"Roy Basan" > wrote in message =
om...

> ... you cannot see much difference in that in performance evaluation=20
> (baking) but can be distinguished by chemical instrumentation=20
> (Kjeldahl protein analysis, and possibly by flour rheological=20
> tests instruments( farinograph and extensograph; alveograph and=20
> mixograph) ...

Pretty clearly my kitchen is falling short at the level of basic=20
instrumentation ...

> ... it has been my observation in the farinograph than the=20
> development time of a gluten fortified flour is somewhat longer=20
> than the normal al very strong flour of the same protein level ...

.... Heck, I don't have even a rudimentary farinograph ...

> ... If the flour was also balanced enzymatically you will obtain=20
> positive results ...

Just some vaguely positive results -- that's all I want. But what can
I do without an enzymatic balancer?

> ... I was also monitoring the enzymatic level of the gluten fortified=20
> flour which I found to be low in enzyme activity, therefore I=20
> added calculated amount of fungal amylase/protease=20
> blend ...

Zikes, woe is me, it seems quite hopeless. I doubt if I could=20
calculate the right amount of fungal amylase/protease blend, even
if I knew where to buy some.

> ... check the amylase activity, amylograph viscosity a the same=20
> time to approximate the enzymatic activity naturally strong=20
> spring flour characteristic ...

D'ya suppose I could pick up a 2nd-hand amylograph some place?

> ... Just remember that flour even if the protein content and=20
> enzymatic activity are optimized is still not absolutely identical=20
> in performance to the flour you want to duplicate ...

OK, then, I give up. Looks like its going to be bread from the store
for me.

---
DickA