|
Post by Alan on Mar 22, 2006 20:55:01 GMT -5
Well, it seems like we have discussed just about all of the main topics except for conching. I think I would like to start off this thread with a couple of, potentially conflicting, thoughts. 1) It has pretty much been accepted since Lindt that conching gives one the best flavor of chocolate possible, and it also has been standard since Lindt to conch for 72 hours for the best effect. 2) Then we have the infamous, okay not really infamous, but still interesting comment by Frederick Shilling (Dagoba) who commented to John once: "So, you want to use this really great bean, with all this delicate nuance, and 'neutralize' it with a high conching??" We can look at point one and point three and say, well obviously, most chocolate manufacturers are using Forastero, and often, a not very good one, so of course 72 hours of conching is going to be necessary for as much acid reduction as possible, and to drive off as many of the volatile elements as possible that would impact the flavor negatively. In fact, the idea is to neutralize the chocolate. Moving on, we can see why Mr. Frederick Schilling would make the comment that he has...with a bean like a good Criollo, it is supposed to have nice bright notes and its acidity is normally lower anyway, so to conch for 72 hours would ruin the best qualities of the bean. Simple enough. But then there is this: A quote from Chloe Doutre-Roussel's book "The Chocolate Connoisseur," which can be bought here, by the way: What's my point? Well, she doesn't say, 2-3 days is best except for Criollo. She makes a general blanket statement. Now it could be a simple oversight. It could be that no high-end artisan in his/her right mind would ever conch a fine Criollo-based chocolate for that long, but I have yet to read anything saying so, with the exception of the Dagoba founder's comment. Obviously the type of conch that one uses will make a difference, but that aside, is there another piece to the puzzle that is missing? Okay, I admit it, I like conspiracy theories. Has anyone here tested long-term conching on the Ocumare that John sells and compared it to short-term conching? Does anyone have experience with other fine flavor beans? It's too bad that someone from Amedei isn't here to tell us if that was Forastero that Doutre-Roussel was tasting or whether it was something else. Anyway, any thoughts about conching? Alan P.S. I just sent an e-mail to Ms. Doutre-Roussel, asking her if she could tell me what type of bean the chocolate she was tasting was made with. Hopefully she responds.
|
|
gap
Apprentice
Posts: 390
|
Post by gap on Mar 22, 2006 22:07:27 GMT -5
Alan, I would be interested to hear some of the results of your batches you have been talking about where you take test samples from the batch at various stages of conching. On these anecdotal tests, what gives you the best results.
Keep up your amazing efforts on this forum, I try to add where I can but you have already covered so much!! :-)
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 22, 2006 22:33:13 GMT -5
Alan, I would be interested to hear some of the results of your batches you have been talking about where you take test samples from the batch at various stages of conching. On these anecdotal tests, what gives you the best results. Keep up your amazing efforts on this forum, I try to add where I can but you have already covered so much!! :-) Dear Gap, I'll certainly post my findings on the current batch of chocolate that I'm making. I'm going to pull a sample at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours. I'll type up a simple report on how each one smells, tastes, and what the mouth-feel is like. I'll be getting some more Ocumare from John soon, so I'll be able to make another batch and do the same. I'm interested in trying a 75% Ocumare next. I'll post all my findings under the "Formulations" section. Alan
|
|
|
Post by Samantha Madell on Mar 22, 2006 22:51:49 GMT -5
Alan,
Amedei are one of the "snobbiest" manufacturers I know of, when it comes to bean type.
Certainly, their website says that they use only "the highest quality cocoa varieties such as Criollo and Trinitario and the most delicate beans like Porcelana."
