Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
By FARHAD MANJOO
International Herald Tribune

CONSIDER the Parmesan problem: Imagine that you're making lasagna with a
recipe that calls for topping it with "a cup of grated cheese."

This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
bought Microplanes, which can turn a small chunk of Parmesan into
mountains of billowy ribbons of cheese. And there lies the difficulty:
the heavier shavings of a box grater can fill a cup with twice as much
cheese as a Microplane's fluffy snow.

J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, the managing editor of the blog Serious Eats, once
asked 10 people to measure a cup of all-purpose flour into a bowl. When
the cooks were done, Mr. Lopez-Alt weighed each bowl. "Depending on how
strong you are or your scooping method, I found that a 'cup of flour'
could be anywhere from 4 to 6 ounces," he said. That's a significant
difference: one cook might be making a cake with one-and-a-half times as
much flour as another.

Professional chefs have long argued that there is nothing simple about a
simple cup of flour. Nor is there anything foolproof in that cup of
grated cheese, a half-cup of diced carrots or a tablespoon of butter.
When you fill a measuring cup or spoon with any ingredient, the amount
you get depends on a number of factors: how small you've sliced it, how
tightly you've packed it in, how carefully you've scooped and whether
you manage to get all of it out of the spoon. (Consider the mess of
getting all the honey out of a tablespoon measure.)

But when you weigh the same ingredients on a scale, none of these
factors comes into play. Four ounces of flour (or cheese, carrots, honey
or anything else) are 4 ounces, no matter who's measuring, or how.

Over the last few years digital kitchen scales have become cheap and
widely available. I've tried several and even the cheapest -- the Ozeri
Pro, about $20 -- was easy to use and thoroughly accurate. Other models
were just as terrific: The Soehnle digital kitchen scale, about $23, and
the Oxo Good Grips model, $50, were slightly snappier to look at than
the Ozeri Pro, but all three were equally adept at their primary
function.

Yet the scale has failed to become a must-have tool in American
kitchens. Cooks Illustrated magazine said scales were in the kitchens of
only a third of its readers, and they're a fairly committed group of
cooks.

There's a simple reason for this: The scale doesn't show up in most
published recipes. American cookbooks, other than baking books, and
magazines and newspapers generally specify only cup and spoon
measurements for ingredients. A few, like Cooks Illustrated, offer
weights for baking recipes, but not for savory cooking. (The Times
Dining section recently began using weight measurements with baking
recipes.)

This creates a chicken-and-egg problem for the kitchen scale. Cooks
don't own scales because recipes don't call for one, and recipes don't
call for one because cooks don't own one.

Consider this a plea on behalf of the kitchen scale. It's time for
recipe publishers to recognize this humble gadget for the amazing tool
that it is. If more recipes began specifying weight measurements, more
cooks would buy a scale. And they would instantly recognize it as one of
the most useful gadgets in their kitchens.

Cooks who have ditched cups and spoons for a scale can be rhapsodic on
the subject; many describe getting a kitchen scale as an epiphany on the
order of sharpening knives that haven't had an edge in years, or buying
a new set of eyeglasses. Not only does a scale provide the most accurate
measure, but also, as you get used it, you'll notice it begin to change
how you move about the kitchen.

With a scale, you can get your ingredients together more quickly, and
with less clean-up. Recipes that call for weights are also easier to
halve, double or otherwise adapt. And the scale is handy for many other
tasks.

"The greatest feat the kitchen scale accomplishes is that it turns
almost any recipe into a one-bowl recipe," said Deb Perelman, who writes
the blog Smitten Kitchen. "You're not hunting for six cups and six
spoons to make a cake."

Instead, you place a bowl on the scale, then pour the flour straight
from the bag until you get to the desired weight. Most kitchen scales
let you bring the readout back to zero after each ingredient. Do that,
then pour your next ingredient -- and so on. With a scale you can get
away with using nothing more than a bowl and one spoon.

Ms. Perelman and other cooks who've taken to using scales say that over
time, they begin to pick up the weight-volume conversions of common
ingredients whose weight barely varies. This lets you use a scale even
for recipes that don't specify weights. If you know that a cup of sugar
is 225 grams, why bother reaching for the cup?

Dave Arnold, director of culinary technology at the French Culinary
Institute, recommends that you make a chart with the standard
equivalences, and tack it up next to the scale. The conversions
sometimes require some math, but there's a payoff if you can brave it.

"If you start cooking that way, it makes your life so much easier," Mr.
Arnold said. "You'll do everything just so much faster."

But the scale is handy even if you're not converting recipes. For
instance, it makes getting the right portion size for dinner a breeze.
When I'm preparing pasta for two, I lay the box of linguine on the
scale, and then pull out 4 ounces for each person.

Mr. Lopez-Alt does a similar thing making hamburger patties, and Ms.
Perelman uses the scale for portioning batter evenly between two layers
of a cake, and making a batch of dinner rolls that are each the same
size.

The scale also ensures repeatability. I once calibrated exactly the
amount of beans that I need to make coffee the way I like. Now, every
morning, I place my can of beans on the scale, and then scoop out 28
grams -- allowing me to repeat the same pot every day.

Michael Chu, who runs the Web site Cooking for Engineers, uses a scale
for making iced tea. "A slight difference in how much sugar you add to
your tea changes the flavor dramatically," he said. "So I figured out
just how much sugar I like, and now that's how much goes in."

I've also found that it's simpler to weigh liquid ingredients rather
than to use a liquid measuring cup. A fluid ounce of water weighs
roughly one dry ounce, which means that a cup of water will register 8
ounces on your scale.

Recently I needed 7 1/2 cups of water for polenta. If I were using a
two-cup Pyrex measure, I'd need to fill it three times, and then almost
fill it one more time, which is obviously a lot of effort. Instead, I
simply placed the pot on the scale, then ran the faucet until the scale
registered 60 ounces.

But these are all ancillary benefits. A few new cookbooks offer recipes
that specify weights for every ingredient, and it's when you cook from
those that you notice the true brilliance of using a scale.

The other day I made the delicious macaroni and cheese from "Ideas in
Food," the new cookbook by the husband-and-wife chefs H. Alexander
Talbot and Aki Kamozawa. The recipe included shredded cheese, butter and
several other ingredients that would have been a mess to measure with
cups and spoons.

With the scale, I made the entire casserole with just a grater, one
knife, one spoon, one bowl and a baking dish.

Cookbook publishers of America: every recipe can be this friendly.

On Sep 14, 2:07*pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:
> * * * * * * * * Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *By FARHAD MANJOO
> * * * * * * * * * *International Herald Tribune
>
> CONSIDER the Parmesan problem: Imagine that you're making
> lasagna with a recipe that calls for topping it with "a cup of grated
> cheese."

> This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was
> the only way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more
> cooks have bought Microplanes, which can turn a small chunk of
> Parmesan into mountains of billowy ribbons of cheese. And there
> lies the difficulty: the heavier shavings of a box grater can fill a cup
> with twice as much cheese as a Microplane's fluffy snow.

