![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A new borosilicate glass 8 x 8 pan arrived recently. It's not inexpensive, but it's also not cheap soda-lime junk either. It's French-made under the name 'Arcuisine' (evidently "European Pyrex" which is still proper borosilicate glass - good to 300 C which is 570 F, rather than only 425 F). I've now used it once and am so far happy with it.
I do not plan to abuse it like was done for these extreme tests but those do show that borosilicate will outlast soda-lime under extreme conditions.
It looks like right now if I want decent glass bakeware my choices are Arcuisine (French) or Simax (Czech). Both cost, but both are right proper borosilicate. So called "pyrex" (lower case) and Anchor are both now mere soda-lime and not worth bothering with unless I expect to never heat or chill them much. A "pyrex" mixing bowl is probably fine. A "pyrex" pan is wasted money.
I have two measuring cups. One is labeled PYREX (upper case) and is absolutely clear. It's older, and proper borosilicate. The other is newer and 'pyrex' (all lower case) and has the telltale green tinge of mere soda-lime glass. The answer is clear: I buy Arcuisine or Simax. World Kitchen (who bought the pyrex name from Corning) does not deserve my money - unless they start making things of proper borosilicate glass. Neither does Anchor Hocking, for the very same reason. Simple rule: Bakeware with a green tinge is crap - DO NOT BUY. Soda-lime won't always be given away by the green tinge, but if you see it, leave it on the shelf rather than waste your money on shatter-prone garbage.
I was unaware that Corning, or its inheritor World Kitchen switched from proper low-expansion borosilicate glass to ordinary (alright, tempered) soda-lime glass, which is not low-expansion. I just got to experience this cheapening. My 8x8 "Pyrex" pan went into the oven at room temperature and in one piece. It came out rather hotter (what's an oven for?) but in several pieces. Naturally, I am unhappy about this.
Pyrex had come to mean "can handle heat" and this utterly failed to. Now, borosilicate glass is not as low-expansion or change-in-heat tolerant as fused quartz, but I'm not going from boiling water to an ice bath (fused quartz can deal with that, borosilicate cannot). Soda-lime glass is very much not known for low-expansion or dealing well with changes in heat. The maker claims it's less prone to breakage when dropped. Also, it's cheaper to make. But that doesn't help it hold together when used for baking, which is rather the point of a thing called "bakeware."
Now, where do I get a right, proper borosilicate glass pan? After this, I am not sure I can trust any of this recent pseudo-Pyrex. I might end up preemptively replacing it all before I get a big mess. I was relatively lucky this time and only baking some fish - easy to recover for cleanup. Had it been a cake or brownies or something more fluid, I'd have had a much nastier mess to clean up.
I recently noticed a new item at the store, Pillsbury's "Carmel Apple" cake mix. I decided to try it, as I had tried other new Pillsbury mixes (such as orangesicle, pink lemonade, and key lime) with some success. The cake turned out well enough, as the directions are rather fool-proof in my experience. But the cake itself was... meh. Nothing special. A plain white or yellow cake would perhaps have had more character. Apple? More like Almost. But that was not the jarring part.
A ho-hum cake is still a cake and yellow and white cake mixes sell quite well even though they have the flavor "cake" rather than chocolate or orange or what have you. No, it was the frosting. The alleged caramel frosting was very decidedly Not Even Close To Caramel. But the cake didn't indicate "apple" very much, so... But even a generic cake with generic frosting (plain white sells, too. That's not even vanilla, just the flavor "frosting.") can do well enough.
The frosting was jarring as when the plastic canister was opened the... aroma.. hit me and I recognized it. Not as caramel, or frosting, but a smell one tends not to forget, even years after last having dealt with it. So help me, I opened the canister of frosting and the smell said to me, "Play-Doh." I was not the only one to pick up on this, either.
Once the cake was frosted, well, it didn't help. The caramel apple failed at both apple and caramel. Usually if I leave a cake or brownies or something in the break room, a significant amount disappears in just half a shift. This cake? Was almost completely as I had brought it, only one or two more pieces taken beyond the samples ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jmaynard and I took. And that was after being out for anyone to try for not just a full shift, but one that ran over - so more people than usual had a chance at it.
Once or twice a month I bake a lasagna. I used to a supposedly disposable foil pan for this as I didn't have anything better and the foil pan had the great advantage of being cheap. But being foil, it meant having to use a plastic knife to cut the lasagna therein, as a proper metal knife would puncture the foil and I'd rather not have lasagna dripping in the oven, or anywhere else for that matter.
I didn't do anything about that situation for a while as I put a 9x13 inch pan on my Christmas list and didn't wish to accidentally wind up with duplicates. After Christmas, no such pan having turned up, I bought a nice Pyrex pan and used that a couple times. It was much nicer than the foil, of course. But it seemed to be a bit small as I had been doubling the recipe I started from as it seemed rather thin or rather, it didn't seem to cover each layer as called for.
On the remains of a gift card, I picked up a bit more Pyrex bakeware. It was a set consisting of the 8x8 inch pan I set out to get, a breadpan (works quite well) and a whopping great 11x15 inch pan. A couple nights ago I made another lasagna and used the 11x15 pan.
The layers seemed to be almost right, but not quite enough to spread out as much as I'd like. And the result was still fairly thick, so that I'm doubtful there was any great benefit. And good grief but that's a LOT of lasagna. I know it's just the same amount, not quite as bunched up, which is probably best, but it sure looks huge.
I think I goofed. The 8x8 pan and the bread pan are certainly useful, but I'm not sure to what use I can put the 11x15 thing now. I am now of the opinion that I ought to go to a smaller pan and back to the un-doubled recipe. Recently I priced 7x11* inch pans. The best deal, somewhat annoyingly, is combination set of 7x11 and 9x13. For just a bit more, I can get a set with nice plastic covers. The downside is that I'll need to find room for another 9x13 pan. I think I'll manage.
* There are shorter lasagna noodles that ought to work just fine.
Cake Chroma
17 December 2009 12:59
Almost a week ago I made a couple simple layer cakes from mixes. No big deal there, use the mix, follow the directions, and it's hard to go wrong. Somehow I started to consider the colors of the cakes and what more could be done. There is white cake (no egg yolk), yellow cake (include the egg yolk), chocolate cakes, red velvet, orange, strawberry and a good many others. I don't recall seeing any blue or green cakes, but a bit of food coloring could take care of that.
My first thought was, perhaps curiously, not a red and green thing for Christmas, but a red, yellow, and green triple layer thing inspired by the traffic light. That would need green, but either green coloring of a white cake or a bit of blue color in a yellow cake ought to take care of that. It was then that I began considering the spectrum. Could ROY G. BIV be done easily? Red velvet, Orange, Yellow, Green (coloring), Blue (coloring) and I suppose Indigo and Violet could also be done by food coloring. A bit of some flavoring might help things as well, but the flavors could so easily clash. A mint cake? Blueberry? And then there's the matter of a layer cake with many layers. Could it support itself? Could it be transported (no way Jay and I would be eating the whole thing ourselves) reasonably easily? How big a plate would be needed to deal a piece, since a piece would flop over on its side?
It was then that I went back to the red and green Christmas cake idea. And I realized there is something similar though not at all the same. It's a two-in-one cake: marble cake.
I won't be making any polychromatic cakes, at least not any time soon. I have a few (more) batches of cookies to bake for Christmas.
Fruitcake?
12 November 2009 12:42
A couple days ago I saw a store display of colorful dried or candied fruit that was clearly meant for fruitcake and so I've been thinking about fruitcake. Fruitcake, some say, is a nasty unwanted (and probably dry brick-like) thing. This has become a joke in The Single Fruitcake Theory: "There is only one fruitcake and people keep sending it to each other." Others say that sure, bad fruitcake can be a dry brick that might only be budged by thermonuclear weaponry, but there is good fruitcake if only you can find or make the stuff.
I've not encountered the truly miserable fruitcake, but I suppose I've sampled some so-so stuff due to the effects of commercial mass production. And now I'm pondering making a fruitcake so that I have control the quality - or lack thereof. But I haven't done this before and I have no idea what a good recipe is. There are several variations.
Some recipes soak the thing in rum. Others call for brandy. Others call for whisk(e)y. Some say substitute orange juice for the spirits, while others don't mention any spirits at all. So one question is: spirits or not? If so, which? And if brandy, which flavor? I'm not a huge fan of apricot. I don't really dislike apricot, I'm just not that fond of it.
Another question is, should I do this? I don't mean in the "Aie! A fruitcake! Run!" sense, but I've mainly just been baking cookies (scratch), simple bread (scratch), and the odd cake (mix). Is this a reasonable step or a flying leap?
And of course there is the Big Question even assuming the others are answered and I proceed: Which recipe ought I go with?
Bought the GE
30 October 2009 10:25
Those that didn't push for a standing mixer suggested going with the GE for the higher power (the same as the highest power standing mixer as it turned out, though I probably would be more impressed with the standing model: KitchenAid, Made in USA) and the somewhat better seal. That's what I did, at least eventually. Evidently I managed to instigate a joke: How many Wal-mart employees does it take to process a check? Evidently at least two, after the first one plays silly games folding things funny as he's convinced that the magnetic ink isn't in the right location.
I made cookies this morning. They were sugar cookies[1] so the dough wasn't terribly stiff, but I did get to experience how the mixer works. There is no true off short of unplugging the thing. Plug it in and the display lights up (the too-cool and annoying blue, but there it is). The 'slow-start' anti-spatter function is nice but the control is backwards: it's always on unless you press the 'slow-start' button to turn it off. There are claims of load-sensing and automatic speed adjustment and they might even be true but I don't think I experienced it.
There are three different beaters. A pair of wire beaters that are supposedly for scrambling eggs or whipping cream, a paid of twisty dough-hook sort of things for stiff dough, and a whisk that the manual claims is for really stiff stuff(?) Uh, I suspect it wouldn't work out very well that way. I used the big dough-hook screws for the cookie dough and was reasonably impressed. They seem like they aren't likely to clog up like standard beaters, and seem less prone to spattering. On the other hand they also seem like it takes long and more manual jockeying to get things completely mixed. Overall it seems a win.
One thing I will have to get used to is that, other than the whisk that can go in either socket, the beaters are not the same and the sockets are labelled as to which beater goes in which socket. I supposed that's a matter of which way things turn and spiral, but it wasn't explained in the manual and since it's something I never had to deal with before I wonder if I'll forget it and mess things up somehow.
[1] Some with orange (well, red and yellow to make orange) coloring added and some with black coloring added. It's a bit weird to have a black sugar cookie: it looks like it ought to be chocolate, but it tastes like a typical Christmas cutout cookie. I suppose I can call that the 'trick' of this treat. These won't be going to trick-or-treaters, of course.
"It's dead, Jim."
29 October 2009 06:00
A day or so ago I made 'peanut butter blossom' cookies (the peanut butter cookies with a Hershey's Kiss stuck in the middle while still hot) and bogged the mixer down quite a bit. Last night I made some devil's food cookies with a cake mix and really bogged the mixer down. While the mixer was several years old, I almost certainly was asking too much of (that is, abusing) it. The result was that last night the mixer died. As in "let the smoke out." I've taken the thing apart and I suspect a shorted winding in the motor since that's about all there is to the thing.
Thus I need a replacement. I'd put a handheld mixer on my Christmas list but I'm not about to wait that long, even if we move at least part of Christmas up to about Thanksgiving.
I went to Wal-mart (the only place that [A] was open by the time I went out and [B] had mixers) and looked at what they had.
What I had, and burned out, was a 200W Black & Decker mixer with the typical beaters and five speeds and a 'burst' for highest speed.
What Wal-mart has is:
1. Rival, 125W, 5-speed, for $6.36.
2. Hamilton Beach, 250W, 6-speed (burst), for $15.88.
3. Black & Decker, 250W, 6-speed, for 19.88.
4. GE, 300W, 6-speed, for $29.00.
1 and 2 looked like they had the usual beaters. 3 had wire beaters of a couple types and a little case for everything, while 4 has wire beaters of a few types, a little case for everything, and in what seems complete overkill, digital display and membrane keys. Actually the membrane keys or buttons make some sense: they keep things sealed and won't let flour/dust/dirt/whatever in that way.
While the Rival is cheap, I suspect that it is just that: cheap rather than merely inexpensive. And considering what I've been asking of my mixer a mere 125W seems inadequate. Both the Hamilton Beach and the Black & Decker should have more oomph than what I had and I'm not sure there's all that much difference between them. The 300W GE is tempting but I don't know if I want or even need that much - or want to spend that much.
The other choice, a standing mixer, is out due to lack of room in the kitchen and funds for something that fancy. No matter how nice such a thing might be, it just isn't going to happen. I don't have to stick to Wal-mart, but really the only other place in town is Shopko. Target or K-Mart would mean a trip to Mankato. There is a Sears in town, but it's a small place that concentrates on larger items - and I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea of dealing with Sears for various reasons.
So I ask the the folks who bake and put some stress on their mixers, any recommendations?
Friday I was at the local liquor store since we were out of red wine and there was some good stuff on discount (Sebeka Cabernet-Pinotage) and I also picked up a couple 50 mL bottles of Merry's Irish Cream and mentioned the chocolate mug cake. One of the gals at the registers joked that I'd have to bring them some. I let it go at that and went on with things.
Until I got home and put the results of the shopping trip (there were other stops) away, that is. Then I figured, why not? It's quick and the idea amused me. So I made the cake as mentioned in the previous posting and turned it out of the bowl and onto a paper plate. I took it, with some plastic forks and a knife, to the liquor store.
Before I was even all the way through the door I was greeted with, "I was just kidding!" but didn't say anything in response. I put it on the then unused counter and the cashiers sampled it. They liked it. They liked it enough to ask for the recipe. It was getting late for me so I said I'd have a copy for them the next day. Saturday morning I delivered the copy and was told that various folks had sampled the cake and it went over well.
That was nice. But tonight brought it home. I was out for a bit of a drive just to get out of the house and when the episode of Gunsmoke I was listening to ended I decided to go to SuperAmerica, one of the few places in town open at 3 AM, and get something to drink. While I was paying for my pop, I was surprised to hear, "He makes the greatest chocolate cake! And he makes in the microwave!" The gal who said that went on about it to her friend (boyfriend? husband? I don't know) and to the cashier. It was amusing but considering how little effort actually went into it and that it was pretty much just following the recipe (even the idea to use Irish cream isn't original) it felt a bit embarrassing.
A few days ago I made beer bread and tried to make it a rye bread. It did not work out. The oven was too hot or the bread was in too long and I must have gotten some of the ingredients in the wrong ratio. The bread was bitter and seemed, to me, oddly salty. The crust reminded me a pretzel. Most got tossed. I can't even blame the Blatz for this one. I do plan to try making a rye beer bread again, and making some changes. A bit less rye flour, keeping an eye on the loaf in the oven, and backing off on the baking soda all seem like Good Ideas.
A day or so later I made "5 minute chocolate mug cake" with a couple changes from the last time. I mixed it in the 2 cup measure and microwaved in a small pyrex mixing bowl. I remembered the salt. I used Merry's Irish Cream rather than milk (the little "airline" sized bottle is the right measure). I added chocolate chips since I had them. Again, I cut the baking time 15 seconds short of the suggested 3 minutes. The result was good. It was not noticeably rubbery. It served two quite well. It's not truly a "5 minute" thing, but it is fairly quick and the result is good.
Today I tried something new and instead of chocolate chip cookies, started with a recipe for a chocolate cookie with chocolate chips and used cherry chips instead. All the things I managed to get wrong before I seem to have finally overcome. The results look like proper cookies (not spread oddly thin) and they don't wilt when I pick them up, but they are still reasonably soft.
What did I do this time? This paragraph is mainly a note to myself, but what I did was this. Following the linked recipe (omitting any nuts and substituting a 10 oz. package of cherry chips for chocolate chips), I sifted the flour, then after adding the other dry ingredients (except for the sugar) I sifted that mix, twice, to mix them. I used "air pan" cookie sheets with parchment paper. I baked only on the top oven rack for 8 minutes and at about the 4 minute mark, I turned the cookie sheet 180 degrees so the cookies would all get about the same heat (I had noticed some unevenness to the cookies in an earlier batch). Before I re-used the cookies sheets, I cooled them with cold water so the cookies always had a cold start.
Good, good, oops
22 August 2009 09:38
I saw some new (to me) Jiffy mixes and tried a couple. One was for chocolate chip cookies and the other was for sugar cookies. In both cases I modified things a bit.
I had bought a bag of cherry (flavored) chips out of curiosity and nibbling on them seemed disappointing. Imagine chocolate chips but without the chocolate. That's what it seemed like. I sampled them again a couple days later and they seemed to be more flavorful. Maybe it was something I had eaten just before, the first time.
When I made the Jiffy mix chocolate chip cookies the dough seemed rather lacking in chocolate chips[1] so I added what I had: a non-trivial amount of cherry chips. It worked and worked well. If there was any doubt as to the flavor content, it's gone in the cookies. These are cherry-chip cookies with some chocolate in them.
The sugar cookies also worked, but I wanted more than just plain sugar cookies. I added a couple teaspoons of almond flavor. It might seem an excess for the small amount of dough, but dagnabbit, I intended the flavor itself - not just a "hint" of the flavor - to be there. It was.
Recently I tried baking chocolate chip cookies from scratch again. And I goofed. Twice. Thrice? I made two batches. The first batch, I didn't add the sugar to the butter and egg mix and thus didn't beat or whip the sugar in properly. The cookies spread out thin. So I tried again, following the directions exactly or so I thought. The result was a bit better, but still thin and spread. It was a few days before I realized where I had goofed.
I had run out of flour in the main container and didn't open another bag of flour. I thought I had another container of flour and used that. Only it wasn't flour. It was a "just add water" pancake mix. Oops. Even so, the results weren't as disastrous as some of my attempts from a few years ago. Also, the cookies passed the important test: they tasted right.
[1] Remember the old Chips Ahoy commercials where it was a Big Deal that there was a "chip in every bite"? This looked like it would be chip-deficient. Maybe it wouldn't have been, but it sure looked like it. I like a chip-rich cookie.
T minus 5 minutes...
3 August 2009 10:40
A while ago I wandered across this LJ post and noted it. I didn't try the recipe right off. On a recent visit to my folks I found that they had tried it and found workable, though the result was a bit rubbery. If you didn't take the link, here's the recipe:
5 MINUTE CHOCOLATE MUG CAKE
4 tablespoons flour
4 tablespoons sugar
2 tablespoons cocoa
1 egg
3 tablespoons milk
3 tablespoons oil / 6 TBSP applesauce
3 tablespoons chocolate chips
A small splash of vanilla extract
Dash of salt
1 large coffee mug (microwave safe)
Add dry ingredients to mug, and mix well. Add the egg and mix thoroughly.
Pour in the milk and oil and mix well.
Add the chocolate chips (if using) and vanilla extract, and mix again.
Put your mug in the microwave and cook for 3 minutes at 1000 watts.
The cake will rise over the top of the mug, but don't be alarmed!
Allow to cool a little and top with whip[ped] cream or ice cream.
Or tip it out onto a plate if want to divide with another person...
EAT! (this can serve 2 if you want to feel slightly more virtuous).
This morning I tried it. It works. The result is slightly rubbery, but not badly so. Considering how little time it takes to make and how easy it is, that's not too bad a trade. I do wonder if changing something might help that a bit. I don't need it to be a 3 minute bake time, so a change there wouldn't be bad, though I would like to keep the microwave convenience: no preheating, relatively short baking time.
I did make a couple changes: I mixed things in a small mixing bowl and then poured the result in a Pyrex measuring cup that I had sprayed with oil to make extraction easier. This does easily serve two people without seeming insufficient unless you're feeling particularly gluttonous. I also cut the baking time short by about 15 seconds since I was using a 1100 Watt, rather than a 1000 Watt, microwave. Perhaps I still overbaked it?
I have seen suggestions, but have not tried them yet, for modifications. One is to add just a pinch of salt - something I forgot. I'm not sure what that will do. Another is to make a non-chocolate cake by substituting flour for the cocoa and adding or adjusting flavoring. Someone even suggestion using Bailey's (or similar) instead of milk. I suspect more alcohol would survive the short baking time than in regular oven baking. I also wonder if using softened butter rather than oil would help the texture or feel.
Also, yes, I know that 4 Tablespoons is 1/4 Cup, but in this case, especially if you use a coffee mug, pouring is just easier with the Tablespoon measure. And you won't need to clean the 1/4 cup measure if you don't use it.
Some versions call this the "Most Dangerous 5-Minute Chocolate Mug Cake" as it's only about 5 minutes from start to finish and thus chocolate is never more than 5 minutes away. It is tempting to make another and try some variation.
Iconology: Baking
23 July 2009 09:02
I am getting the impression that a baking icon would be a Good Idea. Any idea what one ought to look like?
I make beer bread from time to time and I've used a few different beers to do it. Since it's pretty much just baked away the beer need not be anything great, but it ought to be something that doesn't make one stare at the bottle in disbelief and wonder what the brewer has against people. This is a variant of what I've dubbed Child's Law. Julia Child said that one should never use so-called "cooking wine" to cook with. Use a wine that you would drink. It doesn't have to be anything great, just something you'd drink.
Some might argue that I've already been violating any variant of Child's Law by using Schlitz. The return to the 1960s recipe is an improvement over what it had been, but it's not a truly great thing. It is, however, good enough that I wouldn't refuse one for taste reasons. Thus it is good enough for baking.
I got curious about another name, Schmidt, which was (scarily) even cheaper than Schlitz. When I opened a bottle I got a whiff that reminded me of Schlitz. Turns out it's made by the same company (Pabst/Heileman). It did not taste like Schlitz, with that peculiar note of.. something I can't identify and am not sure I really want to... and is pretty much a typical cheap U.S. bland macrobrew. Inoffensive to the point of almost not even being there. I've decided it's a suitable "lawnmower beer" (one you'd have on a hot day to cool down and still claim to be having a beer) and might be reasonable with hot dogs or pizza. It's nothing great, but nothing that I'd pour down the sink either.
And a couple of days ago I made beer bread with it. That turned out quite well. I did make a couple changes to the recipe I had been using: I baked at 375 F rather than 350 F and for 45 minutes rather than 30 minutes. That seems to make for a less crumbly, higher quality bread and drives off more of any undesirable odd flavor (something that Schlitz would leave behind). I'm not sure that would work for Budweiser's American Ale, but that's almost upscale for baking anyway.
A few years ago I tried making chocolate chip cookies. "Tried" being the operative word. What I wound up with, repeatedly, was dough that looked good to me but when baked would spread out way thin and just be a mess.
Today I did bit of a web search and found a few hints about what might have caused that and what to do about it. I made chocolate chip cookies this morning and they pretty much turned out. It wasn't a perfect run, but it was much, much better than anything before.
What had been going wrong? Maybe a few things. I probably wasn't beating the egg/sugar/vanilla mix enough and thus not dissolving the sugar(s) properly. I wasn't keeping the cookie sheet(s) well away from the stove until baking time (the stovetop being a convenient flat surface in a small kitchen with a very cluttered table). And I wasn't baking on the top rack in the oven.
What went wrong today? The cookies I didn't bake on the top rack either should have waited for the top rack or had (even) more baking time. It wouldn't have hurt to refrigerate the dough for a few minutes before shaping/making the cookies. Smaller spoonfuls and/or more spacing would be a Good Idea. And I went way overboard on the chocolate chips so in places there's more chocolate chip than cookie.
Still, the cookies came out cookie shaped this time. The rest is down to tweaking, I think. Trying the tweaks won't happen soon as I don't plan on baking cookies all that often.
