Chuck Roast Help Needed


 
L

Larry Powers

TVWBB Member
I cooked a chuck roast today and it was not fork tender. Looking for some pointers on what to do different next time. The plan based on what I have read was to cook the meat for 9-10 hours to a temperature of about 195. The last 3 hours the meat would be wrapped in foil.

Here is what I did:

Night before I put rub on the roast and let it set overnight. The roast was 3.5 pounds

Fired the smoker up and had the roast on at 10:00 AM. All my temperature are from the thermometer in the dome of my 22 WSM. During the first hour and a half it climbed to about 265 then I got it under control and kept it at 250 for the next 3 hours. For the rest of the cook it floated between 240 to 250. The temperature of the meat climbed quickly to 160. It then plateaued and climbed very slowly for a couple of hours. At 3:00 the temperature of the meat was at 170. This was only 5 hours in but based on the temperature of the meat I decided to foil it at this point.

I added a small amount of braising liquid at this point. Wine, vinegar, worcester, honey and crushed garlic.

Once wrapped the temperature of the meat climbed much quicker. At 5:00 it was at 195 so I pulled it and wrapped it in towels and let it sit for about an hour. It tasted fine but was firm, not fork tender.

Total time of the cook 7 hours and 1 hour of resting.

The roast I was using is what I would use for pot roast. It was a well marbled piece of meat. I would normally boil it for 3 hours and it would be falling apart tender.

What should I do different next time?

Thanks.
 
Couple of ideas.

Try working with a lower temperature. Slowing down the whole cooking process allows the time for the fat to render and slowly cook the meat the whole way through. Don't be in a hurry to get the temperature up when it stalls (about 160 degs). I like to let the meat tell me what it wants to do. If it wants to stay stalled for a while then so be it.

I would try spraying the meat with some form of broth roughly every hour during the cook to keep it extra moist. Even better would be to do your cooking in an aluminum pan with a wire grate. That way you could add the liquid that will help steam the meat a bit but the meat won't just sit in the broth.

Russ
 
You certainly can slow down the cook but it is not necessary. I don't see an advantage doing so. (I cook chuck cuts 75-100? higher than you just did.) I also don't see the point of spraying with anything since the meat is foiled (I rarely see an advantage to spraying even if the meat isn't foiled.)

The problem was that the meat didn't cook long enough. The internal temp is immaterial. If you want it fork tender you have to cook it to fork tender. That simply means feeling it with a fork (or probe, or whatever) before deciding to rest it.

Simmering chuck takes less time because the heat transfer is much, much more efficient due to the liquid than it is when dry-roasting. Foiling sets up similar conditions; it shortens the cook as a result.

Next time check for tenderness. If it isn't there yet cook longer then check again. Remove only once tenderness is achieved.
 
Thanks for the replies. Given that I will follow the same basic procedures I will make the following changes. I will try and keep the temps slightly lower to allow the roast to cook longer before reaching a high temp. I will foil after 6 hours and not worry about what the temp is at this point. After 2.5 hours in the foil I will check it for tenderness and if it is not tender back in it goes and I will check every hour after that.

Thanks for the input.
 
If you want to stretch out the cook you can - or you can go with the same sames or even cook higher. You choice. Foil sometime around 165-170?. At this point you can keep the probe in or not. (I don't but I cook at 350 so it isn't worth bothering with h.. At lower temps you can use internal as a guide if you wish.)

Whether or not the internal temp climbs higher than last time doesn't matter. Tenderness is not dependent on internal temp. It is dependent on time. The time is dependent on the cooktemp and the cooking conditions (moist heat cooking or dry heat cooking). It will be shorter with higher temps, moist heat; longer with lower temps, moist heat.

When you check, if tough go another hour before checking again. If somewhat tender check in 30 then every 20 thereafter.
 
Originally posted by K Kruger:

Whether or not the internal temp climbs higher than last time doesn't matter. Tenderness is not dependent on internal temp. It is dependent on time. The time is dependent on the cooktemp and the cooking conditions (moist heat cooking or dry heat cooking). It will be shorter with higher temps, moist heat; longer with lower temps, moist heat.

QUOTE]

I trust you thoroughly, 1- b/c I'm new and not really clear on what I'm doing, and 2- because I've read your posts and am confident you know what you're talking about, but...

It is just really confusing/surprising, as a new person, to hear "internal temperature doesnt' matter". (obviously we're not talking about eating raw meats). Because with steak, you always think of tender as medium-rare/rare, and that means barely cooked, and that means low-temp. The thought is also that if you "overcook", i.e. get the temp too high, the meat will be dried out.

So what am I missing/confusing in how I think about these things?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is just really confusing/surprising, as a new person, to hear "internal temperature doesnt' matter". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure it is. Shouldn't be that way but... . The issue here, unfortunately, is that the many barbecue cooks (and I am including many of the so-called 'masters') do not understand very much about how cooking actually works. There are all kinds of barbecue aphorisms - but many either miss the boat or are simply erroneous.

Internal temp has nothing to do with tenderness when it comes to barbecue. Tenderness is the result of sufficient rendering relative to the structure and inherent 'toughness' of the meat being cooked. A specific internal temp might correlate with tender but it is mostly happenstance. It might not appear so because in actuality meat cuts aren't all that different from each other, regardless of how many times you've read 'every cut of meat is different' in books or on the Net.

When one gets a cooking approach down and is able to replicate it consistently, individual cooks can flow along quite similarly, and internal temp can also be similar, i.e., 'done' might well be achieved at such-and-such internal temp cook-to-cook. However, it is a mistake to infer that internal temp causes tenderness. It does not. It doesn't necessarily reflect tenderness either.

It is possible (and this is done all the time) to cook at a variety of temps (low and slow being required is a myth) and achieve tender/juicy. It is possible (and this is done all the time) to cook tough cuts at very low/slow temps in a vac bag under water (this is known as cooking sous vide), at temps well below what would be considered 'typical' - say, 135, 140, 145 - and achieve tender, juicy results. If the meat 'needed' to hit 190 or 195 or 200 or 205 to become tender this would not be possible. The fact is that is doesn't. It needs to cook for a sufficient period of time relative to the cooktemp and the cut involved to achieve tenderness. (At very low temps tough cuts can take 30, 35, 40 hours or more to achieve juicy tenderness - but the internal temp can never rise above the cooktemp. Nevertheless, the meat will become tender and juicy.)

In practical terms internal temp can be used as as guide - as a kicker to tell you when to start to check for 'done' - but that is really all it can be - and one doesn't need to bother to temp at all (I rarely do). It only appears to be more than that.

Make sense? Or did I confuse you further? (Wouldn't be the first time.
icon_smile.gif
)
 
I agree with u K, once my meat checks 160-165 no more checking temps no need. Also have never been a big believer in low and slow, low and slow to me are 275-350 range have never had a problem. As for tenderness like u said have to cook to tender no temp check will tell u its tender.
 
Just remember that internal temps in BBQ are just rules of thumb. The actual determination of "doneness" should be done using the various test you can find here, i.e., does the bone in a pork butt pull out cleanly, can you insert a probe into brisket like a knife in room temp butter, a toothpick between ribs, etc.

For fork tenderness, best to check with a fork. Insert and twist. That'll tell you all you need to know.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is just really confusing/surprising, as a new person, to hear "internal temperature doesnt' matter". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure it is. Shouldn't be that way but... . The issue here, unfortunately, is that the many barbecue cooks (and I am including many of the so-called 'masters') do not understand very much about how cooking actually works. There are all kinds of barbecue aphorisms - but many either miss the boat or are simply erroneous.

Internal temp has nothing to do with tenderness when it comes to barbecue. Tenderness is the result of sufficient rendering relative to the structure and inherent 'toughness' of the meat being cooked. A specific internal temp might correlate with tender but it is mostly happenstance. It might not appear so because in actuality meat cuts aren't all that different from each other, regardless of how many times you've read 'every cut of meat is different' in books or on the Net.

When one gets a cooking approach down and is able to replicate it consistently, individual cooks can flow along quite similarly, and internal temp can also be similar, i.e., 'done' might well be achieved at such-and-such internal temp cook-to-cook. However, it is a mistake to infer that internal temp causes tenderness. It does not. It doesn't necessarily reflect tenderness either.

It is possible (and this is done all the time) to cook at a variety of temps (low and slow being required is a myth) and achieve tender/juicy. It is possible (and this is done all the time) to cook tough cuts at very low/slow temps in a vac bag under water (this is known as cooking sous vide), at temps well below what would be considered 'typical' - say, 135, 140, 145 - and achieve tender, juicy results. If the meat 'needed' to hit 190 or 195 or 200 or 205 to become tender this would not be possible. The fact is that is doesn't. It needs to cook for a sufficient period of time relative to the cooktemp and the cut involved to achieve tenderness. (At very low temps tough cuts can take 30, 35, 40 hours or more to achieve juicy tenderness - but the internal temp can never rise above the cooktemp. Nevertheless, the meat will become tender and juicy.)

In practical terms internal temp can be used as as guide - as a kicker to tell you when to start to check for 'done' - but that is really all it can be - and one doesn't need to bother to temp at all (I rarely do). It only appears to be more than that.

Make sense? Or did I confuse you further? (Wouldn't be the first time.
icon_smile.gif
) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does make sense. If I threw a london broil on a gas gril on high heat and cooked it quickly, so that the internal temp got to 135(which is supposedly "tender"), it wouldn't actually give me a tender piece of meat. Opposingly, if I cooked that same london broil "low n slow" for hours and hours until it was "done", and the internal temp was 135, it probably would be tender. In both cases the temp is the same, but two totally different results. (just a random example, might not be perfect)

The only question I have then is, (well, other than what cooking underwater is like)
icon_smile.gif
what about cooking to "safe consumption"? If you cooked chicken for 30 hours at 100 degrees it would never reach a high enough temperature to kill all bacteria, according to guidelines I'm aware of. Do you then need to consider then that, while you don't have to tie temp to doneness for tenderness, you may need to be aware of it from a safety perspective? As you mentioned in another post, and as I've experienced firsthand, it is not uncommon to have the thermometer tell you the chicken is safe, but the meat is so soft and white looking, and may have pink areas, that no on in the crowd really feels safe eating it. Then you have to throw it back on direct heat and dry it out, and then it feels like you have wasted all that time cooking it in your WSM.

Anyhow, good discussion. Thanks for the insights.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you cooked chicken for 30 hours at 100 degrees it would never reach a high enough temperature to kill all bacteria, according to guidelines I'm aware of. Do you then need to consider then that, while you don't have to tie temp to doneness for tenderness, you may need to be aware of it from a safety perspective? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, one wouldn't cook chicken at 100 degrees - for the reason you note. Minimum cooktemps would be in the 130s. Minimum time would be sufficient hours to handle the bacteria. In the case of something tough, say, short ribs, minimum time would be enough hours to handle the bacteria (time for this is figured on how long it will take for the center of the thickest part of the meat to hit the cooktemp) with enough hours to render and get the meat to tender.

So, yes, long enough time is a paramount consideration when cooking at low temps.
 
Don't have anything to add but I just wanted to say excellent reading. Lots of good info many can benefit from.
 
Hi there Kevin, Larry and other contributors to this thread, I've been reading this thread with a lot of Interest and it's been very educational and was wondering if any of you wouldn't mind if I cut & pasted the LINKS of this thread to our Aussie BBQ forum in Australia because I beleive many new people comming into our forum could find this very usefull so I wish to ask the permission of all involved If I can do this please?

Also Kevin K. I would also like to do the same with the thread where you talk about safe internal temps and bacteria as I beleive this is vital information as well.
I know you guys use farenheit and we use celcius and most on our forum use both measurements because many of us use Webers and other American pits so many of us are clued up on this.

Thankyou in advance.

Cheers
Davo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top