think I am on an average talented baker. I could duplicate a lot of low
hydration recipes, but had difficulties with high-hydration breads.

I tried John's Sourdough Ciabatta with German flour from soft wheat:
Weizenmehl Type 550, 11,0 % protein. The dough was tacky and stayed sloppy
after the 6th stretch and fold cycle. I had to slide the breads on a baking
sheet into the oven.

Here are the results:

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/100...ohn_550_01.jpg

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/100...ohn_550_02.jpg

For one of the next tries I used Weizenmehl Type 1050, 12,0 % protein. A
little better, but no important gluten development, the dough didn't hold
its form. No chance to get the breads into the oven without baking sheets.
The results were still disappointing:

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/100...hn_1050_01.jpg

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/100...hn_1050_02.jpg

I began to believe that I did something wrong. Last week I got Bread Flour
from King Arthur (13,3 %protein ) from hard spring wheat and I got
satisfactory results:

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/100..._KA_BF_002.jpg

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/100..._KA_BF_009.jpg

Obviously the German soft wheat flours I used before were not suited for
high hydration breads.

Ulrike Westphal

"Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message >...

> Obviously the German soft wheat flours I used before were not suited for
> high hydration breads.
German wheats are not that soft, it is just the nature of their wheat
grain that exhibits weaker gluten quality than American flours.
Another things if you examine the farinograph curve of the two flours
you will notice that American flours of the same protein and ash level
had higher mixing and fermentation tolerance; hence are more robust
than most European flours in baking. The European flours are known
for their lesser hydration characteristics as well as less mixing
tolerance if compared to north American flours.
But IIRC even in this high hydration dough some folks here succeeded
in using the American untreated (all purpose flour? ) for such
watery doughs; meaning that flour protein is not the main issue but
the nature of the wheat protein of the flour itself.
The simplest solution with such lesser performing flour would be…..
Adding vital wheat gluten to the type 550 german flour would boost its
hydration characteristics.Remember a 1% addition of gluten to the
flour will raise its protein content by 0.70-0.75%. Therefore if your
target is around 13% flour incorporating about 3% wheat gluten powder
to an 11% protein flour will simulate the protein level of the King
arthur flour that succeeded in your trials.
BTW, type 1050 indeed contains higher protein but higher ash level
that is attributed to branny particles that can contribute to dough
weakness due partly to the abrasive action of such coarse particulate
matter on the gluten fibrils. Therefore the gluten content is indeed
higher but interaction of the extraneous substances such as wheat bran
and also active wheat germ components, also contribute to dough
weakness. The latter by exuding glutathione that will weaken the
gluten as well resulting in pan flow in the latter stage of the
fermentation process
Schematically it is disulfide bond- sulfhydryl bond exchange( -S-S-
and SH)
2GSH + P-S-S-P = P-S-H……P-S-H + G-S-S-G
where GSH= glutathione
P-S-S-P = wheat gluten
P-SH…..SH-P= weakened gluten
G-S-S-G = oxidized glutathione taking away some of the the
strengthening disulfide bonds –S-S- out in the adjacent gluten fibers.
The result will be gluten weakening and more pan flow( the dough that
will not hold its form).
These chemical reactions will not severely affect American flours due
to the nature of its gluten quality. Further from the point of
organic and physical chemistry the nature of the amino acid sequence
of the American flour is slightly different than European flours and
the intermolecular/intramolecular bonds that make up the tertiary
protein and quaternary protein structure is slightly different;
meaning that conclusively you cannot equate protein quality of the
two flours as identical in performance .These minor difference can be
modified by fortification of the weaker flour with gluten powder so
that you can attain your target product performance.
Roy

"Roy Basan" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om...
> "Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Obviously the German soft wheat flours I used before were not suited for
> > high hydration breads.
> German wheats are not that soft, it is just the nature of their wheat
> grain that exhibits weaker gluten quality than American flours.
> Another things if you examine the farinograph curve of the two flours
> you will notice that American flours of the same protein and ash level
> had higher mixing and fermentation tolerance; hence are more robust
> than most European flours in baking. The European flours are known
> for their lesser hydration characteristics as well as less mixing
> tolerance if compared to north American flours.
> But IIRC even in this high hydration dough some folks here succeeded
> in using the American untreated (all purpose flour? ) for such
> watery doughs; meaning that flour protein is not the main issue but
> the nature of the wheat protein of the flour itself.
> The simplest solution with such lesser performing flour would be...
> Adding vital wheat gluten to the type 550 german flour would boost its
> hydration characteristics.Remember a 1% addition of gluten to the
> flour will raise its protein content by 0.70-0.75%. Therefore if your
> target is around 13% flour incorporating about 3% wheat gluten powder
> to an 11% protein flour will simulate the protein level of the King
> arthur flour that succeeded in your trials.
> BTW, type 1050 indeed contains higher protein but higher ash level
> that is attributed to branny particles that can contribute to dough
> weakness due partly to the abrasive action of such coarse particulate
> matter on the gluten fibrils. Therefore the gluten content is indeed
> higher but interaction of the extraneous substances such as wheat bran
> and also active wheat germ components, also contribute to dough
> weakness. The latter by exuding glutathione that will weaken the
> gluten as well resulting in pan flow in the latter stage of the
> fermentation process
> Schematically it is disulfide bond- sulfhydryl bond exchange( -S-S-
> and SH)
> 2GSH + P-S-S-P = P-S-H..P-S-H + G-S-S-G
> where GSH= glutathione
> P-S-S-P = wheat gluten
> P-SH...SH-P= weakened gluten
> G-S-S-G = oxidized glutathione taking away some of the the
> strengthening disulfide bonds -S-S- out in the adjacent gluten fibers.
> The result will be gluten weakening and more pan flow( the dough that
> will not hold its form).
> These chemical reactions will not severely affect American flours due
> to the nature of its gluten quality. Further from the point of
> organic and physical chemistry the nature of the amino acid sequence
> of the American flour is slightly different than European flours and
> the intermolecular/intramolecular bonds that make up the tertiary
> protein and quaternary protein structure is slightly different;
> meaning that conclusively you cannot equate protein quality of the
> two flours as identical in performance .These minor difference can be
> modified by fortification of the weaker flour with gluten powder so
> that you can attain your target product performance.
> Roy


Thanks for your detailed explanation. I just mixed 500 g Type 550 (11 %
protein) with 20 g gluten flour (80% protein), so this mixture contains
13,7 % protein. The next trial has begun and tomorrow I know more...

Ulrike

"Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message >...

>
> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I just mixed 500 g Type 550 (11 %
> protein) with 20 g gluten flour (80% protein), so this mixture contains
> 13,7 % protein. The next trial has begun and tomorrow I know more...
>
> Ulrike

Oh, wait a minute..... be careful you maybe adding too much gluten to
your flour than what you are expecting for.
Your 20 gram of gluten plus 500 gram 11% protein flour will result to:
20 grams of gluten in the total mixture of 520 grams( 500 grams flour
+ 20 grams gluten) which actually is 3.85 % gluten ( added) that
provides 3.85 x0.75( protein content of wheat gluten)= 2.85 % .
So 3.85 x 0.75 + 96.15 x0.11=13.46 % wheat protein( total).A really
strong flour.But that is related in strength to the hard spring wheat.
If your target is just 11.7%-1.8 then you should use only 1.25%% wheat
gluten.
It will be 6.25 grams wheat gluten + 493.75 grams flour x 0.11( flour
protein)= 500 grams in all with a total calcutated protein of 1.25 x
0.75 + 98.75 x 0.11= 11.8 %In total wheat protein content calculation
..

Roy

"Roy Basan" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
m...
> "Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message
>...
>
> Oh, wait a minute..... be careful you maybe adding too much gluten to
> your flour than what you are expecting for.
> Your 20 gram of gluten plus 500 gram 11% protein flour will result to:
> 20 grams of gluten in the total mixture of 520 grams( 500 grams flour
> + 20 grams gluten) which actually is 3.85 % gluten ( added) that
> provides 3.85 x0.75( protein content of wheat gluten)= 2.85 % .
> So 3.85 x 0.75 + 96.15 x0.11=13.46 % wheat protein( total).A really
> strong flour.But that is related in strength to the hard spring wheat.
> If your target is just 11.7%-1.8 then you should use only 1.25%% wheat
> gluten.
> It will be 6.25 grams wheat gluten + 493.75 grams flour x 0.11( flour
> protein)= 500 grams in all with a total calcutated protein of 1.25 x
> 0.75 + 98.75 x 0.11= 11.8 %In total wheat protein content calculation
> .
>
> Roy

Sorry Roy, perhaps I have blond roots, but I can't follow your calculation:

I have 500 g flour with 5 x 11 g protein= 55 g protein in 500 g flour
I add 20 g gluten flour (80 % protein) with 16 g protein

I get a mixture of 520 g that contains 55+16= 71 g protein makes 100 x
71/520= 16,7 % protein

Am I so wrong?

Ulrike

just making the first stretch'n fold cycle with this mixture

"Roy Basan" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
m...
> "Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message
>...
>
> Oh, wait a minute..... be careful you maybe adding too much gluten to
> your flour than what you are expecting for.
> Your 20 gram of gluten plus 500 gram 11% protein flour will result to:
> 20 grams of gluten in the total mixture of 520 grams( 500 grams flour
> + 20 grams gluten) which actually is 3.85 % gluten ( added) that
> provides 3.85 x0.75( protein content of wheat gluten)= 2.85 % .
> So 3.85 x 0.75 + 96.15 x0.11=13.46 % wheat protein( total).A really
> strong flour.But that is related in strength to the hard spring wheat.
> If your target is just 11.7%-1.8 then you should use only 1.25%% wheat
> gluten.
> It will be 6.25 grams wheat gluten + 493.75 grams flour x 0.11( flour
> protein)= 500 grams in all with a total calcutated protein of 1.25 x
> 0.75 + 98.75 x 0.11= 11.8 %In total wheat protein content calculation
> .
>
> Roy

Sorry Roy, perhaps I have blond roots, but I can't follow your calculation:

I have 500 g flour with 5 x 11 g protein= 55 g protein in 500 g flour
I add 20 g gluten flour (80 % protein) with 16 g protein

I get a mixture of 520 g that contains 55+16= 71 g protein makes 100 x
71/520= 16,7 % protein

Am I so wrong?

Ulrike

just making the first stretch'n fold cycle with this mixture

"Roy Basan" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
m...
> "Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message
>...
>
> Oh, wait a minute..... be careful you maybe adding too much gluten to
> your flour than what you are expecting for.
> Your 20 gram of gluten plus 500 gram 11% protein flour will result to:
> 20 grams of gluten in the total mixture of 520 grams( 500 grams flour
> + 20 grams gluten) which actually is 3.85 % gluten ( added) that
> provides 3.85 x0.75( protein content of wheat gluten)= 2.85 % .
> So 3.85 x 0.75 + 96.15 x0.11=13.46 % wheat protein( total).A really
> strong flour.But that is related in strength to the hard spring wheat.
> If your target is just 11.7%-1.8 then you should use only 1.25%% wheat
> gluten.
> It will be 6.25 grams wheat gluten + 493.75 grams flour x 0.11( flour
> protein)= 500 grams in all with a total calcutated protein of 1.25 x
> 0.75 + 98.75 x 0.11= 11.8 %In total wheat protein content calculation
> .
>
> Roy

Sorry Roy, perhaps I have blond roots, but I can't follow your calculation:

I have 500 g flour with 5 x 11 g protein= 55 g protein in 500 g flour
I add 20 g gluten flour (80 % protein) with 16 g protein

I get a mixture of 520 g that contains 55+16= 71 g protein makes 100 x
71/520= 16,7 % protein

Am I so wrong?

Ulrike

just making the first stretch'n fold cycle with this mixture

"Ulrike Westphal" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
> "Roy Basan" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> om...
>
>
> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I just mixed 500 g Type 550 (11 %
> protein) with 20 g gluten flour (80% protein), so this mixture contains
> 13,7 % protein. The next trial has begun and tomorrow I know more...
>
> Ulrike
>
I added some gluten (as described above) to my flour 550. IMHO the mixture
has 13,7 % protein:
5*11,0 + 0,2 * 80 =71 g protein in 520 g mixture = 13, 7 % protein and tried
to bake the sourdough ciabatta again.

It didn't work in the same way as the KA flour did. There was less
elasticity and the rises were more horizontally than vertically. The dough
was flabby and was hardly to bring into a ciabatta shape. Where is the oven
spring?
Here are the non convincing results.

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_004.jpg

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_009.jpg

Any suggestions??

Ulrike

"Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message >...
Ulrike Unfortunately….. my server did not allow me to view your
pictures as my screen came out blank when I try to read the link.
Yeah, I misread some of your numbers…...
I think I have to change my glasses<g>…. Or invest on a new
,brighter flat screen monitor for my old laptop . I was only seeing
11.7% protein not the 13.7% as the text was rather fine for my eyes
than the normal screen I am used to in the desktop.


>Sorry Roy, perhaps I have blond roots, but I can't >follow your
calculation:

>I have 500 g flour with 5 x 11 g protein= 55 g protein >in 500 g
flour
>I add 20 g gluten flour (80 % protein) with 16 g >protein

>I get a mixture of 520 g that contains 55+16= 71 g >protein makes 100
x
>71/520= 16,7 % protein

>Am I so wrong?
Yes….
First WE use different value for the protein content of the wheat
gluten…. You use 80% while I use 75% but the main issue here is your
literal addition of values .
Let me see. But sorry I do not find you calculation correlate with
experimental flour blending trials.
The one I did have relation with experiments.
So….
20/520 x100=3.85% gluten x 0.80=3.077 ( or 3.08)percent
protein.
Now to obtain your flour; 100-3.85=96.15 % of flour.
Therefore…96.15% x 0.11 + 3.85 x 0.80=13.66 % protein
Almost the same as if
96.15 x0.11 + 3.85 x 0.75=13.46; 13.66 vs. 13.46, you cannot see much
difference in that in performance evaluation ( baking) but can be
distinguished by chemical instrumentation( Kjeldahl protein analysis,
and possibly by flour rheological tests instruments( farinograph and
extensograph; alveograph and mixograph)
Your value 16.7 is high, I can obtain that flour roughly by;
Mixing 8 parts wheat gluten powder(if you are using 80% protein) and
92 parts of 11 % protein flour.
Or 8 x 0.8 + 92 x 0.11 =16.52 not far from 16.7.


Regarding baking.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your detailed explanation. I just mixed 500 g Type 550 (11 %
> > protein) with 20 g gluten flour (80% protein), so this mixture contains
> > 13,7 % protein. The next trial has begun and tomorrow I know more...
> >
> > Ulrike
> >
> I added some gluten (as described above) to my flour 550. IMHO the mixture
> has 13,7 % protein:
> 5*11,0 + 0,2 * 80 =71 g protein in 520 g mixture = 13, 7 % protein
> to bake the sourdough ciabatta again.
>
> It didn't work in the same way as the KA flour did. There was less
> elasticity and the rises were more horizontally than vertically. The dough
> was flabby and was hardly to bring into a ciabatta shape. Where is the oven
> spring?
> Here are the non convincing results. http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_004.jpg http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_009.jpg
> Any suggestions??
> Ulrike
Still if you reach that amount and you only stretch and fold the
added gluten is more difficult to develop as it has been my
observation in the farinograph than the development time of a gluten
fortified flour is somewhat longer than the normal al very strong
flour of the same protein level.
If the flour was also balanced enzymatically you will obtain
positive results
By remembering back my experimental trials…..
I was also given inferior results with my hand kneaded roll dough I
made several years ago with a gluten fortified European flour that I
had to drop the dough to the mixer to have it optimally developed..
(that may have provided partly some of the difference)
My initial trials exhibit similar result as you. When I checked the
rheological perfomance, it was more elastic than extensible
But as I was also monitoring the enzymatic level of the gluten
fortified flour which I found to be low in enzyme activity, therefore
I added calculated amount of fungal amylase/protease blend(simulating
the malt supplementaion) and check the amylase activity, amylograph
viscosity a the same time to approximate the enzymatic activity
naturally strong spring flour characteristic ..
..
BTw the recipe I used was based on normal bakers yeast not on
sourdough culture. And I was using the standard straight dough method
in preparing that experimental dough.
It did improve the performance and I was able to attain the similar
result with the flour that I was trying to duplicate in baking
quality.
A sourdough recipe would not make much difference except maybe how you
develop the dough. With a properly malt supplemented gluten
fortified flour I am certain that there will be improvements in baking
quality

..if you dough did not expand equally in both vertical and horizontal
position the dough is tight and there was no relaxation. It means that
your flour needs enzymatic( malt addition).You can add malt in it but
as that material you buy or you made your own does not have
predictable enzymatic activity ;you nay have to add slightly more.
Bit using and commercial normal diastatic malt flour used in baking
that has an activity of
..50 SKB units the level is 5 grams per 1000 grams of flour is
necessary for such low enzymatic activity gluten fortified flour., you
will have to increase also if you are using the diastatic malt syrup.
Some bakers add 1-2% of their homemade malt to the flour to improve
baking quality.
Just remember that flour even if the protein content and enzymatic
activity are optimized is still not absolutely identical in
performance to the flour you want to duplicate.... the bottom line is
there is some similariy in pefromance but not in all.

Roy

"Roy Basan" > wrote in message =
om...

> ... you cannot see much difference in that in performance evaluation=20
> (baking) but can be distinguished by chemical instrumentation=20
> (Kjeldahl protein analysis, and possibly by flour rheological=20
> tests instruments( farinograph and extensograph; alveograph and=20
> mixograph) ...

Pretty clearly my kitchen is falling short at the level of basic=20
instrumentation ...

> ... it has been my observation in the farinograph than the=20
> development time of a gluten fortified flour is somewhat longer=20
> than the normal al very strong flour of the same protein level ...

.... Heck, I don't have even a rudimentary farinograph ...

> ... If the flour was also balanced enzymatically you will obtain=20
> positive results ...

Just some vaguely positive results -- that's all I want. But what can
I do without an enzymatic balancer?

> ... I was also monitoring the enzymatic level of the gluten fortified=20
> flour which I found to be low in enzyme activity, therefore I=20
> added calculated amount of fungal amylase/protease=20
> blend ...

Zikes, woe is me, it seems quite hopeless. I doubt if I could=20
calculate the right amount of fungal amylase/protease blend, even
if I knew where to buy some.

> ... check the amylase activity, amylograph viscosity a the same=20
> time to approximate the enzymatic activity naturally strong=20
> spring flour characteristic ...

D'ya suppose I could pick up a 2nd-hand amylograph some place?

> ... Just remember that flour even if the protein content and=20
> enzymatic activity are optimized is still not absolutely identical=20
> in performance to the flour you want to duplicate ...

OK, then, I give up. Looks like its going to be bread from the store
for me.

---
DickA

"Roy Basan" > wrote in message =
om...

> ... you cannot see much difference in that in performance evaluation=20
> (baking) but can be distinguished by chemical instrumentation=20
> (Kjeldahl protein analysis, and possibly by flour rheological=20
> tests instruments( farinograph and extensograph; alveograph and=20
> mixograph) ...

Pretty clearly my kitchen is falling short at the level of basic=20
instrumentation ...

> ... it has been my observation in the farinograph than the=20
> development time of a gluten fortified flour is somewhat longer=20
> than the normal al very strong flour of the same protein level ...

.... Heck, I don't have even a rudimentary farinograph ...

> ... If the flour was also balanced enzymatically you will obtain=20
> positive results ...

Just some vaguely positive results -- that's all I want. But what can
I do without an enzymatic balancer?

> ... I was also monitoring the enzymatic level of the gluten fortified=20
> flour which I found to be low in enzyme activity, therefore I=20
> added calculated amount of fungal amylase/protease=20
> blend ...

Zikes, woe is me, it seems quite hopeless. I doubt if I could=20
calculate the right amount of fungal amylase/protease blend, even
if I knew where to buy some.

> ... check the amylase activity, amylograph viscosity a the same=20
> time to approximate the enzymatic activity naturally strong=20
> spring flour characteristic ...

D'ya suppose I could pick up a 2nd-hand amylograph some place?

> ... Just remember that flour even if the protein content and=20
> enzymatic activity are optimized is still not absolutely identical=20
> in performance to the flour you want to duplicate ...

OK, then, I give up. Looks like its going to be bread from the store
for me.

---
DickA

"Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message >...
Ulrike Unfortunately….. my server did not allow me to view your
pictures as my screen came out blank when I try to read the link.
Yeah, I misread some of your numbers…...
I think I have to change my glasses<g>…. Or invest on a new
,brighter flat screen monitor for my old laptop . I was only seeing
11.7% protein not the 13.7% as the text was rather fine for my eyes
than the normal screen I am used to in the desktop.


>Sorry Roy, perhaps I have blond roots, but I can't >follow your
calculation:

>I have 500 g flour with 5 x 11 g protein= 55 g protein >in 500 g
flour
>I add 20 g gluten flour (80 % protein) with 16 g >protein

>I get a mixture of 520 g that contains 55+16= 71 g >protein makes 100
x
>71/520= 16,7 % protein

>Am I so wrong?
Yes….
First WE use different value for the protein content of the wheat
gluten…. You use 80% while I use 75% but the main issue here is your
literal addition of values .
Let me see. But sorry I do not find you calculation correlate with
experimental flour blending trials.
The one I did have relation with experiments.
So….
20/520 x100=3.85% gluten x 0.80=3.077 ( or 3.08)percent
protein.
Now to obtain your flour; 100-3.85=96.15 % of flour.
Therefore…96.15% x 0.11 + 3.85 x 0.80=13.66 % protein
Almost the same as if
96.15 x0.11 + 3.85 x 0.75=13.46; 13.66 vs. 13.46, you cannot see much
difference in that in performance evaluation ( baking) but can be
distinguished by chemical instrumentation( Kjeldahl protein analysis,
and possibly by flour rheological tests instruments( farinograph and
extensograph; alveograph and mixograph)
Your value 16.7 is high, I can obtain that flour roughly by;
Mixing 8 parts wheat gluten powder(if you are using 80% protein) and
92 parts of 11 % protein flour.
Or 8 x 0.8 + 92 x 0.11 =16.52 not far from 16.7.


Regarding baking.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your detailed explanation. I just mixed 500 g Type 550 (11 %
> > protein) with 20 g gluten flour (80% protein), so this mixture contains
> > 13,7 % protein. The next trial has begun and tomorrow I know more...
> >
> > Ulrike
> >
> I added some gluten (as described above) to my flour 550. IMHO the mixture
> has 13,7 % protein:
> 5*11,0 + 0,2 * 80 =71 g protein in 520 g mixture = 13, 7 % protein
> to bake the sourdough ciabatta again.
>
> It didn't work in the same way as the KA flour did. There was less
> elasticity and the rises were more horizontally than vertically. The dough
> was flabby and was hardly to bring into a ciabatta shape. Where is the oven
> spring?
> Here are the non convincing results. http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_004.jpg http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_009.jpg
> Any suggestions??
> Ulrike
Still if you reach that amount and you only stretch and fold the
added gluten is more difficult to develop as it has been my
observation in the farinograph than the development time of a gluten
fortified flour is somewhat longer than the normal al very strong
flour of the same protein level.
If the flour was also balanced enzymatically you will obtain
positive results
By remembering back my experimental trials…..
I was also given inferior results with my hand kneaded roll dough I
made several years ago with a gluten fortified European flour that I
had to drop the dough to the mixer to have it optimally developed..
(that may have provided partly some of the difference)
My initial trials exhibit similar result as you. When I checked the
rheological perfomance, it was more elastic than extensible
But as I was also monitoring the enzymatic level of the gluten
fortified flour which I found to be low in enzyme activity, therefore
I added calculated amount of fungal amylase/protease blend(simulating
the malt supplementaion) and check the amylase activity, amylograph
viscosity a the same time to approximate the enzymatic activity
naturally strong spring flour characteristic ..
..
BTw the recipe I used was based on normal bakers yeast not on
sourdough culture. And I was using the standard straight dough method
in preparing that experimental dough.
It did improve the performance and I was able to attain the similar
result with the flour that I was trying to duplicate in baking
quality.
A sourdough recipe would not make much difference except maybe how you
develop the dough. With a properly malt supplemented gluten
fortified flour I am certain that there will be improvements in baking
quality

..if you dough did not expand equally in both vertical and horizontal
position the dough is tight and there was no relaxation. It means that
your flour needs enzymatic( malt addition).You can add malt in it but
as that material you buy or you made your own does not have
predictable enzymatic activity ;you nay have to add slightly more.
Bit using and commercial normal diastatic malt flour used in baking
that has an activity of
..50 SKB units the level is 5 grams per 1000 grams of flour is
necessary for such low enzymatic activity gluten fortified flour., you
will have to increase also if you are using the diastatic malt syrup.
Some bakers add 1-2% of their homemade malt to the flour to improve
baking quality.
Just remember that flour even if the protein content and enzymatic
activity are optimized is still not absolutely identical in
performance to the flour you want to duplicate.... the bottom line is
there is some similariy in pefromance but not in all.

Roy

"Ulrike Westphal" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
> "Roy Basan" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> om...
>
>
> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I just mixed 500 g Type 550 (11 %
> protein) with 20 g gluten flour (80% protein), so this mixture contains
> 13,7 % protein. The next trial has begun and tomorrow I know more...
>
> Ulrike
>
I added some gluten (as described above) to my flour 550. IMHO the mixture
has 13,7 % protein:
5*11,0 + 0,2 * 80 =71 g protein in 520 g mixture = 13, 7 % protein and tried
to bake the sourdough ciabatta again.

It didn't work in the same way as the KA flour did. There was less
elasticity and the rises were more horizontally than vertically. The dough
was flabby and was hardly to bring into a ciabatta shape. Where is the oven
spring?
Here are the non convincing results.

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_004.jpg

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/102...50plus_009.jpg

Any suggestions??

Ulrike

"Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message >...

>
> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I just mixed 500 g Type 550 (11 %
> protein) with 20 g gluten flour (80% protein), so this mixture contains
> 13,7 % protein. The next trial has begun and tomorrow I know more...
>
> Ulrike

Oh, wait a minute..... be careful you maybe adding too much gluten to
your flour than what you are expecting for.
Your 20 gram of gluten plus 500 gram 11% protein flour will result to:
20 grams of gluten in the total mixture of 520 grams( 500 grams flour
+ 20 grams gluten) which actually is 3.85 % gluten ( added) that
provides 3.85 x0.75( protein content of wheat gluten)= 2.85 % .
So 3.85 x 0.75 + 96.15 x0.11=13.46 % wheat protein( total).A really
strong flour.But that is related in strength to the hard spring wheat.
If your target is just 11.7%-1.8 then you should use only 1.25%% wheat
gluten.
It will be 6.25 grams wheat gluten + 493.75 grams flour x 0.11( flour
protein)= 500 grams in all with a total calcutated protein of 1.25 x
0.75 + 98.75 x 0.11= 11.8 %In total wheat protein content calculation
..

Roy

"Roy Basan" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om...
> "Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Obviously the German soft wheat flours I used before were not suited for
> > high hydration breads.
> German wheats are not that soft, it is just the nature of their wheat
> grain that exhibits weaker gluten quality than American flours.
> Another things if you examine the farinograph curve of the two flours
> you will notice that American flours of the same protein and ash level
> had higher mixing and fermentation tolerance; hence are more robust
> than most European flours in baking. The European flours are known
> for their lesser hydration characteristics as well as less mixing
> tolerance if compared to north American flours.
> But IIRC even in this high hydration dough some folks here succeeded
> in using the American untreated (all purpose flour? ) for such
> watery doughs; meaning that flour protein is not the main issue but
> the nature of the wheat protein of the flour itself.
> The simplest solution with such lesser performing flour would be...
> Adding vital wheat gluten to the type 550 german flour would boost its
> hydration characteristics.Remember a 1% addition of gluten to the
> flour will raise its protein content by 0.70-0.75%. Therefore if your
> target is around 13% flour incorporating about 3% wheat gluten powder
> to an 11% protein flour will simulate the protein level of the King
> arthur flour that succeeded in your trials.
> BTW, type 1050 indeed contains higher protein but higher ash level
> that is attributed to branny particles that can contribute to dough
> weakness due partly to the abrasive action of such coarse particulate
> matter on the gluten fibrils. Therefore the gluten content is indeed
> higher but interaction of the extraneous substances such as wheat bran
> and also active wheat germ components, also contribute to dough
> weakness. The latter by exuding glutathione that will weaken the
> gluten as well resulting in pan flow in the latter stage of the
> fermentation process
> Schematically it is disulfide bond- sulfhydryl bond exchange( -S-S-
> and SH)
> 2GSH + P-S-S-P = P-S-H..P-S-H + G-S-S-G
> where GSH= glutathione
> P-S-S-P = wheat gluten
> P-SH...SH-P= weakened gluten
> G-S-S-G = oxidized glutathione taking away some of the the
> strengthening disulfide bonds -S-S- out in the adjacent gluten fibers.
> The result will be gluten weakening and more pan flow( the dough that
> will not hold its form).
> These chemical reactions will not severely affect American flours due
> to the nature of its gluten quality. Further from the point of
> organic and physical chemistry the nature of the amino acid sequence
> of the American flour is slightly different than European flours and
> the intermolecular/intramolecular bonds that make up the tertiary
> protein and quaternary protein structure is slightly different;
> meaning that conclusively you cannot equate protein quality of the
> two flours as identical in performance .These minor difference can be
> modified by fortification of the weaker flour with gluten powder so
> that you can attain your target product performance.
> Roy


Thanks for your detailed explanation. I just mixed 500 g Type 550 (11 %
protein) with 20 g gluten flour (80% protein), so this mixture contains
13,7 % protein. The next trial has begun and tomorrow I know more...

Ulrike

On 9/4/04 8:06 AM, "Dick Adams" > wrote:

>
> "Roy Basan" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>> ... you cannot see much difference in that in performance evaluation
>> (baking) but can be distinguished by chemical instrumentation
>> (Kjeldahl protein analysis, and possibly by flour rheological
>> tests instruments( farinograph and extensograph; alveograph and
>> mixograph) ...
>
> Pretty clearly my kitchen is falling short at the level of basic
> instrumentation ...
>
>> ... it has been my observation in the farinograph than the
>> development time of a gluten fortified flour is somewhat longer
>> than the normal al very strong flour of the same protein level ...
>
> ... Heck, I don't have even a rudimentary farinograph ...
>
>> ... If the flour was also balanced enzymatically you will obtain
>> positive results ...
>
> Just some vaguely positive results -- that's all I want. But what can
> I do without an enzymatic balancer?
>
>> ... I was also monitoring the enzymatic level of the gluten fortified
>> flour which I found to be low in enzyme activity, therefore I
>> added calculated amount of fungal amylase/protease
>> blend ...
>
> Zikes, woe is me, it seems quite hopeless. I doubt if I could
> calculate the right amount of fungal amylase/protease blend, even
> if I knew where to buy some.
>
>> ... check the amylase activity, amylograph viscosity a the same
>> time to approximate the enzymatic activity naturally strong
>> spring flour characteristic ...
>
> D'ya suppose I could pick up a 2nd-hand amylograph some place?
>
>> ... Just remember that flour even if the protein content and
>> enzymatic activity are optimized is still not absolutely identical
>> in performance to the flour you want to duplicate ...
>
> OK, then, I give up. Looks like its going to be bread from the store
> for me.
>
> ---
> DickA

Behave Dick...

I've don't have any of those instruments either and I'd bet Kenneth, despite
his Bongard, lacks at least one of two of them too. But it's fun to read
about sulfur bonds and bread elasticity. It's like a peek through the window
to the industrial baking world where chemistry reigns.

I've been waiting for your recent thoughts on the old dough/cold
ferment/retard thread. I thought Konny K's post about liberal use of old
dough and the cold room validated a lot of my practice and contradicted a
number of your postings <big g>.

All the best...

Will






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

"williamwaller" > wrote in message =
news:mailman.22.1094306015.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...

> I've been waiting for your recent thoughts on the old dough/cold
> ferment/retard thread.

OK, one more time: I think that low-temperature fermentation of
dough is a waste of time. Storing sourdough culture at low temperature
makes good sense, however, because, that way, you do not have to
refresh so frequently. Using old dough is more conservational than
throwing it away. Retard, as a noun, is a deprecatory name for someone
whose intelligence failed to develop normally.=20

> I thought Konny K's post about liberal use of old dough and the=20
> cold room validated a lot of my practice and contradicted a
> number of your postings <big g>.

Welcome to Konny K. and all of the picturesque old-world people with
their quaint names and strange ideas. I do not think that Konny K.
intended to contradict anything, but merely intended to be informative,
conversational, and funny perhaps? <big g>

--=20
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname> at bigfoot dot com

P.S. Please see the procedure for SF sourdough at=20
http://samartha.net/SD/recipes/SF-01.html
Where does it say anything about "retardation"?

"Dick Adams" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"williamwaller" > wrote in message
news:mailman.22.1094306015.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...

> I've been waiting for your recent thoughts on the old dough/cold
> ferment/retard thread.

OK, one more time: I think that low-temperature fermentation of
dough is a waste of time. Storing sourdough culture at low temperature
makes good sense, however, because, that way, you do not have to
refresh so frequently. Using old dough is more conservational than
throwing it away. Retard, as a noun, is a deprecatory name for someone
whose intelligence failed to develop normally.

> I thought Konny K's post about liberal use of old dough and the
> cold room validated a lot of my practice and contradicted a
> number of your postings <big g>.

Welcome to Konny K. and all of the picturesque old-world people with
their quaint names and strange ideas. I do not think that Konny K.
intended to contradict anything, but merely intended to be informative,
conversational, and funny perhaps? <big g>

--
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname> at bigfoot dot com

P.S. Please see the procedure for SF sourdough at
http://samartha.net/SD/recipes/SF-01.html
Where does it say anything about "retardation"?

I still have no idea how to duplicate John's recipe without that f*/' strong
bread flour from US or UK

Ulrike

>
>OK, one more time: I think that low-temperature fermentation of
>dough is a waste of time.

A low temperature rest wthout fermentation does have significant effect on a
dough. The resultant taste, structure and crust colour and thinness are
reproducible and, to anyone that's used the method , are as characteristic as a
fingerprint.


