Well, today's the big day. My 9 year ld daughter will be baking
quick-bread all day long for the science fair. We have a recipe for a
good oatmeal-raiain bread. Her hypothesis is that a combination of
baking soda and baking powder will produce the highest rise. Our other
loaves will contain: no leavening; just soda; just powder; and dry
yeast (not proofed, just dumped in). She's going to measure the height
of each loaf and also have 3 testers (herself, me, and my BF) taste and
rate the on a scale of 1 to 10 for lightness or density, chewiness or
softness and a few other characterisitics. Should be an interesting
project!

Through her preliminary research, she has learned about how leavning
agents produce carbon dioxide bubbles which cause the loaf to rise.

I'll let you know how varied her results are, and how flat the
unl;eavened bread cmes out!!

"Jude" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well, today's the big day. My 9 year ld daughter will be baking
> quick-bread all day long for the science fair. We have a recipe for a
>
>
> Through her preliminary research, she has learned about how leavning
> agents produce carbon dioxide bubbles which cause the loaf to rise.
>
> I'll let you know how varied her results are, and how flat the
> unl;eavened bread cmes out!!

'tis almost the season...now you're talking about matzoh..

Harriet & critters

"Jude" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well, today's the big day. My 9 year ld daughter will be baking
> quick-bread all day long for the science fair. We have a recipe for a
> good oatmeal-raiain bread. Her hypothesis is that a combination of
> baking soda and baking powder will produce the highest rise. Our other
> loaves will contain: no leavening; just soda; just powder; and dry
> yeast (not proofed, just dumped in). She's going to measure the height
> of each loaf and also have 3 testers (herself, me, and my BF) taste and
> rate the on a scale of 1 to 10 for lightness or density, chewiness or
> softness and a few other characterisitics. Should be an interesting
> project!
>
> Through her preliminary research, she has learned about how leavning
> agents produce carbon dioxide bubbles which cause the loaf to rise.

Since she has already researched how CO2 is produced, it seems that the
basic design of the experiment is flawed. First of all, the inclusion of
yeast is inconsistent for two reasons. First, it is not a chemical
leavening agent. Secondly, it is not used properly as compared to the
chemical leavening agents since you are not allowing any time for CO2 to be
produced by the yeast. In other words, you have all too many variables to
the experiment and any findings will be inconclusive. If she were older, I
would suggest finding some additional chemical leavening agents to compare,
but this would add too much complexity.

The second issue relates to your (her) assumption that the combination of
baking soda and baking power will have the best results. Unless there are
acidic ingredients, the baking soda will just sit there and produce no
additional CO2. This indicates that neither of you really understand how
CO2 is produced by chemical leavening agents.

A more easy to understand and therefore more educational comparison would be
to make the recipe with no leavening agent, with baking soda only, and with
baking powder only. The first to batches should be the same - flat. This
would show that baking soda ALONE is not a leavening agent. The batch with
baking power should be normal, thus proving you need both an acid and baking
soda (aka BAKING POWDER) for CO2 production. An extension to the experiment
would be to use increasing quantities of baking powder and use some
objective measure like density to measure the optimum amount of baking power
per unit of batter. There is a point where too much leavening agent will
cause the product to collapse and become more dense, not less.

Vox Humana wrote:
> "Jude" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Well, today's the big day. My 9 year ld daughter will be baking
> > quick-bread all day long for the science fair. We have a recipe for a
> > good oatmeal-raiain bread. Her hypothesis is that a combination of
> > baking soda and baking powder will produce the highest rise. Our other
> > loaves will contain: no leavening; just soda; just powder; and dry
> > yeast (not proofed, just dumped in). She's going to measure the height
> > of each loaf and also have 3 testers (herself, me, and my BF) taste and
> > rate the on a scale of 1 to 10 for lightness or density, chewiness or
> > softness and a few other characterisitics. Should be an interesting
> > project!
> >
> > Through her preliminary research, she has learned about how leavning
> > agents produce carbon dioxide bubbles which cause the loaf to rise.
>
> Since she has already researched how CO2 is produced, it seems that the
> basic design of the experiment is flawed. First of all, the inclusion of
> yeast is inconsistent for two reasons. First, it is not a chemical
> leavening agent. Secondly, it is not used properly as compared to the
> chemical leavening agents since you are not allowing any time for CO2 to be
> produced by the yeast. In other words, you have all too many variables to
> the experiment and any findings will be inconclusive. If she were older, I
> would suggest finding some additional chemical leavening agents to compare,
> but this would add too much complexity.


Ummm, the child is 9. I thought it was pretty good that she was able to
identify that yeast is another ingredient used to leaven breads. The
only variable is that she is changing the leavening agent. She will
subsititute 2 t of yeast for the 1 t each of soda and powder in the
original recipe. She will see why it doesn't work, and she will learn
that yeast leavens differently that soda or powder. There really is no
other variable in effect here. Her science teachers agreed that this
was an entirely appropriate experiment for a 4th grade. This is not a
college-level organic chem class. Its the elementary school sciecne
fair, and a kid whose mom cooks and bakes, thus a fun project to try,
emulating Mom.
>
> The second issue relates to your (her) assumption that the combination of
> baking soda and baking power will have the best results. Unless there are
> acidic ingredients, the baking soda will just sit there and produce no
> additional CO2. This indicates that neither of you really understand how
> CO2 is produced by chemical leavening agents.

Again, this is a fourth grade. It is not MY assumption, it is HER
hypothesis. A hypothesis for a science fair project is simply a theory
to be tested. How many fourth graders have a deep knowledge of how CO2
is produced by chemical leavening agents? My knowedge has zip, zilc,
zero to do with this. Amazingly enough, I'm a mom who is actually
making HER do her own science fair project and see what she can learn.
My knowledge does not come into play here. The purpose of the science
fair is for a child to deisgn an experiment and then to perform it.
They analyze the results and gain new knowledge based on what happens.
The purpose of her experiment os so she CAN learn more about how
leavening agents work. Not to mention that since the original recipe
calls for a combo or soda and powder, it's probably a good hypothesis.
>
> A more easy to understand and therefore more educational comparison would be
> to make the recipe with no leavening agent, with baking soda only, and with
> baking powder only. The first to batches should be the same - flat. This
> would show that baking soda ALONE is not a leavening agent. The batch with
> baking power should be normal, thus proving you need both an acid and baking
> soda (aka BAKING POWDER) for CO2 production. An extension to the experiment
> would be to use increasing quantities of baking powder and use some
> objective measure like density to measure the optimum amount of baking power
> per unit of batter. There is a point where too much leavening agent will
> cause the product to collapse and become more dense, not less.

I disagree that it would be more educational to bake only variations on
the bread and never follow the original recipe we are using. What would
she learn from that? The purpose of comaprison is to have 1 loaf that
comes out exactly as it sould, following the recipe to a T, and then
vary the recipe to see what happens. Without 1 loaf made exactly as
directed, we have no 'control' to compare to.

You do realize that most 4th grade science fair experiments consist of
putting food coloring into a vase with a carnatin and seeing the flower
absorb the color? This one she came up with is perfectly appropriate
for a little kid. perhaps a high school students with many more years
of sceintific experimentation would be interested in the advanced ideas
you propose, but not a little kid.

"Jude" > wrote in message
oups.com...
..
>
>
> Ummm, the child is 9. I thought it was pretty good that she was able to
> identify that yeast is another ingredient used to leaven breads.

Well, there are many ways to leaven thing including steam. You ignored my
points. First you are mixing various types of leavening agents - chemical
and biological. Second, you are not making a meaningful comparison since
you aren't letting the yeast work. Exactly what does the experiment prove
other than that not allowing the yeast to ferment is not an valid way to
leaven baked goods? It doesn't compare the leavening ability of yeast vs.
baking powder. It just illustrates that not following directions is a
recipe for failure.

The
> only variable is that she is changing the leavening agent.

Except that baking SODA is not a leaving agent. It is PART of a system that
requires an acid. Baking POWDER is a complete system and is a leavening
agent. Also, all leavening agents only work in a specified range of
temperature and over a specified time. By not giving sufficient time for
the yeast to ferment you have designed a flaw in the protocol. Again, it
makes no sense to say that a particular agent is inferior when you design a
system that guarantees failure.


