That's what I bought yesterday. Here's the deal. I adore
fresh ham but there is no way on earth I can use one
of those hams. Far, far too large. So when I saw this
bone in thing, 5 pounds, I picked it up.

So you think it's okay just to roast like that? As a substitute
for fresh ham? I hope I'm making myself clear (laugh), who
would think it was so difficult.

In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
do that low and slow thing?

nancy

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:25:13 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:


> So you think it's okay just to roast like that? As a substitute
> for fresh ham? I hope I'm making myself clear (laugh), who
> would think it was so difficult.
>
> In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
> do that low and slow thing?

It is one of the tougher cuts of the piggy. You can cook it most any
way. Low and slow would be good.. a lot of the bbq boys (and girls) like
to do this cut.. plenty of fat and shoulder muscle .. inexpensive.

"jay" > wrote

> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:25:13 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

>> In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
>> do that low and slow thing?
>
> It is one of the tougher cuts of the piggy. You can cook it most any
> way. Low and slow would be good.. a lot of the bbq boys (and girls) like
> to do this cut.. plenty of fat and shoulder muscle .. inexpensive.

I was kinda hoping for roast pork sandwiches, but I'm fine with
pulled pork, too. More dithering! (laugh) Thanks, jay.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jay" > wrote
>
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:25:13 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
>>> do that low and slow thing?
>>
>> It is one of the tougher cuts of the piggy. You can cook it most any
>> way. Low and slow would be good.. a lot of the bbq boys (and girls) like
>> to do this cut.. plenty of fat and shoulder muscle .. inexpensive.
>
> I was kinda hoping for roast pork sandwiches, but I'm fine with
> pulled pork, too. More dithering! (laugh) Thanks, jay.
>
> nancy
I used to have a recipe for a jellied meat sandwich loaf. I can't find the
darn thing now. But basically, you cooked the meat stove top, pork and veal
I think, until pull-apart tender. Skim the meat juices of fat and reduce to
a cup or so, pull the meat apart into about 1-inch pieces and pack the meat
and reduced meat juice into a loaf pan and refrigerate until firm. The
result is a sandwich loaf much like you buy at the deli. A little bit of
gelatin in the broth wouldn't hurt. I like it a lot but haven't made it in
ages.
Janet

"Denny Wheeler" > wrote

> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:05:33 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:

>>I was kinda hoping for roast pork sandwiches, but I'm fine with
>>pulled pork, too. More dithering! (laugh) Thanks, jay.
>
> You can roast it low and slow and still slice it for sandwiches.
> That's what I did last weekend. Smoked up some ribs and a picnic.
> Picnic went like 5 hours at 225-235 or so. I took the skin--but as
> little fat as possible--off, applied a nice rub, and let it sit in the
> fridge overnight, then into the smoker pit. Good Stuff!!

I bet! Trouble is, all I ever seem to hear about pork cuts other
than pork chops/roasts/tenderloin is put it in the smoker. I don't
have one. It's true, alas. (smile) I'm happy how it came out in
the oven, but I'm sure it can't touch what you made.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> That's what I bought yesterday. Here's the deal. I adore
> fresh ham but there is no way on earth I can use one
> of those hams. Far, far too large. So when I saw this
> bone in thing, 5 pounds, I picked it up.
>
> So you think it's okay just to roast like that? As a substitute
> for fresh ham? I hope I'm making myself clear (laugh), who
> would think it was so difficult.
>
> In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
> do that low and slow thing?
>
> nancy

You can roast it 'zactly the same as ham... at 325ºF... neither should
be cooked at very high temps. You do realize you could have bought 1/2
a fresh ham, not difficult to find a butt half weighing about 5-6
pounds. I think ham is the better choice too, not so fat laden. I
think the shoulder portion is better for grinding, to make meata
balles, or saw-seege burgers.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote

Nancy Young wrote:
>> That's what I bought yesterday. Here's the deal. I adore
>> fresh ham but there is no way on earth I can use one
>> of those hams. Far, far too large. So when I saw this
>> bone in thing, 5 pounds, I picked it up.

>You can roast it 'zactly the same as ham... at 325ºF... neither should
>be cooked at very high temps. You do realize you could have bought 1/2
>a fresh ham, not difficult to find a butt half weighing about 5-6
>pounds.

I've never seen it, but I will look when I think of it.

> I think ham is the better choice too, not so fat laden. I
> think the shoulder portion is better for grinding, to make meata
> balles, or saw-seege burgers.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind, I don't know why I dither about
buying a meat grinder.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote
>
> Nancy Young wrote:
> >> That's what I bought yesterday. Here's the deal. I adore
> >> fresh ham but there is no way on earth I can use one
> >> of those hams. Far, far too large. So when I saw this
> >> bone in thing, 5 pounds, I picked it up.
>
> >You can roast it 'zactly the same as ham... at 325ºF... neither should
> >be cooked at very high temps. You do realize you could have bought 1/2
> >a fresh ham, not difficult to find a butt half weighing about 5-6
> >pounds.
>
> I've never seen it, but I will look when I think of it.
>
> > I think ham is the better choice too, not so fat laden. I
> > think the shoulder portion is better for grinding, to make meata
> > balles, or saw-seege burgers.
>
> Okay, I'll keep that in mind, I don't know why I dither about
> buying a meat grinder.

