Building preferments - conflicting Hamelman advice?
 

On pages 146 -147 of his book, Hamelman painstakingly describes the
benefits of building the (wheat) preferment in two stages.

Then, on page 188 he appears to suggest building rye preferment in a
single hit (except in his Detmolder 3-stage recipes).

Is there a reason for taking an approach with rye preferments that is
deemed to be sub-optimal for wheat preferments?

Felix Karpfen
--
Felix Karpfen
Public Key 72FDF9DF (DH/DSA)

Felix Karpfen wrote:
> On pages 146 -147 of his book, Hamelman painstakingly describes the
> benefits of building the (wheat) preferment in two stages.
>
> Then, on page 188 he appears to suggest building rye preferment in a
> single hit (except in his Detmolder 3-stage recipes).
>
> Is there a reason for taking an approach with rye preferments that is
> deemed to be sub-optimal for wheat preferments?

It seems that the 14 - 16 hours 1-step is his standard procedure for
lower rye contents and the 3-stage is for higher rye %.

Also - he seems to be using yeast in almost every rye recipe which gets
it rising anyway, independent from the starter (with some restrictions:
over fermented).

I have no doubt that the recipes work and are valid.

Will they still work without yeast? Maybe, maybe not.

Now, with the white stuff on pg 146 ff, I don't find any yeast on first
glance ... pg 168.

Maybe that's your answer: No yeast: higher quality starter, with yeast:
not so much quality required.

From what I gathered on this topic so far - if you don't want to use
yeast, use a 3-stage - that's guaranteed (within limits of cause) to work.

To find the underlying reason why Hamelman is doing it in that
particular manner, it may be a good idea to ask him directly.

Speculating, I'd say that's how he got used to doing things which work.

I haven't much looked into that book but that he uses no yeast with
several white and yeast with almost every rye - well.... somewhat
disappointing - must be caused by where he grew up.


Samartha

Samartha Deva wrote:

>Speculating, I'd say that's how he got used to doing things which work.
>
>I haven't much looked into that book but that he uses no yeast with
>several white and yeast with almost every rye - well.... somewhat
>disappointing - must be caused by where he grew up.
>
>
As I recall, he apprenticed in Germany. The usual German practice is to
get a new sourdough culture at the end of the week, put it into a large
tank with flour and water at a fairly high hydration - German bakers
like their starter "pumpable", and then let sour over the weekend. On
Monday they start using it, and use it all week without refreshment.

Very sour. Not much rise. So, they add yeast to it.

I am sure there are saurerteig purists who don't do it that way, but
that is, from what I read, the usual approach.

Mike

--
....The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvaldis claims to be trying to take over the world...

Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
home baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM mavery81230
wordsmith Yahoo mavery81230

Samartha Deva wrote:


>
> It seems that the 14 - 16 hours 1-step is his standard procedure for
> lower rye contents and the 3-stage is for higher rye %.
>
> Also - he seems to be using yeast in almost every rye recipe which gets
> it rising anyway, independent from the starter (with some restrictions:
> over fermented).
>
> I have no doubt that the recipes work and are valid.
>
> Will they still work without yeast? Maybe, maybe not.
>

if you take a look at www.der-sauerteig.de there's the three step detmold
and the (maybe lesser known) one step detmold described there.
the one step usually takes 15-20 hours and may require baker's yeast.

i'm wondering if a stretch&fold like with wheat bread would actually change
that.

.... and yes, i don't use capitals, at least not since '82 or so ...

happy baking,
--
acd

acd wrote:
> Samartha Deva wrote:
[...]
>>Will they still work without yeast? Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>
>
> if you take a look at www.der-sauerteig.de there's the three step detmold
> and the (maybe lesser known) one step detmold described there.
> the one step usually takes 15-20 hours and may require baker's yeast.
>

Hamelman uses 5 % starter at 70 F for 14 - 16 hours
DM 1-Stage uses 2 - 10 % at 76 - 84 F for 15 - 24 hours

So - somewhat similar: using a 1-Stage, temp differs much, time a little.

www.der-sauerteig.de, relevent URL is:

http://www.fallerfancom.de/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=83

Well, from the

"Leider ist diese Führung nur für sehr stabile Sauerteigkulturen
geeignet, da sich sonst schnell Fremdkeime niederlassen. Außerdem wird
die Hefe nicht optimal gefördert, sodass zum Backen Bäckerhefe dem Teig
zugesetzt werden muss. Die Detmolder Ein-Stufen-Führung ist milder in
der Säure als die Drei-Stufen-Führung und deswegen müssen mindestens 40%
der gesamten Roggenmehlmenge versäuert werden."

