Sarah Phillips

I have an almost identical cupcake recipe except that it uses 1 1/2 cups unbleached all-purpose flour, although if you wanted to use cake flour, your amount is pretty close (should actually be 1 1/2 cup + 3 tablespoons of cake flour to equal AP.) It also uses 1 large egg plus 2 egg yolks, omits the baking soda and uses 1 1/2 tsp baking powder and 1/2 tsp salt instead. It also uses the high-ratio method of mixing which is why I was drawn to it. ← RodneyCK, How did your recipe turn out? I like the looks of yours better, especially the way the baking powder is used and the amount - I was not crazy about the amount and perhaps type of leaveners used in Chef Gand's recipe - it bothered me. The extra egg yolk makes sense in yours because of the use of all-purpose flour. I bet yours tastes nice and moist.

Oh, how lovely and exciting! (I'll carry your suitcases and take notes for you!)

Please post the recipe in egullet's format so I can review. Thanks!

Hi, Maybe in the end your recipe needs adjusting as JayBassin suggested - but, I agreed also with his first glance that the recipe looked ok. I didn't see anything wrong with it - except that the addition of an extra egg yolk seemed odd to me and unnecessary. And, the recipe sounded familiar to me. So, I went on a search and found the original recipe. It's a cupcake recipe from Gale Gand. The original recipe calls for 1 1/4 cups SIFTED cake flour, 1/2 cup plus 2 tablespoons sugar and just 2 eggs. http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/re...6_20416,00.html This could be why your recipe is dry - you may have too much flour in yours and a tad less sugar. Yes, there is an added egg yolk in your recipe, but too much flour and less sugar can make for a drier recipe. Gale Gand's .........................................Yours.......................Difference 1 1/4 cups SIFTED cake flour .......1 1/4 cups cake flour......Yours may have too much flour, depending how you measured it 1/2 cup plus 2 tablespoons sugar......1/2 cup.....................yours has less 2 eggs.....................................2 eggs plus 1 egg yolk...yours has 1 more egg yolk I always explain techniques, so please do not feel insulted if you already know this: (Some people take offense if I sound elementary, but I always explain everything in detail.) To measure 1 1/4 cups sifted cake flour: Sift flour onto a piece of waxed paper. Spoon flour into measuring cup and level to rim. How did you measure your flour? Did you spoon it into the measuring cup or scoop it into the measuring cup and then level it to the rim? Sifting flour first and then spooning it into a measuring cup will yield slightly less flour by weight per cup in a recipe than if you spoon it into a measuring cup and level it to the rim. If you scoop flour into a measuring cup and level it to the rim, you'll end up with the greatest amount of flour by weight per cup. The difference in weight starts to make a differemce in a recipe. Too much flour and not enough liqquid, sugar and other ingredients, can make for a dry recipe because flour absorbs the available liquid in a recipe. Here are some differences I noted when measuring all-purpose flour: All-purpose unbleached flour Spooned into metal cup: 4.41 ounces (125 grams) Dipped with metal cup: 5.0 ounces .59 ounces more Sugar also attracts moisture from the environment to a recipe. If you add in less than the recipe calls for, the recipe's mouthfeel will appear to be drier and will also in fact, will be drier. Sugar acts as a tenderizer because it attracts water away from the proteins in the flour. By binding water, sugar helps prevent excess gluten from forming. And, the effects of less sugar to flour are compounded by how you measure the flour because the ratio of flour to sugar is affected. Oh - and, the extra egg yolk in your recipe - it adds fat and emulsifiers, so your recipe is more tender and creamy. I mean if you overmixed and overbaked your cupcake recipe, it would have helped prevent dryness (unless you really, really overmixed and overbaked the recipe to death), so I think the way the flour may have been measured and the lack of extra sugar, made the difference in the recipe's drier outcome.

Cheryl, I have faith in you! ~ I know you have the right skills to accomplish any task! ~ I look forward to hearing about your final success!

Hi SweetSide~ The first time you baked the cake, you have a layer of rubbery batter at the bottom of the cake, right? And, we solved that. The second time the cake had a gummy middle (not a layer) with you using all of your great baking skills and knowledge. Plus, you still baked the cake in 8 x 3-inch pans and you think your oven temp is off. It sounds as though the cake was not baked all the way or the pan is causing a problem or your oven's temperature is causing a problem, which is a big concern of mine overall. I mean, if your oven does not work properly, all sorts of funny things happen to recipes.....Plain and simple, they just do not bake right. Yes, maybe others have had good success with pizza stones in their oven, but remember thier oven temps were correct. You said yours was off and varied. I know you know this because you are a professional. At this point, why don't you try a new recipe, since getting a new oven is out of the question or bake the Weinstock recipe at work or bake the Weinstock cake in your oven in 2, 8 x 2-inch pans and see if the recipe bakes better! And, if you want to experiment with adding whole eggs to the Weinstock recipe, add them in place of the egg yolks. At quick glance, there may be too many whole eggs for the recipe, so it may not work. I have my Ultimate Yellow Butter Cake Recipe, if you wish to try or I am sure you know a lot of other professional recipes. Oh, yea -- The Weinstock batter was not really, really thick. It was like typical yellow cake batter - I had to spread it with an small offset spatula - she also instructs you to do the same with a rubber spatula in her recipe. Oh - and, I am glad my tips for beating egg whites with a tiny amount of sugar helped!

You're right! I look forward to hearing from you, Cheryl! ~

K8, I couldn't see you shocking K8TV picture -- Have we BEATen this topic to death yet with our ANALysis? I started using ingredients from the fridge way back when because I was too antsy to wait for them to come to room temperature and discovered that my cakes and other recipes baked just as well as those that everyone kept saying to plan ahead with - I mean, when I wanted to bake a cake, I wanted to bake a cake, and couldn't sit around waiting for everything to come to room temperature. Half of the time my butter was too soft because I got on the phone or my kids wanted something or the dog got out of the yard. The concept of "room temperature" did not fit my lifestyle as a busy mom and web entrepreneur. And, then I had to back into my scientific studies to prove my point - armed with my Instant Read Thermometer, I tested how fast 4 sticks of butter warmed - about 60 seconds or less with a stand mixer -- to 65 degrees F from the fridge, and the batter ended with a 68 to 70 degrees F temp when finally mixed - so, I could sound like a knowledgible authoriity figure on the subject! hehehehe!

K8, I happen to agree with you about this particular cake recipe - I believe there are problems with the mixing methods as written. In fact, I rewrote the mixing methods for my website when I revamped the recipe to create a better emulsion http://www.baking911.com/asksarahbb/index.php?showtopic=1168 I totally agree with you! Ms. Weinstock has you cream the fat alone for 2 minutes and then add the sugar and then cream the fat and sugar again until light and fluffy. I found that that really softened the fat way too much. Plus, she has you add the egg yolks, one at a time and then beat well after each addition, instead of 20 seconds. A lot of mixing = warming the fat too much = breaking the emulsion! So, I rewrote the instructions on my site to include faster mixing times = less chance of failure. I also added a few tablespoons sugar to the beaten egg whites in order to strengthen the foam at the end. I beat the egg whites to the firm peak stage so they would not deflate when folded in = less chance of failure. Plus, I used 2, 8 x 2-inch baking pans, instead of 2, 8 x 3-inch baking pans, as Ms. Weinstock recommended. I folded the egg whites in two additions, rather than three because I find that the less mixing when butter cakes are concerned, the less gluten is formed. It's just from my personal experiences - you want to avoid mixing a butter cake even when folding in ingredients = less chance of failure. The cake perhaps would have benefited from using 3/4 cup sour cream or a few tablespoons under 1 cup, instead of 1 cup but I never tested it. It's because there was a very, very slight dip in the center of the cake. But, I discovered that the way I measured the flour was causing the dip. Sour cream cakes should not dip in the center - that means that there is a problem with their structure, they are underbaked or you opened the oven door too early in the baking process, which caused a dip in the center of the cake from which it never will recover. Plus, I use ingredients right from the refrigerator. I have found that the action of the beaters warm the ingredients quickly, and I believe that using room temperature ingredients when baking certain cakes is not necessary any more and really overwarns the ingredients - I believe that using "room temperature" is a hold over from old times when cakes were mixed by hand. I write about using ingredients right from the fridge in my book. So, K8, I agree with you!

The recipe is improving. As I mentioned earlier, I did not use 3-inch high baking pans. On second thought, I could have used an 8 x 2-inch baking pans, instead of 9 x 2-inch baking pans, but now I cannot recall. I know I did not use a 3-inch high one! The reason is that I do not get good results all the time with 3-inch high pans so I don't like to do recipe testing in them initially -- which is what I was doing originally for the baker who asked me about the cake. I have pictures of the cake, if I can figure put how to post them..... Oh, heck, here are some photos http://www.baking911.com/asksarahbb/index.php?showtopic=1168

HEHE~ I need to relax because I am missing jokes and not having fun and getting too serious! Anyway, let us know how it all turns out!

