Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
> wrote in message ... > Sure it will. King Arthur does it. It is to be assumed that they did some > fluffing and did not just dip into a bag of flour or compact it. They have to > do something to come up with such a figure. And they do explain it. Someone > (Janet?) posted it a short time ago. > Bert That's the weakness in our country's early dependency upon volume measure. Unless a recipe author tells you how many ounces is meant by a cup you must hope that what you measure is the right thing. All the arguments about adding flour until you judge the dough is right, only means that you have successfully made a bread by your particular standards. If the author was trying to convey something different, you have missed it. You'll notice that King Arthur says that they decided upon 4.2 ounces for their purposes. They didn't say it was a standard or the correct number. In the last several years, some baking books have been published that include both volume and weight measurement, but that it not the norm. Some cookbooks/baking books will tell you how much flour to the ounce in the beginning of the book. Some books will give you a clue by telling you that flour is either scooped, sifted or spooned. I'd stay away from any books that don't tell anything as there is a good chance that the recipes are not tested. Janet Janet |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
Janet Bostwick wrote:
> > > wrote in message > ... > > Sure it will. King Arthur does it. It is to be assumed that they did some > > fluffing and did not just dip into a bag of flour or compact it. They have > to > > do something to come up with such a figure. And they do explain it. > Someone > > (Janet?) posted it a short time ago. > > Bert > > That's the weakness in our country's early dependency upon volume measure. > Unless a recipe author tells you how many ounces is meant by a cup you must > hope that what you measure is the right thing. All the arguments about > adding flour until you judge the dough is right, only means that you have > successfully made a bread by your particular standards. If the author was > trying to convey something different, you have missed it. You'll notice > that King Arthur says that they decided upon 4.2 ounces for their purposes. > They didn't say it was a standard or the correct number. > > In the last several years, some baking books have been published that > include both volume and weight measurement, but that it not the norm. Some > cookbooks/baking books will tell you how much flour to the ounce in the > beginning of the book. Some books will give you a clue by telling you that > flour is either scooped, sifted or spooned. I'd stay away from any books > that don't tell anything as there is a good chance that the recipes are not > tested. > > Janet > > Janet I agree, totally. The back of the bag of KA AP flour has a paragraph "Important information about measuring flour" where they describe how to measure flour. Here it is: "All flour is presifted, but it settles during packing and shipping. For accurate measurement of your flour, use a spoon or scoop to fluff it up, then gently spoon it into a measuring cup. Without shaking or tapping the cup, or packing down the floour, scrape the excess off the top with a knife or flour scoop. Using this measuring methoc will give you the best baking results." Sounds to me that they are describing a close approximation of the method they used to come up with the 4.2 ounce per cup figure they mention elsewhere. Bert |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
|
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:26:16 -0500, Kenneth
> wrote: >It is simply much more convenient. And simply much more expensive. A quality scale is not cheap. |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:59:54 -0700, "Janet Bostwick"
> wrote: >> Considering the magnitude of the potential errors introduced by >> humidity variations, that is about as close as it is going to get >> short of an experiment in analytical chemistry. >You do not have humidity error variations of the magnitude you state--you >have measuring errors. King Arthur specifically states how to measure >volume to achieve approximately 4.2 ounce cups. If I used KA's measurements for weight, I would have dough so slack I could not make bread with it. |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:33:25 -0700, "Mike Avery"
> wrote: >There are similar differences between flours. Most good bakers measure >carefully, but not obsessively, and then adjust to compensate for the flour. [...] >So, you measure carefully, but not obsessively, and then adjust the dough >based on your experience and what you think the dough should feel like to >produce the bread you want. Therefore there is no reason to be obsessed with the alleged accuracy of weight vs volume measure, since as you and several others who claim to be experts around here agree, you adjust the dough to produce the bread you want. This is so much like Gulliver's Travels and the egg-eaters that it should be published. I vote for volume measure because it is good enough to get near the desired point for manual adjustment, it's much easier than dragging out a scale each time I make bread, and the most important point is that it is considerably cheaper than paying one hundred or two hundred dollars for a scale accurate enough to be worth using. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:25 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote: >> > One ounce volume is not the same thing as one ounce weight. >> Well, it is for water... >Well, it's not! >It's ~ 4% more, almost 30 ml (29.57 grams of water). >(Kenneth does not see my posts. Would someone try to straighten >Kenneth out.) See my post below where I go thru the actual calculation. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
|
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
"Graham" > wrote in message = news:PO8yb.522176$pl3.134457@pd7tw3no... > [ ... ] > It would be so much easier (and more accurate) if all recipes used=20 > grams and mls. Actually, the best thing would be if everyone spoke English. But then you'd be out of luck with cgs since English speakers, by and large, are unfamiliar with it. > Graham (who is not afraid of metric and celsius!) Stout lad! --- DickA P.S. Easiest is can measure, e.g. see http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/panbread.html at bottom of text. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
"Dick Adams" > wrote in message = ... P.S. Easiest is can measure, e.g. see http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/panbread.html at bottom of text. Ooops -- http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/di.../panbread.html Forgot to mention: an 8-oz. tomato-sauce can is pretty good for a "cup" and a common 16 ounce can is good for two cups of water as well as flour. Purists will want to calibrate their cans by means of ancillary measurements. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:08:47 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote: >http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/di.../panbread.html From this web page: +++++ Put into the mixing bowl: 1 cup fully active culture 2 cups water 2 cups bread flour Manually mix in: 3 more cups flour. adding 1 cup more or less of additional flour, until the dough no longer sticks to bowl or fingers. total cups flour=6+, possibly<6 +++++ Except for the starter, I count 6 cups flour and 2 cups water. But what is the content of the starter? According to Carl's brochure, the starter consists of equal amounts of flour and water. Therefore if I include the starter, and I assume that 1 cup of flour mixed into 1 cup of water will yield 1 cup of mixture, I get 7 cups flour 3 cups water. 2 tsp salt for the final recipe. Assuming that the flour weighs 4.2 wt oz per cup, I get a theoretical hydration of about 80% (uncorrected for humidity), which in my experience is right at the point where the dough stops sticking to a drinking glass. Are these figures correct? BTW, nice looking bread except the holes in the crumb are rather small for such a slack dough. I wonder if that is the consequence of baking in a rather lower temperature than I bake at? (I bake at 425F and you baked this at 375F). |
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
"Bob" > in message=20 asked, with respect to > http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/di.../panbread.html > [ ... ] Are these figures correct? It works for me and for several others. Probably it will not work for you, however, so why don't you find or develop another procedure? (Come back when you are finished!) > BTW, nice looking bread except the holes in the crumb=20 > are rather small for such a slack dough. Mikey likes the stuff on top not to leak through the holes. =20 My guess is that my dough comes to 60-65 per cent=20 (Bakers') hydration. That results from adjustment (adding=20 flour) towards the end of kneading. Firm dough rises more=20 vertically, but does not satisfy the fanciers of huge holes. > I wonder if that is the consequence of baking in a rather=20 > lower temperature than I bake at? (I bake at 425F=20 > and you baked this at 375F). Sometimes I bake at 425=B0F. For instance: http://home.att.net/~dick.adams/EZSDLoaves But who actually knows what the numbers on the oven=20 regulator mean? --=20 Dick Adams <firstname> dot <lastname>at bigfoot dot com |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On 30 Nov 2003 at 2:56, Bob wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:33:25 -0700, "Mike Avery" > > wrote: > > >There are similar differences between flours. Most good bakers > >measure carefully, but not obsessively, and then adjust to compensate > >for the flour. > > [...] > > >So, you measure carefully, but not obsessively, and then adjust the > >dough based on your experience and what you think the dough should > >feel like to produce the bread you want. > > Therefore there is no reason to be obsessed with the alleged accuracy > of weight vs volume measure, since as you and several others who claim > to be experts around here agree, you adjust the dough to produce the > bread you want. > This is so much like Gulliver's Travels and the egg-eaters that it > should be published. I'm not familiar with that story.... > I vote for volume measure because it is good enough to get near the > desired point for manual adjustment, it's much easier than dragging > out a scale each time I make bread, and the most important point is > that it is considerably cheaper than paying one hundred or two hundred > dollars for a scale accurate enough to be worth using. You can get a scale that's good enough for around $30.00 on ebay. As to close enough, it seems that weight measurement should be within 5 to 8% based on the numbers tossed around here, while measuring by volume will be within 30%. There are other considerations for some people. When you scale a recipe, it's easier to do with weight. So, your recipe makes 2 loaves. Great, now make 10. Quick - what's 5 times 3 3/4 cups? Or what's 5 times 750 grams? How about a LARGE scale up? Let's make about 40 loaves. Would you rather weigh something like 12.5 kilograms, or measure something like 54 1/4 cups? I still use cups. But I don't try to convince myself that they are as accurate for measuring flour as weight. And I am converting my recipes to measure by weight. Mike -- Mike Avery ICQ: 16241692 AOL IM:MAvery81230 Phone: 970-642-0280 * Spam is for lusers who can't get business any other way * A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day: Drink your coffee! There are poor people in India sleeping! |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
Mike Avery wrote:
> > This is so much like Gulliver's Travels and the egg-eaters that it > > should be published. > > I'm not familiar with that story.... The struggles between the Big-Endians and the Little-Endians. Which end of a boiled egg should be opened first. Was commentary on the similarities between the Tories and the Whigs. B/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:37:29 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote: >Are these figures correct? >It works for me and for several others. Then I will try it. |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:20:53 -0700, "Mike Avery"
> wrote: >> This is so much like Gulliver's Travels and the egg-eaters that it >> should be published. >I'm not familiar with that story.... The second book. >As to close enough, it seems that weight measurement should be within 5 to >8% based on the numbers tossed around here, while measuring by volume >will be within 30%. I am looking for consistency, not absolute accuracy. I am going to adjust the hydration manually regardless of the accuracy of the measurements prior to that adjustment. >There are other considerations for some people. When you scale a recipe, >it's easier to do with weight. So, your recipe makes 2 loaves. Great, now >make 10. Quick - what's 5 times 3 3/4 cups? Or what's 5 times 750 grams? I use a calculator. It's all the same to me. >How about a LARGE scale up? Let's make about 40 loaves. Would you >rather weigh something like 12.5 kilograms, or measure something like 54 1/4 >cups? I fully agree. And that is why weight is used commercially. But I make small batches, so I do not have a problem. >I still use cups. But I don't try to convince myself that they are as accurate >for measuring flour as weight. And I am converting my recipes to measure by >weight. It all depends on what you mean by "accurate". I fully agree that weight measure has the potential for more accurate recipes in terms of absolute measure. But in terms of relative measure (repeatability), volume works and it is quicker for small batches. I just want to get close to my intended hydration so I can manually adjust it in a few steps. |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:34:04 -0800, Brian Mailman
> wrote: >Mike Avery wrote: > >> > This is so much like Gulliver's Travels and the egg-eaters that it >> > should be published. >> >> I'm not familiar with that story.... > >The struggles between the Big-Endians and the Little-Endians. Which end >of a boiled egg should be opened first. > >Was commentary on the similarities between the Tories and the Whigs. Those terms are used to describe the two types of data storage in computers. You can have a WORD (16 bits) stored as low-byte, high-byte or vice versa. It is more efficient for the processor to fetch the low-byte first and then the high-byte, so that is the more common storage form. However some processors do it the other way. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:37:29 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote: >>Are these figures correct? >It works for me and for several others. I calculated the hydration based on the data you supplied and found a slightly smaller value that you gave. I believe the reason is that you do not include the starter in your calculation, and that leads to an error. The figures I got from your recipe appear to be reasonable. They are for the total flour and total water for both the starter and the dough: 6 5/8 c flour 2 1/4 c water 2 tsp salt. That's about what I use as a starting point for my dough. Based on the KA density of 4.2 wt oz per cup, I get a hydration of 65%. If I use 4.6, which I now believe takes into account packing, I get 60%. Good work, Adams. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
"Bob" > mentioned in message=20 ... > The figures I got from your recipe appear to be reasonable.=20 > They are for the total flour and total water for both the starter=20 > and the dough ... Good work, Adams. Well, I am still having some trouble in determining the incremental moisture adsorption. It's affect on the actual "hydration" is quite large, it seems. There are other things, like the effect of temperature, ambient humidity, etc., etc., etc, not to mention the condition of the gluten, the vitality of the microorganisms, the availability of nutrients, and so on, and so on ... Looks like there is quite a lot of work to do before starting with any actual dough. Well, "Bob", with your background in Science and Engineering,=20 and your willingness to guide and encourage us, I would not be=20 surprised to find that some people at r.f.s. actually succeed to=20 bake some sourdough bread before the end of the millenium. --- DickA |
|
|||
|
|||
Correction New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:05:23 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote: >Well, "Bob", with your background in Science and Engineering, >and your willingness to guide and encourage us, I would not be >surprised to find that some people at r.f.s. actually succeed to >bake some sourdough bread before the end of the millenium. If they follow your recipe, they will succeed. |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
"Mike Avery" > wrote in message news:mailman.5.1070152407.204.rec.food.sourdough@m ail.otherwhen.com... > Part of the fun is that there isn't a standardized substance called "flour". It's > not like water, where we can specify a gathering of pure molecules of water > and oxygen. Plant genetics, growing conditions, harvesting, milling, and more > all change what's in the sack. From year to year, from sack to sack, there > are differences beyond the differences in the amount of water in the flour. This is exactly what I'm afraid of! Recipes like : 1 cup starter, 3 cups flour, ..etc are worrying me much more than the Detmolder "impossible" 3-stage process! What does "1 cup of starter" means? Is it plain grain wheat starter or is it rye flour starter? How much is it the hydration? What does "3 cups of flour" means? Is it plain grain milled at 1 or 8 (1=very fine, 8 big partciles, almost like corn flakes)? The foundamental of the repetability lies in the clear description of the adopted method together with the precise quantities of ingredients. It seems to me that with peculiar reference to weights and volumes you have advantages and disadvantages, both streaming or leading to water content problems. For sure you know EXACTLY the water YOU introduce in your dough. In this case no disputes are possible, volume and weights are identical. Concerning the flour (and therefore the starter) the volume is the same but it can contain a lot of water, the weight viceversa is falsed by the amount of water trapped into the flour. Crazy idea: is it possible to help the opposite party giving the value of the air humidity? I'm quite sure that the water trapped in the flour is directly dependent on this value allowing you to translate from cups to grams and back without appreciable losses. Of course this is only an appendix ! Before everything else, I like very much the use of clear terms (home freshly milled plain grain rye flour 4 over 8 (= mid dimension of particles in a scale from 1 to 8), industrial milled hard wheat flour type 550 (in Germany) or "0" (in Italy), etc. Luke |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
Luke Skywalker wrote:
> > "Mike Avery" > wrote in message > news:mailman.5.1070152407.204.rec.food.sourdough@m ail.otherwhen.com... > > > Part of the fun is that there isn't a standardized substance called > "flour". It's > > not like water, where we can specify a gathering of pure molecules of > water > > and oxygen. Plant genetics, growing conditions, harvesting, milling, and > more > > all change what's in the sack. From year to year, from sack to sack, > there > > are differences beyond the differences in the amount of water in the > flour. > > This is exactly what I'm afraid of! > Recipes like : 1 cup starter, 3 cups flour, ..etc are worrying me much more > than the Detmolder "impossible" 3-stage process! > What does "1 cup of starter" means? > Is it plain grain wheat starter or is it rye flour starter? How much is it > the hydration? > What does "3 cups of flour" means? > Is it plain grain milled at 1 or 8 (1=very fine, 8 big partciles, almost > like corn flakes)? > > The foundamental of the repetability lies in the clear description of the > adopted method together with the precise quantities of ingredients. > It seems to me that with peculiar reference to weights and volumes you have > advantages and disadvantages, both streaming or leading to water content > problems. > For sure you know EXACTLY the water YOU introduce in your dough. > In this case no disputes are possible, volume and weights are identical. > Concerning the flour (and therefore the starter) the volume is the same but > it can contain a lot of water, the weight viceversa is falsed by the amount > of water trapped into the flour. > > Crazy idea: is it possible to help