Sourdough Starter Testing

[Muddy]

Has anyone had their sourdough starter(s) tested for identification of the yeast and LAB species? If so, where was the testing done? 

I'd also be interested in hearing about the results.

I'm curious about what exactly I've been using for my pizza crust and bread. I currently keep three different starters active. All were started from the wild yeast on home milled grain. I started with more varieties but decided to pare down the numbers due to the time, expense and general hassle of keeping so many starters happy. Some of the eliminated varieties produced either off-tasting or uninteresting bread. The reasoning for the final three was decidedly non-scientific. One starter is fast acting, another is slow acting, the last one excels at producing hooch.

Besides providing a clue about why the starters behave so differently, knowing the species would be useful for tracking cross contamination.

Muddy.

[TXCraig1]

Some years ago, a few members here participated in this study. They aren't accepting new samples, but you may find it interesting.

https://robdunnlab.com/projects/sourdough/
https://elifesciences.org/articles/61644#s4

[TXCraig1]

Another interesting study:

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/msphere.00950-19

[Muddy]

Thanks for the links.

I've "skimmed" through a couple of those papers in the past. There is a lot of data there. Maybe someday I'll try to seriously read them. Knowing what species that I have might be motivational. Sort-of like having skin in the game.

One of the things that struck me about the papers is the numbers of species present in the samples. This made me think about how hard it would be to accurately replicate somebody else's SD recipe.

Muddy

[TXCraig1]

One of the things that struck me about the papers is the numbers of species present in the samples. This made me think about how hard it would be to accurately replicate somebody else's SD recipe.

I've probably written something like "all starters are different" here 100 time or more. That being said, replicating someone's workflow is likely a lot harder than adapting a recipe to your unique starter and your unique workflow.

[Muddy]

I generally agree.

However, I hypothesize that two sufficiently detailed oriented people, using the same brand flour, commercial yeast* (or SD starter from the same "mother") and workflow, would get pretty darn close. Otherwise, all bets are off.


*Assuming that what I've read about the invariability of commercial yeast being true

I think that the intrinsic problem with workflow replication is that most people don't fully (or even partially) document it as part of their recipe.

Muddy

[TXCraig1]

However, I hypothesize that two sufficiently detailed oriented people, using the same brand flour, commercial yeast* (or SD starter from the same "mother") and workflow, would get pretty darn close. Otherwise, all bets are off.

After watching people here make pizza for the past 15 years, I don't think that's the case - even with baker's yeast (and absolutely not with SD even if given the same culture) - and the same oven.

[Bill/CDMX]

This kind of pizza defies attempts to control for variables that are unknown and uncontrollable. You can't brute force with science to make up for a lack of craft and art.

[Muddy]

The key phrase is "sufficiently detailed oriented". This was meant to describe the ability of someone to pay attention to little things and/or execute a recipe/workflow. This would explain why some people can duplicate a loaf of bread or pizza "at will" and other's struggle with the same task. Another example would be a pizzeria that makes essentially the same great pizza from generation to generation versus another that goes down hill when passed from the parents to the kids.

The recipe itself is also a factor. Some recipes are more robust to variation than others. For instance, I'm guessing that a basic "emergency dough" made with AP flour would be pretty similar for everyone. Alternatively, I have a few recipes that I struggle to repeat no matter how careful that I am.

Another example is chain store pizza. When I coached a travel sports team, I bought hundreds of Little Caesars Hot-n-Ready pizzas from dozens of locations in different cities. Obviously, different people were making the pizzas. However, they were all essentially the same pizza, including the unpleasant aftertaste when reheated the next day. It is actually quite impressive that LC produced such a repeatable product.

But back to the original topic... I searched the website for references to the sourdough species testing. I found some references to the studies mentioned above, but not any results. Am I just searching with the wrong terms? Do you recall anyone posting results?

Thanks,

Muddy

[TXCraig1]

I think there are quite a few problems with that take.

1) it may not be possible to be "sufficiently detailed oriented." There are details that are almost impossible to recognize, much less control*.
2) duplicating a pizza or loaf of bread at will is a LOT more about experience than attention to detail.
3) passing a skill like pizzamaking from generation to generation is also about experience and may even require very little attention to detail in the way you're using the term.
4) examples like Little Caesars are about engineering variability out of the system so that very little attention to detail is required to get consistent results. It's actually a strong argument against what you are trying to establish.

I don't think you'll find anything along the line of what you're looking for here. I can't remember anyone ever posting on it other than a few posts related to what I mentioned above. Personally, I see zero value in knowing other that intellectual curiosity. Testing/knowing won't give you any information that is useful for improving your pizza.