That may be your benchmark, but remember when an author writes a recipe in volume measurements, you cannot assume he or she means 4.5 ounces per cup. You have to convert the recipe to weights as I suggested above, by measuring the recipe in volume, weighing the result and then testing the recipe. Many cookbook authors write how they measure the flour in the introduction in the book - wcoop or spoon. I write it with each recipe in my cookboks, and have been doing so since 1999. I get a different weight than you do per cup depending on the type of flour. For all-purpose flour, I get: 4.41 ounces (125 grams) per cup - all-purpose, unbleached if spooned into the measuring cup and leveled to top)!! I'm not anal, am I? hehehehe! Please - don't all cough and choke at once! (But, when I am really alone and away from all of you, I use K8's cosmic methods.....shhh! don't tell!)

Thanks! Anytime someone titles anything with "cake help" or posts anything like that, a little beeper goes off in my office and summons me! So, I couldn't help but post! Yes, I have troubles, too! Also, try folding in egg whites with a large rubber spatula. I do not use an electric mixer. I know you know what you are doing, but you also said you had problems with an Angel Food Cake, that also uses whipped egg whites folded into flour, as I mentioned earlier! That's another common thread.....Too much water can be coming from the beaten egg whites separating/deflating from the action of the mixers, causing the rubbery bottom -- I mentioned that too much water/ not enough flour was one of the causes of the problem.... I know you probably fold in egg whites at work with an electric mixer, but commercial mixers are very different from home mixers. Do you use a different mixer at home? Let us know how the cake turns out.

HA! You're a big help! You have what is called "the baker's touch!" Do whatever and it turns out right!

Dear SweetSide, I am sorry I sounded condescending to you. I know you have been on my site and have mentioned you went to school and worked as a chef. Please accept my apologies. All I can say is that I make this exact cake from Sylvia Weinstock because another baker had a problem with it -- another experienced baker who wrote to me with another issue. I baked the recipe to see and I had a problem with it the first time myself, as I explained. I am an experienced baker and had an issue with it. I think it is because, as I explained earlier, it is a finicky cake and it depends how you measure the flour -- which we know can be wide open to interpretation. I think one must follow the recipe EXACTLY for it to turn out. One variation, such as mismeasuring the flour, as I mentioned I had done the first time, caused the cake to dip in the center. So, perhaps the way you measured the flour caused a problem - that's why I asked. A lot of recipes fail because of how one interprets how the flour is to be measured. I am just trying to help you find a solution. I am methodically looking for a solution - we may not find it because of the baking stone in your oven.....Or, it could be the proximity of the cake to the baking stone and be as simple as that! When I solve a baking problem, I look at everything that may be a potential problem, whether you know how to do the step perfectly or not. I have found that there are certain techniques in baking that cause failure more than others. There are certain ways to avoid baking failures and writing recipes and techniques so the recipe will succeed more than not and many of us are already keen on most of the reasons. So, I am just asking questions, trying to eliminate what went wrong. I did not mean to offend. I know that this recipe is one of those that requires precision - as I experienced when I baked it. Some butter cakes are written to be as such, but some are more forgiving just by their nature or how they are written. Most cakes using folded egg whites are not very forgiving, in my opinion! Egg whites have a mind of their own and deflate readily when folded, especially when beaten without a tiny amount of sugar added to them, such as done in the Weinstock recipe. Edited to add: Why don't you bake the cake using volume measurements and then see how the cake bakes. Take weights of your volume measurements. If the cake bakes fine, then you know that the weights used are perfect. Perhaps you may want to start narrowing down what the problem is. And, I like what K8 suggested about baking the recipe at work! Maybe the entire problem has to do with your oven?! A great number of recipes fail because of oven problems or issues with heat or placing cakes too close or too far from the heat source. (Using the right flour also makes a difference, as you know, and on and on....) The Weinstock recipe is a good one. I have baked it myself many times.

