Thanks : Slow roast experiment results

[Guest guest]

OK, I put a mess of meat out in the water smoker

today (a couple of roasts, one being a cheap Costco

chuck roast, a lamb roast, a couple of chickens and innards,

some ribs) and cooked them at 250 until rare on the meat

and 140 on the chicken.

And : you are correct! That is THE WAY TO GO

for meat (at least in the smoker)! The chicken hearts were melt-in-your-mouth

tender, and even the cheap Costco chuck was rather

nice. It had that " prime rib " ish thing going for it (though

obviously it wasn't that cut of meat at all).

The chicken was juicy as anything, and tender too.

Haven't tried all the others yet.

I'm not sure how one would do this for *steak*

(as you suggested for buffalo: just stick it in the

oven?) but it's decidedly EASY. Didn't take as long

as I figured it would either. And of course it's very NT

because at 250 you wouldn't get a lot of carcinogens

forming.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Heidi

>Schuppenhauer

>

>And : you are correct! That is THE WAY TO GO

>for meat (at least in the smoker)! The chicken hearts were

>melt-in-your-mouth

>tender, and even the cheap Costco chuck was rather

>nice. It had that " prime rib " ish thing going for it (though

>obviously it wasn't that cut of meat at all).

Oh man, I'm *sooooo* fortunate that this man cooks for me!! :-)

*Tender* chicken hearts?? Really? Wow!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

I know you mentioned your brand of water smoker in another post but I can't

for the life of me find it. Could you tell me again? My husband's been

talking smokers and maybe this would be a good present...

-Sharon, NH

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

OK, I put a mess of meat out in the water smoker

today (a couple of roasts, one being a cheap Costco

chuck roast, a lamb roast, a couple of chickens and innards,

some ribs) and cooked them at 250 until rare on the meat

and 140 on the chicken. -- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

At 04:47 AM 8/12/2005, you wrote:

>Heidi,

>

>I know you mentioned your brand of water smoker in another post but I can't

>for the life of me find it. Could you tell me again? My husband's been

>talking smokers and maybe this would be a good present...

>

>

>-Sharon, NH

It's the " Great Outdoors " water smoker. Absolutely the best on

the market ... also one of the LEAST expensive. Ours was like,

$200 on sale which is less than most barbeques. It will roast,

say 4 chickens, 3 roasts, several lbs of sausage, and a rack

of ribs, all in one go, and without me watching it. While he's talking

presents, another good one is one of those remote

thermometers. The probe is on a cable, so you put it in

the meat when you start up the smoker, close the door,

and you can read the internal meat temp without opening

the door (and letting all the smoke out!). Mine transmits

the temp into another unit in the house, so I don't even

have to go out to check it at all.

It's really great for Thanksgiving (frees up your stove

for other stuff) and hot days where you don't want

to heat up the house, and power outages.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

On 8/11/05, Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

> OK, I put a mess of meat out in the water smoker

> today (a couple of roasts, one being a cheap Costco

> chuck roast, a lamb roast, a couple of chickens and innards,

> some ribs) and cooked them at 250 until rare on the meat

> and 140 on the chicken.

>

> And : you are correct! That is THE WAY TO GO

> for meat (at least in the smoker)! The chicken hearts were melt-in-your-mouth

> tender, and even the cheap Costco chuck was rather

> nice. It had that " prime rib " ish thing going for it (though

> obviously it wasn't that cut of meat at all).

Well what do you know, I get something right on occasion :-)

> The chicken was juicy as anything, and tender too.

> Haven't tried all the others yet.

>

> I'm not sure how one would do this for *steak*

> (as you suggested for buffalo: just stick it in the

> oven?) but it's decidedly EASY. Didn't take as long

> as I figured it would either. And of course it's very NT

> because at 250 you wouldn't get a lot of carcinogens

> forming.

Buffalo steaks you can do on the grill just at really low

temperatures. It will taste quite good. If you try to cook it like a

beef steak at the higher temps. - forget it.

[Guest guest]

>Buffalo steaks you can do on the grill just at really low

>temperatures. It will taste quite good. If you try to cook it like a

>beef steak at the higher temps. - forget it.

>

>

Actually I'm thinking of trying beef steak at a lower temp

too ... the method has the advantage that it's a lot harder

to overcook something. I do like a nice seared steak, but

we do tend to forget them while cooking and overdone

steak is just not nearly as good.

I don't " grill " per se though. I have a smoker and an oven

and a stovetop, but no " grill " .

Heidi