What's the preference of you experienced q'ers? I've tried them both
precooked in beer and sauce and thrown on my weber to finish them off
and really can't taste a whole lot of difference! Am I missing
something?

"greatgrate" > wrote in message
om...
> What's the preference of you experienced q'ers? I've tried them both
> precooked in beer and sauce and thrown on my weber to finish them off
> and really can't taste a whole lot of difference! Am I missing
> something?

A butcher we use frequently recommends the St. Louis ribs over the baby
backs. Says they have more meat on them and that's what we have in the
freezer now.

Chris in Pearland, TX

"greatgrate" > wrote in message
om...
> What's the preference of you experienced q'ers? I've tried them both
> precooked in beer and sauce and thrown on my weber to finish them off
> and really can't taste a whole lot of difference! Am I missing
> something?

The baby back's only advantage AFAIK is tenderness - they can be ready to
eat after a relatively short time on the grill. St. Louis, which I believe
is a term for "regular" ribs, are supposed to be much more flavorful but
take several hours. The precooking in beer idea would get a thumbs down from
any experienced BBQer I know. Long and slow on the grill is the best way.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"greatgrate" > wrote in message
om...
> What's the preference of you experienced q'ers? I've tried them both
> precooked in beer and sauce and thrown on my weber to finish them off
> and really can't taste a whole lot of difference! Am I missing
> something?

The baby back's only advantage AFAIK is tenderness - they can be ready to
eat after a relatively short time on the grill. St. Louis, which I believe
is a term for "regular" ribs, are supposed to be much more flavorful but
take several hours. The precooking in beer idea would get a thumbs down from
any experienced BBQer I know. Long and slow on the grill is the best way.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Peter Aitken wrote:

> "greatgrate" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>What's the preference of you experienced q'ers? I've tried them both
>>precooked in beer and sauce and thrown on my weber to finish them off
>>and really can't taste a whole lot of difference! Am I missing
>>something?
>
>
> The baby back's only advantage AFAIK is tenderness - they can be ready to
> eat after a relatively short time on the grill. St. Louis, which I believe
> is a term for "regular" ribs, are supposed to be much more flavorful but
> take several hours. The precooking in beer idea would get a thumbs down from
> any experienced BBQer I know. Long and slow on the grill is the best way.
>
>

Agree. The only thing (IMO) that you accomplish by precooking
(boiling/simmering/whatever) is to cook flavor out of 'em. Wanna add
flavor to the meat, go with a dry rub of your liking. Let them come to
room temperature (important) and then throw 'em on the WSM. There are
debates as to bone side down or bone side up. I'm a bone side up
believer. I also prefer BB's but certainly wouldn't complain if I
could only get St. L.

--
Steve

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again.

Peter Aitken wrote:

> "greatgrate" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>What's the preference of you experienced q'ers? I've tried them both
>>precooked in beer and sauce and thrown on my weber to finish them off
>>and really can't taste a whole lot of difference! Am I missing
>>something?
>
>
> The baby back's only advantage AFAIK is tenderness - they can be ready to
> eat after a relatively short time on the grill. St. Louis, which I believe
> is a term for "regular" ribs, are supposed to be much more flavorful but
> take several hours. The precooking in beer idea would get a thumbs down from
> any experienced BBQer I know. Long and slow on the grill is the best way.
>
>

Agree. The only thing (IMO) that you accomplish by precooking
(boiling/simmering/whatever) is to cook flavor out of 'em. Wanna add
flavor to the meat, go with a dry rub of your liking. Let them come to
room temperature (important) and then throw 'em on the WSM. There are
debates as to bone side down or bone side up. I'm a bone side up
believer. I also prefer BB's but certainly wouldn't complain if I
could only get St. L.

--
Steve

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again.

greatgrate wrote:

> What's the preference of you experienced q'ers? I've tried them both
> precooked in beer and sauce and thrown on my weber to finish them off
> and really can't taste a whole lot of difference! Am I missing
> something?

Yes, you are missing something. There is also the equally well known
Kansas City cut of ribs.

--
Alan

"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

greatgrate wrote:

> What's the preference of you experienced q'ers? I've tried them both
> precooked in beer and sauce and thrown on my weber to finish them off
> and really can't taste a whole lot of difference! Am I missing
> something?

Yes, you are missing something. There is also the equally well known
Kansas City cut of ribs.

--
Alan

"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

greatgrate wrote:

> What's the preference of you experienced q'ers? I've tried them both
> precooked in beer and sauce and thrown on my weber to finish them off
> and really can't taste a whole lot of difference! Am I missing
> something?

Experienced 'Qers don't pre-cook ribs in fluid and throw them on the grill.
That isn't even 'Q.

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

Peter Aitken wrote:


> The baby back's only advantage AFAIK is tenderness - they can be
> ready to eat after a relatively short time on the grill. St. Louis,
> which I believe is a term for "regular" ribs, are supposed to be much
> more flavorful but take several hours.


