Chuck Rolls... Why put a 15-20lb hunk on the WSM?


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spyro Ananiades

TVWBB Fan
I am the the proud owner of a 2003 model 20.35lb chuck roll and a 2003 model 21.57lb chuck roll. Both are Red with white accents.

Anywho...

So naturally, having never dealt with chuck rolls before, I looked at the article here, virtualweberbullet.com, for a little push in the right direction.

Of course, it got me drooling thinking about all that wonderful BBQ that would find it's way into my belly.

I also got to thinking. Yes, I know, it is a bad habit.

Why did he put the entire 16lb hunk of chuck on the WSM in 1 piece?

Why didn't he chop it into 2 8lb chunks? Or 4 4lb chunks?

I mean the concern of cook time was there because the author, again it was a wonderful article, used foil to speed up the cooking process because "he wanted it to finish in a reasonable amount of time".

Also, the worry of the meat drying out was there because that was another reason he gave for the foil.

Lastly, because of the big chunk of beef, the author was worried about the interior meat needing additional seasoning after being pulled saying "the outside meat will be great but the interior meat would benifit from adding some rub".

It seems like all of the author's concerns would have been non-issues had he broken that 15lb chuck roll into smaller pieces.

Who knows... I could be missing the boat completely here on this one...

Unless someone can give me a good reason, I am going to take my 2 big chuck rolls and take them down into 8 5lb pieces of beef.

Any ideas of why I shouldn't do it this way?
 
I cook then as I would a brisket and when they are done I will pull them like a pork butt.
Adding rub to pulled pork or pulled beef is a very good way to handle this cut. Cutting then into pieces is fine but there is rendering and flavors that are best achieved over time. Speeding up bbq works but long cooks have a character of their own.
Jim
 
Jim,

I get what you are trying to say about shortcuts so here comes my reply... WHY?

Would there really be a difference between 2 10lb chuck rolls cooked for 15 hours and 1 20lb chuck roll cooked for 20 hours?

The only differences that I could come up with would be that they 2 10lbers would create more bark because of the 2 additional surfaces.

I mean if it is a time thing... I could cook it at 220 instead of 240 and get more time that way.

Or are you saying that it is a size issue... like BIGGER is better?

Is a 15lb brisket better than a 10lb brisket?

As for foil, I hate the stuff so much that I won't even use it when resting meat... Imho, 20 minutes of foil, can ruin hours of work on that wonderous bark.

Actually, it is that quest for a little BARK in every bite that has gotten me to splitting my pork butts into halves when I feel like babying them a little (to care for the bone in halves).

Anyway, Jim, I am glad that your replied... not to put any pressure on you or anything... but I am giddy with anticipation that I am going to learn something! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OH MASTER MINION... PLEASE TEACH THIS LITTLE HUMBLE GRASSHOPPER THE WAY OF LOW N SLOW!

Seriously, I am not trying to be a smartass here and I am genuine in my desire to learn...

Ok, I am a smartass... but I still really want to learn...
 
I think what Jim is trying to impart is that there are processes going on in a large cut of meat that require time as well as heat. And that to reduce the size of a cut to accelerate reaching final temp is done at the expense of another process, which is to break down connective tissue, which takes time, the ultimate component of the tenderizing mechanism.
 
Now Spyro I gave you my opinion based on the result I have recieved cooking this cut. You stated you wanted to achieve two thing by cutting it in half, more bark and shorting the cook.

I've found that I get a 20+ pounders done in 15 to 16 hours on average. You didn't give any times in the original question, just said shorter.

I find that all large cuts like pork butt, roll or clods benefit from adding rub to the pulled product, again it is my opinion.

The best way to learn about BBQ is to cook it, lots of it. The learning curve of new cooks has been shorten greatly in the last few years because of sites like this. Folks that had been cooking for years gave me methodology to get me were I am in my cooking. I am simply giving ideas based on my experience, it is for you use any way you want. This is art and you get to express your BBQ based on what your mind sees. Feel free to use what you want and do your own thing with the rest, hopefully you will give back what you learn.
If I were you, I would cook one whole and cut one into four 5 pound pieces, decide for yourself. The one that was cooked whole, rub it once it is pulled. One of the smaller chunks don't rub, see what you think. Now again this is just my opinion.
Jim
 
JIM,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You stated you wanted to achieve two thing by cutting it in half, more bark and shorting the cook <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, my comments were in reaction to an article on this site and the author's foiling, to shorten cook time, and re-seasoning the pulled beef because of the lack of bark.

I just figured that cutting the chuck roll in half would have cured both his issues.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Folks that had been cooking for years gave me methodology to get me were I am in my cooking. I am simply giving ideas based on my experience, it is for you use any way you want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well yea but "been there done that" opinions have value to me. I am big on two things independent thinking and EXPERIENCE...

Thanks for sharing your experience...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If I were you, I would cook one whole and cut one into four 5 pound pieces, decide for yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh you don't want to be me... Cuz you'd be bitter that you were going to work in the morning instead of the duck club to shoot mallards...

DOUG,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think what Jim is trying to impart is that there are processes going on in a large cut of meat that require time as well as heat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>anytime you add mass to an object, to get it to the same temp as the previous object, you have to either increase cooker temp or increase time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And that to reduce the size of a cut to accelerate reaching final temp is done at the expense of another process, which is to break down connective tissue, which takes time, the ultimate component of the tenderizing mechanism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand the concept... just playing devils advocate here...

So the logical take from this would be... the LARGER the cut of meat, the more TENDER the end product well wind up.

So in theory, to gain that time/heat factor, to aid in tenderness, we should be buying the largest cuts of meat that we can.

The bigger the pork butt... the better...

The bigger the brisket... the better...

The bigger the chuck roll... the better...

Again, I appreciate your reply. Thanks!
 
Maple Leaf duck folks are sending me 3 cases of duck to cook, they want my opinion (what are they thinking) of their product. So I'll pass on sitting in a duck blind for the moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So the logical take from this would be... the LARGER the cut of meat, the more TENDER the end product well wind up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No the logic of cutting a larger cut into smaller pieces to save time is bad because connective tissue takes heat plus time to breakdown. If I have two choices, increase pit temp or time, in my opinion the best choice is time when cooking large roasts. I would leave the pit temp in the 225 to 250? range.

I stand by the statement that long cooks have a character of their own.
Jim
 
Interesting thread, guys. I have been busily converting some of my workmates (three have purchased WSMs so far), and one of them did his first brisket last weekend and some of these questions came up.

Spyro, please be sure to post your results, whichever way you do them!

R
 
Just a thought!

The larger cut has less surface area and will lose moisture slower.
The smaller cuts have more surface area will lose moisture faster before the bark forms.
It would be a matter of personal preference weighting cook time, smoke exposure, percentage of bark, and moisture retention.

Good luck
 
JIM,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So I'll pass on sitting in a duck blind for the moment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If it is between my cute butt being on a leather chair in an office or on a plywood bench in my duck blind.... the duck blind wins everytime...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the logic of cutting a larger cut into smaller pieces to save time is bad because connective tissue takes heat plus time to breakdown. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, I'll agree with you on this... that Tenderness is a function of Heat over Time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If I have two choices, increase pit temp or time, in my opinion the best choice is time when cooking large roasts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With that is mind then...

What if we tried to keep the time the same for both cuts (the 20lber and 10lber) by adjusting the pit temps down for the 10lber?

Or to take it even 1 step further with the 10lber...

STAGE 1 - put a very cold 10 lb roast into the smoker and run it @ 200 degrees until 140.

STAGE 2 - From 140 to 180, run the smoker @ 260-270...

STAGE 3 - From 180 to 195-205, run the smoker @ 225...

We could speed up the cook from the increased temps in STAGE 2 but we would actually be spending more time in the Flavor forming (STAGE 1) and Tenderizing (STAGE 3).

Actually, this would be the opposite of mnay method that I have seen where STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 are run at 250 and then STAGE 3 is in a 300 oven or wrapped in foil.

All of these accepted methods would seem to hinder tenderness.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would leave the pit temp in the 225 to 250? range. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See if I did this... kept a static temp... I could see your point about the bigger hunk of meat turning out better since you have convinced me of the longer time needed in STAGE 3.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I stand by the statement that long cooks have a character of their own. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You need to come by 1 of my long cooks because you are being short changed...

A character of their own?

Shoot, down here in Sunny So Cal, my long cooks have atleast 3 or 4 characters... especially after a few beers, a cigar or two and some poker.

"go sell characters somewhere else, we're all stocked up here" /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks again Jim,

S

JACK H,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just a thought! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you know how many trips to the emergency room are directly related to someone saying "just a thought"?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The larger cut has less surface area and will lose moisture slower. The smaller cuts have more surface area will lose moisture faster before the bark forms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree completely with your idea but the only sticking point would be that we are using a water smoker.