Thanks, Squirrelly Cakes. You always have great suggestions! And, K8 memphis, Thanks! I like you idea of using one whole egg instead of all egg whites. It helps strengthen the cake. Chefpeon, you always crack me up and bring into focus what we'd all really want to do with some of these recipes! And, SweetSide, I have had to go to egg white and folding school many times, myself.... Yes, and the problem with the baking stone... But, here we go again with the measuring of the flour.....Not you - but all of us! You can't weigh one cup of flour just by weighing one cup of flour because you don't know what weight Sylivia Weinstock used for her recipe. You have to figure it out by coverting the recipe and then running tests. Is that what you did? We were discussing measuring flour in another egullet thread which I can't find now - maybe someone can find it. What I suggest to home bakers who want to weigh ingredients for a recipe measured in volume measurements is that you need to convert the recipe to weights. Here's the only way you can do it: 1. First measure the recipe in volume measurements. Then, weigh the measurements. 2. Bake the recipe. If the cake comes out right, then use the weight measurements you derived from the volume measurements. Mark them down in your recipe. If the recipe does not work, then go back to step 1 until the recipe bakes properly and you can write down the correct weights used in the particular recipe. You cannot simply assume what 1 cup of flour weighs. Every person reading this post will weigh 2 1/4 cups sifted cake flour differently - I sift the flour directly into the measuring cup and level to top. Some sift the flour onto a piece of parchment paper and then measure the flour. (Some may measure the flour and then sift it.) Flour brands differ and so do weights. When I baked Syvlia Weinstock's cake for the first time, it had a slight dip in the center. When I measured 2 1/4 cups sifted cake flour for the recipe for the first time, I usually sift the flour into the measuring cup as I mentioned before, but because of the dip in the center, the second time, I switched to sifting the flour on a piece of wax paper and then measuring it. The dip in the center of the cake disappeared because the cake needed a bit more flour which is what you will get when you measure the flour with my seond technique. That's probably how Ms. Weinstock measured the sifted flour in her recipe! (I did not weigh my second and more accurate measurements because I would have shared the results with you.....) Try the recipe again by measuring it with volume measurements, and then by the way, weigh the ingredients to see what you get. That will tell you what a ballpark weight measurement should be. THEN, bake the recipe and let us know if it turns out! If it bakes ok, then mark down the weight measurements you used for subsequent recipes. Now, your test may not be a good one because you have this baking stone in the oven.....but, see if the cake improves.....You did have good luck before! And, bake it in the middle of the middle shelf at 350 degrees F. K8Memphis and Squirrelly Cakes - I know you are both excellent bakers! How did you measure the flour? Sifting into the measuring cup directly or sifting onto a piece of wax paper and then measuring. I am just curious!

SweetSide, Thank you so much for the information. I think there are PERHAPS two issues going on. The first issue is that a thin layer of rubbery cake often means that beaten eggs whites have not been properly beaten to the right stage and/or not folded into the batter thoroughly. The second issue may be with your baking stone - when you lowered the cake close to it, it was if you were baking the cake on the floor of the oven - you placed the source of the heat really close to the bottom of the pan and baked the bottom of the cake like pancake batter on a griddle! Plus, I am familiar with Sylvia Weinstock's Recipe. I have baked it before many times. I helped someone else with this cake recipe because they also had problems with it. The recipe is an excellent one - it's not the recipe that is a problem - it's that it can be a delicate recipe to execute. Meaning, you have to follow it to the letter to have it turn out properly - the last step of folding the egg whites into the batter can be tricky. You have to make sure you beat the egg whites to the right stage and then gingerly fold them into the batter in the end. Also, the cake should be baked in the middle of the oven shelf placed on the middle rung. (In S Weinstock's recipe, when I beat the egg whites, I took a few tablespoons of sugar from the recipe and used them to beat with the whites to help strengthen them. They kept their shape better for folding and did not leach water as much or separate as much when I did the folding action = less water). You mentioned you had a similar issue with an Angel Food Cake which is also a cake that uses beaten egg whites folded with flour. You may want to brush up on your egg white beating and folding techniques. The second issue is the fact that you oven's temperature is off, as you know, is a big problem. So, you added a baking stone to help solve the problem. But, as I mentioned before, when you bake a foam-type cake or one that requires beaten egg whites, the stone may be producing too much heat too close to the cake. If you chose not to get your oven fixed, which is the obvious solution, I would place the stone on the floor of the oven, not the shelf right below the cake, and see if your cakes bake better! If that's not an option, then..... I said there may be two issues, but I will add a third -- a bottom rubbery layer also means too much liquid in the recipe. (See my note above about beating egg whites with sugar in the recipe which will help strengthen the egg white foam). That can happen from mismeasuring, etc etc - How did you measure the 2 1/4 cups sifted cake flour? And fourth??? I baked the cake in two, 9 x 2-inch cake pans and had great success - I did not test it in 2, 8 x 3-inch pans as the recipe suggests - perhaps the 3-inch pan depth caused an issue?? I hope this advice helps! In all, I really think your issue of a rubbery layer has something to do with the egg whites -- beating and folding, and having the cake placed so close to the baking stone!

