Poolish + autolyse
I'm wondering if anyone more experienced (which probably means everyone who reads this forum) can offer some thoughts / insights on using poolish and autolyse in the same recipe. Is this worthwhile? If so, any tips on combining the two to make the final dough?
I have only made one batch this way, and have not yet baked it (it's currently bulk fermenting). My questions arise because of the time and effort it took to mix the poolish and autolyse together.
I made the poolish yesterday with 200 gm AP flour, 200 gm water and 1 gm instant yeast. After mixing, I left it at room temp for ~7 hours then refrigerated it overnight.
This morning I mixed 200 gm AP flour, 200 gm whole wheat flour and 280 gm water so that the total hydration will be 80%. After 30 minutes, when I tried to mix the poolish and the autolysed flour plus another 2 gm yeast and 10 gm salt, it wouldn't combine easily at all. At first, I tried folding, but that barely did anything, so I ended up squishing the mix between my fingers to break apart the autolyse. This wasn't a horrific chore, but it certainly wasn't fun either, and it took over 15 minutes of doing this until I could no longer feel any lumps of autolyse.
My creaky KitchenAide couldn't deal with it, so I squish everything together until it is all combined, as you have done. One slight improvement would be to cut the autolyse into smaller pieces and marinate it in the poolish for a while* so that the autolyse starts to absorb moisture from the poolish. You'll still have to deal with the glop but the poolish will be firmer and the autolyse will be softer, making them somewhat easier to combine.
*a while = an undefined period of time of your choosing
Paul
Simple - do not use all flour in autolyse. Use only so much that you have a fairly loose mixture, say 85-90% hydration, and add the remaining flour during the final mix. I would suggest to use all the white flour and hold some of the ww.
However, "my teacher" (who actually had professional dealings with Calvel, who developed the autolyse technique) always gave us the advice to put a poolish (not a firm pre ferment, but the liquid pre ferment we call poolish) into the flour for the autolyse. The argument being that so much of the water in the total formula is tied up in the pre ferment that the flour can't really hydrate thoroughly without the presence of the poolish and you end up doing all kinds of things to effectively mix the dough. (Which is exactly what you encountered.) In production baking, the lumps of dry flour would ruin the mix.
It has become very popular with readers of these pages to insist (vocally, vehemently, and sometimes uncivilly) that autolyse must take place in the absence of yeast. I say, if it is good enough for the kind of baker that "my teacher" is, it is good enough for me. And if Calvel didn't object (and he didn't), who am I to do so. Yes, yes, some degradation in the "pure" purpose of the autolyse is lost, and certainly for those who practice very, very long autolyses there is reason to avoid adding this yeast. But as a practical matter - it works. The mixing time on second speed is still reduced - which is one of the purposes of an autolyse.
There are some who to remain purists will autolyse only portions of the flour so that a reasonable hydration will be maintained without adding the pre ferment. I can't argue with them in the least.
The purposes of a polish and an autolyse are different, so, absolutely the two go together well.
Let the piling on begin!
Doesn't Forkish suggest that one need not do an autolyse where one has a poolish? I thought I read that in FWSY, probably in his poolish bread formula....
consider that various purposes of an autolyse. One is to fully hydrate the flour prior to mixing so that mixing time can be reduced.
Another is to start proteolytic activity so that the gluten will become more extensible.
Now contemplate the purposes of a polish.
One is to bring the flavor of a long fermentation to part of the flour in the bread.
Another is to have more advanced proteolytic activity so that the gluten will become more extensible.
As we can see, there is an overlap in reasons.
While I have not read Forkish, one might conclude that if proteolytic activity were foremost in his mind - one need not autolyse with a polish. But there seems to be other reasons for each activity. Certainly reducing mixing time, where if you use industrial strength mixers, oxidation can occur, is a desirable end.
Mr. Forkish may use hand mixing techniques that render this problem moot - and so he may see no advantage to shortening mixing times having gotten the extensibility question out of the way.
And certainly those who use refrigerated overnight bulk fermentation will see less of an advantage with a poolish as the long bulk fermentation will serve the purpose of bringing flavors. They might favor only an autolyse.
(And here's a challenge for the autolyse purists: Please find the references to this in Calvel's "Le Gout du Pain" (not, the translation...) and let me know where they are. I have looked and looked and cannot find his exact words. He goes on and on about fava bean flour, but I see none of this interdiction of yeast. Or the description of the process, for that matter. I'm not being mean with this - I can't find the reference and if one of you has, I'd love to look at it for myself.)
I've actually checked a number of my references and either the autolyse process is not described - or the author tells me to put a liquid pre ferment into it. On a practical basis, it works for me.
I will say that my overarching point is that we should understand why we are doing things, what they bring to the bread (because that's what matters), and then make intelligent decisions based on our goals.
Once you put a raising agent in it becomes fermentation.
I can only reply - true. But what of it? (It certainly isn't bulk fermentation as we know it, as the dough is insufficiently developed to hold gas - but I will freely admit that fermentation is going on)
One might argue that the moment water is applied to the flour, the wild yeasts present in the flour begin fermenting. But I'll leave that for now.
What is this objection to yeast at this phase of the mix? Again, let's examine what we are trying to accomplish.
I've done a little homework, but when I do find this technique discussed, it is always in the context of reducing second speed mixing and increasing extensibility in the dough.
And true, fermentation does bring acids which can cause an increase in elasticity and that is what ideally we want to avoid.
But we are faced with a dilemma in the case of a liquid pre ferment. Either we reduce the amount of flour in the autolyse so that the remaining water may hydrate it sufficiently or we add the liquid pre ferment.
Either one reduces the benefit of the process. One by not hydrating a portion of the flour, the other by introducing the products of fermentation.
It is not a matter of not wanting "extra" fermentation - we have just spent 8-12 hours fermenting some of the flour, 20-30 minutes more is well within process tolerances.
The conclusion that many bakers come to (and it really is a preference. This is practical baking, not some kind of dogma to which we must adhere or perish.) is that because of the nature of a liquid pre ferment - that is that in itself it is designed to enhance extensibility and that the amount of acids built up are small enough that the harm they will cause is offset by the benefit of hydrating all of the flour - is to add the liquid pre ferment at this stage. A tradeoff to be sure, but a reasoned one. Based on an understanding of the components in the process and the goals of the process.
We would not put a firm pre ferment in an autolyse - this is designed to bring strength to the dough and there is no compelling need, since there is plenty of water left to hydrate the flour.
Even more so with a pate fermentee - which has salt in it.
What completely baffles me in these discussions is that in the realm of French bread making, Calvel was the individual who really brought this technique of autolyse to front of mind. I've worked with individuals who worked with Calvel (still waiting for someone to direct me to where all this is described in his own words) and they add the liquid pre ferment to the autolyse. The object at hand is making good bread, not to be "purer" than the individual who popularized the technique. I honestly don't understand where this drive comes from, but that could be my limitation.
What I think we all can agree on, though, is that when using a liquid pre ferment, generally one should not simply take the final dough amounts of water and flour and mix them together for an autolyse. This provides insufficient hydration for the flour and results in the lumps that will persist through the mix or require some kind of intervention.
use all the autolyse flour. I would use the 200 g of whole grain since it benefits the most with and autolyse and only 100 g of the white flour in the autolyse - holding back 100 g of white flour. That gives you a 93% hydration autolyse and once the rest of the flour, salt and poolish hit the mix after the autolyse competes then you can easily do a minute of slap and folds and get them to mix together easy enough. I do this all lthe time no worries - the 80% hydration of the final mix is easy to slap around.
This way you get a proper autolyse instead of extra fermenting going on.
You can even mix with a spoon and let it sit for 20 minutes letting the added white flpour hydrate and then do slap and folds to incorporate.
happy baking
After I mix my flour into my water to autolyse, I pour my poolish on top of it but do not mix it in. After the time is up I mix it and add my salt. I haven`t encountered a problem with this method, yet.
to everyone who has taken the time to reply. It's interesting to see the range of thoughts and opinions people have on how to address this issue. Still being very much a newbie, I welcome and appreciate all the help and tips I can get.