...instead of just posting your thoughts on TFL. How about putting them up on here so everyone can read them?
However, I did go there and I suspect what you're writing about isn't the reason dough is retarded. Retardation is about improving flavour. Specifically, it's a process to boost sourness. If you don't like sour rye then don't do it. Lots of people don't. But then lots of people do prefer the tang. If you retard within sensible time limits none of the factors you mention - in my experience anyway - come into play.
Agreed that it's about improving flavor, but not at the cost of structure. You can retard wheat-based doughs because the gluten doesn't deteriorate; rye is a different story entirely.
Boosting the dough's acidity is more easily and less randomly accomplished with the pre-doughs. Using a long-ripened acidifying sponge, i.e., 14-16 hours, or a Monheimer salt sponge will boost acidity significantly. That intense acidity will carry over into the final dough when the percentage of total flour prefermented approaches 40% and produce a highly acidic dough during bulk fermentation -- with far less danger of degradation.
...a subject headline that comes across almost as clickbait. I've only had problems when I've retarded too long. It's hardly a randomly accomplished process. Why? Because it does work, so it's a little hard to gainsay it's effectiveness. If cold retarding was degrading the dough I'd be turning out sub-standard loaves. I know I'm not, and I'm willing to bet that most bakers who follow well-established formulae don't either. The proof the of the bread is in the eating.
We retard a 60% whole rye for 12hrs without issues, its true that rye doesnt hold its shape like wheat but that rye not retarding, I didnt read your whole thing but, so excuse me if Im off tack here, but if you want a high percentage rye bread to hold its shape you need to do it in a tin or make your mix a touch drier.... or you can try putting it the oven a little less proofed, though it may crack on the surface. We actually find that the cooler temp of the loaf after retarding can help "stiffen" the dough while you get it in the oven, this is of course because ours are free form, out of a banneton. Hope that helps :)
medium loaf .... that 40% wheat (so I assume) will provide enough gluten to preserve the structure. My comments were directed more towards high-percentage ryes, i.e., 80%-plus.
bread also slow down to a crawl, retarding even at 36 F just increases the sour and flavor of the bread as LAB are still out reproducing yeast 3 to 1 at these temperatures. Just like room temperature, once the bread is proofed it goes in the heat. The flavor of rye in these breads is so powerful that the extra sour goes pretty much unnoticed. I think that this is reason enough not too go through the effort of retarding these rye breads - not enough bang for the buck.
Now if you brick bake it like my last one..... it doesn't make any difference either:-)
action at 50 F. The acid of the SD curtails any amylase activity that does exist at that temperature. You should be able to retard that dough for 24 no worries. Getting the dough to be more acid is the key and why retarding is a great thing for rye breads as it the Detmolder 3 stage levain process...... and a long retarded stiff rye starter, say 8 weeks really gets the acid below 4 quickly when amylase actitivity is reduced to near zero even without the cold. New ways to make great rye bread are the result..
but not sure I agree with it. First off, the Detmold 3-stage sponge is a relatively high-temperature process with very specific time intervals and temperature ranges: 6 hours at 77°-80°F/25°-26°C for Stage 1; 15-25 hours at 86°F/30°C for Stage 2, and 3 hours at 82°F/28°C for Stage 3. Nowhere does the technical specification published by the Max Rübner Institut mention retardation, refrigeration or storage.
To your second point, retarding a rye sour culture, stiff or not, for 8 weeks, flies in the face of everything I know and everything I've experienced. After 10 days or 2 weeks, my refrigerated cultures have broken down into a soft goo awash in hooch. I can't imagine a culture that's sat around for nearly 2 months having any kind of strength or structure. But again, if it works for you, more power to you!
The Detmolder method I know about, I haven't seen one that mirrors your temperatures, is the revised one. It was developed to preserve most of the good qualities of the much older ones but mainly to get rid of the night time requirements so that you wouldn't have to be up for 3 days straight - the main reason that stage 2 was made much longer - but it also helped the sour too.
An new step 4 of long retard after the 3rd stage is also missing from the process as is the use of 20% extraction rye (mainly bran) for the food:-) Both promote much more acid in starters, levain and bread - perfect for high % rye breads.
In 'Bread' from 2004, J Hammelman didn't specify what temperatures were to be used for the 2nd stage only that they were lower and the levain was stiffened up.
We now know through many experiments, that stage 1 is wrong when it comes to temperature. 84 F seems to be the best temperature to; promote yeast reproduction rates, increase their numbers and activity levels. Stage 2 temperatures are still much too high, the hydration too high and the times too short to promote much more acetic acid production. Stage three temperatures are also too low and 90 - 93 F would be much better to promote LAB reproduction rates - with the added effect of restricting yeast reproduction rates if sour is what you want in the end.
Brewers have long known that the diastatic power of rye is a little more than half the diastatic power of wheat and barley. Those of us who have been retarding high % rye breads for long periods know that amalyse activity is not a worry if the temperature is low and the acid is high.
The method of the No Muss No Fuss Starter is one we started to work out in 2013 and spent most of 2014 proving that it worked as intended without any ill effects - especially the ones you mention. Never has this starter turned to goo or separate much liquid for that matter - up to 24 weeks of storage. Many Fresh Lofians use it for their rye starter and many their only starter. We have now made more than 200 different SD bread recipes with it over the past 2 plus years.
It was developed because people here were complaining that their counter room temperature, white flour starters were a pain to maintain, were very wasteful and eventually their starter lost its sour and tang. We've all been there and done that. The NMNF starter fixes all of these problems with the least amount of effort and worry.
We are so lucky today to know exactly what enzymes are at work, how they work, how acid and hydration effects them, how low the temperatures have to be to inactivate them and how high a temperature is needed to totally denature them. We also know much more about the LAB and yeast in sourdoughs and how they too are effected by temperature, acid, hydration and a range of other factors.
I suppose what I am saying is that the science behind Detmolder is outdated, and wrong by today's standards. The idea that rye breads can't or shouldn't be retarded is not far behind. There are many reasons to do so. The reasons not to are more myth than fact and destined to go the way of so many old time bread baking ideas - like capturing airborne yeast for your SD culture.
The thing about science is that 97% of old science facts proven by scientists of the past are proven to be wrong by later scientists.:-) Even my No Muss No Fuss Starter needs revising since it was published in December, 2014. Now we know for sure that it is the bran that provides the buffering agent for starters, levains and bread dough which allows the LAB to continue to produce acid at much lower pH levels than a mix without bran. So if you really want sour, you want to fed the LAB bran rather than whole grains. The difference is quite amazing. but the bran has to be treated with higher temperature water, at lest 150 F to near boiling, in order to gelatinize the 20% starch in the bran to get the most sour. You just don't know these things until you test them.
What others might want to know about Detmolder can be found here
I suspect your soft goo and hooch is due to too high a hydration and not following the NMNF method and nothing more than that. Here is a picture of my current retarded starter at a bit over 9 weeks. Almost no hooch, a bit glistening on top though but perfectly fine with at least 11 - 14 more weeks to go. As it ages, it will get darker on top, will become more sour and put off a more powerful SD smell. This is this age where I look forward to start making bread with it now using using bran for the levain build!
wheat breads so gluten isn't what gives rye bread structure so protease isn't a worry. But too much sugar does the harm to rye structure and causes gumminess in the crumb and amylase enzymes break starch into sugar as you know so making sure they are in control is what makes rye bread work - and acid does that well. Here is a link
here is a link that explains how low acid in rye breads can cause the dough to collapse during baking as the temperature of the dough increases in the oven.
I'm on vacation with my grandkids, and so away from the oven for a while, but your post calls for a response. I don't know where you get your information on "new" vs. "old" Detmold 3-stage, but the original German technical paper can be found here. I don't know of a more recent version.
I find your NMNF starter method interesting and economically conservative, but beyond its long storage life, it doesn't seem to do much. According to Michael Gänzle's article, "Modeling of growth of Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis and Candida milleri in response to process parameters of sourdough fermentation" (APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY July 1998, p. 2616–2623), LAB activity falls to near-zero at around 36F and yeast is essentially inactive below about 40F. That temperature range also brings amylase activity toward the bottom of its range (see an interesting experiment here) . The relatively low hydration will also curtail the production of hooch because of the paucity of water -- all of which will have been absorbed by the notoriously thirsty whole rye. Also, although microorgaism activity slows considerably under refrigeration, the yeast cells and LAB continue to die off.
So in effect, your NMNF culture will hold because the activity of the operative microorganisms comes to a near-halt. In other words, the amylases don't convert starches to sugars, the LAB don't convert those sugars to lactic/acetic acid -- or do so at a negligible rate -- and the yeast pretty much sleeps through the whole thing. Understandable, then, that the base culture will hold for 4 months, and that whatever reproduction does occur during that time leaves enough viable microorganisms to seed the next batch.
