|
Post by Alan on Mar 18, 2006 12:15:27 GMT -5
Dear all, I have recently read Chloe Doutre-Roussel's book called "The Chocolate Connoisseur." In this book on page 54 she makes the following comment: The Criollo: This variety is everything the Forastero is not. A fragile tree, with a very small yield, it is considered by many to give the best-flavoured bean. Today most books tell us that two to five per cent of cocoa trees are Criollos. Specialists in agronomy think less than one per cent of the world production is Criollo. Modern-day Criollos are not pure Criollo, but a Criollo/Trinitario hybrid. and then on page 138... Domori: The Italian company Domori, founded by Gianluca, is reviving the pure Criollo bean in partnership with the owners of the plantation, grafting Criollos from a gene bank in Trinidad onto local Trinitario. In other words, what we are calling Criollo is not; it is a mix. That doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of quality, of course, but I find it interesting. After all, it is said that Trinitario itself is a mix of Forastero and Criollo. So, if 99% of what is called Criollo now is a mix of Criollo and Trinitario, then what does that even mean? What would be the genetic code of a Criollo (1/2 Forastero, 1/2 Criollo)? I certainly don't have enough information or enough of a background in the study of genetics to figure it out, is anyone game to explain it to us? But, it is interesting that "pure" Criollo trees are again being produced, and since there are people taking advantage of the gene bank in Trinidad to bring back extinct genetic specimens, it seems that new tastes in chocolate, just from the bean standpoint, will be increasingly available. It seems quite exciting. Alan
|
|
|
Post by Samantha Madell on Mar 19, 2006 2:16:10 GMT -5
Alan,
This is a topic that I find very interesting. I work with known Forastero beans myself (and love them), so I'm not overly concerned about what is or isn't Criollo, and I can't shed any useful light on the various questions you asked.
But the general question of bean and plant identity is one that really interests me.
My understanding is that the only totally definitive way to identify a tree's variety is to analyse its genotype (its genetic constitution). However, there are many useful clues that can be obtained from a plant's phenotype (basically, a plant's observable characteristics, or in other words, the plants physical expression of its genotype).
When I was with the University of Chocolate (UOC) in Ecuador last year, Pierrick, who runs the course, took us to see where he buys his beans from.
If you're familiar with the packaging of Pierrick's Plantations chocolate, you'll know that it carries a little logo on the front which includes a picture of a crown, and says "Pure Arriba Cacao". Well, when we got to the plantations, a number of arguments broke out.
It turned out that these supposedly "pure Arriba" trees were a hodge podge of pretty much every phenotype you can imagine, including some trees that appeared to be quite obviously high-yielding hybrids like the local CCN-51 (the hybrids stand out because they're typically low to the ground; the young trees are very productive, and the pods have incredibly woody placentas).
Pierrick found himself in a bit of hot water, and finally called a halt to the arguments by saying that the only way you can REALLY identify a tree's variety is by genetic testing ... and yet, he still (to the best of my knowledge) advertises his product as being made with "pure Arriba".
The point of my post? Well, the story of the Emporer's New Clothes springs to my mind. People will usually believe what they WANT to believe. In my opinion, mystique plays a HUGE role in the high-end chocolate market, and Criollo has mystique in bucket loads.
Sam
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 19, 2006 8:49:59 GMT -5
I agree. I find this fascinating. Since I have been trying to understand the world of beans, I have been confronted by a number of seemingly conflicting things like this. I guess that what I am looking for, ultimately, is real proof that what people are selling is what they say it is. After all, I don't care if my favorite chocolate is made from Forastero. But if I'm told it is Trinitario and it is really just common Forastero, then I don't know what I'm tasting, though I know I like it. I hope that more and more companies aren't sinking to this low, and regarding this point, something that Cloe Doutre-Roussel wrote in the same book mentioned above might be of interest on this point:
One would only hope that despite the extra complications that this would add, that this begins to happen sooner than later. We can be fairly certain that a handful of producers are not stretching the truth, and then there are those that aren't even concerned with the type of bean they are using. However, there are others in the middle, who would rather be more "optimistic" about what they are using, even if the truth of the matter is quite different. Hopefully the truth wins the day.
Alan
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Mar 19, 2006 11:29:37 GMT -5
Alan;
If I may add my two bits here for what it's worth.
I'm very new to this industry - VERY new. However from what I understand about the progress of the bean to the consumer is that: 1. The bean growers and harvesters are poor. 2. The final consumer in comparison is wealthy. 3. The broker in the middle is going to play both ends to maximize his profit.
My various ventures have told me that any process which includes third world labour and/or product, in most cases somewhere along the product lifecycle you are going to be met with an unscrupulous middle man focused on one thing and one thing only: profit.
Yes there are cases where ethical treatment of all parties is advertised and adhered to. However the prices are generally higher and the volumes lower. When you have large companies wanting tens of thousands of metric tonnes of beans per month, and the management of these companies are screaming at the quality control people to include the husk because it represents 1% loss in volume (I've heard cases where that's happened), the pressure is now top-down. Price control and supply control are maintained through oppression and deception. Higher volumes of demand give way to breed and price concessions to ensure the supply is constant, because they are being squeezed on price.
It's quite an involved and sometimes complex relationship. However the bottom line is that as long as there is third world involvement, there will be people taking advantage of that, and in turn selling a product represented as something it is in fact not.
It sucks, but it's life.
Brad.
|
|
|
Post by Samantha Madell on Mar 19, 2006 22:11:47 GMT -5
Alan,
I think that you are in the process of doing the ONLY thing that will ultimately make a difference - that is, asking the "embarrassing" questions of chocolate manufacturers, and knowing enough about the subject to DEMAND an honest answer. Of course, you also have to care enough about the answer you receive to act upon it!
My understanding of corporations law suggests that companies are effectively obliged to cut costs as much as possible, unless and until their bottom-line is damaged by the cost-cutting. In other words, they'll do whatever nasty or dishonest things they can get away with. Change will only happen when customers take action by, for example, boycotting the products in question until the company provides honest labelling, or guarantees the payment of a fair price for cocoa beans etc.
I agree with Brad that companies do take advantage of Third World producers - but I do not agree that this has to be the case. In fact, I think I'm well on the way to proving that this isn't always the case.
Going back to the general topic of varieties - when I was in Ecuador, I was told that the CCN-51 hybrid trees produce four times as much fruit as the Nacional Arriba trees. If this is the case (and it seems plausible, from what I saw), then common sense (or common decency) would suggest that a buyer should pay at least four times as much per kilogram for Arriba beans as for CCN-51 beans. What I saw indicates that this doesn't happen.
In other words, cocoa buyers want the cocoa growers to take on the risk of growing delicate varieties (such as Criolllo) that are extremely susceptible to attack by pests and diseases - but they expect to pay only a small "premium" (maybe 20% or 50% more), rather than realistically compensating the growers for the lower outputs and higher associated risks of growing fine varieties.
As a matter of general interest, some people on the forum may not realise that it is an absence of phenols that produces the Criollo flavour characteristics we know and love (i.e. the rich, complex flavours, and lack of bitterness).
Phenols are what make fresh (unfermented) Forastero beans look purple, and taste extremely astringent. Phenols exist in nature to protect plants against a number of things, including sun damage, herbivores, and pathogens. Phenols are also responsible for giving cocoa its extraordinarily high levels of antioxidants.
Hence, CRIOLLO beans = LOW phenols = LOW bitterness/astringency = LOW antioxidants = LOW defence against pests and disease = HIGH risk for growers.
Sam
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 19, 2006 23:33:29 GMT -5
Dear Sam,
This is interesting stuff. Do you have any book recommendations about any of these cocoa genes/properties issues (sorry, I don't know what else to call it). Tomorrow I'll be picking up Cocoa, by Wood and Lass, at the library and this seems to be a "classic" that may deal with some of these issues, if I understand correctly what the book is supposed to cover.
At any rate, I fully agree that it is the end consumer that must be informed and must be willing to demand certain things, or they will often not get done. A company that cares even before the consumer does is a rare beast.
Chloe Doutre-Roussel has also referred to what is going on in the chocolate industry right now as a revolution. Perhaps that is right. Hopefully when the revolution is over the positive changes that we are talking about will outweigh the negative.
Alan
|
|
|
Post by Samantha Madell on Mar 20, 2006 0:32:21 GMT -5
Alan,
I'm afraid I don't know of any books I can recommend.
I obtain my knowledge from visiting plantations and research stations, picking the brains of everyone I meet, and then comparing and cross-referencing the information I get between plantations and countries. So far I've had the privilege of visiting plantations in Asia, the South Pacific, and South America.
Also, I agree whole heartedly with you about positive change. It is the people on this forum (and others like us) who can and will make a difference.
Sam
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Mar 20, 2006 11:51:19 GMT -5
Samantha and Alan;
This is an interesting thread. However you're missing the basic principal of Economics 101 - Supply and Demand.
In an economy where there are more cocoa beans than what the consumer wants, the consumer drives the price down.
In an economy where there is more demand than the supplier can supply, the supplier controls the price, and drives the price up.
There is nothing in corporate law which mandates the philosophy of "buy low and sell high". Outside of legal reporting requirements and equitable shareholder treatment, every company is at the bidding of it's shareholders to do as it chooses. If they choose to buy higher priced beans because it's more morally acceptable to do so, that is the company's choice.
The chocolate industry is HUGE. THere are entire cities dedicated to one industry only - chocolate production. To educate the general public (end consumer) on multiple continents and multiple countries about the ethical treatment of growers, and THEN ask them to change their buying patterns is an undertaking that requires untold billions of dollars spent on it.
Just think of how many hundreds of millions of dollars would have to be spent to affect Hershey's. You would in essence have to contact every person in the United States at least 7 times (7 is the magic exposure number for marketing and advertising), to get them to stop eating their favorite chocolate.
The direction to take in this matter is to educate the grower. There are fewer growers than consumers, and in this case consumer demand will always outstrip grower supply. Companies are taking advantage of the lack of education and exposure to the outside world that growers have, and are in essence dictating price to them. Their attitude is "I don't see boats lined up to carry away your product. Buy at my price, or starve. The choice is yours."
When you look at it, it costs the same amount of money to talk to a grower about supplying tens of thousands of pounds of beans, as it does to one person who just spent 89 cents on a chocolate bar.
Anyway, that's my two-bits for now. I have a meeting to attend, and the party has just arrived. I want to close by saying that I'm all for paying a fair price for a quality product. I guess I'm an anomoly on the corporate economic scale.
Take care.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist on Mar 20, 2006 13:14:48 GMT -5
I am going to take this back a little bit, although everyone is making really good points.
From buying the beans, this is what I have learned. We know a cacao tree can be one of three basic types. Forastero, Criollo or the hybrid of the two, Trinatario.
What is then available is affected by two other things. Are all the trees in the area the same type (rarely but sometimes) and how much back breeding and crossbreeding has occurred (usually a lot).
Say you have this 50:50 Trinatario (50% Forestero/50% Criollo). What do you have if you breed back to Criollo for many generations. You 'technically' have Trinatario, but in reality you have a bean that is basically the original Criollo stock. There is a lot of that.
I sell Ocumare "Criollo" as it is how it tastes, looks and have been told. In reality, no it is not 100% pure Criollo, but it solidly has those traits as most of the trees are of a stock that has been breed back to Criollo for quite some time. Likewise, I have "Carenero Superior" that is from a slightly different area. If you look at a representative sample, the first thing you will notice is a lot of different looking beans. Some are Criollo (or like the Ocumare), some are solidly a hybrid Trinatario that has breed true over generations and there is a spattering of Forastero even. If you note the quotes around the name, that is basically because of the flavor profile this mix of beans has become known for. Often it is described as having "Criollo notes" or character or stock, and certain crops have more than others.
On that note, I will have a new "Criollo" available sometime in April I hope. It is again from Venezuela, but it is a new one from the Cuyagua region. THIS is what Criollo in my mind should taste like. It is markedly lighter in the nib, has a silkiness in the chocolate and unsweetened has NO bitterness at all. NONE. It was truly amazing. But, is it PURE Criollo - no, history and prior knowledge says it can't be. But breeding history, flavor, appearance etc makes it very close.
Am I going to offer it because it is Criollo - NO. I am going to offer it because it is the best bean I have ever tasted an I was completely blown away by it. Am I going to play up it is Criollo. Again no. It will be label Criollo, but I am going to write it up like I do all my beans and let the flavor speak for itself.
Oh, and it WILL be a little more expensive. Not too much more. But that is not because of the name - but because of the reality. It is a rarer bean, with less yield and it is very consistent and prepped well. Actually, I have decided to even drop my mark up on this one a little bit because I didn't like how much it was going to retail for. I would rather make a touch less on it and let more people enjoy it that price it out of some people's reach.
So, no, Criollo is not what it appears, but it is also not as bad as it sounds.
|
|
gap
Apprentice
Posts: 390
|
Post by gap on Mar 20, 2006 16:46:15 GMT -5
Brad, you mentioned that there is no company law which mandates the philosophy of "buy low and sell high" and that every company is at the bidding of its shareholders to do as it chooses.
