Saturday, October 21, 2006
My KitchenAid is still in the appliance repair shop in Blaine, so I'm trying to bake breads that don't need a mixer until it's back home. After this one, however, there is only one recipe that wouldn't benefit from a mixer. After that, I'll just have to knead by hand. My deadline is closer than I had thought because our kitchen remodel is scheduled to start sometime in early to late November. I may have to take a few vacation days and go into bread-a-day mode soon.
I first saw a Dutch Baby at the Pannekoeken Huis, which our children loved to go to when they were young. The waitresses, wearing wooden clogs, would run out of the restaurant kitchen, yelling "pannekoeken!" The idea was to try to get to the table before the Dutch Baby collapsed. To this day, my older daughter goes into gales of laughter if someone yells "Pannekoeken!" (As you might imagine, this is not an everyday occurrence).
Then I started baking Dutch Babies, and it became the centerpiece of our traditional Christmas breakfast. The ones I baked were good, but not nearly as good as this version. The recipes I've used before are very eggy--basically they were eggs, a little flour, and a little sugar. Rose's version is more time-consuming, and much more delicious. It's got more flour and milk, plus two whole eggs and two egg whites. While the crust is crisp, the entire pancake, including the crunchy crust, is almost meltingly tender.
I bought a special Dutch Baby pan, and this was its maiden voyage. The baby comes out of the oven perfectly puffed.
Then you quickly transfer it to a plate, and fill the center with sliced apples that you've cooked with butter, brown and white sugars, cinnamon and nutmeg. (You may notice that this is the second week running that I've made an apple bread. What tastes better in October than apples?)
Then you drizzle some creme fraiche over the whole thing, and happily sit down to eat.
We have more than half of this big Dutch Baby left. It should serve as a hearty breakfast tomorrow morning.