still have a question after all this time


 
Dan H.

Dan H.

TVWBB Pro
long story short... would high heat cooking people agree that theres some advantage w/ low/slow in some situations at least. The "cali guys-tri-tip rub" post got me thinking. I am at a draw w/ grilling them vs. smoke/bbqing them. I think a tri is awsome cooked at around 280 or so for several hours (till somewhere around 155-165 inside) then foiled till tender, etc. etc. back on the fire to firm the bark, all that business. and to me you just cant get better then the texture of bbq chicken (also bbq same temp). Although the skins a different story, I ussually attempt a short direct grilling to attempt to crisp it at least somewhat. Anyway.. How do you decide what application to use for what food is basicly my question (for the veterans) I just think that lower temps is a good thing often enough depending on what your looking for texture wise etc. Im on board w/ the theory (or truth i think) that to slow on a hunk of brisky or something would have a drying out effect (slow learner) and surly would with smaller cuts (example would be: I never purposly smoke ribs anymore at lower then 270 or so). I kind of judge temp these days w/ the size and thickness of the meat, the bigger/thicker it is the hotter I go, and smaller a little less hot, etc. what do you think? I just think a halfed chicken or tri tip is hard to beat bbq'd that way, rather then the more common grilling indirect and the searing, although thats perfectly tasty. I'de recommend smoking/bbqing a tri-tip to anyone who hasn't yet, its like a perfectly done brisket but better I think. So low slow must have something good going for it, otherwise I'de never use it, more specificly I have chicken and tri in mind mostly to keep this short. I try to remember that no one has actually said "low/slow is worthless" but sometimes I kind of get that from conversation. In many cases I think it is, but not always. Is there some truth to what I've heard "the meat needs to cook slowly to break down and become tender..." cause texture does change. let me know your thoughts and approaches. Thanks! (so much for long story short)
 
things to consider:

1) toughness. tender cuts need less time than tougher cuts. Tougher cuts can better stand overcooking because the conversion of the connective tissue (the stuff that makes it tough in the first place) will create moistness in the finished meat. Think: brisket vs eye of round.

2) fat marbling. leaner meats need less time and can't stand overcooking. For instance a pork butt can go longer than a pork loin.

3) size. a large, lean rib roast should go low and slow so that the final temp is more uniform from center to edge.

4) length of window of doneness. If you are afraid of overcooking, go low and slow so that the window of doneness is extended. The problem of hot and fast is that its easy to overshoot your desired doneness.
 
Low & slow has its place, just like high heat does. Like J says, it's determined by the cut of meat. If you were making a fish dinner you wouldn't deep fry a piece of salmon and then poach your french fries in 160 degree oil. Weird example, but that's the best I can think of.

I think you might have it backwards when you say "the bigger/thicker it is the hotter I go, and smaller a little less hot". Think about cooking a whole ham versus a thin pork chop.
 
I think Mr. Biesinger covered it just fine, don't know that I could add a thing.

For example - yeah I usually cook tri tip by grilling. But if I wanted to assure I hit the perfect temp through out the cut without risking going past the medium rare point, a slow cook that allows me to sneak up on the temp would work just as well. I would still keep the temps around 300 though for that cut.

If I was going to foil/braise I probably would pick a different cut instead. But that's just personal.
 
Me, I can't stand low/slow chicken - I'm a crisp skin guy. I don't see a benefit in low/slowing them myself, even if one doesn't care about the skin, though I could see how slow timing can sometimes be a plus.

Though some meat cuts need to 'break down' to become tender, this does not necessarily mean the cook needs to be low/slow. One can employ methods to assist the process without cooking low/slow.

As for meats other than chicken: I don't see the need to low/slow ribs. Despite what people think, commercial pork isn't all that fatty. (O, I miss the days when it was! Heritage pork can be, and that I cook lower.) One can certainly low/slow ribs, though I do not.

Butts I prefer to low/slow - anywhere from 240-270 - wherever the cooker settles. They can be cooked HH, but foil is necessary at the higher end and that's not something I like with butts. One can cook higher than low/slow and lower than HH without foil, but I usually just go along as noted.

Lean pork cuts cuts like loins don't really benefit from low/slow. One can if timing is more convenient that way. In-between cuts like fresh hams can go either way. I cook loins and hams ~325 most of the time.

Beef is another matter. Large fatty cuts - chuck roll, shoulder clod - benefit from low/slow - require it really - and if left whole should be foiled during cooking to make the cook time reasonable. If cut, foiling isn't absolutely necessary but for many chuck roasts it's worth foiling to even out the cooking and to prevent the ends of the more stringy muscle fibers that chuck has from getting overcooked before the inner fibers have had time to cook enough.

