Ribs - do you prefer using foil or none?


 
A

Alfred Y

TVWBB Member
Going to try my first pass at ribs this weekend in the WSM, but I'm torn on whether or not to use foil in the cook.

I've read a lot, but no one has mentioned if they've tried both versions and their preference.

Anyone care to chime in?
 
I've done them both ways. Without foil, the ribs still come out nice and juicy, and the bark stays crispier. With foil, you can't easily check on the doneness of the ribs, and they can tend to get mushy, and the bark soft.

I doubt I'll ever foil ribs again!
 
For your first time you should probably keep it simple - just cook them until done.

That said, I've done them both ways and prefer to foil. It seems to give more uniform doneness throughout the rack. Mushiness is a possibility if you overcook in foil, but overcooking without foil has its problems too. I usually firm up the bark by putting them back on the heat for at least 30 minutes after removing from foil.
 
Carl H. said:
For your first time you should probably keep it simple - just cook them until done.

That said, I've done them both ways and prefer to foil. It seems to give more uniform doneness throughout the rack. Mushiness is a possibility if you overcook in foil, but overcooking without foil has its problems too. I usually firm up the bark by putting them back on the heat for at least 30 minutes after removing from foil.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that for anyone using foil, would also have to put them back on after unfoiling.

DBWallis said:
I've done them both ways. Without foil, the ribs still come out nice and juicy, and the bark stays crispier. With foil, you can't easily check on the doneness of the ribs, and they can tend to get mushy, and the bark soft.

I doubt I'll ever foil ribs again!
Click to expand...

Thank you for the response!
 
Done both. If you foil, use 3-2-1. 3 hours in smoke, 2 in foil, 1 more in the cooker no foil or smoke. If you're saucing do it in the last half hour or so.

I've found they turn out just as well without, and doubt I'll ever use foil again for ribs. I do use a water pan.
 
The last ribs I did I cooked 2 hours no foil. 1.5 hours in foil the 30 minutes sauced back on the grill with no foil all done at 275 and they turned out great. My wife said they were the best yet. Guess I'll just have to keep trying back and forth to see. Oh darn :)
 
Go without the foil on your first batch so you can watch the progress of the ribs as they cook. You will get a good feel for bark formation, pull back on the bones, etc...

Use the Best Ribs in the Universe cooking method on this website and enjoy the results.
 
I've done both. Both ways are good. I prefer no foil.
However.... best rib cooks were fresh ribs. As in: ribs had not been frozen.
 
Jim Lampe said:
next time you smoke ribs, do two racks.
1 with foil
1 without

then compare.
Click to expand...

THIS!!! I find myself cooking them without foil for myself, but with foil when cooking for a crowd. As I'm sure that most will agree with, my guests seem to go crazy for "fall off the bone" ribs, damn near bordering on mush. I don't prefer them that way, but you gotta give the people what they want:).
 
I don't foil. I do cut back on sugar or smoke at 225 to make sure the bark doesn't get too dark.
 
I was staunchly anti foil but I foiled my last rack of baby backs and they turned out outstanding. I only had them in foil about an hour and definitely put them back on to firm back up a little. If you use foil judiciously you won't get mush.

On the other hand I've cooked really good ribs without. If I'm doing a lot of racks I don't wanna mess with foil.
 
JRAiona said:
The last ribs I did I cooked 2 hours no foil. 1.5 hours in foil the 30 minutes sauced back on the grill with no foil all done at 275 and they turned out great. My wife said they were the best yet. Guess I'll just have to keep trying back and forth to see. Oh darn :)
Click to expand...

This is my base method too which i learned from watching the BBQ with Franklin videos. Lately i am thinking the foil time can be cut back even further.
 
I learned to just cook them without foil, spares not baby backs. Baby backs are a waste of money. Choosing your spares is critical, you want to take a bend test if you can in the package. When I was doing them I bought them at Sam's three to a cryovac. I just made sure I bought anything close to 12# for three racks. That meant I would get two descent racks and one from an old sow.
 
Dustin Dorsey said:
I was staunchly anti foil but I foiled my last rack of baby backs and they turned out outstanding.
Click to expand...

I am guessing that has a lot to do with how lean BB are compared to spare. Hardly any fat would make them dry out faster, so the foil would be a plus.
 
T Waite said:
I am guessing that has a lot to do with how lean BB are compared to spare. Hardly any fat would make them dry out faster, so the foil would be a plus.
Click to expand...

It's possible. They were the "extra meaty" type so they had extra loin meat that can be pretty lean. I prefer spares but my wife prefers baby backs and she likes them more tender. With some foil time you can definitely get them there. I was able to get them pull of the bone with a good bite through. I think its critical to put them back on for while after unwrapping. Of course if you leave them wrapped too long, getting them unwrapped and put back on without them falling apart isn't easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top