Just what are the cooking temps used by most of us based on?


 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by j biesinger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">J, some good points, but for the sake of discussion, what's YOUR definition of "low and slow"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

when somebody takes the time to define their style as "low and slow" I assume they are talking <225*. It seems you see "sub boiling temp" mentioned here and there, which may be the new "low and slow."

Who really knows. A ways back, I started a similar thread about temps after talking to a guy at a bbq shop who was running a primo. He said you weren't "smoking" if your temp was over 250*. I thought smoking had more to do with your fuel source than you cooker temp. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I guess I don't think "low and slow" is necessary, either, if it's under the boiling point, under 225, OR under 250. I'm thinking that anything up to about 300 PROBABLY would work, except for the toughest of cuts, or on some smaller smokers, like the wsm, which I'd only feel comfortable up to about 275 if I was watching it real good. I'd feel ok cooking butts or briskets at that temp, but because of timing, I'll stick to low-n-slow overnight cooks, as it seems a lot of guys here prefer that as well.
icon_smile.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Michael G. (Canada Mike):


Cheers,
Michael


Ps - please, it's "poll" not "pole"!! One's a survey, the other's a stick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I nu ther was a reeson I flunkd spellin
 
I do everything between 200 and 250 on the lid therm of my 22.5" WSM. Very, very rarely I will do chicken at 300+, but even with chicken I like the flavor and texture better if I keep it at 250°.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"You want to cook your better cuts of beef faster and at higher temperatures...Tough cuts like brisket have to cook slow." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Except that numerous places in Texas - some of the more famous - do not cook brisket low/slow.

Sure, tough cuts require that the fat and connective tissue render/gelatinize. It is an utter myth that this requires low/slow cooking, especially when it comes to commercial pork, which is no where near as fatty as it once once (ah, I miss the old days), and brisket, which does not have the mass. I don't know about 50 years ago, but a pork butt of today cooks differently from a pork butt of nearly 40 years ago.

It is quite true that one needs "a fire hot enough to cook the meat but not so hot as to overcook it before this happens" - so there's a limit to how hot you can go. Too, meat mass and tissue structure can either place limits on cooktemps (if one is not using foil to buffer the heat) or can make the temps possibilities less limiting. Brisket does not have the mass to require low/slow, but its loose fiber structure poses problems. With high heat, foil handles this issue; with lower temps (but still higher than typical low/slow) one can forgo foil if one prefers. Monitor the cook more closely, however.

Cooking small cuts of meat is a relatively recent (historically speaking) phenomenon. Meats have been 'barbecued' for centuries. Depending on the meat in question, entire carcasses - or large but manageable portions, say, halves, thirds or quarters - were cooked at once, refrigeration being unavailable. It was discovered fairly early on, one would surmise, that heat needed to be moderate in order not to burn or overcook the exterior portions before the interior had a chance to cook at all.

A favorite pork breed, Mangalitsa (note the superb marbling in this rib loin):

Putnam-Rib-Loin.jpg
 
<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">"You want to cook your better cuts of beef faster and at higher temperatures...Tough cuts like brisket have to cook slow." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Except that numerous places in Texas - some of the more famous - do not cook brisket low/slow.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That quote is from the pitboss John Fullilove of Smitty's, the location of the old Kreuz Market in Lockhart, TX. They cook shoulder clods at 500 from what I've read. Do they cook briskets at 350? I'm pretty sure they don't. What's John's "cooking slow"? Probably around 300, maybe even 325, but I'm not for sure.
However, that's beside the point as the wsm is NOT the right setup to try cooking butts and briskets in at temps over 300 unless "shielding with foil", as you say.
 
My temps are generally driven by how much time I have. If I have plenty of time I always go low and slow as I enjoy the longer smokes (more time to drink beer). Short on time, high heat.
 
Yes. Recognized the name. Been to Smitty' many times. Not a fan. But I'm not much of a fan of their competition either. Some use HH, as do some others farther away, and foil, butcher paper and maybe other shields are used as well (don't know).

There is a certain cachet still, I guess, to low/slow meats that works well for marketing. Nothing wrong with that. And nothing wrong with low/slow simply because one feels like it, or one prefers the wider done window, or one wants the longer time to simply enjoy the process. But, keeping in mind the points noted above, one can easily cook many cuts higher - especially commercial pork. Because of the wider range of fattiness in feedlot beef (Select to Prime; Wagyu), there are (IMO) more targeted "best practices".
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">maybe even 325, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Btw, 325 is actually a common cooktemp for commercial barbecue, despite the low/slow marketing - be it ribs, pork, brisket, whatever - as not a few places have to adhere to HD of federal Food Code minimums. 325 is the minimum cooktemp for cuts that are < 10lbs in a convection-type oven or cooker.
 
<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">maybe even 325, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Btw, 325 is actually a common cooktemp for commercial barbecue, despite the low/slow marketing - be it ribs, pork, brisket, whatever - as not a few places have to adhere to HD of federal Food Code minimums. 325 is the minimum cooktemp for cuts that are < 10lbs in a convection-type oven or cooker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying the feds has outlawed commercial low-n-slow bbq-ed pork butt? They sure don't enforce it here in TN.

....but what's the relevence? My point is that 325 or even 300 isn't the best choice for smoking bbq cuts on a wsm unless shielding w/ aluminum. You cut the capacity, too, since the bottom rack will be so hot past the pan. Speaking of pans, that's exactly what I'd put a packer in if cooking on the bottom rack at 300 plus.
 
I mention it because you brought it up. The Food Code is federal. States can adopt it and require their counties to follow it, or a state can develop its own, or a state can allow counties to develop derivatives of the codes the state uses.

Numerous counties - in barbecue areas all over - do follow fed food codes (I've wandered out to many a pit, wood-fired or otherwise, where the temp used is 325) - despite advertising/marketing that suggests otherwise. My point is that the pervasive notion that all or the majority of commercial barbecue is low/slow (and, by extension, that that is what home cook must emulate) is erroneous.

I cook ribs all the time at temps over 300, both racks, not necessarily foiling. And I've cooked brisket over coals - direct but with some distance. But cooking this way is much more hands-on. That, actually, makes it more of a historical approach, where hands-on was much more the norm. Methods to make barbecuing a set-and-forget, less hands-on approach are recent inventions. Fewer cultures had the wherewithal to, say, heat stones in a pit add the meat, and bury the whole thing for long cooking, than had to make do with the much more hands-on approach of tending the fire, rotating a spit, and so forth.
 
I was just going back to the queastion that the OP posed. I've cooked a lot of butts and a few briskets in my upright drum above the coals at temps aproaching 300 and they turned out fine. I flipped 'em two or three times during the cook and was using only the top rack, though.

But getting back to the wsm, just the other day I posed the queastion of whether to cook around 275 the day of or to do an overnight low-n-slow with five pork butts on a thread I started here and on another forum. Not one person suggested cooking the butts the day except for one guy on each site that foiled in the 160's. I'll do 'em like I've been doing all year, overnight, and not worry if they get done or not.

Regarding ribs on the bottom rack at high temp I'd roll and skewer. I find that works best there at any temp, though. That way the ends aren't overcooked when the middle gets tender. This might be more of a factor with the higher heat, don't ya think?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But getting back to the wsm, just the other day I posed the queastion of whether to cook around 275 the day of or to do an overnight low-n-slow with five pork butts on a thread I started here and on another forum. Not one person suggested cooking the butts the day except for one guy on each site that foiled in the 160's. I'll do 'em like I've been doing all year, overnight, and not worry if they get done or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No need to foil if cooking at 275 - or 285 or 295. Just cook till done.

I'm not a big fan of rolling ribs but that is one way to be careful of the ends. There are others that work too.

I am on the way to my ranch in Fla - where my WSM is. I may be there for some time. I'll do some playing around.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
No need to foil if cooking at 275 - or 285 or 295. Just cook till done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is, I was ready to just foil the pan and get up early and do it, but not one soul suggested I should.

I thought I'd try a high heat packer on my offset a couple of weeks ago and cooked around 300 or so, with a couple spikes of about 335, with the brisket all the way down the end opposite from the firebox. Anyway, I was really surprised at how long it took to get it done cooking so hot. I should've started way sooner than I thought, and after I realized it wouldn't be done for supper I foiled, but it was already about 180 IT, so I didn't make up much time. That was a disappointment, and I should've just started sooner, but you know what? One area of the bark tasted burnt, a complete first for me. I already had decided I wouldn't care what it looked like, but I don't know if it was the rub or the meat, but it tasted burnt.

I know that sugars aren't supposed to burn unless 350, but the pit never got that hot on that end. It was about 14 pounds or so and I used Jim Goode's rub recipe. I think I'll stick to either cooking them slow overnight or hi heat with foiling once in the 160's from now on.

Later,
Dave
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top