Any Chocolatier lifetime subscribers reading?
Posted in: News & New Product Press
I am not a subscriber personally, but that sounds like a pretty shabby way to treat customers to me. And a great way to poison your reputation for the future.
Forum Activity for @Langdon Stevenson
Posted in: News & New Product Press
I am not a subscriber personally, but that sounds like a pretty shabby way to treat customers to me. And a great way to poison your reputation for the future.
The Fine Art of Chocolate ... Criticism
Posted in: Opinion
Clay, I think that you have missed the point that I was making about wine reviewing.My point was: the body of work created by _all_ reviewers of wine (not Robert Parker or any other reviewer alone) has acted to help the wine making industry to lift its quality, even the cheapest bottle of wine on the shelf has benefited from the industry of wine reviewing.Open and frank discussion of the quality of wine, or chocolate, or any other product gives everyone (including the manufacturer regardless of how large or small they are) the opportunity to discuss the product's strengths and weaknesses. The maturity and very high standards of wine making the world over is testament to that.
The Fine Art of Chocolate ... Criticism
Posted in: Opinion
Gwen, you wrote:"Miserable people publish scathing reviews"It sounds like you have someone specific in mind here, would you care to fill us in?In response to your comment about food and fashion, I would point out that the wine industry has a very strong culture of review. Rather than undermining the industry, this has enhanced it by helping to develop standards, improve quality and transparency. It also encourages competition.Having frank and open discussion is beneficial to any industry.The chocolate industry could have a worse role model than the wine industry.
The Fine Art of Chocolate ... Criticism
Posted in: Opinion
Gwen, an entire industry exists around the world providing product review and comment. Think of motor magazines for instance, or consumer guides like Choice Magazine in Australia. They review products and rate them based on their performance. If the product is lousy and doesn't represent value for money, or doesn't do what it claims, or is poorly constructed then the reviewer will say so.There is nothing unfair about this process; it is the responsibility that you take when you sell or give something to someone. If you take a person's money in exchange for a product or service - or give it to them for free in the hope that they will promote it for you - then it is only reasonable that the recipient is free to comment on the product.In my opinion, the only time a product should be vociferously slammed is if it deserves it. Manufacturers have a very powerful voice in the marketing and advertising that they use to promote their products. Critical review is the consumers' right of reply. A right that defamation laws around the world protect, so clearly our societies value that right.
Cocoa butter and cocoa solids
Posted in: Tasting Notes
"I wasn't arguing the amount or intensity of the flavor of a cocoa butter, just that cocoa butter has flavor."
Forgive me for misunderstanding, Clay, because I thought that was precisely what you meant when you said here that "If the cocoa butter is pressed from the same beans that the chocolate is made from and the butter is not deodorized then the flavor isn't diluted."
Cocoa butter and cocoa solids
Posted in: Tasting Notes
"I was pointing out that cocoa butter does have flavor."
Even so, Clay, x amount of cocoa butter has much less flavour than the same amount of cocoa liquor. So it's fair to say, as Lowe did, that extra cocoa butter weakens the flavour.
In some bars, where only a small amount of cocoa butter is added, the weakening effect might be negligible, but in other bars (like Choklat 70%, for example, which contains 30% added cocoa butter) the effect is undoubtedly significant, whether the cocoa butter is deodorized or not.
Also, much chocolate is made with deodorized cocoa butter anyway - e.g. milk and white chocolates.
It also seems safe to assume that origin bars would often contain deodorized cocoa butter, too - because no serious chocolate maker would want the flavour of their "Chuao" (or whatever) beans competing with flavourful cocoa butter from a completely different origin (very few artisan manufacturers press their own cocoa butter).
Cocoa butter and cocoa solids
Posted in: Tasting Notes
Glad you found my reply useful.
I call the part of the cacao nib that isn't fat "non-fat cocoa solids", or NFCS for short.
Cocoa butter and cocoa solids
Posted in: Tasting Notes
Lowe, in the linked thread about migraines, Clay said that "Cocoa butter has more than fat in it in the same way that butter has more than fat in it".
This is incorrect. Minifie, Beckett, and the USFDA all agree that the term "cocoa butter" means the _edible fat_ obtained from cocoa beans.
It might be difficult (or even practically impossible) to remove 100% of the non-fat compounds from cocoa butter, but that just means that your cocoa butter is "contaminated" with other compounds. It doesn't mean that cocoa butter isn't pure fat.
By contrast, "butter" in the more common sense of the word refers to a dairy product made from cream. The butter in my fridge is only 81% fat (most of the rest is water). Dairy butter also naturally contains a small percentage of protein and carbohydrates.
Also, Lowe, I've taken a look at the file on your website labelled "Cocoa Fat in Chocolate", and I have a couple of questions and suggestions.
First of all, it would be helpful for the columns to include clear unit measurements.
For example, what exactly does "Percent" indicate? And how about "Cacao fat"?
The lack of clear explanation of these terms makes the data confusing. For example, I don't know what you mean when you state that Green & Black's white chocolate is:
Percent: 30
Cacao fat: 47
Non-fat solids: 0
If the bar is 30% cocoa solids, and 100% of the cocoa solids is cocoa butter, then how did you arrive at the 47% figure? The only way that figure makes sense to me is if you've included milk fat in the "Cacao fat" column.
Also, you asked: "So why do think there's generally higher fat content in higher percentage bars? By adding extra cocoa butter the makers are decreasing their profit margin."
1. You can't simply assume that "higher fat" means "added cocoa butter" (for example, many bars also contain milk fat, and/or other vegetable fats, e.g. Green & Black's white chocolate, as mentioned above).
2. A bar with a higher percentage of cocoa solids would naturally contain a higher percentage of cocoa butter, if expressed as a _percentage of the total bar_ (this is because pure cocoa liquor is always roughly 55% cocoa butter - hence, the more cocoa liquor you use, the more cocoa butter comes along for the ride).
So, an 80% bar with no added cocoa butter would contain about 44% cocoa butter, while a 60% bar with no added cocoa butter would contain only about 33% cocoa butter.
3. Cocoa butter isn't necessarily a more expensive ingredient than cocoa liquor. For example, if you produce your own cocoa liquor on a relatively small scale from whole beans, you can probably purchase cocoa butter from a large manufacturer for a fraction of the price that it costs you to produce your own cocoa liquor.
4. A lot of people (women especially, I've noticed) prefer the taste and mouthfeel of chocolate with a generous amount of added cocoa butter - so it sells very well in certain demographics.