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.

It can't be water content: Here in the Pacific NW USA we have high
humidity and lots of rain. Things are going to have a greater water
content, and it won't matter whether you measure it out or weigh it.
You can't completely moisture proof everything. It can't be measuring
accuracy: I can just as easily measure inaccurately weighing
everything out as I can by volume.
Russ

In article . com>,
says...
> 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.
>
> It can't be water content: Here in the Pacific NW USA we have high
> humidity and lots of rain. Things are going to have a greater water
> content, and it won't matter whether you measure it out or weigh it.
> You can't completely moisture proof everything. It can't be measuring
> accuracy: I can just as easily measure inaccurately weighing
> everything out as I can by volume.
> Russ
>
>
I use weight for dry ingredients other than yeast, and volume for the
liquids.

I don't think you can use either exclusively without some error factor
creeping in (however small). The above seems to work for me with
relatively few surprises.

Have you checked the accuracy of your measuring implements?

Bob

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.
>
> It can't be water content: Here in the Pacific NW USA we have high
> humidity and lots of rain. Things are going to have a greater water
> content, and it won't matter whether you measure it out or weigh it.
> You can't completely moisture proof everything. It can't be measuring
> accuracy: I can just as easily measure inaccurately weighing
> everything out as I can by volume.
>
If you are determined to be inaccurate, you don't need cups or
scales.... just use your hands. Two handfuls of flour, a handful of
water, a splash of salt a dash of yeast..... no problem.

What people do here is probably all over the map. And all of them will
be passionate in defense of their preferred methods. The scale versus
cup debate is a recurring flame war. I hope it won't go postal this time.

In my experience, what is important is that the dough feel right for the
type of bread you are making. Measuring helps you get there more
easily. In teaching bakers, the hardest thing to communicate is how
dough should feel. We really don't have a good vocabulary for
describing how dough feels. "Like a baby's bottom" is often heard. And
meaningless... they don't all feel alike... and not all doughs should
feel alike either. In hands-on classes, there is no problem. The
student can make dough, have it adjusted by the teacher, and will learn
how it should feel. However, in print - whether online or a book - it
is much harder to communicate how dough should feel. Measuring is the
way we can most easily share how to get there with students.

The first few times I was a witness to these debates, I was on the cup
side. Cups are faster and easier, I said.

However, over time I changed my mind. Two major things happened that
began to move me.....

The first thing was when some people in one of the newsgroups asked
everyone who had access to scales to measure a cup of flour.

The range was from less than 100 to more than 200 grams, depending on
how the cup was filled. With this sort of variation between different
people's cups, cups just don't work as a way to share recipes.

Worse... people found a cup to cup variation of around 25%.

The people who filled cups "the right way" by sifting the flour, filling
the cup by dropping the flour into a cup from a tablespoon, and then
using a knife to level the cup had less variation between cups than
those who just scooped flour out of a bag, but they still had a
considerable variation between cups.

Still, cups are not a good way to allow people to be able to repeat
recipes, should that be important to them.

Next, I started baking commercially. And measuring by volume JUST WOULD
NOT WORK. It is faster, and more accurate, to measure by weight. Zero
the scales, add flour. Zero the scales, add salt. Zero the scales, add
yeast. Zero the scales, add water. And its off the mixer. Usually, I
just pour ingredients. Works great.

What about the variations in flour? Yes, they are there, but there are
in the single digit percentage range, not in the 25% range.

Back to the bakery..... every professional baker I know measures by
weight, and then during and at the end of the mix, the baker feels the
dough to make sure it feels right. The baker adjusts as needed. The
baker also tastes the dough to make sure that it tastes right, and they
haven't forgotten the salt (this time). Most often, once a recipe is
stabilized, adjustments aren't needed until the baker gets a new batch
of flour.

However, the home baker doesn't go through flour as quickly as a
commercial baker. In a dry environment, their flour dries out. In a
wet environment, their flour absorbs water. And their flour isn't as
consistent because flour just doesn't turn over quickly enough at the
grocery store.

Still... the range of moisture in flour is fairly low. And the range of
error is still much, much smaller than the errors in measuring with cups.

What a home baker does really doesn't need to follow bakery best
practices. If the baker is happy with their results, if the baker is
happy with the consistency of their products, and with the amount of
effort it takes to get there, there's no reason to change. However, I
do think that measuring by weight has shown itself to be faster, easier
and more accurate. Even at home, I continue to weigh ingredients.

Mike

Mike Avery wrote:

> However, I
> do think that measuring by weight has shown itself to be faster, easier
> and more accurate. Even at home, I continue to weigh ingredients.

Put the mixing bowl on the scale; set the tare. Add ingredient; reset
to zero. Add next ingredient; reset again. Very simple and fast.

