Advanced Method for Producing Bread Doughs with Flours Having Limited Gluten Development Capacity

Foreword:
The method described here represents an evolution of the procedure covered by the patent:
NEW METHOD FOR MAKING (FERMENTED) BAKERY PRODUCTS
Publication date: 11.04.2018 – Bulletin 2018/15
Application number: 17194677.5
EP 3 305 078 A1

Based on this conceptual framework, several experimental tests were carried out using stone-milled whole einkorn wheat flour. The method is specifically designed for flours characterized by:
1 – weak gluten,
2 – high gliadin/glutenin ratio,
3 – redominantly viscous-cohesive rheological behavior.

The presentation of this method derives from one of the tests conducted, selected because it is representative of the full expression of the process.

1 – Technological context of the approach

Whole flours obtained from stone-milled ancient grains have technological characteristics that differ profoundly from those of modern strong flours commonly used in industrial breadmaking. The “strength” of a flour, in breadmaking terms, is linked to the ability of the protein fraction to build an elastic, continuous gluten network resistant to the pressure of fermentation gases. Comparative studies on wheat species show that, even in the presence of a high total protein content, ancient species such as einkorn may present a higher gliadin/glutenin ratio than modern soft wheat. The result is a less elastic and less structurally “load-bearing” network [1] (cf. comparative studies published in the MDPI field).

In practical terms: in other words, a high protein content does not necessarily imply the presence of a functional gluten structure for breadmaking purposes.

The reduced capacity of such flours to develop a continuous and elastic gluten network entails:
1 – difficulty in retaining the gases produced during fermentation;
2 – limited tolerance to mechanical processing;
3 – structural instability of the dough during the proofing stages;
4 – greater sensitivity to fermentation peaks.

In current practice, these critical issues are often compensated for by:
1 – blending with high-strength flours;
2 – use of improver additives;
3 – use of technological aids.

Such interventions, although effective from a volumetric standpoint, frequently entail a reduction in the nutritional, sensory, and identity-related peculiarities of the original flours, in addition to modifying aspects of digestibility and tolerability.

1.1 The specific case of einkorn

Triticum monococcum is one of the earliest cereals domesticated by humans and is considered one of the oldest wheat species still cultivated. Compared with modern wheats widely used in breadmaking, einkorn has peculiar nutritional and technological characteristics that significantly influence its behavior in doughs.

Several studies have shown that this species often has a relatively high total protein content; however, breadmaking functionality does not depend exclusively on the amount of protein, but rather on the structure and organization of the gluten protein system.

According to the structural models proposed by Peter R. Shewry and Peter R. Halford (2002) and subsequently further developed by Herbert Wieser (2007), the rheological properties of wheat doughs mainly depend on the interaction between three main protein classes:
1 – high molecular weight glutenins (HMW-GS);

2 – low molecular weight glutenins (LMW-GS);

3 -gliadins.

In einkorn, the relative distribution of these fractions differs significantly from that of modern soft wheat. In particular, the following have been observed:

1 – lower formation of high molecular weight protein polymers;
2 – greater proportion of monomeric proteins;
3 – limited ability to generate a continuous and structurally stable gluten network.

From a technological standpoint, this generally translates into doughs characterized by:
1 – lower stability during processing;
2 – greater extensibility;
3 – lower ability to retain fermentation gases.

Despite these structural limitations, recent studies have shown that the breadmaking performance of ancient grains can be significantly improved through proper management of the technological process. In particular, techniques based on controlled fermentations, prolonged maturation, and careful management of the thermal conditions of the dough can promote a progressive reorganization of the protein system and improve structural stability during proofing and baking (Luca Cappelli et al., 2019; Gabriele Brandolini and Adriano Hidalgo, 2014).

In light of these considerations, the present work experimentally analyzes the behavior of the einkorn protein network during a breadmaking process characterized by a prolonged low-temperature maturation phase followed by controlled thermal reactivation of the dough.

2. Process objective

Whole flours — particularly those derived from ancient grains such as einkorn — pose specific technological challenges:

1 – greater water absorption and competition for water;

2 – interference of the bran fraction with the formation and continuity of the protein network;
3 – fermentative variability;

4 – presence of phytates and other compounds with potential nutritional interference.

Indirect fermentation and sourdough strategies are commonly employed to mitigate these critical issues through:

1. controlled acidification
2. activation of endogenous enzymes (e.g. phytase)
3. modification of the fibrous fraction (e.g. arabinoxylans)
4. aroma development and improved shelf life

The objective of the methodology described here is to:
1 – concentrate and “condition” the most critical fraction of the dough (rich in bran and fiber) within a biga-type pre-dough;
2 – maintain rigorous thermal control during the different stages of the process, to preserve fermentative predictability and avoid undesired accelerations;
3 – introduce an innovative step of mechanical dispersion of the pre-dough in cold water, with air incorporation, aimed at improving the homogeneity of the dough system and the volumetric contribution during the baking stage.

2. Materials and Methods: complete description of the method

2.1 Raw material and functional fractionation

Raw material

1 – Whole einkorn wheat flour (Triticum monococcum), stone-milled
2 – Total quantity: 1800 g

Stone milling is known to fully preserve the grain fractions (endosperm, germ, bran), with a higher content of bioactive compounds and fibers than refined flours, but with a significant impact on the rheological properties of the dough (Shewry & Hey, 2015; Hidalgo & Brandolini, 2014).

Sieving at 600 µm
The flour was entirely sieved through a 600 µm mesh, obtaining:
1 – 85 g residual bran fraction
2 – 1715 g passing flour

The fractionation is not aimed at refining, but at functional reorganization of the components, in order to modulate the fiber load in the pre-dough..

Distribution in the process stages
Final dough: 1000 g flour passing 600 µm
Pre-dough (Biga):
715 g passing flour
85 g residual bran
= 800 g total

Methodological consideration
The pre-dough does not contain only bran, but is a classic pre-dough that ferments a whole flour made richer in the fibrous fraction. The fiber load is increased in the pre-dough, concentrating the most critical phase (arabinoxylans, phytates, insoluble fraction) in the indirect fermentation stage.

Note:
A – Biga is a dry/coarse pre-dough. “Pre-dough” is a more generic term that includes both solid methods (biga) and liquid ones (such as poolish or Giorilli biga).

B – Preferment vs pre-dough: biga or pre-dough are themselves “ferments.” It is therefore NOT correct to define them as pre-ferments, since they are themselves ferments intended for fermentation: fermentation and/or metabolic activity occurs immediately in time and NOT afterwards.

Scientific reference
The concentration of the bran fraction in the pre-dough stage is consistent with studies showing that fermentation of bran-rich fractions can:
1 – increase arabinoxylan solubilization
2 – reduce the antagonistic effect of fiber on the protein network
3 – promote activation of endogenous phytase through acidification
(Katul et al., 2019; Rizzello et al., 2010; Lopez et al., 2001).

2.2 Pre-dough (12 hours, controlled temperature)
Pre-dough ingredients
1 – Flour: 800 g.
2 – Water: 340 g.
3 – LiCoLi: 180 g (assumed 100% hydration: 90 g water + 90 g flour)
3 – Fresh compressed baker’s yeast: 3 g.

“Actual” pre-dough composition (accounting for the LiCoLi)
1 – Total flour in biga = 800 + 90 = 890 g
2 – Total water in biga = 340 + 90 = 430 g
3 – Actual biga hydration = 430 / 890 = 48.3%
4 – PH: 4.75
5 – actual weight: 1321 g.

Fermentation
2 – Temperature: 18 °C
3 – Initial biga temperature: 16 °C
4 – Final temperature: 18.2 °C

Thermal control
The initial temperature of the pre-dough must not exceed 18 °C in order to avoid early entry into the exponential phase of yeast growth.

In the test (02/03/2026; ambient T 21 °C):
1 – Water temperature: 5 °C
2 – Flour temperature: 10 °C
3 – Initial pre-dough temperature: 16 °C

In summer, the water may go down to 2 °C and the flour even to 5C° in order to maintain the thermal constraint.

Technological rationale
A 48% pre-dough on high-bran flour generates a matrix:
1 – compact
2 – with reduced water mobility
3 – with limited metabolite diffusion

A condition consistent with slower and more structured fermentation (Gobbetti et al., 1994).

Acidification (pH about 4.75) falls within the range favorable to activation of endogenous wheat phytase, responsible for phytate reduction (Lopez et al., 2001; Leenhardt et al., 2005).

Structural note: with 48% hydration on high-bran flour, the pre-dough is consistently “pasty/compact”: this favors slower and more structured fermentation and reduces the risk of rapid and unmanageable rising, but makes direct incorporation into the final dough more difficult.

2.3 Li.Co.Li. (liquid culture starter)
The Li.Co.Li is made with the same whole einkorn flour.

Refreshment
Ratio 1:1:1
(e.g. 50 g starter + 50 g water + 50 g flour)

Fermentation:
3–4 h
25 °C
until volume doubles

Choice of the same flour
In current practice, strong flours are often used for managing sourdough starter. In this protocol, the same whole einkorn flour is used in order to:
1 – avoid the introduction of external strong gluten
1 – maintain protein consistency of the system
1 – not alter the rheological profile of the final product

Function of Li.Co.Li in the system
In the present protocol, LiCoLi:
does not have the primary function of a leavening agent (because limited with einkorn) has the prevailing function of biochemical maturation

The literature shows that sourdough fermentation:
1 – promotes partial protein hydrolysis
2 – reduces phytates
3 – increases mineral solubility
4 – modifies the structure of arabinoxylans
(Rizzello et al., 2010; Gänzle, 2014).

The use of whole flour in Li.Co.Li increases the availability of fermentable substrates and bioactive compounds, supporting a more diversified microbiota (Gobbetti et al., 2016).

2.4 Final dough: nominal ingredients (without pre-dough)
Final dough ingredients:
1 – Flour (Fraction A): 1000 g
2 – Water: 660 g
3 – EVO oil: 72 g
4 – Salt: 30 g
5 – Malt: 22 g
6 – Fresh compressed baker’s yeast: 4 g

Final dough data:

a – Water temperature: 4 °C
b – Flour temperature: 7 °C
c – Final dough pH: 5.25
d – Dough temperature: 16.2 °C
e – Total preparation time: about 30 min.
f – Biga dispersion time: about 5 min.
g – Total dough weight: 3117 g

2.5 Overall dough balance (pre-dough + final dough)
Total flour in the system
890 g. (biga) + 1000 g. (final dough) = 1890 g.

Total water in the system
430 g. (pre-dough) + 660 g. (final dough) = 1090 g.

Actual total hydration
1090 / 1890 = 57.7% (≈ 58%)

Baker’s % (based on total flour = 100%)
Water: 57.7%
EVO oil: 72/1890 = 3.8%
Salt: 30/1890 = 1.6% (must be combined with the flour)
Malt: 22/1890 = 1.2%
Total compressed yeast: (3+4)/1890 = 0.37%
Li.Co.Li (total weight): 180/1890 = 9.5% (note: already included in the flour+water balance)

In this test: water temperature 4C°; flour temperature 7C°; pH at end of dough mixing: 5.25; dough temperature before resting: 16.2C°; total dough preparation time 30 minutes; time to dissolve dough 5 minutes; dissolved biga temperature: 16.2C°. Dough weight: 3117 (divided in two to perform two separate baking tests; moreover the first dough will come out of the chamber after 24 hours at about 5 C°; the second dough 4 hours later).

Important note:
After preparation in the mixer, the dough is placed on a work surface lightly greased with oil (NOT with dusting flour) in order to be divided into two parts.

2.6 The role of oil (extra virgin). Oil in bread dough greatly improves consistency and shelf life, making the crumb softer, more elastic, and more fragrant. It acts as a natural lubricant, promotes regular alveolation, and increases bread shelf life (preservation) by retaining moisture.
Oil in weak-gluten doughs plays an important structural as well as sensory function.

Documented effects:
1 – reduction of friction between proteins
2 – increase in extensibility
3 – improvement in crumb softness
4 – slowing of staling through interaction with starch
(Cauvain & Young, 2007; Primo-Martín et al., 2006).

In weak flours, the presence of lipids can contribute to stabilizing the alveolar structure by acting as a plasticizer of the protein matrix.

