The Sourdough Starter Topic

[gfron1]

I decided it was time to post about the juniper berry sourdough. I'm doing this before I was ready because I think it needs some help. Once I make my first loaf, I'll start a new topic for the countless juniper berry fans out there - and then I'll tell the full dramatic story that got me to this day

Here's what I started with (getting to these is the story for later)

I followed hummingbirdkiss' directions on making the starter. Then using The Bread Bible as my guide, here's the slurry after 1 day...

And 2 days later it seemed like things were going well...

I didn't feed it for the first 4 days - just let it bubble. It had a good sour smell going, but a bit different from traditional starters I have made. I poured off the alcohol and started on the Bread Bible proportions. We're now two and a half weeks later. Its barely bubbling - I can't tell if its the yeast or bubbles caused by my gentle stirring. The smell is much softer than before - barely sour. This whole time I've had it covered with saran wrap with holes cut in the top. I could post a pic, but it just looks like pancake batter at this point. Suggestions?

[jackal10]

just wait, and leave it in a warm place.

The foreign yeasts you introduced with the berries have eaten the available sugars, not you have to let the real lactobacteria and acid tolerant yeast symbiosis develop

[gfron1]

Do I keep feeding it or just let it go wild? And I assume I keep pouring off the alcohol as it develops.

[hummingbirdkiss]

Do I keep feeding it or just let it go wild?  And I assume I keep pouring off the alcohol as it develops.

←

how does it smell it looks done to me! I would just take some out and try to use it! then feed it and store it for a while ...

it looks perfectly good to me!

but I am still a nube!

Edited July 28, 2007 by hummingbirdkiss (log)

[Lkfarkas]

What happened to my starter?

I had a great starter going, had it in the fridge for awhile, brought it out, fed it for a week or two (daily), and then one day fed it with whole wheat flour. (I was out of AP) Since then (probably a week or two?), I've fed it with AP. It's not as active as it was - bubbles come, smells okay, but it's not frothy, nor does it have bubbles actively rising to the surface & breaking. I do have bubbles - but they're not "bubbling", if that makes any sense. It smells okay, but just doesn't get "puffy". What gives? I did dump out a good bit of it, and did replenish with plenty of AP flour.....what happened?

Thanks!

[jackal10]

Do I keep feeding it or just let it go wild?  And I assume I keep pouring off the alcohol as it develops.

←

Just leave it in a warm place. There is plenty of food there until its active

The liquid layer is just the flour particles settling out, Stir it back together if it bothers you

[jackal10]

What happened to my starter?

I had a great starter going, had it in the fridge for awhile, brought it out, fed it for a week or two (daily), and then one day fed it with whole wheat flour. (I was out of AP) Since then (probably a week or two?), I've fed it with AP. It's not as active as it was - bubbles come, smells okay, but it's not frothy, nor does it have bubbles actively rising to the surface & breaking. I do have bubbles - but they're not "bubbling", if that makes any sense. It smells okay, but just doesn't get "puffy". What gives? I did dump out a good bit of it, and did replenish with plenty of AP flour.....what happened?

Thanks!

←

My guess is you changed the viscosity since the wholewheat adsorbs a different amount of water, Just keep feeding the AP, and let if ferment in a warm place and it will come back

[Lkfarkas]

Ooh. I think that's a good guess. Hrm. I did notice that my starter seems a bit thicker, and when I fed it today, I added a bit more water. Also, I'm in the middle of making a loaf, and the dough seems heavier in texture, too. Grrr. Can't blame the starter, though - my scale went nuts in the middle of weighing my flour. *sigh* So, I think I've got too much flour in there. Anyway...thanks for the "guess"!

[Terrasanct]

I recently began a new starter, after years of not having one. It's the right time of year for bread baking. I asked my husband what kind of bread he wanted me to make a few weeks ago, and he said, "Sourdough." I had to explain it wasn't that simple.

But not that complicated, either, at least not the way I do it. I'm fascinated by how people will use so many things for a starter, and wonder if anyone here has made different kinds and compared the end result? I've always just made a starter with water, flour, and a bit of yeast. I don't think the yeast is "cheating" because it loses its potency soon enough and is replaced by all the wild yeasts in my kitchen.

I was talking to a chef the other day who was a recipe tester for Reinhart, and she said that making sourdough starter with grapes was a stupid idea and that you had to use raisins. There seems to be a lot of chauvinism about this whole sourdough issue. I make good breads with mine, but I'm just making them for me.

Oh, and my old starter was always named Ethyl, for obvious reasons.

[Sergio]

Last year, before graduating and moving away from Berkeley, I collected two sourdough starters from bakeries that I loved and had special significance for me during my years there. I abided by the instructions for feeding and kept them alive for a few months, but after moving again, I had all but abandoned them in the back of the fridge. As expected, both seem to have the greyish appearance and a pool of liquid. I have read in a few places that it is possible to revive a starter after long periods of inactivity, but before I do that, I have two questions:

1. What would be the best procedure to bring them back to a healthy vibrant state? Should I just follow the instructions from each bakery for normal feeding until it appears back to normal, or is there a special treatment for neglected starters?

2. Once I have revived them, would they return back to their original states, or somehow be morphed into something different? Has anyone else had similar experience with reviving starters and remembers the qualities it had before and after?

[jackal10]

Last year, before graduating and moving away from Berkeley, I collected two sourdough starters from bakeries that I loved and had special significance for me during my years there. I abided by the instructions for feeding and kept them alive for a few months, but after moving again, I had all but abandoned them in the back of the fridge. As expected, both seem to have the greyish appearance and a pool of liquid. I have read in a few places that it is possible to revive a starter after long periods of inactivity, but before I do that, I have two questions:

1. What would be the best procedure to bring them back to a healthy vibrant state? Should I just follow the instructions from each bakery for normal feeding until it appears back to normal, or is there a special treatment for neglected starters?

2. Once I have revived them, would they return back to their original states, or somehow be morphed into something different? Has anyone else had similar experience with reviving starters and remembers the qualities it had before and after?

←

Just follow the normal instructions.

1, To un-seperate the hooch (liquid) stir them back together, or just use starter from the lower part

2. A lot of acid and other by products will have accumulated in the culture that you may not want to carry over. I would revive them bu taking only a tablespoonful of starter to ssay 100g (4oz) of flour and 40z of water. Stir togeher and leave covered in a warm place (27C/86F) for 12 hours or until active, then use as fresh starter,

[devlin]

Last year, before graduating and moving away from Berkeley, I collected two sourdough starters from bakeries that I loved and had special significance for me during my years there. I abided by the instructions for feeding and kept them alive for a few months, but after moving again, I had all but abandoned them in the back of the fridge. As expected, both seem to have the greyish appearance and a pool of liquid. I have read in a few places that it is possible to revive a starter after long periods of inactivity, but before I do that, I have two questions:

1. What would be the best procedure to bring them back to a healthy vibrant state? Should I just follow the instructions from each bakery for normal feeding until it appears back to normal, or is there a special treatment for neglected starters?

2. Once I have revived them, would they return back to their original states, or somehow be morphed into something different? Has anyone else had similar experience with reviving starters and remembers the qualities it had before and after?

←

You could just mix the stuff up and refresh as usual. But if I were you, and I had a culture that had been sitting around inactive for some time, I'd want to give it a wash first, maybe even for several days in a row, before starting back up as usual.

The way you'd do that is to mix what you have very thoroughly, dump everything except 1 cup of the culture (or keep some in reserve just in case), add a couple cups warm water (roughly 80-85 degrees) and mix thoroughly, then dump everything but one cup once again, feed as usual (I use 3/4 cup water and 1 cup flour), stir very vigorously once again and then proof for 6 to 12 hours.

I learned this from Ed Wood's Classic Sourdoughs, and it works beautifully. If I'm on a baking hiatus, for example, and the culture's been sitting for awhile, or even if I've simply been refreshing and baking as usual over the course of many months, the culture often becomes more overpowering in flavor or more acidic or more sour than I'd prefer, and so I routinely wash my culture to restore it to a softer, lovelier, "breadier" smelling thing. And actually, I'll repeat that procedure for several days in a row before I simply go back to refreshing as usual. Don't despair if the culture appears weak for a couple of weeks. That's normal.

Edited May 10, 2008 by devlin (log)

[jonnyCinco]

Hi I am new to bread baking (only been at it for about 4 weeks now) and was wanting to start my own yeast strain so I could avoid using instant dry yeast some of the time. So my question is it possible to use beer yeast from my local brew supply store to start a good yeast culture for bread?

If no one has tried this before I will probably give it a shot anyways and see what happens.

[mydogbites2]

It works, I have done this many times... You may have to add a little sugar or honey to your sponge to kick start it, but it works none the less.

Good luck.

[jonnyCinco]

Thanks for the quick reply. I will give it a go this weekend.

[slkinsey]

FYI: All this will do is give you a false sense of security in starting the culture, as you will see some activity from the commercial yeast for the first several cycles. Eventually these yeasts will die out and, if everything goes right, be replaced by a symbiotic culture of wild yeast and lactobacilli. All that "starting" a culture with beer yeast or bread yeast or juniper berries or grapes or honey or whatever does is delay the inevitable. Considering that the inevitable is what you want anyway, why not simply start with flour and water?

[jonnyCinco]

Ah, I guess I am confused as to where the wild yeast comes from. I had read on using honey, grapes and raisins to provide the base, and figured that you were cultivating the yeast from them for your sponge. You are saying though that the yeast is coming from another source, and that I could just start using flour and water?

Thanks for the time in helping me understand this

[slkinsey]

You might want to have a read through this thread. More technical/scientific information as to sourdough cultures here.

Edited June 5, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[Alcuin]

Ah, I guess I am confused as to where the wild yeast comes from.  I had read on using honey, grapes and raisins to provide the base, and figured that you were cultivating the yeast from them for your sponge.  You are saying though that the yeast is coming from another source, and that I could just start using flour and water?

