Recent posts from Tom, Ken, and Will all attest to the method of minimal
kneading. Where I prefer to use long machine kneading cycles, Tom suggested
that all that is required is a 1 minute mix, a 1 minute knead, and a 2 minute
knead, all by hand and with short rests in between.

So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and Thing 2.

The dough was 66 percent baker's hydration and used 20 percent starter.
The flour was predominantly Wheatmontana White with a handful of whole wheat
thrown in for color and taste.

One of the dough clumps was kneaded in a Kitchen Aid mixer for 12 minutes at
speed-2.

The other was hand kneaded for 1 minute, rested for 2 minutes, then hand
kneaded for 2 minutes.

The loaves rose for 3 hours in the same warm oven. They were then formed into
boulles and put in a cooler for 6 hours at 50-60F.

Then both were baked at the same time on the same stone etc. The finish weighs
were 24 ounces or 1.5 lb, or 681 grams.

The results are shown on the following link (click thumbnails for larger
photos)

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gfb9/Bread/Kneading.html

I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be able
to tell which loaf had less kneading.

Ed Bechtel

"Ed Bechtel" > wrote in message
...
> Recent posts from Tom, Ken, and Will all attest to the method of minimal
> kneading. Where I prefer to use long machine kneading cycles, Tom
suggested
> that all that is required is a 1 minute mix, a 1 minute knead, and a 2
minute
> knead, all by hand and with short rests in between.
>
> So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
> briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and
Thing 2.
>
**snipped**
> I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
> methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be
able
> to tell which loaf had less kneading.

It looks to me like thing 2's crumb is a bit more uneven and I would bet it
was hand kneaded - if I had to bet. However, having been trained as an
economist and therefore as a statistician - there is no appreciable
difference between those two crumb structures which couldn't just be
attributed to randomness.

I personally think those breads look pretty nice. I generally use all 70%
hydration (sometimes even a bit more with WW) but I like the 66% look. It
would be especially useful for sandwhiches - sometimes my mom complains that
mayonaise in her sandwich leaks through my bread (I told if she didn't quit
complaining she would lose the few loaves that I do drop off). Otherwise I
say - good show Ed, those look like quality bread to me - I especially like
the look of your crust. It has that sort of shiny look. Mine doesn't get
that - I think I use the spritzer alot. Plus my loaves are usually covered
in dusting flour.

If nothing - the low energy kneading method requires less output. No
electricity and minimal hand time.

Tom

"Ed Bechtel" wrote in message
...

<snip>

> So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
> briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and
Thing 2.
>
> The dough was 66 percent baker's hydration and used 20 percent starter.
> The flour was predominantly Wheatmontana White with a handful of whole
wheat
> thrown in for color and taste.
>
> One of the dough clumps was kneaded in a Kitchen Aid mixer for 12 minutes
at
> speed-2.
>
> The other was hand kneaded for 1 minute, rested for 2 minutes, then hand
> kneaded for 2 minutes.
>
<snip>

> The results are shown on the following link (click thumbnails for larger
> photos)
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gfb9/Bread/Kneading.html
>
> I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
> methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be
able
> to tell which loaf had less kneading.
>

Ed:

As you say, they both look pretty similar. Initially I was thinking that the
crumb on Thing 1 looked a little more "gelatinous", but that could well be
the photograph as opposed to the bread itself.On the other hand, it looks as
though Thing 2 had a slightly higher rise and the crust looks a bit deeper
in color, but there are other things that could play into that beyond
kneading such as shaping and, again the photograph.

I'm hoping you'll fill us in on the differences you've seen and tasted in
person.

I've never tried experimenting with minimally kneaded dough other than very
highly hydrated dough which I can't really knead. I'm going to mixing up
about five pounds of dough in a bit, Maybe I'll put aside a couple of pounds
and try this myself to see what I come up with.

-Mike

Ed Bechtel wrote:
>
>... The results are shown on the following link ...
>
Nice bread, Ed.

One thing that I found, when trying for big holes and height,
that with slack dough, a little dryer than Ciabatta dough, longer
kneading helped somewhat with the height. The gain was not
significant so I am back to minimal kneading for almost
everthing.
--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

"Charles Perry" > wrote in message =
...

> ... I am back to minimal kneading for almost everthing.

But allowing your dough to fix itself in the fridge overnight
in spite of your neglect?

To all,
Mike was correct. Thing 1 had that gelatinous artifact in the crumb. It also
had the minimum kneading. But the gelatinous appearance was very subtle.

Tom the shiney surface is because I wake up for a snack during the night -
about every 2 hours. At the same time I mist the loaves in the cooler while
they are self-repairing themselves.

Ed Bechtel

Almost forgot.
The loaf that appeared largest, the one I thought would weigh more, actually
weighed 1/2 ounce less. It was Thing 2 with the extensive kneading.

Ed

On 4/22/04 1:44 AM, "Tom Stanton" > wrote:

>
> "Ed Bechtel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Recent posts from Tom, Ken, and Will all attest to the method of minimal
>> kneading. Where I prefer to use long machine kneading cycles, Tom
> suggested
>> that all that is required is a 1 minute mix, a 1 minute knead, and a 2
> minute
>> knead, all by hand and with short rests in between.
>>
>> So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
>> briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and
> Thing 2.
>>
> **snipped**
>> I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
>> methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be
> able
>> to tell which loaf had less kneading.
>
> It looks to me like thing 2's crumb is a bit more uneven and I would bet it
> was hand kneaded - if I had to bet. However, having been trained as an
> economist and therefore as a statistician - there is no appreciable
> difference between those two crumb structures which couldn't just be
> attributed to randomness.
>
> I personally think those breads look pretty nice. I generally use all 70%
> hydration (sometimes even a bit more with WW) but I like the 66% look. It
> would be especially useful for sandwhiches - sometimes my mom complains that
> mayonaise in her sandwich leaks through my bread (I told if she didn't quit
> complaining she would lose the few loaves that I do drop off). Otherwise I
> say - good show Ed, those look like quality bread to me - I especially like
> the look of your crust. It has that sort of shiny look. Mine doesn't get
> that - I think I use the spritzer alot. Plus my loaves are usually covered
> in dusting flour.
>
> If nothing - the low energy kneading method requires less output. No
> electricity and minimal hand time.
>
> Tom
>
>
Ed,

Those are mighty fine looking examples you've posted. I don't think there's
an appreciable difference between the "things" either. Crusts and crumbs are
jewel-like...

It makes me wonder where the "long" kneading dogma originated. I can
understand KitchenAid providing advice for longer time. Who's going to spend
$300 (Kenneth's 20 qt. beast obviously excluded here) if they can flop the
dough on a board for two or three minutes? Still, there has been a
mechanical "develop the gluten" movement for years.

Perhaps my KitchenAid and I are due for a revised accommodation. Good thing
I've got that new stainless-steel-Italian-pasta-laminator attachment to
divert me. The basements in Wisconsin are cold places for early retirement.

Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> rec.food.sourdough mailing list
>
> http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough

"Ed Bechtel" wrote in message
...

> Mike was correct. Thing 1 had that gelatinous artifact in the crumb. It
also
> had the minimum kneading. But the gelatinous appearance was very subtle.

Do I win anything?

There are some things we can't tell from the pictures. On occasion, I've
made bread with a crumb that looked just fine, but it didn't hold together
all that well. For example, it might tear easily when having something
spread on a slice. It hasn't happened often enough for me to try to figure
out why, but I would suspect that it might have something to do with gluten
development which might be related to kneading time. I'm curious as to how
these loaves might differ in ways we might not be able to see in a
photograph.


>At the same time I mist the loaves in the cooler while
> they are self-repairing themselves.

I'm with Dick in that I am a bit skeptical about the idea that the dough
repairs itself with a cool/cold rise. Based on experience, I do believe that
a cool rise has an impact on the bread. I guess, whether that change is
good, bad, or indifferent is up to the individual eating said bread. I
wonder how a similar experiment without the self-repairing cool rise would
be different?

BTW, nice looking bread. I should have said that first time around.

-Mike

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:48:21 -0500, williamwaller
> wrote:

>It makes me wonder where the "long" kneading dogma originated. I can
>understand KitchenAid providing advice for longer time. Who's going to spend
>$300 (Kenneth's 20 qt. beast obviously excluded here) if they can flop the
>dough on a board for two or three minutes? Still, there has been a
>mechanical "develop the gluten" movement for years.

Hi Will,

I would suspect the mass production commercial baking industry.

In that realm, time is money. The alternative to mechanically
activating the gluten (through longer kneading) is a (comparatively)
long period of hydration, or, as it is known around here, "putting the
dough in the fridge for a while."

That time-consuming approach conflicts with the grind it out needs of
factory bakeries.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Dick Adams wrote:
>
> But allowing your dough to fix itself in the fridge overnight
> in spite of your neglect?

My neighbor was wont to claim that his Cheverolet car was so good
that it fixed itself. In fact, he was a mechanical genius and
machines just worked better in his presense. I don't understand
that and I don't understand how broken dough can fix itself in a
refrigerator.

Dough does need to be "developed" to make good bread. With
sourdough you can substitute time for part of the mechanical
development so the critters can do their chemical development of
the dough. I don't think a refrigerator is necessary. Cool room
temperature will do just fine with maybe a strech and fold along
the way.

Regards,

Charles

--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

Here's some more evidence for the "no kneaders". I make my big hole
boule by mixing the ingrediants until the flouris moistened, waiting
for a one hour autolyse and then kneading only long enough to
incorporte the salt. The bread rises fine, has big holes, paper thin
cellular walls, etc. etc.


williamwaller > wrote in message news:<mailman.29.1082645558.229.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com>...
> On 4/22/04 1:44 AM, "Tom Stanton" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Ed Bechtel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Recent posts from Tom, Ken, and Will all attest to the method of minimal
> >> kneading. Where I prefer to use long machine kneading cycles, Tom
> suggested
> >> that all that is required is a 1 minute mix, a 1 minute knead, and a 2
> minute
> >> knead, all by hand and with short rests in between.
> >>
> >> So, last night I made a single batch of dough (about 56 ounces). Mixed it
> >> briefly, and then parted it into two. I named the clumps Thing 1 and
> Thing 2.
> >>
> **snipped**
> >> I was surprised that there was little difference between the two kneading
> >> methods in the final products, but if you look very carefully you may be
> able
> >> to tell which loaf had less kneading.
> >
> > It looks to me like thing 2's crumb is a bit more uneven and I would bet it
> > was hand kneaded - if I had to bet. However, having been trained as an
> > economist and therefore as a statistician - there is no appreciable
> > difference between those two crumb structures which couldn't just be
> > attributed to randomness.
> >
> > I personally think those breads look pretty nice. I generally use all 70%
> > hydration (sometimes even a bit more with WW) but I like the 66% look. It
> > would be especially useful for sandwhiches - sometimes my mom complains that
> > mayonaise in her sandwich leaks through my bread (I told if she didn't quit
> > complaining she would lose the few loaves that I do drop off). Otherwise I
> > say - good show Ed, those look like quality bread to me - I especially like
> > the look of your crust. It has that sort of shiny look. Mine doesn't get
> > that - I think I use the spritzer alot. Plus my loaves are usually covered
> > in dusting flour.
> >
> > If nothing - the low energy kneading method requires less output. No
> > electricity and minimal hand time.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> Ed,
>
> Those are mighty fine looking examples you've posted. I don't think there's
> an appreciable difference between the "things" either. Crusts and crumbs are
> jewel-like...
>
> It makes me wonder where the "long" kneading dogma originated. I can
> understand KitchenAid providing advice for longer time. Who's going to spend
> $300 (Kenneth's 20 qt. beast obviously excluded here) if they can flop the
> dough on a board for two or three minutes? Still, there has been a
> mechanical "develop the gluten" movement for years.
>
> Perhaps my KitchenAid and I are due for a revised accommodation. Good thing
> I've got that new stainless-steel-Italian-pasta-laminator attachment to
> divert me. The basements in Wisconsin are cold places for early retirement.
>
> Will
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rec.food.sourdough mailing list
> >
> > http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough

"Charles Perry" > wrote in message =
...

> My neighbor was wont to claim that his Chevrolet car was so good
> that it fixed itself. =20

It is a long time since chevys here, but when it comes to Toyotas I can
tell you that they do very well on oil changes, and generally suffer =
from
"scheduled maintenance", as would our checkbook. If you do your
own oil changes, you always know where the drain plug is.

> ... I don't understand how broken dough can fix itself in a
> refrigerator.

Neither do I, really. But I mentioned some apparent evidence at
samartha.net/SD/.

It seems intuitive that stuff will conglomerate better when cooler.

> Dough does need to be "developed" to make good bread. With
> sourdough you can substitute time for part of the mechanical
> development so the critters can do their chemical development of
> the dough. I don't think a refrigerator is necessary. Cool room
> temperature will do just fine with maybe a stretch and fold along
> the way.

Perhaps it is a process which has a negative temperature coefficient,
or one which is relatively independent of temperature. In either case,
it would gain on fermentative processes faster colder.

Dick Adams wrote:
>
> Perhaps it is a process which has a negative temperature coefficient,
> or one which is relatively independent of temperature.

Of course, since I am officially ignorant, I don't really know
the science behind the fact. All I know is what works in my
kitchen learned by trial and much error. Plus, of course that
which I learned from my grandmother and more recently Ticker.

I will say, though, my world view will be less shaken if the
truth turns out that it is just a different temperature vs.
activity curve rather than a negative coefficient or activity
independant of temperature.

Regards,

Charles

--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

jonathan sands wrote:
>
> ... I make my big hole boule by mixing the ingrediants until the flouris moistened, > waiting for a one hour autolyse and then kneading only long enough to
> incorporte the salt. The bread rises fine, has big holes, paper thin
> cellular walls, etc. etc.
>

I would appreciate more details. Maybe even a picture. There
are lots of people interested in the secrets of the elusivwe big
hole boule.

Regards,

Charles
--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

Hey, I was just kidding about my loaves "self-repairing" in the overnight
cooler. I saw some banter about dough fixing itself which I did not understand
and was making a glib remark - almost never to happen again.

I put my loaves in a cooler ice chest so that I don't have to bake at 11:30 at
night and so I can mist them for that San Francisco style blister crust. I
don't think it improves my crumb and I can't tell the difference in flavor. The
only time I noticed a big change in flavor (besides using whole wheat or rye
flour) I suspect I was misting the loaves with the vinegar spray bottle that is
identical to the water bottle.

Ed Bechtel

On 4/22/04 10:54 PM, "Ed Bechtel" > wrote:

> Hey, I was just kidding about my loaves "self-repairing" in the overnight
> cooler. I saw some banter about dough fixing itself which I did not
> understand
> and was making a glib remark - almost never to happen again.
>
> I put my loaves in a cooler ice chest so that I don't have to bake at 11:30 at
> night and so I can mist them for that San Francisco style blister crust. I
> don't think it improves my crumb and I can't tell the difference in flavor.
> The
> only time I noticed a big change in flavor (besides using whole wheat or rye
> flour) I suspect I was misting the loaves with the vinegar spray bottle that
> is
> identical to the water bottle.
>
> Ed Bechtel

Does that mean the shrine I've constructed in the refrigerator is for
naught?

Will



> _______________________________________________
> rec.food.sourdough mailing list
>
> http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough

Ed Bechtel wrote:

> Hey, I was just kidding about my loaves "self-repairing" in the overnight
> cooler. I saw some banter about dough fixing itself which I did not
> understand and was making a glib remark - almost never to happen again.
>

>
> Ed Bechtel

Why do your post show up twice?

Joe Umstead

"Charles Perry" > wrote in message =
...

> I will say, though, my world view will be less shaken if the
> truth turns out that it is just a different temperature vs.
> activity curve rather than a negative coefficient or activity
> independant of temperature.

Could we then say(?): A process which is positively dependent=20
upon decreasing temperature, or independent of temperature.

Description of conglomeration (agglutination) as activity seems
inappropriate. Would one so describe the setting* of plaster or
concrete?

Observe the cat(!) -- her world view is not affected in the least by
semantically discombobulation.

* Setting of plaster and concrete is exothermic. Most reports=20
suggest that gluten development, on the other hand, requires the=20
investment of energy, as mechanical energy. Thus it appears quite
enigmatic that gluten is able to develop itself when the temperature
is low.

---
DickA

Dick Adams wrote:
>
> Could we then say(?): A process which is positively dependent
> upon decreasing temperature, or independent of temperature.

No. I was not arguing semantics, I was opining that , within
limits, the bread reactions probably have a positive correlation
to temperature. You should probably ask Roy if you want a
scientific explanation.


> Description of conglomeration (agglutination) as activity seems
> inappropriate. Would one so describe the setting* of plaster or
> concrete?

In addition to the gluetin formed merely by adding water, it is
my understanding that the process is aided and abetted by acids
and enzymes produced by sourdough critters( you will have to ask
Roy for confirmation ). I think it is entirely appropriate to
call the life process of sourdough critters, activity, as well as
the results of that process.

Us poets have plenty of license to describe the setting of cement
as activity.


>
> Observe the cat(!) -- her world view is not affected in the least by
> semantically discombobulation.

Well, of course. I quote from the book "Fang Shui" by Catfucius.
"There is great disorder in the Heavens-- but the cat still
naps".

>
> * Setting of plaster and concrete is exothermic. Most reports
> suggest that gluten development, on the other hand, requires the
> investment of energy, as mechanical energy. Thus it appears quite
> enigmatic that gluten is able to develop itself when the temperature
> is low.

I would find it enigamatic only if it developed faster at, say
50F, than 60F.

Regards,

Charles
--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

Ed Bechtel wrote:
>
> ... and was making a glib remark - almost never to happen again.

You make nice looking Bread, you are qualified to say anything
you wish, glib or otherwise. I was just responding to Dick, Who
I think was pulling my chain.
>
> I put my loaves in a cooler ice chest so that I don't have to bake at 11:30 at
> night and so I can mist them for that San Francisco style blister crust. I
> don't think it improves my crumb and I can't tell the difference in flavor.

Sounds right to me. I have always retarded the dough to get the
red/brown tone and blistered crust. Some claim better bread by
refrigerating the dough, but I make a more modest claim that, for
me, slower fermenting is better than faster.

Regards,
--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

Charles Perry > wrote in message =
...

> ... I have always retarded the dough to get the red/brown=20
> tone and blistered crust.

Had that been always true, you would have no inkling of how=20
it might be otherwise. =20

> Some claim better bread by refrigerating the dough, but=20
> I make a more modest claim that, for me, slower fermenting=20
> is better than faster.

Most modestly of all, I suggest that a short, warm fermentation, in=20
some or many respects, may have the same results as a longer=20
cooler fermentation. One of those would be the availability, for =20
Maillard browning, of sugars, which are depleted as fermentation=20
progresses towards completion.

---
DickA

Joe asks:

<< Why do your post show up twice?

Joe Umstead >>

Ed replies:
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about.

I know very little about newsgroup and browsers. I use AOL to post and read
threads. It is very primitive and displays threads in a linear fashion, not a
heirarchial manner. I don't see duplicates in that reader.

When I use groups.google.rec.food.sourdough via Internet Explorer to view a
long topic displayed as a heirarchial stair case of threads, I also don't see
duplicates.

I have yet to use Outlook or Entourage (mail client) as a newsgroup reader
because my head is full.

What reader do you use?

Do you still see duplicates?



Ed

Charles Perry wrote:
>
> ... I have always retarded the dough to get the
> red/brown tone and blistered crust...

Ed, I have been corrected. I should have been more clear and
said:

I discovered that I could get a blistered crust and usually a
nice redish brown tone to the crust by retarding a formed
sourdough boule for a few hours. Since that discovery, I have
always used the cool or cold retarding method when the blistered
crust was my objective.

Regards,

Charles
--
Charles Perry
Reply to:

** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **

"jonathan sands" > wrote in message
om...
> Here's some more evidence for the "no kneaders". I make my big hole
> boule by mixing the ingrediants until the flouris moistened, waiting
> for a one hour autolyse and then kneading only long enough to
> incorporte the salt. The bread rises fine, has big holes, paper thin
> cellular walls, etc. etc.
>

Hmmm... I hadn't really thought about it, but that is what we are doing
isn't it? In fact, with short knead times, low amounts of naturally occuring
yeast, and high hydration we are really just doing a form of autolyse?
Granted I add all the ingredients before I start the rest period - its just
like an autolyse. Well, there you go. Learn something new everyday.

Tom

Tom Stanton > wrote in message=20
...

> "jonathan sands" > wrote in message
> om...

> > Here's some more evidence for the "no kneaders". I make my big hole
> > boule by mixing the ingrediants until the flouris moistened, waiting
> > for a one hour autolyse and then kneading only long enough to
> > incorporte the salt. The bread rises fine, has big holes, paper =
thin
> > cellular walls, etc. etc.
=20
> Hmmm... I hadn't really thought about it, but that is what we are =
doing
> isn't it? In fact, with short knead times, low amounts of naturally =
occuring
> yeast, and high hydration we are really just doing a form of autolyse?
> Granted I add all the ingredients before I start the rest period - its =
just
> like an autolyse. Well, there you go. Learn something new everyday.

These short posts are very nice, especially as they point up that=20
things are much simpler than they had seemed, and that holey=20
grail of SD is simply a bluebird in our backyard, for which most=20
of us, in our fury to do things in a very complex manner, have=20
never even looked.

Now that you guys are here, maybe you can explain the mechanism=20
and the expected result of the "autolyse" process. The=20
similarity of the bakers' word "autolyse" to the biochemists' word=20
"autolysis" might convey that an enzymatic digestion is involved.=20
However, the view that is most commonly reflected at r.f.s. is=20
that during the autolyse, some aggregation of glutinous proteins=20
occurs, amounting to passive kneading. Recently opinions have=20
been offered that suggest that autolysis may involve the=20
enzymatic conversion of polysaccharides to sugars. Can some=20
light be shed?=20

---
DickA

On 4/24/04 8:32 AM, "Dick Adams" > wrote:

>
> Tom Stanton > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> "jonathan sands" > wrote in message
>> om...
>
>>> Here's some more evidence for the "no kneaders". I make my big hole
>>> boule by mixing the ingrediants until the flouris moistened, waiting
>>> for a one hour autolyse and then kneading only long enough to
>>> incorporte the salt. The bread rises fine, has big holes, paper thin
>>> cellular walls, etc. etc.
>
>> Hmmm... I hadn't really thought about it, but that is what we are doing
>> isn't it? In fact, with short knead times, low amounts of naturally occuring
>> yeast, and high hydration we are really just doing a form of autolyse?
>> Granted I add all the ingredients before I start the rest period - its just
>> like an autolyse. Well, there you go. Learn something new everyday.
>
> These short posts are very nice, especially as they point up that
> things are much simpler than they had seemed, and that holey
> grail of SD is simply a bluebird in our backyard, for which most
> of us, in our fury to do things in a very complex manner, have
> never even looked.
>
> Now that you guys are here, maybe you can explain the mechanism
> and the expected result of the "autolyse" process. The
> similarity of the bakers' word "autolyse" to the biochemists' word
> "autolysis" might convey that an enzymatic digestion is involved.
> However, the view that is most commonly reflected at r.f.s. is
> that during the autolyse, some aggregation of glutinous proteins
> occurs, amounting to passive kneading. Recently opinions have
> been offered that suggest that autolysis may involve the
> enzymatic conversion of polysaccharides to sugars. Can some
> light be shed?
>
> ---
> DickA


Actually Dick, I think you're on to something, given Autolyse is the verb
form of Autolysis (a noun).

