[HN Gopher] Baker's Math (2009) ___________________________________________________________________ Baker's Math (2009) Author : cwmartin Score : 174 points Date : 2022-10-02 13:59 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.thefreshloaf.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.thefreshloaf.com) | karesztrk wrote: | Fyi https://breadtoolkit.netlify.app/calculator | andreasscherman wrote: | Slightly related and maybe useful to someone: I built a | "declarative" (sourdough) calculator which simplifies these | calculations, or at least reverses the question so you just fill | in what properties of the loaf you want. Link: | https://breadfriend.com. | dxdm wrote: | In the first sentence on the start page, there's an unnecessary | apostrophe in the word "recipes". It's a plural form, not a | possessive. Not everyone will agree or care, but this kind of | thing can have an unfortunate effect when people come to the | page for the first time and form an opinion about it. | eyelidlessness wrote: | I'm surprised how something so basic as learning that baking | recipes are ratios of _mass_ makes me feel more comfortable and | inclined to try baking than anything ever has before. It's such a | simple concept, and much more approachable to me than I'd | expected before I clicked the link. | chrisbuc wrote: | I've always thought of baking as a science and cooking as an | art (although both are on a spectrum from art to science). | eyelidlessness wrote: | That's basically how I thought of it too, but now I think I | can kind of _understand_ the science. | emadabdulrahim wrote: | Same. I was pleasantly surprised by the simplicity of the math | and the usefulness of it. | lupire wrote: | More "baker's units" than "baker's math". It's regular math. | informal007 wrote: | sircastor wrote: | My Baking experience improved substantially for me when I moved | to weighing my ingredients instead of measuring by volume. My | voice assistant has also been super helpful in quick conversions | from recipes. | ace2358 wrote: | I've never understood cooking by volume and will reject any | recipe that uses it. Especially for ingredients that don't have | a fixed density. | | 1 cup of flour? I can easily get double the amount in my cup | depending on how I scoop it. | | 1 cup chopped mint leaves... wtf? | | 1 large potato... kill me! At the farmers market potato's can | come in very different shapes and sizes. | | I'm confident enough of a cook to know how much mint and potato | I want, but it's impossible for flour. | | My rule of thumb is if the packet describes it in grams, then | why should the recipe use volume?? | | Converting between volume and weight is also senseless for | anything other than water. | jrockway wrote: | I guess what you can take away from volume recipes is that | the quantities aren't that critical. Usually your recipe will | turn out quite delicious even if you get a small "large | potato" or an oversized "large egg". | | You're right though that you can definitely pack a measuring | cup with flour and get more than you intended. Bread can be | pretty persnickety too, which is why volume based recipes | mention how to fill the measuring cup. | thiagocsf wrote: | When you're using a starter, things get more interesting because | you need to account for the water and flour content in it. | | It usually doesn't complicate it too much because most starters | are 100% hydration - ie equal mass of flour and water. | eugenekolo wrote: | When did bakers first start using decimal? Was it always decimal? | I'm surprised, since most things I've seen in the "real world" | tend to be fractional. | NextHendrix wrote: | Don't forget to multiply the result by 13/12 | selimthegrim wrote: | This sounds like Shi'ite inheritance math. | _Microft wrote: | Is this a joke or an advice which could use some more | explanation? | based2 wrote: | https://www.expressio.fr/expressions/treize-a-la-douzaine | chrisshroba wrote: | Bold move explaining the joke in French | vecter wrote: | It's a joke. A "baker's dozen" is 13, not the standard 12. | cochne wrote: | It's a reference to a bakers dozen - make 13 so you can taste | one and be left with 12. | [deleted] | mlnhd wrote: | A "baker's dozen" is 13. Presumably so that the baker gets | one to himself. | temporalparts wrote: | This was a response to an old law where bakers were accused | of "cheating" customers by overpricing undersized loaves or | intentionally creating giant air pockets in their bread to | minimize the amount of converted flour the customer would | be getting. | | one such source: https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is-a- | bakers-dozen-13 | travisjungroth wrote: | That article doesn't have any sources and I'm hesitant to | take it as a primary source. A blog isn't an | encyclopedia, even with the same name. | | Also doesn't pass some cursory thinking. If the law is | about loaves being too light or small, how does giving | out an extra loaf to people who buy 12 help? Who is even | buying 12 loaves of bread when restaurants are rare and | refrigeration non-existent? Armies, but then they're | buying even way more. | | I don't know why this _needs_ a backstory. A dozen is a | common number for objects because it's highly composite. | Then buy X get 1 free promotions are one of the simplest | ways to give discounts. No one has to be the first to do | it. It could spread and people could come up with it on | their own. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _If the law is about loaves being too light or small, | how does giving out an extra loaf to people who buy 12 | help?_ | | If the baker gives you 13 and calls it 12, that makes it | harder for a greedy baker narrative to stick. It doesn't | have to be logical, it's about managing impressions. | | > _Who is even buying 12 loaves of bread when restaurants | are rare and refrigeration non-existent?_ | | The average family used to be the size of a small army. | 12 loafs of bread could be eaten in 1 or 2 days if you've | got 12 hungry kids and bread is a major component of | their diet. | travisjungroth wrote: | It doesn't add up that it would just be about managing | impressions or controlling a narrative. The fact that | there was a law regulating the price of loaves of bread | is well recorded. Anyone selling loaves too small but | also selling baker's dozen would be in violation. | | I regret trying to say buying a dozen would be uncommon. | It's more that even if they sell a dozen, of course | there'd frequently be orders smaller than that. | MichaelCollins wrote: | Bakers were under constant suspicion of cheating | customers and the regulations. Adulterated flour was a | big concern too, not just loafs too small or airy. To | manage their reputations, I think bakers would rationally | take any edge they can get. | travisjungroth wrote: | I totally agree that bakers would give an extra loaf to | help their reputation. I seriously doubt this was done as | a way to stay in line with the law as the linked article | claims. | morelisp wrote: | > Bakers were under constant suspicion of cheating | customers and the regulations. | | I once found a book of old German jokes and basically | every third one the joke's essence was some kind of | slander against the town miller. | rascul wrote: | Maybe this | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Bread_and_Ale | bombcar wrote: | Loaves weren't necessarily the same size as we have now. | And smaller pastries have always existed. | | I suspect part of it was make 13 so if one gets messed up | you still have 12 - and usually you don't lose one so an | extra is available. | | Kind of like how Denny's started giving you the thing | they mixed the milkshake in along with the shake. | AlecSchueler wrote: | It's because in older days without modern packaging you | could expect one egg to break on the way home. | SnowHill9902 wrote: | It's called abuse of notation as it's useful in practice but not | strictly a percentage. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_notation | jacksenechal wrote: | Doesn't it all depend on the implied subject of the percentage? | If you're thinking in percentage of total ingredients in the | bread, then yes maybe it's an abuse of the notation. But I | believe the intent in this case is to express each non-flour | ingredient as a percentage of the weight of the flour. In that | case it's a genuine percentage relationship. | sublinear wrote: | It's a percentage of a base unit. i.e. the amount of flour used | is 100% of the base unit amount. | | Sounds like you want the total percentage which is just as easy | to find. Given their example, the total is 170%. The proportion | of flour to the total is 100%/170% = ~59%. | | Think of it as a "separation of concerns". Using a base unit | allows you to measure without regard for the other ingredients. | Expressing it in percent allows you to scale a recipe without | regard for the literal amounts. It's a good system. | | Ever write CSS with "rem" units? It's the same idea. | jameshart wrote: | What's the abuse here? This seems like 'math' to me. | crdrost wrote: | I don't know that I'd use the term abuse, but the basic idea | is that there are things called odds ratios (Bayes' theorem | looks especially convenient with them!) as distinct from | things called probabilities... The distinction is precisely | this one, that probabilities are implicitly normalized to | 100% total while odds you're supposed to sum everything | together and divide. | | And then the point is just that we typically condition people | to treat percentages as probabilities rather than odds. So | you would have said something like 50:33:1:0.3 in "odds | speak" for flour:water:salt:yeast in the dough mixture | discussed in OP. But bakers instead communicate ":66:2:0.6" | with the first number always implicitly being 100 (great), | and they then use the % symbol (slightly confusing). | | Because they never say "flour: 100%" an unsuspecting novice | might think that a 60% hydration dough is ~40% flour by mass, | mix this together to form a 150%-hydration mixture, and | wonder why the only thing that they can make with it is some | sort of pancakes. | jameshart wrote: | Probabilities? Why do you need to bring those in? | | Percentages are just a way of writing rational numbers. | Bread recipes are expressed effectively as 1 part flour to | _n_ parts of each ingredient. But since _n_ in that | formulation is usually a value less than 1, expressing that | number as a percentage is convenient. Percentage notation | seems completely appropriate for this usecase. | | So 60% hydration means 1 part flour to 60% of 1 part water, | i.e. to .6 parts water. | travisjungroth wrote: | Abuse of notation is incredibly common in mathematics, | there's no conflict there. | | The abuse would be if you think that percentages should | always refer to portions of the whole. Not sure that's | correct, though. | sentrysapper wrote: | As in it goes against the designed usage (where total is | 100%), but it still works. | | The total ingredients being 170% can be found confusing | initially. I'm glad the author provided more context and the | example of a 500g flour recipe. | jameshart wrote: | Why does the total have to be 100%? | | Do all fractions have to add to 1? | layer8 wrote: | Similar for cocktails. | Woodi wrote: | We call it here in Poland "baker's percentage" - how much | ingradients are needed for 100 kg of summed flours. | | Eg: recipe for "plain bread" can be: | | - 60 - 70 kg wheat flour | | - 40 - 30 kg rye flour | | - 1.5 - 2 kg yeasts | | - 1.8 - 1.5 kg of salt | | - 0.x potato starch for keeping loafs unsticked, etc | | No water in recipe: a) it's assumed 50% of flour weight (1 liter | of water equals to 1kg); b) around 40 years ago cost of 50 l of | water was less then 0.01 zl so it didn't show in price | calculations. | | Very often (in loafs with rye flour) there can be no rye flour | addition at all - all rye flour is added as sourdough (water and | rye flour, 50-50), amounts need to be adjusted. | | Now, for ingradients for recipe in column one we have: 100 + 1.5 | + 1.8 + 0.x + 50 (water) what gives 153.x kg of raw dough. But | after baking and storing it some water evaporates so total weight | of finished product is less then 153.x kg, maybe 135 kg, maybe | 128 kg - depends on loaf weight - bigger loaf then less water | evaporates. That number is called "efficiency" of the recipe, you | can read it in industry standards books for given loaf weight or | measure yourself by test baking. It is used to calculate product | price/order or ingradients for given order. | | That method is industry standard, we try to teach it to a | journeymans. If only they didn't have problems with basic %'s... | H_2O ? What's that ? NaCl ? Forget it. Seriously, what teachers | in basic schools are doing ?? | | Confectioners do not use that method, they sum everything and | substract wastes. | xani_ wrote: | > That method is industry standard, we try to teach it to a | journeymans. If only they didn't have problems with basic | %'s... H_2O ? What's that ? NaCl ? Forget it. Seriously, what | teachers in basic schools are doing ?? | | Teaching it in such uninteresting ways kids don't remember it. | And I'm not surprised based on funding and wages... | rmetzler wrote: | Just the other day my wife misread our bread roll recipe and | added too much water to the flour. I'm glad, I know bakers math | and I'm good at mental arithmetic, so the dough could be rescued | easily. | sircastor wrote: | Once when I was a kid I was attempting to make Croissants and I | misread a recipe and added 3 Tablespoons of salt instead of 3 | teaspoons (and for anyone who doesn't know the math offhand, I | put in _9 teaspoons_ of salt). Suffice to say, they did not | turn out. | devonallie wrote: | When adding butter, throw away the formula. | ajfinnie wrote: | When it comes to Pao Doce (a Portuguese sweet bread), butter is | an absolutely necessary ingredient. And unquestionably | delicious! | yebyen wrote: | I think people who are downvoting must have misunderstood the | joke. The joke is, add more butter. It's like estimating for | an engineer, or adding the appropriate amount of salt and | spice for a midwestern home cook. You can never ever go high | enough. Whatever you were about to do with the butter, just | multiply it by 3x and add 50% more on top again after. | | (The one weird hack you wish you didn't know about your | favorite restaurants' most flavorful dishes!) | colechristensen wrote: | Michelin star level mashed potatoes are like a third | butter, not even exaggerating. | twawaaay wrote: | For me the main reason to use bakers' percentage is to design | recipes. | | Once I have designed the recipe in bakers' percentage I use my | handy spreadsheet to convert this to grams for the final recipe. | | When you spend some time making bread you get the hang of how | things work together. How much is 80, 90 or 100% of water, what | kind of correction in % of water I need depending on flour | composition, whether you want 2 or maybe 3% salt for this | particular bread, how much sourdough starter you want, etc. | | I also use large amounts of starter and of very varying | composition (wet starters, stiff starters, etc.), so even if I | want to repeat the same recipe I may need to adapt it to a | different starter. | | So this is making the design a very easy process when it would be | kinda hard when looking at grams. | mcaravey wrote: | Commercial baker here. One place where this kind of math gets | really weird is when the recipe uses multiple kinds of flours. We | make a loaf that uses three kinds of flour, so this means a | recipe will have flour percentages that are less than 100%, but | that sum to 100% so the hydration percentage works. | | For example, the recipe might say: Bread Flour 80%, Whole Wheat | Flour 15%, and Rye Flour 5%. Personally I prefer just treating | all ingredients as relative weights, and only convert to bakers | math if needed. That is in large part because I wrote the | software that is used on the production floor which spits out | ingredient weights in grams, and no bakers math needed. It also | keeps it simple for the employees, so they don't have to learn | how these ratios work. | | I'll also mention that the absolute best book on bread ever is | the Modernist Bread set [0]. It's pricey, but there are extremely | well explained reasons behind certain methods, and debunking a | lot of long held beliefs such as the efficacy of the autolyse. | | [0] https://modernistcuisine.com/books/modernist-bread/ | sophacles wrote: | Neat! Im curious - were you in tech before becoming a baker at | all, or did you pick up the programming skills to help your | baking career? | | I ask because I'm always interested in hearing how non- | programmers end up programming. I've long held the opinion that | we (tech that is) should try to make things more programmable | by users (e.g. game scripting, excel, the "citizen developer" | world of sharepoint), etc and like to hear how non-tech folks | use programming to solve problems. | mcaravey wrote: | Oh, I do software by trade. The bakery is because it started | as a family business that I helped get off the ground. My | background is in B2B payments and construction software. Even | though the bakery doesn't make as much money as software, | there's a whole other world of experience to be gained by | running a blue collar business that runs 20 hours a day, 7 | days a week. Very very different that a software shop. | | But to your point, most ERP planning software for bakeries | sucks badly, like really badly. One of the prominent ones you | can purchase today runs off a JET database from the 90s, with | the "cloud" version just being Citrix access to a VM. but | they all seem to universally require you to print out paper | every day for every shift, so a ton of people just fall back | on Excel (using bakers math) to pan production, daily. My | software runs on an iPad that is kept at each station for | kind of shift, and it spits out packing sheets and invoices | from Quickbooks, and integrates with our delivery route | planner. It would be a full time job to be calculating | everything from mix quantities to how to pack the final | product, without mistakes, 7 days a week. | | There definitely needs to be better tools for the lay-person | though. None of my staff can make changes to our custom | software, but also it is basically impossible to recreate it | with low/no-code tools. Hence Excel... | radanskoric wrote: | quag wrote: | It's a small world. One of my friends worked on those books. We | enjoyed a few years eating test bread every time we saw them. | mcaravey wrote: | Nice, I'd love to have participated in their testing | processes. They obviously treated it like a science and | questioned a ton of institutional wisdom, and the results | were fantastic. | perlgeek wrote: | Is there a "Modernist Bread Essentials" that summarizes it and | is a bit more affordable? | eps wrote: | > the Modernist Bread set. It's pricey... | | $625 is not "pricey", it's ridiculuously expensive. | zasdffaa wrote: | Depends 100% on what you're going to get out of it/them. | OJFord wrote: | I'm not so sure, I had the same reaction to your comment, but | then clicked through; it's a set of five thick books, | essentially a history book, two textbooks, and two recipe | books, at $125ea. Pricey, definitely, but phrased like that I | think not so ridiculous. | huhtenberg wrote: | Even for 5 books it comes out to $125 per book _and_ you | must get all of them. | | This doesn't really qualify as pricey. | Retric wrote: | It compares more favorably with collage textbooks which | you could use these as. | | Niche books can justifiably command higher prices. | sneak wrote: | This, at $500, stretches even my credulity, even as a collector | of books, lover of bread, and owner of books about bread. | mcaravey wrote: | Yeah, it was an investment for sure. But it has allowed us to | save a ton of time every day (e.g. save 30 minute on the | autolyse), make tweaks to our recipes to match our processes, | change our starters (use stiff levain instead of poolish for | certain breads), and a bunch of other details. Not needed for | the lay-person. For sourdough I'd opt for the Tartine books. | eps wrote: | Autolyse probably is not the best example. I have several | bread-making books and I don't think a single one advocates | for autolyse. Not Tartine, not Forkish's, not Reinhart's. | Lots of youtubers and bloggers love it though, no idea why. | NaOH wrote: | Read Calvel on autolyse. He's the person who developed | the process. While I can't compare his work ( _The Taste | of Bread_ ) to _Modernist Bread_ (not having read those | books), he comes at it from a scientific angle, not just | as a baker. | jshmrsn wrote: | Maybe you've already watched it, but Ragusea has a good | 15m video on the topic, which goes over the chemistry and | some pros and cons. Basically, it's a trade off of less | work (kneading) in exchange for more waiting. I imagine | in an industrial context, it's more efficient to just | toss the dough into a machine. | | https://youtu.be/orpTeX_EGXA | mcaravey wrote: | Maybe not, but they do look at that one because a bunch | of books are totally in favor, and a bunch are either | against it or ignore it, so coming up with a definitive | answer was a reasonable thing to do. Other examples of | time savers would be when to add fats and salts in a | dough, and proofing and punching times. | | I'd need to double check, but I could have sworn that | Tartine did have an autolyse where they have you wait a | half hour before adding the salt and last bit of water. I | don't have the book handy at the moment though... | eps wrote: | My bad, Tartine does have a 20 min "rest" step before | adding salt. | japhyr wrote: | You are correct about the Tartine method. Skipping that | step was one of the first customizations I made to their | process, and I haven't noticed any difference. | menage wrote: | The Tartine Bread book (as of 2018) explicitly recommends | the autolyse/rest period (page 52, with more explanation | on page 73). | jillesvangurp wrote: | Amateur baker here. Perhaps the best insight into baker's math | is that it depends on a lot of factors: the humidity, the type | of flour, how coarse/fine it is ground, protein content, etc. | And then it also depends on your technique and skill creating | strength and structure. Handling high hydration dough requires | a lot of skill and not doing it properly means you end up with | a flat bread rather than a loaf of bread. If it doesn't hold | it's shape, either your technique is lacking or your hydration | is too high (or both). Or you bought the wrong flour. | Seriously, look for decent bread flour on Amazon or wherever. | Chances are your local super market does not actually sell any | flour a baker would be happy to use. | | The main point of baker's math is not to have recipes that you | can share on the internet which people can then blindly follow | but to have a repeatable process that works for the flour you | use and whatever level of technique/skill you have. | | Say you bake bread with a certain type of flour at a 75% | hydration and you had a hard time shaping the dough; next time | using the same flour drop the percentage to 70% and you might | have an easier time and if you are happy with the bread you | stick with that hydration. Or work on your technique. Or both. | If you switch flour brand or type, you'll have to figure out | the optimum hydration level again. But being systematic about | weighing out your ingredients means you can at least repeat it | once you get to the optimal ratios. | Pinus wrote: | I tend to think of this as cocktail math. :) | just_boost_it wrote: | This is how concrete mixes are specified as well, all relative to | the mass of cement. | ReptileMan wrote: | That is actually the more inconvenient way to do it. Much better | is to start with 1kg end product weight and then use percentages | of that. Scaling is also easier. | annoyingnoob wrote: | _For example, let 's take a typical formula for French bread: | Flour: 100% Water: 66% Salt: 2% Instant yeast: | 0.6% Total: 170% | | _ | | My brain will not stop telling me that the total is 168.6%. | ycombinete wrote: | You get used to it. In practice it makes things very simple! | Especially if you have a scale with a % option [0], but even | without if you're cooking with nice round metric weights. | | I just chuck some flour on the scale, whack the % symbol, and | use the set percentages for everything else. | | [1] https://myweigh.com/product/kd8000/ | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | > You get used to it. | | You do. The single most important factor is "what does the | dough feel like - how stiff and hard, or how loose and wet?" | | The water % captures this in 1 number. | | e.g. A 60% hydration pizza dough is much stiffer than a 80% | hydration focaccia dough. | | Just by seeing that one number, I get an idea of how the | dough is going to be to work with. | nsb1 wrote: | Yeah, but what you're saying is essentially "I don't need | the recipe anymore - I can do this by feel", which is | awesome, but who then is the recipe for except people who | are trying to learn? Maybe throw us a bone :) | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | > Yeah, but what you're saying is essentially "I don't | need the recipe anymore - I can do this by feel" | | I'm really not. | | I don't do it "by feel", I measure everything in grams, | including water. I hate recipes in "cups" since a cup of | flour or salt is not a fixed quantity - it depends on | grain