So I made some bread yesterday. Used about 80 percent white and 20
percent whole wheat flour. The dough was really miserable stuff - sticky
and gooey, just didn't want to hold together. Didn't rise much after it
was shaped, either, just spread a bit. And not much oven spring at all.
Hmm. Well, I did let the sponge sit for probably too long, and maybe I
did use more whole wheat than usual, but still.

This morning I tasted the bread. Oh. Well, now I know why you add salt
to the dough.

-John-

On Feb 28, 6:52 am, John White > wrote:
> So I made some bread yesterday. Used about 80 percent white and 20
> percent whole wheat flour. The dough was really miserable stuff - sticky
> and gooey, just didn't want to hold together. Didn't rise much after it
> was shaped, either, just spread a bit. And not much oven spring at all.
> Hmm. Well, I did let the sponge sit for probably too long, and maybe I
> did use more whole wheat than usual, but still.
>
> This morning I tasted the bread. Oh. Well, now I know why you add salt
> to the dough.
>
> -John-

It probably all stems from omitting the salt. Without salt the dough
stays "sticky and gooey". The gluten doesn't mature well so the dough
stays flabby. Thus, while waiting for it to firm up and rise, it over-
proofs. And... over-proofing occurs more easily without salt...
because salt retards/balances the acid build.

So... no salt = bad gluten = doesn't trap gas = more proofing time =
glop.

In article .com>,
"Will" > wrote:

> On Feb 28, 6:52 am, John White > wrote:
> > So I made some bread yesterday. Used about 80 percent white and 20
> > percent whole wheat flour. The dough was really miserable stuff - sticky
> > and gooey, just didn't want to hold together. Didn't rise much after it
> > was shaped, either, just spread a bit. And not much oven spring at all.
> > Hmm. Well, I did let the sponge sit for probably too long, and maybe I
> > did use more whole wheat than usual, but still.
> >
> > This morning I tasted the bread. Oh. Well, now I know why you add salt
> > to the dough.
> >
> > -John-
>
> It probably all stems from omitting the salt. Without salt the dough
> stays "sticky and gooey". The gluten doesn't mature well so the dough
> stays flabby. Thus, while waiting for it to firm up and rise, it over-
> proofs. And... over-proofing occurs more easily without salt...
> because salt retards/balances the acid build.
>
> So... no salt = bad gluten = doesn't trap gas = more proofing time =
> glop.

Oh yeah, no question that the problem was the lack of salt. The other
stuff was just the rationalizations I was going through before I tasted
it.

"Will" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 28, 6:52 am, John White > wrote:
>> So I made some bread yesterday. Used about 80 percent white and 20
>> percent whole wheat flour. The dough was really miserable stuff - sticky
>> and gooey, just didn't want to hold together. Didn't rise much after it
>> was shaped, either, just spread a bit. And not much oven spring at all.
>> Hmm. Well, I did let the sponge sit for probably too long, and maybe I
>> did use more whole wheat than usual, but still.
>>
>> This morning I tasted the bread. Oh. Well, now I know why you add salt
>> to the dough.
>>
>> -John-
>
> It probably all stems from omitting the salt. Without salt the dough
> stays "sticky and gooey". The gluten doesn't mature well so the dough
> stays flabby. Thus, while waiting for it to firm up and rise, it over-
> proofs. And... over-proofing occurs more easily without salt...
> because salt retards/balances the acid build.
>
> So... no salt = bad gluten = doesn't trap gas = more proofing time =
> glop.

Not in my experience. when I've forgotten salt I don't know about it until
the first bite.

The hens don't seem to mind ...

Mary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 28 Feb, 15:33, "Mary Fisher" > wrote:
> Not in my experience. when I've forgotten salt I don't know about it until
> the first bite.
>
> The hens don't seem to mind ...

Yeah I agree Mary, I haven't done it in a while now but I haven't
really noticed any obvious difference that couldn't be for some other
minor reason. I usually find that the bread is more than edible with
some salty butter or something. And yeah the birds don't mind either.

I suspect John, if you had added the salt you still would have had
problems. But that's how we learn.

Jim

In article .com>,
"TG" > wrote:

> On 28 Feb, 15:33, "Mary Fisher" > wrote:
> > Not in my experience. when I've forgotten salt I don't know about it until
> > the first bite.
> >
> > The hens don't seem to mind ...
>
> Yeah I agree Mary, I haven't done it in a while now but I haven't
> really noticed any obvious difference that couldn't be for some other
> minor reason. I usually find that the bread is more than edible with
> some salty butter or something. And yeah the birds don't mind either.
>
> I suspect John, if you had added the salt you still would have had
> problems. But that's how we learn.
>
> Jim

Nope, made some more (with salt included) using identical proportions
and the same starter, and it came out just fine. So now I'm really
puzzled as to why you and Mary have different results. I used 80 percent
KA Bread Flour, 20 percent KA WW flour. Local water is quite soft. It's
clear that, without salt, the gluten in my dough developed badly if at
all. So why are your results different? There's a lesson in there
somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is.

