Science in the Kitchen

Spent this morning in the kitchen, doing three things.

A new batch of peanut butter cookies.

• Hypothesis: They'll be as good or better, made with peanuts finely chopped in my fine chopper instead of peanut butter.
• Method: Follow recipe, but substitute 265 gm finely chopped salted peanuts for 265 gm peanut butter.
• Results: They are as good, or better.
• Methodological flaws: Judgement based on memory rather than simultaneous double-blind assessment.
• However: Two relatively independent judges concur fully.

Two starters and but a single loaf.

• Hypothesis: There's no difference between my home-made ??-year-old sourdough starter and the Tuscan centenarian I was entrusted with some time ago.
• Method (for 1st experiment): Use identical amounts of each starter to bake the standard loaf as suggested by the suppliers of the Tuscan pasta madre. ¹
• Results: The two bigas (or should that be bige?) look and smell identical. More tomorrow.
• Methodological flaws: The Tuscan starter begins life stiffer (75%) than my own (100%), and this time contained a couple of flax seeds left over from the last bake.
• However: Get real.

Fermented cabbage can repeat.

• Hypothesis: Last month's sauerkraut was not a one-hit wonder. ²
• Method: Do it again.
• Results: For now, the jar is packed. Come back in about three weeks.
• Methodological flaws: This time I added caraway seeds and peppercorns, and I left out the red cabbage. I also severely misjudged the amount of cabbage needed, so the jar is only half full.
• However: Maybe none of that will matter.