Talk:Cooking weights and measures

message: In the Orient, they use smaller cups, don't they?
:I can't speak for the entire Orient but a Japanese cup is 200 ml. Jimp 05:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the English speaking world, a “metric cup” is 250 ml. A “cup of coffee” is usually defined in the U.S. as 5 fl.oz. (for coffee makers). But “standard” coffee cups/mugs vary from 4–7 fl.oz. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oriental Cups

message: I've redone the non-metric units section, mainly as a table.  There are a number of things to note.
* Added reference to real-world utensils.
* Australian law doesn't define a dessertspoon.  I assume this is an interpretation of a British recipe.
* Added pints, quarts and gallons, since this is often a source of confusion.
Can somebody look at the table and tell me what I've done wrong with the markup?  The second column is in italics, and I can't find out how to fix it.
Groogle 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the table, and removed the first column since except for the cup the values were insignificantly different where present and the cup seemed to be a coffee cup not a cooking cup. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-metric units

message: Is this the right place for a discussion of temperates, as well?  I would nominate a link to Gas mark as something very food related and related to Britain. --Mdwyer 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Temperature & other measures

message: Please excuse the bad quality of my English... I placed "Gourmet library and museum" as link because saerchers can find in the library many informations about the old weights and measures in Europe (that is not always easy to find...). I therefore place it again.  If you don't agree, please, contact me. --Égoïté (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "gastronomy in general is far too broad to link here"

message: I'd like to see a little more explanation about how the rest of the world gets by using weight for recipes. With a U.S. recipe, it's fairly easy to, say, just grab a measuring cup and stick it into the bag of sugar, scraping with a spatula to get it even. It seems like it would be a bit more of a pain to pour the sugar onto a scale to carefully measure out, say, .25 kg, or whatever it is. What kinds of tricks and tools are used to make this easier? 63.87.189.17 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're asking for.  Clearly if you use weight, you keep a scale handy, and if you use volume, you have a set of volume measures handy.  Weight is much easier to measure accurately for arbitrary amounts -- consider how compressible flour is or how hard it is to pack a cup with leeks until you've chopped them up.... --macrakis (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Until you see how a digital scale works (especially the ability to zero it with an empty container on it) it would seem more difficult to those brought up using measuring cups. So to the original poster, you have your scale, you put a dish on it, then hit a button and the scale resets to zero. then you just pour/add the ingredient to the dish until the weight is what you want. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add to this, that multiple ingredients can be weighed in the same bowl, if the objective is to mix them.  After each ingredient is added, the Tare button is pressed (zeroing function), and the next ingredient may be added.  For example, making pancakes, all the dry ingredients, flour, sugar, baking powder, salt, may be weighed in one bowl simply by pressing Tare between each ingredient.  Salt may best be measured with a smaller 500g scale of at least 1/10 g readability when making small batches for one or two people, because it will likely be less than 2 grams total, and with a 1 gram readability scale a significant measuring error can develop at weights near one or two grams.  The liquid ingredients can be weighed in a separate container with a pour spout, those ingredients might contain either an egg yolk and oil, mixed to an emulsion, then water added and whipped again, or alternatively mayonnaise mixed with water (then whipped), simply by pressing Tare between the added ingredients.  Then, the dry and liquid ingredients may be mixed together.  By weighing the water and oil emulsion, it is possible to obtain very precise and consistent batch-to-batch hydrations, which ladle well onto a hot pan or griddle. Gzuufy (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all this is true, but I don't think any of it belongs in the article. --Macrakis (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

text:  Before digital kitchen scales fats in the US (and elsewhere) were indeed measured by volume. You would take a 1/2 cup measuring cup, fill it with shortening using a spatula, then scrape it out into the cooking bowl etc. Another method was water displacement, fill a large graduated container halfway with water, then add solid fat into the water until the level goes up by the amount desired. then just move the floating fat to the cooking container. Volume measurement is why sticks of butter/margarine/shortening are marked in tablespoons letting you just cut what you need off the stick. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Finding weight: I use Nutrient Data Laboratory.  A query for "shortening" results in a reasonably short list of possible selections.  Select say, "Shortening, vegetable, household, composite". Submit it and there are three options, one of which says, "1 cup  205" . You can probably just divide 205 in your head for the 1/2 cup amount resulting in 102.5 g, or you can do one more submission and let the computer calculate it. Gzuufy (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weighing food in recipes 