(snip)

> But when you weigh the same ingredients on a scale, none of
> these factors comes into play. Four ounces of flour (or cheese,
> carrots, honey or anything else) are 4 ounces, no matter who's
> measuring, or how.

(snip)

No worries here. San Francisco supervisors will soon mandate
approved kitchen scale ownership for all households.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

> Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
> By FARHAD MANJOO
> International Herald Tribune
>
>CONSIDER the Parmesan problem: Imagine that you're making lasagna with a
>recipe that calls for topping it with "a cup of grated cheese."
>
>This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
>way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
>bought Microplanes, which can turn a small chunk of Parmesan into
>mountains of billowy ribbons of cheese. And there lies the difficulty:
>the heavier shavings of a box grater can fill a cup with twice as much
>cheese as a Microplane's fluffy snow.
>
>J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, the managing editor of the blog Serious Eats, once
>asked 10 people to measure a cup of all-purpose flour into a bowl. When
>the cooks were done, Mr. Lopez-Alt weighed each bowl. "Depending on how
>strong you are or your scooping method, I found that a 'cup of flour'
>could be anywhere from 4 to 6 ounces," he said. That's a significant
>difference: one cook might be making a cake with one-and-a-half times as
>much flour as another.
>
>Professional chefs have long argued that there is nothing simple about a
>simple cup of flour. Nor is there anything foolproof in that cup of
>grated cheese, a half-cup of diced carrots or a tablespoon of butter.
>When you fill a measuring cup or spoon with any ingredient, the amount
>you get depends on a number of factors: how small you've sliced it, how
>tightly you've packed it in, how carefully you've scooped and whether
>you manage to get all of it out of the spoon. (Consider the mess of
>getting all the honey out of a tablespoon measure.)
>
>But when you weigh the same ingredients on a scale, none of these
>factors comes into play. Four ounces of flour (or cheese, carrots, honey
>or anything else) are 4 ounces, no matter who's measuring, or how.
>
>Over the last few years digital kitchen scales have become cheap and
>widely available. I've tried several and even the cheapest -- the Ozeri
>Pro, about $20 -- was easy to use and thoroughly accurate. Other models
>were just as terrific: The Soehnle digital kitchen scale, about $23, and
>the Oxo Good Grips model, $50, were slightly snappier to look at than
>the Ozeri Pro, but all three were equally adept at their primary
>function.
>
>Yet the scale has failed to become a must-have tool in American
>kitchens. Cooks Illustrated magazine said scales were in the kitchens of
>only a third of its readers, and they're a fairly committed group of
>cooks.
>
>There's a simple reason for this: The scale doesn't show up in most
>published recipes. American cookbooks, other than baking books, and
>magazines and newspapers generally specify only cup and spoon
>measurements for ingredients. A few, like Cooks Illustrated, offer
>weights for baking recipes, but not for savory cooking. (The Times
>Dining section recently began using weight measurements with baking
>recipes.)
>
>This creates a chicken-and-egg problem for the kitchen scale. Cooks
>don't own scales because recipes don't call for one, and recipes don't
>call for one because cooks don't own one.
>
>Consider this a plea on behalf of the kitchen scale. It's time for
>recipe publishers to recognize this humble gadget for the amazing tool
>that it is. If more recipes began specifying weight measurements, more
>cooks would buy a scale. And they would instantly recognize it as one of
>the most useful gadgets in their kitchens.
>
>Cooks who have ditched cups and spoons for a scale can be rhapsodic on
>the subject; many describe getting a kitchen scale as an epiphany on the
>order of sharpening knives that haven't had an edge in years, or buying
>a new set of eyeglasses. Not only does a scale provide the most accurate
>measure, but also, as you get used it, you'll notice it begin to change
>how you move about the kitchen.
>
>With a scale, you can get your ingredients together more quickly, and
>with less clean-up. Recipes that call for weights are also easier to
>halve, double or otherwise adapt. And the scale is handy for many other
>tasks.
>
>"The greatest feat the kitchen scale accomplishes is that it turns
>almost any recipe into a one-bowl recipe," said Deb Perelman, who writes
>the blog Smitten Kitchen. "You're not hunting for six cups and six
>spoons to make a cake."
>
>Instead, you place a bowl on the scale, then pour the flour straight
>from the bag until you get to the desired weight. Most kitchen scales
>let you bring the readout back to zero after each ingredient. Do that,
>then pour your next ingredient -- and so on. With a scale you can get
>away with using nothing more than a bowl and one spoon.
>
>Ms. Perelman and other cooks who've taken to using scales say that over
>time, they begin to pick up the weight-volume conversions of common
>ingredients whose weight barely varies. This lets you use a scale even
>for recipes that don't specify weights. If you know that a cup of sugar
>is 225 grams, why bother reaching for the cup?
>
>Dave Arnold, director of culinary technology at the French Culinary
>Institute, recommends that you make a chart with the standard
>equivalences, and tack it up next to the scale. The conversions
>sometimes require some math, but there's a payoff if you can brave it.
>
>"If you start cooking that way, it makes your life so much easier," Mr.
>Arnold said. "You'll do everything just so much faster."
>
>But the scale is handy even if you're not converting recipes. For
>instance, it makes getting the right portion size for dinner a breeze.
>When I'm preparing pasta for two, I lay the box of linguine on the
>scale, and then pull out 4 ounces for each person.
>
>Mr. Lopez-Alt does a similar thing making hamburger patties, and Ms.
>Perelman uses the scale for portioning batter evenly between two layers
>of a cake, and making a batch of dinner rolls that are each the same
>size.
>
>The scale also ensures repeatability. I once calibrated exactly the
>amount of beans that I need to make coffee the way I like. Now, every
>morning, I place my can of beans on the scale, and then scoop out 28
>grams -- allowing me to repeat the same pot every day.
>
>Michael Chu, who runs the Web site Cooking for Engineers, uses a scale
>for making iced tea. "A slight difference in how much sugar you add to
>your tea changes the flavor dramatically," he said. "So I figured out
>just how much sugar I like, and now that's how much goes in."
>
>I've also found that it's simpler to weigh liquid ingredients rather
>than to use a liquid measuring cup. A fluid ounce of water weighs
>roughly one dry ounce, which means that a cup of water will register 8
>ounces on your scale.
>
>Recently I needed 7 1/2 cups of water for polenta. If I were using a
>two-cup Pyrex measure, I'd need to fill it three times, and then almost
>fill it one more time, which is obviously a lot of effort. Instead, I
>simply placed the pot on the scale, then ran the faucet until the scale
>registered 60 ounces.
>
>But these are all ancillary benefits. A few new cookbooks offer recipes
>that specify weights for every ingredient, and it's when you cook from
>those that you notice the true brilliance of using a scale.
>
>The other day I made the delicious macaroni and cheese from "Ideas in
>Food," the new cookbook by the husband-and-wife chefs H. Alexander
>Talbot and Aki Kamozawa. The recipe included shredded cheese, butter and
>several other ingredients that would have been a mess to measure with
>cups and spoons.
>
>With the scale, I made the entire casserole with just a grater, one
>knife, one spoon, one bowl and a baking dish.
>
>Cookbook publishers of America: every recipe can be this friendly.

This is a lotta crap... do you count the sheets of TP you use to wipe
your ass or do you weigh it? Do you weigh your toothpaste? A good
cook measures the same way one knows how much TP and toothpaste to
use, experience.

Victor Sack wrote:
> Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
> By FARHAD MANJOO

> The other day I made the delicious macaroni and cheese from "Ideas in
> Food," the new cookbook by the husband-and-wife chefs H. Alexander
> Talbot and Aki Kamozawa. The recipe included shredded cheese, butter and
> several other ingredients that would have been a mess to measure with
> cups and spoons.
>
> With the scale, I made the entire casserole with just a grater, one
> knife, one spoon, one bowl and a baking dish.

While I agree with the sense of using a scale, I have to question these
cooks whom the article encourages you to believe use every bowl and
spoon in their kitchen to make a cake in the standard "American"
measuring way. I seem to be able to measure, mix and bake with a minimum
of utensils. But I hope to become more adept at using my scale more
often too.

How often do you accidentally overshoot (or over-pour) into the
repeatedly zeroed measuring bowl on the scale? I do dread that.

On Sep 14, 2:07*pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:
> * * * * * * * * Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *By FARHAD MANJOO
> * * * * * * * * * *International Herald Tribune
>
> CONSIDER the Parmesan problem: Imagine that you're making lasagna with a
> recipe that calls for topping it with "a cup of grated cheese."
>
> This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
> way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
> bought Microplanes, which can turn a small chunk of Parmesan into
> mountains of billowy ribbons of cheese. And there lies the difficulty:
> the heavier shavings of a box grater can fill a cup with twice as much
> cheese as a Microplane's fluffy snow.
>
> J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, the managing editor of the blog Serious Eats, once
> asked 10 people to measure a cup of all-purpose flour into a bowl. When
> the cooks were done, Mr. Lopez-Alt weighed each bowl. "Depending on how
> strong you are or your scooping method, I found that a 'cup of flour'
> could be anywhere from 4 to 6 ounces," he said. That's a significant
> difference: one cook might be making a cake with one-and-a-half times as
> much flour as another.
>
> Professional chefs have long argued that there is nothing simple about a
> simple cup of flour. Nor is there anything foolproof in that cup of
> grated cheese, a half-cup of diced carrots or a tablespoon of butter.
> When you fill a measuring cup or spoon with any ingredient, the amount
> you get depends on a number of factors: how small you've sliced it, how
> tightly you've packed it in, how carefully you've scooped and whether
> you manage to get all of it out of the spoon. (Consider the mess of
> getting all the honey out of a tablespoon measure.)
>
> But when you weigh the same ingredients on a scale, none of these
> factors comes into play. Four ounces of flour (or cheese, carrots, honey
> or anything else) are 4 ounces, no matter who's measuring, or how.
>
> Over the last few years digital kitchen scales have become cheap and
> widely available. I've tried several and even the cheapest -- the Ozeri
> Pro, about $20 -- was easy to use and thoroughly accurate. Other models
> were just as terrific: The Soehnle digital kitchen scale, about $23, and
> the Oxo Good Grips model, $50, were slightly snappier to look at than
> the Ozeri Pro, but all three were equally adept at their primary
> function.
>
> Yet the scale has failed to become a must-have tool in American
> kitchens. Cooks Illustrated magazine said scales were in the kitchens of
> only a third of its readers, and they're a fairly committed group of
> cooks.
>
> There's a simple reason for this: The scale doesn't show up in most
> published recipes. American cookbooks, other than baking books, and
> magazines and newspapers generally specify only cup and spoon
> measurements for ingredients. A few, like Cooks Illustrated, offer
> weights for baking recipes, but not for savory cooking. (The Times
> Dining section recently began using weight measurements with baking
> recipes.)
>
> This creates a chicken-and-egg problem for the kitchen scale. Cooks
> don't own scales because recipes don't call for one, and recipes don't
> call for one because cooks don't own one.
>
> Consider this a plea on behalf of the kitchen scale. It's time for
> recipe publishers to recognize this humble gadget for the amazing tool
> that it is. If more recipes began specifying weight measurements, more
> cooks would buy a scale. And they would instantly recognize it as one of
> the most useful gadgets in their kitchens.
>
> Cooks who have ditched cups and spoons for a scale can be rhapsodic on
> the subject; many describe getting a kitchen scale as an epiphany on the
> order of sharpening knives that haven't had an edge in years, or buying
> a new set of eyeglasses. Not only does a scale provide the most accurate
> measure, but also, as you get used it, you'll notice it begin to change
> how you move about the kitchen.
>
> With a scale, you can get your ingredients together more quickly, and
> with less clean-up. Recipes that call for weights are also easier to
> halve, double or otherwise adapt. And the scale is handy for many other
> tasks.
>
> "The greatest feat the kitchen scale accomplishes is that it turns
> almost any recipe into a one-bowl recipe," said Deb Perelman, who writes
> the blog Smitten Kitchen. "You're not hunting for six cups and six
> spoons to make a cake."
>
> Instead, you place a bowl on the scale, then pour the flour straight
> from the bag until you get to the desired weight. Most kitchen scales
> let you bring the readout back to zero after each ingredient. Do that,
> then pour your next ingredient -- and so on. With a scale you can get
> away with using nothing more than a bowl and one spoon.
>
> Ms. Perelman and other cooks who've taken to using scales say that over
> time, they begin to pick up the weight-volume conversions of common
> ingredients whose weight barely varies. This lets you use a scale even
> for recipes that don't specify weights. If you know that a cup of sugar
> is 225 grams, why bother reaching for the cup?
>
> Dave Arnold, director of culinary technology at the French Culinary
> Institute, recommends that you make a chart with the standard
> equivalences, and tack it up next to the scale. The conversions
> sometimes require some math, but there's a payoff if you can brave it.
>
> "If you start cooking that way, it makes your life so much easier," Mr.
> Arnold said. "You'll do everything just so much faster."
>
> But the scale is handy even if you're not converting recipes. For
> instance, it makes getting the right portion size for dinner a breeze.
> When I'm preparing pasta for two, I lay the box of linguine on the
> scale, and then pull out 4 ounces for each person.
>
> Mr. Lopez-Alt does a similar thing making hamburger patties, and Ms.
> Perelman uses the scale for portioning batter evenly between two layers
> of a cake, and making a batch of dinner rolls that are each the same
> size.
>
> The scale also ensures repeatability. I once calibrated exactly the
> amount of beans that I need to make coffee the way I like. Now, every
> morning, I place my can of beans on the scale, and then scoop out 28
> grams -- allowing me to repeat the same pot every day.
>
> Michael Chu, who runs the Web site Cooking for Engineers, uses a scale
> for making iced tea. "A slight difference in how much sugar you add to
> your tea changes the flavor dramatically," he said. "So I figured out
> just how much sugar I like, and now that's how much goes in."
>
> I've also found that it's simpler to weigh liquid ingredients rather
> than to use a liquid measuring cup. A fluid ounce of water weighs
> roughly one dry ounce, which means that a cup of water will register 8
> ounces on your scale.
>
> Recently I needed 7 1/2 cups of water for polenta. If I were using a
> two-cup Pyrex measure, I'd need to fill it three times, and then almost
> fill it one more time, which is obviously a lot of effort. Instead, I
> simply placed the pot on the scale, then ran the faucet until the scale
> registered 60 ounces.
>
> But these are all ancillary benefits. A few new cookbooks offer recipes
> that specify weights for every ingredient, and it's when you cook from
> those that you notice the true brilliance of using a scale.
>
> The other day I made the delicious macaroni and cheese from "Ideas in
> Food," the new cookbook by the husband-and-wife chefs H. Alexander
> Talbot and Aki Kamozawa. The recipe included shredded cheese, butter and
> several other ingredients that would have been a mess to measure with
> cups and spoons.
>
> With the scale, I made the entire casserole with just a grater, one
> knife, one spoon, one bowl and a baking dish.
>
> Cookbook publishers of America: every recipe can be this friendly.

