We're going to try a low temp standing rib roast today, as in the current
Cook's Illustrated Magazine. You can watch this video without subscription
of any kind for the next four months.
http://www.cooksillustrated.com/byis...currentVideo=y
It's only a minute and a half.
1 Trim off ribs; save for roasting
2 Salt and air dry in frig for 1-4 days
3 Warm to room temp.
4 Brown top and bottom, not the cut ends.
5 Reassemble bone in standing rib and tie with kitchen twine.
6 Roast at 200F to internal temp. of 110F. Turn off oven and let rise to
120-125F.
7. Rest??? and eat. I'm a bit dubious about that.

I'm gong to do differently the following.
1 Brown in bacon fat and save as much of the browning as possible.
2. Roast ribs separately at 375F to render fat and drippings for Yorkshire
pudding
3 I might just leave the oven temp @ 200-225F and rest in the usual
fashion after 120 meat temp is reached, while the Yorkshire pudding is
baking.
4 Slice thinly

Happy New Year to All,

Kent

Sqwertz > wrote:

>Yes, it means "under". He's going to cook it "under" the top of the
>of the oven. not to be at all confused with "sous vide" - AKA, "Under
>vacuum". Vacuum being the most important part in said method.
>
>The guy is abnormally fixated on *******izing this specific method of
>cooking.

It's the same nomenclature game as "eggplant caviar". You take a
term that has both a specific meaning and some sort of cachet, and
start applying it willy-nilly to things that are vaguely superficially
similar, if that.

Steve

On 1/1/2012 6:25 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> Yes, it means "under". He's going to cook it "under" the top of the
>> of the oven. not to be at all confused with "sous vide" - AKA, "Under
>> vacuum". Vacuum being the most important part in said method.
>>
>> The guy is abnormally fixated on *******izing this specific method of
>> cooking.
>
> It's the same nomenclature game as "eggplant caviar". You take a
> term that has both a specific meaning and some sort of cachet, and
> start applying it willy-nilly to things that are vaguely superficially
> similar, if that.
>
> Steve

I think it's brilliant. Whenever someone suggests that it is possible
for a rib roast to be cooked at temperatures below 300, he always gets
the usual response about how it can't be done and what a stupid idea it
is from the usual gang of disbelievers and naysayers. I think the
psych-techs call this a "redirection."

On 1/2/2012 5:19 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:59:21 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> I think it's brilliant. Whenever someone suggests that it is possible
>> for a rib roast to be cooked at temperatures below 300, he always gets
>> the usual response about how it can't be done and what a stupid idea it
>> is from the usual gang of disbelievers and naysayers. I think the
>> psych-techs call this a "redirection."
>
> Huh? The most common method of cooking a rib roast mentioned here is
> to cook it at 250F (or various temps all below 300F). I cooked mine
> at 235F this year. But I sure as hell didn't even think about calling
> it sous vide.
>
> So who are all these naysayers? I think you're on drugs.
>
> -sw

So what else is new? I'm nuts and on drugs and yet you bother asking me
to spend my time answering your questions? I think you're being irrational.

You're the guy that loves to research old posts. Find out for yourself.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:44:08 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:27:49 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> On 1/2/2012 5:19 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:59:21 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it's brilliant. Whenever someone suggests that it is possible
>>>> for a rib roast to be cooked at temperatures below 300, he always gets
>>>> the usual response about how it can't be done and what a stupid idea it
>>>> is from the usual gang of disbelievers and naysayers. I think the
>>>> psych-techs call this a "redirection."
>>>
>>> Huh? The most common method of cooking a rib roast mentioned here is
>>> to cook it at 250F (or various temps all below 300F). I cooked mine
>>> at 235F this year. But I sure as hell didn't even think about calling
>>> it sous vide.
>>>
>>> So who are all these naysayers? I think you're on drugs.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> So what else is new? I'm nuts and on drugs and yet you bother asking me
>> to spend my time answering your questions? I think you're being irrational.
>
>Yeah, I didn't think you could prove it. You obviously don't pay any
>attention to anything but your own posts.
>
>Anybody else want to back him up that low and slow is not the most
>common method of cooking a prime rib roast? Should we a have survey?
>
>> You're the guy that loves to research old posts. Find out for yourself.
>
>Again, your facts are not in order. I don't research old posts any
>more than the next guy.
>
>Pay attention and stop babbling.
>
>-sw

