How can I cook a raw,though cured and smoked half ham, which is 25% "water added". Because it's raw it must be cooked to 160F. The producer, Smithfield, has both smoked and not smoked cured hams with 25% water added during the cure. You roast the ham in the oven cut side down and fully tented with foil to prevent drying out. Have any tried cooking a similar ham on the WSM with water? Do you remove the skin to enhance smoke flavor? What do you do with the cut side to prevent drying out? Is it preferable to indirectly roast indirectly at a higher temp. on the Weber Performer? Or, can you smoke at 225F in the WSM? I'd appreciate any hints or suggestions. Thanks in advance and happy Easter holiday to all.
How do you cook an uncooked cured smokedham?
- Thread starter Kent
- Start date
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
See here for one method.
What you have is a ready-to-cook ham. Yes, remove the skin if you'd like to add additional smoke and/or a glaze.
'Drying out' comes from overcooking. You need do nothing if cooking indirectly (the only way to go) as long as you don't overcook it. 325? is a good target though you can go a bit higher. Target an internal of the upper 140s then remove and rest. The internal will rise during the 25-40 min rest the meat requires yet it should not overcook.
What you have is a ready-to-cook ham. Yes, remove the skin if you'd like to add additional smoke and/or a glaze.
'Drying out' comes from overcooking. You need do nothing if cooking indirectly (the only way to go) as long as you don't overcook it. 325? is a good target though you can go a bit higher. Target an internal of the upper 140s then remove and rest. The internal will rise during the 25-40 min rest the meat requires yet it should not overcook.
I believe the exposed, or cut edge of the uncooked ham will dry out. More in this case, however, because it is a 25% by weight added water ham. The producer's cooking instructions have you lay the ham, cut side down in a baking pan. Add water only to cover cut surface[1/4" or so]. Then tent whole ham with foil and roast. This creates a steamy environment for the ham to be cooked to 160F without any drying. I've done this several times with uncooked hams, and it's very successful. I'm wondering if this can be done over charcoal without drying out. I'm trying to enhance the flavor a bit.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Drying out comes from overcooking. Basic food science. Any 'exposed edge', of a ham or any other meat, might brown from exposure - the whole point of roasting - but the meat will not dry out if it is not overcooked.
Steaming the meat is certainly one way of cooking it but you will get no additional flavor. (It's not roasting.) !60 is stretching into the overcooked range, which the producer knows, and is a key reason why the ham is shot up with all that water. Cooked at 325 or a bit higher, the ham does not need to reach 160 while it is in the oven or cooker. It can be cooked to a lower temp, as noted above and at the link to Chris's recipe I noted, and residual cooking during the rest while bring the internal higher, more gently, avoiding overcooking. (I don't go that high with ham - or any pork, other than barbecue - because 160 is not really necessary, but you can if you prefer.)
'Over charcoal' is direct heat and I would not recommend that. You could do the pan-with-water-and-foil thing over charcoal but you're not going to get much if any additional flavor.
The WSM with the water pan in there, with or without water, is suitably indirect. You can certainly cook at a lower temp (225-250), if you prefer, but it will take much longer, quite a bit more if its size is substantial.
Steaming the meat is certainly one way of cooking it but you will get no additional flavor. (It's not roasting.) !60 is stretching into the overcooked range, which the producer knows, and is a key reason why the ham is shot up with all that water. Cooked at 325 or a bit higher, the ham does not need to reach 160 while it is in the oven or cooker. It can be cooked to a lower temp, as noted above and at the link to Chris's recipe I noted, and residual cooking during the rest while bring the internal higher, more gently, avoiding overcooking. (I don't go that high with ham - or any pork, other than barbecue - because 160 is not really necessary, but you can if you prefer.)
'Over charcoal' is direct heat and I would not recommend that. You could do the pan-with-water-and-foil thing over charcoal but you're not going to get much if any additional flavor.
The WSM with the water pan in there, with or without water, is suitably indirect. You can certainly cook at a lower temp (225-250), if you prefer, but it will take much longer, quite a bit more if its size is substantial.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
Drying out comes from overcooking. Basic food science. Any 'exposed edge', of a ham or any other meat, might brown from exposure - the whole point of roasting - but the meat will not dry out if it is not overcooked.
