Well, both the dried starter I put in the freezer and the one on the
counter packed in pieces in zip lock bags on May 26th of this year are
flat out dead. No reaction at all in warm sugar water.

I didn't freeze any until about halfway through it's life, but both died
really close to the same time.

Thankfully I had some rye starter in a mason jar in the fridge so 1/4
tsp of that started me a nice new unbleached flour starter. (a dip of
the wooden spoon handle end)

I am going to try again with some more dried and use a different drying
method to see those results.

I am going to have to proof it more regularly so I don't get caught
wanting sourdough when I kill the next wet one. LOL!

Turns out I left the last wet one in the back of the Jeep for a couple
days when out camping for ten days with my wife and it got 'really' hot
out, let alone inside the Jeep's black top. She spotted it and put it
in the cooler she tells me, but it was too late.

Mike

"Mike Romain" > wrote in message
g.com...
> Well, both the dried starter I put in the freezer and the one on the
> counter packed in pieces in zip lock bags on May 26th of this year are
> flat out dead. No reaction at all in warm sugar water.
"Warm sugar water?????" What were you trying to raise, commercial yeast?

It's probably just me...but the SD critters don't eat sugar...so I don't
know what it was that you were expecting.


L8r all,
Dusty
....

Dusty da baker wrote:
> It's probably just me...but the SD critters don't eat sugar...
>
>
Where do you get this from?

Maybe it is "just you"?

Lesssee whassh commmng bbbbag...

Sam

"Sam" > wrote in message
news:mailman.31.1190525992.25616.rec.food.sourdoug ...
> Dusty da baker wrote:
>> It's probably just me...but the SD critters don't eat sugar...
>>
>>
> Where do you get this from?
Probably a couple of decades of feeding 'em. Why? Do you know something
else...?

> Maybe it is "just you"?
Or, maybe not...


L8r all,
Dusty -- Flowing Lake, Wa.
....

Dusty da baker wrote:
> "Sam" > wrote in message
> news:mailman.31.1190525992.25616.rec.food.sourdoug ...
>
>> Dusty da baker wrote:
>>
>>> It's probably just me...but the SD critters don't eat sugar...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Where do you get this from?
>>
> Probably a couple of decades of feeding 'em. Why? Do you know something
> else...?
>
Yes - on my web site, please go to the "doping stater" link, where I try
adding the malted grain addition.

The results there are clearly visible that the LB's are doing better
with that (more sugar) - more browning, faster acidification (reaching
lower pH much quicker than without malted grain addition).

And - the LB's sure take in glucose (sugar) and produce lactic acid and
alcohol from that. Also - the heterofermentative LB's take in maltose
(another form of sugar) and convert it into glucose (there is more to it
why the LB SF's are outcompeting other LB's in bread doughs).

My rye based breads have a sweet/sour taste - the sweetness is not in
the flour, so it's coming from LB fermentation.

I have not found, how they break down the starches (multiples of
glucose) but they should do it somehow. So - if they break down starches
into glucose and process that to produce fermentation products lactic
acid and ethanol, their main food in essence for this is sugar derived
from starches.

>> Maybe it is "just you"?
>>
> Or, maybe not...
>
>
I guess, it is...

Sam

Dusty da baker wrote:
> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> g.com...
>> Well, both the dried starter I put in the freezer and the one on the
>> counter packed in pieces in zip lock bags on May 26th of this year are
>> flat out dead. No reaction at all in warm sugar water.
> "Warm sugar water?????" What were you trying to raise, commercial yeast?
>
> It's probably just me...but the SD critters don't eat sugar...so I don't
> know what it was that you were expecting.
>
>
> L8r all,
> Dusty
> ...

I tried flour and water first with no reaction.

The cookbooks I read say to proof yeast, you add it to warm water with
sugar in it.

The commercial yeast I have, Fleischman's, says to put it in sugar water
and expect a doubling in ten minutes to test viability.

The sourdough FAC posted on this group also mentions using sugar to
proof the starter and warns it can overproof easy while using it.

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

About halfway down the page in section # VII C.

I figured this was a good way to 'test' my dried product for viability
expecting a fast reaction.

Mike

Mike Romain wrote:

> The sourdough FAC posted on this group also mentions using sugar to
> proof the starter and warns it can overproof easy while using it.
>
> ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-gro...dough/starters
>
> About halfway down the page in section # VII C.

I'm not taking a position either way, but you may have noticed there's a
lot of contradictory writings in the FAQ.

B/

My apologies to all. Apparently my comment wasn't taken in the manner I
thought I'd posted it.

"Sam" > wrote in message
news:mailman.32.1190559697.25616.rec.food.sourdoug ...
....
>>> Where do you get this from?
>>>
>> Probably a couple of decades of feeding 'em. Why? Do you know something
>> else...?
>>
> Yes - on my web site, please go to the "doping stater" link, where I try
> adding the malted grain addition.
Sorry. I don't know where your website is...so it's hard to go to a
specific link. In any event, I did not mean to imply that starters CAN'T
use sugar, certainly the LB's can. I meant in general that SD starters--the
yeast component--DON'T NEED SUGAR, unlike their commercial cousins. AFAICT
you can't resurrect a dried SD starter with sugar water.

> The results there are clearly visible that the LB's are doing better with
> that (more sugar) - more browning, faster acidification (reaching lower pH
> much quicker than without malted grain addition).
Fine! I wasn't commenting on that. The original poster had mentioned that
putting his SD starter into, what I took to be sugar-water, had failed to
"work". Commercial yeast would work fine like that, but SD won't. At least
it's never worked for any of the times I tried that...

> And - the LB's sure take in glucose (sugar) and produce lactic acid and
> alcohol from that. Also - the heterofermentative LB's take in maltose
> (another form of sugar) and convert it into glucose (there is more to it
> why the LB SF's are outcompeting other LB's in bread doughs).
All certainly true enough! But that's not what the original poster was
trying to accomplish...at least it didn't read that way to me...

....
> I have not found, how they break down the starches (multiples of glucose)
> but they should do it somehow. So - if they break down starches
Yes. The yeast component of the SD culture does that. But that wasn't the
issue!

> into glucose and process that to produce fermentation products lactic
> acid and ethanol, their main food in essence for this is sugar derived
> from starches.
>
>>> Maybe it is "just you"?
>>>
>> Or, maybe not...
>>
>>
> I guess, it is...
Yeah. Probably is. It certainly couldn't be anything else...

I'm outta here...


L8r all,
Dusty -- currently in Wenatchee

Brian Mailman wrote:
> Mike Romain wrote:
>
>> The sourdough FAC posted on this group also mentions using sugar to
>> proof the starter and warns it can overproof easy while using it.
>>
>> ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-gro...dough/starters
>>
>>
>> About halfway down the page in section # VII C.
>
> I'm not taking a position either way, but you may have noticed there's a
> lot of contradictory writings in the FAQ.
>
> B/

My little critters make alcohol somehow and produce 'hooch'. I thought
that was a waste product of them digesting sugars they get from the food.

Oh, that section was a typo, it is # VIII C.

Mike

Mike Romain wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>> Mike Romain wrote:
>>
>>> The sourdough FAC posted on this group also mentions using sugar
>>> to proof the starter and warns it can overproof easy while using
>>> it.
>>>
>>> ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-gro...dough/starters
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> About halfway down the page in section # VII C.
>>
>> I'm not taking a position either way, but you may have noticed
>> there's a lot of contradictory writings in the FAQ.

> My little critters make alcohol somehow and produce 'hooch'.

I thought you were dedicated to committing crittercide? Dead critters
don't make hooch.

> I thought that was a waste product of them digesting sugars they get
> from the food.

"Sugars" aren't necessarily "sugar."

