Boston Butt in 5 hours?


 
B

Ben S.

TVWBB Member
There's a big discussion about this on the txbbqrub.com forum. Lot's of old traditional smoking vs. the new "quick" smoking. Or some say boiling/baking vs. real smoking. I see it as another opportunity to fix up a smoked butt ONLY if you don't have the time to smoke one low and slow. It seems to me that the quick way would boil the fat out of the meat and with the high temp to start, would be less smoke flavor and definitely less bark. Here's the link they're talking (arguing) about.

Quick cook butt

What do ya'll think?

Ben
 
To each his own, I guess. Since I haven't actually tried it I guess I shouldn't knock it. But then, I also know I'm never going to try it either (unless somebody else is offering me a serving of one they prepared this way).
 
I've always thought the low/slow temp of 250 or so was what allowed the rendering of the fat and the breakdown of connective tissue, etc that made the pulled pork so great. My guess is that Boston Butt is just pretty good tasting however cooked - but I still believe the low/slow method can't be duplicated with the quick cook. Maybe one day I'll give the other method a try just to see.

Paul
 
I believe it is possible to get very good results from many different approaches. My butts average 18 hours. A restaurant owner does his direct in 12. Now 5 hours?
My packer briskets take 16-19 hours. On the tube I have seen an expert do 'em in 5 hours.
There must be legitimate methods that work for these quick cooks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top