I have whole wheat and rye starters created from the same origin and
stored in my fridge. My whole wheat chef I keep firm, and within 8
hours at room temperature it gets "soft" and "stretchy" on the inside.
It only takes a small amount to build into a starter. My rye starter
acts very differently. For one, nothing seems to happen when I keep
it stiff, even for several days (though it does sour). So I started
keeping it wetter. It seems to soak up an ungodly amount of water to
get to mud-consistency. If I keep it very wet (like really wet mud),
it starts to bubble after about 24 hours at room temperature, and on
the second day the bubbles and even some foam are evident. Once it's
going if I then build from it, it reproduces very rapidly, within
hours. But if I simply add 1-2T right out of the fridge to flour and
water it seems to take days.

In other words, once it finally gets started it's quite vital; but as
soon as it hits the fridge it immediately reverts back to slow-motion
again. At first I assumed this was because I was refrigerating it too
early before the yeasts were vigorous enough. So I refreshed it again
and again in the usual way every 12 hours for a few days till it was
bubbly and vital, put it in the fridge and... same old same old.... It
was immediately back to lethargy.

I know all starters need to wake up from the cold, but my rye seems to
take forever in comparison to my wheat (days compared to hours). Is
this usual or just the luck of the draw? Does rye starter require a
warmer temperature in relation to wheat (my leading theory)? I was
curious how others would describe their rye starters in comparison to
their wheat.

Hi Jonathan,

I have refreshed white flour and full grain rye starters for quite a while
parallel.

The starters were from different origin and were sitting in the fridge for
1 - 2 month before getting refreshed.

That's different from your situation.

In general, the rye starters became alive right away or much earlier than
the white starters and the white starters often took several refreshments
to get active again.

This I thing is caused the increased buffering capacity and nutrient
(minerals) availability in full grain flours which can therefore ferment
longer.

The hydration was 100 % in all cases and it took typically 6 hours after
refreshing (tripling or doubling the flour content after reducing the total
amount) to show activity at room temperature.

You may not be able to compare this directly to your experience. But you
don't seem to do exactly the same to your two starters, like doubling or
tripling the flour content of the two starters at the same time, at the
same hydration level at the same temperature to see how they differ in the
same situation.

What also comes to mind with your post is that rye flour is able to absorb
more water than wheat and with it's slimy consistency sure behaves
differently than wheat. What I also find with rye starters at lower
hydration (very stiff) that there is not much activity (rise or bubbling)
to observe but it is actually fermenting quite well. All those observations
depend on parameters, like total starter volume (small amounts behave
differently from larger amounts), container shape (narrow diameter
containers show different appearance than wide one's) and of cause
hydration and flours used.

Also, if you are seeing differences with your starters and they are working
- as they seem to, it's definitely interesting, but not really wrong as
such or atypical. Maybe your starters indeed developed different
properties. What would be interesting to know is, what the condition of the
original starter was when you started to grow it on separate media. Was it
a young starter or an older, well established starter?

You could do a test and convert your rye starter back to wheat (and the
other way with the wheat) and see, if they keep or change their behavior -
if you got the time and juice for it, then you would know for sure if they
indeed are different.

Samartha

At 07:20 PM 10/24/2004, Jonathan Kandel wrote:
>I have whole wheat and rye starters created from the same origin and
>stored in my fridge. My whole wheat chef I keep firm, and within 8
>hours at room temperature it gets "soft" and "stretchy" on the inside.
>It only takes a small amount to build into a starter. My rye starter
>acts very differently. For one, nothing seems to happen when I keep
>it stiff, even for several days (though it does sour). So I started
>keeping it wetter. It seems to soak up an ungodly amount of water to
>get to mud-consistency. If I keep it very wet (like really wet mud),
>it starts to bubble after about 24 hours at room temperature, and on
>the second day the bubbles and even some foam are evident. Once it's
>going if I then build from it, it reproduces very rapidly, within
>hours. But if I simply add 1-2T right out of the fridge to flour and
>water it seems to take days.
>
>In other words, once it finally gets started it's quite vital; but as
>soon as it hits the fridge it immediately reverts back to slow-motion
>again. At first I assumed this was because I was refrigerating it too
>early before the yeasts were vigorous enough. So I refreshed it again
>and again in the usual way every 12 hours for a few days till it was
>bubbly and vital, put it in the fridge and... same old same old.... It
>was immediately back to lethargy.
>
>I know all starters need to wake up from the cold, but my rye seems to
>take forever in comparison to my wheat (days compared to hours). Is
>this usual or just the luck of the draw? Does rye starter require a
>warmer temperature in relation to wheat (my leading theory)? I was
>curious how others would describe their rye starters in comparison to
>their wheat.
>_______________________________________________


