On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 20:47:30 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:



>>
>> Many, many recipes are variable but when it is important, weighing is
>> the best method. As I understand it, particularly with flour which
>> may weigh more or less in certain weather conditions. Doughs are not
>> in critical category.
>
>Agreed! For dough I go by feel!
>
>
>--

Are your hands metric or Imperial?

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:26:30 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

> On 8/24/2013 3:39 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:28:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> Your old cookbooks will still work the same way, you just grab the
> >> appropriate tool be it an 8" chef knife or a 200 mm one. Both will
> >> cut the carrots the same way. Only difference, on will cut them 3/8"
> >> thick, the other about 10 mm.
> >
> > I'm talking about converting cups to grams, especially the fussy kind
> > of weighing that Europeans do. I'd need a chart in front of me all of
> > the time.
> >
> Converting cups to grams?
>
> Use your standard measuring cup, measure your sugar/flour/whatever in
> your usual way, dump it into a bowl on your scale, make a note of how
> much it weighs.
> Next time, simply weigh out that amount.

And you need a different number for every single thing because they're
all different. I'd need to make a chart and then refer to it every
time I had to convert.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:29:14 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 24/08/2013 3:39 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:28:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> Your old cookbooks will still work the same way, you just grab the
> >> appropriate tool be it an 8" chef knife or a 200 mm one. Both will
> >> cut the carrots the same way. Only difference, on will cut them 3/8"
> >> thick, the other about 10 mm.
> >
> > I'm talking about converting cups to grams, especially the fussy kind
> > of weighing that Europeans do. I'd need a chart in front of me all of
> > the time.
> >
>
>
> Cups don't convert to grams. Cups are volume and grams are mass. One
> cup equals approximately 250 ml, and 250 ml of water should weigh 250 grams.

I don't care what it converts to, it's the converting that I don't
want to do.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/20/2013 11:04 PM, wrote:
>> No, not how long spaghetti is! I often see recipes that call for
>> something like
>> 2 cups uncooked pasta. One I just read was 2 cups uncooked penne. I know
>> a cup
>> is 8 ounces and the boxes of pasta I buy are 16 ounces, so does this
>> equate to
>> two cups equals one box? It looks to me like it would take more than two
>> cups to
>> measure out a whole box of penne pasta. How does this work when they call
>> for X
>> cups of uncooked pasta? Thanks.
>>
> Just keep measuring the way you've been measuring and cooking the way
> you've been cooking. If you can portion and cook good food, who cares how
> it is measured? Get over this cups vs. whatever debate. Eat and enjoy!

Amen

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 20:47:30 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Many, many recipes are variable but when it is important, weighing is
>>> the best method. As I understand it, particularly with flour which
>>> may weigh more or less in certain weather conditions. Doughs are not
>>> in critical category.
>>
>>Agreed! For dough I go by feel!
>>
>>
>>--
>
> Are your hands metric or Imperial?

Both dear

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:05:03 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:29:14 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>> On 24/08/2013 3:39 PM, sf wrote:
>> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:28:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Your old cookbooks will still work the same way, you just grab the
>> >> appropriate tool be it an 8" chef knife or a 200 mm one. Both will
>> >> cut the carrots the same way. Only difference, on will cut them 3/8"
>> >> thick, the other about 10 mm.
>> >
>> > I'm talking about converting cups to grams, especially the fussy kind
>> > of weighing that Europeans do. I'd need a chart in front of me all of
>> > the time.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Cups don't convert to grams. Cups are volume and grams are mass. One
>> cup equals approximately 250 ml, and 250 ml of water should weigh 250 grams.
>
>I don't care what it converts to, it's the converting that I don't
>want to do.

Just piggybacking here...

Cups wll convert to grams, weight will depend on what product is in
the cup. There is not an easy one size fits all conversion but it can
be done. I have a chart in one of my baking books that lists cups
(metric) of different ingredients and the equivalent weight in grams
and imperial ounces.

