Spares over baby backs???


 
R

Rusty

TVWBB Member
I was looking at the polls section of this forum and saw where an over whelming majority of members here prefer spares over baby backs.

Why is that?
 
and they taste more porky
icon_biggrin.gif
 
I go back and forth, and prett much switch off with every cook. Tomorrow is bb's ($2.99lb - unenhanced).

Spares i get from a local butcher who has a hog farm.

I like both is what I am trying to say.
 
I cook back ribs more often when I have company and I am in a rush as they tend to be more consistent in the amount of time that they take to render and are therefor easier to cook.

But, when I have the time I prefer spareribs. IMO they taste better and are cheaper to boot.

I think the reason that back ribs are popular with the unenlightended (those that don't know the difference in grilling and Qing) is that you can grill them and get an edible meal. Spares require low and slow and your average person does not know or is to lazy to cook them properly.
 
Wow! That is some great feedback guys! You have taught me a lot.

I always thought baby backs were supposed to be a more premium rack over the spares. I figured that is why they cost so much more than spares.

What does "enhanced" mean? How do I know if my ribs have been enhanced or not?

I was able to buy some baby backs that have already had the membrane removed for $2.29 lbs. I stocked up on those as the cheapest I had seen them on sale was $2.79 lb.
Every so often, I will see spares for .99 cents a pound. I bought a rack, but haven't tried them yet. The cutting and preparing them into st. louis style is going to be new to me.
 
James Trapp hit the nail directly on the head,
"Spares require low and slow and your average person does not know or is to lazy to cook them properly."
I was one of those "unenlightened" until I bought into the WSM idea of smokin'/cookin' spares. Now, I too, love spares!
Oh, sure. I still do BBRs, but spares are like candy.
And Rusty, why even try cutting your spares to St. Louie style? Keep 'em intact and have a beer in the time it'd take you to cut 'em up.
...and ENJOY
wsmsmile8gm.gif
 
I have to respectfully disagree about the low and slow requirement for spares. Ever since I tried Larry Wolfe's high heat method, I haven't done them low and slow. Now I do them on the performer at 300-350. They come out great.

But to answer the original question, yes - they are meatier and cheaper. Oh, and porkier.
icon_biggrin.gif
 
I've done single racks a few times in the kettle the way Larry suggested and I especially like the way the outside comes out after a few minutes over the coals
 
Regardless of the cooking temperature, back ribs are quicker and easier to prepare than spares, especially for those who don't have something like the WSM to cook them on. Also, with spares you usually have to either trim them or deal with all the cartilage. The resulting popularity of loin backs is probably why they are more expensive. Certainly not because they are "better".

All ribs are good when well prepared, but spares are meatier and cheaper. That's worth a little extra time.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rusty:


I was able to buy some baby backs that have already had the membrane removed for $2.29 lbs. I stocked up on those as the cheapest I had seen them on sale was $2.79 lb.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man that is a pretty darn good price for spares with membrane removed, or at least I would pay that price for done that way. That membrane always gives me fits, and those were Baby backs to boot? Heck of a deal my friend.
 
I like spares much better than baby backs. The price, the meatiness, and most of all, the flavor is so much better than BBs. BBs are easier and quicker to cook though. I only buy BBs when they are on sale for a good price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top