A
TREATISE ON BREAD,
AND
BREAD-MAKING.
BY SYLVESTER GRAHAM.
“Bread strengtheneth man’s heart.”—HOLY WRIT.
BOSTON:
LIGHT & STEARNS, 1 CORNHILL.
1837.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1837, by LIGHT &
STEARNS, in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS.
HISTORY OF BREAD.
Primitive food of man. Bruising and grinding grain. Baking. Invention of
leavened bread. Bread among the Greeks and Romans—among the Hebrews.
Simplicity of the bread now used in many countries.
9–16
LAWS OF DIET.
Reasons why food in its natural state would be the best. Concentrated
nutriment. Interesting experiments on animals. Mixtures of food.
Leavened and unleavened bread. Qualifications of the best bread.
17–30
MATERIAL OF BREAD.
Wheat. Extent of climate favorable to it. Injured by improper tillage.
Removal of impurities. Washing of grain. Separation of the bran from
the nutrient particles improper. Ancient Roman bread. Public bakers.
Use of bad flour. Adulterations. Poisonous agents used to disguise
them.
31–50
PROPERTIES OF BREAD.
Superfine flour injurious—a probable cause of some common disorders.
Objections to coarse bread. Its medical properties. Extensive
experiments of its use, by soldiers and others. Use among European
peasantry. Selection, preservation and grinding of wheat.
51–72
FERMENTATION.
Chemical composition of flour. Yeast—modes of preparing it. Substitutes
for it. Fermentation, and its products. Vinous, acetous and
putrefactive fermentation.
73–86
PREPARATION OF BREAD.
Mixing. Much kneading necessary. Rising, or fermentation. Use of
alkalies—saleratus and soda. Baking. Ovens. Alcohol in bread.
Preservation of bread.
87–102
WHO SHOULD MAKE BREAD.
Making bread by rule. Bakers. Domestics. Sour bread. An anecdote. Mrs.
Van Winkle. Bad bread need not be made. How cake is made. Bread-making
a drudgery. Excellent example of a mother. Eating bad bread.
Importance of having good bread.
103–126
VARIETIES OF BREAD.
Rye bread. Indian meal bread. Use of sour milk or butter-milk. Acids.
Family grinding.
127–131
PREFACE.
There are probably few people in civilized life, who—were the question
put to them directly—would not say, that they consider bread _one_ of
the most, if not the most important article of diet which enters into
the food of man. And yet there is, in reality, almost a total and
universal carelessness about the character of bread. Thousands in civic
life will, for years, and perhaps as long as they live, eat the most
miserable trash that can be imagined, in the form of bread, and never
seem to think that they can possibly have anything better, nor even that
it is an evil to eat such vile stuff as they do. And if there is
occasionally an individual who is troubled with some convictions that
his bread is not quite what it should be, he knows not how to remedy the
difficulty; for it is a serious truth, that, although nearly every human
being in civilized life eats bread of some kind or other, yet scarcely
any one has sufficient knowledge of the true principles and processes
concerned in bread-making, and of the actual causes of the bad qualities
of bread, to know how, with any degree of certainty, to avoid bad and
secure good bread.
I have thought, therefore, that I could hardly do society a better
service, than to publish the following treatise on a subject which,
whether people are aware of it or not, is, in reality, of very great
importance to the health and comfort of every one.
It has been prepared for the press with more haste, under more
embarrassments from other engagements, and with less severity of
revision, than I could wish. Yet, whatever may be its defects of
arrangement, method or style, I have taken care to have the principles
correct, and the instructions such as, if attended to, will enable every
one who is heartily devoted to the object, to make good bread.
I must, however, acknowledge, that I have very little expectation that
proper attention will be paid to this subject, so long as the dietetic
habits of society continue to be what they are. While the various
preparations of animal food constitute so important a portion of human
aliment, the quality of bread will be greatly disregarded and neglected,
and people will continue almost universally to be cursed with poor
bread.
Nevertheless, I trust some good will be done by the little work I now
send out; and I am not without hope, that it will be the means of a
considerable improvement in the quality of bread, and, as a natural and
necessary consequence, an improvement in the health and happiness of
those who consume it.
That it may prove thus beneficial to my fellow creatures in a high
degree, is my hearty and fervent desire.
S. GRAHAM.
NORTHAMPTON, APRIL 12, 1837.
TREATISE ON BREAD.
HISTORY OF BREAD.
Primitive food of man. Bruising and grinding grain. Baking. Invention of
leavened bread. Bread among the Greeks and Romans—among the Hebrews.
Simplicity of the bread now used in many countries.
In the English version of the sacred scriptures, the term Bread is
frequently used to signify vegetable food in general. Thus in Gen. iii,
19, the Lord says to Adam—“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread
(or food) till thou return to the ground.” See also Gen. xviii, 5, and
xxviii, 20, and Ex. ii, 20.
