Talk:Cooking weights and measures

Weight of liquids

With the advent of accurate electronic scales it has become more common to weigh liquids for use in recipes. I plan to add a couple of paragraphs on the approximate weight of liquids (typically water or milk) for use in recipes without the need for accurate volumetric utensils.
From what I can google...
1ml of water weighs 1g so a recipe calling for 300mls of water can simply be substituted with 300g of water.
1 fl oz of water weighs 1 oz (UK) so a recipe calling for a pint (20 fl oz) of water can be substituted with 20oz of water. I am not sure if the difference in the US system makes this unusable there.
As milk weighs roughly the same as water in the low volumes used in cooking then I see no problem with weighing of milk on the same basis as water.
comments please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian R Hunter (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, pure water at 1 atm and 4 °C weighs (to an accuracy of six decimals):

• 1 fl.oz. (US) = 1.043 176 oz.
• 1 fl.oz. (UK) = 1.002 241 oz.
• 1 pint (US) = 16.690 809 oz.
• 1 pint (UK) = 20.044 826 oz.

I do not have a copy handy, but The Book of Yields has relative weights of one US cup (8 fl.oz.) for almost any food you can think of. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The mL is defined as being equal to exactly 1g of water, and the Litre is defined as being exactly 1000g of water. And there is much ambiguity of weight and mass in these pages. American measures use weight (pounds) to measure while the metric system uses mass (grams). I'm not quite sure if it's worth changing cause almost no one is aware that the American mass unit is the slug and same with the metric weight unit of the Newton. And putting both the words "weight" and "mass" in the titles just seems too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACielecki (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The litre was originally defined in 1795 as one cubic decimetre (≡ 1,000 cm³). In 1901 it was redefined as 1 kilogram of water under very specific conditions (= 1,000.028 cm³). In 1964 the original definition was restored. So, 1 ml ≡ 1 cc ≡ 1 cm³.
Since no kitchen is remotely likely to be able to measure thousandths of a millilitre, we can just use 1 L ≡ 1 dm³ = 1 kg (water), which has always been true to four decimal places. —MJBurrage • TALK • 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oriental Cups

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)

Cups are a real pain. See the next section, or [my page on the subject]. In my experience, most real cups have about 200 ml, so it's reasonable to assume that the Japanese use it like that. But real cups vary between 70 ml (espresso) to 285 ml (British cooking cup). One more reason to avoid using such measures. Groogle 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Non-metric units

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)

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)

Temperature & other measures

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)

Not sure if it should be on this page or a new page of its own... why not write something and let the world decide. -- Brian R Hunter 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, my interpretation of 'weights and measures' means anything measured: temperature, pressure, neutrons per cubic cm, whatever. So, yeah, that's within this topic, so a section for Temperatures with a link to that article would be great. Also: Time - how long is a 'whistle'? Indian recipes often use this as a time measure. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"gastronomy in general is far too broad to link here"

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)

Fannie Farmer

The text currently reads, "In the U.S.A., Fannie Farmer introduced the more exact specification of quantities by volume in her 1896 Boston Cooking-School Cook Book." I'm looking at the 1896 edition on Google Books (link), and find the statement misleading. I expected it to mean that she standardized the measurements like teaspoonful and tablespoonful. Just using pure conjecture, it seems all the book did was provide a standardized instruction on using the already available measuring devices. It was also likely one of the early cookbooks to describe all recipes in this standard and reproducible fashion. If the book was the first publication to define the standard measurements, then the devices would not be readily available as it described. -Verdatum (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a different problem with the phrase, "...more exact specification of quantities by volume..." It tends to imply that volume-based measure is more accurate ("exact"), when it seems the opinion of folks like Gisslen, Figoni, Demuzio, and others, is that measure by weight is more accurate. Ultimately, that may depend on the accuracy or readability of the scale or balance vs. the accuracy or margin of error of volumetric measuring utensils that are actually used. It seems measure by weight is a simpler conception due to the varying densities of ingredients which, when measured volumetrically, tends to confuse the intuitive understanding of ratios. So, for different reasons, I also feel the sentence is misleading. Gzuufy (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Fannie Farmer stuff is not about volume vs. weight. It is about Fannie Farmer using teaspoons, tablespoons, cups, etc rather than bunch, handful, splash etc.