Being a baker, I can attest to the ease that using a scale adds,
especially when doing large amounts. Cooking, maybe not so much...

"> On Sep 14, 2:07 pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:
>> Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales

Excellent advice, Victor. I don't think a day goes by that I don't use
my kitchen scale.

Felice

meh wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack) wrote:
>
> >This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
> >way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
> >bought Microplanes,
>
> Having heard of microplanes recently, I asked some friends about them.
>
> NO ONE had ever heard of them, and no one said they wanted OR needed one.

Those that haven't heard of microplanes say that don't want or need one
since they have never tried one. Give those people one to try themselves
and they will promptly buy one.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
.com...
>
> meh wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
>> >way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
>> >bought Microplanes,
>>
>> Having heard of microplanes recently, I asked some friends about them.
>>
>> NO ONE had ever heard of them, and no one said they wanted OR needed one.
>
> Those that haven't heard of microplanes say that don't want or need one
> since they have never tried one. Give those people one to try themselves
> and they will promptly buy one.

yes, but they are for pretty small scale activities. My 1 H.P. cheese
grater is the way to go.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:17:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>meh wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack) wrote:
>>
>> >This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
>> >way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
>> >bought Microplanes,
>>
>> Having heard of microplanes recently, I asked some friends about them.
>>
>> NO ONE had ever heard of them, and no one said they wanted OR needed one.
>
>Those that haven't heard of microplanes say that don't want or need one
>since they have never tried one. Give those people one to try themselves
>and they will promptly buy one.

Whenever I'm not using my microplane on citrus zest, garlic, cheese,
etc., what it really does best is removing the calluses from my feet.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:17:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>meh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
>>> >way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
>>> >bought Microplanes,
>>>
>>> Having heard of microplanes recently, I asked some friends about them.
>>>
>>> NO ONE had ever heard of them, and no one said they wanted OR needed
>>> one.
>>
>>Those that haven't heard of microplanes say that don't want or need one
>>since they have never tried one. Give those people one to try themselves
>>and they will promptly buy one.
>
> Whenever I'm not using my microplane on citrus zest, garlic, cheese,
> etc., what it really does best is removing the calluses from my feet.

if only it could work on you callousness.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

> Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
snip
I've had my scale for at least 10 years. I originally got it for
bread baking but find that I use it often in just exactly this
situation. My recipes reference shredded cheese by cup and then
ounces. It makes it so easy.
Janet US

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:44:44 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> wrote:

>
>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:17:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>meh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
>>>> >way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
>>>> >bought Microplanes,
>>>>
>>>> Having heard of microplanes recently, I asked some friends about them.
>>>>
>>>> NO ONE had ever heard of them, and no one said they wanted OR needed
>>>> one.
>>>
>>>Those that haven't heard of microplanes say that don't want or need one
>>>since they have never tried one. Give those people one to try themselves
>>>and they will promptly buy one.
>>
>> Whenever I'm not using my microplane on citrus zest, garlic, cheese,
>> etc., what it really does best is removing the calluses from my feet.
>
>if only it could work on youR callousness.

Dumb spic... almost as ignorant as the mick.

Callousness is the most valuable personality trait to have on usenet,
beaner breath.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:47:40 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack)
>wrote:
>
>> Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
>snip
>I've had my scale for at least 10 years. I originally got it for
>bread baking but find that I use it often in just exactly this
>situation. My recipes reference shredded cheese by cup and then
>ounces. It makes it so easy.
>Janet US

I use my kitchen scale most often for dividing ingredients into equal
portions; ground meat for burgers, and especially small pasta for
stoups... makes it simple/quick to evenly divide a pound package, half
for now half for later.

On 9/14/2011 8:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> Whenever I'm not using my microplane on citrus zest, garlic, cheese,
> etc., what it really does best is removing the calluses from my feet.

EW! You use the same microplane for your feet as you do food - that's
just downright gross no matter the method of cleaning the microplane? I
recommend a 'foot/pedicure file' specifically made for foot calluses
available at any drug store or even a big box store. For examples see:

http://tinyurl.com/3tyebls

Sky

--

Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

Victor Sack wrote:
>
> Consider this a plea on behalf of the kitchen scale.

A long article on measuring by weight, and not one unit
mentioned was metric. Reject.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:20:48 -0400, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:47:40 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
>>snip
>>I've had my scale for at least 10 years. I originally got it for
>>bread baking but find that I use it often in just exactly this
>>situation. My recipes reference shredded cheese by cup and then
>>ounces. It makes it so easy.
>>Janet US
>
>I use my kitchen scale most often for dividing ingredients into equal
>portions; ground meat for burgers, and especially small pasta for
>stoups... makes it simple/quick to evenly divide a pound package, half
>for now half for later.

