I am wondering what resources-books/websites-you'd recommend for a
beginner. Something that educates me both about "how" to make
sourdough, and also "why" I am making it like I am--both chemically,
and historically.

Also, I am confused about soured dough and yeast. Was soured dough
originally a replacement for yeast, or were both used? Because in my
recipe books I am surprised to see that the recipes call for both
soured dough and yeast. Is this always the case?

Thank you.

> wrote in message ups.com...
> I am wondering what resources-books/websites-you'd recommend for a
> beginner. Something that educates me both about "how" to make
> sourdough, and also "why" I am making it like I am--both chemically,
> and historically.

Experience continues to prove that one does things like one's mom did.
One continues to do that, no matter what.

> Also, I am confused about soured dough and yeast. Was soured dough
> originally a replacement for yeast, or were both used? Because in my
> recipe books I am surprised to see that the recipes call for both
> soured dough and yeast. Is this always the case?

Not good to do that. Toss out the recipe books.

Sourdough predates bakers' yeast by millenia.

Here is a good place to start learning about sourdough:
http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/sourdoughfaqs.html
Not that it will do any good.

As far as chemistry is concerned, there is an r.f.s. poster
who discusses that from time to time, but nobody can guess
what he is talking about.

--
Dicky

Experience continues to prove that one does things like one's mom did.
One continues to do that, no matter what.

I love my mom....

As far as chemistry is concerned, there is an r.f.s. poster
who discusses that from time to time, but nobody can guess
what he is talking about.

I am a physicist, but I can read chemistry if I have to.

"r" > wrote in message ...
> > Experience continues to prove that one does things like one's mom did.
> > One continues to do that, no matter what.
>
> I love my mom....

Sure you do. Betcha she makes bread with bakers' yeast, even
so-called "sourdough", that is, if she makes bread at all, 'cause
she is probably buying at the supermarket. And so will you --
the irrational influence of moms cannot be underestimated.

> I am a physicist, but I can read chemistry if I have to.

Yeah, but can you do chemistry? Can you fluff up old sourdough
for pancakes with sodium bicarbonate, and explain why that works?
Can you deal equally well with Celsius and Fahrenheit. Can you
calibrate your oven thermostat? Can you determine how much flour
an 8-fluid-ounce measuring cup holds. Here is a good test for the
physicist in you: how many grams of water does an 8-fluid-ounce
measuring cup contain?

Just checkin' up!

--
Dicky

> I love my mom....

Sure you do. Betcha she makes bread with bakers' yeast, even so-called
"sourdough", that is, if she makes bread at all, 'cause she is probably
buying at the supermarket. And so will you -- the irrational influence of
moms cannot be underestimated.

I LOVE MY MOM! But I do not blindly follow her example. I doubt mom ever
made sourdough.

> I am a physicist, but I can read chemistry if I have to.

Yeah, but can you do chemistry? Can you fluff up old sourdough for pancakes
with sodium bicarbonate, and explain why that works?

Yes

Can you deal equally well with Celsius and Fahrenheit.?

Yes

Can you calibrate your oven thermostat?

Yes.

Can you determine how much flour an 8-fluid-ounce measuring cup holds.

Yes, but why bother. It is so much easier to just weigh the stuff.

Here is a good test for the physicist in you: how many grams of water does
an 8-fluid-ounce measuring cup contain?

Gee, I feel like I am back in school! Since I am a smart-a** physicist, I
will ask -- at what temperature?

Nice to meet another crumudgeon,

Ice

"Ice" > wrote in message om...
> > ... Can you determine how much flour an 8-fluid-ounce
> > measuring cup holds.

> Yes, but why bother. It is so much easier to just weigh the stuff.

Trust me. For a few loaves it is easier to scoop than weigh. Well,
unless you get flour in little dinky bags. Weighing can make you
feel important and impress onlookers.

> > Here is a good test for the physicist in you: how many grams of
> > water does an 8-fluid-ounce measuring cup contain?

> ... Since I am a smart-a** physicist, I will ask -- at what temperature?

What temperature do you suppose, smart-a**? Suppose you were
10°F. away from that -- how much difference would it make?

--
Dicky

On Aug 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
> I am wondering what resources-books/websites-you'd recommend for a
> beginner. Something that educates me both about "how" to make
> sourdough, and also "why" I am making it like I am--both chemically,
> and historically.

Here are two web-sites that will get you started. You will find dough
calculators, starter and fermentation information, pictures... Mike's
site "sourdoughhome" has some excellent video on mixing and shaping
techniques. I highly recommend the stretch and fold technique, for
example, in lieu of machine kneading. But that technique is only one
of many nuggets in these two sites. Between them, you should be able
to get 95% of the info you seek. They are better than most of the
books out there.

http://samartha.net/SD/

http://www.sourdoughhome.com/index.html


> Also, I am confused about soured dough and yeast. Was soured dough
> originally a replacement for yeast, or were both used? Because in my
> recipe books I am surprised to see that the recipes call for both
> soured dough and yeast. Is this always the case?

Sourdough starter and grocery store yeast are both dough leavens.
Sourdough is ancient. The commercial yeast has been popular for less
than a hundred years. Many bakeries make breads using both.

In my opinion, sourdough starter produces the best flavor... but
that's not because sourdough is inherently better as a leavener. And
it is also not true that the bread will be sour. The fermentation is
slower though and as in cheese making, or wine making, slower
production processes tend to develop more complex flavors.

There is a book called "The Bread Builders" that has an excellent
discussion on the chemistry of fermentation. You can probably find it
at your library (or Google it). It also has information on oven
building... which might not be directly applicable to your interest
but will give good insight on the "tradition" of bread making. Bread
is a curious window, as it were, on technology and culture.

wrote:
> I am wondering what resources-books/websites-you'd recommend for a
> beginner. Something that educates me both about "how" to make
> sourdough, and also "why" I am making it like I am--both chemically,
> and historically.
>
> Also, I am confused about soured dough and yeast. Was soured dough
> originally a replacement for yeast, or were both used? Because in my
> recipe books I am surprised to see that the recipes call for both
> soured dough and yeast. Is this always the case?
>
> Thank you.
>

I also was a bit confused about the recipes that called for both
sourdough starter and commercial yeast. I think it is the other way
around though, the commercial yeast is a convenient replacement for
sourdough starter.

SD starter is not really consistent with rise times. Mine can take as
little as 45 minutes some days and up to 4 or more hours others. I
think it depends on how 'lively' I make my starer before using (and the
weather), so going with a 3 or 4 stage grow over 24 hours before use
gets it just a foaming away which makes for a 'fast' rise.

Adding a commercial yeast to this 'starter' doesn't really do much
unless it 'maybe' stabilizes the rise time, But I have tried it both
ways several times and don't think the commercial yeast even grows well
if at all in the active sourdough.

If I follow the book recipe that only calls for one overnight 'souring'
of some flour and water, then commercial yeast is needed. This is not
the same as using a 'sourdough starter', I think this is just for some
'sour' taste.

I have gotten to the point now where I follow the 'basic' recommendation
of one cookbook, 'The Joy of Cooking' where it says I can use two cups
of sourdough starter in place of one commercial yeast cake or packet and
it's cup of water in any recipe that calls for yeast. (my starter
is/seems a bit drier than theirs and needs a half cup of water to match
that for mixing volumes)

I am having great fun using it that way and my 'market' (family and
boarders) like my 'experiments' too. I still do make nice fluffy plain
old white bread and rolls with commercial yeast as a change up, but make
all our bread products these days and like variety.

I found this site helpful: http://samartha.net/index.html

He deals mostly with rye, but the methods for the starter are the same
and the links are good reading.

My $0.02,

Mike

Mike Romain wrote:
>
> SD starter is not really consistent with rise times. Mine can take as
> little as 45 minutes some days and up to 4 or more hours others. I
> think it depends on how 'lively' I make my starer before using (and the
> weather), so going with a 3 or 4 stage grow over 24 hours before use
> gets it just a foaming away which makes for a 'fast' rise.
I find that (my) starter(s), when run in a more controlled environment
(temperature, hydration, time), run like clockwork.

Since I am doing the DM-3 process, I find the resulting starter having
the same quality every time. There may be nuances I am missing, but the
rise times are the same and the final product as well.

I made a couple of pictures to help a friend:

http://tinyurl.com/yry9fh
(will stay a limited time there)

That's 40/60 rye/wheat, 68 % hydration, intended 2 + 2 h rising, real
2:45 + 1:55 h.

I may have the dough development better down, but from a starter/dough
fermentation time perspective, nothing noticeable has changed for me
during the 4+ years I am using the DM-3 now.

Based on that, I would think that your variations are caused by your
handling and not on the starter itself - and you say yourself that it
all depends how "lively" you make your starter - you _making_, not the
starter being "not really consistent".

Don't blame the holey starter;-)

Samartha

Sam wrote:

>
> Based on that, I would think that your variations are caused by your
> handling and not on the starter itself - and you say yourself that it
> all depends how "lively" you make your starter - you _making_, not the
> starter being "not really consistent".
>
> Don't blame the holey starter;-)
>
> Samartha
>
>

Could easily be my handling and environment, I don't 'weigh' out
ingredients and don't always have the same amount of starter saved to
start over with or even the same kind of water.

I think the unpredictability is part of the fun of making SD bread.

My kitchen varies from 70 to well over 100 degrees during the/each day
and the humidity here can be 100% some days with 40% normal these days.
It varies hourly here in the bottom of the Great Lakes Basin.

Some days I feed my starter when it comes out of the fridge a cup of
flour and a little over a half cup of water and it starts growing in an
hour or two and the next feeds continue to be 'fast'. Some days it
doesn't do anything for 4 or more hours and consecutive feeds will be
slower rises too.

I gave up trying to hurry it, I just make white bread if needed in a
hurry, and even give it an extra feed if it comes faster than I need it,
so I 'am' getting more 'stable' effects but still. I think the
unpredictability is part of the fun of making SD bread.

Your above results were even off in 'expected rises'.

I also find that the water I use makes a difference in rise times with
tap water taking a 'long' time some days. (high chlorine content)
Bottled plain spring water seems best. Just tried 'ozonized' spring
water my wife brought home and it was 'really' slow. Enh, just went and
read the label on it and they stuck 1 mg of chlorine per liter in it,
figures...

Still learning for sure...

Mike

Mike Romain wrote:

> SD starter is not really consistent with rise times. Mine can take as
> little as 45 minutes some days and up to 4 or more hours others. I
> think it depends on how 'lively' I make my starer before using (and the
> weather), ...

It would only be inconsistent if the same variable didn't produce the
same rise time.

B/

On 12 Aug 2007, at 17:24, Brian Mailman wrote:

> Mike Romain wrote:
>
>> SD starter is not really consistent with rise times. Mine can
>> take as
>> little as 45 minutes some days and up to 4 or more hours others. I
>> think it depends on how 'lively' I make my starer before using
>> (and the
>> weather), ...
>
> It would only be inconsistent if the same variable didn't produce the
> same rise time.
>
> B/

Lol, exactly Brian, Mine is totally reliable, I can get exactly the
same bread no matter what the weather, but then having spent time to
listen to the experts, taken good notes and taken into account the
temperature that day might have something to do with that. Going
blind does tend to produce a few surprises. : -)

Jim

Jim wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2007, at 17:24, Brian Mailman wrote:
>
>> Mike Romain wrote:
>>
>>> SD starter is not really consistent with rise times. Mine can take as
>>> little as 45 minutes some days and up to 4 or more hours others. I
>>> think it depends on how 'lively' I make my starer before using (and the
>>> weather), ...
>>
>> It would only be inconsistent if the same variable didn't produce the
>> same rise time.
>>
>> B/
>
> Lol, exactly Brian, Mine is totally reliable, I can get exactly the same
> bread no matter what the weather, but then having spent time to listen
> to the experts, taken good notes and taken into account the temperature
> that day might have something to do with that.


Going blind does tend to produce a few surprises. : -)

Well Jim, it sure produces a few surprise answers to posts, 'that's' for
sure.... ;-)

I was talking about 'rise times', NOT the 'same bread' or some variant.

The weather here yesterday at 1:00 PM was 31C and 43% humidity. By 3:00
or so it was 20C and 89% humidity.

My bread still turned out nice, although it was a long rise....

Mike

On 13 Aug 2007, at 17:13, Mike Romain wrote:

> Going blind does tend to produce a few surprises. : -)
>
> Well Jim, it sure produces a few surprise answers to posts,
> 'that's' for
> sure.... ;-)
>
> I was talking about 'rise times', NOT the 'same bread' or some
> variant.
>
> The weather here yesterday at 1:00 PM was 31C and 43% humidity. By
> 3:00
> or so it was 20C and 89% humidity.
>
> My bread still turned out nice, although it was a long rise....
>
> Mike

: -) Good to hear it.

Jim

Brian Mailman wrote:
> Mike Romain wrote:
>
>> SD starter is not really consistent with rise times. Mine can take as
>> little as 45 minutes some days and up to 4 or more hours others. I
>> think it depends on how 'lively' I make my starer before using (and
>> the weather), ...
>
> It would only be inconsistent if the same variable didn't produce the
> same rise time.
>
> B/

My variables aren't the same from batch to batch for sure.

I should better have said, 'my results with SD starter' vary.

Sometimes it can be consistent if I am baking regular and the starter
stays in a crock on the counter, but put the stuff in the fridge for a
while or use different water even and...

Mike

Mike Romain wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>> Mike Romain wrote:
>>
>>> SD starter is not really consistent with rise times. Mine can take as
>>> little as 45 minutes some days and up to 4 or more hours others. I
>>> think it depends on how 'lively' I make my starer before using (and
>>> the weather), ...
>>
>> It would only be inconsistent if the same variable didn't produce the
>> same rise time.
>
> My variables aren't the same from batch to batch for sure.
>
> I should better have said, 'my results with SD starter' vary.

My point is is that the variations are consistent.

B/

On Aug 12, 9:48 am, Mike Romain > wrote:

> SD starter is not really consistent with rise times. Mine can take as
> little as 45 minutes some days and up to 4 or more hours others.

That would make me absolutely nuts... do you hang out and watch it?

My starter is much more respectful. :-)

Will wrote:
> On Aug 12, 9:48 am, Mike Romain > wrote:
>
>> SD starter is not really consistent with rise times. Mine can take as
>> little as 45 minutes some days and up to 4 or more hours others.
>
> That would make me absolutely nuts... do you hang out and watch it?
>
> My starter is much more respectful. :-)
>

Worse than watching toast....

At least I know at the first feeding when 'that' batch is going to be
ready because a fast one goes sponge fast from the first feed out of the
fridge and the slow one starts slow and stays that way for at least 4
feeds it would seem.

I just had a real slow one so I made white bread. Strange one too, it
didn't bubble much for a day and a half, then exploded all over the
counter last night. LOL!

My rye SD starter was slower than usual a few days ago too.

I found out that the 'pure spring' water I thought I was using is
ozonized and has 1 mg of Chlorine per liter/quart of water in it.

Mike

> wrote in message ups.com...
> I am wondering what resources-books/websites-you'd recommend for a
> beginner. ...

I think she is gone now. (I think she is a she.) (We used to think that
about Samartha, but were wrong because of misreading an "r" for an "n".
Good he's changing to Sam.)

It was a very ambitious idea to try to interest her in Detmold 3-stage to
start. Deep in my heart I continue to hope that such things can come to
be possible. She has a type of name that suggests that she could be
subverted to such a thing.

