Fun Stuff > CHATTER
A Cooking Thread?
LTK:
As much as a hassle it is to figure out US imperial ingredient measures when using online recipes, it's actually worse when the website does a half-assed attempt at converting their measures to metric. So you're telling me to measure 7.39 ml of chili powder, 9.85 ml of cumin and 4.92 ml of coriander. I'll just bust out my 10-μl-accurate pipettes then. And portion powdered ingredients with two decimal points. Imbeciles.
Ignominious:
I'm oddly fond of the old American style of measuring in cups and spoons. Utterly ridiculous measures but somehow enjoyable and effective.
Morituri:
I actually increased the size of the recipe a littlebit for the metric version because that made the measurements come out more even in metric units. Even the 7ml, which is the only "odd" number, corresponds to one use each of the standard 5ml and 2ml measuring spoons I have in my set. And I tested the modified version to make sure it works as well as the original imperial measurements recipe, so ..... ???
I don't understand the question.
Cornelius:
I think it's more of a general remark, than anything pointed directly at the last recipe.
I do agree, however, that sometimes there are some very strange measurements, when converted from one system to another. Personally, I do like the cup and spoon thing - even if not always very accurate, it gives a decent idea of the proportions.
When it comes to powdered ingredients, I do find it strange to have them expressed in fractions of liters, when the volume is smaller than 1 dl. I much prefer indications like a pinch, a knife tip, tea spoon, table spoon, for general cooking, and by weight for more specialised recipes, in baking and brewing.
Ignominious:
I think the exactness is something that comes from having to cater to a broad audience. Those lacking in confidence in their own ability to judge the correct amount of ingredients based on an abstract or imprecise measure will always trump those with the confidence or recklessness to know that these things aren't that important. If you alienate the former, you won't be selling anymore books and to the publishing chef, that's quite important.
Unless you're trying to replicate the sort of fine dining food that attracts high prices and low lighting, accuracy doesn't really carry the sort of importance that gets attached to it, not even in baking. I've followed pastry and cake recipes to the tee and not gotten the desired result and at other times just loosely followed it and made adjustments until the mixture seems right to far greater effect. There is, of course, good reason, as to why the accuracy thing is in all fairness inaccurate. The strain and season of wheat that you're using will likely have different gluten yields from that used when the writer developed the recipe. The eggs from the chickens may have different water content. The sugar and fat content in milk vary's from summer to winter because different feeds are used for the cows. The sugar that you're using may have been derived from beet, not cane. All of this leads to different behaviours of the ingredients in the mixture and cooking processes. Don't get hung up on accuracy, even in baking there's a fairly comfortable margin of tolerance in recipes.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version