The Fresh Loaf

A Community of Amateur Bakers and Artisan Bread Enthusiasts.

Volume to weight conversions

dgy's picture

Volume to weight conversions

My european and canadian friends (I'm US) complain that they can't reproduce my recipes, despite WATCHING me make them (so there's no sleight-of-hand). I am very meticulous about specifying any "special" ingredients that could materially impact the outcome. But, assume flour, cane sugar, baking soda, etc. are "universal constants".

I see two possible areas where discrepancies could arise:  egg sizes (here vs there -- I always specify the US "size" egg used) and volumetric vs weight-based measurement.

As the recipes in question tend to use multiple eggs, I assume egg-to-egg variations would cancel out (a slightly larger egg would compensate for a slightly smaller egg in that particular dozen). Of course, if a "Large Egg" varies from locale to locale... <shrug>

The other issue I see is our (US) custom of measuring (most) things volumetrically while my friends tend to resort to scales.  (I leave it as their responsibility to perform any conversions -- my recipes obvously work "as specified")

I don't see the volumes of ingredients varying much with environmental conditions (I bake in 5-10% RH and 80+% RH).  And, am consistent in which ingredients are measured "packed" (brown sugar) vs. "loose" (flour/white sugar).  So, my recipes always turn out the same, regardless of local conditions.

But, I can see the weights (density) of some ingredients changing depending on how much moisture they absorb from their environments.  (I store everything in sealed glass containers).

Could this explain their problems? And, if so, shouldn't simply buying a cheap set of measuring cups "solve" that?


tpassin's picture

Just do your friends a favor, get a scale, and after you measure something, put it on the scale and write down the weight.

Suppose your friends all get sets of spoons and measuring cups, and suppose they can get ones that measure in US units.  Even then they won't measure the same weights as you do because they won't be able to apply the same technique to the volumetric measurements as you do.

I'm surprised, though, that they can't get good results anyway. What kind of baked goods are these?  It would be unusual for bread recipes to be so finicky.


dgy's picture

If I weigh a given volume of something, today, then who's to say that the weight (for that same volume) will be the same, tomorrow?  I suspect this is the problem that they are addressing as they aim to reproduce a weight of an ingredient instead of a volume.

These are mainly cookie recipes -- biscotti, anise toast, benne wafers, pecan sandies (and an assortment of "family recipes" that don't have "common" names).  I've not shared any bread recipes as I so seldom make it that it is unlikely for them to have tasted it (I make five 2lb loaves, eat one "hot from the oven" and the ssecond later that day. The remaining three are gifted to neighbors who tend to end up toasting (ick!) them as they don't eat them fast enough -- 3 days until stale)

tpassin's picture

If I weigh a given volume of something, today, then who's to say that the weight (for that same volume) will be the same, tomorrow?

Yes, and that is the point. The cooking goes mostly with the weight of the ingredients (that is, how much material there is), regardless of the volume as you measure it.  For example, America's Test Kitchen reported that they found variations as high as 20% in measuring flour by volume vs by weight (

dgy's picture

They found variations in the WEIGHT -- of the flour PLUS MOISTURE.  There is no line item on most recipes for "water in flour" (or other ingredients).

Most recipes adjust cooking time to achieve a desired "driness" of the product.  So, the final product will contain some fixed amount of water for the expected amount of "other" ingredients.

Flour doesn't "evaporate".  So, if you adjust for a constant weight in light of varying moisture content, then the ratio of flour to moisture going into the mix changes.  And, the total volume of flour (which will be preserved in the product, regardless of cook time) is altered -- to make way for the WEIGHT of the water (that will be boiled off).

tpassin's picture

What makes you think that flour with different moisture content will have the same volume?  And what makes you think that the only difference in these reported results was different moisture content of the flour in use?

dgy's picture

As I said, up-thread, I bake in 5-10% RH and 80+% RH.  I assume flour is the most hygroscopic of the ingredients that I use.  I use volumetric measures.  I get consistent results.

THEY use weight-based measures. THEY can't repeat my results.

Note they have each actively watched me prepare these items so they can see how I measure, what the cups look like, etc. It's not up to me to watch how THEY try to prepare these (in their homes) and determine what they are doing "wrong".

justkeepswimming's picture

Another consideration: There is no international standard for volume measurements. It took me a while to discover this.


 - 1 Tbsp US = 0.83 Tbsp UK. 

 - 1 cup US (8 FL oz) = 8.326 fl oz UK. 

My difficulties trying to make bread from non-US bakers disappeared when I started using weights in gm. A gm is a gm no matter where you live. 

You can verify this on several websites, this one is handy.


tpassin's picture

 cup US (8 FL oz) = 1.326 fl oz UK.

I think that's a typo and it should read

 cup US (8 FL oz) = 8.326 fl oz UK.

justkeepswimming's picture

Fat fingers on my phone, lol. Thanks!

dgy's picture

But those are one-time adjustments.

What's a "packet" of vanilla?

justkeepswimming's picture

It took me quite a few flops before I figured out volume measurements varied by country (same name different volume). They may not be aware either. And I have never heard of a packet of vanilla..... an even less precise recipe ingredient.

Overall it seems you are pretty attached to using volume measurements - definitely do what works for you in your kitchen!! Just recognize your recipes won't be as easily "shareable" with non-US bakers. 

Meanwhile, may your bakes always go well! 

dgy's picture

They've watched me bake and can see the "tools".  Some even have metric markings (e.g., 15mL on my 1T).

An early mistake, on my part, was referencing "squares" of chocolate (Baker's brand used to come in 1oz squares). This bit a French friend and has subsequently bit me (as the manufacturer now pacakges their chocolate less conveniently). I am now much more pedantic about how I reference ingredients and quantities (e.g., the alcohol concentration in typical extracts)

"Packet" of vanilla came from a translation of an italian recipe.  I've found a local baker who makes (sells) a variant of but they use way too much vanilla for me to settle for purchasing premade product.  And, of course, they aren't keen to share their recipe (do they think I'm going to go into business competing with them??)

I am very particular about making reproducible goods as its too much time (and money) to leave things to chance. Early on, I used to try for high degrees of consistency within a batch (the OREO cookie syndrome).  I have now learned to deliberately add small variations within a batch (folks eat OREOS "mindlessly"; I want people to notice that this cookie is a bit larger/smaller/crisper/chewier/etc. so they are involved in the eating process)

FWIW, I don't eat my baked goods.  <grin>

Ilya Flyamer's picture
Ilya Flyamer

I have to say, I agree the volume vs weight is a likely culprit, but assuming that ingredients are universal constants is quite bold. In particular the "default" white flour is quite different in different countries... Strength and protein content vary considerably, this would affect how much water it can absorb.

dgy's picture

Good point.  I was thinking more in terms of "an egg is an egg is an egg" (recognizing that different places assign different sizes to each "classification" (and, of course, that it's really only a GROUP of eggs that are being considered). Thanks!

dgy's picture

I suspect they are aware of this.  I very clearly state what I use in my recipes, the order the individual ingredients are added to the mix, oven preheat temperature, where the items are baked, whether (and when) I switch to other cooking modes in the process, etc.

"Domestic" neighbors don't have problems reproducing my recipes. (One "foreign" friend actually baked one of my recipes while visiting -- and was delighted to see that it came out "right") So, it has something to do with baking in their native countries -- materials, measurements, equipment, conventions, etc.

Each of them have been surprised that I use volumetric measures and how quickly a recipe "goes together". So, that led me to suspect weight v. volume as a possible issue.

Ilya Flyamer's picture
Ilya Flyamer

Would you be able to share an example? A recipe, and what particular issues your friends experience? I think it might be more productive this way then just guessing...

dgy's picture

This is one of my biscotti recipes (I make it once a week, every week, so it's from memory).  I don't dawdle; everything goes together in less than 15 minutes so nothing "sitting out" and no outgassing due to a slow mix:

  • 2C-7t (white unbleached) flour
  • 1C-3.5t (white) sugar
  • 5XL eggs
  • 2/3C (thin -- 1mm) sliced almonds (I use Mariani brand)
  • 3/4t baking soda
  • 5/16t popcorn salt
  • 1.5t vanilla extract (35% alcohol)
  • 2T Amaretto di Saronno (don't substitute)
  • 1/6C Amaretto di Saronno (for glaze)

N.B. I use popcorn salt because I have a metric buttload of the stuff and there's not enough popcorn in my life to ever consume all of it!  I don't believe it is iodized (but can't imagine that affecting anything). Regular salt should work as well (5/16t is the closest I can get to 1/3t). The "subtractions" from the measurements were done to fit the recipe to the pan I had available.

  • Preheat 300F, full oven, rack on third setting from top
  • Line 7x12" pan with parchment paper (up the sides as well)
  • Combine flour, salt, baking soda

The batter/dough will be very fluid -- like maple syrup on a cold day (still viscous enough that it won't flow easily)

  • Beat eggs with vanilla and 2T Amaretto in 10" bowl
  • Mix in sugar with large wooden spoon (yeah, bad idea but some traditions die hard)
  • Gradually introduce flour mixture
  • Add sliced almonds
  • Pour into baking pan, distributing evenly (a pastry brush wetted with the remaining Amaretto helps)
  • Gently pour remaining 1/6C Amaretto onto batter/dough (too quickly will bore holes in the surface)
  • Bake 37 minutes

At this point, you will have a nicely crowned 7x12" "loaf" a little over 2 inches tall. The parchment paper should make it easy to lift out of the pan.

  • Cut (while hot) with long serated knife into <1/2" thick slices (24 plus 2 ends)
  • Put the ends aside (for now)
  • Arrange slices on a pair of 11x15" wire racks in the order they existed in the loaf, ends wherever they fit
  • Bake for 16 minutes
  • Convection bake for 4 minutes

Cool ~30 minutes on those wire racks.  Then, take adjacent pairs of cookies and wrap them together in plastic wrap. Wrap each wrapped pair in tinfoil. Store in air-tight container for < 2 weeks.

These should be very light and reasonably fragile -- dropping one to the floor will likely cause it to break.  Using too much tension while wrapping will similarly break them.

My measurements are always "level", nothing "heaping" or "packed" (tapping the measuring cups with the back of a knife to jostle their contents before leveling in case there is an air-pocket within).  All my ingredients are stored in air-tight glass containers at room temperature -- 70-80F -- except eggs.

I don't get specific complaints:  "They didn't turn out like yours".  The most specific comment I've ever heard was that they weren't as "light" as mine.

Mini Oven's picture
Mini Oven

How exactly are you filling it?  I know, I'm getting terribly picky.  Spooning it in? Or scooping?  tapping then scrqping level does increase weight. Do you stir the flour in the jar first before filling the cup?  Devil in the details.  Also is there anything written on or in the cup other than 1 cup?  Check the undersides and back of the handle too. Any numbers?  -very important-  

more Q's 

Popcorn salt is about 10% lighter than table salt so 1/4 teaspoon. or 1.5g. With 4g baking soda.

Beat eggs with vanilla and Amaretto .... beat with an electric mixer?  About how long?

7 x 12 inch pan...shiny or light, dull or dark on the outside?

Oven rack. "Third setting from the top". I have a standard European size oven. (Not the big turkey size.) Third from the top is the middle of my oven. Is that about right?

I also use vanilla sugar but include its weight with the white sugar and then add the 1.5 t liquid as vodka or water.  

dgy's picture

I shake the container of flour so nothing has settled.  We go through a lot of flour so it doesn't "sit" long. Then, scoop with a *1* cup measuring cup.  It's one cup or not one cup -- no other graduations (true of all of my measuring cups -- e.g., the 1/6C measurement is half of a 1/3C (by eye).

I have no ideas as to ANY of the weights as I don't use weights as a unit of measure. The only scale that I have is far too accurate (~30 MICROgrams) and definitely not worth "risking" for something as banal as baking!

[I have a parts counting scale that might be able to be repurposed as a generic scale:  put a thumb tack on it and it will tell you how many are in the PILE of thumbtacks that you later place on it]

The only instrument used is the wooden spoon (and a rubber spatula to scrape remaining batter from the mixing bowl).

Pan is black/grey "non-stick" finish (but lined with parchment paper -- white if you thinkn that important).  It's only an inch deep as the batter is short of that mark. Decades ago, I would "form loaves" on a cookie sheet with a much drier dough.  It was almost impossible to get consistent results.  The pan acts solely to constrain the batter from running out of the pan and ensure the final loaf is the same size and shape from batch to batch.

Third from the top is just a bit higher than the middle; fourth would be a bit lower than middle.  Our ovens tend to be 25"W x 20" H (internal dimenstions).  The location chosen to keep the product from the source of heat (reflected or direct). It also ensures the convection flow travels above and below the cookies to prevent just one side from being over-cooked.

Vanilla is commonly sold as an extract (instead of making such with vanilla beans). If, for example, I was using anise flavor (e.g., pizzelles), I would use anise OIL diluted in "Everclear" (190 proof alcohol) instead of buying anise extract (because I can control the amount of alcohol used to dilute the oil but can't do so with the extract)

dgy's picture

"By eye" is relatively easy as the cups are true cylinders -- no taper.  So, the 1/3C measure is about 2" diameter and 1" tall.  Fill so ABOUT half of that 1" is submerged and you have ABOUT 1/6C.

5/16t is easier -- a level 1/4t plus a level pinch.

Mini Oven's picture
Mini Oven

An and/or option.  Example:  Two whole chicken eggs or 100g       Then it is easier to use egg substitutes or use other types of bird eggs.  

Can also be helpful to have a description of the dough or batter.  And finished product.  

I've converted a lot of my US volume recipes but still had to make adjustments to flour type often reducing the gluten by substituting 1/3 of the wheat flour with starch. Not all brown sugar is moist and requires packing. Let us not forget that dry cups and fluid cups are not the same.  Salt is another ingredient to watch as not all salt volumes weight the same, weights tend to be more sharable.  Butter also varies in water and salt content.

Weight recipes are also easier to trouble shoot. Often I convert a recipe to weights to look for formula problems like typos or misprints.  

I like the idea of posting a recipe and various troubles repeating it.  

We've had a bit of fun here at TFL recipe testing.  


alcophile's picture

I'll agree 110% with @tpassin about using a scale for dry measures. Bulk densities of solids are notorious for their differences. Just look up the uncertainty surrounding kosher salt variability and also its difference from table salt. Solids really don't measure accurately by volume (depending on particle size and packing) and then there is the issue of measuring cup accuracy. I compared the weight of water in several measuring cups I have and there was a significant difference in one of them.

OTOH, liquids can be measured by weight and in many ways that is more accurate than volume. Eggs would certainly be an example. USDA large eggs are 50 g, but international standards may be different, and this could explain the variability in replicating the recipes.

The fact that you can reproduce your recipe in different environmental conditions indicates that moisture is not a factor when measuring the ingredients. But your technique, the measuring cups, and possibly the difference between US and international ingredients may be more important. A inexpensive scale (link) might solve this problem.



dgy's picture

Moisture may "not be a factor" because of the means by which the ingredients are measured.  Folks here have all attested that measuring BY WEIGHT causes discrepancies in the actual QUANTITY (discounting moisture) that makes its way into the recipe.

Weigh a fixed amount of an ingredient in different environmental conditions (e.g., RH).  Then, normalize the quantities weighed to some standard set of conditions.  If there is any change, then obviously the measurement factored in something that isn't a "listed ingredient".  This would indicate that weight is a faulty mechanism for ensuring repeatable quantities regardless of environmental conditions (it wouldn't be any better with kosher salt, sea salt, nut salt, etc. -- it would still suffer from that "unseen ingredient")

A similar experiment would be to measure volumetrically a quantity of an ingredient at different environmental conditions. Then, normalize for those conditions and check to see if the volume has changed.

The measurement technique that minimizes the deviations between "actual" quantities used by the recipes is the better technology.

[We're entering our humid period -- 80% RH and higher.  I will take fixed volumes of flour and set them aside until things become dry (5%RH) again and check the resulting volumes.  Ideally, a volume of an ingredient will remain unchanged wrt those external factors.  We already know its WEIGHT won't!]


Moe C's picture
Moe C

Do your European and Canadian friends complain equally? I've been using American (volume) recipes in Canada forever, with no problem. I would think that is the norm here.

I'm still scratching my head over your eating 4 lbs of fresh bread in a day.


dgy's picture

They all complain that they can't reproduce my recipes at their homes. One made the recipe while staying at my home and had no problem. All have watched me bake them (thinking that there might be some detail that I am omitting in my written instructions).

Four pounds of bread is easy (bread is like heroin to me!). It is a coscious effort not to start on the THIRD loaf when the second is finished!