The most extended sense of the word, however, according to general
usage, comprehends all farinaceous vegetable substances which enter into
the diet of man; such as the farinaceous seeds or grain, nuts, fruit,
roots, &c. And in this extended sense, Bread, in some form or other, has
been the principal article in the diet of mankind, from the earliest
generations of the human race, to the present time; except among the
few, small and scattered tribes, which have, perhaps, ever since the
days of Noah, in different parts of the earth, subsisted mainly on
animal food.
It is nearly certain that the primitive inhabitants of the earth, ate
their food with very little, if any artificial preparation.
The various fruits, nuts, seeds, roots, and other vegetable substances
on which they fed, were eaten by them in their natural state, with no
other grinding than that which was done by the teeth.
As the human family increased, and population became more dense and
extended, and providential measures more necessary, the condition and
circumstances of society gradually led to the invention and adoption of
the simple, and, at first, rude arts of domestic life. Among these, was
that of bruising the harder articles of their food, such as nuts and
seeds, or grain, on flat stones, selected and kept for the purpose. By
constant use, these stones in time became hollowed out; and being
thereby rendered more convenient, men at length began to form mortars
and pestles from stones; and probably the next step was the construction
of the rude kind of hand-mills, which continued in use for many
centuries; and indeed, which, with the stone mortars, have, throughout
all ages and in almost every portion of the earth, been used in the
ruder states of society.
When men became acquainted with the use of fire, they probably often
parched their corn or grain before they pounded it; and afterwards, they
learned to mix it with water into the consistency of dough, and to bake
this, in an unleavened or unfermented state, on flat stones before the
fire, or in the hot ashes or hot earth, or in the rude ovens which they
formed, by digging holes in the earth, into which they put heated
stones, and slightly covered them with leaves or grass, and then laid in
the article they wished to bake, and over this strewed some leaves, and
then covered the whole with earth.[A]
This kind of unleavened bread, undoubtedly constituted a very important,
if not the principal article of artificially prepared food in the diet
of the primitive inhabitants of the earth, for many centuries; and the
same, or very nearly the same kind of bread continued in general use
down to the days of Abraham; and it is probable that the unleavened
bread used by his descendants at the feast of the Passover, before and
after they left Egypt, was of the same kind.
It is hardly possible, however, that it could have been otherwise, than
that, at a much earlier period, larger quantities of this dough were
occasionally made, than were immediately baked, and consequently
portions of it were suffered to stand and ferment; and by this means,
men were in process of time learned to make leavened, or raised bread.
At how early a date, loaf or raised bread came into common use, it is
impossible now to ascertain with any considerable degree of precision.
The scriptures do not afford us any evidence that Abraham was accustomed
to such bread; but the fact that Moses, at the institution of the supper
of the Passover, the night before the Jews left Egypt, commanded them
strictly to abstain from leavened bread, and to eat only the unleavened,
proves conclusively, that the Israelites at least, were then accustomed
to fermented, or raised bread.
Neither history nor tradition enables us to speak with any degree of
confidence in regard to the period at which other nations became
acquainted with the art of bread-making; but from all that has come down
to us from ancient times, we learn that the primitive generations of
every nation, subsisted on fruits and other products of the vegetable
kingdom, in their uncooked or natural state.
“The Greeks assert that they were taught the art of making bread by
their god, Pan; and Pliny informs us that this art was not known at Rome
till near six hundred years after the foundation of that city. The Roman
armies, he says, on their return from Macedonia, brought Grecian bakers
into Italy. Before this time, the Romans prepared their meal in a kind
of pap or soft pudding; and on this account Pliny calls them pap
eaters.”
But though the Egyptians and Israelites were probably among the earliest
portions of the human family, who became acquainted with the art of
making loaf or raised bread, the quality of their bread continued to be
exceedingly simple and coarse for many generations.
Even after the establishment of the Hebrew nation in Palestine—in the
most splendid days of Jerusalem—at the period of the highest refinement
of the Jews, in the arts of civil and domestic life, their fine flour,
from which their choicest bread and cakes were made, was, in comparison
with modern superfine flour, extremely coarse,—ground mostly by females,
in hand-mills constructed and kept for that purpose.
From Rome the art of bread-making very slowly found its way over
considerable portions of Europe. A thousand years after Julius Cæsar
first entered Britain, the rude people of that country were little
acquainted with raised bread. “Even at present,” says Prof. Thomson,
“loaf bread is seldom used except by the higher classes of inhabitants,
in the northern countries of Europe and Asia.”
In Eastern and Southern Asia, rice constitutes the principal
bread-stuff; and this is generally prepared with great simplicity. In
Middle and Western Asia, and in Africa, bread, though made of different
kinds of grain, is prepared with almost equal simplicity. In Scotland,
Ireland, and indeed throughout Europe generally, barley, oats, rye,
potatoes, peas, beans, chesnuts, and other farinaceous vegetables,
constitute the bread-stuff of most of the laboring people, or peasantry.
