Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:

"Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential cookbook writer,
believed in extremely precise instructions and popularized the idea of
exact measurements for recipes, an illusion of science that has become
standard practice and, for more than 100 years, has left household
cooks saying, "What went wrong? I followed the recipe." She was the
most famous director of the Boston Cooking School, founded a generation
earlier to teach working-class women how to cook "scientifically."
Influenced by this school, freedom of choice has slowly been exorcised
from recipes, and experimenting is increasingly discouraged."

Now we know what the purpose of rfc is: to combat this evil legacy
from Fannie Farmer. We are the anti-Fannies. Except for baking.
-aem

"aem" >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:
>
>"Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential cookbook writer,
>believed in extremely precise instructions and popularized the idea of
>exact measurements for recipes, an illusion of science that has become
>standard practice and, for more than 100 years, has left household
>cooks saying, "What went wrong? I followed the recipe." She was the
>most famous director of the Boston Cooking School, founded a generation
>earlier to teach working-class women how to cook "scientifically."
>Influenced by this school, freedom of choice has slowly been exorcised
>from recipes, and experimenting is increasingly discouraged."
>
>Now we know what the purpose of rfc is: to combat this evil legacy
>from Fannie Farmer. We are the anti-Fannies. Except for baking.

Don't know about you, but my fannie is enormous. <G>

Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> "aem" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
> >Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:
> >
> >"Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential cookbook writer,
> >believed in extremely precise instructions and popularized the idea
of
> >exact measurements for recipes, an illusion of science that has
become
> >standard practice and, for more than 100 years, has left household
> >cooks saying, "What went wrong? I followed the recipe." She was
the
> >most famous director of the Boston Cooking School, founded a
generation
> >earlier to teach working-class women how to cook "scientifically."
> >Influenced by this school, freedom of choice has slowly been
exorcised
> >from recipes, and experimenting is increasingly discouraged."
> >
> >Now we know what the purpose of rfc is: to combat this evil legacy
> >from Fannie Farmer. We are the anti-Fannies. Except for baking.
>
> Don't know about you, but my fannie is enormous. <G>

Hmm, that would be a Farmer Fannie... as in Tractor Butt.

Sheldon

aem wrote:

> Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:
>
> "Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential cookbook writer,
> believed in extremely precise instructions and popularized the idea of
> exact measurements for recipes, an illusion of science that has become
> standard practice and, for more than 100 years, has left household
> cooks saying, "What went wrong? I followed the recipe." She was the
> most famous director of the Boston Cooking School, founded a generation
> earlier to teach working-class women how to cook "scientifically."
> Influenced by this school, freedom of choice has slowly been exorcised
> from recipes, and experimenting is increasingly discouraged."
>
> Now we know what the purpose of rfc is: to combat this evil legacy
> from Fannie Farmer. We are the anti-Fannies. Except for baking.
> -aem
>

Kudos from another anti-Fannie. Well except for where science really
does play a role.

Tonight's experimantal cooking...

Lemon Grass Chicken

(all measurements are just eyeballed)

1/2 c. water
2 T. lemongrass
1 T. nam pla
1/2 t. thai chili oil
2 T. lime juice
1 1/2 t. cilantro (dry)
clove garlic minced

3 thinly sliced checken breast halves were added to the above and are
marinating now.

I'm going to stir-fry the chicken with baby corn, mushrooms (variety
undetermined ATM), red bell pepper strips, scallion if I have it onion
otherwise, and maybe some bamboo shoots. add some liquid to the
marinade (wine, broth or water) boil, strain and thicken with
cornstarch. And serve over rice...thinking it's a brown rice night.

Shall see how it turns out. Time to get cracking on coconut pannacotta
for dessert.

Jessica

"Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
>> Don't know about you, but my fannie is enormous. <G>
>
>Hmm, that would be a Farmer Fannie... as in Tractor Butt.

Nope. Computer Butt.

Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

aem wrote:
> Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:
>
> "Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential cookbook writer,
> believed in extremely precise instructions and popularized the idea of
> exact measurements for recipes
She was the
> most famous director of the Boston Cooking School, founded a
> generation earlier to teach working-class women how to cook
> "scientifically."

