I've been playing around with that Salter digital scale I mentioned in the last article, and I'm satisfied with its performance, enough so that I've decided to write my recipes in metric mass units (alliteration is fun).
At some point I may create a conversion function to give you standard English volumetric units, but doing that accurately and automatically isn't trivial since it depends on the density and particle size of the ingredient, and if it's an intermediate step where the ingredients are combined and/or cooked, it gets even tougher. But I like tough challenges, and since my day job includes writing back office systems for restaurants, having a really sophisticated recipe management system would be pretty sweet, so we'll see how it goes.
But for now, I'm deviating from two sacred American traditions—measurement by volume and hatred of the metric system—so I feel a need to justify my decision (otherwise all of my imaginary friends out there in Interweb-land will never forgive me). So let me lead you through my thought process. Here are the four reasons I decided to make the switch:
tbg *really* hates to clean
- Cleanup. I hate to clean. I mean it. I’ll say it again. I H A T E cleaning. Measuring with a digital scale lets you put everything into a single container. After adding an ingredient, you just zero out the scale then add the next one. It couldn’t be simpler and you end up with far fewer dishes to clean.
- Speed. No having to stop and clean a measuring spoon in the middle of a recipe because you’d used it 5 minutes ago to measure something sticky, in fact no having to scoop and level at all, just open the bag/box/jar, hit the tare button, and pour the ingredient in till you get close to the amount you want, then tap in the last few grams.
- Accuracy. As you’ll see in my upcoming review of the Salter 2001 Microtronic Kitchen Scale, even inexpensive digital scales are pretty darn accurate. And when it comes to measuring compressible ingredients like flours or herbs, there really is no comparison. Weight is where it’s at.
- Because Alton Brown says so. In his baking book I’m Just Here For More Food Alton stresses the importance of measuring by weight:
Take a look at any recipe in this book and you’ll notice that most ingredients are represented by both weight and volume. Were it entirely up to me, I wouldn’t include volume measurements at all—except perhaps for trace elements like baking soda. But I was advised that no one would buy a making book without cups and tablespoons so I gave in.
Since no one is going to pay me anything for these recipes no matter what measurements I use, I get to skip the cups and spoons altogether.
To be fair, there are a couple of downsides to this method:
- Hard to remember. When you first wake up in the morning, it’s pretty easy to remember that half a cup of steel-cut oats and one and a half cups of water will make a perfect bowl of gruel. I’m just starting out, but it’s been a challenge remembering to add 87 grams of oats and 340 grams of water. Currently I have it written down on a cheat sheet stuck to my fridge. On the other hand, there really aren’t that many recipes that are simple enough for my perpetually distracted mind to recall verbatim, so I’m usually working from a printout anyway.
- Hard to correct. Because you’re pouring in ingredients freehand, it’s a little bit easier to slip up and pour too much in. You can correct this by measuring into a second bowl, or just use a spoon to control the amount you add, but I haven’t found it to be a big enough issue to justify the extra dishes. Remember, cleaning is bad.
Overall, the benefits of weight measurement far outweigh the costs, I may use volume for very small measurements but I'm going to try weight first. And if that doesn't work then in the interest of NOT CLEANING (and just to be a stinker) I may decide to go retro and bring back the “pinch” as a measurement.
fake it till ya bake it,
-tbg