Last week's post on the bread-list raised more than a few eyebrows (if not
hackles) when I presented results from a well-tested abbreviated dough mix
method. One reader was inclined to suggest "it's impossible," others
hinting "it'll only work with well-hydrated (wet) dough mixes."
The issue: would a scant 2-minutes of dough mixing work... instead of the
near-universally advised 8, 10, or more minutes?
One statement in my original text particularly raised eyebrows:
"....Apparently, "proper gluten development" is not what it's cracked up to
be! In this series of tests the "proper mixing" theory exceeds reality.
Along the way a few window-panes got shattered."
And the challenge came back:
"OK.. now try it with a sandwich bread of around 60% hydration..."
As an athlete well-steeped in testing mind and body, I couldn't resist
another can-it-be-done? Two trials this week testing the mini-mix using low
hydration levels. But before I could start with sandwich bread making,
frankly, I had to search for a sandwich bread recipe... not exactly
top-drawer material in my kitchen.
Bright idea: borrow the owner's manual from a neighbor who has a Zojirushi
V-20 bread machine, page 13. It was so-o-o generic they even named it,
"Basic White Bread." What could be less charming?
Hydration (flour/water ratio) calculated at 64%. Gave it a try, but in
place of the bread machine's 20-minutes of mixing I applied the "mini-mix"
method, a scant 2-minute ingredient mix in my Kenwood mixer. This was
preceded by 30 seconds of gathering the dough into a shaggy mass with a
spatula.
Surprisingly, not a bit of problem blending, rising or baking in an oven.
Highly successful! Taste was decent, considering this was plain-Jane bread
- but twice as good as that sold in the local grocery stores.
Still curious, the next day I searched the King Arthur recipe website and
came up with their version of everyday-generic. KA applied a lofty title:
"Classic Sandwich Bread." I tweaked the recipe by adding a fraction more
flour to arrive at a perfect 60% hydration level. Otherwise, I did it "by
the book."
The same 30-second gathering of ingredients into a shaggy mass, followed by
"the impossible" 2-minute-mix in a Kenwood mixer (at low "1" speed no
less!). After 2-minutes the dough was rough in appearance, but blended.
Followed directions precisely: a 90-minute (about 2.5X) rise, then a
60-minute proof in pan (about 2X rise), baked at 350F for 35 minutes using
a cold-start oven (my choice, not the recipe).
Once again, the scant 2-minute mini-mix method worked like a charm! Very
attractive bread that had taste appeal (in context of sandwich bread). The
above trials clearly suggest that the mini-mix method not only works
superbly well with highly-hydrated Ancienne breads, it works well at the
low end of the hydration scale.
Back to square one: the "proper mixing necessary for gluten development,
etc," those oft-stated 8, 10, or more minutes we've held close to our
breasts for years and years. The above trials continue to suggest that
gluten theory exceeds reality.
If 200-to-400% less mixing produced basically the same bread - or worse,
I'd certainly revert to the well-worn gospel mandate for 8-10 minute mixing
times. But the startling fact: I'm getting - better and bigger - breads
with the abbreviated mix method, French baguettes or Ancienne! Less time.
Better breads.
I came away from the overall sandwich-bread experience with one lingering
thought: We bakers often make the entire baking process too complex, too
convoluted, directives filled with jargon, often tangled with many involved
steps. Magazines and books are filled with examples.
Yet, the Bone-Idle-Lazy club's approach toward "simplicity" remains noteworthy.
It is my humble opinion that we should approach our bread baking from the
perspective of "how little can we do," not "how involved can we make it."
- Ed Okie