This starter was advertised as one of their most sour, and boy does it
behave differently than Carl's starter. For one thing, the starter
odor is really different...almost foul smelling. The sponge didn't
seem as vigorous as that created with Carl's starter, but the dough
rose equally fast. After mixing the same amount of King Arthur flour,
water and starter, and mixing, the dough was more sticky than with
Carl's. After rising, the dough was quite sticky and seemed to not
hold it's shape when baked, resulting in a flatter loaf. The taste and
texture was different...not as sour as expected and a very nice and
regular bubble structure in the bread.

This trial was done with only one rising, after activating the starter
yesterday. It will be interesting to try making a stiffer dough, with
multiple risings and a more mature starter. So many variables, and so
little time....

Doug

wrote in message ...
This starter was advertised as one of their most sour, and boy does it
behave differently than Carl's starter ... not as sour as expected ...

One good remedy for not-sour-enough is kimchee. I have mentioned this
at r.f.s. in earlier times, as could be determined by means of a Google archive
search. Kimchee is another lactobacillus thing. So you make a sourdough
sandwich and include kimchee. Fried baloney is the piece-d'resistance filling
I recommend most heartily. As pointed out by Billy Bob's Bad Santa character,
when you fry baloney, it tastes like a hot dog. But he is not the first person to
know that. I have known it since I was a mere youth.

If you make the kimchee the way I do, it really does not matter what bread
you use, actually, except for the texture. There is information on how to
make it in the r.f.s. (Google) archive, and at Wikipedia and lots of other places.
And you can use really cheap baloney.

For one thing, the starter odor is really different...almost foul smelling.

With kimchee, you would not notice if the bread smelled bad.

Keep up the good work!

--
Dicky

Oh Doug, 'almost foul smelling', did that not give you a clue? You
haven't activated your starter yet. That foul smell is leuconostoc
contamination. If you read the instructions it explains you need to
look out for certain signs.

The Bahrain starter is more sour when treated exactly the same as
other starters BUT its all relative and you can make wonderful not
sour at all bread with the Bahrain starter.

Refresh that starter until it smells sweet enough to eat. If you gag
when you sniff it it's not ready.

Jim


On 12 May, 03:33, wrote:
This starter was advertised as one of their most sour, and boy does it
behave differently than Carl's starter. For one thing, the starter
odor is really different...almost foul smelling. The sponge didn't
seem as vigorous as that created with Carl's starter, but the dough
rose equally fast. After mixing the same amount of King Arthur flour,
water and starter, and mixing, the dough was more sticky than with
Carl's. After rising, the dough was quite sticky and seemed to not
hold it's shape when baked, resulting in a flatter loaf. The taste and
texture was different...not as sour as expected and a very nice and
regular bubble structure in the bread.

This trial was done with only one rising, after activating the starter
yesterday. It will be interesting to try making a stiffer dough, with
multiple risings and a more mature starter. So many variables, and so
little time....

Doug

"TG" wrote in message ...
Oh Doug, ... That foul smell is leuconostoc
contamination.

How can one be certain of that? I have had two kinds of stinky-start
results: 1. eventually became a starter, and 2. nothing at all would
grow in it after the stink settled down. Probably not both
leuconostoc, possibly not either.

Though I am not a microbiologist, I once masqueraded as one
in an academic yeast lab in my GSRA days. So I can say this
from experience: When contamination occurs, it does so quite
variously. Usually one would start anew rather than attempting
to identify the culprits, notwithstanding that old Alex Fleming
lucked out when he raised an eyebrow at some green mold.

I believe that the SDI offerings may sometimes not be viable
enough to overcome flour or air contaminants because of SDI's
belief that that their dry-start inventories remain viable longer
than reasonable expectation. Undated, branded dry starts
should all be suspect, but Mr. Baker from http://tinyurl.com/6vm9g,
in my experience, has been good. Carl's is dated, and fresh for
each distribution.

Refresh that starter until it smells sweet enough to eat.

That is good advice. But do not eat your starter. People who eat
their starter are not held in high respect here.

If you gag when you sniff it it's not ready.

Probably ready to be thrown away, or, if the odor is soury, maybe
it could be refreshed.

--
Dicky

On 13 May, 15:32, "Dick Adams" wrote:
..
How can one be certain of that? *

You're write Dick, I can't be sure but since I've activated all of the
starters from SDI (not because I bought them myself) and they've all
gone exactly the same way smelling exactly the same and all having the
exact same snotty phase. I perhaps wrongly conclude that the, now
infamous leuconostoc is the thing that's to blame, at least it's the
only thing that I can name to blame. I could have equally accurately
called it 'The Stink'. But if we had to be microbiologists and test
everything to absolute certainty before we assigned a name to anything
in conversation there'd be very little conversation. We are writing in
rec.food.sourdough not "Science". But I take your point nonetheless.

...

Refresh that starter until it smells sweet enough to eat.

That is good advice. *But do not eat your starter.
Agreed, I did put in brackets, 'but don't' but then thought well I'll
leave that choice to him, it's his stomach.


If you gag when you sniff it it's not ready.

Probably ready to be thrown away,

Then you may as well put your $9 straight in the bin, but I have the
feeling that's how you feel about all SDI starters. There's more to
the sourdough experience than just eating bread. There's few of us
enlightened, few of us who don't want to be distracted by one thing or
another at some point. We can only hope that there's a glimmer of
awareness and moderation. If so then we'll stick with it through the
attachment and not be so unbalanced as to have out interest turn to
aversion and bitterness. Not you of course Dick.

Jim


--
Dicky

"TG" wrote in message ...

I can't be sure but since I've activated all of the
starters from SDI (not because I bought them myself) and they've all
gone exactly the same way smelling exactly the same and all having the
exact same snotty phase.

One's I got were totally lifeless. No smell at all atall. Two outta two
possible. Both times SDI was unconciliatory when I brought it to
their attention.

I perhaps wrongly conclude that the, now infamous leuconostoc
is the thing that's to blame, at least it's the only thing that I can name
to blame.

Possibly what you identify as leuconostoc is something that lurks in
your environs.

But if we had to be microbiologists and test
everything to absolute certainty before we assigned a name to anything
in conversation there'd be very little conversation.

Well, you could avoid naming things with microbiological names, else
using such names very tentatively.

We are writing in rec.food.sourdough not "Science".

You can say that again!

I have the feeling that's how you feel about all SDI starters.

Well, like I said, I only tried two of them. My reaction has
been more towards SDI attitudes.

There's more to the sourdough experience than just eating
bread. There's few of us enlightened, few of us who don't want
to be distracted by one thing or another at some point. We can
only hope that there's a glimmer of awareness and moderation.
If so then we'll stick with it through the attachment and not be
so unbalanced as to have out interest turn to aversion and
bitterness. Not you of course Dick.

I guess you mean that I should try to be more philosophic?

--
Dicky

On 13 May, 23:21, "Dick Adams" wrote:
....
I perhaps wrongly conclude that....

Possibly what you identify as leuconostoc is something that lurks in
your environs.

Possibly, who knows? Perhaps I should get Kim and Aggie in.
http://tinyurl.com/3sgf73
...
Well, you could avoid naming things with microbiological names, else
using such names very tentatively.

Aye, can't argue with that.


We are writing in rec.food.sourdough not "Science".

You can say that again!

We are writing in rec.food.sourdough not "Science".


... Not you of course Dick.

I guess you mean that I should try to be more philosophic?

--
Dicky

And lose the Dicky we know and love? Not on yer life! Just that you
think about it for a second is all I meant. Nothing wrong in thinking.
Trying to be something else? Nah!

Jim