The Fresh Loaf

A Community of Amateur Bakers and Artisan Bread Enthusiasts.

My troublesome Lievito Madre journey (aka i need some help)

XohacCybersax's picture
XohacCybersax

My troublesome Lievito Madre journey (aka i need some help)

TL;DR: 40+ DAYS CONSTANT FEEDING ; FIRST 20 DAYS NO RISE AT ALL ; DAY 20-40 LITTLE RISE ONLY AFTER 6 HOURS

This forum has been the main source for Lievito troubleshoting that I found, so I want to track my actual problem in a way to make it public, so someone else with the same issues could have it easy in their journey. I have the first 30 days literally recorded in my camera, with the pH's info for each day and after each feeding cycle.

I already had some very nice results doing panettone, bu I was using a lievito that Roy Shrapnelsincoksanuria (i will never memorize his name, but you know who it is) gave in a workshop here in brasil.

I'm using mineral water and Molino Pasini Panettone flour. The photos are from right now, the measurement was made with a droplet of deionized water inside a litle hole i made with the spear pH meter.

Photos from today, 6h after feeding.

 

 

How i made the lievito

Following giancarlo montanari 4.1, but instead of using rye i used organic whole wheat, panetone flour and diastatic malt flour. Was not able to follow the exact schedule he suggests in the book because I was not getting enougjh activity to turn to the "production mode" (2 lactic feedings, 1 long acetic tied, milanese method). All the feedings until day 35 were done following 1:1:43% (Lievito, flour, water)

First 7 days: no leavening at all, but sharp decrease on pH, ending at somewhere aroound 3.8 after 20h. Normal consistency.

Days 8-14: Still the decrease on pH, but not as sharp, but the texture changed a lot. It got really sticky, the voices in my head told me that since the colony was not yet stabilized it should've been proteolitic bacteria that where not yet "purified" by the acidity. The pH would take at least 12h to drop below 4.2

Days 15-20: The stickyness decreased slowly, until it got to a point of getting to the pH dropping to the lowest point in "only" 6h. Then I started feeding more regularly, 2 x 6h at 27C and then a 16h+ at 17C. Day 20 was the last day using diastatic malt flour.

Day 21-37: First day with visible yeast activity, I was about to start over. From that day on I started feeding it when it reached the max volume, after 6h to 8h. The pH would be somewhere around 4 to 4.1, sometimes a little higher. At night it would go to acetic fermentation for 16h to 32h depending on my schedule. Sometimes if I felt that it was too lactic i would make 2 straight acetic fermentations, with notable differences on smell and texture at the end of them. If the pH was lower than 3.9 i'd made a bagnetto. 

 

Day 37-now: I started to research everywhere in the net, including here, possible causes and therefore possible solutions.

Possible issues (source: my head and some posts) and how I dealed with them:

1 - TOO MUCH ACID IN THE LIEVITO / TOO MUCH OLD CELLS

I tought that maybe there was a acid carryover from all the days of previous fermentation, so I fed the lievito in a 0,5:1:45% and made the acetic fementation at 17C for 24h using the piemontese method (under water). After 16h the pH of the water was 3.9 and the inside of the lievito was 3.8. 

I then fed the lievito at 0,5:1:40% at 28C, then 1:1:43%, smells nicer but still slow.

2 - TOO LITTLE YEAST POPULATION

This is the most probable one, for sure, so since I''m liking the smell a little more I will feed it at 28C several times a day, until pH drops to 4.0, and then feed and store in the fridge, meaning, doing only lactic fermentation until I have enough rise.

3 - MAYBE NOT USING VAN-OVER METHOD?

Since i work with little ammounts of lievito, I'm using a little food processor to mix the water and lievito first, and then the flour. I tought of it because my stand mixer needs a at leat 5 times the ammount of dough to properly homogenize it. Right now I'm making 23g water, 50g lievito and 50 water. The gluten ends up ok and after laminating the dough is pretty smooth, I've seen this kneading technique for the first time in Modernist Baking, from america test kitchen, but maybe it is not ideal foir lievito? Over oxidation of the lievito + water mixture?

 

This is my approach right now and I would love to know if anybody have any suggestion, like, should I change flower? feeding habits? I would love to hear something different. And I can provide media from any of the stages of the feeding journey if you guys think it would help to understand better my situation.

 

 

 

SueVT's picture
SueVT

Hi, your approach sounds very good, your techniques are sound. I think it is hard to make lievito madre with such very small amounts of starter and flour. I usually use between 100g and 150g of lievito, at a ratio of 1:1:43-45, depending on the activity. It is also important to develop the gluten in the flour, not sure if that is happening in the food processor; I mix for 7 minutes in a Kitchen Aid mixer. Then I let it sit for 10 minutes before rolling out. 

I can't comment on Modernist Baking as a source on lievito madre, but their panettone recipe is not one I would use. I do use Roy Schvartzapel's recipe, which is published in Chambelland's book. 

XohacCybersax's picture
XohacCybersax

I've readt dozens of your replys and posts! So happy you replied!

Modernist bread does not have a panetone recipe, I do use Roys recipe and actually had some nice results with it, but since losing my lievito I had to start over.

Right now i changed my mind (again) and will feed it twice a day, keeping it on 28C only until I hjave some decent raise to it, maybe my excitment when I've seen some yest activity made me change the feeding schedule at a time I was not supposed to, so I'll push it to "over fermentation" until I have some serious yest going on. 

I'll keep the post updated.

SueVT's picture
SueVT

I think you have a good plan. It is of course best to feed when your LM has completed its fermentation. I notice with both my regular sourdough starter, and also with my lievito madre, that when I am feeding more intensively after taking out of storage, there is a moment when the starter really accelerates. I do watch the pH also.

A recipe purporting to be modernist panettone is I believe in Modernist Bead Volume 4 page 260...found this because of errata published on their site. It uses lecithin, propylene glycol alginate, yogurt, and glucose syrup, as well as added gluten. I looked this up quite a while ago, because I was curious. There is also a version on a modernist blog, but the crumb looked quite dense, rather disappointing.

XohacCybersax's picture
XohacCybersax

The Van Over method that i said that i've seen in modernist bread has nothing to do with doing a starter btw. 

It's in a section dedicated to gluten development, the high speeds of the blades hidrate the flour very quickly, already helping a lot in gluten development. 

Here is a photo of the lievito just before rolling, very smooth, and I have some years of experience in baking to feel a nice gluten network when there is onje to be felt.

And about the author of the book, Francisco migoya is one of the best authors in gastronomy IMO, very "cientific" in approach, but with a lot of empiric testing too to confirm the hypothesis. Last month he was announced as the new Head of pastry/baking in NOMA, the guy knows a thing or two. The book is quite expensive but it's worthj its price! (never paid for it tough, iykwim)

 

SueVT's picture
SueVT

Thank you for this response, it prompted me to watch Migoya's presentation to the 2017 Johnson and Wales Bread Symposium on youtube, titled "Insights from Modernist Bread". Very interesting, he discussed the food processor method too. Around minute 50, he talks about training natural yeast to be osmotolerant by sugar addition, for the purpose of reducing fermentation times for panettone. (I don't think he mentioned dextrin production though).

 

joegranz's picture
joegranz

Sounds like @sourbakernz on Instagram.  He has what he calls LMz - the "z" is for zucchero.  He does what it sounds like is being explained in that video (super interesting video btw, thanks for that!).

Xohac, if you've read a lot of threads here then you probably know better than to listen to me, but your starter bears a striking resemblance to mine from a year ago https://www.thefreshloaf.com/comment/518576#comment-518576. They look like close relatives, at least.

For me, the issue was lactic acidity.  A few very stiff submerged refreshments at 16-18C for 20-24 hours helped balance it.  I'm wrong about this stuff all the time, but if you have an acidity issue, I would be concerned by the amount of time your PM is in the heat.  6 - 8hrs at 27-28C refreshed 1:1 is a long time in my opinion.  In the past I found myself chasing a certain amount of rise or pH value, only to leave my PM in the heat too long, which just made the situation worse.

 

SueVT's picture
SueVT

I've been trying out the LMz concept off and on for the last several months, overall with success but with some reservations. I find that if done consistently, my LM becomes unbalanced toward yeasts. And so I've been using it early in the refresh cycle, for a short time after bringing the LM out of longer-term storage.

However, the Migoya video is introducing a new element, the concept of "training" the LM to be more osmotolerant when introduced to the panettone impasto. I don't know whether or not this is a real phenomenon, and whether or not this would come at the expense of flavor profile development and keeping qualities, but it's worth exploring. 

Iannarelli posted that he is doing one day hot/one day not, as a way of maintaining the balance he is looking for. So extending the cold(er) feeding to 24 hours seems like a very good idea! 

My LM this morning, pH was 4.17, 1:1:.48 .  This is day 2 out of storage.

joegranz's picture
joegranz

Looking good!

If I understand correctly, it sounds like you are making a distinction between LMz and what Migoya is talking about.  Is that right? If so, what's the difference?

I don't know a lot about LMz, but I thought it involved exactly what Migoya was saying - maintaining the LM with sugar, thereby training it to be more osmotolerant to reduce panettone fermentation times.

This thread came at an interesting time because I just created a new LM based on Alberto Bernardi's method and was able to bake a panettone with it in about 10 days.  The LM wasn't perfectly balanced, the pH values weren't right, and the panettone was delicious but otherwise unremarkable, but it worked.  pH after maintenance is finally dropping - this part always seems to take a week or so after I decide that the starter is at least usable.

After many days of about 4.1 coming out of maintenance, I'm now in the 3.8 - 3.9 range, something I had not seen before with the flour I'm using.

pH after warm refreshments is still quite high.  I took it at 4.4 yesterday for a panettone that is pretty stumpy and which I will not show you all haha.

The starter I was using prior to this was bound in storage for a week or so and is super sluggish now.  I basically "kill" any starter that I bind - not sure why I haven't learned my lesson.  I refreshed 1:2 out of storage and put it in the heat for 5 or 6 hours.  Rose really nicely, but then took like 4 hours to float during maintenance 🤷🏻‍♂️.  Anyway, no time for 2 LM's - one is plenty work, so the sluggish one is not long for this world regardless.

SueVT's picture
SueVT

Several people are working with/thinking about the issue of sugar content in LM and the panettone dough itself. There are sourbakernz and impastoelievito on Instagram, Jose Romero with his book Remember 28C, Migoya (to some extent) and his staff during the modernist bread project, and Chambelland, with his universal method....

Most of what I've read has been concerned with the issue of over-acidification of the first impasto, and how to avoid it. LMz being balanced more toward yeast development and slower growth of acid-producting bacteria takes that payload into the impasto, with the (desired) result being an improvement in fermentation parameters in the dough. Also, use of sugar balance in the impasto itself is of interest to me as a way of controlling or managing fermentation. 

Migoya said he was doing this (LMz) as a way of training the yeast to live in a high osmotic pressure environment with the goal of reducing proofing times.... I don't think I've seen anyone else putting this as the goal, though it may be a side effect in any case. Also, Migoya says the upper limit of sugar in LM is 20%, and sourbakernz has been doing 25%, which never worked for me. When I do this, I aim for 17% Cu in the LM.  I would like to see Migoya's calculation of %Cu in his primo.

joegranz's picture
joegranz

Super interesting stuff, especially the part about controlling over-acidification of the primo 😅

gordybaker's picture
gordybaker

Hi Joe, I am curious about some of the data you presented here.

You seem to suggest that pH4.1 coming out of maintenance is undesirable, why? What is your pH reading after refreshments, you mentioned them to be on a high side? 

Was pH4.4 reading for LM you used to make panettone?

I find fascinating all this discussion on how to develop proper LM and how no two LM-s seem to be the same, yet many of them still perform well. 

