The Sourdough Starter Topic

[devlin]

I think I'm still missing this: what are the untruths?

I see differences of opinion, but untruths? Mythology?

I defend against this because I have 5 years and 1000 loaves launched by these mythological untruths.

I think this an opinion, and opinions are fine, but they're not fact.

As for burden to home baker, I don't agree.

It's a burden to me because I'm juggling 3 starters in volume. I make volumes of bread and need volumes.

←

http://www.thevillagebakeryonline.com/

Again, it seems an essential disagreement is the perception of how much starter you think you need.

In reading through this thread, it appears to me that I make far more bread in a week and maintain far less "starter" or "culture." I suspect my starter is thicker too, but I can't be sure of that.

Anyway, if the method works for you, then no problem. But then again you did initiate the thread (before it was merged into this larger one) asking how you could make your work less burdensome with so much starter. So then one would assume something *isn't* working for you. I understand that from your perspective it's more to do with the manual mixing of the starter, but all sorts of experienced folks here now (including me) are suggesting perhaps there's a whole nother way to approach the problem that would not only save you from what you've characterized as a burdensome issue in your baking, but might also change your approach in other ways.

This probably won't change the quality of your bread, by the way, or at least not in the long run, although if you do change your technique you will invariably have to tinker with your formula a bit to get what you're going after. I use a whole nother method that garners equally rave reviews, and although I started out using Silverton's methods and formulas, I was frankly not pleased with the results I was getting and so after a lot of experimenting, taking a little from here and a little from there, and through a lot of practice and baking and experimenting, I finally came up with my own method which is what moved me beyond following someone else's techniques and formulas and on to developing my own.

I'm not saying Silverton is wrong or bad, but she is only one method among many equally valid (and for me, better) methods.

The Village Bakery

Edited August 17, 2009 by devlin (log)

[slkinsey]

My only criticisms are that she perpetuates mythology about sourdough microorganisms that are known to be untrue.

I think I'm still missing this: what are the untruths?

I see differences of opinion, but untruths? Mythology?

Untruths and mythology such as, for example, the thought that sourdough microorganisms can come from grapes -- which is known to be untrue. You will not find any sourdough microorganisms on a grape.

I defend against this because I have 5 years and 1000 loaves launched by these mythological untruths.

Lots of people throughout history have been able to do great things based on premises that turned out to be untrue. That doesn't make the premise any less untrue.

I think this an opinion, and opinions are fine, but they're not fact.

I'm not sure what you refer to, but it's a fact that sourdough microorganisms don't come from grapes -- not an opinion. Scientists have been looking for these things for a long time, and have looked at countless grapes (among other things) looking for sourdough microorganisms. None have been found, and people who make their careers studying this sort of thing on a scientific basis do not believe that grapes are or can be a source of sourdough microorganisms.

What grapes will do is provide a ready supply of easily fermentable sugars, along with grape microorganisms to eat those sugars, that will provide an apparent early boost of fermentation activity. But none of the microorganisms providing this initial fermentation is capable of surviving in a continually refreshed sourdough, and they all die off within a few generations.

As for burden to home baker, I don't agree.

It's a burden to me because I'm juggling 3 starters in volume. I make volumes of bread and need volumes.

If you don't think it's burdensome to keep around and continually feed on a daily basis as much as nine quarts of sourdough starter, then we have a difference of opinion as to what constituted "burdensome." It has been quite common since the publication of her book for people to criticize Silverton's starter feeding schedules and amounts for being too burdensome. This will always be a matter of opinion for the individual baker, of course.

All I can say is that I have in the past maintained as many as three separate sourdough cultures which retained identifiably distinct fermentation characteristics. I maintained these at around one cup total of each culture, and on days when I was not baking with those cultures I kept them in the refrigerator and fed them perhaps twice a month. When I planned to bake with one of the cultures, I would let it come up to temperature, inoculate however much "new starter" I needed to use, feed the storage culture via 1:20 dilution and return it to the refrigerator as soon as it started to show the first signs of life. Because my starters were fed for optimal growth conditions (meaning that it had the maximum number of live and healthy sourdough microorganisms per gram) the "new starter" would come up to full activity in a few hours and I could bake with it. This is my idea of "not burdensome."

