Cookbooks That Use Weight-Based Measurements

[dougal]

Just to point out the obvious here: there's a bunch of Yanks around these parts who believe that the UK is filled with cookbooks using a superior measurement system. The moment is ripe for the return of the Empire (at least on our cookbook shelves)!

Pray, what exact books can be had on your bonny shores that we 'Mercans can try to hunt down? Same goes for y'all in the other, better colonies.

As I've said, pretty much ALL our books are now metric (and of course weight) based. (Except for small quantities being in teaspoons and sometimes tablespoons - "Nobody's perfect!")

So, ...

Another thing I could have directed the colonial gaze towards might have been the recipes given in UK supermarket (house) magazines - for example Waitrose's - which are helpfully available online: http://www.waitrose.com/inspiration/wfi.aspx Metric only I think.

Whereas the recipes published on the interweb by the Beeb, though primarily metric, also tend to have the (UK) Imperial equivalents listed as a secondary fall-back. But still you'll notice that loose solids are always weighed ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/

[Edward J]

It would seem that, for a publisher looking to move the ball forward on this issue, the most painless thing to do in a cookbook (or any written recipe) context would be offer alternate measurements in parentheses. Once such a system is set up it represents little additional work. Indeed, a recipe tester (in this case, somebody who writes cookbooks for chefs) I spoke to recently told me she works in metric weights and then does a bulk conversion to volume using a standardized table, 1 cup of flour = x grams, etc. At the very least, a publisher could offer its assumptions in an editorial note: "for the purposes of all our recipes, 1 cup of flour = x grams." That way at least those of us willing to use scales could do the conversions ourselves. But as it stands, with a few notable exceptions, we're mostly kept in the dark about what a cup means in any given recipe.

Being an author is a little bit like being a screenwriter, in that there's a whole hierarchy in which you're on the bottom. If the editor, director, whatever wants things a certain way, that's how they're likely to happen. You have a little bit of political capital to spend and need to pick your battles. Having never written a cookbook, I have no idea how hard I'd fight for weight. But I certainly wouldn't want to do anything to damage sales, and the fact of the matter is that a weight-only cookbook will sell fewer copies. Still, I think I'd at least try to get both weight and volume measures included. There's so little cost to doing this, and everybody in the industry knows the superiority of weight, so I have no idea why this doesn't just get made standard operating procedure.

This is probably the most intelligent and practical way to go about it, most of CIA's pro books use this method.

The American public is used to "Shock value", and I think it was Bourdain's brutal honesty that made him famous and that people would actually listen to him.

One of my biggest fantasies (the biggest one is to have a law put in place to have no Unions allowed to garnishee paycheques, love to see the Shop Steward with an empty coffee can in front of the lunchroom on payday....) umm, where was I? Oh yeah, one of my fantasies is to have a renowned, respectable cooking magazine like, say "Fine Cooking" or Cook's Illustrated" do a double page spread on how to actually use a $25.00 electronic scale. The merits: Speed, accuracy, no plethora of measuring instruments to clean up, ability to multiply or reduce recipies easier, etc. Once one mag does it, the others will have to follow suit.

Will this ever happen?

How much "Clout" does e-gullet have? Can we do a saturation snail-mail/e-mail lobbying of the top 5 cooking mags? Standard boiler-plate letter based on the "manifesto"? Leave the TV guys alone, they'll only notice when the mags have success......

[Ruth]

This topic is long overdue. Volume measures for solids drive me crazy. Obviously every cookbook publisher should include measurements by weight even if they also want to retain their stupid "cups". I fail to understand how any serious cook, professional or otherwise, can work without a scale,

By the way Thomas Keller's "Under Pressure" and Alain Ducasse's "Grand Livre" are examples of cookbooks where measurements are given by weight.

[Lisa Shock]

The New York Times is discussing the topic of weight-based measure:

http://themoment.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/weighing-in-the-bakers-dilemma/

People may wish to comment there, as a shift in their editorial policy would be very helpful in changing the American food publishing landscape.

[paulraphael]

Being an author is a little bit like being a screenwriter, in that there's a whole hierarchy in which you're on the bottom. If the editor, director, whatever wants things a certain way, that's how they're likely to happen. You have a little bit of political capital to spend and need to pick your battles.

Dorie Greenspan presumeably has a fair amount of political capital, as authors go, and she only seems to win this battle once in a while. I asked her why one of the Pierre Hermé books had no weights while the other did ... she said, "I tried!"

[paulraphael]

How about an eGullet-sponsored petition to the cookbook publishers?

Maybe we could get a thousand signatures?

Might not change anything, but it couldn't hurt.

[Edward J]

Sign me up!

Tried the link to themoment.blo, but couldn't access it. Tried(unsusccesfully) to comment on Chris Kimball's blog where comments are accepted, but that didn't pan out either.

I have, in the past, e-mailed and snail-mailed editors of "Fine Cooking", " Cook's Ill", "Pastry and Baking N.A." and "Gourmet". Only P&BNA has replied to me.

[David A. Goldfarb]

The New York Times is discussing the topic of weight-based measure:

http://themoment.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/weighing-in-the-bakers-dilemma/

People may wish to comment there, as a shift in their editorial policy would be very helpful in changing the American food publishing landscape.

Done. I would encourage others to comment as well, as there were only seven comments posted when I added mine.

[Lisa Shock]

How about an eGullet-sponsored petition to the cookbook publishers?

Maybe we could get a thousand signatures?

Might not change anything, but it couldn't hurt.

While I really like the idea, I think that people are distrustful of online petitions because of the potential for abuse. If you can figure out how to do it, I'll sign.

That said, another idea would be to comment about whether or not a book has weight-based measurement in amazon.com reviews. Something like, 'great book, but I'm only giving it 3 stars because it uses volume measurement' or 'perfect guide, and it uses weight-based measurement, bravo, 5 stars!'

[mattsea]

Why don't you buy non-American cookbooks in English? Virtually all of them use weight-based measurements.

[Aloha Steve]

Being an author is a little bit like being a screenwriter, in that there's a whole hierarchy in which you're on the bottom. If the editor, director, whatever wants things a certain way, that's how they're likely to happen. You have a little bit of political capital to spend and need to pick your battles.

Dorie Greenspan presumeably has a fair amount of political capital, as authors go, and she only seems to win this battle once in a while. I asked her why one of the Pierre Hermé books had no weights while the other did ... she said, "I tried!"

I think you mean that Dorie is in favor of using weight measures ?

I wonder why then, the recipes in her latest book "Baking: From My Home to Yours" are 99.8% without any weight measures ? One recipe has only weight measure for butter and none for anything else in.

Great recipes but I would have really liked measurements by weight.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Aloha Steve (log)

[Richard Kilgore]

It's usually the publisher's final call, not the author's. As I recall, Dorie said here in the forums a few years ago when this subject came up that most publishers in the US are not receptive to the idea.

[Fat Guy]

It's usually the publisher's final call, not the author's.

That is correct. Blaming the author for production decisions is like blaming the screenwriter for the decision to cast Michael Keaton as Batman. All the author can do is try. Of course, if the author doesn't even try, that's another story.

My own position, as stated before, is that all publishers should simply start offering both types of measurements. This is a cost-free way to move out of the dark ages. Those who insist on working with volume measures can have them, and those who know better can use their scales.

[Aloha Steve]

It's usually the publisher's final call, not the author's. As I recall, Dorie said here in the forums a few years ago when this subject came up that most publishers in the US are not receptive to the idea.

Shame, for a guy like me, who is impatient, scraping tops of measurement vessels does not work as well as looking at the numbers on a digital scale.

[Moopheus]

That said, another idea would be to comment about whether or not a book has weight-based measurement in amazon.com reviews. Something like, 'great book, but I'm only giving it 3 stars because it uses volume measurement' or 'perfect guide, and it uses weight-based measurement, bravo, 5 stars!'

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.

[Chris Amirault]

Methinks that people who actually buy cookbooks to cook or bake are a tiny, negligible fraction of the cookbook-buying public.

[Richard Kilgore]

Me thinks you thinks good.

[Aloha Steve]

Methinks that people who actually buy cookbooks to cook or bake are a tiny, negligible fraction of the cookbook-buying public.

Pray-tell what do they buy them for then ?

Edited October 13, 2009 by Aloha Steve (log)

[David A. Goldfarb]

Pray-tell what do they buy them for then ?

As gifts for other people they think, probably incorrectly, will use them, though the recipients will consider them a nice gift and will imagine they'll use it, but they probably won't, kind of the way that suburban and urban types think they'll use their SUVs or hiking boots for some practical purpose someday, but in most cases won't actually do so. It's an aspirational purchase.

Edited October 14, 2009 by David A. Goldfarb (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Methinks that people who actually buy cookbooks to cook or bake are a tiny, negligible fraction of the cookbook-buying public.

Pray-tell what do they buy them for then ?

To put in their $50K kitchens with Wolf ranges and Sub-Zero refrigerators; to give to friends "who like to cook"; to look at for a few weeks before shelving them; to impress friends and relatives; to read for ideas, inspiration, and entertainment.

Don't believe me? Well, if you'd like to participate in an utterly invalid demographic experiment, click here for the cookbook use throwdown.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Chris Amirault (log)

[Edward J]

Hey!!!!

I got my comment posted on the "the moment" blog.

I have always maintained--and still do-- that it is the media; the publishers, the editors, and the TV editors who simply refuse to acknowledge the existance of the scale.

If an e-mail/snail mail campain won't work, perhaps invite them (media) on this site as a guest to "support their views" on why they don't include weight measurements?

Say, Chris Kimball? Don't get me wrong, I like the man and his magazine, love the food science, effort, and research that goes into each edition. Just want to ask the man, "Why measuring cups?" Kinda like wearing rubber boots with a $5000.00 Hugo Boss suit, somehow it just doesn't seem right......

[Aloha Steve]

Methinks that people who actually buy cookbooks to cook or bake are a tiny, negligible fraction of the cookbook-buying public.

Pray-tell what do they buy them for then ?

To put in their $50K kitchens with Wolf ranges and Sub-Zero refrigerators; to give to friends "who like to cook"; to look at for a few weeks before shelving them; to impress friends and relatives; to read for ideas, inspiration, and entertainment.

Don't believe me? Well, if you'd like to participate in an utterly invalid demographic experiment, click here for the cookbook use throwdown.

Forget the cookbooks I want a 50K Kitchen ! Wait I live in Honolulu, my kitchen is probably 50K but a Sub-Zero fridge is bigger than my whole ktichen and a Wolf on the range is in Montana someplace, yes ? LOL

Ok, I'll take the survey. I'm sure I have about 20 and only use 5, so far. FYI, mine are put away in a closet for no one to see. If they were on the counter, I would have not work space at all!

[Lisa Shock]

Hey!!!!

I got my comment posted on the "the moment" blog.

I have always maintained--and still do-- that it is the media; the publishers, the editors, and the TV editors who simply refuse to acknowledge the existance of the scale.

If an e-mail/snail mail campain won't work, perhaps invite them (media) on this site as a guest to "support their views" on why they don't include weight measurements?

Say, Chris Kimball? Don't get me wrong, I like the man and his magazine, love the food science, effort, and research that goes into each edition. Just want to ask the man, "Why measuring cups?" Kinda like wearing rubber boots with a $5000.00 Hugo Boss suit, somehow it just doesn't seem right......

Actually, the most recent recipe that I downloaded from the Cook's Illustrated website (crumb cake) actually had two sets of measurements weight and volume, so kudos to them!

[DanM]

King Arthur Flour's books, except the 200th Anniversary book, all have weight measurements.

Am I snob for passing up baking and pastry books written with volume measures for those written with weights?

[MelissaH]

If you're a snob, I'm a snob.

MelissaH