Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Endothermic reactions
There's been a bit on mention about 'endothermic' recently in relation
to gluten development.
Endothermic is relating to energy of reaction that is heat energy,
endothermic reactions require the input of heat energy raising the
over all energy state of the whole system rather like stepping up onto
a table. Endothermic reactions tend to 'rob' heat out of the
surroundings leaving the reactants feeling colder. It isn't anything
to do with mechanical energy other than mechanical energy will
translate to heat energy, in the way that water at the bottom of a
waterfall is warmer than water at the top but this is a tiny increase
in real terms. Adding warm water to your dough is enough heat energy
to enable the the breaking and reforming of sulphur bonds between
gliadin and glutenin. It requires energy to break these bonds but heat
energy.
I really don't get this complication over the whole thing. Seems
pretty simple to me. Bung some water in a leave it for an hour.
Two proteins bind together in the presence of water. Give it enough
time for it to do the job then with the merest working once the
gluten is formed will give it enough tension. Work the dough all you
like before the gluten has had a chance to develop and the result
won't be any better. It seems to me that working of the dough early
on in the process is of benefit to the baker rather than the dough. I
only work the dough straight after mixing if I have other things to do
afterwards.
Jim
to gluten development.
Endothermic is relating to energy of reaction that is heat energy,
endothermic reactions require the input of heat energy raising the
over all energy state of the whole system rather like stepping up onto
a table. Endothermic reactions tend to 'rob' heat out of the
surroundings leaving the reactants feeling colder. It isn't anything
to do with mechanical energy other than mechanical energy will
translate to heat energy, in the way that water at the bottom of a
waterfall is warmer than water at the top but this is a tiny increase
in real terms. Adding warm water to your dough is enough heat energy
to enable the the breaking and reforming of sulphur bonds between
gliadin and glutenin. It requires energy to break these bonds but heat
energy.
I really don't get this complication over the whole thing. Seems
pretty simple to me. Bung some water in a leave it for an hour.
Two proteins bind together in the presence of water. Give it enough
time for it to do the job then with the merest working once the
gluten is formed will give it enough tension. Work the dough all you
like before the gluten has had a chance to develop and the result
won't be any better. It seems to me that working of the dough early
on in the process is of benefit to the baker rather than the dough. I
only work the dough straight after mixing if I have other things to do
afterwards.
Jim
On Mar 9, 12:06 pm, "TG" <sourdough...@virgin . net > wrote:
Adding warm water to your dough is enough heat energy
> to enable the the breaking and reforming of sulphur bonds between
> gliadin and glutenin. It requires energy to break these bonds but heat
> energy.
> Jim
Katherine Tilley and the folks at Kansas State University have pretty
convincingly shown that it is not disulfide-sulfhydryl exchange but
predominately tyrosine bonding that dominates gluten formation in
wheat flour doughs (see "Tyrosine Cross-Links: Molecular Basis of
Gluten Structure and Function", J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49,
2627-2632)
I don't think it alters anything you observe, but there may be
subtleties that are not apparent.
Cheers,
Doc
Adding warm water to your dough is enough heat energy
> to enable the the breaking and reforming of sulphur bonds between
> gliadin and glutenin. It requires energy to break these bonds but heat
> energy.
> Jim
Katherine Tilley and the folks at Kansas State University have pretty
convincingly shown that it is not disulfide-sulfhydryl exchange but
predominately tyrosine bonding that dominates gluten formation in
wheat flour doughs (see "Tyrosine Cross-Links: Molecular Basis of
Gluten Structure and Function", J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49,
2627-2632)
I don't think it alters anything you observe, but there may be
subtleties that are not apparent.
Cheers,
Doc
On 10 Mar, 01:59, "Doc" <doc.do...@verizon . net > wrote:
...
> Katherine Tilley and the folks at Kansas State University have pretty
> convincingly shown that it is ... predominately tyrosine bonding
> that dominates gluten formation in
> wheat flour doughs ..
> I don't think it alters anything you observe, but there may be
> subtleties that are not apparent.
