May 17, 2021 - 3:44am
Mulino Marino flours question
Hello-
I am a fan of Mulino Marino flours - I have so far tried 00, Pandisempre and Semola, all brilliant.
A question I am trying to work out the answer for...which of their flour would be the closest to a UK 'Strong white' flour called for in many recipes?
I see from their website that the 00 flour has a protein content of 14 % which would make it similar to Marriage's, if I am not mistaken. MM 00 also says 'for medium to long rises' on the label provided.
The Buratto (which is not a 'white white' flour) has a protein content of 15 % so would this work in place of a strong white, better than the 00?
When I say 'work' I mean in sourdough bread, as a base that one can mix with other flours.
Thank you all in advance
Share
Strong White flour in the UK is generally anything that has a protein content of 12% or more and would be roughly equivalent to Italian Type 0 flour in terms of extraction.
Mulino Marino's Burrata flour is Type 2, so very brown, and could be referred to as high extraction flour. Note that Type 2 is the last grading before wholemeal.
Their Manitoba flour is type 0 and very suitable for bread, especially sourdough since it is very strong indeed, far more so than any white UK grown flour.
Michael,
I was reading today about Mulino Marino's flours and found this statement that I don't understand:
The Gluten varies for each flour, from high Manitoba to mid-range, and this is fully documented the nutritional breakdown on the main Mulino Marino website. The gluten percentage is actually written as an overall protein percentage, whereas UK flour is listed as usable gluten, so it is generally about 1 – 1.5% higher that what you would find on the side of a bag of UK flour.
Source: https://www.sourdough.co.uk/an-over-view-of-mulino-marino-flours/
Would you please explain this difference, maybe in different words? I don't get it.
one of the many things I don't fully understand and brought me here in the first place.
I'd appreciate any input as I love their flours. I found this on their website:
https://www.mulinomarino.it/images/info_prodotti.pdf
it gives a full list of their flours and all percentages of protein and other things. This suggests to me that the 00 is stronger than the 0 flour and therefore better for sourdough. Manitoba might even be too strong.
Any thoughts?
Data extracted from the spec sheets available on Bakery Bits.
The W value indicates flour strength. Indeed, their BIO type 00 is stronger than their BIO type 0, but more refined.
During milling, protein content decreases the more refined the flour becomes. To compensate they have intentionally selected grain with a higher protein content when producing their 00.
Yeah I read that before, but disregarded. I don't know what she means... Reading it, it doesn't really make sense either. You'll have to ask her for clarification. I think she's got the wrong end of the stick...
Any nutritional labelling that states ‘protein’ is just that, protein. There are differences in standards and how that figure is reported but of the methods available, the Kjeldahl protein assay is most commonly employed.
Michael, thank you for providing W numbers for Mulino Marino's wheat flours. That is basically the only thing one needs to know when choosing flour and according to W their flours are very decent, strong in every category and would support up to 20-25% addition of non-gluten flours easily without any difference in crumb structure.
R. Calvel reported that normal breadmaking flours in France have W equal or above 140. Type 45 and type 55 with W equal or superior to 200 being French High Strength flours.
Canadian Wheat flour is very strong, as in Manitoba (outside Canada) or, inside Canada, RobinHood Best For Bread flour having W equal or superior to 400 (13-14%protein).
Vanessa was probably addressing the issue of two nutritional labels for each Molino Marino's flour. They differ in protein numbers so markedly that I have never seen anything similar before;
Their PDF https://www.mulinomarino.it/images/info_prodotti.pdf shows the folowing nutritional labels:
Burrato:9% protein on one label and 15% on another
Type 0: 11% and 12.5%
Type 00: 11.5 and 14% protein
Manitoba: 12.9% and 16% protein
Yet their flours without gluten, for example, rye flour, show two labels with very similar or identical values for protein and other components of flour
Mulino Marino segale integrale: 12.2% and 12%
That is most unlikely. I don't think this document existed in this form when Vanessa wrote that piece, the date stamp is 1st March this year. Importantly, the labels entitled "Nutrition Facts" are specific to the North American market and I suspect these are a recent addition to the catalogue, perhaps as Mulino Marino enter that market...
EU nutritional labelling would be accepted in the UK, and there would be no requirement to re-test. The disparity in values is indeed interesting. But that may be the answer, different samples, tested differently. It's difficult to be sure, the numbers alone suggest a different dataset rather than a simple conversion.
Mariana so you happen to know the W value for Anita's Organic All Purpose?
Benny
Benny, they don't report its W, only its (very high) falling number and say that it is from Hard Red Spring Wheat grown in Saskachewan or BC with huge protein content (12-15%). Even RobinHood Best for Bread milled from the same wheat is only about 11.5-12.5% protein and its W is already 414, Anita's is even stronger. That is why they call it 'superior' and 'used by professional bakers'. I am trying to avoid too strong flours, always in search of something softer, with less protein and lower W, more suitable for European bread formulas.
https://www.anitasorganic.com/products-anitas/unbleached-all-purpose-white-flour-test
You baked with both RobinHood APF ( or Bread flour) and with Anita's APF, what are your impressions? How are they different when used in the same bread?
I only buy whole grain sprouted wheat and sprouted spelt flours from Anita's and their whole grain rye, never tested their APF, because it is too white to my taste. I prefer RobinHood Homestyle White Best for Bread with its higher ash equal to T55 flour.
But if I had to bake with Anita's APF, I would determine its gluten content and its gluten strength directly (by washing gluten) and by doing test bakes, by comparing it to the same gluten numbers and test bakes with my gold standard: RobinHood best for bread flour.
I’ve long used Robin Hood Best for Bread flour but had heard good things about Anita’s AP. I did a flour stress test and found that compared with Robin Hood Bread flour the Anitas was more extensible, less elastic and absorbed less water. I guess as that page you linked to says, the protein may vary depending on the season the wheat was grown. The two bags I’ve used so far would suggest that the protein is lower than the Robin Hood Bread flour. I’m surprised that their website states that it can be 12-15% I would have guessed it was around 11.5% and the Robin Hood around 13% based on the dough handling. I’ve had to reduce my hydration when using Anita’s compared with when I was using Robin Hood.
Thank you Mariana.
Benny
Benny, organic flours are like that, all of them. You never know what you got until you bake with them.
If Anita's APF protein content varies 25%, then its demand for water would vary a lot as well. If its wheat was grown on hugely different soils and in different climates, as in BC vs Prairies, then its W and P/L would vary wildly as well.
It might be fun to be constantly surprised by differences between different batches of flour, and a good school of life for the baker, but it's a headache if you bake in a bread machine, for example, or panned breads in general. All because one bag of Anita's APF doesn't represent all of them.
That said, I can only praise their flours. They are excellent. Everything that I ever bought from that mill has always been very good with perfect delivery times and top notch quality.
RobinHood flour quality is very stable, because they use four flour improvers to guarantee its stable quality: amylase, xanalase, azodicarbonamide and l-cysteine in each and every bag of flour, their quantities dynamically adjusted to always give the same W, P/L, falling number and water absorption. In that sense it's a standard to compare to.
Also, RobinHood Best for Bread has higher ash than Anita's APF, that higher ash (more fiber) contributes to its higher absorption. That is also why 65% hydration is normal for Anita's APF and 73% hydration - for RobinHood Bread flour as shown in their recipes for white sandwich bread on their websites.
Thank you Mariana and Michael. You have answered my question :-) I asked the same thing on Bakery Bits and they also recommended the 00 Soffiata as a base (strong white) for mixing with other flours.