Spare Ribs vs. Baby Backs


 
Jeff Bittel

Jeff Bittel

TVWBB Fan
Yesterday I had an opportunity to try a little experiment. I was cooking ribs for a gathering of adult leaders for our Cub Scout Pack. I had volunteered to cook the ribs. Now I have my preference for ribs, and I have read the pros and cons on this and other forums as to which is better, spares or baby backs. So I decided to test this on a group of people who only occasionally get to eat ribs, and to my knowledge none of them own a smoker. Bottom line they tasted with an open mind.

I cooked three racks of each, using the exact same rub and cooked them all in the same WSM. The spares were trimmed Kansas City style. I put them in, and pulled them out at the same time (4 1/2 hours). I cooked them to the tenderness that I like. Meat was pulled off the bone, but still had to a small bit of fight left chewing them off the bone (but not much).

When I cut them up, I placed them on two separate serving dish's and asked the audience to tell me their preference when finished. It was a lot of fun listening to the comments. As it turned out I had three different groups. Those that definitely liked the spares, those that definitely liked the baby backs, and third group that swore they could not decide which was better and claimed it was torture trying to decide.

General comments:

Baby Backs
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>More meat
More juice
More fat
Sweeter[/list]

Spare Ribs
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Better taste
More flavor
Less fat (and meat)[/list]

What I learned was that either one can be a crowd pleaser if cooked properly. I do think the Baby Backs go further because they have more meat than spare ribs in general. They are also easier to prepare. In the future for large gatherings I will cook the BB's, but for my home cooking I will stick with the spare ribs because I'm part of the crowd that thinks they have just a tiny bit more natural flavor.
 
Excellent post Jeff!

I've done kind of the same thing before, only on a smaller scale. Many of the people liked the spares better, but did complain about the cartilaginous bits on the end of the bone(I try to trim them as close as possible...). Other than that, most people said they liked spares better because they were meatier.
 
I always cooked back ribs. Last year after reading here on the forums about spares I had to try them. If I didn't have so much time in triming up the spares I would do them instead. I do the back ribs just for the ease. pull the membrane and rub.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If I didn't have so much time in trimming up the spares I would do them instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

25 years ago when I bought my 1st rack of spare ribs my ignorance level was pretty high. I did not trim them and never pulled the membrane off. I cooked them that way on gas grills for probably 10 years and thought they were pretty darn good. Somewhere along the way I figured out the membrane thing. With the help of this forum and Chris's very clear instructions I figured out the trimming detail. First time it took me about 15 minutes to trim a rack. Now it takes me about 3 minutes.

The secret is a very very sharp knife and a realization that a 70% solution was good enough.
 
I've given up on spares and only cook BB's now. By the time i trim all the waste (i'm not saving it for stew or anything else), I end up with half the weight, which means spares really cost me the same amount as BB's in terms of net meat to cook/eat. Combine that with the fact that the membrane is easier to pull on BB's, I don't need to bother with trimming and I like them equally well to spares, it's a done deal for me.
 
I never thought of baby backs having more meat?? Spares have always been fattier and meatier with maybe some taste unless they r too greasy.

cool experiment!
 
After I was shown how to do the "St Louis Style trim" I only cook spares - and the trimmings always get eaten or saved.

Becomes a no-brainer IMHO
 
Yeah, I'm surprised the BB's had more meat, Usually it's the spares that are meatier, even St Louis trimmed.

As I have said before, my wife prefers baby backs, so that means I pretty much prefer baby backs too.
 
The spares got the flavor, the spares got a bit of fight, and that's the way I like 'em. Plus, they're half the cost of baby backs. No brainer to me.
 
The St. Louis style in cryovac is what we like to cook. Medium price, medium amount of meat, seem to be more meat and juicier than BB's. Getcha some Smithfield brand. They put them on sale all the time down here for $2.99/lb.
 
Baby Backs are like Filet Mignon while Spares are like Ribeye. Back when we did the competition thing all our wins were with STL spares.

Konrad
 
I always trim St. Louis style and freeze the trimmings. Next time you make a pot of spagetti sauce (gravy), throw a couple of chucks in while it's simmering to add alot of good flavor.
 
Baby Backs that I have bought this summer have had an unusual amount of meat on them. I agree with everyone else, in that they are a lot easier to prepare - just de-membrane, rub and throw on the fire. Bought some BB today at the local grocer for $2.99/lb. Will be getting about 8-12 more before the sale ends.
 
I find that the spares have much more meat and better flavor. As far as prep goes, it takes me MAYBE 15 minutes prep do 2 whole slabs St. Louis style. Practice makes perfect and the more you do the quicker you get. I follow Chris' instructions to the "T" except I take the membrane off of the skirt meat while it's still attached to the slab. In my experience, they don't tear as much that way.

The spares I get are packaged 2 per pack and usually weigh, combined, between 20-22 lbs at a cost of about $1.00 per lb. at BJ's.

Spares vs. BB?? No brainer here as well....spares EVERY time.
 
Thanks Jeff... a really cool experiment... Will you PLEASE invite me to your next one???
icon_biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top