this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
64 points (95.7% liked)

Asklemmy

48164 readers
891 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I really appreciate the recent trend of some 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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

All solids should be listed by weight.

All liquids should be listed by volume.

SI units only. (Grams for solids, mL for liquids)

More graduated cylinders and volumetric flasks in the kitchen please.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Why would you want anything by volume? Mass is so much easier. 50 ml of honey is way more annoying to get into a recipe than dumping it right into whatever container the rest of the ingredients are in while it's sat on a scale.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

5ml of vanilla is a lot easier to measure than by weight would be

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Sure, we could say viscous liquids can use mass. I’d say most liquids with a viscosity close to water will be easier to measure out by volume than risk over pouring when going right into weigh boat / mixing bowl.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I agree. Mass all the way. It's especially complicated when the liquids are viscous and stick to your measuring vessel.

The only time volume is permitted is if it's too light for a typical kitchen scale to measure.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I thought SI Unit for volume is m3

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

same thing, one cubic centimeter is one ml

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

But 1L is not 1m³

Liters are non-SI

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

1L is 1dm³ (10cm³)

They aren't "official" SI units but they dont require funny conversions and i'd much rather see liters then teaspoons

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah I would also preffer liters even over m³. Was being pedantic on you saying it's the same thing

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

We should all use Einstein-Landauer units.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This would only make sense, if all people were baking with the exact same ingredients, in the exact same environment, with the exact same equipment. You know, like in a factory.

For households and the like, it makes sense to have a bit of variation, until you find the way that makes it perfect for you.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

This is pretty much how so many experienced home cooks eventually get to the point where they can eyeball the amount of each ingredient they need.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

People should try to think of recipes as performance notes, not as magical formulas. "This is how I made this, this time."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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. Assembled burgers were served within 15 minutes of completion.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don’t share this idea. 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] southsamurai 16 points 1 week ago

I've been cooking at home, and occasionally in restaurants, since I was about ten or so. So, 40ish years.

No single standard is better than the others. It does suck that there isn't a single one that is used as a base, and then gets converted by the cook into their preferred units and structure, but even that has issues.

The good news is that most cooking, and even most baking, is very forgiving of the kind of discrepancies between sizes of lemons, onions, etc. You don't really run into trouble until you're dealing with things that react chemically based on the ratio of ingredients, which is still most common in baking, and not even all baking.

Even in those types of recipes, it's usually flour that's the problem, not leaveners, since flour compacts readily and to a high degree. But, then again, most modern recipes like that are going to be in weight measures, or in baker's ratios. You'd be using a scale for the fiddly recipes.

So, generally, just guesstimate your produce size the first time you make something. It's not going to be so far off that the results will suck if the dish itself doesn't. Then you tweak things until it fits what you prefer, which is what happens anyway as you build your recipe book/collection.

My old recipe book had scribbled notes in the margins from years of refinements. When I copied that into a digital recipe manager, I added them in directly. Now, I'm able to just enter the original recipe, then add my notes as parentheticals or whatever as I refine.

Even with those detailed notes, a given recipe won't always be reproducible as exactly the same. That's because you just can't standardize everything. You use good produce, there's going to be varying water content, slight differences in flavor compounds, more or less sugars, so to get the same results over time, the cook has to know how to adjust for those things on the fly.

Of equal import is that no matter how scientific your process of recipe development is, the table is never the same as the cook. My taste buds and brain aren't the same as my wife's, my kid's, my cousin's, etc. So there's limits to the benefits of standardized recipes on the plate.

Now, formatting? That's a huge help.

You want your ingredient list to include instructions about when an ingredient is used in multiple places. You want lists broken down in sections when a recipe calls for multiple procedures (like making the main dish, a sauce, and a crust).

In the instructions, make sure the ingredient quantities are included for redundancy.

If there's an instruction about duration that's variable explain what the variables change. As in: bake for 10 to 15 minutes. Okay, great. What's the difference? If my stove runs hot and I go for the short time, will I see golden brown, and will 15 be burnt or just really dark? Yeah, you can't expect identical results from one circumstance to the next, but at least drop an "until golden brown" at the very minimum.

That applies to any variable, imo, but it can get to be too much detail in complicated recipe.

Cooking and baking are chemistry, physics. But they're also an art. The more you try to strip a recipe of flexibility, the less successful it's going to be for the next cook.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

I'm out here wondering if there's even one.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Ounces suck because they are used as a weight and a volume, and I can't ever be sure which one a particular recipe is using.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Damn, the imperial system really is messed up…

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Diameter of pots is big, too. You get way more evaporation with a wider pot.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dependencies chart!

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

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

Fucking genius. Someone get this man a promotion

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week 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
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Peer review...

Too many cooking sites are let's exchange your recipe and end up with either stuff missing or absurdly high amount of sugar (as a rule of thumb divide by 2 the amount of sugar) or a lack of salt/spice even when they're notsimply forgotten.

Published books tends to be a bit better as in principle they're revised.

