Forum Activity for @Clay

David:

Please contact Donald Hudson at CafeCoffees.com and let him know of your interest in their roasters for coffee and that you're in touch through TheChocolateLife. I cannot quote you directly.

As for the ABS ovens, the 5-rack version is about $3000. In order to get you a quote, I need a shipping address. I will mail you privately and you can respond.

Something to consider in the whole roaster discussion is the relative lack of sophistication on the part of small chocolate makers when it comes to roasting - when compared with coffee.

Here's a link to a very interesting discussion about coffee roasting that just starts to scratch the surface of how the new generation of modern "technical" coffee roasters geek out about a topic like convection airflow (as opposed to conduction), pointing out that different bean origins want different roasts - not just time/temp, but time/temp/airflow - in order to bring out different characteristics of the origins.

What this suggests is that a lot more open-mindedness is needed when approaching the topic of equipment selection for roasting cocoa beans because having precise control over airflow can be critical in optimizing flavor development during roasting.

Holly:

While you can do commercial production in a small machine (e.g., the CocoaTown ECGC12) you don't have a hope of being profitable using machines that size unless you live in a country where the average hourly wage is around $1.00. So, I am going to assume that the 65L Grindeur or similar capacity machine is the one you're working with (you don't say).

Given that the 65L machine requires at least 20kg of nib, working on a 1 to 2 pound batch roast capacity makes no sense as it would take forever to roast the required amount. While individual roasts might be inconsistent, you'd be blending them together so that would even out. However, from experience with someone who went from a Behmor to a larger roaster (actually, a 250kg Barth Scirocco) there's a qualitatively different roast that you get from the larger machine. I think that has to do a lot with thermal mass, how quickly the Scirocco gets back to temperature (which is called recovery time), and the fact that the Scirocco does a much better job of agitating the beans during the roast.

A 10lb machine is closer. You might get 75% yield (~7.5 lb nib for every 10 lb of bean - this counts water loss during roasting as well as fractions winnowed out) so you'd need about 6 roasts for each batch in the 65L Grindeur.

As Brad correctly states, you have to properly account for the value of your time in figuring out production costs. While you might save $1000 on equipment, if it increases the amount of time per batch beyond a certain point, you actually end up losing money (i.e., not paying yourself anything for your labor).

Whenever you're looking at the tradeoff in the initial price of equipment you must also take a look at how trading down in capacity might increase the amount of time (and other costs) associated with the decision. And you should probably pay yourself at least minimum wage. Or, if not, you should know what paying yourself a decent hourly wage means to the actual cost of production, which will let you know what price you should be selling your product for. If you don't properly calculate all of the costs and underprice your product, then you don't have a business.

The concept is called total cost of ownership (or operation). While you might start out with one 65L Grindeur, each new one is not only going to cost at least $5,000 there is cost of hooking it up, the cost of electricity to run it, the cost of electricity for the increased load on the HVAC system and the cost of ground rent. Make sure to have line items for all of these in your cost of doing business spreadsheet.

Another thing to consider is what you're going to do to scale up. If you move from needing one Grindeur to 2, what does that do to the amount of time needed for roasting, winnowing, etc.? It may be that one 10lb roaster won't be able to meet the demand.

Here's the point - there is no perfectly balanced system at this scale. For some stage of production you're going to have machines that are too small and/or too large for other machines in the production line. The question is: where do you start oversize/undersize to begin with, knowing that, if you become successful, that you're going to have to upgrade and/or buy another unit of something.

Where you feel comfortable about making the tradeoff is something you have to decide. But, no matter which way you go, make sure you do a price/total cost of operation analysis - and make sure to include a fair value for your labor.

:: Clay

Brad:

We're not in competition with each other - yet it often seems like you think you're competing not only with me (here on TheChocolateLife and in other fora where we interact), but with anyone and everyone who has an opinion that differs from one of yours.

As I said earlier in this thread, what works for you works for you. Your way is not the only way, it'saway; your way isnotnecessarily the best way for everyone, it'sthe way that works for you. There are many options - and which one is right for a particular situation depends on many factors, including the market the business is located in and the temperament, priorities, and goals of the owner(s).

I choose not make chocolate for commercial sale for a number of reasons, both professional and personal, none of which I feel compelled to share with you because it's none of your business.

I also don't rate and review chocolate professionally anymore, which is one reason I have never commented on your chocolate here on TheChocolateLife.

And, yes, I have actually tasted several of them thanks to another ChocolateLife member and shared the bars and my opinions of them with others whose judgment in such matters I respect.

...

We've had this discussion in private but now it's time I made it public.

Your calling me a hypocrite is uncalled for and is an example of an entitlement you cannot lay claim to.

TheChocolateLife is my place of business. It's a bit like the public retail space of your business. If a customer came in to your shop and was being loud and rude to the other customers - and to you, the business owner - it would be within your right to ask them to behave respectfully because such behavior makes the other customers uncomfortable and intimidates them.

I am asking you to behave respectfully in my place of business. And not just to me, but to everyone.

