Ask the Alchemist #84

Your Madagascar bean is listed as from the “Sambriana Valley.” Is this a typo? I see people also referring to “Sambirano” and “Sambriano”. Can you shine some light on the names?

This is a bit embarrassing, and at the same time rather amusing in an infamous way.

Let’s get the name straight. First and foremost the proper name of the region in Madagascar is Sambirano Valley. And that is what you will see on my site….(blush, hanging head in shame)…now. I’ve corrected it.

Yes, I did list those two other versions mistakenly for years. How and why? Just an honest mistake really. At some point my supplier spoke the name, I heard SamBRIano, not SamBIRano, and the rest is history. But….(and here is the interesting, and oddly gratifying part) those two misspellings are out there A LOT. They come up quite a bit on that famous search engine, with some pretty well known chocolate makers, and a lot of small artisan makers. "So maybe there are two legitimate spellings" you say? "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true" you say? I am really sorry to break it to you, but no. The simple answer is that I recognize each and every one I saw as having roots in Chocolate Alchemy and my mistake.

Thanks for the trust folks, but yes, (tongue in cheek here) I do make mistakes and typos, and this one has propagated far and wide. It’s kind of gratifying in an infamous sort of way. I didn’t mean to re-name an entire region of a country. I apologize Madagascar.

Anyway, it is all changed on my site. And if you see someone with the name incorrect, be delicate and not haughty. Maybe just send them the link to this Ask the Alchemist and leave it at that.

New beans in stock

I hope everyone has had a fantastic summer and welcome to the beginning of Fall.  That means new cocoa and getting ready for the busy time of the year.  And believe it or not, that means starting to think about Halloween and even the Christmas/Yule/Winter holiday of your choice.  And for that, I've got a bunch of new beans to choose from. It’s always exciting for me when I get to sample of a new crop of beans or better yet, an origin I've never had.  The first the anticipatory aroma of the raw beans, the delicate 'clack' as  I heft some in my hand, and then finally, the enveloping smells of roasting; anticipating at each step what the finished product will taste like.

These are exciting beans, picked by none other than yours truly, after looking at way too many samples from around the world over the past few months.  By now, I would hope you know where my standards are, so be assured these are the cream of the crop.  And if you are into brewing cocoa, I’ve developed a new blend, including a mysterious one that started out as Anakin but ended up much darker…read on....

First, two new beans:

Dominican Republic Riog RFA/Org 2014 Mouth watering.  Just go read about it.  There is too much to tell here! Jamaican 2014 -  RAISIN and RUM!!!!

Some returning favorites:

Belize Organic 2014.  The new crop is in and beautiful. Bolivia Organic 2014  Also the new crop and as nice as ever. Peru FT/Org 2014.  A great old friend

And a couple that are outside of my norm.  I mention the samples I go through to offer you what I do.  Some people have this romantic notion of me tasting tantalizing cocoa and chocolate, day in and day out...and sometimes it is...but sometimes it's just one of those dirty jobs you have to push through.  No really.  I'm serious.  You have no idea how bad some cocoa can be and that it is used day in day out by some large companies to make what some people consider chocolate.  And honestly, I have to give some of them credit.  I couldn't make good chocolate out of these.  Ok, so some isn't good, but it's still better than I could make these taste.   So I want to share (inflict?) a couple samples with you.  May I present two terrible beans, with really great pedigrees, really lovely origins and organic to boot!

Ugh!! Cocoa beans

Uhg #1  Fuzzy, musty and funky with hints of skunk, motor oil and musk! Uhg #2  Diesel fuel and mold with layers of astringent, sour bitterness

Go right ahead, jump on them before they are gone!  Seriously, they are for sale, but only $1/lb...with a 1 lb limit (no one deserves more than that, maybe I'll offer less)...just enough to cover my time and materials.  It really is worth seeing what's out there and what you can get if you don't have someone looking out for you.  But don't make chocolate out of them.  Please.

On an up note, I have a new batch of Testing and Evaluation beans in.  There is only a little, so please share and play nice and don't ask for a full bag.  Thanks.

Plus I have added the Riog as a Brewing cocoa (Roasted a touch darker than average)

And have the third expression in the Alchemist's Blend Series -

Shot in the Dark.  Mocha without the coffee, and a great intro to Brewing cocoa if you are a coffee lover like me.

Finally, keep an eye out for a bunch of new hobby grade molds.  Great for getting started and for gifts.

Ask the Alchemist #83

Can I just let my chocolate stir at 88 F for a few days in my tempering machine to temper it?

As it turns out, I was going to do a follow up to Ask the Alchemist #77 about tempering, and specifically address this.

Basically, what you should get out of this is that the melting point of a crystal (94 F for Type V) is not really related to its formation speed at all, except the formation rate is zero at the melting point, i.e nothing can form if it is melting. All other bets are off.

To explicitly answer your question, the purpose of reducing your chocolate to 28C/80F is to create 1-2% Type V crystals ‘in a reasonable amount of time’. At this point I have had my tempering machine (alchemist built) run for 2 weeks. Lots of tests. LOT AND LOTS of failures….and some success.

The short answer is that 72 hours at 88 F- 90 F will not form Type V crystals. So I was slightly off base with my answer above. With that bit of lab data in hand I sent searching technical papers and confirmed that. It was not even that they were forming slowly. X-ray crystallography (pictures at crystal resolution) showed zero formation at up to 2 weeks at various temperatures.

Why? I don’t have all the answers yet, but I have a hint.

