This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
English language (monolingual) [PRO] Cooking / Culinary / the yeast process in breadmaking
English term or phrase:Cold rising or cold proving?
I have an enquiry about a collection of baking recipes - the Great Bake-Off has reached us too, but these particular ones are traditional Scandinavian recipes, some with yeast.
I can see that a lot of people refer to ´proving´ the dough, rather than ´leaving it to rise´, and wonder which is best in a context where I am asked to write UK English. (The dictionary says ´proofing´ bread is mainly American.)
My family baked a lot of bread, and always left it to rise, which is immediately understandable for readers who may not be native speakers of English. Some recipes at least will end up on a website.
On a quick rummage in my own books, I can see that Delia and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall seem to let the dough rise, while Nigella's bread proves. Crank´s uses both expressions... One encyclopaedia suggests that ´proving´ is the second rising, after the bread or rolls are formed, but I doubt that many people make the distinction.
The question arises because this writer prefers cold-rising or cold-proving, but points out that all recipes can be adjusted for warm-rising.
I am probably going to go for rising, but would like to hear people´s thoughts - and I might even go for ´proving´ in the translation if someone provides a very good explanation. :-)
Explanation: The two terms are used interchangeably these days, but there is a difference in meaning, and proving was originally used only for the final rising before baking.
... to everyone, for a really good discussion. Now to get baking... while waiting to see if I get the job! But assuming I do, I will probably end up with proving, at least in some of the older sourdough recipes, and will see how I go with the others.
8oz spelt flour, 12oz wholemeal. Leave the flour in a warm place for half an hour, while you add 2tsp sugar to 2tsp yeast and ~10floz water and set aside to ferment. Add to the flour along with a teaspoon of salt. Knead for a few minutes, then leave to rise for about an hour before baking at 200C for 40 minutes. I baked one yesterday before commenting here.
On the subject of cold rising, it produces a much denser, close textured bread because the bubbles of CO2 are smaller.
You can taste the dough for salt - put in only a little to start with, and then add more if you need to. However, after a while all the family could measure it fairly accurately in the palms of their hands! The dough is too sticky to knead, but you can see the texture changes as you mix, and experienced breadmakers know when it is ready. It is not that critical anyway - just mix for ten minutes or maybe a little longer and bake. The dough sticks less to the sides of the bowl when it is ready. Recipe and a good picture here: http://timetocookonline.com/2011/07/01/no-knead-bread-the-gr... or in the Crank's cookbook. We dropped the sugar at some point, and NEVER used white flour as some references seem to suggest! Good white bread is a completely different thing.
I can see that much of our family's baking was the Grant Loaf, using fresh yeast and turning the dough straight into the bread tins after mixing. So there was only one rising process, although with a limited quantity of yeast it was in effect a longish cold-rising. In later years my father, who was still baking at 90, maintained he could complete the process from start to finish inside three hours, but he used more yeast than when I was a child, and put the loaves to rise on top of the stove for maximum an hour. The bread was still excellent! 2 pounds stone-ground wholemeal flour, approx. 30 fluid ounces water, ½ -1 ounce yeast and a teaspoon salt (I think, possibly more salt, but we always measured it in the palm of a hand!) Simply stir all ingredients for 10-15 minutes by hand, turn into two greased baking tins and allow to double in size, bake in a hot oven for about 45 minutes.
I also agree; as a dedicated GBBO fan, I know that rising and proving are two different steps, as you can see from this focaccia recipe by Paul Hollywood http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/focaccia_08389. BTW, it's an excellent recipe, tried and tested many times.
I think the Wikipedia article explains the differences between proofing yeast, leavening the dough, let the dough rise and proofing the dough. Proofing is the last step before baking. I agree with B D Finch that steps that are done at different times and different ways during the process should be differentiated with their proper names. Here is the Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_(baking_technique)
Not beeing an expert in bakery but only a fond practitioner: after the dough is mixed you let it "rise in cold" for a while as a whole; then you form your pieces and after, let them "prove or proof", as well, being in cold or in warm. So it seems to be different for me as a part of a two-step-process.
Recalling school cookery lessons: you prove the yeast by mixing it with water and sugar, then you let the dough rise, knock it down, knead and shape it and then leave it to prove again. I think "proofing" is US and "proving" is British English.
It would be a shame to lose the more specialist term proving by just calling everything "rising". Besides impoverishing the language, it would also lose the idea that you are letting the yeast prove that it is alive and kicking.
I agree with your own suggestion: rising will probably be more widely understood and there is no difference. There probably is some basis to the distinction between "rise" for the first rising and "prove" for the second. Hugh F-W, who is probably accurate in these matters, uses the terms like this here:
"[...] alternatively, knead it in the evening and leave to rise overnight. Deflate the risen dough by punching it down with your knuckles on a lightly floured surface. You now need to prove the dough (give it a second rising)." http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/may/10/hugh-fea...
But most people use them as synonyms. Jamie O refers to first prove and second prove.
Of course, "rise" is intransitive whereas "prove" can be either transitive or intransitive (you can prove the dough or allow it to prove), so that might condition which verb you choose in a specific context.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
13 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +4
cold rising or cold proving?
Rising
Explanation: The two terms are used interchangeably these days, but there is a difference in meaning, and proving was originally used only for the final rising before baking.
kmtext United Kingdom Local time: 15:29 Works in field Native speaker of: English, Gaelic PRO pts in category: 4
Grading comment
Thanks! I definitely had a run for my money with this one!
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thanks! I can see that where the Crank's book uses both expressions, it follows the principle of dough rising, then proving after baps or whatever have been formed.
peer agreement (net): +4