leejp Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 I think I'm going to try a chuck roll this weekend. Just to check.. I want the meat sold as boneless chuck roast , stuff they usually make hamberger out of... correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Both times I've purchased one (once at Sam's, once at BJ's) I had to ask the butcher specifically for a "Chuck Roll". Both times they went into the back were they keep all their dark secrets, and came back with an 18lb cryovac labelled "Chuck Roll". So, be sure to ask and get that exact cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porkchop Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 ditto that jack! another member of the "chuck roll club" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 The chuck roll is an impressive cut... I've got 3 and a half bags of it left to eat on for my lunches... I think this thing will literally feed me for a month... and that's after the extended family's had three meals off of it. And it's all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeDJ16 Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 ?? Just curious, is it moist enough not to need sauce? Would you compare it to the brisket tip? -=Jasen=- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 It's totally moist and doesn't need sauce. However, I now have a mason jar of spicy dixie sauce I have to use up, thanks to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porkchop Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 jasen- it's very moist, but the texture is more robust than chopped brisket. the meat fibers are thicker by a bit, so it isn't as stringy or mushy like chopped brisket can be. the texture is very much like pulled pork, but with a very nice beefy-ness! i'd still sauce it tho; something lexington-style; lil tomato, little sweetness, lotsa vinegar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leejp Posted July 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 Went to the butcher tonight... Went to the butcher tonight, got the chuck roll and I sort of chickened out... He brought out a 21# Cryovac chuck roll. Man that is a caveman cut of meat. I did buy it. $1.89/#. Here's the chickening out part... It's just the 4 of us and we're not planning on any company tomorrow so I had him cut it in 1/2. I'll do one tomorow and freeze the other one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leejp Posted July 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 Success! The 10# went 10hrs to get to 190* with the cooker cooker at ~250*. It pulled well and was very moist but there was still a lot of fat/connecting tissue when I pulled. I suspect a lower, longer cook would've yielded a better. I really like it. The bark is more robust and flavorful and I swear the meat was more tender than pork butt or brisket. I gotta thank porkchop for turning me onto this. My wife is really not a big fan of bark and prefers the inner meat instead (oh, the humanity!!!). She didn't think it was better/worse than pork butt. Perhaps a little more "flavor neutral". I think this is an ideal dish for a large gathering. It's a very forgiving cut of meat so timing for guests is less problematic and there is always someone in a large gathering who won't can't eat swine. It can literally feed an army. I think my "chickening out" may have inadvertently been a good move. It "splits" extremely well. The fat/connecting tissue is marbleized throughout and I'll bet I can take a 20 pounder and cut it into 1/3s and do very predictable 9hr cook. If you like the bark/more smoky flavor, than splitting the large cut will certainly yield more of it. Why fuss over a cooker overnight if one doesn't have to? No pics for this cook though... I was too lazy to wash my hands multiple times (don't want to handle my photo equipment with greasy hands). Since my wife is not a big fan of the bark... when I pulled, I stacked these bits apart from the "heart" meat and food-saved them into a different bag. I think I'll make burnt ends with these for lunch one of these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porkchop Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 you are right on 2 things, i figure: 1) very forgiving 2) longer cook would have rendered out more fat and broken down more connective tissue that's the beauty of this things size and overall uniform shape. because you can really take your time with this beast, the internal temps get to sit at plateau for a loooooong time, and all that connective tissue breaks down nice. do a whole one sometime for a party! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 So then... what's the difference? You saw my pics... 18lb roast falling apart in flaky juicy strings... cooked (by y'alls standards) hot and fast... 350F for 7 to 9 hours... I'm just wondering what is the point of these ultra-extended low temperature cooks when a hotter-faster cook seemed to have magnificent results? What is it that I am missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leejp Posted July 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 So then... what's the difference. You saw my pics... 18lb roast falling apart in flaky juicy strings... cooked (by y'alls standards) hot and fast... 350F for 7 to 9 hours... I'm just wondering what is the point of these ultra-extended low temperature cooks when a hotter-faster cook seemed to have magnificent results? What is it that I am missing? Mine looked pretty much like yours. It fell apart and pulled beautifully on the outside and got progressively firmer towards the middle (still pulled though). I suspect that a longer/slower cook would have allowed for better temperature distribution throughout and a "flatter temperature gradient". With the remaining 1/2 (recall that I bought a 21# roll and had the butcher cut it in two and just cooked one). I think I'll definately cut it in 1/2 still before cooking. That'll be 2 ~5# which is about the size of a smallest pork butt I've done. I'm going to try both at 7~8hrs. I think the advantages will be a quicker cook, more bark yielded, more smoke/rub flavor. I can't think of any disadvantages. So far as I can tell the chuck roll is a very consistent/homogeneous cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porkchop Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 So then... what's the difference? You saw my pics... 18lb roast falling apart in flaky juicy strings... cooked (by y'alls standards) hot and fast... 350F for 7 to 9 hours... I'm just wondering what is the point of these ultra-extended low temperature cooks when a hotter-faster cook seemed to have magnificent results? What is it that I am missing? dude, don't question it! wasn't being dogmatic, just "supposin'"! these ain't big macs; not every one is the same. always more than one way to skin a cat, yknow! only way to settle this is for you to do one low and slow, and me to do one hot and fast! that's why it's called the learning place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 I know, I know, I was ASKIN'... even if it did come off sounding obstinate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porkchop Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 didn't sound obstinate. i just was trying to say "i don't know" in a way that doesn't make me sound dumb. i dont question the meat on my smoker anymore. let it cook the way it wants to cook; worry makes the meat tough! i think we get caught up in the "rules" of bbq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leejp Posted July 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 Bigger Window... Having done several of these collectively between us... I think we can safely agree that this is a much more forgiving cut than Brisket and maybe ever Pork Shoulder. There's just a bigger window of opportunity for success. I've had hungry guests waiting for Brisket. That is a cut of meat that just wont' listen to a chef's desperation. Thus far... the chuck roll behaves much better. If my next cook (recall I'll be doing 2x5#ers, cut from a 21#er) is as sucessful, I'll be doing a LOT of chuck roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
