spares v baby backs


 
F

fritz

Guest
I was just wondering what people prefer:
Baby backs or spare ribs?
I've heard some scoff at baby back considering them too fool proof to smoke, for amatures.
Some say spares taste better or are for "real" smokers.

What does every one like and why?

Fritz
 
Hog Wash!

I prefer Back Ribs. Spares tend to have too much fat for my liking.

Bottom line, who gives a rats what "other people" like. Smoke what you like!!!
 
I prefer spares because they generally have more meat and not a lot of fat (percentage wise) to them. Just my preference.

Paul
 
i like both. i was just doing a informal survey. Some people have some strong opinions.
 
The other consideration that I didn't mention is the cost. I can usually pick up spares for less than $2/lb which is much less than BB.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fritz:
sorry </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't sweat it fritz. Russell is right, though. There's so much good info here that whatever your question, someone else has probably asked it and received a wealth of helpful information.

By the way, I like both but now prefer loin ribs because my 3 1/2 year old daughter loves them and they're easier and safer for her to eat than spares with all the cartilage on the ends.
 
Since I don't like trimming spares to St. Louis style and I usually waste the trimmings, the savings are not that big of a deal to me. So Babybacks for me. I'm a recent convert. I think they both taste about the same.
 
I don't like eating around the cartilage in spare ribs. I'm also too chicken to trim spares to remove the cartilage. Because of this I cook back ribs. I also prefer the shorter cooking time of back ribs, I can find them as small as 1 pound per rack and those cook pretty quick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top