Baking (rec.food.baking) For bakers, would-be bakers, and fans and consumers of breads, pastries, cakes, pies, cookies, crackers, bagels, and other items commonly found in a bakery. Includes all methods of preparation, both conventional and not.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-09-2005, 11:13 PM
I Knead the Dough
 
Posts: n/a
Default 'Dense' Bread - Or Is It Me?!

Yes . . . . and hello to you all!

This post's about the hand-baking of white bread. I've made quite a few,
now, and whereas I'm very happy with the *taste* of the finished product,
it's in the *texture* department that I feel improvements could be made in.

I'm from the UK, and I tend to use the 'Super Strong' white bread flour made
by the Hovis company (though I've also used the standard-grade stuff by the
same firm), and their 'Fast Action' yeast, which only requires one "kneading
and proving".

I always follow the instructions to the letter. Kneading takes 10 minutes,
after which I let it "double in size" (that's *so* specific!). As it's still
summer, that usually means I allow it to sit for about an hour-and-a-half,
at room temperature, before I pop it into the oven for half an hour (230
C). In winter, I'll place the dough somewhere warm.

When finished, it looks good, and tastes good. The problem is that it tends
to be a little . . . . well . . . . "denser" than the uncut loaves I can buy
from a baker. Nothing wrong with that, as such, but I'd really like to try
and aim for something a little lighter, while still keeping the great taste.

Question is - is this possible? I wonder if a *second* kneading, or
something, would result in a lighter product? Or perhaps letting the dough
sit longer? Perhaps adding some ingredient that's not mentioned in the
instructions, like sugar?

Anyone else use the basic methodology, above, and get a non-dense result? Or
is that just the way of things?!



  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-09-2005, 11:49 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

my results are similar. bread great but not soft or fluffy enough. some
day I am going to try adding a bit of oil. Typical chiffon cakes have
oil added to their batter. I wonder if this would help?

  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 12:04 AM
Randall Nortman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[I'm redirecting follow-ups to rec.food.baking, which is the best
group for this discussion. My comments are inline below.]

On 2005-09-13, I Knead the Dough wrote:

This post's about the hand-baking of white bread. I've made quite a few,
now, and whereas I'm very happy with the *taste* of the finished product,
it's in the *texture* department that I feel improvements could be made in.

I'm from the UK, and I tend to use the 'Super Strong' white bread flour made
by the Hovis company (though I've also used the standard-grade stuff by the
same firm) ...


I'm in the US and know nothing about the particular flour you mention,
but I suspect it is a high-protein flour with strong gluten-forming
characteristics. The problem with this kind of flour for home bakers
is that it is very difficult to fully develop that strong gluten by
hand kneading -- certainly 10 minutes of hand kneading is not even
going to come close to fully developing the gluten, unless you're
quite strong. With good electric mixer with a dough hook, it's a
different story, but if you're hand-kneading, your results with
lower-protein flour may be about the same. High-gluten flours will
also tend to produce tougher, chewier loaves, which may or may not be
what you're after.

One thing you might try to get better gluten development with hand
kneading is to add a rest period to the process. That is, combine all
the ingredients until the dough just comes together, cover it to keep
it from drying out, let it sit 30 minutes, then knead it until it is
smooth, elastic, and slightly tacky but not sticky. You will find
that this decreases the total amount of kneading necessary.

... and their 'Fast Action' yeast, which only requires one "kneading
and proving".

I always follow the instructions to the letter. Kneading takes 10 minutes,
after which I let it "double in size" (that's *so* specific!). As it's still
summer, that usually means I allow it to sit for about an hour-and-a-half,
at room temperature, before I pop it into the oven for half an hour (230
C). In winter, I'll place the dough somewhere warm.


The idea of only one proofing cycle is marketing hogwash. Your loaf
volume, texture, and flavor will be markedly improved if you have one
"bulk fermentation", meaning that the dough rises in a bowl or on the
counter before being formed into a loaf shape (allowed to double, more
or less), then it is degassed ("punched down") and shaped into loaves,
then is allowed to nearly double again in loaf shape before being
baked. Note that for bulk fermentation, the increase in volume
("doubling", or whatever the recipe says) is less important than the
amount of time it takes. Time allows the yeast and enzymes to change
the chemistry of the dough, which has effects on the volume, texture,
and taste of the final bread. The final proof, however, is largely
intended to improve volume by letting the yeast create air pockets in
the loaf before it is baked, which then expand in the heat of the
oven.

Generally speaking, slower and longer fermentation will result in
better bread. Forget about putting it in a warm place, use half the
yeast, let it proof for twice as long, and you'll probably be pleased
with the results. I usually let my doughs sit 8-24 hours in the
refrigerator, in fact, which is a minor complication in the process
but can be used to good effect to make the process fit into your
life's schedule better, at least when advance planning is possible.

Question is - is this possible? I wonder if a *second* kneading, or
something, would result in a lighter product? Or perhaps letting the dough
sit longer?


A second kneading should be unneccessary, although there is a
relatively new movement (or, perhaps, a resurgance of a very old idea)
usually called the "stretch and fold" method, which is in some ways an
extreme version of the mix-rest-knead approach I mentioned above. In
this case, you mix the dough briefly, but never really knead it.
Instead, you let it sit on the counter, and every 30-45 minutes you
stretch it and fold it in thirds on itself, just once, then let it sit
again. There are usually 2-5 repetitions of this process, depending
on the length of the bulk fermentation, and then the loaves are formed
and the final proof goes as usual. This process is especially suited
to the lower-protein flours and very wet, sticky doughs.

On that subject, you will also probably find that texture and flavor
get better with wetter doughs (higher ratio of liquid to flour). Make
it as wet as you can manage -- wetting your hands slightly is better
than flouring them for working with sticky doughs.

Perhaps adding some ingredient that's not mentioned in the
instructions, like sugar?


Sugar will not directly improve volume -- in fact it will weigh the
dough down somewhat -- but it will accelerate the yeast activity
(except in extreme quantities, which slows or kills yeast). It will
make the final bread softer and moister, but not any lighter. Ditto
for other enrichers such as milk and oil or fat.

Anyone else use the basic methodology, above, and get a non-dense result? Or
is that just the way of things?!


Dense bread, especially white bread, can definitely be avoided, even
without the tools of a professional baker. Some people, of course,
like dense bread, but most of those people are also looking for
whole-grain bread. (I happen to be one of them, not that I can't
appreciate a good white bread now and then.)

Hope that helps.

--
Randall
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 12:29 AM
Mike Avery
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I Knead the Dough wrote:

I'm from the UK, and I tend to use the 'Super Strong' white bread flour made
by the Hovis company (though I've also used the standard-grade stuff by the
same firm), and their 'Fast Action' yeast, which only requires one "kneading
and proving".



I'm not familiar with flours in the UK, so I can't comment upon your
flour. However, if your results are similar with both products, I doubt
you need to pay extra for the super strong bread flour. These flours
are generally formulated to allow doughs to tolerate the abuse that is
inherent in an industrial bread making environment. They are intended
to make the ultra-light breads that most people in this forum would
rather avoid.

If you are trying to make a bread as light as the white fluff in the
market, the best way to obtain such a bread is to purchase it. It is
very difficult to duplicate in the home.

I always follow the instructions to the letter. Kneading takes 10 minutes,


Oddly enough, the time of kneading is not terribly exact. You are
looking for a resultant dough condition, not to have put in xx minutes
of kneading. Sometimes 5 minutes is enough. Sometimes 20 are
required. With a wheat bread, the windowpane test gives a good
indication that the dough has been kneaded enough. You can google the
windowpane test to spare my a lot of typing.

Also, there are variations in flour from batch to batch. It's not a
chemical produced in a sterile environment. Variations exist between
farms, varieties of wheat, and so on. As a result, using 100 grams of
water and 250 grams of flour will not always give the same results, even
when the brand and type of flour are the same. Note the feel of the
dough, observe how the bread comes out, note the correlations... and
then go for the optimum feel in the dough.

Lastly... for this section.... many beginning bakers add flour as they
are kneading. This isn't bad per se, but it is fraught with peril.
When you add flour, you really need to start your kneading time again.
Also, many people have heard things like, "knead until the dough is
satiny and no longer sticky." The "easy" way to get rid of the sticky
is to add flour. Which leads to a dense loaf. Dough would rather be a
bit too wet than a bit too dry. And sticky isn't a bad thing anyway.
Just get the dough to the point where it would rather stick to itself
than to you or the kneading board.

In the US, home bakers typically measure by volume, which is inherently
inaccurate. So, recipes tell the baker to use "4 to 6 cups of flour".
I suggest that my students stop measuring by volume... but if they can't
break that bad habit, they should start with 2/3 to 3/4 of the flour the
recipe calls for and then grudgingly add more, a tablespoon at a time.
"Pretend you're Ebeneezer Scrooge and flour costs as much as saffron,
the most expensive spice in the world" is what I tell them to get them
into the right mind set. Put the flour on your hands, not the dough.
Suddenly the student's bread gets lighter.

after which I let it "double in size" (that's *so* specific!).


Actually, that is VERY specific. However, many people don't understand
that the doubling should be in volume, not in height. The two may or
may not be related, depending on how the dough is constrained during its
rise. If the loaf is in a bread pan, doubling the height (I assume you
have access to a ruler) doubles the volume. With a free-form loaf, the
length and width can increase at the same time as the height, depending
on the firmness of the dough and how the loaf was formed. In the worst
case with a freeform loaf, doubling the height can mean an increase of
8x in volume. Some people let bread rise in a graduated container so
they can tell when the dough has doubled.

However, doubling is not a holy grail. You want it to rise fully. A
good test is to let it rise until it no longer springs back when poked
with a finger. Or you can gently rest your hand upon it and feel if
there is still tension in the surface of the dough. If there is, let it
rise a bit longer.

When finished, it looks good, and tastes good. The problem is that it tends
to be a little . . . . well . . . . "denser" than the uncut loaves I can buy
from a baker. Nothing wrong with that, as such, but I'd really like to try
and aim for something a little lighter, while still keeping the great taste.


Dense has different meanings to different people..... your dense could
be my too light. Your just right could be my too dense. Perhaps you
could elaborate a bit.

Question is - is this possible? I wonder if a *second* kneading, or
something, would result in a lighter product? Or perhaps letting the dough
sit longer? Perhaps adding some ingredient that's not mentioned in the
instructions, like sugar?

Sugar is usually added to dough to help feed the yeast. They don't
need it. If the amount of sugar is small, 20 grams or less per loaf,
its yeast food and can be eliminated. Larger amounts are for taste.
And larger amounts can slow the dough's rise.

Lightness and softness of crumb are often confused. Adding milk or oil
will give a softer crumb, but lightness is a separate matter. You may
be after lightness, you may be after softness, you may be after both.
Once you decide upon your goals, it will be easier to fine tune your recipe.

Mike

--
....The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvaldis claims to be trying to take over the world...

Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
home baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM mavery81230
wordsmith Yahoo mavery81230

  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 01:04 AM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"I Knead the Dough" wrote in message
...
Yes . . . . and hello to you all!

This post's about the hand-baking of white bread. I've made quite a few,
now, and whereas I'm very happy with the *taste* of the finished product,
it's in the *texture* department that I feel improvements could be made

in.

I'm from the UK, and I tend to use the 'Super Strong' white bread flour

made
by the Hovis company (though I've also used the standard-grade stuff by

the
same firm), and their 'Fast Action' yeast, which only requires one

"kneading
and proving".

I always follow the instructions to the letter. Kneading takes 10 minutes,
after which I let it "double in size" (that's *so* specific!). As it's

still
summer, that usually means I allow it to sit for about an hour-and-a-half,
at room temperature, before I pop it into the oven for half an hour (230
C). In winter, I'll place the dough somewhere warm.

When finished, it looks good, and tastes good. The problem is that it

tends
to be a little . . . . well . . . . "denser" than the uncut loaves I can

buy
from a baker. Nothing wrong with that, as such, but I'd really like to try
and aim for something a little lighter, while still keeping the great

taste.

Question is - is this possible? I wonder if a *second* kneading, or
something, would result in a lighter product? Or perhaps letting the dough
sit longer? Perhaps adding some ingredient that's not mentioned in the
instructions, like sugar?

Anyone else use the basic methodology, above, and get a non-dense result?

Or
is that just the way of things?!