Hate to argue with an historian, but I have a copy of the original Fanny
Farmer cookbook (obviously a reprint). The book states the school was to
teach women IMMIGRANTS to cook using ingredients which were not necessarily
native to their homeland. In that case, I would think the students would
need measurements in order to know how to prepare recipes using foodstuffs
foreign to them.

> Now we know what the purpose of rfc is: to combat this evil legacy
> from Fannie Farmer. We are the anti-Fannies. Except for baking.
> -aem

Having said that, I rarely measure anything. A newbie cook would probably
need to. As you grow more comfortable, eyeballing measurements, what types
of types of herbs or spices to use with what, etc., just becomes second
nature. It probably did to those students, too, once the acclaimated
themselves to the brave new world

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
>
> Hate to argue with an historian, but I have a copy of the original
> Fanny Farmer cookbook (obviously a reprint). The book states the
> school was to teach women IMMIGRANTS to cook using ingredients which
> were not necessarily native to their homeland. In that case, I would
> think the students would need measurements in order to know how to
> prepare recipes using foodstuffs foreign to them.
>
You make a good point, but do you remember the site someone posted that
has electronic archives of really old American cookbooks? In browsing
through some of them I was struck by how many recipes offered quite
vague quantities/measurements. I think his point that Fannie was a
major advocate for striving for "scientific" measurements is valid. As
is his implied point that such precision is a false, illusory path to
good cooking. There has never been a measurement as good as your taste
buds. -aem

http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/...ml/browse.html

aem wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> Hate to argue with an historian, but I have a copy of the original
>> Fanny Farmer cookbook (obviously a reprint). The book states the
>> school was to teach women IMMIGRANTS to cook using ingredients which
>> were not necessarily native to their homeland. In that case, I would
>> think the students would need measurements in order to know how to
>> prepare recipes using foodstuffs foreign to them.
>>
> You make a good point, but do you remember the site someone posted
> that has electronic archives of really old American cookbooks? In
> browsing through some of them I was struck by how many recipes
> offered quite vague quantities/measurements. I think his point that
> Fannie was a major advocate for striving for "scientific"
> measurements is valid. As is his implied point that such precision
> is a false, illusory path to good cooking. There has never been a
> measurement as good as your taste buds. -aem
>
> http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/...ml/browse.html

Yep, I remember that (Leila, I think it was). And in fact I also own
reprints of some of the cookbooks mentioned in these archives. The
Settlement Cookbook and The Virginia Housewife, for example. I love to read
old "receipts" because some of them are purely funny. But I still don't
think Fannie Farmer was evil <G> simply because she thought recipes needed
measurements for newbie cooks.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> jmcquown wrote: [snip]
> I love to read old "receipts" because some of them are purely funny.
> But I still don't think Fannie Farmer was evil <G> simply because she
> thought recipes needed measurements for newbie cooks.
>
I'm sure Fannie was a wonderful person. I said her *legacy*, meaning
the illusion that cooking was a matter of following a precisely
measured recipe, was evil. Put it this way, knowledgeable spectators
at many tennis matches can tell who is going to win a match by simply
noticing which catches the ball earlier with her/his groundstrokes. In
the same way, if you peek in the kitchen and see the cook frequently
tasting as she/he goes along, odds are it will be good food. If they
never taste, they aren't cooks. At best, they're chemists. -aem

aem wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote: [snip]
>> I love to read old "receipts" because some of them are purely funny.
>> But I still don't think Fannie Farmer was evil <G> simply because she
>> thought recipes needed measurements for newbie cooks.
>>
> I'm sure Fannie was a wonderful person. I said her *legacy*, meaning
> the illusion that cooking was a matter of following a precisely
> measured recipe, was evil. Put it this way, knowledgeable spectators
> at many tennis matches can tell who is going to win a match by simply
> noticing which catches the ball earlier with her/his groundstrokes.
> In the same way, if you peek in the kitchen and see the cook
> frequently tasting as she/he goes along, odds are it will be good
> food. If they never taste, they aren't cooks. At best, they're
> chemists. -aem

Oh don't get me wrong; I agree with you! As previously mentioned, I rarely
measure anything. But still, at some point it must have appeared to be
necessary at the Boston Cooking School. No one said everyone for the next
100 years had to carve it in stone

