I was curious to see the level of hydration in the bread I baked today. So I weighed my flour (470 grams) and water/milk (315 grams) after I did my usual scooping/volume measures (about 3-1/2 cups of flour and about 1-1/3 cups of liquid). I didn't bother with the weight of a tablespoon of olive oil, the instant yeast, sugar or salt, because I didn't need to know the BP of those ingredients.
Then I divided 315 by 470, which gives a percentage of 67.7%. Is this the right way to figure the BP of liquid in my recipe? Thanks in advance for your help with this! Seth
I get 315/470 = .670, or 67%, but aside from that small difference, yes, that's right. Or it would be right if the liquid was water. Milk runs around 87% water, so the dough might behave as if it were less hydrated. If all the liquid were milk, that would take the water fraction down to 58%. OTOH, part of the milk is fat, and that would make the dough feel a little more hydrated than the amount of water would indicate.
TomP
Thanks Tom, for confirming my calculation. And you are right, it's really just 67%, I misread the readout on my calculator.
And on your milk/water notes, the ration was 1/4 cup milk to almost 1-1/4 cups of water for a total of almost 1-1/2 cups of liquid, so I guess that works out to 1/6th or about 16% milk to 84% water if my math is right. I assumed milk and water weigh the same, which is why I just added them together, but that probably isn't so, given your remarks. In any event, it's close enough for starters and I'm just happy I got the math right! Seth
You have headed in the right direction. Oil, eggs and other "liquids" are typically excluded from the "wet" part of hydration, although you can find several other approaches to this as well. The truly rigorous will include the water portion of the milk, which ranges from approximately 87% of whole milk weight/92% of nonfat milk weight. I usually just consider milk to be water and combine it with the water weight, just as you did, and not sweat the fine details.
Just to clarify a detail about Bakers Percentage though: It refers to the % of total flour weight that each other ingredient, by itself, represents. So what I was really describing above would be called "Hydration Percentage', not Bakers Percentage. That's what you asked about though, so I started there. :). So your Bakers Percentage of water is not the same as the hydration of your dough. To get the individual BP's of water and milk divide each of them by flour weight. The result of each calculation will be the BP of water and the BP of milk respectively.
Hope I have managed to make it confusing enough to be understandable. :)
OldWoodenSpoon
OK, now I'm wondering about the difference between BP and hydration -- which I assumed were the same thing. If they aren't, how would you calculate hydration? Seth
Hydration is what you calculated originally. You could refine your calculation if you wish by computing the true "water" portion of the milk as tom and I pointed out, or do what both you and I do: just consider milk the same as water and add them together. So...
Hydration = (water+milk)/flour
OR
Hydration = (water +[water portion of milk])/flour. Where all units are weights.
Both approaches have their advocates and their detractors. I will admit that at higher portions of milk in a formula I pay much closer attention to how the dough turns out because, again as tom said, it can turn out a little dryer and need a bit of extra water to make it "right".
OldWoodenSpoon
Thanks to all for the helpful information! My next question is -- how does my 76% hydration (more or less) stack up against the average or median hydration number, if there is such a thing? I was frankly surprised to see that 76% number, since at least in my experience, my doughs seem to be on the dryer/firmer side, with a fairly dense crumb and very small holes -- but still quite delicious.
Also, I remember reading somewhere that "the wetter the dough, the better the bread." Like all sayings, there's probably a grain or truth in it, as well as plenty of situations where it doesn't apply! Seth
In your original post, confirmed in Tom's initial response, your formula comes to 67%, not 76%, but I'll assume that you just transposed the digits. As to your specific question, there just isn't such a thing... Not all breads are the same, for obvious reasons. Even within major genres there is immense variation, and it just doesn't lend itself to productive statistical analysis, so terms like mean, average and such just aren't very applicable. In that way it is not possible to say where 67% "stacks up".