The advice you got was sound, but here is my take. If you want fluffy bread
with an even crumb, you have to do the opposite of what is recommended for
"good" bread. I would use all-purpose flour, use a generous amount of
sugar, add some bland oil, use lots of yeast, let it rise in a warm place,
let the formed loaf nearly over-proof before baking. I know that people
will be horrified at that advice, but it does produce a product that is
fairly close to "Wonder Bread." It is the advice I give people who want
recreate the rolls they used to eat in the school cafeteria.

For about 450gm of flour (3 1/2 cups or a pound), I might use two packets or
a heaping tablespoon of instant yeast, two teaspoons of salt, two tablespoon
sugar, three tablespoons vegetable oil, and enough rather warm milk (115F -
120F) to produce a slightly sticky dough. I knead in the food processor or
stand mixer, but you could do it by hand. Round-up the dough and let it
rise in an oiled bowl in a warm location until double - about an hour.
Deflate, form into a loaf or rolls, and let rise until double again. Bake
at 400 for 35-540 minutes for the loaf and at 350 for 25-30 minutes for the
rolls. The bread will be light and bland with a uniform, fine crumb and
have a yeasty flavor and soft crust. It will be the antithesis of artisan
bread.




  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 01:36 AM
Janet Bostwick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Randall Nortman" wrote in message
link.net...
[I'm redirecting follow-ups to rec.food.baking, which is the best
group for this discussion. My comments are inline below.]

The best group for this discussion is alt.bread.recipes


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 02:25 AM
Marcella Peek
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"I Knead the Dough" wrote in message

Question is - is this possible? I wonder if a *second* kneading, or
something, would result in a lighter product? Or perhaps letting the dough
sit longer? Perhaps adding some ingredient that's not mentioned in the
instructions, like sugar?

Anyone else use the basic methodology, above, and get a non-dense result?

Or
is that just the way of things?!


Hmmm...my first thought would have been the higher protein flour being
the problem, but it sounds like the result is the same with regular
flour.

My second guess would be too little water. A wetter dough might help.

Third guess is...Are you just kneading with the clock, or are you
kneading until the dough changes to become very smooth, shiny and
elastic? With good gluten development the bread can hold more air and
thus be lighter.

A second kneading will produce a finer crumb, not necessarily a lighter
texture.

You might also be sure to let the dough rise fully before baking. Let
the next batch rise a bit longer and see if that makes a difference.

marcella
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 06:07 AM
chembake
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You are an Englishman I suppose....therefore your basic bread is not
sweet and your normal doughs are less rich than the North American
version.

always follow the instructions to the letter. Kneading takes 10 minutes,


If the dough appears dense, it can be it needs s more kneading /dough
development and also needs more fermentation. before you divide it ,
mold and proof.
You are using a strong flour and that animal kneads more" rough
treatment" or kneading to attain the desired dough development.

I wonder if a *second* kneading, or
something, would result in a lighter product?


certainly

Perhaps adding some ingredient that's not mentioned in the
instructions, like sugar?


The Brits are not known to add sugar into their basic doughs.
Besides English flour are known for its high diastatic activity( can
provide sufficient sugars for the yeast to "munch " on.)
Just give it a proper kneading,check for' window pane' and give it
prolonged fermentation with knock down in between to allow the gluten
to stretched to the limit and hence will result in better volume and
lighter textured bread.

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 07:15 AM
Noises Off
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I Knead the Dough wrote:
Yes . . . . and hello to you all!

This post's about the hand-baking of white bread. I've made quite a few,
now, and whereas I'm very happy with the *taste* of the finished product,
it's in the *texture* department that I feel improvements could be made in.

I'm from the UK, and I tend to use the 'Super Strong' white bread flour made
by the Hovis company (though I've also used the standard-grade stuff by the
same firm), and their 'Fast Action' yeast, which only requires one "kneading
and proving".

I always follow the instructions to the letter. Kneading takes 10 minutes,
after which I let it "double in size" (that's *so* specific!). As it's still
summer, that usually means I allow it to sit for about an hour-and-a-half,
at room temperature, before I pop it into the oven for half an hour (230
C). In winter, I'll place the dough somewhere warm.

When finished, it looks good, and tastes good. The problem is that it tends
to be a little . . . . well . . . . "denser" than the uncut loaves I can buy
from a baker. Nothing wrong with that, as such, but I'd really like to try
and aim for something a little lighter, while still keeping the great taste.

Question is - is this possible? I wonder if a *second* kneading, or
something, would result in a lighter product? Or perhaps letting the dough
sit longer? Perhaps adding some ingredient that's not mentioned in the
instructions, like sugar?

Anyone else use the basic methodology, above, and get a non-dense result? Or
is that just the way of things?!


This is exactly the same problem I had when I started making
bread. Solved by:

Switching to an other brand of flour
Using a traditional method with two rises
Using ordinary dried yeast rather than the instant kind



I now use Tesco own brand bread flour. It is cheap and, for
me, produces better bread than Hovis.

To be honest I didn't try very much with instant yeast, Its
just that it seems to solve some problem that I don't have.
For some reason I rather went off it when I noticed it
contained Plaster of Paris.

It is important to remember that the amount of water
controls how much the dough rises. The more water the higher
it will rise. The downside is that the dough gets more
difficult to work.

Have a look at alt.bread.recipes they are nice people and
the FAQ will teach you more than you ever wanted to know.


Noises Off




  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 08:47 AM
Mite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I Knead the Dough wrote:

I always follow the instructions to the letter. Kneading takes 10 minutes,
after which I let it "double in size" (that's *so* specific!).


As a side question... I have always wondered when I see "double in
size", is it meant that the volume of the dough should double in size,
- meaning that the diameter increases by a mere 26%, - or does it mean
that the diameter should double in size, meaning that the volume of the
dough actually increases by a factor 8? I saw this instruction written
in many places, but nowhere is it explained what is meant by it. My
guess - seeing what my dough does - is that it is the second one (the
diameter doubles in size), except as it tends to increase more in size
laterally, the increase in volume is probably nearer to 4 or 6 than 8.
Any thoughts?

Mite
http://www.shopncook.com



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 08:52 AM
Reg
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mite wrote:

As a side question... I have always wondered when I see "double in
size", is it meant that the volume of the dough should double in size,
- meaning that the diameter increases by a mere 26%, - or does it mean
that the diameter should double in size, meaning that the volume of the
dough actually increases by a factor 8? I saw this instruction written
in many places, but nowhere is it explained what is meant by it. My
guess - seeing what my dough does - is that it is the second one (the
diameter doubles in size), except as it tends to increase more in size
laterally, the increase in volume is probably nearer to 4 or 6 than 8.
Any thoughts?


By double in size it's meant double in volume.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 12:37 PM
Randall Nortman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-09-14, Janet Bostwick wrote:

"Randall Nortman" wrote in message
link.net...
[I'm redirecting follow-ups to rec.food.baking, which is the best
group for this discussion. My comments are inline below.]

The best group for this discussion is alt.bread.recipes


Is it? Nobody has posted a recipe in this thread yet -- we're
discussing general baking techniques, which seems like just the thing
for rec.food.baking. (If there were a rec.food.baking.bread, that
would be better.)

Of course, the real reason I didn't redirect to alt.bread.recipes is
that I don't follow that group, so I'm not familiar with what goes on
there. Browsing the last few posts, though, I do see that it's quite
a bit more than just recipes, so maybe this would be appropriate
there. Perhaps I'll have to start following that group as well.

Not trying to start a flame war here, just trying to find my way.

--
Randall
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 12:48 PM
Randall Nortman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-09-14, Reg wrote:
Mite wrote:

As a side question... I have always wondered when I see "double in
size", is it meant that the volume of the dough should double in size,
- meaning that the diameter increases by a mere 26%, - or does it mean
that the diameter should double in size, meaning that the volume of the
dough actually increases by a factor 8? I saw this instruction written
in many places, but nowhere is it explained what is meant by it. My
guess - seeing what my dough does - is that it is the second one (the
diameter doubles in size), except as it tends to increase more in size
laterally, the increase in volume is probably nearer to 4 or 6 than 8.
Any thoughts?


By double in size it's meant double in volume.


And if you want to do that accurately, do it in a translucent or
transparent straight-sided container (not a bowl with sloping sides,
press the dough into it so the top is flat, and mark the starting
height with marker or a piece of tape. Because the sides are
straight, you know that when the height is double, the volume is
double. You can get cylindrical food-safe plastic containers with
lids in 2-, 4-, and 6-qt sizes (in the US) from restaurant supply
stores, which are perfect for this task.

But as others have said, recipes tell you to go for a particular
volume increase because it's easier than explaining how to tell when
dough is properly risen, which takes some experience and is best
taught in person. The brief explanation is usually that fully-risen
dough will not spring back quickly when you make indentations in it
with your fingertips (trim nails, please). How well this test works
depends a lot on the nature of the dough you're working with -- for
the OP's type of dough (all white flour, straight dough, mid-range
hydration, I'm guessing), it should work pretty well as a first
approximation.

--
Randall
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 01:00 PM
Randall Nortman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-09-14, Vox Humana wrote:
[...]
The advice you got was sound, but here is my take. If you want fluffy bread
with an even crumb, you have to do the opposite of what is recommended for
"good" bread. I would use all-purpose flour, use a generous amount of
sugar, add some bland oil, use lots of yeast, let it rise in a warm place,
let the formed loaf nearly over-proof before baking. I know that people
will be horrified at that advice, but it does produce a product that is
fairly close to "Wonder Bread." It is the advice I give people who want
recreate the rolls they used to eat in the school cafeteria.

For about 450gm of flour (3 1/2 cups or a pound), I might use two
packets or a heaping tablespoon of instant yeast, two teaspoons of
salt, two tablespoon sugar, three tablespoons vegetable oil, and
enough rather warm milk (115F - 120F) to produce a slightly sticky
dough. I knead in the food processor or stand mixer, but you could
do it by hand. Round-up the dough and let it rise in an oiled bowl
in a warm location until double - about an hour. Deflate, form into
a loaf or rolls, and let rise until double again. Bake at 400 for
35-540 minutes for the loaf and at 350 for 25-30 minutes for the
rolls.

[...]

That's a very good recipe for "very bad" bread, at least the American
version of it, and the OP should note that even if this is the kind of
bread you want to make, having two rising periods (as in the recipe
above) is a good idea. Even if the rises are warm and quick, it will
be better than just having a single rise. Using fast-acting yeast and
warm liquid, I would be surprised if the first rise took even an hour
-- probably closer to 45 minutes. The second rise, after shaping,
should be about that long as well. This will depend on lots of
factors, of course, so let the timer be a reminder only, not a master.

The OP should also note that "Bake at 400" means "Bake at 400F", which
is about 200C.

The bread will be light and bland with a uniform, fine crumb and
have a yeasty flavor and soft crust. It will be the antithesis of
artisan bread.


But don't feel bad about making it. Fresh-baked commercial-style
bread made at home can still be better than the commercially-baked
version you get in the store, and it's not much effort, so it's still
worthwhile. It ought to be cheaper, too.

--
Randall
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-09-2005, 12:02 PM
Mite
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Reg wrote:

Mite wrote:

As a side question... I have always wondered when I see "double in
size", is it meant that the volume of the dough should double in size,
- meaning that the diameter increases by a mere 26%, - or does it mean
that the diameter should double in size, meaning that the volume of the
dough actually increases by a factor 8? I saw this instruction written
in many places, but nowhere is it explained what is meant by it. My
guess - seeing what my dough does - is that it is the second one (the
diameter doubles in size), except as it tends to increase more in size
laterally, the increase in volume is probably nearer to 4 or 6 than 8.
Any thoughts?


By double in size it's meant double in volume.


Thank you, Reg!

Are you sure that it is really what is meant? In all the web sites I
could find with pictures of bread rising, the dough diameter had
increased by 50% or more, which corresponds to 3.4 times (or more) the
original volume.
See for example:
http://www.fabulousfoods.com/school/...eadmaking.html
http://www.sourdoughhome.com/pfbakingintro2.html

From the pictures in both sites, I estimate the dough volume increased

by about 4, although they write that the size doubled. I found several
other sites with a similar increase in volume. Either the site authors
don't know how to make bread, or there is a misunderstanding about the
meaning of "double size".

Mite
http://www.shopncook.com



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One damn dense bean notbob General Cooking 11 19-06-2013 09:20 PM
But I want DENSE dumplins! levelwave General Cooking 22 30-01-2008 04:16 AM
'Dense' Bread - Or Is It Me?! I Knead the Dough General Cooking 18 20-09-2005 07:51 PM
bread too dense judith Baking 2 17-04-2004 06:42 PM
bread too dense Vox Humana Baking 6 07-04-2004 04:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017