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

[MKEvenson]

Read an interesting post, actually one statement, from K Kruger just now,


Posted September 28, 2010 08:25 AM
...Commercial pork ribs do not require low/slow temps, despite what one repeatedly reads.

Kevin

So this statement started me thinking. Is it true that many traditional cooking temps in BBQ originated many years ago when the meat that was available to the BBQer was very different than it is today? I wasn't around BBQ in the "old day" but from what I have read ie. in Texas, brisket, was a cut of meat that originally was thrown away, ground up, given to the dog, or later, given to an Easternern to cook as a joke. Chicken came out of the yard, pork was either on the hoof or came from a slaughter house or butcher where very little if any enhancements were done. Aging times were different and in general the meat you BBQed was different, hense slower, cooking methods were used. Todays choices in meat to the city folk, me, are pretty limited to commercially rased products. Ya there are more individual producers of meat but the cost is generally more than most of us want to pay. And so cooking methods and cooking times with higher heat ranges are being employed because it works, on the product we have to cook.

Don't know if this is of general interest, but I would like to see a sampling, a pole, of the cooking temps used by the members here for various meats and the results of those cooks. I just wonder if the times they are a changin?

Mark

 

[j biesinger]

I base my cooking times on two things:

1) what temp the wsm settles at

2) how much time I have for a particular cut

I realize this doesn't really answer your question but saying a dome temp of 240-280 isn't a great answer either.

I'm not experience enough to see much benefit to one temp over another other than determining length of the cook.

 

[TravisH]

Well ... the temps I use now are based on 'what works for me'.

After lots of trial-n-error and just plain ignorance, I tried the 'traditional' lo-n-slo cuz 'that's what you're supposed to do'.

Not counting the newer 'hi-heat' methods which also include a different technique, I've settled on 250º~275º cuz it turns out the kind of results I like within a time frame I can schedule around.

 

[Russell Y]

I would always ask my English Teacher in High School if this "xxxx" would be a good topic for a paper. Her reply the majority of time was "you need to narrow down the scope".

In this case "various meats and the results of those cooks" it seems as if my English Teachers reply is appropriate. Start with one specific meat, do an analysis and then go on to the next meat.

 

[Dave Russell]

Yes, as K. Kruger points out, MODERN AGRICULTURE has made strides in standardizing meat. I believe this means that a bbq cut at the market is probably not gonna be as tough as it could've been back in the day. For example, there's no need to hunt down "three and under" spares at major markets like pitmasters used to insist on when looking for the best. However, if you go to some rural markets, you can still come across some cheap spares that some around here refer to as "sow ribs", supposedly off an old one, and they're cheap and really tough to cook. Smoking these slabs at 300 might not be the best idea, and 225 might actually be best.

Bottom line though, today's bbq cuts are still tough cuts, relatively speaking, and roasting is NOT the best way to cook 'em, unless braising or steaming is incorporated. (I kept it close enough to 350 with a packer just a couple of weeks ago to learn this the hard way.

)

What else has affected the trend of higher bbq cooking temperatures? Well, one other thing is what I just mentioned: braising or steaming in FOIL or pans. As everybody here probably knows, make that a significant part of the cooking process and you CAN cook at roasting temps and get very predicatable results.

So what else? I'd say that user friendly cookers like the wsm or homemade uds makes it easier to avoid detrimental heat spikes, so you can cook hotter than traditional low-n-slow without too much worry of temps staying much over 300 too long. (Of course, the new wsm is just like the uds in that you're probably cooking twenty-five plus degrees hotter than the gauge reads because of where it's located.)

 

[Dave Russell]

I just thought of how my wsm factory gauge shades "smoking" up to 275.

I know for a fact that for the better part of the cook the gauge reads 25 degrees or so less than the actual grate temp, but I wouldn't argue with where they decided to end that zone at all.

 

[Jeff Powers]

I smoked some meaty spares this weekend at 300 -375 on the Performer for 4 - 1/4 hours with "Janes Rub". They were awesome and moist....not quite fall off the bone but they passed the bend test and the toothpick test. Perfection.

My take..... Results vary, depending on way too many variables to compare.

 

[Shawn W]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So this statement started me thinking. Is it true that many traditional cooking temps in BBQ originated many years ago when the meat that was available to the BBQer was very different than it is today? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have a theory on that ... back in the day before wireless remote therms low and slow was a way to pretty consistently get great results because it stretches the 'done' window. When doing HH you can blow way past done and dry the meat out in a fairly short amount of time. Dry grilled chicken breast is a good example of this.

I can say I prefer the bark of low and slows and I've done some sub boiling point briskets that I thought were out of this world moist and tender but I'll do HH if pressed for time.

 

[Dave Russell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jeff Powers:
I smoked some meaty spares this weekend at 300 -375 on the Performer for 4 - 1/4 hours with "Janes Rub". They were awesome and moist....not quite fall off the bone but they passed the bend test and the toothpick test. Perfection.