There is already alot of moisture in the air. One would have to believe that it is far from a dry smoke created by a non-water based smoker.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Good luck <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks and Thanks for your reply...

S
 
Spyro,
The logic would be the same whether it is a water smoker or not. more surface area means more dripping
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spyro Ananiades:
[qb]My comments were in reaction to an article on this site and the author's foiling, to shorten cook time, and re-seasoning the pulled beef because of the lack of bark.

I just figured that cutting the chuck roll in half would have cured both his issues.[/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As the aforementioned "author", here's my comments on this subject.

Cutting in half that 15 lb chuck roll might have reduced cooking time a bit. How much, I don't exactly know. On the day in question, I wanted to accelerate the cooking process, but I also wanted to cook it whole so it would look impressive in the photos for the article! So under those circumstances, I felt it made sense to use foil.

Regarding seasoning the pulled meat after cooking, I didn't do it because of a lack of bark. Even with the best of bark, I like to season pulled meat because I feel the unseasoned inside meat needs some help. That's just my preference. Also, many people complain about the lack of flavor of the inside meat, so that's why I wrote that the pulled meat "may benefit from some rub or sauce stirred in." I didn't say you had to do it, just that you might want to.

If you cut the roast in half and cook without foil and get enough bark so that you don't feel you have to season the meat after pulling, then you're all set. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,
Chris
 
You all have a great Thanksgiving, smoked turkey, ham, cigars and scotch are on my menu.
Spyro one of these days we will have to check out the character down your way.
Jim
 
Doug Lax,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The logic would be the same whether it is a water smoker or not. more surface area means more dripping <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't get me wrong here because I AGREE WITH YOU... More surface area = Greater Ability to lose moisture.

My issue is not if it is great but rather how much greater it is because of the enviroment that we are dealing with...

EXAMPLE

We could have 2 tukeys, tuekey A and turkey B, both soaking in Brine Solutions, solution A and solution B, and the correct statement would be that there is osmossis occuring in both.

The question is WHAT IS THE RATE OF OSMOSSIS?

For sake of discussion...

Turkey A and Turkey B are identical.

Brine Solution A = a 5% salt solution.

Brine Solution B = a 1% salt solution.

If turkey A is soaking is solution A, it's rate of osmossis will be greater than Turkey B's.

Water will be rushing out of Turkey A in an attempt to balance and bring the differences in salinity closer to each other. (mind you the seasoned brine water will be rushing into the bird... mmmm... yummy)

Where as less water will leave turkey B because the salnity of Brine B is lower.

Anyway, my only point is WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN RATE?

Chris Allingham,

I tried to convey it in my previous posts, I hope that it was clear, that I wasn't critizing the article.

As my dad used to say "there are many ways to skin a bear"...

well actually what my dad really did say was "I know that there are many ways to skin a bear but, spyro, you better be skinning that bear the way I taught you. Don't be messing around with my bear. Screw around with yours."

Anyway...

Just looking for a different way to skin this chuck roll.

Thanks for the great articles!

Chuck Rolls Meet WSM = T - 122 minutes.
 
Time Out.
Deep breaths.... In through the nose - out through mouth. Again. In-out, in-out.
I enjoy a spirited convesation as well as anyone. I come home to relax from a tense day at the office but this thread was Intense. In-out, in-out.
Then again, that's what this site is for. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
 
Hi Again,
To answer your question (I hope). /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I think it is realted to the rendering process more so that the process of osmossis.
A larger cut of meat takes longer for the fat to render. Fat cell contain more water than the meat cells i.e. the muscle cells. I would then assume that because of this process that more moisture would be retained in the one larger object with less surface area. You are rendering faster and the liquid has more space to leave through. Spyro,
Im not sure that one could figure the outthe rate anywhoo
the pieces of meat are not symmetrical.
Interesting thoughts though!
Have a great Thanksgiving
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spyro Ananiades:
[qb]I hope that it was clear, that I wasn't critizing the article.[/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I didn't take your comments as criticism at all. I just replied to clarify why I did what I did. I hope my reply didn't sound defensive, because it was not meant to be. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I totally agree that there's no one best way to cook any of these meats. I always tell people to do what they like and what makes sense to them.

Have a good one,
Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

 

Back
Top