Chocolate Fudge too soft -- please help
Glanbrok
1 cup powdered milk
8 oz water
2 lbs sugar
1/2 tsp salt
2 oz butter
16 oz marshmallow creme
12 oz baking chocolate
2 tsp vanilla
Heat water in saucepan. Add powdered milk and stir until dissolved. Add sugar and butter and stir until compmletely dissolved. Bring to boil. Cover and cook 6 minutes. Stir syrup into chocolate and marshmallow. Add vanilla.
This recipe is posted on many web sites. Any guesses why it won't work for me?
Stu
You didn't cook it long enough, no need to cover, just make sure you stir it
constantly.
jmcquown
"Stu" <in...@foodforu.ca> wrote in message
news:cdjg271td9otupcr5...@4ax.com...
Absolutely... stir, stir, stir! Never cover. Back when I used to make
fudge I'd use 12 oz semi-sweet chocolate chips rather than baking chocolate
for this recipe.
Jill
Glanbrok
Nad R
> Thanks for the tip. I don't have a thermometer. Is there another way to
> judge when it's cooked enough?
Not being an expert, if one really makes enough of candy making one can go
by the thickness, color and shininess of the candy. But that is more art
than science.
Otherwise experience is the best option without a thermometer.
If you plan on getting a candy thermometer, I think you will find the
infrared ones better than the probes. The probes are always getting a
coating on them that throws off the temperature. With the probes I find
myself constantly wiping them clean to get an accurate reading. Hmmm that
is my opinion but I am not an expert at this.
http://best3reviews.com/255/how-to-find-the-best-infrared-thermometer-by-customer-reviews
--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
Jim Elbrecht
IR thermometers are great for *surface* temp-- but I don't think they
would be of much use for candy making.
This page gives a bit of a work around to having a thermometer. [soft
ball, hard ball, etc]
http://whatscookingamerica.net/Candy/candytemp.htm
There is a link there to candy thermometers which shows a bunch-
starting at $10 or so. *Well* worth having around. Especially
when you're starting [or don't do it often] and can't go by feel.
Jim
John Kuthe
> Glanbrok <glanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the tip. I don't have a thermometer. Is there another way to
> > judge when it's cooked enough?
>
> Not being an expert, if one really makes enough of candy making one can go
> by the thickness, color and shininess of the candy. But that is more art
> than science.
> Otherwise experience is the best option without a thermometer.
>
> If you plan on getting a candy thermometer, I think you will find the
> infrared ones better than the probes. The probes are always getting a
> coating on them that throws off the temperature. With the probes I find
> myself constantly wiping them clean to get an accurate reading. Hmmm that
> is my opinion but I am not an expert at this.
>
>
> --
> Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
Infrared? Nawww! I use the old fashioned kind; full immersion mercury
glass tube!
http://www.preparedpantry.com/ProductImages/kitchentools/Full-CandyThermo.jpg
John Kuthe...
Polly Esther
"John Kuthe" <> wrote
On Jul 21, 3:06 pm, Nad R <> wrote:
> Glanbrok <> wrote:
> > Thanks for the tip. I don't have a thermometer. Is there another way to
> > judge when it's cooked enough?
>
> Not being an expert, if one really makes enough of candy making one can go
> by the thickness, color and shininess of the candy. But that is more art
> than science.
> Otherwise experience is the best option without a thermometer.
>
> If you plan on getting a candy thermometer, I think you will find the
> infrared ones better than the probes. The probes are always getting a
> coating on them that throws off the temperature. With the probes I find
> myself constantly wiping them clean to get an accurate reading. Hmmm that
> is my opinion but I am not an expert at this.
>
> http://best3reviews.com/255/how-to-find-the-best-infrared-thermometer...
>
> --
> Enjoy Life... Nad R
glass tube!
http://www.preparedpantry.com/ProductImages/kitchentools/Full-CandyThermo.jpg
John Kuthe...
Where did we get with that? Is an infrared thermometer a helpful tool in
candy making or not? Another issue that candy recipes seldom mention is
humidity. If you just must make fudge on a rainy day, plan to cook it a
little longer or serve it on ice cream or cake - or both. Setting a pan of
candy on the floor of a nice cold bathtub over night often will cause it to
set up nicely. That is, of course, if you have a bathroom door that the cat
can't open. ( We once had a kitty with his very own set of burglar tools.)
Polly
Nad R
To me the probes get in the way of stirring, they do not seem to be as
accurate.
For fudge making only perhaps a cheap old fashion one will do. But it seems
that the infrared has many more uses. If one is going to buy one for the
first time, I think the newer infrared would be neat to have.
When I use the old fashion probes there is a build up of candy on the
probes. They are more near the sides of the container, when I put my
instant probe for a double check the instant read often shows a higher
temp. If I clean off the old style probe, clean it and reinsert, the
temperature quickly matches the instant read ones.
--
Jim Elbrecht
-snip-
>
>To me the probes get in the way of stirring, they do not seem to be as
>accurate.
I've *used* mine to stir with. Not as accurate as what?
>For fudge making only perhaps a cheap old fashion one will do. But it seems
>that the infrared has many more uses. If one is going to buy one for the
>first time, I think the newer infrared would be neat to have.
Have you used an infrared for candy? Just for giggles yesterday I
put a pot of water on the stove and tried to take it's temp with my
infrared. Water is clear, so I got the temp of the bottom of the
pan. The heat index was over 100 yesterday so playing with fire
wasn't high on my list-- but I'm going to make some fudge next week
just to see if the IR is useless, or just less convenient for fudge.
>
>When I use the old fashion probes there is a build up of candy on the
>probes. They are more near the sides of the container, when I put my
>instant probe for a double check the instant read often shows a higher
>temp. If I clean off the old style probe, clean it and reinsert, the
>temperature quickly matches the instant read ones.
What kind of candy are you making? Stuff in the 270F+ range? I'll
admit I don't go there often-- but for fudge and syrups, I've never
had that problem with my old glass $5 deal-
http://www.amazon.com/Chef-Craft-21274-1-Piece-Thermometer/dp/B00440D3OC/
What style thermometer do you have?
Jim
Nad R
I have two thermometers. The work horse from thermoworks. And another from
sur la table advertised for candy making also well as meat. Useless for
candy making as the buildup of candy on the probe even tho it advertised
for candy making.
http://www.surlatable.com/product/PRO-570002/CDN-Digital-Probe-Thermometer
http://www.thermoworks.com/products/thermapen/splashproof_thermapen.html
I do not have an infrared yet, I want one! I have seen some you tube videos
of people using them for tempering chocolate. If so why not for fudge. I
cannot stir with the digital probes. But yes, I do make brittle also and
found only the instant probe is useful. I keep thinking about the infrared
ones for candy making.
If you have an infrared why have you not tried this before?
And what kind and make do you have?
I do not want a drawer full of temperature probes, one for this style of
candy and another for that kind... I can see the instant probes for meats
but for candy making A surface temperature seems like it would work best?
In the infrared reviews, the article states it has it uses for chocolate
making. I will probably get one of those listed in the article. But like
Sur La Table on there probe I found it useless for candy making.
http://best3reviews.com/255/how-to-find-the-best-infrared-thermometer-by-customer-reviews
I will be very very interested in your findings if the infrared
thermometers work for fudge. If they do I will get one my self the next
day.
I give you credit in asking if I had one :)
Polly Esther
"Nad R" <>
> I do not have an infrared yet, I want one! I have seen some you tube
> videos
> of people using them for tempering chocolate. If so why not for fudge. I
> cannot stir with the digital probes. But yes, I do make brittle also and
> found only the instant probe is useful. I keep thinking about the infrared
> ones for candy making.
>
> If you have an infrared why have you not tried this before?
> And what kind and make do you have?
>
> I do not want a drawer full of temperature probes, one for this style of
> candy and another for that kind... I can see the instant probes for meats
> but for candy making A surface temperature seems like it would work best?
>
> In the infrared reviews, the article states it has it uses for chocolate
> making. I will probably get one of those listed in the article. But like
> Sur La Table on there probe I found it useless for candy making.
>
> http://best3reviews.com/255/how-to-find-the-best-infrared-thermometer-by-customer-reviews
>
> I will be very very interested in your findings if the infrared
> thermometers work for fudge. If they do I will get one my self the next
> day.
>
> I give you credit in asking if I had one :)
And a word of warning. I bought one that I'd seen AB use. Don't remember
its brand and didn't read the instructions until too late. That thermometer
was shaped sort of like a plain old school 12" ruler. The instructions said
to 'temper' it - that is, to put into really Hot water before putting it
into even hotter candy. I didn't. I should have. Polly
Nad R
Polly, You submerged an electronic device into hot water????
I always read the owners manuals for everything before use and I always go
by the manual.
--
Polly Esther
"Nad R" <> wrote in message >
Polly Esther" <> wrote:
>> >>
>> And a word of warning. I bought one that I'd seen AB use. Don't
>> remember its brand and didn't read the instructions until too late. That
>> thermometer was shaped sort of like a plain old school 12" ruler. The
>> instructions said to 'temper' it - that is, to put into really Hot water
>> before putting it into even hotter candy. I didn't. I should have.
>> Polly
>
> Polly, You submerged an electronic device into hot water????
> I always read the owners manuals for everything before use and I always go
> by the manual.
NOoooo. It wasn't an electronic one. It was the long flat sort that AB
used when he demonstrated how to make wonderful onion rings and he declared
that the frying oil temp had to be 'just so'. Polly
djs...@aol.com
You never cover candy while it's cooking. Evaporation is key when it
comes to candy making and if you cover the pot there's not going to be
any evaporation. As the water from the candy evaporates, the sugar
concentration goes up. This raises the boiling point. The
temperature at which you take the candy off the stove determines what
characteristic the candy will take on when it cools.
Jim Elbrecht
>Jim Elbrecht <elbr...@email.com> wrote:
-snip-
>>
>> What style thermometer do you have?
>
>I have two thermometers. The work horse from thermoworks. And another from
>sur la table advertised for candy making also well as meat. Useless for
>candy making as the buildup of candy on the probe even tho it advertised
>for candy making.
>
>http://www.surlatable.com/product/PRO-570002/CDN-Digital-Probe-Thermometer
>
>http://www.thermoworks.com/products/thermapen/splashproof_thermapen.html
Wonder if the metal probe is the bugaboo? John and I both have glass
& don't seem to have the problem of buildup.
>
>I do not have an infrared yet, I want one!
I've seen them at Harbor Freight for $25-30.
> I have seen some you tube videos
>of people using them for tempering chocolate. If so why not for fudge.
My first thought is that it is just taking surface temp & with fudge,
the temp is rising rapidly so you want to know what's going on down
where you're stirring. The other thing is-- you need to be holding
the thermometer in one hand while stirring with the other. [and
I've been happy with what has been working for me, so I haven't
considered changing]
>I
>cannot stir with the digital probes. But yes, I do make brittle also and
>found only the instant probe is useful. I keep thinking about the infrared
>ones for candy making.
>
>If you have an infrared why have you not tried this before?
Never felt the need.
>And what kind and make do you have?
It is a Fluke 62 mini. [I see they are still around for about $100]
I can vouch for its durability- I've dropped it, dunked it, kicked it,
and lost it for months at a time. I don't even remember ever
changing the batteries in it, though I might have.
It is an antique in the world of IR thermometers, I think. My wife
got it 10-15 years ago when the hospital thought it would be a good
idea to take psychiatric patient's temperatures with a laser pointed
at their temple. That didn't last long, so she brought it home for
me to play with. I use it in the shop- found some missing
insulation with it- tuned up my heating system ductwork, etc. The
only use I've ever had for it in the kitchen was checking surface
temps of my pizza stone.
>I do not want a drawer full of temperature probes, one for this style of
>candy and another for that kind... I can see the instant probes for meats
>but for candy making A surface temperature seems like it would work best?
Lessee-- I've got the cheap glass candy thermometer, a 'dairy
thermometer'- [no idea why- maybe I made cheese once] a couple of
instant probes, and my remote smoker thermometer in the drawer. [the
IR lives in the shop]
>
>In the infrared reviews, the article states it has it uses for chocolate
>making. I will probably get one of those listed in the article. But like
>Sur La Table on there probe I found it useless for candy making.
>
>http://best3reviews.com/255/how-to-find-the-best-infrared-thermometer-by-customer-reviews
I can see how it might be useful for monitoring tempering chocolate--
a very gentle process with not a lot of temp variations. Just not
sure of how practical it is for cooking candy.
I note that the page also says "even to make sure that the baby’s
bathwater is neither too hot nor too cold." I told you my results
of taking water temp yesterday- so I know that statement is *dead*
wrong. Not to mention that a hand is the best thing to measure baby
bath water.<g>
>
>I will be very very interested in your findings if the infrared
>thermometers work for fudge. If they do I will get one my self the next
>day.
>
In the interest of science I pledge to make some fudge as soon as the
outside temp drops to 80 or so.<g>
Jim
Nad R
>> I will be very very interested in your findings if the infrared
>> thermometers work for fudge. If they do I will get one my self the next
>> day.
>>
>
> In the interest of science I pledge to make some fudge as soon as the
> outside temp drops to 80 or so.<g>
>
> Jim
Five bucks is cheap, I may get one of those glass probes. The one that
stays in candy works great for meats in the oven, just not for candy. But I
do love the instant read, it does work well and fast. I just poke it in the
goo, and a second or two, I get a reading.
My fudge recipes are from the book,
The negative is every time I insert the instant probe, I have to wipe the
chocolate or very hot sticky brittle off. The brittles are pain to remove
each time. I dip the probe tip in hot water then wipe. An infrared would
end one more cleaning up processes. I am getting better at it. To the point
I have a good idea when it is done without a probe, it is the the techie in
me that wants a precise measure.
The plain fudge I make uses cream and no water and no powdered milk.
Also I found the type of sugar seems to make a difference in texture, I use
a fine grain bakers sugar for all candy making and for baking. What I read
that beet sugar is not the best for candy making. I want the cain sugar.
My fudge also uses a small amount of clear corn syrup.
Not enough sugar can make the fudge too soft also and humidity is a factor.
But I always read that water and chocolate making does not really go well
together.
John Kuthe
> Jim Elbrecht <elbre...@email.com> wrote:
> >> I will be very very interested in your findings if the infrared
> >> thermometers work for fudge. If they do I will get one my self the next
> >> day.
>
> > In the interest of science I pledge to make some fudge as soon as the
> > outside temp drops to 80 or so.<g>
>
> > Jim
>
> Five bucks is cheap, I may get one of those glass probes. The one that
> stays in candy works great for meats in the oven, just not for candy. But I
> do love the instant read, it does work well and fast. I just poke it in the
> goo, and a second or two, I get a reading.
>
> My fudge recipes are from the book,
>
>
> The negative is every time I insert the instant probe, I have to wipe the
> chocolate or very hot sticky brittle off. The brittles are pain to remove
> each time. I dip the probe tip in hot water then wipe. An infrared would
I use my candy thermometer for making my fondant (cooked to 242F) and
English Toffee (cooked to 310F) and with each I just clip the
thermometer onto inside of the pan as I begin the cook and stor with a
wooden spoon. That way I get a constant indication of the temp of the
syrup. And cleanup is cleanup. I gotta do it anyway, so the
thermometer is just another part to clean up.
John Kuthe...
Nad R
If you have an instant read thermometer, use it to double check the other
thermometer, just to check for accuracy. Just to see if they match up. I
found I was over cooking some candies, so used the instant for double
checking. I may get a cheap candy thermometer next month and see if the
glass ones are better.
John Kuthe
I've always calibrated my candy thermometer to the standard of boiling
water, which should read 212F or 100C. Problem is the new thermometer
I have does not allow the glass tube to be slid in the metal mounting
frame! :-( So I just have to make a mental note of how far off it is
and in which direction.
John Kuthe...
