Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
US English take on bread
US English take on bread
Hi all,
In a forum yesterday Dan Lepard mentioned his new book
> Hi Folks,
> There is a US/Canadian edition of "The Handmade Loaf"
> due out next month, called:
> The Art of Handmade Bread - Contemporary European Recipes for the Home Baker
>
> Now, when I was told that the edition would be... em...
> "Americanized" (that's the name for preparing a UK edtion for the US market), I
> thought this would just mean changing metric to cups,
> "Self-raising for to "self rising flour" and so on. But no, it's much more than that.
> Even ideas, punctuation, general phrases and so on. Even the title needed
> to be changed as the co-edition publishers (the company in US who
> distributes the book) were concerned the people in the US or Canada won't know what a "loaf" is.
> ...
>
> Best Wishes
>
> Dan Lepard
I have my thoughts on perhaps why he told them this but the co-edition
publishers do seem a bit extreme. Does anyone have any comments?
JIm
Hi all,
In a forum yesterday Dan Lepard mentioned his new book
> Hi Folks,
> There is a US/Canadian edition of "The Handmade Loaf"
> due out next month, called:
> The Art of Handmade Bread - Contemporary European Recipes for the Home Baker
>
> Now, when I was told that the edition would be... em...
> "Americanized" (that's the name for preparing a UK edtion for the US market), I
> thought this would just mean changing metric to cups,
> "Self-raising for to "self rising flour" and so on. But no, it's much more than that.
> Even ideas, punctuation, general phrases and so on. Even the title needed
> to be changed as the co-edition publishers (the company in US who
> distributes the book) were concerned the people in the US or Canada won't know what a "loaf" is.
> ...
>
> Best Wishes
>
> Dan Lepard
I have my thoughts on perhaps why he told them this but the co-edition
publishers do seem a bit extreme. Does anyone have any comments?
JIm
Re: US English take on bread
"TG" <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > wrote:
>I have my thoughts on perhaps why he told them this but the co-edition
>publishers do seem a bit extreme.
Only that I'm working on English as a second language; American is my
first.
I know that some of Douglas Adams' stuff was edited for the
left-of-the-pond editions, which I think is too bad. Of course, he did
spend the latter part of his too-short life in California.
Cheers!
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink . net /~garygarlic
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G
"TG" <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > wrote:
>I have my thoughts on perhaps why he told them this but the co-edition
>publishers do seem a bit extreme.
Only that I'm working on English as a second language; American is my
first.
I know that some of Douglas Adams' stuff was edited for the
left-of-the-pond editions, which I think is too bad. Of course, he did
spend the latter part of his too-short life in California.
Cheers!
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink . net /~garygarlic
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G
Re: US English take on bread
TG wrote:
>
> I have my thoughts on perhaps why he told them this but the co-edition
> publishers do seem a bit extreme. Does anyone have any comments?
>
I am pretty sure that most of the folks here at rfs understand the
original title. However, I think that the updated title will sell
better at the general run of bookstores.
An earlier book by Dan Lepard was an interesting read, but almost
useless except for inspiration for a US audience. All the references
were in metric terms that would baffle many here. Also the ingredient
list called for things like Shipton's great grind available at all
Waitrose, equivalent to French T 59x or some such gibberish to the North
American ear. What the hell is Granery flour anyway? And, where can I
get some?
The Hand Made Loaf, on the other hand,is a darn good and useful book. It
uses terms like strong white flour to indicate that you should use bread
flour in US terminology. That would, or should not puzzle anyone here.
However, if the object is to sell books, aiming to a wider group
than is found on rfs in a good idea.
Anyone who can navigate to rfs should not need the HML "translated", but
since it is among only a handful of books that contain useful
information on sourdough techniques, it deserves a wider distribution.
I just hope the editing does not screw up a good book.
Regards,
Charles
TG wrote:
>
> I have my thoughts on perhaps why he told them this but the co-edition
> publishers do seem a bit extreme. Does anyone have any comments?
>
I am pretty sure that most of the folks here at rfs understand the
original title. However, I think that the updated title will sell
better at the general run of bookstores.
An earlier book by Dan Lepard was an interesting read, but almost
useless except for inspiration for a US audience. All the references
were in metric terms that would baffle many here. Also the ingredient
list called for things like Shipton's great grind available at all
Waitrose, equivalent to French T 59x or some such gibberish to the North
American ear. What the hell is Granery flour anyway? And, where can I
get some?
