Is There a Need for No-Knead Bread?

I'm not sure. I tried making the no-knead soft wheat bread from a recent article in The Washington Post. (The article can be found here.) I'm about to start my annual holiday baking/candymaking bonanza, and have also been wanting to get back to baking my own bread on a regular basis. The weather forecast was going to call for staying in this weekend, so I thought, "Why not try it?"

I've been fascinated with baking bread for years. I've more cookbooks and recipes than I'll ever use. I'm pretty traditionalist, but not to the extreme of attempting to do artisan breads at home. Since I like sandwiches, and no longer have the free time to bake, I've had to break down and start buying bread from the store the last couple of years. Even the best store-bought bread is no substitute for home-made. Unless your store happens to be an artisan bakery, I guess. So, just in time for December's baking frenzy, the Post runs a story on easy homemade bread. Yes, it sounded too good to be true and called for instant yeast--something I have never purchased or used for bread baking--but the recipe seemed worth a try. I was doubtful, very doubtful, even with the assurance from food chemist and baking expert Shirley Corriher that the stir-and-sit method would work.

Still, I gave it a whirl, or a stir, rather, and decided that even if the bread wasn't all that was promised, it would still probably taste good. I chose to make the No-Knead Light Wheat Bread. The article also includes recipes for cinnamon raisin bread, soft rolls, and a rustic caraway bread. The mixing was easy enough. Basically, you whisk together the dry ingredients, add melted butter or vegetable oil and water, then stir vigorously until everything is combined. Then you have to cover the mixing bowl tightly with plastic wrap and set the bowl aside to rise for 12 to 18 hours. The recipe uses instant yeast because it works very well in recipes that call for mixing in the yeast with dry ingredients rather than proofing the yeast (proving the liveliness) in warm water. Both the main article and the preface to the recipes make out proofing to be some dicey trick that foils beginning bread bakers. Proofing yeast is tricky in the same way that melting chocolate is tricky--meaning that it is not tricky at all. This is proofing: You get some warm water (or other liquid), a little sugar or honey, sprinkle on the yeast, whisk to mix everything and dissolve the yeast. Set the mixture aside for 10 to 15 minutes to allow the yeast to foam. Any reasonably intelligent child could proof yeast. [The "trick" to melting chocolate: Get a pan. Put the chocolate into the pan. Set pan on stove eye on lowest possible heat. Stir chocolate on occasion. Remove pan from heat just before the chocolate is completely melted. Stir chocolate to complete the melting off the heat. No seizing, no scorching, no need for a double boiler. Honest to God, I've melted countless pounds of chocolate this way for probably 25 or 30 years and haven't ruined any yet.]

I let the dough rise for the full 18 hours, before stirring to deflate it and pouring it into a well-oiled 9x5x3 loaf pan. It was nice to get to use the larger loaf pan. I purchased several large loaf pans years ago before realizing that most bread recipes work better in the smaller 8 1/2 x4 1/2 pans. The dough did have to be poured into the pan. The long rise was no substitute for a 10-minute kneading. Then again, I don't suppose that the long, cool rise is supposed to give a result like a kneaded loaf. It is supposed to make bread that tastes good, even if the looks and texture (very soft) are a little off-putting. As per the recipe's instructions, I covered the loaf pan tightly with plastic wrap and let the dough rise to almost the top of the pan--that took about an hour. The plastic wrap has to be removed for the last bit of the rising, so that it does not come into contact with the dough and possibly deflate it. The bread is then cooked at a fairly high temperature--425 degrees F--for about half an hour. I thought that the bread would burn at that temperature, but that large amount of wet dough needs a higher temperature, or at least seems to.

The finished loaf had a nice, if almost too-yeasty, flavor, a very tender crumb, and a flat top. The crust was good, but thin. The bread was extremely moist, but it was thoroughly cooked. I took the precaution of using a thermometer to check the internal temperature, which was about 200 degrees F. The real question: Would I bake this again? Probably, but I will try the rolls next time. The soft crumb seemed more suitable for rolls than bread, especially if you want to use the bread for sandwiches. The bread is too moist and tender to make a really good sandwich. I also miss the nice hump that kneaded bread gets as it rises above the top of the pan. No-knead bread tends to spread rather than rise once it reaches the pan rim. The cool rise does develop the gluten some, but not enough to really get the bread to hold together without a pan to confine it. This no-knead dough is flaccid and shapeless to a degree that is limiting to the baker--and the bread. Most traditional yeast breads are kneaded to develop the gluten in the flour enough that making free-form loaves is an option. Kneaded bread holds its shape, even on a jelly-roll pan. This new method dough must be enclosed within the confines or a pan, whether it be a muffin tin, a loaf pan, or a Dutch oven. Also, I'm not sure why this same method couldn't be adapted with regular yeast that is proofed in warm water before the dry ingredients are added. If the dough has to rise for 12 hours, what is an extra 10 minutes for proofing going to matter?

My chief complaint isn't with the bread itself but with the tone of the article and the perceived need to develop recipes for bread that requires no kneading, no watching, no learning the feel of the dough, and no actual learning about baking. Sure, the article quotes Corriher and other experts about the benefits of the long, cool, no-knead method of baking bread. But it is as if the writer is trying too hard to convince the skeptical--and I count myself among them--that everything we learned about bread baking no longer applies. There is also an assumption that traditional recipes for bread are just too, too difficult for modern cooks. Omigosh! The proofing, the kneading, the shaping, the watching the dough rise! Good heavens! The mess, the tricks, the flour on the cutting board! Baking bread is just too, too difficult! No one can do it unless it is made as simple as possible! This attitude isn't food snobbery so much as food why-bothery. I'll likely bake this bread again, but it is no replacement for the traditional stuff, er, staff.