Pages

26 July 2013

Sweetest Comeback in the History of... Whatever


The “New” Twinkies, reintroduced on 15 July 2013 after a half-year hiatus, deserve a bit of attention. Twinkie the Kid may have been banished from the box artwork, but the new Overlords of Golden Sponge Cake nevertheless seem to think that the world has not yet moved on from the concept of snack cakes.

As several news reports have mentioned, the rebooted Hostess Brands reformulated the Twinkie to extend shelf life to 45 days, a 73% increase over the stated 26-day target of the old product. Also rumored but not exactly substantiated is that the New Twinkie is or will be “smaller” somehow than the Old Twinkie.

Well, the only way to resolve the facts is to directly compare Old and New, duh. Fortunately the wise Management of Browne Crowe Bakes had had the foresight to procure one of the last boxes of Old Twinkies and, after double-wrapping in foil, stash said box in the deep freeze on 16 November 2012. There they were kept at 0°F for 8 months, until the inevitable New Twinkies hit the market.

Twinkies: New (Top) and Old (Bottom)

Size Matters


So are the New Twinkies really “smaller”?

Weight of entire Old Twinkies Box of 10: 453.4g; declared net weight 383g.
Weight of entire New Twinkies Box of 10: 459.1g; declared net weight 385g.

Yes, yes, a sample size of one box each makes for a statistical analysis of just about zero significance, but the evidence to date shows no downsizing of the Twinkie... yet.

As an aside, the box width has indeed shrunk to 21cm from 26cm; perhaps this is the source of the downsizing rumors.
 

 Ingredients for a L-o-n-g-e-r Shelf Life


Would there have been blood in the streets if the New Twinkies formula had been changed too much? Perhaps Hostess feared a debacle like the New Coke fiasco (which some suspected as having been a marketing gimmick).

But to meet revenue goals even after post-bankruptcy restructuring and smacking the bakers’ and truckers’ unions, Hostess seemingly had no choice but to make their products even less prone to staling and outright spoilage. Pity, for the result is that the Twinkie has become even less foodlike than before.

Let us glance at the New and Old ingredients declarations, with the deltas highlighted: Added and Omitted.

Enriched bleached wheat flour:
  Flour
  Reduced iron
  Niacin
  Thiamine mononitrate (B1)
  Riboflavin (B2)
  Folic acid
Water
Sugar
Corn syrup
High fructose corn syrup
Shortening, partially hydrogenated:
  Soybean oil
  Cottonseed and/or canola oil
  Beef fat
Whole eggs
Dextrose
Soy lecithin
Leavenings:
  Sodium acid pyrophosphate
  Baking soda
  Corn starch
  Monocalcium phosphate
Whey
Modified corn starch
Glucose
Glycerin  New
Soy flour Old
Salt
Soybean oil New
Mono- and diglycerides
Cellulose gum
Sodium stearoyl lactylate
Natural flavor
Artificial flavor
Sorbic acid
Artificial flavor
Polysorbate 60
Corn starch
Xanthan gum  New
Soy protein isolate  Old
Calcium caseinate  Old
Sodium caseinate  Old
Enzyme  New 
Wheat flour  New
Yellow 5
Red 40

and the FDA-mandated Nutrition Facts; Old Twinkies label with New annotation:

Serving Size 2 Cakes (77g)
Servings Per Container 5
Amount Per Serving
Calories 290    Calories from Fat 80
Total Fat           9g    14%
    Saturated Fat   4.5g  23%
    Trans Fat       0g
Cholesterol         35mg  12%
Sodium              400mg 17%  360mg 15%

Total Carbohydrate    49g 16%  46g 15%
Dietary Fiber          0g  0%
Sugars                35g      33g
Protein                2g

Vitamin A   0%
Calcium     2%
Vitamin C   0%
Iron        6%  4%


The Caseinates were used to improve sponge texture and uniformity, to increase cake volume, and as an aid to ingredient dispersion in batter mixing. The 10% sodium reduction possibly resulted not so much from less salt being added, and more from elimination of the sodium caseinate.
 
The soy protein isolate worked with the caseinates and whey as a milk replacer in the cake formula. Soy flour is an old-school enzyme-active additive still widely used to retard staling in breads and other baked goods. Both soy protein ingredients are therefore gone—maybe part of a long-term soy-free market strategy? Change to canola oil and non-soy lecithin and they’re there.

Possibly the Enriched Wheat Flour content has been reduced (is wheat more expensive than corn starch?), as suggested by the drop in iron content and 1g-decrease in non-sugar total carbohydrate.
 

Pulling Out All the Stops: “Freshness” or Bust


The bacterial slime Xanthan gum hydrocolloid was likely added to compensate for the change in batter and/or cake properties resulting from the changeover in shelf-life extension additives; also, xanthan itself is known to retard starch retrogradation, the baking industry's two-dollar jargon for staling.

