Is it time for an updated classification of cacao varities? Today the most commonly accepted classification of cacao 'varities' is as follows:1. Criollo2. Forastero2a. Nacional3. TrinitarioEven when E.E. Cheesman wrote "Notes on Nomenclature... " in 1944 he felt the system above was inadequate. Today, and back then, the terms Criollo and Forastero were not used as defined and were also too broad to apply to the distinct differences in cacao. Today, many pure varities are almost wiped out and replaced with hybrids. I thought that in 2008, genetics must have surely identified markers to clear up the controversy surrounding nomenclature and in turn new nomenclature created to distinguish all the varities that exist. It has been very difficult to find an answer to this and I still have not found one. Along the way, I have come across numerous alternatives to the above. And in 2008, as Cheesman wrote in 1944, it seems that "changing nomenclature at this point would cause even more confusion and out of convenience the terms have been kept, if in some cases they are indicated with qualifiers indicating origin."It seems clear to me that genetics does identify that Nacional was incorrectly identified as Forastero, but where it belongs is still not agreed upon by everyone. Some research identifies it as a subtype of Criollo while another as a separate variety of it's own.Does anyone think cacao should be reclassified? If so, does anyone want to take a stab at suggesting an alternative classification model?
updated by @brady: 04/16/15 16:37:51

I think that's a good point about potentially causing more confusion. A little digging certainly indicates that the actual strains of tree in cultivation represent a variety of strains. Anyone who is in a position to choose which trees to plant, or is involved in bean sourcing, surely understands this reality. Attempting to identify and catalog distinct strains would be interesting, particularly in terms of genetic preservation and tracking the evolution of the species. It would be acolossal taxanomic effort, though, and would involve a lot of international grassroots info-gathering. Even once you had the data together, people love to fight over what constitutes a distinct group and what doesn't. It's probably more than the average chocophile cares to know, and would it be relevant to chocolate makers? If you're sourcing beans, there are a lot of practical concerns that will determine which crops you potentially have access to; and a bean by any other name...

The view that Forastero/Criollo/Trinitario/Nacional is a thumbnail sketch seems to be gaining prevalence in chocolate literature (though not, admittedly, on chocolate wrappers). That's a step in the right direction.

While the reclassification of cacao is a laudable goal, I'd first like to lobby the FDA to create a standard of identity for dark chocolate.Right now, any "chocolate liquor" can, by law, contain dairy fats - e.g., butter oil - so any chocolate in the "sweet" category (which also includes semi-sweet and bittersweet) can automatically have dairy ingredients because they're grandfathered in by the mandated inclusion of chocolate liquor as an ingredient.I'd like the FDA to make an explicit "dark chocolate" category that says to consumers that there are no dairy ingredients in a chocolate. This is not the same thing as Kosher Pareve, which is a religious certification and not a technical one.Just FYI, there has been some reclassification in the taxonomy of t. cacao . For many years it was in the Sterculiaceae family and in the past five years has been reassigned to the Malvaceae family although this is at least one step above the level of classification being talked about.The classic work in this field - the one that is cited by everyone working in this area - is Cuatrecasas (1964). This is a longish paper originally published in volume 35 of Contributions From the United States National Herbarium . I spent a long time looking for this and the only copy I was able to locate is in the Library of Congress. However, I was able to find it online, thanks to a very helpful person at the Smithsonian.If you are interested in taking a look at this seminal paper, this link takes you to the title page (after page 377) of this research paper, which is part of a collection of papers. If you like, the entire document is downloadable in PDF format. The FDA Standards of Identity for chocolate are here .