that too.
Janet US

On Sep 14, 5:07*pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:
> * * * * * * * * Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *By FARHAD MANJOO
> * * * * * * * * * *International Herald Tribune
>
> CONSIDER the Parmesan problem: Imagine that you're making lasagna with a
> recipe that calls for topping it with "a cup of grated cheese."
>
> This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
> way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
> bought Microplanes, which can turn a small chunk of Parmesan into
> mountains of billowy ribbons of cheese. And there lies the difficulty:
> the heavier shavings of a box grater can fill a cup with twice as much
> cheese as a Microplane's fluffy snow.
>
> J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, the managing editor of the blog Serious Eats, once
> asked 10 people to measure a cup of all-purpose flour into a bowl. When
> the cooks were done, Mr. Lopez-Alt weighed each bowl. "Depending on how
> strong you are or your scooping method, I found that a 'cup of flour'
> could be anywhere from 4 to 6 ounces," he said. That's a significant
> difference: one cook might be making a cake with one-and-a-half times as
> much flour as another.
>
> Professional chefs have long argued that there is nothing simple about a
> simple cup of flour. Nor is there anything foolproof in that cup of
> grated cheese, a half-cup of diced carrots or a tablespoon of butter.
> When you fill a measuring cup or spoon with any ingredient, the amount
> you get depends on a number of factors: how small you've sliced it, how
> tightly you've packed it in, how carefully you've scooped and whether
> you manage to get all of it out of the spoon. (Consider the mess of
> getting all the honey out of a tablespoon measure.)
>
> But when you weigh the same ingredients on a scale, none of these
> factors comes into play. Four ounces of flour (or cheese, carrots, honey
> or anything else) are 4 ounces, no matter who's measuring, or how.
>
> Over the last few years digital kitchen scales have become cheap and
> widely available. I've tried several and even the cheapest -- the Ozeri
> Pro, about $20 -- was easy to use and thoroughly accurate. Other models
> were just as terrific: The Soehnle digital kitchen scale, about $23, and
> the Oxo Good Grips model, $50, were slightly snappier to look at than
> the Ozeri Pro, but all three were equally adept at their primary
> function.
>
> Yet the scale has failed to become a must-have tool in American
> kitchens. Cooks Illustrated magazine said scales were in the kitchens of
> only a third of its readers, and they're a fairly committed group of
> cooks.
>
> There's a simple reason for this: The scale doesn't show up in most
> published recipes. American cookbooks, other than baking books, and
> magazines and newspapers generally specify only cup and spoon
> measurements for ingredients. A few, like Cooks Illustrated, offer
> weights for baking recipes, but not for savory cooking. (The Times
> Dining section recently began using weight measurements with baking
> recipes.)
>
> This creates a chicken-and-egg problem for the kitchen scale. Cooks
> don't own scales because recipes don't call for one, and recipes don't
> call for one because cooks don't own one.
>
> Consider this a plea on behalf of the kitchen scale. It's time for
> recipe publishers to recognize this humble gadget for the amazing tool
> that it is. If more recipes began specifying weight measurements, more
> cooks would buy a scale. And they would instantly recognize it as one of
> the most useful gadgets in their kitchens.
>
> Cooks who have ditched cups and spoons for a scale can be rhapsodic on
> the subject; many describe getting a kitchen scale as an epiphany on the
> order of sharpening knives that haven't had an edge in years, or buying
> a new set of eyeglasses. Not only does a scale provide the most accurate
> measure, but also, as you get used it, you'll notice it begin to change
> how you move about the kitchen.
>
> With a scale, you can get your ingredients together more quickly, and
> with less clean-up. Recipes that call for weights are also easier to
> halve, double or otherwise adapt. And the scale is handy for many other
> tasks.
>
> "The greatest feat the kitchen scale accomplishes is that it turns
> almost any recipe into a one-bowl recipe," said Deb Perelman, who writes
> the blog Smitten Kitchen. "You're not hunting for six cups and six
> spoons to make a cake."
>
> Instead, you place a bowl on the scale, then pour the flour straight
> from the bag until you get to the desired weight. Most kitchen scales
> let you bring the readout back to zero after each ingredient. Do that,
> then pour your next ingredient -- and so on. With a scale you can get
> away with using nothing more than a bowl and one spoon.
>
> Ms. Perelman and other cooks who've taken to using scales say that over
> time, they begin to pick up the weight-volume conversions of common
> ingredients whose weight barely varies. This lets you use a scale even
> for recipes that don't specify weights. If you know that a cup of sugar
> is 225 grams, why bother reaching for the cup?
>
> Dave Arnold, director of culinary technology at the French Culinary
> Institute, recommends that you make a chart with the standard
> equivalences, and tack it up next to the scale. The conversions
> sometimes require some math, but there's a payoff if you can brave it.
>
> "If you start cooking that way, it makes your life so much easier," Mr.
> Arnold said. "You'll do everything just so much faster."
>
> But the scale is handy even if you're not converting recipes. For
> instance, it makes getting the right portion size for dinner a breeze.
> When I'm preparing pasta for two, I lay the box of linguine on the
> scale, and then pull out 4 ounces for each person.
>
> Mr. Lopez-Alt does a similar thing making hamburger patties, and Ms.
> Perelman uses the scale for portioning batter evenly between two layers
> of a cake, and making a batch of dinner rolls that are each the same
> size.
>
> The scale also ensures repeatability. I once calibrated exactly the
> amount of beans that I need to make coffee the way I like. Now, every
> morning, I place my can of beans on the scale, and then scoop out 28
> grams -- allowing me to repeat the same pot every day.
>
> Michael Chu, who runs the Web site Cooking for Engineers, uses a scale
> for making iced tea. "A slight difference in how much sugar you add to
> your tea changes the flavor dramatically," he said. "So I figured out
> just how much sugar I like, and now that's how much goes in."
>
> I've also found that it's simpler to weigh liquid ingredients rather
> than to use a liquid measuring cup. A fluid ounce of water weighs
> roughly one dry ounce, which means that a cup of water will register 8
> ounces on your scale.
>
> Recently I needed 7 1/2 cups of water for polenta. If I were using a
> two-cup Pyrex measure, I'd need to fill it three times, and then almost
> fill it one more time, which is obviously a lot of effort. Instead, I
> simply placed the pot on the scale, then ran the faucet until the scale
> registered 60 ounces.
>
> But these are all ancillary benefits. A few new cookbooks offer recipes
> that specify weights for every ingredient, and it's when you cook from
> those that you notice the true brilliance of using a scale.
>
> The other day I made the delicious macaroni and cheese from "Ideas in
> Food," the new cookbook by the husband-and-wife chefs H. Alexander
> Talbot and Aki Kamozawa. The recipe included shredded cheese, butter and
> several other ingredients that would have been a mess to measure with
> cups and spoons.
>
> With the scale, I made the entire casserole with just a grater, one
> knife, one spoon, one bowl and a baking dish.
>
> Cookbook publishers of America: every recipe can be this friendly.

I use my scale even when I don't have a written-out recipe. There are
a few dishes that I make "by feel" that I've been asked to pass on. So
I weigh the jar before and after tossing that "handful" of dried
oregano into the pot, and the difference is a weight that works for
any size hand.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

Sky replied to clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz:

>> Whenever I'm not using my microplane on citrus zest, garlic, cheese,
>> etc., what it really does best is removing the calluses from my feet.
>
> EW! You use the same microplane for your feet as you do food - that's
> just downright gross no matter the method of cleaning the microplane?

It's probably best if you don't speculate about Pussy's alternate uses for
his wand blender (with the SPECIAL attachment).

Bob

On 9/14/2011 8:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> Whenever I'm not using my microplane on citrus zest, garlic, cheese,
> etc., what it really does best is removing the calluses from my feet.

Probably does a good job sharpening your horns, too.