She will
> substitute 2 t of yeast for the 1 t each of soda and powder in the
> original recipe. She will see why it doesn't work, and she will learn
> that yeast leavens differently that soda or powder.

No, she will see that it doesn't work but there is no clear reason WHY it
doesn't work because you haven't design the experiment to include TIME as a
variable. The only conclusion one could make was that yeast isn't a
leavening agent. In fact, one could argue that the yeast might be dead
since you have no control to prove otherwise. Again, this starts to get way
too complex for a 9 year old so why clutter the system with meaningless
comparisons? A more fair comparison would be to add the yeast to one batch
and the baking powder to another and bake-off a portion a set intervals.
Given enough samples over a long enough period of time you would see that
the leavening properties of baking power diminishes and the leavening power
of the yeast increases with time.

There really is no
> other variable in effect here.

See above. You are obviously wrong.


Her science teachers agreed that this
> was an entirely appropriate experiment for a 4th grade.

And of course, a 4th. grade teach is the ultimate authority on science.
That's why all the very brightest students can be found majoring in
education leaving the slackers to study physics, mathematics, chemistry,
engineering, medicine, etc. Oh, wait, it was just the opposite when I
attended college.

This is not a
> college-level organic chem class.

This would be an experiment for inorganic chemistry. When you mix in the
yeast, you would have to take it to biochemistry.

Its the elementary school sciecne
> fair, and a kid whose mom cooks and bakes, thus a fun project to try,>
> emulating Mom.

Oh, sorry. I thought this was about science, not emulating mom. I also
didn't realize that having fun and being logical were incompatible concepts.


> Again, this is a fourth grade. It is not MY assumption, it is HER
> hypothesis. A hypothesis for a science fair project is simply a theory
> to be tested. How many fourth graders have a deep knowledge of how CO2
> is produced by chemical leavening agents?

Sorry, when you said that she researched how CO2 was produced, I took your
word for it. Maybe you meant something else?

My knowedge has zip, zilc,
> zero to do with this. Amazingly enough, I'm a mom who is actually
> making HER do her own science fair project and see what she can learn.
> My knowledge does not come into play here. The purpose of the science
> fair is for a child to deisgn an experiment and then to perform it.
> They analyze the results and gain new knowledge based on what happens.
> The purpose of her experiment os so she CAN learn more about how
> leavening agents work. Not to mention that since the original recipe
> calls for a combo or soda and powder, it's probably a good hypothesis.

First, you didn't post the original recipe. Secondly, I find it
inconsistent to first argue that the girl is young and naive and then to
insist that she will be able to learn anything from a muddled experiment. I
have suggested a couple of ways to simplify the experiment so one can draw
clear conclusions that are explainable. And, while you claim that the girl
is on her own, she is using YOUR recipe - one that uses two potential
leavening agents, thus mudding the waters. I agree that the experiment is
your daughter's, I think that as a parent you could ask questions and be
part of a discussion that could guide your daughter. I guess that some
people see parenting as a hands-off endeavor.
>
> I disagree that it would be more educational to bake only variations on
> the bread and never follow the original recipe we are using.

The "original recipe" is the first in a chain of errors. Unless your
daughter found this recipe herself, you have interjected yourself into the
process and therefore can not claim an "arm's length" relationship.

What would
> she learn from that? The purpose of comparison is to have 1 loaf that
> comes out exactly as it should, following the recipe to a T, and then
> vary the recipe to see what happens. Without 1 loaf made exactly as
> directed, we have no 'control' to compare to.

At this point it is impossible to tell. That is my point. In addition, we
have no idea if the baking soda in the "original recipe" is included as a
leavening agent or as a way to increase browning, enhance gluten formation,
or to modify the flavor. You have made the assumption that baking soda is
always a leavening agent- but it isn't. See, the recipe is inappropriate to
test your daughter's hypothesis.

>
> You do realize that most 4th grade science fair experiments consist of
> putting food coloring into a vase with a carnatin and seeing the flower
> absorb the color? This one she came up with is perfectly appropriate
> for a little kid.

Your premise about the flowers doesn't support your argument about
appropriateness of your daughter's project. You also ignored all my points
that explained why the experiment isn't appropriate because it introduces
too many concepts and leads to no clear conclusions.


perhaps a high school students with many more years
> of sceintific experimentation would be interested in the advanced ideas
> you propose, but not a little kid.


