Breadhead I understand everything you are saying. What I am saying is that I am routinely making very good loaves with a very active starter that does not pass the float test when I begin to make the dough. The starter has plenty of yeast in it and the loaf produces plenty of CO2. One time it even over-proofed (my timing error) and blew up to almost a basketball size. No doubt a weaker starter will take more time than a super-active one, but so often longer ferment times are cited as a good thing, right? As an example, think of Chef Jacob's Neapolitan pizza dough that just uses one gram of yeast instead of a whole packet. I am basically equating "weaker starter" with "less yeast" and a "slower rise time". Also, it seems to me that a starter that has "exhausted" its available food and has begun to die back in activity will be guaranteed to be as "full" of acetic and lactic acids as is possible. I’m not looking to be argumentative, just trying to satisfy my own curiosity and get comments from more experienced bakers. It’s the da**ed engineer in me!!!
I am also curious as to what folks think about the importance of the yeast to the flavor of the final loaf. I’d love to be able to make a loaf using a starter with only bacteria, no wild yeast, then leaven it with commercial yeast. Alas, I have no way to do that.
I am also curious as to what folks think about the importance of the yeast to the flavor of the final loaf. I’d love to be able to make a loaf using a starter with only bacteria, no wild yeast, then leaven it with commercial yeast. Alas, I have no way to do that.
Comment