I would have suggested to start with the Lumpy Muffins thing:
http://lumpymuffins.home.comcast.net...h/NoWaste.html
or Sam's Wu Wei thing:
http://samartha.net/SD/images/BYDATE...-05/index.html
but admittedly I am a person of weak faith. Probably too late now.

--
Dicky

Dick Adams wrote:
> > wrote in message ups.com...
>
>> I am wondering what resources-books/websites-you'd recommend for a
>> beginner. ...
>>
>
> I think she is gone now. (I think she is a she.) (We used to think that
> about Samartha, but were wrong because of misreading an "r" for an "n".
> Good he's changing to Sam.)
>
> It was a very ambitious idea to try to interest her in Detmold 3-stage to
> start.
Tell you what - If I had started with the DM-3 right from scratch, it
would have saved me a lot of time to make the breads I am doing now. But
- all this other tinkering around exposed me to other quirks which I
would never have seen otherwise.
> Deep in my heart I continue to hope that such things can come to
> be possible.
Fulfilling one of your hearts desi

1 - container
2 - aquarium heater 94 F, 34 C, 250 W
3 - fountain pump
4 - digital thermometer
5 - digital scale
What does that total up to? 1 - $8, 2 - $ 30, 3 - $ 10, 4 - $ 20, 5 - $ 30

So - you are actually a hell of a lucky guy - for spending less than 100
bucks, one can fulfill one of your heart's desires.

Looks kinda cheap, does your lady know about this - your cheapo heart's
desires?
> She has a type of name that suggests that she could be
> subverted to such a thing.
>
> I would have suggested to start with the Lumpy Muffins thing:
> http://lumpymuffins.home.comcast.net...h/NoWaste.html
> or Sam's Wu Wei thing:
> http://samartha.net/SD/images/BYDATE...-05/index.html
> but admittedly I am a person of weak faith. Probably too late now.
>
>
I think hat's really good.
All this faith stuff - isn't that about believing something without
solid proof?
So - all that would be not knowing for sure.
With sourdough (and Wu-Wei) it's very little believing - actually none.
That's solid experience.
If the bread tastes great, you know it (or your wife tells you). If it
does not rise - you don't have believe that it's not rising, you know
it, when you see it - or not, in this case. No question of faith or
believing. Actually the less, the better in this case - saves you a lot
of trouble.

As for suggesting to a "noobie" the DM-3. I am trying to help somebody
to get started and - I hear: "that's not how a starter should look
like, I put more water in so it looks right". That's faith and
believing. Faith that this is right and believing it will work and solve
the problem of lack of rise and sourness.
No such thing with the DM-3 - how it "should" look never comes up. It is
done as prescribed and works.

I am all for suggesting to "noobies" the DM-3. If temp cannot be
completely controlled, at least, the hydrations and fermentation times
can be met or approximated. It gives great exposure to different
hydration looks of a starter and the factors which influence starter
growth and quality. That's definitely a great progress over the "triple
three times", the "wait until it has peaked, then use it", "wait until
it gets active, then use it" or the "it feels right, now I make bread"
methods I have used.

So -


Sam

On 13 Aug 2007, at 05:50, Sam wrote:

> ...
> All this faith stuff - isn't that about believing something without
> solid proof?

Only in some forms of Christianity. Hence the need for the phrase
'blind faith'. To the rest of the world it's about knowing someone or
something to be reliable from past, personal experience. Like knowing
the bridge you're about to cross won't fall when you get to the
middle because you or someone you trust has done it a hundred times
or you've seen the structural test. 'Blind faith' would be like
crossing a bridge you or no one you know has experience of just
because it makes you feel better believing it to be safe. Blind faith
would be like signing away $200,000 on an apartment you've never seen
based solely on the guy selling it to you having a nice face and a
charming way about him. That's crazy. Faith is understanding that the
practices you are doing lead to happiness because of previous
experience and that reason and experience tell you that happiness and
hatred are mutually exclusive. If I want to be happy it makes no
sense to practice hatred I can use reason and logic to give me faith
that the teacher is giving good teaching.

> So - all that would be not knowing for sure.
> With sourdough (and Wu-Wei) it's very little believing - actually
> none.
> That's solid experience.
> If the bread tastes great, you know it (or your wife tells you).
So you need faith in your wife's and in your own judgement.

> If it
> does not rise - you don't have [to] believe that it's not rising,
> you know
> it,

Actually you still have to have faith, faith in the true perception
of the previous mind, the mind that experienced the state of the
dough at that pervious moment, you can't 'know' a previous moment,
any previous moment is merely a construction of your mind, a memory,
you need faith in your own mind in order to get out of bed in the
morning, faith that you did have a floor there the night before when
you got in and faith that you did actually see a floor there a moment
ago when you looked down and faith that your toe is actually feeling
a floor there when you decide to put your weight on it. You don't
'know' for sure at all. It's all faith.

> when you see it - or not, in this case. No question of faith or
> believing. Actually the less, the better in this case - saves you a
> lot
> of trouble. ...

Unless you have direct perception of the said things. Direct
perception being bypassing all the confusion of the emotions and
projections of the ordinary mind like seeing a snake when in fact
it's a coiled rope or seeing a cat rather than a bag caught by the
wind. Movement of any kind is an illusion, a construction of the mind
so you must have faith in the past perception of the previous mind
moment in combination with the next mind moment to 'see' any rise in
the dough. It is all about faith. If you ever misunderstood anything
or tipped over a crack in the pavement you can be sure or have faith
that you don't have direct perception.

Jim

"Jim" > wrote in message news:mailman.2.1187009320.30441.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
> On 13 Aug 2007, at 05:50, Sam wrote:
> >... All this faith stuff - isn't that about believing something without
> > solid proof?
>
> Only in some forms of Christianity. Hence the need for the phrase
> 'blind faith'. To the rest of the world it's about knowing someone or
> something to be reliable from past, personal experience ...

> (etc., etc., etc., ...)

> {bla, bla, blooper, blabla ...)

(extensive!)

Hey, Jim, maybe it is time for you to start a Church or a Cult??!

For those who do not know it, I have been discussing my faith on
my blog http://www.prettycolors.com/dickya/blosxom.cgi. Look
there for inspiration. Comments and complaints to dick dot adams
at att dot net, NOT to r.f.s. (this newsgroup), please.

--
Dicky

On 13 Aug 2007, at 14:46, Dick Adams wrote:

> Hey, Jim, maybe it is time for you to start a Church or a Cult??!

There's only two small problems there Dick, 1. I don't believe in
god. 2, I don't believe that any one person can own the understanding
of reality. If it's there to be understood then anyone with the
inclination, a little brainpower and enough time can discover it for
themself. Oh, 3. I don't need the money. : -)

Jim

On 11 Aug 2007, at 20:06, wrote:

> I am wondering what resources-books/websites-you'd recommend for a
> beginner. Something that educates me both about "how" to make
> sourdough, and also "why" I am making it like I am--both chemically,
> and historically.
>
> Also, I am confused about soured dough and yeast. Was soured dough
> originally a replacement for yeast, or were both used? Because in my
> recipe books I am surprised to see that the recipes call for both
> soured dough and yeast. Is this always the case?
>
> Thank you.

Remember this? lol. Things do get off topic don't they?

Jim

Jim wrote:
> Remember this? lol. Things do get off topic don't they?
>

Not at all! YOU scared "her" away!

Ah - another lol'er :-)


S.

>
> Remember this? lol. Things do get off topic don't they?
>
Good thing topics are only suggestions

On 17 Aug 2007, at 06:18, Ice wrote:

>> Remember this? lol. Things do get off topic don't they?
>>
> Good thing topics are only suggestions

Roll my eyes. Yeah okay but I'm not so sure the OP or those trying to
search the archives for useful information would agree.

>>> Remember this? lol. Things do get off topic don't they?
>>>
>> Good thing topics are only suggestions
>
> Roll my eyes. Yeah okay but I'm not so sure the OP or those trying to
> search the archives for useful information would agree.
>

Good point.