Search
Categories
Subscriptions

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Navigation

Entries in baking (26)

Tuesday
Mar022010

Baking in a Storm

apple-cider-bread.png

I was perusing the King Arthur Flour Baker's Companion [affiliate link] and I came across a tip about humidity and baking. It started out with the relatively common advice that, in more humid weather, flour will absorb more liquid and will consequently need less added for any given recipe. However, tucked away under that was another hint that I'd never heard before.

One of the common symptoms of rainy weather is lower atmospheric pressure. The thing I'd never considered is that the lower pressure will affect cooking. It'll have a small effect on the temperature needed to bake, which the King Arthur folk didn't mention because it's probably pretty negligible. This is the same thing that happens to high-altitude bakers and the opposite of what happens in a pressure cooker.

The important thing is that your cake/bread/whatever will rise higher because there isn't as much pressure on it. It's obvious when you think about it, and I'm sure bakers who have travelled to different elevations to practice their craft have noticed the difference, but it's news to me.

What I wonder is if there's anyone who would want an oven that could control its pressure. Not necessarily to pressure-cooker levels, but for people living near the edge of the atmosphere (I'm looking at you, Colorado), they could keep it at 1 ATM. For those who just want the tallest souffles ever, they could dial down the pressure just a smidge.

There's a problem that happens with chemically leavened products like muffins and quick breads. If you put too much leavener in, the quick bread will collapse before it's done baking. This happens because there's not enough structure in the confection to hold it up. Specifically, the atmospheric pressure is pushing it down when the tiny amount of gluten isn't ready to hold it up.

With the fancy atmospherically-controlled oven, you might be able to dial back the pressure enough to allow the structure to set before removing the pressure. There will be limits, of course; a soufflé is going to fall eventually, and if you make your structure too delicate, no amount of reduced pressure is going to help unless you're going to somehow eat it in the reduced pressure. Which seems unlikely.

Still, I'd bet someone talented to could work some magic with a system like that. I doubt it would end up being useful, certainly not compared with the work of actually creating such a device, but I wouldn't have really figured out any good uses for the anti-griddle either, so who can say for sure?

Monday
Mar232009

Predicting the rise in bread: is it that easy?

Monika Bartyzel on Slashfood did an interesting article recently on altering the amount of yeast that you use for cold-fermenting bread. The idea behind cold-fermentation is that that you keep the dough cold so that the yeast aren't particularly active. This allows the various enzymatic activities with the dough to happen on their own over time, increasing the flavor of the bread. That works especially well with non-enriched breads.

There was a post that Monkia refers to that discusses a specific recipe someone is developing for a cinnamon bread that slow rises. In the comments of that post, someone suggests the baker's formula:

Original Amount of Yeast * Original Fermentation Time
New Fermentation Time


Now, the commenter didn't say explicitly that this formula was for cold-fermenting breads. Also, I have to say that I'm a little suspicious of the simplicity of the formula. It could be that everything just works out fine with it, because there are a lot of close-enoughs that make it work out. But yeast don't reproduce in a linear fashion, they reproduce exponentially. Under ideal conditions, yeast will double in size every generation.

So instead of starting with 2 yeast, then having 4 the next generation, the 6 the next, then 8, 10, 12, and 14, we start with 2, then 4,8,16,32,64,128,256. After a while, the yeast by-products, alcohol in particular, will kill off the yeast, so they can only go so far before they all die off.

However, given their exponential growth beforehand, you can see that the amount of time that passes should eventually have a much greater effect on yeast reproduction than the amount that you reduce the initial batch by. So if I started with 30 yeasts instead of 60 yeasts, according to the formula I would be able to double the amount of time that it takes the bread to rise. But let's assume our target is 6000 yeasts,

With the 30 yeasts it would take: 30, 60, 120, 240, 480, 960, 1920, 3840, and over 6000 the next generation, or about 9 generations.

With the 60 yeasts, it would take: 60, 120, 240, 480, 960, 1920, 3840, and over 6000 the next generation, or about 8 generations.

That's not a huge time difference, and it gets smaller the longer you let it go (to a point). Of course, there are other factors. There's the amount of food available (the sugars and the potential sugars), the temperature of the environment, and if there are any wild yeasts ready to jump on the bandwagon.

