The Kitchen-Scale Manifesto

[Chris Amirault]

My question too. If you have tare, then you do this:

Bowl without dough = zeroed with tare

Bowl with dough = 4267 g

Still gotta do the division, though.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Chris Amirault
redact paren (log)

[fooey]

Yes, after mixing; or, more usually, after bulk fermentation, but before shaping. I use tare when adding ingredients, but when portioning whatever I've made (the final product, usually dough), it's hard to know how much is in the bowl if the weight of the bowl is unknown. And, if making 6 loaves, I can't do 1/6 portions, for example, if I don't know what the 1/1 (the whole) weighs.

I know my Kitchenaid 6qt bowl weighs 1024 g and the bowl with stuff in it weighs 2048 g, then I know there's 1024 g of stuff in the bowl, so 1/1 = 1024, 1/6 = ~171 g.

Edited September 23, 2009 by fooey (log)

[fooey]

My question too. If you have tare, then you do this:

Bowl without dough = zeroed with tare

Bowl with dough = 4267 g

Still gotta do the division, though.

Ja, that works if you're adding to the bowl (or have the foresight to write down the final weight as you're making the dough**). I wish I had that foresight.

Not only for dough and bowl, but how many times do you have a cake recipe that says something like, "Pour batter equally into two prepared 9" cake pans..." and you have a panic. EQUALLY!?

You can get close to "equally" (just eyeball it), but the result is usually a four layer cake with layer heights that are .20, .20, .30, .30.

If you know the bowl weight, however, it's easy to figure out there's 1000 g of batter in that 2500 g bowl (scale reports 3500 g total weight), so each pan gets 500 g batter and the layers turn out .25, .25, .25., and .25.

**Is problematic at this point for a number of reasons, esp. with dough, because you have to adjust afterwards (while mixing) (i.e. add water, add flour), which increases the original measure. If there's residual dough in bowl or on hook, etc., that decreases the original measure. That's why I like to measure after bulk fermentation. If I know the weight of the bowl, it's simple subtraction / division.

Edited September 23, 2009 by fooey (log)

[Jenni]

Scales are great for getting a recipe written down exactly to share with others. In fact, as others have noted, all UK cookbooks use weights. However, constantly weighing every last ingredient is no way to cook, or live. I don't use my scale unless needed for writing a recipe, cooking a recipe for the first time or for tricky measures like flour. I like to be free!

[fooey]

Scales are great for getting a recipe written down exactly to share with others. In fact, as others have noted, all UK cookbooks use weights. However, constantly weighing every last ingredient is no way to cook, or live. I don't use my scale unless needed for writing a recipe, cooking a recipe for the first time or for tricky measures like flour. I like to be free!

That's true for cooking, but for baking, it's a recipe for failure.

I forget who said it, Rhulman maybe, but for baking at least, it holds: "Use the scale or you will fail."

Edited September 23, 2009 by fooey (log)

[Moopheus]

For fluid ounces, they don't; both show 17, 18, 43, etc., so there must be some reason behind it.

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.

[Aloha Steve]

I am making this recipe that 'Cooks With Love' posted on the Recipes That Rock 2009" thread here

Its a recipe on King Arthur Flour's website. Whats neat is you get to choose which way you want to view the ingredients in the recipe, either by weight or volume. I choose weight, as a good egulliteer should.

I have this scale which displays ounces/lbs/grams/kgs; Graduation .05 oz / 1 gram. So far, so good. I do wonder what I will need to do if I have to weigh something, like a roast after aging, which weighs more than 11 LBS.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Aloha Steve (log)

[Moopheus]

I do wonder what I will need to do if I have to weigh something, like a roast after aging, which weighs more than 11 LBS.

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?

[Aloha Steve]

I do wonder what I will need to do if I have to weigh something, like a roast after aging, which weighs more than 11 LBS.

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?

LOL, you've got a point there

I'd be using a thermometer for the temp anyway...........

I guess I was thinking about measuring weight loss, (the roast's after aging not mine) and about amount of ingredients.

Still, not going to buy a bathroom scale, cause it would mean I might weigh myself in a moment of

self-flagellation.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Aloha Steve (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Giving this a bump as my scale is a featured player in this month's eG Foodblog.

[nakji]

I've switched almost entirely to using UK-based recipes for baking, since they seem to always give weight measurements. Nigel Slater and Dan Lepard at the Guardian cover most of my (admittedly humble) baking needs. Occasionally I'll go back to Dorie or Bittman and then get hacked off trying to translate ridiculous instructions like 16 tablespoons of butter (Bittman, I'm looking at you) into reasonably easy-to-measure amounts.

[Chris Amirault]

I'd cut Bittman a teensy bit of slack, as 8 tablespoons is a "stick" in the US, or a quarter pound. Why he doesn't say "half pound of butter," though, I cannot say.

[nakji]

Well, also in his defense, it was in the instructions for his pie crust recipe. The recipe itself is for only one crust, which I didn't think was standard to begin with, but then - what do I know about pie? I think they should have meat inside them. The eight tablespoons is then doubled to sixteen in the recipe extension for a two crust pie. (Is a two-crust pie non-standard in the US?) He should have just called for a stick of butter to begin with, and let me Google that to find a rational measurement equivalency instead.

I'll stick with Mr's Slater and Lepard in the future. Pun intended.

[Mjx]

. . . .

There's also the problem with affordable scales being unreliable for very small measures (1 gram yeast, anyone try that one on their Salter 5065?)

. . .

Lab scale, anyone? I don't know the cost of the Jennings CJ-4000 lab scale I was just given as a gift, but it comes with a 20-year warranty on parts and labour, which has to count for something... it wighs up to 4 kg, is precise to half a gram, and gives either ounces or grams, as you prefer.

For me the aggravating factor is the weird-looking-amounts-issue associated with converting volumes to weights (e.g. a cup of unsifted flour is 113 g).

[rooftop1000]

There another non-home scale no one has touched on yet, the Deli Scale. It measures in percentages like needed for Fooey's post last September but how many people really want to measure in 100ths of a pound?

You might at first glance think that the more dgrees of measurement the better but...divide 100 by 16 and you get 6.25 which means that .06 is about an ounce on a deli scale.

I have to see we had lots of fun a few weeks ago coverting a biscut recipe from volumn to weight, then multiplying by 5 then coming down to the scale only to remember we have to convert to percentages.

but I must say that Kerry's cheese biscut recipe is wonderfull

tracey

[andiesenji]

. . . .

There's also the problem with affordable scales being unreliable for very small measures (1 gram yeast, anyone try that one on their Salter 5065?)

. . .

Lab scale, anyone? I don't know the cost of the Jennings CJ-4000 lab scale I was just given as a gift, but it comes with a 20-year warranty on parts and labour, which has to count for something... it wighs up to 4 kg, is precise to half a gram, and gives either ounces or grams, as you prefer.

For me the aggravating factor is the weird-looking-amounts-issue associated with converting volumes to weights (e.g. a cup of unsifted flour is 113 g).

You can get a highly accurate jewelers scale

like these

that have to be very accurate by law.

I have one from when I used to make jewelry and use it occasionally to weigh spices - especially ones like saffron and mace.

[Richard Kilgore]

Very small scales measuring to a tenth or a hundredth of a gram are available for about $15 - $30. Google for vendors. I use mine primarily for measuring tea.

[Mjx]

Do you calibrate your scales (if they have this feature)? If you don't, how do recipes calling for tiny amounts of ingredients (e.g. in Modernist Cuisine) come out?

My boyfriend recently gave me a Jennings JZ115 scale, precise to 0.01g; it didn't come with its own calibration weight, so he also got me a set of weights to calibrate it.

And, I can't.

The calibration instructions call for using a 100g weight, and I've tried again and again, and the scale stubbornly keeps showing 99.99/8g. Since this is in calibration mode, I suspect the scale has a problem.

After discussing this issue with my boyfriend, he contacted the company he ordered the scale from, and today another model of equal precision arrived. Before even bothering to calibrate it, I popped the various weights on the scale: they're nearly all off. The larger weights are a couple points under the stated weights, the smaller weights are a hair over. Looks like there's a problem with the weights, too (these are gifts, which makes the whole situation even more awkward).

I've worked with lab equipment, and I do care a lot about accuracy, even more than I do about precision. How finicky do you get with your scales for measuring micro-amounts?

[JoNorvelleWalker]

Last spring I purchased an American Weigh GPR-20 Digital Milligram Scale, 0.001 g to 20 g, which comes with calibration weights. On a perfectly level, draft free, 2 1/4 inch maple butcher block surface I could measure to the nearest two grams or so. I returned it. I've hesitated to buy another inexpensive milligram scale as I am not convinced any of them are any good.

For weighing larger quantities I use a Cuisinart analog scale that has served me well for decades.

[nickrey]

Scales are great for getting a recipe written down exactly to share with others. In fact, as others have noted, all UK cookbooks use weights. However, constantly weighing every last ingredient is no way to cook, or live. I don't use my scale unless needed for writing a recipe, cooking a recipe for the first time or for tricky measures like flour. I like to be free!

That's true for cooking, but for baking, it's a recipe for failure.

I forget who said it, Rhulman maybe, but for baking at least, it holds: "Use the scale or you will fail."

Even then there are differences between flours, etc that need to be taken into account. Using scales will put you very close and typically create a passable product. Fine tuning by feel is needed for perfection.

[Edward J]

I'd cut Bittman a teensy bit of slack, as 8 tablespoons is a "stick" in the US, or a quarter pound. Why he doesn't say "half pound of butter," though, I cannot say.

