"Dusty Bleher" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Dan & all;
>
> "dan w" > wrote in message
> . ..
> ...
> > dusty, here is another update. first i have converted all of my
> > recipes to
> > gram weights, so that i can get more consistant results. also i
> > found a
> Sorry! But that's a tired, time-worn myth. Metric weights and
> "consistency" are not any more congruent than volumetric
> measurements--unless, of course, you've figured out how to
> compensate for moisture and flour density...(:-o)!
> L8r,
> Dusty

dusty, you and i come from similar points of view, i think. i want a simple,
consistent system of getting great bread. i am, at least in baking, averse
to getting the latest gadget or in other ways complicating the baking
procedure. for instance, i buy the cheapest ap flour, usually $8 for 50lb
sack. i refuse to get a separate proofer, water baths, heating pads, etc. my
next project in fact, is to find a good quality broiler oven to bake in,
instead of using my kitchen oven, because i want to be able to make great
bread wherever and whenever i go. that being said, here is why i have
finally bought into the "myth" of using a scale.

#1- variables. i have finally had enough experience, and read enough posts,
to understand that there are at least 7 variables to making bread. amount of
each ingredient, temperature of water (as an ingredient), temperature of
dough, proofing temperature (proofing or rising), time of proofing or
rising, temperature (and time)of final bake, humidity of final bake. the
more control i have of each variable, the more consistent great bread i can
make. in regards to amount of each ingredient, i believe that i can more
consistently get that by weighing (gram weight). i can then spend time on
the other variables to find how they are actually affecting the final
product.

#2- clutter. i have three sets of dry measuring cups, two wet measuring, and
three sets of teaspoons. they take up one full drawer. i am constantly
washing those and the many bowls i use for bread baking day. with the scale,
i simply take the bowl i am mixing in and one wet measuring cup, and one
large spoon for all my ingredients. set the bowl on top of the scale and
press the "tare" button after each ingredient. this eliminates cup, ½ cup,
tsp., tbs., measuring devices from the whole system.

#3- mixing. in an earlier post on the other bread ng, someone (don't recall
who) said that mixing in all the flour at the beginning of the mix procedure
was best, as then the entire dough would have flour distributed more evenly.
adding flour after the ball is already formed cause's the loaf to have an
uneven distribution of flour. when i used the "dip and shake" method of
adding flour, i usually needed to adjust the dough later in the process.
this created a dough that had a dryer spot on the bottom of the mixer, and
may even add to the possibility of over-kneading. by getting the amount just
right, there is less chance of having to adjust later.

so by changing to a scale, i have met my primary goal of producing a more
consistently great bread as simple as possible*. another note, when i was
first starting io idea what the dough should look like, feel like, etc. if i
had a scale and the recipes were in gr. weight, i believe the learning curve
would have been faster, as it would have been more likely i would have
produced a dough that the author intended.

*of corse yrmv



dan w

dan w wrote:

> dusty, you and i come from similar points of view, i think. i want a simple,
> consistent system of getting great bread. i am, at least in baking, averse
> to getting the latest gadget or in other ways complicating the baking
> procedure. for instance, i buy the cheapest ap flour, usually $8 for 50lb
> sack. i refuse to get a separate proofer, water baths, heating pads, etc. my
> next project in fact, is to find a good quality broiler oven to bake in...


I could understand this sentiment if you said that you tried a proofing
box and found insubstantial benefit. But I suspect what we're reading
is: reductionist opinion without rigor. Which is to say: bullshit.

The "good quality broiler oven" is simple but a proof box is
complicates?

Right.

Will

"Will" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> dan w wrote:
>
> > dusty, you and i come from similar points of view, i think. i want a
simple,
> > consistent system of getting great bread. i am, at least in baking,
averse
> > to getting the latest gadget or in other ways complicating the baking
> > procedure. for instance, i buy the cheapest ap flour, usually $8 for
50lb
> > sack. i refuse to get a separate proofer, water baths, heating pads,
etc. my
> > next project in fact, is to find a good quality broiler oven to bake
in...
>
>
> I could understand this sentiment if you said that you tried a proofing
> box and found insubstantial benefit. But I suspect what we're reading
> is: reductionist opinion without rigor. Which is to say: bullshit.
>
> The "good quality broiler oven" is simple but a proof box is
> complicates?
>
> Right.
>
> Will

you sound a little hostile will. just for your info-i have tried proofing
box, and concluded that my oven with the light on worked just as well, thank
you. as for the broiler oven- have you tried it?

dan w

Hello "TG" & all;

"TG" > wrote...
>>> dusty, here is another update. first i have converted all of my
>>> recipes to
>>> gram weights, so that i can get more consistant results. also i
>>> found a
>> Sorry! But that's a tired, time-worn myth. Metric weights and
>> "consistency" are not any more congruent than volumetric
>> measurements--unless, of course, you've figured out how to
>> compensate for moisture and flour density...(:-o)!
>
> I can't believe you think that yanking a cup of flour with pits
> and heaps if more accurate than grams. (:-o) even all those other
No. I never said "accuracy" was the issue. Clearly weighing to the
nearest gram is going to be more accurate (by weight anyway) than
measuring to a volume. OTOH; no one posting here, yet, has offered
up a recipe where "sub-gram" resolution is going to make a
noticeable or quantifiable difference...(:-o)!

"Accuracy" is an interesting concept. But the resolutions we're
talking about don't support such descriptions. As an
instrumentation designer, programmer, and sometimes 'phixer' (mostly
military and scientific gadgets), I can assure you that any method
of measuring has it's own intrinsic advantages and burdens.

As I've said over-and-over, volumetric measurements suffer from
packing & stacking (not to mention voids), and mass-based
measurements suffer from moisture (on things that can contain
moisture) and material (i.e. 1Kg of whole wheat flour occupies less
space than 1Kg of AP). At least mine does.

And yes. I do have a scale. Several, in fact (one of the benefits
of doing the software work for Pelouze). And yes, early on, I read
here and in other groups, and went away convinced that ONLY by using
a precisely calibrated, digital scale, able to display weights in at
least 4-different scales, displayed in 5-languages, and accurate to
6-digit resolution would suffice for me to bake SD bread.