> Storing sourdough culture at low temperature
>makes good sense, however, because, that way, you do not have to
>refresh so frequently. Using old dough is more conservational than
>throwing it away. Retard, as a noun, is a deprecatory name for someone
>whose intelligence failed to develop normally.=20
>

John

"Dick Adams" wrote:
> Welcome to Konny K. and all of the picturesque old-world people with
> their quaint names and strange ideas. I do not think that Konny K.
> intended to contradict anything, but merely intended to be informative,
> conversational, and funny perhaps? <big g>

Funny...not really. Clearly, such humorous subtleties are far beyond
my rethorical abilitites. I gladly leave them to the
non-retarding-world people, who are funny by birthright <chuckles>

Being not overly informative, conversational or funny: What we have
found is, that a dough - sourdough 12 hours prior to baking, sponge,
dough with added "old dough", enriched pastry dough - will mature
nicely in the fridge over night. In Germany we say "Erlaubt ist, was
gefällt." (Allowed is, which pleases). I pretty much go with that
guideline.

KK the retarded

"Konny K" > wrote in message =
om...

> In Germany we say "Erlaubt ist, was gef=E4llt."=20
> (Allowed is, which pleases).

We have something like that: =20
"Whatever, your boat, floats."

---
DickA

"Konny K" > wrote in message =
om...

> In Germany we say "Erlaubt ist, was gef=E4llt."=20
> (Allowed is, which pleases).

We have something like that: =20
"Whatever, your boat, floats."

---
DickA

"Dick Adams" wrote:
> Welcome to Konny K. and all of the picturesque old-world people with
> their quaint names and strange ideas. I do not think that Konny K.
> intended to contradict anything, but merely intended to be informative,
> conversational, and funny perhaps? <big g>

Funny...not really. Clearly, such humorous subtleties are far beyond
my rethorical abilitites. I gladly leave them to the
non-retarding-world people, who are funny by birthright <chuckles>

Being not overly informative, conversational or funny: What we have
found is, that a dough - sourdough 12 hours prior to baking, sponge,
dough with added "old dough", enriched pastry dough - will mature
nicely in the fridge over night. In Germany we say "Erlaubt ist, was
gefällt." (Allowed is, which pleases). I pretty much go with that
guideline.

KK the retarded

>
>OK, one more time: I think that low-temperature fermentation of
>dough is a waste of time.

A low temperature rest wthout fermentation does have significant effect on a
dough. The resultant taste, structure and crust colour and thinness are
reproducible and, to anyone that's used the method , are as characteristic as a
fingerprint.


> Storing sourdough culture at low temperature
>makes good sense, however, because, that way, you do not have to
>refresh so frequently. Using old dough is more conservational than
>throwing it away. Retard, as a noun, is a deprecatory name for someone
>whose intelligence failed to develop normally.=20
>

John

"Dick Adams" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"williamwaller" > wrote in message
news:mailman.22.1094306015.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...

> I've been waiting for your recent thoughts on the old dough/cold
> ferment/retard thread.

OK, one more time: I think that low-temperature fermentation of
dough is a waste of time. Storing sourdough culture at low temperature
makes good sense, however, because, that way, you do not have to
refresh so frequently. Using old dough is more conservational than
throwing it away. Retard, as a noun, is a deprecatory name for someone
whose intelligence failed to develop normally.

> I thought Konny K's post about liberal use of old dough and the
> cold room validated a lot of my practice and contradicted a
> number of your postings <big g>.

Welcome to Konny K. and all of the picturesque old-world people with
their quaint names and strange ideas. I do not think that Konny K.
intended to contradict anything, but merely intended to be informative,
conversational, and funny perhaps? <big g>

--
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname> at bigfoot dot com

P.S. Please see the procedure for SF sourdough at
http://samartha.net/SD/recipes/SF-01.html
Where does it say anything about "retardation"?

I still have no idea how to duplicate John's recipe without that f*/' strong
bread flour from US or UK

Ulrike

"williamwaller" > wrote in message =
news:mailman.22.1094306015.1141.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...

> I've been waiting for your recent thoughts on the old dough/cold
> ferment/retard thread.

OK, one more time: I think that low-temperature fermentation of
dough is a waste of time. Storing sourdough culture at low temperature
makes good sense, however, because, that way, you do not have to
refresh so frequently. Using old dough is more conservational than
throwing it away. Retard, as a noun, is a deprecatory name for someone
whose intelligence failed to develop normally.=20

> I thought Konny K's post about liberal use of old dough and the=20
> cold room validated a lot of my practice and contradicted a
> number of your postings <big g>.

Welcome to Konny K. and all of the picturesque old-world people with
their quaint names and strange ideas. I do not think that Konny K.
intended to contradict anything, but merely intended to be informative,
conversational, and funny perhaps? <big g>

--=20
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname> at bigfoot dot com

P.S. Please see the procedure for SF sourdough at=20
http://samartha.net/SD/recipes/SF-01.html
Where does it say anything about "retardation"?

"Ulrike Westphal" > wrote in message >...

