Sourdough Pagnotta

Floyd,

I really like this recipe. It tastes great, and it's easy once you get the hang of the shaping. There's a little bit of peril with high hydration dough getting stuck on whatever floured surface you use, but it's not bad. I just used a couple of dough scrapers to transfer them to a peel from the counter. The olive version was more difficult to handle, but again it sure had the flavor, and probably it would be loads easier with just a slight reduction in water and cutting the loaf size a little.

Bill

Zolablue,

This was really delicious bread. I think SD-guy is right that "one long rise from small amount of starter" flavors are excellent, especially with natural leaven and maybe especially with white flour. I still haven't had time to mess with a "one-step" version of my miche recipes.

I think sandwiches would be great with this bread, but I would follow a ciabatta shape. See Sourdough-guy's blog on pagnotta/ciabatta for some shaping instructions. He provides an interesting, somewhat different approach from what we've been doing according to Glezer. The photos of the ciabatta look very good, so maybe it's worth giving a try - so darn much to try.

As far as the olive oil, I think it probably has a couple of effects, and probably you could go without it. It may soften the surface and protect it from drying out. It may also, give the crust a softer, smoother, appearance. The last one was sprayed with oil before proofing. The first two were sprayed with water before proofing.

Also, I had some problems with crust separation on the first two. There are pictures in that link above showing the problem. Any ideas what is the cause? I blogged a question and photos of the problem on Sourdough-guy's Pagnotta/Ciabatta blog. It might be a better place to look at the problem.

Bill 

Hi Zolablue,

I started it at 9:30 AM and finished baking the last loaf, which is the one that came out best, at about 9:15 PM.

Yes, I would think substituting KA bread flour, WW graham, some rye, some first clear flour (seriously, that would be definitely be in the spirit, as that is a component of what is in the sifted flour like Golden Buffalo and would add a little nutty quality to it) would all be good. All I'm really doing is adding a little texture and flavor to get a slightly more rustic texture and look. Nothing more than that to it, so enjoy doing it whatever way suits your fancy. Or, do it as a more purely white bread and replace the Golden Buffalo and the rye with bread or AP flour. I think any of the above will work well.

I don't think it's a problem to retard it overnight. I would just assume the process is at a "standstill" during the refrigeration period. In actuality, it will continue to ferment for a while until it gets cold, and it will take a while to warm up and continue in the morning, but the overall effect on timing ought to be more or less to "put the process on pause" while it is refrigerated. I still haven't gotten a good feel about how to time the folding, to do more the night before or more the next morning. SD-guy said it may not matter a whole lot. JMonkey seemed to point me toward doing some folding the next morning. I think it's just a matter of balancing getting enough tension with not deflating the dough too much. If you do deflate the dough trying to fold it in the morning, you can probably still recover by letting it do an additional bulk rise to get it back to "double the original volume" and with the right texture for shaping and final proof.

The shaping is very much like a boule, but usually a boule is formed "right side up". In this case, the instructions are saying to form the loaf upside down. The reason for this, I think, is that the dough is very wet, so you need to set it on a bed of flour or it just sticks to the counter like glue. If you try to do the usual boule forming process, you will end up with a mess when the bed of flour is pushed into the dough as you try to push the sides under the boule to tension it. Instead leave the "good side (the eventual top of the loaf)" down on the bed of flour and work around the loaf lifting the sides up and over to the center of what will be the bottom of the loaf. Gather them together with the other hand as you work, and then, when you have done this enough times to get good tension and a nice round shape, turn it so the "good side" is up and place the rough gathered in "rough side" down on the bed of flour. Only gather relatively small pinches of the side, or you will deflate it more than tension the sides as you work. Try to get your hands wet and devoid of any stickiness before you start, so that you can release the gathered center when you place it down on the flour. Otherwise, the sticky release can cause the nice round tensioned edges to deform or come apart. Don't take too long, or you'll over handle it and get stuck to it. The weight of the loaf will then do the usual normal trick of sealing the seams underneath. Sorry if this is not clear. I have one somewhat useful picture that might help below.

