"Eric Jorgensen" wrote in message
news:20050206133326.25986933@wafer...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:50:47 -0500
"Dee Randall" deedoveyatshenteldotnet wrote:


Isn't it the food that the yeast "eats" that gets used up, not the
yeast itself? Maybe that's what you meant.

But it is an interesting question. How much rising is enough, not
enough, or too much? And how can I tell where it is?

You are right, my question is as you put it -- when does the
food/flour/dough get used up by those yeasties (because there is only so
much flour you can add to a formed dough ball.)


IT doesn't.

Eventually, the dough sours, and theoretically, the yeast may die.

Looking thru my notes: I don't want to quote verbatim what someone told me
about the timing of this yeast 'going sour and dying,' so I will paraphrase:

beginning of paraphraseThat my bread had been overproofed because the
yeast activity had ceased and that after about 2 hours, my yeast is dead and
releasing foul gasses. end of paraphrase

So basically my interpretation of the paraphrase agrees with what you are
saying?
Thanks so much.
Dee

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:02:28 -0500
"Dee Randall" deedoveyatshenteldotnet wrote:

=20
"Eric Jorgensen" wrote in message=20
news:20050206133326.25986933@wafer...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:50:47 -0500
"Dee Randall" deedoveyatshenteldotnet wrote:


Isn't it the food that the yeast "eats" that gets used up, not the
yeast itself? Maybe that's what you meant.

But it is an interesting question. How much rising is enough, not
enough, or too much? And how can I tell where it is?

You are right, my question is as you put it -- when does the
food/flour/dough get used up by those yeasties (because there is only
so much flour you can add to a formed dough ball.)


IT doesn't.

Eventually, the dough sours, and theoretically, the yeast may die.
=20
Looking thru my notes: I don't want to quote verbatim what someone told
me about the timing of this yeast 'going sour and dying,' so I will
paraphrase:
=20
beginning of paraphraseThat my bread had been overproofed because the=20
yeast activity had ceased and that after about 2 hours, my yeast is dead
and releasing foul gasses. end of paraphrase
=20
So basically my interpretation of the paraphrase agrees with what you are
saying?


It's not for lack of food.=20

Any microorganism, given enough food and the right environment, will
breed and consume until it renders it's environment unlivable.=20

Yeast produces alcohol and CO2 but like anything else it can't live in
concentration of it's own waste products.=20

Yeast eats sugars, including sugars that are polymerized into starches.
Technically, it's easier for yeast to eat starch than sucrose (what you
call 'sugar'), but i digress.=20

By the time it's soured your dough and died, it's consumed only a tiny
fraction of the available sugars and starches.=20

Technically, some of it is still alive but dormant, and a small fraction
of it is alive and still producing, but you're getting to the thin edge of
the bell curve. The party is over and there's paper plates and beer bottles
everywhere.=20

Nothing wrong with soured dough. It's like cheese - cheese never really
goes off, it just turns into some other kind of cheese. Whether or not it's
something you want to eat and how exactly you're going to go about
preparing it for consumption is another question.=20

I typically let half a batch of pizza dough go sour. Sourdough pizza
crust is great with a nice sharp jack cheese and some saut=E9ed mushrooms a=
nd
garlic.=20

Eric Jorgensen wrote:

Any microorganism, given enough food and the right environment, will
breed and consume until it renders it's environment unlivable.

There's a lesson there for all of us!

Dave

Here's a related tid-bit I picked up. An optimal way of proofing
dough(quickly) is to put the dough in a cool oven with about a quart of
boiling water (not directly over the water pan). It provides a nice
humid temperature controlled environment for the yeast. I've also
heard about microwaving the dough, though it only works with very low
powered or specific models of microwave.

Aaron

at Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:45:59 GMT in ,
lid wrote :

I'm not sure why I'm double rising my bread before baking.
I probably followed somebody's instruction somewhere.

I've seen bread produced in a large scale bakery, with a
single rise...

So, can some one offer some commentary on the reasons for
single or double rising ?

Single rise == swifter production time, therefore less cost?
Longer rise ... better quality ? If so, why ?

Longer rise tends to deliver better taste, I suspect because the
fermentation products that deliver the taste distribute more evenly
throughout and because metabolic processes in the yeast are different with
a slower metabolic rate, resulting in different proportions of metabolic
products. If you use less yeast in order to slow the process down, there
may also be additional effects because there's less local competition for
resources and each yeast colony grows more or less independently.

It also delivers generally a more uniform texture with better grain because
the slower rise means more even release of gases.

Double or even triple rising improves the texture in several ways. It
allows the gluten to stretch not one but multiple times, increasing its
resiliency. It also gets rid of large, nonuniform gas bubbles, allowing for
an even crumb. It also gives more expansion capacity for oven spring
(because once you've punched the dough down, you recompress the gluten
strands, giving them room to grow without breaking).

Bakeries that single-rise are probably doing it as you suspect to save
money, and this may not be simply a matter of time saved but also of
complexity and machinery in additional process steps. You can make
perfectly acceptable bread at home single-rising, but, not facing the clear
cost questions that really only come into play at large volumes, there's no
reason not to double- or triple-rise unless for some reason you're time-
constrained in a way that you can't work around.

at Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:03:54 GMT in scna01he9vlcsdfjq489uetc7el65rvnq3@
4ax.com, (Kenneth) wrote :

I am always intrigued by the many posts from people who are
delighted to discover that they can make bread more quickly
by proofing it "in the oven with the light on." Few seem to
be posting with delight when they discover that they can let
their bread rise more slowly in the basement producing far
better tastes and textures...

It does seem curious. The net effect is that people searching the newsgroup
as to how to bake *quality* bread can be easily misled and will probably
end up taking longer than they otherwise might have had to to learn - when
they'll be forced to learn most of the crucial principles on their own from
the ground up by experimentation. All the rationalisations I can think of
as to why this pattern in the types of post might exist are prejudicial. I
wonder why this posting pattern seems to prevail?

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

On 6 Feb 2005 18:13:22 -0800, "
wrote:

Here's a related tid-bit I picked up. An optimal way of proofing
dough(quickly) is to put the dough in a cool oven with about a quart of
boiling water (not directly over the water pan). It provides a nice
humid temperature controlled environment for the yeast. I've also
heard about microwaving the dough, though it only works with very low
powered or specific models of microwave.

Aaron

Hi Aaron,

But, as is true for all fermented foods: The more quickly
they are made, the less pleasant the taste.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:27:47 -0000,
(Alex Rast) wrote:

All the rationalisations I can think of
as to why this pattern in the types of post might exist are prejudicial. I
wonder why this posting pattern seems to prevail?

Howdy,

In my opinion it is yet another expression of the modern
tendency toward the belief that in all things "Faster is
better."

That notion certainly filters its way into the (popular)
baking books. Then are all loaded with hints about speeding
up the process.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

I'm sensing a bit of arrogance in this group, its like people are using
this group as a means of establishing their own preference as some sort
of law of baked goods.
The Point: I think you need to stop being so judgemental about
something as trivial as bread, not everyone has the time or space to
allow a bread to rise for 13 hours, so 75 minutes for a decent loaf of
freshly baked bread isn't that bad. And hey, when I have 13 hours to
kill, when I am 80, I will try rising the bread for the 'required
time.'
Aaron, wondering if this group should be called the
rec.foods.yeast-growing-discussion

DerSpence wrote:
I'm sensing a bit of arrogance in this group, its like people are using
this group as a means of establishing their own preference as some sort
of law of baked goods.
SNIP
Aw, it isn't that bad. If you want to see fanaticism try rec.food.
sourdough. Some of those people might challenge you to a duel then fly to
your house if you disagree with their methods. Never, ever, mention
sourdough AND yeast together in the same sentence, paragraph, or topic.