That's the point. Unless you streamline the experiment, it would take an
older student to design and execute the experiment, analyze the data, and
compose a logical discussion of the data.

Vox Humana wrote:
> "Jude" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> .
> >
> >
> > Ummm, the child is 9. I thought it was pretty good that she was able to
> > identify that yeast is another ingredient used to leaven breads.
>
> Well, there are many ways to leaven thing including steam. You ignored my
> points. First you are mixing various types of leavening agents - chemical
> and biological.


I'm not mixing anything,

Second, you are not making a meaningful comparison since
> you aren't letting the yeast work.


I'm not making any comparisons.

Exactly what does the experiment prove
> other than that not allowing the yeast to ferment is not an valid way to
> leaven baked goods?

Well, that's new knowledge for her. Shame, shame, she learned something
today!

It doesn't compare the leavening ability of yeast vs.
> baking powder. It just illustrates that not following directions is a
> recipe for failure.

What a terrible concept for a 9 year old to learn. Especially in
relation to baking.
>
> The
> > only variable is that she is changing the leavening agent.
>
> Except that baking SODA is not a leaving agent.


Most 9 year old kids kow that, right? Maybe you should write World Book
and criticize them - that's where she found info about baking soda as a
leavening agent.

It is PART of a system that
> requires an acid. Baking POWDER is a complete system and is a leavening
> agent. Also, all leavening agents only work in a specified range of
> temperature and over a specified time. By not giving sufficient time for
> the yeast to ferment you have designed a flaw in the protocol. Again, it
> makes no sense to say that a particular agent is inferior when you design a
> system that guarantees failure.
>
>
> She will
> > substitute 2 t of yeast for the 1 t each of soda and powder in the
> > original recipe. She will see why it doesn't work, and she will learn
> > that yeast leavens differently that soda or powder.
>
> No, she will see that it doesn't work but there is no clear reason WHY it
> doesn't work because you haven't design the experiment to include TIME as a
> variable. The only conclusion one could make was that yeast isn't a
> leavening agent.

Or, perhaps, her conclusion (that yeast cannot simply be substituted
for pwder or soda, but must be handled differenly) was erronious?
Seeing as how that's a different conclusion than the ONLY one that
exists.

In fact, one could argue that the yeast might be dead
> since you have no control to prove otherwise.

The recipe as written is the control.

Again, this starts to get way
> too complex for a 9 year old so why clutter the system with meaningless
> comparisons?

Kids have to start somewhere. Most leaning starts off at the beginning,
then gets more challenging. She was interested in this project, that
means she is actually enjoying her schoolwork at an appropriate level
for her. Shocking. I should be flogged, tarred, and feathered for
allowing my child to design her own sciencde fair project and see what
happens, then discuss it with her to help her process her results and
learning.

A more fair comparison would be to add the yeast to one batch
> and the baking powder to another and bake-off a portion a set intervals.
> Given enough samples over a long enough period of time you would see that
> the leavening properties of baking power diminishes and the leavening power
> of the yeast increases with time.
>
> There really is no
> > other variable in effect here.
>
> See above. You are obviously wrong.

I'll be sure to tell her teacher, who agreed that there was 1
independent variable in this experiment. The leavening agents. Want to
post your phone number, in case the teacher has any questions about why
you disagree?
>
>
> Her science teachers agreed that this
> > was an entirely appropriate experiment for a 4th grade.
>
> And of course, a 4th. grade teach is the ultimate authority on science.

For a 4th grade student, yes. She obviosly knows far more than you
about what is age-appropriate for a child.

> That's why all the very brightest students can be found majoring in
> education leaving the slackers to study physics, mathematics, chemistry,
> engineering, medicine, etc. Oh, wait, it was just the opposite when I
> attended college.

And that's why all the physics majors and chem majors can be found
sequencing curriculum and knowing just what is developmentally
approprite for children, right?
>
> This is not a
> > college-level organic chem class.
>
> This would be an experiment for inorganic chemistry. When you mix in the
> yeast, you would have to take it to biochemistry.

Standard curriculum for the 4th grade in any state, as we all know.