>
> Cheers,
> Doc
Thanks Doc,
Jim
...
> Katherine Tilley and the folks at Kansas State University have pretty
> convincingly shown that it is ... predominately tyrosine bonding
> that dominates gluten formation in
> wheat flour doughs ..
> I don't think it alters anything you observe, but there may be
> subtleties that are not apparent.
>
> Cheers,
> Doc
Thanks Doc,
Jim
"TG" <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > wrote in message =
news:1173470775.993342.125070@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups . com ...
> . . . Endothermic reactions tend to 'rob' heat out of the
> surroundings leaving the reactants feeling colder. It isn't anything
> to do with mechanical energy other than mechanical energy will
> translate to heat energy, in the way that water at the bottom of a
> waterfall is warmer than water at the top but this is a tiny increase
> in real terms . . .
Perhaps I should have used the term *endoergic* meaning the
same as *endothermic*:
* w w w .britannica . com /eb/topic-187109/endothermic-reaction
My point was that work needs to be done on dough to develop
gluten. McGee points out that the expansion of cells in poorly =
developed
dough can act to develop gluten, but I doubt that quite makes me a liar.
> Adding warm water to your dough is enough heat energy
> to enable the the breaking and reforming of sulphur bonds between
> gliadin and glutenin. It requires energy to break these bonds but heat
> energy.
I don't know what you are talking about. Adding warm water to dough?
What are we doing here? Making doughnuts.
> I really don't get this complication over the whole thing. Seems
> pretty simple to me. Bung some water in a leave it for an hour.
Bung what? Enough! Count me out of this thread. I am sorry I said
endothermic.
--
Dicky
On 10 Mar, 05:22, "Dick Adams" <Bad.A...@nonexist . com > wrote:
.=2E
> Perhaps I should have used the term *endoergic* meaning the
> same as *endothermic*
How would using a synonym have changed anything?
>
> My point was that work needs to be done on dough to develop
> gluten. McGee points out that the expansion of cells in poorly developed
> dough can act to develop gluten, but I doubt that quite makes me a liar.
Yes, if by work you mean a little stretching, but what do you mean by
'develop'? If by 'develop' you mean stretch, yes, if by 'develop' you
mean create, no.
> > Adding warm water to your dough is enough...
> I don't know what you are talking about. Adding warm water to dough?
> What are we doing here? Making doughnuts.
by warm I mean about 18 - 22=B0C which is what is normally meant by
'warm water' with regards to bread which is what we were talking
about.
> > I really don't get this complication over the whole thing. Seems
> > pretty simple to me. Bung some water in [and] (sorry slipped into Welsh=
there) leave it for an hour...
>
> Bung what? =20
Water Dicky.
Aren't you just being a little deliberately obtuse?
You said it yourself in your blog. Why try to make things more
complicated that than they need to be. Sure if you want to understand
the workings of something by all means go into depth and use the
appropriate language. But you seem to be in a clique of one sometimes
in your challenging of senseless posting. If you're going to dish it
out Dicky you have to be able to take it.
Jim
.=2E
> Perhaps I should have used the term *endoergic* meaning the
> same as *endothermic*
How would using a synonym have changed anything?
>
> My point was that work needs to be done on dough to develop
> gluten. McGee points out that the expansion of cells in poorly developed
> dough can act to develop gluten, but I doubt that quite makes me a liar.
Yes, if by work you mean a little stretching, but what do you mean by
'develop'? If by 'develop' you mean stretch, yes, if by 'develop' you
mean create, no.
> > Adding warm water to your dough is enough...
> I don't know what you are talking about. Adding warm water to dough?
> What are we doing here? Making doughnuts.
by warm I mean about 18 - 22=B0C which is what is normally meant by
'warm water' with regards to bread which is what we were talking
about.
> > I really don't get this complication over the whole thing. Seems
> > pretty simple to me. Bung some water in [and] (sorry slipped into Welsh=
there) leave it for an hour...
>
> Bung what? =20
Water Dicky.
Aren't you just being a little deliberately obtuse?
You said it yourself in your blog. Why try to make things more
complicated that than they need to be. Sure if you want to understand
the workings of something by all means go into depth and use the
appropriate language. But you seem to be in a clique of one sometimes
in your challenging of senseless posting. If you're going to dish it
out Dicky you have to be able to take it.
Jim
"TG" <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > wrote in message =
news:1173519421.781032.142970@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups . com ...
> [ ... ]
> > > I really don't get this complication over the whole thing. Seems
> > > pretty simple to me. Bung some water in [and] (sorry slipped into
> > > Welsh there) leave it for an hour...
> > Bung what?
> Water Dicky. Aren't you just being a little deliberately obtuse?
I don't friggin' speak Welch. So what? And I don't edit my old quotes
to make myself seem credible.
> ... if you want to understand the workings of something by all means
> go into depth and use the appropriate language ...
Welch?
> ... you seem to be in a clique of one sometimes in your challenging
> of senseless posting.
There were a few others, but they have mostly left the newsgroup, or
gone nutty with the rest.
--
Dicky
On 10 Mar, 13:41, "Dick Adams" <Bad.A...@nonexist . com > wrote:
...
> There were a few others, but they have mostly left the newsgroup, or
> gone nutty with the rest.
>
> --
> Dicky
Lol You said it Dicky.
Jim
...
> There were a few others, but they have mostly left the newsgroup, or
> gone nutty with the rest.
>
> --
> Dicky
Lol You said it Dicky.
Jim
Dick Adams wrote:
> "TG" <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > wrote in message news:1173519421.781032.142970@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups . com ...
>
>> ... you seem to be in a clique of one sometimes in your challenging
>> of senseless posting.
>
> There were a few others, but they have mostly left the newsgroup, or
> gone nutty with the rest.
Or have decided those posting sense-lessly are so far gone it does no
good to challenge them. One does wonder on occasion with so many
molecules to push around, where they find the time to post....
B/
> "TG" <sourdough.tg@virgin . net > wrote in message news:1173519421.781032.142970@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups . com ...
>
>> ... you seem to be in a clique of one sometimes in your challenging
>> of senseless posting.
>
> There were a few others, but they have mostly left the newsgroup, or
> gone nutty with the rest.
Or have decided those posting sense-lessly are so far gone it does no
good to challenge them. One does wonder on occasion with so many
molecules to push around, where they find the time to post....
B/
> I really don't get this complication over the whole thing. Seems
> pretty simple to me. Bung some water in a leave it for an hour.
>
> Two proteins bind together in the presence of water. Give it enough
> time for it to do the job then with the merest working once the
> gluten is formed will give it enough tension. Work the dough all you
> like before the gluten has had a chance to develop and the result
> won't be any better. It seems to me that working of the dough early
> on in the process is of benefit to the baker rather than the dough. I
> only work the dough straight after mixing if I have other things to do
> afterwards.
Sorry, but I find it hard to take that sole purpose of kneading/mixing
is to add heat (if this is what you are saying?) or alternately bakers
do it either for amusement or by mistake. My own Artofex twin arm
mixer is typically described as not adding heat and indeed whereas
when mixing in KitchenAid mixer approximately 2 degrees Centigrade is
added to dough temperature, this doesn't happen with Artofex. Why
would generations of bakers spend time, energy and expense kneading if
they could as easily add heat by adding hotter water and/or extra
rising time?
One possible explanation for modern kneading might reasonably be that
because baker's yeast acts faster than previous commercially used
yeast (sourdough cultures included) therefore development of gluten
mechanically (by stretching etc) could and needed to be substituted
for development by 'time'. However in this case one would expect
previous non-baker's yeast practice not to have included nearly so
much kneading. However when I check professional recipes in Joe
Ortiz's The Village Baker the ones I looked at so far for sourdough
include between 8 and 12 minutes mixing (as well as including
prolonged risings) - the recipes he gives are quoted as being from
European bakeries who typically one would suppose never switched to
baker's yeast and so unlikely to include elements derived from baker's
yeast recipes.
Another explanation might be that doughs that are less wet than that
proscribed in the 'no knead' method (and therefore maybe easier for
the baker to handle) do need the supplement of extra mechanical mixing
(movement) in addition to that provided by natural processes in the
dough (which may or may not include micro movements engendered by some
stages of yeast development). The whole business of the 'no knead'
recipe being for a very wet dough as ever suggests to me that this
facilitates (and is critical for) movement and spread of yeast culture
through dough.
As I wrote elsewhere maybe I will try an experiment with 3 doughs, one
without any leavening agent, one with a non-yeast leavener and one
with sourdough culture and try and see how gluten development
compares.
yours
andy forbes (atty)
> Jim
On 10 Mar, 19:35, "atty" <a...@area3 . net > wrote:
> Sorry, but I find it hard to take that sole purpose of kneading/mixing
> is to add heat ...
Where did you get that from? I didn't say that at all.
> or alternately bakers
> do it either for amusement or by mistake. ... Why
> would generations of bakers spend time, energy and expense kneading if
> they could as easily add heat by adding hotter water and/or extra
> rising time?
I think I already answered that. But I'll have a go again.
1=2E Tradition, old habits die hard. 'That's the way I was shown, it
works and I never had the time or inclination to try something else.'
2=2E You can now put that dough aside for a few hours or so and get on
with something else.
3=2E Tighter does look more uniform for undiscerning customers who just
want bread that holds sandwich fillings well when sliced. Believe it
or not many people are only interested in appearance.
> One possible explanation.... and try and see how gluten development
> compares.
>
> yours
> andy forbes (atty)
Andy you could have made half a dozen different loaves using technique
or another and even looked up 'leavener' in a dictionary by now. The
simple fact is Andy I can bake bread like this:
* tinyurl . com /29fclt
* tinyurl . com /27os2p
* tinyurl . com /yodyqn
by spending 10 seconds doing this:
* tinyurl . com /yozhbh
rather than spending 10-20 minutes kneading or =A3=A3$$ on a mixer and
have spare space and time for other things. I think that's the bottom
line for me.
Or perhaps I'm just making it up and really spend 20 minutes kneading
and just want you to waste a few hours of your time and $0.50 worth of
flour.
I'll let you decide. Do whatevery floats your boat Andy. But stop
implying that those of us that don't knead are somehow just making it
up. It goes beyond belief.
Jim
> Sorry, but I find it hard to take that sole purpose of kneading/mixing
> is to add heat ...
Where did you get that from? I didn't say that at all.
> or alternately bakers
> do it either for amusement or by mistake. ... Why
> would generations of bakers spend time, energy and expense kneading if
> they could as easily add heat by adding hotter water and/or extra
> rising time?
I think I already answered that. But I'll have a go again.
1=2E Tradition, old habits die hard. 'That's the way I was shown, it
works and I never had the time or inclination to try something else.'
2=2E You can now put that dough aside for a few hours or so and get on
with something else.
3=2E Tighter does look more uniform for undiscerning customers who just
want bread that holds sandwich fillings well when sliced. Believe it
or not many people are only interested in appearance.
> One possible explanation.... and try and see how gluten development
> compares.
>
> yours
> andy forbes (atty)
Andy you could have made half a dozen different loaves using technique
or another and even looked up 'leavener' in a dictionary by now. The
simple fact is Andy I can bake bread like this:
* tinyurl . com /29fclt
* tinyurl . com /27os2p
* tinyurl . com /yodyqn
by spending 10 seconds doing this:
* tinyurl . com /yozhbh
rather than spending 10-20 minutes kneading or =A3=A3$$ on a mixer and
have spare space and time for other things. I think that's the bottom
line for me.
Or perhaps I'm just making it up and really spend 20 minutes kneading
and just want you to waste a few hours of your time and $0.50 worth of
flour.
I'll let you decide. Do whatevery floats your boat Andy. But stop
implying that those of us that don't knead are somehow just making it
up. It goes beyond belief.
Jim
On 12 Mar, 13:22, "TG" <sourdough...@virgin . net > wrote:
> On 10 Mar, 19:35, "atty" <a...@area3 . net > wrote:
.. But stop
> implying that those of us that don't knead are somehow just making it
> up. It goes beyond belief.
>
> Jim
Sorry I didn't mean that to come across as angry, I'm not, lol, I
really am not worried, I am a bit bemused by it though.
Jim
> On 10 Mar, 19:35, "atty" <a...@area3 . net > wrote:
.. But stop
> implying that those of us that don't knead are somehow just making it
> up. It goes beyond belief.
>
> Jim
Sorry I didn't mean that to come across as angry, I'm not, lol, I
really am not worried, I am a bit bemused by it though.
Jim
(sorry if this posts twice - but first attempt didn't seem to work)
On Mar 12, 1:22 pm, "TG" <sourdough...@virgin . net > wrote:
> On 10 Mar, 19:35, "atty" <a...@area3 . net > wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I find it hard to take that sole purpose of kneading/mixing
> > is to add heat ...
>
> Where did you get that from? I didn't say that at all.
SORRY
first of all before reading on - so as not to get me wrong - I agree
'no knead' and very minimal knead work - and I could show you gallery
of pics of my bread to prove the same AND I am great fan of your
kneading method, played that video * tinyurl . com /yozhbh when you
first posted it over and over and frame by frame till I understood it
and then practised myself till I can do it nearly as well as you.
Thanks!
> > or alternately bakers
> > do it either for amusement or by mistake. ... Why
> > would generations of bakers spend time, energy and expense kneading if
> > they could as easily add heat by adding hotter water and/or extra
> > rising time?
>
> I think I already answered that. But I'll have a go again.
> 1. Tradition, old habits die hard. 'That's the way I was shown, it
> works and I never had the time or inclination to try something else.'
>
> 2. You can now put that dough aside for a few hours or so and get on
> with something else.
>
> 3. Tighter does look more uniform for undiscerning customers who just
> want bread that holds sandwich fillings well when sliced. Believe it
> or not many people are only interested in appearance.
I agree totally, partly depends on cultural differences in how bread
is used, spread with butter and jam doesn't suit large holes, wiping
up and collecting sauce from a plate is reverse
However my current interest or rather query (and I know it doesn't
interest many) is why and how time and a very small amount of kneading
can be substituted for 20 minutes kneading. As you suggest some
practice is just tradition without foundation would have thought you
might also be interested not only to observe some practice is
nonsense, but also find out why.
Some I think succinct 'scientific' description of what mechanical
kneading does at * w w w .calstatela.edu/faculty/hsingh2/MY%20Pubs/2001%20review%20J%20cereal%20Science%20%20Review.pdf
especially interesting as coming from scientists other than the
typical biochemists and microbiologists
quote here for those who can't be bothered to wade through but are
still interested
"Shear and tensile forces imparted by mixing or sheeting cause
discrete masses of gluten to coalesce and form a continuous network
throughout the dough. During development, the dough acquires
viscoelastic properties which become optimum at peak consistency. If
only gliadin is present in admixture with starch, a viscous liquid is
formed with no elastic strength and no significant development stage.
When only glutenin is mixed a rubbery material is formed which is
difficult to develop, at least at normal mixing intensities" (from
section on dough development)
so - how are these effects of mechanical mixing more or less
duplicated by * tinyurl . com /yozhbh?
