Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

cubbyathome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 721 posts

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#641

Post by account42 »

joshstrange wrote: post #148
nanolith wrote: post #45

Much to the chagrin of my mother, I made it a point about a decade ago to standardize old family recipes on "from scratch" versions. As part of the process, I also did some research on old recipes and fixed some of the corruption of these recipes that occurred during the copying and recitation, bolstering them with culinary techniques that were in use at the time. I also captured things that drift over time, such as…

I’ve also digitized some recipes and had to deal with “1 can” or “1 bar” without size included. Some things aren’t sold like that anymore or their size has fluctuated. In the example about it was for a candy bar pound cake and “1 can of Hershey’s syrup” isn’t a thing anymore that I can tell and even if it was, I had no clue the size. Same with “1 Hershey’s bar”, uhh, no clue what 1 standard bar was then. Thankfully m…

Often the precise amount doesn't really matter though. Likely it was "one can" to begin with because that's just what was convenient and not because the recipe has been optimized to that size.

I guess it depends how much you care about perfectly reproducing the exact same dish. For personal cooking I usually don't - a bit of variance is not a negative thing.

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#642

Post by account42 »

vidarh wrote: post #458
antonyh wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in the UK, there's a trend of selling 200g blocks for certain brands that ruin recipes. We have to be careful to avoid those and stick to the 250g ones. Yes, I know we could cut 50g of another block but then we'd need to measure, and we'd have an open brick to keep. It steals part of the joy of baking, forcing us to think instead of feel.

> but then we'd need to measure Most butter here (and in a number of other countries) have measuring lines on the pack itself in 50g increments, so while I agree with you it's a nuisance to have an open one to deal with, the measurement part is usually a matter of using a knife along the marked line... If the "certain brands" you refer to don't have those measuring lines, though, then a pox on them...

Do people here not always have an open pack of butter in their fridge?

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#643

Post by account42 »

eesmith wrote: post #353
amatecha wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RE: finding what "1 can" or "1 bar" was, you may be able to scour archive.org for scans of old magazines and newspapers to see advertisements or product listings for the respective product? At least, that's one route I'd consider

In 1981, the Betty Crocker Supreme Fudge Brownie Mix included a 5.5 oz can of Hershey's syrup. In 1949 you could get a 5 oz can when you purchase 2 quarts of ice cream. https://archive.org/details/mansfield-news-journal-1949-08-1... It came in multiple sizes. 5 oz is probably the "small can" mentioned at https://archive.org/details/trinity-parish-of-newton-centre/... . There was also a 16 oz can, https://archive.org/…

So what you're saying is that it's probably 8 pounds, right?

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#644

Post by account42 »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #593
codingdave wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you try to imitate a boxed cake mix? They don't taste better than making a cake from scratch. It does take some practice baking to do so, but that is just an adulting skill like many others. Home baking doesn't need commercial chemistry. Commercial bakeries don't need to warn the kids not to jump in the house when the cake is baking. They are totally different scenarios.

You're on Hacker News. Why put an excess of effort into any nostalgic project? Why try to recapture Windows XP GUI or SNES graphics or try to hack together a classic car that was, by all measurements other than cool factor, inferior to a modern car?

You're replying to a comment that responds to the claim that making cake from scratch is significantly harder than using a commercial cake mix because those contain millions of hard to get ingredients.

If you want to precisely emulate it for the fun of it then more power to you but if you just want a good cake then no you don't need to. Basic flour, baking soda, sugar, cocoa powder, etc. will do the trick just fine.

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#645

Post by Stratoscope »

al_borland wrote: post #116
e28eta wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I first learned of it reading the intro to American Cake, by Anne Byrn. It covers the history of cakes in America, through (updated) 125 recipes. The current recipe for pound cake calls for 6 large eggs, but the notes on ingredients in the book’s introduction said early recipes needed 12-16 (!!) eggs in order to get one pound of eggs. Side note: pound cake uses 1 lb each of eggs, flour, sugar, and butter

This is very interesting. I recently bought an older Better Homes and Gardens cookbook from 1953. I wanted one from before science took over the kitchen too much. I haven’t had a chance to cook anything from it yet, but now I’m questioning if I’ll have issues trying to cook with a 70+ year old cookbook, especially when it comes to baked goods. I’m not into cooking enough to have the patience to experiment and tune th…

If you see this reply, may I ask a favor?

The very first thing I learned to cook as a young kid in the late 1950s was a macaroni and cheese recipe from the BH&G cookbook. It was very different frum the creamy mac and cheese recipes that are common today. It didn't have a runny sauce; it had more of a firm custardy texture. You could scoop up chunks of it with a big serving spoon.

I did some brainstorming with ChatGPT, and we found the recipe below.

Could you check your cookbook to see if it has a recipe like this, and possibly take a photo and send it to me? Email is in my profile. Thanks!

---

Old-Fashioned Baked Macaroni and Cheese (circa 1950s BH&G style)

Ingredients:

1½ cups elbow macaroni (uncooked)

2 cups grated sharp cheddar cheese

2 eggs, beaten

2 cups milk (sometimes evaporated milk was used)

1 tsp salt

Dash of pepper

Optional: breadcrumbs or cracker crumbs for topping

Optional: butter for dotting the top

Instructions:

Cook the macaroni in salted water until just tender. Drain.

In a large bowl, combine the hot macaroni with most of the grated cheese.

In a separate bowl, beat the eggs and mix in the milk, salt, and pepper.

Pour the egg-milk mixture over the macaroni and cheese, stir gently to combine.

Pour into a buttered casserole dish. Top with the remaining cheese, and optionally a layer of buttered breadcrumbs or crushed crackers.

Bake at 350°F for about 45 minutes, or until set and lightly browned on top.

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#646

Post by account42 »

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #522
MisterSandman wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe is also somewhat poorer than North America, to be fair.

Is cake mix expensive? Wouldn't powdered milk and egg be cheaper than real eggs? Is it actually more expensive to bake with cake mix than with short shelflife milk and egg? These companies must be making bank.

It depends but cake mixes are brand products and so don't enjoy the same kind of competition that fungible raw ingredients do.

It depends on how much cake you bake though. For many ingredients you'll need less than the smallest packaging size - and much less than packaging sizes that aren't way overpriced.

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#647

Post by account42 »

malfist wrote: post #279
schiffern wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't be so snobby about cake ingredients. Surfactants/emulsifiers, from that list, have been connected to leaky gut ('emulsifying' protective mucus) which causes inflammation. This is hypothesized to be one of the mechanisms by which ultra-processed food causes a constellation of diseases. Be snobby about cake ingredients. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9331555/ https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com…

Leaky gut is a myth. It's used to scare people and sell things. If you don't believe me, feel free to read it's Wikipedia page.

It's scary for how we have gone from "don't use Wikipedia as a citation" to "bro just trust what Wikipedia says about controversial topics".

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#648

Post by account42 »

zarzavat wrote: post #315
lifeformed wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be so snobby about cake ingredients. There's nothing wrong with using processed food in a recipe. I garuntee a box mix will make a much better cake than "from scratch" unless you are very experienced. Cooking is not always about making the ultimate gourmet meal, it's about connection and tradition. Processed food is a normal part of every day people's lives and makes it's way into traditions. Grandma's secret r…

I'd much rather eat a cake that has the texture of a cake rather than some food science abomination. It's corporations that have taught you to desire the wrong definition of a cake. Grandmas should not be cooking cakes from boxes of cake dust, they should be using flour and producing a cake that tastes like it was cooked by a grandma. That is the natural order of things. Being made with traditional methods and ingred…

Exactly. "Home cooking" that results in something that may as well be store bought as a finished product is kinda weird.

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#649

Post by account42 »

joncrocks wrote: post #434
apparent wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but you claimed above that: > I garuntee a box mix will make a much better cake than "from scratch" unless you are very experienced. That is simply untrue. It does not take an experienced baker to make a better cake than a boxed cake mix. The fact that you can avoid the other weird ingredients (which are probably not terrible at small scale) is just the icing on the cake.

Just to push back on this slightly, I'm sure I've watched Youtube videos with someone who bake cakes for a living who said they used boxed mixture for most of their baking. As others have said elsewhere, some of the ingredients involved are not easily available/cost-efficient for the home baker. This means it's more than possible that you will get an objectively better cake from a mix, e.g. from blind tasting. This d…

So someone who is used to industrialized cake baking prefers industrialized cake recipes? What exactly do you think this means about the quality of cake you can bake from scratch at home? Do you really need a cake expert to tell you what cake is good??

Blind testing is missing the point - you're not trying to emulate some perfect standard. The little imperfections and variances in the result are the value.

Re: Betty Crocker broke recipes by shrinking boxes

#650

Post by account42 »

SapporoChris wrote: post #327
yAak wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Box cake mix almost never tastes better than scratch. Next you’ll tell me store-bought frosting tastes better?

Ability to cook is a spectrum. In order for your statement to be true, then the average cook must be 'almost always' better at producing cake than the average bake mix.

You can bake good cake from scratch with very little skill as long as you can follow instructions and mix shit together in the right amounts.
Post reply on HN