Moopheus

I'm gonna say around 40 percent. There were some I couldn't remember whether I'd used more than once, some I was pretty sure I had not. I tried to count only the ones I was sure about. Some I tried once or twice and didn't get excited about, and some I keep meaning to use more and don't--instead I keep going back to the tried-and-true. That's kinda lame.

But if it doesn't cost the publisher a sale, it doesn't matter to them. When enough people say, "I'm not buying this book because it doesn't have weight measurement," then they'll change. There's no incentive for publishers to change if you say, I'd rather have weight measurements, but I'll buy the book anyway. To the publisher, that just proves their point of view: weight measurement doesn't matter enough to the home cook to bother with. A petition is a nice idea, but individual letters count for more. And it will mean nothing unless you back it with your money. You have to say, we won't buy any cookbooks that don't include weight measures. They have to see it on the bottom line.

Copyright protection of recipes is very weak. Lists of ingredients are not generally covered. Simple common instructions are not likely to be covered. If the written description involves "substantial literary expression" it might be covered, but it's unlikely that that would prevent anyone from making a workable copy of the recipe (note how many cookbooks contain essentially the same recipe explained in different ways). Also, copyright only controls copying the recipe, not reading or using the recipe.

The stores around here have Kate's butter in normal 1/4-pound sticks. I don't think I've seen the tubs. That is kinda dumb.

I've made it from the recipe given in Real American Breakfast (Jamisons), but of course you can add pretty much whatever you want for spices, nuts, etc. I found that using good apple cider for the liquid is better than clear juice. The nice thing is that of course you can adjust the sweetness to taste, use honey, maple syrup, whatever. The commercial stuff is too sweet.

The magazine business doesn't work that way, at least not any more. Well, it never did, really, there just used to be a lot more publishers. But really it comes down to subscriptions and ad sales, especially ad sales. Can they sell enough ads to support both magazines? Probably not.

Oh yeah. The night before my wife and I got married, I had a shrimp dinner at Paris, Las Vegas. Big mistake. Was puking at 2 am. (and no, I don't drink.) Shellfish in the desert? WTF was I thinking?

Bathroom scale? Weigh it the way my vet weighs the cat: holding the cat, then not holding the cat. If you have that big a roast, how accurate does it need to be?

I don't know when "large" became standard, but I do know that the USDA standards for egg sizes were set in mid-1950s. "Large" eggs are defined as a minimum of 24 ounces per dozen eggs. I have some older commercial ice cream books that cite an average of "usable edible content" of a dozen eggs as being around 18 ounces--which doesn't seem inconsistent with a "medium" whole egg of 21 ounces per dozen. Clearly not calling for what we call a large egg. Which suggests that people were, indeed, expecting that a normal, average egg would be smaller than a large egg. I don't remember the last time I saw "medium" eggs in the store--I wasn't paying that much attention, but I'd be reasonably sure it was within the last five or ten years.

Yes, RLB's books are very good that way--all of the information you could ask for presented in neat little tables. And it would seem not have hurt the sales of those books one bit. It is more work for the typesetter to do that--you can't just plunk lots of tables down randomly on a page. So it costs more. But relative to the rest of the costs of a cookbook, it's probably not that much. You're already paying for complicated layout, anyway. Somebody has to compile that information in some way, and check that it's correct (ok, I know they'll skip that step). The big remaining problem is that publishers still perceive it as a negative from a sales perspective, or at least not a positive (it won't sell additional copies, so why have additional cost?). How to change their minds? I don't know. I know from first-hand experience that that sort of inertia can be hard to overcome. They would have to see a book sell big numbers because it had weight measures.

Yes, metric is decimal, but there's more to it than that. The decimal part isn't what confuses people. The units still have meaning, and the meaning is what Americans don't really understand. If you say to the average American, It's 22 degress Centigrade outside, they don't have any idea if that means it's hot or cold. If you say a pound of butter, they know what that is, but a kilo of butter is unknown.

Actually, they do know it: they buy stuff packaged in metric all the time in grocery stores; beverages are probably the most common. But they still don't really have an intuitive sense of what a kilo is. That's not metric. It's decimal. Anything can be represented decimally, metric is a system of weights and measures with particular defined values. There are times when weights are used in American cookbooks--when it's an ingredient that comes packaged in certain standard sizes, like a 15-oz can of beans. Or items that get weighed at the store, like meats. So I think the idea of knowing the weight of the ingredient is not completely alien. Just the idea of using the scale. And metric. One thing that strikes me as odd is that the resistance to the scale runs somewhat counter to the impulse to sell every kind of gadget for the kitchen. You'd think the fact that most American kitchens don't have one would be a marketing opportunity for someone. It has to be sold as labor- and thought-saving, though.

