Good starter Carl.

Every few years I take a pinch of one of the several Carl's baggies I've
collected and make a working starter. For a few batches is's great: rise
time, including sponge, first rise, and final rise total about 24 hours.
The flavor and texture is everything I could want. Without fail, though,
within a few weeks it evolves into a fast-rising, bland tasting starter
that's not much better than commercial yeast. I want to coax out my
starter's inner Carl, if it's still there.

I've been reading lately that it may be possible to encourage the desired
bacteria components of the starter by cycling it at approximately 85
degrees. I've been doing that for about a week with little or no
improvement but plan to keep at it. I wonder if someone here hase some
experience with seletive starter breeding. Alternately, maybe someone has
an idea about how to keep Carl's Carl's if I decided to start over.

"no" > wrote in message t...

> Every few years I take a pinch of one of the several Carl's baggies I've
> collected and make a working starter. For a few batches is's great: rise
> time, including sponge, first rise, and final rise total about 24 hours.
> The flavor and texture is everything I could want. Without fail, though,
> within a few weeks it evolves into a fast-rising, bland tasting starter
> that's not much better than commercial yeast. I want to coax out my
> starter's inner Carl, if it's still there.

A dry start is good for a while, like weeks, maybe months. Conceivably,
it may be revived with difficulty after the passage of years. Carl's starts
are intended to be used at once, not stored for years. Refreshed starter,
ready for breadmaking, is not very sour at all.

> I've been reading lately that it may be possible to encourage the desired
> bacteria components of the starter by cycling it at approximately 85
> degrees. I've been doing that for about a week with little or no
> improvement but plan to keep at it. I wonder if someone here hase some
> experience with seletive starter breeding. Alternately, maybe someone has
> an idea about how to keep Carl's Carl's if I decided to start over.

One can get a new Carl's start by sending a SASE to the right place. But,
from your words, it would appear that Carl's is not what you want. Carl
did not intend for people to eat his starter, or that it be sour. The intent is
that the bread made from it can, if desired, be made to be sour.

Culturing at temperature over 90°F. causes the lactobacteria to drop out.
Please see http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/64/7/2616. I see no reason
to do that. Sour loaves can be made from starter cultured at room
temperature. Sour bricks are made from sour starter. It takes a while
for the nOObies to find out how to sustain a long enough rise for sourness
to develop, and to learn that ready starter is not sour starter..

--
Dicky

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Adams" >
Newsgroups: rec.food.sourdough
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 3:41 PM
Subject: temperature therapy to modify starter charteristics



"no" > wrote in message
t...

> Every few years I take a pinch of one of the several Carl's baggies I've
> collected and make a working starter. For a few batches is's great: rise
> time, including sponge, first rise, and final rise total about 24 hours.
> The flavor and texture is everything I could want. Without fail, though,
> within a few weeks it evolves into a fast-rising, bland tasting starter
> that's not much better than commercial yeast. I want to coax out my
> starter's inner Carl, if it's still there.

>> A dry start is good for a while, like weeks, maybe months. Conceivably,
i>> t may be revived with difficulty after the passage of years. Carl's
starts
>> are intended to be used at once, not stored for years. Refreshed
>> starter,
>> ready for breadmaking, is not very sour at all.

Thanks for the reply. I know that Carl's starter is not meant to last for
years, but I have successfully revived is several times from
several-year-old SASEs. It wasn't any easier or harder working with the
dried starter well past its due date. Maybe I just got lucky.

:

>> One can get a new Carl's start by sending a SASE to the right place.
>> But,
>> from your words, it would appear that Carl's is not what you want. Carl
>> did not intend for people to eat his starter, or that it be sour. The
>> intent is
>> that the bread made from it can, if desired, be made to be sour.


I don't want to eat the starter, and I don't want the starter to be more
sour. Instead of "bland tasting starter" in my original post I should have
said "starter that makes bland-tasting bread." What I'm trying to do is
keep baking bread with it that's as good as the first few batches after a
fresh Carl's revival. As I said, the first few batches come out just right
and then my attempts to continue the line appear to fail, resulting in a
fast rising, less flavorfull loaf. I suppose I could just throw up my hands
and keep starting over with fresh dried starter, but hoped to find a way to
maintain or even improve upon (to my own taste) the starter characteristics
by changing the way I propogate the starter. Temperature seemed like a
reasonable variable to work with first.

