Talk:Baker percentage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Don't understand[edit]

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?

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.

Formula percentage[edit]

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)


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. (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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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[edit]

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. (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)