I’m sick of having to look up what country an author is from to know which variant of teaspoon they’re using or how big their lemons are compared to mine. It’s amateur hour out there, I want those homely family recipes up to standard!

What are some good lessons from scientific documentation which should be encouraged in cooking recipes? What are some issues with recipes you’ve seen which have tripped you up?

  • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Recipes should be written with the quantities in the procedure. So instead of reading

    Mix flour, salt and sugar in a large mixing bowl

    It should be

    Mix flour (300g), salt (1/4 tsp), and sugar (20g) in a large mixing bowl

    That way you don’t need to read/refer to ingredient list, read/refer to ingredient list, etc

    • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I really appreciate the recent trend of done cooking websites to do this on mouseover. Best of both worlds for readability and convenience. Not great when you’re in the kitchen and not using a mouse, I’d hope a mobile or printable version just writes it out like you did there. Love Auto scaling recipes too where you can click to adjust number of servings, bonus points if they have some logic so they don’t tell you to use .71 eggs or something.

  • mangaskahn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    American here: can we please have measurements by mass not by volume and metric units. It would make repeatability so much easier.

  • cerement@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago
    • examples from professional recipes – measurements are given as weights (in grams) – no worrying about how much brown sugar in a “packed cup” or if your cup of flour has been sifted enough or what exactly is meant by a “cup of spinach”
    • examples from baking recipes – measurements are given as percentages – allows easy scaling up and down
    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Also, putting the amounts in the directions and not just at the beginning.

      Fucking genius. Someone get this man a promotion

  • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think a major one is to try to avoid trusting in unfounded precision.

    If you want to make lemonade like a chemist, you don’t just weigh out some lemon juice and add it to water and sugar. You measure sugar and citric acid content of the batch of lemon juice, then calculate how much water will dilute it to the right pH, and how much sugar will bring it to your desired osmolarity. In reality, no one is going to do that unless they run a business and need a completely repeatable. If you get lazy and just weigh out the same mass of stuff with a new batch of lemon juice, you could be way off. Better to just make it and taste it then adjust. Fruits, vegetables, and meats are not consistent products, so you can’t treat them as such.

    If i were to be writing recipes for cooking, I would have fruits/vegetables/meats/eggs listed by quantity, not mass (e.g., 1 onion, 1 egg), but i would include a rough mass to account for regional variations in size (maybe your carrots are twice the size of mine). Spices i would not give amounts for because they are always to taste. At most, I would give ratios (e.g. 50% thyme, 25% oregano). Lots of people have old, preground spices, so they will need to use much more than someone using whole spices freshly ground. I think salt could be given as a percentage of total mass of other ingredients, but desired salinity is a wide range, so i would have to aim low and let people adjust upward.

    Baking is a little different, and I really like cookbooks that use bakers percentages, however, they don’t work well for ingredients like egg that I would want to use in discrete increments. For anything with flour, I would specify brand and/or protein level. A European trying to follow an American bread recipe will likely end up disappointed because European flour usually has lower protein (growing conditions are different), which will result in different outcomes.

    I will say in defense of teaspoons, most home cooks have scales that have a 1 gram resolution, though accuracy is questionable if you are only measuring a few grams or less. Teaspoons (and their smaller fractions) are going to be more accurate for those ingredients. Personally, I just have a second, smaller scale with greater resolution.

  • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I just want cups gone for solids (and viscous stuff). It’s such an idiotic system. 1 cup of diced carrot … wtf how should I go about measuring that in the grocery store? Just tell me 1 large carrot or by weight.

    I know it doesn’t need to be exact but it just doesn’t make sense to do it this way. Even with imperial units, you have ounces, why not use that?

  • chaosCruiser@futurology.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Food science is truly complex, so in order to accurately replicate a recipe, you need to standardize pretty much everything. Currently, there’s plenty of variation and you just compensate by winging it and keeping an eye on the pot a little longer.

    In order to reduce variation, we need to standardize the following:

    • ingredients: The composition of meat and carrots varies a lot.
    • heating methods: An oven set to 200 °C is not exactly 200 ° at every location and all the time.
    • weigh everything: Volumes are complicated and messy.
    • use a timer: This applies to all actions like stirring, heating etc.

    All materials and methods should be accurately documented, because things like the coating or weight of your pan can introduce unwanted variability.

  • xavier666@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    You should check out the super old website called “cooking for engineers”.

  • bblkargonaut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m an American biochemist, I also never learned the english system because my school transitioned to metric too fast. The mental burden of trying to cook using english units after working all day in the lab using that same part of my brain leads me to just not want to cook 95% of the time. But when I do cook I have optimized processes for my few simple recipes. When I bake I usually use a metric recipe or convert a English one, and optimize it before making a large batch of something.

  • chobeat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Cooking is not a standardized or reproducible process at home, because the variables outside of anybody’s control. Modern mass recipes give only the illusion of being reproducible algorithms, but they will never achieve that.

    Grappling with the complexity of different tooling, supply chains, seasonality and so on, all within a recipe, is a futile effort. That complexity must be handled outside the recipe.

  • dumples@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I was a professional chemist for around ~7 and love to cook. My suggestion is to stop expecting precision with an imprecise and natural product like cooking. Are your lemons larger? They also might be sweeter, tarter, juicer etc. than others. Same thing with teaspoons. The spices you are using may be more or less concentrated than who wrote it.

    Lean into the uncertainty and be free. Double or even triple spices to see if you like it. Measure with your heart

    • Zenith@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      That’s just people who know how to cook, beginners want to follow recipes to a T and almost always come up with sub par results to someone who knows how to cook because they already incorporate what you’ve mentioned. This is just “make sure people cooking know how to cook” lol

      • dumples@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I was thinking saying that expecting precision from a natural product is a fools errand. So embrace the imperfection and go crazy

        • joshthewaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yep. imperfection is a feature not a bug.

          Trying to eliminate every variable and be able to follow a precise formula is absurd. And if you manage to do that you are going to make food that is as good as what you can buy in the frozen section of any grocery store. That highly processed stuff is made by eliminating all the variables and following a precise formula.

          Just enjoy the variation, taste your ingredients and food at every step you can and adjust until you like it.

  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    If you’re asking scientists about writing protocols, you clearly don’t know how scientific protocols work. If anything, scientists need to take lessons from recipe writers on how to write protocols. Scientific protocols are notoriously difficult to replicate.

    Here’s a burger recipe written like a scientific methodology:

    Raw beef patties (Carshire Butcher) were prepared on a grill (Grillman) according to manufacturer’s instructions. The burger was assembled with the prepared patties, burger bun (Lee Bakery), lettuce (Jordan Farms), American cheese (Cairn Dairy), and various toppings as necessary. Condiments were used where appropriate.

    • canihasaccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Methods sections are limited in word count, and if a lab is hoping to get a few more papers out of a paradigm, they may be intentionally terse. There’s a big difference between how we write protocols in-house and how we write limited-length methods sections.

    • Xanthobilly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I don’t share this notion, as a scientist. Especially not in industry. SOPs are extremely detailed to the point of including lot numbers, etc. If done right it leaves no room for interpretation.

    • comfy@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Fair call, many fields tend to write just like you described haha.

      Maybe chemistry scientists could be a better reference.

      • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Chemistry might not be much better. It’s because scientists generally assume that readers already know how to do the techniques, and so the only information they would care to provide are the ones that wouldn’t be considered obvious. Such as equipment brand, the name of the technique if there’s multiple techniques that do the same thing, or experiment-specific modifications to the technique.

        My understanding is that it’s a holdover from older times, when scientists were charged per word, and so methodology would be cut down to remove anything considered “general enough” knowledge