Bye-the-bye, I really like the "bluebird in our backyard" analogy. For me it
means: before we had cereal and bread chemists to deconstruct the "mystery"
and invent all of the garbage in aisle 15 of the supermarket, we had
centuries of superior bread and simple, but real, cracked and flaked grain
cereals.

Who knew Captain Crunch and low-net-carb pretzels would be produced by
Science?

Will
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rec.food.sourdough mailing list
>
> http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough

"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...
snip
maybe you can explain the mechanism
and the expected result of the "autolyse" process.
snip---
DickA

Autolyse:

"Artisan Baking Across America," by Maggie Glezer.
" The term "autolyse" (pronounced AUTO-lees and used as both a noun and
verb) was adopted by Professor Raymond Calvel, the esteemed French
bread-baking teacher and inventor of this somewhat odd but very effective
technique. During the rest time, the flour fully hydrates and its gluten
further develops, encouraged by the absence of: compressed yeast, which
would begin to ferment and acidify the dough(although instant yeast is
included in autolyses lasting no longer than 30 minutes because of its slow
activation): salt, which would cause the gluten to tighten, hindering its
development and hydration; and pre-ferments, which would also acidify the
dough. The flour's improved hydration and gluten development shorten the
mixing time, increase extensibilty (the dough rips less during shaping), and
ultimately result in bread with a creamier colored crumb and more aroma and
sweet wheat flavor.

At the end of the autolyse, the once-rough dough will have greatly smoothed
out and become much more extensible. Salt, compressed yeast, and
pre-ferments are now added and the mixing is continued. While it may seem
strange to add salt directly to a dough, as long as it is finely granulated,
it will quickly dissolve. If you are hand kneading, you can actually feel
the dough tighten and dry when the salt dissolves.

Here is the technical explanation of what's happening during autolyse: The
term "autolyse" means "self-destruction," referring to the proteolytic--or
protein-attacking-enzymes during this hiatus. While it might seem
contradictory to want to dismember gluten when it is supposed to be
developing, it is, in fact, one of mixing's primary steps. When gluten
first forms, it is jumbled together in an uneven manner. During mixing, the
gulten is pulled apart and rebonded into a stronger and more uniform
network. The autolyse facilitates that step without mechanically altering
the dough. The reason acid-producing ingredients like pre-ferments and
compressed yeast are avoided is because these proteolytic enzymes work more
effectively in a more neutral pH environment.

Finally, the bread's color and flavor are improved because the dough is
mixed less, so that less air is beaten into it and, thus, less oxygen.
Oxygen is believed to oxidize the flour's unsaturated fats and bleach its
yellow pigments. The fats are a source of vitamin E and an important source
of flavor. Oxidizing them destroys their vitamin E content and unpleasantly
alters the flavor of the bread."


"The Baker's Companion," King Arthur Flour
"Most of the recipes in this chapter include a step called an autolyse, in
which the flour, starter, and water are combined and allowed to rest for
20-30 minutes before the remaining ingredients are added and the dough is
mixed. This simple step prepares the dough for the mixing or kneading that
follows. When flour and water are first brought together, the gluten is
disorganized and tangled, and it must be mechanically pulled apart by
kneading before it can reassemble into organized long strands. An autolyse
gives naturally occurring enzymes the chance to untangle the gluten, so less
mixing is necessary to develop the dough. Salt and additional yeast, if
used, are not added until after the autolyse, because they tighten the
gluten--just the opposite of what an autolyse accomplishes. An autolyse
also increases the dough's extensibility, which is its ability to stretch
without pulling back like a rubber band. This makes the dough easier to
shape and increases its ability to rise in the oven."

"The Bread Baker's apprentice," Peter Reinhart
"One of the techniques that bakers often use to minimize mixing (and thus to
reduce oxidation that causes natural bleaching of the flour) is to mix the
flour and water for only 4 minutes, enough time to hydrate the flour fully,
and then let the dough rest for 20 minutes. During this resting, or what
the French call the autolyse, the protein molecules complete their hydration
and begin bonding on their own. Then, when the mixing resumes and the other
ingredients are added, it takes only 2 to 4 additional minutes to complete
the mixing process, during which the newly formed gluten molecules continue
to bond to one another in more complex ways."

Janet

williamwaller > wrote in message =
news:mailman.31.1082816688.229.rec.food.sourdough@ mail.otherwhen.com...

> Actually Dick, I think you're on to something, given Autolyse is the =
verb
> form of Autolysis (a noun).

It does not seem to be, as a verb, in the dictionary. Of course, bakers
probably have their own dictionaries.

> Bye-the-bye, I really like the "bluebird in our backyard" analogy.=20

Maybe we should wait to see if these guys can produce any photos. =20
Nothing documents the holes so well as a technically good photo. =20
For instance, see/review my technically good photos of Iggy's=20
bread:

http://www.prettycolors.com/bread%5Fculture/iggys.htm

---
Dick

On 4/24/04 10:34 AM, "Dick Adams" > wrote:

>
> williamwaller > wrote in message
> news:mailman.31.1082816688.229.rec.food.sourdough@ mail.otherwhen.com...
>
>> Actually Dick, I think you're on to something, given Autolyse is the verb
>> form of Autolysis (a noun).
>
> It does not seem to be, as a verb, in the dictionary. Of course, bakers
> probably have their own dictionaries.
>
>> Bye-the-bye, I really like the "bluebird in our backyard" analogy.
>
> Maybe we should wait to see if these guys can produce any photos.
> Nothing documents the holes so well as a technically good photo.
> For instance, see/review my technically good photos of Iggy's
> bread:
>
> http://www.prettycolors.com/bread%5Fculture/iggys.htm
>
> ---
> Dick
>
>
Dick,

Random House Webster's College Dictionary 2nd edition (my mother's
favorite!) is this baker's dictionary.

