Hi Wendy and Pat, Thanks for all your helpful comments. Your conversion table is EXACTLY like what I spent an evening this week generating, except it is far more complete, and I'm using the American definitions of volume.
I don't intend to use the words "density" or "mass" anywhere in my web page. My goal is to win people over, not alienate them. The American liquid volume measurements (the ones used for most cooking) are well defined, and are almost certainly tied exactly to the SI definition of the meter. Our tablespoon is very nearly 15 ml. Make no mistake about it, my web page will be to help people convert TO metric. Here in America, a lot of people convert a lot of metric measurements or specifications to inch-pounds. My rallying cry is "You're going the wrong way!" My wife grew up in France and so learned to cook in metric units. Here in the U.S., when friends ask her for recipes, she has to convert them to American units before sharing them. I've suggested that in the future, she simply show her friends how to cook them in the original metric version. I don't think there ever will be an organized effort to metricate cooking in America. If cooking goes metric, it will be like everything else in the U.S. that is going metric, which I believe you called "the worst way" in a previous posting. If we want to fix this, it will have to be a grass-roots effort. By the way, French cookbooks are somewhat interesting in their use of measurements. Dry ingredients seem to be generally specified by mass (except for spices), and liquids by volume. Deciliters are commonplace. Some cookbooks specify in terms of "1/4 liter" and even "1/3 liter". I think such fractions should be strictly avoided. Measuring spoons are officially 5 ml for coffee spoons, and 15 ml for soup spoons. But from what I see people really use ordinary spoons, which may be substantially different from the standard volumes. Finally, small measures are specified by "pinches," as in "3 pinches of salt." Your comments about cookbooks being sold internationally suggest that recipes should try to globally standardize to ml for volume instead of spoons. Every American kitchen has a set of spoons: 1/4, 1/2, and 1 teaspoon, plus 1 tablespoon. I suggest replacing this by 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 ml spoons. Then ambiguous measures like pinches or spoons could be entirely avoided. John On Wednesday 24 September 2003 20:40, Pat Naughtin wrote: > Dear John, > > Coincidentally, yours is the second request that I have seen this week to > do with cooking. As it happens, my wife is an excellent cook, and she also > writes cookbooks. I am simply an editor of cookbooks � and a very willing > test kitchen volunteer. > > Wendy and I have interspersed some remarks. Wendy's are preceded by WPP and > mine by PTN. > > on 2003-09-22 06.22, John S. Ward at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The July-August issue of "Metric Today" had a paragraph about metric > > cooking, including the following quote, > > > > "[Sharon Hudgens] ...has been seeking, for years, a > > metric-weight-to-American-volume table which converts specific > > ingredients, but surfing the Internet, so far, has not yielded this type > > of table." > > > > After reading this, I looked on the internet and discovered that, indeed, > > there is no good web reference that I could find for converting recipes. > > There are a large variety of conversion tables and tools, but they all > > miss a key point: American recipes specify nearly all ingredients by > > volume (cups, etc.), whereas metric recipes specify most non-liquid > > quantities by mass (grams). > > PTN > It seems to me that you are looking for a table that will convert masses in > grams, and volumes in millilitres, into volumes in cups, tablespoons, and > teaspoons. I don't think that this is the best way to go. You might be > better advised to use the opportunity provided by metrication to change > your cooking methods to use scales more often by specifying not only your > non-liquid quantities, but also your liquid quantities, by mass in grams. > > One immediate advantage of using scales is that you do not need to know > anything about the density of various foods. From recipe writer to kitchen > cook, you can simply ignore the idea of food densities altogether. It is my > experience that density is a difficult concept for many people to > comprehend, and it is avoided completely by a mass measuring cook. > > However, having said that food densities make for a difficult path, I have > attached a table of rounded food densities that you might find useful as a > starter if you decide to go down that difficult path. The file is called > 'Cooking measures and masses' and it is in draft form so you will need to > check my calculations. > > > So I have taken it upon myself to create a web page about metric cooking. > > I've experimentally determined a table to convert American volume > > measurements to metric mass measurements. Using my page, anyone with a > > traditional American recipe should be able to properly convert it to > > metric. > > PTN > I can see several problems here. For example: > is there a standard cup in the USA? > is there a standard tablespoon in the USA? > is there a standard teaspoon in the USA? > I know that some cooking writers refer to a tablespoon of 15 mL, but I know > of no authority for this assumption. My suspicion is that 15 mL is simply a > rounded value based on half a USA fluid ounce (1/2 of 29.5735 = > 14.7868 mL). Is the standard cup 8 ounces (=236.588 mL) or has this been > rounded up or down to some neater metric value such as 225 mL, 235 mL, > 240 mL or 250 mL? Is there any (official) move in the USA to set standards > for metric cooking? Does anyone have the authority to do this? > > > I'll send the URL in a few weeks, when the site is complete and > > presentable. Meanwhile, suggestions are welcome. > > > > How "metric" is cooking in Australia? the British Isles? I wonder if > > they cook by mass there like they do in France & Germany. > > WPP > Cooks in Australia use metric measurements almost all of the time, BUT if > they expect their book to have sales in the USA � and of course they hope > that they do � they offer dual measures. > > PTN > However, this can be produce odd results. Most cookbook writers, and their > editors, in Australia are relatively unfamiliar with 'U.S. Customary > units'; the older ones are familiar with old Imperial measures � so the > translations to produce the dual measures for a cookbook can be quite > original. > > WPP > All Australian people comfortably buy all of their food using only metric > measures, but those who have old recipe books (most of us) and/or old > scales etc have to still translate between old and new. However, as younger > people set up their own kitchens, with metric only equipment and metric > only recipe books, this is gradually changing. > > A second problem occurs with cookbook editors who seem to be, to say the > lest, cavalier when it comes to editing measurements � and don�t refer to > the Australian Government Style Manual � for writers, editors and printers > (if they know that it exists!). This is unhelpful in achieving any sort of > across the board standards. > > As far as measuring goes, Australians in the main do weigh ingredients. > Bear in mind that, except in a very few cases, weighing to the nearest gram > is simply not an issue. I recommend that you have a set of measuring spoons > (1/4, 1/2, teaspoon and tablespoon (20 mL in Australia) and a metric cup > which holds 250 mL. > > I have attached a draft measurement chapter from one of my books, Measure > for measure' that will give you our perspective on kitchen measurement. In > part, this refers to the varying amounts you get for a cup of different > ingredients. > > Often, when I write a cookbook I do a running footer as follows: > > 1 teaspoon (ts) = 5 mL 1 tablespoon (TS) = 20 mL 1 cup = 250 mL. > > If I need metric measurements for cake tins or cubes of meat I refer to the > size of the page they�re looking at (say an A4 that is 210 mm by 297 mm), > or the tip of my little finger, which is approximately 10 mm. I hate having > to bounce back and forth to a conversion page. This way, with a minimum of > fuss, everything is on the same page. > > For example: > > Pickled oranges > > 8 oranges 1 ts salt > 250 mL water 90 grams honey > 500 grams sugar 250 mL malt vinegar > 1 ts fennel seeds 8-10 bruised cardamom pods > 1 cinnamon stick 8 star anise > > Bring the oranges to the boil in salt and water and simmer for 30 or 40 > minutes. Drain, cool, and cut into slices about 8 mm to 10 mm thick (the > tip of your little finger is about 10 mm). Boil and then simmer remaining > ingredients for 10 minutes, then pass through a sieve. > > Place orange slices in strained liquid; bring to the boil, then simmer for > about 15 minutes. If liquid doesn�t cover the oranges, carefully turn the > sections so that they all get to cook in the liquid � be careful not to > break them. > > Stand off the heat for 10 minutes, and then freeze in suitable containers, > covered with the liquid. > > 1 teaspoon (ts) = 5 mL 1 tablespoon (TS) = 20 mL 1 cup = 250 mL. > > *** > > Question: Do Australian cooks mainly use scales or do they use volumetric > measures such as cups and spoons? > > PTN > Professional cooks use scales. They know that scales are much more accurate > than volume measures, so they can achieve more reproducible results. > Amateur Australian cooks also aspire to use scales � when they can afford > them. Good cooks also know how to use recipes based on cups, tablepoons, > and teaspoons, but they regard this as the second-best method. > > In our kitchen we use both. I am the bread baker and I weigh everything � > even the water. But if I am away from our kitchen with its wonderful > electronic scales (Salter Model 323), I am quite comfortable using cups and > spoons and feeling for the consistency I require while kneading. > > Wendy is much more aware that her readers will have a wide range of > different circumstances � so she test cooks accordingly. Sometimes she > weighs all ingredients and at other times she uses cups and spoons, without > weighing at all. > > *** > > Question: As the accuracy of measuring with scales can only be as good as > the accuracy of the scales. How can you maintain accuracy in a working > kitchen? How can you keep your scales calibrated? > > PTN > In addition to our wonderful electronic scales, we also own a two kilogram > mass that came from an auction at a cement company laboratory. Mostly this > is used to keep things flat on the computer scanner, but every few months I > take it to the kitchen to check the calibration of the electronic scales. > > PTN > It seems to me that cooking with scales is, ultimately the best way to go. > True they can be expensive to buy in the first place but, if you buy good > quality, they will last you for a long time. This is our second set of > all-metric scales in thirty years � the first lot were mechanical. Our > first lot cost about $20 and the second lot cost about $120 � weighing at > our place has cost us about five dollars per year (5 $/a) over thirty > years. > > *** > > Question: Old cookbooks have some rather odd measuring instructions. For > example, I have seen many (mainly old) recipes with approximate amounts > like "butter, the size of the first joint of the thumb." > > PTN > Old recipes, with these sorts of instructions, simply reflect the recipe > writers desire to communicate as clearly as they can to as wide an audience > as possible. In a way these quaint devices are the result of not having a > simple universal system of units that we can all know is reliable. > > [However, I don't think that you, gentle readers, need a lecture from me on > the benefits of international standards!] > > I believe that the universal adoption of the International Sytem of Units > will go a long way toward removing these strange old linguistic devices. > Consider the story of the cigarette tin in the attached article, 'Measure > for measure'. > > Question: Will people in the USA be highly motivated to choose scales to > achieve more accuracy in their kitchens? > > PTN > What you imply in your question is true; people are not highly m,otivated > to change their old cups and spoons cooking methods to the more accurate > scales approach. But when we reverse this process we find the practices > that the best cooking teachers use. They train bakers, cooks and chefs to > use meticulous techniques using very good (electronic) scales. After their > trainees have a good feel for the large and small masses that are common in > their trade, then, and only then, would their students be allowed to cook > without the continuing support of accurate scales. To anyone who is unaware > of the training process, a good cook may not appear to be measuring at all, > but all of the truly great cooks know that measuring mass, during their > training, is one of the cornerstones of their considerable skills. > > Cheers, > > Wendy Pomroy > Pat Naughtin > Geelong, Australia > > Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication > matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words > subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > > > --
