Baby Backs vs Spares

[HarleyEarl]

I'll vote for the spares. Not much of a fan of BB's - plus everytime I cook spares, I prep and smoke as if it's a comp. -> practice, practice, practice (which I desparately need after this last season).

 

[RedPig]

I hear you bro.

 

[stephan]

I agree with what was said earlier. If I am cooking for a family gathering I use BB its just easier when it comes to a crowd, for me and mine I like spare ribs [ trimmed of course]

 

[jgh1204]

Both. Kind of like white meant/dark meat chicken. Except that white meat chicken sucks.:-D

 

[BRBBQ]

I used to think spares where bottom of the barrel since they were cheap, not now:hungry:

 

[Smoothsmoke]

I've never had baby backs. So I really don't know what I'm missing out on. I've never smoked them because they're always 4 bucks a pound. I'm too thrifty to spend that much money.

 

[tearl42]

I cooked up my first set of baby backs over the weekend and I didn't like them. I'll stick with my spares...

 

[Gark]

Spares for me as well -- worth the extra time to make them perfect! :whoo:

 

[redbandit98]

I take my q seriously, but I still prefer BB ribs. To me, I think they have a better taste, plus they are leaner. I like spares dont get me wrong, but given the choice ill take the loin backs. The only downside is it takes a whole rack to fill me up. :hungry:

 

[big brother smoke]

Sometimes, I want BBs sometimes and sometimes,I want spares. Sort of like oranges and tangerines :twisted:

 

[Norcoredneck]

Baby backs take a smaller pot!

 

[Lake Dogs]

Why does everyone that does not take BBQ seriously prefer baby backs over spares? Is this really the case? What makes baby backs better than spares? What do you prefer?

Like others here I take BBQ fairly seriously (eating, cooking, and competing).

I personally prefer eating BB's over spares because they have less fat in
them (even when spares have the fat rendered well) and if done perfectly
(comparing one to another) they're just as moist if not more so and I
prefer the flavor (it's slightly different). I despise eating non-St Louis
spares. As bigabyte said: spares that include the parts that are chock full
of little bony bits and cartilage can make for a rather unappetizing
experience.

I dont mind cooking spares, and if the folks I'm cooking for prefer them,
then it's spares that go on the smoker (never grilled). For me, I'll
usually throw on a rack or two of BB's because if the cook ain't happy,
then mama ain't happy, and if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

 

[SmokinOkie]

For me, I don't like BB as much, just not enough meat, but I do like Loin Backs (those over 3lbs, with more meat).

Around here, LB are hard to find and always twice the price of spares.

All things being equal, if I could find LB and Spares at the same price, I'd cook both. They are different enough in texture to give me options and variety.

It's like steak. All steak is good. Some like ribeye vs filet.

Just different.

I don't think it has anything to do with how "true" you are to BBQ. It think it's marketing hype from the Danish Council that first created them to now (who won't get the chili's song out of there mind after I say...)

I want my baby back baby back baby backs...



Russ

 

[JD McGee]

Aren't loinbacks and bb's the same thing? The bb's I get weigh 3-3.5 lbs each...:wink:

 

[toumaj]

I've smoked st louis style spares maybe 5 times.
I've smoked baby backs maybe 75 times.
The winner should be obvious.
The only reason I'm even testing spares is for comps.
But I think my team has decided on BB's for comps - win or lose we simply think they taste and present better.
Not every judge will agree, but I don't have to live with the judges

 

[Braddog]

I'm a convert from BB's to spares. Once i learned to trim up the spares to a STL cut, I haven't gone back. My conversion is partly due to the decrease in quality of BB's that I've noticed over the past couple of years. The ones I see around here are really thick and just as fatty as spares. Didn't use to be the case.

Cheers,
Braddog

 

[deguerre]

Hmmmm...I think I'm gonna hafta try some baby backs now...

 

[Smokeadelic]

They are both so delicious.......

Baby backs are very easy to prep. 2-3x faster than spares (assuming you're going for clean . Plus there is no waste, and no unappealing parts filled with small bones and cartilage. On the other hand, BBs are leaner than spares, so they can't take flavors quite as well and they're never quite as juicy. I've also notice that spares hold heat better than BBs. They stay hot longer once the ribs have been sliced and plated.

For a local point of reference, here in New England, competition teams submit spares about 6:1 over baby backs.

When you're shopping for baby backs, be careful. BBs from Denmark are these tiny little things that are expensive and poorly suited for BBQ. BBs (aka Loin Backs) from American hogs are bigger, meatier, less money and yield far better finished product.

 

[Spydermike72]

To answer the original question, the reason most non bbq folks like Baby Back Ribs is because of Chili's and Applebee's and using the mainstream media to advertise their product. It sticks in everyones mind. That is my theory and I am sticking to it!

For the record I prefer Spares as I will not pay 3 times more the price for an inferior cut of meat...

 

[Grillman]

Many years ago I worked at Bennigans ( similar to Chili's & Applebees)
We served Baby Back ribs there, and we cooked them in a pressurized
smoker. They were fantastic right when they came out of the smoker.
I think we did 8 or 10 racks of Baby Backs at a time. If we had done spare
ribs; it would have been a nightmare to prep them and cook them and
store them in the cooler.:shocked:

That isn't a problem for a BBQ restaurant; but the Baby Backs were just one
item on a full menu. That's why I think those chain type restaurants use
them...Baby Backs are much easier to cook, store, and serve.

When it comes to big flavor...Spare Ribs are my first choice.:first: