January 14, 2021 - 6:44am
yecora rojo desem again
A continuation of JMonkey's Desem with a whole wheat soaker (the epoxy method outlined in Whole Grain Breads) and an aliquot jar for proofing. Bulk fermentation ended at <= 25% and final proof ended at around 75%.
Notes:
- the aliquot jar markings in these images represent the starting height, 1.25x and 2x, even though the final proof was started at 1.75x -- in subsequent experiments and their images the final proof line was adjusted to 1.75x.
- updated bakers percentage formula for these experiments in this link (84% hydration)
Comments
After recalling some discussion about the impact of bran in whole-grain bread, I posted some links in THIS THREAD.
One of these links points to an academic paper, where the abstract makes the following claims:
https://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/56958/fine-vs-coarse-ground-flour
I have been remilling sifted bran several times at a very fine setting, tightening the stones only after the hopper is loaded and the bran bits keep the stones out of contact. This is done to create a fine bran powder in preparation for a mostly bran levain. Based on the above paper, it is worth considering if this might be counterproductive, as it may further integrate the inflexible bran bits directly into the gluten network at a much lower level. My original thought process was that the smaller bran bits would be more accessible to the starter microbes and therefore more likely to break down. I'm not sure if they are actually breaking down, and, if they are, in fact, breaking down in some way, it isn't clear that the components they break down to don't also interfere with gluten (i.e., the "reactive components" issue above). Intuitively, it seems larger bran flakes have the potential to behave more like an inclusion, which the gluten network can develop around.
In the case of desem, the low hydration starter may be suboptimal for the bran, which I expect would benefit from higher hydration. With the two-pass (coarse mill, freeze, then fine mill) approach I extract about 50g of bran and middlings (on average) using the #30, #40, and #50 sieve stack, which I then augment with another 50g of flour for a feed of 50:60:(50+50=100). It may be worth pre-hydrating all 50g of the bran (as is) with all 60g of the starter water first, then working in the additional 50g of flour after it is fully absorbed, potentially increasing hydration as needed. Another idea would be to "sous vide" the bran as in this borodinsky recipe post to further soften it and/or break it down before inoculation, although that is becoming a somewhat elaborate process for our daily bread.
In contrast, in this theperfectloaf.com post, Maurizio sifts the bran and delays inclusion until after the first fold. The idea is that the gluten can more fully be developed without the bran, and is more robust to bran inclusion once it is fully developed. It also supports independent hydration of bran and flour, which seems to be a good idea. I have tried that earlier in this thread, although it is worth reconsidering this in the current evolution of my process. The bran levain and the delayed inclusion would seem to be mutually exclusive, although there is still the potential of attempting to develop the un-inoculated pre-dough gluten beyond what is typically achieved with the passive soaker before mixing in the bran levain.
To better understand the best-case bran processing scenario in my current home milling and baking process with this wheat, I'm going to exclude the sifted bran/middling from the next bake.
Given that sifting is playing a role in the recent process, it is probably worth experimenting with some simple tempering approaches to help with cleaner bran separation during the milling process as discussed in THIS POST
I don't currently have a moisture meter. I do have an inexpensive one at our cabin for seasoning wood, although I'm not sure if those inexpensive meters are suitable for a pile of wheat berries. In general, it seems most stored wheat benefits from some additional moisture, and I could attempt some blind experiments misting the wheat with 2% additional hydration by weight a few days before grinding to see if this helps extraction rates. I'm also freezing to help reduce the final stage milling temperature. I recall reading some concerns that this could potentially lead to excessive fragmentation of bran. That seems plausible, and it may be worth cooling at a temperature above freezing to see if this might also impact the extraction rate.
I recently came across this discussion of milling temperature in the Mockmill FAQ.
https://mockmill.com/eu/faq
I milled a batch of 600g of Yecora Rojo in preparation for a bake this weekend. I was curious if eliminating the pre-milling freeze might be possible (or even advisable). I milled the first stage at a setting of 8 on the Mockmill Lino 200 and recorded a maximum temperature of about 95F to produce a very coarse flour. This was immediately followed by fine milling slightly below 0, as usual, and the temperature generally held below 130F, with occasional spikes to 132F or so. I generally don't lower the stones to a fine setting until they are protected by flour, so the process will have some variance but I expect it is approximately repeatable for reasonable volumes of flour. I used an IR gun and recorded at the location of the highest temperature I could measure, which was at the point the flour accumulated in the bowl.
