HOME > Chowhound > Home Cooking >

Slow Cooked Rack of Lamb

m
mands917 Dec 3, 2007 07:33 AM

Has anyone seasoned, seared and slow cooked rack of lamb so that it's tender enough to fall of the bone?

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. BobB RE: mands917 Dec 3, 2007 09:08 AM

    Seems like an odd approach for this cut - that sort of slow cooking brings out the best in tougher, more cartilaginous cuts of meat like lamb shanks and veal breast, but would in my opinion be a waste of more a expensive grillable like lamb rack or beef tenderloin.

    1. wearybashful RE: mands917 Dec 3, 2007 09:17 AM

      A friend did cook rack of lamb like that. It tasted good, but as Bob B. said, it's a waste of money. Lamb neck, the cheapest part of a lamb I can think of, would taste better cooked like that.

      1. leanneabe RE: mands917 Dec 3, 2007 09:38 AM

        I agree... slow cooking seems more appropriate for lamb shanks or even leg of lamb. If you cook rack of lamb right with searing or grilling, it should be nice and tender (and tasty) without having to slow cook it.

        http://threedogkitchen.com

        2 Replies
        1. re: leanneabe
          FuzzyDunlop RE: leanneabe Jan 7, 2009 01:30 PM

          But does it end up pink in the middle?

          I know it offends the sensibilities of a lot of food lovers, but I demand meat to be cooked through. That's why I'm thinking about doing this too (though I'd certainly still want to sear it first for flavor).

          Plus, I've experienced lamb failure before: hopelessly chewy meat, despite ostensibly flawless efforts at following a good recipe...

          This week I did a slow-cooked Irish stew with lamb and it was so tender... it was just dreamy. I took half an hour beforehand to cut away all the silverskin on that oddly cut "lamb for stew"--is that what made the difference? If I do that with my rack of lamb will that stave off lamb failure? Can you even do that with French-cut chops?

          Help!

          1. re: FuzzyDunlop
            h
            Harters RE: FuzzyDunlop Jan 7, 2009 02:36 PM

            "But does it end up pink in the middle?"

            Probably. Like many people, I prefer my lamb medium rare (less than that it gets chewy) and that's probably what you will find most recipes timings are for. But just roast it for a couple of minutes or so more and it'll be to your taste.

            Shoulder is probably the best cut for a long slow roast at a low oven temperature. You should be able to shred it similar to American style "pulled pork". Delicious!

        2. JoanN RE: mands917 Jan 7, 2009 04:31 PM

          In “Slow Mediterranean Kitchen” by Paula Wolfert which, as you may have surmised, is all about slow cooking, she has a recipe for Slow-Roasted Rack of Lamb. I’ve made it and it’s excellent. It cooks in a 300F oven, but only for 35 to 45 minutes. I can’t imagine a rack of lamb that was cooked to any more than medium rare. It seems like a sacrilege.

          2 Replies
          1. re: JoanN
            c
            corncakes RE: JoanN Nov 27, 2010 09:58 AM

            I'd like to try this but don't have her book onhand....does she brown the racks first? thanks...

            1. re: corncakes
              JoanN RE: corncakes Nov 27, 2010 10:22 AM

              Here's my report from when I first made the recipe:

              http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/4749...

              And yes, she does brown the rack first. She browns it in hot oil, skin side down, for three minutes (shaking the skillet to keep the meat from sticking). Then, holding the rack with tongs, she sears all exposed flesh, about 1 minute more.

          Show Hidden Posts