Comparison of Low/Slow Versus Higher Temp Results?

[GoodWood]

Hi all. I am so new I don't even have a smoker yet but am moving in that direction. Spending time with this site first to try not to make too many dumb mistakes. Thanks to all of you for posting your incredible tips and insights!

One comment recently on a thread struck me where the discussion was the amount of time and temp to smoke a some pork. All the commenters said 225-250 for a slow cook. But one guy said he cooks at a higher temp for a shorter time and did not notice any difference in the final result.

Has anyone ever done a side-by-side to taste test the effect of low/slow versus higher temp cooking? Assume that two identical cuts are cooked perfectly so the only difference is the temp/duration of the cooking process itself. No other variables but the process. I realize this is a probably not possible in real life but I am reading about folks waking up at 4 am to start smoking and as I am about to start down this path, I am wondering if any data backs up the benefits of the additional time.

Thanks in advance for your input.

[Wampus]

Well, I've not done a "side by side" test, but I've done cooks at pretty much all temps and I'll tell you for sure that I've gotten just as good of results cooking a butt or brisket at 225 for 14-16 hours as I have cooking a butt or brisket at 300 for 6-8 hours. Just recently in fact.

A couple of weeks ago I wasn't in a hurry so I put some butts on the UDS and set it for 230. They ended up taking about 13 hours with no foil wrap.

This weekend, we competed and we always cook at 300 degrees. We put the butt and brisket on at 4 am and they were both off by about 10. Both were perfectly tender and flavorful.



The only real secret to good BBQ is allowing the connective tissue enough time (at whatever temperature) to break down and give up it's moisture in the meat. That can be equally achieved at lower and higher temps and will affect the time it takes to do that, depending on the cooker temp.

There's no right or wrong way, IMO, but only personal preferences.

[chromestacks]

boy, I want to sell tickets to this thread!

I have never compared side by side but have done both methods. I still cook low and slow if that tells you my prefrance. Of course I am a traditionalist and believe BBQ was meant to be low and slow. For me its about the anticipation and the amount of koolaide I can consume while "cooking" ;)

[SmittyJonz]

I can't tell much difference either but I sure like knocking out Briskets in 6-8 hrs myself. I can toss them on smoker at. 8:30-9 AM and have them for dinner that same nite. :thumb:

What type smoker are you thinking? With a UDS you can do any temp pretty much. You could try low n slow then hot n fast a exit cook and decide got yourself.

[cliffcarter]

Not a side by side test but I have cooked butts both low and slow and hot and fast and see no difference in taste. I cook them hot and fast for the obvious benefits of getting a full night's sleep and a more predictable cook time.
No, I don't cook to time so no one should be getting all "you can't cook to time, it's done when it's done", what I am saying is I can start a 9 pound butt at 8AM and be done and rested in time to eat at 5PM with out any worries. I cook at 300° give or take and average around 45-50 minutes of cook time per pound.

[Smokeoholic]

The only real secret to good BBQ is allowing the connective tissue enough time (at whatever temperature) to break down and give up it's moisture in the meat. That can be equally achieved at lower and higher temps and will affect the time it takes to do that, depending on the cooker temp.

There's no right or wrong way, IMO, but only personal preferences.


This right here ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ :bow:

[bbqmike_ny]

As you are learning to what "done" and "probe tender" really feel like, starting off low and slow gives you a bigger window to when that is, I've failed 2 briskets so far at 275+ one under, and one over, going to try low next time and hope I can get it right :) Pork butt is the easiest to get right I've found, so I'd start with that, I've done them at 300 and 240, both great.

[Wampus]

Not a side by side test but I have cooked butts both low and slow and hot and fast and see no difference in taste. I cook them hot and fast for the obvious benefits of getting a full night's sleep and a more predictable cook time.
No, I don't cook to time so no one should be getting all "you can't cook to time, it's done when it's done", what I am saying is I can start a 9 pound butt at 8AM and be done and rested in time to eat at 5PM with out any worries. I cook at 300° give or take and average around 45-50 minutes of cook time per pound.

Yeah, folks tend to get a bit worked up about the "it's done when it's done" thing around here, huh?

Sometimes it requires cooking to a schedule, as in competition cooking or cooking for dinner time. Yes, we can hold meat for a long time in a Cambro or cooler, but there's nothing wrong with planning a cook. I do it all the time, even at home. If I want to have pork ready to eat at ____, then I figure on a couple hour rest and when I want to put it on and base my cook temp off of that. I'm only able to do this because I've cooked at so many different temps.

If I want to put the stuff on before I go to bed and I have 10-12 hours, I'll cook at 225-230. If I don't get to it or don't feel like putting it on until I wake up, I'll crank it up to 280 or 300 and plan on a 7 hour cook.

It's not rocket science. It's BBQ. :becky:

[Riz58]

Why don't you just throw a Molotov cocktail in the middle of a crowded room??!!:razz:

My personal experience: With pork butts, I cannot tell a significant difference between hot and fast (near 300) and low and slow (225-250). I can tell a difference with beef; particularly brisket.

Low and slow brisket (I don't inject) seems to have a bit "richer-deeper" flavor to me, but both are very good. Hot and fast you have to watch like a hawk because the window of correct doneness is much narrower.

If I am behind or doing a bunch of briskets, I don't have a problem pressing down on the throttle, but my favorite method is low and slow, partly for taste, but mostly just because that is the tradition, and if I am in a hurry why am I barbequing?

[oldbill]

I actually prefer the flavor from the low and slow method but I like to have the cook done faster as well, so I do both! I start at 250 for the first four hours or so to lay on plenty of smoke and then after wrapping in butcher paper I crank the heat up to about 300 to finish it. When it probes like soft butter I pull the brisket off and let it gradually come down in IT. I like to let the meat rest for at least 2 hours and if I have time I'll let it go 3 but if I do I'll put the brisket in a cooler (still wrapped in butcher paper) when it hits an IT of about 170 and allow it to come down in temp as slowly as possible. During the slow cooling process connective tissues are breaking down and the end result is brisket nirvana! You won't need no teef to eat that beef!:wink:

[Wampus]

I will say that one thing I find to be a significant difference between the two is that on a hot & fast cook, a good long rest is essential. It's during the rest that things really settle down and "get happy". Because the meat comes up to temp and tenderness quicker, you REALLY need to make sure to give it a nice rest. I always plan for at least a 2 hour rest.

[GoodWood]

I can't tell much difference either but I sure like knocking out Briskets in 6-8 hrs myself. I can toss them on smoker at. 8:30-9 AM and have them for dinner that same nite. :thumb:

What type smoker are you thinking? With a UDS you can do any temp pretty much. You could try low n slow then hot n fast a exit cook and decide got yourself.

Thanks for that info. I'm leaning Weber SM. I appreciate the depth-charge/Das Boot look of the UDS but am quite sure my wife would prefer the R2D2.

[Lake Dogs]

For the most part, Wampus has you covered here. I have done numerous side-by-side tests as I've had numerous RF offset smokers and generally cook a boat-load of meat when I do (100 lbs is usually on the light side for me).

Low and slow, and I'm talking under 230 now, allows the meat to spend a longer time in the stall and as a result a slight bit more of the fats are rendered. However, much lower than 230 and you start to introduce a leathering affect where the bark can be thick and leathery, BAD. Also, many smokers dont like 225 and have to have the fire choked down a bit to get here, and maintaining that temp can be a real fight. Among other things, the BBQ is more likely to get creosote on it and get bitter.

Mid range, from 230 to say 280, give or take, seems to be where most smokers settle in and you get a nice steady heat with nothing but sweet blue. The meat is taken through the stall faster, but generally is long enough that almost all the fats are rendered. Reduced cook time is a nice benefit. If the smoker finds its "sweet spot" here it'll be much easier to maintain that cooking temperature range.

Hot and fast, most anything 300 and over, can produce some fine results. The stall quite literally is powered through, often times leading to significantly less fat rendered. Some like this, others dont. It's a preference thing (the amount of fat left over). The meat comes up to the 165+- range fairly fast, so there's usually less smoke taste penetrating the meat (also a preference thing). Some smokers have to be stoked up pretty good to cook in this range and fire maintenance can become more difficult (every smoker is different, some do this very well).


We found that for us, cooking in the mid range worked best, with a nice balance of amount of smoke, reduced cook time, reduced liklihood of fire/smoke issues, etc.

[Haveuseen1?]

My thoughts are just my thoughts,but Ill share them. I believe low & slow came from the fact that BBQ was done traditionally on whole animals or tougher cuts of meat, which required low and slow to get good results. The meat that we all cook with is a far cry from the meat that was available 50 or 100 years ago. People back then didnt have beef/pork/chicken/turkey with fat contents as high as we have. Turkey and chickens didnt have the gigantic breasts that are available to us today. Cows/pigs were not fed hormones, antibiotics, etc... to increase their size, meat, tenderness, fat content, etc... Cows were "grass fed" and pigs just roamed. This creates a different profile than what we are used to.

In other words, the product we have is more tolerant to cooking methods to get the results we want to achieve, where previously you only had a few options. Low and slow, or braise forever to get it tender enough to eat.

You see it here, where people sometimes shy away from grass fed briskets, saying they dont have as much fat in them. Most of our chickens never go outside before slaughter, pig farms are becoming the same. This creates a more tender cut of meat, due to the lack of used muscle. A real free range chicken does not taste the same as a Tyson fryer, and wild boar doesnt taste the same as Smithfield pork. For that matter, we had a neighbor that killed one of their cows from a pasture full of wild onions. The meat was so strong with onion that you could hardly use it.

Sorry for the ramble.

[Wampus]

For the most part, Wampus has you covered here. I have done numerous side-by-side tests as I've had numerous RF offset smokers and generally cook a boat-load of meat when I do (100 lbs is usually on the light side for me).

Low and slow, and I'm talking under 230 now, allows the meat to spend a longer time in the stall and as a result a slight bit more of the fats are rendered. However, much lower than 230 and you start to introduce a leathering affect where the bark can be thick and leathery, BAD. Also, many smokers dont like 225 and have to have the fire choked down a bit to get here, and maintaining that temp can be a real fight. Among other things, the BBQ is more likely to get creosote on it and get bitter.

Mid range, from 230 to say 280, give or take, seems to be where most smokers settle in and you get a nice steady heat with nothing but sweet blue. The meat is taken through the stall faster, but generally is long enough that almost all the fats are rendered. Reduced cook time is a nice benefit. If the smoker finds its "sweet spot" here it'll be much easier to maintain that cooking temperature range.

Hot and fast, most anything 300 and over, can produce some fine results. The stall quite literally is powered through, often times leading to significantly less fat rendered. Some like this, others dont. It's a preference thing (the amount of fat left over). The meat comes up to the 165+- range fairly fast, so there's usually less smoke taste penetrating the meat (also a preference thing). Some smokers have to be stoked up pretty good to cook in this range and fire maintenance can become more difficult (every smoker is different, some do this very well).


We found that for us, cooking in the mid range worked best, with a nice balance of amount of smoke, reduced cook time, reduced liklihood of fire/smoke issues, etc.



Good point on the fat rendering. I didn't think of that.

When I do longer, lower cooks, the fat layers between the muscles of the butt and even the fat cap are nearly all gone. There's just that thin layer of "slime" between the individual muscles that I have to remove while pulling. On hotter, faster cooks (like during our competition cooks) all the fat is much more prominent. That fat cap layer is still 1/2" thick and all the stuff between the muscles is much more evident.

Same thing with briskets, but I typically really cut down the fat cap to a nice thin 1/4" so the only thing to deal with is the deckle between the point and flat.


I still think it's all just waste, whether it melts away during the cook or is removed during the pulling process. It IS a difference though.

[SmittyJonz]

Thanks for that info. I'm leaning Weber SM. I appreciate the depth-charge/Das Boot look of the UDS but am quite sure my wife would prefer the R2D2.

I don't have a WSM or ever had one but I'm pretty sure you can do either /or /both -low/slow n Hot/fast with one.

[DaveAlvarado]

I started with low & slow around 225F. Kicked it up to 250F for brisket and butts, 275F for chicken and ribs. Now I cook at 300F for everything.

No difference in final product, big difference in my enjoyment since I don't have to do overnight smokes anymore. The only downside is stuff gets overcooked quicker, so you have to watch it more closely as it gets close to done.

As others have said, the rest period is critical. I think part of that is that as the meat temp comes back *down*, you're getting that fat rendering time. But with the advantage that you're not boiling water off the outside of the meat.

[darkoozy]

:pop2:

low an slow for me...

[Fwismoker]

JMO but I'd change the definition of L&S to 250 -275. 225 does too much smoldering anyway.

Most of my cooks are 275 and up with poultry being in the 350* and higher range. You'll get great results on butts etc.. with 275-300* range.

[aawa]

Majority of the forums have cooked hot and fast and low and slow and it is all personal preference. I suggest when you get a pit to do the same. Do a pork butt low and slow and then try it hot and fast. Do the same thing with ribs and brisket.

I cook both ways, it all depends on when I'm serving the food if i got low and slow or hot and fast. Both ways give great results that you and your family/friends will be very happy with.

[Bludawg]

I recommend you start out with a 40 watt bulb in your Blue EBO then gradually work your way up to a full blown Halagen bulb.:razz:

96935

[bigspur]

I will say that one thing I find to be a significant difference between the two is that on a hot & fast cook, a good long rest is essential. It's during the rest that things really settle down and "get happy". Because the meat comes up to temp and tenderness quicker, you REALLY need to make sure to give it a nice rest. I always plan for at least a 2 hour rest.

When you're doing a long rest, do you wrap and stick it in a insulated cooler or a warmer to keep the meat warm? Or rest at room temperature?

[Happy Hapgood]

I'm no Comp guy but my WSM has had many cooks and is gunked (seasoned) up pretty good. I almost always use water because summer temps around here can be 100+. Since my first 100 are free, the water helps me regulate the temp better. This smoker likes to run at 255*F. It will settle at that temp for several hours so that's where I do ribs, butts and beef. I guess it would be called midrange as Lakdog described.

255 is at grill level using a Maverick ET-732 and vents closed half way on bottom and 100% open on top.