In the islands of the Pacific and Southern oceans, the bread of the
inhabitants consists of the plantain, bananas, yams, bread-fruit, and
other like vegetables, simply roasted, baked, or boiled.
Bread, therefore, of some kind or other, made of some of the farinaceous
products of the vegetable kingdom, has probably, in almost every portion
of the world, and every period of time, been one of the first, and most
important, and universal articles of food, artificially prepared by
cooking, which has entered into the diet of mankind; and hence it has
with great propriety been called “the staff of life.”
LAWS OF DIET.
Reasons why food in its natural state would be the best. Concentrated
nutriment. Interesting experiments on animals. Mixtures of food.
Leavened and unleavened bread. Qualifications of the best bread.
If man were to subsist wholly on alimentary substances in their natural
state, or without any artificial preparation by cooking, then he would
be obliged to use his teeth freely in masticating his food; and by so
doing, not only preserve his teeth from decay, and keep them in sound
health, but at the same time, and by the same means, would he thoroughly
mix his food with the fluid of his mouth, and thus prepare it both for
swallowing and for the action of the stomach, and by the same means
also, he would be made to swallow his food slowly, as the welfare of the
stomach and of the whole system requires he should.
Again, if man were to subsist wholly on uncooked food, he would never
suffer from the improper temperature of his aliment. Hot substances
taken into the mouth, serve more directly and powerfully to destroy the
teeth, than any other cause which acts immediately upon them; and hot
food and drink received into the stomach, always in some degree
debilitate that organ, and through it, every other organ and portion of
the whole system; diminishing, as an ultimate result, the vital power of
every part—impairing every function, and increasing the susceptibility
of the whole body to the action of disturbing causes, and predisposing
it to disease. Again, if man were to subsist entirely on food in a
natural state, he would never suffer from concentrated aliment. Every
substance in nature which God has prepared for the food of man, consists
of both nutritious and innutritious matter. The proportions vary in
different kinds of food. Thus in a hundred pounds of potatoes, there are
about twenty-five pounds of nourishing matter; while in a hundred pounds
of good wheat there are about eighty pounds of nourishing matter. There
are a few products of the vegetable kingdom which are still higher in
the scale of nutriment, than wheat; and on the other hand there is a
boundless variety ranging below wheat, extending down to three or four
per cent. of nourishment. But nature, without the aid of human art,
produces nothing for the alimentary use of man which is purely a
concentrated nutrient substance. And God has constructed man in strict
accordance with this general economy of nature. He has organized and
endowed the human body with reference to the condition and qualities of
those substances in nature, which He designed for the food of man. And
consequently, while man obeys the laws of constitution and relation
which should govern him in regard to his food, he preserves the health
and integrity of his alimentary organs, and through them of his whole
nature; and so far as his dietetic habits are concerned, secures the
highest and best condition of his nature. But, if he disregards these
laws, and by artificial means greatly departs from the natural
adaptation of things, he inevitably brings evil on himself and on his
posterity.
It has been fully proved that “bulk, or a due proportion of innutritious
matter in our food, is quite as important to health as nourishment.”
Human beings may subsist from childhood to extreme old age on good
potatoes and pure water alone, and enjoy the best and most uninterrupted
health, and possess the greatest muscular power and ability to endure
protracted fatigue and exposure. But if the purely nutrient matter of
the potato be separated out by artificial means, and human beings, fed
exclusively on this concentrated form of aliment and pure water, they
will soon perish, because the alimentary organs of man are not
constituted and endowed for such kinds of food. And this is true of all
animals, in the higher orders, at least.
We know that dogs fed on sugar and water, gum and water, fine flour
bread and water, or any other kind of concentrated aliment, will soon
languish, and droop, and emaciate, and die; but if a due proportion of
proper innutritious substance be mixed with these concentrated forms of
aliment, the dogs will subsist on them and remain healthy. So if horses,
cows, deer, sheep, and other grass-eating animals be fed on grain alone,
they will soon lose their appetite and begin to droop, and will shortly
perish; but if a due proportion of straw or shavings of wood be given
them with their grain, they will continue to do well. Man is affected in
the same manner. He cannot long subsist on purely nutritious substances.
And the reason is not because these substances have no azote or nitrogen
in them; nor is it because man _necessarily_ requires a variety of
alimentary substances, but simply and exclusively because the anatomical
construction and vital powers of the alimentary organs, are
constitutionally adapted to alimentary substances which consist of both
nutritious and innutritious matter; and therefore a due proportion of
innutritious matter in the food of man is as essential to the welfare of
his alimentary organs, as a due proportion of nourishment is to the
support of his body.
