KCBS Survey On Possible Pork Rule Change

[thirdeye]

Check your in-box, I got my e-mail this morning with the online survey. Here is the question on the table:

2. The Rules Committee has discussed possibly recommending a change to the Pork rule and would like your preference of the following (4 options)

* Leave as is: Pork is defined as Boston Butt, Boston Roast, Picnic and/or Whole Shoulder, weighing a minimum of four (4) pounds at the time of inspection. After trimming, pork shall be cooked whole (bone in or bone out), however, once cooked, it may be separated and returned to the cooker at the cook’s discretion. It may be turned in chopped, pulled, chunked, sliced or a combination of any of those.

* Pork is defined as Boston Butt, Boston Roast, Picnic and/or Whole Shoulder, weighing a minimum of four (4) pounds at the time of inspection and at no time after inspection shall the cut weigh less than 4 pounds at the time the cut is placed on the pit and the cooking process has begun. Once cooked to an internal temperature of 145 degrees in the thickest part of the cut, it may be separated and returned to the cooker at the cook’s discretion. It may be turned in chopped, pulled, chunked, sliced or a combination of any of those.

* Pork is defined as Boston Butt, Boston Roast, Picnic and/or Whole Shoulder, weighing a minimum of four (4) pounds at the time of inspection. It may be turned in chopped, pulled, chunked, sliced or a combination of any of those.

* Pork is defined as Boston Butt, Boston Roast, Picnic and/or Whole Shoulder, weighing a minimum of four (4) pounds at the time of inspection. After trimming, pork shall be cooked whole (bone in or bone out), however, it may not be separated. It may be turned in chopped, pulled, chunked, sliced or a combination of any of those.

 

[midwest_kc]

I see no reason to not allow separation of pork, but even if they don't allow that, the current rule needs clarification, and I appreciate the efforts to add more verbiage around what "cooked" means.

 

[bam]

I'd go number 3

 

[midwest_kc]

I'd go number 3

I concur

 

[fwdiii]

lol.....#3 does not say the pork has to be cooked!!!!

 

[Joe Black]

That sounds like a DQ to me. I'd still say #3.

 

[Ron_L]

I'd go number 3

I don’t disagree, but to play devil’s advocate, #3 basically says “once the meat is inpected, do what ever you want”, which if fine with me, but if you go that far, why keep the 4 pounds minimum at inspection? Teams will cook just the MM anyway, so why go through the pretense of keeping it above 4 pounds?

 

[nautique1228]

i voted 3, mainly to keep it simple. I kinda like the 145* rule but how in the hell is that ever gonna be enforced. I dont see any difference in separating the MM from pork and separating the point from the brisket. The hot n fast guys will be able to cook a couple MM in about 30 min now lol. the only reason i see for keeping the 4lbs is to make sure your actually cooking a butt and not just a loin or something. then you can separate at your own will.

 

[MikeJ65]

I'd go with: Pork is defined as Boston Butt, Boston Roast, Picnic and/or Whole Shoulder

 

[pharp]

I voted for #3.

 

[DR]

I voted #3. Im just like Ron. Get it inspected and do with it whatever you want.

 

[midwest_kc]

i voted 3, mainly to keep it simple. I kinda like the 145* rule but how in the hell is that ever gonna be enforced. I dont see any difference in separating the MM from pork and separating the point from the brisket. The hot n fast guys will be able to cook a couple MM in about 30 min now lol. the only reason i see for keeping the 4lbs is to make sure your actually cooking a butt and not just a loin or something. then you can separate at your own will.

It's virtually impossible to enforce the 145* rule. But then again, it's virtually impossible to enforce the current rule as it stands. As soon as you get meat inspected, would be incredibly difficult to tell if the MM is removed immediately and cooked later.

 

[Atlasman]

Because of the current wording just saying "at the time of inspection" are guys having 4 lb butts inspected and then just cutting off and cooking MM only??

Seems legal by current wording...........and I'm guessing that's what they are trying to avoid right??

 

[Ron_L]

Because of the current wording just saying "at the time of inspection" are guys having 4 lb butts inspected and then just cutting off and cooking MM only??

Seems legal by current wording...........and I'm guessing that's what they are trying to avoid right??

I am sure that folks are doing that, but there was a rep advisory clarifying that and it stated that after inspection only trimming was allowed, not removing large sections fo the butt.

 

[Rusty Kettle]

I hope they leave it alone. Kind of screws me up if I have to wait for the thickest part of the butt to be 145. Just saying It's going to be a problem for me. Back to the drawing board I suppose.

 

[ronbrad62]

I would absolutely go with #3. Just define it, inspect it and turn me loose. Let me cook whichever part of it that I want, and just like turning in skinless chicken, if the judge wants to ding me for what I did or didn't attempt to cook, it is at my risk.

 

[egorham]

The problem I had with the survey is that all of the answers, with the exception of number 2, seem to be purposely ambiguous. Was this done to push people to choose number 2? If the intent of 3 is to allow separating why not just get rid of the 4 lb language altogether or specifically say separating after inspection is allowed?

If they don't want to allow separating until it is cooked go with 2 if they want to allow separating say that (or remove the 4 lb language) in rule 3. I really don't want to see an ambiguous rule replaces with another ambiguous rule.

 

[pharp]

The problem I had with the survey is that all of the answers, with the exception of number 2, seem to be purposely ambiguous. Was this done to push people to choose number 2? If the intent of 3 is to allow separating why not just get rid of the 4 lb language altogether or specifically say separating after inspection is allowed?

If they don't want to allow separating until it is cooked go with 2 if they want to allow separating say that (or remove the 4 lb language) in rule 3. I really don't want to see an ambiguous rule replaces with another ambiguous rule.

I kind of thought the same thing when I read through. But then I decided that option 3 was only ambiguous because we know the ambiguity of the current rule.At least for me, if I take option 3 as written and ignore the current rule I can live with it.

 

[Bob in Corona]

Glad to see this judge's input (#3) follows the general trend.

 

[Slamdunkpro]

Anyone ever seen a meat inspector with a scale?
Anyone ever seen a rep spot check a cooker?

Does it really matter what the rule reads?