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message
news:mailman.5.1166411006.97186.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
> 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.
>>
>> It can't be water content: Here in the Pacific NW USA we have high
>> humidity and lots of rain. Things are going to have a greater water
>> content, and it won't matter whether you measure it out or weigh it.
>> You can't completely moisture proof everything. It can't be measuring
>> accuracy: I can just as easily measure inaccurately weighing
>> everything out as I can by volume.
>>

I have been monitoring this group for about a year and would never deign to
offer advice, I just listen or ask questions. (1)
However, after the No Knead bread (which was very good) that seemed to be
thrown together. I remember watching both my Mother and Grandmother make
bread.

1. Dump 10 lb. bag of flour on a wooden counter. ( Save the sack to make the
young girls dresses)
2. Crumble some yeast cake in a bowl with some warm water,
3. After making sure it was active pour it along with water and salt in the
middle of the pile of flour and dig in with both hands and some kind of
wooden scraper.
(I do not recall any measuring cups or spoons)
4. Poke push and knead for awhile? 20/30 minutes

I don't recall the rise time, bake time, temperature or any other minute
detail. But the bread was always great, was started in the morning and ready
for supper (the evening meal).
Then I found this newsgroup and realized that to become proficient in making
sourdough bread you need a degree in a variety of things.
Exact measurements by weight or volume and exotic starter of one kind or
another..And a lot of patience.
Is it really that satisfying to learn this skill? Or is this just really a
social group.
Just wondering,
Jim Davidson

James L. Davidson wrote:
> I remember watching both my Mother and Grandmother make
> bread.
>
> 1. Dump 10 lb. bag of flour on a wooden counter. ( Save the sack to make the
> young girls dresses)
>

Must have been very small girls... unless the sacks were sewn together.
And... it does sound like measuring to me. Many commercial bakers use
the "sack" as a unit of measurement. Many mixers are rated by how many
50 pound sacks they can accommodate. "It's a 5 bag mixer."
> 2. Crumble some yeast cake in a bowl with some warm water,
>
Your mom and grandmom knew how much yeast to use. And they'd adjust it
based on the temperature and the condition of the yeast. Fresh yeast is
pretty perishable stuff.

> 3. After making sure it was active pour it along with water and salt in the
> middle of the pile of flour and dig in with both hands and some kind of
> wooden scraper.
> (I do not recall any measuring cups or spoons)
>
Hands work very well. A palm-full is usually about 3 tablespoons.
> 4. Poke push and knead for awhile? 20/30 minutes
>
Until it felt right.

> I don't recall the rise time, bake time, temperature or any other minute
> detail. But the bread was always great, was started in the morning and ready
> for supper (the evening meal).
> Then I found this newsgroup and realized that to become proficient in making
> sourdough bread you need a degree in a variety of things.
> Exact measurements by weight or volume and exotic starter of one kind or
> another..And a lot of patience.
>
A lot of people here are learning and are asking questions that dig deep
into how sourdough works. Farther than they need to dig just to make
bread. Illiterate peoples who had no idea of what a yeast or bacteria
are made good bread for thousands of years. Many of the people asking
these questions would be better served by turning off their computers
and baking another loaf of bread. As to exotic starters - what makes
one starter more exotic than another? Most of us are using a starter we
started at home or Carl's starter. As to patience, yes, baking requires
patience. Sourdough requires more patience.

Did your mom or grandmom teach you how to bake? One of the big issues
modern bakers face is that no one taught them. Your mom and grandmom
knew how to make their bread. They knew how the dough should feel for
the bread to come out right. However, the easiest way to learn how
dough should feel is to have someone show you. I'm sorry you, like so
many of us, missed out on that.

As I mentioned, the hardest thing to teach through print is how dough
should feel. And that's where measurements come in. Good measurements
get you closer, quicker, and shorten the learning curve.

By all means, have your mom or grandmom drop by and teach you how to
make their bread. They'll spend a fair amount of time showing you how
the dough should feel.

They can't do that? That's the problem that many of us face. Mom and
grandmom are no longer here. Or they are no longer on the same side of
the world as we are. Or once their arthritis got bad they stopped
making bread. Leaving us to struggle as best we can.

> Is it really that satisfying to learn this skill? Or is this just really a
> social group.
More often than not, it's an anti-social group. Especially when school
goes into or out of session.

But, yes, it is that satisfying to learn how to bake with sourdough.


