Help, first leg of lamb, time & temp

DaveKirkpatrick

I'm cooking a leg of lamb for Easter. My wife says  to have it cooked and rested by 5:00. Can someone give me a ball park idea on how long it will take to slow cook it? It's 11.5 pounds, semi-boneless, and I am going to cook it at 250 degrees. Also she just got me a CyberQ so hopefully I will maintain a constant temperature. Thanks in advance.

gdenby

I've never slow cooked lamb. Tends to be tender, no need for melting the collagen. Also, most folks think a little pink left is good.  When I do leg of lamb I usually stuff it w. some spinach, bread crumbs, etc, and crust it in a mix of garlic, crushed pistachios and black pepper held on by lemon juice and olive oil. 'Bout 15 min per total pound at dome 350, indirect. When the meat hits 140F, crank the heat up to 400 - 450 and crisp the outside some.

Sometimes there's lots of fat, and many people are not too fond of the flavor. If your guests are like that, cut excess before cooking.

Darby_Crenshaw

Slow cooking is not only for melting collagen. That's knly if you take it through that phase anyway

but slow roasting is certainly a thing, and ideal. It brings the temp up evenly and yields the best cross section of 'ideal' temp meat versus blasting it with high heat (which makes for an overdone ring around a small amount of 'ideal'.

now, timing at 250? No idea unfortunately. We are loose and easy on Easter and eat when everything is done rather than plan for a hard sit down time

i would treat it like a roast beef. I don't time them either unfortunately. Maybe someone here can chime in. It will rest an hour easily without any significant cooling (won't get 'cold')

gdenby

Darby_Crenshaw said:

...
but slow roasting is certainly a thing, and ideal. It brings the temp up evenly and yields the best cross section of 'ideal' temp meat versus blasting it with high heat (which makes for an overdone ring around a small amount of 'ideal'.
...

When I go hot at the end, I watch that I am just getting some of the surface fat to bubble, and create a semi-fried surface. I do watch that I don't burn the surface, tho' I have talked w. a couple of chef's who like some char to add a bitter note to the flavors.

(Sadly, no lamb for us this year. Have to cook for a daughter who does not like the taste, and another daughter who is vegetarian.)

Darby_Crenshaw

Most of my lamb is actually hurry-up, at 350 or better, because the ham is resting and i'd like to serve the lamb not more than an hour and a half after taking the ham off. Makes for a bit more overdone than i like, but the interior is still rare and everyone still loves it

but i go slow on my roast beef. I don't like high heat searing at the end. I find it burns any herbs or crust, and the roasted crust from aur drying the meat before hand is much fiber than the char and grill marks. Just preference though

nolaegghead

If it weighs 11.5 pounds, it's not lamb.  Hogget or mutton, I would think.

Darby_Crenshaw

Good point. 

Billy Grill Eggster

I've got a semi-boneless Lamb leg, it weighs 4.2 pounds. Plan of cooking at 300* F (figure 14 to 16 minutes a pound) with a target of 125* F internal for rare, it will rest  for 15 minutes.

11.5 pounds yikes  ! !  I'm with @nolaegghead

nolaegghead

I shoot for 125F also.  Little sear on the outside.  Some people hate it, but I love seared lamb fat.  That's why I mostly do legs as kabobs.

jtcBoynton

nolaegghead said:

If it weighs 11.5 pounds, it's not lamb.  Hogget or mutton, I would think.

Actually this is one area where the Feds have backed off their heavy handed regulatory constraints on business.  Meat from sheep can now be labeled lamb regardless of age.