Rebalancing Lievito Madre
Over the past year or so, I've been having issues mixing panettone dough . After a lot of research and talking to a few different people. I've concluded that my LM is not healthy. If I am reading the signs correctly, it's too weak.
After feeding and leaving at 30C for 3-4 hours, the LM doubles but does not quite triple. A cross-section of the LM after fermentation shows very tiny alveoli. The starter tastes mild and fruity, but there's really not much acidity to it and the pH seems stuck in the 4.4 - 4.55 range after fermentation. If I understand correctly, after about 12 hours bound at 16-19C, the starter should register a pH of 3.8-3.9, yet mine is still sitting in the 4.4 - 4.5 range.
The issue I'm having now is correcting the balance of microorganisms in the dough, and while there seems to be a lot of information out there on how to create and maintain a LM, there's surprisingly little information on what to do when something goes wrong.
I initially created this LM maybe 1.5 years ago from my 100% sourdough starter and I suspect that something went wrong with this process as my LM has never really behaved correctly. The typical schedule for my starter is to refresh 1/1/0.5 and leave for 3-4 hours at 30 C. I'll do this 2 or 3 times in a day, after which I will bind it and put it in the refrigerator for about a week. If I'm going to bake with it, I'll take it out of the fridge about 3 days before and begin the typical cycle of 3 short warm refreshments followed by 1 long cold one. The starter is maintained exclusively with KA Sir Lancelot flour.
I've been doing things a bit differently lately in order to try and correct the issues I've noticed. I've been taking some suggestions from https://www.dissapore.com/ricette/lievito-madre-di-iginio-massari/ and https://biancolievito.com/how-to-fix-your-sourdough/ on how to strengthen a weak LM.
Over the past week I have been tracking refreshments and have gathered some interesting (and frustrating) data points:
- I have done many 1/0.8 refreshments (starter/flour) at 45% - 50% hydration per Massari's recommendation, yet the starter still seems weak and is not acidifying below 4.4, even after as much as 5 hours at 30 C.
- I have done 2 rather lengthy "long" refreshments. One of these was a submerged refreshment with 19C water left at room temp (about 71F) for 17.5 hours, the other was a bound refreshment at 17-19C for about 35 hours. Both of these resulted in some decent acidification down to about 4.1-4.2. I followed both of these up with 1/0.8 warm refreshments which, in both cases, brought the pH right back up to about 4.4 after 3.5 hours.
- I'm tracking the difference in pH before and after fermentation. The two very long refreshments I mentioned acidified the most, resulting in a pH change of about 0.8 - 0.9. The refreshments immediately following these long ones, however, resulted in the least acidification of all 15 or so refreshments I've tracked so far, decreasing the pH by only 0.29 (oddly, exactly 0.29 in both cases)
- I've tried a longer warm refreshment where I mixed and laminated the dough, rolled it in a ball, and left it at 28C for about 9.5 hours (neither bound nor in water). This only acidified down to about 4.38 and was right back to about 4.5 after the subsequent 3.5 hour warm refreshment
- Out of desperation, I've begun using bottled water instead of filtered tap water. This hasn't seemed to make any difference at all
I'm tempted to create a new LM either from my 100% starter once again, or perhaps from scratch, but I really want to figure this out. If I were to create a new starter that behaved perfectly, I feel I will have lost out on what seems like a valuable learning experience. I am kind of running out of ideas though, which is the purpose of this post.
At this point, I feel like I could leave my LM out in the yard for a week and still effortlessly bring it back to 4.4 pH 🤣. I thought maybe my LM is just happy at 4.4 - 4.5, but given all of my issues mixing panettone dough, I do think it's an issue.
Have you tried refreshing with a lower protein flour? The combination of Lancelot with 45% hydration may be what's stifling the bacterial component. It's a similar effect as Benny's sweet stiff levain, where the water content is already low, and then there is something -- in this case the very absorbent high-protein flour -- pulling it away from the microbes. Try the KA Bread flour, or their AP and see if that moves things in the right direction. Or, if you'd rather stick with Lancelot, at least increase the hydration until you get the results you're looking for.
Interesting. I had read that high protein flour might be an issue (while also reading that a LM should be refreshed with very high protein flour 🙄) , so I did try one refreshment with 75% lancelot and 25% KA bread flour at 48% hydration. The pH after almost 5 hours at 30 C was alarmingly high at 4.54, which is actually the highest post fermentation pH I've recorded since tracking this. I guess that kind of scared me away from using a lower protein flour, but perhaps if I continue to use the bread flour for a few refreshments or maybe increase the percentage of it or increase the hydration, I will eventually see a drop.
In terms of hydration, most of my refreshments are actually 50%. I do go a bit lower at times like when I refreshed with bread flour, or when I'm following instructions that specifically mention a hydration percentage. Are you suggesting going higher than 50%? The highest percentage I've seen mentioned for LM maintenance is 50%, but desperate times call for desperate measures, so I'm definitely open to it.
50% is more in line with the ones I've looked at, and I think KA Bread Flour is more similar to Italian panettone flour than Lancelot. Try bread flour at 50% hydration for at least 3 consecutive feeds before drawing any conclusions. Rebalancing takes more than one refreshment, and if bread flour has more buffering capacity, the first cycle may seem like it's going in the wrong direction, but you need to give it a fair chance. And if that doesn't do it, try AP. The worst that can happen is you learn how these parameters influence the result and you gain some insight that will serve you in the future :)
Great advice, thank you 😁. I will definitely try it.
Actually, can I ask why you say that KA bread flour is closer to panettone flour than lancelot?
I also have some Caputo Americana which might work, but it's sometimes hard to find and/or expensive, so I've been avoiding feeding it to my LM in the event I won't be able to find it at some point.
I came by it secondhand in correspondence with a professional baker who is familiar with the flour specs. Besides, you should be able to feed your LM a flour that you don't have to mail-order. And if I remember right, Lancelot is more expensive too.
Interesting, thanks!
Funnily enough, I was in the same boat as you. Nearly all LM troubleshooting seems to centre on too much acidity, but like you, I had too little.
Unfortunately though, I'm afraid I don't have an answer and my panettone making is parked for now.
Try what Debra suggests - it might work; some say high gluten flours don't have enough nutrients. And I did think about a big increase in hydration to see what that would do, eg 70% for a few refreshes? But I never tried it.
Other options I've read about are a feed with 5% honey in the water and (as a separate option) the addition of some egg yolk.
Lance
I've come across a few posts around the web and have talked to someone with the exact same problem and somehow the threads are always abandoned and the OP never found a solution. So frustrating!
I will definitely try increasing the hydration. While I thought about using honey or sugar or something, I hadn't seen that mentioned anywhere and so wasn't too keen on trying it. Now that you mention it and it's no longer my own random idea, I might give it a shot lol. I also thought of maybe working in some whole wheat flour or something to see if that helps boost activity.
Good suggestions here!
How does you LM look after the 4hr refreshes ?
My LM is similar, it only gets down to 4.1 or so but conversely my primo tends to be around 4.8 right after mixing, whilst I see most persons have primo 5.3 or more. So I tend to assume it is an issue with the inferior flour which I use.
My LM doesnt have the big alveoli and layers that I see other persons get with a fully refreshed LM but I think I get decent panettone results, but of course I am curious how others get the LM to look like that and also get the crazy lift.
I will take a picture at my next refreshment. It's...underwhelming. I notice that with most LMs I see around the web, they easily triple and when scored with a cross, the middle of the cross rises significantly. With mine the cross opens but the middle doesn't really push through.
Most LMs I've seen before and after fermentation feel like they defy physics and make me wonder how such a small dough round got so massive. Mine has never given me that feeling haha.
I would literally pay money to see my LM at 4.1
I use Gold Medal All Trumps (the green bag) for feeding. It is about 14% protein, and it is important to use a high protein flour for feeding. My LM is about a year old, came from a regular sourdough starter. I tried making a different one from fruit but it was unstable.
I feed at 1:1:.45 and mix for 7 minutes, rest for 10 minutes, then either roll in the usual way or knead while rolling it back toward the center with my hands, forming a smooth ball. Then I store at 27-27C for 7 to 8 hours. Then repeat this, feed again and store at 18C for 16 to 18 hours.
Doing this has given me the best results of the techniques I've tried so far. I've seen advice to increase the flour to 1:2:45 in the Italian LlM facebook group, but it was not an improvement for me. I don't go to 30C except for the 3 refreshments prior to mixing.
I see you've looked at Massari's recommendations. Have you looked at Montanari?
In Omnia Fermenta, Montanari suggests a maintenance starter:flour:water ratio of 1:1.5:.45. This is to provide enough food for the LM to fully develop before it reaches its depletion stage. (4 phases - initialization, exponential growth, stationary and decline). The logarithmic phase under maintenance conditions reaches its peak around hour 7 or 8, at which point the pH should be 4.1. The maintenance cycles prior to mix day allow the LM to develop balance, stability, and strength sufficient to respond to the higher temperature, higher moisture level and shorter timeframe of the mix day refreshments.
Chambelland points out that L. sanfranciscensis gains the competitive edge over yeast flora when the pH descends to around 4.5. My observation is that if the food is depleted at that point, insufficient LAB development will occur, which means you might not get to pH 4.1.
I have had this happen when running maintenance refreshments at too high a temperature, and when not permitting a warm/cool cycle to the refreshments.
So, I would maintain using 1:1.5:.45 feedings, warm cycle no higher than 27C, cool cycle around 18C. Production refreshes according to the particular recipe you are using, but probably a 1:1:.47 ratio would be common.
Just my 2 cents..... ;-)
A9BE4F05-F4F4-4612-B328-77AB06E3512A.jpeg
This is all awesome information, thank you so much! This is what I will try next. I have the SPV book, but I feel like I need to read it a few dozen more times for all the heavy science to sink in 😅
I've seen your posts. I will take as many cents as you'll give me!
Aw thank you @joegranz! I have been "driven" to this point of investigation by the kind of experiences we all have with LM and panettone-making. At this point I have read so many panettone recipes and websites that I can somewhat read Italian, 😂.
There is nothing like it though, and IMHO nothing is even close.
So when that day comes when all of our LMs are perfect and stable, then we will have to address the (literally hundreds of) points about panettone recipes, their mixing, fermentation, handling and baking. Onward! 😀
Yeah, I'm a bit "driven" myself. It's more of an obsession. I am like this with a lot of things, but nothing in recent memory has humbled me as much as panettone 🤣. People like you, Michael, and others on this site and around the web are invaluable to people like me trying to perfect this craft. It worked out well for Roy, but we can't all show up on Iginio Massari's doorstep asking to apprentice with him (though in moments of desperation, which lately are pretty much all moments, I do consider it haha).
I have actually begun learning Italian recently and I would be lying if I said that it wasn't in part to better understand whatever content is out there on lievito madre and panettone.
And I agree, nothing comes close. The difficulty and the process are certainly a draw for me, but it's more than that and for reasons that might not be very logical or make sense to anyone, it's important that I get this right.
For now, I just want a somewhat passable panettone to come out of my oven at some point this year.
If you use rolled-in-water maintenance, or if you are doing a bagnetto due to a too-low finishing pH, then the water ratio on the next feeding should of course be lower because of residual water left in the LM.
I have always liked the Autumn kitchen video, but the .30-.38 water percentages didn't work out well for me except under the above conditions.
Yeast requires oxygen, moisture and warmth to flourish. LAB ferments anaerobically and operates well at a slightly cooler temp. So in the growth phase, yeast has ideal conditions, and LAB slightly less. This switches over when alcohol production and oxygen depletion occur.
Although yours includes further annotation. Out of interest does Montanari credit Dottoressa Federica Racinelli in that book? Still, I might just have to pick up a copy of Omnia, looks very interesting!
I do wonder if that is another mistake in SPV. He makes the conclusion based on the negative effects of acetic acid on yeast at a low pH which unfortunately he explains erroneously, although I have spoken with Thomas about that! While the point is true I can't help but wonder if he misread this:
"We observed that the growth of lactobacilli is favored over yeast growth at pH values of >4.5, corresponding to the first stage of dough fermentation. L. sanfranciscensis does not grow below pH 3.8, indicating that the pH is a decisive growth-limiting factor for this organism in sourdough." (Gänzle, M. G., Ehmann, M., & Hammes, W. P., 1998)
The opposite conclusion at pH 4.5!
Regarding sugar depletion, I think that is rare in practice. Recently I was reading a paper that demonstrated free maltose even after 24 hours of fermentation at 30C IIRC! As above LAB is ultimately controlled pH and we can utilise lactic acid to influence pH.
this book does not present as an academic research work; rather than footnotes, there are thanks and acknowledgements in the back of the book, He doesn't mention Racinelli that I can see, but he thanks professor Carlo Rizzello of the universita di Bari and profeessore Franco Antoniazzi, technical consultant for their contributions.
I think it's a very interesting book and well worth owning, particularly if you can read Italian!!
Okay thanks Sue, sure of course I didn't expect that. I more was curious as to whether Racinelli is the original source of the data.
I have Omnia Fermenta in the cart... I see very good reviews, one saying how it corrects upon some of the concepts found in pH4.1...
This is my understanding as well, but have seen some notes about using lower-strength flours (https://allyoukneadisbread.com/troubleshooting-my-lievito-madre/ and https://www.lievitonaturale.org/lievito_madre_rinfresco.php). I have started feeding it KA Bread Flour and haven't noticed much of a difference, but I'm going to do it a few more times to make sure.
This is somewhat encouraging. I was beginning to feel like starting the LM from an existing starter was a bad idea and that I should start over from scratch.
I feel like I've maintained a similar routine for a long time, the main difference being the warm refresh temp and fermentation times (typically 30C for 4 hours, but lately have been trying all kinds of different things). Of course, I don't maintain my LM exactly like this and perhaps the slightly different maintenance routine might be what's leading to a different outcome. I've tried just pushing forward with the typical maintenance routine, hoping this LM would sort itself out, but it hasn't for a very long time now, which is why I feel like a more aggressive adjustment might be necessary.
I basically follow the refreshment cycle from Sourdough Panettone & Viennoiserie, extending the fermentation from 3:15 to 4:00 because my LM is never where it needs to be after 3:15 (or 4:00 for that matter lol).
I think I've seen similar refreshments to correct a LM that's too strong. Was this feeding ratio suggested for that issue or was it for correcting a weak LM? Anecdotally, I've noticed with my 100% starter that when it's a little sluggish and I feed it 1:2, 1:3 or even 1:5 ratio of starter to flour, it of course takes much longer to rise but it ultimately rises higher than with a 1:1 feeding (thereafter I can do a 1:1 refreshment and it will rise just as well). Because of this, I've been considering refreshing the LM at 1:2
I haven't come across anything by Montenari on this issue, but I can look around and see what I find.
Not sure if you made a mistake here. A single feed 1:1 left at 27C for 7-8 hours? Not 2 feeds?
Also interesting choice of flour. All Trumps is bleached, bromated and enriched. I don't think bleached flour is particularly suitable for sourdough. Bromation does reduce mixing times and provide more fermentation tolerance (I think) but I don't think it's worth the cancer risk and/or introducing another variable (since it's a pretty strong oxidizing agent).
well, since that post, I have started feeding at 1:1.5:.45, because I have a concern about providing enough but not too much food.
The green bag version of All Trumps is unbleached and unbromated. That is the one I use. I buy it from foodservicedirect dot com
74AA1D1D-78BB-463A-BFE1-06A964909794.jpeg
Sue is your 7 minutes mix in a mixer? I get the impression that gluten development is an important part of refreshment. Am I right?
The trouble with using a mixer is that you need quite a large minimum dough weight for it to work, which leads to a lot of waste. Also in my 15C winter kitchen, the dough ends up stone cold, even with prewarming.
I wonder if a mini food processor would work?
Lance
yes, I run the KA for 7 minutes, with an aftermarket spiral hook. I agree totally that the process is wasteful!
As for the mini food processor, why not try it? Seems like if the blade were plastic, it would be less destructive to the gluten mesh in the LM. Worth a try anyway, good idea!
I forgot to also mention that I used this 4 day guide which helped to stabilize mine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0fM3EZFHiA
I use a wine chiller to achieve the 16-18c temps, I live in the tropics so 28c is ambient temps for me.
I keep in fridge bound long term and when planning to use will take out the day before and put in wine chiller then bagnetto the next dat and the 3 refreshments
I have seen this video so. many. times. Maybe it's time I try it lol.
I guess I've never followed it because I don't really understand it. It's different from everything I've read, particularly in that she does three 20hr cold refreshments at 16 C before doing a single warm refreshment. I also don't understand all of the different fermentation methods - I think the first time the LM is left scored, the second one is submerged, the third is scored, and then for long-term storage it's bound.
She obviously knows what she's doing because she's getting great results, and to be honest I have not tried successive cold refreshments over the course of a few days. I am trying literally anything I can think of so am definitely not ruling this out, I just wish I understood a bit more why this maintenance routine is so different than everything else I've read.
A hot topic of discussion here, mind if I join in...
@joegranz, I propose a trade you can have my LM and I'll take yours hahaha. Mine leans the other way and will acidify with great ease.
In all seriousness though I do find it quite odd that even with the steps you have taken, the pH seems reluctant to dip below pH 4. Very interesting, and quite hard to accept... but let's see if we can get to the bottom of this...
First thing though, what pH meter do you have?
Michael
Do I mind if you join in!? I was debating whether to create a post about this or just message you directly 🤣. I know you're kidding about the trade, but as stubborn as this LM is, I feel I will have gained a wealth of knowledge if I can fix it. As much as I want to throw it out and borrow a piece of someone's healthy starter, this could be a very valuable experience.
As for the pH meter, I'm using this popular guy https://www.hannainst.com/bread-and-dough-ph-tester.html
Honestly, I'm reluctant to believe the readings myself, so I calibrate the tester every few days. Obviously I am no expert on how pH correlates to how the starter presents itself, but it's definitely not rising enough and really doesn't taste all that acidic. And of course, my panettone dough is turning into soup, as you probably know haha.
The ideal flour for LM and panettone would be something that closely matches the following:
low ash: (type 00 - <0.55% dmb) / <0.47% 14% mb)
strong: W>300
balanced: P/L .55 - .65
farinograph stability: >13 minutes
unmalted - falling number >300
I often see the recommendation for strong flour, while of course this is true, if you are in North America (NA) note that the call for strong flour is from an Italian perspective where historically common wheat grown there has always been relatively weak.
Bread flour from wheat grown in NA is rich in gluten but unfortunately these flours are imbalanced with too much tenacity and too little extensibility. The routine addition of malt may be problematic too.
KA Sir Lancelot flour has over 16% protein on a dry matter basis, which is more than the most common strongest Italian flours at about 15-15.5%.
Concerningly NA bread flours do not demonstrate exemplary stability values... Italian panettone flour would be closer to 20 minutes. This value indicates fermentation tolerance.
Perhaps KA Sir Lancelot blended 50/50 with a good quality NA soft wheat flour might work better in terms of dough consistency.
FYI:
Just an update on this -
I did one refreshment with 50% Lancelot and 50% bread flour, followed by 3 refreshments of 100% bread flour.
My LM is still happily sitting at a pH of over 4.4.
A note about the common terminology from the maestros...
I've seen some interpret these terms with respect to leavening power, I want to make it clear that too weak or too strong refers just to the acidity, leaving power is not the focus, that is assumed, probably because feeding consistently 1:1 at tripling point ensures the yeast are in good shape, at least it should do...
The problem you have doesn't quite fit into any of those definitions but certainly it leans to the "Too weak" (troppo debole) side.
I think perhaps you should try leaving it at 28-30C until it reaches pH3.8, however long it takes. I do wonder if the microbes that currently dominate your starter are not suited to this task. In any case the pH will get that low given enough time...
I have also been wondering if the microbes aren't suited to this task. I am ok with that conclusion, but would like to understand how I got here.
When the starter does reach pH 3.8, what is the next course of action? I am thinking maybe a purification refreshment to get rid of unwanted strains that accumulated given the starter sat at a higher pH for an extended period of time?
I will try that. I just refreshed with SueVT's suggestion of 1:1.5:0.45. I can leave that one as long as it takes to get to 3.8.
