|
Post by Howard on Jul 14, 2006 22:42:19 GMT -5
"Scientists Concoct Chocolate That Won't Melt Friday, July 14, 2006 By Ker Than Chocolate is not widely consumed in the tropics, even though that's where most of the world's cocoa is produced. The reason: It's too hot. High temperatures in countries such as Nigeria reduce chocolate into a sticky, gooey mess." Apparently, they added 10% cornstarch and found no difference in taste or mouthfeel. I'm sceptical to say the least. Here's a link to the article. You have to copy and paste the whole link. If you just try to click it, it won't work. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203599,00.html Howard
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Jul 14, 2006 23:05:39 GMT -5
"Scientists Concoct Chocolate That Won't Melt Friday, July 14, 2006 By Ker Than Chocolate is not widely consumed in the tropics, even though that's where most of the world's cocoa is produced. The reason: It's too hot. High temperatures in countries such as Nigeria reduce chocolate into a sticky, gooey mess." Apparently, they added 10% cornstarch and found no difference in taste or mouthfeel. I'm sceptical to say the least. Here's a link to the article. You have to copy and paste the whole link. If you just try to click it, it won't work. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203599,00.html Howard If they've added 10% cornstarch and found no difference in flavor or mouthfeel, then that shows that they truly are only scientists and not chocolate connoisseurs. Either that or they were testing their new concoction against Hershey's.
|
|
|
Post by Howard on Jul 16, 2006 23:59:20 GMT -5
I think you may not be far off. Here's a quote from the article:
"S.O. Ogunwolu and C.O. Jayeola, food scientists at the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria, have mixed corn starch with cocoa to produce a heat-resistant chocolate that they say compares "favorably with conventional milk chocolate in terms of color, taste, smoothness and overall acceptability.""
So I think they probably ARE comparing it to Hershey's or equivalent. Howard
|
|
gap
Apprentice
Posts: 390
|
Post by gap on Jul 17, 2006 1:58:42 GMT -5
Surely some chocolate is better than none? ? Even if it is Hersheys. Imagine living with no chocolate - not a pretty thought.
|
|
jeff
Neophyte
Posts: 6
|
Post by jeff on Sept 24, 2009 3:08:34 GMT -5
What would use of a low melting point fat assist this research to?
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Sept 24, 2009 5:34:52 GMT -5
it would make it melt faster.
|
|
jeff
Neophyte
Posts: 6
|
Post by jeff on Nov 19, 2009 10:35:29 GMT -5
Thnx for that correction , I of course meant , using a 'high' melting point fat - palm kernal fat from Malaysia , i recollect is the one. This is a 30+ F , fat
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Nov 19, 2009 17:10:54 GMT -5
PKO is not very compatible with cocoa butter. You'll get eutetics. You likely mean a high melt fraction of Palm (yes, different than palm kernel), which is compatible to a great extent with ccb and can increase the chocolate's melt point. It is, of course, not chocolate any longer, but can have a higher melt point. It will still melt in the desert.
|
|
|
Post by billa on Apr 16, 2013 13:42:30 GMT -5
PKO is not very compatible with cocoa butter. You'll get eutetics. You likely mean a high melt fraction of Palm (yes, different than palm kernel), which is compatible to a great extent with ccb and can increase the chocolate's melt point. It is, of course, not chocolate any longer, but can have a higher melt point. It will still melt in the desert. Hola Sebastian, this most informative paper northamerica.croklaan.com/System/Download.asp?document=Vegetable%20Fats%20in%20Chocolate%20-%20IFI%20Dec%202003_tcm40-3623.pdf&documentTitle=Vegetable%20Fats%20in%20Chocolate&drr=Vegetable%20Fats%20in%20Chocolate%20-%20IFI%20Dec%202003_tcm40-3623.pdf"proposes" Coberine as a CBE which, per the EU since 1999, is acceptable in "chocolate". from wiki "In March 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, whose members include Hershey's, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, began lobbying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change the legal definition of chocolate to allow the substitution of "safe and suitable vegetable fats and oils" (including partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) for cocoa butter in addition to using "any sweetening agent" (including artificial sweeteners) and milk substitutes.[8] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[9] To work around this restriction, products with cocoa substitutes are often branded or labeled as "chocolatey."" and "A recent workaround by the US confection industry has been to reduce the amount of cocoa butter in candy bars without using vegetable fats by adding polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR), which is an artificial castor oil-derived emulsifier that simulates the mouthfeel of fat. Up to 0.3% PGPR may be added to chocolate for this purpose." wow, is PGPR chocolate ? (I'm obviously missing something) So I am understanding your "not chocolate" comment as relating to the US (FDA regulations), Canada and some other non-EU countries? For a mfgr in Central America can this be treated as a labeling issue (ie *per EU Directive blah blah, with of course an accurate listing of the ingredients) ? Out of curiosity, can CBEs be lumped or does each one utilized require identification ? Bill
|
|
|
Post by anish on Apr 18, 2013 9:42:28 GMT -5
A "donkey" is a donkey even if somebody label it a " horse".
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Apr 18, 2013 11:27:23 GMT -5
PGPR is just another substitute for Lecithin. It does exactly the same thing, and is generally used in exactly the same percentages per weight (less than 1%). PGPR will never replace cocoa butter. In fact, while it is labelled as an "emulsifier", it's important to keep in mind that chocolate is not an emulsion. It is a suspension which requires a suspension medium such as cocoa butter. PGPR and Lecithin are lubricants, plain and simple. They coat the solid particles and allow them to slide easier through the suspension medium, thereby making less viscous (more fluid).
|
|