Read any book, magazine, or recipe, and the advice about dough mixing is
near-universal: Do it 6 minutes, 8, 10, or more. Some suggest the "window
pane" test for checking "proper mix." Others use the descriptive phrase
"until smooth as a baby's bottom."
The advice spins one unspoken theme: Do it this way or else the world will
end! Equally confusing: the advice inevitably is wrapped around words of
"proper gluten development," "protein structure," etc. The jargon is enough
to keep even the enemy confused.
My baking buddy on the other side of the ocean suggested a different
direction. "Two minutes with a spatula is all you need," he
exclaimed! "Yeah, sure," I thought.
His short-mix advice (he's a Brit who sometimes adds "bone-idle-lazy" to
his colorful text) actually resulted from an unrepairable mixer. When it
broke he was, well... up the proverbial creek without a paddle, dough-hook
in this case. His sole remaining option: mix it by hand (sloppy 85%
hydration Ancienne dough). "2 minutes! That's all you need."
For years my standard machine-mix method was 6-8 minutes at medium-low
speed. I protested, "Every book written says we're supposed to mix
ingredients 6-10 minutes, if not more."
"Two minutes," he said. "Try it."
I did. It works. And works well! I was a bit stunned. Comparable to the
moment a child learns "there really ain't no Santa Claus?"
Subsequent "how short can we go" trials got the spatula blending time down
to a brief few seconds followed by a scant 1-minute machine mix. Not the
greatest of baked bread resulted, but it did work!
Next came a carefully controlled A-B baking trial: 500-gram batches,
cantankerous French baguettes made from a poolish, all-purpose flour, 62%
hydration. One bowl gently blended/folded with a spatula for 30 seconds and
then machine mixed for 2 minutes at slow speed.
The second bowl machine mixed for a full 10 minutes, the last 3 minutes at
a faster speed. It was well-whipped and smooth. Slightly cooler water was
used for the 10-minute batch; ending dough temperatures held to within 1
degree, 80F.
The mini-mix method produced a dough ball with nary a "window pane" in
sight. It was rough in appearance. The thoroughly mixed dough was smooth as
a baby's behind.
Two hours rise followed, each ball divided into 3 baguettes, stretched and
rolled to final shape, a 45-minute proof, then baked side-by-side in
separate trays (6 baguettes). Here's the revelation:
The 10-minute mix won in only one category: a smoother appearing crust (if
smoothness is a criteria). But the crust was softer, had a somewhat rubbery
chew.
The 2-minute mix had noticeably better oven spring (height and width).
Crust was more crispy and baked slightly darker. Crumb interior was more
open, lighter. A clear winner.
The 2-minute mix retained slashes on the crust better than the 10-minute mix.
Crumb flavor difference of mixing methods: none.
The score: about 4-to-1 in favor of the short-&-sweet mixing method. Bigger
and better baguettes.
Next step: will the minimum-mix method work with higher-hydrated Ancienne
dough? (multiple trials ranged from 75% to 90%, plus several types of
flours sampled). The minimum-mix method won every time. Better bread. Less
effort. I was a "bone-idle-lazy" convert.
Appreciably less mixing not only works... it works very well, if not
better! It goes 180-degrees opposite what we read in the books, or have
heard since day-one.
Apparently, "proper gluten development" is not what it's cracked up to be!
In this series of tests (carried out on both sides of the ocean) the
"proper mixing" theory exceeds reality. Along the way a few window-panes
got shattered.
- Ed Okie