There is a purely political association in American’s minds between kitchen scales and the metric system. I don’t know why.
But any chemist will tell you that the only serious way to measure non-liquids is by weight. (Not to mention that traditional American use of volume measurements is hopelessly imprecise to begin with – just how much is a “heaping teaspoon”, anyway?)
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
I had some really good pro-volume comments to make, and then John Kennedy (hello from Florham Park!) has to make this comment about heaping teaspoons…
Excellent point, but my guess is that a recipe which calls for such an amount would not be seriously affected by using slightly more or less than that amount. Anyone ever see a recipe call for heaping teaspoons of baking powder? … I didn’t think so.
Anyway, here is my pro-volume comment:
Using cups and spoons, it is not difficult to measure out 200ml or even 5ml of an ingredient quite precisely. But suppose I need 50 grams? Or 25 grams? Where are you going to find a scale to get measure it out to a 10% accuracy? or even 20%?
The scales I see, I wouldn’t trust them to be accurate more than to the nearest ounce (=25gr), if that much. Sure, professional chefs can afford the more accurate ones, but for normal household use, I’ll take volume measurements any day.
Hey, how many of you people actually COOK? Based on personal experience, a recipe that requires flour to be sifted is one that you can’t mix well for some reason – muffins, for example, where too much mixing messes up the texture, or a sponge cake, where you’re mixing flour into egg whites that’ll lose their volume if you beat 'em up too much. So you want the flour you’re mixing to be fine and even in texture, with no chunks. The measurement argument is totally bogus.
“. . . and all places are alike to me.”
–R. Kipling
I used to work as a pro baker (nothing snotty, just a baker in a local bakery, making scones and cakes and brownies and such), and I still bake and cook a lot in my personal life. So here are my observations:
Like someone said, yeasted breads TEND to be forgiving in terms of variations in ingredient amounts, whereas quickbreads (i.e., pastries leavened through means other than yeast, such as baking powder, baking soda, steam, frothed eggs, etc.) tend to be less forgiving. I usually only measure the water and salt when I’m making yeast bread – the former determines how many loaves I get, and the latter ain’t real forgiving – but on cakes and quickbreads I measure everything except the spices.
Someone mentioned the variations external conditions such as humidity create in cooking. It’s sometimes true – but it takes an extremely experienced cook, like a grandma or someone, to be able to take such factors into account successfully. For amateurs and semipros like me, measurement is often very useful.
Scales do get you more accurate results in your cooking, as some folks insist; however, they’re more expensive, harder to clean, worthless for anything except measuring, and all around more of a pain in the butt to use than a nice set of pyrex measuring bowls and a few measuring spoons. There are occasions when I like to use a scale (or would like to – I don’t own one right now), but I never have had a recipe fail for a lack of a scale.
As for the American disdain for the metric system – ah, get over it, ya damn furners! Someone once told me that 0 Fahrenheit was the temperature at which blood freezes, and that’s way cooler than anything the metric system has to offer. I’ve noticed that the same people who hawk the metric system also think Esperanto is a good idea. That oughta tell you something.
Go ahead and pile your flour up on a scale. This is what I will continue to do: dip a cup measure into the jar of flour (we could also debate why flour comes in frigging BAGS that cause such a mess), tamp it down on top slightly then slide a knife across the top, nice and smooth. One of life’s simple pleasures.
Jill
(then I have to add a coupla TBs anyway, because I’m at high altitude.)
Daniel: your assertion that
tells me you don’t understand what a good idea is.
Esperento is considerably easier to learn than national languages and actually does have a large following. Many of that following are in the United States and the metric/traditional argument rages in our community also.
Are you really a conspiracy theorist or do you just want to be considered one of those morons? Either way, keep up those assertions and you will, at least, be considered one!
And just for fun, check the North American Esperanto League’s homepage.
Gxis revido!
-Cxip
Ho! I forgot to post the link: http://www.esperanto-usa.org/ . The official English name of the outfit is: The Esperanto League for North America. (I really have to quit back-translating.)
Gxis revido!
-Cxip
Whoops! Sorry, Daniel; didn’t mean to imply you’d be considered a moron. I don’t think you’re a consipiracy theorist, anyway.
Cheers!
Monty: Not that Esperanto is even vaguely related to this thread…
But my reasons for disliking both Esperanto and the Metric system are similar. The systems of measurement and communication we have now carry a great deal of cultural history and weight. When there’s a strong reason for chucking some cultural artifact (the Confederate Flag, for example, may carry cultural history, but it’s inextricably linked to the atrocity of human slavery), I have no objection to it. But come on. Esperanto? The Metric system? Ain’t nuthin wrong with the systems we have now; ain’t no reason to turn our full service bar of a cultural polyglot into a glass of deionized water.
When I hear that an author I respect (and please let’s leave Ken Kesey out of this) has written something in Esperanto, considering it a communication form superior to English (or Mandarin, or Russian, or Yoruban), I’ll reconsider my position.
Incidentally, conspiracy theories? huh? Wait – do you mean that people dislike Esperanto cuz they think it has something to do with the NWO and the imminent UN takeover of good ole Murruhkuh? If that’s what you mean, that’s great – theories like that are what makes life interesting, and I can almost respect Esperanto if it can give rise to such fancy. Otherwise, my objection to it and to the metric system is that the two are just too dull to be much good.
I think the difference between us might be this: you (and other Esperanto fans) seem to believe that the shortest distance between two brains is a universal language. I believe that this is true under some circumstances – within scientific practices, for example (and if Esperanto kindly restricts its growth to such fields, I’ll happily advocate it). However, I also think that we’re irrational emotional nonlinear critters, and forcing our meandering into the straight lines of universal language will strip of us much of our useless impertinent beauty and pleasure. Kant said something like, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made.” Esperanto feels to me like a lathe applied to a grapevine.
Take care,
Daniel
Great response, Daniel!
I disagree with you about the rationale of some folks (such as I) using Esperanto being in those folks’ opinion “a superior language.” My point is that, by using this workable, proven planned language, the “pride of place” has been removed from, say, English being spoken by an Englishman to a Japanese.
Of course, “natural” languages are superior in the area of cultural heritage. But that is changing as Esperanto has been extant for over 100 years now. Esperanto, in my opinion (and of others), is superior for international communications for the reasons I’ve given above.
Dull? C’mon! There are a great many individuals, television programmes, novels, and what have you in every language under the sun! It’s the content, not the medium that dulls.
As it is, I’ve had occasion to use Esperanto in every country I’ve visited.
Now we’ve gotten that out of the way…the Metric system.
“Not broke?” Please. The so-called traditional English system of measures used in the United States is nowhere near “fixed.” By law, all of those measures, today, are defined in terms of the Metric system, so that should show the legislature, at least, considers one superior to the other.
When’s the last time you picked up one of those liter or 2 liter bottles of soda? Seems to me, that’s an endorsement of the Metric system.
Also, whilst visiting friends in Preston England back in 1982, I had occasion to stand on their bathroom scale. Darn thing was graduated in Stones and then pounds. I suppose if you’re used to seeing weights as multiples of fourteen, that’s fine. Most English speakers aren’t and thus don’t use such a scale.
Oh, and I agree with you about the conspiracy theories making life interesting. It’s just that I’m wary of folks (I’m not including you) who actually believe them. Heck, I even hosted one Straight Dope chat in which the crowd concocted some conspiracy theories just for fun.
Gxis revido!
-Cxip
[[Oh, and I agree with you about the conspiracy theories making life interesting. It’s just that I’m wary of folks (I’m not including you) who actually believe them. ]]
I know. And those people are everywhere.
Jill
The original topic here was “why is flour sifted” not “how is (or should) flour be measured”. Flour is sifted to insure that it is NOT densely packed. Sifting puts air between the flour’s particles, facilitating mixture with liquids (water, egg white, ET AL). A solid, compacted mass of flour would not mix at all (or at least, it would be very difficult to do). See Unca Cecil’s rap on how quicksand particles work for further details on a related subject.
You tell em, Daniel!
I just wanna add one more curio (since this topic is supposed to be aobut flour & not Esperanto etc., I’ll forcibly restrain myself from the above conversation – maybe someone should get Cecil to rag on Esperanto a little so we can continue it?).
The absolute best cake book in the world, IMHO, is Rose Beranbaum’s Cake Bible. In it, she doesn’t call for sifting the flour ever: instead, in order to incorporate air pockets into the batter, she advises beating the shortening lots and lots. It works beautifully and is much easier & less messy than flour sifting.
One last note, that I picked up a couple weks ago from a book called Cook Wise: leaveners like baking powder, baking soda, and yeast aren’t actually strong enough (according to the author) to create air pockets in batters and doughs: they only expand existing air pockets, which is why it’s so important to introduce them mechanically. That sounds kinda weird to me – I think I could pour baking soda into boiled water and still get some fizz – but the author of the book seems otherwise to know her stuff real well. What do folks think?
the purpose of sifting flour is two-fold first, more air is incorporated. sifted flour is fluffier, so a cup of sifted flour is less than a cup of unsifted. If you don’t believe me, jiggle a cup of each. the sifted stuff will settle more. secondly, small particles from the grinding process and occasional flour bugs (those little brown specks are alive!!) won’ fit through the screen as easily as the flour. Sifting just makes a person feel better than knowing you ate bugs.
as far as the lard segue, it makes the bread softer, and the fried chicken crispier. My grandma told me to measure it by spooning small amounts into a measuring vessel. It will float just under the surface. I want a quarter cup, (4 tbs) I fill the vessel to the 3/4c line and spoon in lard until the water line reaches 1c the same process would work just as well with a pitcher if you want to REALLY ACCURATELY measure a cup of lard.
can’t tell I like to cook, can ya???
Large commercial bakeries (I work for Pillsbury) sift flour for 3 reasons: