Baking Formula

[Michael Ohene]

Hello eGullett,

I have read some threads discussing ingredient ratios on eGullett and thought it would helpful if I provided my guide on ingredient ratios. In summary, my formula uses the moistness of a recipe to determine how correct/appropriate it is, thus defining baked goods. I am not asking you to have belief in what is here; I welcome skepticism. I am asking that you simply check your favorite recipes to see what you get.

The baking formula is an easy concept, but to make it work you have to assign moistness values to each major, wet ingredient. As for dry ingredients, they are all equated. The baking formula is essentially dividing the wet ingredients over the dry ingredients.

1. all-purpose, cake flour =1

4. juice,cold, and warm water=1

5. buttermilk=1.75

6. butter, bananas, canola oil=0.5

7. large eggs =1/6

8. large egg yolk or white = 1/12

The following ingredient values are in a folder somewhere in my apartment or are still under investigation:

applesauce, pear sauce, milk, cream cheese, sour cream, olive oil, boiling/hot water, cocoa powder, toasted and crushed almonds, orange juice, extra large eggs, whole wheat flour, honey, corn syrup, molasses, brown sugar

Once the ratio is calculated, quick breads will be classified as follows: coffee cake (0.71-0.765), pound cake (0.73-0.76), cake (1-1.15), upside-down cake (1.04-1.26) - the moistness increases with higher values.

To use my baking formula simply multiply the assigned values of the ingredients times the quantity (for eggs) or quantity in cups, add the sums of the wet ingredients, and finally divide the sum over the sum of dry ingredients in cups. That's it.

Since virtually all cakes have eggs, the simplest cake would be an angel food cake. For 1 cup of flour, twelve or thirteen egg whites are used. This results is a value of 1 or 1.0833, since 12*(1/12)=1 and 13*(1/12)=1.0833.

As you can see, some ingredients are factored into the procedure and some are neglected. The reasoning behind why salt, sugar, vanilla extract, nuts, and other spices and flavorings are neglected is a bit involved, so I have another example to make the method clearer.

Lemon-Blueberry Cake with White Chocolate Frosting from Bon Appetit 2000*(recipe is freely avaiable of magazines website)

3 1/3 cups all-purpose flour

1 tsp grated lemon peel

2 cups sugar

½ teaspoon baking soda

½ teaspoon salt

¾ cups unsalted butter

1 cup plus 2 tablespoons buttermilk

4 large eggs

1/3 cup fresh lemon juice

Using the value of each ingredient and its respective quantity, the sum of the wet ingredients: butter (0.5*3/4=0.375), buttermilk (1.75*1.125=1.969), eggs ((1/6)*4=0.66), and lemon juice (*1*(1/3)) is 3.33. We find 3.33/3.33 (wet/dry ingredients) yields a value of 1. The method should be fairly clear by now.

Feedback is welcomed. I have the results of the baking formula calculated on published cake recipes if you are interested.

Jumping the gun a bit, I think bread is 0.35-0.429.

cheers,

Michael Ohene

[Lisa Shock]

Why aren't you weighing your ingredients? A cup of flour can weigh anywhere in the ballpark of 3-5 ounces, which is a huge variable alone, but when compounded with other dry ingredients' variable weights, well, your recipe can have a lot of different outcomes as written -even if followed with care.

How does this relate to Bakers Percentages?

[Michael Ohene]

Why aren't you weighing your ingredients? A cup of flour can weigh anywhere in the ballpark of 3-5 ounces, which is a huge variable alone, but when compounded with other dry ingredients' variable weights, well, your recipe can have a lot of different outcomes as written -even if followed with care.

How does this relate to Bakers Percentages?

←

Really good question.

3 to 5 ounces is a lot. That means you can sift 2 cups of flour to give 3 1/3 cups of flour.

Bakers Percentages.

Using an example from theartisan.net, a sample bread baker's percentage would be:

100% flour ~ 3 3/4 cup (3 3/4 cups flour/lbs)

72% water ~ 1.44 cup (2 cups flour/lbs)

wet/dry = 1.44/3.75 = 0.384

We can separate this out.

For wet ingredients: quantity in lbs * specific volume (cups/lbs)

The two lbs' terms yields a ratio, ".36 cups" - the lbs cross out.

which is close to my .35 - .429, .429 is for runny ciabatta like doughs.

Imagine flour did not change, then you could say 3 3/4c flour and 1.42c water. In fact, it is safe to say water will not change. Flour, maybe it is safe to say it won't change. Hopefully not 60% as you have experienced or heard of. But consider this, when editors write recipes in books and magazines volumetrically they assume a standard density (i.e. they will instruct a baker to sift or not to sift the flour which will account for possible changes in weight to some extent), therefore the deviation will never be as great as 66%.

In math, you are able to make great leaps by making assumptions. In my baking formula I assumed yeast and salt can be ignored - I have my reasons for this - and also that water, milk, eggs will not deviate too greatly in weight.

So in conclusion we have seen that the specific volume is the determining factor - specifically of the compactable dry ingredients. If the specific volume does not deviate greatly from its normal specific volume, then a baker's percentage, although a little more complex, is basically the same thing as my formula.

My formula has an advantage of being able to quickly check whether a recipe is dry, moist, etc, perhaps while standing in line at the supermarket reading your favorite cooking magazine. BY the way remember to test my formula, if not of written recipes, then at least on your final measures before you mix your ingredients.

Best,

Michael Ohene

[Edward J]

From your posts, I can see that math is one of your great loves.

I can understand your reasons for developing your formula, but I have a bigger issue with the whole N.American media scene insisting on using volume measurement in all of their recipies.

While your formula does make mathematical sense, it is a bit of work formatting a recipie. I would much rather see a mainstream cooking magazine or even cooking show indtroduce the lowly electronic scale to viewers/readers, and explain on how easy, fast, and accurate a scale is vs. volume mesurement.

[Lisa Shock]

From your posts, I can see that math is one of your great loves.

I can understand your reasons for developing your formula, but I have a bigger issue with the whole N.American media scene insisting on using volume measurement in all of their recipies.

While your formula does make mathematical sense, it is a bit of work formatting a recipie.  I would much rather see a mainstream cooking magazine or even cooking show indtroduce the lowly electronic scale to viewers/readers, and explain on how easy, fast, and accurate a scale is vs. volume mesurement.

←

I have to agree.

[tmriga]

King Arthur Flour now features a "by weight" option on most of their recipes, especially newer entries to their database.

Theresa

[Michael Ohene]

While your formula does make mathematical sense, it is a bit of work formatting a recipie.

←

Is this your only objection?

-Michael

[pastrygirl]

Not sure I understand the point of the exercise, maybe I am missing something. You would apply this formula to a new recipe before you made it so you know what texture to expect at the outcome?

I would argue that egg yolks and egg whites do not contribute equally to 'moistness'. Aren't egg whites generally considered to have a drying effect on baked goods?

[Tri2Cook]

From your posts, I can see that math is one of your great loves.

I can understand your reasons for developing your formula, but I have a bigger issue with the whole N.American media scene insisting on using volume measurement in all of their recipies.

While your formula does make mathematical sense, it is a bit of work formatting a recipie.  I would much rather see a mainstream cooking magazine or even cooking show indtroduce the lowly electronic scale to viewers/readers, and explain on how easy, fast, and accurate a scale is vs. volume mesurement.

←

I have to agree.

←

Me too.

[Michael Ohene]

Not sure I understand the point of the exercise, maybe I am missing something.  You would apply this formula to a new recipe before you made it so you know what texture to expect at the outcome?

I would argue that egg yolks and egg whites do not contribute equally to 'moistness'.  Aren't egg whites generally considered to have a drying effect on baked goods?

←

I would say it is a theoretical review and analysis tool.

Practically, it is a guide for correcting recipes and determining a recipe's moistness before cooking it.

For example, if a recipe had a moistness value of 0.98, you could easily rule out any suggestion that raised the moistness value over 1.24. If a cake was too dry or too moist, you could at least determine all the options you have to correct it.

Good question about eggs.

If we agree that yolks add more moisture than egg whites, then angel food cakes (which use all egg whites for wet ingredients) are either not true cakes or moistness of a baked good does not define whether something is a cake.

I am not sure about this, I would say if we both agree angel food cakes are dry - not just spongy) - then I say you may be onto to something. If so, it is safe to say, the way in which eggs are used in baking ensures that the overall product meets the moistness requirement for being a cake.

As a sidenote; I understand we all have our preferences, but what I was aiming for was constructive criticism, not a democratic vote.I'm saying this because people posting "me too, me too" posts are cluttering the board.