Nad R
>
> I've always calibrated my candy thermometer to the standard of boiling
> water, which should read 212F or 100C. Problem is the new thermometer
> I have does not allow the glass tube to be slid in the metal mounting
> frame! :-( So I just have to make a mental note of how far off it is
> and in which direction.
>
> John Kuthe...
Not calibration I am thinking of. Does a coating build up on the
thermometer during cooking that throws it off. Water will not build up a
coating.
John Kuthe
No, no coating builds up. I stir the syrup through the thermometer
bulb housing as I stir, particularly with the toffee which gets very
thick as it approaches 310F. The fondant syrup that I cook to 242F is
much more fluid, and I don't stir it as it cooks. I just let the
boiling action circulate the syrup through and around the thermometer
bulb. After all, the thermometer is at the same temp as the syrup so
keeps it fluid.
John Kuthe...
dsi1
I'd just go with a different recipe.
http://www.cooks.com/rec/doc/0,1610,150178-245205,00.html
EASY 5-MINUTE FUDGE
Printed from COOKS.COM
2 tbsp. butter
2/3 c. undiluted Carnation evaporated milk
1 2/3 c. sugar
1/2 tsp. salt
2 c. (4 oz.) miniature marshmallows
1 1/2 c. (6 oz.) semi-sweet chocolate pieces
1 tsp. vanilla
1/2 c. chopped walnuts
Combine butter, evaporated milk, sugar and salt in saucepan over medium
heat, stirring occasionally. Bring to full boil. Cook 4 to 5 minutes,
stirring constantly. Remove from heat. Stir in marshmallows, chocolate
pieces, vanilla and nuts. Stir vigorously for 1 minute (until
marshmallows melt and blend). Pour into 8" square buttered pan. Cool.
Cut in squares.
My son is really interested in making fudge. He's been making a lot of
batches. I've had Key lime fudge, caramel fudge, some kind of berry
fudge, Nutella fudge. I'm not sure what's up. He's on some kind of diet
and has lost a lot of weight. Maybe he's going loco. :-)
dsi1
I saw my son today and he was casually micro planing some limes. He does
it quite slowly and carefully. My guess is that he does it to relax.
He's going to make a batch of Key lime fudge. Oddly enough, he says he
needs 1/4 cup of lime peel. Now that's a totally loco amount of lime
rind! I guess I'll go back downstairs and watch. :-)
Jim Elbrecht
<na...@positivegogetter.cooldude> wrote:
>Jim Elbrecht <elbr...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> I will be very very interested in your findings if the infrared
>>> thermometers work for fudge. If they do I will get one my self the next
>>> day.
>>>
>>
>> In the interest of science I pledge to make some fudge as soon as the
>> outside temp drops to 80 or so.<g>
82 is close enough-- You had me Jonesin' for da fudge for a week.
>
>My fudge recipes are from the book,
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Chocolates-Confections-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470189576/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311369397&sr=1-1
I found it on Google and used one of their recipes-- Espresso Fudge.
Step one- bring it to 236 degrees. I immediately realized that
there are a whole lot of 'currents' going on in boiling sugar.
At first the range, as I swept the IR over the surface was 111-178
degrees. Once we got over 200 that evened out a bit and it finally
got down to 223-225 when my glass bulb [that had been hanging in the
pan the whole time] said 236.
For me, at that stage, I'll stick with my glass bulb. I can pick my
nose and stir the pot if I feel the need-- the IR takes up one hand
and I need to keep shooting it.
Stage 2-- Cool to 120. [the book only gives a time in some recipes
and gives the temp in others-- it is all about temp, IMO- so that's
what I monitored]
I poured it into a glass 9x13 casserole to cool. It has been so long
since I made fudge I didn't place it on a rack, so sitting on my
wooden table slowed the cooling process some. And I had the glass
bulb on the bottom of the dish-- so it never got below 136 before it
looked right and I went to the next stage.
Again the IR gave a huge range of temps all over the surface. It
started at 198-202 when I first poured it-- but 8 minutes later it was
143-171. At the 17 minute mark there was a 30 degree spread. [and the
hot and cool spots moved around- though I never stirred it at this
point. At 33 minutes it was down to 109-134 & 'looked right'. So
I dumped it in the KA.
