Raymond Calvel, in his much consulted book "The Taste of Bread", is very precise in
pointing out that "the quality of a flour can only be determined by test baking."
However, he does go on to say that "the baking quality of a flour is related to the quality
and quantity of proteins and the gluten that derives from them." Calvel was perhaps the
first to go beyond the simple protein percentage (quantity) and start to look at how that
protein is composed (quality) and thus its affect on the finished dough.

This protein "quality", in the sense that it matters to the baker, can be determined
physiologically by the relative ratios of gliadin and glutinen found in a particular wheat
flour. Gliadin and glutinen are the protein sub-units found almost exclusively in wheat
flour and, through mixing, develop to become the gluten network that allows bread dough
to become cohesive and trap the gas produced by fermentation allowing the dough to rise.
Gliandin, owing to its relatively small size, contributes extensibility while glutinen
contributes elasticity. A good bread dough needs to exhibit the proper balance of these
two traits. Too much or too little of one or the other makes the dough difficult to work
with and will yield in unsatisfactory results.

In practical terms, determining the ratio of gliadin and glutinen is not feasible for the
miller attempting to mill a high quality flour, nor for the baker who wants to know the
characteristics of the flour that has just been delivered to her bakery. However, the
characteristics of a flour's protein, and its influence upon the performance of a dough
mixed from it, are easily measured and quantified using either the farinograph or the
alveograph. The challenge here, though, is that these methods of analysis are looking at
the finished product. Therefore, the real job for the miller is selecting wheat that will
yield flour with the appropriate performance characteristics. While a wheat's protein
content is easily determined, it is only a rough estimate of the performance of the flour
that can be made from it.

I asked Joe Lindley of Lindley Mills in Graham, NC about this challenge of selecting
wheat that will yield a flour with the desired characteristics to meet his customer's
needs. He told me, not surprisingly, that they rely extensively on the farinograph of
the finished flour. Joe said it used to be that prior to perhaps 5 years ago the
protein percentage of the incoming wheat gave you a pretty good indication of what
the performance characteristics of the finished flour were going to be. In his
estimation (and he readily admits that this is an unscientific observation), over the
last 5 years the protein content on the incoming wheat and the farinograph
characteristics of its flour have ceased to correlate, or correlate far less than they
once did. Which, today, means they put far more emphasis on the farinograph
characteristics of the finished flour and, perhaps, somewhat less emphasis on the
actual protein percentage. Joe said he would much rather see the farinograph match
up with what the customer is expecting performance-wise than strictly matching a
protein spec.

Later, I was speaking to Tom Crell, Technical Services Representative at Horizon Milling
Albany, New York, about this subject of protein and performance and he immediately
said: "You have to remember, it's protein quality, not protein quantity, [There's that
phrase again.] And protein quality is directly related to the environmental conditions and
how these environmental conditions affect the wheat kernel determines how the mill goes
about extracting the flour from the kernel." The developing wheat plant is subjected to
varying amounts of rain and sun, soil conditions differ from location to location, planting
time will differ from location to location and year to year. The ultimate outcome of these
variables is seen in the wheat kernels with a whole range of physical characteristics:
slender or fat, plump or shriveled, drier or wetter, etc. These kernel characteristics
ultimately determine how the miller is going to mill and thus how the flour is going to
perform.

Over the last year Tom told me he has seen a shift among many of his bakery customers
away from a hard requirement for a certain protein specification to a realization that the
same if not better results can be had from flours of lower protein. Tom told me that for
years, no matter what he said to many of his customers they wouldn't budge on their
protein requirements. Then, starting about a year ago, the price of flour climbed to reach
extremely high levels and suddenly everyone was looking for ways to save money. Since
flour price is largely determined by protein content people were suddenly willing to look
at lower protein content flours to potentially cut costs. Tom told me that almost everyone
who switched was able to make their products just as well with lower protein flours and
many have not switched back even with the return of lower flour prices. They are still
getting the performance out of the flour that they need, but they are seeing that they can
get that performance with flour from lower protein content.

One bakery that made just such switch when prices were high last year was Zingerman's
Bakehouse in Ann Arbor, Michigan. For most of their first 16 years they were using a
spring wheat flour with a 12.7% protein. Once the price of flour started to rise they, like
many other bakeries, started to look for savings. They presumed that if they could switch
to a winter wheat flour with 11.7% protein and make the change transparent to their
customers, then they could save a considerable amount of money during a very uncertain
time in the flour market. Not only were they able to achieve those goals, "It made us
better bakers," Frank Carollo, one of the managing partners and founder of the
Bakehouse, told me when I was there a month ago.

But what the precise differences were and how the old flour performed relative to the
new flour was hard to recall. So we decided to try an experiment and run both flours
through the exact same process and see how they differed.

Frank and Stewart, the production manager at the Bakehouse and I
set out to make Zingerman's Rustic Italian Loaf with their current flour (11.7% protein)
and their former flour (12.7% protein). Everything else was left the same: absorption,
mix time, fermentation time, etc. When Zingerman's made the switch their goal was to
produce exactly the same finished bread and to do so they had to adjust their process.
Conversely, if you were looking to accentuate the characteristics of a different flour you
would make adjustments in your process. But for us, we simply wanted to see the affects
of the different flours.

The Rustic Italian Loaf uses a poolish (equal parts of flour and water fermented for 8
hours) as a preferment and right away we saw a difference in the two poolishes, and one
that would show up repeatedly throughout: the poolish made with the higher protein flour
had risen higher (perhaps 25% higher). The obvious conclusion was the extra strength of
the preferment (even at 100% hydration) allowed for more gas retention and thus higher
rise.

Once all the ingredients were in the mixer and mixed to the required development, not
unsurprisingly, the higher protein dough was stronger, somewhat elastic and drier feeling.
A validation of what one would expect. The lower protein dough was more extensible,
slightly tacky and "weaker" feeling - but not in an inappropriate sense.

Next the doughs were placed in bins and allowed a bulk ferment for 4 hours. After the
first three hours the dough mixed from the higher protein flour had risen further and by
the end of the fermentation had considerably more volume than the lower protein flour. It
also continued to feel "stronger" and decided less extensible than the lower protein
dough. We also felt that the higher protein flour dough had a "reddish" hue to it whereas
the lower protein dough had a more yellowish/creamy color to it. Generally a creamier
color is associated with doughs that have received less mix but in this case both doughs
received the same amount of mix so it is difficult to come up with a justification for this
difference.

Once the fermented doughs were placed on the shaping table, again the differences were
striking but not out of line with what one would expect: the higher protein flour dough
"sat" higher on the shaping table, was stronger, and drier, while the lower protein flour
showed generally "weaker" characteristics. They shaped the higher protein dough first.
Upon switching to the lower protein dough Frank noted that with the first couple of
loaves he shaped, he tore the skin of the shaped dough slightly. He said he hadn't
accommodated for the slightly weaker nature of the dough, but upon "adjusting" was able
to shape without tearing. The same would hold true for a weaker dough on an automated
line where most high-quality equipment will allow you to reduce the stress on the dough
to accommodate changes in dough strength.

The final proof for our two doughs was performed on covered racks next to the oven. At
the point just prior to the bakers loading the oven they wanted to load the lower protein
loaves first (even though they were mixed second and thus had less floor time) as they
felt they were fully proofed. I had to jump in to keep the "experiment" on track and,
against their better judgment, had them load the higher protein loaves first, even though
they felt the others were further along. Not that I had better judgment (far from it) but we
weren't optimizing the bake but comparing only one variable. The higher protein loaves
had proofed higher and were still considerably stronger feeling than their lower protein
neighbors which, in addition to not having as good proof volume, had spread out slightly
more. They had the appearance of being further along in the proof than the higher protein
loaves. In the oven the higher protein loaves got great oven spring and the cuts opened
beautifully. The lower protein loaves required slightly gentler handing so has not to
degass but once in the oven they got all of the oven spring that the first group had and
once on the rack had all the volume of the higher protein loaves. Also, once on the rack,
we noticed a continuation of the color differences first seen in the doughs with the higher
protein loaves having a reddish-brown coloring to them and the lower protein loaves
being a browner/creamier brown (a browner browner, if you will).

The next day we sliced the loaves open and found a more open crumb structure in the
lower protein loaves and a creamier color whereas the higher protein loaves had a tighter
crumb and were more white-ish in color. We really could detect no flavor differences
between the two.

Zingerman's, like many bakeries, recently had a goal of switching flours to achieve a
certain result: cut their flour costs while not changing their finished product. They found
that they need not rely solely on the protein content of the flour to determine which types
of bread they could make but found, instead, that while this content was a guide, the
overall protein quality dictated the process (absorption, mix time, handling, and baking)
and that by changing their process to meet the characteristics of the dough mixed from
this new flour they could achieve their goals. Conversely, should a bakery want to make a
fundamental change to a product they can either adjust their process to exploit a
characteristic of their current flour or switch flours all together to take advantage of a
particular flour's protein characteristics.