On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:54:40 -0500, "Mike Pearce"
wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that instructions like Samartha's work,

Then why does he insist that you email him if the culture does not
start in a mere 12 hours?

What you have to understand is that I live on the outskirts of
Houston, Texas - the greatest place on Planet Earth. But there are
some things that one must trade off to live in God's Country.

One of them is the quality of the environment. If I let a culture go 5
days I have this fear that I will end up with diesel fuel. This is the
only major city on Earth where one can light the end of his garden
hose and it will flame.

So please understand my concerns. I do not want to poison my family by
feeding them bread based on petroleum derivatives grown in a starter
culture.

Now the good news. I fed the latest culture that I based on that
conversation with the master baker at the Whole Foods Bakehouse,
according to the schedule he sent me from the National Baking Center,
and it appears to be much more active than earlier attempts.

I have asked before if there is the possibility that one must "seed" a
culture - provice a "catalyst" to "get things going". Once activity
begins, the natural organisms in the flour take over. Perhaps there is
enough of this "catalyst" in the kitchen of an inveterate baker like
Samartha that it is impossible for him to avoid "contamination". Those
"contaminates" get his culture going and then things progess even
though the culture is covered.

Perhaps, despite the abundant flora and fauna that inhabit the
atmosphere in Houston, I do not have quite enough in my kitchen at
this early stage in my evolution as a sourdough baker, for
"contamination" of the closed cluture to progress, whereas if I allow
the airborne "catalysts" to start the culture going, I can then let it
progress according to recipe that requires covered cultures.

Serious comments welcomed. I do not thing we have begun to work thru
this issue on a scientific basis. I believe everything you say and
people like Samartha and his colleagues say, but I would ask you to
listen to what I say, even though I am not a member of the cult.

"Charles Perry" wrote:

Over a span of thirty plus years, I tried many times to
get a starter going. usually after getting fired up by reading some lying
book
or phoney article. I got some things to bubble a bit , but never anything
that
would make bread. It wasn't until Carl was kind enough to send me a start
that
I was successful with sourdough. I don't think that my problem was
impatience.
More like ignorance.


Clearly, some people have trouble getting a starter going. In this thread, I
was really just offering my experience and observations using the
flour/water/regular feedings method of getting a starter going. I'm sure
there reasons other than impatience which result in the failure of a new
starter.

Maybe I might even be closer to finding the Holy Grail of a white, free
form,
high rise, big holey, sour, tasty, sourdough loaf.


Over the weekend I made foccacia for the second or third time. I make that
and see the crumb with it's huge holes and think that I can get all the
pieces of the "Holy Grail" separately I should be able to get them in one
loaf. Yeah right! I'll be giving it another try tomorrow. I think I've
finally figured it out. g

-Mike

"Charles Perry" wrote in message =
...

Over a span of thirty plus years, I tried many times to get a starter=20
going (but it) wasn't until Carl was kind enough to send me a=20
start that I was successful with sourdough. =20

Well, I know Charles to be a starter-sniffer, so I guess that tends=20
to gives the lie to my sniffer conjecture.

Assuming that Charles is one and the same as "Carlos", the famous
shrouded sourdough scofflaw, it would appear that he has finally
divulged his secret style of dry start revitalization -- last line at:

http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/getbrochure.html =20

Ticker laughs out loud at the thought of my ignorance, but is kind=20
enough to withhold comment on the issue of stupidity.

Cats do have their thoughts but they know who fills their bowls.

---
DickA

Bob wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:13:12 -0500, "Mike Pearce"
wrote:

I've made starters covered, and uncovered, with organic bread flour, rye, KA
bread flour, and most recently Gold Medal AP flour. I've been successful
every time. My conclusion, based on my success rate, isn't that I have some
magical touch it's that making a starter is not that difficult.

My gut feel is that most people who run into problems with starting
starters, as someone else eluded to, is impatience. I think that if you
follow Samartha's instructions, and just continue feeding, eventually you
will end up with a good starter. If you do get antsy that it's not working
just start another one while you continue the feeding schedule on the first.
My guess is that the first will come around before the second.

Here's why I am impatient: Samartha states that the starter should
fermenting in 12 hours and if it hasn't, email him. Unless he just
likes to receive email, he appears to be doing that because he
suspects something is very wrong. Also, nowhere that I can find on his
site or some others like his site is there any mention that the
culture should go for 5 full days without any pronounced activity. In
fact several sites state clearly that if the culture hasn't doubled in
size in 3-5 days, toss it.

It's not that I am so impatient as I am concerned that if I let the
culture go past these recommended time periods that I will end up with
something undesireable. IOW, I am tossing these failed cultures not
out of frustration but out of caution. Nowhere have I seen anyone,
Samartha included, sanction letting a culture sit for 5 days without
noticeable activity.

Maybe the temperature is wrong. It's 75-80F in the kitchen which I
believe is acceptable. I realize I do not want to heat the culture too
hot or I will sterilize it.

I just ordered some sourdough starter from KA - it should get here in
a week. In the meantime I will continue to experiment in the hope that
something clicks. Otherwise when the KA starter comes, I am going to
use it instead of trying to start it naturally.

When creating a starter from scratch with just flour and water you are
actually trying to capture the yeast and bacillus from the ambient. But the
issue is whether there is yeast and bacillus in YOUR environment.

If you have ever done sourdough most likely there is already the needed stuff
in your environment. If not there may or there may not be. It is plain luck.

If it takes longer than the 12 hours you have been told it probably means that
your home is relatively free of yeast and bacillus. The poster whose advice
you are following probably has a home where the stuff is floating in the air.
12 hours to capture a wild yeast is very short and seems to indicate just
that.

Be patient and don't become paranoid that more than 12 hours will just get you
something undesirable. Yeasts are resilient things and once captured will
fight off other varieties.

The KA starter is very good although it tends to become very sour after a year
or so and they requires "sweetening". Look up the FAQ, I think there are
instructions there on sweetening a starter that has become raunchy sour.

Bert

Bob wrote:

He has been there for over 10 years and still uses
the same starter from when he began working there.


Why is a guy who hasn't begun a new starter for ten years an authority
on beginning starters? ;-)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:14:45 GMT,
wrote:

When creating a starter from scratch with just flour and water you are
actually trying to capture the yeast and bacillus from the ambient.

Oh oh - you just committed a heresy on this cult forum. The cult is
convinced that the microorganisms needed to create the culture reside
solely in the flour and are not "caught" from the environment. Never
mind that this runs contrary to conventional practice.

But the
issue is whether there is yeast and bacillus in YOUR environment.

The only yeast that could possibly be in my environment is commercial
baker's yeast. But since I do not snort it, it's unlikely that it's
around my kitchen.

I have conjectured that those who close the container on their initial
cultures to outside influence are making starters from innoculation
with organisms that are present in their environment. No matter how
careful you are, unless you have a professional clean room, you cannot
avoid innoculation. At the moment they put the lid on the container
there are already a critical mass of the needed organisms in the mix
that came from innoculation by the environment.

Ever notice that the people who boast that they can get their cultures
going effortlessly are also people who have been baking bread for
years. DUH.

If you have ever done sourdough most likely there is already the needed stuff
in your environment. If not there may or there may not be. It is plain luck.

I am on yet another attempt, this time with an open container. I get
the same basic result - after 24-48 hours it starts looking like
something is happening, so I feed it on schedule but it does not grow
to double size.

I have a piece of tape on the side of the container which marks the
level just after feeding, and I used a spatula to clean the inner
surface so I can see if it rises. If that culture doubles in size,
then I will see a residue trail on the side, even if the culture
collapses. Thus far, no increase in size after several feedings.

The mix is gooey which is a sign that something has happened. It is
reminiscent of the texture when I use yeast in a poolish. So I would
like to believe I have achieved the first stage of culture
elaboration, but I cannot get past that stage.

If it takes longer than the 12 hours you have been told it probably means that
your home is relatively free of yeast and bacillus.

I have come to that same conclusion but there are those who claim that
if I am patient enough I will eventually succeed. My problem is what
constitutes "enough".

There are those who claim that if a culture does not respond by
doubling after feeding, then it is no good and should be tossed
because you do not want to use it no matter how much longer you have
to wait.

That seems to say that if for some reason it does come alive after 10
days, it's likely that the starter is contaminated - IOW this belated
activity is not caused by good organisms but bad ones.

The poster whose advice
you are following probably has a home where the stuff is floating in the air.
12 hours to capture a wild yeast is very short and seems to indicate just
that.

Then I am not alone in my conjecture.

Be patient and don't become paranoid that more than 12 hours will just get you
something undesirable. Yeasts are resilient things and once captured will
fight off other varieties.

I have all the patience it takes - what I am concerned is that I may
end up with diesel fuel, compliments of the Houston environment. This
is the only place in North America where you can turn on your garden
hose and light it on fire.

How long should I be willing to wait for desireable effects with no
risk of contamination by bad organisms? Five days, ten days, a month -
how long before it is adviseable to toss the failed experiment?

The KA starter is very good although it tends to become very sour after a year
or so and they requires "sweetening".

I believe they sell you several packets in a single order I made with
them. Even if I have to re-purchase the product after a year, it might
be worth it. I mean, what's 7 bucks to someone who bakes 3 baguettes
per week?

Look up the FAQ, I think there are
instructions there on sweetening a starter that has become raunchy sour.

I have read so many FAQs I can't keep them sorted out. Which one are
you referring to?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:19:09 GMT, (Tim Vanhoof)
wrote:

He has been there for over 10 years and still uses
the same starter from when he began working there.

Why is a guy who hasn't begun a new starter for ten years an authority
on beginning starters? ;-)

Beats me.

wrote:

When creating a starter from scratch with just flour and water you are
actually trying to capture the yeast and bacillus from the ambient. But the
issue is whether there is yeast and bacillus in YOUR environment.


This is one of the dumbest statements I have seen within the recent
flatliners here.

Besides the great accomplishment of requoting the long post, just in
case somebody is unable to get to the previous text.

I would recommend the poster to actually research:

a - what the microorganisms in sourdoughs are
b - where microorganisms found in sourdough cultures are naturally
occurring
c - how they propagate
d - what the common germs and germ counts in your "ambient" are
e - what the germs and germ counts in flours are
f - how they compare
g - what the infection pressure of "ambient" germs compared to flour
indigenous CFU's (culture forming units) under consideration of exposed
area is

And - once you got that figured out, report back and make an actual
contribution instead of sharing your fantasies.

Thank you,

Samartha

--
remove -nospam from my email address, if there is one
SD page is the http://samartha.net/SD/

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:15:39 -0600, Samartha Deva
wrote:

wrote:

When creating a starter from scratch with just flour and water you are
actually trying to capture the yeast and bacillus from the ambient. But the
issue is whether there is yeast and bacillus in YOUR environment.


This is one of the dumbest statements I have seen within the recent
flatliners here.

Besides the great accomplishment of requoting the long post, just in
case somebody is unable to get to the previous text.

I would recommend the poster to actually research:

a - what the microorganisms in sourdoughs are
b - where microorganisms found in sourdough cultures are naturally
occurring
c - how they propagate
d - what the common germs and germ counts in your "ambient" are
e - what the germs and germ counts in flours are
f - how they compare
g - what the infection pressure of "ambient" germs compared to flour
indigenous CFU's (culture forming units) under consideration of exposed
area is

And - once you got that figured out, report back and make an actual
contribution instead of sharing your fantasies.

Thank you,

Samartha

Perhaps you could supply us with the answers to the questions above,
which would go a long way in clarifying this issue.

You are bucking conventional wisdom, which does not make you wrong, it
just means that you will not convince rational skeptics with
pontification alone.

"Bob" wrote in message
...

Ever notice that the people who boast that they can get their cultures
going effortlessly are also people who have been baking bread for
years. DUH.

Hi Bob;
I have a successful starter made from scratch, with no baker's yeast added.
I was not a bread baker when I started, and started right out with sourdough
and not traditional yeasted recipes. I used whole rye meal and water only,
in a jar covered with cheesecloth. It took about 3 days on this first
attempt, perhaps a day less or more for it to start bubbling, in cool room
temperature of about 65-68 degrees Fahrenheit.

I keep mine rather liquid, so it does not double in size as a starter, but
it gets pretty foamy on top. I love the bread my starter is making!

I also have Carl's starter on order, so I will have something to compare
mine to later this year.

Best,

Heather
_amaryllisATyahooDOTcom

* Bob 2003-10-23:
You are bucking conventional wisdom, which does not make you wrong, it
just means that you will not convince rational skeptics with
pontification alone.

But what about the far more common irrational skeptics? And what is the
source of this "conventional wisdom"?

--
Steve W
s (dot) wal (at) verizon (dot) net

"Samartha Deva" =20
wrote in message ...

I would recommend the poster to actually research:=20

a - what the microorganisms in sourdoughs are

They are extremely small, for one thing. They are hard to see with
the naked eye!

b - where microorganisms found in sourdough cultures are naturally
occurring

They are naturally occurring in sourdough cultures, that's where.

c - how they propagate

They propagate very well, especially when they are kept happy (like
warm and well fed), that's how.

d - what the common germs and germ counts in your "ambient" are

Questions are getting frustrating ...

d., e., f., g. [ ... ] (even more frustration)

Off to continue mucking the starter ...

