On Dec 31, 1:21*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 3:13*pm, Bryan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 11:49*am, ItsJoanNotJoann >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 11:35*am, Bryan > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 31, 11:03*am, ItsJoanNotJoann >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 31, 10:23*am, Bryan > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 30, 12:54*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 30, 10:23*am, ItsJoanNotJoann >
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 11:58*am, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Put down a fat layer of onion on the bottom of the pot. * Rubbed the
> > > > > > > > > pork with pepper and garlic and put it on the onions. * Added about 2
> > > > > > > > > T of liquid smoke drizzled over the roast. * I'm going to leave it on
> > > > > > > > > high for about 2 hours and then turn it down to low for another 8
> > > > > > > > > hours.
>
> > > > > > > > > Pulled pork coming tonight !
>
> > > > > > > > It will be tender and delicious but I'm assuming you don't have a
> > > > > > > > kettle grill such as a Weber? *Or is the weather too nasty where you
> > > > > > > > are to be outside smoking a pork butt?
>
> > > > > > > yeah....way to nasty right now to bother firing up a bbq.... * the
> > > > > > > liquid smoke....just a bit....will give the same effect
>
> > > > > > Sure, just like opening up a can of Chef Boyardee spaghetti and
> > > > > > meatballs "will give the same effect" as making it from scratch.. *It
> > > > > > amazes me that someone who used to get paid to cook could make such a
> > > > > > stupid statement.
>
> > > > > > --Bryan
>
> > > > > You too; sheath your claws. *You read where he said the weather is
> > > > > nasty in his neck of the woods. *Crockpot pork will be tasty.
>
> > > > She wrote something idiotic, which was that Liquid Smoke in the
> > > > crockpot "will give the same effect" as smoking it in a Weber kettle.
>
> > > > --Bryan
>
> > > I know, I know. *But it's her pork butt to do with as she pleases and
> > > if done properly liquid smoke can give some amazing results
> > > 'indoors.' *If I lived close to her and got an invite to share this
> > > dish I certainly wouldn't refuse!
>
> > It is indeed *her* butt, and I never said anything about it being good
> > or not, only that making the claim that her method "will give the same
> > effect" as actual smoking was asinine. *It won't, and anyone who
> > doesn't realize that is clueless about smoking.
>
> > --Bryan
>
> And with that I'd have to agree. Crock potting (slow wet cooking) a
> pork butt is gonna yield a result similar result as slow dry cooking
> via smoking, a very tender and delicious hunk-o-pork-butt, but not
> quite identical.
>
> I think the similarities will probably outweigh the differences
> though! :-)
>
> John Kuthe...

I didn't add any liquid. The liquid smoke was about 2 tablespoons
and was drizzled over the pork outside the pot and then the roast was
put in the crock pot on a bed of onions. It rendered out it's own
juices and fat and the smoke was just a hint. It turned out silky,
tender and delicious fall off the bone tender.

As usual, some will disagree with methodology and declare their way or
the highway, but I'm of a mind that it's all good in the end.