I've been seeing lately that more and more people have mentioned a
thicker starter. I'm studying abroad in Spain now, and trying to learn
the ropes on a whole bunch of different poorly labled flours. I think
often times, when I'm using white or bread flour using a 9oz starter,
8oz water, 7oz flour refresh, that 12 hours is too long to wait, before
I feed it again at room temperature. I guess my question is: if I want
to slow my starter enough to allow a 12 hour refresh, how thick should
it be? Or should I just refresh with less starter and keep the same
amount of flour and water? I've started starters before, but none of
them have been spectacular, especially with white flour (I had a rye
flour starter that was going crazy until I switched it to white flour).
Maybe it's the flour, but I've tried many good flours (Although here in
Spain, flour choices are limited until I find a better store to look).
I guess I only got a spectacular rise once: off the remnants of the rye
starter in a white flour build (I have pictures ;-) ). I think the
biggest problem I have is missing the peak of the starter because I'm
gone at class or busy, and not feeding it when it needs it most. What's
the best way to adapt my starter to make it fit my schedule a little
better?

Thanks,
Matt

HI Matt,

Because your culture is an unknown it's not easy to say. Some cultures
gobble up the available food quickly and go dormant within 12 hours
while others will keep going longer. If you're so busy that you can
only feed twice a day you could try feeding more flour. Most tend to
feed equal parts flour and starter. It looks like you're feeding less
flour than starter. Experiment with feeding more. If you have time
monitor the starter after feeding to find out when it peaks, how long
it stays at its peak and when it goes flat. Maybe sourdough isn't for
you if you really don't have enough time to build your starter ready
for baking. I'm assuming that you store your starter in the fridge when
you're not baking.

I've got a great starter that was started with Italian 00. And a French
one that is OK started with white flour. I doubt it's the grind of the
flour that is affecting your results. If your culture has evolved to
cope with a particular flour and then you change it there could be some
difficulty, but again it's going to be an unknown.

Take care

Jim

Matt wrote:
> I've been seeing lately that more and more people have mentioned a
> thicker starter.

It's cleaner (no pond scum at the surface) and there is less
refreshment maintenance.

> I guess my question is: if I want
> to slow my starter enough to allow a 12 hour refresh, how thick should
> it be?

Thick. perhaps a little less than regular dough, but not much.

> Or should I just refresh with less starter and keep the same
> amount of flour and water?

This works too. especially in combination with thick.

Perhaps you should consider storing a plum sized piece of fairly firn
unsalted dough as your starter. Moving to the retained dough format
allows your starter to rebalance with the new flour. That is because
the stability of your starter is correlated with it's percentage to
refreshment material. High starter to small refreshments promotes
status quo. Low starter to higher refreshment volume allows the
microbial colony native to the flour to establish over time.

By using retained dough you are gently evolving your starter to the
flour.

Retained dough is also a slower build. For example you can take your
piece of retained dough, a plum size, and mix it with enough
flour+water to make a grapefuit sized ball. This can easily ferment for
10 or 12 hours (overnight). At which point you have a large enough
innoculation to get a decent bulk proof. Now you can add the balance of
flour+water, probably equivalent to two grapefruits and bulk proof for
another 5-8 hours. Then it's just finding the 3 hours to final proof
and bake.

I'm talking volume in visual measures rather than weight ones, since I
don't know what your production preference is.

A really useful variable to fine tune the time is water temperature.
Use very COLD water to slow things down and room temp water to speed
them up. You can do the same with flour.

To summarize. Variables to adjust in the steps before final proof...

1) hydration. more = faster / less =
slower
2) water temperature. warm = faster / cold =
slower
3) inoculation ratio. more = faster / less =
slower

Here is something interesting to consider. Gerald Auzet told this to
Peter Mayle. It is recounted in the new book "Confessions of a French
Baker". The idea is control fermentation time by getting 3 variables to
add to 56 C. So if the kitchen is 20 C. and the flour is 22 C. then the
water must be 14 C.

Now 56 works for Auzet, with his baking schedule and his levain. Yours
will be a different number. But if you can figure your number for your
schedule and your levain... you are golden.

Will

HI Will,

Have you tried this? I don't have such time restraints but it's an
interesting idea. I suppose it's a way of averaging out the
temperatures to 18.6 in this case. I suppose this works well if your
room temperature is relatively constant or you're only interested in
controlling the temp for a short time. I wouldn't have thought about
having the end figure the sum as the three. It's a simple way to leave
out any division.

Thanks

Jim

I've finally got an active starter. I decided I would wash it a few
times (3 days), and then everytime I fed it, I increased the amount of
starter while keeping the amount of flour and water constant until it
was peaking at the time I wanted. I now have a very foamy starter, and
I believe I will be ready to bake in a few days.

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

> I've finally got an active starter. I decided I would wash it a few
> times (3 days), and then everytime I fed it, I increased the amount of
> starter while keeping the amount of flour and water constant until it
> was peaking at the time I wanted. I now have a very foamy starter, and
> I believe I will be ready to bake in a few days.

T'were it Carl's, you would have baked several days ago.

That's true, I couldn't beleive how quickly Carl's activated, I think I
was sure it was healthy after 12 hours after 24 it was bubbling gently
with a sweet smell of esters. It was just a case of building it up to
bake with. Fantastic.

I did get similar results from Packham's starter. But I wouldn't make
this the reason for choosing Carl's and Pacckham's over another as it
took much longer to get Carl's through the post :-)

Jim

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Matt" > wrote in message
> T'were it Carl's, you would have baked several days ago.

That's true, I couldn't believe how quickly Carl's activated, I think I

was sure it was healthy after 12 hours after 24 it was bubbling gently
with a sweet smell of esters. It was just a case of building it up to
bake with. Fantastic.
I did get similar results from Packham's starter. But I wouldn't make
this the reason for choosing Carl's and Packham's over another as it
took much longer to get Carl's through the post :-)

I should add here that the longest it took me to activate a starter was
the Camaldoli from SI but that was my first attempt at activating a
dried starter with no incubator. It took five and a half days. I've had
success in 24-36 hours from SI. This was using a heat mat and boiled
water.

Jim

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

> ... the longest it took me to activate a starter was
> the Camaldoli from SI but that was my first attempt
> at activating a dried starter with no incubator. It took
> five and a half days. I've had success in 24-36 hours
> from SI. This was using a heat mat and boiled water.

5-day activation may well be replacement, from stuff in
your flour or atmosphere. 3-day also, possibly.
(Definitely for whole organic rye flour.)

I wonder if SDI still follows the practice of refreshing its
fridge cultures on a semiannual basis. If that should be
their schedule of dry-start preparation, 5-day intervals
for activation, or longer, would be a possibility.

Probably activation of your flour. Using bleached flour
from the center of a new 5-LB pack is a reasonably good
test as not much life survives the bleaching process.
Baking implements in foil can provide a sense of sterile
technique.

--
Dicky