Talk:Sourdough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 


Health Section[edit]

I know it might just add to the frequency of vandalism by errant users if a health section were added to this page but I just thought I'd make that suggestion. Very few studies exist on sourdough and of course sourdough remains outside of the mainstream so more studies are not likely to arise soon, however I have run into a few articles which cite studies that show sourdough to be better for people with gluten sensitivity and some even claim that Celiacs can consume sourdough (not recommended because of the danger). Also, diabetics have been studied and found that sourdough (even white sourdough) has less of a negative impact on diabetic blood sugar levels than both white and whole grain bread made with bakers yeast. seaniz (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You're surely right to be cautious, both for the reasons you mention and for the constraint that medical claims should comply with WP:MEDRS. I think we can add a brief mention of potential benefits, but anything actually medical requires double-blind controlled trial sourcing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Good edit (benefits) Chiswick Chap! seaniz (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Future possible additions to the article[edit]

History of sourdough bread Traditional processing and modern approach Importance of fermentation List of ingredients and role of each Chemistry responsible for fermentation and bread making Types of sourdough Health benefits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manasi11 (talkcontribs) 14:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Cauvain, Stanley P., Young, Linda S., (2007), Technology of Bread Making. New York, Springer Rubel, W. (2011). Bread: A global history. London: Reaktion Books. Pomeranz, Y. 1., & Shellenberger, J. A. (1971). Bread science and technology. Westport, Conn.: Avi Pub. Co. Gobbetti, M., Gänzle, M., & SpringerLink (Online service). (2013). Handbook on Sourdough Biotechnology. Boston, MA: Springer US. Kulp, K., & Lorenz, K. J. (2003). Handbook of dough fermentations. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Holm, D. (1973). The complete sourdough cookbook for camp, trail, and kitchen. Caldwell, Caxton Printers. Cocolin, L., Ercolini, D., & SpringerLink (Online service). (2008). Molecular Techniques in the Microbial Ecology of Fermented Foods. New York, NY: Springer New York. Kristbergsson, K., & Oliveira, J. (2016). Traditional Foods: General and Consumer Aspects (1st ed. 2016.). Boston, MA: Springer US. Stear, C. A. (1990). Handbook of breadmaking technology. London ; New York: Elsevier Applied Science. Pomeranz, Y. 1. (1987). Modern cereal science and technology. New York, N.Y.: VCH. Eliasson, A., & Larsson, K. (1993). Cereals in breadmaking: A molecular colloidal approach. New York: M. Dekker. Hutkins, R. W. (2006). Microbiology and technology of fermented foods. [Chicago, Ill.?] : Ames, Iowa: IFT Press. McElhatton, A., & El Idrissi, M. M. (2016). Modernization of Traditional Food Processes and Products (1st ed. 2016.). Boston, MA: Springer US.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Sourdough inconsistency[edit]

Hi Zefr. You have reverted my sourdough edit, saying a PhD thesis as a source is not acceptable. At the same time, you are permitting unreferenced statements in that same paragraph, simply annotating "citation needed" rather than deleting those unreferenced statements. Can you please explain your logic? Genuine question, because your inconsistency is causing me unnecessary work.86.170.121.194 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, ideally several editors would reach consensus about the factual quality of the content supported by high-quality secondary references, preferably with peer-assessed published reviews per WP:PSTS. Presently, the subsection is called "Effects", but there is sparse content on actual effects, and the section wanders with details about amounts of fructan present. I'll leave your thesis ref in place while you, I, or someone else finds an accessible review in English. --Zefr (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Zefr. I can live with the current compromise (although I still do not understand your logic why you prefer placing a "citation needed" reference rather than deleting an unreferenced statement.)
Next question: the cited rye bread PhD thesis contains a chapter reviewing the literature on fructan content (and on many other bread constituents). No such review exists to my knowledge in English unfortunately, at least not on PubMed or on Google. Therefore I opted for German because the Germans probably have the most refined (excuse the pun) bread-making tradition in the world. Incidentally, this 2007 thesis is NOT about health effects - on the contrary, back in 2007, fructan and other indigestibie fibres were considered a healthy and desirable bread constituent, and the PhD author is worried that sourdough may reduce the fibre content too much. Question: his literature review refers to a couple of potentially interesting German primary sources measuring fructan content not only in rye bread but also in wheat bread. It will take me some work to obtain those obscure German journals. Should I undertake this effort, or are you going to delete any such work I do? 86.170.121.250 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Opinions on the use of primary sources are not uniform on the English Wikipedia. Much of WP:PSTS is written from a social science and history perspective, not from a physical science perspective. The general view taken by science editors here more-or-less reflects the statement A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, although for many if not most scientific sources, primary, secondary or tertiary, "further, specialized knowledge" is needed, particularly of terminology. Personally I would say that for statements about the chemicals present in a material and their quantities, a primary source is acceptable. Any evaluation of the consequences of these facts needs secondary sources.
PhD theses are problematic for a different reason: only the examiner(s) have reviewed the material, and as a former PhD supervisor, I chose examiners carefully from within a community of shared research interests and goals. Usually there will be one or more journal publications resulting from a PhD thesis, and these make much better sources, since they have been reviewed by anonymous journal reviewers and can be commented on by others in later papers.
There's no problem in using German journals as such, although you need to be careful as to their reputability. The reliability of a journal depends on the quality of its review process. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your support Peter. I am nevertheless awaiting Zefr's approval before researching or adding further new references, lest he disagrees and deletes my editing efforts. Looks like Zefr is in a transatlantic time zone and therefore I hope he will reply later today. Meanwhile, here is some of the promising primary literature, reviewed and cited in the PhD thesis with regards to fructan breakdown during the bread-making process: 86.170.121.250 (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Escriva C, Martinez-Anaya MA (2000) Influence of Enzymes on the Evolution of Fructans in Sourdough Wheat Process. European Food Research and Technology. 210 (4), p. 286-292.
  • Fretzdorff B, Welge N (2003) Fructan- und Rafffinosegehalte im Vollkorn einiger Getreidearten und Pseudo-Cerealien. Getreide, Mehl und Brot. 57 (1), p. 3-8.
  • Fretzdorff B, Welge N (2003) Abbau von getreideeigenen Fructanen während der Herstellung von Roggen-Vollkornbrot. Getreide, Mehl und Brot. 57 (3), p. 147-150.
  • Pontis HG (1989) Fructans and Cold Stress. Journal of Plant Physiology. 134 (2), p. 148-150.
My perspective on this section is for the potential gastrointestinal complications from consuming fructans in sourdough bread, implicating the need for WP:MEDRS-quality sources which tend to be more stringent for quality than other disciplines. We should seek references less than 5 years old, according to WP:MEDDATE; the above 4 sources offered are out of date, and hopefully can be substituted with more recent work. I made further article revisions to keep the discussion focused on the potential GI effects of sourdough fructan. --Zefr (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Good evening Zefr. I see where you are coming from (the medical angle). My worry is that Sourdough should not really be a medical article, and the claimed health benefits are in my view not yet reliably researched. But we should mention some of the health claims because they constantly come up in the popular media. How about this solution: we put the fructan/chemical composition of sourdough bread in the previous section "Biology and Chemistry". And then rename the "Fructan" section as "Health Aspects" or similar. And then in the Biology/Chemistry section we can apply relaxed Wikipedia citation rules (allowing us to include the PhD review and those 4 obscure references, once I have chased them up and confirmed they are useful). And in the medical section we mention the potential health consequences of teh chemical composition, and use your stringent Wiki med-source criteria. I am making a start so you get my meaning. Feel free to edit or revert my edits. 86.170.121.250 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)