Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Pork Rib Preferences


IndyRob

Recommended Posts

Lately I've been cooking a lot of pork ribs by a variety of methods (both traditional and modernist).  Perhaps the one most frustrating factor I found is the variability of thickness of the meat on the individual ribs.  Baby backs are much thicker, while normal spareribs (generally) are more to my liking.  However, baby backs are normally pretty constant and don't present a lot of waste.  Spareribs, on the other hand, are usually less expensive per pound, but come with a lot of waste (or extra meat that needs to be repurposed).  St. Louis style ribs usually end up costing as much as baby backs despite having less meat.

 

But that brings me to my question.  I think I actually prefer less meat on my ribs.  Sometimes I'll slice a rib off the thick end and think that it might as well be a bone-in pork chop.  When I think about the perfect rib, words like 'morsel' come to mind.  But I'm not sure if my preference carries over into the general populace.

 

So what do you think?  Do you like a lot of meat on your bones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the 'the more meat the better' camp, provided it's tender and flavorful.

  • Like 1

Nancy Smith, aka "Smithy"
HosteG Forumsnsmith@egstaff.org

Follow us on social media! Facebook; instagram.com/egulletx; twitter.com/egullet

"Every day should be filled with something delicious, because life is too short not to spoil yourself. " -- Ling (with permission)
"There comes a time in every project when you have to shoot the engineer and start production." -- author unknown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like both baby backs and spareribs.

 

Baby backs cook up more quickly and, as IndyRob pointed out, have more meat, but they are also leaner, and less rich. Cook them too long and they can be dry.

 

I prefer spareribs, but they need long, slow cooking to render their fat and collagen. If I have a full rack, I usually take off the backbone at the rib joints. I don't have access to a meat saw, and I have no way to cut through the spine. The full racks I get are cut so that the chine only extends about 11 or so inches along the rack, so I can remove it and freeze for seasoning a big pot of beans or use it for posole. It provides plenty of flavor and gelatin for a broth. Aside from the usual delicious ways most folks serve spareribs, I like to add them to bolognese sauce and Polish bigos. So to me, spareribs are more versatile than babybacks too.

 

So often, ribs are doused with sauce and spices, but they have a lovely flavor on their own with only a little help from salt and pepper. I was quite surprised the first time I tried them like that. The extra flavor can be very good, but not really necessary. 

 

I have never been known to kick either one off the plate. Both are excellent cuts if you know how to cook them.

> ^ . . ^ <

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...