Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the Society.

Photo

Baking 101


  • Please log in to reply
330 replies to this topic

#301 gfron1

gfron1
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,372 posts
  • Location:Silver City, NM

Posted 30 November 2008 - 02:47 PM

Its a matter of preference and function. I'll do a thicker, spreadable ganache for fillings, but a thin pourable ganache for coatings. Although sometimes I want a thicker ganache for coatings also, that I have to spread.

Chef, Curious Kumquat, Silver City, NM


#302 lostbaker

lostbaker
  • participating member
  • 16 posts
  • Location:India

Posted 01 December 2008 - 07:42 AM

Thanks for the prompt reply. :-)
So what you're saying is anything will do, thick or thin, poured or put on with a spatula, right? That's great, and I also saw this very informative video, if anyone like me needs some help.
http://daisylanecake...th-ganache.html

#303 gfron1

gfron1
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,372 posts
  • Location:Silver City, NM

Posted 01 December 2008 - 07:52 AM

I am saying that...IF the style of ganache matches your need. You wouldn't want to fill a cake with a pourable ganache, right? But sometimes you want a smoother finish on your cake which a spreadable ganache might not achieve. To be honest, the pourable ganache is mostly a lazy response on my part when I don't want to work hard at the finish. Instead of worrying about sharp edges or perfect sides, I just pour and have a shiny pretty finish. But beyond that distinction, I play with all sorts of ratios to get firmer or thinner. I think about things like temperature and how it will effect the hardness of the ganache. An example there is I made a vegan cake recently that I coated with a water based ganache. I needed to chill it because I had to make a bit earlier than I would have liked (holiday baking schedule backup). I had to make sure it was a bit looser so it didn't become a rock and uncutable. Anyway, lot's of things to think about but really no major disasters are possible. And you always get to eat your mistakes.

Chef, Curious Kumquat, Silver City, NM


#304 lostbaker

lostbaker
  • participating member
  • 16 posts
  • Location:India

Posted 01 December 2008 - 11:11 AM

Hahaha, luckily I've got a lot of dessert loving people around me. Though I don't think anyone can beat me, I have to watch what I eat :-(
And what I do now is make the ganache for the filling when the cake's in the oven itself, pop it into the fridge, and make the other one way later. That way they are both perfect consistency. I pour, it's just so easy, and I haven't really perfected my spatula skills. I make this spiderweb thing on top, and it looks so professional. Go me! Yayy for the internet. I've learnt every single baking skill from it!

#305 jlwquilter

jlwquilter
  • participating member
  • 41 posts

Posted 01 December 2008 - 07:07 PM

Bread question:

If I shape my loaf for the 2nd rising and accidentially let it over-rise, can I punch the dough back down, re-shape and let it rise again with no loss of quality?? Will the 2nd second rsing happen faster?

Thanks!

#306 emmalish

emmalish
  • participating member
  • 911 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 23 December 2008 - 10:26 AM

I just made these cookies from an old issue of Martha Stewart. For the most part the recipe reads as I would expect a cookie recipe to read, but after creaming the butter and sugars, and whisking together all the dry ingredients (except for the baking soda), the recipe says:

In a small bowl, dissolve baking soda in 1 1/2 teaspoons boiling water. Beat half of flour mixture into butter mixture. Beat in baking-soda mixture, then remaining half of flour mixture.

Why would the baking soda be activated prior to adding it to the recipe? It didn't make sense to me, so I skipped this step and whisked the baking soda in with the rest of the dry ingredients. The cookies turned out fine, as far as I'm concerned. Would they have been better had I followed this step?

Has anyone ever seen similar instruction before? Is there a reason for it?

Edited by emmalish, 23 December 2008 - 10:27 AM.

I'm gonna go bake something…

wanna come with?


#307 tino27

tino27
  • participating member
  • 831 posts
  • Location:Akron, OH

Posted 23 December 2008 - 10:35 AM

Bread question:

If I shape my loaf for the 2nd rising and accidentially let it over-rise, can I punch the dough back down, re-shape and let it rise again with no loss of quality?? Will the 2nd second rsing happen faster?

Thanks!

View Post


Although I see your question was posted on December 1st and I'm sure you've fixed the problem by now, I guess I'll just answer for posterity's sake.

Yes, if your bread overproofs, punch it down, re-shape, and re-proof. As far as the time it takes to re-proof, it will most likely be about the same time as the failed proof. Once you do your first bulk fermentation (in the big bowl/container, etc.) and punch it down to let the gas out, it also serves to redistribute the live yeast through the dough. Additional risings/proofings won't get you a significant increase in proofing time.