I tend to "go overboard" with all of the things that I truly enjoy -- which is why I tend to only bake the items that I don't enjoy!  <frown>

And, some of the things truly are addictive; I always "threaten" to make The Blue Cookies -- probably more addictive than potato chips and definitely worse for you (sugar).

justkeepswimming's picture

This may or may not interest you..... It was an interesting discovery for me. When I make bread at home, it doesn't trigger the feeding frenzy that store bought or restaurant breads/rolls do. I can eat a couple of good sized slices of homemade bread in a sandwich, as a side with a salad, as toast, etc. and be completely satisfied, not craving anything more. Especially if I bake sourdough with some amount of any whole grain. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone there, from the anecdotal reports I have read over the years. 

dgy's picture

It is the opposite for me.  My other half has a toasted slice of (store bought) bread (most often a jewish rye) with peanut butter and honey (!!! ick) each morning -- so, there is always a loaf of <something> lying around.

On waking, I am rarely hungry -- it takes a while for my appetite to wake up (often ALL DAY!).  But, I will often grab a slice of that bread, more out of habit than desire.

When I bake "my" bread (a sweet, dense, yeast bread), I won't even wait for it to cool before consuming the first loaf.  The second loaf (now cool), follows at a more leisurely rate -- but, won't last the day.

I immediately start prepping the remaining three (of five) loaves to gift to friends/neighbors as soon as they have cooled (after three days, they are stale). Otherwise, I would easily eat the remaining loaves, myself (note that I am very comfortable eating nothing BUT bread at this time).

Curiously, I bake a "pizza stuffed with brocolli" -- scacciatta -- for my (italian) relatives in which I have absolutely no interest!  Despite loving brocolli, garlic and bread (the main ingredients).

[I will eat the sauteeing brocolli and make a bit of "fried dough" from the dough to be used as crust -- but will pass on the finished product!  I actually have no idea how the "pizza" tastes as I find it so unappealing (this is true of most of the things that I make for other people)]

For about the past decade, I have been trying to replace homemade bread with (homemade) ice cream.  I find it is easier to rationalize that I should "share" the ice cream.  And, the batches are smaller -- as well as a lot easier to make!


justkeepswimming's picture

   "One made the recipe while staying at my home and had no problem."

Interesting. That might suggest a difference in volume between their cups and yours, &/or a difference in their ingredients from yours (i.e. EU butter vs US butter % fat/water content, flour strength, etc etc). 🤔

KA article of how cups can measure things quite differently (scroll down a bit):


dgy's picture

I don't think they are using volumetric measures.  They have, instead, made some conversions so they could continue to use their "superior" (cough) weight-based measures.

The biscotti recipe is one of the most telling because there are so few ingredients, no fats (other than what's in the eggs), etc.

wrt the KA article:

I disagree that one can weigh ingredients faster than I can measure with volumetric measures. This is the first disproved falacy when my friends watch how quickly I can throw together a recipe.  Of course, I bake fairly regularly so these activities come naturally to me.

How you fill a cup/spoon with dry ingredients is something at which you quicikly learn to develop consistency.  For ingredients that are dispensed in larger volumes (flour, sugar), we store the goods in large-mouth containers so a 1C measure AND YOUR HAND can fit entirely within to scoop the ingredients. Tap with a knife/utensil to ensure there are no trapped air pockets.  Drag the knife across the surface (because the cup must be completely FULL for the desired measure). For leavening agents (powder, soda, tartar), the container has a straight-edge surface against which you can scrape the heaped spoon's contents. Liquids require a steady hand but there's never any doubt as to whether the measure is complete or not.  Eggs have to be selected to distribute any overage/enderage to avoid picking all oversized or all undersized eggs and adding a bias to the recipe (in the US, individual eggs don't really have specific weights but, rather, a range of weights around a statistical average weight; so, you only achieve that average weight if you have a boatload of eggs in your recipe!) And, how much of the egg white has remained clinging to the interior of the shell?