size, how hard you pack it down, the weather etc. | But 10g salt is a fixed amount. | | I'm just saying that "500g flour, 60% hydration" tells me | a lot about both how to measure it accurately (300g | water), and how it will feel (fairly stiff). It's an | accurate part of the recipe, expressed in the fewest | numbers. | | The % is scale-invariant. | foobarian wrote: | If ambient humidity can affect moisture content of flour, | then you have more unknowns than constraints and | hydration % is not enough. Doing it by feel would seem to | be required to get an end-to-end result. | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | Yes, though that isn't such a big deal for me, as I'm not | in a desert or a rainforest, the ambient humidity here is | middling and doesn't vary so much. Minor changes are not | very important. Flour gets stored in sealed containers, | and compensations for the changes during baking are | minor. e.g. the cloth over the dough is moistened during | summer. Ambient humidity maybe matters like a 1-2% | difference here, not a 10% difference. | | I do notice seasonal changes, but that's IMHO more due to | changes in ambient room temperature than anything else. | | Also, I would say that measuring in grams allows you to | notice and more accurately quantify that "it's dryer than | usual today for the same quantities - must be due to the | ambient conditions that require an adjustment". | crdrost wrote: | He/she is saying something slightly different, not "I | like that I can do this by feel without percentages" but | rather "I like how, by a quick glance at this percentage, | I know something about how that will feel in the bowl." | | 60% hydration: firmer, like Play-Doh without the | crumbling | | 70% hydration: softer and maybe a little sticky | | 80% hydration: super sticky, still kneadable | | Really high hydration requires a lot more care, both to | stop it from getting everywhere and to get it kneaded | enough that it actually rises (if that is even desired) | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | Exactly that. | | it's a single, scale-invariant number that conveys | important information. And can be used to weigh | accurately. | kzrdude wrote: | The recipe is for yourself so you can remember how to do | the same nice thing again. | sva_ wrote: | I just use 80% hydration, it makes things easier and tastier. | JustSomeNobody wrote: | A bit messy though. | AlecSchueler wrote: | Depends a lot of ambient humidity. When I lived in the | North of Ireland (rainforest humidity) I always had to | vastly reduce the humidity level of every recipe, sometimes | by as much as half, otherwise I'd be drinking my baguettes. | ericbarrett wrote: | So true, I just ruined a rye loaf by under-hydrating it | at 65%, but I live in the desert. Lesson learned! | | I find it also depends on your flour, even batch to batch | (we buy 50 lb bags). Some have higher moisture content | and one needs to adjust by a few % even in the same | external conditions. | tromp wrote: | The article mentions "rounded to nearest gram" but clearly they | also round to nearest percent... | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | If you're working with 500g or 1000g of flour, then to the | nearest gram is easily precise enough. | | If you're measuring 8g of salt, then yeah, maybe you want | 8.0g - to the first decimal point. | | If you're going beyond that, then where did you get your | scale, how much did it cost, what are the benefits and how do | you find using it? Do you tweezer salt grains, for instance? | mcdonje wrote: | Yeah, the total is wrong. It's not a weird bakers' math total. | It's a wrong total. | | If you used the formula with a base of 1000 grams of flour, | that's: water: 660g salt: 20g | yeast: 6g | | That adds to 1686g of dough. | | Usually, bakers allow for a reasonably large margin of error, | and they'll also intentionally diverge from a formula based on | circumstance or whim. Getting to 1700 from 1686 would take an | intentional diversion. | 2b3a51 wrote: | Think of it as a ratio(+) not percentages so | | Flour 100 parts, water 66 parts and so on | | (+) because that is what it is | JadeNB wrote: | > Think of it as a ratio(+) not percentages so | | > Flour 100 parts, water 66 parts and so on | | > (+) because that is what it is | | It is! But it's a ratio to a standard 100 ... and that's | literally what a percentage is ("per centum" = "by the | hundred"). | jameshart wrote: | Think of all the numbers as only having two significant figures | nsb1 wrote: | Exactly this. It's this sort of thing that annoys me about | recipes in general, but bread recipes in particular. | fknorangesite wrote: | This is also how it works in meat curing, etc world. If I'm | making a pork sausage, for example, all ingredient amounts are | listed in terms of the weight of the meat. | stormdennis wrote: | Should it not be Bakers' Math? | tromp wrote: | It certainly should be, as this guy explains | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFGv6wd5Y8 | pessimizer wrote: | That would be an insult to Mr. Baker. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-02 23:00 UTC)