Sourdough (rec.food.sourdough) Discussing the hobby or craft of baking with sourdough. We are not just a recipe group, Our charter is to discuss the care, feeding, and breeding of yeasts and lactobacilli that make up sourdough cultures.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight,and why?

Mike Avery wrote:
> The alternative is to weigh. Here is a variation of the same recipe,
> again for 3, larger, loaves. (The version I use includes poolish and
> autolyse, I had to convert it on the fly for this post. I hope I didn't
> make any big mistakes.)
>


Of course I made a mistake. It was inevitable. I forgot the salt. All
21 grams of it. I'll put a line in below, in case anyone wants to try
this recipe...
> Put a bowl on the scales, zero the scales.
>
> Break 1 egg into the bowl and then add water until the weight is 800
> grams. (Eggs vary in weight, I want about 800 grams of total liquid here.)
>
> Zero the scales, add 110 grams of honey.
>
> Zero the scales and add 66 grams of butter (no need to melt it, it'll
> melt as you knead the dough, but do cut into smallish pieces).
>
> Zero the scales and add 800 grams of all-purpose flour.
> Zero the scales and add 740 grams of whole wheat flour.
>

Zero the scales and add 21 grams of salt.
> Zero the scales and add 7 grams of instant yeast. (I think this is
> about an envelope....)
>
> Mix, knead, proof, shape into loaves, allow to rise and bake at 350F for
> about 35 minutes.

Enjoy!
Mike

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,251
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?


>On Dec 20, 9:06 am, Mike Avery > wrote:
>> Hans Fugal wrote:
>> > We don't have to look at internet experiments though. Just look at all
>> > the cookbooks and recipe shows from at least as far back as my
>> > grandmother's time telling people to sift and knife their flour when
>> > measuring. Measuring flour by volume has been a thorn in the side of
>> > home bakers since long before anyone imagined affordable scales. My
>> > grandma even has a sifter built into her cupboard, and what a mess it makes.My German grandmother had scales. They were a balance, and she used

>> weights to get the weights she needed. Since they were mass produced,
>> they were affordable. They weren't as convenient as today's digital
>> scales with a tare function, but they worked very well. Personally,
>> when scaling dough to make loaves, I prefer to use a balance. We put
>> salt into old honey jars to get the weight we want and go from there.
>> In the bakery, I found too many employees became mesmerized by digital
>> readouts. If the recipe said a loaf had to weigh 770 grams, they'd mess
>> with it until it weighed 770 grams. We always set up the recipes so
>> plus or minus 20 grams would produce a loaf that was at least the weight
>> stated on the label, and it's easier to get within 20 grams than 1
>> gram. But... that's a digression.
>>
>> Most things that become mass produced become affordable. Until
>> recently, not enough people in the USA wanted scales, so the prices
>> remained high. They are quite affordable now.
>>
>> > From where I sit, I think Mike is happy with you or anyone else using
>> > volume. I don't feel any hostility from him. Perhaps you're misreading
>> > his intent.My intent is pretty simple. I want to help people bake the best bread

>> they can, as easily as they can.
>>
>> I don't care if people want to use cups, or if they want to go entirely
>> by feel (as Boron says she does). That's their call. However, I know
>> that using scales helps you get closer to producing the dough you want
>> to produce more quickly and more easily. Are scales necessary? Of
>> course not.
>>
>> You don't need an oven thermometer either. You can toss some flour on
>> the bottom of the oven, see how quickly it turns brown - or burns - and
>> have a good idea of how hot your oven is. You can also put your hand
>> into the oven and count the seconds until you can't stand the heat any
>> longer. (And yes, both of these approaches have been used to check oven
>> temperature.) I prefer a thermometer.
>>
>> I haven't seen anything to make me think that measuring by volume or by
>> feel is more consistent, easier to use, or more accurate than measuring
>> by weight. I've used the other approaches. When someone says the other
>> approaches are as good, I have to demur.
>>
>> Mike


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?


"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...
Volumetrically here, mainly with cans:

Large: 28 fl. oz. bean can (3-1/2 cups)
Medium: 16 fl. oz. bean can (2 cups)

But you have to buy beans in cans to get that ...

Mary


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?


"Andrew Price" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:58:51 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Really? One of my grandkids school class has 36 moms that stepped up to
>>> do some baking for a class project. When they were asked to do some
>>> baking, only 2 had scales (3, if you include me). You probably need to
>>> get out more and meet some "ordinary" folks instead of reading only in
>>> this NG...(:-o)!

>>
>>You must remember that most of my experience of people is in Britain.

>
> And most of mine is in France, but it reflects your observations.
>
>>Among
>>those (many) home bakers most have scales.

>
> Likewise.
>
>>Few have measuring cups although
>>the cups and spoons are being provided with kitchen equipment these days -
>>bread makers, mixers and the like. It's a plot :-)

>
> We get those, too...but they're all graduated in grammes and
> millilitres !!


I don't like g or ml (although I'm laboratory trained and understand the
value of metric there) in the kitchen.

I'll continue using a bag of flour and a jug of water and a handful of salt
for everyday bread, for others I'll use whatever the recipe says. I'm
versatile :-)

Mary


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,251
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:06:53 -0700, Mike Avery
> wrote:


>I don't care if people want to use cups, or if they want to go entirely
>by feel (as Boron says she does). That's their call.


Actually, what I said on April 23, 2006 was:

>"I will repeat what I initially said - that over dependence on scales
>and measurements has the potential to lead a novice to overlook the
>valuable lessons of touch, taste and feel of the dough and that
>sourdough breads can be made successfully without any measuring at
>all."



If you can't get it right, stop referring to it.


Boron


  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 556
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?


"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message t...
>
> "Dick Adams" > wrote in message
> ...
> >Volumetrically here, mainly with cans:
> >
> > Large: 28 fl. oz. bean can (3-1/2 cups)
> > Medium: 16 fl. oz. bean can (2 cups)

>
> But you have to buy beans in cans to get that ...


No, not if you are resourceful.

For instance, here empty cans are clean and
neatly put out for recycling on two specific days
each month. So you do not even need to bother
sorting garbage.
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?


Boron Elgar wrote:

> If you can't get it right, stop referring to it.


Hey Boron, I'm here. I remember that thread. After it you disapppeared
to alt.bread.recipes...

Let's party.

Will

  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight,and why?

Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:06:53 -0700, Mike Avery
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>> I don't care if people want to use cups, or if they want to go entirely
>> by feel (as Boron says she does). That's their call.
>>

>
> Actually, what I said on April 23, 2006 was:
>
>
>> "I will repeat what I initially said - that over dependence on scales
>> and measurements has the potential to lead a novice to overlook the
>> valuable lessons of touch, taste and feel of the dough and that
>> sourdough breads can be made successfully without any measuring at
>> all."
>>

>
>
> If you can't get it right, stop referring to it.
>

And on the 21st of April, in a message available at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...d93f297?hl=en&

you said:

> I do not use cups or scales to make my doughs because I make them by
> feel.


That sounds an AWFUL lot like you saying you don't measure and just go
by feel.

Since I did get it right, may I continue to refer to it?

Mike

  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?


"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Dick Adams" > wrote in message
> ...
> >Volumetrically here, mainly with cans:
> >
> > Large: 28 fl. oz. bean can (3-1/2 cups)
> > Medium: 16 fl. oz. bean can (2 cups)

>
> But you have to buy beans in cans to get that ...


No, not if you are resourceful.

For instance, here empty cans are clean and
neatly put out for recycling on two specific days
each month. So you do not even need to bother
sorting garbage.

Where I live they are put in bins with other recyclables. Non-recyclable
waste is in a separate bin. It varies from local authority to local
authority.

We (the Fishers) use very few cans and never beans.

Mary


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 556
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?


"Mary Fisher" > message t said this about cans:

> Where I live (cans) are put in bins with other recyclables.
> Non-recyclable waste is in a separate bin.


Somehow I suspected that something like that would be the
case. The English are known to be clean and neat.

> We (the Fishers) use very few cans and never beans.


Never beans? Perhaps you mean <never canned beans>?

Canned beans are quiet.

So what is the point of being clean and neat if you continue
to be noisy?

--
Dicky


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?


PastorDIC wrote:

> Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and
> why?
>
> I tried figuring out an advantage of one over the other on my own
> without success.
> Russ


Woah, lol, this old chestnut again. lol.

Forgive me for repeating what others may have said. But I feel I need
to chip in. : -)
Well, there are some facts


It doesn't matter how you get a loaf on the table as long as you and
the people eating it like it. PC bit over. : -)
If you are a novice you can't measure by feel because you have no point
of reference.
If you have experience then you don't need scales or cups.
Volume has innate flaws when it comes to measuring a compressible
material such as flour.
A quick survey shows that a cup of flour can vary from just over 100g
to 200g.
Everyone involved in previous discussions who submitted results must
instinctively accept the relative accuracy of scales or why would they
have bothered?
The wild variation as much as a factor of 2 for volume with flour shows
it is wildly inappropriate to rely on cups for sharing recipes.
I always get around 155g for a cup of flour fluffed, shaken or stirred.
So for an individual repeating their recipes cups are adequate.
Weighing is quicker if you are comparing to fluffing an levelling and
adding a bit here and there by eye.
If you can reproduce a consistent loaf you are measuring. Be it by eye
or hand, you are measuring.
Random application of ingredients will seldom produce edible bread.
Monkeys, type writers and Shakespeare come to mind. : -)
I have never cared how people get good bread as long as they are happy
with it.
I baked with cups when I started baking but found them so frustrating I
then went on to measure by eye. But because I then wanted to try other
peoples recipes I needed to go back to measuring by some commonly
agreed unit.
As we have seen cups are not a commonly agreed unit of measure for
flour.

Jim

  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

It's Christmas time in this neck of the woods, so I am preparing some
recipes I don't often prepare. I am also converting them from volume to
measure.

A great time to check out the weights of flour. And a great time to
start a new thread.

I weighed six cups of flour, 3 sifted, spooned into the cup and then
leveled with a knife, and 3 just scooped out of the sack.

The flour is from Sam's Club, their Hotel and Restaurant Quality
All-Purpose Flour. According to them, a cup should weigh 120 grams.

Cup # Sifted Scooped
1 121 185
2 124 148
3 125 178

I was quite surprised how consistent the sifted cups were. And how
close to the nominal weight. I was not at all surprised by the
variations in the scooped weight.

I am curious.... if you use cups, and I am sure most of the Americans
here do, how do you fill your cups? Do you sift, spoon and level? Do
you scoop? Do you do something else? If you are likely to keep using
cups, do these numbers make you think about changing how you fill your cups?

And now, it's off to the store for more cookie ingredients....
Mike

  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

My Mother taught me to sift, spoon, and level. Been baking for 40+ years
and haven't had any complaints from my cookies, pies, and other goodies.
Guess Mother knew best after all


Mike Avery wrote:
> It's Christmas time in this neck of the woods, so I am preparing some
> recipes I don't often prepare. I am also converting them from volume to
> measure.
>
> A great time to check out the weights of flour. And a great time to
> start a new thread.
>
> I weighed six cups of flour, 3 sifted, spooned into the cup and then
> leveled with a knife, and 3 just scooped out of the sack.
>
> The flour is from Sam's Club, their Hotel and Restaurant Quality
> All-Purpose Flour. According to them, a cup should weigh 120 grams.
>
> Cup # Sifted Scooped
> 1 121 185
> 2 124 148
> 3 125 178
>
> I was quite surprised how consistent the sifted cups were. And how
> close to the nominal weight. I was not at all surprised by the
> variations in the scooped weight.
>
> I am curious.... if you use cups, and I am sure most of the Americans
> here do, how do you fill your cups? Do you sift, spoon and level? Do
> you scoop? Do you do something else? If you are likely to keep using
> cups, do these numbers make you think about changing how you fill your
> cups?
>
> And now, it's off to the store for more cookie ingredients....
> Mike
>

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?


"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" > message
t said this about cans:

> Where I live (cans) are put in bins with other recyclables.
> Non-recyclable waste is in a separate bin.


> Somehow I suspected that something like that would be the

case. The English are known to be clean and neat.

?

> We (the Fishers) use very few cans and never beans.


Never beans? Perhaps you mean <never canned beans>?

That, I thought, was implicit.

> Canned beans are quiet.


?

> So what is the point of being clean and neat if you continue

to be noisy?

I'm sure you know what you mean.

