Ribs- Baby back vs. St. Louis

[prudentsmoker]

I have always thought baby back meatier, but I have met several people who prefer St. Louis. Not trying to start a war here, just curious which you prefer and why.

Thanks in advance.

 

[barelfly]

I like both. Don’t really have a preference.  I guess I buy what is on sale or cheaper when I smoke ribs.

I have read from other sites that you should look for smaller BB for better outcome. Meatier doesn’t always mean better, is what I’ve read - it can cause issues with even cooking.

But, that’s just what I’ve read. Maybe I should smoke ribs this weekend, one of each to see what I may like better!

 

[tomd8]

Funny, I always thought the reverse....St. Louis were meatier.  I also recall on another site that folks were complaining that BB were harder to smoke with leaner meat and many guys drying them out.  For this reason I never bothered with BB and always stick with St.Louis and happy with the outcome.  Of course I may be totally wrong about BB having never tried them.

 

[old sarge]

Both are welcome in our home. Never met a rib I didn't like.

 

[G man]

Baby Backs are usually less fatty....so you could say "meatier".....St. Louis Style, (just regular spare ribs trimmed) almost always have more meat and more fat, as they are larger ribs....

The term "high on the hog" fits well here.  The back ribs are from the top of the pig...(or the high point)...spares come from below. 

 

[Grampy]

I usually buy which ever ones I can get the cheapest at the time of purchase. I actually
prefer the St. Louis cut Spare Ribs. Larger ribs and more meat IMO.

 

[lgboro]

Sam's Club baby backs usually have more meat than other stores in my area.  I've not cooked a bad one yet but that was on a cheap gas smoker...can't wait to smoke them on my new SmokinIt.