KitchenSavvy

Easter Bunny Cake Icing

For Easter, I am planning to make an Easter Bunny cake.  My problem is that I can never get bright, vibrant color in my icing.  It always turns out a pale pastel color instead.  How can I get brighter colors?

--Tony

Your problem is likely that you are using the liquid food coloring that is available at most supermarkets and grocery stores.  This coloring is so watered down that by the time you get anything much more that a pale tint to the icing, you have already added so much liquid that the icing is too runny to use.  To fix that, you add more icing sugar, which makes the color paler, so you add coloring, which thins out the icing and so on. You are caught in an endless cycle of doom while your cake sits on the counter, drying out.

There is a simple way out of this, though.  Instead of using liquid food coloring, you can buy concentrated pastes made specifically for coloring icings and frostings.  These colors are so concentrated that even a small amount will give bright vivid colors.  You can buy them at specialty stores that carry cake patterns and pans, some natural food stores, and the odd supermarket.  The ones I use are made by Wilton.  I get them at Nutter's in Saskatoon.  You can also buy them online from Amazon.

Because they are so concentrated, it is easy to get the colors you want.  For lighter shades, you need to be careful not to add too much.  What I usually do is dip a toothpick into the paste and then swirl it around in the mixed icing to transfer the color, and then blend it in.  I go back and forth like this a few times, using a clean toothpick each time so as not to contaminate the paste, until I get the color I want.  For a really bright color, or a deep dark tone, you might try using the tip of a spoon to transfer more color at once but it doesn't take much.

Using concentrated icing paste should solve your problem.

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward

Rancid Flour

Hi
I substituted white whole wheat flour in a Challah recipe that says to use just whole wheat flour.   I found that it tasted and smelled like play dough.  Is there a difference in white whole wheat flour and whole wheat flour. If so what is the difference?  Do you have any good idea for a whole grain healthy Challah?

--Julie

By coincidence, just as I was reading your email I happened to take a taste of a restaurant whole wheat dinner roll that had a similar chemical taste.  Play dough is a good description.

White whole wheat flour is similar to whole wheat flour that has been milled finer so that it doesn't have the larger and tougher particles you find in regular whole wheat.  Some manufacturers claim that it tastes just like white flour.  While the flavor is much lighter than whole wheat, there is still a perceptible nutty taste.  You can make your own approximation of white whole wheat flour by mixing regular white flour with an equal amount of whole wheat flour that has been sifted using a fine mesh kitchen strainer.

My initial guess is that either the flour or oil you used had gone rancid.  If it was the oil, you would likely have noticed the taste in other dishes, so I'll bet it was the flour.  Because white whole wheat flour is made from the whole wheat berry, it contains considerably more fat than does regular flour.  According to King Arthur Flour's website, their 100% White Whole Wheat Flour for professional bakers contains 1.62 grams of fat per 100 grams of flour.  Compared to the USDA analysis for all-purpose white flour, which they give as 0.98 grams per 100, the white whole wheat flour contains 65% more fat.

Because of the extra fat, the shelf life of white whole wheat flour is shorter.  Robin Hood Flours in Canada gives the shelf life of their regular, all-purpose flour at 12 months, but their white whole wheat flour at only 9 months.  Also, white whole wheat flour is a bit of an odd mix, targeting a niche market looking for increased fiber in baked goods traditionally made with white flour.  Because of this, it may sit longer on store shelves than other products.

To tell if it is rancid, take a pinch of flour and place it on your tongue.  Regular flour will have a little taste.  Most of us know the taste of raw flour from undercooked sauces or raw dough.  White whole wheat flour will also have a slight nutty flavor, similar to whole wheat flour or wheat bran, only less distinct.  Rancid flour, on the other hand, will have a slight tang to it and will sting a little on your tongue.  If you have ever tasted the membrane that separates the two pieces of meat inside a walnut, rancid flour will have that same acrid flavor only not as strong.

I have tasted other baked goods with rancid white flour in them, so when I tasted the dinner roll, I knew immediately what the taste was, which is why I think that was your problem, too.  Try buying another bag of white whole wheat flour.  Taste it first to be sure it isn't rancid and if not try your Challah recipe again.  Also make sure that the oil you are using is new and has no off tastes.

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward

Ounces Weight vs Fluid Ounces Volume

Isn't it true that an 16 oz of dry goods is different that 16 oz of liquid measure.  If a recipe calls for 8oz of flour, you should measure it using a scale rather than using a cup (which is a liquid measure, no matter what kind of cup you use).  I'm confused.

--SM

The confusion comes from the fact that in English we use the word "ounce" when talking about both the weight of something or the volume  it occupies.  In cooking, if you are talking about the volume of something, technically you should refer to the measure as "fluid ounces" and if  you are weighing something then you can say just "ounces."

Ingredients such as beans, sugar or flour can be conveniently measured by volume in cups, pints, quarts, liters and all of the other units that are used to calculate volume, including fluid ounces.  They can also be weighed in pounds, kilograms and ounces.

Depending on what ingredient you are measuring, the weight in ounces and the volume in fluid ounces may be close to the same or vastly different.  Sixteen fluid ounces of water weigh very close to 16 ounces (1 pound)^*.

Sixteen fluid ounces (2 cups) of flour will weigh around 8 ounces (1/2 pound) if it is sifted, and somewhat more, around 9 ounces, if it is unsifted.  This is just a rough estimate, though.

So, if your recipe calls for "fluid ounces" then you are definitely using a volume measuring device, such as a liquid or dry measure.  See the post Difference Between Dry and Liquid Measuring Cups for guidance on which to use and how.

If the recipe just says "ounces", for some ingredients you may be able to assume that the author means to measure by weight.  For ingredients like flour, though, the author may mean either weight or volume so you need to be careful to understand which is being used.  In books on baking there is frequently a section near the start on techniques where sometimes they may clarify which measure they are using.

As a further note, fluid ounces may be abbreviated in recipes as "fl. oz." and ounces as just "oz."

-----------------

^* The scientist in me wants to say that is true provided that the water is close to room temperature and the ambient air pressure is close to standard pressure at sea level, but for most practical purposes you can consider them to be equivalent.

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward

Baking Soda and Baking Powder - The Saga Continues

What on earth!   Here is my internet journey, seeking the answer to "Baking soda vs. baking powder."

1. Baking powder can replace baking soda
2. Baking powder cant replace baking soda
3. Baking powder can't replace baking soda and vice versa.

Here are some excerpts:

• "You can substitute baking powder in place of baking soda (you'll need more baking powder and it may affect the taste), but you can't use baking soda when a recipe calls for baking powder." http://chemistry.about.com/cs/foodchemistry/f/blbaking.htm /li>
• "In recipes calling for baking powder, baking soda can be used, along with some cornstarch and cream of tartar. Baking powder cannot, however, be used to replace baking soda." http://kitchensavvy.typepad.com/journal/2005/01/baking_soda_vs_.html
• "While you can't swap baking soda for baking powder, or vice versa ..." http://www.asianonlinerecipes.com/food_articles/baking-soda-baking-powder.php

So which one is it?

If baking is all about accuracy, then why is it that I constantly find conflicting information, all from experts?  How does anything ever get baked and turn out edible, if everyone has so many different opinions?

I am starting to believe that bakers are actually other-worldly beings that are unknowingly just manipulating ingredients with their minds.

--Curtis

OK, before you go reporting a Close Encounter, let's see if we can set this straight.

First, just a touch of chemistry.  Baking soda or bicarbonate of soda (NaHCO₃) is a mild base that has a number of applications in baking.  Among those are to cause chemical leavening by releasing bubbles of carbon dioxide gas when combined with an acid, and changing level of acidity or basicity of a recipe.

The acidity/basicity can be important in a number of ways.  For example, cookies that are slightly basic will spread more and brown more than ones that are slightly acidic.  If you are making a chocolate cake that is too acidic, it will turn the chocolate color from dark brown to light brown to red.  That's part of the secret to a Red velvet cake.

Baking powder is baking soda with an acid added to cause the chemical leavening.  The type of acid varies with different formulations and applications, as can be found in the KitchenSavvy article mentioned above.

As discussed in Let Them Eat Cake, as well as the above KitchenSavvy article, when recipes use both baking soda and baking powder, there is usually another acidic ingredient such as molasses, brown sugar, buttermilk or sour cream that combines with the baking soda to create bubbles.