Fatty beef roasts like rib are best cooked at higher temperatures...
start at 400ºF and 15 minutes later drop the temperature to 350ºF.
Lean beef roasts like round are best started at 400ºF then after 15
minutes drop the oven temperature to 325ºF. Cooking beef roasts at
300ºF and lower is silly unless you like beef to taste steamed.
Imagine, the same moroon dwarf who sears beef steak at 700º *STEWS*
beef roasts at 250ºF.

On 2012-01-02, dsi1 > wrote:

> for a rib roast to be cooked at temperatures below 300, he always gets
> the usual response about how it can't be done and what a stupid idea it
> is from the usual gang of disbelievers and naysayers.

Yep.

I used to wonder how those old hof braus would cook a huge beef roast
so they would turn out uniformly pink, throughout, from crust to
crust. Perfect for slicing off perfectly pink thin rare slices for
sandwiches and hot plates. I finally discovered the secret and did
it, myself. It calls for an initial roast for a few mins at a high
temp, then finishing long and slow at 225F. The roast comes out
perfect!

Don't believe me? Google for beef roast 225. Lotta hits for this
method and the roast does not come out "steamed", despite all shelly's
bluster.

nb

--
vi --the root of evil

On Jan 2, 11:43*am, notbob > wrote:
> On 2012-01-02, dsi1 > wrote:
>
> > for a rib roast to be cooked at temperatures below 300, he always gets
> > the usual response about how it can't be done and what a stupid idea it
> > is from the usual gang of disbelievers and naysayers.
>
> Yep.
>
> I used to wonder how those old hof braus would cook a huge beef roast
> so they would turn out uniformly pink, throughout, from crust to
> crust. *Perfect for slicing off perfectly pink thin rare slices for
> sandwiches and hot plates. *I finally discovered the secret and did
> it, myself. *It calls for an initial roast for a few mins at a high
> temp, then finishing long and slow at 225F. *The roast comes out
> perfect!
>
> Don't believe me? *Google for beef roast 225. *Lotta hits for this
> method and the roast does not come out "steamed", despite all shelly's
> bluster.
>
> nb
>
> --
> vi --the root of evil

It makes perfect sense to me - a slow roast gives the heat enough
time to move throughout the entire roast without overcooking the
outside. You want to minimize the temperature differential as much as
possible. Mostly, it's the people that never tried it or gave the
matter some thought that are non-believers.

On 2 Jan 2012 21:43:30 GMT, notbob wrote:

> I used to wonder how those old hof braus would cook a huge beef roast
> so they would turn out uniformly pink, throughout, from crust to
> crust. Perfect for slicing off perfectly pink thin rare slices for
> sandwiches and hot plates. I finally discovered the secret and did
> it, myself. It calls for an initial roast for a few mins at a high
> temp, then finishing long and slow at 225F. The roast comes out
> perfect!

In my experience one will get a beef roast to come out a uniform pink
(as opposed to browner on the outside and pinker in the center) if
one does two things: start out with the meat at room temperature, rather
than refrigerator temperature; and set the oven at a steady temperature
no higher than 325 F (that is, do not start off with a hotter oven than
turn it down).

I have not roasted extremely large pieces of beef, so maybe one
need to go lower than 325 for those.

I'm not sure where the practice of starting out in a hotter over
got started. It seems unlikely that hof-brau restaurants who are
roasting beef continuously are doing this.

Steve

On 1/2/2012 12:45 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> On 2 Jan 2012 21:43:30 GMT, notbob wrote:
>
>> I used to wonder how those old hof braus would cook a huge beef roast
>> so they would turn out uniformly pink, throughout, from crust to
>> crust. Perfect for slicing off perfectly pink thin rare slices for
>> sandwiches and hot plates. I finally discovered the secret and did
>> it, myself. It calls for an initial roast for a few mins at a high
>> temp, then finishing long and slow at 225F. The roast comes out
>> perfect!
>
> In my experience one will get a beef roast to come out a uniform pink
> (as opposed to browner on the outside and pinker in the center) if
> one does two things: start out with the meat at room temperature, rather
> than refrigerator temperature; and set the oven at a steady temperature
> no higher than 325 F (that is, do not start off with a hotter oven than
> turn it down).
>
> I have not roasted extremely large pieces of beef, so maybe one
> need to go lower than 325 for those.
>
> I'm not sure where the practice of starting out in a hotter over
> got started. It seems unlikely that hof-brau restaurants who are
> roasting beef continuously are doing this.
>
> Steve

The purpose of the high temperature is to brown the outside of the beef.
I don't do this but instead, brown the roast on the stovetop using high
temperature. If you don't do this step, the roast comes out a pale grey.
Yummy!

dsi1 > wrote:

>On 1/2/2012 12:45 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

>> In my experience one will get a beef roast to come out a uniform pink
>> (as opposed to browner on the outside and pinker in the center) if
>> one does two things: start out with the meat at room temperature, rather
>> than refrigerator temperature; and set the oven at a steady temperature
>> no higher than 325 F (that is, do not start off with a hotter oven than
>> turn it down).
>>
>> I have not roasted extremely large pieces of beef, so maybe one
>> need to go lower than 325 for those.
>>
>> I'm not sure where the practice of starting out in a hotter over
>> got started. It seems unlikely that hof-brau restaurants who are
>> roasting beef continuously are doing this.

>The purpose of the high temperature is to brown the outside of the beef.
>I don't do this but instead, brown the roast on the stovetop using high
>temperature. If you don't do this step, the roast comes out a pale grey.
>Yummy!

A number of authorities disagree with the high-temperature step.

I have never had the outside of a roast be "grey". When I do it
as I described above, I get a uniformaly rare roast until about 1/4
inch from the outside, which ends up somewhat brown. Obviously
not as brown as if one deliberately browns it.


Steve

On Jan 2, 1:03*pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> dsi1 > wrote:
> >On 1/2/2012 12:45 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> >> In my experience one will get a beef roast to come out a uniform pink
> >> (as opposed to browner on the outside and pinker in the center) if
> >> one does two things: start out with the meat at room temperature, rather
> >> than refrigerator temperature; and set the oven at a steady temperature
> >> no higher than 325 F (that is, do not start off with a hotter oven than
> >> turn it down).
>
> >> I have not roasted extremely large pieces of beef, so maybe one
> >> need to go lower than 325 for those.
>
> >> I'm not sure where the practice of starting out in a hotter over
> >> got started. *It seems unlikely that hof-brau restaurants who are
> >> roasting beef continuously are doing this.
> >The purpose of the high temperature is to brown the outside of the beef.
> >I don't do this but instead, brown the roast on the stovetop using high
> >temperature. If you don't do this step, the roast comes out a pale grey.
> >Yummy!
>
> A number of authorities disagree with the high-temperature step.
>
> I have never had the outside of a roast be "grey". *When I do it
> as I described above, I get a uniformaly rare roast until about 1/4
> inch from the outside, which ends up somewhat brown. *Obviously
> not as brown as if one deliberately browns it.
>
> Steve

My methods don't come from authorities. They are the results of trial
and error and I'll always believe in myself rather than what other
people say. You can tell me that Jesus himself finds this method to
work well for him but it still wouldn't change anything. OTOH, I will
defend your right to cook your roast as you see fit. I am confident
that it would be delicious.

This is the part where I start singing "I gotta be me."

Sqwertz > wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 22:45:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

>> I'm not sure where the practice of starting out in a hotter over
>> got started. It seems unlikely that hof-brau restaurants who are
>> roasting beef continuously are doing this.

>Sure they do. Sear in a smaller oven, transfer the larger oven.

That makes sense.

> The crust on a roast beef in imperative for flavor. Otherwise they do
> come out "steamed" (tasting and looking).

It's simply not true that one needs to start at a higher
temperature to get a valid crust. Many authorities state you should
roast at a steady 325F temperature (e.g. Marion Cunningham), others
say the two methods are equally good (e.g. James Beard), while some say
starting at a higher temperature is preferred (e.g. Joy of Cooking).
But the steady-temperature method still forms a crust.


Steve

On 2012-01-02, Steve Pope > wrote:

> got started. It seems unlikely that hof-brau restaurants who are
> roasting beef continuously are doing this.

I can't say with any certainty.

I do recall hof braus were insanely popular in the 60-70s in
Sacramento CA. Lotta buses would stop fer dinner on the way back from
Reno to the SFBA. I also recall most of them had a rotisserie display
windows, like vertical bay windows, in which the meats roasted/turned.
Since most of these typically had a bird, ham, and beef roast spinning
at eye level and heated by banks of IR heat bulbs, I doubt they were
very hot. As the popularity of hof braus diminished in the 80s, so
did the display type rotisseries.

Sam's Hof Brau, which now only has one hof brau in business, still
uses these rotisseries. This particular one is not sticking half-way
out of the bldg, as many did back in the day:

http://www.thehofbrau.com/wp-content...y/img_0870.jpg

I do know I've roasted a good beef roast by this 225F method (oven)
and it turned out jes like I wanted. YMMV.

nb

--
vi --the root of evil

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 23:24:22 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 22:45:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not sure where the practice of starting out in a hotter over
>>>> got started. It seems unlikely that hof-brau restaurants who are
>>>> roasting beef continuously are doing this.
>>
>>>Sure they do. Sear in a smaller oven, transfer the larger oven.
>>
>> That makes sense.
>>
>>> The crust on a roast beef in imperative for flavor. Otherwise they do
>>> come out "steamed" (tasting and looking).
>>
>> It's simply not true that one needs to start at a higher
>> temperature to get a valid crust.
>
> I don't agree at all. I have cooked plenty of roasts, from ribs to
> whole tip sirloins. And the aforementioned method is the only method
> that works consistently.
>
>> But the steady-temperature method still forms a crust.
>
> It forms a dry crust, sure, but it does not form the flavor of a good
> seared crust. The more desirable Maillard reactions/flavor compounds
> require the higher heat. You won't get those at sous vide temps
> (which is why sous vided steaks are almost always grilled briefly).
>
> -sw

someone mentioned here recently about doing the opposite of your preferred
method - low cook and then hot oven at the end to get the crust. Have you
tried that? thoughts?

dsi1 > wrote:

>On Jan 2, 1:03*pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> A number of authorities disagree with the high-temperature step.

>> I have never had the outside of a roast be "grey". *When I do it
>> as I described above, I get a uniformaly rare roast until about 1/4
>> inch from the outside, which ends up somewhat brown. *Obviously
>> not as brown as if one deliberately browns it.

>My methods don't come from authorities. They are the results of trial
>and error and I'll always believe in myself rather than what other
>people say. You can tell me that Jesus himself finds this method to
>work well for him but it still wouldn't change anything. OTOH, I will
>defend your right to cook your roast as you see fit. I am confident
>that it would be delicious.

Right.

Different ovens behave differently, and while I can picture a roast coming
out unpalatably-colored with the steady temperature method it's never
happened to me.


Steve

Sqwertz > wrote:

>I don't think they are non-believers so much as just they just don't
>care. The have gotten an "acceptable" roast by doing it at 325F and
>are just stubborn. I have never seen a good roast cooked at that
>temperature. Some people may like the contrast of well-done
>diminishing to med-rare, but I don't.

This really isn't jibing with my experience. For example, I once
got hold of a grass-fed boneless rib roast weighing about 3.5 lbs. I
let it come to room temperature, placed it in a steady 325 F oven
(as determined by an oven thermometer) until it reached 125 F (I recall
that being about 80 minutes), and it was a perfect uniform rare the entire
way through. Only the outer 3/16" or so was cooked beyond rare.
It was the exact opposite of what you are describing.


