My whole wheat sourdough
starter, that I've had for 1
year, has a new odor...I feed
it every weekly with fresh
home stone ground wheat flour.
I ferment it at about 90º. Two
feedings ago, I noticed a
change in it's odor. I also
notice a change in the way it
bubbles up in the refrigerator
between feedings...which is;
before, sometimes there would
be a darker liquid that formed
on the top of the bubbly
starter. NOW, I notice there
is a clearer liquid that forms
at the bottom of the bubbly
starter and the odor is a bit
offensive to me...smells bad
to me but the bubbles indicate
that's it's feeding happily.
Last week when I made
sourdough pancakes the kitchen
had a new odor afterwards
also. What's up with this? Help!

Thanks in advance,

Nicki w/stinky sourdough starter

Fact: it has changed

Why does a starter change? Because it's instable under current
circumstances.

Why is it instable? Probably you have run it under some borderline
conditions and some other organisms got in.

From the info you give: 2 weeks, about 90 F, hooch afterwards, it's
hard to tell.

How long have you fermented it at 90 F?
What was the ratio of old starter flour to addition?
This information may give some clues if you are running it ok or are
maybe close to overfermenting/death cycle, where it may tilt with new
material.

From the change you notice that it's now swimming on top of the liquid
could mean that it's not completely done fermenting and there is still
gas in the mass which makes it float.

I'd say, you've got yourself a new starter which is still developing i.
e. having funny smells.

Maybe it settles after a few refreshments and becomes stabile again?

Is it getting sour at all? That would be an indication that it is still
- or again sourdough.

Maybe you want to feed it again, wait a little until it gets going well
and then put it in the fridge. With that, you would be on the beginning
of the fermentation cycle and not at the end. Not sure if you have not
done it in that manner, but anyhow.

Maybe I am totally off and somebody knows exactly that critters cause
the "floating on hooch" - but the above, that's my take on this.

Samartha


Nicki Sinclair wrote:
> My whole wheat sourdough
> starter, that I've had for 1
> year, has a new odor...I feed
> it every weekly with fresh
> home stone ground wheat flour.
> I ferment it at about 90º. Two
> feedings ago, I noticed a
> change in it's odor. I also
> notice a change in the way it
> bubbles up in the refrigerator
> between feedings...which is;
> before, sometimes there would
> be a darker liquid that formed
> on the top of the bubbly
> starter. NOW, I notice there
> is a clearer liquid that forms
> at the bottom of the bubbly
> starter and the odor is a bit
> offensive to me...smells bad
> to me but the bubbles indicate
> that's it's feeding happily.
> Last week when I made
> sourdough pancakes the kitchen
> had a new odor afterwards
> also. What's up with this? Help!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Nicki w/stinky sourdough starter
> _______________________________________________
> Rec.food.sourdough mailing list
>
> http://www.mountainbitwarrior.com/ma...food.sourdough
>

*line length reformated*

Nicki Sinclair wrote:

> My whole wheat sourdough starter, that I've had for 1 year, has a new
> odor...I feed it every weekly with fresh home stone ground wheat
> flour. I ferment it at about 90º. Two feedings ago, I noticed a
> change in it's odor. I also notice a change in the way it bubbles up
> in the refrigerator between feedings...which is; before, sometimes
> there would be a darker liquid that formed on the top of the bubbly
> starter. NOW, I notice there is a clearer liquid that forms at the
> bottom of the bubbly starter and the odor is a bit offensive to
> me...smells bad to me but the bubbles indicate that's it's feeding
> happily. Last week when I made sourdough pancakes the kitchen had a
> new odor afterwards also. What's up with this? Help!

You might want to "wash" your starter.

That is, take about a 1/2 teaspoon. of your old starter, and put it in a
1/4 cup of flour. Add water to pancake batter consistency... In
essence, just like you were feeding your starter, but with a very small
quantity of your starter.

See what develops then.

B/

Brian Mailman wrote:

> You might want to "wash" your starter.

As I understand it, "washing" applies to a non-performing, lame starter.

Main underlying reason by my understanding for this is oversouring,
where the stored starter is so sour that a regular feeding is
insufficient to raise the pH enough and the critters can perform again.

A relatively large amount of flour is added to a small amount of "lame"
starter.

This lowers the pH and it will become alive again.

Nicki stated in her post:


> but the bubbles indicate that's it's feeding
> happily

This is not a "lame" starter.

If the situation with her is that her original starter indeed has died
off and a new starter started to develop (facts in favor of this: full
grain flour and "new", odd smell and taste).

Unless her starter is already sour, I would say that "washing" could be
counterproductive in her situation.

Samartha

On 19 Mar, 04:07, Samartha Deva <sdnews-inbox-EEE-
> wrote:
> As I understand it, "washing" applies to a non-performing, lame starter.
...
> Unless her starter is already sour, I would say that "washing" could be
> counterproductive in her situation.
>
> Samartha

Hi Samartha,

I have to agree with Brian,

when the liquid forms lower than the bubbling foam it's a sure sign of
the thing that shall not speak it's name. If bad feeding has lead to
such a low number of yeasts and lb's that the next feed means they are
over run by the other stuff from the flour then this lower liquid can
occur with that characteristic foaming which is very different from
regular starter bubbling. (Nicki also said that bubbling was
different.)

The only thing I would caution is not to give too much flour to an
ailing starter. What Brian has suggested could be the best solution
but on the other hand a little less feed may be better. Only time and
experiment will tell. I would stress also that when doing a wash you
tend to use much more water than flour, I assume this is to help
aerate the starter, helping the yeast multiply to establish dominance
again. Either way a wash won't hurt.

Knowing all about pH is irrelevent if you don't have some way to
measure it. Most of us don't and cope admirably well without. , -)

Jim

On Mar 18, 3:50 pm, Nicki Sinclair > wrote:
> My whole wheat sourdough
> starter, that I've had for 1
> year, has a new odor...I feed
> it every weekly with fresh
> home stone ground wheat flour.
> I ferment it at about 90º. Two
> feedings ago, I noticed a
> change in it's odor. I also
> notice a change in the way it
> bubbles up in the refrigerator
> between feedings...which is;
> before, sometimes there would
> be a darker liquid that formed
> on the top of the bubbly
> starter. NOW, I notice there
> is a clearer liquid that forms
> at the bottom of the bubbly
> starter and the odor is a bit
> offensive to me...smells bad
> to me but the bubbles indicate
> that's it's feeding happily.
> Last week when I made
> sourdough pancakes the kitchen
> had a new odor afterwards
> also. What's up with this? Help!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Nicki w/stinky sourdough starter

Did you change wheat? New bag... perhaps.

Seems to me the easiest thing to do would be to make a new starter.
That way, if you do not regain confidence in your current starter,
you'll be ready with a replacement. Making new starter isn't a big
deal.

As to the current situation... 90 F. is on the high side for yeast. A
few cycles at 90 and things begin to drop out, the population equation
resets. Yogurts and buttermilks ferment well above 90 F... so I'm
guessing you have acquired or reinforced an LB strain. Does the
starter smell like cheezy? or vaguely foot-like? To shift back, what
Samartha and Brian suggested will work. But I'd keep the refreshment
temperature lower... 75-80 F is plenty sufficient.

"Will" > wrote in message ups.com...

> [ ... ]
> I'd keep the refreshment temperature lower...
> 75-80 F is plenty sufficient.

Aha, sufficient plentiness!

Well, I guess we can still go on with this. There is always
one more thing to say about a stinky starter.

(Starters that behave themselves are just not all that
interesting. What can you do with those? -- just make
bread, I guess.)

--
Dicky

On Mar 19, 9:05 am, "Dick Adams" > wrote:

> Aha, sufficient plentiness!

Okay... when I stop laughing I'll offer up a new phrase. "Sufficient
plentiness" triggers memories of those catchy slogans from "1984"
<g>.

Dicky... you're in remarkable form this morning.

Samartha Deva wrote:

> Brian Mailman wrote:
>
>> You might want to "wash" your starter.
>
> As I understand it, "washing" applies to a non-performing, lame starter.
>
> Main underlying reason by my understanding for this is oversouring,
> where the stored starter is so sour that a regular feeding is
> insufficient to raise the pH enough and the critters can perform again.
>
> Nicki stated in her post:
>
>> but the bubbles indicate that's it's feeding
>> happily
>
> This is not a "lame" starter.

She says it smells bad (assuming "Nicki" is a 'she') and the hooch is
"dark."

That might indicate there's something else in there. In fact, I think
'dark hooch" is a sign of contamination--i'd have to look it up, I know
pink or orange is--because it wasn't sufficiently sour to keep anything
'bad' from forming. Not sour would be "underperforming," no?

Washing it might help to determine if it's contaminated, and if so,
irretreivably. Give it a chance to re-establish, and sour enough to
fight off invaders.

mini-300s in our own kitchens!

