"raw" vs. regular cacao butter

Hi everyone,

I have been wanting to ask this question for a while regarding "raw" cacao butter vs. regular butter. I am sure some of you already know much more about this. After talking to many people in the chocolate filed, I have come to the conclusion that raw cacao butter (i.e. processed below 42 degrees Celsius) is practically non-existent, as even the producers that declare their butter as raw say that they will go up ti 45 degrees in the processing, and that temperatures during transport (especially in the tropical countries where they are produced) can even exceed that temperature at times.

Below is a chart that is apparently used by a producer of raw cacao.

My question is: does it ever actually make sense to make the distinction? Wouldn't raw and now-raw cacao butter be very similar in structure and attributes (excluding those that are deodorized)? 

Many thanks,

San

@.jpg  •  27KB

San:

One of the challenges with "raw" is that there is single, accepted, maximum temperature. Some say 42C (Douglas Adams coincidence?), others say 45C, and the most common one I've heard here in the US is 48.7C (118F).

One of the challenges I have with a single temperature definition is that it assumes that all foods (and all enzymes) react the same way to heat. I know that Excalibur, a dehydrator manufacturer, cites research that says that enzymes are more durable in aqueous environments. They can "survive" for far longer times and far higher temperatures than the ones you cite.

From a process perspective, trying to express butter from liquor at low temperatures is inefficient - time consuming and expensive.

Furthermore, there is no proof that I am aware of that there are living enzymes in dried cocoa beans (drying is a stage missing in your process diagram, and I take issue with the order of other steps). If there are no living enzymes in raw beans then it should not matter what temperature the cocoa butter is processed at. Also, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no peer-reviewed study that tracks changes in nutrient levels from the bean in the pod to a finished bar that conclusively shows any benefits from consuming "raw" chocolate.

So - from my perspective - the distinction is meaningless.

But your customers obviously care.

The most common sterilization process is high temperature "dry steam." This is often done in a pipe when the beans are being transported from the cleaner/destoner to the roaster.

Another method would be to inject water into the drum of a drum roaster.

When using a convection oven you want one that is plumbed and so you can inject moisture into the cavity of the oven. Some convection ovens are programmable with precise controls over humidity levels (e.g., Unox, Angelo Po) so you can program a specific humidity levels for a specific time during the same point in the roast cycle.

In addition to sterilizing the beans, the humidity will cause the shell to separate slightly from the bean inside, resulting in less cocoa butter transfer in roasting and a bean that is easier to crack and winnow - as long as it is not allowed to cool completely

Helion -

Generally raw chocolate makers don't sterilize.

Part of the challenge is that they don't understand the physics of heat transfer - the just focus on a temperature and think it's an absolute limit. Subjecting the outside of a cocoa bean to 100C/100%RH for 1 minute does not cook/kill the bean - but it will do at least a 3-4log kill on salmonella and e-coli. In fact, it's barely enough time for the heat to penetrate the shell, and you do have to consider evaporative cooling. 

I am confident they've never thought about the instantaneous shear temperature under the grinding wheel. If the chocolate, on its own durning refining, warms up to 45C then the shear temperature has to be higher.

No - in general, raw cocoa materials are not sterilized. People have improved production processes, but subjecting the beans to temperatures above 100C (no matter the duration) is not something most raw companies are prepared to do - and still call the product raw.

One of the challenges with the raw diet is that you don't know if (or how much of) the benefits are coming from eating raw food - or not eating processed food. (I've been researching and covering this topic since some time in 2009.)

Yeah - the main point is "cold processed" but the word raw has a lot of baggage attached to it with respect to specific (but not universally agreed upon) maximum temperatures.