Does anyone know how much malted barley flour/diastatic malt is typically added by millers to white wheat flour, say on a percentage weight basis?
have my reference books with me right now so I can't give you a number based on good scholarship.
Here's a bit of what I do know about the subject: The amout of malt required will depend upon the Falling Number of the flour. It is used to bring amylase action into an acceptable range. Growing conditions for the wheat can have a great impact on the Falling number. Factors such as partial sprouting due to wet weather near the time of harvest will lower the Falling Number.
Over malting flour will degrade its baking qualities, which will present as a gummy and ill formed crumb.
My recollection is that malt would be added in tenth's of a percent or less - but again the amount is always determined by the Falling Number. (And we are dealing with my memory, here...)
If I don't see a good answer on this thread by the end of the week, I will look this up and post back.
Out of my own curiosity - why do you ask?
.8 of 1% to my while grain home milled flour with no ill effects but only .4 of 1 % if using sprouts in the bread. Red malt you can higher since it doesn't contribute any enzymes that break protein bonds. I also make my own malts and dont know how they compare to commercial malts.
My local Whole Foods sells unbleached all-purpose flour at a good price, but the label doesn't explicitly list "malted barley flour" as an ingredient, it merely says "enzyme (improves baking quality)". So I've sent Whole Foods an inquiry asking about this. That, and I just got some diastatic malt and it seems to be having a beneficial effect on the flavor of my sourdough. I've only baked one test loaf with it and simply guessed at the amount to use. This got my curiosity up as to how much malt millers typically put into flour. Now, I don't want to get into milling my own flout, but you're telling me the amount of malt added is variable, which makes me wonder if this will make the flavor of my sourdough variable based on the amount of malt present. One idea would be to get a flour which does not have added diastatic malt and add my own in known quantities. Is that a good or a bad idea?
I was having a problem with gluten breakdown but this seems to have been cured by dissolving the salt in water before adding it to the dough to make sure the salt dissolves and is dispersed throughout the dough.
I did try baking a loaf of sourdough using white wheat flour with no added barley malt and there was, for all intents and purposes, no sourness.
use fungal amylase to correct for Falling Number. This might be listed as "enzymes". And having a correct Falling Number certainly improves baking quality in white flour.
Although the amount added is variable, the acceptable range for the Falling Number will be determined by the flour spec and will fall in a relatively narrow range.
Amylase is the enzyme that allows the breakdown of the starches in the wheat to the sugars that will be used by yeast (and bacteria in sourdough - and that's a bit of a simplification, so don't quote me). It does not contribute to the breakdown of protiens - that enzyme is our good buddy protease.
Whole wheat flours are left unmalted (even though their Falling Number is very high) because the minerals in the bran (etc.) compensate for the lack of amylase action by acting as food for the yeast.
Anyway, if you are using flour that has had its Falling Number corrected (and there is an interesting discussion here on these pages) about 0.1-0.2% of diastatic malt is considered beneficial for breads that are not retarded in either the bulk of final fermentations. Up to 0.5% for breads that receive retarded fermentations is recommended. I wouldn't worry about the malting in the flour - as I said before, and as the poster below suggests, the amount is going to get the amylase action to a specific range - it is not adding flavors, per se, it is merely getting the flour to the point where sufficient sugars are available to the yeast (etc.) to get proper fermentation going so that they can create flavors. What you are doing is adding extra to give a bit of a "boost" to the amylase action and the creation of sugars during very long fermentations. Without the equipment to measure Falling Number (which frankly, I would very, very much like to have - but I am a flour geek), I wouldn't bother myself with flour that wasn't malted..
I do use diastatic malt in these quantities to advantage in some of my breads. Your tastes will vary - but more will not always be better - if you notice your crumb getting gummy, you've gone too far.
I'm not going to do a discussion on sourness in sourdough bread. Use the search function and put in "Debra Wink" as she has published some of the best work I have seen on this topic. There are many more factors than amylase action at play in the sourdough environment.
Hope this helps.
about protease being the enzyme that breaks protein bonds and I mis-spoke. Gluten strands are proteins that you don't want broken and slat acts as a gluten strand strenthening agent if you will which counteracts to some degree the effects of protease that break protein bonds. Salt also effects LAB much more than yeast. At 4% salt LAB die but it takes 8% salt to kill off yeast.
So to decrease the effect of salt on LAB that make the acid (sour in bread) you want to limit the salt to as low a percent without havng the gluten structure break down. Instead of 2% salt I use 1.5% when ever possible and use a higher protein flour or add VWG to low protein AP to make it equivalent to bread flour.
On your other thread someone posted Ganzel's raw data on how temperature affect bth LAB abd yeast reproduction rates showing that at low and higher temperatures LAB will out produce yeast by a factor of three - something to take note of it you want a more sour bread.
A typical SD culture can have anywhere between 10 times and 100 times more LAB than yeast. The one with 100 times more LAB has the ability to inoculate the dough with many more LAB that make acid than yeast that make CO2. So ,much more acid could be produced before the dough is risen properly and needs to be baked before it is over proofed. But it is not that easy to get a SD culture stable that has 100 times more LAB than yeast. Luckily yeast and LAb eat two different kinds of sugars. Mainly sucrose for yeast and fructose plus as yeast do their thing they also produce a small amout of fructose (2%) for the Lab to eat alonfg with the CO2.
One thing that happes to LAB is that if they run out of fructose to eat, they stop producing acid and start producing ethanol instead and CO2 too. We definately don't want them to make CO2 since we want proofing to be as long as possible with yeast , not LAB producing CO2, without breaking down the gluten. So running out of fructose in a starter, levain or dough is not a good thing and many folks have seen the result in the ethanol hooch that layers the top of their starter.
Malt supplies the additional enzyme that breaks down the starch in flour in fructose - the sugar that LAB need to reproduce and make acid. Too much malt is not a good thing but having the right amount to ensure that the LAB don't run out of food is a good thing. Acid has more effect on yeast than LAB too.
Too low a ph and yeast really stop, go dormant or even die and they are producing some fructose that LAB use to make acid but having a 4.25 ph SD culture means that the yeast are held back resulting in a bread where proofing times are longer and gives the LAB, who are less affected by acid, more time to make acid if they don't run out of food before the bread is fully proofed for baking.
There are some fine nutrition and minerals in the sifted out portions of grains. This is also where much of the protease is found and why whole grains high in protease like rye, when used in high percentages to make bread, have a greater chance of having their limited gluten structure turned to goo - but all whole grains breads have a greater potential for this to happen and the salt helps.
So what does all of this mean if you want to make sour bread? It allows me to tailor my starter (what ever ins in it) , levain and bread dough to produce the sour I want in teh time i need while making sure the the little beasts are still well fed at all times and able to do what they are supposed to do.
If I want a SFSD made today that is lightly sour I use white flours and do everything at room temperature and don't boost the malt. If I want more sour like SDSD used to be in the late 60's and early 70's, I might refrigerate my starter and use the sifted out 25% of the whole grains for the first feeding of the levain and retard the loaf in the fridge for 12 hours maybe with a boost in malt. If I really want it sour I might use a starter than had been in the fridge for 3 days, do all 3 feedings using the sifted 25% of whole grain, retard the levain for 48 hours, add some more malt , and refrigerate the dough for 12 hours.
When i want a really sour bread then its all whole grain, retarded rye sour starter, retarded whole grain levain with more malt, a tinge more salt to 2% and an 8 hour retarded dough making sure that you watch it so it doesn't turn to goo while you sleep. The more sour in all situations you can do a final proof a 88-90 F. LAB love the heat but yeast not so much so high heat final proofing really can bring out the sour too.
Your starter may have different beasts than mine but knowing it well and manipulating the things that produce more sour; food type, ph, hydration, long cold and short burst of high temperature and adding the right amount of malt malt while limiting yeast reproduction - and not allowing LAB or yeast to run out of food can all be used to make a bread just about as sour as you want. Another hint - don't forget that sugar (sucrose) is yeast food and to limit it and High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is the food for LAB. LAB will outproduce yeast at all temperatures from 36 F to 92 F (their peak) if they have food to eat ans the conditions that allow them to do so are maintained.
If everything works out and you can extend the time, the most important thing in my book, by growing and properly feeding LAB over yeast while not getting the ph too low, removing all the yeast food or getting temperature too high then sour should be yours for the making any way you like, for what ever bread you are wanting if you can keep the gluten from breaking down at the same time - but it isn't easy and takes some experimenting with your starter, flours, hydration, ph, malts, other additives and temperature.
Debra Wink was a great resource for me too. She got me thinking about other things than just temperature to make sour.
It is fun to experiment with yeast cultures and good luck with yours and hope you have as much fun as I do. Now its on to yeast water adn finding out the nitty gritty about that non sour duck!
dabrownman. I hate to break it to you, but there's just so many things you've said there that are wrong in my opinion. And I like to think that I understand these things pretty well! Where to start...?! it would be easier to highlight the parts that are correct. If I get time I'll explain in more detail...
There is plenty of room for disagreement please comment when you can.
I think that the main point he is trying to make is that there isn't a natural source of fructose in your plain dough.
source of fructose in dough?
Natural, as is not admixed, coming from the flour itself? Of course you did.
While there are very small amounts of maltose, fructose and glucose in grain allmost all of it is released from starches or fructosanes by one exzyme or another that is either found naturally in the grain or added once water comes into the mix.
Enough to achieve the desired falling number. So it would depend on falling number of the flour, how much it needs to be adjusted, and, importantly, diastatic power of malt.
You keep saying "fructose" but I thought maltose was the preferred food for LABs, being central to the "symbiotic relationship" between C. humilis and L. SanFran.
I'm the guy who cleaned up and reposted the temperature spreadsheet you posted on Cranbo's blog. Based on that spreadsheet, I'm not refrigerating anything but am keeping things as close to 88 degrees F as possible. Have another look at the SFSD sourdough processes: the proofing temperature is 86 degrees F. I'm also not using rye or WW flours as they are not part of the recipe.
for LAB just as glucose is the preferred food for yeast. One of the things that is central to the symbiotic relationship between LAB SF and yeast is LAB SF ability to reserve the maltose for itself by metabolizing fructose and releasing glucose for the yeast to eat. As Debra Winks stated :
"Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis is fairly unique among the obligately heterofermentive lactobacilli, in that it ferments no pentose sugars. And unusual among lactic acid bacteria in general, because it prefers maltose over glucose. But it will co-metabolize fructose with maltose to produce acetic acid. L. sanfranciscensis converts maltose into one glucose-6-phosphate which enters the heterofermentative pathway, and a glucose which is excreted back into its surroundings. This is a good arrangement for common sourdough yeasts, since maltose is the most abundant sugar in wheat doughs, and some lack the ability to break it down for themselves. Yeasts and other bacteria that can ferment maltose, generally prefer glucose. And so by providing glucose to competing organisms, L. sanfranciscensis actually helps to conserve the maltose for itself---just one of the ways in which it gets along well with other sourdough microorganisms, and perhaps one of the reasons it is found so often. "
Yeast also are symbiotic the other way with LAB SF by its ability to release fructose that LAB SF can metabolize.
Also per Debra wink
At lower hydrations and temperatures (lower activity), more acetic acid is produced, but not because of temperature per se. Acetic acid production is influenced indirectly by temperature, in that it affects the kinds of sugars available. The fructose that drives acetic acid production, is liberated from fructose-containing substances in flour, largely through the enzyme activity of yeast. And, because lower temperatures are more suited to yeast growth than higher, more fructose is made available to the bacteria at lower temperatures. At the same time, the bacteria are growing and using maltose more slowly, so the demand for co-substrates goes down as the fructose supply goes up. The ratio of acetic acid to ethanol and lactic acid goes up, because a higher percentage of the maltose is being co-metabolized with fructose. Reducing hydration has a similar effect of slowing the bacteria more than yeast, which I believe is the real basis for increased acetic acid production in lean breads made with refined flours."
What happens when the fructose is used up is that LAB SF produces ethanol instead of acetic acid.
Adding malt to flour adds more of the 3 enzymes important for bread making: enzymes that break down starches into the sugars that LAB and yeast can eat but it also adds more protease, the enzyme that breaks gluten protein bonds and too much can turn dough into goo.
to your starter also be a source of useable fructose?
but the question is why would you do so?
Under normal circumstances, flour contains enough of the right enzymes which break down the abundant starches into maltose, fructose and a little glucose for the LAB and yeast to eat well enough. Fructose depletion is usually, but not always, a problem in white bread dough where the enzymatic action is lacking. The sifted out portion when making white flour is where much of these enzymes are located so the resulting White flour needs to be corrected. Usually the miller will correct this problem by increasing the missing enzymes by adding malt to the mix of flour.
If you mill your own flour and sift out all the enzymes you will need to do what millers do - add malt. But they know exactly what is missing and how much to add to compensate - where the home miller usually do not like me so we guess based on the best info we have. But in reality, just like starters, each milled flour is different and may or may not not require a differing amount of malt - if you know what is in your malt - and since I make the malt we use, I have no idea much of any enzyme is in it!
