Been reading through your FAQ and searching some past posts.So much
GREAT info here...glad I found it!

I picked up Nancy Silvertons's "La Brea Bakery" book several years
ago,but it took me till 3 weeks ago to finally give sourdough a try.

I followed her directions to grow a starter and started actually
baking with it last week.I am happy with the flavour and crust of the
loaves(I have been sticking to the Country White recipe),but feel the
inside is too dense.Trying to determine how to make it lighter,with
more irregular holes.

Could it just be that my starter is still too young?

On 27 Nov 2003 08:29:15 -0800, (Shastascrap) wrote:

>Been reading through your FAQ and searching some past posts.So much
>GREAT info here...glad I found it!
>
> I picked up Nancy Silvertons's "La Brea Bakery" book several years
>ago,but it took me till 3 weeks ago to finally give sourdough a try.
>
> I followed her directions to grow a starter and started actually
>baking with it last week.I am happy with the flavour and crust of the
>loaves(I have been sticking to the Country White recipe),but feel the
>inside is too dense.Trying to determine how to make it lighter,with
>more irregular holes.
>
> Could it just be that my starter is still too young?

Howdy,

You might want to try increasing the hydration. Many describe the
amount of water as "Bakers' Percentage." That just means the weight of
liquids divided by the weight of dry ingredients.

Some of the breads I do are as high as 80% hydration.

Most books ('Sorry that I don't remember the specifics of the
Silverton book) describe loaves in the range of about 60%. I suspect
that the authors believe that it will be easier for their readers to
work with the less sticky dough. Generally, lower hydration will
produce a more uniform crumb (baker talk for "smaller holes.")

HTH, and welcome aboard,

--
Kenneth

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

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:53:22 -0500, Kenneth
> wrote:

>Some of the breads I do are as high as 80% hydration.

I also like high hydration breads, although I can't give you an
accurate figure since my flour is very wet from the Houston humidity
and therefore I do not know how much is actual flour and how much is
absorbed water from the humidity. I suppose I could bake the flour in
a moderate oven to drive out the water and then measure its weight,
but I have not tried that.

In terms of cup measure one dough I have made has 5 cups of settled(*)
flour to 1.75 cups of water that I add to the flour. KA claims the
density of their bread flour is 4.2 wt oz per cup. When I weigh a cup
I get right at 5.0 wt oz. If I weigh a cup of water I get right at 7.8
wt oz.

If I accept those figures, then each cup of my flour has 0.8 wt oz of
absorbed water, which must be added to the weight of the 1.75 cups of
water I put in the flour. If I do that then I get a hydration of 84%.

Water: 1.75 * 7.8 + 5 * 0.8 = 13.65 + 4.0 = 17.65 wt oz
Flour: 5 * 4.2 = 21.0 wt oz
Water/Flour = 17.65 / 21.0 = 0.84

The dough made this way is sticky and won't keep its form during the
final rise period of several hours. I have similar problems with less
hydrated dough even though it just passes the drinking glass test.

How do you get your loaves with high hydration to keep their shape
during the final rise?

--

(*) To achieve some level of consistency, I pour the flour from the
bag into a large Rubbermaid container that just holds 5 lb of flour. I
put the lid on and tamp the container several times on the counter top
until I think the flour is packed enough to be the same density each
time. When I measure the flour with a cup measure, I tap the top of
the cup which has excess flour in it, and then level the contents to
the top of the cup with a straight edge.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:43:11 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

When I weigh a cup of KA bread flour today I get right at 4.65 wt oz.
compared to 5.0 wt oz I got several weeks ago. The difference between
those figures is the humidity factor.

When I measured the weight earlier it was very humid - dew point in
the 70s. Now the weather is very dry - dew point in the 20s. We
routinely experience such wild variations in humidity in Houston when
a cold front comes thru.

The error introduced by this variation in humidity from one extreme to
the other is 7.5%. In a recipe using 7 cups of flour, that's an error
of 1/2 cup.

I fail to see the advantages of weighing ingredients under such
conditions.

"Bob" > in message =
mentioned:

> If I weigh a cup of water I get right at 7.8 wt oz.

A fluid ounce of water weighs 1.04 ounces. So the contents of a=20
measuring cup should weigh 8.34 ounces. That is a good way to
check your cup volume. A narrow-necked vessel is better for=20
exact measurments than a measuring cup. But why bother.

> How do you get your loaves with high hydration to keep their shape
> during the final rise?]

That question is presumably for Kenneth. Nobody knows what=20
Kenneth's loaves look like because he cannot do pictures.

One sensible trick is to do the rise in a bread pan. The other things
are tough to get right. I think Kenneth was talking about a Pullman
pan just a short time ago.

---
DickA

"Bob" > in message =
mentioned that:

> ... The error introduced by this variation in humidity from one =
extreme to
> the other is 7.5%. ... I fail to see the advantages of weighing =
ingredients=20
> under such conditions.

It does not make much sense to me, either. I have been using a method=20
of determining the (Bakers') %hydration which involves keeping track of
the total volume of water, (the weight of salt), and the weight of the =
final
dough. At the end of summer, using a sack started in the spring, the=20
measurements came in the mid 50's for a loose dough which makes an
open-textured bread ("small holey").

Here is a way to simply understand the error due to moisture adsorption:

H =3D [(h + a)/(100 - a)]x100

where=20
H is the "true" %hydration
h is the apparent %hydration
a is the unaccounted %hydration of the flour due to moisture adsorption. =


So, if my measurement indicated an apparent %hydration =3D 55, but my
flour had picked up 7.5% extra moisture, the "true" hydration would be=20
more like 68%. Well, the truer hydration, anyway.

But smoke this also in your pipe: I know that the flour contains about
14% moisture to start. So out of a new, freshly unsealed sack, dough
I made by careful weighing to have a %hydration of 60 would actually =
have
86%. (And it would not make big-holey bread at all.)

So it seems I agree with "Bob" at least in this respect, that all you =
people
who are weighing out in grams and measuring in milliliters are probably=20
wasting a wee bit of your time.

--=20
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname>at bigfoot dot com

in article , Dick
Adams at wrote on 28/11/03 9:42 am:

>
> "Bob" > in message
> mentioned that:
>
>> ... The error introduced by this variation in humidity from one extreme to
>> the other is 7.5%. ... I fail to see the advantages of weighing ingredients
>> under such conditions.
>
> It does not make much sense to me, either. I have been using a method
> of determining the (Bakers') %hydration which involves keeping track of
> the total volume of water, (the weight of salt), and the weight of the final
> dough. At the end of summer, using a sack started in the spring, the
> measurements came in the mid 50's for a loose dough which makes an
> open-textured bread ("small holey").
>
> Here is a way to simply understand the error due to moisture adsorption:
>
> H = [(h + a)/(100 - a)]x100
>
> where
> H is the "true" %hydration
> h is the apparent %hydration
> a is the unaccounted %hydration of the flour due to moisture adsorption.
>
> So, if my measurement indicated an apparent %hydration = 55, but my
> flour had picked up 7.5% extra moisture, the "true" hydration would be
> more like 68%. Well, the truer hydration, anyway.
>
> But smoke this also in your pipe: I know that the flour contains about
> 14% moisture to start. So out of a new, freshly unsealed sack, dough
> I made by careful weighing to have a %hydration of 60 would actually have
> 86%. (And it would not make big-holey bread at all.)
>
> So it seems I agree with "Bob" at least in this respect, that all you people
> who are weighing out in grams and measuring in milliliters are probably
> wasting a wee bit of your time.
Weighing is easier and quicker for me than volume stuff. Ellen

Ellen Wickberg wrote:

> Weighing is easier and quicker for me than volume stuff. Ellen

sure is. I have a pretty good "feel" what is going on humidity wise in
the flours I use:

http://samartha.net/SD/tests/flour-moisture/

I do this once and a while to see what the actual loss (moisture content
of flour) is.

It's an old story that recipes are "approximations" and need to be
adjusted to current conditions.

I think that most flours are "adjusted" to 14 % moisture at the mill.


Samartha

--
remove -nospam from my email address, if there is one
SD page is the http://samartha.net/SD/

"Ellen Wickberg" > wrote in message=20
under a total playback of=20


> Weighing is easier and quicker for me than volume stuff.

Anybody who has a scale or balance should use it. Otherwise
it is a waste of money.

Same for a newsreader which plays back thread history with the
push of a key.

---
DickA

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:42:30 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote:

>> If I weigh a cup of water I get right at 7.8 wt oz.

>A fluid ounce of water weighs 1.04 ounces. So the contents of a=20
>measuring cup should weigh 8.34 ounces.

That's why I calibrated using water. The scale is not very accurate in
absolute terms but it is close enough in relative terms.

>That is a good way to
>check your cup volume. A narrow-necked vessel is better for
>exact measurments than a measuring cup. But why bother.

I fully agree.

>> How do you get your loaves with high hydration to keep their shape
>> during the final rise?]

>That question is presumably for Kenneth. Nobody knows what=20
>Kenneth's loaves look like because he cannot do pictures.

The question was for anyone who wants to comment.

>One sensible trick is to do the rise in a bread pan. The other things
>are tough to get right. I think Kenneth was talking about a Pullman
>pan just a short time ago.

I am experimenting with a new technique. I like the idea of the
banneton, but you have to remove the loaf before baking, which is not
only difficult but for very slack dough it allows the loaf to droop
before it gets hot enough to set.

As you know I was successful with my pyrex bowl technique but I could
not get the loaf out until completely baked. So this time I lined the
purex bowl with aluminum foil which I coated with vegetable oil. In
goes the very slack dough for the final rise, and when that is done I
am going to blast it with a 550F oven for 15 minutes - 5 to heat the
pyrex bowl and 10 to set the loaf.

Then I am going to drop the oven temperature to 425F and while I am
waiting, I will pop the partially baked loaf out of the pyrex bowl,
which I hope is possible because of the aluminum foil liner and then
remove the aluminum foil from the loaf. Then back into the oven it
goes with the naked loaf for the final 30 minute bakeoff.

Lining the pyrex bowl resulted in a somewhat wrinkled surface for
molding the dough, but I am hoping it will be negligable. I will let
you know how it works out this afternoon.

I still think a spring form metal banneton is the answer here. You do
the final rise in this device and put it into a hot oven to set the
loaf. Then you undo the spring clip on the side of the pan and split
the unit into two halves, allowing the loaf to fall free. From there
you can bake the loaf conventionally.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:01:52 GMT, Ellen Wickberg >
wrote:

>Weighing is easier and quicker for me than volume stuff. Ellen

That may be true, but there is the matter of the humidity error, which
can be substantial if you live in a climate like Houston.

"Bob" > wrote in message =
...

> I still think a spring form metal banneton is the answer here. You do
> the final rise in this device and put it into a hot oven to set the
> loaf. Then you undo the spring clip on the side of the pan and split
> the unit into two halves, allowing the loaf to fall free. From there
> you can bake the loaf conventionally.

After you are finished with that, "Bob", you should get to work on
the wheel. It has not been reinvented since about 15 minutes ago.

Now my fantastic invention:

It is a 5 lb. bag of flour, used as a hygrometer. Each time you make
dough, you weigh it. The weight tells how to correct the recipe for
moisture absorption. (You never open the 5 lb. bag, but it soaks up
moisture through the paper sack.)

Never say I never gave you any good help.

---
DickA

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:24:49 -0700, Samartha Deva
> wrote:

>> Weighing is easier and quicker for me than volume stuff. Ellen

>sure is. I have a pretty good "feel" what is going on humidity wise in
>the flours I use:

>http://samartha.net/SD/tests/flour-moisture/

>I do this once and a while to see what the actual loss (moisture content
>of flour) is.

The climate in your region does not vary as wildly as it does in
Houston. The dew point, which pretty much measures the moisture
content of the air independent of ambient temperature, ranges from 80F
to 20F. That's a substantial swing in moisture content that affects
the hydration of dough.

>It's an old story that recipes are "approximations" and need to be
>adjusted to current conditions.

I have always believed that - that's why I use volume measure to get
my ingredients approximately in the correct ratio, and do the final
adjustment manually during the first kneading stage.

>I think that most flours are "adjusted" to 14 % moisture at the mill.

That may be how it leaves the mill, but when it gets exposed to higher
or lower humidity conditions, it will change if exposed to a climate
like in Houston.

Volume measure has the property of giving you about the same amount of
flour regardless of absorbed humidity since that absorbed moisture
does not increase the volume of the flour - it is absorbed
interstially for the most part.

For example, if 4.2 wt oz of dry flour constitutes a cup, then a cup
of flour with high absorbed humidity will contain the same amount of
flour but will weigh substantially more because of the absorbed water.

Therefore if you use weight measure for flour that has a substantial
amount of absorbed humidity, it will throw off your recipe far more
than if you had used volume measure.

The conclusion is that cup measure is more reliable in terms of
measuring actual flour content. However it is unreliable because of
the packing problem. So it's back to the drawing board for both weight
and volume measure. That's why it is important to develop a feel for
hydration by inspection, so you can adjust it manually while kneading.

For me touch and appearance are the best indicators, and that requires
some experience. I have found this manual technique works better if I
do the adjustments by adding flour. That way I can see when the dough
loses its excess slackness.

I used to go the other way and adjust by adding water, but then I
would overshoot and have to add a little flour - back and forth until
I got it right. I always ended up by adding the final amount of flour,
so I decided to avoid the part where I added water.

FWIW.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:40:53 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote:

>> Weighing is easier and quicker for me than volume stuff.

>Anybody who has a scale or balance should use it.

But they should realize that in climates where humidity swings are
significant, there is an error using weight measure.

>Otherwise it is a waste of money.

Weight measure does not suffer from the packing problems as volume
measure does.

However, I tend to agree with you, especially when you consider that a
good scale is going to cost a hundred or more dollars - unless you
want to calibrate a cheap scale against water like I do.

Ellen Wickberg wrote:
>
> in article , Dick
> Adams at wrote on 28/11/03 9:42 am:
>
> >
> > "Bob" > in message
> > mentioned that:
> >
> >> ... The error introduced by this variation in humidity from one extreme to
> >> the other is 7.5%. ... I fail to see the advantages of weighing ingredients
> >> under such conditions.
> >
> > It does not make much sense to me, either. I have been using a method
> > of determining the (Bakers') %hydration which involves keeping track of
> > the total volume of water, (the weight of salt), and the weight of the final
> > dough. At the end of summer, using a sack started in the spring, the
> > measurements came in the mid 50's for a loose dough which makes an
> > open-textured bread ("small holey").
> >
> > Here is a way to simply understand the error due to moisture adsorption:
> >
> > H = [(h + a)/(100 - a)]x100
> >
> > where
> > H is the "true" %hydration
> > h is the apparent %hydration
> > a is the unaccounted %hydration of the flour due to moisture adsorption.
> >
> > So, if my measurement indicated an apparent %hydration = 55, but my
> > flour had picked up 7.5% extra moisture, the "true" hydration would be
> > more like 68%. Well, the truer hydration, anyway.
> >
> > But smoke this also in your pipe: I know that the flour contains about
> > 14% moisture to start. So out of a new, freshly unsealed sack, dough
> > I made by careful weighing to have a %hydration of 60 would actually have
> > 86%. (And it would not make big-holey bread at all.)
> >
> > So it seems I agree with "Bob" at least in this respect, that all you people
> > who are weighing out in grams and measuring in milliliters are probably
> > wasting a wee bit of your time.
> Weighing is easier and quicker for me than volume stuff. Ellen

Weighing is also more consistent. If I take a cup _by volume_ out of the
container I keep my flour in and then take a second cup, they will most likely
contain different amounts while the moisture will be the same. If I take a cup
by weight and then a second cup I will get results consistent with the
accuracy of my scale.

I keep flour in a plastic container, well sealed. Moisture loss or absortion
is kept at a minimum. Since my home is air conditioned the relative humidity
of air is fairly constant which means my cups by weight are fairly close one
to the other. Vagaries of dipping or spooning or whatever other method other
than weight make for inconsistent amounts.

I use KA flour. KA states that their 5 pound bag of AP flour contains
"approximately 19 cups of flour". 5 lb = 2270 grams. Divide 2270 by 19 and you
get 119.5 grams per cup. I use 120.

So, here is _a_ recipe for white bread without the troublesome volume
measurements:

KA AP flour 360 grams
Water 226 cc
Kosher salt 1 tsp (specific weight varies all over the place)
Yeast 1 packet active dry yeast

Hydration: 62.8%, call it 63%.

Since using starter introduces the variable of the starter hydration I will
not give a recipe for sourdough. If you know the hydration of your starter
then subtract the flour content of whatever starter amount you use from the
flour weight above and the water content of the starter from the water and
leave out the yeast. This will give you sourdough bread of close but not equal
consistency.

Bert
Who should save this for the next time the same subject comes up, say 6
months...

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:24:49 -0700, Samartha Deva
> wrote:

>It's an old story that recipes are "approximations" and need to be
>adjusted to current conditions.

When I make bread, cookies, or whatever, I make a final
adjustment after measuring and mixing the ingredients. I do
it by "feel" and by sight. If the dough doesn't look or feel
right, I add flour (or liquid) as needed.

Don Hellen
To reply, substitute "firstnamelastname" with
my firstname and lastname in the header and
use no spaces.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:09:28 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote:

>> I still think a spring form metal banneton is the answer here. You do
>> the final rise in this device and put it into a hot oven to set the
>> loaf. Then you undo the spring clip on the side of the pan and split
>> the unit into two halves, allowing the loaf to fall free. From there
>> you can bake the loaf conventionally.

>After you are finished with that, "Bob", you should get to work on
>the wheel. It has not been reinvented since about 15 minutes ago.

Are you saying that there is such a thing as a spring form banneton
that you can bake with? Please share the resources for this - I might
just buy one.

>Now my fantastic invention:

>It is a 5 lb. bag of flour, used as a hygrometer. Each time you make
>dough, you weigh it. The weight tells how to correct the recipe for
>moisture absorption. (You never open the 5 lb. bag, but it soaks up
>moisture through the paper sack.)

What if you keep your flour in a sealed container?

>Never say I never gave you any good help.

The use of the crock pot to cook rye glop was more inventive.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:09:13 -0500, Don Hellen
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:24:49 -0700, Samartha Deva
> wrote:
>
>>It's an old story that recipes are "approximations" and need to be
>>adjusted to current conditions.
>
>When I make bread, cookies, or whatever, I make a final
>adjustment after measuring and mixing the ingredients. I do
>it by "feel" and by sight. If the dough doesn't look or feel
>right, I add flour (or liquid) as needed.

Then all that weighing is no better than volume measurement in the
final analysis.

> wrote in message
...
> I use KA flour. KA states that their 5 pound bag of AP flour contains
> "approximately 19 cups of flour". 5 lb = 2270 grams. Divide 2270 by 19 and
you
> get 119.5 grams per cup. I use 120.

Wow!
I'm in trouble with thousands recipes having cups of solid, liquid and mixed
ingredients.
No more "sourdoughing", tomorrow I'm baking.
....please let me know how much should weight a cup of starter 100% hydration
considering that the flour is
"adjusted" to 14 % moisture at the mill (according to Samartha).

"Old Europe" Luke

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:57:13 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

>Lining the pyrex bowl resulted in a somewhat wrinkled surface for
>molding the dough, but I am hoping it will be negligable. I will let
>you know how it works out this afternoon.

Ok, here's what happened.

I used 3.5 cups KA bread flour, 1.5 cups water and 1 tsp salt,
autolyse 20 min., knead 7 minutes and into the pyrex bowl lined with
greased Al foil for a single rise of 4 hours. Placed it upside down in
oven on greased Al foil .

Blasted it at 550F for 15 min., removed the bowl but left the foil on
(since it would not come off easily) and baked it for 1/2 hour at
425F. When I removed the bowl earlier, the center dome collapsed.
Obviously I had not baked it long enough to set it firmly.

Talk about large hole crumb - this has a myriad of holes anywhere from
1/4" in dia to 1/2" in dia. It looks like a Schlotzky's bun.

http://www.cooldeli.com/images/index_a_110303.jpg

The dough was too hydrated. If I assume the weight of a cup of flour
is 4.6 wt oz, which includes the water from humidity, and that dry
flour weighs 4.2 wt oz per cup, then each cup of flour contains 4.2 wt
oz flour and 0.4 wt oz water (~10% excess water from humidity).

Adding that water to the weight of a 1.5 cups of water gives total
water at 14 wt oz. The weight of the flour without water is 14.7 wt
oz, so you can see the hydration based on this calculation is almost
100%.

Next time I will use 4 cups of flour. That should yield a theoretical
hydration based on dry flour (4.2 wt oz per cup) of around 80-85%.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:48:45 +0100, "Luke Skywalker"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> I use KA flour. KA states that their 5 pound bag of AP flour contains
>> "approximately 19 cups of flour". 5 lb = 2270 grams. Divide 2270 by 19 and
>you
>> get 119.5 grams per cup. I use 120.
>
>Wow!
>I'm in trouble with thousands recipes having cups of solid, liquid and mixed
>ingredients.
>No more "sourdoughing", tomorrow I'm baking.
>...please let me know how much should weight a cup of starter 100% hydration
>considering that the flour is
>"adjusted" to 14 % moisture at the mill (according to Samartha).

1 cup of KA bread flour weighs 4.2 wt oz according to KA. That is
considered "dry" flour in terms of humidity. IOW, if your humidity is
excessively higher, like mine in Houston, then you have to adjust for
it.

You can use CrockPot Adams' (or would he prefer being called RyeGlop
Adams?) formula for adjusting the hydration or you can do it
explictly.

If your flour weighs 4.6 wt oz per cup like I estimate mine to weigh,
then the assumption is that the KA flour picked up 0.4 wt oz per cup
of water from humidity. The assumption in terms of density is that the
water from humidity is present in the flour interstitially - that is,
it does not add to the volume of the flour in small amounts.

Therefore if you add 4.6 wt oz of water in an attempt to achieve 100%
hydration with 4.6 wt oz of flour, you will be off because the amount
of water actually present is 4.6 + 0.4 =5.0, the sum of the water you
add yourself plus the the water in 1 cup of flour. And the actual
weight of the "dry" flour is 4.2 wt oz, not 4.6 wt oz.

Therefore the actual hydration is:
5.0 / 4.2 = 119%, a non-trivial error.

NB: This is the same as Dick's formula except his is in percentages
based on the weight of flour and this is in actual weights of the
ingredients.

HTH

Luke Skywalker wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > I use KA flour. KA states that their 5 pound bag of AP flour contains
> > "approximately 19 cups of flour". 5 lb = 2270 grams. Divide 2270 by 19 and
> you
> > get 119.5 grams per cup. I use 120.
>
> Wow!
> I'm in trouble with thousands recipes having cups of solid, liquid and mixed
> ingredients.
> No more "sourdoughing", tomorrow I'm baking.
> ...please let me know how much should weight a cup of starter 100% hydration
> considering that the flour is
> "adjusted" to 14 % moisture at the mill (according to Samartha).
>
> "Old Europe" Luke

I don't know but it should not be too difficult to weigh. There is one caveat
when measuring starter. If it is active it contains enough gas bubbles that it
affects the weight. My starter is fed a ratio of 1.5 cups of flour (180 grams)
to 1 cup of water (226 grams). One cup of _my_ not bubbling starter weighs 264
grams but it is at a 125% hydration (I am doing the calculations as I type).

To calculate it take some of your starter more than one cup and let it stand
until it goes flat, no bubbling. Bang it against a flat surface to get the
bubbles out. Measure out a cup and weigh it. Use that as your weight. The
weight should be close enough for your purposes.

Hmmm... I just realized that you don't need to weigh a starter. Take one 200
grams of flour, 200 cc (which weighs 200 grams) of water, mix them together.
Now take one cup of that and weigh it. That should give you the weight of one
cup of 100% hydration starter. Just ignore the flour moisture. That is what
you do when you feed the starter, isn't it?

Please let me know what you get.

Bert

> wrote in message
...

> Hmmm... I just realized that you don't need to weigh a starter. Take one
200
> grams of flour, 200 cc (which weighs 200 grams) of water, mix them
together.
> Now take one cup of that and weigh it. That should give you the weight of
one
> cup of 100% hydration starter. Just ignore the flour moisture. That is
what
> you do when you feed the starter, isn't it?
>
> Please let me know what you get.
>
> Bert

Hi Bert,
I was ready to follow your suggestion but then I stopped facing some further
doubts.
On one sight there are "volume" recipes and the nice interstitial effect of
the water which does not affect the volume.
On the other sight you have "weight" recipes where you do not bother about
the "level" or the form of the substance but where you can make high
hydration errors as HTH has correctly pointed out.
Everything seems clear and volume recipes can take an advantage over
"weight" recipes.
Very nice for me: I do not have to translate "volume" recipes into "weight"
recipes.

But after a while I was facing another problem.
What about if your starter instead of a white flour one or a plain grain
one?
The volumes are different.
And within the plain grain only, I can mill both wheat and rye in a scale
from 1 to 8 and the consistency I can assure you is more than "different".

Now, using weights it seems that you do not have such problems.
But you have others.
In fact 200 grams of pure white flour starter are different from 200 g of
plain grain flour starter. The proportions of food (for lactobacilli) and
minerals are different and therefore the behaviours of the starters are
different from right the beginning.

I think I'll lose myself in deep calculations.

More simply would it be to have "directions" to translate volume recipes
using pure white flour starters into weight recipes using plain grain wheat
starters.

I think that the magic recipe lies in the valley between these two extremes.



Luke

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:06:21 GMT, wrote:

>1 cup of water (226 grams).

According to the conversion tables,
http://www.globalgourmet.com/cgi-bin...hts+volume+new

1. One (1) cup occupies a volume of 236.6 cc.

2. Pure water weighs 1 g per cc at standard conditions.

3. Ergo, one (1) cup of water weighs 236.6 g, not 226 g.

Where did I go wrong in this calculation?

Luke Skywalker wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hmmm... I just realized that you don't need to weigh a starter. Take one
> 200
> > grams of flour, 200 cc (which weighs 200 grams) of water, mix them
> together.
> > Now take one cup of that and weigh it. That should give you the weight of
> one
> > cup of 100% hydration starter. Just ignore the flour moisture. That is
> what
> > you do when you feed the starter, isn't it?
> >
> > Please let me know what you get.
> >
> > Bert
>
> Hi Bert,
> I was ready to follow your suggestion but then I stopped facing some further
> doubts.
> On one sight there are "volume" recipes and the nice interstitial effect of
> the water which does not affect the volume.
> On the other sight you have "weight" recipes where you do not bother about
> the "level" or the form of the substance but where you can make high
> hydration errors as HTH has correctly pointed out.
> Everything seems clear and volume recipes can take an advantage over
> "weight" recipes.
> Very nice for me: I do not have to translate "volume" recipes into "weight"
> recipes.
>
> But after a while I was facing another problem.
> What about if your starter instead of a white flour one or a plain grain
> one?
> The volumes are different.
> And within the plain grain only, I can mill both wheat and rye in a scale
> from 1 to 8 and the consistency I can assure you is more than "different".
>
> Now, using weights it seems that you do not have such problems.
> But you have others.
> In fact 200 grams of pure white flour starter are different from 200 g of
> plain grain flour starter. The proportions of food (for lactobacilli) and
> minerals are different and therefore the behaviours of the starters are
> different from right the beginning.
>
> I think I'll lose myself in deep calculations.
>
> More simply would it be to have "directions" to translate volume recipes
> using pure white flour starters into weight recipes using plain grain wheat
> starters.
>
> I think that the magic recipe lies in the valley between these two extremes.
>
> Luke

Remember that my posting specified that I use KA flour. If you go to plain
grain the weight would not be the same.

What would help would be if manufacturers would put state something like this:
"This 5 pound bag of super-duper-whatever flour contains XX cups" and then we
would simply divide 2270 grams by XX and come up with the weight of a cup.

Sorry, I don't know what the miriad of flours other than what I use weigh. You
will have to figure that out by yourself. Perhaps calling the manufacturer
would give you an idea. All I know is that the weight I use works. My guess is
that all other white flours would weigh the same. Rye, grain, etc would weigh
differently.

There are recipes that have quantities in both cups and grams. If you find one
that contains the flour you are using you can use the volume and weights to
figure out what a cup of flour weighs.

Go to a bookstore, find books that have both weights and volumes and figure it
out from there.

Bert

wrote:
>
> Luke Skywalker wrote:
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I use KA flour. KA states that their 5 pound bag of AP flour contains
> > > "approximately 19 cups of flour". 5 lb = 2270 grams. Divide 2270 by 19 and
> > you
> > > get 119.5 grams per cup. I use 120.
> >
> > Wow!
> > I'm in trouble with thousands recipes having cups of solid, liquid and mixed
> > ingredients.
> > No more "sourdoughing", tomorrow I'm baking.
> > ...please let me know how much should weight a cup of starter 100% hydration
> > considering that the flour is
> > "adjusted" to 14 % moisture at the mill (according to Samartha).
> >
> > "Old Europe" Luke
>
> I don't know but it should not be too difficult to weigh. There is one caveat
> when measuring starter. If it is active it contains enough gas bubbles that it
> affects the weight. My starter is fed a ratio of 1.5 cups of flour (180 grams)
> to 1 cup of water (226 grams). One cup of _my_ not bubbling starter weighs 264
> grams but it is at a 125% hydration (I am doing the calculations as I type).
>

Correction: 8 ounces _avoirdupois_ (weight) weigh 226.8 grams. 8 fluid ounces
weigh a bit more. Unfortunately the same term is used for two different
things. One ounce volume is not the same thing as one ounce weight.

The statement above should have read: "My starter is fed at a ratio of 1.5
cups of flour (180 grams) to 8 ounces _avoirdupois_ (226 grams)".

Source: Photo Lab Index pp 12.02 and 12.03.

Bert
So lash me with a 28% hydration noodle

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:58:52 GMT, wrote:

>One ounce volume is not the same thing as one ounce weight.

Well, it is for water...

All the best,

--
Kenneth

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

"Kenneth" > wrote in message =
...

> > 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.)

---
DickA

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:26:22 GMT, wrote:

>What would help would be if manufacturers would put state something like this:
>"This 5 pound bag of super-duper-whatever flour contains XX cups" and then we
>would simply divide 2270 grams by XX and come up with the weight of a cup.

In several of their recipes online, KA tells you that the weight of a
cup of their AP flour is 4.2 wt oz.

For example in the recipe for baguettes, which I have cited on
numerous occasions in the past - the one on the Online Baking School:

For AP flour:
1 1/4 cups (5 1/4 ounces) King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour
2 1/2 cups (10 1/2 ounces) King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour

They even include water so you can check their accuracy:
2/3 cup (5 1/4 ounces) cool (approximately 60°F) water

Flour weighs 4.2 wt oz per cup.
Water weighs 7.9 wt oz per cup.

In another baguette recipe, under the Favorite Recipes section:

1 1/4 cups (5 1/4 ounces) King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour
2 1/2 cups (11 ounces) King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour

1/2 cup + 3 tablespoons (5 1/4 ounces) cool (approximately 60°F) water

That works out to 4.2 wt oz per cup for flour and 7.6 wt oz per cup
for water. The discrepency in the density of water indicates an error
of about +/- 2% overall. I have seen another KA recipe where the
density of flour was 4.3 wt oz per cup, which is within the stated
tolerances.

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.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:16:11 -0500, Kenneth
> wrote:

>>One ounce volume is not the same thing as one ounce weight.

>Well, it is for water...

Not quite. The density of water at standard conditions is 1 g per ml.
That's the one of the definitions of the cgs (centimeter-gram-second)
system.

The conversions to U.S. units are as follows:

29.57 ml/fl oz.
28.41 g/wt oz.

The density of water is exactly 1.00 g/ml so converting to wt oz per
fl oz amounts to the following calculation.

1 g/ml * (1/28.41) wt oz/g * 29.57 ml/fl oz = 29.57/28.41 wt oz/fl oz.

[Note the cancellation of g and ml dimensions top and bottom.]

= 1.04 wt oz/fl oz.

[That is identical to the value Dick Adams posted yesterday.]

That's a 4% error if you use 1.00 wt oz per fl oz.

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

( " You
can, in fact, create a 4-ounce cup of flour by sifting the flour first. The
sifting process incorporates a lot of air into the flour, which is the first
source of leavening. Scooping flour, which can produce a much heavier cup
(up to 5 1/2 ounces), will obviously contain less air and more flour. You
can also fluff up flour in your flour bag, sprinkle it gently into your
measuring cup, scrape the top with a straight edge, and get close to 4
ounces, but you probably will get a little bit more.")

You do not do this. You do the following (quote 11/8/03 alt.bread.recipes)

" When I buy a 5 lb package of flour (KA bread flour) I
bang it gently on the counter to make it settle a bit. Then when I
transfer it to my RubberMaid storage container, I bang it on the
counter. When I scoop the flour I tap the backside of my knife on the
cup and then scrape the excess off even with the top of the cup. I am
trying to achieve a consistent measure with this procedure."

> wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> >
>SNIP> The statement above should have read: "My starter is fed at a ratio
of 1.5
> cups of flour (180 grams) to 8 ounces _avoirdupois_ (226 grams)".
>
Cup measure can be confusing. Many of the cup sets on sale these days are
metric and a cup = 250ml. Last weekend, I followed a recipe from Carol
Field's book on Italian breads and it was an absolute and utter bloody
disaster. The reason being, I used the metric cup measure for the water
instead of the American cup measure. The dough, no the wallpaper paste,
ended up with a hydration of 114% instead of 103%. I made it again
yesterday with the correct conversion and what a superb bread it is.

It would be so much easier (and more accurate) if all recipes used grams and
mls.

Graham (who is not afraid of metric and celsius!)

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:06:21 GMT, wrote:
>
> >1 cup of water (226 grams).
>
> According to the conversion tables,
> http://www.globalgourmet.com/cgi-bin...hts+volume+new
>
> 1. One (1) cup occupies a volume of 236.6 cc.
>
> 2. Pure water weighs 1 g per cc at standard conditions.
>
> 3. Ergo, one (1) cup of water weighs 236.6 g, not 226 g.
>
> Where did I go wrong in this calculation?
>
>

According to my metric conversion calculator, 1 fluid ounce = 29.57ml but
1 Imperial fluid ounce = 28.41ml and 1oz(avoirdupois) = 28.35g.

Bob, the question is not where did you go wrong but why the hell do we stick
to such an antiquated system of measurement?

Graham

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:17:51 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:

>According to my metric conversion calculator, 1 fluid ounce = 29.57ml but
>1 Imperial fluid ounce = 28.41ml and 1oz(avoirdupois) = 28.35g.

Hi Graham,

I goofed earlier when I posted that a fluid ounce (of water) weighed
one ounce. My mind was on the other side of the pond.

From:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fluid%20drachm

"Fluid ounce. (a) In the United States, a measure of capacity, in
apothecaries' or wine measure, equal to one sixteenth of a pint or
29.57 cubic centimeters. This, for water, is about 1.04158 ounces
avoirdupois, or 455.6 grains. (b) In England, a measure of capacity
equal to the twentieth part of an imperial pint. For water, this is
the weight of the avoirdupois ounce, or 437.5 grains."

But, for now, back to baking...

I have been weighing ingredients for years. Some assume (incorrectly)
that it is for some concern with enhanced accuracy, but that is not it
at all.

It is simply much more convenient.

I put a large container on the scale, tare it, and start dumping
things in. I tare the scale after each addition.

No measuring cups, or spoons etc.

The first time I tried it, it was simply much easier...

All the best,

--
Kenneth

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

Kenneth wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:58:52 GMT, wrote:
>
> >One ounce volume is not the same thing as one ounce weight.
>
> Well, it is for water...
>
> All the best,
>
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

No, it is not. One fluid ounce of water (or actually anything) is 29.57 cc so
one fl. oz. of water weighs 29.57 grams. One ounce avoirdupois (that is a
weight measure, not volume) is 28.35 grams.

Extremely confusing and that is what led to my original error.

And we have not even scratched the surface on this. There is the British
Imperial system. In that system one ounce (volume) is 28.41 cc. Close to the
US customary fluid ounce but not exactly the same.

There are two more mesuring systems that I know of but I think they are only
for length measures. The Spanish vara is three feet in length but the base
vara is shorter than the British yard. And there is the Cuban vara which is a
bit longer than the Spanish vara.

There is an interesting story about how the Cuban vara came to be longer than
the Spanish vara. Back in the early 1800's the Governor of Cuba was concerned
because there was no standard of measure in the colonies. He asked Spain to
send him a standard measure and a few months later received a stick as a
response to his request. The length of the stick was accepted as the length of
a vara and became the standard for Cuba and the colonies. Some years later
someone dropped the stick and it broke open. Inside was the correct standard.
The "stick" was only a box for the standard measure of the Spanish vara which
was inside, very tightly fitted.

Then there is the metric system where there is no such confusion.

Source: Photo Lab Index pp 12.01 to 12.03.

Bert

Graham wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> > >
> >SNIP> The statement above should have read: "My starter is fed at a ratio
> of 1.5
> > cups of flour (180 grams) to 8 ounces _avoirdupois_ (226 grams)".
> >
> Cup measure can be confusing. Many of the cup sets on sale these days are
> metric and a cup = 250ml. Last weekend, I followed a recipe from Carol
> Field's book on Italian breads and it was an absolute and utter bloody
> disaster. The reason being, I used the metric cup measure for the water
> instead of the American cup measure. The dough, no the wallpaper paste,
> ended up with a hydration of 114% instead of 103%. I made it again
> yesterday with the correct conversion and what a superb bread it is.
>
> It would be so much easier (and more accurate) if all recipes used grams and
> mls.
>
> Graham (who is not afraid of metric and celsius!)

I grew up in Cuba. There we had to deal with not two but five different
systems. Metric, US Customary, British Imperial, Spanish and Cuban.

Read the story about the reason why the Cuban and Spanish length measures are
different that I just posted. It is hell for anyone who ever had to do
surveying based on old Spanish maps. There were some interesting cases in BC
Cuba that were based on which measurement units were used on some properties.

I am not afraid of metric either, grew up with it.

Bert

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
SNIP to keep Dick relatively happy;-)

> But, for now, back to baking...
>
> I have been weighing ingredients for years. Some assume (incorrectly)
> that it is for some concern with enhanced accuracy, but that is not it
> at all.
>
> It is simply much more convenient.
>
> I put a large container on the scale, tare it, and start dumping
> things in. I tare the scale after each addition.
>
As do I. It is so convenient but in pastry making, it is a question of
accuracy. Tomorrow I'll be making pastry for a Tarte Tatin by taring. It's
so much easier, more accurate and reproducable.

Best wishes
Graham

in article , Bob at
wrote on 29/11/03 2:13 pm:

> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:16:11 -0500, Kenneth
> > wrote:
>
>>> One ounce volume is not the same thing as one ounce weight.
>
>> Well, it is for water...
>
> Not quite. The density of water at standard conditions is 1 g per ml.
> That's the one of the definitions of the cgs (centimeter-gram-second)
> system.
>
> The conversions to U.S. units are as follows:
>
> 29.57 ml/fl oz.
> 28.41 g/wt oz.
>
> The density of water is exactly 1.00 g/ml so converting to wt oz per
> fl oz amounts to the following calculation.
>
> 1 g/ml * (1/28.41) wt oz/g * 29.57 ml/fl oz = 29.57/28.41 wt oz/fl oz.
>
> [Note the cancellation of g and ml dimensions top and bottom.]
>
> = 1.04 wt oz/fl oz.
>
> [That is identical to the value Dick Adams posted yesterday.]
>
> That's a 4% error if you use 1.00 wt oz per fl oz.
>
>
Of course many of us do measure in mls and grams already ellen

On 29 Nov 2003 at 17:26, wrote:

> What would help would be if manufacturers would put state something
> like this: "This 5 pound bag of super-duper-whatever flour contains XX
> cups" and then we would simply divide 2270 grams by XX and come up
> with the weight of a cup.

No, it wouldn't. How many cups you get will still depend on how you fill your
cup.

Some substances, like water and other liquids, are very consistent. Whether
you dip a measure into a large vat of water, pour water from a pitcher, or let
water flow from the tap into a measure, the cup will weight the same.

However, flour is subject to compaction. If you dip your cup into a bag of
flour, the cup will weight more than if you sift the flour into the cup. In one
case, the flour is compacted, in the other it's fluffed up.

When flour is transported, it tends to compact. When it's stored, it tends to
compact.

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

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:
You ain't learning nothing when you're talking.

Mike Avery wrote:
>
> On 29 Nov 2003 at 17:26, wrote:
>
> > What would help would be if manufacturers would put state something
> > like this: "This 5 pound bag of super-duper-whatever flour contains XX
> > cups" and then we would simply divide 2270 grams by XX and come up
> > with the weight of a cup.
>
> No, it wouldn't. How many cups you get will still depend on how you fill your
> cup.
>
> Some substances, like water and other liquids, are very consistent. Whether
> you dip a measure into a large vat of water, pour water from a pitcher, or let
> water flow from the tap into a measure, the cup will weight the same.
>
> However, flour is subject to compaction. If you dip your cup into a bag of
> flour, the cup will weight more than if you sift the flour into the cup. In one
> case, the flour is compacted, in the other it's fluffed up.
>
> When flour is transported, it tends to compact. When it's stored, it tends to
> compact.
>
> 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.

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".

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".

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.

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".

Bert