On 3-Nov-2009, " > wrote:

.. . .

> There can be a lot of meat on short ribs! Who knew?
>
> I am thinking that like a fatty brisket, these could be very forgiving
> on the smoker IF you got the right sized shorts. I may move on up to
> 300 - 325 or so on the next batch and see if it responds like a
> brisket. I could cook more with less time, and at higher heat maybe
> get a bit of crispy on them.
>
> These would be easy to cook for anyone, regardless of equipment. Like
> a pork butt, they have their own version of the "pop up timer". When
> they were done, the meat pulled back from the bone as much as an 1 1/4
> on each side of the bone. More importantly, the bone became a little
> loose, which was easy enough to test. And using the classic fork
> twist as a final test, it was a no brainer. Not thermometers needed,
> and with a wide range of temps used to cook them, the big short ribs
> should be easy for anyone.
>
> I still wouldn't cook those little peewee sized short ribs I see at
> the local supermarket. Too much work, not enough return. I think I
> am hooked on those big boys, though.
>
> Robert

I have cooked beef back ribs many times, but I don't believe that
I've done any short ribs yet. I'll have to keep an eye out for some
of those fat guys you describe. The richness of beef ribs cannot
be overstated. When cooked just right as you describe, they need
nothing added except perhaps a little salt. With your rub already
in place, they would need nothing at all. Well, a bib does help
control the mess, but doesn't add much to the taste.

--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)