I wonder how many people on this forum have read that book. If you had
read it, you would not be paying any attention to people like Samartha
who like to make fun of anyone who creates a starter by catching
microorganisms from the atmosphere.

Yet that is exactly what Wood advocates. From Chapter Two entitled
"The Ingredients of Sourdough Bread", on pages 8 and 9:

+++++
"... you can capture your own [culture] by simply exposing a mixture
of flour and water to the air. When the right organisms find your
mixture, they will grow and survive."

"Do not cover the bowl with plastic or anything else that wil exclude
the organisms you are attempting to capture."
+++++

This debunks the cult fetish practice of trying to make cultures from
organisms alleged to be present in the grain. If they are present in
the flour you have,then you can do it that way if it turns you on. But
that is not the only way to make a genuine starter, so don't let cult
fetish bullies like Samartha tell you otherwise.

Read about it for yourself: One of the world's sourdough experts says
in plain English that you can capture organisms from the atmosphere to
make a genuine sourdough starter. He goes on to point out (p. 9) that
there are some "artisan bakers" who advocate the use of freshly ground
organic flour with a cover to keep out airborne organisms. And he
mentioned "rye sours". But he does not comment here on the viability
of such a process. And he certainly does not claim that it is the only
way to make an authetic sourdough starter.

Notice that he says "freshly ground organic flour". That's the first I
have ever heard about that. No wonder my attempts to make starter by
such a method failed - I was using flour I had bought from a store -
already milled a long while ago. Presumably if there were any
organisms in it when it was milled, they must be dead now. And the
flour was not labelled "organic". So I had two strikes against me.

Here is the conclusion I have reached: Making a starter by the method
advocated by Samartha and his cult buddies requires the use of freshly
milled organic flour, if it is going to work at all. Maybe you can buy
that kind of flour at the local whole foods store. But if you want to
catch organisms from the atmosphere, that is just as valid a method as
trying to get flour-based organisms to start.

We all know that the only proven method of making our own starter is
to make it initially from a known starter. Relying on flour-based or
atmospheric-based organisms is a hit/miss procedure.

So don't let these cult fetishists bully you into believing that
theirs is the only way to make a starter. Their opinions are not
credible, according to Wood.

I agree, I have made my own starter from scratch with great success.
I used unbleached all purpose flour and water from my reverse osmosis
system to filter out all of the chlorine of course. And it took about
two weeks to get the taste well developed, but as it turns out my
starter is a great success.

Mark
Need a proofing box:
http://members.cox.net/hebertcooking/proofing_box.htm


On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:58:24 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

>I wonder how many people on this forum have read that book. If you had
>read it, you would not be paying any attention to people like Samartha
>who like to make fun of anyone who creates a starter by catching
>microorganisms from the atmosphere.
>
>Yet that is exactly what Wood advocates. From Chapter Two entitled
>"The Ingredients of Sourdough Bread", on pages 8 and 9:
>
>+++++
>"... you can capture your own [culture] by simply exposing a mixture
>of flour and water to the air. When the right organisms find your
>mixture, they will grow and survive."
>
>"Do not cover the bowl with plastic or anything else that wil exclude
>the organisms you are attempting to capture."
>+++++

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:34:41 -0500, ° > wrote:

>I agree, I have made my own starter from scratch with great success.
>I used unbleached all purpose flour and water from my reverse osmosis
>system to filter out all of the chlorine of course. And it took about
>two weeks to get the taste well developed, but as it turns out my
>starter is a great success.

How did you get the culture started?

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:58:24 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

>I wonder how many people on this forum have read that book. If you had
>read it, you would not be paying any attention to people like Samartha
>who like to make fun of anyone who creates a starter by catching
>microorganisms from the atmosphere.

Hi Bob,

I respond at the risk of being assaulted for exhibiting my
"psychopathology" but offer my comments with no disrespect to you, or
anyone else (well, with one possible exception, see below.)

A while back, I knew a nice woman who worked for a very large company
as their Director of Organizational Development (don't ask, it doesn't
matter here). In any case, on all of her correspondence, and in many
of her conversations, she managed to display her academic credentials.
It was always "Judy Smith, Ph.D." or "Dr. Judy Smith." (no, that's not
her name.)

Indeed, she had earned that advanced degree and, of course, should
take pride in that accomplishment; but somehow remarkable for its
absence was the fact that she had earned her degree in the field of
French Literature. Such "credential distortion" is not unusual in
professional life.

Somewhat similar is the case with our friend "Dr." Wood.

You neglected to mention (and there is no criticism here as Dr. Wood
certainly does a very good job of de-emphasizing) the fact that he has
no scientific credentials in any field related to yeast biology. With
regret, I cannot remember what his professional discipline is.

His book is interesting, fun, and I enjoyed reading it.

As I learned more, my perspective on the book changed. I see it now
as, essentially, a romantic recounting of his many fascinating
excursions to "hunt the wild sourdoughs of the world."

The book is at its core, a marketing tool for his business selling
these sourdough cultures. No criticism of the Woods for that. I
mention it only to alert you to the fact that the book might better be
evaluated as something other than the science it purports to be.

One aspect of the current death struggle here on the group that you
might care to consider:

If, as Dr. Wood claims, the critters are in the air, why does he go to
such great lengths to sterilize his flour samples? As before, with
regret, I don't remember the details. I have not read the book in
years. But I'm pretty sure that you will find it is a central part of
the romance.

And finally, there is really good science about all of this. The field
of yeast biology is (pun intended) alive and bubbling. There are
several scholarly journals that publish the results of experimentation
in the discipline. I am in an unrelated field, and with apology cannot
give you a long list of names, in addition, much of it is out of my
depth, but if you are genuinely interested in learning about all of
this from the perspective of the science, you might want to look for
things written by Michael Ganzle (sp?) for starters (again apologies
for the pun.) I would also strongly recommend a book called "The Bread
Builders" by a fellow named Dan Wing. Dan, by the way, is a physician
by trade rather than a yeast biologist. He does know the science
however, offers some of value, and does not smoke over the
professional distinctions relevant to all this as some do. His book is
one of the very best I have seen. It is well written, interesting,
supported by good science, and very practically oriented. It also has
a marketing function in that it was co-authored by a gentleman who has
a business selling and consulting about wood heated ovens. These are
described in some detail in the book.

Also, there were some interesting communications here between Wing and
Ganzle that are certainly worth Googling for.

I hope that you find these comments of interest and value.

All that said, I will get off my knees now.

I wish you the best,

--
Kenneth

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

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:29:14 -0500, Kenneth
> wrote:

>You neglected to mention (and there is no criticism here as Dr. Wood
>certainly does a very good job of de-emphasizing) the fact that he has
>no scientific credentials in any field related to yeast biology.

I did not think that mattered because he is acknowledged as a leader
in the field of sourdough bread baking. Anyway, he has been mentioned
as supportive of the claim that only flour-based organisms start
sourdough cultures, which is misleading. He is also supportive of
airborne starter organisms.

>With regret, I cannot remember what his professional discipline is.

The back inside page says he is a physician and research scientist. It
says he "pursued a Ph.D. at Cornell University, where he studied under
Dr. Clive McCay, one of the foremost pioneers in nutrition research."
It does not say whether he obtained that degree.

So I do not know what his credentials are for claiming to be an expert
at yeast biology. But is that required? Is he wrong when he advocates
catching organisms in the air. Put another way, does one have to have
credentials in yeast biology to claim that you can start a culture
from airborne organisms?

Note that I did mention that he does not claim that you *can't* start
a culture from flour-based organisms. He appears to leave that issue
open for further discussion.

>If, as Dr. Wood claims, the critters are in the air, why does he go to
>such great lengths to sterilize his flour samples? As before, with
>regret, I don't remember the details. I have not read the book in
>years. But I'm pretty sure that you will find it is a central part of
>the romance.

I will look for it. But I do not see that it is relevant to the issue
at hand. Neither Wood (nor I) claim that one cannot start a culture
from flour-based organisms. What Wood is saying is that one can also
start a culture from airborne organisms.

If Wood does sterilize his flour samples and proceeds to start
cultures by catching organisms from the air, then he has validated
that as a viable method. IOW, the sterilization works both ways,
namely, it ensures that flour-based organisms are not responsible for
starting the culture, and, given that the culture does start when
exposed to the atmosphere, it demonstrates that it must be airborne
organism that are responsible.

>And finally, there is really good science about all of this.

I will have to take your word for that. As a scientist myself, I have
seen the good, the bad and the ugly in scientific research. Sorting it
out is the challenge, because mere publication of research does not
make it good science. Look at what happened with cold fusion.

But I do not claim that one cannot start a culture with flour-based
organisms. In fact I am thinking about going to the Whole Food Market
this afternoon to see if I can get someone to grind (or is the proper
term "mill") some fresh organic wheat and rye berries for me so I can
experiment with flour-based organisms - assuming that they are present
in that specially-prepared flour.

One thing that strikes me as rather odd about this whole controversy
is that yeast biologists and sourdough bakers alike claim that natural
starters are particular to a region of the world. We have SF starter
with organisms that seem to be present only in the SF region. We have
Russian starters with organisms that seem to be present only in Russia
and Eastern Europe. And so on.

Where are these organisms if not in the environment? If these
organisms come solely from the flour, then how can flour grown in
North Dakota be responsible for SF starter organisms? Does not
compute.

>I hope that you find these comments of interest and value.