:: Clay

Holly -

I was in a restaurant here in NYC last week that plans to be making chocolate from the bean in their kitchen. They have two larger pieces of CocoaTown equipment and were sent two small (maybe 2 pound max) CocoaTown roasters.

The CocoaTown roasters I saw were based on what appeared to be unmodified Ronco "Set it and forget it" rotisserie ovens. The spit was upgraded with a drum made from perforated stainless; this was the only change I could see.

While these (and the Behmors, and one or two others based on the Ronco chassis) might be suitable for home hobbyist production, IMO they are not suitable for commercial production (I know because I bought a modified Ronco and worked in a facility that used a Behmor).

:: Clay

Sorry - I forgot the URL for the site selling the roasters.

It's http://www.cafecoffees.com/

If you do end up wanting one, I can offer a ChocolateLife member discount.

Ben:

Your experience with convection ovens is similar to mine.I would counsel someone purchasing a convection oven for roasting cocoa not to expect a perfectly even roast.I have yet to find one (even new) that delivers perfectly even temperature distribution front to back, left to right, top to bottom. One way to test this is to cook thin layers of yellow sheet cake in sheet pans. If they don't come out evenly cooked and browned, then you have to "resort" to some method of turning the pans.

The small roasters I am talking about are not inexpensive. An 8lb machine costs about $2000 and a 20lb machine costs about $8000 (including the roast profile hardware) and this price includes a cool-down pan.

I see the smaller machine as an alternative to a Behmor or any roaster based on a Ronco oven (CocoaTown is offering some of those). The Behmor will handle only up to 1lb at a time, has 5 roast profiles, and you need to run at least 3-4 batches to fill up a small CocoaTown or Santha grinder. For about 5x the price you get 8x the roast capacity, significantly lowered operating costs, significantly increased throughput, and with the digital profiling, more control and more consistency over roasts.

The drum roaster I posted the video of from Ecuador is an interesting alternative to a ball roaster. It can be made with either gas (propane or LNG) or electric burners and, if you can find a used 30, 40, or 60-quart bowl from a Hobart or other mixer, it could be made astonishingly inexpensively. I would add some vanes or fins to the bowl and some way to contain and increase airflow within the bowl in order to improve efficiency.

Brad:

I just don't know what it is about you that feels the need to belittle other people. I am NOT appreciative of the humor you displayed in the Chocolate Alchemy forum when I asked you to share a picture or sketch of your winnower.

I debated a long time about how, or even if, to respond to you again on this post. In a couple of days it would just age off the bottom of the discussions and that would probably be that. Iam also unhappy that you choose to be so dismissive of me in this forum; you just don't get where I am coming from.What I do have to say in response to your reply:

What works for you works for you; what is useless-seeming to you may be invaluable to others. The reasons your approach works for you are your temperament, your skill set, and your market. I gather, from reading your posts here and elsewhere, that you own a number of small ACMC temperers and that you've had to take every one of them apart and rebuild them at least once since you bought them. Some people don't have either the skill or the inclination to do this. They'd rather spend a bit more up front to get a machine they know won't need repairing right way.

I want to open up the discussion to learn more about what their intentions are so that whatever recommendations get made fit Holly's needs. I certainly don't feel I have enough information to advise Holly about the direction that is best for her based on one question.

There are many different ways to start out and scale up, not just Brad's way. Without knowing a lot more about the the person's proclivities and plans I would be loathe to suggest that there is a single way to build and grow a business.

Holly:

What size roaster are you looking for? I've been researching electric roaster options in the 10-15lb range that should appeal to people looking to use actual roasters, not convection ovens. The ones I am looking into have been designed for coffee but have been used for roasting cocoa beans for many years so the design is proven.

IMO, a roaster that tumbles beans should be able to do a superior job of evenly distributing heat consistently from batch to batch. It requires more time and attention (in my experience) to get consistently even roasts across multiple batches in a convection oven, even when using perforated pans. (Obviously Brad has a different opinion. YMMV.) While a commercial convection oven may be less expensive (and I would be happy to sell you one of the best and most cost effective 5-pan ovens from ABS at a ChocolateLife member discount if that's the route you decide to go) it's not just the initial price, it's total cost of ownership, including labor.

On the plus side, the roasters I am looking into have digital controls that precisely control temperature and offer a digital logging option so you can record the actual temperature curve during each roast. This should help you understand how time and temp affect flavor.

And when not being used for roasting cocoa, a roaster can be used to roast coffee beans. I can get you pricing on an oven right away and will have pricing on the roasters within the next day or so.

Clay

PS. What makes the ABS ovens so good? Extremely fast recovery time. They get back to temp very fast after the doors have been opened and pans put into the oven. This is one key aspect of getting consistent results that people overlook when opting for less expensive - or used - convection ovens.

After the choice of bean, the next critical part of the flavor development process in chocolate is roasting. If you're starting a chocolate business, while I can see how it makes sense to save money building a DIY winnower, it makes absolutely no sense to me to shortchange yourself on such a crucial tool in developing flavor.

Stu:

In the long run, the best bet may be - depending on how much you want to make - to buy a chocolate "lentil" machine (think M&Ms) and get a new set of molds made for that. This will form full 3D grains, not half-grains as would be the case with a conventional mold.

:: Clay

Magriet:

You may have answered this in another post, but what method are you currently using to temper your chocolate, and if you are using equipment, what equipment (specifically - company and model) are you using?

Is the market indoors or outdoors and is there any temperature control?'

:: Clay

Tim -

I don't have any connection with Thermalrite and from a quick glance at their web site all they are selling are the Desmon pizza prep tables so I am not sure there is a fit there.

Irinox is gold standard - very expensive, but they do the job very well. They are expensive like a cooling tunnel is expensive but the footprint is a lot smaller. The Desmon products are less expensive but not all of them have humidity control, which is important in most parts of the country for at least some of the year.

In the end it all comes down to airflow, cooling load, and "recovery time." Airflow is about the ability to remove what's called the latent heat of crystallization, the heat that comes off the chocolate as it cools. You want the chocolate in the mold to cool consistently and evenly to ensure proper crystal formation and to reduce the likelihood of de-molding problems.

Cooling load is a measure of the amount of heat that can be removed. Think of an air conditioner and a room. A small AC unit might be able to cool the room but it might take a long time. Put four or five people in the room (or a window) and it might not be able to keep up. So, you need a cooling unit that is sized to the amount of heat that will be added to the system (in the form of warm chocolate).

Recovery time is important for cooling units with doors on them. As most doors are hinged and swing open, that action extracts a lot of cool air from the unit that is replaced with warmer air from the room. The question is how long does it take for the unit to return to the set temperature?

There are many different ways to approach cooling and it all depends on throughput and space. If you have the room and you need to move a lot of product, cooling tunnels are very good solutions. Lots of people I know build cabinets or even large rooms. You can use household AC units (split systems are good) and the CoolBot [Note: that's an affiliate link] will enable you take the household AC units below 60F, which is normally their lowest temperature.

There are a couple of ChocolateLife customers who are also building "static cooling tunnels" that I came up with the idea for. These are enclosed wire shelves (e.g., Metro shelving) under positive pressure from a cooling unit. The nice thing about these is that they can buy wheels for the units and move them around as needed.

The major difference is that Irinox has invested a great deal of money in sophisticated electronics that go into every unit they sell - you can't buy any units without the electronics.

Desmon has chosen to go a much simpler route in the controls it builds in to its cabinets. This accounts for most of the difference in price.

In some respects, the Desmon cabinets are actually better built ... in their 20-pan lowboy cabinet, the door hinges are much sturdier for example.

If you're looking for a simple STORAGE option (i.e., you're not going to be using this for crystallization), the absolute least expensive option is to buy an inexpensive chest freezer and use an external thermostat like this one to control the temp between 0C (32F) and 27C (~80F). You can easily get 7 cu ft of storage and the thermostat for under $300 (not including tax/shipping).

This is a no-frills solution (i.e., there are no shelves), but it works and it has the advantage that the entire inside of the chest is usable for storage.

If humidity is an issue, you can use the PolarFresh or Avive panels.

Omar:

I understand completely the question about reasonable risk. What I do know is that many people make decisions based on the price of an item and not the TCO (total cost of operation) of an item.

For example, the smallest Irinox cabinet has a list price of over US$11,000 the last time I looked and is worth every penny. (I've sold two TP-20s to customers who swear by them - one of them works in an open market and could not be in business without hers.) The cabinets are purpose-designed to crystallize chocolate.

The units hold 20 full-size pans and will keep the internal temp and humidity to within .5C even with the door open for a minute or longer.

What this translates to is consistent throughput and quality. If you put items on trays in a speed rack in the ambient environment of the kitchen (or in a wine cooler), crystallization times will be uneven, can be fairly long, and there is the risk of humidity in the room damaging work. In the Irinox, crystallization is consistent - quality and timing. While expensive, if you could triple production (or more) just by using a proper cabinet - making no other changes - then the price tag could actually be very affordable ... if you focus on total cost of operation, not price.

There two other company making units like the Irinox, both Italian. One is Koma and they are more expensive than Irinox. The other is thecompany I referred to above, Desmon. At the moment they do not have a North American sales agent. The Desmon equivalent of the Irinox TP-20 costs 60% less.

Last year I was introduced to refrigeration produces from an Italian company, Desmon. I have been trying to work a deal with their US distributor and just got off the phone to discover that they are no longer the US distributor.

That said, they have about 70 pieces of equipment in inventory they are looking to sell at deep discounts. All of the humidity-controlled units went first and there are none left. However, the Avive panels I mentioned would address this issue without any problems in any of the units. Some are under-counter lowboys with marble tops, others are one and two door display cases.

I am expecting pricing information and brochures in the next few days and I will post in Classifieds. The company also makes humidity-controlled walk-ins just for chocolate and I will be getting more information on those as well.

There are many, many different brands of wine coolers, I don't know them all, and many have angled shelves. They tend to be expensive for what they are, and they're not made to handle chocolate, so they are expensive - and may not do what you need them to.

The real issue in cooling is moving heat away from the chocolate. With wine, we generally don't care how long it takes to get to temp from whatever temperature it's at when it goes in the fridge to storage/serving temp - usually overnight or longer is okay. Bottles already in the fridge have a pretty good thermal mass and are not likely to warm up by more than a fraction of a degree when opening the door of the fridge and adding a bottle or two.

With chocolate we do care about the speed of removing the "latent heat of crystallization" (the heat given up by the chocolate as it cools and crystallizes) - too fast or too slow can result in sub-optimal results.

Therefore, we do care about temp and volume of airflow and "recovery time" (how quickly it takes the fridge to return to the set temp after the door is opened) and other variables. There is a reason why cabinets made specifically for chocolate crystallization and holding (e.g., Irinox) as expensive as they are.

In general, the larger the volume of the cabinet, the better the recovery time is. Airflow needs to be controlled and directed to remove the heat added to the cabinet, which can vary widely. If you're molding 500gr blocks of chocolate and put 50 of them into the cabinet you have to move a lot more heat than if you put 20 bonbon molds in to crystallize.

General rule is make it larger than you need it so that you can use the volume of the room to help you. One confectioner I know in NYC set up a cooling/storage room in their facility that measures 10x20 feet. Everything comes in on trays on speed racks. The room is set to about 62F and airflow is relatively modest. Not everyone has this luxury, of course. But you can do use the same concept in a much smaller space.

Susan:

I don't see why not ... keeping in mind that they are really for converting a room into a "walk-in." You wouldn't use one in a cabinet. Keep in mind that you can also use the CoolBot on a split AC unit (not just thru-wall), where the compressor is physically outside and the blower unit is mounted inside the room. While AC units are also dehumidifiers, you may need additional humidity control (as in a real dehumidifier) not the PolarFresh or Avive products depending on where you are located.

The CoolBot site does have a page that gives the BTU rating for an AC unit for a given sie of room - assuming that the room is adequately insulated.

There are a couple of ways to control the humidity in wine (and other) cabinets if you have a cabinet that does not contain built-in humidity control. MOST inexpensive wine cabinets do not have humidity control.

One is to use a product called PolarFresh . It works a lot like a box of baking soda is supposed to. While chocolate fridges don't have the issue of ethylene gas production that is part of fruits and vegetables ripening, PolarFresh also absorbs humidity, keeping it in a more acceptable range.

A more "professional" product - and one that works over larger volumes more cost effectively, is from Avive Technologies .

Finally, you can use a CoolBot to use a conventional residential through-window air conditioner into a cooler for a walk-in style fridge. Most AC units won't go below 60F; the CoolBot will let you go down to just above freezing.

Thanks to everyone for contributing here ... and to Braun for being so open and for making the special offer for his chocolate.

It's discussions like this one that form the reason for my starting TheChocolateLife in the first place: collectively, we know far more than any one of us can.

:: Clay

US sources for transfer sheets include:

• Chef Rubber ( catalog index page )
• American Chocolate Designs ( home page )

Many other sources are going to be reselling PCB, etc. Sourcing from the US might not be such a bad idea as the Pound is so much stronger than the USD at the moment. Plus, there are probably going to be some designs you won't find in the stock European catalogs.

Javier:

What capacity (trays) and/or throughput (kg/hr) are you looking for and what is your budget?

:: Clay

Brian:

Your observations bring to the conversation just the sorts of nuances that only actual on-the-ground experience can bring to the issue. As outsiders, we walk into situations with assumptions about "the right way to do things" that are simply untenable when considered from the POV of the producer.

We can make the claim that better post-harvest processing is always better ... but if the buyer is unwilling to pay enough for the labor involved (and no, ten cents per pound is not enough) and lost opportunity costs, then there is no economically justifiable (to the farmer) reason to invest their labor.

:: Clay

Brian:

Keeping the interests of the farmers in mind is an important principle, I think. Many of the systems are more about forcing Western European/North American values than about being "fair" really.

Also, the paying of certifications by NGOs and USAID/aid organizations provides zero incentive to reduce their cost and the producers get hosed when the aid money runs out.

How large would you say the average produce association is? Is technical assistance in post-harvest processing also needed/wanted?

The pros and cons, ins and outs, ups and downs, and good and bad of existing social certification programs have been an ongoing topic for discussion here on TheChocolateLife, most recently in this discussion sparked by a thesis examining a Fairtrade coffee co-op in Laos.

Let's step back for a moment, and rather than try to dissect what's bad (and good) about existingsystems, let's start from scratch and outline what the elements of an ideal system would be.

I started a discussion around a specific approach (a VAT-like system) at 5percent4farmers.ning.comfor anyone who is looking for a little inspiration.

Magrietha:

If you're working with chocolate in any capacity, understanding tempering should be considered a starting point - even if you're using automatic tempering machines. They're not perfect and it's fundamentally necessary to be able to recognize good temper (and when the chocolate is not in good temper!) and to be able to temper by hand when necessary.

