Forum Activity for @Clay

Ben -

Are you washing after every use? Or only when you need to.?

:: Clay

Ben -

For the benefit of other ChocolateLife members, can you post the link to Brad's discussion on mold washing?

Thanks - Clay

Nestor:

I've seen anywhere between 10% and 50%. I created a worksheet and shared it so you can model the cost of selling a chocolate bar from the cost of cocoa beans through ingredients and overhead to distribution costs. If you're not making chocolate from the bean you can download and modify the worksheet to reflect your cost structure.

Daniel -

Yes, the higher the price the smaller the audience. It's worth it - on occasion - to purchase one of the Bonnat Porcelana or vintaged Valrhona bars, and it's also important to remember that even at those prices, high end chocolate are still among the most affordable luxury goods on the planet. Think about, for about $20 bucks I can go into a store and get some of the best chocolate anywhere. Can't do that for any alcoholic beverage I can think of ...

My personal opinion is that most people who think about melting chocolate into bars are stuck in the single-origin mindset, which translates into one bar = one chocolate. People may not consider domestic producers like Guittard as quality producers, but they are. Now - you may not like the flavor profiles compared to others. That's a different question.

Most people when they say they don't like the flavor profiles look elsewhere. The creative melter will consider blending chocolates to achieve flavor profiles that are unique to their line. Don't like the intensity of a 55%? Add a small amount of 90%. Want to make a dark milk? Go ahead - and blend.

All but one or two of Guittard's couvertures, in bulk, cost under $5/lb. You can do the same with Barry-Callebaut, Kakao Berlin, Belcolade ... all of which are in the $3-4/lb range. Think something's too sweet or too bland? Blend (with something that has a higher cocoa content). It's easier to do this when all the chocolates come from the same manufacturer, but that's a generalization that can easily be overlooked.

Daniel -

There are several European imports (Bonnat, Valrhona) that sell for $20-35 for 80gr or 100gr bars. Bars of Fortunato #4 (Peruvian beans converted to chocolate in Switzerland) that are melted here in the US easily cost upwards of $12 for a 56gr bar.

Materials cost is a part of it, and European chocolates are very dependent on exchange rates. Up there are labor costs, the cost of packaging, and fixed overhead. Short of moving, you probably can't do much about fixed overhead, so you have to look at the cost of the chocolate itself, and find ways to reduce labor and packaging costs.

Dylan:

I urge you to reconsider only a 100% markup from wholesale and build in some distributor margin - at least one tier - into your pricing structure from the beginning. From the start you can keep it, or offer it as an incentive discount for volume commitments. Later on, when you decide you do need help distributing, you have the margin built in and don't have to either raise prices or reduce your margin.

Dylan:

I am assuming that you are making chocolate and looking to sell it to stores for retail?

A couple of things to consider when pricing.

You might not always be selling direct to the retailer, so build at least one (and preferably two) layers of distribution into your model, a broker and a distributor. You can decide whether to keep all this margin or "give" some of it away to the retailer. I have seen many chocolate businesses fail because they did not account for middlemen in the distribution chain and there wasn't any slack in their cost structure so scaling the business was extremely difficult.

Rule of thumb would be that the wholesale cost of the bar, including ALL your profits, should be about one-third of the retail price allowing a 100% markup for the retailer. The spread is what you have to play with to offer distributors, but get to keep until you get to that point.

Also, keep in mind that markup and gross margin are not the same thing.

A 25% markup on $1 gets you to $1.25.

A 25% gross margin on $1 gets you to $1.33. Knowing the difference can be the difference when it comes to being profitable or barely breaking even and struggling.

Maria:

Free water (also known as water activity) can be a good proxy for longevity. The more water, the shorter the shelf life. There are some (comparatively) inexpensive water activity meters that will let you know precisely what the water activity of any particular batch is. "Raw" sugar often has, in my experience, much more water in it than refined sugar.

I don't remember, off the top of my head where you want the water activity to be. I'll get in touch with Sebastian and ask him to voice his opinion on this topic.

It's also fair to say that storage conditions will affect shelf life - generally too hot is worse than too cold except for the issue of moisture and condensation.

It's also helpful to remember that chocolate never stops crystallizing and much dark chocolate will eventually become brittle in texture (form VI crystals predominate). This can happen well within two years, for many reasons. Melting the chocolate down, keeping at 115F (~45C) for at least an hour with agitation to melt out all the form VI crystals then temper and the chocolate (as long as there is no other defect that affects taste) should be good to go for some applications.

Daniel -

Brad makes some very good points, but I think it makes some sense to generalize them.

In the chocolate business, there are (very broadly speaking) the creative side, the production side, and the sales side of the business. It is often the case that the person who starts the business is really good in the first two, and not so good on the third. In the end, to grow the business, you need to decide what your personal core competencies and interests are and what you are not good at and don't like doing.

For the long-term success of the business, you need to find people with complementary skills and interests to fill those gaps.

It also helps to understand your definition of what success is - your visions for a) where you want the business to go and b) what you personally want to achieve from and through the business ... keeping in mind that, first and foremost, it has to be a real business in order to achieve either a) or b).

If what you want to do is make a respectable living and support yourself and your family - that's an okay goal. What does that mean to you? $100,000/year after taxes? What level of sales and its underlying cost structure - and people resources - are required to get you there? Do you want to grow a $10 million business? Then a different focus is required.

But never, never, never lose focus on the fact that it has to be a real business and part of making it a business is putting aside your ego and acknowledging that you will make mistakes about what the market wants to buy, and that you actually have all the skills to make it work. If you're great at selling and can close large orders, it makes sense for you to be selling if you're the only person in the organization who can - even if your heart and soul is in the kitchen doing production. If you want to be in the kitchen then you need someone to do the sales to support that decision.

Alec:

If Hershey was sincerely serious about doing something, they'd be working in the Ivory Coast, where the documented problems are far more severe and widespread than they are in Ghana. Also, the monies involved would be in the hundreds of millions over decades.

The Gates Foundation ponied up US$750 million last month to keep a global AIDS organization from collapsing.

If the industry (and consumers) are sincere about doing something, the entire supply chain needs to be re-examined from the farm to the factory and the price the grower actually receives for his cocoa needs to accurately reflect the actual local cost of production AND the work required to make the farms self-sustaining. Thinking about self-sustaining requires a 100-year mindset, not a focus on quarterly results.

The "Fair" trade world is abuzz this week with an announcement by Hershey that it is expanding efforts in the area of cocoa sustainability in West Africa. Hershey is one of the last of the major international players to make such a commitment.

While skeptics are cautiously optimistic about the ultimate impact of the move, at least one, Global Exchange, points out that Hershey's choice to support Rainforest Alliance over a "real" "fair" trade certification does not bring with it "guaranteed" improvements in the quality of life for farmers:

"Fairtrade labelling standards are designed to tackle poverty and empower producers in the worlds poorest countries, giving them a guaranteed price for their products. Rather than emphasizing how products are traded, Rainforest Alliance certificationfocuses on how farms are managed."

Thus, while Hershey has announced that it will make it's Bliss product line with 100% Rainforest Alliance certified cocoa, it's unclear what this will actually mean for growers. Historically, we can suspect that it will be Hershey (and Rainforest Alliance) will benefit more than growers will.

The CocoaLink program, which is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, will earmark US$10 million dollars over the next five years for:

"... a first-of-its kind farmer outreach program that uses mobile voice and SMS text messages to connect cocoa farmers with important information about improving farming practices, farm safety, child labor, health, crop disease prevention, post-harvest production and crop marketing."

Additional efforts will be made to establish:

"... the Hershey Learn to Grow farm program in Ghana to provide local farmers with information on best practices in sustainable cocoa farming."

Before we go and congratulate Hershey too much, or thank Bill and Melinda G for their assistance, let's take a short moment to think about the very important topic of where the US$10 million will be spent (and ask how much of the ten million is actually Hershey money, anyway?). Not surprisingly (at least to those of us who follow such things), most of the money will not be spent on aspects of the program that directly benefit growers .

Where will the money be going then? To pay for CocoaLink's infrastructure, in part. Someone has to pay for the SMS gateway, the cost to deliver the messages (which might be paid for at least in part by growers depending on their plan), and the cost of producing the content that will go into those messages. Looking for a real-time feed of commodities exchange prices for cocoa that can be mashed up and sent by SMS to phones? It's not free. And where do the people developing the tools, content, and technology and who will be managing the program live? Mostly not in Ghana.

It's quite possible that 50% or more of the US$10 million will never the leave the US or will go to large telecom, technology service, and operations management oversight providers in West Africa and will not, in fact, benefit growers in the long run.

Furthermore, to have even a hope of succeeding, Hershey would need to make a generational (20 year, minimum) commitment to the program. 5 years is not enough, and what happens 5 years from now when the current commitment expires? Will Hershey re-up? Will it re-assess the impact of the program? If it does re-assess will it have the institutional courage to man-up and do the right thing and fix things and move forward? Or will it decide that the program failed (not their fault!) and drop it?

I would not say that I am cautiously optimistic about the success or future of this program. Call me cautiously pessimistic . I want it to work, but don't believe it has enough of the right elements to achieve meaningful results. For anyone other than Hershey.

A couple of things suggest themselves as this sounds like it might be inconsistent distribution of crystals in the chocolate.

1) Keep the chocolate at the melted point for a while longer, 10 minutes? before starting the cool-down part of the cycle (when you add the seed chocolate). This will help to ensure that the chocolate is completely melted. Remember, the temperature is only being measure where the little sensor probe is located. Waiting a while will make sure that the chocolate is a more even temperature and that the crystals are all melted out.

2) When the temper cycle is over, do two things: a) stir the chocolate a bit to mix it, evening out the temperature and spreading the crystals around; and thenb) wait a while before starting to use the chocolate - remember, the temperature sensor measures the temperature in only one place.

Jasmine -

Not sure if you mentioned this before, but what kinds of machines are you using for tempering and what exactly are the symptoms (visual and otherwise) of the temper being off.

I have to agree with Jeff about low humidity, as chocolate is not supposed to have any water in it anyway. The only issues I have ever seen with humidity is when it's too high, and the chocolate, being hygroscopic, absorbs moisture and thickens making it difficult to work with.

Another issue - I suppose theoretically - is that you're not melting out all the crystals before starting to cool the chocolate down. This would result in "bad" (unwanted) crystals still being in the chocolate, forcing improper crystal structure. When you warm the chocolate up, to what temperature and how long do you keep it there before starting to cool it down?

Sebastian:

Is there a reasonably priced option that addresses these limitations of micrometers?

What do you think of the grind gage ? also measures PSD.

Ricardo -

I have to agree with Brad and Sebastian on this issue.

Despite your skepticism, I have personally tasted many, many chocolates made with the modified stone grinders and most (though not all) of those chocolates had no detectable grittiness in them. I have also had chocolates made in expensive "universal" machines that did exhibit grittiness.

It's not the "fault" of the machines, they are both capable of producing good results. More can be attributed to the way the machines are used - the experience of the chocolate maker - and maintained (or not).

I also don't see 30 microns as an absolute number. I believe that part of the mechanical effect of conching is to coat all of the particles with fat. So - you could have a paste where the particle size was below 30 microns with extremely uneven fat distribution and it could taste gritty.

Brad also correctly points out that particle size is just one characteristic to consider.

Ian:

It's not a question, of "we all may have" it's "there are."

The issue of the makeup of the panel whose judgments are the basis of awarding the ... ahh ... awards is always of interest to people. If the judge is you, I think people will want to know your bona fides. Especially because these are being billed as "The World Chocolate Awards."

I have this concern with many people who rate chocolate (and everything else for that matter) have no background or training in sensory analysis. I spent a lot of time thinking about this issue - over the course of several years - before I started publishing my ratings and reviews on chocophile.com back in mid-2001. I had no formal training so I need justification for my hubris in anointing myself a chocolate "critic."

The Club has its own biases, which are obvious when you know what to look for. I don't know that 100 is better than 1 - I'd need to know the makeup of the 100, or the 1.

But the question is not about me - it's about you. I am content to wait until the book comes out and not judge until I have a chance to see the explanation of the methodology and how the awards are presented. Until then it's just a matter of gathering some background so I don't try to make the deep dive into the book cold.

Not sure exactly what qualifies these as "awards" then, based on your description. Sounds more like the guide to French chocolates produced by the Club des Croqueurs de Chocolats, but with only one taster, maybe? You are the sole taster and judge - and your agents helped you source the chocolates?

Ian -

One really important series of questions to answer before the book comes out. (And when will that be?)

Who are the judges?Who is "we?" How were they selected and recruited? Who selected them? How many were there?

There are many more, of course, but - having thrown down the gauntlet on this one - everything you are saying is open to scrutiny, and this is a very knowledgable community.

:: Clay

Chris -

You assume that anyone who's seen the tour sees the entire manufacturing operation - and that they are sophisticated enough to know what they are seeing and can evaluate what they are being told. That's not always the case, in my experience.

The updates to the TCHO web site are recent - they post-date the date of my original post on this subject by several months. To the best of my knowledge and ability to ascertain, I act on information that is correct as of the time I post it. If things change I am happy to acknowledge that things have changed, address the changes, and then move on.I appreciate your noticing that things have changed and bringing those changes to my attention.

TCHO's opinion regarding their being bean-to-bar is not one that is universally shared by the craft/artisan chocolate community. Just because they believe that it does, doesn't make it so in the eyes of their peers. Their position was undermined because their marketing position at the beginning was bean-to-bar on the pier and that message did not evolve as their manufacturing situation evolved.

I was with Shawn on his first bean buying trips (April 2006) and was also involved, very early on, in helping him get the business started. My assistance included working on marketing communications and I can assure you, from the very beginning, that the level of openness about sourcing and other aspects of the business has been integral to the operation both in their packaging and on the web site and electronic communications. The operation has evolved in many ways, so he's doing a better job at communicating than at the very beginning, but he has always been at the vanguard, at least in the US, IMO.

From the beginning, Shawn wanted to take personal responsibility for the relationship with the growers he sourced from, not abdicate that responsibility to a third party that, in his opinion, did not deliver the value (and the values) that he was interested in providing. His Chocolate University project in Tanzania is just one aspect of the work he does that would never be recognized within an institutionalized fairtrade model. The world (of chocolate) is way too complex to reduce to formulas on a general consumer web site.

Chris:

TCHO is one of the most exasperating chocolate companies in the US today. A bit of background.I first met the founder of TCHO, Timothy Childs, three to four years before he started the company, at a previous chocolate startup called Cabaret. I met sourcing director, John Kehoe, back in 2003 in Ecuador. I met Jane Metcalfe and Louis Rossetto (co-founders of Wired) back in 1990.

Back in late 2007 I wrote the first serious coverage (from inside the chocolate industry) on the company. Their go-to-market strategy was brilliant, and they muffed it. I so much wanted them to succeed and it seemed like they couldn't get out of their own way. They were vaporware for over a year and then, when they did start production, it was not as the bean-to-bar manufacturer on the pier in SF that they claimed to be, so they misrepresented a basic brand positioning and have been slow to address it. I think their new web site does a better job of discussing what they are doing than the old one did. But, oneof the points I've made to them repeatedly since their post-beta vaporware period is that the founders of Wired don't get a free pass when it comes to communicating via the Internet.

What I have been astounded at is how bad the company has been at highlighting one of its major contributions, which is the TCHOSource program. IMO, it's one of their strongest assets (always has been) and they still don't understand how to leverage it to their best advantage. I've had discussions with several members of the company about that point in the last six months, in fact.

The thread you cite in your link was started in 2008 and it looks like my last contribution was late in 2009. As I state above, I have been in contact with the company recently about many of the issues you raise.

Last week I was made aware of a web site called GuideGuide.com by Shawn Askinosie. The About page says that the site's mission is to "provide the worlds largest and most reliable source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of consumer products." (Note: Shawn objected to the ratings of his products and they are no longer on the GoodGuide web site, pending review I assume. The observations that follow are based on notes I took before the listings were removed.)

GoodGuide claims that they have more than 100,000 products in their database and an extensive roster of scientists who review every product (or, more likely, set the criteria for what "good" is and then computer programs parse data about the products and come up with ratings).

There is a problem, though with the ratings methodology, in my mind.

A great deal of weight for the environmental and social rankings is placed on the presence of eco-label certifications. No organic certification? Then you get bad environmental ranking. No social certification? Then you get bad society ranking. It doesn't matter what other programs a company might have in place. It doesn't matter what actual benefit a company delivers to its suppliers.

All that matters is the certifications.

If there is a chocolate company on the planet that - measured by dollar of revenue or per employee - delivers more positive impact to the communities it works with than Askinosie, I'd like to know about it. I've traveled with Shawn on bean buying trips and knew about the way he wanted to do business before he made his first bar of chocolate. We've talked regularly since we first met in mid-2005 about how he runs his business, influenced by Jack Stack's A Stake in the Outcomeand his practice of open-book accounting and profit sharing with the communities he buys from. Shawn takes personal responsibility for doing what he knows to be the right thing to do.

Let's take a chocolate company that got higher Good Guide ratings, TCHO. One of the things that has never been clear (to me - and I know the founder and major funders) about TCHO is how closely the actual manufacturing processes match the claims on their web site. I am pretty confident that they have never manufactured any significant amount of product - from the bean - in the factory on the pier in San Francisco. They can't fire up their roaster and I don't know anyone who's seen the entire line in operation. Their TchoSource program is interesting, but it's meaningless unless they can stay in business - probably one of the reasons that the funders ousted founder Timothy Childs. They've always had a small lab producing their beta samples and pre-production runs so they can claim to be manufacturing bean-to-bar on the pier, but the quantities are not commercial quantities.

But TCHO has several products that are made with both FT and organic certified beans. They get great marks on the environmental and social scale, while those that are not get much lower marks (which is to be expected).

Askinosie uses packaging that is quite environmentally friendly. TCHO uses less environmentally friendly paperboard and gold foil imprinting for their boxes. But there is no place in the Good Guide methodology for any chance to think about the marketing messages and other aspects of the companies' businesses - like packaging and ethics - affect factors like environment and society.

Jif peanut butter got higher ratings than Askinosie. Is that a "good" thing?

The Good Guide health rating for chocolate is dominated by one factor - the saturated fat in chocolate. What the scientists fail to recognize is that the triglyceride structure of the saturated fat in chocolate makes it a "healthy" fat (like olive oil and coconut oil) and not a "bad" fat like saturated animal fats. (Specifically, "the nutritional value of the food, as characterized by a standard method of nutrient assessment called the Ratio of Recommended to Restricted Nutrients (RRR)." Easy to write a program to do that, hard to take into account differentiations that make a meaningful difference.)

While there are issues with the density of calories in chocolate and the percentage of calories that come from sweeteners, the Good Guide has no place in its ratings methodology for the growing science into the very real health benefits of chocolate: they make no meaningfully useful distinction between chocolate (i.e., a bar of chocolate from a craft producer) and candy (i.e., a Snickers bars) in their ratings.

Their shopping tips for buying chocolate bars are way too general on the issues of child and slave labor, entirely misrepresent issues in traceability, and confuse the need for fertilizer with the use of pesticides.

They also place way too much emphasis on certifications saying that, "Certifications ensure the chocolate has been produced under industry leading labor and environmental conditions." I BEG YOUR PARDON? You're confusing cacao growers and chocolate makers here in a way that is not defensible.

Which, for me, these issues make the entire Good Guide methodology for all products suspect. I can tell you that I will never be using their service and will never recommend it to anyone, either.

If that weren't enough, I received a confusing press release from a magazine called Organic Monitor over the weekend. Organic Monitor is hosting the Sustainable Foods Summit in San Francisco next week (January 17-18). I won't be attending as members of the press who are not employed by the media sponsors of the event must pay to attend (though the rate is discounted.)

In taking a look at the list of presentations one thing becomes instantly clear: There are no producers making presentations. The only people talking are the companies and organizations who have made millions of dollars successfully selling eco-labeling.

The absurdity of the situation was further highlighted in the press release, in which Organic Monitor posits that consumers are becoming disillusioned and confused by what organic certification really means and what the meaningful differences are between FLO Fairtrade, FTUSA Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, Utz, Fair for Life, and more.

Organic Monitor suggests that mobile apps that enable consumers to use QR (quick response) codes and other techniques to look up information about products as they are making their purchases and make better, more informed, decisions.

They point to Good Guide as being an exemplar of the way the industry seems to be going.

But wait. Don't the Good Guide ratings rely on the very eco-labels Organic Monitor predicts they are going to supplant?

What's an informed chocolate consumer supposed to do?

1) Buy from small producers who work you like and that you can get to know personally or through close friends and/or people you trust.

2) Don't blindly assume that because a product is organic means that it was produced in an environmentally sustainable fashion.

3) Don't assume that "Fair" trade means that smallholder farmers are treated fairly. Even when organized, growers lack the economic leverage to ensure they receive the benefits the fair trade certification process says that they are entitled to and that they have paid for. AND, remember, all of the "Fair" trade certifiers are non-profit organizations that rely heavily on industry support. Kraft pays dearly for the use of the Fairtrade label on their bars and probably pays nearly as much in licensing fees as it does in premiums. That is a fundamental conflict of interest that people blithely ignore - to the detriment of producers.

In other words - do your homework and develop the personal relationships necessary to understand what is really going on. Certification is a huge business with the backing of huge corporations. Follow the money. Who controls the economic leverage?

And this from Bloomberg news today: Fair Trade Proving Anything But to Farmers With $6 Billion Sales at Stake .

And if that weren't enough, FLO CEO Rob Cameron has resigned .

In a move that has sent shockwaves of disbelief throughout the "fair trade" industry worldwide, Fair Trade USA (until recently TransFair USA), is separating from FLO (Fairtrade Licensing Organization) and the Fairtrade International movement.

The primary reason (the actual decision-making process was done behind closed doors and FTUSA does not feel "comfortable" releasing the names of those involved in the process: So much for transparency!) for the schism appears to be a disagreement over the inclusion of hired labor organizations (i.e., estates and individual farms) in the coffee industry into the fair trade souk.

At the moment, all of the producer entities who have Fairtrade certification - in coffee - are SPOs (small producer organizations). There are other products that already allow estates that use hired labor to "enjoy the benefits" of Fairtrade certification - bananas is one (cocoa is not, for now, included in FTUSA's push to embrace hired labor organizations). FLO/FI does not want to extend certification to hired labor organizations in coffee; FTUSA does. FTUSA's rubric for their new movement is "Fair Trade for All."

Who could possibly object to "Fair Trade for All?" But, of course, there are those who do. [My opinion is that the fairtrade business model is fundamentally flawed and there are better ways to achieve address systemic issues than the premium "aid" model, which, in practice, acts to extend Western economic imperialism.] There are arguments on both sides ... that are convincing to the supporters of their respective positions. In the end, no-one knows what the schism will mean in practice, either for their respective movements for consumers, or producers. But I have a sinking feeling that I know who will lose out: the very people whom "Fair" trade is supposed to help.

I have one more prediction - and I would like to hear the thoughts of members of TheChocolateLife community about the split.

My sense is that this can only be confusing to consumers who will now have to understand and recognize the differences between FTUSA certification and FLO certification. FTUSA has to come up with an entirely new logo and convince their current sub-licensees to switch to the new system. Products with the FLO symbol will continue to be imported into the US and there is every likelihood that an "official" FLO organization will arise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of this (unfortunate but ultimately fated) implosion.

Perhaps most unfortunately is that monies that should be going to help people who need the help (growers and producers) will now be going to designers, printers, and PR and marketing firms to educate the buying public on the need for the change, to (try) to reduce the confusion in the marketplace, and to convince people that the new logo can be trusted.

Once again I ask: "How is this 'fair?'" In the end, the millions and millions of dollars that will be spent on this will be ill-spent; a testament to massive organizational hubris and naught else. Who will benefit most in the end? FTUSA and ad agency/PR executives who sit in air-conditioned offices and drive around the San Francisco Bay area in "PC/environmentally friendly" cars pulling down hefty six-figure salaries.

Not subsistence farmers who do not (and cannot) earn a living from the fruits of their labor.

Becca -

Try getting close to one of the craft chocolate makers in the UK -- Duffy, Willie, etc., and see they will offer them to you.

The way it was explained to me (by people associated with Tomric, Selmi's distributor here in the US) is that there's not enough clearance (back to front and left to right) to fit the standard dosing plates. I can't see any real technical reason why it shouldn't work - but there might also be issues with the amount of pressure generated by the pump and auger (it might be insufficient to push the chocolate through the dosing plates). Personally, I think it's more likely a marketing decision.

I know the export manager from Selmi is a ChocolateLife member, so perhaps Tom can provide a more precise answer to this question.

Brian - I think this is a really excellent idea and a way to incorporate the cocoa-infused vodka in the same beverage! Not a Black Russian ... what might a good name be?

I've been thinking about this, too, and playing around with grinding them up to a very fine, smooth, paste (they're pretty soft) and adding them cake/brownie batter. I haven't made any in a while - but it's on my list for something to do the next time I make a batch.

