FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

Mike Avery

In article >,
says...
> A dissenting opinion on the methodology of the experiment.
>
> Your experiment determined the amount of water absorbed from the atmosphere
> by a know MASS of flower. No attempt was made to measure the VOLUME. In
> the cups vs. weight argument the point that is often missed is the
> difficulty of the repeatability of the volume measurement. A cup of packed
> flower will be more dense than a sifted one. Dipping a cup into a bag of
> flower and scraping off the top does not account for the age of the flower,
> its' hydration or if it was stored under another large sack of flower and
> compacted.

Having played with this, and been on both sides of the argument, I will
mention two conclusions I've reached.

The variability of volumetric measurement dwarfs every other souce of
error in the baking process (with the sole exceptions of stupidity and
human error). When a cup can vary from less than 100 to more than 200
grams, depending on how it is filled; and when scoopers have as much as
a 25% cup to cup variance.... the difference between all-purpose and
bread flour is dwarfed.

A number of flour industry studies have shown the multi-layer sacks used
to package flour in the USA do a very good job of maintaining the
moisture levels of the flour packed in them. (No Dick, that doesn't
mean they are water or vapor proof, just that they are sufficient to the
purpose.) And when the baker folds over the opening in the sack, they
still do a good job. The variation millers found when they tested
flours in various homes was quite small. It's been a while, but my
memory suggests the change in moisture content was less than 5%. And
that is a 5% change from the desired moisture content of 14%. So, the
moisture ranged from something like 13 to 15 percent. The change in
baking behavior would be negligible. Especially in the face of the
changes brought about by measuring by volume.

Mike