In the case of my LM the cross section doesn't look nowhere near as porous as yours. Anytime I take it from overnight maintenance (wrapped and bound) at 16C pH is 4.05-4.1. From there on I adjust my refreshment ratios to target pH4.8-5.00 after refreshment. After 4 hours at 27C and LM tripling in volume I expect pH 4.2-4.3. Again I adjust the next feeding ratio accordingly to hit pH4.8-5.0 post refreshment reading. Usually after 2nd four hour cycle @27C I get around pH.4.2. In the same manner I proceed with the 3rd feeding expecting the final pH to be as close to pH 4.1 which I then use for baking. It is understood that for each cycle LM has to triple by volume. 

This process so far seem to be working for me without fail. It seems that all revolves around the feeding ratios that need to be managed in order to hit the desired pH at each stage, after a while that almost becomes intuitive. 

Am I oversimplifying things or this all makes some sense?

My Giorilli recipe panettone I baked couple of days ago.

joegranz's picture
joegranz

You seem to suggest that pH4.1 coming out of maintenance is undesirable, why? 

It's my understanding that coming out of maintenance, the pH should be 3.8 - 3.9 to select desirable microorganisms and kill off unwanted strains.  So, ideally, I'd like to see that pH after maintenance.  In fact that pH value is almost more important to me than 4.1.  I've seen it mentioned that after warm refreshments the correct range is 4.1 - 4.3 and I believe Michael mentioned some maetros use it even higher at around 4.5.

What is your pH reading after refreshments, you mentioned them to be on a high side?

I think first refreshment was 1:2 and ended with a pH of 4.3 and the following was 1:1 with a pH of 4.3 - 4.4.  I used it to make panettone after that second refreshment.  This is a new starter, maybe 2 weeks old, that I feel is still settling into its routine.

I think the way the LM looks is influenced by how it's maintained.  I don't think a bound LM would look the same as one in water after maintenance.  I think free and water look similar but bound looks different and is harder to read, in my opinion.

Your process makes sense to me.  Lately, I've been trying not to place too much importance on the pH value (it's difficult - it does seem rather important).  My process is different than yours - I only refresh twice, 1:2 for about 5 - 6 hours, until it reaches the right pH range, then 1:1 for at most 4 hours.

pH is tricky - I've seen situations where the pH meter has a hard time getting accurate readings in stiff dough.  I've seen higher-flour refreshments result in lower pH values than lower-flour refreshments.  I've heard that the pH failing to drop can be caused by too much acidity.  I try to look at pH as just one of the signals because sometimes I'm not really sure what it's telling me 😅

tpassin's picture
tpassin

We learned in a recent thread that pH meters don't measure reliably when the hydration is too low.  Too low is apparently 50%.  The guidance in that case is to snip off a piece of the dough and work some neutral water into it before measuring.

TomP

gordybaker's picture
gordybaker

Hydration number is relative in my view because different flours will have different absorption rate. My standard LM hydration is 44% yet with flour I use is fairly soft and I knead it by hand all the time. 

Using Bread and Dough pH tester should work with dough that is soft enough to knead by hand

https://hannacan.com/product/bread-and-dough-ph-tester-hi981038/

joegranz's picture
joegranz

I actually reached out to Hannah directly about this and their suggestion was to dissolve a sample of the dough in deionized water and test that way. They didn't mention any specific hydration where this would be more necessary. I've seen significantly different readings in my PM between testing the dough directly and "in solution". Michael has even reported some incorrect readings in his primo, which obviously has higher hydration that a PM. In fact when measuring TTA, the pH reading is also made using a solution.

I don't know where the truth lies here but knowing this, I find it hard to place all of my faith in the pH meter and so I rely pretty heavily on other signals as well. 

gordybaker's picture
gordybaker

All pathogens are eliminated under the pH4.2 according to Karl De Smedt, is that the reason you want pH to drop to 3.9? I can't find any other correlation. 

https://youtu.be/l_8UDwFETZo?si=bs_GrUT0sTbTRPb3

Ever since I got my pH probe it became my primary tool in managing the LM and I am not sure how would I do without. So far, and I am not talking about very long time but about 2 months all results I am getting with LM are consistent. I am almost at the point where I can predict the next pH reading. All bakes I made so far worked beautifully with very good results. Maybe it is just coincidence, but although that is highly unlikely we shall see how everything will work in the future. Without doubt there is much more to learn and I am eagerly looking forward to it!

