Hello all

I did some baking last weekend. I fed 250 grams of starter with 250
grams of flour and 250 grams of water and let it work overnight. I
wanted 250 g each for the bread recipe, the starter pot and for
pancakes the next day.

The next morning I found I had barely 650 grams. I had to add 50
grams each of water and flour to have enough for the pancakes.

When I went to school 250+250+250=750, so what happened to the extra
100 grams?

On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:45:36 -0600, Mike Brown
> wrote:

>Hello all
>
>I did some baking last weekend. I fed 250 grams of starter with 250
>grams of flour and 250 grams of water and let it work overnight. I
>wanted 250 g each for the bread recipe, the starter pot and for
>pancakes the next day.
>
>The next morning I found I had barely 650 grams. I had to add 50
>grams each of water and flour to have enough for the pancakes.
>
>When I went to school 250+250+250=750, so what happened to the extra
>100 grams?

Howdy,

It was metabolized by the critters and escaped as gas...
(also, some of the water evaporated.)

All the best,
--
Kenneth

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

"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
...
> Hello all
>
> I did some baking last weekend. I fed 250 grams of starter with 250
> grams of flour and 250 grams of water and let it work overnight. I
> wanted 250 g each for the bread recipe, the starter pot and for
> pancakes the next day.
>
> The next morning I found I had barely 650 grams. I had to add 50
> grams each of water and flour to have enough for the pancakes.
>
> When I went to school 250+250+250=750, so what happened to the extra
> 100 grams?
>
If you are using a digital scale, have you checked it for accuracy? I
followed a recipe once with a Salter scale and judging by the dough, it was
waaay off. I then noticed that I had set the scale over the right-angle
join in the counter top and the distortion caused by the laminate resulted
in an uneven surface for the scale making it weigh incorrectly. After that
experience, I always check by weighing up to 3 loonies (7 grams each) before
weighing the flour etc.
Graham

On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:08:36 -0400, Kenneth
> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:45:36 -0600, Mike Brown
> wrote:
>
>>Hello all
>>
>>When I went to school 250+250+250=750, so what happened to the extra
>>100 grams?
>
>It was metabolized by the critters and escaped as gas...
>(also, some of the water evaporated.)

Thanks for that, Kenneth. It makes sense, but what's surprising is
the magnitude of the change. Wow. a 13% drop through release of a bit
of gas and water vapour.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:17:45 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Hello all
>>
>> When I went to school 250+250+250=750, so what happened to the extra
>> 100 grams?
>>
>If you are using a digital scale, have you checked it for accuracy? I
>followed a recipe once with a Salter scale and judging by the dough, it was
>waaay off. I then noticed that I had set the scale over the right-angle
>join in the counter top and the distortion caused by the laminate resulted
>in an uneven surface for the scale making it weigh incorrectly. After that
>experience, I always check by weighing up to 3 loonies (7 grams each) before
>weighing the flour etc.
>Graham

Hi to a fellow Canuck.

It is a digital scale but I used it on a hard flat surface. Good idea
to use loonies as a check, though.

Thanks.

"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:17:45 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Hello all
>>>
>>> When I went to school 250+250+250=750, so what happened to the extra
>>> 100 grams?
>>>
>>If you are using a digital scale, have you checked it for accuracy? I
>>followed a recipe once with a Salter scale and judging by the dough, it
>>was
>>waaay off. I then noticed that I had set the scale over the right-angle
>>join in the counter top and the distortion caused by the laminate resulted
>>in an uneven surface for the scale making it weigh incorrectly. After
>>that
>>experience, I always check by weighing up to 3 loonies (7 grams each)
>>before
>>weighing the flour etc.
>>Graham
>
> Hi to a fellow Canuck.
>
> It is a digital scale but I used it on a hard flat surface. Good idea
> to use loonies as a check, though.
>
As a Calgarian, your problem might be due to the inequalities that our govt
maintains between our two cities{;-)
Graham

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:41:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
>> Hi to a fellow Canuck.
>>
>> It is a digital scale but I used it on a hard flat surface. Good idea
>> to use loonies as a check, though.
>>
>As a Calgarian, your problem might be due to the inequalities that our govt
>maintains between our two cities{;-)
>Graham

That could be a touchy subject - like last minute secret Expo bids
<grin>

"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:41:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
>>> Hi to a fellow Canuck.
>>>
>>> It is a digital scale but I used it on a hard flat surface. Good idea
>>> to use loonies as a check, though.
>>>
>>As a Calgarian, your problem might be due to the inequalities that our
>>govt
>>maintains between our two cities{;-)
>>Graham
>
> That could be a touchy subject - like last minute secret Expo bids
> <grin>
I was gobsmacked by that stupid decision! Mind you, I think Edmonton
bidding is also stupid!
Graham

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:37:02 -0600, Mike Brown
> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:08:36 -0400, Kenneth
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:45:36 -0600, Mike Brown
> wrote:
>>
>>>Hello all
>>>
>>>When I went to school 250+250+250=750, so what happened to the extra
>>>100 grams?
>>
>>It was metabolized by the critters and escaped as gas...
>>(also, some of the water evaporated.)
>
>Thanks for that, Kenneth. It makes sense, but what's surprising is
>the magnitude of the change. Wow. a 13% drop through release of a bit
>of gas and water vapour.

Hi Mike,

I am surprised by the loss every time I measure it (and have
been for about 40 years.)

All the best,
--
Kenneth

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:20:13 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:41:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>> That could be a touchy subject - like last minute secret Expo bids
>> <grin>
>I was gobsmacked by that stupid decision! Mind you, I think Edmonton
>bidding is also stupid!
>Graham

I completely agree. Now is the time to be conserving resources, but
then our mayor is a bit of a spendthrift when it comes to left-wing or
artsie-fartsie projects.

"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:20:13 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Brown" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:41:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>> That could be a touchy subject - like last minute secret Expo bids
>>> <grin>
>>I was gobsmacked by that stupid decision! Mind you, I think Edmonton
>>bidding is also stupid!
>>Graham
>
> I completely agree. Now is the time to be conserving resources, but
> then our mayor is a bit of a spendthrift when it comes to left-wing or
> artsie-fartsie projects.
>
The trouble is, these "projects" come from the business sector and are then
passed over to the govt to promote. The Calgary Olympics were such. They
keep saying that the business men who ended up running the show made a
profit of 200mill, forgetting that the Feds and Alta govts put 200mill into
the pot to build the facilities in the first place.