|
Post by Alan on Feb 8, 2006 22:47:29 GMT -5
Dear all,
I was just reading about sugar, and it seems that:
I am wondering if it is possible, then, to melt the sugar in a pan just until it melts (and is still clear) and then mix it with a sufficient amount of melted cocoa butter, and if need be melted cocoa liquor, so that it won't harden, and then to add this mixture to the rest of the liquor in the Santha.
I don't know if this would work, but it seems to me that if it would, then it would change two things:
1) The sugar would not have to be pre-ground 2) Due to a lack of sugar grains, the refining of the chocolate would take less time.
It seems to me that the limiting factor on the refining time now is the sugar grain and not the particles of cocoa bean. So, melting the sugar might bypass that issue altogether.
That said, would the shorter refining period be a good thing or a bad thing? With conching occuring, then it seems like reducing the refining time might be a negative thing. Then again, if, as John mentioned the other day, one is using a high quality "fine flavor" bean and doesn't want to conch too much, then perhaps less refining, and therefore conching, would be a good thing??
This is all assuming that the idea of melting the sugar would work in the first place. Does anyone know if it would?
Sincerely,
Alan
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Feb 9, 2006 7:52:59 GMT -5
Alan;
There are two observations I'd like to address here:
While I'm very new to chocolate making, all of the material I've read cautions one about taking the temperature of the chocolate beyond 124 degrees for reasons of scorching. 186 is waaaay out there.
On top of that, having tried making peanut brittle in the past, I'm aware of the VERY small window one has with regard to melted sugar, carmelized sugar, and burnt sugar. I have also spent an evening (when I was younger) chiselling 4 inches of solid sugar out of one of my mother's good cooking pots. Boy, did I get in trouble!
Personally I hate working with sugar at that temperature. You have to work fast. It burns like hell. And every little bit left on the pot, or spilled on the counter is a nightmare to remove.
Having taken apart the Santha to see how it works (my girlfriend says it must be a "guy thing"), I will be happy to replace the occasional belt, and let it do it's job.
One thing you can do however, is grind the sugar in the santha for a 1/2 hour or so before you add the other ingredients. This takes about 12 hours off the grinding time if you are looking for silky smooth chocolate.
Hope this helps.
Brad.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist on Feb 9, 2006 9:02:46 GMT -5
And I will address one thing of Brad's.
It seems all the warning for burning chocolate are for the home baker. I have found routine references to conching at elevated temperatures, especially milk choclate. Milk chocolate is often taken to 160F or so to turn the lactose crystals amorphous, and this is done without burning.
Indirect heat seems to be the key. IR lamp, oven, etc. The burning occurs when the pan surface is over 200, etc and scorching occurs.
I have taken some test chocolate to 150 F with no burning in sight.
Finally I will echo Brad about melting sugar. I tried (and tried, and tried, and tried ;D) to no avail. It sounds great on paper, but I could never get it to pan out. What I go was lumps of crystals every time. The sugar did not like to mix with the cocoa butter. They were both "liquids" but they were not miscible. You have to recall, chocolate is actually a suspension, not a solution.
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Feb 9, 2006 9:21:58 GMT -5
A couple of things - be careful of mixing systems - AP is referencing Celcius temperatures, while you both reference Farenheight. 150F won't damage your chocolate. 150C will. Also, if you add melted sugar to cocoa butter, you're going to do a couple of things. First, you'll damage your butter (melted sugar is *very* hot - you'll cause the butter to begin to break down into what's called free fatty acids, which essentially means it's going rancid. Secondly, your sugar won't stay melted for long, and will recrystallize. When it does this, it's likely to recrystallize massively (meaning instead of forming thousands of small crystals like you started with, it'll form a few very large clumps). Now, what you might consider to speed things up would be to essentially melt and spin it (think cotton candy), which will cause the sugar to recrystallize into much smaller crystals (and my daughter even has an at home cotton candy maker, so they're available and not expensive should you wish to try it). But I think that simply melting sugar and adding it to the mix - you're asking for trouble. I'd also be concerned from a safety standpoint that you'll see lots of splattering when you mix the two - please be careful if you attempt this.
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Feb 9, 2006 11:05:58 GMT -5
Dear all,
Thanks for the comments. I think it now seems apparent that what I suspected might be the case, actually is the case:
Melted sugar won't work.
However, I am intrigued by this idea of using non-flavored/non-colored cotton candy.
I'll take a look online to see what I can find for the cheapest, and will post the info here. This sounds like it might be a great idea.