[Tri2Cook]

Ok, constructive criticism it is. I find the idea of assigning fixed values to variable ingredients haphazard at best. The moisture level in many "wet" ingredients can vary widely. An apple is an apple is an apple is not particularly true. Even dry ingredients are variable to an extent. Make a batch of simple, basic flour and water dough once a week for a year using the exact same quantities (by weight) and brand/type of flour and keep notes on the texture of the dough. You might be surprised at the results. 500 grams of water is 500 grams of water so why would the dough be more wet at times and more dry at others? My theory is moisture variables (for whatever reason) in the flour. I'm no scientist so maybe I'm way off here... but you asked for opinions.

[Michael Ohene]

... but you asked for opinions.

←

Thanks for your comments. They are welcomed. But you misquoted me, I also asked for people to actually try my formula, because I knew people would just deny my formula was valid without testing it. That's the world we live in.

And theory is theory until it is proven wrong by experimentation which is why I wanted people to tell me where I was wrong based on experimentation.

I understand a recipe will not work for every altitude, every flour type, but I can only know this if people tell me specifically when my formula did not work.

←

Edited March 7, 2009 by Michael Ohene (log)

[Tri2Cook]

You asked for constructive criticism. I thought my criticism was constructive. I'm not interested in disproving your theory, I simply stated what I see as a potential flaw in the system. Fixed values assigned to variable ingredients.

[Michael Ohene]

You asked for constructive criticism. I thought my criticism was constructive. I'm not interested in disproving your theory, I simply stated what I see as a potential flaw in the system. Fixed values assigned to variable ingredients.

←

I wouldn't call my formula a theory.

But I agree you offered constructive criticism. My bad

[Chris Amirault]

Michael, I think that most of us are scratching our heads because the formula you're asking us to test doesn't jibe with nearly all research and practice on baking formulae. Every professional pastry and baking recipe on the planet uses weight as the means of measurement, and adjustments are made for criteria such as pan size, altitude, and product quality variety.

I think that Tri2Cook's point about moisture isn't a quibble; it gets to the heart of why most of us can't figure the raison d'etre of this formula. Take "butter," for example: the moisture content varies so widely that professional recipes specify butterfat percentages, particularly for items like croissants where that's the crucial ingredient. If you accept the importance of product variability (or the other criteria above that the formula ignores), then you're bound to be puzzled about the usefulness of the formula itself. And I certainly don't want to test a formula that I think is bound to produce bad product.

Perhaps you can help us understand why you've chosen not to incorporate these basic elements of baking science and practice into your formula?

[Michael Ohene]

Perhaps you can help us understand why you've chosen not to incorporate these basic elements of baking science and practice into your formula?

←

Hello Chris. First let me restate that the purpose of this formula is for analysis to determine what went wrong with a baked product and to review written recipes, this does not require one to cook anything. This cannot be performed by weights, unless there is a general (accounting for all types of cakes) cake formula based on weights. In summary the formula defines when a cake can be a cake, coffee cake can be a coffee cake, etc, but it is not a design tool.

recipes specify butterfat percentages, particularly for items like croissants where that's the crucial ingredient

Croissants and puff pastries are not handled by this formula. I think the fat contents for butter can drop about 12% from Imported butter to Organic US butter.

If you accept the importance of product variability (or the other criteria above that the formula ignores),then you're bound to be puzzled about the usefulness of the formula itself

I disagree. Scientific formulas often have a validity range and routinely omit what are considered negligible factors (i.e. factors that can be ignored, e.g. the energy consumed by the lighting by a residence compared to the overall energy consumed at the residence).

For salt and sugar? I assume all cakes,coffee cakes,yeast breads will have the around the same amounts of respective saltiness and sweetness (it is within a small range for each baked good type), therefore they can be ignored, remember I give ranges so variability does not necessarily discount my formula.

The formula also assumes a lot of things like a standard/appropriate pan/temperature for each baked good.

As far as moisture and altitude. I agree these factors can change results, but if you want to consider this level of analysis then there would be almost no standard recipe as we all have varying fats in our butters, different proteins in our flour, different water for our sourdough starters, thus the use of weight and mass would cease making sense, because we'd have to more closely examine composition. If one says, composition is not that big of a factor then you are saying they are negligible.

And I certainly don't want to test a formula that I think is bound to produce bad product.

The formula is not for creating baked goods per se (I did state that it can be used to correct recipes) . It is primarily for analysis and review so you won't have to spend time actually baking a cake to see whether it is too dry or soggy. With a calculator it will take about 45 seconds to check, given you have a recipe with the ingredient values I listed.

-Michael

Edited March 7, 2009 by Michael Ohene (log)