Depends what you're trying to do.

Generally speaking, you want to stay as accurate as possible.  At least go 2 decimal places after final calculations.

300g = 10.58oz or 10.6oz, to simplify to 1 decimal place.

2 decimal after calculation is overkill. No kitchen scale can weigh with that kind of precision. 

What are you making? For most tasks, it doesn't really matter wether you measure 0.3 or 0.4 ounces. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdecoy1 

Modernist Cuisine Mac and Cheese but I plan on getting into baking and have heard that you need exact weight. Help!!! I'm confused :) 

baking - I've often heard that too. Then people pull out recipes that say "2 eggs". Do they know the exact weight of the egg? You can betcha they don't. What about "100g butter"? Do they know the %age of water in their butter compared to the butter used by the person who wrote the recipe? You can betcha they don't. Then they proceed to measure flour by volume and at that point all bets are off. 

But if you really want more precision, get a more precise scale. 

A long time ago, when Italy had Lira, the wife and I were shopping in Rome.  She wanted a leather handbag, I wanted a leather jacket.  She went nuts going from store to store, mentally converting Lira to Swiss francs, while I just looked for the best looking and best priced jacket, and paid what the sticker said.

Why convert grams to ounces?  Why trade in a Porsche 911 for a Hyundai Pony?  If the recipie calls for 100 grams of this or that, just weigh out 100 grams.  Every electronic scale from the $5.00 cheapies to the the most expensive have a toggle switch that converts metric to Imperial and vise versa.

You'll love using metric to increase or decrease recipies, and most importantly, costing out recipies.  Fewer things in the world I hate more than fractions--except maybe  decimal fractions. .

Gotta disagree with you on your point, French Fries.  Most cooking mags and recipie books use volume for every ingredient (except chocolate), but then have a looong two paragraph caveat about weighing  flour instead of  using volume measurement.

The old baking precision argument. 

I'm with frenchfries here.

If you want to start baking you can relax. Don't be put off with the precise measurement constraint.   I live in Italy and have been living here for over 35 years.  I bake a LOT. I use american recipes and have to convert some things to grams (it's easier, since the butter, for instance, comes with the wrapping measured out in grams) and sometimes i have a european recipe and since i detest using a scale, i convert to cups, and  I round off all the time.  for a measure like 3.527, 3.5 is fine.   You're not making medicines after all. 

If i'm making mac and cheese I don;t measure anything.  I do it by eye and it comes out.  When i'm baking i do measure things. When they say baking requires precise measures that's because people who are used to cooking might not bother to measure at all, and then a cake is not so forgiving. You need to measure, but as ff says, not all eggs are the same, not all flour is the same (hot or cold, rain or drought in the growing season, will affect it) - butter is not all the same... these are organic living or once living things, and not chemicals made in a laboratory. 

Anyway, no measurement, even in a scientific laboratory, is completely precise.  There is always a certain decimal point below which any machine or device can't measure - in the labs that work with subatomic particles that is a very very small decimal, with many zeroes, in a home kitchen it's way less.  Your scale doesn;t go beyond one decimal point because it doesn;t matter for all intents and purposes concerning home baking.

Sorry, I misunderstood your original question and went off on a math tangent (wait, that'd be geometry).  I thought you were asking about converting recipes (and the math involved in that), instead of your actual question which was really "How accurate do I have to be when measuring".

While measuring in grams would be great, as long as your scale goes to 1/10 of an ounce, the accuracy for what you're doing will be perfectly fine.

Here you go.  Easy to use, goes to the 100th if you want and breaks down easy to clean.

http://www.amazon.com/My-Weigh-KD-8000-Bakers-Scale/dp/B001NE0FU2/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1343390835&sr=8-14&keywords=Digital+kitchen+scales

Why even convert the recipe?   If you have to weigh it then you already have the exact amount you need.  Are you going to weigh 100g, put it in a measure cup to make sure you have 3.5oz and then put it in the mixing bowl?

If you don't have a scale then you must know that the conversions are going to be different for wet and dry measure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuan 

Why even convert the recipe?   If you have to weigh it then you already have the exact amount you need.  Are you going to weigh 100g, put it in a measure cup to make sure you have 3.5oz and then put it in the mixing bowl?

 

If you don't have a scale then you must know that the conversions are going to be different for wet and dry measure.

I think the recipe is in grams, but he has a scale that weighs in ounces.

How accurate you need to be depends to some degree on what and how much you're making. 

Try to remember that standardized scales didn't enter commercial kitchens until less than fifty years ago.  Also remember, that the advent of accurate, standardized volume measuring tools (like measuring spoons and cups) didn't happen in home kitchens until less than 100 years ago. 

And yet, people managed to make good food.