 

joegranz's picture
joegranz

I'm not sure. This is the first time I've heard that pathogens are killed below 4.2. I've always heard that it's 3.8 - 3.9 (Montanari, Terffri-Chambelland, Alberto Bernardi, etc). Though I have heard of a maintenance method whereby the starter is left at 22C and refreshed every 12 hours, presumably never reaching this low pH range 🤷‍♂️

pH, in my experience, does not work as simply as it has been working for you. I've collected enough data over the past year or two to treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism lol

tpassin's picture
tpassin

The US FDA requires that canned food have a pH of 4.6 or below.  This is acidic enough to prevent the growth of Clostridium botulinum and stop its toxin production, but it does not kill its spores, and other spoilage organisms may also remain.  See

https://www.dksh.com/global-en/lab-solutions/insights/role-of-acidulant-and-ph-in-food-safety#accordion-1578373725495-2-collapse

From the link, referring to non-thermal treatment of canned or preserved goods:

In general, the standard for low-acid foods is a 12 log reduction in C. botulinumspores.

By comparison, FDA requires a 5 log reduction in target organisms for almost all other types of preservation processes. The rationale has traditionally been that botulism is so hazardous and the risk is very high, whereas most other pathogens are somewhat less severe, and risks are somewhat mitigated by other measures, such as low pH.

The point here is that the spores are very hard to kill, and can come back to life when the food warms up again.  OTOH, it takes some time for the spores to reactivate and produce enough of the botulin toxin to be harmful.  

Also:

Spores of C. botulinum will not germinate and grow in foods below pH 4.8

pH of 4.6 provides a safety margin

(from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2022-02/2-Microbiology.pdf)

 

 

 

mwilson's picture
mwilson

I believe this idea of purification is very much from Thomas Teffri-Chambelland. Before his book I never read of such interpretation. Granted it makes sense to some degree, I think his reasoning is that reaching the lower pH of 3.8-3.9 means that the dominant microbes have been maximised. He poses that they are more susceptible to competition at higher pH ranges of 4.1 or higher. While true the feed ratio of 1:1 naturally favours stability however.

joegranz's picture
joegranz

I think you're right. That's definitely what I was thinking of when I mentioned it - as well as a comment or video somewhere where I saw Alberto Bernardi mention it.

I took another look at pH 4.1 and Omnia Fermenta and Montonari mentions it in both of those texts, though he doesn't feature it as prominently as Teffri-Chambelland.

joegranz's picture
joegranz

Another reason why I don't put too much value in the pH meter is just to learn more.  Literature suggests that a PM ready to use is 4.1 - 4.3, but what happens if I use it at 4.4 or 4.5?  In the past, when I didn't see the right pH I would abort the bake - no sense in wasting ingredients for a panettone that would ultimately fail, right?  But my perspective now is that the cup of flour, 3 eggs, and half a stick of butter I use for the primo is at least worth the learning experience - and if the secondo has no mixing problems, I can at least see how changing this variable affects the final product.

Case in point - here's my squat little panettone I said I wouldn't be sharing with the class lol.  I was experimenting with something this bake.  I usually plan very poorly and wind up baking when the dough is right at the top of the mold (my error is usually lazily eyeballing it without a straight edge, until finally getting a straight edge to find that I've maybe let it go too far).  I've seen suggestions to bake 2-3 cm from the top for a tall mold for more oven spring.  You might have noticed that Roy's recipe has an abnormally short secondo fermentation of only 4 hours, suggesting the dough is not right at the top of the mold.

