Alternative Approach for Float Test?
The float test has been discussed several times, but it occurred to me that an alternative approach (still pertaining to floatation) could be used by noting the volume of the levain.
Suppose, for example, that you combine some starter, flour, and water in an aggregate weight of 400 grams. That weight of water would occupy roughly 14 fluid ounces (i.e., less than two cups). If the mixture reaches a volume of two cups, then the 400 gram mixture has a greater volume than the volume of 400 grams of water does and therefore would float. (On the other hand, if the mixture has reached a volume of only one-and-a-half cups (12 fluid ounces), then it is denser than water and would not float.) Can the sufficiency of the carbon dioxide generation be determined in this way?
Am I overlooking something? Thanks in advance for all insights.
If never used the float test myself. I've always found it obvious when a starter is good to use. But, ya did say all insights, so - liking to keep things simple, I couldn't think of anything easier than doing a float test. Materials needed for the test are readily available, cheap, and the process is simple and easy to execute with instant, easy to see results. I guess if it ain't broke, so on and so forth. That said, I'll be watching this thread as I'm intrigued by the idea. That's a reason I got into bread making years ago. I hope you get a lot of replies!
Phaz, thanks for your response, which as you can see is the only one so far. I thought some of the experienced bakers would have something to say. Oh well.
If your metric for a successful starter is based on the amount of gas developed over time then I guess a float test might be a positive indication. Personally speaking I have never focused on the float test because it is merely an indication of the yeast's ability to produce gas. A natural leavener is so much more than yeast and gas.
While I do pay attention to the rise and fall of my starters my nose tends to be the best judge of good development. I know that when I take the top off of the container I will be more interested in a pungent fruit or pungent sourness, depending on how the starter was fed. I also look for a doubling or tripling of the volume but I really don't care whether it floats or does not float.
If I am building a starter for a stronger sourness I will build a stiff starter. I don't think it would float but in fact I have never tried it. Some of my higher hydration starters tend to float but I am not terribly concerned with whether the do or don't. It is not that I am disinterested in an active starter but the proverbial float test is a low priority for me.
If gas development is my goal, and time is of the essence, then I will add yeast to my formula along with the natural leavening. If I have time on my side and the dough is not progressing as quickly as I'd like, I might opt for a cold fermentation or cold proof and not add any additional yeast.
I understand the desire to rely on absolutes when baking bread but if I have learned anything on my bread journey, it is to put the absolutes on the back shelf. Time and a lot of practice has taught me to be patient, and the the adage, "watch the dough and not the clock" is something that has worked for me.
Jim
Jim, thanks for your reply. I was not trying to "rely on absolutes" so much as use my noggin to ponder another way of viewing the float test for a levain. I have a couple of starters going, one fairly stiff and the other more hydrated, and they definitely have different fragrances. The operative word for both starters is "pungent" when I smell, which I agree is the thing that reveals the most about what is going on (and what likely will occur when used in a dough). Volume is key too when I am checking the development of the levain. Thanks again.
Ted
Looking at your original post, your premise on the change from 1 cup to 2 cups in volume precludes that a doubling in volume might be enough to pass the float test. Maybe yes, maybe no, and I suppose it is based on the make-up of the original formula.
As an aviator I'll use this analogy. A hot air balloon will ascend when the lift coefficient of the volume of heated air exceeds the load factor of the envelope, basket and payload. Just because the envelope has expanded to its maximum volume doesn't necessarily mean that the package will gain lift. The heavier the payload the more heated air required to ascend. Fill the envelope with hot air and fill the basket with passengers, then launch from a boat over a lake and see what happens :-) Maybe it will float and maybe it won't. The pilot cannot make the assumption that, because the envelope is full, the package has exceeded gravitational restrictions.
If the density of your starter is greater under one scenario than another, I do not believe that a doubling of the volume would be an absolute indicator that it would pass the float test, nor do I believe that it is an absolute indicator that the starter is fully developed. I think that most here would place the float test in the same category as absolute times and absolute temperatures. These factors can be a good starting point for the novice baker but most of us have learned that we cannot rely on everything going as planned. Waiting for a dense, low hydration starter to float may be a futile effort, when in fact the starter is raring to get down to business.
Winter baking is great for me but this summer is kicking my butt. Chasing temperatures, humidity, and hydration has me running in circles like a dog chasing its tail. With that said my starters still perform for me under these ever-changing conditions. I just cannot rely on the clock as an indicator of dough development and I cannot rely on a float test as an absolute indicator that my starter is fully developed.