the opposite party giving the value of > the air humidity? > I'm quite sure that the water trapped in the flour is directly dependent on > this value allowing you to translate from cups to grams and back without > appreciable losses. > > Of course this is only an appendix ! > Before everything else, I like very much the use of clear terms (home > freshly milled plain grain rye flour 4 over 8 (= mid dimension of particles > in a scale from 1 to 8), industrial milled hard wheat flour type 550 (in > Germany) or "0" (in Italy), etc. > > Luke Ahhhh... the force is with you, my son. Somewhere in the near past I posted something that mentioned the problem with recipes being inacurate. The most inacurate part of a sourdough recipe is the statement "1 cup of starter". What starter? Mine which is kept at a 1-1/2 cup flour to 1 cup water? Someone else's that is kept at 1:1 ratio? And starter when? When it is at peak activity and contains a very substantial amount of gas? Or when it has gone flat and contains just about no gas? Either of these variables will affect the resulting ough hydration deeply. I hear people worrying about the percentage of incidental hydration of flour due to humidity and shake my head when they are missing much more difficult issues. I don't use many recipes, maybe a couple. I have converted all of them to weights. So, I suggest that as much information be given in recipes. Like: Basic sourdough 264 grams of 1.5:1 flour/water starter 366 grams of KA AP flour 136 cc (or grams) bottled water, not tap water 1/2 tsp salt Which does make a good sourdough, with the proper process. Note that the amount of starter when stated this way does not depend on its activity. Very active (lots of gas) or flat (no gas). Here are the instructions on how I make this recipe. Put all the starter, half the flour and 2/3 of the water (accuracy is not important) in a container and mix into a somewhat sloppy mix. Cover with Saran wrap and set aside overnight. Next morning add the remaining flour, the remaining water and the salt. Knead until it feels right. Let rise until it doubles. Punch down and knead lightly. Form. Slash (or wait until just before the bake step). Let rise until doubled. Bake until done. This will give good sourdough. Not necessarily great sourdough but the recipe is nearly guaranteed to give tasty bread. To improve the bread above you should add a resting time in the refrigerator and somehow control the temperature of the rises. Want to make this and you keep your starter at some other hydration? No problem. Take one tablespoonful of your starter, add one and a half cup of flour, one cup of water, mix well and let it rest until it becomes very bubbly. Now you have a 1.5:1 starter. Use the weight measure in the recipe above. Bert |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
> wrote in message ... > I don't use many recipes, maybe a couple. I have converted all of them to > weights. So, I suggest that as much information be given in recipes. Like: > > Basic sourdough > > 264 grams of 1.5:1 flour/water starter > 366 grams of KA AP flour > 136 cc (or grams) bottled water, not tap water > 1/2 tsp salt Wonderful Bert! Are you a Jedi? I'll try asap! Luke |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
Luke Skywalker wrote:
> > > wrote in message > ... > > I don't use many recipes, maybe a couple. I have converted all of them to > > weights. So, I suggest that as much information be given in recipes. Like: > > > > Basic sourdough > > > > 264 grams of 1.5:1 flour/water starter > > 366 grams of KA AP flour > > 136 cc (or grams) bottled water, not tap water > > 1/2 tsp salt > > Wonderful Bert! > Are you a Jedi? > I'll try asap! > > Luke No, but sometimes I feel like Jar Jar Binks. Bert |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:20:53 -0700, "Mike Avery"
> wrote: >You can get a scale that's good enough for around $30.00 on ebay. I just bought two scales through ebay. One measures to 6 lbs. in 1/10 ounce increments. The other measures to 30 lbs in the same increments to 2 lbs. and 1/2 ounce increments to 30 lbs. The smaller one was about $18 and the larger capacity one was about $22. There's almost no excuse now for not having an accurate scale for cooking anymore. They double as a postage scale, which is their original purpose. Don To reply, substitute "firstnamelastname" with my firstname and lastname in the header and use no spaces. |
|
|||
|
|||
New to sourdough with a couple of questions
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:42:41 -0500, Don Hellen
> wrote: >There's almost no excuse now for not having an accurate >scale for cooking anymore. They double as a postage scale, >which is their original purpose. Just do not get addicted to the scale. Making bread, sourdough included, is an art. To do it properly you must decide what you want by direct observation. No scale or measuring cup is going to do it for you. Experiment. It is so cheap, |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
a couple of questions | General Cooking | |||
A couple of questions | Sourdough | |||
a couple questions | Preserving | |||
a couple questions | General Cooking | |||
A Couple Questions- | Barbecue |