I then sifted with the #30, #40 and #50 sieve stack and the extraction was about 84% (that is 94g which is nearly 1 cup bran+middlings) instead of the 90 to 91% result I usually get with the coarse frozen flour. It does seem to contain more pure bran flakes. I have seen lower extraction rates like this before, and I'm now curious if it was due to a shorter period in the freezer that prevented freezing. I don't consider this conclusive, but it does lend more evidence to the possibility that milling frozen berries leads to higher total extraction rates. It isn't clear if the lower extraction rate at room temperature contains less bran or if it just produces larger particles in general (both bran and endosperm).
The above test seems to be safely below the 140F cutoff recommended in the Mockmill FAQ.
The final bread was remarkably similar to the previous 100% extraction effort. It is probably a little bit lighter, but I was expecting more of a difference. I took 100g of sifted bran+middlings reserved from the last two milling sessions, sprinkled in some salt and quickly mixed to 100% hydration. I threw it in my mixing jar for a minute at the lowest setting and this is the result:
It is fairly fragile, and not very close to a windowpane stage (there is clearly a lot of bran in there), but there is also a very high percentage of endosperm based on the amount of viable gluten. I'm sure commercial millers have a higher percentage of bran separation, and my 90% extraction may be closer to a commercial miller's 95% extraction. It will be interesting to see if tempering improves this and it does beg the question if there is a more quantitative measure of bran separation to help validate changes. This little test could suggest my whole grain vs sifted experiments are not as different as I initially expect, and it also has me curious about revisiting separate bran vs endosperm hydration (more accurately sifted stuff vs extracted stuff).
This loaf is actually very close to the multi-purpose "table bread" I'd like to eat on a daily basis, but I would like to be able to achieve a more open crumb if desired. I feel I could easily increase hydration on this loaf, as the dough felt very coherent. While it makes sense that proper fermentation is the real key to an open crumb (and not high hydration), there may still be limits to what is possible at this hydration. I may increase hydration in a follow-up experiment. In previous efforts, this seemed to result in more problems with ears and oven spring (in part due to the high % PFF), so I've been sticking closer to the 75% hydration (and below) from the initial post. Some of these issues may be remedied by additional early stage gluten development.
The next bake will be another sifted experiment but without the freezing (the follow-up to the milling post from yesterday).
What is the percentage of PFF that you're using now? I felt like my last one was too high so I dialed it back down to 20% for the next one.
A few weeks ago I switched to 20% PFF (from the initial 30% PFF). I started this project at 75% hydration + 30% PFF with reasonable success. I spent a long period trying to open things up with higher hydrations of 80-85% at the same 30% PFF with very limited success (sealed ears and lackluster oven spring), thinking that was well within normal hydration levels for whole wheat.
This discussion, and a related section in The Bread Book, made me consider an inverse relationship between hydration and % PFF, and I lowered the hydration with immediate improvements in bloom and oven spring. (It still seems odd working at 73% hydration, as I worked at 75% with Central Milling bread flour (Old World type 80) this summer.) As the starter seemed to become more comfortable in these conditions (as measured by BF + FP time) I also lowered the PFF to 20%. I haven't tried to increase hydration for the Yecora Rojo significantly since then.
I can confirm anecdotally from my limited experience that the hydration behaves differently with my new routine. I've used the same hard red at 80% for about 18 months (it was higher originally but I also found the oven spring improved when I lowered it). But the 80% loaf I just shaped definitely felt higher and I think I'll drop it next time. I can't even begin to guess why, there's so many variables and each one impacts the rest. The high preferment is involved I'm sure, since I've gone from 5%ish to 26% last time, and 20% today. But time and temperature are surely involved as well.
I sifted YR to 85% extraction with no freezing between coarse and fine milling stages. The highest recorded flour temperature was slightly above 130F in the final stage. I increased hydration to 75% (74% mix + 1% estimated increase from handling) and did intensive early stage gluten development (2500 Rubaud "scoops" in 3 sets) followed by coil folds every 30 minutes or so until it held its shape. I ran bulk fermentation to 50% and the 90F final proof was pushed to 105% or so, which seemed to be too far. I tried a straight top score in this one with a straight razor. There was fairly poor oven spring and no ear or ears to speak of, which I think was due to slight over-proofing. I am curious if an off-angle score with more of a standard curved razor might have more chance of lifting for this dough state. The starter more than doubled with the sifted flour and felt noticeably lighter. It had a pH of 4.46 just prior to the final mix. Sifting the bran has had a smaller overall impact than I would have expected, although the dough did feel a fair amount slacker relative to whole grain dough at similar hydration.
This was another sifting experiment (to help establish a sort of upper bound for the flour with my current process) at the lower 70% hydration that it seems to prefer (especially with reduced bran). The BF ran to a little less than 50% in 3:15 (post-mix) in the low 70's with a short 1 hour hot final proof to 95% or so at 90F, followed by a quick 2 hour chill in the fridge to firm up the dough, assist with scoring and improve the oven spring. It does seem to be noticeably lighter although the crumb structure itself is quite similar. The final bread pH is 4.34. I'm not overly concerned with increasing this, but I would like to taste a few loaves at the 4.7 level I found in one reference. I think I can afford to reduce the bulk fermentation to 30% or so and perhaps add a morning feed to refresh it before the final evening feed.
In parallel, I'm preparing a tempering experiment. I also found a TFL milling post (TODO: reference) suggesting that milling cold wheat is a bad idea as it leads to excessive fragmentation of the bran. (I've been freezing wheat inbetween coarse and fine milling after reading about this practice in Flour Lab, although the book only mentions chilling.) The same principle may apply to the milling itself, and I'm curious if aiming for very fine flour at 100% extraction might be counterproductive due to a reduction in the final bran particle size. (A previously mentioned academic article mentions smaller bran particles are, somewhat counterintuitively, more detrimental.) I'm curious what particle size commercial millers aim for in 100% extraction stone-ground whole wheat, and if any attempts are made to treat the bran separately. In a follow-up bake I'd like to compare my home-milled flour with professionally milled flour using the same wheat. This was explored somewhat in this article.
I'm going to explore the shaping and baking temperature hypotheses more in follow-up bakes. It is interesting how similar the crumb for these recent YR bakes is, and I'm surprised how little the crumb is affected by changes in BF/FP. I have been relying on minimal use of coil folds for gentler dough handling and to replace an on-the-bench preshape. I like to circle the pre-shaped round on the backs of my knuckles, wrists, and forearms a la pizza shaping to get it ready for final shaping. Using gravity in this way feels more gentle than tugging on the corners, although I haven't actually seen this used before so it may be worth revisiting. I then fold in the left and right sides and roll it up from back to front using a little bit of tension to get things started. In this bake, I tried to use minimal tension but I'm curious if this shaping is still too much for the dough. At this point, a wider pre-shaped dough sheet will take more turns to roll up, which may produce more tension under expansion. A plumper dough blob would take fewer turns to roll up and might result in less overall tension during expansion. That seems to be worth exploring, and the openness of the periphery with respect to the center seems to corroborate this (although there are other plausible explanations, such as outer to inner temperature differences).
This was nearly identical to the previous effort but with two changes:
I finally had Trevor Wilsons Open Crumb Mastery printed and bound so I could read it more thoroughly (I really don't like reading on the computer after work). I noticed how often he relies on a short BF of 30% (or less) and wanted to revisit shorter total fermentation time to see how this wheat would react. I also tried to be even gentler in the fold and roll this time, which didn't have the impact I had hoped for, although it did seem slightly more open on the periphery.
I've been baking with a covered clay baker set on top of a 3/4" Fibrament baking stone, which should provide the steam and thermal mass needed for a reliable oven spring. I've been relying on a digital probe for temperature readings (FireBoard) as the actual temperature in this oven is radically different than what the dial is requesting (by 100 degrees or so). The Fibrament stone does have the recommended 1 1/2" border on the edge for heat to rise, but I suspect the large observed temperature gap is due at least in part to the presence of the Fibrament stone, which sits between the lower gas burners and the top-mounted thermostat. I have been setting the dial to 450F for a long preheat and for the first 10-15 minutes of the bake. I then lower it to 350F for the next 30 minutes, followed by a brief period uncovered on a rack to brown at the same setting or slightly lower. The starting bake temperature can be seen in the snapshot of the FireBoard below, where (4) and (5) are the temperatures from probes at the left and right side of the stone (528F and 494F), and (6) is the temperature at the top of the oven near the thermostat (541F). I do preheat the clay baker in the oven prior to baking, but assume the temperature inside is quite a bit lower than the external measured temperatures. I'm curious if this might be too hot and am considering lowering this further by dropping the dial another 50 degrees for the first and second phase of the bake (400F and 300F on the dial).
I didn't bake the day before and the 50g starter remnant was neglected for a full day, so I refreshed it that morning before feeding it later that night. The pH of the starter the following morning was 4.69, and it expanded pretty well, although I think the morning + evening feed produced a slightly young starter and it was not quite as soft on the inside in the mix the following morning and the BF took slightly longer than usual (7 hours from end of the mix to end of the FP). I used a short 2-hour chill to firm things up slightly after the 90F final proof. This really does make scoring much easier and I find it gives me more flexibility to warm up the oven. The short hot final proof moves so quickly that I've delayed the bake a few times to wait for the oven, so I tend to preheat earlier than needed which heat up the entire apartment. The quick chill gives me a little more flexibility with scheduling, although I suspect it is lower the pH and I may need to remove the dough even earlier. The final bread pH was about 4.35. This isn't sour by most standards, but is a bit below the 4.7 reference I'm targeting. I can postpone that journey until I'm satisfied with the crumb.
This was similar to the last two bakes but with the following two changes:
I believe I have been shaping with too many rolls (at least for this dough) so no matter how loosely I shape the relatively strong ("muscly") dough will always tend to compress the alveoli in the center during expansion. I've read lots of shaping descriptions but realized I haven't actually come across any specifications to the number of turns for a given size dough. The relative openness of the outer crumb to the inner crumb in the last few bakes led me to this conclusion. I'm fairly sure this is the case and this is probably yet another shift that will largely invalidate many of the previous fermentation-oriented experiments, which will have to be revisited with looser shaping (or perhaps unshaped dough). The final loaf looks slightly more open and more consistent throughout, and the inner crumb compression from the prior bakes has been eliminated. I'll also have to revisit the whole grain bakes with looser shaping, as I suspect the shaping was more of the culprit than the bran was.
Summary:
It is interesting that the aliquot jar shows less aeration for similar rise levels relative to previous bakes in the attached photos. I forgot to create the aliquot jar immediately after post-mix kneading as usual, but it was still within a 1-hour window or so (well before any measurable dough expansion).
Very nice improvement in the openness of the crumb at the center vs the outside of the loaf. There are just too many variables to consider in trying to improve our baking isn’t there?
Agreed. Too many! I'm trying to think of what to change for the next bake. I want to return to 100% whole grain experiments soon, and revisit bran treatment options, but would also like to try extending the final proof a little for this configuration. This one was with BF @ 40% and FP @ 80%, and it seems to be holding up fine, so I could probably try something like BF @ 40% and FP @ 90-95% next time, although these longer fermentations are increasing acidity.
An infinite number! And of course there's a butterfly effect. I think that those with the most success are the ones that have reduced the most variation from their process, whether intentionally or not.
Looks great! You've led me to question once again the importance of the final shaping. If you consider the variations between no-knead, tartine, Trevor Wilson, and the methods we settle on individually, what exactly is it about the process that is affecting change? I've read Trevor's book a few times and still have a hard time understanding how to put some of the concepts into practice.
I feel like I do develop a little more intuition from OCM, but still find it very difficult to read the crumb in a practical way once the bake is in the pretty good but not great range (i.e., not obviously overproofed or underproofed). I'm unsure what is the main factor responsible for the remaining dense pockets of small alveoli in this bake, or what the limitations of the flour are. I think I'll repeat this one and try to push the final proof a little longer. After bumping up the post-mix kneading, I've been most surprised by how similar the bakes are through various changes. Neither bolting nor the cold-proof had quite the impact I was expecting.
I think these "single origin" heritage grains vary quite dramatically in their properties (and likely from crop to crop) and there is still a lot to be gained from a grain-specific group bake. Since we are currently using a fairly similar process, I ordered some of the Rouge de Bourdeaux berries you had been using (and a small bag of flour to compare with my milling process) to see how those perform before reading you didn't like the flavor :) It will be interesting to try a different heritage grain with my latest process in any case.
I've also been thinking a little about simple blending of complementary flours. For example, Would a little extra gliadin from 10% spelt provide more extensibility to allow these alveoli to expand a bit more? I'm sure there is still lot of untapped potential from proper handling and fermentation. After further reading and some of these recent discussions, I've been trying to be extremely gentle in my handling: coil folds, minimal handling, gentle fold-and-roll shaping, but still have some doubts. This video was called to my attention a while ago, and would seem to be a good test bake to eliminate shaping and handling related variables:
Exactly why they were bred out of existence (mostly).
More confirmation for Trevor's theory that it is 80% fermentation. 100 bakers may have 100 different recipes and all produce the same thing.
I really hope you enjoy the Rouge de Bordeaux! I'd feel awful if I led you astray. Though selfishly I'm very excited to see and hear about your results with it! I will say that I enjoyed the last loaf much more than the previous, so maybe the maturation of my starter has had an effect.
