> wrote in message
...
> Sure it will. King Arthur does it. It is to be assumed that they did some
> fluffing and did not just dip into a bag of flour or compact it. They have
to
> do something to come up with such a figure. And they do explain it.
Someone
> (Janet?) posted it a short time ago.
> Bert

That's the weakness in our country's early dependency upon volume measure.
Unless a recipe author tells you how many ounces is meant by a cup you must
hope that what you measure is the right thing. All the arguments about
adding flour until you judge the dough is right, only means that you have
successfully made a bread by your particular standards. If the author was
trying to convey something different, you have missed it. You'll notice
that King Arthur says that they decided upon 4.2 ounces for their purposes.
They didn't say it was a standard or the correct number.

In the last several years, some baking books have been published that
include both volume and weight measurement, but that it not the norm. Some
cookbooks/baking books will tell you how much flour to the ounce in the
beginning of the book. Some books will give you a clue by telling you that
flour is either scooped, sifted or spooned. I'd stay away from any books
that don't tell anything as there is a good chance that the recipes are not
tested.

Janet

Janet