It gives you far greater control, yes - but also far greater confidence, and that's not to be underestimated.

:: Clay

One of the things I really love about what I do is that people send me chocolate to taste.

Sometimes they call me up in advance and ask me if it's okay - but sometimes I show up at the post office and there are boxes waiting for me.

What's not to love?

Lindt Excellence 70%

I got an e-mail from Lindt's PR agency asking me if I wanted to taste three new products in the Lindt Excellence line - a new recipe 70%, 70% with almond brittle, and 70% with nut crunch (caramelized walnuts and hazelnuts). Me not want to taste chocolate?

Irrespective of what you may think about some Lindt products (I personally am not a fan of Lindor "truffles") they are one of the three largest players in the gourmet chocolate segment. They've done a phenomenal job in distribution and, overall, the Excellence stands tall among the brands with broad distribution.

The package I received did not include a bar of the old recipe 70% so I did make a direct comparison against the two. The new 70% has a faint, pleasant note of bright fruit on the front that gives way to a not overly assertive pleasant chocolate flavor. The long finish is long with a hint of the up front fruitiness returning before fading away.

There's no indication if the 70% almond brittle is made with the same new formula 70% - but the chocolate is branded differently (the new 70% is "smooth dark" and the chocolate in the almond brittle (and the nut crunch) is "intense dark." Whatever recipe is used, the upfront fruitiness is a more assertive and lasts longer and the finish contains a touch of (not unpleasant) astringency. Personally, I like chocolate with my inclusions in a bar like this, not inclusions with my chocolate and I wanted there to be more there, there with the brittle. That said, there is a very lovely toasted almond note on the long finish.

The fruitiness and astringency are both more obvious in the nut crunch bar, as is the flavor profile of roasted nuts in the long finish - especially the walnut which, like the pecan, is very much underused, in my opinion, in high end chocolates.

I think part of my issue might be the relative thinness of the bars. If they were thicker the inclusions could be bigger and they would be more to my preference.

That said, like all Lindt chocolates this trio is impeccably made and bears all the textural hallmarks we've come to expect (and demand) from a Swiss-brand chocolate (even when it's made in New Hampshire). The new 70% in particular makes a pleasing, affordable addition to the list of "everyday eating chocolates" for people looking to make a step up from mass-market domestically produced options to something more sophisticated.

Good Cocoa

I met the founder of Good Cocoa , Paul Frantellizi, over on LinkedIn where we participated in discussions about "healthy" chocolate (X**ai) and other issues. Paul sent me samples of two bars that are labeled as Superfood Chocolate.

Those of you who know me know that I am not a fan of turning chocolate into a nutraceutical delivery vehicle for the simple reason that I want to feel good eating chocolate, not feel good about eating chocolate. Most "enhanced" chocolates might enhance the nutritional value of chocolate but tend to do so at the expense of flavor and texture.

What I can say about Good Cacao is that if I blind tasted it the first time I would not have put it into the category of either raw chocolate (which the label says it contains) or nutritionally-enhanced chocolate.

And nutritionally enhanced it is. In addition to Maca, the bars contain about a half-dozen nutrient blends and additions including a blend of marine phytoplanktons. In addition, the outer wrap is made from a recycled paper wade with FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified components and Green Power offsets are used to power the factory. So you can feel really good about eating this chocolate.

But, not only were the bars not bad, they were actually quite good. The lemon version had small pieces of Meyer lemon zest in it that provided nice bright bursts of flavor and the earthy funk common to most bars that contain raw cacao was missing entirely. The coconut bar had visible flakes of coconut that added a nice texture, too.

However, I do have some issues with the wording of the labels, specifically around the use of the word raw, which, in the absence of any standard on the subject I will construe to mean "not subjected to temperatures above 118F."

The ingredients list on both bars mention Organic Rainforest Alliance Single Origin Ecuadorian Cacao Paste AND Organic Raw Fair Trade Single Origin Ecuadorian Arriba Nacional-Fino de Aroma Cacao Powder.

Actually this is kind of interesting, suggesting that the paste is made from roasted beans and that the powder is used to add some oomph to the antioxidant rating. It makes sense in a way, but it's potentially confusing to someone who sees on the front that the bar contains raw cacao but raw cacao is not the main ingredient.

I know that vanilla needs to be fermented and I am also pretty sure that the fermentations are above 118F - I've never heard of "raw vanilla" before. On the same note, I've never heard the term raw applied to cinnamon before, and it's on this label.

I also have a problem with the "no trans-fats" label on the front. All cacao is free of trans fats so making the claim this way is misleading. I would prefer "naturally trans-fat free" or nothing.

The packaging says "organic" on it though nowhere does an organic certifiers mark appear on the labels, just on the web site (USDA seal). Similarly the bars are labeled "Fair Trade Conscious" which is a term (with a "seal" that looks remarkably like their own "Be Good to Yourself logo) I had not run across before, but the web site also specifically refers to Fairtrade (as in FLO) with no explanation of what that means with respect to the Rainforest Alliance certification.

Finally, the cut (sell) sheet I received included the line "USDA Certified Organic & Raw Ingredients" which pretty strongly implies that there is a USDA certification for raw. As there is no such certification (though it's possible to interpret the line differently), for clarity's sake, it would be best to separate the two claims.

So - while I think that Paul and crew have done a very good job of creating a tasty nutraceutical chocolate (it is one of the top two or three best-tasting chocolates in this genre that I have tasted), the labeling and marketing materials are more than a little overwhelming and in the density of information there is the potential for more than a little confusion.

Zokoko

Based in NSW Australia, Zokoko is - to the best of my knowledge - the first new bean to bar producer in Australia working with refurbished European equipment, including a Barth Scirocco roaster and a Lehman melangeur.

The proprietors (ChocolateLife members Dean and Michelle Morgan) have crafted an award-winning collection of chocolates from different origins that have a lot to recommend them.

One of the challenges I have about writing about a lot of chocolates (including these) is that they're not generally available in the US and I have a general policy of not creating a demand for a chocolate that you can't get easily get your hands on. That said, these chocolates are very well made and very much worth trying to get your hands on in part because there are some very unusual chocolates to be tasted that really do deserve to be tasted this side of the Pacific.

Two of the best examples of this are chocolates made from Bolivian beans. Not the ones from El Ceibo or from the Hacienda Tranquilidad (though there is a chocolate made from those beans) - but two chocolates made from beans that come from the Alto Beni around the town of Palos Blancos. There (and in the area around Chimore west of Santa Cruz), Volker Lehman has been involved in a fascinating project with the Danish chocolate maker TOMS that involves two different fermentation techniques - one using conventional boxes and another involving trays. As to be expected (when you think about it), the two different fermentation techniques yield two different tasting chocolates and, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time anywhere that there are commercially available chocolates that demonstrate these differences.

From a larger perspective, this demonstrates that the concept of terroir (in cacao) is not just limited to genetics and environment, but also includes post-harvest processing techniques. This conflation is well understood in wine, cheese, and other foods, but not so strikingly and clearly before this in cocoa.

One exception I do take with the marketing presentation is that it's unclear if Zokoko is pressing its own cocoa butter. If they are, then presenting the chocolates as "pure origin" is perfect appropriate. However, if deodorized cocoa butter from another manufacturer is being used, the origin of the beans used to make the cocoa butter is unknown and, rightfully, the chocolate can't be called "pure" origin or "single" origin.

Amano

Art Pollard is generally regarded as one of the better artisan/craft chocolate makers on the planet. That makes me wonder what was he thinking when he produced his new Morobe bar, made from beans from Papua New Guinea.

This one is over the top in your face bright fruity acidic - citrus fruits, too; lime mainly, plus some grapefruit. After tasting it, it's not a chocolate I would knowingly buy for myself to eat, nor choose to buy or gift for someone else. I did not like it at all. I can appreciate how well made it is ... but I do not like it.

My one sincere hope is that this does not signal a trend to see who can outdo the next and produce overly acidic chocolate for ... the shock value? It's definitely niche.

Jim -

Richard Foley mentioned that Qzina was selling the Keller shells. I would start there. Qzina also has operations in Canada if I recall correctly.

For anyone interested in learning a tiny bit more about one-shot, try this page on the A w ema web site.

Have you ever walked into a chocolate shop and seen perfectly round (except for a flat bottom) truffles? They were done either using a one-shot machine or by filling shells.

You identified the key issue for you - if there was any negative impact on taste or texture you would not use them. As there is not, then why not? A long time ago I learned that it was important to understand what I was "willing to fall on my sword" for when it came to production. Yeah, I know I could make my own puff pastry, but, there are so many good ones that are frozen, by using those I could concentrate on what really set my work apart and allowed me to increase production (or reduce the number of hours I spent in the kitchen).

One of the most famous chocolate companies in Chicago (whose name also starts with a V and is not Valrhona though the name is French) used shells from the very beginning - although they may be doing them on one-shot machines now for production and shelf-life reasons.

The only problem that I see is representing them as one thing (100% hand-made) if they are not.

BTW - just because you start using shells doesn't mean there is no longer room for a 100% hand-made product - a real truffe nature au chocolat.

Is being "smug" a part of the challenge that needs to be overcome?

Earlier today, Equal Exchange posted the following table on their Facebook page:

and then bragged about the fact that their pay ratio (the ratio between the highest-paid and lowest-paid workers in the company) was only 4:1.

I asked them if their computation of the pay ratio included what growers got paid.

They poasted no, but then tried to justify their position in a very long reply by saying that, when they included an estimated annual income for an average grower at US$3000 that their pay ratio was still "only" 33:1 - a much more "egalitarian" figure than companies whose CEOs would have pay ratios of thousands:1 or more if the wages of foreign farmers were considered in the mix.

Is "egalitarian" "fair?" Is that the measure of the success of these programs?

For me, trumpeting the pay ratio is a symptom of an attitude that is prevalent in programs like FLO, and reminds me of a shell game where our attention is deliberately distracted so we can't see what's actually going on.

Kristy:

The moral mafia I am referring to is not FLO, it's supporters of "Fair" trade who have not actually spent any time to learn what is really going on.

It's the general consuming public that assumes that "Fair" trade MUST BE FAIR just because there is a certificate and who demands that products/ingredients must be FT & Organic without really understanding what that means. Like many minorities, they can be very vocal and tend to be passionate, so they garner a lot of attention and can exert outsize influence.

Chocolate Life Nat Bletter posted a link to a very interesting thesis on FT coffee in Laos that clearly reveals some of the potential (and real) flaws in certificate programs as well as some of the unintended consequences of such programs. ChocolateLife member Cristian Melo has posted a link to a fabulous thesis he did on cocoa in Ecuador.

Your numbers above clearly show that the direct economic benefits are hard to justify. My contention has always been that if FT was so great why aren't there many, many, many more co-ops who are FT certified? Could it be that the value - delivered to the grower - is not as rosy as the picture painted to the consumer? Could it be that it's so expensive that a significant percentage of certification fees is paid by third parties (including NGOs and taxpayer-funded aid programs)? Perhaps more importantly, the finances of these certification organizations is far from transparent. Given their demand for traceability up the supply chain you'd think that delivering reliable numbers for quantities of product moved and the value of the social premium paid would be easy to publish (and would be something they would be proud to publish). Yet, getting such figures is NOT an easy task. I have been waiting since May for "reliable" numbers from FLO's press office and have been politely stonewalled every time I have asked.

I think that FT (as practiced by FLO, RA, and others) is a part of an answer, but not the answer. Critical examination of the value these programs actually deliver - relative to the value reaped by the program itself and upstream actors in the supply chain - needs much closer examination. At the moment, it costs a company like Kraft almost nothing to gain FT certification. However, they can charge a premium for FT certified product (the market will pay for the perceived social benefit), so in the end, Kraft makes millions more than the producers do.

Is that "fair?"

IB -

The first link is to a 223 page document. Please let me know which page(s) you refer to in this document. Likewise, the second document is 210 pages long. Please provide the direct references.

I don't think that it is necessarily a good thing that an NGO pays for certification ... even when there is a commitment to cover the cost of certification in perpetuity. This is rarely the case (in my personal experience) as most NGOs project time horizons are very short, often only two years, with the stated goal of improving things to the point where the co-op gets to the point where it can cover those costs on its own. Then the NGO leaves, usually taking the market/buyer with them along with the $$ and technical support necessary to sustain progress. To be truly effective, program support has to last at least a decade and preferably longer - not just "appear" to be ongoing.

What the short term commitment to pay for certification does is create artificial, unsupportable, conditions. At the end of the commitment period the co-op must either be in a position to cover the costs themselves, lose their certification, or go begging for further subsidies.

I can also argue that having NGOs cover the cost of certification is anti-competitive because the certification bodies see no need to lower costs.Creating a culture where the answer is NGO support is not a good solution, IMO.

IB -

Please take a look around at my work and writings here and other places and you will know the answer to that question. But - the answer is very clearly that I am working to find alternative solutions to ethical supply chain certification in cocoa that address what I perceive to be the drawbacks in the existing Fairtrade model. I recently registered the domain name www.cocoassure.com in support of my efforts in this regard.

One of the necessary steps I see is to shake people out of bland complacency and acceptance. Most people (if you asked them) will think that "the problem has been solved" and Fairtrade is the solution.

Part of what I am trying to do is to get people to acknowledge is that there is still more work to do in finding ways to approach the issues at hand.

-- Clay

PS. Also, I find it frustrating that you know my name and I don't know yours. It's not listed on your web site that I can find and none of the articles linked to mention your name. Care to share?

IB -

The problems are not from having been spun off. The challenges are inherent in the Fairtrade model.

You quote one pervasive misunderstanding of the Fairtrade process, "The vast majority of the money goes back to the farmers ... " While it is true that the co-op purchases the coffee from the farmers, paying them the Fairtrade minimum, the premium that gets paid goes to the co-op and is typically used to cover overhead and invest in infrastructure to increase production.

There are far more subtle forces at play here that rarely get looked at or reported. One thing that most people don't understand is that the amount of labor, water, and energy required to produce coffee to the Fairtrade quality standard is significantly greater than that which the farmers are normally used to.

In fact, the labor demands (as reported in the thesis) are so much greater that coffee farmers now spend a significant portion of their income on food, whereas before they would grow it themselves and hunt and fish for it. Apparently, the price of rice has trebled in the last few years. Thus, while there has been a rise in income, an unintended consequence is that now the farmers are dependent on the world food market. Whereas now they might be making more than the per capita income, they are working far harder for it and many find themselves with expenses they never faced before - and are, in actual fact, poorer for it.

There are other trade-offs - while the farming practices may be organic, the associated production practices may not be sustainable because of the increases in water usage and energy. I am sure these figures are not properly accounted for in the the ASEAN figures you link. Another way in which they are an example of poor statistics is that they don't indicate how many farmers are involved from year to year and don't include the number of dependents. So, we don't know anything about how much of the growth in sales is due to an increase in the number of farmers.

These are just a few examples of why the situation is not simple: there are no simple answers, no simple fixes. The blindness is built into the system, which is a lot about forcing western consumer culture values on to farmers in producing countries. Furthermore, the social and economic contract is essentially the same worldwide: it is culturally insensitive and therefore cannot be equitable.

The real issue is that most consumers don't take the time to go an look for themselves in any depth or examine the situation with any critical facility. We want to believe that by spending a few extra bucks at the grocery store that we can make a difference in the lives of farmers. Sometimes it works that way - but many times it does not. Who benefits most from Fairtrade (in coffee)? The companies near the top of the supply chain who, between them account for more than 80% of the increase in value of the commodity once it is exported.

I maintain that while "Fair Trade" as it is currently constituted by FLO/Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, et al, may A part of AN answer, it is not THE answer. However, the institution of Fairtrade has garnered so much weight and prestige from unthinking adherents that other legitimate attempts to address the very real issues at stake are not given a chance in the market because of the suasion of an informal "moral mafia" that has arisen around Fairtrade and organic certification.

IB -

Thank you for asking. I am already in touch with FLO about a far more fundamental issue. One of the supposed "advantages" of Fairtrade is traceability up the supply chain. If that's the case, it should be a simple matter of putting together a report on how much cocoa was purchased, by country, and therefore how much was paid in the way of the social premium.

I asked for this information over a month ago and am still waiting for an answer. True, I was told that they were in the process of preparing their annual report and that took precedence. However, figures like this should be readily available, IMO.

Contrary to your belief, there is no simple explanation. The issues are far more complex than most people ever stop to consider.

Rodney:

You are right - one of the most-cited benefits of the Fairtrade system is the pricing floor. That was really helpful when commodity prices were below that level. Now that prices are far above the floor, that argument is not as valid as it does not currently apply.

It should be pointed out that, in most instances, the $750,-/MT differential still did not cover actual production costs, especially if you're looking to promote environmentally responsible, sustainable, methods.

I agree with you that different models of pricing need to be developed but I don't think that this can be done within the existing Fairtrade system as they would have to publicly acknowledge the flaws in the system to date which I have doubts can be sustained politically.

The only long term fix for the inequities inherent in the Fairtrade model are to implement a system that has, as one of its primary focuses, improving quality all the way around. This may be a part of the Fairtrade system for coffee, but it is not a part of the system for cocoa. To avoid dependence on world market pricing you have to get out of the trap of producing commodity product and move to specialty product.

Fairtrade (i.e., FLO Fairtrade, not "'Fair' Trade" - there is a very important difference) is A part of AN answer. It is not THE answer. One of the profound ironies of the Fairtrade system is that there are tens of thousands of people around the world who owe their own livelihoods to the system being broken and seeing Fairtrade as a fix. They don't want to "fix" Fairtrade because it might mean losing their jobs. It's kind of perverse, actually. Their jobs depend on perpetuating, to some extent, the existing inequitable system (making the "best of a bad situation").

IB:

The Fairtrade certifications in Laos are likely handled by FLO-CERT ( www.flo-cert.net ). According to their web site, "FLO-CERT GmbH is an independent International Certification company offering Fairtrade Certification services to clients in more than 70 countries." They may be independent but they are located at the same address as FLO. (GmbH stands for "Gesellschaft mit beschrnkter Haftung" which is similar to an LLC (limited liability company) here in the US - they are not a non-profit company.)

There is a list of fees FLO-CERT charges to producers in PDF documents linked to from this page. There is a Scope of Certification page , but it is missing a link to the scope for cocoa. It should be noted that Transfair USA (the FLO licensee that handles Fairtrade business in the the Americas) is far less transparent when it comes to making it's fee structure available to the general public.

When it comes to organic certification, the are many different organizations that offer the service. Organic certification is something of a racket in that not all countries recognize all certifications equally. In the US, companies really want the USDA organic certification so they can use the USDA organic symbol on their packaging. If you have a different certifier, you cannot use the USDA logoeven though some other organic certifier certifies your product as being organic. You have to pay separately for USDA organic certification.

This can have some serious unintended consequences on producer organizations as I outlined in a post about some implications for the TCGA in Belize about Kraft buying Cadbury and shifting some production from Italy to Canada, requiring a shift in organic certifiers. The new organic certifier had much stricter standards for handling "transitional" cocoa and the TCGA lost their buyer for cocoa from farms in the process of attaining their organic certification.

You ask a very interesting question about who is picking up the costs of certification. In a small number of cases, someone other than the co-op is paying for the certifications. Even then, often the companies are picking up the costs in the short run with the intent of turning over responsibility for picking up the ongoing fees ASAP. (This is common with NGOs who tend to have very short time spans - two years is typical - for their programs.)In the case of the thesis cited, the members of the co-op in Laos are picking up all the costs of certification.

Also from this thesis:

In addition, organic and Fairtrade certifiers also need to examine how to make certification more affordable and more culturally appropriate to small producer organisations [emphasis added], as well as to non co-op members