Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Sourdough (rec.food.sourdough) Discussing the hobby or craft of baking with sourdough. We are not just a recipe group, Our charter is to discuss the care, feeding, and breeding of yeasts and lactobacilli that make up sourdough cultures. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
Kenneth wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:28:06 -0300, Mike Romain > > wrote: > > >> So just 'what' is 100% hydration? >> > > Howdy, > > It is the proportion of water to flour. > > Weight of water / weight of flour = 1.00, or 100%. > > So, said another way, it means "equal weights of water and > flour." > > A bit more detailed the http://samartha.net/SD/SourdoughGlossary.html Sam |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
On Mar 8, 7:42*pm, "Dick Adams" > wrote:
> "Doc" > wrote in ... > > [ ... ] > > If I want to increase the sourness further I retard the dough overnight at > > about 55-60°F before baking and/or add/increase the amount of whole > > grain flour in the mix. > Dick Adams said: > So you must believe that cold incubation gives the souring bacteria > the edge over the yeasties, who are simply blowing gas. > > I believe that the yeasties do their stuff and give way to the bacteria > when their food is gone. *I even believe that the bacteria feast on > the starving bacteria. *I believe that the sequence procedes slower > in the cold. > > > it is not the pH, but the TTA that makes the loaf sour. > > Actually, I do not exactly know what sour is. *I guess it is safe to say > that it is an opinion, a perception, a state of mind ... > > Hard to objectify when such a thing is a parameter. Dick, Always interested in your opinions. They make me think. I guess it is sort of Darwin in a dish, but I too don't know exactly what is going on. Certainly competition, but under some conditions synergy. My starter today is probably not the same as when I originally got it, but it seems stable and works for me. There may an advantage for the LAB at low temp and you can find a temp below which there is little observable yeast activity But I am not convinced that the yeast has actually shut down. The lower temperature definitely increases the solubility of CO2 so that instead of "blowing gas" into bubbles, the gas is just absorbed by the liquid. There is some CO2 diffusion through the medium and probably some loss at the surface. Hard to say what the balance is. At least one paper I found on multivariate sensitivities provided interesting but not very useful curves on mutual dependencies. So the science and the art go forward hand in hand. I am still looking for the definitive experiment to prove that the blisters on the surface of a retarded loaf are CO2. Doc |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
"Doc" > wrote in message ... > There may an advantage for the LAB at low temp and you can find a temp > below which there is little observable yeast activity. Irrespective of temperature, sometimes "Carlos" and I have observed a condition, in growing up starter, where there seems to be souring without much gassing. This presents as "puffiness", where the starter puffs up slightly, and starts smelling acidy before characteristic active growth commences. But continued culturing (feeding cycles) invariably restores normal starter activity. > The lower temperature definitely increases the solubility of CO2 so > that instead of "blowing gas" into bubbles, the gas is just absorbed > by the liquid. Possibly, but if you are thinking that carbonic acid is involved in sourdough sour, you have forgotten what happens to seltzer water when it gets warm, not to mention what would happen to seltzer if it were baked. > At least one paper I found on multivariate sensitivities provided > interesting but not very useful curves on mutual dependencies. You are beginning to sound like a Wall Street physicist. > So the science and the art go forward hand in hand. Maybe somewhere. > I am still looking for the definitive experiment to prove that the > blisters on the surface of a retarded loaf are CO2. Persevere and prosper. |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:09:03 -0700 (PDT), Doc >
wrote: >On Mar 8, 7:42*pm, "Dick Adams" > wrote: >> "Doc" > wrote in ... >> > [ ... ] >> > If I want to increase the sourness further I retard the dough overnight at >> > about 55-60°F before baking and/or add/increase the amount of whole >> > grain flour in the mix. >> >Dick Adams said: >> So you must believe that cold incubation gives the souring bacteria >> the edge over the yeasties, who are simply blowing gas. >> >> I believe that the yeasties do their stuff and give way to the bacteria >> when their food is gone. *I even believe that the bacteria feast on >> the starving bacteria. *I believe that the sequence procedes slower >> in the cold. >> >> > it is not the pH, but the TTA that makes the loaf sour. >> >> Actually, I do not exactly know what sour is. *I guess it is safe to say >> that it is an opinion, a perception, a state of mind ... >> >> Hard to objectify when such a thing is a parameter. > >Dick, >Always interested in your opinions. >They make me think. >I guess it is sort of Darwin in a dish, but I too don't know exactly >what is going on. >Certainly competition, but under some conditions synergy. >My starter today is probably not the same as when I originally got it, >but it seems stable and works for me. >There may an advantage for the LAB at low temp and you can find a temp >below which there is little observable yeast activity >But I am not convinced that the yeast has actually shut down. >The lower temperature definitely increases the solubility of CO2 so >that instead of "blowing gas" into bubbles, the gas is just absorbed >by the liquid. >There is some CO2 