Does leaving the bone in your Boston butts give you better tasting product compared to a bone-less butt?

We have always maintained it does.

Here is some factual info on pork chops…would the same hold true for butts?

This excerpt was copied from an email sent to me by “Cooks Illustrated”


Do Bone-In Chops Have More Flavor than Boneless?

Is there a difference in flavor between bone-in and boneless chops? To find out, we removed the bones from several rib pork chops, grilled them, and then compared them with their bone-in counterparts in a blind taste test. (We took the meat off the grilled bone-in chops and then sliced the meat from both chops so as not to tip off tasters.) The results were clear. Every taster preferred the meat that had been cooked on the bone. It was much more juicy and had more pork flavor than the meat cooked without the bone. We contacted several food scientists, who offered a few explanations.

First, because bone is a poor conductor of heat, the meat located next to the bone doesn't cook as quickly as the rest. Although this factor doesn't alter the cooking time significantly, having a section of the pork chop cook at a slightly slower rate contributes to a juicier end product.

The bone also insulates the muscle closest to it, protecting it from exposure to the air. In a boneless chop, a larger area of muscle is exposed, so more of the flavorful juices evaporate during cooking.

Finally, fat is a crucial source of flavor, and, as it melts during cooking, it also increases the perceived juiciness. In certain cuts, especially ribs and chops, deposits of fat are located next to the bone. When the bone is removed, some fat is removed as well. With less fat, the boneless chops cooked up with less pork flavor and seemed drier.