The Hand Made Loaf, on the other hand,is a darn good and useful book. It
uses terms like strong white flour to indicate that you should use bread
flour in US terminology. That would, or should not puzzle anyone here.
However, if the object is to sell books, aiming to a wider group
than is found on rfs in a good idea.
Anyone who can navigate to rfs should not need the HML "translated", but
since it is among only a handful of books that contain useful
information on sourdough techniques, it deserves a wider distribution.
I just hope the editing does not screw up a good book.
Regards,
Charles
Re: US English take on bread
"Charles Perry" <chefcdp@nospam . com > wrote in message
news:VPfOh.18436$Jl.6502@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink . net ...
> TG wrote:
>>
>> I have my thoughts on perhaps why he told them this but the co-edition
>> publishers do seem a bit extreme. Does anyone have any comments?
>>
>
> I am pretty sure that most of the folks here at rfs understand the
> original title. However, I think that the updated title will sell better
> at the general run of bookstores.
>
> An earlier book by Dan Lepard was an interesting read, but almost useless
> except for inspiration for a US audience. All the references were in
> metric terms that would baffle many here.
? If I can cope with cups why can't Americans cope with metric or Imperial?
> Also the ingredient list called for things like Shipton's great grind
> available at all Waitrose,
I shop at Waitrose and have never seen that.
> equivalent to French T 59x or some such gibberish to the North American
> ear.
They should learn to find out then.
> What the hell is Granery flour anyway? And, where can I get some?
Um - I suspect it's GranAry ... it incorporates malted grains. And not all
Brits use metric measurements, many of use still use Imperial. Mind you,
from 2008 (I think) it will be illegal to sell scales or measures with
anything but metric measurements. Anything. That's the EU for you.
I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head, but
I'm not going to be dictated to by Brussels so just for the heck of it I'll
use only Imperial for all my measurements.
Bugger the lot of 'em.
>
> The Hand Made Loaf, on the other hand,is a darn good and useful book. It
> uses terms like strong white flour to indicate that you should use bread
> flour in US terminology.
That would apply in Britain.
> That would, or should not puzzle anyone here. However, if the object is
> to sell books, aiming to a wider group than is found on rfs in a good
> idea.
>
> Anyone who can navigate to rfs should not need the HML "translated", but
> since it is among only a handful of books that contain useful information
> on sourdough techniques, it deserves a wider distribution. I just hope the
> editing does not screw up a good book.
So do I, for everyone's sake.
Mary
"Charles Perry" <chefcdp@nospam . com > wrote in message
news:VPfOh.18436$Jl.6502@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink . net ...
> TG wrote:
>>
>> I have my thoughts on perhaps why he told them this but the co-edition
>> publishers do seem a bit extreme. Does anyone have any comments?
>>
>
> I am pretty sure that most of the folks here at rfs understand the
> original title. However, I think that the updated title will sell better
> at the general run of bookstores.
>
> An earlier book by Dan Lepard was an interesting read, but almost useless
> except for inspiration for a US audience. All the references were in
> metric terms that would baffle many here.
? If I can cope with cups why can't Americans cope with metric or Imperial?
> Also the ingredient list called for things like Shipton's great grind
> available at all Waitrose,
I shop at Waitrose and have never seen that.
> equivalent to French T 59x or some such gibberish to the North American
> ear.
They should learn to find out then.
> What the hell is Granery flour anyway? And, where can I get some?
Um - I suspect it's GranAry ... it incorporates malted grains. And not all
Brits use metric measurements, many of use still use Imperial. Mind you,
from 2008 (I think) it will be illegal to sell scales or measures with
anything but metric measurements. Anything. That's the EU for you.
I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head, but
I'm not going to be dictated to by Brussels so just for the heck of it I'll
use only Imperial for all my measurements.
Bugger the lot of 'em.
>
> The Hand Made Loaf, on the other hand,is a darn good and useful book. It
> uses terms like strong white flour to indicate that you should use bread
> flour in US terminology.
That would apply in Britain.
> That would, or should not puzzle anyone here. However, if the object is
> to sell books, aiming to a wider group than is found on rfs in a good
> idea.
>
> Anyone who can navigate to rfs should not need the HML "translated", but
> since it is among only a handful of books that contain useful information
> on sourdough techniques, it deserves a wider distribution. I just hope the
> editing does not screw up a good book.
So do I, for everyone's sake.
Mary
Re: US English take on bread
On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
...
> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>
> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>
Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
Jim
On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
...
> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>
> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>
Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
Jim
Re: US English take on bread
In message <1175083445.990572.222670@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups . com >, TG
<sourdough.tg@virgin . net > writes
>On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>...
>> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
>I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>
>>
>> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>>
>
>Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
>still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
>twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
>then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
>pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
>Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
>
You must be very young, Jim. In my day, it was 16oz and twenty
shillings to the pound with fourteen pounds to the stone :)
PS there were 21 shillings to a guinea.
It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
--
June Hughes
In message <1175083445.990572.222670@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups . com >, TG
<sourdough.tg@virgin . net > writes
>On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>...
>> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
>I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>
>>
>> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>>
>
>Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
>still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
>twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
>then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
>pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
>Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
>
You must be very young, Jim. In my day, it was 16oz and twenty
shillings to the pound with fourteen pounds to the stone :)
PS there were 21 shillings to a guinea.
It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
--
June Hughes
Re: US English take on bread
On 28 Mar, 13:30, June Hughes <junehug...@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1175083445.990572.222...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups . com >, TG
> <sourdough...@virgin . net > writes
>
>
>
> >On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >...
> >> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
> >I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>
> >> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>
> >Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
> >still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
> >twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
> >then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
> >pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
> >Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
>
> You must be very young, Jim. In my day, it was 16oz and twenty
> shillings to the pound with fourteen pounds to the stone :)
> PS there were 21 shillings to a guinea.
>
> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
> --
> June Hughes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't feel very young and I am very forgetful. lol. But, see, I told
you it was confusing.
Jim
On 28 Mar, 13:30, June Hughes <junehug...@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1175083445.990572.222...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups . com >, TG
> <sourdough...@virgin . net > writes
>
>
>
> >On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >...
> >> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
> >I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>
> >> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>
> >Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
> >still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
> >twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
> >then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
> >pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
> >Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
>
> You must be very young, Jim. In my day, it was 16oz and twenty
> shillings to the pound with fourteen pounds to the stone :)
> PS there were 21 shillings to a guinea.
>
> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
> --
> June Hughes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't feel very young and I am very forgetful. lol. But, see, I told
you it was confusing.
Jim
Re: US English take on bread
"June Hughes" <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ypdmwfVh$lCGFwGh@theacct.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1175083445.990572.222670@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups . com >, TG
> <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > writes
>>On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>...
>>> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
>>I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>>
>>>
>>> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>>>
>>
>>Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
>>still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
>>twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
>>then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
>>pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
>>Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
>>
> You must be very young, Jim. In my day, it was 16oz and twenty shillings
> to the pound with fourteen pounds to the stone :)
> PS there were 21 shillings to a guinea.
>
> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
My bantams' eggs are smaller than that but our appetites aren't as great as
they were so that's good :-) I've never, ever, weighed an egg when baking.
Mary
> June Hughes
"June Hughes" <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ypdmwfVh$lCGFwGh@theacct.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1175083445.990572.222670@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups . com >, TG
> <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > writes
>>On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>...
>>> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
>>I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>>
>>>
>>> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>>>
>>
>>Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
>>still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
>>twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
>>then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
>>pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
>>Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
>>
> You must be very young, Jim. In my day, it was 16oz and twenty shillings
> to the pound with fourteen pounds to the stone :)
> PS there were 21 shillings to a guinea.
>
> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
My bantams' eggs are smaller than that but our appetites aren't as great as
they were so that's good :-) I've never, ever, weighed an egg when baking.
Mary
> June Hughes
Re: US English take on bread
In message <460a8b37$0$756$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet . net >, Mary Fisher
<mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>"June Hughes" <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ypdmwfVh$lCGFwGh@theacct.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <1175083445.990572.222670@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups . com >, TG
>> <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > writes
>>>On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>...
>>>> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
>>>I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
>>>still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
>>>twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
>>>then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
>>>pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
>>>Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
>>>
>> You must be very young, Jim. In my day, it was 16oz and twenty shillings
>> to the pound with fourteen pounds to the stone :)
>> PS there were 21 shillings to a guinea.
