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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Avery
 
Posts: n/a
Default New to sourdough with a couple of questions

On 30 Nov 2003 at 0:12, wrote:

> Mike Avery wrote:
> >
> > On 29 Nov 2003 at 17:26,
wrote:

> > So.... the vendor explaining how many cups are in a sack really
> > won't help much.


> 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.


This assumes that the average consumer will read - or give a hoot about - the
instructions. Most bakers will still measure cups the way they always have,
and will know in their heart of hearts that KA is wrong.

I don't have to tell you how to measure a cup of water. Assuming we have a
cup calibrated in the same system, we'll have the same amount of water.

Measuring compactable solids by volume is just using an inappropriate tool.
No matter how many people do it. (And, for the record, I still do it more often
than not.)

> It is called standardization. "This 5 pound bag of
> super-duper-whatever flour contains XX cups" and perhaps add "when
> fluffed to ANSI ZZZZZ at NPT".


No, it's called *******izing an inappropriate system of measurement to try
and make it fairly uniform.

> The problem is that if you leave the uncertainty of weight then there
> is no such thing as a recipe for anything containing "X cups of
> flour".


No, the problem is that - despite generations of efforts - you still can't get
cooks to agree how to measure a cup of flour, or even that it matters.

It's not the system of measurement. It's not cups. If we were measuring
liters of flour we'd have the same inaccuracies. It's measuring a compactable
solid by volume that causes these problems.

> If, as KA says, a cup of flour can weigh anywhere from 4 to 5.5 ounces
> depending on how it was scooped/poured/sifted/spooned in then we are
> talking about a variation of 37.5%. Not very good. I would rather have
> the uncertaintly of how much humidity is in the flour. 10%, 12%, 14%?
> I hold back a bit of flour and add it at the end if the dough does not
> feel right.


There are similar differences between flours. Most good bakers measure
carefully, but not obsessively, and then adjust to compensate for the flour.

> Communication is based on my knowing what you are talking about when
> you say "1 cup of flour". I rather you say "120 grams of flour" and
> there is no uncertaintly unless you want to nitpick and argue about
> how much humidity is in the flour. Then, since it is your nitpicking,
> you should say "120 grams of 12.76% humidity flour".


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.

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.

Mike
--
Mike Avery

ICQ: 16241692 AOL IM:MAvery81230
Phone: 970-642-0280
* Spam is for lusers who can't get business any other
way *

Once seen on road signs all over the United States:
His beard
Was long
And strong and tough
He lost his
Chicken in the rough
Burma-Shave



  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Janet Bostwick
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dick Adams
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.





  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dick Adams
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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).


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dick Adams
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Avery
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!



  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Brian Mailman
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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/


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dick Adams
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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






  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Luke Skywalker
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Luke Skywalker
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Don Hellen
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
a couple of questions Sky General Cooking 26 05-07-2010 01:08 AM
A couple of questions Tim W Sourdough 10 23-11-2009 11:13 AM
a couple questions enigma[_2_] Preserving 4 22-08-2007 05:27 AM
a couple questions enigma General Cooking 25 09-11-2006 03:07 PM
A Couple Questions- JimnGin Barbecue 14 09-12-2005 12:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"