Dave Russell
TVWBB Honor Circle
...but I'm not going to show them here either, since I didn't pull my gloves off to take a pic before pulling. I nailed it though, pulling all four off the cooker at the 12hr mark, cooking an avg of probably 250* with probe center of grate between the two 9.5-ish pound ones, with the two smaller 8-ish lb butts on the bottom rack over my Weber pan with a clay saucer in it.
I gotta give Dwaine P. credit, though. I wanted better than avg. bark, and I got it, partly due to his observations from his last butt cook with a foiled pan. I was pretty hesitant not to foil during the cook since I was running a dry pan. I had a couple of cook experiences on my smaller bullet with butts on the bottom rack a good while back where the bark was kind of leathery, but the reason I've been foiling butts on the big cooker is mainly because I knew that if I used water and didn't foil, I'd go through a lot of charcoal. I've never used water in the 22" wsm pan for anything other than ribs, and after this cook, I never will. The butts on the big bullet are a lot farther from the fire, so maybe that helped.
Not much in the way of pics, but I gotta tell ya, I like cooking by day and seeing what's going on with my cooker if I can bbq for supper and not for lunch. And yes, you get prettier and crispier bark without water in the pan. I have no idea why water in the pan makes the bark look darker and duller, but it does. Remember though, these butts weren't foiled during the cook OR after. And for holding butts hot, I'll foil and hold if I have to, but since I'm talking about getting good bark, I'm just sayin. I like pork right off the pit.
Here's what pics I did manage to take. The first one is almost five hrs into the cook, and for all you folks that say the Weber gauge is nothing but an ornament.
I know....all pulled pork looks the same, but here's ONE of the two pans, even after eight sandwiches had already been served.
My nephew on his third sandwich:
And his fourth. The boy must have a tape worm or something.
Have a good week, ya'll!
Dave
I gotta give Dwaine P. credit, though. I wanted better than avg. bark, and I got it, partly due to his observations from his last butt cook with a foiled pan. I was pretty hesitant not to foil during the cook since I was running a dry pan. I had a couple of cook experiences on my smaller bullet with butts on the bottom rack a good while back where the bark was kind of leathery, but the reason I've been foiling butts on the big cooker is mainly because I knew that if I used water and didn't foil, I'd go through a lot of charcoal. I've never used water in the 22" wsm pan for anything other than ribs, and after this cook, I never will. The butts on the big bullet are a lot farther from the fire, so maybe that helped.
Not much in the way of pics, but I gotta tell ya, I like cooking by day and seeing what's going on with my cooker if I can bbq for supper and not for lunch. And yes, you get prettier and crispier bark without water in the pan. I have no idea why water in the pan makes the bark look darker and duller, but it does. Remember though, these butts weren't foiled during the cook OR after. And for holding butts hot, I'll foil and hold if I have to, but since I'm talking about getting good bark, I'm just sayin. I like pork right off the pit.
Here's what pics I did manage to take. The first one is almost five hrs into the cook, and for all you folks that say the Weber gauge is nothing but an ornament.
I know....all pulled pork looks the same, but here's ONE of the two pans, even after eight sandwiches had already been served.
My nephew on his third sandwich:
And his fourth. The boy must have a tape worm or something.
Have a good week, ya'll!
Dave