It has to do with folding structures. The best analogy I can come up with (representative drawings are actually coming) is origami.

You make lots and lots of folds to get to a final shape. It just isn’t possible to do from A to D. You have to fold the paper along line A. Then turn and fold along B. Then this little unfold along C and finally a last manipulation, and there is D.

Cocoa butter, being a polymorph, is the same way. And in this case, it appears Type IV crystals are one of the intermediate steps, so without IV, formed when you go down to 80-82 F, you can’t get to V directly.

I know that does not give any real practical answers, but I hope it starts to shed a little light on the process, and fills in just a few of the ‘whys’.

Stay tuned for more on tempering….I have had some interesting successes. Now to see if they can reproduced. Have a look.

What’s so interesting? Just this. Those four cells were made from chocolate that was not classically tempered nor seeded with tempered chocolate……

Ask the Alchemist #82

From reading your forum and my own experience, your write up on how to tweak the Behmor programming is still confusing. Could you at least add Behmor instructions to each bean. And suggest how far over or under you can go and what it will do to the flavor. I know it should all be done by nose, but after over a hundred batches I still don't trust my nose to tell me much.

Let’s talk about roasting a bit, why I don’t give exact profiles for each cocoa bean, and why I tend to only give oven profiles.

There are 5 profiles in the Behmor. Each one applies heat a little more gentle as the number goes up. i.e. Profile 1 is 100% on. Profile 2 reduces the heat about 75% in. Profile 3 is a gentle ramp. In addition, you can add or subtract time from each profile. If you add the time before the roast starts, it stretches the entire profile out proportionally. If you add it after the roast starts, it tacks it onto the end.

Yeah, that can be a touch confusing, but this is really what you need to know. I don’t believe (in the sake of cocoa) that it makes any difference from a flavor standpoint when you add it. How far you take to roast over shadows any subtle nuance that might (or might not) be introduced by when you add time.

That all said, here is the nugget of why I don’t list profiles. If you took one bean, roasted it on each profile until you hear a bean pop, you have 5 profiles. Let’s say increases or decreases only have noticeable effects in 2 minute increments. If we go 2 over and 2 under (5 each) we now have 15 profiles. And if we add in that we can add the time before or after the roast starts we have doubled the profiles to 30. Setting aside I don’t have the time to make 30 batches of chocolate for each bean, the telling point here is that ALL of the chocolate would be good and in a group of people, I am willing to bet each chocolate would be picked either based on ‘favorite’ or ‘tasting the same’ across the board.

The fact is is that the Behmor has great profiles, they all work and all taste good, and there is no one best profile. It comes down to taste of the individual. And learning what you like. But my preferences and tastes are not your tastes. The best I can do is give you tools. But those tools are not exact profiles. The tool is how to learn which profile you like, and I think I can see I have been negligent there. So let’s get into it.

But first, a quick note on oven profiles; You notice those I give a lot more of. The reason is that because there is SO much control there, you have much more of an ability to over or under roast. I’m trying to get you in the ball park with those. With the Behmor, ANY profile will get you in the ball park.

To learn, you HAVE to keep notes. Keep a log. Otherwise it will just all get jumbled in your head and you will end up roasting 100 batches and still not know what you like.

So I WILL give you an exact profile. But note that I am NOT saying it is the best profile. Just your starting profile.

This is for ANY cocoa bean.

Profile 1

16 minutes

2 lbs cocoa

Start.

Let the roast naturally end at 16 minutes, but make notes about what you smell, at what times, and when you hear pops and at what times. These are critical for associations later on.

Now, make chocolate out of it. Save some. Label it. And roast up another batch.

This time, I want you to roast the SAME BEAN, on the SAME PROFILE and increase the roasting time 1.5 minutes. Again, make notes about what you smell, at what times, and when you hear pops and at what times.

Make chocolate out of it. Save some. Label it. And roast up another batch.

In this batch, add ANOTHER 1.5 minutes. 19 minutes. Rinse and repeat about notes and making chocolate.

Oh, and for goodness sake, use the same recipe when making your chocolate. Personally I like 70% cocoa, 5% cocoa butter and 25% sugar. But you can do whatever you want as long as you like it. 50% cocoa, 10% cocoa butter and 40% if you like. Whatever.

Now, it is taste time. And it’s no more complicated than that. I’m not going to ask you to make crazy notes, and come up with flowery language. Just eat some, rinse your mouth, and eat the next….and rinse and repeat (literally). Really, the ONLY thing you are looking for here is which do you like best IF ANY?

Hopefully, one will tickle your fancy more than another. Make that note in your roasting log. Was it a toss up between two? Then maybe you want to try a fourth batch right between those two and taste all three together again. Maybe you like the heavier roast, but think that it would be better with more roasty, nutty flavors? Then try that. Add another 1.5 minutes. Oh, but maybe you want it a touch more sharp and bright and fruity? Then reduce it 1.5 minutes.

Are you getting the picture? You are zeroing in one two things. First off, what you like in general, and maybe where you like your roast level…but don’t make too broad of assumptions here. What may be fine for Peru is not what you like in Ecuador or Madagascar.

Now that you have what you have determined which roast level you like, it’s time to see which profile (IF ANY) you like better. Move on to P2 and roast it to the same SMELL. This is why you took notes. The new profile may and probably will take longer but by and large, roast level correlates pretty well to aroma.

Notes; Chocolate; Do it again for P3.

And in case you find yourself just not being able to distinguish aroma, it is perfectly ok to base your EOR (end of roast) on cracks. Namely, where did you hear the first or second and how did that relate to when you stopped the roast?

It is taste time again. Taste these two new chocolates, plus the one you picked from the first set. No flowery notes needed. Just which one do you like best? What? You really can’t tell much difference? That’s ok. Or maybe you do. You like P2…but think a touch more roast would be good? TRY IT!

Yeah, it’s kind of like a maze. But with your notes, you have a much better chance of not getting lost. You can go back if you need. But without notes, without taking note of specific information, it’s like driving around a city, trying to get to a location you have never been to and being surprised when you can’t get there. You basically have to know where you are going (getting the chocolate you like) and where you have been (roast log) or you will just drive around in circles never getting to your destination. And I will conclude with one final note about that destination with yet again another analogy.

You are planning a trip. You say give me exact directions to the best country, with the most beautiful city, with the greatest restaurant and tell me what to order so I can have the best meal of my life.

How in the world am I supposed to do that? The key is that I don’t know what you like and what I like could well be something you don’t. But that is what you are asking when you want exact profiles (and beans choice and an exact recipe).

This whole endeavor is a journey. And for me at least, it’s all about the journey, not the destination. Sure, I want good chocolate at the end, but it’s the process I love, and what I hope to instill in you - along with some of the tools so you can enjoy the trip and not wander aimlessly, lost in the maze.

I’ll end with a variant of a quote a friend of mine uses about roasting and brewing his own coffee.

“Ultimately the quest for Chocolate Nirvana is a solitary path. To know, I must first not know. And in knowing, know I know not. Each Personal enlightenment found exploring the many divergent foot steps of those who have gone before.”

Ask the Alchemist #81

i want to buy the new spectra 11 grinder, but i want to do some dry grinding with it. (throw in some sugar and after that some cocoa nibs and refine them). after that is done, i want to add the rest of the ingredients; cocoa butter and milk powder.(because i want to make milk chocolate), than i would like to conch it for 12-14 hours.can the grinder do that?

No. At least to that first part. The Spectra 11, and all other like style models (granite rollers rotating on a granite base) are based off the Indian Wet Grinder. That right there answers the question. It is for wet ingredients. To work, it needs a fluid to work with, be it water for rices and dals or oil for nut butter or cocoa butter for chocolate. If you use it dry it just packs down once it hits a certain micron size…and it’s pretty coarse.

That said, you can still do what you are asking. Sort of. But I want to comment on some of your assumptions, language and process.

You want to add ‘some’ sugar and ‘some’ cocoa nibs. At first I would say this is fine as long as you keep the ratio such that it isn’t dry grinding (since the Melanger can’t do it), but instead the total fat content is above 35%. But you don’t mention adding the ‘rest ‘ of the of the sugar and nibs. Only the rest of the other ingredients. In that for most milk chocolates, you don’t add over 20% cocoa nibs (and that would be HIGH) and don’t add less than 30% sugar, that right there precludes having this work since it will indeed be dry (as you asked about).

But, let’s assume that somehow you were able to do this and magically you have refined your cocoa nibs and sugar and now you are adding your cocoa butter and milk powder. What have you REALLY gained? To my mind nothing. You still have to refine your milk powder. You are NOT conching. You are refining still because the particle size of the milk powder is such that it’s still way too large to feel smooth on your tongue.

This leads me to definitions.

First off. It is a Spectra 11 Melanger. It is not a Spectra 11 Conch(e) or Refiner. Those imply they do one or the other, and the key is that it is both.

People seem to toss Refine and Conch around interchangeably and incorrectly. While in many ways, we still do not 100% know what conching is. There is theory that it is enrobing particles of sugar and cocoa solid in cocoa butter on some special molecular bonding level and that is what gives ‘conched’ chocolate its smooth mouth feel. The other theory is that it is more of a chemical process that drives off or neutralizes harsher and sharper tastes in the chocolate and our resulting perception is a ‘smoother’ chocolate. In either case, what is not happening is particles are not getting smaller. And that is a good working definition.

If you are reducing the particle size of anything you are Refining (and may be conching).

If you are NOT reducing the partible size of anything, you are Conching only.

And my personal take is if you are reducing particle size in a melanger (as opposed to a roll refiner) then you are also conching and in that case you are melanging…refining and conching together….but you are not ‘conching’ because that implies you are not refining.

I make such a big point of this because in the question above the implication is that the milk powder is small enough that only ‘conching’ is needed for 12-24 hours and that just isn’t the case. You have to continue to refine or if you prefer, mélange (because it too has flavors to drive off or convert).

And I make this point because I have helped trouble shoot more than one person who came to me because of exactly this misunderstanding. “I added milk powder, took all the pressure off the granite wheels, and conched for 72 hours, but my chocolate is gritty. What did I do wrong?”. And the answer is that they assumed conching reduces particle size because it makes ‘smooth’ chocolate. And it doesn’t. Only refining does that. And if they had truly understood that, they would not have removed the pressure on the wheels and kept refining, and not moved on to ‘conching’. Another l point I would like to make, which you can consider a segue for next week’s Ask the Alchemist, is that it is nearly impossible to over refine in a Melanger. The practical point to that is I never remove the pressure off the granite wheels and let the Melanger take the chocolate naturally from Melanging to conching.

So to finish up, you could refine your cocoa nibs, sugar (and in a practical point) some cocoa butter until smooth, then add your milk powder, but you still need to refine again, and it will probably be 18-36 hours, not 12-24. I’m not personally sure why you would want to do this, but you could…but to my mind the only thing you have done here is extend your refining time when most people want to reduce it.

Tempering test

Calling all Novices, Apprentices and Alchemists that have tempering machines, available chocolate and would be willing to take part in a simple experiment for me.  The test is pretty simple, but will require a couple days of uninterupted use of the unit.Please write to me (don't post here) at alchemist (at) chocolatealchemy (dot) com.  Subject: Tempering test for details. Thanks.

PhD in Chocolate

I very rarely put this kind of thing up.  World news that does not relate directly or really even indirectly to making chocolate at home (at least on the short term), but this is too neat. Cambridge University of Cambridge is looking for a Studentship in Chocolate. The goal?  From what I can read, they was a new or modified state of temper that is higher than Type 5.  Something that can handle high heat, not melt and retain it's temper and appeal.  Nothing like being a nay sayer though.  From this line, " to remain solid and retain qualities sought by consumers when it is stored and sold in warm climates" it feels like a logic puzzle that have two sets of non-overlapping criteria.  Namely, it melts readily in your mouth (<98.6 F) but not in warm temperatures (> 100 F).  I guess as I write that, it is a bias for me to consider over 100 F was 'warm'.  If they define warm as 95 F, then it works if they can get a stable crystal form that melts between 95 F and 98 F.  I can't see how they can do it without additives...but I'm not a PhD either.

I wish them the best of luck.

Ask the Alchemist #80

I´m trying to replicate your Aether winnower, by the way, thanks for putting together such a nice piece of work! I wonder what are the sizes of the two acrylic boxes that hold the husks.

Thanks.

To be ornery, I don’t use acrylic boxes. They are polycarbonate. Next question….Oh wait…you didn’t even ask a question….Still, next question….

Fine, I’m not that ornery.

Well, as odd as it seems, that is a slightly difficult answer to answer. Ok, it is not so difficult as it is slightly complicated. I want to say outright that there is NOTHING magical or unique about the two chamber sizes. You can build one half or a quarter or twice or three times as large and it will operate just fine…..but you might find it less than convenient, which is why I have them sized as I do. So, first the answers.

The vacuum chamber (outer box) has inside dimensions of 14.75”x17.5”x14.75”. It has outside dimensions 1” larger per side as that is the thickness of the frame, so 16.75”x19.5”x16.75”. The key here, i.e. the important part, is how they fit together. The outside dimensions of the husk bin (inner box) is 13.75” on all sides. Basically an exact fit given I need 1/4” room for rivets on each side and a little (1/4” again) real world tolerance/slop. The inner dimensions really don’t matter.

Now, the first iteration of the Aether was about 30%. Why? Well, in an effort not to reinvent the wheel, I’ll just quote myself.

“The vacuum and husk bin are a little smaller. Why? Because we heard back that people tended to wait until the husk bin was completely full and at that point it was too heavy for some. It's about 20% narrower.

Not including the hopper (which rises about 36" above the table top) the Aether is 36" x 24" x 24".

Also, nearly all the dimensions have been reduced slightly to optimize the number of panels we can get out of a single piece of sheet metal. Why? So raw material waste goes down, and consequently your cost goes down. “

That basically says it. Size it for you and what you can handle. I’m not a small guy. I toss 150 lb sacks of cocoa beans around. I don’t blink at unloaded a ton (literally) of 55 lb boxes of cocoa butter by hand. I lift a few times a week and have pulled 355 lbs off the floor multiple time. A full husk bin that weighted 60 lbs didn’t phase me and I honestly forgot that is too much for some people. So now it holds around 40 lbs (really, if you do the numbers, it’s 42, which is THE answer now, isn’t it) which I’ve heard no complaints about. Also, if you fill the hopper 3 times, and have a reasonable efficiency (78-80%) then it just fills the husk bin nice and those kind of whole number design integrations just tend to make me happy.

So, I guess the dimensions were not that hard to answer. But hopefully I’ve explained the thinking behind why they are the size they are and that will let you customize it to your abilities and needs.

Ask the Alchemist #79

How stable is chocolate tempered and non tempered? After removing finished chocolate from the melanger , can or should chocolate be tempered first or can it be put in ziplock bags straight from melanger ?

Welcome back for the continuation of our story. Before we continue, here is a photo of some fresh and month old raw nibs. The thing to note is the whitish edges on the older nibs.

(click to embiggen) This is my benchmark for fresh vs older in nibs. This is exactly the same nib (Ghana FT) but the one on the right was just cracked and winnowed and the previous one is about 30 days old. Now, if you have been paying attention, you will note that I said 1-2 years for raw nibs and here I am showing a difference at 30 days. True enough….and why you can’t always judge a book by it’s cover (goodness, I love analogy ). Sure, they look different, but the resulting chocolate, to my palette, is indistinguishable. It still takes a 1-2 years before you can taste the difference. On the other hand, roasted nibs don’t seem to change color this way, but I can taste the difference in a month or so. They do change color (after 4-6 months), but usually it is well after they have gone stale.Now let’s jump right into your next question.

I feel like a politician here. What do you mean by ‘stable’? Do you mean how long does it stay fresh? Or how long does it stay in the crystalline or non-crystalline structure it is in? Or do you mean how hard do you have to hit be before it detonates? Well, let’s get the easy one out of the way.

Chocolate, nor any of it’s components have any stressed or strained bonds. No triple bonds. No azo groups. No metal azides. Not even a little Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane. In a word, chocolate, whether tempered or not tempered is 100% stable…in the sense that it won’t detonate or explode under any circumstance I can think of.

Great. We have that bit of fun out of the way. Technically, tempered chocolate is less stable than untempered chocolate. But here we are talking crystal structures, energies of enthalpy and the like. Suffice to say, because as it naturally occurs, tempered is less stable because it has a higher energy of enthalpy, and it converts to untempered spontaneous (if in liquid form without seed) because it is easier, (read lower energy). If I have not lost you there, great. If I have, just smile and nod and let’s move on because I don’t think it is really what you want to know.

By stable, I am going to assume you mean does tempered or untempered go stale faster or slower than the other. The answer to this is I think they are about the same, but I’m not sure, and even if they are not the same, other factors will play a great role. For this discussion, go for what is easiest (untempered) for storage and don’t sweat it. You don’t HAVE to temper it right from the melanger.

That brings us to liquor (i.e. cocoa mass, unrefined, unsweetened cocoa, etc) and chocolate. By far, except for unroasted beans, this is going to be your most stable form. And in the larger the volume the better.

To review, staling is oxidation. Solids don’t oxidize that easily. Think of rust. That is oxidation. The surface of iron rusts but it takes MUCH longer for rust to penetrate into a hunk of iron. There just isn’t anything moving to distribute oxygen. The amount of rust is proportional to the surface area. The exposed area more specifically. If you have a 1 lb block of iron and 1 lb of nails, the nails are going to have hundreds of times more rust because it they have hundreds of times the surface area. So the rule of thumb is whatever has the least surface area (exposed) will stale the slowest. That said, most people mold up chocolate after it is tempered. That means lots of pieces of chocolate (like nails) surface area compared to one bag of untempered chocolate. For the surface area reason the untempered chocolate should go stale slower than the tempered chocolate.

BUT…..wink….there are arguments that controlled aging (http://chocolatealchemy.com/2013/04/03/ask-the-alchemist-29/) of tempered chocolate is just another name for controlled staling. So maybe you want a little staling at the right time….See how clear this all is?

My recommendation is this. Keep it simple. Let chocolate making fit into your life. Relax and enjoy it. But plan a little.

• Roast when you know you can let the beans rest a day to cool.
• Winnow when you know you can make the chocolate within a week or so.
• When your chocolate is done, bag it up (air tight, i.e. zero exposed surface area) in a ziplock bag until you are ready to temper.
• When your chocolate is tempered and molded up…call it aging, not going stale.

And this is the most important

• Eat and enjoy your chocolate you made with your own hands and don’t worry so much. It’s only chocolate (wink).

Alchemist's Blend #2 - Anakin

Yeah, I admit it.  I'm excited about the new Star Wars movies.  Consider these first two Blends homages.  They won't all be that way (probably).

Whereas Vader (the blend, well, ok the character too) is very very dark, Anakin only hints at that darkness, although there is no mistaking it is there.  Overall, I think of a chocolate laced coffee, a Mocha, when I taste this.  I hope you enjoy it as much as I have had creating it.

"You underestimate the power of the Dark Side" – Darth Vader

Welcome to the Dark side. Welcome to the Alchemist’s Blend series. I present to you, the first in series of Alchemist’s Blends . #1 - Vader.

As I am wont to do, I have gone off and broken a couple of the ‘rules’ for chocolate. I’ve blended wonderful single origin beans. I have roasted them VERY dark. I have ground them extra fine. And I have produced a dark, tempting elixir. And make no mistake; it is stronger than most of the ‘lighter’ brews both in color and flavor. Strong roasted notes, not unlike coffee. I love coffee, and I when I’m not sipping coffee, this fits the bill just great. But it’s not just ‘dark’. And it certainly isn’t burned. It’s full of spice and chocolate notes. And lest you fear I’ve roasted all the goodness out of it, (and yes, this is just anecdotal evidence) the ‘buzz’ is still there. Fully! And if anything, it may be greater than the lighter stuff since it is extracting more (just note that alluring color).

But again, this is not your mother’s hot chocolate. And this is also not coffee. It stands on its own merits, so judge it on what you taste, not what you expect or what it isn’t.

Also, this is the first Brewing cocoa that I have found to work well in coffee brewers and actually mixed with coffee. Other brewing cocoas can have a tendency to muddy the flavor of coffee I have found, or worse, clog brewing filters or screens. Your mileage may vary, but I’ve found 1:1 ratio wonderful, and if you are just a little careful, so it does not overflow, even straight can work well.

Ask the Alchemist #78

How long can raw beans keep prior to roasting? After roasting ? Is the bean roasted, at its most vulnerable stage? How stable is chocolate tempered and non tempered? After removing finished chocolate from the melanger , can or should chocolate be tempered first or can it be put in ziplock bags straight from melanger ?

I for one was blown away by my first hand made chocolate. To this day I think it was due to the freshness. It had a vitality and liveliness to it that I just had never tasted in any other chocolate. But there are so many stages. And clearly some are more important than others. What I had was still months old, so absolute age is not always an indicator of ‘freshness’. Let’s break it down and have a brief look at each potential stage and where you should be careful, and where it isn’t quite as important.

When it comes down to it, staleness (the opposite of freshness) is caused by the beans, nibs or chocolate reacting wit air, or more specifically oxygen. As a good rule of thumb, the cooler you have the beans/nibs/chocolate, the slower the reaction. But I can hear you now “but we roast! That’s really hot”…yep, and I will get to that. Not all heat is bad. It’s a matter of application, length of time and form. Hang tight.