Yes, your comments have been of interest and value. If those who take
the opposite position this debate were as professional as you have
been there would be no acrimony. But their purpose is not to educate -
it is to boost their pathetic frail egos by putting others down who
disagree with them. That's because they are insecure about the
position they are promoting.

>All that said, I will get off my knees now.

I do not believe you are promoting the cult fetish position, or at
least I did not detect it in your comments. Once again, I am not
claiming that one cannot start a culture from flour-based organisms.
What I am claiming is that there is considerable evidence that one can
start a culture from airborne organisms.

I hope that starter organisms are present in the flour because then
all I would have to do is obtain a sack of that particular flour and I
would be able to make all the starter I wanted easily - just like
Samartha and some others are claiming. I could have SF starter just by
obtaining the particular flour in which the SF organism occurs
naturally. Presumably such magic flour could be obtained on a local
grocery store shelf, saving me the hassle of ordering starter cultures
at outrageously high prices only to find they are possibly dead on
arrival.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:14:59 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

>>Big Snip<<

>
>>All that said, I will get off my knees now.
>
>I do not believe you are promoting the cult fetish position, or at
>least I did not detect it in your comments.

Hi Bob,

You are correct.

In > What you said of me
was:

>Don't bruise your forehead on the floor as you worship at his cult
>altar.

Indeed, I was mixing my metaphors...

All the best,

--
Kenneth

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

Bob wrote:
....
> If Wood does sterilize his flour samples and proceeds to start
> cultures by catching organisms from the air, then he has validated
> that as a viable method. IOW, the sterilization works both ways,
> namely, it ensures that flour-based organisms are not responsible for
> starting the culture, and, given that the culture does start when
> exposed to the atmosphere, it demonstrates that it must be airborne
> organism that are responsible.

Does your book show what was necessary to reliably sterilize flour?

The older version of the book I have shows: >= 500,000 rads for 12 hours
to reliably sterilize flour. When doing sterilizations with 150,000 rads
it would not sterilize the flour.

I have never questioned that one cannot "catch" organisms from the air.
To be sure they are from the air, one needs to use sterile media or it's
by chance with a tendency towards the higher germ counts and better
competing organisms. "Just" reliably sterilize your flour then you can
make your claim that you "caught from the air".

And - once you figured out the answers I posted recently, the one's
which were either thrown back at me: "do it yourself" or "who cares".
Btw, I don't know all the answers and what I figured out in this
context, I have posted repeatedly.

Once you find the answers, you can make a more educated guess what the
chances are that you actually catch something from the air. If you don't
have the answers, you are operating in the religious realm (see below)
with all what goes with it.

> One thing that strikes me as rather odd about this whole controversy
> is that yeast biologists and sourdough bakers alike claim that natural
> starters are particular to a region of the world. We have SF starter
> with organisms that seem to be present only in the SF region.

That's incorrect. LB SF bacteria have been isolated from sourdoughs in
USA, Italy and Germany (possibly other's as well). If you need to see
the references, I can dig those out.

I don't see a controversy, just a lot of misinformation and
religiousness = believing as opposed to "knowing" = looking at facts and
using some common sense.

> We have
> Russian starters with organisms that seem to be present only in Russia
> and Eastern Europe. And so on.
>
> Where are these organisms if not in the environment? If these
> organisms come solely from the flour, then how can flour grown in
> North Dakota be responsible for SF starter organisms? Does not
> compute.

There is a finite number of LB organisms able to exist in sourdough
(with new one's still being discovered), some occurring in outside
environments (as I described one in a recent post) or are only found in
sourdoughs (LB SF is one of them).

And - flour is from the "environment" - fertilized and all.

SF organisms are said to develop after a while - that being continuous
refreshments for 3 weeks.

That's because they are better in metabolizing in this particular
environment whereas the "wood and meadow" LB's are more efficient in the
"wood and meadow" environment.


> I hope that starter organisms are present in the flour because then
> all I would have to do is obtain a sack of that particular flour and I
> would be able to make all the starter I wanted easily - just like
> Samartha and some others are claiming.

You have or had your organisms growing in your flour as I conclude from
one of your posts where you saw tiny bubbles ( or something to this
extent ).

Your posting style, in particular the phrases you used and the
assumptions you made and posted about my web site and motives have made
it impossible for me to respond in this manner I am able to do right now
thanks to Kenneth's input.

>I could have SF starter just by
> obtaining the particular flour in which the SF organism occurs
> naturally. Presumably such magic flour could be obtained on a local
> grocery store shelf, saving me the hassle of ordering starter cultures
> at outrageously high prices only to find they are possibly dead on
> arrival.

SF organisms don't occur "naturally" - well, at least so far they have
not been isolated from anywhere else but sourdough. So, if you want to
"catch" the LB SF from a flour bag, it would be a discovery if you are
able to proof the existence or most likely a flop. LB SF's are
specialized in sourdough environments, not in flour and nature.

And - all this speculation about the where's why's and perhaps - once
you have a working starter and you like the bread, who cares?

For a home baker to really proof and know what organisms are doing the
good stuff is very much impossible.

A while ago, there was a fellow posting on this forum who had a
microbiology research friend and said he was going to get cultures
analyzed - he never showed up to report progress or results.

Samartha

PS.: you are still going on with this cult shit while I type this post.
I really think I am wasting my time here. Since I have this already
typed, I send it off. Maybe you can take a step back and have a look how
all this started, in particular if Dick's response with the chewing gum
was worth feeling to get "attacked" and start this nego charade.
Honestly, what kind of a guy are you having to do this?

--
remove -nospam from my email address, if there is one
SD page is the http://samartha.net/SD/

Kenneth wrote:

> ..."Dr." Wood... With regret, I cannot remember what his professional
> discipline is.
>

Pathology, If I recall correctly.


> ...As I learned more, my perspective on the book changed. I see it now
> as, essentially, a romantic recounting of his many fascinating
> excursions to "hunt the wild sourdoughs of the world."

Well worth reading as a romantic adventure story with a sourdough bread
theme. The earlier edition of the book, "World Sourdoughs From Antiquity"
is a much better adventure read because it contains more elaborated
accounts of his initial adventures finding out how the bakers in ancient
Egypt plied their trade. The Title "Classic Sourdoughs" is basically a
rewrite of the earlier book with the recipe section redone to reflect Dr.
Woods changed views on bread making.

I believe that there was more than one edition of the first title with
somewhat changed content. My copy is the 1996 10 Speed Press edition.

> The book is at its core, a marketing tool for his business selling
> these sourdough cultures. No criticism of the Woods for that. I
> mention it only to alert you to the fact that the book might better be
> evaluated as something other than the science it purports to be.

I find it well worth noting that the culture that Dr. Woods "caught" during
his Egyptian adventure with the National Geographic team is not sold. All
of the cultures sold and described in the book are cultures he obtained
from sourdough bakers around the world. He did not go aroung the world
''catching" microbes from the air

> ... I would also strongly recommend a book called "The Bread
> Builders" by a fellow named Dan Wing. ... His book is

> one of the very best I have seen. It is well written, interesting,
> supported by good science, and very practically oriented....

It is Indeed a very good book, remakable for it's lack of lies. However, I
would not recommend the book for a first read on sourdough. It has one
recipe. and a rank amateure is going to be lacking a frame of reference
for all the data and information presented. I do not believe it was
written for tha absolute beginner,

> Also, there were some interesting communications here between Wing and
> Ganzle that are certainly worth Googling for.

For some, a little of this knowledge will be dangerous. Better that they
spend some time at Samartha's or Mike's Website.

Regards,

Charles
--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

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

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:14:17 GMT, Charles Perry >
wrote:

>>Big Snip<<

> Better that they
>spend some time at Samartha's or Mike's Website.

Hi Charles,

I agree with all of your comments... and, in mine, intended no slight
to Mike's comments here, or at his fine site.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

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

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:36:08 -0700, Samartha Deva
> wrote:

>Does your book show what was necessary to reliably sterilize flour?

I have the 2001 edition according to the copyright.

>The older version of the book I have

It appears to be the first printing. ISBN: 1-58008-344-7

Note that this is not the "Antiquity" book, but is entitled as
indicated above in the subject line.

>shows: >= 500,000 rads for 12 hours
>to reliably sterilize flour. When doing sterilizations with 150,000 rads
>it would not sterilize the flour.

I have not read the entire book - the remaining chapters are just
recipes plus his thinly-veiled advertisement chapter. There is no
entry in the index under "sterile" or similar words.

>I have never questioned that one cannot "catch" organisms from the air.

You sure fooled me and a lot of other people. I recall you stating
unequivocally that anyone who believed in the myth of catching starter
organisms was a fool.

>That's incorrect. LB SF bacteria have been isolated from sourdoughs in
>USA, Italy and Germany (possibly other's as well). If you need to see
>the references, I can dig those out.

That's only one of two necessary organisms. What about the SF yeast,
if there is such a thing?

Also I notice you use the phrase "isolated from sourdoughs". That
tells us nothing about the origin of the starter organisms. Did they
originate in the flour? If so, how did the particular version from SF
get there?

Or are you saying that regional differences in starters is a myth too?

>And - flour is from the "environment" - fertilized and all.

Yes, like North Dakota. How does SF yeast exist in North Dakota flour?
If SF yeast is everywhere, then why call it SF yeast and make claims
that it can only be found in the SF region - as many people do? Why
would Ed Wood be marketing different starters if they all come from
the same common yeast organism, the one which is found in wheat from
North Dakota, the Ukrane, Bumfuk Egypt, et al.

