Parts is parts...

Porkchop

ok, the whole "spatchcock" thing...[p]i really like the way it looks, but i don't see why it would lead to a juicier product than just cutting the bird into fryer parts. my thing is that the white meat cooks faster than the dark anyway. i've done many spatchcock chickens, just cause i like the way it looks b4 serving, but i really prefer cooking it part by part, direct, and at higher temps (say 425-450).[p]any thoughts or observations as to why it would be better to spatchcock as opposed to cutting it up? i have not yet done a side-by-side comparison yet, but my remembered observations has me leaning heavily towards parts.

bbqbeth

Porkchop,
just off the top of my head, i'd say whole chickens retain moisture better due to the fact that there is less area prone to release juices. the breast tends to cook the same because it is being stabilized, buffered, by the legs, thighs, etc.
but, you're right. when you think of having a bbq chicken shin-dig most think of pieces.
i'll take 'em both!
enjoy!
beth[p]

Unknown

I prefer parts but I can get 2 or maybe 3 small spatchcock on my grill and 4 beer butts, so one advantage is you can cook more at once than by the piece. Just an opinion but I think spatchcock is juicier than pieces cooked individually but I still prefer pieces.

bbqbeth

well, heck then grape,
why not do 3 or 4 butterflied or 4 beer butts and fill the rest with cut-ups? just have to watch the timing. sounds like a wiener to me!
have fun!
beth[p]

nikkig

Porkchop,
We have done spatchcoked chicken at the same time as some extra parts. I found that the parts tended to be drier than the spatchcock. I have to agree that when you do parts, there is more open areas for the juices to run out.