remove "-nospam" when replying, and it's in my email address

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:05:06 -0600, Samartha
> wrote:

>Hi Jonathan,
>
>I have refreshed white flour and full grain rye starters for quite a while
>parallel.
>
>The starters were from different origin and were sitting in the fridge for
>1 - 2 month before getting refreshed.
>
>That's different from your situation.
>
>In general, the rye starters became alive right away or much earlier than
>the white starters and the white starters often took several refreshments
>to get active again.
>
>This I thing is caused the increased buffering capacity and nutrient
>(minerals) availability in full grain flours which can therefore ferment
>longer.
>
>The hydration was 100 % in all cases and it took typically 6 hours after
>refreshing (tripling or doubling the flour content after reducing the total
>amount) to show activity at room temperature.
>
>You may not be able to compare this directly to your experience. But you
>don't seem to do exactly the same to your two starters, like doubling or
>tripling the flour content of the two starters at the same time, at the
>same hydration level at the same temperature to see how they differ in the
>same situation.
>
>What also comes to mind with your post is that rye flour is able to absorb
>more water than wheat and with it's slimy consistency sure behaves
>differently than wheat. What I also find with rye starters at lower
>hydration (very stiff) that there is not much activity (rise or bubbling)
>to observe but it is actually fermenting quite well. All those observations
>depend on parameters, like total starter volume (small amounts behave
>differently from larger amounts), container shape (narrow diameter
>containers show different appearance than wide one's) and of cause
>hydration and flours used.
>
>Also, if you are seeing differences with your starters and they are working
>- as they seem to, it's definitely interesting, but not really wrong as
>such or atypical. Maybe your starters indeed developed different
>properties. What would be interesting to know is, what the condition of the
>original starter was when you started to grow it on separate media. Was it
>a young starter or an older, well established starter?
>
>You could do a test and convert your rye starter back to wheat (and the
>other way with the wheat) and see, if they keep or change their behavior -
>if you got the time and juice for it, then you would know for sure if they
>indeed are different.
>
>Samartha
>
>At 07:20 PM 10/24/2004, Jonathan Kandel wrote:
>>I have whole wheat and rye starters created from the same origin and
>>stored in my fridge. My whole wheat chef I keep firm, and within 8
>>hours at room temperature it gets "soft" and "stretchy" on the inside.
>>It only takes a small amount to build into a starter. My rye starter
>>acts very differently. For one, nothing seems to happen when I keep
>>it stiff, even for several days (though it does sour). So I started
>>keeping it wetter. It seems to soak up an ungodly amount of water to
>>get to mud-consistency. If I keep it very wet (like really wet mud),
>>it starts to bubble after about 24 hours at room temperature, and on
>>the second day the bubbles and even some foam are evident. Once it's
>>going if I then build from it, it reproduces very rapidly, within
>>hours. But if I simply add 1-2T right out of the fridge to flour and
>>water it seems to take days.
>>
>>In other words, once it finally gets started it's quite vital; but as
>>soon as it hits the fridge it immediately reverts back to slow-motion
>>again. At first I assumed this was because I was refrigerating it too
>>early before the yeasts were vigorous enough. So I refreshed it again
>>and again in the usual way every 12 hours for a few days till it was
>>bubbly and vital, put it in the fridge and... same old same old.... It
>>was immediately back to lethargy.
>>
>>I know all starters need to wake up from the cold, but my rye seems to
>>take forever in comparison to my wheat (days compared to hours). Is
>>this usual or just the luck of the draw? Does rye starter require a
>>warmer temperature in relation to wheat (my leading theory)? I was
>>curious how others would describe their rye starters in comparison to
>>their wheat.
>>______________________________________________ _
>
>
>remove "-nospam" when replying, and it's in my email address


