Talk:Chorleywood bread process

Food and drink Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Picture

I was just over at Commons, looking for a picture of either a Chorleywood mixer, or of a pressure-vacuum mixer. Surprise! Notta one. :( Maybe there's a different keyword better suited for the search? Maybe someone who has one could donate a pic? Gzuufy (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV concerns

This page seems to be NPOV to me. In the book "Not on the Label: What Really Goes Into the Food on Your Plate" by Felicity Lawrence, strongly criticised the CBP, on the grounds that it required an increased amount of salt and yeast, compared to traditional processes. Her argument was that the primary benefit to the CBP is economic and industrial, not health based. Could some of this be incorporated into the article? --Tomhannen 14:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to edit an article. Criticism like this is important especially when you have a source. Oh and BTW - NPOV is good, POV is bad!--Moonlight Mile 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further criticism: added note about criticism by Andrew Whitley in his book "Bread matters", with another title in the bibliography section. In this book there is also a chapter about the CBP with lots of arguments as well as table regarding the CPB. --Ibancito 13:11, 07 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my granddad would turn in his grave if he heard about this. The Chorleywood Bread Process and the improvements it has made to soceity have greatly increased during periods of famine etc. I think you need to do more research into this area before you critise it the way you have.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.117.31.4 (talk • contribs)

I've reformatted the article into sections, which I think puts the the criticisms into a clearer context, although I agree that it's borderline stating-the-obvious ("industrial-scale food production is concerned with industry").

But Wikipedia itself isn't criticising the process, it's merely citing two sources which have criticised it. If you're able to write about the benefits and history of the process, please do so. --McGeddon 13:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find some more sources; I have Bread Matters, and some early sources that are probably too early, but I have a few more about post war food, though some are American so may not cover it. (not logged in now) 82.43.127.180 (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear this article incorporates a great deal of un-encyclopedic and emotive language, presenting a rather anti-industrial viewpoint. This may be well-intentioned to help guide us all toward bready enlightenment, for our own good (or not, of course), but it aint fact. I'm going to chop it down fearsomely, and make it shorter and simpler in the process Glynhughes (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but in the process you have removed a lot of NPOV statements about ingredients and the like. Unless they are incorrect they should be put back. As to critics of the method, they may have been fringe at one time, but the increase in demand for artisan breads means that they are mainstream now. I think your edits have made this article onesided. Pelarmian (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Part of NPOV is balance of positives and negatives. Removing negatives and only presenting the positive, does seem to create a type of NPOV violation. I was looking over some recent edits to this article, and a bunch of what appears to be valid information regarding dough conditioners is now deleted: for example, azodicarbonamide and the deletions surrounding that edit. While this patent is not about Chorleywood per se, it does describe some of Chorleywood's processes, and it also mentions azodicarbonamide. I'd also like to see some images of the equipment used added to the article, it seems there's some mystery surrounding the method. I've seen "high sheer" mixers mentioned in relation to Chorleywood (the opposite of the mixing techniques used by artisans who try to not break gluten bonds). I believe the image at the top of this commercial page are relatively standard high sheer mixer blades, though whether that's the same design as used in the Chorleywood process is unknown by me. The concept of pressurizing and evacuating the mixer's headspace seems to be a major advance in bread-dough mixer design, and one would think a bit more detailed explanation would be appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Evidently azodicarbonamide has been discontinued, along with the use of bromate. According to Edwards, the use of ascorbic acid didn't work well under a vacuum, as had been the prior mixing practice, so it is added during positive gas pressure, for the improving effect in the presence of oxygen, then the vacuum is applied later in the mix. If azodicarbonamide has been discontinued, then its deletion from the article makes more sense, unless a history of the process is presented. "Tweedy" is apparently a term applied to older Chorleywood mixers. It's possible the edits were intended to be reflective of current practices, and to ignore past practices. Gzuufy (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: {{copypaste}} tag

McGeddon could you provide the url or other source that the section is copied from? It should be added to the template. —dv82matt 12:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realise the template took a URL. There's actually not much there that's the same any more, but I don't know enough about the process to rewrite the remainder of it with confidence. --McGeddon 12:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for adding the url. —dv82matt 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regionality

The article only mentions the prevalence of CBP in the UK. Is it used elsewhere, and if not, are there equivalents in other countries? I will add this info if I come across it myself.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.229.218 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canola clarification

I have expanded the reference to canola, as this American name for rapeseed oil is rarely used or understood within the UK, and the article is about a primarily UK based breadmaking process. --Ef80 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the low erucic acid part for clarification. BTW, the name is Canadian. Gigemag76 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soy flour does not have to be genetically modified to bleach crumb

Change of "Genetically modified" soy flour

I propose to replace "Genetically modified" with "enzymatically active", because the crumb bleaching effect of soy flour has nothing to do with whether it has been genetically modified or not. The enzyme responsible, lipoxygenase, is equally present in wild-type, non-modified soy flour. The only demand on the soy flour is that it has not been treated in such a way to lose its enzyme activity, hence the term "enzymatically active". HStreek (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ascorbic acid

Ascorbic acid/ascorbate is an anti-oxidixant and therefore gets reduced. Why is it referred to as an oxidising agent? Mark ong (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In wheat flour there is a naturally occuring enzyme called Ascorbic Acid Oxidase, which turns ascorbic acid into the dehydro- form, which is an oxidant, so although normally an anti-oxidant, in wheat flour dough it acts as an oxidant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.55.83 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doh Boy

The link to the "Doh Boy" campaign results in an error. The nearest link I can find is this: http://www.coolhunting.com/tech/doh-boy.php --Allan Lewis (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference. There is no evidence of this campaign still existing, or that it had any impact when it did. In fact it looks like it was only a promotional gimmick by a company [1]. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the link to an archive page sometime ago. Harry the Dirty Dog broke the page this morning so that in the references section it states, Cite error: ... "Auto94-5" defined in ... is not used in prior text; see the help page." I reverted his/her broken edit, and it was undone again, back to a citation-broken state. This can be construed as 'inserting obvious nonsense into a page'. Gzuufy (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or a simple mistake which is what it was. I missed the broken ref in my initial edit. Apologies. Fixed now. In any event an archived page does not support an assertion in the present tense. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity missed

Having spent a large part of my life eating this type of bread and recently baking my own, (due to retirement), I have to say the article leaves me feeling so much has been left out.

The ascorbic acid, which acts as an oxidant, that is what 'blows' the air into the bread, not yeast. I'm left wondering why the yeast is added at all. It would undoubtedly be helpful to have some idea of the actual process here, not to mention the chemical symbols.

The way this article is written seems almost as if you could add, Approved by the Industrial Bread Making industry, at the bottom The often hysterical claims by some health writers, about commercial bread, are clearly no more reliable or informative as this. That is a very sad missed opportunity to bring some clarity into a subject over which a lot of obvious propaganda has become accepted wisdom Many people do indeed enjoy this sort of bread and it is perfectly healthy. But equally, it does lack flavour and has the texture of snot when chewed.

I worked in a food factory for a while and saw Yoghurt being made on an industrial scale. Again, perfectly healthy, good product. But not the same product as naturally made yoghurt. The same can be said for natural beer.

Sad, that Wikipedia has yet again, chosen to ignore or leave out good argument and facts, allowing instead this propaganda leaflet from the industrial bread industry to make itself known.

Edited by writer.

86.16.68.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]