Does anybody have any recommendations on a good digital kitchen scale
that is not terribly expensive?

wrote:
> Does anybody have any recommendations on a good digital kitchen scale
> that is not terribly expensive?
>
try:

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...e=off&num=100&

S.

Yes, Salter. One can find at Williams-Sonoma.

************************************************** ***
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world."
Gandhi

Thomas L. Haney
Houston, TX
(713)522.7961

In article >, Thomas Haney
<thaney@> says...
> Yes, Salter. One can find at Williams-Sonoma.

I've been really happy with all the "My Weigh" scales I've purchased.
For a home baker, I'd suggest their KD-7000. They are very rugged, will
handle about 14 pounds (7,000 grams). They are accurate, and don't seem
to drift. You can find the on eBay for around $40, plus shipping, now.

Another good option are the My Weigh "Ultra Ship" scales. These are
shipping scales with 35, 55 ot 75 pound capacity. Again, good
accuracy.They run about $20.

I've purchased from both Meadowpines and Oldwillknott with good results
from both.

So far, I've only damaged one set of scales. I got careless and poured
water all over one set of shipping scales. The KD-7000's seem to be
better sealed.

Mike

I got a salter from "bed bath and beyond" . I used one of their 20% off
coupons. I don't remember what I ended up paying, but it was a decent
price.


In article >, Thomas Haney
<thaney@> wrote:

> Yes, Salter. One can find at Williams-Sonoma.
>
> ************************************************** ***
> "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."
> Gandhi
>
> Thomas L. Haney
> Houston, TX
> (713)522.7961

wrote:
> Does anybody have any recommendations on a good digital kitchen scale
> that is not terribly expensive?

I picked up an Escali Primo scale from Amazon for $25, and I am very
pleased with it. It tares, has 1g accuracy, comes in many colors. It
measures grams, lb oz, and just decimal oz (so you don't worry about
pounds when scaling, for example). It goes negative if you take
something off after taring, so if you forgot to tare the bowl first (for
example) you can still deduce. All in all, a fine scale at an affordable
price.

http://www.amazon.com/Escali-Primo-D...1613107&sr=8-1

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:29:53 -0700, Hans Fugal >
wrote:

wrote:
>> Does anybody have any recommendations on a good digital kitchen scale
>> that is not terribly expensive?
>
>I picked up an Escali Primo scale from Amazon for $25, and I am very
>pleased with it. It tares, has 1g accuracy, comes in many colors. It
>measures grams, lb oz, and just decimal oz (so you don't worry about
>pounds when scaling, for example). It goes negative if you take
>something off after taring, so if you forgot to tare the bowl first (for
>example) you can still deduce. All in all, a fine scale at an affordable
>price.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Escali-Primo-D...1613107&sr=8-1

I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
ingredients. Do you weigh the salt, oil, sugar and eggs you put in
the dough? No? Just the flour and water? Then why are volume
measurements okay for everything except flour and water?

Thanks
Jack

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:11:52 GMT, Retired VIP
> wrote:

>
>I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
>ingredients. Do you weigh the salt, oil, sugar

Yes... (I rarely use eggs in my doughs.)

All the best,
--
Kenneth

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

Retired VIP wrote:
>
> I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
> ingredients. Do you weigh the salt, oil, sugar and eggs you put in
> the dough? No? Just the flour and water? Then why are volume
> measurements okay for everything except flour and water?
>
> Thanks
> Jack

I was talking that over with another local hobby baker and we figured it
has to do with the water content of the flour. You need a certain
percent of liquid mixed with the flour to make the right consistency
dough and that measurement by volume vs weight varies radically daily,
even hourly where I live in the bottom of the Great Lakes Basin because
of radical humidity changes. We go from 30 some percent in the morning
to the 90's by afternoon sometimes.

The extra water already in the flour from the high humidity would matter
to a scale, not a cup measure.

I can never figure on the same number of cups of flour vs liquid to
always be the same, up to a cup difference per 2 loaf recipe.

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.co

Retired VIP wrote:
> I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
> ingredients.
If you want the experience - do it.

Nobody else can do it for you.

And - "obsession" is pretty loaded - what's it to you if other's enjoy
doing what they are doing as long as you enjoy what you are doing?

But that's got nothing to do with sourdough.