On crust separation, I think that I wasn't getting the hang of the shaping quite right at first. I also notice that the last loaf, which proofed for 4 hours, not three, and was slashed worked better. SD-guy suggests recovering by poking the loaf with a knife during the bake if it appears to have a giant swell on top indicative of a separtion. Also, I'm suspicious that maybe there is something about spraying them with water, which I did not do with the last one that had no separation, so maybe that has an effect. However, SD-guy's analysis was that it's about shaping and maybe about letting the bulk fermentation run too long before doing the shaping. So, maybe don't let the dough quite rise by double during the bulk fermentation, and then do your magic with handling. I know you'll get that part.

OK, show me how it's done, ZB.

Good luck with it.

Bill

Zolablue,

I look forward to great photography, huge oven spring, super duper handling - no pressure...

Yes, I do know very well that "things come up" and all the baking goes by the wayside. Let me know how it turns out. I think you'll like this. It's your kind of challenge - handling is key and a bit challenging on this one.

On the "clear flour", yes I read what you said. I'll be very curious how it works to use 100% of that flour in the bread.

Meanwhile, I mentioned using it in both this recipe and in any recipes that call for high extraction flour - just as a component though - maybe about 10% of the total flour. This is only based on reading about what it is after your questions. I think including the "first clear flour" as 10% of a miche along with something like 30-50% WW and 3-5% wheat germ could be good. I'm going to order some from KA and see what it's like.

Best of luck pursuing the pagnotta. It was fun for me and has disappeared rapidly, which is the key measure of bread success with my family.

Bill

Eric,

I don't think I've run across an "easy peel". It sounds interesting. I can imagine what it must be like. The dough is wet, and it did worry me once or twice. I transferred the dough to a peel with a piece of parchment paper floured with some corn meal using two dough scrapers. I just put the floured scrapers underneath the loaves on each side and lifted the loaves confidently - no hesitation - right onto the parchment and then into the oven on the parchment paper with no delay. They even stick to parchment paper if you leave them for very long.

As far as cleaning, you got me. I've occasionally washed my couche cloths if they start to smell rancid with a tiny amount of detergent and a lot of water and drip-dry them, but they usually don't have dough stuck to them like that. It sounds like a serious mess. Best of luck recovering.

Bill

Eric,

I'm glad it at least tasted right. I agree that the flavor with the one step long slow rise is very good. I'm still getting some of my hidden freezer stash out once in a while. I'll have to check out the super peel. It sounds like a useful tool. Good luck getting it back in operation after "gumming up the works".

Bill

Hi Susan,

It turns out that my wife and kids all feel this is a great bread. It's so simple, too. I'm glad it works for you and yours.

Bill

Hi Zolablue,

I'm glad you tried it again with better results. I do like this bread, too. I very much like the appearance of your crust and would be interested in any more details you could supply on how you handled the shaping and proofing to get them to look as they do. Mine look a little more like my typical ciabatta breads, with some streaked flour. I've tried spraying them with a little oil, just dusting them and covering with a bowl and so on. Also, how long did your fermentation and final proof run? I know you have a faster starter, but it would still be interesting to know how that went.

I did have a recent version of this bread tasting a little more sour, and I did make it by building a levain from my new Glezer firm starter. However, that recipe started with a very small amount of starter and may have fermented too long. I think that had more to do with the slightly more sour flavor.

In this case the levain is only contributing 12% of the flour, so even letting it get very ripe shouldn't have a very big effect on flavor. Maybe it's just a matter of making the fermentations a little shorter to reduce the sour flavor. Do you have a sense of whether you were on the long or short side on the length of the bulk fermentation and final proof?

Bill

Hi Zolablue,

I would also stress that the one that came out a little sour where I built the recipe starter from a little bit of Glezer firm starter (converted from my 100% hydration starter) was also delicious, just a little more sour than I've had in most of the other recipes I've made.

