Search

 1 of 3 1 2 3 Next
9x13 Cake Conversion
 Posted: 01 July 2010 11:44 PM [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2010-06-07

After doing some searching I came across this thread

which directed me to page 490 of TCB

I have no idea what I am looking at…it says Level 6with a Rose Factor of 3.5-4 and a butter weight of 1Kg 300gm - 1Kg 500gm

I don’t know what that means

I am trying to make a 9x13 cake…

Does anyone know what I have to do?

Can I choose any of the butter cake recipes?

I just want a plain cake like golden almond or yellow

Thank you so much

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 04:25 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  327
Joined  2009-01-22

Hello missyjean,

I just made a two-layer 9x13 cake last weekend. I made the White Velvet buttercake (pg. 46) and the All American chocolate buttercake (pg. 54) - one 9x13 layer of each. I found that the original recipes in the book made the prefect amount of batter for this size of pan, so you shouldn’t need to use the table in the back for this cake. I made the Golden Luxury buttercake (pg. 48) a few months ago in this size and the original recipe was enough to fill the pan for that one, too.

To answer your question about the level information, when it tells you which level # to use, it’s referring to baking powder levels to use based on which pan size you’re using. If you look at pages 492 and 493 you’ll see a separate table for baking powder levels with six possible levels. Just be sure you read the correct baking powder table for the cake you desire to make. Once you have the proper level selected you still have to apply the appropriate rf to that amount. For example, if you are baking yellow cake, size half sheet (12x18), that requires level 6 baking powder (6.13g) and rf 7-8. Then you have to multiply all the ingredients masses by 7 or 8. It’s your choice which rf to use if a more than one rf value is given for the size of pan you are selecting for, just make sure you use the same rf value for all the ingredients, and you also have to multiply the 6.13 (if you need level 6, of course) by 7 or 8, whichever rf you end up choosing (I think I used rf 7 for the last half-sheet cake I made and it turned out perfect thanks to some help from Rozanne!). These tables of information can be confusing the first few times you use them until you’re a little more familiar with them, so if you still have questions please ask.

If you choose rf of 3.5 you will find the masses for each ingredient will be slightly more than the amount in the original recipe, but like I said before, for a 9x13 you can use the original recipe with no modifications and everything should turn out fine (assuming you follow all of Rose’s instructions and you’re not working in conditions unfavorable for baking). It has for all of the 9x13 buttercakes I’ve made. Granted I made two-layer cakes when I’ve made cakes this size, so there was plenty of cake. If you’re making two separate layers and putting filling between them, or one layer torted with a filling between the layers, then the original recipe should work. If you’re just making one layer and not torting to put some sort of filling between the layers, you might want to try using the base formula and applying the rf to be on the safe side. This would also give you practice using the table, but obviously it’s your call. I just find it easier to use the original recipe in the book to fill a 9x13 pan (for one layer). If you want two layers then just make the original recipe twice, or double it and divide the batter between two pans. I only have one 9x13 pan, so I made my batter batches separately, especially since the two layers were different for the one I made last weekend (I don’t think it would have worked out so well for me to make the batter for my chocolate layer and my white velvet layer at the same time ).

Regarding your question about butter weights, I assume that was a typo and you meant batter weights. If this is the case it’s telling you that mass of batter will be enough to fill the given pan size your baking with. So in your example it’s telling you there should be 1kg 300g - 1kg 500g . You can just think of it as 1300g - 1500g (or 1.3kg -1.5 kg) if it’s easier to think about your masses in one unit. It’s all about whatever is easiest for you to understand. After all, you’re the one making the cake !

I hope this helps. If you have more questions please ask. There are plenty of friendly people here willing to help.

Good luck and happy baking, missyjean!

~Matthew

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 08:11 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Total Posts:  4698
Joined  2008-04-16

Yes to everything MP said.  Just wanted to reiterate that to use the RF charts in the back section you would need to switch to the downy yellow; they have only been tested and perfected for the downy yellow, the white velvet and the all-american chocolate butter cakes.  You could add almond extract to the downy yellow, but I think for an almond cake the golden almond is the tastier way to go.

