My first low & slow chicken

SciAggie

Inspired by some posts I have seen with slow cooked and smoked chickens, I thought I'd give it a go. I took out the wishbone for later carving ease then stuffed the chicken with onion, celery, and carrots. I also threw in some rosemary and oregano, S&P. I cooked the birds at 250ish for about 4 hours. The chicken was done and flavorful but not fall-off-the-bone tender as I was hoping. I may try it again later, but unless some of y'all have some insight I'll probably stick to good 'ol fashioned roasted chickens. They are flavorful as well and cook much more quickly. 
I also made my first risotto tonight. BAM! Now that's some eats I'll be making regularly. 

Biggreenpharmacist

Damn that looks pretty great to me. 

bgebrent

Looking good brother Aggie!  Risotto, always a game changer.  Nice!

SciAggie

@Biggreenpharmacist @bgebrent Thanks. Everyone but me probably already knew, but the risotto was the star of the show. 

YukonRon

I love chicken on the BGE. Add the risotto, game over. 5 Stars, all day.

dldawes1

Stuffed Chick looks good to me !!!!

What IT (s) did you take it to ?

I've accomplished several stuffed birds and a turducken and they all came out very tender and juicy.

johnmitchell

That is beautiful and you get a 10 for presentation !!! Excellent..

Dredger

I don't know how it tasted, but that looks picture perfect. That risotto looks off the charts too.

SciAggie

dldawes1 said:

What IT (s) did you take it to ?

Legs were at 185, breast was about 170 when I pulled it. That could be some of the issue. From what I have read on a slow cooked bird I needed to let the temp climb on up like we do for pork buts or brisket - but I didn't have time. The cooks I looked at here went 3-4 hours. I planned 4 hours plus a bit of rest. My gang was hungry so I pulled when I did and fed them. I'm not sure if longer cooking would have made it better or worse. 

SciAggie

@YukonRon @johnmitchell @Dredger Thanks y'all. 

Darby_Crenshaw

That actually *is* a roasted chicken, FWIW. and the same rules apply. If it isn't done enough, it isn't done

four hours can be short depending on how big the bird is. 

You need to cook it until the joints wiggle. It cannot simultaneously be undercooked (not as fall apart as you like and) and overcooked (dry). And it needs to move thru the first before it can get to the second. 

Not done? Cook it longer

slow roasting (which is a classic way to roast any meat, not strictly reservered for BBQ) is a pretty good way to cook chicken or beef roasts. Nice even gentle cook. But it simply takes longer and gives you a wider 'zone' for catching it where you want it. But you gotta let it ride 

Mattman3969

Nice bird Aggie! 

When I do a LnS bird I spatch it and cook @250ish raised direct with less than a firebox of lump.  I mop with a vinegar sauce about every 30mins the last couple of hrs.  It is the closest thing to an open pit bird I've ever done and taste great but doesn't happen too often because of the time involved.  

Jstroke

Well for starters--Full Heal Clicking Salute for the Solid Cook.

Chicken is pretty cheap--throw one on and let it ride until you can pull the leg bone out of the socket with a little twist right on the grill. I have never tried this, but I think since it is a beautiful day, I will do just that. I will let you know the results. Thanks for the inspiration

SciAggie

@Darby_Crenshaw Your point is well made about roasting. I just didn't allow enough time as pointed out - mainly because I guessed at the time needed based on some other posted cooks. 
@Mattman3969 Thanks. Specifically, it was your cooks that inspired me to do this. To you and Darby - how long does a bird take y'all at 250ish degrees? My guess this one would have needed at least another 2-3 hours. That would have made 6-7 hours total. Does that seem reasonable? Sorry I didn't check the weight of this bird. 
@Jstroke I did this partly because Whole chickens were on sale for $0.69 per pound. Good luck with your cook. Allow more time than I did. Let me know the results. 

Darby, Matt - thanks for the feedback. 

Darby_Crenshaw

SciAggie said:

dldawes1 said:

What IT (s) did you take it to ?

  From what I have read on a slow cooked bird I needed to let the temp climb on up like we do for pork buts or brisket -

this isn't quite right....
you'd end up with pulled chicken, and chicken gets dry (even though it has fat).  drier than pork butt.

remember, the meat has no idea whether you are calling it "BBQ", "pulled pork", or whatever.  the temperature itself isn't even what makes it "BBQ" versus roasting.

the only thing we care about is what temp you are cooking at, and what you want in the end.  what you want in the end will determine how long to cook it.

you can buy a pork butt, slather it with mustard and dry rub, and cook at 250.  this does not make it barbecue.

if you cook it until it hits 150 or so, then take it off and slice it, you have a pork roast.

if you let it ride well past 'overcooked' until it breaks down, you get pulled pork.  same cook temp, same environment

you'll hear people say all the time "you don't want to cook a pork loin at 250 because it doesn't have enough fat or collagen to be tender".  that's completely wrong.  you absolutely can cook anything at 250 (except something you want sear on, like a steak).  cooking at 250 doesn't mean you are trying to get it to fall apart. nor does it mean you need to let the meat hit 185+. 

cook a pork loin at 250 until it is 140-145-150 in the center, and it will be ridiculously moist.  taking it to 185-200 internal though, and it will actually fall apart just like a pork butt.  but it will be dry (not much fat). so, we generally never see cooks for loin that recommend pull temps of 185-200.  but that doesn't mean 250 is "barbecuing", and that you can't cook loin that way.

make any sense? hard to explain.

ignore the temp you are cooking at.  it almost literally doesn't matter (to a point). just be sure to take the meat off when it is done (not before or after).  and 'done' depends only on what you are trying to make.

northGAcock

It certainly looks good. I have to agree with you on the time thing. I could possibly see a low and slow if you were going to make pulled chicken for Chicken BBQ. Love the concept....but when I have time to cook L&S, usually Chicken ain't on the menu. Nice job though.

ThrillSeeker

Bird looks great.  @sciaggie What kind of camera do you use?

SciAggie

@Darby_Crenshaw Thanks again for the feedback. Your explanation makes perfect sense. I see you point about temperature of the meat being cooked. In this case I'll just make some notes about time and temps. With this experience and the feedback, I'll throw another bird on soon and see what happens. The best part of this egging journey for me is developing actual skill as a cook rather than a hack that just follows recipes. 

Darby_Crenshaw

@northgacock   re: " I could possibly see a low and slow if you were going to make pulled chicken for Chicken BBQ"

"low and slow" does not automatically mean pullable meat is the intent.

the number one best selling entree in the US is probably "slow-roasted prime rib".  and that's cooked at low temps for a long while.  that's it.  and they do it because it's easy, controllable, and gives the best cross section of meat.

there's a reason they can hand you a perfectly cooked medium rare slice of prime rib, with a perfect cross section of even done-ness, at 8:00 pm, fifteen minutes after you you order it.

they have been cooking them all day at 220-225.  the well-done ones went on earlier.  and the rare ones later.  or they float a med-rare slice in hot au jus to take the red out, when some asks for more well-done.

this does not make them 'fall apart', 'pullable', or 'barbecue'

a roast is any hunk of meat cooked slow, indirectly, in a dry environment.  that's it.

failproof chicken, with crispy chicken skin, in our house, is to leave a chicken naked overnight (or as long as a week, if we get behind...), and to toss it on the BGE at noon.  we decide when to eat when the bird is done.  crispy skin, wiggly legs.

i had a friend tell me ten years ago, a BGEer who bought one after hearing my spiel at work, that he cooked his chickens for about 6 hours at 220.  he never visited the forum, and simply cooked them the way his mother did in the oven.  he was from the middle east, but i dunno if it is a cultural thing.

of course, because i was a regular forum member, and more importantly, because i never had even tried what he suggested, I immediately pronounced it impossible to cook chicken at 220 unless you wanted to make BBQ chicken (i.e. fall apart pullable, etc.)

 
of course, once i shut up, and tried it, i realized i was wrong.

