Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create an account.

Sign in to follow this  
Malawry

Cake pan sizes

Recommended Posts

OK, so I was planning to make RLB's banana cake today, from The Cake Bible. I didn't have any 9" cake pans, so I just bought inexpensive ones from the supermarket. (I figure, lots of recipes call for 9" pans, so they'd be good to have.) I brought them home and checked the recipe, which specifies using a 9"x2" round pan. My new 9" pans are only 1.5" deep.

The recipe also specifies that it can be baked in a 9" springform pan. I have an 8" and a 10" springform pan, but no 9" springform. :wacko: (Oh, and the 8" springform currently has a cheesecake cooling in it. Also from The Cake Bible. I forgot to add A FULL POUND of sour cream to the recipe. Somebody shoot me and put me out of my misery...)

What would you do? I find I run into this problem often, but I hoped by buying 9" cake pans I'd resolve the issue. How can I adjust recipes to work in my pans? How many pans should I be investing in to make the 2-3 cakes/year I normally end up baking?

I can return the 9x1.5" pans if they're gonna be useless, but I'm dead certain there were no 9x2" cake pans at the supermarket to swap them with...and it may be a few days before I go someplace where a 9x2" pan may be sold, and meanwhile I have overripe bananas just sitting on the counter waiting to be used...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just make the full recipe, then fill your pans 3/4 of the way. Reduce baking time. Use the leftover batter for muffins. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would use the 8" springform, assuming you want to fill this cake. The Cake Bible should tell you the finished height and how much the batter originally fills the pan, so just gauge this when filling your springform. Bake the rest in a muffin tin for sampling!

I have 9" x 1.5" pans and I think they are limiting, since I often have to resort to a 9" springform. I will eventually replace them with 2" pans. If you don't want to build a large pan collection, return those 1.5" pans and source some 2" pans.


Edited by sanrensho (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. Right now I am leaning towards baking the cake (which I believe is a 1-layer recipe) in one of my 8x2" cake pans and cupcaking the rest. I edited my original post to mention that my 8" springform currently houses a still-warm cheesecake I baked this afternoon. I'd rather return the 9x1.5" pans and try to get 9x2" pans instead.

This still makes me wonder what kind of a pan inventory the average home baker needs, anyway. Besides the 8x2" rounds, the 8" springform and the 10" springform, I have a large Bundt pan, a million half-sheets, 8" square pans and various rectangular pans. I thought this was a good enough inventory for me, but now I'm thinking the 9x2"rounds are probably too important to go without. What else do you casual home bakers have in your pan collections? I think I have more sizes of cake circles than I do cake pans. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....

What would you do? I find I run into this problem often, but I hoped by buying 9" cake pans I'd resolve the issue. How can I adjust recipes to work in my pans? How many pans should I be investing in to make the 2-3 cakes/year I normally end up baking?

I can return the 9x1.5" pans if they're gonna be useless, but I'm dead certain there were no 9x2" cake pans at the supermarket to swap them with...and it may be a few days before I go someplace where a 9x2" pan may be sold, and meanwhile I have overripe bananas just sitting on the counter waiting to be used...

Try this site: baking pan sizes and substitutions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malawry: My collection of bakeware is pretty much the same as yours (I also have an 11" springform) but I find the 9" with the 2" height really useful. I use those cake pans the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like everyone else said, just bake it in the closest sized pan you have and if there are leftovers bake muffins.

If I may make a suggestion though.... the best pans are the ones that are 3" high. Batter climbs the sides during baking and you end up with a lighter, fluffier cake. Just fill to within an inch of the top to avoid spillover, or you can just bake less batter in them if the recipes yield a smaller amount. Takes longer to bake, obviously, but cakes are less dense using these pans.

Standard recipes usually call for 2" high 9" pans, but the same batter in a 3" pan will give you a 12" diameter cake.

For home bakers I'd recommend just an 8", 10", and 12".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For home bakers I'd recommend just an 8", 10", and 12".

It really depends on who (how many) you're baking for. I find myself going to smaller pans as I bake often and don't want to have a cake sitting around too long. I've also started to bake from Japanese recipes, which often call for 8" or smaller.