While I've never seen 3.8, I did recently leave it submerged in 19C water at room temp (about 21.6C) for 17.5 hours and got the pH down to 4.09, which is the lowest pH I've seen in the last 20 or so refreshments. The following 1:1:0.45 refreshment resulted in a pre-fermentation pH of 4.7 which after 3.5 hours only acidified back down to 4.41.
This isn't to say I'm not willing to try your suggestion, only noting that I've been down a similar road to no avail, in case it changes your suggestion on what to do next.
I'm glad you said that because many things are linking together in my brain.
This is to be expected, I have noticed that too, not to that extreme, but indeed I have noticed where the starting pH is lower than 4.8, which indicates a higher acid load, it can require more time for the pH to fall again. The answer is to work through it, let it keep on fermenting until it gets to the critical pH. I have in fact recently been experimenting with the same approach to condition the yeast and LAB through high levels of acid stress. At the beginning I did manage to obtain a starting pH of 4.5. I am now the point now where my LM is both acidifying and leavening very fast indeed - It doubles in 60-90 minutes! I think I am now officially in the too strong zone!
Too strong = It acidifies to below pH4.0 in 4 hours, mine is now doing that!
This difficultly in reaching a pH lower than 4 also made me think of SF sourdough. Somewhere in the depths of this forum exists a post about attempting to replicate the traditional SF sourdough process which required a target pH of 3.8. I distinctly recall reports of the same issue, whereby many were unable to get their starter to register at that low pH. Not only that, I have long considered a high acid load to be the only marked difference between a SFSD starter and LM.
I'm not going to join in giving advice. I'm not qualified to do so regarding LM and there is already some great. However I have just come across this dried LM. Two questions...
1: Is it genuine?
2: While their instructions don't recommend this would there be a problem in keeping it on-going?
If yes to the first and no to the second this might be a good way of starting ones own LM while being able to bake with it straight away.
Abe, looking at the ingredients, it seems to suggest it is a mix of 70% natural yeast and 30% dried yeast (S. cerevisiae), which I presume is standard bakers' yeast.
So not suitable. But I fully agree with your chain of thought - why isn't LM available ready made so we could just refresh it a few times and off we go? Without all the growing pains!
Panettone makers do put their LM in long term storage, either dried or frozen, so I'm sure it could be made available in one of those forms.
Freeze dried is another option; I bought a freeze dried SD starter from Freshly Fermented and it was ready to go in about three refreshes.
https://freshlyfermented.co.uk/product/organic-freeze-dried-white-sourdough-starter/
In fact I plan to ask them about LM. There is one from Bongu, https://bongu.de/#/Artikel/11/eva but it doesn't sound like it has been "panettone trained".
Obviously, there may be some protectionism from the maestros - I think if you attend one of their courses they give you some LM to take away - but there is no copyright on the concept!
Lance
However Lance, truth is that the drying (and freezing) of any starter poorly preserves the microflora. In most cases rehydrating is almost equivalent to starting a new starter.
Some organisms just cant be preserved!
Upon rehydrating and refreshing; if firm, you can expect L. plantarum to show up and if loose you can expect Ln. citreum to take hold.
Something was off when they advised to simply rehydrate it and use. Dried starters don't work like that. Hate it when they sell it as a natural ferment when in reality it's IDY with added flavour.
Abe, I encourage you to look at this from another angle.
I can imagine what one of my wine lecturers would say about your conclusion of that product... He would forthrightly and scornfully ask something like "so packet yeast isn't natural then?!"
Of course he would be right to do so as baker's yeast is in the grand scheme of things, natural and the added flavour which comprises of most of the product is derived from an active starter that has been dried.
This is not an uncommon product and is on par with CLAS, just all packaged up into one dried product.
Perhaps I should have used the term "wild yeast" but terms like "levain naturel" are used to describe sourdough starters and not IDY.
CLAS is understood to not be the leavening agent and just the added flavour. Wine isn't sold as wild or commerical yeast fermented.
But Lievito Madre has a meaning. When one is buying something being sold as Lievito Madre it should be the real thing. If they had said on this product - "IDY with LM flavouring" then i'd have no issue with that.
This is more akin to a beer being sold as Lambic when it was made with Ale yeast and had some flavouring added.
Don't have any issue with the product itself. I think it's a bit of false advertising.
Indeed CLAS is not a leavening agent, it is a flavouring agent as is this product but with IDY included. When making bread with CLAS you would have to add a leaving agent such as IDY but with this IDY is already included.
It is the real thing, Lievito Madre dried plus IDY. There is no false advertising that I can see, it clearly states on the box exactly what the product is.
IT - "Lievito Madre essiccato, lievito naturale + lievito secco"
ENG - "Dried mother yeast, natural yeast + dry yeast"
"lievito secco" is understood to be baker's IDY and ADY.
If it was sold without the IDY you would have to add it anyway or another leaving agent. Dried starters are intended to be used as flavouring agents but if you wish you can use them as a base for culturing a new starter, but that takes time, and will in effect just be a new stater with quite possibly a different microflora and therefore defeat the intended purpose of the product.
Do you follow?
That culturing a starter from dried starter is making a new one.
Perhaps it was the smaller writing at the bottom of the box and with it being at an angle I didn't notice the + IDY or ADY. Just the big bold letters of Lievito Madre at the top.
Quick update - after a 1:1.5:0.45 refreshment and 8 hours at 27C, the starter is registering a pH of 4.47.
I am disappointed, but not surprised.
Onward we go to 3.8.
How did your LM do in terms of rising??
I am following along with my starter. I did the same refreshment yesterday. At 8:30 PM, after almost 8 hours, it was pH 4.23. It did rise quite well.
This is not ideal, but for me it is closer to what I want, and it is moving in the right direction. I have found that the balance in a LM moves at its own pace. No instant results, but improvement over time.
The rise was quite pathetic. It might have just barely doubled.
I checked the starter at the 10ish hour mark and it was 4.42. It has been 18 hours now and the pH is 4.32. Really taking its time but moving along.
Considering what you've said about your LM, it seems to show low activity in all respects. So one question is, do you think any other foreign organisms have out-competed the desired LM yeasts and LABs? Perhaps.
Maintaining at a high temp consistently with excessive water *could* contribute to other things dominating.
If it were my LM, and I'm not recommending that you do this, I would (as an experiment), split off a piece of the LM and feed it separately, adding a spoonful of organic whole wheat flour to the first 2 or 3 feedings. Remembering that the desired yeasts live on the exterior of the wheat kernel. I would be hoping to re-seed those back into the LM, and I'd be looking for increased rise over a 5 to 7-day period.
I'd continue to refresh the main LM using a warm/cool cycle as a benchmark.
I have certainly considered that.
Im going to see where the starter is at the 24 hour mark. I wasn't planning on letting it ferment this long when I refreshed it so I'm starting to get concerned that I won't have enough yield after removing the skin that's forming. Had I planned to leave it for 24+ hours, I would have made it larger.
So, if I do have to end this experiment prematurely, I will start it again with a larger starter and can hopefully harvest enough to begin this side experiment as well.
How's it going? Where is the pH now?
I think it's clear the microbes that dominated in your original loose consistency starter are not suited to a LM type starter, which of course makes sense since research studies have shown the how the environmental factors, such as temperature and culture consistency determine which microbes will become dominant.
For instance F. sanfranciscensis is better suited to firm cultures.
After 23 hours, pH is 4.16. It's beginning to shrivel up so I might have to pull it soon. I will give it a few more hours.
Interesting what you said about the loose starter. I took my 100% starter out of the fridge yesterday after it had been in there for a week and left it at room temp for maybe 6 or so hours. I've never tested the pH of the starter so I didn't know what to expect, but I guess I figured it would be quite acidic. It was only registering around 4.2 if I remember correctly. I guess I expected it to be lower, so maybe this supports your hypothesis.
Do you think the LM can be corrected, or should I just start a new one? If the latter, is there any tried and tested guide out there for doing so? There seems to be enough information on how to do it, but every single one seems to be different and clearly I don't understand the science enough to wing it (or to decide which of the methods I've seen is best). Obviously I would not seed this with my liquid starter.
Of course I would like to fix the one I have, but perhaps I can start another in parallel. A colomba by Easter would be nice haha.
This question highlights a conundrum about how we users see and put attachments on our starters. The thing is, there isn't much difference between starting a fresh and continuing with the existing one.
In both cases we need to obtain a particular set of microorganisms and that is achievable either way because the process determines that.
If a persistent change in the process occurs which results in a shift of microflora then the starter has changed but without knowing what is going on at that level, the user may believe it to be the the same starter simply because they kept it going, even though the original dominant microbes are gone, out competed because they are no longer suited to the new environment.
Feeling one way or the other about starting over or persisting is actually a distraction from the aim. That being the case, however if a new set of microbes is needed then introducing other sources such as Sue's suggestion of whole wheat, or I might suggest freshly obtained fruit juice, will increase the diversity and opportunities to select for the right microorganisms, just as would be the case in starting over.
I'm not sure how reputable this site is, but the following statement from https://www.lievitonaturale.org/lievito_madre_trasformazione_in_licoli_e_viceversa.php has been haunting me for quite some time lol. When speaking about creating LM from liquid starter, the author says:
The site is in Italian so perhaps something is getting lost in translation, but I take that to mean that if you want the best results, it's best not to create a PM from a liquid starter (and vice versa, I guess)
yes and there is a corresponding FB page that you can join, it is pretty interesting. He sells a package of PDFs with his approach to LM, baking various things etc., on the website.
My LM has had 3 feedings at 1:1.4:.45 after coming out of two weeks' cold bound storage (and my cold fridge is very cold):
Last night it had risen well and was at pH 4.23 at the end of the 27C warm cycle, and I fed it and put it in for16 hours on the cool cycle (18C). Good result:
CC4B4566-66FA-4801-8557-E128C53B91ED.jpeg
Looks good!
I'm thinking of doing the same. I'll get this one as low as I can and then will refresh it and ferment at 16C for, I don't know, maybe 16 hours or so unless you all have a better idea. I might break some off for the refreshments with some whole wheat flour after the cool fermentation.
Hi sue,
can you give a schedule of how you do this long refreshment? I would like to try it and see how my lm responds.
thanks
This is fun.
Originally refreshed at 1:1.5:0.45 and left at 27 - 28C for 29.5 hours. Initial pH was 5.27 and final pH was 4.13. I couldn't wait until the dough reached 3.8 because too much of the dough started to get hard. I did notice that the starter didn't acidify much towards the end. 23hrs into fermentation, it was 4.16 and at the end after 29.5 hours it was 4.13.
I refreshed 1:1 and left at 16 C for about 20 hours. Initial pH was 4.74 and the final pH...drumroll please...was 4.63 😭 haha.
Made a bigger starter this time. Will see how low I can get the pH at 27 - 30C this time, though this is starting to feel impossible to fix
You might have already thought of it but I recall having issues with balancing my LM and it was because my ph reader needed to be calibrated. Once I did that the smell and taste of the LM started to match with the expected PH readings.
apologies if you already went through it but I thought I’d chip on just in case.
Yes, I actually calibrate the pH meter frequently (every few days) because I began starting to distrust the readings throughout this process. Unless there is an issue with my calibration buffers, I have to assume it's working properly.
I think I might be making progress.
I've decided to treat this like I'm starting a new LM from a sourdough starter. I've seen a lot of guides that involve warm refreshments every 12 - 24 hours until the starter is nearly tripling in 3-4 hours. My LM does seem to be rising pretty well, so I think 24 hours is a bit long. I've settled on refreshments every 8-10 hours at 27-30C. I'm also using a 1:0.8 refreshment ratio per Massari's recommendation for correcting a weak LM from the link in my original post.
So far, it's moving in the right direction. I've done three of these refreshments, yielding post-fermentation pH values of 4.41, 4.25, and 4.17. While these are very long refreshments, I am noticing that I'm hitting these lower pH values in less time with each refreshment. My plan is to get to a point where the LM acidifies below 4.1 in 3-4 hours, at which point I will start working back up to a 1:1 refreshment. I want to wait until the pH is getting below 4.1 because I expect the extra flour used when working up to 1:1 will raise the starting and ending pH a bit.
I've also observed a lot of changes in the LM. I can actually see some alveoli now. It smells and tastes more acidic and when mixing the refreshment, I notice a faint alcoholic smell. The LM also seems a bit sticker after fermentation than it did in the past. Finally, I'm beginning to see the LM "tear" through the cross.
I don't plan on doing any 16C refreshments until the LM is behaving as expected.
Let's see how this goes.
are all those long (8-10 hr) refreshments with it floating in water or all balled and cross cut ?
in the second link in your first post they recommend 3 long refreshments but all in water.
Balled and cross-cut.
I tried what that second link recommends which is 2 short refreshments lasting 3 hours followed by a long one lasting 24 hours, all submerged. This got the pH down to 4.09, which is the lowest I've ever seen it.
I followed that process with a 1:1 warm refreshment for 3.5 hours and got a pH reading of 4.41. The refreshment after that was another warm one at 1:0.8 for 3.5 hours, which gave a pH reading of 4.52. I couldn't seem to get below 4.4 after that.
This might be worth trying again though and then following it up with refreshments where I wait for the pH to get down rather than just sticking to 3.5 - 4 hours.
these are somewhat similar to the Autumn video where its a series of very long and some in water and some not
A sound plan, and the preliminary results are promising.
I've been pushing my LM to the max in recent times with the intention to fully solve the problem of acidification in the Primo Impasto.
I'm amazed just how far I've managed to push this, leavening is very fast despite a generally high acid load at times. I've worked through high levels of acetic acid while lactic acid has seemingly remained high at all stages.
Specifically in terms of organoleptics, initially I got back the "rye bread" aroma in the LM but that has now given way to some very fruity aromas which are persisting. For what is just a mix of flour and water this is smelling very sweet, like cake but also "confected-sweet", like a type of sweet (candy) we have in the UK called "Fruit Salad". This I can explain as the production of a high level of several ester compounds.
Interesting stuff!
Very interesting.
You obviously have a good handle on how to effect change in your LM. I'd love to know how you are pushing your LM.
I am a bit worried about hitting a plateau with this plan I'm following. I am still seeing decreasing times to reach the ~4.2 range (down from about 8.5-9 hours to about 7), but I don't imagine this will progress nicely all the way down to 3-4 hours.
Would bound and/or submerged fermentation be appropriate at some point? I guess, outside of the regular maintenance cycle where these techniques are used to extend fermentation while keeping acidity at bay, how and when are they appropriate to use?
While I mentioned that I wouldn't do any 16C bound fermentation until the LM was behaving as expected, I have been kicking around the idea as it has the benefit of purification as well as dropping the pH to levels that I'm having difficulty reaching with warm refreshments.
I also wonder if I'm overlooking submerged refreshments as a tool to correct my LM. I've always assumed it was more or less interchangeable with bound storage, but I'm sure the two cause different changes in the LM, which might be important when trying to use them as tools for rebalancing.
Temperature is another tool I'm considering, especially how it affects the bound and submerged storage. For example, I've seen recommendations to bind or submerge at room temp for 24 hours. Why would you do this when the typical recommendation specifies a much lower temp for a much shorter time? Surely fermentation will occur faster at room temp than at 16C, so I would think you'd let it ferment for a much shorter amount of time.
So the reason I opted to push the LM was because I was convinced that yeast / leavening wasn't up to par, signified by diminishing leavening activity over the typical three refreshes.
To ensure the yeast was maximised I extended the length of the warm refreshes, initially to 12 hours, then to 8 hours before settling upon 6 hours in repetition. I found 6 hours to give consistent pH values, landing at around 4.6 as a starting pH each time, always with a 1:1 feed. I kept this going for several warm refreshes over several days.
A while back I demonstrated to myself that low pH and high acidity isn't as detrimental to yeast as some might believe. Clearly, high acidity slows everything down, but it doesn't stop yeast from growing if food is available and it doesn't stop LAB until the critical pH is reached.
For the overnight fermentation stage I have been using the bound method exclusively for quite some time now. Done for 12-16 hours at 16C.
I was hoping to see the bound package lose the tension and soften, which indicates a cessation of CO2 production, within a 24 hour period, but at no point in recent times have I seen that, even after 36 hours. Only once in the past did I witness such an occurrence. I know from experience tying too tight will delay that happening also.
If I were to detail what I have done so far as a easy to follow instruction I guess I would instruct to hold at 28-30C and feed 1:1 every time the pH reaches 3.8-3.9. Once that is established and occurs within 4 hours then it is ready to be fed every 3-4 hours.
I haven't used the Piemonte (in bagno d'acqua) method for a while but I know what to look for as good signs... Chiefly, it should float in about 1 hour at 18-20C.
Ah, no wonder you said my plan is sound - it is very similar to what you're doing! The main difference of course is that your LM is healthy and mine is not. Funny enough, one thing I've noticed while following this process is that my LM is rising much better, which seems to be what you're after.
Regarding the process you explained, how long did it take for you to reach a point where the pH was reaching 3.8-3.9 within 4 hours? I understand that there are a lot of variables to account for and there is no simple answer, but in your experience, was it days, weeks, months? Were you seeing a significant decline in fermentation time with each refreshment or was it just a few minutes less each time? What do you do if you keep feeding 1:1 and the time it takes to reach 3.8 - 3.9 isn't decreasing?
The reason I'm asking is that I've fed my LM 1:0.8 (starter:flour) for about 8 refreshments now, all held at about 27-30C. Very similar to your process of refreshing after you hit a target pH value, except I am using a different ratio and waiting until pH 4.1 - 4.25. I noticed that my last 4 refreshments were all nearly identical - feed 1:0.8 resulting in a starting pH of about 4.75, followed by fermentation at 27-30C lasting 7-8 hours, yielding a final pH of 4.15 - 4.25. There is extremely little variation in my last 4 or so refreshments. Again, I am using pH as a signal to refresh rather than sticking to an arbitrary number of hours (I think this was my main hang-up for so long - I was blindly adhering to the 3-4 hour "rule". It seems now that it is less of a rule and more of a target).
I just haven't really seen the fermentation time decrease over these last refreshments. At this rate, it will take months to reach the target pH in 3-4 hours, if it happens at all. I'm wondering if you ever hit a wall like this and if so, whether you stayed the course and continued following your process or if you used some other technique to break through the plateau.
One thing to mention first is that getting an accurate pH reading, even with a spear tip probe can be difficult with these low hydration doughs. I suspect with much larger masses it's easier to get a more immediately accurate reading. So could I ask you to dissolve a sample of the leavened dough in some distilled or deionised water and compare the reading just to be sure the pH measurements are accurate.
Some things I can think of that should in theory help with acidification.
Increase hydration
Add malt syrup
use lower ash flour
use lower protein flour (protein contributes to buffering capacity)
A target yes, in the initial stage but once achieved it will then be ready to lock into the typical feeding routine.
Working on it. Need to get some distilled water. Might take a little while before I get the chance. Will report back once I've tested it
Condense a bit of steam off a kettle?
You won't need much after all.
Lance
Mission accomplished, however in doing so, I realized that I might not have fully understood the assignment.
Does the quantity of dough and water used not matter or did you assume that I know what I'm doing 😅?
Unfortunately, as I sit here typing this, I realize that I did not weigh the two, so presumably, I will have to re-test this which is not a problem, it will just have to wait until the current fermentation is finished. If I had to guess (which after a few weeks of refreshing my PM multiple times per day might be surprisingly accurate), it was something like 10-15g of dough and 50 - 60g water.
The pH of the distilled water was 5.7, which seems correct. The pH of the dough alone was 4.22 and the pH of the dough dissolved in the water was 3.97.
That's fine, no need to measure the quantities of dough and water used.
So there you go, 3.97 is a more accurate reading and demonstrates the difficulty in getting a good reading with very stiff doughs, especially if the dough mass is relatively small.
You've turned this whole thing on its head for me. I don't doubt you're right, but I'd like to understand what's going on.
The distilled water started with a pH of 5.7. I can understand dissolving dough in a solution with a neutral pH and then measuring the pH of the water after, but in this case do I not have to account for the slightly acidic pH of the water prior to dissolving the dough?
