a training
environment and unless you assign correct terms then people cannot
communicate in a rational way and understand one another.

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default What is Low and Slow...

On Mar 3, 12:04*pm, piedmont > wrote:
> On 3/3/2010 10:39 AM, tutall wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 5:06 am, > *wrote:
> >> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
> >> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals.

>
> > I believe you are making an overly narrow definition. And worse, a
> > highly personal one.

>
> Correct, I am narrowing it down as IMHO the usage has become grossly
> over used to include cooking with any technique and with any type
> cooker. There by causing unaware and new barbecuers to come to wrong
> conclusions about what LnS is and where it is most beneficial to use it.
>
> And correct, it is a personal opinion hence the added IMHO in the
> original statement.
>

All IMHO as a slightly past newbie smoker:

I connect the term (Low and Slow) to the type of cooking where you are
using a cut of meat that needs time and temp at the connective tissue
breakdown zone of ~165*F. As I learn more about this hobby, that
seems to be one of the more important 'scientific' concepts to
grasp.

For this reason, the style of cooker can vary, but the temperature
profile needs to be one where the meat will spend enough time in the
breakdown zone to fully convert the tough meat into the yummy meat.

<brewing tangent>
This is similar to the mashing process in beer brewing. Crushed
grains need time at 145-158*F for the proper enzymes to wokr on
converting the starch in the grain to sugars. There are tests to
verify that full conversion has occurred, but the rule of thumb is
that it takes between 30 minutes and an hour at the mashing
temperature for conversion, so you hit your temperature, hold it there
for an hour, and then take your sweet liquid and proceed with the
boiling part of the brewing process.

There is further complexity in that mashing at the lower end of the
range will yield a 'drier' beer and a warmer mash will yoied more maly
character, and the science of that is pretty well understood.
</ brewing tangent>

<start bringing it back to the topic>
One of the differences between brrewing and barbecue is that the
thermal mass of the meat makes the quick 'hit a temperature and hold'
much more difficult. I wonder if we would see differences if we had
the ability to hold the meat at different spots in the conversion
temperature zone.
<whew! Made it!>

For me, understanding the type of meat and the cut of meat is key to
how tightly the Low and Slow requirement needs to be met. For
instance, it helps explain in my mind why butts and brisket can be
cooked auccessfully at such high temperatures (like 350*, Yow!). The
thermal mass of the meat will still travel relatively slowly through
the 165* conversion, whiel a less robust cut, like ribs, will shoot
through the conversion too quickly for full conversion to tenderness.

This concept has helped me understand the process. Where it crosses
into meats without a lot of connective tissue to convert (like
poultry), I think the cooker and the cooking style get a bit
confounded.

When I started smoking, I discovered I really enjoy the smoky flavor
that results. For smoking poultry, while the low and slow isn't
necessary, I use the same equipment so I get the same result. I don't
yet have the easy ability to run my smoker at the higher temperatures
I could probably get away with, so I just deal with the longer than
required time to cook and keep it simple for me.

To wrap up my rambling, I think the meat cooking science is important
to understand to a certain level, and that knowledge helps
differentiate when Low and Slow is required and when it isn't. It
would also help to understand when Low and Slow will hurt you (like
drying out a chicken for instance) and how to deal with that
(brining?)


>
> Because IMHO the usage has gone off the deep end and now people are
> wanting to LnS chicken and turkey and in cookers with water pans or
> offset cookers. Which is crazy.
>
>

I think it is tied to using the same equipment.


> I did include set up an that would be any cooker where meat is cooked
> directly over coals or with coals set around but there is definite line
> of sight. and best fuel would be wood burned to coals.
>

I don't see how the fuel type/LOS or not would be necessarily
connected to the "Low and Slow" term


>
> I found wordage is important working with people in a training
> environment and unless you assign correct terms then people cannot
> communicate in a rational way and understand one another.
>


I agree with this, but I don't think you are accomplishing your goal
with this limitation on the term Low and Slow. Connecting the term to
the science of the cooking is a way to do this that will help folks
make the connection themselves.

Rock
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 3/3/2010 1:07 PM, RockPyle wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, > wrote:
>> On 3/3/2010 10:39 AM, tutall wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 5:06 am, > wrote:
>>>> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
>>>> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals.

>>
>>> I believe you are making an overly narrow definition. And worse, a
>>> highly personal one.

>>
>> Correct, I am narrowing it down as IMHO the usage has become grossly
>> over used to include cooking with any technique and with any type
>> cooker. There by causing unaware and new barbecuers to come to wrong
>> conclusions about what LnS is and where it is most beneficial to use it.
>>
>> And correct, it is a personal opinion hence the added IMHO in the
>> original statement.
>>

> All IMHO as a slightly past newbie smoker:
>
> I connect the term (Low and Slow) to the type of cooking where you are
> using a cut of meat that needs time and temp at the connective tissue
> breakdown zone of ~165*F. As I learn more about this hobby, that
> seems to be one of the more important 'scientific' concepts to
> grasp.
>
> For this reason, the style of cooker can vary, but the temperature
> profile needs to be one where the meat will spend enough time in the
> breakdown zone to fully convert the tough meat into the yummy meat.
>
> <brewing tangent>
> This is similar to the mashing process in beer brewing. Crushed
> grains need time at 145-158*F for the proper enzymes to wokr on
> converting the starch in the grain to sugars. There are tests to
> verify that full conversion has occurred, but the rule of thumb is
> that it takes between 30 minutes and an hour at the mashing
> temperature for conversion, so you hit your temperature, hold it there
> for an hour, and then take your sweet liquid and proceed with the
> boiling part of the brewing process.
>
> There is further complexity in that mashing at the lower end of the
> range will yield a 'drier' beer and a warmer mash will yoied more maly
> character, and the science of that is pretty well understood.
> </ brewing tangent>
>
> <start bringing it back to the topic>
> One of the differences between brrewing and barbecue is that the
> thermal mass of the meat makes the quick 'hit a temperature and hold'
> much more difficult. I wonder if we would see differences if we had
> the ability to hold the meat at different spots in the conversion
> temperature zone.
> <whew! Made it!>
>
> For me, understanding the type of meat and the cut of meat is key to
> how tightly the Low and Slow requirement needs to be met. For
> instance, it helps explain in my mind why butts and brisket can be
> cooked auccessfully at such high temperatures (like 350*, Yow!). The
> thermal mass of the meat will still travel relatively slowly through
> the 165* conversion, whiel a less robust cut, like ribs, will shoot
> through the conversion too quickly for full conversion to tenderness.


*Just an interesting note, I frequented African-American BBQ joints in
and near Chicago. Ribs and Rib Tips rule, they are cooked in under 1.5
hours and are tender. I'll say they are cooked Al Dente. Soft but with a
bite. No, they are not mushy which many have come to believe is the way
ribs and rib tip should be. What is interesting about cooking them that
way is the next day the ribs or rib tips are tough! What happened is I
believe the collagen didn't break completely but enough to have a
presentable product in short order. Sooo, ribs can be cooked fast and
enjoyed without the long time required to permanently break down the
collagen.

>
> This concept has helped me understand the process. Where it crosses
> into meats without a lot of connective tissue to convert (like
> poultry), I think the cooker and the cooking style get a bit
> confounded.
>
> When I started smoking, I discovered I really enjoy the smoky flavor
> that results. For smoking poultry, while the low and slow isn't
> necessary, I use the same equipment so I get the same result. I don't
> yet have the easy ability to run my smoker at the higher temperatures
> I could probably get away with, so I just deal with the longer than
> required time to cook and keep it simple for me.
>
> To wrap up my rambling, I think the meat cooking science is important
> to understand to a certain level, and that knowledge helps
> differentiate when Low and Slow is required and when it isn't. It
> would also help to understand when Low and Slow will hurt you (like
> drying out a chicken for instance) and how to deal with that
> (brining?)
>
>
>>
>> Because IMHO the usage has gone off the deep end and now people are
>> wanting to LnS chicken and turkey and in cookers with water pans or
>> offset cookers. Which is crazy.
>>
>>

> I think it is tied to using the same equipment.
>
>
>> I did include set up an that would be any cooker where meat is cooked
>> directly over coals or with coals set around but there is definite line
>> of sight. and best fuel would be wood burned to coals.
>>

> I don't see how the fuel type/LOS or not would be necessarily
> connected to the "Low and Slow" term
>
>
>>
>> I found wordage is important working with people in a training
>> environment and unless you assign correct terms then people cannot
>> communicate in a rational way and understand one another.
>>

>
> I agree with this, but I don't think you are accomplishing your goal
> with this limitation on the term Low and Slow. Connecting the term to
> the science of the cooking is a way to do this that will help folks
> make the connection themselves.
>
> Rock


If I read you correctly, lowNslow is purely about temperature and not
about fuel nor cooker? What temperature is LowNslow done at?