-John-

I also agree with Mary and Jim. The first bite reveals the problem.
I'm also aware that salt can actually interfere with gluten
development, but strengthen it in the final dough, hence the omission
of same along with starter during autolyzes.
One must be certain that all other variables are eliminated before
blaming saltlessness. Look to Tuscany. I am curious to know if you
discover something else. -Erich

On 2 Mar, 16:46, John White > wrote:
...
> > Jim
>
> Nope, made some more (with salt included) using identical proportions
> and the same starter, and it came out just fine. So now I'm really
> puzzled as to why you and Mary have different results. ...There's a lesson in there
> somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is.
>
> -John-

You say the same starter but was it fed since?

Jim

In article . com>,
"TG" > wrote:

> On 2 Mar, 16:46, John White > wrote:
> ..
> > > Jim
> >
> > Nope, made some more (with salt included) using identical proportions
> > and the same starter, and it came out just fine. So now I'm really
> > puzzled as to why you and Mary have different results. ...There's a lesson
> > in there
> > somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is.
> >
> > -John-
>
> You say the same starter but was it fed since?
>
> Jim

Yeah, the usual drill: take it out of the refrigerator, feed it (60 gm
starter, 60 gm flour, 60 gm water), when it's doubled use most of it in
the sponge, feed the rest and put it back in the refrigerator. It works
out so that I never throw away anything much.

I should say that I'm certain that my particular failure was caused by
the lack of salt. I've made dozens of loaves without running into the
same problem, although most of them were straight white flour (IMO white
alone makes better toast, WW plus white makes better sandwiches -
decisions, decisions). So what puzzles me is how some people get decent
results (except for the taste) without salt. Is there some other
ingredient, or some difference in their flour or water, that helps the
gluten develop the structure necessary for bread?

-John-

On Mar 3, 12:28 pm, John White > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "TG" > wrote:
> > On 2 Mar, 16:46, John White > wrote:
> > ..
> > > > Jim
>
> > > Nope, made some more (with salt included) using identical proportions
> > > and the same starter, and it came out just fine. So now I'm really
> > > puzzled as to why you and Mary have different results. ...There's a lesson
> > > in there
> > > somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is.
>
> > > -John-
>
> > You say the same starter but was it fed since?
>
> > Jim
>
> Yeah, the usual drill: take it out of the refrigerator, feed it (60 gm
> starter, 60 gm flour, 60 gm water), when it's doubled use most of it in
> the sponge, feed the rest and put it back in the refrigerator. It works
> out so that I never throw away anything much.
>
> I should say that I'm certain that my particular failure was caused by
> the lack of salt. I've made dozens of loaves without running into the
> same problem, although most of them were straight white flour (IMO white
> alone makes better toast, WW plus white makes better sandwiches -
> decisions, decisions). So what puzzles me is how some people get decent
> results (except for the taste) without salt. Is there some other
> ingredient, or some difference in their flour or water, that helps the
> gluten develop the structure necessary for bread?
>
> -John-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your first note says that you left the sponge sit a little long,
perhaps there's a slight timing difference between the first attempt
and your more recent successful bakes.

I'm curious as to the percentage of whole wheat flour you're using.
Seems like a reasonable amount, but I keep hearing/reading about 100%
whole wheat bread. I tried it once or twice, at 100%, and got
something a little heavier than a piece of lead and about as dense.
Is 100% whole wheat fictional or am I missing some tricks?

In article om>,
"Monte" > wrote:

> On Mar 3, 12:28 pm, John White > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
>
> Your first note says that you left the sponge sit a little long,
> perhaps there's a slight timing difference between the first attempt
> and your more recent successful bakes.
>
> I'm curious as to the percentage of whole wheat flour you're using.
> Seems like a reasonable amount, but I keep hearing/reading about 100%
> whole wheat bread. I tried it once or twice, at 100%, and got
> something a little heavier than a piece of lead and about as dense.
> Is 100% whole wheat fictional or am I missing some tricks?

That's true - I'd guess that the sponge tripled in volume, whereas I
usually proceed when it's doubled, so it might have been over the hill.
But, on reflection, that wouldn't have messed up the gluten development,
which my miserable dough clearly lacked.

My 20 percent whole wheat reflects only my personal taste - more that
that and I like the result less. Some sweetener (e.g., molasses) would
probably give a tastier (to me) result with higher WW content. I notice
that http://www.sourdoughhome.com/100percentwholewheat.html says that
you need to convert your starter to whole wheat, which might well make a
difference. Mine lives on white only.