that was the thing that made me realize there was no need for me to weigh in with an 'answer' when i had no practical experience with the problem at hand. as i often did early on.  "i think..."  "i would imagine..." I usually preface any speculation these days with something like that.  though i try not to speculate.  still, i'm human and in the effort to 'help' may lapse into guessing.


but from then on, i only try to help if i have worked the thing through for myself. 

course when i do, it's a frigging thesis that no one wants to read. but hey, better than me telling him (my buddy) that what he does regularly isn't possible to do. learned my lesson

SciAggie

Darby_Crenshaw said:

 
of course, once i shut up, and tried it, i realized i was wrong.

that was the thing that made me realize there was no need for me to weigh in with an 'answer' when i had no practical experience with the problem at hand. as i often did early on.  "i think..."  "i would imagine..." I usually preface any speculation these days with something like that.  though i try not to speculate.  still, i'm human and in the effort to 'help' may lapse into guessing.


but from then on, i only try to help if i have worked the thing through for myself. 

course when i do, it's a frigging thesis that no one wants to read. but hey, better than me telling him (my buddy) that what he does regularly isn't possible to do. learned my lesson

"of course, once i shut up, and tried it, i realized i was wrong" Friend, that's funny right there - because it's true for me as well in more than one instance.

I appreciate the butt load of keystrokes that have gone into your replies and for me it is definitely worth reading. I will try the "toss it on at noon" approach on the next attempt. 

northGAcock

Darby_Crenshaw said:

@northgacock   re: " I could possibly see a low and slow if you were going to make pulled chicken for Chicken BBQ"

"low and slow" does not automatically mean pullable meat is the intent.

the number one best selling entree in the US is probably "slow-roasted prime rib".  and that's cooked at low temps for a long while.  that's it.  and they do it because it's easy, controllable, and gives the best cross section of meat.

there's a reason they can hand you a perfectly cooked medium rare slice of prime rib, with a perfect cross section of even done-ness, at 8:00 pm, fifteen minutes after you you order it.

they have been cooking them all day at 220-225.  the well-done ones went on earlier.  and the rare ones later.  or they float a med-rare slice in hot au jus to take the red out, when some asks for more well-done.

this does not make them 'fall apart', 'pullable', or 'barbecue'

a roast is any hunk of meat cooked slow, indirectly, in a dry environment.  that's it.

failproof chicken, with crispy chicken skin, in our house, is to leave a chicken naked overnight (or as long as a week, if we get behind...), and to toss it on the BGE at noon.  we decide when to eat when the bird is done.  crispy skin, wiggly legs.

i had a friend tell me ten years ago, a BGEer who bought one after hearing my spiel at work, that he cooked his chickens for about 6 hours at 220.  he never visited the forum, and simply cooked them the way his mother did in the oven.  he was from the middle east, but i dunno if it is a cultural thing.

of course, because i was a regular forum member, and more importantly, because i never had even tried what he suggested, I immediately pronounced it impossible to cook chicken at 220 unless you wanted to make BBQ chicken (i.e. fall apart pullable, etc.)

 
of course, once i shut up, and tried it, i realized i was wrong.

that was the thing that made me realize there was no need for me to weigh in with an 'answer' when i had no practical experience with the problem at hand. as i often did early on.  "i think..."  "i would imagine..." I usually preface any speculation these days with something like that.  though i try not to speculate.  still, i'm human and in the effort to 'help' may lapse into guessing.


but from then on, i only try to help if i have worked the thing through for myself. 

course when i do, it's a frigging thesis that no one wants to read. but hey, better than me telling him (my buddy) that what he does regularly isn't possible to do. learned my lesson

@Darby_Crenshaw    I have to admit....I am scratching my head a bit after reading your ramble. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it.....but prob could have used a summary statement at the end.

I will say that I have never done a whole chicken low & slow on my egg. Also, when I do pulled chicken for BBQ (which is really a sin down here in SC)......I do it in the crock pot with a small amount of chicken stock, some diced onion and a few other ingredients. I would think you could replicate that in the egg, but covering it would really not provide one with any type of benefit....The point I was trying to make is, I personally doubt I would ever do a low and slow on Chicken. Chicken Breast for Chicken Salad..... another story.