None of that is true. One can make great bread without a scale in
the house...(:-o)!

> conditions aside that you can't control. I know which I've got my
Quite correct. There are many considerations (lord only knows I've
run afoul of most of 'em...(:-o)!), but extreme accuracy isn't one
of them. This is bread we're mixing, not rocket fuel (and yes, I've
done the later).

And, as I've continued to maintain, I'm not at all against folks
using a scale to build their bread. If you like it and it works for
you, great! Use it! But I won't listen to that method being
dispensed as "wisdom" for newbie's. They deserve to learn that such
extreme precision IS NOT the reason why their bread may have failed
to properly evolve...

> money on. And incidentally my mother, a baker all her life, uses
> the same large jug to measure into the same scales every morning.
> When you're running a business time and flour are money. She
> doesn't use the scales for fun.
I'm sure your mom is a nice lady and that she bakes her bread in a
superlative fashion. I guess I just don't see how her doing that is
justification for perpetuating the myth that only precision-weighing
of the materials being used is the "standard" by which we
recreational bakers must function... It. Is. Not!


L8r all,
Dusty

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dusty Bleher" > wrote in message
...


"As I've said over-and-over, volumetric measurements suffer from
packing & stacking (not to mention voids), and mass-based
measurements suffer from moisture (on things that can contain
moisture) and material (i.e. 1Kg of whole wheat flour occupies less
space than 1Kg of AP). At least mine does."

Dusty, moisture doesnt affect the volume of flour?

hutchndi

"hutchndi" > wrote in message
news:lzSwf.7535$Dh.3368@dukeread04...
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Dusty Bleher" > wrote in
> message
> ...
>
>
> "As I've said over-and-over, volumetric measurements suffer from
> packing & stacking (not to mention voids), and mass-based
> measurements suffer from moisture (on things that can contain
> moisture) and material (i.e. 1Kg of whole wheat flour occupies
> less
> space than 1Kg of AP). At least mine does."
>
> Dusty, moisture doesnt affect the volume of flour?
Not in a significantly measurable way... Only the weight is
affected.

Dusty

On 10 Jan 2006, at 16:57, Dusty Bleher quoted Hutch:

> Hello "TG" & all;
>
> "TG" > wrote...
>>>> dusty, here is another update. first i have converted all of my
>>>> recipes to
>>>> gram weights, so that i can get more consistent results. also i
>>>> found a

>>> Sorry! But that's a tired, time-worn myth. Metric weights and
>>>>> "consistency" are not any more [in agreement] than volumetric
>>>>> measurements--unless, of course, you've figured out how to
>>>>> compensate for moisture and flour density...(:-o)!


I think Hutch's point, and lets be fare it's Hutch's Kitchen and
bread we're talking about, and I think a fair point it is, if you do
want to learn about what's going on you need to eliminate as many
variables as possible. Like I said before weighing in ones own
kitchen is far more consistent from one measure to the next than
using cups, and this was my point before when I mentioned my Mother.
We don't concentrate as well as we should. From one moment to the
next the flour isn't going to change much but your cup / scoop will.
The scales won't. My Mum has been using the same jug to scoop out the
flour for decades, she knows exactly how many jugs she's going to
need but she still puts the jugs of flour onto the scale. She's fully
aware of the environmental variables. This isn't a concern for her.

Hutch is trying to remove one variable from the equation and I,
amongst many, agree that this is a good way to do just that.

You don't have to agree, you don't have to give up your cups. I don't
get why your trying so hard to ram home your point. Who cares what
some guy does hundreds or thousands of miles away in his own kitchen.
Personally I really am not bothered which method other people choose
to make their bread. But it does seem to me that you are. Why does it
bother you what someone you don't know is doing. I can't be bothered
to agree with one point and disagree with another. Who cares Dusty? I
understand Hutches point. It's valid. You seem to understand that too
but still want to show off how smart you are. Give the guy a break.
Oh, it's me you're going on at. Could it be that you're carping is to
do with personal grievances? Or do you really have something
important to say about Hutch's decision to buy some scales? Either
way give it a rest, it's just plane boring.

TG

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:21:01 -0800, "Dusty Bleher"
> wrote:

>> Dusty, moisture doesnt affect the volume of flour?
>Not in a significantly measurable way... Only the weight is
>affected.
>
>Dusty

Hi Dusty,

What evidence do you have?

I'm not challenging you... I ask because as I thought about
it, I realized that I would not have a clue about the
relationship between flour moisture level and volume.

Thanks,
--
Kenneth

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

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
....
>>> Dusty, moisture doesnt affect the volume of flour?
>>Not in a significantly measurable way... Only the weight is
>>affected.
....
> What evidence do you have?
Only empirical, and then only by happenstance did I note it.

I had brought back a bag of flour from my mom's house in Yuma (very
dry!). In those days I too was slavishly weighing everything. And
as it happened, I was trying to convert a recipe that made too much
bread to one I could live with. It had been done by weight, so I
was weighing to get the proportions right. I ran out of my flour,
and ended up using some of the flour we'd brought back from Yuma. I
don't recall the numbers, but it was off significantly. More then
10% if the notes I'd made are to be believed.

> I'm not challenging you... I ask because as I thought about
> it, I realized that I would not have a clue about the
> relationship between flour moisture level and volume.
No. Challenge away! How else are we to get to the bottom of this.
I don't mind being kept honest. If I'm shown to be wrong, I'll be
the first to raise my hand and say so.

Anyway, I've figured out a way to get real numbers. I'm going to
accurately measure out two VOLUMES of identical flour. Then I'm
going to dehydrate one for a week, and hydrate the other. At the
end of the week I'll weigh both and report back to y'all...

If anybody's got a better way or some way to apply other controls,
let me know...


L8r all,
Dusty
San Jose
....

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:45:18 -0800, "Dusty Bleher"
> wrote:

>Anyway, I've figured out a way to get real numbers. I'm going to
>accurately measure out two VOLUMES of identical flour. Then I'm
>going to dehydrate one for a week, and hydrate the other. At the
>end of the week I'll weigh both and report back to y'all...

Hi Dusty,

But how will you measure out two volumes accurately?

That would seem to be the core issue here. Perhaps if you
put the flour into some sort of cylinder and then had a way
to ram it in with a measured amount of force, but without
that, I would hold volume measurement of flour to be very
variable.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

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

On 2006-01-11, Dusty Bleher > wrote:
> "Kenneth" > wrote in message
> ...
> ...
>>>> Dusty, moisture doesnt affect the volume of flour?
>>>Not in a significantly measurable way... Only the weight is
>>>affected.
> ...
>> What evidence do you have?
> Only empirical, and then only by happenstance did I note it.
>
> I had brought back a bag of flour from my mom's house in Yuma (very
> dry!). In those days I too was slavishly weighing everything. And
> as it happened, I was trying to convert a recipe that made too much
> bread to one I could live with. It had been done by weight, so I
> was weighing to get the proportions right. I ran out of my flour,
> and ended up using some of the flour we'd brought back from Yuma. I
> don't recall the numbers, but it was off significantly. More then
> 10% if the notes I'd made are to be believed.

It seems more likely to me that this was due to differences in the
flours rather than the moisture content -- high-protein flours are
generally denser than lower-protein flours. The figures I use for
converting volume recipes to weight a

(grams per cup)
114g - Cake flour
121g - All-purpose flour
130g - Bread flour
140g - Whole-wheat flour

All figures are from http://www.mayaparadise.com/recipecalc.asp

--
Randall

"Randall Nortman" > wrote in message
ink.net...
....
>> was weighing to get the proportions right. I ran out of my
>> flour,
>> and ended up using some of the flour we'd brought back from Yuma.
>> I
>> don't recall the numbers, but it was off significantly. More
>> then
>> 10% if the notes I'd made are to be believed.
>
> It seems more likely to me that this was due to differences in the
> flours rather than the moisture content -- high-protein flours are
Nope. Both were the same brand and had been bought in my store, by
me. One had spent 5 or 6 weeks in Yuma. The other spent that time
in San Jose with me...

> generally denser than lower-protein flours. The figures I use for
Yes. This is true.

> converting volume recipes to weight a
>
> (grams per cup)
> 114g - Cake flour
> 121g - All-purpose flour
> 130g - Bread flour
> 140g - Whole-wheat flour
Yep. Pretty close (+/- 10g) to what I got as well...


Dusty
....

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
....
>>Anyway, I've figured out a way to get real numbers. I'm going to
>>accurately measure out two VOLUMES of identical flour. Then I'm
>>going to dehydrate one for a week, and hydrate the other. At the
>>end of the week I'll weigh both and report back to y'all...
....
> But how will you measure out two volumes accurately?
>
> That would seem to be the core issue here. Perhaps if you
I'm going to measure out 25 or 30 of the same volume and weigh each
one. Then I'll average those figures and select those samples that
most closely reflect that average. My guess is that each measure
will be well within the +/- 1g that my scale is limited to. But
I'll be sure to let you all know what I find...

> put the flour into some sort of cylinder and then had a way
> to ram it in with a measured amount of force, but without
> that, I would hold volume measurement of flour to be very
> variable.
Yes. True enough. That would be another way to do it.

While I'm doing that, I'm hoping that someone will post a recipe
that REQUIRES +/- 'X'g. accuracy... (this iz gonna be both phun
*and* interesting...(:-o)!).


L8r all,
Dusty
....

> > converting volume recipes to weight a
> >
> > (grams per cup)
> > 114g - Cake flour
> > 121g - All-purpose flour
> > 130g - Bread flour
> > 140g - Whole-wheat flour
> Yep. Pretty close (+/- 10g) to what I got as well...
>
>
> Dusty

According to my measurements and my cup. :-)

155 g - Bread flour. 25g difference.

Which brings me to the other point. Not everyone's cup size is going to
be the same. It should be 240g 8 oz of water but I'm sure people will
disagree on this. ( I know this isn't my real point because an
individual will use the same cup presumably ) And what if I don't
want to work in multiples of 155g or whatever your cup size is? How
about a quick survey. What is your cup size, measured in water. What is
your cup size measured in bread flour.

The whole thing with Hutch is that he will be using his own flour. Not
the one he brought from some other place. I always use the same flour
kept in the same tub from the same shop. I used to measure out in cups
a long time ago. I also had very inconsistent results. Why, because you
are prone to drift and just plain slap-dashness when you're not kept in
check by something.

You can argue all you like about this subject. The bottom line after
you've reduced us to biological robots is that we are emotional
creatures, not predictable and rational. It doesn't matter that flour
will absorb moisture or dry out. We have choices. Let others make those
choices without pulling it apart. Because that is what this was about,
choice. It doesn't matter what has been discussed in the past. We
don't have to conform to your worldview.

TG

Different size cups? In the US a cup is 8 fluid ounces, equal to 236.6
cubic centimeters. It's a volume measurement, related to weight by the
density of the material in question, which varies, as we know.

That said, I don't understand the problem. I've been making bread for years
and I add flour until it feels right. For example, for sourdough I
presently use 1/2 cup of water and about 1 cup of starter, then add whole
wheat and rye flour. The first mix is to a think liquid, second to solid
mass, third to knead until it is elastic and feels right. Makes 4 nice
breakfast rolls, excellent with cream cheese.

--
Bob Burns
Mill Hall PA
(email is spamtrap)


"TG" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> > converting volume recipes to weight a
>> >
>> > (grams per cup)
>> > 114g - Cake flour
>> > 121g - All-purpose flour
>> > 130g - Bread flour
>> > 140g - Whole-wheat flour
>> Yep. Pretty close (+/- 10g) to what I got as well...
>>
>>
>> Dusty
>
> According to my measurements and my cup. :-)
>
> 155 g - Bread flour. 25g difference.
>
> Which brings me to the other point. Not everyone's cup size is going to
> be the same. It should be 240g 8 oz of water but I'm sure people will
> disagree on this. ( I know this isn't my real point because an
> individual will use the same cup presumably ) And what if I don't
> want to work in multiples of 155g or whatever your cup size is? How
> about a quick survey. What is your cup size, measured in water. What is
> your cup size measured in bread flour.
>
> The whole thing with Hutch is that he will be using his own flour. Not
> the one he brought from some other place. I always use the same flour
> kept in the same tub from the same shop. I used to measure out in cups
> a long time ago. I also had very inconsistent results. Why, because you
> are prone to drift and just plain slap-dashness when you're not kept in
> check by something.
>
> You can argue all you like about this subject. The bottom line after
> you've reduced us to biological robots is that we are emotional
> creatures, not predictable and rational. It doesn't matter that flour
> will absorb moisture or dry out. We have choices. Let others make those
> choices without pulling it apart. Because that is what this was about,
> choice. It doesn't matter what has been discussed in the past. We
> don't have to conform to your worldview.
>
> TG
>

On 11 Jan 2006, at 03:45, Dusty Bleher wrote:

>> That would seem to be the core issue here. Perhaps if you
> I'm going to measure out 25 or 30 of the same volume and weigh each
> one. Then I'll average those figures and select those samples that
> most closely reflect that average.

