|
Post by Ben on Feb 12, 2014 9:21:33 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I didn't write the 'Ask the Alchemist' articles. John Nanci, the Chocolate Alchemist, wrote them. He had been cross-posting them into this forum but hasn't in a while. I know he's not able to get on the forums as much as he'd like, so I figured I'd do it, as I think there's a lot of great info in the posts and could spark some interesting discussions.
Baking chocolate and cocoa powder (Hershey's Unsweetened Cocoa) are two different things. As you say, the powder is produced by pressing some (not all) of the cocoa butter out of chocolate liquor and then pulverizing the resulting 'press cake.' As John says in the article, baking chocolate is just 100% chocolate or chocolate liquor.
They're not interchangeable, so recipes should call for one or the other (or both) specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 12, 2014 9:12:07 GMT -5
Hello. It looks like the link to the pizza cooker didn't make it into your post.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 11, 2014 8:43:44 GMT -5
Originally posted here: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/05/08/ask-the-alchemist-33/I want to make chocolate for baking. Do I need to still go through all the steps of refining, conching and tempering? How is the process of making baker’s chocolate different from the process of making semi-sweet chocolate?You do not have to go through all of the steps you list above, but you do need to do most of the to one degree or another. And in one small case, I will back pedal and say you will have to do them all.First off, I want to get some definitions out of the way – or more to the point, I want to list some synonyms. - Baker’s chocolate
- Chocolate liqueur
- Cocoa mass 100%
- Unsweetened chocolate
These, being synonyms, are all the same item. I’m going to go out on a limb, and assume that you recognize at least one, and you don’t officially need an actual definition.Way back in the dark ages of home chocolate making (about 1 BCA – that’s Before Chocolate Alchemy) I experimented with just using the Champion juicer to make one of them there things above – the result was something that looked like one of them there things, but was not one of them there things. It turns out, it was a matter of scale. Although the Champion had released the cocoa butter and the mass flowed, it had not released it all, and it just didn’t quite behave right. The flavor was muted, it was too thick, and it would not temper well. But just a couple hours refining in a Melanger, and suddenly, like Alchemy, it was transformed into one of them there things above. Going back to scale, basically that particles were just not small enough. Instead of sand, it is still gravel.So, you need to refine. And that can occur much faster than if you had sugar in there – again, just a couple few hours. After that, you move into the conching zone. And really, I find that totally optional, and in nearly all cases overkill if you are going to be baking. I won’t refute that conching is a remarkable process…but it is a relatively subtle process that will be totally lost (to my tastes) in baking. Now, semi-sweet vs baker’s chocolate. Gah, I had marketing terms sometimes. If there is sugar in your chocolate, you can consider it semi-sweet and most of the time, that is what we make. It’s close enough. Painting with a very broad brush, if it is not milk chocolate, and it is not 85% chocolate (that would be ‘dark’) then it is semi-sweet. Tempering – here is that one that on the surface I want to just say ‘no, you don’t need to do that’ but, I have found in one case, where it does seem to make a difference. Chocolate chips and chocolate chip cookies. Very simply, if you are melting the chocolate down as an ingredient, then there is no reason in the world to temper it – you are just destroying the temper when you melt. If on the other hand you are, you are using some of that ‘semi-sweet’ chocolate, and you want to make your own chocolate chips (which purely for the work involved, I don’t recommend – chocolate chucks people, chocolate chucks), then there is a difference in how the chips behave during baking if you don’t temper. Simply said, we are used to tempered chocolate chips, how they hold together, how they feel in the mouth, etc, and untempered chocolate chips, while still good, seemed to lack something. That’s about it…except for one final item. Over the years, I’ve basically said lecithin is optional, and from the standpoint of fine eating chocolate. It still is. But what I have discovered is that if you are baking with it, and especially if you are mixing the chocolate into water based ingredients (truffle fillings, cake batters, tortes, etc) then a little bit (1% or so) greatly increases workability and reduces the chances your chocolate will ‘break’ and you will have cocoa butter floating around. There has been a few occasions that when I made truffle fillings, and tortes, both without flour or another binder, that oil floated to the top. Using the same exact recipe, but with the addition of a small amount of lecithin kept everything together and much more manageable. OK, NOW, that’s it.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 11, 2014 8:38:16 GMT -5
Originally posted here: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/05/01/ask-the-alchemist-32/I am an amateur chocolatier attempting to make organic dark chocolate without using soy lecithin. I know of many organic and raw chocolate bars that do this but have found virtually no information on the internet for a lecithin-free technique. I have achieved a makeshift bar by tempering baker’s chocolate and adding sugar but it’s not very good. I’d like to start from raw cocoa beans but have a few questions I’m wondering if you could answer.
