I have been going over some recipes in a book I have, and it has both
a recipe for "Pain au Levain" and "Whole Wheat Sourdough" both of which
are stated as making two 1 1/2 lb loaves.


The Pain au Levain calls for 5 cups of AP flour, 2/3 cup of Whole Wheat
flour, 2 1/2 cups starter, 1 3/4 cups water, and 2 1/2 tsp salt.

The Whole Wheat Sourdough calls for 1 cup AP flour, 2 1/2 cups Whole
Wheat flour, 2 tbls honey, 2 cups starter, 1 1/4 cups water and 2 tbls
salt.

It seems to me that these different flour weight recipes could not
possibly each make two 1 1/2 lb loaves.

After contacting the creator of the book by email, this was the
responce:

"Actually there is very little difference in the outcome of the
recipes. For the dough you will have 3 oz difference in the weight of
each loaf. But because whole wheat will absorb more liquid when you
bake it the difference will be less then an ounce in the two recipes.
All-purpose flour will not absorb as much liquid so more moisture will
bake off."

Does anyone care to elaborate on this? I am lost (again).

hutchndi

Whole wheat flour has fiber and gluten that binds more water and it
does not release much during baking if compared to white flour that has
only gluten...

I can't really comment on all that cupped white stuff, but what puzzles
me is a claimed accuracy of less than one ounce with cup measurements.

Then, 2 cups of starter and 2 1/2 cups of starter - how gassy is it,
when one measures and how fluffy is the flour and how moist?

If the author makes those claims, maybe you made a good point and he
cannot face it straight. He measures in volumes and comes back in weight
to you.

Well, let's add it up, just the flour and water:

my cup flour is 156 g
my cup water is 230 g

I white:

5 2/3 x 156 = 880
1 3/4 x 230 = 403
1283

II more whole wheat:

3 1/2 x 156 = 546
1 1/4 x 230 = 288
834

+ maybe 50 g for the honey and what's 1/2 cup difference in starter?

There is maybe a 300-ish g difference on flour and water, on a
supposedly finished 750 g loaf which is going to loose so much more on
one loaf, to differ less than 30 g?

And that 300-ish g difference is 3 oz before baking? 28.5 g/oz x 3 =
85.5 g - sure!

Looks to me - that author has a problem. Maybe his water collects
outside on the bottom of one loaf to evaporate? You could ask him.

I would not waste my time with this. If you start contacting all the
authors of stupid or incorrect sourdough references in their
literatures, you got your work cut out for you.

Samartha


hutchndi wrote:
> I have been going over some recipes in a book I have, and it has both
> a recipe for "Pain au Levain" and "Whole Wheat Sourdough" both of which
> are stated as making two 1 1/2 lb loaves.
>
>
> The Pain au Levain calls for 5 cups of AP flour, 2/3 cup of Whole Wheat
> flour, 2 1/2 cups starter, 1 3/4 cups water, and 2 1/2 tsp salt.
>
> The Whole Wheat Sourdough calls for 1 cup AP flour, 2 1/2 cups Whole
> Wheat flour, 2 tbls honey, 2 cups starter, 1 1/4 cups water and 2 tbls
> salt.
>
> It seems to me that these different flour weight recipes could not
> possibly each make two 1 1/2 lb loaves.
>
> After contacting the creator of the book by email, this was the
> responce:
>
> "Actually there is very little difference in the outcome of the
> recipes. For the dough you will have 3 oz difference in the weight of
> each loaf. But because whole wheat will absorb more liquid when you
> bake it the difference will be less then an ounce in the two recipes.
> All-purpose flour will not absorb as much liquid so more moisture will
> bake off."
>
> Does anyone care to elaborate on this? I am lost (again).
>
> hutchndi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rec.food.sourdough mailing list
>
> http://www.mountainbitwarrior.com/ma...food.sourdough
>
>

"Samartha Deva" > wrote in message
news:mailman.1135840531.30171.rec.food.sourdough@w ww.mountainbitwarrior.co
m...

