I sent away for Carl's starter
a month ago and have received
nothing. I'm eager to get a
starter going again and
wondered if anyone has another
source for me to obtain.

Thanks in advance,

Nicki

Nicki Sinclair wrote:
> I sent away for Carl's starter a month ago and have received nothing.
> I'm eager to get a starter going again and wondered if anyone has
> another source for me to obtain.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Nicki

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?

Maybe I got lucky, but I didn't have any issues just using warm water
and flour to get a starter going. It took less than a week. I even
took some of it on vacation in a small mason jar so I could make an
unusual bread for my 80 year old mom who makes/made wicked white and
brown, but never sourdough bread. It went over very well. (no
competition either eh.)

I recently made a larger batch of starter and took the crust off with a
fair bit of sponge attached and dried it out to save for emergencies or
to take pieces of camping with me. I am going to make sure a bit of it
will come back active before I wander way off into the bush with it though.

Mike

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

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

Mike Romain wrote:
[..]
> My starter became stable fairly fast and is pretty well very consistent.

Same here -

As example, two starters, one self-grown, the other grown from a German
Sourdough bread "package" - had all the ingredients, flour, a yeast
package and "dried sourdough" as one ingredient. So - my thinking was,
where do the Germans get their "dried sourdough" from, in a production
environment for 1500 g bread packages? Aaaah!

Both starters were happily doing their job making great bread.

So - neglecting my starters for some reason over a longer period of time
discovering then that many were growing molds and I try to rescue what I
can. The self-grown is no more, the one grown from the package is still
very happy and competing with another very well established starter from
a bakery which I got more recently.

Out of this experience, I draw my conclusions about sourdough starter
stability and quality, that there may be something to it with
established, older stuff.


Samartha

On May 21, 10:22 am, Nicki Sinclair > wrote:

> Thanks in advance,
>
> Nicki


Ed Replies,

There are several of us posters that will gladly give out starts.

I use ACME brought to me from Berkeley, and Bahrain given to me by
Slim on this newsgroup.

Yankeeharvest.com used to sell a good starter, Mr. Baker I think.

Brian, Kenneth, and others have always kindly offered starters.

If you email me an address, I can send both dried and an active
starter overnight.

Good luck,
Ed Bechtel

Carls Starter arrived
today...YIPPEE

Nicki Sinclair wrote:
> I sent away for Carl's starter a month ago and have received nothing.
> I'm eager to get a starter going again and wondered if anyone has
> another source for me to obtain.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Nicki

Glad you got your Carl's starter. When I'm in a bind (and my starter
is on the disabled list) I either make one from scratch or make a
batch or two with Goldrush. Many folks seem to not like it, but I do.

>Nicki Sinclair wrote:
>> I sent away for Carl's starter a month ago and have received nothing.
>> I'm eager to get a starter going again and wondered if anyone has
>> another source for me to obtain.

"Richard L Walker" > wrote in message news
> Glad you got your Carl's starter. When I'm in a bind (and my starter
> is on the disabled list) I either make one from scratch or make a
> batch or two with Goldrush. Many folks seem to not like it, but I do.
>
> >Nicki Sinclair wrote:
> >> I sent away for Carl's starter a month ago and have received nothing.
> >> I'm eager to get a starter going again and wondered if anyone has
> >> another source for me to obtain.

Most branded dry starts are undated, so you can't know how long your
new start has sat on the shelf before you got it. That has been true with
Goldrush as well, which, I presume, is the reason that experience with
it is variable. Carl's is freshly cultured and dried, and dated, when you
get it, so it almost always revives vigorously.

Recently a batch of SASEs was lost in the mail between the dispatcher
and the distributor, so envelopes needed to be recreated from backup
data. So some people are getting Carl's starts in unfamiliar envelopes,
unusually late, but quite fresh, as usual.

My choice for a quick delivery is http://tinyurl.com/6vm9g . But Carl's
is worth waiting for, and even cheaper (2 stamps and and envelope). As
far as making your own from scratch, it is an endless conversation. For
instance: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sourdough/ (if you can get by
the "Hi-there-I'm-new" messages).

--
Dicky

On 23 May, 06:28, Richard L Walker > wrote:
> Glad you got your Carl's starter. When I'm in a bind (and my starter
> is on the disabled list) I ...make one from scratch
>
HI Richard

You find it easier to make a starter from scratch then get the old one
up and running? I think the old one must be dead if that's the case,
do you see what I mean? : -)

Jim

On May 21, 10:22 am, Nicki Sinclair > wrote:
> I sent away for Carl's starter
> a month ago and have received
> nothing. I'm eager to get a
> starter going again and
> wondered if anyone has another
> source for me to obtain.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Nicki

Carl's info sheet says to allow at least 6 weeks to receive your
starter. They need to mobilize their volunteers, check mail, etc.
However, I sent in a small donation to the cause with my SASE--got my
starter back in 10 days. I agree with the general sentiment that it's
easy enough to just start one from scratch. I've also seen SF starter
packets in a few markets in my area.I wanted to see/taste the
difference in somebody else's starter, and was slightly intrigued by
the claim that this starter has been maintained continuously for over
150 years. I think the likelihood of offspring of the original culture
being present is slim at best.

I haven't activated it yet.

Tim

"Tim" > wrote in message oups.com...
> ... I think the likelihood of offspring of the original culture
> being present is slim at best.

O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

On 27 May, 17:17, Tim > wrote:
> I think the likelihood of offspring of the original culture
> being present is slim at best.
>
> I haven't activated it yet.
>
> Tim

Hi Tim, why do you find it so difficult to believe? Why is it so
difficult that the original culture can't survive? What do you think
is better able to survive in the mixture than the original starter. Do
you see what I'm getting at? It's an unknown to you either way so why
should one be more likely than the other? Something has survived
that's a fact. You'll just have to accept that you don't know either
way and that it doesn't really matter anyway.

Jim

TG wrote:
> On 27 May, 17:17, Tim > wrote:
>
>> I think the likelihood of offspring of the original culture
>> being present is slim at best.
>>
>
> Hi Tim, why do you find it so difficult to believe? Why is it so
> difficult that the original culture can't survive? What do you think
> is better able to survive in the mixture than the original starter. Do
> you see what I'm getting at? It's an unknown to you either way so why
> should one be more likely than the other? Something has survived
> that's a fact. You'll just have to accept that you don't know either
> way and that it doesn't really matter anyway.
>
It is true that it probably doesn't matter, but I am inclined to believe
that if the starter was well maintained, it is most probably the
original culture.

Dr. Michael Gaenzle, formerly of the German Cereal Institute, studies
sourdough starters and says he has starters that the institute has had
for over 50 years that have not changed in that time.

Dr. Ed Wood in his "World Sourdoughs From Antiquity" book recounts an
experiment he did for National Geographic wherein he tried to capture an
authentic Egyptian culture from the air. He irradiated the flour so it
would not have anything alive on it. In a lower-rent fashion, a number
of people in rec.food.sourdough tried to get local cultures by pouring
boiling water over the flour to try to sterilize it. In both cases, the
experienced people went from nearly universal success at starting a
culture to a very high failure rate. The critter count is MUCH higher
on the flour than in the air. This corroborates the idea that most
cultures are started from the flour, not from the air. Which suggests
that if critters in the air are rarely able to start a culture, it seems
unlikely that critters in the air are also unable to take over a starter

Similarly, the yeast and bacteria count in an active starter is much,
much higher than the count in flour. A large part of the stability
researchers, such as Dr. Gaenzle, report in cultures is because the
lactobacillus bacteria produce a number of chemicals to kill would-be
invaders. The acidity of sourdough starter is just the front line of
defense. So, it seems very unlikely that a healthy starter could be
taken over by the yeast and bacteria found in either the air or flour.

Of course, that leaves someone in the back row raising their hand and
saying, "I think you're full of it! When I moved from San Francisco to
Poughkeepsie, my starter changed! Now, how do explain that, Mr.
Smartypants?". If you've been taking good care of your culture, what
could make the bread made with it taste different? Hunters prize boars
that have been feeding on acorns - it gives the meat a great taste (or
so I'm told - if you want to send me a care package, I'd love to try
some!) French farmers force feed their geese special herbs and spices
to give the pate made from the livers of those geese special tastes.
Many nursing mothers report that when they eat this food or that, their
babies no longer like mom's milk. If more complex organisms change
their taste, or the taste of things they produce, based on what they
have been ingesting, is it any surprise that yeast and bacteria would
also change their taste, and the taste of the breads they produce, based
on changes to their diet?

There are regional differences in flours, even when the brand name on
the sack is the same. Different flours taste different. And it seems
that yeast and bacteria notice differences we don't.

Try converting your starter from white to whole wheat or rye flour.
There are very rapid changes to the aroma and taste of the starter, well
beyond what you'd expect from the changes in the flour.

A number of experienced sourdough bakers have said that the key to
copying another baker's bread isn't getting their sourdough starter, it
lies in finding out what kind of flour they are using.

Bottom line, I have no trouble believing that Carl's is, in fact, the
same starter that Carl's ancestors used.

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

A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
Apathy error: Don't bother striking any key.