In an effort to have a firmer dough at bake time, I tried the "no
knead" technique. I still ended up with gloopy dough that would not
hold its shape after forming into boules. There is some oven spring,
but bread is still kinda flat and dense.

I have been using a sponge method with a total hydration of 60%. 28%
of the flour and 55% of the water go into the sponge upfront. The
sponge ferments overnight (~14 hrs), then the rest is added, mixed and
fermented about 4 hours (with real good "doubling"). Boules are shaped
and let rise another hour or two, then slashed and baked.

The only thing I know to try now is reduce the hydration to say, 55%.

Am I on the right track?

Thanks,

Todd K.

On 19 Apr 2006 08:02:51 -0700, Todd K. > wrote:
>
> In an effort to have a firmer dough at bake time, I tried the "no
> knead" technique. I still ended up with gloopy dough that would not
> hold its shape after forming into boules. There is some oven spring,
> but bread is still kinda flat and dense.
>
> I have been using a sponge method with a total hydration of 60%. 28%
> of the flour and 55% of the water go into the sponge upfront. The
> sponge ferments overnight (~14 hrs), then the rest is added, mixed and
> fermented about 4 hours (with real good "doubling"). Boules are shaped
> and let rise another hour or two, then slashed and baked.
>
> The only thing I know to try now is reduce the hydration to say, 55%.
>
> Am I on the right track?


Hmmm... I can imagine a post in an art related newsgroup. "I made a
painting of my aunt Alice. I used good paint, a good brush and canvas.
But... it doesn't look anything like her. Am I on the right track?"

There are a number of no-knead techniques. I have used, and expoused, a
stretch and fold technique. When you stretch and fold, you do it often
enough that the dough is developed. You can tell when this happens by
feel. Some doughs need more stretch and folds, others less. You have to go
by feel. But, that's not all there is to it.

With 60% total hydration, the dough should be fairly firm. However, despite
this being rec.food.sourdough, I don't know from your post that your sponge
is a sourdough sponge. I'll assume it is.

The numbers you provide about the sponge makes me think it is too liquid.
And with a liquid starter, things happen more quickly than with a dryer
starter. As a result, in 14 hours, your starter could be in pretty bad
shape. Bad enough shape to quickly start what DIck calls "dough rot". When
a starter gets hungry enough, the starter can produce enzymes which can
breakdown protein. This causes problems with regards to the consistency of
the dough.

When you let the dough rise too long in the final rise, you can get a spread
out dough. When the dough reaches its peak, you need to bake it. If it
sits too long, then you get into troubles.

In short, a number of things could be happening here, and I am afraid your
note doesn't give me enough information to make strong suggestions.

Mike

Thanks for all the replies. Based on what I've read, my sponge may be
overdone after 14 hours at 86% hydration. I am going to try cutting
the water in half in the sponge (58% hydration) and go from there.

Todd K.

Thanks for all the replies. Based on what I've read, my sponge may be
overdone after 14 hours at 86% hydration. I am going to try cutting
the water in half in the sponge (58% hydration) and go from there.

Todd K.

Todd K. wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies. Based on what I've read, my sponge may be
> overdone after 14 hours at 86% hydration. I am going to try cutting
> the water in half in the sponge (58% hydration) and go from there.
>
> Todd K.

HI Todd,

Before doing that why not try feeding more? I did a few bakes using 65%
starter throughout the building of the starter and then a few bakes
with 100 % for one or a two stages. I found that I got a better flavour
by adding the 100% stage and because of the way that I'm feeding it
makes sense to have that as the last stage. I suppose you might get
away with calling that a sponge, I don't know but at 20-25% of the
total dough I think that's stretching it.

Just my two penneth.

Hutch, sorry mate, I'm not ignoring you, but I don't know what to say
really other than what I've said. This is what I've found the biggest
improvements with since I started baking with a starter in years. I'm
not saying you're wrong. It's just general advice to someone I don't
know.

Cheers

TG

Are we supposed to appologize to someone before or after we post? Can't
you people just communicate what you need to say? Do you need to be so
scientific? For crying out LOUD? Come ON!!!! You're not serious? Just
tell us how YOU bake IT!!!!

On 4/19/06, Mary > wrote:
>
> Are we supposed to appologize to someone before or after we post? Can't
> you people just communicate what you need to say? Do you need to be so
> scientific? For crying out LOUD? Come ON!!!! You're not serious? Just
> tell us how YOU bake IT!!!!


While baking IS important, several bread gurus have said that baking only
contributes about 10% of the overall quality of the bread. Yes, you can
ruin a lot of good work with careless baking, but many of the things people
obsess over aren't really that important.... stones, cold starts, steam and
on and on and on.

Actually, this thread seems to be very clear, with people communicating
exactly what they intended to, though a bit more information from the
original poster about what he was doing might have helped...

Mike

Mary wrote:
> Are we supposed to appologize to someone before or after we post? Can't
> you people just communicate what you need to say? Do you need to be so
> scientific? For crying out LOUD? Come ON!!!! You're not serious? Just
> tell us how YOU bake IT!!!!

Go back to helping folks use PAM and crockpots. <g>

"Todd K." > wrote in message
ups.com...
> In an effort to have a firmer dough at bake time, I tried the "no
> knead" technique. I still ended up with gloopy dough that would not
> hold its shape after forming into boules. There is some oven spring,
> but bread is still kinda flat and dense.
>


You know, I had been pretty much doing the "no-knead" thing for all my
bread for quite a few months now, and I had been pretty happy with my
loaves. The last two bakes I had felt I had been missing something that I
originally wanted to get from my bread baking, the actual interaction with
the dough, kneading it on my counter for awhile. So I let myself go and
kneaded my sourdough, same recipe usual hydration wet and sticky and all, no
"autoyse step" though, for a good half hour after which it was pretty well
firmed up. I really enjoyed it and put on some music.

Anyways, after doing this I let my dough bulk proof for the usual time, only
did one stretch and fold in the middle (more like deflating and tucking
under the edges while still in the bowl) and I have been very happily
surprised with the results. Most people it seems try the no "knead
technique" after getting good with kneaded dough, I pretty much started out
with the technique, having read so much about it from the start of my bread
baking. The method certainly works, does a good job and the loaves raise
well, lots of different sized holes too, some larger than desired (due to
all the stretch an folds). Firmness at baketime seems more dependant on the
number of stretch and folds figured into the bulk rise. But the dough I
kneaded for so long got much smoother and rose even higher, with much more
uniform holes. Hey if I enjoy it, from what I understand you really cant
over knead by hand.

hutchndi

Todd K. wrote:
> In an effort to have a firmer dough at bake time, I tried the "no
> knead" technique. I still ended up with gloopy dough that would not
> hold its shape after forming into boules. .....> Thanks,
>
> Todd K.

HI Todd,

I had exactly that problem when I switched to continuous propagation of
my starter. I thought I was doing exactly what I'd been doing for
years, but I quickly realised after a few bakes that my starter was
slowly starving to death. So I did some reading and some experiments
and based on what I'd read from Samartha and Dicky I started feeding my
starter in the same way that they suggested feeding the final dough. I
give the new dough a 20-25% inoculation of starter every twelve hours.
So you really only knead a teaspoon or two of starter to end up with
two or three large loaves in 36 hours. It makes the best bread I've
ever made. I don't use a sponge anymore. Maybe Samartha's DM3 method
gives better flavour I don't know, it sounds a bit too involved for me
or what Dicky does is better I don't know. I have to say I just skim
over when I see floz (Sorry Dicky). Anyway. The short of it. Feed your
starter more, a lot more.

I don't think it's anything to do with your kneading.

TG

"TG" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Todd K. wrote:
>> In an effort to have a firmer dough at bake time, I tried the "no
>> knead" technique. I still ended up with gloopy dough that would not
>> hold its shape after forming into boules. .....> Thanks,
>>
>> Todd K.
>
> HI Todd,
>
> I had exactly that problem when I switched to continuous propagation of
> my starter. I thought I was doing exactly what I'd been doing for
> years, but I quickly realised after a few bakes that my starter was
> slowly starving to death. So I did some reading and some experiments
> and based on what I'd read from Samartha and Dicky I started feeding my
> starter in the same way that they suggested feeding the final dough. I
> give the new dough a 20-25% inoculation of starter every twelve hours.
> So you really only knead a teaspoon or two of starter to end up with
> two or three large loaves in 36 hours. It makes the best bread I've
> ever made. I don't use a sponge anymore. Maybe Samartha's DM3 method
> gives better flavour I don't know, it sounds a bit too involved for me
> or what Dicky does is better I don't know. I have to say I just skim
> over when I see floz (Sorry Dicky). Anyway. The short of it. Feed your
> starter more, a lot more.
>
> I don't think it's anything to do with your kneading.
>
> TG
>

TG do you really think Todd's problem is this deep? I let my starter develop
for 16 -18 hours (using about a cup of it in a 2 loaf recipe) and still I
can get my boules firm enough to hold their shape and rise well above the
density he describes, even using the no knead technique.

hutchndi

On 4/19/06, hutchndi > wrote:

> TG do you really think Todd's problem is this deep? I let my starter
> develop
> for 16 -18 hours (using about a cup of it in a 2 loaf recipe) and still I
> can get my boules firm enough to hold their shape and rise well above the
> density he describes, even using the no knead technique.


Sadly, the original poster didn't give a lot of details. So, I'll fall back
on my time honored mantra, "It all depends."

If the starter is healthy, which is actually pretty rare among amateur
bakers, the long rise might not be a problem.

However, if you consistently underfeed a starter the critters that can make
proteolytic enzyme (I am *SO* sure I mispelled that) will take over the
culture. The pretolytic enzyme allows the critters to break down protein.
Once a culture learns that trick, it is finicky at best and generally
unstable. At that point, you are better off creating a fresh starter.

I've had that happen. The starter developes an acetone like smell.... while
you can try to rehabilitate the starter, the next time you skip a feeding
the critters with the proteolytic enzymes will take over again.

That said, if his starter is weak, or has the nasty critters in it, a 16 to
18 hour rise at high hydration could very well cause some very real
problems.

A thicker starter, a healthier starter, and/or a shorter rise could help in
that case.

However, it could also be batch to batch variations in flour, the O.P.
getting lazy about loafing, the O.P. letting the final rise go on too long
or a dozen other things.

Mike