I prefer baby backs over St Louis. that said, I agree with other posters, the one serious downside to baby backs is that loin meat which is rather dry by the time your babies hit ideal doneness, but the ribs without the loin meat are to die for. So meaty, no bone nubs or anything to deal with. Just huge bites of killer rib meat, to me it's no contest. But 1/3rd (if not more) of the rack will have that loin meat that is tough... I've still not found a way to cook baby backs without that loin meat going dry.
St Louis ribs are great too. I love em, and I love how flat they are (easy to foil without having bones puncture like baby backs). But I'm always confused when people say st Louis are meatier than baby backs. Baby backs have huge meaty bites... st Louis ones aren't as satisfying. That said, I'd ignore any suggestion that baby backs take less time to smoke than st Louis. Meat is much thicker, babies always take longer to reach ideal temp/bend than st Louis.
Anyone else agree with any of that? Maybe I'm only used to the beastly baby backs from cash & carry.
St Louis ribs are great too. I love em, and I love how flat they are (easy to foil without having bones puncture like baby backs). But I'm always confused when people say st Louis are meatier than baby backs. Baby backs have huge meaty bites... st Louis ones aren't as satisfying. That said, I'd ignore any suggestion that baby backs take less time to smoke than st Louis. Meat is much thicker, babies always take longer to reach ideal temp/bend than st Louis.
Anyone else agree with any of that? Maybe I'm only used to the beastly baby backs from cash & carry.
Comment