I'm interested in empirical observations and theoretical pontifications
on the difference between (for example) feeding double every 12 hours or
quadruple every 24 hours.

"Hans Fugal" > wrote in message ...
> I'm interested in empirical observations and theoretical pontifications
> on the difference between (for example) feeding double every 12 hours or
> quadruple every 24 hours.

I am not a pontificator*, and have difficulty visualizing breadmaking as a
theoretical endeavor. With regard to starter refreshment, the answer is
to refresh when the time is right. (NB: the time depends on the temperature.)

A way to know when that time comes is to maintain the starter as a
slack dough. When it rises to an extent that pleases you, it is time
to add more flour and water in some amount that satisfies you but
maintains the original consistency.

I have recorded the way I do it, FWIIW, at
http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/dickpics/starter.html
By repetitive empirical process, I have become convinced
that sourdough loaves can be effectively started in that manner.

--
Dicky

________________________________________
*at least, not in any constructive way ...

Hans Fugal wrote:
> I'm interested in empirical observations and theoretical pontifications
> on the difference between (for example) feeding double every 12 hours or
> quadruple every 24 hours.
>
Is this a Troll question?

Sam

> _______________________________________________
> Rec.food.sourdough mailing list
>
> http://www.mountainbitwarrior.com/ma...food.sourdough
>
>

Sam wrote:
> Hans Fugal wrote:
>> I'm interested in empirical observations and theoretical pontifications
>> on the difference between (for example) feeding double every 12 hours or
>> quadruple every 24 hours.
>>
> Is this a Troll question?
>
> Sam

No, not at all. I've got better things to do than troll Dick. I
intentionally withheld my pontifications to not taint the responses, but
I have some ideas and plan to try them out and see what comes of it. I'm
curious what others think and/or have observed.

Hans Fugal wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>> Hans Fugal wrote:
>>> I'm interested in empirical observations and theoretical pontifications
>>> on the difference between (for example) feeding double every 12 hours or
>>> quadruple every 24 hours.
>>>
>> Is this a Troll question?
>>
>> Sam
>
> No, not at all. I've got better things to do than troll Dick. I
> intentionally withheld my pontifications to not taint the responses, but
> I have some ideas and plan to try them out and see what comes of it. I'm
> curious what others think and/or have observed.

I probably am still not coming across very well. My basic question is
why feed double every 12 hours and not quadruple every 24 hours? Is it
the same thing, or different? If different, why and/or in what way?

Hans Fugal wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>
>> Hans Fugal wrote:
>>
>>> I'm interested in empirical observations and theoretical pontifications
>>> on the difference between (for example) feeding double every 12 hours or
>>> quadruple every 24 hours.
>>>
>>>
>> Is this a Troll question?
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> No, not at all. I've got better things to do than troll Dick.
That has to be shown.
> I
> intentionally withheld my pontifications to not taint the responses, but
> I have some ideas and plan to try them out and see what comes of it. I'm
> curious what others think and/or have observed.
>
Ok - but the question is so open-ended like: let's talk about the sky...

you asked about doubling every 12 hours:

0 2
12 4
24 8
36 16

or quadruple every 24 hours:

0 2
24 8
36 16

in essence the same amounts.

Then what? Add temperature as factor:

two instances:

21 C and 32 C

12 routine at 21, you may get along somehow
12 routine at 32, you may overferment

24 routine you may overferment in both cases.

Totally unconsidered is original condition of your starter.
If it's halfway decent, you overferment with doubling in 12 hours in any
case of those two temperatures.

Totally unconsidered is type of flour - high-ash or low-ash

What is your actual application?
Who would double in 12 hours?

With your:
> I
> intentionally withheld my pontifications to not taint the responses
pontifications: To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.

If you want to preach then preach and don't fish!


Sam

Sam wrote:

>> No, not at all. I've got better things to do than troll Dick.
> That has to be shown.

Fair enough, from your perspective. It's quite conclusive on my end.

> you asked about doubling every 12 hours:
>
> 0 2
> 12 4
> 24 8
> 36 16
>
> or quadruple every 24 hours:
>
> 0 2
> 24 8
> 36 16
>
> in essence the same amounts.

Right, the same amount of food and initial inoculation.

> Then what? Add temperature as factor:

Let's assume that doubling at 12 hours is ideal at room temperature, but
the number 12 is not magical here. It could be 6 or 8 or 10. I picked
double every 12 hours because that's what the FAQ says. Obviously it
will vary depending on the start in question, temperature, hydration,
starter health... but let's hold all those other variables constant.


> 24 routine you may overferment in both cases.

So my question is why with the same initial inoculation and the same
amount of food, would you overferment with one feeding and not
overferment with two feedings? Does it have to do with initial
sluggishness after a feeding? Acid levels?


> Totally unconsidered is type of flour - high-ash or low-ash

Again let's hold it constant.

> What is your actual application?

I usually keep my start in the fridge between uses (I use it once a week
or so), and use it straight from the fridge. Results are usually
satisfactory but ad hoc and not predictable. If I understand correctly,
refreshing the start before use, or keeping it well-maintained on the
countertop are ways to make it predictable and vigorous. But I'd rather
feed once a day than twice (or more) and I wonder whether I could just
feed it more once a day instead of less twice a day - and if not then why?

> Who would double in 12 hours?

That's what the FAQ says. (Or at least, one of the things it says.)


> With your:
>> I
>> intentionally withheld my pontifications to not taint the responses
> pontifications: To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.
>
> If you want to preach then preach and don't fish!

Ok, I used the wrong word. I guess I meant "ponderation" but that sounds
ridiculous so let's say "thoughts on the matter" or even "speculation".


Thanks

Hans Fugal wrote:
> [..]
> I probably am still not coming across very well. My basic question is
> why feed double every 12 hours and not quadruple every 24 hours? Is it
> the same thing, or different?
No, it's not the same - time is different, flour multiplication is
different.
> If different, why and/or in what way?
>

The end points between the two are different due to the longer
fermentation and different flour multiplication amounts.

Flour multiplication is a factor influencing fermentation.

If the critters have more food (in the quadrupling case), they make up
for it and multiply more.
(Source - probably Michael Glaenzle somewhere)
http://samartha.net/SD/docs/DW-post1-4n.html#418

It is a different ball game with your two cases.

With the 12 hours in doubling going into overfermentation - I take as a
reference my Detmold 3-Stage calculations:

http://samartha.net/cgi-bin/SD-Dtm-3-03.cgi

flour multiplications:

6 hour factor is 4.8 times, 4.8 / 6 = 0.8
24 hour factor is 13 times 13 / 24 = 0.54
3 hour factor is 3.5 times. 3.5 / 3 = 1.17

yours:

12 hour 2 times 2/12 = 0.16

you see the wide discrepancy in your doubling in 12 hours and the
factors above - that's with rye flour with probably higher ash content
than white flour.

The FAQ can say what it wants. It helped me a lot when starting with SD
but one had to pick what information to use. It was partially contradicting.

I give the guys at the former Potato and Fat Institute in
Detmold/Germany more credit in figuring this out than the FAQ and can
probably dig out a couple of other procedures where it is similar in
flour multiplication and fermentation times.

Makes more sense?

You should try it and see if you can see a difference.

Sam

Mo
> I usually keep my start in the fridge between uses (I use it once a week
> or so), and use it straight from the fridge. Results are usually
> satisfactory but ad hoc and not predictable. If I understand correctly,
> refreshing the start before use, or keeping it well-maintained on the
> countertop are ways to make it predictable and vigorous. But I'd rather
> feed once a day than twice (or more) and I wonder whether I could just
> feed it more once a day instead of less twice a day - and if not then why?
I know the calamities you are in and forgot pretty much all I did before
with the trying to figure out a good way to make a good, predictable
starter.
Tripling three times seems to work. Doubling within a shorter time too.
But then there are all the variables in temperature, guessing (or
"feeling) when it is right to get to the next stage or make the bread.

