Butt cooking time question...


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Curtis D. Fry

New member
I have a little question for all you Q-ru's out there (BBQ guru's). I have two 3.5 lb boneless Boston butts (must be a bigger one chopped in half). I am going to be cooking them alongside a bigger (10 lb) piece of meat. Seeing as how I would assume the smaller pieces would cook faster, and I want to do an overnight cook, can I tie the two smaller pieces together with butchers string and essentially making it into a bigger piece that would take longer to cook?

My purpose is to not have the two small ones get done at 5am and the bigger one get done at 1pm. I want the meat to come off the smoker around 2pm or so.

Any suggestions on how to accomplish this?
 
Hey Curtis- From what I have learned on this web-site, the size or poundage is NOT the cook length factor, it is about breaking down the connective tissue and that is done by low temp and a long period of time. My butts average 19-20 hours. Others will chime in and hopefully agree with me.
 
Big Ir is correct. It's the mass of the meat that dictates time. I have done two 5 lb boneless butts and they took 16 hrs. And that was w/ foiling the last 2 hrs.

good Luck!
Tom
 
Curtis

You could, indeed, have different finish times. Is there a possibility of starting your 10 lb'r on the bottom rack and then waiting a couple of hrs to put the 2 small butts on the top rack. If you do this, remember you're adding new, cold meat sinks and you'll need to stay with it for a while to be certain your temp is stable. Also, you'll have at least a 4 hr window at the end to hold meat in HD foil and in an empty cooler.

Paul
 
Thanks for the input. What I'm actually faced with now is my wife bought three more 3 pounders at our local grocery store. So at this point, I have roughly five three pound Butts. From what you're all saying, these 5 chunks will cook in the same amount of time a 15 pound chunk would cook? If so, I'm going to plan on 16 to 20 hours on the smoker.

I plan on wrapping them in foil to put into the cooler at the end in order to keep them warm for the guests. I'm going to leave myself plenty o' time.

Sound good?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Curtis D. Fry:
From what you're all saying, these 5 chunks will cook in the same amount of time a 15 pound chunk would cook? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. It should take you about the same or only a little longer than if you cooked a single one. The time is dictated by the size of the individual piece of meat, not the cumulative weight of all pieces. What will take a little longer is the cooker ramping up to temp against the total load.

No one really answered your first question which was about tying the smaller pieces together. By doing so you could slow the cook time of those pieces. I think your aim though was to keep from getting up in the middle of the night to remove the smaller ones. Even tied together, I can't say what will happen once the joined ones start to shrink in the cooking process-- you may just have to resort to a different tactic.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> should take you about the same or only a little longer than if you cooked a single one <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just can't agree with Doug on this. I don't think 'load' would normally be much of an issue at all. Taken to the extreme, if what Doug is saying is correct twice as much meat would require double the charcoal.

Since 5 pieces would very likely have a greater surface area to absorb heat and a greater surface area to volume ratio, if anything 5 3lb pieces should cook faster than 1 15lb.

Try making one 1/2lb burger patty 2" thick, one 1/2" thick, two 1/4lb 1/2" thick and cook them side by side over even heat. All the 1/2" ones should be done at the same time.

The coals are going to throw the heat they are going to throw. Some of the heat gets absorbed by the meat, but most of it blows right by and radiates out of the cooker. It's not like the meat absorbs all the heat created in the WSM or the lid would be cool. Think about it.

I think the max time is determined by the piece of meat requiring the most time.

I can only see more meat taking longer if it is absorbing so much heat that available heat is reduced below what the meat can absorb over a period of time.

If you think your 8 lber is going to take 20 hours, then you decide to throw in something else that is shorter, that twenty hours won't change unless you cram the entire top full with a quarter of beef or something.

Curtis, please bear in mind I haven't been doing this very long yet. The beatings may now begin /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
 
In theory, with all else being equal in a 100% efficient system, double the water should require double the number of joules to come to a boil.
 
Curtis,
Here is what I would do if I was cooking what you are cooking. I would proceed with the over nighter, putting the 10lber on the bottom grate. I would then wake up early enough the next morning (figuring no less than 2hrs per pound for the additional meat) and put the two smaller pieces on the top. I know I know you are saying is this guy nuts? The raw meat juices will be dripping on the partially cooked meat. It will not be a problem, because the meat will continue to cook for an additional minimum 7 hours, most likely more. So it should benefit the bottom bigger butt by basting it. Just a suggestion. If it were me I wouldn't tie the two pieces together. Even though they are approximately the same size they could be two totally different pieces of meat. One might take 7 hours and the other 9 hours. You might get caught in a jam if they were tied together and one was done and the other wasn't.

By the way I do agree with what Doug said
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It should take you about the same or only a little longer than if you cooked a single one. The time is dictated by the size of the individual piece of meat, not the cumulative weight of all pieces. What will take a little longer is the cooker ramping up to temp against the total load. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Shawn misunderstood what Doug was saying. Maybe I can explain what Doug meant in elementary terms. Here goes, regardless of whether you tie the pieces of meat together they are still two separate pieces of meat and they will be done in the same amount of time whether they were separate or possibly a bit longer if they were tied together. The bottomline is they are two different pieces of meat. Good luck and let us know how it turns out.
 
Yes, actually, I'm no longer dealing with a 10 lb chunk (my wife couldn't get that piece). So instead I'm left with five three pounders. From what I can gather, smaller pieces would theoretically take less time than one whole chunk of the same weight. But the connective tissue still have to be broken down no matter what.

