Talk:Flour

}

Spelt flour

The information about spelt flour given here is wrong. Spelt is a different kind of grain (just like barley or rye are not wheat), not a different way of making flour from wheat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.167.124 (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is still wheat. A different species or subspecies of wheat that today's common wheat, but still wheat.--Ericjs (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt has contradicting info about protein content in Spelt (raw uncooked) and i suspect it is incorrect. There should be more protein than modern wheat has according to this finnish page https://www.birkkala.com/speltti

High Gluten flour

Where do you buy it at retail. Impossible to find unless at Amazon.

I would like someone to add protein per gram in the high gluten section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to keep looking until you find it. If you can't find HG flour in retail stores in larger bags of 25 or 50 lbs, and at reasonable per-lb prices, even by going to the next larger neighbouring city, or a shipping-hub city, then consider obtaining Vital Wheat Gluten (75% protein), and mixing it with a lower-protein flour. You can calculate the amount to use with basic algebra, or you can use a Pearson square, for any desired protein level between the two values after blending. You can also make your own HG dough, by washing the starch out of some portion of the flour. Gzuufy (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.109.12.35 (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

They have started calling Strong flour "Bread flour" in some stores in the UK, can this be added to the article in the Wheat flour type table? Stripy42 (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Bleached vs. unbleached

If there is an expert who can explain the difference between bleached and unbleached flour, that would be fantastic. The information on the net on this issue seems somewhat biased and contradictory. (69.180.21.216)

I'm a quality assurance manager at a large flour mill. The difference between bleached and unbleached is this: Bleached flour usually containst benzoyl peroxide which actually whitens the flour. Unbleached flour has no bleaching additive. 12.43.88.120 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bleached flour is artificially aged using a bleaching agent, a maturing agent, or both. A bleaching agent would affect only the carotenoids in the flour; a maturing agent affects gluten development. A maturing agent may either strengthen or weaken gluten development.

The four most common additives used as bleaching/maturing agents in the USA at this time are:

Potassium bromate (will be listed as an ingredient/additive) - a maturing agent that strengthens gluten development. Does not bleach.

benzoyl peroxide - bleaches. Does not act as a maturing agent - no effect on gluten

ascorbic acid (Will be listed as an ingredient/additive, but seeing it in the ingredient list may not be an indication that the flour was matured using ascorbic acid but has had a small amount added as a dough enhancer) - Maturing agent that strengthens gluten development. Does not bleach.

chlorine gas - both a bleaching agent and a maturing agent, but one that WEAKENS gluten development. Chlorination also oxidizes starches in the flour, making it easier for the flour to absorb water and swell - this makes thicker batters and stiffer doughs. For bread, this is bad (because gluten is weakened and bread is heavily dependent on gluten formation), but for cakes, cookies, and biscuits, it's a good thing, because gluten development in these types of baked goods makes them tough. The modification of starches in the flour allows the use of wetter doughs (making for a moister end product) without destroying the structure necessary for light fluffy cakes and biscuits. (See "How Baking Works" by Paula Figoni, p86 at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XqKF7PqV02cC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=bleach&f=false ) .

Cake flours in particular are nearly always chlorinated. There is at least one flour labeled "unbleached cake flour blend" (marketed by King Arthur) that is not bleached, but the protein content is much higher than typical cake flour at about 9.4% protein (cake flour is usually around 6% give or take a couple). According to King Arthur, this flour is a blend of a more finely milled unbleached wheat flour and cornstarch, which makes a better end result than unbleached wheat flour alone (cornstarch is a common additive for part of the flour used in cake where actual cake flour is called for but you only have all purpose on hand). However you will still get a denser end result than real cake flour that has been more finely milled, chlorinated, AND has a lower protein content in the "cake flour" range of around 6% or so.

All bleaching and maturing agents (with the possible exception of ascorbic acid) have been banned in the EU (see http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/breadflourguide.pdf), making cake baking a difficult proposition as heat treated flours that mimic the effects of chlorination are to date available only to bulk bakeries. The home baker must struggle with the unbleached flours that typically do not lend themselves to the making of light fluffy cakes. At least one home baker has developed a method for heat treating flour at home to break down the starches and make it more acceptable for use in the making of cakes; this process is currently referred to as "Kate Flour" in Internet baking communities, after the woman who continues to develop the process.

Bromation of flour in the USA has fallen out of favor and while to my knowledge it is not yet actually banned anywhere, few retail flours available to the home baker are bromated anymore. ConAgra changed from bromation of their flours packaged for resale to consumers to a peroxidation process sometime in 2010, at least in my area (SE USA). I do not know what, if any, maturing agents may be used.