Steve

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:16:03 -0800, Pico Rico wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 23:24:22 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 22:45:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure where the practice of starting out in a hotter over
>>>>>> got started. It seems unlikely that hof-brau restaurants who are
>>>>>> roasting beef continuously are doing this.
>>>>
>>>>>Sure they do. Sear in a smaller oven, transfer the larger oven.
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>> The crust on a roast beef in imperative for flavor. Otherwise they do
>>>>> come out "steamed" (tasting and looking).
>>>>
>>>> It's simply not true that one needs to start at a higher
>>>> temperature to get a valid crust.
>>>
>>> I don't agree at all. I have cooked plenty of roasts, from ribs to
>>> whole tip sirloins. And the aforementioned method is the only method
>>> that works consistently.
>>>
>>>> But the steady-temperature method still forms a crust.
>>>
>>> It forms a dry crust, sure, but it does not form the flavor of a good
>>> seared crust. The more desirable Maillard reactions/flavor compounds
>>> require the higher heat. You won't get those at sous vide temps
>>> (which is why sous vided steaks are almost always grilled briefly).
>>
>> someone mentioned here recently about doing the opposite of your
>> preferred
>> method - low cook and then hot oven at the end to get the crust. Have
>> you
>> tried that? thoughts?
>
> I prefer to do the sear while the roast is cooler. That way it has
> less a chance a penetrate the exterior and into the meat. If you do
> the sear afterwards you risk getting a larger gray rim under the crust
> since it's already warm inside. At least that's my theory. I see no
> reason to change the way I do it.
>
> Searing it at the beginning also makes the house smell better
> immediately (seared meat and spice smell). And that lasts all
> throughout the 3-5 hour cook, stimulating the appetite. Maillard
> reactions also refer to smell, not just flavor.
>

I concur. I also think the logistics of high heat at the end is harder -
take the roast out and get the oven cranked up, then put it back in?

Sqwertz > wrote:

>On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think they are non-believers so much as just they just don't
>>>care. The have gotten an "acceptable" roast by doing it at 325F and
>>>are just stubborn. I have never seen a good roast cooked at that
>>>temperature. Some people may like the contrast of well-done
>>>diminishing to med-rare, but I don't.
>>
>> This really isn't jibing with my experience. For example, I once
>> got hold of a grass-fed boneless rib roast weighing about 3.5 lbs. I
>> let it come to room temperature, placed it in a steady 325 F oven
>> (as determined by an oven thermometer) until it reached 125 F (I recall
>> that being about 80 minutes), and it was a perfect uniform rare the entire
>> way through. Only the outer 3/16" or so was cooked beyond rare.
>> It was the exact opposite of what you are describing.
>
>For a small roast like that, that probablyi would work - especially at
>almost room temp. But when you get into larger roasts (3+ ribs) the
>temperature makes much more of a difference. Here we call a 3.5lb rib
>roast a "cowboy steak". A personally don't think a roast is anything
>less than 3 ribs (about 5lbs).

Okay, now I'm with ya. It makes sense that the heavier the roast,
the lower the required oven temperature for even roasting.


Steve

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:21:18 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

> It makes perfect sense to me - a slow roast gives the heat enough
> time to move throughout the entire roast without overcooking the
> outside. You want to minimize the temperature differential as much as
> possible. Mostly, it's the people that never tried it or gave the
> matter some thought that are non-believers.

I want a roast to cook with varying degrees of doneness. Not everyone
likes it as rare as I do and the way I do it accommodates them too.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:52:33 -1000, dsi1 >
wrote:

> On 1/2/2012 12:45 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> > On 2 Jan 2012 21:43:30 GMT, notbob wrote:
> >
> >> I used to wonder how those old hof braus would cook a huge beef roast
> >> so they would turn out uniformly pink, throughout, from crust to
> >> crust. Perfect for slicing off perfectly pink thin rare slices for
> >> sandwiches and hot plates. I finally discovered the secret and did
> >> it, myself. It calls for an initial roast for a few mins at a high
> >> temp, then finishing long and slow at 225F. The roast comes out
> >> perfect!
> >
> > In my experience one will get a beef roast to come out a uniform pink
> > (as opposed to browner on the outside and pinker in the center) if
> > one does two things: start out with the meat at room temperature, rather
> > than refrigerator temperature; and set the oven at a steady temperature
> > no higher than 325 F (that is, do not start off with a hotter oven than
> > turn it down).
> >
> > I have not roasted extremely large pieces of beef, so maybe one
> > need to go lower than 325 for those.
> >
> > I'm not sure where the practice of starting out in a hotter over
> > got started. It seems unlikely that hof-brau restaurants who are
> > roasting beef continuously are doing this.
> >
> > Steve
>
> The purpose of the high temperature is to brown the outside of the beef.
> I don't do this but instead, brown the roast on the stovetop using high
> temperature. If you don't do this step, the roast comes out a pale grey.
> Yummy!

This is a huge family disagreement. I like to start my meat at
refrigerator temperature (preferably partially frozen), if I cooked it
100% my way.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

sf > wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:21:18 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >

>> It makes perfect sense to me - a slow roast gives the heat enough
>> time to move throughout the entire roast without overcooking the
>> outside. You want to minimize the temperature differential as much as
>> possible. Mostly, it's the people that never tried it or gave the
>> matter some thought that are non-believers.

>I want a roast to cook with varying degrees of doneness.

I would find that maddening. It's like going to a Thai restaurant
and wanting the food to appear in varying degrees of hotness.


Steve

If you're saying that there's more than one way to cook a roast, who's going to argue with that? Not me.

On 1/2/2012 7:49 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:52:33 -1000, >
>>
>> The purpose of the high temperature is to brown the outside of the beef.
>> I don't do this but instead, brown the roast on the stovetop using high
>> temperature. If you don't do this step, the roast comes out a pale grey.
>> Yummy!
>
> This is a huge family disagreement. I like to start my meat at
> refrigerator temperature (preferably partially frozen), if I cooked it
> 100% my way.

If you're saying that there's more than one way to cook a roast, who's
going to argue with that? Not me.*




*My last post through GG (the "new" GG) failed to add the quotes so
here's a re-post with quotes. Interesting.

Sqwertz > wrote:

-snip-
>
>FWIW, the roast that made that steak I pictured was 6.26 pounds and
>took 3.5 hours at 235F. It sat out at room temp for 3 hours
>beforehand.

And to repeat the link-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7275891...4981/lightbox/

Thanks for the details on that. I commented when you posted it the
first time that it looked 'just like mine'. Another look, and I
think I had a 1/2" or so of 'brown'-- but the crust and center were
nearly the same.

Mine was 12lbs. Dry aged in the frig for just 2 days.[prefer a week-
but stuff happens] Room temp for 2-3 hours. Internal temp was 54F
when I plugged in the thermometer.
15 min at 450F. 2 hrs at 300 when interior temp hit 118.
Rested 1 1/2 hrs, tented on stovetop. Temp continued to rise to 140.

Worked for me. Note that last years was nearly the same except it
was Angus and this one was Choice Beef. I'll be getting another
choice [or prime] beef next year. I *do* think the fat adds
flavor & Angus is too lean.

Jim

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> sf > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:21:18 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
>
>>> It makes perfect sense to me - a slow roast gives the heat enough
>>> time to move throughout the entire roast without overcooking the
>>> outside. You want to minimize the temperature differential as much as
>>> possible. Mostly, it's the people that never tried it or gave the
>>> matter some thought that are non-believers.
>
>>I want a roast to cook with varying degrees of doneness.
>
> I would find that maddening. It's like going to a Thai restaurant
> and wanting the food to appear in varying degrees of hotness.
>
>
> Steve

each diner can order his dish to his desired level of hotness, no?

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:55:19 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

>Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>>I don't think they are non-believers so much as just they just don't
>>care. The have gotten an "acceptable" roast by doing it at 325F and
>>are just stubborn. I have never seen a good roast cooked at that
>>temperature. Some people may like the contrast of well-done
>>diminishing to med-rare, but I don't.
>
>This really isn't jibing with my experience. For example, I once
>got hold of a grass-fed boneless rib roast weighing about 3.5 lbs. I
>let it come to room temperature, placed it in a steady 325 F oven
>(as determined by an oven thermometer) until it reached 125 F (I recall
>that being about 80 minutes), and it was a perfect uniform rare the entire
>way through. Only the outer 3/16" or so was cooked beyond rare.
>It was the exact opposite of what you are describing.

The dwarf doesn't realize that there's a difference between oven roast
and Q... only a moroon would Q a tender rib roast as though it were a
tough brisket... with so many hours of low temperature cooking tender
beef may look rare but in fact it becomes dry/toughened and under
cooked... like placing a roast into a dehydrater... the dwarf is
essentially using a beef jerky technique for a cut of beef rib, but at
those low temperatures no way is he *roasting* it.

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 03:45:54 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

>Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't think they are non-believers so much as just they just don't
>>>>care. The have gotten an "acceptable" roast by doing it at 325F and
>>>>are just stubborn. I have never seen a good roast cooked at that
>>>>temperature. Some people may like the contrast of well-done
>>>>diminishing to med-rare, but I don't.
>>>
>>> This really isn't jibing with my experience. For example, I once
>>> got hold of a grass-fed boneless rib roast weighing about 3.5 lbs. I
>>> let it come to room temperature, placed it in a steady 325 F oven
>>> (as determined by an oven thermometer) until it reached 125 F (I recall
>>> that being about 80 minutes), and it was a perfect uniform rare the entire
>>> way through. Only the outer 3/16" or so was cooked beyond rare.
>>> It was the exact opposite of what you are describing.
>>
>>For a small roast like that, that probablyi would work - especially at
>>almost room temp. But when you get into larger roasts (3+ ribs) the
>>temperature makes much more of a difference. Here we call a 3.5lb rib
>>roast a "cowboy steak". A personally don't think a roast is anything
>>less than 3 ribs (about 5lbs).
>
>Okay, now I'm with ya. It makes sense that the heavier the roast,
>the lower the required oven temperature for even roasting.

Sheesh, if you was a goil what an easy **** you'd be.

That's not true, and goes against all tried and true cooking
procedures... with heavier/larger roasts *only* the cooking TIME is
increased, the cooking temperature remains constant... what a round
heels you turned out to be!

Pico Rico > wrote:

>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message

>> sf > wrote:

>>>I want a roast to cook with varying degrees of doneness.

>> I would find that maddening. It's like going to a Thai restaurant
>> and wanting the food to appear in varying degrees of hotness.

>each diner can order his dish to his desired level of hotness, no?

Absolutely not. If anyone at the table orders a dish at a lower
level of hotness, the restaurant will dial down everything. The
only possible exception is if the restaurant knows you really well.

In the case sf describes, trying to produce a mixed doneness roast
will not yield any well-roasted, evenly-cooked rare beef, at least
not reliably.

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Pico Rico > wrote:
>
>>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
>
>>> sf > wrote:
>
>>>>I want a roast to cook with varying degrees of doneness.
>
>>> I would find that maddening. It's like going to a Thai restaurant
>>> and wanting the food to appear in varying degrees of hotness.
>
>>each diner can order his dish to his desired level of hotness, no?
>
> Absolutely not. If anyone at the table orders a dish at a lower
> level of hotness, the restaurant will dial down everything. The
> only possible exception is if the restaurant knows you really well.

That has not been my experience.

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:02:24 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:51:52 -0500, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
>> Mine was 12lbs. Dry aged in the frig for just 2 days.[prefer a week-
>> but stuff happens] Room temp for 2-3 hours. Internal temp was 54F
>> when I plugged in the thermometer.
>> 15 min at 450F. 2 hrs at 300 when interior temp hit 118.
>> Rested 1 1/2 hrs, tented on stovetop. Temp continued to rise to 140.
>
>Another thing that is reduced when you coo it it at a low temp is the
>resting rise in temp. The lower a roast cooks, the less it rises to
>it's final temp. Making it much easier to get perfect. A rise of 22F
>from 118F to 140F at only 300F is quite incredible, IMO.

It was on top of the stove while I baked the rolls and casseroles. I
was watching it closely & if it looked like it was going to exceed 140
I would have pulled the foil off and moved it to the table. I would
have loved 130F for a final temp, but I am all alone there in this
house. 140 was a happy 'medium'.

>
>I should have also noted that mine was boneless form the start. I
>bought the ribs separately for a mere $2.59/lb (as opposed to $8.49)
>;-)
>
>http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6...ibsbeefraw.jpg
>
>> I *do* think the fat adds flavor & Angus is too lean.
>
>I'm still undecided on bone-in and boneless. I need to taste two
>roasts from the same cow side by side, one cooked bone-in and one
>boneless, to be convinced one way or the other.
>

My favorite part is the bone, so I didn't mind paying $5.99 a pound
for them. The butcher where I bought this year [and from now on]
had 'roasts by order'. I was offered the option of bone in or out-
[so next time I might ask about just buying bones- though I don't know
if they'd be as good without a roast being cooked above them.]
After I said bone in- my choices were 'whole roast, trimmed, $5.99/lb;
cut to size, $6.99'. So now I've got an 8 lb roast in the freezer.<g>
[wondering if I should have just seasoned it and done 3-4 weeks of dry
aging in the backup fridge.]

Jim

I've been roasting standing rib roasts and racks of lamb at 175 for
about ten years, and posting with links to pictures in rfc.

I dry age for up to a week. Sear the outsides straight from the
refrigerator. Pop into a 350 oven for 15 minutes, then reduce to 175.
Pull it at five to ten degrees below the target, depending on roast
weight. Allow to sit for at least half an hour.

For a five pound roast (for two of us), pulling at 124, I get a rise
to about 130, and perfect medium rare from edge to edge -- around 1/8
inch of grey edge.

Roasting at 225 is almost as good, but about 3/8 inch of grey egde,
and a bit more variation in the pink.

The key point is knowing your oven. You need an oven that will hold
temperature within five degrees on the low side to go below 200.

-- Larry

goog wrote:
>
> I've been roasting standing rib roasts and racks of lamb at 175 for
> about ten years, and posting with links to pictures in rfc.
>
> I dry age for up to a week. Sear the outsides straight from the
> refrigerator. Pop into a 350 oven for 15 minutes, then reduce to 175.
> Pull it at five to ten degrees below the target, depending on roast
> weight. Allow to sit for at least half an hour.
>
> For a five pound roast (for two of us), pulling at 124, I get a rise
> to about 130, and perfect medium rare from edge to edge -- around 1/8
> inch of grey edge.
>
> Roasting at 225 is almost as good, but about 3/8 inch of grey egde,
> and a bit more variation in the pink.

Interesting that you target not producing a crusty end cut. Those are
popular with some people not with others.

On Jan 2, 9:44*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:21:18 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
> > It makes perfect sense to me - *a slow roast gives the heat enough
> > time to move throughout the entire roast without overcooking the
> > outside. You want to minimize the temperature differential as much as
> > possible. Mostly, it's the people that never tried it or gave the
> > matter some thought that are non-believers.
>
> I want a roast to cook with varying degrees of doneness. *Not everyone
> likes it as rare as I do and the way I do it accommodates them too.
> --
Yes that's the point isn't it? Different methods produce different
results. So if you like a gradation from crusty bits on the outer
edges to juicy red in the middle you use a higher temperature, while
if you like uniform doneness as much as possible you use a lower
temperature. Neither method is the only way to do it -- choose the
one that gives the result you want.

Personally, I used the traditional high-then-moderate method for a
long time, then experimented with the low temp method. Decided I
liked the contrast and variety of the first method and went back to
it. Guests are able to have a little more choice of cut, too, as you
say. -aem