As I understand it cookbooks around the world went from approximate amounts to measured volumes. Then (in many places) they went from measured volume to measured weight. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, moving from vague and ill defined measures to more well defined ones does seem a context of the article's current introductory sentences' flow. (It is also true that some very old cookbooks do use sprigs of this and dashes of that, I've seen some of them, but do not have a link handy) So, perhaps the article's viewpoint is either a correct rendition of cooking history, or a partially correct one. However, in my studies, I've been seeing a different reality of data points. Published in 1863 in London (33 years prior to Fannie Farmer), The book of household management by Isabella Mary Beeton seems to suggest that recipes by solid weight and liquid volumes were used rather frequently, though perhaps not exclusively standardized. Here's another one, published in London by War Office, year 1878, Instructions to Military Cooks, seems like measurement by weight is pretty common.

One issue with rephrasing the sentence to better reflect a standardization based on volume, is that standardization either wasn't really successful, or was intended to only be partially successful. As you can see from Paul Richards' Book of Breads, Cakes, Pastries, Ices and Sweetmeats Especially Adapted For Hotel and Catering Trades, circa 1907 some 11 years after Fannie Farmer's work, published in Chicago, it appears (maybe) the beginning of a fork in recipe scribing standards occurred, that today seems characterized by "professional" versus "consumer" with respect to baking cookbooks. Richards' U.S. book scribed recipes using weights, except for liquid ingredients, the same that this article currently asserts that "most of the world" but not the U.S., customarily uses. So, while Fannie Farmer, 1896, published by Little, Brown, and Company, may have been an important demarcation work of some kind, the data I've seen doesn't suggest to me that standardization occurred as much as some form of classism. Gzuufy (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the beginning of recorded history, cookbooks have used precise weights and measures. See our article on cookbooks, then scroll down to the list of famous historical ones. Apicius for example, used pounds, ounces, drams, and scruples, as well as the hemina (about a half-pint cup), cyathus (1/4 cup) and cochleare (tablespoon). Cookbooks of the Carolingian period still use imperial Roman units. The Cooks Oracle (circa 1810) advocated the use of precision laboratory glassware for all measurements. A cookbook published by the head of the Boston Cooking School a few months before Fanny Farmer's book came out advocated the same approach. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Fannie Farmer changed US recipe spoon measurements in two ways. (1) all measures were understood to be level unless otherwise specified. (2) the teaspoon was understood to be 1/3rd of a tablespoon or 1/6th of an ounce to match the actual capacity of american made silver and electroplate teaspoons of the time. The previous Mrs Lincoln Boston Cooking School book had followed the old convention that level spoons were assumed only for "salt, spices and soda" and rounded spoonfuls were the norm for other solid ingredients, and listed a teaspoon as 1/4 of a tablespoon which was true only of very old teaspoons or cast pewter ones (which were made from very old moulds). Peterdgi (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Weighing food in recipes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have a US recipe that calls, among other things, for 1/2 cup shortening (ie solid fat). I can't imagine much less convenient than using a volume measure for solid fat. There would be air spaces when you try to fill the cup, and then you would not be able to get it all out of the cup, and the cup would be awful to wash up. So obviously, people in the US don't actually measure things like solid fat by volume, even though that's what the recipe says. What do you actually do? And where can I get a conversion from cups of fat to grams? Even though I know that a US cup is 237 ml, I don't want to actually measure solid fat by volums. It seems I have to do experiments to measure the density of lard and then calculate weight before I can begin to measure my ingredients :-( 84.93.170.247 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Metric measures

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)

Non-English words in text

In the main text is the use of the word avoirdupuis , but it is a french word. Solution Either add the translation as a reference or have the translation embedded as part of the text.

[Talk Item?] Perhaps it would flow better as an article to have the translation , as a reference instead of now as I have embedded the translation as part of the text. {I was not sure how to add the translation as a reference mark [1])

Richard416282 (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the word 'avoirdupuis' but this was probably a typo for the English word 'avoirdupois' see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/avoirdupois. The artcile now has a link and this is much better than embedding word origins.

