-
-
A pork chop sandwich is one of my favorite lunchtime treats. This obviously precludes bones … BUT: a boneless loin chop is a sad, dry thing, IM(non-humble)O. Therefore, I cook a bone-in chop, trim out the bun-sized main morsel, and have my sandwich. As for dessert, well … ;-)
›4 Replies-
-
re: tommy
No, but it provides an impermeable barrier to help retain the juices that are there. The egg-and-crumb coating on a schnitzel seems to have a similar effect.
For Motosport, below: except for the few who insist that since they can't figure how it works, it obviously can't, the widespread consensus is that bone-in IS juicier. I haven't yet got my Howard McGee book so I can't look it up, but I'm sure he has something to say on the subject. I would be very much surprised if he dismissed it as a delusion.
-
-
re: tommy
Here is what someone else says Harold Mcgee says about "Bone in" http://www.livestrong.com/article/527...
From that you could infer that cooking with the bone in is a bit more forgiving than without. So a properly cooked chop either way is going to be as tender and juicy as the marbling will allow. My personal preference is bone in, but for taste not for juicyness. I realize it's subjective, but meat on the bone tastes better to me.
jb
-
-
-
-
-
-
There is much more flavor with bone-in. Some tips: Take your time. Start with low heat, a bit of olive oil, season chops with garlic pepper. Some sweet onion in the pan is a nice addition. When chops are half-done move to oven or cover pan. Allow chops to rest 5 minutes before serving.
-
-
-
re: awm922
I always tended to go for the thick, the juicy and the slow-cooked, but after repeatedly smelling the thin chops my (Mexican) neighbors were cooking I got some thin ones and fried them crisp. Oh! My! These are a whole 'nother variety of meat! Okay, I still like the thickish ones braised, or coated with something and roasted, but those thin crunchy guys are great. Found some on the breakfast menu at a Mexican place we went to, and golly, were they good with beans and eggs!
-
-
-
Bone-in.
In fact, unless you've *know* where boneless chops are cut from, they are not worth buying, because "center cut" and "loin" cover everything from blade chops near the shoulder to sirloin chops near the ham. The best chops are from the rib (bone-in chops where the bone forms the shape of a curved number 7); blade chops (from between the rib and the shoulder) can be tasty but typically have more "stuff" in them. Sirloin chops and "T" bone chops are much less desirable, and therefore they are what boneless chops are usually made from. Which is why one shouldn't buy them ....
›1 Reply -
-
One vote for boneless here. With the exception of ribs and drumettes, if I can't eat it, it doesn't belong on my dish. OTOH, Mrs G loves to gnaw on the bones like everyone else who posted here. If we get meat w/bone, she'll cut most of the meat off for me and keep the rest. Gnawing on bones seems so primitive to me. A pile of bones actually nauseates me.
›4 Replies -
Yes! Bones! Boneless loin chops are okay for making schnitzels, but that's about it. I've given up on cooking them as plain pork chops, because the same ones with a bone attached are so much better - juicier, tenderer, much more flavor. Even when I want a pork chop sandwich, I'll cook a bone-in one and then trim it. And now I just noticed it's lunch time … !
›1 Reply -
Most definitely bone-in! Boneless pork chops are leaner than chicken breast, and we all know fat is flavor. If you get a center cut chop with the little piece of tenderloin on one side, so much the better.
›4 Replies-
-
-
-
re: joonjoon
I was highlighting the dichotomy of stating "fat is flavor" in one sentence (I don't agree with this broad generalization) and singing the praises of the least fatty part of the loin in the next sentence.
The blade and sirloin chops may have a bit more fat, but they also have more connective tissue, of which I am not a fan. I'll take breaded and pan-fried center cut any day!
-
-
-