Yeah, you really, really NEED a meat grinder. They're great for
grinding so many things, not just grinding meat. You can spend a lot
or you can spend a little, but don't buy a hand crank one or an
attachment... get a stand alone dedicated grinder. I bought my
daughter a grinder for this past Christmas, unfortunately she hasn't
been able to come for a visit yet so there it sits brand new in its box
not ten feet accross the room from my PC... a Waring Pro, from W-S.
Hmm, I see it costs $10 more now than it did before Christmas...
perhaps you can find it elsewhere for less.

http://ww2.williams-sonoma.com/cat/p...2584&cmsrc=sch

Waring makes a smaller model too but I figure if you're gonna you may
as well gonna all the way... I think this one is pushing the wee limit.

http://www.kitchenapplianceshopping....ource=shopping

Sheldon

Nancy Young wrote:
> That's what I bought yesterday. Here's the deal. I adore
> fresh ham but there is no way on earth I can use one
> of those hams. Far, far too large. So when I saw this
> bone in thing, 5 pounds, I picked it up.
>
> So you think it's okay just to roast like that? As a substitute
> for fresh ham? I hope I'm making myself clear (laugh), who
> would think it was so difficult.
>
> In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
> do that low and slow thing?
>
> nancy
>
>


It makes a very good roast. It's similar to a fresh ham, but fattier
and has more gristle. Cook it just like a fresh leg-o-pig, but a little
slower so more grease can run out. It won't slice as pretty as a ham;
just separate it into individual muscles before slicing, and give the
yummy gristle to your dog.

If it has a bone in, save the bone and some of the scraps for making
pork stock -- it's wonderful in chili.

Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote:

>> In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
>> do that low and slow thing?

> It makes a very good roast. It's similar to a fresh ham, but fattier and
> has more gristle. Cook it just like a fresh leg-o-pig, but a little
> slower so more grease can run out. It won't slice as pretty as a ham;
> just separate it into individual muscles before slicing, and give the
> yummy gristle to your dog.

Perfect, thanks for that info, it's in the oven at 320, I see
it's already trying to separate itself out.

> If it has a bone in, save the bone and some of the scraps for making pork
> stock -- it's wonderful in chili.

I will save it for chili, thanks also for that idea.

nancy

zxcvbob wrote on 18 Feb 2006 in rec.food.cooking

> Nancy Young wrote:
> > That's what I bought yesterday. Here's the deal. I adore
> > fresh ham but there is no way on earth I can use one
> > of those hams. Far, far too large. So when I saw this
> > bone in thing, 5 pounds, I picked it up.
> >
> > So you think it's okay just to roast like that? As a substitute
> > for fresh ham? I hope I'm making myself clear (laugh), who
> > would think it was so difficult.
> >
> > In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
> > do that low and slow thing?
> >
> > nancy
> >
> >
>
>
> It makes a very good roast. It's similar to a fresh ham, but fattier
> and has more gristle. Cook it just like a fresh leg-o-pig, but a
little
> slower so more grease can run out. It won't slice as pretty as a ham;
> just separate it into individual muscles before slicing, and give the
> yummy gristle to your dog.
>
> If it has a bone in, save the bone and some of the scraps for making
> pork stock -- it's wonderful in chili.
>
> Bob
>

I crock pot them...that gets rid of most of the fat... afterwards boy are
they good fried up as ham steaks with sunny side eggs.

I just drop one in a crockpot...trim off some of the excess fat first and
cook on high roughly 6-8 hrs...comes out in pieces as it falls off the
bones. I also pour/sprinkle onion soup powder mix over their top. I used
to set them up on a celery raft...but it makes no difference in taste or
texture if it just sits on the bottom of the crock. The fat cap remains
in one piece for easy disposal if you don't trim it off.

The onion soup powder just adds a small touch of onion flavour to the
meat. Probably be ok without it too.

--
-Alan

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:25:13 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

>That's what I bought yesterday. Here's the deal. I adore
>fresh ham but there is no way on earth I can use one
>of those hams. Far, far too large. So when I saw this
>bone in thing, 5 pounds, I picked it up.
>
>So you think it's okay just to roast like that? As a substitute
>for fresh ham? I hope I'm making myself clear (laugh), who
>would think it was so difficult.
>
>In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
>do that low and slow thing?
>
>nancy
>
Nancy
This is what I use for pulled pork.
I that it is tough I would use the low and slow thing unless you have
don't mind chewing each mouth full 20 minutes.:-)
Cook it slow until 140 f, then rest and slice for a nice pork steak,
but this is not a substitute for ham.
Or cook until 190 f, for pulled pork,
--
Pan Ohco
I would like to see the bottom of my monitor, but I have cats.

"Pan Ohco" > wrote

> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:25:13 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

>>In other words, is it an okay cut just to roast, or do I need to
>>do that low and slow thing?

> Nancy
> This is what I use for pulled pork.

Thanks, Pan, and I will be doing that in the future.

> I that it is tough I would use the low and slow thing unless you have
> don't mind chewing each mouth full 20 minutes.:-)
> Cook it slow until 140 f, then rest and slice for a nice pork steak,
> but this is not a substitute for ham.
> Or cook until 190 f, for pulled pork,

Wrote it down and put it in my files ... thanks a bunch.

Turned out very good, got my warm pork sandwiches and I'm
a happy camper now. Roasted it 325, then 250 for a while,
back to 325 (the multi pronged approach ... laugh) and took it
out at 160. Let it sit, carved it best I could and, as I said, made
a couple of very tasty sandwiches with it.

Appreciate all the help, everyone.

nancy