>
> I would not waste my time with this. If you start contacting all the
> authors of stupid or incorrect sourdough references in their
> literatures, you got your work cut out for you.
>
> Samartha
>


Actually this is from "King Arthur Flour Baker's Companion", a cookbook
not
completly devoted to breadbaking, alot of cakes and pastry, but with a
section on bread and sourdough. Questions and comments are encouraged
through their website, so I didnt have to hunt anybody down. I havent
actually tryed either of these recipes, but as this is a popular book
(judging by its rare availability in my public library), I would not be
surprised if there are many home bakers who have had trouble with this, if
the difference is as much as you calculate, and the company does not
acknowledge a problem with the recipes.

hutchndi

hutchndi wrote:
> "Samartha Deva" > wrote in message
> news:mailman.1135840531.30171.rec.food.sourdough@w ww.mountainbitwarrior.co
> m...
>
> >
> > I would not waste my time with this. If you start contacting all the
> > authors of stupid or incorrect sourdough references in their
> > literatures, you got your work cut out for you.
> >
> > Samartha
> >
I would not be
> surprised if there are many home bakers who have had trouble with this, if
> the difference is as much as you calculate, and the company does not
> acknowledge a problem with the recipes.
>
> hutchndi

That just goes to prove that you should check out thoroughly the people
you take advice from before spending time, effort and/or money on what
they say. Always find out from others they have advised if they think
it's worth it. Way too many recipe books give just plain wrong advice
and recipes. I was glad Father Christmas didn't bring any recipe books
for me this year : -)

Hutch, you've got excel it isn't too difficult to write a file that
converts all these different measurements for you so you can compare
with tried and tested recipes. If a recipe is going to tell you to bake
a loaf with a weird hydration or ingredient content you won't waist
time and ingredients on it.

TG

"hutchndi" > wrote in message
news:tEQsf.10920$NS.6659@dukeread04...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Samartha Deva" > wrote in message
> news:mailman.1135840531.30171.rec.food.sourdough@w ww.mountainbitwarrior.co
> m...
>
>>
>> I would not waste my time with this. If you start contacting all the
>> authors of stupid or incorrect sourdough references in their
>> literatures, you got your work cut out for you.
>>
>> Samartha
>>
>
>
> Actually this is from "King Arthur Flour Baker's Companion", a cookbook
> not
> completly devoted to breadbaking, alot of cakes and pastry, but with a
> section on bread and sourdough. Questions and comments are encouraged
> through their website, so I didnt have to hunt anybody down. I havent
> actually tryed either of these recipes, but as this is a popular book
> (judging by its rare availability in my public library), I would not be
> surprised if there are many home bakers who have had trouble with this, if
> the difference is as much as you calculate, and the company does not
> acknowledge a problem with the recipes.
>
> hutchndi
>
IIRC, that book extols the virtues of weighing ingredients when baking and
all the cake recipes are "bilingual" for those who can't be bothered to buy
scales. I can't remember if the bread recipes are also given in weights but
I would think that they are.
Graham

ham" > wrote in message
news:FHSsf.208595$ki.141798@pd7tw2no...
>
> >
> IIRC, that book extols the virtues of weighing ingredients when baking and
> all the cake recipes are "bilingual" for those who can't be bothered to
buy
> scales. I can't remember if the bread recipes are also given in weights
but
> I would think that they are.
> Graham
>
>

You are right, here they a

Pain au Levain
1 pound, 5 oz AP flour
3 oz WW flour
14 oz water
1 pound starter
2 1/2 tsp salt


WW Sourdough
4 1/2 oz AP flour
14 oz WW flour
10 oz water
1 1/2 oz honey
14 oz starter
2 tsp salt

hutchndi wrote:
> "Samartha Deva" > wrote in message
> news:mailman.1135840531.30171.rec.food.sourdough@w ww.mountainbitwarrior.co
> m...
>
>> I would not waste my time with this. If you start contacting all the
>> authors of stupid or incorrect sourdough references in their
>> literatures, you got your work cut out for you.
>>
>> Samartha
>>
>
>
> Actually this is from "King Arthur Flour Baker's Companion", a cookbook

Well, whatever - seems there is some investment there. Maybe it's a good
book overall and this is just a glitch which can be tolerated.

They should respond properly and admitting that there maybe something
off instead of trying to smart you out. I would hate that - just giving
me some junk of info to make me shut up.

Thinking about it, that a finer flour takes up less water may be - but I
would think one can use a wider range of hydration to make bread with a
particular four. In any case, the water is absorbed in the dough the
main factor in water evaporation I found to be the shape of the loaf.
Smaller loafs - baguette style loose most, I found. Maybe flatbreads
even more.

It bothers me that this kind of baloney is coming from a flour company -
they seem to be giving baking classes.

Even Hamelman got something wrong with his pumpernickel description but
this book is so great, who cares about this little thing.


Samartha

> Smaller loafs - baguette style loose most, I found. Maybe flatbreads
> even more.
>
> It bothers me that this kind of baloney is coming from a flour company -
> they seem to be giving baking classes.
>
> Even Hamelman got something wrong with his pumpernickel description but
> this book is so great, who cares about this little thing.
>
>
> Samartha

Yeah, we all make mistakes : -) it's what you do to put it right that
makes you better. It looks like KA don't going to get better anytime
soon.