Many flours packaged specifically for commercial bakeries are still bromated. Retail bleached flours marketed to the home baker are now mostly either treated via peroxidation or chlorine gas. Current information I have from Pillsbury is that their bleached flours are treated BOTH with benzoyl peroxide AND chlorine gas; this strikes me as odd, but perhaps that's what they do, I don't know. I double checked this on their consumer line and was told this is in fact the case. Gold Medal tells me their bleached flour is EITHER treated with benzoyl peroxide OR it's treated with chlorine gas, but there is no way to tell which process has been used when you buy the flour at the grocery store. I'm not sure I believe that; I have a question pending with them to try to get that sorted out.66.57.60.99 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

All bleaching and maturing agents have been banned in the EU, making cake baking a difficult proposition Why should it? The best cakes I ever ate were made in Germany with normal flour as you can buy it there in the grocery store. --24.130.146.60 (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

See: The Great British Bake Off, it is an urban myth that Europeans can't bake cakes 87.112.127.60 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Refining

The article does not adequately explain the reason(s) for refining whole grains into refined flour. Since post-refining, added nutrients (e.g., artificial vitamins, iron) provide the only commonly acknowledged nutritional value of refined grains (flour), what, if any, nutritional value does one gain by eating refined grain products such as bread, pasta and pastries? The article should contain more information about the intrinsic nutritional value, if any, of refined grains (flour). (4.254.129.162)

The reason is primarily taste and texture. The human pallate has evolved to prise sweeter taste and smoother texture. Both of which are accomplished by finer milling and removal of the bran and germ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.148.109 (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Flavor issues are debatable and complex, but texture-wise white flour can produce a lighter airier loaf with more rise than whole wheat flour. Also whole wheat does not keep as long.--Ericjs (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Help to convert between the different flour systems

This is my guess to the US system:

(this end is high in starch)

cake flour

all-purpose flour

bread flour

(this end is rich in protein(gluten?))

and this is the German system:

German flour type numbers (Mehltype) indicate the amount of ash (measured in milligrams) obtained from 100 g of the dry mass of this flour. Standard wheat flours (defined in DIN 10355) range from type 405 for normal white wheat flour for baking, to strong bread flour types 550, 650, 812, and the darker types 1050 and 1600 for wholegrain breads.

I'm from Germany and I live in the US... I don't know how to tell what US flower is whitch type??

My guess:

cake flour = type 405

all-purpose flour = type 550

bread flour = 812

Does anybody knows more than I do??

Would this subject be interesting for the article it self?

I'm also interested to convert italien types to the US system...

17:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Markus Schulz

Answer from kingarthurflour

I also ask this question to kingarthurflour, here there answer:

Hello,

Thank you for writing. Your guesses are pretty close. Cake flour by definition is a bleached flour. So I would take that out of the equation and put in pastry flour, as type 405, the bread flour would be 650 and our high gluten flour would be 812. The Sir Galahad flour for professional bakers is our home baker’s all-purpose, and Sir Lancelot is the high gluten flour. The rest are the same whether they are packed in 50 pound bags or the 3-5 pound bags for home bakers.

German flours are catagorized by the amount of "ash" in the flour, not the amount of protein like American flours. This makes it hard to come up with an exact replacement. There are some suggestions below:

Type 405 - .50 ash - Similar to American pastry flour

Try: item #3331 Unbleached Pastry Flour (9.2% protein, .42 ash)

Item #3338 Italian-Style Flour (8.5% protein, .40-.45 ash) - This is the closest match, I think

Type 550 - .50-.58 ash - Similar to American all-purpose flour

Try: item #3005 Unbleached All-Purpose Flour (11.7% protein, .49 ash)

Item #3323 Select Artisan Organic All-Purpose Flour (11.3% protein, .54 ash) - This is the closest match, I think

Type 812 - .64-.89 ash - Similar to American high gluten flour, but higher ash

Try: item #3332 High Gluten Flour (14.2% protein, .70 ash)

Type 1050 - 1.05 ash - Similar to American "First Clear" flour

Try: item #3337 First Clear Flour (14.8% protein, .80 ash)

Type 1600 - 1.60 ash - The closest you could get to this would be a light-colored whole wheat flour

Try: item #3311 White Whole Wheat (13% protein, 1.80 ash)

I don’t have the equivalents for Italian flour.

Please contact us again if we can be of further assistance.

Happy Baking,

M.T. (I took the name out)

The Baker's Catalogue, Inc

800-827-6836

bakers@kingarthurflour.com

______end of kingarthurflour answer_____

American flours are catagorized by the amount of protein in the flours... this is an important information and should be inclued in the article 02:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Markus Schulz

AFC submission

AfC received a submission for 'wood flour' today. It is not enough to stand on its own, so I'm adding it here for another editor to put into the flour entry.

Wood flour is made by finely grinding dried non-resin softwoods such as pine, spruce, fir or sometimes hardwoods. Wood flour is used as a filler or thickener in epoxy resins and thermosetting molding compounds.

Thanks - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 03:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Expanding history section

I would like to see the History section expanded, discussing when the different types of flour were first introduced for common production. relytor 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Tyler Spurgeon

Tyler Spurgeon's 2006-12-11 "Talk" comment (above) still applies now 12 years later; the various articles concerning history of flour, baking, etc., have many incongruences and errors. Examples: (1) Current "Flour" article implies that beginning of the Industrial Era/Revolution was in "1879". Elsewhere in Wikipedia the Industrial Revolution was "about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840", (2) protein and gluten amounts for flours vary considerably from article to article.

Meaning in Spanish

I have added a request for citation to support the statement "The corresponding Spanish word "harina" normally refers to Maize flour - wheat flour is "harina de trigo". While the second part is true, when being specific, the usual meaning of the word harina refers to wheat flour; this is also consistent with the corresponding entry in the Spanish Wikipedia ([1]). Even in Mexico, a country in which maize is a staple food, the common meaning for harina refers to wheat flour - one easy way to illustrate this is with the tortilla: tortillas de harina (literally, flour tortillas) refer to tortillas made with wheat flour; also, while there is maize flour made specifically to make tortillas, such tortillas are commonly considered of less quality than the ones made with traditional methods.--Paiconos 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement above with respect to the meaning of "harina" is only correct for Latin America. In Spain "harina" normally refers to wheat flour.

The very last sentence above this one is not true. "Harina" usually means wheat flour in Latin America. Foods made out of corn have usually been made with fresh corn or ground corn made into "masa", and the introduction of corn flour "harina de maiz" or "masa-harina" is a somewhat recent development.

I don't see the point of explaining the use of Spanish words in the localized rarified contents such as immigrant communities of the USA. Such subtleties do not belong in the main article. Otherwise we will have to discuss hundreds of other languages in the same context. Harina in Spanish simply means flour, period. Should we also discuss how on family or informal contexts people use brand names such as Maizena, to refer to corn flour, i.e. maize flour.... What's the point. Take all that discussion to the Spanish language side of the Wikipedia, where it belongs.

Should this page include a link to Flour bomb?

It doesn't appear to at the moment.--80.47.95.10 13:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad thought. Cooks using dangerous ingredients should know what not to do. Never throw flour on a fire. Use sugar or pan lid? Lazyquasar 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this banned elsewhere but not U.S.?

"Bromated flour has been banned in much of the world" Lazyquasar 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bromated has been found to cause cancer in animals, but may pose only small risks to humans. The FDA suggests consumers avoid potassium bromate and has urged bakers to stop using it on a voluntary basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.5.44.21 (talk) 15:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Graham flour

Hi I've found a grave mistake in the description of avalability of the aforementioned. While Graham flour and bread were (and still are) quite common in Poland and could've been found in any bakery, state-run or private. On the other hand, living for almost 30 years on the East Coast of the U.S. I would be able to count on one hand thumbs how many times I was able to find Graham flour in the local stores, supermarkets, etc. Slawomir123 01:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

removing part of sentence

I would like to remove "more sinister applications include fuel-air explosives improvised by so-called "anarchists" or terrorists."

First of all, if you go to the fuel-air link, there is NO mention of flour, anarchists, or terrorists.

Second, how do we know that "anarchists" or "terrorists" use a flour bomb? No link is provided. Carniv (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Clean" "White" and "Brown"

The paragraph at about line 40 is messed up. I think it should be reverted to the last edit, but I am not a flour expert.

In the United States, graham flour = whole wheat flour. I would like someone to explain what "malting" does to flour.

grain rox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.146.8.231 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

→Malting is a process of allowing the grain to start germinating before it is milled into flour. There's a fairly good page on it, but it focuses on brewing, not baking. I agree, malted granary flour deserves a mention here as a distinct flour type. 212.183.140.20 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nononono. In the USA, graham flour = whole wheat PASTRY flour. Whole wheat flour and graham flour are not the same. Pastry flour is more finely milled (somewhere between cake flour and all purpose flour), is unbleached, and is between cake flour and all purpose for protein content (around 8% or 9%). Graham flour is all that, plus it's whole wheat (has not had all the bran etc removed).66.57.60.99 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

All-purpose flour

"All-purpose or plain flour is a blended wheat flour of hard wheats, or soft and hards wheats, or soft wheats depending on where you buy your all-purpose flour in the States and the brand of flour you choose. It may have a low, medium or relatively high gluten level, which is marketed as an acceptable compromise for most household baking needs. Reading the labels on the flour bag may help to determine what kind of all-purpose flour you are buying."

Does this explanation serve any purpose? It might be better to simply say the term "all-purpose flour" has no standard, rather than exhaustive go through everything it could be, which is ... well, anything. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This ("All purpose flour has no standard) is simply untrue. AP flour is typically around 10.5% protein, with a range of roughly 9.5% to 11%. There is regional variation due to the availability of locally grown wheats, which are softer/lower protein in the South and harder/higher protein in the North (of the USA). AP flours may slip as low as 9% in some southern regions and may range as high as 12% in some Northern regions, but the "standard" most national brands aim for is around 10.5%. Reading the label on a bag of AP flour will tell you exactly NOTHING about it's actual protein content or best use; you have to determine that from the actual producer or mill that it comes out of. For example, the ConAgra flours milled in my part of the USA (SE) - the AP flour sold by the national warehouse clubs (both of them originate from the same ConAgra mills) come in at 9.2% protein, while the "bread" flour (normally in the range of 12% to 14%) come in at 11.6% protein. However, the same flours (per the packaging and labeling and sold in the same warehouse club chains) in some northern regions come in at something over 11% for the AP and getting closer to 13% for the "bread" flour, due to the much higher availability of higher protein wheat grown in those areas. Gold Medal lists their AP flours as ranging from 9.8% to 12%, and their bread flour ranges from 11.7% to 12.3%. Pillsbury, by contrast, gives a nominal rating of 10.5% for their AP flours and 12% for their bread flour, with no disclosure of the tolerance used when blending/milling their flours. Pillsbury flours may vary as much as Gold Medal flours do, but if they do, they're not telling us that. By contrast, King Arthur flour company, a small (compared to GM and Pillsbury, behemoths in the retail consumer flour world) regional flour producer, has a very small tolerance - only 0.02%, compared to 10% for the GM ranges listed above - and their AP flour is 11.7% protein while their bread flour is 12.7%. Thus, King Arthur AP flour behaves more like a national brand bread flour than a typical national brand AP flour.66.57.60.99 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-rising flour

Self-rising flour redirects to this article, but it's not mentioned here. So, what is self-rising flour, how is it different from ordinary flour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.157.80 (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just flour that has baking powder (and I think salt) mixed into it.--Ericjs (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Same for self-raising flour. Redirects here. But NO mention anywhere on Wikipedia (even on this otherwise very detailed article) despite it being common in most households. Odd. 82.152.214.154 (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've checked the history, and it was there [2]. But someone (currently on the verge of being banned) blanked a whole section over a year ago and no-one noticed...? Ah well. I've readded it. 82.152.214.154 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rice Flour & Protien

The page mentions that white rice flour is essentially pure starch. This does not ring true to me.

I am currently looking at the Nutrition information for some white rice flour I have onhand: Serving Size: 1/4 cup (30g) ... ... Protein: 2g

Doing some math, that works out to somewhere in the realm of 4.98% to 8.47% protien by weight. ('2' is such a vague number, 1.5 could be rounded up to two, as could 2.5 be rounded down to two (if rounding to evens....)).

Comparing to the protein of standard wheat flour: 7.5%-13.5% (source http://home.earthlink.net/~ggda/ProteinComparisons.htm ), the protein content of the rice flour I do have does fit into the natural content realm for wheat flours. Digging elsewhere on the Internet...

http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/white-rice-flour?portionid=62464&portionamount=100.000 quotes white rice flour as 6% protein.

http://www.calorie-counter.net/flour-calories/white-rice-flour.htm pegs it at 5.95%.

Given all this, I'd say white rice flour is a bit low on protein compared to wheat flour, but by no means is protein absent.

I strongly suspect the comment may have been made while confusing 'protein' for 'gluten' (a protein that rice is low in, but plentiful in wheat flours). As there is ample evidence to the contrary, I will be removing the comment about white rice flour lacking protein. I would replace it with a 'low in gluten' comment, but then I expect someone else would replace that with 'has no gluten', as rice flour is commonly touted as being 'gluten free'. While it is free of the type of gluten found in wheat (which some people have alergies towards), it is not entirely absent in gluten (See also Glutenous rice). The gluten it does have is different enough from wheat gluten to not trigger alergies. Rather than try to explain that myself, when it may also be misplaced, or invite inaccurate edits, I'll let some other adventurous editor decide if the page would benefit from such added detail. Yamagawa (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And in my edit, I run across 'brown rice flour' and 'rice flour' the latter with comments on gluten. My initial hits in researching rice flour+gluten did not match information I've previously researched on the topic (and paraphrased above), so I'm going to have to do some fact finding, as clearly rice cannot be both 'gluten content' and 'gluten free'... Ah well, I now know what I'm doing this weekend. Yamagawa (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I've got so far on rice & protein is it contains some of the proteins that are found in gluten, but not the one responsible for 'Gluten intolerance'. As such, the remaining proteins cannot bind into a proper 'gluten', and they are also harmless to Celiac sufferers. I regret that I have no link-worthy findings at present, so take the above as heresay. It would however explain some of the confusing mixed content I've been exposed to with respect to rice & gluten. Yamagawa (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Cake flour, all-purpose flour

