Loading…
22
Had a chat with a farmer about lamb aging that got me thinking
He told me he hangs his lamb for 10 days minimum, while I've always done just 4 or 5. Said the difference in tenderness is like night and day, and after trying a piece from his last batch, I gotta admit he might be right. Has anyone else bumped up their aging time and noticed a big change?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
lee.cora2mo ago
Ha! So you're telling me I've been eating lamb that's basically been in a rush this whole time? Guess I need to give my meat some more vacation days.
6
rowan_ross2mo ago
Changed my mind on this a few years back after a similar talk with an old butcher. I used to think 4 or 5 days was plenty, figured any longer and the meat would get gamey or start turning. Then I tried a leg that hung for 12 days and it was like a completely different cut of meat. So much more tender and the flavor was deeper, not stronger just richer. Now I aim for 10 days minimum and honestly I can't go back to the short hang. It's one of those things you just have to taste to believe.
1
craig.parker2mo ago
Whoa, I actually see it a bit differently. I've tried the longer hangs a few times and for MY money, I still prefer that shorter window. The 10 day stuff always comes out tasting a little too much like liver for me, that mineral taste just gets too loud. I think there's a sweet spot around 5 to 7 days where you get the tenderness but the meat still tastes like lamb instead of something that's been sitting in a cooler for half a month. To each their own though, that's the great thing about cooking.
9