First overnight cook: new speed record


 
Larry D.

Larry D.

TVWBB Emerald Member
Two butts, both 7+ pounds, empty water pan ("Piedmont" pan setup), temp set at 250 via The Stoker. The temperature of the butts was 31 degrees when I put them on. I put the butts on at 6:15 p.m., thinking they'd be done around 7 or 8 the next morning at the earliest. I checked the cooking temperature several times between 6:30 and about 11:30 when I went to bed, and it was holding steady within a degree or two of 250.

At 2:30 a.m., the temperature alarm told me the butt I was monitoring was at 195 degrees. The pit temp was still right at 250. I took both butts off, pulled them both, and put them in the refrigerator. They were both done, and looked just about the same as any other butts I've cooked before. But I have never had a butt cook in less than 10 hours - these took 8.

The Stoker's temperature probe was clipped to the top rack, between the butts, and not touching either of them.

I don't have an explanation, but next time I won't start them before about 10 pm.
 
I have done only one butt cook since I started using an empty water pan. An eight lb. butt in 11 hours, that is the fastest cook for a butt that size I've done. It was as good as any I've done. Perhaps the drier heat cooks faster?
 
Maybe. I think my next cook will be the usual "start at 7 a.m." routine, so I can see if this was a fluke. I wasn't too happy with having to pull two butts that early in the morning.
icon_smile.gif
 
I'm wondering about the fat content of the butts. There may have been less fat inside the butts.

You didn't mention if they were boneless or not. For me, I noticed that bigger butts cook faster than smaller ones and bone in seem faster than boneless. 6:15 pm to 2:30 am is a little over 8 hours.

More questions...

How often have you done butts with the stoker? I have a guru but use it only when necessary (weather).

Have you double checked the stokers temp with a seperate thermometer?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Steve Abrams:
I'm wondering about the fat content of the butts. There may have been less fat inside the butts.

You didn't mention if they were boneless or not. For me, I noticed that bigger butts cook faster than smaller ones and bone in seem faster than boneless. 6:15 pm to 2:30 am is a little over 8 hours.

More questions...

How often have you done butts with the stoker? I have a guru but use it only when necessary (weather).

Have you double checked the stokers temp with a seperate thermometer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were bone-in (I've never cooked a boneless butt, and don't think I've ever seen one). I've cooked a couple of times with the Stoker, but I think this was the first time with the Stoker and no water. And I did double check the Stoker's temp probe - I recently damaged the meat probe (such that it read much lower than actual temperature), and at that time I compared the meat probe, the "cook" probe, and an instant read meat thermometer (mechanical dial type, not electronic) to verify that the meat probe was bad. The cook probe was very very close to the meat thermometer. Wouldn't hurt to check it again, though. In this case, since I haven't ordered a replacement meat probe, I monitored the meat temp with a Maverick remote thermometer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top