message: Cooking weights and measures#Metric measures. Adding a column for Canada here would be informative. Peter Horn User talk 20:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric measures 

message: This Michigan state journal confirms some of the recent additions regarding binary submultiples, and includes a saltspoon as well as a different, presumably older, definition of drop (looks like 1/480 fl oz if my math is correct).  I also think the table entry for teaspoon should have a line added to include "teaspoon (obsolete)" and the binary submultiple for the existing teaspoon moved to it, as right now that line is misleading. Saltspoon should probably also be included, as some old recipes use it. Gzuufy (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  binary submultiples, teaspoon, saltspoon, and obsolete drop? 

message: For the Smidgen through Fluid Dram rows of this table, the number of teaspoons should be 6 times the number of fluid ounces, but it is not.  One of these columns is wrong; which is it?!  The ml column may be wrong too, depending on which of teaspoons and fluid ounces is wrong.  64.132.59.226 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this revision have the error you are perceiving? An earlier revision of mine noted an ambiguity in the same rows. Per edit history, the ambiguity was first reintroduced in this edit. I have a faint recollection of desiring to add another column to differentiate the two teaspoons, but using fluid drams seemed a simpler presentation. Gzuufy (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad entries in the table of Dry & Fluid Measures 

message: Millilitres are usually abbreviated to ml not mL. FunkyCanute (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Per https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf, mL is used consistently throughout.  I've read elsewhere that the capital L avoids confusion of l with 1. Gzuufy (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millilitres 

message: I see that in the third paragraph this claim that most of the world prefers metric measurement by weight followed by a link to an Indian cuisine book published by a British publication, the link for which is currently broken. There needs better citation for the claim that most of the world prefers measurement by weight and it is not just an European thing. 
Growing up in India and also given that weighing needs a relatively sophisticated method of having a weighing scale, almost every Indian kitchens would use tablespoons, teaspoons, cups and other volume measurements. I presume the same is the case with most Asian and African countries. Could somebody confirm? If so, we would need this generalising comment taken out with more reliable and verifiable claim and proof.
UPDATE: I couldn't find any definite link to a resource that categorically says that India (and South Asia) uses the cups-spoons as measures for cooking. But I could find a few recognized national newspapers from India and Pakistan that has recipes where the measurement is in cups and spoons. 
https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/Food/Festive-spread/article16880953.ece 
https://www.dawn.com/news/1490529
https://images.dawn.com/news/1180365
And a few Indian websites:
https://theindianspot.com/kitchen-cooking-measurement-and-conversion-chart/
http://www.indianfood-recipes.com/measurement_conversion/measurement_conversion.php
rams81 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lahey citation (cite #4) supports the quote, and to a lessor extent, so does Gisslen's (cite #3).  Gzuufy (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I see that. Such publications make sweeping generalizations as USA and the rest of the world. But practical knowledge and country specific examples like I cited show that volume based measurements are still a norm in countries such as India and Pakistan. The way forward is likely adding such exceptions with USA until a more comprehensive citation is found.  rams81 (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is also a distinction between home and commercial methods.  Do commercial bakeries in India or Pakistan measure by volume? Gzuufy (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

text: That would be an almost difficult thing to find out as unlike standardisation and formality found in commercial bakeries in US, Canada, Europe and Australia-NZ with documented recipes, much of South Asia would work on word of mouth, experience, skills, knowledge retention and transfer in stead of documented recipes. Or, I could find from websites of celebrity Indian chefs and see what measurements they use - weights vs volume. rams81 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

text: As I have not any other comment with regard to this topic, I am adding South Asia to the list of countries that use volume measures (cups and spoons) and use the links from the widely circulated English newspapers from those countries as citations. rams81 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim "Most of the world prefers metric measurement by weight" 

message: Can we get a citation for the use of "pinch"/"dash"/etc. as measurements? Especially one that clarifies their limitations in common use, which is to say they almost never mean this, approximately or otherwise. As currently worded it sounds like they're just as valid as teaspoons and tablespoons, which do have commonly understood values.
Also, what's with the image of measuring spoons (twice used) captioned so as to imply there are no units labeled when there clearly are?
195.252.226.181 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-teaspoon measures