Topic: Scaling spices and bulk cooking.

[Secret Santa]

Therefore, for home bulk cooking, if you make one curry and use one teaspoon of chilli then you should use ten teaspoons if you make ten, twenty teaspoons if you make twenty etc., as long as you use the same scooping implement and the same pack of spices each time where the packing density will be relatively constant.

50L pot roughly 100 portions. You say Therefore, for home bulk cooking, if you make one curry and use one teaspoon of chilli then you should use ten teaspoons if you make ten, twenty teaspoons if you make twenty etc., as long as you use the same scooping implement and the same pack of spices each time where the packing density will be relatively constant.

Did you see it?

What? The only person who wrote "50L pot roughly 100 portions" is you!

So again, show me where I said it and show me the science for your theory.

[littlechili]

Nice try SS, unfortunately your lightbulb moment was not so illuminating.

[livo]

The mathematics.

Assumptions.

• 1 tsp chilli powder per serve starting point.
• 1 tsp = 5 ml.
• 5 ml (1 tsp) of chilli powder = 2.7 g.
• 1 metric cup = 250 ml (50 tsp)
• Linear scale applied to initial double from 1 to 2 serve (commonly acceptable to both theories).

For the sake of mathematical convenience, enabling direct comparison, let us consider a bulk cook volume of 128 serves instead of 100, this being 6 iterations of doubling after the initial occurrence, ie; from 1 serve to 2. Also a combination of 32 serves added to 64 serves.  96 serves. The combination of 32 and 64 is not exactly consistent to the theory but it is closer to 100 serves and allows examination of the numbers.

128 serves
Linear scaling.
1 X 128 = 128 tsp chilli powder = approx 2.5 cups = approx 345 g.

Non Linear scaling factor of 1.5 after initial double.
2 X 1.5 ^ 6 = 22.78 tsp chilli powder = approx 0.5 cup = approx 62 g.

Non Linear scaling factor of 1.25 after initial double.
2 X 1.25 ^ 6 = 7.63 tsp chilli powder = approx 20 g.

96 serves
Linear scaling
1 X 96 = 96 tsp chilli powder = approx 2 cups = approx 260 g.

Non Linear scaling factor of 1.5 after initial double.
2 ( 1.5 ^ 4 + 1.5 ^ 5 ) = 25.3125 tsp chilli powder = approx 0.5 cup = approx 68 g.

Non Linear scaling factor of 1.25 after initial double.
2 ( 1.25 ^ 4 + 1.25 ^ 5 ) = 5.49 tsp chilli powder = approx 15 g.

Conclusion
As to be expected, there is considerable difference in the amount of chilli required and this difference would increase with further iterations applied. Even I would have to think that a scaling factor of 1.25 is a little bit weak on credibility, but I haven't tested it so I don't know?  Possibly not so on scaling already bulk food quantity to even bigger bulk, ie; 100 to 200 serves etc..  If (please read IF, because I haven't actually done it) the 1.5 factor of scale does provide ample spice levels, then there is a reduction in spice usage of between 74 % and 82%.  Not insignificant.

Disclaimer: This is purely to illustrate the difference in amounts of spice that would be used in the application of the different scaling theories.  I have not ever cooked in these quantities and do not offer this as proof of anything.

[Bob-A-Job]

This is another thread I have been following closely as I cannot get the 'heat' when I bulk cook that I do from 1-2 serving dishes, trust me I have tried.  I used to be able to make a minced beef chilli that had you sweating before you tasted it (but it didn't make your mouth numb) so I guess my taste senors are just desensitised after so long.

However, I do get what SS is saying, in the same way I get that we use 'Double concentrated' tomato puree in a large number of the recipes provided.  I can't argue whether single concentrated has less oil but more water or whatever else might be in the production of double concentrated tomato puree but it is different to a tin of chopped tomatoes.

So, given compaction or whatever, I can understand that a measure by volume of 5ml 'loose powder' might be different in strength to 5ml 'packed powder'.

I have lots (a dozen, maybe two at least) of jars, filled with powders and whole grain spices and they hold either 200g, 400g or 800g but when refilling, I often have to 'hammer' them quite repeatedly on my work top to make room for the last few grammes (except the Cassia Bark).

This is a very interesting debate, thank you to all that are contributing.

BAJ

[Secret Santa]

128 serves
Linear scaling.
1 X 128 = 128 tsp chilli powder = approx 2.5 cups = approx 345 g.

Non Linear scaling factor of 1.5 after initial double.
2 X 1.5 ^ 6 = 22.78 tsp chilli powder = approx 0.5 cup = approx 62 g.

Non Linear scaling factor of 1.25 after initial double.
2 X 1.25 ^ 6 = 7.63 tsp chilli powder = approx 20 g.

...Even I would have to think that a scaling factor of 1.25 is a little bit weak on credibility...

You have doubts about the quantity for 1.25 scaling factor livo but consider the 1.5 scaling factor. 62g of chilli powder divided between 128 single servings is 0.48g per portion or a bit less than a fifth of one teaspoon of chilli powder per portion. So even with this better case of scaling we are expected to believe that one fifth of a teaspoon per portion when bulk cooked has the same chilli heat as 1 teaspoon in a single portion! 

I'd be prepared to concede some ground if the figure was, say, 4/5 teaspoon per bulk cooked portion based on some as yet unknown effect that extracts more capsaicin into the bulk. But 1/5 equating to the effect of 1. No. Just no. And of course that would be worse for the 1.25 scaling factor (equating the effect of roughly 3/50 of a teaspoon to 1).

It also occurs to me that, specifically regarding curries, bulk cooking wouldn't require a linear scaling of oil as you can cook spices, onions, etc. in far less oil at the start of the cook than a linear scaling would suggest. And so, the very ingredient which is acting as the major carrier of the capsaicin is being reduced. If anything the quantity of chilli should be increased in bulk cooking to offset this not reduced.

[Secret Santa]

...so I guess my taste senors are just desensitised after so long.

It's a well established fact. If you're a chilli monster you will have desensitised the pain sensors that give us that chilli-heat buzz.

So, given compaction or whatever, I can understand that a measure by volume of 5ml 'loose powder' might be different in strength to 5ml 'packed powder'.

Pretty basic isn't it. So why aren't people getting it?

I often have to 'hammer' them quite repeatedly on my work top to make room for the last few grammes (except the Cassia Bark).

Exactly. Even at the domestic level we have this packing density problem. A measure of spice taken straight from the packet would differ considerably to the same measure from a compacted jar.

[Garp]

No offence, SS, but I think you are going in the totally wrong direction with this compacted spice nonsense.

I have followed this discussion with some interest as it is, unusually for here, relevant.

I have no answers but I am interested in what I see are the three main points to this discussion.

1/ Is the use of chilli when scaling-up recipes linear or non-linear?
2/ If it is non-linear, what should the multiplier be?
3/ and most importantly (for me), why?

I have difficulty getting my head around the fact, as SS put it, if you cook two exactly the same curries, mixed them together, they would have the same heat level as each individual curry. If you cooked the same curry, with double the ingredients, the heat level would increase. And from purely anecdotal evidence, I believe that the non-linear theory is true.

I would love to know the science behind it, so keep it up guys

[Secret Santa]

...I think you are going in the totally wrong direction with this compacted spice nonsense.

Sure I am. Because we all know that compacted spice, which contains more of the spice than uncompacted spice, for equal volumes, has exactly the same effect. Right?

Doesn't really encourage me to read anything more you have to say on the subject if you believe that.

This discussion is like trying to convince religious adherents to give up their beliefs. No matter what logical argument you put they'll always override you with their faith, which, by definition, is an unbreakable belief based on no evidence.

[Garp]

This discussion is like trying to convince religious adherents to give up their beliefs. No matter what logical argument you put they'll always override you with their faith, which, by definition, is an unbreakable belief based on no evidence.

I think that the exact opposite is true, my friend. You are the one sticking to a ridiculous belief despite all contrary evidence, and are making a mockery of the whole discussion with this absurdity.

[Secret Santa]

You are the one sticking to a ridiculous belief despite all contrary evidence

Yes, that must be it. Would you help me out by summarising that evidence for me please?