You did not say what kind of bread you are baking, but given the milk in the formula I assume it is an enriched yeast bread rather than sourdough. As such your 67% hydration is pretty much where I would expect the formula to be. Anywhere from 65% to 69% is what I am used to seeing for such a dough, although higher or lower formations certainly exist. So in this respect I guess you are "in the ballpark" at least. :)
In a more generalized view dough hydration varies radically from the very low of something like bagels to the very high of, say, focaccia. Dough consisting of just patent (white) flours are generally formulated at lower hydrations than those incorporating high proportions of whole grain, which tend toward higher hydrations given the thirst of whole grain flours. As with all things there exceptions to such "norms", such as the focaccia already mentioned. Even in this context though the "wetter the better" expression is of only limited applicability. There are just too many variables that come into play when defining "wetter" for it to be that simple.
I don't know if this is even close to answering your questions, but it is an interesting discussion.
OldWoodenSpoon
You're correct, I just transposed the digits, 67% is the right number.
And to answer your question, I made a "Heinz 57 Varieties" bread today --- a little bit of everything. Roughly 2/3 unbleached Hecker's white flour, 1/3 KA whole wheat, a small amount of skim milk and a tablespoon of olive oil for better keeping and a more tender crumb, instant yeast, a little sugar and salt, some crushed rosemary, plus 8 oz. of chopped dried figs that I rolled into the shaped loaf. I dimpled the loaf before baking, so it somewhat resembles foccacia in looks if not in structure (smaller holes, etc.)
Every loaf is a learning experience, so I'm enjoying the journey. Seth
There are too many factors in play to make a definitive statement like that. But if you stick with mainly white wheat flours, a movement towards higher hydration tends to make the bread move towards a more open crumb and a more delicate structure, and also toward a dough that is more sticky, delicate, and harder to handle. There will be a happy middle somewhere, but that point will be different for each different baker, eater, flour types, etc.
It can be hard to compare hydration when the flour mix changes. High protein vs low, hard vs soft wheat, modern vs ancient grains (e.g., emmer, spelt), fresh milled vs store-bought, all can make a big difference in how the dough feels and how the bread turns out.
So - general trends, yes, within reason, but plenty of qualifications.
I would rather say that the hydration is "expressed" as a baker's percentage, as opposed to drawing a distinction between baker's percentage and hydration percentage. E.g., a salt content of 2% of the flour weight => baker's percent of 2%, not "salt percentage".
I wouldn't dispute that Tom, but I think there is a valid distinction when speaking of the baker's percentage of water and the bakers percentage of milk in a formula vs the hydration percentage of (water+milk)/flour. Even then your clarification is valid, but in this case so is the distinction.
OldWoodenSpoon
I'm like you, I just think of the milk as the same as water when I pour it in. I'm trying to read the dough more and be fiddly about details less.
I've been baking bread for quite a while, but I always thought BP was just for professionals and bakeries, I figured it was too complicated and not necessary for home bakers like me. And although I originally looked into it just as a matter of curiosity, now I see how useful and helpful BP can be.
Now I understand how BP lets you compare different recipes very quickly by using a common formula, even if the yield, ingredients or techniques are different. And it's also easy to scale a recipe up or down, or to make a certain weight/size loaf.
Of course, there still needs to be adjustments for temperature, humidity, time, etc., and let the dough tell you what it needs. But BP is a really good thing to have in my toolbox. So thanks to all for the additional BP info! Seth
When I make Debra Winks 100% whole wheat sandwich loaf, I weigh the whole egg and milk and then add just enough water to make up the hydration amount. The hydration of the dough is the combination of egg, milk and water. The oil is a separate entity.
Gavin
Incidentally, I am now a fan of the metric system! Even for a math-challenged person like me, dealing with grams and decimals is much easier than working with ounces/pounds/cups/pints/quarts. I had always considered the metric system to be an antiquated arrangement --- I didn't really care how many liters were in my half-gallon bottle of ginger ale. But now I see it's actually our measurement system in the U.S. that's the real antique!
BTW, I read in Carol Fields' "The Italian Baker" that in Europe, the BP formula is based upon 100% of water rather than flour. Has anyone had experience using that arrangement? Seth
Yay! One convert at a time!