I've done a bit of research since you suggested this technique and what I've seen suggests dissolving a 5g sample of dough into 50g of water (generally a 1:10 ratio is used). To accomplish this, they suggest putting the dough and water into a container with a lid and shaking it up. I've done that, but the dough never completely dissolves. Given that the quantity of water and dough doesn't seem to matter, I'm guessing that it also doesn't matter how well the dough dissolves? I'm sure to an extent it matters, but I imagine at some point the pH stops changing?
Anecdotally, I've tried a few things:
I've seen so many pictures on the web like SueVT's in this very post - a probe sticking out of a PM reading 4.1. Based on my findings, the pH of the dough dissolved in water is never the same as what I get when testing the dough directly. Is it possible the difference between the two readings is more pronounced between different starters or is this solely based on the dough's hydration (so if hydrated to 50%, we can expect the PM in SueVT's picture for example to have a similarly low pH when dissolved in distilled water)?
Possibly a question for Michael to answer, but I will just step in and say that you can't measure the pH of distilled/deionized water water with an ordinary pH meter - there are insufficient ions present for the probe to function properly.
The accepted "solution" is to add a pinch of potassium chloride which will add ions whilst not affecting the pH reading.
Having said that, because there ARE so few ions in the distilled water it won't really play a part in pH calculations.
And this is how people used to measure dough pH before spear tip probes came into existence:
http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/howdoesonemeasurethephofso.html
Lance
Very helpful Lance, thanks for that.
So, I'm now very suspicious of LM pH readings. I'm consistently seeing drastically different readings when testing the dough directly vs in solution. I decided to ask Hanna about this given that most of us are using the same pH meter that was, after all, designed to test dough. I wanted to see if there were any official recommendation for testing low hydration doughs.
I basically explained the situation to them and here was their response (top notch support, btw):
I can't say I'm going to wait the 15-30 minutes, but will probably follow this process in general going forward.
Also, as another data point people might be interested in, I tested the pH of my 100% starter both directly and in solution and got the same exact reading, so this definitely seems to be an issue with low hydration doughs, specifically.
Interesting info, most ppl simply use the distilled water as a mixer to measure.
off topic, but how do you guys clean the ph meter tip when it has been put in oily stuff like panettone dough ?
I know they say it must not be wiped.
Distilling water mostly eliminates the ions but pure water is a bit of unicorn and isn't particularly stable as it is easily influenced by the environment, such that upon exposure to the air it quickly absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere lowering the pH. That is why your distilled water measured a pH of 5.7.
I was mulling over how best to answer this one, I'm not sure I could explain what I know about the nature of acidity in a few sentences, you'd really need to read a book on the subject if you want to wrap your head around it and resolve any questions you may have. It's clear however that pH and acidity is commonly misunderstood. In acid/base reactions water can act as both an acid and a base, being composed of H2O it contains acid and base ions.
(H+) + (OH-) = H2O.
Also pH is a negative base 10 logarithmic scale which describes the presences of H+ ions in aqueous solutions. pH 4.0 is ten times more acidic that pH 5.0.
In practise water will have very little effect on pH when used to dilute acid containing samples, same goes for alkali samples. It's really the molar concentration of the acid substances that affect a change in pH. Look at it this way TTA 6 (dough sample) + TTA 0 (pure water) = TTA 6. Then there is another layer of complexity when you consider we are dealing with weak acids, which don't fully ionise.
I think it's clear that measuring the pH of stiff dough mixtures poses extra difficulties but higher hydration and the presence of salt (which improves conductivity) helps to attain an accurate reading as Lance mentioned. pH is physiochemical not biological so differences between starters in pH measurements are based on physiochemical composition. Where TTA is higher it will be easier to get an accurate reading which in part could account for being able to get a reading of pH 4.1 with the probe in direct contact with the dough. I also suspect the dough mass may have an influence too, I believe the internal humidity exerts a greater pressure and better contact between the liquid phase of the dough and the probe.
Hope that helps,
Michael
That helps.
Interesting point about TTA. I've noticed that the discrepancy in my pH measurements is smaller before fermentation. If I understand correctly, the pre-fermented dough will have a higher pH and lower TTA than the fermented dough. So, it seems I'm getting a more accurate reading with a lower TTA, which is the inverse of what you're saying.
When testing a refreshed, pre-fermented LM, I'll see a difference of a few hundredths, whereas when I test a post-fermented LM, the difference is tenths of a pH.
Maybe something else is affecting the accuracy of the reading here though - for example, the pre-fermented dough is denser, and so theoretically more if it would be in contact with the pH probe, giving a more accurate reading.
So if one does not have a PH meter(as in old days), what do they go on ? Smell, taste only ? plus how much tripling/rise out of the refreshments ?
But if we think about it the other way round then perhaps it went something like how you describe. They used different techniques and homed in on the most effective way to get a non tangy, yeasty, strong stiff starter. They settled on certain ways, that over time became traditional, and the LM was born. Then when pH meters came into being along with more knowledge of what's going on inside a starter they could then measure what they had been doing already. The ancient Egyptians were making sourdough without knowing what yeasts were and the same goes for all fermented food and drinks around the world. One could make alcohol, bread and other ferment foods without having any knowledge what was going on under the microscope. Once it worked the tradition was passed down.
Nowadays we have all the knowledge so that's where we start and then think we can't do it without all the tools. Perhaps you can give a LM a try using traditional methods as a guide only. If your bread is too tangy and/or not quick enough then you're going wrong and adjust.
Indeed very skilled bakers with probably years of experience handling a LM type starter can use their senses alone to judge qualitatively the condition of the LM. Smell and taste for sure but visually too - the colour matters, the way the cross opens as it rises and even just the feel of it.
I do at least have a good idea of what it should be like when mature:
Soft dough, pleasant alcohol aroma (slightly sweet / fruity) not sour / acetic inside. Tastes lightly tart (acidic) smooth and balanced not jarring, no raw flour taste. Brightly hued ivory (cream) white colour, not dark or grey. Thin papery skin, the dough inside doesn't dry out / form a crust rapidly and stays moist for a while when exposed to the air.
I made a bunch of panettone in December, 3 times a week, Mon, Wed, Sat
each time I did a bagnetto day before and 3 refresh feeds, third feed split into the primo and continued LM(bound in fridge)
Coming to the end of the month my LM was definitely fading in aroma, it was still tripling though and results were the same(to my non-pro standards). I do wonder if the baths weakened it.
Checking the ph since this thread started I have also decided to work on longer refreshes to see if it can be boosted back up.
Is there a technique to roll the LM and store submerged in water overnight 18c with out most of it unrolling whilst it expands and rises up ?
Don't use flour while roling, make sure your LM is adequately but not over-hydrated,
When rolling it out, just before rolling the coil, brush the surface with a very small amount of water, just enough to get it barely tacky. Then roll, and roll the finished coil gently under your hand.
Don't use flour while roling, make sure your LM is adequately but not over-hydrated,
When rolling it out, just before rolling the coil, brush the surface with a very small amount of water, just enough to get it barely tacky. Then roll, and roll the finished coil gently under your hand.
thanks,
on another note, I have been doing long refreshes 8-12hr, 1:1:42% all dry, not submerged
and after a few days I have noticed the texture has changed, getting larger alveoli
this is just some LM I have taken and decided to do long refreshes to see how it goes.
that sounds promising!
I feel like I cheated my way out of this issue, but I've done enough digging to be sufficiently convinced that the pH readings of my starter in solution are more accurate than testing the dough directly.
I left it bound for 16 hours at 16 - 18C, after which the pH was 4.04. I refreshed 1:1:0.5 and left at 30C for 4 hours. The starter tripled and ended with a pH of 4.14 (all readings of course in solution).
I'm going to try and put it to the test this weekend.
This has been an ongoing issue for me for more than a year. My starter hasn't seen the fridge since Dec 31st when I decided to focus on the problem and try to fix it (I am exhausted lol). Unfortunately, due to the issue reading pH, I'm not really sure what corrected the issue (I have tried A LOT of different things since I started).
The last pH reading I got was 4.14 in solution and 4.36 testing the dough directly. Previously, after 4 hours (or more) I was getting 4.4 - 4.55. Something was definitely off. The starter is now rising better and is noticeably more acidic.
I'm hesitant to call this solved but let's see. Thanks everyone for the help (and thanks Sue for introducing me to Omnia Fermenta, which I am reading now and loving it).
what about the ph of your water ?
I never checked, but at some point throughout this process, I switched to bottled spring water to hopefully rule out any issues with my water. I didn't see a noticeable difference between my tap water and bottled water, but I'm still using bottled water.
Water. I was wondering thru this entire thread about the source water for everything. Still wondering. Do you have a calcium reading for the water?
Also, have you tried raising the acidity of the water (both in and/or around the starter) closer to the target pH first before feeding or floating the LM? This might move the more acid loving bacteria in the right direction at least for one or two initial feedings to push out whatever bacteria is trying to maintain higher pH readings.
Another trick to lower pH is chilling the fermenting culture. Chilling can, in just one day, be used with a new young culture to push pH lower and perhaps synchronize rising.
I've been using bottled water for refreshments, though not for the bagnetto which I honestly don't do all that often anyway. The company might publish the calcium content in the water but I honestly haven't checked.
I have not tried raising the acid in the water. As far as chilling, I've done a bunch of refreshments at 16 C, which is maybe warmer than what you're suggesting, however, my starter has spent a fair amount of time in the refrigerator over the past year or so
The pH variation between direct and in solution is a bit worrying - and it rather defeats the purpose of shelling out on an expensive spear tip probe. Have you tried just wetting the probe and the surface of the LM before insertion? Just wondering what reading that would give?
And what about the flavour and aroma of the LM? I think that is probably the key as to whether your LM is good for use or not. When my LM was good, there was a fermentation smell, some CO2 prickle on the chew and a pleasant acid and slightly spicey flavour. When it went downhill, there wasn't much aroma and the predominant flavour was floury, without the other flavours I mentioned.
Lance
Ugh, I know Lance, hence my hesitation to call this issue solved. I agree that it would be nice if the pH probe handled low-hydration doughs better, but I still think it's a worthwhile investment for higher-hydration doughs. I have not tried wetting the probe before using it - I'll give that a shot and see if my readings get any closer.
There are a few things that made me trust this process a bit more:
My main cause for suspicion is how I generally see spear-tipped probes being used. As I mentioned, I've seen many images around the web, on this site, and even in this thread, with a pH probe sticking out of a LM reading ~4.1. I've seen videos on YouTube of the same - someone jabbing a stiff starter and getting a near-perfect pH reading. If testing a stiff dough in solution is more accurate, then based on my experience, all such pH readings I've seen in these cases would likely be < 4.0, and yet these people are getting great results baking panettone. Something doesn't add up.
Perhaps it has something to do with the flour. Maybe there is some quality about flours that give a more/less accurate reading when testing the dough directly. I don't know.
As for the aroma and flavor - that's kind of what got me into this mess 😬. My LM has always had a "fermentation smell", but was missing the CO2 prickle and acidity. I've always described it as tasting kind of fruity - almost like apples. My LM has never tasted floury, though I see that often described as a symptom of a weak starter.
The taste and aroma have changed throughout this process though. It is definitely more acidic now, but has maintained the pleasant taste and aroma it has always had.
The main problem I'm experiencing is that when making panettone, my second dough turns to soup. If this issue is fixed, I'd feel a lot better about the whole process. That's why I want to put it to the test soon.
I have also had cases where the second dough turned to soup when I used another brand of butter,
I am not sure but it happened 3 times with that brand of butter and it is a cultured butter.
Not sure if that is why.
What butter are you using ?
I've tried a bunch of different butters, both european style and american. For a long time I thought it was the butter or the flour, but recently I decided to face the truth that it is most likely my LM. No change in flour, butter, or other ingredients really made a significant and consistent difference. I think I got lucky a few times with my starter being in good shape (wasn't measuring pH too closely, and definitely wasn't measuring it in solution) and attributed that success to a different flour or some other ingredient, but again, at this point I feel it was most likely the LM.
It does seem to be a little closer.
I just unwrapped my LM from 16.5 hours at 17-18C. Here are the pH readings:
I am in the habit of wetting the probe before taking a reading. I see very little difference between readings of dough and solution. Around a few hundredths of pH.
what caused your LM to go downhill ?
Mine turned into the same pale floury flavour because I suspect too many bagnettos
Bingo. I suspect that was my problem too.
I was maintaining my LM by adhering to relatively strict rules, without much attention to what I was observing. So, every day my LM was out of the fridge began with a morning bagnetto. I didn't even bother reading the pH after a while.
I would also follow the same schedule every day my LM was out of the fridge - morning bagnetto, 3x 1:1 refreshes 4 hrs @ 30C, then overnight rest at 16 - 18C or back in the fridge until next time. I suspect that blindly refreshing every 4 hours, combined with a possibly unnecessary bagnetto, was not allowing the starter to acidify enough. Then, the next day, repeat - throughout the previous day, the starter was refreshed before it was ready, so the overnight pH wasn't acidic enough (and probably wasn't "purifing" as it should), followed then by a bagnetto that almost certainly wasn't necessary, etc, etc.
Edit: It's worth noting that I don't believe my LM was ever in good shape. I've only succeeded in baking panettone with my LM a few times and they barely turned out, unsurprisingly missing all of the qualities attributed to a healthy LM. Since creating my LM, I have more or less been following instructions without understanding enough about what needed to be done in different situations. A year later and I feel like I might be finally scratching the surface lol.
My LM has swung the other way now, while last week it was leavening and acidifying very fast and featured a persistent esterified aroma, now the pungent sweet esters have died back and the leavening and acidification rate have slowed somewhat, which is pretty interesting!
At least the goal of curtailing acidification has been achieved! In line with this, I have also observed how my LM is now far more oxidative than it ever was before. Which I'm okay with, now I just need to up the leavening again...
Sometimes I worry about dough pH readings - how accurate are they?
Case in point below. Two different meters, freshly calibrated 10mins previously with the same pH7&4 buffers.
A liquid sd starter sample (120% hydrn) which had been stored in the fridge.
Which one is right?
Lance
Don't do this to me, Lance 🤣
Sorry Joe, I didn't mean to increase your LM paranoia!
And spare a thought for me - I'll have to buy a third pH meter now ! ;)
Lance
You know if you do, you'll just have 3 different readings!
It's all kind of concerning and frustrating though. Having never handled a healthy PM, it's hard to really understand if it's exhibiting the correct qualities. White, but not too white. Dry, but not too dry. Not too sticky. Alveoli that are not too big or too small. Acidic, but not too acidic, etc etc. The only thing I can really rely on is temperature and pH, but now one of those is in question 😞.
The massive discrepancy in pH is making it difficult to decide how to proceed with maintenance. For example, I unwrapped my PM after 16 hours at 18 C and got a reading of around 4.15 in the dough and 3.9 in solution. I'd probably do a bagnetto for 3.9 after the long purification, but probably wouldn't for 4.15. Similarly, a 4 hour warm refreshment yields a direct pH of 4.3-4.4 and a solution pH of about 4.1. In this case my PM is either acidifying properly or needs some sort of correction.
I took some pictures of my PM after its last warm fermentation. I'll post them later. Maybe those of you who know what it should look like can confirm what I'm thinking about it.
Sure I can understand the need for objectively measurable qualities without first-hand knowledge of what a mature LM should be like. I wonder if measuring TTA would actually more helpful than measuring pH. Although I understand if you don't want to go down that route…
LM maturo TTA = 6.5-8 (Standard assay: millilitres of 0.1 M NaOH to neutralise acids in a 10g sample to pH 8.4)
At least with TTA its kinetics are pretty linear and the easiest way to deal with a TTA too high is to add more flour...
Another measure is volume increase which should be measured quantitatively to ensure this requirement is met. To do this you can use a graduated cylinder:
80g of dough should rise to fill 200ml of space. This should be followed as a minimum. Based on this we can assume a dough density of 1.2g/cm3. Massari however demands more rise: 100g of dough should rise to fill 300ml of space.
I look forward to seeing those photos of your LM.
I am obsessive and determined in nearly everything I do, so I could definitely see myself measuring TTA, however, I have a demanding job and small children and I believe to be at the upper limit of how much of this "panettone nonsense" others in my life will tolerate 😅. My kitchen already looks like a science experiment multiple times each day. I have considered it though.
Volume increase is one of the things I'm looking at now. Again, if the solution pH values can be trusted, it is acidifying properly, so based on that, I have begun looking into other defects, specifically rise and the honeycomb. I found myself browsing #pastamadresolida on instagram the other night. I saw a cross-section of a LM that looked like a cross-section of a croissant, with a caption along the lines of "after 3.5 hours at 28 C". If that is the goal, I am not even playing the same game lol. As a sanity check (I'm not quick to trust pictures of a LM on instagram, of all places) I went back to SPV and found a picture of a LM being sliced, and its honeycomb structure was also considerably more developed than mine, so ultimately decided that I do have an issue here.
I've also noticed that a lot of LM pictures I see post-fermentation show a rise that is almost explosive - as if the dough begins forming a crust, but the yeast continues to rise, breaking through the crust. The rise of my LM is rather flat.
Montanari describes some defects and corrections for them. The one that seems the most fitting is his description of a starter that has too much lactic acid. Consistency is sticky and soft (relative, but I think it fits), smells slightly perfumed (vague, but I think it also fits), scarce small and rounded alveoli (definitely), "slightly acidic" flavor (again, vague but it fits) with a pH between 4.1 - 4.3 (I think so, but pH discrepancies..). His correction is to refresh 1:2:0.43 twice per day, every 12 hours, left to ferment "open" at 20-22C. He also specifies mixing lightly. The idea is to increase heterofermenters and acetic acid. This is what I'm currently doing.
Here are some images after the last fermentation that preceded the Montanari correction that I'm now following. I'm not particularly happy with the rise or the alveolation. These images are of a 250g LM fed 1:1:0.5 and fermented for 4 hrs at 29C
At first glance that definitely looks too dark, while lighting can be misleading, contrasted against the cloth it looks dark and slightly dull. I say dull because a more mature LM has what I can only describe as a more reflective quality under light. Dark to me signifies an abundance of LAB and not enough yeasts.
The cross not opening is actually a big deal.
For sure it could benefit from being dosed with more flour.
Aim for this:
Source: Lievito naturale - Wikipedia
Thanks Michael.
This makes sense. I've been focused on the bacteria and pH side of this for a while now, knowing that in the course of doing so, I was likely creating other issues. I've suspected an issue with the yeast, so what you're saying makes sense. The color is indeed quite dark/yellowish in person.
Luckily, I think I'm on the right track. As I said, I'm following a correction by Montanari which involves a 1:2 refreshment at low hydration (43%), making sure to not overmix. This approach seems to align with a similar method suggested by https://biancolievito.com/how-to-fix-your-sourdough/. The section I'm referring to is "Excessive Lactic Acidity" which mentions that the fix is used to promote the development of yeast.
I will give it a few days with this maintenance routine before seeing how it responds to a more typical warm refreshment. I'm not sure if I should see any difference in color with these 1:2 12hr refreshments, but it is good that you pointed it out since color is not something I was really monitoring.
yeah, its odd how it hasn't opened out.
Mine even when floury was still opening out the middle and up like Michael's.
This LM has never had a great rise. Something I need to work on, but I guess I was more concerned about the bacteria side of it.
I let my starters ferment in the oven with the light on. Keeping the door cracked in different ways gives me different temps. One day last week, we had to use the oven so my starter had to ferment at room temp. This seemed to give the yeast quite a boost (difference between 30C in the oven and 22 room temp). The cross was finally starting to open.
A few days later, I found my starter at about 3.9 pH after the night rest, so for the first time in about a month I did a bagnetto, which always seems to suck some of the life out of my LM. The images are from the second refreshment after the bagnetto. Right back to the pathetic rise I'm used to lol
I'm currently doing 12 hour refreshments at room temp, which theoretically should stimulate yeast activity without causing an excess of lactic acid. Since I had good results fermenting at this temp, I'm hopeful this will move things in the right direction.
always knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.
Not that that helps you any…
Paul
My guess is that I've of those is compensating for temperature and one isn't?
'Fraid not Jon; both meters have automatic temperature compensation.The Hanna temperature probe is integral to the tip, the Hach has a separate NTC probe - shown in the pic.
Lance
Some interesting data points over the past few days.
