Dick Adams wrote:
>
> William Waller wrote: ... In Bread Baker's
> > Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and
> > liquid starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a flavor
> > difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator.
>
> To me it seems that old dough is a starter that has hardly been started. It
> has got some yeast and probably some other microorganisms. Mixed with
> an active starter, its microorganisms must constitute a very minute minority,
> however.


Well, if we keep this up, we can really get some newcomers
confused. There are several methods or general procedures that
involve holding back dough from one batch of dough to be used in
a later baking cycle. When the discussion flips among the
different procedures without identifying the method under
discussion, it is hard for even experienced bakers to keep things
straight.

The first recent procedure involved holding back a small amount
of dough to act as a seed culture that was grown on in one or
more stages.

The second method brought up was holding back enough of the dough
to act as the whole of the starter for the next batch.

Now we seem to be talking about some variation of the "old dough"
method. It is my understanding that when you have a starter (or
yeast for that matter) as the primary agent to raise the dough
the purpose of the "old dough" is to act as a dough conditioner
and some would argue as a flavor enhancer. The amount of live
organisms in the old dough is not at issue.

Most of the Old Dough procedures that I have read call for the
dough to udergo at least one rise before it is held back. This
is usually not the case where dough is held back to begin a new
batch. The dough that is held back to begin a new batch is
most often saved at a point just before the salt is added. Where
the salt is the last thing added.
>
> Anyway, that procedure is categorically a technique of starter-culture
> manipulation, and therefore, by me, relatively, if not totally, inefficacious,
> inasmuch as the sourdough flavors develop later on (towards the end of
> the rise).

When you add old dough for the purpose of improving the dough it
is not categorically a starter manipulation.

While you are correct in that most *sour* flavor is aquired near
the end of the rise, Those *sour* flavors are most definetly not
the only flavor that is developed in bread.
I submit that many yeast method bakers also argue for a longer
and slower rise to improve flavor. One way to slow the rise is
to raise the dough at a lower temperature. If I had to pick a
point to argue from it would be for cool room temperature.

>
>
> I recommend to forget Peter Reinhart (, Joe Ortiz, Nancy Silverton, et al.)
> -- he (they) just get(s) people all confused.
>

The lack of any standard vocabulary and writers reuseing the same
words to mean different things makes it very difficult to gain a
good understanding from just reading books. However, I still
read "Beard on Bread" even though nearly every thing he wrote
about sourdough is completely wrong. His enthusiasm for cooking
and eating puts me in a creative mood when I have "chef's
block". Maybe some books on sourdough should have a "banned for
beginners" sticker.

> It is possible to tell how to make SD bread without saying "chef", "biga"
> "levain", "old dough", "poolish", etc. You can do it without even saying
> "fermentation", using the descriptive power of everyday English. Writers
> avoid that, however, in the interest of making their books long enough to
> command a price.

I don't really care what the consensus would determine to be
correct. I am all for standard common usage in the interest of
clear communication. The history of language, particularly
English, does not lend much hope. Once misuse of a word escapes
to the public, getting back to an old dictionary definition is
almost impossible despite the best efforts of the word police.
>

Regards,

Charles

--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **