What's your opinion on...

[Candy Sue]

The Pork Rule?

Do you believe that the current pork rule regarding the non-reheating of separated pork is important? If so, why? What about the pork collar prohibition?

Thanks!

[boogiesnap]

i agree with it. i'd maybe even lean so far as to say the pork category should be whole shoulder cooked whole. period.


anyway, how is such a rule enforced? there's no real way.
unfortunately though it is a slippery slope if you remove it altogether. pretty soon i would imagine there would be alot of tenderloin being cooked and turned in.

however, if you can slice a brisket, put it in beef broth, and reheat, why not pork? should be 1 or the other IMHO, but not different for each category.

i'm not touching collar.

[bover]

Originally Posted by Candy Sue

The Pork Rule?

Do you believe that the current pork rule regarding the non-reheating of separated pork is important? If so, why? What about the pork collar prohibition?

Thanks!

As for the parting and reheating, it seems to me that a rule that is nearly impossible to enforce is a rule that shouldn't exist. What was the original intent behind it anyway?

[Jeff_in_KC]

Josh, you probably have to get it from someone who's been around KCBS for 20 years or so but best I recall, it had something to do with proving what part of the pork a team was cooking. Bunny Tuttle is a good person to talk to about this. Maybe she will chime in on this. But the way I see it, if I want to separate every muscle in the butt or shoulder, why would it make any difference? I don't think I would, at risk of drying them out but does it really matter? I don't believe it does. The rule is not enforeable in the first place. Currently, I put my chicken back on. I put my cut ribs back on to set the glaze a bit and I put my burnt ends in a foil pouch to keep them hot while I'm getting everything else ready for the brisket turn-in. There's no solid reason that I know of why pork could not be the same.

Pork collar, though... that's not a legal cut and should not be allowed. Problem is, the average meat inspectior, who, upon looking at a small section of meat that cooks pull up out of the ice during inspections, deems it legal, could in no way determine if it was a butt or something else. I'm not sure it's enforceable and I am not in favor of opening it up to just be "Pork". Don't wanna see pork chops or bacon as an entry. That's not barbecue. Same goes for beef... how long before we see steak turned in? Allowing additional cuts or opening it up wide is a dangerous precident to set. Chicken is different though... any piece of chicken is sufficiently like any other piece that it doesn't matter. Bacon is a lot different than a butt.

[YankeeBBQ]

Originally Posted by Candy Sue

The Pork Rule?

Do you believe that the current pork rule regarding the non-reheating of separated pork is important? If so, why? What about the pork collar prohibition?

Thanks!

I think it's important we get rid of it so that our rules are consistent across the board. Making special rules to keep cheaters from cheating isn't very effective if the rule is unenforceable. There are legitimate reasons for separating muscles of the butt that are well within the spirit of bbq and competitions. As far as I know (I've never seen a pork collar in person) pork collar is not part of the Picnic, Butt or Whole Shoulder and therefore is not a legal cut of meat.

[Scottie]

I like both rules. No need to change.

[Cue's Your Daddy]

Why was the parting of pork rule put into effect in the 1st place. I understand the pork collar rule and agree with it.

[Tarheel]

Originally Posted by Cue's Your Daddy

Why was the parting of pork rule put into effect in the 1st place. I understand the pork collar rule and agree with it.

The best I remember it was because people were parting there pork out into smaller pieces in an effort to get more bark.

Personally I see no difference between the pork and the brisket. If you can take a brisket and cut the point off and put it back on the cooker why should you not be able to do the same with a piece of pork.

The way the rule is now you cant even try to keep it warm by putting it back on the cooker or in a warming box once you have pulled it.

[boogiesnap]

i thought it was to prevent tenderloins being cooked.

it wasn't about "parting" but about the actual cut of meat being put on the cooker.

but, it's before my time.

[Rookie'48]

As far as the "parting" rule goes, try this one on for size:

I butterfly a butt, leaving the money muscle attached by a very thin strip but it's still attached.

I apply rub to all exposed surfaces of the butt for maximum bark.

When the money muscle is at the temp that I want it I open the smoker, grab the muscle in my left hand, cut the thin connecting tissue with the knife in my right hand, remove the money muscle and close the smoker door.

I now have in my hand a well cooked money muscle that has bark and a smoke ring all the way around it (or so close to all the way that you'd really have to look) and still have the remainder of the butt in the smoker.

I have not "returned" any meat to the smoker after "parting".

Am I legal or not???

I think that this would follow the strict letter of the rule while it probably does violate the intent, whatever the intent was when it was passed. As others have said it's not consistent with the rules for other categories so why have it for pork?

[YankeeBBQ]

Originally Posted by Rookie'48

As far as the "parting" rule goes, try this one on for size:

I butterfly a butt, leaving the money muscle attached by a very thin strip but it's still attached.

I apply rub to all exposed surfaces of the butt for maximum bark.

When the money muscle is at the temp that I want it I open the smoker, grab the muscle in my left hand, cut the thin connecting tissue with the knife in my right hand, remove the money muscle and close the smoker door.

I now have in my hand a well cooked money muscle that has bark and a smoke ring all the way around it (or so close to all the way that you'd really have to look) and still have the remainder of the butt in the smoker.

I have not "returned" any meat to the smoker after "parting".

Am I legal or not???

I think that this would follow the strict letter of the rule while it probably does violate the intent, whatever the intent was when it was passed. As others have said it's not consistent with the rules for other categories so why have it for pork?

Clearly not Legal if you read the rule as written. It says and I quote "Pork shall be cooked whole (bone in or bone out) and shall not be separated during the cooking process." The part about pork being returned to a cooker is in another sentence. "At no time shall the meat once separated be returned to a cooker."

[Cue's Your Daddy]

I think I should have clarified my question a little. What was it that made the powers that be implement a rule in which pork can not be parted? Did something hqppen at a contest or was there a complaint filed somehow. I understand why people part pork, and the purpose of parting all makes sense but it seems that NOT allowing people to have the option to part pork doesn't. The rule is the rule, but I am just wondering why parting is a bad thing and it almost seems that the only answer that I have come up with is "because it is".

[swamprb]

Just curious how many of you have actually cooked a pork collar, CT Butt, collar trim or Close Trim Butt as I've seen them described or labeled?

It seems like the big deal was the 4 pounders from Snake River Farms that got everyones britches in a bunch. Its not like you see them in every meat dept.

Before we get into a pi$$ing match about the legality of the cut-consider that I cook PNWBA and have only cooked a few KCBS events and I'm not going to knowingly use them. They were presented to us from our supplier as boneless Berkshire CT Butts or "close trim butts".
I'd never heard of them and made sure they weighed over 5 lbs., was told chefs rolled and tied them and sliced it like loins. This was way before the whole SRF 4lb collars came to everyones attention.
Around here they are sold in Asian Markets as Boneless Berkshire Pork Butts and usually sliced thin for Sukiyaki. They are butchered and packed in USDA facilities and sold in the US of A.

So how does the average cook looking for a different breed or grade of Pork differntiate the cuts if they are packaged as boneless butts and weigh over 5 lbs?

How can the Meat Inspector detect a packaged Pork Collar if its sold, packaged and weighs out as a 5lb Boneless Butt??

I believe David Bouska gave the BOD information regarding the Pork Collar before the ruling, and I breifly spoke to him about it at his class earlier this year, and I can live with it.
But with all the niche breed pork products that are out there its only a matter of time before someone is going to spend $25 lb for Mangalista or Mulefoot pork butts, or turn in Pork Short Ribs just to push the envelope! Hint to the KCBS Meat Inspectors working the Pacific Northwest!

I'm with Tarheel and those thanking his post regarding Pork and Brisket.

KCBS member and voting.



Wondering if Snake River Farms could be partnering with KCBS? Be a great fit!

[Jorge]

I've looked at the rule, and talked to several people about making some changes to the pork category. Feedback has ranged from do it, to leave it as is, and I'm still thinking about it.

My primary concern, and the reason I started looking at the issue has already been brought out. The rule is virtually unenforceable. Unless we pull Reps out of bed at 4AM to start looking in cookers to determine what is actually being cooked we have created a system where the playing field favors those willing to cheat, period.

When the pork collar issue was raised I ordered two to see what the issues were. The first thing I did was trim one and foodsaver it. I will tell you that in my opinion it could easily pass for a butt during meat inspection, and a conversation with someone that has forgotten more about meat and meat processing than most of us will ever collectively know, confirmed that. When I cooked them, I found areas where I believe a cook willing to cheat could gain an advantage based on what they would have available to place in the box.

If we, as an organization don't have the willingness or ability to enforce the existing rule then I think we need an honest discussion about changing the rule. I don't believe the current situation benefits the overwhelming majority of cooks that will play by the rules.

A well known cook thought about a suggestion I made that we need to open the pork category up, and thought about it for almost a week. His reply was that he couldn't support a change that would allow virtually any pork product and his reasoning was sound. He believes that we need at least two long cooks, and at the end of the day it comes down to the honor system. That carries a lot of weight with me. I'm still looking for some middle ground to adequately address all of the issues.

My current proposal would be to form a committee of cooks to review the rules annually at the end of the season. The process would be simple. In each category we would ask the top 3-5 cooks in each category to serve, and possibly allow board members to place additional cooks on the committee to hopefully balance out regional representation. Those cooks would be given 2-3 months to discuss the issues related to the rules for that category and submit one or more interim reports to the board on their progress. The final product would go to the board for a vote, and follow the current policy to insure cooks will be cooking under one set of rules for the entire season. Changes, if any, are coming from the membership and in a more timely manner than a rules meeting at the banquet.

If anyone has concerns or criticism, I'd like to hear it so that I can make changes as needed. It's a process that I think has the potential to benefit everyone.

[boogiesnap]

i agree with everything you wrote jorge, except for the 2-3 month discussion period.

i think that may be too long.

let's say a change is implemented to the pork rule after 3 months. that could put quite a crunch on teams being able to practice and perfect a "new" cook.

while you'd want a well thought out decision, maybe limit it to say 6 weeks. giving teams plenty of time in the off-season to practice or adapt to any changes.

just my 2 cents.