I've been trying to find a recipe for crispy peanut butter cookies. A
recipe I found online didn't stipulate that it would produce crispy
cookies, but years ago, a woman gave me a recipe that would make the
cookies crispy if you add some water (a small amount, like one-fourth
cup) to the final mixture. Anyway, this recipe I located called for
flour and baking soda. The woman I live with said I could eliminate the
baking soda because we were going to use self-rising flour. I'm not an
experienced baker, so I prefer to follow the recipe exactly, until at
some time in the future I'll know what ingredient causes what. I
followed her instructions and left out the baking soda. I also added a
bit of water to the recipe, hoping the cookies would turn out crispy.
The result: they SUCKED. So I found a new recipe, and it too called for
both baking soda and baking POWDER. There was no mention of self-rising
flour.

Here are my questions. What makes the cookies crispy? Can baking soda
and baking powder by eliminated and self-rising flour used instead, and
will it make my goal of crispier cookies impossible to achieve?

Thanks in advance.

[If you e-mail me, remove the brackets out of the e-mail address.]

Alric Knebel

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Alric Knebel wrote:

> I've been trying to find a recipe for crispy peanut butter cookies. A
> recipe I found online didn't stipulate that it would produce crispy
> cookies, but years ago, a woman gave me a recipe that would make the
> cookies crispy if you add some water (a small amount, like one-fourth
> cup) to the final mixture. Anyway, this recipe I located called for
> flour and baking soda. The woman I live with said I could eliminate the
> baking soda because we were going to use self-rising flour. I'm not an
> experienced baker, so I prefer to follow the recipe exactly, until at
> some time in the future I'll know what ingredient causes what. I
> followed her instructions and left out the baking soda. I also added a
> bit of water to the recipe, hoping the cookies would turn out crispy.
> The result: they SUCKED. So I found a new recipe, and it too called for
> both baking soda and baking POWDER. There was no mention of self-rising
> flour.
>
> Here are my questions. What makes the cookies crispy? Can baking soda
> and baking powder by eliminated and self-rising flour used instead, and
> will it make my goal of crispier cookies impossible to achieve?

First, self-raising flour is simply flour with leavening agents added. If
a recipe calls for one cup of self-raising flour you can use one cup of
all-purpose flour, 1 1/2 tsp baking powder, 1/2 tsp salt.

Conversely, if a recipe contains all-purpose flour, baking powder and salt
you may be able to use self-raising flour. For example, if the recipe
calls for 2 cups of all-purpose flour, 4 tsp of baking powder and 1 1/2
tsp salt (I'm just making these up; they probably would never be found in
the ratio in a real recipe). If I change the 2 cups of all-purpose flour
to 2 cups of self-raising flour there is probably 3 tsp of baking powder
and 1 tsp of salt. I would therefore reduce the baking powder to 1 tsp (4
- 3) and add no additional salt.

As to why your cookies "SUCKED" we'd have to see the entire recipe and
what subsititutions you made.

On a guess, if you reduced/eliminated the baking soda but didn't change
the salt you are going to get different results. Were your cookies too
salty?

Additionally, substituting baking powder (what is usually in self-raising
flour) for baking soda is not that straight forward. I believe, if the
recipe calls for 1 tsp of baking soda you need to include 4 tsp of baking
powder.

For example, if your recipe calls for 3 tsp of baking soda then you will
need 3/4 tsp of baking powder. Since a cup of self-raising flour has 1 1/2
tsp of baking powder and you need to reduce that to 3/4 tsp (half), you
can only use 1/2 cup of self-raising flour. What if you need 2 cups of
all-purpose flour? You cannot substitute it with self-raising flour.

Bottom line, if you are going to be doing substitution then you will need
to know a little math and a little chemistry.

--
Send e-mail to: darrell dot grainger at utoronto dot ca

.. wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Alric Knebel wrote:
>
>
>>I've been trying to find a recipe for crispy peanut butter cookies. A
>>recipe I found online didn't stipulate that it would produce crispy
>>cookies, but years ago, a woman gave me a recipe that would make the
>>cookies crispy if you add some water (a small amount, like one-fourth
>>cup) to the final mixture. Anyway, this recipe I located called for
>>flour and baking soda. The woman I live with said I could eliminate the
>>baking soda because we were going to use self-rising flour. I'm not an
>>experienced baker, so I prefer to follow the recipe exactly, until at
>>some time in the future I'll know what ingredient causes what. I
>>followed her instructions and left out the baking soda. I also added a
>>bit of water to the recipe, hoping the cookies would turn out crispy.
>>The result: they SUCKED. So I found a new recipe, and it too called for
>>both baking soda and baking POWDER. There was no mention of self-rising
>>flour.
>>
>>Here are my questions. What makes the cookies crispy? Can baking soda
>>and baking powder by eliminated and self-rising flour used instead, and
>>will it make my goal of crispier cookies impossible to achieve?
>
>
> First, self-raising flour is simply flour with leavening agents added. If
> a recipe calls for one cup of self-raising flour you can use one cup of
> all-purpose flour, 1 1/2 tsp baking powder, 1/2 tsp salt.
>
> Conversely, if a recipe contains all-purpose flour, baking powder and salt
> you may be able to use self-raising flour. For example, if the recipe
> calls for 2 cups of all-purpose flour, 4 tsp of baking powder and 1 1/2
> tsp salt (I'm just making these up; they probably would never be found in
> the ratio in a real recipe). If I change the 2 cups of all-purpose flour
> to 2 cups of self-raising flour there is probably 3 tsp of baking powder
> and 1 tsp of salt. I would therefore reduce the baking powder to 1 tsp (4
> - 3) and add no additional salt.
>
> As to why your cookies "SUCKED" we'd have to see the entire recipe and
> what subsititutions you made.
>
> On a guess, if you reduced/eliminated the baking soda but didn't change
> the salt you are going to get different results. Were your cookies too
> salty?
>
> Additionally, substituting baking powder (what is usually in self-raising
> flour) for baking soda is not that straight forward. I believe, if the
> recipe calls for 1 tsp of baking soda you need to include 4 tsp of baking
> powder.
>
> For example, if your recipe calls for 3 tsp of baking soda then you will
> need 3/4 tsp of baking powder. Since a cup of self-raising flour has 1 1/2
> tsp of baking powder and you need to reduce that to 3/4 tsp (half), you
> can only use 1/2 cup of self-raising flour. What if you need 2 cups of
> all-purpose flour? You cannot substitute it with self-raising flour.
>
> Bottom line, if you are going to be doing substitution then you will need
> to know a little math and a little chemistry.

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.

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.

Alric Knebel

"Alric Knebel" ]> wrote in message
...

> Here are my questions. What makes the cookies crispy? Can baking soda
> and baking powder by eliminated and self-rising flour used instead, and
> will it make my goal of crispier cookies impossible to achieve?
>

Generally speaking, the crispiness of a cookie depends on the fat you use.
Butter tends to make crispy cokes and hydrogenated shortening make softer
cookies, all other things being equal. Since the melting point of butter is
lower, the cookies also tend to spread more in the oven and are thinner than
those made with shortening. Also, baking cookies fully will make them more
crispy and underbaking them will make them more soft.

Adding water makes little sense to me, especially at the end of the mixing
process. Water added early, especially before the flour is coated with fat,
will help make the cookie tougher because it develops the gluten in the
flour. A tough cookie may be seen as being crisper depending on your point
of view. Egg whites tend to make things dryer and that may be interpreted
at being "crispy." Egg yolks tend to make baked good more cake-like. Most
cookies have little or no liquid in them. I think the water is a good sign
of a faulty recipe.

The reason that peanut butter cookies have baking soda in the formula is
that they also call for brown sugar. Brown sugar has molasses in it.
Molasses is acidic. The baking soda reacts with the molasses and produces
CO2. It also neutralizes the acid and that increases browning and increases
gluten formation. You can not leave out the baking soda if it is specified
in a recipe that also calls for self-rising flour or plain flour with baking
POWDER. You can not simply substitute baking powder for baking soda.

You can use self-rising flour and then compensate for any deficiency in the
baking power that the recipe specifies. You would still have to add the
baking soda. Unless you use self-rising flour frequently, I don't see the
point it buying it. You are stuck with a fixed amount of baking power and
salt - ingredients that you may not want (for dredging meat, making most
pastry dough, etc.) in every recipe that calls for flour. You are also
stuck with the type of baking powder that the mill included in the mix. You
still have to stock baking powder, so why bother?

