The Fresh Loaf

A Community of Amateur Bakers and Artisan Bread Enthusiasts.

All caught up: 50% WG Oat Porridge Loaf from July 14

IceDemeter's picture
IceDemeter

All caught up: 50% WG Oat Porridge Loaf from July 14

INGREDIENT

AMOUNT (g)

FLOUR TOTAL (g)

% WATER

WATER (g)

BAKER %

LEVAIN

 

 

 

 

 

Fresh Milled Rye

80

80

 

 

9.31

Water

64

 

 

64.00

7.45

TOASTED ADDERS

 

 

 

 

 

Steel Cut Oats

30

30

 

 

3.49

Oat Bran

30

30

 

 

3.49

Rolled Oats (Oat Flakes)

30

30

 

 

3.49

PORRIDGE (made w/ toasties)

 

 

 

 

Full Fat Sour Cream

60

 

74.5

44.70

6.98

Water

70

 

 

70.00

8.15

DOUGH

 

 

 

 

 

Fresh Milled Oat Flour

190

190

 

 

22.12

Fresh Milled Hard Red Wheat

115

115

 

 

13.39

Red Rye Malt

7

7

 

 

0.81

Diastatic Rye Malt

7

7

 

 

0.81

Salt

12

 

 

 

1.40

All Purpose Flour

370

370

 

 

43.07

Water

460

 

 

460.00

53.55

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Dough Weight

1525

 

 

 

177.53

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Flour

 

859

 

 

100.00

Total Water (Hydration)

 

 

 

638.70

74.35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since the forecast actually looked not oppressively hot, I figured I’d take advantage to make a new version of an oat porridge loaf.  The first one I did a few months back was Danni3ll3’s “Oats Four Ways” (which was lovely http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/50952/oats-four-ways-sourdough), but since then I’ve been enjoying the results of using a toasted porridge using Isand66’s porridge method, and have been tweaking things to see how well they work for my schedule.  This one is inspired by many, but basically is my own fault ;)

 I went with a quite low inoculation of levain for me (only 9.3% pre-fermented flour) to give myself more time in the warmer temps, and dropped the hydration to make the dough easier to work with, but went with my “usual” make the levain a day or two early and refrigerate, then do the mixing / kneading / bulk ferment all at room temperature, shape it and proof it overnight in a bag-covered banneton in the fridge.  I baked it in a steel-enamel roaster preheated with the oven to 475 degrees – dropped the temp to 450 degrees and baked covered for 25 minutes, then uncovered with temp dropped to 425 degrees for another 35 minutes, to internal temp of about 202 degrees (lower works better here at the higher elevations).

 The dough was a joy to work with, but I really should have either re-shaped it in the morning (it had over-proofed a bit) or should have gone with even less pre-fermented flour.  I did still get some oven spring, but missed the dark bake since there wasn’t as much sugar left.  Regardless, it turned out with a wondrously moist crumb, with a great toothiness and chew --- and with a lovely sweet and tender flavour.  No big holes, but I was trying to NOT have them (this is for sandwiches, and I despise leaking mustard).

 We enjoyed this one so much that it was baked on Friday, first sliced on Saturday, and I finished the last slice as my morning toast on Monday.  It’s a good thing that I already had a good freezer stock to take us through the past weekend when it was too hot to bake!

The forecast is still looking hot for this week, but with a bit of a break on Friday, so I'm planning on getting at least one loaf baked - or maybe two so that I get more in the freezer again.  The stock is down to less than 1 week worth, so restocking is getting pretty important.

Keep having fun, trying new things, and basically - baking happy!

Comments

Danni3ll3's picture
Danni3ll3

to combine different forms of oats and toasting them! Your loaf looks moist and delicious! 

I am glad you are all caught up with your posting. I keep a hand written diary that I update weekly as I bake, but I am definitely behind in printing pictures and taping them in the diary.  

IceDemeter's picture
IceDemeter

I can't take credit for the idea of toasting them - I quite openly stole that idea from Toad.de.B via dabrownman, and mixed it with isand66's method of cooking the porridge.  I actually can't take credit for any of the ideas that I wander around and steal from your blogs (and everyone else's)!

I do have random written notes on my bakes, and I have an excel workbook with all of the formulae and "fact" notes - but I'm finding that the pics and the "emotion" notes in the blogs help me to really remember the bakes --- and remember what I want to keep and what I want to avoid.  I seem to need the act of writing the blog to fix it in to my memory.

As for moist - I actually was worried because of how moist the crumb looked when we sliced it, but there was no gumminess on the knife, so I just went ahead and threw sandwiches together and we headed out to the farms.  That moisture made the sandwiches that we ate 16 hours later taste just as fresh as the ones we'd had shortly after putting the sandwiches together.  I was seriously (and very pleasantly) shocked --- and will be trying to get the same results again!  Considering all of the posts about folks unhappy with their moist crumbs, it really is a good example of how there is something for everybody in baking ;)

Lechem's picture
Lechem (not verified)

Oats bring out a lovely flavour and I do love an oat bread. Looks and sounds delicious.

Now I've done an oat soaker so does that make it a porridge bread? I'm wondering what's the difference if there is any.

Danni3ll3's picture
Danni3ll3

if i use a soaker that involves flakes of some kind. I don't see that cooking them is much different than soaking them in hot water for an extended period of time. 

IceDemeter's picture
IceDemeter

You are right about oats bringing something special to the flavour (it was Danni's loaf that really sold me on it).  We definitely enjoyed every last crumb of this one.

As for the soaker vs porridge --- well, like so many other things in baking, it seems to me to be a matter of semantics, and how much of a stickler you are to adhering to specific terminology.  In checking out the original definitions, "porridge" is grains that have been cooked in a liquid, while "soaker" would be anything that has been immersed in a liquid (no reference to the temperature of that liquid) but not actively cooked.  If we use the definition of "cooked" to be "prepared by the use of heat", then the difference between soaker and porridge is that a soaker was not actively cooked while a porridge was.  The different term concisely explains the difference in process, even if the end result with our grains actually turns out pretty much the same.

I am pedantic about correct usage of technical terminology.  I'm from a tech background, and we depend on field-specific terminology that was created to make communication accurate and concise, with no room for misinterpretation --- and the muddling of definitions or misuse of terminology negates that purpose.  If definitions get muddled to the point where you have to consistently explain what meaning you are using for a term, then the term has become useless. 

As I have been starting to learn about bread baking, I have to admit to being appalled at the hubris or ignorance displayed by the big selling authors and master bakers who have decided that their personal interpretation of a baking term should over-ride the original definition.  This muddying of definitions has made learning and communicating far more difficult, since you cannot depend on a term being used by one "expert" to mean the same as the same term used by another "expert".  The first example that springs to mind is the abuse of "autolyse" to the point where the original meaning of "water and flour only" has been lost and it now just means "mixed" or "soaked" since you have to explain if you've included salt or levain anyways.

The next example would be "porridge" bread, since I understand that there is at least one big-name baker / author who uses that term to include breads made with what would more accurately be termed a "soaker".  Quite understandably, anyone working from the recipes of that particular baker / author is going to use the term the same way, and it has become normal to have to explain what process was used, since the terminology has lost the precise definition of the process.

Ah well - it's just a personal quirk that it irritates me, so I should shut up about it!  Beyond the terminology, I personally have found that toasting some random mix of flaked or chopped grains, small whole grains, brans, and germs, and then adding liquid in two stages while continuing over heat per Ian's procedure (about 75% first, which will be totally absorbed by the grains, and then the final 25% allowed to gradually be absorbed or cooked off) ends up giving me a creamier and more homogeneous end result than soaking, even if soaked in liquid that was boiling to start with.  I like the different flavour imparted by the toasting, that more of the liquid seems to be absorbed in to the cooked grains, and that the grains also seem to break down and blend together more when cooked.  I'm also a fan of the fact that I can get that result even when I've made a last-second decision to put a porridge in to a loaf --- since I'm not good at planning well enough to have a long enough soak for the final consistency that I like.

I kinda feel better now that i've spouted off about that!  Thanks again for your kind words and all of your support, and keep baking happy (regardless of what terminology or process you enjoy).

Best,

Laurie

pmccool's picture
pmccool

I would prefer to have two words with the same meaning (wrench/spanner, elevator/lift, gasoline/petrol, and so on) than to have one word with multiple meanings (have you looked at the definitions for "run" lately?).  The engineering and construction industry that supplies my "bread" (hah!) generally uses terminology very carefully and consistently.  While "foundation" carries more than one meaning for the general public, there's really only one commonly accepted understanding for the term within the industry.  And no one would ever expect "foundation" to mean "base plate".  . 

The words "sourdough", "ferment", "proof", and "levain" are just a few in the baking world that are given plural, or even multiple, definitions.  That doesn't help anyone, as we frequently see here on TFL.  While I try to be consistent in my use of these and other terms, I wind up following my own self-imposed rules because there don't seem to be any industry standards.  I would be very grateful if the BBGA and similar organizations would standardize terminology and then educate their members and the public about the correct use of those standard terms.

So, no, your quirk isn't necessarily personal; it's practical.

Paul

IceDemeter's picture
IceDemeter

I think that there are a lot of us with "hard" science / technology / engineering backgrounds who are just so used to dealing with very specific and concise terminology, that we find the apparently random use of  what should be accurate technical terms to be quite... jarring (to be nice about it).

I have to wonder whether this is primarily a North American English issue when it comes to baking, since it seems that European standards are quite specific with regards to recipe names, flour designations, and anything to do with the actual technical process of producing bread.  If the terminology is defined more clearly in other regions and other languages, then there doesn't seem to be any reason why a guild such as BBGA couldn't follow their example.  That may be too much to ask, though, considering that they can't even seem to all agree that the flour and water in the levain should be expressed as a portion of the 100% flour and % hydration when using baker's percentages.,,

Ah well - we'll all just have to keep explaining as clearly as we can!

Danni3ll3's picture
Danni3ll3

soaker breads instead of porridge loaves! ;-) Somehow soaker bread just doesn't sound as appetizing. 

IceDemeter's picture
IceDemeter

sound appealing at all!  Really, though, your procedure is more of a "scald" and then a "soak", but I'm not sure that "scalded soak bread" sounds any better ;)

Your breads I think would most accurately come under the category of "beautiful and delicious original artisan breads".  You detail the procedure so clearly that there really is no need to include it in the "type" of bread...

Semantics and artistry and what is aesthetically appealing seem to often end up in conflict...

joc1954's picture
joc1954

and your looks really lovely. It is interesting to experiment with soaker versus porridge from the same ingredients. The oat flakes could be so soft that it is enough just to soak them. I like to use spelt flakes (rolled spelt grains) which are pretty stiff so they really need to be cooked as porridge before they can be added to the dough. My favorite combination which brought me 3 gold awards so far is seeded porridge bread which is incredibly tasty.

Happy baking Laurie,

Joze  

IceDemeter's picture
IceDemeter

Your seeded porridge bread has been one of my inspirations (although I have to admit that I so much enjoy your posts about baking with your granddaughter and about all of your family doing the big competition bakes that I almost miss precisely what recipe you're using).

I haven't tried the spelt flakes yet in a soaker or porridge - just oats, barley, and rye (along with steel-cut oats, whole millet, oat bran, and wheat germ).  The steel-cut oats definitely benefit from being cooked first, and I just find that the whole texture that they bring to the crumb changes when using a cooked porridge instead of a scald / soaker.  It's always fun to play around with it though!

Thanks again, and keep baking happy Joze

Best,Laurie

Isand66's picture
Isand66

Another tasty bake!  Love porridge bread as you know.  It's fun to keep experimenting with different add-ins.

happy Baking!

IceDemeter's picture
IceDemeter

Following one of your formulae, and then just using your technique after that, has totally sold me on the porridge breads.  There's another one cooling on the counter right now :)

Keep baking happy --- and please keep yourself and the whole fuzzy and non-fuzzy clan as cool and healthy as possible!