+

Lab 6: Gluten and Leaveners

Emily Brumsted, Tiffany Craig, Amber Lagerwey, Mickinzie Lopez
November 4, 2014

Objectives

Describe the fx of gluten and leaveners in products made from

batters and dough

Recognize how different flours produce variation in structure

and texture of baked goods

Compare the speed of gas production in chemical leaveners

Observe factors that affect the leavening power of yeast

(Refined) Wheat Belly

Ever heard of Wheat Belly? Not exactly correct...
Historically, baked products were not found in the

human diet1
Today, baked products are #trending2
Avg. 8.1 oz-eq of grains/person/day (USDA,

2005)
7.2 oz-eq from refined grains
0.9 oz-eq from whole grains

Introduction - Gluten

Function of gluten in yeast breads3,4

Structure
Crumb
Gas retention

Gluten development occurs at two(ish) stages4

Mixing (moistening)
Kneading
*Baking

Introduction - Gluten

Substitutions4
Xanthan Gum
Guar Gum
Psyllium, agar agar, flax seed, chia
seeds

Guidelines5
Non-yeast products: tsp to 1 cup
flour
Yeast products: 1 tsp to 1 cup flour

GF baking is not for the faint of heart4-5

Different flours, techniques and baking
times
Experimentation with recipes is often
required

Introduction - Gluten

Troubleshooting GF Recipes5
Recommended for max 2 cup flour recipes
Use combination of GF flours
Replace regular milk w/ evaporated or dry milk solids
Add extra egg or egg white as binders
Dissolve leavener in liquid before adding for better rise
Add extra baking powder
Shorten kneading time
Be careful not to overbake

Introduction - Leaveners

Leaveners are used as ingredients of techniques to incorporate

gas in foods3

3 Types1
Physical - air and steam
Biological - yeast
Chemical - baking powder and baking soda

Biological and chemical leaveners contribute most to volume1

Yeast requires food source - sugar
Baking powder/soda require acid and moisture - added
ingredients

Methods
Part 1

Baking Focaccia Bread

Goal: Conduct evaluations on focaccia

bread variations and record results in Table
1. Rank samples on the sensory scorecard in
Table 2.
6 Bread Variations (control + 5 flours)
1. Whole wheat flour (control)
2. Legume-based flour: garbanzo bean
flour
3. Bread flour
4. Vital gluten
5. Cup 4 Cup flour blend (cornstarch,
white and brown rice flour, milk
powder, potato starch, xanthan gum)
6. Nutrition Kitchen gluten-free flour
mix (2 cups brown rice flour, 2/3 cup
potato starch, 1/3 cup tapioca starch,
tsp. xanthan gum)
Special instructions for Part 1 were noted in
lab protocol for Vital Gluten Variation

Methods for Part 1 were

modified
1. Group 5
+ Added an additional cup
of GF flour mixture as their
dough was too sticky
2. Group 6
+ Added an additional 4
teaspoons of Cup4Cup flour
to the dough, then used 2
teaspoons of the same flour
on the cutting board used to
knead the dough

Methods
Part 2
Chemical Leaveners
Goal: Observe speed of
reaction; note the relative speed
of gas production in Table 3.

6 Variations:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Baking soda + cold water

Baking soda + hot water
Baking soda + vinegar
Baking soda + cream of
tartar
5. Double-acting baking
powder + cold water
6. Double-acting baking
powder + hot water

Part 3
Factors Affecting Leavening
Power of Yeast
Goal: Conduct evaluations
on focaccia bread variations
and record results in Table 1.
Rank samples on the sensory
scorecard in Table 2.
3 Variations:
1. Baking soda + cold water
2. Baking soda + hot water
3. Baking soda + vinegar

*Methods for Part 2 and 3 were followed as outlined in the lab protocol

+ Results

Part 1: Baking Focaccia Bread

Table 1: Focaccia Bread Results
Rank the samples according to the following characteristics.

Treatment

Height
(mm)

Color*

Crumb Structure*
(Pore uniformity)
1-non-uniform,
2-slightly uniform
3-enough uniform
4-almost uniform
5-uniform

Crumb Structure*
(Pore size)

Ranking System

1-white,
2-cream
3- tan
4-brown
5-grey

1. Control Whole Wheat flour

15.4 mm

4, brown

4.7, most uniform

3.6

2. Garbanzo Bean flour

8.9 mm

3.2, tan

4.3

3. Bread flour

38.1 mm

2, cream

2, least uniform

2.3

4. Vital gluten flour

111.5 mm

2.2, cream

2.3

2, largest

5. Cup for Cup (C4C) Flour

9.6 mm

1.5, white

4.3

6. Gluten-free flour mix

11.9 mm

2.3, cream

4.3

4.2, smallest

*Subjective data, large ranges for wide data sets

12345-

Large
Slightly large
Medium
Slightly small
Extremely small

Results:

The Garbanzo Bean flour

had the least measured
height
Lacks gum additives
found in GF brand
mixes

Vital Gluten flour

performed the best
amt. of gluten
crosslinking

Whole wheat flour

outperformed due to
bran cutting gluten
complex

+ Results
Part 1: Baking Focaccia Bread

+ Results
Xanthan Gum
Cup4Cup Flour

Nutrition Kitchen GF Flour

Rose an average of 11.9 mm

Rose an average of 9.6 mm

3.5 mm (~23%) < whole wheat

control (~15.4 mm)

5.8 mm (~38%) < whole wheat

control sample

Effectiveness was determined by volume of baked product

+ Results

Focaccia Bread Sensory Score Card

Table 2: Focaccia Bread Sensory Results
Rank the samples according to the following characteristics
Treatment

Crumb Cohesiveness

Flavor

Crumb consistency

Preference

Ranking System

1-greatest force to
break
2- moderate force to
break
3-minimal force to
break
4-easily breaks
5-crumbles to touch

1-no bitter, sweet, salty,

little to no sour
2- slight bitter, slightly
sour
3- mild bitter, mild sour
4- bitter
5-extremely bitter &
sour undesirable

1-Greatest bites/chew
2-High bites/chew
3-Moderate bites/chew
4-Low bites/chew
5-Minimum bites/chew

1.Extremely desirable
2-Desirable
3-Slightly undesirable
4-Moderately undesirable
5-Extremely undesirable

1. Control Whole
Wheat flour

3.3

1.3

2. Garbanzo Bean flour

4.3, most crumbly

3.4

3. Bread flour

2.3

1, least bitter

4, least chews

2.3, most desirable

4. Vital gluten flour

1, greatest force

4, most bitter

1, most chews

4.3, least desirable

5. Cup for Cup (C4C)

flour

3.3

2.7

6. Gluten-free flour
mix*

3.3

1.7

Results:

Garbanzo Bean Flour

most crumbly and
second least preferred

Vital Gluten Flour rated

most bitter, toughest to
chew, and least desirable

WINNER: Bread Flour!

least bitter, easiest to
chew, most desirable
Higher gluten
content vs wheat
flour

Results
Part 2: Chemical Leaveners
Table 3: Comparison of Speed of Reaction
Students were asked to observe reactions of various combinations

Variation Chemical Leavener

Liquid

Relative Speed of Gas Production

(none, slow rxn, quick rxn),

Baking soda

1 Tbsp cold water

none

Baking soda

1 Tbsp hot water

none

Baking soda

1 Tbsp vinegar

quick rxn

Baking soda + tsp cream of

tartar

1 Tbsp cold water

slow rxn (about 15 sec slower)

Double-acting baking powder

1 Tbsp cold water

quick rxn

Double-acting baking powder

1 Tbsp hot water

quick rxn; slightly quicker than variation

#5

Results

Baking soda + vinegar and DABP + hot

water resulted in the fastest reactions of
CO2 gas formation
Reminder:
*Baking powder: baking soda with acid
(cream of tartar) added = no need for
additional acid to catalyze rxn1

Results
Part 3: Factors Affecting Leavening Power of Yeast
Table 4: Factors Affecting Leavening Power of Yeast
Students were asked to observe the activity of yeast

Variable
Number

Variable

Describe Rate and Size of Gas

Production

1.

Standard

Doubled in size within 25 minutes.

2.

Standard + 2 Tbsp granulated

sugar

Little to no gas production. No increase in size.

3.

Standard + 2 tsp salt

Little to no gas production. No increase in size.

Result
s Addition of sugar and salt produced no increase in size and a
curdled, darker brown colouring.

Discussion
Discussion Question #1 : Explain the general differences noted in the
density and volume of the variables in the Focaccia Bread and how this
relates to the overall texture, flavor and acceptability of the final product
The general differences noted in the density and volume of the
variables in the Focaccia is directly related to the variations of
gluten in each type of flour.

Discussion
Discussion

Question #2: Provide a rationale for the

results produced in Table 3 for each (6 total) chemical
leavener/liquid pairing

Rationale 1: Baking Soda + cold water. Baking soda, or sodium

bicarbonate , only produces carbon dioxide in the presence of moisture and
an acid1.

Rationale 2: Baking soda + hot water. Temperature alone cannot

catalyze the reaction without an acid.

Rationale 3: Baking soda + vinegar.The acidic nature of vinegar creates

the perfect environment for the reaction to occur rapidly

Discussion

Rationale 4: Baking soda + cream of tartar + cold water. Weaker

acid . Fewer carbonic acid intermediates and subsequently a slower fizzing
that took longer to occur.

Rationale 5: Double acting baking powder + cold water. Baking

powder is baking soda with acid (cream of tartar) added , no need to have an
additional acid to catalyze the reaction1.

Rationale 6: Double acting baking powder + hot water. Temperature

increases the speed of the reaction

NO ACID ADDED TO BAKING SODA (Brown, Table 17-17)

2NaHCO3 Na2CO3 (sodium carbonate) + 2H2O + CO2 gas

ACID ADDED TO BAKING SODA

NaHCO3 + HX (acid) NaX (salt) + H2CO3 (carbonic acid) H2O + CO2

Discussion
Discussion Question #3: Explain the reasons for differences observed
between the 3 variables in Table 4 related to rate and size of gas
production.
Sugar acts as a food source, speeding up the rate at which the
reaction occurs.
Too much=death of the yeast
Variables #2 and #3 exhibit was occurs when too much sugar or
salt is added = OSMOSIS

+ Sweet Potato-Rice Pancakes

Objectives

Use varying ratios of rice flour and sweet potato flour to find a
suitable alternative to whole wheat flour for gluten-free
pancake lovers 5.

Control: Whole Wheat Flour

Standard: 100% Rice Flour

Variation 1: 10% Sweet Potato Flour

Variation 2: 20% Sweet Potato Flour

Variation 3: 40% Sweet Potato Flour

+ Sweet Potato-Rice Pancakes

Findings5

Variations 2 & 3: 20-40% Sweet Potato Flour most closely

resembled wheat flour in texture, viscosity, and nutritional
content 5.

Acceptable replacement for whole wheat flours 5.

+ Sweet Potato-Rice Pancakes

Relation & Relevance

Relation to topic

Investigated how different flours

produced variations in texture and
structure of baked goods

Evaluated combinations not explored

in class

Familiar methods

Relevance to food science

Benefits consumers, producers,

nutritionists

Expanded options for GF baking

References
1. Brown A. Understanding Food Principles and Preparation. 5th ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage
Learning; 2015: 366-433.
2. Wells HF, Buzby JC. Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in U.S. Food Consumption, 19702005. USDA Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/
eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib33.aspx. Accessed November 10, 2014.
3. Watson F, Stone M, Bunning M. Gluten-Free Baking. Colorado State University, Health:
Food and Nutrition Series. 2009. Accessed November 11.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09376.pdf.
4. Parsons R. The Ultimate Gluten-Free Vegan Baking Substitution Guide. One Green Planet
Web Site. http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/the-ultimate-gluten-free-veganbaking-substitution-guide/. Accessed November 11, 2014.
5. Shih FF, Truong VD, Daigle KW. Physicochemical properties of gluten-free pancakes from
rice and sweet potato flours. Journal of Food Quality. 2006;29: 97-107.
http://fbns.ncsu.edu/USDAARS/Acrobatpubs/S114-150/S119.pdf. Accessed November 11,
2014.