Recipe Conversion - Help!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

gogreen

Assistant Cook
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
3
I am making cookies, but the recipe is from the UK, can you make sure these conversions are correct, as I want to get it right the first time! Here is the recipe by the way: http://i.imgur.com/TMSva.jpg

220g plain flour = 1.75 cups
120g butter = .5 cup
260g unrefined caster sugar=1.25 cups

Thanks
 
That's pretty right. The conversion for flour holds only for flour measured by gently spooning the flour into the measuring cup and will be off if dipped from the bin using the measuring cup.

The sugar is right. The butter is within a half tbsp.
 
Just noting the perhaps obvious, these are all weight to volume (or volume to weight) conversions, and each will have to be vetted depending on the specific ingredient. Each relies on the density of the ingredient (how much weight per volume), and ingredients subject to sifting rely on how much they are refined or sifted. There is no single weight/volume or volume/weight conversion. You have to consider every ingredient or ingredient class before making the conversion.

Is this common that Americans rely on volume units while Europeans rely on weight units? It seems to me that the weight units would be far more reliable. Volume relies on packing density. Weight just is.

I'd rather switch to weight units.
 
Last edited:
I am having a problem with conversions as I bake bread a lot. It seems 3 cups of flour can be anywhere from 380g to over 400g. I recently started using weight instead of volume, as it's more accurate but the recipes may only give volume, so you don't know which 3 cups of flour they mean, 384, 400 or ????? Try converting 3 cups of flour to grams, 3 different searches, 3 different answers. They say to take an average after weighing it out because of the weather. To much confusion when baking, which is more of a science than cooking!!! Oh well.
 
Google it! Just type in the quantity listed in the recipe, followed by in <U.S. measurement>.

For example "225 grams of flour in ounces" or 225 grams of flour in cups" to get either an estimate or an exact conversion
 
I am having a problem with conversions as I bake bread a lot. It seems 3 cups of flour can be anywhere from 380g to over 400g. I recently started using weight instead of volume, as it's more accurate but the recipes may only give volume, so you don't know which 3 cups of flour they mean, 384, 400 or ????? Try converting 3 cups of flour to grams, 3 different searches, 3 different answers. They say to take an average after weighing it out because of the weather. To much confusion when baking, which is more of a science than cooking!!! Oh well.

I use KA flour for my bread. They list 30g as a 1/4c on the bag. Makes a cup 120g.

Different manufacturers have different weights, but that isn't difficult to find if you know who made the flour.
 
I use KA flour for my bread. They list 30g as a 1/4c on the bag. Makes a cup 120g.

Different manufacturers have different weights, but that isn't difficult to find if you know who made the flour.


Exactly!

Just look at the nutrition label. It tells you what you need to know to convert volume to weight.
 

I used this: Flour volume vs weight conversions | Grams | Ounces | Cups | Pounds | Kilograms | Quarts for flour and sugar, just wanted to be sure.

Heh, and someone changed the title of this thread! It was "a few conversions", and changed to "Recipe Conversion - Help!" Haha, it wasn't that urgent, very odd!

BTW, the cookies turned out well with the original conversions. Next time I may try mashed banana instead of chips.
 
Just noting the perhaps obvious, these are all weight to volume (or volume to weight) conversions, and each will have to be vetted depending on the specific ingredient. Each relies on the density of the ingredient (how much weight per volume), and ingredients subject to sifting rely on how much they are refined or sifted. There is no single weight/volume or volume/weight conversion. You have to consider every ingredient or ingredient class before making the conversion.

Is this common that Americans rely on volume units while Europeans rely on weight units? It seems to me that the weight units would be far more reliable. Volume relies on packing density. Weight just is.

I'd rather switch to weight units.

European recipes are mostly weight based. Liquids tend to measured by volume, not weight ;)

Generally, if a Danish recipe calls for "a cup" or "a tablespoon", they mean the exact amount isn't all that important. They mean to use a cup out of your cupboard or a tablespoon you would use to eat with.
 
Good point about the liquids. Of course liquids are easiest to measure by volume because most liquid ingredients tend to be uniform, unlike flour which can change its volume depending on handling.

I wish the US could switch to metric units and then we wouldn't have any conversion problems, other than updating old recipes. But I guess updating old recipes would take forever.
 
I've been wanting to switch all my recipes over to weight, because it is soooooo easy to add ingredients to the bowl sitting on the scale, and not have to dirty 4 measuring cups, or try to scrape honey or peanut butter out of the cup. Because of the varying answers I've found for volume to weight conversions, I'm a little afraid to rely too much on this handy converter I found. I would really appreciate it if someone with more experience in this area would take a look at some of the conversions and tell me whether they seem accurate. It would really give me peace of mind. Here is the site:

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/cooking
 
I would recommend you do your own conversions as you use the recipes. When you make a recipe, measure by volume as always then weight the results and record them.