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Brendan, Gwen and Clay- Glad you joined the discussion.I think Brendan's right, it would be an astonshing taxanomic effort. You can get a good sense of that just by looking at the paper wrtten by Cuatrecasas (Clay, thanks for attaching the link.) I've seen it cited before, but never read any of it until this week. I agree with Gwen though. Keeping the system unchanged just to avoid confusion doesn't seen right to me.Renaming the Family is a start, but the Family, Genus and Species aren't as important to the consumer. When you talk about the subspecies or varieties, I think that would be most useful to a consumer and the grower as well. From the trade point of view, there are only two varieties: criollo and forastero. If you have flavor bean (Nacional for example) listed as a Forastero, is the farmer getting a premium for their beans? (This, I'm sure opens another whole topic about farmers benefiting from a premium). Another reason to update the system is usage of pod shapes(Amelonado) as a way to differentiate varieties, as this has been shown to be fairly useless. Although, when some 80+% of all beans being classified as Forastero, and they are growing all over the world, they couldn't possibly be the same or of equal quality. For example, genetics has identified markers that significantly differentiate between upper and lower Amazon forasteros. If it's too unrealistic to expect a new classification to differentiate groups, then I think the consumer deserves to have the grade at which the beans were rated for quality. Just because the beans are Madagascar doesn't mean the manufacturer used premium grade beans.Concerning the Ecuadorian bean specifically. Arriba is often thought of as synonymous with Nacional. It is my understanding that Arriba is only a subtype of Nacional. I also haven't found it written anywhere that Nacional beans are found outside Ecuadorian borders but I'm not sure why we think that way. Every other type has traveled the globe, why couldn't a Nacional bean have been taken (smuggled even) at least across the Colombian border. I still have questions about Santanders beans and seen another forum that refers to them as the same as the Ecuadorian Nacional.

Brady:You raise a lot of interesting questions - which is what I have come to expect (and respect) from you.You are right, as far as the consumer is concerned, there are three major types of beans, criollo, forastero, and trinitario. Forasteros and trinitarios are grown around the world, criollos have a much more limited range. Because of the way cacao is pollinated, there is a huge amount of natural hybridization going on and it is usually the case that you can spot pods with different genetics on the same tree, not just in the same area of an orchard. Morphological analysis (shape) reveals little, and genetic testing makes no sense as it takes too long and is too expensive.From what I have learned, Arriba is the name given to the unique flavor of the true Nacional bean. The Nacional has been described as a forastero with many criollo characteristics, but no-one knows how the bean evolved. I have been told that attempts have been made to plant Nacional varieties outside of Ecuador, but none of those experiments resulted in plants that produced cacao that remotely resembled the flavor of Nacional planted in Ecuadorian soil upriver from Guayaquil. Colombia is a net importer of cacao and my understanding is that much of the cacao that is used for Santander bars is actually Ecuadorian and not native Colombian. The Colombian beans are of lesser quality and are used for the domestic market. Santander is owned by the largest chocolate company in Colombia - if not South America. They are best known for the Jet brand of candy bars.The idea of using classification is an interesting one that would make a lot of sense if grading systems around the world were standardized. The grading systems are used to determine the price of cacao and are mostly used in the commodity market. However, the grades that are used in the Dominican Republic are different from Venezuela. Here is a quote from the ICCO site on grading: "Cocoa grading differs across producing and consuming countries. However, over the years, the physical market has developed standard practices set out by the main international cocoa trade associations: the Federation of Cocoa Commerce Ltd (FCC) and the Cocoa Merchants' Association of America, Inc. (CMAA). For example, the FCC distinguishes two grades: good fermented cocoa beans and fair fermented cocoa beans. Samples of good fermented cocoa beans must have less than 5% mould, less than 5% slate and less than 1.5% foreign matter. A sample of fair fermented cocoa beans must have less than 10% mould, less than 10% slate and less 1.5% foreign matter. These tests are carried out through the so-called cut-test. Such a test involves counting off a given number or weight of cocoa beans, cutting them lengthwise through the middle, and then examining them. Separate counts are made of the number of beans which are mouldy, slaty, insect damaged, germinated or flat." But you're right, knowing that a bar was made from Madagascan Trinitario hybrids with the highest grade would provide some useful information. I think this would make the most sense would be for the smaller artisan producers and hope that the trend trickled up.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Hi All,Just adding to what Clay has said, there is a paper in a journal called Tropical Science from 2004, issue 44, pp. 23-27 that is called "The first Ecuadorean 'Nacional' Cocoa Collection Based on Organoleptic Characteristics."The paper is worth a look for those interested in the issue of Nacional. This is me paraphrasing the introduction:Nacional, which has an "Arriba" floral flavor, was so damaged by Crinipellis Pernicosa and Moniliophtora roreri that hybrids were brought in with high yields and low susceptibility to these diseases. These varieties hybridized with the remaining Nacional, eroding the Arriba flavor which is now virtually non-existent.Best,Alan

Also, if you haven't read "The Genetic Diversity of Cacao and its Utilization" by Bartley, then you might want to request it from your local library. It is a great book that is extremely relevant regarding reclassification of cacao.

Alan, thanks for the suggestions. I'm always interested in reading suggestions. I've definitely seen Bartley's book. There's a big portion of his book devoted to drainage systems that I skimmed through, but overall found quite a bit in the beginning of that book as well as the last quarter of it that interested me. His address's the topic of cacao classification in terms similar to Cheesman. As for your other suggestion from 'Tropical Science', I flipped through my notes and don't believe I have seen that one. I'll look for it next time I go to the library, unless you know an internet link to a full text version. I found it tonight on some sites I need to pay a fee for. While looking for that article I came across the following: http://www.ifama.org/tamu/iama/conferences/2007Conference/SymposiumPapers_files/1067_Paper.pdf

A fascinating paper! I have an American friend who works in Ecuador. I'll probably send this on to him because he's interested in helping the Ecuadorians improve their lives.

Samantha, I'm glad to see you found this discussion. I read the study (thanks for the free link!) this week and found it exciting that this work has been done and someone can actually propose a new classification.Have you or anyone else found an interpretation or commentary on this study(do you have your own commentary)? As you noted, more studies still need to be done. But, now I'm wondering how easily could a new classification be applied. If genetics were needed to determine the differences how easily could the international cocoa trade identify these populations. As Clay mentioned with the grading systems, maybe small companies could start using the system for identified populations and the trend might trickle up. It looks like Curaray could easily be used for a big part of Ecuador. Even there though, some clusters of Nacional were found.Also, Clay, you mention above that pods on the same tree can have different genetics. If this is very common then I would imagine that only producers working directly with farmers could make good use of this system. I just didn't see in Motamayor, etc. study how any of the clusters could now be identified with organoleptic techniques. That would seem necessary for this system to succeed.

I quickly looked over the article, but it raised a few questions about their methodology:1) The map shows that only plants from South America and Central America were used. What about all of the other cacao plants in other parts of the world? Africa, Indonesia, Hawaii... In order for a new classification system to be implemented it would seem that you'd want to do it on a worldwide basis. What if more germplasms are found in Africa or elsewhere?2) What happened to Trinitario? It just seems to have been dropped with no explanation. (Clay's article on this subject at Serious Eats does the same thing.) Look back at Brady's original list1. Criollo2. Forastero2a. Nacional3. TrinitarioIf you compare the new list then you'd assume that there were only 2 real classes to start with: Criollo and Forastero. The new list keeps the sub-type of Nacional and the other 8 are supposed to be variants of Forastero. Where is Trinitario?

Dear Samantha:What I miss in Motomayor's cluster is the natural and abundant presence of cacao "Nacional" in the Beni and Pando departments of Bolivia. That is not surprising, as it is hard to get there and Bolivia is not known as a origin of cacao.The Baure cacao history goes back to the Jesuit time of the Gran Moxos. It is still not clear to me if this cacao was brought by the chatholic orden, or it was found and cultivated there for the first time.I can confirm that chocolate experts where very surprised about the Baure cacao (apparently a forastero type) almost insisting it must be criollo as it was too good.The genetic classification is one areas to be looked at, but also to classify the qualities of existing varieties, by defining quality first.

Any updates on this issue? Is this new 10 varieties classification scheme gaining acceptance or are the Big 3 still firmly in place? Any thoughts on where this is heading?

For the forseeable future, I think that this is only going to be of interest to researchers. From a consumer perspective I don't see the expansion of the classification system to be of much use - it will only make things more confusing. As Volker pointed out - where is Nacional on the list? Where is Trinitario? The industry has spent so much time and money educating people to this level of classification that I don't see them wanting to go any further.Sam is right to a large extent - Trinitario is almost meaningless as a useful descriptor these days, and the old "all forastero is trash" attitude is, well, old. I've personally tasted how proper fermentation and drying can affect the taste of liquor made with the "lowly" CCN-51 in Ecuador.As a chocolate professional I think it is important to work to preserve as much diversity as possible for many different reasons. However, most consumers don't care (and probably shouldn't have to) about the meaning of the differences between Iquitos and Maraon varieties of cacao - as they are expressed in the chocolate they eat.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Such fascinating information on classification, thanks everyone who added to this discussion.Since I grow cacao I have noted how easy it is to have cross pollination and how quickly cacao adapts to different environments. In only 5 years you can have pods that look substantially different from the mother trees. I believe that each country/growing region could develop its own unique distinct strain. From a scientific standpoint the classification of cacao is a subject that is in its infancy. The big question in my mind in how does the classification effect chocolate quality. You could have a 100% criollo that is poorly fermented and processed compared to a forestero that is treated well in production and the forestero will be hands down superior in taste. Could future classification include bean quality in terms of taste? While traveling in the mountains of Guatemala years ago, I say cacao pods that I have never seen before. What if there is undiscovered types of cacao, just waiting to be classified.

