Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Analyzing a Baking Recipe

cookingforengineers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#21

Post by ghaff »

z2h-a6n wrote: post #12
geuis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is different. It may not seem so to a non baker, but regular cooking has a lot more leeway. Baking consistently requires a much finer degree of control over the variables. The difference between "a pinch of baking powder" vs "5 grams of baking powder" is entirely different. In the first case, you're left wondering why pancakes came out good last time and why are they inedible this time. I'm no great coo…

I disagree, as long as we're talking in ratios instead of absolute amounts. The difference between "a pinch of baking powder" vs "5 grams of baking powder" is about a factor of 20. I think the main differences between baking and other cooking are that: 1) There are often very large ratios of certain ingredients in baking which -- except for spices -- is not generally the case in other cooking; 2) You can often taste…

I bought a scale a number of years back and, yes, I pretty much universally use it for baking--it's just easier as well as being more repeatable/accurate--and rarely for other types of cooking.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#22

Post by derbOac »

progbits wrote: post #4

"for engineers", proceeds to measure baking ingredients by volume...

I think measuring by mass is almost certainly more precise in theory, but in practice sometimes measuring by volume is easier to do, and therefore can be more accurate in practice sometimes. Most of the arguments about actual composition of ingredients (hydration of flour for example) and so forth can be extended to volume as well. Baking is also precise but it's not complex chemical synthesis.

So I could flow with his attitude.

What I've decided for myself is that the mass versus volume measurement really matters when the ingredient "measurable unit" size is very large compared to the amount needed for the recipe. So for something like granulated cane sugar in a muffin recipe, using mass versus volume probably won't matter very much, because the individual sugar crystals you are "counting" are very tiny compared to the amount you'd use in a recipe. There's probably going to be a bigger difference due to your impatience or the scale accuracy or whatnot than using volume versus mass. However, for something like whole walnuts, mass is going to be a lot more precise because there's potentially a lot of change between adding another 1 or 2 walnuts given the 1/3 cup you might need, they can shift around, etc.

At least that's where I've come down on it for myself.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#23

Post by erie »

tomgp wrote: post #17
geuis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is different. It may not seem so to a non baker, but regular cooking has a lot more leeway. Baking consistently requires a much finer degree of control over the variables. The difference between "a pinch of baking powder" vs "5 grams of baking powder" is entirely different. In the first case, you're left wondering why pancakes came out good last time and why are they inedible this time. I'm no great coo…

The best cake baker I know weighs her eggs and scales all other ingredients accordingly.

It is a matter of scale, it is essential to measure accurately for commercial products that do not tolerate loss of bread/pizza etc. For home baking you have many challenges, from the oven temperature (less than ideal and the dutch oven is meant to simulate commercial oven conditions and temperatures at home) to protein content of flour. I do not measure anything for baking bread or pizza because I use it as therapy not as a chore.I bake pizza with love, by taking my time and adding the best ingredients I can get, from wheat germ to best quality flour and fresh Mozzarella. The family has voted, my pizza is better than any delivery they have ordered.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#24

Post by mikepurvis »

someone7x wrote: post #15

This strikes me as a pointless refactoring of baking because it mostly serves to make the engineer feel smart. When engineering is applied to cooking, it usually looks a lot more like Kenji Alt-Lopez and his peers when they refactor a recipe to produce a classic dish without any superstitious steps.

I agree. Baking is for me increasingly like the rest of cooking— based on feel and adaptation, particularly where variable ingredients like eggs and fruit are involved that can vary in size/composition and necessitate corresponding adjustments to the amounts of flour and sugar.

All that to say, the moisture/volume analysis is interesting from a theory point of view and would perhaps help achieve a deeper understanding of the fundamentals, but at least for me baking is largely driven by instinct and that seems to have served me well.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#25

Post by masfuerte »

[This is wrong; see below]

> Some grids are empty because it would not make sense for them to exist. For example, a very moist bread (0.60) with a low butter content would be airy and tasteless.

Eh? A simple baguette recipe - water, flour, starter and salt - has no fat and more moisture than this. And is very tasty. Wholemeal sourdough recipes are wetter still.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#26

Post by haswell »

BlackFly wrote: post #9
progbits wrote: post #4

"for engineers", proceeds to measure baking ingredients by volume...

As opposed to cooks, who love measurements like - a carrot - four cloves of garlic - an onion - yolk of one medium egg - salt to taste because cooking isn't a science and precise measurements are generally worse than useless. If you spend more of your time trying to perfect the measurement instead of paying attention to the texture and flavor then you are cooking very well. People insist baking is different, but it r…

> because cooking isn't a science and precise measurements are generally worse than useless

Cooking and baking are both sciences, and have very different tolerances and methods for working with those tolerances.

As others have pointed out, baking tends to require far more precision, and the methods used are focused on precision as a result.

To your point, spending all of your time focused on precise measurements while cooking - especially with fresh ingredients - isn’t going to be as helpful as developing the underlying skills and intuitions to know how to adapt what you’re cooking to the ingredients you have on hand.

Those skills and intuitions are focused on getting a particular dish into a state that is hard to precisely measure because of the high degree of variation in ingredients (egg size, garlic freshness, how spicy are those peppers?). If we could precisely measure more aspects of the ingredients, cooking could become far more “scientific”, and indeed this is what happens in the mass production of foods in factories.

The point here is that the degree of “science” involved has more to do with the practical considerations and limits of our measuring apparatus across a diverse array of ingredients.

Baking tends to involve ingredients that can be precisely measured, and an end result that can’t be tested until the bake is done. Any baker who focuses on consistent and repeatable results knows that precision is part of the path to getting there.

There is still value in knowing how to adapt to your circumstances while baking. Precise measurements just reduce the variables that you may need to adapt on the fly.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#28

Post by vlan0 »

haswell wrote: post #26
BlackFly wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to cooks, who love measurements like - a carrot - four cloves of garlic - an onion - yolk of one medium egg - salt to taste because cooking isn't a science and precise measurements are generally worse than useless. If you spend more of your time trying to perfect the measurement instead of paying attention to the texture and flavor then you are cooking very well. People insist baking is different, but it r…

> because cooking isn't a science and precise measurements are generally worse than useless Cooking and baking are both sciences, and have very different tolerances and methods for working with those tolerances. As others have pointed out, baking tends to require far more precision, and the methods used are focused on precision as a result. To your point, spending all of your time focused on precise measurements whil…

For sure! If anyone is looking to expand on this, the book Ratio by Michael Ruhlman is a must.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#29

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

Seems to completely disregard basic physics and chemistry which determine whether baked goods work. The conclusions at the bottom underscore this, in things like casually mentioning acidity, or the idea that you can't knead a high-hydration dough, or mentioning a "leavening ratio" of dry good without considering the other ingredients that will be modifying pH, mechanical action (mixing/kneading changing the result), cook time.... I'm a little shocked that people in the comments are calling this science.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#30

Post by jefftk »

masfuerte wrote: post #25

[This is wrong; see below] > Some grids are empty because it would not make sense for them to exist. For example, a very moist bread (0.60) with a low butter content would be airy and tasteless. Eh? A simple baguette recipe - water, flour, starter and salt - has no fat and more moisture than this. And is very tasty. Wholemeal sourdough recipes are wetter still.

I don't think a baguette recipe is 0.6 by their definition? Their "0.60" would mean 3C of water to 5C flour. I'd expect a baguette to be around 0.50 (1C of water to 2C of flour).

(They're not using baker's percentages)

Post reply on HN