Advice on shredded beef.


 
M

Matt Sanders

TVWBB Pro
Inspired in part by Chris' new shredded beef write up, I decided to experiment a bit on that this weekend. The taste was great , but the consistency was more like a roast than shredded beef. I tried pulling it with a couple forks, but it would barely tear. Here's the rundown:

Dry brined a small 2ish pound chuckeye roast for 2 hours. Rinsed, dried and slicked some olive oil on. Put a simple rub of 1 part onion powder, one part kosher salt, one part garlic powder, and 1/2 part black pepper.

Cooked indirect on Performer (did not braise like Chris) with lid temps mainly between 250-300 pretty consistently. Used mainly oak with a little mesquite for smoke.

But here's the weird part and question....

After 5 1/2 hours, the internal temp was only 181. This was after a veeeeery lengthy stall in the 150s. I finally took it in because the brats were done and we wanted to eat. I was wanting to get to 190 at least before pulling, and assume that this is why it had roast like consistency. But why would a 2# roast only about 2 inches thick be only 181 degrees after cooking for 5 1/2 hours at 300 degrees???

I only lifted the lid about 3-4 times to ensure there was enough charcoal, or to add wood chips. I don't believe in messing with the meat while it's cooking, so I didn't mop, baste, spritz or anything like that. I did flip or turn a couple times since I was cooking offset on the Performer. But it's not like I was lifting the lid every 15 minutes. More like once per hour or hour and a half.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">why would a 2# roast only about 2 inches thick be only 181 degrees after cooking for 5 1/2 hours at 300 degrees??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will repeat myself - as I often do: Internal temperature does not matter one bit.

Two possible points, however: If the roast did not pull it was either underdone OR it needed to be foiled to hit a point where it would be tender and pullable. Chuck, if that's what you cooked, does not automatically have the structure to get to tender and pullable without the help of foil. Wrapping in foil retains the necessary moisture (that not doing so simply drains away) that help the roast become pullable after hitting tender.
 
Kavon,

Thanks for the reply. I get what you're saying (repeating) about temp NOT equalling done, and I had not considered the possible need to foil, but done or not, it seems incredible to me that after 5 1/2 hours at 300 degrees, a small roast would only be at 181.

I think I will try the foil next time. At what point would you foil?
 
There are a number of possible reasons for this: temp at the cooking area was not actually 300; rendering of internal fat and connective tissue caused a plateau, etc.

165 if 2 inches and a nicely marbled cut.
 
And for what it's worth, I've grilled chuckeye steaks from the same grocer a few times. Exact same cut (I believe), just thinner, and indirect cook with a reverse sear. They are tasty, but as one would expect from a chuck, fairly chewy.

Apparently, that connective tissue didn't break down for me as much as I had hoped with this cook. I can't imagine more time would have done it, as the exterior seemed close to becoming too dry. Foil makes sense, though I didn't know that some cuts can't get to tender and pullable without it.
 
Matt, chuck roast needs to be foiled so it can braise and become tender enough to pull. With out foiling a chuck roast it will dry before it becomes tender.
 
Noe,

Does it need to braise in a pan the whole time, as in Chris' recipe? Or does it just need to foil for a while, as one might do ribs?
 
Overcooked? Not likely. It would be shreddy/dry we're this so.

Foil is sufficient. (Personally, I don't like foil pans for anything.)

It needs to go till tender is achieved. Like ribs, actually, but not the 3-2-1 or similar thing, methods that only occasionally work despite themselves.themselves.
 
Kevin

So what do you think is the best way to get the smoke to make contact? Cook normal and uncovered for 1-2 hours, then foil until tender? Or alternatively, make an open top foil basket for it to sit in the whole time?
 
Matt I did a 13lb boneless beef shoulder the other week for a bbq for my wife's work. I smoked it for about 6 hours until I got an internal of 160. Then I put it in a foil pan with a couple Guinness and other yummy things in the bottom, foiled the top and cooked until tender in the oven at 325 degrees. This took about another 4 hours. Then I shredded it and stuck it back in the oven for another 11/2 hours to reduce the liquid. It turned out great.

Check out the Pepper Stout Beef here. It's great.
 
Matt- Directly on the grate will give you better smoke pick-up. Then, either when the roast hits 160-165 or after 2-2.5 hours (I am not one to temp during cooking much so I just do the latter) you can foil with your additions of choice, use a foil pan which you'll cover, or, my preference if i am using a pan (which I often do if I am adding lots of stuff), a cast iron pot with cover.

I don't bother low/slowing at the start but you can. I just smoke ~325-350 like I do brisket.
 
Kevin I go with temp for the meat when doing shredded beef since I want to get a good smoke flavour to it but I don't want to cook it to far out of the foil and start losing to many juices. After 6 hrs on my kettle the roast had great flavour but very little juice had actually come out of it. If you go much past 160 you're going to be losing a lot of that juicy goodness and a small chuck roast cooking at 350 could be well beyond that temperature in 2.5 hours.

Mind you the next time I get a 13lb chunk of shoulder I'm going to cut it in 2 or 3 pieces to cut down on the cooking time.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and a small chuck roast cooking at 350 could be well beyond that temperature in 2.5 hours </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not been my experience. I go for thick, but usually only 4 lbs or so.
 
Thanks a ton to all of you. This was definitely a learning experience. Now it makes more sense to me one some cuts are supposed to be braised, instead of roasted.

I think I'll go with a couple hours on the grate, then foil, since I don't like pans much either. Hopefully, I will have a chance to take another stab at it this weekend.

Two big things I learned the past month I never knew....

1. "Tender" is more about time at variable temps than it is reaching some "magical" internal temp.

2. Some cuts will dry out before they get to tender, and need to be foiled or braised.

I love this forum.
icon_smile.gif


Thanks, Kevin, Noe, and Bob.
 
Thanks, Chris. My pulled beef had a redder bark, and a darker grey interior. I used mostly oak with a little mesquite for seasoning. I'm guessing that accounts for the different bark?
 
I re-did this cook this weekend, and it turned out much better.

This time I used a 2.5# "chuck roast", not sure what cut. I smoked for 2 hours on the Performer with oak and mesquite at 250. Then I just wrapped it in foil, and took the grill up to 300. After about an hour, I stuck the maverick in, and it quickly registered about 195. I wasn't expecting that fast of a rise, but wherever I checked, I still got mid to high 190s.

I tried twisting it with a fork, however, and it was still not tender, thus re-proving what Kevin taught me..... tender is not achieved just by hitting a particular internal temp. I left it foiled for another half hour, and re-tested with the fork. This time it had more twist to it. I unfoiled and let the bark firm up for another half hour. I also saved the juice inside the foil to pour back on the pulled beef.

Anyway, it came out really well. The flavor was much more intense than pulled pork. It was also rather easier on the Performer, which I've learned is just as good at sticking a temp as the WSM.

Thanks for the help, everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top