Something about this does not compute.

>SF organisms are said to develop after a while - that being continuous
>refreshments for 3 weeks.

You are weasel wording. You use the term "SF organisms" as if you are
referring to both the LB and the yeast. I do not dispute the claim
that LB SF is everywhere. But if so, then SF yeast cannot be
everywhere, in particular in flour everywhere, because then there
would be no regional differences in starters.

>You have or had your organisms growing in your flour as I conclude from
>one of your posts where you saw tiny bubbles ( or something to this
>extent ).

The starters I attempted to make would never reach the stage where
they would bubble and expand. I fed one exactly as instructed for 5
full days and all it did was produce a few little bubbles, which could
have been from having stirred it - an outgassing of trapped air.

>Your posting style, in particular the phrases you used and the
>assumptions you made and posted about my web site and motives have made
>it impossible for me to respond in this manner I am able to do right now
>thanks to Kenneth's input.

How's it feel to have someone kick dirt back at you, bully.

>SF organisms don't occur "naturally" - well, at least so far they have
>not been isolated from anywhere else but sourdough. So, if you want to
>"catch" the LB SF from a flour bag, it would be a discovery if you are
>able to proof the existence or most likely a flop. LB SF's are
>specialized in sourdough environments, not in flour and nature.

Now it appears you are changing your tune radically. Earlier you made
it very clear that starter organisms come solely from the flour. Now
you appear to be saying that is not the case.

What is this new terminology "sourdough environment"? What does that
mean? This is the first time I have ever heard reference made to a
"sourdough environment".

>And - all this speculation about the where's why's and perhaps - once
>you have a working starter and you like the bread, who cares?

Because I do not like to be led on merry chases, that's why.

You post a recipe which you make look easy. But it is everything but
easy, in fact in my case it is impossible. I tried 4 different flours
and not one of them started successfully. I followed the instructions
on your website to the last detail.

Why didn't you bother to let people know the exact details of the rye
flour you used? All you say is: "buy/get full grain rye flour". Wood
is willing to concede that "freshly ground organic flour" might start
on its own without any help from the environment. In fact I am about
to leave for the Whole Foods Market to see if I can get them to
freshly mill some organic wheat and rye flour from berries.

I really do want to be able to make a starter from flour alone because
I do not like capturing wild organisms from the atmosphere in one of
the dirtiest cities in the world. I could easily end up with an
organic solvent. And I would rather not have to depend on starters
from others because of the problems with getting them going. That's
why I invested so much time and effort in trying to get a flour-based
starter going.

>PS.: you are still going on with this cult shit while I type this post.
>I really think I am wasting my time here. Since I have this already
>typed, I send it off. Maybe you can take a step back and have a look how
>all this started, in particular if Dick's response with the chewing gum
>was worth feeling to get "attacked" and start this nego charade.

That smart ass crack was uncalled for and set the stage for subsequent
hostilities. If the purpose of this forum is to serve as a place where
newcomers will be attacked on their very first post, then this place
really sucks.

>Honestly, what kind of a guy are you having to do this?

I am a Texan. We don't take any crap off of anybody - as Saddam
Hussein just learned the hard way.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:36:08 -0700, Samartha Deva
> wrote:

>Does your book show what was necessary to reliably sterilize flour?

I have the 2001 edition according to the copyright.

>The older version of the book I have

It appears to be the first printing. ISBN: 1-58008-344-7

Note that this is not the "Antiquity" book, but is entitled as
indicated above in the subject line.

>shows: >= 500,000 rads for 12 hours
>to reliably sterilize flour. When doing sterilizations with 150,000 rads
>it would not sterilize the flour.

I have not read the entire book - the remaining chapters are just
recipes plus his thinly-veiled advertisement chapter. There is no
entry in the index under "sterile" or similar words.

>I have never questioned that one cannot "catch" organisms from the air.

You sure fooled me and a lot of other people. I recall you stating
unequivocally that anyone who believed in the myth of catching starter
organisms was a fool.

>That's incorrect. LB SF bacteria have been isolated from sourdoughs in
>USA, Italy and Germany (possibly other's as well). If you need to see
>the references, I can dig those out.

That's only one of two necessary organisms. What about the SF yeast,
if there is such a thing?

Also I notice you use the phrase "isolated from sourdoughs". That
tells us nothing about the origin of the starter organisms. Did they
originate in the flour? If so, how did the particular version from SF
get there?

Or are you saying that regional differences in starters is a myth too?

>And - flour is from the "environment" - fertilized and all.

Yes, like North Dakota. How does SF yeast exist in North Dakota flour?
If SF yeast is everywhere, then why call it SF yeast and make claims
that it can only be found in the SF region - as many people do? Why
would Ed Wood be marketing different starters if they all come from
the same common yeast organism, the one which is found in wheat from
North Dakota, the Ukrane, Bumfuk Egypt, et al.

