Of course Kevin is likely right that the higher pit temp (within reason) will not cause the ribs to be dry, but rather the overcooking that this may lead to (but don't we need some time for the magic of fat rendering, etc to occur?). In my case, when the temp was higher than I planned, I did not adjust properly for the time and checked them too late. Time x temp is the issue. Now by better fuel control I'm able to maintain the temp I want.
second "waterless" smoke with spares.(not good)
- Thread starter Jacob Samarin
- Start date
LarryR
TVWBB Diamond Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">water again and seeing if it really makes that much difference </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So will you do the water ribs the same way? LMAO!!! I'm kidding of course. Thought that head hurting comment was very funny. Anyway, let us know how your next water batch turn out.
I see you're in the south Valley. Don't know if you're a Rancher fan or not; Ed C. and I are putting together a direct purchase from the factor. If you're interested in getting some they'll be delivered to Fresno for distribution. Cost is $4.99 per bag plus splitting freight (Ed's working on this now). Let us know, I'm going to get 30 - 40 bags.
So will you do the water ribs the same way? LMAO!!! I'm kidding of course. Thought that head hurting comment was very funny. Anyway, let us know how your next water batch turn out.
I see you're in the south Valley. Don't know if you're a Rancher fan or not; Ed C. and I are putting together a direct purchase from the factor. If you're interested in getting some they'll be delivered to Fresno for distribution. Cost is $4.99 per bag plus splitting freight (Ed's working on this now). Let us know, I'm going to get 30 - 40 bags.
Jacob Samarin
TVWBB Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
Off subject, but have you been to Chalet Basque on Oak? Wondering if it was worth a visit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
its ok but woolgrowers has the best basque in town.
you in bakersfield at the moment?
Off subject, but have you been to Chalet Basque on Oak? Wondering if it was worth a visit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
its ok but woolgrowers has the best basque in town.
you in bakersfield at the moment?
Jacob Samarin
TVWBB Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LarryR:
I see you're in the south Valley. Don't know if you're a Rancher fan or not; Ed C. and I are putting together a direct purchase from the factor. If you're interested in getting some they'll be delivered to Fresno for distribution. Cost is $4.99 per bag plus splitting freight (Ed's working on this now). Let us know, I'm going to get 30 - 40 bags. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
na im a wicked good man myself.but thanks.
I see you're in the south Valley. Don't know if you're a Rancher fan or not; Ed C. and I are putting together a direct purchase from the factor. If you're interested in getting some they'll be delivered to Fresno for distribution. Cost is $4.99 per bag plus splitting freight (Ed's working on this now). Let us know, I'm going to get 30 - 40 bags. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
na im a wicked good man myself.but thanks.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Love Wicked Good.
Been to Woolgrowers--and enjoyed it. Was wondering how Chalet compared.
Not in Bakersfield now. I was there about a month ago. Will be back through in a couple weeks.
Don-- Yes, time is required for rendering to occur. I just find that--with commercial pork, not my own or local--low/slow isn't required. It does dive you a wider time margin for finish though. Too low a temp though and the margin narrows dramatically as too much evaporation occurs on the way to done. That's why while low/slow might be just fine, lower/slower is not better.
Been to Woolgrowers--and enjoyed it. Was wondering how Chalet compared.
Not in Bakersfield now. I was there about a month ago. Will be back through in a couple weeks.
Don-- Yes, time is required for rendering to occur. I just find that--with commercial pork, not my own or local--low/slow isn't required. It does dive you a wider time margin for finish though. Too low a temp though and the margin narrows dramatically as too much evaporation occurs on the way to done. That's why while low/slow might be just fine, lower/slower is not better.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
Sorry, gentleman, but higher pit temps will not cause ribs to be dry--overcooking does ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most of us "average" cooks do use time as a guideline for finish time on meats. Higher pit temp will cause the internal temp of the meat to reach the higher level sooner than you are prepared for, especially with ribs which aren't monitored with a probe, and hence increase your chance of them becoming overcooked and dry.
While there's nothing "magical" about 250, I still think there's a real benefit in the Low/slow for rendering fat in a large chunk such as a butt. Now that low number might be 275, 300 ... ? but, 250 does work.
Paul
Sorry, gentleman, but higher pit temps will not cause ribs to be dry--overcooking does ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most of us "average" cooks do use time as a guideline for finish time on meats. Higher pit temp will cause the internal temp of the meat to reach the higher level sooner than you are prepared for, especially with ribs which aren't monitored with a probe, and hence increase your chance of them becoming overcooked and dry.
While there's nothing "magical" about 250, I still think there's a real benefit in the Low/slow for rendering fat in a large chunk such as a butt. Now that low number might be 275, 300 ... ? but, 250 does work.
Paul
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
That would depend on whether each was done at the times you note.
Let me put it another way though: A butt cooked at higher temps till done--i.e., tender--will not be appreciably less moist than one cooked at low temps to the same doneness level. Whether in either case you'll hit the same level of doneness at the times you note is another issue altogether and depends on several other factors not statted.
I've cooked butts at the higher temps you note but find I prefer them in the middle of your range, ~275/285.
Let me put it another way though: A butt cooked at higher temps till done--i.e., tender--will not be appreciably less moist than one cooked at low temps to the same doneness level. Whether in either case you'll hit the same level of doneness at the times you note is another issue altogether and depends on several other factors not statted.
I've cooked butts at the higher temps you note but find I prefer them in the middle of your range, ~275/285.
That answers my question exactly Kevin. Those times were just off the top of my head. I was asking because I want to do a small butt for my wife and I but I don't want to do an overnighter if I don't have to. I would rather start in the morning and have it ready to eat by dinnertime. Thanks
Jacob Samarin
TVWBB Member
well guys last night i went for the "water in the pan" experiment.besides the water,I DID EVERYTHING ELSE EXACTLY THE SAME.sure enough the ribs were juicy as hell.looks like its water in the pan from now on for me.check the pics....
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b38/djodeed/bbq01/IMG_0447.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b38/djodeed/bbq01/IMG_0445.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b38/djodeed/bbq01/IMG_0447.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b38/djodeed/bbq01/IMG_0445.jpg
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
They look good. I don't care one way or the other whether someone uses water, but I still dispute the notion that waterless = dry. If one cooks till tender the ribs won't be dry water or not. To wit:
Ribs cooked @ 325, start-to-finish, no foil. Not dry either.
Again, some prefer water, some empty, some sand or a flower pot base. If water was required to produce moist ribs the dozens of us that don't use it (on this board alone) wouldn't be producing juicy ribs, as assertion belied by the fact that we are. As long as one cooks till tender what, if anything, is in the waterpan is immaterial. The waterpan doesn't even need to be in the cooker at all.
Ribs cooked @ 325, start-to-finish, no foil. Not dry either.
Again, some prefer water, some empty, some sand or a flower pot base. If water was required to produce moist ribs the dozens of us that don't use it (on this board alone) wouldn't be producing juicy ribs, as assertion belied by the fact that we are. As long as one cooks till tender what, if anything, is in the waterpan is immaterial. The waterpan doesn't even need to be in the cooker at all.
John Furdyn
TVWBB Pro
Kevin
just curious have you cooked ribs in the wsm without the water pan ? i know you cook them without water "in" the pan. i have had good luck cooking chicken without the water pan, as have many others.
My thinking,(right or wrong) is the chicken might be more forgiving of the higher temps, than the ribs. please advise if you will. thanks John
P.S. Those ribs look mighty good to me, even if I currently have a belly full of pizza.
just curious have you cooked ribs in the wsm without the water pan ? i know you cook them without water "in" the pan. i have had good luck cooking chicken without the water pan, as have many others.
My thinking,(right or wrong) is the chicken might be more forgiving of the higher temps, than the ribs. please advise if you will. thanks John
P.S. Those ribs look mighty good to me, even if I currently have a belly full of pizza.
Tony Hunter
TVWBB Pro
Jacob,
Did you use Kingsford or some other briquette?
Did you use Kingsford or some other briquette?
LarryR
TVWBB Diamond Member
Glad to hear you're back on track. As I wrote earlier, got to go with what works for you. I recently went back to using a clay saucer with my Stoker as I found got fewer temp swings. In theory you're not supposed (it's not needed) to use any kind of a heat sink with it but it work for me in this configuration.
I'm curious, does your Traeger have a water pan? If not how do the ribs done on the WSM with water compare to ribs done on the Traeger? Just curious. The Traeger looks like a very interesting unit. One of the meat markets I frequent just started selling them.
I'm curious, does your Traeger have a water pan? If not how do the ribs done on the WSM with water compare to ribs done on the Traeger? Just curious. The Traeger looks like a very interesting unit. One of the meat markets I frequent just started selling them.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
John--
I've not cooked ribs in the WSM with no waterpan. I've cooked them in a kettle that way though, indirect, numerous times, and have cooked them directly over lump or wood embers in different kinds of closed or open pits.
In a closed pit (or closed kettle) cooktemp is a product of the amount of lit and the amount of air intake/draft. Control these and one controls cooktemp: temps need not get sky high.
In an open pit one controls cooktemps (which means temps at the grate immediately under the meat) also by quantity of lit and by the distance the meat is placed above the coals. If the grate is fixed and distance is not variable, most cooks simply use frequent flipping and, quite often, a water-based baste to control cooktemps. This method is the one used most often by many ranchers I know in my area: open pit, wood or charcoal for fuel, direct cooking, frequent flipping and basting. (Basting with a water-based baste--in my area, often grapefruit juice--cools the meat's surface after flipping.)
