I originally started with a 100% hydration starter that I had created from scratch over a few weeks. I did not use any fancy extra ingredients, just a little whole wheat flour to give it a little nutrient boost, other than that its was just white organic bread flour and filtered water.
I wanted to make panettone, so I converted my original 100% hydration starter to 50% hydration in attempt to create something close to lievito madre. It was pretty active from the beginning and every 24 hours I would refresh it, and it would triple in size in the jar. I did that for about a week and then tried to use it in a panettone recipe.
It failed, the dough did not rise very much if at all. So I had to throw away the loaf.
I kept feeding the starter every 24 hours, a few times I went 48 hours by keeping it in the fridge.
Today I tried making a sourdough focaccia. I used 20% starter in the levain. I used the recipe from the Chain Baker - https://www.chainbaker.com/naturally-leavened-focaccia/
It bubbled, but didn't really rise after 12 hours (i left it out at room temp overnight), although it was kind of liquid so didn't have enough structure to rise anyway, I proceeded with the final dough.
Each time I let the dough rest after folding, it didn't rise much. I finally went ahead and put it in the oven, and it didn't even rise in the oven. It came out kind of flat. But it did taste sour, which actually I was not expecting because the 50% hydration is supposed to have less sour due to more yeast instead of bacteria.
So basically the starter I'm using is a failure.
I'm not sure what is wrong, because when I was doing the 100% hydration starter I was able to do bread and the same focaccia recipe I linked above without any issue. It just worked fine, and was really giving a nice rise.
Does anyone have any idea what could be wrong? I want to keep with the 50% hydration starter if possible. Do I just need more time to cultivate it?
Cariah Marey once were 50% hydration white starter. She went through several dietary changes to test different ideas
Nowadays she is taking form as 33% hydration bran starter. I feed her bran:sugar:water 8:1:3. She produces sweet tasting bread nowadays. But it took awhile.
Supplement your lean dough with instant yeast for awhile, gradually reduce it to zero. After your starter can handle lean dough, add sugar to your starter to make it more osmotolerant. Then move to milk loaves. Then move to cinnamon rolls (the sugar draws water from the dough). Then move to croissants and brioche. Always use unsalted butter.
Don't forget to employ fermentation techniques that increase yeast:LAB (3 stages levain, cool temperature, low hydration.)
Prolly different from starter to starter, my starter smells sweet and alcoholic when ripe. I never had that with liquid starter.
As a rule - when making a starter - it should return to almost water before the next feeding. It should thicken up to the original state when fed. If it doesn't thin out - wait till it does. Do that a few times and it's a starter. It is different when you make a bread. First - you make the starter. Then you make the bread. Enjoy!
I experience that when using 100% hydration starter. near the refreshment cycle, it would lose all gluten and be a little bit like pancake batter.
however from what I've seen of people refreshing 50% hydration starter like lievito madre on youtube, it never gets to that point, it is for the most part still doughy when doing the refreshments, definitely not stiff, but not watery or runny.
also when they store it for long term storage in the fridge, it's still stiff and they can break it apart with their hands.
I would try making a simple white loaf with your starter to check whether it is working properly.
ie something like 68% hydration, all white bread flour, 2% salt, 20% levain and see how that goes. No oils, fats, sugars.
Build your levain in 2 stages, eg 1:2 the afternoon of the day before and then an overnight build at, say 1:4 overnight for a morning mix.
Rise to 40% bulk and proceed with the bake. Try and do everything at 25C/77f or thereabouts. If that makes a nice loaf, your starter is probably good..
Lance
I keep my mother starter at 66% and most of my levains which are made from a piece of the mother starter are around 66%. I typically look for around a 100% rise. You may be letting it go too long and it’s using up all of its energy. Try letting it double and either use it right away or put it in the refrigerator for Ap to a day.
Since you mentioned lievito madre, I presume you used a 1:1 (starter:flour) ratio?