Something about this does not compute.

>SF organisms are said to develop after a while - that being continuous
>refreshments for 3 weeks.

You are weasel wording. You use the term "SF organisms" as if you are
referring to both the LB and the yeast. I do not dispute the claim
that LB SF is everywhere. But if so, then SF yeast cannot be
everywhere, in particular in flour everywhere, because then there
would be no regional differences in starters.

>You have or had your organisms growing in your flour as I conclude from
>one of your posts where you saw tiny bubbles ( or something to this
>extent ).

The starters I attempted to make would never reach the stage where
they would bubble and expand. I fed one exactly as instructed for 5
full days and all it did was produce a few little bubbles, which could
have been from having stirred it - an outgassing of trapped air.

>Your posting style, in particular the phrases you used and the
>assumptions you made and posted about my web site and motives have made
>it impossible for me to respond in this manner I am able to do right now
>thanks to Kenneth's input.

How's it feel to have someone kick dirt back at you, bully.

>SF organisms don't occur "naturally" - well, at least so far they have
>not been isolated from anywhere else but sourdough. So, if you want to
>"catch" the LB SF from a flour bag, it would be a discovery if you are
>able to proof the existence or most likely a flop. LB SF's are
>specialized in sourdough environments, not in flour and nature.

Now it appears you are changing your tune radically. Earlier you made
it very clear that starter organisms come solely from the flour. Now
you appear to be saying that is not the case.

What is this new terminology "sourdough environment"? What does that
mean? This is the first time I have ever heard reference made to a
"sourdough environment".

>And - all this speculation about the where's why's and perhaps - once
>you have a working starter and you like the bread, who cares?

Because I do not like to be led on merry chases, that's why.

You post a recipe which you make look easy. But it is everything but
easy, in fact in my case it is impossible. I tried 4 different flours
and not one of them started successfully. I followed the instructions
on your website to the last detail.

Why didn't you bother to let people know the exact details of the rye
flour you used? All you say is: "buy/get full grain rye flour". Wood
is willing to concede that "freshly ground organic flour" might start
on its own without any help from the environment. In fact I am about
to leave for the Whole Foods Market to see if I can get them to
freshly mill some organic wheat and rye flour from berries.

I really do want to be able to make a starter from flour alone because
I do not like capturing wild organisms from the atmosphere in one of
the dirtiest cities in the world. I could easily end up with an
organic solvent. And I would rather not have to depend on starters
from others because of the problems with getting them going. That's
why I invested so much time and effort in trying to get a flour-based
starter going.

>PS.: you are still going on with this cult shit while I type this post.
>I really think I am wasting my time here. Since I have this already
>typed, I send it off. Maybe you can take a step back and have a look how
>all this started, in particular if Dick's response with the chewing gum
>was worth feeling to get "attacked" and start this nego charade.

That smart ass crack was uncalled for and set the stage for subsequent
hostilities. If the purpose of this forum is to serve as a place where
newcomers will be attacked on their very first post, then this place
really sucks.

>Honestly, what kind of a guy are you having to do this?

I am a Texan. We don't take any crap off of anybody - as Saddam
Hussein just learned the hard way.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:36:08 -0700, Samartha Deva
> wrote:

>Does your book show what was necessary to reliably sterilize flour?

I have the 2001 edition according to the copyright.

>The older version of the book I have

It appears to be the first printing. ISBN: 1-58008-344-7

Note that this is not the "Antiquity" book, but is entitled as
indicated above in the subject line.

>shows: >= 500,000 rads for 12 hours
>to reliably sterilize flour. When doing sterilizations with 150,000 rads
>it would not sterilize the flour.

I have not read the entire book - the remaining chapters are just
recipes plus his thinly-veiled advertisement chapter. There is no
entry in the index under "sterile" or similar words.

>I have never questioned that one cannot "catch" organisms from the air.

You sure fooled me and a lot of other people. I recall you stating
unequivocally that anyone who believed in the myth of catching starter
organisms was a fool.

>That's incorrect. LB SF bacteria have been isolated from sourdoughs in
>USA, Italy and Germany (possibly other's as well). If you need to see
>the references, I can dig those out.

That's only one of two necessary organisms. What about the SF yeast,
if there is such a thing?

Also I notice you use the phrase "isolated from sourdoughs". That
tells us nothing about the origin of the starter organisms. Did they
originate in the flour? If so, how did the particular version from SF
get there?

Or are you saying that regional differences in starters is a myth too?

>And - flour is from the "environment" - fertilized and all.

Yes, like North Dakota. How does SF yeast exist in North Dakota flour?
If SF yeast is everywhere, then why call it SF yeast and make claims
that it can only be found in the SF region - as many people do? Why
would Ed Wood be marketing different starters if they all come from
the same common yeast organism, the one which is found in wheat from
North Dakota, the Ukrane, Bumfuk Egypt, et al.

Something about this does not compute.

>SF organisms are said to develop after a while - that being continuous
>refreshments for 3 weeks.

You are weasel wording. You use the term "SF organisms" as if you are
referring to both the LB and the yeast. I do not dispute the claim
that LB SF is everywhere. But if so, then SF yeast cannot be
everywhere, in particular in flour everywhere, because then there
would be no regional differences in starters.

>You have or had your organisms growing in your flour as I conclude from
>one of your posts where you saw tiny bubbles ( or something to this
>extent ).

The starters I attempted to make would never reach the stage where
they would bubble and expand. I fed one exactly as instructed for 5
full days and all it did was produce a few little bubbles, which could
have been from having stirred it - an outgassing of trapped air.

>Your posting style, in particular the phrases you used and the
>assumptions you made and posted about my web site and motives have made
>it impossible for me to respond in this manner I am able to do right now
>thanks to Kenneth's input.

How's it feel to have someone kick dirt back at you, bully.

>SF organisms don't occur "naturally" - well, at least so far they have
>not been isolated from anywhere else but sourdough. So, if you want to
>"catch" the LB SF from a flour bag, it would be a discovery if you are
>able to proof the existence or most likely a flop. LB SF's are
>specialized in sourdough environments, not in flour and nature.

Now it appears you are changing your tune radically. Earlier you made
it very clear that starter organisms come solely from the flour. Now
you appear to be saying that is not the case.

What is this new terminology "sourdough environment"? What does that
mean? This is the first time I have ever heard reference made to a
"sourdough environment".

>And - all this speculation about the where's why's and perhaps - once
>you have a working starter and you like the bread, who cares?

Because I do not like to be led on merry chases, that's why.

You post a recipe which you make look easy. But it is everything but
easy, in fact in my case it is impossible. I tried 4 different flours
and not one of them started successfully. I followed the instructions
on your website to the last detail.

Why didn't you bother to let people know the exact details of the rye
flour you used? All you say is: "buy/get full grain rye flour". Wood
is willing to concede that "freshly ground organic flour" might start
on its own without any help from the environment. In fact I am about
to leave for the Whole Foods Market to see if I can get them to
freshly mill some organic wheat and rye flour from berries.

I really do want to be able to make a starter from flour alone because
I do not like capturing wild organisms from the atmosphere in one of
the dirtiest cities in the world. I could easily end up with an
organic solvent. And I would rather not have to depend on starters
from others because of the problems with getting them going. That's
why I invested so much time and effort in trying to get a flour-based
starter going.

>PS.: you are still going on with this cult shit while I type this post.
>I really think I am wasting my time here. Since I have this already
>typed, I send it off. Maybe you can take a step back and have a look how
>all this started, in particular if Dick's response with the chewing gum
>was worth feeling to get "attacked" and start this nego charade.

That smart ass crack was uncalled for and set the stage for subsequent
hostilities. If the purpose of this forum is to serve as a place where
newcomers will be attacked on their very first post, then this place
really sucks.

>Honestly, what kind of a guy are you having to do this?

I am a Texan. We don't take any crap off of anybody - as Saddam
Hussein just learned the hard way.

Bob wrote:
...
> How's it feel to have someone kick dirt back at you, bully.
...
> Because I do not like to be led on merry chases, that's why.
....
> That smart ass crack was uncalled for and set the stage for subsequent
> hostilities.
....
> I am a Texan. We don't take any crap off of anybody - as Saddam
> Hussein just learned the hard way.
...
You set the stage again, I am wasting my time. Have a nice day.

Samartha

--
remove -nospam from my email address, if there is one
SD page is the http://samartha.net/SD/

"Bob" > wrote in message =
...

> I am a Texan. We don't take any crap off of anybody - as Saddam
Hussein just learned the hard way.

"Bob" > wrote in message =
...

> I am a Texan. We don't take any crap off of anybody - as Saddam
Hussein just learned the hard way.

"Bob" > wrote in message =
...

> I am a Texan. We don't take any crap off of anybody - as Saddam
Hussein just learned the hard way.

Yeah, Bob, you are a Texan. You Texans do not take any crap off
of anybody. Probably even Saddam has heard about you by now.
Sometimes you Texans say the same dumb thing more than once.

160+ r.f.s. posts, many crossposted, and counting, in less than=20
three weeks. Nobody has ever posted more densely than that
at r.f.s.

--=20
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname>at bigfoot dot com =20

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:54:34 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote:

>160+ r.f.s. posts, many crossposted, and counting, in less than=20
>three weeks. Nobody has ever posted more densely than that
>at r.f.s.

There is always a first time for everything.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:13:06 -0700, Samartha Deva
> wrote:

>You set the stage again, I am wasting my time.

