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

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#51

Post by explaininjs »

currency wrote: post #19
blowski wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do those factors also affect how much volume you need?

Baking is literally chemistry. You don't get consistent results if you measure a powder of quite variable density by volume instead of mass.

You also don't get consistent results if you assume the type of flour, atmospheric humidity, baking conditions, etc etc. etc. will be the exact same as the recipe author's and simply blindly follow the exact measurements because "precision!".

The best approach is to watch a video that clearly demonstrates how the product should look and feel at every point along the process, and do what you can to imitate that - even if it means leaving your scales and cups in the cupboard.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#52

Post by dunham »

Ringz wrote: post #33
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'm always amazed at how fiercely some defend measuring by volume instead of by mass. I've had tougher discussions on Reddit about "cups" than about nuclear energy. Sometimes I think people just lack experience with a good scale. Once you understand what the tare button is for, there really aren't any problems. Also, with a good scale, after you press tare, it can count into the negative. So, if I need 10 grams of so…

Yeah, my mom watched me cook the other day and decided she needed to use her scale more. So much easier. Dump stuff in bowl, tare, dump next thing in bowl.

And if I ever need to measure honey (usually you can eyeball it), it's gotta be by weight. A tablespoon of honey is 21g, but you're not going to it back out of the tablespoon.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#53

Post by giraffe_lady »

vlan0 wrote: post #28
haswell wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's an interesting book and definitely trains you to keep an eye on the relationships between different ingredients. And especially the continua between different foods made of the same things in different ratios.

Unfortunately a lot of the recipes in that book are not very good! When settling the ratios he prioritized small, clean numbers to make the relationships clear. But those aren't guaranteed to be an optimal recipe. It's simply more likely that the best custard for example is 28:15 or 11:5 or whatever than it is precisely 2:1. Ditto every single thing in the book.

It is a good starting point for learning how baked goods work, developing intuition for how changing ingredients influence the final product. Virtually none of them are excellent ratios though.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#54

Post by dunham »

masfuerte wrote: post #43
jefftk wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! I don't cook baguettes; my ratio came from the first recipe I found looking online: https://lechefswife.com/baking-baguettes-for-beginners/

That's interesting. I do bake but I'm no expert. My wettest doughs are 75%. That recipe is a bit more than 100%. I didn't think such a wet dough would hold its shape. I'm wrong again!

It looks like Reinhart has it at 65% for both the pâte fermentée and the bread itself in "Bread Baker's Apprentice" and the simple recipe in "Every Day" is about 67%. I consider him an expert, but some of his stuff is fussier than I want to deal with at the moment.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#55

Post by eichin »

explaininjs wrote: post #51
currency wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baking is literally chemistry. You don't get consistent results if you measure a powder of quite variable density by volume instead of mass.

You also don't get consistent results if you assume the type of flour, atmospheric humidity, baking conditions, etc etc. etc. will be the exact same as the recipe author's and simply blindly follow the exact measurements because "precision!". The best approach is to watch a video that clearly demonstrates how the product should look and feel at every point along the process, and do what you can to imitate that - even…

Right, but you can successfully course correct if you have a reproducible measurement, instead of one that varies by 20% each time you make it (source: Cooks Illustrated magazine on angel food cake, did experiments on how much variation cup measurements of the same flour had - given their audience, probably preaching to the choir, but it was at least a decade ago...)

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#56

Post by geuis »

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.

Ooh I've thought about doing that. Totally makes sense since egg sizes range a bit.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#57

Post by geuis »

sumtechguy wrote: post #18
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…

This is the different kinds of cooking. I have recipes I have to follow very precisely. If I dont it basically breaks the thing being made. Other things I can vary it wildly on how I feel and the dish will come out pretty good. Confectionaries (such as cookies, pancakes, breads, etc) I have to stick very close or it will be a bad time. But something like a beef stew where I am basically blending it together I can var…

Precisely. Exactly the same experience over here. I make a chili by experience and it never goes wrong, except for that one time a decade back.

I accidentally dunked my scale in the sink the other day. Luckily it's working now but it wouldn't turn on for a few days. So I was doing pancakes and couldn't precisely measure stuff and they came out terrible, like before I dialed in the precise ratios I use by weight. Scale is working again, so today they came out perfect.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#58

Post by Optimal_Persona »

As a former professional baker for 2 decades, from corner bakeshops to a hippie co-op to a large scale dessert manufacturer with worldwide distribution - as soon as I saw the recommendation to use volume instead of mass I closed the tab, nothing of value could be there.

Baking is both an art and a science. If you're a home baker you can ignore the science, if you are trying to make money you have to understand at least the basics of the science/physical behavior of your materials.

I take a more intuitive/heuristic approach to cooking, and the single best resource I've found for cooking confidently & authentically by the seat of one's pants is Samin Nosrat's "Salt Fat Acid Heat". I've yet to find a similar guide for baking, and don't think one could exist given the narrow range of actually useful parameters.

https://www.saltfatacidheat.com/

Reading down in the comments - ratios can be useful conceptually, but for production baking the actual size of the batch vs. the mixer, oven and other tools make all the difference. Gravity plays a part in, say, how a moist dough behaves in a 5 lb. vs. a 250 lb. batch, same for how things bake/burn in a full vs. partially full oven, same for depositors, extruders, sheeters, etc.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#59

Post by [deleted] »

uoaei wrote: post #38
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #29

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),…

This is what happens when people think they're smart just because they were good at school.

[deleted]

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#60

Post by explaininjs »

eichin wrote: post #55
explaininjs wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also don't get consistent results if you assume the type of flour, atmospheric humidity, baking conditions, etc etc. etc. will be the exact same as the recipe author's and simply blindly follow the exact measurements because "precision!". The best approach is to watch a video that clearly demonstrates how the product should look and feel at every point along the process, and do what you can to imitate that - even…

Right, but you can successfully course correct if you have a reproducible measurement, instead of one that varies by 20% each time you make it (source: Cooks Illustrated magazine on angel food cake, did experiments on how much variation cup measurements of the same flour had - given their audience, probably preaching to the choir, but it was at least a decade ago...)

If you know how the right amount feels, it really does not matter one bit how far off your initial measurement is. You start with an amount too low, and you add more until it feels right. If the amount you start with is 24% too low vs 20% too low bears no significance. Obviously you shouldn't start with an amount so far off as to be too high, but again that would never happen if you are going by feel.
Post reply on HN