My baking book has some formulas for sourdough starters. The one that
appeared to provide the quickest results was a commercial yeast starter.
After the prescribed18 hours at room temperature, the dough smelled like
alcohol but had no sour taste. I left it covered and will look in on it
again on Monday and perhaps throw an apple or potato in with it. Am I being
misled that the starter should be useable after 18 hours? Thanks.

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com

I saw one being made on Food TV, Sara Molton's show. Here is how he did
his. Made a rye sour dough starter.
Stone ground, organic flour (because it has the natural yeasts in it) About
3/4 cup of flour to 1/2 cup spring water in a glass bowl. Mix. Was really,
really thick. Covered lightly. Left over night in a place around 70-72
degrees.

24 hours later, mixed, added the same amount of rye and water, covered.

24 hours later, did it again. All in all for3 three days.

Then he took out a cup to make bread, fed the starter again and let it sit
for 12 hours at around 74 degrees, this time, then refrigerated. Needs to
be fed about once a week and allowed to ferment at room temp again.

The cup removed was mixed with flour and let to stand another 12 hours at
around 74 degrees before making the bread. The bread had no yeast added as
there should be plenty from the starter.

He also made a whole wheat one a little looser. Said the looser, the more
sour but too loose and it will start getting bitter.

That's it.

I can't use such flours because I'm Celiac, so I just did a combo of
non-gluten flours using the same method. The smell was like strong beer.
Same thing Sara said when she smelled his. So, I guess it worked.

I used a package of yeast to start mine and a little sugar because of the
nature of the non-gluten flours. So, I don't use it as a riser, only a
flavorer and still add yeast. Made a mock Jewish rye that was pretty damn
good! and no gluten.

Hope this helps.

Dennis.
---------------------------------------------
"Fred" > wrote in message
...
> My baking book has some formulas for sourdough starters. The one that
> appeared to provide the quickest results was a commercial yeast starter.
> After the prescribed18 hours at room temperature, the dough smelled like
> alcohol but had no sour taste. I left it covered and will look in on it
> again on Monday and perhaps throw an apple or potato in with it. Am I
being
> misled that the starter should be useable after 18 hours? Thanks.
>
> Fred
> The Good Gourmet
> http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
>
>

Fred, yes, you *can* start your own "sourdough" starter from scratch. Many
folks do it and swear by it. Just like you can make your own wine from your
own crushed grapes using whatever organisms are found on them. However, to
some degree it's an art form...that can blossom in the hands of an
experienced baker.

As a SD beginner, I suggest that you purchase a starter that has a bit of a
pedigree. It will help you by giving you a solid foundation from which to
grow your sourdough experience. Trust me, neither Joe Heitz, nor Robert
Mondavi leave the fermenting of their fine wines to "whatever they find on
their grapes that day..."

Then, when you've mastered the basics and have an understanding of what
happens, what it *should* look/act/smell/taste like, *then* you might try to
grow your own culture from scratch. That way you'll know exactly what did
(or didn't) happen, and where the blame lies. Otherwise you can spend years
chasing erratic results (ask me how I know sometime...).

You also might want to lurk in: rec.food.sourdough. Lots of savvy sourdough
oriented folks post there.

And no...you cannot "make" a "sourdough culture" out of yeast, potatoes,
grapes, or any of the other litany of processes that so many try to foist
off on unsuspecting folks. Yes, they will create something that may even be
active and look like sourdough...but those paths have about the same
possibility of success and are similar to trying to make your own penicillin
by using your shoe-scrapings...


Dusty
San Jose, Ca.
--
Remove STORE to reply

"Fred" > wrote in message
...
> My baking book has some formulas for sourdough starters. The one that
> appeared to provide the quickest results was a commercial yeast starter.
> After the prescribed18 hours at room temperature, the dough smelled like
> alcohol but had no sour taste. I left it covered and will look in on it
> again on Monday and perhaps throw an apple or potato in with it. Am I
being
> misled that the starter should be useable after 18 hours? Thanks.
>
> Fred
> The Good Gourmet
> http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
>
>

My starter was made from a formula in my professional baking book so I
assume it worked for someone at some time before. The book also mentions
that starters that are moved will change because the change of natural
yeasts, so my feeling was that my own starter would get a local "flavor" in
a similar manner to one transported from San Francisco. I'll give it a
couple of days and see what happens. You're probably right. Take care.

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com

"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> Fred, yes, you *can* start your own "sourdough" starter from scratch.
Many
> folks do it and swear by it. Just like you can make your own wine from
your
> own crushed grapes using whatever organisms are found on them. However,
to
> some degree it's an art form...that can blossom in the hands of an
> experienced baker.
>
> As a SD beginner, I suggest that you purchase a starter that has a bit of
a
> pedigree. It will help you by giving you a solid foundation from which to
> grow your sourdough experience. Trust me, neither Joe Heitz, nor Robert
> Mondavi leave the fermenting of their fine wines to "whatever they find on
> their grapes that day..."
>
> Then, when you've mastered the basics and have an understanding of what
> happens, what it *should* look/act/smell/taste like, *then* you might try
to
> grow your own culture from scratch. That way you'll know exactly what did
> (or didn't) happen, and where the blame lies. Otherwise you can spend
years
> chasing erratic results (ask me how I know sometime...).
>
> You also might want to lurk in: rec.food.sourdough. Lots of savvy
sourdough
> oriented folks post there.
>
> And no...you cannot "make" a "sourdough culture" out of yeast, potatoes,
> grapes, or any of the other litany of processes that so many try to foist
> off on unsuspecting folks. Yes, they will create something that may even
be
> active and look like sourdough...but those paths have about the same
> possibility of success and are similar to trying to make your own
penicillin
> by using your shoe-scrapings...
>
>
> Dusty
> San Jose, Ca.
> --
> Remove STORE to reply
>
> "Fred" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My baking book has some formulas for sourdough starters. The one that
> > appeared to provide the quickest results was a commercial yeast starter.
> > After the prescribed18 hours at room temperature, the dough smelled like
> > alcohol but had no sour taste. I left it covered and will look in on it
> > again on Monday and perhaps throw an apple or potato in with it. Am I
> being
> > misled that the starter should be useable after 18 hours? Thanks.
> >
> > Fred
> > The Good Gourmet
> > http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
> >
> >
>
>

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:52:24 -0500, "Fred" >
wrote:

>My starter was made from a formula in my professional baking book so I
>assume it worked for someone at some time before. The book also mentions
>that starters that are moved will change because the change of natural
>yeasts, so my feeling was that my own starter would get a local "flavor" in
>a similar manner to one transported from San Francisco. I'll give it a
>couple of days and see what happens. You're probably right. Take care.
>
>Fred
>The Good Gourmet
>http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
>
>"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
>> Fred, yes, you *can* start your own "sourdough" starter from scratch.
>Many
>> folks do it and swear by it. Just like you can make your own wine from
>your
>> own crushed grapes using whatever organisms are found on them. However,
>to
>> some degree it's an art form...that can blossom in the hands of an
>> experienced baker.
>>
>> As a SD beginner, I suggest that you purchase a starter that has a bit of
>a
>> pedigree. It will help you by giving you a solid foundation from which to
>> grow your sourdough experience. Trust me, neither Joe Heitz, nor Robert
>> Mondavi leave the fermenting of their fine wines to "whatever they find on
>> their grapes that day..."
>>
>> Then, when you've mastered the basics and have an understanding of what
>> happens, what it *should* look/act/smell/taste like, *then* you might try
>to
>> grow your own culture from scratch. That way you'll know exactly what did
>> (or didn't) happen, and where the blame lies. Otherwise you can spend
>years
>> chasing erratic results (ask me how I know sometime...).
>>
>> You also might want to lurk in: rec.food.sourdough. Lots of savvy
>sourdough
>> oriented folks post there.
>>
>> And no...you cannot "make" a "sourdough culture" out of yeast, potatoes,
>> grapes, or any of the other litany of processes that so many try to foist
>> off on unsuspecting folks. Yes, they will create something that may even
>be
>> active and look like sourdough...but those paths have about the same
>> possibility of success and are similar to trying to make your own
>penicillin
>> by using your shoe-scrapings...
>>
>>
>> Dusty
>> San Jose, Ca.
>> --
>> Remove STORE to reply
>>
>> "Fred" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > My baking book has some formulas for sourdough starters. The one that
>> > appeared to provide the quickest results was a commercial yeast starter.
>> > After the prescribed18 hours at room temperature, the dough smelled like
>> > alcohol but had no sour taste. I left it covered and will look in on it
>> > again on Monday and perhaps throw an apple or potato in with it. Am I
>> being
>> > misled that the starter should be useable after 18 hours? Thanks.
>> >
>> > Fred
>> > The Good Gourmet
>> > http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Howdy,

Regarding the potato or grape approach:

With respect, I do not agree with Dusty. Those things can be used to
make good starters, but there is a better way that the approach
usually suggested:

The critters that we want to culture for a starter are in the grain,
and also in the baker (don't ask...) The other things (grapes, etc.)
don't really hurt anything, nor do they help. When you are ready to
mix the grapes, flour, and water, do yourself a favor, and first eat
the grapes. They follow the remaining instructions. You are likely to
end up with a starter that you can bake with happily.

Next, the issue of geography seems to be a myth. I am no biologist,
but the commonly suggested explanation (that the local yeasts will
take over) is rather like suggesting that a herd of cattle will
eventually become a gaggle of geese if the cows roam too close to the
river.

There are billions upon billions of active yeasts and lactobacilli in
every droplet of a viable starter. If they are properly fed, nothing
will take 'em over.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:52:24 -0500, "Fred" >
wrote:

>My starter was made from a formula in my professional baking book so I
>assume it worked for someone at some time before.

Hi Fred,

Your comment raised another thought:

Of course the starter technique described in the book may be great. I
would not suggest otherwise...

I do know though that more than in any other field in which I have
done some reading, baking "authors" seem to be baking "borrowers."

Here's what I mean:

One of the French baking classics is called "Special and Decorative
Breads" by Billheux, et. al. It is an encyclopedic two volume book
translated to English relatively recently.

I have a copy, and am quite familiar with the text.

Years after getting that set, I saw one of the Joe Ortiz books. As I
looked it over, it seemed more and more familiar.

Indeed, it was little more than a re-write of the Billheux book. It
had a few pleasant stories about Ortiz's experiences, but the
substance, (and the structure and organization) were taken chapter by
chapter from the "classic."

IIRC the same is true of a book by Daniel Leader.

The reason I mention all this is that when these nice folks re-write
solid stuff, it usually produces solid (though familiar) results.

On occasion however, they re-write nonsense.

I know that in the Leader book, he suggests that a starter should be
made by mixing some flour and water, and to that adding "just a pinch"
of commercial yeast to "attract" the wild yeasts in the air.

When reading that I can't help but have an image of some dockside bar
populated with beautiful women trying to "attract" some sailors on
leave...<g>

In any case, in my opinion, when it comes to baking books, it is well
to take their advice with a grain of salt (and, perhaps, "just a pinch
of yeast" <VBG>

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:27:59 GMT, Kenneth
> wrote:

>better way that the approach

Ooops, that should have been:

>better way than the approach...
^^^^

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:52:24 -0500, "Fred" >
> wrote:
> >
> One of the French baking classics is called "Special and Decorative
> Breads" by Billheux, et. al. It is an encyclopedic two volume book
> translated to English relatively recently.
>
As a keen, *amateur* baker, at Can$85, is it worth getting?
Graham

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:27:33 GMT, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"Kenneth" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:52:24 -0500, "Fred" >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> One of the French baking classics is called "Special and Decorative
>> Breads" by Billheux, et. al. It is an encyclopedic two volume book
>> translated to English relatively recently.
>>
>As a keen, *amateur* baker, at Can$85, is it worth getting?
>Graham
>

Hi Graham,

I hesitate to tell other folks how to spend their money...<g>

But I love these books! (By the way, of the two, IMO Volume 1 is the
better.)

It could keep you busy for years. Also, unlike some other books that
are really useful only to people in the trade, these volumes are
useful both to tradespeople and to amateurs.

One final thing (unless you have other questions): The photos (and the
book is loaded with 'em) are wonderful.

