Measurements

If the recipe contains cups and spoons (teaspoons, tablespoons) to measure ingredients, it is a recipe written for VOLUME, not weight. Do not assume a "cup" of an inredient will weigh 8 ounces. 

In order to convert such a recipe to weight, you have to know the weight of each individual ingredient.  For example,  1/2 cup of butter will weigh a different amount than an equal volume of oil, 1 tsp of salt will weight a different amount that 1 tsp of sugar,  etc.  Even Whole Wheat and All Purpose Flours weigh different amounts--one source puts them at 127 g and 120 g per cup, respectively (NOTE:  Just to make it more complicated, different sources vary on the weight of ingredients, particularly flour!  Find  a source you're comfortable with, and stick to that source--test it out by weighing a cup of flour you have filled over several trials to find a source that is close to the way you typically measure flour).   

You need to find a good reference (I just learned about this one today for flours:  http://www.traditionaloven.com/conversions_of_measures/flour_volume_weight.html)

And for other ingredients:  http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes2008/master-weight-chart.html

I write the weight of ingredients next to the volume measurements in books I own.  I prefer grams to ounces because it's easier to calculate fractions and percentages in grams. 

Once you convert to measurement by weight, you will not want to use volume any more--I love that I don't have to clean up 4 or more measuring cups and spoons every time I bake.  However, it's hard for an inexpensive scale to accurately measure very small amounts, so I still use my measuring spoons for those ingredients that are less than 10 grams or require fractions of grams. 

Janknitz

Ok, so I'm English, which may explain my thoughts shown below?

All my recipes are expressed as formulae, where flour is 100, and all other materials expressed as % of that.   This is based on WEIGHT, not volume.

The only sensible weighing system is the metric system; that way you multiply by easy factors such as 10 or 100.

Frankly, any recipe not written out this way isn't worth the paper it's written on.

So, you have 2 choices: work it out so it balances correctly, or go somewhere else and and find a decent recipe.

Recipes based on volumetric measuring will never work.   The Imperial system went out with the ark.   Welcome to the 21st century; it's so much brighter, accurate and easy here folks...come and join us and ditch the out of date stuff.

Have a great day

Andy

... you can't. Whatever the weight of the author/baker's "cup of flour" is all up to good guessing. Unless they specified somewhere in the book that their "cup" weighs X oz or grams, then all you can do is give it a good shot at about 4.25 to 4.5 oz (weight) and see if it works for you.

Keep notes of the amounts and your results and adjust accordingly. Accept that there will possibly be differences between your "cup" and theirs, your flour and theirs, the humidity when they were making their bread... and you can see where the "art" of bread making comes in. So that recipe is more a guide than an exact formula.

Even if it were given in milligrams, once you have everything together and start mixing and feeling, there's still the magical "and adjust as necessary" that you may need to avail yourself of to make the dough wetter or dryer. Because the flour, even from the same company, may be slightly more dry or humid one day than the next. Or the humidity in your kitchen may change. Or it may be warmer/colder... or... lotsa variable will necessitate a little clever handling beyond "use 4.5 oz (127g) of bread flour". 

And that comes with practice. Lots of loaves with some duds included. 

BUT for reproducing as close as possible, weight is still best. Doesn't completely remove the "artsy" part though.

And no, there doesn't seem to be an "official" weight to "a cup of flour" although it's generally ~4.25 - 4.5 oz, although I've seen pro bakers' books say everything from 3.5 to 5.5 oz or more. If the pros can't agree, how can we mere mortals? That's why "128g" is so much handier. It's precicely 128g. (And then you still "adjust as necessary" anyway).

I agree with rainbowz about the importance of the phrase "adjust as necessary".   Actually, that IS where the arty bit comes in, surely?

We have a very different range of flour in UK to those in the US.   I accept your point about humidity, although it is rarely an issue in our island where it tends to be cool and damp most of the time anyway!!   But yes different flours absorb different amounts of water.   I actually think that makes it all the more important to "do the bakers math" [ how it would be expressed in US, I believe?]

If you weigh accurately, both flour and water, then you know exactly what adjustments you need to make to achieve the correct dough for your needs that day; surely this gives an even greater understanding of the make up of your dough?

I don't want to be disparaging of anyone who makes bread at home; the bread in UK [mass-produced, anyway] is absolutely woeful.   Whilst the artisan movement is clearly way ahead in US, I guess the big boys are turning out the same rubbish we have to put up with?

