I have a few Chinese books & they list both.
-
-
Brewing recipes for the most part over the last 10/15 years have always called out both measurments for each ingredient. (9.0 lb. (4.1 kg) English pale malt...) I like it that way because I could always tell someone that I used the metric system when I really didn't! But honestly, that's how I see most all brewing recipes these days so I have gotten very used to reading it that way.Comment
-
kmhfive In the interest of keeping Henrik on the straight and narrow while trying to do his conversions, I must note that your statement is incorrect. The confusion arises from the fact the "ounces" in our system can refer to either weight or volume, but ALL measuring cups are constructed in terms of volume, or "fluid" ounces. A cup that measured weight (by volume?!) would be pointless unless it always only measured one specific substance. It is true that some measuring cups are geared towards "dry" measurements. These are containers that hold a specific volume and allow the user to scrape off any excess so as to get "exactly" a level (supposedly constant) volume of a "dry" such as flour or sugar. Depending on the specific "dry", the repeatability of such cups may or may not be very repeatable. "Liquid" measuring cups typically hold more than their stated capacity and have measuring line increments along side of a see-through material such as glass or plastic and they often feature a pouring spout. The fact that they are larger than their stated volume makes it easier to pour without spilling the liquid contents. Some of my larger "liquid" measuring cups do have both metric (ml) and Imperial (cups) volume measuring lines.Last edited by Willy; May 14, 2017, 07:28 PM.Comment
-
At work my sampling solution comes in mL's, however the sample weight (when applicable) is recorded in pounds. A physical foreign material in a food product must meet the following criteria (all three) in order to be considered a food safety hazard; 1) 7-25 mm in length 2) Is sharp 3) Is hard.
Comment
-
The first thing I (usually) do is convert the ingredient list for a "new" recipe to metric weight measurements. (eg., a tablespoon of Morton's kosher salt is 16.2 grams). So, I voted "don't care". I keep a list of weight conversions that I have measured in the past, so its not too burdensome. Most recipes in the US are by volume, but I've never thought about this before, but Henrik do recipes in metric standard countries typically use volume measures (cc, liter, etc.) or are they typically by weight? This question adds nothing to your original question, but I'm just curious.Comment
-
I chose metric but after reading the comments I would have chosen "both".
​​​​​​
​​​​​​I have the tools to work with both metric and imperial. Volume or weight.Comment
-
Volumes of dry ingredients in recipes are beat, regardless of the system. Weight is the only good way to measure ingredients. That's the future. And metric is more easily precise, so I'm in favor of that. But, in the US, most cookbooks are still using measures of volume in imperial units. So, I suck it up and muddle through.Comment
-
There was a valid reason for using volume measures in the past . . . Scales capable of accurately measuring ±1 gram were very expensive. Today, a scale with that accuracy is hardly more costly than a set of measuring cups and spoons. Eventually, I suspect customs will change. -
I wonder. The volume based measurements are so ingrained in the cooking culture, I'm not sure I will live to see the tipping point there.
-
Comment