Skip to main content
19 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 27, 2018 at 20:54 comment added senschen @Jefromi note added, but feel free to edit if you think it needs more detail.
Jan 27, 2018 at 20:46 history edited senschen CC BY-SA 3.0
added 382 characters in body
Jan 26, 2018 at 19:24 comment added Cascabel @CarlWitthoft I suspect that an awful lot of recipes don't use sifted/shaken flour. King Arthur Flour suggests 4.5oz/cup (and I believe does sift) while a lot of other sources say 5oz/cup, and I've had a lot of luck using the latter as my initial guess. senschen, especially since this is the top/accepted answer, you could perhaps add a quick note about the fact that there's some uncertainty in the initial conversion?
Jan 26, 2018 at 17:48 history edited senschen CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 character in body
Jan 26, 2018 at 16:59 comment added Todd Wilcox When I was growing up (in the US) no one had a kitchen scale and there were two cookbooks that were pretty much the only ones people who cooked in the home used: The Joy Of Cooking and The Betty Crocker Cookbook. Both only had ingredients measured by volume, except meats. Things have changed a lot, but measuring flour by volume is still more common in a typical American recipe and kitchen than by weight. I do know a lot of home bakers (including my whole family) who do have kitchen scales, but I only in December started measuring flour by weight.
Jan 26, 2018 at 15:55 history edited jscs CC BY-SA 3.0
Grammatical improvements; removed "Edit" https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/127639/159251
Jan 26, 2018 at 15:47 comment added senschen @CarlWitthoft That's a problem with measuring flour by volume in general. If I don't sift and level my flour exactly like they guy who wrote the recipe I can still wind up with a different result. Different flours also measure differently, so there are all kinds of issues with converting flour volume to weight. OP didn't ask about those, though I did include a link to a pretty good overview.
Jan 26, 2018 at 15:37 comment added Carl Witthoft Well, to be precise, you need to know the required weight in the recipe . Otherwise, converting from a measured mass to the recipe's required volume only works if the person who wrote the recipe used properly sifted & shaken flour to begin with.
Jan 26, 2018 at 14:59 history edited senschen CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 8 characters in body
Jan 26, 2018 at 14:37 vote accept Bar Akiva
Jan 26, 2018 at 14:33 comment added senschen Edited to address the conversation about convenience.
Jan 26, 2018 at 14:32 history edited senschen CC BY-SA 3.0
added 553 characters in body
Jan 26, 2018 at 14:21 comment added senschen @Layna That's true. I remember when I studied there I had to buy some, and I had a really hard time finding them. Its just different in different parts of the world-- some places measure by weight, some by volume.
Jan 26, 2018 at 13:47 comment added Layna @senschen At least in German kitchen, kitchen scales seem almost mandantory.. what we often lack is, actually, measuring cups!
Jan 26, 2018 at 13:02 comment added GdD I live in the UK now, but even before I moved here from the US I converted to grams because it's precision and easier. I've converted all my US recipe volume measurements to weight, writing the values in with a pencil.
Jan 26, 2018 at 12:47 history edited senschen CC BY-SA 3.0
added 143 characters in body
Jan 26, 2018 at 12:46 comment added senschen @GdD Out of curiosity, where are you from? I'm from the US, and measuring by volume here isn't just convenient, its practically mandatory. Most people don't have kitchen scales, so they couldn't measure by weight if they wanted to.
Jan 26, 2018 at 12:43 comment added GdD I agree with all you say, except I think it's more convenient to measure by weight. There's really no downside.
Jan 26, 2018 at 12:34 history answered senschen CC BY-SA 3.0