Pork butts taking longer than expected

[L Rader]

Just did my second butt. Both were about four pounds. Did the first one at 225 (top grate temp with a Maverick), and it stalled at 150 after 4 hours. 6 hours later it was still at 150. I ran out of time and had to pull it.

On the second but, I ramped it up to 250. Got the butt over 200, but it took 10 hours.

Seems like a four pounder should be closer to 8 hours max. Only thing I can think of is that my temp probe was on the top grate, and I put the butt on the lower grate. Maybe the temp down there is lower causing the delay?

Results on the second butt were quite tasty, so not worried too much.

Used the minion method, KBB, 10 small chunks of wood for smoke (cherry and apple).

 

[Dave Russell]

Pork butts just take a long time to get to a true tender state, and folks are especially surprised how long the smaller ones take. The general rule is to allow two hours/lb if cooking at 225, but realize though that such guidelines are meant for avg. sized 8 lb butts. While the larger than avg. butts will rarely take that long, the smaller ones will often take even longer, at least if they're really just half of a butt. Find out what works for you in regards to measuring temp and timing cooks and always try to allow enough time. If you're a little ahead of schedule, slow it down or wrap and hold if you don't care about the bark. Just be careful about residual cooking and tent a while to allow meat to cool down if it's already truly DONE. In regards to getting better timing cooks, the more variables you change (different cookers, size butts, schedules, etc) the more practice you'll need to get better at it. Journaling helps a bunch.

 

[Mike Leiter]

I have had a few that hit the plateau and took a good few hrs to push on through while others went through much faster. On last cook I did 4*6-8lb ones at same time and they hit the plateau about the same time and I waited for them to push through. Three did and the last one lagged behind almost 45-50min behind and it was the smallest of all of them. That was a same temp cook and I even rotated them through the smoke so they changed top to bottom grates temps. I have always heard 1-1/2 hrs to cook per lb but learned to plan meals at around 2hrs or so avg like Dave said above after a few varying lags on some. If it cooks to temp earlier I usually just wrap for an hr or two although you lose the crispy bark.

 

[J Weiland]

I normally take mine out when it hits 150-160 and wrap in tin foil and put it back in till it hit 200 internal. I tried to keep my heat at 250 thru the whole smoke. I actually have one in now 8 pd and its been on for 7 hrs and my internal temp is 185

 

[Dave Russell]

I have had a few that hit the plateau and took a good few hrs to push on through while others went through much faster. On last cook I did 4*6-8lb ones at same time and they hit the plateau about the same time and I waited for them to push through. Three did and the last one lagged behind almost 45-50min behind and it was the smallest of all of them. That was a same temp cook and I even rotated them through the smoke so they changed top to bottom grates temps. I have always heard 1-1/2 hrs to cook per lb but learned to plan meals at around 2hrs or so avg like Dave said above after a few varying lags on some. If it cooks to temp earlier I usually just wrap for an hr or two although you lose the crispy bark.

Mike, are you sure that rotating top to bottom is worth the trouble? I use water and will find butts over each other will still usually get done about the same time, for whatever reason. Anyhow, when I mentioned the 2hr/lb rule, I should've been more clear that I was talking about 225*, or 225-250 measured THROUGH THE VENT, which is a popular cooking range for a lot of tvwbb site posters. For myself though, I haven't cooked that slow for quite some time. I measure grate temp, ramping up from as low as 200* with cold meat up to no more than 250* and butts are done in about 1.75hr/lb., with a target temp of 235*. Yesterday's two 9lb butts (cooked on separate racks in my 18.5") were both done in 15 hrs, finishing only about half an hour or so apart, so 1.75 hr/lb is what I go with on overnight cooks. I often cook 7-8 pounders during the day at about 250 on my big bullet and get 'em done no longer than 1.5hr/lb since the cooker gets up to temp quicker. Of course, that's not with a full cooker, though.

 

[Dwain Pannell]

I believe the temp on the lower grate is lower than the top. Try moving your next butt to the top and see if it doesn't finish closer to your time frame. Here's some good reading on temps in the WSM: http://virtualweberbullet.com/measuretemp.html

 

[Mike Leiter]

Mike, are you sure that rotating top to bottom is worth the trouble? I use water and will find butts over each other will still usually get done about the same time, for whatever reason. Anyhow, when I mentioned the 2hr/lb rule, I should've been more clear that I was talking about 225*, or 225-250 measured THROUGH THE VENT, which is a popular cooking range for a lot of tvwbb site posters. For myself though, I haven't cooked that slow for quite some time. I measure grate temp, ramping up from as low as 200* with cold meat up to no more than 250* and butts are done in about 1.75hr/lb., with a target temp of 235*. Yesterday's two 9lb butts (cooked on separate racks in my 18.5") were both done in 15 hrs, finishing only about half an hour or so apart, so 1.75 hr/lb is what I go with on overnight cooks. I often cook 7-8 pounders during the day at about 250 on my big bullet and get 'em done no longer than 1.5hr/lb since the cooker gets up to temp quicker. Of course, that's not with a full cooker, though.

I`m not sure its necessary but since two were smaller and two larger I placed the lighter and heavier ones on the same grates and then about 6 hrs in I just switched them. I was just trying to keep them evenly heated as I knew from my probes the bottom grate was a little hotter running no water and a saucer...
I do run mine at 235 or so at the top grate when doing the butts and its been my target temp on the WSM with singles and the multiples as well as when I was doing them on my kettle. Next run with multiples I will not rotate and see if it really made a difference besides dumping lots of heat out at the time when I did it..Three out of four finishing at the same time may have proved it didn't matter in the end.....I have been in the habit of rotating on the kettle and not sure its that much of a matter on the WSM though seeing heat comes from bottom and not side. Thoughts?

 

[Dave Russell]

I believe the temp on the lower grate is lower than the top. Try moving your next butt to the top and see if it doesn't finish closer to your time frame. Here's some good reading on temps in the WSM: http://virtualweberbullet.com/measuretemp.html

Of course, and dang, I can't believe I didn't catch that. Posting BC (before coffee) on my part.

 

[Dave Russell]

I`m not sure its necessary but since two were smaller and two larger I placed the lighter and heavier ones on the same grates and then about 6 hrs in I just switched them. I was just trying to keep them evenly heated as I knew from my probes the bottom grate was a little hotter running no water and a saucer...
I do run mine at 235 or so at the top grate when doing the butts and its been my target temp on the WSM with singles and the multiples as well as when I was doing them on my kettle. Next run with multiples I will not rotate and see if it really made a difference besides dumping lots of heat out at the time when I did it..Three out of four finishing at the same time may have proved it didn't matter in the end.....I have been in the habit of rotating on the kettle and not sure its that much of a matter on the WSM though seeing heat comes from bottom and not side. Thoughts?

Mike, I haven't noticed enough difference between the two racks to warrant rotating, whether using water or with a clay pot base in my pan. I just check the bottom butts through the door, rotating the bottom grate through the door to access the butts on the other side.

 

[Carlos Gregory]

Just pulled a 5 pound boneless butt that took about 13 hours to finish at 250. I had a couple of short stalls(an hour at 156 and another hour or so at 176) then at 186 it would'nt go any higher. Fat pocket maybe ? I did remove the probe and place it in another part of the meat but still no jump after 3 hours so I tested pulling a piece and it was falling off easily. Don't be intent on 195 I learned as fat pockets can fool the probe which is what I think was my "problem".Just test it by pulling when you feel it's close and looks great !186 was perfect for this particular butt. I rested it for 30 minutes and it was very moist and tender ....