I do the DM-3Stage and that just takes care of everything. I sometimes
had starter left over and kept it in the fridge for a week, then doubled
and let it get active again - no longer since the result is different.
Earlier, I figured that a one-week old starter out of DM3St. could be
used a week later - even two weeks with reduced quality and very sluggish.
All those situations I am avoiding now by using up all the starter right
away, keeping little containers with 35 g in the fridge for 6 month to
have some kind of backup.

Hans Fugal wrote:
>
> I probably am still not coming across very well. My basic question is
> why feed double every 12 hours and not quadruple every 24 hours? Is it
> the same thing, or different? If different, why and/or in what way?

I find my starter will get too sour if I use 24 hour feeds and then in
only makes really heavy bread.

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:59:35 -0600, Sam
> wrote:

>All those situations I am avoiding now by using up all the starter right
>away, keeping little containers with 35 g in the fridge for 6 month to
>have some kind of backup.
>

Hi Sam,

In what form can you get a safe 6 months out of your backup?

That is, what's in those containers?

Thanks,
--
Kenneth

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

Hi Kenneth,


Kenneth wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:59:35 -0600, Sam
> > wrote:
>
>
>> All those situations I am avoiding now by using up all the starter right
>> away, keeping little containers with 35 g in the fridge for 6 month to
>> have some kind of backup.
>>
>>
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> In what form can you get a safe 6 months out of your backup?
>
> That is, what's in those containers?
>
A - 1/2 cup 118 mg 4 oz zip loc containers - 6 per starter
B - 35 g of Vollsauer (3rd stage of 3-Stage Detmold procedure) in a
container

Containers are in series - last one goes away, a new one goes on top.

Whenever I bake - usually once a month, I use the youngest container
content, take the few grams (10 or so) and grow a new starter from it.
Remainder goes back into the fridge.

When it's ready, I.discard the content of the last (oldest) storage
container and put 35 g into a new (sterilized) container in the fridge.

I maintain two starters in that manner in two different fridges.

With one container - as example 30 g used, I could get up to 6500 g of
starter which would give me over 17 kg of 60 % rye bread dough. With a
20 % rye bread dough, I would get over 52 kg. That's all way beyond
what I am and can be doing right now.

How far did I ever have to go back? I think it was 4 months at one point
when I was traveling.
I did two runs of starter growing in shorter sequence one only a week
after the first run.

From what I see how this went up to now I'd say that going back 6 month
would work with some extra effort - doing maybe 3 runs in shorter
sequence and maybe a bit longer rising times with the bread dough in the
first run.

More correct would be that starters of 6 generations of baking events
are kept back. But since I am baking about once a month, it just works
out that way most of the time.

Sam

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:27:16 -0600, Sam
> wrote:

>Hi Kenneth,
>
>
>Kenneth wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:59:35 -0600, Sam
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> All those situations I am avoiding now by using up all the starter right
>>> away, keeping little containers with 35 g in the fridge for 6 month to
>>> have some kind of backup.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> In what form can you get a safe 6 months out of your backup?
>>
>> That is, what's in those containers?
>>
>A - 1/2 cup 118 mg 4 oz zip loc containers - 6 per starter
>B - 35 g of Vollsauer (3rd stage of 3-Stage Detmold procedure) in a
>container
>
>Containers are in series - last one goes away, a new one goes on top.
>
>Whenever I bake - usually once a month, I use the youngest container
>content, take the few grams (10 or so) and grow a new starter from it.
>Remainder goes back into the fridge.
>
>When it's ready, I.discard the content of the last (oldest) storage
>container and put 35 g into a new (sterilized) container in the fridge.
>
>I maintain two starters in that manner in two different fridges.
>
>With one container - as example 30 g used, I could get up to 6500 g of
>starter which would give me over 17 kg of 60 % rye bread dough. With a
>20 % rye bread dough, I would get over 52 kg. That's all way beyond
>what I am and can be doing right now.
>
>How far did I ever have to go back? I think it was 4 months at one point
>when I was traveling.
>I did two runs of starter growing in shorter sequence one only a week
>after the first run.
>
> From what I see how this went up to now I'd say that going back 6 month
>would work with some extra effort - doing maybe 3 runs in shorter
>sequence and maybe a bit longer rising times with the bread dough in the
>first run.
>
>More correct would be that starters of 6 generations of baking events
>are kept back. But since I am baking about once a month, it just works
>out that way most of the time.
>
>Sam
>
>
Hi again Sam,

Thanks for the information, but my question remains:

Is the starter you save just as you might use it? Or does it
have (for example) added flour to allow it to have more to
eat as it "waits" to be used?

Thanks again,
--
Kenneth

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

Kenneth wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:27:16 -0600, Sam
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Kenneth,
>>
>>
>> Kenneth wrote:
>>
[..]
> Hi again Sam,
>
> Thanks for the information, but my question remains:
>
> Is the starter you save just as you might use it? Or does it
> have (for example) added flour to allow it to have more to
> eat as it "waits" to be used?
>
> Thanks again,
>
That's the "storage leaven Anstellgut Chef Madre"

http://samartha.net/SD/SourdoughDefinition.html#SEC7

The starter piece for the next run of starter growing. 35 g won't go
far to make a final dough. I would get 100 g bread dough at 60 % rye and
280 g bread with 20 % rye.

If you look the DM-3Stage calculator on my web page, you see the whole
starter growing process

in from fridge (storage leaven from last time)
1
2
3 - full sour
out to fridge - 35 g (storage leaven)
remainder (whatever was grown - 2, 3, 4 kg of starter) goes into mixing
the dough
then rise 1
rise 2
bake

As I said in the other post - I experimented with the full sour (after
stage 3) and kept it in the fridge for 1 and two weeks.

Result was not so great - it was good bread but the hydration had to be
reduced by one or 2 % because the full sour got more wet in the meantime
and it took longer rising times.

So - ! figured 1 week in the fridge would be ok with the adjusted
hydration but why bother? If I bake, I won't bake next week again.

Also, with this procedure, the starter has a so-called "standing time"
of 4 hours that's the time within it should get used up.
Within 4 hours - the quality of the starter changes noticeable, so I try
to be quick and use it up as quickly as I can and I stage the two
starters one after the other in time so an unnecessary longer delay is
avoided.

Is it now answered?


Sam

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:29:43 -0600, Sam
> wrote:

>
>Is it now answered?
>
>
>Sam
>
>
>
>

Yup, and many thanks for the great information,
--
Kenneth

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

"Hans Fugal" > wrote in message ...

> My basic question is why feed double every 12 hours and not
> quadruple every 24 hours? Is it the same thing, or different?
> If different, why and/or in what way?

Arbitrary intervals are inappropriate. Here is the experiment I
would do:

Normally I grow up a starter from a dab of fridge culture as follows:
Suspend a dab of fridge culture in 2 oz. water and 1 oz. flour.
Incubate it for about 8 hours at 85°F. until it rises appreciably.
Mix in 4 oz. water and 2 oz. flour.
Incubate again until substantial rising occurs, like maybe 6 hours.
Stir it down and let it rise again (now may take 3 hours)
Make dough

Now 17 hours have passed, and I have used 6 oz. water and 3 oz. flour.
(Actually, I have probably used more than 3 oz. of flour because I made
the mixture by adding enough flour to start with a stiff mixture, stiff enough
so that it would stand up on its own.)

Note well: the endpoints are determined by rise, not clock minutes.

My experiment would be to suspend the original dab of fridge culture
in the same amount of water (6 oz.) and flour (3 oz. or whatever), mix
and incubate at the same temperature (85°F.) and see if I get a starter
so active as the one made in my usual way.

In other words, I would compare the active starter prepared in steps
with one done straight through, with the same amount of ingredients,
but without the manipulations.

From years of experience I already know the answer. The way I do it
produces a very active starter, and the straight-through method would
not.

So I am not going to do the experiment, as, substantially, it repeats history.

But you could, if you wanted to. Using arbitrary incubation intervals would
introduce further confusion.

I am not propagating a culture in this way, I am growing up an active starter.
Perhaps your question relates to propagation. Continual propagation of
a culture by doubling, quadrupling, whatever, leads to stupidly large volumes
of culture.

--
Dicky

Sam wrote:
> The end points between the two are different due to the longer
> fermentation and different flour multiplication amounts.
>
> Flour multiplication is a factor influencing fermentation.
>
> If the critters have more food (in the quadrupling case), they make up
> for it and multiply more.
> (Source - probably Michael Glaenzle somewhere)
> http://samartha.net/SD/docs/DW-post1-4n.html#418

Thanks for the information. That's exactly the sort of thing I wondered
if I didn't know.

Dick Adams wrote:
> In other words, I would compare the active starter prepared in steps
> with one done straight through, with the same amount of ingredients,
> but without the manipulations.
>
> From years of experience I already know the answer. The way I do it
> produces a very active starter, and the straight-through method would
> not.

> So I am not going to do the experiment, as, substantially, it repeats history.

I'll take your word for it indeed, because I know you've done the legwork.

I am curious as to why this is though, if anyone knows the answer. Is it
that the initial inoculation in the straight dough method isn't as
healthy? What if it were? If I took a small amount of the start built up
as you describe and used it to inoculate a straight dough loaf, would it
perform similarly (besides taking a bit longer to rise - 1 generation
time for each halving of the inoculation if I read Ganzle correctly)?


> I am not propagating a culture in this way, I am growing up an active starter.
> Perhaps your question relates to propagation. Continual propagation of
> a culture by doubling, quadrupling, whatever, leads to stupidly large volumes
> of culture.

Actually my question was indeed about propogation. I wouldn't make gobs
of the stuff, I'd throw away that tsp every feeding to keep things
small, because I'm not keen on wasting flour or dealing with large
amounts of starter. As I told Samartha, I have so far been just feeding
it and sticking it in the fridge for a week or two until the next time I
use it. How do you propogate your culture?

Hans Fugal wrote:

> How do you propogate your culture?

The easy way.

When I scale the dough into separate pieces for final proof, I retain
a small piece (size of walnut) for the next batch. It goes back into
the bulk proof bucket, which goes to the cellar.

"Hans Fugal" > wrote in message ...
> ... If I took a small amount of the start built up as you describe and
> used it to inoculate a straight dough loaf, would it perform similarly
> (besides taking a bit longer to rise) ...

Say you were going to sell magazines (or prosleytize for Jesus, or whatever).
Would you walk from door to door yourself, or train up a bunch of coworkers?
Now, if you let each of the coworkers each train a bunch of cooworkers, you
can begin to get the idea.

> How do you propogate your culture?

It is included in this. I may have mentioned this before.
http://home.att.net/~carlsfriends/dickpics/starter.html

--
Dicky

Hans Fugal wrote:
> I am curious as to why this is though, if anyone knows the answer. Is it
> that the initial inoculation in the straight dough method isn't as
> healthy? What if it were? If I took a small amount of the start built up
> as you describe and used it to inoculate a straight dough loaf, would it
> perform similarly (besides taking a bit longer to rise - 1 generation
> time for each halving of the inoculation if I read Ganzle correctly)?
>
>
Yes - there is a way.

You need one of those tiny training sticks to train the critters.

Separate your sourdough into 2 equal parts. The part you intend to use
for one step growth - put it in a jar on the kitchen table, stand
straight in front of it, wave the training stick counter clock-wise and
shout: "You gotta shape up!" three times.

Then do your normal mixing, but every 3 hours - put the jar in front of
you and do the waving and shouting.

You'll probably have to grow this batch several times with this
procedure - but once you succeed, you have the only sourdough starter
in the world which works with one propagation the same way as with three.

Once you have it, you should patent it and become very rich from it
because all sourdough bakeries can have pure baker's yeast free
sourdough breads with one propagation of their starter and save a lot of
time and money making good bread.

Sam