B/

Brian Mailman wrote:

> In fact, I think
> 'dark hooch" is a sign of contamination--i'd have to look it up, I know
> pink or orange is--because it wasn't sufficiently sour to keep anything
> 'bad' from forming. Not sour would be "underperforming," no?

1. - I get clear "dark" hooch all the time, on 92 % full grain rye
starter, after maybe 2 month or so, there is a slight liquid film on top
and the surface of the material is getting darker whereas the inside is
lighter. Taking the material underneath the "dark" surface works fine.

Dark transparent liquid also came on white flour starters. They kept
functioning under that condition - stirring it all in and using it
worked fine.

So - by my measures, "dark", transparent hooch is normal and far from
"contamination". When there is mold swimming on top or the hooch no
longer transparent, I think this could be a sign of contamination.

I had once pink mold and all the "washing" in the world could not remove
it. It came back repeatedly and I tossed the starters.

2. - "not sour" is under performing. But that's not what you get when
you keep a functional starter in the fridge. There you get over sour
non-performing if you don't get the pH up to maybe above 4.0. When there
is so much acidity in the starter that the feeding is insufficient to
get it going again. This has been observed with white flour starters in
particular.

The main limiting factor with sourdough starters is acidity. The LB's
can't function below maybe pH 3.6. Once that number is reached, activity
stops.

So - with "not sour", that limitation is not there. What is the cause
for "not sour"? In essence, not enough LB's working.

Could be other organism dominating or simply not enough LB's.

Eventually, the LB's will win, but if you "wash" in the insufficient LB
number state, you dilute the LB's even more. That's counterproductive.

If you got organisms in your starter which out-compete the LB's - good
luck in "washing" those out.

Now, in Niki's case:

> I did
> use more flour with the
> feeding, thinking it would
> have more to "eat" in case I
> didn't get back to it for 10
> days or so.

My guess is: Weak starter, increased feeding, something else takes over
initially, smells somewhat funny, LB's will win later and make it a new
starter. If you "wash" in that stage, it just delays it but works
anyway. Sourdough is very forgiving.

As for the cheesy smell: Once the white starters got a little bit more
"ripe", they (SDI's SF and Carl's) always smelled somewhat cheesy - at
room temperature. That would be all "within normal parameters".

Samartha

Samartha Deva wrote:

> Eventually, the LB's will win, but if you "wash" in the insufficient LB
> number state, you dilute the LB's even more. That's counterproductive.

But it's stated many many times that the LBs come from the flour used in
the starter. So using your argument, you're actually adding them in,
not diluting.

B/

Brian Mailman wrote:
> Samartha Deva wrote:
>
>> Eventually, the LB's will win, but if you "wash" in the insufficient LB
>> number state, you dilute the LB's even more. That's counterproductive.
>
> But it's stated many many times that the LBs come from the flour used in
> the starter. So using your argument, you're actually adding them in,
> not diluting.

So you think. Practically, the germ counts in a functional starter are
several magnitudes greater than in flour. With a much lesser LB density
in flour and a much higher LB density in the over sour starter, what are
you doing when adding a small amount of starter to a larger amount of
flour? Diluting.

Maybe in 20 lb of flour is a similar amount of LB's as you have in a
teaspoon of alive starter. It's something in that dimension.

I would bet that even in an over sour starter, the number of LB's is
several magnitudes greater than in flour because, when they are diluted
so the pH is more suitable, they come right back.

With flour - how long does it take until a functional LB population
develops - days. Why - because of low germ counts.

What do you get, if you put a small amount with high content and mix it
with a large amount of low content? Overall dilution of content.

You may add variety, but if that starts getting hold, you get a
different starter which makes the whole "washing" procedure futile - you
can start over right away if you count on adding variety.

But to be really on the safe side, we should wait for Ticker to come up
with a number of how many more germs are in a dried Carl's in comparison
to plain white flour.

I doubt it though, if a cat is at all concerned with that kind of stuff
- there are much more important and fun things to do.

S.

"Samartha Deva" wrote :
> I doubt it though, if a cat is at all concerned with that kind of stuff
> - there are much more important and fun things to do.

Yeah -- naps! Me too. Stinky starter happens.

(Yawn!)

--
Dicky
http://home.att.net/~muffkat/wsb/htm...ID-325155.html

Samartha Deva wrote:

> But to be really on the safe side, we should wait for Ticker to come up
> with a number of how many more germs are in a dried Carl's in comparison
> to plain white flour.