If mechanical gluten development is duplicated by leaving for a given
time same (flour & temperature & hydration & mixing & time) lump of
dough which has a) no yeast or b) no yeast with an alternate non-
yeast leavener as c) with a sourdough culture THEN end of story, I am
barking up a tree
if however this is not the case, I think its clear something in the
sourdough cultures activity is taking the place in gluten development
of mechanical kneading. I suspect it is something to do with micro
movements in the dough engendered by the sourdough culture that are
facilitating the breaking and re-formation of glutenin links (BTW the
Katherine Hilley business with tyrosine versus disulphide links in
glutenin bonds is by no means proved or accepted though may point to
something else very interesting but I haven't managed to get a copy of
her complete paper yet)
consider two fairly unrelated things
1) gluten development apparently can be achieved by ultrasound, cf
page 9 of the above quoted paper. Seems to me this reinforces my
hypothesis that micro-movement could achieve gluten development
2) baker's yeast in diploid mode (check
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Budding_yeast_Lifecycle.png) the
change from a 'yeast form' to a 'filamentous growth form' seems mostly
to be made in response to starvation of Nitrogen. Apparently typical
sourdough culture Lacto bacilli do produce and also make available
Nitrogen so one might hypothesise move yeast in reverse direction from
filamentous to 'yeast form'. When in haploid mode (which would
typically be when yeast was in starved and inhospitable conditions)
however the trigger for switch to filamentous, invasive growth is
apparently sensitive to alcohol levels cf. * intl.molbiolcell.org/cgi/content/full/11/1/183
and again for those time starved but interested a visual
* intl.molbiolcell.org/content/vol11/issue1/images/large/mk0101074001.jpeg
here MTA is yeast colony in diploid phase and MTA a/alpha in haploid.
High alcohol levels and starvation rations I would associate with a
stored starter and the end of dough maturation so this is when I would
expect yeast to be both in prevalent haploid phase and possibly
switched to filamentous/invasive growth
If anyone doubts the ability of yeast to move (and therefore create
movement in its surroundings) read up on actin * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actin
which is essential to the movement of human muscle and also vital in
determining re polarization of cells and filamentous growth in yeasts
* w w w .molbiolcell.org/cgi/content/full/9/7/1873
finally can I observe that 'old hands' on this mailing lists seem
great at jumping in and advising newbies to sourdough, but less open
to new ideas and enquiries themselves, seemingly jumping to conclusion
other authors with some experience or knowledge are in an antagonistic
and contradictory mode to themselves when benefit of doubt might
reveal otherwise (and I am not blameless, its common in email dialogue
after all)
tomorrow morning hopefully I will try to start said 'no knead' with no
leavener v. alternate leavener v. sourdough doughs for comparison of
gluten development
yours
Andy Forbes
On Mar 12, 1:22 pm, "TG" <sourdough...@virgin . net > wrote:
> On 10 Mar, 19:35, "atty" <a...@area3 . net > wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I find it hard to take that sole purpose of kneading/mixing
> > is to add heat ...
>
> Where did you get that from? I didn't say that at all.
SORRY
first of all before reading on - so as not to get me wrong - I agree
'no knead' and very minimal knead work - and I could show you gallery
of pics of my bread to prove the same AND I am great fan of your
kneading method, played that video * tinyurl . com /yozhbh when you
first posted it over and over and frame by frame till I understood it
and then practised myself till I can do it nearly as well as you.
Thanks!
> > or alternately bakers
> > do it either for amusement or by mistake. ... Why
> > would generations of bakers spend time, energy and expense kneading if
> > they could as easily add heat by adding hotter water and/or extra
> > rising time?
>
> I think I already answered that. But I'll have a go again.
> 1. Tradition, old habits die hard. 'That's the way I was shown, it
> works and I never had the time or inclination to try something else.'
>
> 2. You can now put that dough aside for a few hours or so and get on
> with something else.
>
> 3. Tighter does look more uniform for undiscerning customers who just
> want bread that holds sandwich fillings well when sliced. Believe it
> or not many people are only interested in appearance.
I agree totally, partly depends on cultural differences in how bread
is used, spread with butter and jam doesn't suit large holes, wiping
up and collecting sauce from a plate is reverse
However my current interest or rather query (and I know it doesn't
interest many) is why and how time and a very small amount of kneading
can be substituted for 20 minutes kneading. As you suggest some
practice is just tradition without foundation would have thought you
might also be interested not only to observe some practice is
nonsense, but also find out why.
Some I think succinct 'scientific' description of what mechanical
kneading does at * w w w .calstatela.edu/faculty/hsingh2/MY%20Pubs/2001%20review%20J%20cereal%20Science%20%20Review.pdf
especially interesting as coming from scientists other than the
typical biochemists and microbiologists
quote here for those who can't be bothered to wade through but are
still interested
"Shear and tensile forces imparted by mixing or sheeting cause
discrete masses of gluten to coalesce and form a continuous network
throughout the dough. During development, the dough acquires
viscoelastic properties which become optimum at peak consistency. If
only gliadin is present in admixture with starch, a viscous liquid is
formed with no elastic strength and no significant development stage.
When only glutenin is mixed a rubbery material is formed which is
difficult to develop, at least at normal mixing intensities" (from
section on dough development)
so - how are these effects of mechanical mixing more or less
duplicated by * tinyurl . com /yozhbh?
If mechanical gluten development is duplicated by leaving for a given
time same (flour & temperature & hydration & mixing & time) lump of
dough which has a) no yeast or b) no yeast with an alternate non-
yeast leavener as c) with a sourdough culture THEN end of story, I am
barking up a tree
if however this is not the case, I think its clear something in the
sourdough cultures activity is taking the place in gluten development
of mechanical kneading. I suspect it is something to do with micro
movements in the dough engendered by the sourdough culture that are
facilitating the breaking and re-formation of glutenin links (BTW the
Katherine Hilley business with tyrosine versus disulphide links in
glutenin bonds is by no means proved or accepted though may point to
something else very interesting but I haven't managed to get a copy of
her complete paper yet)
consider two fairly unrelated things
1) gluten development apparently can be achieved by ultrasound, cf
page 9 of the above quoted paper. Seems to me this reinforces my
hypothesis that micro-movement could achieve gluten development
2) baker's yeast in diploid mode (check
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Budding_yeast_Lifecycle.png) the
change from a 'yeast form' to a 'filamentous growth form' seems mostly
to be made in response to starvation of Nitrogen. Apparently typical
sourdough culture Lacto bacilli do produce and also make available
Nitrogen so one might hypothesise move yeast in reverse direction from
filamentous to 'yeast form'. When in haploid mode (which would
typically be when yeast was in starved and inhospitable conditions)
however the trigger for switch to filamentous, invasive growth is
apparently sensitive to alcohol levels cf. * intl.molbiolcell.org/cgi/content/full/11/1/183
and again for those time starved but interested a visual
* intl.molbiolcell.org/content/vol11/issue1/images/large/mk0101074001.jpeg
here MTA is yeast colony in diploid phase and MTA a/alpha in haploid.
High alcohol levels and starvation rations I would associate with a
stored starter and the end of dough maturation so this is when I would
expect yeast to be both in prevalent haploid phase and possibly
switched to filamentous/invasive growth
If anyone doubts the ability of yeast to move (and therefore create
movement in its surroundings) read up on actin * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actin
which is essential to the movement of human muscle and also vital in
determining re polarization of cells and filamentous growth in yeasts
* w w w .molbiolcell.org/cgi/content/full/9/7/1873
finally can I observe that 'old hands' on this mailing lists seem
great at jumping in and advising newbies to sourdough, but less open
to new ideas and enquiries themselves, seemingly jumping to conclusion
other authors with some experience or knowledge are in an antagonistic
and contradictory mode to themselves when benefit of doubt might
reveal otherwise (and I am not blameless, its common in email dialogue
after all)
tomorrow morning hopefully I will try to start said 'no knead' with no
leavener v. alternate leavener v. sourdough doughs for comparison of
gluten development
yours
Andy Forbes
On Mar 12, 6:20 pm, "atty" <a...@area3 . net > wrote:
> finally can I observe that 'old hands' on this mailing lists seem
> great at jumping in and advising newbies to sourdough, but less open
> to new ideas and enquiries themselves, seemingly jumping to conclusion
> other authors with some experience or knowledge are in an antagonistic
> and contradictory mode to themselves when benefit of doubt might
> reveal otherwise...
???
Fabulous sentence. Faulkner himself would have been impressed. But I
am not sure what it means... though I appreciate the dig at "old
hands" <g>.
Outside of the protein stuff... it seems to me that there are flavor
issues that have little to do with dough elasticity/extensibility. In
my bread practice, aging the dough makes the bread taste better.
