Bread Method. New Idea?

[paulraphael]

All the delayed fermentation techniques (retarding dough, preferments, etc.) seem to be about giving the enzymes time to develop flavors before the yeast finishes fermenting. So is there any reason at all to add the yeast before the dough ages?

One kind of preferment is called a soaker; it's just flour and water set aside to age before being incorporated with the yeast and the rest of the dough. Why can't the whole recipe be a soaker?

You could do it like this: roughly mix up the flour, water, and salt, and let it sit for as long as you want. A day. A week. Whatever you can get away with before any bad creepy crawlies have their way with it.

Then mix in the yeast and work it until you have adequate gluten development. At this point you should be able to proof at high temperatures and get it over with in a hurry, because you're not waiting for the enzymes to break down the starch. They've already had plenty of time.

I'm not sure what the best way would be to incorporate yeast into dough that's already partially formed. One possibility would be to make the initial mixture with just 80% of the dough's water. The yeast could be disolved in the remaining water and mixed in.

The advantage over regular delayed fermentation (like Reinhart's Pain a L'ancienne or the 5-minute method or the no-kneed method) would be that you're not forced to precisely manage the time and temperature of the dough. There's no race between the enzymes and the yeast.

Is this already a known method? Or a method known to not work? Thoughts?

[jackal10]

er...Your hypothesis that delayed fermentation is about giving the enzymes time to work is not entirely correct. There are many processes going on, some of which, such as lactobacilli are active biologically. Some of the flavour also comes from giving the yeast enough time to work and build up side-products, so you need the yeast. Thats why in many recipes you use one fermentation in conditions optimised for flavour production, such as a preferment or levain, and another in conditions for rising the bulk dough. This preferment is not so much about starch breakdown.

Soaking, without yeast has different characteristics, such as hydrating and softening hard components like wheat berries, and time to allow some flavour compounds to dissolve.

Edited February 28, 2008 by jackal10 (log)

[paulraphael]

Some of the flavour also comes from giving the yeast enough time to work and build up side-products, so you need the yeast.

Interesting. Where could I find more info about this? I don't believe Reinhart mentions yeast side products.

[jackal10]

Reinhart doesn't mention a lot.

Dan Lepard's book "The Handmade Loaf" ISBN 1-84000-966-7 is good

or "Baking, the Art and Science" Schunemann and Treu ISBN 0-9693795-0-X

otherwise you need more professional texts such as

"Handbook of Dough Fermentations" edited by Karel Kulp and Klaus Lorenz" ISBN 0-8247-4264-8"

Edited February 28, 2008 by jackal10 (log)

[Chris Hennes]

otherwise you need more professional texts such as

"Handbook of Dough Fermentations" edited by Karel Kulp and Klaus Lorenz" ISBN 0-8247-4264-8"

←

Youch...that is more expensive than most of my grad school textbooks! And no "Search Inside" link, either. Do you have it? Is it readable?

[devlin]

There may be some basic misunderstanding of the term "yeast" here as well. As folks who work with sourdough/natural leavening know, the purpose of building a sourdough culture (which is the "yeast" in a sourdough) is sort of two-fold, both to build a culture (the natural yeast) and, depending on how the culture is developed, to develop flavor. Without yeast (either natural or commercial), you get quick or sweet breads that often depend on soda or baking powder for their rise and which depend on other ingredients for depth of flavor (Irish soda bread, for example, or banana bread). You won't get the sort of open crumb that most of us look for, and the breads tend to have a fairly dense crumb.

Edited February 28, 2008 by devlin (log)

[jackal10]

otherwise you need more professional texts such as

"Handbook of Dough Fermentations" edited by Karel Kulp and Klaus Lorenz" ISBN 0-8247-4264-8"

←

Youch...that is more expensive than most of my grad school textbooks! And no "Search Inside" link, either. Do you have it? Is it readable?

←

Yes I have it, and it is not a light read, but not as bad as say "Baking Science and Technology" (2 volumes) by Ernst J Plyer, which I also have

[tino27]

"Handbook of Dough Fermentations" edited by Karel Kulp and Klaus Lorenz" ISBN 0-8247-4264-8"

←

Agreed with Chris ... I don't mind ponying out the dough for a professional reference, but is this a good (meaning scientifically accurate and thorough) investment?

ETA: Oops, we must've been replying at the same time. If you had to buy one over the other, would you buy this book or the Baking Science and Technology set?

Edited February 28, 2008 by tino27 (log)

[alanamoana]

a 'soaker' in most books i've read is more like whole grains and stuff that you have to soften and moisten before adding to doughs.

i think what you're talking about is a sponge.

in any case, if you just let flour and water and salt sit around for a week (without the benefit of the living organisms found in yeast)...even refrigerated, you're going to get a gray/green mess. just look at any pie dough that you mix and let sit in the fridge for a couple of days. i don't know about gluten development in a mixture like that either.

by products of yeast: carbon dioxide and alcohol, no?

[paulraphael]

Ok, you guys talked me out of it.

[jackal10]

"Handbook of Dough Fermentations" edited by Karel Kulp and Klaus Lorenz" ISBN 0-8247-4264-8"

←

ETA: Oops, we must've been replying at the same time. If you had to buy one over the other, would you buy this book or the Baking Science and Technology set?

←

The handbook is a set of papers setting out the currrent (2003) understanding. I found it useful, but you need some chemistry to get the most out of it. Its a starting point to get references to academic papers.

Baking Scisnce and technology is older and more about mass production plants.

Online try http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/sourdoughqa.html, especially science 101.

For sourdough the work of Prof Ganzle http://www.afns.ualberta.ca/People/Index.a...rectory&id=1459 is often quoted.

Yeast produces many compounds in small quantities. There a table in the Handbook of about 40 "Yeast produced flavour compounds" including higher alcohols, esters, carbonyls and alkenes.

Factors such as yeast level, nutrition, fermentation time, temperature and hydration of the dough all affect the level of flavour compounds

Edited February 28, 2008 by jackal10 (log)

[dougal]

...

i think what you're talking about is a sponge.

in any case, if you just let flour and water and salt sit around for a week (without the benefit of the living organisms found in yeast)...even refrigerated, you're going to get a gray/green mess. ...

←

My understanding is that a 'sponge' is a means of amplifying a small amount of yeast to leaven a lot of flour. The length of time of the fermentation (progressively adding flour) also builds more flavour than using lots of yeast for a fast simple fermentation.

Leaving flour and water sitting around together for a few days is exactly how you create a sourdough ("wild yeast") starter!

And mixing water and flour (while holding back the yeast and salt for an hour or so) is the basis of the "autolyse" technique attributed to Calvel, and IIRC discussed by Reinhart.

Incidentally, "instant" dried yeast is remarkably forgiving stuff, and can be added to an otherwise mixed dough...

There was also this recent (and surprisingly little commented) thread

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=112978

discussing warm 'cooking' of flour and water, seemingly promoting enzyme activity...

[alanamoana]

Leaving flour and water sitting around together for a few days is exactly how you create a sourdough ("wild yeast") starter! 

←

right, but doesn't adding salt change this as salt retards yeast action...might it keep the yeast from 'starting' the starter?

autolyse, i understand, but for more than an hour or so would seem to be excessive (in the manner described by the op)

[dougal]

right, but doesn't adding salt change this as salt retards yeast action...might it keep the yeast from 'starting' the starter?

autolyse, i understand, but for more than an hour or so would seem to be excessive (in the manner described by the op)

←

Salt does inhibit yeasts/moulds. And some bacteria.

That's how it works as a preservative.

So its not added to sourdough starters.

And it interferes with the gluten formation Calvel is seeking.

So its not added to an Autolyse either.

So, yes, the OP should be aware that its presence wouldn't be beneficial!

[jackal10]

0.1% salt in a starter canhelp control over activity in hot weather

Salt interferes with enzyme activity breaking starch down to sugars.

I've never been convinced about Autolyse for gluten development. It does have an effect of alowing more sugars to be developed, but there are other ways of doing that. I am not convinced salt afftects gluten development,, so much as the extra time.

I've tried both with and without autolyse, and with and without salt during it, and I cant tell the difference. For wholemeal I now throw the salt in with the premix of flour and water, since that way I dont forget it.

[devlin]

Well, yes (regarding flour and water = sourdough), but it's not quite as simple as just leaving a mix of flour and water sitting around for a few days and voila! So, yes and no. It would be nice if it were that easy. And even once it's up and working, a culture's a thing that has to be maintained to keep its viability. I know some folks who use a sourdough culture don't maintain it as much as I do mine (and I haven't always either), but for me, I get my best and most consistent results with a sourdough culture when I take very consistent care of it, especially a week or more in advance, feeding once and twice a day, and even more especially if it's been sitting in the refrigerator for awhile with no feeding at all.

[paulraphael]

It turns out my idea is just a reinvention of the wheel. It's similar to the method Gosselin used, which Reinhart adapted for home baking. From a 2004 thread:

...Some have angrily denounced your pain a'lancienne as being completely different than what Gosselin actually makes.  For my part, I've always thought that it would be very strange for you falsely to give credit to someone else for such a fantastic, easy bread!

What's the real story?  Who deserves credit, Gosselin or Reinhart?

Hi Seth,

Thanks for asking that! My version is based on Gosselin's but is modified for the home and small batch baker (I noted that in the book, so do tell those who were tweaked to please go back and read the text). The ongoing theme of the book was the idea that we need to master the rules, the so-called letter of the law, in order to be free to break or tweak them, to bake by the "spirit" of the rules. In this case, the key is understanding why Gosseline's cold fermentation works at all. What he does is mix water and flour but no yeast or salt, and then chills it overnight. In big batches it would be risky to add the yeast because it takes hours for the dough to cool down and the dough might overferment. This won't happen in small batches which can cool quickly in the fridge (plus using cold water during mixing), so I add the salt and yeast right up front and then chill it. This saves hours of production time the next day as the dough is basically ready to use when you retrieve if from the fridge. Gosselin, on the other hand, remixes on the second day and adds yeast and salt, then waits six hours for the dough to gradually awaken and ferment. This is a good example of two ways up the mountain that both get to the peak. More importantly, though, is grasping why the technique works so. The cold fermentation (or in Gosselin's case, the cold "blank" dough) allows the amylase enzymes that exist in the flour to break apart the starches and free up many of the various sugars trapped in those complex molecules. It is not the bacteria or yeast that does this, but the enzymes (which is why, in the intro, I called understanding enzymes the next frontier of bread baking). In the end, it is always about the balancing act between time, temperature, and ingredients. The Gosselin method achieves a flavor release beyond even what preferments (which are working towards the same goal) can do, which is why I think it has great, but still underappreciated, implications for American bakers. My variation achieves the same end goal and, especially for home bakers, eliminates a step that big batch bakers need to use, but not small batch bakers.

So yes, I give Gosselin credit for opening my mind to the concept and for perfecting a brilliant method for implementing it, but not for inventing this method, which certainly other bakers have also stumbled upon and use. I doubt if Gosselin has the slightest idea why, scientifically, his method works so well--it took me a year of peeling back layers of the onion (so to speak) to get past the conventional wisdom (that it's about the yeast or bacteria) and finally realize that it's more about the enzymatic action. This kind of detective work is part of the joy and "aha!" of baking, and why it never seems to get old.

Edited February 29, 2008 by paulraphael (log)

[helenjp]

Finally found this topic again!