Sam

Sam wrote:
> Retired VIP wrote:
>
>> I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
>> ingredients.
>
> If you want the experience - do it.
>
> Nobody else can do it for you.
>
> And - "obsession" is pretty loaded - what's it to you if other's enjoy
> doing what they are doing as long as you enjoy what you are doing?
>
> But that's got nothing to do with sourdough.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
In much of the world weighing is the usual way to measure cooking
ingredients. It certainly is easy to do, volume measure is a little
more difficultt....is that cup full of flour stirred or packed or what?
It is true that that isn't usually vital in bread baking.
Ellen

Retired VIP wrote:

> I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
> ingredients. Do you weigh the salt, oil, sugar and eggs you put in
> the dough? No? Just the flour and water? Then why are volume
> measurements okay for everything except flour and water?

Absolutely!
(Except for eggs, which are pretty well standardized in the US)
I figure eventually, I'll develop the eye/feel for getting the hydration
right, but salt for sure. Oil and sugar, if I use them as ingredients.

"Retired VIP" > wrote in message ...
> I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
> ingredients. Do you weigh the salt, oil, sugar and eggs you put in
> the dough? No? Just the flour and water? Then why are volume
> measurements okay for everything except flour and water?

Actually, volume measurements are very good for water, inasmuch
as a pint is quite like a pound and a liter bears much resemblance
to a kilogram.

Another happy thing: a cup of flour weighs pretty much the same
as another cup of flour from the same batch, provided it is
scooped/packed/leveled/etc. in the same way. So you could
weigh the first cup, and do the math for the rest, except, of course,
math is a problem for you.

(Only book writers and exhibitionists put oil, sugar, and eggs in
sourdough bread.)

In article >,
says...

> I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
> ingredients. Do you weigh the salt, oil, sugar and eggs you put in
> the dough? No? Just the flour and water? Then why are volume
> measurements okay for everything except flour and water?

I've never been able to understand the obsession with measuring by
volume. I think it is a fetishistic clinging to the inaccurate methods
used by one's ancestors. Just 'cause mama did it, doesn't mean it's a
good method.

The reasons to use weight are very simple. Weight is a consistent and
reliable predictor of how many molecules of an ingredient you are adding
to the mixing bowl, regardless of the ingredient.

Volume measurements are accurate with liquid ingredients because liquids
can not be compressed.

Measuring by weight is faster with a decent set of scales than measuring
by volume.

However, salt, flour, sugar and other such dry ingredients are
compressible. This is because they are not solids so much as granulated
solids. All of these items settle and the weight per cup varies
depending on settling and how they are granulated. Table salt and
kosher salt weigh different amounts per tablespoon.

So, how much difference is there in cups of flour? A test in one of the
baking newsgroups had people weigh cups of flour. The range was from
less than 100 to more than 200 grams of flour per cup. If you sift it
twice, spoon it into a cup, and then scrape off the excess you are at
the lower end of the range. If you scoop your flour out of the flour
sack, you are at the upper end of the range. Worse, scoopers had as
much as a 25% variation from cup to cup.

There are two purposes to recipes. One is so you can make the same
recipe again and again. The other is so you can share the recipe and
feel assured that the other person will be able to replicate your
recipe. If you can't be sure your measurements are within 25% of the
last time you made the recipe, or if someone else might be using as
little as half or as much as twice as much flour as you, you can't be
sure they can replicate your results.

Some people mumble in their beards about the moisture content of their
flour varying. Checking industry literature, the two layer paper sacks
in common use do a very good job of maintaining the moisture levels of
flour if the baker folds the bag shut between uses. No need for a chip
clip, just fold the bag over. In actual tests, the variation between
sacks of flour was measured in single digit percentages, or MUCH less
than 10%. If you are measuring with cups, your errors are likely to be
much higher than the variations in flours. Especially if you are a
scooper.

The flour companies suggest a cup of flour should weigh 120 grams. You
can consistently get there if you sift the flour once, spoon the flour
into a cup, and then use a straight edge to remove the excess flour.
Using that technique, I find I get cups between 110 and 130 grams,
centered in the 115 to 125 gram range. However, most bakers feel that
is more trouble than it is worth.

It's easier to just dump flour into the bowl until you have the
appropriate weight.

Mike

PS - this topic tends to assume religous overtones here. People get
angry. People say things that they would never say in person to another
person. I hope that won't happen this time.

To head things off at the pass...

Some claim that people didn't weigh ingredients in the olden days, and
they made good bread then, didn't they? People have been weighing
things for a long, long time. Thousands of years. In England and the
USA, volumetric measure is more common historically. In Europe, weight
is more common. Students in home ec classes are taught to weigh, and
most European housewives have a set of scales. Both methods have long
history. None of which addresses the central question, was bread in the
olden days better than today's? Who knows? Do you have a loaf of
medieval bread lying around?

Some claim they never measure and always make good bread. All the good
bakers I know personally measure carefully. And then they feel the
dough to make sure it feels right and taste the dough to make sure it
tastes right. At the end of the mix, they are depending more on their
experience than their scales. They'll adjust the dough by adding flour
or water, or putting in the salt the forgot. An experienced baker can
make good bread without measuring. However, the good baker will also
get their dough where they want it to be more quickly if they measure.

Mike

Mike

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message ...
> There are two purposes to recipes. One is so you can make the same
> recipe again and again. The other is so you can share the recipe ...

And so there will be plenty of stuff to fill the pages of cookbooks
and web sites.

> Some people mumble in their beards about the moisture content of their
> flour varying. Checking industry literature, the two layer paper sacks
> in common use do a very good job of maintaining the moisture levels of
> flour if the baker folds the bag shut between uses. No need for a chip
> clip, just fold the bag over.

Ha! I see. Paper is impermeable to moisture!!?

> If you are measuring with cups, your errors are likely to be
> much higher than the variations in flours. Especially if you are a
> scooper.

Nonsense! If you are even a mildly experienced scooper, you
can scoop accurately enough. If you can see and/or feel
your dough as it kneads, you will very soon be able to tell when
the water to flour ratio is right.

If you keep track of the total amount of water used, you can
weigh the final dough to check yourself. For instance, see
the small print down low at
http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/di...ctions_Rev.doc

One big problem with some measuring cups is that the graduation
marks do not come up to the top. Another is that they typically
measure 8 fluid ounces, which is very little. One may see my post
about cans as measures at:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...572c0633?hl=en

Incidentally, I love scales and balances. There are at least eight
in my home. They have their place. One good use is calibrating
the cans for flour weight. Also I have thermometers and hygrometers
and other similar stuff, but I do not use that stuff frequently.

--
Dicky

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:51:11 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote:

>
>"Retired VIP" > wrote in message ...
>> I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
>> ingredients. Do you weigh the salt, oil, sugar and eggs you put in
>> the dough? No? Just the flour and water? Then why are volume
>> measurements okay for everything except flour and water?
>
>Actually, volume measurements are very good for water, inasmuch
>as a pint is quite like a pound and a liter bears much resemblance
>to a kilogram.
>
>Another happy thing: a cup of flour weighs pretty much the same
>as another cup of flour from the same batch, provided it is
>scooped/packed/leveled/etc. in the same way. So you could
>weigh the first cup, and do the math for the rest, except, of course,
>math is a problem for you.
>
>(Only book writers and exhibitionists put oil, sugar, and eggs in
>sourdough bread.)

You've been talking to my wife! She has been saying for years that
I'm a pervert.

As for eggs, sugar and oil, it depends on what kind of bread I'm
making, some even call for milk or buttermilk. A lot of my bread
recipes are ones that I've adapted to use with a sourdough starter
instead of commercial yeast. I measure, by volume, everything except
the flour. I add x number of scoops of flour to the mix, start the
machine and add flour until I get the right texture dough. I couldn't
even begin to tell you how much flour I use in each recipe.

I remember a discussion that I overheard when I was a boy. My aunts
and my grandmother were discussing the need to sift the flour before
measuring it. My grandmother said that of course you needed to sift
it, how else could you get the wheat hulls and stone pieces out of the
flour? My grandmother was the best cook I ever met but she didn't
measure most of her ingredients. I'd give my left n-- to be able to
duplicate her Sweat Potato Pie.

Jack

It's above all a matter of preference. I worked the experiment once, and
that's how I know I'm not as cool as Dick. I measured several scoops
taken from the same flour bag with the same method within a minute or so
of eachother, and they varied by as much as 20%. Sure, weighing flour
doesn't account for the change in humidity over the period of a few days
or weeks or months or whatever, but it removes one variable. It just
makes things that much more reproduceable. So what if your measurements
don't work for someone in a different city with different humidity and
flour? It's consistent for you.

But the real reason I use a scale is it's a whole lot easier, a whole
lot less messy, and a whole lot easier to scale to arbitrary sizes. And
yes I usually write down the weights of every continuous ingredient.
Though liquids can be measured just as well by volume again it's just
another dish to clean.

