Talk:Baker percentage

Don't understand

I don't really understand the examples section - what is the second recipe meant to be telling us, and why is the marketing scam included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.120 (talk) 13:30, 2006 December 12 (UTC)

I changed around things quite a bit. I removed so stuff that, I think, should be (and was for the most part) in the bread article.

Hit me up when you fix my English (and the rest too).

Tony 04:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bakers percentage formulas *always* exceed 100%; the first line of the article currently states:

"Baker percentage is a way of indicating the proportion of ingredients when making bread. Contrary to the usual way of expressing percentages, the overall total does not add up to 100, it usually exceeds 100%."

The "usually" at the end of that sentence should be changed to "always" because it could be confusing for people not familiar with the system.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.236.249 (talk) 17:24, 2006 August 30 (UTC)

Formula percentage

Hi all,

Regarding the recent addition of "formula percentage", isn't it different because it adds up to 100, not above 100? [1]

Tony 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ratios

This is nothing more than using ratios. Perhaps this could be inserted and state that "percentage" is more for the baker's rather than the mathematician's job. 118.90.35.155 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah, it's confusing until you realize that a bakers percentage does not equal a typical percentage. It's a defined term in the existing literature, and has been for at least some 50 years or so, so that bread's already been baked. Prior to its use, I've seen a number of old "formulas" that used "parts". 10 parts flour, 6 parts water.... Not sure precisely when the changeover was adopted. All of this appears to have been designed so a baker could make small or large quantities using one formula. In a recipe, whether it's given by weight or volume, the total amount is fixed, and scaling it up or down (unless its a simple doubling or halving) is more difficult. Now what I'd like to know is why hasn't it been more widely adopted? It's often been said that the best way to change something is to design a better model, and baker's percentages and working with ingredient weights instead of volumes is such a better model. Ever notice how the package of most any foods you buy are priced by weight? Gzuufy (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

The correct title for this entry should be Baker's Percentage (with "'s" at the end of '"Baker"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sǝɔɐ,uıʞoɯs (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what most of the literature has named it. However, is it for a single baker, or many bakers? There seem to be times when plural possessive is the more correct form, i.e., Bakers' Percentage. It seems easy enough to move a page. Gzuufy (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Some other literature names it "baker's percent", without the -age appended (i.e. "percentage"). My point is that if "baker" is a reasonable substitute for "baker's" or "bakers'" as a root word due ambiguity of possessive usage, then one would also want to trim the second word of the phrase down to its root for consistency's sake. So, "baker percent" is also worth considering, as is "baker's percent" and "bakers' percent". Gzuufy (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

History

It might be interesting to have a history section, though I'm not the one to write it. Searching results in a November, 1961 Navy Department publication titled Baking Handbook that both uses baker's percentage, and mentions it as a phrase. It's entirely possible there are earlier mentions of the notation technique in other works. A snippet view from Google books has another version of the same work listed with a published date of 1958 attributed with the same text, though the e-library only has the 1961 version. So, it appears as a published bakers' notation technique since at least 1958. Gzuufy (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant errata

Why is there errata about which milk is and how the amount of yeast used affects the flavour? There are even references for this stuff. Has absolutely nothing to do with explaining the concept. 136.163.44.102 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I put much of that there, due to what I felt were flaws in the basic formula, which I didn't originate. Another editor later (or at some point -- feel free to peruse the revision history) offered the "100% flour, 60% water/liquid, 1% yeast, 2% salt and 1% oil," which is a formula that wouldn't need any errata. While I sort of understand your deeming them irrelevant to the scoring method, I believe they also demonstrate a standardized way of conceiving of an ingredient. You may also consider the bullet point in the section Advantages, "spot bad recipes or predict their baked characteristics". Gzuufy (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "errata" are irrelevant to the article. I'll remove the section and amend the example formula as above. Meesher (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy of formulas

The formula

$baker's\ percentage_{ingredient}=100\%\times {\frac {mass_{ingredient}}{mass_{flour}}}$

is incorrect. The sign "%" is a shortcut for 1/100, so 100% = 100/100 = 1.

The correct version is

$baker's\ percentage_{ingredient}=100\times {\frac {mass_{ingredient}}{mass_{flour}}}$

I modified it.

FlorinI (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There are three citations for that, two are from Gisslen, one is from Ramaswamy & Marcotte. Before your change, the equation was exactly like Gisslen's usage. After your change, it is like Ramaswamy's & Marcotte's. I prefer Gisslen's, here's why I dislike Ramaswamy's & Marcotte's formula:

baker's % = 100 * (mass_ingredient/mass_flour)

Let's assign values to mass_ingredient and mass_flour, choosing values where the answer will be 50%,

mass_ingredient=50 g

mass_flour=100 g

Thus

baker's % = 100 * (50 g/100 g)

which simplifies to

baker's % = 100 * (50/100)

baker's % = 50

Note that answer is 50, but that

50≠50% (this is similar to Ramaswamy's & Marcotte's example 2.5, "baker's % for water", they assert 65 = 65%)

rather,

50=5000%

However, when using the 100% notation like Gisslen uses, while it is true that 100% = 1, and thus multiplication by it can be struck as unneeded, in the case of 100%, it is also an indication that the percentage sign is to be used in the answer.

Thus

baker's % = 100% * (50/100)

which simplifies to

baker's % = 100% * 0.5

baker's % = 50%

further,

50%=0.5

which supports the idea that "100%" in its entirety can be struck from the formula because it equals 1.

Consider the case where 100% is struck in its entirety,

baker's % = (50/100)

which simplifies to,

baker's % = 0.5

The answer "0.5" is apparently confusing since there is no % in the answer, it does not meet the definition of "parts per hundred". However when the digits are moved and percentage sign added, or it is multiplied by 100% (which equals 1), then,

baker's % = 0.5 = 0.5 * 100% = 50%

Conclusion, the two methods, Ramaswamy & Marcotte's versus Gisslen's, result in completely different answers, they cannot both be correct. I'm reminded that at Wikipedia, accuracy and truthfulness are not as important as verifiability, and unfortunately, in this particular case, there are citations supporting both methods. I believe the above proved that this formula,

$baker's\ percentage_{ingredient}=100\times {\frac {mass_{ingredient}}{mass_{flour}}}$

is incorrect. Your edit should either be reversed, or a dubious tag added which points to this discussion.

Gzuufy (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baker percentage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060916205441/http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/piersog/Regular/Worksheets/WS-Metric%20conversion.doc to http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/piersog/Regular/Worksheets/WS-Metric%20conversion.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Common formulations

The common formulations section doesn't make any sense. The forumulation differs per bread. Even if this is a common formulation, the section doesn't explain why it is. --Candide124 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)