On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 7:58:21 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2017-03-29 1:17 PM, Jon Danniken wrote:
> > On 3/29/17 11:01 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2017-03-29 12:24 PM, Jon Danniken wrote:
> >>> On 3/29/17 9:59 AM, wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am starting to realize why professional bakers go by weights when they
> >>> want a consisten result from a recipe, but I wish that amateur bakers
> >>> (AKA people who post recipes on the web) would at least state their
> >>> measuring techniques since they are seemingly unable to abide by a
> >>> single standard of measuring ingredients.
> >>
> >> Professional bakers are usually making things in much larger amounts. If
> >> they have the scale handy it is simple enough to enough to weigh our 20
> >> pounds of flour than to measure out 80 <?> cups. Bear in mind that at
> >> some point in the process they will be kneading that dough and rolling
> >> it in bench flour. They don't measure the bench flour at all.
> >
> > When you are making bread you start with a wet doughball and add flour
> > until it is the right consistency,
>
> Yep. You measure the flour for the dough ball, but goodness only knows
> how much bench flour is added, so the carefully measured weight is all
> but irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
> > but I'm here making a cake which is
> > different than making bread dough.
>
>
> Indeed it is, but cakes are very versatile. Look at a dozen recipes for
> the same kind of cake and you will probably see considerable variation
> in the amount of flour, sugar, milk, oil and eggs. They all turn out and
> with similar results, so they exact measurement can't be all that
> important.

The amount of liquid I use in a dough/batter will depend on the consistency I want. That takes experience. That will take years of baking but a faster way is to find an experienced baker and learn all that you can from them. Reading stuff about baking ain't that helpful.

On 2017-03-29 4:02 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2017-03-29 1:43 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2017-03-29 3:28 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-29 12:00 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed it is, but cakes are very versatile. Look at a dozen recipes for
>>>> the same kind of cake and you will probably see considerable variation
>>>> in the amount of flour, sugar, milk, oil and eggs. They all turn out
>>>> and
>>>> with similar results, so they exact measurement can't be all that
>>>> important.
>>>>
>>> Then you don't make many cakes because as Emeril Lagasse was fond of
>>> repeating: "Baking is chemistry!"
>>
>> If I didn't bake cakes I would not have known about how the ingredients
>> vary so much. Legasse is one of the sloppiest cooks who ever appeared
>> on the Food Network. His motto seemed to be that if some is enough,
>> more is better.
>>
> You obviously didn't see him baking! Then, he was *very* precise!


For your benefit I looked up some of Emeril's shows on Youtube.

"We got some regular flour, just plain all purpose flour.I wanna add a
little bit of lemon peel..." then he goes on with a little cinnamon, a
little grated nutmeg, a bit of salt......
Yep... really precise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHNDIe-eShs


The he does one with Tres Leches Cake He add "some egg whites" As
adds two cups of granulated sugar, then "egg yolk". Next comes flour
that he aerates by putting it through a sifter, then "baking powder" (no
measurement given), "a little vanilla" , "about a half cup of milk"
Then he talks about how "you pretty gotta pretty much" stick to the recipe.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miastfgfsS4


It's interesting that you would suggest that I obviously didn't see him
baking because he is so precise, but when I look online and watch him
baking, it strongly reinforces my impression of him being a very sloppy
baker.

On 2017-03-29 11:25 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:36:44 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-28 9:16 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-28 6:09 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> How much variance do you expect there to be between any number of cups
>>>> of flour leveled off with a finger? How would that slight variance
>>>> compare to a weighed portion of flour on a cold dry day as opposed to a
>>>> hot damp day? Most of our recipes are based on a volume measurement, so
>>>> the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a cup would be...
>>>> 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is actually 120.5
>>>> grams not 120. So we are expected to believe that it is more accurate
>>>> to weigh the flour to get the exact measurement of a 120 grams when the
>>>> cup of flour is actually 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out
>>>> a cup and level it off.
>>>>
>>> Not for real bakers!
>>
>>
>>
>> Real bakers like those who write cookbooks with volume measurements?
>
> Now back up and see where I recommended weighing flour. I recommended
> that the poster measure flour for the recipe just as the recipe writer
> did.

I backed up and did not see you mentioned.

>Do not be an ass.

Ditto.

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 3:20:26 PM UTC-4, Jon Danniken wrote:
> I am making a spreadsheet to convert volume recipes into weight for my
> cake research. Most of my volume measurements have been consistent with
> listed weights (water, sugar, oil, eggs), but I am finding inaccurate
> results with flour and cocoa.
>
> While I find the standard weight (listed on a number of web pages, and
> on the box itself) of cocoa powder (both Nestle and Hershey) to be 80
> grams per cup, when I weigh a cup I always end up with 65 grams.
> Likewise, my gluten-free flour mix (Namaste) is listed (on the bag) as
> being 138 grams per cup, but when I weigh a cup it comes out to be 120
> grams.
>
> I should note that I am measuring the cocoa powder and flour by spooning
> it into the measuring cup (the same one I used for the ingredients that
> match up with their expected weights) and leveling it off with a
> straight surface (the back of a knife). I should also mention that I am
> not using a sifter, but I wouldn't think that would have such an effect
> on the weight (18% on the cocoa powder and 13 percent on the flour).
>
> Any ideas on what is going on here? Should I trust the listed weights
> or the weights I am coming up with on my own?
>
> Jon


I have measured gin in a dry type measuring cup.

On 3/29/17 1:18 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2017-03-29 10:24 AM, Jon Danniken wrote:
>
>>
>> I think my main concern here is not knowing what measuring technique an
>> individual recipe uses. When I began taking cooking more seriously, I
>> read that ingredients such as flour and cocoa need to be spooned and
>> leveled, so I adopted that technique whenever I would use them.
>>
>> Now it is becoming obvious that that is not always the case. Heck, even
>> the King Arthur Flour company, in their listing of weight per volume of
>> cocoa powder, is off by over 30% compared to weighing out sifted,
>> spooned, and leveled cocoa powder! If the difference was within five
>> percent I could chalk that up to the weather, but at 30% you might as
>> well throw the recipe out the window and use a dart board.
>>
>> I guess the bottom line is that when I make a recipe, I want to achieve
>> a similar result as the original baker, as closely as possible, but
>> without knowing which measuring technique the author used, this is
>> impossible.
>>
>> I am starting to realize why professional bakers go by weights when they
>> want a consisten result from a recipe, but I wish that amateur bakers
>> (AKA people who post recipes on the web) would at least state their
>> measuring techniques since they are seemingly unable to abide by a
>> single standard of measuring ingredients.
>>
>> Jon
> I agree with what you have written. I weigh and in grams as it's so much
> easier to scale a recipe and leads to consistency. However, your comment
> about amateur bakers not stating their measuring methods could also be
> applied to the book and newspaper publishing world. European books
> always measure in grams for dry ingredients and ml for liquids but US
> publishers often convert to volume measurements without any regard for
> how the cups are to be filled. I always buy the UK editions when I'm
> over there. More and more of these books are now "bilingual" showing
> both measuring systems - possibly the result of US professional bakers
> publishing their recipes using weights.
> The local library had a copy of a UK cookbook, obviously bought from a
> UK distributor. A copy appeared on the remainder table at mega bookstore
> but the recipes had been converted, so it was obviously the U.S.
> version. It was cheap so I bought it and copied over the correct
> measurements from the library copy.