Can I add powdered sugar, vanilla and other ingredients to cocoa paste and temper a bar from there?
Is conching necessary if I am not making milk chocolate and not using lecithin?
This might sound suicidal but is there a way to hand-refine? I’ve looked into a melanger that runs on electricity but are there any hand-crank models, or — this may sound silly — any possibility to rig some bicycle pedals onto a model to power it? I’m hardcore.OK, there are a lot of questions packed in there, but let’s just go through them. Lecithin is an ingredient that is 100% optional. It is a water binder, so, if your moisture content is low, you have no need for it. You can also add it to lower the viscosity of your chocolate. You do not want to add powdered sugar. It has cornstarch in it and makes for a gummy chocolate. Also, it will still be very gritty, and tempering will be very difficult. Conching is not absolutely necessary, but refining is. You need to understand the difference.As for adding sugar after it is refined….you could be meaning something else or have in mind adding more sugar after refining but usually you add the sugar before refining and refine the sugar. But to answer your question, no, there is no way I know of to add granulated sugar and not refine with a Melanger if you want to end up with smooth, modern chocolate. Moving onto hard core manual refining. The short answer is that unless you are world class athlete, it’s doubtful you could power a bike to refine your chocolate. Have a look at this.Here is the important part: With that in mind, has hard core as you may be, I just don’t think it is feasible to truly refine your chocolate by human power.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 10, 2014 14:09:55 GMT -5
Originally posted here: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/04/17/ask-the-alchemist-31/“I’ve made a version of your (Aether/Sylph) winnower, but it’s not quite working. I’m still getting husk in my nibs and nibs in my husk. Help. And I really don’t understand what the point of that other valve is that isn’t changing the vacuum. Can you explain that more?” Great question. I keep forgetting I don’t have the manuals on line. The short answer (long to follow) is you have to tune the winnower. Just like you have to tune an instrument, each winnower has be to be tuned AND re-tuned as needed. So, the following is right out of the manuals. My winnower is designed to winnow roasted and cracked cocoa beans. It has two adjustment valves to allow you to ‘tune’ it to your particular cocoa bean and vacuum. All cocoa beans are not alike. You know this as they all have different flavors. Likewise, they require slightly different settings on the Sylph and these settings MAY CHANGE over time.* Also, the Sylph, regardless of its magical name, is not magic. The quality of the nibs you get out is only going to be as good as the quality of beans you put in. This means if you have flat, under-fermented and/or mucilage covered beans then you will most likely get flats and other pieces of ‘non-nib’ in with your nibs. This is a consequence of what you put in, not a matter of the Sylph not functioning properly.** First off, no winnower is perfect. A small amount of nib in your husk (as powder) and/or a small amount of husk in your nibs can be expected. Industry standard is less than 1.5% husk in nib (that would be nearly 2.5 oz of husk in 10 lbs) If you were to weigh it out and look at it, it looks like a LOT of husk, so when you see a little, don’t panic. On average, with well prepared, properly roasted beans, you can expect less than 0.5% husk in your nibs and virtually no nib in your husk bucket. Tuning the Sylph occurs in two steps: setting the Vacuum Adjustment Valve and then setting the Discriminator Valve. Think of them as coarse and fine adjustments respectively. Please do not change both valves at one time as you can then not tell which valve affected your results. As a starting point, open the Discriminator Valve all the way and open the Vacuum Adjustment Valve ½ way. Test with fully cooled roasted beans. Process 10 oz of roasted beans (see operations manual for step by step instructions) and calculate your recovery: Weight of nibs / Weight of beans (10 oz). - 0.80 or 80% is great. If the nibs look good and there is virtually no nib in the husk, you are done. Go forth and winnow.
- 82% is either perfect or you have husk in the nibs. If it is the later, increase the vacuum a little (close the valve) and test again with another 10 oz.
- Less than 80% - generally there is nib in the husk waste. Decrease the vacuum a little.
Continue adjusting the Vacuum Adjustment Valve and testing until you hit a maximum recovery of nibs with minimal husk content. At this point there will still be some nibs in your husk waste or husk in your nibs. Note: ‘Flats’ do not count as husk if you see them in your nibs. You can’t ‘adjust’ these out – they have to be screened out. Setting the Discriminator Valve At this point, you have adjusted your Vacuum Adjustment Valve to the point where there is either husk in your nibs or nibs in your husk. Adjust the Discriminator Valve depending which is the case. - Husk in your nibs – Close the Discriminator Valve 1/4-1/2
- Nibs in your husk – Open the Discriminator Valve 1/4-1/2
Process another 10 oz of roasted beans and calculate your recovery: Weight of nibs / Weight of beans (10 oz). Compare this recovery to your last recovery. If there was husk previously in your nibs, you want your recovery to go down as that shows more husk is being removed. If there is still too much husk in your nibs, close the Discriminator Valve another 1/4 - 1/2 and test again with another 10 oz of roasted beans. If there was nib previously in your husk, you want your recovery to go up, giving you more nibs. If there is still too much nib in your husk, open Discriminator Valve another 1/4-1/2 and test again with another 10 oz of roasted beans. Through all of this, keep in mind to LOOK at the nibs and husk and if they look good, you are done. Troubleshooting tuning: If you are at 80% recovery or above, stop adjusting and proceed to winnowing. If you are way above 80 % recovery and a lot of husk is in the nibs, adjust your Vacuum Adjustment Valve closed (although this should not be the case as you should have closed it enough to have no husk in your nibs). If you are way below 80% recovery, examine your husk waste. If there is nib present, there are three possible reasons: - You cracked while the beans were warm and they powdered too much – re-test and calibrate with cold roasted beans.
- You need to open the Discriminator Valve more.
- If the Discriminator Valve is already fully open, you need to close it to 1/3 open, open your Vacuum Adjustment Valve a little, and test again.
And of course, at any point you are happy with the distribution, stop. I like to process 10 oz each time because the math is easy, the amount is representative, and you can see very quickly whether the tuning change you made had a positive or negative effect. After a while, you should be able to ‘eyeball’ your tuning without all of the math, but it’s rather helpful at the beginning while you are learning. * Over time, the dust filter on your vacuum will accumulate dust and the vacuum pressure will drop. As this happens you will start to get husk in your nibs. The solution is to simply close the Vacuum Adjustment Valve a little to increase the vacuum pressure until you clean the dust filter out. Don’t touch the Discriminator Valve! ** If you find you are using a bean with a lot of flats, (and there are some great tasting beans out there with flats so I do understand) you can screen your final nibs to remove these as they are generally much larger than the nibs. A ¼” hardware screen tacked onto a frame works very well for this.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 10, 2014 13:31:41 GMT -5
Originally posted here: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/04/11/ask-the-alchemist-30/Are there some general percentages of loss to calculate for in chocolate formulations, such as moisture loss, husk waste loss, etc?”Yes. OK, I guess you want more than that. Like, you actually want to know what they are? Ok, I can do that. It’s pretty straight forward, and around the site, but the whole point of these Questions is to get much of the information in one place, so here goes. Roasting. Unlike coffee which can lose 20% of its weight to moisture, cocoa starts out with much less moisture, and you end up with very little lost. So little in fact, that I totally discount it at all. It is usually only 1-2%. Winnowing. This is by far the largest loss. At the absolute minimum there is 17% of the weight of the bean in the husk. This corresponds to ‘perfect’ winnowing efficiency, with a perfectly thin husked bean, of 83%. Most of the time I find this number is closer to 80%, or a 20% loss. On a particularly poorly prepped or heavy husked cocoa bean (think Papua New Guinea for a heavy husk), or one with lots of flats, a 25% loss is closer to the mark. When doing my estimating, I tend to round down, and be surprised when I have more nibs in my bowl. Grinding. If you are using the Champion Juicer, you will lose a flat 6 oz to the Champion, regardless if you are doing 1 lb or 10 lbs. For this reason, many people (myself included) have taken to pre-heating the cocoa nibs, and adding them slowly to the Melanger (which has also been pre-heated). This way you don’t lose anything. Refining. At this point, it would seem that your losses are at an end, but I’ve found that at this stage a little more moisture is lost. Sometimes up to 5%. And you have whatever you simply cannot get out of the bowl and off the rollers – usually an ounce or two at least. There you go. 1% Roasting 17-25% Winnowing 0-6 oz Grinding 1-5% Refining And instead of trying to wrap your head around that EXACTLY and making how much you need to the ounce, I highly recommend just estimating your losses high (25% does just great) and make a little more than you want (4 oz) and you should have plenty.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 10, 2014 13:30:23 GMT -5
Originally posted here: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/04/03/ask-the-alchemist-29/I have heard that chocolate benefits from a slight resting or maturation period before eating. Is this true? Why? How long? Is there a shelf life?Well, for once, there is going to be very little definitive I can give you here, at least in the form of specific practices. Keep in mind, the majority of chocolate I make is for evaluation purposes, so I make it, and taste it within just a few days. But then again, I am looking for defects, not perfection. And while you are keeping things in mind, recall I started this whole journey because I tasted fresh chocolate and was blown away by its vibrancy, which is sort of the opposite of an aged flavor. Without just repeating it here, there is a great discussion on the Chocolate Life about just this, and I cannot disagree with any of it (which isn’t quite agreeing with it if you understand what I mean there). . That said, I’ve made many things that improve with age – wine, ale, cheese, mead, sausage and say un-categorically that there are changes in flavor that only aging can produce (which I love), and there is no reason the same cannot happen in chocolate. I do know I can taste a difference in just roasted beans that are fresh out of the roaster (and cooled) and ones that have had a day to ‘rest’. In the rested beans, the flavors are more developed, more melded. And that is basically what is said about chocolate. It’s basically a chemical tying up of loose ends, and being in a solid state, it’s going to happen pretty slow. . I think I lean more toward longer aging over ‘slight’ aging. This is mostly because from what I have tasted it is a S L O W process and a day here or there is not going to be that drastic. Similarly, given just how slow and gradual it is, I’ve never tasted a chocolate that has gone bad. It might be possible, but under cool ‘aging’ temperatures, I lean toward thinking it’s not. . So, make your chocolate and temper part of it. Taste it and make some notes. Now wait a month and temper the rest. Taste them side by side and make notes. Now wait another month and taste them again and make those notes. Now compare all the tasting notes. If you tasted differences, great. Was there one set you liked better or were they simply different? You didn’t taste any difference? Well, put them away 6 months and try again. Rinse and repeat. I suspect until you get to many months or even many years you are not going to see huge differences….but you may depending on your bean and tastes. . That’s about all I can tell you. In theory age will make a difference. In practice, that difference may or may not be better to your tastes.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 10, 2014 13:29:11 GMT -5
Originally posted by Alchemist John here: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/03/20/ask-the-alchemist-28/Do I have to use all that equipment for making chocolate? Can’t I just use (fill in this or that random appliance)?”Ok, so first off, I cobbled this one together because I get this about once a week at least. The appliance changes, but you get the gist of it. And almost always, it is referring to the use of the Melanger. In a word, no. Now that isn’t me wanting you to buy what I sell. Honestly, I make hardly anything on equipment. Just so that is on the table. I sell Melangers (and the other equipment) because it’s what I have found that works. It’s really no more complicated than that. Over the years, I have had LOTS of failures trying to find something that was a little less hard on the checkbook. But the fact of the matter is that grinding sugar and cocoa down to around 50 microns is HARD. Let alone15 microns that some people want. It’s a technical feat. Why? You need to picture what you are trying to do. Ok, you have a small swimming pool (analogy of scale time). One that is about 12 feet in diameter. Cover the bottom about a foot deep with golf balls. Now, fill it up with water about half way. You have your unrefined chocolate with sugar (bowling balls) in it. Your goal is to get