From the several bread books I've read, I don't get the sense making bread
is an exact science. "Hold out a cup of flour in case" . . . . "Add more
water if . . . " Measuring to a gram or single digit percentage point seems
superfluous with those instructions, so I agree any "law of baking" is
probably going too far, though some do try. My mom made bread all her life
and never measured anything or went by a recipe that I know of and the bread
was invariably wonderful, much better than anything bought in the store or
bakery. My credo is try my best, enjoy doing it, and learn from each
experience. If I throw in something like flax meal or steel cut oatmeal when
it isn't called for in the recipe, the results are at least interesting, and
usually edible. I am having fun.

Raj V

wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm sensing a bit of arrogance in this group, its like people are using
this group as a means of establishing their own preference as some sort
of law of baked goods.
The Point: I think you need to stop being so judgemental about
something as trivial as bread, not everyone has the time or space to
allow a bread to rise for 13 hours, so 75 minutes for a decent loaf of
freshly baked bread isn't that bad. And hey, when I have 13 hours to
kill, when I am 80, I will try rising the bread for the 'required
time.'
Aaron, wondering if this group should be called the
rec.foods.yeast-growing-discussion

Bread made the really fast way becomes trivial, something to keep your hands
clean when eating peanut butter. If all you want or need is some bread made
at home, as I said, there are several ways to go about it. But, if you were
ever to have the opportunity to taste the difference between bread made in
an hour and bread that has been made in a slower way, you would understand
why slower is encouraged. The taste difference isn't something you have to
have a special sense to pick up. The fast bread just plain has a 'nasty'
taste as a result of the differences in fast, overly warm fermentation. No
food made at home should be considered trivial--in that case, why bother at
all?
Janet

"Raj V" wrote in message
...
DerSpence wrote:
I'm sensing a bit of arrogance in this group, its like people are using
this group as a means of establishing their own preference as some sort
of law of baked goods.
SNIP
Aw, it isn't that bad. If you want to see fanaticism try rec.food.
sourdough. Some of those people might challenge you to a duel then fly to
your house if you disagree with their methods. Never, ever, mention
sourdough AND yeast together in the same sentence, paragraph, or topic.

From the several bread books I've read, I don't get the sense making bread
is an exact science. "Hold out a cup of flour in case" . . . . "Add more
water if . . . "

I think it is a pretty exact science, but not in the context of the home
kitchen. You don't have the ability to evaluate all the parameters of the
ingredients. If you have any doubt, read some of Roy's posts!

"Raj V" wrote in message
...
DerSpence wrote:
I'm sensing a bit of arrogance in this group, its like people are using
this group as a means of establishing their own preference as some sort
of law of baked goods.
SNIP
Aw, it isn't that bad. If you want to see fanaticism try rec.food.
sourdough. Some of those people might challenge you to a duel then fly to
your house if you disagree with their methods. Never, ever, mention
sourdough AND yeast together in the same sentence, paragraph, or topic.

From the several bread books I've read, I don't get the sense making bread
is an exact science. "Hold out a cup of flour in case" . . . . "Add more
water if . . . " Measuring to a gram or single digit percentage point
seems superfluous with those instructions, so I agree any "law of baking"
is probably going too far, though some do try. My mom made bread all her
life and never measured anything or went by a recipe that I know of and
the bread was invariably wonderful, much better than anything bought in
the store or bakery. My credo is try my best, enjoy doing it, and learn
from each experience. If I throw in something like flax meal or steel cut
oatmeal when it isn't called for in the recipe, the results are at least
interesting, and usually edible. I am having fun.

Raj V

My mom made bread all her life
and never measured anything or went by a recipe that I know of and the bread
was invariably wonderful, much better than anything bought in the store or
bakery. snip

I'm not saying your mom did this: but my grandmother did this:
She never measured anything. But, she made the same recipe over and over and
over again. She did vary it by making a pan of "rolls." I loved the bread.
She baked ONCE a week, and I wonder now if the bread was stale at the end of
the week. I know that when we ran out of bread how happy everyone else was
to be able to go to the "Corner" store (actually named, Corner, Washington
Co., Ohio) and buy WonderBread, and when it came into fashion, to buy the
oleo with the piece of colored gloop that we could mix into the oleo to
color it to look like butter. We were still at that time churning butter,
and the family seemed to welcome mashing with a fork the gloop into the
Oleo. "Particularly grandma, I'd bet."
Dee

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:20:34 GMT
"Vox Humana" wrote:


"Raj V" wrote in message
...
DerSpence wrote:
I'm sensing a bit of arrogance in this group, its like people are
using this group as a means of establishing their own preference as
some sort of law of baked goods.
SNIP
Aw, it isn't that bad. If you want to see fanaticism try rec.food.
sourdough. Some of those people might challenge you to a duel then fly
to your house if you disagree with their methods. Never, ever, mention
sourdough AND yeast together in the same sentence, paragraph, or topic.

From the several bread books I've read, I don't get the sense making
bread is an exact science. "Hold out a cup of flour in case" . . . .
"Add more water if . . . "

I think it is a pretty exact science, but not in the context of the home
kitchen. You don't have the ability to evaluate all the parameters of
the ingredients. If you have any doubt, read some of Roy's posts!


What threw me was the concept of time.

Easiest thing in the world to let your loaves proof for a very long
time.

If you think about it, it's actually less time than making it in one
sitting. Instead of waiting around for an hour while you speed-proof, you
just throw 'em in the fridge and go do something else for, oh, a day.

Then when you get around to it, remove 'em from the fridge, preheat the
oven, and throw 'em in.

For extra credit, make cinnamon rolls tonight, refrigerate the pan, and
bake them in the morning.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm sensing a bit of arrogance in this group, its like people are using
this group as a means of establishing their own preference as some sort
of law of baked goods.
The Point: I think you need to stop being so judgemental about
something as trivial as bread, not everyone has the time or space to
allow a bread to rise for 13 hours, so 75 minutes for a decent loaf of
freshly baked bread isn't that bad. And hey, when I have 13 hours to
kill, when I am 80, I will try rising the bread for the 'required
time.'
Aaron, wondering if this group should be called the
rec.foods.yeast-growing-discussion

I don't think this group is being so judgmental as it is helpful; in that
they would like people to realize that there are differences in the taste of
bread that has risent longer. I recall going to a famous bread store that
had a good reputation and we wanted to share this good bread with friends of
ours who were with us. They got all stiff and resistant and even though we
sat and ate some that we purchased at the store, they wouldn't even taste
it. They had no curiousity how it tasted, nor an inclination to buy a loaf
and take it home.
Different strokes.
Dee

"Eric Jorgensen" wrote in message
news:20050207165107.13c6d78d@wafer...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:20:34 GMT
"Vox Humana" wrote:


"Raj V" wrote in message
...
DerSpence wrote:
I'm sensing a bit of arrogance in this group, its like people are
using this group as a means of establishing their own preference as
some sort of law of baked goods.
SNIP
Aw, it isn't that bad. If you want to see fanaticism try rec.food.
sourdough. Some of those people might challenge you to a duel then fly
to your house if you disagree with their methods. Never, ever,
mention
sourdough AND yeast together in the same sentence, paragraph, or
topic.

From the several bread books I've read, I don't get the sense making
bread is an exact science. "Hold out a cup of flour in case" . . . .
"Add more water if . . . "

I think it is a pretty exact science, but not in the context of the home
kitchen. You don't have the ability to evaluate all the parameters of
the ingredients. If you have any doubt, read some of Roy's posts!


What threw me was the concept of time.

Easiest thing in the world to let your loaves proof for a very long
time.

If you think about it, it's actually less time than making it in one
sitting. Instead of waiting around for an hour while you speed-proof, you
just throw 'em in the fridge and go do something else for, oh, a day.

Then when you get around to it, remove 'em from the fridge, preheat the
oven, and throw 'em in.

For extra credit, make cinnamon rolls tonight, refrigerate the pan, and
bake them in the morning.

I'm making cinnamon rolls right now, but I can't wait for tomorrow to bake
them. I often split a batch of dough and bake off some now and refrigerate
the rest. That way I don't end up like Dee's grandmother and have stale
bread at the end of the week.