Hi, What kind of cake are you baking? How much is your oven temperature off? Can you please post the recipe, including the mixing methods used, so I can see what you are doing? I need as much details from the original recipe as possible in regards to the mixing and baking instructions! Who is the recipe by? Thanks!

I mean, I know when a recipe specifies a weight, then you need to weigh the ingredients to that particular weight. But, I have found that a lot of home baker's think that it is more accurate to weigh ingredients instead of measuring them by volume. I always add that it IS ONLY if the recipe specifies the weight in the first place. Because if a weight is not specified, there can be vast variances in what you will think the final weight should be, especially for flour - that there is not a set chart showing what 1 cup of all-purpose flour SHOULD weigh, and there can't be! I bet if we all weighed 1 cup flour, sifted and 1 cup sifted flour, we would all come up with differences! (I don't have time to do it today, but will add to this thread when I do!) In general, I know that I get: ALL-PURPOSE FLOUR, UNBLEACHED AND NOT SIFTED: Spooned into metal cup and leveled to top: 4.41 ounces (125 grams) Dipped with metal cup and leveled to top: 5.0 ounces (And, RodneyCK, my head spins, too!) And - "I don't do sifting (or ironing) - unless it is for cocoa powder, chiffon cakes, genoise or any other hard-to-incorporate-flour or whatever recipes I forgot to mention....."

And, chefpeon, I had a good chuckle when you wrote: "You know you've started the Eighth Circle of Hell, now haven't you? Everybody's gonna have a different opinion on this thread and you'll be no better off than when you started. Don't say I didn't warn you." I agree so much! Yes, I agree - with what RD Collins wrote: "1 cup of sifted flour" to me means to sift the flour, then measure it; "1 cup of flour, sifted" means to measure the flour, then sift it. Ok, here's something to muck up the works! But, I always thought that "1 cup sifted flour" meant to sift the flour right into the measuring cup and level it to top! -- rather than to sift the flour onto a separate piece of parchment or wax paper, which may lead to compacting it again while you put it in a spoon to transfer it into the measuring cup! So, for the sake of discussion, if you weigh ingredients, do you sift the flour right into the bowl that sits on top of the scale and then weigh it. Or, should you sift the flour onto a separate piece of parchment or waxed paper and then transfer it with a spoon to the scale? How much does it get compacted again?? Anyone care to jump in or comment ??? (RD Collins - we need another test!!)

Here's a question I answered from someone who asked the same question on my website! I have done it numerous times with great success! Plus, it's so easy! And, if you aren't exact (because it's hard to be because eggs are slippery), the recipe will still bake, especially muffin recipes. I have done this when baking butter cakes and they turn out just fine! (I create recipes and often cut them in half when I do testing. So, I use lots of half eggs!) Q: If I cut a recipe in half and the original uses 1 large egg, how do I halve it? A: One large egg equals about 1/4 cup (4 tablespoons). In order to get "half a large egg", you'll need 2 TABLESPOONS for your recipe. First, beat the egg so the yolk and white until well mixed and let the bubbles subside. Then, measure what you need with a measuring spoon. Pontormo said the same, except I use a measuring spoon! By the way, you can also use 2 eggs in half of your recipe, if desired and it will still work! But, if you want to halve an egg, put the rest in scrambled eggs! Or cook it in the microwave and feed to dogs! Not to worry!

Mmmmm...That sounds wonderful! And, I agree with gbbaker! I like the idea of making small tarts, too!

The cake that RodneyCK is referring to a cake named Cuatro Leches Vanilla Mantecado Cake Recipe and is one I first wrote about in my blog http://www.baking911.com/asksarahbb/index....d=1&showentry=4 I found the cake recipe while in Texas visiting a bakery called La Duni Latin Kitchen and Baking Studio! Lots of bakers have tried this delicious recipe and commented on it on my website. There, you will see photos and some comments on how to bake the cake properly. It needs some adjustments. I don't believe you can use cornflour in this particular recipe. You need to follow the recipe to a "tee" and it will work. http://www.baking911.com/asksarahbb/index.php?showtopic=445 If you have any questions, please let me know. I know lots about making this cake. Chef Dunia is very talented, as you will see! ~ And, hosinmigs, good luck with your contest!

I am so proud of you, Little Island! You did a great job and worked so hard on your cake! It's sensational! ~

Any (good) news, yet!? I can hardly wait to hear!