The WSM with the water pan in there, with or without water, is suitably indirect. You can certainly cook at a lower temp (225-250), if you prefer, but it will take much longer, quite a bit more if its size is substantial. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dry heat higher than the boiling point of water will evaporate any water it comes in contact on the surface of what is being cooked, unless it's covered, usually with fat or skin. I always slather a very thin layer of bacon fat on the cut surface of a standing rib roast to ensure noist meat at the surface along with a slight browning of the surface. If I grill the ham I may do the same thing.
If you water smoked a ham in the WSM at 225-250F it would take a long time to cook the uncooked whole, or even half ham to 160F. When you're cooking at a very low temperature, you have to stop much closer to your end temperature than you do at the usual 325-350F heat. There's less heat on the surface to equilibrate with the less warm meat in the center of the ham. If any have done this successfully I'd sure like advice. Thanks,
Drying out comes from overcooking. Basic food science. Any 'exposed edge', of a ham or any other meat, might brown from exposure - the whole point of roasting - but the meat will not dry out if it is not overcooked.
The WSM with the water pan in there, with or without water, is suitably indirect. You can certainly cook at a lower temp (225-250), if you prefer, but it will take much longer, quite a bit more if its size is substantial. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dry heat higher than the boiling point of water will evaporate any water it comes in contact on the surface of what is being cooked, unless it's covered, usually with fat or skin. I always slather a very thin layer of bacon fat on the cut surface of a standing rib roast to ensure noist meat at the surface along with a slight browning of the surface. If I grill the ham I may do the same thing.
If you water smoked a ham in the WSM at 225-250F it would take a long time to cook the uncooked whole, or even half ham to 160F. When you're cooking at a very low temperature, you have to stop much closer to your end temperature than you do at the usual 325-350F heat. There's less heat on the surface to equilibrate with the less warm meat in the center of the ham. If any have done this successfully I'd sure like advice. Thanks,
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dry heat higher than the boiling point of water will evaporate any water it comes in contact on the surface of what is being cooked, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course it will. That's a key point of roasting. Surface drying is what allows for browning and, thus, flavor development. 'Drying out' occurs only of cooked too long - past the point of 'done', which varies depending on the specific item being cooked. A fattier pork butt can take a much higher internal finish temp than can, say, the much leaner pork loin.
Water-pumped pork can take somewhat higher internals than unpumped pork but there is still a risk of drying if the internals get too high, especially if the cut is on the lean side. I don't buy pumped pork and don't cook leaner items much past the upper-140s to low-150s, tops, lower than that for the leanest tenderloin and loin cuts.
j is doing a whole ham he cured himself. I'm estimating ~ 6 hours at ~ 250 for a finish in the 140s.
I see no reason to take pork to 160, unless one is Q'ing butt or something.
Water-pumped pork can take somewhat higher internals than unpumped pork but there is still a risk of drying if the internals get too high, especially if the cut is on the lean side. I don't buy pumped pork and don't cook leaner items much past the upper-140s to low-150s, tops, lower than that for the leanest tenderloin and loin cuts.
j is doing a whole ham he cured himself. I'm estimating ~ 6 hours at ~ 250 for a finish in the 140s.
I see no reason to take pork to 160, unless one is Q'ing butt or something.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course it will. That's a key point of roasting. Surface drying is what allows for browning and, thus, flavor development. 'Drying out' occurs only of cooked too long - past the point of 'done', which varies depending on the specific item being cooked. A fattier pork butt can take a much higher internal finish temp than can, say, the much leaner pork loin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just by accident put a ham, shank half, cut side down, into a roasting pan. I had trimmed all the skin and almost all of the fat from the lateral aspect shank and much of the meat was exposed to the air. The cut end of the shank is resting on the bottom of the pan. The visible strands of muscle tissue extend vertically from the pan to the knee joint. The muscle is much leaner without surface fat on the vertical side, compared to the cut end, as you know. By accident I put it in the oven uncovered at 325F. One hour later there is dry crusty muscle on the surface. It's like jerky, and not what you would want on the table. The dryness extends .25 inches into the thigh muscle. Again, I think you either have to have some surface fat on the muscle to brown properly. Or, you sacrifice browning by tenting and steaming, which the recipe from the ham producer called for. The muscle then stays moist to the surface without surface browning.
