Discuss Cooking - Cooking Forums

Discuss Cooking - Cooking Forums (http://www.discusscooking.com/forums/)
-   BBQ & Smokin' Meats (http://www.discusscooking.com/forums/f36/)
-   -   C'mon. Smoking prime rib? (http://www.discusscooking.com/forums/f36/cmon-smoking-prime-rib-91894.html)

McDaddy 12-25-2014 12:11 PM

C'mon. Smoking prime rib?
 
I know the traditional method but... bearing in mind the cost and quality of a standing prime rib roast, how can you smoke one and still get the crust?

CraigC 12-25-2014 12:28 PM

Why would you smoke a prime rib? My family loves my brisket, but would consider a tender cut ruined if smoked.

McDaddy 12-25-2014 12:34 PM

I don't know. That's why I asked. I like to smoke meat and was just curious.

RPCookin 12-25-2014 01:57 PM

Go the the Beef forum in the Smoking Meats Forum and see. There are a dozen different threads from various guys smoking different size rib roasts. They smoke it first, then either sear it on the grill, or in a 500 oven for just a few minutes to crust it if needed. They look wonderful, and most of them say that once you've eaten one that was smoked, you'll never be satisfied with one done in the oven again.

I'm not sure I agree with that last statement, because one thing that they don't get is pan drippings, and I consider that a necessary ingredient for my au jus recipe.

Andy M. 12-25-2014 06:50 PM

You don't have to cook low and slow to add smoke. Roast your PR at 350F-400F along with smoke.

RPCookin 12-26-2014 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy M. (Post 1403818)
You don't have to cook low and slow to add smoke. Roast your PR at 350F-400F along with smoke.

Depending on what you prefer, you can actually get better results going low (not just from that forum, but a couple of other recipes I've read say the same), even if you don't smoke. I have one recipe that specifies cooking at 200 for about 5 hours (internal temp 125), then letting it rest from 30 minutes up to a couple of hours, then doing the high temp crust for 10 minutes and the entire roast is a perfect medium rare End to end and crust to crust, no sign of any gray around the edges.

I didn't use this method simply because I had a group that included some who prefer medium, so I cooked it at 325 until the probe read 132, then let it rest for 30 minutes to get medium rare in the middle, but medium to medium+ toward the ends.

McDaddy 12-26-2014 07:35 AM

Hey, thanks. After considering everything I guess I should do it the traditional way as this is my first attempt at cooking a SRibRoast. Don't think I feel confidant enough to try putting a crust on after the cut. Not saying it can't be done but I am feeding many and don't want any undo surprises.

Roll_Bones 12-26-2014 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McDaddy (Post 1403855)
Hey, thanks. After considering everything I guess I should do it the traditional way as this is my first attempt at cooking a SRibRoast. Don't think I feel confidant enough to try putting a crust on after the cut. Not saying it can't be done but I am feeding many and don't want any undo surprises.

I agree. Testing something for guests is not smart.
Also, this is one expensive cut and should be treated as such.
I would use a tried method, like Craigs.

500F for 5 minutes. Lower oven to 200F and roast 1 hour per pound.

GotGarlic 12-26-2014 10:22 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Mine was a small, 3-pound roast and it was done in two hours. I think it's better to go by temperature than time. I kept it warm in the oven set at 170F and it was great. I also seared it in a cast iron pan rather than in a hot oven. I just felt like I had more control that way.

RPCookin 12-26-2014 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roll_Bones (Post 1403870)
I agree. Testing something for guests is not smart.
Also, this is one expensive cut and should be treated as such.
I would use a tried method, like Craigs.

500F for 5 minutes. Lower oven to 200F and roast 1 hour per pound.

I have at least 4 different methods in my Living Cookbook now for doing a rib roast, and every one is is tried and proven. No one method is better than any other, they all work well when done as instructed, but ALL of them strongly recommend using a good thermometer. Most say that the time per pound method is nothing more than a ball park estimate, and the larger the roast, the less likely it is to work. For a really large roast, it is guaranteed to fail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GotGarlic (Post 1403871)
Mine was a small, 3-pound roast and it was done in two hours. I think it's better to go by temperature than time. I kept it warm in the oven set at 170F and it was great. I also seared it in a cast iron pan rather than in a hot oven. I just felt like I had more control that way.

Yes, definitely. The time idea only applies to a cut that is about as long as it is thick, and even then you are guessing. The cooking process will penetrate to the center by the shortest route. A 14 pound boneless rib roast like I had was quite a bit longer than it was thick, and cooking it for 15 minutes per pound would have put it at 3.5 hours, yet it hit 130 in the center in under 2 hours - another hour and a half and I'd have had a nice door stop.

The only way I will ever cook a roast (beef, pork, lamb, chicken, turkey, even meat loaf) is with a good probe thermometer (mine is the Chef Alarm from Thermoworks) in the center of the thickest part (not close to a bone). Anything else is just guessing, and that's no way to treat a good piece of meat.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.