"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Pearce" wrote:

> > I rarely bake much but bread and I do weigh the ingredients, but that's
> > more to get me in the ballpark. With all the factors that affect the
moisture
> > content of the bread like the flour, humidity of the day, etc. I rarely
> >use the exact amount of flour I've measured.
>
> It's gotten to the point where I don't even measure the flour when I bake
> bread. I measure the liquid, yeast, and salt. I use enough flour to
> produce the consistency of dough that I want. I can't think of any reason
> to know how much flour that is. I suppose that in a bakery, it would be a
> different matter.

Not that I've tried, but I don't think I'd have too much of a problem doing
it that way. Ultimately it all comes down to the feel of the dough anyway. I
like to get the flour measured out before hand in part because I keep flour
in a pretty big container and don't want it in my way while I'm mixing and
kneading. I have a small (maybe holds two cups) container I keep on the
counter to use for any additional flour I might need or as a place to store
any excess.

I'm kind of nuts when it comes to bread. I've got a spreadsheet I use where
a enter the hydration percentage, percentage of starter to total flour, salt
percentage, percentage of types of flour, etc. then I enter the total weight
of dough I want and it kicks out the weights of the various ingredients. I
from time to time I play with the various percentages and have a sort of
controlled process for figuring out what does what when I make bread.

I find that from bag to bag of flour I need to totally redo the hydration
percentage. I bought a bag around the first of the year, another in April
and one earlier this month. With each successive bag I had to reduce the
amount of water I was using to get similar consistency in the dough. I'm
assuming it was due to the weather getting more humid and the flour being
moister. Usually by the time I get about three or four batches of bread into
a fifty pound bags I've adjusted things in my formula so I'm within a
quarter cup or so of the right amount of flour.

BTW, My grandmother used to make bread like you. When I was in my teens she
showed me how to make bread and the notes I took for the ingredients looked
something like this:

X amount of water
X amount of yeast
X amount of milk
X amount of sugar
X amount of salt
A bunch of flour.

-Mike

DawnK had something important to tell us on Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:41:14
-0500:

>
>"Jeff Bernstein" > wrote in message
...

>> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour? Is a strainer that I tap
>> with the palm of my hand the best way? A sifter with a hand crank? What
>> do you think?

>Not sifting flour at all? I used to have a sifter, then I lost it. (moved
>a couple of times.) I never bought a new one. I have a wire-strainer that
>I probably could use by tapping on it, but most of the time, I just throw my
>flour in the way it is.

I'm glad I'm not the only heretic! Modern flour is evenly ground and
presifted before they put it into the packets - sifting it doesn't
seem to make any difference to the end product.

We have a bunch of wire seives in various sizes but I only use them
for sifting icing sugar and cocoapowder and things that are actually
lumpy

Kajikit wrote:

> DawnK had something important to tell us on Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:41:14
> -0500:
>
>>"Jeff Bernstein" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>So, what would you recommend for sifting flour? Is a strainer that I tap
>>>with the palm of my hand the best way? A sifter with a hand crank? What
>>>do you think?
>
>>Not sifting flour at all? I used to have a sifter, then I lost it. (moved
>>a couple of times.) I never bought a new one. I have a wire-strainer that
>>I probably could use by tapping on it, but most of the time, I just throw my
>>flour in the way it is.
>
> I'm glad I'm not the only heretic! Modern flour is evenly ground and
> presifted before they put it into the packets - sifting it doesn't
> seem to make any difference to the end product.

Depends on how much you buy at a time and what you use it for. 50
pound bags will compress the flour and make it clump. Bags driven home
from the store and vibrated in the car will pack down so you get more
flour in a cup than otherwise - weigh a cup unsifted, then sift it and
weigh a cup of that. If you're making a sponge cake, you'll want to
sift the flour so it has *no* lumps. There are lots of cases where you
want to sift.

Making bread? No problem. Making cakes or pastries? Could be a problem.

Pastorio

> We have a bunch of wire seives in various sizes but I only use them
> for sifting icing sugar and cocoapowder and things that are actually
> lumpy

"Jeff Bernstein" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings:
>
> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
> handle.
>
> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour? Is a strainer that I tap
> with the palm of my hand the best way? A sifter with a hand crank? What
> do you think?
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Jeff

I've found that the hand-crank type works best. No need to clean - just tap
the excess flour off and store in a plastic bag.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Jeff Bernstein" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings:
>
> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
> handle.
>
> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour? Is a strainer that I tap
> with the palm of my hand the best way? A sifter with a hand crank? What
> do you think?
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Jeff

I've found that the hand-crank type works best. No need to clean - just tap
the excess flour off and store in a plastic bag.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Jeff Bernstein > wrote in message >...
> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
> handle.
>
> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour? Is a strainer that I tap
> with the palm of my hand the best way? A sifter with a hand crank? What
> do you think?


The points raised in Scene 3 in the transcript available below may help somewhat:

http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season5/EA1E08.htm

Jeff Bernstein > wrote in message >...
> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
> handle.
>
> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour? Is a strainer that I tap
> with the palm of my hand the best way? A sifter with a hand crank? What
> do you think?


The points raised in Scene 3 in the transcript available below may help somewhat:

http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season5/EA1E08.htm

Kenneth wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:38:40 -0400, Kate Connally >
> wrote:
>
> >You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
> >Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
> >want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>
> Howdy,
>
> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
> it.
>
> All the best,
>
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

It's accurate enough for my purposes. Never had
a problem yet.

Kate
--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

Kenneth wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:38:40 -0400, Kate Connally >
> wrote:
>
> >You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
> >Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
> >want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>
> Howdy,
>
> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
> it.
>
> All the best,
>
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

It's accurate enough for my purposes. Never had
a problem yet.

Kate
--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 14:40:23 -0400, Kate Connally >
wrote:

>Kenneth wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:38:40 -0400, Kate Connally >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
>> >Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
>> >want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
>> it.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth
>>
>> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
>
>It's accurate enough for my purposes. Never had
>a problem yet.
>
>Kate

Yeah. What she said.

Nonetheless, I have been known to sift flour if the recipe requests it
:>

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 14:40:23 -0400, Kate Connally >
wrote:

>Kenneth wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:38:40 -0400, Kate Connally >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
>> >Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
>> >want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
>> it.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth
>>
>> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
>
>It's accurate enough for my purposes. Never had
>a problem yet.
>
>Kate

Yeah. What she said.

Nonetheless, I have been known to sift flour if the recipe requests it
:>

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

>Kate Connally writes:
>
>>Kenneth wrote:
>>
>>>Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>> >You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
>> >Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
>> >want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>>
>> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
>> it.
>
>It's accurate enough for my purposes. Never had
>a problem yet.

When scaling flour measuring by volume or weight are equally accurate....
professional bakers weigh flour only because it is quite cumbersome to scoop
out like a 1000 cups of flour. In fact professional bakers don't need to
measure flour at all, their recipes are based on 50 lb and 100 lb sacks. Home
bakers rarely use more than a pound or two of flour for a recipe, 3 cups and 6
cups respectively... measuring six stinkin' cups of flour all in one fell swoop
never gave anyone carpal tunnel syndrome. If you prefer to measure flour by
volume or weight it's your call... again, both methods are equally accurate.
And contrary to what many attempt to promote baking does not require accuracy
anywhere near approaching that used by pharmacists... baking is far more about
method than measurement.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

>Kate Connally writes:
>
>>Kenneth wrote:
>>
>>>Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>> >You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
>> >Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
>> >want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>>
>> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
>> it.
>
>It's accurate enough for my purposes. Never had
>a problem yet.

When scaling flour measuring by volume or weight are equally accurate....
professional bakers weigh flour only because it is quite cumbersome to scoop
out like a 1000 cups of flour. In fact professional bakers don't need to
measure flour at all, their recipes are based on 50 lb and 100 lb sacks. Home
bakers rarely use more than a pound or two of flour for a recipe, 3 cups and 6
cups respectively... measuring six stinkin' cups of flour all in one fell swoop
never gave anyone carpal tunnel syndrome. If you prefer to measure flour by
volume or weight it's your call... again, both methods are equally accurate.
And contrary to what many attempt to promote baking does not require accuracy
anywhere near approaching that used by pharmacists... baking is far more about
method than measurement.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

>Kate Connally writes:
>
>>Kenneth wrote:
>>
>>>Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>> >You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
>> >Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
>> >want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>>
>> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
>> it.
>
>It's accurate enough for my purposes. Never had
>a problem yet.

When scaling flour measuring by volume or weight are equally accurate....
professional bakers weigh flour only because it is quite cumbersome to scoop
out like a 1000 cups of flour. In fact professional bakers don't need to
measure flour at all, their recipes are based on 50 lb and 100 lb sacks. Home
bakers rarely use more than a pound or two of flour for a recipe, 3 cups and 6
cups respectively... measuring six stinkin' cups of flour all in one fell swoop
never gave anyone carpal tunnel syndrome. If you prefer to measure flour by
volume or weight it's your call... again, both methods are equally accurate.
And contrary to what many attempt to promote baking does not require accuracy
anywhere near approaching that used by pharmacists... baking is far more about
method than measurement.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

Kate Connally wrote:

> Jeff Bernstein wrote:
>>
>> Greetings:
>>
>> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
>> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
>> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
>> handle.
>>
>> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour?

A big wire sieve. I can't imaging using anything else. It takes about 20
secs to sift a pound of flour this way, using a large dessertspoon. Get
a well-made metal-framed sieve, not one of those bendy plastic ones. I
think in the US a sieve may be called a strainer (that word is used here
too, but only applied to liquids). I mean one of these:
http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=138018

> You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
> Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
> want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.

It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.

> it. The only thing I've sifted lately was powdered sugar.
> And it's a nuisance doing it with the kind you have to tap.

I'm lost here. "Tap"?

///Peter
--
"The cat in the box is both a wave and a particle"
-- Terry Pratchett, introducing quantum physics in _The Authentic Cat_

Kate Connally wrote:

> Jeff Bernstein wrote:
>>
>> Greetings:
>>
>> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
>> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
>> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
>> handle.
>>
>> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour?

A big wire sieve. I can't imaging using anything else. It takes about 20
secs to sift a pound of flour this way, using a large dessertspoon. Get
a well-made metal-framed sieve, not one of those bendy plastic ones. I
think in the US a sieve may be called a strainer (that word is used here
too, but only applied to liquids). I mean one of these:
http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=138018

> You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
> Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
> want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.

It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.

> it. The only thing I've sifted lately was powdered sugar.
> And it's a nuisance doing it with the kind you have to tap.

I'm lost here. "Tap"?

///Peter
--
"The cat in the box is both a wave and a particle"
-- Terry Pratchett, introducing quantum physics in _The Authentic Cat_

Kenneth wrote:

> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
> it.

Absolutely essential. Cups are out. Pounds are in.

///Peter
--
"The cat in the box is both a wave and a particle"
-- Terry Pratchett, introducing quantum physics in _The Authentic Cat_

Kenneth wrote:

> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
> it.

Absolutely essential. Cups are out. Pounds are in.

///Peter
--
"The cat in the box is both a wave and a particle"
-- Terry Pratchett, introducing quantum physics in _The Authentic Cat_

In article >,
Peter Flynn > wrote:
>Kate Connally wrote:
>
>> Jeff Bernstein wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings:
>>>
>>> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
>>> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
>>> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
>>> handle.
>>>
>>> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour?
>
>A big wire sieve. I can't imaging using anything else. It takes about 20
>secs to sift a pound of flour this way, using a large dessertspoon. Get
>a well-made metal-framed sieve, not one of those bendy plastic ones. I
>think in the US a sieve may be called a strainer (that word is used here
>too, but only applied to liquids). I mean one of these:
>http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=138018
>
>> You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
>> Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
>> want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>
>It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
>the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.

Commercial flours found in the supermarket are sifted before they
are packaged.


Chuck Demas

--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
| \___/ | http://world.std.com/~cpd

In article >,
Peter Flynn > wrote:
>Kate Connally wrote:
>
>> Jeff Bernstein wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings:
>>>
>>> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
>>> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
>>> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
>>> handle.
>>>
>>> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour?
>
>A big wire sieve. I can't imaging using anything else. It takes about 20
>secs to sift a pound of flour this way, using a large dessertspoon. Get
>a well-made metal-framed sieve, not one of those bendy plastic ones. I
>think in the US a sieve may be called a strainer (that word is used here
>too, but only applied to liquids). I mean one of these:
>http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=138018
>
>> You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
>> Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
>> want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>
>It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
>the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.

Commercial flours found in the supermarket are sifted before they
are packaged.


Chuck Demas

--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
| \___/ | http://world.std.com/~cpd

Charles Demas wrote:

> In article >,
> Peter Flynn > wrote:
>
>>Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeff Bernstein wrote:
>>>
>>>>Greetings:
>>>>
>>>>I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
>>>>took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
>>>>impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
>>>>handle.
>>>>
>>>>So, what would you recommend for sifting flour?
>>
>>A big wire sieve. I can't imaging using anything else. It takes about 20
>>secs to sift a pound of flour this way, using a large dessertspoon. Get
>>a well-made metal-framed sieve, not one of those bendy plastic ones. I
>>think in the US a sieve may be called a strainer (that word is used here
>>too, but only applied to liquids). I mean one of these:
>>http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=138018
>>
>>
>>>You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
>>>Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
>>>want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>>
>>It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
>>the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.
>
>
> Commercial flours found in the supermarket are sifted before they
> are packaged.
>
>
> Chuck Demas
>

Hey, Chuck, whatcha doin' over in this neighborhood?

You're correct that commercial flours, at least in the US, are sifted,
but commercial bakers of any size resift the flour anyway, lest there be
any weevils that may have hatched in the interim; and sifting at home
serves the same purpose if you notice little black things moving around.

Peter is writing from across the pond, though, and I don't know what the
milling and packaging practices are over there with regard to sifting.

Charles Demas wrote:

> In article >,
> Peter Flynn > wrote:
>
>>Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeff Bernstein wrote:
>>>
>>>>Greetings:
>>>>
>>>>I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
>>>>took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
>>>>impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
>>>>handle.
>>>>
>>>>So, what would you recommend for sifting flour?
>>
>>A big wire sieve. I can't imaging using anything else. It takes about 20
>>secs to sift a pound of flour this way, using a large dessertspoon. Get
>>a well-made metal-framed sieve, not one of those bendy plastic ones. I
>>think in the US a sieve may be called a strainer (that word is used here
>>too, but only applied to liquids). I mean one of these:
>>http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=138018
>>
>>
>>>You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
>>>Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
>>>want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>>
>>It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
>>the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.
>
>
> Commercial flours found in the supermarket are sifted before they
> are packaged.
>
>
> Chuck Demas
>

Hey, Chuck, whatcha doin' over in this neighborhood?

You're correct that commercial flours, at least in the US, are sifted,
but commercial bakers of any size resift the flour anyway, lest there be
any weevils that may have hatched in the interim; and sifting at home
serves the same purpose if you notice little black things moving around.

Peter is writing from across the pond, though, and I don't know what the
milling and packaging practices are over there with regard to sifting.

<posted & mailed>

Charles Demas wrote:

[me]
>>It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
>>the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.
>
> Commercial flours found in the supermarket are sifted before they
> are packaged.

Yes, but I still find grit in them every time I sift flour :-)

///Peter
--
"The cat in the box is both a wave and a particle"
-- Terry Pratchett, introducing quantum physics in _The Authentic Cat_

<posted & mailed>

Charles Demas wrote:

[me]
>>It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
>>the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.
>
> Commercial flours found in the supermarket are sifted before they
> are packaged.

