Nut meat: measurement, mass or instinct?

[arc]

All -

When using recipes that don't offer weight equivalences for their measurements, how should I understand "1 c walnuts, chopped"? I see this, even in cookbooks of decent quality and esteem, like "Baking with Julia".

Does this mean that I should measure and THEN chop, or does it mean that I should chop, THEN measure? I think the difference (depending on the kind of nut) could be as much as 30-40%.

Thanks,

A

[Pam R]

This is how I read (and write) recipes:

1 c walnuts, chopped = measuring a cup of whole (or pieces) of walnuts and THEN chopping them

1 c chopped walnuts = measuring a cup or ALREADY chopped nuts

The weights/volume thing is an issue I struggle with. When I was working on my cookbook I had weights for everything - but the publishers (2) both requested that they be replaced by volume measures because "most people don't weigh things in their home kitchens" - perhaps people who don't frequent this forum don't have scales?

[arc]

Thanks! That makes sense to me, but I have to disagree with your publishers. I am always grateful for weights.

Andrea

[chiantiglace]

You are suppose to measure the walnuts "chopped" becuase most people who do large quantities buy the pieces the way they are chopped, whole, sliced, slivered, halved, whatever.

If a recipe calls for 1 cup chopped walnuts, chop the walnuts until your have 1 cup. Because 1 cup walnut halves might be 3/4 cup chopped and 1/4 cup ground.

Ok?

And just for the record all you people who remeasure your flour after you sift it, why????(im not really asking more or lese frustrated statement)

Edited March 9, 2005 by chiantiglace (log)

[jgarner53]

And just for the record all you people who remeasure your flour after you sift it, why????(im not really asking more or lese frustrated statement)

For the record, I'm not in the habit, but there are some recipes, usually quite old, that call for "2 3/4 cups flour, measured after sifting," or some such thing. I think the idea was to aerate your flour so it wouldn't be so compact in the measuring cup.

I will get briefly up on my soapbox in favor of weight measurements vs. volume. I think that most of us here can appreciate the increased accuracy when dealing with weight. Pam, any way you could have included weights along with the volumetric measurements in your cookbook, for those of us who do use a scale? Say, "1 Cup (5 oz.) flour?"

Thinking of it in production terms, who on earth would want to measure out 37 cups of flour? I'd lose count before I got halfway through!

[Pam R]

Pam, any way you could have included weights along with the volumetric measurements in your cookbook, for those of us who do use a scale? Say, "1 Cup (5 oz.) flour?"

←

I tried. In the end I was able to put in a chart at the front of the book with some average weights (it's a soup cookbook, so we're talking mostly about vegetables, grains, pasta... etc.). Because I had a Canadian publisher and an American Publisher everything was in metric as well as Imperial. There was concern if weights were in there as well, there would be way too many numbers.

Don't even get me started on the 'standard metric/imperial conversions used in the Canadian publishing industry'. 1 lb = 500 grams? oy. (but as I said it's soup - so 46 grams shouldn't make a huge difference)

[jgarner53]

Well, at least you had a chart. I hate trying to track down in a cookbook how they calculated their measurements, which may or may not be there.

[Shalmanese]

I imagine the reason is the unlike flour, the precise quantity of nuts is usually not that important. A +-20% varience either way is not going to significantly affect your dish.