anyone out there bake bread? if so, what types? where do you get your recipes? any secrets?

i have been baking this weekend; and have been making a rustic boule, mostly white flour, but some whole wheat flour. my secret is the la cloche i bought at william-sonoma. it works. really. beautiful crust.

I`ve tried many times and different recipes of bread , so far I have no success. mktye is an expert with bread baking , you should talk to her.

For recipes I go to Carol Fields' Italian Baker or Peter Reinhart's The Bread Baker's Apprentice: Mastering the Art of Extraordinary Bread. Both are excellent sources and have great tips for the beginner.

I HAVE BEEN USING THE BREAD BAKERS APPRENTICE BOOK.

what types of loaves you make, mdt?

A must for anybody baking bread is James Beard's bread book. It is a slight little book with perfect recipes. A classic.

I second these two books.

Also Bread: A Baker's Book of Techniques and Recipes by Jeffrey Hamelman is a great book if you really want to get into baking bread.

I bake bread at least once a week, alternating between S.F.-style sourdough and a "healthy" whole wheat/oat bran/oat/pecan/maple bread. Other favorites I regularly bake are pain a l'ancienne & deli rye, both from Reinhart's The Bread Baker's Apprentice, and a pain de mie using a recipe that came with my pullman pan from King Arthur Flour (which I think is the same as the recipe in Hamelman's book).

Not a yeasted bread, but last night I made some Brown Butter Soda Bread to accompany dinner. I came out really well using the recipe as written and will be something I'll make again.

The one thing that has made the biggest difference in my baking is to use two baking stones in my oven -- place the bread on one and put the other one on a shelf above the bread (as close a possible, but not so close that the bread will rise into it while baking). Doing this increased the oven-spring in nearly all of my breads by 50%. It is similar to your using la cloche but allows for more flexibility in loaf shape.

I'm having equipment frustration today. After only having used my KitchenAid Artisan on soft mixtures, I gave Reinhart's pain a l'ancienne recipe a go last night. 325 watts bogged down pretty early with the mixing paddle, and much to my surprise it stalled hard and jammed barely a minute after I switched to the dough hook as directed. I finished the kneading by hand, and then set about to unjamming the KitchenAid.

Should this have been enough power? Would a Kenwood/DeLonghi/Hamilton-Beach 700 or 800 watt mixer have breezed through this task?

That is a good question. I've kneaded a lot of stiff doughs with my circa-1992 KA KSM90 (300 watts) and have never had it stop. Ever. On the other hand, my sister burned up two KSM90's right after I bought mine, so she switched to a Kenwood (I think) and never had an issue kneading anything again.

As to pain a l'ancienne specifically, I always mix it in a Cuisinart (an ancient DLC-70) to try to keep the dough as cool as possible (if it actually accomplishes that or not, is certainly open to debate ), but I would not consider it a particularly stiff dough or one that should tax a mixer overly much.

And while we're talking about mixers... last Christmas, I received a KA Pro600 (575 watts) and was quite surprised to discover that it does a noticably better job of gluten development than my smaller KA. It has a the newer-design dough hook, but I still wonder if it is not more a function of the bigger bowl.

my kitchenaid artisan does fine work on the reinhardt recipe for pain de campagne. i havent tried the ala ancienne, but if i do try it, iw ill let you know.

KitchenAid users might enjoy reading this post on davidlebovitz.com (click) about touring the KitchenAid factory. And it sounds like you could call KA with your mixing issue to have them diagnose the problem. My mom got so excited reading about the reconditioned appliances, that she ordered a blender for about $50 ($129 originally) and is very happy with it.

Another wonderful source for bread-baking is the section devoted to it in volume 2 of Mastering the Art of French Cooking by Julia Child and Simone Beck.