Here is the recipe that I use for peanut butter cookies. They turn out
crisp. Don't make any substitutions.
-----------------------------------
1/2 cup peanut butter
1/2 cup butter, softened
1/2 cup granulated sugar
1/2 cup brown sugar
1 large egg
1/2 teaspoon vanilla
1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour (not self-rising)
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/4 teaspoon salt

Cream the butter and peanut butter for about 1 minute in an electric mixer.
Scrape the bowl and add the sugar, brown sugar, vanilla, and egg. Beat on
high speed for an additional minute. Combine the dry ingredients. With the
mixer on low speed, gradually add the dry ingredients. Increase the speed
to medium and beat for about 1 minute.

Form 1 inch balls and place 2 inches apart on a baking sheet. Press flat
with the tines of a fork in a criss-cross pattern, dipping the fork into
sugar between cookies to prevent sticking.

Bake in a pre-heated, 375F oven for 10 - 12 minutes. Cool on a wire rack.
Makes about 3 dozen

Vox Humana wrote:
> "Alric Knebel" ]> wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Here are my questions. What makes the cookies crispy? Can baking soda
>>and baking powder by eliminated and self-rising flour used instead, and
>>will it make my goal of crispier cookies impossible to achieve?
>>
>
>
> Generally speaking, the crispiness of a cookie depends on the fat you use.
> Butter tends to make crispy cokes and hydrogenated shortening make softer
> cookies, all other things being equal. Since the melting point of butter is
> lower, the cookies also tend to spread more in the oven and are thinner than
> those made with shortening. Also, baking cookies fully will make them more
> crispy and underbaking them will make them more soft.
>
> Adding water makes little sense to me, especially at the end of the mixing
> process. Water added early, especially before the flour is coated with fat,
> will help make the cookie tougher because it develops the gluten in the
> flour. A tough cookie may be seen as being crisper depending on your point
> of view. Egg whites tend to make things dryer and that may be interpreted
> at being "crispy." Egg yolks tend to make baked good more cake-like. Most
> cookies have little or no liquid in them. I think the water is a good sign
> of a faulty recipe.
>
> The reason that peanut butter cookies have baking soda in the formula is
> that they also call for brown sugar. Brown sugar has molasses in it.
> Molasses is acidic. The baking soda reacts with the molasses and produces
> CO2. It also neutralizes the acid and that increases browning and increases
> gluten formation. You can not leave out the baking soda if it is specified
> in a recipe that also calls for self-rising flour or plain flour with baking
> POWDER. You can not simply substitute baking powder for baking soda.
>
> You can use self-rising flour and then compensate for any deficiency in the
> baking power that the recipe specifies. You would still have to add the
> baking soda. Unless you use self-rising flour frequently, I don't see the
> point it buying it. You are stuck with a fixed amount of baking power and
> salt - ingredients that you may not want (for dredging meat, making most
> pastry dough, etc.) in every recipe that calls for flour. You are also
> stuck with the type of baking powder that the mill included in the mix. You
> still have to stock baking powder, so why bother?
>
> Here is the recipe that I use for peanut butter cookies. They turn out
> crisp. Don't make any substitutions.
> -----------------------------------
> 1/2 cup peanut butter
> 1/2 cup butter, softened
> 1/2 cup granulated sugar
> 1/2 cup brown sugar
> 1 large egg
> 1/2 teaspoon vanilla
> 1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour (not self-rising)
> 1/2 teaspoon baking soda
> 1/4 teaspoon salt
>
> Cream the butter and peanut butter for about 1 minute in an electric mixer.
> Scrape the bowl and add the sugar, brown sugar, vanilla, and egg. Beat on
> high speed for an additional minute. Combine the dry ingredients. With the
> mixer on low speed, gradually add the dry ingredients. Increase the speed
> to medium and beat for about 1 minute.
>
> Form 1 inch balls and place 2 inches apart on a baking sheet. Press flat
> with the tines of a fork in a criss-cross pattern, dipping the fork into
> sugar between cookies to prevent sticking.
>
> Bake in a pre-heated, 375F oven for 10 - 12 minutes. Cool on a wire rack.
> Makes about 3 dozen.

