A bit of frustration...
- Thread starter MichaelM
- Start date
MichaelM
TVWBB Super Fan
Interesting... I took it to 190 and then some.. that might explain the slight dryness...
Michael Richards
TVWBB Emerald Member
Michael,
So I have lost the last hour looking for the below information on this forum (I know it is here somewhere) without any luck so what I am about to say might not be completely correct as I have not been able to site it, but I know it is close to right... Or at least I think it is.
Pork is done and edible around 160. But with a pork shoulder (Boston Butt) (what you want to look for for your next cook) or a picnic shoulder having so much fat and being so tough you actually have to take it way beyond that 160 to make it really tender. That is why we get the stale around 160 because the meat is cooked and what actually starts to happen is the fat slowly gets broken/melted down (I know there is a more clinical term for this but...). Breaking down that fat into moisture and leaving the meat tender takes time through the stale. At 180 pork shoulder can be sliced and tender but still a little fat left to keep it together. At 190 and above we get to the point that the fat is completely broken down making the pork able to be pulled and easily coming apart. The meat is actually "dried out" and "over done" at this point, it's all that broken down fat that makes it juicy and tender.
So when I cook pork shoulder at 225 the fat is broken down slower over a longer period and has been ready to pull at 195 to 198 ish. However, when I do pork shoulders at higher temps 275 ish that fat is broken down faster and actually needed to go higher temps to be as tender. I have had to go over 200 ever time I do a hot and fast to get to that tenderness.
What I actually think I see it your pictures is first really good pork, but also spots were that fat could have broken down more.
Other please chime in to add if I got that right or if I am off. If anyone knows the post I am trying to find please post it.
timothy
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
John K BBQ
TVWBB Wizard
MichaelM - that pork looks delicious - I'd say you've done a fine job!
MichaelM
TVWBB Super Fan
Thank you for looking... That was the article that led me to a cook time of 1.5 - 2 hours / lb. An interesting read. Key note...
- For sliced pork, cook to 180-185°.
- For pulled pork, cook to 190-205°.
Thank you. Seriously, thank you all. I would not have put it back on had it not been suggested here, and the result would have been quite different. I had some of the leftovers this afternoon and it was awesome.
Pulled pork definitely 195 to 200. Overcook it and you get mush instead of stranded meat.
Sliced..... The pork I slice is loin, and it's cooked to 140.
Get familiar with pasteurization time-temp, and don't dry your meat out unnecessarily.
Lew Newby
R.I.P. 1/26/2024
I'm going to add to the cudos on a really good cook. If my family likes mine that tickles me pink. Your family liked yours a lot. Two years ago I was preparing to smoke a Boston Butt for my wife's favorite Q - pulled pork. After I had it on the WSM she said she wanted sliced pork. 
I had no idea what the finished temp was but I found it at the link above. I lowered the cooker temp to 225 so I could finish nearer to my original schedule. It came out great thanks to this resource we have access to. Enjoy every cook. 
I had no idea what the finished temp was but I found it at the link above. I lowered the cooker temp to 225 so I could finish nearer to my original schedule. It came out great thanks to this resource we have access to. Enjoy every cook. Jim C in Denver
TVWBB All-Star
Michael -- I'm in the middle of basically the same cook you did: 18 WSM; overnight cook; one 9# pork butt; no water (I'm using a FireDial diffuser plate), cooking for dinner/late lunch not breakfast.
TL/DR: Without water, you have to be very careful/precise to keep the temps to 250. To get it to stay at 225, it is easiest just to use water.
My cooker was at 240 when I went to bed and 246 in the morning. Overnight it crept up to a high of 251. Here's what I did:
Harry Soo donut method
10 briquettes in the chimney plus two smoke wood chunks
Meat went on immediately after the hot coals went in
Started fiddling with the vents at 190.
Cooker temp never went past 250.
For the overnight run my top vent was 100% open. Bottom three vents were barely open (bamboo skewer width).
Trying to keep the cooker low without water is kind of like driving a car without brakes. If you get going too fast (too much lit; vents too wide for too long) it is hard to slow down. It takes a large amount of heat energy to heat water up to 212, plus (unlike sand or other heat sinks) a bunch more energy to convert the hot water into steam. So having quarts of water in the cooker is like driving with one foot on the brake.
I like cooking without water, but it makes the margin of error much smaller.
TL/DR: Without water, you have to be very careful/precise to keep the temps to 250. To get it to stay at 225, it is easiest just to use water.
My cooker was at 240 when I went to bed and 246 in the morning. Overnight it crept up to a high of 251. Here's what I did:
Harry Soo donut method
10 briquettes in the chimney plus two smoke wood chunks
Meat went on immediately after the hot coals went in
Started fiddling with the vents at 190.
Cooker temp never went past 250.
For the overnight run my top vent was 100% open. Bottom three vents were barely open (bamboo skewer width).
Trying to keep the cooker low without water is kind of like driving a car without brakes. If you get going too fast (too much lit; vents too wide for too long) it is hard to slow down. It takes a large amount of heat energy to heat water up to 212, plus (unlike sand or other heat sinks) a bunch more energy to convert the hot water into steam. So having quarts of water in the cooker is like driving with one foot on the brake.
I like cooking without water, but it makes the margin of error much smaller.
Michael Richards
TVWBB Emerald Member
JIm,
Great post! I am really thinking about trying my first without water in the water pan pork shoulder without water. This post is giving me a plan to attempt to go for it. I will let you guys know if I go for it.
MichaelM
TVWBB Super Fan
I didn't take me long to learn this. Getting a slower start and REALLY creeping up on the target temp is a lot better than blowing by it ans stressing over what to do next.
I have decided to stay with the what Weber intended... water in the pan. Who am I to think I know better. Kind of like trying to decide if I should install the newest update to my iphone. I have to put my faith in others, that they know better than me.
I vacuum sealed two portions of the pork and froze them. Just opened one this afternoon and had two nice pulled pork wraps. It was awesome.
Jim C in Denver
TVWBB All-Star
Water is the easy/best way to go if you want to run low/slow 225.
The water absorbs a lot of heat, like other heat sinks (pizza pans, sand, flower pots, etc.). But unlike other heat sinks, the water can never get hotter than 212 (at sea level) even though it keeps on absorbing heat. Since the heat energy is used to turn liquid into gas.
So your heat sink is always guaranteed to be 212 -- which happens to be very close to your target temp of 225. #science
But now you can fret over whether to go Brinkmann or Winco or stock over your water pan...
The water absorbs a lot of heat, like other heat sinks (pizza pans, sand, flower pots, etc.). But unlike other heat sinks, the water can never get hotter than 212 (at sea level) even though it keeps on absorbing heat. Since the heat energy is used to turn liquid into gas.
So your heat sink is always guaranteed to be 212 -- which happens to be very close to your target temp of 225. #science
But now you can fret over whether to go Brinkmann or Winco or stock over your water pan...
MichaelM
TVWBB Super Fan
I appreciate you sharing the science behind it. I sometimes nerd-out over these things.
I see tons of posts on water pan alternatives, but haven't found the 'why' post yet. Are folks looking for greater water capacity to avoid refilling?