On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:10:54 -0800, sf > wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:49:59 -0400, wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:42:31 -0700, U.S. Janet B. >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:28:13 -0800, sf > wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >>
>> >>AFAIC, it is nitpicky and when you read about how the "must weigh it"
>> >>people actually weigh their items, it's a real crap shoot. They are
>> >>no more precise than volume measuring when they are just layering one
>> >>ingredient on top of another, because there's no backsies if they
>> >>over-pour.
>> >
>> >that's a silly argument and applies only to silly people
>>
>> My sentiments too, the top chefs/cooks will tell you it is important
>> to weigh - particularly flour - and they can't all be wrong.
>
>Oh, so you dump one ingredient on top of the other while measuring?
>In that case, you're no more accurate than those who do volume.
that doesn't make sense. The scales have a tare function, it's very
accurate. It completely eliminates the 'packing' and 'heaping' of
regular measuring cups, plus I don't have all those extra measures
sitting around. I practice mise en place and that eliminates a lot of
problems, nevertheless, every cook/baker has bad kitchen days when
they forget the salt or similar. Measureing cups will not eliminate
that issue. No good baker 'dumps' stuff willy nilly. When you go to
the store and want 3 pounds of shrimp at $10.99 a pound, I bet you
want the guy behind the counter to weigh the shrimp instead of just
putting a couple of scoops into a bag and charging you. You know
weighing is more accurate.
Janet US