Thanks for taking the time and writing that. That was some pretty
detailed stuff. My God, man, you sounded almost like a chemist.

Alric Knebel

"Alric Knebel" ]> wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks for taking the time and writing that. That was some pretty
> detailed stuff. My God, man, you sounded almost like a chemist.
>
I hope it help. As for being a chemist, it has been YEARS since I studied
chemistry. There are a couple of people here who have forgotten more than I
ever knew about baking science.

I made some very crispy PB cookies once entirely by accident. No
change to the recipe. Just that, when it called for "softened" butter
(real butter) I warmed it too long and wouun up with completely melted
butter - liquid! I used it anyway. The cookies spread out wide and
thin on the pan. It took less baking time, and theye didn't burn or
get overly brown, weren't too dry. Looked and tasted just fine.

Vox Humana wrote:

> Here is the recipe that I use for peanut butter cookies. They turn out
> crisp. Don't make any substitutions.

I just made a batch of these, and I have to tell you, they are the
bestdamned peanut butter cookies I've ever had! Far better than bakery,
and yes, they are crisp. Without being dense or tough, too...

I used my unbleached white Spelt flour, and insulated baking sheets, so
they worked better at 400F, for 10-12 minutes. Spelt is just a bitch to
get to brown, but I can eat it!

Thanks for the recipe - it's a keeper!

Dave

"Dave Bell" > wrote in message
. com...
> Vox Humana wrote:
>
> > Here is the recipe that I use for peanut butter cookies. They turn out
> > crisp. Don't make any substitutions.
>
> I just made a batch of these, and I have to tell you, they are the
> bestdamned peanut butter cookies I've ever had! Far better than bakery,
> and yes, they are crisp. Without being dense or tough, too...
>
> I used my unbleached white Spelt flour, and insulated baking sheets, so
> they worked better at 400F, for 10-12 minutes. Spelt is just a bitch to
> get to brown, but I can eat it!
>
> Thanks for the recipe - it's a keeper!

Peanut butter cookies are my favorite. I make a triple batch of them,
spacing them very close together on a parchment lined baking sheet. I do
the fork thing, and then put them in the freezer for a few hours or
overnight. I put the frozen, unbaked cookies into zip-lock bags and bake
them off a few at a time. I generally just put them in a cold oven set to
375F and add about 5-7 minutes to the baking time. If the oven is already
hot from making dinner, I put them in the hot oven and just watch them. My
microwave/convection oven takes about 5-7 minutes to heat to 375F, so you
will have to experiment for the proper baking time in your oven if you want
to do this. You may need to pre-heat. I keep chocolate chip, oatmeal, and
tea cookies (sugar cookies) in the freezer also and bake them as needed. It
is better than having three dozen cookies on the counter calling my name all
night.

Vox Humana wrote:
>I keep chocolate chip, oatmeal, and
> tea cookies (sugar cookies) in the freezer also and bake them as needed. It
> is better than having three dozen cookies on the counter calling my name all
> night.

Yeah, I hear you there! We had some help, and I'm taking a dozen to a
friend this morning, but there aren't more then 5 or 6 left, otherwise.
I really like the idea of naking them up and freezing the "blanks".

I was particularly pleased with how these worked, because my usual
attempts at a simple cookie (other than shortbreads) end up a puddle of
butter and sugar. Part of the problem is surely the Spelt flour I use,
but that didn't affect the peanut butters...

Do your sugar cookies bake up similarly? I fondly remember the Tea Cakes
of a dear old Southern lady (my first baby sitter, far too long ago!).
She made them with brown sugar, as I recall, rolled thin and cut. Those
and a light, crisp sugar cookie would be real delights!

Dave

"Dave Bell" > wrote in message
om...
> Vox Humana wrote:
> >I keep chocolate chip, oatmeal, and
> > tea cookies (sugar cookies) in the freezer also and bake them as needed.
It
> > is better than having three dozen cookies on the counter calling my name
all
> > night.
>
> Yeah, I hear you there! We had some help, and I'm taking a dozen to a
> friend this morning, but there aren't more then 5 or 6 left, otherwise.
> I really like the idea of naking them up and freezing the "blanks".
>
> I was particularly pleased with how these worked, because my usual
> attempts at a simple cookie (other than shortbreads) end up a puddle of
> butter and sugar. Part of the problem is surely the Spelt flour I use,
> but that didn't affect the peanut butters...
>
> Do your sugar cookies bake up similarly? I fondly remember the Tea Cakes
> of a dear old Southern lady (my first baby sitter, far too long ago!).
> She made them with brown sugar, as I recall, rolled thin and cut. Those
> and a light, crisp sugar cookie would be real delights!

My tea cakes are soft and cake-like. Generally I like crisp cookies, but
these are a nice change and remind me of the ones my mother made years ago.
I also freeze them raw and bake as needed.

1 cup butter, softened
1 teaspoon vanilla
3/4 cup sugar
2 large eggs, beaten
2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon cream of tartar
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/4 teaspoon nutmeg
1/4 teaspoon salt
sugar for sprinkling

Cream butter and vanilla on high speed for about two minutes. Gradually add
sugar and continue beating for about two minutes. Add eggs and continue
beating for about 1 minute. Scrape bowl. Combine dry ingredients. With
the mixer on low, gradually add the dry ingredients and mix for about 1
minute.

Drop by teaspoonfuls on a greased baking sheet (or one lined with parchment)
about 3 inches apart. Bake at 400F for 6 to 8 minutes. Sprinkle with sugar
while still hot.

Makes about 4 dozen

(I usually substitute two teaspoons of baking powder for the baking soda +
cream of tarter.)

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.

--
Send e-mail to: darrell dot grainger at utoronto dot ca

.. 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

Vox Humana wrote:

> "Dave Bell" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>Vox Humana wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Here is the recipe that I use for peanut butter cookies. They turn out
>>>crisp. Don't make any substitutions.
>>
>>I just made a batch of these, and I have to tell you, they are the
>>bestdamned peanut butter cookies I've ever had! Far better than bakery,
>>and yes, they are crisp. Without being dense or tough, too...
>>
>>I used my unbleached white Spelt flour, and insulated baking sheets, so
>>they worked better at 400F, for 10-12 minutes. Spelt is just a bitch to
>>get to brown, but I can eat it!
>>
>>Thanks for the recipe - it's a keeper!
>
>
> Peanut butter cookies are my favorite. I make a triple batch of them,
> spacing them very close together on a parchment lined baking sheet. I do
> the fork thing, and then put them in the freezer for a few hours or
> overnight. I put the frozen, unbaked cookies into zip-lock bags and bake
> them off a few at a time. I generally just put them in a cold oven set to
> 375F and add about 5-7 minutes to the baking time. If the oven is already
> hot from making dinner, I put them in the hot oven and just watch them. My
> microwave/convection oven takes about 5-7 minutes to heat to 375F, so you
> will have to experiment for the proper baking time in your oven if you want
> to do this. You may need to pre-heat. I keep chocolate chip, oatmeal, and
> tea cookies (sugar cookies) in the freezer also and bake them as needed. It
> is better than having three dozen cookies on the counter calling my name all
> night.

Also, I copied the recipe you posted, and I hadn't tried it yet because
of all of the what seems to be carefully timed mixing. But I copied it
in Word and formatted it nicely for easy reading and I'm going to try
it. I see elsewhere in this thread where you said you liked crispy
cookies, so I'm thinking we're on the same page. When I buy cookies at
the store, the crispiness in those cookies is what I like. I don't care
for these soft "gormet" cookies.

How are you at pastries?
--
Alric

"Alric Knebel" ]> wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana wrote:
>
> > "Dave Bell" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> >
> >>Vox Humana wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Here is the recipe that I use for peanut butter cookies. They turn out
> >>>crisp. Don't make any substitutions.
> >>
> >>I just made a batch of these, and I have to tell you, they are the
> >>bestdamned peanut butter cookies I've ever had! Far better than bakery,
> >>and yes, they are crisp. Without being dense or tough, too...
> >>
> >>I used my unbleached white Spelt flour, and insulated baking sheets, so
> >>they worked better at 400F, for 10-12 minutes. Spelt is just a bitch to
> >>get to brown, but I can eat it!
> >>
> >>Thanks for the recipe - it's a keeper!
> >
> >
> > Peanut butter cookies are my favorite. I make a triple batch of them,
> > spacing them very close together on a parchment lined baking sheet. I
do
> > the fork thing, and then put them in the freezer for a few hours or
> > overnight. I put the frozen, unbaked cookies into zip-lock bags and
bake
> > them off a few at a time. I generally just put them in a cold oven set
to
> > 375F and add about 5-7 minutes to the baking time. If the oven is
already
> > hot from making dinner, I put them in the hot oven and just watch them.
My
> > microwave/convection oven takes about 5-7 minutes to heat to 375F, so
you
> > will have to experiment for the proper baking time in your oven if you
want
> > to do this. You may need to pre-heat. I keep chocolate chip, oatmeal,
and
> > tea cookies (sugar cookies) in the freezer also and bake them as needed.
It
> > is better than having three dozen cookies on the counter calling my name
all
> > night.
>
> Also, I copied the recipe you posted, and I hadn't tried it yet because
> of all of the what seems to be carefully timed mixing. But I copied it
> in Word and formatted it nicely for easy reading and I'm going to try
> it. I see elsewhere in this thread where you said you liked crispy
> cookies, so I'm thinking we're on the same page. When I buy cookies at
> the store, the crispiness in those cookies is what I like. I don't care
> for these soft "gormet" cookies.
>
> How are you at pastries?

I think I am a good home baker. My pastries are good, but I'm not a
professional pasty chef. I tend to stick to the basics and try to do them
well.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Vox Humana wrote:

> My tea cakes are soft and cake-like. Generally I like crisp cookies, but
> these are a nice change and remind me of the ones my mother made years ago.
> I also freeze them raw and bake as needed.

Hers were medium brown and crisp, a lot like the peanut butter cookies, in
texture. I'll try your's, and compare to memory!

Thanks,

Dave

"Dave Bell" > wrote in message
ea.net...
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Vox Humana wrote:
>
> > My tea cakes are soft and cake-like. Generally I like crisp cookies,
but
> > these are a nice change and remind me of the ones my mother made years
ago.
> > I also freeze them raw and bake as needed.
>
> Hers were medium brown and crisp, a lot like the peanut butter cookies, in
> texture. I'll try your's, and compare to memory!
>

Are you thinking about the type of sugar cookie that is rolled and cut?
Those can be somewhat brown on the bottom, and crisp.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Vox Humana wrote:

>
> "Dave Bell" > wrote in message
> ea.net...
> > On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Vox Humana wrote:
> >
> > > My tea cakes are soft and cake-like. Generally I like crisp cookies,
> but
> > > these are a nice change and remind me of the ones my mother made years
> ago.
> > > I also freeze them raw and bake as needed.
> >
> > Hers were medium brown and crisp, a lot like the peanut butter cookies, in
> > texture. I'll try your's, and compare to memory!
> >
>
> Are you thinking about the type of sugar cookie that is rolled and cut?
> Those can be somewhat brown on the bottom, and crisp.


Yes, they were rolled thin, maybe1/8" to 3/16", and cut to shapes. They'd
brown up throughout, but the dough was fairly dark, as well. Pretty sure
the old recipe used mainly brown sugar.


Dave

"Dave Bell" > wrote in message
ea.net...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Vox Humana wrote:
>
> >
> > "Dave Bell" > wrote in message
> > ea.net...
> > > On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Vox Humana wrote:
> > >
> > > > My tea cakes are soft and cake-like. Generally I like crisp
cookies,
> > but
> > > > these are a nice change and remind me of the ones my mother made
years
> > ago.
> > > > I also freeze them raw and bake as needed.
> > >
> > > Hers were medium brown and crisp, a lot like the peanut butter
cookies, in
> > > texture. I'll try your's, and compare to memory!
> > >
> >
> > Are you thinking about the type of sugar cookie that is rolled and cut?
> > Those can be somewhat brown on the bottom, and crisp.
>
>
> Yes, they were rolled thin, maybe1/8" to 3/16", and cut to shapes. They'd
> brown up throughout, but the dough was fairly dark, as well. Pretty sure
> the old recipe used mainly brown sugar.

Can't help you with that. I have a recipe for traditional rolled sugar
cookies, but not one with brown sugar. The recipe that I posted was for a
soft, delicate drop cookie, not a rolled cookie. Still, it is one of those
simple comfort foods that goes well with a cup of tea or glass of milk.

Vox Humana wrote:

> "Alric Knebel" ]> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Thanks for taking the time and writing that. That was some pretty
>>detailed stuff. My God, man, you sounded almost like a chemist.
>>
>
> I hope it helps. As for being a chemist, it has been YEARS since I studied
> chemistry. There are a couple of people here who have forgotten more than I
> ever knew about baking science.

IT WORKED! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. I feel like an explorer who
finally reached India. You seemed so sure of the results of your recipe
that I decided to use it instead. Besides your sworn testimony, your
recipe had the same proportion of ingredients as the other one I had
used before (the one that failed), but yours had one or two things else
in it that just seemed better (like vanilla), and was similar to the
vague memory I had of the recipe from a couple of years back. It didn't
require chilling the dough, as the other failed recipe did. As soon as
I saw during the mixing that the dough was self-cleaning the side of the
bowl, I knew this was close to the recipe I had used a couple of years
back. I wasn't able to follow your mixing instructions exactly, because
I discovered at the last minute that my girlfriend's kids had borrowed
our mixer and hadn't returned it. So I just blended it myself until I
was satisfied with how it looked.

Anyway, my search is over.

I did make one mistake during the mixing which seemed to bear no
consequence. By the time your instructions said to blend the "dry
ingredients," I had accidentally already added the baking soda to the
mix with the brown sugar and so on, and it as already in the bowl with
the peanut butter, butter, and egg. They turned out perfect anyway, so
whatever difference it made must have been minor. Would they have been
maybe CRISPIER if I had mixed it exactly according to your instructions?
Did whatever chemical reaction from the baking soda begin too early by
mixing it with the softer ingredients prematurely?

Alric Knebel

"Alric Knebel" ]> wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana wrote:
>
> > "Alric Knebel" ]> wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Thanks for taking the time and writing that. That was some pretty
> >>detailed stuff. My God, man, you sounded almost like a chemist.
> >>
> >
> > I hope it helps. As for being a chemist, it has been YEARS since I
studied
> > chemistry. There are a couple of people here who have forgotten more
than I
> > ever knew about baking science.
>
> IT WORKED! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. I feel like an explorer who
> finally reached India. You seemed so sure of the results of your recipe
> that I decided to use it instead. Besides your sworn testimony, your
> recipe had the same proportion of ingredients as the other one I had
> used before (the one that failed), but yours had one or two things else
> in it that just seemed better (like vanilla), and was similar to the
> vague memory I had of the recipe from a couple of years back. It didn't
> require chilling the dough, as the other failed recipe did. As soon as
> I saw during the mixing that the dough was self-cleaning the side of the
> bowl, I knew this was close to the recipe I had used a couple of years
> back. I wasn't able to follow your mixing instructions exactly, because
> I discovered at the last minute that my girlfriend's kids had borrowed
> our mixer and hadn't returned it. So I just blended it myself until I
> was satisfied with how it looked.
>
> Anyway, my search is over.
>
> I did make one mistake during the mixing which seemed to bear no
> consequence. By the time your instructions said to blend the "dry
> ingredients," I had accidentally already added the baking soda to the
> mix with the brown sugar and so on, and it as already in the bowl with
> the peanut butter, butter, and egg. They turned out perfect anyway, so
> whatever difference it made must have been minor. Would they have been
> maybe CRISPIER if I had mixed it exactly according to your instructions?
> Did whatever chemical reaction from the baking soda begin too early by
> mixing it with the softer ingredients prematurely?

I doubt that your error made much difference. As I mentioned, I make these
cookies and put them in the freezer raw. The reaction obviously has a
prolonged time to work and there is no noticeable difference in the cookies.
If you want your cookies crisper, try baking them longer. You may need to
reduce the temperature by 25F and extend the baking time - baking in the
center of the oven. Make sure you cool them on a rack to prevent them from
getting soft from the steam they release while cooling. If those steps
fail, you could substitute two egg whites for one of the whole eggs. Egg
whites give structure but tend to make things dry and crisp rather than
moist and cakey.