I tried Montanari's method for fixing a LM that is too lactic, which involved 1:2 refreshments at 43% hydration every 12hrs at 20-22C. This definitely worked - my LM has regained the acidic notes that it had lost a few days prior after a bagnetto and consecutive warm refreshments. The color is also lighter, though not nearly as white as the one in the Wikipedia image that Michael provided. It's rising better as well, but not enough.
About a week ago, I began mixing the Lancelot flour with some Cento Anna 00. I was initially using 3/4 Lancelot and 1/4 Cento at 50% hydration. I recently increased the amount of Cento flour to 1/3 which significantly reduced the discrepancy in my pH readings - the difference was finally down to only a few hundredths. I believe the Cento flour absorbs less water as I began to find the dough a little too sticky at 50%, so I reduced the hydration to 48% and am right back to having huge pH discrepancies. Very interesting to have almost zeroed in on the hydration percentage where discrepancies begin arising.
I tested a warm refreshment of 1:1.6 @ 50% hydration after the series of "Montanari refreshments" (5 in total) and it took nearly 7 hours to acidify below 4.2 at 28-29C. That still feels a bit long, so will test again with 1:1.
I now need to boost the yeast activity as I'm not getting the rise I want - it's doubling, maybe just barely tripling, but I'd prefer a strong tripling or even a larger increase. Not entirely sure how to get there, so will continue with regular refreshments every 4-8 hours depending on rise and pH.
Out of interest what method of storage are you using for the overnight? In water, bound (anaerobic), or free (dry and non anaerobic)?
After a long exclusivity using the bound method, I applied the in water for the overnight, and it is amazing what it can do...
To be honest, my LM hasn't seen much storage in the past month as I've been trying a lot of different things.
This week, I started overnight storage again. I'm binding at about 18 - 19C for no more than 16 hours.
When you say it's amazing what submerged storage can do, what do you mean? Given I've had problems with my LM acidifying, I've been hesitant to use submerged storage. If I understand correctly, submerged storage tends to create a less acidic starter than bound storage.
Separately, I've changed a few things over the past few days and was waiting for a few more refreshments to see how the LM was responding, but might as well update while I'm here. I wanted to get more rise out of my LM. Here's my thinking -
Chambelland says that LAB has optimal development at pH 5. He also notes that the yeast is sensitive to acetate and at pH 4.76, the dissociation of acetic acid into acetate becomes significant. My interpretation of that, which might not be correct, is that acetate will begin inhibiting yeast activity below 4.76. My plan has been to dose with more flour (as you suggested, coincidentally) so that the pre-fermentation pH lands in the range 4.76 < pH < 5. This way, I'm hoping that the yeast will thrive without being inhibited by acetate and the LM won't become too lactic.
Perhaps my hypothesis is flawed, but a single refreshment at 1:1.2:0.45 has yielded promising results. Here are a few pictures - I do think there is an issue with the white balance or something. I took these pictures literally minutes apart - first in the bowl, then I set the LM on a white cloth and took the others. The picture of the LM in the bowl is much closer to what I'm seeing in person.
Very different from my last pictures. More rise, some tearing on the surface, much better alveoli inside. I've repeated a similar refreshment today, this time using 1:1.25 and the tearing seems to be more pronounced (haven't cut it yet, but I'm hoping to find decent alveoli - hopefully even better than yesterday).
20230125_142920.jpg
Edit: It's probably also worth noting that I'm having some difficulty deciding when to end fermentation due to the pH discrepancies. I've been leaving it to ferment for about 6 hours. I guess I expect longer than the typical 3-4 hours because I'm dosing with more flour and starting with a higher initial pH. I typically refresh when the pH reading in the dough is around 4.2 - 4.3, which yields a solution pH of around 3.9 - 4.1. I'm also finding that the quantity of water I use to test the pH in solution slightly affects the reading - so I'm no longer obsessing over pH because I've lost a bit of confidence in the readings.
Not that it will make any difference to you but the science is important: See my comments here: https://www.thefreshloaf.com/comment/518508#comment-518508 regarding the errors in theory of what Chambelland says.
Clearly your LM is not tripling, and that is either because there is too much acidity (likely) or not enough (unlikely). Based on what you've said it must be the former.
I noticed two things with the recent overnight I did in water, indeed it developed little acidity and the refreshments done following that showed a significantly slower decrease in pH.
So now I can't trust my pH values or what I've read in SPV 😅
In your comment that you linked, you say this:
This is concerning since I based my hypothesis on the fact that LAB have the competitive advantage below 4.5, but if it is in fact the yeast that has the advantage, then what I'm doing might not make much sense.
Based on your reasoning that my starter has too much acidity, what would be an appropriate correction? I can re-introduce the bagnetto but honestly, I've always felt like the bagnetto just sucks the life out of my LM. In fact, the earlier pictures I posed of my LM (the very yellow ones with no tearing on top) were right after a bagnetto. Prior to that, my starter looked closer to the more recent pictures I posted. Perhaps I should perform refreshments closer together, though I'm a bit worried about finding myself stuck at around 4.4 again.
It seems like it's moving in the right direction, despite my hypothesis being based on incorrect data.
Here are some pictures after fermentation today. The alveoli are the most noticeable difference, and while maybe not as noticeable in the pictures, there is also more tearing than yesterday. Maybe for you guys, this cross-section looks pretty bad, but this is honestly the best I've ever seen in my own LM.
I agree though - it's not tripling.
You should focus on tripling because that can't really happen until the other important factors are in place.
To my eyes yours your LM doesn't even look doubled... You can't know objectively unless you measure it... like so...
See my LM below, from here:
You might see the alveolatura is lighter / more expressive / uninhibited? Elevated acidity exerts a tightening effect, an oxidative effect and an impairment to fermentation.
Food for thought: If the pH reaches the target pH 4.1 before it has tripled then clearly there is too much acidity present.
Thanks for that. Makes sense.
I have measured the rise in a graduated container, though I have not done that for a few weeks now. It did actually seem to just barely double the last time I checked, but no more than that. Sadly, I don't think this LM has ever tripled in its lifetime.
Your last two comments seem to make sense together, along with something I was just reading in Omnia Fermenta about a maintenance method whereby the LM is kept in water exclusively.
As you said, if the pH reaches 4.1 before the starter has tripled then there is too much acidity. Considering the starter doesn't have a very strong flavor and definitely not one that I would say is overly acidic, I'm assuming that there is too much lactic acid as opposed to acetic acid. You also noted a slower decrease in pH after the night storage in water, which would theoretically provide more time for the starter to triple before reaching 4.1.
When discussing the starter maintained in water 24 hours, Montanari notes that yeast activity is very high and production of acid is very low. He notes that this method doesn't allow the yeast to produce "the slightest amount of lactic acid". As a general maintenance routine, this seems a bit extreme, but it could be useful short-term as a correction.
Perhaps some refreshments / storage in water is in order.
Busy weekend, so I opted for refreshments every 12 hours at 22 C. I kept the starter submerged for these refreshments thinking that it might help with the yeast activity. I did a bunch of these, maybe 6 or so, and noticed literally zero change in rise. I'm going to measure it today to see where it is but it's starting to feel impossible to get this thing to triple. Some of the refreshments were as much as 1:1.6 to help dilute the current microorganism colony in hopes of building a better one, but it didn't really make a difference. I'm considering 1:2 or maybe even 1:3 or something. I feel like I'm running out of ideas.
I notice that after 12 hours, the starter still seems very active. I can see it producing a lot of bubbles, however, no matter how long I leave it, the size doesn't seem to increase in a significant way beyond the first ~6 hours.
Something interesting I read in Montanari's "pH4.1" was about how high the dough floats above the surface of the water. It should be about half way, the picture of mine I linked, would be too strong (not much of the dough is underwater) and that makes sense, since mine has always leaned to the too strong side of things.
Personally I have always noted how quickly the exposed dough creates a crust and how tick and dry or not it is.
Sorry to hear, you haven't seen any changes.
Funny you mention how high it's floating because it's something I've taken note of recently. I went back to the original method I used to create my LM, which was a document published by fullproofbaking (I assume you are familiar with it since my version says it was updated "after consultation with Michael Wilson"). Anyway, there is a picture of a floating LM in that document and it seems that nearly the entire starter is above the water. I started taking note of mine and the water almost perfectly crosses the center of the dough.
I tried a warm submerged refreshment today (again, taking inspiration from the fullproofbaking where it is used quite frequently). I refreshed 1:1:0.45. I noticed that the starter was floating after 45 minutes at 28-29C. I also used a spy to see how much rise I was getting. After 2 hours, it had easily doubled (measuring from the base of the convex "dome" that formed on top). By the end of 3 hours, the bottom of the dough was beginning to pull upward, which I took to mean that it was beginning to deflate. The honeycomb, of course, was still very tight - much like the last few images I uploaded. The pH...I don't know. The direct reading was 4.42, solution reading was 4.19 🥲
The following images show the starter at the beginning and end of fermentation - 3.25hrs @ 28-29C. I realize it might be a little difficult to make out, but the dough begins right at the 50ml mark (~75g dough). Again, hard to see, but there is a small gap between the dough and the bottom of the glass in the post-pic. The dough seems to have pulled up to the 25ml mark
Could it be a flour/hydration issue? Meaning could the gluten be so tight that the yeast cannot inflate it (meaning I should possibly add more water or use a weaker flour) or would the issue, in that case, be that the yeast is just too weak to inflate it, meaning the solution probably lies elsewhere? I notice when I knead the starter (always done by hand as it's not quite enough for my mixer to grab onto), the dough tears the whole time. The dough gets smoother as I laminate but no matter how much I knead (have not gone more than 15 mins), the dough tends more towards tearing than stretching.
Seems like such a long time ago since I last spoke with Kristen, a shame as she is lovely to talk with! After providing some initial feedback on some of the things I was hearing, we arranged a video call where she ran through a number questions she had. Some of the ideas I either agreed or disagreed with and I explained some of the technical science, she took notes and used these to make an update her documentation on LM. Last I remember she called quits on taking it any further and unfortunately she broke one of her mixers mixing the LM! To this day I haven't actually seen the document in its final iteration!
Floating in 45 minutes is good! The rise looks fairly decent too, but yes the dough seems a little lacking in extensibility I would say. The tearing during kneading is certainly indicative of it being too strong, i.e. too much acidity. Acidity effects the consistency, it allows for the binding of more water and makes it tougher to knead. On top of that using NA flour from hard wheat contributes to the toughness, as they tend to be tenacious and lacking in extensibility.
The document details a maintenance routine of 1 warm submerged refreshment lasting 4 hours, followed by bound storage for 20 hours.
If it were a matter of acidity, would this not be reflected in the pH? Is it something related to the balance of acids where the pH can be within range but but the starter overall can be too acidic, as you're saying? I ask because I'm not getting crazy pH readings or anything but of course have not measured TTA.
I did attempt to take your earlier suggestion of mixing my Lancelot 50/50 with a NA soft wheat. I couldn't find a good soft wheat flour, so opted for the only soft wheat i could find that day, which was Cento Anna 00. I believe it's something like 12% protein with a W rating of 270, but not sure of the other specs. It has been quite a while now but I do vaguely remember my LM tightening up after switching to 100% Lancelot from King Arthur Bread Flour.
I do have some Caputo Americana that I typically use for panettone. I'd also like to not have to maintain my LM with imported flour, but I'm too curious now - might try refreshing with that flour and seeing what happens.
No, not always, such is the nature of pH. Certainly measuring TTA would help take the guess work out of it. You can however get a gauge of TTA by measuring the starting pH. Where a feed occurs at 1:1, if the pH is lower than 4.8-5.0 then there is too much acidity present.
As part of my interpretation I ascribe the influence of redox potential and how this parameter affects things.
Effects of oxidation; stiff, dry, tough, tight alveoli. (reduced extensibility)
Effects of reduction; damp, soft, extensible, relaxed alveoli. (increased extensibility)
Generally, SD specific LAB activity drives reduction through enzymatic processes, but acidity however drives oxidation. As a rule the higher the TTA the slower everything happens fermentation wise and it can be the case where there is a continuous presence of acidity that blocks the ideal fermentation and the reductive power of LAB.
Regarding the flour, sure I get that and to be honest this factor of tenacity and its influence is probably far more subtle than the effects of acidity. I just thought it was worth mentioning.
Interesting points - I have noticed these different qualities of oxidation and reduction in the dough and it's helpful to name them and better understand what's happening. In fact I do often notice that the pH of a 1:1 feeding starts in the 4.7 - 4.8 range, which seems slightly low.
I did a 1:1 refreshment with the Americana flour. I didn't see any remarkable differences, however, I do feel that the honeycomb looks different. It does seem like it is moving more toward the image you linked of your LM. It is not there yet, obviously, and the starter is still 50% Lancelot flour, but this seems promising enough for me to continue with a few more Americana refreshments. Kneading was significantly easier - the dough was considerably softer and more extensible. It's very interesting how different these two flours feel.
On the top is a cross-section of my starter refreshed with Lancelot and underneath, Americana (50/50 as the previous refreshments were 100% Lancelot).
That certainly looks better! To my eyes, a little too much acidity still, but moving in the right direction for sure.
The pH not dropping adequately in the typical refreshment timeframe is a very good sign of a lactic imbalance to begin with. So is lack of volume/growth during refreshments. This is especially likely since (assuming you still use Lancelot) you use a malted flour with a somewhat low-ish falling number (i.e. below 300).
Lancelot works well for panettone flour though. Can't guarantee it works for every recipe, and it very likely won't work for a LM imbalanced toward lactic acidity.
Cool night-rests/"refreshments" are definitely critical for correction here. I would even say avoid too many successive warm refreshments for now. Water maintenance would also definitely help steer away from lactic acidity. I will say though that water maintenance is a quite tedious, inconvenient, and wasteful (from personal experience). It is quite beginner-friendly though (in my opinion), just takes more resources. I'd say opt for doing baths instead, as they are much more effective in reducing lactic acidity than acetic.
Ultimately there is a trade-off here: spend more for a more "technical" flour and possibly do water management to get more reliable/consistent results (pretty much guarantees fixing the acidity issue if you can do daily refreshments at the right temperature) or go the cheaper trial-and-error way with common (U.S.) flours (my preferred choice, for the sake of learning, science, and exploration!) by tweaking hydration, refreshment temperatures, scheduling, etc. along the way.
Still working on getting my LM into shape. This primo impasto didn't rise on time, only 1.5x rise in twelve hours (challenging formula) and pH too low (although vasty improved!). So instead of chucking it, I waited until triple, then knocked it back and shaped. It came out of the container completely cleanly and very aerated, very elastic and developed, supplely extensible, audible popping of large bubbles, rounded into a very taught ball - lots of strength!
The strength remained, and rose very strongly - very domed and very taught. When scored it immediately opened up!
With a pat of butter laid in the cross, it expanded well in the oven...
Final weight = 450g in a 500g mould.
And quite beautiful. Have you tasted it??
I've made a primo impasto this evening, Roy recipe, and am rising it at 21-22C (cool) tonight as an experiment.
I've been handling my LM a bit differently, 18-19C for 18 hours at 1:1.5:.40 and 27C for 6 hours at 1:1.25:40. It seems sweeter, and is rising well, but we'll see tomorrow. It looked like this:
5AD974C1-5EB2-4108-B2EF-3CF5F7198A92.jpeg
Good looking I agree, it's got that lovely bloom iconic of a typical panettone, but it was inedible I'm sorry to say...
Without salt, of course it is bland, sweet at first and then quite sour, it's a very jarring experience.
How did your bake go?
Unfortunate, I was hoping you would say it was like a delicious brioche!!
My bake went very well. It was actually the best so far, but I still have a long way to go I believe. I have been studying everything I can, and the more I learn, the more complex it becomes.
I've been trying to pull together all the factors I know of that produce successful outcomes, but there are probably hundreds of choices and actions that affect this.
Anyway, this bake was extremely light, shreddable and fluffy, with excellent flavor. It was a Classico, Roy recipe. My Lievito Madre is bound, put away in my very cold storage fridge until the next bake in a couple of weeks.
Also, I purchased an incubation cooler that can hold my dough rising container, so that my ongoing experiments will be more precisely temperature-controlled.
66852E21-CDBD-4FF2-8B56-E4D0B48377DB.jpeg
1BC2EF21-EF41-47F3-8363-5A8406181250.jpeg
Any pH measurements? My eyes tell me it's too lactic... An easy way to tell, is how springy the baked panettone is. The more firm it is the more lactic it probably is. I could be wrong but it looks firm-set to me.
Elevated acidity (lactic) during the process mostly just gets in the way of flavour development.
I'm curious, have you tasted a real artisan panettone? Ever since tasting the real deal, there is no comparison... Even with enriching ingredients present which one might consider detractive, truly there is no better expression of sourdough / wheat fermentation!
You're right, I am still not there with the pH, from the classic perspective.... however I took a class recently which stressed hitting a lower pH as a key point in achieving alveolation.
I would say the crumb is somewhere in between totally springy and set; I have seen videos of panettones which can almost be crushed and then spring back, this isn't to that degree.
And no, although I have purchased rather expensive panettones online, I have not had one of the best, like those from the panettone championship. And living where I do, it seems unlikely.
My first impasto final pH was just like all the other times, 4.39. Both of my impastos had very strong gluten development, and final dough handled very well, could be coil folded, pirlatura was easy and correct..
There is absolutely no sour or off taste in the crumb, but that has never been an issue in my bakes. I am looking for higher rises and more alveolation, but progress is gradual.
I encourage you to not be succumbed by superficial goals. Open crumb does not a good panettone make nor is it any real mystery. Generally where there is fully developed gluten and good extensibility there will be an open crumb. What class, may I ask?
For perspective, pH 4.39 is actually about 5 times more acid than it should be! Because of that I imagine your secondo gets worked for a good amount of time since the presence of acidity will increase resistance and therefore time to develop.
"classic perspective" - sounds like some sort of compartmentalisation!
Please understand it's not my goal to offend, nor to diminish ones efforts, but the coldness of hard reality is where I live not the glistening gold of delusion. Hope you understand.
Yes, I agree the pH is and always has been too low for my 1st impasto.
It was Claudio Perrando's course.
On mix times: My mix times follow along similar times I've seen in online mix demonstrations. I have a spiral mixer, and I'm comparing to spiral mixer times. My dough was very extensible, but I would like to make it more extensible.
Here's a question: Can you comment on this? I was reading (in a Giorilli piece) that the lipid portion of a dough can to some extent actually bond with some of the protein in the flour.... I'll search for the quote. That is interesting to me, as I have started to insert the butter at an earlier stage in the process, and it seems to have increased extensibility.
Protein/lipid interactions can be complex and I imagine what Giorilli was describing was in respect to an interplay with acidity regarding ionic charges. Certainly there can be a detrimental effect where the level of lactic acid is high which then causes problems with binding fats, something which always happened to me in the early days. Adding yolks last or making an emulsion with butter and yolks might help to alleviate that issue...
Trust me, you will give less time to, the thought of, and the action of, mixing when you sort out the acidity!
This made me think of something - I remember reading some of the mixing times in SPV and thinking they were crazy - e.g. mixing all of the butter into the primo in one shot for 3 minutes on second speed. Granted I'm using a vastly inferior mixer than the ones prescribed by the book, but it would take me nearly 20 minutes to accomplish this - and this is with me helping the dough hook to grab onto the dough.
I'm now sufficiently convinced that my LM has always been too lactic. Maybe that's why it always takes me so long to incorporate the butter...
Hey Sue, was this picture taken after the long fermentation at 18C or the short one at 27C?
I've been working with YenForYang on rebalancing my LM. The plan has basically been to try and shift it towards being less lactic and more acetic.
Refreshments have been 1:1:0.35 (35% hydration is miserable to work with, in case you were wondering) and left submerged at 18C for 12-24hrs, but generally around 20 hours. We did switch to King Arthur Bread Flour, which helps with the low hydration (pretty sure 35% is impossible with Lancelot lol). This has done some really interesting things to the honeycomb after 20 hours. I'm sure you all are used to seeing things like this but it was quite the surprised when I sliced it open (I was surprised the first time, this is maybe the 8th or so refreshment):
I started testing warm refreshments and am seeing some improvements (I think - tell me the truth Michael I can handle it 😅), but not quite there yet
That's really coming along!! The photo of my LM was taken at 1:47 PM, which means after the 18 hour cooler refreshment. I like how yours is going!!
Last night, I was looking at various sources, and your new direction sounds (to me) somewhat like the allyoukneadis bread.com one. Which I think has real potential. I think the 35% is a good idea...
Then I was reading Massari in Cresci again, and I think that is my next direction. That is where I started originally, and there were some things about my earliest LM that were good, that I would like to revisit. I do recall getting a 5.2 pH after 1st impasto in the early days, although I didn't have a clue how to mix or bake, etc.
This is the first time I've ever seen a rise like this. Perhaps there is a primo in my future.
The pH is still not exactly where I want it to be. I took a few readings here - sometimes I would get 4.3 - 4.4, other times I would get 4.2 - 4.3. Dissolved in water, I got 4.20 🤷🏻♂️.
Can it look so right and still be so wrong haha? I might continue this routine for a bit longer and then let a primo guide me from there. The LM keeps getting better but the pH always seems to be in the same range (unless of course the pH is actually 4.20 according to the water measurement, but never sure what to believe). Surely this LM is in significantly better shape than the earlier images I sent regardless of what the pH meter says.
There's been a significant shift with my LM!
Since the beginning of January I've had more time to work on / investigate this and ever since making the move to using very strong Italian 00 flour, I had not yet seen sufficient tripling and I always felt the yeast was just not as active as they should be...
That is now fixed! - It had been driving me crazy that it wasn't tripling. The last time I saw proper tripling was quite some time ago but that was when using an English / Canadian blend milled in the UK (see the previous picture I added to this thread). So nice to pick up a light-weight dough!
I attribute the recent change to using the Morandin style hot bagnetto. Something I often used in the past, especially when re-establishing a long time stored / neglected starter.
Wow, that looks great. I'm going to try the hot bagnetto! My LM has been in the refrigerator for 5 days.
Thanks Sue.
I would reiterate that this is what one should be after.
Tonight's LM Rinfresco:
I'm starting with the Morandin bagnetto tomorrow morning.
I looked it up in SD&V, and that is indeed a hot bagnetto!!! But should definitely favor yeast development...
While this very warm bagnetto is a staple in the methodology of Morandin, in researching I did find Giorilli to write of this type of bagnetto. He describes it as a viable option for up to 3 hours in his book Panificando...
Just as I would do when refreshing a long time stored starter, I would remix it with flour and just enough water to make a firm dough, and then slice and leave to rise in bowl of sweetened water for 3 hours at 38C.
It certainly has been working well for me as a standard bagnetto in recent times...
I see that Morandin is doing a 40 min bagnetto..... and so Giorilli does an initial one for 3 hours? That is a big departure from the others! But look at your LM, it is marvelous!!!
I can't help but see the similarity in the bagnetto and YW...
Pasteur effect me thinks?!
He talks broadly (as the maestros do) of the the bagnetto. Up to three hours...
I prepare my bagnetto at 40C, Giorilli says up to 43C IIRC.
I took my LM out of refrigeration (not bound), and I wasn't expecting very quick growth after 5 days of storage...
Gave it the hot (well, 37C) bagnetto with some sugar, for 25 minutes... being conservative there...
Mixed it 1:11:.30, due to the water from the bagnetto, which came out to a pretty good consistency, perhaps a tiny bit on the soft side..
Put in my 86F incubator, and 3 hours later it had grown enormously, in a way I have not seen before.
6CFE62C1-FABD-454D-9B38-4CA901045619.jpeg
I might have to try it too lol.
I have to say, I love that this thread has become people sharing their maintenance routines and posting pictures of their LM.
I'm not entirely sure what my LM is doing, but the fermentation process has become visually impressive. I'm not sure if I'll ever tire of seeing it "bloom" like this. Even if it's a bad sign, I quite enjoy it.
The starter has definitely made a more acetic shift. I think that has a lot to do with what's going on. For almost a month, the LM has been refreshed almost exclusively at 18-19C for long stretches (18-24 hrs). Water management has become a burden - it's messy, wasteful, and takes a long time. I recently ditched the water and just ferment "free" in a container - no water, no binding, no ceremonial offerings to the fermentation gods. Somehow, even with the striking visual differences, I'm still landing in 4.3-4.4 (as high as 4.45 actually) territory after warm refreshments.
Very big difference from a few weeks ago:
Maybe after such a long stretch in the cold, the heat will do it well.
.
@joegranz
In fixing one problem that has given me the proper tripling I was after... I now have the same problem you have, where the pH is very reluctant to dip below 4.3. But I think I am fixing it already...
If you want more lactic acidity and therefore a lower pH, binding seems to help...
Thanks for the tip! I haven't bound the madre for a few weeks now. I have been considering it to solve this problem, but couldn't convince myself that it was the right course of action given the pH wouldn't drop below 4.3 even when the LM was overly lactic.
Conceptually it does make sense.
I did a series of warm refreshments today that was somewhat encouraging, though not quite what I wanted in order to proceed with a primo. The first refreshment dropped from 4.84 to 4.22 in 6 hours. The second refreshment dropped from 4.93 to 4.24 in 5 hours. So, the second one had a bigger drop in less time. I have a 3rd refreshment working right now just to see if the pattern continues.
Getting below 4.2 will be another challenge.
Also, I'm no longer getting massive pH discrepancies between testing the dough directly and dissolving it in distilled water. Perhaps something about the acetic/lactic acid balance has something to do with this as the shift towards acetic acid is the biggest change my LM has undergone recently.
It seems we've switched places.
My LM is acidifying pretty well now, at least over a long storage refreshment. I do a lot of long 18-24hr refreshments at about 18C. The pH used to start around 4.8 and get down to maybe 4.1-4.2. Now, it's starting at 4.8 and getting down to 3.8-3.9. The issue, as you might have guessed, is that my yeasts aren't happy - the madre is just barely doubling in 4 hours. The flavor is interesting - there is a sweetness to this LM that I've never tasted before.
I've tried the hot bagnetto - I don't think it's working its same magic for me.
I have been doing something similar utilising longer maintenance times, approx. 18hrs and also long refreshment times, 5-6hrs to reach pH 4.1.
The refreshed LM is now showing signs of maximised yeasts since I have now seen signs of CO2 production ceasing which is another thing I have been waiting to see, so that is at least a goal reached. Perceived acetic acid is still elevated and the dough darkens somewhat (losing its oxygen).
I haven't seen sub pH 4.0 for a while now, so indeed we have switched places which is in some way a good thing... We have both affected a change.
I noted you have not been very positive about the bagnetto technique and I'm sorry it hasn't worked for you for which I am surprised since it worked so well for me and in the school of Morandin the bagnetto is king!
I certainly pinpoint the use of the hot bagnetto as a key step which finally allowed my dough to physically triple in volume and wiped out the once continuous plague of low pH and high TTA (high lactic).
I am trying something now to see if I can reclaim some of that acidity, will let you know if it works..
As for your LM, I can only try and persuade you to keep experimenting with the hot bagnetto.
Perhaps I'm not doing this hot bagnetto correctly? I am preparing the water at 40C, adding a little bit of sugar (close to the usual amounts you see recommended - I don't really measure it) then slicing the madre and letting it soak for 20-30 minutes. I've only tried this at most once per day after the long maintenance. Anything special about the refreshment following the bagnetto? Do you use hotter water or anything to keep the temp higher during the refreshment?
I will keep trying it - it worked so well for you and Sue. I have generally been quite negative on the bagnetto. I feel like every time I've used it, I've seen less of a rise in subsequent refreshments. It's also worth noting that for as little as I might understand now, I understood even less back then. Nearly nothing lol. I wasn't measuring pH, didn't know what to look for in a LM, and basically just blindly followed a process, performing a bagnetto every morning because that's just "the process". I was definitely not in a position to assess the effectiveness of a bagnetto.
I've been a bit indecisive, getting in my own way of fixing this I think. You had told me that the madre won't triple because of too little acid (almost definitely not the problem here) or too much acid. So am I correct in thinking that the general idea here is to reduce acid so that the yeast is less inhibited? Are there any other reasons for yeasts to "lag" like this?
Specifically, what I'm seeing is over a 4 hour refreshment, hours 1 and 2 are dormant in terms of growth. About 75% of the growth happens in hour 3 and 25% in hour 4. A the end of 4 hours, it hasn't really even doubled. In terms of submerged maintenance, I was typically seeing my LM float after about 90mins at 18C refreshed 1:1. Now, regretfully, it is taking 6 long hours to float.
The long submerged maintenance at the low hydration of 35% worked so well for balancing my LM a few weeks ago. I tried it again for a few days but still can't get the madre to float in less than 6 hours.
All sounds about right, as a matter of routine I only use a bagnetto after the long overnight maintenance as prescribed. I think there are some nuances to the technique that being aware of could be beneficial. I don’t enjoy those moments where it feels as if the dough pieces are melting and it's difficult to reclaim the solid matter. I think wringing the pieces well, is important, so that the added water at 35-40% still results in a stiff dough. With a good routine and strong flour this should be assured. The refresh after this I am actually using very cold water for the mix, since I noted how my doughs were actually getting too warm with hand kneading (31.5C)! In the same light I took care to measure the sugar addition to the bagnetto water - I would often add too much because I was not measuring it. I now know what the appropriate amount looks like. Following the hot bagnetto leavening activity was always lively!
Regarding too little and too much acidity affecting the rise, this was very much in the light of the physical ability to rise. LAB drive reduction and this can cause physical weakness that means the dough prefers to spread than to rise upward in the case the cross won't open. Or there can be too much acid that the gluten becomes inextensible and again the cross doesn’t open because it is physically restricted. I don't generally comment along the lines of favouring yeast over LAB or the other way around because I don't see things that way. This Yeast Vs LAB idea is a bit of a red herring, thinking this way is limited and not a realistic interpretation of the facts. High acidity is not good as it slows fermentation generally, both yeast and LAB are slowed but that may be more to do with how low pH impedes amylolytic activity.
pH - Yeast growth not affected / LAB growth limited (in the ranges typical of SD)
High TTA - Yeast and LAB and sugar release from flour slowed.
Wow 6hrs to float that is not good! And not seeing any rise for 2hrs is also pretty concerning.
Apologies I don't post as frequently as I like, but I gather things with your LM have improved since…?
I have been fermenting it at room temp 21 - 22C and refreshing every 12 hours or so. I have begun seeing signs of activity after about 3 hours. Not great by any means, but an improvement as it had been taking longer than that. It's still not tripling though. It's doubling nicely, which is an improvement, but not tripling. I've been fermenting a piece of the starter in a straight walled jar to judge growth - the covex dome on top reaches the tripling mark, but the base of the dome is only at the point of doubling. I'm judging by the base, which I had seen triple in the past (but I had scored the top in the past, which i haven't been doing, which perhaps makes it rise differently but i doubt this has much to do with the issue).
The pH range has shifted lower than it was in the past. In fact the pH is behaving in a way I'm not familiar with, which makes sense because I haven't experienced this issue before. My last fermentation ended at pH 4.12, I refreshed 1:1 and the pH after mixing was only 4.67, which seems quite low. I typically see something like 4.8 after mixing.
Ive tried a few things. At first I thought maybe there was too much lactic acid and so resorted to the cold, low hydration submerged refreshments which corrected that issue for me in the past.
When that didn't work, I tried refreshing with less flour than starter, which is something I typically see recommended when yeast is lagging. That did not work.
Then, I decide to dilute the starter quite a bit and refreshed a few times 1 part yeast, 2 parts flour, hoping that yeasts would get more active by using a lower hydration, which I understand inhibits bacteria more than yeasts. That has slightly improved things, I think.
I am so close to trying the egg yolk lol. Separately, I've started a new madre "for science", but I am too stubborn to abandon this one.
Thanks for the info. I will think about it and see if I can come up with a remedy I haven't yet tried.
With a starting pH of 4.67 then I can assure you there is too much acid (high TTA) present and that fits with the symptom of not rising to triple.
Not tripling doesn't definitively mean yeasts are deficient, often it is the case that the gluten can't stretch sufficiently. However, in your case they probably are deficient based on a lack of leavening activity. Under these circumstances I think a common trap is to feed again before the yeasts have fully regained their cellular population. Where acidity is high everything is slower, so the trap perpetuates itself. When my LM had these these symptoms, I established that with long ripening times I could coax very rapid leavening activity even though the acid load was very high and pH levels were low.
Low hydration (stiff) starters dont actually favour yeasts over LAB (I have posted supporting evidence for this). I know it flies in the face of common knowledge but the evidence is there. And if that was the case, why are we all having issues with acidification?!
Stiff starters characterised by high pH and high TTA.
Liquid starters characterised by low pH and low TTA.
The extra water in looser consistency is just that, extra water.
Meanwhile I have made some massive strides with my LM! It seems the acid load (TTA) is lower than ever and I'm truly enjoying seeing the refreshes cease CO2 production in 4-5 hours!
It feels different too, like kneading a yeasted biga dough. The pH levels are within acceptable range, not quite hitting 4.1 as the yeasts tend to complete their growth before that point at about 4.2-4.3.
I am aware of the trap and my plan for dealing with it has been waiting for yeast activity to cease and then refreshing. I assume the activity has died down once volume stops increasing. It sounds like I still might be refreshing too early - perhaps the yeast are still regaining their cellular population even though growth has stopped.
And even though I'm aware of the trap, the low pH has definitely made me hesitant to let fermentation go too long. It's hard to ignore. I guess my thinking was that if there is too much acidity for the starter to triple, letting the pH get even lower could only make things worse. So yeah, I've been struggling with letting the madre ferment for a long time as the pH approaches 4.0. sounds like it's worth a shot.
Glad your LM is doing well - definitely gives me hope!
Nothing major to report here, but I have come across a copy of pH4.1 which is influencing how I approach this problem.
One really interesting point is where Montanari talks about homofermentative LABs. He describes them almost like an infection - they have a wide activation temp all the way up to 45C, produce lactic acid almost exclusively, and "colonize the environment by inhibiting the development of any other microorganism including heterofermenters, even making yeasts inactive". They sound pretty stubborn and this description applies to my PM pretty well. I wonder if this is the issue and why it so often feels like nothing I try makes any difference.
I've also learned in pH4.1 that the yeasts seem to suffer in environments that are too lactic whereas they seem to do well in the presence of acetic acid. Montanari describes acetic acidity as accompanied by a "greater vitality of the yeasts". This has made me focus less on how to strengthen the yeast and more on how to rebalance favoring acetic acid (I guess they are effectively the same thing, but the different perspective has helped me).
I won't be able to deal with the PM for a few days, so decided to bind it and put it in the fridge. Before doing that, I spent a few days following some of Montanari's fixes for a too-lactic PM. I refreshed about every 12-18 hours 1 part yeast, 2 parts flour at about 40% hydration. I mixed the dough to biga consistency and left it at about 20C. Today, I bound it up and after about 2.5 hours at 20C, I began to feel a tightness in the string. This is a PM that would show zero activity for nearly 6 hours at 20C, so hopefully an improvement but hard to tell until I can test a few more refreshments.
Also, I had started another PM in the style of Alberto Bernardi. I used KABF for that starter as well. Probably no surprise, but both my new starter and old one are exhibiting the same issues - very prolonged leavening times with a failure to triple. Starting over was a fun experience but obviously won't help when you run into the same issues with the new madre.
A Panettone with the highest sugar content, above 50% of the flour (bakers %). Also with high butter (~60%) and low egg %.
And yes, no flour added in the second dough!
Stats
Not a great result technically but nonetheless delicious! Still as yet plagued by pH issues. Primo was 4.2!!
Otherwise, sensory analysis reveals a flavour very moist, sweet and very buttery, without any sourness or any obvious acidic flavour that the average palate might discern.
EDIT: Removed IFRAME excel sheet as it was negatively affecting page load speed. Replace with UM Calculator image of Zoia formula.
Looks good!
How was your LM leading up to mixing the panettone dough? Were you able to get it below 4.3?
If you were not able to get it below 4.3, how did you proceed? Given my pH issues, I find that when I do the 3 preparatory refreshments I have two choices -
Option 1 would lead to a primo being mixed with a starter around 4.3-4.4. Option 2 would only allow for 2 refreshments, unless I want to be mixing at 2am.
I've read that a healthy LM can be anywhere from about 4.1 to 4.4, yet 4.1 is the target we all seem to aim for and which an entire book is named after. Obviously, even with the pH issues, you've produced a very nice loaf.
I would like to start seeing how my LM behaves in a primo, so have been debating which approach is better.
Not really, 4.26 IIRC. I think it's important to stick religiously to the 3-4 hour timeframe in the lead up to a primo so that's what I did.
My LM is becoming very acetic now, which makes sense since I've always said lactic promotes lactic.
Regarding pH 4.1, indeed while this is important to some maestros it isn't so much with others, such as Giorillli, for him the optimum is pH 4.5!
Wow, I had no idea that there are maestros using a LM at 4.5. All the more reason for me to start baking. I think the issue of my second dough turning into a soupy mess was caused by the madre being too lactic. I've definitely seen enough of a shift that I no longer think that's an issue, so worth another shot I think.
To be honest I'm not too familiar with Giorilli's practices. Is there a particular publication detailing his process? A quick search shows quite a few books by him. The one entitled "La Lievitazione Lenta" seems like it might be a good one.
Personally I'm not quite onboard with the whole lactic / acetic descriptors even though I get it and have used it. I guess it works for a sensory analysis but in real terms, lactic acid will always dominate.
In the case where butter fails into incorporate, my own interpretations of what's going on here is an oxidative problem / acidity problem. The gluten is tightened so much that it becomes impossible to work as the slippery fats lubricate everything. More extensibility allows for better incorporation.
I have a copy of La Lievitazione Lenta, it's quite a general book nothing like others that go into more depth, for instance Montanari's.
There's several technical resources written by Giorilli on DolceSalato, there links on my blog: Lievito Madre | Italian Baking (wordpress.com)
here's one: http://www.dolcesalato.com/blog/2012/07/17/a-lezione-di-lievito-madre/
Hey joegranz ...still trying to rebalance this? Or have you eventually got it?
I ask because I was in the same boat, however I have started again from scratch and can tell you I should have done it months ago. If its not performing and you have exhausted most routes you could have a fully performing LM within a week.
just trying to help, if you enjoy the struggle/learning, I also get that.
Alex
I do enjoy the struggling/learning - if that's not happening I tend to lose interest. I'm also stubborn and want to learn how to maintain a LM indefinitely - which means correcting any issues or imbalances that might arise. My LM acidity is good now, but I cannot get it to triple - a new problem I'm working on.
I've also started a new madre in the past few days. I follow Alberto Bernardi on Instagram and he goes from apple to panettone in less than 2 weeks. Recently, he began documenting his creation of a new madre which was enough inspiration for me to follow along and try it myself. I'm fully expecting the new LM to quickly get to a healthy state and outperform my old one by far, but let's see.
I'm not sure how much I'm on board with some of Alberto's points. He speaks of madres created from apple water and sugar as having a "memory" that allows them to be very powerful once they mature. He also tends to prefer younger madres because they vastly outperform old ones (though I have a feeling that there are more than a few maestros who might disagree...). Anecdotally, I've met a few people with the exact same balancing issues I'm experiencing and coincidentally all of us started our madre in the same way - from a liquid starter (which was not started from fruit).
For a long time I've wondered if I just don't have the right strains of bacteria in my madre - perhaps something about starting from fruit increases the chances of getting the right microorganisms? I'm not sure. Someone from EIDB was in Al's comments talking about dextran production and how Chambelland lists a few bacteria known for dextran production, but it's impossible to be sure which bacteria will be in your starter when creating it from scratch. I've also heard some people say that the best panettone is made from madres started from fruit.
I have a lot of questions, so thought it was worth a shot. I don't want to have to throw away a LM and start a new one every time I run into an issue, but starting fresh can be a valuable learning experience as well.
Also, I'm in no position to defend the points and thoughts I've relayed from Alberto's Instagram posts, but would love to hear counterarguments from those who disagree.