diffusion through the medium and probably some loss >at the surface. >Hard to say what the balance is. >At least one paper I found on multivariate sensitivities provided >interesting but not very useful curves on mutual dependencies. >So the science and the art go forward hand in hand. >I am still looking for the definitive experiment to prove that the >blisters on the surface of a retarded loaf are CO2. >Doc > > Google has this book on tap: Technology of Breadmaking By Stanley P. Cauvain, Linda S. Young You might find a bit about it in there. Boron |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:09:03 -0700 (PDT), Doc > > wrote: > > [ ... ] > >At least one paper I found on multivariate sensitivities provided > >interesting but not very useful curves on mutual dependencies. > >So the science and the art go forward hand in hand. > >I am still looking for the definitive experiment to prove that the > >blisters on the surface of a retarded loaf are CO2. > > > > > Google has this book on tap: > > Technology of Breadmaking > By Stanley P. Cauvain, Linda S. Young > > You might find a bit about it in there. One might find out a bit about exactly what in that book, and exactly where in that book? (It is a big book!) Were we talking about multivariate sensitivities or mutual dependencies or retarded blisters or what? (I understand there is quite a bit about bread in the Bible, as well.) Kee-riminently, this is really gettin' complicated around here! (What ever happened to flour, water, salt and leaven, mix it up and bake it?) -- Dicky |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
On Mar 11, 11:05*am, "Dick Adams" > wrote:
.... > Kee-riminently, this is really gettin' complicated around here! > > (What ever happened to flour, water, salt and leaven, mix it > up and bake it?) > > -- > Dicky It seems to me people will generally fall into two camps: one is content to know that the ingredients will do what is expected of them if treated in a proper (practiced) manner; the other has to know "why" at a cellular level. I straddle the line between the two, mostly because other things occupy my time such that I must rely on my contentedness to temper my thirst for this particular scientific knowledge. That gets me thinking about parallels between religion and science in general, and how science slowly chips away at the mystique surrounding our existence. But as people have pointed out on this list, knowing exactly why water, flour, salt, and leaven make bread does not necessarily bring with it an understanding of what makes bread...well, bread, historically or otherwise. Conversely, practicing the art doesn't mean you must avoid the science. Either way, as long as I am filled with good bread and good beer, not much else matters. Matt |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
"Matt Fitz" > wrote in message ... > It seems to me people will generally fall into two camps: one is > content to know that the ingredients will do what is expected of them > if treated in a proper (practiced) manner; the other has to know "why" > at a cellular level(*). Do you think knowing why is at the root of it, or just the determination to wrap and mystify oneself with jargon? > ... practicing the art doesn't mean you must avoid the science. Science? Oh, really? What science, exactly? Well, there is some bread science, but not much of it has appeared around here recently, except maybe for a nonspecific reference to an archaic book, and occasional presumptive naming of sourdough microorganisms. > Either way, as long as I am filled with good bread and good beer, not > much else matters. Sojourn into the science of nutrition may be beneficial if the carbohydrates have not already claimed their victory. -- Dicky __________________________________________ *Knowing why at a cellular level is useful for understanding how a single compound cell can grow up into to the huge malevolent, environmentally-destructive individual that each of us has become. But perhaps the cellular level is a bit deep for bread. |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
Matt Fitz wrote:
> On Mar 11, 11:05 am, "Dick Adams" > wrote: > .... >> Kee-riminently, this is really gettin' complicated around here! >> >> (What ever happened to flour, water, salt and leaven, mix it >> up and bake it?) >> > It seems to me people will generally fall into two camps: one is > content to know that the ingredients will do what is expected of them > if treated in a proper (practiced) manner; the other has to know "why" > at a cellular level. > > I straddle the line between the two, mostly because other things > occupy my time such that I must rely on my contentedness to temper my > thirst for this particular scientific knowledge. That gets me thinking > about parallels between religion and science in general,.... It makes me think about why I put two socks in the dryer and only one comes out. B/ |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
"Brian Mailman" > wrote in message m... > It makes me think about why I put two socks in the dryer and only one > comes out. Now you are going to have to loose a foot, at least, to even things up. |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
On Mar 10, 10:11*pm, "Dick Adams" > wrote:
> > Possibly, but if you are thinking that carbonic acid is involved in sourdough > sour, you have forgotten what happens to seltzer water when it gets warm, > not to mention what would happen to seltzer if it were baked. > Well while carbonic acid is not the agent that brings you the sour in sourdough, to some extent it is involved in sourdough. I think it is carbonic acid in equilibrium (or not) with gaseous CO2 that inflates the bread. And when I bake bread I get something similar to what I might get if I baked seltzer in a relatively gas-tight foam (sort of) - the CO2 comes out of solution as the temperature rises, inflates the foam, and escapes. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it might actually be a good model. See - you make me think. Cheers, Doc |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
