Forum Activity for @Sebastian

Loads of documentation out there on the role of water activity and food safety - do a google search for water activity chart, for example, and you'll get a handy printable wallet card you can give your friendly food inspector. water activity (Aw) isn't a measure of how much water is present - it's a measure of how much water is *available*. For chocolate/compounds, they're essentially the same thing. Your typical coating will have an Aw of approx 0.2-0.3 - which is 2-3x lower than is required to support the most basic forms of microbioogical growth (the minimum Aw required to support growth is slightly above 0.6 Aw)

If you're talking something like milk, sauces, soups, etc - things that are mostly water - 100F is where mesophilic bacteria love to play - likely your food inspector is looking at it through the lens of the buffet line at your local old country buffet - where if you leave almost anything there at 100F for very long, you're likely to get very sick. since there's only tenth's of a percent of water in compound, and any of the water that's there isn't available to support growth anyway (ie it's either in the form of water of crystallization, surface monolayers adsorbed to milk/sugars, etc), there's absolutely zero risk of micro growth. as long as you're not adding anything with moisture into it. Your supplier can give you the exact Aw, moisture content, and ingredient label that you can then give to your inspector to prove there's no risk.

EDITED to note that frequently washing your chocolate melters can actually INCREASE the risk of microbiological contamination. if seems many cases where post washing, equipment has not been dried properly - and that'll lead to problems. certainly not saying you shouldn't be washing your equipment, but many folks overwash or wash improperly and unintentionally increase their risk exposure. Large scale enrobers NEVER get water washed. Water is quite often the enemy in a chocolate plant.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as a cold pressed cocoa powder - at least i've never seen one. it may be an expeller process, but it's still going to be a hot process. The purpose of pressing is to get the cocoa butter out, and if the cocoa butter is solid, it won't come out. If you use a supercritical solvent extraction process, you can keep the temperature down, but it wont be organic then.

Really the only benefit of keeping the temp low might be to keep some of the heart healthy components around longer - which are bitter.

Sounds like whomever is making it isn't giving you quite the right process description, and from what you're indicating, however they're grinding it is simply insufficient. there's plenty of cocoa processors in your neck of the woods who will be capapble of doing a typical grind cocoa powder. i think i might know the answer - but out of curiosity who's supplying your current powder?

I think you'd need to determine what it is you need, why you need it - and then determine how to get there. my guess is there's quite a bit of cocoa out there already that suits your needs... but then again you may have very unique needs!

Most cocoa powder is 8-10 um in particle size - if you require finer, try something like a jet mill.

I'd be surprised if you required finer than that. It's probably easier simply to find an alternate cocoa powder - perhaps the one you're using is of poor quality. Jet milling can give you sub micron particle size, but it will be very, very expensive.

Budget?

There aren't many things in life that have definitive, black and white answers i'm afraid 8-) certainly not chocolate!

Deodorized should have less color and less residual flavor than natural (should - if they're deodorizing correctly...). Which should you use? depends on if you'd like that extra flavor/color in your product or not. color won't matter for your dark or milk - it may for your white. flavor always matters. depends on what type of flavor you're after.

Remember that Fairtrade US and Rest of World split last year - one may not be as likely to be well with the other any longer..

CATIE's the costa rican cocoa research institute. a web search will tell you everything you need to know

CATIE in cartago should be able to help you out. You'll likely have to do some level of driving to find it (it's unlikely they'll bring the fermentation to you).

I could certainly walk through my degrees and where they came from, but i suspect that's not really where your question lies. I understand you *want* to believe that something's that effectively almost pure NaCl with a few minor minerals in it will be a healthful panacea - however it's very well understood that in order to get that little bit of minerals, you end up getting a lot of salt - which is also similarly understood to be a direct driver of hypertension. See The Lancet, Harvard medical student review, or any one of the 10,000 other reputable sources that have published as much. I could also review a list of the peer reviewed journals i've published in, and the clinical trials that have been conducted. My work has, over the years, helped shape current FDA (for the US) policy and similar agencies in other countries all over the world. You are correct that i'm not employed by 'the big boys club' of the FDA. Lecithin does absolutely nothing to 'balance the acid and alkali' in chocolate. It's function is purely as an ampiphillic emulsifier.

If you are marketing a food product as a medicinal food, or as appropriate for a demographic that has serious health issues - it comes with a responsibility to do so in a fashion that is consistent with current medical understanding. Marketing salt (and lets be honest here - Himalayan salt IS salt) as heart healthy because it has a few minor minerals (and again - lets be honest - they are VERY minor - the average NaCl composition of this salt is 95%..). It's irresponsible. Likely illegal (you ARE familiar with the US labeling requirements related to sodium content and heart health, correct?)

I've been at this a very long time. It's been my observation that there's a group of folks who desperately want to believe in non-traditional approaches (raw food, high salt, low carb, whatever), and often outright discredit mainstream science, while quoting the non-traditional sources or personal experiences that have not been peer reviewed, published, or even replicated. There almost always is no reputable science that has been replicated backing any of it up. What i find interesting is when those folks comes to an established board asking for information, and when they do not receive the answer they like, proceed to disparage and attempt to discredit the one who attempted to help them, because the answer did not lie within the constraints of their pre-existing personal belief system.

I will not engage in an extended discussion on this past this post.

Ah, the power of marketing.

Adding salt is not a great way to make something heart healthy.

Chocolate liquor has about 1% natural sugars in it.

The FDA doesn't have time to visit most large food mfrs, much less the small mom & pop shoppes.

Then it's basically just liquor. As Clay notes, it's not going to be a chocolate bar as most people have come to expect.

Nutritional values can either be generated using what's called the 'red book' of food nutritive values (basically a generic template of food categories maintained by the FDA), or using compositional analytical data generated in house or by your supplier. Almost everyone uses the red book, because it's easier.

Details are everything. It's a new operation run by an individual named Stephanie Mayes. Get her to send an ingredient list (she's required to have one).

Either this is almost pure liquor, or it's simply untrue. Tasting it should immediately tell you which one it is.

I think the answers depend greatly on the details. I've had folks absolutely swear by tempering of the chocolate before mixing it with an oil. Personally, in every objective test i've ever done, i can't find evidence that's of long term textural benefit. Once you add a low saturated oil the mix, it blows up any benefits of tempering. I know this will be hotly contested, and folks - do whatever you think gives you the best results. Personally i'd save the time.

As to the ratio - again, depends on the specifics of your chocolate, it's formulation, and what oil you're planning on using. You might consider using something like a fractionated palm kernel oil for stability's sake (no one wants a rancid truffle), or you might opt for something like a canola oil with some vitamin e (antioxidant) - although truth be told i've not tested that variable, and while it makes sense that it'd work, i can not say with certainty.

If she's happy with the texture of the lindor truffle, it's not very difficult to determine how lindt's getting that by simply looking at their label 8-) while i've not had your ganache truffles (feel free to fix that by sending some to....), i think you'll be quite hard pressed to get an oil based truffle to match that of your cream based one, so be sure to manage expectations that the lindor's the target

you can do quite a bit with a vacuum cleaner and some pvc piping - i'm sure there are drawings of something using those materials on the boards here somewhere. i'd look at those for something that's reasonably effective for what you'd be asking it to do, and is extraordinarily cost effective.

The problem with 'natural' is that everyone has a unique definition of what it is. Is there a technical advantage? Sure. Do your consumers care? Ask them 8-)

The folks at Savage equipment should be able to help you with both.

If you have pure cocoa butter you can't add too much unless it becomes cost prohibitive, or flavor prohibitive. Keep adding until cost or flavor no longer works. Additionally, you can try adding 0.1% fluid soy lecithin.

Some countries are exporting with 25% trash. Do this long enough, and you'll find everything you can imagine (and things you wouldn't have imagined) in cocoa beans.

Long term planning and critical thinking are not strong in all parts of the world - especially when you may not know where you're going to get the money to buy dinner tonight. As a result, short term financial decisions are often made - such as "if i put rocks in this bag, it weighs more and i'll get more money today". In actuality, while this is true for today, what it means is that they're shooting themselves in the foot for tomorrow - as folks will catch on to the fact that they're not buying what they think they're buying. That said, if i don't eat today, i don't care much about tomorrow.

A fundamental shift across multiple origins around incenting quality at the grower AND exporter level is needed to change the mindset. It's incredibly difficult, and I don't believe it'll occur on a large scale quickly.

totally worth it!

What's the value associated with 75,000 hours of experience?

8-)

I'd urge folks to start thinking about what they'd like to see, what priced right means, and what they'd like to learn.

ZDS in germany has one.

I wonder if there's sufficient critical mass to create a new one?

Not roasting will eventually lead to you either making someone very sick, or killing them. The topic has been been discussed quite thoroughly here and on the alchemy board.

I simply can not figure out where this notion of not roasting = healthier comes from, and why it's so persistent.

Define healthy 8-)

100g of nibs vs 100g of dark chocolate

Calories 720Kcal 605Kcal

Sugar 0g 24g

Fat 54g 43g

afraid you still don't have nearly enough information. you list your ingredients, but it's not the formula. The details are incredibly important (ie what fat milk powder? what size media, temp of your mill, and # of passes (i assume you have multiple passes?) what's the temperature increase over multiple passes?)

