|
Post by Freddo on Jul 7, 2014 4:06:22 GMT -5
I have some Criollo from Peru which I recently roasted. I lost 4% in weight after the roast (10kg. 17mins, final temp 140C). The chocolate is really thick which I'm assuming is from moisture, and won't run throughout the temperer. What can I do to reduce the moisture content in my next batch? any suggestions?
|
|
gap
Apprentice
Posts: 390
|
Post by gap on Jul 7, 2014 16:37:01 GMT -5
I haven't tried it before, but what about drying the beans out in a low oven (say 90-100C)?
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Jul 7, 2014 19:37:11 GMT -5
What was your initial moisture? If your beans started at 5% moisture and you lost 4% - there's an issue, but it's not moisture related. In order for your 4% loss to be meaningful, you need to also know where you started i'm afraid. it'd also be very, very, very helpful to know what the fat content is of both the beans (liquor), and your final formulation, if you used an emulsifier, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Freddo on Jul 10, 2014 5:30:50 GMT -5
Hi Gap, I tried a low drying roast (100C) but only reduced the weight marginally, my guess is the temp wasn't high enough to vaporise the water. I later roasted the beans at 110C for 30mins and then a 7min roast at 140C. Dunno what the chocolate will be like but I lost over 6% to moisture in the roast.
Hi Sebastian. I don't know what the initial moisture level is, I have no means of measuring it. I'm not using any emulsifier. My batch proportions are: Nibs 61%, Cocoa Butter 4%, Sugar 35%
Question: If I buy beans which have (reportedly) X% moisture, is it possible to dispel X% moisture through roasting?
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Jul 11, 2014 6:55:58 GMT -5
absolutely, it's one of the reasons you roast. knowing your To moisture is critical to answering your initial question.
|
|
|
Post by Freddo on Jul 12, 2014 3:32:00 GMT -5
I haven't given you the whole picture. The building my factory is in had a fire. Luckily my premises was spared but I got about 2 inches of water through the place. I had 6 sacks of beans in there which thankfully were up on pallets. The fireman told me there would have been extreme humidity in the space. So I have no idea what the moisture content of the beans are now, undoubtedly a lot higher than when I bought them.
What the most practical way for a small scale producer to measure moisture content of beans? I guess I should get them professionally tested.
If the result comes back at say 8%. What would be the smartest thing to do? make the roast super long?
And what is the ideal moisture content, 0% ?
Thank for this invaluable information guys
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Jul 13, 2014 5:57:07 GMT -5
Do you have a scale? if so, count out 100 of them and weigh them. Roast them as you normally would, and weigh them again. It'll give you a pretty good idea (+/- 15%) of how high they are (do a % loss calculation based on those two weights).
8% is completely normal moisture level.
Right, now - before roast - can you peel the shell off and 'bend' the unroasted beans (are they flexible)? They may not have absorbed a ton of moisture (remember dried beans are stored in the jungle often times, where humidity is 99%).
If there was a lot of smoke as a result of the fire - your beans may well have absorbed that smokiness I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Freddo on Jul 15, 2014 6:24:21 GMT -5
I've given samples to a research institute for testing. will get back to you with the results.
|
|
|
Post by Freddo on Jul 18, 2014 9:11:14 GMT -5
I got the samples back with surprising results. Peru, Venezuela and Madagascar were 6.5, 6.3 & 5.8% respectively. I was expecting the Peru to be way higher as the chocolate is very thick. Where as the Madagascar is much less viscous. The Peru is a Criollo. Are Criollos known for having less fat content? Could fat content be the trouble?
|
|
|
Post by Freddo on Jul 23, 2014 6:02:02 GMT -5
anyone?
|
|
gap
Apprentice
Posts: 390
|
Post by gap on Jul 23, 2014 19:06:21 GMT -5
Using your formulation above and assuming 53% fat in the nibs, your total fat content in ~36%. You also mentioned you dont add lecithin. Assuming 53% fat in nibs, my typical dark chocolate recipes run at 38-40% fat with 0.4% lecithin added. The only no lecithin chocolate I made was ~37% fat and was very thick when I was moulding etc. Purely guessing, I would say if your're using similar technology to me (a Premier Wonder Grinder) and process, 36% fat with no lecithin is going to be a fairly thick chocolate. Is adding 0.4% liquid lecithin an option for you? Or else incorporate some more cocoa butter into your already made chocolate to see the effect?
Also, is it possible your sugar has absorbed moisture? Or that the chocolate absorbed moisture during refining/conching from the atmosphere (humid day)?
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Jul 24, 2014 5:42:22 GMT -5
In addition, the fat content of beans depends heavily on how they were fermented. If your Peruvian beans were under fermented, they will have a low fat content.
|
|
|
Post by Freddo on Jul 28, 2014 4:28:07 GMT -5
Hi Sebastian
Ok great thanks for the advice. I'll try both options, lecithin and butter to see how the chocolate reacts.
Yes there is possibility the sugar had absorbed moisture.
|
|
|
Post by Freddo on Sept 6, 2014 4:44:54 GMT -5
A have a batch on now ( 73% ) that I have added extra butter to. Assuming 50% butter in the beans the total fat should be ~40%, yet the chocolate is still very thick. I used a fresh bag of sugar with this lot as well, its possible there is inherent moisture in the sugar I suppose.
Some chocolate makers can get by without using lecithin or added cocoa butter (Dandelion and Bahen & Co are two that I know of), how is it possible? Do they have access to beans with very high fat content?
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Sept 7, 2014 13:45:54 GMT -5
Possibly. The longer the beans are fermented, the higher their fat will be. Of course you can manipulate your formulation by making it a higher liquor content formula to increase the cocoa butter as well.
Then there's also the possibility that not everyone is doing what they say they're doing. I've seen that before as well. Remember that almost everything is able to be analyzed for, so if you say you're not using something, it's a good idea to not use it (i'm not saying you are by any stretch - but others have gone down that road before..)
|
|