dedicated to my new friend NotBob...

The basic scaling formula for any recipe is as follows:

2 simple steps

Step 1.
If you take the "New Yield" (how many portions you now desire) and
DIVIDE by the "Original Yield" (how many portions the current recipe
yields) you will get what's called the "Scaling Factor"


example: New Yield of 24 divided by Org. Yield of 4 = Scaling Factor
of 6


Step 2.
Scaling Factor X the Orginal Ingredient Amount = New Amount Needed!


example: Scaling Factor of 6 X 1/2 pound flour = 3 pounds needed
for new recipe


This works for reducing also: 4 N.Y. divided by 8 O.Y. = Scaling
Factor
of .5 etc.


Hope this helps....


Now as far as a scaling spices...I think that's a complete myth!!!!


Here is my proof:

I've had chefs tell me, "be careful, the recipe
scaled up 4 times now calls for 4 Tbls of hot pepper, but dont put
that much in,it will get too spicy."


WHAT!???!!??!? If I made that recipe in 4 single batches and added

1 tbl of pepper as called for in each bowl, I would have 4 perfectly
seasoned bowls of whatever.


Now If I took those 4 bowls and mixed them together into one big batch,

are you telling me it would get "hotter?" No, it would be the same as
the 4 small batches! See how this makes no sense. Spices scale up like
every other ingredient. This is a classic
kitchen math myth!!

I should have mentioned, nb, you are correct about leaveners!!!! They
are the only exception. Yeast, BP, etc. those can cause problems if
scaled up.





chef john wrote:



> dedicated to my new friend NotBob...
>
> The basic scaling formula for any recipe is as follows:
>
> 2 simple steps
>
> Step 1.
> If you take the "New Yield" (how many portions you now desire) and
> DIVIDE by the "Original Yield" (how many portions the current recipe
> yields) you will get what's called the "Scaling Factor"
>
>
> example: New Yield of 24 divided by Org. Yield of 4 = Scaling Factor
> of 6
>
>
> Step 2.
> Scaling Factor X the Orginal Ingredient Amount = New Amount Needed!
>
>
> example: Scaling Factor of 6 X 1/2 pound flour = 3 pounds needed
> for new recipe
>
>
> This works for reducing also: 4 N.Y. divided by 8 O.Y. = Scaling
> Factor
> of .5 etc.
>
>
> Hope this helps....
>
>
> Now as far as a scaling spices...I think that's a complete myth!!!!
>
>
> Here is my proof:
>
> I've had chefs tell me, "be careful, the recipe
> scaled up 4 times now calls for 4 Tbls of hot pepper, but dont put
> that much in,it will get too spicy."
>
>
> WHAT!???!!??!? If I made that recipe in 4 single batches and added
>
> 1 tbl of pepper as called for in each bowl, I would have 4 perfectly
> seasoned bowls of whatever.
>
>
> Now If I took those 4 bowls and mixed them together into one big batch,
>
> are you telling me it would get "hotter?" No, it would be the same as
> the 4 small batches! See how this makes no sense. Spices scale up like
> every other ingredient. This is a classic
> kitchen math myth!!

On 2006-08-31, chef john > wrote:
> I should have mentioned, nb, you are correct about leaveners!!!! They
> are the only exception. Yeast, BP, etc. those can cause problems if
> scaled up.

I attended a govt cooking school many years ago. We used a chef
training cookbook. Most recipes were written for 50 to 100 servings.
The baking section had the exact formula for scaling leaveners (and I
think, salt), no matter how much the recipe was scaled up or down. I
don't recall the name, but I'm pretty sure the book originated from
the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NYC. I've been trying to locate copy for
years.

nb

chef john wrote:
>
> Now as far as a scaling spices...I think that's a complete myth!!!!
>
>
> Here is my proof:
>
> I've had chefs tell me, "be careful, the recipe
> scaled up 4 times now calls for 4 Tbls of hot pepper, but dont put
> that much in,it will get too spicy."
>
>
> WHAT!???!!??!? If I made that recipe in 4 single batches and added
> 1 tbl of pepper as called for in each bowl, I would have 4 perfectly
> seasoned bowls of whatever.
>
> Now If I took those 4 bowls and mixed them together into one big batch,
> are you telling me it would get "hotter?" No, it would be the same as
> the 4 small batches! See how this makes no sense. Spices scale up like
> every other ingredient. This is a classic
> kitchen math myth!!