On that note, I noticed in another thread you posted the
bakefromscratch.com site, which does an excellent job listing weights in
its recipes. Thanks for that, I found some neat recipe ideas from there.

Jon

On 2017-03-29 8:38 PM, Jon Danniken wrote:
> On 3/29/17 1:18 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 2017-03-29 10:24 AM, Jon Danniken wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think my main concern here is not knowing what measuring technique an
>>> individual recipe uses. When I began taking cooking more seriously, I
>>> read that ingredients such as flour and cocoa need to be spooned and
>>> leveled, so I adopted that technique whenever I would use them.
>>>
>>> Now it is becoming obvious that that is not always the case. Heck, even
>>> the King Arthur Flour company, in their listing of weight per volume of
>>> cocoa powder, is off by over 30% compared to weighing out sifted,
>>> spooned, and leveled cocoa powder! If the difference was within five
>>> percent I could chalk that up to the weather, but at 30% you might as
>>> well throw the recipe out the window and use a dart board.
>>>
>>> I guess the bottom line is that when I make a recipe, I want to achieve
>>> a similar result as the original baker, as closely as possible, but
>>> without knowing which measuring technique the author used, this is
>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> I am starting to realize why professional bakers go by weights when they
>>> want a consisten result from a recipe, but I wish that amateur bakers
>>> (AKA people who post recipes on the web) would at least state their
>>> measuring techniques since they are seemingly unable to abide by a
>>> single standard of measuring ingredients.
>>>
>>> Jon
>> I agree with what you have written. I weigh and in grams as it's so much
>> easier to scale a recipe and leads to consistency. However, your comment
>> about amateur bakers not stating their measuring methods could also be
>> applied to the book and newspaper publishing world. European books
>> always measure in grams for dry ingredients and ml for liquids but US
>> publishers often convert to volume measurements without any regard for
>> how the cups are to be filled. I always buy the UK editions when I'm
>> over there. More and more of these books are now "bilingual" showing
>> both measuring systems - possibly the result of US professional bakers
>> publishing their recipes using weights.
>> The local library had a copy of a UK cookbook, obviously bought from a
>> UK distributor. A copy appeared on the remainder table at mega bookstore
>> but the recipes had been converted, so it was obviously the U.S.
>> version. It was cheap so I bought it and copied over the correct
>> measurements from the library copy.
>
> On that note, I noticed in another thread you posted the
> bakefromscratch.com site, which does an excellent job listing weights in
> its recipes. Thanks for that, I found some neat recipe ideas from there.
>
> Jon
>
I bought a copy of their latest magazine. Recipes are liable to contain
cup measure for liquids so I e-mailed them and they confirmed they use
the US 236ml cup, not the metric 250ml one. 14ml doesn't seem a lot but
when I first made a Carol Field bread, that difference was significant
and the bread dough a disaster!
Graham

"graham" wrote in message news

>
I bought a copy of their latest magazine. Recipes are liable to contain
cup measure for liquids so I e-mailed them and they confirmed they use
the US 236ml cup, not the metric 250ml one. 14ml doesn't seem a lot but
when I first made a Carol Field bread, that difference was significant
and the bread dough a disaster!
Graham

===

Graham I didn't see the site you posted that Jon mentioned. I've just been
to look and it says to purchase it. How?

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 11:46:38 PM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> "graham" wrote in message news >
> On 2017-03-28 7:36 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2017-03-28 9:16 PM, graham wrote:
> >> On 2017-03-28 6:09 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> >>> How much variance do you expect there to be between any number of cups
> >>> of flour leveled off with a finger? How would that slight variance
> >>> compare to a weighed portion of flour on a cold dry day as opposed to a
> >>> hot damp day? Most of our recipes are based on a volume measurement, so
> >>> the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a cup would be....
> >>> 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is actually 120.5
> >>> grams not 120. So we are expected to believe that it is more accurate
> >>> to weigh the flour to get the exact measurement of a 120 grams when the
> >>> cup of flour is actually 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out
> >>> a cup and level it off.
> >>>
> >> Not for real bakers!
> >
> >
> >
> > Real bakers like those who write cookbooks with volume measurements?
>
> They're just sloppy cooks!
>
> ==============
>
> Be careful around here advising weighing. You will be called an asshole!
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

I don't have any problem with weighing. It's faster than measuring. OTOH, measuring by eye is even faster. If I make a pie crust, I never measure because those pie crust recipes never make enough. I want to make the amount I want to make, not what somebody thinks I should make.

On 2017-03-30 2:47 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> "graham" wrote in message news >
>
>>
> I bought a copy of their latest magazine. Recipes are liable to contain
> cup measure for liquids so I e-mailed them and they confirmed they use
> the US 236ml cup, not the metric 250ml one. 14ml doesn't seem a lot but
> when I first made a Carol Field bread, that difference was significant
> and the bread dough a disaster!
> Graham
>
> ===
>
> Graham I didn't see the site you posted that Jon mentioned. I've just
> been to look and it says to purchase it. How?
>
As it's a US magazine I doubt that the hard copy version has made it
over to the UK. You can buy the online copy through their website.
Graham

"graham" wrote in message news
On 2017-03-30 2:47 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> "graham" wrote in message news >
>
>>
> I bought a copy of their latest magazine. Recipes are liable to contain
> cup measure for liquids so I e-mailed them and they confirmed they use
> the US 236ml cup, not the metric 250ml one. 14ml doesn't seem a lot but
> when I first made a Carol Field bread, that difference was significant
> and the bread dough a disaster!
> Graham
>
> ===
>
> Graham I didn't see the site you posted that Jon mentioned. I've just
> been to look and it says to purchase it. How?
>
As it's a US magazine I doubt that the hard copy version has made it
over to the UK. You can buy the online copy through their website.
Graham

==

Ahhh ok thanks

I have joined the mailing thing to get posts weekly (I think)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:55:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2017-03-29 1:56 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> How much variance do you expect there to be between any number of cups
> >> of flour leveled off with a finger? How would that slight variance
> >> compare to a weighed portion of flour on a cold dry day as opposed to a
> >> hot damp day? Most of our recipes are based on a volume measurement, so
> >> the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a cup would be...
> >> 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is actually 120.5
> >> grams not 120. So we are expected to believe that it is more accurate
> >> to weigh the flour to get the exact measurement of a 120 grams when the
> >> cup of flour is actually 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out
> >> a cup and level it off.
> >>
> >
> > I've measured & weighed the result. A cup of all-purpose flour is
> > 120g when I've stirred it with a whisk.
> >
> >
>
> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for 120
> grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can anyone argue
> that weighing is more accurate?
>
I'm not making 100 at a time, so I'm not a stickler for such precise
accuracy. I don't care if it's a fraction of a gram difference. I'm
certainly not getting to 120g without adding a little more, or taking
some away and I don't need that kind of fuss over some cake.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:27:25 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
wrote:

> 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...te-cake-recipe
> >
> >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?

