The New York Times - A New way to make bread?

[saucisson]

Hi Oddley, electric convection here, safe within their pots (which I think is the innovation here) I doubt it will make any difference. I'll be using an old 22cm Cousance iron pot.

Dave

[Robert H]

I think the innovation that they are alluding to is the fact it is "No Knead Bread".

[saucisson]

Hi Richard,
I think you are right that that is what they think is the innovation, maybe it is. However, the idea of a no-knead mix was discussed here a while ago, as Oddley suggested earlier, unfortunately I can't find the thread just now. So to my mind the interesting thing is still cooking it in an iron pot.

As an aside: In my quest for a perfect baguette I have experimented with an all water half of the flour initial soup for the first rise, followed by the rest of the flour and a small knead as suggested on a baking site and concluded you need to use French flour, be in France and be French to make a baguette

Dave

[Oddley]

I agree Dave, the innovation is cooking in an enclosed container promoting humidity, thereby allowing the bread to stretch for longer giving a better rise and a thinner crust.

Dave, the thread you were looking for, I think is at the link below.

http://forum.sausagemaking.org/viewtopi ... torder=asc

[saucisson]

Thanks Oddley, couldn't find it earlier. I've bookmarked it now.

How's your porridge looking

Dave

[vinner]

Hang it all, I am not a bread maker, but I have a slurry going now for 4 hours, will give it 14 more before fooling with it again. Off to the market for a larger enameled cast iron pot (the OH will be less than pleased).

[Ianinfrance]

We tried Dn Lepard's "no knead" bread, or a recipe based on it. As long term bread makers, we were very cynical about what kind of texture ir would produce. We were wrong as it produced excellent open textured well risen bread.

However, it be frank, we've gone back to a more "traditional" method, because the "no knead" method, involved mixing the dough every half an hour for about four times. So we were perpetually fiddling with the dough.

All we do for our brown bread is to sponge, mix, and then knead for quite a long time, to get the flour thoroughly hydrated. We then divide, and put into tins and allow the dough to rise once. It is then baked. Without claiming it's better, or proving anything, it's the simplest way we know, involving the least fiddling about.

[saucisson]

Vinner:

I've got a 3 hour head start and an iron pot already

Gentlemen start your engines

Bet mine is worst

Ian,

I know exactly what you are saying, I've played with lots of methods, got fed up, despondent, just bunged it all in and did it "my" way and am making superb bread

Dave

[tristar]

Anybody have any idea how the gluten is extracted to give that lovely bread texture using this method?

[Robert H]

Surely baking the bread in a pot is the same as baking in a bread making machine (both enclosed with a lid on). Unfortunately, my attempts with a bread making machine have never turned out as well as hand made.

Hope you guys bread turns out ok.

[saucisson]

Tristar:

Eerh, Osmosis I think
Apparently all the little gluten molecules line up into long intertwined strands much more happily if left alone in a soup overnight, must be a romance thing.

I don't believe it either but 3 of us are trying it out so watch this space.

Richard: Good point , this does seem like matching an old way of making dough with a breadmaker bake. (Never got on with them) A big difference ( I hope) is a breadmaker raises the temperature very slowly, this is bunging the dough in at 250 Celsius.
Dave

[Ianinfrance]

That was the question that I was interested in. If you don't knead, how can you develop the gluten. Well the simple answer is that what is described as "developing the gluten" through kneading is in reality hydrating the flour, and this will happen if the flour is merely left quite soggy. You then merely mix a bit to distribute everything evenly.

I never expected it to work, but it did. Good bread. Very good bread, even. But no better than the bread we've now gone back to making _with_ kneading.

[Robert H]

I know exactly what you are saying, I've played with lots of methods, got fed up, despondent, just bunged it all in and did it "my" way and am making superb bread

Same here. I just use traditional method now, but use Canadian flour, it takes up more water, and the results are superb.

[saucisson]

I expect to revert as well, just can't avoid experimenting

Dave

[dougal]

Hi dougal, I know all about the tight as% way of doing things because I am one... All flours are different so measuring out to the last gram of water does not always work, so as irritating as it is, we must use non scientific methods to get the right consistency.

Its not the cost of the yeast (which even I think trivial), but that using less, and longer slower cooler fermentation actually changes the process. There's more enzyme action it would seem. Certainly one develops a much more pronounced flavour from the exact same flour... which I, personally, prefer.
The fact of the difference was something I was introduced to in Elizabeth David's English Bread and Yeast Cookery. The enzyme action is attested by Lepard and Reinhart (who was introduced to the ideas of autolyse and retardation by Gosselin). The essence of sourdough is that the there is a stable system created with the yeasts and lactobacilli. But its when you bring in the enzyme action too that it starts getting special.

When I'm making 'my' bread, I tend to adjust by feel.
But as I said above, when trying to do things someone else's way, at least for the first time, the thing is *not* to adjust to one's own ideas of consistency.
And in doing that, I follow Lepard's wisdom that flours are much more consistent by weight than volume, and that liquids are more precisely, and consistently, measured by weight also. (No, I don't fancy using a burette or pipette )
And ooh yes, I am very well aware of the vast number of different ways that two flours can differ.

There's nothing very original in the suggestion of baking bread in an enclosed container, either.
Elizabeth David's discussion of Baking Ovens begins with a discussion of "baking under" and goes on to discuss westcountry Cloume (or Clome) ovens - remarkably similar to something I was reading not terribly long ago about baking under a cloche.

Humidity manipulation is a basic bread baker's tool. It does make a heck of a difference.
But some notables (including Dan Lepard) fall into the trap of wanting visible (ie condensing therefore cooling) steam. He actually uses ice cubes - good for visible condensation, but not ideal for humidity, or oven temperature.

One reason gas ovens are often thought 'better' for baking is that their heat is intrinsically quite humid. Gas + oxygen giving CO2 & water.

There's nothing novel about not kneading, either. It was an important part of the famous "Grant" loaf.
But its important to recognise that this is one more of the 'controls' at our disposal. You can't do a Chorleywood process in your food processor, but its very easy to make a dough that is distinctly 'unusual'...

Bread machines. A world unto themselves!
Here as I understand it the hot pot is being used to 'shock' the dough and get a good spring - rather as with a baking stone.
The bread machine has to warm the bread through from proofing temp to baking temperature - again something that one can do in a regular oven, again as something suggested by Mrs David as an unusual but workable process.

There's nothing new...