Baby back versus St. Louis style ribs

Baby back just come from further back on the ribcage(by the spine) than spareribs.They are next to the loin whereas spare ribs are next to the pork belly(bacon). They are smaller so typically have a little less meat, depending on how they are trimmed. They are just as tender, to me.

@pasoegg this page helped me a number of times. 

pasoegg said:

@eggcelsior - thanks for your info

@skiddymarker - what a great place for info and descriptions of all the pork cuts...I definetly learned a bunch and marked the site for later use!!!!  maybe bumped my IQ a couple of strokes....on second thought i will just drink a beer and kill off those brain cells....

Perfect, why remember when you can just look it up. Some very good info on Meathead's web site. He is not big on the BGE, likes the two zone Primo. Read the section on reverse sear, very good. 

I do agree with lousubcap.... baby backs vs spare ribs. the spares willtake longer ( more mass,more meat ).  If I am entertaining I will trim the spares to the " st louis cut, which basically removes 35-40% of the spare.  Cookin for myself I will not dissect, just remove the silver skin and trim down the ?? flap of meat that doubles over tie ribs.  BTW, if I do trim to spares, I always cook the trimmings at the same time, just as good.  The trimmings cook time is less ( no bone ).
Just sayin....its all good.

I am doing some baby backs today. After reviewing some recipes, it appears that the 3-2-1 method was developed for St. Louis style because of their size. In fact, I think I will be doing 3-1-1 because I want to stop just short of fall off the bone.

I am also cooking at 240-250 dome. Anyone disagree on that temp?

Beaumonty said:

I am doing some baby backs today. After reviewing some recipes, it appears that the 3-2-1 method was developed for St. Louis style because of their size. In fact, I think I will be doing 3-1-1 because I want to stop just short of fall off the bone.

I am also cooking at 240-250 dome. Anyone disagree on that temp?

Temp should be fine! I tried 3-1-1 for baby back ribs when I first got my egg and they fell off the bone too much. Ever since then, I just let em go the entire time and have enjoyed my results. I'm actually doing St. Louis Ribs this weekend. Going to let em go for 5 hours before my 1st tenderness check. Then when I'm close, I will sauce up one of the 2 slabs.

Back to the original topic, Babybacks arent as fatty or meaty as St Louis style ribs but I prefer the babybacks texture and flavor over the fattier St Louis style.

WRT ribs-all good info above and you will read different approaches to the cook.  All rib cooks are some variation around X-0-0 which translates into the following:

Basically ribs are cooked as usual (bone side down for me) for the first X hours. Then they are removed from the cooker and wrapped with liquid (Q sauce, some other liquid for flavoring etc) in a foil pouch with the meat side down. This becomes step -0- mentioned above. The sealed ribs are then returned to the cooker.  At the end of the "0" time-frame, the ribs are removed from the foil and then put back on the BGE for the final "0" time-frame.  This is when sauce is added if your desire.  X-X-X defines the cook cycle.  Those of us X-0-0 run without any of the above extras.  It's all in what you like. 

And to determine when they are finished-the bend test if you have full racks-pick them up on one end and if they bend around 90* they are finished.  Another method-use a toothpick and insert in the thickest meat-in and out with no resistance and finished.  Also look for a good meat pull-back on the bones. 

@pasoegg-you didn't forget...Ah, was fun while it lasted.  And I earned that description, too many times... >-

Eggcelsior said:

Baby back just come from further back on the ribcage(by the spine) than spareribs.They are next to the loin whereas spare ribs are next to the pork belly(bacon). They are smaller so typically have a little less meat, depending on how they are trimmed. They are just as tender, to me.

When I bite into a well cooked slab of BBs, I do think of chops from the loin. And spares, being basted in more of their own fat, have a little bit of crisp bacon-like texture.

"Are the baby back's a little more tender than the St. Louis with all things the same??? "

Done identically, either the spares will be likely undercooked, or the BBs somewhat burned. Treated according to their different qualities, both will be tender. I think the spares taste a little better, but BBs usually feel more succulent.

@Beaumonty-with ribs you can run at about any temp your BGE settles in with-and you can crank it above that if time is a consideration (@Mickey and turbo ribs).  Car Wash Mike's (RIP) cook is a great way to cook them but you can experiment and go with what works for you.  BTW-for "fall off the bones" ribs you wil have to foil-and the rib finish-line is well defined; bend test to at least 90*, tooth-pick insertion with no resistance "in or out" and good meat pull-back on the bones.

i like st louis unless i find huge back ribs

Yeah, for spares tried 3-2-1 , with the 3 bone down, rub added to start, misting every hour with app juice and app cider vin, for the 2 just remove, foil w/ heavy spray of app j / app vin, and back on grill, then the last 1 on grill to done. 

I found most of the time that the ribs were good, but "mushy" texture. I figures its due to too much acid during the 2 stage.  Modified to 3-1-1, and even cutting short the middle 1, and much better texture, with a slight "pull" off bone.  Much better, I think.

Also do no foil, just 5+  hours, with occasional mist with juice / vin., and have had good, almost preferable results.