>
> Its the elementary school sciecne
> > fair, and a kid whose mom cooks and bakes, thus a fun project to try,>
> > emulating Mom.
>
> Oh, sorry. I thought this was about science, not emulating mom. I also
> didn't realize that having fun and being logical were incompatible concepts.
>

You're right; it was terribly illogical of my child to think that she
could come up with a theory and test it out, them learn from what she
did.
>
> > Again, this is a fourth grade. It is not MY assumption, it is HER
> > hypothesis. A hypothesis for a science fair project is simply a theory
> > to be tested. How many fourth graders have a deep knowledge of how CO2
> > is produced by chemical leavening agents?
>
> Sorry, when you said that she researched how CO2 was produced, I took your
> word for it. Maybe you meant something else?

I meant what research is in 4th grade - she read the encyclopedia and
checked a few websites. She learned about bubbles causing rise. How
many other 4th graders could tell you that's why bread rises when it's
baking?

>
> My knowedge has zip, zilc,
> > zero to do with this. Amazingly enough, I'm a mom who is actually
> > making HER do her own science fair project and see what she can learn.
> > My knowledge does not come into play here. The purpose of the science
> > fair is for a child to deisgn an experiment and then to perform it.
> > They analyze the results and gain new knowledge based on what happens.
> > The purpose of her experiment os so she CAN learn more about how
> > leavening agents work. Not to mention that since the original recipe
> > calls for a combo or soda and powder, it's probably a good hypothesis.
>
> First, you didn't post the original recipe.

First, you didn't ask.

Secondly, I find it
> inconsistent to first argue that the girl is young and naive and then to
> insist that she will be able to learn anything from a muddled experiment.

I'll tell her to forget everything she learned today, then.

I
> have suggested a couple of ways to simplify the experiment so one can draw
> clear conclusions that are explainable. And, while you claim that the girl
> is on her own, she is using YOUR recipe - one that uses two potential
> leavening agents, thus mudding the waters.

How'd it get to be my recipe? Just cuz I own the cookbook?

I agree that the experiment is
> your daughter's, I think that as a parent you could ask questions and be
> part of a discussion that could guide your daughter. I guess that some
> people see parenting as a hands-off endeavor.

Yep, you got me there. Spending my entire Sunday in the kitchen helping
my kid bake bread is a classic example of hands-off parenting.
Especially considering the amount of discussion we had about things AS
THEY WERE HAPPENING, the way real valid learning occurs.

> >
> > I disagree that it would be more educational to bake only variations on
> > the bread and never follow the original recipe we are using.
>
> The "original recipe" is the first in a chain of errors. Unless your
> daughter found this recipe herself, you have interjected yourself into the
> process and therefore can not claim an "arm's length" relationship.
>

I gave her a stack of cookbooks, and she decided which recipe looked
like a good one to try. I believe most people would consider that
finding the recipe herself, of do you disagree with that too?


> What would
> > she learn from that? The purpose of comparison is to have 1 loaf that
> > comes out exactly as it should, following the recipe to a T, and then
> > vary the recipe to see what happens. Without 1 loaf made exactly as
> > directed, we have no 'control' to compare to.
>
> At this point it is impossible to tell. That is my point. In addition, we
> have no idea if the baking soda in the "original recipe" is included as a
> leavening agent or as a way to increase browning, enhance gluten formation,
> or to modify the flavor. You have made the assumption that baking soda is
> always a leavening agent- but it isn't. See, the recipe is inappropriate to
> test your daughter's hypothesis.

I'll be sure to tell her that. She was quite interested to find out
that the powder-only loaf did not prown well, and was curious as to why
thatwas. She listed that as one thing for further research. Silly
child, she should have known all that before she did this. It's common
knowldge for most 9 year olds.
>
> >
> > You do realize that most 4th grade science fair experiments consist of
> > putting food coloring into a vase with a carnatin and seeing the flower
> > absorb the color? This one she came up with is perfectly appropriate
> > for a little kid.
>
> Your premise about the flowers doesn't support your argument about
> appropriateness of your daughter's project. You also ignored all my points
> that explained why the experiment isn't appropriate because it introduces
> too many concepts and leads to no clear conclusions.

I'll make sure she erases the conclusions she came to, then.
>
>
> perhaps a high school students with many more years
> > of sceintific experimentation would be interested in the advanced ideas
> > you propose, but not a little kid.
>
>
> That's the point. Unless you streamline the experiment, it would take an
> older student to design and execute the experiment, analyze the data, and
> compose a logical discussion of the data.

So I probably should have squelched her right away when she came up
with her own idea for the project, and made her feel stupid, rather
than praising her for thinking up something that was in line with her
interests. That would make me a much better mother.

Jude wrote:
> Well, today's the big day. My 9 year ld daughter will be baking
> quick-bread all day long for the science fair. We have a recipe for a
> good oatmeal-raiain bread. Her hypothesis is that a combination of
> baking soda and baking powder will produce the highest rise. Our other
> loaves will contain: no leavening; just soda; just powder; and dry
> yeast (not proofed, just dumped in). She's going to measure the height
> of each loaf and also have 3 testers (herself, me, and my BF) taste and
> rate the on a scale of 1 to 10 for lightness or density, chewiness or
> softness and a few other characterisitics. Should be an interesting
> project!
>
> Through her preliminary research, she has learned about how leavning
> agents produce carbon dioxide bubbles which cause the loaf to rise.
>
> I'll let you know how varied her results are, and how flat the
> unl;eavened bread cmes out!!

One thing she may want to do, if you have enough ingredients that is,
is to make more than one batch of each type of bread. That way if one
loaf doesn't come out as expected you can see if the results are
repeated in the second loaf.

djs0302 wrote:
> Vox Humana wrote:
> > A more easy to understand and therefore more educational comparison would be
> > to make the recipe with no leavening agent, with baking soda only, and with
> > baking powder only. The first to batches should be the same - flat. This
> > would show that baking soda ALONE is not a leavening agent. The batch with
> > baking power should be normal, thus proving you need both an acid and baking
> > soda (aka BAKING POWDER) for CO2 production.
>
> Without knowing what's in the recipe you can't say that the batch with
> just baking soda will come out flat. There may be an acidic ingredient
> in the recipe, such as brown sugar.

Actually, the acidic ingredient was the buttermilk. Another independent
variable we could have tried was to keep the soda-powder the same, and
vary the liquid (milk, water, buttermilk, apple juice) and tested the
response to different acidity, but that's a little over her head at her
current level of knowledge.

The funny thing is, the all-baking-soda was actually the best loaf.
highest rise, fluffiest texture, nice and moist, good crumb, nicely
browned. We liked it just as much as the original recipe!!

Combining baking soda with baking acid( sudh as cream of tartar) will
not release any gas.....
Baking powder mixed with an ordinary liquid such as vegetable oil will
not release its CO2 as well...
You must be specific what liquid.....and also that there is something
that will catalyze the release the CO2 from from the baking acid and
baking soda

>Her hypothesis is that a combination of
>baking soda and baking powder will produce the highest rise

Combining baking soda and baking powder will usually generate more
gases per mole but it depends how you use it....You just can't dump
the leavening agents in the batter and expect it to do the works...In
fact it may not be able to generate the expected volume of gases....It
may also lead to the cake to rise and fall so you will end up with an
inferior product.



>Through her preliminary research, she has learned about how leavning
>agents produce carbon dioxide bubbles which cause the loaf to rise.

CO2 is not the only agent that enable to dough or cake to rise....in
fact its just one factor, The steam generated is another contributor
of any porous baked product volume.

chembake wrote:
> >Her hypothesis is that a combination of
> >baking soda and baking powder will produce the highest rise
>
> Combining baking soda and baking powder will usually generate more
> gases per mole but it depends how you use it....You just can't dump
> the leavening agents in the batter and expect it to do the works...In
> fact it may not be able to generate the expected volume of gases....It
> may also lead to the cake to rise and fall so you will end up with an
> inferior product.
>
>
>
> >Through her preliminary research, she has learned about how leavning
> >agents produce carbon dioxide bubbles which cause the loaf to rise.
>
> CO2 is not the only agent that enable to dough or cake to rise....in
> fact its just one factor, The steam generated is another contributor
> of any porous baked product volume.


Cool.......maybe she can study that in 5th grade =)