I get the impression that they wouldn't let a Forastero bean through their door! :-)
Sam
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 22, 2006 22:57:38 GMT -5
Alan, Amedei are one of the "snobbiest" manufacturers I know of, when it comes to bean type. Certainly, their website says that they use only "the highest quality cocoa varieties such as Criollo and Trinitario and the most delicate beans like Porcelana." I get the impression that they wouldn't let a Forastero bean through their door! :-) Sam Dear Sam, That is what I was thinking. However, I couldn't find any statement on their site specifying that. I did see where they said that they search out the finest quality Criollo, etc. But...then I looked at this page: www.amedei.com/en/collection.aspand clicked on the "chocolate bar" photo (upper left). I found it interesting that they didn't specify what types of beans they were used in each type of bar in these rather generic looking bars. I thought that perhaps this was their "Poor man's" line, and that perhaps they had used some Forastero there. I may very well be wrong though. I just found it odd that they wouldn't be shouting out loud "Criollo and Trinitario!!" if they had used them in that line. Hopefully Chloe will respond to me and clear things up. Alan
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Mar 23, 2006 6:33:20 GMT -5
Remember, marketing plays a huge role here...
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 23, 2006 8:45:44 GMT -5
Remember, marketing plays a huge role here... Good point, and that is something that I was considering. They focus a lot on the terms Criollo, Trinitario, and Porcelana, but don't specifically say, that I can find, that nothing they have is made with Forastero. Of course they don't say it is either, but for a company like them, they wouldn't want to say so. I know that, if I were in their position, I certainly wouldn't put the word Forastero on any of my packaging, brochures, or on my website. Anyway, sorry about being this much off-topic. Alan
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist on Mar 23, 2006 14:49:37 GMT -5
I look forward to your results Alan. I will admit that I don't do a lot with conching. I tend to pursue a solution and in this instance I (please read that as literal, not other people's questions) don't see a problem with my chocolate. No problem, no solution needed has been my take. Yes, I am leaving a gap of information, but in a way, it is not because I don't care, but I am only one person (I know you nor anyone else is complaining) and can't test it all. Frankly I LOVE the testing you are doing. Anyway, I am rambling. I can tell you that after 8 or so hours there is a marked improvement in flavor (in my chocolates), somewhere around 12 hours and sometimes around 20. After that (up to 32 hours) I have not not seen any real flavor improvement.
Something further worth thinking about. We are refining and conching at the same time, and conching in a relatively unique way (most use melangeurs for just grinding). It is up to us to come up with our own "rules", times, temperatures, etc. Scale also may play a major role in our times. The less material, the more efficient many processes often are, so it is not unconceivable that 72 hours for 500 lbs of chocolate may be equivalent to 20 hours for 5 lbs. Just food (chocolate) for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 25, 2006 9:36:42 GMT -5
Dear all,
Today is my final day of conching. I'll wait until tomorrow to taste the three samples, and will write detailed comparisons. Additionally, I've found out a couple interesting things about the conching practices of some other companies, and I'll talk about those too.
Thanks,
Alan
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 26, 2006 14:52:03 GMT -5
Hello all,
Well, I pulled a sample at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours and let them all rest for 24 hours before tasting.
My process went as follows:
Over the course of the full 72 hours, I refined for 48 hours straight, and then I conched with the top Santha cap loosened way up for another 24 hours.
Interesting things to note:
My wife and I both tasted small pieces of all three samples:
First we went in order of 24, 48, and 72. Next we switched back and forth from 24 to 72.
Here is what both of us noticed:
The chocolate is very smooth. Before tasting mine, I tasted the following so that I would have a basis for comparison in terms of texture and flavor:
Amedei Chuao Amedei Porcelana Domori Porcelana Domori Absolute Organic Valrhona Guanaja
My chocolate refined at both 24 hours and 48 hours was the second smoothest/most finely grained of all of the chocolates we tasted. Only Domori's chocolate (both bars) was smoother (and I have noted that some people find it too fine leading to a sticky sensation in the mouth).
Regarding flavor, at 24 hours, the chocolate had an astringent and harsh quality in the mouth that I would call too tannic. At 72 hours this quality had dissipated and was unnoticeable as there was balance with the sweetness, acidity. bitterness, etc. Acidity was not a noticeable problem in any of the samples. In the 72 hour sample I tasted a very subtle and pleasant spiciness that I couldn't define. Yet, I could easily tell that this note was not present in the 24 or 48 hour samples. The vanilla flavor, present in all samples, and which was too strong in all of them (my fault), still was noticeably less pronounced in the final 72 hour sample.
I can only say that the 72 hour conched sample was superior to the 24 and 48 hour samples. I will not add vanilla next time, and the chocolate should be what I would call "extremely good quality" due to the clear balance of elements in the 72 hour sample that was lacking in the earlier samples, while at the same time not being "neutralized," but rather having the harsh components so dissipated that subtle notes, not clear before, became obvious.
I am still working on my own palate and chocolate tasting abilities, so I cannot give much more detail, but I am sure about what I have said above.
One final note:
I have read a comment, yet again in Doutre-Roussel's book (p. 68), about not just Amedei conching 72 hours, but also Domori, Valrhona, Pralus, and Scharffen Berger conching for between 2 and 3 days. I think that we can assume that many of the chocolates conched for 2-3 days by these companies are Criollo varieties.
Furthermore, I have recently found out that Steve De Vries of De Vries Chocolate conches, not 72, but 84 hours. He is interested in only fine flavor beans for his chocolate, so I think that we should take note of all of these points.
I am not trying to force everyone to conch their Ocumare or other fine flavor chocolate for 72 hours. In fact, I am going to continue to experiment myself with time vs. temperature. However, more and more evidence seems to be pointing in the direction of the 72 hour conch time, and when we can use the Santha to do so, a machine that seems to me to be similar enough to Lindt's original longitudinal conch (i.e., granite on granite--low and slow), then why not try it.
One last note, I was quite impressed, when comparing the texture of the Santha-run chocolate to the "big guns" that I tasted just before it, that it was finer and smoother in texture than all but one. I would call it virtually perfect actually. Right in between too fine and not quite fine enough.
Hopefully this little experiment helps others, and again, I'm not trying to tell everyone what to do, I'm just trying to make a better chocolate and share what I've learned in doing so. The next one I try will be a 75% Ocumare with no vanilla.
Sincerely,
Alan
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist on Mar 28, 2006 15:24:20 GMT -5
I don't have time for much for that a quick reply, but I will say "Great work" Alan.
You are doing a lot of the testing permutations I can never find time to do.
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 28, 2006 15:49:08 GMT -5
I don't have time for much for that a quick reply, but I will say "Great work" Alan. You are doing a lot of the testing permutations I can never find time to do. Dear John, It is my pleasure. The more I experiment, the more excited I get to experiment more! I keep using small 2 lbs. of beans batches. That way, I don't have to spend a lot of money to test things against each other. In fact, regarding experimentation, rather than boost the cocoa percentage to 75% next time, I am going to experiment more with roasting and leave the percentage and refining/conch times alone (i.e., 70% and 24 hours of refining with an extra 48 hours of conching). I think that I may have slightly over-roasted the beans, and I want to try a lower temp. for a longer period of time. By the way, in case I forgot to mention it to everyone, I am roasting nibs and not beans. I am going to start with 225 F and 30 minutes and work up from there until I am happy. I will adjust from there. Be prepared for me to chronicle my experiment in the "roasting" forum toward the end of this week. Alan P.S. In case you all haven't noticed, I spend abnormally large amounts of time at this forum. It isn't because I am insane (I hope) but rather because I happen to have quite a bit of free time at the moment due to some career plans falling through. So, I figured I should take advantage of that time. I have been reading older and newer industry books everyday, making chocolate, tasting chocolate, and doing some other chocolate related things. I hope that this helps explain the inordinate amount of time that I put into this group in such a way that it doesn't seem as weird.
|
|
|
Post by chocdoc on Mar 28, 2006 19:11:40 GMT -5
There is nothing weird about becoming obsessed with food experimentation - is there?
|
|
gap
Apprentice
Posts: 390
|
Post by gap on Mar 28, 2006 21:57:13 GMT -5
Well, not when its chocolate :-)
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Apr 9, 2006 9:50:33 GMT -5
Just a note,
Though I am not completely happy with my latest batch of chocolate, it is an improvement. I have managed to get the conching temp. up to 149 F and hold it there for extended periods, and conched this batch for 72 hours. The end result is certainly much more favorable than the chocolate taste after the 12 hour initial refining. I recommend doing your own tests to see the difference.
Alan
|
|