MythBusters - Pizzamaking Edition

[TXCraig1]

We might be able to think of something.

[PrimeRib]

I have a suggestion for a future episode of MythBusters.  "You cannot maintain a sourdough starter different than that produced in your area"

I wonder why no one has attempted this to date? There are clearly two different camps of opinion here, and it would be interesting to see this issue decided one way versus the other.

[mitchjg]

I wonder why no one has attempted this to date? There are clearly two different camps of opinion here, and it would be interesting to see this issue decided one way versus the other.

Seems like it is probably very difficult.

I am not sure if anyone on the forum has the laboratory apparatus that would enable prevalence and identification of different yeasts and bacteria, etc.  Perhaps there are proxies for enabling the declaring of "different" such as fermentation rate or PH under identical conditions.  I know I do not know enough about the food science to know.

My impression is one camp of opinion is based on "I read it somewhere on the web, so it must be true."  My impression of the other camp is "it tastes different, smells different,  and it behaves different in fermentation/rise, so it is different."  I am in the latter camp based on experience and the reasoning I have thought through (accurate or inaccurate as it may be).  Both bases can be fraught with error but I personally have big trouble with blogs feeding blogs, etc. as a basis for much.

Maybe blind taste testing and baking testing would do the trick.  2 cultures, supposedly different.  Randomize the baking with each and randomize the tasting with each.  Statistical measures would then help determine if there are differences that are significant or not - i.e. if it bakes different and it tastes different, it is different.

[TXCraig1]

It's in interesting topic. We have had members convinced beyond and doubt on both sides. Few other things here are as polarizing.

[Jackitup]

My thoughts. 2 doughs done side by side at the same time. 1on a porous stone material like cordierite and one on a very non- porous like a thick piece of tempered glass. But then you'd have to account for balancing the different conductivities, heat holding capacity, etc. I lean towards the stone making a dryer, crisper crust. But on the other hand baking steel is pretty non-porous and has gained quite a bit of popularity lately. Kind of on the fence leaning towards the stone, but it could be the Pavlov thing that we're forming ideas on what we've trained ourselves to think also. Just thinking out loud....... I will say my crusts are dryer and texturally crisper using the thicker cordierite stone in my BS vs the thinner, smoother stock stone, more even browning too

jon

[Bobino414]

Bob,

A couple thoughts on those observations;

- with respect to putting a metal pan on top of a stone, you create an air gap in the process which could have a significant effect on heat transfer. Unless you have a way to laminate the two, I'm not sure you can infer much from the test. If it were the case that baking on metal was a problem, why has steel plate been so successful? I still think it's largely a function of heat transfer not surface texture.

-there may be something to the idea that the texture on the stone provides a path for the steam to escape though I've seen plenty of bubbles form under the dough on a stone.

Craig,

I don't think air gap is a big issue here.  Although the metal sheet was not 100% in contact with the stone it still sat on the stone and the metal is highly conductive.  Also the metal sheet did bend upward slightly due to the oven heat toward the broiler element so it was approximately 2.5" from the broiler(about 1400*).   So to sum up I think two sources of heat on a highly conductive metal probably eliminates the air gap issue.

I have never baked on thick steel only so I cannot comment.

"I still think it's largely a function of heat transfer not surface texture."  I agree but it is only part of the story.

My thoughts. 2 doughs done side by side at the same time. 1on a porous stone material like cordierite and one on a very non- porous like a thick piece of tempered glass. But then you'd have to account for balancing the different conductivities, heat holding capacity, etc. I lean towards the stone making a dryer, crisper crust. But on the other hand baking steel is pretty non-porous and has gained quite a bit of popularity lately. Kind of on the fence leaning towards the stone, but it could be the Pavlov thing that we're forming ideas on what we've trained ourselves to think also. Just thinking out loud....... I will say my crusts are dryer and texturally crisper using the thicker cordierite stone in my BS vs the thinner, smoother stock stone, more even browning too

jon

John

Give yourself more credit as Pavlov is not in the room; you reported what you observed.

Bob

[Jackitup]

John

Give yourself more credit as Pavlov is not in the room; you reported what you observed.

Bob

Ha, we're all just a bunch of dogs of different breeds anyway. I claim mutt, always been the fondest of mutts anyway

[TXCraig1]

I don't think air gap is a big issue here.  Although the metal sheet was not 100% in contact with the stone it still sat on the stone and the metal is highly conductive.  Also the metal sheet did bend upward slightly due to the oven heat toward the broiler element so it was approximately 2.5" from the broiler(about 1400*).   So to sum up I think two sources of heat on a highly conductive metal probably eliminates the air gap issue.

You may be right, but my gut feeling is that it is a bigger factor than you might think. The conductivity of the metal is largely a non-factor with respect to the heat passing through it from the stone. It doesn't matter how conductive the metal is, with respect to heat coming from the stone, it can only transfer it to the pizza as fast as the stone can transfer the heat to the metal, and it does have to pass through some amount of air what I think has to reduce the overall conductivity of the system. Maybe it's a trivial amount, I really don't know. It would be interesting to test but would probably require sacrificing a pizza stone.

[Tscarborough]

It is not trivial.  Air is a great insulator.

[petef]

My thoughts. 2 doughs done side by side at the same time. 1on a porous stone material like cordierite and one on a very non- porous like a thick piece of tempered glass.

I think you are on the right track but the 2 "stones" have to be identical material. One with a waterproof coating.

My suggestion is to get 2 unglazed quarry tiles from Home Depot. Then waterproof one tile with a high temperature paint such as Rustolium makes (800 deg F max). Then simultaneously bake 2 mini pizzas to see the result. Just don't eat eat them due to the toxicity of the paint.

---pete---



 

[Jackitup]

I think you are on the right track but the 2 "stones" have to be identical material. One with a waterproof coating.

My suggestion is to get 2 unglazed quarry tiles from Home Depot. Then waterproof one tile with a high temperature paint such as Rustolium makes (800 deg F max). Then simultaneously bake 2 mini pizzas to see the result. Just don't eat eat them due to the toxicity of the paint.

---pete---

Better yet, a cordierite stone (because it's so porous), tape it off and seal 1/2 of it. Cure it and slap a dough on it right in the middle and do an upskirt to see the results. Or 2 smaller doughs, observe and weigh

[TXCraig1]

I think we are pretty much all in agreement that no water is absorbed by the stone. I believe the question at this point is: does the porosity or texture of a stone somehow improve the final product as compared to a  non-porous material with similar thermodynamic properties.

I really don't believe the Emile Henry micro-crazing story. Comparing a EH stone to an unglazed corderite stone might shed some light on things.

[TXCraig1]

In the approximately 72 hours since I put the bricks (or pavers as the case may be) outside after the test, they have reabsorbed from the atmosphere, 9.2g and 9.5g of the 40.0g and 41.1g water they released when I heated them.

[mitchjg]

I think we are pretty much all in agreement that no water is absorbed by the stone. I believe the question at this point is: does the porosity or texture of a stone somehow improve the final product as compared to a  non-porous material with similar thermodynamic properties.

I really don't believe the Emile Henry micro-crazing story. Comparing a EH stone to an unglazed corderite stone might shed some light on things.

Maybe cover 1/2 a stone with a layer of carefully and beautifully laid out aluminum foil?  The materials will no longer be identical, but "whatever." 

Yes, the micro-crazing story is macro-crazy. 

[TXCraig1]

I think that's worth a try. Cover half a pizza stone with thin aluminium foil and bake a pie with the edge right down the middle.

Any takers?

[Jackitup]

I was thinking of making a white mushroom pie later this week or weekend using some homemade cultured cream. Maybe I'll start a dough tonite. Forgot how much I like that cultured cream drizzled thru the top of the shreeded cheese and let it all goo together If I do I'll give it a try and make an extra dough for science

jon

[MartyE]

Maybe cover 1/2 a stone with a layer of carefully and beautifully laid out aluminum foil?

Tampa tested this a while back.
http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php?topic=10987.msg99391#msg99391

[Crispy Please]

This topic has generated a startling amount of interest. I lack the requisite education as to the physics, but the testing part is easy. But not cheap.

Get an Emile Henry glazed stone.
Cut it in half.
Flip one half over.
Push the two halves together.
Bake a single dough, half over each side.
Measure.
Repeat.
Repeat.....

-Crispy

[TXCraig1]

Tampa tested this a while back.
http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php?topic=10987.msg99391#msg99391

That would seem to explain Bob's observations.

[Jackitup]

So went ahead and did the test using foil on 1side of the peel. Made this crust brushed with some herbed garlic butter, wonderful eating for a science project btw, lightly docked with the docking roller. Rolled out pretty evenly to 14"with pastry roller. Dough was 300 grams. I had Rosie try it first, looking, feeling and then taking a bite of each slice. We both agreed, no contest, foiled side lost. Both delicious, but for texture, crunch factor unfoiled was a significant winner

jon