Kitchen utensil names in recipes

In American recipes and in some old recipes, you might come across units such as teaspoons, dessert spoons, tablespoons and cups. In recipes, they do not refer to any old teaspoon, dessert spoon, tablespoon or cup but to specific physical quantities. How many are aware that these names refer to volume measures rather than physical kitchen utensils? These units are non-standard, and each unit has several definitions – a range of different teaspoons, dessert spoons, tablespoons and cups have been used.

For the teaspoon unit, we have the metric teaspoon of 5 ml, the US teaspoon of exactly 4.92892159375 ml and the apothecary teaspoon equal to 1 fluid dram. A fluid dram is equal to exactly 3.6966911953125 ml in the US customary system and exactly 3.5516328125 ml in the British Imperial system. For nutritional labelling and medicine, the US uses the metric teaspoon.

For the dessert spoon unit, this is 1⁄3 of a fluid ounce in the US and 10 ml in the UK. A different dessert spoon was used as an apothecary unit, equal to two fluid drams, or 1⁄4 fluid ounce.

Wikipedia lists several tablespoons equal to 14.8 ml, 15 ml and 20 ml.

The US uses two different cup units: the customary cup of exactly 236.5882365 ml and the legal cup of exactly 240 ml for nutrition labelling. Wikipedia also lists several sizes of coffee cups on its “Cup (unit)” page. International cups include the metric cup (250 ml), Canadian cup (227.3045 ml), standard UK cup (10 imperial fluid ounces, half an imperial pint or 284.130625 ml), several Latin American cups, Japanese cup (traditional: 180.4 ml, modern: 200 ml) and two Russian cups (smaller one: 123 ml, larger one: 246 ml).

The metric system has only one definition for each unit, which applies worldwide. It is best to avoid the non-metric unit names mentioned in kitchen recipes to avoid ambiguity and use the metric units instead. There is nothing wrong with referring to physical teaspoons or tablespoons (e.g., add a teaspoon of salt, add a tablespoon of baking soda) where precision is unnecessary. But avoid using them as unit names.

Sources:

10 thoughts on “Kitchen utensil names in recipes”

  1. Despite the fact that the US defines the teaspoon as 4.92892159375 mL, there are no spoons made to this definition. They are all and have been for sometime made to exactly 5 mL. It thus begs the question as to why they continue to publish this value?

    The same is true for the cup. A cup of 236.5882365 mL does not exist. In fact, this cup can not be legally used in trade. All cups made are to 250 mL maximum marked measure and the 240 mL marking equals 8 ounces fluid. Each liquid ounce in cup measure is 30 mL and harmonises with 6 teaspoons and 2 tablespoons.

    Hanging on to old definitions while the products are made to rounded metric values makes zero sense. It’s as bad as making a product to a length of 25 mm, converting it in description to 1 inch and adding 25.4 mm in parentheses.

    Like

  2. In cookery, it is neither necessary nor possible to measure to an accuracy of 11 or more decimal places. As far as I am concerned, a teaspoon nowadays is 5 ml, a desert spoon is 10 ml and a table spoon is 15 ml. A cup (or to be more precise a decent sized mug) is 250 ml. It is useful to know American equivalents, because American recipes are sometimes available, but these equivalents are near enough not to matter. My kitchen has a set of measuring spoons with capacities of 25 ml, 50 ml and other round metric values, as well as teaspoons, etc.

    I don’t want to know apothecaries’ measurements, and neither does anyone else. They are ancient history.

    Like

  3. With regards coffee cups, many UK cafes still list 8, 12 or 20 oz sizes on their menus.
    None of them state these are US fluid ounces and only very rarely have I seen quantities listed in millilitres.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Boy did this come up at the right time… last night I was making up a box of Kraft Mac & Cheese that I’d picked up from my local Costco. Helpfully they’d stuck a UK nutritional information label on one side of the box but kept the US instructions including all the customary cups and stuff on the other. No luck of getting a Canadian pack (Kraft Dinner as it’s known in the true north) with metric instructions.

    That said, Tim Hortons venture into the UK includes tubs of powder for their signature French Vanilla. The instructions are in, you guessed it, tablespoons! And that’s a product manufactured and labelled specifically for the UK market. That said, Cadbury do no better on their drinking chocolate.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. @Free Thinker
    My apologies that the USA is so stuck in the past. If we had converted back in the 1980’s (i.e. if Carter had beaten Reagan), this whole mess would have been avoided since the UK could not have gone it alone with Imperial. One system of units to rule them all!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Modernman: I was in one of our “big name” coffee shops the other day and noticed the way that coffee was served. No indication, in any units, of how much coffee you get in a beaker. Just three sizes available. The largest size is twice as much as the smallest size. I know this, because it does state how many kilocalories you get in each size (sorry, SI pals, who would prefer kilojoules). Also it is served in oversized beakers, not beakers full to the brim. There are a couple of lesson there that could be applied to the sale of beer.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Twice the calories may not equate to twice the quantity. It all depends on the amount of milk vs amount of coffee.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Yes, measuring cups and spoons are different from ordinary tableware. The measuring cup is 8 US fl oz, different from Imperial fl oz, and about 236.6 mL. The FDA cup, for nutritional information only follows their rounding rules for all nutritional information and is mandated to be 240 mL, probably within acceptable cooking tolerances and easier to measure with metric measuring jugs. Most measuring cups are marked both with fluid ounce lines and milliliters. None of mine appear to use the FDA definition; I can’t tell it is 236.6 mL but I can tell it is not 240 mL, but something less.

    Dessert spoons and fluid drams haven’t been used in a century or more for recipes, but cups, tablespoons, and teaspoons are regularly used. The teaspoon is 1/6 US fl oz, about 4.9 mL, but they are customarily labeled 1 tsp | 5 mL. Similarly tablespoons are ½ US fl oz, about 14.7 mL, but usually labeled 1 Tbsp. | 15 mL. Real ones have tolerances that make the official, exact conversions decimal dust.

    Apothecary measure, both fluid and mass, are really pretty dead here; NIST continues to print their definitions, but nobody uses it.

    Like

  9. John Steele said:

    “None of mine appear to use the FDA definition; I can’t tell it is 236.6 mL but I can tell it is not 240 mL, but something less.”

    You must have super vision of some type.

    I have two small measure cups. One is a Pyrex, made in the US with a total marked capacity of 500 mL. The second one is an Anchor brand, no origin marked with a total capacity of 250 mL. Neither have a 240 mL marking. The 500 mL cup is marked every 50 mL from 50 mL up to 500 mL. The 250 mL cup is marked in 25 mL increments from 50 mL to 250 mL.

    The 500 mL cup has an opening of 106 mm and the 250 mL cup has an opening of 82 mm at the top. If I calculate the cross-sectional area at the top, the 500 mL cup works out to 5281.0 mm^2 and the 250 mL cup works out to 8824.7 mm^2 or 52.81 cm^2 and 88.25 cm^2. The difference between 240 mL and 236.6 mL is 3.4 mL. If I divide 3.4 into 52.81 and 88.25, I get a height difference of 0.6438 mm and 0.3852 mm. The painted lines using a ruler appear to be very close to 1 mm thick.

    The difference between a marking for 1 cup = 8 ounces and 1 cup = 240 mL would be < 1 mm and unless you have super vision, they are indistinguishable.

    On the 250 mL cup, the 1 cup line is 12 mm from the top edge and the 250 mL marking is 10 mm from the top edge. The difference of 2 mm (0.2 cm) results in a volume difference of 0.2 x 52.81 = 10.562 cm^3 or mL. Thus the 1 cup marking would fall pretty close to the 240 mL marking if there was one.

    With 1 mm thick lines and the fact that these are cheap glassware measuring cups I can't see them making a big effort to strive for 236.6 mL to place the 1 cup line marking. I would agree that the 1 cup line is observably less than less than the 250 mL marking but is either at the location the 240 mL marking would be or very close to it. If however you still insist you can see a difference between 1 cup and where the 240 mL mark would lie, then your 1 cup line must be way off.

    Why not take some measurements as I did and see what you come up with.

    Like

Leave a comment