Milk by... WEIGHT!?!?!

PAV8888

paperpudding wrote: »

I measure it in mls with little jug - no more contorting to read that than to read scale

Interesting and in reference to the above, as well as CattOftheGarage's mention that density differences in weighing may be less than the margin of error when reading off volume measurements.

And I note that I have zero doubt that approximate volume information is more than enough to provide appropriate estimates for millions of people, including yourself

But when you eye ball measure volume in something like the 2 cup pyrex container that I use and you don't bend down (or squat as Ann mentioned up thread) to have your eyes level with your fill line you often end up with a parallax error.

Also not all cup containers are identical.
They seem even less calibrated than scales!!

In other words, yes, the margin of error in measuring volume is, I think, higher than scale weight even if with the potential temperature and density issues that exist when measuring liquids on a scale

This point, of course, in no way means that it is *necessary* for anyone/everyone to measure that way.

crabbybrianna

I always weigh my liquids because the website I use to track my foods has gram measurements for liquids, and I can’t be bothered to dirty measuring spoons and cups. If there is any error I figure it’s not big enough to make any difference.

lynn_glenmont

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

I weigh most liquids and generally just assume the density is the same as water, because for most drinkable liquids, it is.

The only things which are going to make a drinkable liquid a different density are fat (makes it lighter), alcohol (lighter) and sugar (heavier). Fibre, eg in smoothies or soup, is more or less neutral buoyancy and has no noticeable effect one way or the other. Even wet foods like stews are very close to water density. It's low-moisture foods, and foods that trap air (eg ice cream, whipped cream), that can be drastically different.

Fat content in even whole milk is so low that the difference is within margin of error - 4% fat only makes a 0.8% difference in density. Kitchen scales just aren't that accurate! Sugar content likewise, and even alcohol won't make a noticeable difference unless we're talking about hard spirits.

Granted heavy cream will be noticeably lighter than water, but you're still looking at a bigger inaccuracy in using a volume measure than the density difference would produce.

I weigh oil, too. It's 80% as dense as water, roughly, so 8g is 10ml. I just estimate that in my head.

But if you're going to weigh it anyway, why not use an entry with a serving size based on weight, at least for "commodities" like milk, cream, oils that the USDA provides nutrient information for serving sizes in grams and (not fluid) ounces?

newheavensearth

I weigh salad dressings and liquid condiments after taring the food on the scale. Usually in grams or ml depending on the label. I've only weighed cashew milk into cereal once in mls.

tar2323

As an experiment, last night I used a tablespoon (15ml) to measure out and then weigh water, single cream and skimmed milk. A full spoonful of each weighed exactly the same on my scale in both grams and mls. I'll continue to weigh my liquids as I do all my other foods.

PAV8888

tar2323 wrote: »

As an experiment, last night I used a tablespoon (15ml) to measure out and then weigh water, single cream and skimmed milk. A full spoonful of each weighed exactly the same on my scale in both grams and mls. I'll continue to weigh my liquids as I do all my other foods.

I don't doubt at all that these were the results you got.

1000ml of 2% milk at 20C and 1 atmosphere weighs 1033g, so 15ml weigh 15.05g
1000ml of 20% milk at 20C and 1 atmosphere weighs 1012g, so 15ml weigh 15.18g
Whereas 1000ml of water at 20C and 1 atmosphere would weigh 998.21g, and so 15ml would weight 14.97g

Even assuming you actually managed to get precisely 15ml in each spoonful, most scales would show all of the above as exactly 15g.

(info from: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/AliciaNoelleJones.shtml and https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-density-specific-weight-d_595.html)

CyberTone

PAV8888 wrote: »

1000ml of 2% milk at 20C and 1 atmosphere weighs 1033g, so 15ml weigh 15.05g 15.495g

FIFY :drinker:

PAV8888

CyberTone wrote: »

FIFY :drinker:

TY!
I run out of fingers and was using the dog's dewclaws, but she moved them too far to the right on me

CyberTone

PAV8888 wrote: »

CyberTone wrote: »

FIFY :drinker:

TY!
I run out of fingers and was using the dog's dewclaws, but she moved them too far to the right on me

Well that's a relief. I thought you might be doing the division in your head and had a spasm.

paperpudding

PAV8888 wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

I measure it in mls with little jug - no more contorting to read that than to read scale

Interesting and in reference to the above, as well as CattOftheGarage's mention that density differences in weighing may be less than the margin of error when reading off volume measurements.

And I note that I have zero doubt that approximate volume information is more than enough to provide appropriate estimates for millions of people, including yourself

But when you eye ball measure volume in something like the 2 cup pyrex container that I use and you don't bend down (or squat as Ann mentioned up thread) to have your eyes level with your fill line you often end up with a parallax error.

Also not all cup containers are identical.
They seem even less calibrated than scales!!

In other words, yes, the margin of error in measuring volume is, I think, higher than scale weight even if with the potential temperature and density issues that exist when measuring liquids on a scale

This point, of course, in no way means that it is *necessary* for anyone/everyone to measure that way.

Correct - totally not neccesary for me.

Which is why I dont do it.

CattOfTheGarage

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

I weigh most liquids and generally just assume the density is the same as water, because for most drinkable liquids, it is.

The only things which are going to make a drinkable liquid a different density are fat (makes it lighter), alcohol (lighter) and sugar (heavier). Fibre, eg in smoothies or soup, is more or less neutral buoyancy and has no noticeable effect one way or the other. Even wet foods like stews are very close to water density. It's low-moisture foods, and foods that trap air (eg ice cream, whipped cream), that can be drastically different.

Fat content in even whole milk is so low that the difference is within margin of error - 4% fat only makes a 0.8% difference in density. Kitchen scales just aren't that accurate! Sugar content likewise, and even alcohol won't make a noticeable difference unless we're talking about hard spirits.

Granted heavy cream will be noticeably lighter than water, but you're still looking at a bigger inaccuracy in using a volume measure than the density difference would produce.

I weigh oil, too. It's 80% as dense as water, roughly, so 8g is 10ml. I just estimate that in my head.

But if you're going to weigh it anyway, why not use an entry with a serving size based on weight, at least for "commodities" like milk, cream, oils that the USDA provides nutrient information for serving sizes in grams and (not fluid) ounces?

If I can find such an entry, I do, but you know how it is. Sometimes you're drinking some random Korean Mango flavoured milk you got at the international grocery store and you have to create a new entry based on the nutrition information, which is only in ml. I would still weigh it. It's close enough.

That's when I'm not eyeballing it. I'm one of those who eyeballs most of the time and then strategically weighs things at intervals to keep my eye in.

People, please don't worry about temperature. Trust me. I deal with density calculations for ship stability. We have to account for density to 0.1% accuracy. We ignore temperature. The effect is miniscule. If it doesn't matter for a ship, it *really* doesn't matter for your smoothie.