perforated pan problem

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Carl West

unread,
Jun 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/17/98
to

A while ago I got one of those perforated metal, double-trough, 'french
bread' pans. I'm having trouble with my SD in it though. By the time the
dough has risen it has also flowed through the holes in the pan. Getting
the loaves out/off of the pan is a lot like pulling plaster off of lath.

Tips? Hints?
--
Carl West
http://www.inmet.com/~eisen

"It is better, of course, to know useless things
than to know nothing." -Seneca in "Epistles"

slki...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/17/98
to

In article <3587E548...@inmet.com>,

Carl West <ei...@inmet.com> wrote:
>
> A while ago I got one of those perforated metal, double-trough, 'french
> bread' pans. I'm having trouble with my SD in it though. By the time the
> dough has risen it has also flowed through the holes in the pan.
>
> Tips? Hints?

By "French bread" I assume you mean baguettes. My understanding
is that baguettes are usually put into the oven somewhat under-
proofed. That way they get a huge oven-spring, big expansion of
the slashes, etc. If your loaves are rising to the point where they
become soft enough to flow through the holes, you're probably
rising them too much. This is, of course, assuming that the
initial dough is firm enough to stay out of the holes. If it is
a soft dough to begin with, you may want to mix it a little
firmer.

It's a bit of a hard thing trying to make sourdough baguettes
that have much of a sourdough flavor. It's a real trade-off.
Either you bake short-rise sourdough baguettes with little
sourdough flavor, or you bake long-rise sourdough baguettes
that don't have much baguette character. To be technical,
there is not such thing as a "sourdough baguette." It is one
of the few French breads that absolutely requires commercial
yeast and a short rise.

Sam Kinsey
slki...@aol.com

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

nos...@auerbach_at_unity.ncsu.edu

unread,
Jun 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/17/98
to

In <3587E548...@inmet.com>, on 06/17/98
at 03:48 PM, Carl West <ei...@inmet.com> said:

<- A while ago I got one of those perforated metal, double-trough,
<- 'french bread' pans. I'm having trouble with my SD in it though. By
<- the time the dough has risen it has also flowed through the holes in
<- the pan. Getting the loaves out/off of the pan is a lot like pulling
<- plaster off of lath.

<- Tips? Hints?

Nope. Questions. How wet is your dough (68%, more)? How do you form the
loaves (are they nice tight taut skinned baguettes?)? How hot is your
oven?

--
Regards,
David


"What would life be without arithmetic, but a scene of horrors?"
-Rev. Sydney Smith, letter to young lady, 22 July 1835

Check out http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/sourdoughfaqs.html
for sourdough FAQs

-----------------------------------------------------------
David Auerbach nospam@auerbachatunitydotncsudotedu
fix the above for the real address
-----------------------------------------------------------

Carl West

unread,
Jun 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/17/98
to

slki...@aol.com wrote:

> By "French bread" I assume you mean baguettes.

Probably more a batarde, but see below.

>...My understanding


> is that baguettes are usually put into the oven somewhat under-
> proofed. That way they get a huge oven-spring, big expansion of
> the slashes, etc. If your loaves are rising to the point where they
> become soft enough to flow through the holes, you're probably
> rising them too much. This is, of course, assuming that the
> initial dough is firm enough to stay out of the holes. If it is
> a soft dough to begin with, you may want to mix it a little
> firmer.

Ah! that helps. I'm using a cooler to keep them humid while rising. Next
time cold water instead of warm. And a firmer dough.

Yes, last night's dough was pretty sloppy. Though, even in the past with
firmer doughs, by the time they'd risen they were keying into the holes.
But come to think of it, that was before I discovered this group and
started handling my starter better. Seems I posted slightly prematurely.
Maybe.
>
> ...To be technical,


> there is not such thing as a "sourdough baguette." It is one
> of the few French breads that absolutely requires commercial
> yeast and a short rise.

That's OK, I'm not _really_ concerned about making 'Baguettes' per se. I
want long, skinny, tear-chunks-off-of-it bread with that knobby crust on
the bottom. I like that.

nos...@auerbach_at_unity.ncsu.edu

unread,
Jun 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/17/98
to

In <6m9739$d3j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, on 06/17/98
at 07:57 PM, slki...@aol.com said:

<- It is one
<- of the few French breads that absolutely requires commercial yeast and
<- a short rise.

It was the first French bread invented to use commercial yeast, in fact.
Two historic methods exist, to my knowledge. A typical commercial yeast
method, but with two rises before forming and a biga, i.e., poolisch,
method also based on commercial yeast. There has a been a revivial of
these real baguettes in Paris recently after decades of incredible crap,
mostly frozen dough baked off by so-called bakeries.

nos...@auerbach_at_unity.ncsu.edu

unread,
Jun 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/17/98
to

In <35884E5D...@inmet.com>, on 06/17/98
at 11:16 PM, Carl West <ei...@inmet.com> said:

<- That's OK, I'm not _really_ concerned about making 'Baguettes' per se.
<- I want long, skinny, tear-chunks-off-of-it bread with that knobby
<- crust on the bottom. I like that.

One can make a long skinny crusty sourdough bread. Let's call it a
sourdough baton. The trick is to use a very active starter (i.e. in the
building up let it get very active), not too hard a flour and underproof
slightly. Forming technique is very important--I'll try to describe it
below. It will sound complicated--I've seen a rested wad of dough go
from wad to baton in 10 seconds. I've seen apprentices do it in 18. I'm
a 30 second man myself. But a minute will do. A 500F oven is useful,
as is a stone. Small breads (& batons are small) need high heat. You
could drop it to 450F after 8 minutes or so. (I'm talking real temps
here---many home ovens run hot). I prefer to do without the metal forms
all together and put the batons directly onto hot stone.

Forming: Deflate the dough, portion it (traditional baguettes have to be
300g.+- (by law) and are scaled at 400g., allowing for loss). Round them
up gently and let rest 20-30 minutes. Take a lump and gently pat into a
square. Fold the top down 2/3 and the bottom up to the middle. Fold the
sides in, shy of the middle and gently tap everything into place. Then
turn the top down just to the bottom and with your thumbs spread across
the bottom push/roll so that the seam is face up in the middle. Tap on it
gently. Repeat the fold, push, tap. Then fold to the bottom yet again,
and with palm of your hand strike the top of the seam there, working left
to right (or right to left). (all this time the orignal square dimension
has been expanding into a baton) Roll the baton *forward* this time,
onto the seam you've just compressed and placing your open palms onto the
dough, in the middle, give a quick back and forth roll whilst moving your
palms apart, finishing with a slightly great downward pressure toward the
ends. Wish I could draw.

At this point I place them seam side up in a linen couche (pleated linen
cloth) to (under)proof.

Carl West

unread,
Jun 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/18/98
to

Carl West wrote:
>
> slki...@aol.com wrote:

> >...My understanding
> > is that baguettes are usually put into the oven somewhat under-
> > proofed. That way they get a huge oven-spring, big expansion of
> > the slashes, etc. If your loaves are rising to the point where they
> > become soft enough to flow through the holes, you're probably
> > rising them too much. This is, of course, assuming that the
> > initial dough is firm enough to stay out of the holes. If it is
> > a soft dough to begin with, you may want to mix it a little
> > firmer.
>
> Ah! that helps. I'm using a cooler to keep them humid while rising. Next
> time cold water instead of warm. And a firmer dough.

did it last night. Much better! came out of the pan with just one pry from
a long thin knife, kept all the knobs :)

1# flour
8oz filtered water (does that make 50% hydration? [plus the starter])
2oz rather liquid, fairly active starter
~1T salt

made a fairly firm dough

formed and slashed diagonally

8 hour ~68F humidified rise

slashed the other diagonal

~30 min in slightly preheated 400F oven w/ a little steam in the beginning

Happy, chewy, knobby crust, fairly fine crumb.

I'd like more oven spring. I'll work on it.

Thanks for the help.

slki...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/18/98
to

In article <35893AB9...@inmet.com>,

Carl West <ei...@inmet.com> wrote:
>
> did it last night. Much better!
> made a fairly firm dough
> formed and slashed diagonally
> 8 hour ~68F humidified rise
> slashed the other diagonal
> ~30 min in slightly preheated 400F oven
> Happy, chewy, knobby crust, fairly fine crumb.
> I'd like more oven spring. I'll work on it.

Glad it's working out Carl. Something thing about your
procedure puzzles me. Why are you slashing the bread
before the rise, and why are you slashing it twice?
What is the purpose behind shashing in both diagonal
directions?

The whole reason why baguettes are shaped the way they
are is so that the gluten forms a tight cloak around the
rising bread that keeps it fairly compact and contained.
The diagonal, shallow oblique slashing of the dough
moments before it is put into the oven allows heat to
quickly penetrate the bread and directs the oven spring
in a characteristic way. The last thing you want to do
is slash the dough right at the beginning of the rise.
This will definitely allow the loaf to relax and spread
more than you want (which could contribute to it flowing
into the holes of your pan).

If you want better oven spring and a more characteristic
shape/texture, eliminate the first slashing of the bread
from your procedure. Also, I would recommend that you
make sure your oven is *really* preheated. At least
for 1/2 an hour. Anyway, to get the best oven spring
(in my opinion) you'll need an oven stone.

Jeff Renner

unread,
Jun 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/20/98
to

slki...@aol.com wrote:

> there is not such thing as a "sourdough baguette." It is one

> of the few French breads that absolutely requires commercial

> yeast and a short rise.

Greetings from a lapsed active member of r.f.s. I just don't have the
time to do more than drop in every once in a while and see what's
cookin', so to speak. It's ironic that my semi-annual comment should be
about yeast-raised bread, not sour dough.

I must take issue with the just the last part of Sam's statement about a
short rise, both as regards to how I understand traditional baguettes to
be made and how I make them in my business (~10,000+ baguettes per
year). I began making baguettes (actually batards due to oven space
constraints and the fact that I cheat by using curved bottom "two-on"
open ended pans) more than 20 years ago by using Julia Child's recipe
and a recipe that came with the pans (manufactured and sold locally by a
Kitchen Store). Child calls for a minimum of 6-1/2 to 7 hours, which I
guess could be called short by our dough standards, but I eventually
extended it to near triple that, and I think that years ago this was not
atypical in France.

I use 1 oz. rehydrated dry instant yeast per 15+ lbs. bread flour, give
no knead at all but just mix it (it's wet and gloppy), and let the 68F
dough rise at low 60sF ambient overnight, about 12 hours, at which point
it has more than quadrupled and is still sticky. I knock it back, let
it rise another 4-5 hours, at which point it has more than tripled and
has become dry and gassy. I shape these @ 400 grams (in less than
David's 18 seconds but more than 10 seconds), proof and bake.

Now I realize that anyone can make anything and call it a traditional
French baguette (or batard), but I'll argue that it may, and even
should, have a long rise for flavor development. Obviously my use of
bread flour is not traditionial, but I had three customers this past
month return from Paris and say that they never got baguettes as good as
mine.

Jeff

(Now I'll have to expect spam from the address harvesters, who, I hope
will harvest this: pres...@whitehouse.gov)

Rita

unread,
Jun 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/21/98
to nere...@umich.edu


> I use 1 oz. rehydrated dry instant yeast per 15+ lbs. bread flour, give
> no knead at all but just mix it (it's wet and gloppy), and let the 68F
> dough rise at low 60sF ambient overnight, about 12 hours, at which point
> it has more than quadrupled and is still sticky. I knock it back, let
> it rise another 4-5 hours, at which point it has more than tripled and
> has become dry and gassy. I shape these @ 400 grams (in less than
> David's 18 seconds but more than 10 seconds), proof and bake.
>

Hi Jeff,

Your technique for making batards is the way I make all my bread - sourdough
and yeast. The only difference is that mine is not sloppy (unless intended
to be so) but a firm moist mix. It makes brilliant bread without having to
do any kneading.

I have a question that I have been asking for years - why and how does it
actually work. I have read all the FAQ, and searched far and wide, but the
only thing I can find is that it uses a fermentation process rather than a
mechanical one to raise the dough. (The gluten is also good and strong and
the loaves I make are freeform.) This works so well that I don't understand
why people still knead dough!

If you have an understanding of why the method works I would be gald to
hear it.

Thanks,

Rita

Ina Bechhoefer

unread,
Jun 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/21/98
to

How about a recipe--how much water, salt.

Ina

Jeff Renner wrote in message <358BC0...@umich.edu>...

slki...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/21/98
to

In article <358CC943...@melbpc.org.au>,
Rita <plu...@opus.eltham.com> wrote:

> I have a question that I have been asking for years - why and how does [no
> knead bread] actually work? I have read all the FAQ, and searched far


> and wide, but the only thing I can find is that it uses a fermentation
> process rather than a mechanical one to raise the dough.
>

> If you have an understanding of why the method works I would be gald to
> hear it.

The production of CO2 as a fermentation byproduct is always what rises
the dough (unless you're talking about commercial dough developers
that can sufficiently aerate a dough sans fermentation). Gluten is
what traps the CO2 inside the bread and thereby enables the CO2 to
inflate the dough. Gluten is actually formed immediately once the
flour and water are initially mixed. What kneading does is to *develop*
the gluten. This amounts to aligning the individual gluten strands
with each other, which has the affect of enabling the gluten to more
efficiently trap the CO2. However, as you have observed, it is not
absolutely necessary. Your question is well addressed in the FAQ at:
<http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/whatisglutenandhowisitdeve.html>. If
you have access to a copy, McGee discusses this in more detail in
his book "On Food and Cooking" (pp 291-299).

slki...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/21/98
to

In article <358BC0...@umich.edu>,

nere...@umich.edu wrote:
>
> slki...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > there is not such thing as a "sourdough baguette." It is one
> > of the few French breads that absolutely requires commercial
> > yeast and a short rise.
>
> I must take issue with the just the last part of Sam's statement about a
> short rise, both as regards to how I understand traditional baguettes to
> be made and how I make them in my business...

I probably should have said something to indicate that I was talking
about the final rise of the shaped dough, not any stages that may
come before that. Point well made, Jeff.

Jeff Renner

unread,
Jun 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/22/98
to

slki...@aol.com wrote:
> Your question is well addressed in the FAQ at:
> <http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/whatisglutenandhowisitdeve.html>.

Thanks to Sam for pointing me to this excellent note on the formation of
gluten. I can see that there has been an excellent level of technical
information and discussion in my absence (because of it?).

In that note, Roland wrote:

"Jeff is at an extreme when he uses no mechanical development at all.
Since he seems to make mainly baguettes this is easy to do - you do not
need a very strong dough to hold its form in a baguette. I would be
interested to know if your no knead doughs allow you to form large free
form loaves."

I also make a very successful and popular free form three pound country
loaf from the same dough. I make it up earlier than the baguettes for
scheduling reasons, so the has less development time, but I don't think
this is critical. I give the loaves a long proof, and they spread a
bit, but when I proof them less and/or at room temp rather than on top
of the insulated deck oven (~90F), they don't spread as much but rise
more "up." The crumb on these is even more open than on the baguettes,
in part, perhaps, because they are deflated less in formation.

"Several dough improvers including the so called natural conditioners
like ascorbic acid (Vitamin C, you will see that it is added to nearly
all commercial flour) are oxidants that facilitate the reaction."

It has certainly not been my experience that ascorbic acid is "added to
nearly all commercial flour." I've not found it at all in the ones
available from my supplier (Bay State, Cargill, Pillsbury), or at the
grocery store. I add 1/8 tsp. ~ 0.5 g, per 15+ lbs of flour, which is
~70ppm, a bit more than the 50ppm necessary.

Jeff

Jeff Renner

unread,
Jun 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/22/98
to

Ina Bechhoefer wrote:
>
> How about a recipe--how much water, salt.


OK. You'll have to reduce this to a home-usable amount:

--1 oz. rehydrated Fleishmann's dry instant yeast (with pinch of sugar
in rehydration water at 102F, even though it doesn't ordinarily need to
be rehydrated, but for cool doughs it should be)

--15.25 lbs. bread flour
--6 oz. salt
--1/8 tsp. ascorbic acid
--19.75 c. water including yeast rehydration water, to give dough
temperature 68F
Amount varies from lot to lot of flour

Give no knead at all but just mix it (it's wet and gloppy), and let the


68F dough rise at low 60sF ambient overnight, about 12 hours, at which

point it has more than quadrupled, knock it back, let it rise another


4-5 hours, at which point it has more than tripled and has become dry

and gassy. Shape @ 400g ~15 in. long (final loave is ~18 in.), proof in
baking forms, slash, spray and bake 435F with steam at first (I throw a
couple of cups of water on the deck of my pizza oven, which holds 20
loaves), reducing temp to 400F immediately.

Jeff

slki...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/22/98
to

Jeff,

I'm interested in your no-knead technique. From what I
understand, the dough is barely mixed and you rely on
multiple long risings so that the gluten is developed
chemically rather than mechanically.

I am curious to know whether you have tried this with
a sourdough culture rather than commercial yeast. If
so, what kind of success have you found with it? I
am asking because sourdoughs generally have a gluten
degrading action on the dough that increases with time.
There is some disagreement in r.f.s. as to the exact
mechanism by which this happens (it is likely due to the
acid, some proteolytic action of the bacteria/yeast or
a little of both). However, it is fairly clear that
sourdoughs exhibit significantly more gluten degradation
than yeasted doughs, where is is generally not a
problem.

Anyway, I would suspect that your no-knead process might
not work so well with a sourdough due to the fact that,
beyond a certain point, the gluten will be degraded
rather than developed. There are some doughs that
I barely knead (certain rustic breads where I want an
irregular, "holey" crumb), but I don't ferment the bread
particularly longer than I would otherwise.

I am interested to hear what your experiences with this
may have been.

Rita

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

slki...@aol.com wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I'm interested in your no-knead technique. From what I
> understand, the dough is barely mixed and you rely on
> multiple long risings so that the gluten is developed
> chemically rather than mechanically.
>
> I am curious to know whether you have tried this with
> a sourdough culture rather than commercial yeast. If
> so, what kind of success have you found with it? I
> am asking because sourdoughs generally have a gluten
> degrading action on the dough that increases with time.
>

> Anyway, I would suspect that your no-knead process might
> not work so well with a sourdough due to the fact that,
> beyond a certain point, the gluten will be degraded
> rather than developed.

I'd like to continue to butt in here about the no kneading technique.

Thanks Sam for your respense re the FAQ, but it really doesn't answer my
question. I did read it a few years back, but found the explanation too
simplistic, and incorrect as I make free form loaves all the time.

I've been making bread for over 20 years, the last 5+ years without any
kneading. This was all yeasted bread. The no kneading technique made
bread as well as (or better than) kneading the dough did. (I sometimes
didn't knead it properly)

I started making Sourdough bread just over 3 years ago (no added yeast),
using a home made starter of flour and water. I have never kneaded any of
the SD bread I make, and I make 4 free form large loaves at once, baked on
thick tiles. I even make SD boiled bagels without kneading.

The gluten is strong, the rises are long, the longer the better - it
becomes lighter and "fluffier or crumblier" if given long cold rises rather
than short warm ones. I have also noticed that there is more sour in the
long cool rise loaves than the short warm rises. I've been using Carl's
starter, for a while, but the same holds true for other starters I've used.