>> Culturing at temperature over 90°F. causes the lactobacteria to drop out.
That's why I picked 85 degrees, which some site seemed to indicate was
optimal for the author's idea of good.

>> Please see http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/64/7/2616.

This looks really interesting, thanks!

>> Sour loaves can be made from starter cultured at room temperature.

My first few fresh Carl's starts do, untill the inevitable mutation.

>> Sour bricks are made from sour starter.
made a few of those for sure.

>> It takes a while for the nOObies to find out how to sustain a long enough
>> rise for >> sourness to develop, and to learn that ready starter is not
>> sour starter..

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Thanks for the pointers!

Davey


--
Dicky

no wrote:
> Good starter Carl.
>
> Every few years I take a pinch of one of the several Carl's baggies I've
> collected and make a working starter. For a few batches is's great: rise
> time, including sponge, first rise, and final rise total about 24 hours.
> The flavor and texture is everything I could want. Without fail, though,
> within a few weeks it evolves into a fast-rising, bland tasting starter
> that's not much better than commercial yeast.
How are you maintaining your revived starter? How do you store it?
How, and what, do you feed it? I suspect that is where the answers will
lie...

Mike


--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

Once seen on road signs all over the United States:
For painting
Cow-shed
Barn or fence
That shaving brush
Is just immense
Burma-Shave

no wrote:
> ... I wonder if someone here hase some
> experience with seletive starter breeding...

ANNNDDD it's Breadbasket, leading by two lengths....

B/

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message
news:mailman.1.1177198026.89402.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
> no wrote:
>> Good starter Carl.
>>
>> Every few years I take a pinch of one of the several Carl's baggies I've
>> collected and make a working starter. For a few batches is's great: rise
>> time, including sponge, first rise, and final rise total about 24 hours.
>> The flavor and texture is everything I could want. Without fail, though,
>> within a few weeks it evolves into a fast-rising, bland tasting starter
>> that's not much better than commercial yeast.
> How are you maintaining your revived starter? How do you store it? How,
> and what, do you feed it? I suspect that is where the answers will lie...
>
> Mike
>
Mostly following "starters.txt"

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-gro...dough/starters

mix with warm (approx 80 deg) water and flour to pancake batter consistency,
set at room temperature until sponge just starts to collapse, then
refrigerate, use, or feed again. It sits in the refrigerator until the next
use, with a room-temperature rejuvenation cycle to sponge if it's been a
while since the last use (usually no worse than "Stage C: Barely Living," in
"starters.txt.") I've been using tap water so chlorine might be an issue. I
also use plain old "Better for Bread" grocery store flour and about 3/4 tsp
salt per cup of water in baking.

If it means anything, my fast-rising bland (still a little better than using
commercial yeast) bread does turn sour about a day after it's baked, but
it's not just about the sour. The slow rising stuff, when it happens, just
has a superior texture and flavor right out of the oven. I especially like
the crust: it's kind of shiny, thick-chewy-skinned, and a little splotchy
when I let it cool under a towel.

Dave

"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...

> Culturing at temperature over 90°F. causes the lactobacteria to drop out.

Nope, it causes the yeast to drop out. That has been recommended as a way
to make starter/dough very sour.

--
-d.

no wrote:
> "Mike Avery" > wrote:
>> How are you maintaining your revived starter? How do you store it? How,
>> and what, do you feed it? I suspect that is where the answers will lie...
>>
> Mostly following "starters.txt"
>
I hadn't read that document before. Sadly, I am not impressed. He
seems to think that sourdough comes from the air, a view that is no
longer commonly held. And he doesn't feed his starters often enough.

A feeding, followed by 24 hours of cultivating, and then into the
refrigerator isn't a good way to maintain a culture. It's too
infrequent to maintain a culture, much less rebuild one.

One of the recurring problems I've seen in the newsgroup and in
correspondence with hobbyist bakers is that there starters are on the
edge of death. Frequency of feeding is a big issue.

