I have built myself a smoker that will smoke 20 racks of ribs, but have only done as many as 3 racks at one time.
I've been using the 3-2-1 method of smoking. which is a total of 6 hours.
I'm planning on having 40 men over for ribs.
I plan to smoke 20 racks of ribs plus a few sides.
My question is how long should I smoke them for?

"Frank Levesque" > wrote in
message . ..
>
> I have built myself a smoker that will smoke 20 racks of ribs, but have
> only done as many as 3 racks at one time.
> I've been using the 3-2-1 method of smoking. which is a total of 6
> hours.
> I'm planning on having 40 men over for ribs.
> I plan to smoke 20 racks of ribs plus a few sides.
> My question is how long should I smoke them for?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Frank Levesque

Until they are done.
If 6 hours works for you now, why would you do anything different? One rack
or 100 racks, it takes the same to make them tender.

On Jun 10, 2:58*am, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Frank Levesque" > wrote in
> messagenews:Frank.Levesque.83792c9.509601@foodbant er.com...
>
> > I'm planning on having 40 men over for ribs.
> > I plan to smoke 20 racks of ribs plus a few sides.
> > My question is how long should I smoke them for?
>
> > --
> > Frank Levesque
>
> Until they are done.
> If 6 hours works for you now, why would you do anything different? *One rack
> or 100 racks, it takes the same to make them tender.

Yep, imagine the main problem(s) will be from using a new cooker for
the first time and not knowing hot and cold spots or having it act in
some unexpected manner.(air/heat flow)

But someone good enough to build one capable of doing 20 ribs is
probably smart enough to avoid these problems.

Can fit 80-90 lbs of butt on mine and they take the same amount of
time if I put on 20 lbs or 70. the ones nearest the firebox always
cook faster too. Go figger! :-)

Your gonna have a lot of happy men onhand. Lotsa beans, you gotta do
lotsa BBQ beans. Man, so good with ribs.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Frank Levesque" > wrote in
> message . ..
> >
> > I have built myself a smoker that will smoke 20 racks of ribs, but have
> > only done as many as 3 racks at one time.
> > I've been using the 3-2-1 method of smoking. which is a total of 6
> > hours.
> > I'm planning on having 40 men over for ribs.
> > I plan to smoke 20 racks of ribs plus a few sides.
> > My question is how long should I smoke them for?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Frank Levesque
>
> Until they are done.
> If 6 hours works for you now, why would you do anything different? One rack
> or 100 racks, it takes the same to make them tender.

Thermal mass. Even if you've brought the ribs up to room temperature
before putting them in the smoker, 20 racks of ribs has more thermal
mass than 3 racks and will hold the smoke chamber temperature down for a
bit longer. It won't be a drastic difference in time though, perhaps an
extra 15 minutes.

On 6/11/2011 4:52 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "Frank Levesque"<Frank.Levesque.83792c9.509601@foodbanter .com> wrote in
>> message . ..
>>>
>>> I have built myself a smoker that will smoke 20 racks of ribs, but have
>>> only done as many as 3 racks at one time.
>>> I've been using the 3-2-1 method of smoking. which is a total of 6
>>> hours.
>>> I'm planning on having 40 men over for ribs.
>>> I plan to smoke 20 racks of ribs plus a few sides.
>>> My question is how long should I smoke them for?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Frank Levesque
>>
>> Until they are done.
>> If 6 hours works for you now, why would you do anything different? One rack
>> or 100 racks, it takes the same to make them tender.
>
> Thermal mass. Even if you've brought the ribs up to room temperature
> before putting them in the smoker, 20 racks of ribs has more thermal
> mass than 3 racks and will hold the smoke chamber temperature down for a
> bit longer. It won't be a drastic difference in time though, perhaps an
> extra 15 minutes.


And 15 minutes difference is nothing in barbecue. It's an all day or at
least all afternoon cook/event. If someone has only a 30 minute window
in which to visit/eat, well perhaps they should stay home and have
Cheerios...

BBQ
--
Vegetarian

An old Indian term for poor hunter...