There is simply no reason, unless you are baking every single day with all three of your cultures, for you to keep so much starter and for you to feed them several times a day. And if you are not feeding your nine quarts of starters every day and are refrigerating them until the day before baking day, then there is just no reason to keep that much in consideration of the fact that you can build any amount of sourdough from as little as a tablespoon of storage culture in 24 hours.

I appreciate the other comments. Do you have a source link to the study or studies that from which you quote? To me, yesterday's science is as valuable as mythology. Who knows when, where, how this study was conducted? Who's to say that a strain of yeast from San Francisco has anything to say about yeasts in Denver, for example?

We can know these things because, while a Denver strain of Lactobacillus sanfransiscensis might be a little different from a San Francisco strain of L. sanfransiscensis, there are generalized things we can say that apply to all strains of L. sanfransiscensis. We're just not going to find, for example, a strain that is not seriously inhibited at a pH of 4.3 or lower. Now... there are other, less desirable lactobacilli that can survive in a low pH, high-inoculum sourdough, but not L. sanfransiscensis. L. sanfransiscensis is the dominant lactobacillus in virtually all of the best sourdough cultures. (See e.g.,Biodiversity of Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis strains isolated from five sourdoughs, M. Kitahara, S. Sakata and Y. Benno, Lett Appl Microbiol. 2005; 40(5):353-357): "strains were L. sanfranciscensis, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus paralimentarius, Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus pontis, Lactobacillus casei, Weisella confusa and Pediococcus pentosaceus. A total of 21 strains were identified as L. sanfranciscensis. . .")

The other thing we can say is that there isn't nearly as wide a variety of yeast as one might think. The most common is familiar old Saccharomyces cerevisiae, followed by Candida milleri, C. humilis, S. exiguus and Issatchenkia orientalis (see, Occurrence and dominance of yeast species in sourdough, Pulvirenti A, Solieri L, Gullo M, De Vero L, Giudici P., Lett Appl Microbiol. 2004;38(2):113-7.)

[fooey]

It does sound like quite a few herein maintain minimal amounts of starter and build large amounts with small inoculations. I'll try it; if it works, that's ultimate solution to my starter maintenance problems. I'll have to adjust all of my schedules, etc., but that shouldn't be too much of an issue. I'll keep a close eye on (perceived) leavening strength, as the starters I currently use could leaven concrete (j/k).

As for these untruths, I'd be interested in knowing if they were known untruths at the time of publication. If so, then maybe there's reason to be harsh. I, for one, will always respect her contributions.

This is what she says re:grapes

"Ideally, you will use unsprayed, organically grown grapes; if you leave the grapes unwashed, the culture can take advantage of beneficial wild yeasts that cling to the grape skin's waxy coating. If you can't find organically grown grapes, wash the grapes you buy." (p. 32, ISBN 679-40907-6).

I'd wager she's right. There are yeasts all around us by the quadrillions, so why wouldn't the waxy coating contain them? She doesn't say they're of any essential variety or even that they're essential to the starter, even if the procedure so implies by their use. I couldn't even find organic grapes last time I built from scratch, so I used organic raisins instead. That starter took off like rocket fuel, but I didn't take a census and don't know who was doing what to whom.

Edited August 18, 2009 by fooey (log)

[slkinsey]

"Ideally, you will use unsprayed, organically grown grapes; if you leave the grapes unwashed, the culture can take advantage of beneficial wild yeasts that cling to the grape skin's waxy coating. If you can't find organically grown grapes, wash the grapes you buy." (p. 32, ISBN 679-40907-6).

Right. This implies that yeast from grape skins can form the basis of a sourdough culture. This is incorrect and was known to be incorrect at the time her work was published. Not that she is unusual in perpetuating myths and misinformation with respect to sourdough microbiology. This sort of thing is the rule rather than the exception. But it's a fact that people read these things and believe they can use apple slices in starting their sourdough culture to "take advantage of beneficial wild yeasts" that live on apples and will end up with a distinctive "apple starter," and can use juniper berries in starting their sourdough culture to "take advantage of beneficial wild yeasts" that live on juniper berries and will end up with a distinctive "juniper starter" and so on. This is not correct.