What do you need to do - you need to provide a great deal more information, i'm afraid.

Moisture is always a problem....

well, you're going to need to provide many more details if you'd like help. Specifically:

1) Exact formula of your chocolate, including details on the milk ingredients used

2) timing of addition of ingredients

3) how you operate your ball mill.

I will tell you, that using a ball mill for white chocolate isn't the best solution.

A very small amount of cocoa powder will have been processed to contain lecithin. Unless you've specifically asked for it, yours is not.

Why do you read that? i've no idea 8) i've read lots of crazy things on the internet.

One t hing you'll need to watch with higher fat powders is that they will be more susceptible to both temperature and pressure, in that the fat in them may melt or squeeze out, and when it resolidifies, will turn yoru bag of nice powder into a brick of solid cocoa. however, it's still fine, it's just needs to be reground.

Every cocoa powder, unless it's lecithinated, will have the same shelf life if properly stored. Assume proper storage conditions, and it's not lecithinated, your cocoa powder will be good for up to three years.

Blommer's the largest US grinder of cocoa. They are a bulk industrial producer of chocolate, and they do as well as any of the other bulk chocolate producers. They'll have a range of stock products to select from.

know that between 8-20/lb - callebaut's making an absolute killing on margin...

Depending on your size (volume), you're looking as low as $2.00/lb, and as high as you can convince someone to pay. average mid size fella (< 100,000 lbs), i'd day is ~$4.00/lb.

It was tongue in cheek. however i suppose i could do bars based off of extra-ordinarily rare trees (most people don't have access to germplasm databases), or crossed with things like theobroma grandiflorum.

However, uniqueness of raw materials and skill/knowledge of the preparer aren't going to be sufficient to justify/sustain an elevated price. There will need to be something less directly product related to accompany it.

who says the world of chocolate's not a cut-throat, competitive business? 8-)

Fritz used to have a $250 truffle - it's been some time since we chatted, so i'm not sure if he still does or not.

I'll happily make a $100 bar, sold by the dozen. You choose the beans, blend, and concentration. Pls let me know when you'd like me to start shipping them 8-)

Impossible to tell from the info you provided. You'd need to post the details of the formula and the process for it to be properly troubleshooted. My best guess is that it's either moisture, lactose, or emulsifier related.

Given the legislation and severity of getting it wrong (from the standpoint of impact to potential consumers), i'd go with the most overt labeling route possible. I'd also suggest you have the discussion with your FDA inspector to ensure you're up to speed with the latest information.

FYI, there's a great deal of talk at the FDA around elimination of the 'may contain' type statements - the argument being that either a product does contain something, or it doesn't.

Lecithin is an emulsifier - that is, it provides 'slipperiness' between the fat in your chocolate, and the water - for as you know, the two don't mix well. Yes, there is water in your chocolate - a little bit comes with the sugar, the milk, and the cocoa components for example, or the relative humidity in the production area. Lecithin is an ampi-phillic molecule - ie one end 'likes' to stick to lipids (fats), and one end likes to stick to hydrophillic things (such as water).

Lecithin is a mixture of lots of things, but the 'active' element of lecithin can vary. The viscosity reducing capability of lecithin depends on many, many, many things, one of which is how much of the active component is present. Total moisture content, total fat content, particle size, particle distribution, conch time, etc all factor in as well.

To your main question, lecithin is thought to 'coat' the particles of sugar, with it's hydrophillic end touching the sugar, and it's lipophillic end pointing outwards towards the cocoa butter. This provides a 'bridge' between the two, allowing for them to slip past one another, instead of forming a sticky mess.

The US gov't absolutely requires labeling of both sugar and fat on nutrition labels.

Total Fat 65 g
Saturated Fatty Acids 20 g
Cholesterol 300 mg
Sodium 2400 mg
Potassium 3500 mg
Total Carbohydrate 300 g
Dietary Fiber 25 g
Protein 50 g

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/ucm064928.htm

Not sure of your question - you seem to be asking two unrelated things...

1) nutritional calculator

2) UPC bar code printer

Is it that you're looking for a single program that does both? There is no requirement to bar code anything for nutritional information.

A number of years ago, i was unhappy with the commercially available recipe, spec, and nutritional programs - so i built my own. I've no idea what goes into bar coding, but my guess is with a little elbow grease you could figure it out - perhaps building your own is the way to go if you're not finding what you want?

You may also need to tighten the belt from time to time.