The starter paper you pointed to put a lot of emphasis on temperature.
I haven't found it to be very critical. Remember, historically speaking
effective temperature control is a relatively recent technology -
sourdough has been used since at least the time of the pharaohs. On
that scale, thermometers are recent introductions. And yet, sourdough
worked. Frequency of feeding is more critical.

I'll suggest switching to a more frequent feeding. A good cycle is to
feed the starter twice a day. To 2 parts of starter by weight, add 1
part of water and 1 of flour. By volume, feed it 2 parts of water and 3
parts flour and add enough to double the volume of the starter with each
feeding.

If your starter is sluggish, which you didn't comment upon, I'd suggest
feeding the starter 3 times a day, and feeding it enough to triple it's
size with each feeding. 1 part starter, 1 part water and 1 part flour
by weight is the easy way to measure the ingredients.

When you feed like that, you produce lots and lots of sourdough
starter. In a week or so, you get a swimming pool full of starter. So,
at some point you have to start discarding, or using, the starter on a
regular basis. The usual approach is to discard half, or two-thirds, of
the starter before each feeding to maintain a steady state.

Once the starter is healthy enough to double its size between feedings,
if you aren't going to use it regularly, that is, frequently, you should
feed it one more time and then refrigerate it. Some studies suggest
that a freshly fed starter will tolerate refrigeration better than one
that has had time to mature after feeding.

If your starter doesn't return to a better conditions in a few days, you
might want to start a new one from your collection of dried starters.

Best wishes,
Mike

Dick Adams wrote:

>
> ... Carl
> did not intend for people to eat his starter, or that it be sour.
>

Well, not eating for sustenance, but don't ignore the hobby/sport of
sourdough starter tasting. It is not yet as popular as cattle or horse
judging, but is making gains every year.

My room mate who is a retired National Champion sourdough taster is
pouting because she still takes personally words that seem to minimize
the sport.

It is nothing to me, but it is not fun to share the house with a
disgruntled feline. I told Ticker that I would try to clear things up
regarding respect for her work.

Regards,

Charles

> The starter paper you pointed to put a lot of emphasis on temperature.
> I haven't found it to be very critical. Remember, historically speaking
> effective temperature control is a relatively recent technology -
> sourdough has been used since at least the time of the pharaohs. On
> that scale, thermometers are recent introductions. And yet, sourdough
> worked. Frequency of feeding is more critical.
>


Mike, I am not quite sure this fairly represents the situation of the
ancients so to speak. After all before central heating, and by design
in the case of much vernacular architecture a home would have a very
wide variety of temperatures in which different stages of bread
making, starter storage etc. could be carried out. In most European
homes at least during winter a fire would be constantly burning and
warming kitchen etc - conversely there would be a cellar and/or larder
for cool food storage. In the case of actual bakeries most would have
pastry rooms as cool as possible away from oven. Not of course to say
that the daily weather or typical climate of a location would not have
influenced baking methods overall or by the day, pre-refrigeration
etc.

yours
andy forbes

"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...

"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...

> Culturing at temperature over 90°F. causes the lactobacteria to drop out.

Nope, it causes the yeast to drop out. That has been recommended as a way
to make starter/dough very sour.

--
-d.

I thought that's what you meant. I make beer, so am always careful about
temperature and yeast when there's a 5-gallon batch at stake. Beer yeast is
particularly sensitive to temperature because it's bred for slow
fermentation. I also sometimes make beer bread using homebrew with live
yeast, just (unpasteurized) homebrew, flour, and salt. It's also a slow
rise process, producing decent flavor and texture and not sour at all. It
would probably make better bread, but worse beer, without the hops.

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message
news:mailman.2.1177214051.89402.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
> no wrote:
>> "Mike Avery" > wrote:
>>> How are you maintaining your revived starter? How do you store it?
>>> How, and what, do you feed it? I suspect that is where the answers will
>>> lie...
>>>
>> Mostly following "starters.txt"
>>
> I hadn't read that document before. Sadly, I am not impressed. He seems
> to think that sourdough comes from the air, a view that is no longer
> commonly held. And he doesn't feed his starters often enough.
>
In the doc's defense, it's been around for a while and probably beat what
came before it by a bunch.

> A feeding, followed by 24 hours of cultivating, and then into the
> refrigerator isn't a good way to maintain a culture. It's too infrequent
> to maintain a culture, much less rebuild one.
>
:
> I'll suggest switching to a more frequent feeding. A good cycle is to
> feed the starter twice a day. To 2 parts of starter by weight, add 1 part
> of water and 1 of flour. By volume, feed it 2 parts of water and 3 parts
> flour and add enough to double the volume of the starter with each
> feeding.

I'll try it and let you know.

>
> If your starter is sluggish, which you didn't comment upon,
:
It's not sluggish, but the opposite: as if someone dumped a pack of yeast in
the sponge. I'm figure the fast rise is related to my lack of flavor, since
the yeast is beating the bacteria to the food.

Thanks again!

Dave

atty wrote:

(proper attributions restored)
Mike Avery wrote:

>> The starter paper you pointed to put a lot of emphasis on temperature.
>> I haven't found it to be very critical. Remember, historically speaking
>> effective temperature control is a relatively recent technology -
>> sourdough has been used since at least the time of the pharaohs.

> Mike, I am not quite sure this fairly represents the situation of the
> ancients so to speak. After all before central heating, and by design
> in the case of much vernacular architecture a home would have a very
> wide variety of temperatures in which different stages of bread
> making, starter storage etc. could be carried out.

"Could be" isn't "was."

B/

On 22 Apr, 04:52, Mike Avery > wrote:
> no wrote:

> He
> seems to think that sourdough comes from the air, a view that is no
> longer commonly held.

Oh if only that were true.


Jim

On 22 Apr, 13:59, "no" > wrote:

> . I make beer, so am always careful about
> temperature and yeast when there's a 5-gallon batch at stake. Beer yeast is
> particularly sensitive to temperature because it's bred for slow
> fermentation. I also sometimes make beer bread using homebrew with live
> yeast, just (unpasteurized) homebrew, flour, and salt. It's also a slow
> rise process, producing decent flavor and texture and not sour at all. It
> would probably make better bread, but worse beer, without the hops.

Hi,
The first thing that I thought when I read your original post was 'is
some other brewer's / commercial yeast getting in to the starter?'

Is this a possibility? This is the first time I've read anyone
complain about the stability of Carl's starter. It reminds me of
complaints about starters made using commercial yeast.

Jim

"TG" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On 22 Apr, 13:59, "no" > wrote:
>
>> . I make beer, so am always careful about
>> temperature and yeast when there's a 5-gallon batch at stake. Beer yeast
>> is
>> particularly sensitive to temperature because it's bred for slow
>> fermentation. I also sometimes make beer bread using homebrew with live
>> yeast, just (unpasteurized) homebrew, flour, and salt. It's also a slow
>> rise process, producing decent flavor and texture and not sour at all.
>> It
>> would probably make better bread, but worse beer, without the hops.
>
> Hi,
> The first thing that I thought when I read your original post was 'is
> some other brewer's / commercial yeast getting in to the starter?'
>
> Is this a possibility? This is the first time I've read anyone
> complain about the stability of Carl's starter. It reminds me of
> complaints about starters made using commercial yeast.
>
> Jim
>
I bake yeast bread and/or pizza once or twice a week using Fleischmann's
from a jar. That jar lives right next to my starter in the fridge. Both
have airtight lids, for what it's worth. I do make a point of not opening
my starter jar when I'm messing with commercial yeast, even if there's a
commercial yeast sponge brewing elsewhere in the kitchen. There's always a
chance that Fleischmann's has invaded the environment, though. I think I'll
move the sourdough operation to another room for a while. Thanks for the
tip.

Dave

no wrote:

> I bake yeast bread and/or pizza once or twice a week using Fleischmann's
> from a jar. That jar lives right next to my starter in the fridge. Both
> have airtight lids, for what it's worth. I do make a point of not opening
> my starter jar when I'm messing with commercial yeast, even if there's a
> commercial yeast sponge brewing elsewhere in the kitchen. There's always a
> chance that Fleischmann's has invaded the environment, though. I think I'll
> move the sourdough operation to another room for a while. Thanks for the
> tip.