I think there's no doubt this would have an impact, I started thinking about this after following a different thread, maybe the durum CB I don't recall. But ultimately whether that's the case or not it's another path than the one I'm on now, so will remain in the back of my head until I feel like I've completed the current journey. Probably.
By the way I'm enjoying the Rouge de Bordeaux more now since I've stopped feeding my starter rye. I like rye generally speaking but it caught me off guard when it suddenly became 20% of the flour used. I just fed the starter 15:60:90 to provide 150g for 20% of my final Rouge de Bordeaux loaf tomorrow. This gives me a consistent 1:4:6 feed in 24 hours with 15g leftover to do it again tomorrow if I decide to go back to back again. So in theory my starter will be a bit healthier than the one used last time at 1:2:3.
I’ve been following your work/progress and went for it. I started my desem buried in fresh ground Yecora Rojo, tomorrow is day seven and hope to make a “practice” loaf this weekend. The desem smells amazing, much more fruity and fresh than when I tried converting a standard stiff starter a few weeks ago. Anyways, thank you for taking the time to post, what a great thread.
I'm so glad you find some value in it, despite the long arch and wrong turns. I'm even more glad you'll be joining the ongoing TFL desem bakes (a kind of decentralized/loose multi-decade community bake) since we can learn a lot from each other by sharing a common process and baking notes -- especially with the same wheat. Kudos for attempting the desem-from-scratch approach. I've been curious about what potential differences might exist between the bonafide desem build and the starter conversion, but haven't tried it yet.
I have been busy lately, but have a desem update worth sharing, after a short hiatus. Recently I discovered my clay baker doesn't seal properly and is most likely leaking steam (I confirmed both the top and bottom rock very slightly on a flat countertop), which I believe has been a limiting factor in oven spring and crumb openness. This is my hypothesis in any case. I was fairly sure this wheat and process had more potential for lighter loaves, especially with the bolting experiments, and have been examining and re-examining nearly every aspect of my process to squeeze out improvements with very limited success. In accordance with Trevor Wilson's 80% mantra (fermentation and dough handling), I had been assuming the limiting factor here was the baker (me), but in this case, I believe it was the clay baker. While there is still lots of room for improvement, this recent bake, with the same process (and a slightly sluggish starter due to minor neglect) is much lighter than my previous YR loaves, including a recent one with nearly identical bulk fermentation and final proof levels. I could tell it was better when I first picked it up. I gravitated to the clay baker hypothesis after watching some commentary and crumb analysis in one of The Bread Code videos. I'll have to follow up with a link to the video. After a lot of debate, I took the plunge and purchased a Challenger baker. This is the result from the first bake:
The oven spring, crumb, and crust are noticeably improved in this one. This bake used bolted YR that was in the fridge for a few days. For various reasons I mixed this one by feel but would estimate it was somewhere between 70 and 75% hydration. The process was otherwise very similar to recent efforts. Of course, a sample of one doesn't mean much, but I will try to repeat it again this weekend.
I was reading The Bread Builders again recently, which mentions a desem pH of 4.2. In this thread, I previously cited an online article that specified 4.7. I'll have to correct that. The language of the article closely resembles that of The Bread Builders, and I'm curious if it was a typo. In my experience, 4.2 seems to be a more appropriate target.
edit: final pH 4.21
That is a mighty impressive loaf you baked there. Amazing oven spring and bloom and look at that beautiful crumb. What a difference good steam made to your loaf. I’ve always wondered what the benefit of using a clay baker over other materials would be. Well done figuring all of this out and baking such a perfect loaf now.
Benny
I really thought I had the steam category checked off. Let's hope I can confirm this theory with a few more successful bakes. I'm not sure there is any benefit to clay in general, and if I'm correct about the steam issue, it is probably more of a quality control issue related to the fit of this model in particular. I'm guessing clay bakers with tight-fitting lids would do better. If I had a tight-fitting oblong dutch oven to accommodate batards, I probably wouldn't have gone down this path.
I'm enjoying this success vicariously through you. I also use the Challenger pan but have for a while and before I started paying as much attention as I do now. I'm not sure it's better than your standard combo cooker but have no complaints (well one, it's heavy and unwieldy - my oven racks wilt beneath them). However I do collect cast iron of all sorts so this was a no brainer when it became available.
Edit: PS I was wondering where you were and glad to see you back
It was a busy week. I planned ahead and baked a Volkornbrot in a 15 inch Pullman last weekend to get us through the week.
