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

>.If you say that word( which implies incompetence) to a passionate
>practicing baker doing his stuff, you may not be able to get out of the
>bakery alive<g>.
>You really have to work in the bakery in order to gain insight how
>these people think.

Fortunately for me, I do work in a bakery and I do consider myself a
passionate baker. Not all professional bakers think the same. I can
understand why one would wish to add yeast to his sourdough, whether out of
fear that it might not rise, or to increase efficiency (i.e. speed of
production). However, sourdough is what it is, and if speed is what is
desired then sourdough is not the method to use. If the reason for using
yeast is to get an assured rise, then sourdough is not a bread the baker
should be making, as he has little confidence in his starter. And if someone
came in to my bakery and suggested I add yeast to my sourdough, then that
person might not get out of my bakery alive.

>I would say that a hobbyist baker have different perspective with
>regards to bakery production( artisanal and industrial) but a bakery
>technologist had no bias against the opposite camps.
>But find that there is a merit in both breadmaking styles. As that is
>what the bakers world is all about.
>It is just bread anyway, plain and simple. ..
>A true professional do not put emotion on those issues, it is just
>part of the days job.

Hobbyists do have a different perspective. Many professional bakers bake
because that is just what they ended up doing and they stick to their career
path. But hobbyists bake because they enjoy baking. That passion for baking
and desire to keep learning is something that the professionals can learn
from. For that reason, i feel that a "true" professional should put emotion
into all issues of breadmaking. If there's no emotion behind what he does
then it's just another day to day job -- certainly nothing to take pride in.

>I would say that some sourdough bakes were hobbyist before, but if they
>persisted with just being mere hobbyist they never could have deepened
>their knowledge and significantly improve their baking skill.

I agree that taking the leap from hobbyist to professional can greatly
improve the skill of the average home baker. So much of baking comes from
feel that it is hard to improve beyond a certain level if one bakes a few
loaves only one or two times a week. Feel comes from baking hundreds of
loaves under greatly varying conditions. I started as a hobbyist, but
decided to make baking my career becuse I enjoyed it so much. I had a great
amount of technical knowledge when I became a baker, but found that my bread
baking ability was far inferior to those who had been doing this as a
career -- even though I "knew" more about bread than they did. It was an eye
opening experience for me.

>Meanwhile
>A true blooded baker has no bias against bread whatever its kind , he
>is dispassionate to the differences,he understands the intricacies of
>ingredients ,recipes, methods and techniques and can gracefully and
>deftly makes his way to success whatever his interest employment of
>entrepreneurship.

Once again, IMHO a dispassionate baker will never be able to make the kind
of great bread that a passionate one will make. Simply understanding the
intricacies of making bread through all aspects of production is not enough
to make great bread. If that baker lacks the passion to make the best bread
possible then he lacks the ability to make the best bread possible. Passion
drives us -- it makes us better at what we do and gives us the desire to
improve.

>; but a hobbyist is a fanatic even if he commercialize his hobby , his
>narrow frame of mind will limit his intellectual growth and acquisition
>of skill as he is not open to novel and radical means in doing his
>trade.
>He is more to remain an unhappy person

If a hobbyists commercializes his hobby then he ceases to be a hobbyist.
Having a narrow frame of mind does not necessarily mean he will be an
inferior baker. It's good to be open to learning new techniques and novel
means, but not to the point of losing your opinions about what good bread
should be. Opening your mind to expand or even change your opinions is fine,
but forgetting your roots is unacceptable. I believe that an unbiased
dispassionate baker is more likely to be an unhappy persson than a
passionate opinionated baker.

So to get back to the thread -- I have no problems whatsoever with someone
adding yeast to a bread that has sourdough as an ingredient as well. But I
won't call it sourdough. Light and quick is not the nature of sourdough.
IMHO the baker who does that either lacks confidence or is lacking vision
and/or passion.

Trevor

wrote:
> Here's how I make my bread:
>
> a) mix some of my own sourdough to water and flour...
> b) add some beforehand activated commercial dry yeast to this dough...
> c) go on as usual on bread making.
>
> The question remains: does the addition of the commercial yeast
> inhibits the properties of the sourdough bread?
> In other words: can it still be called a sourdough bread?