Sincere thanks...

bottom...
to
top
from
read
We
Hi Samartha,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" > in message
=20
wrote under the full requoted text of
news:mailman.1098677290.12054.rec.food.sourdough@w ww.mountainbitwarrior.c=
om
including om

> bottom...
> to
> top
> from
> read
> We
> Hi Samartha,

That's real catchy, Kenneth!

I wonder how many people still have newsreaders which do not=20
automatically list news ID's (and sender e-addy's) as clickable links=20
in newsgroup replies? Seems Kenneth's Forte Agent and Samartha's
Eudora version don't. My Outlook Express does. So abuse me,
ancient Usenet sages, I do Microsoft. Go back to your perennial=20
top- vs. bottom-loading debate with full thread requote each post.
Maximize archival redundancy!

--=20
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname> at bigfoot dot com
___________________
Sourdough FAQ guide at=20
http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/sourdoughfaqs.html

Jonathan Kandell wrote:
>
> ...In other words, once it finally gets started it's quite vital; but as
> soon as it hits the fridge it immediately reverts back to slow-motion
> again...
>
> ...Does rye starter require a
> warmer temperature in relation to wheat (my leading theory)? I was
> curious how others would describe their rye starters in comparison to
> their wheat.

I keep my storage starter on a plain white wheat diet. When I
want to bake a a rye or partial rye recipe that is over 25% rye,
I convert the wheat to a rye baking starter. When I convert to
rye, as opposed to whole wheat, from the white wheat starter, I
notice a lag before the typical rye vigor sets in. I alwways
attributed that lag to the sourdough critters getting used to the
rye as food. However, it might be the same thing that you are
observing.

Here the starter growing stages are all done at room temperature,
whatever that happens to be, so it does not seem to be a cause in
what I observe. As you say, milled whole grains can absorb more
water so some effect might be based on that if you compare
hydration. However when I grow starter, I usually adjust the
first stage for consistancy rather than any attempt to measure
hydration and still I notice the lag in question.

I don't bake rye often enough to add any more observations, but I
am curious.

Regards,

Charles

--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

Jonathan Kandell wrote:
> My rye starter acts very differently....If I keep it very wet (like really wet mud),
> it starts to bubble after about 24 hours at room temperature, and on
> the second day the bubbles and even some foam are evident. Once it's
> going if I then build from it, it reproduces very rapidly, within
> hours. But if I simply add 1-2T right out of the fridge to flour and
> water it seems to take days....I know all starters need to wake up from the cold,
> but my rye seems to take forever in comparison to my wheat (days compared to hours).

Hi Jonathan,

I have three starters; two wheat (liquid and sponge) and one rye (like
yours sorta solid/sorta mudlike). I keep them in the fridge when I'm
not using them and my rye starter is very very slow off the mark but
once it gets going it is a super starter. I understand from talking to
a few other bakers on several boards that rye is a very thirsty grain
and that most breads/doughs made with rye will be very sticky/gooey
(love the technical terms of baking!!). I also understand that rye
doesn't produce the gluten as quickly as wheat based breads. I would
think that perhaps some of these differences between rye and wheat would
be the cause of rye slowness

I do know that if I'm going to be baking with my rye starter often, I
tend to take it out of the fridge and keep it in my oven (when not in
use of course ;-> ) which has a gas pilot that keeps the temp at a
constant 73 degrees. That way, even though it devours its feedings it is
ready to use quickly. If you use your rye starter more than your wheat
starter, you may want to consider trying keeping it at room temp instead
of in the fridge.

All the best,
Mary