The non-hydrogenated and ultra-cheap Soybean oil also helps keeps things soft, while amounts of other ingredients have been juggled to keep the fat percentage unchanged.

The Enzyme ingredient now listed may comprise one or more bacterial and/or fungal enzymes—alpha amylase, lipase, phospholipase, etc.—that modify complex starch-sugar-fat batter chemistries, enhancing initial crumb softness and moisture retention, and retarding the staling that leads over time to brittle, crumbly cake texture.

Such enzymes, heavily promoted over the last 5-7 years or so by the Usual Suspects in factory-food chemicals manufacturing, offer a solution to exactly the production and price pressures that helped drive Old Hostess into the ground.

Something to watch for in future revisions of the Twinkies ingredients labels—well, who doesn’t keep track of them?—would be the disappearance of Enzyme from the list. This does not necessarily mean that they stopped using enzymes, but rather that they were able to change the formulation or successfully petition the FDA to permit reclassification of them as processing aids, and therefore don’t have to list them. Sneaky, no?

But then again, given Hostess’ all-out imperative to extend shelf life, “enzyme” is likely to persist indefinitely. It is worth bearing in mind that “enzyme” is in fact an FDA-sanctioned synonym for “fungal alpha-amylase”, an enzyme produced from factory-scale vats of fungus, and which remains active post-baking to retard staling.
 
The Glycerin was surely added as a humectant to attract and retain moisture, again for shelf-life extension. In fact, glycerin has traditionally been added to wedding- and Madeira-cake batters so the cakes stay “fresh” longer. And as the Twinkies’ sugar content seems to have dropped 2g per serving, the glycerin’s sweetness could partially compensate for any loss in sugar-sweetness.


Next: Sensory Evaluation of New vs. Old Twinkies

Nahhh... what would be the point?





 “—” ‘—’’

12 July 2013

Gluten-Free Spice Redux

Baking Trial 056, 12 July 2013


Resurrecting the gluten-free spice cake -014 of last March, an update was performed, tweaking the formula with more-accessible ingredients and a simplified-improved batter makeup process.

The chiffon-based method (emulsion plus French meringue) formerly used was abandoned after it was recognized (and reinforced by failure after failure!) that GF blends are unable to stabilize the pre-aerated batter sponge’s delicate structure after baking & cooling.

Also, the guar and flax hydrocolloids repacing the gluten generally need a lot of working to develop, and it was suspected that the egg whites might beneficially be added early in the batter processing, instead of being incorporated at the last moment as a French meringue.

Finally, it has been mentioned elsewhere that salt and leavening might best be added late in batter systems, so as not to interfered with air incorporation and to forestall premature gas generation. This is reflected in the late-addition step in the process described below.

Milk, Whole         50.1g heat-treat to 175°F: ~40s. in microwave
Raisins, Whole      30.7g
Honey               25.9g
Butter, Unsalted     6.9g softened
Vanilla Extract      2.8g
Cinnamon             2.2g
Nutmeg               1.4g
Allspice             1.1g
Cloves               1.0g

Ginger               0.5g
Lemon Extract        8 drops
Lecithin, Sunflower  0.9g  hydrolyzed, powdered blend
Rice Bran Extract    0.6g
Milled Defatted Flax 0.4g

Egg Whites          64.1g from 2 large eggs

Milk, Whole         21.0g
Ascorbyl Palmitate  0.4g fat-soluble vitamin C, fine powder
Vitamin E oil       8 drops
  
Oil, Sunflower      42.0g
Egg Yolks           38.6g
from 2 large eggs

Flour, GF AP        87.0g Glutino® Gluten-Free Pantry brand
Sugar, granular     80.0g superfine baker's sugar
Flour, Rice RS      10.0g heat-treated cooked rice

Baking Powder        5.0g
Sea Salt, Fine       1.7g
Baking Soda          1.3g

Combine the heat-treated milk, raisins, honey, butter, spices, and additives, and pureé in a food processor to a fine slurry. Add the egg whites, extra milk, and vitamins, stirring to mix well, then set aside.

Make an yolk-oil emulsion by beating the yolks until uniform and frothy, then drizzling in the oil to create a thick mayonnaise. Add liquid mixture and blend till uniform.

With mixer running, sift in flour-sugar mixture, and mix on high speed a full seven minutes; if doubling the batch, up mixing time to 10 minutes. Let mix sit for a few minutes while preparing the canoe-pan cups: 10% sunflower lecithin in palm shortening, with cinnamon and nutmeg melted in. After-coat with nonstick spray.

Sift in the mixed leavening-salt drys, and beat another four to five minutes to achieve uniformity in rising during baking.

Dispense ¼cup (60ml.) batter into prepared canoe-pan cups, then bake 18min. at 320°F (160C) over a boiling-water pan.

