On 5/3/2010 6:18 AM, Giusi wrote:
> "Brian Christiansen" ha scritto nel messaggio
>
>> I also think that it is partially due to the fact that we (Americans)
>> don't> really like either the government or the French telling us what
>> measurement> system we are supposed to use.
>
> Lame excuse. Who do you think established what you think of as American
> standard measures? They actually have the original certified measures in
> Washington DC. I was in university and just out of it when we were supposed
> to be changing to netric. What a joke! Americans were too lazy to bother
> and the government had plenty of problems and didn't push the issue. I got
> a couple of jobs/projects because I was one of the very few designers who
> could produce work in metric and annotated in more than one language.

Any engineer can produce work in metric. Or in the
cubit/stone/fortnight system for that matter. It's all just units.
There's nothing special about metric that makes it wonderful.

> Saying that US folks resist because they don't want to be told what to do is
> facile and egocentric. Everyone else changed, we couldn't or wouldn't and I
> listened to all the excuses. Quietly most of US industry did change over
> because otherwise they couldn't sell their products.

The simple fact is that (a) we don't give a damn and (b) nobody has ever
come up with any kind of compelling reason to do it.

> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
> because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add, tare
> etc. until done.

What does that have to do with metric? You are confusing measurement by
weight with a system of measurement. I suspect it will be a shock to
you to discover that there are scales calibrated in English units.

> You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or otherwise
> soiled cups, etc.

Remind me not to eat at your place.

> Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of this
> ior that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.

So how do you measure ml without getting those cups greasy?

On 5/3/2010 5:54 AM, Geordie Guy wrote:
> On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
>>> to understand it.
>>
>> Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
>> system.
>
>> These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
>> cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
>> Whitworth etc.
>
> Can't agree.
> I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
> measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
> feet and inches.
>
> I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
> two". In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
> and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
> pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)

Remember the name of Russel Crowe's Australian band? It wasn't "Ten Odd
Meter of Grunts".

On Mon, 03 May 2010 15:53:54 +1000, Geordie Guy
> wrote:


>On 3/05/2010 12:30 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>> Janet wrote on Sun, 2 May 2010 23:51:21 +0100:
>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>
>>>> I've written a blog entry about American names for
>>>> ingredients and what their rest-of-English-speaking-world
>>>> equivalents are, it's at http://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>>
>>>> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard
>>>> any of these, instead saying that all the Australian English
>>>> terms were commonplace. That's not accurate, but some might
>>>> be more common than others. I'd be curious for people's
>>>> comments about what is commonplace and what isn't, and any I
>>>> might have missed.
>>
>>> In England, baking parchment and grease-proof paper, are
>>> two different products not the same thing..
>>
>>> Swiss chard is commonly called swiss chard in England too.
>>
>> I think the blog, were it to cover the different terms used in different
>> countries, could be very useful. It is not necessary really to fight
>> about what are the most used words, even if that can be rather
>> entertaining..
>>
>Despite the .com, the blog is mine and an Australian blog (if such
>geographical restraints exist on the net).
>
>I've had plenty of fights over the chard thing, because while chard and
>silverbeet are the same thing, the variety you get in the US is usually
>different to that grown elsewhere (it frequently has a pink or red stalk).
>
>- G
>
I am in the US and grow Swiss Chard. Right now I have a row with
white, gold and red stems. Seeds came from a pack labeled Rainbow
chard.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

Geordie wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 20:00:30 +1000:

> On 3/05/2010 7:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:13:35 +1000, Geordie Guy wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've written a blog entry about American names for
>>> ingredients and what their rest-of-English-speaking-world
>>> equivalents are, it's at http://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>>>
>>> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never
>>> heard any of these, instead saying that all the Australian
>>> English terms were commonplace. That's not accurate, but
>>> some might be more common than others. I'd be curious for
>>> people's comments about what is commonplace and what isn't,
>>> and any I might have missed.
>>
>> You're implying that we here in the US have changed the names
>> so as to be incompatible with the "rest of the English
>> speaking world", when it's the other way around.