Thanks for the time in helping me understand this

←

There's actually wild yeast all over the place. Starting with things like juniper berries or grapes takes advantage of the yeast that is on them. Yeast is also just floating around in the air too though, so as Slkinsey says, you don't really need to use anything but flour and water. The yeast will be attracted to it as a food source and will set up shop there. All you have to do take care of them at that point.

Set up equal parts flour and water and let it sit for a day. Come back to it and if you start to see some activity and it starts to smell yeasty, discard half of the flour/water/yeast mixture and at least double it with fresh flour/water. Do this for a couple more days and you should have a starter that you can maintain indefinitely.

You can use berries that naturally have yeast on them but you don't have to. Some people think that helps to kick start the process and they might be right, but it's just as easy to do it without them. Using honey would only provide some sugar for the yeast to eat, but they're probably just as happy unlocking the sugars from the flour. Using brewer's yeast puts you in the position of having the yeast in your control rather than waiting for them to be attracted to the flour/water. You don't really have to do this, though, but it would certainly be easier than waiting.

[judec]

You can also use whole rye / wheat flour to get a culture started. There's a lot of wild yeasts on whole grains.

[Scott Koue]

Since you have a brewers supply near you ask them for yeast used in the Belgian wit beers and the like. They probably also have some sour "wild" yeast around also. There is a whole group of beers that are soured with wild yeast. That would at least get you started in the right direction. Brewers yeast won't as a rule taste much different than bakers yeast. The ones used for some of the Belgian beers though should be very different.

[judec]

There is a whole group of beers that are soured with wild yeast.

←

Sounds like lambics. They're left to ferment in open air and gets sourness from lactic acid bacteria. It might be the same class of yeasts that gives sourdough its tang.

[slkinsey]

The "tang" of sourdough bread doesn't come from yeast. It comes from lactic acid-producing bacteria. Lactic acid-priducing bacteria are also responsible for the sourness of lambic beers, but these are different strains. The bacteria in lambic beers are Lactobacillus delbrukii and Pediococcus damnosus, whereas the bacteria in a sourdough are other strains such as Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis.

Edited June 5, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[jonnyCinco]

Thanks slkinsey I appreciate the help I will try starting this tonight. Also the thread you linked me to was exactly what I needed, I just missed it not knowing the terms to search for.

[abooja]

I read through the first 3-1/2 pages of this thread and decided I had to post before reading further.

I created a starter in August of 2007, two apartments ago, using the much loathed organic grape method. I didn't know any better at the time and, hey, it worked, so didn't think much of it. I used it in various failed attempts at sourdough no knead bread. Failed, primarily, because the starter was never particularly vigorous, I didn't refresh it terribly well before using it and didn't proof the final loaves long enough. I managed to feed it once every few weeks, primarily because I had named it (Froderick) and was attached to the idea, but rarely used it. Until this week, the last time and only time I had successfully used it, in fact, was almost a year ago for pain au levain breads from Jeffrey Hamelman's book.

Fast forward to this week. We moved here around three months ago, and Froderick naturally moved with us. By now, he was this frightening looking mess in the back of the fridge, long ago separated and topped with a very brown hooch. I hadn't fed him in many months, at least six. I kept thinking of it, but put it off until this week. I figured he was probably long dead, but when I opened the container and it smelled perfectly good, I decided to try reviving him. I poured off all the hooch and scraped off all the beige material from the tops and sides of the container, leaving behind less than an inch high thickness of creamy colored, thick, dry paste, nothing like the thick, elastic levain I left behind. (I had long ago converted him from liquid to solid.) I added equal amounts (unmeasured, the first time around) of bread flour and bottled water, mixed, and put him back in his now clean container, proofed in the microwave in which I had just boiled some water.

Imagine my surprise when, just a few hours later, some signs of life seemed to emerge. After a day, when it was clear he was still kicking, I fed him again. And again. And now, just three days later, he is more vigorous and active than ever. I mean, seriously so. I mixed the basic sourdough bread recipe from The Bread Bible, expecting to wait the full 3-4 hours for the final proof, as RLB suggests, and returned to my loaf two hours later (also in the microwave) to learn that it had already overproofed. I baked it anyway, expecting a large hockey puck, but it was surprisingly edible and full of holes. I refreshed it again today, with the expectation of replacing the failed loaf (I also mixed up some Cook's Illustrated no-knead bread last night, with yeast, just in case.) It looks like I didn't need to. It's not a perfect loaf, but it has great crust and the perfect amount (for me) of sour flavor.

Today's refreshment rose to more than double in less than three hours. Is that typical? I was so amazed at how active this starter has suddenly become that I questioned my husband as to whether or not he took pity on me and secretly added commercial yeast to the mixture. Fortunately, he has no idea how to even do that, so I guess it's all Frody and the alchemy of sourdough. So freaking cool.

Edited January 26, 2009 by abooja (log)