What I do is make a sponge from an unfreshed starter, when that's foamy,
whiz it with water to break up the gluten and get rid of any lumps, add
this to my flour mix, stir with a very sturdy metal spoon (wood would
break) to make a firm moist dough, cover and let rise 12-24H, until it has
trebled or quadrupled in size (it's very airy and holey now, and has a
wonderful smell). I then dump this onto a well floured board and
consolidate to form a large ball, or long shape. This is then scaled, left
to rest 30min, then shaped and placed on a well floured linen towel to rise
until triple to quadruple - to the point where the skin would burst if left
too much longer. I then slash and put onto the tiles (stones) and bake hot
and moist as per Silverton's temps for 50 minutes. The oven rise is double
plus.

If I'm making bagels, I make a large hole in the center that I can put my
fist through, but it nearly always closes to the smallest of holes. They
then get slotted into boiling water, where they just about triple in size.
And the bagels hold their shape well.

I also make rye sourdough bread the same way with excellent results. And
for the sweet tooth danish pastry etc (but using yeast).

With that sort of rising and being able to hold a good shape I would not
call the gluten degraded. This is why I've been very interested in finding
out how and why it really works, as well as being amused at some of the
discussions I've read on the list here.

My flour is stoneground unbeached bread flour from a small mill (Australian
wheat), and has no additives. I do at times add an improver BUT NOT
always.

I hope this helps you Sam in answering your question, but I'm still
wondering about mine.

Rita

If replying use <plu...@melbpc.org.au>


Jeff Renner

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

slki...@aol.com wrote:
> I am curious to know whether you have tried this with
> a sourdough culture rather than commercial yeast.

I think I have, but I can't remember for sure. It isn't SOP. I
generally knead my other (non-French) breads (the French is all I make
commercially). It would have been a few years back. Since becoming an
empty nester, I don't bake nearly as much sourdough as before - my wife
doesn't eat much bread and is happy with my leftover French dough
boules. I'll defer to Rita's greater experience and suggest you try it.

> There is some disagreement in r.f.s. as to the exact
> mechanism by which this happens (it is likely due to the
> acid, some proteolytic action of the bacteria/yeast or
> a little of both).

I was surprised that at
http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/whatisglutenandhowisitdeve.html, Roland
suggested that the gluten development in my no-knead technique was due
entirely to the mechanical action of the stretching of the dough from
expanding CO2 bubbles. I have suspected that this was part of it, but
have read in numerous places that yeast proteolytic enzymes were
responsible. I didn't comment on that until I checked some references,
but I haven't found time to do that, so I'll just comment anyway and
leave it undocumented.


> However, it is fairly clear that
> sourdoughs exhibit significantly more gluten degradation
> than yeasted doughs, where is is generally not a
> problem.
>

> Anyway, I would suspect that your no-knead process might
> not work so well with a sourdough due to the fact that,
> beyond a certain point, the gluten will be degraded

> rather than developed. There are some doughs that
> I barely knead (certain rustic breads where I want an
> irregular, "holey" crumb), but I don't ferment the bread
> particularly longer than I would otherwise.

I think that the same activity that develops the gluten is responsible
for degrading it later. I have found that no-knead is *necessary* for
my long rises. If I knead the dough conventionally, it breaks down
before the end of the rises. This suggests that for long sourdough
rises, no-knead may be even better than kneading. Rita suggests it is
so.

Jeff

Dick Adams

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

Jeff Renner wrote in message <358FBC...@umich.edu>...

> I'll defer to Rita's greater experience and suggest you try it.

Yeah, Wow! She is reporting stage risings of up to 4, up to 4, and 2+.
(Total between 10+ and 32+, depending on the extent of deflations). For rye
as well as white(?) sourdough bread.

Rita wrote in message <358F66B5...@melbpc.org.au>...

>...This is why I've been very interested in finding out how and why it


>really works, as well as being amused at some of the discussions

>I've read list here on the list...

There it is, Sam. Your work cut out for you. In the mean time, we will try
to keep Rita amused.

---
DickA


Carl West

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

slki...@aol.com wrote:

> If you want better oven spring and a more characteristic
> shape/texture, eliminate the first slashing of the bread
> from your procedure. Also, I would recommend that you
> make sure your oven is *really* preheated. At least
> for 1/2 an hour.

Thanks, Sam.

Did that this morning. Serious oven spring. The loaves are much more
circular in section this time. One of the loaves has a zig-zag rip along
the side. It seems I either need to make the slashes deeper, or run them
more longwise on the loaf. On the finished loaf, the slashes are about 45
degrees to the loaf and 'overlap' each other by half, they were originally
about 1/4" deep.

I suspect the effect could have been even greater, but I was doing a pan
loaf at the same time, so the oven was only at 350F.

"It's always good when the
worst thing doesn't happen."
- D. Porges 6/22/98

slki...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

In article <6mol4c$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dick Adams" <dick....@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> Wow! [Rita] is reporting stage risings of up to 4, up to 4, and 2+.

> For rye as well as white(?) sourdough bread.
>
> There it is, Sam. Your work cut out for you.

Wow is right! It is virtually unheard of in sourdough baking to
have that much rising without significant gluten degradation. I'll
have to try to Rita's procedures myself and see if I can duplicate
her results. That would be great!

I have some *very* preliminary guesses about why it works in her case,
which I'll detail later on in this post...

In article <358F66B5...@melbpc.org.au>,
Rita <plu...@opus.eltham.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Sam for your response re the FAQ, but it really doesn't answer my


> question. I did read it a few years back, but found the explanation too
> simplistic, and incorrect as I make free form loaves all the time.

The FAQ entry is not perfect, but I do think that I explained why no-knead
bread rises: Dough does not require kneading to form gluten -- it forms
immediately when flour and liquid are mixed. This gluten is sufficient
to trap fermentation gasses and rise the dough. All that mechanical
development (kneading, stretching the dough via multiple rises, etc.)
does is and make the gluten work better, but it does not create gluten.

Following is info paraphrased from McGee's "On Food and Cooking":

Wheat proteins are 10-25% albumin and globulin. These are water soluble
and do not contribute to gluten. The remaining 75-90% of wheat proteins
are gliadin and glutenin. These are non-water-soluble and combine to
form gluten in a dough. Both these proteins are chain molecules, thousands
of atoms long, with various atom groups (potential binding sites) protruding
from the sides. Because these molecules are so long, it is possible for them
to fold back on themselves so that atom groups from the same molecule are
bonded together. When such bonds are formed the molecule is fixed in a
folded position, and it is normal for gliadin and glutenin to have many
such bonds. Further, when these proteins are mixed together, it is normal
for bonds to develop between molecules as well -- thereby crosslinking the
molecules. Imagine a pile of yarn clippings, each strand stuck to itself
and its neighbors. This alone should be sufficient to trap fermentation
gasses and rise a dough -- and herein lies part of Rita's answer.