The metric, or SI, system is indeed so much easier to use than the Imperial or US customary system. I've been using the metric system for decades because of my education and career in science. The big problem I have is that the US still refuses to adopt the metric system so a lot of appliances (ovens, etc.) and foods still use the US system, and that makes it hard to use the metric system exclusively. Converting between the two is a real pain, and that contributed to the failed adoption in the US. And don't get me started on the fact there the US has dry and fluid ounces that are different! It is also worth noting that your half-gallon bottle of ginger ale has really been a 2-L bottle for many years, if not decades.
I was curious about the history of the some of Imperial/US units, so I looked up the ounce. It can be traced back to the Roman uncia, which is 27.4 g, close to the modern ounce. The metric/SI system may be several hundred years old, but I believe the Imperial/US systems are much older.
Finally, with regard to the European BP%, I have looked at a lot of German bread sites and the BP% is based on the flour. I can't vouch for Italian sites.
One problem with the imperial system was that it varied quite a bit from place to place even within England. Within the UK, the Imperial system of units was standardized in 1824, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units). That's not all that long ago, really. Metric units were standardized in France as one outcome of the French Revolution, so aren't much older. US units were standardized in 1832, but they were based on the UK system in effect before 1824, which apparently explains part of the difference.
TomP
I remember now that there's a book about the failed attempt to replace the Imperial system in the United States with the Metric system. It's called Whatever Happened to the Metric System? (Bloomsbury USA, 2015) by John Marciano, and it's available from Amazon in paperback ($12) and as a Kindle e-book ($10).
I bought the book some years ago because I enjoy history. But I must confess that I gave up about a third of the way through, because it seemed boring. Obviously I will now go back, pick it up and try again! Seth
It'll still be boring.
I wish the metric system had failed in Canada too. I don't know a single Canadian who calculates his weight or height in metric, or doesn't buy Imperial 2x4s at the lumber store, yet we were forced to change every can, bottle, package, container and highway sign. Measuring gasoline in litres instead of gallons is silly. I know exactly what 65°F feels like, but have no idea what 13°C is supposed to be, and have no desire to figure it out.
Geez, I'm cranky.
Imperial units (some, anyway) tend to be more people-centered than SI/metric ones. The temperature scale is an example. The Fahrenheit scale was set so that 100 deg F was about the hottest a person could stand and 0 was about the coldest (roughly speaking!). The Celsius scale was set based on the freezing and boiling points of water.
Inch subdivisions are easier to create in the real world of objects than centimeter subdivisions. It's easy to divide into quarters, halves, etc. than into tenths, especially in times before precision equipment and ready magnification. There is no handy construction for tenths on paper or wood, whereas dividing into two equal halves can be reliably achieved even without a ruler.
I'm sure if one grows up with one set of units, it will seem easy and natural. And powers of ten are easier for quick arithmetic than 12, 16, 20, 60, or what have you.
So sayeth a benighted US person...
FYI—Fahrenheit set his scale slightly differently. His scale was based on meteorological observations, with his upper end at 96 °F, but he used three fixed terms as reference points. Zero was the temperature of an ice/water/ammonium chloride brine, 30 °F was the freezing point of water, and 90 °F was body temperature. The scale was refined later to what is used today.
After using both systems, I still prefer the metric system, especially for weight and volume. I still find it odd there are two separate values for liquid and dry volumes in the US customary system, which are both different from the avoirdupois ounce. And I like the fact that I can know the liquid volume of a pan either using its dimensions in cm³, or use the weight of water in g for irregular-shaped pans. I don't readily know how many in³ are in a cup or gallon, and I can't directly use the weight of water (avoirdupois oz) for US customary volumes (fl oz) because they are different.
Check your math. Enjoy!
The US NIST website has a page for everyday estimation in metric units:
Everyday Estimation
Did you know that the Earth weighs 6 Rg (6 × 10^27 g)? I didn't even know there was a prefix (ronna) that large! And quetta (10^30) is even larger!
But there were some interesting mass (US nickel = 5 g), length (US dime thickness = 1 mm), and temperature estimations. Although in the case of the US currency, I believe those are specifications.