TG

TG wrote:

> It looks like KA don't going to get better anytime
> soon.

I added up the weights and got 54 ounces plus salt for the white bread
and 58 ounces plus salt for the wheat. The white bread has slightly
more salt than the wheat 2.5 teaspoons to 2 teaspoons... so when they
responded to Hutch via email and said the difference was 3 ounces and
the whole grain would retain more water they were exactly correct.

I think your earlier point about converting to weight via Excel is spot
on. Converting to metric via Excel is simple and it would have made
things obvious (even for Hutch <g>). This business with cups and spoons
is for the birds. But KA knows it. It's the publishers that insist on
keeping it going.

Both Samartha and Mike Avery have good spreadsheet calculators that are
easily off-loaded from their sites. And decent gram scales are cheap
too. Unless you simply have to have an Edlund.

Will

On 29 Dec 2005 10:58:43 -0800, Will > wrote:
>
>
> TG wrote:
>
> > It looks like KA don't going to get better anytime
> > soon.
>
> I added up the weights and got 54 ounces plus salt for the white bread
> and 58 ounces plus salt for the wheat. The white bread has slightly
> more salt than the wheat 2.5 teaspoons to 2 teaspoons... so when they
> responded to Hutch via email and said the difference was 3 ounces and
> the whole grain would retain more water they were exactly correct.


It's interesting how different people have come up with woldly different
weights for these recipes. In fairness, I suspect you really should look at
sacks of KA flour to see how many grams they think are in a cup of white and
wheat flour.

However, the other side of the matter is.... how many home bakers really
care if their loaf is the weight the recipe says it should be? If you're
selling bread, customers get upset if your loaves are underweight. In the
end, I don't think it's that big a deal for most of us.

Mike

Mike Avery wrote:

> It's interesting how different people have come up with woldly different
> weights for these recipes.

Mike... I used the weights Hutch published earlier in the thread. They
are from KA.

> However, the other side of the matter is.... how many home bakers really
> care if their loaf is the weight the recipe says it should be?

I agree. A finished loaf is whatever it turns out to be.

Weight does help me understand relationships though. 3 cups of flour
and 1 and a quarter cups of water don't translate (for me) as well as
1000 grams of flour and 650 grams of water. In the metric world I can
capacity scale for various baskets or switch to cloches easily. I also
know what to expect from the dough, handling-wise, since the water
ratio is explicit.

My youngest son has got me into pastry. I would be lost there without
my scale and thermometer <g>.

Will

No.

It don't make no sense.

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message
news:mailman.0.1135883551.763.rec.food.sourdough@m ail.otherwhen.com...



"It's interesting how different people have come up with woldly different
weights for these recipes. In fairness, I suspect you really should look at
sacks of KA flour to see how many grams they think are in a cup of white and
wheat flour."

According to the weights page in the afore mentioned book, KA says their
unbleached AP flour weighs 4 1/4 oz per cup. Whole wheat is shown as 5 1/4
oz per cup.


However, the other side of the matter is.... how many home bakers really
care if their loaf is the weight the recipe says it should be? If you're
selling bread, customers get upset if your loaves are underweight. In the
end, I don't think it's that big a deal for most of us.

I didnt mean to start a thread trashing KA recipe books or anything, I was
simply confused by the differences, and thought I would double check with
you people before trying the sourdough whole wheat recipe and having it come
up short. I dont really care what specific weight my bread ends up anyways,
my concern comes from the fact that I am trying to use these new brotforms
of mine, they are 1 1/2 lb sized, and if I raised too little dough to the
top it might be overproofed.

hutchndi

hutchndi wrote:

> I dont really care what specific weight my bread ends up anyways,
> my concern comes from the fact that I am trying to use these new brotforms
> of mine, they are 1 1/2 lb sized, and if I raised too little dough to the
> top it might be overproofed.

Hutch....

That's exactly the point. You always want to scale a formula to fit
your basket, banneton, brotform, loaf pan, cloche etc. Once you've
established the weight range for each container you can either scale
the dough up front for the equipment you wish you use or... change
equipment to accomodate what you've made. That way the proofing volume
always fits the container and you aren't tempted to push or short a
proof.

I like to do cold oven starts. So it's great to build just the right
amount of dough to fill the cloches (cold start) and subsequently fill
a couple of brotforms for a hot bake. It sounds complicated but it
isn't. After a while it's just a useful habit.

By the way... do you suspect KA reduced the starter in the WW, relative
to the white levain, because they'd included honey?

Will

Dick Adams wrote:
> No.
>
> It don't make no sense.

lol. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to be quite so street. That's what
happens when you edit.

Thanks for the references Will. Perhaps I should have punched those
figures in to that excel file I was talking about : -)

TG

"Will" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> By the way... do you suspect KA reduced the starter in the WW, relative
> to the white levain, because they'd included honey?
>


Why, to slow things down somehow? I am guessing, I only know from my own
experiences that adding sweets usually means faster rising, but less flavor.
The whozits seem to have sweet tooths and go for the treats and dont do
their job the same. How that exactly relates to the starter amount doesnt
click (in my head, maybe yours?). The whozits will catch up even without the
extra amount, results being not much different, no?

hutchndi

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"Samartha Deva"
>
wrote >
> Even Hamelman got something wrong with his pumpernickel description but
> this book is so great, who cares about this little thing.
>


I just got his Bread book from the library (where since I requested its
purchase in the first place, it is perpetually unavailable) for the second
time. The first time there was some interesting reading but I saw it as
more
than I could chew, and besides all the recipes needed translation to
pinches
and handfulls, or at least cups and spoons. Taking another look at them,
they are also for slightly more than I can fit in my oven (22 loaves / or
1
large loaf) and I am wondering how many have purchased this and found it
too
daunting, one clue being the purchase price at King Arthur Flour is
$40.00,
but you can go to Amazon.com for $23.00 and find plenty of used copies for
less. Anyways, I have read that directly proportioning leavening ratios
from
a small dough batch to a large batch is not a good idea, and how well it
works to scale these formulas down,(if I actually WEIGHED things that is)
for a home baker and intentional dumb downer like me. For some reason I am
warming up to this book, it doesnt seem quite so martian to me this time.

I dont know why some of my posts are cut off a few words at the beginning.
I
am trying to compensate. Wouldnt want anyone to miss anything.

hutchndi

hutchndi wrote:
> I have read that directly proportioning leavening ratios from
> a small dough batch to a large batch is not a good idea, and how well it
> works to scale these formulas down,(if I actually WEIGHED things that is)
> for a home baker and intentional dumb downer like me. For some reason I am
> warming up to this book, it doesnt seem quite so martian to me this time.

Hutch...

Here's a thought... when you get a dough that fits your brotform just
right, weigh it. Do it this way: Weigh the proofed dough AND the
brotform before you invert. Weigh the brotfrom later and subtract to
find your dough's net weight.

Let's say that dough weighs 800 grams. Every single formula in
Hamelman's book is easily scaled to those 800 grams. Every formula has
a published baker's ratio. Once you work out your dough weights for
each basket, pan or whatever, you can precisely build the right amount
of dough and be able to evaluate the final proof correctly. Of course
there is windage required as you shift from whole grain to bolted
flours, but you can weigh those cases and establish solid benchmarks.

This is the ultimate dumbing down.

Hamelman's book is rather good. Maybe your library should splurge and
get a couple more copies. If I had to reduce my bread shelf to two
books... they would include Hamelman and Wing.

Will

hutchndi wrote:
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"Samartha Deva"
> >
> wrote >
>> Even Hamelman got something wrong with his pumpernickel description but
>> this book is so great, who cares about this little thing.
>>
>
>
> I just got his Bread book from the library (where since I requested its
> purchase in the first place, it is perpetually unavailable) for the second
> time. The first time there was some interesting reading but I saw it as
> more
> than I could chew, and besides all the recipes needed translation to
> pinches
> and handfulls, or at least cups and spoons. Taking another look at them,
> they are also for slightly more than I can fit in my oven (22 loaves / or
> 1
> large loaf) and I am wondering how many have purchased this and found it
> too
> daunting,

Well, my method differs somewhat. I take whatever recipe is there,
convert it to my system: ratios and metric weight with my standard
starter either white or rye DM3 and go from there. That's a little bit
more work in the beginning when converting the recipe but once I have
it, I can either go from starter amount available to get the dough or
plug in the final amount to know how much starter I need to grow with
the SD calculators I have on my web site.

So far, I have done only one recipe of his book - potato bread which
came out great.

In essence, all recipes can be converted into ratios and then expanded
to the desired amount.

This may not work with fancy procedures but works great for what I need.

that was 30 % rye with 70 % hydration:

http://samartha.net/SD/images/PC290028.JPG

this one (little out of focus) was 60 %, I think:

http://samartha.net/SD/images/PC290030.JPG

and the bread fairies helping, of cause:

http://samartha.net/SD/images/breadFaeriesCaught.jpg

(don't know who made this great picture?)

Happy New Year!

