Recipes- do we really have this right? (experience with babyback ribs yesterday)

[BARDSLJR]

I made perhaps the best version of babyback ribs, ever, yesterday, partially by accident, partly on purpose. Okay, so most of use the 2/1/1 method for babybacks, right? I have been experimenting with lengthening the amount of time the ribs spend moist-cooking in foil and decreasing the amount of time in the smoker after unwrapping-, so, instead of 2-1-1, more like 2- 1.5- .75. Yesterday I intended to leave the ribs extra long in the foil for cooking, and then I got stuck talking to Directv technical assistance (problems getting the remote to pair with my Bose soundbar) and probably moist-cooked the ribs for more like an hour; then I shortened the final unwrapped part of the cook to maybe 30 minutes. These were THE BEST ribs I have ever made, honestly.

It brings up another broader issue: why do we believe that all these recipes are exactly designed for the dish they are cooking? Why is almost anything you bake at 350*? Why not 361, or 342, or 373? Why do we measure all our timing in very even increments? Why not 22 minutes instead of 30? Where is it written that everything must be in even hourly increments? Anyone else have any ideas or thoughts about this?

For some reason the forum will not let me attach a photo this morning, so please take my word for it that the ribs were beautiful and delicious.

[BARDSLJR]

Okay, second try with a different browser....

[5698k]

I cringe when someone starts off with, i used the 3-2-1 method but..Some have promoted these catchy number formulas as magic, but most dont even get it right. 3-2-1 is theoretically for St. Louis ribs at 225, 2-2-1 for baby backs. I actually saw a post elsewhere saying, “i cooked a brisket using the 3-2-1 method but I didn’t like the results”. All cooks are different, so following a method leads to failure, it’s only a very general guideline at best. Personally, when i do foil, it’s never longer than an hour, but i typically prefer dry. KK’s are moisture machines, so i dont believe wrapping is necessary for the most part.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BARDSLJR]

Well, I think you're right about the 3/2/1/for St Louis style ribs but for babybacks I always understood it was 2/1/1. Be that as it may, I think we agree that these formulaic recipes are not based on any real experimentation or culinary science.  Yesterday I found that 2 hours open, 1 1/2 hours wrapped, and about 30-45 minutes unwrapped to finish worked great for me.

BTW, I have heard a lot about how good the KKs are at retaining moisture, and that may be, but we are up here in Denver where the humidity level is usually somewhere in the 20's, so a pan or two of water in the KK lower level works well for me here.

[wrandyr]

12 hours ago, BARDSLJR said:

It brings up another broader issue: why do we believe that all these recipes are exactly designed for the dish they are cooking?

Why do we believe anything? I'm not going to touch that. . .

12 hours ago, BARDSLJR said:

Why is almost anything you bake at 350*?

Probably because it works pretty well. It's hot enough to move things along, but not so hot that the outside gets burned before the inside gets done.

12 hours ago, BARDSLJR said:

Why not 361, or 342, or 373?

There are a couple of thoughts here. The first that comes to mind is that older ovens don't have settings in that fine of increments. My 1950s era gas stove only has marks in 25° steps. One of the things I learned in my brief stint in the world of metrology is that a specification isn't to meaningful without a tolerance, and a measurement isn't too meaningful if you don't know the uncertainty of your measuring instrument. We assume or tools are sufficiently accurate, and mostly they are, but I rather suspect that ∓25° is plenty good enough for most food in an oven. So some of us probably are cooking at 361°, 342°, or 373° and we can't tell the difference. The same goes for time. Also, I think round numbers are just easier to publish and remember, and most recipes come from a time when the available tools were much simpler than what we have access to today.

[tony b]

10 hours ago, wrandyr said:

I think round numbers are just easier to publish and remember, and most recipes come from a time when the available tools were much simpler than what we have access to today.

Nailed it! 

Plus, the outcome is not as dependent on the time & temperature as we think. That's why we tell new folks DON'T CHASE THE TEMPERATURE! You just get frustrated trying to hit an exact target and in the end, it really doesn't matter that much. As the old saying goes, Close Enough for Government Work! 

[Tucker]

What is the 3/2/1 method?
I cook ribs at 220 bone down for 2 hours, then wrap meat down, back on for 2.5 hours same temp.

[5698k]

3-2-1 is for St. Louis ribs, 3 hours uncovered, bone down, 2 hours wrapped, and then 1 hour uncovered to finish, all at 225. Baby backs are 2-2-1. I despise this method, people think it’s a magic formula for all things bbq, yet dont even understand the formula. I’ve read so many times. “I did the 3-2-1 method but…”. They dont cook at 225, they do baby backs, i even saw a person do a brisket this way. Formulas dont work because every cook is different, every individual protein is different, and in this case, it’s specific to a particular type of rib. I strongly suggest that if you have a way of cooking ribs that you like, keep doing it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tucker]

Thanks for the explanation

I tried to cook baby backs, never could get them juicy. I gave up and now all I do are Spare ribs w/ the flaps or St Louis. More fat, super juicy.

[qundoy]

BARDSLJR

The baby back rack in the pic looks delicious.... I'm off to the store for a rack of ribs

Steve

[Tyrus]

Color and bend for me, it's all visual. Temp is generally around 275 if I'm not in a hurry or pressed for time, they're done when their done, never cook with a method. My eyes are my best ally it tells the whole story. Nice looking ribs btw.

[tony b]

Bend test is the way to go!