I came to this page to try and find out the meanings of the terms "cake flour" and "all-purpose flour" which I'd seen in a recipe online, as in the UK we don't use those terms (I can buy "plain flour", "self-raising flour", "strong white bread flour", etc). The page lacks a section that explains the meanings of these terms though.

Can someone who knows more than me add this info if possible? Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Types of wheat flour commonly found in the US (well, at least SEMI-commonly found):

cake flour - very finely milled, low in protein, usually between about 5% to a max of 8% with the nominal "average" being about 6% protein. This flour has been treated with chlorine gas, which acts as both a bleaching agent AND a maturing agent that REDUCES gluten formation - good for cakes, bad for bread.

Pastry flour - more finely milled than AP, but usually not as finely milled as cake flour, protein content in the range (roughly) of 8% to just under 10%, unbleached. Has had the bran etc. removed as for AP flour.

Graham flour - whole wheat pastry flour. NOT the same as whole wheat flour. Not often easily found; I have seen it on occasion in health food stores and some upscale "organic" groceries.

All purpose flour - supposed to be the "jack of all trades" of flour - good for cookies, cakes, pie crusts, bread, gravy/thickener. Nominally an AP flour should be about 10.5% protein but there is a fair amount of regional variance from this. In the South, where locally grown flour is more often softer/lower protein varieties that grow well in that climate, an AP flour MAY be as low as 9% protein - practically a pastry flour, save that it has not been as finely milled. In the north, it may approach 12% protein, which is practically bread flour. Store brands are likely to vary more than national brands, but they all vary regionally, with a few exceptions such as King Arthur flours, who mill and blend their flours to a 0.02% tolerance. Their AP flour is rated at 11.7% protein and that's right where it sits, regardless of where you purchase it. In the past, nearly all nationally sold AP flour brands were treated with chlorine as a bleaching agent; in more recent times, some national flour producers seem to have switched to using benzoyl peroxide as their bleaching agent. Chlorine gas reduces gluten development (bad for bread making but good for cakes and biscuits and pie crusts, which turn out tough when gluten fully develops) and also oxidizes starches so the flour will absorb water better (makes for thicker batters and more stable doughs than you could get if the starches were left intact, which allows you to use higher sugar-to-flour ratios, more fats, and more water for moister, sweeter cakes and cookies, while avoiding the damage to the structure of the end product you get trying to use the same levels of hydration with non-chlorinated flours). However the only nationally sold brand that I know for sure (assuming the information available from their consumer call line is correct) that is still treated with chlorine is Pillsbury's AP flours; Gold Medal claims that they use both processes (chlorination and peroxidation) in different mills, but not both together, so when you buy GM AP flour, you may be getting flour that has been chlorinated, or you may not - there's no way to tell from the packaging and GM won't tell you which mills use which process or where that flour goes because it's "proprietary information". So if you want an AP flour that will maximize your success with cakes and can't afford actual cake flour, Pillsbury AP flour is (currently) your best bet.

Bread flour - typically unbleached (but not always), usually in the range of 12% to 14%, most often at the low end of the range except for some Northern areas. Dakota Maid is a regional northern brand of flour that tends to higher protein levels across the board, as do most Canadian flours (such as Robin Hood).

High Gluten flour - I'm not sure what bleaching/maturing agents are (or are not) typically used with this very high protein content flour - usually over 14%. Used for very chewy breads such as bagels, biyalis, and sometimes pizza dough, in whole, or sometimes in a blend with "regular" bread flour.66.57.60.99 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Wheatflour rw.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Wheatflour rw.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

ecoli

Vandalism - people are trying to hide the fact that ecoli in flour has a history. http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/t040429.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/ecoli_o157h7/ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5501a3.htm http://boingboing.net/2010/08/03/wheat-flour-a-new-ca.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sludge danger (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Added point blank the oxford journal reference to cookie manufacturers' use of heat treated flour to reduce the risk of ecoli. Sludge danger (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Self-rising flour part two: the saga continues!