<snip>

> P.S. yes, I know my method isn't very orthodox, but it will assure
> I'll obtain a well-raised bread, beside being a faster task. And my
> bread does give this much desired sourdough taste.

As you've figured out, you hit a tender nerve here, one that usually
starts name calling.

However, your technique IS orthodox, in the sense that both German and
French bakers have been doing this since the late 1800's. Not as
traditional as a pure sourdough, which dates back to the time when the
pyramids were being built, but traditional none the less.

Raymond Calvel, on pages 89-92 in his landmark "The Taste of Bread"
comments that using up to .2% (as a baker's percentage) yeast in a dough
will be indistiguishable in taste from pure sourdough, however it will
have a better rise. This is legal in France, and the bread may be
called a levain bread. Above the .2% level, the bread is no longer
considered to have been made with a natural sponge, but to be a
preferemented yeast dough, or a "levain de pte".

Levain de pte was very common in France in the 1920-1930 time frame.
Raymond Calvel commented that, "when the techique was performed
correctly, the baker produced bread that was of excellent quality that
was higher in volume, but with a less pronounced levain taste and a more
limited shelf life". My own feeling is that if your bread goes bad, you
aren't eating enough bread.

If you add baker's yeast to a sourdough starter, the acidity of the
starter will kill it off in the time it takes you to refresh the starter
two or three times. Adding yeast to the starter is a waste of yeast.
Use it to make a good yeasted bread instead (and there are many good
yeasted breads).

Still, despite the purists admonition that there must be no yeast in
sourdough breads, there is a long tradition of doing just that.

If a purist would rather not add yeast to their sourdough breads, that's
fine. I personally do not add yeast to my sourdough breads, but there
is ample tradition to support doing so, and still calling the bread
sourdough.

Mike

--
Mike Avery
ICQ: 16241692
AOL IM: MAvery81230

* Spam is for lusers who can't get business any other way *

As I told in my post all sourdough cultures are not exactly the same.
What was succesful with French levain may not work for other sourdough
cultures.

Roy

>So to get back to the thread -- I have no problems whatsoever with
someone
>adding yeast to a bread that has sourdough as an ingredient as well.
But I
>won't call it sourdough. Light and quick is not the nature of
sourdough.
>IMHO the baker who does that either lacks confidence or is lacking
vision
>and/or passion.

Well its not exactly light and quick that is what happening in the
bakey I( the added yeast is very minimal) mentioned above.
the fermentation timing was sigificantly improved as well as product
consistency .
For really light and quick bread from sourdoughs with modifed recipes
you had to add more yeast and that is what thet particular bakery was
avoiding due to the deleterios effect on taste as what had occured with
his compeititors.
Roy
Roy

>See the artificial flavor department for details of how to create any
>illusion desired - somewhat more involved than just with words.

Artificial fllavor is different from natural flavor t here no question
about that. But whatever flavor chemicals conferred by the other yeast
in sourdough is still considered natural .
What I mean to emphasize herre that the flavor difference and taste
between the breads made with traditional french levain and its
hybfidized version( with very little added yeast) is similar as
concluded by the sensory evaluation.
Flavor analysis and evaluation is a complicated process . From how you
see this particular discipline you had never attended one.

>In comparing sourdough breads and yeasted breads, nutritional value is
a
>major factor - long term feeding of humans from organic, fuller grain
flour
>natural sourdough leavened breads have health benefits from LB
produced
>sugars, enzymes, amino acids which influence and stimulate the
>intestinal
>flora in a way which yet have to be fully understood. To get an idea
on
?possible impact of guts on a whole organism, please see:


Huh?
Did I compare a true sourdough and a true yeast bread( no trace of
sourdough starter?=85=85I did not=85=85 in this post rather it is between t=
he
100 Percent natural leavened sourdough bread and its modified version


>I bet that all this did not have any impact on your evaluation.

>Real sourheads have a gut feelings of what is right to consume and shy
>away

An that is where the disagreement lies.
People who have a biased opinion about a certain food item is not
qualified to make an asssessment that is considered objective from the
scientific point of view.

>from fake, such as the saccharomyces cerevisiae (and related stories)
>which
>is at the most cannon fodder for the real hot shots in sourdough
>fermentation - specific LB's.


LOL!
What a pity Samartha, you want to perpetuate your delusion and limited
perspective about the intrecacy of sourdough microbiology.
As you see only sourdough from a limited point of view=85..
That is mainly with the symbiotic relationship between LB and C.
Milliere.
But sourdough organism constituents is not fixed on those tandem alone.
You should try to study more about sourdough microbiology then.
If you look ( for example)closely at the microbiology of French levain
there is even a predominance of strains of saccharomyces cerevissieae(
not strictly the bakers yeast) and from the investigations it was
concluded that S cereviseae does not came strictly from industriial
baking yeast alone.
You want to dig deeper check this artcile
=85 that if if you can read French: go to the universtiy libary dealing
with foodscience and application of food microbiology.. Try to Find
these articles and study it.

1)B. Onno and L. Ragot. Industries de cereales..Elaboration d=92un levain
naturale. Aspects Microbiologique.54:17(1988).
2)M. Infantes et C . Tourneaur. Science des aliments. Characterization
of the yeast flora of natural sourdough located in various French areas

12:271-287(1992)

If not have the content of reading the summary in Kulp and
Lorenz=92Handbook of Dough Fermentations about the microbial
constitution of the different forms of starter sused in Europe.which
confirrms that they are not just LB sanfrencisco and C millere but
consist of much more wider spectrum of microbes.

The problem is you do not care to read technical articles written by
authors who propose contrary views.

Samartha its about time that you step aside from the writings of Gantze
and your model Hopmister bakery which are your =91pets=92.
Try to be more objective by looking even the characteristics of natural
sourdough from a bigger picture.
Have you ever looked at other associations of microbes?
How about the associations with other forms of yeasts, the pediococcus,
other forms of saccharmyces .( ie. boudine,chevaliere,curvatus,pontis),
candida guillermonde.
Other sourdough starter had signficant amounts of other strains of S
cerevisieae.
Samartha, take my advice
f you want to maintain your credibility as an authority of sourdough (
in this NG)=20
please try to expand your horizons=20
Roy

Hi Joe,

thanks for bringing this up; I haven't even read that one. Now, googling
does this:

Did you mean: "Hop mister Bakery"

No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - "Hopmister Bakery" - did not match any documents.

Your search - "Hop mister Bakery" - did not match any documents.

With the "Gantze", I get 14,900 hits - I really don't have the time to try
to figure out what he means in particular but I get the general gust and
some idea what our "King Roy" actually could be up to, but that's
definitely not a sourdough topic for here.

Say, have you made any good bread lately? Got more time in winter now - right?

Happy rises!

Samartha




At 05:46 PM 1/21/2005, you wrote:
>Roy wrote:
>
> >
> > Samartha its about time that you step aside from the writings of Gantze
> > and your model Hopmister bakery which are your 'pets'.
>
> > Roy
>
>Roy I think Samartha has said he was trying to be able to bake bread like
>that which he had from Hopmister Bakery at home. Were the beef?
>
>Joe Umstead
>_______________________________________________
>Rec.food.sourdough mailing list

>http://www.mountainbitwarrior.com/ma...food.sourdough

===
remove "-nospam" when replying, and it's in my email address

(Kenneth, if you would have a short memory, which you don't, you would have
to scroll down first, and then up again)

Hi Will,

There are much worse things than mentioning yeast in a sourdough group, for
example in the Pumpernickel area. That's a real crime, you know - coffee,
cocoa and what else goes in - the kitchensink and... YEAST! Yikes!

Lauren Groveman went by my Pumpernickel web page and she cared to drop a line:


>Relax, my friend. Life is way too short to argue with delicious!
>
>Lauren Groveman

Yo - duh!

