Brownie Fail
Feb. 21st, 2014 11:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebI tried a new brownie recipe this evening. As usual, it is a failure. So I have to eat all of them myself. Mwa-ha-ahem.
This experiment started when a boxed brownie mix was on such a good sale that I couldn't resist it. I try very hard to stay away from conventionally grown cocoa in things I buy and from white flour in things I cook. But I can be bought.
Those brownies were yummy. Yet the ingredients were not that crazy (you know, besides the chemicals). Not that much fat, not that much sugar. So I looked at the ingredients list and the nutritional information, did some calculations, and came up with a recipe.
The batter from the mix was quite thick, but my batter was even thicker, even after I added a little more water. And there still was less volume than there was with the mix.
I thought the mix was sweeter than necessary, so I cut the sugar in half. When I tasted the batter, it wasn't sweet at all, so I was doubly glad I had added some chocolate chips (a nice back-up flavoring agent for brownies, especially when you don't trust the recipe).
When the timer went off, the brownies looked basically the same as when I had put them in, but a fork came out clean, so I had to take them out. So sad.
They do taste kind of good, though. They would need a bit more sugar to be party-grade, but they are good enough for me. They are nice and chocolaty. They probably didn't need the chocolate chips.
But what is it that gives good brownies their crackly top? I finally thought to google it. There seem to be three theories: a) it's the eggs, b) it's the dissolved white sugar, and c) it's the lack of moisture.
The editor of theKitchn says it's "actually a very thin layer of meringue that arises when eggs are beaten into creamed butter and sugar. You can encourage its formation by beating the batter for longer than usual after adding the eggs and before adding any other ingredients."
Admittedly, I did not beat the batter much--just enough to combine everything--because it was quite thick. But I did not beat the mix batter much either.
America's Test Kitchen says "The pure sucrose in granulated sugar ... forms a smooth glasslike surface as it cools that reflects light in a focused way, for a shiny effect.
"As for the crackly crust, its formation depends on sugar molecules rising to the surface of the batter and drying out during baking. Since both brown sugar and corn [syrup] contain more moisture than granulated sugar, the surface of brownies made with either of these sweeteners never dries out enough for a crisp crust to form."
I had less-processed whitish sugar. It seems like that's not much different from sparkly white sugar. And I got meringue to work with sugar in the raw--oh, right, I have moved on from the meringue theory and am in the white-sugar theory now.
The folks who do Betty Crocker's FAQ say it's about the water--too much and you don't get it, not enough and you get too much.
I don't think my batter could be any less wet.
I've now eaten four pieces. I think there's hope. Not sure--I'll have to eat some more.
It's not obvious to me what move to make next, but I think I'll try again anyway. Next time I'll use more sugar and I'll beat it with the egg rather than mixing it in with the dry ingredients. I will also check over my measurements again and see if I can find any glaring errors.
This experiment started when a boxed brownie mix was on such a good sale that I couldn't resist it. I try very hard to stay away from conventionally grown cocoa in things I buy and from white flour in things I cook. But I can be bought.
Those brownies were yummy. Yet the ingredients were not that crazy (you know, besides the chemicals). Not that much fat, not that much sugar. So I looked at the ingredients list and the nutritional information, did some calculations, and came up with a recipe.
The batter from the mix was quite thick, but my batter was even thicker, even after I added a little more water. And there still was less volume than there was with the mix.
I thought the mix was sweeter than necessary, so I cut the sugar in half. When I tasted the batter, it wasn't sweet at all, so I was doubly glad I had added some chocolate chips (a nice back-up flavoring agent for brownies, especially when you don't trust the recipe).
When the timer went off, the brownies looked basically the same as when I had put them in, but a fork came out clean, so I had to take them out. So sad.
They do taste kind of good, though. They would need a bit more sugar to be party-grade, but they are good enough for me. They are nice and chocolaty. They probably didn't need the chocolate chips.
But what is it that gives good brownies their crackly top? I finally thought to google it. There seem to be three theories: a) it's the eggs, b) it's the dissolved white sugar, and c) it's the lack of moisture.
The editor of theKitchn says it's "actually a very thin layer of meringue that arises when eggs are beaten into creamed butter and sugar. You can encourage its formation by beating the batter for longer than usual after adding the eggs and before adding any other ingredients."
Admittedly, I did not beat the batter much--just enough to combine everything--because it was quite thick. But I did not beat the mix batter much either.
America's Test Kitchen says "The pure sucrose in granulated sugar ... forms a smooth glasslike surface as it cools that reflects light in a focused way, for a shiny effect.
"As for the crackly crust, its formation depends on sugar molecules rising to the surface of the batter and drying out during baking. Since both brown sugar and corn [syrup] contain more moisture than granulated sugar, the surface of brownies made with either of these sweeteners never dries out enough for a crisp crust to form."
I had less-processed whitish sugar. It seems like that's not much different from sparkly white sugar. And I got meringue to work with sugar in the raw--oh, right, I have moved on from the meringue theory and am in the white-sugar theory now.
The folks who do Betty Crocker's FAQ say it's about the water--too much and you don't get it, not enough and you get too much.
I don't think my batter could be any less wet.
I've now eaten four pieces. I think there's hope. Not sure--I'll have to eat some more.
It's not obvious to me what move to make next, but I think I'll try again anyway. Next time I'll use more sugar and I'll beat it with the egg rather than mixing it in with the dry ingredients. I will also check over my measurements again and see if I can find any glaring errors.