As an FYI - here is a link to the page on icco.org where you can download the study Sam mentions.From the project brief: Brief Description The project aims to evaluate the characteristics of fine/flavour and bulk cocoas through a series of scientific evaluations of physical, chemical and organoleptic parameters, and to provide methodologies, standards and instruments for universal use in differentiating fine/flavour from bulk cocoa. Project Objectives The main objective of the project is to provide universally acceptable criteria to differentiate between fine/flavour and bulk cocoas. More specifically, the project aims to evaluate the characteristics of fine/flavour and bulk cocoas through a series of scientific evaluations of physical, chemical and organoleptic parameters and provide methodologies, standards and instruments for universal use in differentiating fine/flavour from bulk cocoa.Project ComponentsThe project has six components towards achieving the stated objectives. The project components are:* Fermentation and drying trials;* Chemical assessment of quality parameters;* Preparation and analysis of cocoa liquor;* Organoleptic assessment of sensory characteristics;* DNA profiling and spectral image analysis;* Analysis and interpretation of results.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Some long-time members of TheChocolateLife may realize that Samantha Madell recently left the community and chose to delete all of her contributions when she left.

Among those contributions was the link to a research paper by Juan Carlos Motamayor, et al , (Geographic and Genetic Population Differentiation of the Amazon Chocolate Tree) referring to a new classification scheme of 10 distinct varieties. Published in 2008, this list has already been updated to include at least three more genetically distinct varieties of cacao, up from the more conventionally understood 3+1 (criollo, forastero, trinitario, and nacional).

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

I think we may see another classification scheme in an upcoming paper by a Penn State research group . My understanding is that it will be published by the end of the year. Clay, do you know what to expect from this?

whatever the reasons are, i am very saddened by this development. I have alwaysfoundher posts and contributionswell documented, insightful, enlightening and I have often found myselfcoming back to themfor reference. In my still short journey from bean to bar she has been a reliable source of information and advice. Clay,this is a field where information has long beenin the hands of few big players, and the repository of knowledgeyou have made possible with Chocolatelife is extremely valuable for as long as it counts with contributions of well informed people like Samantha.

Jim:

Samantha was one of the strongest contributors, technically, to TheChocolateLife, and her contributions will definitely be missed. It was a shock to me that she left in such a peremptory fashion. If you are interested, it's possible to retrieve much (but not all) of what Samantha contributed through the magic of Google's cache.

Search on Google for "samantha madell thechocolatelife" then click on the 'cached' pages link. In most browsers you can save the page as an HTML file. However, you only get this one page, the page navigation links at the bottom don't point to cached pages, but to the pages on TheChocolateLife that no longer exist.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Brady: I read of the research, which focuses on Central American "criollos." If you take a look at Motamayor's map, the geographic distribution of what that research labels criollo is vast.

We may see some distinction within the criollo group but I don't know that the new Penn State research is broad enough to add new varieties or if it can only add varieties within the criollo group.

I guess we'll have to wait to find out. Whatever is technically correct, the larger issue is how to communicate this to consumers. It's clear that the trinity+1 view is wrong but the industry (me included) has done such a good job in the last 20 years promoting criollo, forastero, trinitario (+ nacional) that it's hard to see what use and/or outcomes might be. I personally have abandoned the trinity+1 naming in all my new work and writing, just as I advocate for the use of "origin" over "single-origin."

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

updated by @clay: 09/14/15 17:15:53

I too am very saddened to lose Samantha Madell as part of this community. Her posts were to me, among the most valuable posts on TCL. I now regret that I had not spent more time reading everything she had written, but I am glad there is a way to retrieve some information via Google's cache.Thank you Clay.

Brady:

Here's one summary of the research you mention, published, today. Here's the official release from Penn State.

From the Penn State article:

"The Theobroma cacao genome sequences are deposited in the EMB:/Genbank/DDBJ databases under accession numbers CACC01000001-CACC01025912. A genome browser and further information on the project are available from http://cocoagendb.cirad.fr/gbrowse and http://cocoagendb.cirad.fr ."

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Clay, Thanks for posting the links to this. You were right, everything I've read on these releases today focus's on the criollo. I have to admit, I was hoping for (and expecting) another classification system. Also, we didn't get the actual research paper today so maybe that will come too. Brady

Brady:

The old one (3+1) is clearly broken and Motomayor et al is not complete, and the recent announcement of pure Nacional found in Peru is confusing.

Any new classification scheme is probably going to be based on new genetic research but anything new is going to have to go up against all of the marketing that has been done around 3+1 even though it's woefully inadequate.

Any ideas on what you'd like to see that might be useful without being too complicated?

Personally, I think any new system should start with a geographic overlay - named denominations that are protected as in the AOC in France and the DOP in the EU.

:: Clay

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Brady:

Here's the research paper .

:: Clay

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

And there is this other release on "pure nacional" being found in Peru. Apparently, they are genetically more or less identical to the Nacional found in Ecuador and have the same aroma, but have a higher proportion of white beans than the Nacional found in Ecuador.

The Peruvian Nacional is also different in that it grows between 3500-4100 ft, the highest recorded for any cacao.

If you take a look at Motamayor's map you'll see that the range for Criollo is quite large - which makes sense for cultivated varieties. However, there is some distance (not only as the crow flies but also in elevation) between the Cacao Nacional in Ecuador and the Cacao Nacional in Peru - which leads to the questions of how the distribution occurred, which is the "original home" (if either was, there may be a different common ancestor), and rethinking the range of habitats suitable for growing cacao.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Couldn't agree more that tackling geography (at least in the short-medium term) is both more meaningful and more achievable than marketing based on genetics. As a tool for market discipline and clarity, I think the AOC/DOP/AVA model will bring more value for growers, makers, marketers and consumers.

Seneca:

How about starting on Hawaii? It's a small group and there is the resource of Skip Bittenbender's group and access into the Ag department in the Hawaiian state government.

Kona is a good example in coffee ....

:: Clay

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Absolutely! Something I want to work on the minute I get my head out of the weeds :-)

Seneca:

When you're ready, let's set up a discussion forum in the Hawaii Cacao group and invite the members there to contribute.

Have fun in the weeds!

:: Clay

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

I got ahold of some of these Peruvian Nacional in '09 and posted some of my pictures of them on my chocolatelife page. If you check them out they are currently the first 4 pictures. You'll see both purple and white beans. I'm looking forward to trying the chocolate made from them. I just wonder what the profile will taste like. As you mention below, genetics isn't everything. Will the storied floral flavor of the Ecuadorian Nacional be present?? Geography also plays a part.

What I want to see is the most accurate labeling today's technology can provide. That includes genetics but it shouldn't stop there. And I do think more accurate geography could be easier to implement and more meaningful. Take for example, Hacienda San Jose, where alot of bean types are grown. Their Chuao does not taste the same as the ones found in Chuao Village. I think that reinforces what you and Seneca are saying? I think a more specific label could also give the consumer insight to the quality of post harvesting practices, if we start to see more plantation names, certain reputations might be formed. Even broad origins give some insight to post harvesting practices. Overall, I wonder how it is possible to appreciate the chocolate we have without really knowing what it is?

Brady:

One of the things that people don't always consider to be part of "terroir" is post-harvest processing and manufacturing techniques. Champagne is not just a defined region, it's a method of production AND the use of particular grape varietals.

A controlled denomination of origin system would include all of these aspects (e.g., Maraon pure Nacional as the type, a specific geographic descriptor, and then a description of the general protocols for fermentation [e.g/. 2/2/2] and drying.

I think it's pretty easy to appreciate chocolate without really knowing where the cocoa beans come from. However, more knowledge leads to a different depth of appreciation. Recently, I came across a definition of connoisseur as someone who can say, "I can appreciate that - even though I don't like it."

Getting to specific genetics will be interesting and depend upon confounding political factors over which there is no control.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/