cakewalk

The corners are not quite as sharp as yours @ptw1953, but they're certainly sharper than I've ever got them before. My usual recipe is cobbled together from various different recipes. (I don't make a standard Pullman loaf.) Its total flour weight came to 580 grams. I increased to 750 grams and was really expecting the lid to pop off. But it held its own. I would never have thought the pan would hold that much dough, but live and learn. Thanks very much.

I guess I've been a bit wimpy about increasing the flour too much, trying to avoid popping the lid. I'll be more bold. But in truth, take a look around the internet for photos of people's Pullman loaves. They're all nice, and some of them even have squared corners. But I haven't seen anything as sharp as yours anywhere. It's really beautiful. And now I have to go home and begin making a Pullman loaf immediately ...

Thanks @Margaret Pilgrim and @ptw1953, but I must pick your brains just a bit more. I have the Pullman loaf pan and have made more loaves than I can count (including sourdough), and they've all been good, too. But I have never had corners like those! I am wondering if there's something about the recipe, or if it's a matter of filling the pan a bit more, etc. (I've tried increasing the batter a bit in an attempt to get those corners; so far it has never worked.)

@ptw1953 - What a perfect loaf. Those corners! I have to ask - what recipe did you use?

I think there are other threads here on baker's ammonia, particularly in threads that mention the Vanilla Dreams cookie from King Arthur Flour. I am a big fan of this ingredient. The advantage is in texture. There's nothing that compares to the crisp texture of a cookie baked with baker's ammonia. (At least nothing I've ever come across, and I've eaten many cookies in my lifetime.) Although I have to say Tate's chocolate chip cookies do come close. (But no cigar.) A while ago I tried to bake ch. chip cookies with baker's ammonia. I used the standard Toll House cookie recipe but substituted 3/4 tsp BA instead of the 1 tsp baking soda called for in the recipe. The texture was spot on, exactly what I wanted. But the cookies had an aftertaste. The issue is moisture. BA must completely bake out (the kitchen will smell slightly of ammonia while the cookies bake). In products like cookies, crackers, etc. that will happen. BA really can't be used in cakes because you want to retain moisture in cakes, so the BA will not bake out. I think with the ch. chip cookies, the chocolate chips themselves were the culprit. They must have absorbed some of the BA and retained it. I have meant to give it another go using 1/2 tsp of BA this time. Also, some recipes say to dissolve the BA in liquid (in this case, I guess you could dissolve it in the vanilla) before adding it to the batter. I did not do that, I just added it to the dry ingredients. So my next go will be less BA, add it to the liquid, and I might try mini chocolate chips rather than regular sized. I don't know if this will make any difference, it just might be that you can't use BA if there are any add-ins to your cookies. I don't know that I would add it to short bread since, as mentioned above, they usually don't have leavening to begin with. If you try it, please report back. Also, you might want to take a look through this blog: https://londoneats.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/the-twelve-days-of-christmas-3/ He uses BA in quite a few recipes.

It's a matter of approach. I think that's the benefit of forums. Not everyone is "me." There's also "you." Inevitably, we are going to differ. Quite frankly, I think that is for the best.

Hello @Jaymes!

When I was in college my roommate's boyfriend made this salad dressing that was absolutely delicious. He said it was Russian dressing, and I asked him how he made it. He said, it's ketchup and mayonnaise mixed together. And I said, oh c'mon Mike, what is it? And he said, no really, it's ketchup and mayonnaise mixed together. I refused to believe it, but he kept insisting! That was in the early seventies. It's still delicious. (And it's still ketchup and mayonnaise.)

The fact is, people can like Food Network and still post on eGullet. We don't have exclusive membership criteria. As I mentioned upthread, if people don't want to participate in a topic, they don't have to click on it. I wasn't aware that you were an old member like weinoo! In any case, it's irrelevant. If someone joined yesterday, he's a member.

Now that's not something I hear every day!! You're welcome.

Do you think a thread on hunting is "inclusive"? You think threads on pork products are "inclusive"? Do you really think that every thread has to be thought to death so that it "includes" everyone? This entire place would die overnight, if not sooner. There are more threads than I can count that do not "include" me. Many of them I enjoy reading anyway - because not everything has to be about me. As for the threads I don't want anything to do with, I have a simple solution: I don't click on them. There are also more threads than I can count that simply don't get any traction, so they die their own death. If that happens, it happens. It doesn't need anyone's assistance.

Okay, okay. So why don't y'all put your money where your mouth is? The man proposed a challenge! Let's see what you got!

Thank you! (I agree, more cranberries!)

Is this the recipe? http://rusakraut.com/sauerkraut-recipe-with-cranberries/ When I see cranberries, I get very interested. I hope to try the above recipe soon, I still have bags of cranberries in the freezer. If you used a different recipe, can you please share? Thanks!

One of the most difficult things for me when using weights instead of volume is being able to visualize what a particular weight of an item looks like. If a recipe uses one cup of sugar, I can visualize that. If a recipe uses 200 grams of sugar, I now know that that's one cup, so I can visualize that, too. Same with many other ingredients, although certainly not all. But it did take a long time to get there, and I don't like using weights if I cannot visualize how much I'll be using. The weights for flour still drive me up a wall, since there doesn't seem to be one standard. I've seen recipes use as little as 110 grams and as much as 160 grams for a cup of flour. I use 140 grams. If a recipe was originally written with a weight amount, I'll assume it was tested with whatever weight they listed. But if it's a recipe with volume and weight, and the weights seem "off," I'll just skip the recipe.