Sincerely,
Alan
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Feb 9, 2006 11:36:03 GMT -5
Really the only issue i can forsee with the cotton candy method is that since you're pushing a phase change, you might have troubles hitting a very fluid viscosity due to moisture absorption in the sugar. Won't know 'til you try, i suppose
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Feb 10, 2006 9:23:32 GMT -5
Dear Sebastian, Thanks for the warning. In your estimation is there really any difference between "flossing sugar" and regular "granulated sugar," or are these companies just wanting to sell more products as I suspect? Also, about how much sugar can you pour into the spinner at one time? Thanks for your additional help. I tracked down a home model with varying prices from $25-$50: eBayAmazon.comCooking.comHomeClick.comIf anyone tries this out I would be very interested to know if it works. Sincerely, Alan
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Feb 10, 2006 11:57:41 GMT -5
Never heard of flossing sugar (my dentist might take issue with the name...), but if it's a powdered sugar, it's likely to have been mixed with a starch, which might mess you up. How much can you add? dependson the size of your machine i wager. my daughter's let's me put in a couple of tbsp at a shot...
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Feb 14, 2006 18:17:52 GMT -5
Dear all,
Here is another possibility that I found today.
I went to a cake decorating store to see if they had a long offset spatula, and I ended up finding 2 lb bags of a mix of sugar and invert sugar extremely finely ground and without corn starch/other stabilizers.
This sugar was much more finely ground than what I was able to accomplish with my food processor, and it even seemed more finely ground than store-bought powdered sugar.
However, I have read a bit about invert sugar and think that it is problematic for at least two reasons:
1) It readily absorbs moisture from the air 2) It is only 2/3 as sweet as cane sugar
It seems to me that a product high in invert sugar would absorb moisture, thereby increasing viscosity and increasing the chance that the chocolate may seize, especially in a humid environment. Additionally, it would mean a less sweet/balanced product at the same cocoa%, or one might say a more bitter chocolate for the same amount of sugar added.
This is all speculation, of course, as I haven't tried it, but it seems reasonable to me that invert sugar would have these two negative effects.
But, all is not lost, because it occurs to me that if one cake decorating place in the mid-western US offers extremely finely ground sugar without corn starch, then others likely do too. It also seems that there would be a good chance of finding such a place on-line. The benefit of using this sugar with our setup, I imagine, would be faster refining for a any given mouth-feel, and a smoother mouth-feel given the same amount of refining time.
At any rate, this may not be earth shattering news, but I thought I would share it anyway.
Any thoughts, comments?
Sincerely,
Alan
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Feb 14, 2006 20:03:08 GMT -5
Interesting - who manufacturers it? I'd be skeptical that it's truely starch/dessicant/flow agent free if you've got a bag of it that's still free flowing. Manufacturers are allowed to put ingredients into their products, but not label them, under certain circumstances where they're called 'processing aids'. Every powdered sugar I've ever seen has taken this route (i'm no sugar specialist, but i've ground enough sugar in my time to know that sugar 100 um and below tends to cake rather rapidly, and become a solid block, if there's no flow agents incorporated into it). 'course, the possiblility exists that 1) the store you're getting it from is grinding their own fresh regularly to ensure flowable product 2) someone's figgured out a way to stop fine sugar from caking
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Feb 14, 2006 20:22:01 GMT -5
Hmmm. Yes, kind of like the % of roaches and rat hairs that can be in cake mixes without them having to put:
"flour, fresh roaches, rat hairs, sugar, hydrogenated oil" on the ingredients list.
Well, I don't know who manufactures it, as the bags were all clear plastic with lables printed by the store itself. So, since they not only sell cake decorating supplies, but actually decorate wedding cakes, etc., perhaps it is the case that they grind it themselves regularly. OR, maybe it really has small amounts of free-flow agents and they are not aware of it. BUT, when I asked about it, they specifically said that it didn't and that that was the reason they carried it.
Who knows? I'll have to ask next time I am there.
Alan
|
|
|
Post by dorothy on Feb 17, 2006 19:15:14 GMT -5
I don't know if you solved the sugar purchase but you can buy 5# bags of baking sugar in the grocery store that is a finer grind. It is made by the usual sugar company... "I am having a senior moment here!" It has no additives and says plainly it is BAKING SUGAR.
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Feb 18, 2006 3:29:36 GMT -5
;D - Figured I'd try one of your groovy emoticons. Chocolate makes me smile this big. I can only assume it does the same thing to you!
Anyway, I digress.....
If you find finely ground sugar and are worried about it absorbing moisture from the air, may I suggest that you add to your sugar bag a couple of packets of silicon crystals? This will keep it dry and prevent it from clumping up. I make a lot of sushi and the nori paper packages all have them in. I save them and use them for purposes just like this one.
|
|
|
Post by sugaralchemy on Feb 25, 2006 15:43:59 GMT -5
I've got extensive experience working with sugars and sugar like compounds.
First of all, the tendency for a substance to absorb water from the air (hygroscopicity) is really not an issue with chocolate production. Plain white sugar (sucrose) is not very hygroscopic, and I wouldn't worry at all about it.
Other sugars and sugar-like compounds may be much more hygroscopic than sucrose, but unless they're left unsealed for a long period of time, it is not an issue either. Realize that even if something is hygroscopic, it is likely actually absorbing and binding the water, so even in a chocolate situation as long as the powder is generally "dry" when you use it, the water is not "free" and very unlikely to cause the chocolate to seize.
The water can be driven off of the sugar or sugar like compound during the refining process through the heat that is present. I can tell you, some commercial sugar free chocolates are made by ingredients dramatically more hygroscopic than sugar and there are no issues with their production.
Once the chocolate is cooled, the hygroscopicity of the sugar-type compound becomes irrelevant. The substance is suspended in fat, which basically blocks all moisture absorption.
As for melting sugar, I too agree that is not going to help your chocolate any. Your goal is to create many small particles of sugar that are suspended in fat - it is physically impossible for them to be dissolved. And even if melting were helpful to making small particles, the caramelization point for sucrose is so close that it is nearly impossible to pull off a stable melted liquid that is not at least partly caramelized, or does not have added water.
Interestingly, some ingredients like sucrose crystalize after cooling. Other ingredients (including things more in the glucose direction) don't crystalize but instead form a chewy sort of film, varying from very hard to taffy like depending on the moisture content and exact ingredient. If you try to melt one of those ingredients with chocolate, you get a sort of super rich chocolate taffy or semi-hard product. Tasty, but not proper chocolate.
Invert sugar is sugar that has been modified by the invertase enzyme. You see, sucrose is a disaccharide - "di" meaning two and "saccharide" meaning sugar. So it's actually a fructose and a glucose molecule that are molecularly "connected" to form a sucrose molecule. Sucrose has different properties as compared to glucose or fructose. This connection can be broken by the invertase enzyme. I actually have a bunch of invertase in my R&D supplies.
(Actually, it is possible to boil sugar and water with a low level of acid to obtain a moderate degree of inversion, but that is only relevant to candy makers looking at syrup-based applications.)
The purpose of invert sugar is to control crystallization in candy making, baking, etc. Invertase is also used in making fondants, where they add the enzyme to a sucrose fondant which is thick and paste like, coat the fondant in chocolate, then allow it to sit for days or weeks as the invertase enzyme works. The resulting mixture partially inverted sugar is more soluble than sucrose, so the mixture becomes thinner, allowing the fondant to be incredibly moist and juicy inside yet perfectly covered in chocolate.
As for the cotton candy idea, I am incredibly doubtful that would be of any benefit. You are replacing square-sized chunks of sugar with thinner long strands. Also, cotton candy makers, especially home models, are incredibly slow! I am confident that you are much better off simply going through the refining process yourself.
So, for your applications, your best bet is to stick with plain old sucrose. You can get "superfine" sugar at the store that is 100% sugar (no starch), much finer than granulated sugar but not as fine as powdered sugar. And you really don't need to obsess about moisture in this or any other sucrose product, except for the obvious concerns about condensation. Hopefully my explanation of the issues behind sugar clarifies the situation a little.
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Feb 25, 2006 20:13:52 GMT -5
First of all, the tendency for a substance to absorb water from the air (hygroscopicity) is really not an issue with chocolate production. Plain white sugar (sucrose) is not very hygroscopic, and I wouldn't worry at all about it. Once the chocolate is cooled, the hygroscopicity of the sugar-type compound becomes irrelevant. The substance is suspended in fat, which basically blocks all moisture absorption. As for the cotton candy idea, I am incredibly doubtful that would be of any benefit. You are replacing square-sized chunks of sugar with thinner long strands. Also, cotton candy makers, especially home models, are incredibly slow! I am confident that you are much better off simply going through the refining process yourself. Welcome to the forum sugaralchemy! I don't want to come across as argumentative, but I've taken snippets of your post that I disagree with. Hygroscopicity absolutely is a factor in chocolate production. As you note, sucrose isn't as hygroscopic as some of it's cousins, but it will absorb moisture (as will the milk in milk chocolates). The finer your grind your sugar, the more susceptible it will be to picking up moisture (surface area increases, and there is an electrostatic phenemenon whose strength is inversely proportional to the particle size). On point two - that being hygroscopicity isn't important in finished goods - try this experiment. Buy some white chocolate. Keep 1/2 in a solid bar form tightly wrapped in a cool, dry environment, and chunk up the other 1/2 and let it sit in ambient room conditions. a few weeks later, melt them both side by side to see how differently they behave - you'll see great differences. You note you've access to a r/d lab - run both samples in a karl fisher for a total moisture analysis, and let me know what you find Re: cotton candy idea - is there a benefit? who knows. the point of the exercise would not be to melt the sugar, but rather to resize it (granulated sugar clocks in between 600-3000 um - spun sugar tyipcally is <200 um - the benefit here would be less residence time in the santha - which really isn't built to take sugar from 3000 um to 30 um efficiently (hence the 12 hour grinding cycles). Is it possible to shorten the grind time this way? Perhaps - perhaps not. Some enterprising soul will just have to try it (my daughters cotton candy maker from toy's r us does about 1/2 cup in 5 minutes or so).
|
|