She has run a business and made a bloody fortune off food. If she's
scooping and leveling for home use, then it's not as big of a bfd as
the weighers want us to think. I do think it's a good idea to "fluff"
the flour before scooping, but I'm not going to bust into a sweat
trying to make a precise 120g measure either.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:01:03 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:55:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-29 1:56 AM, sf wrote:
>> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How much variance do you expect there to be between any number of cups
>> >> of flour leveled off with a finger? How would that slight variance
>> >> compare to a weighed portion of flour on a cold dry day as opposed to a
>> >> hot damp day? Most of our recipes are based on a volume measurement, so
>> >> the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a cup would be...
>> >> 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is actually 120.5
>> >> grams not 120. So we are expected to believe that it is more accurate
>> >> to weigh the flour to get the exact measurement of a 120 grams when the
>> >> cup of flour is actually 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out
>> >> a cup and level it off.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I've measured & weighed the result. A cup of all-purpose flour is
>> > 120g when I've stirred it with a whisk.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for 120
>> grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can anyone argue
>> that weighing is more accurate?
>>
>I'm not making 100 at a time, so I'm not a stickler for such precise
>accuracy. I don't care if it's a fraction of a gram difference. I'm
>certainly not getting to 120g without adding a little more, or taking
>some away and I don't need that kind of fuss over some cake.

Some of us work really hard to get an exceptional loaf and we want to
be able to reproduce it every week. That's why we weigh ingredients.
We don't like hit or miss because we know that we will be disappointed
with the results.
Janet US

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:09:42 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:27:25 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
>wrote:
>
>> 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...te-cake-recipe
>> >
>> >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?
>
>She has run a business and made a bloody fortune off food. If she's
>scooping and leveling for home use, then it's not as big of a bfd as
>the weighers want us to think. I do think it's a good idea to "fluff"
>the flour before scooping, but I'm not going to bust into a sweat
>trying to make a precise 120g measure either.

she's a "cook", not a baker. All of the cooks scoop or whatever. bfd
or not they are generally making something where it doesn't much
matter. No one in this thread insisted or even said that you need to
weigh ingredients. I imagine that any bread you make is satisfactory
for your purposes.
Janet US

"U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
...

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:01:03 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:55:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-29 1:56 AM, sf wrote:
>> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How much variance do you expect there to be between any number of cups
>> >> of flour leveled off with a finger? How would that slight variance
>> >> compare to a weighed portion of flour on a cold dry day as opposed to
>> >> a
>> >> hot damp day? Most of our recipes are based on a volume measurement,
>> >> so
>> >> the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a cup would
>> >> be...
>> >> 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is actually 120.5
>> >> grams not 120. So we are expected to believe that it is more accurate
>> >> to weigh the flour to get the exact measurement of a 120 grams when
>> >> the
>> >> cup of flour is actually 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop
>> >> out
>> >> a cup and level it off.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I've measured & weighed the result. A cup of all-purpose flour is
>> > 120g when I've stirred it with a whisk.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for 120
>> grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can anyone argue
>> that weighing is more accurate?
>>
>I'm not making 100 at a time, so I'm not a stickler for such precise
>accuracy. I don't care if it's a fraction of a gram difference. I'm
>certainly not getting to 120g without adding a little more, or taking
>some away and I don't need that kind of fuss over some cake.

Some of us work really hard to get an exceptional loaf and we want to
be able to reproduce it every week. That's why we weigh ingredients.
We don't like hit or miss because we know that we will be disappointed
with the results.
Janet US

==

+1

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 3:20:26 PM UTC-4, Jon Danniken wrote:
> I am making a spreadsheet to convert volume recipes into weight for my
> cake research. Most of my volume measurements have been consistent with
> listed weights (water, sugar, oil, eggs), but I am finding inaccurate
> results with flour and cocoa.
>
> While I find the standard weight (listed on a number of web pages, and
> on the box itself) of cocoa powder (both Nestle and Hershey) to be 80
> grams per cup, when I weigh a cup I always end up with 65 grams.
> Likewise, my gluten-free flour mix (Namaste) is listed (on the bag) as
> being 138 grams per cup, but when I weigh a cup it comes out to be 120
> grams.
>
> I should note that I am measuring the cocoa powder and flour by spooning
> it into the measuring cup (the same one I used for the ingredients that
> match up with their expected weights) and leveling it off with a
> straight surface (the back of a knife). I should also mention that I am
> not using a sifter, but I wouldn't think that would have such an effect
> on the weight (18% on the cocoa powder and 13 percent on the flour).
>
> Any ideas on what is going on here? Should I trust the listed weights
> or the weights I am coming up with on my own?
>
> Jon

I found that a major problem is the measuring devices and methods. A US measuring cup is 8 ounces. A metric up is 250 gms, or 8.2+ounces. A have a 2 cup device which is exactly 500 gms at 2 cup metric level, but when filled to the 1250 gram line (1 metric cup) weighed 235 gms.

I have done spreadsheets for bread recipes and scaling up or down is easy when everything is metric, but I stayed away from cups as a measurement.

Jim Watson

"U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
...

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:09:42 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:27:25 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
>wrote:
>
>> 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...te-cake-recipe
>> >
>> >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?
>
>She has run a business and made a bloody fortune off food. If she's
>scooping and leveling for home use, then it's not as big of a bfd as
>the weighers want us to think. I do think it's a good idea to "fluff"
>the flour before scooping, but I'm not going to bust into a sweat
>trying to make a precise 120g measure either.

she's a "cook", not a baker. All of the cooks scoop or whatever. bfd
or not they are generally making something where it doesn't much
matter. No one in this thread insisted or even said that you need to
weigh ingredients. I imagine that any bread you make is satisfactory
for your purposes.
Janet US

+1
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 22:55:14 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>Dry ingredients, especially various types of flour vary from day to day in moisture
>content which will cause a variation in weight.

>Baking by weight is virtually infallible because weight is consistent regardless of humidity

Those two statements sound contradictory to me.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 23:03:29 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sat 01 Apr 2017 04:01:28p, Bruce told us...
>
>> On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 22:55:14 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Dry ingredients, especially various types of flour vary from day
>>>to day in moisture content which will cause a variation in weight.
>>
>>>Baking by weight is virtually infallible because weight is
>>>consistent regardless of humidity
>>
>> Those two statements sound contradictory to me.
>>
>
>I should have said that the weight won't vary but the moisture content
>will. One needn't care about the moisture content if using a scale.
>
>Sorry.

No worries.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 22:24:55 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

> On Sat 01 Apr 2017 02:13:56p, Ophelia told us...
>
> > "U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:01:03 -0700, sf > wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:55:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2017-03-29 1:56 AM, sf wrote:
> >>> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> How much variance do you expect there to be between any
> >>> >> number of cups of flour leveled off with a finger? How would
> >>> >> that slight variance compare to a weighed portion of flour on
> >>> >> a cold dry day as opposed to a hot damp day? Most of our
> >>> >> recipes are based on a volume measurement,
> >>> >> so the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a
> >>> >> cup would
> >>> >> be... 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is
> >>> >> actually 120.5 grams not 120. So we are expected to believe
> >>> >> that it is more accurate to weigh the flour to get the exact
> >>> >> measurement of a 120 grams when the cup of flour is actually
> >>> >> 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out a cup and
> >>> >> level it off.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > I've measured & weighed the result. A cup of all-purpose
> >>> > flour is 120g when I've stirred it with a whisk.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for
> >>> 120 grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can
> >>> anyone argue that weighing is more accurate?
> >>>
> >>I'm not making 100 at a time, so I'm not a stickler for such
> >>precise accuracy. I don't care if it's a fraction of a gram
> >>difference. I'm certainly not getting to 120g without adding a
> >>little more, or taking some away and I don't need that kind of
> >>fuss over some cake.
> >
> > Some of us work really hard to get an exceptional loaf and we
> > want to be able to reproduce it every week. That's why we weigh
> > ingredients. We don't like hit or miss because we know that we
> > will be disappointed with the results.
> > Janet US
> >
> > ==
> >
> > +1
> >
>
> Agreed!

I don't bake bread often enough to care about repeatability and mine
comes out just fine when I do bake it. I don't use a bread machine
like so many here do, so maybe that's why.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 17:08:19 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 22:24:55 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat 01 Apr 2017 02:13:56p, Ophelia told us...
>>
>> > "U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Some of us work really hard to get an exceptional loaf and we
>> > want to be able to reproduce it every week. That's why we weigh
>> > ingredients. We don't like hit or miss because we know that we
>> > will be disappointed with the results.
>> > Janet US
>> >
>> > ==
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>>
>> Agreed!
>
>I don't bake bread often enough to care about repeatability and mine
>comes out just fine when I do bake it. I don't use a bread machine
>like so many here do, so maybe that's why.

Once you know what the dough should feel like, you can eyeball the
amounts and adjust if you need to. I always weigh, but I'm sure cups
would work too.

On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 10:15:37 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

> Once you know what the dough should feel like, you can eyeball the
> amounts and adjust if you need to. I always weigh, but I'm sure cups
> would work too.

Agree.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:08:28 PM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 22:24:55 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
> > On Sat 01 Apr 2017 02:13:56p, Ophelia told us...
> >
> > > "U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:01:03 -0700, sf > wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:55:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 2017-03-29 1:56 AM, sf wrote:
> > >>> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> > >>> > > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> How much variance do you expect there to be between any
> > >>> >> number of cups of flour leveled off with a finger? How would
> > >>> >> that slight variance compare to a weighed portion of flour on
> > >>> >> a cold dry day as opposed to a hot damp day? Most of our
> > >>> >> recipes are based on a volume measurement,
> > >>> >> so the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a
> > >>> >> cup would
> > >>> >> be... 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is
> > >>> >> actually 120.5 grams not 120. So we are expected to believe
> > >>> >> that it is more accurate to weigh the flour to get the exact
> > >>> >> measurement of a 120 grams when the cup of flour is actually
> > >>> >> 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out a cup and
> > >>> >> level it off.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I've measured & weighed the result. A cup of all-purpose
> > >>> > flour is 120g when I've stirred it with a whisk.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for
> > >>> 120 grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can
> > >>> anyone argue that weighing is more accurate?
> > >>>
> > >>I'm not making 100 at a time, so I'm not a stickler for such
> > >>precise accuracy. I don't care if it's a fraction of a gram
> > >>difference. I'm certainly not getting to 120g without adding a
> > >>little more, or taking some away and I don't need that kind of
> > >>fuss over some cake.
> > >
> > > Some of us work really hard to get an exceptional loaf and we
> > > want to be able to reproduce it every week. That's why we weigh
> > > ingredients. We don't like hit or miss because we know that we
> > > will be disappointed with the results.
> > > Janet US
> > >
> > > ==
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> >
> > Agreed!
>
> I don't bake bread often enough to care about repeatability and mine
> comes out just fine when I do bake it. I don't use a bread machine
> like so many here do, so maybe that's why.
>
>
> --
> Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

I made some pizza dough today. I just dump everything in a zip lock bag and work that bag. It was a mite bit chilly around here today so I put the bag under my lumbar region and laid on it to stretch my spine a bit. It felt good. We then went out to eat at a Mexican restaurant. When I came back, that bag was blown up and ready to explode. I released the gas and stuck it in the refrigerator. It's going to be perfect tomorrow.

