Standing Rib: Cooking Temps?

Uncle Milt

I have seen several recipies for standing rib roast, and some call for a cooking temp about 275 to 300, and others call for a slow cook at 200 to 220.[p]I had thought that low and slow was what you used for tougher cuts of meat, but that a faster, higher temp cook was what you use on better cuts of meat. Is that true?[p]Could someone please tell me the effect these varied temps have on the roast? Why cook slow? Why cook fast? I could use as many pros and cons for each method as you can come up with.[p]Milt[p]

Stogie

Uncle Milt,[p]Prime rib..more correctly, standing rib roast..is a very fatty cut of meat. Just look at all the pics that have been posted here. [p]Your analysis of tough vs. tender is a little off. Instead, you should look at fatty vs. lean cuts of meat. After all,in the end ALL cuts of meat should be tender.[p]Low and slow cooking allows the fat to render out of these fatty meats. The collagen needs to be broken down and only low temps and long periods of time will do that.[p]Since lean cuts of meat have very little fat, it does not need rendering and therefore a higher heat will do better....too long on low heat will result in dry meat. [p]Having said that....you can cook lean meats at lower temps and as long as you pay VERY close attention to the meat temps, it will work.[p]So, a prime rib will benefit from a long slow cook. I will refer to the studies Cook's Illustrated has done. They found that low and slow cooking of prime rib offered the best results. However, when just doing low and slow...defined as 200º for about 30 minutes/lb.....the meat came out very anemic looking....an unappetizing gray color. This holds true....next time you cook ribs or pork butt, check the color after a couple hours....not much color to them at that short a period of time.[p]
The solution...searing the meat first. They did it in a roasting pan on the stovetop(they wanted to capture the juices for AuJus), but searing on your grill(or in the oven) at over 500º will result in the same outcome.[p]As you have noticed, there are dozens of ways to prepare this cut of meat. I think I have done most of them. I now stick with the sear then slow cook to finish.[p]Hope this helps![p]Stogie

JSlot

Any method you use on the Egg for your rib roast should make for a great piece of meat. As I stated in an earlier post, I have tried most of the methods mentioned and I have settled on 350° indirect with no searing as my preferred method.[p]While we are on the subject, I'd like to throw in my 2¢ worth about recipes that are not specific to ceramic cooking. Stogie's post below mentions a Cook's Illustrated article and many other references are made to such recipes. IMHO, since most recipes from other sources were formulated without the benefit of EGGsperience (ceramics), they should be evaluated as to the reasoning behind the method. As an example, most recipes that call for low and slow do so to preserve moisture in the meat while cooking to desired doneness. Ceramics make the moisture issue virtually non-existent. Don't get me wrong, all of these recipes are wonderful sources of info. Just don't take them as gospel for cooking on the Egg. I think most folks would find it impossible to discern a rib roast cooked to an internal of ~140 @ 225° for 6 hours vs. one cooked to the same internal temp for 2 hours at 350°.[p]Happy New Year, Everyone!!!!!!
Jim

The Naked Whiz

Stogie,
Regarding the anemic look of a slow-roasted prime rib, finishing at a high heat can produce a nice brown crust. I will be trying that method today. I'll let you know how it turns out.[p]TNW

Stogie

The Naked Whiz,[p]I have always wondered the difference between searing first and searing at the end. Any ideas? [p]I know Alton Brown does his sear last, but have never heard why. Cook's Illustrated always sears first, but again no idea about the difference, if any.[p]Stogie

The Naked Whiz

Stogie,
The Alton Brown theory goes like this: The high heat at the beginning starts to break down the proteins which allows the moisture in the meat to cook out. He cooks it low and slow to preserve moisture and then adds 15 minutes of 500 degree heat to form a browned outer crust. [p]TNW

JSlot

The Naked Whiz,[p]Hmmm. That's interesting. I thought the purpose of searing any meat was that it kept the juices in. Who has been leading wrong all these years? LOL.[p]Jim

Stogie

Jim..[p]I alsoi thought that until learning otherwise. It really is common sense when you think about it. Imagine how hard it is to contain water, then think what you would have to do to contain it in a piece of meat.[p]The reason for searing is to initiate the Maillard Reaction....here is a very short description about it that I found on a web site a few years back.......[p]SEARING SCIENCE

The How and Why of Searing[p]Our recipe for Boneless Leg of Lamb calls for searing the lamb on all sides, and on each end, prior to roasting. [p]Why do we do this? You might think it's to
"seal in the juices"--but you'd be wrong. Food scientist Harold McGee debunked this conventional wisdom in his book "On Food and Cooking" (1984) when he proved
that meat loses the same amount of liquid whether it has been seared or not. [p]The real reason to sear meat is to obtain the best flavor by encouraging a process known as the Maillard reaction. [p]The Maillard Reaction
In the early 1900s, French chemist Louis-Camille Maillard became the first to describe the effects--and gastronomic benefits--of browning meat. When meat is exposed to direct heat, sugars react with proteins to release hundreds and
hundreds of flavor compounds. These compounds combine, break down, and multiply, creating deliciously intense flavors and rich brown coloration.[p]

Nature Boy

Good info Stogster!
So true, and so misunderstood. I even heard my hero, Bobby Flake, say that searing seals in the juices. I chuckled...knowing he was simply ignorant to a proven fact.[p]Lois-Camille rules. Flake has nothing on him.
Happy new year!
Chris

JSlot

Stogie,[p]Hmmm, very interesting indeed. I'll be the first to admit that I don't get too wrapped up in the science of all this and I have no food chemistry background other than being a somewhat accomplished cook. I'm still puzzled about that "sugars" part since sugar = carbohydrate and meat supposedly has none, even after cooking. Thanks for the heads up on the info![p]Jim

Unknown

JSlot,[p]All tissues, be they animal or vegetable contain some sugars. In a givne piece of meat there may not be enough to report on a nutrition lable, but it is in there - and helps to make things soooo tasty when treated right![p]Keith

JSlot

Thanks for the info, Keith![p]Jim