I prefer HH for most briskets (not Wagyu nor Prime) because, with a foiling stage, I find the cooks much more consistent cook-to-cook, and far more consistent, meat-wise, within the cut, end-to-end. At HH foiling is necessary, imo, becasue of brisket's structure - though one can cook lower than HH, higher than low/slow, and forgo foil if one prefers.

For already tender cuts - whole tenderloin roasts, rib roasts - it depends on the results you're looking for. If you would like the finish to be fairly even throughout the meat - medium-rare, say - from end-to-end and through the center, low/slow is better. If you'd prefer a range of doneness - medium-rare in the center, e.g., ranging toward more done toward the edges and ends, then higher heat works better for this.

For less tender cuts that you wish to take to a lower internal - tri-tips, eye rounds, bottom rounds, knuckle (sirloin tip) - you can go either way. However, with these cuts there is something to keep in mind: Low/slow can be beneficial. Though some of these cuts are lean, some not so much, none are considered 'tender' cuts, like rib roast. None are usually cooked much past medium, so even the fattier cuts don't really render well. The leaner of these cuts will toughen if cooked too much. So, in order to boost the tenderness possibilities, one can cook low/slow and, if desired, do a finishing sear. Beef contains two enzymes in particular that help a lot with tenderness. One enzyme inactivates ~105?, the other ~120?. Putting the meat into the cooker cold (my preference), or allowing the meat a couple hours on the counter before cooking, then slowly ramping the temps to a low/slow level, allows maximum time for these enzymes to work before the internal temps that will inactivate them are reached.*

I 'grill' tri-tips all the time, i.e., I use my kettle rather than the WSM. I just mini-Minion the start, don't use much unlit, and close off vents from the get-go so the climb is slow.


Kevin


* These are the same enzymes that are responsible for tenderness in wet- or dry-aged beef. They work slowly at the low temps of a walk-in cooler, where sides or large cuts of beef are aged; their activity quickens as temps rise - until they inactivate at the temps noted above.
 
very informative kevin. thanks
icon_smile.gif
 
Do we have the ability on here to stick a post or thread for future reference? Either that, or require all new members and/or novices to print it and keep a laminated copy on hand. He pretty much covered it all.
 
I did kind of mis-type some things in my post above, sorry. but that was pretty helpful. I guess those examples make sense as far as the texture goes with chicken. I too prefer crisp skin but appearantly like it texture wise better with a lower temp cook (of course, the skin does kind of suffer). Like jerk chicken I marinade overnight and slowly cook it till done, then a short direct grilling. I've just never been able to get the MEAT texture that way grilling or deep fried etc. (to clarify: seperates/falls EASY from the bones, joints, ligiments etc., and tender) to keep it short though... you know the story. The tri-tip/eye round, etc. comments helped me make sense of a few things too. The one thing i havn't done was a finish sear though (after a 280 degree, or wherever it settles, bbq/cook), but just cooked till tender w/ a toothpick or whatever I had. Once in a whileI get a large and surprisingly very well marbled tri for bbqing. I always have used the grill for leaner ones though, slowly ran the temp up indirect w/ a finishing sear (which i learned here). Of course thats a great way to cook it and I love it, but theres stilll big differences to me, between the two approaches. probably a matter of it being easier for me to hit the target "tender" with a slower cook i guess. Im sure many of you have already but, I'de still really recommend trying it. its pretty darn good and for whatever im doing wrong, (grilling) or right (bbq,smoking) it seems not as chewy and even more tender smoked/bbq'd. I'm sure some of my troubles and confusion comes from the dude cooking it...me. good read, thanks.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The one thing i havn't done was a finish sear though (after a 270 degree bbq/cook), </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Try 30-50? lower. Load the meat in cold and start with a cold cooker. It will take longer. Sear to finish. (I do this on a kettle but it is easier on a WSM.)

As for the chicken, if you're cooking quarters (the only cut I jerk) you can cook low then ramp the temp up, cook moderately, or cook higher. The dark meat cuts can take cooking well past safe and you can get the texture you seek. If breasts are involved it changes the dynamic.

It's really all about what you prefer in terms of timing and in finish. Some cooks can be done in many ways, with others the approach possibilities might be narrower if preferences call for that.
 
Dan,

With regards to searing order: I only reverse sear when I'm smoking something first and need to keep the temperature colder longer. Otherwise I sear first and then either move or rotate the grill grate to the other side and close it up to cook indirectly. I feel this method is a little more foolproof than reverse searing in controlling final temperatures.

And for your comments on texture, I think that's greatly determined by the temperature you cook to (not the temperature you cook at) unless the cut of meat has a lot of connective tissue. Do you use a thermometer to check for doneness or go by feel? That alone could account for a lot of the differences you see between cooking methods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top