Yes, but I still find grit in them every time I sift flour :-)

///Peter
--
"The cat in the box is both a wave and a particle"
-- Terry Pratchett, introducing quantum physics in _The Authentic Cat_

Dick Margulis wrote:

> You're correct that commercial flours, at least in the US, are sifted,
> but commercial bakers of any size resift the flour anyway, lest there be
> any weevils that may have hatched in the interim; and sifting at home
> serves the same purpose if you notice little black things moving around.
>
> Peter is writing from across the pond, though, and I don't know what the
> milling and packaging practices are over there with regard to sifting.

They make a big play of how well they sift. "Graded grains make finer flour"
went one jingle. I haven't seen weevils in the flour since I was at boarding
school. But recipes using flour (not just for bread) typically start off by
saying to "sift the dry ingredients together..." (ie flour, salt, sugar...)

///Peter
--
"The cat in the box is both a wave and a particle"
-- Terry Pratchett, introducing quantum physics in _The Authentic Cat_

>Dick Margulis
>
>commercial bakers of any size resift the flour anyway, lest there be
>any weevils that may have hatched in the interim

Nonsense, no bugs will survive the oven temps, and that's why they add seeds.




---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

>Dick Margulis
>
>commercial bakers of any size resift the flour anyway, lest there be
>any weevils that may have hatched in the interim

Nonsense, no bugs will survive the oven temps, and that's why they add seeds.




---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

>Peter Flynn aped:
>
>Kenneth wrote:
>
>> Measuring flour by volume is extremely inaccurate. For accuracy, weigh
>> it.
>
>Absolutely essential. Cups are out. Pounds are in.

Two idiots.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

Peter,
Watch your attributions. I did not write "a big wire
sieve . . . ."

A sieve is my least favorite way of sifting
anything, if I even sift at all. I had to sift
some lumpy cocoa the other day and the only thing I had
was a sieve, as I don't sift flour any more and have no
need of a flour sifter. What a freaking mess. I sifted
over a largish, albeit shallow, bowl - about one inch
wider radius than the sieve. Even though I tapped gently
and made sure to hold the sieve directly over the center
of the bowl, the cocoa powder went all over the rim of the
bowl and around it onto the counter. That's always been
my experience trying to sift anything in a sieve, it goes
over too broad an area. Using a spoon to stir it around
in the sieve, instead of the tapping method, is only
slightly better. It still ends up going where it shouldn't.
Grrr! When I had my old crank grinder the only place it
went was directly below the grinder.
Kate


Peter Flynn wrote:
>
> Kate Connally wrote:
>
> > Jeff Bernstein wrote:
> >>
> >> Greetings:
> >>
> >> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
> >> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
> >> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
> >> handle.
> >>
> >> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour?
>
> A big wire sieve. I can't imaging using anything else. It takes about 20
> secs to sift a pound of flour this way, using a large dessertspoon. Get
> a well-made metal-framed sieve, not one of those bendy plastic ones. I
> think in the US a sieve may be called a strainer (that word is used here
> too, but only applied to liquids). I mean one of these:
> http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=138018
>
> > You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
> > Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
> > want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>
> It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
> the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.
>
> > it. The only thing I've sifted lately was powdered sugar.
> > And it's a nuisance doing it with the kind you have to tap.
>
> I'm lost here. "Tap"?
>
> ///Peter
> --
> "The cat in the box is both a wave and a particle"
> -- Terry Pratchett, introducing quantum physics in _The Authentic Cat_


--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

Peter,
Watch your attributions. I did not write "a big wire
sieve . . . ."

A sieve is my least favorite way of sifting
anything, if I even sift at all. I had to sift
some lumpy cocoa the other day and the only thing I had
was a sieve, as I don't sift flour any more and have no
need of a flour sifter. What a freaking mess. I sifted
over a largish, albeit shallow, bowl - about one inch
wider radius than the sieve. Even though I tapped gently
and made sure to hold the sieve directly over the center
of the bowl, the cocoa powder went all over the rim of the
bowl and around it onto the counter. That's always been
my experience trying to sift anything in a sieve, it goes
over too broad an area. Using a spoon to stir it around
in the sieve, instead of the tapping method, is only
slightly better. It still ends up going where it shouldn't.
Grrr! When I had my old crank grinder the only place it
went was directly below the grinder.
Kate


Peter Flynn wrote:
>
> Kate Connally wrote:
>
> > Jeff Bernstein wrote:
> >>
> >> Greetings:
> >>
> >> I bought one of those squeezy-handled, multi-screened flour sifters. It
> >> took much too long to sift a cup of pastry flour PLUS it's pretty much
> >> impossible to clean after using. And flour leaks out of a hole near the
> >> handle.
> >>
> >> So, what would you recommend for sifting flour?
>
> A big wire sieve. I can't imaging using anything else. It takes about 20
> secs to sift a pound of flour this way, using a large dessertspoon. Get
> a well-made metal-framed sieve, not one of those bendy plastic ones. I
> think in the US a sieve may be called a strainer (that word is used here
> too, but only applied to liquids). I mean one of these:
> http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=138018
>
> > You sift flour? Wow! I haven't done that for 30 years!
> > Well, I exaggerate a little. But really, I guess one might
> > want to do it if they wanted to be really precise.
>
> It's nothing to do with precision. It's to get the gritty bits out which
> the miller leaves behind. Otherwise they go crunch when you eat the bread.
>
> > it. The only thing I've sifted lately was powdered sugar.
> > And it's a nuisance doing it with the kind you have to tap.
>
> I'm lost here. "Tap"?
>
> ///Peter
> --
> "The cat in the box is both a wave and a particle"
> -- Terry Pratchett, introducing quantum physics in _The Authentic Cat_


--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

Kate Connally > wrote in :

> A sieve is my least favorite way of sifting
> anything, if I even sift at all. I had to sift
> some lumpy cocoa the other day and the only thing I had
> was a sieve, as I don't sift flour any more and have no
> need of a flour sifter. What a freaking mess.

Consider sifting onto parchment paper. You could parchment paper a large
area. And no additional bowl to wash

--
Once during Prohibition I was forced to live for days on nothing but food
and water.
--------
FIELDS, W. C.

Kate Connally > wrote in :

> A sieve is my least favorite way of sifting
> anything, if I even sift at all. I had to sift
> some lumpy cocoa the other day and the only thing I had
> was a sieve, as I don't sift flour any more and have no
> need of a flour sifter. What a freaking mess.

Consider sifting onto parchment paper. You could parchment paper a large
area. And no additional bowl to wash

--
Once during Prohibition I was forced to live for days on nothing but food
and water.
--------
FIELDS, W. C.

hahabogus wrote:
>
> Kate Connally > wrote in :
>
> > A sieve is my least favorite way of sifting
> > anything, if I even sift at all. I had to sift
> > some lumpy cocoa the other day and the only thing I had
> > was a sieve, as I don't sift flour any more and have no
> > need of a flour sifter. What a freaking mess.
>
> Consider sifting onto parchment paper. You could parchment paper a large
> area. And no additional bowl to wash

Well, first I would have to buy parchment paper.
Too much trouble and expense. Never use it. In the
old days when we sifted we used to sift onto waxed
paper. Coulda done that. But the bowl didn't need to
be washed - only rinsed under running water and stuck
in the drainer. About the same amount of work as
tossing the parchment or waxed paper in the trash.
Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

hahabogus wrote:
>
> Kate Connally > wrote in :
>
> > A sieve is my least favorite way of sifting
> > anything, if I even sift at all. I had to sift
> > some lumpy cocoa the other day and the only thing I had
> > was a sieve, as I don't sift flour any more and have no
> > need of a flour sifter. What a freaking mess.
>
> Consider sifting onto parchment paper. You could parchment paper a large
> area. And no additional bowl to wash

Well, first I would have to buy parchment paper.
Too much trouble and expense. Never use it. In the
old days when we sifted we used to sift onto waxed
paper. Coulda done that. But the bowl didn't need to
be washed - only rinsed under running water and stuck
in the drainer. About the same amount of work as
tossing the parchment or waxed paper in the trash.
Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?