Jill

On Sun 03 Apr 2005 07:26:09p, jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> aem wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>> jmcquown wrote: [snip]
>>> I love to read old "receipts" because some of them are purely funny.
>>> But I still don't think Fannie Farmer was evil <G> simply because she
>>> thought recipes needed measurements for newbie cooks.
>>>
>> I'm sure Fannie was a wonderful person. I said her *legacy*, meaning
>> the illusion that cooking was a matter of following a precisely
>> measured recipe, was evil. Put it this way, knowledgeable spectators
>> at many tennis matches can tell who is going to win a match by simply
>> noticing which catches the ball earlier with her/his groundstrokes.
>> In the same way, if you peek in the kitchen and see the cook
>> frequently tasting as she/he goes along, odds are it will be good
>> food. If they never taste, they aren't cooks. At best, they're
>> chemists. -aem
>
> Oh don't get me wrong; I agree with you! As previously mentioned, I
> rarely measure anything. But still, at some point it must have appeared
> to be necessary at the Boston Cooking School. No one said everyone for
> the next 100 years had to carve it in stone
>
> Jill

Beginning cooks often need to follow prescribed recipes until they
discover their own tastes and preferences and understand the balance of
flavors that yield delicious food. It's not something that most people
are born with.

Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked goods like
cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening,
etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes competent with the
essentials, modifications are more easily made with successful results.

--
Wayne Boatwright
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

On Sun 03 Apr 2005 09:25:06p, K. Reece wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked goods
>> like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar, eggs,
>> leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes
>> competent with the essentials, modifications are more easily made with
>> successful results.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
> So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with her
> precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula, why are
> there so many variations? There are probably thousands and thousands of
> different cake recipes all with different ratios of flour, fat, sugar,
> eggs, leavening, etc.
>
> Kathy

There are people who do nothing but develop workable recipes and, beyond
certain known relational formulae, new recipes are achieved through
experimentation and pushing the boundaries. Some ingredients obviously
interchange easily, others not. Yes, there are thousands upon thousands of
different cake recipes with different ratios of ingredients. Few were
achieved by accident. I don't care to screw around with a recipe to the
extent that 5 out of 6 attempts end up in the garbage. I've cooked and
baked long enough to know most of the time what the limits of change can be
and still have successful results.

--
Wayne Boatwright
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
...


> Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked goods like
> cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening,
> etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes competent with the
> essentials, modifications are more easily made with successful results.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright

So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with her
precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula, why are
there so many variations? There are probably thousands and thousands of
different cake recipes all with different ratios of flour, fat, sugar, eggs,
leavening, etc.


Kathy

"aem" > wrote in message
ps.com...

> Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:
>
> "Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential
> cookbook writer, believed in extremely precise
> instructions and popularized the idea of exact
> measurements for recipes, an illusion of science
> that has become standard practice and, for more
> than 100 years, has left household cooks saying,
> "What went wrong? I followed the recipe." She
> was the most famous director of the Boston Cooking
> School, founded a generation earlier to teach working-
> class women how to cook "scientifically." Influenced
> by this school, freedom of choice has slowly been
> exorcised from recipes, and experimenting is increasingly
> discouraged."

Well, then he never bothered to read the 1909 edition of _The Boston
Cooking-School Cook Book_, which I have in front of me just now. Yes, she
believed in measurements -- and cooking is easier for the average person as
a result. But the main focus of *this* book is *nutrition*. From the
Preface:

"With the progress of knowledge the needs of the human body have not been
forgotten. During the last decade much time has been given by scientists to
the study of foods and their dietetic value, and it is a subject which
rightfully should demand much consideration from all. I certainly feel that
the time is not far distant when a knowledge of the principles of diet will
be an essential part of one's education. Then mankind will live to eat,
will be able to do better mental and physical work, and disease will be less
frequent.

"At the earnest solicitation of educators, pupils, and friends, I have been
urged to prepare this book, and I trust it may be a help to many who need
its aid. It is my wish that it may not only be looked upon as a compilation
of tried and tested recipes, but that it may awaken an interest through its
condensed scientific knowledge which will lead to deeper thought and broader
study of what we eat."

And the first chapter is devoted to the discussion of food and nutrition, to
wit: how food is classified (organic/inorganic); correct proportions,
including a discussion of how age, sex, occupation, climate and season
should dictate the diet of a healthy person; and discussions about
carbohydrates, proteins, fats, etc.