Feeding at this ratio every 24 hours at room temp is not ideal because you will generate lots of acidity and high acidity will slow everything down (Yeast, LAB and amylolytic activity). The exception being if you employ methods which control acidity development such as keeping the dough in water or binding.
This oft repeated mantra is misunderstood. Gram for gram, a mature starter containing more liquid will contain more yeast cells than a stiffer lower hydration starter.
I recently switched to the 48 hour cycle of refreshment as indicated in this video - https://youtu.be/15QrVhqCYJw?si=lYvsciF1UNGGXuFp After doing so the starter gluten structure is broken down as expected whereas when I was doing 24 hour refreshments, it was still intact.
Also it was stated by The Bread Code - Sourdough starter types - The Sourdough Framework - that as hydration decreases, you get more yeast activity and less bacteria activity, which I assume means less of a intense sour flavor in the end?
Are you saying this isn't right?
I did find this site - Sweet Stiff Starter – The Sourdough Baker- which talk about sugar in a stiff starter which is used to increase yeast activity. Could that be what they are doing with lievito madre when they do the final refreshments prior to use by first placing the starter in the sugary water bath?
Without getting into a deep discussion, yes, in strict terms what is written in The Sourdough Framework is scientifically inaccurate.
The following is well established:
Low Hydration = Higher TTA, Higher pH.
High Hydration = Lower pH, Lower TTA.
A couple of things to consider: Microbes live in the water; more water, more living space.
Acidity is derived from the flour and adding more water will dilute everything.
If you want to go deeper have a read of this study: Diversity of the Lactic Acid Bacterium and Yeast Microbiota in the Switch from Firm- to Liquid-Sourdough Fermentation - PMC / https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00309-14.
From a professional standpoint, sugar is never directly added to lievito madre!
All else being equal -- always the qualifier -- liquid levains don't produce less acid than stiffer starters. The opposite is what is supported both empirically and by the literature. From Kinetics and Modeling of Sourdough Lactic Acid Bacteria by Neysens and De Vuyst, 2005:
"However, it can be generally accepted that the more liquid the sourdough is, higher will be the acidification rate, and faster the consumption of fermentable sugars will take place. (Ganzle, Ehrmann, & Hammes, 1998; Gionotti et al., 1997; Rocken, Rich & Rinkemeier, 1992; Seibel & Brummer, 1991; Wick, Stolz, Bocker, & Lebeault, 2003)."
Six references in one there. But I do think I know what's causing the mix-up. In the past few years, I have seen references to the article you’re referring to and a similar one -- Liquid and firm sourdough fermentation: microbial robustness and interactions during consecutive backsloppings (Galli et al.) -- that at a casual glance may appear to be saying that liquid levains have more yeast than firm, or less LAB:yeast, less acid etc. But this is out of context and doesn’t acknowledge the objective of the study. The context is very important here.
Despite their titles, what these articles are about is comparing traditional sourdough (which has historically been firm in Italy) and a new type of industrial sourdough (which is necessarily liquid). This is a response to industry moving away from types II and III sourdough, toward something more like type I -- for mass-production -- with the goal of eliminating variability in fermentation conditions and the manual maintenance methods which require man-hours and qualified staff.
This new hybrid technology is being called liquid sourdough fermentation, but it is not the same as the 100% hydration type I sourdough starters used by home bakers, artisan bakers or neighborhood bakeries. This was created for semi-automated factory consistency in order to scale up production while at the same time aiming for the qualities and benefits of type I sourdough. It comes in response to consumer demand for better, more natural breads with less additives and preservatives.
These are Italian studies where the artisan type I starters have traditionally been firm. And firm doesn't work well with semi-automation. Starters are grown in fermentation tanks and need to be pumpable through dispensing systems. Hence the change from firm to liquid. But this isn't like our artisan 100% hydration starters. These were very high hydration, and because that would separate, they were kept homogenous by stirring continuously.
