Anyone know?

avocado wrote:
> Anyone know?

Depends a lot on which rice... but generally 1 cup raw equals 3 cups
cooked. The best you could do is before cooking weigh both the rice
and water, then extrapolate for evaporation... or simply run a test
batch. What are you preparing, I've never seen a recipe calling for
cooked rice by weight... and why would it matter if you cooked a little
extra, nothing costs less than rice, which is the primary reason so
many zillions subsist on it. Btw, I've never seen a recipe calling for
avocado by weight either, or sold by weight... you are either a troll
or dumber than a banana.

Sheldon

avocado wrote:

> Anyone know?

Approximately 1 cup if boiled in 2 parts water. That means
2 cups of water - 16 oz., about 450 grams. The rice weighs
a lot less than the water. There will be a little bit of
evaporation but most of the water is absorbed by the rice.

If you need something more precise than that you are going
to have to experiment, or you can just cook a little extra
and find something to do with an ounce or two or cooked
rice.

I'd rather be a troll than a stone jerk, thanks for your response.

Dave Smith wrote:
> avocado wrote:
>
>> Anyone know?
>
> Approximately 1 cup if boiled in 2 parts water. That means
> 2 cups of water - 16 oz., about 450 grams. The rice weighs
> a lot less than the water. There will be a little bit of
> evaporation but most of the water is absorbed by the rice.
>
> If you need something more precise than that you are going
> to have to experiment, or you can just cook a little extra
> and find something to do with an ounce or two or cooked
> rice.

Cooked rice freezes perfectly well. No reason not to make a little extra.

Jill

Dave Smith wrote:
> avocado wrote:
>
> > Anyone know?
>
> Approximately 1 cup if boiled in 2 parts water. That means
> 2 cups of water - 16 oz., about 450 grams. The rice weighs
> a lot less than the water. There will be a little bit of
> evaporation but most of the water is absorbed by the rice.

You are truly a mental midget... the fact that rice absorbs water in no
way negates the weight of the rice.... what a jerk... Dave, go jump in
a lake, acccording to you the world would be rid of 200lbs of shit.

Rice does NOT weigh a lot less than water... a cup of raw white rice
weighs 7 ounces, one ounce less than a cup of water (1 cup of water
happens to weigh 8 ozs). Cooking 1 cup of rice in 2 cups of water does
NOT cancel out any of the weight of the rice (7 ozs is constant)...
only that water which evaporates is lost. But there are so many
variables, type of rice, type of pot/lid, temperature and time
cooked... the only way to know with any degree of acuracy is to weigh
AFTER cooking... cook a little extra and weigh after cooking. But then
we need to know if that rice is weighed immediately or after it cools.
I'm still waiting for this recipe that calls for weighing cooked
rice... must be for the birds.

Sheldon

avocado wrote:

> Anyone know?

About 170g.

gtoomey

Sheldon wrote:

> I'm still waiting for this recipe that calls for weighing cooked
> rice... must be for the birds.
>
> Sheldon
>

Like these?


Fried Rice with Salted Fish

Ingredients
# 400g leftover cooked rice, kept overnight
# 75g prawns, shelled
# 50g salted fish, chopped and soaked
# 2 tbsp frozen green peas
# 2 eggs
# 3 tbsp oil
# 1 tsp sesame oil

Seasoning:
# 1/2 tsp salt
# 1/2 tsp chicken stock granules
# 1/4 tsp sugar
# 1 tsp light soy sauce
# Dash of pepper

Garnishing:
# 1 tbsp chopped spring onions
# 1 tbsp chopped coriander leaves
# 1 tbsp chopped red chilli

Method
Heat oil in a wok until hot, fry salted fish until crispy and golden.
Dish out and set aside.

Heat remaining oil and add in sesame oil. Add prawns and fry until
heated through. Put in the rice and toss briefly and add in seasoning.
Stir-fry well to combine.

Make a well in the centre of the rice. Beat in the eggs. Add a dash of
pepper and cover the eggs with the rice for one to two minutes.

Toss and fry rice well until well heated through. Should it be a bit too
dry, add a little more oil to glaze. Add in the peas and toss well to
combine. Put back the fried salted fish to mix.




Incredible Pork Fried Rice

Serves 4 Prep: 10 minutes Cooking time: 15 minutes

2 OXO chicken stock cubes
450g/1lb pork fillet
2 tbsp dark soy sauce
2 tbsp runny honey
2 tbsp vegetable oil
1 red pepper, seeded and cut into short strips
1 bunch spring onions, trimmed and chopped
2 cloves garlic, crushed
200g/7oz spring cabbage, shredded
400g frozen cooked rice or precooked rice
1 tbsp sesame seeds, toasted (optional)

# Cut the pork into thin strips. Put the soy sauce and honey into a
bowl, add the pork and turn to coat all over.
# Heat a tablespoon of the oil in a large non-stick frying pan, or wok.
When hot add the pork and stir fry for 4-5 minutes until browned all
over. Remove from the pan onto a plate.
# Heat the rest of the oil to the pan, add the pepper, spring onions and
garlic and toss over a high heat for 2-3 minutes. Add the shredded
cabbage and toss together for a further 2-3 minutes.
# Crumble in the 2 chicken stock cubes, add 4 tbsp water then the rice
and return the pork to the pan, cook together for 3-4 minutes until the
rice is hot.
# Serve with a scattering of sesame seeds if wished.

George wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > I'm still waiting for this recipe that calls for weighing cooked
> > rice... must be for the birds.
> >
> > Sheldon
> >
>
> Like these?
>
>
> Fried Rice with Salted Fish
>
> Ingredients
> # 400g leftover cooked rice, kept overnight
> # 75g prawns, shelled
> # 50g salted fish, chopped and soaked
> # 2 tbsp frozen green peas
> # 2 eggs
> # 3 tbsp oil
> # 1 tsp sesame oil
>
> Incredible Pork Fried Rice
> >
> 2 OXO chicken stock cubes
> 450g/1lb pork fillet
> 2 tbsp dark soy sauce
> 2 tbsp runny honey
> 2 tbsp vegetable oil
> 1 red pepper, seeded and cut into short strips
> 1 bunch spring onions, trimmed and chopped
> 2 cloves garlic, crushed
> 200g/7oz spring cabbage, shredded
> 400g frozen cooked rice or precooked rice
> 1 tbsp sesame seeds, toasted (optional)

Those are called "Anal Fried Rice". No one weighs ingredients for
fried rice... I got your runny hunny.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:

> avocado wrote:
>
>>Anyone know?
>
> Depends a lot on which rice... but generally 1 cup raw equals 3 cups
> cooked. The best you could do is before cooking weigh both the rice
> and water, then extrapolate for evaporation...

"The best..." Bwah. "...extrapolate for evaporation..." That's a lot
like, um, guessing.

> or simply run a test
> batch. What are you preparing, I've never seen a recipe calling for
> cooked rice by weight...

....and Shecky the Wizard has seen *every* recipe on earth...

> and why would it matter if you cooked a little
> extra, nothing costs less than rice, which is the primary reason so
> many zillions subsist on it. Btw, I've never seen a recipe calling for
> avocado by weight either, or sold by weight... you are either a troll
> or dumber than a banana.

Or someone who doesn't use the normal American volumetric approach.
Anyone from virtually any other country on earth weighs recipe
ingredients for the sake of precision and consistency. Just like
professionals in the U.S.

But what would our resident U.S. Navy cook (retarded) know about
precision or professionalism?

Pastorio

Sheldon wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>Sheldon wrote:
>>
>>>I'm still waiting for this recipe that calls for weighing cooked
>>>rice... must be for the birds.
>>>
>>>Sheldon

>>Like these?
>>
>>Fried Rice with Salted Fish
>>
>>Ingredients
>># 400g leftover cooked rice, kept overnight
>># 75g prawns, shelled
>># 50g salted fish, chopped and soaked
>># 2 tbsp frozen green peas
>># 2 eggs
>># 3 tbsp oil
>># 1 tsp sesame oil
>>
>>Incredible Pork Fried Rice
>>
>>2 OXO chicken stock cubes
>>450g/1lb pork fillet
>>2 tbsp dark soy sauce
>>2 tbsp runny honey
>>2 tbsp vegetable oil
>>1 red pepper, seeded and cut into short strips
>>1 bunch spring onions, trimmed and chopped
>>2 cloves garlic, crushed
>>200g/7oz spring cabbage, shredded
>>400g frozen cooked rice or precooked rice
>>1 tbsp sesame seeds, toasted (optional)


> No one weighs ingredients for fried rice...
>
> Sheldon

Speaks for itself, no...?