Incidentally the reason I upgraded to this scale from my old one (which
was only 5-gram accurate) is unrelated to bread. A side bonus is that I
can weigh my salt now too and not go fishing for a teaspoon.

Retired VIP wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:29:53 -0700, Hans Fugal >
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> Does anybody have any recommendations on a good digital kitchen scale
>>> that is not terribly expensive?
>> I picked up an Escali Primo scale from Amazon for $25, and I am very
>> pleased with it. It tares, has 1g accuracy, comes in many colors. It
>> measures grams, lb oz, and just decimal oz (so you don't worry about
>> pounds when scaling, for example). It goes negative if you take
>> something off after taring, so if you forgot to tare the bowl first (for
>> example) you can still deduce. All in all, a fine scale at an affordable
>> price.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Escali-Primo-D...1613107&sr=8-1
>
> I've never been able to understand this obsession with weighing bread
> ingredients. Do you weigh the salt, oil, sugar and eggs you put in
> the dough? No? Just the flour and water? Then why are volume
> measurements okay for everything except flour and water?
>
> Thanks
> Jack

"Retired VIP" > wrote in message ...
> ... I'd give my left n-- to be able to duplicate (my grandmother's)
> Sweat Potato Pie.

Hey, that sounds like the punch line to a good one.

Do you remember that joke about the nooby who goes into a
bar when all of the jokes have numbers, and, attempting to enter
the conversation, innocently calls out a bad number, causing
great embarrassment to himself?

We can do something like that here, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...2779e8e5ea8f43

Actually, each post has two numbers. That one was the Google number.
There is also the news ID number which, for that, is

which would have been reported as

and can be brought back from the Google r.f.s. archive by clicking on

in case anybody in interested, which of course will not include all off the
braindead nOObies who will requote a whole thread over their stupid
one-line wisecrack.

--
Dicky

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Retired VIP" > wrote in message ...
>> ... I'd give my left n-- to be able to duplicate (my grandmother's)
>> Sweat Potato Pie.
>
> Hey, that sounds like the punch line to a good one.
>
> Do you remember that joke about the nooby who goes into a
> bar when all of the jokes have numbers, and, attempting to enter
> the conversation, innocently calls out a bad number, causing
> great embarrassment to himself?

I recall it as a prison joke book, well worn, and passed around.
Noobie reads it, finally gets up the nerve to call out a number, and
nobody laughs.
"Some people just can't tell a joke..."

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>> Some claim that people didn't weigh ingredients in the olden days, and
> they made good bread then, didn't they? People have been weighing
> things for a long, long time. Thousands of years. In England and the
> USA, volumetric measure is more common historically.

I agree wholeheartedly with your post, Mike, except for one little bit.
Weighing an ingredient has been part of English kitchen for a helluva long
time. I have the recipe book kept by my ex's GGM from the late 19th century
and *every* recipe is in weights (apart from the liquids where they use such
terms as "gill").
Graham

In article >,
says...
>
> "Mike Avery" > wrote in message ...

> > Some people mumble in their beards about the moisture content of their
> > flour varying. Checking industry literature, the two layer paper sacks
> > in common use do a very good job of maintaining the moisture levels of
> > flour if the baker folds the bag shut between uses. No need for a chip
> > clip, just fold the bag over.
>
> Ha! I see. Paper is impermeable to moisture!!?

No, of course not. However, a multi-layer sack does a good job of
keeping the moisture reasonably constant based on industry studies.

>
> > If you are measuring with cups, your errors are likely to be
> > much higher than the variations in flours. Especially if you are a
> > scooper.
>
> Nonsense! If you are even a mildly experienced scooper, you
> can scoop accurately enough. If you can see and/or feel
> your dough as it kneads, you will very soon be able to tell when
> the water to flour ratio is right.

Have you weighed a number of scoops? And repeated the test on another
day?

Yes, an experienced baker can tell when the dough feels right. As I've
said repeatedly every time this topic comes up. However, the beginning
baker doesn't have that ability, and it is easier for a beginning baker
to make dough that is close enough when measuring by weight.

Mike

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message t...
> Have you weighed a number of scoops? And repeated the test on another
> day?