Dusty da baker wrote:
I did not mean to imply that starters CAN'T
> use sugar, certainly the LB's can. I meant in general that SD starters--the
> yeast component--DON'T NEED SUGAR, unlike their commercial cousins. AFAICT
> you can't resurrect a dried SD starter with sugar water.
>

So you don't believe that SD starter yeast can eat sugar? Is it 'that'
specialized it needs to work hard to eat?

I did try flour first as a proof test and when I got no action, I used
sugar.

It 'is' in the FAC in the starter page about being able to easily
overproof the starter if you add sugar to it.

Quote:

Are you adding sugar(s) or other simple carbohydrates that cause the
starter to proof too fast? The problem with this is that the mixture of
'food' (simple and complex sugars and starches) needs to be correct for
the blend of microorganisms in the starter. Giving it too much food
that is easily metabolized by yeast can cause your starter to proof too
quickly,

End Quote.

I am going to dry some more and then proof test it with both flour water
and sugar water. I will take timed photos of both just to see what
happens and report back in a few days.

Mike

Dusty da baker wrote:
>>
>> Yes - on my web site, please go to the "doping stater" link, where I try
>> adding the malted grain addition.
>>
> Sorry. I don't know where your website is...so it's hard to go to a
> specific link.
http://samartha.net/SD

specific link:

http://samartha.net/SD/images/BYDATE/02-08-14/

S.

Brian Mailman wrote:
>
> I'm not taking a position either way, but you may have noticed there's a
> lot of contradictory writings in the FAQ.
>
>
That's why I recommend that people new to sourdough avoid the FAQ. It
has a LOT of very good information in it, but it is written from too
many viewpoints to serve as a good tutorial.

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:
Users never appreciate computers, until they're down

Mike Avery wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>
>> I'm not taking a position either way, but you may have noticed there's a
>> lot of contradictory writings in the FAQ.
>>
> That's why I recommend that people new to sourdough avoid the FAQ. It
> has a LOT of very good information in it, but it is written from too
> many viewpoints to serve as a good tutorial.

That's what I meant... that it shouldn't be used to bludgeon someone as
an "authoritive" source.

B/

Oops! Sam = Samartha? I didn't know--and didn't look deeply enough. You
should'a sent out notices...(:-o)! Sorry 'bout that.

Yes. Of course I've been to your website. Read most of it. Used much of
it. Most of it is spot on. But that's still not what the original poster
was talking about...and that's what I was replying to.


L8r all,
Dusty


"Sam" > wrote in message
news:mailman.33.1190571326.25616.rec.food.sourdoug ...
> Dusty da baker wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes - on my web site, please go to the "doping stater" link, where I try
>>> adding the malted grain addition.
>>>
>> Sorry. I don't know where your website is...so it's hard to go to a
>> specific link.
> http://samartha.net/SD
>
> specific link:
>
> http://samartha.net/SD/images/BYDATE/02-08-14/
>
> S.

On 23 Sep, 17:07, "Dusty da baker"
> wrote:
> > And - the LB's sure take in glucose (sugar) and produce lactic acid and
> > alcohol from that. ...

Dusty you should know that Sam can't stick to the point. By the way
Sam. Sugar (the type you buy in a packet) glucose.

I did some test a few years ago and though the trial was very small I
found the sugar (sucrose) inhibited the reactivation of the starter.

Jim

On 23 Sep, 17:19, Mike Romain > wrote:
....
> My little critters make alcohol somehow and produce 'hooch'. I thought
> that was a waste product of them digesting sugars they get from the food.
>

>
> Mike

There are many sugars (look up mono- di- polysaccharide in Wikipedia)
and many more alcohols the list is huge.