[TXCraig1]

* With regard to details that are hard to recognize and even harder to control, in my first job out of college, I worked in a large restaurant chain where all the stores had a bake shop. We made all our breads an pastries in-house. I worked for several months in a store where all of the employees who worked in the bake shop had 10+ years experience. I spent a lot of time working with them, and I though I got really good at making cakes. Working in that store, my cakes were perfect - perfect edges, perfectly flat across the top, looked great, etc. From there I was tasked to open a new store that was far enough away from any of the existing locations to make bringing in many experienced employees impractical. At that store, my cakes looked like crap - all lopsided and ugly. 

I'm a pretty detail oriented person. That didn't matter at all because I didn't recognize so many important details - even when someone was literally there whispering them in my ear.

[Bill/CDMX]

Dunning-Kruger for the win!

[Muddy]

It's actually a strong argument against what you are trying to establish.

I'm glad that one of us understands what argument that I'm trying to establish. It certainly isn't me.

All I was trying to do is point out that there are wildly diverse ways of making a pizza (which you already know) and that the repeatability is dependent on which method being discussed (which you also already know). My points were obviously lacking in clarity.

is a LOT more about experience than attention to detail

I'm guessing that the disconnect here is each one our interpretations of "experience" and "attention to detail". To me, somebody could make 300-400 pizzas per day and have experience without paying attention to any the finer details. Another could make very few pizzas, but be very in-tune with the process. The details could be anything from carefully measuring/weighing the ingredients, to keeping track of temperatures, to noticing subtle changes in the dough, etc. This person may notice the details, but not understand them or react to them appropriately.

My interpretation of what you are saying is that the true artisan would notice the change in dough AND know what to do when it happens. If so, I absolutely agree.

There are details that are almost impossible to recognize, much less control*

I can't argue with that. I would add that, with careful observation, there are enough details that are observable to produce a consistent end product.

Personally, I see zero value in knowing other that intellectual curiosity. Testing/knowing won't give you any information that is useful for improving your pizza.

Intellectual curiosity is all I'm looking for.  Frankly, if I did get test results, I'd have no way of knowing if they were correct or not.

Knowing the formal species name of what is in my starter would have absolutely no effect on how I make pizza dough or bread. I'm happy with the dough that I make from my starter.

The usefulness of a formal identification would be very limited. For example, if I ever have to restart my starter from a backup, it would be nice to know if the restored starter is the same as the original. I can see the case where the backup wasn't viable and the new starter is whatever species that was on the wheat that I used in the revival attempt. There is also the possibility of cross contamination of the starters. I assume that it just a matter of time until I screw up and unintentionally intermix something. I realize that any future retest of a botched starter would also have no usefulness other than for intellectual curiosity.

Please keep in mind that I am just a pizza hobbyist and I nerd-out on meaningless stuff like this.

Muddy

[Chuck Light]

Any wine makers here?  The wine industry has isolated specific yeast strains example Lalvin EC-1118, D80 to name a few.
Letting your grapes ferment with wild yeast was something they taught you never to do.
Must not be any money in cultivating sourdough yeast. 
  

[TXCraig1]

Any wine makers here?  The wine industry has isolated specific yeast strains example Lalvin EC-1118, D80 to name a few.
Letting your grapes ferment with wild yeast was something they taught you never to do.
Must not be any money in cultivating sourdough yeast.
 

https://sourdo.com/

[TXCraig1]

I'm guessing that the disconnect here is each one our interpretations of "experience" and "attention to detail". To me, somebody could make 300-400 pizzas per day and have experience without paying attention to any the finer details. Another could make very few pizzas, but be very in-tune with the process. The details could be anything from carefully measuring/weighing the ingredients, to keeping track of temperatures, to noticing subtle changes in the dough, etc. This person may notice the details, but not understand them or react to them appropriately.

My interpretation of what you are saying is that the true artisan would notice the change in dough AND know what to do when it happens. If so, I absolutely agree.

You brought up to very different things (1) can two sufficiently detail oriented people make the same pizza, and (2) can someone duplicate a pizza at will.  In the former, you theoretically might not need any experience if your hypothesis is correct, while in the latter you might not need any attention to detail other than the details of the pizza you're trying to duplicate.

All pizzamaking experience isn't the same. Making 300-400 pizzas per day is certainly experience, but it's experience doing just that. It's not experience that will allow you to duplicate a pizza at will. It might even be a hinderance.