I should hasten to point out that, while I think its disappointing that Silverton perpetuates this myth and misinformation her her book, I don't think this is a particularly major flaw. The recipes work, after all. It's just too bad. A far greater flaw, in my opinion, is the instruction to keep impractically large amounts of starter. This, too, can be explained by the fact that she is a commercial baker and probably didn't give enough due consideration to the realities of casual home sourdough baking. But, again, while this is a criticism of the book, it's still a good book. The recipes work well and they are very good. But we do find that people who use Silverton's starter techniques and have an understanding of how starters work based on her books do tend to run into trouble with certain things because they don't have a particularly good understanding of how starter cultures and sourdoughs in general work.

[fooey]

This implies that yeast from grape skins can form the basis of a sourdough culture.  This is incorrect and was known to be incorrect at the time her work was published. 

She says the starter can take advantage of them. Where does she say they're essential? Where does she imply that this is necessary, fundamental, basic to the equation? I don't see it, either expressed or implied.

Correction: OK, I guess I do see how it's implied...

Edited August 18, 2009 by fooey (log)

[fooey]

But we do find that people who use Silverton's starter techniques and have an understanding of how starters work based on her books do tend to run into trouble with certain things because they don't have a particularly good understanding of how starter cultures and sourdoughs in general work.

I can see that. In fact, more:

That it takes so long to build the starter as instructed is probably the main reason I'm afraid to whittle the volume down as much as you all suggest.

Edited August 18, 2009 by fooey (log)

[fooey]

But it's a fact that people read these things and believe they can use apple slices in starting their sourdough culture to "take advantage of beneficial wild yeasts" that live on apples and will end up with a distinctive "apple starter," and can use juniper berries in starting their sourdough culture to "take advantage of beneficial wild yeasts" that live on juniper berries and will end up with a distinctive "juniper starter" and so on. This is not correct.

Yes, it's like people who buy commercial sourdough starters from San Francisco and are convinced that their starter is creating true San Francisco sourdough bread.

I forget where I read the article, but the gist was that a starter created from a San Franscisco seeder culture, but maintained in New York, was about as San Fransiscan as Yankees, or not San Franciscan at all. The author said local yeast would quickly overtake whatever yeast were in the original seeder culture.

He actually slammed San Francisco sourdough as being an bad example of artisan bread: the acidity conflicts with just about any meal its served with, the method used to maintain the acidity as perfect example of a unbalanced starter, etc.

[wstedwordman]

Immersion blender sounds like a bad idea. It has the potential of completely shredding the gluten. even in the starter, this is bad practice.

It is never necessary to keep 3 starters going daily at home. just build the other starters the night before from the white. that's what i do.

[cookman]

I've been using slkinsley's technique for maintaining and using a (small) amout of starter with great success. I'm baking some of the breads from Silverton's La Brea bakery cookbook and wanted to know about converting a starter from white to wheat flour. In her cookbook, she has you go through several sequential builds to convert a white starter to a whole-wheat starter. Any reason you can't just use a small amount of white starter to innoculate the necessary amount of whole wheat flour and water rather than use her slow-build whole wheat starter?

[fooey]

I've been using slkinsley's technique for maintaining and using a (small) amout of starter with great success. I'm baking some of the breads from Silverton's La Brea bakery cookbook and wanted to know about converting a starter from white to wheat flour. In her cookbook, she has you go through several sequential builds to convert a white starter to a whole-wheat starter. Any reason you can't just use a small amount of white starter to innoculate the necessary amount of whole wheat flour and water rather than use her slow-build whole wheat starter?

That's what I did recently, after slkinsey browbeat me into a temporary submission. It worked OK. On second thought, I guess I used a very small amount to get it going and then a few builds, but never really brought it to the volume Nancy recommends for maintenance.

Ditto for the rye starter, which worked well too, albeit much faster. Note: Be careful with the rye starter. It grows fast and high (because it's so sticky, sticky like glue). Be sure to build it in a big container if you're making the volume called for in some of the recipes, or it will spill over.

