Reading this last night, it appeared to me that : Water stored LM showed both K. humilis (sanfran) AND K cerevisiae , which has a much faster metabolism and growth rate. So, don’t blend water storage and binding, because binding will remove the cerevisiae, and then the LM will be weakened by dilution and water storage during refreshments. They already do only two refreshments on water stored LMs.
Also, this sample had more alcohols (yeast-related) and other flavor-related VOCs
Revisited this paper recently, and noticed that they don't give how much LM they use in the initial dough...only stating
...about 28% (w/w) of the final refreshed sourdough was used for the first dough preparation.
I would assume it makes a reasonable impact. 28% of the final refreshed sourdough, unless I'm mistaken, tells me nothing as it doesn't give the weight of the final refreshed sourdough. Really wish they gave details on the back-slopping done.
Another very interesting paper, thank you!
Reading this last night, it appeared to me that : Water stored LM showed both K. humilis (sanfran) AND K cerevisiae , which has a much faster metabolism and growth rate. So, don’t blend water storage and binding, because binding will remove the cerevisiae, and then the LM will be weakened by dilution and water storage during refreshments. They already do only two refreshments on water stored LMs.
Also, this sample had more alcohols (yeast-related) and other flavor-related VOCs
Revisited this paper recently, and noticed that they don't give how much LM they use in the initial dough...only stating
...about 28% (w/w) of the final refreshed sourdough was used for the first dough preparation.
I would assume it makes a reasonable impact. 28% of the final refreshed sourdough, unless I'm mistaken, tells me nothing as it doesn't give the weight of the final refreshed sourdough. Really wish they gave details on the back-slopping done.