So, which of the above is it? 

Since baking powder contains baking soda, you can indeed use it to replace baking soda.  The problems is that the leftover acid that is not neutralized in your recipe will affect the flavor and may also affect the result.  A cookie that is supposed to spread during cooking likely won't, and it may not brown properly, or may end up over cooked if you try to brown it enough.  Also, the final color of the product may not be what you expect since the product is acidic.  So, point 1 above is technically correct, as far as it goes, but you may not like the result. 

If you insist on trying, though, you will need up to four times as much baking powder as the amount of baking soda that was called for in the recipe.   Just don't say I told you it was a good idea!

Point 2 is correct, since what you are actually doing when you combine baking soda with cream of tartar is making your own homemade baking powder.  What you are really doing is substituting baking powder that someone mixed up for you with baking powder you made yourself.  The cornstarch is just filler to make up 1/4 more so the total volume works out the same but isn't really necessary.

And point 3 is correct, since you can't just swap them one for one.  As the referenced site goes on to explain, if you don't have baking powder you can make your own homemade stuff by using 1/4 the volume of baking powder specified of baking soda plus 1/2 the volume of cream of tartar.  Since you need to include the cream of tartar, you are really not just substituting one for the other.

The postings referenced in points 2 and 3 pretty much agree in what they say.  The problem with the first reference is it ignores the other aspects of food chemistry that come into play when you start altering the acid/base ratios in recipes.

Hopefully, all of this helps.

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward

TaDa

Breadmaker Jewish Rye Bread
(click for recipe)

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward

A Pizza Find

For years, I have been trying to make a good thin crust pizza.  When my wife and I were in Italy several years ago, we really enjoyed a pizza we had in Rome, near the Trevi Fountain.  The crust was so thin and crisp that it was almost cracker like.

I tried everything I could think of to make a crust like that -- varying the water/flour ratios, making the dough with or without olive oil, rolling the crust thinner, using different oven temperatures, placing my pizza stone on a rack as high as possible in the oven, super-heating the pizza stone for a few minutes using the boiler before putting the pizza into the oven, even changing the order of ingredients on the pizza.  These all made some difference.  None of them gave the crust I was looking for.

Then, this past weekend, I pulled "Brother Juniper's Bread Book" by Peter Reinhart off the bookshelf and turned to his section on pizza.  In the inset on Memorable Pizza there was a suggestion I hadn't even thought of trying -- that the pizza stone should be put on the bottom shelf or even right on the floor of the oven and pre-heated for at least 20 minutes at 500°F (260°C) or higher.

Since I use parchment paper to keep the crust from sticking to my peel (actually an old piece of 1/8 inch plywood) I have to keep the temperature at or below 450°F (232°C), but I could certainly try putting my pizza stone on the floor of my oven.  My oven is electric, but the heating element is under the floor so that isn't a problem.  Other than that, I made a plain lean pizza dough with just water, flour, yeast and salt.  No fat, no sugar and no flavorings.  I rolled a thin crust and assembled the pizza in the traditional North American order of sauce, ingredients and finally the cheese on top, and baked it for 13 minutes.

I knew as soon as I sliced the pizza that this was the missing link.  I could hear the knife crunching through the crust.  The result was the cracker thin, crunchy crust I had been trying for.  Because the stone had been heated directly by the element, the crust cooked quickly, before the other ingredients could make it soggy, as sometimes happens.

I know there is still some room for improvement.  Next time, I need to let the dough relax a bit more as I roll it out, and I think I'll try adding a little oil.  Both of those should help the overall texture, but I'm pleased with the result so far.

So, if you have been trying for that thin crunchy crust too, try lowering your pizza stone.    It may just be the secret you are looking for.

If there is nothing to get in the way, try putting the stone right on the floor of the oven. If you have an electric oven with the element above the floor then you will need to use a rack in the lowest position and put the stone on that.   If you are worried about safety, or the warranty on your oven, you may prefer to use a rack at the lowest position.

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward

Making Cinnamon Rolls with Self-Rising Flour

I have a question about self-rising flour. I have a recipe that calls for yeast and warm water. I was wondering if I can substitute self-rising flour and avoid all the yeast and it's complications (like water at 110 degrees etc.)? The recipe is for cinnamon rolls.

Thank you so much for your help.

--Shannon

Self-rising flour is a lower protein all purpose flour with baking powder and salt added in.  The amount of salt varies by maker.

You could substitute self-rising for bread or regular all purpose flour but what you will end up with will be more like a cinnamon tea biscuit.  In bread making, proteins in the flour form glutens that trap carbon dioxide gas produced by the yeast, similar to a balloon filling with air, to make the product rise.  During baking, evaporation of alcohol also produced by fermentation of sugars by the yeast cause the bubbles to inflate further.  Because yeast produces lots of gas over a long period, the gluten structure is needed to trap the gas and make bread recipes work right.

Unlike bread, cakes, biscuits and cookies don't rely on gluten to trap gases.  Instead of releasing lots of gas over a long period, baking powder releases relatively less carbon dioxide fairly quickly, mostly as the product is baking.  Starch in the flour or proteins from other ingredients like eggs set as the gas is released.  A balance of ingredients, temperatures and timing need to work together to make the the product set.

Self-rising flour is used in cakes and biscuits, not breads, and shouldn't be kneaded like bread.  If you do knead it, any gluten that forms will work against the baking powder, resulting in less rise and a flat, tough result.  So if you replace the yeast and flour in your recipe, you shouldn't knead the dough, which in turn means that you will end up with a cake or biscuit like texture.

Beyond that, you will likely need to reduce the amount of liquid since lower protein flour absorbs less water.  The amount of water you want to use will be enough to make a dough the consistency of rolled biscuits.  You will also want to reduce the salt in the recipe if your self-rising flour contains salt.  The exact amount you need to reduce it by is not easy to predict but may be as much as 1/2 teaspoon per cup of flour.

You may find that you need to alter the amount of fat in the dough, too, to get a satisfactory texture.

Finally, you may need to increase or decrease the amount of sugar in the dough to get the right balance of flavors.

The exact amounts for all of these changes is hard to predict, since they depend on the initial recipe, as well as other factors and personal tastes.  A better starting point might be to begin with a recipe for rolled biscuits using self-risng flour and take it from there, rather than starting with a yeast recipe.

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward

Adding Eggs and Dry Ingredients in Baking

Why do you have to add eggs one at a time, or add liquid and dry ingredients alternately in baking?

--Mark & Nancy

Many cake and cookie recipes start by creaming together a solid fat, usually butter, and sugar.  After this they say to add the required number of eggs one at a time, incorporating each one before the next is added.  Then, the dry ingredients and other liquid ingredients are blended in, alternating dry and wet ingredients.   This is probably the most common procedure in home baking.

If you add the eggs one at a time and blend each of them in well, the fat will emulsify with the eggs, similar to making mayonnaise, only in this case you are adding the eggs to the fat rather than the other way around. 

And just like making mayonnaise, if you were to dump all of the eggs into the bowl at once and try to beat them together, it is much harder, if not impossible to get a smooth result.  Try that some time, and you may have the butter turn into grains that don't blend in.  This isn't fatal to making a cake, but could result in some larger pockets of fat that melt during cooking creating an uneven texture in the finished product.  Also, according to Shirley Corriher in BakeWise: The Hows and Whys of Successful Baking with Over 200 Magnificent Recipes if you over-beat the batter once the eggs are added, you may get a hard, shiny crust on top of your baking that separates from the rest of the food.  This is because the eggs have been beaten to a partial meringue.  If you add all of the eggs at once, you may blend the batter too long trying to get it smooth, resulting in this crust effect.

Once the eggs are incorporated, the instructions say to add some of the dry ingredients, which have already been blended together in a separate bowl, and then some of the other liquid ingredients.  Usually they say to alternate one third of the dry ingredients, one third of the liquid, and so on.  Sometimes it is by halves.

In baking, you want to avoid as much as possible the formation of gluten, which result from the combination of certain wheat flour proteins with water.  Because gluten is elastic, and because chemical leaveners are not very strong, any gluten that is formed will inhibit the rise of the baked product.  Gluten in cookies will make them tough and leathery.  Gluten is desirable in bread making, but not baking.

If you follow the typical instructions to alternate dry and wet, the first batch of dry ingredients you add gets coated with the fat, both from the butter or other fat, and the fat in the egg yolks.  The fat interferes with the formation of gluten.  From there you want to add liquids and dry ingredients mixing as little as possible while still getting everything evenly blended.  Too much mixing will cause more gluten to form, resulting in a denser, more bread-like loaf. 

If you dumped all of the dry ingredients in at once, the batter at that point would be very stiff and may be lumpy.  In an effort to get a smooth batter, you will likely mix enough to form lots of gluten.  On the other hand, if you added all of the liquid ingredients first, you wouldn't get the benefit of the fat interfering with gluten formation.  The balance is found in between, neither adding all of the dry ingredients first nor adding all of the wet ingredients first, but rather in alternating them according to the recipe.

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward

Creaming Butter II

My wife says I have to cream butter and sugar with electric beaters in one direction only. She says this will help incorporate the air into the mix and make it creamy.  I seem to be getting results moving the beater through the mix ad hoc. Is there any science to beating in one direction for the purposes of creaming butter?

--Ling

Because of its complexity and the fact that cooking has evolved over thousands of years, it tends to be filled with both sound, provable science and popular folklore.  For example, one similar "rule" is that you need to stir in one only direction when making a custard and that changing direction or  whisking in a random pattern will cause the custard to curdle.  I can say with certainty that the custard thing is false, because I never bother to stir in just one direction and my custards don't curdle.

I know of no science that would either support or disprove your wife's theory but looking over my various references, I can't find any that say creaming needs to be done by beating the ingredients in only one direction.

On the face of it, I also can't think of any good reason why it would be so.  As I explained in the posting "Creaming Butter" the purpose of creaming is to incorporate air into the butter to help leaven the final product.  According to Corriher, creaming is perhaps the most important step in making good cakes.  Air bubbles are incorporated both from the air trapped between grains of sugar when mixing starts, and then by air blended in by the mechanical action.  Neither of these would appear to depend on what direction the beaters move during blending.  In fact, at the level of the beaters, regardless of how you move your hand, one blade is going clockwise while the other goes counterclockwise!

To test whether the direction of beating makes a difference, you would need to compare cakes made by creaming the butter by beating in only one direction versus cakes made when the beating is in random directions.  You would need to be careful to control every other aspect of the cakes -- the ingredients would need to be accurately measured, the butter would need to be at the same temperature starting and ending, and the beating time would need to be the same duration.  The cakes would then need to be cooled to the same temperature and under the same conditions.

After all of that, what I'm guessing you would learn is more likely that there are so many steps, involving so many factors, that ascribing differences in the result to the direction in which the butter is creamed is too simplistic.

The bottom line is that if your "ad hoc" beating technique produces good cakes, then you have shown that direction doesn't matter.  Now, go and enjoy your cake.

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward

Out of Date Cake Mixes

I have several out of date cake mixes, probably about two years old.  I assume they would not rise properly as the baking powder in them has lost its potency.  Would they work if I added fresh baking powder?  What would be the proper amount, if so?   Thank you, although I suspect the answer will be, "try it and see."

--Geri

You are likely right that the potency of the baking powder will have lessened during the time the cake mixes have been sitting on the shelf.  How much potency has been lost depends on a number of factors, so it would be hard to estimate how much fresh baking powder would be needed to bring things back to where they should be.

But that may not be the only reason that the cake mixes are no longer good.

Pretty much all cake mixes contain fats that will go rancid with time.  It goes rancid through the oxidation of fat molecules.  This happens easiest in unsaturated fats.  Saturated and trans fats are less prone to oxidation but can undergo chemical changes that break the fat down into simpler molecules that can then oxidize.  Rancid fats have an unpleasant flavor and a sharp stinging odor that ruin the taste of foods, and may not be healthy to eat.

Another problem is that the flavor compounds such as vanilla, lemon, chocolate and so on, that are used in the cake mixes lose their potency over time.  An old cake mix may well taste more bland than a fresh one.

So, this time I wouldn't recommend a "try it and see" approach.  For food safety reasons, the motto "when in doubt, throw it out" comes more to mind in this case.

---

If you have food or cooking questions, send them to Questions@KitchenSavvy.com



Due to the volume of questions received, not all can be answered.
© Lost Hobbit Enterprises 2004 onward