the golf balls broken up to the size of sand. And you have a sword to do it with. Go ahead and hop in and let me know how far you get. That’s basically what you are trying with any blender, food processor, etc. You might break those balls up some, but in the end, they are just going to move out of the way and not get chopped up. What you need is a something that actually grinds. A grinder one might even say. And that’s what the Melanger started out as – a wet grinder. Something that grinds a fluid over and over until it’s the fineness you want. And that first part is key. WET. It’s why flour mills, coffee grinders, Corona mills, etc won’t work. They are all dry mills and meant for coarse grinding (even fine flour is in the 200-300 micron range) of dry material a single time. They might work if you could recirculate the mixture for hours on end, but in the end that pump or mechanism to do it is going to be way more expensive than a Melanger. As for the rest, I’m going to just give a fast overview and maybe come back to it later. In general, you have choices, and you can either put out sweat equity or money, but basically, TANSTAAFL (look it up). Roasting. You have to roast. An oven will work if you want to stir and not have huge control. A Behmor works great. You can build your own. Cracking. You can hand peel. A champion works great without the filter. A cocoa mill works well. Everything else I’ve tried makes too fine of a powder or leaves too many whole beans. Other things may be out there, but these work well, and generally speaking I try not to fix what is not broken. Winnowing. Hand peel again. Blow dryer and bowl. Sylph winnower. That’s about it aside from building your own Sylph style winnower (sure, you could design and build something else, but I’ve seen nothing simpler or less expensive – if I had I’d be offering it). Grinding/refining – see above. The final option is to purchase roasted nibs, but it’s that tradeoff of money vs. equipment. So, do you HAVE to use all that equipment? No, but you (or I) do need to get through the whole process one way or another. And I will say, I LOVE the process. So consider working up to it slowly and backwards. Melanger and roasted nibs first as there is no other option. Then cracking and winnowing with roasted beans, and finally do your own roasting if you find you love the process as much as I do. Take your time and enjoy the journey, because to my way of thinking, it’s all about the journey, not the destination.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 10, 2014 13:27:49 GMT -5
Originally posted here: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/03/13/ask-the-alchemist-27/If you are making chocolate at home how can you make sure (if at all) that any harmful bacteria is killed as you can’t heat the chocolate to 165 F/75 C or above as this would ruin the chocolate. I suppose I could always heat the milk with the cocoa butter to the required temp before adding the beans.Well, it would seem you have a misconception about heating and bacteria. Let’s try and clear those up. To make chocolate (we are not going to talk about raw chocolate, but this conversation is actually one of my major issues with raw chocolate) you need to roast the cocoa beans. This reaches temperatures well over 250 F/120 C, more than hot enough to ensure any bacteria is killed. After that, chocolate can still be heated above 75 C. Some chocolates are taken to 80 C without being ruined. Regardless, roasting takes care of it. Further (since you mentioned it), milk powders are already ’safe’ and do not need any further heating to take care of bacteria. They (and cocoa butter and sugar) are tested for Salmonella, E. coli, and have a general HPC (hertrotrophic plate count – general bacteria) for which they must pass. Alright, I think that clears up some of the misconceptions. Let’s talk a little more about roasting and bacteria and making chocolate. Some years ago I analyzed raw and roasted cocoa beans for both e coli and a general HPC of a variety of cocoa beans I had on hand. I also treated some with some ‘classic’ food safe cleaning agents such as bleach (no, I would not want to eat this either), peroxide, water (general washing) and an over the counter produce wash. I’ll say right off that I no longer have the actual reports and analysis, but as you will see, the results were so clear, I stopped testing. All the beans I tested were positive for E. coli (I had previous tested 10 different origins, and picked the 3 that were contaminated – note, these were test beans, and I rejected them, so they were never for sale) and gave a result of TNTC (too numerous to count) for 10 beans in 100 ml of sterile water. I prepared three roasts of three different beans (yes, 9 roasts). - 185 F for 60 minutes.
- 250 F for 40 minutes
- 350 for 20 minutes.
I choose those times as they give me something resembling a proper roast flavor (my at-home indicator).I also soaked each of the three origins in the following solutions: - 0.5% bleach (1:10 of household bleach – ICK)
- 3% peroxide (what you can get readily)
- Produce wash (just following the directions…at twice the concentration)
- Water (sterile)
I let all of them soak 30 minutes (yes, I know, they would not be edible (did you know wet cocoa beans are slimy?), but I was proving a point here…busting a myth here one might say, before mythbusting became cool.)The results you ask? All the roasted beans were E. coli negative. All the roasted beans were <10 colony/10 beans (note, this does not mean I saw some colonies, only that of the 100 ml of liquid, we only used 10 ml, so the detection limit goes up – I saw no colonies) All the cleaning agent washes were UNCHANGED. Positive E. coli and the HPC were all TNTC. Roasting – Confirmed Washing solutions – Busted So, when you hear someone tell you they washed their raw beans for their great raw chocolate, you remember this. (Note: again, I am NOT saying raw chocolate is contaminated – only that treatments do bumkis. The only chance of safe raw chocolate is starting with safe, clean beans). Moving on. Once you have your clean beans (which you feel pretty my my good about simply because they taste fine – handy isn’t that), the only other thing you need to concern yourself with is cross contamination. You need to keep your raw and roasted cocoa beans separate so you do not cross contaminate them. This means dedicated bowls, spoons, etc. One for the raw, one for the roasted. That kind of thing. And you washed your hands, right? Look at that – mom was right again. So, will this guarantee your chocolate is bacteria free and safe to eat? Nope. Not unless you actually have it tested. But it DOES give strong evidence that if you follow basic food handling procedures (start with clean product, cook adequately, wash your hands, don’t cross contaminate) you are probably going to be just fine. Relax. Don’t worry. Have some chocolate.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 10, 2014 13:23:21 GMT -5
Originally posted here: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/02/27/ask-the-alchemist-25/I am wondering about chocolate and refrigeration. How does it affect chocolate in setting up during molding, in storage, and in transport for shipping? Does the moisture have a negative impact?It is kind of interesting (to me) how questions like this come up just a short time after I’ve done some experimentation. In particular, how refrigeration affects the tempering process. Let us take each stage and see how forced chilling and cooling temperatures affect chocolate. To begin, even though it was not asked, I’m going to touch on cocoa beans, nibs and butter. If you have clean, pest-free cocoa beans, you get cold beans. No really. That’s it. It does not significantly affect how fresh your beans are or how long they keep. Most beans have shelf lives in the years. Maybe if you have a full 70 kg bag that you want to keep fresh, it might be of some use. But if you only have a few pounds, the hope and expectation is you will be using them before they can deteriorate. And really, a cold temperature is only going to extend the life 10-15% BUT the chance of moisture getting in and lessening the shelf life is much greater. Cool and dry and you are fine. And this goes with nibs and cocoa butter also. In 8 years, I’ve never had either go ‘bad’. One quick note here though. This is for raw beans. Roasted cocoa beans are a different story…but only slightly. Roasted beans do go stale after a couple weeks to a month. Not really bad – but no longer vibrant. But again, refrigeration hardly helps. The chemical reactions that cause beans to go stale are nearly unaffected by cold temperatures. All you end up with are cold stale beans. Basically fresh is best. Moving on to tempering, I tried the following. I took some tempered, liquid chocolate from my tempering bowl and put one mold’s worth in the refrigerator, one at room temperature and one outside in the ‘cool’ weather (about 55-60 F). What I found was a little surprising to me. The two unrefrigerated ones worked just fine. But the refrigerated one actually bloomed. Why is this? Well, it’s conjecture on my part, but I think it tried to rush the crystallization process too much. The Type V crystals could not form fast enough around the seed, so at the surface where the chocolate was forced to set up, other crystals were formed, and that is basically the definition of bloom. As for the other two, the ‘cool’ one did best. Basically picture perfect. The cool temperature encouraged even, smooth crystal growth and the Type V formed through out. As for the room temperature one, it was moderate. There was just a touch of swirl on the surface. Basically just the barest hint of ‘almost bloom’. In this case, the ‘warm’ extended the tempering process too long, and a few other crystals had a chance to form on the surface. So, it’s basically the Goldilock’s syndrome. Not too hot, not too cold, but just right is what is needed for a good consistent temper. Which unsurprisingly is why there are cooling boxes and tubes in many commercial chocolate factories. Basically it’s a way to control the final stage of the tempering process. As for storage – we are basically back at cool and dry are best. My rule of thumb is if you are comfortable, your chocolate will be comfortable. If you are in upper east or west nowhere, and it is does not get above the melting point of tempered chocolate (90-92 F) then you are good to go. If you are down south, where it’s 95 F in the shade, yeah, go ahead and double bag your chocolate (chocolate REALLY likes to absorb odors) and put it into the refrigerator. Finally, transport. That’s tough. In the summer, even if it is pretty cool, many transport vehicles can get HOT, and if you don’t do anything to protect your tempered chocolate (like with ice or cold packs) it will most likely melt and then bloom. And depending on how far you have to ship, there may simply be no good solution except to wait for cooler weather before shipping. But I will point out that cocoa butter is FINE. I ship all the time in hot weather. The bags are double sealed, the cocoa butter melts in transport, sets up when it arrives and is none the worse for the adventure. Sure, it’s not tempered, but it was not tempered when it left here and you are going to be melting it anyway. That’s basically it. Think comfort. If you are comfortable, your chocolate will be comfortable. Goldilocks zone baby, Goldilocks. Not too hot, not too cold but just right.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 10, 2014 13:21:52 GMT -5
Original Post: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/02/06/ask-the-alchemist-24/"My process is a bit different so I wonder if you could comment on the adjustments I’ve made and whether you would expect poor/different results than your normal process. Others may also find some value in the alternate process." First, I’m using a Whirly Pop popcorn maker on the stove top for the roasting. I drilled a hole in the top so I could insert a thermometer to monitor air temp to control the roast. I previously used this for a coffee roasting project as well with decent results. I got one Whirly Pop in a thrift store for $5 or buy new for $20.
If you can keep the heat low enough, a Whirly pop is great. The main issue is just getting the roast long enough without scorching the outside and having the interior underdone. I’ve used one myself and liked it - after I knew how to roast. The main reason I don’t mention it is that actually describing to someone how to use it is pretty difficult. You knew how to roast coffee. Coffee has good clues - cocoa not so many. I find a tendency to over roast with a surface cooking method like this. But it is possible to get it right. As you did. "Second, I remove the husks by hand one by one. As time consuming as this sounds I find it easy to do while watching TV and can do about 2 pounds per hour. With practice The husk can be removed without the whole, roasted bean fragmenting and slowing you down."
If you like doing it this way, it is hands down the best way to get the most out of your beans with the least waste….but again, I don’t advocate it that much because it is SO time intensive. 2 lbs takes me about 1.5 minutes. But never let it be said I would suggest anyone stop anything they enjoy. And I am also not a TV watcher. "Third, once the beans are all de-husked (no need for winnowing by the way) I put them in the stock Cuisinart we had in the kitchen. I found that with the standard blade the beans will grind into a powder very quickly but will start to look damp from released cocoa butter in 2-3 minutes and get fully liquid in 5-8 minutes with about 12-16 ounces at a time in the Cuisanart. So, no need for a Champion juicer in this method. Oh, and I add the sugar in at this stage too so it gets mixed in well and chopped a bit."
I’ve found that it is possible to burn beans this way if you are not careful. There is a lot of friction produced, and you can get spot burning. And again, very time intensive. The Champion does 5 lbs in the same time with little chance of burning. But if that is what you have around, and you like the flavor, then by all means, there is no reason not to use it. And the Cuisinart DOES have the advantage of not wasting 6 oz like the Champion does. As a minor alternative, you can using it 2-3 minutes, where the cocoa just starts to look damp, and then add it to the Melanger. That is the main change I would actually recommend. "From here I go straight into an Ultra Wet grinder ($80 used on Craigslist - it helps to be near a large Indian community) and let it go for many many hours, tasting periodically."
The Ultra Wet grinder was the starting point of the ECGC line - I liked it a bit. Not a huge fan of the conical wheels (they spray chocolate) but it refines just fine. "The product seems OK though as a novice it is hard to tell. Ive over roasted a couple of pounds but other than that so far so good. Ive stuck with a simple 70% dark chocolate by the way so far."