So, unfortunately I changed 2 variables here - I used my PM at a higher pH than I ever have (about 4.4) and also baked earlier than I typically do. So, I'm not sure why this panettone was so short and which of the two changes it might have been caused by.  It's difficult to be super consistent with mixing and everything as well, so there are probably variables beyond these 2 that inadvertently changed.

But I'm pretty happy with everything besides the oven spring for a panettone that I wouldn't have bothered even trying to bake in the past.

gordybaker's picture
gordybaker

Very nice looking panettone! I see what you mean, I guess there is no substitute for an experience. 

SueVT's picture
SueVT

Nice looking panettone! I've been baking the Roy recipe mostly for about the last year or so. My numbers are usually about like what you just described. I don't refresh 3 times. At most, 2 times and sometimes only once. 

My last bake was started with LM at 4.35. Today's bake started with LM at 4.44. First impasto on my last bake was at 4.45 after 15 hours, took that long because I tweaked sugar too much. Today's first impasto was at 4.63 after 11.5 hours and had tripled. Rising time on both bakes was 4.5 hours. Yes, you should bake it before it gets to the top.

joegranz's picture
joegranz

It's good knowing that you're seeing similar pH values as me.  I wonder if it has something to do with the flour.  My new LM is maintained with King Arthur Bread Flour and always has these high pH values after warm refreshments.  It's not the first KABF LM I've maintained and they all did this.  I've never seen 4.1 after a warm refreshment in these starters.  I believe you also maintain your LM with a malted North American flour, right?

My LM that was maintained with Caputo Oro (unmalted Manitoba flour) had pH values that were more typical - while my KABF PM is usually above 4.3, the Caputo PM was never above 4.3.

I wasted SO MUCH time working on PMs with KABF in the past, trying to get the pH down to 4.1.  And of course I wasn't baking with them because I assumed something was wrong given the pH.  My opinion now is to see it as less of a "defect" and more just part of the characteristics of my PM, the difference being that I'm no longer trying to fix it, but rather seeing how I can get the best panettone possible with the starter I have.

By the way, what glaze recipe do you use?  I've seen your final product and I like the look of it.  I feel my glaze recipe maybe hardens too quickly?  Maybe that indicates too much sugar? Every time I glaze, I find that the dough has a hard time breaking through the crust that forms.  I get much less rise, much flatter domes, and at times the dough winds up expanding through some other area of less resistance, kind of like a boule that wasn't scored.  Maybe my PM just has to be stronger so that it can break through that crust.

Also, do you do anything to prevent a crust from forming during the fermentation of the second dough?  I find I get slightly better results by covering the molds with cling film or something, but the results are still not great, so I've abandoned the glaze for the time being (to the dismay of my family as this is all they care about when it comes to panettone 🤣)

SueVT's picture
SueVT

hi, I feed my LM with General Mills All Trumps flour, the green bag one which is unbleached or organic or something, have to check. Don't know if it has malt added or not....  Anyway, over time the pH has drifted upward, and so I have used various tactics to try to make sure I am giving the lactic bacteria a chance to grow appropriately before the next feeding. You've been on all those threads I think....

note - Sometimes I use KA Galahad flour for the second impasto IF the pH of my 1st after fermentation was adequately high (like over 4.8). That means I'm not worried about too much damage to gluten via acid development in the 1st impasto, and want to give the final dough a chance to really expand while rising and baking (learned this from @Brumits on Insta)... otherwise I am using Pasini panettone flour for both 1st and 2nd impastos

As you point out, I think it's a mistake to focus too much on LM 4.1 pH... more important to develop a process, understand what parameters work for you or modify results positively.

I make the glaze in the food processor, using 75g almond flour, 5g modified food starch, 5g corn starch, 150g sugar, and 65g egg white.  Mix this about an hour before I need it, and mix again right before use because the sugar will be dissolved by then. You can also use hazelnut flour mixed with almond flour if you like it. The food starch is the cooked version of cleargel, which I bought in a 25 lb bag and use for thickening many things. I think it is wheat-based.  

