[Sca-cooks] citations on sour dough from the OED

[Chris Stanifer]

--- "Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius" <adamantius.magister at verizon.net> wrote:

> Also sprach Chris Stanifer:
> >Aha!!  A semi-tongue-in-cheek attempt to prove a point!!  Friendly 
> >tone...yet full of pointed
> >questions....meant to pull me off guard, perhaps....must...stay...focused.
> 
> We can talk about cuskynoles _later_.


Deal.


> Okay. I'd have thought that between the prolonged refrigeration and 
> the pH level, there were yeast-killing conditions at work...


Sure, it's apparent in hindsight that there was a killer in the goo.... and that killer was lactic
acid.  And, apparently, my little neighborhood of yeasties don't like the levels of acid I subject
them to.  Call me cruel.    However, at the time, I had never had a starter go 'dead' on me. 
Dormant, to be sure, but an addition of yeast and flour always did the trick.

> See, my whole point is to demonstrate the problems when we talk in 
> universal, empirical terms ;-).  All that you say is true when you 
> substitute the word "a" for "THE". I'm familiar with this stuff, but 
> I think it's leading you down a logical path that confuses cause (or 
> collateral phenomenon) with effect.


Oh, if only that were true :)  Perhaps I should have simply substituted the word THE for the
phrase THE MAIN REASON ?  Consider... wild yeast will inocculate a dough in a matter of a few
hours. With this 'starter', you can make a loaf of bread that will rise. And, if that's cool with
the trailblazers, then it's cool with me.  However, it's pretty obvious that they didn't think it
was so cool, because those wild yeasts were pretty prone to doing wonky things with a loaf of
bread.  So, they cultured a good, strong sourdough, which was stable against invasion by unwanted
yeasties.  Which makes a good, strong, stable leaven, which is only guaranteed by the presence of
a goodly dose of lactobacillis,  THE MAIN REASON (tm) for carrying those pots of starter around.



> I think we're doing the empirical boogie again. I think I have some 
> kind of license on this list to speak ex cathedra, but I try not to 
> abuse the right ;-). Yes, the sourness does provide side benefits, 
> and is a sign of quality, but that's not the same thing as saying it 
> _is_ the quality we're seeking.


The question then becomes: 'can the two be seperated'?  If the sourness is a sign of quality, then
doesn't it, by extension, become the quality we are seeking??  Consider:  If we know that a
quality bread has a sour flavor, can't we assume that a sour bread is a quality bread??  Maybe
this would need some further research.  Can you make a sour bread which sucks in all other
regards??  I'm not sure.  I think not.  If you can do it, send me a loaf :)


  However, these were
> >not sourdough breads.
> 
> No, of course not. They were, however, breads or bread variants, and 
> staple foods that the cook couldn't afford to leave out of most 
> meals, and for that reason, the most immediate design criterion -- a 
> convenient, stable form of leavening for breads and other baked goods 
> -- is met by baking powder, and by using it to replace sourdough, 
> you're pretty much identifying what it is about the sourdough that is 
> really valued.


Weeeeeelllllll....maybe.  The time saving factor probably plays more of a part in the decision to
use baking powder (or unnatural leavening) than the sourness of the starter.  I'd wager that the
folks sititng around that campfire would have been perfectly content to have a sourness in their
biscuits (they were probably quite comfortable with it by the time Baking Powder came on the
scene), but Paking Powder allowed them to eat faster (or, rather, sooner).  If the sourdough
starter worked as fast as the Baking Powder, I'd wager they'd have never even bothered with the
tasteless powder.  Would you??

> Again, a sign of quality is not the same thing _as_ quality, any more 
> than, say, pouring fresh blood over stale meat makes it fresh again. 
> And I agree that some did, and would, equate the sourness with 
> quality, but then some people used to believe that thunder caused 
> milk to sour, too, when in fact they were joint effects of the same 
> phenomenon, not cause and effect. I'm not saying sourness should be 
> ignored for that style in that setting, I'm just saying we should not 
> forget our priorities, and that sourness provided by lactothingies is 
> some unidentified percentage level less important than the leavening 
> power of yeast in this equation.


I'm not willing to meet you on this battlefield. I have already bloodied myself enough with this
topic.  I am, however, willing to meet you half-way, and say that the sourness (and resulting
stability) and the leavening power were equally important.

Do we have an accord??

William de Grandfort




=====
Through teeth of sharks, the Autumn barks.....and Winter squarely bites me.


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com