I just by accident put a ham, shank half, cut side down, into a roasting pan. I had trimmed all the skin and almost all of the fat from the lateral aspect shank and much of the meat was exposed to the air. The cut end of the shank is resting on the bottom of the pan. The visible strands of muscle tissue extend vertically from the pan to the knee joint. The muscle is much leaner without surface fat on the vertical side, compared to the cut end, as you know. By accident I put it in the oven uncovered at 325F. One hour later there is dry crusty muscle on the surface. It's like jerky, and not what you would want on the table. The dryness extends .25 inches into the thigh muscle. Again, I think you either have to have some surface fat on the muscle to brown properly. Or, you sacrifice browning by tenting and steaming, which the recipe from the ham producer called for. The muscle then stays moist to the surface without surface browning.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Okay. But a boneless, skinless chicken breast is not the same thing as a roast - half ham, whole tenderloin, or what have you.
I understand your point but not quite how it relates to the OP. If you are concerned with the bit of drying that occurs at the surface you certainly can oil the surface. If cooking in a pan you certainly can add a splash of water to the pan to offer a buffer. (This is a technique one might also use if needing to develop good fond for sauce. I do it quite a bit.) Personally, I would not then cover the pan with foil, but would allow the roast to cook, occasionally adding a splash of water, as needed, when the water in the pan is completely gone and the fond browns, till done.
Another approach would be to cook at a lower temp (200-225) so that cooking is more even throughout. Then, if desired, do a finishing sear for surface browning/flavor development.
Again, I see no reason to cook to 160, and wouldn't, removing instead in the upper-140s/low-150s.
I understand your point but not quite how it relates to the OP. If you are concerned with the bit of drying that occurs at the surface you certainly can oil the surface. If cooking in a pan you certainly can add a splash of water to the pan to offer a buffer. (This is a technique one might also use if needing to develop good fond for sauce. I do it quite a bit.) Personally, I would not then cover the pan with foil, but would allow the roast to cook, occasionally adding a splash of water, as needed, when the water in the pan is completely gone and the fond browns, till done.
Another approach would be to cook at a lower temp (200-225) so that cooking is more even throughout. Then, if desired, do a finishing sear for surface browning/flavor development.
Again, I see no reason to cook to 160, and wouldn't, removing instead in the upper-140s/low-150s.
If I'm roasting a piece of meat that might be too dry on the surface, I'll frequently sear on the meat on top of the stove in oil quickly first. Following it is roasted indirectly over charcoal. I deglaze the searing pan with wine, after sauteeing minced shallots; simmer down to several TB, and whisk in soft butter to creat a "Steak Bercy" as Julia Child describes in Vol. 1 of "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" I'm going to do this with a 3" thick sirloin[chateaubriand in California??] for the first time in the WSM at 250F after browning to bring the temp. to 130F and to create an edge to edge rare steak without the grey ring near the surface, as well as a bit of smoke. I'll report in the recipe discussion board.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Chateaubriand is a cut from the tenderloin, even in California.
Well, I guess I'm unsure of your OP then. But if you want to cook a roast - a half ham or nearly any other - in the WSM you certainly can. Low/slow or high heat - your choice, depending on the roast in question and what type of finish you seek.
for your chateaubriand or sirloin (whichever) I'd suggest slow smoking first to a temp that's 10-15 below your target then doing a quick finishing sear over direct heat by dropping the cooking grate to the charcoal ring. You can run the meat first - or not - or oil first if you wish, though it is not required.
Well, I guess I'm unsure of your OP then. But if you want to cook a roast - a half ham or nearly any other - in the WSM you certainly can. Low/slow or high heat - your choice, depending on the roast in question and what type of finish you seek.
for your chateaubriand or sirloin (whichever) I'd suggest slow smoking first to a temp that's 10-15 below your target then doing a quick finishing sear over direct heat by dropping the cooking grate to the charcoal ring. You can run the meat first - or not - or oil first if you wish, though it is not required.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
Chateaubriand is a cut from the tenderloin, even in California.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
A thick sirloin in all of the San Francisco Bay Area is referred to as a "Chateaubriand". I've always thought that was because of just not knowing, and California's tendency toward doing and naming things "our way".