Ok, I have read the section on self-rising flour and have noticed consistency issues. Specifically, sometimes it is called "self-rising" and at other times it is called "self-raising", flipping back and forth within a single paragraph. So, is the latter term (self-raising) UK-specific? We don't say that in the States. What about other English-speaking countries? What term is used in Australia?

I ask because, for the sake of consistency, I think we need to agree on which dialect of English we are using here and try to stick to that dialect. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it matters that much. Here in the south I've heard it called both self raising and self rising - not sure if there's the same dichotomy for labeling as I don't ever buy the stuff and never have in nearly 50 years of baking. In any case, both terms exist in the common vernacular in the US and I don't see that it makes much of a difference. Maybe just note that it's called "self-raising OR self-rising" and let it go.66.57.60.99 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Unbleached flour paragraph probably misleading

Currently, the paragraph reads, "Unbleached flour is simply flour that has not undergone bleaching and therefore does not have the color of "white" flour. An example of this would be the Graham flour. Sylvester Graham was against using bleaching agents, which he considered unhealthy." The first sentence is fine. However, the next two sentences are questionable. Graham flour is almost exactly whole wheat flour, but within this category there can be some variation, such as protein level, grain variety, etc. I do not believe whole wheat flour is usually bleached, so that aspect of the phrasing is not misleading. Unbleached wheat flour is usually and basically refined flour, a.k.a. the endosperm portion or fraction of the grain, that after milling has not been bleached. In Graham flour, the endosperm is only a fraction of the total flour. Graham flour contains the wheat grain's bran and germ, as well as its endosperm. While Graham flour is not bleached, it's more closely related to unbleached whole wheat flour or simply whole wheat flour than it is to unbleached white flour or unbleached wheat flour or unbleached refined flour. That's the mislead in the latter two sentences. In fact, since white flour is available in both bleached and unbleached forms, even the first sentence misleads a bit in suggesting that white flour is bleached flour. If anyone really wants to study the various cuts of grain using contemporary terms, Hui has a discussion of it in Handbook of Food Science Technology and Engineering, I'm not sure which volume or page number, but I recall seeing a section about it. Horsford also has some good information regarding grains and milling equipment in his Report on Vienna Bread, as dated as it is. Reading about the subject is confusing, because: while retail U.S. consumers have been solicited with one set of terms, i.e., "cake", "pastry" (not available in retail bulk form in some U.S. markets, though small packages may be), "all purpose", "bread", "high-gluten" (also a bit hard to find) flours, etc., products which in their idealized forms have been standardized for their baking qualities; millers think in terms related to milling processes, such as "bran", "germ", "first clear", "patent cut", "straight flour", historically a term encountered is "middlings", etc.; wheat growers think in terms of season and variety; while nutritionists seem to classify differently, such as phytonutrients, bran, germ, and endosperm. Endosperm is basically white flour, but in this category there can be a wide variety of variations: the grain used; the type of milling, the fineness of any sifting or bolting after milling; the protein level, which has been said to correlate to whether the endosperm was closer to the bran layer, or farther from it as well as to the grain season and variety; and whether product was bleached or not. There's a discussion up above, bleached vs. unbleached, that to my knowledge is approximately correct. Gzuufy (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently flour isnt important enough to be protected, just like eggs and cookies are

We need this to be under fair protection just like every other article.75.171.11.42 (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Typo: "Flour" to "Floor"

I would like to add the following:

• For the word "floor, see Floor (disambiguation).

This is because on a Hainan Airlines (major Chinese airline) webpage showing a listing of offices, "floor" was misspelled as "flour": "Moscow city, novoslobodckaja street 4 Shopping centre Friendship in Moscow 3flour" - A user removed the disambig link, arguing it was unnecessary. Please see the previous discussion: User_talk:Djkernen#Disambiguating_typos

To respond to his last post:

• While it is true that "Northwest Airways" is the original name, the original name was not misspelled as "Nortwest Airways" (without the "h") - "Flour" is just one letter different from "Floor" and likewise "Nortwest Airways" is one letter different from "Northwest Airways" - Look at the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Tor_.28Geoography.29 - For instance "Tor (Geoography)" is a plausible typo
• "But this is irrelevant; typos are rampant on the internet and it is not Wikipedia's mission to correct them." - While it's not Wikipedia's main goal to correct typos, it is Wikipedia's goal to direct readers to the right place. That means making redirects from plausible typos, including those that a non-native speaker would make. That does mean using the internet to find typos so confused readers can be redirected to the correct place. When companies make typos, it is a strong indicator that the typo is plausible and that other people commonly make this typo, and therefore a redirect should be made.
• "and I found a quite interesting list of sites dedicated to 4th of July flour bombs" - List of Google results for "4th flour" - Looking at it again, there were some of those, but there are also links like "71Soudan street 4th flour - Aqarmap.com" and "Location Address, 230 WEST WASHINGTON SQUARE 4TH FLOUR PHILADELPHIA, PA ZIP 19106" and "Address : 4th FLOUR, NDDB HOUSE, OPP KAMAL CINEMA COMPLEX, SAFDERJUNG ENCLAVE, New Delhi - 110029, Delhi , India." and "You will find our office on the 4th flour." - They seem to originate from many places among many language groups - Likewise this one for "1st flour" gives a list of addresses