"St. Louis" is a way of cutting spare ribs. Basically you cut off the
tip part at the joint that runs through the some of the ribs. Frankly,
I think the meat that is removed is quite tasty and I never buy or
prepare St. Louis cut. I don't care that some of the ribs have a little
joint, the extra bite of meat is very good.



Brian

Default User wrote:

> "St. Louis" is a way of cutting spare ribs. Basically you cut off the
> tip part at the joint that runs through the some of the ribs. Frankly,
> I think the meat that is removed is quite tasty and I never buy or
> prepare St. Louis cut. I don't care that some of the ribs have a
> little joint, the extra bite of meat is very good.

It is a great value, and folks love 'em.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Default User wrote:
>
> > "St. Louis" is a way of cutting spare ribs. Basically you cut off
> > the tip part at the joint that runs through the some of the ribs.
> > Frankly, I think the meat that is removed is quite tasty and I
> > never buy or prepare St. Louis cut. I don't care that some of the
> > ribs have a little joint, the extra bite of meat is very good.
>
> It is a great value, and folks love 'em.


Which?



Brian

Default User wrote:

> Which?

Just the way you described your preparation, Brian.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Default User wrote:

> Which?

Just the way you described your preparation, Brian.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Default User wrote:
>
> > Which?
>
> Just the way you described your preparation, Brian.


Ok, I wasn't sure if you were comparing spares to babybacks or
"unmodifed" spares to St. Louis cut.

I do pull the membrane off when prepping mine, but other than that just
rub 'em and smoke 'em.

And eat 'em, of course




Brian

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Default User wrote:
>
> > Which?
>
> Just the way you described your preparation, Brian.


Ok, I wasn't sure if you were comparing spares to babybacks or
"unmodifed" spares to St. Louis cut.

I do pull the membrane off when prepping mine, but other than that just
rub 'em and smoke 'em.

And eat 'em, of course




Brian

I'm convinced by the these posting to try some added experimentation
using some rubs(recommendations or recipes from you experts?),
skipping the beer bath, and trying to buy the ribs with the "fingers"
attached. Thanks for the insights.

I'm convinced by the these posting to try some added experimentation
using some rubs(recommendations or recipes from you experts?),
skipping the beer bath, and trying to buy the ribs with the "fingers"
attached. Thanks for the insights.

greatgrate wrote:
> I'm convinced by the these posting to try some added experimentation
> using some rubs(recommendations or recipes from you experts?),
> skipping the beer bath, and trying to buy the ribs with the "fingers"
> attached. Thanks for the insights.

I think that you'll be pleasantly surprised. As a start, I'd recommend
taking the membrane off of the bone side (another large debate) and
just applying salt and fresh ground black pepper and put them on the
smoker/cooker at around 250dF (at the rack) bone side up and just
leaving them alone. BUT, it's *very* important to let them come to
room temperature before putting them on the cooker. For a 2.5-3 pound
rack of baby backs you're probably looking at around 2.5-3 hours cook
time. Don't over cook. They're done when the meat "cracks" when the
rack is bent. Serve with sauce on the side.

I'd also recommend tasting them "dry" first. (no sauce) Now you've got
a point of reference to go from. You'll know if you like just the
flavor of the Qued meat or prefer it with other flavors. They you can
begin to taylor the spices/sauces to your family's tastes.

Good luck.

--
Steve

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again.

greatgrate wrote:
> I'm convinced by the these posting to try some added experimentation
> using some rubs(recommendations or recipes from you experts?),
> skipping the beer bath, and trying to buy the ribs with the "fingers"
> attached. Thanks for the insights.

I think that you'll be pleasantly surprised. As a start, I'd recommend
taking the membrane off of the bone side (another large debate) and
just applying salt and fresh ground black pepper and put them on the
smoker/cooker at around 250dF (at the rack) bone side up and just
leaving them alone. BUT, it's *very* important to let them come to
room temperature before putting them on the cooker. For a 2.5-3 pound
rack of baby backs you're probably looking at around 2.5-3 hours cook
time. Don't over cook. They're done when the meat "cracks" when the
rack is bent. Serve with sauce on the side.

I'd also recommend tasting them "dry" first. (no sauce) Now you've got
a point of reference to go from. You'll know if you like just the
flavor of the Qued meat or prefer it with other flavors. They you can
begin to taylor the spices/sauces to your family's tastes.

Good luck.

--
Steve

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again.

Steve Calvin wrote:
> I think that you'll be pleasantly surprised. As a start, I'd recommend
> taking the membrane off of the bone side (another large debate)

Ahhh, the debate begins...
I don't remove the membrane

> and
> just applying salt and fresh ground black pepper and put them on the
> smoker/cooker at around 250°F (at the rack)

Best advise for the first few tries! I go back to salt and pepper every few rib
cooks, just because simple is best.