On measurements, she says: "Correct measurements are absolutely necessary to
insure the best results. Good judgment, with experience, has taught some to
measure by sight; but the majority need definite guides." A fair enough
assessment, particularly for the average cook.

I don't think it's fair to blame FMF for the failure of other cookbook
authors to offer less than stellar recipes, nor of the failure of parents
and/or schools to teach kids to cook. Not everyone can cook without
guidance; certainly newbie cooks can use good reference tools, and a good
recipe is just that. Many people aren't of a mind to experiment wildly with
their evening's dinner (and risk wasting money if the results are inedible),
but *most* people I know, anyway, will eventually start tweaking things to
their liking, even if it's such a simple change as using thyme instead of
tarragon.

Right, off my soapbox and off to make some coffee. Hope this makes some
sense, as I'm really pre-coffee.
-j

jmcquown wrote:

> Hate to argue with an historian, but I have a copy of the original Fanny
> Farmer cookbook (obviously a reprint). The book states the school was to
> teach women IMMIGRANTS to cook using ingredients which were not
necessarily
> native to their homeland. In that case, I would think the students would
> need measurements in order to know how to prepare recipes using foodstuffs
> foreign to them.


Yup. Here in Chicago cookery was one of the main things taught at Jane
Adam's Hull House settlement. Along with hygiene, child care, etc.

A lot of these immigrant women came from places where even a cookstove would
have been a rarity, hence the need for some "precision" in the cooking
process...

--
Best
Greg

K. Reece wrote:
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked
>> goods like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar,
>> eggs, leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes
>> competent with the essentials, modifications are more easily made
>> with successful results.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
> So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with
> her precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula,
> why are there so many variations? There are probably thousands and
> thousands of different cake recipes all with different ratios of
> flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening, etc.
>
>
> Kathy

OTOH, would you know how to bake (anything) in a wood or coal burning oven?
You don't have a dial to set to say "350F" - you can't really regulate the
heat. My great-aunt Ada *never* replaced her big wood burning stove with a
modern stove and she made wonderful pies that came out perfectly. Guess it
was just practice over all those years; she could just use her hand to
figure out if the temp was right. I couldn't do that.

Jill

On Mon 04 Apr 2005 08:23:44a, jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> K. Reece wrote:
>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked
>>> goods like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar,
>>> eggs, leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes
>>> competent with the essentials, modifications are more easily made
>>> with successful results.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wayne Boatwright
>>
>> So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with
>> her precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula,
>> why are there so many variations? There are probably thousands and
>> thousands of different cake recipes all with different ratios of
>> flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening, etc.
>>
>>
>> Kathy
>
> OTOH, would you know how to bake (anything) in a wood or coal burning
> oven? You don't have a dial to set to say "350F" - you can't really
> regulate the heat. My great-aunt Ada *never* replaced her big wood
> burning stove with a modern stove and she made wonderful pies that came
> out perfectly. Guess it was just practice over all those years; she
> could just use her hand to figure out if the temp was right. I couldn't
> do that.
>
> Jill

We have the "luxury" of precision equipment in almost every facet of home
cooking today that virtually did not exist in the kitchens of our
ancestors. Probably most people who cooked well back then got an early
sart at their mother's knee, then continued through practice to hone their
skills.

Both my grandmothers had wood burning cookstoves and produced wonderful
food and baked goods using them. I know that I couldn't bake on one of
those. The stove on my dad's mother had a small dial-type thermometer
mounted on the outside of the main oven door. I remember asking my
grandmother why she never paid attention to the numbers on the termometer.
She said it was never right, and she just stuck her hand into the front
of the oven to test for temperature.

--
Wayne Boatwright
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

jacqui{JB} wrote:
> [snip]
> I don't think it's fair to blame FMF for the failure of other
> cookbook authors to offer less than stellar recipes, nor of the
> failure of parents and/or schools to teach kids to cook. [snip more]

> Right, off my soapbox and off to make some coffee. Hope this makes
> some sense, as I'm really pre-coffee.
> -j

Oh gosh, I obviously have misled you. Sorry. Although "Cod" is
historical, it is done with a very light, amusing touch. There are cod
recipes and entertaining quotations about cod throughout history at the
end of every chapter, in addition to the recipes section at the end,
where the Fannie citation is given. In context, the author clearly
does not mean to attack Fannie, he's just poking gentle fun at the
contrast between her "scientific" approach and the very vague recipes
he's included elsewhere in the book. One of them goes back to 1375!

