Multiple pan sizes

[Slamdunkpro]

As I get more and more involved in making Chicago style it seems that dough scaling is a little more involved. Is there an easy rule of thumb for taking a dough recipe and converting it for multiple smaller pan sizes?  I can do the calculus required to calculate the total surface area but just wondered if there was a quicker way. (and I’ve already figured out the “make the whole dough batch, cut to size and toss the extra” method )

[Pete-zza]

Slamdunkpro,

There have been some attempts to simplify this matter, and as an example you might look at this: http://www.pmq.com/cgi-bin/tt/index.cgi/noframes/read/25868. Using the thickness factor mentioned at the above link (0.12389) will allow you to calculate the amount of dough to use for a particular pan size--by solving the expression 3.14 x R x R x 0.12389 (where R is the pan radius)--but to calculate how much of each ingredient you will need to make the dough for that pan size requires that you have the baker's percents.

The more brute force method is to actually calculate the surface area of the deep-dish pan that is to be covered with dough. That surface area is equal to the surface area of the bottom of the pan plus the surface area of the side of the pan (3.14 x diameter x depth) that is to be covered with dough. If the entire depth of the pan is to be covered with dough, then the depth of the pan would be used for the calculation. If the dough will not cover the entire depth of the pan, then the actual depth of the dough coverage would be used for the calculation. In either case, you will perhaps also want to knock about 1/4 inch off of the pan/dough depth to compensate for the fact that the dough that covers the bottom of the pan will use up about 1/4 inch of the depth of the pan.

Once you calculate the surface area, you will then need to apply a thickness factor, such as mentioned above, to the total surface area you calculate to determine the amount of dough you will need. I have seen quite a variation in thickness factors for the deep-dish pies on this forum, based on my calculations, but typical thickness factors seem to run from about 0.11-0.14. Once you settle on a thickness factor, you will still need the baker's percents to be able to calculate the quantities of dough ingredients you will need. There are very few deep-dish dough recipes stated in baker's percents formulations on this forum. The DKM deep-dish formulation in the recipe section on the front page of the forum is one of the few. Most of the deep-dish dough formulations I have posted are also recited in baker's percents, which I calculated as best I could from converting recipes of other to that format. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to make use of the math described above. Once you have the baker's percents, it helps to have a spreadsheet to do all the calculations for whatever size pan (diameter), pan depth, or thickness factor you choose to use.

Keep in mind also that a sloping side deep dish pan will require less dough than a pan with a straight side. That is because a sloping side pan is really a trapezoid (if you laid it out flat), and a trapezoid has a slightly smaller surface area than a rectangle with equal long sides. Rather than work out the math to determine the difference, it is simpler just to use a little bet less dough. Or use the same dough and get a slightly thicker crust.

Easy, huh?

Peter

[Hi Gluten]

"I can do the calculus required to calculate the total surface area but just wondered if there was a quicker way. (and I’ve already figured out the “make the whole dough batch, cut to size and toss the extra” method ) "

Thomas Edison once had to interview some applicants that wanted to work for him. One of his tests for his astute and learned applicants was to figure out the volume of one of his glass light bulb casings. The applicants started to try to mathematically figure out the globe and stem volumes and had a hard time reconciling a definitive answer. Mr. Edison after viewing their frustrations stopped them and then filled up the bulb casing with water and then poured the water into a measuring beaker. The volume was no longer an unknown.

Sometimes, the obvious solution is the most practical. I myself believe in the scientific method, as well as truth in numbers. But, there is also a time to allow the artistic aspirations to come forth and not be impeded by science. The two need to balance.

"You can't have great art without great science...You also can't have great science without great art."

'just my humble opinion.

[Pete-zza]

Hi Gluten,

The question posed by Slamdunkpro has come up in one or more guises several times before. And, actually, I think the question is a very reasonable one. Not everyone has all of the sizes of pans called for by all of the deep-dish recipes that have been posted on this forum. Some may only have one pan. So, it is quite natural and logical to ask how to determine how much dough is needed to fit a particular size pan so that the same results are achieved--without guessing--as with the size pan that was called for by the original recipe.

Unfortunately, there is nothing intuitive about the process, and it is easy to evade the question by just saying to scale the dough to the desired size pan. To show you what I mean, if 13 ounces of dough are needed to make say, a 9-inch deep-dish pie, the amount of dough needed to make an 18-inch pie is not double, as one might be inclined to guess. It is more than triple. The only surefire way to arrive at the correct answer is to do the math. I did this some time ago for DKM's deep-dish dough recipe--the one posted on the Recipes page of this forum--and posted the results at Reply #15, at http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,560.0.html. Back then, I used a simple calculator but I subsequently received so many requests for specific formulations, on and off the forum, especially for the standard types of pizzas, that I found it necessary to develop spreadsheets to do the math. Since I had never worked with spreadsheets before, and as an avowed Luddite, this was not exactly something I was lusting to do. Fortunately, I found a friend skilled in Excel to teach me enough to create the spreadsheets. As I have used them over the past several months, I have found them to be a great analytical and mathematical tool. I use them all the time to answer questions like the one posed by Slamdunkpro.

