Why not? Sugar cane grows in huge quantities in central america and the carribean; palm sugar in africa and asia, etc. I've seen cows on every continent except Antarctica, and soybeans are one of the most abundant crops on the planet (lecithin). I bet you could even get an orchid to grow in la republica dominicana and harvest some vanilla, although i've never looked for one there 8)
Could be a function of conching, but remember that the bulk couverature that you're buying from large industrial manufacturer is likely made using predominately a blend of african or african and indonesian beans - which aren't sourced for their unique delicate flavor parameters - rather because they can be purchased in huge volumes and the 'rough spots' blended out in massive mixing tanks.
There are exceptions, of course, but without the details of the specific mfr, i'm going to place my bets on the 99.75% of the product that's on the market 8-)
Conching is treated either as an art by most, or as a quick passthrough step, and there are very few who understand even how to measure the progression of conching (ie is it doing what you want it to do, is it doing it most effectively, etc) - there's actually quite a lot of science behind it!
Perhaps one day when i retire or semi-retire i'll start holding classes 8-)
1) Not everyone does add add'l cocoa butter. Because things like moisture and particle size make a difference to viscosity, and because there are very, very, very few people who understand how to conche properly - add'l cocoa butter is a very easy way to compensate for rheological challenges
2) i'd say so, yes - but there are no standards.
3) it's expensive, and there's little demand for it. you'd also end up with a single origin cocoa powder, by the way - which there *may* be demand for if you can market it properly... but still very expensive. Actually there are single origin cocoa butters - you can get single origin ivorian, single origin ghanaian, single origin indonesian - it' effectively what's already out there, for the most part.
gonna have to give a lot more details of the formulation and temperatures of operation mate. my guess is that it's simply not tempered.
They will never become unsafe to eat if stored in dry conditions.
The flavor will change over time - how long is appropriate is up to you, really. General rule of thumb is that if there's milk fat present, it will not keep as long. If they are packaged in a very high oxygen barrier packaging, they could be great for years (i've literally kept one brand for 7 years in sealed packaging and appropriate environmental conditions and it was great - very good).
If you plan to melt and coat something with the white chocolate - age is not going to be your friend from a rheology standpoint. Also, generally speaking, white chocolate is going to have a much shorter shelf life from a flavor perspective than it's darker counterparts. Personally i count the shelf life of almost every white chocolate in months. Most branded mfrs will, however, count their shelf life in the 1-1.5 yr range.
depends on your scale - most are adjustable to read whatever the local norm is. i find it easiest to work in grams.
ah - well, if you've got the exact measurements, determining the volume is trivial. Your chocolate supplier isn't likely to have the densities for all their chocolates measured, and you can ask them to do it, which they will if they have time, or they'll make time if you're a large enough customer. If precision is important to you, remember that specifications have a range (ie fat is normally +/-1% on industrial chocolates) - so that range will result in a range of densities as well.
If you want to do the density yourself, you'll need a graduated cylinder and a scale - density is simply mass over volume - so fill your cylinder (on the scale) to 100ml of chocolate and read it's mass. D = m/v. The reading on the scale divided by 100 (the mls you used for the reading), and you've got a density calculation. Obviously if your scale is not calibrated, if you're not accurate in filling the cylinder, or if your chocolate temps are all over the place, it will impact your calculations.
Once you've got your volume of your cavity - simply multiply that by your density, and you've got the grams/unit of measure. Be sure not to mix your units of measure between your cavity volume calculations and density calculations (ie don't use both inches and centimeters, for example - one or the other)
I honestly think you're taking the path of most resistance, mate..now, even though i've had as many calc classes as they offer, i'm not a math guy, and for most moulds, mathematically calculating the volume's going to be an incredibly tedious process. If you must know the cubic inches of the mould, the mfr should be able to provide that, as their molds are made using design software that should be able to provide the volumetric with a click of a button. That's what i'd do, but the scale i work at is perhaps a little different than most 8-)
Actually, volume doesn't care about density. Ounces is a measure of mass - volume is a measure of space. His question was about volume; but i suspect he's really asking about mass 8-)
If you're looking to measure the mass / cavity so you can better estimate how much chocolate you'll need to order, probably the most simple way to approach it, assuming you have said mold, is to mold up a form of chocolate using it, weigh the 20 pieces that come out of it, and determine the average weight per piece. Don't forget to add in an overage to compensate for waste/working mass. That way you don't need to compensate for the subtleties of temperatures impact on volume/density and complexities of volumetric calculations of irregular cavity shape.
Plus everyone knows that making chocolate is more fun than doing math 8-)
It's just marketing mumbo-jumbo; nothing of any substance there.
Milk fat is a fat, so it requires no emulsification with cocoa butter. Emulsification means getting water and oil to mix, essentially. if you melt cocoa butter and add in melted milk at, and stir, you'll not be able to see any separation. Is your milk fat that you're adding ANHYDROUS milk fat, or butter from the store? Butter from the store has up to 20% water emulsified into it. You need to be certain, if you're adding milk fat as a stand alone ingredient, that it's anhydrous milk fat (ghee is another name for it in some ethnic circles). Butter from the store will not work.
NOTE: you'll need to ensure you're paste is warm enough to be fluid - ot
Agree with brad. There should be no separation. Your milk powder - if it is whole milk powder - will have a fat content between 26-28.5%. DO NOT RECONSTITUTE IT to make chocolate. Use it dry.
Assuming 54% fat nibs and 28.5% fat milk powder, your recipe = ~35% total fat -which should be fluid enough to pour. If it's not fluid enough for your liking, fluid lecithin at 0.3-0.5% can be added at the end of your grinding - use more and it will get more viscous. If it's still too thick, it's almost always because you've added water somewhere (either intentionally or via ingredients), you've gotten it way, way, way too hot somewhere along the line, or your grinder is a super grinder and you've managed to grind your particles to sub-micron sizes (i guarantee you this is not the problem).
Exactly what nibs, sugar, milk, and lecithin are you using (ie brand names, which country they originated from, or where/who did you purchase them from)?
That will be one of the most effective emulsifiers you'll be able to use.
How do you know it's not emulsifying?
What is your total % fat of your recipe, and your ingredient list (with their %'s of formulation to be most helpful).
A refract can tell you the dissolved solids level - which you may be able to correlate to your particular formula's Aw, but it's difficult to say any product with a dissolved solids level of xx = an Aw of yy. You may be able to make some educated guesses - for example, you may be able to take a range of products off the shelf and get a sense for their dissolved solids level, and try to emulate it on your product hoping to get 'in the ballpark' - but remember, a refract requires transmissible light for it to work, so you may need to work out a dilution as chocolate/caramel sauces aren't particularly translucent. also note that many shelf stable items may have preservatives in them, which, along with thermal processing and Aw control, becomes part of that mfr's stability strategy.
That, my friend, is the subject of many textbooks. I'd suggest doing some research on water activity (Aw) to familiarize yourself with the basics and what the various ranges indicate. You can have your product tested at any number of facilities, or you could purchase your own equipment, but they're often more than folks want to send to purchase.
If you're a very, very small operation (ie you make 5 jars / year out of your house), you may want to take the 'make it, store it, and watch it' approach to see what the typical amount of time is before it goes south. not very scientific i know.
You'll need to control your water activity, which you won't know what it is until you have it tested. Once your Aw is low enough, microbes won't be able to grow. If you're unable to reduce your Aw to satisfactory levels via your formulation, you'll have to give it a heat treatment to kill everything in it, or keep it refrigerated.
As with any tool, there are times when it's quite appropriate to use, and others when it's not. Since not all beans are created equal - nor are taste palates - removal of certain (off) flavors may be desireable - and it may even allow flavors that are MORE subtle, but being masked, to shine.
Additionally, it can help a great deal with moisture removal - which can help with viscosity control.
Sorry to rain on the parade. Unfortunately highly unsaturated fats at high levels + air and high temps (think ruptured cells) don't end well over long periods of time. There are lots of handling procedures that can be done during roasting that can minimize the impact, but not eliminate it.
There's nothing you can do to stop oxidative rancidity in nutmeats, other than defatting them. Period.
There are lots of things you can do to slow it down. Generally speaking, if you put a barrier around the nuts that can block oxygen, that helps (ie candying provides a sugar barrier). The lower temperatures you can expose the nuts to, the better (ie roast lower for longer vs very hot for shorter).
A couple of things to note:
Chocolate is a terrible oxygen barrier.
Sugar barriers, if intact, are great. However it's quite challenging to keep sugar from getting cracks in it, which lets the oxygen through.
You will never. Ever. get 1 year stability in pecans, unless you keep them frozen. Or perhaps stored in space where there is no oxygen.
I know it well, i've spent a great deal of time there. But, for those who haven't, perhaps you could describe the differences in your cocoa (ie hispanola or sanchez), and if hispanola - what the fermentation looks like and what the flavor profile of the beans that result from them look like?
You may want to start by indicating where your beans are from, what type they are (hispanola or sanchez - it may not be obvious to everyone), the quantities you've got available, etc...
HACCP isn't going to be a cut/paste. You'll need to develop it for your own facility. Main elements will be to identify control points for
1) Micro (usually roasting)
2) Foreign material - usually done via a combination of screening and metal detection
Veliche is produced in Belgium. However, simply using african beans on german equipment based in belgium doesn't result in something that's different from the same product made using african beans on german equipment based in the US...
All 3 companies have good products, all 3 have less good products. What good means depends on your definition. Afraid there's no 'right' answer.
Sorry for the late response mike - have been tied up. There are pros/cons to everything - it depends on what your goal is. Pregrinding your nibs can be very beneficial in that it can:
1) increase your throughput via reducing the duration spent in later steps
2) may decrease your moisture (liquor has moisture), thereby reducing your conch times / viscosity
3) may result in finer finished chocolate
The cons may include:
1) additional equipment and process steps
as noted initially, these things are VERY dependent upon your setup and your goals. Do you need it? No. Can it be beneficial? Certainly. Will it help you achieve your goals? That depends on what your goals are 8-) Don't you hate 'it depends' answers - but the reality is - it depends. Given your budget constraints, i'm going to assume it's a VERY small operation, and as such i'd probably suggest you just skip a pre grind step and live with the extra time spent in a rotary mill. Perhaps a quick run through food processor or blender to get the nibs smaller by a bit, but you may not find value in investing in another piece of equipment at this stage of your work.
I do echo the sentiment that post milling screening is important - regardless of the type of quantity of mills you have.
Depends a great deal on the specifics - what type of pre grinder? how's it configured? what are you running through it (EXACT %'s), your % fat in your paste, how big your particles are to begin with (ie 1000 um sugar will result in a very different end product than if you start with 500 um sugar).
Prob not what you want to hear - but i'd most likely discard it.
how do you know they're 'milk crystals' (and what are milk crystals?)
110F for 3 months is an *awefully* long time to let chocolate sit. my strong suspicion is that, if you've got 'balls' of stuff that won't process out - it either got wet, or the temperature cycled higher than what you believe and you've got protein denaturation (or possibly lactose crystallization).
Either way, i'd not want to eat it after spending 3 months at 110F. Toss it.
No. However, the warmer you keep them, or the higher humidity they are stored in, the higher the potential for infestation - just as with any raw agricultural commodity.
if unroasted, yes. they are likely to contain harmful bacteria. also, if you throw them really, really hard at someone, it can be hurtful.
Get as much oxygen out of your packaging as possible, keep it as cold as possible, and away from as much light as possible.
Thanks Jim - looking forward to it!
You can absolutely have genetic variation w/in a pod. All of the seeds will not be genetically identical.
Again it's possible to determine definitively. There's not a great deal of value in doing so however.
The biggest problem is - how do you define criollo? It's been done, there is an answer - but almost no one knows what it is or how to do it. 99.99% of folks use a very loose, ballpark-ish gut feel based on visuals, yield, disease resistance, or flavor - which is a very good way to get it wrong 8-) plus, your pod has 40(ish) seeds in it - are they all the same? If it tastes wonderful and is differentiated - does it matter? 8-)
Correct, no legal requirements.
There are a few who can tell if it's true or not; it's certainly possible 8-)
Jim, would you be willing to post some photographs of your trees and fermentation and drying areas? I'd love to see them...
My suspicion is that they're trying to control the formation of nitrosodimethylamines, which are by products of the marriage of chlorine + proteins, and are pretty genotoxic at low levels. Now, your inspector probably doesn't know that, he's just been given a form that he needs to check off. Your average inspector is going to take the most risk-adverse road available, and probably doesn't understand much of the 'whys' behind what they're doing. Could be a good opportunity to bring them along for the ride to build the relationship a bit, raise the bar, and create a win/win for everyone 8-)
Chlorox is an interesting example of a grandfathered product. if invented today, it'd likely not be allowed on the shelves 8-)
2% is the threshold.
That knowledge gap can work both ways - in most places, working with bacon in a confectionery capacity will require you to have extra meat licenses - most inspectors don't know that... so it's a double edged sword 8-)