And when I called this "Anti-Fannie" I also didn't mean any serious
criticism. I was just trying to coin an amusing phrase while patting
rfc on the back for its displays of imagination and creativity.

End of anti-soapbox. -aem

aem wrote:
> jacqui{JB} wrote:
>> [snip]
>> I don't think it's fair to blame FMF for the failure of other
>> cookbook authors to offer less than stellar recipes, nor of the
>> failure of parents and/or schools to teach kids to cook. [snip more]
>
>> Right, off my soapbox and off to make some coffee. Hope this makes
>> some sense, as I'm really pre-coffee.
>> -j
>
> Oh gosh, I obviously have misled you. Sorry. Although "Cod" is
> historical, it is done with a very light, amusing touch. There are
> cod recipes and entertaining quotations about cod throughout history
> at the end of every chapter, in addition to the recipes section at
> the end, where the Fannie citation is given. In context, the author
> clearly does not mean to attack Fannie, he's just poking gentle fun
> at the contrast between her "scientific" approach and the very vague
> recipes he's included elsewhere in the book. One of them goes back
> to 1375!
>
> And when I called this "Anti-Fannie" I also didn't mean any serious
> criticism. I was just trying to coin an amusing phrase while patting
> rfc on the back for its displays of imagination and creativity.
>
> End of anti-soapbox. -aem

Oh, we knew that, aem, we were just having fun with ya! It's a good thread
IMHO! Beats the heck out of yakking about Terry Shiavo or the Pope

Jill

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Mon 04 Apr 2005 08:23:44a, jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> K. Reece wrote:
>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked
>>>> goods like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar,
>>>> eggs, leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one
>>>> becomes competent with the essentials, modifications are more
>>>> easily made with successful results.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Wayne Boatwright
>>>
>>> So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with
>>> her precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula,
>>> why are there so many variations? There are probably thousands and
>>> thousands of different cake recipes all with different ratios of
>>> flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kathy
>>
>> OTOH, would you know how to bake (anything) in a wood or coal burning
>> oven? You don't have a dial to set to say "350F" - you can't really
>> regulate the heat. My great-aunt Ada *never* replaced her big wood
>> burning stove with a modern stove and she made wonderful pies that
>> came out perfectly. Guess it was just practice over all those
>> years; she could just use her hand to figure out if the temp was
>> right. I couldn't do that.
>>
>> Jill
>
> We have the "luxury" of precision equipment in almost every facet of
> home cooking today that virtually did not exist in the kitchens of our
> ancestors. Probably most people who cooked well back then got an
> early sart at their mother's knee, then continued through practice to
> hone their skills.
>
Exactly. Of course, it was "expected" of women of that era.

> Both my grandmothers had wood burning cookstoves and produced
> wonderful food and baked goods using them. I know that I couldn't
> bake on one of those. The stove on my dad's mother had a small
> dial-type thermometer mounted on the outside of the main oven door.
> I remember asking my grandmother why she never paid attention to the
> numbers on the termometer. She said it was never right, and she just
> stuck her hand into the front of the oven to test for temperature.

My great-aunt did exactly that. I don't know how old she was when I saw her
last; she was my dad's aunt and he's now 80. She must have been close to
that age when I saw her back in 1971 and she was still cranking out pies on
that old cast iron wood stove by "feel". I couldn't begin to tell you how
she measured ingredients but I doubt seriously if she had anything really
measured (except perhaps by weight for flour and lard). Amazing, isn't it?

Jill

"aem" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> And when I called this "Anti-Fannie" I also didn't
> mean any serious criticism. I was just trying to
> coin an amusing phrase while patting rfc on the
> back for its displays of imagination and creativity.

Whoops! Which is what I get for posting pre-coffee (of course, it's also a
good illustration of humor not always translating well without body
cues...).

Thanks for the clarification.
-j

jmcquown wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>>On Mon 04 Apr 2005 08:23:44a, jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>
>>>K. Reece wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked
>>>>>goods like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar,
>>>>>eggs, leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one
>>>>>becomes competent with the essentials, modifications are more
>>>>>easily made with successful results.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Wayne Boatwright
>>>>
>>>>So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with
>>>>her precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula,
>>>>why are there so many variations? There are probably thousands and
>>>>thousands of different cake recipes all with different ratios of
>>>>flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Kathy
>>>
>>>OTOH, would you know how to bake (anything) in a wood or coal burning
>>>oven? You don't have a dial to set to say "350F" - you can't really
>>>regulate the heat. My great-aunt Ada *never* replaced her big wood
>>>burning stove with a modern stove and she made wonderful pies that
>>>came out perfectly. Guess it was just practice over all those
>>>years; she could just use her hand to figure out if the temp was
>>>right. I couldn't do that.
>>>
>>>Jill
>>
>>We have the "luxury" of precision equipment in almost every facet of
>>home cooking today that virtually did not exist in the kitchens of our
>>ancestors. Probably most people who cooked well back then got an
>>early sart at their mother's knee, then continued through practice to
>>hone their skills.
>>
>
> Exactly. Of course, it was "expected" of women of that era.
>
>
>>Both my grandmothers had wood burning cookstoves and produced
>>wonderful food and baked goods using them. I know that I couldn't
>>bake on one of those. The stove on my dad's mother had a small
>>dial-type thermometer mounted on the outside of the main oven door.
>>I remember asking my grandmother why she never paid attention to the
>> numbers on the termometer. She said it was never right, and she just
>>stuck her hand into the front of the oven to test for temperature.
>
>
> My great-aunt did exactly that. I don't know how old she was when I saw her
> last; she was my dad's aunt and he's now 80. She must have been close to
> that age when I saw her back in 1971 and she was still cranking out pies on
> that old cast iron wood stove by "feel". I couldn't begin to tell you how
> she measured ingredients but I doubt seriously if she had anything really
> measured (except perhaps by weight for flour and lard). Amazing, isn't it?
>
> Jill
>
>

Sounds like how my great grandmothers cooked. Both did write down
several of thier "receipts" for daughters and daughters-in-law. I've
been copying as many down as I can get my hands on when I visit with my
great-aunts. Most measurements are either proportial with bowl
"measurements" or specify a particular bowl to fill however full.
Everything else is pinch, dash, spoonful, or weight. Lots of liquids
are added "until it looks right"

Jessica

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
.. .
> K. Reece wrote:
>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked
>>> goods like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar,
>>> eggs, leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes
>>> competent with the essentials, modifications are more easily made
>>> with successful results.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wayne Boatwright
>>
>> So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with
>> her precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula,
>> why are there so many variations? There are probably thousands and
>> thousands of different cake recipes all with different ratios of
>> flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening, etc.
>>
>>
>> Kathy
>
> OTOH, would you know how to bake (anything) in a wood or coal burning
> oven?
> You don't have a dial to set to say "350F" - you can't really regulate the
> heat. My great-aunt Ada *never* replaced her big wood burning stove with
> a
> modern stove and she made wonderful pies that came out perfectly. Guess
> it
> was just practice over all those years; she could just use her hand to
> figure out if the temp was right. I couldn't do that.
>
> Jill
>

As a matter of fact I do know how to use a wood cook stove and judge the
heat with my hand. I also know how to load it so some areas are hotter than
others.

Kathy

jmcquown wrote:

> My great-aunt did exactly that. I don't know how old she was when I saw
her
> last; she was my dad's aunt and he's now 80. She must have been close to
> that age when I saw her back in 1971 and she was still cranking out pies
on
> that old cast iron wood stove by "feel". I couldn't begin to tell you how
> she measured ingredients but I doubt seriously if she had anything really
> measured (except perhaps by weight for flour and lard). Amazing, isn't
it?


My gas oven was on the fritz a whiles back - the temp control didn't work,
the gas would only work when the oven was on it's highest setting. I
"controlled" the oven temp simply by opening or closing the oven door. I
wouldn't like doing this on a regular basis but it did work okay "for the
duration"...

I guess if you had one of those old monster stoves you'd get the hang of
things pretty quickly after awhiles...

--
Best
Greg