Yeah-butt...

In Canada our butter comes in 454 gr blocks, that is to say, 1 lb "prints", even though Canada went metric waaay back in the '80's.

Canadians will give you a blank stare when you say a "quarter stick", our butter doesn't come in sticks, just foil wrapped 1 lb blocks.

[Anna N]

I'd cut Bittman a teensy bit of slack, as 8 tablespoons is a "stick" in the US, or a quarter pound. Why he doesn't say "half pound of butter," though, I cannot say.

Yeah-butt...

In Canada our butter comes in 454 gr blocks, that is to say, 1 lb "prints", even though Canada went metric waaay back in the '80's.

Canadians will give you a blank stare when you say a "quarter stick", our butter doesn't come in sticks, just foil wrapped 1 lb blocks.

Not sure which part of Canada you live, Edward, but I have no difficulty finding butter sold in sticks in almost any supermarket. Perhaps it is regional.

[haresfur]

Do you calibrate your scales (if they have this feature)? If you don't, how do recipes calling for tiny amounts of ingredients (e.g. in Modernist Cuisine) come out?

My boyfriend recently gave me a Jennings JZ115 scale, precise to 0.01g; it didn't come with its own calibration weight, so he also got me a set of weights to calibrate it.

And, I can't.

The calibration instructions call for using a 100g weight, and I've tried again and again, and the scale stubbornly keeps showing 99.99/8g. Since this is in calibration mode, I suspect the scale has a problem.

After discussing this issue with my boyfriend, he contacted the company he ordered the scale from, and today another model of equal precision arrived. Before even bothering to calibrate it, I popped the various weights on the scale: they're nearly all off. The larger weights are a couple points under the stated weights, the smaller weights are a hair over. Looks like there's a problem with the weights, too (these are gifts, which makes the whole situation even more awkward).

I've worked with lab equipment, and I do care a lot about accuracy, even more than I do about precision. How finicky do you get with your scales for measuring micro-amounts?

I tell younger scientists that the secret to being a good chemist is not as much knowing how to be precise and accurate as in knowing when you can be sloppy. So how accurate (since you are talking about calibration) do you need to be? If you are following a recipe, then you don't need to be more accurate than the person who wrote it. Once you figure out what works, you only need to be precise (unless you change equipment). I can't imagine any situation where a .01 % absolute error would matter for cooking.

If your calibration weights have large unknown random errors, there isn't much you can do about it. If you have a good weight the most important thing is not to crap it up with finger prints, oxidation, etc.

You can check the linearity of your scale with a stack of new coins - you don't need to know what their mass is, just put them on one at a time and plot the mass vs number of coins. Take them off in a different order to check. If your scale isn't linear, you could construct a graph to figure out a correction for different masses by assuming the error is linear between data points.

For small quantities needing very accurate measurements, adsorption of moisture probably make the biggest difference. Especially since you may be in a more or a less humid area than the creator was. You can dry your powders, cool them in a desiccator, then weigh them if you really care. Even then you can have problems. Try weighing sodium hydroxide pellets some time. They suck up moisture so fast that you can't get a stable reading. I suppose if you really want accurate amounts flour you should dry it before using it but I expect most people are happy enough to adjust, based on observation of the consistency.

But even if you have a well calibrated scale, there are corrections that you might need for materials with density much lower than steel if you really want accuracy. That's because we tend to weigh things in air rather than in a vacuum. Low density materials like water or solutions essentially float in air to some degree and this leads to a lack of accuracy. There are tables you can apply if you know the density or can estimate it. Is it important? IMO, not for the cooking I do, but I don't know how finicky the molecular stuff is (see my first paragraph). In any case, it is unlikely that those corrections were applied in developing the recipe.

[martinlersch]

Great title - great topic! I live in Europe, love to cook - also from American cook books, but in the end I got tired of using single ingredient conversion websites, so I put together a Excel calculator which converts about 275 ingredients from US customary volume measurements to grams based on densities (corresponding to the Estimation method mentioned above). It recognizes all the common volumentric measures such as t, T, floz, c, pt, qt and gal as well as the weight measurements oz and lb. The calculator includes a differentiated rounding algorithm, so that you do not end up with recipes that call for 943 grams, but rather 950 grams (but always taking care that the imparted error stays low, typically below 2-3%). It's still a work in progress, but many have found it useful already. Densities are mainly taken from rec.food.cooking’s FAQ and conversion file (this is the same source as "Convert me" is built upon) and USDA National Nutrient Database. The most tricky ingredient by far is flour, so I added "spooned" and "scooped" as choices for all-purpose wheat flour.

The excel calculator is available for free download from: http://blog.khymos.org/2014/01/23/volume-to-weight-calculator-for-the-kitchen/