I also did the same except im about day 8 or so from albertos guide and I must say the results (only on PM) are amazing. If you look at my blog ive got more photos on it. Broad strokes though see images...its hitting all the perameters most suggest are desirable. I would say though thats me only at the first stage of this, getting it to this point doesnt mean im going to be hitting a primo above 5 haha, thats a whole other journey im expecting. Everything you had though from the initial post, I also had. Glad I restarted because at least I know now I can hit the initial foundation marks. Good luck, hope it goes as well as mine has!
Also yes same boat, I started from a liquid starter previously (not initially with a fruit ferment). Ive also seen a few now who started with dung...
20230312_093120.jpg
20230312_170953.jpg
20230312_170947.jpg
20230313_072225.jpg
I am just about to start my LM on 18C water maintenance. The pH of my starter is still extremely high around 5.5, but as Al suggests I am prioritizing yeast and using volume increase as a key metric right now, not really worrying much about pH. I am about to start water maintenance which should hopefully get the pH under control.
I will say though, I have never in my life seen a starter grow like this. The initial liquid starter made from the apple water must have increased about 5x by the time it was done fermenting. I mixed it a little too big, filling the jar just under halfway. I knew that would be an issue and I'd have to stir it down, but I had to stir it down every 45-60 minutes for a few hours lol. When that became too much work, I transferred it to another container where it continued to grow. Not really sure how much it grew in the end, but it was really incredible. The stiff dough reaches maximum volume in less than 3 hours, though I expect this to slow once the acidity arrives.
What kind of flour are you using? I'm sure the crazy yeast activity I'm seeing has to do with my flour being malted.
Haha! Yeah mine wasnt that wild at all. It about doubled max first few days. Then once I hit my schedule and refreshed it at the right point it began to really pop. I only started to look at ph when it started to hold shape.
I kept one in water and one just dry. I find the one in water acififies to what is expected - about 4.1/2 and then ig I leave it longer it will go below 4. Where as the dry version tends not to go below 4.1 im yet to push it though time wise. On the correct schedule though I have found a good rythem.
Im testing a panettone with it to see how it goes, im not expecting any miracles to be honest but now at least I know im closer to the goal.
Good luck with it hope it turns out good!
Ah yes, Italian flour. I expect my experience to be quite a bit different from yours!
Interesting results with the bound vs submerged starters. I would've expected the opposite - bound to finish at a lower pH than submerged.
Thanks, and good luck to you as well. I'll report back here with anything notable.
Im expecting it will probably just end up the same acidified primo!
Yes me too. I think the water makes it easier somehow to balance.
Thanks primo in 1hr! Need all i can get
Hey,
I am looking to get my LM started again for Easter.
The apple water seems interesting to try, do you need to use particular apples or any apple from the supermarket will do ?
thanks,
L
From what I understand, the microorganisms are on the skin of the apple, so you want an organic apple.
I can try to summarize Alberto Bernardi's method as best I can, with the disclaimer that this method is not my own, but the information I gathered while looking through some of Alberto's recent posts. I realize a lot of people here are knowledgeable enough to create a starter without explicit instructions, but maybe someone will find it useful.
First, you ferment apple water. Take 1 organic apple (probably 200 - 250g), cut it into large pieces and mix with about 400g water and 20g sugar. I don't think this has to be exact. Alberto mentions having used up to 100g of sugar. Leave that at about 28 - 30C for about 48 hours, shaking the jar every 4 or 5 hours. You should see signs of fermentation in the water. I was getting a lot of bubbles when I shook it and would hear the pressure release when I opened the lid. Near the end of the 48 hours, I started to see bubbles around the edge of the surface even without shaking the jar, but it took almost the full 48 hours to see this.
Next, mix a liquid starter. Take equal parts flour and apple water and mix well. Leave this at 28 - 30C for 10 - 12 hours or up to 24. It should double, but in Alberto's latest attempt it didn't grow at all and mine probably grew like 5x (which I assume is because my flour is malted).
Next, create a stiff starter. Bring the hydration to 40 - 43%, refreshing with 1 part starter and about 0.85 flour. Again, leave this at 28 - 30C for about 12 hours. Repeat this every 12 hours or so. From this point on, you're looking for the starter to reach its maximum level of fermentation in 3 - 4 hours (I am not sure how he determines "max fermentation"). Throughout these refreshments, there doesn't seem to be a great reduction in pH. Once the starter is performing well, you can increase the ratio to 1:1.
Once you've obtained max fermentation in 3 - 4 hours, you can begin a normal maintenance routine. I believe Alberto does 20 hours submerged at 18C followed by 3-4 hours at 28 - 30C (not sure if the warm refreshment is submerged). Once the pH is within range and the starter is rising well, you should be able to use it for panettone.
He claims that the entire process takes about 10 - 15 days in total.
Again, this formula is not my own. I'm just trying it out for fun. I have some notes on times and pH from my own attempt that I haven't included but can share them if you want. I'm also not finished creating my starter yet (just began submerged maintenance today), so cannot speak to its effectiveness (though I'd happily take one of Alberto's panettone any day lol).
I live in the tropics, apples sold here are all imported and I doubt they are organic.
But I will still try and see what happens.
I'm not sure it has to be an apple. I don't know what's so special about apples. That's what Alberto always uses, however I did see a comment on one of his posts where he confirmed that raisins should work too. I don't understand how the apple must be organic but the raisins can be packaged - either it doesn't really matter that much or there's something about the processing/packaging that I don't understand.
After resting bound in the fridge since dec 31st, I have attempted to revive my LM as it looked flabby.
it took few dry refreshes of long times, 6-8hrs 28c as well as overnight in wine chiller to get it at least doubling.
Last night I put it in water submerged, it more than tripled and ph is 3.7. Gonna do normal feeds and see how it responds now.
Unfortunately every time I do a submerged overnight it unrolls.
Wonder if it is too dry.
I think the unraveling means something. Mine has been doing the same, but it only started recently.
Maybe someone here remembers what it means - I feel like it's something more than just being too dry but I could be wrong
I have devised my own formula for panettone!! It is Morandin-esque for the primo but the overall formulation is similar to Fabri / Roy - low yolk, high sugar (a la Zoia), high butter, extra water...
I think it could be an "approachable panettone" while still being very enriched.
Sounds good, low or lower yolk is the best in my opinion. I think that use of high yolk percentages is a crutch.
Composition / Enrichment Formulation - Comparison
Things are coming along nicely with my formulation...
Mixing up the primo is a joy! The dough feels so supple and elastic it's great to feel while handling.
How did the panettone turn out Michael?
Lance
as yet, I have had a bit of a bad run with panettoni falling from their moulds lately, even before I tried my own formulation. So there is, as always, something not right with the fermentation and therefore not right with my LM! Namely the ongoing pH problem that many report - An inability to reach 4.1 in 3-4 hours and the primo acidifying to below pH 5.
At least with my formulation the finished dough has never felt better, excellent elasticity and extensibility, perfectly enveloping the add-ins. However, I did encounter a new problem with this latest bake, butter melting out of the dough while proofing which I blame squarely at using budget butter which seems like it has a lower melting point. I will not be buying butter from Aldi again, at least not for baking anyway!
Sorry to disappoint!
Michael
Well, a minor disappointment for those of us with an interest, but much more so when you're the one at the pointed end.
Have you considered a reboot with the LM?
Lance
This is exciting. Let us know once you sort it out.
He's only gone and done it!
Thought I'd never see the day... pH above 5 in my tripled impasto!
Not out of the woods yet, this primo took 15hrs to triple and formula isn't fully tested!
To re-cap, this turned out to be a false reading. It can be difficult to get an accurate reading on gaseous dough.
It was very oxidative, somehow this problem assists in giving inaccurate reading of pH.
This one became this...
The extreme of too much lactic acid / too oxidative causing problems with fat incorporation.
Will she fall or won't she... Place your bets now...
Zoia panettone formula tweaked and in a Veneziana style.
All the flour is in the first dough and while it leavened bang on time, tripling in exactly 12hrs, it had a pH too low at 4.6.
Paid much more attention to mixing this time, another aspect for which I'm re-treading old ground. Gluten very well developed at minimum speed.
We need pictures of the madre to make that bet! I hope it turns out well.
I have been making some progress with my madre. About a week or so ago, I was seeing a time-to-float of 6-8 hours at 20C. I've gotten it down to about 3 hours and 15 minutes at 18C. Still more than double what I'd like to see, but a massive improvement. This increase in yeast activity seems to have gotten it tripling again as well.
I have been trying to promote hererofermenters and acetic acid in a somewhat unorthodox way that I don't think I've seen mentioned anywhere. I've been doing what I describe as "biga maintenance". I refresh 1:2 at about 40% hydration, mix it to biga consistency, and leave it at 18C for 18-24 hours. Each time I've done this, subsequent submerged maintenance has resulted in shorter float times. My logic is increased surface area, so increase oxygen for the yeast. Mixing lightly along with lower temps should help to promote acetic acid.
I'm still experimenting to see if the improvements are actually coming from these biga refreshments or something else, but in any case, happy to see the madre getting in better shape. I seem to be ruining it during the 3 preparatory refreshments - probably leaving it too long and allowing too much lactic acid to build up. Hopefully can get to testing it out soon.
Huge rise in the oven, especially considering it was barely risen two thirds of the way up the mould.
Not bad at all, where did the original dough start in the mold, 2" from bottom ?
Thanks lenny. This is a 750g panettone, so probably about 1 ½ inches, not sure.
Ultimately it's too lactic, but at least a "too lactic" panettone is sour free and doesn't present any sign of tartness when eating.
But it does affect the texture both visually and on the palate. It has that typically firm-set quality. This reminds of why I don't really enjoy common market sourdough breads, with elevated levels of lactic acid they are also firm in texture.
how do you determine it is "too lactic" ?
Apart from the qualities I already mentioned, based on quantitative data, the low pH tells me it is too acidic.
Considering that lactic acid is the primary acid produced during bacterial fermentation and the doughs didn't present any obvious acetic (volatile) acidity then it can only be "too lactic".
I did experiment with that myself, probably about a year ago as alternative to the Milanese and Piemonte methods. Though I stuck to the 1:1 ratio, wherein I was feeding every 24hrs as a means for continued maintenance / storage.
I have also been pushing the yeast in my LM over the last few weeks although from completely the opposite angle. Seems to be working! Just now I have witnessed after a period of just under 4hrs, fed 1:1, my LM had quit producing CO2. The yeast are surely fully maximized! pH was 4.5 though!
Oxygen is indeed a good thing!
Just a note on the heterofermentative thing, so you know F. sanfranciscensis only performs heterolactic fermentation.
Thanks for the note about F. sanfranciscensis. I'm aware that it only performs heterolactic fermentation, but my line of thinking is based on something I recently read about homofermenters in pH4.1:
Based on the way Montanari describes homofermenters as "inhibiting the development of any other microorganism", I feel like this could be applicable to my situation given it has proven very difficult to rebalance the LM. Things that had worked for promoting acetic acid development in the past are no longer working this time around - so my starter seems to be too lactic but somehow in a different way than it was in the past. There is an acetic "tingle" I used to notice on the tip of the tongue. Ever since my starter stopped rising well/stopped tripling, I have not tasted that acetic note. It used to be present in varying degrees, but never absent. Now, it is totally gone. Even the "biga maintenance" hasn't brought it back as strong as it was in the past.Could you point me to that reference please so I can have look? What page?
Interesting, the "tingle" on the tip of your tongue sounds like carbonic acid to me. I remember long ago on one occasion when I used to keep the LM super stiff, when I cut into this refreshed LM it was very, very strongly perfumed with an acetic acid scent but then I tasted the dough and I was so surprised to note absolutely no acidic taste whatsoever!
I think in the case of fermented dough, the levels in which acetic acid occurs means that you would smell before you would ever taste it.
That tingle is definitely carbonic acid!
Interesting - I had assumed it was acetic acid since I often read that acetic acid is perceptible on the tip of the tongue. Of course, I guess many different acids can be perceptible on the tip of the tongue, so it's probably just my interpretation/assumption that is incorrect.
Regarding the information about homofermenters in pH4.1, it's on page 40 in a section entitled "Lattobacilli omofermentanti obbligati". You'll see a yellow box listing out some homofermentative LAB, the first of which is Lactobacillus delbrueckii.
Montanari goes on to explain how these bacteria have an activation temperature of 15C - 45C, which is nearly the entire range of temperatures we use for refreshments and maintenance (aside from storage in the fridge), which is why I say that rebalancing seems difficult in their presence. He also notes that the risk of developing homofermenters is higher in the presence of fiber, which I also assume is applicable to my case given I'm not using a type 0 flour.
on another note, I just started an apple water starter and it has been rocketing at 1:1:1 ratios just after a few days
gonna try and convert it to a LM
Got that cracked exterior on the first refresh of my LM today!
Slightly stiffer than I'd normally make it but went with it. The colour was right too, cream white / ivory white.
When this was mixed, the acidity seemed low and it felt like a yeasted biga dough when kneading.
After 1st refresh.
I'm enjoying this look. However the 2nd Refresh at the same consistency doesn't present the same after rising, as it softens considerably more.
Back when my LM was rising more regularly
Had a crack at the Roy formulation despite knowing it would probably not be fruitful. Indeed it is the softest primo I know of, since I usually manipulate it under hand to finish the mix. IMO there is too much free water in this formulation, which leaves no room for error in fermentation. Hence I knew it wouldn't work, but I thought I'd give it go as my LM was expressing positive alcohol qualities.
After rising, the primo impasto despite tasting almost free of acidity and marginally sweet (I've tasted sweeter), the pH was much too low (I find readings here to be inaccurate). I proceeded to the secondo anyway by remixing with the flour. Afterwards I measured a pH of 4.5 and chose to discontinue as I could tell this would present problems when incorporating butter. It was difficult to work out the gluten!
However the dough a this point was interesting to handle:
I believe that if you had continued, you probably would have succeeded with the Roy recipe. I always make this recipe, and I know that you can do it with this pH. My newest batch is meltingly soft, shreds beautifully, has no trace of acid taste, and rose to 19 cm high.
IMG_4807.jpeg
How does one measure success?!
Trust me, and you should so, as I have been doing this for over a decade now! I know the intricacies, I know gluten well, I know what it can and cannot do. The dough I had was noticeably expressing an elevated oxidative nature, evidenced by not wanting to mix as a whole, it would break into two pieces, the gluten in this case was very resistant to bind to itself. This quality is a key indicator of not wanting to bind fats later in the process. Let's not forget the pH I measured after adding flour from the secondo was 4.5! That is low, very low, and the dough was very stiff (oxidised).
Trust me, you wouldn't be saying what you said if you had the mixer I have and the dough I had... While I like some qualities of my mixer, it is totally insufficient, and while it has mega loads of torque, its design with the limited J-hook, it creates very little shear! I doubt you understand the luxury you have, with the mixer you have which can create lots of shear while producing little heat.
Not tasting sour is one thing, but I know you simply can't attain that Roy style crumb without the correct acidity as measured by a pH meter. And I know the best flavour comes from the same adherence. Flavour development is blocked by elevated acidity in the process. Trust me, I know!
I don't do superficial!
I focus on the foundations, not the glory! hahaha
ok, I admit I have not seen the dough behavior you are describing. I agree that something was probably amiss in your first impasto.
I have never measured pH right after adding the flour in the second impasto, I measure the pH of the first impasto just before starting the second. That's an interesting number, and I will measure it next time. Perrando's target pH after the 1st is 4.2 - 4.3, and this is a controversial issue among bakers, as I'm sure you know. I have never gone that low, and I work on my LM to try to get a higher pH.
Yes the spiral mixer is a great help, especially to avoid overheating the dough (anything above 24C, with a target of 23C)..... however it can still get too hot rather quickly, so requires attention.
Regards, Sue
Dialled back the oxidative issues this time.
With the tweaks I have been making the LM was a very high pH 4.6 after 3.5 hrs! Primo rose on time at 11.5 hrs and was much softer this time. Got as far the last stage with the secondo prior to adding the fruit, but butter didn't incorporate fully, gluten mesh was too resistant, still too lactic!
I worked it as hard as I realistically could without cracking up the mixer to a ridiculously high speed and worked it for ages but no change, it just became greasy and easy to tear while handling.
I did some tests to evaluate the effectiveness of these "biga" style refreshments I've been doing. They've been working really well for me and wanted to make sure my results aren't a fluke or something.
To recap, my starter has been slow to rise and hasn't been tripling. When doing water refreshments at 18C, it takes anywhere from 6 to 12 hours to float (i know...). My hypothesis is that my LM is too lactic as I've read that yeasts aren't very active in the presence of an abundance of lactic acid, but they seem to perform really well in the presence of acetic acid.
I've been trying to promote acetic acid with an approach similar to what Montanari recommends in Omnia Fermenta - 2 refreshments per day, 12 hours apart refreshed with 1 part yeast, 2 parts flour, and 43% water. Everything is mixed lightly and left to ferment at 20-22C.
My modifications to Montanari's suggestion are as follows:
So, quite a few changes. Maybe it's more "inspired by Montanari" than a tweaking of his formula. I tested these two methods over the course of a week or so.
My LM started out taking 6 hours to float at 18C and did not triple.
First I tried more or less exactly what Montanari recommends. I did that for 3 days for a total of 6 refreshments. I tested a submerged refreshment once more after this and it took 12 hours to float - the longest I had ever seen. This was moving in the wrong direction.
After the submerged refreshment that took 12 hours to float, I did 3 days of my biga-style refreshments. After those 3 refreshments, I tested a submerged refreshment once again at 18C and it floated in about 1.5 - 2 hours! Massive improvement, but hoping I can still get it to float a bit sooner.
It's difficult to measure things during the biga refreshments as you don't get much of a rise and I feel like there's no real accurate way to read pH, however, I noticed over the course of doing this that the starter began to smell more and more alcoholic, which I took to be a good sign that the yeasts were getting more active.
I realize this is kind of an unconventional method that you don't really see mentioned anywhere, but I'd recommend giving this style of refreshment a try if your starter is too lactic and you're not seeing success with other remedies
Zoia panettone with Zoia flour (Dallagiovanna Panettone Z).
Massively overproved, as my scheduling was all off. It rose overnight while I was asleep, I imagine it got to full proof and stayed there for 6 hours or more... Still it didn't fall, which was a surprise.
If you have problems to reach a ph of 3.8-3.9, Do this:
Feed 1:.08:38% ( LM-flour-water) at 18c or 19c is fine for 24 hours. Keep doing that for a few days.
Hello there,
I have been following TFL discussions for many years and finally decided to join the crowd. For many years I have been baking sour dough breads with 100% hydration rye starter and for the most part I am happy with the results. I even made 3 attempts of making a panettone and 2 times was successful while 1 was a royal failure. My dough turned into a mud half way through the process.
Two successful tries were with either instant yeast only or combo of instant yeast and firm sour dough starter. Interestingly these two I did manually by hand and the one that failed by stand mixer.
About a month ago I started my ambitious plan to develop LM and followed Giallo Zafferano's recipe ( https://youtu.be/K1xQ4oDLyWw?si=YC0VVfPEhEk_p_bT). After 31 days my LM looked strong, but did not quite triple in 3 hours at room temperature as in the video.
I decided to dig deeper and red through ton of discussions on this site and Michael W. blog. Great stuff, but admittedly got me dizzy with the amount of info I needed to digest.
Right now I am at the end of my 2nd day of feeding cycle. I did 2x4 hrs refreshments 1:1:0.5 at 27C and overnight 16hr in water @ 17C.
On the next day I did the wash in water with sugar and continued with the same routine.
So far my LM does not quite triple in 4 hours.
After reading SueVT discussions and learning that she does 7-8 hours warm cycle I decided to try the same. Will se how it turns out.
I have a strong desire to make it work and bake my own panettone. I would appreciate any additional guidance that would help in this journey?
These are some of photos of my LM process:
Initial 31 Day starter developing process:
This is how LM looked after 31 days for the first bagnetto
This morning before bagnetto
First refreshment 1:1.5:0.3
After 4 hours @ 27C
I've had a lot of issues with my LM not tripling and I have never been able to correct this using warm refreshments. Of course, there are many variables and possible reasons for the LM not tripling, but for me, it has always been a matter of the starter being too acidic - specifically too lactic. I suspect that is probably your issue as well based on your images. When submerging your LM, it should float to the surface in about 60-90 minutes, thereby exposing the surface of the LM to air and creating a crust that hardens over the remaining ~15 hours. Your LM seems to have no crust at all, which is generally a sign of a LM that is too lactic. The bagnetto might not be enough of a correction.