Now I've got to get back to the kitchen. Some freshly milled grain is down
there autolysing. Wouldn't want to miss the excitement.

Will



>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rec.food.sourdough mailing list
>
> http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:21:08 -0500, williamwaller
> wrote:

>we had
>centuries of superior bread

Hi Will,

That comment intrigues me...

Often, here, and elsewhere, it is suggested that the breads of years
ago were wonderful. One context in which we sometimes see that is in
the romantic notions about the food of the "sourdoughs" of the Yukon.
In fact, many of them starved.

Why do you think the bread of past times was any good at all?

Please understand, I don't challenge the notion. It might have been
wonderful. I simply don't see how we would know...

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On 4/24/04 11:01 AM, "Kenneth" > wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:21:08 -0500, williamwaller
> > wrote:
>=20
>> we had
>> centuries of superior bread
>=20
> Hi Will,
>=20
> That comment intrigues me...
>=20
> Often, here, and elsewhere, it is suggested that the breads of years
> ago were wonderful. One context in which we sometimes see that is in
> the romantic notions about the food of the "sourdoughs" of the Yukon.
> In fact, many of them starved.
>=20
> Why do you think the bread of past times was any good at all?
>=20
> Please understand, I don't challenge the notion. It might have been
> wonderful. I simply don't see how we would know...
>=20
> All the best,


Kenneth,


One cqn visit the Poilane web-site to answer this question. They summarize
their raison-d'etre with one sentence:

"The merit of the Poil=E2ne Company is that it has been able to preserve the
ANCESTRAL techniques of bread making."

After which they discuss the need for preserving "traditional aspects" on
almost any page you view. They are proud of specifying old varieties of
wheat and spelt in their flours. Their ovens are reproductions of the 19th
century classics, etc... I imagine you know much more about this bakery's
philosophy than I do.

We probably agree that Poilane's business and philosophy of quality and
manufacture is one of the benchmarks of our "modern" bread baking world.
Would we agree their inspiration is from the past? And what does that tell
us?

I like what's beneath your question, which to use a big word, has an
epistemological flavor to it. How can we "know" without direct experience?
What constitutes a fact?

But then... isn't that why we are baking? Milling our own grains? Culturing
our own starters?=20

If the modern analog was superior why would we bother?

Will

=20

<< salt, which would cause the gluten to tighten, >>

Aha! Maybe that explains it.
The two loaves that started this thread looked OK but as I've been slicing and
eating them I've thought neither loaf is as good as I'm accustomed.
Specifically I usually get a higher rise and a lighter less chewey crumb.

Normally I machine mix the dough (and starter) for two minutes, rest for 15-30
minutes, THEN begin adding salt and kneading for 10 or more minutes by machine.

The loaves used for the kneading experiment had the salt added in the beginning
and no significant autolyse.

Maybe that explains the so-so rise and crumb. Or maybe it was bread fairies.

Ed

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:27:35 -0500, williamwaller
> wrote:

>On 4/24/04 11:01 AM, "Kenneth" > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:21:08 -0500, williamwaller
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> we had
>>> centuries of superior bread
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> That comment intrigues me...
>>
>> Often, here, and elsewhere, it is suggested that the breads of years
>> ago were wonderful. One context in which we sometimes see that is in
>> the romantic notions about the food of the "sourdoughs" of the Yukon.
>> In fact, many of them starved.
>>
>> Why do you think the bread of past times was any good at all?
>>
>> Please understand, I don't challenge the notion. It might have been
>> wonderful. I simply don't see how we would know...
>>
>> All the best,
>
>
>Kenneth,
>
>
>One cqn visit the Poilane web-site to answer this question. They summarize
>their raison-d'etre with one sentence:
>
>"The merit of the Poilne Company is that it has been able to preserve the
>ANCESTRAL techniques of bread making."
>
>After which they discuss the need for preserving "traditional aspects" on
>almost any page you view. They are proud of specifying old varieties of
>wheat and spelt in their flours. Their ovens are reproductions of the 19th
>century classics, etc... I imagine you know much more about this bakery's
>philosophy than I do.
>
>We probably agree that Poilane's business and philosophy of quality and
>manufacture is one of the benchmarks of our "modern" bread baking world.
>Would we agree their inspiration is from the past? And what does that tell
>us?
>
>I like what's beneath your question, which to use a big word, has an
>epistemological flavor to it. How can we "know" without direct experience?
>What constitutes a fact?
>
>But then... isn't that why we are baking? Milling our own grains? Culturing
>our own starters?
>
>If the modern analog was superior why would we bother?
>
>Will
>

Hi Will,

No, the Poilne site cannot answer my question either <g>, and for
precisely the same reason that you, and I cannot answer it.

Don't get me wrong, the Poilne bread is very highly regarded for good
reason. It is wonderful.

But none of us know what the breads of hundreds of years ago tasted
like. My own strong suspicion is that they were vastly inferior to the
best that is available today. And that is for several reasons:

We know how to measure and control the temperatures, they did not. We
can produce grain with the characteristics we desire, they baked with
the flour that grew in their area, and, by the way, that was often
contaminated.

You said:

>But then... isn't that why we are baking? Milling our own grains? Culturing
>our own starters?

And to that, I would say that my doing all that has nothing to do with
a desire to return to an earlier time, or technique. I do it because I
end up with better bread, and I enjoy the product, and the process.


>
>If the modern analog was superior why would we bother?

Of course, the worst of modern bread (and much else) is crap. But let
us not confuse inferiority with modernity. I suspect that Poilne's
bread made today is far superior to anything that was available in
France hundreds of years ago.

I am reminded here of a Cajun accordeonist (hmmm interesting... the MS
spellchecker wants an "i" rather than an "e" in there. They don't know
that the "i" goes with the piano key type instrument and the "e" with
the button type that he plays so well...) named Marc Savoy. In an
interview that I saw, he said that he was not trying to become his own
grandfather, but was trying to preserve something beautiful in his
peoples' (current) culture. For me it is much the same.

By the way, I am soon to bake two large loaves of Pain de Mie. Do you
do those?

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On 4/24/04 1:30 PM, "Kenneth" > wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:27:35 -0500, williamwaller
> > wrote:
>=20
>> On 4/24/04 11:01 AM, "Kenneth" > wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:21:08 -0500, williamwaller
>>> > wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> we had
>>>> centuries of superior bread
>>>=20
>>> Hi Will,
>>>=20
>>> That comment intrigues me...
>>>=20
>>> Often, here, and elsewhere, it is suggested that the breads of years
>>> ago were wonderful. One context in which we sometimes see that is in
>>> the romantic notions about the food of the "sourdoughs" of the Yukon.
>>> In fact, many of them starved.
>>>=20
>>> Why do you think the bread of past times was any good at all?
>>>=20
>>> Please understand, I don't challenge the notion. It might have been
>>> wonderful. I simply don't see how we would know...
>>>=20
>>> All the best,
>>=20
>>=20
>> Kenneth,
>>=20
>>=20
>> One cqn visit the Poilane web-site to answer this question. They summari=
ze
>> their raison-d'etre with one sentence:
>>=20
>> "The merit of the Poil=E2ne Company is that it has been able to preserve t=
he
>> ANCESTRAL techniques of bread making."
>>=20
>> After which they discuss the need for preserving "traditional aspects" o=
n
>> almost any page you view. They are proud of specifying old varieties of
>> wheat and spelt in their flours. Their ovens are reproductions of the 19=
th
>> century classics, etc... I imagine you know much more about this bakery'=
s
>> philosophy than I do.
>>=20
>> We probably agree that Poilane's business and philosophy of quality and
>> manufacture is one of the benchmarks of our "modern" bread baking world.
>> Would we agree their inspiration is from the past? And what does that te=
ll
>> us?
>>=20
>> I like what's beneath your question, which to use a big word, has an
>> epistemological flavor to it. How can we "know" without direct experienc=
e?
>> What constitutes a fact?
>>=20
>> But then... isn't that why we are baking? Milling our own grains? Cultur=
ing
>> our own starters?
>>=20
>> If the modern analog was superior why would we bother?
>>=20
>> Will
>>=20
>=20
> Hi Will,
>=20
> No, the Poil=E2ne site cannot answer my question either <g>, and for
> precisely the same reason that you, and I cannot answer it.
>=20
> Don't get me wrong, the Poil=E2ne bread is very highly regarded for good
> reason. It is wonderful.
>=20
> But none of us know what the breads of hundreds of years ago tasted
> like. My own strong suspicion is that they were vastly inferior to the
> best that is available today. And that is for several reasons:
>=20
> We know how to measure and control the temperatures, they did not. We
> can produce grain with the characteristics we desire, they baked with
> the flour that grew in their area, and, by the way, that was often
> contaminated.=20
>=20
> You said:
>=20
>> But then... isn't that why we are baking? Milling our own grains? Cultur=
ing
>> our own starters?
>=20
> And to that, I would say that my doing all that has nothing to do with
> a desire to return to an earlier time, or technique. I do it because I
> end up with better bread, and I enjoy the product, and the process.
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>> If the modern analog was superior why would we bother?
>=20
> Of course, the worst of modern bread (and much else) is crap. But let
> us not confuse inferiority with modernity. I suspect that Poil=E2ne's
> bread made today is far superior to anything that was available in
> France hundreds of years ago.
>=20
> I am reminded here of a Cajun accordeonist (hmmm interesting... the MS
> spellchecker wants an "i" rather than an "e" in there. They don't know
> that the "i" goes with the piano key type instrument and the "e" with
> the button type that he plays so well...) named Marc Savoy. In an
> interview that I saw, he said that he was not trying to become his own
> grandfather, but was trying to preserve something beautiful in his
> peoples' (current) culture. For me it is much the same.
>=20
> By the way, I am soon to bake two large loaves of Pain de Mie. Do you
> do those?
>=20
> All the best,


Kenneth,

I have no particular urge to wear fur, live in a cave, or annoint the past
with the grease of nostalgia either.

But like Poilane, I find that our ancestors were not so very limited by
their technology. I learned that lesson some years ago when I decided to
teach myself to make pre-Columbian or "aboriginal" pottery. The
archaeologists I spoke with uniformly called that ceramic tradition
"primitive". It had crushed sea shell in it! Proof enough! But I learned
that without the shell the pottery could not flex and absorb thermal shock.
Of course, the Indians could not measure heat stress. But I had to admit th=
e
fire proofing solution they developed was elegant: they adjusted the
particle size and pore space of their clay. Somehow the "experts" missed
that one as they categorized the shards by color, surface texture, and so
forth, while the primitive Indians were building for thermal dispersion.
Perspective is a sneaky thing.

My children, fortunately, no longer wonder why I bake. They went to
grandmother's and spent two weeks with Pepperidge Farm and Roman Meal.
Grandmother has been a bit cool to me since the children told her she was
lazy.=20

Haven't made Pain de Mie for a while, not since the yeast days. Mine wasn't
very good. But I love the Poilane formula you shared (fermenting some now)
and am willing to give PdM another shot if you have a good one.


Will=20


=20

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:56:17 -0500, williamwaller
> wrote:

>Haven't made Pain de Mie for a while, not since the yeast days. Mine wasn't
>very good. But I love the Poilane formula you shared (fermenting some now)
>and am willing to give PdM another shot if you have a good one.

Hi Will,

I am just in the process of modifying mine, and will report back
shortly.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Ed Bechtel" > wrote in message
...
> << salt, which would cause the gluten to tighten, >>
>
> Aha! Maybe that explains it.
> The two loaves that started this thread looked OK but as I've been slicing
and
> eating them I've thought neither loaf is as good as I'm accustomed.
> Specifically I usually get a higher rise and a lighter less chewey crumb.
>

Hmmm - the lighter, not so chewy crumb. I always liked the chewiness of the
crumb that my methods produce, but my bread is almost always chewy. I
usually get a really nice rise though - I sometimes have to be careful and
let the loaves proof lon enough, or else I get eruptions in the oven (I hate
that)! I don't put anything (dough or proofing loaves) in cold temperatures
anymore. I like my bread really sour and warmer rises have given me that
type of flavor. Oh well - we live and learn.

Tom

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:27:35 -0500, williamwaller
> > wrote:
>
> >On 4/24/04 11:01 AM, "Kenneth" > wrote:
> Hi Will,
>

** much snipped **

> You said:
>
> >But then... isn't that why we are baking? Milling our own grains?
Culturing
> >our own starters?
>
> And to that, I would say that my doing all that has nothing to do with
> a desire to return to an earlier time, or technique. I do it because I
> end up with better bread, and I enjoy the product, and the process.
>
>
> >
> >If the modern analog was superior why would we bother?
>
> Of course, the worst of modern bread (and much else) is crap. But let
> us not confuse inferiority with modernity. I suspect that Poilne's
> bread made today is far superior to anything that was available in
> France hundreds of years ago.

Hi Kenneth,

I have to agree with you. Though I do believe there is a sort of old-world
quality to the way we bake bread. I doubt the pioneers who used sourdough as
their only yeast had superior bread to the bread we produce - even at home.

However, this is a difficult question. Baking, as we do, does make one feel
as though one were participating in some long tradition and well so. For
indeed, we do participate in the tradition. Yet at some level, we also shape
the tradition. Though the bread produced over the ages has certainly been
good, to ignore or reject modern innovations simply on the grounds of
traditionalism is tantamount to rejecting ancient methods simply on the
grounds that those ancient traditions are old. What we do here in r.f.s is
certainly contributing to (if not creating) sourdough knowledge. Not to be
melodramatic, but at some level we are shaping the future of bread.

This is most definitely a good thing. We (at least I and I assume some
others) are writing and comparing to achieve something we imagine. I don't
write and bake in an attempt to reach backwards in time and bring forward
what some acient master created. I seek to create something unique - a new
flavor combination. I depend on the experimentation of others to make up for
the gaps in my own time and in my own knowledge.Together we move 'forward'
toward that bread ideal - the one sitting in the mind of Plato.

So forgive me for waxing - just thought it should be addressed (I'm not a
big fan of romanticism - unless its in Tennyson),

Tom

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:38:35 -0700, "Tom Stanton"
> wrote:

>"Kenneth" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:27:35 -0500, williamwaller
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On 4/24/04 11:01 AM, "Kenneth" > wrote:
>> Hi Will,
>>
>
>** much snipped **
>
>> You said:
>>
>> >But then... isn't that why we are baking? Milling our own grains?
>Culturing
>> >our own starters?
>>
>> And to that, I would say that my doing all that has nothing to do with
>> a desire to return to an earlier time, or technique. I do it because I
>> end up with better bread, and I enjoy the product, and the process.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >If the modern analog was superior why would we bother?
>>
>> Of course, the worst of modern bread (and much else) is crap. But let
>> us not confuse inferiority with modernity. I suspect that Poilne's
>> bread made today is far superior to anything that was available in
>> France hundreds of years ago.
>
>Hi Kenneth,
>
>I have to agree with you. Though I do believe there is a sort of old-world
>quality to the way we bake bread. I doubt the pioneers who used sourdough as
>their only yeast had superior bread to the bread we produce - even at home.
>
>However, this is a difficult question. Baking, as we do, does make one feel
>as though one were participating in some long tradition and well so. For
>indeed, we do participate in the tradition. Yet at some level, we also shape
>the tradition. Though the bread produced over the ages has certainly been
>good, to ignore or reject modern innovations simply on the grounds of
>traditionalism is tantamount to rejecting ancient methods simply on the
>grounds that those ancient traditions are old. What we do here in r.f.s is
>certainly contributing to (if not creating) sourdough knowledge. Not to be
>melodramatic, but at some level we are shaping the future of bread.
>
>This is most definitely a good thing. We (at least I and I assume some
>others) are writing and comparing to achieve something we imagine. I don't
>write and bake in an attempt to reach backwards in time and bring forward
>what some acient master created. I seek to create something unique - a new
>flavor combination. I depend on the experimentation of others to make up for
>the gaps in my own time and in my own knowledge.Together we move 'forward'
>toward that bread ideal - the one sitting in the mind of Plato.
>
>So forgive me for waxing - just thought it should be addressed (I'm not a
>big fan of romanticism - unless its in Tennyson),
>
>Tom
>

Hi Tom,

You say that you are not a "big fan of romanticism" <g> but you also
mention "the bread produced over the ages has certainly been
good" and "what some ancient master created" and those comments, I
would respectfully suggest might indicate otherwise.

I am certainly not pretending to be expert on any of this, but it is
my understanding that for the millennia, except for the most wealthy,
food was no great pleasure. Even for those at the very top of the
economic heap, I see little reason to believe that bread was a
delight.

I might be wrong about this (hey, I remember being wrong once in 1957
<g>).

No, we cannot go back and taste it, but there would be other
indicators. Are there comments about the gustatory delights of bread
in older literature for example? Going back to ancient times, there
certainly are such comments about any of a variety of other delights
and those tell us about the perceptions of people alive at the time.
The same might be true of bread.

More generally though, I completely agree with your interesting
comments about tradition. It is no accident that I play two banjos
from the late 19th century...

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
>> No, we cannot go back and taste it, but there would be other
> indicators. Are there comments about the gustatory delights of bread
> in older literature for example?

"I care not for that neither, because I love crusts"

Shakespeare, Two Gentlemen of Verona, III/1

Cheers
Graham