I've had trouble figuring out when to stop the fermentation and proof on these higher hydration breads. I think it's possible that I've consistently overfermented the ones I've done so far, and maybe the most sour one also was the most overfermented.

Bill

Hi Zolablue,

Thanks for that rundown. My fermentation times for this dough would have been more like 5.5 hours and 3 hours, but you have a faster starter, as we know. So, I think that's reasonable. I still think I may have gone too far on my last batch, so it helps to know you aren't letting them ferment much differently from what I'm doing. I think I'll have to try shortening mine a bit.

So, am I right that once you form the loaves, you do nothing else to the crust? For some reason, when I form the loaves and turn them over, some of the flour from the bed they are sitting on stays on the "top" of the loaves, and it gives them that flour streak look of ciabatta that has been dusted while being formed. However, I like the look of yours, so I'm wondering if you have any idea how to get away from that. Is it simply that the semolina doesn't stick as much? I may have some semolina, and I definitely have some rice flour.

I also think I know what you mean about the shaping. I do something similar. Actually, I think I overdid it recently, and the result was a slightly less open crumb. However, it got rid of the crust separation. One of these days, I'll figure out how to eliminate the crust separation while still having a more open crumb.

On the starter, yes 1:4:4 works well for me on a 12 hour cycle. I've been doing 1:9:10, but it may be pushing it with a 12 hour cycle. Also, I really do mine at a 90% hydration rather than 100%. I just prefer to work with the slightly thicker paste, and it rises for longer, so I can monitor the rise from one time to the next more accurately. I was trying 1:9:10 with the same thought of trying to let it ferment longer at a higher pH, which is at least part of the idea behind the Glezer starter. It certainly brought my 100% hydration starter back to health. It now rises essentially right in line with the Glezer firm starter, in the tests where you race each starter against its converted equivalent of the other starter. However, like Andrew was, I'm still getting about a 3.5x rise out of mine in 8 hours, not the "gold standard" of 4x. I'm hoping one of these days mine will perk up as I saw Andrew's did.

Oh, and the 1:4:4 feeding rises in about 6 hours at room temperature. That's using the same starter as above, that would rise by 3.5x in 8 hours at room temperature if converted to a Glezer firm starter.

Bill

Hi Zolablue,

You certainly can use less starter. I was just matching it to the recipe's feeding ratio as it is stated. Remember when you did the test where you used your CGS starter converted to firm and your Glezer starter converted to 100% hydration, all with the same "flour multiple", and they all rose almost in perfect lock step? When I say to use 192g of your firm starter, that is like using the same amount of flour contribution as 240g of your CGS starter. Both should cause the dough to rise at the exact same rate, whatever that is, since it is the same flour multiple, just as in that experiment you did. You can use large or small amounts of your firm or CGS starter, but if you contribute the same amount of flour from either starter to any given recipe, the dough should rise in the same amount of time.

Also, remember that the percentage of starter has a logarithmic effect on rise time. For example, each doubling of the amount of starter should reduce the rise time by something like 1.5 hours for your starter (with mine it would be more like almost 2 hours per doubling). So, if you were to put in something like 48g of starter (1/4 of 192), you would expect it to take about 3 hours longer to rise by double compared to using 192g. In my case, this recipe should rise in about 4.5 hours if I had 192g of firm starter in it. However, yours would probably rise by double in more like 3 hours, given how much faster it goes.

Bill

Hi Zolablue,

Of course, I'm not stopping you. I'm just trying to give you the logic behind the choice of the amount of firm starter vs. liquid starter. It is based exactly off the experiment you did racing the CGS starter and the Glezer firm starter with the same flour multiples. Using your example above, what I'm saying is that if you can double 6 cups with 75g of firm starter, which has about 47g of flour in it, then you can also double 6 cups of dough with your equally strong CGS starter (because we did the experiment and it was equally strong) if you use 94g of CGS starter, which has 47g of flour in it also (and 47g of water).