Baker's Yeast (Fleischmann) doesn't stand a chance in a SD environment -
that's established. 3 days max and they are gone! The remains probably
eaten by LB's.

And - doubtful if the yeasts make spores - the one's from Fleischmann
don't need to - the continuation of their species is taken care of by
humans and that's going on for - ? maybe 3/4 of a century of continuous
human nursing at Fleischmann's - extreme yeast decadence. What do they
get to eat? Cornstarch or something like that.

If you have two kinds of sourdough in the same fridge, it's another story.

And - compare the SD's fed with full grain flours - they are still in
contact with nature and have to compete. Battle hardened warriors
snuffing the yeast wimps for pleasure.

It seems there is a multitude of LB's in a natural sourdough anyway and
just the one's liking the provided environment best, dominate at a given
time.

I would not worry at all with that yeast accomplishing anything on your
sourdoughs.

Samartha

Samartha Deva wrote:
>
> Baker's Yeast (Fleischmann) doesn't stand a chance in a SD environment -
> that's established. 3 days max and they are gone! The remains probably
> eaten by LB's.
>
Michael Gaentzle says 2 feedings will take care of the invaders.
> And - doubtful if the yeasts make spores - the one's from Fleischmann
> don't need to - the continuation of their species is taken care of by
> humans and that's going on for - ? maybe 3/4 of a century of continuous
> human nursing at Fleischmann's - extreme yeast decadence. What do they
> get to eat? Cornstarch or something like that.
>
Since about 1880 actually. Around 125 years. And, I think it's
molasses. Still not very good....

> I would not worry at all with that yeast accomplishing anything on your
> sourdoughs.
>
No argument there. Even if your starter is weak, when it revives, it
will kill off the bakers yeast.

Mike

> It seems there is a multitude of LB's in a natural sourdough anyway and
> just the one's liking the provided environment best, dominate at a given
> time.

recent scientific literature, mostly from various Italian teams seems
to identify 5 different yeasts (and sometimes different versions of
same yeast) that can be dominant in a given SD cultures and 16
different Lacto Bacilli. But for LB particularly there seems to be
some additionally that current scientific methods can't cultivate and
therefore identify. But while a given SD culture may have a certain
dominant flora, it seems samples of other yeasts and LB can survive in
a culture alongside the dominant. Presumably a change in regime might
alter balance of power so to speak. I believe this doesn't mean
however that all SD cultures contain all 5 yeasts and all 16 LB.

for anyone themselves being or with customers being gluten intolerant
(celiac sprue) this paper may be of interest http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/2/1088

yours
andy f



> I would not worry at all with that yeast accomplishing anything on your
> sourdoughs.
>
> Samartha

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message
news:mailman.2.1177214051.89402.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
:
> The starter paper you pointed to put a lot of emphasis on temperature. I
> haven't found it to be very critical. Remember, historically speaking
> effective temperature control is a relatively recent technology -
> sourdough has been used since at least the time of the pharaohs. On that
> scale, thermometers are recent introductions. And yet, sourdough worked.
> Frequency of feeding is more critical.
:
> Mike

Well, either my "temperature therapy" or just a few weeks of vigilant
feeding have brought it back to life and I've managed to create a few decent
loaves lately. Unfortunately, I've also made one brick and one over-proofed
monster that looked a lot like something from "Alien." So my question for
the veterans is: how do you schedule this type of baking? If everything
works just right, I can sponge overnight, start the first rise in the
morning, the second rise after work, and bake later that evening. As often
as not, though, (recalling the numerous times I've gotten serious about this
and then moved on to other things after some frustration) the first rise
gets ahead of itself and I come home to the guts-eaten-out Alien, or it's in
a slow mood and I end up putting it in the fridge to stall the process. So,
who has figured out a rhythm that gets dependable loaves every few days
throughout the week?

A few times a month over the past 10+ years I make pizza using good old
commercial yeast. The timing works out just about right if I knead in the
morning, put it in the fridge, get someone to take it out at around 4:00,
and it's good to punch and form by 6:00. I suspect that the fridge may be
the answer to weekday sourdough, but haven't figured out a schedule yet.

Dave