We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond of
it. A couple of things we don't understand, though.

1. Our favorite thing to make is a 5 lb. pork butt with some root beer,
brown sugar, a couple of onions, and a small can of chipotles in adobo
sauce. (And we salt the meat liberally, too.) We don't understand why
the meat comes out tasting great, with just a hint of hotness, but the
sauce in the pan is _much_ hotter, and the onions are positively
flaming. We throw out the onions, and put just a little of the sauce
into the pan when we make a bbq sauce to put on some of the pork.

2. Is there any formula for cooking time? For a 5 lb. pork butt, we do
overnight, about 9 hours, on high, and that seems to work out well. We
do notice, however, that not _all_ the fat is rendered, and we're
wondering if maybe another hour or three would be even better - but 12
hours on high seems like a lot. What does it look like if you overcook
something in a slow cooker? So far, we have undercooked but never
overcooked.

Thanks in advance.

-S-

On 4/30/2016 9:06 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
> We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond of
> it. A couple of things we don't understand, though.
>
> 1. Our favorite thing to make is a 5 lb. pork butt with some root beer,
> brown sugar, a couple of onions, and a small can of chipotles in adobo
> sauce. (And we salt the meat liberally, too.) We don't understand why
> the meat comes out tasting great, with just a hint of hotness, but the
> sauce in the pan is _much_ hotter, and the onions are positively
> flaming. We throw out the onions, and put just a little of the sauce
> into the pan when we make a bbq sauce to put on some of the pork.
>
> 2. Is there any formula for cooking time? For a 5 lb. pork butt, we do
> overnight, about 9 hours, on high, and that seems to work out well. We
> do notice, however, that not _all_ the fat is rendered, and we're
> wondering if maybe another hour or three would be even better - but 12
> hours on high seems like a lot. What does it look like if you overcook
> something in a slow cooker? So far, we have undercooked but never
> overcooked.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -S-
>
>
Even if you render all the fat it's still swimming in it.

I think you suffer from the same malady many of us do with newer "slow"
cookers, they are set too high on their thermostats.

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 8:06:35 AM UTC-7, Steve Freides wrote:
> We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond of
> it. A couple of things we don't understand, though.
>
> 1. Our favorite thing to make is a 5 lb. pork butt with some root beer,
> brown sugar, a couple of onions, and a small can of chipotles in adobo
> sauce. (And we salt the meat liberally, too.) We don't understand why
> the meat comes out tasting great, with just a hint of hotness, but the
> sauce in the pan is _much_ hotter, and the onions are positively
> flaming. We throw out the onions, and put just a little of the sauce
> into the pan when we make a bbq sauce to put on some of the pork.
>
> 2. Is there any formula for cooking time? For a 5 lb. pork butt, we do
> overnight, about 9 hours, on high, and that seems to work out well. We
> do notice, however, that not _all_ the fat is rendered, and we're
> wondering if maybe another hour or three would be even better - but 12
> hours on high seems like a lot. What does it look like if you overcook
> something in a slow cooker? So far, we have undercooked but never
> overcooked.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -S-

I've never cooked a pork butt that long on high. The last one I did was around 5 lbs. I did the first 4 hours on high and then turned it down to low for the last 4. The bone pulled out clean, it was pull apart tender.

As for the drippings. I would not think that unusual for the heat to melt away into the drippings. Simply because the fat rendering out of the pork would take the seasoning with it. I think you are using too much chipotle. If you use less the meat won't be any different and you will be able to de-fat and stir some of the drippings back into the meat after you have pulled it.

Steve Freides wrote:
>
>We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond of
>it. A couple of things we don't understand, though.
>
>1. Our favorite thing to make is a 5 lb. pork butt with some root beer,
>brown sugar, a couple of onions, and a small can of chipotles in adobo
>sauce. (And we salt the meat liberally, too.) We don't understand why
>the meat comes out tasting great, with just a hint of hotness, but the
>sauce in the pan is _much_ hotter, and the onions are positively
>flaming. We throw out the onions, and put just a little of the sauce
>into the pan when we make a bbq sauce to put on some of the pork.
>
>2. Is there any formula for cooking time? For a 5 lb. pork butt, we do
>overnight, about 9 hours, on high, and that seems to work out well. We
>do notice, however, that not _all_ the fat is rendered, and we're
>wondering if maybe another hour or three would be even better - but 12
>hours on high seems like a lot. What does it look like if you overcook
>something in a slow cooker? So far, we have undercooked but never
>overcooked.

