Hi Marcus, I somewhat disagree. The error in calibration of electronic scales is probably a lot less than the uncertainty of how an ingredient was chopped or packed or sifted. I doubt if it's necessary to calibrated a decent electronic scale unless you have some specific need (e.g., like if you write cookbooks!) Small amounts (spices, etc.) *are* measured by volume using calibrated spoons, so accuracy at the gram level is not needed.
I have a recipe that calls for 3 cups of peeled and cored apples. If I cut them into small pieces, I can fit a lot more apples into 3 cups than if I leave them in big chunks. Worse yet, it's hard to even tell when my measuring cup is "full," since the apple chunks don't fit very well. Measuring by mass eliminates these concerns. It makes a big difference how much flour fills a measuring cup depending on how well sifted the flour is. For bread, cake, and pastry, this difference is significant. Measuring by mass eliminates this problem. I believe that measuring by weight is often easier than measuring by volume. I just keep hitting the "tare" button between each ingredient. I weigh them directly into the pot or mixing bowl that I would use for cooking anyway. So I don't have to get out the measuring cups, or wash them. Finally, I do agree that really simple, low-precision recipes (like boiling rice) are easier to measure by volume. John On Thursday 25 September 2003 07:32, Ma Be wrote: > Pat, and others, > > Please allow me to add my 2-cents worth on this interesting discussion. > > First, I'm not sure whether or not cooking by mass is better than by volume > actually. Please let me explain. > > Volumetric measures do NOT suffer the problem that scales do: calibration > (or even accuracy)! > > When you measure something with a container that is graduated you only err > by your own reading skills, not the instrument's! (Evidently I'm assuming > the manufacturer did a decent job at making sure those volume measures are > accurate!) > > Distortions of containers with time and stuff are completely negligible (I > mean "growing or shrinking" due to things like temperature, usage, etc). > > True, there would be the issue of density of the ingredients which may > differ depending on the quality of the product. As a consequence measuring > its volume may not yield the same "quantity" necessary for a recipe to > work. But ONLY IF that aspect is important (mass, evidently) in the end. > Besides, do we have data to substantiate that these density differences are > substantial? Or if mass is more important than volume for recipes to... > work? > > A second difficulty I find with using weight scales in general is that for > some ingredients, like spices, one has a monumental task of measuring this > accurately due to its usually minute quantities. > > I've conducted an experience here one time by measuring and remeasuring > these and found a real appalling result. At times I ended up with more > than twice or even three times the volumetric quantity between measures!!! > I'd like to believe that this would be utterly unacceptable. And, mind > you, my scale is accurate to the gram (or 2 g, I don't remember...)!!! > > So, there... The forum is open for discussions... ;-) > > Marcus > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! > Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
