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 |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:57:56 -0400, "Dee Randall"
<deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: > >"Kenneth" > wrote in message .. . >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:34:22 -0400, "Dee Randall" >> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: >> >> >if one has a chef the >> >size of a walnut, would this chef be used in place of a starter that was >> >called for in the recipe, or would it be IN ADDITION to the starter >called >> >for in the recipe. >> >> Hi Dee, >> >> The chef IS (a small amount of) the starter. (Ignoring here the >> specifics of its stage of development.) >> >> The chef would be used to make as much starter as you need for a >> particular recipe. >> >OK, using your answer and terminology: >So the "small amount of " starter (the chef) would be used to make more >starter, right? NOW, when bakers talk about adding the chef (which is a >small amount of starter [and I'm assuming that this is left over from >yesterday's baking or two or whatever) to their dough to make bread, this is >not in actuality true, but they actually use this chef to make MORE >starter to add to their dough to make bread -- NOW, how do they do this in >one day? > >Thanks, >Dee > Hi Dee, Why do you assume that they do it in one day? Often, it takes longer. Depending on the temperatures though, it is certainly possible to do it in one day. Why don't you just follow any of the recipes posted here, in the FAQs, on sites that folks who post here offer, or in the many books that are available? All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/25/04 6:57 PM, "Dee Randall"
> wrote: > > "Kenneth" > wrote in message > ... >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:34:22 -0400, "Dee Randall" >> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: >> >>> if one has a chef the >>> size of a walnut, would this chef be used in place of a starter that was >>> called for in the recipe, or would it be IN ADDITION to the starter > called >>> for in the recipe. >> >> Hi Dee, >> >> The chef IS (a small amount of) the starter. (Ignoring here the >> specifics of its stage of development.) >> >> The chef would be used to make as much starter as you need for a >> particular recipe. >> > OK, using your answer and terminology: > So the "small amount of " starter (the chef) would be used to make more > starter, right? NOW, when bakers talk about adding the chef (which is a > small amount of starter [and I'm assuming that this is left over from > yesterday's baking or two or whatever) to their dough to make bread, this is > not in actuality true, but they actually use this chef to make MORE > starter to add to their dough to make bread -- NOW, how do they do this in > one day? > > Thanks, > Dee Dee, I keep a starter specifically for pizza dough and I use the "retained piece" or "chef" method for it. Whenever I make a pizza, I keep the trimmings, or the excess dough rolled but not used for the pies. These pieces go into a small plastic container and are stored in the refrigerator. When I'm ready for another pizza, I take these same pieces, place them in water for a couple of hours to soften them, then add the necessary balance of flour and mix/knead to complete a fresh dough. That dough gets aged overnight in the refrigerator before it's used and its' extra saved for the next cycle. Although I choose to age the finished dough overnight for additional flavor, it's not necessary. They will usually fully proof in about 6 hours (plus the 2 hours for softening). I should add here that we're talking about 3-4 walnuts worth of initial material not one. I don't see much difference between keeping a more liquid starter or a chef. The chef stores better... meaning it does not require refreshment (within reason) but you must hydrate it to disperse the culture evenly in your dough, whereas a more liquid starter is ready to go. Peter Reinhart is an advocate of retained dough starters. In Bread Baker's Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and liquid starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a flavor difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. If you cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of retained dough makes a better bread. I imagine the lack of refrigeration was what the European bakers were trying to address with this method. Will > > > _______________________________________________ > rec.food.sourdough mailing list > > http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough |
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/25/04 6:57 PM, "Dee Randall"
> wrote: > > "Kenneth" > wrote in message > ... >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:34:22 -0400, "Dee Randall" >> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: >> >>> if one has a chef the >>> size of a walnut, would this chef be used in place of a starter that was >>> called for in the recipe, or would it be IN ADDITION to the starter > called >>> for in the recipe. >> >> Hi Dee, >> >> The chef IS (a small amount of) the starter. (Ignoring here the >> specifics of its stage of development.) >> >> The chef would be used to make as much starter as you need for a >> particular recipe. >> > OK, using your answer and terminology: > So the "small amount of " starter (the chef) would be used to make more > starter, right? NOW, when bakers talk about adding the chef (which is a > small amount of starter [and I'm assuming that this is left over from > yesterday's baking or two or whatever) to their dough to make bread, this is > not in actuality true, but they actually use this chef to make MORE > starter to add to their dough to make bread -- NOW, how do they do this in > one day? > > Thanks, > Dee Dee, I keep a starter specifically for pizza dough and I use the "retained piece" or "chef" method for it. Whenever I make a pizza, I keep the trimmings, or the excess dough rolled but not used for the pies. These pieces go into a small plastic container and are stored in the refrigerator. When I'm ready for another pizza, I take these same pieces, place them in water for a couple of hours to soften them, then add the necessary balance of flour and mix/knead to complete a fresh dough. That dough gets aged overnight in the refrigerator before it's used and its' extra saved for the next cycle. Although I choose to age the finished dough overnight for additional flavor, it's not necessary. They will usually fully proof in about 6 hours (plus the 2 hours for softening). I should add here that we're talking about 3-4 walnuts worth of initial material not one. I don't see much difference between keeping a more liquid starter or a chef. The chef stores better... meaning it does not require refreshment (within reason) but you must hydrate it to disperse the culture evenly in your dough, whereas a more liquid starter is ready to go. Peter Reinhart is an advocate of retained dough starters. In Bread Baker's Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and liquid starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a flavor difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. If you cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of retained dough makes a better bread. I imagine the lack of refrigeration was what the European bakers were trying to address with this method. Will > > > _______________________________________________ > rec.food.sourdough mailing list > > http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough |
|
|||
|
|||
"Kenneth" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:57:56 -0400, "Dee Randall" > <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: > > > > >"Kenneth" > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:34:22 -0400, "Dee Randall" > >> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: > >> > >> >if one has a chef the > >> >size of a walnut, would this chef be used in place of a starter that was > >> >called for in the recipe, or would it be IN ADDITION to the starter > >called > >> >for in the recipe. > >> > >> Hi Dee, > >> > >> The chef IS (a small amount of) the starter. (Ignoring here the > >> specifics of its stage of development.) > >> > >> The chef would be used to make as much starter as you need for a > >> particular recipe. > >> > >OK, using your answer and terminology: > >So the "small amount of " starter (the chef) would be used to make more > >starter, right? NOW, when bakers talk about adding the chef (which is a > >small amount of starter [and I'm assuming that this is left over from > >yesterday's baking or two or whatever) to their dough to make bread, this is > >not in actuality true, but they actually use this chef to make MORE > >starter to add to their dough to make bread -- NOW, how do they do this in > >one day? > > > >Thanks, > >Dee > > > > Hi Dee, > > Why do you assume that they do it in one day? Often, it takes longer. > > Depending on the temperatures though, it is certainly possible to do > it in one day. > > Why don't you just follow any of the recipes posted here, in the FAQs, > on sites that folks who post here offer, or in the many books that are > available? > Because I've never yet seen a recipe that is comprehensive enough that incorporates this small amount of left-over (chef) that is actually used in a "specific" recipe and shows how to do it! When I was trying to determine the answer to this question many motnths before you referred me to use someone else's recipe, which did not incorporate this method. It would be nice if I had a recipe that does this. If I would get a specific recipe that would be more than I could expect, because I have seen none. fyi I have followed > any of the recipes posted here, in the FAQs, > on sites that folks who post here offer, or in the many books that are > available Dee |
|
|||
|
|||
"Kenneth" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:57:56 -0400, "Dee Randall" > <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: > > > > >"Kenneth" > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:34:22 -0400, "Dee Randall" > >> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: > >> > >> >if one has a chef the > >> >size of a walnut, would this chef be used in place of a starter that was > >> >called for in the recipe, or would it be IN ADDITION to the starter > >called > >> >for in the recipe. > >> > >> Hi Dee, > >> > >> The chef IS (a small amount of) the starter. (Ignoring here the > >> specifics of its stage of development.) > >> > >> The chef would be used to make as much starter as you need for a > >> particular recipe. > >> > >OK, using your answer and terminology: > >So the "small amount of " starter (the chef) would be used to make more > >starter, right? NOW, when bakers talk about adding the chef (which is a > >small amount of starter [and I'm assuming that this is left over from > >yesterday's baking or two or whatever) to their dough to make bread, this is > >not in actuality true, but they actually use this chef to make MORE > >starter to add to their dough to make bread -- NOW, how do they do this in > >one day? > > > >Thanks, > >Dee > > > > Hi Dee, > > Why do you assume that they do it in one day? Often, it takes longer. > > Depending on the temperatures though, it is certainly possible to do > it in one day. > > Why don't you just follow any of the recipes posted here, in the FAQs, > on sites that folks who post here offer, or in the many books that are > available? > Because I've never yet seen a recipe that is comprehensive enough that incorporates this small amount of left-over (chef) that is actually used in a "specific" recipe and shows how to do it! When I was trying to determine the answer to this question many motnths before you referred me to use someone else's recipe, which did not incorporate this method. It would be nice if I had a recipe that does this. If I would get a specific recipe that would be more than I could expect, because I have seen none. fyi I have followed > any of the recipes posted here, in the FAQs, > on sites that folks who post here offer, or in the many books that are > available Dee |
|
|||
|
|||
"williamwaller" > wrote in message news:mailman.11.1093486323.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com... > On 8/25/04 6:57 PM, "Dee Randall" > > wrote: > > > > > "Kenneth" > wrote in message > > ... > >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:34:22 -0400, "Dee Randall" > >> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: > >> > >>> if one has a chef the > >>> size of a walnut, would this chef be used in place of a starter that was > >>> called for in the recipe, or would it be IN ADDITION to the starter > > called > >>> for in the recipe. > >> > >> Hi Dee, > >> > >> The chef IS (a small amount of) the starter. (Ignoring here the > >> specifics of its stage of development.) > >> > >> The chef would be used to make as much starter as you need for a > >> particular recipe. > >> > > OK, using your answer and terminology: > > So the "small amount of " starter (the chef) would be used to make more > > starter, right? NOW, when bakers talk about adding the chef (which is a > > small amount of starter [and I'm assuming that this is left over from > > yesterday's baking or two or whatever) to their dough to make bread, this is > > not in actuality true, but they actually use this chef to make MORE > > starter to add to their dough to make bread -- NOW, how do they do this in > > one day? > > > > Thanks, > > Dee > > Dee, > > I keep a starter specifically for pizza dough and I use the "retained piece" > or "chef" method for it. Whenever I make a pizza, I keep the trimmings, or > the excess dough rolled but not used for the pies. These pieces go into a > small plastic container and are stored in the refrigerator. When I'm ready > for another pizza, I take these same pieces, place them in water for a > couple of hours to soften them, then add the necessary balance of flour and > mix/knead to complete a fresh dough. That dough gets aged overnight in the > refrigerator before it's used and its' extra saved for the next cycle. > > Although I choose to age the finished dough overnight for additional flavor, > it's not necessary. They will usually fully proof in about 6 hours (plus the > 2 hours for softening). I should add here that we're talking about 3-4 > walnuts worth of initial material not one. > > I don't see much difference between keeping a more liquid starter or a chef. > The chef stores better... meaning it does not require refreshment (within > reason) but you must hydrate it to disperse the culture evenly in your > dough, whereas a more liquid starter is ready to go. > > Peter Reinhart is an advocate of retained dough starters. In Bread Baker's > Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and liquid > starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a flavor > difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. If you > cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of retained dough > makes a better bread. I imagine the lack of refrigeration was what the > European bakers were trying to address with this method. Thanks for taking the time to explain this for me. Refreshing this in water helps me to understand it a little better and your explanation that the walnut (in your example, several walnuts) is all that is needed. I didn't know whether the "walnuts' were used "in addition" to more starter; i.e., whether extra starter was used. > If you > cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of retained dough > makes a better bread. This is good to know as I always prefer not to refrigerate. Thanks so much. Dee |
|
|||
|
|||
"williamwaller" > wrote in message news:mailman.11.1093486323.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com... > On 8/25/04 6:57 PM, "Dee Randall" > > wrote: > > > > > "Kenneth" > wrote in message > > ... > >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:34:22 -0400, "Dee Randall" > >> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote: > >> > >>> if one has a chef the > >>> size of a walnut, would this chef be used in place of a starter that was > >>> called for in the recipe, or would it be IN ADDITION to the starter > > called > >>> for in the recipe. > >> > >> Hi Dee, > >> > >> The chef IS (a small amount of) the starter. (Ignoring here the > >> specifics of its stage of development.) > >> > >> The chef would be used to make as much starter as you need for a > >> particular recipe. > >> > > OK, using your answer and terminology: > > So the "small amount of " starter (the chef) would be used to make more > > starter, right? NOW, when bakers talk about adding the chef (which is a > > small amount of starter [and I'm assuming that this is left over from > > yesterday's baking or two or whatever) to their dough to make bread, this is > > not in actuality true, but they actually use this chef to make MORE > > starter to add to their dough to make bread -- NOW, how do they do this in > > one day? > > > > Thanks, > > Dee > > Dee, > > I keep a starter specifically for pizza dough and I use the "retained piece" > or "chef" method for it. Whenever I make a pizza, I keep the trimmings, or > the excess dough rolled but not used for the pies. These pieces go into a > small plastic container and are stored in the refrigerator. When I'm ready > for another pizza, I take these same pieces, place them in water for a > couple of hours to soften them, then add the necessary balance of flour and > mix/knead to complete a fresh dough. That dough gets aged overnight in the > refrigerator before it's used and its' extra saved for the next cycle. > > Although I choose to age the finished dough overnight for additional flavor, > it's not necessary. They will usually fully proof in about 6 hours (plus the > 2 hours for softening). I should add here that we're talking about 3-4 > walnuts worth of initial material not one. > > I don't see much difference between keeping a more liquid starter or a chef. > The chef stores better... meaning it does not require refreshment (within > reason) but you must hydrate it to disperse the culture evenly in your > dough, whereas a more liquid starter is ready to go. > > Peter Reinhart is an advocate of retained dough starters. In Bread Baker's > Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and liquid > starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a flavor > difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. If you > cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of retained dough > makes a better bread. I imagine the lack of refrigeration was what the > European bakers were trying to address with this method. Thanks for taking the time to explain this for me. Refreshing this in water helps me to understand it a little better and your explanation that the walnut (in your example, several walnuts) is all that is needed. I didn't know whether the "walnuts' were used "in addition" to more starter; i.e., whether extra starter was used. > If you > cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of retained dough > makes a better bread. This is good to know as I always prefer not to refrigerate. Thanks so much. Dee |
|
|||
|
|||
"williamwaller" > wrote in message = news:mailman.11.1093486323.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com... > [ ... ] > Peter Reinhart is an advocate of retained dough starters. In Bread = Baker's > Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and=20 > liquid starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a = flavor > difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. To me it seems that old dough is a starter that has hardly been started. = It has got some yeast and probably some other microorganisms. Mixed with an active starter, its microorganisms must constitute a very minute = minority, however. Anyway, that procedure is categorically a technique of starter-culture manipulation, and therefore, by me, relatively, if not totally, = inefficacious, inasmuch as the sourdough flavors develop later on (towards the end of the rise). > If you cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of = retained=20 > dough makes a better bread. I imagine the lack of refrigeration was = what=20 > the European bakers were trying to address with this method. I do not know what part of the procedure the fermentation cycle is, if = it is not the whole of it til bake. It continues to be a mystery to me = that any one would want to run all of it, or any part of it, cold, if warm were=20 available, since all aspects of it are accelerated by warmth. What is = it about European bakers -- do they lack refrigerators? Well, certainly not the Old ones, maybe some of the new ones. =20 I recommend to forget Peter Reinhart (, Joe Ortiz, Nancy Silverton, et = al.) -- he (they) just get(s) people all confused. It is possible to tell how to make SD bread without saying "chef", = "biga" "levain", "old dough", "poolish", etc. You can do it without even = saying "fermentation", using the descriptive power of everyday English. = Writers avoid that, however, in the interest of making their books long enough = to command a price. --=20 Dick Adams (Sourdough minimalist) <firstname> dot <lastname> at bigfoot dot com ___________________ Sourdough FAQ guide at=20 http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/sourdoughfaqs.html |
|
|||
|
|||