Mary

--
Dicky


  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

Mike Avery wrote:

> I am curious.... if you use cups, and I am sure most of the Americans
> here do, how do you fill your cups? Do you sift, spoon and level? Do
> you scoop?


Well, I use both scales and volume measurements and sometimes not much
of either. Depends.

I was at a King Arthur bread class some time ago where before the class
there was a bowl of flour on a display table with an invitation to fill
a cup with flour and weigh the results.

Somebody tallyed the results and presented a chart of the weights. The
variance was hard to believe. People had filled a cup with 4.5 Oz to
six Oz of flour.

We were invited to return to the flour and cup display and try again
with more that one try each to see how difficult it is to measure a cup
of flour with a consistent weight. The suggested method was to fluff
the flour with a spoon and lightly spoon into the cup and then level
with the handle of the spoon. You are good if you can keep within a
half ounce.

It takes practice and close attention to measure a consistent weight of
flour with a volume measure. Of course, often it is not necessary. On
the other hand, if you are baking for sale, testing a new recipe that
has weight measurements, or trying to fix a problem, you would be silly
not to use a scale.

Last I knew, the KA Flour folks are saying a cup should weigh 4.5 Oz.
That is up from an impossible 4 Oz that once was printed on the bag.
With great care, I can get to 4.6 Oz. It is very easy to scoop a lot
more into a cup.

Are there enough people left who sift flour to get up a game of bridge?

Regards,

Charles


  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

In article . net>,
Charles Perry > wrote:

> I was at a King Arthur bread class some time ago where before the class
> there was a bowl of flour on a display table with an invitation to fill
> a cup with flour and weigh the results.
>
> Somebody tallyed the results and presented a chart of the weights. The
> variance was hard to believe. People had filled a cup with 4.5 Oz to
> six Oz of flour.
>
> We were invited to return to the flour and cup display and try again
> with more that one try each to see how difficult it is to measure a cup
> of flour with a consistent weight. The suggested method was to fluff
> the flour with a spoon and lightly spoon into the cup and then level
> with the handle of the spoon. You are good if you can keep within a
> half ounce.


> Charles



I am almost sure that the all the King Arthur books use volume measures
which surprised (& irritated me). It's been awhile since I looked at
them so I am not absolutely sure. If true then it would be all the
more surprising in light of the fact that they know it is a lousy
method and being in a position of influence they could have moved
people along in a better direction instead of their comfort zone.

Roland

PS I always weigh and always have. As an aside in India where I grew up
my mother would always weigh (using a double beam balance which is more
cumbersome than anything modern) so I think it is partially cultural
practice that dictates what you do.


Roland
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

Joe Doe wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Charles Perry > wrote:
>
>> I was at a King Arthur bread class some time ago where before the class
>> there was a bowl of flour on a display table with an invitation to fill
>> a cup with flour and weigh the results.
>>
>> Somebody tallyed the results and presented a chart of the weights. The
>> variance was hard to believe. People had filled a cup with 4.5 Oz to
>> six Oz of flour.
>>
>> We were invited to return to the flour and cup display and try again
>> with more that one try each to see how difficult it is to measure a cup
>> of flour with a consistent weight. The suggested method was to fluff
>> the flour with a spoon and lightly spoon into the cup and then level
>> with the handle of the spoon. You are good if you can keep within a
>> half ounce.

>
>> Charles

>
>
> I am almost sure that the all the King Arthur books use volume measures
> which surprised (& irritated me). It's been awhile since I looked at
> them so I am not absolutely sure. If true then it would be all the
> more surprising in light of the fact that they know it is a lousy
> method and being in a position of influence they could have moved
> people along in a better direction instead of their comfort zone.
>


I have the KA 200th Anniversary Cookbook and KA Cookie Companion. While
the Anniversary cookbook uses volume measures, the KACC states both
volume and weight for ingredients such as flour, sugar, etc. For typical
small quantity items like extracts and flavorings it sticks to volume
measurement only.



> Roland
>
> PS I always weigh and always have. As an aside in India where I grew up
> my mother would always weigh (using a double beam balance which is more
> cumbersome than anything modern) so I think it is partially cultural
> practice that dictates what you do.
>
>
> Roland

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and why?