My take..... Results vary, depending on way too many variables to compare.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Results vary, depending on way too many variables to compare?" Man, isn't this just bbq? I mean, take the foil or pan cheats out, as you didn't mention using that in your cook, anyway. (Nothing against foil, though. I use it too.

)

Most of us here use the same cooker, basically the same fuel, and as Kevin Kruger points out, we have modern agriculture to thank for the availability of standardized ribs (meaty ones, too!) that don't necessarily need lower temps to render tender, and if you got that slab tender, you sure enough make Kevin's point!

So there you have it: cooker, time, temp, standardized meat...what's else?

One variable for sure is rubs. I put a good bit of stuff prone to darkening in my rub, and I bet mine would've ended up about black if cooking that hot for so long without wrapping in foil a good bit.

....Dang, 300-375 for 4.25 hours?! Just how much did that "meaty" slab weigh?

 

[Jeff Powers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave Russell:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jeff Powers:
I smoked some meaty spares this weekend at 300 -375 on the Performer for 4 - 1/4 hours with "Janes Rub". They were awesome and moist....not quite fall off the bone but they passed the bend test and the toothpick test. Perfection.

My take..... Results vary, depending on way too many variables to compare.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Results vary, depending on way too many variables to compare?" Man, isn't this just bbq? I mean, take the foil or pan cheats out, as you didn't mention using that in your cook, anyway. (Nothing against foil, though. I use it too.

)

Most of us here use the same cooker, basically the same fuel, and as Kevin Kruger points out, we have modern agriculture to thank for the availability of standardized ribs (meaty ones, too!) that don't necessarily need lower temps to render tender, and if you got that slab tender, you sure enough make Kevin's point!

So there you have it: cooker, time, temp, standardized meat...what's else?

One variable for sure is rubs. I put a good bit of stuff prone to darkening in my rub, and I bet mine would've ended up about black if cooking that hot for so long without wrapping in foil a good bit.

....Dang, 300-375 for 4.25 hours?! Just how much did that "meaty" slab weigh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No foil or pan cheats were used in the harm of this animal.

I used a Performer with some fire bricks as separation from the heat (temps based on what the lid thermo said). The rub I used was Kevins for Jane....... It weighed about 4.75 lbs before trimming.....afterwards not too sure. But dang they were awesome.

 

[j biesinger]

a couple of things...

1) cooking has always been about convenience, leisure time (especially as it relates to cooking) is a modern invention. Was low in slow really the way it was done? maybe for drying and preservation, but I doubt it was for cooking

2) low and slow is not the best way to cook lean meat.

3) lean meat is another modern invention. most of the fat has been bread out of pork. low and slow does not work for most pork cuts as a result

There is a real romantic notion associated with low and slow, and I'd love to know the truth.

 

[Dave Russell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jeff Powers:
I smoked some meaty spares this weekend at 300 -375 on the Performer for 4 - 1/4 hours with "Janes Rub". They were awesome and moist....not quite fall off the bone but they passed the bend test and the toothpick test. Perfection.

My take..... Results vary, depending on way too many variables to compare.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
[/QUOTE]
No foil or pan cheats were used in the harm of this animal.

I used a Performer with some fire bricks as separation from the heat (temps based on what the lid thermo said). The rub I used was Kevins for Jane....... It weighed about 4.75 lbs before trimming.....afterwards not too sure. But dang they were awesome.[/QUOTE]


Jeff, if you would've wrapped those in foil much at all, cooking at those temps for that long you would've had to take 'em off the grill one rib at a time.

By the way, how close is your lid thermo to the actual cooking temp in the kettle? I seriously doubt there's much difference on your kettle, but check this out:

I've found that my wsm VENT will be hottest, my TOP GRATE center a little cooler, my bottom grate CENTER (over water in the pan) a little cooler, and my DOME GAUGE cooler even still, maybe by as much as 25 degrees at the start of a cook. (Yes, I've checked it in boiling water.)

When you think about how all these little diffencese in temp measurements translate, these differences from actual temp could be as much a significant "variable" as anything in these discussions. For example, can you imagine what a beginner"s spares might look like if he cooked 'em in his shiny new wsm at the temps you described going by his dome gauge? I can guarantee you he wouldn't describe 'em as "awesome".

 

[Lew]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mk evenson:
Read an interesting post, actually one statement, from K Kruger just now,


Posted September 28, 2010 08:25 AM
...Commercial pork ribs do not require low/slow temps, despite what one repeatedly reads.

Kevin

So this statement started me thinking. Is it true that many traditional cooking temps in BBQ originated many years ago when the meat that was available to the BBQer was very different than it is today? I wasn't around BBQ in the "old day" but from what I have read ie. in Texas, brisket, was a cut of meat that originally was thrown away, ground up, given to the dog, or later, given to an Easternern to cook as a joke. Chicken came out of the yard, pork was either on the hoof or came from a slaughter house or butcher where very little if any enhancements were done. Aging times were different and in general the meat you BBQed was different, hense slower, cooking methods were used. Todays choices in meat to the city folk, me, are pretty limited to commercially rased products. Ya there are more individual producers of meat but the cost is generally more than most of us want to pay. And so cooking methods and cooking times with higher heat ranges are being employed because it works, on the product we have to cook.

Don't know if this is of general interest, but I would like to see a sampling, a pole, of the cooking temps used by the members here for various meats and the results of those cooks. I just wonder if the times they are a changin?

Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Regardless of advances in meat production and aging, some cuts still require the fat and connective tissues to be broken down to be tender. This means a fire hot enough to cook the meat but not so hot as to overcook it before this happens. I'm guessing the "traditional" cooking temps were what got the best results over time. I don't think a pork butt today will cook any differently with regards to rendering fat etc. than 50 years ago.

With that said, I do most of my "low n slow" cooks at around 250 because that seems to be where my WSM likes to settle.

 

[Dave Russell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by j biesinger:
a couple of things...

1) cooking has always been about convenience, leisure time (especially as it relates to cooking) is a modern invention. Was low in slow really the way it was done? maybe for drying and preservation, but I doubt it was for cooking

2) low and slow is not the best way to cook lean meat.

3) lean meat is another modern invention. most of the fat has been bread out of pork. low and slow does not work for most pork cuts as a result

There is a real romantic notion associated with low and slow, and I'd love to know the truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

J, some good points, but for the sake of discussion, what's YOUR definition of "low and slow"?

BBQ semantics aside, I like it how John Fullilove says it. The boss of the most famous pit in Texas is quoted in Robb Walsh's "Legends of Texas Barbecue Cookbook" on page. 50:

"You want to cook your better cuts of beef faster and at higher temperatures...Tough cuts like brisket have to cook slow."

Does he mean 225? Not on your life. I think I heard that they cook 'em at about 300, but they cook shoulder clods about 200 degrees hotter!

 

[Dave Russell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lew:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Regardless of advances in meat production and aging, some cuts still require the fat and connective tissues to be broken down to be tender. This means a fire hot enough to cook the meat but not so hot as to overcook it before this happens. I'm guessing the "traditional" cooking temps were what got the best results over time. I don't think a pork butt today will cook any differently with regards to rendering fat etc. than 50 years ago.
[/QUOTE]

Very well said, and I couldn't agree any more.

A pork butt has always been a tough and fatty cut, and a tenderloin has always been lean, and one's best cooked at a much higher temp than the other.

 

[MKEvenson]

Very interesting and thoughtful discussion here.

I suspect from what has been presented so far, that if a pole were done, which I can't do for some reason the results would show that most of us use whatever temp we feel gives the best result for whatever particular meat we are cooking at the time. There may be a predominance of low and slow, 225-250, do in part to tradition, but there seem to be a growing # who cook at higher temps,325-350.

I read recently a post that stated that Butts need to be cooked low and slow as opposed to brisket that can be cooked HH. I am planning on cooking my brisket and butt for next years comps in the same WSM. Therefore I want to cook at the same temp AND, so far I have many successes with HH brisket. So last week I decided to do a butt at the same temps as a HH brisket, just to see for myself if the results were good. I was pleased to find that the results were very good. The meat was cooked well, juicy and the money muscle sliced perfectly with the bone meat pulling just fine.
I guess the bottom line is as most have stated here, "you cook at the temp that delivers good results with the cooker that you have and time aloted.

Mark

 

[Randy B]

To answer the original Q ...... experience! I cook mostly packer briskets and BB ribs. I've found that 275 deg at the lid gives me good results in a manageable amount of daylight time (I'm not a late night or overnight guy). I will also use foil as necessary based on available time or to get desired results (usually for 45 mins to an hour late in the cook).

Lastly, my 22in WSM seems to like to settle in at 275 deg using blue K with bottom vents around 25% open. Almost a set-it-and-forget-it set up for me.

Randy

 

[Dave Russell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Randy B:
To answer the original Q ...... experience! I cook mostly packer briskets and BB ribs. I've found that 275 deg at the lid gives me good results in a manageable amount of daylight time (I'm not a late night or overnight guy). I will also use foil as necessary based on available time or to get desired results (usually for 45 mins to an hour late in the cook).

Lastly, my 22in WSM seems to like to settle in at 275 deg using blue K with bottom vents around 25% open. Almost a set-it-and-forget-it set up for me.

Randy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Randy, do you usually foil your packers? I assume you're measuring 275 going by the dome gauge. Is that right?

I'm interested since I've been doing the opposite, cooking all night for all my butt cooks as you might've noticed in the thread I just started, but I don't want to be pressed for time on a day cook and don't want to necessarily have to wrap in foil to speed up the cook. Of course, butts take a little longer than briskets, though.

 

[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.

 

[Michael G. (Canada Mike)]

I almost alwyas go low and slow. First, I find it's relaxing and gives me time to do other things like sides, and so on. Secondly, I think it's forgiving. Mistakes at higher heat re liable to be more noticeable. Finally, and most importantly, I get good results with it.

Cheers,
Michael


Ps - please, it's "poll" not "pole"!! One's a survey, the other's a stick.