Those real chefs are correct, you are wrong. Because in your
description you're not cooking with hot pepper, you've only added it to
the already cooked dish, big, BIG difference. Many spices do not
season linearly (in fact most don't), hot pepper is one... mustard
another, ginger as well... horseradish (herb) too... many others will
become stronger the longer they're cooked or allowed to set. And many
(especially herbs) will become weaker, but some will strengthen. An
experienced food prep person will use a light hand with seasoning and
taste as they go, then check for reseasoning at the end.

Always beware of those who on usenet assume a title of chef/cook (any
title actually), in almost all cases they are not what they claim to
be... you, johnny boy, don't even qualify for burger flipper
apprentice... you're a fraud and I will prove it, just keep posting.

Sheldon

I dont understand why salt would be a problem when scaled. If 1 tsp.
of salt is perfect for 1 pint of soup, why isnt 4 tsp perfect for 4
pints? It would be exactly the same as I've already covered. Never
will understand that one.


notbob wrote:
> On 2006-08-31, chef john > wrote:
> > I should have mentioned, nb, you are correct about leaveners!!!! They
> > are the only exception. Yeast, BP, etc. those can cause problems if
> > scaled up.
>
> I attended a govt cooking school many years ago. We used a chef
> training cookbook. Most recipes were written for 50 to 100 servings.
> The baking section had the exact formula for scaling leaveners (and I
> think, salt), no matter how much the recipe was scaled up or down. I
> don't recall the name, but I'm pretty sure the book originated from
> the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NYC. I've been trying to locate copy for
> years.
>
> nb

On 2006-08-31, chef john > wrote:
> I dont understand why salt would be a problem when scaled. If 1 tsp.
> of salt is perfect for 1 pint of soup, why isnt 4 tsp perfect for 4
> pints? It would be exactly the same as I've already covered. Never
> will understand that one.

That one I'm not sure about, either. But, I seem to recall it was
included in the exceptions to direct scaling. I won't know till I
find what is becoming an obsession with "The Book".

nb

> experienced food prep person will use a light hand with seasoning and
> taste as they go, then check for reseasoning at the end.


WOW, really? I had no idea!! Of course, you season as you go and
adjust. Thanks for the newsflash!!! I think everyone knows this.
Who the hell scales a recipe and just dumps all the ingredients in??
This is day one cooking school basics.

Very few chefs EVER scale ANY spice amounts since 95% of production is
"to taste"

I'm talking about the home cook adding pepper or salt to a sausage
recipe, or crabcake mix, tabasco into hollandaise, mustard into a
dressing, ginger into wonton filling...thats when the spice scaling
warning is ridiculous.

THESE CAN BE SCALED AS ANY OTHER INGREDIENTS!


You are certainly right about "fake" titles people use in these types
of groups, they are a very large segment of the posters.

Another very large group is the sad, lonely, "haters" like you that
prefer to insult instead of offer any original thoughts of their own.
Your burger flipper comment says a lot about you. Man, that really
hurt my feelings!

Anyway, checkout a couple vid clips on my site and let me know how many
mistakes I made, I'm sure the group would benefit from your
corrections! ...and while you're there click on a few google ads for
me! (that was for you nb ; )

maybe the salt amount affected the leavener? anyway, I'm going to ask
a Bakery Instructor I know for the formula for you. There must be a
basic conversion I would think.


notbob wrote:
> On 2006-08-31, chef john > wrote:
> > I dont understand why salt would be a problem when scaled. If 1 tsp.
> > of salt is perfect for 1 pint of soup, why isnt 4 tsp perfect for 4
> > pints? It would be exactly the same as I've already covered. Never
> > will understand that one.
>
> That one I'm not sure about, either. But, I seem to recall it was
> included in the exceptions to direct scaling. I won't know till I
> find what is becoming an obsession with "The Book".
>
> nb

BTW just read some of your old posts. You're a real piece of work. I
had you spot on!