If you’d like to try to bake the golden almond in a 9 x 13, you’ll need to multiply everything in the recipe by 1.84, then make an additional adjustment to the baking powder by reducing it 1/4 tsp (that is, multiply it by 1.84 and then reduce the result by 1/4 tsp).  There’s a very good chance that it will work beautifully, but I haven’t done it myself and so couldn’t offer a tested solution.  Using a 1.84 factor would keep the cake layer the same height as the 9” round.  Doubling the recipe might work, but since a deeper layer of batter might be problematic, I would go with 1.84x (easier if you’re weighing ingredients) or a double recipe and make cupcakes with the extra.

Does that make sense?

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 11:23 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2010-06-07
Monsieur P?tisserie - 02 July 2010 07:25 AM

Hello missyjean,

I just made a two-layer 9x13 cake last weekend. I made the White Velvet buttercake (pg. 46) and the All American chocolate buttercake (pg. 54) - one 9x13 layer of each. I found that the original recipes in the book made the prefect amount of batter for this size of pan, so you shouldn’t need to use the table in the back for this cake. I made the Golden Luxury buttercake (pg. 48) a few months ago in this size and the original recipe was enough to fill the pan for that one, too.

To answer your question about the level information, when it tells you which level # to use, it’s referring to baking powder levels to use based on which pan size you’re using. If you look at pages 492 and 493 you’ll see a separate table for baking powder levels with six possible levels. Just be sure you read the correct baking powder table for the cake you desire to make. Once you have the proper level selected you still have to apply the appropriate rf to that amount. For example, if you are baking yellow cake, size half sheet (12x18), that requires level 6 baking powder (6.13g) and rf 7-8. Then you have to multiply all the ingredients masses by 7 or 8. It’s your choice which rf to use if a more than one rf value is given for the size of pan you are selecting for, just make sure you use the same rf value for all the ingredients, and you also have to multiply the 6.13 (if you need level 6, of course) by 7 or 8, whichever rf you end up choosing (I think I used rf 7 for the last half-sheet cake I made and it turned out perfect thanks to some help from Rozanne!). These tables of information can be confusing the first few times you use them until you’re a little more familiar with them, so if you still have questions please ask.

If you choose rf of 3.5 you will find the masses for each ingredient will be slightly more than the amount in the original recipe, but like I said before, for a 9x13 you can use the original recipe with no modifications and everything should turn out fine (assuming you follow all of Rose’s instructions and you’re not working in conditions unfavorable for baking). It has for all of the 9x13 buttercakes I’ve made. Granted I made two-layer cakes when I’ve made cakes this size, so there was plenty of cake. If you’re making two separate layers and putting filling between them, or one layer torted with a filling between the layers, then the original recipe should work. If you’re just making one layer and not torting to put some sort of filling between the layers, you might want to try using the base formula and applying the rf to be on the safe side. This would also give you practice using the table, but obviously it’s your call. I just find it easier to use the original recipe in the book to fill a 9x13 pan (for one layer). If you want two layers then just make the original recipe twice, or double it and divide the batter between two pans. I only have one 9x13 pan, so I made my batter batches separately, especially since the two layers were different for the one I made last weekend (I don’t think it would have worked out so well for me to make the batter for my chocolate layer and my white velvet layer at the same time ).

Regarding your question about butter weights, I assume that was a typo and you meant batter weights. If this is the case it’s telling you that mass of batter will be enough to fill the given pan size your baking with. So in your example it’s telling you there should be 1kg 300g - 1kg 500g . You can just think of it as 1300g - 1500g (or 1.3kg -1.5 kg) if it’s easier to think about your masses in one unit. It’s all about whatever is easiest for you to understand. After all, you’re the one making the cake !

I hope this helps. If you have more questions please ask. There are plenty of friendly people here willing to help.

Good luck and happy baking, missyjean!

~Matthew

Matthew, thank you so very much!! That is a BIG relief!!

I just need 1 layer. I will go by your suggestion and make either the White Velvet or All American Chocolate.

If I understood you correctly, by making either one of those recipes, is follow the recipe as Rose wrote it

WOW!!!! That is great!!!  Thank you

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 11:26 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2010-06-07
Julie - 02 July 2010 11:11 AM

Yes to everything MP said.  Just wanted to reiterate that to use the RF charts in the back section you would need to switch to the downy yellow; they have only been tested and perfected for the downy yellow, the white velvet and the all-american chocolate butter cakes.  You could add almond extract to the downy yellow, but I think for an almond cake the golden almond is the tastier way to go.

If you’d like to try to bake the golden almond in a 9 x 13, you’ll need to multiply everything in the recipe by 1.84, then make an additional adjustment to the baking powder by reducing it 1/4 tsp (that is, multiply it by 1.84 and then reduce the result by 1/4 tsp).  There’s a very good chance that it will work beautifully, but I haven’t done it myself and so couldn’t offer a tested solution.  Using a 1.84 factor would keep the cake layer the same height as the 9” round.  Doubling the recipe might work, but since a deeper layer of batter might be problematic, I would go with 1.84x (easier if you’re weighing ingredients) or a double recipe and make cupcakes with the extra.

Does that make sense?

Yes, I understand and will bookmark this thread. For Sunday’s event, I think I should keep it as simple as possible because I will be under stress when making the cake as it is and I might make a mistake.

However, I will definitely try to use that table in the future because the 9” cakes are gone in 1 day

Thank you very much!

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 05:43 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  327
Joined  2009-01-22
missyjean - 02 July 2010 02:23 PM

Matthew, thank you so very much!! That is a BIG relief!!

I just need 1 layer. I will go by your suggestion and make either the White Velvet or All American Chocolate.

If I understood you correctly, by making either one of those recipes, is follow the recipe as Rose wrote it

WOW!!!! That is great!!!  Thank you

No problem! I’m happy to help. It’s worth noting, however, that my chocolate cake layer ended up being a little thinner than my white velvet layer. The chocolate layer still turned out fine and tasted great, it was just a little thinner. I’m pretty sure there was a little less batter for my chocolate layer than my white velvet layer, though. In the past when I wanted to make sure I had enough batter to fill two 9” round pans I’ve made a little extra batter by multiplying everything in the recipe by 1.25 so I had 25% more batter. I still used Rose’s recommended mass to fill the pans for the cake and had a little left over batter. I’ve found using the original recipe to fill two 9” round pans leaves me struggling to get the recommended mass of batter into both pans and my cake layers end up a little thin, so that’s why I increased Rose’s recipe a little. I know you’re doing a 9x13 for this, but the point I’m trying to make is that if you’re concerned about there not being enough batter you can slightly increase the ingredients to be on the safe side. As long as you increase the ingredient amounts by the same factor you keep the proportionality of them the same as what Rose originally wrote, so there shouldn’t be any problems, especially if you use the recommended mass of batter in TCB to fill the pan. You could also try Julie’s suggestion using her JF of 1.84 if you want to. Then you can make cupcakes with the extra batter like Julie has suggested. I didn’t know that was legal. I thought cupcake batter was different than regular cake batter. This is good to know. I’ll have to try that next time. Have fun and good luck with your cake, missyjean!

Julie - 02 July 2010 11:11 AM

Yes to everything MP said.  Just wanted to reiterate that to use the RF charts in the back section you would need to switch to the downy yellow; they have only been tested and perfected for the downy yellow, the white velvet and the all-american chocolate butter cakes.  You could add almond extract to the downy yellow, but I think for an almond cake the golden almond is the tastier way to go.

If you’d like to try to bake the golden almond in a 9 x 13, you’ll need to multiply everything in the recipe by 1.84, then make an additional adjustment to the baking powder by reducing it 1/4 tsp (that is, multiply it by 1.84 and then reduce the result by 1/4 tsp).  There’s a very good chance that it will work beautifully, but I haven’t done it myself and so couldn’t offer a tested solution.  Using a 1.84 factor would keep the cake layer the same height as the 9” round.  Doubling the recipe might work, but since a deeper layer of batter might be problematic, I would go with 1.84x (easier if you’re weighing ingredients) or a double recipe and make cupcakes with the extra.

Does that make sense?

Thanks for pointing that out, Julie. I meant to mention that the tables in the back do not include the golden almond cake, but forgot to do so. I’m curious how you figured out your numbers, though. How did you get your JF of 1.84, and how did you know how much to reduce the baking powder by? I understand why the baking powder has to be decreased as surface area increases, but I don’t know how to figure out how much to do it by? It is a linear relationship where it decreases a specific percentage per x# of square inches of surface area being increased, or is it an exponential decrease where the more surface area you have the powder is decreased by a higher percentage? Does this question make any sense? Thanks, Julie.

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 09:36 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Total Posts:  4698
Joined  2008-04-16
Monsieur P?tisserie - 02 July 2010 08:43 PM

How did you get your JF of 1.84, and how did you know how much to reduce the baking powder by?

Well, the honest answer is that I used a program written by Annie MacD, a forum member and professional-level baker who is also a computer programmer.  Her program is based on the formulas that calculate the volume of 3D shapes such as cylinders and rectangles.  The 1.84 factor comes from figuring out the volume of a cylinder 1” high (batter height) by 9” diameter and then the volume of a rectangular cube (there’s probably a proper name for that but it escapes me at the moment) of the same height, 9x13x1.  Then you divide one by the other to get the conversion factor.  So, to make the correct amount of batter to fill the 9x13 to the same height as the round pan, you multiply the recipe by 1.84.  If you want me to walk you through the calculations, I can.

The baking powder reduction comes from the Rose Factor section.  Looking at the downy yellow, you would reduce the baking powder by 1/4 to 1/3 tsp (after the 1.84 conversion) to go from a 9” round to a 9x13.  Since this is for the downy yellow or white velvet, it is a starting place for the adjustment to the golden almond.  My understanding, from Rose and Matthew, is that theory will only go so far in calculating baking powder, a test cake is often necessary to get it just right.

Does that help?

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 09:40 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2010-06-07

Matthew, thank you so much for taking all that time and trouble! You really did a lot to help me and I am very appreciative.

I am feeling this is a bit over my head at this point. I wish I had time to practice doing this for Sunday. I will make a point of doing this when it is just for my husband and I.  With having to meet expectations, I think I better stick to something I have a little more practice on.

I also want to experiment with leaving the 9x13 cake in the pan.  I do that with a whole wheat banana crunch coffee cake and a carrot cake. I don’t know if I can do that with a cake flour.

I have made 2 of Rose’s cakes so far. Before finding her book and this forum, I have never baked a cake using cake flour.  I have made the Refrigerator Banana cake and the Golden Almond cake. I think I should just make 1 of the Refrigerator Banana cakes and make a different dessert.  Instead of using the white chocolate, I’m going to make the alternate frosting using confectioner’s sugar instead of white chocolate

I have been stressing about this all week because everyone loves my baking and everyone went crazy for the cakes I made from Rose’s book.  After Rose’s cakes, I now have a standard to live up to.

Matthew, Thank you!!

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 09:51 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2010-06-07
Julie - 03 July 2010 12:36 AM
Monsieur P?tisserie - 02 July 2010 08:43 PM

How did you get your JF of 1.84, and how did you know how much to reduce the baking powder by?

Well, the honest answer is that I used a program written by Annie MacD, a forum member and professional-level baker who is also a computer programmer.  Her program is based on the formulas that calculate the volume of 3D shapes such as cylinders and rectangles.  The 1.84 factor comes from figuring out the volume of a cylinder 1” high (batter height) by 9” diameter and then the volume of a rectangular cube (there’s probably a proper name for that but it escapes me at the moment) of the same height, 9x13x1.  Then you divide one by the other to get the conversion factor.  So, to make the correct amount of batter to fill the 9x13 to the same height as the round pan, you multiply the recipe by 1.84.  If you want me to walk you through the calculations, I can.

The baking powder reduction comes from the Rose Factor section.  Looking at the downy yellow, you would reduce the baking powder by 1/4 to 1/3 tsp (after the 1.84 conversion) to go from a 9” round to a 9x13.  Since this is for the downy yellow or white velvet, it is a starting place for the adjustment to the golden almond.  My understanding, from Rose and Matthew, is that theory will only go so far in calculating baking powder, a test cake is often necessary to get it just right.

Does that help?

It helps me Julie..I definitely need to practice before I make this for a crowd.

Thank you

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 10:20 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  327
Joined  2009-01-22

Julie,

Your explanation works perfectly for me and definitely helps! No need to run the calculations for me, but I certainly appreciate the offer. Once I read your post the method of how you obtained the 1.84 made perfect sense. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that myself, especially considering how much I like math. I kind of feel like a doofus now. It seems like trial and error is the best way to figure out how much to reduce the baking powder by. I think if I’m ever in a position where I need to do this I’ll come here to the forum first to see if anyone has already made a cake the size I’ll be making. Thank you so much for the explanation, Julie.

missyjean,

It was NO TROUBLE AT ALL posting here for you. I’m just glad it helped you. Plus, I’ve learned a little more from this post, too, so it’s not like I haven’t benefited from the other information in this thread. I totally understand what you mean by not wanting to try something new if you’re in a time crunch situation. I still think that the original recipe worked really well for me in a 9x13x2 pan with the batter being 1” high, or very close to it, in the pan with the buttercakes I’ve made. Bear in mind I’ve only made the white velvet, all american chocolate, and golden luxury buttercakes in this size of a pan, so I can’t say if the recipes for the other buttercakes will work out the same way. Based on the masses of the ingredients in the other cakes I would guess the amount of batter produced using Rose’s original recipes would be enough to fill the pan 1” deep, but I just can’t say for sure since I haven’t tried…yet.

As far as leaving the cake in the pan goes, I think you could probably serve it in the pan, but I think I would still take it out for cooling as per Rose’s instructions. If you leave it in the pan it may get overcooked, so I’m not sure if skipping the cooling process by removing the cake is a good idea. But I see no reason why you couldn’t put it back in the pan once it has cooled if that’s how you want to serve it. The other thing I am a little curious about if you did this is how would it affect how the fats and oils in the cake behave. I wonder if it would cause them to collect at the bottom of the cake or something like that? Perhaps someone else can clarify this issue.

Have fun with your cakes and let us know how it goes for you.

~Matthew

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 10:31 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2010-06-07

That is my concern too, Matthew. Not removing the cake at all works for some heartier cakes but for such delicate cakes, I just don’t know. It seems the heat of the pan would continue to cook it.

I want to leave it in the pan because I am afraid to remove it.  I once removed a carrot cake and ended up with crumb cake   so I don’t want to take any chances this weekend

I will let you know what happens and thanks again

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 10:55 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  327
Joined  2009-01-22

Sorry to hear about your carrot cake, missyjean :(. I don’t know how you remove your cakes, but what I do is I place the cooling rack over the pan (while it’s still flipped upright, of course). Then I make sure I have a good grip on the pan and cooling rack and flip it. As long as you’re using parchment paper on the bottom and the sides of the cake aren’t stuck to the sides of the pan the cake comes right out. And I always wait the ten minutes after it’s pulled from the oven before I do this just like Rose tells us to in her book. Once it’s on the rack I grab another cooling rack and repeat this so the bottom of the cake is on the rack. Otherwise you get the cooling rack pattern on the top of the cake. Removing the cake also allows you to clean the pan and let it cool before you put the cake back in. For that you can just do the opposite of what you did to remove it. Put the cake upside down on a cooling rack by doing what you did when you removed it. Grab another cooling rack and then you have a cake layer sandwiched between two cooling racks which can be inverted so the top of the cake is upside on the rack. Once you’re here place the pan over the cake on the rack and invert again. I know it’s a lot of flipping here, but it allows you to handle the cake with support of the cake over it’s entire surface area and it will stay intact. If you only have one cooling rack, then anything with a large enough flat surface will help you with this. Use something firm, of course. This wouldn’t work very well if you just used a large piece of paper or a towel. Just make sure you have the side you want touching the cake on the proper side of the cake. For example, if you only have one cooling rack then use the other flat surface to dump the cake onto when you remove it from the pan for cooling and then you can put the rack on the bottom of the cake when it comes out. Then invert it so the bottom of the cake is touching the rack when you let it set for cooling. Does this make sense? If not, I can post some pictures that might help.

