Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Slow-roasted, brined, pulled pork


jonnymikes
 Share

Recommended Posts

. I was going to dry rub it and then cook it in the oven after browning on low temp for a loooooong time. We got pork butt so theres a nice amount of fat on it meaning moisture loss is not something im worried about. I was then going to make my own bbq sauce of some sort and finish it with that.

That sounds like a sound strategy. The thing is, a nice fatty marbled pork butt cooked low and slow is one of those cuts that doesn't need brine for tenderness. That said,if you're devoted to H20 and NaCl, go for it and report back.

Margaret McArthur

"Take it easy, but take it."

Studs Terkel

1912-2008

A sensational tennis blog from freakyfrites

margaretmcarthur.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, LindaK, That is the article. I was shown that by a guy who is moderator at http://www.smoked-meat.com/ and at http://forums.cooking.com/?icid=CKTABCOMMTY and is himself a professional at smoking, participating in BBQ contests both as a participant and as a qualified (KCBC) judge and is a maker and seller of BBQ rubs, brines and smoked meats.

Edited by Norm Matthews (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the link Norm intended: Smoke flavored foods may be toxic

That article is certainly one of the least informative articles I've read recently! It only throws doubt into the minds of people without providing any information to act on. Kind of sounds like how the EU operates in general!

I've learned that artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cook pork shoulder often, either on the grill with indirect heat, or in the oven. My procedure, which has proven itself over time, is a dry rub 24 hours ahead of time, wrapped tightly in plastic and stuck in the fridge; roasted low-and-slow (I tend to start at 200, and bump it up, 25 degrees an hour, until it finishes about 350 to develop a nice crust; on my barrel grill I just heap coals as far to each end as I can and put the shoulder in the middle. I find about five or six hours gives it the right level of pull-apartness. I will often baste with a vinegar-based sauce, every hour or so.

You can make up for the lack of "real" smoke by adding a healthy portion of smoked pimenton to your dry rub.

Don't ask. Eat it.

www.kayatthekeyboard.wordpress.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok so ive decided to just stick to a dry rub and then go the long and slow method in the oven at a low temp, gradually increasing it to get that crust as suggested.

Im gonna then make a bbq sauce that i can slather on the meat which should keep it moist throughout and be able to build up flavor . wish me luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

id consider this:

when you consider its 'done' low and slow, maybe open the foil a little bit and to a fork full

when its done that way

save all the 'Jus' and then crank up the oven to high heat to get that sear, then add your finishing sauce

for only a few mins at high to get a glaze

glaze is not the same as burnt!

those saved 'jus' after the so good item rests at room temp

pour that over the teased pork

we would all like to see pics

well maybe just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so here are the results of the pulled pork!

Dry rubbed it with a mixture of paprika, dried rosemary,ground cumin, ground coriander, caraway seeds, garlic powder, nutmeg, allspice salt and pepper. IMG_2741.JPG

I wanted fennel but i couldnt find any. I rubbed this in over night and in the morning put it in my roasting pan, covered with foil and let it sit at 225F. IMG_2742.JPG I came back from school and made my bbq sauce which had pumpkin spice ale (a home brew gone somewhat wrong, ketchup, tamarind concentrate (can probably leave this out), leftover spice mix, light and dark soy sauce, siracha for the heat along with 3 Serrano chilies, brown sugar, honey and a little extra salt and pepper oh and hickory liquid smoke. IMG_2743.JPG Overall very tasty though i realized i was a little heavy handed on the salt so next time should cut that out. Basted the pork about 4 times every 30 mins and by that time it was pull-able. Total cooking time in the oven about 5hrs and 30 mins.

IMG_2745.JPG

Made a side slaw with cabbage, celery, tomatoes, onions, parsley, lime juice, olive oil, sesame oil, salt and pepper.

IMG_2746.JPG

IMG_2747.JPG

IMG_2748.JPG

Edited by piracer (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, LindaK, That is the article. I was shown that by a guy who is moderator at http://www.smoked-meat.com/ and at http://forums.cooking.com/?icid=CKTABCOMMTY and is himself a professional at smoking, participating in BBQ contests both as a participant and as a qualified (KCBC) judge and is a maker and seller of BBQ rubs, brines and smoked meats.

You are making an argument from authority using an anonymous individual. That's a logical fallacy not even done well.

First off, if I believed every pop-press covered "study" that said things were bad for me, I'd be down to eating just radishes and dirt. I need to see a very well controlled experiment that has proven to have reproducable results.

Secondly, liquid smoke like you buy in the store has exactly the same contents as smoke that you would produce on the smoker because it is just smoke that was pumped into a hyperhumdified room and distilled. So, frankly I don't believe any study that says one if fine and the other detrimental unless they can provide a proposed property or mechanism by which one would act on the body differently.

Finally, I think all of you who like to get self righteous about "food safety" need to read up on Jonathan Schooler's work on the "decline effect". Schoolers's studies suggest that a lot of these studies that are pimped in the popular press (and even by govt agencies) are single, small sample studies. They get picked up by journals because they show large effects that are statistically significant. Unfortunately, 1000s of studies could have been done on the same subject but most of them find no effect and are therefore often not even submitted for publication. This causes the statistical outlier studies to be the ones most likely to be published.

This effect is why we hear about so many items that are "bad" for you only to hear years later that that is incorrect.

Edited by BadRabbit (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, LindaK, That is the article. I was shown that by a guy who is moderator at http://www.smoked-meat.com/ and at http://forums.cooking.com/?icid=CKTABCOMMTY and is himself a professional at smoking, participating in BBQ contests both as a participant and as a qualified (KCBC) judge and is a maker and seller of BBQ rubs, brines and smoked meats.

You are making an argument from authority using an anonymous individual. That's a logical fallacy not even done well.

First off, if I believed every pop-press covered "study" that said things were bad for me, I'd be down to eating just radishes and dirt. I need to see a very well controlled experiment that has proven to have reproducable results.

Secondly, liquid smoke like you buy in the store has exactly the same contents as smoke that you would produce on the smoker because it is just smoke that was pumped into a hyperhumdified room and distilled. So, frankly I don't believe any study that says one if fine and the other detrimental unless they can provide a proposed property or mechanism by which one would act on the body differently.

Finally, I think all of you who like to get self righteous about "food safety" need to read up on Jonathan Schooler's work and what he proposes are the seasons for the "decline effect". Schooler suggests that a lot of these studies that are pimped in the popular press (and even by govt agencies) are single, small sample studies. They get picked up by journals because they show large effects that are statistically significant. Unfortunately, 1000s of studies could have been done on the same subject but most of them find no effect and are therefore often not even submitted for publication. This causes the statistical outlier studies to be the ones most likely to be published.

This effect is why we hear about so many items that are "bad" for you only to hear years later that that is incorrect.

Here's one of Schooler's articles in Nature where he proposes ways to study this issue to determine if his interpretation of the reasons for the decline effect are correct:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/470437a.html

Edited by BadRabbit (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole gist of what I was attempting to say is that brining is not really necessary for pork shoulder that is properly smoked because of fat content and that real smoke is preferable to bottled smoke, in my opinion.

BR I didn't name the individual because I didn't have his permission to do so, not because I was trying to manulipate anything. Since he posted in a public forum, I guess I can give you the link to the "anonymous individual" and some of the discussion that followed. I think you are finding an excuse to put down the topic and jumping to your own conclusions by taking an individual statement and dismissing it by associating it with equally broad vague statements about research and the press.

However, I agree that it is unfortunate that the press tends to comment- sometimes wrongly- on the synopsis of the research instead of publishing the whole technical aspects of testing, hypotheses, methods, procedures and results but that is an unfortunate fact of life.

.

Here is a discussion with the original person 'not named above" with a lay panel about the article.

http://forums.cooking.com/showthread.php?t=8113&highlight=liquid+smoke

Here are a couple of excerpts.

Originally Posted by Norm

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't liquid smoke made with natural smoke just like any other smoked product such as chipotle peppers?

Yes, Norm, but in manufacturing more of the nasties tend to be included than you'd deposit on food smoked naturally, requiring filtering and such in the liquid form. Therein lies the problem- having to remove components, and how well it is accomplished.

__________________

The process for distilling LS tends to increase the benzo/benzine forms is what I read..and those are the worst.

Edited by Norm Matthews (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told offhand by a chemical engineer who worked in an oil refinery that the reason he doesn't drink soda or carbonated beverages with CO2 injected into them is because the CO2 is taken as a by product from the refinery and isn't filtered nor are there any regulations surrounding it.

Don't know if its entirely true but since im not one to drink a lot of pop anyway i dont mind. But I agree with Norm; whilst i'm not too worried about the liquid smoke since i don't plan on eating it every day, who knows what goes into the processing portion aside what is being listed on the bottles.

ANYWAY, next time i think ill also add a little apple puree instead of the tamarind which was a little too strong. Fruity flavor would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole gist of what I was attempting to say is that brining is not really necessary for pork shoulder that is properly smoked because of fat content and that real smoke is preferable to bottled smoke, in my opinion.

BR I didn't name the individual because I didn't have his permission to do so, not because I was trying to manulipate anything. Since he posted in a public forum, I guess I can give you the link to the "anonymous individual" and some of the discussion that followed. I think you are finding an excuse to put down the topic and jumping to your own conclusions by taking an individual statement and dismissing it by associating it with equally broad vague statements about research and the press.

However, I agree that it is unfortunate that the press tends to comment- sometimes wrongly- on the synopsis of the research instead of publishing the whole technical aspects of testing, hypotheses, methods, procedures and results but that is an unfortunate fact of life.

.

Here is a discussion with the original person 'not named above" with a lay panel about the article.

http://forums.cooking.com/showthread.php?t=8113&highlight=liquid+smoke

Here are a couple of excerpts.

Originally Posted by Norm

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't liquid smoke made with natural smoke just like any other smoked product such as chipotle peppers?

Yes, Norm, but in manufacturing more of the nasties tend to be included than you'd deposit on food smoked naturally, requiring filtering and such in the liquid form. Therein lies the problem- having to remove components, and how well it is accomplished.

__________________

The process for distilling LS tends to increase the benzo/benzine forms is what I read..and those are the worst.

I would need to see some pretty well performed research to convince me that the small difference in the amount of benzine forms would be significant on health (unless I'm planning on drinking liquid smoke daily with breakfast or cooking all of my food in a brine of pure LS). In addition, it should be easy to test to see if that more benzine forms are even present in the final product but you've provided no evidence that this is the case other than an "authority" on an internet message board.

All of this reasearch would have to be expansive and reproduced many times for me to be so convinced that I would suggest that others advocating its use were appalling me. I've seen far too many of these studies convince people to rage against a perceived danger just to be shown to be incorrect later. I've found however that the food preachers are willing to jump on any study that enables them to once more declare some product an edible sin.

Edited for clarity

Edited by BadRabbit (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps 'appalled' was too strong a word. i was just shaking my head at the suggestion of brining a pork butt then adding liquid smoke when neither were really needed. Well and properly smoked pork shoulder (butt) is delicious without either being necessary. Oven slow cooked with a BBQ sauce added is good too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps 'appalled' was too strong a word. i was just shaking my head at the suggestion of brining a pork butt then adding liquid smoke when neither were really needed. Well and properly smoked pork shoulder (butt) is delicious without either being necessary. Oven slow cooked with a BBQ sauce added is good too.

I agree smoking is better. The OP said he didn't have the means to smoke so alternatives were given. Roasted pork shoulder while delicious really doesn't approach the full flavor of pulled pork for BBQ hence the suggestion for adding smoky flavor through LS.

As for the brining, I prefer my butt brined and I've been preparing smoked butt for 20 years and I know for a fact that several very famous BBQ joints in my area use brines for their pulled pork. To dismiss it as an illegitimate or useless technique is ridiculous.

Edited by BadRabbit (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...