JB

> wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 00:07:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 20:47:30 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Many, many recipes are variable but when it is important, weighing is
>>>> the best method. As I understand it, particularly with flour which
>>>> may weigh more or less in certain weather conditions. Doughs are not
>>>> in critical category.
>>>
>>>Agreed! For dough I go by feel!
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>
>>Are your hands metric or Imperial?
>
> The right one is metric, dunno about the left

lol

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:22:40 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:



>>>
>> Just keep measuring the way you've been measuring and cooking the way
>> you've been cooking. If you can portion and cook good food, who cares how
>> it is measured? Get over this cups vs. whatever debate. Eat and enjoy!
>
>Amen
>
>--

Hey, that horse has only been dead for about three days now. We can't
stop beating it yet, it may start moving again.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:05:03 -0700, sf > wrote:



>
>I don't care what it converts to, it's the converting that I don't
>want to do.

Good thing you were not around during The Reformation and had to
choose sides. .

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:04:17 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:26:30 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/2013 3:39 PM, sf wrote:
>> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:28:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Your old cookbooks will still work the same way, you just grab the
>> >> appropriate tool be it an 8" chef knife or a 200 mm one. Both will
>> >> cut the carrots the same way. Only difference, on will cut them 3/8"
>> >> thick, the other about 10 mm.
>> >
>> > I'm talking about converting cups to grams, especially the fussy kind
>> > of weighing that Europeans do. I'd need a chart in front of me all of
>> > the time.
>> >
>> Converting cups to grams?
>>
>> Use your standard measuring cup, measure your sugar/flour/whatever in
>> your usual way, dump it into a bowl on your scale, make a note of how
>> much it weighs.
>> Next time, simply weigh out that amount.
>
>And you need a different number for every single thing because they're
>all different. I'd need to make a chart and then refer to it every
>time I had to convert.


Many packages list the weight of the "serving size" in cups and grams.
The package of all purpose flour states that a 1/4 cup is 30 grams.
Simple math tells me that 1 cup is 120 grams. Sugar is a little
harder. It lists the "serving size" as 1 teaspoon or 1 tablespoon, I
don't remember which. But I did calculate it one time and made notes
on a Post-It which is on the inside of a cabinet door near where I am
usually prepping things since I don't keep most things in their
original packaging. Flour and sugar are in metal canisters and yeast
is in a glass jar in the refrigerator.

I no longer find it difficult to work with a recipe that is in grams
or pounds and ounces. I have a scale that has both systems and I can
go from one to the other by pushing a button. I no longer worry about
whether I put the same amount of flour in a measuring cup or not. Did
I fluff it too much or not enough?
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 2:01:48 PM UTC-7, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 8/24/2013 4:14 PM, graham wrote:
>
>
>
> >> And I 'convert' by simply putting the cup on the scale platform, then
> >> making a note of the weight. No complicated conversions necessary.
>
> > But how do you fill the cup? Scooping, spooning, sifting all result in
> > different weights and lead to success or failure.
>
> Indeed they do!
>
> Some books will mention somewhere what technique the writer used. With
> recipes that don't specify method, I try one way first - if the results
> are satisfactory, I use that weight. If not, I'll add or subtract until
> the results seem right, thus potentially wasting a lot of time, energy,
> and ingredients.
>
> This is why I prefer recipes written by weight.

As pointed out, the weight vs volume issue really applies only to flour, which
has different densities (weight/volume) depending on how long it has been
sitting, was it sifted, etc. But weighing flour doesn't eliminate uncertainty,
because flour will weigh more in humid weather and less in dry weather, as it
absorbs more or less moisture. (Apparently this is a function of protein
content.)

The best way is to use measurements to get in the ballpark, and then go by
feel, as Ophelia indicated. But "feel" comes with practice, so your first
starts may not be optimum.

My grandmother gave me my favorite indication of feel: a strudel dough should
be kneaded till it feels like a baby's behind. There are no babies in the
house at the moment, so I might have to borrow one to recalibrate.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/20/2013 11:04 PM, wrote:
>> No, not how long spaghetti is! I often see recipes that call for
>> something like
>> 2 cups uncooked pasta. One I just read was 2 cups uncooked penne. I know
>> a cup
>> is 8 ounces and the boxes of pasta I buy are 16 ounces, so does this
>> equate to
>> two cups equals one box? It looks to me like it would take more than two
>> cups to
>> measure out a whole box of penne pasta. How does this work when they call
>> for X
>> cups of uncooked pasta? Thanks.
>>
> Just keep measuring the way you've been measuring and cooking the way
> you've been cooking. If you can portion and cook good food, who cares how
> it is measured? Get over this cups vs. whatever debate. Eat and enjoy!
>
OK! But can people at least stop posting about cats?!!!!!!!!!
Graham

graham wrote:
>
> "jmcquown" wrote:
> > Just keep measuring the way you've been measuring and cooking the way
> > you've been cooking. If you can portion and cook good food, who cares how
> > it is measured? Get over this cups vs. whatever debate. Eat and enjoy!
> >
> OK! But can people at least stop posting about cats?!!!!!!!!!

How about ferrets? Do they count?

G.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>Are your hands metric or Imperial?
> >
> > wrote:
> > The right one is metric, dunno about the left
>
Ophelia wrote:
> lol

His left hand is probably the spanking hand and we don't need to hear
about that.

G.

On 25/08/2013 9:30 AM, graham wrote:
is measured? Get over this cups vs. whatever debate. Eat and enjoy!
>>
> OK! But can people at least stop posting about cats?!!!!!!!!!
> Graham
>
>


Hate to break it to you, but even complaining about OT posts is OT.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> graham wrote:
>>
>> "jmcquown" wrote:
>> > Just keep measuring the way you've been measuring and cooking the way
>> > you've been cooking. If you can portion and cook good food, who cares
>> > how
>> > it is measured? Get over this cups vs. whatever debate. Eat and
>> > enjoy!
>> >
>> OK! But can people at least stop posting about cats?!!!!!!!!!
>
> How about ferrets? Do they count?

certainly not! They are your babies)
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

> wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, August 24, 2013 2:01:48 PM UTC-7, S Viemeister wrote:
>> On 8/24/2013 4:14 PM, graham wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> And I 'convert' by simply putting the cup on the scale platform, then
>> >> making a note of the weight. No complicated conversions necessary.
>>
>> > But how do you fill the cup? Scooping, spooning, sifting all result in
>> > different weights and lead to success or failure.
>>
>> Indeed they do!
>>
>> Some books will mention somewhere what technique the writer used. With
>> recipes that don't specify method, I try one way first - if the results
>> are satisfactory, I use that weight. If not, I'll add or subtract until
>> the results seem right, thus potentially wasting a lot of time, energy,
>> and ingredients.
>>
>> This is why I prefer recipes written by weight.
>
> As pointed out, the weight vs volume issue really applies only to flour,
> which
> has different densities (weight/volume) depending on how long it has been
> sitting, was it sifted, etc. But weighing flour doesn't eliminate
> uncertainty,
> because flour will weigh more in humid weather and less in dry weather, as
> it
> absorbs more or less moisture. (Apparently this is a function of protein
> content.)
>
> The best way is to use measurements to get in the ballpark, and then go by
> feel, as Ophelia indicated. But "feel" comes with practice, so your first
> starts may not be optimum.

Yes that's true. I am not generalising.

> My grandmother gave me my favorite indication of feel: a strudel dough
> should
> be kneaded till it feels like a baby's behind. There are no babies in the
> house at the moment, so I might have to borrow one to recalibrate.

lol I expect you will manage

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 8/25/2013 9:54 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 25/08/2013 9:30 AM, graham wrote:
> is measured? Get over this cups vs. whatever debate. Eat and enjoy!
>>>
>> OK! But can people at least stop posting about cats?!!!!!!!!!
>> Graham
>
>
> Hate to break it to you, but even complaining about OT posts is OT.
>
LOL Too true! Just skip the OT posts and move on. Also can't complain
about thread drift. No one is forcing anyone to read anything.
Apparently a lot of people who like to cook also have cats. So what?