Jim

Brian Mailman wrote:
> Mike Avery wrote:
>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not taking a position either way, but you may have noticed
>>> there's a lot of contradictory writings in the FAQ.
>>>
>> That's why I recommend that people new to sourdough avoid the FAQ. It
>> has a LOT of very good information in it, but it is written from too
>> many viewpoints to serve as a good tutorial.
>
> That's what I meant... that it shouldn't be used to bludgeon someone as
> an "authoritive" source.
>
> B/

So you folks are saying that the FAQ is 'totally' wrong on something so
basic as proofing the Starter???

If that is so, then the person that posts this 'FAQ' should be informed
and asked nicely to cease and desist posting misleading or just plain
Wrong information to the group.

I am looking for a ten minute to half hour test for viability of a dried
starter, not a regrow that takes days.

I am on several automotive groups and if someone posted total garbage
and called it a 'FAQ' about a vehicle, they would be seriously chastised
and a BS Warning would be posted every time the fool posts the crap
again if they didn't get the point the first time. People can die from
wrong automotive information.

I will do my own test and take photos. My starter is on a 'long' grow
period of feeding it once a day right now to get the 'flavor' parts up
in volume for another drying batch run.

Unfortunately I am using the 'FAQ' directions for this this time. :-(

Last time I let it grow with only a cloth over it so a hard shell was
formed and used this shell. It only lasted 3 or 4 months on the shelf,
but worked really well during that period.

Mike

Mike Romain wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>> Mike Avery wrote:
>>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not taking a position either way, but you may have noticed
>>>> there's a lot of contradictory writings in the FAQ.
>>>>
>>> That's why I recommend that people new to sourdough avoid the FAQ. It
>>> has a LOT of very good information in it, but it is written from too
>>> many viewpoints to serve as a good tutorial.
>>
>> That's what I meant... that it shouldn't be used to bludgeon someone as
>> an "authoritive" source.

> So you folks are saying that the FAQ is 'totally' wrong on something so
> basic as proofing the Starter???

No.

You're cordially invited to read what's written.

B/

Mike Romain wrote:
> So you folks are saying that the FAQ is 'totally' wrong on something so
> basic as proofing the Starter???
>

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that all of worked for someone,
somewhere at some time. While I don't think the FAQ is a good tutorial,
it is a valuable resource from a historical perspective. There are
large parts of it that do not represent what most of the people in
rec.food.sourdough are doing today. If those portions were removed, I
think the document would be less valuable than it is. Perhaps a shorter
FAQ that represents what people are doing today would be a good thing(tm).

> I am looking for a ten minute to half hour test for viability of a dried
> starter, not a regrow that takes days.
>
And I'm looking for a way to turn lead into gold. I was looking for the
northwest passage, but I hear that has been found and is open.

Sourdough does not work as quickly as commercial bakers yeast. You
aren't going to get a half hour test. When people around here try to
revive an old starter, they tend to start two batches. One with the
saved culture, one with just flour and water. This gives them an idea
of whether what was revived was the culture they wanted or something
from the flour they used. In trying to re-start a culture, some things
help success. Use bleached white all-purpose flour. It has, as Dick
points out, a lower critter count on it, reducing the chance of starting
a new culture. You can also do a poor man's sterilization of the
media. Measure your water and bring it to a boil. Measure your flour
and pour the boiling water over it. Stir and allow to cool. Then add
the saved culture.

The essence of baking is patience. The essence of sourdough baking is
patience squared.
> I am on several automotive groups and if someone posted total garbage
> and called it a 'FAQ' about a vehicle, they would be seriously chastised
> and a BS Warning would be posted every time the fool posts the crap
> again if they didn't get the point the first time. People can die from
> wrong automotive information.
>
Luckily sourdough is more forgiving.