Bob

Sheldon wrote:

> Those are called "Anal Fried Rice". No one weighs ingredients for
> fried rice... I got your runny hunny.
>
> Sheldon
>

There are lots of people who follow recipes. That isn't my style but I
might do it the first time to get a feel for something I have never done
before. Following a recipe or asking questions when something is not
clear doesn't make someone "dumber than a banana..."

My guess is that the OP probably never made a dish requiring cooked rice
before, found a recipe that required a defined amount of cooked rice and
was trying to work it backwards to determine how much rice to cook.

Sheldon wrote:

> > Approximately 1 cup if boiled in 2 parts water. That means
> > 2 cups of water - 16 oz., about 450 grams. The rice weighs
> > a lot less than the water. There will be a little bit of
> > evaporation but most of the water is absorbed by the rice.
>
> You are truly a mental midget... the fact that rice absorbs water in no
> way negates the weight of the rice.... what a jerk... Dave, go jump in
> a lake, acccording to you the world would be rid of 200lbs of shit.
>
> Rice does NOT weigh a lot less than water... a cup of raw white rice
> weighs 7 ounces, one ounce less than a cup of water (1 cup of water
> happens to weigh 8 ozs). Cooking 1 cup of rice in 2 cups of water does
> NOT cancel out any of the weight of the rice (7 ozs is constant)...
> only that water which evaporates is lost. But there are so many
> variables, type of rice, type of pot/lid, temperature and time
> cooked... the only way to know with any degree of acuracy is to weigh
> AFTER cooking... cook a little extra and weigh after cooking. But then
> we need to know if that rice is weighed immediately or after it cools.
> I'm still waiting for this recipe that calls for weighing cooked
> rice... must be for the birds.

Holy cow NancyBoy, you are such a ****ing genius. Did you miss the word
"approximately"? One cup of rice with 2 cups water makes approximately 3
cups cooked rice. Using your 7 oz. constant for rice, that would mean
that you are starting off with 23 oz. total. The OP needs 400 grams, a
little less than a pound. That 1 cup of rice I suggested would provide him
with the 400 grams that he needs and he will have a few oz. leftover, as I
suggested. No one said anything about the weight of the rice disappearing.

Being such a professional cook, I am sure that you realize that the amount
of rice in a recipe is not required to be exact, and if the OP thought that
it looked like a little too much for the recipe he could leave a little
out. But what he wanted to know was how much rice he needed to cook, and
it looks like 1 cup is going to give him enough.

George wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > Those are called "Anal Fried Rice". No one weighs ingredients for
> > fried rice... I got your runny hunny.
> >
> > Sheldon
> >
>
> There are lots of people who follow recipes. That isn't my style but
I
> might do it the first time to get a feel for something I have never
done
> before. Following a recipe or asking questions when something is not
> clear doesn't make someone "dumber than a banana..."
>
> My guess is that the OP probably never made a dish requiring cooked
rice
> before, found a recipe that required a defined amount of cooked rice
and
> was trying to work it backwards to determine how much rice to cook.

You don't get it. For novice cooks it's even more important for
recipes to indicate the quantity of rice by volume... makes as much
sense for a recipe to indicate a pound of cooked rice as it is to
indicate a pound of cooked onions. Recipes are much easier to follow
and will be more likely to yield predictable results when ingredients
are listed in *standardized* format. For cooked rice the standard
recipe format is to indicate volume, not weight, because a good recipe
does not assume various cooks all prepare rice the same. When I come
across a recipe that lists a major ingredient in non-standard format I
deem it suspect in all of it's parts and discard it. Anyway, for fried
rice there is no reason to measure anything... you mean to say if it's
pork fried rice and calls for 4 ounces diced roast pork and your piece
of roast pork weighs 5 ounces you are going to toss that one measly
ounce... and the same with the rice and all other ingredients... normal
brained cooks don't cook back asswards. You are obviously one of those
novice cooks, extremely novice.

Sheldon

Dave Smith wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > > Approximately 1 cup if boiled in 2 parts water. That means
> > > 2 cups of water - 16 oz., about 450 grams. The rice weighs
> > > a lot less than the water. There will be a little bit of
> > > evaporation but most of the water is absorbed by the rice.
> >
> > You are truly a mental midget... the fact that rice absorbs water
in no
> > way negates the weight of the rice.... what a jerk... Dave, go jump
in
> > a lake, acccording to you the world would be rid of 200lbs of shit.
> >
> > Rice does NOT weigh a lot less than water... a cup of raw white
rice
> > weighs 7 ounces, one ounce less than a cup of water (1 cup of water
> > happens to weigh 8 ozs). Cooking 1 cup of rice in 2 cups of water
does
> > NOT cancel out any of the weight of the rice (7 ozs is constant)...
> > only that water which evaporates is lost. But there are so many
> > variables, type of rice, type of pot/lid, temperature and time
> > cooked... the only way to know with any degree of acuracy is to
weigh
> > AFTER cooking... cook a little extra and weigh after cooking. But
then
> > we need to know if that rice is weighed immediately or after it
cools.
> > I'm still waiting for this recipe that calls for weighing cooked
> > rice... must be for the birds.
>
> Holy cow NancyBoy, you are such a ****ing genius. Did you miss the
word
> "approximately"? One cup of rice with 2 cups water makes
approximately 3
> cups cooked rice. Using your 7 oz. constant for rice, that would
mean
> that you are starting off with 23 oz. total. The OP needs 400 grams,
a
> little less than a pound. That 1 cup of rice I suggested would
provide him
> with the 400 grams that he needs and he will have a few oz. leftover,
as I
> suggested. No one said anything about the weight of the rice
disappearing.
>
> Being such a professional cook, I am sure that you realize that the
amount
> of rice in a recipe is not required to be exact, and if the OP
thought that
> it looked like a little too much for the recipe he could leave a
little
> out. But what he wanted to know was how much rice he needed to cook,
and
> it looks like 1 cup is going to give him enough.

You're a functionally illiterate *******. WTF is a "NancyBoy"?

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:

>
> You don't get it. For novice cooks it's even more important for
> recipes to indicate the quantity of rice by volume... makes as much
> sense for a recipe to indicate a pound of cooked rice as it is to
> indicate a pound of cooked onions.

And how is that Nancyboy? A lot of cooks measure by weight. A lot of
cookbooks indicate weights rather than volume. Not only do they measure by
weight, they can justify it with sound logic.

> When I come
> across a recipe that lists a major ingredient in non-standard format I
> deem it suspect in all of it's parts and discard it.

That's a shame. If you had half as many brains as most people with any
experience in a kitchen you would be able to figure it out and adapt.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:04:49 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

> For *any* cook, weight is a more exact measure. Rather than silly
> measures like "1/2 a large onion, chopped" if it says "4 ounces of
> chopped onion," there's no guesswork necessary. And novice cooks are
> precisely the ones who can benefit from weight indications because they
> don't have to worry about - guess about - the empty space in a cup or
> what a large onion is.

We're talking precision vs. kitchen economy - and we have to shake out
our "farmer genes" do it.

It's easy to waffle and say that weight depends on moisture content,
but let's assume it's fresh and we're talking home kitchen amounts.
I'm don't throw out a small piece of onion (or any other
vegetable/meat) because it is slightly over the weight and I'm not
going to cut into a new one because the weight is slightly under.

FYI: I don't do that for cup measures either.



Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

sf wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:04:49 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> For *any* cook, weight is a more exact measure. Rather than silly
>> measures like "1/2 a large onion, chopped" if it says "4 ounces of
>> chopped onion," there's no guesswork necessary. And novice cooks are
>> precisely the ones who can benefit from weight indications because they
>> don't have to worry about - guess about - the empty space in a cup or
>> what a large onion is.
>
> We're talking precision vs. kitchen economy -

Nah. We're talking about having approaches that reduce guesswork. And
weight does that better than volume measure.

> I'm don't throw out a small piece of onion (or any other
> vegetable/meat) because it is slightly over the weight and I'm not
> going to cut into a new one because the weight is slightly under.

But in order to *know* if you're over or under and to make the next
judgement about whether to add or subtract or not, you need to have
measured.

> FYI: I don't do that for cup measures either.

Recipes aren't absolute. They're guides. But you still have to know the
directions or you get lost. But the issue that led to this note was
Sheldon's insistence that *only* volume measure was rational. And that
*only* volume measure was THE standard.

Pastorio

In article .com>,
"avocado" > wrote:

> Anyone know?

According to Shop'NCook:
100g of cooked rice contains 68.61g of water
100g of dry rice contains 12.89g of water

From this, one can calculate the weight of dry rice corresponding to
400g cooked rice: (follow fuzzy calculations...)

Let's dub EDR (extra-dry rice) the part of rice without any water.
400g cooked rice contains 4x(100-68.61)g EDR
100g of dry rice contains 100-12.89 g = 87.11g EDR, meaning 1g EDR
yields 100/87.11 g dry rice.
Weight of dry rice giving 400g cooked rice: 4x(100-68.61)x100/87.11 =
144.14 g

Other way to calculate:
According to Shop'NCook:
1 cup dry rice weights 195 g
3 cup cooked rice weights 585 g

Using the data that 1 cup of dry rice gives 3 cup of cooked rice, 400g
cooked rice corresponds to 195x400/585 g = 133.33 g dry rice.

The two results correspond nicely within a 10% error.

Mite
http://www.shopncook.com

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> Sheldon wrote:
>

<snipped>

Which is sadder, being sheldon or spending so much time responding to him?


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Peter Aitken wrote:
> [snip]
> <snipped>
>
> Which is sadder, being sheldon or spending so much time responding to
> him?
>
LOL. They can't help it, they have so much in common. -aem

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

> Recipes aren't absolute. They're guides. But you still have to know the
> directions or you get lost. But the issue that led to this note was
> Sheldon's insistence that *only* volume measure was rational. And that
> *only* volume measure was THE standard.

Pathetic isn't it. Here is a guy who claims to have been a professional. One
thing this amateur has learned over the years is that it is quite common for a
lot of European recipes to use weight instead of volume. Then you cited the
manual used by the US Navy manual, Sheldon's old culinary employer, and it
uses weight. But this so called professional insists that it is not a proper
way to measure ingredients for cooking. He went all Nancyboy at my suggestion
that the OP needed to cook 1 cup of raw rice. Son if a gun if the correct
answer didn't turn out to be c up of raw rice. What a pro. LOL

Dave Smith wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> > Recipes aren't absolute. They're guides. But you still have to know
the
> > directions or you get lost. But the issue that led to this note was
> > Sheldon's insistence that *only* volume measure was rational. And
that
> > *only* volume measure was THE standard.
>
> Pathetic isn't it. Here is a guy who claims to have been a
professional.


Military recipes like most all institutional recipes list ingredient
weights, but NOT for the cook, the weights are given for accounting
purposes ONLY. Monthly menus are made up by the chief commissaryman and
submitted to the supply officer... the listed recipe weights are used
to calculate inventory and factoring cost ONLY. In fact there are NO
SCALES of any kind in US Navy galleys, no need as provisions are
supplied in standardized weights/volumes to facilitate the typical
recipes. Hardly anything is measured, most all ingredients are used by
the full case, can, sackful, crate, etc... once brought to the galley
and opened the entire amount is used (nothing goes back to the storage
lockers, if not used in 12 hours it goes to Davey Jones'locker), ie.
flour is supplied in 10lb bags, six to a sack, whereas recipes use a
number of ten pound bags (no need to weigh/measure, weight is already
marked on the bag (10lbs, DUH), whereas when 5lbs is needed a 10lb bag
is sliced in half with a bakers bench knife (WOP, yup, that's the
sound, WOP!), that's as close to measuring as it gets, which is no
different from how flour is measured at typical neighborhood
bakeries... if you think professional bakers actually do the Mothra
Stewart micro-measuring dance you're nutz, in fact if you showed up for
work toting a scale you'd be laughed out the back door... they have no
scales either, don't need any stinkin' scale, see reason above (when
baking 12 cupcakes you measure, when baking 1000 cupcakes there's no
need to measure anything... if you end up with 1030 cupcakes, so what).

Suprisingly, even though more food is prepared than is typically
submitted for, very little food gets wasted and the accounting somehow
manages to stay within budget... that's because US Navy cooks are
simply the best trained in the world... certain ENVIOUS assholes may
not like to hear it but it's fact.

The only scales aboard ship are in the post office and sick bay, there
are none in the galley. Dave, I know with absolute certainty that your
asshole buddy WOPster has never cooked anything, can only write
[volumes of verbiage] about whatever he can extrapolate to suit/sway
from surfing, but with little comprehension of the reality... it's
patently obvious he has no actual hands on cooking experience
whatsoever, NONE... apparently the only thing he excels at is typing
fast, or simply has a LOT of free time.

Dave, the WOPster is a prevaricator and you swear to it, which makes
you his asshole buddy and flunky. I on the other hand don't need a
cheering section nor do I want one nor would I ever deign to be a
cheering section... I know what I know and am my own man. You are a
FLUNKY, Dave... says a lot about what a small insecure worm of a man
you are.

Now hear this... all hands stand by for a grossly convoluted *ZILLION*
word rebuttal. <G>

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Sheldon, departing (I'm outta here)

Sheldon wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>>
>>>Recipes aren't absolute. They're guides. But you still have to know the
>>>directions or you get lost. But the issue that led to this note was
>>>Sheldon's insistence that *only* volume measure was rational. And that
>>>*only* volume measure was THE standard.
>>
>>Pathetic isn't it. Here is a guy who claims to have been a professional.

> Military recipes like most all institutional recipes list ingredient
> weights, but NOT for the cook, the weights are given for accounting
> purposes ONLY.

Sorry. No. The cookbook recipes indicate weights and the notes say, "The
amount specified for each ingredient is comparable to its weight and
should be used only when scales for weighing are not available. More
accurate results can be expected if the ingredients can be weighed
instead of measured."

Very simple. Not for accounting; for cooking.

> Monthly menus are made up by the chief commissaryman and
> submitted to the supply officer... the listed recipe weights are used
> to calculate inventory and factoring cost ONLY. In fact there are NO
> SCALES of any kind in US Navy galleys, no need as provisions are
> supplied in standardized weights/volumes to facilitate the typical
> recipes.

And yet, the recipes in the U.S. Navy cookbook disagree with that. All
recipes are for 100 portions.

Baking powder biscuits and short cake = 14 pounds flour
Coffee cake = 5 pounds flour
Apple torte = 5 pounds 8 ounces
dumplings = 6 pounds
Gingerbread = 7 pounds 8 ounces
Meat pie crust = 6 pounds 12 ounces

What standard size packages are these?

> Hardly anything is measured, most all ingredients are used by
> the full case, can, sackful, crate, etc... once brought to the galley
> and opened the entire amount is used (nothing goes back to the storage
> lockers, if not used in 12 hours it goes to Davey Jones'locker), ie.
> flour is supplied in 10lb bags, six to a sack, whereas recipes use a
> number of ten pound bags (no need to weigh/measure, weight is already
> marked on the bag (10lbs, DUH), whereas when 5lbs is needed a 10lb bag
> is sliced in half with a bakers bench knife (WOP, yup, that's the
> sound, WOP!), that's as close to measuring as it gets,

And yet, the recipes in the U.S. Navy cookbook disagree with that. All
recipes are for 100 portions.

Whole wheat griddle cakes = 8 pounds flour
corn griddle cakes = 6 pounds 12 ounces
muffins = 9 pounds
molasses bran muffins = 4 pounds

Perhaps when the results don't matter and the cook doesn't care about
the results no measuring takes place. But anywhere food is produced,
particularly volume production, there are measures used. Period.

> which is no
> different from how flour is measured at typical neighborhood
> bakeries... if you think professional bakers actually do the Mothra
> Stewart micro-measuring dance you're nutz, in fact if you showed up for
> work toting a scale you'd be laughed out the back door... they have no
> scales either, don't need any stinkin' scale, see reason above (when
> baking 12 cupcakes you measure, when baking 1000 cupcakes there's no
> need to measure anything... if you end up with 1030 cupcakes, so what).

Spoken like a true mess hall cook who has never run a food business for
profit and who doesn't mind wasting somebody else's money.

Here's what it says in "Professional Cooking" by Wayne Gisslen. "Bakers
generally talk about "formulas" rather than "recipes." If this sounds
more to you like the chemistry lab than the kitchen, it is with good
reason. The bakeshop is very much like a chemistry laboratory in the
scientific accuracy of all the procedures and in the complex reactions
that take place during mixing and baking.

"MEASUREMENT
"*All ingredients must be weighed.* Accuracy of measurement, as we have
said many times, is critical in the bakeshop. Measurement is by weight
rather than by volume measure, because weighing is much more accurate.
Unlike in recipes for the home baker, you will not see a professional
baker's formula calling for 6 cups of flour."

He goes on to talk about the percentage system bakers use.

"BAKER'S PERCENTAGES
"Bakers use a simple but versatile system of percentages for expressing
their formulas. Baker's percentages express the amount of each
ingredient used as a percentage of the amount of flour used.
"To put it differently, the percentage of each ingredient is its total
weight divided by the weight of the flour, multiplied by 100%, or

Weight of ingredient/weight of flour X 100% = % of ingredient

"Thus flour is always 100%. Any ingredient that weighs the same as the
flour is also given as 100%. The following ingredients from a cake
formula illustrate how these percentages are used. (Note that numbers
may be rounded off for practical measuring.)"

He offers examples of the way baker's recipes are written:

"Ingredients Weight Percentage
Cake flour 5 lb 100%
Sugar 5 lb 100%
Baking powder 4 oz 5%
Salt 2 oz 2.5%
Emulsified shortening 2 lb 8 oz 50%
Skim milk 3 lb 60%
Egg whites 3 lb 60%

"The advantage of using baker's *percentages* is that the formula is
easily adapted for any yield, and single ingredients may be varied
without changing the whole formulation. Please remember that these
numbers do not refer to the percentage of the total yield. They are
simply a way of expressing *ingredient proportions.*"

> Suprisingly, even though more food is prepared than is typically
> submitted for, very little food gets wasted and the accounting somehow
> manages to stay within budget... that's because US Navy cooks are
> simply the best trained in the world... certain ENVIOUS assholes may
> not like to hear it but it's fact.

U.S. Navy cooks are pretty well trained. Some of them compete in
national and international competitions and generally do well. Hardly
"the best trained in the world."

> The only scales aboard ship are in the post office and sick bay, there
> are none in the galley.

Um, the cookbook says, "Recipes are important. To obtain the desired
results it is advisable to have a copy of the recipe at hand during food
preparation. The recipe should be read several times...before starting
to prepare the food, and directions should be carefully followed."

Says ingredients should be weighed. Period.

> Dave, I know with absolute certainty that your
> asshole buddy WOPster has never cooked anything, can only write
> [volumes of verbiage] about whatever he can extrapolate to suit/sway
> from surfing, but with little comprehension of the reality... it's
> patently obvious he has no actual hands on cooking experience
> whatsoever, NONE... apparently the only thing he excels at is typing
> fast, or simply has a LOT of free time.

<LOL> So much for Shecky's "absolute certainty."

> Dave, the WOPster is a prevaricator and you swear to it, which makes
> you his asshole buddy and flunky. I on the other hand don't need a
> cheering section nor do I want one nor would I ever deign to be a
> cheering section... I know what I know and am my own man. You are a
> FLUNKY, Dave... says a lot about what a small insecure worm of a man
> you are.
>
> Now hear this... all hands stand by for a grossly convoluted *ZILLION*
> word rebuttal. <G>

So, NO rebuttal...? Shocking, I tell you.

> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .
>
> Sheldon, departing (I'm outta here)

You certainly are.

Pastorio

Peter Aitken wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>>Sheldon wrote:
>>
> <snipped>
>
> Which is sadder, being sheldon or spending so much time responding to him?

Not much is sadder than someone whose supercilious smugness blinds him.

Pastorio

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>
>
> <snipped>
>
> Which is sadder, being sheldon or spending so much time responding
> to
> him?
>
One has no choice, the other appearantly like to hump the other's leg
like a mangy mutt

BOB wrote:
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>>Which is sadder, being sheldon or spending so much time responding
>>to him?
>>
> One has no choice, the other appearantly like to hump the other's leg
> like a mangy mutt

Oh, do get new material.

And get off my leg...

Pastorio