"dsi1" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:08:28 PM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 22:24:55 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
> > On Sat 01 Apr 2017 02:13:56p, Ophelia told us...
> >
> > > "U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:01:03 -0700, sf > wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:55:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 2017-03-29 1:56 AM, sf wrote:
> > >>> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> > >>> > > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> How much variance do you expect there to be between any
> > >>> >> number of cups of flour leveled off with a finger? How would
> > >>> >> that slight variance compare to a weighed portion of flour on
> > >>> >> a cold dry day as opposed to a hot damp day? Most of our
> > >>> >> recipes are based on a volume measurement,
> > >>> >> so the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a
> > >>> >> cup would
> > >>> >> be... 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is
> > >>> >> actually 120.5 grams not 120. So we are expected to believe
> > >>> >> that it is more accurate to weigh the flour to get the exact
> > >>> >> measurement of a 120 grams when the cup of flour is actually
> > >>> >> 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out a cup and
> > >>> >> level it off.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I've measured & weighed the result. A cup of all-purpose
> > >>> > flour is 120g when I've stirred it with a whisk.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for
> > >>> 120 grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can
> > >>> anyone argue that weighing is more accurate?
> > >>>
> > >>I'm not making 100 at a time, so I'm not a stickler for such
> > >>precise accuracy. I don't care if it's a fraction of a gram
> > >>difference. I'm certainly not getting to 120g without adding a
> > >>little more, or taking some away and I don't need that kind of
> > >>fuss over some cake.
> > >
> > > Some of us work really hard to get an exceptional loaf and we
> > > want to be able to reproduce it every week. That's why we weigh
> > > ingredients. We don't like hit or miss because we know that we
> > > will be disappointed with the results.
> > > Janet US
> > >
> > > ==
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> >
> > Agreed!
>
> I don't bake bread often enough to care about repeatability and mine
> comes out just fine when I do bake it. I don't use a bread machine
> like so many here do, so maybe that's why.
>
>
> --
> Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to
> hold them.

I made some pizza dough today. I just dump everything in a zip lock bag and
work that bag. It was a mite bit chilly around here today so I put the bag
under my lumbar region and laid on it to stretch my spine a bit. It felt
good. We then went out to eat at a Mexican restaurant. When I came back,
that bag was blown up and ready to explode. I released the gas and stuck it
in the refrigerator. It's going to be perfect tomorrow.

====

Did I tell you that I had used your method and it works fine) I have to
admit though I never put it under my lumbar region although I could sure use
it now

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

U.S. Janet B. wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:20:23 -0600, Jon Danniken
> > wrote:
>
> > I am making a spreadsheet to convert volume recipes into weight for
> > my cake research. Most of my volume measurements have been
> > consistent with listed weights (water, sugar, oil, eggs), but I am
> > finding inaccurate results with flour and cocoa.
> >
> > While I find the standard weight (listed on a number of web pages,
> > and on the box itself) of cocoa powder (both Nestle and Hershey) to
> > be 80 grams per cup, when I weigh a cup I always end up with 65
> > grams. Likewise, my gluten-free flour mix (Namaste) is listed (on
> > the bag) as being 138 grams per cup, but when I weigh a cup it
> > comes out to be 120 grams.
> >
> > I should note that I am measuring the cocoa powder and flour by
> > spooning it into the measuring cup (the same one I used for the
> > ingredients that match up with their expected weights) and leveling
> > it off with a straight surface (the back of a knife). I should
> > also mention that I am not using a sifter, but I wouldn't think
> > that would have such an effect on the weight (18% on the cocoa
> > powder and 13 percent on the flour).
> >
> > Any ideas on what is going on here? Should I trust the listed
> > weights or the weights I am coming up with on my own?
> >
> > Jon
>
> the manufacturers of product have caved to those cooks who do not want
> to measure properly. Most everything is scoop and sort of level off.
> No fluffing before hand.
> Janet US

Probably but bread recipes are generally still with fluffed flour. I'd
trust the fluffed flour weight to match any 'volume' based recipes but
use the actual weight if it was a recipe that used metric weights.



--

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2017-03-28 9:16 PM, graham wrote:
> > On 2017-03-28 6:09 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > > How much variance do you expect there to be between any number of
> > > cups of flour leveled off with a finger? How would that slight
> > > variance compare to a weighed portion of flour on a cold dry day
> > > as opposed to a hot damp day? Most of our recipes are based on a
> > > volume measurement, so the weighed equivalents are going to be
> > > based on what a cup would be... 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son
> > > of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is actually 120.5 grams not 120. So we are
> > > expected to believe that it is more accurate to weigh the flour
> > > to get the exact measurement of a 120 grams when the cup of flour
> > > is actually 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out a cup
> > > and level it off.
> > >
> > Not for real bakers!
>
>
>
> Real bakers like those who write cookbooks with volume measurements?

LOL, most of us adjust on the fly pretty well. I spoon fluff then
shake the cup measure to even. That's sufficient to work.

I do need to get a reasonably accurate digital scale though. Been
doing a fair amount of splitting bulk purchased spices and I'd like to
split them out more accurately to my friends (we share the costs and
will get like 16oz freshly dried parsley then split among 3 or 4 of us.
Things like that).



--

Ophelia wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> "graham" wrote in message news > On 2017-03-28 7:36 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2017-03-28 9:16 PM, graham wrote:
> > > On 2017-03-28 6:09 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > How much variance do you expect there to be between any number
> > > > of cups of flour leveled off with a finger? How would that
> > > > slight variance compare to a weighed portion of flour on a cold
> > > > dry day as opposed to a hot damp day? Most of our recipes are
> > > > based on a volume measurement, so the weighed equivalents are
> > > > going to be based on what a cup would be... 4 1/4 oz or 120
> > > > grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is actually 120.5 grams not
> > > > 120. So we are expected to believe that it is more accurate to
> > > > weigh the flour to get the exact measurement of a 120 grams
> > > > when the cup of flour is actually 120.5? It is so much easier
> > > > to just scoop out a cup and level it off.
> > > >
> > > Not for real bakers!
> >
> >
> >
> > Real bakers like those who write cookbooks with volume measurements?
>
> They're just sloppy cooks!
>
> ==============
>
> Be careful around here advising weighing. You will be called an
> asshole!

Naw, nothing wrong with weighing. The only time there's a problem with
it, is when folks get pedantic and insist that only one of the 2
methods can be used to result in a good product.

I have a few favorite recipes that came in metrics and in pencil next
to them, is my volume conversion, reverse engineered from other
versions and based on the liquid amount match to find a close enough
flour match.

--

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2017-03-29 1:56 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > How much variance do you expect there to be between any number of
> > > cups of flour leveled off with a finger? How would that slight
> > > variance compare to a weighed portion of flour on a cold dry day
> > > as opposed to a hot damp day? Most of our recipes are based on a
> > > volume measurement, so the weighed equivalents are going to be
> > > based on what a cup would be... 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son
> > > of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is actually 120.5 grams not 120. So we are
> > > expected to believe that it is more accurate to weigh the flour
> > > to get the exact measurement of a 120 grams when the cup of flour
> > > is actually 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out a cup
> > > and level it off.
> > >
> >
> > I've measured & weighed the result. A cup of all-purpose flour is
> > 120g when I've stirred it with a whisk.
> >
> >
>
> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for 120
> grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can anyone argue
> that weighing is more accurate?

Smile, here's the background as I see it.

BOTH methods have their flaws. Fluffed flour will be the same volume
even if it's overly damp (stored in a bag in the cabinet, damp several
days, as opposed to an airtight keeper). Weighers will be a bit off I
am told, but I don't *think* it would be off enough to matter if it's a
2lb dough recipe.