A company cannot act by itself - it is a legal entity. It is controlled/run by the directors. The directors do have legal obligations to act in the best interests of the shareholders. This means maximising profit. Typically, this is done by buying low and selling high (the exception being when you buy so low as to reduce quality to the point where the product is no longer consumed). Also, the directors and senior managers of the company typically have financial incentives (ie., performance based remuneration) to minimise costs and maximise profits.
In other words, it is highly unlikely that companies would ever "choose to buy higher priced beans because its more morally acceptable to do so". In fact, directors may actually be breaching their legal obligations by choosing to follow their personal moral values unless a) they can show it will boost profit for shareholders or b) shareholders have expressed a united commitment to accept a lower profit in exchange for paying more for beans. Option (b) is almost impossible given that the majority of shareholders these days are large fund managers who have a legal obligation to maximise investment returns - ie., they will also be breaching the law if they choose to follow their moral values and ask the company to pay more for beans.
A remaining option is for consumers to reduce the company's profit (by not buying the product) until the company pays more for its beans. This is essentially the consumer expressing a moral desire which the company is then forced to accept in order to maximise profit.
I don't know what the ideal solution is - the problem is a complicated one that has its own twist and turns in each region of the world. My point is simply that there are legal barriers to a company paying more for beans on moral grounds of the company directors.
PS: I work in the financial/investment industry and I think economics can provide the best solution in the majority of cases. However, for the laws of supply and demand to work, no buyer or seller should be able to influence the market price - not the case with growers and purchasers.
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Mar 20, 2006 17:15:00 GMT -5
Actually, buyers do influence the market price of beans quite regularly in this industry. They're speculative buyers, buying huge futures and have been known to swing market prices significantly, with no intent to use the beans themselves. And, of course, many chocolate companies are privately held, and are able to make decisions based on individual standards, requiring them not to answer to any standing body, save themselves and perhaps the bank. I know a number of companies in this industry who make philosophically based decisions...
|
|
gap
Apprentice
Posts: 390
|
Post by gap on Mar 20, 2006 17:26:20 GMT -5
The use of futures is an interesting one - they affect my job in non-fundamental ways every day in fixed interest markets (via bond futures, not bean futures) so I can appreciate your point. :-)
And it is always good to hear of private companies that produce with moral values in mind - I try to support these companies myself where-ever possible. My point above is simply that it is not always a clear-cut path on these issues.
|
|
|
Post by Samantha Madell on Mar 20, 2006 19:09:57 GMT -5
Brad,
You suggest that "the direction to take in this matter is to educate the grower" not to accept a low price for his beans.
I would have responded to your suggestion by saying that most cocoa buyers operate on the following principle: "I don't see boats lined up to carry away your product. Sell at my price, or starve. The choice is yours." ... but, curiously, you said it for me.
So ... how can you expect growers to deny themselves a crucial source of income, in order to stand on principle?
Here in Australia we've recently seen some Boeing employees on strike for 9 months. In the end they didn't get what they were fighting for anyway, but they had a strong trade union, and family members with jobs who were able to support them through that time. But what about the cocoa grower who might truly be one kilogram of cocoa away from going hungry? What about the grower who already has his children working on the plantation because he can't afford paid labour, and can't afford to send them to school?
In my last role as an employee, I was a union delegate. I saw what can be achieved when people stand together on principle. But I also saw the crushing results of individuals being motivated by fear, self-interest, or apathy.
In the age of electronic communication and the internet, it really suprises me that you would think it is easier to educate an estimated 14 million illiterate, fearful, and impoverished cocoa growers, than it is to get a fairly simple message out to 200 million Americans, 7 times.
Sam
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 20, 2006 20:04:29 GMT -5
Dear all, I certainly don't mind the interesting thread of discussion that is going on, though it is only marginally related to the initial topic, but I want to warn that I am posting something relevant to the initial topic. I have come across two books at the library that really cover the specifics of cocoa types, where they grow, what makes them different, what their qualities are, etc. They are: Cocoa: Tropical Agricultureand The Genetic Diversity of Cacao and its UtilizationDon't worry, the total price for both books together is only $350. I'd make friends with the local librarian. Alan
|
|
|
Post by Samantha Madell on Mar 20, 2006 21:28:35 GMT -5
Alan,
Seeing as neither of the books you link to are reviewed by anyone on Amazon, I'd be really interested to read a more detailed review from you.
In particular, I'd be interested to know how well illustrated they are (I love a good picture book!)
Sam
|
|