On Jun 11, 6:03*pm, bbq > wrote:
> On 6/11/2011 4:52 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> >> "Frank Levesque"<Frank.Levesque.83792c9.509...@foodbanter .com> *wrote in
> >> messagenews:Frank.Levesque.83792c9.509601@foodbant er.com...
>
> >>> I have built myself a smoker that will smoke 20 racks of ribs, but have
> >>> only done as many as 3 racks at one time.
> >>> I've been using the 3-2-1 method of smoking. which is a total of 6
> >>> hours.
> >>> I'm planning on having 40 men over for ribs.
> >>> I plan to smoke 20 racks of ribs plus a few sides.
> >>> My question is how long should I smoke them for?
>
> >>> --
> >>> Frank Levesque
>
> >> Until they are done.
> >> If 6 hours works for you now, why would you do anything different? *One rack
> >> or 100 racks, it takes the same to make them tender.
>
> > Thermal mass. Even if you've brought the ribs up to room temperature
> > before putting them in the smoker, 20 racks of ribs has more thermal
> > mass than 3 racks and will hold the smoke chamber temperature down for a
> > bit longer. It won't be a drastic difference in time though, perhaps an
> > extra 15 minutes.
>
> And 15 minutes difference is nothing in barbecue. *It's an all day or at
> least all afternoon cook/event. *If someone has only a 30 minute window
> in which to visit/eat, well perhaps they should stay home and have
> Cheerios...
>
> BBQ
> --
> Vegetarian
>
> An old Indian term for poor hunter...- Hide quoted text -
>

I wanna know, if having a cooker with more mass, meaning thicker gauge
steel, firebox, etc, is a GOOD thing. People always want to treat
having a lot of meat as having downside consequences only.

Pththth
Waste of breath to discuss it.

I open up the cooker to put the meat it, and regardless of how many
pounds went it, the damn temp goes down. Go figger!

<bg>

On 6/11/2011 11:31 PM, tutall wrote:
snip
>>
>
> I wanna know, if having a cooker with more mass, meaning thicker gauge
> steel, firebox, etc, is a GOOD thing. People always want to treat
> having a lot of meat as having downside consequences only.
>
> Pththth
> Waste of breath to discuss it.
>
> I open up the cooker to put the meat it, and regardless of how many
> pounds went it, the damn temp goes down. Go figger!
>
> <bg>
>
>


I have heard conflicting reports that having more meat, means it will
take longer to cook and some say it doesn't make that much difference.

Hell, if the cooker is 300°, why does the heat care about how much meat
it has to cook?

Granted, open it up to add meat, the temp goes down. That make sense to
me. But does it matter of it is 1 or 2 racks of ribs, or 6? It may
take 30 seconds longer to add the additional 4. Again, we're talking
barbecue here, not brownies, that seem to be anal about 28 minutes for a
9 X 13 pan at 350°

BBQ
--
Vegetarian

An old Indian term for poor hunter...

bbq wrote:

> I have heard conflicting reports that having more meat, means it will
> take longer to cook and some say it doesn't make that much difference.

When I would do 450 lbs of meat in one load, doesn't change the cook time at
all.

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

"bbq" > wrote in
> On 6/11/2011 11:31 PM, tutall wrote:
> snip
>>>
>>
>> I wanna know, if having a cooker with more mass, meaning thicker gauge
>> steel, firebox, etc, is a GOOD thing. People always want to treat
>> having a lot of meat as having downside consequences only.
>>
>> Pththth
>> Waste of breath to discuss it.
>>
>> I open up the cooker to put the meat it, and regardless of how many
>> pounds went it, the damn temp goes down. Go figger!
>>
>> <bg>
>>
>>
>
>
> I have heard conflicting reports that having more meat, means it will take
> longer to cook and some say it doesn't make that much difference.
>
> Hell, if the cooker is 300°, why does the heat care about how much meat it
> has to cook?
>
> Granted, open it up to add meat, the temp goes down. That make sense to
> me. But does it matter of it is 1 or 2 racks of ribs, or 6? It may take
> 30 seconds longer to add the additional 4. Again, we're talking barbecue
> here, not brownies, that seem to be anal about 28 minutes for a 9 X 13 pan
> at 350°
>
> BBQ

In theory, thermal mass comes into play as you have to heat more meat to a
given temperature, but that is more of a case of burning more fuel to bring
the mass up to temperature.

There are so many factors involved, it is nearly impossible to make a
definitive statement unless you experimented with two identical cookers at
the same time. Cooking time and fuel use are affected by ambient
temperature, thermal mass of the food, loading time, starting temperature
of the food, wind, sun or clouds and type of fuel.

Or you can just make bbq and take it off when done.

On Jun 12, 1:18*am, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> bbq wrote:
> > I have heard conflicting reports that having more meat, means it will
> > take longer to cook and some say it doesn't make that much difference.
>

> When I would do 450 lbs of meat in one load, doesn't change the cook time at
> all.



Thank you Dave.

Everyone, let's save this post for every time it comes up again in the
future.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 23:50:35 -0500 in alt.food.barbecue, bbq
> wrote,
>Hell, if the cooker is 300°, why does the heat care about how much meat
>it has to cook?

Cooking is an endothermic process. The meat is absorbing heat as it
cooks. I couldn't tell you how big a factor that is.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:31:19 -0700 (PDT), tutall >
wrote:

-Snip-
>
>I wanna know, if having a cooker with more mass, meaning thicker gauge
>steel, firebox, etc, is a GOOD thing. People always want to treat
>having a lot of meat as having downside consequences only.
>
>Pththth
>Waste of breath to discuss it.
>
>I open up the cooker to put the meat it, and regardless of how many
>pounds went it, the damn temp goes down. Go figger!
>
><bg>
>

Just a guess, but the more mass in a thicker constructed cooking
chamber, the more heat it should retain. If pre-heated and left up to
temp for a bit, the walls should hold some heat and bring the air temp
back up quicker with the extra mass.

If it is just brought up to cooking temp and that extra metal mass
hasn't had time to pre-heat also, it could be slower since the metal
is still sucking some heat from the fuel source.

Anyway, just a guess.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 08:15:00 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
>"bbq" > wrote in
>> On 6/11/2011 11:31 PM, tutall wrote:
>> snip
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wanna know, if having a cooker with more mass, meaning thicker gauge
>>> steel, firebox, etc, is a GOOD thing. People always want to treat
>>> having a lot of meat as having downside consequences only.
>>>
>>> Pththth
>>> Waste of breath to discuss it.
>>>
>>> I open up the cooker to put the meat it, and regardless of how many
>>> pounds went it, the damn temp goes down. Go figger!
>>>
>>> <bg>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have heard conflicting reports that having more meat, means it will take
>> longer to cook and some say it doesn't make that much difference.
>>
>> Hell, if the cooker is 300°, why does the heat care about how much meat it
>> has to cook?
>>
>> Granted, open it up to add meat, the temp goes down. That make sense to
>> me. But does it matter of it is 1 or 2 racks of ribs, or 6? It may take
>> 30 seconds longer to add the additional 4. Again, we're talking barbecue
>> here, not brownies, that seem to be anal about 28 minutes for a 9 X 13 pan
>> at 350°
>>
>> BBQ
>
>In theory, thermal mass comes into play as you have to heat more meat to a
>given temperature, but that is more of a case of burning more fuel to bring
>the mass up to temperature.
>
>There are so many factors involved, it is nearly impossible to make a
>definitive statement unless you experimented with two identical cookers at
>the same time. Cooking time and fuel use are affected by ambient
>temperature, thermal mass of the food, loading time, starting temperature
>of the food, wind, sun or clouds and type of fuel.
>
>Or you can just make bbq and take it off when done.

That last sentence says it all...

Kids: "how long 'till dinner???!?!?!??"
Me: "When it's done!"

On 6/12/2011 3:18 AM, Dave Bugg wrote:
> bbq wrote:
>
>> I have heard conflicting reports that having more meat, means it will
>> take longer to cook and some say it doesn't make that much difference.
>
> When I would do 450 lbs of meat in one load, doesn't change the cook time at
> all.
>


Great to know. Experience is the best educator. Thanks..

BBQ
--
Vegetarian

An old Indian term for poor hunter...

On 6/12/2011 7:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
snip
>
> In theory, thermal mass comes into play as you have to heat more meat to
> a given temperature, but that is more of a case of burning more fuel to
> bring the mass up to temperature.
>
> There are so many factors involved, it is nearly impossible to make a
> definitive statement unless you experimented with two identical cookers
> at the same time. Cooking time and fuel use are affected by ambient
> temperature, thermal mass of the food, loading time, starting
> temperature of the food, wind, sun or clouds and type of fuel.
>

I am reminded of Matthew's cook of 2 butts, plus lots of other meat.
The butts were identical in weight. Cooked at the same time, same
distance from heat source(on the same grate). One took 7 hours, the
other, 10.

> Or you can just make bbq and take it off when done.

Works for me...

BBQ
--
Vegetarian

An old Indian term for poor hunter...

On Jun 12, 11:23*am, mike > wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:31:19 -0700 (PDT), tutall >
>
> Anyway, just a guess.

Yep, it's a topic to while the time away with when just shooting the
shit, but in no ways should be taken or considered seriously when
planning a cook.