> ...

> No I'm not.

>> Tomato sauce, topmato puree, and tomato paste are all three
>> different forms of processed tomato used here in the US.

> Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It depends on the
> area of the US, and apparently what phase the moon is in.

>> "Green Onions" are more common than Scallion, and Spring
>> Onion is not a scallion or green onion.

> I make it clear in the post that some of them are uncommon or
> even archaic, but they DO get used in (particularly older) US
> cookbooks and it's useful for Australians to know.

>> Brown Mix? Does not compute. If you mean gravy mix, then we
>> don't rely on those things as much as your Gravox.

> I've never used Gravox in my life, again, it may be archaic,
> but I've got cookbooks that use the term.

>> "All Purpose Flour" and "Plain Flour" is getting a little
>> picky.

> No, not really. You won't ever, ever, find a single packet of
> flour in Australia with "all purpose flour" written on it,
> it's always plain flour, and we use self raising flour more
> than is common elsewhere. So "all purpose flour" is almost as
> likely to mean one as the other.

>> In English, they mean the same thing. What English are you
>> speaking?

> They do mean the same thing, but that's not the point. One is
> used in the US a lot, and Australians would be unlikely to
> know on face value whether it means one highly common form of
> flour, or another.

"Green onions" seems the most usual term to me. I don't know what is a
"Spring onion" and, while I know what is a "Scallion", I'm not sure that
a worker in the produce department would. Tomato sauce includes
flavorings, tomato paste does not but I'd use tomato paste if I saw
"tomato puree" (not that it's a common term I think).

Australians would seem to use the Indian name, "Besan", for chickpea
flour. The package I bought was also labelled "Gram flour". Is that a
mistake for "Graham flour" tho' I had no idea that Graham flour was made
from chickpeas.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On May 3, 6:33*am, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Giusi" > wrote:
> > "Brian Christiansen" ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> > > I also think that it is partially due to the fact that we (Americans)
> > > don't > really like either the government or the French telling us what
> > > measurement > system we are supposed to use.
>
> > Lame excuse. *Who do you think established what you think of as American
> > standard measures? *They actually have the original certified measures in
> > Washington DC. *I was in university and just out of it when we were supposed
> > to be changing to netric. *What a joke! *Americans were too lazy to bother
> > and the government had plenty of problems and didn't push the issue. *I got
> > a couple of jobs/projects because I was one of the very few designers who
> > could produce work in metric and annotated in more than one language.
>
> > Saying that US folks resist because they don't want to be told what to do is
> > facile and egocentric. *Everyone else changed, we couldn't or wouldn't and I
> > listened to all the excuses. *Quietly most of US industry did change over
> > because otherwise they couldn't sell their products.
>
> > In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
> > because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add, tare
> > etc. until done. *You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or otherwise
> > soiled cups, etc. *Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of this
> > ior that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.
>
> What I especially like about Metrics is the liquid to solid to weight
> conversion. 1cc = 1ml = 1gram of liquid. *QED!

Only if its specific gravity is close to 1.

Of course, kitchen measurements hardly ever involve 250 ml
of liquid mercury, for example.

Cindy Hamilton

On May 3, 1:59*am, Gabby > wrote:
> On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> > Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
> > Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.

> My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. *I
> thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
> would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
> type of whole wheat flour. *It took a while to sort out the mistake.

If Australians know chickpea flour as Besan, why don't they call
chickpeas "channa dal"?

That would be consistent.

On May 3, 1:59*am, Gabby > wrote:
> On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> > Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
> > Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
> > --
> > Jeßus
>
> My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. *I
> thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
> would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
> type of whole wheat flour. *It took a while to sort out the mistake.

Graham flour and the Graham cracker were invented by the American
Presbyterian minister, Sylvester Graham, as foods that would repress
the sex drive and thus eliminate the urge to masturbate, with all the
ills that attend that unwholesome practice.

J. Clarke wrote:
> On 5/3/2010 5:54 AM, Geordie Guy wrote:
>> On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak
>>>> Strine
>>>> to understand it.
>>>
>>> Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
>>> system.
>>
>>> These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
>>> cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
>>> Whitworth etc.
>>
>> Can't agree.
>> I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
>> measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
>> feet and inches.
>>
>> I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
>> two".

20 ft is about 6 metres

In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
188 cm and 192 lbs

>> and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
>> pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)
>
> Remember the name of Russel Crowe's Australian band? It wasn't "Ten Odd
> Meter of Grunts".
30 odd ft of wacker more like it
>
>

atec7 wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 23:45:41 +1000:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> On 5/3/2010 5:54 AM, Geordie Guy wrote:
>>> On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have
>>>>> to speak Strine to understand it.
>>>>
>>>> Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's
>>>> the metric system.
>>>
>>>> These days, about the only time we need to use another
>>>> system is for cars/machinery that used the old imperial
>>>> size nut and bolts... Whitworth etc.
>>>
>>> Can't agree.
>>> I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40
>>> years older, measures the height of a person in centimeters or
>>> meters, it's always feet and inches.
>>>
>>> I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I
>>> know I'm "six two".

> 20 ft is about 6 metres

> In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85
> kilos,188 cm and 192 lbs

>>> and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my
>>> weight in pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double
>>> it-ish)
>>
>> Remember the name of Russel Crowe's Australian band? It
>> wasn't "Ten Odd Meter of Grunts".
> 30 odd ft of wacker more like it
>>
As a retired scientist, I still have no trouble switching to Metric. I
can even estimate the ambient temperature in C.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On May 3, 9:33*am, "James Silverton" >
wrote:



>
> Australians would seem to use the Indian name, "Besan", *for chickpea
> flour. The package I bought was also labelled "Gram flour". Is that a
> mistake for "Graham flour" tho' I had no idea that Graham flour was made
> from chickpeas.
>
> --
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland

No, graham flour is whole wheat flour that is milled differently from
your everyday whole wheat flour.

On Sun, 2 May 2010 18:33:45 -0400, Virginia Tadrzynski wrote:

> "James Silverton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Geordie wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 07:13:35 +1000:
>>
>>> I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients
>>> and what their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are,
>>> it's at http://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>>
>>> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard
>>> any of these, instead saying that all the Australian English
>>> terms were commonplace. That's not accurate, but some might
>>> be more common than others. I'd be curious for people's
>>> comments about what is commonplace and what isn't, and any I
>>> might have missed.
>>
>> Since we American are in the majority, one might, if one was to be
>> obnoxious, say standard English cooking terms with translations for other
>> dialects :-)
>>
>> --
>>
>> James Silverton

> But India, Australia, the 'English' part of Canada, and the former British
> colonies in Africa and the Caribbean speak 'Kings English'...it's only us in
> the States who speak 'Merkin'.
> -ginny

i think it's magnanimous of the u.s. to allow them to do that.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:18:00 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>
> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
> because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add, tare
> etc. until done. You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or otherwise
> soiled cups, etc. Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of this
> ior that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.

i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with tare weight.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 03 May 2010 20:00:30 +1000, Geordie Guy wrote:

> On 3/05/2010 7:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> Tomato sauce, topmato puree, and tomato paste are all three
>> different forms of processed tomato used here in the US.
>
> Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It depends on the area of
> the US, and apparently what phase the moon is in.

OK, be an asshole about it. But you're wrong and all of us
Americans (no matter what part of the country) know these are three
different products.

You asked for help, I answered politely, and now you can go ****
yourself.

>>
>> "Green Onions" are more common than Scallion, and Spring Onion is
>> not a scallion or green onion.
>
> I make it clear in the post that some of them are uncommon or even
> archaic, but they DO get used in (particularly older) US cookbooks and
> it's useful for Australians to know.

I'm telling you a more common, alternate name, you arrogant asshole.

>> Brown Mix? Does not compute. If you mean gravy mix, then we don't
>> rely on those things as much as your Gravox.
>
> I've never used Gravox in my life, again, it may be archaic, but I've
> got cookbooks that use the term.

But we don't have anything called "brown mix". Never did, never
will. So that entry is completely useless.

>>
>> "All Purpose Flour" and "Plain Flour" is getting a little picky.
>
> No, not really. You won't ever, ever, find a single packet of flour in
> Australia with "all purpose flour" written on it, it's always plain
> flour, and we use self raising flour more than is common elsewhere. So
> "all purpose flour" is almost as likely to mean one as the other.

"all purpose" and "plain" would imply "generic flour" with no added
ingredients. Which is what both of those are. (Except ours is
fortified which has no effect on the usage).

>> In English, they mean the same thing. What English are you
>> speaking?
>
> They do mean the same thing, but that's not the point. One is used in
> the US a lot, and Australians would be unlikely to know on face value
> whether it means one highly common form of flour, or another.

OK, I'll let you have that one. But you're still an asshole. I
should have figured you were an Australian by your attitude.

-sw

On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:32:23 +0200, Giusi wrote:

> "Geordie Guy" ha scritto nel messaggio
> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>>> Tomato sauce, topmato puree, and tomato paste are all three>> different
>>> forms of processed tomato used here in the US.
>>
>> Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It depends on the area of> the
>> US, and apparently what phase the moon is in.
>
> No, that's not true. The FDA has rules on what must be in there to be
> called this or that. If you make it differently, you are forced to call it
> "imitation" or whatever even if your product is btter and more like
> homemade. Mayonnaise and ice cream are two notable examples.

Well, it's the USDA not the FDA, but they often overlap their
authority. And that's right. The USDA does define tomato paste,
tomato puree, and tomato sauce.

-sw

On Mon, 3 May 2010 08:33:58 -0400, James Silverton wrote:

> Australians would seem to use the Indian name, "Besan", for chickpea
> flour. The package I bought was also labelled "Gram flour". Is that a
> mistake for "Graham flour" tho' I had no idea that Graham flour was made
> from chickpeas.

Its garam flour. But you'll never see this.

-sw

"blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1n7xukrrwvd98
Giusi wrote:
>>
>> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
>> >> because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add,
>> tare
>> etc. until done. You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or
>> otherwise >> soiled cups, etc. Right now there are still recipes calling
>> for ml of this
>>or that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.
>
> i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with tare weight.>

Since you asked! Metric cookery is done with weights. They do not have a
bunch of various sized containers marked 125 ml, 150 ml, we use the scale.
It's just plain easier once you have rewritten the recipes.

blake wrote on Mon, 3 May 2010 10:21:47 -0400:

> On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:18:00 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>>
>> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner
>> metric is, because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it,
>> then add, tare, add, tare etc. until done. You don't have to
>> wash up a bunch of greasy or otherwise soiled cups, etc.
>> Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of this ior
>> that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in
>> grams.

> i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with tare
> weight.

Most scales, even the cheapest non-metric, have some sort of taring
mechanism even if it involves turning a knob rather than pressing a
button.

Cooking is not an exact science and there is a good deal of leeway in
measurements. I don't think it matters all that much that 250g is bit
more than half a pound and a liter not quite two pints. What gets me and
I always sense being short changed is beer bottles with 330ml or even
300ml instead of the god-given 354.9ml it should be.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Mon, 3 May 2010 16:39:55 +0200, "Giusi" > wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:1n7xukrrwvd98
> Giusi wrote:
>>>
>>> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
>>> >> because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add,
>>> tare
>>> etc. until done. You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or
>>> otherwise >> soiled cups, etc. Right now there are still recipes calling
>>> for ml of this
>>>or that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.
>>
>> i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with tare weight.>
>
>Since you asked! Metric cookery is done with weights. They do not have a
>bunch of various sized containers marked 125 ml, 150 ml, we use the scale.

Then you obviously don't cook. There certainly are containers marked
for volumetric measurements... all four sizes of my Pyrex measures are
marked in both English and metric volumes.

In article >,
Geordie Guy > wrote:

> On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
> > > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
> >> to understand it.
> >
> > Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
> > system.
>
> > These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
> > cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
> > Whitworth etc.
>
> Can't agree.
> I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
> measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
> feet and inches.
>
> I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
> two". In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
> and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
> pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)


187.96cm 187.39 pounds

This group has a loosely associated web page:

http://www.recfoodcooking.com/index.html

There are several handy converters in the upper right corner. There are
also pointers to the FAQ and other handy stuff, like pictures of some of
us.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:54:37 -0400, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

> blake wrote on Mon, 3 May 2010 10:21:47 -0400:
>
>> On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:18:00 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>>>
>>> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner
>>> metric is, because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it,
>>> then add, tare, add, tare etc. until done. You don't have to
>>> wash up a bunch of greasy or otherwise soiled cups, etc.
>>> Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of this ior
>>> that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in
>>> grams.
>
>> i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with tare
>> weight.
>
>Most scales, even the cheapest non-metric, have some sort of taring
>mechanism even if it involves turning a knob rather than pressing a
>button.

That's not true. Most scales have a zeroing mechanism but taring is
only available on the more costly electronic scales... it's not
practical to rezero a mechanical scale for each addition, plus they
only have a very small zeroing range, typically less than 1 ounce.

And whether metric or English has no bearing on cost, most scales in
every price range are calibrated for both.

But regardless how much it's touted the taring feature is rarely used
for cooking. With large volume commercial cooking very few
ingredients are weighed or measured anyway, their recipes use the
entire contents of a package... in fact the standard packaging sizes
were established based on commercial recipes.

On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:32:23 +0200 in rec.food.cooking, "Giusi"
> wrote,
>OTH, in Italy I have to mix flours to get all purpose flour results. It's
>very fine, has more gluten than our 0 or 00, but lots less than our
>Manitoba. Protein percentages would be a useful addition to all flour
>labels, IMO.

There is a good idea. I just looked at my bag of all-purpose; the
obfuscated label says it has three grams of protein for thirty grams of
flour. With the inaccuracies allowed by law (the numbers are rounded to
integers), that comes out to something like eight to twelve percent. I
wonder if the actual composition is controlled any more tightly than
that?

On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:59:23 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>187.96cm 187.39 pounds
>
>This group has a loosely associated web page:
>
>http://www.recfoodcooking.com/index.html
>
>There are several handy converters in the upper right corner. There are
>also pointers to the FAQ and other handy stuff, like pictures of some of
>us.

Wayne (I think) posted this some time ago and it's a great little
program. Not for mac though.

http://joshmadison.com/software/convert-for-windows/

Lou

On Mon, 03 May 2010 08:33:03 -0700, David Harmon >
wrote:

>On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:32:23 +0200 in rec.food.cooking, "Giusi"
> wrote,
>>OTH, in Italy I have to mix flours to get all purpose flour results. It's
>>very fine, has more gluten than our 0 or 00, but lots less than our
>>Manitoba. Protein percentages would be a useful addition to all flour
>>labels, IMO.
>
>There is a good idea. I just looked at my bag of all-purpose; the
>obfuscated label says it has three grams of protein for thirty grams of
>flour. With the inaccuracies allowed by law (the numbers are rounded to
>integers), that comes out to something like eight to twelve percent. I
>wonder if the actual composition is controlled any more tightly than
>that?

Wheat flour is a natural product made from grain... the nutritional
values of such products are always approximated within a range.

In article
>,
spamtrap1888 > wrote:

> On May 3, 1:59*am, Gabby > wrote:
> > On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
> >
> > > Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
> > > Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
> > > --
> > > Jeßus
> >
> > My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. *I
> > thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
> > would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
> > type of whole wheat flour. *It took a while to sort out the mistake.
>
> Graham flour and the Graham cracker were invented by the American
> Presbyterian minister, Sylvester Graham, as foods that would repress
> the sex drive and thus eliminate the urge to masturbate, with all the
> ills that attend that unwholesome practice.

I believe that is why corn flakes were invented by the Kellogg brothers,
also. One of them had some unbelievable number of children. All were
adopted, of course, since he and his wife never had sex.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Geordie Guy > wrote:

> On 3/05/2010 6:51 PM, Gabby wrote:

> > Rutabagas are called rutabagas in some areas and turnips in the
> > Atlantic provinces. In the areas where they are called rutabagas you
> > often find turnips but you hardly ever see turnips in the areas where
> > rutabagas are called turnips. ;o) As for 'swedes', I've only ever
> > seen that in the dictionary.
>
> Swedes and turnips are different. Swedes are yellow with a purple
> "corona" and ball shaped. Turnips are white, and the same shape as
> carrots - right?

The turnips I've seen in the US are often white, but they are ball
shaped. Parsnips are white, and long and thin like many carrots. Note
that some carrots are ball shaped. Look at any of the recent pictures
that Steve Wertz has posted of carrots. They are all ball shaped.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"James Silverton" > wrote:



> Australians would seem to use the Indian name, "Besan", for chickpea
> flour. The package I bought was also labelled "Gram flour". Is that a
> mistake for "Graham flour" tho' I had no idea that Graham flour was made
> from chickpeas.

The second definition for gram in my US dictionary is:

chickpeas or other legumes used as food

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> What I especially like about Metrics is the liquid to solid to weight
> conversion. 1cc = 1ml = 1gram of liquid. QED!

I like that also, although you need to be a little careful, since it
really only applies to water. Most kitchen liquids are close enough,
though. Still, if you are measuring liquid mercury in the lab, don't
rely on that conversion!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On May 3, 9:11*am, Janet Baraclough >
wrote:
> The message >
> from spamtrap1888 > contains these words:
>
> > On May 2, 2:13*pm, Geordie Guy >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi all,
>
> > > I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients and what
> > > their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are, it's
> > > athttp://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>
> > > One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard any of
> > > these, instead saying that all the Australian English terms were
> > > commonplace. *That's not accurate, but some might be more common than
> > > others. *I'd be curious for people's comments about what is commonplace
> > > and what isn't, and any I might have missed.
> > You left out eggplant/aubergine, and zucchini/marrow.
>
> * Brits use courgette, where Americans use zucchini. Marrows are much
> bigger and used differently.

Hold off on picking your "courgette" and watch it become a marrow.

>
> > Brits don't tend to use foreign words for things except for French.
>
> * *Of course we do. Our language(and culinary terms) include words from
> many different languages ( including our previous colonies).
> Pizza, spaghetti, pasta, coleslaw, brocolli
>

I'll modify my assertion to "garden vegetables," and note broccoli as
an exception.

In article >,
Janet Baraclough > wrote:

> The message >
> from Dan Abel > contains these words:
>
> > In article >,
> > Janet Baraclough > wrote:
>
> > > The message >
> > > from "James Silverton" > contains
> > > these words:
>
> > > > Since we American are in the majority, one might, if one was to be
> > > > obnoxious, say standard English cooking terms with translations for
> > > > other dialects :-)
> > >
> > > You may be a majority in rfc, but hardly in Geordie's blog.
> > > afaik, America is not the majority of English speakers, either.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...l_distribution
>
> > As far as English as a first language, out of 375 million, 215 are in
> > the US.
>
> You're overlooking the far greater number of bi or multi lingual
> people today, who are absolutely fluent English speakers.

I didn't overlook them, I just didn't see them first. See the cite
below.

> English is the official language in 33 countries .

Interestingly enough, it's not the official language in the US, UK or
Australia. And in many countries where it is an official language, it
isn't the most common spoken language.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ing_population
>
> Janet
>

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On May 3, 4:16*am, "Brian Christiansen" >
wrote:
> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>
> ... > That's a rather pathetic reason (if indeed it is a reason) not to
> > change to an easier/better system, isn't it?
>
> Metric makes more matematical "sense" than conventional measurement, and it
> is perhaps easier for most people to use decimals rather than fractions
> (decimals are just "easier" fractions, they are still fractions). *However,
> I don't cook because it makes "mathematical" sense, I cook/bake because I
> enjoy the process and the finished product.
>
> The government/French or anyone else telling me how I am supposed to measure
> stuff because it is "better" takes the enjoyment out of it.
>
> Brian Christiansen

It isn't really a case of one system making more sense than the other
from a mathematically standpoint. They're simply in different bases.
Metric is base 10, the US customary system is base 2.

If you don't have the ability to make precise measurements, base 2 is
rather easier to work with. That is, if I gave you a gallon of water
and some empty containers, you could probably do a fairly respectable
job of dividing the water into halves and then halves again to get
quarts. On the other hand, if I gave you a liter of water, you'd
likely have a harder time measuring out deciliters by hand and eye.

--
Ernest

On 5/3/2010 10:39 AM, Giusi wrote:
> "blake > ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:1n7xukrrwvd98
> Giusi wrote:
>>>
>>> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
>>> >> because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add,
>>> tare
>>> etc. until done. You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or
>>> otherwise>> soiled cups, etc. Right now there are still recipes calling
>>> for ml of this
>>> or that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.
>>
>> i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with tare weight.>
>
> Since you asked! Metric cookery is done with weights. They do not have a
> bunch of various sized containers marked 125 ml, 150 ml, we use the scale.
> It's just plain easier once you have rewritten the recipes.

You are conflating "European cookery" with "metric cookery". Cooking
with weights has nothing to do with metric. It's simply a choice
someone made.

In article >,
Geordie Guy > wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients and what
> their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are, it's at
> http://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>
> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard any of
> these, instead saying that all the Australian English terms were
> commonplace. That's not accurate, but some might be more common than
> others. I'd be curious for people's comments about what is commonplace
> and what isn't, and any I might have missed.
>
> - G


http://vsack.homepage.t-online.de/rfc_faq0.html

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures

Giusi wrote:
>
> Since you asked! Metric cookery is done with weights. They do not have a
> bunch of various sized containers marked 125 ml, 150 ml, we use the scale.
> It's just plain easier once you have rewritten the recipes.

Having tried to cook by weight and by volume, even with several scales
on the counter, I find it bizzare that anyone would consider cooking by
weight easier. It's more accurate, produced more consistant results and
so on. Plenty of reasons but easier is definitely not in the list.
Cooking by volume is easier when tried side by side.

Here's why Americans don't want their day to day system changed to
metric - It's easier to cook by volume and there's no such thing as a
liter. I didn't save I was going to give a rantional or true reason now
did I? ;^)

J. wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:40:59 -0400:

> On 5/3/2010 10:39 AM, Giusi wrote:
>> "blake > ha scritto nel
>> messaggio news:1n7xukrrwvd98 Giusi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much
>>>> cleaner metric is,
>>> >>> because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it,
>>> >>> then add, tare, add,
>>>> tare
>>>> etc. until done. You don't have to wash up a bunch of
>>>> greasy or
>>> otherwise>>> soiled cups, etc. Right now there are still
>>> otherwise>>> recipes calling
>>>> for ml of this
>>>> or that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.
>>>
>>> i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with
>>> tare weight.>
>>
>> Since you asked! Metric cookery is done with weights. They do not
>> have a bunch of various sized containers marked 125
>> ml, 150 ml, we use the scale. It's just plain easier once you
>> have rewritten the recipes.