Darby_Crenshaw

it's because you still think "low and slow" equates to "pullable" "barbecue" and  "fall apart"

it doesn't

you like roasted chicken? at say 375?

then cook it the exact same way, only at 250.  until done to the same level as the stuff you cook at 375.

why? for me, crisper skin, more even done ness

lo and slow only happens to be also how you can do barbecue.  it doesn't make it barbecue.  your finished temp does.

250 doesn't mean it falls apart.  final meat temp determines that

northGAcock

Darby_Crenshaw said:

it's because you still think "low and slow" equates to "pullable" "barbecue" and  "fall apart"

it doesn't

you like roasted chicken? at say 375?

then cook it the exact same way, only at 250.  until done to the same level as the stuff you cook at 375.

why? for me, crisper skin, more even done ness

lo and slow only happens to be also how you can do barbecue.  it doesn't make it barbecue.  your finished temp does.

250 doesn't mean it falls apart.  final meat temp determines that

I understand your point now....but mine is low and slow in the crackpot (not egged) and that is how I achieve pulled chicken. I agree that low and slow on the egg open direct would not give you the same effect. I think we are on the same page......but perhaps on a different chapter. It's all good. Have a great day.

Darby_Crenshaw

Yep. Remember too a crock pot is a braise, not roasting. 

Tiny differences in the cook can make a big difference in the end result. 

XC242

I'm a bit confused, just so it's clear in my head. We're still cooking to temp, correct? And that is still the same temp for L/S cooks or those at higher temps? We're not letting it go to a higher temp. 

Darby_Crenshaw

A rib roast can be cooked at any number of temps in any number of ways. 

The temp you cook it at doesn't change whether you want it medium rare though, does it?

this stuff is so simple it is confusing. Because it seems to be counter to common advice. 

Cook. To. Temp. (Internal meat temp)

forget time. And to a certain extent, forget cook temp. 

XC242

Got it, thanks. 

jstewart12a

Good lookin chicken

DMW

Something else to keep in mind is carryover cooking. The amount of carryover will be greater when cooking at higher temps. Roast a prime rib at 250* vs 350* and compare how much the internal temp climbs during a 10 minute rest, the difference is significant. The 350* cooked prime rib will climb more.

SciAggie

Darby_Crenshaw said:

The temp you cook it at doesn't change whether you want it medium rare though, does it?

this stuff is so simple it is confusing. Because it seems to be counter to common advice. 

Cook. To. Temp. (Internal meat temp)

Ok. Now you're just making me realize I'm stupid. (It's the realization that's the issue) I think I need to go read a thread about lump or politics so I can feel like I know sumpthin'...

Now I know how my students feel at times. 

Darby_Crenshaw

DMW said:

Something else to keep in mind is carryover cooking. The amount of carryover will be greater when cooking at higher temps. Roast a prime rib at 250* vs 350* and compare how much the internal temp climbs during a 10 minute rest, the difference is significant. The 350* cooked prime rib will climb more.

Yeah. Excellent point. This is what i meant about "to a certain extent" cook temp isn't what we worry about primarily.   

there are a ton of ways to get that roast to 140 degrees internal. And each one will have it's own special effect on the roast. But fundamentally, we want the thing at 140 (for argument's sake i mean), and can get there any way we want as long as we stop it at 140

sous vide will produce a ridiculously tender and evenly cooked  piece of meat. But without a crust or sear. 

Cooking only by grilling, a steak, will give you sear and smoke, but more cell damage (juice running out) and maybe (the hotter you go) more overdone amd a little amount of med/rare internal

two stage cooks (sear/roast or roast/sear) like Trex, reverse sear, Xert, give you a nice evenly cooked piece PLUS some sear and smoke.

Roasting (slow or hot) gives you a nice crust and (if slow) an evenly cooked cross section. If hot, still a good cook, but quicker if maybe a little more overdone exterior

or hot tubbing, or sous vide, taken to just shy, and then grilled

as long as they are all on the plate at the desired temp (including carryover), they are all at medium rare regardless of the actual cook temp and time