I ended up doing a lot of searching on the site and finally came to the conclusion that I'm probably looking at a 12 to 14 hour cook time. At least this way, I'll get more bark for the buck (i.e. more surface area on the meat in total).

I'll let you all know how it turned out. Then next time, I'm going to cook a big piece of close to the same weight and compare the two smokes.
 
Your cook will be much simplier with all pieces of meat approximately the same weight. A 3 lb butt is pretty small and my guess for finish time for one (but who would cook just one?) would be 7 to 10 hrs. Throw another couple of hrs in for the combination of 5 and I suspect you'll be around 10 to 12 hours. If you do cook that 15 lb hunk of meat, one single piece, you're talking about an entirely different cook - 24 + hrs .. maybe a week ... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good luck and enjoy.

Paul
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> regardless of whether you tie the pieces of meat together they are still two separate pieces of meat and they will be done in the same amount of time whether they were separate or possibly a bit longer if they were tied together. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> that I agree with .... apologies if I misunderstood ... I'm not slamming anyway, just debating .... Doug is really experienced and knows his stuff ... I've done a handful of cooks .... kinda tells ya who to listen to .... I'm one to stand up and ask if I don't get it or challenge if I disagree ....

I've cooked one 8 lb bone in, four 4 lbs boneless, two eight lb bone in, two eight lbs bone in and thrown on a 5lb brisket for the last five hours. The 4 lbs were done to 190 in 18.5 hrs, the 8 lbs were pulled at 20hrs plus before reaching 190F cuz I ran out of time.
 
there was a thread a while ago from a guy who tied a bunch of steaks together to approximate a roast .... I think he said he wasn't happy with the results ... anybody remember which topic this was?
 
Let's start over. Let's assume, for purposes of discussion, that pork butt takes 2 hours per pound at 225* to reach 200* internal temperature. Accepting that, one 3 pound butt therefore takes six hours to finish, and one 15 pound butt takes 30 hours. If you put five 3 pound butts in the smoker, and maintain the smoker temperature at 225* the entire time, you should be finished in 6 hours. Yes, you will consume more charcoal keeping the smoker at 225* with 5 butts as opposed to only one, but the bottom line is a 3-pound piece of pork butt will cook in 6 hours regardless of how many friends it has in the cooker with it.

In the real world, you will take longer to get the cooker to 225* with 5 three-pound butts-- or one 15 pounder for that matter-- than one 3-pounder because of the overall mass of meat versus the amount of heat the burning fuel is producing. But, once you stabilize the cooker at 225*, and do whatever it takes to maintain that temperature-- adding fuel, opening vents-- the time it takes for an individual piece to reach target final temperature is dictated by its own weight, not the cumulative weight of all the meat in the cooker.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Shawn W said: Since 5 pieces would very likely have a greater surface area to absorb heat and a greater surface area to volume ratio, if anything 5 3lb pieces should cook faster than 1 15lb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Doug D said: Let's start over. Let's assume, for purposes of discussion, that pork butt takes 2 hours per pound at 225* to reach 200* internal temperature. Accepting that, one 3 pound butt therefore takes six hours to finish, and one 15 pound butt takes 30 hours. If you put five 3 pound butts in the smoker, and maintain the smoker temperature at 225* the entire time, you should be finished in 6 hours. Yes, you will consume more charcoal keeping the smoker at 225* with 5 butts as opposed to only one, but the bottom line is a 3-pound piece of pork butt will cook in 6 hours regardless of how many friends it has in the cooker with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me, these two statements sum up the arguement perfectly. The ability of a heat source to bring a cold body up to a particular temperature is also dependant upon the output energy (joules or btu) of the source. As long as the source has the ability to keep up with the load AND the losses then all is well. The load in our case is the meat. Now also true is that the more surface area a cold body has (meat), the more entry points there are for the heat energy to infuse to. So absoluetly, three 5# chunks of meat will cook significantly faster than one 15# chunk, since the 15# piece has much less surface area per volume. (mass is not an issue since its all the same stuff)... and as long as the heat source maintains a steady temp, (ie, its keeping up with load and losses) then there shouldn't be any difference between cook times for one 3# piece or 5 3# pieces.

Its also true that the more mass in the cooker, whether its water, sand or meat, the more energy the cooker needs to initially put out in order to supply the load and losses. BUT...once the cold masses start to warm up the system becomes more stable since the temp differential between the source and load becomes less and less, meaning the the source dosn't have to work as hard....time to close off the vents a bit. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My head hurts.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Tony
 
Doug, I read your first post again and it looks like we are both saying the same thing (except you account more for dynamic factors) but I did misinterpret one of your statements and I see it now <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It should take you about the same or only a little longer than if you cooked a single one <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Initially I took 'a single one' to mean a single one of the same weight as the combined weight of the small ones, hence my protest. But 'not the cumulative weight of all pieces' now makes it clear to me that's not what you meant. So very sorry.

Doug, somehow I feel a bond growing here /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif hope I didn't tick ya off. Thanks Tony and Larry for mediation efforts.

Curtis, hope you got the answer you needed through all of that, and I hope your butts turn out great for you!
 
it's as simple as you will let it be .... you're off to a good start by planning lots of extra time ... you see that advice all over the bulletin board said a few different ways....
 
O.K.
So now I'm wondering, if I cut a butt into 1/4 # chuncks stick'em on skewers, put them in the WSM, will I have "Butt Kabobs" in less than an hour?

Al
 
Al

Yes you will, but they'll be a little on the tough side. Divide them in half (by total number) and send one-half to Doug D and the other half to Shawn W. They can each do further research, analysis and experimentation and report back with multiple posts. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

 

Back
Top