OK my first 2lb brisket!!!!

[demosthenes9]

Knifebld no i did the poke test at 185 was done at 213 but it was tuff tast good hard to chuw.
Rice80flash. About 8 hours for a 2lb.
It was a long night no sleep and the meet was a little hard to chuw tast was good used hickory and applewood. Round two this weekend im not giving up!!!

Strange as it may seem Reed, if the brisket was tough and hard to chew, I think it was undercooked.  If your therm was registering 218, I suspect that it is off a bit.

 

[reed29]

Yea thats what i was thinking needed longer.

 

[Rafter H BBQ]

Reed, seen your brisket & looks awesome.... Thumbs Up Sorry it didn't turn out.... Brisket is probably the hardest smoke to do ! For your first one though, ya should be damned proud of yourself ! When ya get that Mav, it's an invaluable tool & it'll save ya so much time & possible frustration ! Demos give ya a good link for the reason on the smoke ring.... I seen he stayed with ya last nite, he's a great guy ! Keep your head held high & your spirits up.... Brisket has been known as the "Holy Grail" of Q as there's a great many Q'ers & Pitmasters that have struggled with it.... Get your Mav & get right back up on "horse" bud ! We are here to help anytime !

 

[cliffcarter]

Knifebld no i did the poke test at 185 was done at 213 but it was tuff tast good hard to chuw.
Rice80flash. About 8 hours for a 2lb.
It was a long night no sleep and the meet was a little hard to chuw tast was good used hickory and applewood. Round two this weekend im not giving up!!!

It took you 8 hours to cook a 2 pound brisket?

No wonder it was tough to chew.

 

[caribou89]

8 hours for a 2lb brisket seems like a really long time.

Either your smoker therm was way off, or what ever probe you were using was way off. I'm betting on both.

 

[reed29]

Thanks agen waterinholebrew yea you guys helped a lot as soon as I get my maverick I'm going for it agen!!!

 

[demosthenes9]

 
It took you 8 hours to cook a 2 pound brisket?

No wonder it was tough to chew.

8 hours for a 2lb brisket seems like a really long time.

Either your smoker therm was way off, or what ever probe you were using was way off. I'm betting on both.

Not necessarily guys.  Take a look at what Gary S wrote here:

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/...r-the-misconception-of-the-1-to-1-5-hour-rule

Cook time is determined by the thickness of the cut of meat.      Notice how thick Reed's 2lb brisket was.  I've had 8lb flat that were thinner and would take less time to cook.

 

[cliffcarter]

 
Not necessarily guys.  Take a look at what Gary S wrote here:

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/...r-the-misconception-of-the-1-to-1-5-hour-rule

Cook time is determined by the thickness of the cut of meat.      Notice how thick Reed's 2lb brisket was.  I've had 8lb flat that were thinner and would take less time to cook.

I don't think there is any misconception, 8 hours is way too long IMHO. BTW did you notice how lean it was?

 

[demosthenes9]

 
I don't think there is any misconception, 8 hours is way too long IMHO. BTW did you notice how lean it was?

Why is 8 hours too long?   Is that because it's "only 2lbs" ?   That 2lb brisket looks to be 2 1/2 to 3 inches thick.  As for how lean it was, it's a trimmed flat.

 

[cliffcarter]

 
Why is 8 hours too long?   Is that because it's "only 2lbs" ?   That 2lb brisket looks to be 2 1/2 to 3 inches thick.  As for how lean it was, it's a trimmed flat.

8 hours at 215°(see post #1) is too long for any 2 pound cut of meat, I don't understand how you could disagree.

Yes.

Looks closer to 2" or a bit less to me (in post #86.)

I hope no one thought it was a 2 pound packer

.

 

[demosthenes9]

 
8 hours at 215°(see post #1) is too long for any 2 pound cut of meat, I don't understand how you could disagree.

Yes.

Looks closer to 2" or a bit less to me (in post #86.)

I hope no one thought it was a 2 pound packer

.

The reason I am disagreeing is because it's flawed to think of all meats in terms of "X hours per pound".       Quick question, you have a 4lb piece of meat that is  8 inches long, 5 inches wide and 1 inch thick.   That's 40 cubic inches of meat.       I have a 4lb piece of meat that is 4 inches long, 5 inches wide but 2 inches thick.    BOth pieces are 4 lbs and they are both also the same 40 cubic inches of meat, one is just twice as thick and half as long as the other.

Question:  If you stick both pieces of meat in a smoker and cook them side by side, will they take the same amount of time to cook ?  If not, which one will take longer and WHY ?

 

[cliffcarter]

 
The reason I am disagreeing is because it's flawed to think of all meats in terms of "X hours per pound".       Quick question, you have a 4lb piece of meat that is  8 inches long, 5 inches wide and 1 inch thick.   That's 40 cubic inches of meat.       I have a 4lb piece of meat that is 4 inches long, 5 inches wide but 2 inches thick.    BOth pieces are 4 lbs and they are both also the same 40 cubic inches of meat, one is just twice as thick and half as long as the other.

Question:  If you stick both pieces of meat in a smoker and cook them side by side, will they take the same amount of time to cook ?  If not, which one will take longer and WHY ?

I agree, "X hours per pound" is a guide to planning and not some hard and fast rule that determines when meat is "done" that must be adhered to at all costs

You are missing my point which, simply stated, is- 8 hours of cooking time was too long thus the meat was over cooked, dry and tough to chew (according to the OP).

 

[demosthenes9]

 
I agree, "X hours per pound" is a guide to planning and not some hard and fast rule that determines when meat is "done" that must be adhered to at all costs

You are missing my point which, simply stated, is- 8 hours of cooking time was too long thus the meat was over cooked, dry and tough to chew (according to the OP).

It's much deeper than just saying that " 'x hours per pound' is just a guide and not some hard and fast rule".     The point you are missing is that the weight is IRRELEVANT.  What matters is how THICK the brisket is.   

I fully understand your point, I just don't agree with it.   You are still stuck on the "X hours per pound" thing as your own statement shows.  Here is what you said:  "8 hours at 215°(see post #1) is too long for any 2 pound cut of meat."    I'd gather that if the brisket flat in question had the exact same thickness, but weighed 9 lbs, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

Yes, Reed said that the brisket was tough to chew.  Guess what ?  That's the case when a brisket is undercooked as the connective tissues between the muscle fibers hasn't rendered out.