My point is that retardation, IMO, while clearly useful for storage and scheduling purposes, doesn't contribute materially to the flavor or texture of the finished bread, since desired levels of acidity and saccharification of the starches can be achieved in more time-efficient ways.
As a sidenote, I really enjoy this level of discourse, since it forces me to re-examine both my data and conclusions. So in this case, I happily agree to disagree.
vacation Stan. The 1979 process is the one I have too.
New and old Detmolder comes in 2 flavors. First, the reason this paper was produced wasn't because it was completely new. It was produced to fix a problem with older yet similar processes. This older process wasn't called Detmolder anymore than the autolyse process wasn't called autolyse in 1290 AD where Calvel found it in a French cookbook and gave it the name hundreds of years later.
The 2nd flavor is the Detmolder process you originally cited above in a response to me - which doesn't match the 1979 version. Your newer version of more specific temperatures and longer times at various stages is a better method in my book - and newer version should be better and solve problems.
Ganzel's paper is what prompted and directed me in the NFNF starter method which doesn't have anything to do Detmolder and was developed for the reasons I stated above - no maintenance , no waste and more sour created by a process that resulted in a larger LAB to yeast ratio and lower pH.
One thing to remember about Ganzel's data is that it isn't all scientifically proven. By that I mean he didn't run an experiment where he took 2 stains of LAB and 1 of yeast found in a SD culture and test the reproductive rates at every temperature. He did run tests at some temperatures but mathematically interpolated the reproductive rates for most of temperatures. That doesn't diminish the theory that low and high temperatures favor LAB reproductive rates dramatically over yeast and that they the are simiar, with a slight 7-10% advantage for LAB, at room temperatures.
The interpreted reproductive rates for LAB and yeast at 36 F are low indeed - 16 times less for LAB and 59 times less for yeast, then they are at 72 F but they are not zero if if they are aren't completely accurate from actual experiments. It turns out that they aren't insignificant but you have to have patience.
When I brought up the idea and questions of the NFNM starter process with our resident microbiologist here on the Fresh Loaf she was kind enough to answer them at some length but one of here comments was striking. "In short, 36ºF isn't helping you to achieve more sour as much as for-as-long-as-possible is." I took that to heart and and found that,even though the process is slow,000 to 2,000 of 36 F cold makes all the difference when it comes to sour and LAB to yeast ratios of starters!
These wee beasties have genetically engineered themselves through evolution, likely over billions of years, to be pretty much indestructible over the normal range of temperatures found on earth. 36 F to 93 F is the middle range for these temperatures. LAB and yeast have no problem surviving though long periods within this temperature range. The idea that they die off substantially at 36 F is misplaced from my experiments. In the summer, 10 g of this starter that is retarded 4 weeks that is fed 3 progressively larger feedings using 3 hour intervals will double after the 3rd feeding within 3 hours. A 16 week same size starter fed the same amount requires 4 hour feedings to do the same thing. It take 12 hours instead of 9 is the difference. Weaker and slower is correct but anywhere near dead is way off base.
Using a pH meter quickly proves that LAB are making more acid as the weeks pass. But there is an upper limit of how low a pH you can get. But this limit can be extended using bran for food which acts as an additional buffer allowing the lowest pH possible and the largest LAB to yeast ratio.
I have never found any difference in bread texture using this starter at 1, 8, 16 or 24 weeks of retard.
Another point that DW brought up is that the process isn't really practical for impatient bakers on a schedule to use. Like you say, there are other ways to make sour. Using 92 F for levain builds, dough ferment and proof is one way and I couldn't agree more. But you would have to feed a starter like that a huge amount of flour and you would be chained to it for feeding every few hours too:-) No one could possibly use all that discard.
The NMNF starter is perfect for the lazy baker who wants the most sour, as easy as possible, with no waste or maintemance though and it is perfect for rye breads where acid is so important for dough structure, time is short and 93 F a hard temperature to get to and where things happen very, very fast.
I did retard a 100% rye bread I baked today overnight for 8 hours in the fridge with no worries to fit my sleep schedule as I do every so often. I used a brand new starter that was begun on Sunday. I did get to retard it for 24 hours before using to get it more acidic with a lower pH and a higher LAB to yeast ratio. Still, since time was short there wasn't much difference but in this case it was the cold that beat the amylase clock.
i've enjoyed the discourse Stan and enjoy the vacation with Kids and grand kids.
which is why I generally use whole rye in my culture. again, I have the luxury of being a rye flour retailer, so a few hundred grams every month or so doesn't affect me very much and I can afford to be profligate.
the issue of appropriate starter culture feeding intervals is a hotly contested one. Jeffrey Hamelman and I have corresponded on it: he's a firm proponent of daily feedings (a cool Hamelman anecdote will appear in the book) and I recommend 1-2x a week. you're obviously at the farthest reaches, at 3-4x a year. so the debate will continue.
stick around and i'll try to stir up some more controversy!!
I just looked at all the rye recipes in Whitley's book (Bread Matters, first edition). None require retardation. The production sourdough is proved for 24 hours at room temperature; the final dough, once mixed, undergoes a 2-8 hour rise, depending on the vigor of the sourdough. No refrigeration or retardation necessary. (His recipe appears also in Linda Collister "Country Bread". No refrigeration there, either. Just a 1-8 hour rise until the dough is ready.
The only recipe I could find that explicitly requires retardation is in Hanne Risggard's book, "Home Baked". Her recipe for "The Real Rye Bread" says: "If you prefer a distinctly acidic loaf, place the dough in the fridge for 24 hours, then remove the dough from the fridge, and leaver at room temperature for a further 12 to 24 hours. If you prefer a less acidic loaf, just let the dough rest in the covered pan for 24 hours at room temperature. "
I personally haven't seen Whitley's book, but was responding to another post that mentioned him in connection with retarding 100% rye doughs. I gather he's something of a controversial character in UK and that some consider his Russian recipes inauthentic. I'm not in a position to have an opinion on the matter, but even if Whitley's connection to retardation is nonexistent, the issue is nonetheless a real one.
As far as Risgaard's recipe is concerned, she calls for only 16% of total flour prefermented and either 24 or 36 hours (retarded) of bulk ferment, which, frankly, strikes me as reckless. I haven't attempted her bread, but think I will -- just to see what the enzymes do to the dough after 24 hours at room temperature.
Sadly what you've done here is to tell me how to make the bread I've been successfully making for the past 2 years and by making me visit your own blog furthers to just engage my "meh" mechanism and to nake me much less inclined to buy your upcoming book (which you're using the blog to promote)
You may well be right from a technical point of view, but from my point of view - making bread to sell, 3-4 times a week, it works for me. It works so-well for me that I'm having to invest in more tins to make more of my 100% rye bread.
Going back to your posts in the other forum topic, your point about not finding any historical rye recipes that require retardation may well be true - mostly because in historical times they didn't have fridges... Although in Russia in the winter, I suspect they have the opposite problem - trying to stop their dough from freezing!
I have discovered - more by accident than design that sticking the tins at the top of my fridge where the temperature appears to be at about 9°C allows then the rise more or less fully - almost double overnight. They bake well and (more importantly) they sell well, and that's good enough for me and I'm going to keep on doing it that way until I'm forced (due to demand than any other reason) to change.
I simply think that retarding high-percentage rye doughs is a waste of time, since, in my view, it doesn't produce any meaningful improvements in flavor or texture and can only harm the dough. If it works for you, and if your customers are happy, then far be it from me to tell you how to bake your bread. And yes, I retarded high-percentage rye doughs when I was first experimenting with rye breads and didn't realize any meaningful improvements in either crumb quality or flavor. My conclusion was that the view wasn't worth the trip.
I understand that retarding is a must if you want to bake a 100% rye bread following a 3 stage method early in the morning, right? I mean if you want to sleep during the night... Or what would be your advice on adjusting the schedule for a 3 stage method 100% rye bread in order to bake it in the morning?
...instead of just posting your thoughts on TFL. How about putting them up on here so everyone can read them?
However, I did go there and I suspect what you're writing about isn't the reason dough is retarded. Retardation is about improving flavour. Specifically, it's a process to boost sourness. If you don't like sour rye then don't do it. Lots of people don't. But then lots of people do prefer the tang. If you retard within sensible time limits none of the factors you mention - in my experience anyway - come into play.
Agreed that it's about improving flavor, but not at the cost of structure. You can retard wheat-based doughs because the gluten doesn't deteriorate; rye is a different story entirely.
Boosting the dough's acidity is more easily and less randomly accomplished with the pre-doughs. Using a long-ripened acidifying sponge, i.e., 14-16 hours, or a Monheimer salt sponge will boost acidity significantly. That intense acidity will carry over into the final dough when the percentage of total flour prefermented approaches 40% and produce a highly acidic dough during bulk fermentation -- with far less danger of degradation.
...a subject headline that comes across almost as clickbait. I've only had problems when I've retarded too long. It's hardly a randomly accomplished process. Why? Because it does work, so it's a little hard to gainsay it's effectiveness. If cold retarding was degrading the dough I'd be turning out sub-standard loaves. I know I'm not, and I'm willing to bet that most bakers who follow well-established formulae don't either. The proof the of the bread is in the eating.
Its true that an over proofed rye will collapse and fall apart for sure.
We retard a 60% whole rye for 12hrs without issues, its true that rye doesnt hold its shape like wheat but that rye not retarding, I didnt read your whole thing but, so excuse me if Im off tack here, but if you want a high percentage rye bread to hold its shape you need to do it in a tin or make your mix a touch drier.... or you can try putting it the oven a little less proofed, though it may crack on the surface. We actually find that the cooler temp of the loaf after retarding can help "stiffen" the dough while you get it in the oven, this is of course because ours are free form, out of a banneton. Hope that helps :)
medium loaf .... that 40% wheat (so I assume) will provide enough gluten to preserve the structure. My comments were directed more towards high-percentage ryes, i.e., 80%-plus.
I think youre right, if I wanted serious tang Id use a well brewed leaven that was over ripe.
I dont agree that it boosts sourness, we retard for 12hrs and sourness is not why we do it and not what we get. Just my ten cents worth :)
That pretty much jibes with my experience, little though that is. ;)
cheers,
gary
bread also slow down to a crawl, retarding even at 36 F just increases the sour and flavor of the bread as LAB are still out reproducing yeast 3 to 1 at these temperatures. Just like room temperature, once the bread is proofed it goes in the heat. The flavor of rye in these breads is so powerful that the extra sour goes pretty much unnoticed. I think that this is reason enough not too go through the effort of retarding these rye breads - not enough bang for the buck.
Now if you brick bake it like my last one..... it doesn't make any difference either:-)
drogon said that he retards at 49F/9.5C, which is a temperature at which amaylases are far more active than the yeast.
action at 50 F. The acid of the SD curtails any amylase activity that does exist at that temperature. You should be able to retard that dough for 24 no worries. Getting the dough to be more acid is the key and why retarding is a great thing for rye breads as it the Detmolder 3 stage levain process...... and a long retarded stiff rye starter, say 8 weeks really gets the acid below 4 quickly when amylase actitivity is reduced to near zero even without the cold. New ways to make great rye bread are the result..
but not sure I agree with it. First off, the Detmold 3-stage sponge is a relatively high-temperature process with very specific time intervals and temperature ranges: 6 hours at 77°-80°F/25°-26°C for Stage 1; 15-25 hours at 86°F/30°C for Stage 2, and 3 hours at 82°F/28°C for Stage 3. Nowhere does the technical specification published by the Max Rübner Institut mention retardation, refrigeration or storage.
To your second point, retarding a rye sour culture, stiff or not, for 8 weeks, flies in the face of everything I know and everything I've experienced. After 10 days or 2 weeks, my refrigerated cultures have broken down into a soft goo awash in hooch. I can't imagine a culture that's sat around for nearly 2 months having any kind of strength or structure. But again, if it works for you, more power to you!
.
The Detmolder method I know about, I haven't seen one that mirrors your temperatures, is the revised one. It was developed to preserve most of the good qualities of the much older ones but mainly to get rid of the night time requirements so that you wouldn't have to be up for 3 days straight - the main reason that stage 2 was made much longer - but it also helped the sour too.
An new step 4 of long retard after the 3rd stage is also missing from the process as is the use of 20% extraction rye (mainly bran) for the food:-) Both promote much more acid in starters, levain and bread - perfect for high % rye breads.
In 'Bread' from 2004, J Hammelman didn't specify what temperatures were to be used for the 2nd stage only that they were lower and the levain was stiffened up.
We now know through many experiments, that stage 1 is wrong when it comes to temperature. 84 F seems to be the best temperature to; promote yeast reproduction rates, increase their numbers and activity levels. Stage 2 temperatures are still much too high, the hydration too high and the times too short to promote much more acetic acid production. Stage three temperatures are also too low and 90 - 93 F would be much better to promote LAB reproduction rates - with the added effect of restricting yeast reproduction rates if sour is what you want in the end.
Brewers have long known that the diastatic power of rye is a little more than half the diastatic power of wheat and barley. Those of us who have been retarding high % rye breads for long periods know that amalyse activity is not a worry if the temperature is low and the acid is high.
The method of the No Muss No Fuss Starter is one we started to work out in 2013 and spent most of 2014 proving that it worked as intended without any ill effects - especially the ones you mention. Never has this starter turned to goo or separate much liquid for that matter - up to 24 weeks of storage. Many Fresh Lofians use it for their rye starter and many their only starter. We have now made more than 200 different SD bread recipes with it over the past 2 plus years.
It was developed because people here were complaining that their counter room temperature, white flour starters were a pain to maintain, were very wasteful and eventually their starter lost its sour and tang. We've all been there and done that. The NMNF starter fixes all of these problems with the least amount of effort and worry.
We are so lucky today to know exactly what enzymes are at work, how they work, how acid and hydration effects them, how low the temperatures have to be to inactivate them and how high a temperature is needed to totally denature them. We also know much more about the LAB and yeast in sourdoughs and how they too are effected by temperature, acid, hydration and a range of other factors.
I suppose what I am saying is that the science behind Detmolder is outdated, and wrong by today's standards. The idea that rye breads can't or shouldn't be retarded is not far behind. There are many reasons to do so. The reasons not to are more myth than fact and destined to go the way of so many old time bread baking ideas - like capturing airborne yeast for your SD culture.
The thing about science is that 97% of old science facts proven by scientists of the past are proven to be wrong by later scientists.:-) Even my No Muss No Fuss Starter needs revising since it was published in December, 2014. Now we know for sure that it is the bran that provides the buffering agent for starters, levains and bread dough which allows the LAB to continue to produce acid at much lower pH levels than a mix without bran. So if you really want sour, you want to fed the LAB bran rather than whole grains. The difference is quite amazing. but the bran has to be treated with higher temperature water, at lest 150 F to near boiling, in order to gelatinize the 20% starch in the bran to get the most sour. You just don't know these things until you test them.
What others might want to know about Detmolder can be found here
http://www.samartha.net/sd/procedures/DM3/DM3-Hamelman.html Hamelman
http://www.samartha.net/sd/procedures/DM3/index.html
http://germanfood.about.com/od/germanfoodglossary/a/Detmolder-Three-Phase-Sourdough-Method.htm
and then there is the
No Muss No Fuss Starter
I suspect your soft goo and hooch is due to too high a hydration and not following the NMNF method and nothing more than that. Here is a picture of my current retarded starter at a bit over 9 weeks. Almost no hooch, a bit glistening on top though but perfectly fine with at least 11 - 14 more weeks to go. As it ages, it will get darker on top, will become more sour and put off a more powerful SD smell. This is this age where I look forward to start making bread with it now using using bran for the levain build!
Look forward to your new rye book Stan and
Happy baking
My understanding has been that the issue with rye is the protease, not amylase. It is the protein that is destroyed by the enzymes. Not so?
gary
wheat breads so gluten isn't what gives rye bread structure so protease isn't a worry. But too much sugar does the harm to rye structure and causes gumminess in the crumb and amylase enzymes break starch into sugar as you know so making sure they are in control is what makes rye bread work - and acid does that well. Here is a link
https://books.google.com/books?id=PC_O7u1NPZEC&pg=PA860&lpg=PA860&dq=protease+in+rye+bread&source=bl&ots=prZP77UxBK&sig=a995AvMbupx7BihWK8EcI3jhLrk&hl...
here is a link that explains how low acid in rye breads can cause the dough to collapse during baking as the temperature of the dough increases in the oven.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1b1CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA313&lpg=PA313&dq=protease+in+rye+bread&source=bl&ots=myKYenTz8a&sig=utWDyYUax4rCDo66vIrkpm2nkqk&hl...
I'm on vacation with my grandkids, and so away from the oven for a while, but your post calls for a response. I don't know where you get your information on "new" vs. "old" Detmold 3-stage, but the original German technical paper can be found here. I don't know of a more recent version.
I find your NMNF starter method interesting and economically conservative, but beyond its long storage life, it doesn't seem to do much. According to Michael Gänzle's article, "Modeling of growth of Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis and Candida milleri in response to process parameters of sourdough fermentation" (APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY July 1998, p. 2616–2623), LAB activity falls to near-zero at around 36F and yeast is essentially inactive below about 40F. That temperature range also brings amylase activity toward the bottom of its range (see an interesting experiment here) . The relatively low hydration will also curtail the production of hooch because of the paucity of water -- all of which will have been absorbed by the notoriously thirsty whole rye. Also, although microorgaism activity slows considerably under refrigeration, the yeast cells and LAB continue to die off.
So in effect, your NMNF culture will hold because the activity of the operative microorganisms comes to a near-halt. In other words, the amylases don't convert starches to sugars, the LAB don't convert those sugars to lactic/acetic acid -- or do so at a negligible rate -- and the yeast pretty much sleeps through the whole thing. Understandable, then, that the base culture will hold for 4 months, and that whatever reproduction does occur during that time leaves enough viable microorganisms to seed the next batch.
My point is that retardation, IMO, while clearly useful for storage and scheduling purposes, doesn't contribute materially to the flavor or texture of the finished bread, since desired levels of acidity and saccharification of the starches can be achieved in more time-efficient ways.
As a sidenote, I really enjoy this level of discourse, since it forces me to re-examine both my data and conclusions. So in this case, I happily agree to disagree.
Stan
vacation Stan. The 1979 process is the one I have too.
New and old Detmolder comes in 2 flavors. First, the reason this paper was produced wasn't because it was completely new. It was produced to fix a problem with older yet similar processes. This older process wasn't called Detmolder anymore than the autolyse process wasn't called autolyse in 1290 AD where Calvel found it in a French cookbook and gave it the name hundreds of years later.
The 2nd flavor is the Detmolder process you originally cited above in a response to me - which doesn't match the 1979 version. Your newer version of more specific temperatures and longer times at various stages is a better method in my book - and newer version should be better and solve problems.
Ganzel's paper is what prompted and directed me in the NFNF starter method which doesn't have anything to do Detmolder and was developed for the reasons I stated above - no maintenance , no waste and more sour created by a process that resulted in a larger LAB to yeast ratio and lower pH.
One thing to remember about Ganzel's data is that it isn't all scientifically proven. By that I mean he didn't run an experiment where he took 2 stains of LAB and 1 of yeast found in a SD culture and test the reproductive rates at every temperature. He did run tests at some temperatures but mathematically interpolated the reproductive rates for most of temperatures. That doesn't diminish the theory that low and high temperatures favor LAB reproductive rates dramatically over yeast and that they the are simiar, with a slight 7-10% advantage for LAB, at room temperatures.
The interpreted reproductive rates for LAB and yeast at 36 F are low indeed - 16 times less for LAB and 59 times less for yeast, then they are at 72 F but they are not zero if if they are aren't completely accurate from actual experiments. It turns out that they aren't insignificant but you have to have patience.
When I brought up the idea and questions of the NFNM starter process with our resident microbiologist here on the Fresh Loaf she was kind enough to answer them at some length but one of here comments was striking. "In short, 36ºF isn't helping you to achieve more sour as much as for-as-long-as-possible is." I took that to heart and and found that,even though the process is slow,000 to 2,000 of 36 F cold makes all the difference when it comes to sour and LAB to yeast ratios of starters!
These wee beasties have genetically engineered themselves through evolution, likely over billions of years, to be pretty much indestructible over the normal range of temperatures found on earth. 36 F to 93 F is the middle range for these temperatures. LAB and yeast have no problem surviving though long periods within this temperature range. The idea that they die off substantially at 36 F is misplaced from my experiments. In the summer, 10 g of this starter that is retarded 4 weeks that is fed 3 progressively larger feedings using 3 hour intervals will double after the 3rd feeding within 3 hours. A 16 week same size starter fed the same amount requires 4 hour feedings to do the same thing. It take 12 hours instead of 9 is the difference. Weaker and slower is correct but anywhere near dead is way off base.
Using a pH meter quickly proves that LAB are making more acid as the weeks pass. But there is an upper limit of how low a pH you can get. But this limit can be extended using bran for food which acts as an additional buffer allowing the lowest pH possible and the largest LAB to yeast ratio.
I have never found any difference in bread texture using this starter at 1, 8, 16 or 24 weeks of retard.
Another point that DW brought up is that the process isn't really practical for impatient bakers on a schedule to use. Like you say, there are other ways to make sour. Using 92 F for levain builds, dough ferment and proof is one way and I couldn't agree more. But you would have to feed a starter like that a huge amount of flour and you would be chained to it for feeding every few hours too:-) No one could possibly use all that discard.