Samartha

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What I said before about cups dumbing down... my mistake. After taking
a
closer look at these recipes in Hamelmans book, I see thay have a "home"
column, where everything is scaled down to make 2 or three loaves and in
optional volume measurements. Thats what I get for seeing oz or kg and
imediatley turning the page. After reading Will's praises and seeing
Samartha's pics, I was (almost) tempted to borrow a scale, to give it a
try. Now it looks like I can give these recipes a whirl. One more concern
though, online reviews point out that not all the "home" measurements
translate properly. This of course doesnt mean that the formulas were
followed properly by the reviewers either. Until my stubborness about
avoiding scales begins to fade, has anyone seen an easy to use Excel file
sourdough calculator that really works with converting to cups and spoon
measurements?

hutchndi

hutchndi wrote:

>. Until my stubborness about
> avoiding scales begins to fade, has anyone seen an easy to use Excel file
> sourdough calculator that really works with converting to cups and spoon
> measurements?

Hutch... I'm not getting the picture here <bg>.

You will install a web cam to surveil your proof but not use a scale to
measure ingredients?

Will

Will wrote:

>
> hutchndi wrote:
>
>> . Until my stubborness about
>> avoiding scales begins to fade, has anyone seen an easy to use
>> Excel file
>> sourdough calculator that really works with converting to cups
>> and spoon
>> measurements?
>
> Hutch... I'm not getting the picture here <bg>.
>
> You will install a web cam to surveil your proof but not use a
> scale to
> measure ingredients?
>
> Will

He's got a point. lol. And think about the effort of converting all
your measurements from cups to spoons. 1 cup of flour is about 16
Tables spoons according to my converter. Is that level or free and
easy slap dash. Much easier to get some good digital scales that will
weigh up to at least 2 kilos and has a TARA function. Mine hang on
the wall over where I bake.

And remember that 1 cup of starter, 1 cups of water, and 1 cup of
flour et.c. all have different weights just to confuse things.

TG

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Will" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You will install a web cam to surveil your proof but not use a scale to
> measure ingredients?
>
> Will
>

Well Will, my sole purpose in this whole sourdough thing was not to make
myself a loaf of bread, an item which I identified as what my wife was
buying from the grocery store. Those things came from people using formulas
and bakers math and scales and dough conitioners and additives and
scientific aproaches all rolled up and packaged into something somewhat
marketable, though not necessarily in great demand by me.

Perhaps a bit of folly here on my part, but the unreachable goal of having
something I made myself be anything like what may have come out of the oven
of some trail camp cook, midieval serf, egyption peasant, the Bedrock
Bakery, or hobbit hole kitchen just does not seem to be remotely attainable
by getting too technical. I am probably really wrong in assuming the early
bakers would not have used the Eectromatic 8000 Ultra Violet Lazer Scale
with the optional bell and whistle attachment if it were available to them.
Alas, the more I get into this, the more I find myself willing to stray into
information ground I initially sidestepped. I have even visited Samartha's
site as of late.

My Dough Cam, I just couldnt resist, my final rise of the dough has become
too important to let happen without my watchful eye if I could help it, and
now that it is set up, is so simple all I have to do is turn it on if I know
I am going to find myself in a place where I can access it.

Who knows what I will allow myself in the future?

hutchndi

Will wrote:
> hutchndi wrote:
>
>
>>. Until my stubborness about
>>avoiding scales begins to fade, has anyone seen an easy to use Excel file
>>sourdough calculator that really works with converting to cups and spoon
>>measurements?
>
>
> Hutch... I'm not getting the picture here <bg>.
>
> You will install a web cam to surveil your proof but not use a scale to
> measure ingredients?
>
> Will
>
Scales make life so much simpler. Don't have to find matching cups (
cause they aren't all standard), can divide easily, only one piece of
necessary equipment to keep track of, etc.
Ellen

hutchndi wrote:

> Well Will, my sole purpose in this whole sourdough thing was not to make
> myself a loaf of bread

AHA. You admit to noble purpose.

> Alas, the more I get into this, the more I find myself willing to stray into
> information ground I initially sidestepped. I have even visited Samartha's
> site as of late.

You admit to desiring great bread.

> My Dough Cam, I just couldnt resist, my final rise of the dough has become
> too important to let happen without my watchful eye if I could help it, and
> now that it is set up, is so simple all I have to do is turn it on if I know
> I am going to find myself in a place where I can access it.
> It is worth a dough cam to have that great bread.

> Who knows what I will allow myself in the future?

Who knows indeed? I denied the logic of building a proof box for at
least the last 10 years.

But maybe... I need a web cam.

Why don't you post a how-to on that?

Will

hutchndi wrote:
> Until my stubborness about
> avoiding scales begins to fade, has anyone seen an easy to use Excel file
> sourdough calculator that really works with converting to cups and spoon
> measurements?
>


Here is the deal. If you want simplicity, buy the scale. I am a fierce
proponent of simplicity. However, when testing, fixing problems, or
trying something new - I use the scale. If you eschew the scale, but
seek an Excel solution, you simply can not believably proclaim a quest
for simplicity.

The scale will lead you to simplicity. Once you find a loaf that you
like well enough to repeat on a frequent schedule, your senses will
learn the measurements with greater accuracy than the scale. However,
you do need the scale for consistent initial repeats.

Well, you also need to maintain good Karma in the kitchen in order to
facilitate your senses learning.

Stubborness can be a good thing, but here it is getting in the way.

Regards,


Charles

"Charles Perry" > wrote in message
ink.net...


> The scale will lead you to simplicity. Once you find a loaf that you
> like well enough to repeat on a frequent schedule, your senses will
> learn the measurements with greater accuracy than the scale. However,
> you do need the scale for consistent initial repeats.
>
> Well, you also need to maintain good Karma in the kitchen in order to
> facilitate your senses learning.

Ah, I feel the winds are changing already. Nicely put Charles.

hutchndi

hey hutch,
great work on the camera, looks better than ever. as to the scale issue- i
too am opposed to technical stuff, however i bought a scale and didn't do
much with it at first, but i decided to check my ability to portion my dough
equally by eye, which is what i used to do. to my great surprise "by eye"
measuring is nowhere close to reality. using a scale is the only way to
divide a lump equally, and be within 50g or so. just one use besides in
recipes. also, not sure why you are having trouble with the way your
posting looks, but i go by the rule of never hitting the enter key unless i
want to make a new paragraph, software will automatically adjust whatever
size window, i think.


"hutchndi" > wrote in message
news:l1Stf.181$Dh.178@dukeread04...
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> What I said before about cups dumbing down... my mistake. After taking
> a
> closer look at these recipes in Hamelmans book, I see thay have a "home"
> column, where everything is scaled down to make 2 or three loaves and in
> optional volume measurements. Thats what I get for seeing oz or kg and
> imediatley turning the page. After reading Will's praises and seeing
> Samartha's pics, I was (almost) tempted to borrow a scale, to give it a
> try. Now it looks like I can give these recipes a whirl. One more concern
> though, online reviews point out that not all the "home" measurements
> translate properly. This of course doesnt mean that the formulas were
> followed properly by the reviewers either. Until my stubborness about
> avoiding scales begins to fade, has anyone seen an easy to use Excel file
> sourdough calculator that really works with converting to cups and spoon
> measurements?
>
> hutchndi
>
>
>

On 1 Jan 2006, at 19:08, ellen wickberg wrote:

> Will wrote:
>> hutchndi wrote:
>>> . Until my stubborness about
>>> avoiding scales begins to fade, has anyone seen an easy to use
>>> Excel file
>>> sourdough calculator that really works with converting to cups
>>> and spoon
>>> measurements?
>> Hutch... I'm not getting the picture here <bg>.
>> You will install a web cam to surveil your proof but not use a
>> scale to
>> measure ingredients?
>> Will
> Scales make life so much simpler. Don't have to find matching cups
> ( cause they aren't all standard), can divide easily, only one
> piece of necessary equipment to keep track of, etc.
> Ellen

Ditto. But sorry Hutch I misread your post before. I thought you
wanted to convert from Cups to Spoons. lol. I thought that was a bit
odd. lol. But you don't say convert from what so my 'meaning centre'
edited out the 'to' and replaced the 'and' with it. lol. Sorry. So
what do you want to convert from, ounces , grams, floz or pints? Let
me know and I'll nock one together for you. There's plenty converters
available on-line but to get one to convert from Volume to weight
isn't so easy. I use water as the standard and allow for inputting of
the other variable-substances relative to that.

I have to say though you imply a yearning for an ideal simple life
without complication. I can understand that. But are you sure your
desire for that isn't getting in the way of actually achieving it?
After all, all you have of that ideal is the assumption gleaned from
various sources. Back in the middle ages, beyond and back to the
early Mesopotamians and Indus valley or Rapar civilisations science
and learning was as important then as it is now. In fact it was back
then that the number 0 was first used which wasn't adopted along with
the other numbers in Europe 'til the 1300's. We think we are so smart
theses days but you only need to listen to what people are talking
about to realise that we are the exact same people with the exact
same confusions about the world now as then. We tend to laugh at the
ignorance of people's superstitions then but the same confused cause-
and-effect-lacking thought processes go on today. More to my point
the converse can be said of many people back then 2000, 4000, 6000 or
more years ago.

Ask your self is it the reality of being human you're after or are
you running away from your own overly-complicated mind. If so it's
your own mind you need to de-clutter not your kitchen.

TG

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"dan w" > wrote in message
...

