Low and slow versus roasting for Chicken


 
G

Guest

Guest
I have been bbq'ing a lot in the last two years, and seem to be seeing improvement in results. Or at least my family and those who have to eat the results say. Anyway, I've been working with my chicken, and my one month old WSM - I also use a Offset cooker, a King Kettle, and a regular 22 1/2 Weber Kettle (my wife says that its getting to be more like an obsession than a hobby, oh well). Anyway, last weekend I tried two butterflied Chickens. I marinated overnight in apple juice, and rubbed with a paprika/sea salt/italian spices and other things that looked good (just a touch of brown sugar, relatively low sugar rub). I used a large Weber chimney full of Big Green Egg lump (I now use lump exclusively, I think that it's a much better product than Kingsford briquettes). I put a good sized chunk of apple wook, and a smaller piece of oak and one of hickory. When everything was good and flaming, I dumped it on the coal grate. I left the water pan in, wrapped in foil and empty. When I put the chicken in my lid thermometer read 335 and the Maverick smoker/food remote was 325 and 38 (for the chicken, with the probe on the chicken on the top grate running through the breast adn thigh). With the vents at 50% the temp remained rock steady through the hour and a fifteen minutes I cooked.

The end result was the best chicken I've done. I've probably done 12 - 15 low and slow chickens in my offset and kettles (225 -250 for 4 to 6 hours) and never had chicken as tender and juicy as this was. I've found the low and slow "rubbery" texture to be slightly off putting, even if the flavor is good. The skin on this chicken could have been crisped just a tad more, if I had been ambitious I would have fired up one of the kettles and done it, but it was still good. The tenderness was absolutely what fantastic - not too soft, but moist and flavorful. I see here that there are devotees of this kind of roasting for chicken - Is this real bbq or something else? I'm going to keep working this, I think that I'm on to something!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Donald Craig:
... - Is this real bbq or something else? I'm going to keep working this, I think that I'm on to something! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're on to something too! I'm learning that chicken needs at least 300F to avoid the rubber skin and to be juicy. I'm not concerned about whether or not it's real BBQ. Is it good? That's more to the point.

Loren
 
Donald--

It's barbecue to me, though many might call it grill-roasting because it's not low and slow. I don't care. I always do chicken at high temp (350-450, depending on what I'm cooking them in) because that's how I like it best. To me, lump+smokewood+meat = Q, even if--strictly speaking--others think otherwise.

Welcome to the board.
 
Donald - I did a chicken using that method last week (brined, rubbed etc) but vertical raosted rather than butterflied.

Best chicken I've had - the flavour texture is surely the important thing - rather than the terminology!!

Another tomorrow if the weather holds..

Andrew
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you're on to something too! I'm learning that chicken needs at least 300F to avoid the rubber skin and to be juicy. I'm not concerned about whether or not it's real BBQ. Is it good? That's more to the point.

Could not agree more. I dont like low and slow chicken either for the same reasons. I ussually cook inderectly in a kettle at 350*.

I also dont recomended for a first cook in a WSM. Not everyone is going to like it.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jim Piesek

Could not agree more. I dont like low and slow chicken either for the same reasons. ... Not everyone is going to like it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm beginning to worry about myself, because I really do like low/slow chicken
icon_smile.gif
. True, the skin is not good, but I discard it to eliminate some fat. Otherwise I find it more tastey, juicy and flavorable than the higher, indirect cook. However, I do cook it both ways.

Paul
 
Donald,
Welcome to the board. Sounds like your chix was a tremendous success. I will have to try it as I have been doing the low ans slow process on my WSM (and grilling on my gasser).

BTW, where are you located?

Thanks for the post.

Ray
 
Some like the low and slow poultry approach others like the high temp poultry. I myself like the 350 - 400 poultry cooking method because of how the skin comes out. Only problem is the wife and i fight over the skin. Both methods produce great results. Guess it's a matter of do you eat that luscious skin or not.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm beginning to worry about myself, because I really do like low/slow chicken </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul don't worry, I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who preferred the slow method too... but I'm with you! I like it both ways, but my chicken turns out jucier (and smokier) using low and slow.

Keep on keeping on,
Josh
 
I prefer low/slow when the intention is to use the chicken in something else--like in white bean chili, some salads, and in grilled sandwiches. In that case I remove the skin before smoking. I'm interested in playing with the marinated low/slow Minion/Taylor approach with its extended in-sauce finish though.
 
My first cook on the WSM was two chickens, empty water pan, temp at around 300. Most people thought the chicken was good, but that's it. The meat was good & flavourful, but the skin was rubbery.

The second time I did chicken I used the no water pan method that Kevin suggested, and temps were in the 350-450 range. Almost everyone said that it was some of the best chicken they've ever had. Skin was crispy & flavourful. IMO, the majority prefer it this way.

Chris
 
I used to do the low and slow on chicken, but I prefer to go fast and hot now. I still don't eat the skin, but I think my chicken turns out much better if I cook it at over 300.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brian L.:
I still don't eat the skin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG you aren't serious are you? That luscious skin so crispy and delicate melting in your mouth surely you just don't throw it away do you? Please tell me you at least give that wonderfull pleasure to the cats( i'm a cat person) or dogs.
icon_eek.gif
 
Paul
There is nothing wrong with liking your chicken that way. Alot of people on this site like chicken low and slow and some people (like you) dont eat the skin.
When I first started to come to this site it seemed everyonewas proclaiming how good it was and I thought there must be somthing wrong with me.
For me a piece of chicken with out a nice crispy skin is like toco without the shell.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bryan S:
... That luscious skin so crispy and delicate melting in your mouth... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree completly with the wonderful taste of crisp chicken skin. Heck, I even love the taste of good fried chicken. However, sometimes it makes sense to sacrafice some things in hopes of achieving something more important - like maybe living a little longer. Now when I get that "6 months notice"... watch out crisp chicken skin, fried anything and oh, especially, those french fries.
wsmsmile8gm.gif


Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top