Which Whole Wheat for Sifting - Blend in with "T55" for other flour clones
Hi all,
I've got a recipe from an old Art of Eating, great article by James Maguire, who translated Calvel into English. Acknowledging the inconsistencies involved in trying it at home, he nevertheless calls for sifted WW + AP to approximate T80 flour. He's 38% sifted WW and 62% AP in the recipe, which gives him satisfactory results in emulating T80.
I'm currently stocked up on Bob's Red Mill. I have several tamis, of various diameters, from cooking. Even the fine screen on the large tamis, the flour simply fell through. I did get some material held back when I "sifted" through a chinois (1 of 2 I have. This one is French, and it is crazy fine. My Italian, a bit less). I got flour, but I'm not at all certain what that flour contains. It was a serious pain.
2 questions.
Is there a better or "best practices" WW to use, for this purpose of sifted whole wheat flour?
Breadtopia sells the two sieves, #40 and #50. I've seen something on some site somewhere that recommends #60 for this purpose. Maguire says "although the amount [of flour] you get out will depend on your milling, and the fineness of your sieve, very fine being required for something like type 80."
-so I wasn't sure if #50 was fine enough. I'd love it if it was, because it's been really difficult to find #60 except in tiny dimensions (1.8" high, 6" diameter).
Thanks for your thoughts.
I would try a #50 sieve. I've made nice bread with 50% Mockmilled wheat through a #40 or #50 and 50% BF. If you search Ebay for "test sieve" you will find some nice Chinese 8" laboratory grade sieves in a good range of aperture sizes. Of course, shipping could be a bit slow at the moment.
Lance
Thanks Lance. Do you have any sense how the #50 (or 40, or both in succession) would work on KA WW, which seems so much coarser than Bob's (that stuff is much finer than I remember - first time in years)?
'Fraid not Gadjo - I'm in the UK and don't have experience of those flours.
Lance
Oh, OK. Thanks Lance.
Don't much anymore because I no longer drink beer, but I was a serious brewer and of those beers, I was very traditionally British in my approach. In fact I have some homespun invert that's been in my cooler for some time now, quite dark for touching up a strong bitter. I bought fine English hops and used only Maris-Otter.
I was a brewer here in the States a long time ago, worked for a regional craft brewery, when my wife entered us in a web contest. We actually won, brewery tour of England, dinner at the White Horse in Parson's Green with the publican and the late Michael Jackson, beers paired to every course...
Spent several days in Hook Norton and marveled at the 150 year-old steam engine and tower gravity feed of the brewery. I was at one point seriously planning of a brewery along many of the lines that inspired me, life and a medical condition I have changed plans.
Still, we absolutely loved England. I'm pretty deep in Western European history and couldn't believe we trod on pavers laid by Roman soldiers, or the 1st Earl of Warwick's pad, with the original battlement of 1068, I think it was, still there at the end of the castle courtyard.
Thanks - and nice anecdotes! Funnily enough I was a pro Brewer myself for many's the long year in the Northwest of England.
I've been round Hook Norton myself; as you say, a classic and beautiful tower brewery - and I have fond memories of a few boozy after hours sessions in the Pear Tree pub next door!
Sadly so much brewing heritage has been lost in the UK over years, both breweries, by relentless and savage takeovers, and pubs, as drinking habits have changed.
Still, there is much to be thankful for in the growth of the craft brewing scene to replace some of our "lost" breweries. I give thanks to the USA for pioneering this style of brewery - and for the many great hop varieties grown in Yakima Valley and elsewhere in the States.
Lance
Yeah, I have been out of touch professionally for a long time. At the time Mr. Jackson, who had this amazing encyclopedic memory for all malted things (he kindly gave us an autographed copy of his Scotch book) - asked me to name some particular on Thomas Hardy's that was way beyond me, and he was able to rattle off, I can't recall, hop bill from particular years? Gravity changes?
Sorry, digress. At dinner, he was very positive about brewing in the States. The brewery I worked for, Goose Island, was a pioneer. Sadly, like you, we're seeing so much by way of consolidation and closings. Goose was sold to Budweiser several years ago now, and tasting the changes has been disappointing.
I have several English brewer friends I stay in touch with (a lot from the North, which is the style I tend to pursue), sadly keep me informed on the business cultures, openings and closings. I have to tell you, many of my boozy nights at Pear Tree are also some of my fondest memories! Never forget sharing several pints with locals, including a lorryman (in yellow jacket?) I had an absolute blast with, alongside a writer for the Sunday Times - just pulled his card out, Peter Millar. I never wanted to leave, the warmth of the place, the people, the environs was everything you miss over here.
Not to mention the owners, John and Carol Sivyer (just got their card out as well, lol!) were two of the kindest people we'd ever met. John very kindly drove us all the way to Oxford and our next destination. We had a couple pints in the backroom of ...can't recall...the Reindeer Inn?, portraits of Cromwell and Charles I glaring at each other? Anyway, wonderful.
My wife had a friend in Stoke-on-Trent, where I met the wonderful Ian Bradford, and learned an absolutely traditional approach. We're so sterile in the US, all closed systems and fear of the environment. I loved the open vats, the carrying buckets of yeast and dumping them in; I love the fruitiness and esters of the Northern yeasts, and the necessary rousing over Yorkshire squares....something I somewhat crafted back here, using yeast slants bought from England and cultured up.
God, sorry, I could go on for an eternity. I really miss it. My son shares my love of history and I want to bring him back.
Gadjo, I wholeheartedly recommend these screens.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BP3NRZG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I own 3 of them. They fit the opening of a 5 or 6 gallon bucket and are economical. If I were to buy 2 screens it would be the #30 and #50. The 30 will capture the bran and the 50 will produce the middlings. The flour extracted from the 50 mesh is very fine.
Danny
Awesome, many thanks, Danny! Sorry, I'm not familiar with the process in terms of adding to something like T55 to sort-of-clone other T's. Maguire gives it about 37% "sifted whole wheat" to 63% AP to approximate T80. Would it be the second pass, "middlings" one would use, or so long as you catch up the bran, is that first pass with the 30 appropriate?
(I used to to mill q.c. at the brewery, and one was a multiple sieve to see the breakdown of hulls, coarse grind, fine grind, fines, etc. I should know more here, lol).
Gadjo, I think the "T" designation refers to the ash content in the flour. If you can estimate the extraction percentage, you could use all of the fines, some of the middlings, and some or none of the bran.
As far as I know it would be a guess on your part. “ Maguire gives it about 37% "sifted whole wheat"” Sifted whole wheat is not very descriptive. Is it sifted with a 20 screen or an 80 mesh. If you knew the percentage of extraction that would be more helpful in approximating the flour. Wished I could offer more positive help.
I have no experience with a KA mill attachment, mine is a KoMo.
Here is my latest extraction data.
30 mesh - captured 18.44g
50 Mesh - captured 223g first pass. remilled that and captured 84g second pass
The flour (fines) were 379g
Started with 489 grams of Hard Red Wheat and ended up with 482g
So, Bran 3.8%, Middlings 17.4% (after second pass), Flour/fines 78.6%
I didn't mention this, but my other screen is a 20 mesh. It is too large and only captures ~0.12% of the total weight milled. The bran flakes are large and for me the 30 mesh is large enough to get the lions share of all relatively large particles of bran.
Dan, thank you for such a detailed amount of information. Yep, the T designation is for ash content. Interesting they never seem to trade in protein %.
I understand it's a crap shoot. At this point, probably relegated to just sticking with one variable and doing comparative bakes. Not the worst thing in the world!
Jealous of you guys who have your own mill. I have to believe the difference is astonishing.
Thanks for the info from your process. I'll look forward to trying something similar when my screens come in.
Danny, they arrived yesterday and just want to say thanks - these are perfect!
Wondering if Danny or others might be able to chime in. As mentioned above, I'm getting 87% on #50 sieve (98% on #30). This is using KA WW. Bob's is finer. I think I might go with KA for sifted WW, and Bob's when using WW.
James Maguire, in an old magazine article in which he adapts Calvel's pain au levain recipe, uses 62% AP and 38% sifted WW to approximate a T80 flour. He gives no numbers for the sifting, just says "a very fine [sieve] would be required for Type 80."
So, my #50, I get 87% extraction. Anyone know if this works out reasonably well - 62% AP, 38% of this sifted (87%) WW, to get a T80 clone?
How do people like CM's organic type 85 as a baseline flour for all rustic breads?
Sorry Gadjo, not a direct answer, but relevant - I wanted to point out that those Amazon sieves are not #30 and #50 sizes. They are 1/30" and 1/50". This is not the same thing, as the # number takes into account the thickness of the wire. Have a look here.
So the 1/30" sieve is near to a #20 and the 1/50" sieve is near to a #35.
Lance
Oh, thank you Lance. I didn't even think of that. Given that, isn't it weird I'm getting 87% on the "1/50th" sieve?
Maguire's recipe is obviously not very specific, but I'd like to see how well this 68% AP + 32% "finely sifted" [here, I guess, #35) is for something approaching a T80.
Although I wonder if I'm better off just buying the CM Organic Type 85 as a base flour, for all my rustic baking. Any experience, anyone?
Are you saying that the 1/50” sieve is actually a #35 mesh? If that is the case, the I can’t imagine sifting with an actual #50 mesh. That would be super fine. My 1/50” extracts very fine flour.
Are you sure about that? If you are, what actual mesh would a 1/70” be? My screens go from 1/50 then the next size is 1/70.
Thanks for posting that...
Did you check the link I posted Dan? There's a table in there to compare sizes.
I have a #40 and a #50. I tend to think of the #40 removing the bran and the #50 removing the germ too, though that's a big approximation with our basic home mills.
Lance
Lance, I read the article twice, but still don’t understand most of it. I am aware that 50 holes per inch of screen does not mean that the dimensions of each of those holes are 1/50” x 1/50” because there is the thickness of the wire surrounding the 4 sides that must be considered.
Are the hole openings in a true 50 mesh screen 1/50” x 1/50”? Are the openings expressed in metrics instead?
If the small screen I am using is actually a 35 mesh, then the particles I am extracting in my 1/50” screen are 60% larger than the particles an actual 50 mesh would extract. The reason I am so interested in learning this is if others are using an actual 50 mesh and getting good results in a timely fashion, then I need to jump on board.
In the article you linked that each mesh step is generally 1/2 an increase or decrease in particle size. I really like the screens I am using. The next step higher is a 1/70” screen. Maybe I need to contact the distributor what the actual hole opening is.
Because of post like these, I have learned so much.
Any help towards clarification is appreciated. I need all the help I can get :-)
I am researching information to learn more. I had no idea what the following meant. Others may benefit.
Can someone explain the image below?
Is a #50 mesh 500 microns. I ask because the 35 mesh is 500 microns. Am I starting to get this?
Below is another chart I could use help with.
Resources
https://bakerpedia.com/processes/particle-size/
Dan, look at it this way and forget metric measurements, they are not relevant to this discussion:
your finest sieve is 1/50". 1/50 is simply a fraction - divide 1 by 50 and you get the decimal equivalent which is 0.020". Look at the table in the link and the closest # is #35.
Same for your 1/30" sieve. 1 divide by 30 is 0.033". closest # is #20.
Lance
The 1/100 screen equates to 0.01 which looks close to a 60 mesh
The 1/70 screen equates to 0.0143 which looks close to a 45 mesh
Which of the 2 above would you choose? Or would either choice be inappropriate? Please check my math, I want to get this right.
Thanks
Well, I've got a #40 and a #50. I mainly use the #40, which I see as giving a high extraction flour. If I want the flour a bit whiter I will use the #50, but not very often.
I wouldn't bother with anything above #50. You are starting to lose so much of what you have ground and for no advantage - just add a bit more AP or BF.
Albacore, so I understand you, your #40 is dec. 0.0167, and your #50 is 0.0118. By this, the Amazon 1/70 comes closest to the #40 at 0.0143, and the 1/100 is off the chart at 0.0100. Is that correct? The 1/70th is a good compromise, after the 1/50th?
Would you mind sharing what extraction you get at each of these? And do you use any means to agitate them mechanically, for "complete" sieving fractions?
I haven't measured it for a while, but I recall the retention on the #40 was 12 - 15%. Not sure about the #50 as I can't find any figures at the moment.
Remember that milling is a complex business - there are a lot of factors involved, eg:
I know a few old time TFLers got pretty obsessed with sifting - search for posts by bwraith and proth5, for instance. My take now is simply to make some high extraction flour through the #40 and mix it with some white bread flour, if that's the kind of loaf I want to make.
Lance
Lance, are these statements valid, and if so do I understand them?
”Large sieve openings (1 in. to 1/4 in.) have been designated by a sieve "mesh" size that corresponds to the size of the opening in inches. Small sieve "mesh" sizes of 3 1/2 to 400 are designated by the number of openings per linear inch in the sieve.”
The quotation above comes from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/chemistry/stockroom-reagents/learning-center/technical-library/particle-size-conversion.html
If the mesh is 1/50 of an inch (the seller says a 1/70 has 4900 holes per square inch), I take it to mean there are 50 holes in an inch. I understand that the diameter of the wire that is used in the screen will determine the size of the actual hole. Thick wire will make for 50 smaller holes per linear inch and vice versa for thin. The quote above is telling me that the small mesh sizes of 3 1/2 to 400 are designated by the number of openings per linear inch in the sieve.
Doesn’t your math fail to take into account the thickness of the wire? If it does, wouldn’t the actual hole size be considerably smaller?
I am really trying to grasp this. I am not getting my head around the principle, sorry to say. My 1/50” screen is so fine it’s hard to image going to a 1/70 or 1/100.
I don’t mean to try your patience, but I am eager to learn this. When the teacher asked the class, “if anyone doesn’t understand, raise your hand”. Nobody wanted to show their ignorance, so not a single hand went up, except one. Guess who that was?
I will mail sifted flour to anyone in America that has a actual 50 mesh sieve.
I will mill four and then sift multiple time with my 1/50” sieve, package a small amount in an envelope and mail it to the designated address. The receiver can pass it through their sieve and report on their findings. If my sieve is as fine as yours all of the flour should pass through.
I know of no better way to test a 1/50” against a 50 mesh.
If you are interested send me a PM with your mailing address.
The Sigma-Aldrich table agrees with all the other tables out there. We are talking about small mesh sizes as far as that table is concerned.
My understanding from the Amazon page is that your sieve aperture is 1/30" or 1/50". If the seller is actually meaning that these sieves are #30 and #50 (ie 30/50 holes per linear inch) then he is specifying his sieves in a totally non-standard way and needs a good ticking off and possibly reporting to Amazon. Have you asked the seller?
You could always get a test sieve as a cross check.
Lance
Lance, I am determined to learn if my 1/50” is actually a 50 mesh. This is important to me because other trusted millers on the forum are regularly using a 50 mesh for fines. If in fact my 1/50” is actually a 35 mesh, I want to get a “real” 50 mesh. I read where Pat is using the same sieves and calling the 1/50, a 50 mesh.
I have contacted the a Keen Classifier seller and also Proth5, aka Pat attempting to get to the bottom of this.
The Amazon description for the 1/70 states that there are 4900 holes per square inch.
Whether you are correct or not, your post has spawned a lot of research and I am learning...
Danny
I rec’d this from the sieve supplier. If asked if the 1/50” sieve was the same as a 50 mesh. After much research I am satisfied that the small screen I am using is a 50 mesh.
”Yes, the # 50 equals the mesh size. Mesh size is an approximation and generally corresponds to the number of holes per square inch. Please keep in mind - these are not scientific instruments, so there will be small variances in the weave of the mesh from batch to batch. for basic baking needs I imagine these would be just fine.
Thank You,Harrigan”
Glad you cleared it up Dan - and sorry if I pressed the panic button for you! I do think the supplier is describing his sieves incorrectly and at variance with the way all other suppliers specify them.
Even his response to you is incorrect "Mesh size is an approximation and generally corresponds to the number of holes per square inch". Not true - it's the number of holes per linear inch.
Lance
Lance
Yes, I caught that also. A square inch would be 50 x 50 = 2500 in the case of a 50 mesh.
The good thing is, your questioning the screen size caused me to research and learn more...
Not to start this again, but a scientific mesh must use a prescribed wire diameter. If not there may be 50 holes in a linear inch but a wider wire would produce a smaller aperture. Although my screens aren’t scientific quality they are plenty good enough for my purposes. After all, my goal is to separate the larger bits in order to soak separate from the rest, then everything will be incorporated at the Final Dough mix.
In another post Michael mentioned that some toast the bran or heat in an oven in order to reduce the enzymatic action of the bran. The purpose of this is the reduce dough extensibility in whole wheat doughs. This is worth a “look see”.
Now, on to the next controversy LOL
Dan and Lance, thank you. I have no way of knowing, I guess(?), whether a recipe of 62% White flour + 38% of this #50 (87% extraction) is a good approximation for T80, I know there is math for this, but I also know the tolerances of my sifting on any day are likely to be disparate so it's probably futile to try to dial in via a recipe. So, I'll just work this blend and see how it performs on its own, for a trial series of pains au levains (no other grains).
Here's what I'm seeing on mesh no's and what they correspond to:
"U.S. Mesh Size (or U.S. Sieve Size) is defined as the number of openings in one square inch of a screen...The chart below shows the approximate size in inches and microns for various mesh sizes. These values are generally accepted as accurate but are approximates because the thickness of the wire used to make a specific screen will vary the number of openings in the one square inch..."
"Mesh size is referring to the mesh number (a US measurement standard) and its relationship to the size of the openings in the mesh and thus the size of particles that can pass through these openings. Figuring out the mesh number is simple. All you do is count the number of openings in one linear inch of screen. This count is the mesh number. A 4-mesh screen means there are four little square openings across one inch of screen. A 100-mesh screen has 100 openings per inch, and so on."
-so now I'm doubly confused. Is it possible we are referring to different things - e.g., is mesh and mesh size different? Or are different systems denoted differently?
I'm certain I'm missing something because these two paragraphs seem to be in conflict.
At any rate, I am guessing it would be nigh impossible for me, for whatever reason, to get any extraction going to a 70 -it's work to fully tap out at 50 (for me).
Oh: I just recalled Breadtopia.com sells flour sieves, and refer to them as thus:
"The “40” and “50” numbers refer to the number of mesh squares per inch."
Gadjo, I have the perfect word for your flour duplication.
Fuggedaboutit !
Just like your bread is your bread, your sifted flour is your flour. Home millers will not be able to duplicate commercial flours. I bet I can’t even duplicate your flours.
I would love to duplicate Central Milling’s T70, but it ain’t gonna’ happen. I can buy the berries they grind, but it ain’t gonna’ happen. And I don’t like that fact.
I am a lot like you. I strive for perfection, but no matter how hard I try, it always evades me.
Yes, it makes life difficult when even the pros don't have the correct definition!
Lance
Gadjo, either you are sifting store bought WW or your mill is grinding a finer flour, or I am not spending enough time to thoroughly sifting my flour. I say this because my extraction from a 2 pass 50 mesh is 78.6%. The variance could also be a result of the type of grains we mill and/or the moisture content.
An exact match of another baker’s flour is not realistically attainable, but I don’t think an exact replication is necessary. I recently read an eloquent statement by Tom, aka “Our Crumb”. If I find it and Tom allows me to post it, I will. Basically he said that we can follow a formula from a famous baker and adhere precisely to the method. Use the exact ingredients, they could even send you some of their starter, and identical temperatures were maintained, but the final bread we produce will always be our bread and never be his/her’s bread. I love Hamelman’s Five-Grain Levain, but if I bake it until my last day on earth, I will never bake the loaf that Jeffrey does. But the great news is, he will never be able to bake mine. <Hallelujah!>
Our breads are as unique as our DNA and as individual as our figure prints. I think it is high time we celebrate that wonderful fact !
Hi DanAyo,
Yep, it is storebought. This is King Arthur's Whole Wheat, which I actually find to be considerably coarser than Bob's Red Mill's WW. I just found out CM is roller milled, I suspect both KA and BRM are as well, though I'm not certain. If that indicates anything?
I have no experience with this so find it fascinating. By my noob's touch, the extracted flour coming out of the 1/50th sieve feels quite fine, and it takes a decent amount of time (for me, anyway) to clear. Started with 1000 grams, sieved off 2% at the 1/30th screen and a total of 13% on this 1/50th screen. For all I know, I could be doing it wrong.
Thanks, too, on Tom's post. I'll look forward to reading it. You couldn't know this is a familiar refrain I hear across a number of boards - cheese, beer, food, even a onetime life as a classically-trained, Shakespearean actor. I lived in a Japanese martial and zen temple as an uchideshi, literally means "inside student" to a martial and zen master, and find it hard to jettison the first stage of training - "polish the bowl from the inside" by complete emulation, and it goes from there to mastery in turn.
Anyway, to save further boredom with my story of many lives, thanks. It's a good note.
Edit: Forgot to mention, man, I can't envision going finer in the mesh sizing, at least without a more sophisticated means of mechanical agitation? I tried to stay as long as possible with apparent redundancy and I got no further extraction doing just what I was doing. Very interested in this answer too, Albacore. 3-stage sieving - would this be typical for a lot of home millers/flour "blenders?"
Gadjo, I recently corresponded with King Arthur and they use contractors with roller mills. Store bought whole wheat will be finer than home milled wheat. That explains your extraction rates.
It is yet to be completely settled but it seems that the Amazon sieves that we own are in fact what we thought. A 1/50” is equivalent to a 50 mesh. The 1/50” designation refers to the number of holes in a linear inch, not the size of the aperture as Lance thought. There should be 2500 holes in a square inch of screen in our 1/50” screen which is the same in a 50 mesh. Thank God! I’d hate to think that out 1/50s were really a 35 mesh. Those screens are very fine.
I thought I'd replied, but it looks like I spaced. Not the first time.
Thanks, that's good to know. I also know the #50 was likely the finest I wanted to get down to, and actually after a pain au levain bake with the relative proportions of the Central Mills Bee and this KA WW sieving, really pleased.
A good blank palate to play from, which is what I was hoping to get - a more rustic flour that gives great wheatiness, as a place to aim for mastery, and a jumping off point as well.
The 50 takes too much time and material. I can’t figure out why I keep capturing finer brown bits the third time through a #40 sieve. I end up about 90% extraction.
Now that I have adopted the Approachable loaf my sieve looks like this?