I think some recipes (as opposed to baking) aren't so fussy as to need exact measurements. Maybe a pound of asparagus would work as well as 1.5 lbs? I'd look at the store next time and maybe weigh what one of their "bunches" is, altho each store likely has different sizes. Sometimes bunches are bigger to try to force you to buy more (if priced by the lb), or smaller so you get less for your money (if priced by the bunch). You could also look at similar recipes and see if you see one with poundage included to give you a rough idea.

I don't know, but I would like to make a guess and see what the pros think. I would assume one bunch should be whatever is enough to serve four people. I would also guess that that was one pound 30 years ago; and that it is therefore now ~14oz. (or 12oz.). edit: I hadn't seen Olychick's post yet.

Whether it's full grown asparagus or matchsticks, a bunch is the same size. Probably because it's what fits the rubber band. :) It's about 3" across on the bottom. A bunch of greens, whether it's collards, kale, or spinach, is usually about an inch in diameter at the tie, with the stems banded together. A bunch of herbs is much smaller: Basil, dill, etc., are in the range of 1/4-1/2 inch at the stems tie. 3/8 is probably accurate. :)

A bunch of carrots, beets, etc., is harder to say. I don't know if those are created by weight, or what. Big carrots might be five to a bunch, and baby carrots might be more like seven. Large beets can be three to a bunch, medium might be five. A bunch of bananas is generally 5-7.

The recipes list bunches to make shopping easier because that's how things are sold, but it's woefully imprecise.

I always think "a bunch" is as much as I need.

For something like that, I'd think of a bunch as whatever amount I can grasp in my hand. :)

I'm with Momj47. A bunch is as much as I need.

Two bunches isn't confusing when you buy your vegetables by the bunch! 1. 2.

I just remembered that I have a bunch of collards (I was supposed to put it in soup today, but it's very hot and I had to go to work twice). So I weighed it. 8.8 oz. Just over half a pound. The bunch of curly parsley is 5.4 oz., so about a third of a pound.

I found this chart on Cooksinfo.com in a big long article about asparagus:

[Asparagus] Equivalents1
pound fresh = 450g = 12 - 15 large spears or 16 - 20 small spears = 3
cups trimmed of base = 2 1/2 cups cooked = 1 15 oz (440 ml) can
Asparagus
1 1/4 pounds fresh Asparagus = 550g =
___ 10 oz (300 g) frozen Asparagus = 2 cups frozen Asparagus
1 average bunch fresh asparagus (small spears), uncooked = 14 oz untrimmed
1 average bunch fresh asparagus (small spears), uncooked = 6 oz trimmed

It's more than two or three and less than three dozen. Don't you love quantifiable measurements?

Bugs me as well. Seems to me that it's referring to what you would find @ the grocery store. If I'm picking my own, then I use that as a guide.

& how about recipes that call for 'a can' or 'a jar' or 'a package' of something?

Well, I'm glad it's not just me who can't figure it out. And in my local grocery, asparagus isn't sold in bunches, but in Styrofoam containers with plastic over them. No bunches there.

pillog, if bunches are only 6-8 oz, I can't imagine that feeding 5 people. I guess I'm going to have to punt on this recipe. But it's a simple one and I'm sure I can adjust it. I just wish magazines would be more accurate.

If a bunch is defined as "as much as needed" then it's illogical to have a recipe that calls for two bunches unless you want to make twice as much as needed.

Not if what is needed for the recipe requires the equivalent of two bunches. I don't find it difficult to look at a bunch of asparagus/spinach/collards, etc. and know that I will need more than one bunch for whatever I am planning on making.

Asparagus is always sold by the pound, and the bunches weigh more than a pound. I bought 2 bunches last week because I knew I wanted to roast some and have some in stir-fry, so I buy what I will need/use.

It's contextual. An experienced cook will be able to discern. A novice might need things like that spelled out for them.

Exactly. Like onions. I know some people are confused when a recipe calls for an onion and doesn't specify size. Or even if it does specify a small, medium or large onion this can also be confusing. When really in the scheme of things it really won't matter all that much, if you use a little more or a little less. I basically cook everything to taste and never rely on a recipe.

To me, the term "bunch" is intentionally non-specific. It describes an amount of something used in a recipe, when the quantity of the amount so described is relatively flexible.

You'd never see "add some yeast and baking powder (of unspecified quantities) to the bread dough" but you will see "rinse a bunch of parsley and chop enough to sprinkle on top before serving".

Snidely, that's because parsley is sold in bunches, and as Ann T said, it doesn't really matter so much how big the bunch is.

Lacyvail, portion sizes also aren't standardized, though some recipes nowadays give a weight so you can put it in your diet calculator. Instead of giving up on the recipe, why don't you post it (new thread so people will check it out) and let the collective wisdom help you with the measurements?

Oh, I don't plan to give up on the recipe; it sounds too tasty. I'll post it later or tomorrow-it's really quite easy and I had planned to just make adjustments, but it does annoy me to see recipes written so cavalierly. I wouldn't mind "bunch" so much if an alternate had been given as well, as in "2 bunches or about x lbs."

I get it. Before publication, a recipe should be tested and standardized. The methods for doing that aren't in the standard cook's vernacular, usually. I edited and wrote recipes for minor publication for years. I learned that what I was used to, like "a small onion", didn't mean anything to some cooks, and I spent a lot of hours prepping, weighing and testing, but then the people who don't use scales complained that they didn't know how many onions X oz. was. :) Saying both, as you suggested, is clearest, but then the recipe doesn't fit in the allotted space. Sigh.

When I write up recipes for people who don't have a lot of cooking knowledge, I include as much trivia as I can, like the angle to hold the knife. Working with people live has taught me that there's no detail too small to be questioned. (If you've seen one of these posted by me here, please don't be offended--I know most here know how to cook and don't need all that, but it can take half an hour or more to edit it down comprehensibly.)

FWIW, I really appreciate it when a recipe gives the total volume of a prepped vegetable, etc., i.e. 'X number of onions, chopped (about 1 1/2 cups)' or similar, since I will often add various other vegetables to a recipe.

OK, here's that asparagus recipe:

Slice tips off 2 heads garlic, drizzle with 2 TBL olive oil, salt and pepper, and roast at 400 until soft--20-40 mins.

Squeeze out cloves, Add 1/4 c. minced chives, and 2 TBL chopped garlic scapes or 2 tsp chopped fresh garlic, and 1/4 c. lemon juice.

Spread 2 bunches (I'm guessing at least 2 lbs) on baking sheet, drizzle with 1 TBL olive oil, sprinkle 2 tsp lemon zest, and roast at 400 10-20 mins.

Top with roasted garlic vinaigrette and 1/4 c. chopped walnuts.

BTW--it's my opinion that store bought asparagus is cut much too late (more bang for the buck for growers), and that's why you have to cut off an inch or so of the base. When you grow your own, you cut them younger and shorter--6-8 inches. Annie, what do you think?

The recipe just screams "Spring!". I wouldn't be bothered by the lack of precision when it comes to the amount of asparagus-I'd guestimate based on the amount of people I was serving.

Although, I always love leftover asparagus.

Most produce that I buy from farmers markets needs to be trimmed at the base very little, if at all.

This past Fall, I was getting amazing rapini with thick, juicy stems, and I was able to use 100% of it-so, so good!

This is where the difference between cooking and baking comes into play. When I cook, I know I can approximate - a handful, a pinch, and in your case, a bunch. Baking, on the other hand, is science. If a recipe calls for 1/2 a teaspoon and you add 2/3rds of teaspoon by accident, the results could be disastrous.

What you say is true, to an extent, Fawnridge, but I've learned through experience that while salt is kind of ticky--though you can taste batter/dough at a stage where it's possible to add more--leavening doesn't require nearly the amount of precision as some would have you think. The quantity of flour, and of protein in the flour, is the most crucial measure, and even that has a lot of flexibility. Perfection in either cooking or baking, takes precision. Quite good has a lot of wiggle room.

Lacyvail, with that recipe it's definitely as others said higher up in the thread: Do it to taste. If you like more dressing on your asparagus, don't dress all of it until you're sure there's enough sauce on the first bit. If you like less, use a light hand and taste before you use all of it. As to the oil and lemon zest, those aren't even real measures. That's recipe-speak to let you know approximately how much to have ready. The real deal is "lightly coat asparagus with oil and sprinkle generously with lemon zest, until nicely covered." As to the amount of asparagus, it sounds to me like one large baking tray, or full sheet pan, full, laid in a single layer and not squeezed together (literally--next to each other but not so you need finger pressure to fit them in). That's probably a more useful measure than by the pound. :)

I bought a bunch of asparagus yesterday. It does, indeed, weigh a pound.

That recipe isn't going to be very sensitive to the amount of asparagus used in it. Only so much of the oil, lemon zest and vinaigrette is going to stick to the asparagus. And I agree with pllog that as much as fits on a baking sheet is a good measure for it. I think two bunches would fit on a 9 x 13 baking sheet.

I noticed the asparagus when in the produce section and put a bunch into the scale there. It weighed a pound too.

I checked out the display of asparagus today, thinking of this thread. They were all in bundles of 375 grams, so less than a lb, which is 454 grams

Yes, basically a bunch is an arbitrary measurement and each person's bunch may vary.

It's not that bad! It's each grower or community of growers, since we're talking about the amount you buy at a supermarket to compare to the amount grown at home.

Jasdip has demonstrated that a Canadian bunch is a different size than a U.S. one, though. :)

When I was a kid growing up in mid western New Mexico my mom would have me go out to one of two gardens and gather a bunch of either turnip greens, radishes, spinach or whatever. Her interpretation of a bunch meant two handful per item requested and place in garden basket. This was back in 1974-75. Really do believe this was passed down since my grandmother on my dads side went by the same rule. Two handful might sound like a lot but once prepared and cooked down it becomes reasonable. Even the spinach raw and washed,,, two handfuls make for a good salade.

I saw this again today and still thought it said "brunch".

it's a bunch of old posts being brought back to the fore ....