/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>17104032
55% butter 80% ?

>>17104037
80% butterfat aka american butter

>>17104046
I see.

Why the flavourings and additives? Is that supposed to be shelf stable?

>>17104037
Probably fat content of the butter. Base recipe as written is retarded. Needs to be recalculated to add up to 100. Mix and match of weights and volumes is also dumb.

>>17104061
nope, using the flour as “100” and basing everything on that is standard

>>17104053
tartaric acid is for tang and helps with shelf extension, gms and ssl are emulsifiers which keeps the cake soft and last for a week+. you use 2 because they are synergistic but 2% of either would work also.

the flavoring amount is based on a 500g test recipe, will hopefully be a bit more complex tasting rather than just vanilla, without being overpowering.

>>17104061
>he doesnt understand baking %

>>17104061
Baker's percentage typically takes flour as 100% and base everything on it.

>>17104061
21
29.4
1.68
.735
1.26
.084
.21
.21
11.55
2.1
13.02
16.8
1.26
?
?
?
?
Or something similar. Less significant ingredient decimals rounded to give you a nice, scalable 100%. Flavoring additives should probably be treated as bonuses to be added after the 100% base recipe is determined as they won't affect the chemistry very much.

>>17104061
>Mix and match of weights and volumes is also dumb.

Sort of, not really. When you're dealing with extremely small portions of light ingredients, it's sufficiently accurate to measure using volume. In fact, it's often MORE accurate, since you'd need a very accurate milligram scale (not the trash your drug dealer uses) to get something close to where you want to be. Meanwhile, plus or minus 10 percent of a half teaspoon is far closer to the target mass than you could achieve by weighing it out. And, also? It's just way fucking faster. The end.

>>17104032
Interesting, what size was 100% for a normal sized cake?

>>17104143
Disagree. Do what you want.

>>17104061
>Needs to be recalculated to add up to 100.
Huh...

I guess it does make more sense to add everything to 100 instead of usual baker's formula.

I'm a retard in math, so how do I go about doing that? I have my recipes in standard baker's formula way of using flour as 100.

>>17104061
>Needs to be recalculated to add up to 100
thats not how it works

>>17104032
shut up queer

bump

>>17104725
Add all of your values up. Divide 100 by this value. Multiply each ingredient value by this decimal. Ingredients which do not typically affect the base chemistry as a matter of taste (salt, spices, flavorings, additions) are scaled up in proportion with the base 100 recipe using the same decimal.

To the anon complaining about measuring out ub-gram ingredients or whatever: weigh out 1g, dump onto parchment, spead it out into a line with a ruler, eyeball it in half. 0.5g.

>>17105922
Thanks a lot.

>>17105922
This does not seem easier than just using bakers percentages with a round number flour weight. I guess it makes sense for commercial production though.

20.9% cake flour
29.3% sugar
1.7% non fat milk powder
0.7% salt
1.3% baking powder
0.8% tartaric acid
0.2% sodium stearoyl lactyl
0.2% glycerol monosterate
11.5% butter 80%

2.1% canola oil
13.0% whole egg
16.7% buttermilk
1.3% vanilla

0.1% lemon oil
0.1% almond citrus cake flavoring
0.1% butter flavoring
0.1% caramel flavoring

>>17106075
>scales up to any batch size with 30 second calculation
>any unit of measurement can be used grams– kilograms, pounds, tons–without messy conversions.

>>17106239
...that's exactly what you do with baker's percentages. The only difference is you calculate based on the flour weight instead of the total mix weight.

>>17104032
>will post results in about 30
hours?

Omg I use glycerol monostearate and sodium stearoyl lactylate in MY baked goods too! Only I rarely measure stuff - usually I just dump it in.

>food scientist
>canola oil

canola oil tastes weird - any oil that's toxic until you remove certain components (in this case erucic acid) is best avoided - I use corn or safflower oil usually.

>butter flavoring
>caramel flavoring

lol that's disgusting

at least make a little caramel and or brown butter yourself

>>17104143
>When you're dealing with extremely small portions of light ingredients, it's sufficiently accurate to measure using volume. In fact, it's often MORE accurate, since you'd need a very accurate milligram scale (not the trash your drug dealer uses) to get something close to where you want to be.
this
t. research scientist

>>17104234
Disagree all you want, you've never actually used a good scale or know how variable a scale can actually be depending on shit as simple as the temperature of the room, how long the scale has been on, etc.