A "graduated" measuring cup is problematic to read.  In addition to manufacturing tolerances, you have issues of parallax (e.g., if the graduations are present on the outside of the cntainer while the menicsus is on the inside), knowing about the role of the meniscus in the measurement process. But, dedicated cups where "full" indicates the desired measure eliminate that problem. The same is true of measuring spoons (and, no one seriously uses PLASTIC cups/spoons in the kitchen unless a young child with their first "lets bake like mommy" set).  We keep two identical sets of stainless steel cups and spoons on hand.  We only use a graduated (glass/pyrex) measuring cup to measure the water for the hummingbird feeders (because trying to dissolve sugar in a measuring cup of exactly the intended size will result in spillage -- and, the hummingbirds don't fret if there's a bit too much or too little water in the mix).  Or, to measure fresh squeezed orange juice for freezing (is that 28 oz?  or 28.3 oz?  who cares -- as long as it doesn't overflow the container when it expands during freezing)

Is there some reason preventing you from measuring "portions" with volumes instead of weights?  Do the same cups and spoons that were used to measure ingredients suddenly cease to function when applied to assembled product? Choose your cups and spoons with an eye towards how useful they are in this other application. E.g., I use a measured tablespoon (one with a hemispherical volume) for most drop cookies.  Scoop, level and scrape out with a rubber spatula of the same diameter as the hemisphere. For Benne Wafers, I use a measured teaspoon (as the target is a 10 calorie cookie).  For ice box cookies, I use a "ruler" (in my head). Imagine trying to measure out 5ml bits of dough/batter consistently -- and QUICKLY (the Benne Wafer recipe makes 37 dozens) so you can have the next cookie sheet of 5 dozen ready to go while the previous one is in the oven for ~5 minutes (can you make 60 acurate weighings and placements in 300 seconds?)

And, many recipes aren't fussy.  E.g., my coffee cake recipe calls for "half" of the batter to be poured into an Angel Food Cake pan before a mixture of nuts/cinnamon/sugar is added and then topped with the balance. Owing to the tapered shape of the pan, "half" is never the right amount (the portion of the cake below the cinnamon layer is thicker than the portion above)  Does it really matter?  As long as you can cover the cinnamon layer with "enough" cake batter?

As far as resizing recipes, how do you scale a recipe by 50% of it has an odd number of eggs?  Beat the eggs and pick half the weight -- OR VOLUME??

(My mother was bad with arithmetic.  So, when she wanted to scale a recipe (e.g., double), she would measure everything twice.)

Cleanup?  For folks who don't have dishwashers, you've got time on your hands while the items are baking.  Or, you consider the tools that you use when you set out to make the recipe.  E.g., when I make pizzelles, I know that I will have to hand-clean the pizzelle iron (it can't be submersed).  And, with all those nooks and crannies (think: waffle iron), it's easy to spend a lot of time trying to scrape bits of burnt batter out before putting it away.  Ditto if I am trying to make cavatelli or other homemade pastas.  Cleanup is part of the job.  For dry ingredients, a simple soapy rinse cleans the cups/spoons. For wet, you may have to agitate the material left behind -- or not (I rinse the cups/spoons that measure the vanilla extract and amaretto -- wouldn't you have to similarly rinse some vessel that you poured them into when weighing?

I.e., I don't see any of the KA points as being conclusive.  Someone set out to try to prove a point instead of actually exploring each of the issues with real data.

TheBreadMaster's picture

Encourage your friends to switch to weight measurements, even if they're using American recipes. This will significantly improve the accuracy of reproducing recipes.

Mini Oven's picture
Mini Oven

what the flour in your cup weighs. That is first place to look for a major discrepancy.  Two important weights are missing and can only be guessed at in a conversion to weight.  1) the weight of the flour in the full cup.  2) the total weight of the flour after removing 7 teaspoons of that flour.  

dgy's picture

That's their problem.  I have a recipe that repeatably produces a product that they like.  If they suspect their weight conversions, then they should reexamine their methodologies. Should I also have to adjust for the choice of other ingredients that they use?  Or, if they prefer to use hazelnuts and Frangelico (instead of almonds and Amaretto)?  Or, different baking patterns in their ovens?

Similarly, should I have to sort out how to make a recipe that is "acceptable" to my diabetic friends?

(I'm not a business; just someone who treats his guests to... "treats".  The fact that I share any of my recipes with them is my choice.)

Note that I don't eat any of these things -- yet have spent countless hours tweeking recipes for taste, texture, consistency, etc. I figure if they are really interested, then they can spend some time trying to sort out how to get from whatever they're getting have to whatever I've tried to give them.  (As a rule, I don't share any of the trickier recipes as experience teaches that folks don't want to put in the effort to get the results; why bother trying to come up with a repeatable recipe if the folks reading it aren't going to make an effort?  It's way too easy to say "Oh, you have to give me the recipe for this...").