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

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

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

Added Note:
If your recipe is more than a couple of years old, it probably uses
the old method which will result in less product being put into the
recipe. If you have a good cookbook that you are working from the
weight and measure used for the included recipes will be at the front
of the book
Janet US

On 3/28/17 1:46 PM, U.S. Janet B. 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
>
> 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.


Thanks Janet. So I guess the answer is to go with my own weight
determination and not trust the weight on the label.

Jon

On 3/28/17 1:49 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:20:23 -0600, Jon Danniken
> > wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Added Note:
> If your recipe is more than a couple of years old, it probably uses
> the old method which will result in less product being put into the
> recipe. If you have a good cookbook that you are working from the
> weight and measure used for the included recipes will be at the front
> of the book

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

Jon

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 12:22:57 PM UTC-10, Jon Danniken wrote:
> On 3/28/17 1:49 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:20:23 -0600, Jon Danniken
> > > wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Added Note:
> > If your recipe is more than a couple of years old, it probably uses
> > the old method which will result in less product being put into the
> > recipe. If you have a good cookbook that you are working from the
> > weight and measure used for the included recipes will be at the front
> > of the book
>
> 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
>
> Jon

Good luck with your cake. That picture looks like it was photographed in the 60's. Old school!

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:22:53 -0600, Jon Danniken
> wrote:

>On 3/28/17 1:49 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:20:23 -0600, Jon Danniken
>> > wrote:
>> [snip]
> >
>> Added Note:
>> If your recipe is more than a couple of years old, it probably uses
>> the old method which will result in less product being put into the
>> recipe. If you have a good cookbook that you are working from the
>> weight and measure used for the included recipes will be at the front
>> of the book
>
>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
>
>Jon
>
Ina has a big glass jar of flour, she dips the measure in, scoops and
passes a finger over the top of the flour to sort of level. In other
words, she isn't doing a measure that you can precisely duplicate. So
use her approach to measure. She's pretty casual about that sort of
thing.
Janet US

On 3/28/17 5:54 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:22:53 -0600, Jon Danniken
> > wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/17 1:49 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:20:23 -0600, Jon Danniken
>>> > wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Added Note:
>>> If your recipe is more than a couple of years old, it probably uses
>>> the old method which will result in less product being put into the
>>> recipe. If you have a good cookbook that you are working from the
>>> weight and measure used for the included recipes will be at the front
>>> of the book
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Jon
>>
> Ina has a big glass jar of flour, she dips the measure in, scoops and
> passes a finger over the top of the flour to sort of level. In other
> words, she isn't doing a measure that you can precisely duplicate. So
> use her approach to measure. She's pretty casual about that sort of
> thing.

Thank you Janet, I have not seen her show so that is good to know.

Jon

On 2017-03-28 7:54 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:22:53 -0600, Jon Danniken
> > wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/17 1:49 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:20:23 -0600, Jon Danniken
>>> > wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Added Note:
>>> If your recipe is more than a couple of years old, it probably uses
>>> the old method which will result in less product being put into the
>>> recipe. If you have a good cookbook that you are working from the
>>> weight and measure used for the included recipes will be at the front
>>> of the book
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Jon
>>
> Ina has a big glass jar of flour, she dips the measure in, scoops and
> passes a finger over the top of the flour to sort of level. In other
> words, she isn't doing a measure that you can precisely duplicate. So
> use her approach to measure. She's pretty casual about that sort of
> thing.

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.

On 2017-03-28 6:09 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2017-03-28 7:54 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:22:53 -0600, Jon Danniken
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/28/17 1:49 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:20:23 -0600, Jon Danniken
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Added Note:
>>>> If your recipe is more than a couple of years old, it probably uses
>>>> the old method which will result in less product being put into the
>>>> recipe. If you have a good cookbook that you are working from the
>>>> weight and measure used for the included recipes will be at the front
>>>> of the book
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>> Ina has a big glass jar of flour, she dips the measure in, scoops and
>> passes a finger over the top of the flour to sort of level. In other
>> words, she isn't doing a measure that you can precisely duplicate. So
>> use her approach to measure. She's pretty casual about that sort of
>> thing.
>
> 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!

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?

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!

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...

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.


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

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.



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

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 9:20:26 AM UTC-10, 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

If you're doing research, my recommendation is that you get your own data and don't rely on stuff that other people have done. Don't copy other people's work.

"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

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?

On 3/28/17 11:53 PM, 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.


I'm not so sure about that, King Arthur Flour lists cocoa powder as
being 80g/c. Last night I dug out the sifter and measured a spooned and
leveled cup of cocoa powder (nestle) at 55g/c.

Jon

On 2017-03-29 3:40 AM, 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!
>
Then I'll tell them to spell it properly:-)

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:09:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-03-28 7:54 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:22:53 -0600, Jon Danniken
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/28/17 1:49 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:20:23 -0600, Jon Danniken
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Added Note:
>>>> If your recipe is more than a couple of years old, it probably uses
>>>> the old method which will result in less product being put into the
>>>> recipe. If you have a good cookbook that you are working from the
>>>> weight and measure used for the included recipes will be at the front
>>>> of the book
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>> Ina has a big glass jar of flour, she dips the measure in, scoops and
>> passes a finger over the top of the flour to sort of level. In other
>> words, she isn't doing a measure that you can precisely duplicate. So
>> use her approach to measure. She's pretty casual about that sort of
>> thing.
>
>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.
Janet US

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. Do not be an ass.
Janet US

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?

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.

"graham" wrote in message news
On 2017-03-29 3:40 AM, 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!
>
Then I'll tell them to spell it properly:-)

==

roflmao I can't wait for you to try it)





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

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

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.

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. 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
>
> 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

Me! Me! I always dip and sweep, on those vanishingly rare occasions
when I bake. Chocolate chip cookies don't seem to care.

Cindy Hamilton

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.

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, but I'm here making a cake which is
different than making bread dough.

Jon

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.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:53:54 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>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.
>
>
Just got back from banging my head against the wall!!!!
Did you read anything that I wrote?
You, personally. will most likely measure consistently because you
have a personal way of doing things.
Your measurement of scoop and my measurement of scoop will probably be
different.
A recipe is a way of communicating from one cook to another, the
measurements are an important part of that communication. Most recipe
books, flour bags indicate the method of measure so that the
communication is clear and leading to a desired result.
I did not recommend that the poster weigh ingredients.
I did tell him to use the method that Ina Garten uses in her recipe.
I don't give a damn about your grams. They have nothing to do with my
response.
Open your brain
(I doubt that you read any of this because you already had your answer
ready to go)
Janet US

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:17:50 -0600, 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, but I'm here making a cake which is
>different than making bread dough.
>
>Jon

I spoon and level when making anything other than bread. It is just
something I learned way back in the beginning and it has always served
me well. (I do not make angel food cakes or pound cakes where more
precise measurements might be needed for success -- I don't know)
When making bread you DO NOT begin with a wet dough ball and add flour
until it is the right consistency.
Fact: Flour absorbs liquid. If you add flour until you deem the
right consistency, you have already added too much. To avoid this
problem, you can add all the measured flour to the measured liquid
(include eggs and sugar if any in the liquid) stir until roughly
(shaggy) mixed and cover the bowl with plastic and let the rough
mixture sit for 15 minutes. This time will allow the flour to absorb
the moisture and also, surprisingly, begin to develop gluten. When
you go back to finish mixing the dough, add the salt and begin
kneading. You will find that the dough kneads up very quickly and is
easy to handle. This is called autolyse.
Janet US

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.
Graham

On 2017-03-29 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.
>
>
Red herring! There's bugger all bench flour used. Furthermore, humidity
can make a difference in a big bakery but only in that batch of flour.
Day to day variations won't affect the flour much at all. Just imagine a
thick paper sack containing flour - the transfer of humidity is going to
be very limited.

Most of my flours are in large plastic bins and variations in
atmospheric humidity ain't gonner make a significant difference.

On 2017-03-29 12:15 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:17:50 -0600, 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, but I'm here making a cake which is
>> different than making bread dough.
>>
>> Jon
>
> I spoon and level when making anything other than bread. It is just
> something I learned way back in the beginning and it has always served
> me well. (I do not make angel food cakes or pound cakes where more
> precise measurements might be needed for success -- I don't know)
> When making bread you DO NOT begin with a wet dough ball and add flour
> until it is the right consistency.
> Fact: Flour absorbs liquid. If you add flour until you deem the
> right consistency, you have already added too much. To avoid this
> problem, you can add all the measured flour to the measured liquid
> (include eggs and sugar if any in the liquid) stir until roughly
> (shaggy) mixed and cover the bowl with plastic and let the rough
> mixture sit for 15 minutes. This time will allow the flour to absorb
> the moisture and also, surprisingly, begin to develop gluten. When
> you go back to finish mixing the dough, add the salt and begin
> kneading. You will find that the dough kneads up very quickly and is
> easy to handle. This is called autolyse.
> Janet US
>
You are making too much sense for Dave to handle, I'm afraid:-)
Graham

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!"

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.

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!

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 7:17:53 AM UTC-10, 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, but I'm here making a cake which is
> different than making bread dough.
>
> Jon

Making a cake ain't a matter of just weighting stuff and mixing it together. The important part is learning the techniques of making a cake. That will probably take years to learn. Get crackin'.