What I wonder is, resting after gluten development is one thing, but when (out of sheer curiosity, groan) I tried resting a wetted and mixed, but not kneaded, dough for several hours before adding yeast and kneading, it affected the rise quite markedly. I was using a medium-coarse whole wheat flour.

So why would it be a good idea to have a long soak before adding yeast, rather than giving a yeasted dough or a sourdough a slow, cool fermentation period?

[dougal]

So why would it be a good idea to have a long soak before adding yeast ...

←

There are lots of things going on.

Allowing the flour to peacefully hydrate without the presence specifically of salt (and ideally yeasts) gets the gluten formation off to a really good start - without kneading. (However, if using 'wet' sourdough starters, or yeasted preferments, to get enough water for the autolyse, the starter has to be added in...)

This fairly brief rest, after initial very basic mixing only, is the "autolyse" of Prof Calvel. (Google is your friend.)

Leaving flour and water together for a period of hours gives a chance for enzyme action, in the absence of yeasts.

This "paves the way" for the yeasts (making more simple sugars available, for example).

However, most flour has traces of natural yeasts, and given enough time, you'll get the beginnings of fermentation that could lead to a sourdough culture (or a rotting mess).

So the first bit, a half hour or so, is about autolyse.

Overnight adds more enzyme actions.

Several days and you are going to have some fermentation/rotting from yeasts and bacteria.

Peter Reinhart's latest book - Whole Grain Breads - is actually about his attempts to control and channel natural enzyme activity to create non-brick and flavoursome wholemeal breads.

He has an approach of making different "pre-doughs" allowing them to do their different things in isolation and combining them only shortly before baking - so as to minimise their interactions. Typically one pre-dough would be enzymatic and the other yeasted (whether wild or commercial).

Its an intriguing and distinctly unconventional approach.

Its not as though Reinhart has invented preferments, soakers or mashes. (Or claims to!)

What he has done is explain how (and why) they can be used in specific ways to produce specific results.

And that's interesting.

There's a discussion of the interaction between salt and gluten (and lots more, naturally) in Emily Buehler's book "Bread Science" http://www.twobluebooks.com/book.php

Edited March 27, 2008 by dougal (log)

[kevinnoe]

I'd just like to add to "Paul Raphael's" original post here. I've been experimenting with exactly what you are discussing here with all kinds of wonderful results. Truth is, no matter how hard I try to work breads with traditional approaches to pre-ferments, I can never make breads as satisfying as those made employing the Gosslein or Reinhart "L'Ancienne" techniques.

I'm amazed that this approach (with all of its possible variations and necessary tweaks given the nature of the particular bread on is trying to make) haven't already begun to dominate bread making for both the professional and the home baker. For me, there is simply no comparison in the finished bread in terms of flavor, texture, internal caramelization, etc.

Right now, what I'm experimenting with falls into two camps.

1.) Back to Gosslein's method with no yeast or salt added up front (your original post!) - mixed cold with an overnight fridge fermentation - but then trying to find the best way to incorporate the yeast. For this - we have to remember that various sponge techniques are not exclusively about fermenting the dough (meaning flour) itself. It is also about what happens to the yeast itself. So - I'm experimenting using what Oritz calls the "Austrian flourless sponge" with my yeast mixed with a small amount of water at the same time as I mix up the flour and water for the fridge. I keep the water and yeast mixture out of the fridge overnight, then mix with the retarded dough the next morning. I'll also try a firmer, biga type method, but only with a very small amount of yeast and flour - allowed to ripen overnight. The bulk of the flour - by far - remains L'Ancienne!

I'm using folding and the long fridge time as my primary gluten developers - not much mixing.

2.) Wild Yeast L'Ancienne. I'm convinced that a properly formed Sourdough L'Ancienne (not easy to accomplish given the different nature of what is going on here) may just be my personal holy grail of bread! I nailed it once, didn't write it all down, and thus... the quest continues!