I've posted a few times in the past regarding pork spareribs I've
smoked, usually w/ less than stellar results. Today, I smoked four
racks ($1.89 lb at Giant Eagle this week), and they actually came out
great- "falling off the bone" tender. I used Royal Oak lump and several
handfuls of Jack Daniel's wood chips made from their oak barrels used
to age their whiskey. The only problem was the BBQ sauce I made- the
wife likes it as sweet as possible, and I prefer it be not so sweet. It
was way too sweet for my tastes, but the wife loved it. The company
loved them as well- my cousin alone was good for about a rack and a
half himself! As for the ribs, I smoked them for 3 hours, then wrapped
them in foil for about 2&1/2 hours, and then took them out of the foil,
and cooked them for about 1/2 hour, during which time I applied the
sauce. I've never used this method before- I've always smoked them
directly on the grates w/o the foil. The other difference was how I put
them on the grates. Before, I always put them on the grates meat side
up. This time, both directly on the grates and in the foil, I put them
meat side down, except for the last 15-20 minutes, when I applied the
sauce. To what do you attribute the difference in quality (much better)
this time vs all the other times? Would you say it was the method I
smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
time instead of meat side up?

Either way, it seems I've turned the corner in regards to smoking pork
spareribs- thanks in no small part to all the expertise that is
represented here!

Thanks once again for your help/suggestions!!

Jim

> wrote in message
> I've posted a few times in the past regarding pork spareribs I've
> smoked, usually w/ less than stellar results. Today, I smoked four
> racks ($1.89 lb at Giant Eagle this week), and they actually came out
> great- "falling off the bone" tender.
> sauce. I've never used this method before- I've always smoked them
> directly on the grates w/o the foil. The other difference was how I put
> them on the grates. Before, I always put them on the grates meat side
> up. This time, both directly on the grates and in the foil, I put them
> meat side down, except for the last 15-20 minutes, when I applied the
> sauce. To what do you attribute the difference in quality (much better)
> this time vs all the other times? Would you say it was the method I
> smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
> time instead of meat side up?

Tell truth? Not knowing the cooker you're using it's impossible to tell
isn't it?

Me, I did two full racks of spares (and two chix) today on the >offset<
bone down with no sauce (never while cookin', only as a side) and they
turned out great as usual. Tomorrow I'm bringing in a few ribs for a poor
Texan missing 'Q who endeared me knowing that sauce is for covering up
mistakes and believes that meat is best cooked dry, sauce served on the
side. He's getting extra knowin' that. :-)


D
--

Duwop wrote:

> Me, I did two full racks of spares (and two chix) today on the >offset<
> bone down with no sauce (never while cookin', only as a side) and they
> turned out great as usual.

Amen, bro'. Bone-down always in my offset.

> Tomorrow I'm bringing in a few ribs for a poor
> Texan missing 'Q who endeared me knowing that sauce is for covering up
> mistakes and believes that meat is best cooked dry, sauce served on the
> side. He's getting extra knowin' that. :-)

:-)

So I've been experimenting with sauces, and I've homed-in on my
own style; a decent cheap Zin-reduction with just enough sugar and
wine vinegar to add pleasant tang. I tried using a decent cheap
Cab once and my 10-year old told me to use Zin the next time.

So here's a little confession; I got curious and picked up an
ECB at Wal-Mart. $60 for a Brinkman's Electric Smoker. First cook,
I bought a pack of baby backs at Costco, figuring I wouldn't screw
'em up ;-), gotta think positive. I cut an oak barrel stave into quarters,
wrapped three of them in foil, pricked them a bunch of times to make little
holes on top, and layed them in between the element.

I was quite surprised how well the ribs turned out. I mean, really quite
close to the results I get in the offset with lump. I can tell the difference
but it's pretty subtle. Next time I'll probably use 4 quarters of the stave.

For the first cook, I even put water in the pan, though I got a bag of lava
rock to put in the pan at some point.

It's always fun to experiment, and the results were great as usual. Heat,
smoke, meat and rub.

Dana

>Tell truth? Not knowing the cooker you're using it's impossible to tell isn't it?

-Char Griller Super Pro w/ SFB. True- sauce can cover mistakes, but it
can enhance a well cooked rack o' ribs as well. Why else serve sauce on
the side? The ribs I cooked were really good today. The sauce, in my
opinion, degraded the quality. I'm not trying to start a debate on ribs
w/ sauce vs ribs w/o sauce- I'm just trying to figure out the best way
to smoke them. I recently saw a program on Food Network about 2
brothers- I think in Texas. Each had his own BBQ restaurant, within a
few miles of each other. Each one served ribs- one w/ sauce, and one
w/o, and each claimed that their ribs were the best. They both had
plenty of customers to back their claims. It truly is a matter of
preference!