~Matthew

 Profile

 Posted: 02 July 2010 11:14 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Total Posts:  1910
Joined  2010-04-25

Missy, if you end up with a crumb cake, break it into chunks, fold in your whipped cream and top it with your strawberry sauce!  It will still be a hit!

 Profile

 Posted: 03 July 2010 08:57 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Total Posts:  4698
Joined  2008-04-16
Anne in NC - 03 July 2010 02:14 AM

Missy, if you end up with a crumb cake, break it into chunks, fold in your whipped cream and top it with your strawberry sauce!  It will still be a hit!

Put it in a trifle bowl, and no one will ever realize that a different presentation was intended!

You could do a lot worse than to bake two 9” round golden almond cakes and top them with whipped cream and fruit.  You’ve already practiced the cake, so you can feel confident.  And that will be more batter than one 9x13, so hopefully it will serve just as many.  I’ll be quite now…

 Profile

 Posted: 03 July 2010 09:00 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Total Posts:  1910
Joined  2010-04-25

Put it in a trifle bowl, and no one will ever realize that a different presentation was intended!

They’d never know it was a “rescue”!!!

 Profile

 Posted: 03 July 2010 05:01 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2010-06-07
Monsieur P?tisserie - 03 July 2010 01:55 AM

Sorry to hear about your carrot cake, missyjean :(. I don’t know how you remove your cakes, but what I do is I place the cooling rack over the pan (while it’s still flipped upright, of course). Then I make sure I have a good grip on the pan and cooling rack and flip it. As long as you’re using parchment paper on the bottom and the sides of the cake aren’t stuck to the sides of the pan the cake comes right out. And I always wait the ten minutes after it’s pulled from the oven before I do this just like Rose tells us to in her book. Once it’s on the rack I grab another cooling rack and repeat this so the bottom of the cake is on the rack. Otherwise you get the cooling rack pattern on the top of the cake. Removing the cake also allows you to clean the pan and let it cool before you put the cake back in. For that you can just do the opposite of what you did to remove it. Put the cake upside down on a cooling rack by doing what you did when you removed it. Grab another cooling rack and then you have a cake layer sandwiched between two cooling racks which can be inverted so the top of the cake is upside on the rack. Once you’re here place the pan over the cake on the rack and invert again. I know it’s a lot of flipping here, but it allows you to handle the cake with support of the cake over it’s entire surface area and it will stay intact. If you only have one cooling rack, then anything with a large enough flat surface will help you with this. Use something firm, of course. This wouldn’t work very well if you just used a large piece of paper or a towel. Just make sure you have the side you want touching the cake on the proper side of the cake. For example, if you only have one cooling rack then use the other flat surface to dump the cake onto when you remove it from the pan for cooling and then you can put the rack on the bottom of the cake when it comes out. Then invert it so the bottom of the cake is touching the rack when you let it set for cooling. Does this make sense? If not, I can post some pictures that might help.

~Matthew

That makes a lot of sense, Matthew, thank you so much. I need to get another cooling wrack. I have one large on and one small one.  Do you think 2 small would work better? I think when I tried to turn it using my 2 racks, the large one was too difficult to manuever.

 Profile

 1 of 3 1 2 3 Next