On 29/02/2016 11:28 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-02-29, graham > wrote:
>>>
>> I like the article but I warn you that IME it takes quite a while to
>> build an effective starter.
>
> Apparently! I mixed mine an hour ago and it ain't done spit. 8|
>
>> I recommend that when it is fairly active, use some of it to make a loaf
>> but add a little (1 tsp) of fast-acting yeast to the final dough. That
>> way you will get a tasty loaf but you'll make it in a reasonable time.
>> Early stage SD cultures are frustratingly slow. After a few loaves made
>> the above way, the culture should be sufficiently strong to make a
>> proper SD loaf.
>
> Noted.
>
>> The former denizens of the now moribund rec.food.sourdough would yell:
>> "Sacrilege"! But members of the struggling alt.bread.recipes are more
>> forgiving.
>> Graham
>
> heh heh.... Yeah, that's when Boron and myself first got into it.
> Something about "real" SD (no added yeast) and yer method. I'll give
> it a week.
>
> One last question: should the starter be a thin batter or a thick
> batter?
>
> nb
>
There are two schools of thought to this question. Traditional
Californian-style sourdough uses a batter based on equal weights of
flour and water (100% hydration using bakers' %) so it's a thickish batter.
The French style, pain au levain, which has a subtler flavour, uses a
dough-like starter based on ~60g of water per 100g dough (60% bakers' %).
The batter favours acid producing bacteria that are the trademark of San
Francisco SD bread. Therefore, if you want to make that type of bread,
use a thick batter, but definitely a batter.
Of course long proofing stages using the French starter will result in a
sour tang.
HTH
Graham