cruzmisl Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Hi, I usually do my pok butts boneless but was curious if having the bone in makes a difference. Any ideas? Thanks, Joe
ThreeDJ16 Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Re: Pork butt - bone in or not? Hi, I usually do my pok butts boneless but was curious if having the bone in makes a difference. Any ideas? Thanks, Joe Bone-in absolutely! Mo flavor! -=Jasen=-
bobvoeh Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 I do mine bone in. Just go by the internal temp. Take the temp in different places, when it reads 190, its ready for pulling apart. Having the bone in might make it take longer, but IMHO the finished product is the same.
cruzmisl Posted June 8, 2008 Author Report Posted June 8, 2008 Sounds good. I'll give it a shot. I usually pull mine at 195. Is 190 good enough?
Firemonkey Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 With a bone, you have an advantage (Did I just say that in a thread where a guy has Beavis as his avatar?!? ) When the center is ready to pull easily, the bone will twist and pull out with little resistance. If you can pick it up with the bone, its not ready,
bobvoeh Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 With a bone' date=' you have an advantage (Did I just say that in a thread where a guy has Beavis as his avatar?!? ) When the center is ready to pull easily, the bone will twist and pull out with little resistance. If you can pick it up with the bone, its not ready,[/quote'] Boingyoingyoingyoing heh heh heh heh, he said bone.
ThreeDJ16 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 I don't think you could find any chef that will tell you a roast without a bone is better or as good as a roast with the bone left in. Why else would we use the bone for soups and stews? It breaks down and adds flavor! So leave that bone in!!!! Just don't stick your thermometer next to the bone or else it will read low. Heh, hehe, heh...he said bone! BTW, I really do miss Beavis and Butthead. King of the Hill is such a sell out, bull crap show to move on too for Mike Judge. -=Jasen=-
Conodo12 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 For me, at the end of the day, I always feel better with the bone left in!!!
ThreeDJ16 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 For me' date=' at the end of the day, I always feel better with the bone left in!!! [/quote'] Wow, that definitely fall in the category of TMI (to much information)! -=Jasen=-
primeats Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Cooking with the bone can only take longer, and in this case thats a good thing! slower and lower is what BBQing is all about! Boy if Pork chop or Syzisomething were "here" they would chime in with lots of technical jargon. IT JUST TASTES BETTER! But the worst it could be boneless, is Pretty Damn Good of which I'm sure you could probably attest.
DennisLinkletter Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Thermal Conduction - Bone in more Juicy! Sorry guys I'm going to have to toss in my 2¢ here.. Conduction: Heat travels through a solid/dense materials fastest. Therefore the bone will absorb and transmit heat to the inside of your meat cooking it from within. Just as sticking a large nail into a potato will reduce it's cooking time. So leave that bone in your meat.. It will get it to your target temps quicker which means that it will also loose less moisture. Bone in = hot faster, results juicier!
Sanny Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Well, I do bone out. Why? Because my usual sources of butt (Costco, Genuardi's...) have already hacked the butt to death by the time I get it. I have to tie it with string to keep it a uniform shape for cookin. On the plus side (one does try to find one, of course), I can put my bbq rub on the inside of the meat, too, before I tie it.
ThreeDJ16 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Re: Thermal Conduction - Bone in more Juicy! Sorry guys I'm going to have to toss in my 2¢ here.. Conduction: Heat travels through a solid/dense materials fastest. Therefore the bone will absorb and transmit heat to the inside of your meat cooking it from within. Just as sticking a large nail into a potato will reduce it's cooking time. So leave that bone in your meat.. It will get it to your target temps quicker which means that it will also loose less moisture. Bone in = hot faster, results juicier! While I am not gonna disagree with your final argument....bone-in =better, but gonna disagree with getting there. If the bone was made of solid dense metal I would agree with you, but it is hollow and porous (more of an insulator). When I cook a shoulder verses a butt of approximate equal size, the shoulder always takes several hours longer and has a much higher bone content. Also when you stick the thermometer next to the bone, it will read lower not higher. Not sure I can think of anything that actually cooks faster with the bone in verses bone out? When you cook a chicken, the bone joint is always the last place to get done and where you generally check too? -=Jasen=-
Fetzervalve Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Re: Thermal Conduction - Bone in more Juicy! While I am not gonna disagree with your final argument.... Uh oh, here comes the ban hammer! Oops wrong forum...
bobvoeh Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Re: Thermal Conduction - Bone in more Juicy! Sorry guys I'm going to have to toss in my 2¢ here.. Conduction: Heat travels through a solid/dense materials fastest. Therefore the bone will absorb and transmit heat to the inside of your meat cooking it from within. Just as sticking a large nail into a potato will reduce it's cooking time. So leave that bone in your meat.. It will get it to your target temps quicker which means that it will also loose less moisture. Bone in = hot faster, results juicier! While I am not gonna disagree with your final argument....bone-in =better, but gonna disagree with getting there. If the bone was made of solid dense metal I would agree with you, but it is hollow and porous (more of an insulator). When I cook a shoulder verses a butt of approximate equal size, the shoulder always takes several hours longer and has a much higher bone content. Also when you stick the thermometer next to the bone, it will read lower not higher. Not sure I can think of anything that actually cooks faster with the bone in verses bone out? When you cook a chicken, the bone joint is always the last place to get done and where you generally check too? -=Jasen=- I gotta go with DJ on this one, last butt I did, the temp took longer to come up all around the bone. That didn't sound right
primeats Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Jasen you are correct, the bone does act as an insulator, slowing down the process, it also has a fair amount of moisture to contribute to the whole product,from the bone itself and the cartilage and any connective tissue that would be removed when taking the bone out
johnnyboy Posted June 10, 2008 Report Posted June 10, 2008 I'm sorry Dennis I'm sorry Dennis they had to prove you wrong on your Birithday of all days. hehe-he But, what the heck; Happy Birthday anyway. Cheers!
primeats Posted June 10, 2008 Report Posted June 10, 2008 Dennis was just testing us to make sure we were paying attention! happy birthday pal!
DennisLinkletter Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Hey I've never cooked with a bone in! Dennis was just testing us to make sure we were paying attention! happy birthday pal! Hey the only thing I've ever cooked with bones are lamb legs and ribs.. That's the danger with having great common sense. In my mind bones are dense and solid.. I thought they have to lay around for years in the dessert to become porous and insulating.. Oh well.. if you only told me up front you have wimpy lightweight bones..
