Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? With
the husk and seeds and whatnot. So why is that
stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
I don't get it. They add extra processing steps,
discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
inferior product?

Can anybody here explain this?



--
Rich

On Nov 28, 10:41*am, RichD > wrote:
> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? *With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. *So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> I don't get it. *They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?
>

Removing the germ improves storage life, and "husk" contains no
nutritive value.

On Nov 28, 12:41*pm, RichD > wrote:
> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? *With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. *So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> I don't get it. *They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?

The history of bread. In the old days before much processing was
available, the rich fancy people got the best breads, light in color,
tender crumb, etc. while the poor got the crap bread, dark, tough,
etc.

Then when the industrial revolution invented processing, everyone got
rich people's fancy bread, light to white, tender, etc. White bread
was born!

Now we are discovering that perhaps the better breads weren't
processed to death! Imagine that!! Same with rice.

John Kuthe...

Dear RichD:

On Nov 28, 11:41*am, RichD > wrote:
> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? *With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. *So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> I don't get it. *They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?

More uniform processing (lower final cost).
Lower "bug part and rodent hair" counts, with all that loss of
nutrition.
Harder to get the dough to rise and keep reasonable consistency.

.... most bread manufacturers are fully automated, so "custom" costs
lots more.

David A. Smith

On Nov 28, 1:43*pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Nov 28, 10:41*am, RichD > wrote:
>
> > Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? *With
> > the husk and seeds and whatnot. *So why is that
> > stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> > I don't get it. *They add extra processing steps,
> > discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> > inferior product?
>
> > Can anybody here explain this?
>
> Removing the germ improves storage life, and "husk" contains no
> nutritive value.

The husks contain insoluble fiber. Not nutritive but good for
digestion. Grandma called it "roughage".

John Kuthe...

On 11/28/2011 11:41 AM, RichD wrote:
> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> I don't get it. They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?

Because it's what people wanted.

On Nov 28, 1:41*pm, RichD > wrote:
> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? *With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. *So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> I don't get it. *They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?
>
> --
> Rich

Tradition, but the tradition has a basis. Processing whole wheat into
white flout -- a process called bolting -- adds cost, but it improves
the keeping quality of the flour. The germ, especially, goes rancid in
a fairly short time. A sack of white flour easily lasts from on3e
harvest time to the next, but whole wheat is unlikely to make it
through the winter if stored more-or-less mouse proof. For many
things, white flour rises better, especially if the baker doesn't have
"vital wheat gluten" (another byproduct of bolting!) to add.

Jerry
--
"I view the progress of science as being the slow erosion of the
tendency to dichotomize." Barbara Smuts, U. Mich.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"RichD" > wrote in message
...
> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> I don't get it. They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?

This is on the Internet too under the history of food. Basically in the old
days, poor people ate bread made of nonrefined flour because it was cheaper
to make. Wheat was stone ground in those days and it was very labor
intensive and expensive to get it refined to the point of white flour. The
rich people ate that stuff. White flour is also easier to digest and some
people like it more. These days, it probably doesn't cost so much more to
refine the flour because we have machines to do it. But some people prefer
it.

On 11/28/2011 6:23 PM, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In >, John > wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 12:41=A0pm, > wrote:
>>> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? =A0With
>>> the husk and seeds and whatnot. =A0So why is that
>>> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
>>> I don't get it. =A0They add extra processing steps,
>>> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
>>> inferior product?
>>> Can anybody here explain this?
>> The history of bread. In the old days before much processing was
>> available, the rich fancy people got the best breads, light in color,
>> tender crumb, etc. while the poor got the crap bread, dark, tough,
>> etc.
>> Then when the industrial revolution invented processing, everyone got
>> rich people's fancy bread, light to white, tender, etc. White bread
>> was born!
>>
>> Now we are discovering that perhaps the better breads weren't
>> processed to death! Imagine that!! Same with rice.
>
> *but* ... brown bread tastes nasty and has lumps. Brown rice *has* a flavour
> (as opposed to white rice ).
> It's the classic nutritional problem. I don;t care how good it is for me ...
> if it tastes bad, I'M NOT EATING IT.
>
>
Right on!

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

On Nov 28, 1:41*pm, RichD > wrote:
> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? *With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. *So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> I don't get it. *They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?
>
> --
> Rich

I think it has or had something to do with white bread = well to do,
and dark bread = plebeian fare. Fortunately, that tide is turning.

RichD wrote:
>
> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> I don't get it. They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?

Whole grain keeps but few people have grain grinding equipment.

Ground whole grain flour spoils rapidly whether stored as flour or
cooked into bread. It needs to be sold fast or filled with
preservatives.

Refined flour lasts for years before it needs to be baked into bread.
That's all the difference that's needed to ensure that refined flour
products are far more common than fast spoiling whole grain products.

In article >, John Kuthe > wrote:
>On Nov 28, 12:41=A0pm, RichD > wrote:
>> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? =A0With
>> the husk and seeds and whatnot. =A0So why is that
>> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
>> I don't get it. =A0They add extra processing steps,
>> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
>> inferior product?
>> Can anybody here explain this?
>The history of bread. In the old days before much processing was
>available, the rich fancy people got the best breads, light in color,
>tender crumb, etc. while the poor got the crap bread, dark, tough,
>etc.
>Then when the industrial revolution invented processing, everyone got
>rich people's fancy bread, light to white, tender, etc. White bread
>was born!
>
>Now we are discovering that perhaps the better breads weren't
>processed to death! Imagine that!! Same with rice.

*but* ... brown bread tastes nasty and has lumps. Brown rice *has* a flavour
(as opposed to white rice ).
It's the classic nutritional problem. I don;t care how good it is for me ...
if it tastes bad, I'M NOT EATING IT.

On 2011-11-28, Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> Refined flour lasts for years before it needs to be baked into bread.
> That's all the difference that's needed to ensure that refined flour
> products are far more common than fast spoiling whole grain products.

Plus, they add other cheaper fillers. And do you think that removed
wheat grain stuff gets thrown in the trash? Not on yer life. Priced
wheat germ, lately. Holy crap! There's a racket.

nb

In article
>,
RichD > wrote:

> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
> I don't get it. They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?
>
>
>
> --
> Rich

That is what people prefer. No magic required.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

On 28/11/2011 18:41, RichD wrote:
> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? With
> the husk and seeds and whatnot. So why is that
> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?

Is it?

Most bakers that I go to make a range of mostly quality multigrain bread
as opposed to the inedible sliced white foam they sell in supermarkets.
Belgian breadshops sell mainly brown multigrain bread.

> I don't get it. They add extra processing steps,
> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
> inferior product?
>
> Can anybody here explain this?

Supermarkets prefer the longer shelf life of the highly refined white
bread and the public have been brainwashed to want over processed junk
food with way too salt and sugar added to it.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Because 100% whole grain bread (and even some of that is not 100%
> whole grain bread) tastes like crap. People tend not to buy stuff
> that tastes like crap (unless your name is Jerry Sauk).

Bread from refined grain has less flavor than bread from whole grain.
What you wrote suggests that people prefer food with less flavor. When
it comes to mass popularity that really is the trend.

Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:41:57 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
>
>> Whole grain bread is more nutritious, right? With
>> the husk and seeds and whatnot. So why is that
>> stuff removed in the manufacture of most bread?
>> I don't get it. They add extra processing steps,
>> discard valuable ingredients, and deliver an
>> inferior product?
>>
>> Can anybody here explain this?
>
> Because 100% whole grain bread (and even some of that is not 100%
> whole grain bread) tastes like crap. People tend not to buy stuff
> that tastes like crap (unless your name is Jerry Sauk).
>
> Senseless crossposting removed.
>
> -sw

It's also too heavy and thick.

Every health book I ever read says stay away from white bleached flour.

Greg