A scale doesn't really know what "fluid ounces" are--it only knows the weight if whatever's on it. If it's giving you a liquid volume, then it's calculating based on an assumption about the density (i.e., that it's something close to water). It's probably easier to give the result in ounces rather than try to guess if you want cups, pints, gallons, or whatever. Or try putting on a gallon of water and see what it says.

Especially since it presumably would not add to their editorial cost. They're almost certainly starting with recipes they know the weight measures for; they wouldn't have to worry about conversions. I wonder if some of it has to do with not just "Americans don't use scales" but also "Americans hate and don't understand metric." I don't think it's stretch to think that most of us who DO use scales in the kitchen prefer metric, especially for baking--it's just easier. But an American knows about how much chocolate there is in 4 ounces of chocolate, 100 grams, they don't quite get.

Then get a better scale. My scale is happy to give grams, kilograms, pounds, or ounces. So if you want 43 ounces, it'll show 43 ounces. So if we want to get cookbook publishers to publish better cookbooks (and it is mostly inertia on the part of publishers), then we need to also get scale makers to make better scales.

Recently my wife has been searching for old Jello molds, or at least molds that could be used for Jello. Often we find molds that where what I assume is a tin coating over steel (anyone who knows better feel free to correct me on this) has largely worn away, leaving the metal in a condition that I'd guess is now far from food safe. Is there a way to make these usable again? At least around here, so far decent Jell-o molds seem hard to find. Surely these were once common items. Where did they all go?

This is in fact a problem (in my opinion, I guess) with the commercially produced veggie sausages. Even if the taste is okay, they are too low fat. This is deliberate, I'm sure, to attract the "health conscious" consumer who wants a low-fat product. But a good sausage, like an Italian hot sausage (my favorite) is not generally a low-fat product. But I suspect it is useless to complain. I don't expect, in this day and age, to see any producer put out a product labeled "New and Improved! Now MORE Fat!" Maybe I will have to try making my own.

I got both of mine as half-price remainders, which suggests that the publisher was not experiencing very much demand at the time, or at least not enough to make it worth keeping the books in the warehouse. Just for my own amusement, I searched Bookfinder and eBay for Macaron and found nothing, which is actually unusual. It would appear that used copies of Herme's professional books are actually pretty scarce. Unfortunately, the way the publishing business works, the fact that a book is hard to find and expensive used does not necessarily translate into enough demand to keep a book in print.

It's been my experience that the main reason to use demerara sugar is that it just plain tastes better. Especially for baking--it has a much richer flavor than ordinary brown sugar (the stuff that's actually white sugar sprayed with molasses). And it is true that some people make poor choices in trying to avoid artificial ingredients, especially when what they're buying is eseentially identical. But scary talk about the "dangers" of natural foods like carrots and mushrooms is hardly persuasive, unless you can demonstrate actual harm.

I see what they've done now--one Pillsbury product, plus one other product from another sponsor and/or corporate sibling. From the FAQ: "Eligible products are selected for each Pillsbury Bake-Off® Contest, based on consumer trends and marketing plans, so some products that were eligible in the last contest are not included and new ones are added. " Presumably "marketing plans" means "sponsor willing to cough up some dough (ha, ha)". But it does mean you can get in with flour, butter, eggs, etc., as long you specify the brand in the recipe.

Just looking at the pictures, it looks like the costco version has more plastic parts, and the commercial version has more steel parts.

So now I suddenly feel a need to save up about $900, then deliberately burn out my old Kitchenaid, so I can justify buying the 7 qt model. Which, unlike the 20 qt, might actually fit in my kitchen.

pesto, tomato sauce, raviolis, 400' 35mm b&w film (Kodachrome and Fuji Provia in the crisper drawer).

Judging by the reflection and shadows, it looks like your main light is more or less above and behind the subject, in front of the camera? I'd suggest moving the camera (or the light, depending on how much control you have over that) to the side, so that the lighting is more indirect, then using a large reflective (but not mirror-smooth--something that will diffuse the light) surface, such as a sheet pan, to even out the light on the other side.

Tofu, seitan. nuts. cheese.