As the mass is agitated the proteins begin to unfold somewhat. Movement
and stress force the long molecules into a more orderly pattern, lining
up groups of them in roughly the same direction. (McGee likens this
to shaking up a box of pencils.) The side-by-side arrangement encourages
the formation or more, and more regular cross-bonding between different
molecules which makes the gluten complex more stable and less easily
deformed. This is "development of the gluten." Developed gluten, due
to these properties, is both better able trap fermentation gasses and
better able to maintain the dough's structural integrity.

Interestingly, it is the kinks in the protein molecules (described
above) that give gluten the rubbery quality that is so important
in bread making. When stress is put on the gluten complex, the kink
bonds -- generally disulfide (sulfur-to-sulfur) bonds -- will resist,
eventually break and the dough will stretch. Once the deforming stress
is removed, the attraction between side groups will reassert itself
and the molecules will kink up and shorten again as the bonds re-form.
So, as we can see, the disulfide binding of these side groups are of
paramount importance in gluten.

Several things can interfere with the binding of these side groups.
Usually another atom bonds to the side group thereby preventing
it from bonding/rebonding with its neighbors and reducing the gluten's
ability to recover from stress by "re-kinking." A good example of
this is in over-kneaded dough: The proteins have been stretched out
so much that the disulfide bonds are pulled apart and hydrogen ions
from the water bond to the side groups -- this inhibits re-binding
and re-kinking in the gluten complex, which reduces the dough's
elasticity.

How does this work in a no-knead dough? Jeff noted that the FAQ
"suggested that gluten development in the no-knead technique


was due entirely to the mechanical action of the stretching of the

dough from expanding CO2 bubbles." This would make sense according
to what we have seen above. The stretching of the dough would
align the protein molecules and encourage cross-linking between
individual molecules. This also explains why longer, multiple
rises seem to produce a better-quality dough: more stretching
equals more alignment, cross-linking, etc.

Beyond that, some people have remarked that developing the gluten
by this method can give a better dough compared to kneading. Since
the no-knead technique could be described as a very gentle, slow
kneading by CO2, it is possible that the protein molecules are more
extensively cross-linked given a greater length of time to do so.
Further, since this "kneading" is the exact process by which the
dough will ultimately rise, it is possible that the protein
molecules are encouraged to align in a more beneficial arrangement
under this specific kind of stress.

Jeff also said that he has "read in numerous places that yeast
proteolytic enzymes were responsible." That I'm not so sure about.
Any proteolytic action can be assumed to degrade gluten since
gluten is itself a protein complex. I'm not saying that it's
impossible, but I wouldn't mind a chance to read Jeff's sources.

Getting into the issue of gluten degradation, I was surprised
to read that Rita was able to do so many sourdough rises and still
have good gluten quality. As I mentioned earlier, sourdoughs usually
exhibit much greater gluten degradation than yeasted doughs. While
some at r.f.s. disagree, I tend to think that it is largely due to
the accumulation of acid. Following is an article I posted a while
back from "Cereal Chemistry," a publication of the American
Association of Cereal Chemists <http://www.scisoc.org/aacc/>.

> Effects of Acid-Soluble and Acid-Insoluble Gluten Proteins
> on the Rheological and Baking Properties of Wheat Flours.
> Preston et al. CChem 57:314 (1980): Gluten was fractionated
> into acid-soluble and acid-insoluble protein fractions...
> The dough-strengthening effects obtained when gluten proteins
> were added were mainly due to proteins present in the
> acid-soluble gluten fraction, whereas the acid-insoluble
> gluten proteins at higher levels had a slight dough-
> weakening effect... Addition of increasing levels of
> gluten to the base flours significantly increased loaf
> volume... Similar increases in loaf volume were also obtained
> by addition of the acid-soluble gluten proteins. Addition
> of acid-insoluble gluten proteins significantly reduced
> loaf volumes

Remember from my paraphrasing of McGee above that one of the gluten
proteins' important qualities is that they are insoluble in
dough -- the main dough liquid being water. The article above makes
me think that, as the acid levels in a sourdough rise, the acid-
soluble gluten fractions progressively dissolve and cease to
contribute to the gluten complex. Less acid-soluble gluten,
according to the article, results in a lower quality overall gluten.
So, this suggests that the more acid that a sourdough dough
accumulates and the more time that acid has to act on the gluten, the
more the quality of the gluten will suffer. I'm sure that
proteolytic enzymes contribute as well, but I imagine that these
enzymes accumulate and work in a similar fashion since a great deal
of anecdotal evidence correlates sourness with gluten degradation.

Obviously it works for Rita... I can only make a few guesses as to why.
It is possible that the yeast/bacteria in her starter produce a lot
of CO2 compared to acid. This would allow many risings of the dough
before the acid/etc. significantly degraded the dough. Or perhaps her
stone-ground unbleached Australian flour has a high ash content that
buffers the acid. Maybe the flour is also particularly high in gluten
and/or has a very high proportion of acid-soluble gluten.

Hard to say... I will definitely try Rita's technique myself and see if
I can get it to work the same way for me -- I'd *love* to be able to do
it. Hopefully she won't mind getting a bunch of emails with questions
on temperatures, proportions, activity, etc. :-)

Rita

unread,
Jun 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/25/98
to

If replying use <plu...@melbpc.org.au>. This is the correct address, not the
antispam address above (opus.eltham).

slki...@aol.com wrote:

> Getting into the issue of gluten degradation, I was surprised
> to read that Rita was able to do so many sourdough rises and still
> have good gluten quality. As I mentioned earlier, sourdoughs usually
> exhibit much greater gluten degradation than yeasted doughs.

> Hard to say... I will definitely try Rita's technique myself and see if


> I can get it to work the same way for me -- I'd *love* to be able to do
> it. Hopefully she won't mind getting a bunch of emails with questions
> on temperatures, proportions, activity, etc. :-)

Thanks Sam, that did give me more info than I had before. And I think I may now
say that what I assumed is actually so. The higher gluten content of the flour
does have a major role. The technique will not work using plain all purpose
flour (a friend tried using it with yeast and it didn't rise very well).

The stoneground unbleached bread flour has a higher gluten content than plain
flour (no idea about ash content) . To this I generally add 10% durum flour
(love the taste), and sometimes 10% semolina -(fine or medium, - the stuff you
make prrige with, not flour) it gives a wonderful crunch when toasted. But, when
I started making SD, I was using only bread flour. Whether the other additions
have a bearing I really cannot remember. But I have never baked a brick using
this method. Sometimes if I didn't allow it to rise long enough it would be
moist and spongy in textute, but cooked. The longer the rise the drier the
texture?

I have found that SD can take longer rises than yeasted doughs. The yeast doughs
collapse after a while, I have never had a SD collapse on me. My SD experience
this week was interesting - mixed the SD, left to rise 12 hours(warm), shaped
and planned to cook when they were ready, but got called away, didn't get back
for 9 hours. The four loaves had expanded into each other and the huge mass was
threating to fall off the bench (but they had not split or collapsed). The tops
had also dried out. I thought, that's it. But I picked up the mess in sections
(sprayed the tops to rehydrate), put it all together, rescaled and shaped, left
it about 3 hours - could see it was trying to rise, was nearly double - slashed
them deep (.75inch), put them into a hot oven on hot stones and they rose and
burst at the seams. The bread came out just fine, a bit deformed and with a high
middle, but tasted great. I shape my loaves into a vienna syle loaf.

If I'd tried to do that with yeast dough, it would have been so-so if that.
Actually I really thought that the birds would have a good feed, but not this
time.

The starter I'm using at the moment is Carl's - so there is a base point.

Also I have noted that a the long cool rises give the fuffier or coarser crumb
than the shorter rises, which tend to be tighter. There is a definate texture
difference.

I have no problem about answering questions about what I do, or getting private
email. I have learned a lot from the people on this list, indirectly by reading
all the posts for over 3 years, and the few people I have had private discussions
with. I have found out about chernuska seeds to make my own version of Izzy's NY
rye, (as per Silverton), about malt and a lot about SD. Many thanks to all of
you. My real question is why is everyone still kneading or buying bread
machines to knead for them?

Rita


Jeff Renner

unread,
Jun 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/25/98
to

slki...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Jeff also said that he has "read in numerous places that yeast
> proteolytic enzymes were responsible." That I'm not so sure about.
> Any proteolytic action can be assumed to degrade gluten since
> gluten is itself a protein complex. I'm not saying that it's
> impossible, but I wouldn't mind a chance to read Jeff's sources.

I sure don';t know where to find this, since I've been reading stuff for
25 years on the subject, but I will check. I know there is lots of
misinformation in amateur books and magazine articles, I may have
contributed to it mysself on this. The term proteolytic in this case is
my own addition, what I remember reading is that yeast enzymes that were
responsible for "dough maturation" were also responsible for
over-maturation and degradation.

I really appreciated Sam's synopsis of gluten "development." Very easy
to understand.

Jeff

Jeff Renner

unread,
Jun 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/26/98
to

Bakers

It's a small matter, but I gave an incorrect amount of flour in my
recipe. It should be 15.5 lbs., not 15.25 lbs. I'll repeat the entire
corrected recipe below:

--1 oz. rehydrated Fleishmann's dry instant yeast (with pinch of sugar
in rehydration water at 102F, even though it doesn't ordinarily need to
be rehydrated, but for cool doughs it should be)

--15.5 lbs. bread flour

Stanley Goldstein

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to Rita
Rita:

I've been trying out the SD no-knead procedures you suggested and have had
good results with the long rises, in one case 24 hrs, another somewhere
around 18-20 hrs. I've just guessed at the amount of flour to incorporate
into the sponge--adding flour (say, 6 c) till I get a firm but still moist
batter. When do you add salt? Can you give an estimate
of the amount of flour you incorporate into the sponge for white bread?
It's been fun playing with this. I remember a few years ago following a
similar no-knead process for yeasted bread that Jeff Renner posted to the
group. And it too yielded good results for me.

Thanks,

Stan Goldstein
gol...@u.washington.edu


Rita

unread,
Jul 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/8/98
to Stanley Goldstein
Stanley Goldstein wrote:

Stan, Good to hear it worked well for you. I find the method very
forgiving, and do most things by sight rather than slavish measurement.
I do measure ingredients, but adjustments are usually required - but not
a kill all if you don't.

If the mix is too firm it will take longer to rise, if too wet, rises
quicker, but at both extremes will not rise at all (I assume). Too hard
for the gas to lift it if it's too firm(?), or not enough solid dough to
hold the gas in place if too wet, so it escapes.

My basic bread sponge is - 300gm unfreshed starter, add 500gm warm
water, 500gm stoneground unbleached flour. Let the sponge sit until
foamy and has fallen back - length of time depends on temp. Can be from
6 -24 hours. If not ready to continue add more flour and water and
leave until foamy again.

To sponge add 2 cups water and whiz with hand held food processor - it
breaks up the gluten stands into a liquid. Add 1 tablespoon olive oil
and if using malt add 1 tablespoon malt and whiz to incorporate the
malt.

In 10 litre tub - 900gms stoneground unbleached bread flour, 100gms
durum flour (pasta dura - I like the taste - also helps with maintainig
a good shape and height (I think), 100gms semolina (fine or medium -
this gives a nice sharp crunch to the bread when toasted - also very
healthy), 1 tablespoon sea salt. To this I sometimes add 100gms,
de-bittered soy flour (health reasons, also supposed to give good crust
colour?) and if I want extras, add 4-6 tablespoons wheat germ, or 50gms
light rye flour, or whatever the taste buds fancy.

Stir to mix, add all liquid sponge - stir to mix, or use hand. Cover
with plastic wrap on top of dough. If too moist, add more flour, if
too hard add more water. Let rise. I have found, the more it rises the
better. I leave mine until it is 2 inches from top of tub and has a
well expanded air buuble lifting the pastic up, but anywhere from three
times onwards should be ok.

Pour out onto a well floured baord using a scraper, the consolidate
using 2 fingers of one hand and the scraper to turn and coat with flour
and to make into one big shape. Now using both hands I scale into 4
750gm balls, rest 30 min while I ger my rising board ready. Shape into
viena loaf shape, place on well floured towel (I use coarse rye flour
for the towel), separate each by pulling some towel between each, brace
both ends, so growth is up and not outward but leave enough space
between each, cover and rise until (I prefer triple) double plus, or
until you feel it's right for the oven.

Hot oven preheated 500c gas for 45min with baking tiles. Take tiles out
of oven, put bread gently on tiles, dust with whole rye (or seeds or
whatever), slash .75inch with sharp razor, I do mine 3 slashes viena
syle across loaf, keeps it high. One slash down the centre allows it to
spread a bit, so if you want a wider bread do that. Bake in steamed
oven 50 min at 230c with fan on, if looking to brown drop temp to 210c
or cover with foil. Oven spring double plus.


That is my basic method. I used to use less stater etc, but after
reading Silverton's book have increased it to 300 - 400 gms starter.

