Dr. Edward G. Love, the present Analytical Chemist for the Government,
has recently made some interesting experiments as to the comparative
value of baking powders. Dr. Love’s tests were made to determine what
brands are the most economical to use, and as their capacity lies in
their leavening power, tests were directed solely to ascertain the
available gas of each powder. Dr. Love’s report gives the following:
Name of the Strength Cubic Inches
Baking Powders. Gas per each ounce of Powder.
“Royal” (cream tartar powder) 127.4
“Patapsco” (alum powder) 125.2[1]
“Rumford’s” (phosphate) fresh 122.5[1]
“Rumford’s” (phosphate) old 32.7[1]
“Hanford’s None Such,” fresh 121.6
“Hanford’s None Such,” old 84.35
“Redhead’s” 117.0
“Charm” (alum powder) 116.9[1]
“Amazon” (alum powder) 111.9[1]
“Cleveland’s” (short weight ¾ oz.) 110.8
“Sea Foam” 107.9
“Czar” 106.8
“Dr. Price’s” 102.6
“Snow Flake” (Groff’s, St. Paul) 101.88
“Lewis’s” Condensed 98.2
“Congress” yeast 97.5
“C. E. Andrews & Co.’s” (contains alum) 78.17[1]
“Hecker’s” 92.5
“Gillets” 84.2
“Bulk” 80.5
[1] In his report the Government Chemist says:
“I regard all alum powders as very unwholesome. Phosphates and Tartaric
Acid powders liberate their gas too freely in process of baking, or
under varying climatic changes suffer deterioration.”
Dr. H. A. Mott, the former Government Chemist, after a careful and
elaborate examination of the various baking powders of commerce,
reported to the Government in favor of the Royal brand.