Running away again, eh.

Ignoramus19657 wrote:
>
> Try to define the purpose of you posting here.
>
> Is it to prove your superiority or to get some benefit through better
> bread making? If the former, you can continue posting as you. If it is
> the latter, you need to reconsider why the apparent need to alienate
> so many posters.

Always a rational voice "i"....

and along with Darrel I ask that those who are alienated not try to do
continuing battle. It'll simply add to the noise. As they say in
another group, "ignore. That means, REALLY ignore."

B/

On 26 Oct 2003 19:53:58 GMT, Ignoramus19657
> wrote:

>In article >, Bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:13:06 -0700, Samartha Deva
> wrote:
>>
>>>You set the stage again, I am wasting my time.
>>
>> Running away again, eh.

>Try to define the purpose of you posting here.
>
>Is it to prove your superiority or to get some benefit through better
>bread making? If the former, you can continue posting as you. If it is
>the latter, you need to reconsider why the apparent need to alienate
>so many posters.
>
>I also ran into the dumber members of this newsgroup such as dick
>Adams, and they are firmly in my killfile as he is unable to say
>anything of value. However many other posters may be brash, but they
>do have something valuable to say from time to time.

Yeah, things are getting a bit overdone. For my part I have pledged
that I will not reply to anyone who flames me, either directly or
indirectly.

I have started a new thread in which I plan to report my latest
experiment so people who are interested can see what I am doing and
comment along the way. I am sure some people believe I am doing
something wrong - and it is very likely that I am - so this will give
them a chance to comment each step of the way.

It is my sincerest hope that this new thread will be instructive for
those who participate. None of this rancor would have happened if it
weren't for one insignificant troll using my first post as an
opportunity to jump me for no good reason.

If the regular posters want their forum to remain focused, then you
have to chase obvious trolls off whenever they cause trouble. I am
sorry if some of you got the wrong impression about me - I am not a
troll. But I do not turn the other cheek either.

Enough said - let's see how this latest experiment turns out.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:56:38 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

>It is my sincerest hope that this new thread will be instructive for
>those who participate. None of this rancor would have happened if it
>weren't for one insignificant troll using my first post as an
>opportunity to jump me for no good reason.
>
>If the regular posters want their forum to remain focused, then you
>have to chase obvious trolls off whenever they cause trouble. I am
>sorry if some of you got the wrong impression about me - I am not a
>troll. But I do not turn the other cheek either.

Hi Bob,

You are remarkably skillful, and I hope that others see that as well.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

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

"Bob" > wrote in message=20
...

> I have started a new thread in which I plan to report my latest
> experiment so people who are interested can see what I am doing and
> comment along the way. I am sure some people believe I am doing
> something wrong - and it is very likely that I am - so this will give
> them a chance to comment each step of the way.

Why don't you set it up with webcam on a web site. Then, if we=20
already know what is going to happen, we can choose not to watch=20
it.

> ... None of this rancor would have happened if it weren't for=20
> one insignificant troll using my first post as an opportunity to=20
> jump me for no good reason.

You mean me, I guess. More of a duty than an opportunity, I'd=20
say. Well, I am just an early responder. The good reason is pretty=20
obvious by now, and it is even better than could have been guessed.

> If the regular posters want their forum to remain focused, then you
have to chase obvious trolls off whenever they cause trouble.

Just who is that addressed to? The regular ones have you killfiled.
Except Kenneth. Kenneth likes you. So does Igno.

> Enough said - let's see how this latest experiment turns out.

Pins and needles!

--=20
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname>at bigfoot dot com

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:50:01 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:34:41 -0500, ° > wrote:
>
>>I agree, I have made my own starter from scratch with great success.
>>I used unbleached all purpose flour and water from my reverse osmosis
>>system to filter out all of the chlorine of course. And it took about
>>two weeks to get the taste well developed, but as it turns out my
>>starter is a great success.
>
>How did you get the culture started?
>
I mixed 1 Cup of Unbleached flour and 1/2 cup water and let it sit in
my window sill for a couple of days. "Probably not catching wild yeast
but not adding a package of store bought either." Then I kept removing
some and adding more water and flour about every 18 hours for a week
or so. When it had a massive amout of bubbles I poured it into a jar
and put it in the refrigerator. I was traveling so much then that I
would be home for two days every two weeks. When I was home I would
take it out and feed it. I did not actually make a loaf of braed until
about two months after it was started. I was afraid to eat it until I
knew that the yeast and the lactobacilli were the only two things in
that jar. I had no way to verify it, but if it could live for two
weeks without being fed and then show signs of life after coming out
of the fridge then I figured it was ok to eat. Smells and Taste great.

Mark
Need a proofing box:
http://members.cox.net/hebertcooking/proofing_box.htm