Forum Activity for @Sebastian

! , - , . , , , 8-)

Lets think of chocolate making as being similar to college degrees.

One can get an awful lot of learnings from a 4 year bachelors degree, and be able to apply that knowledge successfully.

By the time one has enough time & experience into it to have a PhD, some of the learnings that were appropriate at the bachelors level have expanded into a different perspective - the expansion of perspective that accompanies experience over time is a powerful vantage point. My strong suspicion is that if you keep on the trajectory that you have been on, the conversation we'll have 20 years from now will be very different 8-)

- , , . , saleman !

What you're seeing here is the difference between an industrial piece of equipment, and a non-industrial piece. Yes the entry price point is higher; however the tolerances, variability and wear/tear will all be significantly improved vs some of the far less expensive alternatives. As with any tool in your toolbox, selection of the right tool for the right job is critical. There's a place for all the tools to one degree or another - my suspicion is that over time, some of you will discover some of the less expensive tools may find it challenging to standup to constant usage over time, and while they were appropriate for the business at it's inception, as your businesses grows they may no longer be the right tool any longer..

Overtempering can be just as bad as undertempering, and can manifest itself in many, many ways depending on the specifics of your formulation and process. Which makes troubleshooting via boards challenging 8-) Heating would absolutely decrease overtempering, you're spot on. If you've got moisture present, i'd expect it'd be thick over a range of working temperatures. Do you use PGPR in your chocolate - if so that might explain what we're seeing. If not, it's as bit of a head scratcher. If it is moisture, you're going to have a very, very difficult time getting it out - it'd be best to condition the room such that it doesn't get in, in the first place.

If you're picking up environmental moisture, once the water's been absorbed into your chocolate, it's going to be very difficult to get out. Your best bet is to condition the air in the room to keep the RH <60%.. Since lecithin is an ampihillic emsulifier, it will hold on to water very tightly.

Based on your description, i don't think that's what is the problem however. If it's VERY thick at tempering temperatures, and VERY fluid at 45C, i think you're simply overseeding it during the cool down phase of tempering.

Actually the statistical part is the easy part - there are lots of programs out there that effectively do that for you, once you have the data.

As far as the balloting goes, it'd probably make sense to start with a subset of a ballot focusing on a few prime attributes - cocoa intensity, fruit, bitterness, astringency, etc. A 1-15 or a 1-5 scale is typically used (1-5 is probably easier for this purpose). At that point it's simply a function of getting with a number of 'good' tasters and evaluating a range of bars (no more than one bar every 20 minutes i'd suggest) under controlled conditions (temperature, quantity, don't drink your starbucks mochachinno before, etc) and agreeing on what constitutes a 3 vs a 5 - this is creating the standards. I'd suggest sticking with larger mfrs for this, using single material from the same production lot, and then freezing a few bars of it for a 'static' reference point in the future. That way as you bring new folks on, you can have a sensory 'kit' where you download the ballot, say go buy bars x,y,z which correspond to 1,2,3 on the chocolate intensity scale, for example, to help provide a frame of reference vs what the actual balloted chocolates should be scored against for intensity.

A similar approach has already been recommended to the ICA. Having participated in these for a long time, my take is they're off to a great start but haven't continually improved their processes to harmonize results. A big reason of that is the time it takes to create a good sensory process. it is a difficult thing to manage, and frankly not everyone can taste - there's some concern about needing to tell long time participants their results aren't valid because they don't have a sufficiently discriminating palate.

Perhaps a suggestion..

one of my observations with the Salon du Chocolat's review system is that the ballot used is pretty good, however there's an amazing lack of calibration between the panelists. Panelist 1 may think chocolate A is a 5 on the chocolate scale, however another may rate it as a 13. This results in a muddled sensory review, with a huge standard deviation, and is difficult to interpret.

It may be interesting to take that ballot (it is a decent ballot - not great, but decent), and select standard chocolates (and lots of those chocolates) that equate to a 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 - etc) on that scale, in an attempt to develop a more standardized approach to group evaluation. Calibration of sensory panels is very difficult, and i don't think that this approach would ever calibration global panels (that's a bit optimistic), but it may be worthwhile to think about how we could lower the standard deviation in these groups such that we're increasingly 'speaking the same language', or at least the same dialect 8-)

If someone were then so inclined, the ballots could be modified to include a general 'likeabilty' score, and data mined over time to get a picture of what attributes translate to 'good' in the eyes of the general evaluation population. Or use it as a standardized way to monitor annual variations in flavor profiles, etc.

Something to consider!

You'd probably do well to consult with someone or buy lunch and pick someone's brains - but here's a quick an dirty shot at some answers before i go out to plow my driveway (again!)

1) Variable. Macintyre type machines will be very loud, the santhas less so - however they're still going to produce a fair bit of noise.

2) Yes. ESPECIALLY important to separate your unroasted from your roasted sections for micro purposes. also the heat generated may interfere with your tempering processes.

3) Options for.. grinding? sure - you don't mention the volumes or the particle sizes you're looking for, but there are plenty of grinders out there such as ball mills, colloid mills, macintyre mills, etc

4) I've never used those models

5) yes, get one if you do high volume. Less than 50 lbs / day consider hand tempering or a savage kettle. they are likely to be expensive.

6) ideally you'll want a 3 zone tunnel, coldest in the middle. the specifics of the length and cooling are dependent upon how much you put into it (i.e. what your tunnels heat load is). fans inside to push the heat out also help.

oh, i imagine they'll consider that to be a closely guarded secret...

Hi Jess - testing was standard plate count, salmonella, and e.coli. products were commercially available and purchased retail or mail order - i won't list the brands here - nor their specific results - as that's a pretty good way to destroy someone's business, but the individuals were notified. Note that this was not done at their request. The results are not encouraging (one case had 10^11 levels!), and have sparked discussions with the FDA to address the issue if it continues to emerge in a non-controlled fashion.

Suffice it to say that i know of no validated safe way to produce a raw chocolate, as defined by <118F temps, today, and i've been exposed to a bit more process/tech as it relates to chocolate than your average bear. The issue is 100% a microbiological one.

How do they address it? They don't. I've tested a number of them, and to be frank they were off the charts high in micro load. It's only a matter of time before the FDA steps in and regulates this. Discussions have already been had. It's on the docket. If the industry doesn't self regulate, government will.

UV light will not be effective as there are far too many 'nooks and crannies' where the UV doesn't shine.

I'm working out a way that *might* allow a raw, micro safe product to be made, but it's not tested yet. I think it's possible, but i need to noodle through some more things on it first.

If it's really that serious of a health issue, it sounds like a gamble to me to attempt to consume it. I can't stress enough that there is no current safe method of producing raw cocoa consistently that has safe microbiological levels.

I'm not versed enough in the formation pathways of biogenic amines in the various process steps of cocoa, nor in their subsequent pathways upon ingestion to know if the above is a known element or an educated guess. I've never heard of it, which leads me to believe it's fantastically rare, which leads me to believe it's not well studied.

As sorry to say this as i am, i'd steer clear of it. Your either playing russian roulette with your disease, or salmonella. At minimum i'd keep a course ofquinolone or floroquinolones nearby.

There are a few important steps that could impact the formation of biogenic amines. Most of them do not form during fermentation, i'm afraid.

The first is fermentation - fermentation can take up to 7 days, and can be done a variety of ways. One of the things that occurs during fermentation is the consumption of raw materials (i.e. sugars are consumed), which results in the increase of non-consumed components. This leads to a higher fat content, which is important for future processing. Unfermented cocoa beans, on their own, will have a fat content that is too low to enable the cocoa bent to be fluid once it's ground. Those processing it won't be able to pump it. Most free amino acids are in the pulp at this stage, which drains away. Pyrazines begin to form at this stage. Temperatures can get fairly high here (150F +) - since there is no definition of 'raw' - it becomes difficult to say if fermented beans are raw or not - however the general consensus in the raw community is that if temperatures exceed 118F, it's not raw. Since it's quite common for the ambient environmental temperatures where cocoa is grown to exceed 118F, never mind the temperatures during fermentation, most of the raw community wouldn't consider cocoa to be raw.

Next is drying - if you don't dry the beans, they'll have very high moistures and rot, or if low enough prevent rotting, they can still be high enough to give viscosity issues during further processing. Temperatures can be very high here, but most use the power of the sun. A complex cascade of internal chemical reactions is occurring here.

Next is roasting - very high temperatures. Here is where most of your amino changes are occurring, with lots of strecker degradation reactions occurring as a result of the thermogenic induction. This is also your primary micro kill step. It's reducing your moisture down to ~1% level so you can process it (again, it will be too viscous if you don't), and since raw cocoa beans have extraordinarily high microbiological counts (this is the reason they're not safe to consume pre-roasting), this is the step - and the only step - where those counts will be reduced to safe levels. Since flavor precursors are forming during fermentation (hence the pyrazine comment above), roasting of unfermented beans doesn't result in a flavor improvement.

For cocoa powder production - what happens next is the beans are ground up (turned into liquor) - where they become flowable. The grinding process itself generates heat (i'm unaware of any work that has been done to examine the changes in peptide profiles at this step), and then it goes to a very, very high pressure hydraulic press. Since this press requires the liquor to be flowable and fluid, if the beans were not fermented, the processor would not be able to do this. A very small amount of cocoa powder has it's butter extracted via supercritical fluid extraction, but that still requires the liquor to be fluid enough to pump it.

The net/net is - any commercial cocoa powder you purchase is highly likely to be fermented and roasted. Most biogenic amine formation is driven by thermogenic - not enzymatic - changes, and free amino acids (including tryptophan), are present in un-fermented cocoa to begin with. If you don't ferment the beans, the beans will be unprocessable from a viscosity standpoint; if you don't roast the beans, they will be unsafe to consume from a microbiological standpoint.

If he's simultaneously stating that its raw and has a low microbe count, i'd be very, very suspicious. Organic has nothing to do with micro food safety. HE may believe they're low in micro count, but my very strong suspicion is that he's a marketing guy trying to sell his beans, and has absolutely no proof the beans have a 'virtually nonexistent' microbe count.

time tested and approved 8-)

but there may be a way to process it, keep the temps below 120F, AND obtain a 5 log kill. nevermind that it'll still taste like .. well, not great... so i still don't understand the infatuation with raw cocoa, but it may be a way to at least let people consume bad tasting chocolate w/o going into renal failure 8-)

FYI for the rest of you - i MAY have come up with a way to safely use raw cocoa. i'll need to think through it a bit more, but as with any puzzle, there's a solution, it just needs to be found. I may have found a solution. If it works, it'll require equipment that you probably don't have however 8-)

I certainly meant no disrespect - my apologies if you took it as such. I think you will find this community is very much a two way street, you get back what you put into it. I did not answer your question directly because the answer already is here. I did provide an answer that you likely didn't know yet to ask, and will save you a trip to a hospital at some point if you heed it.

There are no easy answers mate, no short cuts, no one liners. The info you seek, by and large, is already here. There are individuals who have been making chocolate at a very high level for 25+ years here who share their knowledge openly and freely, and for as much knowledge and experience as they have, they don't know everything there is to know. It has taken us decades to learn it; it's unreasonable to expect that an individual can do so without committing time, money, and resources to it - all of which you'd suggested a hesitancy to do. We do so without an expectation of thanks, but because we love the topic, enjoy teaching, and want to see people learn in a safe manner.