George L

On 9/14/2011 10:37 PM, Sky wrote:
> EW! You use the same microplane for your feet as you do food - that's
> just downright gross no matter the method of cleaning the microplane? I
> recommend a 'foot/pedicure file' specifically made for foot calluses
> available at any drug store or even a big box store. For examples see:

Sky... here is a recipe for you:

Take anything Sheldon says and add a grain of salt. If it is still
tasteless, continue to add more salt.

George L

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:08:50 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Avins >
wrote:

> I use my scale even when I don't have a written-out recipe. There are
> a few dishes that I make "by feel" that I've been asked to pass on. So
> I weigh the jar before and after tossing that "handful" of dried
> oregano into the pot, and the difference is a weight that works for
> any size hand.

That's a good idea and probably how a lot of written recipes finally
got written.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:26:28 -0500, George Leppla
> wrote:

> On 9/14/2011 10:37 PM, Sky wrote:
> > EW! You use the same microplane for your feet as you do food - that's
> > just downright gross no matter the method of cleaning the microplane? I
> > recommend a 'foot/pedicure file' specifically made for foot calluses
> > available at any drug store or even a big box store. For examples see:
>
> Sky... here is a recipe for you:
>
> Take anything Sheldon says and add a grain of salt. If it is still
> tasteless, continue to add more salt.
>
Good idea. It's best to exercise her kill filter first though.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Brooklyn1 wrote:

> Whenever I'm not using my microplane on citrus zest, garlic, cheese,
> etc., what it really does best is removing the calluses from my feet.

LOL ohmygosh..my salon *has* starting to use them on feet! I was shocked
but its the same as those "pedi-eggs" advertised.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:37:19 -0500, Sky >
wrote:

>On 9/14/2011 8:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> Whenever I'm not using my microplane on citrus zest, garlic, cheese,
>> etc., what it really does best is removing the calluses from my feet.
>
>EW! You use the same microplane for your feet as you do food - that's
>just downright gross no matter the method of cleaning the microplane? I
>recommend a 'foot/pedicure file' specifically made for foot calluses
>available at any drug store or even a big box store. For examples see:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3tyebls
>
>Sky

Actually I originally purchased a microplane for kitchen use but I
found it totally useless for cooking (turns everything to fluff). It
sat idle for a good number of years until one day while having my hair
cut I noticed the manucurist using a microplane to do a pedicure,
since then that's how my microplane has been used, sits in my bathroom
(much better than pumice). And since then I've purchased a couple of
microplanes made especially for pedicures, one even collects the dead
skin.... could probably save it up in my freezer to use for making
stock, probably adds lots of gelatin, can't be worse than what others
save for stock, at least I wash my feet first. hehe

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:20:48 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:47:40 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
>>snip
>>I've had my scale for at least 10 years. I originally got it for
>>bread baking but find that I use it often in just exactly this
>>situation. My recipes reference shredded cheese by cup and then
>>ounces. It makes it so easy.
>>Janet US
>
> I use my kitchen scale most often for dividing ingredients into equal
> portions; ground meat for burgers, and especially small pasta for
> stoups... makes it simple/quick to evenly divide a pound package, half
> for now half for later.

but, but...

This is a lotta crap... do you count the sheets of TP you use to wipe
your ass or do you weigh it? Do you weigh your toothpaste? A good
cook measures the same way one knows how much TP and toothpaste to
use, experience.

right sheldon? can you remember what you say from one minute to the next?

blake

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:03:47 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:44:44 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>> Whenever I'm not using my microplane on citrus zest, garlic, cheese,
>>> etc., what it really does best is removing the calluses from my feet.
>>
>>if only it could work on youR callousness.
>
> Dumb spic... almost as ignorant as the mick.
>
> Callousness is the most valuable personality trait to have on usenet,
> beaner breath.

most people don't have your abiding interest in being an asshole.

blake

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:17:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>meh wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack) wrote:
>>
>> >This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
>> >way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
>> >bought Microplanes,
>>
>> Having heard of microplanes recently, I asked some friends about them.
>>
>> NO ONE had ever heard of them, and no one said they wanted OR needed one.
>
>Those that haven't heard of microplanes say that don't want or need one
>since they have never tried one. Give those people one to try themselves
>and they will promptly buy one.

Agreed. We now have two because they're used so much. Mostly for
parmesan, citrus zest, and fresh nutmeg from whole nutmegs.
--
Best -- Terry

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:59:56 -0500, Terry >
wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:17:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >meh wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:07:16 +0200, (Victor Sack) wrote:
> >>
> >> >This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
> >> >way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
> >> >bought Microplanes,
> >>
> >> Having heard of microplanes recently, I asked some friends about them.
> >>
> >> NO ONE had ever heard of them, and no one said they wanted OR needed one.
> >
> >Those that haven't heard of microplanes say that don't want or need one
> >since they have never tried one. Give those people one to try themselves
> >and they will promptly buy one.
>
> Agreed. We now have two because they're used so much. Mostly for
> parmesan, citrus zest, and fresh nutmeg from whole nutmegs.

I was one of them. You don't really need one until you find out just
how handy it is by using one yourself. Zesting is the job it has made
infinitely easier and definitely more enjoyable. Now I zest citrus
(lemons in particular) before I juice it because I can and freeze the
zest for when I make a recipe that calls for some... or I put it in
when I think it will "add some zest" to whatever I'm making at the
time. <I crack myself up> I like mine so much I'm thinking about
getting one for my DD and DIL as xmas stocking stuffers. I cook at
DD's once a week, so it'll be for my benefit too.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio

> This is a lotta crap... do you count the sheets of TP you use to wipe
> your ass or do you weigh it? Do you weigh your toothpaste? A good
> cook measures the same way one knows how much TP and toothpaste to
> use, experience.

So your experience is universal and there are no cooks in the world who are
expected to make a consistent product, and no cooks in the world who buy
cookbooks and expect the results to be predicatable.

Giusi replied to blake:

>> This is a lotta crap... do you count the sheets of TP you use to wipe
>> your ass or do you weigh it? Do you weigh your toothpaste? A good
>> cook measures the same way one knows how much TP and toothpaste to
>> use, experience.
>
> So your experience is universal and there are no cooks in the world who
> are expected to make a consistent product, and no cooks in the world who
> buy cookbooks and expect the results to be predicatable.

Earlier in this thread, clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz spewed out
the foam-flecked rant which blake quoted above. Three hours and twenty
minutes later, Pussy wrote, "I use my kitchen scale most often for dividing
ingredients into equal portions; ground meat for burgers, and especially
small pasta for stoups..." while blithely disregarding the rant he'd written
less than four hours previously. That's what blake was pointing out.

Bob

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:04:40 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
> "blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> > This is a lotta crap... do you count the sheets of TP you use to wipe
> > your ass or do you weigh it? Do you weigh your toothpaste? A good
> > cook measures the same way one knows how much TP and toothpaste to
> > use, experience.
>
> So your experience is universal and there are no cooks in the world who are
> expected to make a consistent product,
>

He's talking about the home cook and you know it.