>>
>> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
>> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
>
>My bantams' eggs are smaller than that but our appetites aren't as great as
>they were so that's good :-) I've never, ever, weighed an egg when baking.
>
I don't actually weigh the eggs, Mary. I meant I weigh the eggs against
the other stuff, so for example if I make a cake with three eggs in it,
I balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
--
June Hughes
In message <460a8b37$0$756$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet . net >, Mary Fisher
<mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>"June Hughes" <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ypdmwfVh$lCGFwGh@theacct.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <1175083445.990572.222670@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups . com >, TG
>> <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > writes
>>>On 27 Mar, 22:26, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>...
>>>> I can use Imperial or metric and switch between, convertin in my head,
>>>I heard you were very flexible Mary.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bugger the lot of 'em.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ah you have to admit though Mary that metric is so much easier. I
>>>still don't understand why ounces are 14 to a pound and inches are
>>>twelve to the foot when they come from the same Latin root meaning 12,
>>>then French for 11 is onze. Confusing. Then twelve shillings to the
>>>pound, twelve pennies to the shilling? sixteen pounds to the stone.
>>>Don't ask me about yards to the mile. ;-0
>>>
>> You must be very young, Jim. In my day, it was 16oz and twenty shillings
>> to the pound with fourteen pounds to the stone :)
>> PS there were 21 shillings to a guinea.
>>
>> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
>> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
>
>My bantams' eggs are smaller than that but our appetites aren't as great as
>they were so that's good :-) I've never, ever, weighed an egg when baking.
>
I don't actually weigh the eggs, Mary. I meant I weigh the eggs against
the other stuff, so for example if I make a cake with three eggs in it,
I balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
--
June Hughes
Re: US English take on bread
"June Hughes" <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$5ElkJnEXpCGFwGf@theacct.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
>>> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
>>
>>My bantams' eggs are smaller than that but our appetites aren't as great
>>as
>>they were so that's good :-) I've never, ever, weighed an egg when
>>baking.
>>
> I don't actually weigh the eggs, Mary. I meant I weigh the eggs against
> the other stuff, so for example if I make a cake with three eggs in it, I
> balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
Ah, I see.
(I don't do that either!)
> I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
I think you can, most of them have a tare facility.
Mary
> --
> June Hughes
"June Hughes" <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$5ElkJnEXpCGFwGf@theacct.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
>>> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
>>
>>My bantams' eggs are smaller than that but our appetites aren't as great
>>as
>>they were so that's good :-) I've never, ever, weighed an egg when
>>baking.
>>
> I don't actually weigh the eggs, Mary. I meant I weigh the eggs against
> the other stuff, so for example if I make a cake with three eggs in it, I
> balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
Ah, I see.
(I don't do that either!)
> I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
I think you can, most of them have a tare facility.
Mary
> --
> June Hughes
Re: US English take on bread
In message <460a9821$0$762$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet . net >, Mary Fisher
<mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>"June Hughes" <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:$5ElkJnEXpCGFwGf@theacct.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>>
>>>> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
>>>> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
>>>
>>>My bantams' eggs are smaller than that but our appetites aren't as great
>>>as
>>>they were so that's good :-) I've never, ever, weighed an egg when
>>>baking.
>>>
>> I don't actually weigh the eggs, Mary. I meant I weigh the eggs against
>> the other stuff, so for example if I make a cake with three eggs in it, I
>> balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
>
>Ah, I see.
>
>(I don't do that either!)
>
>> I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
>
>I think you can, most of them have a tare facility.
>
Watch this space. I bought them then went away, so haven't had time to
look yet.
--
June Hughes
In message <460a9821$0$762$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet . net >, Mary Fisher
<mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>"June Hughes" <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:$5ElkJnEXpCGFwGf@theacct.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>>
>>>> It's quite useful, if cooking with eggs, to just take the weight of the
>>>> number of eggs - a standard egg weighs about two ounces.
>>>
>>>My bantams' eggs are smaller than that but our appetites aren't as great
>>>as
>>>they were so that's good :-) I've never, ever, weighed an egg when
>>>baking.
>>>
>> I don't actually weigh the eggs, Mary. I meant I weigh the eggs against
>> the other stuff, so for example if I make a cake with three eggs in it, I
>> balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
>
>Ah, I see.
>
>(I don't do that either!)
>
>> I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
>
>I think you can, most of them have a tare facility.
>
Watch this space. I bought them then went away, so haven't had time to
look yet.
--
June Hughes
Re: US English take on bread
June Hughes <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
>I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
Sure you will:
Put the eggs on the scale in the same container you can put the other stuff
in, press "tare"
Zero is now the weight of the eggs.
Put other stuff on until the reading comes up to zero; mine will happily
display negative numbers.
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink . net /~garygarlic
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G
June Hughes <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
>I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
Sure you will:
Put the eggs on the scale in the same container you can put the other stuff
in, press "tare"
Zero is now the weight of the eggs.
Put other stuff on until the reading comes up to zero; mine will happily
display negative numbers.
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink . net /~garygarlic
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G
Re: US English take on bread
In message <0gfl03d5feaprd16oifpen3e6pjuptmmkp@4ax . com >, Gary Woods
<garyusenet@earthlink . net > writes
>June Hughes <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
>>I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
>
>Sure you will:
>Put the eggs on the scale in the same container you can put the other stuff
>in, press "tare"
>Zero is now the weight of the eggs.
>Put other stuff on until the reading comes up to zero; mine will happily
>display negative numbers.
>
Great, Gary. I shall have a go on Saturday. In the meantime, I think
my old-fashioned cast-iron scales and weights may be redundant.
--
June Hughes
In message <0gfl03d5feaprd16oifpen3e6pjuptmmkp@4ax . com >, Gary Woods
<garyusenet@earthlink . net > writes
>June Hughes <junehughes@theacct.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I balance the scales with the same amounts of flour, sugar and butter.
>>I shan't be able to do that with the new electronic scales.
>
>Sure you will:
>Put the eggs on the scale in the same container you can put the other stuff
>in, press "tare"
>Zero is now the weight of the eggs.
>Put other stuff on until the reading comes up to zero; mine will happily
>display negative numbers.
>
Great, Gary. I shall have a go on Saturday. In the meantime, I think
my old-fashioned cast-iron scales and weights may be redundant.
--
June Hughes
Re: US English take on bread
On 28 Mar, 16:35, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I've never, ever, weighed an egg when baking.
>
> Mary
Being a bit anal sometimes : -) I have, 53g just about 2 ounces you're
right. In my defence though it's so I can throw in exactly the amount
of flour I need for my pasta with two eggs, just makes things a bit
quicker.
Jim
On 28 Mar, 16:35, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I've never, ever, weighed an egg when baking.
>
> Mary
Being a bit anal sometimes : -) I have, 53g just about 2 ounces you're
right. In my defence though it's so I can throw in exactly the amount
of flour I need for my pasta with two eggs, just makes things a bit
quicker.
Jim
Re: US English take on bread
"TG" <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > wrote in message
news:1175103086.385850.16850@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
> On 28 Mar, 16:35, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> I've never, ever, weighed an egg when baking.
>>
>> Mary
>
> Being a bit anal sometimes : -) I have, 53g just about 2 ounces you're
> right. In my defence though it's so I can throw in exactly the amount
> of flour I need for my pasta with two eggs, just makes things a bit
> quicker.
>
> Jim
I think I'll go and weigh our bantams' eggs, for the record.
On second thoughts I shan't, they're all different and sometimes the same
one will lay a bigger or a smaller one.
That's the trouble with real hens given the freedom of the garden and having
to find their own grub, as opposed to the uniform ones kept in cages fed an
exact amount of processed who-knows-what at exactly the same time each day
:-(
Mary
>
"TG" <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > wrote in message
news:1175103086.385850.16850@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
> On 28 Mar, 16:35, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> I've never, ever, weighed an egg when baking.
>>
>> Mary
>
> Being a bit anal sometimes : -) I have, 53g just about 2 ounces you're
> right. In my defence though it's so I can throw in exactly the amount
> of flour I need for my pasta with two eggs, just makes things a bit
> quicker.
>
> Jim
I think I'll go and weigh our bantams' eggs, for the record.
On second thoughts I shan't, they're all different and sometimes the same
one will lay a bigger or a smaller one.
That's the trouble with real hens given the freedom of the garden and having
to find their own grub, as opposed to the uniform ones kept in cages fed an
exact amount of processed who-knows-what at exactly the same time each day
:-(
Mary
>
