I might here adduce a mass of testimony showing the importance of the matters just referred to, but will only advert to the following statements, which although made in allusion principally to maize, are equally applicable to our other breadstuffs. Maize meal, if kept too long, "is liable to become rancid, and it is then more or less unfit for use. In the shipments made to the West Indies, the meal is commonly kiln-dried, to obviate as much as possible this tendency to rancidity." "When ground very fine, maize meal suffers a change by exposure to the air. It is oxygenated. It is upon the same principle that the juice of an apple, after a little exposure to the air, is oxygenated, and changes its character and taste. If the flour could be bolted in vacuo, it would not be changed." "Intelligent writers speak of the necessity of preparing corn for exportation by kiln-drying as indispensable. Without that process, corn is very liable to become heated and musty, so as to be unfit for food for either man or beast. The kiln-dried maize meal from the Brandywine Mills, &c., made from the yellow corn, has almost monopolized the West India trade. This process is indispensable, if we export maize to Europe. James Candy says that from fifty years experience he has learned the necessity of this process with corn intended for exportation." "I have often found the corn from our country when it reached its destination, ruined by heating on the voyage. It had become musty and of little or no value. Kiln-drying is absolutely necessary to preserve it for exportation. We must learn and practice the best mode of kiln-drying it.[30]"
The nutritious value of the "whole meal" of Wheat, as compared with that of the fine flour.—The question whether what is called the whole meal of wheat, or that which is obtained by the mixture of the bran, contains more nutritious matter than the fine flour, is one of great importance. In my former report, I adverted to the statement made in regard to it by Professor J.F.W. Johnston, and which seemed to be almost conclusive in favor of the value of the whole meal. During the past year, however (1849), M. Eug. Peligot, an eminent French chemist, in an elaborate article "On the Composition of Wheat," to which more particular reference will be made hereafter, combats the opinion that the bran is an alimentary substance. He observes that "the difficulty of keeping the bran in flour intended for the manufacture of bread of good quality appears to result much less from the presence of the cellulose (one of the constituents of woody matter) contained in wheat than that of the fatty matter. This is found in the bran in a quantity at least triple of that which remains in the flour, and the bolting separates it from the ground wheat not less usefully than the cellulose itself."[31] M. Millon objects entirely to the views of M. Peligot on this point, and states some facts which are especially worthy of consideration. He asserts that, according to the views of the last named chemist, the separation at most of one part of fatty matter sacrifices fifteen, twenty, and even twenty-five per cent. of substances which are of the highest nutritive value. This abstracts from wheat, for the whole amount raised in France, the enormous sum of about two hundred millions of pounds annually.
It seems that in France the question whether the bolting of flour is advantageous has always been decided in the most arbitrary manner. An ordinance of Louis XIV., issued in 1658, prohibited, under a very heavy penalty, the regrinding of the bran and its mixture with the flour; this, with the mode of grinding then in use, caused a loss of more than forty per cent.—(Comptes Rendus, February 19th, 1849.)
In large cities and elsewhere, there seems for some time to have been a growing prejudice against the use of brown bread; and it is said that now nearly all the peasantry of France bolt their flour. The increase of this practice, according to M. Millon, threatens the nation with an annual loss of from two to three hundred millions of francs. If the bran was entirely valueless, there would be a loss of more than one million a day.
It is quite difficult to determine the precise amount of bran which may have been removed from wheat, for various samples contain such a different proportion of bran that in the one case a removal of ten per cent, leaves more bran in the flour than a bolting of five per cent. in another.
The following is an analysis of bran by M. Millon; the sample being a soft French wheat grown in 1848:—
| Starch, dextrine and sugar | 53.00 |
| Sugar of liquorice | 1.00 |
| Gluten | 14.90 |
| Fatty matter | 3.60 |
| Woody matter | 9.70 |
| Salts | .50 |
| Water | 13.90 |
| Incrusting matter and aromatic principles (by difference) | 3.40 |
| 100. |
The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is, that bran is an alimentary substance. If it contains six per cent. more of woody matter than the rough, flour, it has also more gluten, double that of fatty matter, besides two aromatic principles which have the perfume of honey, and both of which are wanting in the fine flour. Thus by bolting, wheat is impoverished in its most valuable principles, merely to remove a few hundredths of woody matter.
The economical suggestion which springs from these views is, that the bran and coarse flour should be reground and then mixed with the fine flour. Millon states that he has ascertained, by repeated experiments, that bread thus made is of superior quality, easily worked, and not subject to the inconvenience of bread manufactured from the rough flour, such as is made in some places, and especially in Belgium.
Opinions similar to those above noticed are entertained by Professor Daubeny. "The great importance attached to having bread perfectly white is a prejudice," he says, "which leads to the rejection of a very wholesome part of the food, and one which, although not digestible alone, is sufficiently so in that state of admixture with the flour in which nature has prepared it for our use." After quoting the remarks of Professor Johnston on the same side of the question, he adds, "that according to the experiments of Magendie, animals fed upon fine flour died in a few weeks, whilst they thrived upon the whole meal bread." Brown bread, therefore, should be adopted, not merely on a principle of economy, but also as providing more of those ingredients which are perhaps deficient in the finer parts of the flour.—("Gardeners' Chronicle," January 27th, 1849, p. 53.)