What has worked for me is correcting this during the maintenance refreshments. Specifically, I refresh 1:2 (starter:flour) to dilute the influence of my imbalanced starter, then submerge at 16C for 20-24 hours. I do that for a day or two depending on how bad the situation is. At 1:2, I often notice less of a rise, so after a few days I'll go back to 1:1 to see how quickly it's floating, how thick of a crust it forms, how much it rises, etc.
Also, I'm not sure what kind of flour you're using, but if you can go lower than 50% hydration, you might want to try that. Lower hydrations are said to promote more acetic acid development and will also help your starter from disintegrating too much over the long submersion.
When my starter isn't rising well, I almost entirely avoid the heat.
Thanks joegranz I appreciate your feedback!
I don't know how long it takes for my LM to float to the surface, I will check that tonight. Another mistake that I have made is covering the container and that is the reason I had no formed crust.
Yesterday I refreshed it 1:1.5:0.45 and kept it at 27C for 8 hours. To my pleasant surprise LM for the first time more than tripled and filled the jar!
I then fed it again 1:1.5:0.4 and kept it submerged at 17C for 18 hours. LM again more then doubled and floated to the top. The cross section appeared to have larger porosity then before. After bagnetto I fed it again 1:1.5:0.35 and is now in proffer at 27C, finger crossed.
If I get a good rise today again I am not sure what to do next? Should I keep going with the same routine?
I am in Canada so I use Boreal Organic Flour made by LA MEUNERIE MILANAISE INC. with 13.33% protein content.
Again thanks for all the feedback!
Gordan
Glad that the higher dose of flour worked out - also goes to show how what works for one LM might not work for another. I've never been able to correct this using warm refreshments - much less with just a single one.
In terms of what to do next - the general recommendation is that the LM should triple in 3-4 hours when refreshed 1:1. I'm not sure how that time scales to a 1:1.5 refreshment. You might be in good shape or it might be taking too long. 8 hours to triple for 1:1.5 does sound a bit long, but not sure. 27C is also on the cooler end of the warm refreshment range, so you'd expect it to take a little longer.
It also depends on how the LM looks, feels, smells, etc. - as far as looks, it's a little hard to tell by the image of it in the jar. It does seem a bit soft / sticky - was that the case?
Personally, I would probably test out 1:1 and see what it does in 3-4 hours because if something goes wrong, I'd question whether or not the LM was up to the task in the first place.
I refreshed yesterday 1:1.5:0.4 and LM tripled in 4 hours during the warm stage. Refreshed again 1:1.5:0.45 submerged for 20 hours at 17C, this time without cover on container. LM floated up to the surface in about 3 hours. This time it had a crust formed and overall had more structure to it. I tasted it and although I am not exactly sure what I am looking for I find the taste pleasant, lightly sweet with little tang to it. The day before was just sweet, as a point of reference.
Today I refreshed it 1:1:0.4 and during 4 hours @ 27C did not quite make it to triple. It is better then before , but not there yet. I will just keep it up until it triples and then likely again will proceed with 1:1.5:0.45 for submerged overnight at 17C. The plan of action for tomorrow is still unclear, will see.
You are correct LM is sticky, but I would expect it to be so after it fills up with gas and more then triples in volume. Am I wrong with this? As I said it smells and tastes pleasant to me, but that is probably unreliable and very subjective assessment tool.
Yesterday 1:1.5:0.4 at 27C triple in 4 hours
Cross section after 20 hour submerge phase at 17C
Today 1:1:0.4 at 27C after 4 hours
Based on my experience, the LM should be soft after it triples but I wouldn't call it sticky - meaning you should be able to handle it without bits sticking to your hands. It should stand up to being sliced and pull out of that jar in one piece, more or less.
I'm not sure if this is exactly right, but it seems like you're having more issues after submerging the LM - either for the bagnetto or the overnight maintenance. I use water maintenance a lot and based on taste alone, the outer mushy parts of the LM that were in contact with the water seem very acidic. Could some of that be getting included in the following refreshment? Also, in the picture after water maintenance, the LM seems a little soft. It's hard to tell because I laminate and roll mine so am more familiar with what that cross-section looks like. Does the whole LM seem very wet to you or is the inside still dry, more or less?
I keep LM in a glass jar without gasket which assures higher relative humidity and prevents crust forming.LM is soft and sticky and I would not be able to cut it when I pull it out of the jar. LM is firm when I keep it in a bowl lined and covered with cotton cloth and then also has a tiny layer of crust.
After reading through some Italian master baker materials posted on Michael Wilson's blog I tried to troubleshoot my LM. Based on my tasting results where LM appears to be sweetish with slight hint of acidity that apparently might indicate a weak LM. The remedy I learned is to refresh 1:0.8:0.5 and keep it at 28C until the result is LM tripling in 3-4 hours.
I did 2 refreshments yesterday and today, it seem to work :). After the maintenance phase of 16 hours submerged at 17C the LM was soft but firmer then before and the bath water was clear.
I try to scrape off any mushy parts and peel off crusty section of LM before cutting it up for bagnetto. It is highly unlikely that any of mushy acidic parts would make it to the next refreshment.
Thank you for your continuous feedback and I hope you have a healthy and happy New Year!
I agree with joegranz, this looks "too lactic" in that there is excessive load of acid consistently present.
I also noticed the damp looking rolled dough in water, there should be a crust of some sort. Did you cover it? Or is it because it was submerged for a long time. Again I agree, that the acidity affects the crust formation.
Easiest way to flush acidity is to increase the flour dosage but in doing so more fermentation time must be added if leavening power is in question.
Yes I did cover it during the cool conservation stage. I also noticed that LM sticks to the bottom since I pour in the water second. This might have not helped with rising up to float so I will try to reverse the order.
I have been doing now 1:1.5:0.4 and during the warm phase ( 27C ) I got the LM to triple in 8hrs. How long should I keep doing this feeding ratio before switching back to 1:1:0.5?
I just ordered Ph meter since acidity seem to be a major factor in managing LM. Hope that will help out more in finding the right path.
Thanks for your feedback Michael!
Gordan
The things seem to turn for the better with my LM management. After initial troubles with LM that would only double in 4 hours and was sticky I tried a remedial action with 1:0.8:0.5 feedings. LM was doing well and after couple of days of consistent tripling by volume in 4 hours I switched to 1:1:0.45 feedings.
Again without trouble LM is tripling in 4 hours, for the last couple of days. The dough seem dryer, not sticky at all and the cross section looks much improved too. Perhaps I could try to bake panettone now, but I decided to wait until my new PH probe arrives just to make sure Ph readings are in line too.
I tasted the dough and to me It has a neutral taste and a pleasant fruity smell. Lot more to learn no doubt, but it is exciting to successfully overcome first challenges with LM that I had to face.
Yes, this is more or less what I would expect to see. Seems to be in much better shape. Nice work.
Have you been doing warm refreshments every 4 hours or have you been letting it rest in the cold at all?
Thank you! Yes I have been doing 2 warm refreshments @ 28 C every four hours followed by 16 hour conservation stage submerged in water at 17 C.
Hi everyone, new member here but have been lurking for a while. Sorry to hijack the thread but I am having the same issue as the OP..can't get LM to triple..only double and a bit.
My question is, what flour are you all using? I am in Australia where it's hard to get panettone flour. I am currently using a Manitoba which isn't ideal, wondering if this is source of my problems.
P.s great to see everyone helping each other
When I started this thread I believe I was using King Arthur Sir Lancelot. At one point, another member was helping me and we switched to King Arthur Bread Flour since it's more common and readily available around here.
Both of those flours are malted. I know that some members here use malted flours for LM and panettone with success, but I didn't have much luck - the LM always seemed to get too acidic too quickly. Maybe now, with a slightly better understanding, I could make it work but I found it much easier to avoid them for a while.
Right now I am using Caputo Manitoba Oro. This flour is quite strong, as I imagine yours is. The one thing to be aware of is that it requires more leavening power from the yeast to "inflate" a stiffer dough than a softer one. If you take the hydration too low and it doesn't triple, it still might be ok.
That being said, warm refreshments @ 46-50% triple fine for me, as do long 16-24hr 1:1 submerged refreshments at 17C with about 40 - 43% hydration. I actually refresh the yeast with 36 - 38% water after the submerged refreshments so I'm not entirely sure what the final hydration is since some water does seem to get absorbed by the yeast.
Thanks for that, good to know you managed to get a triple with your Manitoba Oro. I was using Caputo, now 5stagoni. (Both Manitoba)
I got myself a brod and Taylor sourdough home so I can do temperature controlled refreshes at 16deg. Atm I am following the Morandin method in water. Do you manage to get a crust on yours? I haven't thus far.
I'll post some pictures tonight when I do my refreshment
Yes, I do get a crust, but since I've been putting my LM to rest in a very small wine fridge, the crust hasn't been as thick. The hygrometer in the fridge reads a very high humidity, usually >= 80%. It seems the water the LM is stored in has a big impact on humidity in such a small space, and higher humidity will lead to less of a crust.
The LM rises to the surface usually within an hour when refreshed 1:1, but I do play with the temps a bit. I'd like for fermentation to begin before putting to rest at 17C, so I try to close the dough at 26C, which is difficult. If I close the dough at 26C, I will place in 26C water and immediately put it in the cooler at 17C. Typically, I close the dough at 22 - 23C, so I use water 28 - 29C to compensate, still putting it directly into the cooler at 17C.
If it helps at all, here are some pictures of my LM from the past day or two. I'm not saying this is necessarily something to guide you, as the existence of this thread alone should be evidence enough that I'm not the best person to take advice from, but I did bake with this LM yesterday without any catastrophic failures, so it works, more or less. All of these refreshments were done with Caputo Manitoba Oro.
Here is the starter before and after 22 hours at 17C, refreshed 1:1:0.37 (low hydration because it was refreshed after another submerged refreshment). Actually, the "before" picture is from the refreshment immediately following the after picture - I only included it as a size reference to show how much it grew since the same refreshment quantities were used.
After a long maintenance refreshment like that, this is typically what I see on the inside. It does tend to get very mushy, even on the inside. If you notice in the images above, the LM before fermentation has a tighter coil than it does after - this is because while in the water, my LM will typically unroll and then swell up - which is fine but by unrolling, a lot more of the LM is exposed to the water.
This is before and after a warm refreshment 1:1.25:0.46 for about 4 - 4.5 hours. pH was about 4.13 in the end.
And here is the inside
I wasn't too happy with the way the primo or secondo looked or felt using this LM, but it worked out well enough. I'll know more once I cut the panettone and see what the crumb looks like.
Finally, cut into this a week after baking it. Crumb looks pretty good - more open, but alveoli seem rounder and less vertical than the last batch. Tastes great. Caputo Manitoba Oro seems to work decently well for panettone (unless it is part of the reason for the primo acidification...). I think the primo acidified to pH 4.6 on this one.
20240108_122350.jpg
Not out of the woods yet though. I got bold and tried Roy's recipe which fell apart when the water was added to the secondo. I then tried Giorilli's formula as well and that fell apart when adding the eggs to the secondo. Both acidified to about pH 4.3.
I didn't feel like my PM was overly acidic in either case - either I'm wrong about that or the primo acidification is causing similar issues when incorporating the fat (or maybe PM issues are amplified when working with an acidic primo).
Anyway, two steps forward, one step back, or something like that...
Thanks for the update. I am continuing the maintenance in water / Morandin method, however I don't seem to be able to triple to volume needed for a panettone.
LM definitely loses its strength being conserved in water (confirmed by Francesca Morandin), to combat that i have been using approx 80-90% flour to LM ratio.
Things have improved slightly, though I still feel my LM is weak. Mostly characterised by:
PH i think i am within the right levels, but im not putting too much weight in the numbers (Morandin says the numbers are useless as they don't tell you acetic vs lactic)
As a test, I attempted to bake some bread, as you can see from the picture below it didnt turn out well.
I have a feeling one of the reasons my LM is not where it needs to be due to the flour. Various research I have read says the tenacity of Manitoba is too high for LM. Also, because Manitoba is expensive, companies tend to cut it with dry yeast to increase the Protein content. A tell tale sign of this (apparently) is dirty coloured water when doing the maintenance in water method.
I forgot to mention, I am also using rain water to do my refreshes. Tap water here in AU tends to be hit and miss
Anyway, until I can get my hands on some recommended flours (such as Petra Molino Quaglia Petra 6384 flour, really hard in Australia) I'll keep playing.
Some photos below of refreshes, and bread attempts. Feel free to provide any feedback / ideas.
Usual disclaimer that I have no idea what I'm doing, so take my opinions as just a different perspective of someone struggling through the same process rather than a solution to your problem. I'm always hesitant to give advice because I don't feel qualified to do so - so If someone more knowledgeable disagrees with what I'm saying, listen to them 😂. Also, while I use water for maintenance, I'm not familiar with how the LM performs using the Morandin method.
Just a few quick notes about your measurements - there is no "before" picture of the LM pre-fermentation with the green rubberband marking the top of the dough. Just make sure that the starter is pressed to the bottom of the jar and touching the sides. If you form a ball, drop the starter into the jar, and mark the top of the ball, then it will grow wider during fermentation making it harder to judge whether or not it tripled (if you want to form a ball, press the dough to the bottom of the jar first, mark it, then take it out to shape it and drop it back in). Sorry if this is obvious, but the picture of the jar with the pink rubberband made me think it was worth mentioning.
The other thing is regarding the float times during the bagnetto - are you squeezing/flattening the pieces before putting them in the water? If you don't do that, in some cases they won't ever sink.
In my experience, if a LM is not tripling then there is an acidity issue. I've read about a lot of reasons why a LM wouldn't triple, but I feel like most of them are easy to rule out - flour is too strong, dough is too dry/stiff, dough wasn't mixed well so gluten can't trap the gas, etc. Acidity has always been the issue for me and when that's the case, I avoid warm refreshments. I think of it like this - if you have a dough that's already too acidic and you perform a 1:1 warm refreshment, for example, you dilute the acidity with the refreshment but then place the dough right back into an environment that promotes acidity. It's going to be hard to break free from that acidity without intervening in some other way. In your case you are using lower doses of flour compared to the yeast, so you are diluting it even less than the standard 1:1.
I know the water helps with acidity but I am not sure how much - my instinct tells me that temperature is more important, but I could be wrong. I have no doubt the Morandin method works, but perhaps you need to start from a stronger base, with an already healthy LM. One thing I've learned about these methods throughout this process is no matter how religiously you follow them, at some point, you will need to make a correction that falls outside of the method you're following.
Just a few days ago my LM stopped tripling. I noticed that when I put it to rest, it took a bit longer to float. The following day, it looked like it had maybe just doubled. I skipped warm refreshments that day and put it right back in the cold at 16C for about 24 hours and the LM was right back to normal.
The yeasts won't love the cold, so I'm not saying that prolonged time in the cold will cause immediate, explosive growth, but my hope is that it will help shift the acidity so that when you put the LM back in the heat, it will triple.
As for flour / water issues - I use bottled spring water for my starter. If you think the Manitoba flour is too strong, you could always mix it with a weaker flour.
Good luck!
I can see from the pictures that your LM has an elevated acid load.
The newly rolled dough in water isn't smooth looking. High acidity increases the time it takes for the dough to smooth out. The acidity tensions the gluten making it too resistant.
The dough in water after fermenting is far too broken down. The dough underneath has completely melted. This is really not good. Here's mine from several years ago:
The high acidity physically impedes the ability of the gluten to stretch and therefore reach triple.
Moradin's warning about overly tenacious flour has been misunderstood. Ultimately he's calling for the use of flour which has a balanced resistance (P) / extensibility (L) ratio. A P/L of 0.55 is perfect. US bread flour would indeed suffer with too much tenacity. When measured they often have P/L values far too high. The flours I listed on my blog are all ideal.
As for a remedy, a 1:2 feed will definitely be needed to flush out the excessive acidity.
Just because it's relevant...
Is this another approach to growing/maintenance of LM? I presume each of number of recipes designed by master bakers is valid, but how to decide which one to use and to stick with?
From what I learned so far the only parameters that are measurable and relevant in assessing LM's health and deciding consequential course of action are : visual appearance, taste, the power of rising (tripling in 4 hours) and Ph readings. Am I getting this right?
It is interesting but no less confusing to see how different methods and practices lead to similar end results. The above chart shows increase in flour to mother dough ratio after each refreshment and the fermenting temperature 20-24C. As from my readings Massari advises 1:1:0.5 refreshment ratio for maintenance and 1:1.1:0.45 refreshment ratio at 28-30C when developing mother dough for panettone. Very different parameters leading to the same result.
What is the most practical approach in assessing what to do in developing healthy LM?
I take this information as more a summary than a specific edict. Although, we can draw from it certain principles. It appears the flour ratio is given as a range and is mostly decreasing with subsequent refreshes.
That's right measuring objectively all possible parameters and subjectively assessing the organoleptic properties all add to the skill set.
From researching, I have noticed that industrial production (from which this graphic stems) tends to use these cooler temps. I guess industrially where everything is designed to be very exact they can successfully use lower temps.
Massari and other maestros processes are "artisanal" in nature.
Sorry to say I don't have a definitive answer because the starters we work with are unique and when we assess them they are snapshots with a wide array of variation. Only the user can inform the next step.
In terms of processing, I can offer one possibly welcome certainty. Generally the maestros that use the Piemonte method typically stick religiously to a 1:1 (starter: flour) ratio for the maintenance.
Hello, long time lurker, first time poster – literally just created an account to post this because I’m so grateful to have been able to read about everyone else’s experiences, successful or not, so I thought I’d throw my story into the mix.
I started making naturally leavened panettone in 2020, and in 2021 had an amazing panettone season where the texture was beautifully feathery and the proof times were pretty much exactly what was expected based on the recipe.
2022 was a total disaster – I had similar problems to some of the people here – PM not increasing enough in volume (barely doubling), horrendous proofing times, acidic first dough and associated difficulties in mixing final dough.
2023 I was determined to not let it get to that point again, but it wasn't looking good. I was pretty sure the problem was that my PM was too lactic, but I hadn’t been able to fix it (maybe it was just too far gone – I’d tried pretty much all the things joegranz tried – I felt your pain when I read this thread!).
In both 2022 and 2023, when I first created the PM (from a liquid starter that I normally use), it was initially weak as expected, and then a few weeks in I’d have one promisingly good run (decent volume in warm refreshment, no problem mixing final dough, good proofing times), then it would start to turn bad again. It seemed like it turned too lactic – the PM would barely double in a warm refresh, and it would be bitter and sticky (though the pH at the end of feeds was always still around 4.1).
In a fit of desperation in October 2023, I decided to start over using the apple water method posted in this thread. I had a crazy active PM to start with, but by about a week later it started to slow down in terms of max volume and speed of expansion. The pH at this point was still fairly high (around 4.3 after 4 hours @ 28°C), so it didn’t seem likely that it was too acidic overall… maybe just tipped too far towards lactic, and also probably not enough yeast.
So I tried all the things that was supposed to push it more acetic and increase yeast all in one go (I know this isn’t the most well-controlled experiment, but I needed to get it together before my annual panettone charity bake sales 🙈):
… and after a week or so, it seemed to turn around, I got it to almost triple every time, and it didn’t feel sticky. I kept 1-3 from above, but started doing a more normal feed schedule (1 or 2 refreshes at 28°C for 4 hours, then overnight rest 16-18°C).
My first dough was still always too acidic (pH around 4.3 – if anyone's got ideas for fixing this I'd love to know for next year) but it rose at a good rate (tripled in 10 hours @ 25°C), and I didn’t have problems with incorporating eggs and butter, or with dough strength, in the final dough, final proof was about 6-8 hours @ 29°C. (My formula is based on the Giorilli one.)
I realise this post is much less scientific and data-driven than most of the ones here (I have no background in chemistry or biology), but I thought I’d post about what worked for me in case it’s helpful to someone (and it’d be a bonus if anyone more qualified wants to comment on my logic and methods 😂).