I'm on the fence about using small amounts of starter. It works, but it's not better, in my opinion. I think it makes good bread, consistently good bread, in fact, but not great bread. When I follow Nancy's voluminous method to the letter, I make great bread. I don't know why. The only assumption I have is that there's more playground for the bacteria and yeastie beasites to make their deliciousness.

I will continue to using both methods.

Edited September 24, 2009 by fooey (log)

[slkinsey]

I've been using slkinsley's technique for maintaining and using a (small) amout of starter with great success. I'm baking some of the breads from Silverton's La Brea bakery cookbook and wanted to know about converting a starter from white to wheat flour. In her cookbook, she has you go through several sequential builds to convert a white starter to a whole-wheat starter. Any reason you can't just use a small amount of white starter to innoculate the necessary amount of whole wheat flour and water rather than use her slow-build whole wheat starter?

No, there is no reason you can't simply inoculate a quantity of "usage starter" with a small amount of active "storage starter" and use it when it becomes fully active. There is really no rationale behind maintaining separate whole wheat and white wheat starters. The only difference is that the whole wheat starter will have a higher ash content, and therefore be able to contain more total acid before the sourdough microorganisms are inhibited, but this won't change the composition or properties of the starter culture. Fundamentally, it's still just wheat. Of course, the whole wheat starter also contains oils from the bran that can go rancid.

Rye is a slightly different story. Unlike whole compared to white wheat flour, rye really is "different food" and creates a different environment for the sourdough microorganisms. Most starter cultures maintained in white wheat seem to do very well in rye breads, but some do not. There are also some rye cultures that only seem to do well in rye and do not work in wheat flour.

[cookman]

Can someone explain to me what the rationale is for the slow-build technique that is called for in so many published sourdough bread recipes? For example, if a recipe calls for 400g of starter, you see directions for starting with 100g of starter, building it to 200g over 8-12 hours, then doubling it again to 400g, to be used another 8-12 hours later. Are there really any microbiologic or flavor differences between this and just "innoculating" 380g of a proper flour/water mix with 20g of starter?

[slkinsey]

Theoretically this is done to build up the strength and activity of the culture microorganisms so that you get a fast, strong rise. Building by doubling is not a good way to do this (much better to build by quintupling at least), but that's another discussion. Another potential effect is that if you start with 100g of starter, rise that for 10 hours, then double to 200g, rise that for 10 hours, then double that to 400g, rise that for another 10 hours... well, now you have some dough that is 30 hours old, some dough that is 20 hours old, and some dough that is 10 hours old. The oldness of the 30 hour dough, for example, could potentially have an effect on final dough quality.

[Pierogi]

I am a relatively novice bread maker. I've only been really serious about it for a couple of years. I have gotten fairly adept at boules and baguettes, and I made some fluffy, buttery dinner rolls about a month ago that made me twitterpate. Overall, I am very pleased with my progress, and I think I'm well on my way to becoming really good at making yeasted things. One thing, however, I have not attempted is "real" sourdough. There are a couple of obvious reasons, all starting with the starter (arf arf). Mostly it's the quantity involved.

I'm single, and I don't bake bread every week. Probably, at most, I make it twice a month, and that's in the cooler weather. I don't bake much, if at all, during the heat of the summer, since I don't have A/C, and the thought of turning on the oven when it's 95° in the kitchen makes me crabby. So, realistically, at most, I'd make a loaf of sourdough maybe, MAYBE 6 or 7 times a year, because I would want to switch it out with other styles of bread during the "baking" months.

I've recently found a recipe for a starter that seems less involved than others I've seen, and I'm willing to give it a try. However, it calls for 2.5C flour, 1.5C water 1 Tbsp. sugar and 3/4 ounce yeast to start, fed with 1C flour and 0.5C water every "few" days for a "few" weeks if its refrigerated. Then you can go down to once per week.

I'm envisioning this starter taking over my small house. I'm planning on sharing it with a friend, but even she will not use up all her share before I need to divide and conquer the critter again.

Long story (question) short: Can I cut the starting amounts in half, as well as the "feeding" amounts (but obviously not the frequency) to have a more reasonable size for my needs?

Thanks, I'm looking forward to your collective wisdom.

