June 20, 2016 - 2:21am
Predicting loaf volume without baking the bread
Apparently it's 'ground-breaking' research.
What really bugs me is this quote: "The holy grail of the baking industry is loaf volume -- the bigger the volume, the better." So it's not taste, ingredients, or texture that are important, just volume. To me it says all you'll ever need to know about industrial baking.
Oh well, back to shaping my low-rise but very tasty potato & rosemary sourdoughs. Surprisingly popular too.
Share
"It's the cheapest way to make water stand upright"
Also make of that what you will...
-Gordon
and it all has to do with volume. And the people choosing the wheat to plant will base their decisions on calculations of foam. Eee gads. They are young and don't know any better. so sad.
I disagree with the negative comments here. These are scientists not bakers and are tasked to find a particular piece of data, which they can now do without using up raw materials that probably ended up in the trash bin.
Check TFL for "how do I fix my flat loaf" and while maybe not the "grail" it is a concern. But in their world it is everything. I think the exclusion of many parts of the process and decisions is strictly because that is not what they do. If a new strain (or newly rediscovered strain) of wheat shows good potential, then the bakers can decide if it has the flavor and other characteristics needed.
Data is always useful, it is what you do with that data that matters. There are so many posts on TFL on research on yeasts for example. Deciding to always proof your loaf at the optimal temperature for your yeast to get some volume doesn't take away from the quality of the bread - it is just knowledge.
I agree - considering how important the most tasteless part of bread, the holes, is to many people here, some comments do sound a bit disingenuous.
..It's about maximising the size of loaves in mass-produced industrial 'bread'. If you're into air-whipped stabilised foams to which yeast is added as a flavouring rather than as a fermenting agent, then this research is for you. It has no bearing on the kind of bread the vast majority of bakers on TFL are interested in making.
if the fields are planted with a narrow choice of cultivars.
I don't think I misunderstand at all. Information can often be used for good or evil. I only saw the word "industry" used once (and artisan bread baking is an industry) , never saw yeast added as flavoring - only that yeast does not do all the work, mass produced was never mentioned either. I think you are laying your own assumptions over the top of what a scientist is researching. I did see: "We're trying to optimize those factors that create a cohesive dough, balancing strength and elasticity to make the best loaves."
Which has total bearing on what any real bread baker is interested in. If their research tells me a strain of wheat would help me achieve an end result I am looking for, I don't have to be like some posts saying "I bought a bunch of XXX flour and it doesn't do the job, what can I do" - science is good.
"...the baking industry is loaf volume -- the bigger the volume, the better." And it's absolutely true of mass-produced loaves, but not necessarily of those made by artisan bakers. I'm not quite sure why you've taken such exception to me taking exception to that, but I apologise if you did. This has nothing whatsoever to do with some straw doll about science being good or bad. It has everything to do with an industrial approach to producing what is in my opinion terrible quality bread. That's what I really object to and that quote typifies that mindset.
- just back from the local(ish) supermarket where they have stacks and stacks of fluffy white & brown bread double the volume of my own loaves yet the same weight. I know this bread doesn't pass the cold butter test, it clumps up into a doughy mess, has little taste and is generally unappetising... Yet there are 14 million of these loaves baked every day in the UK. The craft/artisan bakers are making ground here though - slowly.
One day I'll buy a loaf of this fluffy bread-like substance and dehydrate it, along with one of mine of the same baked weight and see just how much stuff is in it - other than water. I suspect they have much more water than I use, yet achieve what appears to be a close crumb structure without any big holes (classed as a total failure in the UK). You poke a finger into one of these loaves and it all squishes up - poke a finger into one of mine and it bounces back...
-Gordon
I agree it is not the holy grail, and I am sure that this research is funded by companies that produce exactly the type of bread you described. Trust me, I too think it is an abomination. My point is what I read in this article is the science being done and to their credit, a way to get the information without baking off loaf after loaf. I have no way of knowing, but I can't imagine that when that was being done it ever ended up in the stomach of anybody.
I didn't think you were fighting against science. My point here is that this knowledge could be helpful to all of us even if the food factories put it to bad use. To me this is equivalent to testing grape varieties for sugar content. The industrial wineries use that information to make a cheaper more profitable product, while others use it to create a masterpiece. I am completely on your side on industrial bread, my point was just I didn't see so much evidence of that in this article. To Mini's point it would be interesting to see how many of the flours we use would "rate" and know how that all works. If I found that by adding a portion of flour XXX to a loaf of rye and I would get just that extra bit of spring and strength I needed, to me that is a good thing. No apology needed, I just wanted to clarify that from my perspective I had not missed the point of the article, I just was interested in it from a different angle. - Thanks for a nice discussion.
The formula is almost certainly designed to work with the industrial processes and formulae that bear no similarity to the kind of bread we bake. Why do I say this? It's because the brief was to build a bigger loaf, not a tastier one or a more nutritious one. It's anathema to me. Can I recommend that people who doubt me to read up on the Chorleywood Process (other means of producing non-bread are also available)?
to see how some of our favourite flours come out of such a test.
If flour samples are prepared for their individual characteristics, what would be their parameters? I'm sure there are flours not living up to their potential as volume builders. (I'll take a flat loaf any day if it tastes better than a fluffy one.) But I have witnessed in my own kitchen that a 100% spelt loaf doesn't have to be a brick. What about certain flour blends? Spelt & Rye for example. I have often observed that rye dough extensibility has increased with an addition of spelt flour.
I'm sure the scientists did a lot of work and they deserve praise. Not easy I'm sure.
The cultural bias in the article is emphasis on volume deciding how good bread can be. More volume the holy grail? With that I object. I've had loaves with plenty of volume and were impossible to cut, stretched beyond the matrix limit for stability so the knife just tore them apart. Too much volume is also not good.