2.7 The role of malt Malt acts in bread dough as a natural improver. Rich in enzymes, it breaks down starches into simple sugars, constantly feeding the yeast, improving fermentation, increasing volume, and giving a more golden and crisp crust.
Malt provides amylase enzymes that:

hydrolyze starch → maltose and fermentable sugars

support yeast nutrition

increase CO₂ production

promote crust coloration (Maillard reaction). (Lynch et al., 2009).

In weak flours, the balance is delicate: excess amylase activity can further weaken the structure, while controlled dosages improve fermentation without compromising stability.
Diastatic malt is a malt that has a high concentration of these enzymes and is therefore capable of breaking down starches and producing simple sugars (maltose and maltodextrins). It is very active …. with einkorn a reflection is necessary and …control tests.

References
Geisslitz et al., 2019 – einkorn protein composition
Lopez et al., 2001 – phytate reduction sourdough
Leenhardt et al., 2005 – endogenous phytase
Rizzello et al., 2010 – fermentation and bioactivity
Gänzle, 2014 – sourdough microbiology
Cauvain & Young, 2007 – bakery technology
Primo-Martín et al., 2006 – lipid–starch interactions
Lynch et al., 2009 – malt enzymes and fermentation

3. Process innovation: water dispersion and “controlled aeration” of the pre-dough
3.1 Practical and technological rationale

At the end of 12 h, the biga is “pasty” and difficult to incorporate homogeneously with water/flour without leaving lumps and microbial/hydration inhomogeneities. To overcome this limitation, an intermediate step is adopted that also has another important function:

3.2 Procedure

1. 550 g of water (part of the final dough water), at about 5 °C, is added to the mature biga.

2. An immersion blender (with blades) is used for 5–7 minutes, at medium-low speed, with the main objectives of breaking/dispersing the biga (not whipping, not emulsifying) and, above all, incorporating air.

3. Cold oil and malt are added to the dispersed biga (dense slurry).

4. Transfer to fork mixer: the remaining water is added (110 g, because 660–550 = 110 g) and mixed for about 10 minutes at low speed. Water temp.: 4; flour temp. 7C°

5. Dough exit temperature: about 16.2 °C. In this test: time 12 minutes.

6. Dough PH: 5.25

Considerations (highlighted):

Thermal control: water at 5 °C acts as a “buffer” against shear heating; with output at ~17 °C one remains below the threshold at which leavening activity accelerates rapidly.
Microbiological and metabolic homogenization: dispersion increases the uniform distribution of yeasts/LAB and of the metabolites produced in the biga (acids, aromatic compounds), reducing the risk of “inert” or hyperactive zones.

Air incorporation: even without “emulsifying,” dispersion introduces microbubbles that act as nuclei; in the oven they can contribute to growth because the gases (air+CO₂+steam) expand as temperature rises. The effect does not replace fermentation, but can improve nucleation and alveolar uniformity.

3.3 Role of γ-gliadins in the adhesive behavior of dough
Einkorn wheat is characterized by a peculiar protein profile, in which the gliadin fractions — including the γ-gliadin component — are relatively more represented than in modern soft wheat.

γ-gliadins belong to the class of monomeric gluten proteins and contribute mainly to the viscous and adhesive properties of the dough, rather than to the formation of elastic three-dimensional networks (Shewry et al., 2002; Geisslitz et al., 2019).

A high proportion of gliadins relative to glutenins results in:
1 – greater viscosity;
2 – lower elasticity;
3 – more plastic-adhesive behavior;
4 – greater tendency of the dough to adhere to metal surfaces during mechanical processing.

In einkorn, this characteristic may be particularly evident, with practical effects such as:
adhesion to mixer walls;
1 – difficulties in industrial sheeting;
2 – greater friction in automated processes (e.g. pizza lines, laminated products).

Technological interpretation
Adhesiveness is not a defect in an absolute sense: it is the expression of a protein matrix dominated by less structuring monomeric components. However, in an industrial setting:
1 – high adhesiveness requires lubrication systems (oiling of surfaces);
2 – it limits compatibility with high-speed lines;
3 – it reduces stability in laminated processing.

The addition of a small amount of oil in the initial stage helps to:
1- reduce dough-surface friction;
2 – modulate plasticity;
3 – improve workability without significantly altering the structure.

Additional note

γ-gliadins, although they do not contribute to the formation of high molecular weight gluten polymers, significantly influence dough rheology through modulation of viscosity and adhesiveness. In einkorn, the high gliadin/glutenin ratio amplifies this behavior, making the dough less suited to industrial paradigms based on high elasticity and mechanical tolerance, but potentially more suitable for controlled low-mechanical-energy systems, such as the one described here.

Useful references for this part
Shewry, P. R., Halford, N. G., Belton, P. S., & Tatham, A. S. (2002). The structure and properties of gluten. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
Geisslitz et al., 2019 – einkorn protein composition.
Scanlon & Zghal, 2001 – bread structure and dough physics.
Gänzle, 2014 – sourdough microbiology.

4. Cold maturation and kinetic control
4.1 Cell maturation
Finished dough (inside covered container) placed in chamber at ≈ 5 °C for 24 h.
Dough temperature on exiting the chamber: ≈ 6–8 °C.

Consideration (highlighted): starting with dough at ~17 °C, then bringing it to 5 °C, reduces “thermal shocks” and above all avoids entering the chamber already in full fermentative acceleration. It is a fine control of the fermentation curve.

5. Phenomenon of water on the lid in the chamber (“internal” condensation)
It may be observed that, upon opening the lid of the dough container, it is already wet even in the chamber,.

Correct physical interpretation

In a closed container, a small fraction of the dough water passes into the vapor phase (even at 5 °C the vapor pressure is not zero). The internal air tends to become saturated. The coldest point/condensation surface (often the lid) collects the vapor that re-condenses.

Conclusion: it is not “starch releasing water” and it is not retrogradation (that occurs after gelatinization during baking). It is migration of the water phase → vapor → water and attainment of an internal hygrometric equilibrium.

Possible secondary contributions

Redistribution of water in the matrix (fibers/proteins hydrate slowly, releasing or making more mobile a fraction of water initially weakly retained). Metabolic production of water (minimal at 5 °C but theoretically present) as a by-product of alcoholic fermentation; in a closed system it may contribute marginally to saturation.

6. Microbial cooperation: LAB + yeasts (and why they “really do collaborate”)
6.1 General principle: sourdough/mixed fermentation ecosystem

In systems with sourdough starter (LiCoLi), the following typically coexist:
lactic acid bacteria (LAB): acidification (lactic/acetic), indirect enzymatic activity, substrate modulation;
yeasts (including added baker’s yeast): production of CO₂, ethanol, metabolism of specific sugars, and aromatic contribution.

Classical literature clearly shows that this is not simple co-presence: there are trophic (cross-feeding) and non-trophic (competition/selection, antimicrobials, pH) interactions. (ScienceDirect)

6.2 Examples “in simple words” but technically correct

Some LAB can hydrolyze maltose and leave glucose available; yeasts unable to use maltose can thus grow thanks to the released sugar (cross-feeding). (Springer Nature Link). Yeasts can release essential amino acids (e.g. valine/leucine), favoring LAB growth under conditions in which they would otherwise grow poorly. (PubMed)

The practical result is often: greater LAB yield/activity (more acidity and metabolites) without necessarily increasing yeast yield in parallel, i.e. true functional synergy. (PubMed)

6.3 Is cooperation different between pre-dough and final dough?
Yes: the ecological environment changes.

In the pre-dough (48%, ≤18 °C, high bran):
1 – more compact and structured environment;
2 – acidification and transformations of the matrix (fiber/phytate) are relatively more “central”;
3 – LAB-yeast cooperation is above all one of biochemical preparation (acidification, metabolites, substrates made available). (Springer Nature Link)

In the final dough (maturation at 5 °C):
microbial growth slowed down; slow processes prevail: water redistribution, enzymatic rebalancing, maturation; cooperation becomes mainly one of maintenance/maturation rather than expansion.

In the 4 hours before the oven (gradual heating and then 30 °C in the basket):
Baker’s yeast becomes the protagonist of the volumetric push; LAB continue to modulate pH and aroma, but volume derives mainly from yeast CO₂.

7. Role of baker’s yeast in the final dough: “push” yes, but with a real thermal curve
7.1 In the system adopted in this test, the commonplace “baker’s yeast requires a long time” does not apply
In a direct dough, the yeast must adapt and multiply from zero. In this system:
1 – a portion of yeast has already gone through 12 h of pre-dough (so the biomass is not “only 3 g” initially);
2 – then 24 h in the cold keeps the system active but slowed;
3 – thermal recovery after the chamber progressively restarts CO₂ production.

7.2 The operational thermal sequence
1 – Chamber exit: 7–8 °C
2 – Rest on plate ~22 °C (TA ≈20 °C) – total pre-oven duration ≈ 4 h
3 – The dough reaches ~20 °C only in the last ~2 h (field observation).
4 – After ~3 h: transfer to proofing basket with plate at 30 °C (push phase).

Interpretation:
1 – first part: reactivation (little expansion);
2 – last 2 hours at ~20 °C: perceptible CO₂ increase;
3 – phase at 30 °C: main push, window to be controlled.

7.3 Why increasing yeast in the final dough can “break everything”
1 – with einkorn + high bran + warm final phase, increasing yeast risks:
2 – accelerating the 30 °C phase too much;
3 – reducing the control window and increasing overproofing/collapse;
4 – altering the LAB/yeast balance and the aromatic profile.

The setup works because the curve is progressive and controlled.

8. Technological and biochemical rationales linked to “enhanced” bran in the pre-dough

8.1 Arabinoxylans and water management (functional fiber)
Studies on pre-fermented bran and on sourdough/wholemeal show that fermentation can increase the solubility of fibrous components (particularly arabinoxylans) with consequences for rheology, water retention, and shelf life. (ScienceDirect)

Connection to the method of the present test: even if many studies treat “pre-fermented bran” as a separate ingredient, the principle is consistent with the choice made: the pre-dough works on a matrix richer in bran, increasing the probability of useful modifications already in the preferment.

8.2 Phytate, pH and endogenous phytase
Two very solid results in the literature:
1 – moderate acidification (pH ~5.5) is sufficient to obtain significant phytate hydrolysis thanks

2 – mainly to endogenous wheat phytase. (PubChem)
3 – prolonged sourdough fermentations reduce phytate more than yeast alone, increasing mineral solubility (Mg, P); and incubation/fermentation of bran-rich fractions can push degradation close to 90% in that work. (PubChem)

Connection to the method of the present test: concentrating bran in the biga and maintaining controlled fermentation can promote a “reactive zone” where pH/time enable phytase and dephytinization processes before the final dough.

9. Operational conclusions (consistent with field observations)

9.1. The “bran-enriched” pre-dough is a robust way to put fiber at the center of indirect fermentation, rather than undergoing it as interference in direct dough.

9.2. Dispersion in cold water with mixer (patented) solves a bottleneck (incorporation) and, secondarily, introduces gaseous nuclei useful to structure.

9.3.The fork mixer and thermal management (exit 17 °C, chamber 5 °C) build predictable kinetics: slow maturation + controlled final push.

9.4.LAB-yeast cooperation is real: cross-feeding on sugars and nutrients (carbohydrates and amino acids) explains why mixed systems generate different quality and stability compared with yeast alone. (Springer Nature Link)

9.5.Condensation in the chamber is an indicator of hygrometric equilibrium in a closed container and does not imply “release of water from starch.”

9.6.Awakening and proofing of the dough

10.1 Gradual heating post-maturation
After 24 hours of maturation at about 5 °C, the dough is removed from the chamber (internal temperature ~6–8 °C) and subjected to a phase of controlled progressive heating.

The dough is:
1 – placed on a work surface lightly greased with oil (not floured);
2 – covered with a bowl to prevent surface dehydration;
3 – subsequently placed on a warm surface at about 20 °C.

The objective of this phase is to gradually bring the dough to an internal temperature of 19–20 °C, avoiding a sudden thermal increase.

In the test described:
1 – 1 h 30 min on warm surface at 20 °C
2 – 1st manual manipulation (light fold)
3 – 30 min on warm surface
4 – 2nd manual manipulation
5 – 30 min on warm surface
6 – Shaping of the loaf
7 -Placement in the proofing basket

10.2 Final proofing
The proofing basket is placed on a warm surface at about 30 °C, for about 1 hour (or for the time needed to reach the optimal degree of proofing).

The basket must be:
1 – covered, or
2 – placed in a closed plastic bag

in order to maintain high surface humidity and prevent premature crust formation.

10.3 Thermal rationale: heating from below
The choice of using a warm surface rather than a uniformly heated box is deliberate.

By heating the dough mainly from the base:
1 – a vertical thermal gradient is created;
2 – the lower part reaches fermentation activation temperature first;
3 – the surface remains slightly cooler.

Advantages in einkorn
Einkorn dough is structurally more fragile because of:
1 – the high gliadin/glutenin ratio;
2 – the lower elasticity of the protein network;
3 – the significant presence of fibrous fraction.

Uniform and rapid heating (as in a heated box) can entail:
1 – excessive overall fermentation acceleration;
2 – premature loss of surface integrity;
3 – partial collapse of the external structure before the internal network stabilizes.

The controlled thermal gradient:
1 – favors progressive yeast activation;
2 – keeps the surface slightly more compact;
3 -reduces the risk of structural failure.

From a rheological standpoint, this approach allows differential maturation between core and surface, particularly useful in weak protein matrices.

10.4 Role of folds in the awakening phase
The two intermediate manipulations do not aim at intensive network development (as would happen with strong flours), but at:
1 – moderate realignment of protein chains;
2 – redistribution of CO₂;
3 – improvement of alveolar homogeneity;
4 – controlled increase of surface tension.

In weak-gluten doughs, overly energetic folds can be counterproductive; the intervention must be calibrated according to the actual consistency of the dough.

“Even in this phase, the approach does not aim to accelerate proofing, but to modulate it, privileging structural stability over maximum volumetric expansion.”

11. Baking

    11.1 Transition between proofing and baking

Once the maximum development compatible with the surface hold of the dough has been reached — a critical parameter in weak-gluten matrices — the product is transferred into the baking container.

In einkorn, the window between:
1 – optimal development
2 – loss of surface integrity

Is narrower than with strong flours baking must therefore take place at the moment when the dough has reached the maximum structurally sustainable volume, not necessarily the maximum theoretical volume.

11.2 Shape management: controlled containment
Einkorn dough shows a high tendency to “spread out” (lateral spread), due to:
1 – reduced elasticity of the protein network;
2 – high gliadin/glutenin ratio;
3 – viscous-plastic behavior of the matrix.

The use of a traditional rigid mold (e.g. loaf tin) produces a shape that is too regular and compressed, which does not enhance the dough’s expansion dynamics.

A mold derived from a lightweight aluminum container was therefore used, with:
1 – perforated bottom,
2 – walls not completely rigid.

This configuration allows:
1 – initial containment of the dough;
2 – progressive lateral expansion during oven spring;
3 – transformation of the shape toward a loaf or round loaf.

Structural rationale
During the initial baking stage:
1 – the increase in temperature causes expansion of trapped gases (air + CO₂ + steam);
2 – the viscosity of the matrix decreases before starch gelatinization;
3 – the structure is temporarily more deformable.

A partially flexible mold allows the internal thrust to redistribute, avoiding vertical compression and favoring more natural expansion.

The dough, obviously, can also be placed on a perforated baking tray; in this case it is likely that a more “ciabatta-like” shape will be obtained, which may be interesting because it would allow the dough to “rise” more freely and form a more airy structure.

Note: Perforated oven trays promote more homogeneous heat transfer and distribution than traditional baking trays

11.3 Mode of heat transfer
Baking is carried out by placing the container on a rack, not directly on the oven floor.

Difference compared with direct contact
In traditional ovens, direct contact with the hot sole:
1 – determines rapid conductive heat transfer;
2 – induces early “crystallization” or stiffening of the base;
3 – creates a thermal barrier that may limit further expansion.

In the system described, heat reaches the container mainly through:
1 – hot air convection;
2 – radiation.

This produces:
1 – more gradual heating of the bottom;
2 – delay in basal structural stiffening;
3 – greater possibility of prolonged volumetric expansion.

11.4 Expansion dynamics during baking
The two doughs in the test of about 750 grams:
1 – after 50 minutes of baking the loaves are removed from the containers;
2 – the bottom is still partially soft;
3 – the product is returned to the oven to complete baking.

The fact that the bottom is not completely rigid indicates that:
1 – starch gelatinization is not yet complete;
2 – the structure has not yet reached maximum thermal fixation;
3 – further residual expansion is still possible.

From a physical standpoint, oven spring is determined by:
1 – thermal expansion of gases;
2 – final CO₂ production up to about 45–50 °C;
3 – formation of water vapor;
4 – protein glass transition and starch gelatinization.

Delaying bottom rigidification prolongs the useful expansion window.

11.5 Considerations on variable raw material management
A fundamental element of the protocol is dynamic adaptation to changes in flour supply.

A new batch of einkorn may differ in:
1 – protein content;
2 – gliadin/glutenin ratio;
3 – fiber content;
4 – natural enzymatic activity;
5 – moisture.

Each variation requires:
1 – new calibration of hydration;
2 – adjustment of initial temperatures;
3 – possible modification of maturation times;
4 – control of baking behavior.

This confirms that the method is not a rigid sequence of parameters, but an adaptive controlled system, grounded in understanding of the rheological matrix.

Technical assessment of Chapter 11
✔ The choice of the rack is consistent with the objective of prolonging oven spring.
✔ The semi-flexible mold is functionally intelligent for weak-network matrices.
✔ Management of the soft bottom as an indicator of residual expansion is technically correct.
✔ The reference to the need for recalibration for a new supply is scientifically well-founded.

Essential bibliography with key points

1. Effects of pre-fermented wheat bran on dough and bread characteristics (2016)
   Journal of Cereal Science
   DOI: 10.1016/j.jcs.2016.03.004 (ScienceDirect)

Key points:
Lactic fermentation of bran → increases arabinoxylan solubility.
Pre-fermented bran → improves rheology and bread quality.
Greater moisture retention and shelf life.

2. Sourdough fermentation of wholemeal wheat bread increases solubility of arabinoxylan and protein and decreases postprandial glucose and insulin responses (2010)
   Journal of Cereal Science
   DOI: 10.1016/j.jcs.2009.11.006 (ScienceDirect)

Key points:
Sourdough on wholemeal → increases solubility of arabinoxylans and proteins.
Lower postprandial glycemic/insulinemic responses compared with some controls.

3. Prolonged Fermentation of Whole Wheat Sourdough Reduces Phytate Level and Increases Soluble Magnesium (2001)
   Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
   DOI: 10.1021/jf001255z (PubChem)

Key points:
Sourdough more effective than yeast alone in reducing phytate.
LAB acidification → increases Mg and P solubility.
Fermenting/incubating bran-rich fractions can strongly push phytate degradation (in their setup).

4. Moderate Decrease of pH by Sourdough Fermentation Is Sufficient To Reduce Phytate Content… through Endogenous Phytase Activity (2005)
   Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
   DOI: 10.1021/jf049193q (PubChem)

Key points:
pH ~5.5 already sufficient for strong phytate reduction.
Highlights the dominant role of endogenous wheat phytase under conditions of moderate acidification.

5. The sourdough microflora. Interactions between lactic acid bacteria and yeasts: metabolism of carbohydrates (1994)
   Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
   DOI: 10.1007/BF01982535 (Springer Nature Link)

Key points:
LAB-yeast co-culture models show absence/attenuation of competition for maltose in certain combinations.
Cross-feeding (e.g. maltose hydrolysis → available glucose) can favor growth and acid production.

6. The sourdough microflora. Interactions between lactic acid bacteria and yeasts: metabolism of amino acids (1994)
   World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
   DOI: 10.1007/BF00414862 (PubMed)

Key points:
In co-culture, yeasts can provide essential amino acids to LAB, increasing LAB growth and yield compared with monocultures.

7. The sourdough microflora: Interactions of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts (1998)
   Trends in Food Science & Technology
   DOI: 10.1016/S0924-2244(98)00053-3 (ScienceDirect)

Key points:
Fundamental review on trophic and non-trophic LAB-yeast interactions.
Focus on carbohydrates, nitrogen, CO₂, volatiles, and antimicrobial activity.