That was built into both experimental designs. The one in your link is 180% hydration with stirring at 150 rpm, and in Liquid and firm sourdough ... it’s 230% hydration with stirring at 100 rpm. The full papers don’t talk about the exact process they're trying to emulate, but it’s safe to say that it doesn't much resemble what we home- and artisan bakers do. And hydration wasn't the only variable in this switch, so in other words, all else is not equal.
The bigger influence here is the stirring which, in addition to keeping things homogenous, introduces air and distributes oxygen throughout. That turns the tables in favor of yeast which has a big impact on the balance between the populations, and consequently, the balance of their metabolic effects, i.e., producing less acidity within ripening time.
Very high hydration and continuous stirring weren’t the only differences between these experimental industrial liquid sourdoughs and typical artisan liquid sourdoughs (temperatures, refreshment rates and times also factor in). But it does show that the technology can produce stable and consistent sourdough that is functionally more similar to the firm type I sourdough it is meant to replace. I would think that to be the ultimate goal for mass-production.
Anyway, these types of studies don't negate all the previous work that shows the opposite between firm and liquid. They were designed to answer different questions.
My best,
dw
"However, it can be generally accepted that the more liquid the sourdough is, higher will be the acidification rate, and faster the consumption of fermentable sugars will take place."
Six references maybe but without deep diving those, it's possible they could all be sourcing the same singular experiment. Academic literature isn't insusceptible to repeating long held assumptions. In any case, that statement isn't at odds with what I'm saying and the points I have made are in agreement with that statement.
Breaking down what you have said, mostly you are objecting to the validity of the results by saying it's out of context and you are pointing squarely to the aspect of agitation and the possibility of oxygenation which absolutely I agree would be significantly advantageous to yeast growth. Glance or no glance, the results are the results, and they demonstrate the existential proof that very high liquid environments can establish significantly higher cellular populations of yeast compared to their firm (low hydration) counterparts. Examining those two papers, the experimental designs are significantly different, one uses existing starters (converting firm to liquid) the other experiment establishes starters with selected culture inoculations. And yet they independently establish the same thing with regard the effects on bacterial and yeast populations at higher water content compared to lower water content.
Addressing oxygen influence is a good and credible argument. But now I will counter that argument with following:
For yeast to take advantage of molecular oxygen it must first dissolve into the water. During fermentation the liquid culture will become saturated with dissolved carbon dioxide, this and its release of CO2 will effectively create a barrier to atmospheric oxygen. I have the words of my Enology lecturer in my mind, something along the lines of "you could bubble a load of air through the wine and it wouldn’t really cause any oxidation or be effectively used by yeast and that its actually quite difficult to force oxidation in this way, the air pretty much passes straight through without doing anything" this was very much to our surprise. Reflecting on that and considering processes used in winemaking I would conclude that the best way to incorporate oxygen is to spray it over itself, increasing the surface area of the liquid exposed to air. Back on topic, I've seen these liquid sourdough fermenters in action, they certainly don't appear to be designed with oxygenation in mind.
"Anyway, these types of studies don't negate all the previous work that shows the opposite between firm and liquid."
Honestly though, what previous work specifically demonstrates the opposite findings comparing different liquid contents of type I starters? I know you're entrenched on this, but I find the business of discussing LAB to Yeast ratios inherently flawed. As I am sure you will agree, I do find it odd that most voices that debate this stuff have no ability to measure such things. We’ve seen the charts and the extrapolated data here on TFL but…
Debating unknown yeast and bacterial populations in one’s starter doesn't a sour bread make!
Speaking of empirical evidence, the OP reported going stiff gave them poor rise and a sour result and I know their account isn't an anomaly. The sourest bread I've ever made was from a stiff starter. And I'm sure there will be many more with similar accounts.
Low Hydration = Higher pH, Higher TTA
High hydration = lower pH, lower TTA
The above is an accurate description when you consider simply the physiochemical aspect and how higher or lower water content would affect acidity and acid absorbing ability of the flour. Increasing the water content helps to dissociate weak acids by diluting them and decreasing water content enhances the buffering effect from flour inhibiting the acidification as measured by pH. The converse is true in both cases.
Take a stiff starter, divide it in two add water to one and not the other. The pH will be about the same, but the TTA will be significantly different because TTA is measured per mass of the fermenting matter. As mentioned, acidity is derived from transforming sugars in the flour, water in of itself can't contribute acidity and contributes to dilution. Now sure in practise you can extract more acidity with higher water content (as done industrially with type II starters) with respect to the flour mass because fermentation becomes more effective. But in the same way context is important when considering starters used by home and artisanal bakers.
In another scenario take some water, add vinegar, only a few drops are needed to shift the pH way down into the 3-4 territory. If you measured the TTA it would be extremely low. Do the same but with flour in the mix and it would take significantly more than a few drops to shift the pH downward. In this case you can attain a higher TTA (more vinegar added) while having a higher pH compared to the mixture of just vinegar and water. This is the buffering capacity of flour.
It is just an assumption that a given 100% hydration starter might have a higher LAB to Yeast ratio compared to a stiffer one e.g., 50% hydration. This dynamic in real terms shifts and isn't solely dependent on water content. People make the mistake thinking that LAB are always more dominant than yeast because their populations numbers are vastly different (in the order of 100:1 or 10:1 for example) but this is a misunderstanding. The fermentation kinetics between the two are similar in terms of carbon source utilisation and the differences in population numbers is partly attributable to the difference in their cell sizes. Another way to look at this is by comparing biomass, as Ian Lowe has pointed out their respective biomasses are similar (circa 1:1).
pH, TTA, microbial populations and what is perceived as sour are all different things.
For a while now it has been my understating that a starter which has the ability to reduce the pH fastest effectively gives yeast the upper hand and contributes to a non-sour outcome. All aspects of maintaining a lievito madre (panettone) type starter point to this being the case. Take the alternative approach as described by Ian Lowe, he prepares a 100% hydration starter fed 1:1:1 approx. every 6/7 hours held at a warm (28-30C) temperature before using it to seed a firm and sugared dough. You could argue that one should get better results with a firm starter used at all stages (as is done in Italian practices) but that doesn’t appear to be the consensus.
Also, assumptions are made when observing rising. It has been said that stiffer starters have more strength than liquid ones and this is true. But this strength isn’t necessarily to do with yeast populations rather it is attributable to the redox potential or relatedly to the presence of free thiols groups which reduce (slacken) doughs. This being the case it does make it harder for doughs to rise when using wetter starters irrespective of yeast populations. Often this is overlooked, probably because redox potential in dough systems is not something that is well understood or commonly explained. It’s easy to see how the assumption can be made that stiff starters are more yeast dominant based on this effect.
I'll end with a quote:
"Great minds don’t think alike. They challenge each other to think differently.
The people who teach you the most are the ones who share your principles but not your thought processes.
Converging values draw you to similar questions. Diverging views introduce you to new answers."
Respectfully,
Michael
Thanks for the context, Debra. I read the Diversity of the Lactic Acid Bacterium... paper and noticed the very high hydration right away. So I knew it wasn't about the kind of starters we would usually use. I didn't pick up on the stirring, though.
What interested me more was that the converted starters (and the propagated firm ones) didn't seem to have stabilized their microbiotic populations by the end of the 28-dayexperiment. In fact, even their firm starter samples drifted away from the starting populations fairly quickly.
TomP
Not sure all this papers answer the initial question :D
But it's definitely very interesting. It reminds me of the cheese production and how the industry evolved from small cheese makers with their own traditional populations (and sometimes complete failed batches) to controlled populations (of more or less the same microorganisms) from the industry, which are now used also by small cheese makers to decrease the risk of failures.
Big changes are slow. Didn't read the papers in detail, but if they changed the temperature, feeding schedule and flour, then the population will for sure change also. Anyway, the flour changes every year depending on weather, etc. At least if you don't rely on too many additives.