It would be difficult for me to show up at polymer engineering board and ask 'someone post a link to teach me to be a polymer scientist' and expect quick results. I think it's fair to say that as smart as you are, you will not learn what you seek overnight from someone posting a 'link or two'. The best advice i can give you is to read what's here already, and then ask for clarification should there be things you don't understand.

You asked the question, you indicated you weren't willing to do the r/d yourself or even take the time to browse the boards.

Your dislike of the answer or offer of virtual friendship, i'm afraid, has no bearing on the truth of the answer. It's given with your best interest in mind.

Best wishes to you.

Unless you're allergic to one of the labelled ingredients (i.e. milk) it's highly unlikely that commercial chocolate is making you ill. It is highly likely that raw chocolate will make you ill eventually. I understand you believe it's better for you, but i'd urge you to further understand what 'raw' means for cocoa. I hardly ever meet someone for whom ingesting salmonella or e. coli has turned out to their benefit.

Don't under-estimate the importance of good PHC - genetics only accounts for approximately 51% of the flavor potential, which isn't to be underestimated, but most folks give it more creedence than it's due, and post harvest less than they should.

well, if i tell you the results before you test, it can skew your perception 8-) test it and see...

you'll taste it far before you see it, but given enough time, the color will lighten. by the time it's noticeably lighter, you don't want to eat it...

photodegredation of proteins and lipids is very common. Most of it's due to UV lights (think fluorescent lighting). Many fats are susceptible to it, the shorter chain and less saturated the fat, the faster it will occur. it's the reason your milk doesn't come in clear containers.

Tanzanian beans are typically flavor beans. no one would ship them here, and have them be in as good condition as the email suggests, and then abandon them. i'd be suspicious.

100,000 lbs will be the minimum for any of the big mfrs. you may be able to get some of the smaller guys to toll for you, but it's not really their main gig..

For tempering, you essentially need to heat the mass up to 120, cool it down to about 81, and then reheat it to about 88. it does not really matter how you do this so a bowl of cold water would be fine, assuming it is sufficiently cold to allow you to get your chocolate to about 81f. you do not need a thermometer to temper, however it greatly, greatly, greatly increases your likelihood of success - for at this time, since you're not accustomed to tempering, you don't really know what success looks/feels like - so the thermometer will guide you.

Local taste preferences vary greatly around the world. in many places in east asia they don't ferment at all. in some places in c. america they bury the beans with lye in the ground. hard to say why a local flavor preference develops the way it does.

The sugar won't heat up the drum at all, it's getting warmer due to the frictional heat generated during grinding. what it is likely to contribute, however, is moisture, which is rarely a good thing for dark chocolate. if your chocolate is very viscous, it's a potential contributor to that.

It's called fat bloom, and is the result of not being in temper. If you're just starting to temper, an accurate thermometer is critical, and you're going to need someway of cooling the chocolate once it's been tempered. The germinated bean won't impact your ability to temper, but it's not likely to taste very good as a result.

It most assuredly has more than 30% fat in it. Unless it is very immature. Tell us more about why you think it didn't work, what did you see, photos are helpful..

Cool indeed. i bet any fruits are going to be very slow maturing and quite high in fat - it'd be interesting if you could get it to fruit, mature, and grab one 8-)

Selamat jalan (Bahasa for safe travels...)

You've picked a tough place to start, mate - almost no one in indonesia ferments their beans, and pod borer is a nightmare there. great beans can certainly be made there, however it's not part of the culture to do so, so it's a bit of a treasure hunt.

"Best" is one of those words that everyone likes, but means something different to everyone who hears it.

What you'll need to get your arms around is

1) Harvesting mature pods.

2) identifying removing damage/disease

3) fermenting

4) drying

and THEN you'll be able to make good chocolate. "best" for fermentation and drying above can vary a great deal, depending on what your targets are. I'm afraid it's very difficult to distill what you need to know in these areas in a few minutes on the web, but there's a great deal of info on these boards to get you started. It'd probably be a good use of time to spend a solid week reading everything here and compiling it to start.

Is it that the beans aren't of good stock, or that the post harvest handling procedures are not appropriate? My suspicion is that the beans are just fine, but the knowledge required to properly prepare them once mature is lacking. If that's the case, no change in planting material will help that i'm afraid.

Here's a bit of a secret:

There's no perfect recipe. Since each cacao type is different, and each process is different - they all need to be adjusted to yield the outcome you want. And since each person has a different idea of what 'perfect' means to their palate, well, that makes it even more challenging. If you have cocoa from origin x that made 'the perfect' chocolate for you, taking that exact same recipe but substituting cocoa from origin y may result in the most awful chocolate you've ever tasted.

Not the easy answer you were looking for, i know, it's probably frustrating. But it's the truth i'm afraid. The pathway to enlightenment lies in the same answer of 'how do you get to carnegie hall? practice.' Or find someone who's already practiced and willing to taste your starting material and provide some direction.

I'm afraid what i make is only for my personal consumption, or gifting at this point 8-)

What differentiates them? Advertising and personal preference. I know all of them personally - they're all fine chocolatiers. I also know plenty of folks who's names you've likely never heard that make comparable product.

I wouldn't overthink it to be honest. if you're tempering on a slab, you're using small quantities of chocolate. I've never done the math, but suffice it to say that i temper more than the average bear, and i've never encountered the thermal limit of the stone whereby it had absorbed so much heat that it no longer was an effective heat sink for my chocolate. Mike's right in his answer, but the chances of you tempering so much that you saturate your stone is very low. If you are tempering so much chocolate that you hit your stone's thermal limits, you're at the point where your equipment is jacketed and made of stainless steel, not rocks.

They're not. The hurdle isn't copper. What you've got is a local official who's looking for some extra money. I'm going to guess that you've not been given any official documentation with the official's name on it, pointing to copper standards?

That's not a question that's easily answered i'm afraid. I could attempt but i'd likely end up boring even myself with long technical explanations, followed almost immediately with caveats depending on particular formulations. Try it, and see what happens 8-)

Actually, chocolate is a fantastically poor oxygen barrier. Ensuring they are completely covered in chocolate results in ever-so-slightly more protection vs just letting the nuts lie out on your kitchen countertop. Counter-intuitive, i know.

I pay for almost everything in cash, when possible. Obviously i'm having a hard time sending $20 bills through the internet, they keep getting stuck in my dvd slot for some reason. must be a jam. anyway, CC's are terribly convenient, but, as you note, expensive. I've also gotten in the habit of asking merchants if there are discounts for cash - i was surprised by how many offered up to 10% discounts simply for me paying cash - now, some don't (any store that's a major retailer or chain, for example), and that's fine.

Interestingly, a few years ago my wife had her identity stolen and a bunch of things put on a CC under her name. the charges were reversed, yadda yadda, but we wanted to take it further and nail the guy. the CC company effectively said that this was simply the cost of doing business, and there was no intent to further pursue/prosecute it from their end. Basically they just told the criminals they've got a very, very low chance of getting prosecuted, making it such a tempting target to continue to do more theft. Part of those transaction fees are going to subsidize that cost of doing business.

Butter is like any other commodity - they'll produce what the majority users want. Much of it is indeed deodorized - i'd be hard pressed to say if most of it is, however - but certain a lot of it is. Almost all of it, deodorized or not - is blended to try to achieve consistency. Cocoa beans are not always fermented, not always ripe, sometimes infested, sometimes rotten, etc. Origin notwithstanding, all these things result in different physical and sensory profiles - blending helps round those out to achieve a stable commodity.

Shawn presses in the US BTW. His cocoa powder certainly won't go to waste, it's in another of his products 8-)

Callebaut, with the purchase of Petra, is now the worlds largest grinder - all of their beans can't be flavor grade 8-) It's always either the beans, the process, or the storage 8-)