Peter

[Hi Gluten]

Hi Pete-zza,

I do agree with your points and have a good grasp of analytical geometry. Having a spreadsheet/program is certainly a wonderful tool. Even disregarding a deep dish pan's calculations, there are some simpler yardstick methods for bringing one into a ballpark figure. Such concepts as the area of a round pizza can be expressed in simple ratios. An example would be a 16" pie. It is not the equivalent of (2) 8" pies, but closer to (4) 8" pies. So, in simpler terms, half the diameter and multiply by 4. Granted, you will have extra. But, it's better to have too much, than run short. It will get you close in the neighborhood and yield one with a clearer concept when mathematical tools such as a spreadsheet is not conveniently available. If one applies this estimating concept to a deep dish pie, they will have a better mental concept of how much ingredients are needed to complete the task.

My original point, although somewhat a bit clouded is that pizzas are not made by CNC machines, but human hands. The possible exception might be some of the pizza chains. 

Even though I will follow a recipe in great accuracy, it is my personal belief that the technique(s) involved such as hydration and kneading have a stronger significant outcome on the pizza. Many a time I have made pizzas without any measurements and have a great pie only because I know how much hydration and kneading is required to yield predictable results. I also encourage others even with great tools such as mixers to get a bowl and a spoon and make dough by hand. By doing such you get a better sense of how dough works. A baker will tell you that the dough will tell you when it's ready, not the other way around. This is very true.

BTW I do have a bunch of pans and screens. It is my impression that many shy away from using "Baker's percentage"because of not fully understanding the concept. I have noticed also you have converted the weights to lbs. & oz. Now I'm not one to wave the metric flag, but in baking it is easier to do your conversions with it. It will help many because of its simplicity. If not you'll have to convert recipes from 6" to 16" or more.

Convert a recipe and they will bake for a day...Teach them Baker's percent and they will bake for life.

[Pete-zza]

Hi Gluten,

I've said this many times before but my experience is that what most members want, especially the beginning pizza makers, are recipes or formulations recited by volumes of ingredients, and detailed instructions. That is the reason why I convert weights to volumes in most of my formulations, including those accompanied by baker's percents. When I first joined the forum, there were not that many members and just about all of them were in the U.S. Now we have members from all around the world. That is why I now specify ingredient weights by grams. I agree with you that using the metric system is inherently more precise and easier to use than our U.S. standard, but because most of our members are U.S.-based and were brought up using the U.S. standard, I haven't gone over entirely to the metric system in the formulations I post. By packing the formulations with as much information as I can, there is something for almost everyone, beginner and professional alike. The baker's percents, thickness factors and the like will most likely appeal to professionals who need greater precision and consistency and reproducibility of results, but there are non-professionals to whom those math tools may also appeal.

But even the best formulation is only the beginning, as I have indicated before on this forum. The formulation can be perfect, yet the user can experience failure. Using detailed descriptions of technique, along with photos and diagnostic sessions (sometimes in real time), are about the best we can do to minimize the possibility of failure. But there is still that intangible, all-so-important element of touch and feel that you refer to that can sometimes stand in the way of success. Usually that comes with experience, when the user has that "aha" moment or epiphany when the dough turns out perfectly. I don't think any forum does more to help its members to reach that moment and to thereafter be able to make honest to goodness good pizzas than this one. That includes helping them to make deep-dish pizzas in different sized pans .

Peter

[Hi Gluten]

Hi Peter,

I was wondering...

Since you have probably converted all or most recipes, perhaps put the different size conversions on the recipe page. It would make a good reference for those starting out. Since you have a spreadsheet for conversions. It would be easier than sorting and sifting out posts with the search engine.

...Just a thought...

I wasn't trying to be argumentative with my replies, just looking at the problem at a different angle. 

PS...I'm still looking for those mini-loaf pans. I'm determined to do a tureen Chicago pizza (multiple layers). 

[foodblogger]

I have several different deep dish pans of varying dimensions.  What I did to solve this problem was to empirically figure out the total weight needed for each pan.  What I did was make up a dough and shape it how I wanted for each pan.  I cut off the excess dough and weighed the dough from the pan.  I have a total weight that I need for each pan and then I just convert baker’s formulas to recipes using the total weight.

[Pete-zza]

Hi Gluten,

I have made so many different conversions. Can you clarify which you have in mind?