The NMNF starter is perfect for the lazy baker who wants the most sour, as easy as possible, with no waste or maintemance though and it is perfect for rye breads where acid is so important for dough structure, time is short and 93 F a hard temperature to get to and where things happen very, very fast.
I did retard a 100% rye bread I baked today overnight for 8 hours in the fridge with no worries to fit my sleep schedule as I do every so often. I used a brand new starter that was begun on Sunday. I did get to retard it for 24 hours before using to get it more acidic with a lower pH and a higher LAB to yeast ratio. Still, since time was short there wasn't much difference but in this case it was the cold that beat the amylase clock.
i've enjoyed the discourse Stan and enjoy the vacation with Kids and grand kids.
which is why I generally use whole rye in my culture. again, I have the luxury of being a rye flour retailer, so a few hundred grams every month or so doesn't affect me very much and I can afford to be profligate.
the issue of appropriate starter culture feeding intervals is a hotly contested one. Jeffrey Hamelman and I have corresponded on it: he's a firm proponent of daily feedings (a cool Hamelman anecdote will appear in the book) and I recommend 1-2x a week. you're obviously at the farthest reaches, at 3-4x a year. so the debate will continue.
stick around and i'll try to stir up some more controversy!!
I just looked at all the rye recipes in Whitley's book (Bread Matters, first edition). None require retardation. The production sourdough is proved for 24 hours at room temperature; the final dough, once mixed, undergoes a 2-8 hour rise, depending on the vigor of the sourdough. No refrigeration or retardation necessary. (His recipe appears also in Linda Collister "Country Bread". No refrigeration there, either. Just a 1-8 hour rise until the dough is ready.
The only recipe I could find that explicitly requires retardation is in Hanne Risggard's book, "Home Baked". Her recipe for "The Real Rye Bread" says: "If you prefer a distinctly acidic loaf, place the dough in the fridge for 24 hours, then remove the dough from the fridge, and leaver at room temperature for a further 12 to 24 hours. If you prefer a less acidic loaf, just let the dough rest in the covered pan for 24 hours at room temperature. "
I personally haven't seen Whitley's book, but was responding to another post that mentioned him in connection with retarding 100% rye doughs. I gather he's something of a controversial character in UK and that some consider his Russian recipes inauthentic. I'm not in a position to have an opinion on the matter, but even if Whitley's connection to retardation is nonexistent, the issue is nonetheless a real one.
As far as Risgaard's recipe is concerned, she calls for only 16% of total flour prefermented and either 24 or 36 hours (retarded) of bulk ferment, which, frankly, strikes me as reckless. I haven't attempted her bread, but think I will -- just to see what the enzymes do to the dough after 24 hours at room temperature.
Stan
Sadly what you've done here is to tell me how to make the bread I've been successfully making for the past 2 years and by making me visit your own blog furthers to just engage my "meh" mechanism and to nake me much less inclined to buy your upcoming book (which you're using the blog to promote)
You may well be right from a technical point of view, but from my point of view - making bread to sell, 3-4 times a week, it works for me. It works so-well for me that I'm having to invest in more tins to make more of my 100% rye bread.
Going back to your posts in the other forum topic, your point about not finding any historical rye recipes that require retardation may well be true - mostly because in historical times they didn't have fridges... Although in Russia in the winter, I suspect they have the opposite problem - trying to stop their dough from freezing!
I have discovered - more by accident than design that sticking the tins at the top of my fridge where the temperature appears to be at about 9°C allows then the rise more or less fully - almost double overnight. They bake well and (more importantly) they sell well, and that's good enough for me and I'm going to keep on doing it that way until I'm forced (due to demand than any other reason) to change.
Why not give it a go one day?
-Gordon
I simply think that retarding high-percentage rye doughs is a waste of time, since, in my view, it doesn't produce any meaningful improvements in flavor or texture and can only harm the dough. If it works for you, and if your customers are happy, then far be it from me to tell you how to bake your bread. And yes, I retarded high-percentage rye doughs when I was first experimenting with rye breads and didn't realize any meaningful improvements in either crumb quality or flavor. My conclusion was that the view wasn't worth the trip.
Stan
I understand that retarding is a must if you want to bake a 100% rye bread following a 3 stage method early in the morning, right? I mean if you want to sleep during the night... Or what would be your advice on adjusting the schedule for a 3 stage method 100% rye bread in order to bake it in the morning?
Cheers