Again, if man subsisted wholly on uncooked food, he would not only be
preserved from improper concentrations, but also from pernicious
combinations of alimentary substances. The alimentary organs of man,
like those of the horse, ox, sheep, dog, cat, and most or all other
animals of the higher orders, if not in fact, of all other animals
without limitation, possess the vital capability of so accommodating
themselves to emergencies, that they can be made to digest almost every
vegetable and animal substance in nature; and they can, by long
training, be educated to digest a mixture of these substances at the
same time. Nevertheless it is incontestibly true, that the alimentary
organs of man and of all other animals, can manage one kind of food at a
time better than a mixed ingestion; for it is impossible that the
solvent fluids secreted by the stomach and other organs belonging to the
alimentary apparatus, should be at the same time equally well adapted to
entirely different kinds of food.
I do not say that the alimentary organs of man cannot, by long habit, be
brought into such a condition as that, while that condition remains,
they will not manage a mixed ingestion of animal and vegetable food,
with more immediate comfort and satisfaction to themselves and the
individual, than they will an ingestion of pure vegetable food. But this
does not militate against the general principle in the least; for it is
nevertheless true, that the same organs are capable of being brought
into a condition in which they will manage an ingestion of unmixed food
of either kind, with less embarrassment and injury to themselves and the
whole system, than they can the mixed food in any condition. Hence it is
a general law of nature, concerning the dietetic habits of man, that
simplicity of food at each meal is essential to the highest well-being
of the individual and of the race.
God has unquestionably provided a great and rich variety of substances
for man’s nourishment and enjoyment; but it is equally certain that he
did not design that man should partake of all this variety at a single
meal, nor in a single day, nor season—but from meal to meal, from day to
day, and from season to season, varying his enjoyment in strictest
consistency with the great laws of his nature. And hence all artificial
combinations of alimentary substances, and particularly those of a
heterogeneous kind, and yet more especially the concentrated forms, must
be more or less pernicious to the alimentary organs, and through them to
the whole system.
Finally, if man subsisted wholly on uncooked food, the undepraved
integrity of his appetite, his thorough mastication and slow swallowing,
and his simple meal, would greatly serve to prevent his overeating, and
thus save him from the ruinous effects of one of the most destructive
causes operating in civic life.
Whatever may be the material, therefore, from which bread is made, when
the artificial preparation is of that simple character which leaves the
proportions of nutritious and innutritious properties, as nature
combined them, and effects little change in the nutritious principles,
and retains the natural requisition for the function of the teeth, and
thus secures the proper chewing of the food and the mixing of it with
the fluids of the mouth, and swallowing of it slowly, the artificial
process militates very little, if at all, against any of the
physiological or vital interests of the body. But if our artificial
process of bread-making, concentrates the nutrient properties, and
destroys the due proportion between the bulk and nourishment, and forms
improper changes and combinations in the nutrient elements, and does
away the necessity for mastication or chewing, and presents the food in
too elevated a temperature, or too hot, and enables us to swallow it too
rapidly, with little or no exercise of the teeth, and without properly
mixing it with the fluids of the mouth, the artificial process or
cooking is decidedly and often exceedingly inimical, not only to the
vital interests of the alimentary organs, but of the whole human system.
In all civilized nations, and particularly in civic life, bread, as I
have already stated, is far the most important article of food which is
artificially prepared; and in our country and climate, it is the most
important article that enters into the diet of man; and therefore it is
of the first consideration, that its character should, in every respect,
be as nearly as possible, consistent with the laws of constitution and
relation established in our nature; or with the anatomical construction
and vital properties and powers and interest of our systems.
If we contemplate the human constitution in its highest and best
condition,—in the possession of its most vigorous and unimpaired
powers—and ask, what must be the character of our bread in order to
preserve that constitution in that condition? the answer most
indubitably is, that the coarse unleavened bread of early times, when of
proper age, was one of the least removes from the natural state of
food,—one of the simplest and most wholesome forms of artificial
preparations, and best adapted to fulfil the laws of constitution and
relation; and therefore best adapted to sustain the most vigorous and
healthy state of the alimentary organs, and the highest and best
condition of the whole nature of man, as a general and permanent fact;
and hence it is very questionable whether loaf or raised bread can be
made equally conducive to all the interests of our nature, with the
simple unleavened bread.
I am aware that many professional men entertain a very different opinion
on this subject, and speak of unleavened bread as being less nourishing
and less easily digested. This may be true to a limited extent, in
special cases of impaired and debilitated alimentary organs; but I am
confident that as a general fact the notion is entirely erroneous.
“The whole people of Asia,” says Dr. Cullen, “live upon unfermented
rice. The Americans, before they became acquainted with the Europeans,
employed, and for the most part, still employ their maize in the same
condition. Even in Europe, the employment of unfermented bread, and
unfermented farinaceæ in other forms, is still very considerable, and we
are ready to maintain that the morbid consequences of such a diet are
very seldom to be observed. In Scotland, nine tenths of the lower
classes of people—and that is the greater part of the whole—live upon
unfermented bread and unfermented farinaceæ in other forms, and at the
same time, I am of opinion that there are not a more healthy people
anywhere to be found. We give it to all classes and both sexes with
advantage.”
It is incontestibly true, that if two portions of the same kind of wheat
meal be taken and made, the one into unleavened and the other into
leavened bread, and both be eaten warm from the oven, the leavened bread
will prove much more oppressive and difficult to manage in the stomach
than the unleavened. But aside from the changes that are produced by the
process of fermentation, there are many other considerations why
unleavened bread of a proper quality and age, is better adapted to
sustain the alimentary organs and general constitution of man, in their
highest and best condition.
Nevertheless, it is very certain, that loaf or raised bread can be made
so nearly in accordance with the vital laws and interests of our bodies,
as scarcely to militate against them in any perceptible or appreciable
degree. And when I say this, I mean not merely its effects on the health
and longevity of a single individual, but its effects upon the human
constitution, through successive generations, for a thousand years or
more.
As a general criterion or rule, then, in regard to the character of
bread, we perceive that the most perfect loaf or raised bread, is that
which, being made of the best material, is light, and sweet, and well
baked, and still most nearly retains all the natural proportions and
properties of the original material.
MATERIAL OF BREAD.
Wheat. Extent of climate favorable to it. Injured by improper tillage.
Removal of impurities. Washing of grain. Separation of the bran from
the nutrient particles improper. Ancient Roman bread. Public bakers.
Use of bad flour. Adulterations. Poisonous agents used to disguise
them.
Among the materials used for making bread in our country—and, in fact,
of all the known productions of the vegetable kingdom in any country,
wheat is decidedly the best; and it is a remarkable fact, that wheat
comes nearer to man than perhaps any other plant, in its power of
becoming adapted to different climates, over a wide extent of the
earth’s surface, so that it may almost be said that wherever the human
species can flourish, there wheat can be cultivated.
“It is not certainly known,” says Prof. Thomson, “in what country wheat
was first produced. Mr. Bruce informs us that he found it growing wild
in Abyssinia; and in his opinion, that kingdom is the native country of
the plant. It would seem,” continues the Professor, “to be originally an
African plant, since it thrives best in Barbary and Egypt; and perhaps
the mountains of Abyssinia, though within the torrid zone, may not
differ much in point of climate, from the more northern plains of Egypt.
Wheat is perhaps cultivated over a greater extent of the globe than any
other plant. Excellent crops are raised as far north as Sweden, in
latitude 60°; it is cultivated in the East Indies, considerably within
the limits of the torrid zone; and in the North of Hindostan, it
constitutes a chief article in the food of the inhabitants. In India,
however, the plant seems to have deteriorated. It is always dwarfish,
and the crop is said to be less abundant than in more northern
climates.” Yet a cold climate is not most genial to the nature of this
plant. “The wheat of France is superior to that of England; the wheat of
Italy is still better than that of France; and perhaps the best of all
is raised in Barbary and Egypt.”
Excellent wheat is raised in the southern, and western, and middle
portions of the United States; and even in the northern and eastern
parts of New England, very fine crops have been produced.
But the wheat and other cultivated products of the vegetable kingdom
appropriated to the nourishment of man, like those on which our domestic
animals subsist, are too generally, in civilized life, very considerably
deteriorated, as to their wholesomeness, by the improper tillage of the
soil. I have no doubt that it is true, as stated by those who have made
the experiment, that the flour of wheat, raised on a cultivated soil
recently dressed with crude, stable manure, may readily be distinguished
by its odor, from the flour of wheat raised on a new and undepraved
soil, or from that raised on a cultivated soil which has been dressed
with properly digested manure. And if such and similar results of
improper tillage can become the sources of serious evil to the human
family, through their effects on the flesh of animals which man devours,
and on the milk and butter which he consumes, surely the immediate
effects of such a deteriorated vegetable aliment on the human system,
must be very considerable.
They who have never eaten bread made of wheat, recently produced by a
pure virgin soil, have but a very imperfect notion of the deliciousness
of good bread; such as is often to be met with in the comfortable log
houses in our western country. It is probably true that the new soil, in
its virgin purity, before it becomes exhausted by tillage, and debauched
by the means which man uses to enrich and stimulate it, produces most,
if not all kinds of vegetables appropriate for human aliment, in a more
perfect and healthy state, than any soil which has been long under
cultivation, can be made to do. Nevertheless, by a proper application of
physiological principles to agriculture, many of the evils which now
result from improper tillage may easily be avoided, and the quality of
all those vegetable substances which enter into the diet of man may be
very greatly improved, both in regard to wholesomeness and
deliciousness.
