Recent posts from Tom, Ken, and Will all attest to the method of minimal
kneading. Where I prefer to use long machine kneading cycles, Tom suggested
that all that is required is a 1 minute mix, a 1 minute knead, and a 2 minute
knead, all by hand and with short rests in between.

So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and Thing 2.

The dough was 66 percent baker's hydration and used 20 percent starter.
The flour was predominantly Wheatmontana White with a handful of whole wheat
thrown in for color and taste.

One of the dough clumps was kneaded in a Kitchen Aid mixer for 12 minutes at
speed-2.

The other was hand kneaded for 1 minute, rested for 2 minutes, then hand
kneaded for 2 minutes.

The loaves rose for 3 hours in the same warm oven. They were then formed into
boulles and put in a cooler for 6 hours at 50-60F.

Then both were baked at the same time on the same stone etc. The finish weighs
were 24 ounces or 1.5 lb, or 681 grams.

The results are shown on the following link (click thumbnails for larger
photos)

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gfb9/Bread/Kneading.html

I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be able
to tell which loaf had less kneading.

Ed Bechtel

"Ed Bechtel" wrote in message
...
Recent posts from Tom, Ken, and Will all attest to the method of minimal
kneading. Where I prefer to use long machine kneading cycles, Tom
suggested
that all that is required is a 1 minute mix, a 1 minute knead, and a 2
minute
knead, all by hand and with short rests in between.

So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and
Thing 2.

**snipped**
I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be
able
to tell which loaf had less kneading.

It looks to me like thing 2's crumb is a bit more uneven and I would bet it
was hand kneaded - if I had to bet. However, having been trained as an
economist and therefore as a statistician - there is no appreciable
difference between those two crumb structures which couldn't just be
attributed to randomness.

I personally think those breads look pretty nice. I generally use all 70%
hydration (sometimes even a bit more with WW) but I like the 66% look. It
would be especially useful for sandwhiches - sometimes my mom complains that
mayonaise in her sandwich leaks through my bread (I told if she didn't quit
complaining she would lose the few loaves that I do drop off). Otherwise I
say - good show Ed, those look like quality bread to me - I especially like
the look of your crust. It has that sort of shiny look. Mine doesn't get
that - I think I use the spritzer alot. Plus my loaves are usually covered
in dusting flour.

If nothing - the low energy kneading method requires less output. No
electricity and minimal hand time.

Tom

"Ed Bechtel" wrote in message
...

snip

So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and
Thing 2.

The dough was 66 percent baker's hydration and used 20 percent starter.
The flour was predominantly Wheatmontana White with a handful of whole
wheat
thrown in for color and taste.

One of the dough clumps was kneaded in a Kitchen Aid mixer for 12 minutes
at
speed-2.

The other was hand kneaded for 1 minute, rested for 2 minutes, then hand
kneaded for 2 minutes.

snip

The results are shown on the following link (click thumbnails for larger
photos)

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gfb9/Bread/Kneading.html

I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be
able
to tell which loaf had less kneading.


Ed:

As you say, they both look pretty similar. Initially I was thinking that the
crumb on Thing 1 looked a little more "gelatinous", but that could well be
the photograph as opposed to the bread itself.On the other hand, it looks as
though Thing 2 had a slightly higher rise and the crust looks a bit deeper
in color, but there are other things that could play into that beyond
kneading such as shaping and, again the photograph.

I'm hoping you'll fill us in on the differences you've seen and tasted in
person.

I've never tried experimenting with minimally kneaded dough other than very
highly hydrated dough which I can't really knead. I'm going to mixing up
about five pounds of dough in a bit, Maybe I'll put aside a couple of pounds
and try this myself to see what I come up with.

-Mike

Ed Bechtel wrote:

... The results are shown on the following link ...

Nice bread, Ed.

One thing that I found, when trying for big holes and height,
that with slack dough, a little dryer than Ciabatta dough, longer
kneading helped somewhat with the height. The gain was not
significant so I am back to minimal kneading for almost
everthing.
--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

"Charles Perry" wrote in message =
...

... I am back to minimal kneading for almost everthing.

But allowing your dough to fix itself in the fridge overnight
in spite of your neglect?

To all,
Mike was correct. Thing 1 had that gelatinous artifact in the crumb. It also
had the minimum kneading. But the gelatinous appearance was very subtle.

Tom the shiney surface is because I wake up for a snack during the night -
about every 2 hours. At the same time I mist the loaves in the cooler while
they are self-repairing themselves.

Ed Bechtel

Almost forgot.
The loaf that appeared largest, the one I thought would weigh more, actually
weighed 1/2 ounce less. It was Thing 2 with the extensive kneading.

Ed

On 4/22/04 1:44 AM, "Tom Stanton" wrote:


"Ed Bechtel" wrote in message
...
Recent posts from Tom, Ken, and Will all attest to the method of minimal
kneading. Where I prefer to use long machine kneading cycles, Tom
suggested
that all that is required is a 1 minute mix, a 1 minute knead, and a 2
minute
knead, all by hand and with short rests in between.

So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and
Thing 2.

**snipped**
I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be
able
to tell which loaf had less kneading.

It looks to me like thing 2's crumb is a bit more uneven and I would bet it
was hand kneaded - if I had to bet. However, having been trained as an
economist and therefore as a statistician - there is no appreciable
difference between those two crumb structures which couldn't just be
attributed to randomness.

I personally think those breads look pretty nice. I generally use all 70%
hydration (sometimes even a bit more with WW) but I like the 66% look. It
would be especially useful for sandwhiches - sometimes my mom complains that
mayonaise in her sandwich leaks through my bread (I told if she didn't quit
complaining she would lose the few loaves that I do drop off). Otherwise I
say - good show Ed, those look like quality bread to me - I especially like
the look of your crust. It has that sort of shiny look. Mine doesn't get
that - I think I use the spritzer alot. Plus my loaves are usually covered
in dusting flour.

If nothing - the low energy kneading method requires less output. No
electricity and minimal hand time.

Tom


Ed,

Those are mighty fine looking examples you've posted. I don't think there's
an appreciable difference between the "things" either. Crusts and crumbs are
jewel-like...

It makes me wonder where the "long" kneading dogma originated. I can
understand KitchenAid providing advice for longer time. Who's going to spend
$300 (Kenneth's 20 qt. beast obviously excluded here) if they can flop the
dough on a board for two or three minutes? Still, there has been a
mechanical "develop the gluten" movement for years.

Perhaps my KitchenAid and I are due for a revised accommodation. Good thing
I've got that new stainless-steel-Italian-pasta-laminator attachment to
divert me. The basements in Wisconsin are cold places for early retirement.

Will

_______________________________________________
rec.food.sourdough mailing list

http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough

"Ed Bechtel" wrote in message
...

Mike was correct. Thing 1 had that gelatinous artifact in the crumb. It
also
had the minimum kneading. But the gelatinous appearance was very subtle.

Do I win anything?

There are some things we can't tell from the pictures. On occasion, I've
made bread with a crumb that looked just fine, but it didn't hold together
all that well. For example, it might tear easily when having something
spread on a slice. It hasn't happened often enough for me to try to figure
out why, but I would suspect that it might have something to do with gluten
development which might be related to kneading time. I'm curious as to how
these loaves might differ in ways we might not be able to see in a
photograph.


At the same time I mist the loaves in the cooler while
they are self-repairing themselves.

I'm with Dick in that I am a bit skeptical about the idea that the dough
repairs itself with a cool/cold rise. Based on experience, I do believe that
a cool rise has an impact on the bread. I guess, whether that change is
good, bad, or indifferent is up to the individual eating said bread. I
wonder how a similar experiment without the self-repairing cool rise would
be different?

BTW, nice looking bread. I should have said that first time around.

-Mike

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:48:21 -0500, williamwaller
wrote:

It makes me wonder where the "long" kneading dogma originated. I can
understand KitchenAid providing advice for longer time. Who's going to spend
$300 (Kenneth's 20 qt. beast obviously excluded here) if they can flop the
dough on a board for two or three minutes? Still, there has been a
mechanical "develop the gluten" movement for years.

Hi Will,

I would suspect the mass production commercial baking industry.

In that realm, time is money. The alternative to mechanically
activating the gluten (through longer kneading) is a (comparatively)
long period of hydration, or, as it is known around here, "putting the
dough in the fridge for a while."

That time-consuming approach conflicts with the grind it out needs of
factory bakeries.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

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

Dick Adams wrote:

But allowing your dough to fix itself in the fridge overnight
in spite of your neglect?

My neighbor was wont to claim that his Cheverolet car was so good
that it fixed itself. In fact, he was a mechanical genius and
machines just worked better in his presense. I don't understand
that and I don't understand how broken dough can fix itself in a
refrigerator.

Dough does need to be "developed" to make good bread. With
sourdough you can substitute time for part of the mechanical
development so the critters can do their chemical development of
the dough. I don't think a refrigerator is necessary. Cool room
temperature will do just fine with maybe a strech and fold along
the way.

Regards,

Charles

--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

Here's some more evidence for the "no kneaders". I make my big hole
boule by mixing the ingrediants until the flouris moistened, waiting
for a one hour autolyse and then kneading only long enough to
incorporte the salt. The bread rises fine, has big holes, paper thin
cellular walls, etc. etc.


williamwaller wrote in message news:mailman.29.1082645558.229.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
On 4/22/04 1:44 AM, "Tom Stanton" wrote:


"Ed Bechtel" wrote in message
...
Recent posts from Tom, Ken, and Will all attest to the method of minimal
kneading. Where I prefer to use long machine kneading cycles, Tom
suggested
that all that is required is a 1 minute mix, a 1 minute knead, and a 2
minute
knead, all by hand and with short rests in between.

So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and
Thing 2.

**snipped**
I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be
able
to tell which loaf had less kneading.

It looks to me like thing 2's crumb is a bit more uneven and I would bet it
was hand kneaded - if I had to bet. However, having been trained as an
economist and therefore as a statistician - there is no appreciable
difference between those two crumb structures which couldn't just be
attributed to randomness.

I personally think those breads look pretty nice. I generally use all 70%
hydration (sometimes even a bit more with WW) but I like the 66% look. It
would be especially useful for sandwhiches - sometimes my mom complains that
mayonaise in her sandwich leaks through my bread (I told if she didn't quit
complaining she would lose the few loaves that I do drop off). Otherwise I
say - good show Ed, those look like quality bread to me - I especially like
the look of your crust. It has that sort of shiny look. Mine doesn't get
that - I think I use the spritzer alot. Plus my loaves are usually covered
in dusting flour.

If nothing - the low energy kneading method requires less output. No
electricity and minimal hand time.

Tom


Ed,

Those are mighty fine looking examples you've posted. I don't think there's
an appreciable difference between the "things" either. Crusts and crumbs are
jewel-like...

It makes me wonder where the "long" kneading dogma originated. I can
understand KitchenAid providing advice for longer time. Who's going to spend
$300 (Kenneth's 20 qt. beast obviously excluded here) if they can flop the
dough on a board for two or three minutes? Still, there has been a
mechanical "develop the gluten" movement for years.

Perhaps my KitchenAid and I are due for a revised accommodation. Good thing
I've got that new stainless-steel-Italian-pasta-laminator attachment to
divert me. The basements in Wisconsin are cold places for early retirement.

Will

_______________________________________________
rec.food.sourdough mailing list

http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough

"Charles Perry" wrote in message =
...

My neighbor was wont to claim that his Chevrolet car was so good
that it fixed itself. =20

It is a long time since chevys here, but when it comes to Toyotas I can
tell you that they do very well on oil changes, and generally suffer =
from
"scheduled maintenance", as would our checkbook. If you do your
own oil changes, you always know where the drain plug is.

... I don't understand how broken dough can fix itself in a
refrigerator.

Neither do I, really. But I mentioned some apparent evidence at
samartha.net/SD/.

It seems intuitive that stuff will conglomerate better when cooler.

Dough does need to be "developed" to make good bread. With
sourdough you can substitute time for part of the mechanical
development so the critters can do their chemical development of
the dough. I don't think a refrigerator is necessary. Cool room
temperature will do just fine with maybe a stretch and fold along
the way.

Perhaps it is a process which has a negative temperature coefficient,
or one which is relatively independent of temperature. In either case,
it would gain on fermentative processes faster colder.

Dick Adams wrote:

Perhaps it is a process which has a negative temperature coefficient,
or one which is relatively independent of temperature.

Of course, since I am officially ignorant, I don't really know
the science behind the fact. All I know is what works in my
kitchen learned by trial and much error. Plus, of course that
which I learned from my grandmother and more recently Ticker.

I will say, though, my world view will be less shaken if the
truth turns out that it is just a different temperature vs.
activity curve rather than a negative coefficient or activity
independant of temperature.

Regards,

Charles

--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

jonathan sands wrote:

... I make my big hole boule by mixing the ingrediants until the flouris moistened, waiting for a one hour autolyse and then kneading only long enough to
incorporte the salt. The bread rises fine, has big holes, paper thin
cellular walls, etc. etc.


I would appreciate more details. Maybe even a picture. There
are lots of people interested in the secrets of the elusivwe big
hole boule.

Regards,

Charles
--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **