Definition of "turbo"

Philicious · September 2012

Is there one? Before I knew about the egg, I used to cook a 7pound piece of brisket in the oven at 350 for about 4-5 hours. I never checked the internal temp at all. Is this a turbo cook? I need to do some butts and brisket soon and can't do both on the egg. I was going to use my old brisket in the oven recipe and have already started over thinking about the IT, plateau, etc. Any thoughts?

zosobao5150 · September 2012

My opinion.
I consider it to be anything greater than 275 degrees, however, I don't believe checking the internal temp has anything to do with it. I always try to cook to a desired internal temp for doneness.

Hillbilly-Hightech · September 2012

Yeah, that cook would be considered "turbo" - though I don't think there's an actual dictionary definition, but it's just another way of cooking things faster that has been traditionally cooked "low & slow."

The traditional thought is that certain foods (ie, ribs, pulled pork, for instance), needed to be cooked "low & slow" in order for the fat & connective tissue to render - otherwise the finished food would be dry, tough, and just not very appetizing.

Then somewhere along the line someone either accidentally or on purpose realized that one could increase the temp & cut the cooking time by a decent percentage. Think about it, if you're used to cooking something for, say, 10 hours, and you can get it down to 5-6, then you've just cut your cooking time by 40-50%!!

Personally, I prefer the "low & slow" methods, as I've read that folks don't get as good a bark on the shoulders (and I like a LOT of bark), and the ribs don't have quite the same texture (and I'm at the point where I've perfected my ribs to where I can do them exactly the way I want them). I also believe that folks suggest foiling both of these meats at some time during the cook, and I'm not a big believer in foiling because I like the smoke & foiling insulates the food from the smoke - but hey, if they like it, then that's all that matters!!

I may try a turbo somethin-or-other just to see if I am satisfied w/ the results as there's usually more than 1 way to skin a cat & it's good to get out & "EGG-speriment" w/ new techniques!!

If you try it, let us know!!

Best of luck,

HH

gte1 · September 2012

HH I have done ribs multiple times now 350 or just below. No difference in texture or taste. I have not tase tested side by side though. I actually think the BBs were slightly more moist with the turbo method. Give it a shot one night when you are in the mood for ribs but don't have the time for slow cook.

Mickey · September 2012

3hr 15min is what I call Turbo Butt. This worked for me.

Took a 4.5lb Boston Butt on at 350.
2hr 17min hit 160 (then foiled) ((note: you do not have to foil, some do and some don't))
at 3hr. 15min total at 195 and into the butt box. ((You do not have to put in butt box))
Had good bark just not what the long ones have. But plenty good.
The product was outstanding. Butt Rub on last night.Added pecan chunks to fire.

DocWonmug · September 2012

HH, we see things the same way. Low and slow, but there are other ways to do it. And not a big fan of foil. But some say if it works then do it. Just not me.

Skiddymarker · September 2012

@Hillbilly-Hightech has it exactly right. Turbo, to me anything over 275-300, results in less bark. My family (except for me) prefers pork shoulder with less bark, so we turbo more often than a full low and slow. The advantage is seldom do we do an overnight cook. Once the pork is pulled and seasoned with a BBQ sauce and touch of vinegar, the texture is pretty much the same regardless of turbo or low and slow.

I personally like the low and slow, but like many of us, I've found I cook for others and in this case I am often out voted in favor of turbo.

FanOfFanboys · September 2012

I do low'n'slow bc it allows me to sit outside and "tend" the grill temp (and drink beer while listening to podcasts, all undisturbed

)

Definition of "turbo"

Comments

Categories