Samartha Deva wrote:
> Mike Romain wrote:
>
>
>> I am just curious as to why you don't make your own starter?
>>
>> I do agree the conversation factor is there when you are theoretically
>> 'making a piece of history', but doesn't the natural wild yeast you
>> feed the starter by means of the flour you add quickly turn it into
>> 'domestic' sourdough?
>
>
> One objective to get an older established starter is quality and
> reliability.
>
> If you grow your own starter, it is a random process with variations
> what you get.
>
> Even if it functions right away and makes good bread, to become stable
> will take some time and lot of refreshing cycles.
>
> One best performing LB bacteria for making bread - the LB sanfrancisco -
> has not been found in nature, only in sourdough bakeries where
> continuous propagation of sourdough is happening. So, chances are very
> high with growing your own from flour that you won't get this variety.
>
> As for turning an established starter into a local variety - that's
> unlikely since sourdough starters "if treated correctly" are very stable
> and immune against whatever comes out of the flour.
>
> One particular sourdough has been observed for over 30 years and
> confirmed to be stable. I think it was one of German SD Co. Boecker
> sourdoughs and the researcher was Boecker G. who analyzed his father's
> sourdough, did it again later and established stability.
>
> Samartha

Interesting to know.

My starter became stable fairly fast and is pretty well very consistent.
I did feed it unbleached flour regularly and normally use it twice a
week so it gets fed regularly. It tastes right on and rises nice.
(depending on weather it would seem for speed though)

I think I need about 3 feeds after it is refrigerated to get lively
again, but don't normally do that unless I am away, it sits on the
counter in a small loosely covered crock otherwise.

I guess I should try one of the 'historic' starters just to see the
difference. Curious too.

Rye bread will be next though. :-)

Mike