Fluffing though is a technique and many who are used to having a handy
scale all the time, find that is simpler and faster for them. It's all
in what you are used to.

In my case with breads, volume works better because I'm always
tinkering with multiple flour types (they don't weigh the same per cup
but they measure the same in most recipes). Example, I may start with
a recipe designed for 1/2 white and 1/2 whole wheat, and swap it to 1
cup spelt, 1 cup 'Better for Bread', 1 cup rye, then mix and match a
cup of other flavor flours like buckwheat, corn (masa), almond flour
and so on. Depending on the mix of the 4th cup, I may need to adjust
the liquid a bit and add a little vital wheat gluten, but the
adjustment is minimal.

Oddly, some here like to fight about it but that's silly. For my case,
I can pretty much translate my recipes into weights if someone needs
them.

--

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2017-03-29 11:23 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>
> > > How much variance do you expect there to be between any number of
> > > cups of flour leveled off with a finger? How would that slight
> > > variance compare to a weighed portion of flour on a cold dry day
> > > as opposed to a hot damp day? Most of our recipes are based on a
> > > volume measurement, so the weighed equivalents are going to be
> > > based on what a cup would be... 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son
> > > of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is actually 120.5 grams not 120. So we are
> > > expected to believe that it is more accurate to weigh the flour
> > > to get the exact measurement of a 120 grams when the cup of flour
> > > is actually 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out a cup
> > > and level it off.
> > >
> > up to 3 ounces. I know because I was an unbeliever years ago and I
> > did the experiment myself. Perhaps there won't be so much of a
> > variance for just yourself, but recipes are a method of sharing. A
> > lot depends upon whether you stir the flour first, whether the flour
> > has be fluffed, whether the bag of flour has sat around for a long
> > time,
> > whether you lightly scoop or whether you just jam the measure
> > through. I also followed on with the experiment by adding the
> > liquid required in a recipe -- liquid is always measure pretty
> > precisely because of the kitchen tools we use. I ended up with
> > bowls of flour mixture ranging from semi-liquid to something much
> > denser than the cement truck delivers. Now use that visualization
> > on your baked goods. Your argument is specious.
>
> I don't think it is my argument that is specious. I have stated in
> the past that recipes give specific measurements because they can be
> replicated using those amounts and that ingredients vary in quality
> and freshness. It may sound convincing to you that it is more
> accurate to weigh some ingredients than to use a volume measurement,
> but the fact remains that recipes tend to use standard amounts, like
> cups, pounds, grams, teaspoon or table spoon. It ain't written in
> stone that 120 grams is the absolute perfect amount for a recipe. It
> might actually be 122 grams, or 118 grams. It is convenient to round
> them off to more or less standard amounts, and those can vary as much
> with weight as they can with volume.
>
> As an example, a recipe might call for 500 grams of flour for a some
> sort of bread dough recipe. That is a nice even amount, and old
> balance scales would not have to dicker using extra counterweights.
> After it has risen and you start kneading it you will be using bench
> flour, and you use that as needed. There is no specific amount. I
> find it hard to believe that using an exact measurement of 500 grams
> leads to perfect results when you are going to be using an
> unspecified amount extra.

Smile, depends on type of bread making there. ABM users don't use
'bench flour' to adjust. They adjust the water instead (normally)

--

On 2017-04-02 9:12 AM, cshenk wrote:
> Ophelia wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>> Be careful around here advising weighing. You will be called an
>> asshole!
>
> Naw, nothing wrong with weighing. The only time there's a problem with
> it, is when folks get pedantic and insist that only one of the 2
> methods can be used to result in a good product.

The problem is exaggerated when the weighers then start whining about
people calling them names for advising weighing. I have seen enough of
them insist that it is more accurate than volume. Given that both
weights and volumes tend to be rounded off to standard divisions, they
aren't that exact to begin with.


>
> I have a few favorite recipes that came in metrics and in pencil next
> to them, is my volume conversion, reverse engineered from other
> versions and based on the liquid amount match to find a close enough
> flour match.

A cup is pretty darned close to 250 ml. A tsp is 5 ml, so a Tbsp is
three times that... 15 ml. We use imperial measurements so things tend
to get rounded out to a cup, and those who use metric would round out to
250 ml.

On 2017-04-02 12:14 PM, cshenk wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>>
>> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for 120
>> grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can anyone argue
>> that weighing is more accurate?
>
> Smile, here's the background as I see it.
>
> BOTH methods have their flaws. Fluffed flour will be the same volume
> even if it's overly damp (stored in a bag in the cabinet, damp several
> days, as opposed to an airtight keeper). Weighers will be a bit off I
> am told, but I don't *think* it would be off enough to matter if it's a
> 2lb dough recipe.
>

Somewhere in the thread someone commented that volume is off is the
ingredients are damp. Seems to me that they would weigh more too.
Water weighs more than flour, so if there is extra moisture in the flour
and you weigh to an exact amount you are getting a little less flour and
a little more moisture.


> Fluffing though is a technique and many who are used to having a handy
> scale all the time, find that is simpler and faster for them. It's all
> in what you are used to.

I can picture someone using a measuring cup to scoop out flour for
weighing. Thinking that the 4.2 oz they need is how much a cup of flour
weighs, they get out their measuring cup, level it off and dump it onto
the scale. Bingo... 4.2 oz. Voila.... weighing is more accurate. ;-)

On 2017-04-02 1:01 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> My grandmother could consistently bake the most fabulous cakes and
> never use a measuring cup or measuring spoons. I asked her for some
> of her recipes once and I had to sit down with her as she made
> something and remeasure what she had done by hand, literally, a
> handful of this, a little mound of salt, etc.
>


Years ago I was listening to a NPR program where they were interviewing
an old lady from the Ozarks and they asked her how she made the pie
crusts that she was so famous for and and she used a lot of "some" for
measurements. When asked how much "some" was, she said "the right
amount", but that could change. Then she used some shortening. When
asked what kind... it depended. Butter was good, or lard, and the right
amount was how much it took to cut in and get the right mixture. Then
you need some cold water and stir that it... enough to get the right
texture to the dough.

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...ocolate-cake-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

--

John Kuthe wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 2:20:26 PM UTC-5, Jon Danniken wrote:
> > I am making a spreadsheet to convert volume recipes into weight for
> > my cake research. Most of my volume measurements have been
> > consistent with listed weights (water, sugar, oil, eggs), but I am
> > finding inaccurate results with flour and cocoa.
> >
> > While I find the standard weight (listed on a number of web pages,
> > and on the box itself) of cocoa powder (both Nestle and Hershey) to
> > be 80 grams per cup, when I weigh a cup I always end up with 65
> > grams. Likewise, my gluten-free flour mix (Namaste) is listed (on
> > the bag) as being 138 grams per cup, but when I weigh a cup it
> > comes out to be 120 grams.
> >
> > I should note that I am measuring the cocoa powder and flour by
> > spooning it into the measuring cup (the same one I used for the
> > ingredients that match up with their expected weights) and leveling
> > it off with a straight surface (the back of a knife). I should
> > also mention that I am not using a sifter, but I wouldn't think
> > that would have such an effect on the weight (18% on the cocoa
> > powder and 13 percent on the flour).
> >
> > Any ideas on what is going on here? Should I trust the listed
> > weights or the weights I am coming up with on my own?
> >
> > Jon
>
> Professional bakers always go by weight.
>
> John Kuthe...

Probably John, but they are also making big batches. The error in
'scoop creap' will magnify then.



--

On 2017-04-02 1:36 PM, cshenk wrote:
> John Kuthe wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 2:20:26 PM UTC-5, Jon Danniken wrote:
>>> I am making a spreadsheet to convert volume recipes into weight for
>>> my cake research. Most of my volume measurements have been
>>> consistent with listed weights (water, sugar, oil, eggs), but I am
>>> finding inaccurate results with flour and cocoa.
>>>
>>> While I find the standard weight (listed on a number of web pages,
>>> and on the box itself) of cocoa powder (both Nestle and Hershey) to
>>> be 80 grams per cup, when I weigh a cup I always end up with 65
>>> grams. Likewise, my gluten-free flour mix (Namaste) is listed (on
>>> the bag) as being 138 grams per cup, but when I weigh a cup it
>>> comes out to be 120 grams.
>>>
>>> I should note that I am measuring the cocoa powder and flour by
>>> spooning it into the measuring cup (the same one I used for the
>>> ingredients that match up with their expected weights) and leveling
>>> it off with a straight surface (the back of a knife). I should
>>> also mention that I am not using a sifter, but I wouldn't think
>>> that would have such an effect on the weight (18% on the cocoa
>>> powder and 13 percent on the flour).
>>>
>>> Any ideas on what is going on here? Should I trust the listed
>>> weights or the weights I am coming up with on my own?
>>>
>>> Jon
>>
>> Professional bakers always go by weight.
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
> Probably John, but they are also making big batches. The error in
> 'scoop creap' will magnify then.
>
>

It's a lot easier to throw the contents of a 50 lb bag of flour than to
count out 200 cups of the stuff.

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...ocolate-cake-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.
=====

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:36:59 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> "dsi1" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:08:28 PM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 22:24:55 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat 01 Apr 2017 02:13:56p, Ophelia told us...
> > >
> > > > "U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:01:03 -0700, sf > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:55:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 2017-03-29 1:56 AM, sf wrote:
> > > >>> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > >>> > > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> How much variance do you expect there to be between any
> > > >>> >> number of cups of flour leveled off with a finger? How would
> > > >>> >> that slight variance compare to a weighed portion of flour on
> > > >>> >> a cold dry day as opposed to a hot damp day? Most of our
> > > >>> >> recipes are based on a volume measurement,
> > > >>> >> so the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a
> > > >>> >> cup would
> > > >>> >> be... 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is
> > > >>> >> actually 120.5 grams not 120. So we are expected to believe
> > > >>> >> that it is more accurate to weigh the flour to get the exact
> > > >>> >> measurement of a 120 grams when the cup of flour is actually
> > > >>> >> 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out a cup and
> > > >>> >> level it off.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I've measured & weighed the result. A cup of all-purpose
> > > >>> > flour is 120g when I've stirred it with a whisk.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for
> > > >>> 120 grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can
> > > >>> anyone argue that weighing is more accurate?
> > > >>>
> > > >>I'm not making 100 at a time, so I'm not a stickler for such
> > > >>precise accuracy. I don't care if it's a fraction of a gram
> > > >>difference. I'm certainly not getting to 120g without adding a
> > > >>little more, or taking some away and I don't need that kind of
> > > >>fuss over some cake.
> > > >
> > > > Some of us work really hard to get an exceptional loaf and we
> > > > want to be able to reproduce it every week. That's why we weigh
> > > > ingredients. We don't like hit or miss because we know that we
> > > > will be disappointed with the results.
> > > > Janet US
> > > >
> > > > ==
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agreed!
> >
> > I don't bake bread often enough to care about repeatability and mine
> > comes out just fine when I do bake it. I don't use a bread machine
> > like so many here do, so maybe that's why.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to
> > hold them.
>
> I made some pizza dough today. I just dump everything in a zip lock bag and
> work that bag. It was a mite bit chilly around here today so I put the bag
> under my lumbar region and laid on it to stretch my spine a bit. It felt
> good. We then went out to eat at a Mexican restaurant. When I came back,
> that bag was blown up and ready to explode. I released the gas and stuck it
> in the refrigerator. It's going to be perfect tomorrow.
>
> ====
>
> Did I tell you that I had used your method and it works fine) I have to
> admit though I never put it under my lumbar region although I could sure use
> it now
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Sorry to hear about your back. We should all spend more time flat on our backs. Sitting kind of sucks.

Jon Danniken wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 3/29/17 9:59 AM, wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:20:23 -0600, Jon Danniken
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I am making a spreadsheet to convert volume recipes into weight
> > > for my cake research. Most of my volume measurements have been
> > > consistent with listed weights (water, sugar, oil, eggs), but I
> > > am finding inaccurate results with flour and cocoa.
> > >
> > > While I find the standard weight (listed on a number of web
> > > pages, and on the box itself) of cocoa powder (both Nestle and
> > > Hershey) to be 80 grams per cup, when I weigh a cup I always end
> > > up with 65 grams. Likewise, my gluten-free flour mix (Namaste)
> > > is listed (on the bag) as being 138 grams per cup, but when I
> > > weigh a cup it comes out to be 120 grams.
> > >
> > > I should note that I am measuring the cocoa powder and flour by
> > > spooning it into the measuring cup (the same one I used for the
> > > ingredients that match up with their expected weights) and
> > > leveling it off with a straight surface (the back of a knife). I
> > > should also mention that I am not using a sifter, but I wouldn't
> > > think that would have such an effect on the weight (18% on the
> > > cocoa powder and 13 percent on the flour).
> > >
> > > Any ideas on what is going on here? Should I trust the listed
> > > weights or the weights I am coming up with on my own?
> > >
> > > Jon
> >
> > You're worrying way too much.
> >
> > Dry ingredients like flour and cocoa weigh differently depending on
> > ambient humidity, but doesn't matter much as baking is, contrary to
> > what many think, is not a precision enterprise. With experience a
> > baker learns to adjust recipes according to the weather... that's
> > why bench flour exists. Also since flour, cocoa, and other
> > ingrdients are a produce crop, each processed lot is different...
> > somewhere on the flour packaging you'll find a lot number... most
> > packaged foods are identified by a lot number. Even my bag of Lays
> > potato chips shows a lot number just under the UPC code.
>
>
> I think my main concern here is not knowing what measuring technique
> an individual recipe uses. When I began taking cooking more
> seriously, I read that ingredients such as flour and cocoa need to be
> spooned and leveled, so I adopted that technique whenever I would use
> them.
>
> Now it is becoming obvious that that is not always the case. Heck,
> even the King Arthur Flour company, in their listing of weight per
> volume of cocoa powder, is off by over 30% compared to weighing out
> sifted, spooned, and leveled cocoa powder! If the difference was
> within five percent I could chalk that up to the weather, but at 30%
> you might as well throw the recipe out the window and use a dart
> board.
>
> I guess the bottom line is that when I make a recipe, I want to
> achieve a similar result as the original baker, as closely as
> possible, but without knowing which measuring technique the author
> used, this is impossible.
>
> I am starting to realize why professional bakers go by weights when
> they want a consisten result from a recipe, but I wish that amateur
> bakers (AKA people who post recipes on the web) would at least state
> their measuring techniques since they are seemingly unable to abide
> by a single standard of measuring ingredients.
>
> Jon

Hi Jon,

Professional bakers tend to be working with a far larger recipe yield
than we home folks do.

Take this one whirling right now in my bread machine (dough mode)

1 1/4c water
1 cup shredded cheese
4 C flour
1/2 C sour cream
2 TB buttermilk powder
2 TB dried chives
2 ts buttermilk ranch dressing mix
2 TB sugar
1 1/2 ts salt
2 ts yeast

I measured the water carefully. I did my normal fluff for the flour.
I was pretty close on the sour cream. I used a 3/4 cup measure for the
cheese and heaped it up a bit. I used a measure spoon for the
buttermilk powder, sugar, salt, yeast. I did the chives by eyeball. I
didnt have the ranch dressing mix and subbed 'Bangkok' seasoning with
by eye, about 1 ts.

A professional baker would be making this in 50lb flour batches and for
cost control if nothing else, be weighing items for a consistent result.

There are no James Beard's in the newsgroup. Just some of us who are
happy to make our own bread. I do it twice a week here so it's nothing
all that special, but I do enjoy doing it.



--

"dsi1" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:36:59 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> "dsi1" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:08:28 PM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 22:24:55 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat 01 Apr 2017 02:13:56p, Ophelia told us...
> > >
> > > > "U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:01:03 -0700, sf > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:55:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 2017-03-29 1:56 AM, sf wrote:
> > > >>> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > >>> > > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> How much variance do you expect there to be between any
> > > >>> >> number of cups of flour leveled off with a finger? How would
> > > >>> >> that slight variance compare to a weighed portion of flour on
> > > >>> >> a cold dry day as opposed to a hot damp day? Most of our
> > > >>> >> recipes are based on a volume measurement,
> > > >>> >> so the weighed equivalents are going to be based on what a
> > > >>> >> cup would
> > > >>> >> be... 4 1/4 oz or 120 grams and son of a gun, 4 1/4 oz is
> > > >>> >> actually 120.5 grams not 120. So we are expected to believe
> > > >>> >> that it is more accurate to weigh the flour to get the exact
> > > >>> >> measurement of a 120 grams when the cup of flour is actually
> > > >>> >> 120.5? It is so much easier to just scoop out a cup and
> > > >>> >> level it off.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I've measured & weighed the result. A cup of all-purpose
> > > >>> > flour is 120g when I've stirred it with a whisk.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It is always 120 grams? If the recipe calls for one cup, or for
> > > >>> 120 grams, and one cup of flour is always 120 grams, how can
> > > >>> anyone argue that weighing is more accurate?
> > > >>>
> > > >>I'm not making 100 at a time, so I'm not a stickler for such
> > > >>precise accuracy. I don't care if it's a fraction of a gram
> > > >>difference. I'm certainly not getting to 120g without adding a
> > > >>little more, or taking some away and I don't need that kind of
> > > >>fuss over some cake.
> > > >
> > > > Some of us work really hard to get an exceptional loaf and we
> > > > want to be able to reproduce it every week. That's why we weigh
> > > > ingredients. We don't like hit or miss because we know that we
> > > > will be disappointed with the results.
> > > > Janet US
> > > >
> > > > ==
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agreed!
> >
> > I don't bake bread often enough to care about repeatability and mine
> > comes out just fine when I do bake it. I don't use a bread machine
> > like so many here do, so maybe that's why.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else
> > to
> > hold them.
>
> I made some pizza dough today. I just dump everything in a zip lock bag
> and
> work that bag. It was a mite bit chilly around here today so I put the bag
> under my lumbar region and laid on it to stretch my spine a bit. It felt
> good. We then went out to eat at a Mexican restaurant. When I came back,
> that bag was blown up and ready to explode. I released the gas and stuck
> it
> in the refrigerator. It's going to be perfect tomorrow.
>
> ====
>
> Did I tell you that I had used your method and it works fine) I have
> to
> admit though I never put it under my lumbar region although I could sure
> use
> it now
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Sorry to hear about your back. We should all spend more time flat on our
backs. Sitting kind of sucks.

==

Don't it just? I had a bad fall and have torn ligament and muscles in my
back.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2017-04-02 9:12 AM, cshenk wrote:
> > Ophelia wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > > Be careful around here advising weighing. You will be called an
> > > asshole!
> >
> > Naw, nothing wrong with weighing. The only time there's a problem
> > with it, is when folks get pedantic and insist that only one of the
> > 2 methods can be used to result in a good product.
>
> The problem is exaggerated when the weighers then start whining
> about people calling them names for advising weighing. I have seen
> enough of them insist that it is more accurate than volume. Given
> that both weights and volumes tend to be rounded off to standard
> divisions, they aren't that exact to begin with.

That seems to be happening now. Facts are both methods work.

I'm about to make fried rice. Anyone want to get all 'perfect' on
exact grams of cabbage to add?

>
> >
> > I have a few favorite recipes that came in metrics and in pencil
> > next to them, is my volume conversion, reverse engineered from other
> > versions and based on the liquid amount match to find a close enough
> > flour match.
>
> A cup is pretty darned close to 250 ml. A tsp is 5 ml, so a Tbsp is
> three times that... 15 ml. We use imperial measurements so things
> tend to get rounded out to a cup, and those who use metric would
> round out to 250 ml.

Works for me!

--