I found a rack of lamb (8 ribs, marked down from 29.00 to 17.00) and it
seemed a good idea for dinner tonight. I've never done a "rack" before,
only rib and loin chops. So tried out Ina Garten's easy recipe below.
Tasty and as easy as could be, but the cooking time was totally off. I
understand rare to medium rare lamb....but in the 25 min roasting time,
and the 15 to rest, it was still wayyyyyy too rare for me. We kept
adding time until it hit an acceptable med-rare degree of doneness. I
don't think my oven is off *that* much?? My instant read therm bit the
bullet and died the other day, so I didn't have that to go on. How long
do others usually roast a rack for?

Rack of Lamb Copyright 2002, Barefoot Contessa Parties!, All rights
reserved
Show: Barefoot Contessa

1 1/2 tablespoons kosher salt
2 tablespoons minced fresh rosemary leaves
3 garlic cloves, minced
1/2 cup Dijon mustard
1 tablespoon balsamic vinegar
2 racks of lamb, "frenched"

In the bowl of a food processor fitted with a steel blade, process the
salt, rosemary, and garlic until they're as finely minced as possible.
Add the mustard and balsamic vinegar and process for 1 minute. Place the
lamb in a roasting or sheet pan with the ribs curving down, and coat the
tops with the mustard mixture. Allow to stand for 1 hour at room
temperature.
Preheat the oven to 450 degrees F.

Roast the lamb for exactly 20 minutes for rare or 25 minutes for
medium-rare. Remove from the oven and cover with aluminum foil. Allow to
sit for 15 minutes, then cut into individual ribs and serve.

Goomba38 wrote:

> I found a rack of lamb (8 ribs, marked down from 29.00 to 17.00) and it
> seemed a good idea for dinner tonight. I've never done a "rack" before,
> only rib and loin chops. So tried out Ina Garten's easy recipe below.
> Tasty and as easy as could be, but the cooking time was totally off. I
> understand rare to medium rare lamb....but in the 25 min roasting time,
> and the 15 to rest, it was still wayyyyyy too rare for me. We kept
> adding time until it hit an acceptable med-rare degree of doneness. I
> don't think my oven is off *that* much?? My instant read therm bit the
> bullet and died the other day, so I didn't have that to go on. How long
> do others usually roast a rack for?

A better technique than Ina's straight-into-the-oven method
is to brown them in a skillet first, apply the coating, then
finish in the oven.

You'll get better flavor cause they're properly browned, and
it shortens the cooking time considerably. About 20 minutes
in a hot oven.

--
Reg

Reg wrote:
> Goomba38 wrote:
>
> > I found a rack of lamb (8 ribs, marked down from 29.00 to 17.00) and it
> > seemed a good idea for dinner tonight. I've never done a "rack" before,
> > only rib and loin chops. So tried out Ina Garten's easy recipe below.
> > Tasty and as easy as could be, but the cooking time was totally off. I
> > understand rare to medium rare lamb....but in the 25 min roasting time,
> > and the 15 to rest, it was still wayyyyyy too rare for me. We kept
> > adding time until it hit an acceptable med-rare degree of doneness. I
> > don't think my oven is off *that* much?? My instant read therm bit the
> > bullet and died the other day, so I didn't have that to go on. How long
> > do others usually roast a rack for?
>
> A better technique than Ina's straight-into-the-oven method
> is to brown them in a skillet first, apply the coating, then
> finish in the oven.
>
> You'll get better flavor cause they're properly browned, and
> it shortens the cooking time considerably. About 20 minutes
> in a hot oven.

Yeah, but then you're dealing with cut-apart lamb chops, not a nice
rack, and 450°F will brown them nicely.

As to timing, was the rack straight from the fridge versus a recipe
that assumed room temp meat? Do you have an oven thermometer so you
know how long it takes for your oven to get all the way to 450°F?
With room temp meat and a true 450°F I would expect 25 minutes to be
long enough....But in any case, there's nothing wrong with checking
them for your desired state of doneness and putting them back in. The
resting time is important, just as it is with steaks, to let those
juices settle back in where they belong and the foil covering will
extend the cooking slightly. -aem

aem wrote:

> As to timing, was the rack straight from the fridge versus a recipe
> that assumed room temp meat? Do you have an oven thermometer so you
> know how long it takes for your oven to get all the way to 450°F?
> With room temp meat and a true 450°F I would expect 25 minutes to be
> long enough....But in any case, there's nothing wrong with checking
> them for your desired state of doneness and putting them back in. The
> resting time is important, just as it is with steaks, to let those
> juices settle back in where they belong and the foil covering will
> extend the cooking slightly. -aem
>
They had a browned exterior, just blood red interior. My insta-read
thermometer fell apart recently and I haven't purchased a replacement yet.
It was an easy meal, very tasty recipe...but just per the recipe time
wayyyyyy too rare. I guess I need to toss my oven thermometer in and
check the calibration.

aem wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>>
>>A better technique than Ina's straight-into-the-oven method
>>is to brown them in a skillet first, apply the coating, then
>>finish in the oven.
>>
>>You'll get better flavor cause they're properly browned, and
>>it shortens the cooking time considerably. About 20 minutes
>>in a hot oven.
>
>
> Yeah, but then you're dealing with cut-apart lamb chops, not a nice
> rack, and 450°F will brown them nicely.

Nope. You brown the rack whole. I'd love to take credit for
it but it's a well-established technique. I first saw it
in Pepin's "Le Technique".

And 450 F won't brown them that well if there's a breadcrumb
crust on. Hence the initial browning step.

--
Reg

>
> > As to timing, was the rack straight from the fridge versus a recipe
> > that assumed room temp meat? Do you have an oven thermometer so you
> > know how long it takes for your oven to get all the way to 450°F?
> > With room temp meat and a true 450°F I would expect 25 minutes to be
> > long enough....But in any case, there's nothing wrong with checking
> > them for your desired state of doneness and putting them back in. The
> > resting time is important, just as it is with steaks, to let those
> > juices settle back in where they belong and the foil covering will
> > extend the cooking slightly. -aem
> >
> They had a browned exterior, just blood red interior. My insta-read
> thermometer fell apart recently and I haven't purchased a replacement yet.
> It was an easy meal, very tasty recipe...but just per the recipe time
> wayyyyyy too rare. I guess I need to toss my oven thermometer in and
> check the calibration.

There are a lot of variables. How big are the ribs they are talking about in
the recipe compared to yours? Were they actually room temp? (may take longer
than 1hour if room is somewhat cool) Were they "Frenched" which I take to
mean the lower rib bones are exposed. Did you stand them up as the recipe
calls for?? Were they on a roasting pan with shallow sides? I'm sure you
know all of this will effect cooking time.

That all said, your description of browned exterior and bloody insides is
not too far off from what I consider rare, and from there to med-rare should
be no longer than 5-7 min. 10 at most. And of course if you are testing for
doneness as they come out of the oven (not after 15-20 min rest time) then
that too will effect doneness.

Larry T

LT wrote:

> There are a lot of variables. How big are the ribs they are talking about in
> the recipe compared to yours? Were they actually room temp? (may take longer
> than 1hour if room is somewhat cool) Were they "Frenched" which I take to
> mean the lower rib bones are exposed. Did you stand them up as the recipe
> calls for?? Were they on a roasting pan with shallow sides? I'm sure you
> know all of this will effect cooking time.
>
Whoa!! Stand them up? Nooooooo, I laid them down as I thought the recipe
called for "bones curving downward" or something like that? The
mustard/rosemary/garlic spread on it would fall off if stood up, I
think? It did sit at room temp, per instructions, at least an hour
after being spread with the coating.
And yes, the ribs were frenched before I purchased it. The rack weighed
aprox 2 pounds if that means anything? It was 8 ribs.

"Goomba38" > wrote in message
. ..
> LT wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of variables. How big are the ribs they are talking about
>> in
>> the recipe compared to yours? Were they actually room temp? (may take
>> longer
>> than 1hour if room is somewhat cool) Were they "Frenched" which I take to
>> mean the lower rib bones are exposed. Did you stand them up as the recipe
>> calls for?? Were they on a roasting pan with shallow sides? I'm sure you
>> know all of this will effect cooking time.
>>
> Whoa!! Stand them up? Nooooooo, I laid them down as I thought the recipe
> called for "bones curving downward" or something like that? The
> mustard/rosemary/garlic spread on it would fall off if stood up, I think?
> It did sit at room temp, per instructions, at least an hour after being
> spread with the coating.
> And yes, the ribs were frenched before I purchased it. The rack weighed
> aprox 2 pounds if that means anything? It was 8 ribs.

I guess I was thinking as I've done them once or twice with two
Racks-O-Lamb, with the bones interlaced. With bones curving down would mean
to me laying on the rounded meaty side, which would dictate a pan with very
short sides, else the meat is somewhat shielded from the radiant heat.

Larry T

Goomba38 wrote:
> I found a rack of lamb (8 ribs, marked down from 29.00 to 17.00) and it
> seemed a good idea for dinner tonight. I've never done a "rack" before,
> only rib and loin chops. So tried out Ina Garten's easy recipe below.
> Tasty and as easy as could be, but the cooking time was totally off. I
> understand rare to medium rare lamb....but in the 25 min roasting time,
> and the 15 to rest, it was still wayyyyyy too rare for me. We kept
> adding time until it hit an acceptable med-rare degree of doneness. I
> don't think my oven is off *that* much?? My instant read therm bit the
> bullet and died the other day, so I didn't have that to go on. How long
> do others usually roast a rack for?
>
> Rack of Lamb Copyright 2002, Barefoot Contessa Parties!, All rights
> reserved
> Show: Barefoot Contessa
>
> 1 1/2 tablespoons kosher salt
> 2 tablespoons minced fresh rosemary leaves
> 3 garlic cloves, minced
> 1/2 cup Dijon mustard
> 1 tablespoon balsamic vinegar
> 2 racks of lamb, "frenched"
>
> In the bowl of a food processor fitted with a steel blade, process the
> salt, rosemary, and garlic until they're as finely minced as possible.
> Add the mustard and balsamic vinegar and process for 1 minute. Place the
> lamb in a roasting or sheet pan with the ribs curving down, and coat the
> tops with the mustard mixture. Allow to stand for 1 hour at room
> temperature.
> Preheat the oven to 450 degrees F.
>
> Roast the lamb for exactly 20 minutes for rare or 25 minutes for
> medium-rare. Remove from the oven and cover with aluminum foil. Allow to
> sit for 15 minutes, then cut into individual ribs and serve.

Isn't it likely that it's supposed to be 20minutes per pound? I can't
believe that she thinks every single rack of lamb is exactly the same
size.

They're usually not very heavy so it would probably be about 30-40
minutes, which sounds like what you ended up cooking them for.

Susan B.

sueb wrote:

> Isn't it likely that it's supposed to be 20minutes per pound? I can't
> believe that she thinks every single rack of lamb is exactly the same
> size.
>
> They're usually not very heavy so it would probably be about 30-40
> minutes, which sounds like what you ended up cooking them for.
>
> Susan B.
>
Yes, I guess it did end up being about that between all the pulling out
& putting back in. Yet they were still very rare. I know each time I
opened the oven door I lost heat, so it gets harder to judge.
They tasted lovely though! I just wanted everything done at the right
time and together, y'know?

Goomba38 wrote:
> sueb wrote:
>
> > Isn't it likely that it's supposed to be 20minutes per pound? I can't
> > believe that she thinks every single rack of lamb is exactly the same
> > size.
> >
> > They're usually not very heavy so it would probably be about 30-40
> > minutes, which sounds like what you ended up cooking them for.
> >
> > Susan B.
> >
> Yes, I guess it did end up being about that between all the pulling out
> & putting back in. Yet they were still very rare. I know each time I
> opened the oven door I lost heat, so it gets harder to judge.
> They tasted lovely though! I just wanted everything done at the right
> time and together, y'know?

I do indeed. Just proves that it's harder than it looks on TV.

Susan B.

"Goomba38" > wrote in message
news
> aem wrote:
>
>> As to timing, was the rack straight from the fridge versus a recipe
>> that assumed room temp meat? Do you have an oven thermometer so you
>> know how long it takes for your oven to get all the way to 450°F?
>> With room temp meat and a true 450°F I would expect 25 minutes to be
>> long enough....But in any case, there's nothing wrong with checking
>> them for your desired state of doneness and putting them back in. The
>> resting time is important, just as it is with steaks, to let those
>> juices settle back in where they belong and the foil covering will
>> extend the cooking slightly. -aem
>>
> They had a browned exterior, just blood red interior. My insta-read
> thermometer fell apart recently and I haven't purchased a replacement yet.
> It was an easy meal, very tasty recipe...but just per the recipe time
> wayyyyyy too rare. I guess I need to toss my oven thermometer in and check
> the calibration.


And please, get a new instant read thermometer. They are invaluable. They
will always save you!

Another hint for the lamb is actually to cook it at a much lower temperature
if you truly like a medium doneness. I see many recipes for roasts
(tenderloin, prime rib, rack of lamb, etc.) where the roasts are put into a
HOT oven and this leads to that tell tale exterior where it's VERY well done
and only the center of your roast is the temperature that you like it. I,
for one, want my meat rare all the way through. If I were eating it medium,
I would want it medium from edge to edge but this high temperature method
won't give you that. What *I* do (your mileage may vary) is to give all
roasts a quick browning on the stove top (I have one of those cast iron
griddles that straddles two burners - get it motherwhoppin' hot, then brown)
and then I roast them very slowly until they reach the "correct" (for me)
temperature. I let the finished roast rest for at least 10-15 minutes
(depending upon the size of the roast) and then carve. Our old restaurant
was known for it's standing rib roast and our customers constantly raved
about the beef. It was done this way and if you ordered it medium, it was
medium, from edge to edge.

Of course if you like the standard way then don't even bother to try my way.
<shrug> It's just another way of doing it! I also like it since you don't
get NEAR the shrinkage you get with the high heat method.

As state above YMMV,
helen