I wouldn't consider a slow cooker for such a fatty cut... cook it
thusly:
http://www.elboricua.com/pernil.html
I suggest using a wire rack... for such a large cut I use a "V" rack,
and I also tie the roast two three turns with heavy butcher twine
making it much easier to lift/carve. I only cook it up to the point
it can be sliced, I despise pulled/shredded/over cooked meat... then
it's only fit for dog food... actually possum n' crow food. Pulled
pork was devised as an alibi by people who don't know how to cook...
only a TIADed sex addicted masturbating bear pulls pork.

Steve Freides wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond
> of it. A couple of things we don't understand, though.
>
> 1. Our favorite thing to make is a 5 lb. pork butt with some root
> beer, brown sugar, a couple of onions, and a small can of chipotles
> in adobo sauce. (And we salt the meat liberally, too.) We don't
> understand why the meat comes out tasting great, with just a hint of
> hotness, but the sauce in the pan is much hotter, and the onions are
> positively flaming. We throw out the onions, and put just a little
> of the sauce into the pan when we make a bbq sauce to put on some of
> the pork.
>
> 2. Is there any formula for cooking time? For a 5 lb. pork butt, we
> do overnight, about 9 hours, on high, and that seems to work out
> well. We do notice, however, that not all the fat is rendered, and
> we're wondering if maybe another hour or three would be even better -
> but 12 hours on high seems like a lot. What does it look like if you
> overcook something in a slow cooker? So far, we have undercooked but
> never overcooked.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -S-

Well, first I'd not advise high at all. At most, the first 2 hours on
a defrosted one to speed it along. Older recipies will use high but
that was based on a lower temp of the earlier machines.

To reduce the fat, as the natural liquid develops, start using a turkey
baster to remove it. Do this every 2 hours or so.

If your recipe started with water or broth, that is part of the
problem. Start the pork butt just as it is with at the most a splash
of vinegar, soy, and worstershire.

--

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:06:30 -0400, "Steve Freides" >
wrote:

> We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond of
> it. A couple of things we don't understand, though.
>
> 1. Our favorite thing to make is a 5 lb. pork butt with some root beer,
> brown sugar, a couple of onions, and a small can of chipotles in adobo
> sauce. (And we salt the meat liberally, too.) We don't understand why
> the meat comes out tasting great, with just a hint of hotness, but the
> sauce in the pan is _much_ hotter, and the onions are positively
> flaming. We throw out the onions, and put just a little of the sauce
> into the pan when we make a bbq sauce to put on some of the pork.

I think all spiciness goes into the sauce. I made Sunday Gravy for
the first time about 10 days ago and used hot Italian sausages as one
of the meats. The gravy itself was spicier than any tomato sauce I've
made that involved hot Italian sausage, but the sausages themselves
weren't spicy at all.
>
> 2. Is there any formula for cooking time? For a 5 lb. pork butt, we do
> overnight, about 9 hours, on high, and that seems to work out well. We
> do notice, however, that not _all_ the fat is rendered, and we're
> wondering if maybe another hour or three would be even better - but 12
> hours on high seems like a lot. What does it look like if you overcook
> something in a slow cooker? So far, we have undercooked but never
> overcooked.
>
For me, I turn it on high for 1 hour just to bring things up to temp
and then turn it to low. If you start off with a grocery store
quality pork butt, it's hard to believe that all the fat is not
rendered after 9 hours on high. Maybe something is wrong with your
slow cooker. Have you checked it with a thermometer?

--

sf

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:06:30 -0400, "Steve Freides" >
wrote:

>We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond of
>it. A couple of things we don't understand, though.
>
>1. Our favorite thing to make is a 5 lb. pork butt with some root beer,
>brown sugar, a couple of onions, and a small can of chipotles in adobo
>sauce. (And we salt the meat liberally, too.) We don't understand why
>the meat comes out tasting great, with just a hint of hotness, but the
>sauce in the pan is _much_ hotter, and the onions are positively
>flaming. We throw out the onions, and put just a little of the sauce
>into the pan when we make a bbq sauce to put on some of the pork.
>
>2. Is there any formula for cooking time? For a 5 lb. pork butt, we do
>overnight, about 9 hours, on high, and that seems to work out well. We
>do notice, however, that not _all_ the fat is rendered, and we're
>wondering if maybe another hour or three would be even better - but 12
>hours on high seems like a lot. What does it look like if you overcook
>something in a slow cooker? So far, we have undercooked but never
>overcooked.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>-S-
>
I prepare this exact same recipe for my husband a couple of times a
year. The directions for a 'whole' butt is 6 hours (covered) in a
300F oven. When I do a half butt - about 8 pounds - I have it in the
oven for a little less time. 300F is sort of a slow oven, compared to
the average 350. The fat is very soft when done. It is easily pushed
off by hand. The liquid in the pot will have a layer of liquid fat.
The sauce in the pot is very spicy. That is where the chipotles in
adobo ended up. The meat is not, as you pointed out, spicy. That is
the saving grace for the recipe as far as I am concerned. I wouldn't
care for the meat to be really spicy.
The aroma from this roast while it is in the oven is killer.
Janet US

Brooklyn1 wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Steve Freides wrote:
> >
> > We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond
> > of it. A couple of things we don't understand, though.
> >
> > 1. Our favorite thing to make is a 5 lb. pork butt with some root
> > beer, brown sugar, a couple of onions, and a small can of chipotles
> > in adobo sauce. (And we salt the meat liberally, too.) We don't
> > understand why the meat comes out tasting great, with just a hint
> > of hotness, but the sauce in the pan is much hotter, and the onions
> > are positively flaming. We throw out the onions, and put just a
> > little of the sauce into the pan when we make a bbq sauce to put on
> > some of the pork.
> >
> > 2. Is there any formula for cooking time? For a 5 lb. pork butt,
> > we do overnight, about 9 hours, on high, and that seems to work out
> > well. We do notice, however, that not all the fat is rendered, and
> > we're wondering if maybe another hour or three would be even better
> > - but 12 hours on high seems like a lot. What does it look like if
> > you overcook something in a slow cooker? So far, we have
> > undercooked but never overcooked.
>
> I wouldn't consider a slow cooker for such a fatty cut... cook it
> thusly:
> http://www.elboricua.com/pernil.html
> I suggest using a wire rack... for such a large cut I use a "V" rack,
> and I also tie the roast two three turns with heavy butcher twine
> making it much easier to lift/carve. I only cook it up to the point
> it can be sliced, I despise pulled/shredded/over cooked meat... then
> it's only fit for dog food... actually possum n' crow food. Pulled
> pork was devised as an alibi by people who don't know how to cook...
> only a TIADed sex addicted masturbating bear pulls pork.

LOL! Then I am a TIADed sex addicted masturbating female bear who
pulls pork.

--

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:51:46 AM UTC-4, Cloudbuster wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 9:06 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
>
> > We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond of
> > it ...
>
> I think you suffer from the same malady many of us do with newer "slow"
> cookers, they are set too high on their thermostats.

Our new one has a thermometer probe that switches it from cook to hold. Still too high a temperature but it helps.

I remember a slow cooker that had a setting called "Automatic". It cooked on high until the thermostat triggered then switched to low. The low then was lower than the hold is now.

On Fri, 6 May 2016 12:53:23 -0700 (PDT), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

> I remember a slow cooker that had a setting called "Automatic". It cooked on high until the thermostat triggered then switched to low. The low then was lower than the hold is now.

Why don't you cook on hold instead of low? Personally, I'd be creeped
out with lower temperatures. That's probably why I waited so long to
hop on the slow cooker bandwagon.

--

sf

sf wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
> > I remember a slow cooker that had a setting called "Automatic". It
> > cooked on high until the thermostat triggered then switched to low.
> > The low then was lower than the hold is now.
>
> Why don't you cook on hold instead of low? Personally, I'd be creeped
> out with lower temperatures. That's probably why I waited so long to
> hop on the slow cooker bandwagon.


Low used to be a power setting. Hold is now a thermostat setting. They
don't map well. I also can't find any way to set my new one to just use
Hold. Hold only seems to be accessible as an end state of programmed runs.

The change in temperatures is because of changing regulation having to do
with food poisoning cases. Maybe I'm lucky on that - I've only had food
poisoning once or twice in my life and never at home. I have no idea if
that's because of dumb luck (probably) or a policy to throw out expired
food (probably) but i used the old style food processors a lot and never
had any issue.

The higher cooking temperature makes the "slow" part of slow cookers not
be all that slow any more. Back when I traveled for work a lot I could
toss a bunch of ingredients from the freezer to the fridge for tomorrow's
meals, toss the ingredients from the fridge into the slow cooker for
today's meal, turn it on low and not worry about how long my working day
was going to be.

Now slow cookers need a Hold setting because they can and do burn food.

On 5/9/2016 9:53 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> sf wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>>
>>> I remember a slow cooker that had a setting called "Automatic". It
>>> cooked on high until the thermostat triggered then switched to low.
>>> The low then was lower than the hold is now.
>>
>> Why don't you cook on hold instead of low? Personally, I'd be creeped
>> out with lower temperatures. That's probably why I waited so long to
>> hop on the slow cooker bandwagon.
>
>
> Low used to be a power setting. Hold is now a thermostat setting. They
> don't map well. I also can't find any way to set my new one to just use
> Hold. Hold only seems to be accessible as an end state of programmed runs.
>
> The change in temperatures is because of changing regulation having to do
> with food poisoning cases. Maybe I'm lucky on that - I've only had food
> poisoning once or twice in my life and never at home. I have no idea if
> that's because of dumb luck (probably) or a policy to throw out expired
> food (probably) but i used the old style food processors a lot and never
> had any issue.
>
> The higher cooking temperature makes the "slow" part of slow cookers not
> be all that slow any more. Back when I traveled for work a lot I could
> toss a bunch of ingredients from the freezer to the fridge for tomorrow's
> meals, toss the ingredients from the fridge into the slow cooker for
> today's meal, turn it on low and not worry about how long my working day
> was going to be.
>
> Now slow cookers need a Hold setting because they can and do burn food.
>

You are correct, they have over-corrected all the temps upward and
likely due to health concerns.

Also, unlike a rice cooker, they do not have good sensors to measure
doneness.

There are, however, slow cookers (Rival) with a probe insert that will
cook to a given temp. and then drop to hold.

That's your best bet yet.

Cloudbuster wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 9:06 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> We've been using our slow cooker for a few months and are very fond
>> of it. A couple of things we don't understand, though.
>>
>> 1. Our favorite thing to make is a 5 lb. pork butt with some root
>> beer, brown sugar, a couple of onions, and a small can of chipotles
>> in adobo sauce. (And we salt the meat liberally, too.) We don't
>> understand why the meat comes out tasting great, with just a hint of
>> hotness, but the sauce in the pan is _much_ hotter, and the onions
>> are positively flaming. We throw out the onions, and put just a
>> little of the sauce into the pan when we make a bbq sauce to put on
>> some of the pork. 2. Is there any formula for cooking time? For a 5
>> lb. pork butt,
>> we do overnight, about 9 hours, on high, and that seems to work out
>> well. We do notice, however, that not _all_ the fat is rendered,
>> and we're wondering if maybe another hour or three would be even
>> better - but 12 hours on high seems like a lot. What does it look
>> like if you overcook something in a slow cooker? So far, we have
>> undercooked but never overcooked.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> -S-
>>
>>
> Even if you render all the fat it's still swimming in it.
>
> I think you suffer from the same malady many of us do with newer
> "slow" cookers, they are set too high on their thermostats.

If 9 hours on high didn't overcook the meat, I don't see how my slow
cooker is set too high - we don't make much use of low, truth be told.

Thanks.

-S-