"williamwaller" > wrote in message = news:mailman.11.1093486323.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com... > [ ... ] > Peter Reinhart is an advocate of retained dough starters. In Bread = Baker's > Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and=20 > liquid starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a = flavor > difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. To me it seems that old dough is a starter that has hardly been started. = It has got some yeast and probably some other microorganisms. Mixed with an active starter, its microorganisms must constitute a very minute = minority, however. Anyway, that procedure is categorically a technique of starter-culture manipulation, and therefore, by me, relatively, if not totally, = inefficacious, inasmuch as the sourdough flavors develop later on (towards the end of the rise). > If you cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of = retained=20 > dough makes a better bread. I imagine the lack of refrigeration was = what=20 > the European bakers were trying to address with this method. I do not know what part of the procedure the fermentation cycle is, if = it is not the whole of it til bake. It continues to be a mystery to me = that any one would want to run all of it, or any part of it, cold, if warm were=20 available, since all aspects of it are accelerated by warmth. What is = it about European bakers -- do they lack refrigerators? Well, certainly not the Old ones, maybe some of the new ones. =20 I recommend to forget Peter Reinhart (, Joe Ortiz, Nancy Silverton, et = al.) -- he (they) just get(s) people all confused. It is possible to tell how to make SD bread without saying "chef", = "biga" "levain", "old dough", "poolish", etc. You can do it without even = saying "fermentation", using the descriptive power of everyday English. = Writers avoid that, however, in the interest of making their books long enough = to command a price. --=20 Dick Adams (Sourdough minimalist) <firstname> dot <lastname> at bigfoot dot com ___________________ Sourdough FAQ guide at=20 http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/sourdoughfaqs.html |
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/26/04 9:36 AM, "Dick Adams" > wrote:
> > "williamwaller" > wrote in message > news:mailman.11.1093486323.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com... > >> [ ... ] > >> Peter Reinhart is an advocate of retained dough starters. In Bread Baker's >> Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and >> liquid starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a flavor >> difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. > > To me it seems that old dough is a starter that has hardly been started. It > has got some yeast and probably some other microorganisms. Mixed with > an active starter, its microorganisms must constitute a very minute minority, > however. > > Anyway, that procedure is categorically a technique of starter-culture > manipulation, and therefore, by me, relatively, if not totally, inefficacious, > inasmuch as the sourdough flavors develop later on (towards the end of > the rise). > >> If you cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of retained >> dough makes a better bread. I imagine the lack of refrigeration was what >> the European bakers were trying to address with this method. > > I do not know what part of the procedure the fermentation cycle is, if it > is not the whole of it til bake. It continues to be a mystery to me that any > one would want to run all of it, or any part of it, cold, if warm were > available, since all aspects of it are accelerated by warmth. What is it > about European bakers -- do they lack refrigerators? Well, certainly > not the Old ones, maybe some of the new ones. > > I recommend to forget Peter Reinhart (, Joe Ortiz, Nancy Silverton, et al.) > -- he (they) just get(s) people all confused. > > It is possible to tell how to make SD bread without saying "chef", "biga" > "levain", "old dough", "poolish", etc. You can do it without even saying > "fermentation", using the descriptive power of everyday English. Writers > avoid that, however, in the interest of making their books long enough to > command a price. Dick, The question of aging or not aging dough seems to have been batted around by this august group for a long while. As you know, I am in the aging camp. Been doing it for years, figured it out on my own, though we might agree that more knowledgeable bakers were retarding fermentation before either of us were born. I would not dispute your comment about inefficacious technique. Instead I wonder if our differing opinions are directed more by the cultures we employ than we recognize. I believe my cultures benefit (or need) a retardation phase to mature most appropriately. Perhaps yours do not. It is possible that everyone on this list agrees that one can make fabulous bread without calling it bread, or, when making what-ever we might call it, to forego the "officious" nomenclature about it. You might notice I chose to call my "chef" retained dough, which is how I picture it. But Dick, how can you ding the bread writers... It is so discouraging to walk into the grocery store and see what most people settle for. Any author who raises the level of awareness that there is an alternative is to be commended. It is their readership that eventually comes here. Will |
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/26/04 9:36 AM, "Dick Adams" > wrote:
> > "williamwaller" > wrote in message > news:mailman.11.1093486323.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com... > >> [ ... ] > >> Peter Reinhart is an advocate of retained dough starters. In Bread Baker's >> Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and >> liquid starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a flavor >> difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. > > To me it seems that old dough is a starter that has hardly been started. It > has got some yeast and probably some other microorganisms. Mixed with > an active starter, its microorganisms must constitute a very minute minority, > however. > > Anyway, that procedure is categorically a technique of starter-culture > manipulation, and therefore, by me, relatively, if not totally, inefficacious, > inasmuch as the sourdough flavors develop later on (towards the end of > the rise). > >> If you cannot run a long, cool fermentation cycle, the addition of retained >> dough makes a better bread. I imagine the lack of refrigeration was what >> the European bakers were trying to address with this method. > > I do not know what part of the procedure the fermentation cycle is, if it > is not the whole of it til bake. It continues to be a mystery to me that any > one would want to run all of it, or any part of it, cold, if warm were > available, since all aspects of it are accelerated by warmth. What is it > about European bakers -- do they lack refrigerators? Well, certainly > not the Old ones, maybe some of the new ones. > > I recommend to forget Peter Reinhart (, Joe Ortiz, Nancy Silverton, et al.) > -- he (they) just get(s) people all confused. > > It is possible to tell how to make SD bread without saying "chef", "biga" > "levain", "old dough", "poolish", etc. You can do it without even saying > "fermentation", using the descriptive power of everyday English. Writers > avoid that, however, in the interest of making their books long enough to > command a price. Dick, The question of aging or not aging dough seems to have been batted around by this august group for a long while. As you know, I am in the aging camp. Been doing it for years, figured it out on my own, though we might agree that more knowledgeable bakers were retarding fermentation before either of us were born. I would not dispute your comment about inefficacious technique. Instead I wonder if our differing opinions are directed more by the cultures we employ than we recognize. I believe my cultures benefit (or need) a retardation phase to mature most appropriately. Perhaps yours do not. It is possible that everyone on this list agrees that one can make fabulous bread without calling it bread, or, when making what-ever we might call it, to forego the "officious" nomenclature about it. You might notice I chose to call my "chef" retained dough, which is how I picture it. But Dick, how can you ding the bread writers... It is so discouraging to walk into the grocery store and see what most people settle for. Any author who raises the level of awareness that there is an alternative is to be commended. It is their readership that eventually comes here. Will |
|
|||
|
|||
Dick Adams wrote: > > William Waller wrote: ... In Bread Baker's > > Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and > > liquid starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a flavor > > difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. > > To me it seems that old dough is a starter that has hardly been started. It > has got some yeast and probably some other microorganisms. Mixed with > an active starter, its microorganisms must constitute a very minute minority, > however. Well, if we keep this up, we can really get some newcomers confused. There are several methods or general procedures that involve holding back dough from one batch of dough to be used in a later baking cycle. When the discussion flips among the different procedures without identifying the method under discussion, it is hard for even experienced bakers to keep things straight. The first recent procedure involved holding back a small amount of dough to act as a seed culture that was grown on in one or more stages. The second method brought up was holding back enough of the dough to act as the whole of the starter for the next batch. Now we seem to be talking about some variation of the "old dough" method. It is my understanding that when you have a starter (or yeast for that matter) as the primary agent to raise the dough the purpose of the "old dough" is to act as a dough conditioner and some would argue as a flavor enhancer. The amount of live organisms in the old dough is not at issue. Most of the Old Dough procedures that I have read call for the dough to udergo at least one rise before it is held back. This is usually not the case where dough is held back to begin a new batch. The dough that is held back to begin a new batch is most often saved at a point just before the salt is added. Where the salt is the last thing added. > > Anyway, that procedure is categorically a technique of starter-culture > manipulation, and therefore, by me, relatively, if not totally, inefficacious, > inasmuch as the sourdough flavors develop later on (towards the end of > the rise). When you add old dough for the purpose of improving the dough it is not categorically a starter manipulation. While you are correct in that most *sour* flavor is aquired near the end of the rise, Those *sour* flavors are most definetly not the only flavor that is developed in bread. I submit that many yeast method bakers also argue for a longer and slower rise to improve flavor. One way to slow the rise is to raise the dough at a lower temperature. If I had to pick a point to argue from it would be for cool room temperature. > > > I recommend to forget Peter Reinhart (, Joe Ortiz, Nancy Silverton, et al.) > -- he (they) just get(s) people all confused. > The lack of any standard vocabulary and writers reuseing the same words to mean different things makes it very difficult to gain a good understanding from just reading books. However, I still read "Beard on Bread" even though nearly every thing he wrote about sourdough is completely wrong. His enthusiasm for cooking and eating puts me in a creative mood when I have "chef's block". Maybe some books on sourdough should have a "banned for beginners" sticker. > It is possible to tell how to make SD bread without saying "chef", "biga" > "levain", "old dough", "poolish", etc. You can do it without even saying > "fermentation", using the descriptive power of everyday English. Writers > avoid that, however, in the interest of making their books long enough to > command a price. I don't really care what the consensus would determine to be correct. I am all for standard common usage in the interest of clear communication. The history of language, particularly English, does not lend much hope. Once misuse of a word escapes to the public, getting back to an old dictionary definition is almost impossible despite the best efforts of the word police. > Regards, Charles -- Charles Perry Reply to: ** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand ** |
|
|||
|
|||
Dick Adams wrote: > > William Waller wrote: ... In Bread Baker's > > Apprentice he has some formulas that use both: meaning old dough and > > liquid starter, in the same bread. I have tried this but only notice a flavor > > difference when the dough is not overnighted in the refrigerator. > > To me it seems that old dough is a starter that has hardly been started. It > has got some yeast and probably some other microorganisms. Mixed with > an active starter, its microorganisms must constitute a very minute minority, > however. Well, if we keep this up, we can really get some newcomers confused. There are several methods or general procedures that involve holding back dough from one batch of dough to be used in a later baking cycle. When the discussion flips among the different procedures without identifying the method under discussion, it is hard for even experienced bakers to keep things straight. The first recent procedure involved holding back a small amount of dough to act as a seed culture that was grown on in one or more stages. The second method brought up was holding back enough of the dough to act as the whole of the starter for the next batch. Now we seem to be talking about some variation of the "old dough" method. It is my understanding that when you have a starter (or yeast for that matter) as the primary agent to raise the dough the purpose of the "old dough" is to act as a dough conditioner and some would argue as a flavor enhancer. The amount of live organisms in the old dough is not at issue. Most of the Old Dough procedures that I have read call for the dough to udergo at least one rise before it is held back. This is usually not the case where dough is held back to begin a new batch. The dough that is held back to begin a new batch is most often saved at a point just before the salt is added. Where the salt is the last thing added. > > Anyway, that procedure is categorically a technique of starter-culture > manipulation, and therefore, by me, relatively, if not totally, inefficacious, > inasmuch as the sourdough flavors develop later on (towards the end of > the rise). When you add old dough for the purpose of improving the dough it is not categorically a starter manipulation. While you are correct in that most *sour* flavor is aquired near the end of the rise, Those *sour* flavors are most definetly not the only flavor that is developed in bread. I submit that many yeast method bakers also argue for a longer and slower rise to improve flavor. One way to slow the rise is to raise the dough at a lower temperature. If I had to pick a point to argue from it would be for cool room temperature. > > > I recommend to forget Peter Reinhart (, Joe Ortiz, Nancy Silverton, et al.) > -- he (they) just get(s) people all confused. > The lack of any standard vocabulary and writers reuseing the same words to mean different things makes it very difficult to gain a good understanding from just reading books. However, I still read "Beard on Bread" even though nearly every thing he wrote about sourdough is completely wrong. His enthusiasm for cooking and eating puts me in a creative mood when I have "chef's block". Maybe some books on sourdough should have a "banned for beginners" sticker. > It is possible to tell how to make SD bread without saying "chef", "biga" > "levain", "old dough", "poolish", etc. You can do it without even saying > "fermentation", using the descriptive power of everyday English. Writers > avoid that, however, in the interest of making their books long enough to > command a price. I don't really care what the consensus would determine to be correct. I am all for standard common usage in the interest of clear communication. The history of language, particularly English, does not lend much hope. Once misuse of a word escapes to the public, getting back to an old dictionary definition is almost impossible despite the best efforts of the word police. > Regards, Charles -- Charles Perry Reply to: ** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand ** |
|
|||
|
|||
"Charles Perry" > wrote in message = ... > [ ... ] > Well, if we keep this up, we can really get some newcomers > confused. =20 Yep! > ... it is hard for even experienced bakers to keep things > straight. So I say we are doin' a good job. The next thing is for one=20 of us to write a bake book so we can take their money while we are keeping them confused. > ... It is my understanding that when you have a starter (or > yeast for that matter) as the primary agent to raise the dough > the purpose of the "old dough" is to act as a dough conditioner > and some would argue as a flavor enhancer. The amount of live > organisms in the old dough is not at issue. By what mechanism is it to be supposed that the "old dough" will "condition" the dough, and in what respect is it to be expected that the dough will be conditioned?? What might be supposed to reside in the dough, other than microorganisms and their metabolic products, which could affect the flavor? > Most of the Old Dough procedures that I have read call for the > dough to undergo at least one rise before it is held back. This > is usually not the case where dough is held back to begin a new > batch. The dough that is held back to begin a new batch is > most often saved at a point just before the salt is added. Where > the salt is the last thing added. My guess: on account of innate frugality, no baker wishes to throw away excess dough. So is it saved, and the practice of=20 incorporating it into new bread is hyped up as desirable. The same thing happens with old bread, you know -- sometimes bakers add old bread to new dough, and there is some good reason for doing that which naturally escapes me, not to say that bread crumbs are not generally useful. It appears to me that the same trend is followed in the case of "retardation", that is, putting the bread in the fridge or other=20 cold place. When bread was baked on three shifts, it was not done, but when bakers became professionals and proclaimed a=20 right to work normal hours, the practice of cold slowing the rise=20 through the wee hours was promoted to the status of a "professional touch" and given this name "retardation" to disguise the simplicity of, and the elemental laziness inherent in, this = practice. > When you add old dough for the purpose of improving the dough it > is not categorically a starter manipulation. Aside from being considerably more naive, it is generically equivalent to the old Granny Beck trick of lacing an active starter with a soured one presumably to enhance the flavor of the resultant bread. > While you are correct in that most *sour* flavor is acquired near > the end of the rise, Those *sour* flavors are most definitely not > the only flavor that is developed in bread. Well, there may be flavorful metabolic products other than acids=20 due to the metabolism of microorganisms, and flavors due to the browning of the crust. Possibly there are flavors due to the enzymatic hydrolysis of flour-starches, and other such digestions, but there is no reason I know of to think that any of these processes would be favored over any other of them by holding the dough temperature low. > I submit that many yeast method bakers also argue for a longer > and slower rise to improve flavor. One way to slow the rise is > to raise the dough at a lower temperature. If I had to pick a > point to argue from it would be for cool room temperature. That is a lot like saying that one way to delay arrival as the result of a trip is to travel at lower speed. Such a practice might make=20 sense if you were to take a night train to some place where one=20 wished to arrive during daylight hours. Fermentation, in all of its aspects with which I am familiar, proceeds slower at lower=20 temperature. > The lack of any standard vocabulary and writers reusing the same > words to mean different things makes it very difficult to gain a > good understanding from just reading books. The bake-book writers stick together. If one of them writes a book=20 which makes it clear, none of the rest can hawk their stuff. If = everybody knew how to do it, no one would read the books. Nor would they consult this newsgroup. So that is why I say (above) that we are doin' a good job. > However, I still read "Beard on Bread" even though nearly=20 > every thing he wrote about sourdough is completely wrong. =20 > His enthusiasm for cooking and eating puts me in a creative mood ... And Roy, too. You do not even have to buy a book for that, just=20 wait a while and he will post something here. > Maybe some books on sourdough should have a "banned for > beginners" sticker. Recommended for the newbies! > The history of language, particularly English, does not lend=20 > much hope. Once misuse of a word escapes to the public, =20 > getting back to an old dictionary definition is almost impossible=20 > despite the best efforts of the word police. In general, professionalism implies an obfuscatory intent. In fact, that is only reflected moderately in the bake books. Such intent reaches its highest level in the classical three professions, which are thought not to include baking, nor the so-called "oldest" one. --- DickA |
|
|||
|
|||
"Charles Perry" > wrote in message = ... > [ ... ] > Well, if we keep this up, we can really get some newcomers > confused. =20 Yep! > ... it is hard for even experienced bakers to keep things > straight. So I say we are doin' a good job. The next thing is for one=20 of us to write a bake book so we can take their money while we are keeping them confused. > ... It is my understanding that when you have a starter (or > yeast for that matter) as the primary agent to raise the dough > the purpose of the "old dough" is to act as a dough conditioner > and some would argue as a flavor enhancer. The amount of live > organisms in the old dough is not at issue. By what mechanism is it to be supposed that the "old dough" will "condition" the dough, and in what respect is it to be expected that the dough will be conditioned?? What might be supposed to reside in the dough, other than microorganisms and their metabolic products, which could affect the flavor? > Most of the Old Dough procedures that I have read call for the > dough to undergo at least one rise before it is held back. This > is usually not the case where dough is held back to begin a new > batch. The dough that is held back to begin a new batch is > most often saved at a point just before the salt is added. Where > the salt is the last thing added. My guess: on account of innate frugality, no baker wishes to throw away excess dough. So is it saved, and the practice of=20 incorporating it into new bread is hyped up as desirable. The same thing happens with old bread, you know -- sometimes bakers add old bread to new dough, and there is some good reason for doing that which naturally escapes me, not to say that bread crumbs are not generally useful. It appears to me that the same trend is followed in the case of "retardation", that is, putting the bread in the fridge or other=20 cold place. When bread was baked on three shifts, it was not done, but when bakers became professionals and proclaimed a=20 right to work normal hours, the practice of cold slowing the rise=20 through the wee hours was promoted to the status of a "professional touch" and given this name "retardation" to disguise the simplicity of, and the elemental laziness inherent in, this = practice. > When you add old dough for the purpose of improving the dough it > is not categorically a starter manipulation. Aside from being considerably more naive, it is generically equivalent to the old Granny Beck trick of lacing an active starter with a soured one presumably to enhance the flavor of the resultant bread. > While you are correct in that most *sour* flavor is acquired near > the end of the rise, Those *sour* flavors are most definitely not > the only flavor that is developed in bread. Well, there may be flavorful metabolic products other than acids=20 due to the metabolism of microorganisms, and flavors due to the browning of the crust. Possibly there are flavors due to the enzymatic hydrolysis of flour-starches, and other such digestions, but there is no reason I know of to think that any of these processes would be favored over any other of them by holding the dough temperature low. > I submit that many yeast method bakers also argue for a longer > and slower rise to improve flavor. One way to slow the rise is > to raise the dough at a lower temperature. If I had to pick a > point to argue from it would be for cool room temperature. That is a lot like saying that one way to delay arrival as the result of a trip is to travel at lower speed. Such a practice might make=20 sense if you were to take a night train to some place where one=20 wished to arrive during daylight hours. Fermentation, in all of its aspects with which I am familiar, proceeds slower at lower=20 temperature. > The lack of any standard vocabulary and writers reusing the same > words to mean different things makes it very difficult to gain a > good understanding from just reading books. The bake-book writers stick together. If one of them writes a book=20 which makes it clear, none of the rest can hawk their stuff. If = everybody knew how to do it, no one would read the books. Nor would they consult this newsgroup. So that is why I say (above) that we are doin' a good job. > However, I still read "Beard on Bread" even though nearly=20 > every thing he wrote about sourdough is completely wrong. =20 > His enthusiasm for cooking and eating puts me in a creative mood ... And Roy, too. You do not even have to buy a book for that, just=20 wait a while and he will post something here. > Maybe some books on sourdough should have a "banned for > beginners" sticker. Recommended for the newbies! > The history of language, particularly English, does not lend=20 > much hope. Once misuse of a word escapes to the public, =20 > getting back to an old dictionary definition is almost impossible=20 > despite the best efforts of the word police. In general, professionalism implies an obfuscatory intent. In fact, that is only reflected moderately in the bake books. Such intent reaches its highest level in the classical three professions, which are thought not to include baking, nor the so-called "oldest" one. --- DickA |
|
|||
|
|||
Once again Dick Adams,( A.K.A.Mr. Ben A. Newbie-Never), has taken the simple
task of baking with, and keeping sourdough and put it on the level of sending a man to Mars. Leave us not forget the "Sourdoughs" and "49'ers" who are responsible for our having heard of the subject in the first place. Not too many of them considered this a chemistry endeavor? A handful of flour and creek water was more in their line. ab "Dick Adams" > wrote in message ... "Charles Perry" > wrote in message ... > [ ... ] > Well, if we keep this up, we can really get some newcomers > confused. Yep! > ... it is hard for even experienced bakers to keep things > straight. So I say we are doin' a good job. The next thing is for one of us to write a bake book so we can take their money while we are keeping them confused. > ... It is my understanding that when you have a starter (or > yeast for that matter) as the primary agent to raise the dough > the purpose of the "old dough" is to act as a dough conditioner > and some would argue as a flavor enhancer. The amount of live > organisms in the old dough is not at issue. By what mechanism is it to be supposed that the "old dough" will "condition" the dough, and in what respect is it to be expected that the dough will be conditioned?? What might be supposed to reside in the dough, other than microorganisms and their metabolic products, which could affect the flavor? > Most of the Old Dough procedures that I have read call for the > dough to undergo at least one rise before it is held back. This > is usually not the case where dough is held back to begin a new > batch. The dough that is held back to begin a new batch is > most often saved at a point just before the salt is added. Where > the salt is the last thing added. My guess: on account of innate frugality, no baker wishes to throw away excess dough. So is it saved, and the practice of incorporating it into new bread is hyped up as desirable. The same thing happens with old bread, you know -- sometimes bakers add old bread to new dough, and there is some good reason for doing that which naturally escapes me, not to say that bread crumbs are not generally useful. It appears to me that the same trend is followed in the case of "retardation", that is, putting the bread in the fridge or other cold place. When bread was baked on three shifts, it was not done, but when bakers became professionals and proclaimed a right to work normal hours, the practice of cold slowing the rise through the wee hours was promoted to the status of a "professional touch" and given this name "retardation" to disguise the simplicity of, and the elemental laziness inherent in, this practice. > When you add old dough for the purpose of improving the dough it > is not categorically a starter manipulation. Aside from being considerably more naive, it is generically equivalent to the old Granny Beck trick of lacing an active starter with a soured one presumably to enhance the flavor of the resultant bread. > While you are correct in that most *sour* flavor is acquired near > the end of the rise, Those *sour* flavors are most definitely not > the only flavor that is developed in bread. Well, there may be flavorful metabolic products other than acids due to the metabolism of microorganisms, and flavors due to the browning of the crust. Possibly there are flavors due to the enzymatic hydrolysis of flour-starches, and other such digestions, but there is no reason I know of to think that any of these processes would be favored over any other of them by holding the dough temperature low. > I submit that many yeast method bakers also argue for a longer > and slower rise to improve flavor. One way to slow the rise is > to raise the dough at a lower temperature. If I had to pick a > point to argue from it would be for cool room temperature. That is a lot like saying that one way to delay arrival as the result of a trip is to travel at lower speed. Such a practice might make sense if you were to take a night train to some place where one wished to arrive during daylight hours. Fermentation, in all of its aspects with which I am familiar, proceeds slower at lower temperature. > The lack of any standard vocabulary and writers reusing the same > words to mean different things makes it very difficult to gain a > good understanding from just reading books. The bake-book writers stick together. If one of them writes a book which makes it clear, none of the rest can hawk their stuff. If everybody knew how to do it, no one would read the books. Nor would they consult this newsgroup. So that is why I say (above) that we are doin' a good job. > However, I still read "Beard on Bread" even though nearly > every thing he wrote about sourdough is completely wrong. > His enthusiasm for cooking and eating puts me in a creative mood ... And Roy, too. You do not even have to buy a book for that, just wait a while and he will post something here. > Maybe some books on sourdough should have a "banned for > beginners" sticker. Recommended for the newbies! > The history of language, particularly English, does not lend > much hope. Once misuse of a word escapes to the public, > getting back to an old dictionary definition is almost impossible > despite the best efforts of the word police. In general, professionalism implies an obfuscatory intent. In fact, that is only reflected moderately in the bake books. Such intent reaches its highest level in the classical three professions, which are thought not to include baking, nor the so-called "oldest" one. --- DickA |
|
|||
|
|||
Once again Dick Adams,( A.K.A.Mr. Ben A. Newbie-Never), has taken the simple
task of baking with, and keeping sourdough and put it on the level of sending a man to Mars. Leave us not forget the "Sourdoughs" and "49'ers" who are responsible for our having heard of the subject in the first place. Not too many of them considered this a chemistry endeavor? A handful of flour and creek water was more in their line. ab "Dick Adams" > wrote in message ... "Charles Perry" > wrote in message ... > [ ... ] > Well, if we keep this up, we can really get some newcomers > confused. Yep! > ... it is hard for even experienced bakers to keep things > straight. So I say we are doin' a good job. The next thing is for one of us to write a bake book so we can take their money while we are keeping them confused. > ... It is my understanding that when you have a starter (or > yeast for that matter) as the primary agent to raise the dough > the purpose of the "old dough" is to act as a dough conditioner > and some would argue as a flavor enhancer. The amount of live > organisms in the old dough is not at issue. By what mechanism is it to be supposed that the "old dough" will "condition" the dough, and in what respect is it to be expected that the dough will be conditioned?? What might be supposed to reside in the dough, other than microorganisms and their metabolic products, which could affect the flavor? > Most of the Old Dough procedures that I have read call for the > dough to undergo at least one rise before it is held back. This > is usually not the case where dough is held back to begin a new > batch. The dough that is held back to begin a new batch is > most often saved at a point just before the salt is added. Where > the salt is the last thing added. My guess: on account of innate frugality, no baker wishes to throw away excess dough. So is it saved, and the practice of incorporating it into new bread is hyped up as desirable. The same thing happens with old bread, you know -- sometimes bakers add old bread to new dough, and there is some good reason for doing that which naturally escapes me, not to say that bread crumbs are not generally useful. It appears to me that the same trend is followed in the case of "retardation", that is, putting the bread in the fridge or other cold place. When bread was baked on three shifts, it was not done, but when bakers became professionals and proclaimed a right to work normal hours, the practice of cold slowing the rise through the wee hours was promoted to the status of a "professional touch" and given this name "retardation" to disguise the simplicity of, and the elemental laziness inherent in, this practice. > When you add old dough for the purpose of improving the dough it > is not categorically a starter manipulation. Aside from being considerably more naive, it is generically equivalent to the old Granny Beck trick of lacing an active starter with a soured one presumably to enhance the flavor of the resultant bread. > While you are correct in that most *sour* flavor is acquired near > the end of the rise, Those *sour* flavors are most definitely not > the only flavor that is developed in bread. Well, there may be flavorful metabolic products other than acids due to the metabolism of microorganisms, and flavors due to the browning of the crust. Possibly there are flavors due to the enzymatic hydrolysis of flour-starches, and other such digestions, but there is no reason I know of to think that any of these processes would be favored over any other of them by holding the dough temperature low. > I submit that many yeast method bakers also argue for a longer > and slower rise to improve flavor. One way to slow the rise is > to raise the dough at a lower temperature. If I had to pick a > point to argue from it would be for cool room temperature. That is a lot like saying that one way to delay arrival as the result of a trip is to travel at lower speed. Such a practice might make sense if you were to take a night train to some place where one wished to arrive during daylight hours. Fermentation, in all of its aspects with which I am familiar, proceeds slower at lower temperature. > The lack of any standard vocabulary and writers reusing the same > words to mean different things makes it very difficult to gain a > good understanding from just reading books. The bake-book writers stick together. If one of them writes a book which makes it clear, none of the rest can hawk their stuff. If everybody knew how to do it, no one would read the books. Nor would they consult this newsgroup. So that is why I say (above) that we are doin' a good job. > However, I still read "Beard on Bread" even though nearly > every thing he wrote about sourdough is completely wrong. > His enthusiasm for cooking and eating puts me in a creative mood ... And Roy, too. You do not even have to buy a book for that, just wait a while and he will post something here. > Maybe some books on sourdough should have a "banned for > beginners" sticker. Recommended for the newbies! > The history of language, particularly English, does not lend > much hope. Once misuse of a word escapes to the public, > getting back to an old dictionary definition is almost impossible > despite the best efforts of the word police. In general, professionalism implies an obfuscatory intent. In fact, that is only reflected moderately in the bake books. Such intent reaches its highest level in the classical three professions, which are thought not to include baking, nor the so-called "oldest" one. --- DickA |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Now I'm thoroughly confused | General Cooking | |||
Confused by a recipe. | General Cooking | |||
Confused about hydrometer | Winemaking | |||
Confused | Preserving | |||
Confused about quanities | Tea |