Baby Back Experiment - Foil vs. No Foil

[Boshizzle]

Both slabs rubbed with Yardbird, black pepper, and cumin. Cooked at about 250 degrees using regular K and hickory in my UDS.

The top slab in the pic was foiled with some honey, garlic, butter, and brown sugar. I mopped the "no foil" ribs with a mixture of vinegar and olive oil about three times during the cook. Normally, I'd use Italian dressing but I didn't have any on hand. I didn't turn them at all, just "meat" side up. The foiled ribs were cooked "meat" side down while in the foil.

The bottom slab was cooked without foiling.


The ribs on the right were foiled, the ribs in the left were not.



The foiled ribs cooked a little faster and had a nice glaze. The ribs that were not foiled took a little longer to cook, maybe 1/2 an hour longer.

Both were tender but not falling off the bone; they were "bite off" the bone.

Both slabs were really good but, flavor wise, I prefer the ribs that were not foiled. The flavor of the ribs was intensified and they didn't have the sweet glaze on them. But, if you like them sweet and a little wet, go for the foil and use some honey/brown sugar with whatever liquid you decide to use.

My conclusion, if you want to speed up the cook a little, foil them. Also, foiling allows you to put the nice shine on the ribs. Other than that, if you are going for the natural flavor of the ribs, you don't need foil. The foil helps with the glaze and speeds up the cook, that's about it.

[Smokinrubcom]

Thanks for posting!!! No foil for me :)

[Cliff H.]

It has been my experience that bb's do better not foiled.

Great looking ribs.

[Big_AL]

In the final pic the non-foiled ribs actually look a little more moist. Also the fat ring seems to have rendered a bit more on the non-foiled ribs. Might just be the pic or the cut? To my eye, the non-foiled ribs look better to me....even thought I always foil mine

Thanks for the pics...I'd eat both racks and come back for more.

[Boshizzle]

Cliff H., Thanks!

Big Al, Yes, I think the fat rendered out a little more on the no foil ribs. That's one thing I like about them. Neither slab was dry; both were nice and moist. My wife prefers the foiled ribs. I prefer the no foil ribs. But, my wife likes them sweet and spicey. I like them spicey and dry without the glaze/sauce.

[mwmac]

Both ribs look great. I always used to foil, tried it without foil and never looked back.

[Boshizzle]

Originally Posted by mwmac

Both ribs look great. I always used to foil, tried it without foil and never looked back.

Me too, however, the wife will make me foil at least one slab everytime I cook them. She likes them Blues Hog sweet, and, that's pretty darn sweet. She's a KCBS CBJ too, so she has eaten her share of good ribs. There is no use in me trying to convert her.

[Sean "Puffy" Coals]

I was debating about using foil for a long time. While I was doing that, I cooked about 8 racks of spare without foil. My results and the compliments I got ended the debate pretty decisively. It's good to know tho that if I do need to speed up the cooking time a little that I have that option without raising the temp.

[blues_n_cues]

no foil here either.

[bigabyte]

Thanks for sharing! I have experienced similar results with BB's.

[deguerre]

I've never done BBs but I don't foil on spares and have only used a mop once...Guess I need to 'speriment.

[Arlin_MacRae]

Nicely done and shared, sir!

[Phubar]

Thanks for the test BoShizz...I'll stick with the no Phoil.

[Boshizzle]

Thanks, brethren. Both slabs were really good, but the no foil was the best. I am working on a compromise technique that mixes the advantages of foiling with the flavor advantage of no foil ribs. I'll report my progress as I go. This weekend is out as I have a comp coming up, but after that, I should be back to the experiment.

[NorthwestBBQ]

Hurry!