I don't particularly care whether the US goes metric or not. It
wouldn't affect the way I cook. The measuring cups/scoops/spoons list
both measures. I don't measure much so it doesn't matter. I don't have
a kitchen scale, either. I don't cook anything that needs to be so
precise. It's cooking, not a science experiment.

Jill

On 25/08/2013 10:26 AM, jmcquown wrote:

>> Hate to break it to you, but even complaining about OT posts is OT.
>>
> LOL Too true! Just skip the OT posts and move on. Also can't complain
> about thread drift. No one is forcing anyone to read anything.
> Apparently a lot of people who like to cook also have cats. So what?
>
> I don't particularly care whether the US goes metric or not.

There is a lot of public opposition to it. People of my generation still
whine about it. I was recently subjected to a rant from a guy who
thought that metrication was a plot by businesses to screw us on prices
by reducing the size. Curiously, most things that we sold by the ounce
pre metric ended up being the same size but with the metric equivalent.
For instance, soft drinks came in 12 oz. cans. Now they hold 355 ml.
They are the same size. Over the past few years, a lot of products have
been downsized. Salmon, tuna, ice cream etc are coming in smaller
containers but at the same price. From what I hear around RFC, the same
is happening in the US. It has more to do with manufacturers trying to
squeeze more money out of us, selling us less for the same. There is
also the issue of smaller families and more single people or couples who
don't need large cans. I don't mind smaller tuna cans. If I make tuna
salad with a large can I end up eating it for lunch for three days. With
the smaller can I can make salad for two and be done with it.



It
> wouldn't affect the way I cook. The measuring cups/scoops/spoons list
> both measures. I don't measure much so it doesn't matter. I don't have
> a kitchen scale, either. I don't cook anything that needs to be so
> precise. It's cooking, not a science experiment.

I do have a scale, but I rarely use it. Weighing ingredients is just
too anal for me. It takes the fun out of cooking. Weighing seems to be
more common with baking. If you are making bread and get a more exact
measurement with the scales than with measuring cups it goes all to hell
when you start using the bench flour. Most experienced bakers can from
the texture if things are right and then adjust accordingly. I can tell
you that if I am making pie dough or chocolate cookies I can tell from
the texture of the batter or dough if they are going to be exceptionally
good or if there is a problem, which I can hopefully adjust.
>

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:26:33 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:



>
>I don't particularly care whether the US goes metric or not. It
>wouldn't affect the way I cook. The measuring cups/scoops/spoons list
>both measures. I don't measure much so it doesn't matter. I don't have
>a kitchen scale, either. I don't cook anything that needs to be so
>precise. It's cooking, not a science experiment.
>
>Jill


I've often heard (and was posted here) that baking is far more precise
and it is better to weigh. Says who? If you want repeatability, I'd
agree that you can have the same cake or bread or pastry the same
every time. OTOH, if a pastry has more of less of an ingredient, it
may actually be more to my liking. You don't HAVE to follow that
recipe and add the sugar to the fourth decimal point and you can still
get a good result.

On 8/25/2013 11:21 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:26:33 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't particularly care whether the US goes metric or not. It
>> wouldn't affect the way I cook. The measuring cups/scoops/spoons list
>> both measures. I don't measure much so it doesn't matter. I don't have
>> a kitchen scale, either. I don't cook anything that needs to be so
>> precise. It's cooking, not a science experiment.
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> I've often heard (and was posted here) that baking is far more precise
> and it is better to weigh. Says who? If you want repeatability, I'd
> agree that you can have the same cake or bread or pastry the same
> every time. OTOH, if a pastry has more of less of an ingredient, it
> may actually be more to my liking. You don't HAVE to follow that
> recipe and add the sugar to the fourth decimal point and you can still
> get a good result.
>

Precise measures usually *are* usually about baking. I'm not a baker,
although I have baked some really nice bread from scratch. That was
many years ago. I don't eat enough bread to bother making it from scratch.

With other recipes, I use my hand to measure salt, pepper, herbs &
spices. I'm a pretty good judge but err on the side of caution. One
can always add more but it's hard to take away. How would I benefit
translating my hand measure into metric? Not a whit.

Jill

In article >,
says...

What if you're making spag bol with the horse meat and don't know
how much pasta to use...

Janet UK

In article >,
says...
> > > >
> > > > Oh, if you meant "talked about metrication but did nothing", that
> > > > started here in 1668 :-)
> > >
> > > Oh, a smiley after an obvious falsehood. I feel better.
> >
> > In 1668, Bishop John Wilkins, in England, published a proposal for a
> > universal decimal system of measurement.
> > >
> > > > http://www.metric.org.uk/metrication-timeline
> > >
> > > Great Britain is not a signatory nation to the 1875 act,
> > > the Treaty of the meter.
> > >
> > > You did not answer the question yet.
> >
> >
> > > When did Great Britain officially define their
> > > weights and measures in terms of the metric system?
> >
> > Read the link.
>
> I looked at the link and did not sift through it.


> It is easier for you to just say when Great Britain
> definer their weights and measures in terms of the metric system.
>
What, and have you call my reply "an obvious falsehood", again?

Janet.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Over the past few years, a lot of products have
> been downsized. Salmon, tuna, ice cream etc are coming in smaller
> containers but at the same price. From what I hear around RFC, the same
> is happening in the US. It has more to do with manufacturers trying to
> squeeze more money out of us, selling us less for the same.

Very true. My old (1978) Betty Crocker cookbook has many recipes for
canned tuna...6oz cans of tuna. Somewhere since then they downsized
the cans to 5oz and lots of water included too. Cheap *******s. I
would prefer they keep the same quantity and charge a little bit more.

Levi's jeans did the same sneaky thing many years ago. In order to
save money, they switched from 7 belt loops to 5 belt loops. I noticed
immediately and it annoyed me. I would have preferred to keep the 7
and let the price increase a bit. More cheap *******s.

G.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, if you meant "talked about metrication but did nothing", that
> > > > > started here in 1668 :-)
> > > >
> > > > Oh, a smiley after an obvious falsehood. I feel better.
> > >
> > > In 1668, Bishop John Wilkins, in England, published a proposal for a
> > > universal decimal system of measurement.
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.metric.org.uk/metrication-timeline
> > > >
> > > > Great Britain is not a signatory nation to the 1875 act,
> > > > the Treaty of the meter.
> > > >
> > > > You did not answer the question yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > > When did Great Britain officially define their
> > > > weights and measures in terms of the metric system?
> > >
> > > Read the link.
> >
> > I looked at the link and did not sift through it.
>
>
> > It is easier for you to just say when Great Britain
> > definer their weights and measures in terms of the metric system.
> >
> What, and have you call my reply "an obvious falsehood", again?
>
> Janet.

I looked at your link and there was no one date that it
"started"....it was a progressive transition. This fellow reminds me
of JA...showing up and knowing it all.

G.

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:42:59 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>graham wrote:
>>
>> "jmcquown" wrote:
>> > Just keep measuring the way you've been measuring and cooking the way
>> > you've been cooking. If you can portion and cook good food, who cares how
>> > it is measured? Get over this cups vs. whatever debate. Eat and enjoy!
>> >
>> OK! But can people at least stop posting about cats?!!!!!!!!!
>
>How about ferrets? Do they count?

Only if they have ten toes... btw, that's how metric came to be...
euros are still counting on their fingers, in fact euros are so inept
they couldn't manage their own money, euros indeed!

"JBurns" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:05:03 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:29:14 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/08/2013 3:39 PM, sf wrote:
>>> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:28:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Your old cookbooks will still work the same way, you just grab the
>>> >> appropriate tool be it an 8" chef knife or a 200 mm one. Both will
>>> >> cut the carrots the same way. Only difference, on will cut them 3/8"
>>> >> thick, the other about 10 mm.
>>> >
>>> > I'm talking about converting cups to grams, especially the fussy kind
>>> > of weighing that Europeans do. I'd need a chart in front of me all of
>>> > the time.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Cups don't convert to grams. Cups are volume and grams are mass. One
>>> cup equals approximately 250 ml, and 250 ml of water should weigh 250
>>> grams.
>>
>>I don't care what it converts to, it's the converting that I don't
>>want to do.
>
> Just piggybacking here...
>
> Cups wll convert to grams, weight will depend on what product is in
> the cup. There is not an easy one size fits all conversion but it can
> be done. I have a chart in one of my baking books that lists cups
> (metric) of different ingredients and the equivalent weight in grams
> and imperial ounces.
>
I have a US professional's baking book that has a conversion table for any
ingredient one is likely to come across when baking. However, it emphasises
*how the cup has to be filled*!!! Scooping flour from the bag will always
result in a heavier weight than spooning it into the cup before levelling
off.
US non-professional books rarely if ever specify this.
Graham

"The Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:04:17 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> Many packages list the weight of the "serving size" in cups and grams.
> The package of all purpose flour states that a 1/4 cup is 30 grams.
> Simple math tells me that 1 cup is 120 grams.

But if it's scooped directly from the bag, it will weigh more than this. A
cup of flour can vary between about 115grams and 160grams depending on how
the cup is filled before levelling. That makes a helluva difference when
baking.
It's all very well saying that you can adjust by feel but how the hell does
one learn the "feel"?
Graham

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:05:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:05:03 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >I don't care what it converts to, it's the converting that I don't
> >want to do.
>
> Good thing you were not around during The Reformation and had to
> choose sides. .

I would have gone West during the American Revolution to get away from
that kind of stuff too.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 12:38:07 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>> Many, many recipes are variable but when it is important, weighing is
> the best method. As I understand it, particularly with flour which
> may weigh more or less in certain weather conditions.

In all the years I've been baking, changes in humidity haven't made any
difference for the quantities I've been using. It will in a commercial
bakery where they are using huge quantities and the flour is being delivered
almost daily from the mill. Then they have to check the humidity of the
flour to get a consistent result.

>Doughs are not in critical category.

They are the first time you make a particular recipe. Not all breads are the
same!
OK, the result may still be edible, even enjoyable, but it won't necessarily
be what the recipe intended.
Graham

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:13:28 -0400, The Cook >
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:04:17 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:26:30 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/24/2013 3:39 PM, sf wrote:
>>> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:28:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Your old cookbooks will still work the same way, you just grab the
>>> >> appropriate tool be it an 8" chef knife or a 200 mm one. Both will
>>> >> cut the carrots the same way. Only difference, on will cut them 3/8"
>>> >> thick, the other about 10 mm.
>>> >
>>> > I'm talking about converting cups to grams, especially the fussy kind
>>> > of weighing that Europeans do. I'd need a chart in front of me all of
>>> > the time.
>>> >
>>> Converting cups to grams?
>>>
>>> Use your standard measuring cup, measure your sugar/flour/whatever in
>>> your usual way, dump it into a bowl on your scale, make a note of how
>>> much it weighs.
>>> Next time, simply weigh out that amount.
>>
>>And you need a different number for every single thing because they're
>>all different. I'd need to make a chart and then refer to it every
>>time I had to convert.
>
>
>Many packages list the weight of the "serving size" in cups and grams.
>The package of all purpose flour states that a 1/4 cup is 30 grams.
>Simple math tells me that 1 cup is 120 grams. Sugar is a little
>harder. It lists the "serving size" as 1 teaspoon or 1 tablespoon, I
>don't remember which. But I did calculate it one time and made notes
>on a Post-It which is on the inside of a cabinet door near where I am
>usually prepping things since I don't keep most things in their
>original packaging.

Anyone who needs to measure sugar by the spoonful has a very serious
mental illness... I bet you don't measure out the booze you guzzle.

On 25/08/2013 11:58 AM, Gary wrote:

> Very true. My old (1978) Betty Crocker cookbook has many recipes for
> canned tuna...6oz cans of tuna. Somewhere since then they downsized
> the cans to 5oz and lots of water included too. Cheap *******s. I
> would prefer they keep the same quantity and charge a little bit more.
>
> Levi's jeans did the same sneaky thing many years ago. In order to
> save money, they switched from 7 belt loops to 5 belt loops. I noticed
> immediately and it annoyed me. I would have preferred to keep the 7
> and let the price increase a bit. More cheap *******s.
>
>
And when you think about it...... The cost of the material is probably
next to nothing because they probably use scraps from the other parts.
They pay their employees about 50 cents per hour. It would take them
less a minute to sew a belt loop, so we are looking at a penny or two
per pair to have the extra two loops You're going to have a hard time
convincing me that 2 cents is going to destroy their competitive edge.

It's not really about not being able to compete. It is more about
squeezing every last penny out of the consumer. Look at soft drinks for
example. They are much better and arguably less unhealthy when made with
with cane sugar rather than high fructose corn products. It would cost
about one penny per can. Heaven forbid they add that to the sale price
and sell a case of pop for $5.23 instead of the magical under five
$4.99. When they save that extra penny per can on a few million cans it
starts to add up.

In article >,
says...

> Apparently a lot of people who like to cook also have cats. So what?

Do cat-owners use cups or scales?

Janet UK

On 25/08/2013 1:32 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>> Apparently a lot of people who like to cook also have cats. So what?
>
> Do cat-owners use cups or scales?
>
> Janet UK
>


Fish owners use scales.

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:02:18 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>
> Elecxttonic scales can also measure liquids, in metric or imperial.
> If I'm just adding <measured amount of liquid> to X, it's often more
> convenient to put the pan or bowl containing X on the electronic scales,
> zero it, press the fluid measure button for measuring liquid and add
> the liquid to the pan/ bowl, letting the scales measure it, rather than
> dirty a measuring jug. Especially if it's messy liquid like syrup or
> molasses
>
> Janet UK.

Unless you input the specific gravity of the liquid you get
the wrong answer. I suspect the scale is set for water.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 3:39:59 PM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>
> I'm talking about converting cups to grams, especially the fussy kind
> of weighing that Europeans do. I'd need a chart in front of me all of
> the time.
>
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

There is no accurate conversion of cups to grams. You need
to know the specific gravity and size/shape of the item you
are measuring.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:22:58 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:


>
>It's not really about not being able to compete. It is more about
>squeezing every last penny out of the consumer. Look at soft drinks for
>example. They are much better and arguably less unhealthy when made with
>with cane sugar rather than high fructose corn products. It would cost
>about one penny per can. Heaven forbid they add that to the sale price
>and sell a case of pop for $5.23 instead of the magical under five
>$4.99. When they save that extra penny per can on a few million cans it
>starts to add up.


We drink very little soda so when I do buy it, we go for the better
brands that use real sugar. We end up paying considerably more but
for the occasional treat, worth it for better flavor.

We have a local brand (Hosmer Mountain) that makes some flavors, cream
and root beer with cane sugar,, but there is also Virgi'ls
http://reedsinc.com/product/virgils-root-beer/

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person
> wrote:



>There is no accurate conversion of cups to grams. You need
>to know the specific gravity and size/shape of the item you
>are measuring.

Gram's cups are saggy shaped.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...

> I don't particularly care whether the US goes metric or not. It wouldn't
> affect the way I cook. The measuring cups/scoops/spoons list both
> measures. I don't measure much so it doesn't matter. I don't have a
> kitchen scale, either. I don't cook anything that needs to be so precise.
> It's cooking, not a science experiment.
>
> Jill


There ya go!

Cheri

"Gary" > wrote in message ...

> Levi's jeans did the same sneaky thing many years ago. In order to
> save money, they switched from 7 belt loops to 5 belt loops. I noticed
> immediately and it annoyed me. I would have preferred to keep the 7
> and let the price increase a bit. More cheap *******s.
>
> G.


Also charging $52.00 a pair for "shrink to fit" now too. Geez.

Cheri