TR quick and dirty:

"Unfortunately this process is only suitable for a very stable culture,
because quickly foreign germs establish themselves. Additionally yeast
is not optimally promoted, so that for baking bakers yeast must be added
to the final dough. The Detmold 1-step process produces more moderate
acidity as compared to the 3-stage process and therefore at least 40% of
the entire rye flour amount needs to be acidified (used in the starter)."

I am not sure how much the intrusion of foreign germs comes into play.

A more important factor with this long 1-stage process appears to be
it's sensitivity to temperature to obtain the same acidity.

-------------------------------------------------
Temp | starter amount | flour mult factor
-------------------------------------------------
24-26C 76-80F | 10 % | 19
-------------------------------------------------
26-27C 80-82F | 5 % | 36
-------------------------------------------------
27-28C 82-84F | 2 % | 92
-------------------------------------------------

(source: Sourdough Manual, Spicher/Stephan)

Just 1C/2F difference and the initial starter amount needs to be
doubled/halved.

IMO: DM 3-Stage is better, less flimsy.


> i'm wondering if a stretch&fold like with wheat bread would actually change
> that.

Hardly - it tightens the gluten which has no influence on yeast counts
and - won't work at all with higher rye %.

> ... and yes, i don't use capitals, at least not since '82 or so ...

Who cares?

Samartha

In article >,
Felix Karpfen > wrote:

> On pages 146 -147 of his book, Hamelman painstakingly describes the
> benefits of building the (wheat) preferment in two stages.


Well, perhaps the answer is in the opening line of that section:

"When we have a bowl of mature culture -- either liquid or stiff --
weighing a pound or so, and we need to build it up to several pounds, in
order to mix dough several hours later, how do we do that?"

Later on he says:

"It's asking a lot, however for the microorganisms in our bowl to take
in all that food and water [the much larger amount required for the
future big bake] at one sitting -- after all, we humans could survive if
we ate breakfast, lunch and dinner all at once and nothing else till the
next day, but we probably wouldn't feel too good on that sort of eating
regimen -- and neither would our culture if we bombarded it with such a
hefty meal. Therefore, let's do our building in two stages:"

He then goes on to give an example of building one pound of culture to 8
pounds. That's quite a bit more than what I normally do in my kitchen.
(In fact I often think how my little yeastie boyz live a veritable life
of reilly - most live out their days undisturbed while only a small bit
get sacrificed in the oven. But that's probably enough of that sort of
thing!)

I do enjoy the recipes in Hamelman's book and use them with good
results. I certainly have not tried them all, but each of them made
good bread from the first try and each gets better with practice. The
ciabatta I've been making lately has been from Reinhart's _The Baker's
Apprentice_ and that certainly has turned out well too but I did a lot
of flipping back and forth to see the differences in formula and I also
read what Hamelman had to say on the subject, just for a better
understanding.

--
Mary Beth
Orientation::Quilter
http://www.quiltr.com
http://www.fruitcakesociety.org
http://homepage.mac.com/mbgoodman/bread05/

Samartha Deva wrote:

>> i'm wondering if a stretch&fold like with wheat bread would actually
>> change that.
>
> Hardly - it tightens the gluten which has no influence on yeast counts
> and - won't work at all with higher rye %.

hm, i tried something like that tonight and we'll see tomorrow morning how
it went. gotta let rye bread sit for a day ...

from a rough guess i would think that my rye content is around 40-50%
when i do rye, i do quite a lot of french country style too, it's less work
and they're good except they don't preserve as well.


somewhere on the way i picked up that yeasties like air :-) so i thought a
stretch & fold may be helpful, we'll see ..

>
>> ... and yes, i don't use capitals, at least not since '82 or so ...
>
> Who cares?
>
thought you would :-), nice translation though

--
acd

Samartha Deva wrote:
>
> It seems that the 14 - 16 hours 1-step is his standard procedure for
> lower rye contents and the 3-stage is for higher rye %.
>
> Also - he seems to be using yeast in almost every rye recipe which gets
> it rising anyway, independent from the starter (with some restrictions:
> over fermented).
>
> I have no doubt that the recipes work and are valid.
>
> Will they still work without yeast? Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Now, with the white stuff on pg 146 ff, I don't find any yeast on first
> glance ... pg 168.
>
> Maybe that's your answer: No yeast: higher quality starter, with yeast:
> not so much quality required.
>
> From what I gathered on this topic so far - if you don't want to use
> yeast, use a 3-stage - that's guaranteed (within limits of cause) to work.
>
> To find the underlying reason why Hamelman is doing it in that
> particular manner, it may be a good idea to ask him directly.
>
> Speculating, I'd say that's how he got used to doing things which work.
>
>
>
> Samartha

All the above guesses, assumptions and considerations are based on one
sacred for this group axiom: SD bread starter cultures comprise Candida
millery and SF Lactobacilli; others are "foreign", "strange",
"hostile", don't stand acid environment, have no flavor and aroma,
cursed supermarket bread is made with their vicious help and they named
Saccharamyces Cerevisiae (SC).
That is my blasphemy: most of the bread SD starter cultures, especially
the ones designated for rye bread, comprise SC or their minor
relatives, S. minor and several types of LB, mostly not SF LB.
The same about the "from the scratch" rye starter: all the chances that
it contains SC and different from SF Lactobacilli.
What starter cultures? The starter cultures that are properly
identified and stored at special banks as slants (not as Djadja Vanja
starter or as Chew-and-spit Alaska starter accompanied by fairy tale).