> hey hutch,
to my great surprise "by eye"
> measuring is nowhere close to reality. using a scale is the only way to
> divide a lump equally, and be within 50g or so. just one use besides in
> recipes. >
>

Yes, even when I feel I have my 2 or 3 loaves pretty close to the same size
they usually surprise me at the final proof and come out quite different.
Perhaps this is my next self imposed hurdle to get over.

Working with a fairly simple one of Hamelman's recipes right now that's
pretty much what I regularly make (Vermont Sourdough with Whole Wheat), and
I am surprised that it is what I consider a straight dough, as with most (at
least the non rye ones that I have looked over so far). There is an absence
of a sponge step (cup of starter added to all of the water, most of the
flour, many hours before final mixing) that I am so used to. His "final
levain build" which I at first thought of as would be a sponge, works out
only to a cup or so of starter into final dough. I guess I really should
break out of this three stage method I use so often. Does that method really
belong with three stage French bread, as a type of bread, and not a way you
should make sourdough bread as a rule?

hutchndi

"TG" > wrote in message
news:mailman.1136205423.18144.rec.food.sourdough@w ww.mountainbitwarrior.com...


>
" If so it's
your own mind you need to de-clutter not your kitchen."

My wife is constantly telling me I have cobwebs and/or farts in my head, so
it probably could use a cleaning.

"So
what do you want to convert from, ounces , grams, floz or pints? Let
me know and I'll nock one together for you. There's plenty converters
available on-line but to get one to convert from Volume to weight
isn't so easy."

Just something for converting recipes that are in oz / grams to cups and
spoons. There are some online but everybody gets fancy with them and make
them more complicated than they need to be. I see in Hamelman's home version
recipes where these conversions probably make things more confusing and less
likely to get right, measurements like 7/8th cup are common. Might be better
off just getting a scale. Somebody posted about Postal scales, that would
serve a dual purpose anyway.

And thank you for the history lesson, good stuff. I really was playing with
Mayan math a few days ago, they grasped the "new"concept of zero, and while
it at first looked very simple and backward, was pretty ingenious. My hope
is that my ancient Anasazian dancing Kokopelli pecan bread would have looked
good on their table, (except of course that I think they used corn for just
about everything).

hutchndi

hutchndi wrote:

>
> My wife is constantly telling me I have cobwebs and/or farts in my
> head, so
> it probably could use a cleaning.

lol, we all get that sometimes.
>
>>
>
> Just something for converting recipes that are in oz / grams to
> cups and
> spoons. There are some online but everybody gets fancy with them
> and make
> them more complicated than they need to be. I see in Hamelman's
> home version
> recipes where these conversions probably make things more confusing
> and less
> likely to get right, measurements like 7/8th cup are common.
Yeah, well that's what happens when you convert. I've added a slider
to my file so you can scale up or down so as to round things off a
bit more, but you can't really avoid changing the recipe to some
extent. The chance are the recipe was compromised in the the first
place for ease of printing/ reading.

> Might be better off just getting a scale. Somebody posted about
> Postal scales, that would
> serve a dual purpose anyway.

If money's no object. My scales only weigh to 2 kilos but I'd like
some that weigh to five so I don't have to use different bowls for
this and that.
>
> And thank you for the history lesson, good stuff. I really was
> playing with
> Mayan math a few days ago, they grasped the "new"concept of zero,
> and while
> it at first looked very simple and backward, was pretty ingenious.
> My hope
> is that my ancient Anasazian dancing Kokopelli pecan bread would
> have looked
> good on their table, (except of course that I think they used corn
> for just
> about everything).

Maybe a pollenate type version : -)
>
> hutchndi
>


TG

On 1/1/06, hutchndi > wrote:
>
> Until my stubborness about
> avoiding scales begins to fade, has anyone seen an easy to use Excel file
> sourdough calculator that really works with converting to cups and spoon
> measurements?


Math is easy. However, reality is messy. What's a cup? When you measure
liquids, measuring by volume is reasonably accurate. (The meniscus in a
graduated cylinder can be a problem in some situations, though not baking.
I used to use a liquid film developer that required 300 to 1 dilution. The
only way to get accurate enough measurements was to use a sryinge.)

But granulated solids, like salt, yeast, sugar, sawdust, and flour, don't
have a consistent relationship between weight and volume. I'm not sure if
it happened here or one of the other baking oriented newsgroups, but a
number of people measured the weight of several cups of flour. A cup of
white flour varied, if memory serves, from less than 100 to over 150 grams.
Did the person scoop the flour out of the sack? Did the person fluff the
flour into the cup?

Most people were fairly consistent, at least on a short trial, from cup to
cup. But..... if I tell you to use 3 cups of flour, the chances you will
use the same amount of flour that I do are very, very slim. If I tell you
to use 450 grams of flour, the chances of you using the same amount of flour
are very, very good.

Simplicity? Here's how I make a batch of bread. I put my mixing bowl on my
scales, tare (or zero) the scales. I add the water, tare, add any other
liquids (starters, poolish, autolyse or whatever) one at a time, taring
between measurements. Then I tare, add white flour, tare, add any wheat or
rye flour, tare, add salt, and so on.

In most of my yeasted recipes, the amount of yeast used is very small, so I
have a small scale to weigh the small ingredients.

It usually takes about 5 minutes to measure everything for a 20 loaf batch
of bread.

I am a big proponent of feeling the dough and getting the feel right. When
I use cups, I have to make major adjustments. When I weigh, the adjustments
are very minor.

I find weighing to be MUCH simpler than using volume based measurements. I
only use volume measurements the first time I make a recipe. And I weigh
the ingredients as I make the recipe, so I don't have to measure by volume
again.

Would an ancient Sumerian baker use scales? Probably not a valid question.
That baker was probably a slave, and he did it the way he was told. And,
the baker had to contend with very inconsistent flour. We are blessed to
have very consistent flour.

Mike

On 1/2/06, TG > wrote:
>
> hutchndi wrote:
>
> Might be better off just getting a scale. Somebody posted about Postal
> scales, that would
>
> serve a dual purpose anyway.
>
>
> If money's no object. My scales only weigh to 2 kilos but I'd like some
> that weigh to five so I don't have to use different bowls for this and
> that.
>

In this case, eBay is your friend. I use two sets of scales on an ongoing
basis. Both are made by "My Weigh". One is a 50lb capacity postal scale.
I use it for most of my weighing. It cost about $25.00.

The other is a 100gram pocket scale that is accurate to .1 gram. This is
very important for yeasted breads based on poolish or biga. I use around 3
grams of yeast for a 20 loaf batch, so I have to be accurate. The big
scales are only accurate to 5 grams or so, which is fine when you are
dealing with most ingredients. I use a scale called the MX-100. It was
less than $20, including shipping.

While more expensive than a good set of stainless steel measuring cups and
spoons, I wouldn't dream of going back to volumetric measurement. While a
home baker is less concerned with consistency than someone who bakes
professionally, I find that the consistency of weighing helps in many ways.
For example, you made a change to a recipe, and the results are great. Now
then, was the difference the difference you thought you'd made, or
inconsistency due to measuring by volume? And can you repeat that great
recipe? Weighing helps you learn how to be a better baker.

Mike

On 2 Jan 2006, at 17:03, Mike Avery wrote:

> In this case, eBay is your friend. I use two sets of scales on an
> ongoing basis. Both are made by "My Weigh". One is a 50lb
> capacity postal scale. I use it for most of my weighing. It cost
> about $25.00.
> ...made, or inconsistency due to measuring by volume? And can you
> repeat that great recipe? Weighing helps you learn how to be a
> better baker.
>
> Mike


Thank you very Much Mike I'll look into it. : -)

TG

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
Mike Avery wrote:
"In this case, eBay is your friend. I use two sets of scales on an ongoing
basis. Both are made by "My Weigh". One is a 50lb capacity postal scale.
I use it for most of my weighing. It cost about $25.00."


Is that 50 lb scale something a home baker could use, or are you using it
in a bakery? I mean is it any good at measuring ingredients to make a loaf
or two?

hutchndi

On 1/2/06, hutchndi > wrote:

> Mike Avery wrote:
> "In this case, eBay is your friend. I use two sets of scales on an
> ongoing
> basis. Both are made by "My Weigh". One is a 50lb capacity postal scale..
> I use it for most of my weighing. It cost about $25.00."
>
>
> Is that 50 lb scale something a home baker could use, or are you using
> it
> in a bakery? I mean is it any good at measuring ingredients to make a loaf
> or two?


It would be fine for a loaf or two. And it's suitable for shipping as
well.... I use it to weigh all the stuff we sell on eBay.

It is accurate within 5 grams up to a couple of pounds, and within 10 grams
or so to the end of it's range.

I have also used what My Weigh calls a candle making scale that is somewhat
less expensive and has an upper limit of around 10 to 14 pounds (it's been a
while, so I've forgotten the exact numbers).

As a side note, avoid digi-weigh. I bought one of their scales, and it was
a piece of junk. I salvaged the batteries and threw it away.

Mike

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TG I dont know if you recieved any of the emails I sent you by replying
to yours, but the file you sent looks great except the brown cells you
specify for imput are locked.

hutchndi