Or we can just wait until the OP reports back what the resolve was?
>
> I doubt it though, if a cat is at all concerned with that kind of stuff
> - there are much more important and fun things to do.

Mr. Cat is resting up from a busy afternoon of doing nothing.

B/

Nicki Sinclair wrote:
> My whole wheat sourdough starter, that I've had for 1 year, has a new
> odor...I feed it every weekly with fresh home stone ground wheat flour.
> I ferment it at about 90º.

The 90F is a problem. That is past the optimum range for wheat
sourdough culture. Also the "fresh ground whole wheat" is a problem.
You are introducing new creatures at a rate much higher than would be
found if you were using White, bleached AP flour from the grocery store
into a culture that is weakened by being kept at too high a temperature.

If you think you are at 90F it is very easy to be past 90F, absent a
good incubator. That is definitely not good for your sourdough culture.
Some people can make a case for the warmer temperatures for the final
rise of the dough, but I have not heard any good reason to keep a
culture for wheat bread over 80F to 85F. I expand my storage culture at
room temperature. For at least six months of the year room temperature
here is below 75F, sometimes considerably below -- works just fine.

"Washing" is one of those words that I just don't understand. It is one
of those feel good words - you know, like "quality" It has lost any
real meaning. It is supposed to generate a good feeling response, but
its actual meaning depends on who says it and when.

I can understand the theory behind starting a new batch of culture with
a small inoculation of the established culture, say a teaspoon to a 1/4
cup of water and flour. However the schemes that call for high
dilutions with water are beyond me.

I can't ask the cat on this one because Ticker, at an earlier time, laid
down the law to me. It was like - listen buster 'cause I am only going
to tell you this once and you had better get it. Something like that.
She said that when I was through mixing the starter , she was going to
lick the spoon. Her rules were first, put enough of the old starter in
the new batch so she could taste it. Second, put enough flour in so that
it sticks to the spoon some. She told that she was going to lick both
sides of the spoon and the starter better not be so thin that it all ran
off the side that was on the bottom.

I will put the washing question on the list of thing to ask Ticker about
if I ever find her in a good mood and talkative at the same time.
Lately, when not engaged in vigorous napping, I find her sitting on top
of the TV looking out the window practicing her squirrel calling. She is
pretty good at it. sometimes it sounds just like there is a tree rat in
the house. Hunting, for her, is like napping - too important an
activity to be disturbed by the household servants.

Regards,
Charles

On Mar 21, 9:21 am, Charles Perry > wrote:

> Also the "fresh ground whole wheat" is a problem.
> You are introducing new creatures at a rate much higher than would be
> found if you were using White, bleached AP flour from the grocery store
> into a culture that is weakened by being kept at too high a temperature.


I think you and the cat need to quit sleeping so much <g>.

Somehow or another (I trust the cat will explain it in good time) the
ancients managed to feed and maintain their cultures without AP white
flour. I can say for sure that my cultures have not suffered for being
fed freshly ground wheat or rye for years...

This is what I think is going on....

1) The starter was refreshed too hot. This depleted the lower temp
critters.

2) Then it was stored too cold (refrigerator). This depleted the
higher temp critters.

3) Plus it was kept too wet. So it built up acid... (acetic on the
cold cycle and lactic on the hot)

Common sense indicates that a regime of too hot, too cold, too wet...
will eventually (not immediately) discourage one's critters.

This is starter, not one of NASA's space vehicles. It needs to live
like we do... in reasonable comfort. And not under an inch of water
either. It needs to breathe.

Charles Perry wrote:

> "Washing" is one of those words that I just don't understand.

It's the word that's been used in this group by several people to
describe the process of re-beginning a starter using a very small amount
of inoculum.

I picked it up as the term of art.

If there's a word that's either better-suited or more accurate or more
commonly used, please let me know and I'll use that one instead.

B/

"Brian Mailman" > wrote in message ...

> > "Washing" is one of those words that I just don't understand.
> [ ... ]
> If there's a word that's either better-suited or more accurate or more
> commonly used, please let me know and I'll use that one instead.

Some say "sweeting the pot". But that can mean other things. Probably
mostly means money under the table. Probably came historically from
something about sanitizing chamber pots. A lot of such stuff is better
left alone.

Better to use simple English to briefly describe the process, when the
occasion comes up.