Peer review is how scientists correct that. Often it's as simple as on figure 2, the labels are too small and sometimes it's I don't get how you've built your experimental setup can you clarify this section? It's rarely catching biq mystake but really improves overall quality

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

At the end of the second paragraph, you're missing a space between "not" & "simply".

In you third paragraph, you used the singular "tends" instead of the plural "tend". In addition, though I believe the sentence to be grammatically correct even without them, adding commas before & after "as in principle" would make the sentence a bit clearer.

Finally, your last paragraph. The second sentence is quite long, it would be more readable if you added commas before the "and" & after the second "it's". A comma could be placed just after "Often", but the sentence remains legible even without it. The sentence could use quotation marks to improve readability further, which would end the sentence on a question mark followed by an ending quote. This would be grammatically correct in American English, but as the sentence is not a question, a period should be added to the end. While it may have been intentional, for comedic effect, "biq" should be "big" & "mystake", "mistake". If I've understood the sentence correctly, the newly-corrected "mistake" should be in its plural form, "mistakes", and be followed by a comma. The sentence should also end with a period.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

At some point, food blogs stopped being about food and became personal memoirs with a side of seasoning. It probably started innocently enough—people sharing family recipes, adding a little background, a photo or two. But then came the SEO optimization, the Google gods demanding 1,500 words per post, and suddenly, every recipe for scrambled eggs begins with a story about someone’s childhood summer in Tuscany and how their Nonna taught them the sacred art of cracking an egg with one hand.

Now it’s standard: you search “how to make pancakes” and end up reading about a foggy morning in 2003, a breakup, a golden retriever named Milo, and how cooking became therapy. You scroll and scroll, dodging ads, autoplaying videos, and a pop-up asking you to “join the culinary journey.” Somewhere, buried like treasure, is the actual recipe—five steps long, could’ve fit on a Post-it note.

And yes, this is exactly that. This is the bloated preamble you didn’t ask for. You came here for temperatures and timings, and instead, you got this paragraph complaining about the very thing it’s doing. You’re now part of the cycle—scrolling, sighing, wondering when we collectively decided that roasting vegetables required a narrative arc.

Anyway, here’s the recipe. Probably. Keep scrolling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Are your oven's thermometer and kitchen scale within their calibration due dates? Is that timer NIST traceable? The measuring cups ARE Class A glassware, aren't they? Please, at least tell me you're getting your ingredients from certified suppliers... No, the spices from the dollar store down the road are most definitely NOT on the approved list, no matter how cheap they were! Dear Lord, how are you going to blame the recipies when your kitchen is still operating in the Dark Ages?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

avoid rigid recipes and prefer cookouts

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

not exactly an answer to what you ask but I wanted to share this knowledge: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/recipe

its a standard(ish) schema that many popular recipe websites use, so you can very easily parse them and do unit conversions

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Cool stuff, thanks for sharing!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Not any kind of scientist, but an adventurous home cook

I'd really like the USDA/FDA/etc. (maybe not under the current administration) to publish sort of a food safety handbook full of tables and charts for stuff like canning, curing meats, cooking temps, etc. targeted to people like me.

I've recently been experimenting with curing meats, I've done bacon, Montreal style smoked meat, corned beef, Canadian bacon, and kielbasa.

And holy fuck, is it hard to find good, solid, well-sourced information about how to do that safely.

And I know that information is out there somewhere, because people aren't dropping dead left and right of listeria, botulism, nitrate poisoning, etc. because they ate some grocery store bacon.

I just want some official reference I can look at to tell me that for a given weight of meat, a dry cure should be between X and Y percent salt, and between A and B percent of Prague powder #1, and that it needs to cure for Z days per inch of thickness, and if it's a wet brine then it should be C gallons of water and...

When I go looking for that information either I find a bunch of people on BBQ forums who seem to be pulling numbers out of their ass, random recipe sites and cooking blogs that for all I know may be AI slop, or I find some USDA document written in legalese that will say something like 7lbs of sodium nitrite in a 100 gallon pickle solution for 100lbs of meat, which is far bigger than anything I'll ever work with, and also doesn't scale directly to the ingredients I have readily available because I'm not starting with pure sodium nitrite but Prague powder which is only 6.25% sodium nitrite.

[–] sprite0 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

there are several of these from the usda!

https://nchfp.uga.edu/resources/category/usda-guide

they are really well made pdf's with a lot of good info on exactly what you're describing.

I make my own hot sauces and kraut.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] captain_aggravated 2 points 1 week ago

They do publish pretty good information about home canning, though in batch sizes more and more of us aren't going to do because we're not putting up 10 acres worth of vegetables.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Parametric recipes are great. The central ingredient is quantity 1 and everything else is a ratio by weight. You then scale it to your needs. So an equilibrium brine would be.

1 meat 1 water 0.03 salt Brine for 1 day per 2 inch of thickest section.

They don't work for everything. So when baking a loaf of bread time and temp are spefic to loaf size. It still works for a batch of bread dough however.

This also helps you think in ratios which help general recipe construction. Once you know what flour to egg radio you like for your bread you can alter recipes to your preference.

load more comments
view more: next ›