Mike-
What features would you recommend a scale for home baking have?
Russ

On Dec 20, 11:23 am, Mike Avery > wrote:
> PastorDIC wrote:
> > You said "I used cups for more than 30 years. I no longer use them
> > more than once per recipe. When I get a recipe in cups, I use cups,
> > weigh the ingredients and then never use cups for that recipe again."

>
> > As one who has never used scales in recipes, how do you manage to
> > measure them in cups once and get it right the first time when volume
> > measurement is so much more inaccurate?A good question. I have a few years experience, so I adjust the dough

> as I make it. I make decisions that the dough is too firm or too wet.
> And weigh the adjustments.
>
> So, if I use 3 cups of flour at 450 grams (to pull numbers out of the
> air) and the dough is too soft, I know I need to add flour. I zero the
> scales, put on the bowl, and put enough flour in the bowl to make it
> read 1,000 grams. At that point, I scoop out the flour I need until the
> dough feels right.
>
> I then weigh the flour bowl again and subtract. If it weighs 800 grams,
> I know I used 200 grams after the first addition, or (in this
> hypothetical case) 650 grams.
>
> When the bake is done, I evaluate whatever I baked and think about how
> I'd like to change it. Instead of changing the recipe in cups, from
> that point on I fine tune it by weight.
>
> Mike




  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

I have been using an oversized cup to loosely pour into the measuring
cup, then level off.
Russ

On Dec 21, 11:33 am, Mike Avery > wrote:
> It's Christmas time in this neck of the woods, so I am preparing some
> recipes I don't often prepare. I am also converting them from volume to
> measure.
>
> A great time to check out the weights of flour. And a great time to
> start a new thread.
>
> I weighed six cups of flour, 3 sifted, spooned into the cup and then
> leveled with a knife, and 3 just scooped out of the sack.
>
> The flour is from Sam's Club, their Hotel and Restaurant Quality
> All-Purpose Flour. According to them, a cup should weigh 120 grams.
>
> Cup # Sifted Scooped
> 1 121 185
> 2 124 148
> 3 125 178
>
> I was quite surprised how consistent the sifted cups were. And how
> close to the nominal weight. I was not at all surprised by the
> variations in the scooped weight.
>
> I am curious.... if you use cups, and I am sure most of the Americans
> here do, how do you fill your cups? Do you sift, spoon and level? Do
> you scoop? Do you do something else? If you are likely to keep using
> cups, do these numbers make you think about changing how you fill your cups?
>
> And now, it's off to the store for more cookie ingredients....
> Mike


  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Spica" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I also use my scale for mailing out all those holiday packages! It's so
> much easier when the post office picks up my packages than having me drive
> over there and wait in line (gives me more time to bake, too!)


I send letters and packages frequently, I have four scales, one in the
kitchen, one in the workroom and another in each caravan. They're invaluable
for many purposes.

Mary
>



  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

Mary Fisher wrote:
> "Spica" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I also use my scale for mailing out all those holiday packages! It's so
>> much easier when the post office picks up my packages than having me drive
>> over there and wait in line (gives me more time to bake, too!)

>
> I send letters and packages frequently, I have four scales, one in the
> kitchen, one in the workroom and another in each caravan. They're invaluable
> for many purposes.
>
> Mary
>
>


I agree - I can't even recall how I managed without a scale. I believe
it's a practical item to have even if one isn't into baking. I think
every household should have a good scale on hand.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Spica" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I agree - I can't even recall how I managed without a scale. I believe
> it's a practical item to have even if one isn't into baking. I think every
> household should have a good scale on hand.


I've just remembered that an excellent feature on all my scales is a button
to press to switch from imperial to metric. You might think that since your
country only uses one system that you need nothing else but sometimes
recipes from other systems are used.

Being brought up with imperial and working in a laboratory with metric I
understand the value of each system and can switch in my head. but I've got
lazy since I had my first double-use scales!

Another feature of mine (they were very cheap by the way) is to show the
ambient temperature. I can see no use for that. Some also give time and
date, that's OTT for me - but others might value it.

Mary


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

Joe Doe wrote:

>
> I am almost sure that the all the King Arthur books use volume measures
> ... If true then it would be all the
> more surprising in light of the fact that they know it is a lousy
> method and being in a position of influence they could have moved
> people along in a better direction instead of their comfort zone.
>


The director of the KA bakery and baking education, Jeffery Hammelman,
wrote a pretty good book titled, of all things, "Bread". In that book
the ingredients are given in US (pounds and Oz) and metric, as well as
in bakers percentages.

In all organizations larger than One, it must be hard to keep everybody
on the same page singing the same tune. I heard different reps at the
KA class giving different answers to similar questions. The main
presenter urged the use of scales or at least careful and consistent
volume measurement. On balance, I think that the portable classes do a
great deal of good.

A book such as Hammelman's "bread" is going to have limited sales
because of the weight only measurements no matter how good it is. A
book will have to include volume measurement to have wide enough appeal
to generate high sales. I suspect that some of the KA books were
targeted at the mass market.

Regards,

Charles


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 556
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message
t...

> Some (scales) give time and date, that's OTT for me -
> but others might value it.


Well, it would be good to know which day it is,
particularly if it is trash day.

(OTT = on-time trash) ???

Did I mention how I use the scale? Well, I just
weigh the dough. Since I always use the same
amount of water, that tells me the flour weight
(and the "hydration"). I have made a chart for
that.

And, guess what(?): it is always pretty much
the same as it was last time, even though I use
volumetric measure (cans, you know).

> I have four scales, one in the kitchen, one in the
> workroom and another in each caravan.


Well, Mary, I may have mentioned that I have five
scales, including 3 beam balances. Counting those
for body weight, I have seven altogether. But, sadly,
no caravans. Some trucks, though. (Five if garden
carts and hand-trucks can be included.)

--
Dicky


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message
t...

> Some (scales) give time and date, that's OTT for me -
> but others might value it.


Well, it would be good to know which day it is,
particularly if it is trash day.

(OTT = on-time trash) ???

No, 'trash' day is bin day :-)

OTT = Over The Top.

Sorry, it must be a British expression.


> I have four scales, one in the kitchen, one in the
> workroom and another in each caravan.


Well, Mary, I may have mentioned that I have five
scales, including 3 beam balances.

Oh, if we're counting other types I have lots but I don't use them for
baking :-)

Mary



  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 556
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message
t...

> Oh, if we're counting other types (of scales) I have lots
> but I don't use them for baking :-)


Mary, your affluence is simply overwhelming!

But, Mary, you do not seem to be getting it on the matter
of >'s and >>'s (and >>>'s, >>>>'s, etc.).

Your reply should always have one less > than the requoted
statement it addresses.

For Outlook Express (which you are using):
Tool -> Options -> Send
(news sending format)
(plan text selected)
-> plain text setting
Make it say "indent original text with >"

I suggest using quoted printable encoding so as not to
break URL links, but manually keeping your other lines
short (<66 characters).

But that is just one person's opinion, of course.

--
Dicky

P.S. Nice work on trimming requoted stuff!
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 259
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Spica" > wrote in message
. ..
> Joe Doe wrote:
>> In article . net>,

> I have the KA 200th Anniversary Cookbook and KA Cookie Companion. While
> the Anniversary cookbook uses volume measures, the KACC states both volume
> and weight for ingredients such as flour, sugar, etc. For typical small
> quantity items like extracts and flavorings it sticks to volume
> measurement only.
>
>

IIRC, in the equipment section of the Anniversary book, they STRONGLY
recommend using scales rather than cups!
Graham


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message
t...

> Oh, if we're counting other types (of scales) I have lots
> but I don't use them for baking :-)


Mary, your affluence is simply overwhelming!

You're making assumptions.

But, Mary, you do not seem to be getting it on the matter
of >'s and >>'s (and >>>'s, >>>>'s, etc.).

Oh I know about them but if they don't appear I'm not going to add them.

Your reply should always have one less > than the requoted
statement it addresses.

You don't say!

No!
Tool -> Options -> Send
(news sending format)
(plan text selected)
-> plain text setting
Make it say "indent original text with >"

<sigh>

I did that years ago but some folks' software doesn't add the chevrons (tha
chevron is a > )

I suggest using quoted printable encoding so as not to
break URL links, but manually keeping your other lines
short (<66 characters).

But that is just one person's opinion, of course.

Of course.

--
Dicky

P.S. Nice work on trimming requoted stuff!