Therefore developing gluten early is a bad thing. So I do not knead. I
mix and let the dough rest for 16 hours. Then I proof and bake.
Depending on how the dough "feels" after the rest, I will add stretch
and folds in (or not), before the final proof.
I am not sure what I would do if I had an Artofex mixer. I would
probably invite the neighbors over more often... we could watch it
<g>. It seems to me that Artofexing would be perfect for all manner of
faster yeast driven breads... and pretty good for making
shortbreads... But it is not so clear how it would help with SD. SD
still needs to age which means its gluten development is better
retarded to coincide with the longer development cycle and so on.
I guess that means I vote for Brownian motion or something...
> finally can I observe that 'old hands' on this mailing lists seem
> great at jumping in and advising newbies to sourdough, but less open
> to new ideas and enquiries themselves, seemingly jumping to conclusion
> other authors with some experience or knowledge are in an antagonistic
> and contradictory mode to themselves when benefit of doubt might
> reveal otherwise...
???
Fabulous sentence. Faulkner himself would have been impressed. But I
am not sure what it means... though I appreciate the dig at "old
hands" <g>.
Outside of the protein stuff... it seems to me that there are flavor
issues that have little to do with dough elasticity/extensibility. In
my bread practice, aging the dough makes the bread taste better.
Therefore developing gluten early is a bad thing. So I do not knead. I
mix and let the dough rest for 16 hours. Then I proof and bake.
Depending on how the dough "feels" after the rest, I will add stretch
and folds in (or not), before the final proof.
I am not sure what I would do if I had an Artofex mixer. I would
probably invite the neighbors over more often... we could watch it
<g>. It seems to me that Artofexing would be perfect for all manner of
faster yeast driven breads... and pretty good for making
shortbreads... But it is not so clear how it would help with SD. SD
still needs to age which means its gluten development is better
retarded to coincide with the longer development cycle and so on.
I guess that means I vote for Brownian motion or something...
> Outside of the protein stuff... it seems to me that there are flavor
> issues that have little to do with dough elasticity/extensibility. In
> my bread practice, aging the dough makes the bread taste better.
> Therefore developing gluten early is a bad thing. So I do not knead. I
> mix and let the dough rest for 16 hours. Then I proof and bake.
> Depending on how the dough "feels" after the rest, I will add stretch
> and folds in (or not), before the final proof.
why is developing dough earlier on a bad thing for flavour? Though I
certainly agree one doesn't need to develop dough early on, and the
longer one leaves it the less work it will be to get dough into a loaf
shape - maybe just a couple of Jim's video turns - but flavour. I
don't know of any evidence that flavour is inhibited by gluten having
been developed.
> I am not sure what I would do if I had an Artofex mixer. I would
> probably invite the neighbors over more often... we could watch it
> <g>. It seems to me that Artofexing would be perfect for all manner of
> faster yeast driven breads... and pretty good for making
> shortbreads... But it is not so clear how it would help with SD. SD
> still needs to age which means its gluten development is better
> retarded to coincide with the longer development cycle and so on.
>
ha
you have me there. Artofex design is meant to be the gentlest of
mixers (also good for incorporating items such as fruit one doesn't
want smashed). Once I am baking in wood-fired oven, eight loaves a
load is a lot to do even initital mix by hand. However for my current
'winter season' production, 2 x 1.1 kilo loaves at a time you have a
point. Indeed I think it is fair to claim that Artofex is the only
mixer its possible to imagine sitting and watching - now if it was
also steam driven ...
yours
andy forbes
On 13 Mar, 10:12, "atty" <a...@area3 . net > wrote:
> why is developing dough earlier on a bad thing for flavour? ...
> yours
> andy forbes
I don't think that it's about 'developing' that's the problem it
oxidation of the dough that isn't good for flavour.
Jim
> why is developing dough earlier on a bad thing for flavour? ...
> yours
> andy forbes
I don't think that it's about 'developing' that's the problem it
oxidation of the dough that isn't good for flavour.
Jim