But while the people of our country are so entirely given up as they are
at present, to gross and promiscuous feeding on the dead carcasses of
animals, and to the untiring pursuits of wealth, it is perhaps wholly in
vain for a single individual to raise his voice on a subject of this
kind. The farmer will continue to be most eager to increase the number
of his acres, and to extort from those acres the greatest amount of
produce, with the least expense of tillage, and with little or no regard
to the quality of that produce in relation to the physiological
interests of man; while the people generally, are contented to gratify
their depraved appetites on whatever comes before them, without pausing
to inquire whether their indulgences are adapted to preserve or to
destroy their health and life. Yet if some one does not raise a voice
upon this subject which shall be heard and heeded, there will soon reach
us, as a nation, a voice of calamity which we shall not be able to shut
our ears against, albeit we may in the perverseness of our sensualism,
incorrigibly persist in disregarding its admonitions, till the deep
chastisements of outraged nature shall reach the very “bone and marrow”
of the human constitution, and fill our land with such a living
rottenness, as now in some other portions of the earth, renders human
society odious and abominable.
Whether, therefore, my voice shall be heard and heeded or not, I will
obey the dictates of my sense of duty, and solemnly declare that this
subject demands the prompt and earnest attention of every agriculturist
and of every friend to the common cause of humanity; for it is most
certain, that until the agriculture of our country is conducted in
strict accordance with physiological truth, it is not possible for us to
realize those physical, and intellectual, and moral, and social, and
civil blessings for which the human constitution and our soil and
climate are naturally capacitated.
When proper attention has been paid to the character of the wheat
itself, the next thing is to see that it is thoroughly cleansed.
Sometimes, in consequence of the peculiarities of the season, or
climate, or soil, or some other cause, there will be a species of
disease affecting the wheat and other grains; and this may be of such a
character as not easily to be removed nor counteracted by any means; but
more generally the rust, and smut, and dust, which attach themselves to
the skin of the grain, may, by proper care, be so far removed, as at
least to render the meal or flour far more pure and wholesome than it
otherwise would be. And here let me remark, that they are greatly
deceived, who suppose that the bolting cloth which separates the fine
flour from the outer skin or bran, also separates the impurities
attached to the outer skin from the flour. By the process of grinding,
these impurities are rubbed from the outer skin, and made quite as fine
as any portion of the flour, and for the most part pass with the fine
flour through the bolting cloth.
To remedy this, it is perhaps generally true, that in large flouring
establishments, a kind of smut or scouring mill is in operation, through
which the wheat passes, and is pretty thoroughly rubbed or scoured
without being broken; and after this, it passes through a screen or
winnowing mill, and thus is tolerably well cleansed and prepared for
grinding. Yet this process by no means renders the wheat so perfectly
clean and wholesome as washing.
Those who have given little attention to this subject, will probably
think that the trouble of washing all their bread-stuff before it is
ground, would be much greater than any benefit which would result from
it. But a short experience in the matter, would convince every one who
has a proper regard for the character of his bread, that the trouble of
washing his grain bears no comparison to the improvement effected by it.
Indeed, they who become accustomed to washing their grain, will soon
cease to regard it as a trouble; and the improvement in the whiteness
and sweetness of their bread will be so great, that they would be
extremely unwilling to relinquish the practice.
When people are so situated that they can have things as they wish, they
will also find that their bread is much richer, if the grain is ground
but a short time before it is cooked.
The best way, therefore, is, for every family to raise or purchase a
sufficient quantity of the best new wheat that can be produced by proper
tillage in a good soil, and put that away in clean casks or bins, where
it will be kept perfectly dry and sweet; and, according to the size of
the family, take, from time to time, as they need it, one or two
bushels, and wash it thoroughly but briskly in two or three waters, and
then spread it out on a drying sheet or table, made for the purpose, and
which is considerably inclined, so that the water remaining with the
wheat will easily run off.
The skin or bran of the wheat is so well protected by its own oily
property, that little or no water will penetrate it, unless it be
suffered to remain in the water much longer than is necessary. Being
thinly spread out upon the sheet or table in a good drying day, it will
be sufficiently dry in a few hours for grinding. And I say again, let
any one who loves good bread, wash his grain a few times in this manner,
and he will be very reluctant to return to the use of bread made of
unwashed grain.
It would be difficult to ascertain at how early a period in the progress
of society, mankind, in the preparation of wheat for bread-making, began
to put asunder what God has joined together, and to concentrate the more
purely nutrient properties, by separating the flour from the part
commonly called the bran. The Bible speaks of fine flour or meal, as a
portion of the meat offerings of the temple, but it is not probable this
approached very near to the superfine flour of the present time.
We are informed also that the Romans, more than two thousand years ago,
had four or five different kinds of bread—one of which was made of the
purest flour, from which all the bran was separated. This was eaten only
by the rich and luxurious. A second kind, in more common use, was that
from which a portion of the bran was taken; and a third kind, which was
more generally used than any other, was that which was made of the whole
substance of the wheat. A fourth kind was made mostly of the bran, for
dogs.
