Comment by onecrossbaker | Hacker News Reader

Comment by onecrossbaker | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Caught me at the right time.

I've been baking on and off for twenty years, but it's only recently I've started to consider what I'm working with in any detail.

I'm absolutely aware of the difference between British and imported wheat. Results are very much improved and work is made easier by using very strong Canadian flour, but supporting British business (I'm a Londoner) add complexity to the choice.

I buy flour made from British wheat, but it requires extra effort to achieve an almost-as-good result as when working with imported flour.

This difference is particularly interesting for me. The industry that provides my current career (I'm a CG artist) is undergoing significant changes. I look to the future and a contemplate a possible change of career.

Do I buy Canadian flour and deliver a product that people expect? Do I sacrifice a little of the result, at least while I learn how to work more effectively with British flour, in order to be able to promote myself as a small business supporting UK enterprise.

Decisions, decisions.

What an odd morning on HN.

As an American, I found the protein situation and the whole “Canadian” flour concept bizarre.

In the US, most high quality flours will state their protein percentage reasonably prominently on the label. It’s not particularly hard to buy commercial flour at a fairly wide range of protein levels - 13.5% and even higher protein flours are available and inexpensive. And (lucky for us?) they’re basically all farmed in the US.

But in Europe, the labels seem more interested in ash content and the milling technique, and, at best, the protein can sometimes be inferred from the nutritional information. The last time I shopped for bread flour in Europe, I found a Canadian flour with sort of acceptable protein at a very high price, and I found a Croatian “Pizza” flour that was even better at a lower price.

Do not take American mass-produced sandwich bread as any kind of product that Europeans should wish they had :)

The irony that caught my eye in the article is that American mass-produced sandwich bread is depicted as this old-fashioned, slow production process. It takes far too long for the time-crunched futuristic British bakers. Who can wait 5 hours for yeast to ferment? The Chorleywood process comes to the rescue and whips and explodes the water-flour mixture into a foam that is baked seconds later. While those old-fashioned Americans are still waiting for their ancient traditional yeast to slowly do its thing.

At the same time, we have legions of new-age Rogan-adjacent food influencers on both sides of the Atlantic droning on about how American flour makes them bloated and tired (a line that Rogan himself repeats ad nauseam) while European flour avoids all of these problems.

Bread is really a fascinating product.

There are so many things for which modern mass or mass-ish production methods can produce results as good or better than artisanal techniques. Nails, knives [0], textiles, etc are all examples as long as one is considering a modern example that is trying to be good.

But a halfway decent loaf of bread made using hundreds-of-years-old techniques (albeit probably with modern yeast [1] if it’s not sourdough) is just dramatically better than “modern” bread, even though the latter often contains highly engineered ingredients and is made with extreme precision.

[0] I know it’s kind of sad, but a well designed blade cut from a sheet of high quality steel and beveled appropriately is better than even a very, very well made Japanese knife made from the alloys that, for some reason, are still state of the art in Japan. I do imagine that a highly skilled artisan could produce an even better knife from modern steels, but this is a rarity and is very, very expensive.

[1] Actual modern yeast is dramatically better than your average supermarket yeast, in flavor, performance and convenience. In the US market, this means that you should use SAF, not Red Star. Good sourdough starter is still just an artisanal thing.

> "at best, the protein can sometimes be inferred from the nutritional information."

I looked at some recently in the UK and the nutritional information is always per 100g and says e.g. 11.5g protein. Is there something wrong with that meaning 11.5% without any inference, or are continental European nutritional information boxes presented differently?

In the US, at least in larger sized bags, flour seems to be treated as an ingredient and there might not be a nutritional fact label. I admit that I didn’t look that carefully last time I was in a European grocery store.

I imagine that the 11.5g you’re looking at really does mean 11.5%.

Ahh, I am just looking at 1Kg consumer/household bags, maybe commercial huge bags are different.

Maybe this is just a difference in where the label is. I found an actual nutrition fact panel on the flour’s website.

Huh? Processed ingredients don't generally get a pass on nutritional labeling requirements in the US. A bag of flour in a grocery store should have a label.

The European grocery-bought bag of sugar I have lying around has a regular nutritional label, including a list of ingredients. Spoilers: sugar is made out of sugar and contains almost 100g of sugar per 100g.

I checked some 25lb bags of flour (not from a grocery store) and they do not appear to have any nutritional facts label.

Ok, if they're meant to be marketed for food service, like a bakery regardless of who actually purchases them, then that does makes sense.

I consider myself a decent amateur baker and I've never noticed a huge difference in bread flours. I buy from a local mill because they sell interesting grains and I want to support them. Otherwise I get King Arthur, or Bob's Red Mill if I need something a bit more specific. KA is particularly good because their recipes are usually reliable and they're designed around their flours. The selection of baking ingredients is usually much wider in the average US supermarket compared to the average European one in my experience.