(Starter mucking good against frustration!)

---
DickA

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:33:29 GMT, "HeatherInSwampscott"
wrote:

Hi Bob;
I have a successful starter made from scratch, with no baker's yeast added.
I was not a bread baker when I started, and started right out with sourdough
and not traditional yeasted recipes. I used whole rye meal and water only,
in a jar covered with cheesecloth. It took about 3 days on this first
attempt, perhaps a day less or more for it to start bubbling, in cool room
temperature of about 65-68 degrees Fahrenheit.

I keep mine rather liquid, so it does not double in size as a starter, but
it gets pretty foamy on top. I love the bread my starter is making!

I also have Carl's starter on order, so I will have something to compare
mine to later this year.

What part of the country are you from? Was there a prior exposure of
your environment to sourdough organisms? That is, did the person who
lived in your house bake sourdough (assuming there was someone before
you living in the house)? Is there a bakehouse nearby? Are you or
anyone who is in your house or visits your house exposed to sourdough
organisms.

I am beginning to get the impression that these sourdough organisms
are like other kinds of organisms that infect us in that they are
transmitted easily by people and things. If they get into your
environment then you have success. If not, then no success. Even if
you put a tight lid on the culture jar, they manage to innoculate the
culture at some time in the process from sources other that solely the
flour.

But who am I to make such conjectures other than an amateur who is
trying to use principles of reason to decipher this puzzle, namely the
puzzle of why some people can make an active culture easily, whereas
others can't get anything going even with open containers.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:28:29 GMT, Steve W
wrote:

You are bucking conventional wisdom, which does not make you wrong, it
just means that you will not convince rational skeptics with
pontification alone.

But what about the far more common irrational skeptics? And what is the
source of this "conventional wisdom"?

Good questions. The answer to the first is to exercise good judgement.
If the person who is skeptical appears to be a reasonable, intelligent
person with the necessary experience, then he should be given the
benefit of the doubt. For example, the master baker at the bakehouse
here in Houston which supplied Whole Foods and Starbucks, among 40
clients, has over 10 years experience making sourdough from his own
culture. I spoke with him and specifically addressed the issue of
"catching" yeasts and bacteria from the air to start the culture. He
said that is the only way he has done it.

But he is not the only one. There are several people on the Internet
who exhibit as much experience and intelligence as the "no-catchers"
who claim that you must "catch" the microorganisms.

I am wondering if those who are "no-catchers", like our frequent
contributor Samartha, are unaware that they are innoculating their
cultures with environmental microorganisms that are in abundance
because of their long history of baking. I offer as my rationale for
that the fact that hospitals have local diseases in the environment
that they cannot get rid of no matter how hard they try. IOW as soon
as a microorganism gets established in a particular environment, it is
present virtually forever thereafter.

Now I imagine that people like Samartha have been baking bread since
the Big Bang and therefore they have an environment rich in the very
microorganisms needed to start cultures on their way. And since these
particular microorganisms are "robust" they can "infect" the
flour-water mix no matter how careful you are. Only a certified clean
room would prevent them from contaminating anything one handled in
such an environment.

All I know is that I have tried a few experiments, covered and
uncovered, and I do not seem to have any success. Yes, I may be too
impatient in that I am overly concerned with bad batches and toss them
prematurely. But having to wait 10 days for a culture to get going
seems wrong. Either these "robust" microorganisms do their job within
24-48 hours or else something is wrong.

I point out that even Samartha expresses concern if the culture does
not show significant activity in as little as 12 hours - so much so
that he encourages you to email him. He either likes email a lot or he
is genuinely concerned about failed cultures.

My cultures appear to get started a but - some slight bubbles and
slight texture change - but then nothing. I mean absolutely nothing
happens after about 24-48 hours. I keep feeding it and I keep marking
the side of the container to see if there will be a doubling but
nothing happens for days on end.

Something is clearly wrong here.

"Bob" in message =
said to =
"HeatherInSwampscott"

What part of the country are you from?

I thought I heard her say Swampscott. =20

www.state.ma.us/cc/swampscott.html=20

You get that by going to www.google.com and
searching on the key word "swampscott".

You can find out a lot about sourdough there, also.

Since HeatherInSwampscott gives email address=20
information (assuming you could figure it out), you=20
could query her on irrelevancies via email. But, heck,=20
then you would need to reveal your email address.

--=20
Dick Adams
firstname dot lastnameat bigfoot dot com