.. wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Alric Knebel wrote:
>
> [previous message snipped]
>
>
>>What my problem is, not knowing how much baking soda (or baking powder)
>>is in self-rising flour per proportion, so I can't tell how much of the
>>baking soda or baking powder to add, if any. My girlfriend's premise
>>was, you could eliminate the need for baking soda and salt by using
>>self-rising flour, which she had on hand. I was questioning the
>>veracity of that premise. From your response, I take it that it's not
>>straightforward as that, therefore the simple answer is "no": you can't
>>just substitute self-rising flour and simply eliminate the need for salt
>>and baking soda. Am I understanding you correctly? If the substitution
>>is NOT that straightforward, then the most straightforward solution for
>>an inexperienced baker would be to follow the recipe as written.
>
>
> You are understanding me correctly. Baking is more like chemistry. You
> have to have the right ratios.
>
> When I started baking things, I found I had to follow the recipe exactly
> or it turned out badly. Now I know enough about what can be substituted
> and I can alter a recipe. I still re-write the recipe before I measure out
> the ingredients.
>
>
>>As for why the cookies sucked, well, they were simply bland. They
>>definitely were not salty, and they weren't crispy, which is really what
>>I'm aiming for. You know how when you buy cookies in a store, they're
>>crispy? That's the texture I'm aiming for. Keep in mind that I altered
>>the recipe by eliminating the baking soda and salt under the
>>misconception that self-rising flour was the clear substitute. I was
>>immediately suspicious of the recipe to begin with. I had had a recipe
>>someone else gave me some years ago, and it was pinned to a board in the
>>kitchen. But the recipe was lost during the Katrina cleanup of the
>>house. That recipe was WORK (which is why I used it maybe only five
>>times), while this new recipe wasn't. I didn't have confidence in it,
>>and I didn't have confidence in my girlfriend's substitution ideas.
>
>
> The substitution is not always straightforward. I would suspect that is
> why the cookies did not turn out well. A good recipe does not have to be a
> lot of work to be good. Sometimes the simple recipes can be quite good.
>
> If you search the web for crispy cookie recipes I'm sure you will find
> plenty of they. If you are looking for something simple, try Martha
> Stewart's Holiday Cookie magazine. Her company puts out a cookie/treat
> issue of the magazine every October/November in anticipation of Christmas
> cookie baking. They are usually pretty easy to make and not bad.

I found a recipe that might work, but I again made the wrong
substitution. If I had thought about it, I would have caught it. The
recipe called for BUTTER and I used what I had on hand without thinking,
and I used MARGARINE. It was pointed out to me that the butter was used
in place of Crisco shortening, and the margarine didn't have enough fat
in it. Yes, of course, and had I truly noticed when I was doing it, I
wouldn't have made that substitution. Butter clearly has a different
texture. So we went out and bought a can of butter-flavored shortening,
and I'm looking forward to trying it with that recipe. That last batch
-- with the margarine -- was so soft and spread out so far, the
crisscrossing on the top of the cookies was completely lost. But they
were crispy. They were just visually and texturally not interesting.

The recipe, by the way, called for chilling the mixture, to make the
dough stiffer. I'm assuming if I used this shortening in place of
butter, I won't have to chill it. I'll chill it anyway, since it won't
hurt anything, but I'm thinking it won't be necessary. True? Anyway,
I'm going to try it tonight. I laughed to my girlfriend as I scrapped
the last batch into the garbage can, that I feel like a mad scientist
trying to map the genome for some obsessive, world-saving plan.

Alric Knebel