> bone side up

OK, I cook bone down, and the fire burns the membrane off. ;-)
See? I just saved some time by not removing the membrane.

> and just
> leaving them alone.

Every time you open the cooker, you let out heat and add to the cooking time.
Leave 'em alone!

> BUT, it's *very* important to let them come to
> room temperature before putting them on the cooker.

No comment (OK, your advise is for a first time rib cooker!)

> For a 2.5-3 pound
> rack of baby backs you're probably looking at around 2.5-3 hours cook
> time. Don't over cook. They're done when the meat "cracks" when the
> rack is bent. Serve with sauce on the side.

Or no sauce at all. That's the absolute best way, *IF* you started with very
good ribs.
Again, they're done when their done. They can't tell time.

>
> I'd also recommend tasting them "dry" first. (no sauce) Now you've got
> a point of reference to go from. You'll know if you like just the
> flavor of the Qued meat or prefer it with other flavors. They you can
> begin to taylor the spices/sauces to your family's tastes.

What he said! (again)
I've actually not disagreed with anything that Steve has posted, just added a
different point of view (not necessarily better or worse)

>
> Good luck.
And good eating!
>
> --
> Steve
>
BOB

BOB wrote:
> Steve Calvin wrote:
>
>>I think that you'll be pleasantly surprised. As a start, I'd recommend
>>taking the membrane off of the bone side (another large debate)
>
>
> Ahhh, the debate begins...
> I don't remove the membrane

Yeah, I know. I do just 'cause I'm "fussy".

>
>>bone side up
>
>
> OK, I cook bone down, and the fire burns the membrane off. ;-)
> See? I just saved some time by not removing the membrane.

ahhh, the "dark side" speaks out. ;-) I've tried it both ways and it
made very little difference except I thought that I may have gotten a
bit better "bark" with the bones up. We like the "bark" so that's the
way I do 'em.

> Every time you open the cooker, you let out heat and add to the cooking time.
> Leave 'em alone!

I think that's one that everyone actually agrees on! (Gee, amazing...
ain't it? ;-) ) By "checking on them" too early or often you'll just
create temperature variations, which you don't really want.

>
>
>>BUT, it's *very* important to let them come to
>>room temperature before putting them on the cooker.
>
>
> No comment (OK, your advise is for a first time rib cooker!)

Yup. Experimentation is all part of the "game" right? But you need to
get a good reference point.

>
> Or no sauce at all. That's the absolute best way, *IF* you started with very
> good ribs.
> Again, they're done when their done. They can't tell time.

Absolutely true. I was just giving a "ball park" reference.

> What he said! (again)
> I've actually not disagreed with anything that Steve has posted, just added a
> different point of view (not necessarily better or worse)

And I'm certainly not gonna argue any of the points that you've
raised. Queing isn't a science it's more of an "art" that you need to
tune to suit what you like. It reminds me of the line from Butch
Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, "there ain't no rules in a knife fight!"
About the only one that I would take exception to would be boilin'
'em first. <shudder>

--
Steve

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again.

BOB wrote:
> Steve Calvin wrote:
>
>>I think that you'll be pleasantly surprised. As a start, I'd recommend
>>taking the membrane off of the bone side (another large debate)
>
>
> Ahhh, the debate begins...
> I don't remove the membrane

Yeah, I know. I do just 'cause I'm "fussy".

>
>>bone side up
>
>
> OK, I cook bone down, and the fire burns the membrane off. ;-)
> See? I just saved some time by not removing the membrane.

ahhh, the "dark side" speaks out. ;-) I've tried it both ways and it
made very little difference except I thought that I may have gotten a
bit better "bark" with the bones up. We like the "bark" so that's the
way I do 'em.

> Every time you open the cooker, you let out heat and add to the cooking time.
> Leave 'em alone!

I think that's one that everyone actually agrees on! (Gee, amazing...
ain't it? ;-) ) By "checking on them" too early or often you'll just
create temperature variations, which you don't really want.

>
>
>>BUT, it's *very* important to let them come to
>>room temperature before putting them on the cooker.
>
>
> No comment (OK, your advise is for a first time rib cooker!)

Yup. Experimentation is all part of the "game" right? But you need to
get a good reference point.

>
> Or no sauce at all. That's the absolute best way, *IF* you started with very
> good ribs.
> Again, they're done when their done. They can't tell time.

Absolutely true. I was just giving a "ball park" reference.

> What he said! (again)
> I've actually not disagreed with anything that Steve has posted, just added a
> different point of view (not necessarily better or worse)

And I'm certainly not gonna argue any of the points that you've
raised. Queing isn't a science it's more of an "art" that you need to
tune to suit what you like. It reminds me of the line from Butch
Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, "there ain't no rules in a knife fight!"
About the only one that I would take exception to would be boilin'
'em first. <shudder>

--
Steve

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again.