View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
FMW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

>...
>
> >
> > I don't think any of you understood me. I'm not knocking formulas. I'm
> > simply explaining how I developed most of mine and I'm encouraging

others to
> > do the same. I hate the concept of making baking mysterious.

> I understand your purpose , but I just was to throw caution in such
> things.....
> > After all, what is baking? It is flour and water and heat in different
> > proportions with different things added to it. The whole panoply of

baked
> > products vary sometimes only very subtely from one another in terms of
> > ingredients or ratios or methods. You boil a dough to get that bagel

crust.
> > If you don't, you get a bialy with a softer crust. Completely different
> > product, same ingredients. The difference is a few seconds in boiling
> > water. I understand.

> Almost any baker I met say the same thing....
> What is the big deal about bread it just four ingredients flour,
> yeast, salt and water
> I am sorry to disagree with those peopel and you in this point but I
> never see those thing as simple as they are.
> When I was just begun my training I also tend to dismiss that baking
> is just pretty simple, but the more I was involved in it the more I
> realize that I was fooled by its obvious simplicity, and found out
> that there was more than just the melange of those ingredients. A lot
> of bakers can make the same bread from those four ingredients but the
> resulting bread has uniqueness of chanacter that can an be either on
> excellent and inferior product. and can reflect the skill and ability
> of the person who made it.
> The master craftsman never see those things as simple as they are nor
> as lowly as they are that they just add ohter things to make other
> items out of it or vary the taste by modifying the ratio and
> ingredients.
> Therefore a master breadmaker will stick with a recipe that will bring
> the best bread from those ingredients but a dabbler does not see
> that but want to create many things from a single recipe without
> concern that the harmony of the composition is destroyed in that
> process. The latter does not show respect to the ingredient
> interactions where the master shows concern at it knowing that any
> variations that can affect quality will literally destroy the soul of
> his creation. The soul is the term as most skilled breadmaker are at
> a loss to understand the chemistry of ingredient interactions and the
> significance of a formula that was developed after years of dedicated
> practice.
> There is nothing wrong with flexing a recipe by adding this , removing
> that, replacing this ,increasing that etc. but would those values that
> was in your mind do really reflect the essence of the particular item
> you really want to make?
> An italian bakers may say that a french bread is just an italian
> bread made in france; and a french bakers may say conversely.But they
> fact is they are unique product by itself. Then if you say that by
> adding some thing you can
> convert that to a bagel or a sweet dough then that bread dough lacks
> a personality of its own and you can say that my bagel is the *******
> son of the french bread made by using high gluten flour and adding
> some sugar and malt in it and dipping it in boiling water but still
> baked in the same steamy oven. Yes there is nothing wrong with that
> but its doubtul that with that perspective in mind you are not trying
> to make the best of each bread according to the uniqueness of its
> recipe but becaue of the idea that they can be made out of each
> other by just varying the ratio. and changing the ingredients.
> Hmmn I think I remember somethiing similar, more than two decades ago,
> a certain baker made a big batch of partially mixed bread dough,
> using one recipe, but he divided the undermixed dough into different
> portion and remixed it with other ingredients to make other varieties
> of bread following the same principle as you did but in a different
> manner.
> the resulting bread looks satisfactory and taste properly as well; but
> a nother baker of the neighboring bakery made bread unique from each
> other by mixing a dough according to each recipe and parameters of the
> product.
> If you compare the product of the two bakeries they have similar names
> and appearance, but comparing the taste of each iitem, it is
> noticeable that the product made uniquely by iltself and not derived
> /modified from one another is more delicious and customers like more
> the taste of product of the shop where the bakers took pains to make
> its dough unique from each other and feel that the bread from the
> other bakery seems to taste the same and uninteresting.
> Therefore this implies that if due care is done in pre paring the
> dough the
> results can manifest in better consumer acceptance.
> > Sorry to disagree but there is absolutely nothing wrong with

experimentation
> > in baking. Every forumula was developed from an experiment. All
> > experimentation doesn't yield expected results. Some experimentation

yields
> > magic. No experimentation, for me at least, yields boredom. Sure, I

can
> > knock out Italian loaf after Italian loaf with all the consistency one

could
> > request. I have books full of commercial bread formulas. Most of them

have
> > to be adjusted anyway for ingredients, equipment and even ambient

humidity.
> > Heck my basic Italian formula has a 3 oz.. more water in the Winter than

it
> > does in the Summer. Who cares? I'd rather see what happens if I put

this
> > in, or shape it this way, or ferment it this long or lower an oven

rack.
> Fred I also loved experimentation but t prefer to do the planned one,
> ( not trial and error)where I anticipate in the expected product in my
> mind, considering the principle of ingredient interaction ie. If I add
> A to B what will happen when it interacts with C that is already
> interacting with D. Woudl the four ingredients can innteract
> harmoniously so that I can get a product I expect. Taking into
> conideration the properties of ABCD and its peculiarities and the
> mode of their interactions I can predict what is the hypothetical
> outcome of my experiment roughly.
> Supposing I add another variable E and predict accoriding to the
> chracteristics of this fifth element E( and how it interacts with the
> matrix of ABCD I ask myself will it improve the overall quality of
> the ABCD ? Upon thinking later oh the reaction kinetics would be more
> complicated and the increase of entropy in the dough system might make
> the product approach equilibrium( harmony) with difficulty due to
> more disturbance in the system. I have made a complicated blend that
> may exhibit different phase pattern. And may have to draw a possible
> phase diagram of the system if possible..
> therefore with things that I can assume I had predicted the outcome
> then I can go with the actual experiment. Make a statistical and
> probabilistic study of the results of the preliminary experiment. Do
> more replicates and analyse the result statisctically. .Then use that
> result for the finalixation of the application experiments..
> in many cases the results of previous related experiments are used as
> models for the future experiments and help assist in the prediction or
> results and graphically drawing the curve that will help you visualize
> the outcome
> Finally I had a product that is both physico-chemcially and
> mathematically derived and later experimentally proven that it works.
> if the recipe is made as simple as possible you had to delimit the
> permutation(such as altering the recipe and modifying it with other
> ingredients ; that will make the mathematical analyiis of the
> resulting system extremely diffficult.
> So if you see the things in a deeper manner you have no time to
> complicate the simple system of basic formula by contnously changing
> it because you think that they are the same when in fact they are
> not.
> It is easier said than done that the morphing a recipe into another
> one will led to an improvement of the product which actually does
> not.
> > At the moment I have access to a programmable oven. It's a kick to play
> > around with steam and program in changes in temperature and humidity. I
> > like to call it the dial-a-crust oven because that's what you can do

with it
> > among other things. It's also very eye-opening. It's always

interesting.
> > I rarely get bad bread. I've already learned what makes bad bread and

it's
> > reasonably easy to avoid those things.
> >
> > I've made some awful breads and some brilliant ones. Nothing wrong with
> > that. Even a major league player never bats 1.000. In fact they rarely

get
> > a third of the way there. It's just flour, water and leavening, after

all.
> > The possibilies past that bit of simplicity are endless. Why not try a

few
> > and see what happens?

> Yes the possibliitles and permutation are endless, but that is good
> if you are brainstoming for new ideas.
> In fact occasionally I tinker with such things when time permits;
> >It can only make a more accomplished baker out of
> > you.

> I had done so many experiments Fred, what ever the outcome the real
> accomplishment is you learn something out of it. be it success or
> failure. I still consider them all ACCOMPLISHMENTs
> .
> >OK, the soap box is yours. I'm tuning out.

>
> Fred I think you are not serious in your idea about the
> metamorphosizing the recipes if you avoid it being discussed. I stilll
> find you idea interesting
> and in deed would inspire other people to do the same,
> I appreciate your unique iinput....do not be descouraged you had just
> done a great jobl yuo lit a bulb in the head of many baking hobbyist
> here!
> Please Try to maintain the light.....
> Roy


OK, let's take an example from today's bread making. I've been working on a
formula for Tunisian bread. I started with a formula from a french bread
making text. The ingredients are flour, semolina, oil, salt, water and
yeast. When I made the French formula the bread was flat and overhydrated.
No surprise. I'm using different flour and different yeast than the French
bakers who developed the formula. So I adjusted it for my high gluten flour
and my yeast. The result was a bread of good texture but it developed a gas
ball that separated the top crust from the crumb. I've spent the past two
weeks trying to get rid of that gas ball. I've adjusted the ratio of
semolina to bread flour, I've adjusted hydration from a near batter to a
dough that causes my mixer to labor, I've adjusted the fermentation and
proofing. I've adjusted baking temps. Today's bread had two adjustments -
one was a longer mixing time and the other was an increase of flour over
semolina in the ratio. The gas ball was bigger than ever. Tomorrow I'll
increase the semolina and reduce the fermentation time and slash it to
provide a place for gas to escape. The original formula is quite clear that
the bread shouldn't be slashed. In other words, I started with an
established formula that needs to be made in France with French ingredients
to work right. Adapting it to the U.S. has been very difficult. You can't
blindly follow a formula until it has been tested in your kitchen with your
ingredients. Since I don't have a formula for it designed for an American
kitchen I have to redesign it myself. Experimentation is absolutely
necessary. I don't see any other way. The alternative is to limit oneself
only to formulas that have been tested locally.

Fred
Foodie Forums
http://www.foodieforums.com