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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Converting Recipes

Is there a standard formula to convert non-sourdough recipes to using
sourdough? Specifically, reducing flour/liquid amounts or eliminating
baking soda/baking powders (and obviously packaged yeast)?
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Converting Recipes

Darren wrote:
> Is there a standard formula to convert non-sourdough recipes to using
> sourdough? Specifically, reducing flour/liquid amounts or eliminating
> baking soda/baking powders (and obviously packaged yeast)?


I have had very good results using 2 cups of active foam or in my case a
little less than 1 cup stirred down to replace one dose (packet, cube,
2.25 tsp, etc..) of yeast and it's liquid. I got this from The Joy of
Cooking.

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Converting Recipes


"Darren" > wrote in message ...
> Is there a standard formula to convert non-sourdough recipes to using
> sourdough? Specifically, reducing flour/liquid amounts or eliminating
> baking soda/baking powders (and obviously packaged yeast)?


It takes very little sourdough (like maybe a half teaspoon full) to start a
sponge. A sponge might be 1/4 or 1/3 the volume of the final dough.
For sourdough rye, depending on the process, the organisms contaminating
the grain may be enough to start.

A liftime supply of sourdough starter can be obtained from a few granules
of dried active sourdough.

A minute amount of yeast (like a tenth of a tsp) can raise a batch of dough
if you are willing to wait until tomorrow before baking.

I suppose you could make make sourdough quick breads, but without
the baking powder they are no longer quick breads.

Sourdough is a very enigmatic stuff.

That didn't help, right?

--
Dicky
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
Doc Doc is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Converting Recipes

On Mar 4, 11:43*am, Darren > wrote:
> Is there a standard formula to convert non-sourdough recipes to using
> sourdough? *Specifically, reducing flour/liquid amounts or eliminating
> baking soda/baking powders (and obviously packaged yeast)?


Darren,
When I do a conversion, I try to guess how sour I want the product to
be and then set the fraction of the flour that will be in the starter
(5% makes a very sour loaf while 30% makes a less sour loaf) then
subtract from the original recipe amounts the flour and the liquid
that will be in the starter (to make this an easy calculation always
use a 100% hydration starter). The only thing you have left to figure
out is how long it must ferment the mix to develop the dough. So long
as your fermentation temperature is always the same, it should only
take a few tries to get it right. If the result is too sour, increase
the fraction of the flour that is in the starter and if it is not sour
enough, cut back. At 30% of the flour in the starter and a 90 deg F
fermentation temperature, it should take 2.5 to 3 hrs before it is
ready to be made into loaves (depending to some extent on you starter
particulars). Lower temps and lower percentages take more time.

Doc

  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Converting Recipes


"Doc" > wrote in message ...
> ... 5% makes a very sour loaf while 30% makes a less sour loaf ...


Who told you that? Why should that be? Is there empirical evidence?

5% will soon be 30%, and 30% at some previous time was 5%.

At some further time, souring will occur in either case, will it not?.

What is really the difference between a starter and a sponge?

I am just asking these questions on account of having an inquiring mind.

--
Dicky




  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Converting Recipes

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Doc" > wrote in message ...
>> ... 5% makes a very sour loaf while 30% makes a less sour loaf ...

>
> Who told you that? Why should that be? Is there empirical evidence?
>
> Dicky
>
>


I find the same thing from experimenting.

If I use a tsp of starter sponge and follow Dick's long rise method, I
get a nice sour light loaf.

If I use say the Joy of Cooking's method with a cup of stirred down
starter or 2 cups of sponge, I get a lot less sour and a lot faster
rise. 4-6 hours vs 12-18 hours at my kitchen's temperature. This is
more like the stuff the grocery stores around here sells.

Both methods make nice bread, they are just different. I find the
smaller amount of starter sponge makes for a lighter loaf.

What do you call starter or sponge Dick? Is one mostly dormant while
the other one is actively growing? I find my starter is a slowly
growing sponge because I keep it cold or my back up starter (using the
method you posted a while back, thanks) is just dried flakes.

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Converting Recipes


"Mike Romain" > wrote in message g.com...
> What do you call starter or sponge Dick?


A sponge is a big starter.

> Is one mostly dormant while the other one is actively growing?


Unless the fridge temperature is exactly right for your interval between
bakes, like http://lumpymuffins.home.comcast.net...h/NoWaste.html ,
a fridge culture should be actived before it will serve properly as a starter.

> I find my starter is a slowly growing sponge because I keep it cold.


Looks like you lucked out, like the lumpymuffins man did.


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
Sam Sam is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default Converting Recipes

Darren wrote:
> Is there a standard formula to convert non-sourdough recipes to using
> sourdough? Specifically, reducing flour/liquid amounts or eliminating
> baking soda/baking powders (and obviously packaged yeast)?
> _______________________________________________
>


Use baker's % of starter flour for white (wheat) flour breads of 12 - 20
% - start with 16 %.

Include starter water to total dough water calculation.

Forget all the other hullabaloo.

Sam

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Converting Recipes

Dick Adams wrote:
>
> Unless the fridge temperature is exactly right for your interval between
> bakes, like http://lumpymuffins.home.comcast.net...h/NoWaste.html ,
> a fridge culture should be actived before it will serve properly as a starter.
>
>> I find my starter is a slowly growing sponge because I keep it cold.

>
> Looks like you lucked out, like the lumpymuffins man did.


Could be, but it isn't perfect. I do 'activate' my starter when it come
out of the fridge and have very consistent results these days because I
now know what I am looking for in the way of starter activity.

If it is too slow or too sour because it has been stored too long, I
feed it several times to make it really active which also makes my
starter less sour before using unless I want a heavier loaf. I mostly
let the sour come from the final rise time as you do unless my 'market'
or 'family' wants the heavy sour loaf. I usually get the bread I am
aiming for which is nice.

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Converting Recipes

Sam wrote:
> Darren wrote:
>> Is there a standard formula to convert non-sourdough recipes to using
>> sourdough? Specifically, reducing flour/liquid amounts or eliminating
>> baking soda/baking powders (and obviously packaged yeast)?
>> _______________________________________________
>>

>
> Use baker's % of starter flour for white (wheat) flour breads of 12 - 20
> % - start with 16 %.
>
> Include starter water to total dough water calculation.
>
> Forget all the other hullabaloo.
>
> Sam
>


You know I had a couple women bakers reading over my shoulder the other
day and they just about ****ed themselves laughing when they started
reading about all these percents and micrograms of flour, etc... They
mumbled something about 'only men' between laughs....

