TheFuzzy wrote:
SS,
You could create it as a Google Spreadsheet, and then post a sharing link on the board.
Now, the bad news:
Weighing ingredients is no more accurate than measuring them by volume. Yes, really. CI and many others like to pretend otherwise, but the truth is, no matter how you measure your ingredients, it's going to be a matter of "combine, and adjust until correct". Always.
Why? One big reason is ambient humidity.
I was noticing this this winter. One thing I make a lot of is pizza dough. I have the recipe memorized, and I know
exactly the right texture. Circumstantially, I happened to make pizza dough a week apart, once at my in-laws, and once at home. My in-laws' place is 35-40% humidity durning the winter, and they keep the flour in the fridge. My apartment is 70-80% humidity and I keep the flour out.
Result? The pizza dough at home required over 1/2 cup less water than the one at my in-laws. Because I was curious about how this would affect weights, I weighed it; at my in-laws, I had to add 6oz more water than I did at my apartment. The flour in both places came from the same mill and was bought on the same day.
Yet, one 18oz bowl of flour had 6oz more water in it than the other one did. This means that, had I measured it by weight, I'd have ended up with 6oz
less actual flour ... a 1/3 difference. For this particular case, measuring by volume happened to be more accurate than by weight, but either is subject to a hefty fudge factor. And no "by weight" recipe can be scientifically accurate unless it includes ambient humidity, grain size, producer, altitude, age and storage conditions of ingredients.
I've been thinking about that for a while, as you can guess. Am I hijacking the thread?
Salutations Cookaholics!
Introductions: I'm Tunaoue, aka: John.
I'm new here, and was perusing a few cooking forums and ran across you guys (by recommendation).
Measurement by weight or volume is a very interesting subject, an it is because of this thread that I decided to join up and offer my 2 cents. (Albiet there are several who have done the same.) The other reason is after reading the entire thread at least twice -- I like the behavior of the members.
So Fuzzy, your story is intriguing. There are a couple things that the others have not pointed out or inquired on.
The volume of water increase was because of your experience of how much more moisture you needed to achieve the same "feel", correct? I understand that, after one does several loaves, one begins to develop a relationship. However, you make some dough at your apt, then later at your in-laws. Did you use the SAME SCALE to weight you ingredients? Were they different? If so I suggest taking a solid object and measure the weight on both to check for consistency. The scale and linearity may be off on one (or both)
Also, no one brought up the subject of the cold flour versus room temp. Moisture condensation could have occurred. Moisture could have infiltrated during its time in the 'fridge.
My background is a tad weak, I have to admit. I've never taken a class in cooking, nor home economics or baking.
But there are some rules that I've learned by others teaching me when I was young, or by reading some old cookbooks.
First rule (I may be wrong here, if so please correct me) is that when baking, unless otherwise specified, all ingredients are to be at room temperature. Butter is not supposed to be used cold (unless it is asked to be), including eggs, milk, so forth. Yes, I microwave my butter on defrost to soften it, I nuke my milk so it's not cold, and I place my eggs in a pan of warm water for 10 minutes before I break them.
Second rule: all volume measurements of flour(s) are sifted quantities.
This is for two reasons: packing flour into a cup creates an unknown variable of density. The uncertainty of how much flour you have is greater. With sifting, the results have a lesser degree of uncertainty. Also there is the argument of mixability. With sifted flour, it is free of clumps and is more prepared for mixing with other ingredients.
In your story you're saying you have about 6 ounces less actual flour. That's an alarmingly high degree of inconsistency. I don't doubt your need for more moisture. I do question the other factors that were involved.
To SilverSage; I love your table of volumes to weights. The last portion did not bother me where 8 ounces (volume) equals 10 ounces (weight). What is a little weird is so many items are also 10.0. I'd expect maybe mustard being 10.2 or 9.9. It's a minor point, but I do appreciate you sharing - Thanks. We can get by with measure liquids by volume because they have much less tendency to compress, plus we don't have to tare (zero the scale) and try to wipe all the residual from a container.
Someone mentioned Antarctica. This is a so-what, the gravitational constant on earth is different depending on where you are. A mass will measure lighter in weight at sea level at the equator than at the top of Mt. McKinley in Alaska. The main factors are atmospheric buoyancy and centrifugal force from earth's rotation. Again, it's minor, the differences are pretty slight.
As far as weighing being more "Precise" than measure by volume, it depends on the measurement tool. In my kitchen the Taylor kitchen scale is good to 1/10 of an ounce. That is close enough for what I need. Again not all scales will indicate the same value, in fact count on them being a little off. Example, I weighted myself on my digital bathroom scale; it read 175.5 Lbs. I weighed myself 30 minutes later on my son's scale; it said 171.0. I like my son's scale better.
Sorry Fuzzy, I'm REALLY not trying to pick on you, it that the subject is interesting, and 33% mass volume disappearing is something that even Einstein would find unusual.