> and no cooks in the world who buy
> cookbooks and expect the results to be predicatable.

The only home cooks I've ever met that are so absolutely reliant on
cookbooks are certain people from rfc.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

sf wrote:

> The only home cooks I've ever met that are so absolutely reliant on
> cookbooks are certain people from rfc.

Do those people at least have large cookbook collections? It would suck to
be that reliant on ONE cookbook, even if it was Joy of Cooking.

Bob

On Sep 14, 5:07*pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:
> * * * * * * * * Tipping the Balance for Kitchen Scales
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *By FARHAD MANJOO
> * * * * * * * * * *International Herald Tribune
>
> CONSIDER the Parmesan problem: Imagine that you're making lasagna with a
> recipe that calls for topping it with "a cup of grated cheese."
>
> This was a straightforward instruction when the box grater was the only
> way to shred cheese. In the last few years, though, more cooks have
> bought Microplanes, which can turn a small chunk of Parmesan into
> mountains of billowy ribbons of cheese. And there lies the difficulty:
> the heavier shavings of a box grater can fill a cup with twice as much
> cheese as a Microplane's fluffy snow.
>
> J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, the managing editor of the blog Serious Eats, once
> asked 10 people to measure a cup of all-purpose flour into a bowl. When
> the cooks were done, Mr. Lopez-Alt weighed each bowl. "Depending on how
> strong you are or your scooping method, I found that a 'cup of flour'
> could be anywhere from 4 to 6 ounces," he said. That's a significant
> difference: one cook might be making a cake with one-and-a-half times as
> much flour as another.
>
> Professional chefs have long argued that there is nothing simple about a
> simple cup of flour. Nor is there anything foolproof in that cup of
> grated cheese, a half-cup of diced carrots or a tablespoon of butter.
> When you fill a measuring cup or spoon with any ingredient, the amount
> you get depends on a number of factors: how small you've sliced it, how
> tightly you've packed it in, how carefully you've scooped and whether
> you manage to get all of it out of the spoon. (Consider the mess of
> getting all the honey out of a tablespoon measure.)
>
> But when you weigh the same ingredients on a scale, none of these
> factors comes into play. Four ounces of flour (or cheese, carrots, honey
> or anything else) are 4 ounces, no matter who's measuring, or how.
>
> Over the last few years digital kitchen scales have become cheap and
> widely available. I've tried several and even the cheapest -- the Ozeri
> Pro, about $20 -- was easy to use and thoroughly accurate. Other models
> were just as terrific: The Soehnle digital kitchen scale, about $23, and
> the Oxo Good Grips model, $50, were slightly snappier to look at than
> the Ozeri Pro, but all three were equally adept at their primary
> function.
>
> Yet the scale has failed to become a must-have tool in American
> kitchens. Cooks Illustrated magazine said scales were in the kitchens of
> only a third of its readers, and they're a fairly committed group of
> cooks.
>
> There's a simple reason for this: The scale doesn't show up in most
> published recipes. American cookbooks, other than baking books, and
> magazines and newspapers generally specify only cup and spoon
> measurements for ingredients. A few, like Cooks Illustrated, offer
> weights for baking recipes, but not for savory cooking. (The Times
> Dining section recently began using weight measurements with baking
> recipes.)
>
> This creates a chicken-and-egg problem for the kitchen scale. Cooks
> don't own scales because recipes don't call for one, and recipes don't
> call for one because cooks don't own one.
>
> Consider this a plea on behalf of the kitchen scale. It's time for
> recipe publishers to recognize this humble gadget for the amazing tool
> that it is. If more recipes began specifying weight measurements, more
> cooks would buy a scale. And they would instantly recognize it as one of
> the most useful gadgets in their kitchens.
>
> Cooks who have ditched cups and spoons for a scale can be rhapsodic on
> the subject; many describe getting a kitchen scale as an epiphany on the
> order of sharpening knives that haven't had an edge in years, or buying
> a new set of eyeglasses. Not only does a scale provide the most accurate
> measure, but also, as you get used it, you'll notice it begin to change
> how you move about the kitchen.
>
> With a scale, you can get your ingredients together more quickly, and
> with less clean-up. Recipes that call for weights are also easier to
> halve, double or otherwise adapt. And the scale is handy for many other
> tasks.
>
> "The greatest feat the kitchen scale accomplishes is that it turns
> almost any recipe into a one-bowl recipe," said Deb Perelman, who writes
> the blog Smitten Kitchen. "You're not hunting for six cups and six
> spoons to make a cake."
>
> Instead, you place a bowl on the scale, then pour the flour straight
> from the bag until you get to the desired weight. Most kitchen scales
> let you bring the readout back to zero after each ingredient. Do that,
> then pour your next ingredient -- and so on. With a scale you can get
> away with using nothing more than a bowl and one spoon.
>
> Ms. Perelman and other cooks who've taken to using scales say that over
> time, they begin to pick up the weight-volume conversions of common
> ingredients whose weight barely varies. This lets you use a scale even
> for recipes that don't specify weights. If you know that a cup of sugar
> is 225 grams, why bother reaching for the cup?
>
> Dave Arnold, director of culinary technology at the French Culinary
> Institute, recommends that you make a chart with the standard
> equivalences, and tack it up next to the scale. The conversions
> sometimes require some math, but there's a payoff if you can brave it.
>
> "If you start cooking that way, it makes your life so much easier," Mr.
> Arnold said. "You'll do everything just so much faster."
>
> But the scale is handy even if you're not converting recipes. For
> instance, it makes getting the right portion size for dinner a breeze.
> When I'm preparing pasta for two, I lay the box of linguine on the
> scale, and then pull out 4 ounces for each person.
>
> Mr. Lopez-Alt does a similar thing making hamburger patties, and Ms.
> Perelman uses the scale for portioning batter evenly between two layers
> of a cake, and making a batch of dinner rolls that are each the same
> size.
>
> The scale also ensures repeatability. I once calibrated exactly the
> amount of beans that I need to make coffee the way I like. Now, every
> morning, I place my can of beans on the scale, and then scoop out 28
> grams -- allowing me to repeat the same pot every day.
>
> Michael Chu, who runs the Web site Cooking for Engineers, uses a scale
> for making iced tea. "A slight difference in how much sugar you add to
> your tea changes the flavor dramatically," he said. "So I figured out
> just how much sugar I like, and now that's how much goes in."
>
> I've also found that it's simpler to weigh liquid ingredients rather
> than to use a liquid measuring cup. A fluid ounce of water weighs
> roughly one dry ounce, which means that a cup of water will register 8
> ounces on your scale.
>
> Recently I needed 7 1/2 cups of water for polenta. If I were using a
> two-cup Pyrex measure, I'd need to fill it three times, and then almost
> fill it one more time, which is obviously a lot of effort. Instead, I
> simply placed the pot on the scale, then ran the faucet until the scale
> registered 60 ounces.
>
> But these are all ancillary benefits. A few new cookbooks offer recipes
> that specify weights for every ingredient, and it's when you cook from
> those that you notice the true brilliance of using a scale.
>
> The other day I made the delicious macaroni and cheese from "Ideas in
> Food," the new cookbook by the husband-and-wife chefs H. Alexander
> Talbot and Aki Kamozawa. The recipe included shredded cheese, butter and
> several other ingredients that would have been a mess to measure with
> cups and spoons.
>
> With the scale, I made the entire casserole with just a grater, one
> knife, one spoon, one bowl and a baking dish.
>
> Cookbook publishers of America: every recipe can be this friendly.

