bone in or boneless butts?

citychicken · September 2007

which do you prefer and why? does it make a difference? is the cooking time different?

RibDog · September 2007

markkal123,[p]I have always had a rule that if a piece of meat can come with a bone attached, that is how I cook it. I think it helps the flavor. That may be all in my mind but it works for me.[p]On butts, I believe the bone helps to transmit heat into the butt during the cooking process. Thereby getting a better overall cook. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you how a bone-in compares to a boneless in cook time. I have only ever cooked bone-in.[p]John

Don from NJ · September 2007

markkal123,[p]I prefer teh bone-in version, however about 1.5 years ago our costco (I'm told they all have) to the boneless version. I agree with RibDog that you get a more consistent cook, but he boneless ones haven't been to bad. I do believe they cook quicker than the bone-in models... :-) I've been looking around for bone-in, so i can cook both @ the same time to see if there is a difference in both taste and cook time.. maybe someone else has does this already.. ???

Haggis · September 2007

markkal123,[p]I haven't seen a lot of difference between them and, as noted, Costco only sells boneless. That permits you to put seasoning in areas that would not otherwise have it. On the other hand, it creates some additional risk for contamination if the meat doesn't reach safe temps in an acceptable time.

bone in or boneless butts?

Comments

Categories