That is my favorite bread book. I have not baked much bread lately, but I can look through my recipes over the weekend for favorites. The last bread I baked, in fact, was Beard's whole wheat soda bread for St. Patrick's Day. There's a walnut onion bread in that book that's excellent, and a water-proofed bread that I used to try to simulate a type of Armenian bread. (I'm usually the bread baker for my husband's family's Thanksgiving meal.)

i used to follow his recipes all the time, but haven't been baking much bread lately. reading this thread, however, i realize that has got to change. i know you're not supposed to eat it this way, but you can't get home baked bread hot out of the oven and slathered with butter at a restaurant. i have never used a mixer and don't believe you need one.

OK, maybe I know even less than I thought! So, what is the official definition of proofing? I had thought it meant allowing time to pass to allow the yeast to do its thing on the dough before you actually are able to work it out to the shape you want and then thus make-a-the-pizza. But I guess that is wrong?

As for warm places in the house, we only live on a single level and when we redid the kitchen, the cabinets go to the ceiling so I can't stick a bowl up there. I guess just stick it in the laundry room (no AC there) on a warm summer day, eh?

By the way, thanks for the King Arthur's tip. My wife had just thought of that yesterday and so we'll give that a whirl. But why keep it in the freezer? And that vacuum-packed brick of yeast, is it in packets? Or do you just break some off to use every time you need some (and do you keep it stored in the freezer too)?

"Proofing" in baking can mean a few things:

1. Initially dissolving the yeast in liquid and, typically, a bit of sustenance for it (flour and/or sugar) and then allowing it to sit for a bit to see if it gets bubbly, thus getting proof that the yeast is viable.

2. Letting the dough rise, usually covered in a bowl. This is for better texture and/or flavor in the finished bread.

3. Letting the dough rise after forming into the desired shape. Also sometimes referred to as the "final proof".

Unless I am using yeast that I suspect of being abused (being kept in very damp or warm conditions or is past its expiration date) or if I am using fresh yeast (which is not granulated, but comes in a little disc and is only found in the refrigerator section of the store because it is very perishable), I never bother with proofing the yeast as in #1. It is rare to get a bad batch of dry yeast.

As to proofing as defined in #2 and #3, that is all dependent on your recipe and what type of taste and texture you want in your finished product. Most recipes call for a couple of rises, some a half-dozen and a few only one. If you have no proofs, you are probably making some type of flatbread -- crackers, pita, and such -- where the yeast is more responsible for flavor than leavening. Most thin-to-medium-crust pizza recipes do not call for a final proof (but they may need a "rest" for 10-15 minutes during forming so the gluten in the dough can relax and you don't have to fight it to get it rolled/stretched to the desired shape).

You probably don't need to find a warm spot to proof your bread in during the summer or possibly even the winter. Like adding sugar to a dough, warmth will speed up the action of the yeast. This is good if you are in a hurry, but you will generally not end up with as much flavor in your bread once it is baked. Your dough will rise in a cool spot, just not as quickly.

Lastly, I like to keep my yeast in the freezer because it protects it from both heat and humidity. Why? Warmth and moisture encourages granulated yeast to come out of "hibernation", but if they do that before you are ready for them and there is nothing around to eat, they will quickly starve to death. The KA yeast comes in vacuum-packed bricks and are around 2 cups of yeast once you open them -- that is a lot of yeast. I bake weekly and I still only go through about 4 bricks total in a year. I bought some tupperware containers with a tightly-sealing flip top, so it is simple to just scoop out the amount of yeast needed and dump it in the mixing bowl (and KA also sells a handy 2.25 teaspoon measuring spoon that just happens to be the amount of yeast contained in one packet ).

I like to store my yeast in the freezer because I think it controls the exposure to humidity better. I always kept my yeast in the refrigerator until I started using the large bricks, but if you are using individual packets of yeast, it probably makes no difference since they are well sealed.

Good point; I keep a small working quantity in a Fleischmann's jar (with its gasketed lid) and the rest of the bag stays tightly wrapped and Ziplocked.

Yeast that have been wetted and starved to death can be worse than inactive - the yeast organism's digestive enzymes are barely contained when alive, and will autolyze the cell when dead, which can release all sorts of unusual flavors.

That's how they did it in "days of yore."

One of the neater things about using a sourdough starter to capture wild yeast is that, along with the yeast, you also get local bacteria in the mix (good bacteria).

