Sous vide rack of lamb

TTC

Just my second cook with the Anova. Still got a lot to figure out, but it no doubt produces a very different product and the convenience factor is huge. Fun toy.

Cooked these at 120 for 2.5 hours, before I put in the bag I rubbed with a paste of roasted garlic, salt pepper, thyme, rosemary.

Seared on the Egg to finish (I should have done a longer sear as there was no crust and I missed that). Still, all at the table were happy. I enjoyed seeing my middle child knaw on the rib bones

Thanks for looking 

RRP

Wasn't that a bit rare? My sous vide book calls 126 rare and 131 for 4 hrs as medium rare. 

TTC

It was rare. At Christmas I over seared a rib roast so I was worried about overcoking the lamb during the sear. Thankfully I had 2 smaller racks that were not as rare as the plate in the picture

JohnInCarolina

Looks great!  Personally I like lamb on the rare side.

Theophan

I'm not yet a sous vide guy, so I have no experience with this, yet, but getting more and more interested because of luscious pictures on this forum.  But I'm curious to know whether the Anova said cooking at 120° is safe, or whether you have any other information that suggests sous vide is safe at 120°.  Here's something from a web site that people on this forum seem to recommend:

Most food pathogens grow fastest a few degrees below the temperature that they start to die. Most food pathogens stop growing by 122°F (50°C), but the common food pathogen Clostridium perfringens can grow at up to 126.1°F (52.3°C). So in sous vide cooking, you usually cook at 130°F (54.4°C) or higher. (You could cook your food at slightly lower temperatures, but it would take you a lot longer to kill the food pathogens.)

In other words, very dangerous bacteria can grow very happily, multiplying like crazy in your lamb for 2 hours at 120° while you think you're "cooking" it, AND generating a heat-stable toxin (poison) that will still be there even if something later killed the bacteria that produced the toxin.

According to his table for lamb, if your rack of lamb was 2 1/2" thick in the sous vide bath, it would have taken more than 6 HOURS to get rid of food pathogens at 131°, so even if you'd had it at 131°, 2.5 hours wouldn't have been anywhere near long enough to "cook" the lamb.

Now, realistically, the risk of eating uncooked lamb (lamb tartare, anyone?) is probably pretty low, but still, there are some really nasty bacteria out there, these days.

I'm getting closer to trying sous vide, maybe.  But this kind of stuff makes me nervous.  I'm really curious to know whether Anova said or some other source said that sous vide at 120°F is safe to eat.

Photo Egg

Theophan said:

I'm not yet a sous vide guy, so I have no experience with this, yet, but getting more and more interested because of luscious pictures on this forum.  But I'm curious to know whether the Anova said cooking at 120° is safe, or whether you have any other information that suggests sous vide is safe at 120°.  Here's something from a web site that people on this forum seem to recommend:

Most food pathogens grow fastest a few degrees below the temperature that they start to die. Most food pathogens stop growing by 122°F (50°C), but the common food pathogen Clostridium perfringens can grow at up to 126.1°F (52.3°C). So in sous vide cooking, you usually cook at 130°F (54.4°C) or higher. (You could cook your food at slightly lower temperatures, but it would take you a lot longer to kill the food pathogens.)

In other words, very dangerous bacteria can grow very happily, multiplying like crazy in your lamb for 2 hours at 120° while you think you're "cooking" it, AND generating a heat-stable toxin (poison) that will still be there even if something later killed the bacteria that produced the toxin.

According to his table for lamb, if your rack of lamb was 2 1/2" thick in the sous vide bath, it would have taken more than 6 HOURS to get rid of food pathogens at 131°, so even if you'd had it at 131°, 2.5 hours wouldn't have been anywhere near long enough to "cook" the lamb.

Now, realistically, the risk of eating uncooked lamb (lamb tartare, anyone?) is probably pretty low, but still, there are some really nasty bacteria out there, these days.

I'm getting closer to trying sous vide, maybe.  But this kind of stuff makes me nervous.  I'm really curious to know whether Anova said or some other source said that sous vide at 120°F is safe to eat.

I agree, better to lean towards safety.

But I do believe a short cook, 2 hours, at 120 is not a big risk of growing bad things sous vide but you are at the same risk of eating under cooked meat.
Similar to the hot tub method used on this forum all the time.

TTC

Great feedback, thanks.

I decided a couple of hours in the "danger zone" was worth the risk. And I really thought it would carry over more during searing - but then I did not sear it long enough.

Thankfully there were a couple of smaller racks that were more done that the above photo, that helped keep the crowd happy - cause there is no doubt the rack on the plate was very rare.

Food safety 40-140 "danger zone" was beaten into my head in all the kitchens I worked in and I will admit to the conflict that sous vide techniques create.

Theophan

TTC said:

Great feedback, thanks.

I decided a couple of hours in the "danger zone" was worth the risk. And I really thought it would carry over more during searing - but then I did not sear it long enough.

Thankfully there were a couple of smaller racks that were more done that the above photo, that helped keep the crowd happy - cause there is no doubt the rack on the plate was very rare.

Food safety 40-140 "danger zone" was beaten into my head in all the kitchens I worked in and I will admit to the conflict that sous vide techniques create.

The "danger zone" thing isn't completely relevant to sous vide in that sous vide can essentially "pasteurize" foods by holding at temperature for a long time.  130° is in the "danger zone," so if you leave a rack of lamb at that temperature for a couple of hours, you have not killed the bacteria that may be on and in it, BUT if you get to 130° internal temperature AND you keep it there for enough hours (you have to look that up in a table), which might be a whole bunch of hours if it's thick, THEN over that time period you will eventually have killed all of the bacteria.  It's a combination of time and temperature.  The temperature has to be 130° or greater AND the time needs to be long enough.