I have always heard low and slow is best to allow the meat to break down yet I hear a lot of about Hot and Fast these days. I have been cooking on a LANG and low and slow is the game and never have had a bad turn out. I started getting into competitive cooking and wanted portability, so I purchased a PBC. I struggle to keep it under 320 and I became so frustrated with the temp control, that I purchased a Hunsaker Drum and I am now back into my low and slow method. Seems to be two different camps on one vs the other method. So my question to this group is, what do you prefer and why?
-
33Low & Slow75.76%25Hot & Fast24.24%8 -
I voted hot and fast
but
really depends on the Cooker I am using and where it is comfortable running without much fighting or tinkering. -
For me, it depends on what I am cooking. Brisket & ribs - low & slow all the way. But a skirt steak - crank it up to warp 10!Comment
-
Oh boy here we go. I'm tempted to sit on the sideline and watch. Don't have any popcorn or a cold beer though so guess I'll pontificate instead. Saying that I'm this way or that way is the equivalent of choosing which child you love the most. I choose not to vote but to embrace all methods as long as the net result works. The classic example is brisket. Do you cook it hot and fast or do you cook it low and slow. Or can it be done sous vide? Or maybe a long braise in the oven for a classic Sunday roast. Every single one of those methods produces a great brisket if done properly. It's just a matter of taste and what you want to achieve in the end result.
So I abstain from this vote. I can produce a low and slow and hot and fast comparison, blind fold you and you probably 9 times out of 10 won't know the difference.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled program (he now steps down off his soap box).
Comment
-
If I was still running my offset from 20+ years ago I would say low and slow. My PBC Jr runs hotter than you would think it should be but turns out remarkable results and its fast.
I only monitor the drum temp to alert me if something goes wrong.
It's the end results that count.
Comment
-
Never tried hot and fast so I can't compare.Comment
-
I voted low-n-slow but I've done both. Usually depends on what I'm cooking and how much time I have. I think you can get good results using either method.
Comment
-
Voted LnS but plan to try a pork shoulder at 275 next time.Comment
-
I voted L&S, but I have been slowly raising the temps in my cooks. I am not to H&F yet, but I am hoping to knock a few hours off my cooks.Comment
-
Ok my question would be that in the KBQ auto feeder thread alot of responders post that baby sitting the fire is considered quality time so I would assume that a low and slow cook is more enjoyable due to the longer quality time spent cooking. Myself I prefer to sleep during brisket and pork butt cooks and have no problem scheduling them to be done in plenty of time, I will cook chicken and if I have to do burgers then those are hot and fastComment
-
isu006 I think you are confusing the intent of hot and fast versus low and slow. Trying to control the temp on the PBC is part of your problem. My understanding (I don't have one) is that due to the moist environment inside the PBC, with its lack of exhaust, it can get away with cooking some things at temperatures that might dry it out on another smoker.
Hot and fast is what you WANT for chicken. And I think places like the Rendezvous in Memphis have proven that hot and fast can work for ribs. And some like Aaron Franklin have proved it out with brisket. I myself have unintentionally done above 300F on a Boston butt and had it come out great.
Something to note with the PBC is that all the PBC instructional videos, where he cooks things like brisket and butts in < 8 hours, include a wrap in foil at the stall, and moving the meat to the grate. That probably helps keep the brisket or butt moist and also helps finish it on one load of charcoal in the PBC.
All that said, with my smokers (an offset and kettle+SNS), I go for "hot" (325+) for chicken, otherwise I let it run anywhere from 225-275, for ribs, brisket, butts, etc.Comment
-
I guess I will have to go with "hot and fast." I rarely try to cook anything at 225 anymore, unless I just need to stall to get the timing right to serve the meal.Comment
-
I've branched out to a Blackstone, a kettle low and slow and a kettle with the gourmet grate and a vortex (with the griddle, wok and stone), and a custom charcoal burner without an offset but wide, and am building a UDS. So...
It depends, but not just for meat. I'm learning to diversify our meals and stay out of the kitchen with Asian-Pacific dishes, smoked pasta, classic Irish stuff done on coals, same with beans, etc.
Poultry and Fish - H&F
Sausages - L&S
Burgers - H&F
Beef & Pork - L&S
Beef 'broil-type' cuts (London Broil, Flank, etc.) - H&F
Steaks - SnS
Beans, Veggies Mixes in Pasta / Rice / Couscous - L&S
Solo Veggies - Asparagus, Brussels - H&F
There are rules, and books by authors with opinions - they're all right, it's all up to debate, and whoever has an opinion different than yours, is wrong.Comment
-
Here I think is a graph that clearly illustrates the problem.....
of course there are some that would dispute this solution so the boys at the Electronics Work Team have come up with this dandy flow chart for a 2 digit 7 segment up and down counter where you plug in your protein and out spits the temp for cooking....
at the end of the day, if you think THAT is a dangled mess, try fixing this girl's hairdo every morning !!!
PEACE OUT !!!!
Comment
-
For pork butts we like a 225-250 cook the best, even if it does take a long time. I've done a 275-300 cook and the flavor we like just wasn't there. My wife described it as having a roasted flavor. It was still tasty, just not what we prefer.Comment
Comment