I was taught to make bread by the final feel of the dough....

I have 'never' been able to get the exact amount of flour to mix with
the exact amount of water, there is always variation, but I also mix by
hand if that makes the difference?

Is there a simple explanation for bakers %?

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Converting Recipes



Mike Romain wrote:
>
> You know I had a couple women bakers reading over my shoulder the other
> day and they just about ****ed themselves laughing when they started
> reading about all these percents and micrograms of flour, etc... They
> mumbled something about 'only men' between laughs....


The baking instructor (master baker) at my son's culinary school is a
WOMAN. Care to guess what happens to students who wing it?

Hint... she does not laugh.

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,641
Default Converting Recipes

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 09:39:00 -0800 (PST), Will
> wrote:

>
>
>Mike Romain wrote:
>>
>> You know I had a couple women bakers reading over my shoulder the other
>> day and they just about ****ed themselves laughing when they started
>> reading about all these percents and micrograms of flour, etc... They
>> mumbled something about 'only men' between laughs....

>
>The baking instructor (master baker) at my son's culinary school is a
>WOMAN. Care to guess what happens to students who wing it?
>
>Hint... she does not laugh.


I assume your son is not going to culinary school to hone his skills
purely for baking in his home kitchen.

Boron
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Converting Recipes

On Mar 7, 12:28 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 09:39:00 -0800 (PST), Will
>
> > wrote:
>
> >Mike Romain wrote:

>
> >> You know I had a couple women bakers reading over my shoulder the other
> >> day and they just about ****ed themselves laughing when they started
> >> reading about all these percents and micrograms of flour, etc... They
> >> mumbled something about 'only men' between laughs....

>
> >The baking instructor (master baker) at my son's culinary school is a
> >WOMAN. Care to guess what happens to students who wing it?

>
> >Hint... she does not laugh.

>
> I assume your son is not going to culinary school to hone his skills
> purely for baking in his home kitchen.
>
> Boron


Fair assumption. But he's learning that I am not the measuring Nazi.
Which is to say, I'm not doing the calculations to balance flour temp.
and water temp. to make dough at precisely 75 degrees. :-)

I just didn't want Mike R. to think that men measure and woman
ponder.



  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
Sam Sam is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default Converting Recipes

Mike Romain wrote:
> Is there a simple explanation for bakers %?
>
>

My guess, if you haven't gotten it by now - probably not for you.

Sam


  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,641
Default Converting Recipes

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 10:55:38 -0800 (PST), Will
> wrote:

>On Mar 7, 12:28 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 09:39:00 -0800 (PST), Will
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Romain wrote:

>>
>> >> You know I had a couple women bakers reading over my shoulder the other
>> >> day and they just about ****ed themselves laughing when they started
>> >> reading about all these percents and micrograms of flour, etc... They
>> >> mumbled something about 'only men' between laughs....

>>
>> >The baking instructor (master baker) at my son's culinary school is a
>> >WOMAN. Care to guess what happens to students who wing it?

>>
>> >Hint... she does not laugh.

>>
>> I assume your son is not going to culinary school to hone his skills
>> purely for baking in his home kitchen.
>>
>> Boron

>
>Fair assumption. But he's learning that I am not the measuring Nazi.
>Which is to say, I'm not doing the calculations to balance flour temp.
>and water temp. to make dough at precisely 75 degrees. :-)
>
>I just didn't want Mike R. to think that men measure and woman
>ponder.
>
>

There are female bloggers all over the place who weigh bread
ingredients. You can find them quite easily. It is much tougher to
estimate how many people - male or female - make their bread by sight
and feel as that isn't shared as easily online. No recipes to post.

You can try this - it'll take you a very long time to load, and it's
in Gaelic, but this woman isn't one for weighing things, yet manages
just fine. It's worth watching no matter how you bake. And St. Paddy's
Day is just around the corner.

http://www.ucc.ie/services/igl/AranCeart.mov

Boron



  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Converting Recipes

On Mar 7, 5:27 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
> There are female bloggers all over the place who weigh bread
> ingredients. You can find them quite easily. It is much tougher to
> estimate how many people - male or female - make their bread by sight
> and feel as that isn't shared as easily online.



Boron,

I'm not going to argue with you about weighing bread ingredients. I've
seen your pictures. I know, you know what you're doing. But you are a
vanishing species. I can make bread by sight and feel too. I am a
vanishing species. I've been making bread 2 or 3 times a week for 30
years. The question is how do we pass this on...

My answer is to measure stuff, not because I am a control freak, but
because I see no other way...





  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Converting Recipes

Sam wrote:
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> Is there a simple explanation for bakers %?
>>
>>

> My guess, if you haven't gotten it by now - probably not for you.
>
> Sam
>
>

Humor me and maybe educate others please. I haven't paid too much
attention to it because any exact measurement bread recipes have not
worked for me. Maybe it's time to try something new....

Mike
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Converting Recipes

Will wrote:
> On Mar 7, 5:27 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>> There are female bloggers all over the place who weigh bread
>> ingredients. You can find them quite easily. It is much tougher to
>> estimate how many people - male or female - make their bread by sight
>> and feel as that isn't shared as easily online.

>
>
> Boron,
>
> I'm not going to argue with you about weighing bread ingredients. I've
> seen your pictures. I know, you know what you're doing. But you are a
> vanishing species. I can make bread by sight and feel too. I am a
> vanishing species. I've been making bread 2 or 3 times a week for 30
> years. The question is how do we pass this on...
>
> My answer is to measure stuff, not because I am a control freak, but
> because I see no other way...
>


OK, I can see how it could be hard to describe how dough 'feels' when it
is 'right', ("it pushes back" is one description) but once you show
someone and they get that it is 'say' +/- 1/2 cup of flour to make it
'feel' right, I for one didn't find it too hard to catch on back when I
was taught as a kid.

I have always figured those that measure exact weights used a machine
that will mix pretty much any amount of anything together, vs a hand
knead that gets really hard to mix too dry?

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Converting Recipes



Mike Romain wrote:

> OK, I can see how it could be hard to describe how dough 'feels' when it
> is 'right'...


That's true. The definition of a "right" for a bread machine person is
very different from "right" for the person who ages dough, does not
knead, and relies on stretch and folds.

Then there is flour. Flours can be a big question mark. The Dakota
Maid All Purpose that I use is much stronger than Gold Medal's Harvest
King (which I also use)... but you won't see that from perusing the
label. Handling changes, water ratio changes...
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
Doc Doc is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Converting Recipes

On Mar 4, 8:56*pm, "Dick Adams" > wrote:
> "Doc" > wrote in ...
> > ... 5% makes a very sour loaf while 30% makes a less sour loaf ...

>
> Who told you that? *Why should that be? *Is there empirical evidence?
>
> 5% will soon be 30%, and 30% at some previous time was 5%.
>
> At some further time, souring will occur in either case, will it not?.
>
> What is really the difference between a starter and a sponge?
>
> I am just asking these questions on account of having an inquiring mind.
>
> --
> Dicky


Dick,
I am pretty sure I read about it here, and I would have said that it
was from you or from Sam or Mike Avery, but I would not repeat it
unless I had verified, futzed with, and extensively tested it. If I
want to increase the sourness further I retard the dough overnight at
about 55-60°F before baking and/or add/increase the amount of whole
grain flour in the mix.
For the starter that I maintain, the pH of a ripe batch (100%
hydration, all white flour, 10:1 multiplication, active and ready to
make dough) is around 3.8, but as I learned from this forum it is not
the pH, but the TTA that makes the loaf sour.

Doc


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,641
Default Converting Recipes

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 18:28:00 -0800 (PST), Will
> wrote:

>On Mar 7, 5:27 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>>
>> There are female bloggers all over the place who weigh bread
>> ingredients. You can find them quite easily. It is much tougher to
>> estimate how many people - male or female - make their bread by sight
>> and feel as that isn't shared as easily online.

>
>
>Boron,
>
>I'm not going to argue with you about weighing bread ingredients. I've
>seen your pictures. I know, you know what you're doing. But you are a
>vanishing species. I can make bread by sight and feel too. I am a
>vanishing species. I've been making bread 2 or 3 times a week for 30
>years. The question is how do we pass this on...
>
>My answer is to measure stuff, not because I am a control freak, but
>because I see no other way...
>
>

We teach by example. It makes it easier when the tight assed among us
do not belittle the use of the hands and eyes when working with doughs
or insist it is inferior to weights and measures.

The Hub's company does a lot of work with a corporation that makes all
sorts of breads and bread products for upscale markets or restaurants.

The guys in R&D there are a fine mix of true artisan and food science.
They know what they are capable of, but they also know what is needed
for customers. TH chats with them all the time about my latest
adventures (these are the guys that send me a fine block of fresh
yeast every so often) and one of them voiced his opinion that being a
true bread maker means throwing away the recipes. Of course, this guy
cannot throw away formulas, as his products must be exactly the same
each and every time, so any instructions that come with them can be
followed by bakery workers in stores, the size of each loaf is as
promised, as well as all the (often) agreed upon and dispensed
nutritional information be correct when it goes out.

I have no doubts whatsoever that measuring is imperative in a
commercial setting. And I fully understand that if one is making
something new and based on a recipe, that is can make perfect sense to
follow quite closely to try and duplicate what the recipe creator has
promised. After that, as far as I am concerned, all bets are off. That
doesn't mean that one shouldn't measure, chacun à son goût, but that
it is not impossible, in fact, quite easy, to get spectacular results
without doing so. Does it take a bit more effort initially and have a
learning curve? You bet, but it allows one to take any recipe and, if
desired, change it to best accommodate tastes or needs.

One of the problems with blindly following recipes is that so many of
them, both in books and online, are filled with errors. The more one
understands how bread is constructed, how the ingredients work, how
the flours in one's own panty absorb liquids, when the mixer is
mightier than the hand, or when the hand is best, how proportions of
yeast/sourdough to final dough affect rise, taste and texture, how
time and temp come into play...yadda yadda, the better one can truly
achieve the bread that is sought.

Any or all of this is passed on in the same way such things have
always been passed on - in the kitchen. I watched my grandmother make
strudel, her neighbors bake breads and cakes, my own mother and father
make their specialties. My own kids and the neighbors' kids watch me.

I'm not out to change the world back to the way it was before every
kitchen had a Soehnle or a stack of impeccably matched stainless steel
measuring cups. I don't really give a damn if someone is happier with
a scale or itty bitty spoons in hand. Mimi Sheraton is quoted as
saying, "Are we going to measure or are we going to cook?" We cannot
lose sight of the goal. The goal is not to teach someone how to weigh
or measure. I just don't like being told that NOT weighing and
measuring is bad, produces inferior product or is just plain wrong.

Boron

  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Converting Recipes

Boron Elgar wrote:
....
> We teach by example. It makes it easier when the tight assed among us
> do not belittle the use of the hands and eyes when working with doughs
> or insist it is inferior to weights and measures.

Certainly true enough...but a message that will fall upon all too many
fallow ears in this group. In the years I've been reading here, that issue
has been beat to death dozens of times. Repetition is no more useful to a
closed mind than is harsh assertion. The problem is two-fold.

Much like when a group of 'reloaders' get together to discuss shooting,
little talk is made of their accuracy or groupings. One gets to become the
"top" reloader by knowing, off the top--without prompting, the names and
bullet design specifications from a dozen vendors with references to the
fractional degrees of taper on a boat-tail to the weight and manufacturing
details of one hollow-point over another. The same is true of
fly-fishermen. They measure the others around them not by how many fish
they catch, but by how quickly they can pick out some specific style of fly
in a group of hand-tied flies; or the weight, limpness, and throwing
capability of one kind of tapered fly-line over another.

That same kind of technical distinction comes into play in groups of this
sort...especially so because a degree of specific intellect and
understanding is needed even to do something as simple as what we do.
Those that wish to achieve some status as "experts" in this arena, need to
convince the others that they do indeed have "the chops" to be that expert.
It's not the ability to bake and eat good bread that matters, it's the
ability to discuss ad nauseam the minutia of the accuracy of one scale over
another to 3-digits of accuracy; or the cost & complexity of their
specialty stove as compared to yours.

They learn that "professional bakers" weigh their ingredients; so, in order
to also be taken as "professionals" they too have to weigh their
ingredients. And then one must loudly denounce any that don't as amateurs
not worthy of mention when it comes to baking. That scales are only useful
in matters of scaling (i.e. having to bake 23 loaves today and 187
tomorrow--a nearly impossible task using hand measures) is never a
consideration for them. Only that they can sneer at you for not having the
latest Titanium clad, digital, accurate to 3 decimal places, displaying in
4-languages in any one of 3-metrics, with USB interface is important. It's
their need to demonstrate their "professionalism" that's at stake. That
using a scale to make a single loaf is over-kill can never be considered.
Then, when that begins to pale, they'll enter into endless arguments as to
the accuracy and how important that is, all so they can sneer at you for
using your hands and other simple measures. That a few tablespoons of
flour or water either way is nearly undetectable by the average palate is
never a consideration to them. It must still be argued that measuring
flour to the last grain of dust is needed in order to "get it right".

The same goes for having to extol their baking virtue because they're
willing and able to heat their ovens to near the melting point of lead for
endless hours in pursuit of *that* perfect temperature for baking bread
"properly". That's usually closely followed by their need to use tons of
tiles or stones or bricks in order to get that most perfect heat and
temperature distribution possible. Clearly, if you can't do that, you
certainly can't call yourself a 'real' baker...or so they assert.

If you think that's bad, just wait until they regale you with the latest
version of their newest 45-horsepower Hobart industrial grade mixer.
Clearly, if you don't have one, you can't possible be taken as a serious
baker! That the simple use of "stretch & fold" for a loaf or two makes
excellent bread, just can't be tolerated or considered as possible...

That kind of snide arrogance goes well with having to extol the virtues of
their brand of hand-woven, proofing baskets made exclusively of the finest
willows found growing on only the left-side of some stream in France by a
bakery where the pope himself goes to get his bread, and so on.

The other part of their need to extol the virtues of all of those gadgets
and such is because our craft is so simple, they have to erect a barrier to
the entry of the unwashed masses. By making the need to have all of that
equipment a criteria of baking sourdough bread, they make it harder for the
newbie's to enter...thereby ensuring their continued elevation to and
status of 'group master'.

I got sucked into that vortex when I first came here looking for help and
advice. Fortunately I have a pretty good scientific and technical
background and a long history as a gourmet cook (albeit of somewhat dubious
accomplishment). So it didn't take too long before I figured out who the
real pro's were and who the posers are. Real pro's like Kenneth and Mike
come to mind...and I know that others contributed as well. They're that
useful mix of true professionals that have earned their living baking, yet
still are willing to give tips and advice to us amateurs. I can't thank
them enough for all that they've taught me over the years...and again,
those others that may have chipped in but whose names I've neglected to
mention, I'm indebted to you as well.

Finally, as a long time reader here, I've had no end to folks reading here
that have dropped me notes thanking me for pointing them to my simple,
easy-to-bake recipes. I like to think that I'm providing others exactly
what I would like to get: unpretentious recipes geared for the
accomplished, home-baking amateur. I don't try to fluff them with endless
technical nonsense, or load them with the faux need for specialty
equipment. Folks have been making and eating sourdough bread for well over
10,000 years. Only in less then the last 100 years have they been
bedeviled by the need to have a high-tech crutch imposed upon our simple
and timeless craft...

....
> I have no doubts whatsoever that measuring is imperative in a
> commercial setting. And I fully understand that if one is making
> something new and based on a recipe, that is can make perfect sense to
> follow quite closely to try and duplicate what the recipe creator has
> promised. After that, as far as I am concerned, all bets are off. That

Spot-on, Boron!

> doesn't mean that one shouldn't measure, chacun à son goût, but that
> it is not impossible, in fact, quite easy, to get spectacular results
> without doing so. Does it take a bit more effort initially and have a
> learning curve? You bet, but it allows one to take any recipe and, if
> desired, change it to best accommodate tastes or needs.

And that is, to those of us that appreciate good cooking and baking, the
purpose of all this. Is it not?

> One of the problems with blindly following recipes is that so many of
> them, both in books and online, are filled with errors. The more one
> understands how bread is constructed, how the ingredients work, how
> the flours in one's own panty absorb liquids, when the mixer is

Well, that is one difference between us...I, somehow, have grown used to
the habit of keeping my flour in the 'pantry'...(;-o)!

....
> I'm not out to change the world back to the way it was before every
> kitchen had a Soehnle or a stack of impeccably matched stainless steel
> measuring cups. I don't really give a damn if someone is happier with
> a scale or itty bitty spoons in hand. Mimi Sheraton is quoted as
> saying, "Are we going to measure or are we going to cook?" We cannot
> lose sight of the goal. The goal is not to teach someone how to weigh
> or measure. I just don't like being told that NOT weighing and
> measuring is bad, produces inferior product or is just plain wrong.

Hear! Hear! Well said, m'lady!


L8r all,
Dusty


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Converting Recipes



BakerBoy wrote:
> Boron Elgar wrote:
>> I'm not out to change the world back to the way it was before every
>> kitchen had a Soehnle or a stack of impeccably matched stainless steel
>> measuring cups. I don't really give a damn if someone is happier with
>> a scale or itty bitty spoons in hand. Mimi Sheraton is quoted as
>> saying, "Are we going to measure or are we going to cook?" We cannot
>> lose sight of the goal. The goal is not to teach someone how to weigh
>> or measure. I just don't like being told that NOT weighing and
>> measuring is bad, produces inferior product or is just plain wrong.


> Hear! Hear! Well said, m'lady!
>
>
> L8r all,
> Dusty
>
>


Here's yet another believer. I tend to bake most breads by feel. At the
beginning, with both sourdough and regular yeast breads, I started with
recipes put forth by others. I wanted to get the basics down. The
problem with that is the fact that I hadn't bought a scale yet and I was
working with volume measurements, which we all know means that I was
working with a lot of variables I wasn't aware of at the time. I was
wondering why my breads were coming out wrong. Then I started reading
more about the "feel" of the dough. I started working with dough by feel
and choosing recipes that gave an accurate description of what the dough
should feel like when you're working it. My breads started turning out
better and I learned more about the fact that MY 1 cup of flour may not
be exactly the same as your cup. Learning the feel of the dough helped
me overcome the problems I was having in the beginning.

Because of the problem with volume measurements I've since gone to using
weights for almost everything if the recipe I'm working on will
eventually be put out there for public consumption, but I tend to still
bake by feel if it's something that we're just going to use for home.

Learning to bake in this way has made me a more confident baker. If I
lose my scale or measuring cups I'm pretty sure I can make a good loaf
of bread, be it a sourdough or something with commercial yeast, without
them. Being a young mother, I completely expect there to be times when I
don't want to take the time to weigh things out.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,641
Default Converting Recipes

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:25:13 -0700, "BakerBoy"
> wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>...
>> We teach by example. It makes it easier when the tight assed among us
>> do not belittle the use of the hands and eyes when working with doughs
>> or insist it is inferior to weights and measures.

>Certainly true enough...but a message that will fall upon all too many
>fallow ears in this group. In the years I've been reading here, that issue
>has been beat to death dozens of times. Repetition is no more useful to a
>closed mind than is harsh assertion. The problem is two-fold.
>

snip good stuff..

>They learn that "professional bakers" weigh their ingredients; so, in order
>to also be taken as "professionals" they too have to weigh their
>ingredients. And then one must loudly denounce any that don't as amateurs
>not worthy of mention when it comes to baking.

snip more good stuff
..
>
>Finally, as a long time reader here, I've had no end to folks reading here
>that have dropped me notes thanking me for pointing them to my simple,
>easy-to-bake recipes. I like to think that I'm providing others exactly
>what I would like to get: unpretentious recipes geared for the
>accomplished, home-baking amateur. I don't try to fluff them with endless
>technical nonsense, or load them with the faux need for specialty
>equipment. Folks have been making and eating sourdough bread for well over
>10,000 years. Only in less then the last 100 years have they been
>bedeviled by the need to have a high-tech crutch imposed upon our simple
>and timeless craft...
>

snip

>> One of the problems with blindly following recipes is that so many of
>> them, both in books and online, are filled with errors. The more one
>> understands how bread is constructed, how the ingredients work, how
>> the flours in one's own panty absorb liquids, when the mixer is

>Well, that is one difference between us...I, somehow, have grown used to
>the habit of keeping my flour in the 'pantry'...(;-o)!


I cannot begin to tell you how difficult it is to store a 25 lb sack
of flour in a thong. Makes me walk funny. (and proves, yet again, that
speel chuckers can be fun)

>...
>> I'm not out to change the world back to the way it was before every
>> kitchen had a Soehnle or a stack of impeccably matched stainless steel
>> measuring cups. I don't really give a damn if someone is happier with
>> a scale or itty bitty spoons in hand. Mimi Sheraton is quoted as
>> saying, "Are we going to measure or are we going to cook?" We cannot
>> lose sight of the goal. The goal is not to teach someone how to weigh
>> or measure. I just don't like being told that NOT weighing and
>> measuring is bad, produces inferior product or is just plain wrong.


>Hear! Hear! Well said, m'lady!


You are most kind.
>
>
>L8r all,
>Dusty
>

Boron
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,641
Default Converting Recipes

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:37:29 GMT, Stephanie Brim >
wrote:

>
>
>BakerBoy wrote:
>> Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> I'm not out to change the world back to the way it was before every
>>> kitchen had a Soehnle or a stack of impeccably matched stainless steel
>>> measuring cups. I don't really give a damn if someone is happier with
>>> a scale or itty bitty spoons in hand. Mimi Sheraton is quoted as
>>> saying, "Are we going to measure or are we going to cook?" We cannot
>>> lose sight of the goal. The goal is not to teach someone how to weigh
>>> or measure. I just don't like being told that NOT weighing and
>>> measuring is bad, produces inferior product or is just plain wrong.

>
>> Hear! Hear! Well said, m'lady!
>>
>>
>> L8r all,
>> Dusty
>>
>>

>
>Here's yet another believer. I tend to bake most breads by feel. At the
>beginning, with both sourdough and regular yeast breads, I started with
>recipes put forth by others. I wanted to get the basics down. The
>problem with that is the fact that I hadn't bought a scale yet and I was
>working with volume measurements, which we all know means that I was
>working with a lot of variables I wasn't aware of at the time. I was
>wondering why my breads were coming out wrong. Then I started reading
>more about the "feel" of the dough. I started working with dough by feel
>and choosing recipes that gave an accurate description of what the dough
>should feel like when you're working it. My breads started turning out
>better and I learned more about the fact that MY 1 cup of flour may not
>be exactly the same as your cup. Learning the feel of the dough helped
>me overcome the problems I was having in the beginning.


I think the web has helped dispense that information to those who
never had a family member or friend to look over a shoulder. There are
videos that show a well-proofed loaf or a windowpane looks like, or
even to give advice and show how to slash a recalcitrant lump of
dough. Even with all that out there, one still need to know where to
look and have a bit of knowledge to be able to judge the accuracy of
all that online advice.
>
>Because of the problem with volume measurements I've since gone to using
>weights for almost everything if the recipe I'm working on will
>eventually be put out there for public consumption, but I tend to still
>bake by feel if it's something that we're just going to use for home.


I bet you make wonderful things for both public and private
consumption, with and without weighing.
>
>Learning to bake in this way has made me a more confident baker. If I
>lose my scale or measuring cups I'm pretty sure I can make a good loaf
>of bread, be it a sourdough or something with commercial yeast, without
>them. Being a young mother, I completely expect there to be times when I
>don't want to take the time to weigh things out.


It was always tricky for me to get bread baking done when the kids
were little. I didn't work with sourdough at that time, it was yeast
only, and I really did not understand the leeway I could have with
preferments and retarding.

I had the rare pleasure of being a stay at home mom for 9 years, so as
the critters got older, the bread baking got more sophisticated. Of
course, the kids' taste in breads never kept pace with the
sophistication. They're grown now and will still likely choose a
plainer challah over a multi-grain loaf.

I made cookies this weekend - one basic, but delightful chocolate-
based one from Dorie Greenspan, and then a couple more exotic twists
from other - one with a bit of lemon and buttermilk, another with
orange zest and pistachios instead of walnuts or pecans. The kids were
here and bee-hived for the basic chocolate.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2564880...7614938502706/

Boron


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Converting Recipes

On Mar 8, 12:25 pm, "BakerBoy" >
wrote:

> They learn that "professional bakers" weigh their ingredients; so, in order
> to also be taken as "professionals" they too have to weigh their
> ingredients.


Oh please...

It is not ego-anything to put a bowl on a scale and get your water and
flour ratio settled in about 15 seconds. It's simply easier... which
is why professionals do it and probably why they recommend it. It's
not mindless posturing, it's simply easier.

When you bake... do you set the oven to a level determined by your
thermostat? Sure you do. You give those numbers in your webpages. Your
recipes don't say.... medium oven, or hot oven, or slow oven... they
say 450 F. Well... what is the philosophical difference? You
communicate a precise measure. And for a good reason. It's easier.







  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,641
Default Converting Recipes

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 15:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Will
> wrote:

>On Mar 8, 12:25 pm, "BakerBoy" >
>wrote:
>
>> They learn that "professional bakers" weigh their ingredients; so, in order
>> to also be taken as "professionals" they too have to weigh their
>> ingredients.

>
>Oh please...
>
>It is not ego-anything to put a bowl on a scale and get your water and
>flour ratio settled in about 15 seconds. It's simply easier... which
>is why professionals do it and probably why they recommend it. It's
>not mindless posturing, it's simply easier.


You mix dough that plainly every time you bake that you can do that up
front? I may have starter or a preferment that I dilute and mix first
in the DLX, then add some AP/bread/clear flour...then I might add
another flour type or two, adjust the water based on which combo of
flours I am using, then I might let it autolyze, then go in an tweak
some more with other ingredients, too. I don't ever bake so that I
combine a fixed amount of flour and water in one fell swoop and be
done with it all. You'd have me weighing in one bowl, putting it into
the mixer, weighing something else putting it into the mixer, back and
forth several times. pain in the ass. HOWEVER, if that is the way you
make your dough, I am sure it works well for you. Remember that last
sentence, eh?
>
>When you bake... do you set the oven to a level determined by your
>thermostat? Sure you do. You give those numbers in your webpages. Your
>recipes don't say.... medium oven, or hot oven, or slow oven... they
>say 450 F. Well... what is the philosophical difference? You
>communicate a precise measure. And for a good reason. It's easier.
>


Frankly, I don't pay much attention to a temp, either, as I have two
electric convection ovens. They bake differently even at the same
calibrated temp because one is full size and one is smaller. And
sometimes I use a stone, or sometimes not, and sometimes I bake one
loaf, sometimes three. Sometimes I may make one huge miche or maybe
I'll divide things into rolls. So really, I don't use temp or even
times as anything more than guides, and then adjust based on what I am
baking that day and how I am forming my doughs.

Boron



  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Converting Recipes

On Mar 8, 6:14 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:

> You mix dough that plainly every time you bake that you can do that up
> front?


No. But the example holds. Meaning, I typically want to end up with
1800 grams of dough. Why? because it fits my proofing baskets. (and no
I did not buy proofing baskets to impress the neighbors). I can
discount the starter piece, because I retain a piece of finished dough
from bake to bake. So what I add at the beginning, I retain at the
end. And I eyeball that. I keep a piece of dough about the size of a
ping pong ball.

So the math (attention Mike R) works like this 100% (flour) + 68%
(water) + 2% (salt) = 170 parts. This means my water is 1800/170*68 or
720 grams. 720 grams is something I simply remember. Why 720? Because
that's the level that gives me "the feel, very good extensibility" at
the S&F stage. Now, what I typically do is drop that starter dough in
water to soften it. My bucket happens to be calibrated. It was a $2
bucket, It's nothing to impress the neighbors either. But I know what
the water level is and therefore the weight. Metric is nice about
volume and weight relations relative to water...

At this point I'll add various things... I'll crack some wheat, some
rye, some barley, let it soak with the starter dough.
I don't weigh these. I just put the little plastic bucket under the
mill. Nor do I screen the crack for size. I just crack. I adjust the
mill for each grain... but you know all about that... You know that
rye is soft and hulled barley is not and they crack differently. Then
it sits.

When I'm ready to finish. I add the remaining water to net to 720. Add
the remaining flour (and salt) to 1850 (I assume the ping pong ball is
50). That's the basic dough.

I don't care what the dough feels like at this point. What's to know?
There's no gluten. What I have is a sticky mass. When I get to the
S&F's feel counts for everything.... but guess what... mixing was 12
or 16 hours ago. Adjusting ripe dough with fresh flour is NOT A GOOD
THING.

So... I keep a few numbers in my head. The relative hydration numbers
for basic classes of bread: whole grain vs white vs mixed. And I
adjust for the baked form: boule, batard, or pan. So 1800 for boules,
2200 for pans... We're talking half a dozen numbers. My neighbor has a
PhD in Nuclear Physics. Knowing 6 or 7 ratios fails to impress him.
He's much more interested in the S&F's. Manifold theory and
laminations, I guess.










  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,641
Default Converting Recipes

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:33:21 -0700 (PDT), Will
> wrote:

>On Mar 8, 6:14 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>> You mix dough that plainly every time you bake that you can do that up
>> front?

>
>No. But the example holds. Meaning, I typically want to end up with
>1800 grams of dough. Why? because it fits my proofing baskets. (and no
>I did not buy proofing baskets to impress the neighbors).


You think that is why I have them - to impress the neighbors? Or
anyone here?

Frankly, it isn't too difficult to know how much dough I need to fill
a particular basket, form or pan. And I hate to break the news to
you, but I am one sharpie when it comes to "scaling", too and can get
within a quarter ounce on rolls and within an ounce - ounce and a half
on 2 lb+ loaves - unaided - that is, without a scale. Don't worry,
I've verified it. Even better, I like to scare the kids or The Hub and
let them verify it once in awhile.

I am not posting this to brag about any particular talents I think I,
and I alone, have. This ain't rocket science. You ever watch 'em make
bagels in a bagel shop? You think the guy weighs each one when he
knocks off hundreds at a time?

>I can
>discount the starter piece, because I retain a piece of finished dough
>from bake to bake. So what I add at the beginning, I retain at the
>end. And I eyeball that. I keep a piece of dough about the size of a
>ping pong ball.


Good work, Luke. You trust in the Force.
>
>So the math (attention Mike R) works like this 100% (flour) + 68%
>(water) + 2% (salt) = 170 parts. This means my water is 1800/170*68 or
>720 grams. 720 grams is something I simply remember. Why 720? Because
>that's the level that gives me "the feel, very good extensibility" at
>the S&F stage. Now, what I typically do is drop that starter dough in
>water to soften it. My bucket happens to be calibrated. It was a $2
>bucket, It's nothing to impress the neighbors either.


Why do you keep harping on this in response to me? I haven't said
anything at all about such things. I'm not a Luddite. I have a kitchen
full of gadgets (including two very fine scales, I might add).

snip

>When I'm ready to finish. I add the remaining water to net to 720. Add
>the remaining flour (and salt) to 1850 (I assume the ping pong ball is
>50). That's the basic dough.
>
>I don't care what the dough feels like at this point. What's to know?
>There's no gluten. What I have is a sticky mass. When I get to the
>S&F's feel counts for everything.... but guess what... mixing was 12
>or 16 hours ago. Adjusting ripe dough with fresh flour is NOT A GOOD
>THING.


Did anyone suggest doing that? Surely I didn't, so there is no need to
mention it. In fact, no one ever mentioned it. Why go there?

I know from the condition of my dough *before* it goes into a lengthy
ferment what it will be on the other end. My judgment is made *before*
any fermenting or rising of the final dough. I know how to make that
judgment if I am going to use the DLX to knead or if I am going to use
stretch and folds, a combo of the two, or if I am going to skip
kneading altogether and just allow the dough to sit in the fridge for
overnight (and I was doing that a lot earlier than Bittman publicizing
of Sullivan's idea). Each of those plans would require the dough to be
of a slightly different consistency, assuming I were using the same
flours for each plan. And that consistency could vary even more if I
am proofing at room temp and it is cold, dry, warm or humid in the
kitchen.

>So... I keep a few numbers in my head. The relative hydration numbers
>for basic classes of bread: whole grain vs white vs mixed. And I
>adjust for the baked form: boule, batard, or pan. So 1800 for boules,
>2200 for pans... We're talking half a dozen numbers. My neighbor has a
>PhD in Nuclear Physics. Knowing 6 or 7 ratios fails to impress him.
>He's much more interested in the S&F's. Manifold theory and
>laminations, I guess.


And if playing with those numbers floats your boat, use them. No one
says you cannot or should not. You can use anything you like to make
bread, any flour, any water, any yeast or sourdough, salt rise or
magic.. You can bake it with gas, wood fire or electric, with or
without steam, on a stone, on parchment or in a flower pot. You are
100% entitled to your own methods and comfort level. Just don't tell
me what you do is a *better* method than mine.

Boron
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Converting Recipes


"Doc" > wrote in message ...
> [ ... ]
> If I want to increase the sourness further I retard the dough overnight at
> about 55-60°F before baking and/or add/increase the amount of whole
> grain flour in the mix.


So you must believe that cold incubation gives the souring bacteria
the edge over the yeasties, who are simply blowing gas.

I believe that the yeasties do their stuff and give way to the bacteria
when their food is gone. I even believe that the bacteria feast on
the starving bacteria. I believe that the sequence procedes slower
in the cold.

> it is not the pH, but the TTA that makes the loaf sour.


Actually, I do not exactly know what sour is. I guess it is safe to say
that it is an opinion, a perception, a state of mind ...

Hard to objectify when such a thing is a parameter.

--
Dicky



  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Converting Recipes

volume vs. weight measu

For dough to make a few loaves, scooping seems easier
than weighing. I know the volume of my scoops (cans) either
by weighing filled scoops, or by weighing the dough as set
forth in http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/di...ctions_Rev.doc
at the bottom of the page. I am a very consistent scooper.

The last bit of flour is added slowly to get the right dough feel.

The scoop calibration might change a bit when a new sack of
flour is started..

I am a collector of scales and balances. I probably have more
and better scales and balances than anybody here, including
the one who calls herself Boron. Some of my balances are
antiques, others can weight a fraction of a milligram. But I
certainly do not allow myself to become obsessive about using
them.

--
Dicky
  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
Sam Sam is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default Converting Recipes

A couple of things in this thread:

A - a reference to "Nazi" was made to a group of people, possibly on
this forum
B - women were referenced as wetting themselves by looking at numbers or
calculations

Are you guys actually aware what you are expressing when you write those
words?

Maybe you don't know the meaning of a "Nazi"? It has absolutely nothing
to do with being overly finicky.
Suggest to avoid using this word if you don't know the meaning.

The women statement - well, not quite sure what to say, are there any
women left on this group not feeling somewhat reduced by that kind of
talk or is this actually found to be funny?

I find it rather sad.

Sam




  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Converting Recipes

On Mar 8, 8:19 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:

> You think that is why I have them - to impress the neighbors? Or
> anyone here?


Boron, I wasn't responding to you with this comment. I was responding
the Dusty. Dusty was the one who was banging baskets, not you.

> Frankly, it isn't too difficult to know how much dough I need to fill
> a particular basket, form or pan. And I hate to break the news to
> you, but I am one sharpie when it comes to "scaling", too and can get
> within a quarter ounce on rolls and within an ounce - ounce and a half
> on 2 lb+ loaves - unaided - that is, without a scale. Don't worry,
> I've verified it. Even better, I like to scare the kids or The Hub and
> let them verify it once in awhile.


Boron, I wasn't intimating that you can't scale. I was simply
explaining my process. You asked about it.

> I am not posting this to brag about any particular talents I think I,
> and I alone, have. This ain't rocket science. You ever watch 'em make
> bagels in a bagel shop? You think the guy weighs each one when he
> knocks off hundreds at a time?


Boron, I never spoke about rocket science. I never disparaged your
method. I lived in NYC. I ate lots'a bagels from Essa bagels.

> Good work, Luke. You trust in the Force.


Boron, I never said everything was to some weird exact spec.

> Why do you keep harping on this in response to me? I haven't said
> anything at all about such things. I'm not a Luddite. I have a kitchen
> full of gadgets (including two very fine scales, I might add).


Boron, I do not have a kitchen full of gadgets. and I only have one
scale.

> Did anyone suggest doing that? Surely I didn't, so there is no need to
> mention it. In fact, no one ever mentioned it. Why go there?


Boron, I mentioned it because for me, measuring gets me to the "feel"
I want 16 hours later. I don't like to do S&F's and have the dough
tear on the surface. I can't reliably forecast this at mixing time, so
I rely on hydration ratios.

> I know from the condition of my dough *before* it goes into a lengthy
> ferment what it will be on the other end. My judgment is made *before*
> any fermenting or rising of the final dough.


Boron, I understand this. I just feel that scaling gets me there
reliably and efficiently. And also, I never machine the dough, so I
see things like surface tension and elasticity in a very self-critical
fashion.

> And if playing with those numbers floats your boat, use them.


Boron, I am not playing with numbers. And I do not understand your
sarcasm. I have not disparaged your bread. Or how you make it. In
fact, I answered your post with good intent, not to argue or flame.

What I see is a really negative and thoughtless response. Why? What
provocation have I offered?







  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Converting Recipes

Will wrote:
....
>> They learn that "professional bakers" weigh their ingredients; so,
>> in order to also be taken as "professionals" they too have to weigh
>> their ingredients.

>
> Oh please...
>
> It is not ego-anything to put a bowl on a scale and get your water and
> flour ratio settled in about 15 seconds. It's simply easier... which

No different than using cups or other units. As for being "easier", that's
nothing but an opinion.

> is why professionals do it and probably why they recommend it. It's
> not mindless posturing, it's simply easier.

"Professionals" usually dispense technique and information to other
"professionals" and not amateurs. As "professionals" they use scales for
scaling as I'd previously noted. Again, something being "easier" is an
opinion. One you hold, and that's fine. But not one shared by many.

> When you bake... do you set the oven to a level determined by your
> thermostat? Sure you do. You give those numbers in your webpages. Your
> recipes don't say.... medium oven, or hot oven, or slow oven... they
> say 450 F. Well... what is the philosophical difference? You
> communicate a precise measure. And for a good reason. It's easier.

No. It's because most ovens sold in the US come calibrated in degrees
Fahrenheit. I use it because it's found on all ovens. Just like cups and
tablespoons are found in most kitchens. Scales, Hobart mixers, stones and
tiles are mostly not.

The folks I write my recipes for are amateurs working from their rather
ordinary home kitchen. My recipes weren't intended for either pro's or
those that have a large repertoire of both skills and experience. To do
otherwise would simply be engaging in more 'weenie wagging'...and--unlike
some posting here--I don't really need to do any of that...


L8r all,
Dusty


  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,641
Default Converting Recipes

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:10:51 -0600, Sam
> wrote:

>A couple of things in this thread:
>
>A - a reference to "Nazi" was made to a group of people, possibly on
>this forum
>B - women were referenced as wetting themselves by looking at numbers or
>calculations
>
>Are you guys actually aware what you are expressing when you write those
>words?
>
>Maybe you don't know the meaning of a "Nazi"? It has absolutely nothing
>to do with being overly finicky.
>Suggest to avoid using this word if you don't know the meaning.


Sadly, it is quite common in Usenet, so common that there exists
something called "Godwin's Law:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

And whoever brings up Nazis is considered to have lost the argument.
>
>The women statement - well, not quite sure what to say, are there any
>women left on this group not feeling somewhat reduced by that kind of
>talk or is this actually found to be funny?


In this case, the way the post was structured was not offensive to
women, but more so to men. Nevertheless, it was one meant more to be
humorous. I did not find it offensive.
>
>I find it rather sad.


There have been frequent sexist remarks in this newsgroups for as long
as I've read it. Nothing new here.

Boron


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Converting Recipes

Will wrote:

>
> So the math (attention Mike R) works like this 100% (flour) + 68%
> (water) + 2% (salt) = 170 parts.



<Snip>


> So... I keep a few numbers in my head. The relative hydration numbers
> for basic classes of bread: whole grain vs white vs mixed. And I
> adjust for the baked form: boule, batard, or pan. So 1800 for boules,
> 2200 for pans...


ROTFLMAO!

OK, sure.... So just what bakers percent is 170 parts or 1800
somethings or 2200 somethings?

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Converting Recipes

On Mar 9, 5:08 am, Mike Romain > wrote:
> Will wrote:
>
> > So the math (attention Mike R) works like this 100% (flour) + 68%
> > (water) + 2% (salt) = 170 parts.

>
> <Snip>
>
> > So... I keep a few numbers in my head. The relative hydration numbers
> > for basic classes of bread: whole grain vs white vs mixed. And I
> > adjust for the baked form: boule, batard, or pan. So 1800 for boules,
> > 2200 for pans...

>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> OK, sure.... So just what bakers percent is 170 parts or 1800
> somethings or 2200 somethings?
>
> Mike
> Some bread photos:http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com


Mike,

Baker's math is a bit obtuse when you first look at it. Flour is
always 100%, everything else is ratioed to the weight of flour. So the
total percentages are always over 100. It's good for communicating
recipes/technique and good for scaling batch size. I use it to manage
hydration, not much else. The 1800 and 2200 are my bad. What I meant
to say was 1800 grams and 2200 grams. These are the batch sizes I
shoot for when I make boules or use pullmans. It's not accuracy for
the sake of accuracy, it's getting the most out of the oven run. My
rack fits 2 boules or 3 pullmans. I don't like looking in the oven
(wastes heat) so I like a reliable size... which makes for a reliable
and predictable oven run. Most of my bread thinking is along the lines
of LOE, level of effort. I like to spend time with mixing... that
is... deciding what goes in the bread and the S&F's, because I really
enjoy handling the dough. The rest is mechanics or scheduling.





  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Converting Recipes

Mike Romain wrote:
> Will wrote:
>
>>
>> So the math (attention Mike R) works like this 100% (flour) + 68%
>> (water) + 2% (salt) = 170 parts.

>
>
> <Snip>
>
>
>> So... I keep a few numbers in my head. The relative hydration numbers
>> for basic classes of bread: whole grain vs white vs mixed. And I
>> adjust for the baked form: boule, batard, or pan. So 1800 for boules,
>> 2200 for pans...

>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> OK, sure.... So just what bakers percent is 170 parts or 1800
> somethings or 2200 somethings?


Ah, hah! Now I get it! It's suddenly become absolutely clear now how this
method is so-o-o-oo much "easier", simpler, clearer, and far more accurate
than using those archaic volumetric measurements...(;-o)!


Dusty - (ROTFLMELAO...)


  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Converting Recipes

Will wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:08 am, Mike Romain > wrote:
>> Will wrote:
>>
>>> So the math (attention Mike R) works like this 100% (flour) + 68%
>>> (water) + 2% (salt) = 170 parts.

>> <Snip>
>>
>>> So... I keep a few numbers in my head. The relative hydration numbers
>>> for basic classes of bread: whole grain vs white vs mixed. And I
>>> adjust for the baked form: boule, batard, or pan. So 1800 for boules,
>>> 2200 for pans...

>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> OK, sure.... So just what bakers percent is 170 parts or 1800
>> somethings or 2200 somethings?
>>
>> Mike
>> Some bread photos:http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com

>
> Mike,
>
> Baker's math is a bit obtuse when you first look at it. Flour is
> always 100%, everything else is ratioed to the weight of flour. So the
> total percentages are always over 100. It's good for communicating
> recipes/technique and good for scaling batch size. I use it to manage
> hydration, not much else.


It is still clear like mud, do I need to break out my old slide rule?...

Don't folks talk about things like a 60% and 100% hydration which really
doesn't fit into your numbers at all if you start at 100% or I need
something stronger than coffee to grasp it.

So just 'what' is 100% hydration?

Mike
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default Converting Recipes

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:28:06 -0300, Mike Romain
> wrote:

>
>So just 'what' is 100% hydration?


Howdy,

It is the proportion of water to flour.

Weight of water / weight of flour = 1.00, or 100%.

So, said another way, it means "equal weights of water and
flour."

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
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
Converting to metric piedmont General Cooking 67 30-05-2010 06:12 PM
converting a starter eclipsme Sourdough 0 06-01-2010 05:03 PM
Saffron -- converting threads to powdered in recipes Chris Metzler General Cooking 7 17-06-2007 08:24 AM
converting recipes to Accuchef Jerry and Carol Schull General Cooking 3 29-09-2006 07:05 AM
Converting Recipe???? nancy Sourdough 20 29-08-2006 11:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26 AM.

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"