Roy wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 11:34:20 AM UTC-6, cshenk wrote:
> > U.S. Janet B. wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:53:30 -0700, sf > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:22:53 -0600, Jon Danniken
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Right now I'm just going on some recipes online. The one I
> > > would like >> to try next is the chocolate cake recipe (not the
> > > frosting, just the >> cake) by Ina Garten:
> > > > >
> > > http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/i...s-chocolate-ca
> > > ke-r ecipe
> > > >
> > > > If it's an Ina Garten recipe, you can trust it. She's a
> > > > stickler, as is Martha Stewart. If you want weights, use
> > > > recipes on the King Arthur site.
> > >
> > > was I in error recommending that the poster follow her method of
> > > measure as I have observed her doing?
> >
> > No, it's perfectly sane to follow a viewed method. Her recipes are
> > apt to match that.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > --
>
> I have been using "Co-op" flour and when I use "King Arthur" recipes
> I am guaranteed a failure. Your American flour is different from ours
> in its protein content for one thing.
>
> I don't know who manufactures the "Co-op" flour but it works well for
> most bread recipes I've tried.
>
> As far as measuring is concerned, I try to follow the suggested
> weights or measures called for unless I know for a fact that there is
> an error. Sometimes there are errors in transcription. Humans and
> computers are not infallible, more's the pity.
> =====
>

No problem Roy. You are apt to be using recipes built around local
gluten content values. As long as the bread is good, nothing else
matters!



--