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
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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. . |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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"? |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Lower & slow, no, not slow, impatient... | Barbecue | |||
How slow is slow cooking? | General Cooking | |||
Wow!! GoogleGroups is WAY slow this AM!! | General Cooking | |||
Slow CO2 | Winemaking | |||
BBQ low & slow | General Cooking |