How much does a spiral mixer's RPMs matter? Deliberations on the Famag high-hydration mixer.....
Hi bread engineers--
I'm considering getting a spiral mixer and am struggling to make sense of the value that the mixer's RPMs has on the bread. Specifically, the Famag IM10 comes in a regular model whose hook/bowl speeds range from 80/8 to 240/24. In contrast there's a high-hydration model whose hook/bowl speeds range from 80/9 to 300/30. My baking is mostly breads in 70-90% hydration range, though they may occasionally venture beyond that. So I've a few questions:
- Why do the high RPMs make a difference? If building dough strength is just a matter of achieving a certain quantity of folds/turns, then it seems the higher RPMs would just speed up the result, but it wouldn't necessarily alter/improve the outcome if in the end the same number of revolutions is performed.
- What is the impact of the higher the higher RPMs? Is it significant (aka, worthwhile)?
On a practical level the two models of mixers are not equally available for purchase as the high hydration model will not be in stock till next year, so these questions in part come down to wondering whether the wait is worthwhile, given the immediate interest of having a mixer sooner than later (given that it's holiday baking season after all!)
Your sage wisdom would be most appreciated, especially if anyone has these models!
Welcome to TFL.
See this guy's review: https://wheatbeat.com/equipment-review-famage-spiral-mixer/
And follow his link to his update.
Thanks for the link, which I've seen before. But there's no mention of the high-hydration model or discussion on speed verses hydration. Even Famag doesn't offer much explanation in their description of this model. So the question still remains unanswered.
These searches brought up some threads that might help:
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/search/node/intensive%20mix
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/search/node/intensive%20mixing
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/search/node/rpm%20speed%20hydration
Thanks, but I still don't see my question answered. Maybe I posted in the wrong forum--this one doesn't seem to have much activity. I should try 'General', which had more responses in the links you sent.
When you research old posts, are you also scrolling through and reading the comments? That's where a lot of good stuff is.
Your post is still appearing at the top of the front page, so it is visible. Changing forums won't make it more visible. And I believe you are in the correct forum for gear.
Not everyone checks in every day. So give it a week.
Another idea is to contact your country's Famag distributor via email or phone and just ask. You don't say where you are located. (This web site draws an international audience.) But in the US it's https://pleasanthillgrain.com/
Good luck, and happy baking.
Ok, thanks idaveindy! I'm in Boston, and I did speak with PHG (over an hour on phone with Darren) but they didn't know the answer either. So that's how I wound up here, hoping someone in the ultimate community of bread geeks would know :)
If PHG doesn't have an answer, chances are no one in the US will. Have you emailed Famag corporate?
I haven't--that seems the option of last resort (if nothing turns up on TFL....) But my question isn't just unique to Famag. It applies to mixer in general--specifically, how/why/when/etc faster RPMs affect high hydration. Unless Famag invented this relationship for marketing!
As Lance implied, I don't thinkyou're catching the overall concept of high Rpm. It's called an "intensive mix". It creates a certain kind of crumb that an equal number of revolutions at lower speed does not.
If your recipe does not call for "intensive mix", then you're barking up the wrong tree.
Here's the other half of the concept: looser (ie, higher hydration) dough puts less strain on the mixer than stiff dough. So if the baker wants to do "intensive mix" on loose dough, he can go to a higher RPM before over-straining the mixer.
This is the main reason KitchenAid mixers break so often when mixing dough: too fast for the stiffness of the dough. Over and over again we read for KA: nothing over speed 2 for dough, and limit the amount of dough. but using much wetter dough lets the machine handle more mass, or a faster speed.
Remember that Famag caters to commercial bakers. hard core home bakers are welcome to buy, too. But the Famag designs are with commercial bakers in mind.
Apparantly, Famag has customer demand for intensive mixing on loose dough, and not wanting their machines to break under the strain, their logic might go like this: You want 300 rpm? Ok, we'll give you 300 rpm, and to be sure you dont break the machine with stiff dough, we are going to label it for wet/loose-dough-only, for anything over 200 rpm.
In a commercial bakery, that 50% boost in speed could make a difference in production. (equates to 1/3rd less time.) Machines are cheaper than people, generally speaking.
--
Update: I think I see your confusion now. Perhaps you got it backwards. You keep asking how high Rpm affects hydration. the truth is the other way around: high hydration allows higher rpm (less strain on machine). Higher rpm means a more intensive mix, and done faster.
so the REAL questions are: 1) does your recipe require or recommend intensive mix? 2) And if it does, will a 1/3rd (or whatever) reduction in mix time be worth it to you as a home baker?
I'm betting the answers are "1. no" or "1. yes. 2. no."
--
Update #2: As I see it: This is not a marketing gimmick by Famag. It's a CYA manuever, saying "don't use anything except high hydration (loose) dough in this machine, or you'll break it, and it will be on you."
Ahh! I certainly wasn't catching the concept of high RPMs--that's why I was asking the question :) Thank you for trying to answer it. This is exactly the technical explanation I was looking for!
Calling it "intensive mix" as you did makes more sense than 'high-hydration' since high-hydration does not necessarily require an intensive mix! That's what was mixing me up, so to speak. Perhaps this implied meaning is understood by those in the industry, but it's not clear to an outsider. It would be much clearer if Famag's documentation labeled it an 'intensive mix' high speed model which is more descriptive and general.
Perhaps I was also confused because I have admittedly only been baking sourdough bread, which despite being high hydration, does not favor intensive mixing. Actually, according to bread guru Jeffrey Hamelman, it's not just sourdough but all breads which suffer from intensive mixing: "When dough is mixed intensively on high speed until the gluten is developed to its maximum, the dough is so highly developed at the end of the mix that it will not support a lengthy bulk fermentation. The dough has become overoxidized, and the fragile carotenoid pigments have been mixed to oblivion. In this case, the bread will come out of the oven sooner, but at the inevitable expense of flavor, texture, and keeping quality. For most breads then, the preferred method is the middle ground: moderate gluten development in the bowl, and folding as needed to increase dough strength."
So that was why I asked the original question on when/where/why high speed/intensive mixing would be beneficial. Coming from the Hamelman school of baking, you can see why I'd be confused at a high speed/intensive mix mixer that did the very thing I was advised not to do!
It sounds like the scenario/person who would want the intensive mixing would be commercial operations which are willing to sacrifice quality for quantity with the faster speeds. As you pointed out yourself, a 50% boost in speed could make a big difference in large production.
I understand that enriched breads like brioche, parker house rolls, and challah, are often produced with intense mixing. But again, this could be a choice of commercial efficiency. Because even these breads Hamelman advises to mix merely at speed 2, far from intensive. He's more concerned about the total revolutions worked on a dough rather than the speed, which he simply runs at 1 (for incorporation) and 2 (for strength development).
Regardless of the bread, Hamelman warns that overworked dough at high speeds will result in "maximum gluten development, and it reaches a state of maturity in the mixer, due to the excess incorporation of oxygen as well as to the dough's high level of physical development. Dough strength is at a peak, and bulk fermentation consequently must be all but eliminated. Carotenoid pigments, which give unbleached flour a creamy color and fragrant aroma, are oxidized out of the dough due to the excessive mixing. The development of full bread flavor, which is always a lengthy process, is not possible."
So after this long dissertation on the question of high speed intensive mixing, it sounds like I don't need the high hydration model after all. Even if I were to go into commercial production, I would still place quality above quantity when it came to such efficiencies like mixer speed!
Famag should higher you to revise their documentation on their 'high hydration' mixers. What you wrote clarified my misunderstanding of what they wrote. Thanks!
Regarding your Update #1: Yes, you make a good point to point out that it's high hydration which allows higher rpm, not vice versa! And yes, you're right on the expected answers to your real questions :) The nominal time reduction is definitely not worth it, especially if it sacrifices quality (see my Hamelman dissertation).
Regarding your update #2: I agree now that I understand what's going on. You're right: This is a CYA by Famag to protect them against naive users like me who could get confused and buy the wrong machine for the wrong purpose ;) Thanks for helping set me straight!
Usually, for all mixers that let you make dough, the speed is 1 or 2. Otherwise, the machine might walk off the counter or table.
Very good point! And I haven't heard of anyone nailing down the feet of their counter mixer--Famag doesn't even offer this ability.
Maybe I'm missing something, but these are my thoughts:
Pro bakers manage very well with just two speeds - usually 100rpm slow and 200rpm fast. I'm not clear what advantage 300rpm would bring.
The normal mixing regime is to develop gluten at lower hydration, eg 68-70% using slow then fast speed and then trickle in bassinage on slow until you reach your desired hydration.
BTW, are you sure you need an IM10 - it's big!
Lance
Exactly right Lance--hence my confusion! From what I've read/understand, the mixing regimen is mostly operated at two speeds as you said, and I haven't heard of 300 speed bread dough mixing or advantages of high speeds. So this high-hydration model has me confused with its feature of high RPMs. Could it be a marketing gimmick?
As to the size, the IM10S is admittedly larger than my present needs (I bake about a dozen loaves a week, in addition to baguettes). But the smallest Famag presently available at PHG are the IM8S and the IM10S. The base dimension of the two are the same, so they have a similar footprint. The IM10S weighs about ten pounds more and costs 13% more than the IM8S. So given that these modest differences will get an extra 2kg of dough capacity (25% more than the IM8S) with the IM10, I reasoned it was worth it for future proofing against expansion. On the other hand, it's only 2kg. And also, the IM8S appears to be in stock unlike the IM10S, so there's that.