(Dick, you are excused - I see you making an honest effort to create the
coarse structure with corn or - just being yourself, again)

I see the "yeast itch" on this thread (minus King Roy being ornery)
actually a late reaction against yeast with a recent thread here, where a
pure yeast question was asked and the person got good advice.

Now when somebody pointed out that this is actually off topic, he got
snotty. His contribution - ? zilch..

Since nobody wants to let this happen again, there is now a strong anti
yeast sentiment.


At 11:06 AM 1/22/2005, you wrote:

wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but please allow me (Canoe, the message sender that started it
> > all) the credit of being only halfway out of topic, since my request
> > mentionned both sourdough and yeast.
> >
> > I'd doubt, though, that having sent such a request on some ordinary
> > (yeast) bread NewsGroup would have raised hell because I'd have
> > mentioned "sourdough".

Of cause because sourdough is better and the yeast folks are secretly in
awe about it - because they can't get it together (even King Roy said so a
while ago).

> >
> > Canoe
>
>It could have been worse. You could have mentioned eggs, milk and
>butter...
>
>Will
>==


Hmm - I admit, that was a bit mischievous (wicked - GB) top post.

Samartha



remove "-nospam" when replying, and it's in my email address

On 1/22/05 2:03 PM, "Samartha" >
wrote:

> There are much worse things than mentioning yeast in a sourdough group, for
> example in the Pumpernickel area. That's a real crime, you know - coffee,
> cocoa and what else goes in - the kitchensink and... YEAST! Yikes!

I feel the same way about bagels. They were too simple to leave alone.

"Roy" > wrote in message
oups.com...

I( the added yeast is very minimal) mentioned above.
> the fermentation timing was sigificantly improved as well as product
> consistency .

Out of curiosity -- how much time does adding .2% yeast shave off of
fermentation time. If I add that little amount of yeast to my sourdough,
which normally bulk proofs for 4-6 hours, what would my new proof time be?

How about after shaping? Say my loaves rise for 2-4 hours, what would my
modified rise be?

Trevor

"Trevor J. Wilson" > wrote in
nk.net:

<snip>
> So to get back to the thread -- I have no problems whatsoever with
> someone adding yeast to a bread that has sourdough as an ingredient as
> well. But I won't call it sourdough. Light and quick is not the nature
> of sourdough. IMHO the baker who does that either lacks confidence or
> is lacking vision and/or passion.
>
> Trevor


Well, maybe you should start calling it "sourdough". Here's why:

Three months ago, before receiving Carl's starter, I made a sponge from
Fleischmann's "sto-bought" commercial dry yeast. For the most part, I
kept it alive and flourishing by feeding it every day or so, sometimes
all purpose or bread flour and sometimes a raw or cooked potato. I made
delicious yeast bread with it. Once I put a little vinegar in it to sour
it some. Once I let it sit and deplete its yeast for several days to
see how sour it would get. And every time I fed it, it grew into a
robust.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, my Carl's 1847 Oregon Trail Sourdough
Starter arrived from Chas Perry. I reconstituted it and began daily
feedings. It also is a robust starter that makes breads rise well,
almost as powerful as the sto-bought yeast. Meanwhile, I treated the
Fleischmann starter like a red-headed step-child.

Meanwhile, I maintained a quart container of each starter, and baked
bread every day or so, trying to learn the "right" way to do it so it
would rise right and make nice puffy loaves with big holes in the crumb.
I had so many partly eaten loaves around that I had to make bread crumbs
and bread pudding with it.

Finally, 4 days ago, I decided to cut down the starter so I only had two
or three ounces of each going in the fridge. To do this, I had to get
rid of a lot of it. So I took about half a cup of each, and started two
sponges, using the triple rise method Samartha's web site
http://samartha.net discusses. I was not scientific about it. I had
started it in the morning, and by midnight had fed them 4 times. Each
time, both sponges rose magnificently. I fed the Fleishmann's with
white King Arthur bread flour, and the Carl's with a 50-50-mix of rye
and KA whole wheat white flour. The Carl's sponge always out-rose the
Fleischmann's sponge.

