I've got a really annoying brother-in-law who is always trying to "help me
improve". I smoked up a 10# butt yesterday for a family get together, and he
made a big deal about how much quicker and more efficient it would be to
cook two 5# butts instead - spend less time, use less lump, consume less
beer, etc. I laughed him off and said it was more about the process than the
product, but it got me to thinking about it after he finally went home. It
was good bbq, but I burned up a lot of lump and sometimes I don't have that
much time to devote to a lengthy smoking.. Any thoughts out there? I'm using
a CharGriller Super Pro with the offset firebox. Do I get to the same place
faster by smoking two 5# butts, instead? More meat area for the rub to add
flavor? Advantages/disadvantges? Just curious what the experts think.
Thanks, Jerry.

"Jerry" > wrote in message
. ..
> I've got a really annoying brother-in-law who is always trying to "help me
> improve". . Do I get to the same place faster by smoking two 5# butts,
> instead? More meat area for the rub to add flavor?
> Advantages/disadvantges? Just curious what the experts think. Thanks,
> Jerry.

Why not four 2.5 pounders or ten 1 pounders? Or twenty 8 ouncers.

Your BIL is an idiot. Making bbq is an art, not a science with a given
formula for a given weight. Smaller cuts of meat dry out faster, not always
tenderizing faster. While the small pieces will "cook" faster, they don't
make as good a barbecue. Stop inviting him and improve your well being. .

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:48:43 GMT, "Jerry"
> wrote:

>I've got a really annoying brother-in-law who is always trying to "help me
>improve". I smoked up a 10# butt yesterday for a family get together, and he
>made a big deal about how much quicker and more efficient it would be to
>cook two 5# butts instead - spend less time, use less lump, consume less
>beer, etc. I laughed him off and said it was more about the process than the
>product, but it got me to thinking about it after he finally went home. It
>was good bbq, but I burned up a lot of lump and sometimes I don't have that
>much time to devote to a lengthy smoking.. Any thoughts out there? I'm using
>a CharGriller Super Pro with the offset firebox. Do I get to the same place
>faster by smoking two 5# butts, instead? More meat area for the rub to add
>flavor? Advantages/disadvantges? Just curious what the experts think.
>Thanks, Jerry.
>


sorrry, but i must agree with your annoying brother-in-law.

with two 5 lb butts you will double the surface area available for the
smoke to be absorbed into the butts and the extra surface area will
allow you to add more seasoning per square inch of meat than a single
big hunk of meat. that makes for more tasty Que. i really like that
crusty, crunchy, crispy bark on the outside of a butt or briskit or
anyting else for that matter. also because the mass of the individual
pieces of meat would be smaller it will cook in a shorter period of
time hence, using less charcoal.. you would also be able to season
each butt with different rubs or spices if you want to cater to
different tasts, sweet/sour, wet sauce or dry rub, etc.

try it out, good luck, your a^% hoL(* brother in law sounds like he
knows what he's talkin about.

mg

"Mark Gibson" > wrote in message
>
> sorrry, but i must agree with your annoying brother-in-law.
>
> with two 5 lb butts you will double the surface area available for the
> smoke to be absorbed into the butts and the extra surface area will
> allow you to add more seasoning per square inch of meat than a single
> big hunk of meat. that makes for more tasty Que. i really like that
> crusty, crunchy, crispy bark on the outside of a butt or briskit or
> anyting else for that matter.

So it would be better yet if you sliced it down to 1`/4" think and had even
more surface area? Why does everyone recommend full cut packer brisket
instead of doing small pieces or even slices?

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message >
> So it would be better yet if you sliced it down to 1`/4" think and had
even
> more surface area? Why does everyone recommend full cut packer brisket
> instead of doing small pieces or even slices?
>


Pthththth, you're talking logic, experience. It's nothing against simple
belief.

D
--

Duwop wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message >
> > So it would be better yet if you sliced it down to 1`/4" think and had
> even
> > more surface area? Why does everyone recommend full cut packer brisket
> > instead of doing small pieces or even slices?
> >
>
>
> Pthththth, you're talking logic, experience. It's nothing against simple
> belief.
>
> D
> --
>

Why not just grind the shit up? Mix in a bunch of spices with a
spatula. It'll be done in no time too.

Pierre

"Pierre" > wrote in message
oups.com
:: Duwop wrote:
::: "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message >
:::: So it would be better yet if you sliced it down to 1`/4" think
and had even
:::: more surface area? Why does everyone recommend full cut packer
brisket
:::: instead of doing small pieces or even slices?
::::
:::
:::
::: Pthththth, you're talking logic, experience. It's nothing against
simple
::: belief.
:::
::: D
::: --
:::
::
:: Why not just grind the shit up? Mix in a bunch of spices with a
:: spatula. It'll be done in no time too.
::
:: Pierre

Actually, brisket makes excellent burgers, with or without the spices.
;-)

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:29:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Mark Gibson" > wrote in message
>>
>> sorrry, but i must agree with your annoying brother-in-law.
>>
>> with two 5 lb butts you will double the surface area available for the
>> smoke to be absorbed into the butts and the extra surface area will
>> allow you to add more seasoning per square inch of meat than a single
>> big hunk of meat. that makes for more tasty Que. i really like that
>> crusty, crunchy, crispy bark on the outside of a butt or briskit or
>> anyting else for that matter.
>
>So it would be better yet if you sliced it down to 1`/4" think and had even
>more surface area? Why does everyone recommend full cut packer brisket
>instead of doing small pieces or even slices?

You missed the poster's point. If everyone at the party likes the
bark and the extra flavor, then, yes, it is reasonable to use two five
pound cuts instead of one ten pound cut--for the reasons the poster
mentioned.

If you were short of lump, or time, could you have que'd the 10#
cut? More than likely not. In the end, it is your call. The
advantage to doing the larger cuts is that you have more fat breaking
down and basting the meat from the inside. Trying to do this with
cuts that are too small would result in something dried out by the
time it has reached the doneness stage that you are hoping to achieve.

David

"David" > wrote in message
>
> You missed the poster's point. If everyone at the party likes the
> bark and the extra flavor, then, yes, it is reasonable to use two five
> pound cuts instead of one ten pound cut--for the reasons the poster
> mentioned.

No, you missed the point. Doing smaller is not necessarily better. Sure,
it will have more surface area, cook faster, have more bark, but that is at
a price. The price is often less tender, drier barbecue. Then there are
those that say even ten pounds is too small and you must do a whole hog.

The annoying BIL was more concerned with time and charcoal use than flavor
and texture. That is not how you make bbq.

In alt.food.barbecue, David > wrote:


The
> advantage to doing the larger cuts is that you have more fat breaking
> down and basting the meat from the inside. Trying to do this with
> cuts that are too small would result in something dried out by the
> time it has reached the doneness stage that you are hoping to achieve.

That was my thought as well.


--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

Allowing for personal choice is why we cook rather than order our food isn't
it? My inclination would be to try both ways and then you know rather than
think which way you prefer.

--
Thanks,
Hank