Talk:Proofing (baking technique)

Proofing vs. Prooving

I've never heard the term "proving" used for this process. A Google search on the terms "proofing bread" and "proving bread" gives a 20:1 preference to "proofing." All of the baking books I have on the process refer to it as "proofing." I will try to update the article further in the near future.--Nleamy 14:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I've never heard of "proofing", and have always called it "proving". I've just done a google search for "leave the dough to prove", and got 419 resuts, whereas "leave the dough to proof" yielded only three. ElinorD (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I question the 20:1 result. I admit that a search I've just done it over half a year later than the one you mention, and it was done through google.co.uk (which my computer automatically goes to, even if I enter google.com as the address), though it searched all sites, not just sites in the UK. My results are as follows:

• Proofing bread 1,510 results
• Proving bread 656 results.

ElinorD (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am now finding the same search results as you did on the US Google search (though I do remember ten months ago getting a much larger spread...) but I continued to find flip-flopping results on other variants ("dough to proof" vs. "dough to prove," "proof the dough" vs. "prove the dough," etc.). Nonetheless, looking through the results for each, this seems to be a split between British English and American English - not a matter of which term is right. Looking at the Manual of Style it indicates that the manner to deal with regional differences in English dialect is to go with the form used by the first major contributor. Is there a manner which could better indicate the variance in terms which could resolve this problem?

--Nleamy 15:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really mind, as long as the term really exists. I actually doubted it when I first saw the article, because I've never known it to be called anything but "proving". I've added "also called proving" to the article, but frankly I'm not worried about the actual title of the article. ElinorD (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read Peter Reinhart's Whole Grain Breads: New Techniques, Extraordinary Flavor book, which explains that this stage "proves"/displays "proof" that the yeast is still alive since you want the yeast to be alive prior to killing it in the hot oven. You can search the book on Google Books for the word "proof". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.44.131 (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding, proofing is the term used in the U.S. and proving is the term used in the U.K., so you may get different search results depending on your location.Thoughtful baker (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the because the title of the article uses the word "proofing", that for self-consistency, that is the term that should be used throughout the article. I would also entertain moving the article name to "Proving" but I see no need to move the whole article due to a small dialect difference. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 23:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge?

unleavened breads I have rewritten a bunch of the article, but I'm not sure it stands on its own. It should probably be merged into Yeast (baking). As a compromise, I've added a little bit about the Proofing Oven. I attached a Subway restaurant picture, and an external link to a specific proofer. I'd LIKE to use the picture from the external link, but until I can get permission or go take my own picture, the Subway one might have to suffice. --Mdwyer 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel like the page could be made to stand on its own. I think the article would likely be a bit out of place on the yeast page, I think a new page on baking technique or bread baking terms would be useful. Perhaps a new project to start? --Nleamy 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Originally, I would have disagreed with you, but your changes to the article have been GREAT! I had also though about merging with Dough proofer, but then I'm not sure if the Retarder article, then. They are both pretty much stubs. I've gone ahead and added all the banners and edited the equipment block. Have a look at it and tell me what you think. --Mdwyer 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would probably make sense. All three of those are stubs, and will be for all of time unless we get someone who knows a lot of history or other background about proofing equipment. Seeing as I am betting these pages don't get all too much traffic, I guess wait a day or two for any external objections and then I'll switch them around.--Nleamy 01:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm coming late to the discussion, but I think that the suggestion to create a new page on bread baking techniques is a good one. Is there still some interest in this? --Gandalf StormCrow 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still interested in it... I just too lazy to do it myself. Rewriting Quick Bread has been on my Things To Do list for at least a year. If you did the WP:BOLD thing, you'd have my appreciation, at the very least. --Mdwyer 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the article on baking as well as the other more process oriented pages linked in the category [[Category:Cooking techniques], I wonder what the best organization for this information would be. As it stands, I feel like the proofing page we have here is relatively strong, combining some technical information with process details and tools. I feel like the best way to access this information would be by linking it better with the bread page and by vastly expanding the baking page. But there's always room for more...--Nleamy 07:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over the articles on bread and baking, and it seems to me major rewrites would be required to fit the fullness of information on baking techniques into those articles. However, I think that it would be easy to create a new article and creat links in both bread and baking. Let me give some thought to this, and I'll be ready to come back here and offer a proposal in a bit. Does that sound reasonable? --Gandalf StormCrow 16:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So, I began a draft page on what will hopefully eventually be something on baking bread. I took some of the material from baking, some from proofing, lamé, quick bread, etc. If folks would like to edit this, talk about it on the talk page there, etc...--Nleamy 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathan has already put in some good work toward a rewrite. However, my thoughts go in slightly different directions, so I am working on a revision of his work here. We can talk through the differences once the two drafts are closer to completion. --Gandalf StormCrow 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Autolyse

I just read the article, and was stopped cold when Autolyse was applied to fermentation-stage dough and is considered part of proofing. Autolyse is a term (strictly applied) when flour and water are combined early in the dough making process, but before other ingredients are added for fermentation steps, meaning that it's a flour hydration step involved in the initial development of the glutenin and gliadin matrix. I believe Raymond Calvel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Calvel wrote and-or formalized the original documentation of the method, but I haven't yet had a chance to read his book. However, other published bakers seem to say the same thing. I'd make the changes to the article itself to correct this, but I also know that a number of writer-bakers on the Internet use the term (in the strictest sense, incorrectly) interchangeably with "rest" and-or "relaxation", so maybe the term's actual usage is changing and-or there's a lot of confusion regarding what Autolyse is when applied to bread making. 71.154.207.153 (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the commenter below who made the changes to the article about sourdough versus commercial yeast and retarding mentioned seconding my above comments on Autolyse, I will therefore make minor changes to the text of the article to rectify some of the problems I see.

This is the sentence that stopped me cold: "Proofing is divided into a number of different categories including fermentation, proofing, retarding, autolyse." Logistically, I do not see how autolyse can be batched with the other steps included in proofing, as they are all used after yeast has been added, except for autolyse. I've even seen proofing used as a term in the phrase "proofing the yeast"(ISBN-13: 978-0471405467 has this phrase in its text in the context I'm using it) which means checking the viability of yeast, specifically by mixing it with a little warm water and adding a little sugar, waiting (commonly) ten minutes, sometimes twenty, then observing whether a foam develops on top (CO2 production). If no foam, then yeast is probably not viable, and this ties into the term "proving", as in "proving the yeasts' viability". Rising dough also proves the yeasts' viability, as the CO2 production we observe as a swelling and expansion of dough volume at fermentation temperatures provides that proof. Thus, the terms proving and proofing the dough refers to yeast and stages of dough development that require commercial or natural cultures to produce CO2 gas which acts as a leavening.

Autolyse is strictly performed when ONLY flour and water are added together, thus grouping autolyse with proving or proofing is confusing instead of informative with respect to the yeast and-or leavened bread making process. I'm not making only flour and water up logistically, it's fact according to Gisslen in Professional Baking, 5th edition, as well as Reinhart in Bread Baker's Apprentice (though Reinhart later changes his mind in one of his later books according to a Google Book search excerpt that I read recently). I plan to read a copy of The Taste of Bread by Raymond Calvel, the originator of the process, someday when I have the opportunity to do so. It would seem to me that as the originator of the term applied to bread baking, that source becomes authoritative for logistical meaning, and logic is one of the pillars of semantics.

It's debatable whether Autolyse even belongs on a page about "proofing", as "proofing" and "proving" are logistically related to yeast and stages of dough after the yeast has been added, but prior to baking, when other terms such as oven spring tend to be used to describe a volume increase. Oven spring occurs partly because of the expansion of gasses caused by heat, and the production of internal-to-the-dough steam as it changes from liquid to gas due to rising temperatures, which kill most of the yeast and bacilli (lactobacillus sanfrancisco, i.e., sourdough) by 140F degrees. So, once again, there's that little logic conundrum again. A different term is used to describe the threshold point of a fundamentally different process that's been initiated, even though the observation of a volume increase may appear similar, and even though there may be some lag-time overlaps that occur as one process ends and the next gets underway. My ISP changes my IP-->71.128.194.150 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would nominate the Autolyse paragraph to be listed as the first paragraph in the section Dough Processes. This is because it occurs before the addition of the yeast. Gisslen, on page 136 of Professional Baking, 5th edition, says that the pH of the dough begins to decrease as soon as yeast or other culture inoculates the dough, and one of the benefits of an autolyse is that some of the enzymatic processes are favored at the higher range of typical pH values. So, if an autolyse is decided upon for the dough formula's process, then it comes sequentially before the addition of yeast. Thus, it makes more logistical sense for autolyse to be listed first under "Dough Processes". If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and make the change in a day or so. 75.5.100.250 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noted in the Autolyse section that the main purpose, as stated by Calvel, is to shorten kneading time and reduce bleaching/oxidation of dough. My interpretation of his text is that the primary emphasis is on improving the taste of bread, rather than the pliability and structure, though those also benefit from an autolyse. I've made the change to the section, omitting the secondary effects on structure since autolyse is not the primary emphasis of the article. Thoughtful baker (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Retarding not common with commercial yeast?

The article states: "The retarding stage is rarely found in recipes with commercial yeast but often used in sourdough bread recipes to allow the bread to develop its characteristic flavor." While it is true that sourdough is often retarded to develop its characteristic acidity, there are many bakers and recipes that advocate a retarding step for commercial yeast breads, particularly those intending to develop "artisan" character and flavor. The longer fermentation time allows for greater development of flavor through a number of chemical processes. Often the retarding stage is only done with a part of the final dough (a preferment of some sort), but there are many cases where retarding the final dough is also crucial (such as in classic bagel production or in certain kinds of "rustic" style breads). Peter Reinhart (in his "Bread Baker's Apprentice"), Ruth Levy Beranbaum ("The Bread Bible"), and Jeffrey Hamelman ("Bread"), to name just a few of the most important books on bread techniques in the past decade, using retarding steps for a number of their recipes. Reinhart goes so far as to make a slow, cold fermentation into the main point of his book. Retarding may not be commonly practiced in general cookbooks for standard white bread recipes, but it is an essential method used by many professional bakers (whether they use natural or commercial yeast) and is common in "artisan" baking books. I am therefore altering this sentence to reflect this fact. Also, I second the info in the comment above on Autolyse. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The article says, "In sourdough bread-making, cold reduces the activity of the yeast relative to the lactobacilli, which produce flavoring products such as lactic acid and acetic acid." This [study] says the opposite, that wild yeast (C. milleri) grows faster at lower temperatures, and that bacilli (L. sanfranciscensis) grows faster at slightly higher temperatures. One particular sentence from the study's Discussion section says, "Our data are furthermore in agreement with the “baker’s rule” that low temperatures during sourdough fermentations (20 to 26°C) are better for yeast growth than higher temperatures (30)." I'm going to go ahead and correct the sentence. I'll change "reduces" to "increases", and a couple other minor changes and add a citation sometime in the next few hours. 64.149.120.54 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Straight Dough versus Sponge Dough

A sentence currently reads, "Some straight-dough breads will only require a single fermentation-rest period while others, particularly sponge doughs, will need multiple periods." I'm changing that sentence to agree with Oregon State University's Bread Preparation Processes page. I wanted to refer here to the link that was used for the basis of the sentence change. It's a minor one or two word correction. Please be advised I'm not a wikipedian with an account, and am unfamiliar with citation guidelines for such external links without a DOI or other citation indexing number. I will try to cite it, but if the citation fails, feel free to correct the citation to wikipedia's current standards.71.154.206.124 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Beer Wort Primary Fermentation Photo

Since this topic is titled Proofing (baking technique), I'm wondering about the relevance of the photo showing beer wort in its primary fermentation? The brewing process does appear to use the term proofing (referring to testing the viability of the yeast), but it does not seem to fit with the baking technique qualification. Thoughtful baker (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC) It's been a week with no protest, so I'll go ahead and remove the beer fermentation photo.Thoughtful baker (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)