Davy:

If you can grow cacao in New York City, you can grow it in Belgium. Indoors, under a daylight grow lamp (12 hours/day, regular cycles). You will probably want to start out on top of a heating mat, too. This will keep the tree warm and if you put a tray on top of the mat and put water in the tray the warmthwill help keep the moisture level up, too.

One reason you won't get pods is no pollinating insects, not just climate. I have seen pods on the trees at the NY Botanical gardens - never more than one or two. But they keep the ground under the tree completely clean of leaf litter and don't like many kinds of insect in the greenhouses, so no pollinators.

Maria -

It's not so much the difference in gross origin (Venezuela vs the DR), it's differences in the variety (genetics) of the bean modified by various aspects of terroir, and I include post-harvest processing techniques as a part of terroir.

If 15min at 140C is what works for you - then that's what works for you. Your beans, your roasting technique.

The exact times and temps for others does not really matter.

EXCEPT ... in the absence of testing, 15min at 140C does not guarantee that pathogens (e.g., salmonella) on the outside of the beans are killed to an "acceptable" level. So, you probably want to do some lab analysis on a regular basis (e.g., each new shipment of beans at least) to make sure that everything is safe.

Maria: There is no direct correlation between conching time and quality across machine types. Modern conches are built in a way to produces very high quality results in surprisingly short periods of time.

How long you conche depends on a lot of factors, based on the flavor profile you are looking to achieve. The beans you use provide the starting point, and proper roasting is the first phase. Different roasts will bring out different flavors which will be affected differently by the conching. When starting out, check every hour for the first 4-8 hours and you will be astonished at the change. From there, every couple of hours for the next 24-36 hours (if you are using one of the CocoaTown machines or Santha, or longitudinal conche).

The challenge is to get the flavor you want in the same time frame as getting the texture right. You can overdo either quite easily.

The key point is that 72 hours (or 96 hours) is not better because it's longer. It's very possible that at 72 hours all of the "life" in the chocolate will be evaporated out. As a chocolate maker, it's up to you to determine what results you're looking to achieve and to experiment until you hit upon the combination of times and temperatures that deliver the results you want. You want to conche for exactly the right amount of time that is correct for the chocolate you are making. It may be different for different chocolates.

One thing you can do to affect conche times is to blow (warm) air into the conche bowl. This can accelerate the evaporation of undesirable aromas (such as acetic acid). This can shorten conche times by getting flavor development ahead of texture development.

Scott -

Thanks for the update on this. Given Walsh's history (which Dr Martin lays out in exquisite detail in her post), I have trouble believing that anyone would do business with him. I have never met him, so maybe he's intensely charismatic. I have met people like that and I know intelligent, diligent, investors who've plunked down large chunks of cash on things that, to someone with some inside knowledge of chocolate would know instantly to be false.

I see that the article was updated today with some new photos posted by Steve DeVries of the Biosana project. Kudos to all who are working to expose what appears to be a huge fraud and con.

Posted by BusinessWire (a Berkshire Hathaway company - BH also owns See's):

LOS ANGELES, Dec 08, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Intentional Chocolate's Organic + line is the first ever chocolate to be certified organic, use cocoa from Rainforest Alliance farms with the added bonus of carrying the official Intentional TM certification. The Organic + dark line is also certified Vegan and Kosher and is gluten free.

The press release goes on to state:

The chocolates [are] embedded with this new ingredient "Intention" have been shown to significantly decrease stress, increase calmness, and lessen fatigue in those who consume it. This is the result of findings from a scientific pilot study conducted by The HESA Institute (Human Energy System Alliance) and a full year of consumer testing. With the introduction of this groundbreaking new product, creator and founder Jim Walsh aims to create an entirely new category of chocolate that both enhances its already beneficial qualities and brings our understanding of nutrition to another level. Breakthrough licensed technology helps embed the focused good intentions of experienced meditators and then infuses those intentions into chocolate -- some who have trained with the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama himself stated, "I think this chocolate will bring great happiness to mankind." Their hope with Intentional Chocolate(TM) is to reintroduce this ancient wisdom and galvanize a shift in the food industry to bring greater health and food that restores us, renews us and heals us.

An interesting historical footnote here is that Intentional Chocolate creator and founder Jim Walsh was behind the somewhat infamous Hawaiian Vintage Chocolate company. The HVC web site is still up and running and is a confusing mish-mash of the original HVC vision and its new intentional direction. Can anyone tell me what's unusual about their singular farming method ?

Apart from all of the other claims, any thoughts on "intentional" chocolate and what a "breakthrough licensed technology helps embed the focused good intentions of experienced meditators" might look like? I am also kind of wondering if this happens before tempering and if the good intentions get locked in as the chocolate crystallizes ... or if the meditating over the chocolate happens after.

Your (intentional) thoughts?

Full release here .

Mary:

There is no lab-scale machinery at 20kg/hr throughput for chocolate production. Only batch. You can get continuous temperers in that capacity, but that's trivial compared with the machinery for producing chocolate.

Unfortunately, there is no "system" of equipment scaled to that is scaled to that level of production. You can get a 20kg "universal," but there no complementary options for roasting/cracking/winnowing and, optionally, pre-grinding. It's easy to find 1 tonne/hr winnowers, hard to find 20 kg/hr, for example. Easy to find 1 lb sample roasters, hard to find inexpensive 20kg roasters.

It's also probably a good idea to know how you want to scale up in terms of production method/equipment. If you're not careful, not everything you do in the lab will translate into production if you use very different approaches.

Do you have even a ballpark budget in mind? You can't do this for $10,000. You could easily do it for $100,000.

:: Clay

Mary:

A few questions to help clarify for people who might look to answer this:

Capacity is 20kg ... per batch? One batch per week? One batch per day? More often? Less often?

Truly lab scale (for testing) or are you going into production for retail sale?

Does the lab-scale equipment lead to production at a much larger capacity?

:: Clay

Kevin:

An induction burner is not suitable for tempering chocolate. You can use one (in conjunction with a double boiler) as a chocolate melter (though some professional induction burners might go as low as 115-120F), but that's not the same thing as tempering.

If you are space and budget constrained and want an actual tempering machine, a machine from Chocovision or ACMC are the least expensive choices. If you are going to be tempering by hand, there are a number of much less expensive options than an induction burner for melting chocolate and holding it in temper after manually tempering it.

:: Clay

Rodney:

Thank you very much for making this point. I deliberately left this sit overnight to see if there would be any response from the community and to make sure that I was not replying from an emotional perspective.

I also made a point of going to a meeting of a New York group called The Society of Enlightened Entrepreneurs last night and it was during the meeting that I came to clarity on what to do.

Tom, Richard: Your interests, naturally, lie with the companies you work for or own. My interests lie with TheChocolateLife community. You may disagree or dislike the decisions I make about how I run TheChocolateLife, but they are my decisions to make. At every point I am going to consider the needs of the entire community - as a global entity, which includes my wants and needs, by the way - over the wants of manufacturers and distributors.

Last night,I made the decision to close this thread to further discussion as it had drifted so far from the original poster's question, not because I am trying to "censor" Richard's or Tom's discussions on whether or not I am being "fair" to them. Tom and Richard, Rodney is right: This is a discussion you need to take up off-line. TheChocolateLife is not a place to air the relative merits of your equipment, company's viewpoints, or anything that is not directly applicable to the discussion at hand. I also want to let you know that any continuation of this discussion at any level in any other public posts on TheChocolateLife will be looked upon very negatively.

You can, of course, take this up with me privately; I know you both have my e-mail address.

:: Clay

Richard:

Your comment is tantamount to my walking into your new center in Irvineand complaining, after you pull down flyers I have posted on your walls- loudly and to everyone who might be in your showroom at the time -that you won't let me sell competitive products in your place of business.

Furthermore, imagine my walking in and, when a prospective customer asks a question about a Pomati (or some other brand you sell) machine, I start talking up the virtues of a brand you don't sell.

What would your reaction be? I don't think you'd be very happy. You'd probably usher me out of your place of business and demand that I never come back. And, as the business owner,you would be within your rights to do so.

TheChocolateLife is my on-line place of business. It may be a small business in terms of the revenue it generates, but it's a huge business in terms of global reach and influence. My perception is that you want to unfairly take advantage of my place of business by not abiding by policies you and I have discussed offline.

Qzina is a multi-million dollar business and I have a policy on TheChocolateLife that businesses that are in the business of selling products and services to confectioners and chocolate makers have to pay to promote them. We discussed this last summer in Washington, DC when we met during the Fancy Food Show.

You are right, I did delete several posts where you promoted the Pomati tempering machines you are now representing. BUT - I did it BEFORE I had a relationship with FBM. I deleted the posts because the content was inappropriate in the context of the original poster's question. I believe that I wrote you an e-mail at the time, explaining why.

You will see that I am NOT "censoring" Mr Bauwerarts' responses because he is actually an employee of Selmi and is responding to questions about Selmi machines. The same is true for responses from Brian Donaghy, who used to be employed by Tomric, the US dealer for Selmi.

You will notice, if you care to look, that there have been several recent discussions about ChocoMa and Perfect tempering and enrobing machines. You will also notice that I have featured ALL of the Qzina Institute classes and events at your new school ... all the way forward to October. (I also do this for BAKON.)

What I object to, Richard, is your perception that I owe you anything . You are attempting to reach the members of my community to sell them products and services. It is my policy to ask companies like Qzina to pay me a very modest amount for granting access. I do this so I don't have to clutter up the site with advertising banners that are irrelevant and intrusive.

I have no objections if you respond to direct questions about Pomati machines. I have no objections if you supply answers to technical questions about other tempering machines and say how Pomati does things differently. In other words, I have no objections if what you post is relevant and adds value to the discussion at hand. I do object if you see your response primarily as an opportunity to sell - or cross-sell - something.

If you want to promote Pomati or any other brand(s) Qzina represents then I respectfully request that you comply with my commercial policies. You can promote any and all Qzinaproducts - in the Classifieds. Classified ads cost $10 each or $100/year for up to 1 post per week. Or you can take out a Member Marketplace ad and/or Sponsor a group . You can also work with me to provide things of value to ChocolateLife members that compensate me via success fees. I would have no problem if you and I organized a series of classes in Irvine, we jointly promoted them, and I was compensated to give the classes. We talked about this specifically last summer, but I didn't pursue it because you wanted me to assume 100% of the costs and risk for promoting "my" events at your school (ignoring the fact that I would be promoting your school at the same time).

It's clear that you want to reach ChocolateLife members because you recognize that the community is a valuable one that's very highly focused and contains a large number of potential customers. What I want to be equally clear about is that I have worked very hard over the past four years growing TheChocolateLife to its current position and scope, and over the prior seven years on chocophile.com and on my writing and promoting my book, Discover Chocolate . Qzina is a business that you have worked very hard to grow. I know, from talking with you directly, that you are very careful not to let other people and companies "take advantage" of the hard work you've done without your being compensated appropriately.

All I ask is that you think of TheChocolateLife - and me - in the same light. I cannot, and will not, allow you to take advantage of TheChocolateLife to grow your business without directly recognizing - in monetary terms - the value of my business and my expertise, experience, and network, personally. And I object to your characterization of me publicly and without any notice as being a really cheap shot.

Membership in the community is free and voluntary. If you don't want to play by the house rules, you are free to not participate in the community.

:: Clay

PS.For your information, I do list the companies I have financial relationships with right on the home page of TheChocolateLife immediately under the Groups section at the top. It may not have been obvious enough, so I edited it to make it more obvious.

Tom:

If you take a close look, you'll see that I actually refer THREE companies' temperers, melters - Selmi, Chocovision, and Bakon, and have commission relationships with all three (Selmi through Tomric in the US). I have referred the sale of a Plus in 2011 and have, when the situation arises, directly notified Tomric of technical questions about Selmi equipment they might want to answer.

I currently do not have a relationship with FBM, though we are working in that direction.

Each of these companies offers products at different price points and capabilities.You will see that I represent both Irinox and Desmon. Both offer similar products, but again, at different price points and capabilities.

I try to be as aware of the technical competitive differences as I can; if I make a mistake in how I represent something it is from imperfect knowledge, not a preference of one brand over another. I try to take into account, as best I can, what someone's needs are and make the best recommendation I can. I would be more than happy for Selmi to bring me to the factory in Italy to get up to the minute training on your products so that I can speak about them from a position of first-hand knowledge.

For nearly four years, now, I have chosen to keep TheChocolateLife virtually free from advertising. I do offer advertising, sponsorship, and referral programs that make sense for the communityit somehow has to be related to chocolate. That's how I earn the money to keep TheChocolateLife operating; paying for the direct, hard costs of keeping the site and community open, operating, alive, vibrant, and growing and not a whole lot more.

I am always open to comments about where my product and technical knowledge is imperfect. In this way I can grow - and the community can grow as well.

:: Clay

The machine is set for 220VAC 3-phase 50 Hz. It is possible to kit the units at the factory a 220VAC 60 Hz single-phase motor or to use a static phase inverter that you purchase on your own. The price, ex-factory is 9700 Euros, including the enrobing belt, which is 180mm wide. Crating (100 Euros) and shipping (depends on destination and method) are extra.

I believe the FBM machines also have removable/reversible augurs to make them easy to clean.

Depending on your production volumes, FBM also has a small tabletop machine (the Aura) that is inexpensive enough to be dedicated to white chocolate production. It has a 4kg work bowl and 10kg/hr throughput and offers continuous as opposed to batch operation and has an integrated vibration table.

The next FBM machine up offers the same throughput as a Color EX, but is less expensive while offering the removable/reversible augur and three-zone temperature control instead of the two zones in a Selmi, offering more control over crystallization.

I can offer discounts on FBM machines to ChocolateLife members - maybe enough to make it possible for you to purchase both machines for close to the same price as one Selmi Color EX.

Stu:

At that kind of throughput, a couple of options suggest themselves to me.

The first is a continuous machine like a Selmi Color EX. It's about 10,000 Euros ex-works Italy. It's sweet spot for production is right in the range you are talking about. As you mention it's not a great option as you can only afford one and if anything goes wrong ... The EX model has the removable augur making changeover faster.

Another continuous tempering option is the FBM Prima. This has a 7kg tank and an hourly capacity in the 35kg range, but the price is 6,000 Euros ex-works Italy, before a ChocolateLife member discount. You can run milk in one, dark in another, or the same chocolate in both to reach ~70kg/hr throughput. And you have a backup machine in case one goes down.

Another option is what are called "over/under" tempering tanks. These are basically two melting tanks, one positioned over the other. The top tank holds melted chocolate that is dripped into the bottom tank, The bottom tank is tempered using the seed method (there is an agitator), and chocolate is removed via a valve at the bottom of the lower tank. There are many operations that use this approach for very high volume production. The cost depends on the sizes of the tanks and whether or not there is a pump involved - but you should be able to buy two sets for the budget you're talking about. The vibrating table is not included, but you can get one that holds three full-size molds from Chocovision for about US$800.

:: Clay