Sheldon wrote:
> chef john wrote:
> >
> > Now as far as a scaling spices...I think that's a complete myth!!!!
> >
> >
> > Here is my proof:
> >
> > I've had chefs tell me, "be careful, the recipe
> > scaled up 4 times now calls for 4 Tbls of hot pepper, but dont put
> > that much in,it will get too spicy."
> >
> >
> > WHAT!???!!??!? If I made that recipe in 4 single batches and added
> > 1 tbl of pepper as called for in each bowl, I would have 4 perfectly
> > seasoned bowls of whatever.
> >
> > Now If I took those 4 bowls and mixed them together into one big batch,
> > are you telling me it would get "hotter?" No, it would be the same as
> > the 4 small batches! See how this makes no sense. Spices scale up like
> > every other ingredient. This is a classic
> > kitchen math myth!!
>
> Those real chefs are correct, you are wrong. Because in your
> description you're not cooking with hot pepper, you've only added it to
> the already cooked dish, big, BIG difference. Many spices do not
> season linearly (in fact most don't), hot pepper is one... mustard
> another, ginger as well... horseradish (herb) too... many others will
> become stronger the longer they're cooked or allowed to set. And many
> (especially herbs) will become weaker, but some will strengthen. An
> experienced food prep person will use a light hand with seasoning and
> taste as they go, then check for reseasoning at the end.
>
> Always beware of those who on usenet assume a title of chef/cook (any
> title actually), in almost all cases they are not what they claim to
> be... you, johnny boy, don't even qualify for burger flipper
> apprentice... you're a fraud and I will prove it, just keep posting.
>
> Sheldon

I'm talking about Sheldon, not nb.


chef john wrote:
> BTW just read some of your old posts. You're a real piece of work. I
> had you spot on!
>
>
>
> Sheldon wrote:
> > chef john wrote:
> > >
> > > Now as far as a scaling spices...I think that's a complete myth!!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is my proof:
> > >
> > > I've had chefs tell me, "be careful, the recipe
> > > scaled up 4 times now calls for 4 Tbls of hot pepper, but dont put
> > > that much in,it will get too spicy."
> > >
> > >
> > > WHAT!???!!??!? If I made that recipe in 4 single batches and added
> > > 1 tbl of pepper as called for in each bowl, I would have 4 perfectly
> > > seasoned bowls of whatever.
> > >
> > > Now If I took those 4 bowls and mixed them together into one big batch,
> > > are you telling me it would get "hotter?" No, it would be the same as
> > > the 4 small batches! See how this makes no sense. Spices scale up like
> > > every other ingredient. This is a classic
> > > kitchen math myth!!
> >
> > Those real chefs are correct, you are wrong. Because in your
> > description you're not cooking with hot pepper, you've only added it to
> > the already cooked dish, big, BIG difference. Many spices do not
> > season linearly (in fact most don't), hot pepper is one... mustard
> > another, ginger as well... horseradish (herb) too... many others will
> > become stronger the longer they're cooked or allowed to set. And many
> > (especially herbs) will become weaker, but some will strengthen. An
> > experienced food prep person will use a light hand with seasoning and
> > taste as they go, then check for reseasoning at the end.
> >
> > Always beware of those who on usenet assume a title of chef/cook (any
> > title actually), in almost all cases they are not what they claim to
> > be... you, johnny boy, don't even qualify for burger flipper
> > apprentice... you're a fraud and I will prove it, just keep posting.
> >
> > Sheldon

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:21:05 -0700, chef john wrote:

> BTW just read some of your old posts. You're a real piece of work. I
> had you spot on!

OK.. but Sheldon along with aem are a couple of the most knowledge posters
here. Newer people as I am also.. post and live with the results. This is
not a club..you post others comment. Sometimes the truth (as others
see it) hurts. I am glad to see new/different people throw their hats
into the ring.. it would be pretty dull here otherwise.

I can't wait for more of his "knowledgeble" posts. He sounds like a
real genius.



jay wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:21:05 -0700, chef john wrote:
>
> > BTW just read some of your old posts. You're a real piece of work. I
> > had you spot on!
>
> OK.. but Sheldon along with aem are a couple of the most knowledge posters
> here. Newer people as I am also.. post and live with the results. This is
> not a club..you post others comment. Sometimes the truth (as others
> see it) hurts. I am glad to see new/different people throw their hats
> into the ring.. it would be pretty dull here otherwise.

"jay" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:21:05 -0700, chef john wrote:
>
> > BTW just read some of your old posts. You're a real piece of work. I
> > had you spot on!
>
> OK.. but Sheldon along with aem are a couple of the most knowledge posters
> here. Newer people as I am also.. post and live with the results. This is
> not a club..you post others comment. Sometimes the truth (as others
> see it) hurts. I am glad to see new/different people throw their hats
> into the ring.. it would be pretty dull here otherwise.

Who appointed Sheldon to tell us the "truth"? Get real - no amount of
knowledge justifies such poor behaviour. The truly knowledegable are
generous with giving to those who know less.

He on the other hand finds every possible opportunity to put down strangers
for no reason. A sad and shrivelled ego hiding in the coward's castle of
usenet who would not dare to behave so in the real world. Leave him plonked
and unquoted to stew in his own bile.

David

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:33:08 +0000, David Hare-Scott wrote:

>
> "jay" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:21:05 -0700, chef john wrote:
>>
>> > BTW just read some of your old posts. You're a real piece of work. I
>> > had you spot on!
>>
>> OK.. but Sheldon along with aem are a couple of the most knowledge posters
>> here. Newer people as I am also.. post and live with the results. This is
>> not a club..you post others comment. Sometimes the truth (as others
>> see it) hurts. I am glad to see new/different people throw their hats
>> into the ring.. it would be pretty dull here otherwise.
>
> Who appointed Sheldon to tell us the "truth"?
> Leave him plonked
> Get real -


> David


Some feel it to be their duty to patrol usenet and "spank" those that
speak/write in a tone they disagree with as you have done... and it is no
different or more courteous than those of which you speak out against.
And to get extreamly real.. you and no one else are going to change the
way usenet works or who participates.

Why do you continue to read his posts? If you take your own advice and
"plonk" he will tell you nothing.

"jay" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:33:08 +0000, David Hare-Scott wrote:
>
> >
> > "jay" > wrote in message
> > news
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:21:05 -0700, chef john wrote:
> >>
> >> > BTW just read some of your old posts. You're a real piece of work.
I
> >> > had you spot on!
> >>
> >> OK.. but Sheldon along with aem are a couple of the most knowledge
posters
> >> here. Newer people as I am also.. post and live with the results. This
is
> >> not a club..you post others comment. Sometimes the truth (as others
> >> see it) hurts. I am glad to see new/different people throw their hats
> >> into the ring.. it would be pretty dull here otherwise.
> >
> > Who appointed Sheldon to tell us the "truth"?
> > Leave him plonked
> > Get real -
>
>
> > David
>
>
> Some feel it to be their duty to patrol usenet and "spank" those that
> speak/write in a tone they disagree with as you have done... and it is no
> different or more courteous than those of which you speak out against.
> And to get extreamly real.. you and no one else are going to change the
> way usenet works or who participates.
>
> Why do you continue to read his posts? If you take your own advice and
> "plonk" he will tell you nothing.
>

I have done that for many months. It isn't my role to 'spank' anybody. I
know that I will never change him or his ilk, my comment was directed at
those who encourage such by giving them excuses.

David

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 07:39:55 +0000, David Hare-Scott wrote:

>
> "jay" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:33:08 +0000, David Hare-Scott wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "jay" > wrote in message
>> > news >> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:21:05 -0700, chef john wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > BTW just read some of your old posts. You're a real piece of work.
> I
>> >> > had you spot on!
>> >>
>> >> OK.. but Sheldon along with aem are a couple of the most knowledge
> posters
>> >> here. Newer people as I am also.. post and live with the results. This
> is
>> >> not a club..you post others comment. Sometimes the truth (as others
>> >> see it) hurts. I am glad to see new/different people throw their hats
>> >> into the ring.. it would be pretty dull here otherwise.
>> >
>> > Who appointed Sheldon to tell us the "truth"?
>> > Leave him plonked
>> > Get real -
>>
>>
>> > David
>>
>>
>> Some feel it to be their duty to patrol usenet and "spank" those that
>> speak/write in a tone they disagree with as you have done... and it is no
>> different or more courteous than those of which you speak out against.
>> And to get extreamly real.. you and no one else are going to change the
>> way usenet works or who participates.
>>
>> Why do you continue to read his posts? If you take your own advice and
>> "plonk" he will tell you nothing.
>>
>
> I have done that for many months. It isn't my role to 'spank' anybody. I
> know that I will never change him or his ilk, my comment was directed at
> those who encourage such by giving them excuses.
>
> David

My comment was not to encourage anything. I like free speech however. I
skip many posters over each time I read RFC because their posts are not of
interest to me ever. I happen to find Sheldons posts for the most part
informative and on topic. Each to his/her own.