Baby backs vs. Spares poll


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Big Ir

TVWBB Member
Hello all-

I have never done baby backs, spares many times over using Stogie's method, 3 hours in the smoke, 2.5 hours wrapped in foil, last half hour unwrapped, with the finishing sauce. Every time, they come out perfectly cooked and very very tender. I can't imagine baby backs being THAT much better. I have heard/read that the reason baby backs are more money is because they are more tender. So what I am polling everyone on is: Are baby backs worth the extra money, as I see it, you get less meat for more money, and are they THAT much better than spares??
 
Hi IR,

Personally I prefer spares to backs any day. They are much meatier and have a better fat content for rendering. Loin backs can be darn good too but it's 'that pork fat thing'. In terms of tenderness, the way we cook 'em, they are all tender after six+ hours! For competition I pick the best specimen in the cooler, but I always check the spares first.

Dave
 
Big IR,

I also prefer spares. Like you said they are meatier and if you've cooked them right they just as tender as baby backs. I also think they have more flavor than baby backs.

rj
 
Thanks BigIr for trying my method. I do appreciate that and am glad they are turning out OK for you.

Here's my take on spares vs. back ribs.....

I prefer baby's because of the greatly decreased prep time. With spares, you will need to trim, unless you know a butcher who will trim for free...most will trim but you get charged for the whole rack. Those rib tips are pretty good, but they are also very wasteful with lots of cartilage to sort thru.

With back ribs, I can cook them right out of the bag.

As far as meatier...no way! My backs come from Sam's and are 2 1/4lb./rack. I will put that up against any spare rib. Most spares, after trimming will come out around 3 lbs. Their bones are bigger and they have, again, that pesky cartilage that must be sorted thru...even in a St. Louis cut. So, I am willing to bet my baby's are just as meaty as a spare.

I do agree that they will be SLIGHTLY cheaper in the long run, but I am willig to bet that price difference is rather small...because of the increased waste in spares.

Tenderness is a non-issue. Now, if you are grilling, like most folks do, then backs will appear to be more tender, but we all know, a little more time at low temps will tenderize both baby's and spares equally.

Finally, price. I started cooking baby's regularly when I found a supplier that had very good prices. I have seldom paid over $3/lb. for these...until lately they have spiked a bit.

To me, between the decreased prep time and the added waste of spares, I will pay a little more for loin backs.
 
As far as low and slow, spares are the way to go. Baby backs are a leaner cut - not less meaty but less fat. That said though, the pork fat is what is giving you the better flavor. I like them both, but you have to recognize that even though they are both ribs, they are distinctly different. If you have the time and patience, go for the spares - but do it for the flavor, not the money because I think Kevin is right about yield after trimming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

 

Back
Top