Re: Cold starts

Hi "Will" & all;
....
There's no inherently "better" method of making bread be
it by weight or by volume. Both have errors. Both have
strengths.
And both have weaknesses.

O.K. Dusty.... let's hear what the strengths, errors and
weaknesses
are.
I know this furrow's been plowed before...but I'm up to doin' it
again...

Okay, here's two different recipes.
Recipe #1:
1/4-cup of sourdough starter
1-cup water
3-cups flour
1-slightly rounded teaspoon salt

Recipe #2:
68 grams of sourdough starter
240 grams water
420 grams flour
8 grams salt

Assuming the same treatment and methodology, which recipe of the two
above--to use your words, "works better?"

Using volumetric measurements:
Strengths - simple, easy, robust, quick, easily done with one
hand/step
Errors - variations in packing/fluffing, and meniscus errors in
liquids
Weaknesses - very hard to scale, imperial measurements not as
universal as metric

Using mass measurements:
Strengths - easily and quickly scaled (when using metric
measurements)
Errors - variations in density (due to: particle size, base
material, moisture)
Weaknesses - requires multiple steps, power, technology prone to
damage from even slight misuse

That having been said, the "outcome" measurement variations for both
methods are relatively insignificant to the end result. Despite
what you may often read in this group, a few grams either way--or a
slightly more or less packed material isn't going to amount to a
hill of beans to the final picture. 35 grams of flour either way
isn't going to noticeably effect the result any more than 1/4 cup of
flour either way. We're building bread, not mixing critical
sub-gram measurements for differential quantum chemistry.

Because when I search the archives for old scaling threads, I keep
coming across testimonials from folks, we're talking 1998 and 1999
Testimonials are interesting but pointless opinions couched as
factual, support assuming, assertions. You can find endless
self-supporting testimonials that communism is better, that Islam is
better, that Beta-max is better, that 8-tracks are better, that Ford
is better, that margarine is better...and on, and on, and on.
However, the readership is welcome to accept and embrace, or reject
and deny any opinion they like--a necessary step if one is bereft of
his or her own.

Me? I come from "the old school!" When I want an opinion, I'll
form one...(:-o)!

Finally, many reading here _assume_ that I don't use scales or most
any other form of accoutrements or technology. If you do that, then
you would be wrong. Completely wrong. Technology has it's purpose.
Whether you use it to measure your baking materials to fanatical
accuracy, measure when your bread is done, or mix it with mechanical
ease; that's not a wrong or bad thing to do. I'm all for it. What
I'm *not* for, is snowing newbies with this "price-of-admission" to
this group that they have to get all of those toys and goodies
before they can bake good bread...or they can be helped by those
reading here. *That* is wrong!

I have used all of the accoutrements bandied about in this group,
and have found that only one of them is necessary: a stove that gets
hot enough. All of the rest: bannatons, mixers, scales,
thermometers, humidifiers, proofing boxes, tiles or stones, special
ovens, special pans, special mills, hand-raised and tended grains,
are all so much "weenie-wagging". More for some. Less for others.
But I have never said that one shouldn't use them. If you have
them, and they give you a measure of comfort and the bread comes out
well; then by all means enjoy them! Just don't put them forth as
"necessary", cuz they ain't!

even, as in the old, old, days, that say: "I wuz wrong dammit,
weighing
works better."
Okay, my turn, Will. Define: "weighing works better." Cuz if you
can, then the volumetric iteration of the bread made from the recipe
above shouldn't "work as well"...(:-{})! Catch ya later, my
friend...


L8r all,
Dusty


.

Relevant Pages

  • When Animals Attack - Bears
    ... UKSF has been a bit quiet recently and so I thought it might be a good idea ... Strengths: ... Weaknesses: Average bear intelligence nothing to write home about. ...
    (uk.sport.football)
  • Re: Greatest strengths
    ... strengths and weaknesses in their writing/artwork. ... Not if you're worrying about becoming complacent, ... understanding of what is 'wrong' with your writing isn't that helpful. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism
    ... and the scientific evidence that supports it.” ... This means more biology sooner, ... provide reasonable weighting to strengths and weaknesses. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: When Animals Attack - Bears
    ... >Weaknesses: Average bear intelligence nothing to write home about. ... See, Yogi does wear a hat and a tie, but no pants. ... >Strengths: Inventive, as proved by creation of game Pooh Sticks. ...
    (uk.sport.football)
  • Re: Greatest strengths
    ... strengths and weaknesses in their writing/artwork. ... like plotting and structure and pacing. ... talking about macro-level stuff, not microwriting. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)