"Dave Bell" > wrote in message
. com...
....
> I just made a batch of these, and I have to tell you, they are the
> bestdamned peanut butter cookies I've ever had! Far better than bakery,
> and yes, they are crisp. Without being dense or tough, too...
>
> I used my unbleached white Spelt flour, and insulated baking sheets, so
> they worked better at 400F, for 10-12 minutes. Spelt is just a bitch to
> get to brown, but I can eat it!
>
> Thanks for the recipe - it's a keeper!
Hey Dave, if you liked that recipe, why don't you try making my oatmeal
cookies with spelt flour? I'd love to hear how they turn out...
http://www.innerlodge.com/Recipes/Co...ealCookies.htm


L8r all,
Dusty

>
> Dave

Vox Humana wrote:

> "Alric Knebel" ]> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Vox Humana wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Alric Knebel" ]> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks for taking the time and writing that. That was some pretty
>>>>detailed stuff. My God, man, you sounded almost like a chemist.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I hope it helps. As for being a chemist, it has been YEARS since I
>
> studied
>
>>>chemistry. There are a couple of people here who have forgotten more
>
> than I
>
>>>ever knew about baking science.
>>
>>IT WORKED! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. I feel like an explorer who
>>finally reached India. You seemed so sure of the results of your recipe
>>that I decided to use it instead. Besides your sworn testimony, your
>>recipe had the same proportion of ingredients as the other one I had
>>used before (the one that failed), but yours had one or two things else
>>in it that just seemed better (like vanilla), and was similar to the
>>vague memory I had of the recipe from a couple of years back. It didn't
>>require chilling the dough, as the other failed recipe did. As soon as
>>I saw during the mixing that the dough was self-cleaning the side of the
>>bowl, I knew this was close to the recipe I had used a couple of years
>>back. I wasn't able to follow your mixing instructions exactly, because
>>I discovered at the last minute that my girlfriend's kids had borrowed
>>our mixer and hadn't returned it. So I just blended it myself until I
>>was satisfied with how it looked.
>>
>>Anyway, my search is over.
>>
>>I did make one mistake during the mixing which seemed to bear no
>>consequence. By the time your instructions said to blend the "dry
>>ingredients," I had accidentally already added the baking soda to the
>>mix with the brown sugar and so on, and it as already in the bowl with
>>the peanut butter, butter, and egg. They turned out perfect anyway, so
>>whatever difference it made must have been minor. Would they have been
>>maybe CRISPIER if I had mixed it exactly according to your instructions?
>> Did whatever chemical reaction from the baking soda begin too early by
>>mixing it with the softer ingredients prematurely?
>
>
> I doubt that your error made much difference. As I mentioned, I make these
> cookies and put them in the freezer raw. The reaction obviously has a
> prolonged time to work and there is no noticeable difference in the cookies.
> If you want your cookies crisper, try baking them longer. You may need to
> reduce the temperature by 25F and extend the baking time - baking in the
> center of the oven. Make sure you cool them on a rack to prevent them from
> getting soft from the steam they release while cooling. If those steps
> fail, you could substitute two egg whites for one of the whole eggs. Egg
> whites give structure but tend to make things dry and crisp rather than
> moist and cakey.

The cookies were VERY crispy. That thing you mentioned about cooling
them on a rack is something I should consider.

Alric

Alric Knebel wrote:

> The cookies were VERY crispy. That thing you mentioned about cooling
> them on a rack is something I should consider.
>
> Alric

Yes, quite important! Let's them steam out and firm up. Also cool to
eating temp much quicker!

Dave

"Dave Bell" > wrote in message
om...
> Alric Knebel wrote:
>
> > The cookies were VERY crispy. That thing you mentioned about cooling
> > them on a rack is something I should consider.
> >
> > Alric
>
> Yes, quite important! Let's them steam out and firm up. Also cool to
> eating temp much quicker!

As much as I dislike my JennAir range, it has one hidden feature. You can
set cookies and other baked goods on the downdraft grill and turn the fan
on high. Things cool quite rapidly. I also don't like winter all that
much, but when it is cold outside, I can put baked goods on the deck or my
covered porch for a rapid cool-down.