chembake wrote:
>>First fermentation - 1 1/2 hours.
>>second - 2 hours
>>third - 2 hours.
>>At cool room temperature.
>
> Is this just bulk or total fermentation including proofing...?
>
> I was interpreting your recipe as bulk fermentation 1-1/2 to 2 hours
> then knock down knead briskly and let rest for few minutes. The time
> involved after the initial fermentation plus hand in kneading and
> intermittent rest is roughly an hour maximum. So I estimated it to be
> 3 hours. Then you said its was more than 5 hours how could it be....
> Its either the proofing takes 2 hours. or more..
> How long is the proofing time...or can you describe the fermentation
> and proofing duration?

We're talking about the same things, just with different vocabularies. I
use the word "fermentation" for each development stage. So by my way of
describing it, it ferments in the bowl after mixing (1 1/2 hours). It
ferments more after being punched down and kneaded again (2 hours). It
ferments yet more when the shaped loaves rise (2 hours). It gets a very
good oven-shoot after all that time and with all that manipulation.

> There is a difference between true fermentation (which is occurs when
> the dough is mixed and right after the dough is loaded in the oven
> before the yeast is inactivated by heat) and bakers fermentation, in
> which the latter many bakers consider it more as bulk fermentation
> and does not include the proofing stage.
> I was thinking along the line of true fermentation in your case...
> So what is the real score...? is the total fermentation time includes
> the bulk, including knockdown the intermediate and final proof?
>
> Because if you say so I still cannot believe that you can extract good
> bread flavor from that....
> Unless the fermentation was really long enough and not what I expected
> earlier.

Put it this way. From the time I mix the dough until I put it into an
oven is 5 1/2 to 6 hours. I decide by eye when to bake it.

I tried some today where I made the dough yesterday afternoon and left
it in the refrigerator overnight. This afternoon, I punched it down and
kneaded it more. Left it out of the cooler to rise again. Shaped it into
four loaves and let it rise on canvas, covered, for two and a half
hours. Baked it. It was a bit better in flavor, texture and crumb than
doing it the other way. But I don't think I'd do it this way normally.
Better, yes. Enough better to take the time and cooler space, not for
everyday.

>>confess that I prefer a Parisian-style bread over the more artisanal
>>or rustic loaves. Living in Paris and then Brussels probably prejudiced
>>me in that regard.
>
> That answers the question that Old French baker I mentioned above that
> he lamented that his countrymen does not know anymore what real bread
> is.....
> I told him all of those bread are real.....he frowned on me. And
> said...It is just that modern people specially the younger generation
> (like me) does not care about good bread anymore.....I insisted to him
> all of these bread are good...!
> Maybe for you ...as you have never undergone my training.....but for me
> ....
> No.....if you only think how we are trained differently in the past and
> how we are taught to assess regularly the quality of bread we made;
> and sometimes our mentors visited our workplace and assess our bread
> and graded our skills if we have improved after the years we passed our
> apprenticeships
> ..For every bread there is a criteria for quality such as in terms of
> external and internal appearance, bloom, crust quality, flavor and
> taste, keeping quality, etc to me modern French bread does not fit
> that category but is as good as garbage.
> People of my generation would not eat that kind of bread .
> To prevent further argument with the old man (he is nearly 80 years
> old) I just smiled and keep silent in order to maintain our good
> relationship...
> Until he passed a few years later he never retracted his opinion that
> modern bread is not good for eating....as it lacks substance...and
> taste that he is used to.

<G> I got the same thing when I wandered around the French and Italian
countrysides. I stayed in little hotels and pensions away from the city
people and city things. I liked the bread when it was about 5 hours old.
Less than that and it wasn't "mature." More than that and it was
starting to stale.

> Some years after..
> When I browsed Raymond Calvels book , and found related ideas I
> started to believe that the old French baker has a valid reason for
> his statement....which is true if you have to look at the historical
> side of French Breadmaking....and compare it to recent years...from the
> artisanal point of view.

In some ways, I agree with him. A lot of the old skills and ways have
been lost or compromised. I think that the "Slow Food" people see things
in that way and are trying to preserve the better ones. I've had breads
made with starters as old as the bakers, that were cold-fermented for a
day and a half. Wonderful. But I don't want to do that, so I have to
settle for a compromise in some areas.

And, I don't really want to be in a kitchen without mixers. I'd like to
keep my dough sheeter, too, for the things it's good for (like 50
gingerbread houses each Christmas when I had the restaurants and shops).
I've baked in wood-burning ovens, and I like the control of modern ovens
better. But each remove from the old ways makes the product change. Some
modern changes I think are better.

I don't really like breads with very dark crusts and scorch marks. My
grandparents did. The northern Italians made a thing from their villages
halfway between a pizza and a ****aladiere, and they said it was ready
when it had black patches on the bottom. My grandfather said it had a
smoky (sfumato) flavor. I say it tastes like burned toast with onions on
it. <G>

It's all about taste, I think.

Pastorio