On Mar 12, 6:18*am, Matt Fitz > wrote:
> It seems to me people will generally fall into two camps: one is > content to know that the ingredients will do what is expected of them > if treated in a proper (practiced) manner; the other has to know "why" > at a cellular level. So where to you classifiy this: http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/109...olution-part-2 |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
On Mar 13, 12:56*am, Doc > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 6:18*am, Matt Fitz > wrote: > > > It seems to me people will generally fall into two camps: one is > > content to know that the ingredients will do what is expected of them > > if treated in a proper (practiced) manner; the other has to know "why" > > at a cellular level. > > So where to you classifiy this:http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/109...olution-part-2 I'll file that under TMI. It certainly looks like science, but I was only able to make it about three paragraphs before I nodded off. Starting my own culture from scratch was so easy I would never imagine someone would need to go to that extent to deconstruct the process. Perhaps she was using white flour. Matt |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
On Mar 12, 11:33*am, "Dick Adams" > wrote:
> "Matt Fitz" > wrote in ... > > Either way, as long as I am filled with good bread and good beer, not > > much else matters. > > Sojourn into the science of nutrition may be beneficial if the carbohydrates > have not already claimed their victory. I am fortunate to lead an active life, and the majority of my diet - outside of beer and bread - is vegetable and fruit. Meat and cheese are still on the menu, but my wife is a vegan so at home they are scarcely found. > > -- > Dicky > > __________________________________________ > *Knowing why at a cellular level is useful for understanding how a > single compound cell can grow up into to the huge malevolent, > environmentally-destructive individual that each of us has become. > ... I will think of this every time I feed my starter or watch a ball of dough rise. Matt |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
Dick Adams wrote:
> "Brian Mailman" > wrote in message > m... >> It makes me think about why I put two socks in the dryer and only >> one comes out. > > Now you are going to have to loose a foot, at least, to even things > up. Or I could go out to the backyard and pick one off the sock tree. I'm sure someone has a theoretical scientific explanation on why such things exist. B/ |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
Brian Mailman wrote:
> Or I could go out to the backyard and pick one off the sock tree. I'm > sure someone has a theoretical scientific explanation on why such things > exist. > No experience is all, just smoke the right stuff and you will see your tree. The molebulogists on this forum may not yet have gotten it yet how this works and how great it is to get out of your head, see the starter grow, knead the dough, see it rise and get brown.... Sam |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
Mike Romain wrote:
> Sam wrote: >> Mike Romain wrote: >>> Is there a simple explanation for bakers %? >>> >>> >> My guess, if you haven't gotten it by now - probably not for you. >> >> Sam >> >> > Humor me and maybe educate others please. I haven't paid too much > attention to it because any exact measurement bread recipes have not > worked for me. Maybe it's time to try something new.... > > Mike The best way I've found to explain baker's percentage is that it's a ratio. 100% hydration means 1:1. 50% hydration means 1:2 (water to flour). Yes, the percent sign is a misnomer. Yes, some bakers who don't understand math very well must have come up with the percent sign. Oh well - as a system it works well, because flour is your core ingredient. |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:59:12 -0600, Hans Fugal
> wrote: > >The best way I've found to explain baker's percentage is that it's a >ratio. 100% hydration means 1:1. 50% hydration means 1:2 (water to >flour). Yes, the percent sign is a misnomer. Hi Hans, The percent sign is not a misnomer in any way... It means "hundredths" and nothing more (or less...) Indeed, people often assume that a percent sign means hundredths of the total, but that is not always correct. Once folks understand that it is convenient to consider the other ingredients as a proportion of the total flour, there should be little confusion. All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
Posted to rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
Converting Recipes
Kenneth wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:59:12 -0600, Hans Fugal > > wrote: > >> The best way I've found to explain baker's percentage is that it's a >> ratio. 100% hydration means 1:1. 50% hydration means 1:2 (water to >> flour). Yes, the percent sign is a misnomer. > > Hi Hans, > > The percent sign is not a misnomer in any way... > > It means "hundredths" and nothing more (or less...) > > Indeed, people often assume that a percent sign means > hundredths of the total, but that is not always correct. An interesting tidbit. Thanks |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Converting to metric | General Cooking | |||
converting a starter | Sourdough | |||
Saffron -- converting threads to powdered in recipes | General Cooking | |||
converting recipes to Accuchef | General Cooking | |||
Converting Recipe???? | Sourdough |