The Sourdough Starter Topic

[slkinsey]

Maybe, yea. I always use a bit of my starter to inoculate a sponge (or whatever) that I use seperately to build the bread and refresh the starter in its storage jar. Other methods may be more susceptible to contamination.

[SethG]

Sam, it seems to me that, as the man says, the yeasts/bacteria have to come from somewhere. If it ain't the air or the flour, and I assume you don't think it's the water..... then what's left?

I have a hard time buying that humans are the source. Many of us have made starters from just flour and water, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who did everything I could to make sure the contents of my mouth and intestine had no contact with the starter. Many cookbooks encourage you to try to maintain absolutely sterile conditions at the beginning of the process. I'm not saying this advice is correct, but I am saying that I followed it and got a successful starter out of the deal.

This is quite a mystery. Maybe the theory of spontaneous generation wasn't so wrong after all!

[andiesenji]

Sam, it seems to me that, as the man says, the yeasts/bacteria have to come from somewhere. If it ain't the air or the flour, and I assume you don't think it's the water..... then what's left?

Many cookbooks encourage you to try to maintain absolutely sterile conditions at the beginning of the process. I'm not saying this advice is correct, but I am saying that I followed it and got a successful starter out of the deal.

This is quite a mystery. Maybe the theory of spontaneous generation wasn't so wrong after all!

Even where I live, in the desert, there are wild yeasts floating around. Many are beneficial, some are pathogenic. Fortunately the beneficial ones outnumber the bad boys by a large factor.

Fairly old cookbooks (from the 20s, 30s an 40s) advocate saving the water in which potatoes are cooked and mixing that with the flour, as the wild yeasts are "attracted" to it.

Some people make the mistake of putting their culture in too small a container. The best thing to use is a wide bowl which will expose the most surface of the culture to the wild yeasts.

Some strains are so strong that they will overwhelm other strains. You can take a mild sourdough starter, that has been maintained with little change over a period of years, to the San Francisco Bay area and within three or four months the nature of the beast has changed to that typical very sour culture that is dominant in that area and there is nothing you can do to stop it. I know several bakers who have tried...

There are as many ways to the goal as there are bakers. No particular way is right or wrong, it is what works for you that is important.

The one constant is that as long as the liquid that collects on top of the culture is clear or has a sooty tinge, it is okay. If it is pink, throw it out. It has been invaded by one of the bad boys.

If you see this, don't open it in your kitchen. Take it into the bathroom, open the container just enough to allow you to pour in some bleach. Let it set for 10 minutes or so, then add a lot of water and flush it.

If you pour it into your kitchen sink, the spores will "bloom" and be floating around in your kitchen.

[slkinsey]

Sam, it seems to me that, as the man says, the yeasts/bacteria have to come from somewhere.  If it ain't the air or the flour, and I assume you don't think it's the water..... then what's left?

Other envirinmental surfaces, including yourself. It's actually hard to say where it comes from. One can say, "it might have come from here" only when the microorganism is found in that place. So, while we can't exactly say where the stuff comes from, we can reasonably well say where it didn't come from. The human origin is merely a possibility, but I do find it very interesting that the only place other than in sourdough bread that L. sanfranciscensis has been found is in humans. That there has been extensive testing of Italian flour with no L. sanfranciscensis found, despite the fact that it is found in all Italian sourdoughs, is extremely persuasive evidence against the flour origin hypothesis.

I have a hard time buying that humans are the source.  Many of us have made starters from just flour and water, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who did everything I could to make sure the contents of my mouth and intestine had no contact with the starter.

First of all, human bodies are literally swimming in wild yeast and bacteria. I don't want to gross anyone out, but to make an example: do you know why it's recommended to wash one's hands after going to the bathroom? It's not because you might have pee on your fingers. It's because the entire area of your body from your belt to the top of your thighs is swimming with potentially nasty microorganisms like E. coli, etc. I make this example to illustrate the fact that just because something mostly lives in your mouth or intestine doesn't mean it doesn't end up in all kinds of other places. If you scratch an itch around your belt, you've likely got some intestinal microorganisms on your fingers.

Many cookbooks encourage you to try to maintain absolutely sterile conditions at the beginning of the process.  I'm not saying this advice is correct, but I am saying that I followed it and got a successful starter out of the deal.

As I said before, many (even most) cookbooks writing about sourdough contain tons of bad information when it comes to sourdough. All you're telling me is that you went to lot of unnecessary extra trouble sand ended up inoculating your starter anyway.