Mike

Mike;

Thanks for the answer, I'm 68 years old and at age 12-13 the last skill that
I would have acquired was bread making at that age.
I am a widower, need a hobby and I do love sourdough bread. This last year I
have tried six or eight loaves very unsuccessfully.
When I say unsuccessfully I mean that I cannot come anywhere near the Bread
you folks show photos of or what I can buy at the Market.
I suppose that I'm just not dedicated.
Anyway thanks for answering my rant.
Jim Davidson

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message
news:mailman.5.1166411006.97186.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
> 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.
>>
>> It can't be water content: Here in the Pacific NW USA we have high
>> humidity and lots of rain. Things are going to have a greater water
>> content, and it won't matter whether you measure it out or weigh it.
>> You can't completely moisture proof everything. It can't be measuring
>> accuracy: I can just as easily measure inaccurately weighing
>> everything out as I can by volume.
>>
> If you are determined to be inaccurate, you don't need cups or scales....
> just use your hands. Two handfuls of flour, a handful of water, a splash
> of salt a dash of yeast..... no problem.
>
> What people do here is probably all over the map. And all of them will be
> passionate in defense of their preferred methods. The scale versus cup
> debate is a recurring flame war. I hope it won't go postal this time.
>
> In my experience, what is important is that the dough feel right for the
> type of bread you are making. Measuring helps you get there more easily.
> In teaching bakers, the hardest thing to communicate is how dough should
> feel. We really don't have a good vocabulary for describing how dough
> feels. "Like a baby's bottom" is often heard. And meaningless... they
> don't all feel alike... and not all doughs should feel alike either. In
> hands-on classes, there is no problem. The student can make dough, have
> it adjusted by the teacher, and will learn how it should feel. However,
> in print - whether online or a book - it is much harder to communicate how
> dough should feel. Measuring is the way we can most easily share how to
> get there with students.
>
> The first few times I was a witness to these debates, I was on the cup
> side. Cups are faster and easier, I said.
>
> However, over time I changed my mind. Two major things happened that began
> to move me.....
>
> The first thing was when some people in one of the newsgroups asked
> everyone who had access to scales to measure a cup of flour.
>
> The range was from less than 100 to more than 200 grams, depending on how
> the cup was filled. With this sort of variation between different
> people's cups, cups just don't work as a way to share recipes.
>
> Worse... people found a cup to cup variation of around 25%.
>
> The people who filled cups "the right way" by sifting the flour, filling
> the cup by dropping the flour into a cup from a tablespoon, and then using
> a knife to level the cup had less variation between cups than those who
> just scooped flour out of a bag, but they still had a considerable
> variation between cups.
>
> Still, cups are not a good way to allow people to be able to repeat
> recipes, should that be important to them.
>
> Next, I started baking commercially. And measuring by volume JUST WOULD
> NOT WORK. It is faster, and more accurate, to measure by weight. Zero
> the scales, add flour. Zero the scales, add salt. Zero the scales, add
> yeast. Zero the scales, add water. And its off the mixer. Usually, I
> just pour ingredients. Works great.
>
> What about the variations in flour? Yes, they are there, but there are in
> the single digit percentage range, not in the 25% range.
>
> Back to the bakery..... every professional baker I know measures by
> weight, and then during and at the end of the mix, the baker feels the
> dough to make sure it feels right. The baker adjusts as needed. The baker
> also tastes the dough to make sure that it tastes right, and they haven't
> forgotten the salt (this time). Most often, once a recipe is stabilized,
> adjustments aren't needed until the baker gets a new batch of flour.
> However, the home baker doesn't go through flour as quickly as a
> commercial baker. In a dry environment, their flour dries out. In a wet
> environment, their flour absorbs water. And their flour isn't as
> consistent because flour just doesn't turn over quickly enough at the
> grocery store.
>
> Still... the range of moisture in flour is fairly low. And the range of
> error is still much, much smaller than the errors in measuring with cups.
>
> What a home baker does really doesn't need to follow bakery best
> practices. If the baker is happy with their results, if the baker is
> happy with the consistency of their products, and with the amount of
> effort it takes to get there, there's no reason to change. However, I do
> think that measuring by weight has shown itself to be faster, easier and
> more accurate. Even at home, I continue to weigh ingredients.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>

"Steve Bonine" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike Avery wrote:
>
>> However, I do think that measuring by weight has shown itself to be
>> faster, easier and more accurate. Even at home, I continue to weigh
>> ingredients.
>
> Put the mixing bowl on the scale; set the tare. Add ingredient; reset to
> zero. Add next ingredient; reset again. Very simple and fast.

Yes, but if you put in too much of an ingredient it isn't always easy to
remove some :-(

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:


>> Mike Avery wrote:
>>
>>> However, I do think that measuring by weight has shown itself to be
>>> faster, easier and more accurate. Even at home, I continue to weigh
>>> ingredients.
>>
>> Put the mixing bowl on the scale; set the tare. Add ingredient; reset to
>> zero. Add next ingredient; reset again. Very simple and fast.
>
> Yes, but if you put in too much of an ingredient it isn't always easy to
> remove some :-(
>
> Mary

I vote for weighting. Mary right about weighting all ingredients in one bowl
if you put too much of one in and trying to get it out. That is way I
measure each in a differant bowl and then add to mixing bowl. But at the
end of the day I vote for weighting.

Joe Umstead

James L. Davidson wrote:

> I suppose that I'm just not dedicated.

I doubt that it has anything to do with dedication, and everything to do
with trying to teach yourself.

Invest the time and money in a good breadmaking class where you get some
hands-on time with someone who knows what they're doing. I bet that
there will be a few illuminating moments when you realize what the text
in the books really meant.

"James L. Davidson" > wrote in
message ...

> ... is this just really a social group (?)

Apparently it is. I have been trying to put a stop
to that. But it is a losing battle.

--
Dicky

James L. Davidson wrote:

>Is it really that satisfying to learn this skill?

It is. And if you buy an inexpensive scale and two thermometers: one to
monitor the dough and sponge, one to monitor/calibrate your oven, you
can follow the books with exact results. For a beginner, making good
bread means following formulas. There is a lot of tradition to learn,
you can re-invent the wheel later <g>.

To get started, you also need to inventory your local library. What's
there? Good authors are Laurel Roberts, Maggie Glazer, Peter Reinhart,
Jeffrey Hamelman, Scott and Wing. Each is different and each has
something good to offer... all (except Scott/Wing) provide detailed
recipes with specific weight, time and temperature guidance.

Yes, I know this is a different point of view than what your mother did
and what Bittman demo'd on the NYT video. I loved that video by the
way... but you will tire of wet, white, big hole bread after a short
while and want to move along to wheats and ryes... that stuff takes
skill, baker's math... and it requires SD starter to get it right.

"PastorDIC" > wrote in message ups.com...

> [ ... ]

> I can just as easily measure inaccurately weighing
> everything out as I can by volume.

You are a real winner!

: |

BTW, didja ever figure out why your Carl's never started?

Check this: http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php?s=griffith

--
Dicky

"Joe Umstead" > wrote in message
...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>
>
>>> Mike Avery wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I do think that measuring by weight has shown itself to be
>>>> faster, easier and more accurate. Even at home, I continue to weigh
>>>> ingredients.
>>>
>>> Put the mixing bowl on the scale; set the tare. Add ingredient; reset
>>> to
>>> zero. Add next ingredient; reset again. Very simple and fast.
>>
>> Yes, but if you put in too much of an ingredient it isn't always easy to
>> remove some :-(
>>
>> Mary
>
> I vote for weighting. Mary right about weighting all ingredients in one
> bowl
> if you put too much of one in and trying to get it out. That is way I
> measure each in a differant bowl and then add to mixing bowl. But at the
> end of the day I vote for weighting.

I think weighing is essential to ensure a good result with an unfamiliar
recipe - that applies to all cooking.

For more familiar fare rule of thumb works fine - for the experienced cook
or baker. For everyday bread most of the time I use two bags of flour with
half a jar of starter to two jugs of water and two handsful of salt to make
the quantity I want. It works for me but if I lost the jug I'd be in trouble
:-)

Measuring in cups seems logical but I'm not comfortable with it when I use
American recipes. They work but there's a lot of faff involved.

Mary

"Will" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> To get started, you also need to inventory your local library. What's
> there? Good authors are Laurel Roberts, Maggie Glazer, Peter Reinhart,
> Jeffrey Hamelman, Scott and Wing. Each is different and each has
> something good to offer... all (except Scott/Wing) provide detailed
> recipes with specific weight, time and temperature guidance.

Oh I disagree! Scott/Wing's hour by hour almost cartoon recipe was my
salvation when I started making sourdough again. The measurements are almost
industrial but I substitute ounces for kilos and it works beautifully!
>
Mary

No. As far as I know I did everything correctly, and according to past
experience it should have worked.

I sent for a commercial starter. Maybe some day I will get Carl's
again and do a comparison, but for now I figured if it didn't work the
first time to move along to a different starter. I'm too hungry for
some homemade sourdough to risk another dud with Carl's.
Russ

On Dec 18, 7:00 am, "Dick Adams" > wrote:
> "PastorDIC" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
> > [ ... ]
> > I can just as easily measure inaccurately weighing
> > everything out as I can by volume.You are a real winner!
>
> : |
>
> BTW, didja ever figure out why your Carl's never started?
>
> Check this:http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php?s=griffith
>
> --
> Dicky

Hello Russ & all;

"PastorDIC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Do people in this group add bread ingredients by volume or weight, and
> why?
Uh, oh! This looks like the seeds of another flame-war...(:-o)! Over the
years this issue has been about thrashed to death in this august group.

> I tried figuring out an advantage of one over the other on my own
> without success.
There isn't...not really anyway. Volume, weight. It just doesn't matter.
Both have their own inherent inaccuracies. If you're comfortable with
volume, use it. If you'd rather use weight, use that. For the typical,
one-loaf, home baker, neither will yield any specific advantages.

Only commercial, professional bakers "need" weight measurements. There's
simply no other good way to scale a recipe. Doing it by volume measurements
would be a nightmare. Only weight measurements scale well.

The problem comes in when you read this group. There are your typical home
bakers reading here, as well as real professionals who've been in the baking
trenches, so-to-speak. Obviously those two groups are going to approach
this problem from different directions. There's another group reading here
as well; and those are the professional "wanna-be's". They think that if
they use a scale, that this makes 'em a step closer to being "a real" baker
than those that measure by volume. To them, using a scale is a symbol of
their superiority, and they both use and proselytize it as if it were a
religion...something to be obeyed with naught but "belief" as a reason.
T'ain't so!

I write and post my recipes so that my friends and family can make them.
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 can't be water content: Here in the Pacific NW USA we have high
> humidity and lots of rain. Things are going to have a greater water
> content, and it won't matter whether you measure it out or weigh it.
> You can't completely moisture proof everything. It can't be measuring
> accuracy: I can just as easily measure inaccurately weighing
> everything out as I can by volume.
Spot-on, Russ. You've nailed it... Now, go bake some bread...(:-o)!


L8r all,
Dusty -- back in Everett, after a weekend in Yuma...and baking as I write
this...(:-o)!
....

Dusty da baker wrote:
>> It can't be water content: Here in the Pacific NW USA we have high
>> humidity and lots of rain. Things are going to have a greater water
>> content, and it won't matter whether you measure it out or weigh it.
>> You can't completely moisture proof everything. It can't be measuring
>> accuracy: I can just as easily measure inaccurately weighing
>> everything out as I can by volume.
>>
> Spot-on, Russ. You've nailed it... Now, go bake some bread...(:-o)!
>
>
Nope. He missed it. You missed it again.

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.

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.

If you measure 1,000 grams of flour the range of moisture is from 90 to
150 grams. Or, the range of actual flour ranges from 910 to 850 grams.
The difference between the two is about 7%.

The last time I checked, 7% was considerably smaller than 100%, or even 25%.

> 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 can't be within 25% of your flour measurements. And they may be far more off than that. When teaching students, the feel of the dough is a primary thing to get across. In class, it's easy. In web sites or other print it is almost impossible to communicate. Measuring in weight doesn't help. Measuring by weight does.

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.

> 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.

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 don't know what your hostility to scales is, but it has no rational basis.

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

Mike Avery wrote:

> It doesn't seem reasonable to think that scales are a high-tech goodie.

Agreed. The days of digital scales costing a couple of hundred dollars
are long gone. You can get more accuracy than you'll ever use for 20 or
30 bucks. What needs to be emphasized is that weighing is EASY. All of
the scales tare. All convert English to Metric.

===> News for Dusty-the-Baker. Scales are particularly helpful when you
are making bread that is outside of your normal habit. I'm talking
about really wet bread like ciabatta or dry bread like bagels or breads
with soaked grain, etc... You may not know what to "feel" for. How wet
is wet? How dry is dry? The scale will put you there... in the bullseye.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:30:42 -0800, "Dusty da baker"
> wrote:

[--]

>Most "home bakers" don't come ready equipped with a scale

I find this assertion somewhat hard to believe.

"Andrew Price" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:30:42 -0800, "Dusty da baker"
> > wrote:
>
> [--]
>
>>Most "home bakers" don't come ready equipped with a scale
>
> I find this assertion somewhat hard to believe.

So do I. I doubt that most home bakers only make bread ...

Mary

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
....

G'day Andrew & all;

"Andrew Price" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:30:42 -0800, "Dusty da baker"
> > wrote:
>
> [--]
>
>>Most "home bakers" don't come ready equipped with a scale
>
> I find this assertion somewhat hard to believe.
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)!

Dusty

"Will" > wrote in message
oups.com...
....
> ===> News for Dusty-the-Baker. Scales are particularly helpful when you
> are making bread that is outside of your normal habit. I'm talking
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

> about really wet bread like ciabatta or dry bread like bagels or breads
I make both. Both come out pretty well (except for not yet getting the
"sour" that I want). I've used both methods, and have found no advantage to
either.

> with soaked grain, etc... You may not know what to "feel" for. How wet
> is wet? How dry is dry? The scale will put you there... in the bullseye.
So will a volume.

L8r all,
Dusty

>

"Mary Fisher" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Andrew Price" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:30:42 -0800, "Dusty da baker"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> [--]
>>
>>>Most "home bakers" don't come ready equipped with a scale
>>
>> I find this assertion somewhat hard to believe.
>
> So do I. I doubt that most home bakers only make bread ...
Well, when it comes down to "belief" being the pivotal consideration, I'll
have to beg off. Facts and real-life-data simply can't compete with the
power of "belief"...


L8r all,
Dusty

>
> Mary
>

Dusty da baker wrote:
> 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.

25% error in the real world. I've observed the same thing in my own
measurements from cup to cup within 5 minutes. It's not rocket fuel, but
it is relevant. Bread is very forgiving, but if you want to eliminate
that variability it's got to be by weight or very careful (tedious)
volume measurement.