Hope this helps and let me know if you want more information or recipes.
And keep me informed of your progess if it's not too much trouble.

Rita
Reply to <melbpc.org.au>, not anti spam eltham.opus.


Rita

unread,
Jul 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/8/98
to Stanley Goldstein
Stan, I forgot to add that if not using malt, add 1 tablespoon sugar to
flour mix.

Rita
Reply to <melbpc.org.au>

Dick Adams

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
Rita's recent posts have been of great interest because of her no-knead
technique involving, for sourdough, reportedly much longer sponge and rise
intervals, and much greater total rise that has been reported here
previously, even for ordinary yeasted dough (per Jeff Renner for his long
rise baguettes from unkneaded dough).

More usual findings are that excessive incubation intervals lead to gluten
degeneration, poor rises, and uncosmetic product, and that thorough
mechanical or manual kneading is needed for optimum rise.

Rita answered in message <35A304A7...@melbpc.org.au>...
some questions posed by Stanley Goldstein. I condensed and reorganized and
rationalized units as shown at the bottom of this post (to make analysis and
comparison with usual technique and instructions a bit easier).

On this occasion, Rita is reporting stage volume increases of 3, 3, and 2,
for a total between 8 and 18 depending whether the volume increase is
referred to original dough volume or volume of the prior stage. That is
dramatic, but not quite so dramatic as previously reported
<358F66B5...@melbpc.org.au>. 2-fold oven spring, as reported this
time and previously, is entirely phenomenal.

The sponge incubation interval (6 - 24 hours) is given, with more flexible
limits than previously. The dough interval is not given on this occasion.
Stage temperatures are not given (except for oven).

One might suspect that the use of pristine Australian flour (stone ground ,
unbleached), presumably fresh and unadulterated, could be the answer. (In
the US, stone ground flour tends to be whole grain flour, but I assume that
Rita's flour is white or yellowish. Unaged white flour is thought to be
inferior to properly aged or treated flour for dough quality, whereas
freshly milled whole grain flours are preferred, since those become rapidly
rancid.)

Unfortunately, Rita's instructions allow optional ingredients, any of
which could affect the result.

Rita reports that her present procedure represents a modification, namely a
reduction in the amount of sponge used, inspired by her reading of the
Silverton book.

It appears that Rita's technique may be somewhat of a moving target.

Rita might consider posting a concise procedure without options, and with
consistent units of measurement, which should lead to the result she has
claimed, namely a very well risen sourdough bread from unkneaded dough after
(room temperature?) incubation measured in days. Her attention to details,
such as stage temperatures, would be useful.

There is some interest in reproducing her reported result. (Sam,
are you still working on this?)

---
Dick Adams


I apologize to Rita for the liberty I have taken in reorganizing her
instructions. It was difficult for me to think about as initially given.
My comments are in curly brackets. Units, as originally given, and options,
are in parentheses. My preference is towards metric, but I have led with
the more common units where metric measure was given.)

Rita's basic bread sponge is:

10.5 ounces unfreshed starter (300 grams) (about a cup)
2-1/4 cups warm water (500 grams)
1.1 pounds stone ground unbleached flour (500 grams)(about 4 cups)

It sits until it has foamed and fallen back (6 -24 hours depending on
temp.) Then the following are added :

2 cups water ("whizzed" with above using hand blender)
1 tablespoon olive oil
(1 tablespoon malt - whiz again)

{The whizzing, in the first case, is reported as necessary for breaking up
gluten. Breaking gluten is not usually thought to be an objective.}

Combine the following in a 11 quart container (10 liter tub):

2 lbs. stone ground unbleached bread flour (~900 grams)
3.5 oz durum flour (100 grams)
3.5 oz s semolina (fine or medium) (100 grams)
1 tablespoon sea salt.
(3.5 oz de-bittered soy flour) (100 grams)
(4 - 6 tbsp. wheat germ)
(1-3/4 oz light rye flour) (50 grams)
(whatever the taste buds fancy)

>Stir to mix, add all liquid sponge - stir to mix, or use hand. Cover
>with plastic wrap on top of dough. If too moist, add more flour, if
>too hard add more water. Let rise. I have found, the more it rises the
>better. I leave mine until it is 2 inches from top of tub and has a

>well expanded air bubble lifting the plastic up, but anywhere from three


>times onwards should be ok.

{So, it was stirred somehow, or the hand was used(?). Consistency was
adjusted. A 3+ rise is reported}.

>Pour out onto a well floured board using a scraper, the consolidate


>using 2 fingers of one hand and the scraper to turn and coat with flour
>and to make into one big shape. Now using both hands I scale into 4

>750 gm balls, rest 30 min while I get my rising board ready. Shape into
>Vienna loaf shape, place on well floured towel (I use coarse rye flour


>for the towel), separate each by pulling some towel between each, brace
>both ends, so growth is up and not outward but leave enough space
>between each, cover and rise until (I prefer triple) double plus, or
>until you feel it's right for the oven.

{Above is another 3 fold rise, or optional, or what?}.

>Hot oven preheated 500c gas for 45 min with baking tiles. Take tiles out


>of oven, put bread gently on tiles, dust with whole rye (or seeds or

>whatever), slash .75 inch with sharp razor, I do mine 3 slashes Vienna
>style across loaf, keeps it high. One slash down the centre allows it to


>spread a bit, so if you want a wider bread do that. Bake in steamed
>oven 50 min at 230c with fan on, if looking to brown drop temp to 210c
>or cover with foil. Oven spring double plus.

{500 degrees Celsius is unreasonably hot. Probably refers to 500 degrees
Fahrenheit. 210 degrees C. is 410 degrees F., and 230 degrees C. is 445
degrees F.}

{Oven spring is reported as 2 fold.}

>That is my basic method. I used to use less starter etc, but after
>reading Silverton's book have increased it to 300 - 400 grams starter.

***

Stanley Goldstein

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
Dick: Your compilation of Rita's breadmaking is a convenience, thanks.
The last three loaves I've made have been no-knead. I used your sponge
formula and let it proof for 12-18 hrs. It does get foamy. To the sponge
I've added (roughly) 5c, 5.5c, 6c bread flour (gold medal or pillsbury) +
1tbs salt, and let rise 20-24/5 hrs. I mix the flour into the sponge with
an old hand cranked dough hook that sits in a pail. Each time the proofing
batter has risen to the top of this big tub I use (don't know the size but
my arm goes in above the elbow. The 5c and the 5.5c batters were rather
wet. I shaped them for baguette pans. They rose fast in a couple of hours
& sprang nicely (1.5-2x) in the oven. Lots of holes in the bread, a bit
dry, light, with a bit of SD tang. The 6c batter was firm enough to free
form & bake on my kiln shelf. Oven spring 2x, I'd say. Good flavor a bit
denser and tangier than the previous two loaves. I think this particular
mixture would have done beautifully in a foil form such as you've shown.

I'm not careful about amounts of flour; I futz until it feels nice to
hand. Of course, consistency suffers; it's always a crap shoot but I like
the surprises. So far, no doorstops, no disasters; some loaves fine,
some better than that, some less so.

Stan Goldstein
gol...@u.washington.edu


Beth

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to
On 6/18/98,

slki...@aol.com wrote:

> Hard to say... I will definitely try Rita's technique myself and see if
> I can get it to work the same way for me -- I'd *love* to be able to do
> it. Hopefully she won't mind getting a bunch of emails with questions
> on temperatures, proportions, activity, etc. :-)

Sam,

It's been about 6 weeks now since this discussion took place here of r.f.s. I'm
re-reading some old posts and am curious as to whether you've experimented with
this techinique and if so, what you have learned from it. Would you mind posting
an update (also anyone else who has been trying this)?

Thanks,

Beth


slki...@aol.com

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to
In article <35C63C10...@hotmail.com>,
Beth <hous...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> slki...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Hard to say... I will definitely try Rita's technique myself and see if
> > I can get it to work the same way for me...

>
> It's been about 6 weeks now since this discussion took place here of
> r.f.s. I'm re-reading some old posts and am curious as to whether
> you've experimented with this techinique and if so, what you have
> learned from it. Would you mind posting an update?

Actually, I haven't had much of a chance to work on this. I've been in
and out of town quite a bit either performing or vacationing these past
couple of months. Haven't had much time for baking anything, never mind
any kind of semi-controlled experimenting. If things quiet down, I may
have some time this month before I run out of town again for a while.

For what it's worth, my working assumption is basically this: It works
for Rita primarily because of the protein/gluten content of the flour.
The formula that she described starts with a what is presumed to be
a pretty darn high gluten flour. To this she generally adds 20% durham
flour (fyi, semolina is coarse-ground durham flour). Durham flour is not
only known to be incredibly high in gluten, but the gluten itself is
supposed to be somehow "tougher" than the gluten found in regular flour.
A dough with a high concentration of unusually strong gluten should
be able to better withstand lengthy contact with gluten degrading agents
than a "regular flour" dough.

So, my "hypothesis" is that the ability of this technique to reproduce
Rita's reported results will be largely dependent on the gluten content
of the base flour. Further, it it entirely that a certain proportion of
durham flour will be required as well. We'll see...

Sam Kinsey
slki...@aol.com

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

dart...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to
In article <6q5qhi$443$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, slki...@aol.com wrote:
>
> ...

> a pretty darn high gluten flour. To this she generally adds 20% durham
> flour (fyi, semolina is coarse-ground durham flour). Durham flour is not
> only known to be incredibly high in gluten, but the gluten itself is
> supposed to be somehow "tougher" than the gluten found in regular flour.
> ...
>

Shouldn't that be "durum" flour (or wheat)?

Darth.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

Stanley Goldstein

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to

> In article <6q5qhi$443$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, slki...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > a pretty darn high gluten flour. To this she generally adds 20% durham
> > flour (fyi, semolina is coarse-ground durham flour). Durham flour is not
> > only known to be incredibly high in gluten, but the gluten itself is
> > supposed to be somehow "tougher" than the gluten found in regular flour.

Rita's method works for me with Gold Medal/Pillsbury better for bread
flour.

Stan Goldstein
gol...@u.washington.edu


slki...@aol.com

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to

> In article <6q5qhi$443$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> slki...@aol.com wrote:
>
> ...a pretty darn high gluten flour. To this she generally adds 20% durham

> flour (fyi, semolina is coarse-ground durham flour)

In article <6q6d5c$9q2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,


dart...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Shouldn't that be "durum" flour (or wheat)?

Whoops! Oh well, I was just in North Carolina, so that's my excuse.

> Rita's method works for me with Gold Medal/Pillsbury better for bread
> flour.

With the same results? Remember, Rita was rising her dough to
quadruple volume, punching down, shaping and then rising again
to quadruple volume -- and still retaining remarkable gluten
strength. It sounded like she could have done even another rising
(which I think she has done before). She also reported that this
hugely inflated dough had enough structural integrity to rise
significantly through oven spring -- presumably without collapsing
as it is introduced to the oven. Simply making a no-mix dough
is only part of the equation. It's the long, multiple risings
that are so surprising. I'm interested to hear about your
experiences if you have been able to duplicate this. Please
post + let us know.

Sam Kinsey
slki...@aol.com

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

Stanley Goldstein

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 slki...@aol.com wrote:

>
> With the same results? Remember, Rita was rising her dough to
> quadruple volume, punching down, shaping and then rising again
> to quadruple volume -- and still retaining remarkable gluten
> strength.

I wouldn't swear that the second rising--in baguette forms--has been
exactly 4x, but it has been vigorous, high & long. The problem's
been keeping it within the forms.

> She also reported that this
> hugely inflated dough had enough structural integrity to rise
> significantly through oven spring -- presumably without collapsing
> as it is introduced to the oven.

Fine oven spring. My loaves get large with lots of holes in the crumb.

Simply making a no-mix dough
> is only part of the equation. It's the long, multiple risings
> that are so surprising. I'm interested to hear about your
> experiences if you have been able to duplicate this. Please
> post + let us know.
>
> Sam Kinsey
> slki...@aol.com
>

Stan Goldstein
gol...@u.washington.edu


slki...@aol.com

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95b.98080...@homer30.u.washington.edu>,
Stanley Goldstein <gol...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 slki...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > With the same results? Remember, Rita was rising her dough to
> > quadruple volume, punching down, shaping and then rising again
> > to quadruple volume -- and still retaining remarkable gluten
> > strength.
>
> I wouldn't swear that the second rising--in baguette forms--has been
> exactly 4x, but it has been vigorous, high & long. The problem's
> been keeping it within the forms.

Not meaning to offend with this question, but we're talking
about a 100% sourdough leavened bread with *no* addition
of commercial yeast, right?

Sam Kinsey
slki...@aol.com

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

Stanley Goldstein

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
On Thu, 6 Aug 1998 slki...@aol.com wrote:

>
> Not meaning to offend with this question, but we're talking
> about a 100% sourdough leavened bread with *no* addition
> of commercial yeast, right?
>
> Sam Kinsey
> slki...@aol.com
>

Right.

Stan Goldstein
gol...@u.washington.edu


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages