Dick Adams wrote:

> 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.

I've heard of an add-on called "Quote Fix" that may remedy that.

B/

> 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

But are they not helpful for identifying age of the citations?
Brian

Mike Avery wrote:
> 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
>

I got a My Weigh KD-7000 Professional several months ago. It may not be
as sleek looking as some other well-known brands, but it has all the
features one needs/wants in a baking scale. Plus it uses AA batteries -
a big plus when the batteries finally die and need replacing.

WOW!!!

"Dusty da baker" > wrote in message
...
> Good evening all;
>
> "Mike Avery" > wrote in message
> news:mailman.7.1166496426.97186.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
> ...
>>> Spot-on, Russ. You've nailed it... Now, go bake some bread...(:-o)!
>> Nope. He missed it. You missed it again.
> Nope. Not even close, and not even for a moment. As someone that's
> written the programs and done the research for scales, BOTH schemes have
> errors. BOTH will be off in similar ways. I've weighed everything from
> atoms on a chip to a space-shuttle on the launch transporter. Mass is
> mass. Volume is volume. Both will arrive at the same result within the
> same margins of error.
>
>> In a test in one of the baking newsgroups, people with scales weighed
>> cups of all-purpose flour. Depending on how they filled the cups, they
>> ranged from under 100 to over 200 grams. Worse, people found as much as
>> a 25% cup to cup variation.
> I doubt that. Only those folks with an axe to grind will find such
> variations. Then again, the converse is equally true. Given any specific
> volume, the weight will be off. No big deal. We're making bread here,
> not mixing rocket fuel.
>
>> Checking on-line, flour in the USA is normally delivered at 14% moisture.
>> In a number of web pages, I found no references to moisture levels lower
>> than 9 or higher than 15% in flours.
> I must have lived in more different places than you. I've baked in Yuma,
> and I've baked in the PNW. The weights were widely different.
>
> ...
>>> I write and post my recipes so that my friends and family can make them.
>> No, you don't. Since it can't be really assured that the readers of your
>> recipes
> I'm delighted that you've become prescient enough to know what and for
> whom I make my recipes. I don't run in your "professional bakers"
> circles. I do however, get to visit many, many more ordinary folks that
> bake as well. In none of their kitchens did I find any scales (unless I
> brought 'em).
>
> ...
> than that. When teaching students, the feel of the dough is a primary
> thing to get across.
> [That's certainly true. But how you get to that is irrelevant. Volume
> measurements have errors, weight measurements have errors. Yet, somehow,
> miraculously, the bread still comes out as bread.]
>
> ...
>> If people want to use cups, cool. But I don't think it is reasonable to
>> say that they are as accurate, or even close to as accurate, as scales.
> [I DIDN'T SAY that I wanted people to use cups. I said use what you're
> comfortable with. I'm comfortable with cups. You apparently are not. I
> don't really care. Use what you want. But I WILL NOT sit by and allow
> someone to assert that only weight can be used for baking, when that's not
> so. I said BOTH work! You, OTOH; seem to think that only weight can be
> used. Then you would be wrong, Wrong, WRONG!]
>
>>> Most "home bakers" don't come ready equipped with a scale...but they do
>>> have cups and the like. So I bake and write with them in mind. You are
>>> of course welcome to use whatever floats your boat. The goal here is,
>>> after all, to bake good bread. If you have the need to dazzle the wife,
>>> kids, and neighbors with your newly found talent and acumen by flashing
>>> lots of new high-tech goodies, that's your business...and nobody
>>> else's...
>>
>> It depends on where you look. Cups are largely an American thing. Most
>> Europeans use scales.
> [Didn't say they weren't...only you have asserted that. Most of my
> friends and family live in the USofA now. And they are to whom I write
> and post my recipes...no matter how your elitist sensibilities are
> offended.]
>
>> It doesn't seem reasonable to think that scales are a high-tech goodie.
>> They've been in use for thousands of years. At $15 to 20, they aren't
>> expensive, and they are a very long term investment. My Weigh offers a
>> lifetime warranty to the original owner. I use mine to weigh packages
>> for mailing and many other things as well as baking.
> [I didn't say they were, did I? I said they weren't necessary! Darn it
> all! They're not!]
>
>> I don't know what your hostility to scales is, but it has no rational
>> basis.
> I don't know what your hostility to volume is, but it has no rational
> basis.
>
> BOTH systems have built-in errors. BOTH systems have advantages in some
> usages. And BOTH systems deserve an equal footing in a recipe. *You* can
> do yours by weight, *I'll* do mine by volume! *I* do mine for myself, my
> friends, and my family, *you* can do yours to impress your baking friends
> and other hangers-on. I really don't give a crap either way...
>
>
> Dusty
> ...
>

On 20 Dec 2006 16:23:26 -0800, "Will" >
wrote:

>
>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


I read this group daily. There are posters whom I enjoy reading all
the time and others who can disappear in a cloud of rice flour without
my notice..

It's winter and I spend my free time baking.

Right now I am breeding one of the sweet "sourdough," Amish friendship
concoctions that take 10 days to prepare. It was a gift, so I promised
I'd play with it. I will depart from its recipe only at the end, when
I think it'll wind up as pecan sticky buns.

Boron

Boron Elgar wrote:

> Right now I am breeding one of the sweet "sourdough," Amish friendship
> concoctions that take 10 days to prepare.

Interesting. Never done that. I did make some raison Kugelhopfs last
week. My winter experiment though is using seeds to release higher
hydration breads in the lined baskets. I got tired of teasing the
doughs out. Much as I like rice flour for that chore, it's becoming
apparent that coating sections of the dough surface with something:
sunflower, pumpkin, sesame, etc... works a bit better.

(and no... I haven't weighed them) At least not yet <g>.

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...

> Right now I am breeding one of the sweet "sourdough,"
> Amish friendship concoctions that take 10 days to prepare.
> It was a gift, so I promised I'd play with it. I will
> depart from its recipe only at the end, when I think
> it'll wind up as pecan sticky buns.

WOW!

> There are posters whom I enjoy reading all the time and
> others who can disappear in a cloud of rice flour without
> my notice..

(Poof)

On 28 Dec 2006 06:32:42 -0800, "Will" >
wrote:

>
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> Right now I am breeding one of the sweet "sourdough," Amish friendship
>> concoctions that take 10 days to prepare.
>
>Interesting. Never done that. I did make some raison Kugelhopfs last
>week. My winter experiment though is using seeds to release higher
>hydration breads in the lined baskets. I got tired of teasing the
>doughs out. Much as I like rice flour for that chore, it's becoming
>apparent that coating sections of the dough surface with something:
>sunflower, pumpkin, sesame, etc... works a bit better.
>
>(and no... I haven't weighed them) At least not yet <g>.


I use unlined bannetons and regular flour. The spaces in between the
reeds are packed tight with flour, I then toss in more flour, and
cover the dough with flour, too. BUT I do not use my bannetons for
superhydration breads such the NYT recipe or a coccodrillo. I keep
them free form or hand shaped.

The seeds make sense...the same way that using cornmeal on a peel
helps the dough slide off, so the seeds (but I'd think you'd need a
LOT of seeds) should provide a coating that will help separate. And
the seeds do not absorb the moisture as the rice flour or regular
flour can do.

I am a parchment fan when I use free form loaves and even when I upend
the dough out of the unlined bannetons.

Boron

To all you who have suggested I try weighing dry ingredients, I now
have a scale.

Unfortunately, my wife says the starter is too sour (see the thread
"sweetening the sourdough starter" for that conversation).

Now once my *new* starter arrives, it will be interesting to compare
how both recipes work out. Maybe I will have to try the two side by
side if I'm that energetic.
Russ

On Dec 21 2006, 9:41 am, "TG" > wrote:
> 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.
> > RussWoah, 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