Replacing a little wheat flour with baobab pulp powder can leave a cake’s overall sensory score in the same statistical group while changing its crumb. Replacing skim milk powder in ice cream changes a different part of the formula: the fruit powder displaces a protein-bearing dairy ingredient. Two studies show why the ingredient being removed matters as much as the amount of baobab being added.[1][2]
The practical opportunity is a fruit-led reformulation, rather than a texture-neutral swap. In cake, the clearest starting point is the lowest substitution tested, with crumb quality assessed separately from the total score. In ice cream, the first decision is whether reducing skim milk powder fits the product brief at all.
Pulp powder, rather than purified fibre or pectin
Baobab pulp powder is a milled fruit material. Baobest’s commercial product page describes opening the pods, removing dried pulp, separating seeds, then milling and sieving. This provides a concrete example of a supplier-described pulp powder.[3]
The cake researchers likewise separated pulp from seeds and passed it through a 60-mesh sieve. The ice-cream study used a 60-mesh preparation from Sudanese-source fruit obtained in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Neither experiment tested Baobest’s product.[1][2]
For a sample comparison, specify fruit pulp rather than seed flour, purified fibre or an extract. Record particle-size distribution, composition and acidity alongside the grade name. A shared sieve designation describes part of the preparation; it does not establish identical composition or performance.
Cake: water demand and mixing tolerance move in different directions
The cake paper’s 5%, 10% and 15% levels refer to the wheat-flour allocation. At 5%, 250 g wheat flour became 237.5 g wheat flour plus 12.5 g pulp flour; the other listed ingredients were unchanged. Thus, 5% is not the fruit powder’s share of the entire batter.[1]
The measurements below come from the composite-flour Mixolab test. Water absorption is expressed on a 14% flour-moisture basis; stability is a mixing-test time, not cake shelf life.[1]
Focus the table and use left/right arrow keys to read all columns.
| Composite flour | Water absorption (% b14) | Stability (min) |
|---|---|---|
| Wheat control | 59.1 ± 0.9 c | 8.82 ± 0.41 a |
| 5% flour substitution | 60.3 ± 0.7 c | 7.78 ± 0.52 a |
| 10% flour substitution | 62.4 ± 0.6 b | 5.35 ± 0.19 b |
| 15% flour substitution | 64.6 ± 0.5 a | 4.45 ± 0.67 c |
Original Table 7, selected columns. Compare letters within each column: shared letters indicate no statistically significant difference. Methods specify triplicate analyses, one-way ANOVA and Tukey comparisons at a 0.05 significance level. The paper does not define the ± term for these results.[1]
At 10% and 15%, water absorption was higher and stability shorter than the control, with different statistical groups for both measurements. At 5%, neither measure differed significantly from the control. A higher absorption value therefore does not imply a more mixing-tolerant composite flour.[1]
This is useful for development because water adjustment and mixing tolerance need separate attention. The Mixolab values do not directly specify how much extra water to add to a cake batter containing eggs, fat and sugar.
Cake: a similar total score can conceal a changed crumb
Twenty trained panelists evaluated the cakes one hour after baking. The 100-point scoring scheme allocated 40 points to crumb cells, 30 to texture, and 10 each to crust colour, odour and taste.[1]
Focus the table and use left/right arrow keys to read all columns.
| Sensory endpoint | Wheat control | 5% substitution | 10% substitution | 15% substitution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall acceptability, /100 | 86.33 ± 3.41 a | 82.92 ± 1.76 a | 77.67 ± 1.61 b | 73.33 ± 2.82 b |
| Tenderness, /10 | 9.00 ± 0.30 a | 8.17 ± 0.33 b | 7.83 ± 0.30 b | 7.42 ± 0.34 b,c |
| Crumb-cell uniformity, /10 | 8.75 ± 0.33 a | 7.92 ± 0.28 b | 7.17 ± 0.30 c | 6.50 ± 0.37 d |
Original Table 8, selected endpoints. Compare letters across each row, not between endpoints. Values retain the paper’s undefined ± notation.[1]
At 5%, overall acceptability shared the control’s letter a, but tenderness and crumb-cell uniformity were in different groups. The result supports keeping this level in a screening trial while checking crumb quality closely; it is not an equivalence test or evidence of mass-market preference. Higher substitutions also reduced the overall score relative to control.[1]
For a cake developer, the useful question is whether the fruit character is worth the change in crumb. A single total score cannot answer that: tenderness and the evenness of the internal air cells remain separate acceptance criteria.
Ice cream: 100% replacement means 4.8 g pulp powder per 100 g mix
The ice-cream study replaced a 4.8 g/100 g skim-milk-powder allocation. Its sample codes describe the fraction of that allocation replaced, not the fruit content of the whole mix.[2]
Focus the table and use left/right arrow keys to read all columns.
| Sample | Skim milk powder (g/100 g mix) | Baobab pulp powder (g/100 g mix) |
|---|---|---|
| IB-0 | 4.8 | 0 |
| IB-25 | 3.6 | 1.2 |
| IB-50 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
| IB-75 | 1.2 | 3.6 |
| IB-100 | 0 | 4.8 |
Selected ingredients from original Table 1. Every formula also contained 64.8 g milk, 17.9 g cream, 12 g sugar and 0.5 g gelatin per 100 g mix. Even IB-100 remained a dairy formulation.[2]
Total crude protein was 4.70 ± 0.57 g/100 g in the control and 3.93 ± 0.19 g/100 g in IB-100, with different significance letters. These are means ± SD; the study used one-way ANOVA and Duncan comparisons. The values describe total crude protein, not a separate assay of milk protein.[2]
This changes the development task. The fruit powder is not merely an addition to a fixed dairy base: the base itself changes. The paper’s 15-member staff panel also noted grainy, rough texture and a lack of smoothness in IB-75 and IB-100, although body-and-texture scores did not differ significantly across samples. Those observations are worth investigating in a trial rather than treating the highest replacement as the best formula.[2]
First drip and later melt loss answer different questions
A delayed first drip does not necessarily mean the least loss later. In Table 6, IB-50 had a later first-drip time than IB-75 (44.07 versus 35.04 min) and lower reported loss at 90 min (1.96% versus 4.53%), but higher loss at 120 min (45.30% versus 25.16%). These are descriptive comparisons of reported means.[2]
The paper has reporting conflicts: its prose assigns 44.07 min to IB-25 rather than IB-50, and Methods specify 22 ± 1 °C while the table caption says 25 °C. The IB-100 value at 120 min is malformed, and Table 6’s significance note is inconsistent. The study therefore does not establish a reliable optimum for melt resistance.[2]
For development, measure both the onset of dripping and loss at a defined later time under a consistent test temperature. Pair those results with texture and air incorporation, rather than ranking samples by first-drip time alone.
Match the trial to the ingredient being replaced
For cake, evaluate a flour-substitution series with water adjustment and mixing tolerance recorded separately, then judge tenderness and crumb-cell uniformity alongside the overall score. For dairy ice cream, keep the actual grams of milk powder and fruit powder visible and assess the consequences for protein content, texture and melting behaviour.
These studies concern laboratory-prepared pulp powders, not a ranking of commercial grades. Their strongest contribution is a clear comparison strategy: choose the material and substitution basis together, then decide which product changes are acceptable. Baobab pulp powder is a formulation option with trade-offs, not a universal equal-weight replacement for flour, milk powder or pectin.
Discuss your formulation brief
For a baobab pulp-powder project, share the ingredient you plan to replace, the product format and the target market. Discuss sample selection and document requirements with our team, or explore food application support. Sample availability and suitable specifications need confirmation for the project.
Sources
[1] Baobab pulp flour in cake: original full-text JATS (2021)
[2] Baobab pulp flour in ice cream: original full-text JATS (2023)