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.

>
>> 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 do believe they were, but what does "widely" mean? 5%? 25%? 50%? I
truly want to know if you have more detailed information.


>>> 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!]

He didn't say they were necessary. Only more accurate.

>
>> 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...

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.

"Dusty da baker" > wrote in message
...
> G'day Andrew & all;
>
> "Andrew Price" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:30:42 -0800, "Dusty da baker"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> [--]
>>
>>>Most "home bakers" don't come ready equipped with a scale
>>
>> I find this assertion somewhat hard to believe.
> 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. Among
those (many) home bakers most have scales. 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 :-)

I doubt that it won't be a successful plot in Britain though, sadly it's
seen as another American invasion and for some reason people don't like to
think that they're being influenced from across the pond - although they
watch masses of American TV and films, eat American style (or what they
think is American style) take aways and adopt some American speech (while
scorning others).

It's a funny old world, innit!

Mary
> Dusty
>

Dusty da baker wrote:

> "Andrew Price" > wrote
>
>> "Dusty da baker" wrote:

>>>Most "home bakers" don't come ready equipped with a scale
>>
>>I find this assertion somewhat hard to believe.
>
> 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)!

Thanks for the real-world benchmark. I find it a little surprising, but
then again most of the moms were probably taught to measure by their
moms, etc., and have never been motivated to learn anything new.

I think that the statement "Most _serious_ home bakers come equipped
with a scale." is probably accurate. As you imply, I expect that most
of the readers of this newsgroup do.

Dusty da baker wrote:

> 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.

Dusty, I understand the volume issue when it comes to liquid or
vapor-state fuels; temperature changes everything. But that's not so
for flour. Flour at 50 F is the same as flour at 75 F. Water at 50 F is
within 2 decimal places of water at 75 F. so I am unclear as to why you
are making this argument. We're not matching numbers of atoms to get
efficient combustion. I would not disagree with you if we were
discussing vapor pressure and tank capacities and getting a spaceship
somewhere.

It seems to me, a scientist would gravitate to (and advocate) the
method least affected by handling error.

Dusty da baker wrote;
> "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.
>
How old are you? Scales have been in use for thousands of years, and
you tell me you wrote THE programs and did THE research on scales. I
can accept you did some work with scales, but at this point, your
statements about your expertise are a bit vague. You may have good
information, but that paragraph doesn't establish you as an authority,
much less the authority.

The basic fact you haven't come to grips with is that flour acts, in
ways, more like a gas than a solid. It is a granulated solid, and as
such is readily compactable.

Flour can be compressed, and often is through settling in storage. It
can be decompressed, we usually call that sifting. Different sacks of
all-purpose flour can have significantly different densities, depending
on how they have been handled and how long they have been stored.

>> 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.
>
I can easily duplicate most of that variation, and do for the classes I
teach. Many cookbooks recommend that the baker sift their flour, then
spoon the sifted flour into a cup, and then level the cup by scraping
the excess off using a knife. This yields a very light cup, usually in
the 100 to 135 gram range. All this sifting,. spooning and scraping has
always seemed like more hassle than it's worth to me, so like many
bakers I just scooped the flour out of the sack, compressing it into the
cup in the process, yielding cups in the 165 to 200 (or higher) gram
range. Scoopers see greater variation between cups than sifters.

If you want to be simplistic and say a cup is a cup, you are ignoring
the very real differences in the density of flour.

When I weigh flour, I get the amount of flour I want. Every time.
Sifting it, spooning it, and leveling it isn't necessary.

>> 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.
>
>
My comments weren't about places I have lived. They were about
published variations in the moisture content of flour. Where you have
lived adds a single source of anecdotal information, but doesn't add
much in the way of substantiated information.

If we're interested in anecdotal reports, in the past 15 years or so,
I've lived in central Texas where the humidity runs in reasonable
ranges, the Gulf Coast of Texas where 85% relative humidity is a dry day
and in the mountains of Colorado where 30% is a very humid day.

I've baked in all these places. The variations I used to have to deal
with when I used cups have all but vanished since I gave up on them and
started weighing.

Based on published information regarding the moisture content of flour,
the difference of the amount of solid material in a pound of flour
shouldn't vary more than 7%, and in practice the variation should be
less. Published tests indicate that if flour is packed in plastic or
multi-layer paper wrapping, it tends to retain moisture and avoid
moisture uptake quite well.

Cups do work. Poorly. Look at the recipes in cookbooks using cups.
Almost all of them have a line that says something like, "add 4 to 6
cups of flour." This is due to the very real inaccuracy in practice of
cups. Recipes by weight invariable tell you to use a specific number of
pounds, ounces, grams or kilograms of flour.

When I teach classes using cups, there is tremendous difference between
people's doughs. Some are too dry, some are too wet, a very few are OK
but just about all require adjustment by the addition of water or flour
to be right. When I teach classes using weight, the doughs are very,
very similar and very few need adjustment. When someone's dough is off,
we usually find that they added too much of something.... like 100 grams
of oil instead of 25 and they thought they'd just let it go. (There is
no solution for human error.)

One of the people I teach classes for, Gisele of Mountaintops Milling,
was a weight skeptic. She loved her cups, just like I used to. After
the advanced class, she switched to scales for her own baking, and she
now includes the cost of a set of scales in her classes. Bluntly,
scales minimize problems.

Can you make good bread using cups? Of course. You can make bread
doing everything by feel. A bit of this and a bit of that.

However, it is much easier to make bread consistently if you weigh the
ingredients.

>> 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
> one of their kitchens did I find any scales (unless I brought 'em).

In many cases, there is a difference between intent and outcome. Given that there is no real assurance that the readers of your recipes will be able to duplicate your measurements of flour within 50%, it is not at all clear that they can duplicate your bread. I don't have to be prescient to know that cups are inaccurate enough that they are poor ways to share recipes. You are intending to share recipes with friends. It isn't clear they can duplicate your results.


> 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!]

I clearly said of people want to use cups, that's cool. But that it is unreasonable to say that they are as accurate as scales. Obviously both work. The question is which is easier. My experience, and that of many other bakers, shows that cups are very inconsistent, and that makes them harder to use in practice. I haven't said only weight can be used. I have said that using volumetric measurements is less accurate and less convenient.


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. Any
adjustments I need to make, I make by weight. And thereafter, I have a
stable recipe.

If you care to share information, instead of sharing anger and
invective, I'll be happy to continue this discussion.

Mike

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

I don't want to start a flame war or have this go on forever, but I'm
curious & want to learn something. If I had your e-mail address I'd
send this just to you.

Why would scales get a person closer to producing the dough I want.
Russ





>My intent is pretty simple. I want to help people bake the best bread
> they can, as easily as they can.
>
> 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.
> Mike

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

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 !!

On 20 Dec 2006 09:39:34 -0800, "PastorDIC"
> wrote:

>Why would scales get a person closer to producing the dough I want.
>Russ

Hi Russ,

PMJI, but...

I have not seen that weighing increases the likelihood that
I can produce the dough I want the first time.

But I believe that it does increase the likelihood that I
can get that result a second and third time.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:06:15 -0800, "Dusty da baker"
> wrote:

>>>>Most "home bakers" don't come ready equipped with a scale
>>>
>>> I find this assertion somewhat hard to believe.
>>
>> So do I. I doubt that most home bakers only make bread ...
>
>Well, when it comes down to "belief" being the pivotal consideration, I'll
>have to beg off. Facts and real-life-data simply can't compete with the
>power of "belief"...

Well, that was precisely our point - we'd prefer some facts to
substantiate the assertion.

I wish I had your e-mail address to contact you privately. I don't
want to start something.

I can begin to see some sense in using a scale. In fact, it sort of
disappoints me that I've discarded some e-mailed recipes because they
were only by weight. Too bad I can't figure out where they were.

I've forgotten now, what things do you measure with the scale? I can't
imagine you measuring the small things like salt (or wet things) with a
scale.

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?

Russ


On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Mike Avery > wrote:

> When I weigh flour, I get the amount of flour I want. Every time.
> Sifting it, spooning it, and leveling it isn't necessary.
>
> Cups do work. Poorly. Look at the recipes in cookbooks using cups.
> Almost all of them have a line that says something like, "add 4 to 6
> cups of flour." This is due to the very real inaccuracy in practice of
> cups. Recipes by weight invariable tell you to use a specific number of
> pounds, ounces, grams or kilograms of flour.
>
> When I teach classes using cups, there is tremendous difference between
> people's doughs. Some are too dry, some are too wet, a very few are OK
> but just about all require adjustment by the addition of water or flour
> to be right. When I teach classes using weight, the doughs are very,
> very similar and very few need adjustment. When someone's dough is off,
> we usually find that they added too much of something.... like 100 grams
> of oil instead of 25 and they thought they'd just let it go. (There is
> no solution for human error.)
>
> Can you make good bread using cups? Of course. You can make bread
> doing everything by feel. A bit of this and a bit of that.
>
> However, it is much easier to make bread consistently if you weigh the
> ingredients.
>
> 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. Any
> adjustments I need to make, I make by weight. And thereafter, I have a
> stable recipe.
>
> If you care to share information, instead of sharing anger and
> invective, I'll be happy to continue this discussion.
>
> Mike

Volumetrically here, mainly with cans:

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

Dough for two loaves:

Starter refreshed per
http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/dickpics/starter.html
1 medium can of water
2 large cans of flour
22.500 grammes of granular sodium chloride measured volumetrically
in palm of hand : )

Finally, the dough is adjusted by feel, or observation of small
"dancing toe" in the KA stand mixer.

(The Small Can is an 8 fl. oz. tomato sauce can -- that is for other things.
Like http://www.prettycolors.com/bread%5F...MWW/index.html
Cans are good for scooping flour and grain from 50 and
60 lb. sacks.)

Also there scales and balances (5 in all) which are good for finding
out how much, in weight or mass, the cans can contain under various
conditions, among other things.

PastorDIC wrote:
> I don't want to start a flame war or have this go on forever, but I'm
> curious & want to learn something. If I had your e-mail address I'd
> send this just to you.
>
> Why would scales get a person closer to producing the dough I want.
>
My email address is in every post I send.... but here goes.

A quick check of a two sacks of flour show that GM thinks a cup of
Harvest King bread flour weighs 120 grams, and Hungarian High Altitude
thinks a cup of their stone ground whole wheat flour also weighs 120
grams. In tests in one of the bread making newsgroups, the actual
variation was found to be from 100 to 200 grams for all-purpose flour,
and that there could be as much as a 25% cup to cup variation.

Ok, here's the recipe for the first bread I ever made, back in 1975.
It is from an old "Joy of Cooking" and remains a favorite recipe. I've
converted it to sourdough, but have to say I like the yeasted version
better. They want you to proof yeast, which I don't do. So, with a few
minor changes, here's the Joy of Cooking's recipe...

Mix together:
1 beaten egg
1/4 cup melted butter
2 3/4 cups lukewarm water
1 1/2 tsp salt
1/4 to 1/2 cup sugar,. honey or maple syrup

Add a mixture of:
4 cups whole wheat flour
4 cups all-purpose flour.

Add 1 package of instant yeast (about 1 tbsp) after the first cup or two
of flour. (I prefer to add instant yeast with the dry ingredients.)

Mix, knead, proof, knock down, form into 3 loaves, allow to ruse, bake
in 350F oven about 45 minutes.

Now then.... imagine that, like me, you'd never baked before when you
first tried to make this bread. I had just returned from 2 1/2 years in
Germany in the Army and had really enjoyed German breads, and found that
what I could afford on the G.I. Bill was not something I wanted to eat.
(Like most people who make their own bread, I suppose I am an elitist
and don't like to eat the mass market stuff.)

How much flour is that, really? 4 cups of white, which GM thinks should
be 480 grams, and which our tests show could vary, in practice, from 400
to 800 grams. Plus 4 cups of whole wheat, which Hungarian High Altitude
feels should be another 480 grams. There was no experiment on whole
grain flour weights, but I'd always thought whole wheat weighed more.
Still, let's say there's anothe 500 to 800 gram variation.

If you make this with 800 (400+400) grams of flour, it is going to be
very different from the bread made with 1,600 (800+800) grams of flour.
One dough will be almost batter, the other a solid mass. I was closer
to the 1,600 gram end of the scale, and also thought I should add more
flour to make the dough smooth... so it got worse. I made a very nice
doorstop the first time... after kneading for about an hour.

You can check the cookbook. Many tell you how to measure a cup of
flour, though many people ignore that advice. But if a friend gives you
a recipe, you may not know how they measure their cup of flour.

Even if they do tell you how they measured their cup of flour, you still
have the 25% cup to cup variation to deal with.

Water measures very well by volume... you can't compress water.

The success strategies for using cups are...

Don't add all the flour called for in the recipe. Start with about 1/2
the flour, stir the dough, and then add more flour until you can no
longer stir the dough. (This applies to making bread by hand. The idea
applies to using a mixer also, just remember to stop the mixer and feel
the dough often.) Feeling the dough is important, but the beginner
doesn't know what the dough should feel like. And, I've never felt
dough that actually felt like a baby's bottom.

Once the dough is too thick to stir, pour it onto a lightly floured
surface and knead it, adding as little additional flour as possible.
Dough is, in general, happier when it is too wet than when it is too dry.

All this advice is good, but ignores the idea that some doughs, like
Focaccia or Ciabatta will be very wet doughs, and other doughs, like
bagels will be very firm.

All this is also why it is easiest to learn from a person rather than a
cookbook, a web site or a newsgroup.

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.)

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 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.

A lot of the ambiguity of the first recipe is gone. Even if you don't
know what the dough should feel like, I'm pretty sure you'll get pretty
close with the second recipe. Having fought the first recipe, I have no
real feeling of confidence you'll be close with the first recipe. (I'll
just have to hope I transcribed the recipes correctly.)

My experience is that even if you make some mistakes weighing, you'll
still be close enough. A bad weigh is almost always closer to right
than using cups. One "gotcha" with digital scales is that they have
some lag, so as you get close the right amount of an ingredient, stop
adding the ingredient, let the scale display stabilize, and then go from
there. Once you are used to it, it becomes second nature.

Mike

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