> Obviously the German soft wheat flours I used before were not suited for
> high hydration breads.
German wheats are not that soft, it is just the nature of their wheat
grain that exhibits weaker gluten quality than American flours.
Another things if you examine the farinograph curve of the two flours
you will notice that American flours of the same protein and ash level
had higher mixing and fermentation tolerance; hence are more robust
than most European flours in baking. The European flours are known
for their lesser hydration characteristics as well as less mixing
tolerance if compared to north American flours.
But IIRC even in this high hydration dough some folks here succeeded
in using the American untreated (all purpose flour? ) for such
watery doughs; meaning that flour protein is not the main issue but
the nature of the wheat protein of the flour itself.
The simplest solution with such lesser performing flour would be…..
Adding vital wheat gluten to the type 550 german flour would boost its
hydration characteristics.Remember a 1% addition of gluten to the
flour will raise its protein content by 0.70-0.75%. Therefore if your
target is around 13% flour incorporating about 3% wheat gluten powder
to an 11% protein flour will simulate the protein level of the King
arthur flour that succeeded in your trials.
BTW, type 1050 indeed contains higher protein but higher ash level
that is attributed to branny particles that can contribute to dough
weakness due partly to the abrasive action of such coarse particulate
matter on the gluten fibrils. Therefore the gluten content is indeed
higher but interaction of the extraneous substances such as wheat bran
and also active wheat germ components, also contribute to dough
weakness. The latter by exuding glutathione that will weaken the
gluten as well resulting in pan flow in the latter stage of the
fermentation process
Schematically it is disulfide bond- sulfhydryl bond exchange( -S-S-
and SH)
2GSH + P-S-S-P = P-S-H……P-S-H + G-S-S-G
where GSH= glutathione
P-S-S-P = wheat gluten
P-SH…..SH-P= weakened gluten
G-S-S-G = oxidized glutathione taking away some of the the
strengthening disulfide bonds –S-S- out in the adjacent gluten fibers.
The result will be gluten weakening and more pan flow( the dough that
will not hold its form).
These chemical reactions will not severely affect American flours due
to the nature of its gluten quality. Further from the point of
organic and physical chemistry the nature of the amino acid sequence
of the American flour is slightly different than European flours and
the intermolecular/intramolecular bonds that make up the tertiary
protein and quaternary protein structure is slightly different;
meaning that conclusively you cannot equate protein quality of the
two flours as identical in performance .These minor difference can be
modified by fortification of the weaker flour with gluten powder so
that you can attain your target product performance.
Roy

On 9/4/04 8:06 AM, "Dick Adams" > wrote:

>
> "Roy Basan" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>> ... you cannot see much difference in that in performance evaluation
>> (baking) but can be distinguished by chemical instrumentation
>> (Kjeldahl protein analysis, and possibly by flour rheological
>> tests instruments( farinograph and extensograph; alveograph and
>> mixograph) ...
>
> Pretty clearly my kitchen is falling short at the level of basic
> instrumentation ...
>
>> ... it has been my observation in the farinograph than the
>> development time of a gluten fortified flour is somewhat longer
>> than the normal al very strong flour of the same protein level ...
>
> ... Heck, I don't have even a rudimentary farinograph ...
>
>> ... If the flour was also balanced enzymatically you will obtain
>> positive results ...
>
> Just some vaguely positive results -- that's all I want. But what can
> I do without an enzymatic balancer?
>
>> ... I was also monitoring the enzymatic level of the gluten fortified
>> flour which I found to be low in enzyme activity, therefore I
>> added calculated amount of fungal amylase/protease
>> blend ...
>
> Zikes, woe is me, it seems quite hopeless. I doubt if I could
> calculate the right amount of fungal amylase/protease blend, even
> if I knew where to buy some.
>
>> ... check the amylase activity, amylograph viscosity a the same
>> time to approximate the enzymatic activity naturally strong
>> spring flour characteristic ...
>
> D'ya suppose I could pick up a 2nd-hand amylograph some place?
>
>> ... Just remember that flour even if the protein content and
>> enzymatic activity are optimized is still not absolutely identical
>> in performance to the flour you want to duplicate ...
>
> OK, then, I give up. Looks like its going to be bread from the store
> for me.
>
> ---
> DickA

Behave Dick...

I've don't have any of those instruments either and I'd bet Kenneth, despite
his Bongard, lacks at least one of two of them too. But it's fun to read
about sulfur bonds and bread elasticity. It's like a peek through the window
to the industrial baking world where chemistry reigns.

I've been waiting for your recent thoughts on the old dough/cold
ferment/retard thread. I thought Konny K's post about liberal use of old
dough and the cold room validated a lot of my practice and contradicted a
number of your postings <big g>.

All the best...

Will






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

On 9/4/04 8:06 AM, "Dick Adams" > wrote:

>
> "Roy Basan" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>> ... you cannot see much difference in that in performance evaluation
>> (baking) but can be distinguished by chemical instrumentation
>> (Kjeldahl protein analysis, and possibly by flour rheological
>> tests instruments( farinograph and extensograph; alveograph and
>> mixograph) ...
>
> Pretty clearly my kitchen is falling short at the level of basic
> instrumentation ...
>
>> ... it has been my observation in the farinograph than the
>> development time of a gluten fortified flour is somewhat longer
>> than the normal al very strong flour of the same protein level ...
>
> ... Heck, I don't have even a rudimentary farinograph ...
>
>> ... If the flour was also balanced enzymatically you will obtain
>> positive results ...
>
> Just some vaguely positive results -- that's all I want. But what can
> I do without an enzymatic balancer?
>
>> ... I was also monitoring the enzymatic level of the gluten fortified
>> flour which I found to be low in enzyme activity, therefore I
>> added calculated amount of fungal amylase/protease
>> blend ...
>
> Zikes, woe is me, it seems quite hopeless. I doubt if I could
> calculate the right amount of fungal amylase/protease blend, even
> if I knew where to buy some.
>
>> ... check the amylase activity, amylograph viscosity a the same
>> time to approximate the enzymatic activity naturally strong
>> spring flour characteristic ...
>
> D'ya suppose I could pick up a 2nd-hand amylograph some place?
>
>> ... Just remember that flour even if the protein content and
>> enzymatic activity are optimized is still not absolutely identical
>> in performance to the flour you want to duplicate ...
>
> OK, then, I give up. Looks like its going to be bread from the store
> for me.
>
> ---
> DickA

Behave Dick...

I've don't have any of those instruments either and I'd bet Kenneth, despite
his Bongard, lacks at least one of two of them too. But it's fun to read
about sulfur bonds and bread elasticity. It's like a peek through the window
to the industrial baking world where chemistry reigns.

I've been waiting for your recent thoughts on the old dough/cold
ferment/retard thread. I thought Konny K's post about liberal use of old
dough and the cold room validated a lot of my practice and contradicted a
number of your postings <big g>.

All the best...

Will






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