Jim

On 6-Sep-2005, wrote:

> >Tell truth? Not knowing the cooker you're using it's impossible to tell isn't it?
>
> -Char Griller Super Pro w/ SFB. True- sauce can cover mistakes, but it
> can enhance a well cooked rack o' ribs as well. Why else serve sauce on
> the side? The ribs I cooked were really good today. The sauce, in my
> opinion, degraded the quality. I'm not trying to start a debate on ribs
> w/ sauce vs ribs w/o sauce- I'm just trying to figure out the best way
> to smoke them. I recently saw a program on Food Network about 2
> brothers- I think in Texas. Each had his own BBQ restaurant, within a
> few miles of each other. Each one served ribs- one w/ sauce, and one
> w/o, and each claimed that their ribs were the best. They both had
> plenty of customers to back their claims. It truly is a matter of
> preference!
>
> Jim

I saw that show. In that town anyway it's like pitting Ford agains Chevrolet
for brand loyalty. It can actually get bloody. I definitely wouldn't fit in. I
cook without sauce, but serve it on the table and I just switched from GMC
to Ford. (I can't pull houses anymore, but I can pass gas stations sometimes.)
--
The Brick said that (Don't bother to agree with me, I have already changed my mind.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote:

> Either way, it seems I've turned the corner in regards to smoking pork
> spareribs- thanks in no small part to all the expertise that is
> represented here!

Falling off the bone is a sign of overdone ribs. As to foil, it's just
another method of steaming the meat --- just like tony romas or applebees.
The sauce simply hides the meat taste.

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Would you say it was the method I
smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
time instead of meat side up?

It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.

Kurt

On 6 Sep 2005 06:08:22 -0700, "Chef Kurt" >
wrote:

>Would you say it was the method I
>smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
>time instead of meat side up?
>
>It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
>literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
>Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
>done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.
>
Which are your words, and which are the words you're replying to?
Please configure your newsreader so it quotes correctly.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:53:28 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>Which are your words, and which are the words you're replying to?
>Please configure your newsreader so it quotes correctly.

Headers suggest he was posting from Google groups.
--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:08:31 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:53:28 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>Which are your words, and which are the words you're replying to?
>>Please configure your newsreader so it quotes correctly.
>
>Headers suggest he was posting from Google groups.

There's a way to make google quote properly. Don't recall what it is
though.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:04:59 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>There's a way to make google quote properly. Don't recall what it is
>though.

Or, you could just use Outlook Express with OE-QuoteFix:

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Or, you could really go for broke and use Agent, which quotes
correctly, but costs $.

Of course, both options require a news server, which also usually
costs $$

EZ from St. Louis

You are the only one who can't seem to follow a thread without ">"'s.
Try really hard, pro. I posted on top so I hope that doesn't send you
crying to your boss, chuckles.

Now go back to alt.cult.kiblogody

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:08:31 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:53:28 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Which are your words, and which are the words you're replying to?
>>>Please configure your newsreader so it quotes correctly.
>>
>>Headers suggest he was posting from Google groups.
>
>
> There's a way to make google quote properly. Don't recall what it is
> though.
>

"Chef Kurt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Would you say it was the method I
> smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
> time instead of meat side up?
>
> It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
> literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
> Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
> done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.
>
> Kurt
>

Maybe he LIKES chain restaurant ribs. Seriously, I agree on not using foil;
4 hours or so at 250 or so on my smoker gets the job done nicely for me. No
sauce, unless someone asks for it. With beer on hand (or on tap), that's
all the saucing I need.

Jack

"Jack Schidt®" wrote:
>
> "Chef Kurt" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Would you say it was the method I
> > smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
> > time instead of meat side up?
> >
> > It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
> > literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
> > Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
> > done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.
> >
> > Kurt
> >
>
> Maybe he LIKES chain restaurant ribs. Seriously, I agree on not using foil;
> 4 hours or so at 250 or so on my smoker gets the job done nicely for me. No
> sauce, unless someone asks for it. With beer on hand (or on tap), that's
> all the saucing I need.
>
> Jack


You know some regular restaurants like J Alexander's cook their ribs
with a cooker similar to a cookshack. Low and slow smoking.

Some people like smokey tender ribs to fall off the bone. So in that
case finishing with foil is the way to go. It just depends on the
people. Kinda like me overhearing someone order Prime Rib end cut- well
done, yuck.