SC has many different faces, flavors and aroma. Every homebrewer knows
this, when he chooses from literally hundreds of SC strands for
different beer styles.
Some strands are acid tolerant.

> I haven't much looked into that book but that he uses no yeast with
> several white and yeast with almost every rye - well.... somewhat
> disappointing - must be caused by where he grew up.

Disappointing is that he doesn't explain this or give the reference to
his sources.

Samartha Deva wrote:
> acd wrote:
>
>> Samartha Deva wrote:
[...]
> So - somewhat similar: using a 1-Stage, temp differs much, time a little.
>
> www.der-sauerteig.de, relevent URL is:
[...]

Somehow funny how you guys tend to use this source as a reference --
I've been reading this NG for quite a while (and didn't dare posting for
somewhat obvious reasons ;-) ) but have been active on the above. I
believe the author of what you quoted would be flattered about you guys
trying to take him as a reference.

Coming back on-topic, I feel the bare source of flour used may make
quite a difference. I'm usually baking rye SD bread based on flour from
the US (shipped half-way around the world). But I do on occasion, based
on the same starter, have the chance to make a loaf or two in Germany. I
do observe that even with the Detmold 3-stage, which definitely yields
best results in terms of yeast-development for rye SD for me, my breads
can use some added yeast to develop as well as the non-yeasted I bake in
Germany. But then, the wheat-based SD I nourish here does literally
explode in comparison. Hence I think for the "ordinary north American
wheat flour", a 1-stage process may be by far enough to develop enough
rise, while for the "ordinary north American rye flour" even a 3-stage
may ask for the addition of some bakers yiest for certain recipes in
order to match the performance based on old-world rye crops.

But then don't despair -- on the other hand people from the old world
are shocked about the rise of some of my wheat-SD based breads compared
to what they can achieve. Maybe there's a good reason why SF-sourdough
was created in the US and rye-SD in Germany ;-)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:09:33 -0600, Samartha Deva wrote
(<mailman.1125267024.13127.rec.food.sourdough@www. mountainbitwarrior.com>):

> Felix Karpfen wrote:
>>
>> Is there a reason for taking an approach with rye preferments that is
>> deemed to be sub-optimal for wheat preferments?
SNIP
>
> I have no doubt that the recipes work and are valid.

My success rate to date has been 100%. But I had taken some of your
previous advice and started with 15% rye in the bread. So far my track
record relates to 15% rye and 25% rye.

>
> Will they still work without yeast? Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Now, with the white stuff on pg 146 ff, I don't find any yeast on first
> glance ... pg 168.
>
> Maybe that's your answer: No yeast: higher quality starter, with yeast:
> not so much quality required.

Thank you.

I believe that this is the crunch-line.

Now I have to understand what it says - namely:

What makes a starter "high quality"? Is it more than its ability to
deliver without the need for added cultured (bakers') yeast? Does
it produce bread that most people would consider as tasting better?
This is not an attempt to ignite yet another another flame over the
desirability of adding such yeast.

Felix Karpfen
--
Felix Karpfen
Public Key 72FDF9DF (DH/DSA)

Felix Karpfen wrote:
[..]

> Now I have to understand what it says - namely:
>
> What makes a starter "high quality"? Is it more than its ability to
> deliver without the need for added cultured (bakers') yeast?

Not sure if that's all:

Both components appropriately developed - yeasts and LB's to be able to
develop taste and rise do get the desired bread.

IMO, that's totally independent from using yeast or not.

> Does
> it produce bread that most people would consider as tasting better?

That's probably too vague a criteria - some people like it very sour,
some not so, just from the sour aspect, what's better?

From taste/smell crumb/crust variants, there are probably a lot more -
all influenced to some degree by the starter.

And - there is no such thing as the holey grail of starters, like once
you find it, it fixes everything and you ascend to sourdough heaven.
Would be too simple.

> This is not an attempt to ignite yet another another flame over the
> desirability of adding such yeast.

Again - to yeast or not to yeast does not touch starter quality - they
are independent variables.

If you use a 1-stage process like the DM 1-stage, you still may get a
good quality starter within that dimension, doing what it is expected to
do: make good bread, but to do it reliable, yeast addition is needed.

Somebody may like this type of bread over a DM 3-stage grown yeast less
bread.

Samartha