With the cold-storage method, you control the temperature and the ability for wild yeasts to interfere, so that may help settle things down into what is, for all intents and purposes, a linear scale.

So, while I'm not saying that the formula is wrong, I am saying that it looks suspicious. A little too easy. Quiet… too quiet. I've got a bad feeling about this. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's probably a good starting point, but I will do some experimentation in my own kitchen before I decide that I can put this dough in my fridge for almost exactly 16 hours and be ready to have perfect bread in time for my dinner party that night.
Tuesday
Mar172009

Chocolate Guinness Cake

The image for the article is licensed by robplusjessie under a Creative Commons By-NC-SA 2.0 license.

If I need a relatively simple dessert, or if I feel that I have earned a reward, or if I think of it, I like to make Nigella Lawson's Chocolate Guinness Cake, from her cookbook Feast. It is the perfect cake, because not only is the cake itself rich and flavorful, but I actually enjoy the frosting as well.

Generally, I despise frosting in more than trace amounts, and I will ditch the frosting from a cake without a second thought. This cake, though, is great with all of its frosting. Indeed, the frosting balances out the dark chocolatey, Guinnessey nature of the cake. It is a well-balanced cake.

The problem for others has been that, as far as I knew, the recipe wasn't available online. However, Susie Nadler from The Kitchn showed me that it was in the New York Times all along. Hooray!

So run, run, run, and make the Chocolate Guinness Cake. Serve it to people that you like, and notice how they like you just a little bit more now.
Sunday
Mar152009

Yeast Bread and schedule balancing

Bread was one of those things that my mother refused to make without the aid of a bread machine. But hand making bread was right out. And although I do not fear the bread, I tend to think of it as being harder than it really is.

Part of the reason I don't fear bread baking is because I have studied up on the techniques and understand the basics of the physical chemistry of bread. Gluten and I are good friends, and we pal around on the weekends and go on fishing trips together. We invite yeast along*, occasionally with some sugar and butter or similar, and a good time is had by all.

Perhaps a bigger part of why I don't fear baking bread is because I have a stand mixer with a dough hook, and consequently don't have to knead by hand. Those of you who are hand-kneaders may scoff at me (I see you back there), but it removes a decent amount of the work and active time to the baking process.

I think the reason that I do have a little trepidation for making bread is because I'm never really convinced that rising and proofing are attention-free on my part. There's always a bit of me that has to check up on it from time to time to see if it's achieved the proper amount of lift, and I tend to be on its timetable rather than it being on mine. Some of this is because I'm a project manager, and so am duty-bound to keep an eye on the progress of others.

Still, I am making bread. Ideally, I will work it into my daily routine, along with my day job, writing for my various blogs and publications, exercise, housework, and spending time with my lovely wife. Most of that's easy, but the day job makes it trickier, because it's this big 8 or so hour chunk of time in the day where it will take 30 minutes of driving if I want to make adjustments to the bread.

The King Arthur Cookbook suggests that I can learn to play with the amount of yeast in my bread recipes, which will fine-tune rising time. Perhaps that will be my secret. Perhaps I will manage something with sponges, or refrigerating dough overnight, or similar.

So I ask you, my readers: How do you juggle a full-time job and regular bread baking?


*- Yeast, incidentally, constantly makes flatulence jokes and giggles. It's not my thing, but he brings the booze as well, so what can ya do?
Wednesday
Mar112009

Instructable Wednesday: Food Stencils

Instructable Wednesday is a weekly look at food and cooking related items from the site Instructables, a DIY site with a great community and all sorts of useful tutorials.

Today, let's look at the "I ♥ Accuracy" Brownies. It has long been a staple of people who love things everywhere to make a heart that has two bumpy bits at the top and a pointy bit at the bottom. That's all well and good, but what about those of us who are pretty sure that a heart doesn't look like that?

Not only is this a handy technique for the anatomically pedantic, but it's also good starting point for making stencils that will work for food. The technique can work with sweet confections such as the brownies, or you could adapt it with flour for bread. Using colored powders or edible spray-paint, you could take this technique to new heights for the stencil-ready foods. Let your imagination run wild.