 
Cake rise was good, with relatively minor shrinkback near end of bake and during cooling. Total yield for trial scaling was 8 cakes, with a very good baking loss of only 4.5%. Pan release was clean.

Analysis of ingredients and outcome for this trial:

Figure     per 52g (average) cake
Water       21.5g
Protein      2.6g
Fats         7.7g
Carbs       11.8g incl. ~500mg resistant starch
Fiber        0.8g
Sugars      16.4g
Sodium      245mg
Energy      189kCal
 
Sensory evaluation & comments from the Browne Crowe Bakes Sensory Evaluation Team:

  • Well-developed, cinnamon-tangy spice taste and aroma
  • “I would buy and put in my kid’s lunch every day.”
  • Moist and tender, not gummy or rubbery.

Overall the outcome of Trial 056 is satisfactory.


 “—” ‘—’’

07 July 2013

What's All This Coconut Flour Stuff, Anyway?

Baking Trial 053, 29 June 2013


The adult daughter of a friend mentioned Coconut Flour as useful in various gluten-free baking recipes. Naturally I had to give it a go!

Nosing around for a baseline reference coconut flour formula, I came across the Coconut-Flour Chocolate Cake as described by one Sarah Shilhavy, often referred to and linked to in the GF Baking Universe.

A glance at the Shilhavy formula suggested that a few alterations were in order, despite Ms. Shilhavy’s dire warning that she would not be responsible for baking failures should the slightest deviation from her ingredient list or process steps be made.


Planned alterations include:
  • Substitute liquid oil for the butter;
  • Reduce egg content—most coconut-flour recipes are quite eggy;
  • Reduce oil maybe 10% to equal a classic chiffon oil:yolk ratio;
  • Adjust total watery liquids—coconut flour is thirsty;
  • Add raisin pureé and honey, adjust sugar balance;
  • Increase vanilla;
  • Add Rice Bran Extract for better loft and shelf-life.

Egg Whites       144g (4 eggs)
Flour, Coconut    90g
Egg Yolks         81g
(4 eggs)
Milk, Whole Fluid 81g
Sugar, superfine  72g (½ in drys, ½ in meringue)
Oil, Sunflower    57g
Honey             37g
Cocoa Powder      35g
Raisins, Whole    29g (pureéd)
Vanilla            3.4g
(~1 tsp.) 
Baking Soda        2.8g
Sea Salt           2.4g
Baking Powder      1.3g
Rice Bran Extract  0.7g
 


Preparation is unremarkable, using chiffon-batter methods (see other entries this weblog): beat egg yolks, prepare an emulsion by whipping in a slow drizzle of oil, mix in wets, stir in sifted drys; and finally fold in French chiffon (egg whites to soft peak, then 1/2 sugar). Batter is thick and non-flowing, and must be manually smoothed into the pan cups.

Baking took a little longer, as expected because extra water (in milk) was necessary to make a workable batter, so taking longer to bake the moisture off: 21½min. at 320°F in canoe pans over boiling-water pan. Canoe cups prepped with palm shortening with lecithinated nonstick overspray.

Also a single 4½" cake was prepared from excess batter, needing 24min. for a clean toothpick. Total equivalent yield was 10 canoe cakes for the listed scaling.

Baking rise and shrinkback is typical for GF formulations, though not as dramatic as with most of the rice-potato-tapioca formulas. Pan release is clean.

For the ¼cup batter portions dispensed into the canoe cups, the resulting cakes were a little smallish compared to the canonical Twinkie dimensions; however, as these coconut-based cakes are comparatively dense and chewy, the smaller portion is about right.

Analysis of ingredients and outcome for this trial:

Figure     per 54.1g coconut-flour cake
Protein    5.2g
Fats       9.9g
Starches   4.2g
Fiber      4.5g
Sugars    13.2g
Sodium     232mg
Energy    184
kCal


Note that protein and fiber levels are much higher compared to other GF cakes described earlier in this weblog—and of course much, much higher than the trace amounts present in classic Golden Sponge Cakes.

Sensory evaluation & comments from the Browne Crowe Bakes Sensory Evaluation Team:

  • Dense but not too-moist or gummy; brownie-like texture;
  • Not too sweet (sugar content ~25% less than classic chiffon);
  • Rather chewy with shredded-coconut grainy mouthfeel;
  • Good cocoa aroma and flavor. Extra vanilla complements cocoa;
  • Formula is designed for long shelf-life, but trial samples did not stay uneaten long enough for full evaluation.

Overall the outcome of Trial 053 is satisfactory.

 
As a formula tweak I might try adding some milled flax to gain a little extra loft and yield. Gumminess can be a problem with flax hydrocolloids, but a little extra rice bran extract might help with that...




 “—” ‘—’’