Stage 3 was mix for 3 minutes "or until the shine goes away". I
didn't see mention of what temp that would be but it would have been
nice because *here* is where I think the IR is really handy. Because
things are being mixed constantly, it gave a good solid reading-
starting at 119 when I thought of it. 15 minutes later [after some
cooling of the bowl when things were going too slow for me] the shine
faded at 107 degrees.
Just thought to check the pan-- The kitchen is around 85 now & the pan
is 89-90.5. ]
>
>The negative is every time I insert the instant probe, I have to wipe the
>chocolate or very hot sticky brittle off. The brittles are pain to remove
>each time. I dip the probe tip in hot water then wipe. An infrared would
>end one more cleaning up processes. I am getting better at it. To the point
>I have a good idea when it is done without a probe, it is the the techie in
>me that wants a precise measure.
I leave the glass candy thermometer in until I'm done-- then put it in
the bowl to dissolve the sugar-- an hour later, I wash them easily.
If you're techie enough to want to look at all the numbers, I've got
temps on an xl sheet. Copy/pastes to Usenet lose all formatting- but
I can email it to you.
>The plain fudge I make uses cream and no water and no powdered milk.
>Also I found the type of sugar seems to make a difference in texture, I use
>a fine grain bakers sugar for all candy making and for baking. What I read
>that beet sugar is not the best for candy making. I want the cain sugar.
>My fudge also uses a small amount of clear corn syrup.
Sounds like this recipe-- I used granulated cane sugar. The pan,
once cooled had a bit of grain in it-- but the bowl, after cooling and
mixing had a great texture. [and flavor] Another hour or two should
tell if the finished fudge is worth eating for science.<g>
Jim
Nad R
Thank you for that information. It is very helpful. My metal candy probe
was showing almost twenty degrees lower from my instant read. Your glass
probe was almost on the money. I was over cooking much of my candy at first
until I got the instant read thermometer.
I thank you very much I think you saved me allot of money. I am going to
get a standard glass candy thermometer. I do find your results interesting,
holding the IR while reading has it's points.
Their is another item you have that I am a bit we jealous of. That last
three minutes in the KA mixer. My mixer is a wooden spoon, it takes allot,
I mean allot of elbow grease until the shine is gone :) I can feel the
pump in my arm afterwords.
For three minutes is it worth the KA and clean up.
My arm hurts just thinking about it :)
Jim Elbrecht
-snip-
>
>I thank you very much I think you saved me allot of money. I am going to
>get a standard glass candy thermometer. I do find your results interesting,
>holding the IR while reading has it's points.
>
>Their is another item you have that I am a bit we jealous of. That last
>three minutes in the KA mixer. My mixer is a wooden spoon, it takes allot,
>I mean allot of elbow grease until the shine is gone :) I can feel the
>pump in my arm afterwords.
Especially when that 3 minutes turns into 15! I am a master at
justifying buying new tools.<g> You just saved $100 on an IR
thermometer-- so you're almost 1/2 way there.<g>
http://buyitnow64.stores.yahoo.net/kipr600mionb.html
[$250 delivered for a 6qt refurb]
Jim
dsi1
Using an IR thermometer to make fudge seems like a bad idea. The only
way you'll be able to learn how to make fudge is to get some experience
making fudge. Your money would probably be better spent on a marble
working surface.
You should know that there's two basic types of fudge. One is made by
cooling the fudge while working it constantly to keep the sugar crystals
uniformly small. The fudge gets cooled to the point where the mixture is
unstable and the sugar mixture just has to spontaneously freeze. That's
the point where it loses it's gloss and the fudge gets hard.
Anticipating this point and pouring the fudge into a pan while it's
still plastic is the tricky part. Working the fudge in the bowl while it
cools down is pretty much a big drag. I cannot see how you could make
fudge this way using an electric mixer because there's no way you're
going to pour the mix at the right time and get it all off the beaters.
The second way to make fudge is to use a marshmallow type recipe. I
would recommend one that uses miniature marshmallows instead of
marshmallow creme because it's cheaper and easier. In these recipes, you
add the marshmallows and stir until they melt and then pour into a pan
and that's it. No working the mix and having it freeze in mid-pour. I
have no idea how it works but it does and I think it yields better, more
consistent results.
If I wanted to make fudge and had a marble working surface, I'd probably
use the old-school method because it's a lot easier to work the mix on a
flat surface with a scraper and there's no need to pour the fudge into a
pan. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to do it at home in a bowl.
Well, that's my awesome opinion anyway.
Jim Elbrecht
-snip-
>
>Using an IR thermometer to make fudge seems like a bad idea.
That was pretty much my conclusion-- though it could have a purpose in
the final working stage.
>The only
>way you'll be able to learn how to make fudge is to get some experience
>making fudge. Your money would probably be better spent on a marble
>working surface.
If I was going to make a lot of candy, I'd probably spring for
something like that.
>
>You should know that there's two basic types of fudge. One is made by
>cooling the fudge while working it constantly to keep the sugar crystals
>uniformly small. The fudge gets cooled to the point where the mixture is
>unstable and the sugar mixture just has to spontaneously freeze. That's
>the point where it loses it's gloss and the fudge gets hard.
>Anticipating this point and pouring the fudge into a pan while it's
>still plastic is the tricky part. Working the fudge in the bowl while it
>cools down is pretty much a big drag. I cannot see how you could make
>fudge this way using an electric mixer because there's no way you're
>going to pour the mix at the right time and get it all off the beaters.
I just did it, so I can tell you it sure 'beats' working it with a
wooden spoon. I haven't made fudge in a decade, but I might do it
again in 6 months because this way was so easy. Might not work with
a little mixer & beaters, but with a stand mixer& the paddle it is a
breeze. 99% of the fudge is scraped from the bowl with a decent
spatula-- maybe 90% from the paddle. The cook gets to taste the
remaining teaspoonful to be sure the fudge is good.
And trust me-- this fudge is perfect. It keeps its shape [barely] at
room temperature, and melts as soon as it hits your tongue without the
slightest bit of graininess. [and it tastes pretty good, too- though I
think I'd call it 'coffee', not Espresso. My notes say to steep 1/4
cup of espresso beans in the milk & cream next time-- and leave them
in once to see if there is enough sugar there to compensate for
abusing the beans with 236 degrees.]
>The second way to make fudge is to use a marshmallow type recipe. I
>would recommend one that uses miniature marshmallows instead of
>marshmallow creme because it's cheaper and easier. In these recipes, you
>add the marshmallows and stir until they melt and then pour into a pan
>and that's it. No working the mix and having it freeze in mid-pour. I
>have no idea how it works but it does and I think it yields better, more
>consistent results.
>
>If I wanted to make fudge and had a marble working surface, I'd probably
>use the old-school method because it's a lot easier to work the mix on a
>flat surface with a scraper and there's no need to pour the fudge into a
>pan. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to do it at home in a bowl.
>Well, that's my awesome opinion anyway.
My AO [awesome opinion-- I like that] is that, if you're looking for
easy, a stand mixer & a pan are E-A-S-Y.<g>
Jim
Nad R
> dsi1 <ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>>
>> If I wanted to make fudge and had a marble working surface, I'd probably
>> use the old-school method because it's a lot easier to work the mix on a
>> flat surface with a scraper and there's no need to pour the fudge into a
>> pan. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to do it at home in a bowl.
>> Well, that's my awesome opinion anyway.
>
> My AO [awesome opinion-- I like that] is that, if you're looking for
> easy, a stand mixer & a pan are E-A-S-Y.<g>
My candy making book by Peter Greweling uses a stand mixer for the final
result. However, Alton Brown had an episode on Fudge Making and he used a
wooden spoon. There is little difference between the recipes for making
fudge.
Alton Brown seems to always lean towards the minimalist for equipment. But
I think it goes to show one does not need expensive items to make anything.
But life is easier with the machines. Also my desire for an IR thermometer
has greatly diminished.
Brooklyn1
>
>I wanted to make fudge.
An instant read thermometer won't work...
for fudge you need an anal thermometer. duh