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?!

[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

"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.

> "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

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.

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

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

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

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

"Why don't you just purchase bread already made at the store like
everyone else?"

chas



<html><body bgcolor="black"


text="white"></html>

said:

> "Why don't you just purchase bread already made at the store like
> everyone else?"

Maybe because they prefer higher quality bread? Just a guess.

Carol

said:

> <html><body bgcolor="black"
>
>
> text="white"></html>

I have another question, Chuck. Why do you still post in html when 16,000
people have asked you not to? Just curious.

Carol

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 i=
n=2E
>
> I'm from the UK, and I tend to use the 'Super Strong' white bread flour m=
ade
> by the Hovis company (though I've also used the standard-grade stuff by t=
he
> same firm), and their 'Fast Action' yeast, which only requires one "knead=
ing
> 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 st=
ill
> 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=
=B0
> C). In winter, I'll place the dough somewhere warm.
>
> When finished, it looks good, and tastes good. The problem is that it ten=
ds
> 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 tas=
te.
>
> 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?!

Without your recipe all anyone can offer is {{{{wild}}}} specualtion.

Sheldon

wrote:

> "Why don't you just purchase bread already made at the store like
> everyone else?"

Not everyone else purchases bread in a store. I haven't for years and
have no desire to do so. IMO, it is about quality and store bought
bread just doesn't have it. You might as well be eating fluffy glue.
Now, I can make a nice 12 grain bread that will seriously knock your
socks off. I use the breadmaker on dough setting then transfer the
dough to a breadpan and let rise. I bake it in the oven. The eye
appeal and smell are absolutely amazing and it is a lot cheaper than the
$2 per loaf in the store. I can make specialty breads and our own *my
recipe* breads using tomatoes or apples or other fruits for breads you
couldn't buy in the stores at all. Then I make the breadmaker work
harder by making pizza dough (the best around so I'm told), pita bread,
doughnuts, pretzels, and cinnamon rolls. There's likely more but I will
guarantee you the quality is always higher than can be commercially
bought and the price is always lower.

>
> chas
>
>
>
> <html><body bgcolor="black"
>
>
> text="white"></html>
>

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> said:
>
>
>><html><body bgcolor="black"
>>
>>
>>text="white"></html>
>
>
> I have another question, Chuck. Why do you still post in html when 16,000
> people have asked you not to? Just curious.
>
> Carol
He's still trying to get his head around the *quality* is the end goal
of breadmaking. Being a webbie, the html just comes with the territory.
If he can't figure out how to turn html off, I would really question
his cooking skills especially when it comes to following recipes

kr_gentner wrote:

> "~patches~" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>He's still trying to get his head around the *quality* is the end goal of
>>breadmaking. Being a webbie, the html just comes with the territory. If
>>he can't figure out how to turn html off, I would really question his
>>cooking skills especially when it comes to following recipes
>
>
> Html is not the default setting for webtv. You actually have to either
> copy/paste it in or learn how to write it. Hubby had a webtv for years, he
> finally gave it up in favor of digital tv.
>
> You don't actully have to follow a recipe exactly to make bread either.
> Well, unless you're using a bread machine.

I don't follow recipes period except for canning certain items and even
those are few and far between. I'm a bit of a rebel that way. Jams &
jellies need a certain amount of fruit to sugar with the pectin but
there's nothing saying I can't fortify the mixture with a little rum,
brandy, or wine When I make bread using a bread machine, the primary
purpose is to use the machine as a mixing and proofing box for most
loaves. Believe me, I toss in things just to see what the result is.
One of our best loaves involves a mistake in where I tossed the egg in
instead of keeping it for a wash. Great loaf and one that I've repeated
often. Then there's tossing cherry tomatoes and fresh herbs in for a
very nice modification with the end result being an herby pretty deep
pinkish loaf. I don't like white sugar so most recipes will be modified
to use honey rather than sugar and most recipes will have salt removed
or reduced even in breadmaking. I can't remember the last time I used
white sugar in breadmaking even though most recipes call for it.
Breadmaking is like everything else. Tinker and see what you get. You
might like the results and at the very least you learn from your mistakes.
>
> Kathy
>
>

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...

> He's still trying to get his head around the *quality* is the end goal of
> breadmaking. Being a webbie, the html just comes with the territory. If
> he can't figure out how to turn html off, I would really question his
> cooking skills especially when it comes to following recipes

Html is not the default setting for webtv. You actually have to either
copy/paste it in or learn how to write it. Hubby had a webtv for years, he
finally gave it up in favor of digital tv.

You don't actully have to follow a recipe exactly to make bread either.
Well, unless you're using a bread machine.

Kathy

On 13 Sep 2005 22:07:46 -0700, in rec.food.cooking, chembake wrote:

>
>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.

My British wife uses honey, malt syrup, molasses, etc. normally in our
bread.

Try a bread machine, we get light bread out of ours!

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

Sheldon wrote:

> Without your recipe all anyone can offer is {{{{wild}}}} specualtion.
>
> Sheldon

I would disagree....a recipe is not usually the reason for product
variation... the technique being applied , counts..
In fact having more recipes will lead to confusion that( will make you
speculate) supposing the results is not what you expected and will
make you think whether that particular recipe is right or wrong..