See now with scales you wouldn't need to do that. : -)
>
> While I'm doing that, I'm hoping that someone will post a recipe
> that REQUIRES +/- 'X'g. accuracy... (this iz gonna be both phun
> *and* interesting...(:-o)!).

This isn't the point of the discusion. We're talking about
consistency. You're smokescreening.

TG

, Bob Burns wrote:

> Different size cups? In the US a cup is 8 fluid ounces, equal to
> 236.6
> cubic centimeters. It's a volume measurement, related to weight by
> the
> density of the material in question, which varies, as we know.


Hi Bob,

The reason I say different size cups is because not everyone is going
to have a perfect measuring cup and not everyone uses a perfect
measuring cup. I know plenty people who use a mug or tea cup or one
that came with something or other. The 8 ounces 240 grams suggestion
for water is to do with measuring the size of the cup because the
volume and weight of water is pretty much a standard.
>
> That said, I don't understand the problem.
No most of us don't lol. But some people seem to think there's
something to get heated about. : -)

> I've been making bread for years
> and I add flour until it feels right.

But there's the rub. You know what it's supposed to feel like. It's
all very well for experts to dictate methods to 'newbies' (nobody in
mind) but 'feel' is pretty difficult to explain in text.

> For example, for sourdough I
> presently use 1/2 cup of water and about 1 cup of starter, then add
> whole
> wheat and rye flour. The first mix is to a think liquid, second to
> solid
> mass, third to knead until it is elastic and feels right.
There's that word again. : -)

> Makes 4 nice
> breakfast rolls, excellent with cream cheese.
>
> --
> Bob Burns
> Mill Hall PA

I really do understand Hutches frustration and I've had the same
thing. I got some different flour to try. If I'd gone only on feel
I'd have learnt very little about those flours. As it is I know one
needs x hydration and another needs Y.

I could only really do that with accurate weighing. Measuring less
than a full cup is pretty much guessing and it even isn't so easy to
measure a full cup unless you've got steady hands.

But anyway. I am not worried about what others use to measure.
Whatever suits the individual is great. Some think there's an
argument to be had, a point to be proved and egos to shore.

I don't really get it either. But hey. Maybe there's something to learn.

TG

> On 11 Jan 2006, at 03:45, Dusty Bleher wrote:

> > While I'm doing that, I'm hoping that someone will post a recipe
> > that REQUIRES +/- 'X'g. accuracy... (this iz gonna be both phun
> > *and* interesting...(:-o)!).

Dusty,

All you have to do is look at Samartha''s Detmold calculator. It builds
from almost insignificant quantities and the ratios are what is
important. Can't see cups and spoons working there.


TG wrote:

> This isn't the point of the discusion. We're talking about
> consistency. You're smokescreening.

What makes you think that? I'd like to see the 30 measures with their
associated weights. It will add an interesting wrinkle to all of this.

An aside, since all mills must condition their grain before milling, I
am thinking the relative humidity per bag is extremely consistant. Of
course, it can change with storage, but I suspect that is a very slow
process. So, if the flour picks up or loses one percentage point of
moisture, you're talking about 10 grams across a 1680 gram dough (5
grams a loaf). You leave more in the mixing bowl or on your hands.

This means the flour moisture rationale isn't particularly compelling.

Will

On 11 Jan 2006, at 14:48, Will wrote:

> What makes you think that? I'd like to see the 30 measures with their
> associated weights. It will add an interesting wrinkle to all of this.

Hi Will, I didn't say that I didn't want to see it. Only that the
recipe with Xg accuracy balh, blah, wasn't the point. : -)

TG

"TG" > wrote in message
news:mailman.1136928664.23669.rec.food.sourdough@w ww.mountainbitwarrior.com...

I don't know what you're gettin' on about, TG!

....
> I think Hutch's point, and lets be fare it's Hutch's Kitchen and
> bread we're talking about, and I think a fair point it is, if you
> do want to learn about what's going on you need to eliminate as
> many
We completely agree. How is anything that I've said contrary to
that?

> variables as possible. Like I said before weighing in ones own
> kitchen is far more consistent from one measure to the next than
*That* is an opinion! One based upon conjecture. There is nothing
inherently more "accurate" in weighing than in measuring. _BOTH_
have built-in biases that skew their methods. Oft spouted,
unfounded assertions not withstanding.

....
> We don't concentrate as well as we should. From one moment to the
> next the flour isn't going to change much but your cup / scoop
> will.
Really? You mean it'll change size while I'm looking away?

....
> Hutch is trying to remove one variable from the equation and I,
A have and continue to applaud H&Di for his zeal in getting to the
bottom of his baking. Nothing I've said should be interpreted in
any other way.

> amongst many, agree that this is a good way to do just that.
125,000 Cardinal fans screaming, "We're number #1!" Didn't make it
so. The same goes for this inane need to extol the virtues of
weighing as opposed to measuring! Just because someone sez it's
better, doesn't make it so!

> You don't have to agree, you don't have to give up your cups. I
> don't get why your trying so hard to ram home your point. Who
> cares what
I don't. And I won't! Where do you get that I'm trying to "ram
home [my] point?" I've simply stated that some here seem to take
the supposed superiority of measuring to the gram as somehow far and
away superior that anything else. It. Is. Not!

Also, one could frame the question the other way. Why are you
trying so hard to ram home _your_ point? Perhaps because it's so
shallow?

> some guy does hundreds or thousands of miles away in his own
> kitchen. Personally I really am not bothered which method other
> people choose to make their bread. But it does seem to me that
> you are. Why does it
And where did you pick up this little tid-bit? I've said over and
over and over, that any method you like and want to use is fine by
me! What I will not abide is the specious and unfounded assertions
that somehow one way of measuring is more "accurate" than another.
It. Is. Not!

> bother you what someone you don't know is doing. I can't be
> bothered to agree with one point and disagree with another. Who
> cares Dusty? I understand Hutches point. It's valid. You seem to
> understand that too but still want to show off how smart you are.
> Give the guy a break.
Give me a break! Dealing with intransigent, ignorantly opinionated
dolts is way low on my list of things to do each day.

> Oh, it's me you're going on at. Could it be that you're carping is
> to do with personal grievances? Or do you really have something

Oh give me another break! It would seem that you needlessly flatter
yourself, sir. I don't.

> important to say about Hutch's decision to buy some scales? Either
> way give it a rest, it's just plane
Then why don't you just get off of it? Oh! Wait! Methinks there's
still much "weenie wagging" to be done. My 'thang' is bigger,
better, or has more digits and sub-gram accuracy than your
'thang'...(:-o)! Okay. I think I'm starting to "get it"...

For the rest of y'all readin' here, please accept my apologies. I
thought this was a discussion amongst adults about issues of details
betwixt us as bakers. Clearly this has degenerated into an
ideological clash. That was never my goal or intention.

I'm still waiting for a recipe that will show direct benefit from
sub-gram "accuracy" as that seems to be the most salient issue at
hand. Somebody? Anybody? "TG", do you have one? I know I don't.
So I would submit that this issue is absolutely moot after
all...(:-o)!


L8r all,
Dusty
San Jose


>
> TG
>

"TG" > wrote in message oups.com...

> What is your cup size, measured in water. What is your cup size
> measured in bread flour.

For bread, mine is measured in ounces of flour if not fluid ounces.
Hers is volumetric, measured in titty.

A simple solution is to calibrate your cup to ounces of your present
flour batch and record/report in ounces of flour (or pounds, grams,
kilograms, tons, whatever).

But clearly simplicity is not going to impress any of the present troop.

--
Dicky

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Funny thing, I was reading the posts about cups varying in size, and
remembered I keep a cup in my flour bin for dry scooping, and use another
for water. Different styles completely, one is flared (flour) and one is
more cylindrical (water). I just got my little scale in the mail, so I
decided to check the cups for flour weight. The cup in my flour bin measured
a shaken cup of flour at 5.3 oz, while the cup I use for water weighed it at
4.4 oz! Same flour shaken loose and leveled off. I guess I am sold on
scales.

hutchndi

Dick Adams wrote:

> But clearly simplicity is not going to impress any of the present troop.

Heck... I think we're making progress. Hutch got a scale. Hamelman no
longer intimidates. The fabulous doughcam might reveal a 3 speed
proofing pad.

Exciting times <g>.

Dusty Bleher wrote:

> "TG" > wrote in message
> news:mailman.1136928664.23669.rec.food.sourdough@w ww.mountainbitwarrior.com...

>> We don't concentrate as well as we should. From one moment to the
>> next the flour isn't going to change much but your cup / scoop
>> will.

> Really? You mean it'll change size while I'm looking away?

I've seen movies like that. The girl looks away and the scoop changes.
She stares at it. Then she looks away and it changes again. This
goes on for a while. Then she goes up to the attic by herself, even
though she's been told not to. UH-OH!!! Oh well.... next girl.

B/

As much as I hate to get involved in religous wars...

On 1/11/06, Dusty Bleher > wrote:
>
>
> > variables as possible. Like I said before weighing in ones own
> > kitchen is far more consistent from one measure to the next than
> *That* is an opinion! One based upon conjecture. There is nothing
> inherently more "accurate" in weighing than in measuring. _BOTH_
> have built-in biases that skew their methods. Oft spouted,
> unfounded assertions not withstanding.


In my experience, the variations in flour due to moisture content are closer
to single digit percentage error, or less than 10%. If you are using fresh
flour from a consistent source, as I did when I was running a bakery, there
were more batches where no adjustment was needed than batches where
adjustment was needed.

With cups, there is a tremendous variation between people using cups. In a
newsgroup (not sure if it was this one) people measured a cup of flour and
had weights varying from under 100 to around 155 grams. This is a
tremendous range. More than a single digit percentage error.

While most people are fairly consistent, they aren't THAT consistent. My
cups are usually within 15 to 20 grams. Out of around 140 or so grams.



....
> > We don't concentrate as well as we should. From one moment to the
> > next the flour isn't going to change much but your cup / scoop
> > will.
> Really? You mean it'll change size while I'm looking away?


No, but there are differences between cups. Some are made more accurately
than others. Also, how you fill the cup changes the measurement. People
who scoop the flour into the cup have the widest range of variation. The
pressure used to scoop the flour will change from time to time, as will the
amount of flour packed into the cup.

I don't much care how you measure 200 grams. It will be 200 grams. I don't
care which of your friends measures 200 grams. It will still be 200 grams.

Cups are reasonably accurate ways of measuring liquids. But not
compressible solids. Like flour, salt, sugar, malt powder and such.


I've simply stated that some here seem to take
> the supposed superiority of measuring to the gram as somehow far and
> away superior that anything else. It. Is. Not!


Sorry, but you're off base on this one. Weighing is more accurate with
compressible solids than measuring volume. Whether you use pounds and
ounces or grams is a matter of preference, but either way, it is more
accurate than measuring by volume,

Grams have the added convenience of scaling more easily. Your recipe uses 1
3/8 cups. Quick now, how many cups will it take to make 10 batches? Your
recipe uses 1 lb 6 oz. How many pounds and ounces will it take to make 10
batches? (Assume 16 oz per pound for US customary measurement.) Your
recipe uses 438 grams. How many grams to make 10 batches? (Decimal pounds
have the same advantage as grams. If you are using 1.234 pounds, it's as
easy to scale up or down as with grams.)

Grams have the limited added benefit of being an international measurement.
Your friends in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Swaziland, Korea and Japan
can all use your recipe without asking you, "what's a cup?" However, given
the variations in flours between nations, the benefits of this are not as
great as might be imagined.


What I will not abide is the specious and unfounded assertions
> that somehow one way of measuring is more "accurate" than another.
> It. Is. Not!


Really? I think that the tests done in some of the baking newsgroups show
that the errors in using cups are quite high. They are virtually useless
for transferring knowledge of a recipe. Most of the failures people have
with bread machines can be traced to using cups.


> I'm still waiting for a recipe that will show direct benefit from
> sub-gram "accuracy" as that seems to be the most salient issue at
> hand. Somebody? Anybody? "TG", do you have one? I know I don't.
> So I would submit that this issue is absolutely moot after
> all...(:-o)!


I have a recipe for a French style white bread using a poolish that has
amounts of yeast in it that are well under a gram in the poolish, and in the
final bread. You can fudge it with small teaspoons, however, they really
aren't consistent enough with dry yeast to give consistent results. Since
this is a sourdough newsgroup, I haven't posted the recipe here. However,
the capability for sub-gram measurement is important to me. Here's a chart
showing how much instant dry yeast, in grams, I use to make 1, and 25,
1.5lb loaves of this bread. (Side note, I measure 770 grams of dough
and bake
it. Customers expect pound weights, whether or not I use them internally.
After baking, the loaf weight is "spot on" as our U.K friends might say.)

Loaves Poolish Final Dough
1 .1 .1
25 2.9 2.7

In doing this, I note there is a slight rounding error in the smaller size
batch. The results, however, are consistent, so it's close enough for
baking. I suspect if I timed everything I'd find that the smaller batch
rose slightly slower than the larger one. I would rather not make even the
larger batch using scales that read only to the nearest gram, as the error
could be pretty high.

Mike

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, hutchndi wrote:

> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Funny thing, I was reading the posts about cups varying in size, and
> remembered I keep a cup in my flour bin for dry scooping, and use another
> for water. Different styles completely, one is flared (flour) and one is
> more cylindrical (water). I just got my little scale in the mail, so I
> decided to check the cups for flour weight. The cup in my flour bin measured
> a shaken cup of flour at 5.3 oz, while the cup I use for water weighed it at
> 4.4 oz! Same flour shaken loose and leveled off. I guess I am sold on
> scales.
>
> hutchnd


Now, for the other revelation, tare each cup (empty) and filled level with
water. I suspect you'll find a significant difference, although not the
same as the difference in flour weights.


Dave

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dave Bell" > wrote in message
rea.net...
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, hutchndi wrote:
> Now, for the other revelation, tare each cup (empty) and filled level with
> water. I suspect you'll find a significant difference, although not the
> same as the difference in flour weights.
>


OK...water wieghts are 4.95 oz flared cup and 4.45 oz cylindrical. yuk

hutchndi

"Dusty Bleher" > wrote >

I'm still waiting for a recipe that will show direct benefit from
> sub-gram "accuracy" as that seems to be the most salient issue at
> hand. Somebody? Anybody? "TG", do you have one? I know I don't.
> So I would submit that this issue is absolutely moot after
> all...(:-o)!

Dusty you are probably right that there are no recipes that a gram or so of
flour is going to make a big difference. I really don't even have allot of
recipes in weight measurements yet. But I remember what a hard time I was
having the first few months just trying to get things close to what recipes
were describing, until I saw a video of what 60% hydration or higher dough
should really look and handle like. Nothing like the Play-Doh I had been
pushing around my countertop. I found out I had been packing my flour into
the cup when scooping, among other things. So now I tested my flour weight
in my two different cups, and find an ounce variance. I don't know how much
an ounce of flour short or heavy in a recipe would matter. But if my cups
are heavy, which they were, five of them would give me another whole cup of
flour! On top of that, the cup I was using for liquid measured 1/2 ounce
under weight! Now that I have a better feel for how I want my dough to be
anyways, scale or not I should be able to tell if something's off, but I
kind of wish I saved myself some aggravation early on.

hutchndi

"TG" > wrote in message oups.com...

> Well, what a great conclusion. It seams case closed. :-)

Which conclusion was that?

TG, you seam to be an idiot!

(Is an endless stream of one-liners the future of Usenet?)

--
Dicky

Well Hutch...

The way it works is this: in a couple of years another fellow will post
and you will feel the need to explain the business of scales and why it
may help. The aforesaid fellow will be polite. BUT... he will have
decided that simplicity is his answer. He will relate to Egyptians or
medieval folk or some such. You may be tempted to explain the
difference between the simplicity of ignorance, the simplicity of
inertia and the simplicity of scaling bread.

Don't do it <g>.

Will

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Will" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well Hutch...
>
> The way it works is this: in a couple of years another fellow will post
> and you will feel the need to explain the business of scales and why it
> may help. The aforesaid fellow will be polite. BUT... he will have
> decided that simplicity is his answer. He will relate to Egyptians or
> medieval folk or some such. You may be tempted to explain the
> difference between the simplicity of ignorance, the simplicity of
> inertia and the simplicity of scaling bread.
>
> Don't do it <g>.
>
> Will
>

What, and not get to enjoy pulling teeth to get some thick head to listen to
reason like all you old sourdoughs do for me ad infinitum?

hutchndi

On 11 Jan 2006, at 16:05, Dusty Bleher wrote:



>> Like I said before weighing in ones own
>>
>> kitchen is far more consistent from one measure to the next than
> *That* is an opinion! One based upon conjecture.
>
>
No, It's just human nature and the workings of a scale, there's no
need for opinion. The important word to note is 'more', providing, of
course, you have decent scales.



> There is nothing
>
> inherently more "accurate" in weighing than in measuring.


No, of course not. There is nothing inherent about anything. If by
inherent you mean permanently existing from it's own side, that is.
Weight and Volume measures are both conventions, i.e. commonly agreed
standards. And there in is the problem with volume. A given substance
measured in multiple volumes is more arbitrary than one weight simply
because any error will be multiplied by each measure.



....

>> We don't concentrate as well as we should. From one moment to the
>>
>> next the flour isn't going to change much but your cup / scoop
>>
>> will.
> Really? You mean it'll change size while I'm looking away?


Oh come on Dusty I wouldn't expect my 15 year old niece to still be
using such childish pedantry. You know as well as anyone else that
that was an abbreviation of cup / scoop full of whatever you are
measuring. Childish tactics like that only show that you are more
intent on trying to make me look stupid than getting closer to some
understanding.





>> amongst many, agree that this is a good way to do just that.
> 125,000 Cardinal fans screaming, "We're number #1!" Didn't make it
>
> so. The same goes for this inane need to extol the virtues of
>
> weighing as opposed to measuring! Just because someone sez it's
>
> better, doesn't make it so!


You're the one that has been trying to convince us that weighing
flour and measuring flour with a cup is equally accurate for
everyone. As I keep saying anyone bothering to read this still has
there own personal choice to measure out their flour by whatever way
suits them, I really don't care if the cup is a 36D. It's got nothing
to do with me.





>> You don't have to agree, you don't have to give up your cups. I
>>
>> don't get why you’re trying so hard to ram home your point. Who
>>
>> cares what
> I don't. And I won't! Where do you get that I'm trying to "ram
>
> home [my] point?"


lol. You're words.



> I've simply stated

> Dealing with intransigent, ignorantly opinionated
>
> dolts is way low
Very simply stating. Not emotive at all.


> that some here seem to take
>
> the supposed superiority of measuring to the gram as somehow far and
>
> away superior that anything else.

I haven't got that. Who cares if that's what they think anyway except
by your own admission you.


> It. Is. Not!


No you're right.





> Also, one could frame the question the other way. Why are you
>
> trying so hard to ram home _your_ point? Perhaps because it's so
>
> shallow?


Lol, Ouch. lol.

>
>
>> some guy does hundreds or thousands of miles away in his own
>>
>> kitchen. Personally I really am not bothered which method other
>>
>> people choose to make their bread. But it does seem to me that
>>
>> you are. Why does it
> And where did you pick up this little tid-bit? I've said over and
>
> over and over, that any method you like and want to use is fine by
>
> me! What I will not abide is the specious and unfounded assertions
>
> that somehow one way of measuring is more "accurate" than another.
>
> It. Is. Not!


Well most disagree on that one Dusty. lol. Punctuating won't change
that. It's just a question of physics. Density nowhere nearly
predictable nor, more to the point, with flour repeatable.



>> bother you what someone you don't know is doing. I can't be
>>
>> bothered to agree with one point and disagree with another. Who
>>
>> cares Dusty? I understand Hutches point. It's valid. You seem to
>>
>> understand that too but still want to show off how smart you are.
>>
>> Give the guy a break.
> Give me a break! Dealing with intransigent, ignorantly opinionated
>
> dolts is way low on my list of things to do each day.


Nice.





>> Oh, it's me you're going on at. Could it be that you're carping is
>>
>> to do with personal grievances? Or do you really have something


> Oh give me another break! It would seem that you needlessly flatter
>
> yourself, sir. I don't.


lol.



>> important to say about Hutch's decision to buy some scales? Either
>>
>> way give it a rest, it's just plain
>>
> Then why don't you just get off of it? Oh! Wait! Methinks there's
>
> still much "weenie wagging" to be done. My 'thang' is bigger,
>
> better, or has more digits and sub-gram accuracy than your
>
> 'thang'...(:-o)! Okay. I think I'm starting to "get it"...


> For the rest of y'all readin' here, please accept my apologies. I
>
> thought this was a discussion amongst adults


Irony.

> about issues of details
>
> betwixt us as bakers. Clearly this has degenerated into an
>
> ideological clash. That was never my goal or intention.


> I'm still waiting for a recipe that will show direct benefit from
>
> sub-gram "accuracy"


Who on earth mentioned sub-gram accuracy, inverted commas or not.



> as that seems to be the most salient issue at
>
> hand.


Only in your head. It wasn't what the point of all this was. It's
only by your side stepping, and, dare I quote you, bad comprehension
that it became so in your head.



By your own admission Dusty you enjoy aggressive, grumpy old men's
banter. Has it not occurred to you that this is where the root of
this all has come from. Take your thoroughly un-called-for attack on
Chris Morris the other day.





> Somebody? Anybody? "TG", do you have one? I know I don't.
>
> So I would submit that this issue is absolutely moot after
>
> all...(:-o)!
No, it seems you're the only admitting of a final decision. I think
it's pretty much case closed, you can debate with yourself if you like.

TG

Mike Avery wrote:

> After baking, the loaf weight is "spot on" as our U.K friends might
> say

We do that. : -)

I don't remember saying thanks Mike. I got my scales that you
recommended at the weekend. Good value and I don't have to rush
pouring out before they switch themselves off. : -) That was such a
pain with my old ones.

TG

Dick Adams wrote:

> Which conclusion was that?
>
> TG, you seam to be an idiot!
>
> (Is an endless stream of one-liners the future of Usenet?)
>
> --
> Dicky

As long as I only seem to be. lol. I can live with that. : -) Better
than seeming to be a total arse I suppose.

TG

hutchndi wrote:
> .
>> Well Hutch...
>>
>> The way it ..
>> inertia and the simplicity of scaling bread.
>>
>> Don't do it <g>.
>>
>> Will
>>
>
> What, and not get to enjoy pulling teeth to get some thick head to
> listen to
> reason like all you old sourdoughs do for me ad infinitum?
>
> hutchndi
LOL

TG

"hutchndi" > wrote in message
news:u7nxf.7672$Dh.4142@dukeread04...
....
> Dusty you are probably right that there are no recipes that a gram
> or so of
> flour is going to make a big difference. I really don't even have
> allot of
> recipes in weight measurements yet. But I remember what a hard
> time I was
> having the first few months just trying to get things close to
> what recipes
> were describing, until I saw a video of what 60% hydration or
> higher dough
> should really look and handle like. Nothing like the Play-Doh I
> had been
> pushing around my countertop. I found out I had been packing my
> flour into
"Hutch", you & I have been exchanging eMails and posts in the group
for some time now. I recollect some of your frustrations and how
you've worked your way through them. While I can't see it, if using
a scale helped your "view" of the results become more realistic,
then you know that I'm delighted about that for you.

And, BTDT! I went through the same evolution. Part of the process
is getting to "know" your starter and how it works...and what it
looks and works like when it's "right". And part of the process is
getting to know what a "proper dough" looks and acts like.

But the discussion here has degenerated from one discussing the
relative merits of "accuracy" as was initially discussed, to
presenting cases of, "I did this...and I got that...". All
interesting, but none apropos.

Then there came morphing cup sizes, and our resident moron had to
weight in as well. Through all that, we've lost sight of the core
issue here. ALL forms of measurement have built-in errors, and no
one form can be said to be demonstrably better than another.

> the cup when scooping, among other things. So now I tested my
> flour weight
> in my two different cups, and find an ounce variance. I don't know
> how much
> an ounce of flour short or heavy in a recipe would matter. But if
> my cups
> are heavy, which they were, five of them would give me another
> whole cup of
Well, that being as it may, that's an excellent place to use a
scale.

But again, we've lost sight of the goal. That a "cup" is or is not
exactly "a cup", is what's being debated. And although some posting
here seem to be going out of their way to make that point, that's
not the issue. A recipe that sez: 3-1/2 cups of flour and 1-1/4
cups water, is really only an expression of a relationship. You can
just as well use a small box (a Saki "cup" comes to mind), and mix
up your dough using 3-1/2 'small boxes' of flour and 1-1/4 'small
boxes' of water. The result would be the same--the "exact" mass of
the materials not withstanding.

> flour! On top of that, the cup I was using for liquid measured
> 1/2 ounce
True enough. You're describing the common error associated with
(accurately) reading the location of a liquid's meniscus. But
again, let us not get side-tracked. The recipe is still, after all,
a formula for the relationships.

> under weight! Now that I have a better feel for how I want my
> dough to be
> anyways, scale or not I should be able to tell if something's off,
> but I
> kind of wish I saved myself some aggravation early on.
Donno that that necessarily follows...but if it worked for you, I'm
delighted!

FWIW; for the fun of it, I just went through a 10# bag of the AP I
use--transferring it into my flour box. I measured out 30 cups. 28
came out at 140 grams, 2 at 142. Given the +/-2g accuracy of my
scale, I would submit that it's quite accurate enough. Yes. I'm
sure there'll be the obligatory 'weenie wagging' of those that have
a titanium clad, diamond finish, accurate to 6-digits international
scale, that can measure down to a fraction of a gram. But I'll
continue to submit that accuracy to such a standard is wasted on
bread building...(:-o)!


L8r all,
Dusty

>
> hutchndi
>
>
>

"TG," or whatever pseudonym you're using today, you can post your
pointless and insipid blathering to me here. Do not send them to my
private eddress. That privilege is reserved for friends...something
you are not!

"TG" > wrote in message
news:mailman.1137078485.25674.rec.food.sourdough@w ww.mountainbitwarrior.com...


Dusty
San Jose

<...pointless drivel snipped for sanity's sake...>

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dusty Bleher" > wrote> "Hutch", you & I
have been exchanging eMails and posts in the group
> for some time now. I recollect some of your frustrations and how
> you've worked your way through them. While I can't see it, if using
> a scale helped your "view" of the results become more realistic,

I went through alot of your recipes getting here too, with my results
coming out somewhat different than yours. Perhaps I should try one again
with the scale, see if I do better.

hutchndi

Dusty Bleher wrote:

> You can just as well use a small box (a Saki "cup" comes to mind),

You mean the vessel that H.H. Munro drank sake from?

> I'm sure there'll be the obligatory 'weenie wagging' of those that
> have a titanium clad, diamond finish, accurate to 6-digits
> international scale, that can measure down to a fraction of a gram.

There *are* those who wish to indulge in fantasies that home baking is
equivalent to commercial endeavors and that one needs such things to
impress all and sundry. I remember watching my grandfather at work
simply grabbing balls of dough for tsibblekuchen (onion rolls) out of a
vat and seeing them identical each time.

B/

"hutchndi" > wrote in message
news:R1wxf.7685$Dh.2155@dukeread04...
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Dusty Bleher" > wrote
> "Hutch", you & I have been exchanging eMails and posts in the
> group
>> for some time now. I recollect some of your frustrations and how
>> you've worked your way through them. While I can't see it, if
>> using
>> a scale helped your "view" of the results become more realistic,
>
> I went through alot of your recipes getting here too, with my
> results
> coming out somewhat different than yours. Perhaps I should try one
> again
> with the scale, see if I do better.
Please do! I would be delighted to have you report that you'd had a
wild success with one. But, just for the interest, what was it
about the recipe(s) that "didn't work" for you?

A few days ago I ran Kenneth's "Poilne" starter through my
Coccodrillo recipe. It came out great (thank you, Kenneth.)!
Here's hoping that the Poilne bread faeries aren't now plotting
revenge for that egregious transgression...(:-o)
http://www.innerlodge.com/Recipes/Br...occodrillo.htm

Today's bread is my Provender--a warm, 3-stage ferment dough (along
the lines of "Dicky's" excellent "Billowy Sourdough" recipe), with
the Poilne starter.
http://www.innerlodge.com/Recipes/Br.../provender.htm

For some time now, I'd been concentrating on my plain, white, SF
sourdough
http://www.innerlodge.com/Recipes/Br...dough/SFSD.htm
(still can't find the "sour" taste that I want), and had ignored the
others. So I thought I'd put that one in the rotation just for
grins.

But either I'd forgotten how well my Provender developed, or my
making a rare double recipe (and yes, measured in "cups"...(:-o)!)
was behind it. But the darn stuff nearly crawled out of my largest
fermenting bowl (probably due to Ken's great starter).

I'd been stuck on SFSD because I've been trying to figure out how to
get the "taste" that I seem to be missing--so I stayed with that one
simple recipe in order to be able to figure out the impact of any
changes I might try. The bread comes out great. Great crust. Good
crumb. Good "holes". Consistent. Reliable. Too easy to eat. But
never more than just a tiny hint of the San Francisco "sourdough"
taste that I've been stalking... Heck! I'll even start using and
swearing by scales if I thought it would get me to where I wanna
go...(:-o)!

Next, now that the "Acme" starter has successfully undergone
3-refresh cycles, I'll be trying those same recipes with it. I'll
keep y'all posted as to my progress...


L8r all,
Dusty
....