  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 556
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message t...

> "Dick Adams" > wrote in message
> ...


> > Make it say "indent original text with >"


> I did that years ago but some folks' software doesn't add the chevrons (tha
> chevron is a > )


(And all this time I though it was a gas station.)

Yes, software can be very obstinate.

Well, some people think the >'s and >>'s are necessary to understand
who said what, but anybody with half a brain can figure it out anyway
can't we?

--
Dicky

  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:48:29 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
> wrote:

>Tool -> Options -> Send
> (news sending format)
> (plan text selected)
>-> plain text setting
>Make it say "indent original text with >"
>
><sigh>
>
>I did that years ago


Even more recently than that - you did it this morning, in message

>

which you posted at 09:38:41, GMT.

>but some folks' software doesn't add the chevrons (tha
>chevron is a > )


The chevrons are added by the poster's software, not the reader's. I
suspect a "burp" in your Outlook settings took place, some time after
your correctly formatted post this morning.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message
t...

> "Dick Adams" > wrote in message
> ...


> > Make it say "indent original text with >"


> I did that years ago but some folks' software doesn't add the chevrons
> (tha
> chevron is a > )


(And all this time I though it was a gas station.)

:-)

Yes, software can be very obstinate.

In my case it happens as a result of a few other people's software, it works
perfectly for most.

Well, some people think the >'s and >>'s are necessary to understand
who said what, but anybody with half a brain can figure it out anyway
can't we?

The chevrons do help but you're right about half brained understanding :-)

What I don't like is seeing other symbols instead of chevrons, e.g. ? and |
.. I can't understand why they choose to be unconventional.

Mary


--
Dicky


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Andrew Price" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:48:29 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
> > wrote:
>
>>Tool -> Options -> Send
>> (news sending format)
>> (plan text selected)
>>-> plain text setting
>>Make it say "indent original text with >"
>>
>><sigh>
>>
>>I did that years ago

>
> Even more recently than that - you did it this morning, in message
>
> >
>
> which you posted at 09:38:41, GMT.
>
>>but some folks' software doesn't add the chevrons (tha
>>chevron is a > )

>
> The chevrons are added by the poster's software, not the reader's. I
> suspect a "burp" in your Outlook settings took place, some time after
> your correctly formatted post this morning.


As I've said, it happens when SOME (only a few) posters reply to mine.

Mary


  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight,and why?

PastorDIC wrote:
> Mike-
> What features would you recommend a scale for home baking have?
> Russ
>

I'd look for the ability to measure grams, ounces, and pounds. That
will make it easy to use any weight based recipe you might encounter,
and will let you ue it as a postal scale.

I'd look for about an 11 to 14 pound capacity. That will let you make
larger batches.

I'd look for a tare function so you can measure all your ingredients
into a single bowl.

Some people like to use an AC adapter. I find batteries last a long
time and staying on batteries frees me from the cord.

I've been very happy with my My Weigh KD-700 candle makers scale,
however that model has been discontinued. I think the current version
is the KD-7000.

Mike

--
....The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world...

Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith



  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:10:49 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
> wrote:

>> The chevrons are added by the poster's software, not the reader's. I
>> suspect a "burp" in your Outlook settings took place, some time after
>> your correctly formatted post this morning.

>
>As I've said, it happens when SOME (only a few) posters reply to mine.


Ahem ...

Mary, the problem which Dick raised isn't lacking citation marks in
other posters' replies to yours.

It's lacking citation marks in YOUR posts when you reply to (some)
others. Whatever the cause, the lacking citation marks fail to get
added at your end of the chain.
  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Andrew Price" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:10:49 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
> > wrote:
>
>>> The chevrons are added by the poster's software, not the reader's. I
>>> suspect a "burp" in your Outlook settings took place, some time after
>>> your correctly formatted post this morning.

>>
>>As I've said, it happens when SOME (only a few) posters reply to mine.

>
> Ahem ...
>
> Mary, the problem which Dick raised isn't lacking citation marks in
> other posters' replies to yours.
>
> It's lacking citation marks in YOUR posts when you reply to (some)
> others. Whatever the cause, the lacking citation marks fail to get
> added at your end of the chain.


I obviously haven't made myself clear. I'll do it one last time because it
has nothing to do with sourdough.

The chevrons are only missing on my posts when they go to certain other
readers. They are in a minority but it happens always with those posts (and
mails). It doesn't happen with the majority.


  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

Mary Fisher wrote:

> "Andrew Price" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:10:49 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The chevrons are added by the poster's software, not the reader's. I
>>>>suspect a "burp" in your Outlook settings took place, some time after
>>>>your correctly formatted post this morning.
>>>
>>>As I've said, it happens when SOME (only a few) posters reply to mine.

>>
>>Ahem ...
>>
>>Mary, the problem which Dick raised isn't lacking citation marks in
>>other posters' replies to yours.
>>
>>It's lacking citation marks in YOUR posts when you reply to (some)
>>others. Whatever the cause, the lacking citation marks fail to get
>>added at your end of the chain.

>
>
> I obviously haven't made myself clear. I'll do it one last time because it
> has nothing to do with sourdough.
>
> The chevrons are only missing on my posts when they go to certain other
> readers. They are in a minority but it happens always with those posts (and
> mails). It doesn't happen with the majority.


Case in point: I read these (at home) with Mozilla Thunderbird mail &
news client. I see the indents as blue bars, 1, 2 and 3 deep, in this case.
When I Reply, they get converted to >, >>, >>>, and >>>>, adding one for
Mary's post.
It seems some clients are not rpoperly inserting them...

Dave
  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....

"Mary Fisher" > wrote in
t:

>
> "Andrew Price" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:10:49 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> The chevrons are added by the poster's software, not the reader's.
>>>> I suspect a "burp" in your Outlook settings took place, some time
>>>> after your correctly formatted post this morning.
>>>
>>>As I've said, it happens when SOME (only a few) posters reply to
>>>mine.

>>
>> Ahem ...
>>
>> Mary, the problem which Dick raised isn't lacking citation marks in
>> other posters' replies to yours.
>>
>> It's lacking citation marks in YOUR posts when you reply to (some)
>> others. Whatever the cause, the lacking citation marks fail to get
>> added at your end of the chain.

>
> I obviously haven't made myself clear. I'll do it one last time
> because it has nothing to do with sourdough.
>
> The chevrons are only missing on my posts when they go to certain
> other readers. They are in a minority but it happens always with
> those posts (and mails). It doesn't happen with the majority.
>
>


I see the chevrons on your post Mary, they are 1, 2, & 3 >, >>, >>>.
Now I am replying they become 1, 2, 3, & 4.
I use Xnews.

Brian
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 556
Default Some real life numbers, and a question....


"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message t...
>
> "Andrew Price" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:10:49 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>> The chevrons are added by the poster's software, not the reader's. I
> >>> suspect a "burp" in your Outlook settings took place, some time after
> >>> your correctly formatted post this morning.
> >>
> >>As I've said, it happens when SOME (only a few) posters reply to mine.

> >
> > Ahem ...
> >
> > Mary, the problem which Dick raised isn't lacking citation marks in
> > other posters' replies to yours.
> >
> > It's lacking citation marks in YOUR posts when you reply to (some)
> > others. Whatever the cause, the lacking citation marks fail to get
> > added at your end of the chain.

>
> I obviously haven't made myself clear. I'll do it one last time because it
> has nothing to do with sourdough.
>
> The chevrons are only missing on my posts when they go to certain other
> readers. They are in a minority but it happens always with those posts (and
> mails). It doesn't happen with the majority.
>
>

I see it now. OE needs the complete mess made by previous
requoting before it piles another > before each previous >.
I am culpable because I edit my replies to make them neat
and more readable. But I shan't be apologetic because God
loves neat people.

--
Dicky
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Problem converting volume to weight (flour and cocoa) Jon Danniken[_3_] General Cooking 104 04-04-2017 12:06 AM
'Overweight' people live longer than those of 'ideal' weight ChattyCathy General Cooking 38 26-06-2009 01:33 AM
Free Tips To Help People To Lose Weight [email protected] General Cooking 0 03-01-2009 10:09 AM
Tea for a large group of people? Kai Hendry Tea 6 25-07-2007 09:30 AM
Volume of must or volume of expected juice for calculating sulfite/acid/yeast needed marc Winemaking 10 02-10-2006 11:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"