Even where I live, in the desert, there are wild yeasts floating around.

Everywhere you go there are tons of wild yeasts and other microscopic beasties living on just about everything. In reality, I don't think it's necessarily the case that the microorganisms are floating around in the air solo. Rather, they are likely living on the surface of tiny dist particles, etc.

Fairly old cookbooks (from the 20s, 30s an 40s) advocate saving the water in which potatoes are cooked and mixing that with the flour, as the wild yeasts are "attracted" to it.

This is ridiculous, of course. You can't "attract" wild yeast with potatoes the way you attract flies with honey. Microorganisms don't work that way.

Some people make the mistake of putting their culture in too small a container. The best thing to use is a wide bowl which will expose the most surface of the culture to the wild yeasts.

Again, this is based on the "from the air" hypothesis which is likely incorrect. I have personally had plenty of success starting a sourdough culture in a closed container maintaining the starter at 50 grams each of flour and water.

I thought I had already made this point, but if I haven't: It's not me saying that I don't think sourdough microorganisms come from the air or the flour. I'm not a sourdough microbiologist. What I am doing is repeating direct statements from someone who is a sourdough microbiologist.

I'd also like to make the point that people who focus on the wild yeast aspect of sourdough cultures are missing the point. The point is the lactobacilli, not the yeast, as the lactobacilli are the organisms that give sourdough its unique flavor, etc. The yeast are only important insofar as they are able to coexist and form a symbiosis with the lactobacilli.

Some strains are so strong that they will overwhelm other strains. You can take a mild sourdough starter, that has been maintained with little change over a period of years, to the San Francisco Bay area and within three or four months the nature of the beast has changed to that typical very sour culture that is dominant in that area and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

This will largely depend on the methods one uses in maintaining the sourdough culture. For sure, there are techniques some people use which work just fine in one area but will not work when continued in another. The "save a bit of the dough for next time" technique, for example, strikes me as a starter preservation technique that will not work very well in another environment. However, there are other techniques which have been met with great success, not only in the laboratory but also in homes. For example, this has always been my technique: I maintain 100 gram starter with 50 grams of filtered water and 50 grams of flour. When I make bread, I take out all of the starter I can get with a spoon and use that to build a sponge or inoculate the dough. Remaining stuck to the inside of the jar is around 10 grams of starter. To this I add 45 grams of water and 45 grams of flour to bring the starter up to 100 grams again. This dilution creates a pH of around 5.0 - 5.5 which the optimal environment for growth of the sourdough culture microorganisms per Gänzle. The jar is always covered. I have successfully maintained several entirely distinct sourdough cultures in my home for years using this method.

[SethG]

First of all, human bodies are literally swimming in wild yeast and bacteria. I don't want to gross anyone out, but to make an example: do you know why it's recommended to wash one's hands after going to the bathroom? It's not because you might have pee on your fingers. It's because the entire area of your body from your belt to the top of your thighs is swimming with potentially nasty microorganisms like E. coli, etc. I make this example to illustrate the fact that just because something mostly lives in your mouth or intestine doesn't mean it doesn't end up in all kinds of other places. If you scratch an itch around your belt, you've likely got some intestinal microorganisms on your fingers.

=

I'm not saying you or your source is wrong, Sam, but I'm still not sure I buy that humans contaminate the starter to get it going. It should be easy to test such a theory under lab conditions. Has anyone tried it?

[slkinsey]

Oh, I agree that it's only a possibility. The facts, as I have read them, are that we know a number of places where sourdough microorganisms are not commonly found and can rule out as a source (e.g., flour, water, air), and we know one place where sourdough bacteria has been found and should consider a possible source (humans).

[mktye]

Very informative thread!

The human origin is merely a possibility, but I do find it very interesting that the only place other than in sourdough bread that  L. sanfranciscensis has been found is in humans.

I have never seen this info. before and find it quite interesting, thank you for posting it.

Many cookbooks encourage you to try to maintain absolutely sterile conditions at the beginning of the process.  I'm not saying this advice is correct, but I am saying that I followed it and got a successful starter out of the deal.

As I said before, many (even most) cookbooks writing about sourdough contain tons of bad information when it comes to sourdough. All you're telling me is that you went to lot of unnecessary extra trouble sand ended up inoculating your starter anyway.

I agree. I have worked in both biochemistry and microbiology labs and it is takes a lot of effort to maintain a sterile environment. At the very least, autoclaves (which use both pressure and heat to sterilize equipment), dedicated air handling systems and gloves are required for a somewhat sterile environment (i.e., a certain percentage of contamination will still occur).

However, you can have a "cleaner" environment in your kitchen that will help cut down on the possibility of non-desirable bacteria in a new starter.

The point is the lactobacilli, not the yeast, as the lactobacilli are the organisms that give sourdough its unique flavor, etc.  The yeast are only important insofar as they are able to coexist and form a symbiosis with the lactobacilli.

And the yeast do keep one from baking up brick doorstops.

Seriously though, your point is a very good one -- starters contain both organisms that are balanced in their environment and without the lactobacilli it would not be sourdough.

This will largely depend on the methods one uses in maintaining the sourdough culture. 

I feel this an important aspect that is frequently overlooked. By changing variables of how the culture (or even the sponge) is maintained, it can be tipped to favor either the lactobacilli or the yeast. The temperature and percent hydration at which the culture is kept and also the frequency and percent of refreshment can all affect the balance of bacilli and yeast.

My personal philosophy of sourdough: Try anything. If it works for you, do it. And if it doesn't work, all you've lost is some flour, water and time.

[slkinsey]

The point is the lactobacilli, not the yeast, as the lactobacilli are the organisms that give sourdough its unique flavor, etc.  The yeast are only important insofar as they are able to coexist and form a symbiosis with the lactobacilli.

And the yeast do keep one from baking up brick doorstops.

It's a common misconception that the lactobacilli only flavor the dough and the yeast does all the leavening. One of the byproducts of fermentation by the lactobacilli is carbon dioxide. In fact, they are likely equally responsible for the leavening. From the same source as above, we have:

460 And to the margin note right next (CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF BACTERIAL

461 FERMENTATION TO RAISE A LOAF OF BREAD, WITHOUT YEAST): We've done the

462 experiments, it works quite well without yeast. The volume is somewhat

463 smaller, though. Markus Brandt has estimated the contribution of yeasts

464 and lactobacilli to gas production in a "normal" sourdough: about 50%

465 comes from lactobacilli and yeasts each. The yeasts are fewer in numbers,

466 but larger in size.

I may have the details slightly wrong, but I believe the production of carbon dioxide is related to the surface area of the microorganism. Yeast cells are much larger than lactobacillus cells and produce much more CO2 per cell, but the lactobacillus cells outnumber the yeast cells by something like 100 to 1. The end result is around a 50/50 contribution to leavening.

[andiesenji]

Even where I live, in the desert, there are wild yeasts floating around.

Everywhere you go there are tons of wild yeasts and other microscopic beasties living on just about everything. In reality, I don't think it's necessarily the case that the microorganisms are floating around in the air solo. Rather, they are likely living on the surface of tiny dist particles, etc.

Have you read "The Secret Life of Dust" by Hannah Holmes?

Subtitle: "From the Cosmos to the Kitchen Counter, the Big Consequences of Little Things"

I read it a few months back and believe it or not, I couldn't put the book down.

It opened my eyes to a great many things.

[mktye]

From the same source as above, we have:

460 And to the margin note right next (CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF BACTERIAL

461 FERMENTATION TO RAISE A LOAF OF BREAD, WITHOUT YEAST): We've done the

462 experiments, it works quite well without yeast. The volume is somewhat

463 smaller, though. Markus Brandt has estimated the contribution of yeasts

464 and lactobacilli to gas production in a "normal" sourdough: about 50%

465 comes from lactobacilli and yeasts each. The yeasts are fewer in numbers,

466 but larger in size.

I may have the details slightly wrong, but I believe the production of carbon dioxide is related to the surface area of the microorganism. Yeast cells are much larger than lactobacillus cells and produce much more CO2 per cell, but the lactobacillus cells outnumber the yeast cells by something like 100 to 1. The end result is around a 50/50 contribution to leavening.

Wow! I never thought it was that much leavening from the bacilli. Cool. Do you know if the book mentioned in your linked reference was ever published?

[slkinsey]

Do you know if the book mentioned in your linked reference was ever published?

Yes. The Bread Builders: Hearth Loaves and Masonry Ovens by Daniel Wing and Alan Scott.

[jgarner53]

After watching Nancy Silverton on "Master Chefs with Julia Child" last night (thanks, TiVo) I was inspired to make another pass at sourdough starter.

Does someone have the recipe they could send me?

[Carolyn Tillie]

I would seriously consider buying her book, Nancy Silverton's Breads from the LA Brea Bakery: Recipes for the Connoisseur.

It is more than just a recipe, but an entire chapter of explanation and more. Much more complicated than a single recipe.

But worth it.

[jgarner53]

Hmm. Perhaps in the short term, I'll see if my library has it, then xerox the pages.

[rickster]

There are a lot easier ways to make sourdough starter than using the Silverton method with grapes. This has been the subject of some heated discussion by the sourdough experts here. I'm pretty sure there's a very effective method in the EGCI courses.

[slkinsey]

jgarner53, the general perception of Nancy Silverton among sourdough types can be summed up as: great bread recipes, possibly the worst starter advice of any book in publication.

There are two real problems with Silverton's starter advice:

1. The amounts of material she calls for are ludicrously oversized. If you follow her starter recipe, you will end up with something like seven pounds of starter. Unless you are planning on baking something like 300 pounds of bread, this is way too much.

2. One of her main premises (that the grapes supply beneficial sourdough microorganisms) is incorrect. This was discussed to some length not too long ago. To briefly summarize: there is no reason to use grapes or any other fruit; just use flour and water.

I personally recommend acquiring a stable sourdough culture from a friend, or purchasing one from Sourdoughs International However, some people do enjoy the challenge of creating their own starter. If this is you, I'd recommend the following procedure:

Mix 50 grams of white wheat flour with 50 grams of filtered water using your hands. Place the mixture in a glass jar with a loosely fitting lid. Leave it out on the countertop. Wait 12 hours. Remove the flour and water batter with a soup spoon, leaving a small amount (around 10 grams) stuck to the side of the jar. Don't bother cleaning the spoon, just leave it in the jar. Discard the batter you just removed. Put in another 50 grams of flour and 50 grams of filtered water. Stir it up with the spoon. Continue doing this every 12 hours until you see that bubbles are forming in the batter in between feedings. At this point, decrease the feeding interval to 8 hours. Keep this up for a day or two and you have an active sourdough culture. To store the culture, close the jar tightly and put it in the refrigerator approximately 1 hour after feeding it as described above. To reactivate the stored culture, remove it from the refrigerator, leave it out for an hour or so until it comes up to temperature and shows some signs of activity (usually around an hour). Then feed as outlined above (not forgetting to remove most of the batter first). When the newly fed starter comes up to full activity, it is ready to use. I recommend reactivating and feeding a stored starter at least once a week.

The feeding procedure above has a very good advantage in that it enables you to bake from any sourdough recipe. All sourdough recipe authors keep starters that are slightly different. Some may have more water, some may have less, etc. So, unless you are making their starter recipe, you have no idea what to put in when the recipe only sais "use one cup of starter." Using my method, you are only using the starter to maintain the culture. When you want to make an actual recipe from, say, Nancy Silverton's cookbook, all you have to do is look at her starter recipe to see how much water and flour she uses. Then you can mix up some batter to her starter specifications, "infect" the batter with a tablespoon of your storage culture, wait around 8 hours for the batter fo froth up, and you're off to the races. When you want to make a recipe from someone else's cookbook, repeat the pricess making a batter from their starter formula. The other advantage of keeping a 50 gram starter is that you don't have a big bucket of starter taking up room in your refrigerator.

[jackal10]

a) Omit the grapes. Contrary to popular belief they encourage the wrong sort of yeast. Just mix equal amounts by volume of flour and water and keep it at 85F - the temperature is important, and in a few days it will start to ferment. When it starts to bubble, throw half away, and replace with equal amounts of flour and water. Do this every 12 hours for 3 or 4 days, or until its active and smells OK, and ther is your starter.

b) Alternatively PM me with you snail mail address and I'll send you some of mine.

I usually ask that people make a donation to their favourite charity in return, and of course to pass on starter to those who need.

[Carrot Top]

Alleilieuia (or however it is spelled) to the last two starter recipes you guys posted.

Nancy Silverton's book is lovely and inspiring but bluntly the list of stuff she insists you have in the kitchen before you even approach the task is onerous (I am sure sourdough starters were not originally conceived with this much equipment in mind) and the following directions sort of wore me out before even getting started...

[Katherine]

Ever notice that if you soak grains overnight, the liquid forms bubbles? I tried the following not long ago as a wild experiment, based on the idea that soluble carbohydrates rapidly ferment in the presence of airborne yeast, while the rest of the flour serves to retard fermentation. I've made naturally leavened bread before, but it took 3-4 days to rise, which doesn't work in the summer, as by that time the exterior is furry and blue. Proper sourdough doesn't work for me, as I rarely bake bread.

I was prepared to chuck it as a failure. I was surprised to see that it worked great.

Starterless sourdough rye bread

Soak 1 cup of whole rye berries in water to cover for 24 hours, longer in the winter. Put water and rye in the blender until smooth. Scrape into a bowl, add 1¼ teaspoons salt, caraway seeds if desired, and enough whole wheat flour to make a bread dough. Knead by hand or in a stand mixer. Put in a greased pan or bowl, cover, and allow to rise 12 hours, or until doubled. Bake.

It rose well, and had a nice sourdough tang.

[paul o' vendange]

Just an incidental, but a nice discussion of this topic is also to be found in "Chez Panisse Cooking," in which they discuss grapes, raisins, potatoes...

Paul

[bakerboy]

I tried the grape thing et al. When it comes right down to it, we're trying to ferment the grain in a way that develops the most flavor in the bread. This may sound like heresy but mix your flour and water with a few grains of yeast. thats what your trying to do anyway. when i finally did this, my starters were bubbly, my bread was great. If your adding commercial yeast to your dough, and most big artisan bakeries do, than why fool around with different "races" of yeast. they're unpredictable and i don't believe they bring any difference flavorwise to the table than that which could be acheived with commercial yeast. bottom line, its HOW you handle and ferment your product thats going to dictate the quality.(slow, cold, ovenight fermentation is what we love!!) But hey, don't take my word for it, just try it. Maybe you'll be happily tossing that grape sludge, cheesecloth, and potato water right in the garbage:)

[carswell]

Just an incidental, but a nice discussion of this topic is also to be found in "Chez Panisse Cooking," in which they discuss grapes, raisins, potatoes...

Hear, hear! It's the best introduction to the topic I've read. And the recepe for levain bread using a grape-based starter comes from Steve Sullivan, who went on to run Acme Bread Company.

[Young2Cook]

I'm sitting here, reading these discouraging posts, and only five feet away sits my bowl of hopeful starter on Day Six, with a bag of our own grapes submerged under bubbly goop. To be honest, even if the starter is great, I don't think I can promise the Powers That Be that I'll feed it three times a day that Nancy requests.

[albert_crowley]

To be honest, even if the starter is great, I don't think I can promise the Powers That Be that I'll feed it three times a day that Nancy requests.

←

I have a plastic container of starter made from Silverton's book sitting on my counter right now. When I first made it up I fed it 2-3 times a day and baked quite a lot. After missing a few feedings here and there, and then a few more and more, I've found that it can limp along fine with a feeding every 36 hours.

If you do that for a few days you will need to go back to feedings separated by 8-12 hours for day before you bake to make sure it's "full power." I know that doesn't make much scientific sense since it should be full power after each feeding, but my casual experience has shown that gives me the best rise if you aren't going to supplement with commercial yeast.

-Al

[SethG]

You have to remember that Silverton came at the subject from the perspective of a professional. She wrote a wonderful book, but her experience was simply not that of a home baker. A professional can easily feed starter three times a day. A professional needs more than seven pounds of starter, and may not see how impractical that is for a home baker.

Moreover, as to all this stuff about using grapes, raisins, commercial yeast, malt, or whatever in order to "jump start" a sourdough starter: there are a lot of superstitions in this bread business, and a lot of these superstitions find their way into very good bread books. I know that flour and water alone are enough to make a wonderful, vigorous starter, because I've done it. And I tend to believe Jack and Sam when they say that other additions are at best benignly unhelpful, and at worst counterproductive, because they've conversed with scientists who know what they're talking about.

Don't be discouraged from using Silverton. If I were to use Silverton's advice to create a sourdough starter from scratch, I'd drop the grapes, but I don't think they really do any harm. And I'd also feed it twice a day for convenience-- it really won't hurt your starter to feed it less frequently; it is more important to be consistant than to feed any set number of times per day. I'd cut the starter by half or two thirds at each feeding, to keep it at a reasonable size. This is only sensible and creates no disadvantage at all; you'll save a lot of money on flour.

Finally, I'd advise that you disregard the schedule given in the book-- or in any similar book. If you are making a starter from scratch, you might not see as much development on day 3 or 4 (or whatever) as the recipe says you will. Carry on. Keep feeding it for several more days, and you very well might get where you want to go.

Once you have a good starter going, you should make all of Silverton's recipes. She has exceptional taste.