Who made the first loaf of bread?

[pulykamell]

A non-scientific search for “proof the yeast” and “prove the yeast” along with “proof the bread” and “prove the bread” seems to indicate that the “proof” version is about ten times as popular as the “prove” variant.

Personally, I don’t care either way, and it makes logical sense that the (I assume) original “proof” morphed into “prove,” since the latter is the more common and is paired with the noun “proof.”

[tdn]

@Dr. Lao

What makes you think wheat is a low-yield food? We devote an awful lot of effort to growing it nowadays. It is was probably one of the earliest domesticated plants because it was so high yielding and in the intervening 12,000 years or so we haven’t found much that improves upon it (with the exception of corn or rice perhaps).

With apologies to SCSimmons, one stalk of wheat produces only a handful of grain. By volume the plant/food ratio is not great, and the land/food ratio seems pretty poor, but in contrast maybe the land/food ratio of a cow is far worse.

However, the earliest wheat was very low yield. Modern wheat is the product of eugenics, and was developed some 10000 years ago. Its ancestor yielded something like 10% of the newer variety. At least, that’s according to one history book I have, which is a pretty crappy one, so I could be wrong.

[DougC]

• • • Semi-related sidenote: anthropologists have found that tooth decay began occuring heavily in humans right around the same time that unleavened bread came into widespread use.
      ~

[rjk]

This page lists several grains related to current wheat, and says that einkorn, emmer and spelt all can yield better than wheat in harsh conditions. The article also talks about nutrition and suitability for bread.

[Dr.Lao]

@tdn

However, the earliest wheat was very low yield. Modern wheat is the product of eugenics, and was developed some 10000 years ago. Its ancestor yielded something like 10% of the newer variety. At least, that’s according to one history book I have, which is a pretty crappy one, so I could be wrong.

The wild-type ancestors of wheat are still far larger and more nutritious than any other grass grain that would have been available to gatherers of southwest Asia. And even in the wild, grasses tend to grow in big clumps.

[SCSimmons]

@tdn

With apologies to SCSimmons, one stalk of wheat produces only a handful of grain. By volume the plant/food ratio is not great, and the land/food ratio seems pretty poor, but in contrast maybe the land/food ratio of a cow is far worse.

However, the earliest wheat was very low yield. Modern wheat is the product of eugenics, and was developed some 10000 years ago. Its ancestor yielded something like 10% of the newer variety. At least, that’s according to one history book I have, which is a pretty crappy one, so I could be wrong.

Well, 800 grains of wheat isn’t too much of a handful. 80 grains per head is probably an over-estimate, but not by too much; 50-60 seems to be more typical. With modern farming methods and strains, you’ll get about 7 metric tons of grain per hectare. This ain’t chicken feed. Well, OK, it is chicken feed, but for a whole s***load of chickens.

Your ancient farmers, of course, had to deal with lower-yield strains and hand plows. :eek: That 10%, though, seems pretty doubtful to me, but I don’t have a better number to give; I can’t think how one would determine yield on prehistoric cultivated grains, but I’m sure someone else has figured it out somewhere …

[Mighty_Girl]

@DougC

• • • Semi-related sidenote: anthropologists have found that tooth decay began occuring heavily in humans right around the same time that unleavened bread came into widespread use.
      ~

Which was caused by fine grains of sand introduced in the flour by the primitive grindstones. Nothing to do with bread per se.

[CC]

Couldn’t the decay have been provoked by the conversion of starch in the grains to sugars in the mouth - from the amylase in saliva?

[Mighty_Girl]

IANAD, just repeating what I have head, specially true when it comes to the Egyptians. I am off to dig up a cite, or retract if I don’t find one.

[Mighty_Girl]

The best I could find:

During the bread-making process, it was almost impossible to eliminate small stones or sand grains from the flour. Ultimately, the sand became part of the bread. These gritty elements wore down the enamel of the teeth, which led to holes in the enamel where bacteria and disease could live. Ironically, it was the staple food of bread with the sand and rock baked inside that lead many of the ancient Egyptian’s into a world of tooth decay and even death.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/breadmaking.htm

I suppose I can be wrong and hope somebody comes with a more authoritative opinion. But carry on with this thread, I find it very interesting.

[CC]

Mighty - I’m just raising an additional factor. Unlikely as it is that we’ll ever know a definitive truth about this questions, I think there could be several factors that might explain the increase in dental carries that is coincident with the change in diet. We could ALL be right.

[CC]

Mighty - I’m just raising an additional factor. Unlikely as it is that we’ll ever know a definitive truth about this question, I think there could be several factors that might explain the increase in dental carries that is coincident with the change in diet. We could ALL be right.

[Mighty_Girl]

Yeah, we could both be right. I mean, I have been right once or twice… right?