I once did an experiment in which I baked two otherwise identical loaves, made under as close to identical conditions as I could arrange, very carefully measured, with the only difference being the flour. I used 11.5% protein malted flour and 13.5% protein untreated flour. The breads rose the same amount, looked and tasted basically indistinguishable, but had a dramatic difference in texture. The higher protein bread was more cohesive and resisted falling apart or being pulled apart much more strongly. Maybe I should try the experiment again, better, without any malt involved.

In any case, I think that the basic bread flours from King Arthur and Bob’s Red Mill are decently high in protein. King Arthur Bread Flour is 12.7% and they sell even higher protein flours. Bob’s Red Mill doesn’t obviously list a percentage, but the nutrition facts suggest it’s around 13%.

> I consider myself a decent amateur baker and I've never noticed a huge difference in bread flours.

If you make sourdough, have a crack at using standard supermarket flour and then try adding some organic stone ground or other expensive flour with special snob factor.

I am far from expert but notice a big difference.

(I’d say to try 100% organic stoneground but getting a good rise can be quite hard).

You can buy pure gluten powder (sold as "vital wheat gluten") and add it to get the equivalent of the Canadian flour.

There are British companies that sell (among other things) flour made from Canadian wheat.

The specific one whose flours I use for my (very amateur) bread baking is Shipton Mill. I tend to make my bread using some of their very strong Canadian flour and some of their others which are weaker but possibly produce more interesting-tasting bread. (I do not guarantee that I would actually notice the difference in a blind test. I haven't tried.) One of the other flours I use is made from some continental-European and some British wheat. Another is all-British.

(I am not personally all that concerned whether my flour-buying supports British businesses; I'm just one person making a small amount of bread for my own family's use and the impact of my flour purchases on the national economy is a rounding error on top of a rounding error.)

As others have said, you could try using not-Canadian wheat and adding some vital wheat gluten. I haven't tried doing this myself but my understanding is that it works about as well as using stronger flour to begin with. It might make your ingredient lists a little less appealing if you're going to be doing this commercially, though.

Amateur bread baker here.

Ships three times a week from Halifax docked at Birkenhead's grain elevator. The flour was then transferred to the mill over the road. British wheat flour (refined) at that point in history (60s) could not get to more than about 9% protein, not really enough to raise a loaf.

Common Market (? 1975) and we have tariffs &c so British wheat gets some serious cross-breeding attention. And now you can get home grown strong white flour above 11.5g. I think there was a similar story with Sugar cane and beet. The old Spillers mill is now flats, and the grain elevator was demolished decades ago.

But, yes, a few of the ships still come and yes you can get Canadian flour at 14 to 15%. One local artisan baker uses French flour as a matter of principle. Others don't specify the source. I'd say develop your recipes and go for it.

During Covid, the local corner shop in London managed to source some amazing Bulgarian white flour. It must have been high protein, and made the best bread. Once supply chains went back to normal, they went back to British and Canadian flours, and my bread has never been as nice.

A mixed strategy of say 75% British / 25% Canadian wheat could be an interesting point to explore.

Then, you would get 75% of the local support benefit while having a potentially better product.

(ratios theoretical; you know more than me!)

According to the artickle, even the Chorleywood technique requires some Canadian wheat- it's just that with the mixers they can get it down to 15%.

I stopped preferring British produce when I read about the farmers cheerfully using toxic industrial sludge on their fields: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e5y85p488o

I guess others are no angels either, but at least they have regulations with teeth and less corrupt politicians.

Just buy what you want and certainly do not _prefer_ British. If they don't care about your health why should you care about their bottom line....

>work is made easier by using very strong Canadian flour

what is up with Canadian flour? Just recently we were talking to an acquaintance here in Bay Area who makes her own bread from specially ordered Canadian flour.

Any reason you can't just add whatever is missing from the British flour?

Naively: gluten comes from flour, so you're not moving the needle

I suppose you save shipping costs, and I'm aware that flour processed to remove the gluten is prized for cakes.

I add gluten to bread occasionally.

It good when making pizza and makes bread rise nicely.

How do the economics pan out? Do you pay more for gluten at higher purity than the ~10% you get when you buy it in sacks of flour?

The retail case is interesting, although maybe not indicative of wholesale

I suppose this is a function of whether gluten is a usable by-product of making low-protein cake flour. In that case i would expect industrial bread to simply add by-product gluten to cheaper flour. But that might obviate the search for higher-gluten wheat that the article describes. Really, i need more data.

It definitely doesn’t save money.

Tipo 00 is great for making pasta and pizza, but it can be hard to get.

I as 50g or so to a batch of normal bread to help it out. It’s pretty unscientific but it works.

Also: don’t spill it. If makes glue and is hard to clean off. It sets like rock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com