Doing them one at a time makes it not a big project so easier to do. Also, everyone measures differently so you would be incorporating your measuring approach into your recipes.
 
I would recommend you do your own conversions as you use the recipes. When you make a recipe, measure by volume as always then weight the results and record them.

Doing them one at a time makes it not a big project so easier to do. Also, everyone measures differently so you would be incorporating your measuring approach into your recipes.
Excellent idea Andy. I've done that with some of my recipes. Why didn't I think to write that? :blink:
 
That sounds like a lot of work lol. I suppose that is what I will have to do though. I'm in the middle of typing up all my recipes, and I plan to print them on card stock, cut them up to index sized recipe cards, and laminate them. I can have volume and weight measurements on there, which will be nice. I had a few hand written laminated ones, and it it so nice not having to worry about getting them wet or dirty. You just wipe it with a damp cloth before it goes back in the recipe box. Unfortunately I wrote them out with this new fangled erasable pen, which uses the heat caused by the friction when erasing to make the ink disappear, so when I moved, and the recipe box what's sitting in my hot car... Well, I've never seen so much hard work literally disappear lol
 
Last edited:
That sounds like a lot of work lol. I suppose that is what I will have to do though. I'm in the middle of typing up all my recipes, and I plan to print them on card stock, cut them up to index sized recipe cards, and laminate them. I can have volume and weight measurements on there, which will be nice. I had a few hand written laminated ones, and it it so nice not having to worry about getting them wet or dirty. You just wipe it with a damp cloth before it goes back in the recipe box. Unfortunately I wrote them out with this new fangled erasable pen, which uses the heat caused by the friction when erasing to make the ink disappear, so when I moved, and the recipe box what's sitting in my hot car... Well, I've never seen so much hard work literally disappear lol
Any way you look at it, it will be a fair amount of work. But, doing it one recipe at a time spreads it out, so it doesn't seem to be as much. You will get better results by converting the way Andy describes, so in the long run, it will be less work.
 
...I plan to print them on card stock, cut them up to index sized recipe cards, and laminate them....


THIS sounds like a lot of work and expense.

I print all recipes on 8.5x11 sheets of paper and put them in a three-ring binder. If I need to make a change, or if a recipe gets soiled, I just make the changes and reprint. The cost of paper and ink is less than the cost and effort to cut up and laminate cards. That said, you already have an investment in cards so forget I said anything.

BTW, you can buy card stock in many sizes and set up your printer to print directly onto that size card. Saves some time and revisions are easier.
 
Andy M. said:
THIS sounds like a lot of work and expense.

I print all recipes on 8.5x11 sheets of paper and put them in a three-ring binder. If I need to make a change, or if a recipe gets soiled, I just make the changes and reprint. The cost of paper and ink is less than the cost and effort to cut up and laminate cards. That said, you already have an investment in cards so forget I said anything.

BTW, you can buy card stock in many sizes and set up your printer to print directly onto that size card. Saves some time and revisions are easier.

It's easier to get consistent results on a full size sheet, in my opinion, and laminating doesn't take long at all. Also, card stock isn't that expensive, so it's not that much of an investment. I like the convenience of having the single card rather than a whole three ring binder, otherwise I would probably like that idea just as well. To each their own :)

Actually I think typing them up in the first place is the most labor intensive part
 
Last edited:
I typed all my recipes into my computer, and then I backup that data frequently (on different media). When I want to work from a recipe I can either bring it up on the computer and look at the screen, or print out the recipe and work from the copy. I sometimes make revisional notes on the printout, then take that back and update it on the computer. This also makes it easy to share recipes with friends and family. You either print out a copy and hand it to them, or you can email it to them.
 
It's easier to get consistent results on a full size sheet, in my opinion, and laminating doesn't take long at all. Also, card stock isn't that expensive, so it's not that much of an investment. I like the convenience of having the single card rather than a whole three ring binder, otherwise I would probably like that idea just as well. To each their own :)

Actually I think typing them up in the first place is the most labor intensive part


Typing is the most effort for me. I wish I had learned to touch type years ago. Who knew I'd be spending so much time in front of a keyboard.

When I'm making a recipe from my cookbook, I often take it out of the binder. Sometimes I just have it on the counter and other times I'll hang it by the stove so it's handy there.

As long as there is a process for recipe storage and preservation, you're in good shape. You like yours, I like mine. At least we have one. My sister has a hodge podge of recipes, some here, some there, some only in her head.
 
Back
Top Bottom