I didn't find your posts argumentative, nor was I trying to be overly defensive. I enjoy a spirited debate because it better defines the issues .

Peter

[Hi Gluten]

Perhaps start with the Lehmann's NY Style and the Deven's Chicago Style. They both seem to be pretty popular. Later if you can, have the conversions for one of the each categories on the recipe page.

And just in case I misconstrued your reply, I was referring to your volumetric recipes in various diameters (6,8,10,12,14,16") as the basis of the conversions.

Of course Baker's percent would be included for us criminally insane! 

HG 

[Pete-zza]

Hi Gluten,

I know that Steve has some plans for adding more recipes/formulations to the recipe page so it may be best to await the outcome of those plans. If, in due course, there is demand and space for having weight-volume data for different pizza sizes, that shouldn't be a problem--at least for the formulations where we have baker's percents to begin with. However, some of the good recipes on the forum now exist only in volume form, and are not easily converted to baker's percents. With those, if the flour and water are given by weight, I can usually convert the remaining ingredients from volumes to weight and come up with a set of baker's percents. It is when the flour and water are also given by volume that it is harder to convert to baker's percents.

Peter

[Hi Gluten]

Hi Peter,

I understand your position in conversions for a set of Baker's percents.

Two points worthy of consideration...

1) Any volumetric recipe is prone to inaccuracies, due to its methodology. If you take say 6 individual cups of the recipe's flour (e.g. all purpose,bread,high gluten) you can get an average weight between the 6. Granted, it is not the most accurate. But then neither is the volumetric method. After reading a good number of posts here, I have seen members start off with the "wet" ingredients and then add the "dry" only to have to alter the amount of dry, which in turn can (depending on the amount) alter the entire recipe. My impression is that a GOOD estimate with Baker's percentage is as accurate, if not more accurate as the volumetric recipe. Consider this...We normally change on the fly our liquid hydration, due to the dynamics of the flour. As accurate as one would like to be, there is always a certain percentage of change in the recipe. If you adhere to the Baker's percent you can at least narrow your variables down to amount of water used.

2) Liquids, in this case water cannot be compressed. Weighing the volume of water would yield predictable measurements. This would leave the flour as your only "wild card".

Anyway, just a few thoughts. If you decide to undertake this task, I for one would trust your measurements and calculations.   

[Pete-zza]

Hi Gluten,

The hardest part of converting a recipe stated in volumes to baker's percents is indeed the flour. The water is usually less of a problem. Technically, a cup of water weighs 8.33 ounces. However, if I eyeball a "cup" of water, I usually get 8.1 to 8.2 ounces when I weigh it. In doing water conversions, I use the latter on the assumption that others eyeball a "cup" of water the same way I do.

To give you an idea of how I try to convert recipes stated in volumes to baker's percents, some time ago I decided to try to come up with a set of baker's percents for one of fellow member buzz's very good deep-dish dough recipes. If you read the first 14 replies at http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,1184.0.htm, you will see the steps I took to try to divine buzz's technique for measuring out the ingredients for his dough. Subsequently, I devoted a good part of another thread to trying to reverse engineer buzz's recipe to come up with a set of baker's percents. I don't know if by doing this I captured the essence of buzz's recipe and dough, but I think it is safe to say that one would have to make several attempts to arrive at a finished product that would be very close to buzz's. If buzz had and used a scale, his formulation would most likely be better than any that I could produce since he would be using his own practices, which no one else would be likely to replicate with the same degree of accuracy unless they are in buzz's kitchen watching him at work.

On the matter of making mid-course corrections with a recipe, my practice is to note the extent of those mid-course corrections. I do this by noting how many teaspoons or tablespoons of flour and/or water I use in achieving the final dough results, and then go back when everything is done to adjust the formulation to reflect the changes in the baker's percents. Theoretically, changing the amount of flour should call for adjustments to the other ingredients also (other than the water), but usually such adjustments would be so minor as to be inconsequential to the final results. I suspect that most people don't readjust the baker's percents to reflect mid-course corrections, but by doing so I think you do move a bit closer to a more precise formulation. At that point, I would rely more on the baker's percent formulation than a volume formulation. And coupling the baker's percent formulation with a proper thickness factor sets the stage for doing the kinds of conversions that Slamdunkpro was asking about at the top of this thread.

An interesting side effect of the way I convert volume recipes to baker's percents is that when I convert the weights of flour back to volume measurements, my volume measurements are usually different from the ones I started with. This is because I specify the precise way I convert weights to volumes in the baker's percent formulation. And if a user measures out the volumes the same way as I specify, he or she is more likely to get close to my measurements and results. Most recipes stated in volumes are silent on how the volume measurements are actually achieved, and I think that that leads to a high error rate and erratic results, leading the recipe followers to scratch their heads over their results.

Peter