Brian R Hunter (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Metric Measures table edits

User MJBurrage made changes to the table in the section Metric Measures: old table vs after edits. Some of the decimals were removed, changing 100ths to 10ths, whereas in at least one case, a decimal to a 10th was added. The FDA column more closely follows the cite. I do not understand the desire to eliminate decimal accuracy. Does anyone have a rationale for eliminating one decimal place of accuracy? I'd be in favor of restoring the more accurate numbers, where they were changed to less accurate. Gzuufy (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It just seemed to me that one decimal was plenty of precision for cooking measures, and the exact conversions would have more than two decimals. I had considered rounding off the decimals completely, but thought that might be misleading.

As for merging columns (asked about on my talk page) I thought it was cluttered and redundant to repeat the same numbers when they had the same source in the Imperial Gallon.

What about one "Imperial" column with notes for the Australian tablespoon and the UK cup?

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Eliminating redundancy is fine, I (now) think the table presents the information more clearly without the redundancies. As far as the decimal accuracy is concerned, when measuring one unit, it doesn't make 'much' difference. However, string a whole bunch of the same units together, and the error gets larger and is cumulative. For but one example, over on baker percentage, a line reads: "60% amount of water for 1 lb of flour is just under 10 ounces, or 1 cup plus 2 ounces"! I crunched the numbers in analyzing the statement (which I didn't write), and found that 9.6 (conversion calc: 0.6 lbs x 16 oz/lb=9.6 oz) ounces of water is closer to '"1 cup plus" 1 fluid ounce' than it is to "2 ounces" (ignoring the "fluid" adjective issue). To paraphrase Paula Figoni, twisting her statement slightly, "When a baker says 2 lbs, they don't mean 2.1 lbs!" Do they mean 2.01 lbs? How about 2.001 lbs? 2.0001? At some point the decreasing error or increasing accuracy becomes acceptable. Gzuufy (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Trust me that I understand that rounding error accumulates, but were talking portions of milliliters. No kitchen equipment I have seen is that accurate; hence why I considered just rounding off to whole numbers, but I didn't want to give the reader the false impression that the numbers were exact. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You wrote, "... give the reader the false impression that the numbers were exact." Care to expand further on the inexactness of the conversion numbers? Since weights and measures are dictated by laws, they change from time to time, is that what you mean? I haven't given much thought to the margin of error of volumetric kitchen utensils, except to note they're not particularly accurate compared to weight measures. I'm also saddened to see all the approximations, that get more and more approximate as our individual abilities to crunch the numbers gets better. I'll possibly replace the digits from the old table, into your new format, just not sure when. If I do, you're free to undo them. Best, Gzuufy (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just that I have noticed that people tend to think numbers in tables like this are an exact conversion—rather than a rounded one—if there are no decimals. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

binary submultiples, teaspoon, saltspoon, and obsolete drop?

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)

Bad entries in the table of Dry & Fluid Measures

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)

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)

Looking at the "defined" column, it says a fluid dram is 3 coffeespoons (3/4 tsp vs 1/4 tsp), but the other columns only step the measure down by half. The table also says the drop is 1/3 of a smidgen (by teaspoons) and 4/9 of a smidgen (the other two columns) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9008:1102:24F2:60C4:C20C:6411:DAB0 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Millilitres

Millilitres are usually abbreviated to ml not mL. FunkyCanute (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Claim "Most of the world prefers metric measurement by weight"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sub-teaspoon measures

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)

Metric measure

The table is confusing. If you check on Google Conversion, the result is different to the table. An example is the UK tablespoon. 1 UK tbsp = 17.7582 mL (Google Conversion). But on the table, you all write 15 mL.

Where did you all get the info? Why there's no reference except the Canada and the US? -GogoLion (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Apple has a unit in their measurements API called "Imperial Tablespoon" = 0.0177582 L = 17.7582 mL.

They strangely do not have the "metric tablespoon" of 15 mL. 17:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC) PK-WIKI (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)