pcm
Novice
Posts: 75
|
Post by pcm on Jan 6, 2011 12:10:40 GMT -5
Hi, As the season changes, so does the temp of my processing facility (basement). I just took a temp of my chocolate in the conch and it is running at 109F degrees. Is that a big problem? I know that ideally I would have a very controlled environment for this but for now I am choosing my battles. I believe the chocolate should be conching at 140-167F. I put a heater on it for the first few hours but would prefer not to do it for the full cycle if I don't have to.
Is it the mechanical action or the temp that develops the flavors? probably both. How much am I effecting my chocolate by conching at the lower temp? Are the acids not getting out? If I conched longer at the low temp, would that help? What do you think?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Jan 6, 2011 18:37:23 GMT -5
In my opinion 140 and up is WAY too high. I conche all of our chocolate at around 110 to 120 - just high enough to keep the chocolate fluid.
|
|
pcm
Novice
Posts: 75
|
Post by pcm on Jan 6, 2011 19:19:08 GMT -5
Wow, WAY too high? I got that temp bracket from Chloe Doutre-Roussel's book The Chocolate Connoisseur. I love the book. She is more of an eater than a maker. So do you think a high temp conch like what Chloe says is cooking the chocolate? What do you think the effect is?
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Jan 7, 2011 1:21:13 GMT -5
At 170 degrees you're cooking your chocolate.
I don't believe that Chloe has ever made so much as an ounce of chocolate, let alone created a roasting profile for a bean, or performed conching time tests. If she says to do high temperature conching, I say she doesn't know what she's talking about.
I've been MAKING chocolate every day now for 5 years, and have built a very successful business doing just that.
Based on my experience, the purpose of conching is NOT to cook your chocolate. It's to introduce oxygen and drive off tannins and the remaining acetic acid present after the roast.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaroundyou on Jun 9, 2011 15:48:56 GMT -5
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I came across it in searching for what happened to my over heated chocolate. Primary literature mentions heating chocolate to upwards of 70-80C for extended periods during the conching phase, but all talk about viscosity lowering during this step (exact opposite of what I experienced).
pcm--did you ever experiment with heating your chocolate to 167F? If so, I'd be interested in hearing what happened, especially with regard to its viscosity.
thanks, mike
|
|
|
Post by cheebs on Jun 9, 2011 16:00:37 GMT -5
You know, I was thinking about this just recently, because I remembered that in a chocolate factory that I visited, they had holding tanks for liquor (not finished chocolate) that were kept at 90 deg C. (194F) for up to 24 hrs or until the liquor was needed. Maybe it's the lack of sugar but I tasted no difference in the liquor before and after holding.
Could it be that somehow moisture was introduced and that's what made your chocolate overthicken?
Only time I've had experiences with "burnt" chocolate was with milk that was put in a tempering machine that had a faulty thermostat and toasted the milk, making the chocolate almost crumbly.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaroundyou on Jun 9, 2011 17:17:00 GMT -5
thanks for the reply. no water was introduced, unless somehow higher temp causes it to more readily absorb from the air? I know that my ingredients were dry, since i've made a batch from the same beans and bag of sugar and it was ok. I just remelted some and it kinda behaves like that cornstarch/water solution you can make where it seizes on impact, but relaxes under gentle force.....maybe i can sell this batch as a kids toy? ;D
|
|
|
Post by oaxacalote on Jun 10, 2011 23:28:41 GMT -5
was it dark or milk? the proteins in milk chocolate cause it to thicken at higher temps.
seems like replicating a batch at high temp for comparisons sake would put an end to doubts for the curious. we're definitely not going for a cooked chocolate flavor.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaroundyou on Jun 11, 2011 11:27:03 GMT -5
Its a dark chocolate batch (just sugar and beans). Actually, I do have a second batch (this one only got to 159F), I'm melting it now, so will know soon if it has the same properties.
It doesn't have any cooked flavors, and doesn't taste burned either.
Will report back after I know more about the second batch.
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Jun 12, 2011 0:03:23 GMT -5
please provide a description of the EXACT ingredients you used (amounts and when added if you can), the type of equipment you're using, and the times spent processing. If you're really using just white refined sugar and roasted nibs, conching them at 70C will absolutely not result in thickening unless there's an outside force - ie water leak, incorrect thermostat, incompatible grease from your equipment, etc
|
|
|
Post by itsallaroundyou on Jun 12, 2011 11:36:05 GMT -5
Sebastian---I used C&H refined, granulated white sugar with Dominican nibs. Batch was 65% nibs, 35% sugar, 39 pounds total size. Ingredients were measured to the nearest gram. I used a Cocoatown grinduer, so I'm technically refining and conching at the same time.
Nibs were added first and processed until flowing (pasty), then sugar was added immediately after. I refined for 24 hours with lid on (water vapor, if present, could escape as the lid is not tight fitting).
I've made this exact formulation on the smaller ultra melanger and had no viscosity issues. I have also made large batches with the grindeur and not had this problem either. Could it be that water present in the nibs and sugar don't have time to escape before the mass is liquified (i.e., trapped in the fat phase)?
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Jun 13, 2011 6:09:19 GMT -5
I assume your nibs were roasted?
Your white sugar should only have ~4% H20 in it; your nibs perhaps more depending on how they were roasted.
You may wish to consider using lecithin, as at best, your chocolate will only be 32-33% fat (perhaps considerably lower, depending on how your beans were fermented), which is going to be rheologically difficult for you given this type of equipment (ie, it is unlikely to flow into a bar mould, for example, without lecithin).
What is it about the product that makes you think there's an issue? Adding 0.3% lecithin to a small amount of it might give you your answer very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaroundyou on Jun 14, 2011 12:11:01 GMT -5
Yes, the nibs were roasted.
My concern was only with the viscosity, since of all the batches I've made, none have been this thick. You pointed out something i overlooked--mainly that there is just less fat in this formulation, so this viscosity might be normal for the roast and formulation.
Next batch I make, I'm going to try to dehydrate some beans to get an idea of their water content and see if it seems high (I don't have the beans in a humidity controlled room, so they are subject to ambient temp and humidity). I don't have any lecithin on hand, so will try this first before buying some.
Thanks Mike
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Jun 15, 2011 17:50:35 GMT -5
Highly suggest trying some lecithin (0.2-0.3%). It will make a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by feedme on Jun 29, 2011 4:54:28 GMT -5
My first batch of chocolate was just beans and sugar too and was very thick... adding a little more cocoa butter did wonders. But I'm just a newbie
|
|