I always use a scale to measure ingredients when I'm baking but I
don't use it for regular cooking. If a recipe calls for 4 ounces of
cheese (1 cup when measured out) and I have a little bit leftover or
I'm a little bit short I'm not going to worry about the difference.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:20:38 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > The only home cooks I've ever met that are so absolutely reliant on
> > cookbooks are certain people from rfc.
>
> Do those people at least have large cookbook collections? It would suck to
> be that reliant on ONE cookbook, even if it was Joy of Cooking.
>
You can only cook one recipe at a time.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

> ha scritto nel messaggio
I always use a scale to measure ingredients when I'm baking but I
don't use it for regular cooking. If a recipe calls for 4 ounces of
cheese (1 cup when measured out) and I have a little bit leftover or
I'm a little bit short I'm not going to worry about the difference.

And yet as was pointed out in the article, cheese is one of the most
unreliable to measure in volume. A cup can weigh one ounce or 4 ounces.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:24:51 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
> ha scritto nel messaggio
>I always use a scale to measure ingredients when I'm baking but I
>don't use it for regular cooking. If a recipe calls for 4 ounces of
>cheese (1 cup when measured out) and I have a little bit leftover or
>I'm a little bit short I'm not going to worry about the difference.
>
>And yet as was pointed out in the article, cheese is one of the most
>unreliable to measure in volume. A cup can weigh one ounce or 4 ounces.

Nonsense, an A cup weighs 5-6 ounces.

This is a lotta BS... I never saw any pizza baker weigh cheeze, or
anything else for that matter. Experienced cooks don't weigh or
measure, they judge quantities visually... pro bakers know how much
flour to use by filling the stand mixer bowl to a particular scratch
in the metal... pro bakers measure exactly the same as pro bartenders.
There is nothing precise about baking' every batch of flour, yeast,
and baking powder is different... a pro baker can tell if a cake
batter is correct simply by listening, to the sound it makes slapping
the sides of the mixing bowl... they adjust with bench flour...
experinces cook/bakers rely much more heavily on their sensory
perceptions (sight, sound, feel) than they do scales and measuring
cups... no pro cook/baker even owns measuring spoons. I laugh when I
look through cooking equipment catalogs and see gizmos for making
equal slices of tomato and such. LOL-LOL And measuring spoons for a
pinch and a smidge are a riot. I can't imaginge any cook measuring
ingredients for stew, use what you got... if it calls for 2 lbs of
beef and the chunk you have weighs 40 ounces do you slice off the
extra. duh I honestly can't remember the last time I paid attention
to any recipe quantities, they are only a very rough guide. Measuring
matters if it's a large scale commercial operation, for accounting
purposes, but no greasy spoon/home cook needs to measure. For a small
operation anyone can visually count two eggs... a large commercial
opperation scales eggs by the gallon. Every small scale recipe should
say 1/2 tsp salt or to *taste*.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:03:29 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:20:38 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>> > The only home cooks I've ever met that are so absolutely reliant on
>> > cookbooks are certain people from rfc.
>>
>> Do those people at least have large cookbook collections? It would suck to
>> be that reliant on ONE cookbook, even if it was Joy of Cooking.
>>
>You can only cook one recipe at a time.

Folks who actually cook need no stinkin' cook books. Most every
cookbook I own was purchased since I've subscribed to rfc in order to
site references, that was early on, nowadays most info is on line.
Some cook books I've purchased for their regional descriptions,
historical and literary value, not so much their recipes. I really
need no cook books, any dish I have ever eaten I can reproduce, and
improve upon. For me a kitchen is an artist's studio, a pot a canvas.
I don't have many other natural talents, I can't play music, I can't
dance, I'm a terrible athlete, I have zero rhythm, but I can cook as
well as any pro chef and better than most. Someone born without
culinary talent can no more learn to cook no matter how many years
spent in cooking schools than someone born without musical ability
will ever learn to play a piano regardless how many lessons. Having
walls filled with shelves of cook books no more means one can cook
than owning a cape and suit with an S means one can fly.

On Sep 17, 4:24*am, "Giusi" > wrote:
> > ha scritto nel messaggio
> I always use a scale to measure ingredients when I'm baking but I
> don't use it for regular cooking. *If a recipe calls for 4 ounces of
> cheese (1 cup when measured out) and I have a little bit leftover or
> I'm a little bit short I'm not going to worry about the difference.
>
> And yet as was pointed out in the article, cheese is one of the most
> unreliable to measure in volume. *A cup can weigh one ounce or 4 ounces..

The standard for cheese is the weight you need in ounces is always
half of the volume needed. So if you need 2 cups of cheese, which is
16 ounces by volume, you need 8 ounces of cheese by weight.

On Sep 17, 4:15*pm, " > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 4:24*am, "Giusi" > wrote:
>
> > > ha scritto nel messaggio
> > I always use a scale to measure ingredients when I'm baking but I
> > don't use it for regular cooking. *If a recipe calls for 4 ounces of
> > cheese (1 cup when measured out) and I have a little bit leftover or
> > I'm a little bit short I'm not going to worry about the difference.
>
> > And yet as was pointed out in the article, cheese is one of the most
> > unreliable to measure in volume. *A cup can weigh one ounce or 4 ounces.
>
> The standard for cheese is the weight you need in ounces is always
> half of the volume needed. *So if you need 2 cups of cheese, which is
> 16 ounces by volume, you need 8 ounces of cheese by weight.

You must mean grated cheese. Otherwise, that makes no sense.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Sep 17, 4:26*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 4:15*pm, " > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 4:24*am, "Giusi" > wrote:
>
> > > > ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > I always use a scale to measure ingredients when I'm baking but I
> > > don't use it for regular cooking. *If a recipe calls for 4 ounces of
> > > cheese (1 cup when measured out) and I have a little bit leftover or
> > > I'm a little bit short I'm not going to worry about the difference.
>
> > > And yet as was pointed out in the article, cheese is one of the most
> > > unreliable to measure in volume. *A cup can weigh one ounce or 4 ounces.
>
> > The standard for cheese is the weight you need in ounces is always
> > half of the volume needed. *So if you need 2 cups of cheese, which is
> > 16 ounces by volume, you need 8 ounces of cheese by weight.
>
> You must mean grated cheese. Otherwise, that makes no sense.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

Well DUH, usually when a recipe calls for a certain VOLUME of cheese
it means grated or shredded. I can just see someone trying to pack a
measuring cup with a block of cheese.