Baby backs or spare ribs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Just wondering what everyone prefers. Also, can spare ribs be cooked in a similiar fashion to Baby Backs using the BRITU recipe? Don't laugh at me, I'm new to this! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
 
Ken,

I've used the BRITU recipe with both spares and baby backs and cannot tell a difference in taste. There are some people on this forum who swear that spares have more flavor. I guess I need to eat more ribs and find out for myself. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif A couple of other pluses for spares is that they are less expensive that babies and they have more fat on them to render and baste the meat with. Of course this translates into a longer cook time for spares. My 2 cents.
--------------------------
Mark WAR EAGLE!!
 
Ken
6 to 9 hours seems to be the spread if cooking at 225? to 250?. I personely get them done in aprox 6 hours.
Jim
 
What Mark and Jim said! I do spares 99% of the time, and use variations of the BRITU with great results. Around here, spares are $1 - 1.50 less pp.
 
My vote is for baby backs. Spares have more meat and seem to be messier to eat. I've cooked both and found 6 hours on spares, 5 on baby backs. Longer than that and they fall off the bone and make a mess.
Hope this helps
 
I like the spares better - trim them St. Louis style (cut off breastbone and flap on the underside) and cook those up as "rib tips". Flap is done in about 2 hours, breastbone part when the spares are done (6-7 hours for me). After you trim them, they roll up real nice. You can set the "tips" on top of the rolled up ribs. (now I'm really hungry for some ribs). Of course, baby backs are good too. They're from "high on the hog" so don't need as much cooking.
 
I prefer baby backs. Every time I cook spares the result is fatty ribs. Baby backs always come out great. Granted spares are a heckuva lot cheaper but I've yet to make a batch that compares to baby backs. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, I don't know. I smoke spares just like baby backs expect I usually smoke 'em for an hour or two more. Probably just me.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug McCabe:
[qb] I prefer baby backs. Every time I cook spares the result is fatty ribs.[/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fat rendering is pretty much a function of time. I find if I give them (spares) another hour past when they physically seem to be done, the result is much less greasy.

Another point often overlooked is how spares are trimmed prior to cooking. If you look at this article, specifically at Picture 1 under Anatomy of a Whole Sparerib, you'll see a cut that will remove much of the fattiest area of the rack before you even start cooking. You can then cook this trimmed-away part just as long as the racks, and then eat what's good from it and discard the rest-- mostly fat and cartilage.
 
The last time I smoked spares I did follow Chris' trimming instructions. I only made one small mis-cut, next time will be better and more accurate.

I will try spares again I am a sure and let them go for 6-7 hrs instead of my current 5-6 hrs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

 

Back
Top