So, if you mill your own white flour, you might want to put a small amount of malt in it to try to correct for a lack of enzymes in the food you feed your starter rather than adding HFCS to the starter. I only like to put flour (and I use the term flour loosely) and water in my starter - call me old school and prefer to fix the flour instead at the dough stage. But I use a whole grain starter that doesn't have any enzyme deficiencies that I know of.
For white dough that will have a long retard or proof some HFCS might be in order.
"flour contains enough of the right enzymes which break down the abundant starches into maltose, fructose and a little glucose"
You repeated this statement in one fashion or another several times in this thread. You must not realize how, my apologies, absurd it is.
All the whole grains I grind seem to do fine without any malt added. The white ones I buy in the store have usually been corrected with malt if necessary and ithey seem to work work fine too If I I sift to white flour at home i usually add malt to correct just tlike a miller would I'm just not very accurate at it.
I am referring to your obvious lack of understanding of what various sugars are, and where they come from.
what they are where they come from?
a problem with is taken from a comference paper submitted by Vogel, Rudi F. (1997). "Microbial ecology of cereal fermentations". Food Technology and Biotechnology
On page 53 paragraph 2 Vogel states that
'Sourdough is rich in starch and poly fructosanes which are enzematically degraded to the fermentable corbohydrates; maltose, fructose and little glucose."
Yours is a prime example why I always say that laymen should stay away from scientific literature. Reading papers like that requires special education, as they are rife with complicated conditional statements, which are very easy to misinterpret. So in the end, you are repeating things you do not fully comprehend. In fact, sourdough, by being derived from flour, consists almost entirely from starch (it's a bit more complicated one you step away from wheat, but we are not talking about that). White flour indeed does contain some oligomers/polymers of fructose but in neglibly small amounts.
However, this statement is different from what you have been saying, and you have been saying that fructose is obtained by enzymatic degradation of starch, which is patently wrong.
PS. You should not feel bad about it - you are not the first. In fact just a few month ago person named Ars Pistorica misunderstood a different scientific paper and decided that it is possible to grow Lb.Sf from any source flour by using temperature control only. Tried to make a campaigh out of it.
paper I mention does work but i should have warned folks that when you click on it what appears is an error message and you think the papers link is broken but after a few seconds the screen goes blank any you think Oh No,,,I've been taken to a place that infected my computer with a virus bit then as if by magic the paper appears. Te section I am referring to on page 53 is called the Metabolism of Sourdough Lactobacillus and is only 3 paragraphs long. It seems this is where many of my offending statements come from and I don't see any conditional statements - but perhaps you will .
The 3rd paragraph I also find interesting and is a 1 sentence conclusion and it reads, 'Therefore, the sensorial properties of sourdough bread can be affected by an increase of acetate formation by the addition of fructose to the flour.' I have to admit that even though some bread makers don't put HFCS in their bread there sure a lot that do if you read the labels of commercially produced bread found in grocery stores although in the past couple of years they are switching to sucrose probably from the bad rap natural sugar industry has managed to put on their rival.
This paper was used at support for the Biology and chemistry of sourdough section of Wikipedia's Sourdough found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourdough#cite_note-52. Wiki can be full of all kinds of misinformation and perhaps this is another example. But for sure if Vogel is wrong - so am i.
Erroneous assumptions can be responsible for all kinds failures and I assumed this paper to be factual. So in this case i was not repeating things I didn't understand but repeating what Vogel had published. We all make mistakes I suppose - even experts, I can remember that Debra Wink even had to go back on a thread here about this subject and fix a misstatement where she revised her thoughts about what sugars LAB can utilize besides maltose and fructose to include glucose and some others with the exception of sucrose if I remember correctly
I had a science professor in college that said 'the one thing all sciences have in common is that there is 97% chance that the things scientists believe to be true today will eventually be proven false - by later scientists because that has been the history so far. I have no idea if this is true or where the 97% came from but there is some truth to it from so many examples he used to back it up :-).
I want to thank you for you kind PS of me not feeling bad. That is wht TFL is all about in my book. Folks teaching others about bread.. I certainly didn't have an evil or sinister intentions of any kind. Nor do I try to mislead anyone on purpose, lie or make up anything up as one other poster seems infer and to assume - oops there is that assumption thing again!
there are several things that are still unproven mysteries to me about the whole SD bread making fermentation and its chemistry chemistry. One of them is why millers have corrected all of 4 different kinds of white flour I have on hand with either barley malt or 'enzymes' but, for the 4 different whole grain flours I have, not one of them was corrected - they just say whole wheat flour, whole rye flour, whole spelt flour and whole barley flour. Perhaps they are corrected but it isn't listed but i think that is unlikely since all the white flours I have list their corrections. Perhaps it has something to do with comment made by Debra Wink to Eric Hanner where she said
One of my most memorable lightbulb moments was sitting in Dave Miller's whole grain breads lab at Camp Bread 2005. He put up a cut-away diagram of the anatomy of a wheat kernel with all the parts labeled, and pointed out where everything was located. Not just bran, germ and endosperm, but the other substances in and on the seed---bacteria attached to the outer bran layers, the bulk of the enzymes located just underneath the bran, etc. And he talked about the parts that get stripped away in the processing of refined bread flours.
I had never really thought beyond the bran and germ before, in terms other than the fiber, vitamins and healthy oils that are lost. But bacteria, and natural enzymes are also stripped away. I wasn't quite grasping the significance of this, but the epiphany finally came when he summarized: Everything happens faster with whole grain. Those were probably not his exact words, but that was the meaning that hit me. Such a simple statement, and yet it explains so much. About why whole wheat doughs get so sour and break down with long fermentation---at least mine always did. In that moment, I understood as if I'd had some sort of spiritual awakening. (Don't laugh.) All the over-fermented desem doorstops and too-sour whole wheat breads suddenly made perfect sense. No wonder whole grain breads are so challenging. The flour may be wheat like bread flour, but whole grain is a whole different animal.'
One thing we can all agree on is that Debra Wink is treasure and, I'm guessing and assuming again, not just to us Fresh Lofians.
Thanks and happy baking
realize I would hurt your feelings so profoundly, and for that I apologize. I tend to be a straightforward person. When people who freely cite very technical papers make statements on very basic topics that have no basis in fact - I just don't know what to think. I wonder why they would make a statement if they didn't want people to take it at face value. Most of the people I deal with ask questions when they want to learn so I'm sure that you understand my confusion. But no harm no foul, right? It's a limitation in my thinking that I've had to learn to live with.
As for the paper and its validity - I really don't know if it is right or wrong. But whatever it is, it is about sourdough and fermentations. It is not about flour. You made statements about flour and I described how they were unsupported by facts. Again, my shortcoming - when people say a word, I tend to think that's what they mean. Life is way too hard if I don't do that, but I am sorry that it upsets you.
The answers to the question you pose above:
"there are several things that are still unproven mysteries to me about the whole SD bread making fermentation and its chemistry chemistry. One of them is why millers have corrected all of 4 different kinds of white flour I have on hand with either barley malt or 'enzymes' but, for the 4 different whole grain flours I have, not one of them was corrected - they just say whole wheat flour, whole rye flour, whole spelt flour and whole barley flour. Perhaps they are corrected but it isn't listed but i think that is unlikely since all the white flours I have list their corrections."
I already answered that in my original response, and it is really pretty basic, but there I go again. I'm sorry. Let me try one more time.
The Falling Number in whole grain flour is always very high. Falling number is a measure of amylase action. When Falling Number is high, amylase action is low. So, per unit weight the amylase action is lower in whole grain flour than in white. This alone would lead you to conclude that the amylase enzymes are not located primarily in the bran and aleurone layers.
But wheat is a seed and consider the function of a seed. The germ is the plant embryo, and the endosperm must function as the nutrition for this embryo prior to it being large enough to get nutrition through photosynthesis. The bran is really protection for all of this and if you have ever seen a seed germinate, a healthy seedling will cast off the outer coating, and then will continue to grow. We know that sprouted wheat has sufficient a-amylase to break down starch into maltose (and even at faster rates than we might like to see in baking) (in connection with the b-amylase) and so that is how the new plant is nourished. Leading once again to a fairly logical conclusion that the amylase enzymes are more abundant in the endosperm and aren't sifted away with the bran in white flour.
But with such a high Falling Number, how can we use whole wheat for making bread?
Well, there are a lot more things in whole grains than just the amylase enzymes and a lot of those thing are concentrated in the outer layers of the endosperm (typically not included in the flour you get in the supermarket) , the aleurone and the bran. Yes, there are enzymes, but there is also ash - or minerals. Minerals are a very effective food for yeast and so we see those results in our baking (They also play a role in sourdough, but I don't feel that I understand things well enough to explain them to others and so I will refrain from doing so. Again, a limitation I must learn to live with.) Plus just because a-amylase is not sufficient in white flour for good baking performance does not mean there is no conversion from starch to maltose with a whole wheat flour - there is. This in combination with minerals can lead to whole grain bread "moving faster."
So, the miller will not correct the Falling Number of a whole wheat flour. The flour is considered good for baking. The baker may decide to add what the baker wants to add, but the miller's job is done.
So, hopefully this clears up the mystery - because there really isn't one. I hate to think of you spending time puzzling over this.
As for adding corn syrup to bread, you brought that up in the context of sourdough and long fermentation. I have really never been involved in buying or eating store bought bread sincing reaching adulthood, but I have studied its production. This bread tends to be made with commercial yeasts and receives a lot of dough conditioning so that its fermentation time is greatly reduced. Corn syrup (which does have some great uses) is added for sweetening, because lacking the delicate flavors from long and careful fermentation, sweetness makes a good substitute for most people. Really makes my head spin when folks make a statement about one thing and then say that it then must apply to something completely different. The spinning head makes "conversation" difficult for me, so please forgive me for that shortcoming.
That "sensorial properties" are "affected" - what does that mean? Is the bread better? Worse? That tells me nothing. Oh, and there I go again, being so judgemental, so I'm sorry. Thing is, when I think that statement through in the context of the bakers I know, if corn syrup in their bread would make it truly better (since I know that they do use corn syrup in other things, and I also know that they strive to make the best bread possible) why wouldn't they use it? Now that would puzzle me, except I know why - because they sincerely think (although they may be completely wrongheaded) that it is not needed and the bread is not improved. I don't think they are wrongheaded, but that could just be my own narrow mindedness in thinking that people who work hard, study their profession, strive for integrity in all things, and strive to make the best bread possible might be right about something. I weigh that against a sentence fragment extracted from a paper and I know which one I take as more valid. Really, I am just a mess as a human being.
I heard an interesting interview on the true scientific method and it involves more than experimentation and observation. It involves conflict. Scientists put out a theory and there is debate and review and sometimes feelings get hurt. But the result should be stronger and more reliable than if debate did not occur. But at some point we do know a few things for sure. I certainly do.
who is absurd now? No worries - no harm no foul!
I will take a portion of stater and experiment with adding HFCS to the feedings and see what happens. Hopefully more sour.
and it is good you have no fear to try something even I haven't done. One thing to remember is that the main, and by far most abundant. for LAB is maltose that leads to lactic acid. The secondary food source is fructose that is co metabolized with maltose to eventually produce a different acid - acetic - not lactose. Debra Wink talked about this secondary process thinking but not knowing for sure that low temperatures play a role, but not necessary causing this process to take place. She said
'because lower temperatures are more suited to yeast growth than higher, more fructose is made available to the bacteria at lower temperatures. At the same time, the bacteria are growing and using maltose more slowly, so the demand for co-substrates goes down as the fructose supply goes up. The ratio of acetic acid to ethanol and lactic acid goes up, because a higher percentage of the maltose is being co-metabolized with fructose.'
I don't know how much acetic acid can be produced with this fructose path ( maybe 10% of the total acid as a guess)but it seems a lower temperature is preferred if not required. What this lower temperature she speaks of, I don't know, but I'm guessing 60-64 F rather than the 36 F that I store my starter. But that is just a guess.
You won't be running out of fructose by adding some so acetic acid should be made instead of ethanol.
Happy experimenting Antilope !
“That’s what I like about science, there’s no one right answer.” Penny’s ex boyfriend (Zack) “The Big Bang Theory”
I usually respond to posts like this by ignoring them, but there are so many factual errors here that I am going to break them down point by point.
“Under normal circumstances, flour contains enough of the right enzymes which break down the abundant starches into maltose, fructose and a little glucose for the LAB and yeast to eat well enough.”
In fact, under normal conditions (where wheat is harvested dry) the grain itself is lacking in alpha-amylase. Usually beta- amylase is available in sufficient quantities, but since it cannot break down the starches by itself, alpha amylase generally needs to be supplemented.
The actions of alpha and beta amylase will result in maltose. A different enzyme will act in conjunction with alpha-amylase to make glucose, but in bread dough beta-amylase producing maltose is what we are concerned with.