-John-

"Monte" > wrote in message ps.com...
> On Mar 3, 12:28 pm, John White > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "TG" > wrote:
> > > On 2 Mar, 16:46, John White > wrote:
> > > ..
> > > > > Jim
> >
> > > > Nope, made some more (with salt included) using identical proportions
> > > > and the same starter, and it came out just fine. So now I'm really
> > > > puzzled as to why you and Mary have different results. ....There's a lesson
> > > > in there
> > > > somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is.
> >
> > > > -John-
> >
> > > You say the same starter but was it fed since?
> >
> > > Jim
> >
> > Yeah, the usual drill: take it out of the refrigerator, feed it (60 gm
> > starter, 60 gm flour, 60 gm water), when it's doubled use most of it in
> > the sponge, feed the rest and put it back in the refrigerator. It works
> > out so that I never throw away anything much.
> >
> > I should say that I'm certain that my particular failure was caused by
> > the lack of salt. I've made dozens of loaves without running into the
> > same problem, although most of them were straight white flour (IMO white
> > alone makes better toast, WW plus white makes better sandwiches -
> > decisions, decisions). So what puzzles me is how some people get decent
> > results (except for the taste) without salt. Is there some other
> > ingredient, or some difference in their flour or water, that helps the
> > gluten develop the structure necessary for bread?
> >
> > -John-- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Your first note says that you left the sponge sit a little long,
> perhaps there's a slight timing difference between the first attempt
> and your more recent successful bakes.
>
> I'm curious as to the percentage of whole wheat flour you're using.
> Seems like a reasonable amount, but I keep hearing/reading about 100%
> whole wheat bread. I tried it once or twice, at 100%, and got
> something a little heavier than a piece of lead and about as dense.
> Is 100% whole wheat fictional or am I missing some tricks?
>

"Monte" > wrote in message ps.com...

> [ ... ] (trimmed!)

> but I keep hearing/reading about 100% whole wheat bread. I
> tried it once or twice, at 100%, and got something a little heavier
> than a piece of lead and about as dense. Is 100% whole wheat
> fictional or am I missing some tricks?

The easiest and best way to make sourdough bread is with white
bread flour. Whole-wheat bread, or rye-, with only the mentioned
flour seems very honest and straightforward, however practically
impossible. Innate taste of whole grain flour wipes out the subtleties
of sourdough flavor, except for rye sourdoughs, which live in a world
of their own.

I make some very nice, fluffy, mostly whole-wheat bread in a bread
machine, but it works primarily on account of 1/3 bromated white
bread flour. That wee bit of bromated bread flour is a really good
trick which so far no one has picked up on, account of the inherent
evilness of nasty chemicals in bread. The second trick is the use of the
bread machine, which kneads the bjesus out of the prickly dough,
and the main trick, of course, is to use bakers' yeast, as opposed to
sourdough, because no one could taste the sourdough flavors in that
bread on account of the overwhelming whole-wheat taste.

http://www.prettycolors.com/bread_cu...MWW/index.html

Here is another trick, herewith demonstrated. Posts can be made a
heck-of-a-lot less messy by trimming irrelevant quoted material.
Another really good trick is keeping linebreaks being spuriously
inserted in quoted lines. That is really hard. Noobies can't never
loin it.

--
Dicky

John White wrote:
> I notice
> that http://www.sourdoughhome.com/100percentwholewheat.html says that
> you need to convert your starter to whole wheat, which might well make a
> difference. Mine lives on white only.
>
The reason to feed the starter on whole wheat is to have 100% whole
wheat bread. If you feed the starter on white flour, your bread won't
be 100% whole wheat.

If you just want a nice bread and aren't concerned about whether or not
it is 100% whole wheat, then using a white flour fed starter is just
fine. It may, in fact, produce a better bread than the 100% whole wheat
recipe. But I have found there are many people who are more concerned
about whether or not their bread is 100% whole wheat than if it actually
a good bread.

Mike


--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is having.

My experience with leaving out the salt in sourdough was that it rose and
baked fine, but it tasted lousy..I was trying to figure out what I did and
then it hit me..DUH!
I salted the buttered slices and it was edible, but not great.
My water is very hard here though, I wonder if that makes a difference, I
vaguely recall reading someplace that when using hard water one can get away
with less salt. Maybe one day I'll try baking with distilled water with and
without salt and see what happens..

Mike S.