At 22 pounds, the heat retention on the new pan is impressive, and I can believe that also makes a difference in my vented gas oven. This loaf did bake faster in the new pan with a similar temperature profile. When I removed the lid at the usual time to brown it, it was already fully baked with a nice thin crispy crust. I considered a few other options for trapping steam that I have seen in various posts (dutch ovens, Magnaware bakers, inverted stainless steel bins on a baking stone) but since I didn't have anything suitable for batards already, and pandemic thrift store scores aren't happening, the added baking features and price reduction sold me on it. I've always had concerns about lowering pre-scored dough in sagging parchment paper slings, so it is nice to be able to load and score. This should also give me a way to get started with (demi-)baguettes in my vented gas oven.
The Rouge de Bourdeaux berries have arrived, as well as a small bag of premiled flour for comparison, although I have fewer doubts about my milling process now. I have some tempered berries I need to get through but am eager to try out the new stuff soon.
It's was nice to read the well documented trials and tribulations of your bake progressions. The latest one looks like a keeper. I applaud all of you 100% guys for your efforts.
Thanks for your comments. It has been a long journey. I bolted the flour for this bake with a stack of #30,#40,#50 test sieves, as I've been experimenting with tempering lately to improve the bakes, although most of the previous bakes were whole grain. I'll try a whole grain version again soon with the new pan and will be curious to see the difference. After reading about your improvements from postponing the salt inclusion, I am interested in comparing that with the extended overnight wine fridge soaker/saltolyse I've been using.
Desem with professionally milled Rouge de Bordeaux
IMG_6966.JPG
edit: I noticed I've been using the starter before peak with my 5:6:10 evening feeds, and this one was allowed to go a bit longer before use (whether peak or slightly young is preferable is another question).
edit: final pH 4.4
This is slightly higher than the 4.2 specification in The Bread Builders. I should consider using pH in combination with the aliquot rise to judge the final proof, as it gives an indication of the final flavor and the proximity to proteolysis. This value of 4.4 indicates I could have pushed the final proof longer, although oven spring is another consideration (it was adequate but not excellent in this case). I recall a TFL pH discussion about someone using pH to determine bulk fermentation and final proof levels. It will be interesting to try. I also believe I have measured pH changes between the pre-bake dough to the post-bake cooled sliced bread, and will need to understand this better if I want to use pH actively.
That's a nice looking bread. How would you compare the eating quality to your other breads? Personally, I love Rouge de Bordeaux. I find that it performs well and has great flavor with lovely baking spice notes – like Turkey Red only more so. The water bath for the aliquot jar is an interesting idea. Also interested to see where the pre- and post-bake pH line of thought goes.
I do enjoy reading your posts. Thanks.
-AG
Thanks. I'll take it for my first RdB, although I think I would prefer a slightly more uniform crumb. Maybe later shaping and/or a longer final proof? I'm really curious to see how the home-milled version comes out. I just had another piece, and it definitely has a nice flavor. I wish there was a better way to represent flavor in these posts. I'll have to work on my tasting notes. The seller describes it as "nutty and earthy with notes of cinnamon and baking spice", and I'll go with that. I started with a bag of Turkey Red wheat last spring, which I recall really stood out. I liked working with it just for the smell, which reminded me of a confectionary, although it didn't fully translate to the taste. I'll have to try it again now that I have a better idea of what I'm doing, and I think I can find a more local source (close to NYC).
I thought the jar would be a step in the right direction if I want the sample to track the main dough, but I think there is probably an even better reusable dough surrogate. Maybe a freezer gel pack of some kind? I can try to measure them to see how closely the temperatures match.
I recall some previous breadtopia posts where you were focused on home-milled heirloom wheat varieties and another where you started using a stiff and low hydration bread flour starter. That's quite close to my current interest, so I was curious if you are still pursuing this and if you have settled into a favorite approach?
FWIW, I just found the original pH TFL post I was thinking of from @albacore.
You are right. Last year I messed around with my starter and did some experimenting with my home-ground flour. After reading in Trevor Wilson’s ebook that some variation in the particle size can improve a loaf, I started playing around with that. These days, I mill 90% - 93% of my wheat berries very finely (either on the finest setting or within a click or two) and then open the stones about 5 or 6 clicks and grind the remainder. All the flour is then sifted through a 60-mesh screen and the “bran” is soaked for a couple hours to help soften it. When there is about 45-60 minutes left in the soak, I start the autolyse. I think this method does lend a certain toothiness to the texture and helps with moisture retention. I’m a tinkerer though and will probably always play with it. I’ll undoubtedly try even larger particle sizes, but probably in smaller amounts.
