I've made this recipe many times. The layers didn't rise as much as they should have - but I made sure they weren't undercooked before I took them out.. That is, they passed the toothpick test, even though they seemed a bit sticky later on, when we were eating it.

Since I assume that baking soda doesn't lose its potency that easily (even though it was not in a tightly sealed container), what else could be the reason? Should I have simmered the milk/butter/chocolate mixture longer, until it thickened more, before mixing in the flour? Could the cheap brand of bittersweet chocolate have had anything to do with it?

BTW, I ALWAYS sift the dry ingredients before mixing them in.

Thanks.


Lenona.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> I've made this recipe many times. The layers didn't rise as much as they should have - but I made sure they weren't undercooked before I took them out. That is, they passed the toothpick test, even though they seemed a bit sticky later on, when we were eating it.
>
> Since I assume that baking soda doesn't lose its potency that easily (even though it was not in a tightly sealed container), what else could be the reason? Should I have simmered the milk/butter/chocolate mixture longer, until it thickened more, before mixing in the flour? Could the cheap brand of bittersweet chocolate have had anything to do with it?
>
> BTW, I ALWAYS sift the dry ingredients before mixing them in.
>
> Thanks.
>
If everything else is up to date, it's your baking soda. Once was
enough for me. No reason for your baking to go wrong just because
something that cost less than $1 is old. That's why I label mine on
the day I open it - use it for every cleaning purpose that comes up
and replace it after a year.

--

sf

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 12:46:40 PM UTC-7, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> > I've made this recipe many times. The layers didn't rise as much as they should have - but I made sure they weren't undercooked before I took them out. That is, they passed the toothpick test, even though they seemed a bit sticky later on, when we were eating it.
> >
> > Since I assume that baking soda doesn't lose its potency that easily (even though it was not in a tightly sealed container), what else could be the reason? Should I have simmered the milk/butter/chocolate mixture longer, until it thickened more, before mixing in the flour? Could the cheap brand of bittersweet chocolate have had anything to do with it?
> >
> > BTW, I ALWAYS sift the dry ingredients before mixing them in.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> If everything else is up to date, it's your baking soda. Once was
> enough for me. No reason for your baking to go wrong just because
> something that cost less than $1 is old. That's why I label mine on
> the day I open it - use it for every cleaning purpose that comes up
> and replace it after a year.
>
> --
>
> sf

what she said.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> > I've made this recipe many times. The layers didn't rise as much as they
> > should have - but I made sure they weren't undercooked before I took them
> > out. That is, they passed the toothpick test, even though they seemed a bit
> > sticky later on, when we were eating it.
> >
> > Since I assume that baking soda doesn't lose its potency that easily (even
> > though it was not in a tightly sealed container), what else could be the
> > reason? Should I have simmered the milk/butter/chocolate mixture longer,
> > until it thickened more, before mixing in the flour? Could the cheap brand
> > of bittersweet chocolate have had anything to do with it?
> >
> > BTW, I ALWAYS sift the dry ingredients before mixing them in.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> If everything else is up to date, it's your baking soda. Once was
> enough for me. No reason for your baking to go wrong just because
> something that cost less than $1 is old. That's why I label mine on
> the day I open it - use it for every cleaning purpose that comes up
> and replace it after a year.

Are you guys confusing baking *powder*, which does wear out, with baking
*soda*, which should not?

There are easy ways to test baking powder for potency; google around.

Isaac

"isw" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>> > I've made this recipe many times. The layers didn't rise as much as
>> > they
>> > should have - but I made sure they weren't undercooked before I took
>> > them
>> > out. That is, they passed the toothpick test, even though they seemed a
>> > bit
>> > sticky later on, when we were eating it.
>> >
>> > Since I assume that baking soda doesn't lose its potency that easily
>> > (even
>> > though it was not in a tightly sealed container), what else could be
>> > the
>> > reason? Should I have simmered the milk/butter/chocolate mixture
>> > longer,
>> > until it thickened more, before mixing in the flour? Could the cheap
>> > brand
>> > of bittersweet chocolate have had anything to do with it?
>> >
>> > BTW, I ALWAYS sift the dry ingredients before mixing them in.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> If everything else is up to date, it's your baking soda. Once was
>> enough for me. No reason for your baking to go wrong just because
>> something that cost less than $1 is old. That's why I label mine on
>> the day I open it - use it for every cleaning purpose that comes up
>> and replace it after a year.
>
> Are you guys confusing baking *powder*, which does wear out, with baking
> *soda*, which should not?
>
> There are easy ways to test baking powder for potency; google around.
>
> Isaac

