Hi Edward, I'm not sure I understand your question, so please let me know if my response doesn't answer your question or is confusing/repetitive.
When I metricate recipes, I usually do so with the conversion that a cup of flour has a mass of 125 g, and a cup of sugar is 200 g in mind, because, originally, when I started to metricate recipes (I haven't done too many, but that boils down to lack of time to bake), I'd measure out these ingredients with measuring cups, and then weigh them, to find the measurements of the *original,* non-metric recipe, and I found that a cup of flour, in my experience, was usually not more than a few grams off from 125 g. So even when metricating a non-metric recipe from scratch, to use as a baseline to which I will compare a round-metric version, I do not bother to measure flour and sugar anymore with cups, since flour and sugar are so often used, I know using these metric amounts in otherwise-customary recipes will not change it drastically. Things like a quarter-cup of cocoa powder and half-cup of crushed pecans or something, which are used less often, I'd still measure out in cups, weigh, and if I found that a quarter-cup of cocoa powder had a mass of, say, 33 g, I'd probably put that in the final, metricated recipe as 35 g, since I quite like cocoa powder, though it could just as easily be rounded down to 30 g. With other soft vs. hard metric things, it's a bit different. For instance, a box of butter here in the States is typically 454 g, and is cut into four sticks, each having a mass of roughly 113 g, give or take a gram. Now, while this is reproducible in the US because butter is pretty much standardized to this size, it is not a round metric amount, nor does it even end in a multiple of 5 g, and is awkward to cooks outside the US (and, perhaps, Canada). 115 g, while better than 113, and easily understood and used, also wouldn't divide evenly into a 500 g block of butter. (Granted, in the real world, one hardly ever uses amounts of butter that would either leave no remainder when its mostly depleted or not require more butter because there isn't enough left in the container, because of random amounts being spread on toast, etc.) So, while I make the baseline recipe with 113 g of butter, the metricated recipe usually contains 125 g of butter rather than 115 g because this is a convenient size when dealing with 250 g, 500 g, or 1 kg blocks of butter, and, in conjunction with using 250 mL of liquid rather than 240 mL, as well as slightly augmented amounts of other ingredients, keeps the proportions of the ingredients pretty much the same. Using 125 g of butter in place of a 113 g stick, and 250 mL of water instead of of 240 mL hasn't failed me yet, perhaps because they are relatively small increases, but if it were to fail in comparison to the original recipe, these amounts could easily be adjusted other round-metric, though less usual measurements, such as 115 g or 120 g of butter, which is just as easy to measure since it's all by weight. *Zach Rodriguez* http://twitter.com/#!/metricamerica http://twitter.com/#!/zachrodriguez On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Edward Schlesinger <[email protected]>wrote: > On 6/14/12, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Oops, didn't put the list server in the address field. > > --- On Thu, 6/14/12, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [USMA:51698] Kilojoules on nutrition information labels + > > metric in the kitchen > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Thursday, June 14, 2012, 7:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > US law requires Calories (kcal), but allows kilojoules as supplemental > > information. The option is (very) rarely used. Kilojoules, standing > alone, > > would be non-compliant, unless the law is changed. > > > > --- On Thu, 6/14/12, Zach Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > From: Zach Rodriguez <[email protected]> > > Subject: [USMA:51698] Kilojoules on nutrition information labels + > metric in > > the kitchen > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Date: Thursday, June 14, 2012, 6:35 AM > > > > > > This was a nice surprise. > > > > > > I had never seen kilojoules on an American nutritional label before. This > > one, on a soft-metric 510 g box of H-E-B-brand corn flakes, is bilingual > > English-Spanish, and, alas, only shows the SI value under the Spanish > terms > > (making kilojoules seem "foreign"). However, the fact that it's there at > > all, sharing the stage with kilocalories, with kilojoules as the primary > > unit, is delightful. > > > > > > Many English-Spanish nutritional labels only have kilocalories listed. > > Still, non-metric labeling persists even on Spanish labels, as indicated > by > > the phrase "con 1/2 taza de leche desc[r]emada". > > > > > > I checked both American and Canadian nutrition labeling regulations, and > > though they are mostly identical (with Canada being slightly more > > hard-metric, of course), neither of them, as far as I could find, give > > provisions for or examples of labels stating the energy content of food > in > > kilojoules. Regardless of the language of the label, whether it be > > English-French (Canada), English-only (US), or English-Spanish (US), the > > examples from both nations, shown on their websites and from personal > > experiences on both sides of the border, give only Calories. > > > > > > I could find little on Mexican nutrition labels, but the little I did > find > > gave example labels in kilocalories only, though I have never personally > > seen a Mexican nutrition label that didn't also state kilojoules, so I'm > not > > sure about the requirements for Mexico. > > > > > > > > > > Related thoughts: > > > > > > I imagine that, once the US labels switch from kilocalories to > kilojoules, > > the percent daily values will be calculated based on 8 MJ and 10 MJ > diets. > > Does it annoy anyone else that there are no spaces between the amounts of > > nutrients given and the unit symbols on these labels? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's no secret that, at least in the kitchen, the British are a lot more > > metric than Canadians. I assume this has to do at least somewhat with > North > > American traditions of cooking by volume, and the rest of the world > cooking > > by weight (except when Swedes use decilitres), and Canada's proximity to > > America. > > > > > > My little sister and I watched two cooking shows on TV today, Jamie's > Meals > > in Minutes—I assume this is Jamie's 30-Minute Meals from Channel 4, > merely > > retitled—from the UK, shown here on BBC America, and Nadia G's Bitchin' > > Kitchen from Canada, shown here on the Cooking Channel and Food Network. > My > > sister and I have a habit/game of fist-bumping each other each time we > hear > > a metric measurement mentioned on TV. > > > > > > The only non-metric I remember hearing on Meals—except for 5 mL teaspoons > > and 15 mL tablespoons, which I let slide, as they are the same, for all > > intents and purposes, worldwide except in Australia—was reference to "a > > little less than a[n imperial] pint", which is understandable given the > > British government's reluctance to eliminate the pint (though obviously > not > > ideal); I thought of it merely as hidden-metric code for 500 mL. Other > than > > that, oven temperature was given in degrees Celsius (though just stated > as > > "degrees"; British ovens have been metric for decades, and Jamie's had > "°C" > > engraved into it next to the temperature control). Amounts of dry goods > were > > given only in grams. > > > > > > It was virtually the polar opposite on Bitchin' Kitchen. Oven > temperatures > > were also given in "degrees", but referring to degrees Fahrenheit, the > > default for American and Canadian ovens*. Everything, even dry ingredient > > measurements, was given in cups and tea/tablespoons. With the exception > of > > the 250 mL Canadian "metric cup", which is what I assume was used even > > though the quantity was given only as "a cup", the show could have just > as > > easily been made in New York rather than in Montréal (bagel rivalry > > notwithstanding). > > Zach Rodriguez, an American who prefers cooking and baking by weight in > > metric** > > http://twitter.com/#!/metricamerica > > http://twitter.com/#!/zachrodriguez > > > > > > > > P.S. I know I've ranted long enough, but I couldn't help but smile (and > > fist-bump my little sister) when I saw this commercial on TV; it's an ad > for > > Kayak travel, and the man, traveling through Japan, asks for 12 kg of > rice > > flour to pack into his briefcase. Yes, it takes place in Japan, so it's > > logical to use metric, but the joke is that the man "just doesn't think" > > when he travels, so, even without conversion to pounds, the company > relies > > (and succeeds) on the American public knowing that 1. the amount of rice > > flour he holds in his hands is not that much 2. twelve kilograms is a > lot of > > rice flour and 3. 12 kg of rice flour will not fit in his briefcase. > There > > is no way that any American would think 12 kg has the same mass as, say, > a > > domino because they're "unfamiliar" with the unit. > > > > > > The direct link to the commercial is > > here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogILqUidZLA > > > > > > *The ovens at my mother's house are less straightforward about changing > from > > Fahrenheit to Celsius than the oven at my father's house, but it's > > definitely possible on all of them. > > > > > > **I try to stick with metric-originating recipes, more often than not > from > > Australia, but when I metricate North American recipes, since my scale > > rarely differs from these conversions by more than a few grams during the > > initial bake-it-by-volume-as-a-control phase, I generally use 1 cup of > flour > > = 125 g, 1 cup of sugar = 200 g, 1 stick of butter = 125 g (even though > this > > requires me to buy more butter since a 454 g box does not divide evenly; > I > > figure it's much more convenient to the rest of the world, and I prefer > > hard-metric over soft. 113 g of butter looks weird), and 1 fluid cup = > 250 > > mL, 325 °F = 160 °C, 350 °F = 180 °C, 375 °F = 190 °C, 400 °F = 200 °C, > etc. > > I then test the newly-metricated-and-by-weight recipe, comparing to the > > original, make any final tweaks for taste and doneness. From then on, I > only > > use the metric recipe. > > Hi Zach, John, > I do a similar change in the kitchen when I look over ingredients in a > recipe. When you say you ‘prefer hard-metric over soft’ do you mean > clearly measured rather than changing the measuring cups or > calculating the metric equivalent from the customary unit then > rounding the value (hard/soft conversion)? When it comes to labelling > SI unites are stated for Spanish and customary under English because > it is assumed most people in the United States and English speaking > are "unfamiliar" with SI units. I think the change to kilojoules will > occur when the diet industry starts talking about kilojoules instead > of calorie counting when mentioning meal portions. > > > > -- > Sincerely, > Edward B. >
