2-1-1 Baby Back Ribs


 
Sure you can. I do it both ways/either way depending on what else I've got going on that might draw my attention. Since you're doing a short cook there's no need to start with a full ring unless, of coure, you want a LOT of leftover coal.

Be careful of doing everything by the clock, especially timing doneness. Keep an eye on them so you can pull them when they actually are done to your liking, which may or may not be at the 4 hour mark.
 
For ribs I use a 1/2 ring unlit and throw about 10 - 15 lit on top. Wait about 5 minutes and then assemble the cooker. I'm not big on having leftover coals so I try to use the "right" about of coals every time I cook.
 
I also do not like having a LOT of left over coals and try to adjust the amount for shorter cooks such as ribs or chicken. One problem, however, is that if you use too few coals you can have a problem getting the pit temp up to the appropriate level. I think that just takes experimentation and it can vary with weather conditions. My thought has been to use more lit when I'm using a smaller quanity of unlit such as a 1/2 ring.

Paul
 
I have found with baby backs...I smoke at 220-230 for 2.5 hrs, foil with pineapple juice/vinegar/water mix for 1 hr, and then cook direct with sauce for 20-30 mins to finish them off. 4 hrs total time.
 
Tried the 2-1-1 on the weekend with 2 racks of pork back ribs. I did 2 hours at 275 which set a decent bark, but the 1 hour wrapped was not enough...had to go another 1.5 after unwrapping and that dried them a little.

I should have gone 2-2-1 or 3-1-1. But I was pretty happy running at 275 with no water in the pan on my WSM.
 
babybacks @ 250-275 for 3.5 hrs and then tightly wrap in heavy duty foil for 30 min at the end is my preferred procedure...
 
Just as relevant and informative as it was when it was originally discussed. Some complain when folks don't use the search function. Some complain when they do use search function.
 
Because the population on this forum is unique (only 18,000 members and at a guess I would say only a few hundred if that many are actually active) shall we say, when questions may be asked of a person who was here 14 years ago and not since, he can't answer. Which may frustrate the new poster.

Hence, that is why it is reasonable for a person to start a new thread to which current member(s) might reply. To post in an old thread like this may result in someone who has already posted to not reply because, well, because they have already posted about that issue and don't want to repeat themselves.

Chris may wish to address this issue.
 
Len Dennis said:
Because the population on this forum is unique shall we say, when questions may be asked of a person who was here 14 years ago and not since, he can't answer. Which may frustrate the new poster.

Hence, that is why it is reasonable for a person to start a new thread to which current member(s) might reply. To post in an old thread like this may result in someone who has already posted to not reply because, well, because they have already posted about that issue and don't want to repeat themselves.
Click to expand...
As much as I hate this flippant statement, whatever, Len. :p
Is it possible some newer members might have found some advice on this revised thread?
 
May I say I find it enjoyable to sometimes see an oldie but goody take-on some new life? I don't think we anticipate an answer from the OP but it all shows up in the "New Posts" stream, making it just as likely for active members to chime-in (like now, lol). Don't you enjoy seeing the famous Roadside Chicken post show-up in the activity stream? I do!
 
If we only discussed something we haven't previously discussed we would have nothing to discuss. There's no harm in posting a new thread. Necroposting is annoying. If youu are posting a new thread and there already is one on the same topic from yesterday, that's annoying, too.Is it the end of the world? No. Just use your best judgement.
 
With so many posts about ATCs, and restoring gas grills, I found this old "barbecuing ribs" thread refreshing.
If nothing more than for the controversy it's caused. :)
 
I shouldn't read the forum until my coffee kicks in. I had the grumps this morning. As far as 2-1-1 goes, most of the extra meaty baby backs you get these days won't be done in that time.
 
Did a rack of Costco BB's on Tuesday. Because I cook on a 14 I cut the rack in half. I was worried about both halves being done more or less at the same time as the fat end was really fat. Cooked at 250/275 as I didn't start till noon. Got side tracked and did 2.5 then foiled, checked at 1 hour and found the fat half at 200 and the thin end at 208!. Came out okay but the fat had not rendered as well as we like. Going back to 225 and the longer 3-2-1ish cook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top