HTH,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:27:33 GMT, "graham" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kenneth" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:52:24 -0500, "Fred" >
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> Hi Graham,
>
> I hesitate to tell other folks how to spend their money...<g>
>
> But I love these books! (By the way, of the two, IMO Volume 1 is the
> better.)
>
> It could keep you busy for years. Also, unlike some other books that
> are really useful only to people in the trade, these volumes are
> useful both to tradespeople and to amateurs.
>
> One final thing (unless you have other questions): The photos (and the
> book is loaded with 'em) are wonderful.
>
>
Thanks, Kenneth! I have an unused book token "sitting" at one of the
internet stores.
Graham

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:30:49 GMT, "graham" > wrote:

>Thanks, Kenneth! I have an unused book token "sitting" at one of the
>internet stores.
>Graham
>

Hi Graham,

Had I known that I would have just said "Go for it..." After all, that
feels almost like getting the book for free. <BG>

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Hello Fred, Kenneth & all;

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:52:24 -0500, "Fred" >
> wrote:
>
> >My starter was made from a formula in my professional baking book so I
> >assume it worked for someone at some time before. The book also mentions
> >that starters that are moved will change because the change of natural
> >yeasts, so my feeling was that my own starter would get a local "flavor"
in
> >a similar manner to one transported from San Francisco. I'll give it a
> >couple of days and see what happens. You're probably right. Take care.
> >
> >Fred
....
> >"Dusty" > wrote in message
> ...
....
> >> As a SD beginner, I suggest that you purchase a starter that has a bit
of
> >a
> >> pedigree. It will help you by giving you a solid foundation from which
to
> >> grow your sourdough experience. Trust me, neither Joe Heitz, nor
Robert
> >> Mondavi leave the fermenting of their fine wines to "whatever they find
on
> >> their grapes that day..."
....
> >> And no...you cannot "make" a "sourdough culture" out of yeast,
potatoes,
> >> grapes, or any of the other litany of processes that so many try to
foist
> >> off on unsuspecting folks. Yes, they will create something that may
even
> >be
> >> active and look like sourdough...but those paths have about the same
> >> possibility of success and are similar to trying to make your own
> >penicillin
> >> by using your shoe-scrapings...
....
[Kenneth replies here]
> Howdy,
>
> Regarding the potato or grape approach:
>
> With respect, I do not agree with Dusty. Those things can be used to
> make good starters, but there is a better way that the approach
> usually suggested:
>
> The critters that we want to culture for a starter are in the grain,
> and also in the baker (don't ask...) The other things (grapes, etc.)
> don't really hurt anything, nor do they help. When you are ready to
> mix the grapes, flour, and water, do yourself a favor, and first eat
> the grapes. They follow the remaining instructions. You are likely to
> end up with a starter that you can bake with happily.
>
> Next, the issue of geography seems to be a myth. I am no biologist,
> but the commonly suggested explanation (that the local yeasts will
> take over) is rather like suggesting that a herd of cattle will
> eventually become a gaggle of geese if the cows roam too close to the
> river.
>
> There are billions upon billions of active yeasts and lactobacilli in
> every droplet of a viable starter. If they are properly fed, nothing
> will take 'em over.

Regretfully, I must disagree a little with my good friend Kenneth--or at
least clarify my previous remarks. Kenneth is correct, there are literally
10's of thousand different kinds of yeasts and lacto-bacilli. But not all
combinations of those two will work together to make the breads sourdough
bakers crave. Some simply won't collaborate. Some combinations won't rise
right, some rise too much or too fast, some get too sour, some don't get
sour enough--in addition to a thousand other variations. And yes! You
might indeed generate *that* combination that presages another "San
Francisco sourdough" strain... But it's highly unlikely.

If you eat a (non-sourdough) raised bread, it's most likely that it was made
with Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a yeast strain specifically cloned and raised
for the baking industry. This and similar yeasts have served man in one
form or another for over 8,000 years. The first recorded usage--probably a
cousin of our sourdough--began with the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians
about 3,000 or so years ago. They found the soft fragrant breads created in
this manner superior to the hard flat breads that had been their staple.
Although Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the result of nearly a century of
specific breeding and care, its much older and wilder cousin is: sourdough.
The microorganism we know as "sourdough" is naturally present in flour. Far
from being a uniform servant, the wild yeast that we call sourdough is
really a symbiotic collection of organisms that, over millennia, have been
cultivated in successive stages. Although first isolated and identified by
Louis Pasteur in 1857 as the causative agent for fermentation, it's been in
use for far longer then that.

"Sourdough" is a symbiotic mixture of several specific wild yeasts and
lactobacilli in the approximate ratio of 1:100. The yeast is a form of
plant, a microscopic fungus actually. "Lactobacilli" is a somewhat fancy,
yet shortened, name for any number of a specific species of lactose (a form
of sugar) feeding bacteria. Symbiotic means that they have formed a
survivable, long-term working relationship in which each serves the other.
Simplified: the yeast convert some the complex carbohydrates in the flour
into simpler starches, lactose, carbon-dioxide, and a little alcohol.

According to "Yeast Technology" by Reed and Nagowithana, the indigenous
yeast in rye flour are the strains of Candida crusei, Pichia satoi,
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or Toruplupsis holmii. The latter is synonymous
with the yeast found to comprise most sourdough microbes. It will work with
a variety of lactobacilli strains as well. Lactobacillus brevis and L.
plantarum, etc., but in low population density.

Like all living things, the yeast cells don't live forever. The
lactobacilli, eat other flour components, the sugars the yeast produce, as
well as dead yeast cells. In turn, the lactobacilli excrete a variety of
acid like materials (the source of the "sour" in sourdough). The
lactobacilli also secrete antibiotic cycloheximides which "sterilize" the
dough by killing "foreign" organisms (other yeast strains--wild or
domestic), bacteria, and so on... This keeps the mixture "pure" and allows
the "partner" yeast, which is resistant to their specific cycloheximides, to
flourish.

Like all communities, this complex culture follows a continuous cycle of
interrelated events. At any given point in the life cycle of this living
system; one organism or the other is either in rise, plateau, or decline.
Many factors effect these cycles; age, time, temperature, the flour,
hydration (water), the exact species of yeast, the exact species of
lactobacilli, and so on...

Now, having said all that (actually, clipped and pasted from mine & other
websites), YES! You can make your own sourdough culture! And no, you can't
make it from ordinary bakers yeast. The lacto-bacilli will kill commercial
yeast (over time). Most "sourdough" recipes that contain ordinary bakers
yeast do so because most folks either don't have a good viable starter, or
haven't learned to be patient enough to properly use it. Yeast (commercial)
is faster, easier, and far more predictable. This ensures a more reliable
outcome...which translates into a happy baker...and a successful recipe. A
*real* sourdough recipe does NOT need ANY help from commercial yeasts!

Now, if you can't get a bit of starter from a friend and you MUST make your
own culture, then the best instructions for doing so that I've found (and
I've done what you'd done...and dozens of crazier schemes as well) is he
http://samartha.net/SD/MakeStarter01.html. This fellow is a nearly
obsessive sourdough enthusiast. While he & I don't agree on some things,
his words can be counted on to be accurate and true. If you must make a
scratch built culture, I highly recommend that you use Samartha's technique.
I'm sure there are others that are equally good, and I intend no slight to
any of the rest not mentioned. I just know that I've used this process and
it gives good results.

Later all,
Dusty
--
Remove STORE to reply
....

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 18:03:55 -0700, "Dusty"
> wrote:

>Hello Fred, Kenneth & all;
>
>"Kenneth" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:52:24 -0500, "Fred" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >My starter was made from a formula in my professional baking book so I
>> >assume it worked for someone at some time before. The book also mentions
>> >that starters that are moved will change because the change of natural
>> >yeasts, so my feeling was that my own starter would get a local "flavor"
>in
>> >a similar manner to one transported from San Francisco. I'll give it a
>> >couple of days and see what happens. You're probably right. Take care.
>> >
>> >Fred
>...
>> >"Dusty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>...
>> >> As a SD beginner, I suggest that you purchase a starter that has a bit
>of
>> >a
>> >> pedigree. It will help you by giving you a solid foundation from which
>to
>> >> grow your sourdough experience. Trust me, neither Joe Heitz, nor
>Robert
>> >> Mondavi leave the fermenting of their fine wines to "whatever they find
>on
>> >> their grapes that day..."
>...
>> >> And no...you cannot "make" a "sourdough culture" out of yeast,
>potatoes,
>> >> grapes, or any of the other litany of processes that so many try to
>foist
>> >> off on unsuspecting folks. Yes, they will create something that may
>even
>> >be
>> >> active and look like sourdough...but those paths have about the same
>> >> possibility of success and are similar to trying to make your own
>> >penicillin
>> >> by using your shoe-scrapings...
>...
>[Kenneth replies here]
>> Howdy,
>>
>> Regarding the potato or grape approach:
>>
>> With respect, I do not agree with Dusty. Those things can be used to
>> make good starters, but there is a better way that the approach
>> usually suggested:
>>
>> The critters that we want to culture for a starter are in the grain,
>> and also in the baker (don't ask...) The other things (grapes, etc.)
>> don't really hurt anything, nor do they help. When you are ready to
>> mix the grapes, flour, and water, do yourself a favor, and first eat
>> the grapes. They follow the remaining instructions. You are likely to
>> end up with a starter that you can bake with happily.
>>
>> Next, the issue of geography seems to be a myth. I am no biologist,
>> but the commonly suggested explanation (that the local yeasts will
>> take over) is rather like suggesting that a herd of cattle will
>> eventually become a gaggle of geese if the cows roam too close to the
>> river.
>>
>> There are billions upon billions of active yeasts and lactobacilli in
>> every droplet of a viable starter. If they are properly fed, nothing
>> will take 'em over.
>
>Regretfully, I must disagree a little with my good friend Kenneth--or at
>least clarify my previous remarks.

>>Big SNIP of interesting post<<

Hey Dusty,

I am proud to be called your friend...

That said, what did I offer that you were disagreeing with?

Thanks,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
....
....
>Big SNIP of interesting post<<
>
> Hey Dusty,
>
> I am proud to be called your friend...
Why thank you kindly, sir. It is indeed my pleasure to call you that...

> That said, what did I offer that you were disagreeing with?

I believe it was because I said:
>> And no...you cannot "make" a "sourdough culture" out of yeast, potatoes,
>> grapes, or any of the other litany of processes that so many try to foist
>> off on unsuspecting folks. Yes, they will create something that may even
be
>> active and look like sourdough...but those paths have about the same
>> possibility of success and are similar to trying to make your own
penicillin
>> by using your shoe-scrapings...

....
To which you replied:
> Regarding the potato or grape approach:
>
> With respect, I do not agree with Dusty. Those things can be used to
> make good starters, but there is a better way that the approach
> usually suggested:
I tried to take pains to show that yes, you can indeed get something that
seems to be "working" or that looks or acts like sourdough. And, it's also
possible to get exactly what you'd hoped for--a good, viable, *and* tasty
culture. But the odds would seem to be against the user; especially a new
user.

Regarding (commercial bakers) yeast: It doesn't do well in a lacto-bacilli
dominated environment. Somebody once posted a note saying how many
generations it took before they all died. Although I didn't retain it, I do
recall that they will all die as the commercial yeasties can't abide the
LB's--and it doesn't take all that long. Most SD recipes in which I've seen
bakers yeast used (and gotten to talk to the author) said they added it in
order to guarantee results (rising), and make the process both faster and
more predictable. In my experience, no commercial yeast is ever needed to
get SD to rise.

I guess that from my painful experience, I'd always suggest that sourdough
newbie's DON'T DO what I did, but get a real starter and learn what it takes
to use that. In that process they'll learn to doctor it, fix it, rescue it,
use it, and most importantly they will learn what *should* be happening with
it. *Then*, when they've got that down, then it's time to experiment on
capturing the wild yeast...

The only reliable process that I've ever observed first-hand action that
yielded success after success, was Samartha's rye flour based process. At
least in my experience, unless you use such a process one is unlikely to
achieve success--which I define as being able to make a true, risen,
sour-tasting bread worthy of the name, Sourdough. I've personally never
seen any of the fruit and other ingredient based cultures work in a useful
manner. Is it possible? Certainly. But not easily in my experience.

But hey! That's only my opinion--formed over the carcasses of lots of dead
and dying "things" in my culture, and through the pain and humiliation of
eating lots of loaves of some very unpalatable bread. Of course, YMMV! As
it is, a kind fellow from Ontario sent me a few crumbs of his starter. I
fired it up and made wonderful bread right outta the box! But most
importantly, I learned how to bake with it. After that, Samartha's
instructions had new meaning...and I made lots of good starters. Although
they all worked and tasted okay, none managed to approach the flavor and
ease of use that the gift of a bit of starter did. So again, I think a
newbie should eschew raising their own starter, and use something with a bit
of a pedigree. But, like I said, that's only my opinion...you're each
welcome to do as you wish...(:-)!

Okay, I've gotta scram outta here...it's gettin' late. I've got to crack
that wine cellar open and rescue my latest iteration of your (nearly)
Poilne. It's been cranking in there all day...and should be just about
ready to toss in the fire...


Catch ya later my friends,
Dusty
--
Remove STORE to reply


>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:30:49 GMT, "graham" > wrote:
>
> >Thanks, Kenneth! I have an unused book token "sitting" at one of the
> >internet stores.
> >Graham
> >
>
> Hi Graham,
>
> Had I known that I would have just said "Go for it..." After all, that
> feels almost like getting the book for free. <BG>
>
But there are so many other books:-)
Graham

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:49:56 -0700, "Dusty"
> wrote:

>...
>To which you replied:
>> Regarding the potato or grape approach:
>>
>> With respect, I do not agree with Dusty. Those things can be used to
>> make good starters, but there is a better way that the approach
>> usually suggested:
>I tried to take pains to show that yes, you can indeed get something that
>seems to be "working" or that looks or acts like sourdough. And, it's also
>possible to get exactly what you'd hoped for--a good, viable, *and* tasty
>culture. But the odds would seem to be against the user; especially a new
>user.

Hi Dusty,

My post was intended to convey that the grapes, raisins, potato,
approaches are really only flour and water approaches.

I said that it was best to eat the grapes before making the starter.

I certainly agree with your about Samartha's methods, though, I have
always done as well with wheat, as rye for the base.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Hello Kenneth & all;

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
....
> My post was intended to convey that the grapes, raisins, potato,
> approaches are really only flour and water approaches.
>
> I said that it was best to eat the grapes before making the starter.

Ah, ha! Please forgive me, as I didn't get that from your original post.
Now, of course, what you said makes plenty of sense... I think your "...
(don't ask) ..." remark about where those bodily sources of yeast might come
from had me blinded with tears, and doubled up with laughter...(:-o)!

> I certainly agree with you about Samartha's methods, though, I have
> always done as well with wheat, as rye for the base.
Now that's a new one on me. I've not had very good success using wheat
flour as the starter medium--at least not reliable success. Looks like I'm
gonna hafta revisit that scenario. To be fair, I must admit to only having
found *proper* wheat bread flour recently. Now that I have it, I may well
revisit that method--a hard thing to do when my results have been so
outstanding...

I was so impressed with the apparent ability of Samartha's rye flour
technique to quickly foster luxurious yeast growths that I moved the rye
flour inoculation to before the WW in my Provender recipe (I put it
first--whereas you put it second in the Poilne recipe you posted).

That all having been said, however, I still prefer to use the starter that
was sent to me by a friend in Ontario. I've compared the results of that
starter with bread made using Samartha's and other methods...and I prefer
the former by a wide, wide margin. The flavor and aroma are just so much
better (that's in *my* ever so humble but probably jaded and overly biased
opinion...).

FWIW; I didn't carefully work with the required timing in the 3-stage rising
yesterday...and today I am the proud owner of a couple of hockey pucks!
<big sigh!> Looks like it's back to the fermenting board tonight...

Later all,
Dusty
--
Remove STORE to reply
....

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:45:38 -0700, "Dusty"
> wrote:

>Hello Kenneth & all;
>
>"Kenneth" > wrote in message
.. .
>...
>> My post was intended to convey that the grapes, raisins, potato,
>> approaches are really only flour and water approaches.
>>
>> I said that it was best to eat the grapes before making the starter.
>
>Ah, ha! Please forgive me, as I didn't get that from your original post.
>Now, of course, what you said makes plenty of sense... I think your "...
>(don't ask) ..." remark about where those bodily sources of yeast might come
>from had me blinded with tears, and doubled up with laughter...(:-o)!

Hi Dusty,

Actually it is the lactobacilli that come from the baker. The yeasts
are in, and on, the grain...

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Fred wrote:
> My baking book has some formulas for sourdough starters. The one that
> appeared to provide the quickest results was a commercial yeast starter.
> After the prescribed18 hours at room temperature, the dough smelled like
> alcohol but had no sour taste. I left it covered and will look in on it
> again on Monday and perhaps throw an apple or potato in with it. Am I being
> misled that the starter should be useable after 18 hours? Thanks.
>
> Fred
> The Good Gourmet
> http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
>
>
See the sourdough news group for everything you ever wanted to know
about sourdough. It is exhaustive.

Kim