Think of it like silk screening: anything that could go on a t-shirt could go on food. Not that you'd want everything that has gone onto t-shirts to go onto food, but it gives you an idea of the flexibility of the technique.
Monday
Feb162009

Contest: Cupcake v. Muffin, Round 1: Toppings

After doing an informal survey of my readers and twitter friends, it appears that there is still life in the controversy of "Which is better? Cupakes or Muffins?" Therefore, I propose a series of challenges, with each round getting a prize.

Cupcakes have been in the public eye for a while. Perhaps too long, as there are those who believe that they are passé. I say good food is never passé, but I also say that muffins are clearly superior to cupcakes. So, let's find out the which is better the semi-scientific way.

Round 1: Toppings. This should be an advantage to the cupcake, because cupcakes are generally synonymous with toppings, but who can say? The challenge is to come up with a recipe for a cupcake or a muffin that is topped. You'll want to consider the flavor and texture balance with the muffin or cupcake itself, how much topping, and so on. A topping is anything that sits on top of the confection and is added after the confection is baked. There should not have to be extraordinary measures taken to ensure that the topping stays. If the judge can't walk across the room without the topping falling off, then it's not really a topping.

The prize for Round 1 is a copy of Shirley Corriher's Bakewise. If the winner already has Bakewise, we can determine a suitable replacement prize.

Okay, get to it. Rules are below.

muffins.jpg

Rules:



  1. Create or find a cupcake or muffin recipe that will best fit the challenge of the current round. Submit that recipe as a comment on the rounds' announcement post. You must have claimed your comments with a valid disqus account, so I will be able to contact you if you win.

  2. For any given recipe, it can only be entered once throughout the entire competition. The first person to enter the recipe based on the order that it appears in the comment feed is the person who gets to claim that recipe. Slight variations will not be counted. The judging panel will determine if a recipe is too similar to an older recipe.

  3. A muffin is defined as any hand-held confection assembled primarily via the muffin method: combine dry ingredients, combine wet ingredients, mix together briefly, and bake.

  4. A cupcake is defined as any hand-held confection assembled primarily via any non-muffin cake method, such as the creaming method.

  5. A recipe can be submitted as a link or in the body of a comment. If the recipe is a link, and it changes at some point, the recipe that the judges happened to get is the one that will be judged. If a modification is submitted to a recipe, the modification will only be used if the entry has not been judged up to this point.

  6. Judging will be a panel of entrants lead by Brian J. Geiger (The Food Geek). In the case of a tie, The Food Geek gets an extra vote or two as necessary. Judges may not enter the round that they are judging. The judging panel can change from round to round. Bear in mind that the judges have to make these concoctions, so if it is a particularly complicated or difficult recipe, and we do it poorly, then the results will be judged based on what is made, not what is intended. Needing special equipment aside from a standard-sized muffin tin will be frowned upon.

  7. Each round will be given a certain number of points, based on the importance of the challenge to the overall question of Confection Superiority. Once points are totaled, the winner will be declared. In the case of a tie, muffins win, as The Food Geek prefers muffins.

  8. Friends or family of The Food Geek or the judging panel are welcome to enter, but don't expect special treatment. If I don't get a birthday gift this year because you had a bad recipe, the you should be ashamed of yourself.

  9. Judging will take as long as it takes. I make no promises as to how quickly we can get through the entries.

  10. If there is not enough interest in the contest, I will declare an end to it before judging any particular round. The winner will be based on points up to that round.

  11. If problems are found with the rules, they will be amended in the round during which the problem is found. If that affects a recipe, then the judges will be called upon to make a ruling as to if the recipe gets by under the old rules or has to follow the new.



Updated at 8:30 AM on Monday, February 16 to clarify the challenge for this round.
Wednesday
Jan212009

Cupcake Muffin Showdown

After blithely making the statement:

muffinvcupcake.png

it occurred to me that this might be an interesting challenge. I know my reasons: cupcakes are a transportation mechanism for frosting, and I'm not that big of a fan of frosting. Muffins are more versatile. Muffins taste better. Muffins are easier to make. Muffins have better texture. Muffins are potentially healthier. Muffins, I decided, are better.

However, I know that many of my friends on Twitter are cupcake fans. There has been much activity over the past several months about cupcakes. Perhaps they would disagree.

So far: not so much. I've gotten a bunch of, "Yay muffins!" responses, and some, "both are good, really," responses, but no one claiming to be the champion of the cupcake. In retrospect, this is disappoint, because I want to issue a challenge: to determine the ultimate winner of cupcake v. muffin.

If I can get enough people on each side to claim there's superiority, then I will host a series of contests for specific challenges. There will be prizes. Good prizes. Not necessarily expensive prizes, but good even so. If not, then muffins are clearly the winner, and I'll have to find real controversy somewhere.

To state your claim, send me a @reply on twitter (@thefoodgeek or @thefoodgeek_com), or comment here. Pass around tweets and retweets to point people here. Let's find out the true the scientific way. Or, in a pinch, a way vaguely resembling the scientific way.
Friday
Jan162009

Peter Reinhart at TASTE^3 on Whole Grain Bread

I haven't watched all of this, but as I am technically mentioned in his book on whole grain bread, and I categorically recommend everything the man writes or does, you might as well watch it with me.



This is Peter Reinhart at the TASTE^3 conference, which I had not heard of before but will research and write about next week, talking about his epoxy method of whole grain breads.
Friday
Jan022009

Kindle for the Food Enthusiast

The image used in the preview of this article was taken by John Pastor and used via a Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license

It's hardly a secret, especially after Oprah told everyone to buy one, that Amazon has* an e-book reader called the Kindle. There's a general review of the Kindle and a comparison between it, books, and other e-book readers, but those who already own a Kindle and just want to know what books to get for it can scroll down to near the bottom, past the blocks of text and into the listy bits.

The basics

Your general purpose e-book reader is a small device, generally the size of a paperback book or thereabouts, designed to hold a bunch of books on it. The screen of an e-book reader is usually what's called e-ink. Unlike your general LCD screen, the e-ink has a very high contrast ratio, meaning that it's easy to distinguish between the words and the white space. Also, it's completely reflective, so unlike a laptop, it works just as well outside in full sunlight as it does inside under a lamp. And it does require a lamp, because also unlike a laptop screen, it doesn't have any sort of backlight. So, just like a book, you need to ensure that there's a proper reading light source available.

What's special about the Kindle
There have been several e-book readers over the years, many of which are from Sony. What makes the Kindle so special?

The Kindle has a built-in cell-phone modem, meaning wherever you have an EVDO connection, you can shop for, buy, and receive books, newspapers, magazines, and blogs. So, if you're stuck at the airport and nothing you have in your library suits your tastes for the 4-hour layover, you don't have to buy the latest Stephen King novel from the airport newsstand. Instead, you pop into the Kindle store, search through there hundreds of thousands of titles, and within a few minutes, your new book will be ready for you to read. Best of all, it doesn't take any more space in your luggage or your home library for the extra book.

Because it has an always-on internet connection, you can even browse the web in a pinch. The browser isn't the best, and the connection is a little slow, but it's great for popping over to wikipedia to look something up that might not be in your library.

Pros vs. Books
As mentioned, you can have hundreds or thousands of books on your Kindle, and they won't take up any more physical space. The largest of books will never be heavier than the smaller books. You can make annotations, highlights, or page clippings from books, and those will appear in a centralized file that you can reference later, as well as interspersed within the books themselves. It's hard to argue with the ability to hold a library in your bag.

The biggest advantage of the Kindle vs. a real book, aside from space savings, is the ability to search everything in your library all at once. For me, this is especially useful. If I want to find out what I know about aubergines, I can hit the search button and see:

aubergine-kindle.png

Likewise, if I do a similar search for "maillard" and click on the On Food and Cooking link, then I will see something like:

maillard-kindle.png

Clicking on any of those items will take me to the part of the book referenced. It is unbelievably handy.

What are the downsides

The biggest downside to the Kindle vs. books is that the Kindle does not handle the organization of large numbers of books very well. You can sort them by title, by author, or by recency, but that's it. You can't sort by genre, you can't make custom lists or groups, and you can't put them into folders. I really hope they fix this problem, because it's the one thing that keeps me from going crazy putting lots of extraneous-but-free books on my Kindle.**

Another downside, which is much more obvious but should be stated, is that the Kindle is a battery-powered device. This means that, if you don't keep up with the charging, you will be book-free until you charge it back up again. This is rarely a problem, especially if you don't leave the network connection running all the time. One of the advantages of e-ink is that it really uses very little battery power, and mostly just to change the page. I've gone for days of regular use without having to recharge, though it's wise to get into some sort of charging routine.

While there are pictures in the Kindle, they are not as sharp as they would be in a book, and they are never in color. Generally they're good enough to get by, though.

Finally, the Kindle does not support all of the features of the e-book file format that it uses. Specifically, it can't handle tables, which means that there are sections to some books that look like lists that would make much more sense if the Kindle decoded them properly. This and the organization of books should just be a software update, so it's possible that they'll fix both of these problems. Maybe.

What do I have on the Kindle, anyways?

Although I have many other titles on the Kindle, these are the things that are related to food and/or cooking.

From the Kindle Store:



From other sources:


On Food and Cooking and Bakewise are the two titles that currently get the most use. I can't yet fully recommend the other titles, because I haven't gotten through them all, but these seemed the most useful to have on hand of what was available at the time. As time goes on, I'll update the list here.

If it weren't so expensive, I would pick up a copy of Chef's Book of Formulas, Yields, and Sizes as well, because it sounds terribly useful for a reference library. Perhaps one day. Preferably one day when the price is lower.

*- Well, I say "has" but they're sometimes backordered, such as at the time of posting. However, according to commenter Karen, there are refurbished Kindles available. Read her comment for more information.

**- There's this great e-book from feedbooks.com that has links to kazillions of free e-books, whether public domain or creative commons. You download the book into the Kindle, then click on the links in the e-book, and it will put the book onto your Kindle, as if by magic. They have some cool other services as well, and they have things that work with other e-book readers, so go to their site and peruse.
Friday
Dec122008

Vanilla Salt Cookies

vanilla_salt_cookies.jpg
This entry is stolen… er, used under Creative Commons License from umami.com. I have made these cookies several times and love them ever so. They are my favorite cookies to make at Christmas, because they are easy and tasty and a bit more sophisticated than your average Christmas cookie.

I have not made any alterations to the recipe because the license of the site does not allow for derivative works. And although, as a recipe, I could alter it and make it my own, it's a very good recipe without any change. Other than the salt on the top, as I have used fleur de sel instead of the pink Himalayan stuff.
These cookies were made using from the recipe for Vanilla Wafers in the "Williams-Sonoma Essentials of Baking". Instead of sugar crystals as suggested in the book, which I did not have on hand, I pressed some pink Himalayan salt crystals on the top just before baking. The salt accentuated the sweet vanila butteriness of the cookies, intriguing those who tasted with its familiar yet novel sensation.

The recipe calls for one whole block of butter, and makes over 60 cookies. For a small household like mine it makes sense to freeze part of the dough. The ones above were from one of the frozen portions, slightly overbaked and crumbly, but still really rather scrumptious. Next time I might increase the quantity of flour.

250g butter

1/4 tsp salt (or if you are like me, omit this and use slightly salted butter)

125g sugar

2 large egg yolks

1 tbsp vanilla extract

315g plain flour

Beat the butter, salt and sugar at medium speed untill smooth.

Add egg yolks and vanilla and beat at low speed until blended.

Add flour and mix until a dough forms.

Divide dough into three or four equal portions. Roll each portion into logs about 1.5 inches in diameter. Wrap logs in plastic wrap and freeze or refridgerate till firm.

Before baking, unwrap log and cut into 1/4 inch thick slices. At this point you can op to sprinkle crystal sugar, crystal salt or chopped nuts on the surface. Bake at 180 C for 12-15 minutes. Let the cookies cool on the baking sheet for 5 minutes then transfer them to wire racks to cool completely before storing in an airtight container.