Raw beans are by far the most stable. They are sealed up in the shell/husk/covering. They are basically sealed away from oxygen. Like this, kept cool (let’s just call cool, anything you can comfortably live in), most beans will easily keep 1 year. Most will keep two years. And some will keep 3 years. How do you know? Really, you don’t, but between throwing out 3 year old beans and taking a chance and making chocolate, I’m going to make chocolate. What is there to lose?

Next, a quick side note on temperatures. There is a running joke about this. What do you get if you put your cocoa in the freezer? Cold beans. Ok, it’s not really funny, but the point is is that once you are below a certain temperature, the oxidation reactions are so slow, that they are basically stopped. My experience is around 50 F for cocoa. Below that, are you are doing is making cold beans. Think of it like falling. Once you are within 12 inches of the ground, it really doesn’t matter if you are closer. You simply are not going to be ‘hurt less’ by falling 6 or 3 or 1 inch. You’ve passed the level of ‘hurt’ at 12 inches. Below that you are just closer to the ground. And a quicker side note to the side note. It is even possible that if you freeze your beans, you may even damage them via ice crystals in the cells and such. I don’t know, but think of freezing fresh fruit. It’s great refergerated, but not good frozen and thawed. Such, it’s still ‘not bad’ but that does NOT mean it is good. It’s just not spoiled. Moving on. Next, let’s move to nibs.

At this point, you have exposed the interior to oxygen. Also, they could either have been roasted or raw.

In the case of raw nibs, I find that over the span of about a week, they will lighten in color around the edges. I don’t know for sure what this is, but it seems to be a good enough indication something is going on….but it also stops. So, basically, you have about a week for raw nibs, but the good news is that it’s just a little staling, and not ‘they are only good for a week’. But then they are stable as raw beans. 1-3 years. But since there is more surface area per volume, let’s just be safe and call it 1-2 years.

In the case of roasted beans and nibs, we have introduced heat. Quite a bit of it. But lucky for use, this level of heat does not promote instantaneous staling. It’s way beyond that level and other chemical reactions are happening. But what it does do is give us a new host of chemicals that are in higher energy states that are just ready and waiting for ‘cooler’ chemical reactions, i.e. staling. Analogy time. You have a slab of meat. Or vegetable. Or toast. Toast is a really good one. Toast is a great one. Bread it good (i.e. not stale) for about a week. Fresh toast is not stale right out of the toaster. It’s got this great….toasty goodness going on. And it’s still ‘good’ toast for a couple hours even if it’s cold. But let it sit out all day and by bed time….and it’s gone stale….but then it just kind stops. It continues to dry out, but doesn’t really get any worse. Basically like roasted beans….except I’d give roasted beans a couple weeks. But if we break up the toast into bit, we get croutons. The stale quicker. Why? More surface area. Same with nibs. I’d give roasted nibs about a week.

Now before you all go off panicking that you have been using bad, stale, roasted nibs, keep in mind a few things. First, I was talking about leaving your bread/toast/beans/nibs out in the air. What happens if you seal up your croutons? They keep longer. Much longer. You have excluded oxygen and so you have limited the chemical reactions. And lucky for you and me, I keep everything sealed here, and ship in ziplock bags….for a reason. In a good sealed bag, I’d give roasted beans 1-2 months, and roasted nibs just a little less. 4-6 weeks off the top of my head. But if you were to store roasted beans at 95-100 F instead of 70 F (I’ve done this, so it’s not empirical but experimental) they go stale much faster. As in maybe a week for roasted beans and a few days for nibs.

Are you noticing a pattern here? The less surface area, and the less heat input, the longer they will keep. It’s really that simple. To explicitly answer your question, yes, your roasted nibs are the most ‘vulnerable’…but still not all that vulnerable.

But this is a good place to re-iterate something I’ve said before. Let your roasted beans fully and completely cool before cracking and winnowing. This is why. If you have freshly roasted beans, even if they are cool to the touch after one hour, they are still teaming with chemical reactions and the best way to introduce staling reactions is to break them open into nibs and give them a bunch more surface area. Relax. Let them rest a good 6 hours to tie off those reactions and ‘calm down’.

So, to review. Assuming ‘cool and dry’ and seal in an air tight bag.

• Whole raw cocoa beans – 1-3 years
• Raw cocoa nibs 1-2 years with very minor staling
• Whole roasted cocoa beans - 1-2 months with a little more staling
• Roasted cocoa nibs 4-6 weeks with just a touch more staling.

Ok, that’s enough for this one. There were a lot of questions in that one questions, so consider this Part 1 of 2. I’ll talk about chocolate next week. Same choc time, same choc station.

Ask the Alchemist #77

Hi! so i understand that when working with dark chocolate you have to melt it to 45-49 C. and then cool it to 28C. Then reheat it to 32C, to melt out all of the unstable crystals. But is it possible to just skip the middle step of cooling to 28C? What if i just melt the chocolate and cool it down to the working temp of 32C and then pour it into my molds? This way won’t I be maintaining a temp high enough to melt the unstable crystals while keeping the stable form 5 crystals? What after all is the purpose of cooling to 28C then? At what temp do stable form 5 crystals start to form after melting?

This is a really good question and one I have received over the years quite a bit. And I have to say it stumped me for a while. Really, it makes perfect sense…in theory, but it fails in practice…or does it?

CAUTION: SCIENCE CONTENT AHEAD (but only a little)

So why does it not work? Let’s look at what you are trying to do, and what you are and are not doing if you don’t reduce the temperature to 28C/80F.

Solid chocolate is by definition 100% not liquid. I don’t say 100% crystallized because technically it can be amorphous or without crystal structure, or a mixture of amorphous and crystal structures. In totally untempered solid chocolate we can estimate that 20% is Type V and the rest are types I-IV (this probably actually isn’t true due a whole host of reasons (rates of crystallization in contaminated polymorphic system would sum it up) but close enough for the example). With that number in hand, we can see that we can have up to 20% Type V crystals when we bring the temperature down to ‘seed’ temperature, i.e. that point where the chocolate just starts to thicken a little. The cooling step of 28C/80F. In actuality, it is probably much less than 20%. Maybe 10-20% of that, the rest being Types III-IV (types I-II form much lower) and un-crystallized liquid chocolate. So, with a little rough math, that means there is probably 1-2% type V crystals.

Now, what I find terribly interesting about my ‘back of the envelope’ calculation is that that number is very close to the recommended amount of seed chocolate (i.e. 100% type V) you should add if you are tempering by seed. Why? I’m glad you asked. It comes down to a concept called nucleation. In layman’s terms you have to have a nucleus or SEED for the rest of the chocolate to form around and experience shows that for chocolate you need at least 1-2%. Below that and either the crystal formation is too slow, or there are too many places in the solidifying chocolate that are ‘un-seeded’ so other crystals start to form instead.

So, why does it not work to bring your chocolate to 32C/88F and then let it cool? Well, if you followed what I was saying above, it can only be because you don’t have enough Type V crystals. You are below the 1-2% threshold limit for proper Type V propagation. And that is because crystallization is heavily temperature and concentration dependent, and polymorphic crystallization is even MORE dependent on those two conditions. What that boils down to is that you are not giving it enough time at 32C/88F. (DISCLAIMER: I am totally making this next part up, but keep in mind I’ve many years as an organic chemist, so have a reasonably good gestalt feel for this kind of thing. And I am backing it up with the fact that we know that holding at 32C/88F doesn’t work.) In order to reach 1-2% type V at 32C/88F you may well have to keep it at that temperature for 24 hours. Or 48 hours. Or longer. Even if it was only 4 hours, that is quite a while if you want to temper NOW. And to make matters worse, generally speaking, crystallization is not a first order rate of reaction in regards to temperature. This means that if at one temperature (say 28C/80F) you are forming 0.1% Type V per minute, a couple of degrees warmer won’t reduce it just a little to 0.6% or 0.8% per minute, but will probably reduce 1-2 orders of magnitude, meaning just a couple degrees higher and you are down to 0.01 or 0.001% per minute…and you need to get to 1-2% and you want to raise it 5-10 degrees? You can see why it does not work.

Basically what you should get out of this is that the melting point of a crystal (94 F for Type V) is not really related to its formation speed at all, except the formation rate is zero at the melting point, i.e nothing can form if it is melting. All other bets are off.

To explicitly answer your question, the purpose of reducing your chocolate to 28C/80F is to create 1-2% Type V crystals ‘in a reasonable amount of time’.

One final science tidbit that I won’t (and can’t, I just don’t understand it well enough myself. Basically a variant of a variant of a Feynman quote "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't really understand it.") explain. It is in regard to your comments about stable and unstable forms. There is a general truism of polymorphic systems (i.e. compounds that form multiple crystal structures). It is that the LEAST stable forms are the forms that form first. So, Type V is the least stable. And really, this makes sense. If it were the most stable, we would not have to work so hard to form it and keep it. It would just happen…but it doesn’t, does it?

Class adjourned.

Go rest your brain and have some chocolate.

And keep those questions coming.

—– Submit your Questions to the Alchemist: question(youknowtoremovethisright?)@chocolatealchemy.com —–

Ask the Alchemist #76

I have had some hit and miss tempering with the prototype temperer. It worked beautifully for my smaller test batches and only tempered half of the large batch I made last week. I have been looking at all the tempering methods you talk about on the website and contemplating trying it without the tempering machine. I know when I have done it at your house, we did hand tempering by using a double boiler and ice water bath. I would assume the same temperature parameters apply there as with the temperer: Get the chocolate down to 82 or so, then bring it up and hold it at 88-90.

I also read the tempering page on the site again and it discusses using marble and working the chocolate. Since i do not have a marble slab, this option is out.

Then I read your instructions on tempering in the santha using seed chocolate. That one is looking like something I want to try.

What do you recommend for me?

First off, everything you try without the tempering machine is just going to be harder. Even if it does not control the temperature right where you want it, you can use it to control the temperature manually and it stirs. That is basically it's benefit. So your assumption that the same temperature parameters apply are spot on.....except they are not absolutes. If you are a couple degrees too hot on either end, you can loose temper. So it might be than simple.

For the larger batch that only partly tempered, which half was it. The first or last half? Or was it peppered throughout?

About the only thing we know for sure is that you brought it down cool enough to form seed chocolate since some of it tempered.

If first, then I suspect you didn't turn the heat down and it over shot for the 2nd half and you lost temper.

Or it could also be handling technique.

If the 2nd half or mixed, then it could be handling technique.