On 6-Sep-2005, "Jack Schidt®" > wrote:

> "Chef Kurt" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Would you say it was the method I
> > smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
> > time instead of meat side up?
> >
> > It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
> > literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
> > Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
> > done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.
> >
> > Kurt
> >
>
> Maybe he LIKES chain restaurant ribs. Seriously, I agree on not using foil;
> 4 hours or so at 250 or so on my smoker gets the job done nicely for me. No
> sauce, unless someone asks for it. With beer on hand (or on tap), that's
> all the saucing I need.
>
> Jack

I foiled some ribs just one time and I'll never do it again. Neither do I put any
sauce on them. I use my house rub the night before if I happen to think of it,
otherwise I apply the rub just before putting them in the pit. I cook at 250° to
275°F and it usually takes about 4 hours to get them where they'll crack when
I bend them. At that point they are almost, but not quite falling off the bones.
They are juicy and tender with all of their natural flavor intact. There's sauce
available on the table. Nobody ever uses it.

--
The Brick said that (Don't bother to agree with me, I have already changed my mind.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Ladies and Gentleman of AFB, welcome Dan Krueger back to the fold.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:14:54 -0400, Marc Goodman
> wrote:

>Dan Krueger wrote:
>> Funny. Let's all follow along...
>>
>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>> You got that right.
>>>
>> I know you are but what am I? Sheesh...
>
>What exactly are you complaining about, Dank? Is he
>being immature asking you to confess that you emailed
>his boss? Is he being unfair accusing you without proving
>that the email isn't a forgery? Is that your complaint?
>
>You've been following him around for almost a year now
>doing nothing but humping his leg, completely obsessessed,
>contributing nothing to this group, and now you're complaining
>that HE is being immature and unfair? Why don't you just
>**** off and stop responding to him if it really bothers
>you (or even if it doesn't really bother you, why don't
>you just **** off anyway).

Your STOPTOPOSTING

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> Ladies and Gentleman of AFB, welcome Dan Krueger back to the fold.
>
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:14:54 -0400, Marc Goodman
> > wrote:
>
> >Dan Krueger wrote:
> >> Funny. Let's all follow along...
> >>
> >> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> >>> You got that right.
> >>>
> >> I know you are but what am I? Sheesh...
> >
> >What exactly are you complaining about, Dank? Is he
> >being immature asking you to confess that you emailed
> >his boss? Is he being unfair accusing you without proving
> >that the email isn't a forgery? Is that your complaint?
> >
> >You've been following him around for almost a year now
> >doing nothing but humping his leg, completely obsessessed,
> >contributing nothing to this group, and now you're complaining
> >that HE is being immature and unfair? Why don't you just
> >**** off and stop responding to him if it really bothers
> >you (or even if it doesn't really bother you, why don't
> >you just **** off anyway).

IS THIS THE REPLACEMENT FOR TELEGRAMS + STOP + MUST WE SHOUT + STOP + OR
MUST WE SING + STOP

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:36:24 +0100, cl > wrote:

> Your STOPTOPOSTING
>
> "Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> Ladies and Gentleman of AFB, welcome Dan Krueger back to the fold.
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:14:54 -0400, Marc Goodman
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Dan Krueger wrote:
>> >> Funny. Let's all follow along...
>> >>
>> >> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> >>> You got that right.
>> >>>
>> >> I know you are but what am I? Sheesh...
>> >
>> >What exactly are you complaining about, Dank? Is he
>> >being immature asking you to confess that you emailed
>> >his boss? Is he being unfair accusing you without proving
>> >that the email isn't a forgery? Is that your complaint?
>> >
>> >You've been following him around for almost a year now
>> >doing nothing but humping his leg, completely obsessessed,
>> >contributing nothing to this group, and now you're complaining
>> >that HE is being immature and unfair? Why don't you just
>> >**** off and stop responding to him if it really bothers
>> >you (or even if it doesn't really bother you, why don't
>> >you just **** off anyway).

"madge" > wrote

> IS THIS THE REPLACEMENT FOR TELEGRAMS + STOP + MUST WE SHOUT + STOP + OR
> MUST WE SING + STOP

STOP + IN THE NAME OF LOVE

--oTTo--

Think it oh-woh-ver

Otto Bahn > wrote:
>"madge" > wrote
>> IS THIS THE REPLACEMENT FOR TELEGRAMS + STOP + MUST WE SHOUT + STOP + OR
>> MUST WE SING + STOP
>
>STOP + IN THE NAME OF LOVE

Poor Diana, having to lose that dear Mr. Rehnquist that way! (Who knew he
lived in New Orleans?)

Dave "and what about that confirmation hazing Ms Ross has to give Mr Roberts
now? It's a beautiful day in the legal neigh-bor-hood..." DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.