The stiff white starter was an aborted experiment. It seemed really great for a few bakes, but after a short time it wasn’t doing a good job at raising dough. After a bunch of dense loaves, I tossed the new starter and changed the way I manage fermentation, which is what I should have done in the first place. That’s a lesson it seems I have to relearn every few years for some reason. The flavor of high percentage whole wheat sourdough is a bit much for my family, so I make it with commercial yeast. I will probably always have the desire to produce a mild tasting, naturally leavened 100% WW bread and have been very curious about Desem for that reason. It seemed like too much effort though. A blogger that I used to read occasionally posted about it a few years back and probably put me off the idea for good, or so I thought. Your posts on the subject have reopened my mind to it. I will read up on pH posts too. So many intriguing rabbit holes, so little time.
This looks wonderful! What do you think of the flavor?
I like the flavor, and the loaf is a good first step. The flour performs really well too. The gluten is strong, and I'm curious if it might benefit from the more passive approach you have been using lately.
Same as above, with a slightly younger starter and two rounds of lamination mixing (the Rouge De Bordeaux tolerates this very well) but I lowered the hydration to about 72.5% for a slightly stiffer dough. (The lamination mixing may have bumped this up slightly). I find the hot and humid 90 F final proof tends to make the dough very slack towards the end. The previous bake had a much shorter final proof (< 60 minutes) before it started to feel slack and I rushed it into the oven. Perhaps it would tolerate tighter shaping? With lower hydration and tighter shaping, I was able to keep this one in the 90 F proof for closer to 90 minutes. Starting with a stiff room temperature dough seems to help compensate for this slackening effect, allowing to push to a higher final proof rise while providing a pre-bake dough that feels lively (still well domed). I also shaped this one slightly tighter. I prefer the taller shape and more regular crumb in this one, but the crumb does look somewhat compressed. I left this one with the oven dial at 400 F covered for the entire bake. This produces a baking stone temperature between 475 and 500 F with an upper/ambient temperature much higher. (I'm still slightly unsure where and how to best measure oven temperature and how these readings translate to temperature in the baker.)
Simply gorgeous, love the tall profile of this loaf. The crumb is nice and even, more my preference than super irregular and hugely open.
Benny
Thanks. I also like the basic structure in this one, and it definitely has a light and hollow feel in my hands relative to the appearance. I get the impression it started out really well, and that the proof was in the ballpark, but that it ended up getting a little compressed or trapped by the crust relative to what it could have been. This one had two ice cubes and I sprayed it quite liberally in the Challenger pan, so I don't think steam was a problem. Perhaps I should bump the hydration a little and bake at a slightly lower temperature? Shape a little looser? So many things to try.
I have a backlog of links and questions I wanted to jot down, and will be dumping a few of them here.
Simple and concise steps for tempering (I used this as a guide in lieu of a moisture meter):
home-tempering-and-bolting-wheat-get-high-extraction-flour
It also states the following:
I have found this to be the case. I was previously freezing wheat berries in between coarse and fine milling to reduce temperature based on reading about a similar practice in Flour Lab (he mentions cooling and not necessarily freezing). In any case, I believe that flow restriction is as effective at reducing milling temperature and produces a flour that is friendlier for bolting. I now use a funnel to scoop wheat and slowly coax it through the spout and into the mill hopper in semi-continuous bursts with gentle shaking. I'd like to find a contraption to achieve this that allows a dump-and-forget approach, but it is tolerable for now. With this approach, I'm able to maintain temperatures of about 100F (or slightly higher) as measured with an IR gun at the exit spout at the finest settings. I've seen various reports about temperature, but the Mockmill FAQ mentions a lab they partner with does not find adverse effects on flour performance with temperatures below 140F. For nutritional sensitivity to milling temperatures, I have been assuming these milling temperatures are well below baking temperatures and won't introduce any adverse effects (assuming a same-day mill-and-bake process). Extraction is improved at room temperature. I can't prove this is necessarily providing better bran separation, but I believe it to be the case from the feel of the sifted particles.
I've been curious what commercial millers do for 100% whole grain flour. No doubt, in order to produce bread flour, the milling process is a complex art. But what about whole grain flour? I haven't seen much about what commercial millers do with it. I was curious about what they do with bran in particular, and whether or not sifting to retain larger bran flecks would produce flour that performs better, as suggested by this article (originally shared by TFL user @barryvabeach HERE):
The effect of particle size of wheat bran fractions on bread quality – Evidence for fibre–protein interactions)
Based on this article I would think that keeping bran in larger pieces would produce flour that performs better, but would expect this practice to be reflected in commercial milling of whole wheat flours. I haven't seen it. I was curious what this recent bag of commercially milled Rouge de Bordeaux would look like, in comparison with my home-milled flour. It was uniformly fine, including the bran, and it felt like powder, even compared to my finest multi-stage milling. So, at least, in this case, it all appears to be milled uniformly.