A few Q joints around the country use this method as well. Cooktemps at the surface: 325-350.
I use the WSM when home because I can do other things while the ribs cook, and I use an empty foiled pan to minimize cleanup. I like ~275 for spares (though I've cooked higher, as shown above), and 325 for backs.
I've not cooked ribs in the WSM with no waterpan. I've cooked them in a kettle that way though, indirect, numerous times, and have cooked them directly over lump or wood embers in different kinds of closed or open pits.
In a closed pit (or closed kettle) cooktemp is a product of the amount of lit and the amount of air intake/draft. Control these and one controls cooktemp: temps need not get sky high.
In an open pit one controls cooktemps (which means temps at the grate immediately under the meat) also by quantity of lit and by the distance the meat is placed above the coals. If the grate is fixed and distance is not variable, most cooks simply use frequent flipping and, quite often, a water-based baste to control cooktemps. This method is the one used most often by many ranchers I know in my area: open pit, wood or charcoal for fuel, direct cooking, frequent flipping and basting. (Basting with a water-based baste--in my area, often grapefruit juice--cools the meat's surface after flipping.)
A few Q joints around the country use this method as well. Cooktemps at the surface: 325-350.
I use the WSM when home because I can do other things while the ribs cook, and I use an empty foiled pan to minimize cleanup. I like ~275 for spares (though I've cooked higher, as shown above), and 325 for backs.
Jacob Samarin
TVWBB Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
They look good. I don't care one way or the other whether someone uses water, but I still dispute the notion that waterless = dry. If one cooks till tender the ribs won't be dry water or not. To wit:
Ribs cooked @ 325, start-to-finish, no foil. Not dry either.
Again, some prefer water, some empty, some sand or a flower pot base. If water was required to produce moist ribs the dozens of us that don't use it (on this board alone) wouldn't be producing juicy ribs, as assertion belied by the fact that we are. As long as one cooks till tender what, if anything, is in the waterpan is immaterial. The waterpan doesn't even need to be in the cooker at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
well im not smart enough to tell you what is causing the difference.all i know if i see/taste a HUGE difference when i use water.so thats the way im going from now on.
They look good. I don't care one way or the other whether someone uses water, but I still dispute the notion that waterless = dry. If one cooks till tender the ribs won't be dry water or not. To wit:
Ribs cooked @ 325, start-to-finish, no foil. Not dry either.
Again, some prefer water, some empty, some sand or a flower pot base. If water was required to produce moist ribs the dozens of us that don't use it (on this board alone) wouldn't be producing juicy ribs, as assertion belied by the fact that we are. As long as one cooks till tender what, if anything, is in the waterpan is immaterial. The waterpan doesn't even need to be in the cooker at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
well im not smart enough to tell you what is causing the difference.all i know if i see/taste a HUGE difference when i use water.so thats the way im going from now on.
Jacob Samarin
TVWBB Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
(Basting with a water-based baste--in my area, often grapefruit juice--cools the meat's surface after flipping.)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
so then in this instance you are using water?very interesting.
(Basting with a water-based baste--in my area, often grapefruit juice--cools the meat's surface after flipping.)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
so then in this instance you are using water?very interesting.
Jacob Samarin
TVWBB Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tony Hunter:
Jacob,
Did you use Kingsford or some other briquette? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i always use wicked good lump.
Jacob,
Did you use Kingsford or some other briquette? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i always use wicked good lump.
Jacob Samarin
TVWBB Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LarryR:
I'm curious, does your Traeger have a water pan? If not how do the ribs done on the WSM with water compare to ribs done on the Traeger? Just curious. The Traeger looks like a very interesting unit. One of the meat markets I frequent just started selling them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
the traeger is waterless.although people say its more like a convection oven,than a "smoker".again,im not smart enough to know the difference,all i know is everything takes a little longer on the traeger,so i dont use it for ribs.
and by the way guys,im not saying you cant achieve nice moist ribs without water,and that every b.b.q.'er should use water in every smoker they have.im just saying that in my wsm,for some reason,the ribs come out better when i use water.
I'm curious, does your Traeger have a water pan? If not how do the ribs done on the WSM with water compare to ribs done on the Traeger? Just curious. The Traeger looks like a very interesting unit. One of the meat markets I frequent just started selling them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
the traeger is waterless.although people say its more like a convection oven,than a "smoker".again,im not smart enough to know the difference,all i know is everything takes a little longer on the traeger,so i dont use it for ribs.
and by the way guys,im not saying you cant achieve nice moist ribs without water,and that every b.b.q.'er should use water in every smoker they have.im just saying that in my wsm,for some reason,the ribs come out better when i use water.