I'm sure this was a very interesting article but after 7 paragraphs telling me that bread had changed in this one weird way, but not yet telling me how, it started feeling like marketing and I couldn't read more.
I guess I'll never find out why the bread in Europe also has holes.
I resorted to getting chatgpt to make a summary... Which I am loathe to do:
"Chorleywood replaced long fermentation with intensive mechanical mixing, allowing Britain to turn its previously unsuitable low-protein wheat into cheap mass-produced white bread and substantially reduce its reliance on imported Canadian grain."
The Chorleywood bread process allows the use of lower-protein wheats and reduces processing time,[5] the system being able to produce a loaf of bread from flour to sliced and packaged form in about three and a half hours. This is achieved through the addition of vitamin C, fat, yeast, and intense mechanical working by high-speed mixers, not feasible in a small-scale kitchen.
The process significantly reduced fermentation time and allowed greater use of non-imported wheat, which helped reduce the price of bread.[4] According to a representative of the British Federation of Bakers, "UK bread is around the cheapest in the world."[5]
As of 2011, 80% of bread made in the United Kingdom used the process, which has also spread to other countries such as Australia, South Africa, South America, Turkey and France.
Does anyone know if the technique mentioned by the earlier Aerated Bread Company still exist today? Like can you buy a bread somewhere made with the technology. No yeast but using carbon dioxide? Sounds like the irish soda bread, so not fermentation by yeast but chemical leavening. But surely they are different because the irish soda bread is dense whereas the Aerated bread sounds like something more fluffy. Googling around I couldn't find a photo how did this bread look like.
This word bloat is why I can rarely read non-fiction books even if their topic is interesting. I want the summary and then option to read more detail if I want, not have to go through pages and pages of padding before getting to the interesting ideas or facts. There was interesting information in the article but the idea that it takes up a third of his book, with multiple interviews about the process is the opposite, is exactly what I'd avoid reading.
The guiding principle of the Chorleywood Bread Process (I’m paraphrasing, of course) is that instead of depending for the most part on fermentation to generate all those bubbles of CO2 that later become the “cell structure” of microscopic holes in a loaf of bread, something similar could be achieved by beating that dough to within an inch of its life in a massive mechanical mixer.
It's much the same for all soft (tin) loaves sold across Europe. The exception being breads with crusts - baguettes and rolls etc. and rye bread.
What absolute slop. I don't even know if anything in this is true. And an article with a title about little holes contains multiple photos of bread, none of which actually show the holes? I would be embarrassed if someone I knew put their name on something like this.
I think this is a result of click-bait titles. The title primes you to find out about the "little holes in your bread", so you start reading to find out about that and of course they leave that info to the end. It reminds me of the way so many YouTube videos will talk round and round the subject before getting to the actual point.
Comments
I'm sure this was a very interesting article but after 7 paragraphs telling me that bread had changed in this one weird way, but not yet telling me how, it started feeling like marketing and I couldn't read more.
I guess I'll never find out why the bread in Europe also has holes.
I agree, what a chore to read.
I resorted to getting chatgpt to make a summary... Which I am loathe to do:
"Chorleywood replaced long fermentation with intensive mechanical mixing, allowing Britain to turn its previously unsuitable low-protein wheat into cheap mass-produced white bread and substantially reduce its reliance on imported Canadian grain."
Goodness thanks for taking a terrible article and getting to the point.
Alas, Chorleywood tastes awful. At least to German taste buds.
I imagine almost all other bread tastes awful to German taste buds.
And imho the British kind, especially, does not even deserve to be called by the same name.
British food before roughly WW2 wasn't so bad actually.
The French have some decent bread, if you can live without the taste of rye for a while.
... but if you buy my book with more of this, I'll send you even more to read!
I get it, sometimes it's fun to follow a story. But I also read a dozen or so paragraphs, then started scrolling, then gave up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process is a more focused article about it.
That was interesting. Highlights for me:
As of 2011, 80% of bread made in the United Kingdom used the process, which has also spread to other countries such as Australia, South Africa, South America, Turkey and France.
Reading through this page...
Does anyone know if the technique mentioned by the earlier Aerated Bread Company still exist today? Like can you buy a bread somewhere made with the technology. No yeast but using carbon dioxide? Sounds like the irish soda bread, so not fermentation by yeast but chemical leavening. But surely they are different because the irish soda bread is dense whereas the Aerated bread sounds like something more fluffy. Googling around I couldn't find a photo how did this bread look like.
I at least appreciate he was up front about advertising his book.
But, yes, after about seven paragraphs I could no longer read on, and I had completely lost any interest in his book.
This should be given as an example how marketing can actively damage your product.
I can't believe how high this is on hackernews. It feels odd.
This word bloat is why I can rarely read non-fiction books even if their topic is interesting. I want the summary and then option to read more detail if I want, not have to go through pages and pages of padding before getting to the interesting ideas or facts. There was interesting information in the article but the idea that it takes up a third of his book, with multiple interviews about the process is the opposite, is exactly what I'd avoid reading.
You're not reading the right non fiction books.
I lost interest too. I could grow grain grind it, and make bread before I finished the article.
You were half way there!
It's much the same for all soft (tin) loaves sold across Europe. The exception being breads with crusts - baguettes and rolls etc. and rye bread.
What absolute slop. I don't even know if anything in this is true. And an article with a title about little holes contains multiple photos of bread, none of which actually show the holes? I would be embarrassed if someone I knew put their name on something like this.
Indeed, what an arduous read.
I think this is a result of click-bait titles. The title primes you to find out about the "little holes in your bread", so you start reading to find out about that and of course they leave that info to the end. It reminds me of the way so many YouTube videos will talk round and round the subject before getting to the actual point.
Absolutely. I will never waste my time with slop that doesn't get to the point. This is a lousy blog post about bread, not a great novel.
YouTube is infested with lede burying as well. I hate it.
This is the kind of writing that I assume the people who read the NYT or Atlantic enjoy.
The content is good but yes it's like there is a different class of people that really want to FEEL like they are reading. They are doing THE WORK.