Edited October 9, 2009 by heidih
Delete admin (log)

[andiesenji]

That is a rather generous size for a beginning starter.

You can cut the amounts down quite a bit -

This one calls for a cup of each, flour and water. http://www.io.com/~sjohn/sour.htm

The reason some recipes call for larger amounts is to lessen the possibility the mixture will dry out - obviously a larger volume will take longer to dry out. Stir the mixture from time to time so the surface remains moist.

You are in a good area as starters do better in a place with higher ambient humidity.

I don't recommend using yeast for a boost - however I have found that adding a small mashed boiled potato for part of the flour, and using the water in which it has boiled, gives a very reliable result - and a potent starter.

(This is a very old and very reliable "trick" - I learned it more than 50 years ago.)

You don't just keep adding to the starter - you take only half of it each time, discard the rest (don't pour it down the sink!!!)

and add the new flour and water to the half you kept until it is fully active and then you can double it so when you are ready to use it you removed the cup you will need for the recipe - top up the remainder, let it "work" for a few hours and then refrigerate it until you are ready to use it again.

If you want to share it, after it has become fully active, put the extra into a new jar.

You must be sure to sterilize the jars and lids completely so as to avoid unwanted organisms invading your starter.

Edited October 8, 2009 by andiesenji (log)

[rickster]

I refrigerate starters and don't feed them for a lot longer than a week, probably at least a month if not longer. However, when I want to use it, I have to go through a couple of day process of feeding to revive it, so if I want to bake on Sunday, I need to start feeding on Wednesday or Thursday morning, so it requires planning ahead.

This makes keeping a starter manageable. No idea if it affects the leavening power, as I have never maintained a starter any other way to compare.

Edited October 8, 2009 by rickster (log)

[Aloha Steve]

That is a rather generous size for a beginning starter.

You can cut the amounts down quite a bit -

This one calls for a cup of each, flour and water. http://www.io.com/~sjohn/sour.htm

The reason some recipes call for larger amounts is to lessen the possibility the mixture will dry out - obviously a larger volume will take longer to dry out. Stir the mixture from time to time so the surface remains moist.

You are in a good area as starters do better in a place with higher ambient humidity.

I don't recommend using yeast for a boost - however I have found that adding a small mashed boiled potato for part of the flour, and using the water in which it has boiled, gives a very reliable result - and a potent starter.

(This is a very old and very reliable "trick" - I learned it more than 50 years ago.)

You don't just keep adding to the starter - you take only half of it each time, discard the rest (don't pour it down the sink!!!)

and add the new flour and water to the half you kept until it is fully active and then you can double it so when you are ready to use it you removed the cup you will need for the recipe - top up the remainder, let it "work" for a few hours and then refrigerate it until you are ready to use it again.

If you want to share it, after it has become fully active, put the extra into a new jar.

You must be sure to sterilize the jars and lids completely so as to avoid unwanted organisms invading your starter.

Thanks so much for the link Andie, I have a starter going now for about 2 hours. I hope it being in about 75 degree temp it might be ready in a 60 hours instead of 72, as I want to make for Sat night....if not, no biggie will just wait.

This is a almost "I will never again _____" story

I decided to blend it really well in a cereal bowl, with a hand held mixer. I did not want to clean a processor or blender.

HAHAHAHAHAHA ON ME, I'm still finding little sticky spots all over the kitchen and they are stuck like GLUE!

[andiesenji]

Another suggestion - use only cold water to wash stuff that has sourdough gunk stuck to it.

Hot water seems to accelerate the glue/cement production. (This is from an experienced baker who had to chisel the cement-like gunk from a stainless bowl that was plunged into very hot water by a prior housekeeper.)

And when I was a child, one of my uncles "fixed" a leaky radiator on an elderly truck by adding some of the cook's sourdough "workins" to the radiator.

As I recall the "repair" lasted for several months.

Edited October 9, 2009 by andiesenji (log)

[Pierogi]

Andie and Rickster, thanks so much for the input (especially about the sink disposal and the hot water....my poor, 1940's vintage plumbing is also appreciative). I'll keep you all posted as I start this adventure, probably next weekend.

And everyone else, keep the advice coming.

[Pierogi]

You don't just keep adding to the starter - you take only half of it each time, discard the rest (don't pour it down the sink!!!)

and add the new flour and water to the half you kept until it is fully active and then you can double it so when you are ready to use it you removed the cup you will need for the recipe - top up the remainder, let it "work" for a few hours and then refrigerate it until you are ready to use it again.

Andie, to be sure I'm interpreting this correctly (math was NEVER a strong point....), when I've got it going, and use it, I take what I need for the bread, dump half of the remaining, and then feed it (assuming its at a point that it needs food). Or, if I'm not making bread, then I simply dump half of the quantity, feed it, and keep going until it needs replenishment.

I guess what I'm confused about is what I do when I take some to make bread. Do I feed then, or wait until the next scheduled interval?

Thanks again......

[andiesenji]

If it has been stored in the fridge for more than a couple of days, you take it out the day before you are going to use it.

Add the refresher and let it stand overnight or so.

Then remove the amount you need for the recipe - add an equal amount of flour and water back into the starter and let it "work" for a couple of hours or so, depending on the temperature - leave it out longer if it is cool - then refrigerate it again.

During the winter months I keep my kitchen quite cool - and I often leave the starter on the counter and just add a little flour and water every two or three days. I keep it in a Cambro container with plenty of room for expansion. If I am going to be away, I put some into a quart jar and refrigerate it. I leave the regular container out and if it doesn't look active when I get back, I discard it.

In my experience the stuff has survived for ten days with no attention at temps below 65 degrees F.

Having this batch out and constantly fully active works well for me because I often prepare pancakes, waffles, muffins (English muffins or crumpets), using the starter.

As mentioned on that website, it will often develop a dark - blackish liquid which smells like alcohol.(Hooch) This is normal and should be stirred back into the starter. If you get liquid with a pinkish tinge discard the whole thing. That indicates the desirable organisms have been taken over by one you don't want and which will not leaven dough.

Edited October 9, 2009 by andiesenji (log)

[weinoo]

I've recently found a recipe for a starter that seems less involved than others I've seen, and I'm willing to give it a try. However, it calls for 2.5C flour, 1.5C water 1 Tbsp. sugar and 3/4 ounce yeast to start, fed with 1C flour and 0.5C water every "few" days for a "few" weeks if its refrigerated. Then you can go down to once per week.

You're not really going to use any yeast to start a sourdough starter, are you?

As far as neglect goes, I also don't bake over the summer months because of the heat factor. And we've been very busy shuffling back and forth between DC and NYC since Labor Day due to various factors.

Anyway, I had neglected my starter for 2 to 3 months, way in the back of the fridge. Looked lousy. But I poured out 99% of it (a la Kinsey) and started feeding it. Every 12 hours or so I poured out 99% of it and fed it again. It was as good as new within 2 days. And then I baked a couple of nice pan loaves.

[Pierogi]

I've recently found a recipe for a starter that seems less involved than others I've seen, and I'm willing to give it a try. However, it calls for 2.5C flour, 1.5C water 1 Tbsp. sugar and 3/4 ounce yeast to start, fed with 1C flour and 0.5C water every "few" days for a "few" weeks if its refrigerated. Then you can go down to once per week.

You're not really going to use any yeast to start a sourdough starter, are you?

I dunno..... . I'm not? This is all new territory for me, and dangerously close to scary territory like science and math.

I'll confess I haven't read this whole thread, start to finish, in some time, and that is probably where I should begin.

No yeast, huh? I can see I have much to learn.

[devlin]

True sourdough cultures are composed only of some variety of flour and water. No commercial yeast, and no sugar.

http://www.thevillagebakeryonline.com

[offering this with the full understanding that to say the words "true sourdough" is a sure fire way to irritate some folks....]

[MikeJ]

If you use commercial yeast in the starter it will leaven the bread too quickly for it to develop flavour, even if there are also bacteria in the culture.

Some people say that the commercial yeast used to get the culture going is eventually replaced by wild yeast after repeated refreshings. I don't know if this is true and I don't see any obvious reason why it should be - but fortunately it's easy enough to make a starter without commercial yeast. Give that a try, it's very satisfying when you see the first indisputable bubbles!