This is enough glaze for three 1Kg panettones OR four 750g ones, plus enough for several mini panettones to use up the dough. I pipe it on with a small disposable piping bag, just cut the end off the bag and don't use a metal tip. Make the spiral on the loaf leaving about a quarter inch between each line of piping. Don't cover the entire surface, but leave an inch all around the outside edge. It will spread somewhat, but not form a solid sheet on top. Then sprinkle pearl sugar, making sure to get some down the edge where the paper meets the dough.

I proof the loaves in a Brod and Taylor proofing box which has a lid, but I don't cover the paper pans with plastic. There is enough humidity inside the box from the water tray at the bottom, so that they don't form a skin. I take them out about 20 min before glazing so that they aren't too wet at that point. Hope this helps ;-)

Here is this morning's panettone, definitely the best one I have made yet. This is strawberry with white, ruby and milk chocolate:

gordybaker's picture
gordybaker

My goodness that is an amazing panettone!

I presume this is also Roy recipe? I tried to find this recipe online and couldn't find it anywhere although many people bake it. Not sure if that is a copy-write issue, I thought as long as the reference to the source was made it is ok to post the recipe? 

It is interesting to see that pH readings appear not to be that critical although that veils the panettone making process with even with bigger mystery. So far I have been strictly following the required criteria I learned about the process including desired pH values and LM look and strength. Results are very good in my estimation although so far I worked with only one recipe. 

My latest bake few days ago, Giorilli recipe:

 

 

SueVT's picture
SueVT

Thank you, and I think your crumb is very good! You should be happy with this one, it looks delicious!

The Roy recipe is published in Chambelland's book, and emmalapergamena dot com has a version, though I haven't checked it against the book version.  

pH is still very important to help guide LM maintenance efforts, and as a basis for several process decisions. I am getting more interested in Titration, but that is a lot more work. 

 

 

gordybaker's picture
gordybaker

Thank you! I am happy realy with with this bake. Interestingly pH readings, mixing and fermentation times for both doughs were nearly identical as the bake I did just week ago using the same recipe. Consistency counts.

I think pH readings are important. That is besides observation (subjective) the only tool I have to help governing my decision on the next step in either LM maintenance or baking. It might not be the only one that matters but is the only one I currently  have.

joegranz's picture
joegranz

Looks great!

Glad you found a process that's working for you

gordybaker's picture
gordybaker

Thanks Joe! If it was not for your encouragement to bake I would have probably still scratched my head and wondered how to bring my LM pH to below 4.

joegranz's picture
joegranz

Nice one Sue!  And thanks for the glaze recipe.

mwilson's picture
mwilson

That is a beauty Sue. The crumb tells me, the acidity is lovely and low.

SueVT's picture
SueVT

Thank you very much MIchael! It has been interesting to see the qualitative difference to the crumb, as my LM has evolved. 

XohacCybersax's picture
XohacCybersax

Thanks for replying! 

I tought that I dealt with the excess of lactic acidity wen, right after having some yeast activity, I did a 3 day napolitan style 17C fermentation. 

 

But if I had the excess of TTA (thing that I was not tjhinking about at the time) doing the Piemontese method would solve the problem. Probably this is the right way!

I'll do this in the next feeding cycle, I believe that its the best try.

joegranz's picture
joegranz

Maybe I'm getting my terms mixed up but by "napolitan style" do you mean the bound "Milanese" method you mentioned in your original post?

Because you mentioned Montanari's pH 4.1, I wanted to make sure you are aware of some errata in that book.  In Montanari's newer book, Omnia Fermenta, he mentions how he mistakenly wrote in pH 4.1 that the Milanese method would produce more acetic acid when in reality it produces more lactic acid.  Just want to make sure you were aware of that as it's a pretty significant error when you are using the information to troubleshoot your own LM lol.

XohacCybersax's picture
XohacCybersax

Yeah, I had no sleep last night, seey. Milanese.

Didnt knew about this errata! Thanks!

XohacCybersax's picture
XohacCybersax

I've never seen this presentation! thanks for sharing, I'll give it a look later.

But the idea of creating osmotolerant yeast is good, never seen it before.