Culture war

WRK

unread,

Oct 11, 2006, 9:12:42 AM10/11/06

to Sourdoug Group Members

Hello All:

In my quest to make Pumpernickel I kept and cultivated a rye starter. Using Dick A's recipe, (http://tinyurl.com/ro8lf {& his tip on tiny URL's - thank you, Dick}). I initially inoculated the rye slurry with my SDI (Sourdough International) Russian culture. The rye flour was freshly ground organic.

The initial inoculation in Dick's recipe was 30g in 705g+ water/ flour slurry or slightly less than 5% (See note below.). I assume that the Russian culture is still predominate in this starter and won any culture war with organisms contained in the ground organic rye.

Question 1: Is this assumption valid?

I want to experiment making some rye/wheat bread using a variation of the very sour bread technique discussed on page 68 in "The Bread Builders," by Daniel Wing and Alan Scott. This technique uses 30% of the recipe's water to form a 50% hydration, slow, very sour, 72-hour starter. It is combined in the final dough with a second sponge that is a two-stage 100% hydration starter containing 20% of the recipe's water and is employed at peak.

Obviously, this technique is not as sophisticated or empirically sound as the Detmold 3 process. However, it is simple and straightforward and appeals to a sourdough dummy like me.

Question 2: If question one is indeed valid and my rye starter (used to inoculate the stiff, slow, 72-hour starter) is predominantly a rye, Russian culture then what would be the effect of using my OSF culture in the second, fresher thinner starter? Let the culture war begin <g>.

Many thanks,

Ray

Note: This should be the subject of a whole, separate thread. If one does the math one discovers that both Ed Wood's washing technique at http://www.sourdo.com/recipies.html and the one recommended in http://tinyurl.com/lxjxn {thanks again Dick} net a 5% inoculation to re-grow the culture. A main difference is Ed Wood recommends stirring the hooch back into the neglected culture, the later removes a 1 tablespoon sample from the center of the settled, neglected culture. Thus, the latter technique assumes that there are no living, desirable organisms contained in the hooch. Perhaps someone can empirically confirm that premise. Until then, I continue to personally prefer Ed Wood's method.

Dick Adams

unread,

Oct 11, 2006, 4:22:59 PM10/11/06

to

"WRK" <WRK...@cfl.rr.com> reported in message
news:mailman.17.1160572371.9...@mail.otherwhen.com...

> Using Dick A's recipe, ( http://tinyurl.com/ro8lf ) ...

There I fallaciously claimed that the product could legitimately called
pumpernickel. That kind of loose talk pumps of the fannies of the
Pumpernickel Police. Retractions have been published, but again
I must cower and trepidate as I anticipate continuing corrective action.

Molasses or other added sweet substance iss verboten. So I now
know. My crockpot offering, even with mostly wheat, is closer to the
spirit of true pumpernickel, as the sugars are created by the process.

--
Dicky

Joe Umstead

unread,

Oct 11, 2006, 8:38:53 PM10/11/06

to

WRK wrote:

> Hello All:
>
Why are text lines so long? Maybe 100 spaces long
Other pose are shorter.

Joe Umstead

Mike Avery

unread,

Oct 11, 2006, 9:29:48 PM10/11/06

to A ported usenet news group

Joe Umstead wrote:
> WRK wrote:
>
>
>> Hello All:
>>
>>
> Why are text lines so long? Maybe 100 spaces long
> Other pose are shorter.
>

Perhaps because your email or news reader is broken. Your program
should reformat the message to fit your screen. Ray;s message looked
fine to me.

Mike

--
...The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world...

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

Mike Avery

unread,

Oct 11, 2006, 9:37:32 PM10/11/06

to A ported usenet news group

WRK wrote:
> The initial inoculation in Dick's recipe was 30g in 705g+ water/ flour
> slurry or slightly less than 5% (See note below.). I assume that the
> Russian culture is still predominate in this starter and won any
> culture war with organisms contained in the ground organic rye.
>
> Question 1: Is this assumption valid?

