Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.



Dawn

I made it and mine turned out great. I let it rest and rise the whole 18
hours. I don't know if that helped or not?

Debbie

"Dawn" wrote in message
...
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture of
a hockey puck.



Dawn

Dawn wrote:
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.



Dawn

It ain't gonna work, Dawn. Kneading distributes the yeast through the
rest of the ingredients, mainly all of that heavy flour. Bread taketh
time. And two risings.

On 10 Dec 2006 23:12:12 -0800, "The Usual Suspect"
wrote:


Dawn wrote:
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.



Dawn

It ain't gonna work, Dawn. Kneading distributes the yeast through the
rest of the ingredients, mainly all of that heavy flour. Bread taketh
time. And two risings.

I would refer you to several things that tend to disprove your
statement, and Dawns experience.

First, the eGullet thread that has been going on since this article
came out:
http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=95345&hl=

I am thinking that Dawn might get some good info from this thread.

Other noted bakers such as Peter Reinhardt and Rose Levy Beranbaum are
also experimenting with this method..as well as David Lebowitz... They
are not discounting it..and are actually very excited about it...

http://peterreinhart.typepad.com/

http://www.realbakingwithrose.com/20...oly_bread.html

Christine

Dawn wrote:
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.



Dawn

My third loaf rose to three or four inches, not quite flatbread but not
a great boule
either. It must be the cracker-like crust that makes this method
attractive; crumb's
good too with lots of holes. I keep cutting back on water to make dough
manageable
and am spraying the hot pot to make the loaf removeable. Speaking of
the hot pot,
anybody remember Unguentine (sp)? It may have come in GI first aid
kits we kids
bought at army surplus stores.

"stark" wrote in
anybody remember Unguentine (sp)? It may have come in GI
first aid kits we kids
bought at army surplus stores.

Yup, I remember Unguentine. But not from first aid kits.
We bought it over the counter.

I've made it probably half a dozen times now, and it's come out pretty
well every time. It's turned out a little differently each time
because I keep experimenting with variations, but it's been good
nonetheless. The dough really needs to be quite wet after the first
rise, with a lot of bubbles on the surface. I've let it rise as long
as 24 hours. If it's too wet, I add whatever extra AP flour I need
when I shape it in order to make it manageable.

The last few times I've made it with (generously measured) 1 cup whole
wheat and 2 cups all-purpose flour, and that works really well. In
combination with using part ww flour, I've scaled the water back
slightly to 1 1/2 cups to make the dough a bit easier to work with.
I'm also setting the oven temperature to 500F. I tried 525 once, and
that scorched the bottom of the loaf a bit too much.

Pat



Dawn wrote:
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.



Dawn

Dawn wrote:
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.

I've made it three times. The rise was insufficient once. I
considered the other two quite successful. A few more times and I
think I'll have learned what the right flour/water ratio looks like.
I'd suspect yours needed a little more flour.

The reason I think it's worth trying again is that the taste and
texture (crumb) are close to the "ideal" of a French baguette, which
notoriously takes a lot of work and skill, whereas this takes a lot of
time and almost no work. -aem

On 11 Dec 2006 08:15:12 -0800, "aem" wrote:


Dawn wrote:
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.

I've made it three times. The rise was insufficient once. I
considered the other two quite successful. A few more times and I
think I'll have learned what the right flour/water ratio looks like.
I'd suspect yours needed a little more flour.

The reason I think it's worth trying again is that the taste and
texture (crumb) are close to the "ideal" of a French baguette, which
notoriously takes a lot of work and skill, whereas this takes a lot of
time and almost no work. -aem


I have made it at least a dozen times, with various flours in
combination, and enjoyed success, but I bake all our bread anyway,
and the technique in not so very different from some breads I already
make.

We lost power one day in between baking two loaves and I baked the
second loaf on the gas grill. It was a tad overdone on the bottom, but
delightful nevertheless.

I do not consider the look, taste or texture of this method to be
close to a French baguette, though.

Boron

In article , d-
says...
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.

If it's an inch high then you did something wrong.

The no-knead bread is a perfectly good recipe but, in my experience, it
gives you a certain "type" of bread and nothing else. Anyway, what's so
hard about kneading?

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Peter A
wrote:

In article , d-
says...
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.

If it's an inch high then you did something wrong.

The no-knead bread is a perfectly good recipe but, in my experience, it
gives you a certain "type" of bread and nothing else. Anyway, what's so
hard about kneading?


Nothing, but why do it if it isn't necessary? For many recipes stretch
and fold is all that is needed, and in fact, improves the results one
would get with kneading.

Boron

If it's an inch high then you did something wrong.

Obviously. It had way too much water in it.



The no-knead bread is a perfectly good recipe but, in my experience, it
gives you a certain "type" of bread and nothing else. Anyway, what's so
hard about kneading?

There's that exquisite arthritic pain in my knuckles, for starters. I've
been using a bread machine for a few years, but I'm not happy with the
texture of that either.



Dawn

Dawn wrote:

If it's an inch high then you did something wrong.

Obviously. It had way too much water in it.

More likely, not enough water. Too much water won't cause it
to be flat. But not enough water means not enough gluten
structure which means not enough gas retention which means
flat breads.

Pastorio


The no-knead bread is a perfectly good recipe but, in my experience,
it gives you a certain "type" of bread and nothing else. Anyway,
what's so hard about kneading?

There's that exquisite arthritic pain in my knuckles, for starters. I've
been using a bread machine for a few years, but I'm not happy with the
texture of that either.



Dawn

The Usual Suspect wrote:
Dawn wrote:
Has anybody made this a second time after the initial rush last month?

I just took mine out of the oven, and I have to say I'm less than
impressed. It's maybe an inch high, and I'm betting it has the texture
of a hockey puck.



Dawn

It ain't gonna work, Dawn. Kneading distributes the yeast through the
rest of the ingredients, mainly all of that heavy flour.

It does work and it's nothing new to use highly hydrated
doughs like this. Kneading is less for any sort of
distribution than to develop gluten. By mixing the dry
ingredients in advance - a time-honored technique - the
distribution issue is virtually solved, and the later
folding makes sure it is. By using a very wet dough, the
gluten aligns itself with no necessity for kneading. It's
precisely the fact of a very wet dough that negates the need
for kneading.

Bread taketh time. And two risings.

This approach takes a minimum of 18 hours and two risings
for success.

It most assuredly works, but it also needs a bit of fiddling
to suit the particular kitchen and baker.

Pastorio

stark wrote:

My third loaf rose to three or four inches, not quite
flatbread but not a great boule either. It must be the
cracker-like crust that makes this method attractive;
crumb's good too with lots of holes.

The crust should be crisp like a good French boule, not
cracker-like. There are several critical points in the
recipe: fully moistening the flour at the beginning; letting
it develop for at least 12 hours, but more like 18-20 is
better; pulling it into a ball; letting it rise that second
time; getting it into a hot enough pot with a lid to bake;
finishing it uncovered. You're probably letting it bake too
long uncovered. Try using a thermometer to see when the
bread is done - 208F.

Right-sized pot matters, too. Too big and the dough spreads
out too far.

I keep cutting back
on water to make dough manageable and am spraying the hot
pot to make the loaf removeable.

Exactly what you shouldn't be doing. It's the heavy
hydration that is the effective substitute for kneading. The
gluten strands need a lot of liquid to move into alignment.
Cutting back on water means that you won't get the gluten
development and, therefore, the gas retention to get a good
rise and a good oven-shoot from the dough. Making the dough
more manageable makes it less likely to work properly. You
shouldn't need to spray the hot pot. If you do, chances are
the pot isn't hot enough. At least 450F oven temp with a
good half-hour heating time.

Probably good to go back and see the original and updates to
see where it's evolved to.

Pastorio