"John White" > wrote in message news:jccw-> Nope,
made some more (with salt included) using identical proportions
> and the same starter, and it came out just fine. So now I'm really
> puzzled as to why you and Mary have different results. I used 80 percent
> KA Bread Flour, 20 percent KA WW flour. Local water is quite soft. It's
> clear that, without salt, the gluten in my dough developed badly if at
> all. So why are your results different? There's a lesson in there
> somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is.
>
> -John-

In article >,
"Mike S." > wrote:

> My experience with leaving out the salt in sourdough was that it rose and
> baked fine, but it tasted lousy..I was trying to figure out what I did and
> then it hit me..DUH!
> I salted the buttered slices and it was edible, but not great.
> My water is very hard here though, I wonder if that makes a difference, I
> vaguely recall reading someplace that when using hard water one can get away
> with less salt. Maybe one day I'll try baking with distilled water with and
> without salt and see what happens..
>
> Mike S.
>
> "John White" > wrote in message news:jccw-> Nope,
> made some more (with salt included) using identical proportions
> > and the same starter, and it came out just fine. So now I'm really
> > puzzled as to why you and Mary have different results. I used 80 percent
> > KA Bread Flour, 20 percent KA WW flour. Local water is quite soft. It's
> > clear that, without salt, the gluten in my dough developed badly if at
> > all. So why are your results different? There's a lesson in there
> > somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is.
> >
> > -John-

Interesting data point. A little Googling indicates that you need salt
to get gluten to do the right thing, but "salt" doesn't necessarily mean
NaCl. Some of the things that make water hard (carbonates, sulfates,
....?) may have the same effect. Incidentally, Wikipedia says that the
water in England is generally very hard. No wonder different folks get
different results!

-John-

"John White" > wrote in message news:jccw-

>
> Interesting data point. A little Googling indicates that you need salt
> to get gluten to do the right thing,

Google isn't always right. It's like the BBC!

My hero, Elizabeth David, said that dough rising is an exothermic process.
It isn't.

All experts (I'm not one) make mistakes, the wo/man who never made a mistake
never made anything.

> .... Incidentally, Wikipedia says that the
> water in England is generally very hard.

That's not true either. Natural water hardness in England varies
dramatically from ultra soft to ultra hard. Our water in this part of
Yorkshire (it's not the same in all parts of the county) is very soft but
the water company adds four degrees of hardness beause it's a legal
requirement, for our health! We have a son in Wiltshire whose natural water
is so hard that there are free lime scales in cups of tea. They have a water
softener for water-using appliances (which doesn't make the water 100% soft
by any means) but have to have a separate tap for untreated drinking water.
A daughter in Wales uses spring water which is so soft you hardly need soap.

> No wonder different folks get
> different results!
>
Well, all three of us are breadmakers and the water we use doesn't seem to
have any effect on the result.

Omitting salt is a flavour disaster though :-( I'm not going to waste it so
we chew our way through it but it's not nice. The hens always seem to have
more than their usual share though ...

Mary

> -John-

I usually leave adding salt as late as possible in mixing/kneading.
When it is added I can see (in my mixer) the considerable degree to
which it tightens dough, but it will also inhibit further development
of gluten (so therefore add late).

Nobody seems to have listed or questioned the hydration of this rogue
batch of dough? Too much water for the flour mix in question is surely
the most likely explanation for its sloppiness. Even a one percent
change either way can make a break a given mix. Aside from this
leaving it to proof for too long (if it was in any case borderline in
terms of the hydration the mix could take) could undoubtedly allowed
acidity to develop to the extent that gluten strands were eaten/broken
away - and the absence of salt could have contributed to this.

Maybe you didn't change your hydration but did change your flour brand
or mix? A change of flour brand could easily result in a 5% difference
in water to be used to achieve the same consistency dough, even
between white flour brands both purporting to be 'strong'.

I know its not the case here, but I find any addition of rye, even a
very small one, to mix can both speed up dough maturation and increase
risk of dough going sloppy very considerably and I normally adjust for
this by considerably reducing hydration compared to a non-rye mix

yours
atty

On 9 Mar, 10:21, "atty" > wrote:
> Nobody seems to have listed or questioned the hydration of this rogue
> batch of dough? Too much water for the flour mix in question is surely
> the most likely explanation for its sloppiness. Even a one percent
> change either way can make a break a given mix. ..
> yours
> atty

Lol Can't wait to hear what the 'just chuck it in' crowd have to say
about that. lol. Even my scales are smiling about that one atty.

Jim

atty wrote:
> I usually leave adding salt as late as possible in mixing/kneading.
> When it is added I can see (in my mixer) the considerable degree to
> which it tightens dough, but it will also inhibit further development
> of gluten (so therefore add late).
>
This is actually a topic that is debated a fair amount. Salt acts as an
anti-oxidant, so many bakers suggest adding it early. Adding it late
tends to allow the dough to oxidize in mixing, breaking down the
caratenoids in the flour, and bleaching the dough.

I add my salt at the onset, and have no problems with dough and gluten
development.

Mike
--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

Once seen on road signs all over the United States:
Cheek to cheek
They meant to be
The lights went out
And so did he
He needed
Burma-Shave