Slow cooker: on the bone?

corblimey

Most of the slow cooker recipes that I want to try state that I should be using meat on the bone. It's far easier to get off the bone meat, so does it make any difference in the cooking process if there's a bone or not. I've always thought that the bone adds some flavouring and texture, but takes longer to cook as the meat near the bone can still come out raw long time after the rest of the meat is ready.

foodaholic

Ive used both meat on the bone and off the bone. Yummy either way.

denat

corblimey wrote: »

Most of the slow cooker recipes that I want to try state that I should be using meat on the bone. It's far easier to get off the bone meat, so does it make any difference in the cooking process if there's a bone or not. I've always thought that the bone adds some flavouring and texture, but takes longer to cook as the meat near the bone can still come out raw long time after the rest of the meat is ready.

My understanding is, that when stewing, casseroling or roasting, meat on the bone actually cooks faster than off the bone, given the same amount of meat and assuming that it's a joint rather than sliced or cubed.

I don't know if that applies in a slow cooker but my guess is that it makes no material difference to cooking time.

I'm an amateur cook and am open to correction on both of above statements!

Dizzyblonde

It's my understanding that the bone conducts the heat through the meat. So meat on the bone cooks more quickly.
There's a post in the 'what I had for dinner last night' thread where someone cooked a whole chicken in the slow cooker in 4 hours on high

mags16

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

It's my understanding that the bone conducts the heat through the meat. So meat on the bone cooks more quickly.
There's a post in the 'what I had for dinner last night' thread where someone cooked a whole chicken in the slow cooker in 4 hours on high

That was me and it was delicious.