"Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message >...
Ulrike Unfortunately….. my server did not allow me to view your
pictures as my screen came out blank when I try to read the link.
Yeah, I misread some of your numbers…...
I think I have to change my glasses<g>…. Or invest on a new
,brighter flat screen monitor for my old laptop . I was only seeing
11.7% protein not the 13.7% as the text was rather fine for my eyes
than the normal screen I am used to in the desktop.


>Sorry Roy, perhaps I have blond roots, but I can't >follow your
calculation:

>I have 500 g flour with 5 x 11 g protein= 55 g protein >in 500 g
flour
>I add 20 g gluten flour (80 % protein) with 16 g >protein

>I get a mixture of 520 g that contains 55+16= 71 g >protein makes 100
x
>71/520= 16,7 % protein

>Am I so wrong?
Yes….
First WE use different value for the protein content of the wheat
gluten…. You use 80% while I use 75% but the main issue here is your
literal addition of values .
Let me see. But sorry I do not find you calculation correlate with
experimental flour blending trials.
The one I did have relation with experiments.
So….
20/520 x100=3.85% gluten x 0.80=3.077 ( or 3.08)percent
protein.
Now to obtain your flour; 100-3.85=96.15 % of flour.
Therefore…96.15% x 0.11 + 3.85 x 0.80=13.66 % protein
Almost the same as if
96.15 x0.11 + 3.85 x 0.75=13.46; 13.66 vs. 13.46, you cannot see much
difference in that in performance evaluation ( baking) but can be
distinguished by chemical instrumentation( Kjeldahl protein analysis,
and possibly by flour rheological tests instruments( farinograph and
extensograph; alveograph and mixograph)
Your value 16.7 is high, I can obtain that flour roughly by;
Mixing 8 parts wheat gluten powder(if you are using 80% protein) and
92 parts of 11 % protein flour.
Or 8 x 0.8 + 92 x 0.11 =16.52 not far from 16.7.


Regarding baking.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your detailed explanation. I just mixed 500 g Type 550 (11 %
> > protein) with 20 g gluten flour (80% protein), so this mixture contains
> > 13,7 % protein. The next trial has begun and tomorrow I know more...
> >
> > Ulrike
> >
> I added some gluten (as described above) to my flour 550. IMHO the mixture
> has 13,7 % protein:
> 5*11,0 + 0,2 * 80 =71 g protein in 520 g mixture = 13, 7 % protein
> to bake the sourdough ciabatta again.
>
> It didn't work in the same way as the KA flour did. There was less
> elasticity and the rises were more horizontally than vertically. The dough
> was flabby and was hardly to bring into a ciabatta shape. Where is the oven
> spring?
> Here are the non convincing results. http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_004.jpg http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_009.jpg
> Any suggestions??
> Ulrike
Still if you reach that amount and you only stretch and fold the
added gluten is more difficult to develop as it has been my
observation in the farinograph than the development time of a gluten
fortified flour is somewhat longer than the normal al very strong
flour of the same protein level.
If the flour was also balanced enzymatically you will obtain
positive results
By remembering back my experimental trials…..
I was also given inferior results with my hand kneaded roll dough I
made several years ago with a gluten fortified European flour that I
had to drop the dough to the mixer to have it optimally developed..
(that may have provided partly some of the difference)
My initial trials exhibit similar result as you. When I checked the
rheological perfomance, it was more elastic than extensible
But as I was also monitoring the enzymatic level of the gluten
fortified flour which I found to be low in enzyme activity, therefore
I added calculated amount of fungal amylase/protease blend(simulating
the malt supplementaion) and check the amylase activity, amylograph
viscosity a the same time to approximate the enzymatic activity
naturally strong spring flour characteristic ..
..
BTw the recipe I used was based on normal bakers yeast not on
sourdough culture. And I was using the standard straight dough method
in preparing that experimental dough.
It did improve the performance and I was able to attain the similar
result with the flour that I was trying to duplicate in baking
quality.
A sourdough recipe would not make much difference except maybe how you
develop the dough. With a properly malt supplemented gluten
fortified flour I am certain that there will be improvements in baking
quality

..if you dough did not expand equally in both vertical and horizontal
position the dough is tight and there was no relaxation. It means that
your flour needs enzymatic( malt addition).You can add malt in it but
as that material you buy or you made your own does not have
predictable enzymatic activity ;you nay have to add slightly more.
Bit using and commercial normal diastatic malt flour used in baking
that has an activity of
..50 SKB units the level is 5 grams per 1000 grams of flour is
necessary for such low enzymatic activity gluten fortified flour., you
will have to increase also if you are using the diastatic malt syrup.
Some bakers add 1-2% of their homemade malt to the flour to improve
baking quality.
Just remember that flour even if the protein content and enzymatic
activity are optimized is still not absolutely identical in
performance to the flour you want to duplicate.... the bottom line is
there is some similariy in pefromance but not in all.

Roy