 |
|
| Chocolate (rec.food.chocolate) all topics related to eating and making chocolate such as cooking techniques, recipes, history, folklore & source recommendations. |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Alex Rast" > wrote in message ... > at Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:50:08 GMT in > >, (JMF) wrote : > > That's a high ratio of butter and sugar in the recipe. IMHO, it's far too > much if going for the classic Chocolate Decadence cake. Ah, so it would fall into the general category of the decadence cake. That makes sense. > The sugars and the > butter will melt, and that fluid mass is going to keep the cake from > firming up until the eggs *really* cook. I think the end result would be > rather weak in chocolate flavour, fudgy, and very, very sweet, in addition > to the baking-time issues you've already mentioned. Yes, it was quite sweet. > Be aware furthermore that it's actually pretty safe to take out a Chocolate > Decadence long before it looks fully done. Even when the whole surface > seems to quiver, and bubbles in the oven, it is often ready to take out > (assuming enough time has passed that you're not dealing with something > you've just put in). It will firm up nicely as it cools. Remember that all > the ingredients other than eggs are solid at room temperature, and then > you'll realise that once the internal temperature is high enough to cook > the eggs, you can take out the cake safely, and, once cool, it will be > solid. If it starts to look solid in the oven, especially in the center, > you've probably overbaked because at that point the eggs have cooked to > rubbery consistency and your decadence, while it will still taste OK, will > have something of a gummy texture. The idea is to cook the eggs to the > point where they'd be appropriate for custard. Interesting! Now I get the idea of how the eggs are supposed to work in all this. I don't remember the cake being particularly rubbery, although maybe around the outside a bit. > Also, virtually every recipe I've seen that calls for egg-stabilised cooked > fillings or centers or tortes seems to underestimate baking times > drastically, at least IMHO. You can account for some of this time by what > temperature your mix is at when it goes in the oven. If your mix is cool > (e.g. refrigerator temperature) then it may take longer than the recipe > suggests, if the recipe assumed the mix was at room temperature to begin > with. I also suspect that recipes may be off in timing because they've been > designed and tested in professional kitchens with commercial baking ovens > that are much larger and more solid than your typical home oven, thus > having far higher heat capacity and therefore much less tendency to sag in > temperature when the cake (or whatever else) goes in the oven or, for that > matter, later on in the baking process (there's always heat leaking out and > the oven cycles - a commercial oven doesn't cycle as much because it > doesn't lose heat as fast). Also very interesting! Sure, that makes sense, too. So even if I had the "right" temperature, it's still not the same as a professional oven experience. > So to summarise, you were dealing with a combination of factors. First was > a recipe somewhat off in ratios. Second is the natural tendency of > Chocolate Decadence to look impossibly underbaked when it's ready. Third is > the possibility the timing was a little on the low side anyway. I'll certainly look out for the "seemingly undercooked" phenomenon, which I wasn't explicitly aware of with respect to the decadence category - although as I said, it was hopelessly liquid at 22 minutes. > I recommend that you cut down *drastically* on the butter and sugar, and > replace them with more chocolate. This will give a much better flavour and > probably a better texture as well. I'd try as a starting point 400g > chocolate, 125g butter, and 125 g sugar. Great! makes perfect sense. I'll give it a try. Nice fit, too, with the size of European butter sticks at exactly 125 g. > While I might tweak the baking time upwards a bit, it wouldn't be extreme. > 25 minutes should be OK, and by 30 minutes you'll almost certainly be safe. > The real test for chocolate baking is the smell. When the chocolatey smell > hits its peak, and is really overwhelming, it's usually time to take it out > of the oven. Remember also that an underbaked chocolate decadence is better > than an overbaked one. > > >P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-) > > This would be the wrong choice because there is a chocolate that you MUST > use for Chocolate Decadence-like cakes: Amedei Trinidad. (at least insofar > as you're thinking of using an Amedei chocolate). Trinidad produces an > incomparable Chocolate Decadence with the perfect flavour. Another > excellent choice, if you're looking for options, is Michel Cluizel Hacienda > Concepcion. > > Amedei Chuao, for a Decadence-like cake, is too powerful, dark, and > brooding. The result is a cake that has a heavy, overwhelming taste, like > being smothered in black velvet. Those familiar with my tastes will know > that I'm ultra-enthusiastic about Chuao but also that IMHO it isn't > completely general-purpose: it works well in some applications but for > others it overwhelms. Also very interesting. I had understood your earlier remarks on Chuao to mean that it would be right for this cake. But it's great to have these suggestions, too. Thanks, John |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Recipe For A Chocolate Miracle | Chocolate | |||
| Chocolate booze recipe | General Cooking | |||
| Chocolate gnocchi Recipe | General Cooking | |||
| need name and recipe for this chocolate treat | General Cooking | |||
| recipe req: chocolate ice cream | General Cooking | |||
Threaded Mode
