I gonna assume we're talking about yeasted bread here, if not, please disregard all of this! Semolina and vital wheat gluten will both alter the structure and texture of the crumb; breads that are part semolina tend to have a softer, more moist, more open and generally creamier tasting crumb with a slightly yellowish colour - having made Italian bread with it before, I've always been happy with the taste, but I can't say I noticed a huge difference in oven spring compared to strong white bread flour.
Dough made with vital wheat gluten, on the other hand, tends to be less slack, easier to shape, and less likely to ooze everywhere during the final rise. The taste isn't altered by the extra gluten.
Semolina / Durum wheat flour can be used as a substitute for some (or all) plain wheat flour in a recipe, but it isn't a substitute for vital wheat gluten, because:
The difference between the two basically boils down to protein content and nutritional composition. A higher protein content means more gluten development and a bread that will be more likely to hold it's shape when proofing, hence a higher rise and a more open crumb. Too much protein, though, and you get a loaf that's as tough as shoe leather, which is why you only need to use a tiny amount of wheat gluten when baking with it.
For comparison:
Pure, fine-ground semolina flour: 12.6 grams of protein per 100grams.
Durum wheat flour (aka semolina cut with ordinary white wheat, sometimes labelled as "pasta flour"): 11.7 grams per 100 grams.
Strong White bread flour: 12.7 grams of protein per 100 grams.
Vital wheat gluten: 76.5 grams of protein per 100 grams.
(Source: the pantry I just raided.)
So yeah, both are good, but they're very different animals and they don't perform the same jobs. If you want a slightly softer, chewier crumb, go with the semolina, and if you're struggling to have the bread maintain it's shape (like with a high hydration dough) I'd say give the vital wheat gluten a go, but in all honesty good kneading, tight shaping and neat scoring will probably do more to help with rising and airiness than anything else.
If you don't get an answer here Manisha, this might be a good question for the King Arthur Flour Baker's Hotline! https://www.kingarthurflour.com/bakers-hotline/
3 Comments
Dough made with vital wheat gluten, on the other hand, tends to be less slack, easier to shape, and less likely to ooze everywhere during the final rise. The taste isn't altered by the extra gluten.
Semolina / Durum wheat flour can be used as a substitute for some (or all) plain wheat flour in a recipe, but it isn't a substitute for vital wheat gluten, because:
The difference between the two basically boils down to protein content and nutritional composition. A higher protein content means more gluten development and a bread that will be more likely to hold it's shape when proofing, hence a higher rise and a more open crumb. Too much protein, though, and you get a loaf that's as tough as shoe leather, which is why you only need to use a tiny amount of wheat gluten when baking with it.
For comparison:
Pure, fine-ground semolina flour: 12.6 grams of protein per 100grams.
Durum wheat flour (aka semolina cut with ordinary white wheat, sometimes labelled as "pasta flour"): 11.7 grams per 100 grams.
Strong White bread flour: 12.7 grams of protein per 100 grams.
Vital wheat gluten: 76.5 grams of protein per 100 grams.
(Source: the pantry I just raided.)
So yeah, both are good, but they're very different animals and they don't perform the same jobs. If you want a slightly softer, chewier crumb, go with the semolina, and if you're struggling to have the bread maintain it's shape (like with a high hydration dough) I'd say give the vital wheat gluten a go, but in all honesty good kneading, tight shaping and neat scoring will probably do more to help with rising and airiness than anything else.