> I will do my own test and take photos. My starter is on a 'long' grow
> period of feeding it once a day right now to get the 'flavor' parts up
> in volume for another drying batch run.
>

I do not feel that a once a day feeding is adequate, regardless what
some others say. A number of professional bakers I know have tried to
feed their starters once a day and ALL have given up on it. This
stresses the starter to a point where other organisms can take over, and
the character of the starter can change. Often irreversibly. It is
easy enough to start a new starter, however, if you are emotionally
attached to your starter, you need to feed it at least twice a day while
it is at room temperature. Each feeding should be enough to double the
size of the starter you are feeding. (Which is why discarding starter
is not a bad thing.) And the mix of flour and water should be about 1
part flour to 1 part water by weight, or 2 parts water to 3 parts flour
by volume.
> Last time I let it grow with only a cloth over it so a hard shell was
> formed and used this shell. It only lasted 3 or 4 months on the shelf,
> but worked really well during that period.
>
Ahhh... right. I doubt you got those handling instructions from the
FAQ, or any web page I've seen.

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:
Smith Brothers
Would look immense
If they'd just
Cough up 50 cents
For half pound jar
Burma-Shave

Mike Avery wrote:
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> So you folks are saying that the FAQ is 'totally' wrong on something
>> so basic as proofing the Starter???
>>
>
> No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that all of worked for someone,
> somewhere at some time. While I don't think the FAQ is a good tutorial,

That is unfortunate. To me a FAQ should be just that.

>> I am looking for a ten minute to half hour test for viability of a
>> dried starter, not a regrow that takes days.
>>
>
> Sourdough does not work as quickly as commercial bakers yeast. You
> aren't going to get a half hour test.

When I was reviving my last batch of dried starter, I had bubble action
in flour water within 2 to 4 hours

When people around here try to
> revive an old starter, they tend to start two batches. One with the
> saved culture, one with just flour and water. This gives them an idea
> of whether what was revived was the culture they wanted or something
> from the flour they used.

I use the same unbleached flour my original starter was made from which
I used a pinch of to start my SD rye starter, so cross breeding yeasts
isn't a worry to me yet....

>
> The essence of baking is patience. The essence of sourdough baking is
> patience squared.

LOL! Now that is for sure.

>
> I do not feel that a once a day feeding is adequate, regardless what
> some others say.

I agree, mine gets 'really' strong that way both in colour and aroma. I
am just doing that because I read in the FAQ that long grows were the
best way to prep for drying. Some is going into a mason jar and the
fridge for storing.

After my first dried batch's short life, I decided to 'read the
directions' this time and thought the FAQ would be them.

Mike

On 25 Sep, 16:28, Mike Romain > wrote:
> Mike Avery wrote:
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> >> So you .... .
> To me a FAQ should be just that
.....
> After my first dried batch's short life, I decided to 'read the
> directions' this time and thought the FAQ would be them.
>
> Mike

Mike, I think it's important to remember that FAQ stands for
Frequently Asked Questions. Not Fabulous Answers Quoted. I shouldn't
speak for Darrell but I suspect that they, the answers, have been
selected to give a balanced view. What works in one set of conditions
may not work in another. It's not easy to know the conditions in
someone else's kitchen unless your the clairvoyant one in the NG. I've
found that people want just a simple 'do this' answer rather than an
explanation of the workings, so inevitably you're going to get
conflicting advice. Add to that people's differing needs from their
starter and you've got a very confusing mix.

Jim

TG wrote:
> On 25 Sep, 16:28, Mike Romain > wrote:
>> Mike Avery wrote:
>> > Mike Romain wrote:
>> >> So you .... .
>> To me a FAQ should be just that
> .....
>> After my first dried batch's short life, I decided to 'read the
>> directions' this time and thought the FAQ would be them.

> Mike, I think it's important to remember that FAQ stands for
> Frequently Asked Questions. Not Fabulous Answers Quoted.

I wish I'd thought of that.

B/

On 26 Sep, 17:53, Brian Mailman > wrote:
....
> > Mike, I think it's important to remember that FAQ stands for
> > Frequently Asked Questions. Not Fabulous Answers Quoted.
>
> I wish I'd thought of that.
>
> B/

Brian, I've got a long way to go to catch you up. : -)

Jim