The higher RPM to better incorporate the extra water when forming the dough.
I'm not sure I agree. Higher RPMs mean higher intensity mixing, and this can produce a overworked dough that leads to a dense crumb. This is not desirable for most artisan breads where mixing/folding is typically done on low/medium speeds.
Please read the comments in this thread to see additional elaborations on this made by others, or feel free to add elaborations of your own!
Just for the initial incorporation of the water and flour. Once the dough is formed, you mix at your desire slow RPM.
You're telling me that for initial incorporation you turn your mixer to maximum RPMs?! I find that hard to believe. I've never read or heard of anyone doing this. For one thing, it would cause ingredients to fly out of the bowl, amidst other issues!
As a reminder, the question of this initial post concerned mixers rated for high-hydration dough--meaning, they're capable of operating at 300 RPMs. I don't think you'd be running at this speed for ingredient incorporation....
Come on, you are not going to go max right off the bat.
If you have high hydration and doing minimum volume dough, you will need the higher RPM to incorporate. At the volume you are doing, maybe you don't need. But you want an explanation for the higher RPM, then this is the reason.
When you say, "higher RPM", what comparison are you referring to? Speed 1 verses 2? That's not the issue posed by the OP (me). As I said before, the original question is whether a high hydration mixer (max RPM of 300) is worthwhile over a regular mixer (max RPM 240). Practically, I doubt either of those max speeds would be used in most cases, unless intensive mixing is desired (which does not make for good crumb).
Ansel, If you're still curious... here's a bit of history.
The "intensive mix" is associated with the "Chorleywood process" invented in England to quickly and cheaply mass produce bread from the low protein wheat that was most common in the UK at one time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process
It makes what in the US would be Wonderbread, or equivalent.
As you know, both are looked down on by artisan bread makers.
But, why would 80% of the bread made in England still be made with the Chorleywood process? Answer: Because that is what most consumers there want... cheap foamy white bread.
And that's how you stay in business, keep your people employed, and provide a return-on-investment to your owners/stockholders/bond-holders,... supplying customers with what they want.
"Educating the palate" of millions of consumers is much lower in priority.
Technically it was a very clever innovation as it enabled bread to be made extremely cheaply and did not rely on a good proportion of imported wheat as British breadmaking had always previously done, so it was good for costs and food miles.
The downside was and is extremely tasteless bread. There is hardly any dough development as we know it. It also put thousands of local bakeries out of business and the bread is made in large remote plant bakeries - not good for food miles.
But the bread produced is undeniably a good shape and texture for sandwiches and us Brits like our food quick, cheap and tasteless - look at our love for instant coffee, tea bags and ready meals; I think we are probably top of the league in all those categories.
Regarding mixing, a special high speed, high energy mixer is required - originally known as a Tweedy mixer from the company that first made them. It needs to put in at least 11 watt-hours per kg of dough in 5 mins and a spiral mixer cannot do this. I have read of people doing it in a food processor, but would you want to?
It would be interesting to do a taste test between a Warburtons white sliced loaf and Wonder bread. I think the Wonder bread might taste better as it has more fermentation than the CBP bread, but it seems to have a lot more dubious ingredients in it.
Lance
Excellent points--albeit depressing points. Here again we see the power of technology to create extraordinary devices, which are then used for extraordinary destruction--in this case, of culture..... The obliteration of cuisine in America is seen far beyond bread of course, extending to the vile tradition of junk food, fast food, processed food, frozen food, and all the other incarnations of industrialized food production. When I travel to France my heart swoons at the sight of a country still clinging on to sacred culinary traditions, starting with the boulangeries cranking out baguettes throughout the day throughout the city. It's like a living museum that's preserving history--quite a herculean task considering the forces of modernity which have steamrolled culture in other industrialized countries.....
WOW! This is fascinating history!!!!! And scandalous as well, recounting the decline of bread (civilization?) at the hands of industrialization. It's a real travesty to learn how the nutrition, tradition, culture, and gastronomy of bread was obliterated by ruthless efficiency to maximize profits. But perhaps the greater disgust--and responsibility--is directed towards the consumer who is content with mediocrity. And perhaps there in lies the real question: Why are people satisfied with cheap foamy white bread? Is it pure economics? Is it never having tasted superior bread? Or is it there a genuine preference for cheap foamy insipid white bread? If the last is the case, then culture truly has been killed by industrialization, with artisan bread (and its industry) facing generations of slow recovery, or decline, depending on the struggle between the forces of Good and Evil.