10

I have recently started making bread, and I am using a fairly complex recipe. I believe that the primary source of the inconsistency in the bread is the repeatableness of my measurements of the DIAX Diastatic Malt Flour. It has the following properties:

  • I use a small amount, currently 1 1/4 teaspoons
  • The resulting bread is sensitive to relatively small changes in the amount
  • It is a compressible powder, such that a certain volume can contain much more if you pack it in

What I am currently doing is scooping some into a rounded measuring spoon, then flattening off the top with the handle of a spoon held at 45%. I then put this into my flour mix on a cheap electronic kitchen scales and the weight changes by between 1g and 4g. This is a massive variation, but I do not know how much is coming from the scale and how much from the compression/density variation in the measure.

What is the best way to repeatably measure out a small quantity of a compressible powder such as DIAX (or ordinary flour, but that does not usually need such sensitive measurement)? I do not really care about knowing the actual weight in grams, but I do care that today's measure is the same as tomorrow's measure and that I am able to change the amount with some sensitivity.

This previous question had a lot of answers, but they do not really help me:

The more accurate scales option is a possibility, but the recommended one seems to cost $64. That is a significant amount of money for me.

The suggestions of measuring spoons is addressed above.

Dividing a larger quantity in half multiple times would require storing small measured aliquots of powder for days, which is not really practical or cheap. Throwing away excess is expensive.

Making a stock solution of DIAX would be impossible as it is mostly composed of insoluble starch.

User65535
  • 1,173
  • 6
  • 18
  • Mid pandemic, I purchased my wife this https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005UGBG20/ scale for just this reason. We already had a scale accurate to 1g that will measure much larger quantities. I also got her a set of mini measuring spoons https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KH9PSNI/ too. This set goes down to 1/64 tsp. If you are splitting a recipe that calls for something like this, your better bet is to weigh 1tsp of the powder, do the division, and use the precision scale to do your measurement. Write it on the recipe for next time. Also, look for recipes in bakers percent. – Rob McDonald Feb 05 '24 at 21:18
  • 2
    You could weigh the flour in a simple balance scale. Balance against water measured precisely with a dropper or syringe. – Theodore Feb 05 '24 at 22:49
  • Also, as a former brewer I read "diastatic" and wonder whether the inconsistency in results is from measurement or from poorly controlled enzymatic reactions. – Theodore Feb 05 '24 at 22:52
  • @Theodore I am making the bread in a bread maker, taking some effort to control the temperature of the water I use. I would expect that to be fairly consistent. – User65535 Feb 05 '24 at 22:57
  • I have more precise scales for less money. – Loren Pechtel Feb 06 '24 at 06:12
  • 1
    That scale you are linking is total overkill and rather overpriced for the range it does offer besides. Expect scales to be roughly priced based on the number of units they can measure--that's 3,000g at 0.1g steps, thus 30,000 steps. I've got one in the kitchen that's 500g at 0.01g steps for about a third of that price. (Admittedly, the pictured scale can use AC power--whether that's good or bad depends on how you use it.) – Loren Pechtel Feb 06 '24 at 06:22
  • Diastatic malt powder may be mostly insoluble, but it can still be dispersed in a bulk medium - for example mixing it into a different powder of similarly sized granules (non-diastatic malt, dextrose, corn starch, etc) or just water + a good shake each time (or add xanthan gum to keep in suspension) – Tjaden Hess Feb 07 '24 at 00:40

9 Answers9

34

Get a precision scale. Not the one you posted; it’s way too expensive, since it needs to be both high-capacity and high-precision. Here’s the one I use, and it’s fifteen bucks, and ten times as precise.

The alternative is to bulk your powder with some other powder that won’t get in the way (in this case, perhaps flour or corn starch or maltodextrin). That way you can measure a larger amount of the mixture and know the quantity of the target ingredient it corresponds to.

Sneftel
  • 29,058
  • 3
  • 75
  • 104
  • It seems the mixing would be difficult with the bulking the powder. Is there any particular procedure that could ensure even distribution of the DIAX in the mix? – User65535 Feb 05 '24 at 12:01
  • 14
    +1 for the scale, but I'm not very keen on your bulking idea. Even if mixed well at the beginning, mixed powders tend to self-sort into an uneven distribution over time. That's why things like self-raising-flour and jam sugar have to be used as whole packages, and produce inconsistent results when measured out. – rumtscho Feb 05 '24 at 12:20
  • @rumtscho That doesn’t just happen, though. Persistent vibration is necessary to cause the components to separate, and a quick mix before each use is more than enough to keep things homogeneous enough. And if the bulking material is similar enough in density and particle size even that isn’t necessary. Consider baking powder. – Sneftel Feb 05 '24 at 12:40
  • @User65535 mixing for a while, basically, and not being too greedy with the amount of bulking. But mostly, mixing for a while. – Sneftel Feb 05 '24 at 12:41
  • 4
    A precision scale is definitely the way to go. When you work with xanthan gum, guar gum or other additives you often can't reliably use even small spoons as the quantities are very small. My precision scale is a separate instrument which goes down to hundredths of a gram, I measure my powders in a small bowl and add them separately. – GdD Feb 05 '24 at 12:49
  • 3
    0.1g scales are on ebay for around £/$/€ 10. Mine work well and are sold for use with coffee (many are sold for use with "herbs" - but there's only one plant with the pictured leaves) – Chris H Feb 05 '24 at 13:15
  • 8
    Just to raise the price a little: with the cheap 0.1g scales, you absolutely must by the calibration weights, raising the cost around $7. I teach glaze making classes, and about 1 in 3 of those scales is significantly out of calibration. – FuzzyChef Feb 05 '24 at 18:35
  • 1
    Or get a tablespoon and fill it with water and weigh that. – Sneftel Feb 05 '24 at 19:51
  • 3
    @FuzzyChef He doesn't need the calibration, merely reproducibility. – Loren Pechtel Feb 06 '24 at 06:14
  • I would +1 this answer, but as said above, bulking is not a good method unless done with a powder of similar particle size, density, and hygroscopy (or trying to carefully balance those against each other), which is pretty much never going to be the case for off-the-shelf ingredients – Tristan Feb 06 '24 at 14:47
  • @LorenPechtel: Calibration is good for precision as well (room temp, ...) and OP seems to care about this. Instead of calibration weights, one can use coins. E.g., 5 2-€-coins + 1 1-€-coin = 50.0 g. While 11 € is more than a calibration weight for kitchen use costs, they can still be spent in case of need :-) – cbeleites unhappy with SX Feb 06 '24 at 16:50
  • What if: put all your dry ingredients except DIAX together in a larger quantity, maybe five times a single recipe. Then weigh out five times the amount of DIAX into it.  Thoroughly mix. Use one-fifth of that for a batch.  If it turns out to be not enough, add a little.  Weigh it first and note the amount.  If not enough, you'll have to make four more batches (or discard and start over) before you can make another batch with a little less.  Once you've discovered the perfect amount, you can make large batches of mix to work from.  Just thoroughly stir before each batch. – WGroleau Feb 06 '24 at 16:51
  • How much variation in mass is there between a new coin and one that is worn and/or dirty? – WGroleau Feb 06 '24 at 16:53
  • 1
    You probably have fairly precise calibration weights available in your pocket unless you've gone totally cashless, for 0.1, 0.5 and 0.10 of your local currencey, in the form of coins. – Ecnerwal Feb 06 '24 at 17:23
  • 1
    @WGroleau rather than dividing into 1/5, use 1/4 or 1/8. Dividing into (powers of) 2 is essentially always easier - not by much if working with large quantities of dry ingredients, but by enough – Chris H Feb 06 '24 at 20:17
  • 1
    @Ecnerwal by that test mine are pretty good. 1--10 coins of 3.56g or 5g (UK 1p and 20p) and 1--8 coins of 3.25g (5p) not a single measurement was off by more than 0.1g after rounding to the precision I could measure. Not bad for £10 (I just looked that up) – Chris H Feb 06 '24 at 20:39
  • 2
    Just do it. Take the scale-pill. I've resisted using a scale for years, trying to practice being good at "eye-balling", utilizing measuring scoops and just throwing things together - but now that I've started using my gf's scale I can never go back. Weighing out dough pieces, ingredient ratios etc. to extreme precision and uniformity is something you'll never be able to achieve, even with years of daily prepping in a commercial kitchen. – RIanGillis Feb 06 '24 at 21:32
  • @Chuu Yeah, and given the herb they are meant for they're pretty wimpy. The real grinders are identified as grain mills. – Loren Pechtel Feb 07 '24 at 00:32
25

There is a misconception in your question. You say:

I do not really care about knowing the actual weight

and

I do care that today's measure is the same as tomorrow's measure

In fact, the "measure" you care about is the measure of weight. In baking, your bread will only be the same every day if you use the same weight of malt every day. The measure of volume is just a bad proxy for the measure of weight.

Following that, your only option to have what you want is to get a scale. Scales come in different types, you need one that is accurate in the range you describe. You don't need a scale which is accurate from 0.05 g to 5000 g, but you can't use a scale which is only accurate from 5 g to 5000 g, which is a very typical range for a kitchen scale.

So, just go and look at scales for that range. The answer to your question "what is the cheapest and accurate way" is to get the cheapest (suitable) scale you can find. If you can afford it, great. If you can't afford it, then your question has no answer, and you're stuck with getting inconsistent results in your bread.

rumtscho
  • 138,730
  • 45
  • 311
  • 565
  • 2
    To clarify what I meant, I do not need to know if the amount I am using and find gives the best results is 1.7g, just that I can do it again every day and can increase it by a small amount. – User65535 Feb 05 '24 at 12:21
  • 15
    @User65535 yes, sure. I think we agree that you need the same weight consistently - so automatically, methods like measuring spoons, dividing by eye in half, etc. are unsuitable. You need a way to measure weight, and that's a scale. – rumtscho Feb 05 '24 at 12:40
  • 1
    @User65535 That is in fact what you need to know. Because once you know that 1.7g gives you the best results, measuring out 1.7g every time will give you the best results consistently, and if you want to increase it then increasing it to 1.8g or whatever will give you a consistent change. – John Montgomery Feb 05 '24 at 21:45
  • 12
    @JohnMontgomery (and rumtscho) There's a difference between reliably replicating something and measuring it. Yes, measuring it inherently leads to the ability to reliably replicate it, but sometimes the measuring is more difficult than alternative methods to reliably replicate something. OP's point wasn't that the weight must remain a mystery, but rather that it's not inherently required to be part of the answer, as long as the answer entails a reliable replication. Both of you are implying that you need to know the weight. It's one way to do it, but not necessarily the only way to do it. – Flater Feb 06 '24 at 00:17
  • 4
    I'd argue OP needs to portion a consistent mass. Weight is a proxy for mass, just like volume is. It's just that in the case of a compressible powder, weight is a more reliable proxy. – marcelm Feb 06 '24 at 15:26
  • 4
    Unless OP will be baking at wildly different elevations (say, sea level vs geosynchronous orbit) or on the Vomit Comet, the difference between weight and mass probably isn't relevant. – chepner Feb 06 '24 at 21:51
  • 1
    @Flater if we're arguing such fine points, I think we should distinguish between measuring and using a unit system. The OP might not care if it's 1.7 grams in the SI system - which means they could take a balance scale and an old button and always measure out "one button of malt". They still need a method which measures out the exact weight, even if it doesn't produce a number from a widespread unit system. – rumtscho Feb 07 '24 at 09:09
  • @rumtscho The point is that OP only cares about the relative value (in weight or volume). If OP had a device that would have a display showing e.g. "this is 1/10th more flour than you used last time", without showing the absolute weight, OP would be happy. Of course, such a device is hard to come by, so in practice it's easiest to just buy a good enough scale, manually write down the absolute weights and calculate the difference. – tjalling Feb 07 '24 at 17:38
  • 1
    @tjalling you are right that such a device would do the job. And also, this device would be a scale. – rumtscho Feb 07 '24 at 17:45
  • @rumtscho "this device would be a scale" is subtly different from "a scale is one kind of device that fits the bill" (the latter leaving it open to more than one solution), and that distinction is the focal point of the comments here. – Flater Feb 08 '24 at 22:57
5

You could get a small sifter and sift over your measuring device to get fairly uniform measuring.

You would of course do this over a large plate so you can reclaim the excess flour.

enter image description here

Albeit, realistically, a precision scale is the way to go. You'll find it's useful for much more than this very specific bread recipe.

MonkeyZeus
  • 293
  • 3
  • 8
  • 3
    I’m not sure I understand… why would sifting improve the uniformity of the measurements? – Sneftel Feb 05 '24 at 21:58
  • 7
    Sifting the flour into a container, rather than packing or scooping it, means the density of the flour in the container is constant (at roughly whatever the minimum possible density is.) – Glenn Willen Feb 05 '24 at 22:06
  • At the very least, you could use this as a consistent technique to add small amounts of ingredient to sneak up on your desired value with a scale. – DKNguyen Feb 05 '24 at 23:56
  • 1
    @GlennWillen Not really constant (because differences in how the individual particles settle will still happen with sifted powders, and any sizable mass will still compress), but it should be orders of magnitude more consistent than just dumping the powder into the measuring container or scooping it out of storage. – Austin Hemmelgarn Feb 05 '24 at 23:59
  • 1
    @AustinHemmelgarn I don't think Glenn was implying a perfect constant but rather it's better than merely dumping or scooping just as my answer states via "fairly uniform measuring". – MonkeyZeus Feb 06 '24 at 13:09
2

Is your storage location subject to large variations in relative humidity? Having worked in laboratories where seasonal variation in humidity affects the weighing of various leaf and grain samples, perhaps keeping the flour in a consistently humidified (or dried) state might be a solution. (There has been discussion amongst my peers whether scooping or weighing soil samples is the better choice for analysis, not dissimilar to your issue with the malt). Silica gel bags (dessicant packets, like the ones in packaged foods/shoe boxes etc) might be enough to lower the humidity inside your storage container. I don't know if they are re-usable by drying in a moderate oven when fully hydrated, but they might be cheap enough throw away when no longer effective.

FourW
  • 31
  • 2
  • this. moisture will also affect weight, so scales alone will not necessarily be a solution. – ths Feb 09 '24 at 19:56
1

In addition to all the things people have said about weighing the powder for accuracy, you should NEVER scoop up a compressible powder into a measuring device, as variations in technique will cause variations in compression. Instead, stir the powder to fluff it up, gently spoon it into the measuring device, then level it off with something completely flat -- the back of many knives would work well, or I use a sharp-edged flat metal chopstick.

My canister of baking powder has a built in metal edge for leveling off measuring spoons, though that is after I scoop the powder into the spoon.

arp
  • 219
  • 1
  • 5
1

As you've already heard the best way to measure is weight but you can get 0.01g accurate scales to a max of 100g on ebay for less than $10. You'll be using a tooth pick as a scoop to get your weight of flour that precise.

Jazza
  • 19
  • 1
  • These scales have a display of 10 mg, but won't have that precision nor accuray. Still, one of those will likely solve OP's measurement problem. (10 mg are more a tip-of-a-knife amount than on-a-tooth-pick.) – cbeleites unhappy with SX Feb 06 '24 at 16:57
1

Is this mixed in with dry ingredients? Because, from chemistry, we make up stock solutions for pretty much this reason. You could just make a dry stock mix.

You'd take several days worth of flour, and several days worth of malt powder, sift them together, and use that.

It'd give you an accurate (because less percentage of the measurement will be due to scale error) measurement on the powder.

It will also accomplish your other goal, which is to use consistent amounts of malt powder. Each large batch will, if sifted and combined properly, have the same proportions of flour and malt powder in each measure.

lupe
  • 284
  • 1
  • 5
-1

I agree that you should be able to find a scale that meets both your precision needs and your cost target. In addition to the extensive options on the 'net to find cheap new stuff, you can look for used scales either on the 'net or locally. Or you may be able to borrow something on an extended basis.

That said, if you're looking for something cheaper than a scale, try a balance. A high-quality balance will be more expensive than a cheap scale; but a cheap balance could be quite cheap indeed; you could even make one with materials around the house.

One you have a balance, you just need to find something consistent (and preferably adjustable) to compare against. A certain quantity of paper clips. Ball-bearings. A known volume of water. Very small rocks.

(Don't expect the rocks to float if you put them into the volume of water, however.)

John Brown
  • 1
  • 2
-1

For measuring small amounts of a compressible powder accurately on a budget, try this trick: First, find out the average weight of the amount you need by measuring it out several times, leveling it off each time, and weighing it. Let's say you're using 1 1/4 teaspoons of your powder; scoop it, level it, weigh it, and do this a few times to get an average weight.

Once you've got that average, you can simply use your scale to measure out that exact weight each time you bake. This way, you're ensuring you're always using the same amount of ingredient, despite its compressibility. It's a bit of a DIY approach but does the job without needing to splash out on fancy gear. Plus, getting consistent with this method means your bread will turn out the same way each time. Just make sure your scale is decently accurate for small weights, and you're good to go!

Jackson 2.0
  • 1