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I remain completely unconvinced. Your premise seems to be that since a number of sites have made that mistake then there will be lots of wikiepedia users researching floors who will end up on the flour page by mistake. If that premise is correct then the redirect belongs at the top of this page but I don't think the premise is correct. It is far more likely for people to confuse flour with flower, which is pronounced the same way in many varieties of English, but there is no redirect to flour in the flower article nor vice versa. If we start putting redirects in for every typo for which there is an example on Google then we might as well forget about encyclopedic content as we won't have room for any. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But it's not merely just, say, a series of an examples with Google, but also with professional organizations like large companies (Hainan Airlines) or, say, the Palestinian government in this listing of addresses on multiple occasions http://www.webcitation.org/6AKUjUDfk or the Ethiopian government in this listing http://www.webcitation.org/6AKVEos2E - If one could find examples of, say, companies and organizations from English as a second language making brochures using "flower" instead of "flour" or vice versa, then maybe that could also be added too - If all of the typos occurred in personal websites or social networking I could see people saying "this redirect doesn't have to be mentioned on the page" but once companies and governments are involved, then it becomes more plausible and more important WhisperToMe (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think the hatnote is relevant here. There are thousands, if not millions of possible misspellings for which evidence can be found. Article space would be impossibly cluttered if we attempted to account for even only the most likely of such misspellings. An entry in the see also section of the disambiguation page would not be out of place though. older ≠ wiser 14:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If a non-native English speaker could use it to find the word he/she is really looking for, I wouldn't mind having it in the disambig page WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • ATM I added "Floor" to Flour (disambiguation) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Don't add it as a hatnote, needless clutter, but it's OK in the "See also" section of the dab page where it has been added - these sections sometimes include likely typos. PamD 07:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced, highly POV statement

"making cake baking a difficult proposition as heat treated flours that mimic the effects of chlorination are to date available only to bulk bakeries. The home baker in the EU must struggle with the unbleached flours that typically do not lend themselves to the making of light fluffy cakes."

Living in the EU for more than 30years and being a hobby cook I find this unsourced statement to be highly POV and absolutely untrue. I never struggled to make light fluffy cakes nor did anyone I ever talked to. The flour available in the EU works just fine. Please provide sources or delete it.84.152.40.170 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the same opinion, no problem to bake anything with flour available in the EU. --24.130.146.60 (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Consistent variety of English

Per WP:CONSISTENCY this article should use a consistent variety of English. I noticed that "self-rising" and "self-raising" were both used in the same section, in a manner inconsistent even with the heading's title. I did a rough calculation by counting "-our" words (colour, flavour) versus "-or" ones, and "-ise" versus "-ize". The US variety appeared to be more prevalent. This approach is somewhat naive as there a obviously other differences however it is the easiest way I know of to determine the page's current prevailing variety. (It is however a much easier technique on pages that are not liberally sprinkled with the word "flour"!!) I am going to let the dust settle a bit and if there are no reasonable objections I will mark the page as a "US English" page for future editors' reference. In the meantime if anyone notices other inconsistencies in the use of language variety please fix. Cheers, Dusty|💬|You can help! 01:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901213320/http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/003061.html to http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/003061.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305013411/https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedfiles/legislation/consultations/info_270204.pdf to https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedfiles/legislation/consultations/info_270204.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208072006/http://www.goldenpeanut.com/Flour.aspx to http://www.goldenpeanut.com/flour.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

General flour vs wheat flour content

It appears that much of this article is referring specifically to wheat flour, all the "flour type system" information for example. Would it be reasonable to move the wheat flour specific sections to the wheat flour article? Or am I missing something?

French flour Type 40

French flour Type 40 ? Is it a joke? No one (even google) heard about this mysterious type of a flour. Need a proof link! 91.210.107.197 (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The article itself says this does not exist. So why is it in the table? I'll remove it. SpinningSpark 13:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Non international friendly links

Reference #13 (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/packages/baking-guide/flour-101-guide-to-different-types-and-uses) is used in multiple places. Apart from the obvious reasons we shouldn't be quoting this reference (they give no sources for their information), the link is also not international friendly. Going to that link from my UK IP redirects me to the foodnetwork.co.uk homepage and not the relevant article. I cannot comment on other countries but I assume we should only use references which can be statically accessed by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakrb (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

"Meolo (botany)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Meolo (botany). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguous or redundant definition?

The opening sentence defines flour as

Flour is a powder made by grinding raw grains, roots, beans, nuts, or seeds.

My first issue is one of ambiguity: it's not clear whether the word "raw" applies only to the first item in the list (grains), or all of them. If it is the latter, this doesn't sound correct, as we can find examples of flours that are milled out of non-raw ingredients. Soybean#Flour, for example, is usually roasted as raw soy is inedible. Further, if "raw" is only intended to apply to the word "grain", why are we making this distinction? Clearly we can make flour out of non-raw grains, so why are separately including raw grain in the definition? This leads me to my second issue:

Grains, beans, and seeds in the context of flour all seem to fall under the umbrella of "grains", making this list redundant. Not all seeds are grains, but all the edible ones harvested for consumption are (according to the definition of grain), so if flour is exclusively used as food it follows that all seeds used to make flour are grains. Beans and other pulses are seeds, and therefore also a type of grain.

Should we change this opening sentence to say

Flour is a powder made by grinding grains, roots, or nuts.

Vvanpo (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Particle size

There should be some information about the particle sizes. E. g. semolina has larger particles (I think larger than 0.3 mm, though I have no sources at hand), flour for baking bread has smaller particles, and there are further distinctions though I don't know the English terminology (I know in German, usually the coarser (it's still much finer than semolina) are called "griffig" (e. g. for most kinds of bread) while the finer ones are called "glatt" (e. g. for pancakes)). Icek~enwiki (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

All Purpose Flour Definition incorrect for Canada

Canadian All Purpose Flour has a much higher protein content than American or UK Flour. To the point where it is common to use it for bread making.

The following link provides a valid definition. http://canadianmillers.ca/productspecs.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.2.154.71 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Globalizing terminology

The section about self raising flour says "In English-speaking countries, self-raising (or self-rising) flour is commercially available with chemical leavening agents already in the mix.[14][15]" Can it be said with confidence that this applies to ALL English-speaking countries? Does 'English-speaking' mean countries in which English is an official language, countries in which most activity is conducted in English, or just countries in which English is the only official and commonly used language?

The next sentence says "In America, it is also likely to be pre-salted; in Britain this is not the case." Does 'America' mean the two continents of North and South America, the entire continent of North America, or just the United States? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Flour sack into Flour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given that Flour sack is a distinct topic; some support for a Flour sack fabric merge, but that has merged elsewhere in the interim. Klbrain (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Too much overlapping content. Flour sack could be merged into Flour. MarioGom (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• No. Flour sack is a specific subject; it is a new article and there is room for additional coverage. WikiProject Containers has rated it as Start. Pkgx (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• I don't understand why we have both Flour sack and Flour sack fabric. Despite the name, the latter article seems to mostly be about the sacks. I propose that Flour sack fabric be merged into Flour sack, which should provide enough content for a stand-alone article. Spicy (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Follow Talk:Flour sack fabric. There was an article titled Flour Sack but it only discussed the reuse of cheap cotton fabric as a textile. The "textile" people resisted efforts to expand the article to include all of the various types of flour bags. sacks, and containers. Thus there are two articles; on on the reuse of cotton fabric from old sacks and one on the many types of containers for flour. Pkgx (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    • It seems like the issue was that the lead of the 'flour sack fabric' article was changed to include different materials without adding sourced content about that to body of the article [3]. Now that the flour sack article contains such content, I don't think there would be an issue with merging. Pinging Schazjmd who reverted the edit. Spicy (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
      • The original Flour sack article was about the history of the fabric sacks used for flour and feed. Collectibles now, they were a source of fabric for multiple household uses. The popularity of the fabric led manufacturers to compete by offering sacks in different colors and prints. It wasn't about flour, it was about the sacks (which were used for sugar and rice, as well as flour and animal feed). I think it makes sense to discuss methods for packaging flour in the Flour article, but I don't think it would make sense to discuss the cultural significance of the fabric bags which might have contained flour or sugar or rice or feed in it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. Kernel123 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merger. Flour is a topic in and of itself, without the necessity of having to talk about the different types of bins and containers the flour is stored in.Davidbena (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merger. Flour and flour bags are distinctly different topics and there is no reason for them to be merged. TypoEater (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

There is a mistake in a French to English translation : “The phrase fleur de farine meant "the finest part of the meal" “. “Fleur de farine” means the finest part of the flour, so something in the likes of “the finest part of the flour”. Asseb (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)