In other words, if I do first fermentation / second fermentation / shape & proof, it would probably go something like: 60 minutes / 35-40 minutes / 25-30 minutes. Of course, it also depends on how hot and how humid your kitchen is.
Food Blog: Exploring Food My Way: Satisfying The Craving -- Exercising my epicurean muscles by eating my way through everything that is edible.
Flickr: Link To My Account
Twitter: @tnoe27

#308 jumanggy

jumanggy
  • participating member
  • 506 posts
  • Location:Harlem in New York

Posted 24 December 2008 - 03:17 AM

Hi Emmalish, The only other time I'd seen the instruction to stir the leavening in at the end is for red velvet cake (Jaymes's version to be exact). I actually still don't really know the explanation but I did it as indicated anyway. However, for this cookie dough in particular, the possible explanation I'm thinking of is that it prevents bitterness/soapiness from uneven distribution of soda into a thick batter (such as gingerbread). However, I make my gingerbread the usual way and it turns out fine. I'd probably even go so far as to cream my butter with it (thanks, eGullet!) since it doesn't matter at what point you add it (as it is a resting dough).

I just made these cookies from an old issue of Martha Stewart. For the most part the recipe reads as I would expect a cookie recipe to read, but after creaming the butter and sugars, and whisking together all the dry ingredients (except for the baking soda), the recipe says:

In a small bowl, dissolve baking soda in 1 1/2 teaspoons boiling water. Beat half of flour mixture into butter mixture. Beat in baking-soda mixture, then remaining half of flour mixture.

Why would the baking soda be activated prior to adding it to the recipe? It didn't make sense to me, so I skipped this step and whisked the baking soda in with the rest of the dry ingredients. The cookies turned out fine, as far as I'm concerned. Would they have been better had I followed this step?

Has anyone ever seen similar instruction before? Is there a reason for it?

View Post


Mark
The Gastronomer's Bookshelf - Collaborative book reviews about food and food culture. Submit a review today! :)
No Special Effects - my reader-friendly blog about food and life.

#309 alanamoana

alanamoana
  • participating member
  • 2,738 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 24 December 2008 - 01:58 PM

i've seen this type of instruction in several gingerbread recipes. it could be because the baking soda is being used for browning rather than leavening (to get that dark gingerbread coloring). so, it is activated ahead of time rather than being allowed to react with any acid in the recipe (molasses, brown sugar, etc.)

Hi Emmalish, The only other time I'd seen the instruction to stir the leavening in at the end is for red velvet cake (Jaymes's version to be exact). I actually still don't really know the explanation but I did it as indicated anyway. However, for this cookie dough in particular, the possible explanation I'm thinking of is that it prevents bitterness/soapiness from uneven distribution of soda into a thick batter (such as gingerbread). However, I make my gingerbread the usual way and it turns out fine. I'd probably even go so far as to cream my butter with it (thanks, eGullet!) since it doesn't matter at what point you add it (as it is a resting dough).

I just made these cookies from an old issue of Martha Stewart. For the most part the recipe reads as I would expect a cookie recipe to read, but after creaming the butter and sugars, and whisking together all the dry ingredients (except for the baking soda), the recipe says:

In a small bowl, dissolve baking soda in 1 1/2 teaspoons boiling water. Beat half of flour mixture into butter mixture. Beat in baking-soda mixture, then remaining half of flour mixture.

Why would the baking soda be activated prior to adding it to the recipe? It didn't make sense to me, so I skipped this step and whisked the baking soda in with the rest of the dry ingredients. The cookies turned out fine, as far as I'm concerned. Would they have been better had I followed this step?

Has anyone ever seen similar instruction before? Is there a reason for it?

View Post

View Post



#310 emmalish

emmalish
  • participating member
  • 911 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 24 December 2008 - 02:17 PM

i've seen this type of instruction in several gingerbread recipes.  it could be because the baking soda is being used for browning rather than leavening (to get that dark gingerbread coloring).  so, it is activated ahead of time rather than being allowed to react with any acid in the recipe (molasses, brown sugar, etc.)

Hi Emmalish, The only other time I'd seen the instruction to stir the leavening in at the end is for red velvet cake (Jaymes's version to be exact). I actually still don't really know the explanation but I did it as indicated anyway. However, for this cookie dough in particular, the possible explanation I'm thinking of is that it prevents bitterness/soapiness from uneven distribution of soda into a thick batter (such as gingerbread). However, I make my gingerbread the usual way and it turns out fine. I'd probably even go so far as to cream my butter with it (thanks, eGullet!) since it doesn't matter at what point you add it (as it is a resting dough).

View Post

View Post

Thanks, both of you! I'd never seen this instruction in a recipe before and was completely thrown. Especially since it's the only leavener listed. Like I said, I just whisked it in with my dry ingredients and it turned out fine. I'm not even sure it would be worth trying it the other way to compare. I'm happy with them as-is. (oh, and I'd definitely recommend the recipe – lovely combination of chocolate and spices)

I'm gonna go bake something…

wanna come with?


#311 jlwquilter

jlwquilter
  • participating member
  • 41 posts

Posted 29 December 2008 - 08:16 AM

Bread question:

If I shape my loaf for the 2nd rising and accidentially let it over-rise, can I punch the dough back down, re-shape and let it rise again with no loss of quality?? Will the 2nd second rsing happen faster?

Thanks!

View Post


Although I see your question was posted on December 1st and I'm sure you've fixed the problem by now, I guess I'll just answer for posterity's sake.

Yes, if your bread overproofs, punch it down, re-shape, and re-proof. As far as the time it takes to re-proof, it will most likely be about the same time as the failed proof. Once you do your first bulk fermentation (in the big bowl/container, etc.) and punch it down to let the gas out, it also serves to redistribute the live yeast through the dough. Additional risings/proofings won't get you a significant increase in proofing time.

In other words, if I do first fermentation / second fermentation / shape & proof, it would probably go something like: 60 minutes / 35-40 minutes / 25-30 minutes. Of course, it also depends on how hot and how humid your kitchen is.

View Post


Thanks! I haven't had a chance to make more bread so your answer is still very timely for me. Being able to over proof the dough sometimes, on purpose, actually may help me. My DH works late alot and I could now make the dough earlier in the evening, let it rise willy-nilly, and then punch, re-shape, rise again and bake in the time it takes him to call me he's leaving work and him being ready to eat dinner at home (it's an hour drive). Perfect!

#312 alanamoana

alanamoana
  • participating member
  • 2,738 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 29 December 2008 - 10:03 AM

Bread question:

If I shape my loaf for the 2nd rising and accidentially let it over-rise, can I punch the dough back down, re-shape and let it rise again with no loss of quality?? Will the 2nd second rsing happen faster?

Thanks!

View Post


Although I see your question was posted on December 1st and I'm sure you've fixed the problem by now, I guess I'll just answer for posterity's sake.

Yes, if your bread overproofs, punch it down, re-shape, and re-proof. As far as the time it takes to re-proof, it will most likely be about the same time as the failed proof. Once you do your first bulk fermentation (in the big bowl/container, etc.) and punch it down to let the gas out, it also serves to redistribute the live yeast through the dough. Additional risings/proofings won't get you a significant increase in proofing time.

In other words, if I do first fermentation / second fermentation / shape & proof, it would probably go something like: 60 minutes / 35-40 minutes / 25-30 minutes. Of course, it also depends on how hot and how humid your kitchen is.

View Post


Thanks! I haven't had a chance to make more bread so your answer is still very timely for me. Being able to over proof the dough sometimes, on purpose, actually may help me. My DH works late alot and I could now make the dough earlier in the evening, let it rise willy-nilly, and then punch, re-shape, rise again and bake in the time it takes him to call me he's leaving work and him being ready to eat dinner at home (it's an hour drive). Perfect!

View Post


while i agree, for the most part, with tino's answer, i will add a couple of considerations:

it might depend on what kind of bread you're making, the amount of yeast might affect the number of possible risings. you could easily exhaust your yeast the first time and not get a significant rise the second time, thus ending up with a dense bread.

#313 jlwquilter

jlwquilter
  • participating member
  • 41 posts

Posted 30 December 2008 - 08:17 AM

while i agree, for the most part, with tino's answer, i will add a couple of considerations:

it might depend on what kind of bread you're making, the amount of yeast might affect the number of possible risings.  you could easily exhaust your yeast the first time and not get a significant rise the second time, thus ending up with a dense bread.

View Post


While I stupidly didn't say it in my first post/question, that was my base concern... would I exhaust the yeast if I overproofed it and end up with a brick. I've overproofed just twice, by accident and not to a huge extent, and I baked the loaves as they were. They were fine but sloppy looking at best as they somewhat deflated when I took the plastic wrap off and moved the pans into the oven. Hence my question. I guess the next time I overproof I'll just have to try re-shaping and see what happens.

If I go for a deliberate overproof to accommondate a timing issue, then I'll try to remember to add a dash more yeast and sugar..... yes?

I make basic bread. Rye mostly, then white, and then wheat.

#314 Beebs

Beebs
  • participating member
  • 704 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada

Posted 09 January 2009 - 03:11 PM

I have an egg white question:

I've got 13 egg whites to use up. I've tossed them all in a ziploc baggy in the freezer. How long are they good for? And do frozen whites significantly affect how meringues turn out?

Also, I'm thinking of baking an angel food cake with some of the whites. Can I use a bundt pan, or do I need to buy an angel food cake pan?

Thanks!

#315 judec

judec
  • participating member
  • 73 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 09 January 2009 - 04:01 PM

Also, I'm thinking of baking an angel food cake with some of the whites.  Can I use a bundt pan, or do I need to buy an angel food cake pan?


The cake will bake just fine, but it will be very difficult to remove it in one piece from a bundt pan.

Ideally, you want a plain round tube pan with a removable bottom. Most will have legs or a tube that extend past the outer edge of the pan. This lets you cool the cake upside down and prevent it from collapsing while still warm.

#316 thock

thock
  • participating member
  • 291 posts

Posted 22 February 2009 - 03:23 PM

Ok, I have active dry yeast (Red Star) and instant (Fleischman's) in my freezer. A bunch of it. I've been using the instant more than the active dry, because I'm using my bread machine at least once a week. Well, my little in-current-use jar of instant (actually a recycled bread machine yeast jar) was getting low, so I wanted to replenish it from my frozen stocks. However, I have one container of yeast that I failed to label, so I'm not at all sure whether it's instant or active dry. Is there any sure way to tell the difference, maybe by proofing a small amount of each? I do have labeled active dry and labeled instant to compare.

Thanks!

Tracy
Tracy
Lenexa, KS, USA

#317 CaliPoutine

CaliPoutine
  • participating member
  • 2,931 posts
  • Location:Santa Clarita, CA

Posted 22 February 2009 - 04:06 PM

Ok, I have active dry yeast (Red Star) and instant (Fleischman's) in my freezer.  A bunch of it.  I've been using the instant more than the active dry, because I'm using my bread machine at least once a week.  Well, my little in-current-use jar of instant (actually a recycled bread machine yeast jar) was getting low, so I wanted to replenish it from my frozen stocks.  However, I have one container of yeast that I failed to label, so I'm not at all sure whether it's instant or active dry.  Is there any sure way to tell the difference, maybe by proofing a small amount of each?  I do have labeled active dry and labeled instant to compare.

Thanks!

Tracy

View Post



I might be mistaken, but I always thought that instant had smaller grains than the active dry.

#318 thock

thock
  • participating member
  • 291 posts

Posted 22 February 2009 - 04:32 PM

I might be mistaken, but I always thought that instant had smaller grains than the active dry.

View Post


I can't tell a difference, to tell the truth, between the instant and active dry. I was hoping to see a difference, so I could tell what was in the mystery container, but...

Thanks, though!

Tracy
Tracy
Lenexa, KS, USA

#319 nelsonclassic

nelsonclassic
  • participating member
  • 2 posts

Posted 25 October 2009 - 10:27 PM

Hello friend,
I have learned some good recipes and basic tips of cheese cakes from dianasdesserts.com/..so if you want you can go through it..I have tried it's lemon cheese cake..it was nice and I got some good tips also..
I will suggest you to start from some simple dish..Don't try something typical because typical dishes needs a bit experience,so try some simple cheese cake dishes like basic cream cheesecake which I started cooking..
Here is the recipe:

Ingredients:

1 1/2 c. graham cracker crumbs
1/4 c. butter
2 tbsp. sugar

How to cook:

Mix together and put in 9x13 pan.
Cream 3 (8 oz.) packages softened cream cheese and 3/4 cup sugar until light. Add 4 eggs, 1 at a time, beating well after each egg. Add a speck of salt and 1/2 teaspoon vanilla. Beat well. Pour into pan. Bake at 375 degrees 1/2 hour.
Beat: 2 tbsp. sugar 1 pt. sour cream
Spread on cake and bake for 10 minutes longer.

Regards,
Nelson
Cake Favor Boxes

#320 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,181 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 21 September 2010 - 07:20 AM

I make brownies under the following conditions:

Baked in foil 1/2-size catering pans (approx 10 x 11).

Baked at 350 degrees.

Without nuts they go for 31 minutes.


Here's my delimma. I didn't know that I have to add time to the baking if I add nuts. After producing a batch of gooey undercooked brownies I now know. I am sprinkling 1/3 cup of pecan pieces on top of the batter. How much time should I add to compensate for the pecans on top?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"


#321 paulraphael

paulraphael
  • participating member
  • 3,031 posts

Posted 21 September 2010 - 08:20 AM

I don't think you have to compensate at all.

#322 Special K

Special K
  • participating member
  • 671 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 21 September 2010 - 08:27 AM

Porthos, I think Pauraphael is right. Probably the oven just wasn't up to temp or something. It happens! I'd just try again.

Plus, gooey undercooked brownies? Delicious!

#323 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,181 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 21 September 2010 - 08:44 AM

Plus, gooey undercooked brownies? Delicious!

Not easy to cut up and serve on a platter to a group, however.

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"


#324 Tri2Cook

Tri2Cook
  • participating member
  • 3,747 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 21 September 2010 - 08:59 AM

Sprinkling some nuts on top shouldn't have taken them from perfect to way undercooked, all else being equal. If your batter, oven temp and bake time are consistent, the results should be consistent within a small margin... nuts or no nuts. If you were adding so many nuts that it was basically a thin network of cake holding nuts together, that would be different, but 1/3 c. of nuts sprinkled over a 10x11 area shouldn't cause any problems.
It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

#325 dougal

dougal
  • participating member
  • 1,279 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 21 September 2010 - 09:06 AM

I've heard of Brownies altering the perception of the passage of time.

But that would be eating them, rather than baking them.

Sure those were nuts?
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch ... you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan

#326 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,181 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 21 September 2010 - 09:32 AM

... but 1/3 c. of nuts ...

Oops. I screwed up my original post. That was supposed to be 1/3 POUND of pecan pieces.

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"


#327 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,181 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 22 September 2010 - 07:30 AM

Bump

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"


#328 Toliver

Toliver
  • participating member
  • 4,628 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 22 September 2010 - 09:13 AM


Plus, gooey undercooked brownies? Delicious!

Not easy to cut up and serve on a platter to a group, however.

So the brownies don't go to waste, you could always make a "Death by Chocolate" trifle out of them. Layers of crumbled brownies, chocolate pudding/mousse, chocolate (or regular) whipped cream and crushed toffee bits/Heath bars. Repeat. Easy to assemble and people seem to enjoy it.
It's even easier if you channel Sandra Lee/Paula Deen and buy prepared ingredients...but you didn't hear that from me. :laugh:

As for adjusting the oven temp when baking a recipe with added nuts, I agree with the other posters in that I don't think it should make a difference. You can always PM eGullet members Kerry Beal or even Dorie Greenspan to see what they think if they don't happen to peruse this discussion.

“Peter: Oh my god, Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits. It says, 'Oooooo.'
Brian: Peter, those are Cheerios.”
– From Fox TV’s “Family Guy”


#329 CanadianBakin'

CanadianBakin'
  • participating member
  • 1,449 posts
  • Location:Mission, BC

Posted 22 September 2010 - 09:24 AM


Plus, gooey undercooked brownies? Delicious!

Not easy to cut up and serve on a platter to a group, however.


They are if you freeze them for an hour or so before cutting. Beautiful clean cuts.
Anything you bake is done when it's done. By that I mean you need to know what it looks and feels like when it's done rather than rely on the timer. When you think they're done, stick a toothpick in the center of the pan. If it comes up with liquid on it, they aren't done. When they are done depends on what you want. If you want them quite fudgy then the toothpick should look a little gooey. If you want them more firm, then a few moist crumbs sticking to it. I wouldn't bake it further than that.

If after you first check them and they aren't done to your liking, begin checking them every 3 minutes or so until they reach the stage you want.
Don't wait for extraordinary opportunities. Seize common occasions and make them great. Orison Swett Marden

#330 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,181 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:30 AM

Update: I made my 2 pans of plain brownies and they were done at 31 minutes. I made 2 pans of brownies with 1/3 pound of pecans per pan. It took 44 minutes to bake using the toothpick test for doneness.

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"