But at whatever period in the history of the race, this artificial
process was commenced, certain it is that in direct violation of the
laws of constitution and relation which the Creator has established in
the nature of man, this process of mechanical analysis is, at the
present day, carried to the full extent of possibility; and the farina,
and gluten, and saccharine matter of the wheat, are almost perfectly
concentrated in the form of superfine flour. Nor is this all—these
concentrated nutrient properties of the wheat are mixed and complicated
in ways innumerable, with other concentrated substances, to pamper the
depraved appetites of man, with kinds of food which always and
inevitably tend to impair his health and to abbreviate his life.
Even the bread, which is the simplest form into which human ingenuity
tortures the flour of wheat, is, by other causes besides the
concentration I have named, too frequently rendered the instrument of
disease and death, rather than the means of life and health, to those
that eat it.
In cities and large towns, most people depend on public bakers for their
bread. And I have no doubt that public bakers, as a body, are as honest
and worthy a class of men as any in society. I have no wish to speak
evil of any one; and it is always painful to me to find myself
compelled, in fidelity to the common cause of humanity, to expose the
faults of any particular class of men, when probably every other class
in society is as deeply involved in errors which, in the sight of God,
evince, at least, an equal degree of moral turpitude.
But public bakers, like other men, who serve the public more for the
sake of securing their own emolument than for the public good, have
always had recourse to various expedients in order to increase the
lucrativeness of their business.
To secure custom and profit at the same time, they have considered it
necessary, that a given quantity of flour should be made into a loaf as
large and as white as possible, and free from any disagreeable taste,
while at the same time it retains the greatest possible weight.
From a variety of causes, the quality and price of flour have always
been very unstable. Sometimes the crops are small, or the foreign demand
for flour or the home consumption is unusually great, or the season is
unfavorable to the health of grain, and the wheat becomes diseased, or
the harvest time is unfavorable, and the wheat sprouts before it is
secured, or large quantities of flour become soured or musty, or in some
other manner damaged.
To counteract these things, and to make the most profitable use of such
flour as the market affords them, the public bakers have been led to try
various experiments with chemical agents, and there is reason to believe
that in numerous instances, they have been too successful in their
practices, for the well-being of those who have been the consumers of
their bread.
According to treatises on bread-making, which have within a few years
past appeared in European scientific journals, “alum, sulphate of zinc,
sub-carbonate of magnesia, sub-carbonate of ammonia, sulphate of copper,
and several other substances, have been used by public bakers in making
bread; and some of these substances have been employed by them to a very
great extent, and with very great success in the cause of their
cupidity. They have not only succeeded by such means, in making light
and white bread out of extremely poor flour, but they have also been
able so to disguise their adulterations, as to work in with their flour,
without being detected by the consumers, a portion of the flour of
beans, peas and potatoes—and even chalk, pipe clay and plaster of Paris,
have been employed to increase the weight and whiteness of their bread.”
“The use of alum in bread-making,” says a distinguished chemist,
“appears to be very ancient. It is one of those articles which have been
the most extensively and successfully used in disguising bad flour, and
the various adulterations of bread. Its injurious action upon the health
is not to be compared with that of sulphate of copper, and yet, daily
taken into the stomach, it may seriously affect the system.”
“Thirteen bakers were condemned on the 27th of January, 1829, by the
correctional tribunal of Brussels, for mixing sulphate of copper or blue
vitriol with their bread. It makes the bread very white, light, large
and porous, but rather tasteless; and it also enables the bread to
retain a greater quantity of water, and thereby very considerably
increases its weight. A much larger quantity of alum is necessary to
produce these effects; but when of sufficient quantity, it strengthens
the paste, and, as the bakers say, ‘makes the bread swell large.’”
If the statements of our large druggists can be relied on, the public
bakers of our own country probably employ ammonia more freely, at
present, than any other substance I have named. Pearlash or saleratus is
also used by them in considerable quantities.
But even where these adulterations are not practised, the bakers’ bread
is very rarely a wholesome article of diet.
If any dependence is to be placed on the testimony of several of the
principal bakers and flour merchants in New York, Boston and other
cities, the flour which most of our public bakers work into bread, is of
a very inferior quality to what is called good “family flour,” and for
which they pay from one to three dollars less per barrel; and they
sometimes purchase large quantities of old spoiled flour from New
Orleans and elsewhere, which has heated and soured in the barrel, and
perhaps become almost as solid as a mass of chalk; so that they are
obliged to break it up, and grind it over, and spread it out, and expose
it to the air, in order to purify it in a measure from its acid and
other bad properties; and then they mix it with a portion of much better
flour; and from this mixture they can make, as they say, the very
largest and finest looking loaf.[B]
But should the public bakers always use the best of flour, their bread,
as a general statement, would still be very inferior to well made
domestic bread, in point of sweetness and wholesomeness. Their mode of
manufacturing bread—to say the least of it—destroys much of the virtue
of the flour or meal; and hence their bread is only palatable—even to
those who are accustomed to it—within twelve, or at the longest,
twenty-four hours after it is baked.
But I must repeat, that in making these statements, I am not prompted by
any unkind feelings towards public bakers; I have no doubt that they are
as honest in their calling as any other class of men; but perhaps there
is no other class pursuing an interest founded on the necessities of
their fellow creatures, whose expedients to increase the lucrativeness
of their business, are so immediately and universally injurious to the
health of those on whom they depend for support.
If any of my statements are thought to be exaggerated or incorrect, I
can only say, that with honest and benevolent intentions, I have
diligently sought for the truth; and if I have been in any respect
betrayed into error, I have been misinformed by public bakers
themselves, who certainly ought to know the truth in this matter; and
who could have no conceivable reason for making the general character of
their calling appear worse than it really is. Nevertheless, I have no
question that there are individuals in every city employed as public
bakers, who are too honest—too conscientious—too upright in heart, to be
guilty of any practice which they consider fraudulent or improper.
Still, truth compels me to declare, that if we would have good and
wholesome bread, it must be made within the precincts of our own
domestic threshold; and by those whose skill and care are exercised more
with a view to secure our health and happiness, than their own pecuniary
interest.
PROPERTIES OF BREAD.
Superfine flour injurious—a probable cause of some common disorders.
Objections to coarse bread. Its medical properties. Extensive
experiments of its use, by soldiers and others. Use among European
peasantry. Selection, preservation and grinding of wheat.
Whether our bread is of domestic manufacture or made by the public
baker, that which is made of superfine flour is always far less
wholesome, in any and every situation of life, than that which is made
of wheaten meal which contains all the natural properties of the grain.
It is true, that when much flesh is eaten with our bread, or when bread
constitutes but a very small and unimportant portion of our food, the
injurious effects of superfine flour bread are not always so immediately
and distinctly perceived as in other cases. Nevertheless, it is a
general and invariable law of our nature, that all concentrated forms of
food are unfriendly to the physiological or vital interests of our
bodies.
A very large proportion of all the diseases and ailments in civic life,
are originated by causes which are introduced into the alimentary canal
as articles of diet; and disturbance and derangement of
function—obstructions, debility and irritations, are among the most
important elements of those diseases.
It is, probably, speaking within bounds, to say that nine tenths of the
adults, and nearly as large a proportion of youth in civic life, are
more or less afflicted with obstructions and disturbances in the stomach
and bowels, and other organs of the abdomen, the symptoms of which are
either habitual costiveness or diarrhœa, or an alternation of both; or
frequent and severe attacks of what are called bilious colics, &c., &c.;
and in children and youth, worms, fits, convulsions, &c. And I cannot
but feel confident, that the use of superfine flour bread is among the
important causes of these and numerous other difficulties.
I have indeed been surprised to observe, that in the hundreds of cases
of chronic diseases of every form and name, which have come to my
knowledge within the last five or six years, costiveness of the bowels
has in almost every instance been among the first and most important
symptoms. And I have never known this difficulty, even after an
obstinate continuance of five, ten, twenty or thirty years, fail to
disappear in a short time, after the coarse wheaten bread of a proper
character has been substituted for that made of superfine flour.
Some physicians and other individuals, without properly examining the
subject, have raised several objections against the coarse wheaten
bread.
It is said, in the first place, that bran is wholly indigestible, and
therefore should never be taken into the human stomach.
This objection betrays so much ignorance of the final causes and
constitutional laws, clearly indicated by the anatomical structure and
physiological economy of the alimentary organs, that it scarcely
deserves the slightest notice. If the digestive organs of man were
designed to receive nothing but digestible and nutrient substances, they
would have been constructed and arranged very differently from what they
are. As we have already seen, everything which nature provides for our
sustenance, consists of certain proportions of nutritious and
innutritious matter; and a due proportion of innutritious matter in our
food is as essential to the health and functional integrity of our
alimentary organs, as a due proportion of nutritious matter is to the
sustenance of the body.
Another objection is, that although bran may serve, like other
mechanical irritants and excitants, for a while, to relieve
constipation, yet it soon wears out the excitability of the organs, and
leaves them more inactive than before.
Here again, a false statement is urged by inexcusable ignorance; for it
is not true that the bran acts in the manner supposed in this objection;
nor are the effects here asserted ever produced by it.
It is true, however, that the very pernicious habits of some people, who
use the coarse wheaten bread, entirely counteract the aperient effects
of the bread; and it is true that others, depending wholly on the
virtues of this bread for peristaltic action, and neglecting all
exercise, by their extreme inertness, and indolence, and overeating,
bring on a sluggishness, and debility, and constipation of the bowels,
and perhaps become severely afflicted with piles, in spite of the
natural fitness of the bread to promote regular peristaltic action, and
to prevent all these results.