When I say "local" I mean that the sorts of airborne bacteria that would be attracted to a sourdough starter in, say, Silver Spring, are different species from the sorts of airborne bacteria you'd find in, say, San Francisco (which produces a well-known San Francisco sourdough thanks to the efforts of Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis).

This means that any bread made from wild yeast will have a distinct and utterly unique regional flavor.

Not sure if the Michaels harvest their own or not.

Maybe this should more properly go in the bread thread.

Wild yeasts are sort of a "science fair" experiment, I suppose, for us amateurs. One evening at RTS I asked Michael Landrum for advice on making natural yeast breads, and he gave me much enthusiastic encouragement and basic instructions, which I supplemented with some Internet research. I had a good starter going for a few days, when it inexplicably died. Subsequently, he gave me some more suggestions, which I am going to try as soon as I have a few weeks I can devote to the task. Oh, Michael told me that he just harvests the yeasts that are naturally present in the yeast-rich environment of his kitchen. I'll be happy to come even remotely close to the flavors he develops!

Absolutely fascinating article on bread baking without kneading in the NYT Food section today. Gotta give this a try this weekend.

"The loaf is incredible, a fine-bakery quality, European-style boule that is produced more easily than by any other technique I've used, and will blow your mind."

Suzanne Dunaway is a big proponent of a similar method in her book: "No Need to Knead". It is her recipe that I use for our everyday focaccia and pizza crust.

I've read about the no-kneading approach before, but the most interesting thing to me about this article is the method of cooking the bread in a covered pot for part of the time, which solves the biggest problem/PITA in home bread baking: trying to get a good crust by various methods of introducing steam.

I guess the only next step is optimizing this method for different loaf shapes.

What about recipe modifications? For example, using different types of flours, adding cheese/seeds/whole grains, etc.

At any rate, it's a fascinating concept and I'm going to put it to the test next week. I'll be adding it to the Thanksgiving menu if it works out.

It should not be that hard to add/modify types of flour into the recipe. As a starting point take your normal mixed/alternate flour recipe and make sure that the hydration level is at least 42%. Based on how things turn out you can adjust as necessary. I think a batch will be mixed up tonight!

As for adding other items like cheese/seeds/etc., I wonder if most would sink to the bottom while it sat for such a long period of time since the dough is more lax. There is the possibility of folding it in after some long period of time and then letting it rise again.

And because I am curious, what other types of flour are you thinking about?

Ditto, the steam production method definitely seems to be the most interesting thing here. The article doesn't mention specifics, but it would seem that his method lets the 12-18hr rise happen at room temperature, which is different from what I had read in "Bread Baker's Apprentice", where Peter Reinhart waxes poetic about the joys of a long, slow, cold fermentation. I guess the room temperature approach would help the "gluten molecules [be] more mobile in a high proportion of water"? At any rate, definitely worth more investigation, especially since I still haven't tried the long/slow/cold approach from that book even though I bought it months ago.

There is a recipe link on the left side of the page that gives the exact info. It states to let it rise at around 70F.

I was mostly thinking of cracked whole wheat. I love the flavour and texture of it.

Also, I'd want to add rosemary and garlic to the dough (maybe not with whole wheat flour....just regular). I do that with my pizza dough and it comes out delicious.

It does specify room temperature for that whole time. This is interesting, as it runs contrary to why I thought cold fermentation was important when doing that long of a rise: because dough can be 'overproofed' by letting it rise too much/too long (the cold slows the rising). Seems that either 'overproofing' is BS or I don't understand it right.

For more on various steam methods, there is also a lot of dicussion on the rec.food.sourdough newsgroup. Many of those bakers use covered pots and such. But the really avid ones retrofit their home ovens with steam (usually using metal tubing and a modified pressure cooker).

Not sure if this link will work, but here is a discussion, also from rec.food.sourdough, that covers just about all the methods of producing steam for the home baker (the 17th post down by "williamwaller" talks about using a covered pot).