Having said that, I use two 9" pans and one 9" springform for 95% of my (round) cake baking. Partly because most recipes are based on a 9" size, and because it fits the cake stands/containers that I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an average home baker (can you believe they let me in this place! lol )and I mostly use my 8x2. I like the added height when I stack my cakes. I have 9 inch but they are all 9x2. Take back the 9x1's. I think you'll be much happier with pans that are 2 or 3 inches high. Your cakes will look more professional without as much work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an update, I baked the banana cake in the 8x2" pan so I can return the 9x1.5" pans unused and get some 9x2" pans at my leisure. I had extra batter so I baked some cupcakes with it as Ling suggested, and I ate one with a little Nutella as dessert after dinner tonight. :wub: Awesome recipe.

Sugarella, I'm interested in your assertion that 3" pans are superior to 2" pans, and also your suggestion that I lay in 8, 10 and 12" pans. I find it hard to picture a use for 12" pans since I do cakes almost exclusively as the occasional hobby/birthday type thing...people have asked me about cakes for weddings I've catered and I always send them to somebody who really knows what they're doing instead of trying to do it myself. I recognize my own limitations, which include not understanding the utility of 10 or 12" pans. :rolleyes:

Does anybody else agree that 3" pans are superior to 2" pans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I recommended 10" and 12" pans on a 3" high pan for home cooks is that they will handle the equivalent amount of batter that standard cake recipes call for, namely recipes that will fill 2 pans that are 9" round by 1" or 1.5" high. So I'm recommeding you bake the whole recipe in just the one pan.

All cake recipes are different. Some have a more liquid batter and require longer baking times, etc., as I'm sure you're aware. And some, if very liquid will require a flower nail. And each recipe will rise differently. Cakes with a very liquidy batter you'll want to allow a lot of "growing room" within the pan, while very dense or thick batters won't rise nearly as much, as a general rule.

I suggested the 8" , 10", and 12" for general purposes simply because it'll cover almost all bases for what you need to do at home.

I do cakes for private clients quite frequently; it has been my second job for nearly a decade. I have a bazillion 1.5" high pans ....I have reverted these to what I bake chicken or potatoes in at home. I HATE them, and I think they are useless for cakes.

I only use the 3" high cake pans for cakes. On another message board several years ago, this same question was put to me, and I decided to do a side-by-side comparison of the pans. I poured the same amount of batter (approximately 1" high) into a 1" high pan, a 2" high pan, and a 3" high pan, and baked them all at the same temp.

The 1" high pan baked the 1" of batter to 1" high. The 2" high pan baked the 1" of batter to approximately 1.5" high. The 3" high pan baked the same 1" of batter to almost 2.5" high. The reason for this is that of course that batter expands in size with the heat of baking, and the higher sides give the cake more climbing room. The result was that cakes, given more room to expand in their pan, were lighter, fluffier, and for some reason, had a better developed crumb.

The 3" high pans just really do make much better cakes, in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a bazillion 1.5" high pans ....I have reverted these to what I bake chicken or potatoes in at home. I HATE them, and I think they are useless for cakes.

Couldn't agree more. I can't wait to turn mine into frisbees. I'll try to do a similar comparison to yours when I get my 2" (maybe 3") pans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts:

I'd suggest not buying the cake pans sold in grocery stores. It's like buying your knives or pans from the grocery store, it's the same inferior quality. If the ones by your home are like the ones by my home, they are thin metal with a thin non-stick coating. The thinness of the metal can effect how your cakes bake in them. And the coating on those pans usually becomes compromised the first time you slice something dirrectly in the pan. From then on, they rust easily.

The professional pans I like really typically cost the same or less then other types. I like the heavy duty aluminum pans that are 3" deep as my favorite all around pans. I'll give you a couple links to where you can purchase them tommarrow (gotta run to work now).

The 3" deep pans are ideal because you can use them to bake taller cakes, if wanted. For instance I use them for baking all my cheesecakes instead of using spring form pans which leak in water baths. I also use them in place of cake rings to assemble my tortes in them.....and I use them to mold ice cream bombes too.

Your 12" pan would make a nice size for when a recipe calls for a water bath. You can easily place a 10, 9, 8, 6 etc... round into it.

Last.............I/we really hope to teach/help people understand baking here. If you understand the basic methods of mixing and the basic chemical reactions of ingredients you can feel confident to zig when a recipe tells you to zag (or feel comfortable using a 7" pan when the recipe calls for a 10"). Professional bakers increase and decrease recipe sizes all the time............just like chefs do with savory recipes.

Asked to everyone here:Do we have a need for more clarification here? Do you want more basic help/info.? If so, please feel free to speak up and I'll try to start a new thread on that topic and see if we can get everyone more confident baking and making adjustments to recipes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 3" deep pans are ideal because you can use them to bake taller cakes, if wanted. For instance I use them for baking all my cheesecakes.....

Do you line the pans with parchment or just use a sort of pan release? I've tried, and I can never get the &*$%! cheesecakes out in one piece. Even lining with parchment, the batter seeps out into the corners and the cake sticks. Somebody really needs to invent one piece liners for big pans, like giant baking cups. :smile:

Asked to everyone here:Do we have a need for more clarification here? Do you want more basic help/info.? If so, please feel free to speak up and I'll try to start a new thread on that topic and see if we can get everyone more confident baking and making adjustments to recipes.

I think a Baking 101 thread would be very helpful to a lot of people.... I'd be happy to contribute to that one. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thought on the grocery store pans--the ones I've seen all have flared sides. That is, the angle from the bottom to the sides is more than 90 degrees. I really prefer the look of straight-sided cakes, especially when I'm stacking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, all my other pans are much higher-quality...thicker, heavier, heat more evenly...than the pans from the supermarket. Many of them were given to me as a wedding gift. The 9" pans are the only ones I've tried to buy at a supermarket, and for the amount of cake baking I do I figured they'd be fine. I'd welcome links to sites where high-quality 9" pans can be had for a reasonable price. I understand the difference between a supermarket pan and a professional pan, but I usually only bake 2-3 cakes/year...and I really wanted to bake that banana cake yesterday.

I had intended for this thread to be a place where we could talk about adjusting recipes for different pans (hence, "converting" in the title). I've got the skills of an amateur when it comes to pastry and patisserie work even though I work as a culinary professional. Of course we amateurs need all the help we can get! I do understand the basic chemistry and physics of cake-baking, but I'm not confident that simply changing pan sizes without making other adjustments to the recipe will result in the same quality of cake...I think RLB even comes right out and says that's not true in her book, in the story about her cake that collapsed during the NYC blackout because she baked it in a too-large pan. So yeah, more guidance from the pros would be really helpful here, and I don't think it needs to reside in a separate thread if it's specifically about cake pan sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 3" deep pans are ideal because you can use them to bake taller cakes, if wanted.

Wendy, have you noticed the same phenomena that Sugarella refers to? Namely, that the same amount of batter will rise higher in a taller pan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not Wendy, and would still like a reply from her, but I have also noticed that my cakes rise higher if I have higher walls. I have also noticed that I more often have domed cakes when my walls are shorter and pan darker, so the edges stop climbing.

I hindsight -- which would have saved me $$ -- I would only buy 3" pans in the future. You can bake a short cake in a tall pan, but not a tall cake in a short pan...

:raz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about pan sizes too, not for an immediate problem, but just for future reference.

I have two recipes, one is for toffee, and calls for a "small rimmed baking sheet." The other recipe is for brownies and calls for a "rimmed baking sheet." What exactly are they referring to? I've always used a 12x9 cake pan for the toffee and what we call our "Texas Sheet Cake Pan," which I think might be 11x17, for the brownies, and they both have always turned out fine. But, I would like to know exactly what size they are talking about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not Wendy, and would still like a reply from her, but I have also noticed that my cakes rise higher if I have higher walls.  I have also noticed that I more often have domed cakes when my walls are shorter and pan darker, so the edges stop climbing.

Thank you. More data is always helpful! I will make a point of buying the 3" pans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an occasional cake baker, I can vouch for Parrish's (of Gardena, CA) Magic Line, which I know have been mentioned often before. What a difference they make, plus there's the pleasure of working with such a well-made tool. One of the lowest-cost, easiest improvements to the old batterie around. The 3-inch-deepers esp., as aforementioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had intended for this thread to be a place where we could talk about adjusting recipes for different pans (hence, "converting" in the title). I've got the skills of an amateur when it comes to pastry and patisserie work even though I work as a culinary professional. Of course we amateurs need all the help we can get! I do understand the basic chemistry and physics of cake-baking, but I'm not confident that simply changing pan sizes without making other adjustments to the recipe will result in the same quality of cake...I think RLB even comes right out and says that's not true in her book, in the story about her cake that collapsed during the NYC blackout because she baked it in a too-large pan. So yeah, more guidance from the pros would be really helpful here, and I don't think it needs to reside in a separate thread if it's specifically about cake pan sizes.

What I wish I could do is give everyone confidence to trust your own instinct and common sense in baking. I don't think you can find anyone serious about baking that thinks using imperial measurements are equal to weighing ingredients or even accurate compared to weighing. Yet, all the baking books in the U.S. still use imperial measurements and rarely include ingredient weight. I can't stress just how incorrect, inacurate this is...........but it goes on. Similarly theres other myths that get carried on, that have been disspelled and lots of scarey forwarnings written in baking books that aren't exactly accurate. I think people get all confused about baking because of all the things/warnings they've read. What was written in 1970's (just a random date, it could be 1990 or 2004) can be completely incorrect to something written today. Our knowledge has grown and theres lots of incorrect information still sitting in books, still being purpetuated by authors who are incorrect. What was once known is being disproved or relearned each and everyday........science is advancing everyday.

This won't have alot of weight/impression making to you all, unless other professionals back me up........so I'm asking them to please do so with a few remarks. Perhaps if you see us talk in volume we can equal the credibility of RBL and other authors whom people believe, excluding all else.

If a recipe says bake in a 8"x 8" pan, that's a guide, not a rule. That yeilds the amount of batter that fits that size pan, to a depth that they suggest. But you can bake that same amount/yeild of batter in several mini muffin cups, you could bake it in a 9"x 9" pan and get a thinner layer, you could bake it in a 10" x 10" pan and get an even thinner cake. You can take that same batter and bake it in a 4" x 12" pan or a tube cake pan, etc......

Do you all know that most professional (European) baking books don't suggest a pan size for their recipes at all. Imagaine, baking with-out knowing your yeild. It was scarey at first for me. Just as it will be scarey for you all to believe me/us about interchanging pan sizes.

If you know what type of cake your making, then you can deduct what kind of pan you should bake that batter in.

If you know what type of batter your making, then you can deduct what type of mixing method you should use, with-out dirrections in your recipe.

If you know what type of batter your baking, you can figure out if the pan your using needs to be sprayed with pan release/or grease or if it needs to be fat free for the cake to cling to it's walls.

If you know that most recipes call for filling the pan 3/4's of the way full, then you can put your batter in any pan, following that guideline.

If you see you've got a huge amount of batter to squeeze into a small pan, that possibly the recipe has a mistaken written in it. And conversely, if you have a tiny yeild of batter that doesn't begin to fill your pan, you can suspect that it won't be enough for that pan.

Then once you've got your batter 3/4's of the way full in your pan, how will you know how long to bake the item?

Again.......the same concepts apply.

If you know how to test a cake, a cookie, a brownie, a sponge cake, etc... for doneness. Testing for that doneness is the same, regardless of the size of the item. If it's a mini cupcake sized brownie or a full sheet pan worth of brownies, you still want to bake it until done, yet not over done.

Professional bakers, don't judge baked goods based on time. We know that every oven varies and no two are exactly alike. We know our oven might be running hot, we know someone may have opened the door and let cool air into our oven. Baking by time is as inacurate as using imperial measurements. YET, all our baking books include how long something takes to bake. Again, I ask you to trust me/us, I ask other bakers to chime in and back me up on this fact, please.

(Ooops gotta run to work, but I'll come back and hopefully tye this all together to make more sense)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only use the 3" high cake pans for cakes. On another message board several years ago, this same question was put to me, and I decided to do a side-by-side comparison of the pans. I poured the same amount of batter (approximately 1" high) into a 1"  high pan, a 2" high pan, and a 3" high pan, and baked them all at the same temp.

The 1" high pan baked the 1" of batter to 1" high. The 2" high pan baked the 1" of batter to approximately 1.5" high. The 3" high pan baked the same 1" of batter to almost 2.5" high. The reason for this is that of course that batter expands in size with the heat of baking, and the higher sides give the cake more climbing room. The result was that cakes, given more room to expand in their pan, were lighter, fluffier, and for some reason, had a better developed crumb.

The 3" high pans just really do make much better cakes, in my experience.

I was trying yellow (butter) cakes today and thought I would give your suggestion a try. I baked 4 different recipes, 1 of each in a 9x1.5 and a 9x2 and weighed the batter for precision. For every recipe the layers turned out exactly the same height reardless of the pan size. They were both heavy-gauge non-stick pans that I sprayed and lined with parchment. Maybe it's the type of cake that responds differently to the different heights of pans or the fact that they were non-stick. Who knows?! Just thought I'd share my results.


Edited by CanadianBakin' (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was trying yellow (butter) cakes today and thought I would give your suggestion a try. I baked 4 different recipes, 1 of each in a 9x1.5 and a 9x2 and weighed the batter for precision. For every recipe the layers turned out exactly the same height reardless of the pan size. They were both heavy-gauge non-stick pans that I sprayed and lined with parchment. Maybe it's the type of cake that responds differently to the different heights of pans or the fact that they were non-stick. Who knows?! Just thought I'd share my results.

In my earlier posts I was referring to pans that are 3" high; specifically baking less batter in them similar to the amount meant for shorter pans, and the cakes rose higher because they could climb. The pans you said you used were only 1.5" and 2" high, and I doubt that 1/2" difference would give the climbing room I'd been referring to to make any real difference. The experiment worked for 3" high pans, not 1.5" high. As for nonstick pans....I don't know. But I do know they conduct heat differently than regular pans. :unsure:

Sorry you were disappointed with the results. Hope the cakes were good at least. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By pastrygirl
      If so, what was it like?  Sounds similar to kouign-aman ... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-44486529
       
       
    • By highchef
      we're all used to the Wednesday/Sunday food sections of newspapers far and wide, national and local. I see corrections in the local or regional columns when called for, but there's never a way to critique the ones published on a national scale because the content is behind a paywall. I get the WSJ, but don't want to pay additional (I should get access to it all on line for free-the newspaper is not cheap) for their online edition. Very frustrating to try a recipe and have major problems with it and not be able to point out some serious issues. Specifically, the WSJ published a recipe from Dee Retalli, a pastry chef in London who's recipe is in the cookbook 'Rustic' by Jorge Fernandez and Rich Wells. 
      I have made this cake 3 times.
      First time was a total runover disaster, which I should have foreseen. This cakes calls for a 10" springform or if you don't have that, a 10" cast iron skillet. I went for the latter because that is what I had. Almond mixtures tend to really smoke when they run over, just so you know.
      Tried again later with a deeper than normal 9 " springform. Happened again. Think it has to do with the 2 teaspoons of baking powder and quick activation in a 350º oven.
      Invested in a 10" springform for '3rd times a charm' try. I was successful, but not because I followed the directions, rather I became a little obsessed with making this work. Checked my oven, followed with the recipe and eyed it warily. It came up to the brim...and stayed. 45 minutes later it was supposed to be done but while it was beautiful, it was a bowl of jello in the center. It was also browning at an alarming rate- the almond flour again? So I placed a sheet of tinfoil over it (beautiful top crust) and turned the oven down to 325º and carefully watched and tested for almost another hour. That's a big time difference. 
      I found the recipe on cooked.com - credited to the above authors and cookbook albeit in Euro style measures and temps. All seems the same, so what are the odds that the recipe was misprinted twice from 2 different media?
      All I can think of is somewhere down the line (in the cookbook itself?) the cook time and temp were off. The time on both reads 45 min. The recipe took at least 1hr and 45 minutes. methinks someone left out the hour...
      The temp. thing is a little more obvious. Celcius to farenheight 350ºF does not equal 180ºC, more like 176ºC. Over almost 2 hours, I think that could make the difference between cooked and burnt? Sooo, I turned it down when I saw how fast it was browning to 325.
      The cake stays in form while you pour the honey over it, then orange water, then 2(!!!) cups of sliced toasted almonds. I put 1 cup and there is no way another cup would have stayed on that cake. I cup settled up to almost an inch on a 10" cake...
      Has anyone else tried this recipe or have the cookbook? It's a wonderful cake if you correct the time and temp., But I'd be really curious to see if anyone followed it exactly as written with success?
       
    • By Longblades
      How much minute tapioca do you use to thicken pie fillings? I read through every one of the rhubarb pie posts and no, the recommended amount is NOT on the box I just purchased.
      I will be making rhubarb pie but also apple, sour cherry, raspberry and blueberry later in the season. I will freeze most of the pies, unbaked, but would appreciate knowing what amounts you use for immediate baking as well. Also, I will be using tinfoil pie plates that say they are 10" but I think are really more like 9 inchers. They certainly do not hold anywhere near as much as my 10" pyrex pie plate.
      I tried tapicoa years and years ago and decided I preferred flour but my sister now has a gluten allergy so I'm going to try tapioca again. That way she can at least scrape out the filling and eat it. Can I just substitute equal amounts of minute tapioca for the flour?
      My method with the flour has been to mix it with the sugar and sprinkle some on the bottom crust, then a layer of fresh fruit. then a sprinkle of flour/sugar, with usually only two of three layers of fruit and finishing with a sprinkle of the flour/sugar. Can I do that with the tapioca?
      Oh, and strawberries in the rhubarb pie? No way, DH would kill me. Rhubarb is his favourite and he says strawberries contaminate a rhubarb pie.
    • By pastrygirl
      Cake construction question - I have a wedding cake order next month for about 175 people.  I think it's going to be 14" round, 12" round, double-height 9" round, and a separated 6" layer with her great-grandma's cake topper.
       
      My question is about the double-height layer.  Should I layer cake and filling as usual  but just make it super tall, or will whomever has to cut the thing appreciate it if there's a goo-free zone of cake-cardboard-cake in the middle so they can separate it into 2 x 9" cakes or more easily cut it?  I mean, I could make two regular layers with 5 layers of cake and 4 layers of filling, not frost the top of one and just stack the other on top, or I could make one giant cake with 10 layers of cake, 9 filling, and no cardboard in the middle.  I almost never have to cut cakes so I don't know if it matters but I thought I'd ask.  The filling will either be salty caramel or raspberry, and the icing will be meringue buttercream, not as sturdy to handle as a crusting icing or fondant.
       
      Or any other tips on giant wedding cakes?  Thanks!
    • By WhiskerBiscuit
      I’m using this recipe to try and make a perfect rice pudding.
       
      Ingredients:
       
      1-2 Tbsp medium-grain white rice, such as arborio (often called risotto rice), calriso, or another california-grown rice--do not wash! 2/3 c additional long-grain or short-grain rice to make 2/3 cups rice total 4 c milk (skim, 1%, 2%, whole, or a combination) 1/3-1/2 c sugar, to taste 1 tsp pure vanilla extract   Recipe:   Place the rice and milk in the rice cooker bowl; stir to combine. Close the cover and set for the Porridge cycle. When the machine switches to the Keep Warm cycle, open the rice cooker, and add the sugar and vanilla, quickly stirring it into the rice milk mixture. Stir until combined. Close the cover and reset for a second Porridge cycle. Stir every 15 to 20 minutes until the desired consistency is reached. Warning: cooking the sugar for more than about 1/2-hour makes the pudding difficult to clean from the rice cooker bowl, so don't add sugar at the beginning of cooking (although the rice pudding comes out fine)! Rice mixture will thicken as it cools. If it comes out too thick, just add more milk.    I initially tried it out using all arborio rice (because that’s all I head on hand), but as the recipe noted it came out too starchy.  However it was really good, but not what I was looking for.  The second time I used the suggested rice mixture.  But looking at other recipes and Kozy Shack’s ingredient list, I decided to add a couple of egg yolks.  At the end of the second porridge cycle (total cooking time 90 minutes) I added two coddled egg yolks (I almost pasteurized them with my sous vide, but that was a little overboard even for me).  The texture was a little too thick, so I added a tablespoon or so of milk and then thought it was too thin so I kept with the porridge cycle.  I checked about 15 minutes later and my thick porridge all of a sudden became a liquid soup.  I kept cooking and after an hour it reduced to the thickness I wanted, but the rice broke almost completely down.  What I want to know is what happened to make it go from a thick porridge to soup in a very short amount of time.  Was it adding the egg yolks?  There has got to be some science-y reason behind it.    
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×