Then, at midnight I prepared 4 cups of KA unbleached bread flour with
enough water to form a thick mass, let it sit for half an hour to cure,
then split it into even gobs and mixed one gob with each of the
starters, and stuck it in the fridge.

I was up at 7AM and removed both from the fridge. They had both risen
considerably, about double, but the Carl's had appeared to settle a
little after the maximum rise. The Fleischmann's was still rising.

At 8:30 AM mixed the sponges together, added 3 to 4 cups of KA white
whole wheat flour to sponge, and kneaded it in two batches into a pair
of thick doughs with my Sunbeam Mixmaster hopping all over the counter
top. I let the mixer pound on them for 12 to 15 minutes each, then
dropped each gob into a separate oiled bowl and covered it with plastic
wrap. I did not wait for a double rise. After they began to look
puffy, I formed them into loaves and let them sit to rise more. In
about an hour and a half to two hours, they had all risen beautifully. I
tried to score two of them with a knife, and that caused them
immediately to deflate, so I left the other loaves alone. I put them
into a cold oven and cranked the thermostat to 375. 20 minutes later I
painted them with milk. 20 minutes later I switched them to opposite
shelves. 20 minutes later, I removed them and put them on racks to
cool.

There was no oven spring or oven shrinkage, so that makes me think the
second rise was too long (or just right. The loaves were golden brown.
All of the loaves' crusts were quite crispy, and the two long baguettes
were the crispiest.

When my wife arrived home, I immediately made a lunchmeat, cheese,
lettuce, tomato, and onion sandwich of one of the long baguettes, and my
wife loved it, as did I. The bread was nicely chewy and had a
wonderful, slightly sour scent and taste. The crust was fabulously
crunchy, perhaps a little too crunchy.

Maria gave one of the loaves to a well-traveled friend and she said it
was the best sourdough bread she had ever tasted.

So, after all my bread screw-ups, I consider those loaves to be the best
I've ever baked. I do have suggestions to make them better.

1. Cook them a shorter time at a higher temperature. This will keep
the crusts from getting too tough. I probably should cook them 50 to 55
minutes at 400 degrees.

2. Let their second rise be a shorter time, possibly 45 minutes to an
hour. That way, maybe I'll be able to score the loaves and get some
oven spring.

3. Pay more attention to the exact timing and measurements of
everything (yeah, sure, soon as I spot a flying pig).

To tell the truth, even though I think I want oven spring, it always
results in somewhat deformed loaves. Frankly, I can't see why I need
oven spring in my loaves. Without it, the finished bread ends up
looking just like it did before going into the oven, except that it is
brown and crusty. What's wrong with that?

Bottom line, whether you're a purist sourdough fan or not, the goal is
to make delicious, crusty, relatively light, somewhat piquant bread.
Mixing the Fleischmann-origin sponge with the Carl-origin sponge gave my
bread a beautiful rise and fabulous taste and crustiness. I'm sure I'll
do it again and again and again.

Jugito

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

> [ ... ]

> Mixing the Fleischmann-origin sponge with the Carl-origin sponge gave =
my=20
> bread a beautiful rise and fabulous taste and crustiness. =20

That's an absurd and contemptuous thing to do. Perhaps when you =
understand
the depravity of what you have done, you will become penitent.

Perhaps you will then feel better in understanding that, in any contest =
with=20
bakers' yeast, the wild one will overcome.

As a matter of fact, by the time you performed your dastardly act, the =
Carl's
had, with little doubt, already transformed the other culture as the =
result of=20
un-sterile technique.

> I'm sure I'll do it again and again and again.

Oh, don't!

--
DickA

Jugito wrote:

> Well, maybe you should start calling it "sourdough". Here's why:

(massive snip)

It really doesn't matter how many billions of electrons you kill in the
effort to turn black into white.... commercial yeast does not equal
sourdough.

You made nice bread you're happy with? Good for you and keep it up if
that's what you want. Sincerely.

But it's not sourdough.

B/

Here are photos (1280 x 960) of the loaves made with combined yeasts
(Carl's 1847 Oregon Trail wild yeast and Fleischmann's commercial "tame"
yeast). The bread has crunchy crust, somewhat moist crumb with biggish
holes in it, chewy texture, and slightly sour taste.

To recap, the two starters (Fleischmann's commercial and Carl's sourdough)
were fed and let to sponge 4 times, then mixed with 2 cups of flour and
some water about midnight, let to sit in the refrigerator till 7AM, and
warm up till 8:30. Then I mixed the two big sponges together, let the mass
sit covered about 3/4 to 1 hour, formed it into loaves, let them rise a
couple of hours, a bit too long, and baked them at 375,starting from a cold
oven at T+0, for about an hour, painting them with milk after T+20 minutes,
and switching them to opposite shelves after T+40 minutes.


If you can't see the photos with yenc encoding, download the XNEWS news
reader at http://xnews.newsguy.com. It's compact, powerful, free, and
easy to use.I have forsaken all other news readers for XNEWS.

If you can't see the photos even then, let me know and I'll stick my head
in the oven (gives a good echo for my evil laugh). In other words, I'll
have no idea why.

I'm using XNEWS to send the photos. When I tried it last time (using
normal MIME), I caught a tiny bit of flack from the group, but I was able
to view them with XNEWS. Now I'm using yenc, a different encoding method
that seems to save download time.

Jugito

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Jugito wrote:

> Here are photos (1280 x 960) of the loaves made with combined yeasts
>
> If you can't see the photos even then, let me know and I'll stick my head
> in the oven (gives a good echo for my evil laugh). In other words, I'll
> have no idea why.
>
> Jugito

I can't see them, simply because they are not present in the news group!
Either you missed a keystroke and failed to attach them, or this
NON-Binary newsgroup strips them off. Either way, you'll probably still
catch a litle flak for posting them. Try uploading to an image storage
site, like http://www.zippyimages.com
It's free, and they keep the images there for something like 60 days after
the last activity (viewing them.)

Dave

"Jugito" > wrote in message
...

>Well, maybe you should start calling it "sourdough". >Here's why:

Essentionally: you made a starter with commercial yeast and mixed it with
Carl's starter when you made bread.

Ever consider that perhaps your bakers yeast starter eventually turned into
a true sourdough starter? Bakers yeast can only survive for so long in an
acid environment. With the number of feedings you gave your yeast starter I
would say that by the time you made bread with it, it was a sourdough
starter with little trace of bakers yeast.

Trevor

In article >,
says...
> Here are photos (1280 x 960) of the loaves made with combined yeasts
> (Carl's 1847 Oregon Trail wild yeast and Fleischmann's commercial "tame"
> yeast). The bread has crunchy crust, somewhat moist crumb with biggish
> holes in it, chewy texture, and slightly sour taste.
>
Thanks for posting these.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. They look a lot like my sourdough bread.

Rick
Resistance is futile. Fleishmann's will be assimilated.

Brian Mailman > wrote in news:10vl6f2qdjpf640
@news.supernews.com:


>
> You made nice bread you're happy with? Good for you and keep it up if
> that's what you want. Sincerely.
>
> But it's not sourdough.
>
> B/
>

You and Dick are just whining. The bread was a little sour. More sour
than the first two batches of bread I made from Carl's starter. And it
rose well. So, yes, I am happy with it, and so are the people I have
given it to.

I am not glued to the idea of mixing yeasts, but even so, how do you and
Dick know what happened to the yeasts? I find the suggestion that the
Carl's yeast would overwhelm the commercial yeast to be absurd,
particularly since the sponges were each 3-4 cups in volume when I mixed
them.I don't think the yeasts eat or destroy one another. I think they
happily eat the flour and spew out the CO2 as fast as they can, side by
side.

I am not trying to pervert the sourdough ideas. I simply hate throwing
good starter away. And there's no doubt that the Fleischmann's-based
starter is fabulous for making delicious bread. I don't know which
starter gave the bread its sourness, but I was getting chewy texture
from the Fleischmann's over-night sponge-based breads before I tried
Carl's.

Hey, do you think eating so much sourdough has made you and Dick into
sourpusses?

Just joking. I appreciate your comments, and the opportunity to share
with you and others in this group. Hope you enjoy the panettone next
time you make it.

By the way, do you know where I can buy a cheap ($5 to $7) panettone
springform pan?

7 inch diameter x 5 inch tall is ideal. $24 too rich for my blood.

Jugito

Jugito wrote:
> Brian Mailman > wrote in news:10vl6f2qdjpf640
> @news.supernews.com:


>>You made nice bread you're happy with? Good for you and keep it up if
>>that's what you want. Sincerely.

>>But it's not sourdough.

> You and Dick are just whining. The bread was a little sour. More sour
> than the first two batches of bread I made from Carl's starter. And it
> rose well. So, yes, I am happy with it, and so are the people I have
> given it to.

Whether or not it was sour, a bit sour, or not sour at all has nothing
to do with whether or not it was sourdough. Neither Dick nor Brian were
whining. Dick was livid and outraged. Not whining.

> I am not glued to the idea of mixing yeasts, but even so, how do you and
> Dick know what happened to the yeasts? I find the suggestion that the
> Carl's yeast would overwhelm the commercial yeast to be absurd,
> particularly since the sponges were each 3-4 cups in volume when I mixed
> them.I don't think the yeasts eat or destroy one another. I think they
> happily eat the flour and spew out the CO2 as fast as they can, side by
> side.

You need to do a bit more research, or reading.

Bakers yeast is unable to tolerate the acidity of sourdough. A number
of microbiologists who study sourdough, or natural leavens, have stated
that when bakers yeast is added to a healthy natural leaven, the bakers
yeast will be essentially gone in the time it takes to refresh the
starter twice.

As a result, people who add yeast to natural leavens (the French and
Germans have a history of doing this) do so by adding yeast to the
dough, not to the starter.

Because you like something doesn't make it what you want it to be. I
loved my first car, a Buick Opel 1900 Sports Coupe. It handled well, it
had nice pep, a good top end. But, it wasn't a sports car. And it
wasn't going to pass a Corvette, other than at the gas pump. You are
free to like what you made. And you can even call it sourdough. But
that doesn't make it sourdough.

Mike

Mike


--
Mike Avery
ICQ: 16241692
AOL IM: MAvery81230
Phone: 970-642-0280

* Spam is for lusers who can't get business any other way *

Jugito wrote:

>Here are photos (1280 x 960) of the loaves made with combined yeasts
>(Carl's 1847 Oregon Trail wild yeast and Fleischmann's commercial "tame"
>yeast). The bread has crunchy crust, somewhat moist crumb with biggish
>holes in it, chewy texture, and slightly sour taste.
>
>To recap, the two starters (Fleischmann's commercial and Carl's sourdough)
>
>
You can name your pets as you like, but by now, there is not any trace
left of your "Fleschmann's" - in particular when you fed them with
vinegar (acetic acid) as you said, see the

http://samartha.net/SD/docs/DW-post1-4n.html#456

You may be pleasing somebody with this, I don't know - according to
Fleischmann's web site, the "yeast" has been around since the Pharaohs.
Maybe you like to continue this "tradition".

[...]

>I'm using XNEWS to send the photos. When I tried it last time (using
>normal MIME), I caught a tiny bit of flack from the group,
>
>
My guess, you get soon some more, since you don't understand the
difference between a text-only and a binary news group and keep sending
this junk in multiple posts on a text-only news group where your stuff
looks like this:

)):o¢“�**ssT*2***4*8+,*J***°***9+,*/***Ð***:+,*8***Ö***<+-*+***+***...

If it gets moved by the news servers at all. Some folk can look at the pictures, most cannot - then there is frustrated talk about it - what's the purpose for this?

You know, some dofus who can't grok the posting conventions of this group nor is following suggestions made how to make pictures available and instead smart-asses what should be "done" to look at some "Fleischmann" adulterated Carl's starter doorstep pictures should either take a hike for good or understand what the limitations are and stay within those.

Samartha

Jugito wrote:

> Brian Mailman > wrote in news:10vl6f2qdjpf640
> @news.supernews.com:

>> You made nice bread you're happy with? Good for you and keep it up if
>> that's what you want. Sincerely.
>>
>> But it's not sourdough.

> You and Dick are just whining. The bread was a little sour. More sour
> than the first two batches of bread I made from Carl's starter.

The "sour" in sourdough has little to do with flavor of the bread. It
refers to a "soured" starter, retained from one time to the next.

Just because the cat has kittens in the oven doesn't make 'em muffins.

You made bread. Good bread, by your standards.

But it's not sourdough.

B/

PS:

and by the way, it's rude to post pictures in a non-binary group (groups
without .binaries or the equivalent on the second-level). Many people
cannot see them because their server strips them off and rightly so.

The polite thing to do would be to post to alt.binaries.misc and then
post the message ID.

B/

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:31:56 GMT, Jugito
> wrote:

>I find the suggestion that the
>Carl's yeast would overwhelm the commercial yeast to be absurd,
>particularly since the sponges were each 3-4 cups in volume when I mixed
>them.I don't think the yeasts eat or destroy one another.

Howdy,

With respect, you would be wrong.

The science on this issue is good. The commercial yeasts
cannot live in the environment created by the yeasts and LB
in the other culture.

All the best,


--
Kenneth

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

=20
In message
"Kenneth" > said to "Jugito"

> The science on this issue is good. The commercial yeasts
> cannot live in the environment created by the yeasts and LB
> in the other culture.

Good thing you straightened that out for us, Kenneth!

=20
In message
"Kenneth" > said to "Jugito"

> The science on this issue is good. The commercial yeasts
> cannot live in the environment created by the yeasts and LB
> in the other culture.

Good thing you straightened that out for us, Kenneth!

Samartha > wrote in
news:mailman.1106966614.6490.rec.food.sourdough@ww w.mountainbitwarrior.co
m:

Thanks for the explanation and the tiny butt-chewing.

I'll organize better in the future.

"Trevor J. Wilson" > wrote in
.net:

> into a true sourdough starter? Bakers yeast can only survive for so
> long in an acid environment. With the number of feedings you gave your
> yeast starter I would say that by the time you made bread with it, it
> was a sourdough starter with little trace of bakers yeast.
>
> Trevor

Maybe you're right.

Mike Avery > wrote in
news:mailman.34.1106964013.263.rec.food.sourdough@ mail.otherwhen.com:

> You are
> free to like what you made. And you can even call it sourdough. But
> that doesn't make it sourdough.
>
> Mike
>
> Mike
>
>

Not even if it tastes sour? Thanks for your feedback, Mike. You made good
points.

Mike Avery > wrote in
news:mailman.34.1106964013.263.rec.food.sourdough@ mail.otherwhen.com:

> You are
> free to like what you made. And you can even call it sourdough. But
> that doesn't make it sourdough.
>
> Mike
>
> Mike
>
>

Not even if it tastes sour? Thanks for your feedback, Mike. You made good
points.

Brian Mailman > wrote in news:10vlulqiqtopt25
@news.supernews.com:


> The polite thing to do would be to post to alt.binaries.misc and then
> post the message ID.
>
> B/
>

Okay, Brian, good idea. Thanks for the suggestion.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:12:06 GMT, Jugito
> wrote:

>Mike Avery > wrote in
>news:mailman.34.1106964013.263.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com:
>
>> You are
>> free to like what you made. And you can even call it sourdough. But
>> that doesn't make it sourdough.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
>Not even if it tastes sour? Thanks for your feedback, Mike. You made good
>points.

Howdy,

(Not Mike, but...)

"Sourdough" (for most people at least) means a baked product
that is risen with a "natural culture" that is a symbiotic
mixture of wild yeasts and lactobacilli.

Some sourdough breads taste sour, others (of the sort that I
am interested in by the way) much less so.

Commercial yeast can produce breads that are quite sour, but
no, using the common terminology those would not be called
"sourdough" breads.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

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