I'm also saying that doubling the amount of starter is not a big change, because the culture grows by double in about 1.5 hours plus or minus, so if you double the amount of starter, you just cut the rise time by about a generation time. So, what I'm saying is that 150g of starter is not that different from 75g of starter. 300g of starter is only different from 75g of starter by 2 generation times of the culture, or maybe 3 hours difference in rise time or even less, with your fast starter.

Bill

Zolablue,

I brushed the loaves off with my fingers, but the pastry brush is a much better idea. I think that would be much more effective. I was trying to get both the crust and the crumb in one photo, but I missed the worst of the flour streaks, which were somewhat thick and unappealing in spots. Overall, though, it was much better crust. I baked it more, and sprayed a little water mist on them.

I had a stone and had heated the oven to about 500 before starting, then dropped it to 450F. Do you think that might have helped the bottoms? I could see turning them upside down near the end of the bake, but I guess that could cause problems with the top. I did the final proof on a fairly thick bed of about half semolina, half bread flour. I then transferred them to a peel with parchment paper dusted with corn meal. At that point, I slashed them, then misted them, and placed them in the oven.

I also have some problems with my lame sticking to this somewhat wetter dough. Do you have any tips on how to slash with this higher hydration dough?

As far as your Hamelman starter, it still sounds too sluggish. Both my firm and liquid starter (I've been trying 10:30:50 every 24 hours with the Glezer, and 1:9:10 every 24 hours with the 90% hydration starter - let's see if mine will speed up too, finally) will double a 5x flour multiple, 100% hydration paste, as in your test above, in about 4.5 hours at about 72F. It's still not as fast as your starter, but as with Andrew, it does make good bread but just takes a little longer.

When I feed my Glezer firm starter 10:30:50 it seems to get up to about 3.5x in about 7.5 hours, but it so far doesn't expand more than that. It stops and eventually flattens out and starts to fall around the 12 hour point. However, I'm trying an every 24 hour schedule now. I just started yesterday, so it may be quite a while before I can say much about how whether it does anything. I guess it can be done this way indefinitely, since I get good bread from either of the starters, on the same schedule I've experienced with my starter over the last few years.

Bill

Hi ZB,

I've thought about changing the shape, too. I might be able to do both loaves at once if I shaped them into ovals, which would be nice.

I still don't have a very good feel for exactly what causes the sour flavor to be stronger or less strong, but I doubt it has a lot to do with CGS starter vs. Glezer firm starter. If you maintain the CGS starter with a 1:4:4 routine every 12 hours or so, then it should behave fairly similarly to the firm starter, I would think. At least, in my case, I'm not noticing much difference between my firm and liquid starters. I've been maintaining my firm starter at 10:30:50 every 12-24 hours, and my liquid starter at either 1:9:10 every 24 hours or 1:4:4 every 12 hours. They both are quite healthy and make good bread, have nice aroma and resulting breads have good flavor. So, I'm very happy, except..., I'm still waiting and hoping for the pickup in speed in the Glezer firm starter that you and Andrew have experienced.

As far as the Hamelman starter or other liquid starters, I don't think most people experience the problem you're having. If you stick to a maintenance cycle that's viable, eventually whatever organisms are favored by that cycle will establish themselves and the starter will behave. As there are so many who do 125% hydration starters, I'm sure they work. Hamelman must have one that works well, right? So, I would just say it's a matter of sticking to a particular maintenance schedule and waiting for the starter to settle into a healthy rhythm. I saw in another thread that Susanfnp was feeding 1:5:5 every 12 hours, and her VT sourdough was awesome, and the rise times were right in line with a nice vigorous starter. So, there's another example of a good 100% hydration starter. I think that if you continue with 1:4:4, you would eventually get a starter similar to my CGS starter, which is maintained that way now. However, right now the starter is not really where it should be, obviously. The only way to solve it that I know of is to stick with the maintenance schedule and possibly add a little rye, as susanfnp mentioned she does if hers slows down at all. In fact, I'm thinking about tossing a little rye in my Glezer firm starter to see if that helps at all.

Bill