Fact Checking German Flour Assumptions
In looking up the possibility of buying German flour from abroad for home use, I came across a few interesting sites. This one caught my eye: How the internet lies to you about German flour.
The gist of the article is that the protein content of German flours are wildly overstated, and this can lead to baking problems when trying to replicate German breads.
What a German would classify as strong bread flour, an American would classify as pastry flour. Around 60 % of the wheat production in America is the hard red wheat variety which has a higher gluten content than the soft wheat variety which is popular in Europe.
The most common wheat flours used in German cuisine are:
The most common wheat flours used in German cuisine are:
Flour type Name Gluten content 405 All-purpose flour 8.66 % 550 White Bread Flour 7.52 % 1050 Regular Bread Flour 8.74 % Whole wheat Whole Wheat Flour 8.30 %
I don’t want to blame anyone but just look at some of the information given on the internet about German and American flour equivalents:
No, German “high gluten” flour (type 1050) contains on average 8.74 % gluten.
No, German type 550 flour contains on average 7.52 % gluten.
No, German type 550 flour hast the lowest gluten content of all German flours.
I think I know the site she's using for her comments, but it doesn't matter. She rightfully makes the point we in tge States use gluten percentage, and Germany, like so many other countries uses ash; but what I'm confused by, taking but one example, is that indeed I've read that Weizen T1050 is "strong" bread flour, as she says, upwards of 13-14% gluten. She claims (I haven't yet read the Munich study) that T 1050 comes in at a mere 8.74% glutein.
I know protein percent on a nutritional label is an imperfect measure of gluten percentage. Still, taking one company as an example, 100 g T 1050 has 337 calories, and 12 g protein, or 48 calories in protein. 337/48 = 14.2% in protein.
Confusing. Since T 1050 is so commonly used, it obviously matters if substituting if we use something like a high-gluten flour perhaps with a modicum of whole grain for its ash, or some sort of Southern AP flour or another with low gluten.
Am I missing something? Thoughts? Is T 1050 what we would call a high-gluten/strong bread flour or, as the author writes, we'd call it pastry flour?
I think this person fell victim to the third most famous classic blunder - reading scientific literature without having a proper background.
Good perspective, suave, thanks. FWIW, this is what Björn Hollensteiner, "Brotdoc" had to say (google translate, sorry - working on it!):
I'm wondering if something like Central Milling's Beehive (as opposed to a flour in the 12-13 or higher % protein range) with very fine whole wheat - I have 42.5% AP to 57.5% WW for a T110 ersatz - would be a decent sub?
Personally, I don't like the idea of mixing whole wheat and white flours to imitate high extraction flours, which is what 1050 is. To me it's sort of like imitating an apple by mixing cores and peels - you may arrive at a correct percentages but it won't be an apple. My preference would be sifting WW to remove 10-15% of bran, calculating ash of the remaining flour, and then adjusting it down with APF. Or, alternatively, using this sifted flour to adjust ash of a domestic hihg extraction flour.
Yes, I hear you. In fact I can't recall the thread but someone warned of just that thing, I think, in terms of rye - "it makes a brick" or something to that effect.
One thing that struck me about what Brotdoc said is his mention of "fine" WW, not just any WW. Feeling my "Type 110" from CM in my fingers, it certainly feels very fine. If it were possible to get everything as fine as white flour (I know, it's not), and you know the ash percentages of both, why wouldn't this work? (I'm asking, not contesting).
I don't have your ability so am a bit lost as to how to calculate ash via sifting - math aside, we don't preferentially remove bran, right? I.e., we lose larger particles of endosperm along with the bran held back? I've bolted and know my yields but it feels a bit like feeling better that I have made a decent ersatz, without any real confidence it is so.
Thanks for elucidating a bit more.
Paul
Here's the general idea - unless you are using stone-ground flour, which in recent years came to mean "crudely milled single pass product", your whole wheat flour is reconstituted from multiple milling streams. This means that at some point bran was separated and cleaned of all pieces of endosperm. So, as long as you have a flour where bran is flaky you can separate it fairly cleanly and consider it to be pure.
OK got it, thanks. I didn't know that - wasn't aware it was reconstituted. I mill my own WW at home, stone mill, so was unclear how to do it with my WW. I used KA WW as the basis for my bolting trials earlier, and will revisit them. Thanks for the clarification.
Although gliadins and glutenins are the major proteins found in wheat flour, they're not the only proteins there.
So it is a false comparison to compare 'gluten content (whatever that may be)' to 'protein content', I would think. It is clear that is something you're considering, but did think maybe it is worth pointing it out as well.
If you already have access to Central Milling- Why not use their Organic Type 110? According to Central Milling this has 1.1% ash content which is the same as the ash content for Type 1050 flour (German ash content from Lutz Geissler's Brot Bach Buch Nr 2).
At least on first glance there is a pretty good match-
Central Milling 110- 12.5% Protein 1.1% Ash (Organic Sifted Bread Flour // Central Milling Organic Type 110)
Drax Muehle Bio Weizenmehl 1050 - 12.1% Protein (Bio | Weizenmehl | Produkte | Drax-Mühle (drax-muehle.de))
There could of course still be differences in how the flour performs as milling flour is a complicated endeavor. The Drax Muehle also lists the protein (Eiweiss) content for their other flours.
Happy baking!
-Peter
Hi Peter, thanks. I actually do (use their 110 - I use it in a lot of my French levains as well).
In terms of it being a sub for 1050, interestingly enough, though Lutz and others list 110 as a good sub, many I've seen go with T 80 - including the Drax Mill, which I've spoken of elsewhere. They ascribe T110 to German T1200:
I think it's one of those things where the ash content overlaps by a bit between grades. I seem to recall the same holds for French flours. In the case of German flours, T1050 has ash .91-1.2, and T1200 has ash 1.1-1.4%. Given French T 80 ash is generally consider .7-90%, yep, I'd think T110 as well. It appears to be also involving a calculation of "Ausmahlungs-grad," or "grinding grade," which for T 1050 is 82-85. I don't know what the term indicates but I believe it has to do - maybe - with water retention ability? To that end, I happened upon another guy who gives T80 as the sub for 1050:
"Type T80 has a mineral content of 80 grams per ten kilos of water-free flour. Unlike T55, for example, the flour is slightly less finely ground and therefore coarser. It absorbs more water than many German flours, so the bread stays fresh longer. The flour corresponds approximately to type 1050. "
Another site:
"Our Bio-T80 is stone-ground wheat flour that can absorb a lot of water. It is roughly comparable to the German Type 1050. However, it can absorb a lot more water and thus keep bread fresh for much longer. In terms of taste, bread made with organic T80 flour is something very special. Ideal to bake a French country bread but also croissants or brioche."
Our own Farine also gives T 80 as a sub for 1050, I seem to recall, but my memory is hazy and I could be wrong. I also can't recall where I read she said it, so grain of salt.
So perhaps it's some plexus of ash and water retention (that last site says French T80 absorbs more water than 1050? Trying to figure that out. Not only grade, but flour itself?). At the end of the day I'd imagine either T80 or T110 is just fine and it's a matter of choice.
Edit: BTW, I got this table from Drax Mill, though the link is from Brot-Magazin.de. It shows a T80-1050 correspondence (note: PDF).