This post asks a related question, which is whether or not tempering is useful in the context of whole-grain baking:
not-tempering-and-whole-grain-flour-milling
It mentions that Dave Miller also mills uniformly in his whole-grain breads:
(I have always read the aged flour performed better, but read recently in an article posted by @mariana (HERE) that in the case of whole wheat, fresh flour actually performs better.)
Are there any millers that mill non-uniformly or who bolt and re-include bran for improved flour performance?
There have been a few recent discussions addressing the efficacy of a long autolyse, soaker, saltolyse, or pre-dough with whole wheat flour.
These posts include interesting relevant discussion:
whole-wheat-long-autolyse
what-are-problems-exceptionally-long-autolyse
I briefly experimented with a sifted bran soaker at high hydration earlier in this thread but was also making a lower hydration flour soaker in parallel. Based on recent discussions and these earlier threads, and @AnotherGirl's practice of keeping a bran soaker, I'm inclined to try using a bran soaker again to soften the bran and to allow for better hydration of the remaining flour. The hope is that the shorter autolyze or (salted) soaker should improve the performance of the flour. If the bran largely removed it really shouldn't take much to hydrate the remaining flour when the bran is separated and the benefits of a long slow passive gluten development may outweigh the additional work required from active gluten development. The final mix can be performed without the bran at lower hydration for stronger gluten development, and the bran can be included later.
In the above threads, I also noticed an interesting comment from @mwilson:
I recall @dabrowman mentioning this practice to enhance flavor ("toadies"), but hadn't considered using this (in addition to refrigeration and salt) to neutralize enzyme activity. That also sounds worth a try.
Impact of wheat bran micronization on dough properties and bread quality: Part I – Bran functionality and dough properties
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814621004131
This study aimed to investigate the effect of wheat bran micronization on its functionality including physicochemical and antioxidant properties, and dough properties. Coarse bran (D50 = 362.3 ± 20.5 μm) was superfine ground to medium (D50 = 60.4 ± 10.1 μm) and superfine (D50 = 11.3 ± 2.6 μm) bran, accompanied with increasing specific surface area and breakdown of aleurone layers. Bran micronization increased its soluble dietary fibre content, ferulic acid liberation, and antioxidant properties including total polyphenol content, ABTS•+ and DPPH• scavenging activities, while decreased its water retention capacity and insoluble dietary fibre content. Moreover, bran micronization impacted dough rheological properties. The dough with superfine bran had higher water absorption and gelatinization temperature, peak viscosity, final viscosity and setback value, lower stability time, resistance to extension, and extensibility than the dough with coarse bran. This dough furthermore exhibited more solid-like properties characterized by decreased loss moduli and frequency dependence (n’).
How manipulation of wheat bran by superfine-grinding affects a wide spectrum of dough rheological properties
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S073352102030535X
The present study explored the effect of size reduction by superfine grinding on the performance and rheological properties of bran-enriched dough. Coarse (D50 = 328.98 μm) and superfine-ground (D50 = 50.76 and 28.37 μm) wheat brans were incorporated into the wheat dough to replace 10–30% of plain flour. Both fundamental and empirical tests were performed to assess the mixing properties, pasting properties, large deformation rheology, small deformation rheology, and stickiness of the dough. With the increasing amount of bran added, dough water absorption capacity increased, while the dough became less sticky and more rigid. Superfine grinding reduced the water retention capacity of the bran by 17–20%. Dough fortified with the finest bran (D50 = 28.37 μm) showed an overall better stability and uniaxial extensibility. However, the results suggested that superfine grinding not necessarily improve every aspect of dough performance, particularly the pasting properties. High peak and final viscosity were observed for dough fortified with superfine bran, indicating their end products, such as noodle, might exhibit high stickiness after cooking, and a high degree of starch retrogradation. Results of this study contributed to a better understanding of the modification effect of superfine grinding on dietary fibre.
https://www.sourdoughhome.com/grain-mill-test-results/
Example: https://youtu.be/SS4GigDY630
This produces very hot flour. Finding a reliable automatic intake restriction mechanism would be very helpful to free up hands for this and to reduce temperature.
Pages