Lots more productive things to talk about, like rubs, injections and
whatnot. This summer am going to make an effort to do more prep work
with the meat, meaning going to, at a minimum, rub it the night
before.

Diners Drive-ins and Dives is a house favorite, and a lot of the
places featured use these cuts, especially the pork butt, and to a man
each one rubs the night before. So it's slowly sinking into this
thick skull that if so many professionals are doing it, it just might
be a useful thing to do. And pretty damn easy too.

On 6/12/2011 2:17 PM, tutall wrote:
> On Jun 12, 11:23 am, > wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:31:19 -0700 (PDT), >
>>
>> Anyway, just a guess.
>
> Yep, it's a topic to while the time away with when just shooting the
> shit, but in no ways should be taken or considered seriously when
> planning a cook.
>
> Lots more productive things to talk about, like rubs, injections and
> whatnot. This summer am going to make an effort to do more prep work
> with the meat, meaning going to, at a minimum, rub it the night
> before.
>
> Diners Drive-ins and Dives is a house favorite, and a lot of the
> places featured use these cuts, especially the pork butt, and to a man
> each one rubs the night before. So it's slowly sinking into this
> thick skull that if so many professionals are doing it, it just might
> be a useful thing to do. And pretty damn easy too.


Sometimes these cooking shows and professionals make things more
complicated then need be. Not that rubbing a butt the night before is
complicated, but is it necessary??

I will be interested in your review. I will rub and refrigerate the
night before if I know I am going to que the next day. But it is not
one of them things that *needs* to be done.

It's good to have a "thick skull". If you bump your head, you won't
crack your head open as easily ;-)

BBQ

--
Vegetarian

An old Indian term for poor hunter...

On Jun 12, 2:06*pm, bbq > wrote:
> On 6/12/2011 2:17 PM, tutall wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 11:23 am, > *wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:31:19 -0700 (PDT), >
>
> >> Anyway, just a guess.
>
> > Yep, it's a topic to while the time away with when just shooting the
> > shit, but in no ways should be taken or considered seriously when
> > planning a cook.
>
> > Lots more productive things to talk about, like rubs, injections and
> > whatnot. This summer am going to make an effort to do more prep work
> > with the meat, meaning going to, at a minimum, rub it the night
> > before.
>
> > Diners Drive-ins and Dives is a house favorite, and a lot of the
> > places featured use these cuts, especially the pork butt, and to a man
> > each one rubs the night before. *So it's slowly sinking into this
> > thick skull that if so many professionals are doing it, it just might
> > be a useful thing to do. And pretty damn easy too.
>
> Sometimes these cooking shows and professionals make things more
> complicated then need be.


Sure, but this was each and every one from all around the country with
different backgrounds doing it.


> I will be interested in your review.

Heh, it'll probably come up again, in a year or so.


> It's good to have a "thick skull". *If you bump your head, you won't
> crack your head open as easily ;-)

Am extra tall, so it really comes in handy. You know those damn signs
they hang in the walkways in department stores? Short people hang
them.
Short people are always hanging shit too low. Am one of those who
didn't think Randy Newman was joking. It's a conspiracy, I know
it! :-)

On 6/12/2011 5:46 PM, tutall wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2:06 pm, > wrote:
>> On 6/12/2011 2:17 PM, tutall wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 12, 11:23 am, > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:31:19 -0700 (PDT), >
>>
>>>> Anyway, just a guess.
>>
>>> Yep, it's a topic to while the time away with when just shooting the
>>> shit, but in no ways should be taken or considered seriously when
>>> planning a cook.
>>
>>> Lots more productive things to talk about, like rubs, injections and
>>> whatnot. This summer am going to make an effort to do more prep work
>>> with the meat, meaning going to, at a minimum, rub it the night
>>> before.
>>
>>> Diners Drive-ins and Dives is a house favorite, and a lot of the
>>> places featured use these cuts, especially the pork butt, and to a man
>>> each one rubs the night before. So it's slowly sinking into this
>>> thick skull that if so many professionals are doing it, it just might
>>> be a useful thing to do. And pretty damn easy too.
>>
>> Sometimes these cooking shows and professionals make things more
>> complicated then need be.
>
>
> Sure, but this was each and every one from all around the country with
> different backgrounds doing it.
>
>
I have seen recipes from I think Wolf Gang Puck, get this and that and
the other thing fresh. Chop, fry and get this. Geez, get all them
ingredients, fresh, you're spending some $$$ on a meal, with some
leftovers. Most people I know that cook want to have better meals at a
lessor cost then going out.

IOW, they try and do it to be frugal to. Having a recipe that might
include 5-6 fresh infredients and a few spices/herbs that maybe are not
in their spice cabinet spoils the frugality of cooking at home..

I like stirfrys, whether I grill them in a pan with holes over hot
coals, or on the stove in a wok. I will use a frozen blend to reduce
the waste to zero. Sure, fresh might be better. But if wanting/needing
to be frugal, gotta consider the wasted product to.

>> I will be interested in your review.
>
> Heh, it'll probably come up again, in a year or so.
>
>
>> It's good to have a "thick skull". If you bump your head, you won't
>> crack your head open as easily ;-)
>
> Am extra tall, so it really comes in handy. You know those damn signs
> they hang in the walkways in department stores? Short people hang
> them.
> Short people are always hanging shit too low. Am one of those who
> didn't think Randy Newman was joking. It's a conspiracy, I know
> it! :-)
>
>

Is your Volkswagen custom made for your height? :-)

BBQ

--
Vegetarian

An old Indian term for poor hunter...

On 11-Jun-2011, bbq > wrote:

> On 6/11/2011 4:52 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>
> >> "Frank Levesque"<Frank.Levesque.83792c9.509601@foodbanter .com> wrote
> >> in
> >> message . ..
> >>>
> >>> I have built myself a smoker that will smoke 20 racks of ribs, but
> >>> have
> >>> only done as many as 3 racks at one time.
> >>> I've been using the 3-2-1 method of smoking. which is a total of 6
> >>> hours.
> >>> I'm planning on having 40 men over for ribs.
> >>> I plan to smoke 20 racks of ribs plus a few sides.
> >>> My question is how long should I smoke them for?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Frank Levesque
> >>
> >> Until they are done.
> >> If 6 hours works for you now, why would you do anything different? One
> >> rack
> >> or 100 racks, it takes the same to make them tender.
> >
> > Thermal mass. Even if you've brought the ribs up to room temperature
> > before putting them in the smoker, 20 racks of ribs has more thermal
> > mass than 3 racks and will hold the smoke chamber temperature down for a
> > bit longer. It won't be a drastic difference in time though, perhaps an
> > extra 15 minutes.
>
>
> And 15 minutes difference is nothing in barbecue. It's an all day or at
> least all afternoon cook/event. If someone has only a 30 minute window
> in which to visit/eat, well perhaps they should stay home and have
> Cheerios...
>
> BBQ

Amen to that BBQ. I drove 3 and a half hours saturday to chow down
at the Birthday BBQ bash hosted by Ed Clay at St Augustine, FL He
was running two trailer mounted offset cookers to cook a whole hog
and various other items including a packer cut brisket and a bunch of
wolf turds. He cooked a chicken separately in an infra red cooker.
Everything obeyed the pitmaster except the hog and it wanted at least
another hour when everybody was ready to eat. We ate it anyhow, but
a pound or two got set aside for the birds because it wasn't done enough.
Big Jim was there, but that was about it. I think gas prices kept many
at home. I almost did't go because of the gasoline cost. It's kind of hard
to justify $100/plate for even the best BBQ.

The next day, Sunday, I rode the bike over to Indian Rocks Beach to
spend a few minutes with Mike Rothman (Mike, RNR Construction)
and swap a few stories. It was in the mid 90's here, but the ride was
pretty nice anyway and I only lost my hat twice.
--
Brick(Too soon old and too late smart)

On 12-Jun-2011, tutall > wrote:

> On Jun 11, 6:03*pm, bbq > wrote:
> > On 6/11/2011 4:52 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > >> "Frank Levesque"<Frank.Levesque.83792c9.509...@foodbanter .com> *wrote
> > >> in
> > >> messagenews:Frank.Levesque.83792c9.509601@foodbant er.com...
> >
> > >>> I have built myself a smoker that will smoke 20 racks of ribs, but
> > >>> have
> > >>> only done as many as 3 racks at one time.
> > >>> I've been using the 3-2-1 method of smoking. which is a total of 6
> > >>> hours.
> > >>> I'm planning on having 40 men over for ribs.
> > >>> I plan to smoke 20 racks of ribs plus a few sides.
> > >>> My question is how long should I smoke them for?
> >
> > >>> --
> > >>> Frank Levesque
> >
> > >> Until they are done.
> > >> If 6 hours works for you now, why would you do anything different?
> > >> *One rack
> > >> or 100 racks, it takes the same to make them tender.
> >
> > > Thermal mass. Even if you've brought the ribs up to room temperature
> > > before putting them in the smoker, 20 racks of ribs has more thermal
> > > mass than 3 racks and will hold the smoke chamber temperature down for
> > > a
> > > bit longer. It won't be a drastic difference in time though, perhaps
> > > an
> > > extra 15 minutes.
> >
> > And 15 minutes difference is nothing in barbecue. *It's an all day or at
> > least all afternoon cook/event. *If someone has only a 30 minute window
> > in which to visit/eat, well perhaps they should stay home and have
> > Cheerios...
> >
> > BBQ
> > --
> > Vegetarian
> >
> > An old Indian term for poor hunter...- Hide quoted text -
> >
>
> I wanna know, if having a cooker with more mass, meaning thicker gauge
> steel, firebox, etc, is a GOOD thing. People always want to treat
> having a lot of meat as having downside consequences only.
>
> Pththth
> Waste of breath to discuss it.
>
> I open up the cooker to put the meat it, and regardless of how many
> pounds went it, the damn temp goes down. Go figger!
>
> <bg>

That's one of the things I quit worrying about years ago. I get my fire
set the way it needs to be and just leave it alone. It's putting out a
given amount of heat and that's what it's supposed to do. Your indoor
oven is much the same way. No matter how you adjust the knobs, it is only
capable of producing a fixed amount of heat. While my pit can produce
more or less heat depending on how much fire I build, it works best with
a more or less standard fire so I don't mess with it. The only variable left
is time and I don;t worry about that either. I don't start the cooker if I
don't
have enough time available. I usually plan for all day like BBQ said. I've
had ribs get done in a little over two hours and I've had some take seven.
All I really need to know is how to tell when they're done. I quit trying to
estimate 'When' they'll be done. Of course, I can usually gestimate within
an hour or so, but I don't count on it. When I have guests, I always make
something else available to snack on so people don't start getting antsy.
Ed had a tray of Wolf Turds and some other stuff I can'r remember out
to keep people happy until the hog got done enough.
--
Brick(Too soon old and too late smart)

On 12-Jun-2011, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "bbq" > wrote in
> > On 6/11/2011 11:31 PM, tutall wrote:
> > snip
> >>>
> >>
> >> I wanna know, if having a cooker with more mass, meaning thicker gauge
> >> steel, firebox, etc, is a GOOD thing. People always want to treat
> >> having a lot of meat as having downside consequences only.
> >>
> >> Pththth
> >> Waste of breath to discuss it.
> >>
> >> I open up the cooker to put the meat it, and regardless of how many
> >> pounds went it, the damn temp goes down. Go figger!
> >>
> >> <bg>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have heard conflicting reports that having more meat, means it will
> > take
> > longer to cook and some say it doesn't make that much difference.
> >
> > Hell, if the cooker is 300°, why does the heat care about how much meat
> > it
> > has to cook?
> >
> > Granted, open it up to add meat, the temp goes down. That make sense to
> >
> > me. But does it matter of it is 1 or 2 racks of ribs, or 6? It may
> > take
> > 30 seconds longer to add the additional 4. Again, we're talking
> > barbecue
> > here, not brownies, that seem to be anal about 28 minutes for a 9 X 13
> > pan
> > at 350°
> >
> > BBQ
>
> In theory, thermal mass comes into play as you have to heat more meat to a
>
> given temperature, but that is more of a case of burning more fuel to
> bring
> the mass up to temperature.
>
> There are so many factors involved, it is nearly impossible to make a
> definitive statement unless you experimented with two identical cookers at
>
> the same time. Cooking time and fuel use are affected by ambient
> temperature, thermal mass of the food, loading time, starting temperature
>
> of the food, wind, sun or clouds and type of fuel.
>
> Or you can just make bbq and take it off when done.


I endorse that last sentence and the heck with the rest of it.
--
Brick(Too soon old and too late smart)

On 12-Jun-2011, David Harmon > wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 23:50:35 -0500 in alt.food.barbecue, bbq
> > wrote,
> >Hell, if the cooker is 300°, why does the heat care about how much meat
> >it has to cook?
>
> Cooking is an endothermic process. The meat is absorbing heat as it
> cooks. I couldn't tell you how big a factor that is.

I suppose if you're cooking with a can of Sterno, the available heat would
be a factor, but in my pit, there is so much excess heat available, that
it hardly figures in the cook time.

--
Brick(Too soon old and too late smart)