Things we measure and things we don't

[cdh]

A large issue with measuring for me is the lack of accuracy of volume measurements and the lack in my kitchen of a scale with proper precision to use weight measurements. Any recipe that calls for 1 tablespoon of salt could (and probably should) just say "aggressively salt" or some such similar, as they both end up meaning nothing more than "some".

Just the other day I ran across a particularly good deal on a scale with .1g precision that weighs up to 1Kg, (Click here for link to it.), so my scale-not-having problems will be over and done with if the gadget arrives and functions as advertised. With the added ability to weigh, I must admit I don't know that I will take advantage of it at every instance I'm adding something into a recipe, but the ability to do so will be most welcome.

[SuzySushi]

I've been mulling this over, trying to think back on what I measure and why.

I measure proportions for baking -- flour, sugar, butter, liquids, baking powder/soda, salt -- because if I don't, the recipe sometimes doesn't turn out. Yet I also go by feel -- how smooth a dough feels or how thick/thin the batter is -- and make adjustments as necessary, because flour behaves differently depending on the humidity.

Similarly, I measure when making batters, such as for pancakes and crepes, but adjust those too if they seem too thick or thin.

I measure when making salad dressings and white sauces, to get the oil/vinegar or butter/flour/liquid ratios correct, but adjust those to taste/texture, too.

I measure portions of grains -- rice, kasha, couscous, etc. -- and cup-measure the ratio of liquid except for Japanese-style rice, where I eyeball the liquid (lots of experience there!).

For most other cooking, I generally measure by eye -- e.g., 3 ounces of meat is about the size of a deck of cards. I use pinches and dashes, pour spices into the palm of my hand and think "that looks like enough for six people," and taste, taste, taste.

Edited August 3, 2007 by SuzySushi (log)

[purplewiz]

I've come to the conclusion that there's no rhyme or reason to what I measure and what I don't, and as long as the results are tasty, I'm content with that.

Yes, when I'm baking, I measure. I don't bake often enough to wing it.

But last night I made zucchini fritters. I used three smallish zucchini - I have no idea how much they weighed, or what kind of volume they produced. I tossed in two chopped green onions and some salt and pepper. Two eggs. Then I carefully measured out 1 tbsp flour and 2 tbsp grated parmesan cheese and mixed them in. Fried them up with what I thought looked like was the right amount of oil.

They were great. Go figure.

Marcia.

[maurdel]

While cooking, I would say that I don't measure anything. But on pondering the issue, I do usually have some general container that I use to estimate rice/water ratio.

As most have said, while baking I usually measure (except for yeast breads) but often I find myself wishing my tools for measuring were more precise: If i'm using a liquid pyrex measuring cup, but I want only 3 ozs. of liquid, or when my electronic scale which seems to measure 1 grm of something, as "1" until it appears to be 1.76 grams and then it will shift up to "2" on the readout. (Of course I'm only guessing on this because I have no way of measuring this properly)

So by the time I have decided that I am not concocting a precise thing, I am adding and subtracting amounts and ingredients at will. So I like to use measuring for guidance but given that ingredients can vary and recipes are sometimes screwy anyway....... might as well just wing it most of the time. It's more fun anyway.

[Soupcon]

I measured accurately everything I cooked until I attended a cooking school for non professionals many years ago, One of the disciplines we had to learn, as we were deliberately not provided with any measuring implements, was to cook without measuring except by weight in the hand, by eye, handfull or partial handfull, pinch, glug, etc. of what ever we were using. Thank God they did that. It freed me up to experiment with food and to never follow a recipe slavishly again except if I want to. I can change a recipe on the fly and really only use cook books for ideas now.

In baking on the other hand we weighed everything. I bake little now

[maggiethecat]

While cooking, I would say that I don't measure anything. But on pondering the issue, I do usually have some general container that I use to estimate rice/water ratio.

Yes, I measure the liquid/solid ratios when cooking grains, and that's it. I've been cooking long enough that I can eyeball everything else. (Geez, if you've been cooking for thirty years, you should know what a teaspoon of salt feels like in the palm of your hand!)

