I mentioned this in another thread, but didn’t ask for opinions on it directly.
There seem to be two schools of thought when it comes to adding starter (levain) to the dough:
(1) Make the dough, autolyse, then add in the starter by mixing/folding it in.
(2) Dissolve the starter into the water, add the flour, mix together, autolyse.
I understand the attraction of #2. It takes care of mixing in the levain, mixing up the dough and autolyse, saving the baker that extra step (and effort and time) of having to mix the levain in separately.
But dissolving the levain in water always has me imagining the Star Trek transporter. ;-) The levain has been reduced to its component atoms and sent out into the dough universe...
In short, I know it works, but is the mixing of starter into water just a quick way to get it into the dough, or is it really the better of the two methods? If so, why?
A true autolyse is without the salt and starter/levain but some might add the starter/levain to the autolyse for ease or if the percentage is high and will therefore make the autolyse difficult as a lot of the water is in the preferment.
Better of the two methods depends but all else being equal i'd say number one is better.
But I'm a little confused about what you're telling me. Why would it benefit a high hydration sourdough to add in the starter with the water rather than after autolyse?
And if the thought is that the dough will be dry-ish if the starter isn't added in the mix, why do you think the first option better? What would the benefits be, especially if it's not a high hydration dough?
Not the hydration of the dough. If the levain is a high percentage then there might not be enough water to autolyse the remaining flour. Another reason to include the levain in the autolyse is if you're pushed for time and wish to get the ferment underway but also want to include an autolyse of sorts. If the flour you are using is weak then you might not wish to do an autolyse at all and mix everything, including the salt, straight away into the final dough. Lots of things to consider. Do what works best for you, flour and recipe, and time wise.
thrown out into space. Yeasts are bigger. They are little single cells that bud and split off to increase their numbers. By adding more water to the starter, you simply help them separate from glutinous clumps into loose cells that can easily use the water as transportation. They then combine with fresh flour to keep populating to places in the dough...where no yeast has gone before. >enter theme song< :)
;-) Okay, it's not a perfect metaphor, but your description helps. So, a strong vote (and very compelling argument) for separating all those wild yeast cells and giving them transportation into fresh flour. Thank you. That fun description really helped me to understand what's going on with that method and why I ought to use it.
Actually I've tried both methods and can tell little difference in results although 'fermentalizing' instead of autolyzing offers a reduction in overall timing. To qualify this statement I'll note that I'm using freshly milled whole wheat flour and a 100% hydration whole rye starter that that makes up 20% of the loaf's flour, 100g rye to 400g of wheat. There are several factors involved in this that may differ significantly from the same routine using commercial flours. The rye starter contributes to a faster breakdown of starches producing more food for the yeast and bacteria, it also speeds up the softening of bran I believe and, because I'm adding the water to the dough at the same time, the differential in hydration of the dough and the starter is eliminated. I do mill the wheat flour directly onto the starter and then begin adding the water. Try them both and see how they work for you.
As a novice, I haven't been able to see any difference. But as a novice, I want to always use the most effective method to, in this case, make sure the starter in my dough does what it's suppose to do, optimally and effectively. I can understand how eliminating that differential might be considered more effective.
Completely off topic: I do have a question for you about that rye flour. Originally, I was using a high hydration sourdough recipe (78%—which was too high for a beginner like me, but I didn't know it at that time. Let's just say I got thrown into the deep end of the pool). This recipe included rye (a mere 5%) Along with a small amount of wheat flour, the bulk being white bread flour. I *loved* the flavor of this bread, but it was a lot of trouble.
One of the biggest problems was that it was super sticky. I don't blame the rye for all of that stickiness (there was a high learning curve here and adjustments needed), but I have learned that rye does make dough more sticky. I'd actually like to go back to this recipe (-10% hydration). As you work with a loaf 20% rye...does it get very sticky? If not, why not? If so, how do you handle it?
I doubt that 5% rye would account for stickiness even though it is notorious for stickiness. The recipe that I'm using is designed to create a sandwich loaf not an artisan bread so it includes an amount of ghee, the last ingredient added before bulk fermentation. The recipe also includes honey or sorghum molasses so the hydration is above 70%, 250-260g water plus the hydration from 30g of the honey or molasses. It does remain sticky until the gluten is fully developed and the ghee is integrated as a last step before bulk. At that point the dough is easily handled and not at all sticky. Keep in mind that I'm working with freshly milled whole flours, wheat and rye, because they do perform very differently from commercial flours by requiring adjustments to hydration and handling. One more point worth considering is you're endeavoring to develop gluten. Notice the first syllable of that word - glu(e).