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 3/3/2010 1:09 PM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Direct line of sight to the heat source = radiant heat.


I agree. But there is also some convection. As you say it is possible to
have both.
>
> Offset, shielded, or baffled heat source = ambient heat.


OK, more defined, air heated by heat source. Convection?
>
> It's possible to have both, and of course meats will cook faster even if the
> ambient temperature is low, regardless of how "low" the fire is situated in
> relation to the meat, and regardless of whether it's a "slow" fire or not.
>
> Since in the popular lexicon, low and slow has irreversibly turned into a
> description which most often means cooking at low temps for a long time,
> maybe it's best not to fight city hall, and simply refer to the more
> accurate terminology regarding direct and indirect heat sources, and the
> best uses of each. As an example, if you want to set a glaze or caramelize a
> surface, you are far better off with a low temperature radiant heat source
> than an offset heat source at any temp. The radiant heat caramelizes much
> more readily, while for the most part the indirect heat just dries the glaze
> or sauce, even though you can still get "browning" at higher indirect temps.
>
> The advantage I see to traditional deep set wood-coal fire is that you get
> the benefit of both, the improved flavor due to greater surface
> caramelization from the radiant heat, and still an ambient temp sufficient
> to cook through large pieces of meat.
>
> I'm curious when you use that method on a big cut at a high temp such as
> 350F, if your surface char becomes excessive at some point. Do you then wrap
> the meat, or do you find the interior and exterior both reach the doneness
> you're seeking at the same time?
>
>

If I do a pork shoulder skin on or a fat capped beef brisket, char isn't
a factor. If I do a slab of ribs directly over coals, then you turn and
mop, some char but it's soooo good!

Same question to you as to Rock.., Is your definition of LowNslow any
cooker design, any fuel source, but what temperature is LowNslow?
--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33,326
Default What is Low and Slow...

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:04:51 -0500, piedmont wrote:

> On 3/3/2010 10:39 AM, tutall wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 5:06 am, > wrote:
>>> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
>>> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals.

>>
>> I believe you are making an overly narrow definition. And worse, a
>> highly personal one.

>
> Correct, I am narrowing it down as IMHO the usage has become grossly
> over used to include cooking with any technique and with any type
> cooker. There by causing unaware and new barbecuers to come to wrong
> conclusions about what LnS is and where it is most beneficial to use it.
>
> And correct, it is a personal opinion hence the added IMHO in the
> original statement.


In my opinion you're trying to claim a phrase for the BBQ qworld
that never was exclusively a BBQ phrase. I remember my parents
using the phrase for slow cooker and oven roasting. And by
inheritance, I have used it for those techniques as well. I always
qualify it with the device in which I'm cooking, eg. "I'm cooking a
prime rib roast low and slow in the oven."

-sw
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default What is Low and Slow...


>
> If I read you correctly, lowNslow is purely about temperature and not
> about fuel nor cooker? What temperature is LowNslow done at?
>



If you were to say simply "I cooked it Low and Slow", then yes, I
would then ask "what did you cook it in?", because braising (like
Carnitas a or the various other braised mexican dishes) in an oven
could be done Low and Slow. I think you are aiming at "Low and Slow
Barbecue", which I would translate to some sort of outdoor 'pit',
either vertical, offset or dug into the ground.

Temperature for me would be 225-275. If I were doing a 350* Brisket
or Shoulder, I would almost certainly mention that explicitly.

I guess I am not sure why we need to be so limiting for common
gphrases. I certainly alread use different word when I am talking to
the general public about my hobby, as opposed to when I am (poorly)
composign a post here or talking to a friend who has enough knowledge
that i want to be very precise in my terms.

Rock
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default What is Low and Slow...

On Mar 3, 9:04*am, piedmont > wrote:
> On 3/3/2010 10:39 AM, tutall wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 5:06 am, > *wrote:
> >> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
> >> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals.

>
> > I believe you are making an overly narrow definition. And worse, a
> > highly personal one.

>
> Correct, I am narrowing it down as IMHO the usage has become grossly
> over used to include cooking with any technique and with any type
> cooker.


Well, I don't really hear people use "low n slow" much, I assume you
are using this as a synonym for "BBQing"?


> There by causing unaware and new barbecuers to come to wrong
> conclusions about what LnS is and where it is most beneficial to use it.


Ah shit, we can't even get people to use grilling instead of BBQ, and
you want to introduce "low n slow" too?
Ambitious doesn't describe it.


> And correct, it is a personal opinion hence the added IMHO in the
> original statement.


>
> > That's fine and good, why does that require you to change standard
> > usage?

>
> Because IMHO the usage has gone off the deep end and now people are
> wanting to LnS chicken and turkey and in cookers with water pans or
> offset cookers. Which is crazy.


Well, some have always tried BBQ temps 225-275 for these, even though
the skin turns out bad.


> I did include set up an that would be any cooker where meat is cooked
> directly over coals or with coals set around but there is definite line
> of sight. and best fuel would be wood burned to coals.


Okay,

> OK, lump is good but are you cooking thru the offset or using the
> cooking chamber with lump in it so the 'see's' the meat?


Yes. What Dave calls smoke roasting.


> > other techniques, so now you have someone wanting to low n slow a turkey
> > at 150 F


What idiot is wanting to do that? Sounds like a prime candidate for a
Darwin award.

> I found wordage is important working with people in a training
> environment and unless you assign correct terms then people cannot
> communicate in a rational way and understand one another.
>


Right, I thiink we can make this simple :

Primary non grilling methods:

There's smoking (cheese, etc.)

There's indirect cooking for std BBQ fare, using either an offset or
in a vert a baffle of some sort.

And there's direct, which many here could do with their WSM by
removing the pan.

And various methods of direct variable by how much direct heat the
meat gets.

I don't know, seems like too many variations to give each a unique
label.




Am I missing anything?
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 187
Default What is Low and Slow...

On Mar 3, 8:06*am, piedmont > wrote:
> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals. What I mean by *coals
> is not using a drip pan between meat and coals nor cooking in an offset.
> Low and Slow would mean a controlled and smaller quanity of coals under
> or around the meat, with line of sight between coals and meat vs a large
> amount of coals piled up right under meat. I believe Low and Slow to be
> originally to be contrived for barbecue only using coals. I would say it
> is a cooler, but still a roasting technique. And I would also hazard an
> assumption that the term originated in regards to cooking whole hog and
> not briquettes but rather wood burned down to coals with don't ash over
> as much as briquettes.
>
> I have tried cooking butts, shoulders and poultry at very low
> temperatures as in below 225F with with I felt were poor results.
> Finding the much higher (350F+) temperatures rendered a much more
> flavorful meat.
>
> --
> regards, mike
> piedmont, The Practical BBQ'rhttp://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
> (mawil55)


Low and slow means just that, low temperature and slow cooked. It has
nothing to do with fuel source, type of cooker, in/direct heat or
anything else. Why are you confusing the issue? Why not start a thread
on what consitutes "real barbecue" if you want attention?


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,622
Default What is Low and Slow...

piedmont wrote:
> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals. What I mean by coals is
> not using a drip pan between meat and coals nor cooking in
> an offset. Low and Slow would mean a controlled and smaller quanity
> of coals under or around the meat, with line of sight between coals
> and meat vs a large amount of coals piled up right under meat. I
> believe Low and Slow to be originally to be contrived for barbecue
> only using coals. I would say it is a cooler, but still a roasting
> technique. And I would also hazard an assumption that the term
> originated in regards to cooking whole hog and not briquettes but
> rather wood burned down to coals with don't ash over as much as
> briquettes.


Now I see what Kent's post about definitions was referring to.

Mike, I think the term "low and slow" originally came about due to the
length of time it took for bbq to be cooked, and the temperature at which
most bbq is cooked. In the Carolinas, your description of the open
pit/pre-burned wood to coals is apt. I also think that it doesn't matter so
much if there is direct cooking over coals or indirect cooking with fire and
wood products. Many places in Kansas City, for example, will use whole logs
within offset fireplaces that funnel heat and smoke into their big brick
pits. Those guys call it "low and slow" bbq. From the hundreds of bbq joints
I've visited around the country, an average that most cook their big cuts
(brisket, shoulders, butts) in the 225 to 275 range. Thinner cuts, like
ribs, are done, on average, in the 250F to 300F range. Chickens in the 275
to 325 range.

From my discussions, it is my opinion that the "low" for bbq is considered
to be above 190F and below 300F (which is approaching the low end for
roasting temperatures). The "slow" comes from the length of time it takes,
at "low" temperatures to reach the desired level of doneness.

Personally, I find the term "low and slow" to be interchangeable with other
methods of cooking....crockpot, oven, etc.... that are not related to bbq.

> I have tried cooking butts, shoulders and poultry at very low
> temperatures as in below 225F with with I felt were poor results.
> Finding the much higher (350F+) temperatures rendered a much more
> flavorful meat.


Yeah, I don't like to go below 225F. Typically, I keep my pit temps about
240 to 260. Big Jim, like you, also uses a higher heat for his brisket and
shoulders.

It's funny, but I have heard the phrase "low and slow" used so much in
association with cooking bbq, that I hadn't given the terminology much
thought.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,587
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 2010-03-03, Dave Bugg > wrote:

> Yeah, I don't like to go below 225F. Typically, I keep my pit temps about
> 240 to 260. Big Jim, like you, also uses a higher heat for his brisket and
> shoulders.
>
> It's funny, but I have heard the phrase "low and slow" used so much in
> association with cooking bbq, that I hadn't given the terminology much
> thought.


That's cuz it's mostly hooey perpetrated by newbie bbq'rs who've jes
bought a new offset or ECB and spent 2 wks reading a buncha "we'll
sell/tell you anything!" bbq websites and have suddenly become experts
and reborn bbq zealots on the subject. I think I went through that
stage. Pretty silly. What was that temp mentioned? ...165F!? What
crap. Next someone will be telling us to bbq on a snow bank with a
red floodlight shined on the meat!

nb
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default What is Low and Slow...


"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-03-03, Dave Bugg > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I don't like to go below 225F. Typically, I keep my pit temps about
>> 240 to 260. Big Jim, like you, also uses a higher heat for his brisket
>> and
>> shoulders.
>>
>> It's funny, but I have heard the phrase "low and slow" used so much in
>> association with cooking bbq, that I hadn't given the terminology much
>> thought.

>
> That's cuz it's mostly hooey perpetrated by newbie bbq'rs who've jes
> bought a new offset or ECB and spent 2 wks reading a buncha "we'll
> sell/tell you anything!" bbq websites and have suddenly become experts
> and reborn bbq zealots on the subject. I think I went through that
> stage. Pretty silly. What was that temp mentioned? ...165F!? What
> crap. Next someone will be telling us to bbq on a snow bank with a
> red floodlight shined on the meat!
>
> nb
>
>

I bought my first smoker 30 years ago, a Luhr Jensen Little Chief.
http://smokehouseproducts.com/prod_l...=9800-000-0000 ,
now manufactured by a company called Smokehouse. If you look at the site you
can see it has a 250 watt heating element to heat wood chips or dust, and
that's it. Basically the smoking and the cooking were totally separated.

Here's the recipe from their cookbook.

Brine:
½ cup salt, 1/3 cup brown sugar, ½ tsp. maple flavoring
1 tsp. onion powder
1 tsp. celery salt
1 bay leaf, crushed
1 cup white dry wine
1 Tbsp. pepper
3 cups water

Place turkey in brine for 8 to 12 hours.
Remove from brine.
Rinse and air-dry. Preheat your smoker and place the turkey
on the rack. (open upper and lower cavities to expose insides
to smoke flavor.) Smoke flavor with Hickory or Cherry
"Chips 'n Chunks" for 30 minutes per pound or a maximum
of 3 panfuls. (3 to 3 ½ hours.)
Remove from smoker and bake in the oven at 300? about 15
minutes per pound. Baste with maple syrup once during the
last hour of cooking."

As you can see that brine recipe today would be thought to be almost
poisonous, 1/2 cup table[not Kosher] salt to 1 quart of liquid. The 250 watt
heater heated the wood chips and nothing else. The interior temp. of the
smoker was never over 200F and usually quite a bit less. You basically
bathed a brined uncooked chicken in smoke for several hours and then went on
to roast it in the oven.

As removed as that is from the usual practice today, the smoked turkey was
very very tasty, with more wood flavor than anything I've done since. In the
past 10 or so years I've "smoke roasted" brined turkeys in the usual
fashion. Since I got my Weber Smokey Mountain I'm interested in trying "low
and slow" and I'm trying to decide how low to go.

Cheers to all,

Kent









  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default What is Low and Slow...


"Kent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2010-03-03, Dave Bugg > wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I don't like to go below 225F. Typically, I keep my pit temps
>>> about
>>> 240 to 260. Big Jim, like you, also uses a higher heat for his brisket
>>> and
>>> shoulders.
>>>
>>> It's funny, but I have heard the phrase "low and slow" used so much in
>>> association with cooking bbq, that I hadn't given the terminology much
>>> thought.

>>
>> That's cuz it's mostly hooey perpetrated by newbie bbq'rs who've jes
>> bought a new offset or ECB and spent 2 wks reading a buncha "we'll
>> sell/tell you anything!" bbq websites and have suddenly become experts
>> and reborn bbq zealots on the subject. I think I went through that
>> stage. Pretty silly. What was that temp mentioned? ...165F!? What
>> crap. Next someone will be telling us to bbq on a snow bank with a
>> red floodlight shined on the meat!
>>
>> nb
>>
>>

> I bought my first smoker 30 years ago, a Luhr Jensen Little Chief.
> http://smokehouseproducts.com/prod_l...=9800-000-0000 ,
> now manufactured by a company called Smokehouse. If you look at the site
> you
> can see it has a 250 watt heating element to heat wood chips or dust, and
> that's it. Basically the smoking and the cooking were totally separated.
>
> Here's the recipe from their cookbook.
>
> Brine:
> ½ cup salt, 1/3 cup brown sugar, ½ tsp. maple flavoring
> 1 tsp. onion powder
> 1 tsp. celery salt
> 1 bay leaf, crushed
> 1 cup white dry wine
> 1 Tbsp. pepper
> 3 cups water
>
> Place turkey in brine for 8 to 12 hours.
> Remove from brine.
> Rinse and air-dry. Preheat your smoker and place the turkey
> on the rack. (open upper and lower cavities to expose insides
> to smoke flavor.) Smoke flavor with Hickory or Cherry
> "Chips 'n Chunks" for 30 minutes per pound or a maximum
> of 3 panfuls. (3 to 3 ½ hours.)
> Remove from smoker and bake in the oven at 300? about 15
> minutes per pound. Baste with maple syrup once during the
> last hour of cooking."
>
> As you can see that brine recipe today would be thought to be almost
> poisonous, 1/2 cup table[not Kosher] salt to 1 quart of liquid. The 250
> watt
> heater heated the wood chips and nothing else. The interior temp. of the
> smoker was never over 200F and usually quite a bit less. You basically
> bathed a brined uncooked chicken in smoke for several hours and then went
> on
> to roast it in the oven.
>
> As removed as that is from the usual practice today, the smoked turkey was
> very very tasty, with more wood flavor than anything I've done since. In
> the
> past 10 or so years I've "smoke roasted" brined turkeys in the usual
> fashion. Since I got my Weber Smokey Mountain I'm interested in trying
> "low
> and slow" and I'm trying to decide how low to go.
>
> Cheers to all,
>
> Kent
>
>

And Furthermore,
Notice the line " 120 Volt 250 Watt Heating Element operates at 165 degrees"
on
http://smokehouseproducts.com/prod_l...=9800-000-0000
Let's hear it for 165F

Kent



  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 3/3/2010 3:17 PM, Cam wrote:
> On Mar 3, 8:06 am, > wrote:
>> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
>> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals. What I mean by coals
>> is not using a drip pan between meat and coals nor cooking in an offset.
>> Low and Slow would mean a controlled and smaller quanity of coals under
>> or around the meat, with line of sight between coals and meat vs a large
>> amount of coals piled up right under meat. I believe Low and Slow to be
>> originally to be contrived for barbecue only using coals. I would say it
>> is a cooler, but still a roasting technique. And I would also hazard an
>> assumption that the term originated in regards to cooking whole hog and
>> not briquettes but rather wood burned down to coals with don't ash over
>> as much as briquettes.
>>
>> I have tried cooking butts, shoulders and poultry at very low
>> temperatures as in below 225F with with I felt were poor results.
>> Finding the much higher (350F+) temperatures rendered a much more
>> flavorful meat.
>>
>> --
>> regards, mike
>> piedmont, The Practical BBQ'rhttp://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
>> (mawil55)

>
> Low and slow means just that, low temperature and slow cooked. It has
> nothing to do with fuel source, type of cooker, in/direct heat or
> anything else. Why are you confusing the issue? Why not start a thread
> on what consitutes "real barbecue" if you want attention?

So what is the low temperature you use?

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 3/3/2010 4:52 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
> piedmont wrote:
>> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
>> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals. What I mean by coals is
>> not using a drip pan between meat and coals nor cooking in
>> an offset. Low and Slow would mean a controlled and smaller quanity
>> of coals under or around the meat, with line of sight between coals
>> and meat vs a large amount of coals piled up right under meat. I
>> believe Low and Slow to be originally to be contrived for barbecue
>> only using coals. I would say it is a cooler, but still a roasting
>> technique. And I would also hazard an assumption that the term
>> originated in regards to cooking whole hog and not briquettes but
>> rather wood burned down to coals with don't ash over as much as
>> briquettes.

>
> Now I see what Kent's post about definitions was referring to.
>
> Mike, I think the term "low and slow" originally came about due to the
> length of time it took for bbq to be cooked, and the temperature at which
> most bbq is cooked. In the Carolinas, your description of the open
> pit/pre-burned wood to coals is apt. I also think that it doesn't matter so
> much if there is direct cooking over coals or indirect cooking with fire and
> wood products. Many places in Kansas City, for example, will use whole logs
> within offset fireplaces that funnel heat and smoke into their big brick
> pits. Those guys call it "low and slow" bbq. From the hundreds of bbq joints
> I've visited around the country, an average that most cook their big cuts
> (brisket, shoulders, butts) in the 225 to 275 range. Thinner cuts, like
> ribs, are done, on average, in the 250F to 300F range. Chickens in the 275
> to 325 range.
>
> From my discussions, it is my opinion that the "low" for bbq is considered
> to be above 190F and below 300F (which is approaching the low end for


That's a big spread and a world of difference if cooked at 190F vs 300F,
not saying that's not what is going around but it shows the problem of
talking about exactly what is low and slow and IMHO, L N S is not as low
as many, especially newbies think, I think it is more in the 300-350
range vs flat out roasting at 450F. You can't do a brisket at 450F
because of the toughness issue, so to work around the toughness, Low and
Slow, you have to drop down, say 100F. That's all I'm saying.

> roasting temperatures). The "slow" comes from the length of time it takes,
> at "low" temperatures to reach the desired level of doneness.
>
> Personally, I find the term "low and slow" to be interchangeable with other
> methods of cooking....crockpot, oven, etc.... that are not related to bbq.
>
>> I have tried cooking butts, shoulders and poultry at very low
>> temperatures as in below 225F with with I felt were poor results.
>> Finding the much higher (350F+) temperatures rendered a much more
>> flavorful meat.


I whole heartily agree!

>
> Yeah, I don't like to go below 225F. Typically, I keep my pit temps about
> 240 to 260. Big Jim, like you, also uses a higher heat for his brisket and
> shoulders.
>
> It's funny, but I have heard the phrase "low and slow" used so much in
> association with cooking bbq, that I hadn't given the terminology much
> thought.
>

By The Way; The Q that is cooked in Lexington, NC at the Lexington, (I
was given a kitchen tour when I ate there), is cooked in a blazing hot
cooker, with hardwood hickory coals added to 'skin on' pork shoulder,
and another fellow that I knew in SC cooked his whole hog in 5 hours
flat in a hot cooker by adding hardwood coals and it was to die for as
they say!

What got me started on this was, one post where a fellow was grappling
with the oft used but Never defined 'Low and Slow' and was trying to
cook turkey at a dangerously low temp that is really better for cold
smoking. Plus when I first got started I'd heard Low and Slow was a
temperature below 212F (boiling point) but nothing I cooked was ever
good and took a ridiculous long time to cook.

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 187
Default What is Low and Slow...

On Mar 4, 10:27*am, piedmont > wrote:
> On 3/3/2010 3:17 PM, Cam wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 8:06 am, > *wrote:
> >> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
> >> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals. What I mean by *coals
> >> is not using a drip pan between meat and coals nor cooking in an offset.

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 833
Default What is Low and Slow...Now very long

Here are some thoughts from Bob in Georgia on cooking classic traditional
pork barbecue from several years ago in response to someone on the old
Lineback list.
Big Jim







The following bunch of mumbo-jumbo comprise my thoughts and opinions on
classic pork bbq and try to address some of what you are planning to do.
While Garry Howard believed that the best way to learn bbq was to encourage
passers-by at a shopping center contest to buy a tin smoker, I'm a believer
that BBQ (or any food) should be learned "Classic first". At least this is
the way that chef's are taught and from there they have the background
knowlege to stray off and create. His point that classic bbq was out of most
peoples reach was, however, somewhat valid. This will probably end up making
you say "Geeezus, sorry I asked" lol



While the methodology is similar and both have been around for a long time,
I don't consdider Lexington style barbecue to be THE classic. In my mind,
the classic is East North Carolina Whole Hog barbecue.



You are right in that it MUST start with a whole hog. This is one of the
three main things that doesn't allow Lexington style to measure up in these,
most stringent of terms.



Shoulders make excellent bbq, but in a purist sense, there's no way the two
can be even judged against one another. It would be like having a Champagne
contest and allowing California Sparkling wine as a contestant. Or allowing
blue cheese to be judged to Rougefort. Just one of them thangs'...



Classic is classic, and that's want you asked for.



In the old days, small hogs were used. In fact, Pete Jones (the elder
statesman of pork bbq) says that his uncle never cooked pigs over 40 pounds.
I suspect this was approximately the size used by most 100 years ago. But in
more recent times the size has moved up close to 100 pounds with Pete Jones
cooking hogs in the 140-160 pound range.



The methodology used to cook this classic bbq, in my opinion, was not meant
for huge thick cuts such as the shoulder-butts from #1 hogs that are sold at
grocery stores. Reason being that I don't subscribe to the newfangled idea
that the process was ever intended to be "low and slow" ala internet
hobbyist bbq. But I'll get to more on that later.





Back then, hogs were raised much fatter, thus allowing them to be more
"violently" cooked, if you will, without drying out. So try to get a hog
with as much fat as possible.



The feral-type of hogs that I raise seem to have old genes and put on fat
much easier than meat. They grow slower and the older, more excercised the
hog is, the more flavor it will have. Of course, mine aren't suited for
commercial production because it is too ineffecient to allow a profit on
what is already a pretty tough business. I don't know what type of meat you
have access to, but that's my general opinion and understanding and
experience has backed it up.





It's nice that you have someone who will scald the hog for you. My neighbor
and I do this also. The one bothersome thing that you said was that you
intended to cook it immediately.



There was a very informative discussion between Kit and Dan Gill (that never
got completed) a while back on rigor mortis.



The general consensus seemed to be NOT to cook a hog until it had come out
of rigor, which if I remember correctly, was approximately 8 hours. I can
not provide any real-life experience on this. But on two seperate occasions,
I have cooked a hog about 24 hours after butchering and did not like the
texture of the meat. I normally cook 2 days after killing and have never had
any problems. Now that I've thrown this monkeywrench into your plan, the
first thing you'll ask is "where the hell do I keep the thing for 8+ hours."



Ideally it is hung to stretch. Your butcher may have a walk-in cooler.
Unfortunately I do not have one and use a dedicated refrigerator. This is
especially a problem during this time of the year because during the colder
months you can let one hang for a while without much risk. I encourage the
input of others on all of this, but it is something you may want to keep in
mind.





A few last few thoughts on the hog and how to have it butchered. I have to
assume that classicaly, hogs are cooked with the head on. But I don't know
this for sure.



At the Skylight Inn, Pete Jones cooks his hogs butterflied with the head on.
However, they take an axe and bust the head in half before cooking so that
the halves lay flat on the pit. I know this is a little different than what
is done in the "beauty contests", but I highly recommend it.



The head is extremely bloody and this allows it to drain thoroughly. It also
has a tendency to take longer to cook than the meat if left intact. This
could possibly leave you a choice of overcooking your meat or trying to
seperate bloody head-meat from the rest of your bbq. Soaking the head in a
bucket of water will also assist greatly in draining a head.



Wilber's, on the other hand, doesn't cook their hogs head-on, at least when
I have been there. Heads simply take up a lot of room. They also do not cook
them butterflied. They are sawed in half down the backbone, which makes them
much easier to handle. Most times, this is what I do also as the head has
very little meat as a percentage to make it worth messing with. You do lose
a little more grease by having it sawed down the back, but my experience
says it isn't significant.



The Jones's traditionally caught all of the grease that they used in their
cornbread, but are able to catch only a small percentage nowadays as a
result of the move toward leaner hogs.



Assuming that you do not choose to cook the hog immediately after killing
it, here are some thoughts on meat temperature. It seems that I remember a
post from you in the past stating your opposition to leaving meat out to
come to room temperature. (which is technically 67 F, I believe) I'm a firm
believer in bringing meat to room temperature. In fact, the popular formula
for shoulder butts for internet bbq, in my opinion, would be erroneous if it
weren't assumed that meat was taken directly out of the refrigerator and put
on a pit. I normally leave thoroughly thawed meat sitting at room
temperature for 6-7 hours before putting it on. I've never seen a cold hog
on the pits at Wilber's or Pete Jones's, either, for what that's worth.



I've only had trouble once and I'll tell you the story because there may be
some parts to keep in mind when you get it butchered, but I'm sure the
butcher is also well-versed on these things.



Late last July we attempted to kill a rather large sow in my wooded pen of a
couple of acres. I missed her on the first shot, only wounding her. She took
off in the woods.



Becoming quite skittish at this point, I couldn't get a decent shot and only
wounded her a second time. This time I couldn't catch her and we had other
hogs dead and awaiting scalding on a day that was about 100 degrees. Another
guy came up and volunteered to track her a kill her. He finally dropped her
at the edge of a small pond. When I got down there, she was still alive but
in the process of drowning. I stuck and bled her and drug her up a steep
hill with my lawnmower. It had been about 1 hour since the first shot.
Nothing seemed unusual to me as I've had similar, though not as bad,
experiences killing hogs in large areas.



We cleaned her and I took a #35 pound shoulder and put in the refrigerator
to cool. I was to repay my neighbor for his help with bbq the next evening.
The result was that when I finished the bbq and went to pull it, most of
the meat inside was spoiled and extremely foul smelling.



Now I can't tell you exactly what happend, but here are my thoughts. The
meat was extremely thick and I believe this may have lead to the outside
cooling while the inside was still quite warm. It was only in the
refrigerator for about 12 hours. But the outside being colder also slowed
down the cooking time (which was quite long due to the size) allowing more
time for the inside to spoil.



Theory 2...After this, my wife read up on something call "dark cutting".
This happens when an animal is exposed to tremendous stress during the
killing process.



According to the article she read, it can lead to much faster deteriation of
the meat, to make a long story short.



In commercial operations, hogs are stunned before killing, which supposedly
causes less adrennaline, which can cause flaws in the meat.



Good chance both things were at play here, but making a clean kill and
quickly sticking is the best way to avoid any troubles as far as I
understand. But I haven't come across any problems in simply leaving meat to
sit out. To me, it cooks more evenly.



All of this makes me want to make a comment on Kit's interesting "Bacon on a
stick" invention as it applies to butts/picnics. It is an interesting
concept. But I would be somewhat careful as to not allow the outside to be
too much cooler than the inside, especially if one is going the "low and
slow" smoker route with a cut that is extremely thick. But my situation in
the above was not comparable to what he recommends doing for the most part.
And he knows much more about this type of thing than I do so I'm sure he has
taken this into consideration, if it even warrants it.







Here's some thought on how to build a pit for this "Classic BBQ"...



This is a very difficult subject to be able to describe in print. At least
to me So I'm not going to try too hard.



The biggest mistake I see people make is in the actual surface they lay the
hog on. This, I believe, is a crucial part of making this type of bbq. In my
opinion, the surface you must have is STEEL BARS. Not a hamburger or some
all purpose cooking surface. To give you a reason why, I'm going to have to
sort of jump way ahead for a second.



After you have finished cooking the hog (skin up) and deem it properly
cooked, you will be turning to blister the skin.



Upon turning, all of the grease will immediately flow down toward the skin.
This grease, when further heated by the coals actually fries the skin like a
pork rind. The grease-filled skin will expand downward. You need the large
gaps between the bars to allow this to properly happen. The skin directly
touching the bar will not expand and cook well normally and often be
inedible. Imagine having a mesh or other all-purpose type of grate and
attempting to pick the useable skin from the non-useable in little diamond
shaped patterns that cover a large percentage of the hog.



Another reason this is a "must" is the same reason that bars are not
generally suitable for open-faced meat, such as shoulder pieces, briskets
and ribs. The uneven weight distribution created by a small number of bars
allows the skin to sag and expand much better.



The reason that I don't consider bars to be optimal for open-faced cuts is
that the uneven weight distribution of the bars tends to put too much weight
on the areas resting on them, thus creating hard inedible area's on the
outside or exposed meat. It's not a problem on a hog because there's very
little outside meat exposed, it's rests mostly on bone areas and the
"intactness" of it doesn't allow much sagging. I do, however, cook
open-faced cuts on my bars, but they can't be done at very high
heat/radiation without a detrimental affect on some parts of the outside
meat. Best is probably to lay a more all-purpose grate over the bars. But
that's not what we're talking about here



Bottom line is try to get bars or a surface that has as large of gaps as
possible. I usually use about 5 bars or so under a small hog. A larger one
will take more.





Now back to the rest of the pit.



The cooking height is a question that I could write forever about, but may
confuse myself more than I confuse you



The lower you get, the more dangerous it is to drying out and burning up
your meat. This is less of a concern with a hog than with the more popular
open-faced cuts. But not something to take lightly. Every inch causes severe
changes in how it will cook, especially as you start moving below 24".



Here's my take on the subject via what I learned from The Wilber's and Pete
Jones operations combined with my own experiences.



I would guess that Wilber's cooks at between 16" and 20". They fire the open
doors putting all of the coals directly under the meat. They cook smaller
(70-100 lb) hogs very fast in 4-6 hours. Skin-up the entire way allowing
them to cool for several hours before turning to cook the skin.



Their pits are covered with roofing tin that is laid flat over the pit
without much ventillation. They fire every :20 minutes to 1/2 hour. Grease
fires are more the norm than the exception according to one pitmaster. Their
hogs turn out generally very charred, which makes for a good taste much like
a good steak. But they often overcook the meat or burn it. This isn't really
a shot against the pitmasters, only a product of the methodology and height.
In fact I believe the meat gets overcooked occasionally because the pits
become so hot it continues to cook far too long.



But they have their orders as to when to have it cooked by. This bbq, as I
said, is often not perfect. Oooh, but when it's good........there's nothing
like it. But they generally fall short on the skin aspect (burning it) and
that alone, in my opinion is why I may give a slight overall nod to the bbq
at Pete Jone's. I have the advantage of cooking only one hog and being able
to pay much closer attention to it.



The further you move away from the coals the less chance of having a grease
fire actually flame up high enough to burn up your hog. I had many
experiences with grease fires at below 15", especially when turning skin
down.





Now for another method... This is the Jones methdod. Their pits are about 2
feet high. He keeps at least 1 foot of ashes and grease built up in them so
the hogs cook at about a foot or so. The pit has no door on the bottom to
shovel coals. They lay the butterflied hogs in the middle and fire along the
sides just to the outside of the hog. This is not exactly direct, but some
coals do end up underneath the hog. Also it's so low that the radiation
factor may be as strong as having the coals directly beneath at a higher
height. (I don't know the formula but it was posted here a couple of years
ago) They have metal tops that swing down which are left slightly open.



The result of this method is a more consistant, tender, and juicy bbq. But
also a somewhat milder flavor than the aggressive approach used by the
Wilber's method. I was told by Jeff Jones (Pete's nephew) that if you were
going to stay with it, you could fire it as fast as you can make the coals
and cook one in 4--5 hours. And that's for a 150+ lb hog.



Notice where I'm going with this ? Right !! As controversial as it may
be, I'm trying to dispel the misinformation that pollutes the internet as to
classic bbq pork being a "low and slow" product ! Or that coals are used for
nothing more than heating up a cooking chamber to a certain temperature as
judged by a thermometer or any other type of temperature gauge.



But then again most of the information that abounds is not intended for
classic pork bbq. But unfortunately most people who read this don't realise
this. But as I have been able to gather, most don't care anyway The
faster meat cooks, the better flavor it will have. Unless the actual
intention is to bathe it in smoke ala the new-fangled smoker version of bbq.
But that's not what I'm talking about here. That's an entirely different
dish.



I can do either of the above methods on my pit. My personal experiences with
both methods has been positive. I will say that the Jones method is quite
preferable to the Wilber's if one is cooking a large hog or large shoulder.
This is because the Wilber's method will dry the outside before the inside
gets done, especially at lower heights. You'd have to get me at least two+
feet from the coals to get me to cook a 40 lb shoulder using the Wilber's
method. Maybe more, or else I'd be totally slow-baking it, which may be the
only way to approach a cut like this. I'll leave cuts of this size to the
pitmasters at Dan gill's get-togethers



Remember again that this bbq, it's flavor and the method was used to cook
small hogs, which generally speaking, might have a shoulder that weighs 6
pounds which translates into a butt of only about 3 pounds or so. There's a
lot of misconceptions that abound as it pertains to cooking times required
for whole hogs versus pieces of shoulder. For starters, the 1 hour+ per lb
at 250 F "internet formula" goes right out the window once you're you stop
dealing with #1 hog shoulder pieces that are sold in the grocery stores.



I think most of these folks that say they are going to cook an under 120
pound hog for some ridiculous period of time are simply out for a good time.
Or from the contest crowd that produced that embarrassing steamed-looking,
24 hour cooked #120 lb hog from the drunk who won the Memphis in May in '99.
I don't think that cooking times are greatly extended by having the hog
intact.



I think this is something that is born out of people who live by "the
formula" and think that because they have a 100 pound carcass, they should
apply the formula and cook it some comical amount of time. But in all
fairness to them, once again, this is an entirely different dish.



That should give you some things to think about as to how to build your pit.
You're no stranger to building pits, as I've seen on your web page. As for
tops, we both know the dangers of using wood/wafer board I'd opt for
roofing tin. If you opt for the Wilber's pit/method, place the tin flat down
on top of the pit. This will reduce upward draw, lessening the chance of a
grease fire. Build it 3-sided or leave enough room to comfortably fit a
shovel and swing it side to side. Don't cover the door during cooking. Leave
it as is. If you go with the Jones method, build it 4- sided and leave your
top slightly ajar during cooking to give ventillation. I simply use a brick
(layed flat) under the top/tin to prop it open when cooking this way.



As for making coals. Do it in something that will make a lot of them. Too
many is far better than not enough. Keep a good fire going at all times.
Make sure to have a good supply at the end if, for some reason, the skin is
giving you trouble.



Take some garden tools as you'll probably find a use for most of them during
some point during the process Remember, in this method, the goal isn't
simply to heat your pit, but to cook the meat with the coals.



I'm going to advise you to salt the skin (only) after you lay the hog on the
pit. Give it a good coating. Neither Wilber's nor Pete Jones salts the
meat-side before cooking. I have done it and didn't care for the result.
Wilber's doesn't put anything at all on either side of their hogs.



But because skin is such an intregal part of classic pork bbq, I recommend
salting it. Pete Jones swears by it and his skin is consistantly top-notch.
My own experience backs up his view.



I have done good skin without salting it, but the results, like Wilber's,
have been less than consistent. The meat, however, is a preference call as
to whether to salt. Actually there's not that much exposed meat to salt.



As for cooking the hog, try to think of it as one piece of meat. You're not
trying to cook the different parts that just happen to be connected. (parts
cookers can be prone to approach it this way) Also try not to think in terms
of temperature, as measured in any terms. I know this can be hard. Just keep
a close eye on it to make sure you're not cooking too fast. A full shovel
spread evenly at about 1/2 hour intervils should be sufficient for the first
couple of hours. You can use two shovels at first to get it cooking good.



After that, just try to keep the heat up and keep it cooking as rapidly as
possible without burning it, much like you would a good, thick steak. It may
require more or less due to the effect of the wind on the coals, but you get
the general idea. (Mine is inside so I don't have a problem with the wind,
but simply leaving the door open can stir up the coals and make them burn
much hotter and out faster)



When is it done ? Again, hard to verbalize. But if you are used to cooking
shoulders or picnics you should know what to look for. There will be a gap
or space between the skin and meat. This will happen in the middlin'/rib
area first. Then probably the ham. Wait for this to happen on the shoulder.
Once it starts to happen in one spot, it can happen in the rest rather
quickly, so keep a close eye on it, especially if you've got it cooking
pretty hot and fast. The only part that may not pull away completely is the
area on the shoulder directly on the end leading up to the head. There will
be thick fat here.



Try to wait for it or even fire under it heavier if the rest looks done. Let
the rest get a pretty good gap, not just barely pulled away. That part of
the shoulder is just a judgement call based on what it looks like in
relation to how thoroughly you think the rest of the hog is cooked. The more
fat the hog has, the less you have to worry about it. Just as would be the
case with the "low and slow" method due to the very forgiving temperature
environment that the methods uses.



But these are types of things that seperate pitmasters from thermometer
watchers. But at this point there's a fine line between having perfectly
acceptable meat and perfect meat.



(Disclaimer: Just like Wilber's and Pete jones, I don't always cook mine
perfectly either. But that's the challenge that makes this a hobby, rather
than simply an alternative method of cooking cookie-cutter meat that can
only be distinguished by variations in some type of external seasoning.)



Once you have determined that it's cooked, take something and wipe off the
ashes and any excess salt that may be left on the skin. Now is time to turn
it. As I said, I generally prefer to cook them in half's, so it's not nearly
as difficult. If whole, I take an old feed sack and stick my arms through to
protect my forearms. Then get under it as far as possible with my forearms,
pull toward me and filp it as best as possible. It's delicate and I usually
ask for help. Bill Tolbert had a unique method posted a while back.
Unfortunately I cannot get to both ends of my pit and cannot use it. Don't
forget to brush off the salt as it can make your skin too salty.



Pete Jones claims he cooks his skin with the coals to the outside of the
hog. Personally I have had very limited success with this. Actually one of
his pitmen told me that they put coals outside to cook the hog and then
underneath to cook the skin. I watched as another guy put them to the
outside and closed the lid.



I walked away for a while after that. About :45 minutes later the skin was
perfectly cooked. Did they add coals under while I was away ? I suspect they
may have, but it's still a mystery to me. The cooking time was made longer
due to the meat and pit being not up to heat.



My advice is to go directly under, regardless of how you cook the hog. I get
almost perfect results this way.



If you've been firing underneath and the pit is good and hot, it may not be
necessary to add many coals.



Once turned, leave the top off of the pit ! The hog is already cooked. You
don't want to add any air temperature which may further cook your hog.
You're simply cooking the skin with radiation at this point. Once you have
turned it and fired it, you should almost immediately see the skin start to
protrude down between the bars almost like a baloon filling with air. It has
to be hot to blister properly, but be careful not to burn it, which can
happen more easily the lower you choose to cook. Keep in mind that the
actual skin will be much closer to the coals than the bars by virtue of the
dropping. It should cook in about 20 minutes or so. It will be soft when it
first drops. It's ready when it hardens up. If it's not happening right, add
more coals. You'll get your best skin from the middlin'/rib area. It gets
more difficult to get done as you move towards the ends of the hog, but
you'll get more than enough from the center for your barbecue.



This part of the process can be seemingly violent with tons of smoke from
grease hitting the coals.



Actually, the burning grease makes me nauseous if I inhale too much of it
It's also probably not a scene that the "low and slow" crown would ever
associate with bbq. The chances for a grease fire are at their peak during
this process. Watch it closely. If some coals catch on fire, watch that they
don't touch or climb the grease stream up to your meat. Simply having a few
small coals burning isn't going to hurt anything. You can move the ones that
catch fire out of the way if you deem necessary.



Now comes the fun part ! Take it off whole or cut off the various pieces,
whichever is easier.



Pull all of the meat and stack it up somewhere. Now take the skin and cut or
break off the parts that really blistered and expanded nicely. Cut away the
parts that were laying on the bars. Now chop the skin finely.



If any sems tough and doesen't want to chop, discard it, as it will we
inedible. It should almost be like chopping up a fried prok rind, with a
light airy texture.



Next chop up your bbq somewwhat coarsely. Then sprinkle a reasonable amount
of skin over the meat. If you put to much it can become too dominant in my
opinion, but this is more of a personal preference thing. Chop it a little
bit more mixing the skin it well. (the skin is reason #2 as to why Lexington
Style cannot be considered THE classic) Pick up the meat from the bottom and
flip occasionally during chopping.



You asked for seasoning...I truly believe the classic seasoning for this is
simply a little vinegar, (traditionally cider) salt and pepper. With some
red peopper flakes sprinkled in, more or less for decoration than anything
else. When I say this, I mean take some vinegar and pour over the pile of
bbq. Just enough so that it gives it a good smooth looking texture. Err on
the side of not enough as this can be added at the table but not taken away.
You don't want it watery at all. Then take the salt and lightly sprinkle
over the meat. Same with the peopper and flakes.



Chop this into the bbq.



And hey......LET's EAT !! It's that simple



The seasoning is the least important thing here. Many recipes for East
Carloina pork vinegar sauce exist. But to me they are far too much trouble
for something that should be barely noticeable. Whatever you do, don't use
any tomato product on the meat. (this is the 3'rd reason why Lexington Style
can not be considered THE classic)



I would also shy away from using any sugar. Some may argue that it is
acceptable, but I've heard that East Carolinians often hid themselves in a
closet if they had a mind to put sugar in their vinegar The above
seasoning method is a close proximity of what is done at the Pete Jones's.



Although they use vinegar and Texas Pete (still vinegar) as their vinegar
portion and does not use red pepper flakes. Since they have been doing it
this way for 130 years longer than Wilber's (since the 1830's), I would tend
to believe this was the more classic method. But the only way you can go
wrong is to over-sauce it or vinegar it or destroy it with tomato or sugar.



Wilber's puts some type of cooked sauce on their's, although not the same
stuff they sell in the front. They're seasoning is normally well done and
has a nice peppery taste. I have not detected nor do I have any reason to
believe there is any sugar present in their seasoning, either.



The amount that that I advised you to chop it may strike a nerve in some
pulled pork and pig-pickin' fans. But my ideal of classic pork bbq is
somewhat more finely chopped than many big thick steak loving Americans
would find proper. But I believe the "classic" is meat designed to be put
between two pieces of bread. And to me, I think the idea of chopping at all
would be lost if I didn't get a taste of all of the various parts of the hog
with the wonderful differences in flavor and texture in every bite !



However, BY NO MEANS... am I in favor of grinding meat to oblivion such as
has been popularized by Parker's and other "has-been", gas burning Eastern
Joints.



Well, you asked for my opinions and what I know. That's all I can think of
at the moment for someone who has their eyes set on the "Classic". I want
everyone to know that while I do all of this somewhat regularly, it doesn't
mean that I hate "low and slow" smoked meat. On the contrary, I have quite
an appreciation for a well-done version of that dish. But I just hate like
hell seeing the the classic, along with and all the thoughts, skills and
equipment needed to produce it get swept into oblivion by the mass
propaganda that abounds promoting another dish commonly referred to by the
same name.



But what do I know ? There's a guy on this list from California (I forget
his name), I believe from the Frisco area that privately e-mails listmembers
claiming that I am a fraud and have never actually cooked bbq So keep
this in mind just in case anyone decides try something that I say.



All thoughts, corrections and critique encouraged and welcomed !



Bob in Ga


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,587
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 2010-03-04, Kent > wrote:

> Let's hear it for 165F


I'd say that borders on cold smoking, which we used to do. We'd put
up 600 lbs of sausage and smoke it for a week in a drafty wood shed at
CA Winter temps, typically 30-50F. Also, my FIL had a Little Chief
smoker. Used to do striper, salmon, and sturgeon in it. It was
killer and I'm considering buying one, myself. OTOH, I'd doubt either
qualify as BBQ.

nb
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default What is Low and Slow...


"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-03-04, Kent > wrote:
>
>> Let's hear it for 165F

>
> I'd say that borders on cold smoking, which we used to do. We'd put
> up 600 lbs of sausage and smoke it for a week in a drafty wood shed at
> CA Winter temps, typically 30-50F. Also, my FIL had a Little Chief
> smoker. Used to do striper, salmon, and sturgeon in it. It was
> killer and I'm considering buying one, myself. OTOH, I'd doubt either
> qualify as BBQ.
>
> nb
>
>

I guess it doesn't qualify as "BBQ", but rather "Smoking". However the 165F
smoking temp. is still too high for cold smoked salmon. I have tried it
unsuccessfully. The salmon smokes nicely, but doesn't retain any of the
"cold smoked" texture. I understand there are high buck smoke generators
that will do this, basically smoke at room or outside temperature. That's
probably not for most of us. I was groaning about this at a fish market one
day, and a senior Norwegian lady told me to make gravlax in the usual
fashion, and paint it with a bit of liquid smoke. I haven't tried it yet.

Kent





  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,587
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 2010-03-04, Kent > wrote:

> I guess it doesn't qualify as "BBQ", but rather "Smoking". However the 165F
> smoking temp. is still too high for cold smoked salmon. I have tried it
> unsuccessfully.


Yeah. I forgot to add that 165 temp puts it in the realm of hot smoking.

The cold smoking we did really doesn't qualify as smoking, either, I
don't think, even though it did effect the taste somewhat. More like
smoke curing. The smoke shack was about 10'x10' and you could see
light between every board. The smoke was no more than a single small
fruit tree branches smolding in a pan, 24/7 fer a week, jes enough to
keep some smoke present. In a space that big, it was more like
incense than a heavy smoke fog. Always mystified me, but turned out
killer sausage

nb

  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,296
Default What is Low and Slow...Now very long

"Big Jim" > wrote:
> Here are some thoughts from Bob in Georgia on cooking classic traditional
> pork barbecue from several years ago in response to someone on the old
> Lineback list.
> [ . . . ]


Good stuff, and thorough. Thanks, Jim, and especially Bob in Ga!

--
Nick, KI6VAV. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their
families: https://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/ Thank a Veteran!
Support Our Troops: http://anymarine.com/ You are not forgotten.
Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~ USMC 1365061
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 187
Default What is Low and Slow...

On Mar 4, 10:42*am, piedmont > wrote:

> That's a big spread and a world of difference if cooked at 190F vs 300F,
> not saying that's not what is going around but it shows the problem of
> talking about exactly what is low and slow and IMHO, L N S is not as low
> as many, especially newbies think, I think it is more in the 300-350
> range vs flat out roasting at 450F. You can't do a brisket at 450F
> because of the toughness issue, so to work around the toughness, Low and
> Slow, you have to drop down, say 100F. That's all I'm saying.


So low and slow is medium and medium?

Cam
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,622
Default What is Low and Slow...

piedmont wrote:
> On 3/3/2010 4:52 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>> piedmont wrote:
>>> This notion of Low and Slow IMHO is being mis-interpretated. Low and
>>> Slow I believe to be when cooking meat with coals. What I mean by
>>> coals is not using a drip pan between meat and coals nor cooking in
>>> an offset. Low and Slow would mean a controlled and smaller quanity
>>> of coals under or around the meat, with line of sight between coals
>>> and meat vs a large amount of coals piled up right under meat. I
>>> believe Low and Slow to be originally to be contrived for barbecue
>>> only using coals. I would say it is a cooler, but still a roasting
>>> technique. And I would also hazard an assumption that the term
>>> originated in regards to cooking whole hog and not briquettes but
>>> rather wood burned down to coals with don't ash over as much as
>>> briquettes.

>>
>> Now I see what Kent's post about definitions was referring to.
>>
>> Mike, I think the term "low and slow" originally came about due to
>> the length of time it took for bbq to be cooked, and the temperature
>> at which most bbq is cooked. In the Carolinas, your description of
>> the open pit/pre-burned wood to coals is apt. I also think that it
>> doesn't matter so much if there is direct cooking over coals or
>> indirect cooking with fire and wood products. Many places in Kansas
>> City, for example, will use whole logs within offset fireplaces that
>> funnel heat and smoke into their big brick pits. Those guys call it
>> "low and slow" bbq. From the hundreds of bbq joints I've visited
>> around the country, an average that most cook their big cuts
>> (brisket, shoulders, butts) in the 225 to 275 range. Thinner cuts,
>> like ribs, are done, on average, in the 250F to 300F range. Chickens
>> in the 275 to 325 range. From my discussions, it is my opinion that the
>> "low" for bbq is
>> considered to be above 190F and below 300F (which is approaching the
>> low end for

>
> That's a big spread and a world of difference if cooked at 190F vs
> 300F, not saying that's not what is going around but it shows the
> problem of talking about exactly what is low and slow


I think of low and slow as being a range of temperatures, higher than
smoking (preservation and jerky-maiking) but lower than roasting. Low can be
225 or 280.


> and IMHO, L N S
> is not as low as many, especially newbies think, I think it is more
> in the 300-350 range vs flat out roasting at 450F.


I grew up thinking of roasting temperatures as being the range of cooking
temperatures that are used for oven roasting meat in mamma's kitchen.
Depending on the cut, and Betty Crocker, that range of roasting temperatures
could be from 325F to 400+.

> You can't do a
> brisket at 450F because of the toughness issue, so to work around the
> toughness, Low and Slow, you have to drop down, say 100F. That's all
> I'm saying.


I see your point. I just see it a bit differently: Smoking temps are 'cold'.
BBQ temps are low. Roasting temps are high. Each of those three applications
have a range of temps. So if someone is doing bbq at 100f, they are not even
smoking, they are letting room temperature rot the meat :-)


>> roasting temperatures). The "slow" comes from the length of time it
>> takes, at "low" temperatures to reach the desired level of doneness.
>>
>> Personally, I find the term "low and slow" to be interchangeable
>> with other methods of cooking....crockpot, oven, etc.... that are
>> not related to bbq.
>>> I have tried cooking butts, shoulders and poultry at very low
>>> temperatures as in below 225F with with I felt were poor results.
>>> Finding the much higher (350F+) temperatures rendered a much more
>>> flavorful meat.

>
> I whole heartily agree!
>
>>
>> Yeah, I don't like to go below 225F. Typically, I keep my pit temps
>> about 240 to 260. Big Jim, like you, also uses a higher heat for his
>> brisket and shoulders.
>>
>> It's funny, but I have heard the phrase "low and slow" used so much
>> in association with cooking bbq, that I hadn't given the terminology
>> much thought.
>>

> By The Way; The Q that is cooked in Lexington, NC at the Lexington, (I
> was given a kitchen tour when I ate there), is cooked in a blazing hot
> cooker, with hardwood hickory coals added to 'skin on' pork shoulder,
> and another fellow that I knew in SC cooked his whole hog in 5 hours
> flat in a hot cooker by adding hardwood coals and it was to die for as
> they say!


It's making my mouth drool. I spent quite a bit of time at Lexington #1,
where they had their open pit in an out building adjacent to the kitchen.
They had a burn pit outside of the smoke house where they continuously
burned down hickory and oak logs into coals, then would shovel those coals
into the pit, right underneath the grates.

> What got me started on this was, one post where a fellow was grappling
> with the oft used but Never defined 'Low and Slow' and was trying to
> cook turkey at a dangerously low temp that is really better for cold
> smoking. Plus when I first got started I'd heard Low and Slow was a
> temperature below 212F (boiling point) but nothing I cooked was ever
> good and took a ridiculous long time to cook.


Hope this all helps out.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,622
Default What is Low and Slow...Now very long

Big Jim wrote:
> Here are some thoughts from Bob in Georgia on cooking classic
> traditional pork barbecue from several years ago in response to
> someone on the old Lineback list.


I've read this a couple of time over the years. Brought back some good
memories. Thanks for posting this, Jim.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,609
Default What is Low and Slow...



"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> I think of low and slow as being a range of temperatures, higher than
> smoking (preservation and jerky-maiking) but lower than roasting. Low can
> be 225 or 280.
>
>
> > and IMHO, L N S
>> is not as low as many, especially newbies think, I think it is more
>> in the 300-350 range vs flat out roasting at 450F.

>
> I grew up thinking of roasting temperatures as being the range of cooking
> temperatures that are used for oven roasting meat in mamma's kitchen.
> Depending on the cut, and Betty Crocker, that range of roasting
> temperatures could be from 325F to 400+.


Based on what I read here, it is a personal preference, just stay away from
281 to 299 though. We don't know what to call that zone and its usefulness
has not been determined. .

  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,622
Default What is Low and Slow...

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> I think of low and slow as being a range of temperatures, higher than
>> smoking (preservation and jerky-maiking) but lower than roasting.
>> Low can be 225 or 280.
>>
>>
>>> and IMHO, L N S
>>> is not as low as many, especially newbies think, I think it is more
>>> in the 300-350 range vs flat out roasting at 450F.

>>
>> I grew up thinking of roasting temperatures as being the range of
>> cooking temperatures that are used for oven roasting meat in mamma's
>> kitchen. Depending on the cut, and Betty Crocker, that range of
>> roasting temperatures could be from 325F to 400+.

>
> Based on what I read here, it is a personal preference, just stay
> away from 281 to 299 though. We don't know what to call that zone
> and its usefulness has not been determined.


Maybe, the Twilight Zone?

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 3/4/2010 10:44 AM, Cam wrote:
snip
>> So what is the low temperature you use?
>>
>> --
>> regards, mike

>
> My WSM has a sweet spot at about 260 but I don't freak out if that
> swings 40 degrees either way.
> I only cook butts low and slow. Ribs I shoot for 300-350, chickens I
> run full blast 350-400.
>
> I cook bacon low and slow as well, but that is on the stove top in a
> frying pan. Fast pan frying at high heat cooks unevenly.
>
> Cam

260F and not cooler is good, I'd change ribs to 260-300 as there isn't
much fat to tender and are thin. But all in all sounds like good 'temps
for meat' to me

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 3/4/2010 4:28 PM, Kent wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2010-03-04, > wrote:
>>
>>> Let's hear it for 165F

>>
>> I'd say that borders on cold smoking, which we used to do. We'd put
>> up 600 lbs of sausage and smoke it for a week in a drafty wood shed at
>> CA Winter temps, typically 30-50F. Also, my FIL had a Little Chief
>> smoker. Used to do striper, salmon, and sturgeon in it. It was
>> killer and I'm considering buying one, myself. OTOH, I'd doubt either
>> qualify as BBQ.
>>
>> nb
>>
>>

> I guess it doesn't qualify as "BBQ", but rather "Smoking". However the 165F
> smoking temp. is still too high for cold smoked salmon. I have tried it
> unsuccessfully. The salmon smokes nicely, but doesn't retain any of the
> "cold smoked" texture. I understand there are high buck smoke generators
> that will do this, basically smoke at room or outside temperature. That's
> probably not for most of us. I was groaning about this at a fish market one
> day, and a senior Norwegian lady told me to make gravlax in the usual
> fashion, and paint it with a bit of liquid smoke. I haven't tried it yet.
>
> Kent
>
>
>

Kent,
Look up cold smoking, it is a preservation process, fish is salted then
hung up in a smoker, smoke really is nothing but a by product, the
intent is to dehydrate the meat, so the combination of salt and lack of
moisture inhibits bacteria growth and the fish can be kept (this was
when there were no refrigerators) for a long time after being caught.

http://www.3men.com/allabout.htm

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 3/4/2010 10:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> I think of low and slow as being a range of temperatures, higher than
>> smoking (preservation and jerky-maiking) but lower than roasting. Low
>> can be 225 or 280.
>>
>>
>> > and IMHO, L N S
>>> is not as low as many, especially newbies think, I think it is more
>>> in the 300-350 range vs flat out roasting at 450F.

>>
>> I grew up thinking of roasting temperatures as being the range of
>> cooking temperatures that are used for oven roasting meat in mamma's
>> kitchen. Depending on the cut, and Betty Crocker, that range of
>> roasting temperatures could be from 325F to 400+.

>
> Based on what I read here, it is a personal preference, just stay away
> from 281 to 299 though. We don't know what to call that zone and its
> usefulness has not been determined. .

LOL, that's the Twilight Zone! do.. do.. doo.. do..

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)


  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default What is Low and Slow...

On 3/4/2010 6:46 PM, Cam wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:42 am, > wrote:
>
>> That's a big spread and a world of difference if cooked at 190F vs 300F,
>> not saying that's not what is going around but it shows the problem of
>> talking about exactly what is low and slow and IMHO, L N S is not as low
>> as many, especially newbies think, I think it is more in the 300-350
>> range vs flat out roasting at 450F. You can't do a brisket at 450F
>> because of the toughness issue, so to work around the toughness, Low and
>> Slow, you have to drop down, say 100F. That's all I'm saying.

>
> So low and slow is medium and medium?
>
> Cam


Concepts, ideas, terms that were created by Pit Masters cooking whole
hogs are being misinterpreted.

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)
  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default What is Low and Slow...

piedmont wrote:

> http://www.3men.com/allabout.htm
>


This is a great reference bookmark for me. I use their method for
smoking salmon that comes my way.
bd
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,609
Default What is Low and Slow...



"Nunya Bidnits" > wrote
>> That's cuz it's mostly hooey perpetrated by newbie bbq'rs who've jes
>> bought a new offset or ECB and spent 2 wks reading a buncha "we'll
>> sell/tell you anything!" bbq websites and have suddenly become experts
>> and reborn bbq zealots on the subject. I think I went through that
>> stage. Pretty silly. What was that temp mentioned? ...165F!? What
>> crap. Next someone will be telling us to bbq on a snow bank with a
>> red floodlight shined on the meat!
>>
>> nb

>
> Personally I like to use a 150 watt light bulb inside a foil lined
> cardboard
> box.


Should I buy the standard bulb or do I need a "soft white"?

  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,360
Default What is Low and Slow...


On 6-Mar-2010, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote
> >> That's cuz it's mostly hooey perpetrated by newbie bbq'rs who've jes
> >> bought a new offset or ECB and spent 2 wks reading a buncha "we'll
> >> sell/tell you anything!" bbq websites and have suddenly become experts
> >> and reborn bbq zealots on the subject. I think I went through that
> >> stage. Pretty silly. What was that temp mentioned? ...165F!? What
> >> crap. Next someone will be telling us to bbq on a snow bank with a
> >> red floodlight shined on the meat!
> >>
> >> nb

> >
> > Personally I like to use a 150 watt light bulb inside a foil lined
> > cardboard
> > box.

>
> Should I buy the standard bulb or do I need a "soft white"?


You need to get the "Double Life" bulb because you're going to
be cooking real slow.

--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default What is Low and Slow...


"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> piedmont wrote:
>
>> http://www.3men.com/allabout.htm
>>

>
> This is a great reference bookmark for me. I use their method for smoking
> salmon that comes my way.
> bd
>
>

I think it looks like an excellent site and will be a bookmark for me as
well. In the 19th century the Norwegians salted, then dried with smoke, and
ended up with "cold smoked salmon"

Kent
-----
,50% Norwegian





  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default What is Low and Slow...

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski said:
>
>>> Personally I like to use a 150 watt light bulb inside a foil lined
>>> cardboard
>>> box.

>> Should I buy the standard bulb or do I need a "soft white"?

>
> You get a better bark with the standard bulb.
>

....least you didn't tell him to go with a CFL... ;-)
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
Lower & slow, no, not slow, impatient... Thomas Prufer Barbecue 1 02-05-2014 10:14 PM
How slow is slow cooking? David Dyer-Bennet General Cooking 97 05-03-2012 07:33 PM
Wow!! GoogleGroups is WAY slow this AM!! John Kuthe[_2_] General Cooking 11 15-11-2011 02:52 PM
Slow CO2 John Fouts Winemaking 12 23-09-2006 01:51 AM
BBQ low & slow Denise~* General Cooking 5 11-05-2004 08:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 PM.

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"