I adore the measurements in baking, whether English, metric, volume or weight. It's comforting. Get the ratio and measurements right and all's well with the world. But making say, a gumbo? If the onion, chopped, is a quarter cup more than the recipe, I'm not going to tuck it into a baggie. I'll use it. Zero sweat.

[Jack Sprat]

I'm with the masses on this one. I measure to bake, hardly ever to cook. My wife chides me b/c I will occasionally oversalt things, but I agree that veering from the measuring cups and spoons opens the door to creativity.

I think a great example is pesto. Six ingredients: basil, garlic, toasted pine nuts, oil, lemon juice and parm. Subtle changes in ratios can give wildly different results, but they're all great. Using a recipe by the numbers would be boring by comparison.

Funny to watch the cooking shows where the chefs are just making up measurements off the top of their heads as they dump stuff into the pan. Some of these people are WAY off.

[crouching tyler]

My name is Robin, and I measure when I cook savory things. Because I am still learning, because I am always trying new recipes, and because I have not yet developed that trust that so many of you have for your very accurate eyeballs.

I don't measure everything. I can now successfully eyeball onions, garlic, and many other chopped vegetables. I am sure it will come as no surprise, that most of the time, I am following a recipe, too.

Edited August 4, 2007 by crouching tyler (log)

[Genny]

I love how some of these threads make me think about my behaviors and what drives them.

I like to try different ethnic recipes so I do measure when using unfamiliar ingredients and don't know enough about the process such as making spice blends for Indian foods or sauces for Asian foods.

I almost never measure vanilla in baking because I love more than the recipe calls for and just spot it.

I glance at the pancake recipe to refresh myself on the ingredient list but then make substitutions and additions and keep adding milk until the texture is right. I like my pancakes a bit thin and chewey rather than fluffy and cakey so I also add milk to thin out the batter if it has become thick while waiting for the next batch. Does anyone else do this?

Otherwise, I'm with Maggy, I eyeball most things and if a recipe calls for a little more or less than the whole ingredient I let it fly.

[project]

Measure? Heck, yes!

I find measuring to be just crucial: Otherwise the quality of the resulting dish is way too variable.

When I create a new dish, I work to develop a recipe with enough measurements to permit me to reproduce the dish months from now. I measure weight, volume, time, and temperature, at least, as appropriate. When I cook the dish some months later, I'm always glad for the detailed measurements.

E.g., currently I'm working on a baked casserole dish with chicken, Mozzarella cheese, green pepper, mushrooms, tomato sauce, and grated cheese. I'm on about the sixth trial, and each of the trials gave unique results. I keep adjusting nearly all aspects of the dish. It's getting better but needs more work.

The tomato sauce recipe has careful measurements now and is reliable. It's also good!

I'm starting to settle on a certain Pyrex rectangular baking dish, four pieces of skinless, boneless, chicken breasts with total weight of about 20 ounces, 3 C of shredded, frozen Mozzarella cheese (about 14 ounces of weight), 3 C of my favorite tomato sauce, baked at 350 F to an internal temperature of 170 F. For the mushrooms and green pepper pieces, I'm still adjusting those. E.g., I discovered that have to cook the mushrooms a LOT and get them to release a lot of their water or the water will leak out during the baking and make loose water on the bottom of the baking dish, which doesn't look good. But I am also suspecting that some of the loose water can help make the chicken more tender!

I've done this dish six times now, and each time the dish clearly needed improvement. When I settle on a reasonably good recipe, then, months from now, the dish that results, mostly just from following the measurements, will be MUCH better than I could ever hope to do just guessing at quantities.

By the way, the tomato sauce recipe has 1 pound of coarsely diced yellow globe onions sauteed in 1/3 C of virgin olive oil -- most definitely I DO measure the onion, after dicing, and the olive oil.

[SundaySous]

Almost thirty years ago I prepped for a chef that was big on consistency. We weighed allot of stuff. I mean even when making a roux. Even his mother thought he was anal about it.

I haven't been back in a long time and he's been dead for 25 years but I'll bet his lasagna tastes the same today.

[maurdel]

You can weigh and measure all you want, but a tomato is not the same as every other tomato. some are sweeter, some juicier... Have you noticed the taste of different garlics? I have recently and it can really change the whole character of a sauce.

Certainly a bread baker knows how flours can be so different, you must adjust (at least) the liquid to flour ratio for every batch. I am currently having trouble with butters, some with more water in them than others.

It is helpful to measure as you learn but as the saying goes, cooking really is more art than science.

[Anna N]

You can weigh and measure all you want, but a tomato is not the same as every other tomato. some are sweeter, some juicier... Have you noticed the taste of different garlics? I have recently and it can really change the whole character of a sauce.

Certainly a bread baker knows how flours can be so different, you must adjust (at least) the liquid to flour ratio for every batch. I am currently having trouble with butters, some with more water  in them than others.

It is helpful to measure as you learn but as the saying goes, cooking really is more art than science.

←

My thoughts exactly. I totally understand a striving for consistency but that consistency has to be based on taste as well as quantities. I have had jalapenos that had less heat than bell peppers, lemons that were lacking in "lemoniness", strawberries that could have been almost anything since they tasted so little like strawberries. I think that is why many recipes end with the instruction "adjust seasoning" which often means much more than adding more salt or pepper.

[project]

maurdel, anna n,

Ah, come on! You seem to be misinterpreting to set up a straw man to knock it down!

Measuring weights, volumes, times, and temperatures do a lot to reduce variability.

This far into the 21st century, where civilization made such spectacular progress from physical science, engineering, medical science, and technology, all based heavily on careful measurements, e.g., microprocessor line widths of 45 nm, about 450 times the diameter of a hydrogen atom, to question the importance of measurements seems like something from the Middle Ages.

Right: Measuring does not solve all the problems in the known universe! Granted!

You are saying that just because we cannot reduce all the variability, there is no point in reducing some of the variability? Ah, come on!

Right: I know; I know. There is a cherished, romantic ideal of 'creative freedom' of just throw in this and that, of 'inspired improvisation', and for this measurements can be seen as 'constraining creativity'. On TV cooking shows as entertainment, measurements can also be seen as diluting the attractiveness of the vicarious escapist fantasy emotional experience (VEFEE) of easy success.

Whenever I start just throwing in this and that, the bugs in my septic tank start looking forward to what they regard as some especially good input when I flush the results. I know that if I just throw it together, then likely I will also just throw it out.

Sure, my father's mother, maybe 60 miles south of Buffalo, NY, baked a pie a day, usually apple or cheery, for decades. She had a special work area just for the pies. Did she use measuring cups or scales? Heck no! Did she 'measure'? Of COURSE she did. Make a pie a day for a few decades and will have great ability to measure just by eye, feel, etc. She knew about variability from acid and water levels in fruit, humidity in the kitchen and water level in the flour, etc. and how to compensate.

BUT, for communicating to my mother how to bake a pie, "the right amount of this, just enough of that, not too much of the other thing, then continue just until it feels right" and the lack of measurements in terms of weight and volume were disastrous. Years of tears! And, for me, for communicating just to myself, once I get a dish right, six months later I'm glad for the measurements in terms of weights, volumes, times, temperatures, etc.

Similarly, work at a stir fry station in a Chinese restaurant for five years cooking a few hundred dishes a day, then will be able to 'measure' by sight, sound, texture, etc. But, for communicating how to cook the dishes to someone else, accurate measurements of weights and volumes will be crucial information.

Your remarks about variable ingredients are fully appropriate.

In home cooking where we cook the same dish maybe only once a month, if we don't measure and, instead, just pour, "glub, glub", put in a "handful" of this or that, go by some intuitive visual memory, etc., then we are introducing a big additional source of variability.

No question about it: Two sources of variability are worse than one. Using measurements to reduce two sources of variability down to one reduces variability and improves the quality of the results even if some variability remains. Or, just because we can't reduce all the variability doesn't mean we shouldn't work to reduce some of it.

So, even with variable ingredients, the measurements reduce the variability.

My favorite tomato sauce recipe calls for 1/4 C of finely minced fresh garlic. If get some garlic that has no more umph than a sweet, mild onion, then I'll use more. If get some garlic that, when sliced, immediately causes dogs to bark, cats to screech, birds to fall out of the sky, and neighbors three streets over to run from their houses screaming, then I'll use a little less! But the 1/4 C is still crucial as a starting point. And if I am using the same source of garlic as usual, then the 1/4 C will be fine.

Recently on TV I saw J. Pepin cook a dish with some garlic. He used enough garlic that looked right to him. Although I didn't get to taste the results, and although I have been disappointed with the recipes of his that I have tried, maybe what he cooked was good. Maybe. But, good or not, without measurements, he was a big, fat zero at communicating to me how to cook anything even approximately the same.

I've been there; done that; wasted the time and money; and thrown the results away far too often: When he doesn't give me careful measurements, I have to regard his 'instructions' as invitations to waste time and money and, at best, as a research project where I will have to do about a dozen trials even to guess if the dish has any potential. Net, to me, without measurements, his stuff is just worthless.

In reducing the variability, it also helps to include in the notes the brand names of the ingredients used.

And measurements in terms of volumes, weights, times, and temperatures are not all the 'measurements' that are important to reduce variability: It would also be good to have pH of lemon juice, water content of tomatoes, fat content of cream, protein content of flour, and, for sauces, viscosity, reflectivity, and color! Working on those!

Photographs and video clips can also be a great help.

With variability reduced, we can come closer to getting what we got and liked before. When that's the goal, that's good.

Or, if we didn't like it before, have careful measurements, and want to try an adjustment, then we can do much better seeing the effect of the change.

But some people want it different: My wife and I used to go to restaurants several times a week. If a restaurant was bad, then she didn't want to go back. If a restaurant was good, then she wanted to try another restaurant hoping that it would also be good! I.e., good or bad, she still didn't want to go back. Some people just like change!

But if want the change also to be good, then it's helpful to start with something predictable, based on careful measurements, that is good and to add variations from there. E.g., for the chicken dish I'm working on, I may add crushed red pepper flakes, chicken stock demi-glace, capers, or olives. Maybe. If it does come out better, then I'll carefully document, with measurements, what I did so that six months from now I'll be able to do it again!

[rooftop1000]

Most of the use my measuring cups get is to steam veggies in the microwave...I measure

water and rice

liquid for cake mix

dry ingrediants for pancakes also like them thin and vanillaeeee

I start with rough measurement for bread making but that never works

thats about it

tracey

[maurdel]

Sure, my father's mother, maybe 60 miles south of Buffalo, NY, baked a pie a day, usually apple or cheery, for decades.  She had a special work area just for the pies.  Did she use measuring cups or scales?  Heck no!  Did she 'measure'?  Of COURSE she did.  Make a pie a day for a few decades and will have great ability to measure just by eye, feel, etc.  She knew about variability from acid and water levels in fruit, humidity in the kitchen and water level in the flour, etc. and how to compensate.

BUT, for communicating to my mother how to bake a pie, "the right amount of this, just enough of that, not too much of the other thing, then continue just until it feels right" and the lack of measurements in terms of weight and volume were disastrous.  Years of tears!  And, for me, for communicating just to myself, once I get a dish right, six months later I'm glad for the measurements in terms of weights, volumes, times, temperatures, etc.

...

Recently on TV I saw J. Pepin cook a dish with some garlic.  He used enough garlic that looked right to him.  Although I didn't get to taste the results, and although I have been disappointed with the recipes of his that I have tried, maybe what he cooked was good.  Maybe.  But, good or not,without measurements, he was a big, fat zero at communicating to me how to cook anything even approximately the same.

←

I agree Project, measurements are good (mostly necessary) for a starting point. I do use them. but rarely have I felt a recipe is truly learned if I have only read an ingredients list with a few instructions. My preference is to watch someone make it and to taste those results (repeat this 100 times if possible). Sitting in the kitchen while your Grandmother made pie and watching for the alterations and adjustments she must have made each day, would be the only way to absorb all or most of her "pie knowledge".

I was reacting in my response to some of the other comments which implied that one could duplicate a dish time and again by simply measuring everything accurately.

So much of cooking is technique rather than ingredients and measurements. Technique (I think that was the title of one of his books) rather than just recipes, is the more important thing that I feel I learn watching J.Pepin.

I think that the success of food TV proves my point that you can read all the ingredient lists you want, measure very carefully, but seeing someone actually prepare it, and watching them deal with some variables other than measurement, is invaluable in communicating information for successful cooking.

[project]

maurdel,

You explained:

"I was reacting in my response to some of the other comments which implied that one could duplicate a dish time and again by simply measuring everything accurately."

Right.

My greatest interest in measurements is in aiding communications from one cook to me or from me to myself some months from now. In addition, when I post a recipe on eG, I include measurements to help others.

For my father's mother and pies, my mother learned, after years of tears, really only from my father. He started with a standard recipe of 1:3 by volume of fat to flour, some salt (I forget the salt proportion), and enough ice water to get the 'right' dough feel. For the feel, my father did learn that well from his mother, and my mother, and I, learned it from my father.

But it would have saved years of tears if my father's mother had been able to convert what she did by eye to measurements and various other notes.

Suppose we have cooked a dish, liked the results, and want to cook the dish again. We are home cooks and cook the dish not 100 times a day as in a restaurant kitchen but maybe only once a month. Then we have identified essentially three cases:

(1) Start with measurements. Also consider "coat the back of a spoon" as a measurement of viscosity, etc. In making pie crust, consider the feel of the dough to judge how much more water to add. In doing a saute intended to result in a pan sauce, consider the color of the fond. Then consider the variability of the ingredients to be used and adjust the measurements. E.g., for lemon juice in a white fish sauce, add 1 t at a time, whip, and taste.

(2) Just use the measurements and ignore the variability of the ingredients.

(3) Say that because the ingredients are variable, measurements alone do not reduce all the variability and, thus, don't bother to consider measurements and just throw the dish together.

My view is that the most promising for the dish is (1) and the least promising is (3); (3) has two sources of variability, the ingredients and the quantities. These sources of variability will add essentially as in the Pythagorean theorem.

I'm torqued at TV cooking shows because nearly all of them, including several with really expert cooks, seem to have writers, directors, producers, and business executives trembling with insecurity with their feet solidly stuck in the concrete of Hollywood style vicarious escapist fantasy emotional experience entertainment with an absolute phobia about anything instructional or informative. So, they are determined to minimize or even eliminate measurements. Major exceptions are 'America's Test Kitchen' and Alton Brown's 'Good Eats'.

Yes, usually recipes with measurements are available at corresponding Web sites; good -- I do go there.

Then there is the mismatch with the TV show: The cook poured the wine to deglaze the fond, "glub, glub, glub", and the recipe says that it was 2 T of wine! Only a wino would call that 2 T! Now what?

Since some of the TV cooks really do have a LOT of good expertise, especially Pepin and Lagasse, I do watch hoping to learn, and slowly I'm starting to get some value.

E.g., from TV cooks I got the ideas of lightly browning the tomato paste used in the tomato sauce (so far I have noticed no effect) and, for the chicken dish I'm working on, adding green peppers, crushed red pepper flakes, capers, or olives. The green peppers helped a lot, and I have yet to try the rest.

A big point is, sure, Pepin and Lagasse can cook by eye, and, indeed, in a restaurant kitchen would rarely take the time to measure with cups or scales, but in communicating to me so that I can have a chance of doing the dish in my own kitchen, the lack of careful attention to measurements is devastating and turns the hope of instructional content of the presentation into a bad joke.

On the one hand, apparently a lot of money is being made with TV shows with cooks who are not careful with measurements. On the other hand, I understand that 'America's Test Kitchen', with its fairly careful attention to measurements, is "public television's most watched cooking show".

[Pat Churchill]

I cook largely by instinct. Experience tells me roughly how much I need of everything. However, as a food writer I have to discipline myself a bit more than that as I can't write recipes that say "a fistful of diced carrot" or "half a sinkful of fresh spinach". So I scribble down my list of ingredients in a notebook, gather up what I consider to be the right quantities, then measure them out.

I generally try to write recipes with measurements that are easy to visualise or that don't leave too much room for error. Most people can happily manage quantities like 2 celery sticks, 1 large onion, 3 medium tomatoes. I mean who wants to weigh out 60g diced onion? For things like butter, I use grams. Who wants to try to measure out 1/2 cup butter?

A foodwriter friend, who is also a caterer and no doubt is used to costing things and making every serving uniform, is far more precise. She will say 50g (5 tablespoons) butter, 42g (6 tablespoons) flour, 150ml (1/2 cup + 1 tbsp + 2tsp) stock.

But I do have a good armoury of measuring cups and spoons and accurate kitchen scales for those occasions when precision is a necessity. And I have to say sometimes when I actually weigh things (like mushrooms, for instance) I can be surprised at how accurate/wide of the mark my guess has been.

And let's face it - if a recipe calls for 220g carrots, are you going to weigh individual carrots until you get a couple that exactly weight 220g?

Even when it comes to baking, where you need to be far more precise, I like to try to stick to cups, tablespoons and teaspoons as the measuring tools (except for the butter!).

I have lots of old recipe books that have measurements like "teacups", "breakfast cups", "tumblers" and occasionally even bushells and gills!

[SundaySous]

Actually you can duplicate a dish time and time again. Think about the restaurants like dinners, not upscale.

The reason the chili always tastes the same is because the tomatoes and beans came out of a can. The onions are probably fresh but when the recipe calls for one cup diced you dice enough for 1 cup. Use the excess for something else or toss it.

The gravy on the mash potatoes always tastes the same? Sure because you used two pounds of carrots when you made the stock not 15 carrots. No two stocks are going to taste the same until you adjust them with seasoning. Then you made a roux by measure.

You can even get cosistancy with garlic. It comes in quart containers and a truck with Sysco written on the side will bring it to you.

No I wouldn't do this at home but if I was making the tartar sauce at Denny's I would measure everything.

[BertaBurtonLake]

The only things I really measure when preparing are: coffee, gelatins, and baking (except for biscuits and pie crusts)

[ghostrider]

I always measure the spices for Indian dishes since I do those from recipes. I don't prepare them often enough for that kind of balancing act to have become instinctual. I may adjust the quantities based on experience but the process always begins with measurement.

I also always measure the quantity of tea I throw into the pot, although I do that 2 or 3 times every day. Brewing good tea is more craft than art. Of course, I know from long experience whether a particular tea requires a heaping teaspoon, a level spoonful or less. I also time each pot, and again know which teas require 2 minutes of steeping vs. 5 or 6.

Ratios of grains & water, always. I don't believe in "two fingers of water."

Finally, I always measure the salt that goes into my morning oatmeal. Since I went on my low-salt diet, my sense of taste has become hypersentitized to salt, so I want to control the amount for reasons of flavor as well as health. I have one of those silly measuring spoon sets marked Dash, Pinch & Smidgen, which is actually quite practical in this context.. One pot of oatmeal gets one Smidgen of salt.

I just determined that there are approximately 24 smidgens per teaspoon. It's difficult to be precise with water due to the surface tension and I don't have the patience to mess with salt right now.

Edited August 12, 2007 by ghostrider (log)

[maurdel]

Ratios of grains & water, always.  I don't believe in "two fingers of water."

←

Yeah! what about that 2 fingers deal. That's just a guesstimate and I don't think it works very well at all.

It seems to me that the size, esp. the width, of the pot used is critical. The quantity of rice, or whatever is in there, is significant in comparison to the size of the pot.

And of course my favorite point of contention, it certainly makes a difference in my experience, what type of rice I am using. I use several different kinds and obviously they will probably vary as to how much liquid they take.

[project]

Ms. Churchill,

As a professional writer of published recipes, maybe you would like to know how some potential readers view the importance of measurements in your writing.

You wrote:

"Most people can happily manage quantities like 2 celery sticks, 1 large onion, 3 medium tomatoes. I mean who wants to weigh out 60g diced onion? For things like butter, I use grams. Who wants to try to measure out 1/2 cup butter?"

You and I are not on the same page or in the same book, library, ballpark, or city.

When I see a recipe with any of "2 celery sticks, 1 large onion, 3 medium tomatoes", I instantly conclude that the recipe is yet another case of what nearly all published recipes are, just vicarious escapist fantasy emotional experience entertainment, rational nonsense, and an invitation to waste time and money. So, I quit reading, click away from the Web site, toss the book in the trash, click to another channel on TV, as appropriate.

Absolutely, positively I will NOT pay any serious attention at all to any published recipe from anyone with the lack of precision of anything like "2 celery sticks, 1 large onion, 3 medium tomatoes". Period.

With this lack of precision, the recipe writer just has not done work that is useful to me.

Would you buy tomatoes advertised as "Two large tomatoes per dollar" with no indication of weight?

Would you buy gasoline advertised as "two measures of gasoline for one measure of money!" with no definitions of "measure"?

Would you buy an oven with temperature indications of only "low, medium, high"?

How about a car with a speedometer with only indications of "low, medium, high"? How about bathroom scales?

The 20th century solidly proved that measurements are just crucial.

For your

"I mean who wants to weigh out 60g diced onion?"

I do; I do, want to, and insist on it. As in a post of mine above,

"By the way, the tomato sauce recipe has 1 pound of coarsely diced yellow globe onions sauteed in 1/3 C of virgin olive oil -- most definitely I DO measure the onion, after dicing, and the olive oil."

Moreover, if a published recipe says "onion", then I quit reading, click away from the Web site, toss the book in the trash, click to another channel on TV, as appropriate. "Onion" is too unspecific: If a writer of a published recipe means yellow globe onion, then to get serious attention from me they need to SAY SO. Else they could be talking about sweet white onions, Bermuda onions, Vidalia onions, etc.

You wrote:

"Who wants to try to measure out 1/2 cup butter?"

I do: In the US, 1/2 C of butter is 1 stick of butter. Don't have to "measure out" the butter; it is enough just to unwrap it.

You wrote:

"And let's face it - if a recipe calls for 220g carrots, are you going to weigh individual carrots until you get a couple that exactly weight 220g?"

Yes; definitely let us do "face it": A recipe that calls for 220g of carrots likely wants the carrots peeled and then sliced and/or diced before being weighed. Then getting 220g within a few percent is easy. When I make stock, I use onions, carrots, and celery in the proportions by weight of 2:1:1, and I DO weigh each of these.

This stuff about measurements in cooking is SERIOUS. If published recipes are to communicate information about cooking that has a hope of being useful to the readers for COOKING, then measurements are just CRUCIAL.

Sure, a lot of cookbooks are written as a form of bound wallpaper decorations, but they are poor communications of useful information about COOKING.

[Khadija]

Ms. Churchill,

As a professional writer of published recipes, maybe you would like to know how some potential readers view the importance of measurements in your writing.

You wrote:

"Most people can happily manage quantities like 2 celery sticks, 1 large onion, 3 medium tomatoes.  I mean who wants to weigh out 60g diced onion?  For things like butter, I use grams.  Who wants to try to measure out 1/2 cup butter?"

You and I are not on the same page or in the same book, library, ballpark, or city.

When I see a recipe with any of "2 celery sticks, 1 large onion, 3 medium tomatoes", I instantly conclude that the recipe is yet another case of what nearly all published recipes are, just vicarious escapist fantasy emotional experience entertainment, rational nonsense, and an invitation to waste time and money.  So, I quit reading, click away from the Web site, toss the book in the trash, click to another channel on TV, as appropriate.

Absolutely, positively I will NOT pay any serious attention at all to any published recipe from anyone with the lack of precision of anything like "2 celery sticks, 1 large onion, 3 medium tomatoes".  Period.

With this lack of precision, the recipe writer just has not done work that is useful to me.

Would you buy tomatoes advertised as "Two large tomatoes per dollar" with no indication of weight?

Would you buy gasoline advertised as "two measures of gasoline for one measure of money!" with no definitions of "measure"?

Would you buy an oven with temperature indications of only "low, medium, high"?

How about a car with a speedometer with only indications of "low, medium, high"?  How about bathroom scales?

The 20th century solidly proved that measurements are just crucial.

For your

"I mean who wants to weigh out 60g diced onion?"

I do; I do, want to, and insist on it.  As in a post of mine above,

"By the way, the tomato sauce recipe has 1 pound of coarsely diced yellow globe onions sauteed in 1/3 C of virgin olive oil -- most definitely I DO measure the onion, after dicing, and the olive oil."

Moreover, if a published recipe says "onion", then I quit reading, click away from the Web site, toss the book in the trash, click to another channel on TV, as appropriate.  "Onion" is too unspecific:  If a writer of a published recipe means yellow globe onion, then to get serious attention from me they need to SAY SO.  Else they could be talking about sweet white onions, Bermuda onions, Vidalia onions, etc.

You wrote:

"Who wants to try to measure out 1/2 cup butter?"

I do:  In the US, 1/2 C of butter is 1 stick of butter.  Don't have to "measure out" the butter; it is enough just to unwrap it.

You wrote:

"And let's face it - if a recipe calls for 220g carrots, are you going to weigh individual carrots until you get a couple that exactly weight 220g?"

Yes; definitely let us do "face it":  A recipe that calls for 220g of carrots likely wants the carrots peeled and then sliced and/or diced before being weighed.  Then getting 220g within a few percent is easy.  When I make stock, I use onions, carrots, and celery in the proportions by weight of 2:1:1, and I DO weigh each of these.

This stuff about measurements in cooking is SERIOUS.  If published recipes are to communicate information about cooking that has a hope of being useful to the readers for COOKING, then measurements are just CRUCIAL.

Sure, a lot of cookbooks are written as a form of bound wallpaper decorations, but they are poor communications of useful information about COOKING.

←

I rarely measure anything, and I rarely cook with recipes. Generally, if I'm not creating a dish "out of my head," I will read several recipes (and sometimes discussions on egullet), and then measure ingredients mostly by taste, feel, and sight. If I'm making something I've never made or tasted before, I will follow a recipe and the measurements (especially for seasonings). But that's about it. However, I often get asked by friends for my recipes, and am then faced with the task of having to figure out what I've done. Many of these friends want to become better cooks, but find the whole process intimidating.

When I write out a recipe (I'm no professional cookbook writer), I realise that it will make no sense to provide the reader entirely with measurements such as "to taste" or "a large handful." However, I also think that really precise measurements in recipes can be an impediment to the development of home-cooks.

My housemate is a perfect example. Before we lived together, she would only cook from recipes and measured everything religously. She was also extremely intimidated by cooking and didn't find it particularly fun. Since we've lived together, I've encouraged her to measure things by taste, and feel, and sight. I've also encouraged her to know that learning to measure by taste and feel and sight requires trial and error. She has learned from her mistakes, and she's also started to become aware that you can correct mistakes more efficiently when you are measuring by taste and feel and sight. But most importantly, she's starting to feel less intimidated by cooking and she's starting to have fun.

I'm sure there are situations in which having very precise measurements, for the sake of things like the consistency of a dish, are important. But for lots of home cooks, who happen to be consumers of cook-books, such things are less important. Prior to living with me, I'll bet anything my room-mate would have thrown out a recipe that called for 250 g of carrots. I would just look away and wing it...

Edited August 13, 2007 by Khadija (log)

[Morten]

Well the question of meassurement or not is in my perspective a question about what you expect from the outcome.

If you want to taste the a meal as close to the recipe - measurement is the way to go. And as said earlier use experience to use a bit more or less if you think a thing is to strong or to weak.

If on the other side you do as i prefer to use a recipe as a inspiration for a meal. Well then i dont measure by scale or weight, but use my experience as guidence.

When i started cooking i followed recipes strictly, but allways thought i lacked something in the process. It was both techniques and knowlegde of both taste of ingrediences and how they react to each other.

This has come over the years with some classic mistakes and failures - so by now, for me, it has come down to my intrepretation of a dish. Where the recipe is the guideline and the rest is up to my experience and skills.

Baking is a good example - My mom allways hated baking and it rubbed of on me. Until some years ago (im 38 so..hehe) when i started experimenting. Followed the recipe excactly - and didnt get the result i wanted. I read alot, failed alot and after a long time with mediocre homemade bread i started to understand the varibles involved in baking too. So today i dont measure at all when im baking - its about how the flour react to the water, yeast and so on.

Does it give me the excact same result everytime. Nope but it do give me a unique experince everytime - and for each time i bake i add just some more knowlegde to it and become a bit better - and it shows in the breads.

For example i just started to learn how to make cheese - lots of measurements and lots of timing. So for now its to gather knowledge and expericene, so when i learn the craft it is - i can start making my own creations.

Its like being creative in other areas (like graphics my line of work) - when you know the craft, you can begin to devolop your own style. Until that happens - try, try and try again.