Probably. The concentration of organisms in the culture is much higher
than in the flour. If the culture you used to inoculate the rye is
weak, then things could change.

> Question 2: If question one is indeed valid and my rye starter (used
> to inoculate the stiff, slow, 72-hour starter) is predominantly a rye,
> Russian culture then what would be the effect of using my OSF culture
> in the second, fresher thinner starter? Let the culture war begin <g>.

Who knows? I think you are introducing too many variables to make the
bread reproducible. Since we don't know what critters are in either
culture, and we don't know how they interact, it is hard to predict what
would happen. I'd guess the faster/healthier culture would tend to
dominate the bread, up to the point where it is baked.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Note: This should be the subject of a whole, separate thread. If one
> does the math one discovers that both Ed Wood's washing technique
> at http://www.sourdo.com/recipies.html and the one recommended
> in http://tinyurl.com/lxjxn {thanks again Dick} net a 5% inoculation
> to re-grow the culture. A main difference is Ed Wood recommends
> stirring the hooch back into the neglected culture, the later removes
> a 1 tablespoon sample from the center of the settled, neglected
> culture. Thus, the latter technique assumes that there are no living,
> desirable organisms contained in the hooch. Perhaps someone can
> empirically confirm that premise. Until then, I continue to
> personally prefer Ed Wood's method.

I think that the hootch is poured off not so much because it doesn't
have any viable organisms in it, but because it does have an unhealthy
concentration of metabolic wastes. If your culture is neglected, it is
probably better to pour off the hooch and replacing it with the water
you usually maintain your starter with.

I usually draw the line at an inch of hooch. If it's less, I stir it
in; if it's more, I pour it off. However, since I've maintained my
starter at around 60% hydration, hooch has stopped being an issue.

Doc

unread,

Oct 12, 2006, 9:22:51 PM10/12/06

to

Dick Adams wrote:
> Molasses or other added sweet substance iss verboten. So I now
> know. My crockpot offering, even with mostly wheat, is closer to the
> spirit of true pumpernickel, as the sugars are created by the process.

Dick,
A nice departure from a rye pumpernickel - very creative! And your
bread looks great. Since it is largely wheat, there is a strong
possibility (no pun intended) that there is a gluten matrix supporting
the structure. Is there enough gluten to keep it from collapsing as the
amylase enzymes convert the residual starch to sugars? Or is the pH
low enough to disable the amylase enzymes, preserving the starch matrix
and requiring some other mechanism to develop the sweetness of the end
product?
Doc

Dick Adams

unread,

Oct 13, 2006, 9:30:39 AM10/13/06

to

"Doc" <doc....@verizon.net> in message
news:1160702571.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
asked, presumably about
http://www.prettycolors.com/bread%5Fculture/humperdickel/index.html

> ... Is there enough gluten to keep it from collapsing as the

> amylase enzymes convert the residual starch to sugars? Or is the pH
> low enough to disable the amylase enzymes, preserving the starch matrix
> and requiring some other mechanism to develop the sweetness of the end
> product?

Existentially speaking, that bread is. And quite reproducibly so, quite
likely because loft is not a big part of its charm.

There seems to be enough gluten to keep the boulders sticking together.
There is certainly enough sugar left to please Doctor Maillard.

(Of course, I use the term loosely because I have no way of knowing
who is, and who is not, actually a doctor, or what one of those actually
is.)

(Similarly, one might well question the expertise of any expert of any
qualification who presumes to know what is holding together a bread
which combines both rye and wheat flours.)

Doesn't the Google newsgroup access give some way to mention which
particular post is being referred too, or, if not, cannot one find some way
to compensate that oversight?

--
Dicky

Doc

unread,

Oct 13, 2006, 10:52:02 AM10/13/06

to

Dick Adams wrote:
> Doesn't the Google newsgroup access give some way to mention which
> particular post is being referred too, or, if not, cannot one find some way
> to compensate that oversight?

Off-topic, but It would be nice if the Google newsgroups would emulate
(or copy) Egullet which makes it both clear and easy to reference,
link, emote, and edit after posting.
Doc