Fannie Farmer introduced the idea of moderately precise measurements in
cooking, no pinches or handfuls, and in her time volumetric measures
were more accessible than sets of weights in an average kitchen. Scales
have become less expensive and cumbersome and thus European home cooks
seem to prefer weights once they finally got the idea of measurement but
American (and often British) cooks follow Fannie. I don't know whether
volume measure is faster or slower but it works well enough. One set of
spoons and one of cups can be hung on a pegboard and a scale capable of
precisely measuring from a 1/4 teaspoon to 2 cups by weight is not
really cheap.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >,
Geordie Guy > wrote:

> On 3/05/2010 7:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:13:35 +1000, Geordie Guy wrote:

> > Tomato sauce, topmato puree, and tomato paste are all three
> > different forms of processed tomato used here in the US.
>
> Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It depends on the area of
> the US, and apparently what phase the moon is in.

Not really. The first three links are to pages at the United States
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service.

SOI for tomato paste
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...STELDEV3010852

SOI for tomato catsup:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...STELDEV3010835

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...STELDEV3010853

Info about concentrated tomato products
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title21....29.2.1.7.html


--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures

In article
>,
ewdotson > wrote:


> It isn't really a case of one system making more sense than the other
> from a mathematically standpoint. They're simply in different bases.
> Metric is base 10, the US customary system is base 2.
>
> If you don't have the ability to make precise measurements, base 2 is
> rather easier to work with. That is, if I gave you a gallon of water
> and some empty containers, you could probably do a fairly respectable
> job of dividing the water into halves and then halves again to get
> quarts. On the other hand, if I gave you a liter of water, you'd
> likely have a harder time measuring out deciliters by hand and eye.

Base 2? 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1728 yards in a mile.
Quick! How many inches in .0138 miles?

Want volume? How many teaspoons in a tablespoon? How many tablespoons
in a cup? How many cups in a fifth of wine?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"Giusi" > wrote:

> "Geordie Guy" ha scritto nel messaggio
> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>
> >> Tomato sauce, topmato puree, and tomato paste are all three>> different
> >> forms of processed tomato used here in the US.
> >
> > Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It depends on the area of> the
> > US, and apparently what phase the moon is in.
>
> No, that's not true. The FDA has rules on what must be in there to be
> called this or that. If you make it differently, you are forced to call it
> "imitation" or whatever even if your product is btter and more like
> homemade. Mayonnaise and ice cream are two notable examples.

Right, and I just posted a few links to the Standards of Identity pages
for tomato paste, catsup, puree.


--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures

On May 3, 5:00*am, Sqwertz > wrote:

> "Green Onions" are more common than Scallion, and Spring Onion is
> not a scallion or green onion.


A lot of my recipes always call for scallions, and I wish they WOULD
call them green onions. I always have to do a double think about
scallions and shallots. But, if I happen to confuse the two, I doubt
the taste would be abhorrent.

On Mon, 3 May 2010 21:12:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

>Giusi wrote:
>>
>> Since you asked! Metric cookery is done with weights. They do not have a
>> bunch of various sized containers marked 125 ml, 150 ml, we use the scale.
>> It's just plain easier once you have rewritten the recipes.
>
>Having tried to cook by weight and by volume, even with several scales
>on the counter, I find it bizzare that anyone would consider cooking by
>weight easier.

Depends on the ingredients and the quantity specified. It's much
easier to weigh dry ingredients in any quantity more than a cup...
items like sugar,flour, beans, and pasta are more convenient to
weigh... and it's certainly more convenient to weigh meats.

Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> Geordie Guy > wrote:
>
>> > Tomato sauce, topmato puree, and tomato paste are all three
>> > different forms of processed tomato used here in the US.
>>
>> Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It depends on the area of
>> the US, and apparently what phase the moon is in.
>
> Or, you could take the word of actual Americans who actually see
> these products in the store, buy them and use them. You might try it,
> since you asked for input.

Reporting as an American who reads labels - The ingredients on the
labels for these items changes over the years. A decade ago I looked
for tomato paste that was just tomatoes. I think I went through 3-4
brands that had added high fructose corn syrup before I found Contadina
brand. Last year I read the labels on all of the brands again. Now all
are just tomatoes.

It might not depend on the phase of the moon, but it does depend on the
phase of the generation.