Personally, I've gotten a bit spoiled about this issue since we've moved to the new house. Although tiny, the oven is a convection oven. However, there is something amiss with the ventilation in the non-convection mode and all of the moisture seems to be trapped in the oven (I still forget and end up with a face full of steam on occasion). So, for breads, I've been running it non-convection for the first 20 minutes, and then convection for the rest of the time. Now I'm not suggesting folks go plug up the venting of their ovens, but I am happy to take advantage of my current situation.

I don't think overproofing is complete BS. When you overproof regularly kneaded dough the result lacks the structure to hold the bread into the form that is desired.

In this case there is no kneading and the gluten has not had a chance to form yet, which is what is happening during the long warm rise. Then you have to consider that the amount of yeast used in this new technique is about 1/6th of a normal recipe which produces a slower and less vigourous rise in the dough, therefore no overproofing. If you stuck this no-knead dough in the fridge with the small amount of yeast it would take a very long time to get the initial rise out of the dough. IIRC most cold fermentation is done for the second (or later) rise.

Ah, I forgot the crucial fact that so little yeast is used in this recipe.

With that small amount of yeast in that volume of flour, the yeast should not be able to eat itself out of house and home in that length of time at that temperature.

I think you get a different flavor profile using a cold rise versus a warm rise, even when using commercial yeast (as opposed to wild yeast/sourdough). But this subject is also open to a lot of debate. However, in my opinion, the Pain a l'Ancienne in Reinhart's "Bread Baker's Apprentice" seems to definitively prove what a difference fiddling with the proofing temperatures can have on a finished bread.

(That crafty mdt! Distracting me with emails while I am replying... )

But with a lot of breads, especially straight-method (non-sponge, biga, starter, whatever) doughs, if you let them go too long and they deflate on the way to the oven, you can often (but not always!) re-knead for a bit, reshape the loaves, let them rise again and then bake.

Overproofing and gluten degradation become much more of an issue with sourdough breads. Because the doughs tend to get more acidic during proofing (due to the bacterial, not yeast, activity), the pH level can get to the point where it greatly affects the gluten structure. An over-proofed sourdough loaf is not a pretty thing and there is no way to save it.

I made this bread immediately. Total labor: 3 minutes, 10 minutes if you include clean up. It really is great bread, complex flavor and a truly crispy/delicate crust. Mixed it Wednesday, baked it yesterday, ate 1/2 last night, eating 1/2 tonight. Other than scheduling around the 12-18 hour sitting time and 2 hour final rise it was a piece of cake. I used an oval covered clay roaster that somebody gave me eons ago (it has finally found it's function in life, i was a little worried that it would crack when I dropped the room temp dough into the 475 degree clay-- but no worries) so I got a nice oval loaf. I think that the overproofing is avoided because of the relatively small amount of yeast: 1/4 tspn for 3 cups of flour and the lack of easy food source for the yeast (no sugar, no oil). Basically the yeast has to live off flour alone so its growth is not as quick. These are the classic ingredients of french bread: flour, water and yeast and the results are truly astonishing considering how easy it was to make.

Tough to make more complex breads because of the distribution issues--this is not a kneaded bread! Obviously different flours, nut flours, maybe finely grated hard cheese could be used as long as everything is thouroughly blended before the water is added.

The low initial yeast amount causes the yeast to grow in a more controlled manner. The lack of sugar, while an easier food source, does not make a huge difference. Make a plain white bread recipe and you will see how a larger amount of yeast will literally 'explode' the dough. Oil as far as I know does not contribute as a food source to yeast.

Another point is that the author mentions that his hydration level is around 42% he means based off of total weight of all ingredients, not with the flour as 100%. This calls for 3 cups of flour (15 oz.) and 1 5/8 cups of water (13 oz. water), which is about 46% hydration. I have a batch going (almost ready to fold and shape and rise) and it looks pretty good.

If one is not particularly worried about exact loaf shape, do you think this bread would do OK baked free-form on a stone?

It is pretty loose dough but should work putting it directly on a stone. You will have to flip it onto the stone unless you have it rise on a peel. If you do flip, be careful.

Or let your dough rise on a piece of parchment paper and move the loaf (still on the parchment) to the stone with a peel or an inverted baking sheet (which takes a bit more dexterity). About halfway through baking you should be able to remove the parchment if you'd like, but I've not found that it makes much difference in the finished bread.

Can't flip it onto a peel? Or will the double agitation cause it to snuffleuphagus all over the place?

You could do that too.

If you use bran flakes make sure not to use too much as the extra gets a bit burnt in the pots.

And another note, the recipe said to use a 6-8 quart pot for the 3 cup of flour recipe. My Le Crueset are only 3.5-4qt so I split the dough in half. In looking at them when I took the lids off there would have been no problem putting the full batch in a smaller pot.

The mini loaf and a closeup of the crust.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

To continue with the bread porn...

The combination of a semi-malfunctioning oven, the drop in ambient humidity and good baking karma have lead to some really pretty loaves lately. Here are some pics of the sourdough I made on Thursday. I was really happy with the ears. I would have liked the crumb to be a bit more open, but I got distracted that afternoon and did not shape the loaves until later than planned, so I had to bake them a bit sooner than I would have liked (I was tired and wanted to go to bed! ).

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
Close up of the "ears":
Click to view attachment

My silly question is, when the recipe calls for instant yeast, does that mean regular granulated yeast in a foil packet (as opposed to a yeast cake)? I figured that, since the point is a slow rise, instant doesn't mean fast-rising.

Not a silly question at all! As I understand it, instant yeast is in smaller granules than regular yeast and it is meant to be mixed with the flour and other dry ingredients first and then the liquid added later. In other words, you skip the traditional "proofing" of the yeast.

Instant yeast is also "designed" to be more tolerant of higher temperature liquids. Since the yeast is mixed with the flour which will absorb a good deal of heat, use hot-from-the-tap water. If you add too cool of water (the traditional lukewarm), it will not active it as well.

Another issue to be aware of with instant yeast is that, if traditionally proofed (such as in a cup of water with a teaspoon or so of sugar or flour), it can eat up its food source very quickly (under 10 minutes) and starve to death.

Instant yeast is sometimes called "fast-rising" because it gets activated more quickly than traditional granulated yeast. The actual metobolic cycle of the yeast is not really any faster (as far as I know), but it just gets to work eating and producing gas more quickly.

Ooops, forgot to add: If you want to use regular granulated yeast instead of instant, you can do so. For best results, you will need to dissolve it in a some of the liquid (with a bit of the flour added) first, let it sit for 10 minutes or so and then add the rest of the dry ingredients and liquids.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Instant made me think fast-rising, but that didn't seem to go with the super slow process. This makes more sense. Thanks for the information. I had noticed recipes not calling for proofing but hadn't pieced that together.

After seeing fast-rising yeast everywhere for a while, I've been having trouble finding it lately. I'd try 3 or 4 stores a time before I'd find any, and the supply would be almost gone. If anyone else is having this problem (maybe it's just me ), I hit the mother lode at the Shoppers Food at Potomac Yards. I've got enough to last me quite a while now.

Here is a picture of the crumb.
Click to view attachment

The bread is very moist, but that will be easy to fix in the next batch. BTW I used a 50/50 mix of bread and whole wheat flours.

I used the regular granulated Active Dry Yeast and did not proof it and all turned out well.

That looks great mdt!

And I knew we'd talked yeast before... the discussion starts approximately here (which includes a link to my favorite mail-order source for yeast).

Speaking of ears, this loaf has implants.

[voodoo if you delete me]

Speaking of ways to get steam into your oven... I just ran across this.

From Reinhart, BBA, p. 32: "There are 25% more living yeast cells per teaspoon than in an equal amount of active dry yeast, and there are 3 times (300%) more living cells than in an equal amount of fresh compressed yeast" and "The reasons I [Reinhart] prefer instant yeast are simple: It's more concentrated than fresh or active dry yeast, it has a longer shelf life, and it can be added to the flour [directly] instead of hydrating first."