You also have to understand a couple of other things.  First, some very precise units of measurement are inherently variable when converted to another.  It's only very rarely that "4 eggs beaten" will result in exactly the same volume or weight of beaten eggs; that any "2 bananas" will weigh the same as any other two -- even from the same bunch, etc.; And second,  the people who develop and publish printed recipes aren't creating them with a high degree of accuracy.  Instead, we try to make the best dish possible, rounding our quantities up or down to the closest round number we believe will be convenient for the reader.

If I care enough to actually weigh anything (which is very seldom) and were converting grams to ounces, I'd play pretty fast and loose and would consider 100g as the practical equivalent to 4oz and 250g as 8oz.  Just to add some insight, recipes often include amounts like 125g and 250g precisely because they're so easy to convert, as opposed to because they'll make the best whatever.

There are exceptions to low resolution.  You want to be a little more accurate with baking (but not much), probably candy making (ask someone else), etc.  The areas I find requires the most accuracy is coffee.  For instance, programming a semi-automated roaster, and even dosing a portafilter. 

People go nuts about baking accuracy but I find that as long as you know the basic ratios of flour, to moisture, to leavening and to salt -- and stay within them, you'll be fine.  For instance, more than 1-1/4 tbs baking powder per cup of flour will end up tasting like baking powder, and less than 3/4 tbs per cup won't have enough lift; but if you're close to 1tbs per cup everything will work out.  The joker in that deck is that while a tbs of double acting baking powder is pretty much a tbs of double acting powder, one cup of flour usually isn't that much like the next. 

More if you use the tricks of wiping spoons and cups with a knife to level, you're also compacting and probably introducing as much variation and inaccuracy as if you'd only measured by eye. 

Bottom line:  Cooking is inherently inaccurate.  The best strategy for most cooking is to train your eye and palate and rely more on them than on accurate measuring and conversion.  For most practical cooking purposes, measurements which are within 20% - 25% are "close enough" to stay within in the delicious range. 

Stay sane,

BDL

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChefDave11 

I think the recipe is in grams, but he has a scale that weighs in ounces.

Oh, but the wet/dry measure problem still remains.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdecoy1 

 OK I realize to just do it in grams. My scale has a gram/ounce switch on the bottom that I forgot about. It only measures one whole point to the next, so no way to measure 4.2 as it only goes up and down in whole gram numbers 1,2,3,4,5, etc...so now the question is, should I get one that can measure 4.2, 4.3,4.4 etc??? thanks

You definitely do not need a scale that weighs fractions of grams.  whole gram is certainly accurate enough...unless you're operating a lab.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuan 

 

Oh, but the wet/dry measure problem still remains.

kuan,

if he were reading a recipe that said 3 oz flour, then you would have to determine if it meant a volume measure or a weight measure

But he;s starting from grams, so he will convert them into a weight ounce, avoirdupois I think it's called, as opposed to a volume ounce. 

I almost wrote the same thing, then it dawned on me he meant grams to ounces, and is converting to an ounce weight. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdecoy1 

Let me rephrase this question. Is there any place in cooking, baking, or even candy making where when a recipe that calls for 2.4 grams that I have to weight exactly 2.4? meaning that 2 or 3 grams isn't close enough? please understand, I'm very new to cooking. Thanks.

Yes, there are many instances where the fractions will make a difference.  

Let's put it this way...There's a reason why the recipe calls for 2.4 grams and NOT 2 grams or 3 grams.

Some ingredients have a huge impact with just a tiny amount.

To solve your issue though, you COULD multiply the entire recipe by 10, use 24 grams, and supply your friends and neighbors with whatever it is you're making!  

Please show me a recipe for general cooking which calls for an accurate measurement of 2.4g of anything.

BDL

Quote:

Originally Posted by boar_d_laze 

Please show me a recipe for general cooking which calls for an accurate measurement of 2.4g of anything.

 

BDL

general cooking as opposed to...?

And the Modernist Cuisine mac & cheese is calling for 1.3 grams iota carrageenan.  I imagine with the increasing popularity of "modernistic cuisine", there will be more ingredients more often that are necessary to be accurate to the 1/10th of a gram.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdecoy1 

Let me rephrase this question. Is there any place in cooking, baking, or even candy making where when a recipe that calls for 2.4 grams that I have to weight exactly 2.4? meaning that 2 or 3 grams isn't close enough? please understand, I'm very new to cooking. Thanks.

Baking and candy making, yes.  Apple pectin, for instance or tartaric acid for a pate de fruits needs fairly precise amounts.  Volatile oils like peppermint or clove, need tobe dosed fairly precisely too 

General cooking, no.  You have a wide tolerance forr many ingredients, but I wouldn't go as far as 25% variatrion for ojion in a cheese sauce, or roux in a bechemel. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by foodpump 

Gotta disagree with you on your point, French Fries.  Most cooking mags and recipie books use volume for every ingredient (except chocolate)

... and except eggs. Which makes the recommendation of measuring flour with precision questionable IMO. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdecoy1 

Well that's what I'm asking here, can someone point me to Amazon for a good scale? say for instance 2.4 gram of salt is 0.0084657 ounces how do I measure this?? thanks

SOEHNLE 66150 Ultra 2.0 White Digital Kitchen Scale, a compact scale with 500 gram capacity and 0.1 gram resolution, price $35.00

There's a fair bit of misinformation building up in this thread. 

First:

The "Modernist Cuisine" recipe for Mac and Cheese is not a "general" food recipe; it's "molecular gastronomy."  Modernist Cuisine isn't general anything. 

Second:

Even if it were in some way germane to the conversation, the figure put in issue from the Modernist Cuisine recipe is the standard, editors metric conversion from 1/2 tsp.  In other words, the recipe was developed and written in an amount which was easily measured with an ordinary kitchen tool -- if a tool rather than "two pinches" was used at all.  Anyone with a lot of experience in cooking conversions who sees 1.4g automatically thinks 1/2 tsp (and vice versa), just as 250g means half a pound or a cup.  Experienced cooks involved in more of the recipe process than just following them recognize those "special" amounts.

The fundamental misunderstanding involved in posting "1.4g" as an amount called for is the powered by the same misunderstanding which overvalues accuracy in an inherently inaccurate pursuit.  I guarantee, no one person or group of people involved in the books tried five different versions of the dish testing whether 1.2g 1.3g, 1.4g, 1.5g, or 1.6g worked better.  If you think someone, you completely misunderstand not only how recipes are written but how actual cooking is done.  Sorry to be blunt, but that's the truth of it.

Third, to the OP: 

You don't need 0.1g for ordinary cooking; and unless you're working in extremely small quantities and/or using extremely powerful ingredients you don't even need 1g resolution.   Quantities in recipes which include quantities for those ingredients mentioned by Food Pump are usually included are not often given in grams or fractions of a gram.  Just like the Mac and Cheese recipe, the quantities given are typically given in easily measured units.  If there's a problem, it comes in the editorial conversion itself. 

• Food Pump is the real deal, a tremendous cook and wonderful source of advice.  Consider what he has to say thoughtfully.  I do.

• If you're measuring 2.4g salt for a recipe, as opposed to using a "tsp," you're not cooking but involved in some other activity best practiced alone and with the door closed.

Fourth:

If you're looking for something with good capacity and resolution, you want to consider this scale:

With a 2kg max, it has a far more useful capacity for general family cooking than the one already noted and is priced at under $20.  For the little it's worth, this is the scale I use for coffee roasting and espresso dosing (and rarely for cooking).  The first requires reasonable accuracy in weights around 250g, and the second in weights around 20g.  In terms of resolution, even though I don't dose to a particular weight, I want to know my pf dose weights to around 0.5g to keep track of my "methodology." Credit where credit is due:  Mark Prince, the "CoffeeGeek," uses the same scale.  I caught the recommendation from him shortly after he switched to it from a scale which also didn't meet my needs.

Fifth and finally: 

As with any scale, please understand that the last increment of resolution of any measure -- in this case, the last tenth of a gram -- must be read as a range.  I.e., as "plus or minus 0.1g;" and is only good to the "error bar" if recently and properly calibrated; and the amount weighed is not too close to the maximum or minimum rating of the scale.  More realistically, if you get 99% accuracy you're doing well; and you're also doing substantially better than any recipe. 

If you're want to measure very small quantities frequently and with actual 0.1g resolution, you need a scale with a much smaller maximum and a nominal resolution of 0.05g.

Lastly, try to bear in mind that great cooking has been around somewhat longer than super accurate scales have been available for home or commercial cooking.  You might find a scale helpful, but it's not necessary.

Understand though that I'm not saying my [ahem]  informal measurement techniques are the only right ones.

BDL

First of all, always have a set of standard weights at hand to check the accuracy of your scale.  THAT'S #1.

I've always used my trusty dusty OHAUS triple beam balance from the 70's and it never let me down.  It's accuracy is down to a tenth of a gram and that's all I ever needed for my style of cooking: breads, tarts, stews.  Comfort food.  But were I making a sugar syrup or candies (I know nothing here), I'd whip out my Chain O Matic that'll measure down to a 10th of a milligram, used in atomic laboratories at TVA to determine yield of U235!

http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=682&expID=82468&qID=5016387

But really, almost any digital scale with an accuracy of 0.1gram is all you usually need.  It's the upper limit of the scale you choose that'll determine what you get.  And don't forget, get yourself a set of standard weights, ranging fom 50mg all the way to 100g.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boar_d_laze 
 Anyone with a lot of experience in cooking conversions who sees 1.4g automatically thinks 1/2 tsp (and vice versa), just as 250g means half a pound or a cup.

Just curious, so a cup of green coffee beans and a cup of roasted coffee beans weigh the same; both weigh 250g?