Both will get bad.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 20:47:57 -0700, isw > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >
> > > I've made this recipe many times. The layers didn't rise as much as they
> > > should have - but I made sure they weren't undercooked before I took them
> > > out. That is, they passed the toothpick test, even though they seemed a bit
> > > sticky later on, when we were eating it.
> > >
> > > Since I assume that baking soda doesn't lose its potency that easily (even
> > > though it was not in a tightly sealed container), what else could be the
> > > reason? Should I have simmered the milk/butter/chocolate mixture longer,
> > > until it thickened more, before mixing in the flour? Could the cheap brand
> > > of bittersweet chocolate have had anything to do with it?
> > >
> > > BTW, I ALWAYS sift the dry ingredients before mixing them in.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > If everything else is up to date, it's your baking soda. Once was
> > enough for me. No reason for your baking to go wrong just because
> > something that cost less than $1 is old. That's why I label mine on
> > the day I open it - use it for every cleaning purpose that comes up
> > and replace it after a year.
>
> Are you guys confusing baking *powder*, which does wear out, with baking
> *soda*, which should not?
>
> There are easy ways to test baking powder for potency; google around.
>

I am not confusing the two.

--

sf

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:02:20 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:

> >
> > Are you guys confusing baking *powder*, which does wear out, with baking
> > *soda*, which should not?
> >
> > There are easy ways to test baking powder for potency; google around.
> >
>
> I am not confusing the two.


I didn't either. I know enough to keep baking powder sealed and in the freezer, but I thought I didn't have to be that careful with baking soda - and yes, that's all the recipe calls for.


Lenona.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:02:20 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Are you guys confusing baking *powder*, which does wear out, with baking
> > > *soda*, which should not?
> > >
> > > There are easy ways to test baking powder for potency; google around.
> > >
> >
> > I am not confusing the two.
>
>
> I didn't either. I know enough to keep baking powder sealed and in the freezer, but I thought I didn't have to be that careful with baking soda - and yes, that's all the recipe calls for.
>
>
I didn't think I needed to worry about baking soda either, until it
failed on me... and I've paid attention to it ever since. It's less
than $1 to replace, so it's no big deal to buy a new one yearly.


--

sf

On 6/4/2016 11:35 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:02:20 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Are you guys confusing baking *powder*, which does wear out, with baking
>>> *soda*, which should not?
>>>
>>> There are easy ways to test baking powder for potency; google around.
>>>
>>
>> I am not confusing the two.
>
>
> I didn't either. I know enough to keep baking powder sealed and in the freezer, but I thought I didn't have to be that careful with baking soda - and yes, that's all the recipe calls for.
>
>
> Lenona.
>
I had a cake fail a few years ago and when I looked at the ingredients
the only thing that looked like it *could* have been the culprit was the
baking soda that had expired many years earlier. I bought fresh and
remade the cake and it rose beautifully. Anecdotal, of course, but in
my experience baking soda can eventually lose its oooomph.

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 3:46:40 PM UTC-4, sf wrote:
> That's why I label mine on
> the day I open it - use it for every cleaning purpose that comes up
> and replace it after a year.

I was amazed to see at least a dozen different books for sale online about the many uses of baking soda!

I already use it for tooth brushing (it's a lot cheaper than toothpaste - plus, toothpaste tubes are not biodegradable). Plus drain cleaning and freezer odor removal.

And, if anyone's interested, there are at least two popular books called "Kitchen Science" (not to be confused with those books that have "kitchen" and "chemistry" in the titles - most of those are aimed at children).

Lenona.
Lenona.