Well, as I may have mentioned, by the application elemenary rocket
science to the final dough weight and total water volume, I get figures
for the (bakers') "hydration" as well as the total flour weight. Having
the flour weight and remembering, if I can, the number I cups used, I can,
using advance mathematical techniques, determine the density of the
flour in terms of ounces or grams per cup. That stays pretty constant
for a given sack of flour (increasing slightly during summer humidity).

> Yes, an experienced baker can tell when the dough feels right.

One of the ladies mentioned that, when you see the "dancing toe"
the dough is right. That is a little wiggly thing, shaped like a miniature
"waterspout" (whirlwind picking up water) under the spinning doughball
as it clings to the rotating doughhook. I happen to know that lady,
and she is a complete idiot, so if it works for her, it should work for
anybody.

--
Dicky

I think the point of all of this is in sharing recipes. If the
humidity has changed it really won't be that much based on my
experience, and Mum, now retired, having run the family bakery, going
since the 19thC, weighed everything and never in her whole life had to
adjust for Mersey Valley quirks in humidity. How does she weigh? She
uses a jug to scoop. So, she's a canny lady, why didn't she just ditch
the scale stage? Because scooping is just too variable. It's a
question of time. Sure, she could have adjusted the recipe as all the
scoopers mention. The point is using the scale you don't have to
adjust. More to the point if you don't know what the dough should feel
like then how should you be expected to know how to consistently
scoop, or what Dick mean by one cup or Dusty, or me? Even the flour
mills and books don't seem to agree on that one.

Sure, different flours need different amounts of water so yes you have
to adjust but it's so much more consistent with a scale.

Anyway I don't think most of us care how people make their bread but
the people that use volume get very hot under the collar about their
cups. That says says to me they're not so confident about the whole
thing as they like to make out. Anyway, a set of scales aren't going
to break the bank so as intelligent people we surely can make our own
minds up. I still use my cups at least two or three times a week and
use the scales about the same, but when I make bread I use the cup
only as a hnady scoop for the scale to do the real work. Horses for
courses is how I see it.

Jim



On 11 Feb, 16:30, Mike Avery -
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> says...
>
>
>
> > "Mike Avery" ...
> > > Some people mumble in their beards about the moisture content of their
> > > flour varying. *Checking industry literature, the two layer paper sacks
> > > in common use do a very good job of maintaining the moisture levels of
> > > flour if the baker folds the bag shut between uses. *No need for a chip
> > > clip, just fold the bag over.
>
> > Ha! *I see. *Paper is impermeable to moisture!!?
>
> No, of course not. *However, a multi-layer sack does a good job of
> keeping the moisture reasonably constant based on industry studies.
>
>
>
> > > If you are measuring with cups, your errors are likely to be
> > > much higher than the variations in flours. *Especially if you are a
> > > scooper.
>
> > Nonsense! *If you are even a mildly experienced scooper, you
> > can scoop accurately enough. *If you can see and/or feel
> > your dough as it kneads, you will very soon be able to tell when
> > the water to flour ratio is right.
>
> Have you weighed a number of scoops? *And repeated the test on another
> day?
>
> Yes, an experienced baker can tell when the dough feels right. *As I've
> said repeatedly every time this topic comes up. *However, the beginning
> baker doesn't have that ability, and it is easier for a beginning baker
> to make dough that is close enough when measuring by weight.
>
> Mike

"TG" > wrote in message ...

> I think the point of all of this is in sharing recipes.

A recipe is pretty much like a shopping list with a few
words of advice attached. But, like baseball cards,
collecting a bunch of them will not make you a
better baker or better batter.

> Anyway, a set of scales aren't going to break the bank
> so as intelligent people we surely can make our own
> minds up. I still use my cups at least two or three times a
> week and use the scales about the same, but when I make
> bread I use the cup only as a hnady scoop for the scale to
> do the real work.

Surely you are intelligent, but perhaps you will be more so
when you learn to calibrate your scoop for flour weight and
to use it skillfully.

Well, it should be added that good scooping needs a flour
container quite larger than the scoop. For instance, it is
hard to use a cup-sized scoop in a 2-lb bag of boutique
flour, or even a 5-lb bag of supermarket flour. On the
other hand, a 3.5-cup scoop (bean can) is not too big for
a 50-lb sack of flour.

If you are a commercial baker, you will certainly want to
go by weight -- so many 50- or 100-lb sacks, for instance.
I have rebuilt a Dr. balance that's good for such sacks. It
appears that unopened sacks of flour weigh more in the summer
time than in the winter, but I should refine that observation more
quantitatively. Bakers could probably use the weight gain to
figure how much less water to use, but I don't they have
come around to that yet.

Otherwise, you can largely save your scale/balance for darkroom
chemistry (if anybody does that any more) or weighing
recreational herbs. (Incidentally, if you are a balance fetishist, it
is sometimes possible, if you are on good terms with your police
department, to get an O'Haus triple-beam balance that is one
of many that are confiscated from dope dealers.)(Of course, you
may have to rat out one of your friends to clinch the deal.)

> Horses for courses is how I see it.

You can lead a horse to a scale, but you can't make him
weigh himself.

--
Dicky

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:20:44 -0800 (PST), TG >
wrote:


>
>Anyway I don't think most of us care how people make their bread but
>the people that use volume get very hot under the collar about their
>cups. That says says to me they're not so confident about the whole
>thing as they like to make out.

Why not come to a more logical conclusion - that they use a method
that is simple, works for them and see no reason to be harangued into
change.

>Anyway, a set of scales aren't going
>to break the bank so as intelligent people we surely can make our own
>minds up. I still use my cups at least two or three times a week and
>use the scales about the same, but when I make bread I use the cup
>only as a hnady scoop for the scale to do the real work. Horses for
>courses is how I see it.
>

I can see the necessity of scales for bakeries, where different
workers may be involved in the process, but not the average home user
- unless s/he is more comfortable that way - I don't care what mixer a
person uses, or if they use no mixer and hand knead or if they use
stretch and fold or prefer one flour over another or holy water over
tap...what it comes down to is a home baker finds a methodology that
is most convenient and produces the desired results and then sticks
with it or ventures beyond based on knowledge and a sense of
adventure. When someone comes along and says that a successful baker
is doing it all wrong, it isn't lack of confidence that makes 'em get
hot under the collar, it is the chafe of the restraint in not telling
a busybody to **** off.

I surely don't weigh out stuff for my regular baking. I used my scale
primarily for evenly dividing up the dough into loaves/rolls, etc.,
but I've found I'm pretty good at that, too, by this point in my
baking.

There is no one true path to successful home baking, and there is no
one true path for being successful at it professionally, either.

Boron

On Feb 12, 7:45 am, Boron Elgar > wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:20:44 -0800 (PST), TG >
> wrote:

> ...I used my scale primarily...

I knew you had one... you devil :-)

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:20:44 -0800 (PST), TG >
wrote:

>
>I think the point of all of this is in sharing recipes. If the
>humidity has changed it really won't be that much based on my
>experience, and Mum, now retired, having run the family bakery, going
>since the 19thC, weighed everything and never in her whole life had to
>adjust for Mersey Valley quirks in humidity. How does she weigh? She
>uses a jug to scoop. So, she's a canny lady, why didn't she just ditch
>the scale stage? Because scooping is just too variable. It's a
>question of time. Sure, she could have adjusted the recipe as all the
>scoopers mention. The point is using the scale you don't have to
>adjust. More to the point if you don't know what the dough should feel
>like then how should you be expected to know how to consistently
>scoop, or what Dick mean by one cup or Dusty, or me? Even the flour
>mills and books don't seem to agree on that one.

Commercial bakers are concerned with production. They have a limited
number of ovens and they have to schedule their baking so that they
don't have dough that has over-risen or ovens that are heated but not
producing anything. Hence scales. They're faster than measuring out
155 cups of flour and 143 cups of water. Also, it is easier to
automate production using weight.
>
>Sure, different flours need different amounts of water so yes you have
>to adjust but it's so much more consistent with a scale.

And using a scale instead of a measuring cup makes this adjustment
unneeded?
>
>Anyway I don't think most of us care how people make their bread but
>the people that use volume get very hot under the collar about their
>cups. That says says to me they're not so confident about the whole
>thing as they like to make out. Anyway, a set of scales aren't going
>to break the bank so as intelligent people we surely can make our own
>minds up. I still use my cups at least two or three times a week and
>use the scales about the same, but when I make bread I use the cup
>only as a hnady scoop for the scale to do the real work. Horses for
>courses is how I see it.
>
>Jim
>

Wait a minute. You use scales because they're more accurate yet you
advocate buying inexpensive scales. That doesn't make sense. When it
comes to scales, you get what you pay for. If you don't have accuracy
then your 150 grams of flour might be my 120 grams of flour (+- 10%).

I'm not upset or hot under the collar even though I use volume
measurements. I really don't care how you make your bread or what it
tastes like. If you want to spend money buying scales, go for it.
Just don't assume that you have a lock on the proper way to measure.

Jack

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:31:50 -0800 (PST), Will
> wrote:

>On Feb 12, 7:45 am, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:20:44 -0800 (PST), TG >
>> wrote:
>
>> ...I used my scale primarily...
>
>I knew you had one... you devil :-)

There are lots of uses for a kitchen scale besides bread recipes.

And actually, I have two.

Boron

Bloody hell, lol, you guys really did get hot under the collar about
all this.

Where do I start? I thought I was pretty balanced (pun intended) about
what I said but expressed my own personal preference for using an
inexpensive digital scale which btw is accurate enough for me, I can't
remember the accuracy but it was a hell of a lot better than 10% lol,
that would make them pretty useless. lol. I think it cost me 20
squids. I just did a quick search on Amazon, you can pick up Salter
scales for about 13 quid and cups for 6 on the same page. Anyway I
don't think it's about price, if price were the issue you could use
handfuls as a measure and you have the experience to know what you're
doing. The point that I made was if you don't have the experience then
measuring by a scale is easier IMHO and a quicker too again IMHO.

The comment 'horses for course', I thought, was pretty clear in that
it meant scales are better for some people and uses while cups are
better for others. It really doesn't matter what you use as far as I'm
concerned. My opinion is not worth a jot except it seems to you guys.
lol. Some of you didn't grasp the use of the word 'jugs'. Perhaps if I
explain, a jugs is a large vessel with a lip for pouring and a handle
for easy one handed use, they are usually large but can be small, the
one my mum uses is a 2 litre jugs so weighing up kilos of flour isn't
so difficult.

Humidity. Perhaps if you live in an area when humidity is a problem
then measuring with cups is easier but I doubt anyone using cups would
be so accurate as to notice.

Scaling. The reason it's far easier for me to use a scale rather than
cups is because I rarely make the same recipe twice. I always use 70%
hydration for my basic dough but sometimes make a little and sometimes
a lot. It's far easier for my befuddled brain to handle scaling with a
digital scale and the back of an envelope to write out my recipe. Oh,
I rarely use the same proportion of starter either so that's another
reason using my scale is easier. Perhaps when I've been baking for 50
years and do the same thing day in day out I'll go back to baking with
my cups but I expect I'll have switched to just pouring the flour in
the bowl by then as it's about as accurate as cups (and quicker) and
what I do when I'm not at home. Or perhaps I should calibrate my cup.
How I do that though I've no idea. lol. Do I use a hammer?

Dicky I think you need to fix your kill file, it isn't working you
were the first to reply to my post.

Chill guys.

Jim

On 12 Feb, 15:54, Retired VIP <jackj.ex....net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:20:44 -0800 (PST), TG <sourdough...net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I think the point of all of this is in sharing recipes. If the
> >humidity has changed it really won't be that much based on my
> >experience, and Mum, ....proper way to measure.
>
> Jack

"TG" > wrote in message ...

> Dicky I think you need to fix your kill file, it isn't working you
> were the first to reply to my post.

Yes, well, every now and then when it seems there is absolutely
nothing here, one might turn the file killer briefly off just to check.

> perhaps I should calibrate my cup. How I do that though I've
> no idea. lol. Do I use a hammer?

Well, the first thought would be to determine, by weighing, the
amount of flour contained in the cup. But modifying the volume
of the cup, by pounding on it, or otherwise, is a possibility.

Evaluation of the flour content by repetitive weighings would, of
course, get rapidly into advanced mathematical techniques, like,
for instance, taking averages -- eventually into standard error,
and standard error of the error, and stuff like that. Then it is
time to take another look at
http://samartha.net/SD/images/BYDATE...-05/index.html

--
Dicky

Okay, sounds like someone was having a root canal when they came up
with that method. Wu Wei, Wewer Awen!

Jim

On 13 Feb, 14:37, "Dick Adams" > wrote:
..
> Evaluation of the flour content by repetitive weighings would, of
> course, get rapidly into advanced mathematical techniques, like,
> for instance, taking averages -- eventually into standard error,
> and standard error of the error, and stuff like that. *Then it is
> time to take another look athttp://samartha.net/SD/images/BYDATE/02-08-05/index.html
>
> --
> Dicky