That is a great place to start. 95% of my chocolate is 75% - basically your recipe plus 5% cocoa butter. "What do you think?"I think you have been very industrious, used what you had on hand, and with very good results. From experience, it’s way more work than many people want to put in, but that does not make it right or wrong nor better or worse. It’s also very similar to where I started so many years ago. My first attempts were roasting with an air popper (3-4 oz at a time), peeling by hand, and using only the Champion (this was before I discovered Wet Grinders, hacked one, and had Santha start making them for me [yes, for those that don’t know, Wet Grinders as small scale Melangers actually started with Chocolate Alchemy - I didn’t jump on the proverbial band wagon - I built the band wagon that others jumped onto]). My goal has been approachability and consistency. But there are tons of ways to make chocolate, and you have a very good method there….especially, and most importantly, if you like the result. That’s what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 10, 2014 13:17:15 GMT -5
Original Post: chocolatealchemy.com/2013/01/30/ask-the-alchemist-23/“I want to make a Chocolate bread. Not a batter bread with just baking soda, but a real, yeasted, chocolate bread. Can you help?” Ask and you shall receive. I expect to hear how it turned out. Chocolate Bread by David Lebovitz ala the Chocolate Alchemist 3/4 cup (180 ml) whole or low-fat milk, heated until just tepid 1 T active dry yeast 4 tablespoons (75 g) sugar 4 tablespoons (55 g) butter, salted or unsalted 6 ounces (85 g) bittersweet or semisweet chocolate, coarsely chopped 1 large egg 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract 3/4 teaspoon sea salt 2 cups (280 g) bread flour 3/4 cup (3 1/2 ounces, 90 g) chocolate chips or coarsely chopped bittersweet or semisweet chocolate 1/2 cup (70 g) toasted pecans, walnuts, almonds, or hazelnuts, coarsely chopped (optional) 1. In the bowl of a stand mixer or in a large bowl, sprinkle the yeast over the milk. Add one tablespoon (11 g) sugar, then set aside in a warm place for 10 to 15 minutes, until bubbles form on the surface. 2. While the yeast is activating, in a small saucepan, melt the butter and 6 ounces chocolate over a pan of barely simmering water. Stir occasionally, until the chocolate is melted and the mixture is smooth. Remove from heat. 3. Once the yeast mixture is frothy, mix in the remaining sugar, the egg, vanilla, and sea salt. 4. Stir in half the flour, then the melted butter and chocolate, then the remaining flour mixture, stirring until well-incorporated. If using a stand mixer, attach the dough hook and beat for five minutes, until smooth. If making by hand, mix vigorously with a flexible spatula for the same amount of time. The dough will seem quite moist, resembling sticky brownie batter when ready. 5. Cover the bowl and let rise in a warm place for 2 hours. 6. Butter a 9-inch (23 cm) loaf pan. 7. Stir in the chopped chocolate and nuts, if using. Then use a spatula to fold the dough over on itself in the bowl for about thirty seconds, then transfer it to the buttered pan, pressing a bit to spread it to the corners. Let rise in a warm place for one hour. 8. Ten minutes before you’re ready to bake the bread, preheat the oven to 350ºF (175ºC.) 9. Bake the bread for 35 to 40 minutes, until it feels done and sounds hollow when you tap it.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 9, 2014 1:02:04 GMT -5
It is possible to over-refine, but probably not in the little melangers. Over-refined chocolate can be thick and gummy. As far as over-conching, that's probably more of a preference thing, with the result possibly being a milder or even bland chocolate.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 2, 2014 11:43:16 GMT -5
Hi Fred, Yeah, I'd say it's fair to say that most of the literature out there is designed for industrial use and doesn't completely translate to what we're doing with regards to specific machinery or processes. That being said, I learn something new every time I read some of the industrial manufacture literature and feel it has greatly improved my chocolate. I've had to interpret what they're accomplishing (or trying to accomplish) and then figure out how (or if) it can (or should) be applied to my process. I think more information is almost always better. One of my favorite parts of chocolate making is that there's always more to learn and there's always a deeper understanding to be had. It is frequently also one of the most frustrating aspects of chocolate making. I think dismissing a major part of chocolate making, specifically conching, as being just for industrial makers is a mistake. I think conching is definitely part of what we do. Generally, we don't have nearly as much control over the process as a maker using an actual conche, but I don't think that means that we don't (or can't) conche. Some makers will make modifications to the process to have greater control or to achieve better conching--modifications like adding heat, airflow, aeration, etc. or modifying the speed of the melanger or length of time the chocolate is in the melanger. Even with our limited equipment, better understanding of conching--or any step of the process--can lead to better chocolate. I'm actually in the process of building a conche of (more or less) my own design. After seeing the video of the Kleego, something clicked that made me start researching conching more thoroughly and with better understanding. Eventually, I realized that building one could be possible, where previously I had thought it would be too difficult. My design is of the vertically stirred rotary type, so is not similar to the Kleego, which is a horizontally stirred rotary conche. I have most of the parts and am hoping to start building it this week. If it works, I'll post some photos or video. Regarding tartness, sometimes it's great, and sometimes it doesn't work. Some people like a more tart chocolate, myself included, while others prefer a more mild, balanced chocolate. Whether or not it's something we as chocolate makers can control is dependent on the specific bean. Some beans can be processed to reduce the tartness or acidity, allowing other desirable flavors to become apparent, while other beans just go flat. -Ben
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Feb 1, 2014 9:06:40 GMT -5
feedme mentioned the Kleego, which is a melter and conche, not a tempering machine. I don't believe it has any ability to really cool the chocolate.
|
|