Here are some pictures of my PM at the end of a 4-hour refresh, panettone from my first batch after doing all those tweaks above (I also have a video of me pulling apart the crumb of this panettone).
Thank you to everyone who's shared their experiences – I'm so grateful that this forum exists!
This is the one issue for which I haven't found any solution anywhere on the web or in the texts I've read. I don't know that anyone on this site has solved it (though I have every confidence in Michael 🤞🏻). I've read through a few other sites/forums and it's an incredibly common issue.
Nice panettone though! That crumb-pull is awesome!
Hi,
I've had success in raising the pH of first impasto by shifting some of the sugar in the second impasto to the first impasto. This should be done with awareness of the %Cu you are hitting with the resulting mixture. (See Chambelland's book for explanation of %Cu if needed).
Michael has posted a calculator on his blog which could help with this calculation... I created my own in Excel. It's important to control the amount of sugar being shifted, because it's possible to really slow down development too much if you're not careful! However, you can get a more balanced result and higher pH this way.
Romero's book "Remember 28C" explores ways of controlling fermentation for a particular result.
Lowering temperature on the first impasto also helps control fermentation to some degree.
Cheers, Sue
Yeah, this has been on my list of things to try. I've seen it mentioned in SPV and I've seen you mention it on some other threads around here. I've been so focused on my PM that I haven't yet dug into the panettone process and so haven't really considered many corrections there - but this does make sense to me.
As for temps, the aggressive acidification is accompanied by similarly aggressive leavening. At this point, I am letting my primo rest at room temp, which is about 21 - 22C and it still triples early. Any lower than that and I'd have to figure out how to fit the primo into my PM's wine cooler lol.
The sugar correction is great - definitely going to try that, but I do tend get hung up on the why of things. I can't help but think that this is an issue with the PM. I would love to be able to identify it and correct it during PM maintenance, or even to recognize when the correction might not be necessary (if and when that ever happens).
One step at a time though. On the next bake I will try a higher Cu value for the primo.
One question though - because our PMs seem to behave atypically in the primo (causing this acidification), do Teffri-Chambelland's recommendations of keeping Cu below 50 (if I remember correctly) still stand? Does that max Cu value get pushed even higher to compensate for the rapid acidification we're seeing?
So yes, Chambelland mentions 50 %Cu as an upper limit. However, I think at 50, not much happens at all. Most of the recipes have 1st impastos in the 30-37 range; check a few and see... I have compared quite a few of them, and some of the common recipes are around 30 on the first. This value ensures that things will ferment and volume will (most likely) triple in the allotted time. However it can go too fast, depending on the state of the LM.
i am taking recipes that are at that value and adjusting upward to no more than around 34-35%, because I had one above 40 that stalled/took a long time. Again, that is also dependent on the state of the LM. However, the next week I took that same LM and had radically different results by adjusting %Cu downwards again. So I know that it is a *one* controlling factor.
Again, if you add sugar in the first impasto, it has to be taken away from the second impasto, so that the overall recipe balance stays the same (unless you are trying to change it).
Other things: I have seen and tried out a recipe in which water was restricted in the first impasto as a way of slowing fermentation. IMO this is counterproductive, as it makes mixing difficult, stresses/heats the dough, and has limited effect. And yes, I have a thermoelectric cooler which can fit a rising box for my primo, so I can select any desired termperature. This is very handy.
Just to report back, this did not work for me.
I used my usual formula (EIDB) and raised Cu of the primo from 34 (If I remember correctly) to 41 by moving some sugar from the second dough into the first.
Fermentation occurred at a much better rate, close to what was prescribed in the formula. Unfortunately, the primo still wound up at the usual alarmingly-low pH value.
Back to the drawing board I guess.
Wow, so you truly have a more unbalanced LM at this point. There are so many posts on this thread, sorry I can't go back through all of them but, I know that Michael was advocating a 1:2 feeding to weaken the starter.. I am assuming you have tried variations on this theme. It is difficult I know!!
Have you titrated total acidity to get a more true picture of what's going on? I have the equipment because of cheesemaking, but haven't tested my LM this way.
Haha yeah, the post has gotten a bit out of hand. I don't even remember the history of the conversation myself.
LM does seem out of balance. My issue was always the second dough splitting when incorporating the fats. To fix that, I started keeping my LM in maintenance most of the time, only doing a hot bagnetto and/or warm refreshment 2-3x per week. I have perhaps pushed it too far in the other direction now, though I feel like the issue is a bit more complex. I often read about people making Roy's panettone with a LM that has vinegar notes and have even seen some using free maintenance while feeding the LM 2:1 (starter:flour, not a typo, I promise) and creating beautiful panettone. I don't see how those LMs can perform well but mine would be simply "too acetic".
There were a few consecutive days in the past week or so where I refreshed the LM 1:2 and waited until it hit 4.1 before putting into maintenance. Also, the primo where I used the high Cu value had 2 refreshments leading up to it, 1:2 and then 1:1 (though pH didn't drop below 4.2 on the 1:1 refreshment...). So, yeah I guess I have tried it.
But this experiment has at least reinforced that the issue is likely with the LM. Since I have slightly better control over it now, the plan is to play around with some of the LM management variables and keep mixing primos until I get >= 5.0 after fermentation. At least waste is minimal that way and allows me to experiment.
I don't have the equipment for TTA, so never tested it.
I agree with your analysis. You will know when your LM improves, as it will handle differently (Michael pointed this out earlier), the texture will be smoother. It shouldn't have vinegary notes (!!)....
However IMO this is an important point: it does not have to be pH > 5.0 after 1st impasto fermentation. I personally have only had one over 4.85, and I have been making consistently very good panettone for the last year (texture, flavor, shreddability, keeping characteristics etc). Several very reputable panettone people who also teach, have pointed this out. It is true that getting the pH up over 4.7 will produce a better crumb. But plenty of people who claim to have pH > 5.0 are producing quite unattractive panettone for other reasons related to their process.
Well, my LM doesn't have vinegary notes. In fact, if it weren't for this primo acidification issue, I'd guess my LM was actually in pretty good shape 😅. It seems to hit all of the right benchmarks - triples, pH 3.8 - 3.9 after maintenance, pH 4.1 - 4.2 after refreshments, nice open alveoli after maintenance, no off tastes or smells, good crust after maintenance (even after refreshments for that matter), floats in 45 minutes, cross opens during refreshments, etc.
Regarding the primo, I can make panettone with this acidified primo. While the smell of the primo definitely has some kind of acidic tang to it, I don't notice any acidity in the final product at all, crumb shreds pretty well, loaves keep pretty well, etc.
I don't doubt that, but do you remember if you read this somewhere you can point me to? I'd love to read more. I follow a lot of these people on social media and spend a lot of time reading all their posts and comments trying to find a little wisdom.
Iannarelli in his course materials mentions a range of 4.7 to 5.3, depending on the recipe
Perrando as of 1/23 (this may have changed) mentioned values as low as 4.2-4.3, as there was/is a theory that an acidified (to a point) primo promotes alveolation.
Note: I aim for values above 4.7, which is for me a far safer range.
I have had one failure with a batch that was pH 5.21 but which had damaged gluten from an overly dry (per recipe) primo. So, just hitting a high pH number isn't a guarantee of success!
I have two other class sources that I haven't checked.
I was not familiar with Perrando. I also didn't know who Iannarelli was but after looking him up, I realized that I've been seeing his panettoni in my feed for quite some time now. New people to follow, thanks!
I guess what bugs me is that I don't feel like I have any control over the primo pH. Even if I can't get it above 5, I want to figure out what parameters I can use to influence it. pH 5.0 - 5.3 is just one of those key values you hear, like the PM having to be pH 4.1, and while I don't necessarily see it as a guarantee of success, I can't help but wonder if it is standing in the way of improving my panettone, so it sounded like a good place to start in terms of improvement, HOWEVER...
Your message came at a great time. My primo had just tripled and ended up at pH 4.35. I was in a rush after taking the reading and didn't have time to scrape the dough into the trash and clean up, so I set the primo near the trash to throw away later. Then I saw your message and it convinced me to just bake it off as usual and see what happens.
If this isn't the best panettone I've made so far I will be very surprised. The rise from the top of the case to the top of the dome is probably nearly double what I normally get. I was scrambling after it was baked because I hung it like normal and it bottomed out! It'll probably be a few days before I see what's inside but I am shocked by the oven spring.
This one is dedicated to you Sue! lol I hope it's not a dud.
I just received Hanna pH probe together with sachets containing buffer solutions and cleaning solution. Also there is a small 13 ml dropper with electrode storage solution.
I transferred buffering and cleaning solutions into separate small glass containers, but what is confusing me is what to do with the storage solution. The manual states that before calibration the probe first should be kept in a storage solution for 1 hour. How do I do that? By emptying small 13 ml dropper into a small container that probe is inserted in? What is the liquid in this container that probe is dipped in that came with the original packaging? Do I pour off that liquid and replace it with 13 ml storage solution from the dropper?
I know that many of you use the same Hanna pH probe and I hope somebody can help me out sorting out through these first steps before I can start using it.
Thanks!
I never really thought about it but I assumed that the pH meter comes stored in the same solution and the bottle they give you is to refill it when necessary.
And you are totally correct as I just spoke to supplier's technician confirming that. It makes total sense what you are saying, but I just wanted to make sure. The 13ml dropper is to be used occasionally to add to this storage solution as it evaporates.
Today is the first day I have ever hit the target pH values for both the night's rest and warm refreshment:
It has been a long time and a few different PMs before I've seen these values 😅. At one point (around when I started this thread) I was doubting whether my pH meter could even register below about 4.3 lol. Lately, the night's rest has been fine but the warm refreshment after 4 hours is always at best 4.15, but usually 4.2 - 4.3.
For a while now I've kept the PM in constant maintenance, refreshing only once every 24 hours and leaving it in the water at 16C. I decided to see how it would hold up to more frequent exposure to heat.
For the past two days, I refreshed 1:2 in the morning and just left it at 28C for as long as needed for it to reach pH 4.1 (roughly 6 hours). After that I would refresh 1:1 and submerge it at 18C until the next morning. Today I tested a 1:1 warm refreshment and the PM reached pH 4.1 in 4 hours.
In the past, frequent exposure to heat would cause my PM to lose vitality, but over the past few days, it seems to be remaining in good shape, if not better than when in constant maintenance mode.
I'm going to see if I can keep it within these ranges for the next few days - then I just need to find time to test it out.
Good for you it is nice to hear that the effort paid off!
I did not realize that PM can be that demanding and unforgiving, but I am slowly learning that through my own work. PM is a finicky thing and just as you think you got something right the next day goes in a different direction.
Today I made my first pH reading after 5 hours at 27C and it was 4.09. Based on what you wrote I should be happy, fingers crossed.
Good luck and I am looking forward to hear more on your PM management!
Gordan
Edit: sorry for the spam - just released i posted twice and cant see where i can edit/delete the the post
Thanks for the update. I am continuing the maintenance in water / Morandin method, however I don't seem to be able to triple to volume needed for a panettone.
LM definitely loses its strength being conserved in water (confirmed by Francesca Morandin), to combat that i have been using approx 80-90% flour to LM ratio.
Things have improved slightly, though I still feel my LM is weak. Mostly characterised by:
PH i think i am within the right levels, but im not putting too much weight in the numbers (Morandin says the numbers are useless as they don't tell you acetic vs lactic)
As a test, I attempted to bake some bread, as you can see from the picture below it didnt turn out well.
I have a feeling one of the reasons my LM is not where it needs to be due to the flour. Various research I have read says the tenacity of Manitoba is too high for LM. Also, because Manitoba is expensive, companies tend to cut it with dry yeast to increase the Protein content. A tell tale sign of this (apparently) is dirty coloured water when doing the maintenance in water method.
I forgot to mention, I am also using rain water to do my refreshes. Tap water here in AU tends to be hit and miss
Anyway, until I can get my hands on some recommended flours (such as Petra Molino Quaglia Petra 6384 flour, really hard in Australia) I'll keep playing.
Some photos below of refreshes, and bread attempts. Feel free to provide any feedback / ideas.
Thanks for reply and suggestion, I will definitely try it.
A couple of notes:
I'll try a 1:2 and see how I go. Thanks again
Since early November I am trying to develop LM good enough to be used in baking Panettone. Last few weeks I started using Hanna pH probe. I maintain two LM, one is refreshed once a day and kept dry covered at 16-17 C. The other one is refreshed 2 times, 4 hours apart and kept at 27C after which is wrapped and stored overnight at 16-17 C. This has been standard routine every day. I also do a bath for both of them in the morning before refreshments.
Both of LM seem to have good leavening power, hot LM regularly triples in 4 hours. I am completely unsure what to do next?
Hot LM
Cold LM
Bake with it?
Why do you think that neither is fit for making panettone? Tripling in 4 hours is great, pH isn't bad - are there other qualities you're looking for that you're not seeing?
Testing out panettone is a great way to judge the health of your LM.
Interesting pH data on the "cold" LM - I also noticed with my own starter that free management yields a higher pH in the morning than, say water management. About 3.9 - 4.0 free and 3.8 - 3.9 in water. I've been reading lately about people feeding their PM 2:1 (starter:flour) with free management and having great results (and perhaps that pushes the pH into the desired 3.8-3.9 range). At the same time people feed 1:2 (starter:flour) with similarly great results.
The deeper I go, the more questions I have and the less set-in-stone these processes seem to be...
Thanks for the encouragement! What other qualities don't I see? I can't bring ph under 4 and cross section of LM doesn't look quite the same as some good examples displayed on TFL panettone forums. However, I am going to give it a try with Giorilli recipe.
I've been using water management for a few months now and it's a lot - messy, wasteful, time-consuming, and you never quite know the hydration of the dough. Going "by feel" is fine and works well enough, but I feel you lose a little bit of confidence when changing the hydration - e.g. it's difficult to change hydration by 1% from your last refreshment. So, free maintenance it is, for a while, and I've noticed a few things.
The most interesting is the pH right out of maintenance. I've been keeping my starter at 40% hydration and with a 360W - 380W Manitoba flour, it's rock-solid. The pH after about 24hrs at 18C is always over 4.0. Today, it was 4.12, and that's after a refreshment of 1:0.7! (yes, more starter than flour - I'm just experimenting).
With such a stiff dough that's kept for extended periods in the cold, I like to warm the yeast up in the morning after maintenance, so I do a hot 38C bagnetto for 20 - 30 minutes (no sugar, just to wake up yeasts). Even with the lower feeding ratios, the starter still floats within about 10 minutes. The most interesting part, however, is the pH right after the bagnetto - it drops like a rock. Today, the PH after bagnetto was 3.91!
Did the bagnetto really drop the pH by 0.21 in 30 minutes? No idea, but my instinct tells me that's unlikely. Things slow down at low hydrations and the pH meter seems to have a harder time getting accurate readings as the dough gets stiffer. My guess is that the heat from the bagnetto did of course cause reactions in the yeast and bacteria in the starter, but also softened the LM so that the pH meter was able to get a better reading.
I've used this free-management LM in one bake so far and I'm pretty happy with the results. The primo pH was interesting as well. I used an autolyse of the flour, water, and sugar this time around and closed the primo in 30 minutes. Honestly I could've probably closed it much faster but ran into two issues
1) my butter was just a little too cold, requiring more mixing to heat it up
2) I had a hell of a time incorporating the LM after the autolyse. I probably mixed for an additional 5-10 minutes to get the LM mixed in, and that didn't even work. My primo wound up with this ugly, pimply appearance because the LM crumbled into tiny fragments that never got absorbed. Maybe next time I can reserve some water from the autolyse and use that to soften the LM before adding it. Open to suggestions...
The pH of the primo after it tripled was....I'm not sure 🤣. I have two samples - the bulk of the dough in one container and the spy in a 250ml beaker. pH from the dough in the beaker was about 4.9. Thrilled with that, I checked the bulk dough and it was 4.8. Wondering why there was a discrepancy, I recalibrated and tested 2 or 3 more times. The "spy" dough was always around 4.9 and the bulk dough varied between 4.5 and 4.8. Kind of stumped on this one. The primo did seem like it was missing that soury note I've grown so used to, so I do believe the pH was higher than normal. My intention was to test the effect of the autolyse on primo acidification but the mixing issues I mentioned kind of muddied the data. Still, closing it in 30 minutes is better than my usual 45 or so.
Here are some pictures from the bake.
First refresh 1:2:0.43 after 6 hours at 28C
Second refreshment 1:1:0.45 after 4hrs at 28C. I've gotten a bit more comfortable with the LM management in general. This refreshment landed at a high pH and did not triple - but look at it and tell me it's not ready! This stiff dough has a hard time tripling at lower hydrations and I'm not 100% confident in the pH reading anyway, so proceeded with the primo.
Second dough mixed. I never get tired of seeing the inclusions held on by an almost completely transparent, paper-thin layer of dough. Used EIDB's recipe as usual and this second dough absolutely devoured the butter. I probably could've added more and given the dough was in good shape, I did add the bassinage water this time around.
The final product. As you can see, there's some detachment on the right side. I had some mixing issues this time around, so want to work on that and try again before trying to determine what caused it.
Best tasting panettone with the best texture, so far. This also convinces me that the primo pH was a bit higher than normal.
And to give you a sense of just how stiff the starter is, here it is just mixed. I actually increased the hydration to 42%, but the LM is very thirsty and the extra 2% hydration doesn't seem to have softened it at all
Here's what it usually looks like after. This is from a different refreshment but they all look similar
Perhaps I am shifting it too far in the other direction, but the point of all of this is just to try things and see what happens!
I see you've gone down the super-stiff route. I must admit I feel slightly uncomfortable seeing the LM made quite so stiff. Before it was trendy I tried such moves, but it wasn't for me, I associate excessive stiffness with the "too lactic" problem but here it has worked great for you.
Stiffer = more oxidative, which is good and desired but can cause problems in excess such as those you note, like problems incorporating the LM and longer mixing times. Surely when it's that stiff, it doesn't actually triple?
Nice pictures, and with shots like those, I think you should be blogging about your bakes! With such a great panettone, where do you go from here?
Well done!
Michael
Thanks, Michael!
Yeah, I'm keeping the LM very stiff at the moment. The goal is just to keep it "free" out of convenience and I'm trying to find the right hydration. Very low hydrations seem to slow things down quite a bit and while I try not to live and die by the pH meter, I do feel that the 3.8 - 3.9 range after maintenance is quite important.
I like pairing the free maintenance with the hot bagnetto - there's a noticeable change in the starter in just those 30 minutes. The flattened LM swells considerably, I can hear it bubbling from across the room sometimes, and for my own sanity, the pH after the bath is always in the 3.8 - 3.9 range I'm looking for. I also think the initial 1:2 warm refreshment on production days dilutes the built-up acidity from the night's rest. I have tried free maintenance in the past without the bagnetto and with more typical 1:1 warm refreshments and had pretty bad results.
You're right though, the LM doesn't triple. I think this is where some judgment/experience comes in. I know I'm keeping my LM in conditions that promote acetic acid production and I get a lot of other good signals that the LM is healthy, or at least not too lactic. In light of that, and the fact that I'm using a very strong Manitoba flour at a very low hydration, makes me not worry so much about the LM not tripling. In fact I think the yeasts must be very strong to even double a dough this stiff.
Interesting that you associate the stiff LM with a high lactic load. In fact, I'm managing it this way for the opposite reason - my understanding is that oxygen availability with the free method, along with the cold maintenance temps and low hydration, would balance more towards acetic.
I will definitely start blogging more - I think that's probably a better place for content like this anyway. I feel like this is just the beginning though. I can finally make panettone, but there's so much more to learn. I want more control over the process in general so that there's not so much stress and finger-crossing each bake. And very soon, I'd like to get the LM off of the expensive Italian flour. I agree with the sentiment of Debra's comment at the beginning of this thread that I shouldn't need expensive mail-order flour to maintain my starter. Hopefully with some more experience now I can make this all work with KA Bread Flour or something similar.
Bravo, great looking panettone! I read through many of your posts here on TFL that you wrote about your quest to panettone land and I am happy to see that some of those efforts resulted with a great success!
Thanks! I'm glad you've had some success recently as well!