Many pages of bake books are consumed with elaborating obsolete
and inappropriate terminology. Who cares, for instance, what a "poolish"
is, or how "levain" is related to "levener", or exactly what a bakers'
"proof" is? Bakers' "per cent" should be defined every time it is used
because, although it is a very useful term, it is very confusing to people
who actually know what "per cent" actually means.

--
Dicky

Will wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:21 am, Charles Perry > wrote:
>
>> Also the "fresh ground whole wheat" is a problem.
>> You are introducing new creatures at a rate much higher than would be
>> found if you were using White, bleached AP flour from the grocery store
>> into a culture that is weakened by being kept at too high a temperature.
>

Thats my story and I am sticking to it.

> Somehow or another (I trust the cat will explain it in good time) the
> ancients managed to feed and maintain their cultures without AP white
> flour. I can say for sure that my cultures have not suffered for being
> fed freshly ground wheat or rye for years...

So? The point that I failed to make is that a seriously weakened
culture will have less exposure to unwelcome critters if fed with
bleached white AP. Otherwise feed it the flour that you use for baking.
If you have a particular culture that you wish to preserve, than it is
best to use white AP because at some point the culture will probably be
in a neglected state.


>
> This is what I think is going on....
> ......

Well, as I stated, I agree with the too hot. The rest I am not so sure
either way.

>
> This is starter, not one of NASA's space vehicles.

If I ever said otherwise , it was in jest or sarcasm.

Regards,

Charles

Brian Mailman wrote:

> ...If there's a word that's either better-suited or more accurate or more
> commonly used, please let me know and I'll use that one instead.
>

Well, OK, I exaggerated a bit, Quality has a lot more more confusion
associated with it than does "Washing". However there does seem to be
at least two major definitions and multiple implementations of each.
The first I heard of the term, it was from a retail seller of starters
and was given as a procedure to be used when things did not work
properly when attempting to revive the starter or when established
starter went bad. This process involved massive dilution of the stuff
with water hence "washing" I don't understand this at all. Of course
there are all kinds of variations on the original procedure and I am not
sure if I read the first original from the author or later iterations.

The second major group of "washing" procedures involve a small
inoculation of flour and water with the old and possibly sick starter.
This makes some sense because you are just providing a fresh medium, a
base for the sourdough creatures. However, there are many recipes for
this general procedure.

I don't think it is a term of art in the sense that those practiced in
the art of sourdough cookery would all understand a single specific
meaning when the word is used in the context of starter maintenance.

It may have evolved to that point, in which case I am ignorant of the
fact, but I think "washing" still needs some additional explanation
rather than expecting a common understanding.

Regards,

Charles

On 21 Mar, 23:25, Charles Perry > wrote:
...

> "Washing"...
> The first I heard of the term, it was from a retail seller of starters
> and was given as a procedure to be used when things did not work
> properly when attempting to revive the starter or when established
> starter went bad. This process involved massive dilution of the stuff
> with water hence "washing" I don't understand this at all. ...
>
> The second major group of "washing" procedures involve a small
> inoculation of flour and ...
> It may have evolved to that point, in which case I am ignorant of the
> fact, but I think "washing" still needs some additional explanation
> rather than expecting a common understanding.
>
> Regards,
>
> Charles

Hi Charles, the only time I've seen the term is from Ed Wood. It
translates to, by volume.

1 part culture

4 parts flour

6 parts water

Though this is well disguised in his books.

I found that in some cases halving the feed made for a quicker
recovery. But I suppose this is because you can't tell the germ count
just by looking. So any arbitrary amount is theoretically just as
good. I suspect this is Ed's cautious approach.

I only ever had to use this when the starter hadn't been used in
months or for badly dried ones. Yours didn't need it of course. :
-)

Thanks

Jim

Charles Perry wrote:

> Brian Mailman wrote:
>
>> ...If there's a word that's either better-suited or more accurate or more
>> commonly used, please let me know and I'll use that one instead.

(snippage)

> It may have evolved to that point, in which case I am ignorant of the
> fact, but I think "washing" still needs some additional explanation
> rather than expecting a common understanding.

But I did, or at least I thought I did:
Message-ID: >

What I'm getting from yours and Dick's message is not to use the word at
all.

B/

There sure a lot of threads that won't die lately... anyway...

Charles Perry wrote:
> Well, OK, I exaggerated a bit, Quality has a lot more more confusion
> associated with it than does "Washing". However there does seem to be
> at least two major definitions and multiple implementations of each.
> The first I heard of the term, it was from a retail seller of starters
> and was given as a procedure to be used when things did not work
> properly when attempting to revive the starter or when established
> starter went bad. This process involved massive dilution of the stuff
> with water hence "washing" I don't understand this at all. Of course
> there are all kinds of variations on the original procedure and I am not
> sure if I read the first original from the author or later iterations.
>
> The second major group of "washing" procedures involve a small
> inoculation of flour and water with the old and possibly sick starter.
> This makes some sense because you are just providing a fresh medium, a
> base for the sourdough creatures. However, there are many recipes for
> this general procedure.
I think both definitions are basically the same. You are massively
diluting the old starter and feeding it up. It's a valid process, but I
don't like the term. When I first encountered the term, it was related
to people who culture their own beer and wine yeasts. These folks often
save the residue in the bottom of a fermenter, called the lees, to
re-culture the yeast. In the more liquid environment of wort and must,
a lot of sediment drops to the bottom of the fermenter, and it really
needs to be removed from the rest of the lees to get a fairly pure
culture. You don't want the last batch's sediment changing the taste of
the next batch.

It's been years since I've read about, or done, this, so the details may
be off, but the idea is to add pure water to the lees, and then
encourage the separation of the sediment you don't want from the rest of
the captured sample. (I've forgotten how this is done. I suppose the
sediment will either rise to the top of the solution or fall to the
bottom, leaving a clear layer.) The brewer draws off the clear,
sediment free, liquid and then feeds it with an appropriate sugar
containing solution - either a grape or grain extract depending on what
they brew..

At this point, a cleaning has occurred in the lees. It has less
sediment, because the sediment has been removed, or washed away.

In the ways that the term is used in sourdough culturing, nothing is
removed. It is just diluted. When you wash your hands, the dirt or
other stuff you don't want on your hands goes down the drain. It's not
just diluted. They are, in the common usage of the word, washed.

I don't have a single cute word to describe the process with sourdough,
which is the only attraction of the word "wash." But that's really not
a good enough reason to use the term. Maybe the term "refresh" might do
the trick. Maybe "RNR" would do. But I've never felt that "wash" was a
descriptive term for what is actually being done.

Mike
--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hands.

jim wrote:

> ...translates to, by volume.
>
> 1 part culture
>
> 4 parts flour
>
> 6 parts water
>
> Though this is well disguised in his books.
>
>

Well, my recollection, and it may not have been from the original
writing is that there was considerably more water used. What you have
stated is not that outrageous.

Charles

Brian Mailman wrote:

>
> But I did, or at least I thought I did:
>

Yes, you did. And, the proportions were just about what I would have
recommended.

> What I'm getting from yours and Dick's message is not to use the word at
> all.
>

What, and not provoke an occasional rant on the use of sourdough
terminology? Where is the fun in that?

Charles

Mike Avery wrote:


>
> ... But I've never felt that "wash" was a
> descriptive term for what is actually being done.
>


No poetry or magic either, which may be a bigger sin.

Charles

On 22 Mar, 19:15, Mike Avery > wrote:
>....
> It's been years since I've read about, or done, this, so the details may
> be off, but the idea is to add pure water to the lees, and then
> encourage the separation of the sediment you don't want from the rest of
> the captured sample. ...
> At this point, a cleaning has occurred in the lees. It has less
> sediment, because the sediment has been removed, or washed away.
>
> In the ways that the term is used in sourdough culturing, nothing is
> removed...
> Mike
...

Hi Mike,

Ed Wood's suggestion doesn't seem *quite* so crazy now.

He says to have one quarter of a jar of starter top up the jar to the
top with water, shake it, tip away all but 1cup, then add

3/4 of a cup of water

1 cup of flour.

But as you say this is just a dilution and I never saw the point in
adding all that water just to tip it away, but I know where the idea
comes from I can see his thinking, though it doesn't change anything
unless I'm missing something.

Jim

TG wrote:
> But as you say this is just a dilution and I never saw the point in
> adding all that water just to tip it away, but I know where the idea
> comes from I can see his thinking, though it doesn't change anything
> unless I'm missing something.
Yeah, its still just dilution. With the wine or beer lees, there is
particulate matter - such as hop remnants or wine fragments - that are
removed in large quantity, leaving the yeast you want in a purer condition.

With dilution, you are reducing the acidity which can help the starter a
lot. But, the term "wash" just doesn't wash with me. It doesn't seem
valid to me as a description, and as Charles said, it is lacking in
poetry and magic as well.

Mike

--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
"It's not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are." -
Roy Disney