However, I've just learned that Viscount Chateaubriand may have used sirloin, rather than tenderloin, in the famous dish attributed to him. http://www.foodreference.com/h...f-chateaubriand.html
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>for your chateaubriand or sirloin (whichever) I'd suggest slow smoking first to a temp that's 10-15 below your target then doing a quick finishing sear over direct heat by dropping the cooking grate to the charcoal ring. You can run the meat first - or not - or oil first if you wish, though it is not required. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A rage in French cooking these days is "sous vide", or "under vacuum". The meat is cooked in a vacuum very slowly, at only 2-3 degrees over the endpoint temperature for hours, sometimes overnight. It can then be seared following. I've tried this, as suggested by Cook's Illustrated in the oven with eye of round beef. I'm going to try it in the WSM. Searing before or after is optional.
Chateaubriand is a cut from the tenderloin, even in California.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
A thick sirloin in all of the San Francisco Bay Area is referred to as a "Chateaubriand". I've always thought that was because of just not knowing, and California's tendency toward doing and naming things "our way".
However, I've just learned that Viscount Chateaubriand may have used sirloin, rather than tenderloin, in the famous dish attributed to him. http://www.foodreference.com/h...f-chateaubriand.html
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>for your chateaubriand or sirloin (whichever) I'd suggest slow smoking first to a temp that's 10-15 below your target then doing a quick finishing sear over direct heat by dropping the cooking grate to the charcoal ring. You can run the meat first - or not - or oil first if you wish, though it is not required. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A rage in French cooking these days is "sous vide", or "under vacuum". The meat is cooked in a vacuum very slowly, at only 2-3 degrees over the endpoint temperature for hours, sometimes overnight. It can then be seared following. I've tried this, as suggested by Cook's Illustrated in the oven with eye of round beef. I'm going to try it in the WSM. Searing before or after is optional.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
In "all of the San Francisco Bay Area..."? Having cooked in San Francisco for many years, I cannot say I ever saw sirloin labeled as chateaubriand, in a store or restaurant, nor ever had chef friends refer to it that way. Perhaps this became vogue after my time. Don't know. Though I dine in the City when I am in the area these days, no place I've been has it on the menu.
Yes, I've been cooking some things sous vide for several years. I make duck confit that way (highly recommended because one needs far less fat). Short ribs too, on occasion, and a few other things. My circulating water bath is large and heavy. It's a Florida and I am not there often so I have not done much of anything sous vide of late.
Yes, I've been cooking some things sous vide for several years. I make duck confit that way (highly recommended because one needs far less fat). Short ribs too, on occasion, and a few other things. My circulating water bath is large and heavy. It's a Florida and I am not there often so I have not done much of anything sous vide of late.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
In "all of the San Francisco Bay Area..."? Having cooked in San Francisco for many years, I cannot say I ever saw sirloin labeled as chateaubriand, in a store or restaurant, nor ever had chef friends refer to it that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sirloin has been marketed as Chateaubriand routinely in Bay Area meat markets and supermarkets for many years, at least since the sixties, when we moved here. I couldn't believe it when I first saw it. That definition doesn't go beyond the meat counter. In Bay Area restaurants it's always the thick part of the tenderloin.
In "all of the San Francisco Bay Area..."? Having cooked in San Francisco for many years, I cannot say I ever saw sirloin labeled as chateaubriand, in a store or restaurant, nor ever had chef friends refer to it that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sirloin has been marketed as Chateaubriand routinely in Bay Area meat markets and supermarkets for many years, at least since the sixties, when we moved here. I couldn't believe it when I first saw it. That definition doesn't go beyond the meat counter. In Bay Area restaurants it's always the thick part of the tenderloin.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That definition doesn't go beyond the meat counter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps that explains it. In those days I just bought whole tenderloins and cut them myself.
Supposed to be in the City in May. Hope it works out.
Perhaps that explains it. In those days I just bought whole tenderloins and cut them myself.
Supposed to be in the City in May. Hope it works out.