Maltose is, indeed, composed of two glucose molecules bound together.
Maltose can be metabolized by yeast (maybe not by some yeasts, but by others) to produce leavening gases.
Fructose is not made by the amylase action in wheat.
And to take it a bit farther, these enzymes will not take action until “starch damage” (and moisture ) is present. This is usually not an issue in flour as the milling process pretty much damages the starch.
The citation in a later post (the link to which does not work) is out of context and from a paper on fermentation. It refers to "sourdough" (which is a fairly complex substance) - not flour. Many things happen during fermentation and many sugars and other compounds are released. However, even though present in flour, LAB are not enzymes and yeast are not enzymes. I would need to examine the larger context of the small quote to understand to what the author was referring. Initially starches are broken down by enzymes as described. This should not even be in question at this point in time.
“Fructose depletion is usually, but not always, a problem in white bread dough where the enzymatic action is lacking.”
Since fructose is not produced by amylase action, this “Fructose depletion” is simply a made up scenario.
I have sat through many a lecture on the science of bread making, including sourdoughs and including flour quality. If “Fructose depletion” was any kind of issue that the baker should be concerned about, I would have heard it. My literature search (flour and milling technical works) gives it no mention.
“The sifted out portion when making white flour is where much of these enzymes are located so the resulting White flour needs to be corrected.”
In fact, whole wheat flour (flour where the “sifted out” portions remain) has a much higher Falling Number than what would be acceptable in white flour. Since Falling Number increases as amylase action decreases, one must draw the conclusion that the appropriate enzymes for the conversion of starches to sugars would be less in the outer layers. Intuitively, since the endosperm is actually the food for the developing wheat we would expect the enzymes needed to break down starches to be more abundant there. I would need a citation to consider the above statement.
The poster may be referring to a footnote in “Fermentations in Sourdough” by Debra Wink that a number of substances including “enzymes” are in the outer layers of the grain. The statement so footnoted was in the context of co-substrates and metabolic pathways. Wheat contains a lot of different enzymes all with their own purposes. Once again, if we are discussing the enzymes that are corrected by using malt – we are referring to alpha and beta amylases.
“If you mill your own flour and sift out all the enzymes you will need to do what millers do - add malt.”
Sifting out enzymes would be nearly impossible for the home miller – it is difficult enough to get out all the bran.
As I have discussed earlier, wheat in the state that the miller usually receives it is generally deficient in alpha amylase.
“So, if you mill your own white flour, you might want to put a small amount of malt in it to try to correct for a lack of enzymes in the food you feed your starter”
This statement comes close to being true and would be if it stated that you “will” need to correct the Falling Number.
However, if you mill your own white flour, we need to chat – because you have a home roller mill and I’d love to hear where you got it and how it’s working for you. Even the most dedicated home millers will not be able to mill flour with no germ in it, so it is technically not “white”. But even at that level, you have a very good probability of producing flour that lacks alpha-amylase. Why - because as discussed earlier the wheat berry itself lacks alpha amylase (unless there is sprouting – in which case you should have rejected the wheat). Whole grain flours contain other substances – such as minerals - that compensate for this in providing nutrition. Since you are interested in nourishing your starter, you will want to add some form of alpha amylase if you mill nearly white flour.
“For white dough that will have a long retard or proof some HFCS might be in order”
Not one baker I know (and I know a few) would put corn syrup (especially high fructose) in their breads – white, commercially yeasted, or sourdough. As this discussion began, if concerned with any of those things (long retard or proof), diastatic malt is often added.
It is fun to make things up. But it is unkind to do so and present it as fact to people who want to learn.
It's been well established that the sourness in S.F. sourdough comes from L. SanFran., c.f. Kline and Sugihara.
that L. sanfranciscensis is one of many, many species and strains of lactic acid bacteria. Sourness comes from all of them. If your starter is consistently oxygenated, you'll favor acetic acid production.
The reason I didn't entertain a discussion on "sourness" in sourdough is that I believe it takes two things to have a meaningful discussion on this:
I am neither. Debra Wink is both. I urge you to go to her source material rather than interpretations of it.
To quote Forrest Gump - "That's all I have to say about that."
But in bread making alpha and beta amylases work in tandem to create maltose. Glucose is also produced by another enzyme in combination with the alpha-amylase. However maltose predominates. I am qualified to say that.
I've read Debra's posts on making starter but have not read, and will look for, anything she has written specifically about sourness. With all due respect to Ms. Wink, one really needs to have tasted one of the old-school S.F. sourdoughs and preferably baked same in order to know what we're after and to know when one's effots have been successful. I was raised on Larraburu so I'm familiar with the flavor and texture. The bakery closed in 1976 but other bakeries produced very much the same bread for many years afterward. Dmsnyder is familiar with this type of bread and has done a lot of work in trying to replicate it, but he has taken less of a purist approach than I'm taking. I'm trying to hew as closely as possible to the original recipe. That's why I refuse to add rye to the mixture.
Thanks for the information on barley malt percentage. I will use 0.5% as the maximum amount to use.
This thread seems to have taken a turn, but you are right - you need to understand the exact tastes you are after - and I will not pretend to have ever eaten the bread you are trying to duplicate.
I'm not a sour bread fan, but I will admit that when I do want extra sourness, I will also take the route of getting some rye into the mix. For all kinds of "theoretical" reasons - it is a good, fast way to "sour."
But I have done some work with people who are pretty fair bakers and the best advice I was given was not to focus on a single factor (whatever that may be) but to look at the entire process.
Hopefully you are doing that and will soon achieve success.
Again, have fun!
But you see, the purist approach does not make sense since you don't know what is in your culture. You might believe that you do, but in reality you don't.
The discussion of dough turning to goo is part of another thread and has been solved. The question in this thread has been answered by proth: 0.5% is a typical value. (about 1/2 tsp in my recipe). I don't know what quoting Debra at great length accomplishes.
who was confused about fructose or why i mentioned it? I thought you really wanted to know why fructose was important to the whole SD process The 2 quotes do nothing more than explain why fructose rather than maltose is the center of the sybiotic relationship of LAB SF and yeast in each direction in a typical SD culture and why fructose is important in the whole SD process.
That is what quoting Debra Wink accomplishes, since she is recognized at the expert on these things here.
The symbiotic relationship was well documented by others at least 40 years ago. I suggest you dig a little deeper and do some more research.
Here is the reply I received from Whole Foods regarding my inquiry about their 365 brand all-purpose flour:
Thanks for reaching out to us. There is no malted barley in our all purpose flour.
That is interesting. Again, fungal amylase (an enzyme) can be used in place of barley malt to correct Falling Number.
What is interesting to me, is that usually flour has a spec on Falling number, because having it either too high or two low will really cause problems in the final product.
Malted barley or not - I can't believe that they don't have a Falling number spec or that they achieve it without some kind of correction at the mill. And the Falling Number (not the particular source of the enzyme) is really what matters.
But the thing is - malted barley is not the only possible source of exogenic enzymes. Saying that "there is no malted barley in our all purpose flour" does not mean that there's no malted wheat or rye, or one of the wonderful things from Novo-Nordisk.
Here is the USDA patent from 1971: https://www.google.com/patents/US3734743?dq=kline+sugihara+sourdough&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kyp8Ury3DOS8igLUrID4Bw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBA
Excerpt #1: "This yeast we have identified as the imperfect (non-sporulating) form of Saccharomyces exiguus, namely, Torulopsis holmii. One of the properties differentiating this yeast from ordinary bakers yeast (S. cereviseae) is that it cannot ferment or grow on maltose"
Excerpt #2: "The other microorganism involved in sour dough French bread we found to be a species of bacterium, closely related to or belonging in the genus Lactobacillus, and which species has not heretofore been known or described. This bacteria is responsible for the development of sourness in the product, and, as the discoverers, we have suggested the name Lactobacillus sanfrancisco therefor. One of the characteristics of this bacterial species is that it requires or greatly prefers maltose for its growth"
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourdough
"Sourdough is a dough containing a lactobacillus culture in symbiotic combination with yeasts."
"When wheat flour comes into contact with water, naturally occurring amylase enzymes break down the starch into maltose; the enzyme maltase converts the maltose sugar into glucose, which yeast can metabolize. Flour naturally contains a variety of yeasts and bacterial spores. With sufficient time, temperature, and refreshments with new or fresh dough, the mixture develops a balanced, symbiotic or stable culture."
There is your symbiotic relationship.
The definition of symbiotic relationship
Symbiotic interrelationships can be divided into three main categories; Mutualism, when both species involved benefit from the relationship, Commensalism, when one species benefits and the other isn’t affected, and Parasitism, when one species benefits, and the other is harmed in the process.
Your example is only one way where LAB produces glucose for yeast to eat.by breaking down maltose with an enzyme; amalyse, to excrete glucose that yeast eat. That is the definition Commensalism where only one species benefits,
But the symbiotic relation between LAB and yeast in SD is not Commensalism - it is Mutualism where both species benefit. LABS provide glucose two ways through the main maltose to glucose path but also through the secondary fructose to glucose path. Yeast, on the other hand, complete their part of the mutual benefit by breaking down fructose containing substances in flour and release the fructose for the Labs benefit. The true symbiotic relationship of Mutualism can only be completed with fructose as the key for the yeast side not maltose but fructose is the key for both sides..
Regarding your quibble with the use of the word "symbiotic", I suggest you find the author of that wikipedia article or go to the "talk" page of the article and quibble there. While you're at it, you might track down everyone else who has posted an article on the Internet describing this relationship as "symbiotic" and talk to them about it.
Maybe "mutually beneficial" is semantically more accurate but I'm not here to split semantic hairs.
We know that adding malted barley flour to wheat flour supplies the enzyme amylase.
Only for the purpose of cultivating L. SanFranciscensis, does the added malted barley flour also supply maltose which is the preferred food of L. SanFran.? IOW, is the added malted barley flour a source of amylase or maltose or both?
We also know that the 365 brand does not contain malted barley flour, so would it be less beneficial in the cultivation of L. SanFran due to the lack of maltose?
Both. Malted grain is partially converted, so there would be some maltose coming with it. Not enough to provide food for the entire fermentation though.
I'm in the process of researching the microbial populations of sourdough starters. There are many, many types of bacteria present in the starter I received - it is a huge understatement to say Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis is solely responsible for the acid production. Some only produce lactic acid, no matter the condition. Some produce alcohol and CO2 as long as they have a small amount of oxygen. Some grow quickly anaerobically, some grow very slowly under any conditions. I have yet to characterize the sugar consumption of each. If there is any fructose present in a dough, it's due to isomerase activity of the microbes, and would not be a concern of the baker's. While there are fructans and pentosans, the primary starches are going to be amylopectin and amylase. A-amylase is slow but consistent and persistant, whereas B-amylase is fast but is inconsistent. For the baker, adding malt is to increase the amounts of both, but A-amylase is the enzyme responsible for making sugars from starch. B-amylase makes dextrins, medium chain glucose polymers.
I do know, however, that yeasts are hoarders of their enzymes - they produce very few enzymes that get into the mix of the dough.On the other hand, all of the lactobaccili, lactococci, and acetobacters aren't as able to hold onto their own enzymes, and so release them. This is where the relationship comes from. The bacteria are alcohol and acid tolerant, as are the yeasts. So by your definition, dabrownman, this is a commensal relationship. Bacteria don't really benefit from the yeasts being around, but the yeasts definitely benefit from the bacteria, as the bacterial enzymes assist the yeasts digestion.
As for the original question, I malt wheat berries and then mix with unmalted in a 19:1 ratio, so that the malted flour accounts for 5% of the final mix. This is not as concentrated as adding pure diastatic malt, and also more inconsistent. I use my whole wheat flour in almost all breads to add enzyme activity to plain bread flour. I like how well the crust browns with the malt, although often the bottom of my breads will char and become sticky. I've never noticed a gummy crumb, but it is definitely more moist. The enzyme activity increases the hygroscopy of the crumb. Starch grabs less water from the air than sugar does, and so a dough with more malt enzymes will tend to stay moister, longer.
Because I'm staring right at a book on wheat flour and I'm seeing (what I kind of know anyway, but I always like to confirm) that A-amylase" "reduces starch to a series of branched and linear fragments called dextrins" and B-amylase reduces amylose primarily to maltose in addition to "small branched" dextrins. Also that they work in combination as B-amylase cannot act on native starch.
Is that what you said? (I'm an engineer which only counts as semi-skilled in matters scientific.)
I always learned it in non-scientific terms that A-amylase cuts up starch into big chunks so that B-amylase can cut it up into little chunks so the yeast can use it. A bit rough on the edges, but for us raggedy bakers - probably good enough.
The reason that I ask you to double check is that we've got enough strange stuff whirling around this thread.
Oh, and is it amylopectin and amylose?
Simply put, beta-amylase cuts of maltose molecules of the end of linear starch chains, one by one and from one particular end. Once it hits a branching point it stops. Alpha-amylase is indiscriminate - it can cut anywhere and it does not care what kind of linkage it hits - linear or branching.
- I'm actually getting a pretty good picture of that cemented in my mind.
However my understanding (and I really push things only as far as it takes to understand what I need to understand for milling and baking) continues to be that both are involved in the breaking down of starch into maltose - it isn't that one participates in it and the other doesn't. I think that I read the contrary in DoubleMerlin's post - that A - amylase is entirely and soley responsible for creating maltose from starch.
I really am a bit unsure as to whether it is the actual meaning of what was written or my reading comprehension that is making me think that.
Both do, but if you have alpha, then for beta, for all practical purposes becomes irrelevant. I can't tell you off hand what its contribution is, but it is very, very small.
As I said earlier, the book I have on Wheat Flour is quite clear on the role of B-amylase (I'm gonna put in a quote here)
Flour also contains B-amylase, which also hydrolyzes a-1,4 linkages. The activity of this enzyme severs every second a-1,4 linkage from the nonreducing ends of a starch polymer thus liberating the sugar maltose.
I'm just getting a grasp on a lot of the words in the middle, but I latched on to the "maltose." (I'm really not much of a biologist (or is it organic chemist - I don't even know what I need to be!), but I'm working on the basics)
Also I've always be "told" by sources I trust that it plays an essential role. Now I'm gonna have to do some reading and figure that all out.
No rest for the wicked...
Here's how Baking Update describes it:
Beta-amylase is normally produced in wheat at relatively high, consistent amounts. Alpha-amylase is produced at lower and more variable amounts depending on the wheat variety and weather during growth, harvest, and storage.Alpha- and beta-amylase begin to act onthe damaged starch in a dough as soon as mixing starts. Alpha-amylase converts the damaged starch into dextrins, while beta-amylase converts the dextrins into maltose sugar. There is usually plenty of beta-amylase present, so the amount of sugar formed depends on the amount of damaged starch and the rate of formation depends on the amount of alpha-amylase.
I read that, too. Which says to me that they both play a part and it is actually the beta amylase that produces the maltose.
So when folks have said that only the alpha amylase is needed - me gets puzzled... :>)
Think I'll stick with my current understanding.
The problem is that beta-amylase can work on very limited number of sites - basically one per starch chain, and while eventually it will chew up enough starch to provide enough food for the leavening agents it may take some time. Alpha greatly increases the number of available sites so beta's potential can be realized in much shorter period of time. Of course here we should start an entirely new discussion about just what that time is, and at which fermentation times malting the flour becomes pointless, or dangerous, and a ton of other fascinating questions.
That makes sense in terms of my "bakers explanation" of alpha cutting starch into big chunks and beta breaking it down into little chunks.
But what of the statement that "beta-amylase cannot act at all on native starch?" Any thoughts?
"malted barley is not the only possible source of exogenic enzymes. Saying that "there is no malted barley in our all purpose flour" does not mean that there's no malted wheat or rye"
I believe it does. If there were rye they would have to list it on the ingredient label. This is a big deal nowadays because some people have severe allergic reactions to some ingredients, and a manufacturer doesn't want to be sued for failing to disclose that information..
By the way, granted it's an old post, but 365 at least used to have malted barley in it.
What an interesting thread! Thanks everyone, especially proth, for your informative posts.
Yesterday I made a loaf with the "economy" flour, Whole Foods 365 brand unbleached all-purpose, which we know contains no malted barley flour, just "enzyme". I did not add any diastatic malt.
There was no sourness. None. It was a nice loaf in all other respects, and the crust was nice and crispy, but it just wasn't sour.
Today I baked a loaf with King Arthur ubcleached all-purpose using the exact same recipe. The KA flour does contain malted barley flour per the ingredient label. This loaf definitely is sour, no question about it. It has that familiar L.SanFran tanginess I grew up with. To me this is a HUGE piece of the puzzle. Unmalted barley flour is your friend!
My dilemma is, I could continue to use the Whole Foods 365 economy flour with "enzyme" and save a buck a bag, but the savings would be offset by having to buy diastatic malt which has to be shipped via UPS, thus cancelling any economic savings. Even then, I would only be guessing at the proper amount of malt to add as I am not set up to measure the falling number. You see, economics does play a role in baking.Some things are best left to the pros and this is one such case. I'll leave it to the millers who know what they're doing to make a flour that does what I need it to. So it's King Arthur, or a flour with malted barley flour, from now on.
In my on-line detective work I have come across a company called Giusto's. They are located in South San Francisco. Yes, San Francisco, the sourdough capitol of the United States! I know Giusto's supplies the flour to Acme Bakery, a prominent bakery there but which does not produce the tangy sourdoughs of years past. It would be interesting to me to find out if Giusto's supplied flour to the erstwhile, long-gone San Francisco bakeries of the past, such as Larraburu, Parisian, Colombo, etc. I will have to inquire.
quest to try to mimic Larraburu's bread that was more tangy then the ones prevalent today, that tracking down the flour suppliers is a good way to go. That got me thinking that you also might try to locate the owners or others that actually worked there who would have known the actual formula, temperatures and methods used to make the breads. When Larraburu closed the folks that worked there had to go work somewhere else. You might be able to locate then through SFBI or BBGA or some other bakers group in the SF area.
Varda was on quest similar quest to replicate the Tzitzel of her youth from Paratzel's in St Louis. She was able to track down the past owner a learn first hand about how that bread was made. I don't remember the exact things that Varda found out but if I remember correctly it was the flours used and their amounts were different than what she was thinking they might have been. The difference for Varda is that the business had not been closed for very long. Still I think it is worth a shot.
I preferred Columbo but I think, no data to back it up, that one of the main reasons people preferred the bread they did in the old days of SF SD was largely due to how close they lived to the bakery. It reminds me of a study that was done to determine why people became democrats or republicans and the one reason or link that came to the forefront was that 80% ( possibly higher I don't have the study) were in the party they were in was because..... that was the party their parents were in. So how close you are to something, maybe does make a difference in your preferences - but again no data to back it up.
So there's a 97% chance the sun revolves around Earth. Interesting.
was that the learned folks, call them scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth adn that the earth was flat. But later scientists proved these beliefs wrong becoming part of the 97% . We pretty much clearly know as near fact that the earth orbits the sun and will likely stay part of the 3% for some time to come.
But you certainly have a very valid point. The sun does revolves around something and that something, as we know it today, might possibly change should we discover the long sought 1million year orbit period companion star to our sun that some cosmologists and others think might exist.
But, there might also be a real parallel universe, one of an infinite number by the way, where the only thing that is different from out own universe is that gravity works differently there or does not exist at all and then nothing would orbit around anything else because of gravity. So which universe is the real one? Why both are of course -but oly if there really are an infinate number of parallel universes
I wonder what Newton would have felt, being the largest of all giants of science he was, when his accepted laws of gravity, as he understood it and exemplified by the famous apple falling out of the tree and possibly bonking him on the head, were overturned after a couple hundred years or so accepted as fact, by Einstein's Theory of Relativity and his notion of gravity being some kind of space time fabric or continuum.
Still, I have never tried to find out who actually originated the 97% rule but that would be fine thing to explore. You would think over the last 40 years, with better tools, much better amd professional scientific methods and practices and a greater understanding of all kinds of 'stuff'' that, if the 97% was ever true - it must only be 95% today:-)
i like the way you think about things.
You might look into honey to hot-rod the microbial growth in either dough or starter. HFCS contains an assortment of sugars but so does honey; might be worth looking into. Just a drop, though. You're feeding microorganisms, not trying to sweeten the dough/starter.I'll leave it to others to find references to sugar consumption by L. SanFranciscensis.I found this, though:Food Science & Technology, 2005 - ElsevierA common feature of L. alimentarius isolates is the capacity to ferment all four soluble carbohydrates contained in wheat flour, ie maltose, sucrose, glucose, and fructose. Finally, L. sanfranciscensis, L. alimentarius and L. plantarum have also the capacity to use pentoses (xylose ...
"Honey" - that was the keyword that set off a recollection that a couple of bakers I met in France used small amounts of honey in their sourdough cultures. Although I tasted one of them and it didn't seem particularly sour so you never know why they felt it was important. When asked why they told us it was a "secret."
But I've not heard of using it in the final dough. I really haven't.
As for the other reference, perhaps it all depends on what "contained" means - certainly maltose can be broken down into glucose and glucose metabolized (if that is the right word) into fructose - so in a sense, they are there. My continued understanding is that intially the wheat is broken down by the amylase enzymes in the wheat into maltose and must be broken down further, by bacteria, yeast, etc from there. (Not of course, that yeasts and bacteria don't hitch a ride on wheat flour, but they are not wheat.)
What I find interesting is that they can also ferment pentoses? If true and confirmed by other scientists, that also would be counter to previously believed science. In 2009 Debra Wink, 4 years after this article was published, wrote on her lactic acid in SD thread the following paragraph.
'Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis is fairly unique among the obligately heterofermentive lactobacilli, in that it ferments no pentose sugars. And unusual among lactic acid bacteria in general, because it prefers maltose over glucose. But it will co-metabolize fructose with maltose to produce acetic acid. L. sanfranciscensis converts maltose into one glucose-6-phosphate which enters the heterofermentative pathway, and a glucose which is excreted back into its surroundings. This is a good arrangement for common sourdough yeasts, since maltose is the most abundant sugar in wheat doughs, and some lack the ability to break it down for themselves. Yeasts and other bacteria that can ferment maltose, generally prefer glucose. And so by providing glucose to competing organisms, L. sanfranciscensis actually helps to conserve the maltose for itself---just one of the ways in which it gets along well with other sourdough microorganisms, and perhaps one of the reasons it is found so often.'
For now I;m going with Debra Wink -not that it matters. If true this could be another example of pesky scientists proving other pesky scientists wrong, something they must all be used used to since that is what they do. But, do we really know if this supposed new LAB SF ability to utilize pentose sugars is real or does it even matter in SD bread making if these pentoses exist in small quantities in bread dough ?
I was reading another scientific research paper the other day, that laymen like me probably shouldn't read for good reason, that claimed that half of the CO2 produced in SD bread could be due to LAB, not in all cases but in certain circumstances. I have always thought, maybe incorrectly and perhaps others have too, , that LAB mainly produced acids, both lactic and acedic, to create the sensory sour taste that lactates and acetates produce for us humans. LAB could could also produce a small amount of CO2 too but it was supposedly the yeast that produced almost all of the CO2 causing the rise in bread dough if the gluten was properly developed. This greater CO2 ability of LAB in SD would be something new.too - if confirmed by other scientists and proven true..
It looks like, even though scientists have based more experiments on yeast than any living thing, LAB science, especially in conjunction with yeast in SD, still needs a lot more scientific work. With all of those pesky scientists, I'm guessing we will get it too.
The next question is whether one would add this to the dough or the starter. Please do keep us posted.
That's going to be some sweet bread.
Saturday's bake pretty well nailed the Larraburu flavor with plenty of sourness to go around. This can be ascribed to three things: 1) a 12-hour proof. I would like to get this down to 8 hours maximum. 2) The first use of a new dough thermostat and incubator set-up which enabled me to tightly control the proofing temperature. I have posted about the thermostat on tfl. It is sold as a "DIY yogurt maker". The incubator is naught more than a 40-watt light bulb in the oven controlled by the thermostat. 3) The use of a "secret sauce". I am not going to divulge the secret of the secret sauce, at least for now. The information is readily available on the Internet but one has to apply a little ingenuity in arriving at the "secret". Hint: it's all about cultivating C.humilis aka C.milleri, and L.SanFran.
The Larraburu process and that of a competing bakery were documented on tfl by doc.dough which he found in trade journals dating back to 1978. Do a tfl search on "Larraburu" and it will come right up. I found it last December and for me it was the holy grail. Times, temps, ingredients, the whole shebang, it's all there. When I was growing up in Palo Alto in the '60s and '70s you could buy S.F. SD from any of a half-dozen bakeries in any supermarket, so I'm not sure proximity to the bakery was a factor. When Larraburu went dark in 1976 ISTR my mother settled on Colombo. Nowadays there's Boudin but I don't think you can buy that without making a trip to the airport or fisherman's wharf.
Two things have helped greatly: One is using of flour containing malted barley flour. Second: you're going to use water and salt in your dough -- just dissolve the salt in the water before adding. This ensures that the salt is dissolved and dispersed throughout the dough and so far has kept the dough from turning to mush during proofing.
My loaves are nothing to look at, lacking a golden-brown exterior, but the crust is crispy. The crumb could be a little airier but that's fine tuning once I get the flavor down. I'm also not using steam in the oven at this time which was also part of the S.F. SD process.
I have a 10kg bag of roasted barley grain I used to use for brewing beer... Can this be used for bread? I was goingburn burn it in the log burner till a friend suggested using it in my bread. Any recipe ideas if it is suitable?!!