Celebration of these wonderful breads is wholly appropriate.   Here, here!

But, I'm not sure how obsessing about a measuring system which is inherently inaccurate, is really going to help anyone arrive at a more accurately formulated recipe, which will definitely work, and bring greater understanding to the baker.   I absolutely take the point about the difficulty of weighing very small amounts of materials such as salt, baking powder, etc.   Yes, these are the critical ingredients too; small errors can be catastrophic!   A good set of digital scales, and exercising great care in weighing is so important.

It is good to see agreement that weighing is best for accuracy.   If we all moved forward to converting and using recipes in this format [metric too?!] we would make life so much simpler for those following on from us.   Maybe that would allow them to make greater new discoveries than our generation?   Over here all our bakers have come up with is how to add fancy chemicals and enzymes to eliminate the true characteristic of any good bread; namely fermentation.   There are a few of us challenging this, and we are the "Campaign for Real Bread"

Have a very Happy Holiday, all of you

Andy

I'm laughing because there are several other threads on this and people got a little....insistent.....on their viewpoint in that thread.A recipe is a guideline so it should communicate what the author had in mind so the next person can try and get close to a similar outcome. A clear understanding of what measurements mean is a good starting place.Of course there are some adjustments to be made as you go.

The best cookbook format I saw was when the author used volume and weight. She wrote "Flour X lb-oz/X cup/X g". ALL the ingredients were listed this way. She was writing to an international audience and realized people used different but sometimes similar sounding measurements.She covered all the bases.

People can be inconsistent in how even a single recipe is written.I don't think it is always obvious what is meant when the term "ounces" is used.We are especially inconsistent in America. For example,in one recipe, flour will be listed as 16 oz, Water as 16 oz but you are supposed to intuitvely know that water is being measured in fluid ounces since it is liquid and the flour (not being a liquid) is in weight (as in 16 oz=1 lb and not as in 16 fluid ounces=2 cups).Or maybe it does mean 2 cups?Or did this recipe come from a European friend and the water really was in ounces by weight and this recipe is kind of mishmahsed in terms of units. See what I mean?

Any time "ounces" is used,it should actually be written "Fl.ounces" or perhaps "ounces-by wt" . That would save a lot of discussion and be very simple.I am not as comfortable with metric but that,indeed,would save a lot of discussion-but only after all the initial chaos of converting recipes.

My opinion.Here we go.

I have the same problem with meausrements so I tend to skip all recipes that use cups as unit measurements.  I'm not familiar with the metric systems either as I was was brought up to work with lbs and ounces. However, now that the metric system has become more common, I'm happy to use either but as mentioned earier, I skip any recipes using cups.

Some good sound comments from Dillbert and jyslouey made above.

Flour quality is a variable; you have to use the information available to form an idea how each brand/type will perform.   You can use the nutritional info, plus all the info a Co. will give on its website to find out how the flour type will perform; but until that is known, yes, for sure, the recipe is not guaranteed.   Some things are beyond the authors' means.   However most reputable authors would specify a type of flour which works, if not a particular brand

I can't agree about a recipe being a guideline, however.   I teach baking in a College, so if my recipes were guidelines, I'd be lacking in any credibility whatsoever.   Also, if you are using recipes from half decent books, then what of the reputation of the author?   I don't think Mr. Hamelman et. al. would like to see their recipes cast off as guidelines?

"Once you convert to measurement by weight, you will not want to use volume any more--I love that I don't have to clean up 4 or more measuring cups and spoons every time I bake.  However, it's hard for an inexpensive scale to accurately measure very small amounts, so I still use my measuring spoons for those ingredients that are less than 10 grams or require fractions of grams. " Janknitz

This comment above is so true; I still think it's best to convert your recipes to weight using metric.   Regarding scales; it costs about £20 over here for suitably accurate digital scales.   With care, weighing accurately to a single gram is perfectly possible.   They are worth every penny.

For all that, I agree there is so much more to successful baking.   I don't ever want to stop learning new things about the wonders of real bread

To finish; a Happy New Year to all

Andy

I finally got myself an inexpensive digital scale  (without a bowl/tray) earlier this year and made use of a tray from a broken scale.   Some comes in both ounces and grams but are slightly more exp. 

I  used a regular scale before but found it difficult to measure for smaller amts. It is definitely worth the small investment to purchase a digital scale.