I live in Australia and have lived through the transition from imperial to metric units. They were gradually implemented. Once you get used to them, it becomes second nature and make life much easier. Weight, Speed, Temperature, length and currency. The old ways are in the dim dark past.
Gavin.
You're going to make me cry. There are huge chunks of that dim, dark past I love. Tell me, do Ozzies give their height and weight in metric? Do you buy wooden planks in metric? Maybe you do, just wondering. We switched in the 1970s, but young people still say they are 6' tall, or whatever. They use Celsius exclusively, though. Our money was always "metric". In spite of the fact that everything is divisible by ten, I'm not so sure it makes life much easier.
Height and weight are always metric now. The building trade is a mixed bag, though. If I want a wooden plank, its length is in metric or imperial. But if I buy a wooden beam, it is measured in imperial, e.g., 6" x 4". Confused? Somehow it works as the tradies are mostly the result of apprenticeships over the generations. We oldies sometimes slip back and forth :)
Gavin
I was curious about the history of the metric system in the US and found some interesting items on the US NIST website:
US metric myths
US metric program
US metric FAQs
I learned that it's been legal to use the metric system in the US since 1875, and that US customary units have been defined by metric units since 1893!
I finished reading "Whatever Became of the Metric System," which was rather dry but still full of interesting nuggets. For example, there were allegations in the 1950's that the metric system was actually a Communist conspiracy (but then again, almost everything was a Communist conspiracy back then). Or that the multi-million dollar spacecraft sent to Mars in 1999 crash-landed because of NASA's mix of metric and imperial units -- the spacecraft's software was using SI Newtons to calculate its force and speed, while the ground crew was using pound-force units instead. What could possibly go wrong?
Although I do find metric measures much more convenient for making bread, I guess I'm stuck with my two sets of metric and U.S. wrenches, my spring-loaded bathroom scale that only measures my weight in pounds, and my metric ruler that I use to set the action on my guitar (2mm is ideal). So now I'll just pour myself a 2-ounce shot from my 750ml bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey, sit back and enjoy myself! Seth
that is what they call in the trade a brilliant kicker. Keep enjoying. -- Rob
Since we had about 8 inches (20.32 cm) of snow last weekend and it's presently 23 degrees (-5 Celsius and 286.15 Kelvin) outside, I was very fortunate that Mr. Daniels stopped by a few days ago! Because we knew a mega-storm was coming, we hit the grocery store AND the liquor store in advance (but not necessarily in that order) to be sure we had sufficient provisions for a couple of days. Seth
In addition to Jack Daniels being a banging beverage (sadly, I can no longer drink it due to a gag reflex that still kicks in from an episode long ago), your phrase is a 'kicker' in writing terms, too, in that it perfectly distills the conundrum of the cool metric system vs. customary nomenclature: quintessentially American Jack Daniels comes in 750 ml bottles, but no cowboy will never belly up to the bar and bellow, "bartender, give me a couple of 30 milliliter glasses of whisky." (30 ml -- aka 30 grams -- being the approximate metric measure of a 1 oz shot.) And no one will ever think they're getting a lot of booze if a bar serves its Martinis in 300 ml glasses. -- R
I forgot that there are two other time-honored ways to measure alcoholic beverages. I'm old enough to remember buying bottles of whiskey by the "fifth," although at that time I was never quite sure exactly what it was a fifth of (a quart? a gallon?). And once the booze left the bottle and went into a glass, some people ordered their liquor "by the finger" -- as in "I'll have two fingers of bourbon please," that being the height the liquor rose from the bottom of the glass, and shot glasses be damned.
Then there was the patron at a bar that I managed, who didn't want ANY measurements at all. He requested a new unopened bottle of Old Grandad bourbon and a straw . . . . Seth
👉🏼I'll drink to that👈🏻
Didn't Bob Hope in a comedy western film go to the bar and say " Give me four fingers of Redeye - and I'll take the thumb too".
Well, I thought it was funny at the time.
Lance
Hint - don't weigh. Enjoy!