Cutting Boston butts in half

[fzxdoc]

Steve R.

Those butts look great. Nice to hear they were the best ever for you. That's what you want from a cook, especially with a block party to serve.
Kathryn

[Notavegan]

I bet they tore it up. Especially a block party crowd. Nice job on a planful cook.

[Steve R.]

The bark got even better a few hours later, but it was a sprint to the finish to get everything ready by mealtime, so I didn't have time for pictures. Probably the best butts I've ever smoked. These came from Restaurant Depot, so there was some difference in quality there. Honestly can't really compare the cook time to normal, since I cooked these at a lower temp in the kettle vs. the usual higher temp with logs for fuel. The finished product got great reviews from the block party crowd.

[Breadhead]

A couple of weeks ago... I cooked a pork butt in my BGE and it got done 4 hours before my serving time. Someone had just posted the idea of just turning your smoker down to 170° instead of putting it in the faux cambro. I did that because I was to busy doing other things. It worked really good.

[DWCowles]

They're looking great Steve R.

[MillerTime]

How's your cook time looking? Noticeably faster? I'll be doing this same cook tomorrow on a Kettle/SNS combo.

[kmhfive]

Wonderful bark. I'm sure it will taste even better than it looks!

[Steve R.]

The weather man was wrong on this one, but the butts are doing just fine. I like the extra bark that you gain by creating more surface area.

[Steve R.]

Plan B just became Plan A, with forecasted storms overnight tomorrow. Went ahead and cut those butts in half, dry brined, and will apply the MMD tomorrow night and let the PartyQ run the show overnight. Let 'er go at 225 as long as it takes and then faux Cambro til time to serve.

[MillerTime]

All the 9-10+ pound butts I've had simply had the bone on one end of the hunk. So if you slice it down the middle you naturally get the bone in one half and no bone in the other half. The bone is embedded within the meat, so no sides are blocked from getting bark.

[JPGators17]

MillerTime why do you leave the bone on one half? Doesn't that just block the "middle half" from getting bark? I'm thinking of deboning a couple of 10 pounders and cutting them in half.

[MillerTime]

If your butt is, say, 8" x 8" x 16", and it takes "x" amount of time, cutting it in half to make two pieces at 8" x 8" x 8" won't save any time at all, since the heat still has the same distance to travel inward (if all other variables are exactly the same- cook temp, humidity, meat emp when the cook is started, etc). You get the idea. In most cases though cutting in half will reduce some dimension of thickness, and therefore a little time, but don't expect it to "save time" in the manner you might be hoping.

I've had a much different experience then. Not only has splitting them saved me time, but the time saved is absolutely noticeable. Not exactly linear, but most definitely noticeable. I chalked it up to more surface area exposure... that middle of each half gets heated quicker when you have heat coming in from two sides now instead of one. In the same manner that it doesn't take much longer to cook two butts instead of one for a given fire, the same principles apply here assuming they are spaced apart with plenty of airflow around each. That's been my experience on a WSM 18 in GA anyway, perhaps YMMV for a different environment or scenario.

But I agree wholeheartedly on the bark comment - yummm....


Steve R. - The 8-hr window I proposed will most likely be tight without using higher heat methods as discussed. I just proposed that method assuming 1) you want to avoid overnight, and 2) you'd prefer not to get up earlier than 6ish to start building the fire (if you are like me). Didn't want to make it sound like I was guaranteeing you'd be done in 8 hours in a pure low/slow fashion, but those methods will still get you done in time if you aren't against using them.

[Huskee]

If your butt is, say, 8" x 8" x 16", and it takes "x" amount of time, cutting it in half to make two pieces at 8" x 8" x 8" won't save any time at all, since the heat still has the same distance to travel inward (if all other variables are exactly the same- cook temp, humidity, meat emp when the cook is started, etc). You get the idea. In most cases though cutting in half will reduce some dimension of thickness, and therefore a little time, but don't expect it to "save time" in the manner you might be hoping.

What I appreciate about cooking 3-5lb hunks is the extra surfaces for rub/salt/smoke. I think it makes the finished product taste better because of that. Cutting that 9lber in half gives you two extra surfaces of flavor vs doing it intact.

[Steve R.]

My Plan B is to do these on the Weber kettle starting around midnight with the PartyQ and put it on autopilot at 225. That would make life a lot easier on Saturday.

[Steve R.]

Kinda what I was thinking. Really, I'm trying to avoid an overnight cook and still get done with time to spare. And I have set the bar pretty high with previous cooks for a lot of the people in this crowd, so I definitely can't risk mediocrity!