What I mean by handling technique is over working the chocolate. Extra smoothing. Lots of dipping to fill one mold. And it sometimes gets worse near the end as the chocolate starts to get thicker. If you notice it getting thicker, then the chocolate is tempering (crystals are forming) and you have to raise the temperature a little to keep it fluid. It can sometimes be like walking a moving tight rope. Where at the beginning your working temperature was 87 F (for example) but by the end, it may be 90 F to keep it fluid enough to work with. Why can't you just have it at 90 F to start? Because the temperature is related to the amount of temper (i.e. the amount of type V crystals) in your chocolate. The more type V, the higher you can and need to go to keep it fluid. And you tell how much is there by viscosity. Basically, as it thickens, raise the heat to keep it in balance. You are destroying some of the type V, but that is ok. There is plenty, as noted by how thick it is. If you don't raise the temperature, then you have to 'work' the chocolate and you mess up the crystal structure, and you get bloomed chocolate.

Next. Marble. It isn't magic. It is often mentioned because it is non-porous, easy to clean and a good heat sink. I have used tile, granite, Corian and even just a clean counter. About the only thing really out would be wood or tile with grout. So anything that has those properties (glass? sure) will work.

As for working with the Melanger and seed, if you have a tempering machine, then in a way you are going backwards. A melanger is for when you don't have something that stirs slowly and mixes the chocolate (like a tempering machine) and for the sake of using something that you have on hand. The melanger has no other benefit, and has drawbacks. It runs pretty fast. The rollers get in the way. You have to add external heat. If the control on the tempering machine isn't working, then don't use it and add external heat and an external thermometer. Or better yet, use the tempering machine, use an external thermometer, verify what it is seeing on the display is what you are seeing from another thermometer, and if in doubt, use the external one and adjust your tempering machine settings accordingly. If your tempering machine says it is 89 F, but your external thermometer says it is 91 F, you can see the problem. Reduce your tempering machine temperature a degree or two (assuming it's smooth and has a low viscosity of course).

So what I suggest if finding out the cause of the hit and miss tempering. Stick with the tempering machine, and find the pattern as to where it is not working...then fix it. As I see it, it can only be a couple things. Either your chocolate is getting too hot, too thick or you are handling it too much....or some combination of those.

Ask the Alchemist #????

As odd as it sounds, I don't have any unanswered, pending questions in the queue.  Really?  You folks don't have anything more?  If you think of something, you can send it over to question(removethis) at chocolatealchemy  dot com as always.  Remember, there are no dumb questions (and no, that is NOT a challenge) only unasked questions.In the mean time, Ecuador RFA/Org is back in stock.  And a small amount of Belize will be in next week.  Get it early as there is only about 100 lbs.  The rest has already pre-sold.

Ask the Alchemist #75

Another spat of basic but simple questions.  The first four guess are valid but always make me scratch my head given I promote making something you eat.  But there are no stupid questions, so here you are.

Is your cocoa butter food safe?

Yes.

Is your lecithin food safe?

Yes.

Are you chocolate molds food safe?

Yes.

I’m told that beans run the risk of salmonella. Are nibs clean and ready for human consumption

The roasted nibs are clean and ready for consumption. The raw need roasting or yes, you do indeed run the risk of salmonella and e.coli.

I have bubbles in my chocolate.  Is it bad and fermenting?

No and no.  You simply worked too much air into it.  When you mold it up, take about a minute and rap the mold firmly on the counter.  It will dislodge the bubbles and you will see them rise to the top.  Professional chocolatiers often have shaker tables for just this reason.

Did you have a good time in Italy?

Yes.

Travel notice....and a new bean

** 6/5/2014 - 6/23/2014 **

Travel notice. 

Hopefully, this will come to no surprise to anyone as I've announced it a few times.  I (the Alchemist) will be away at the World of Coffee in Italy.  The highlights as they will affect you:

• I will be answering NO e-mails during that time.
• Orders will still be accepted for Retail and Wholesale
• Orders for Retail will ship as normal (the exception to this being Roasted beans if they sell out).
• Order for Wholesale will ship as normal for non-bag and non-warehouse orders.

In my absence, orders will be handled by my Apprentice,Lara.  If you need to reach her specifically about an order in process or past, you can reach here at Apprentice at chocolate alchemy dot com  (Just as it sounds.  No spaces.  Nothing fancy) .  Please do not ask for special orders, troubleshooting or advice.  She simply does not have those answers.  Please respect that as I'm sure you will.

Ask the Alchemist will be on hold until my return.

And of course.  The new cocoa bean.  May I present Venezuelan Carupano Corona (Retail only until my return).  Go have a read. Ciao Alchemist

Ask the Alchemist #74

I am trying to minimize the chances of moldy nibs. Basically, if it's cracked or germinated I toss it. I tossed 21% of them as they were very cracked.

What IS a good way to sort beans?

I don’t sort beans.

I have over heard quite a bit about people sorting beans, under the assumption, and sometimes even hubris, that that extra work makes for a better chocolate. Quite simply I don’t agree with this and have never come across a comparison example to demonstrate this is true.

There are many reasons why I don’t sort and actively recommend you don’t sort either, except in very particular cases which I’ll go over.

One of the primary reasons I don’t sort or suggest you sort the beans I offer is very simply that the chocolate I make and evaluate and write up tasting notes on have not been sorted. And presumably you are purchasing these beans based on those notes. This is not to say that some beans that have come into my possession would not have been improved by sorting, but I reject this beans. I actively don’t want you having to sort so I only supply beans that I feel are good as presented.

Honestly, I would not have tossed those beans that you did. You may have your own standards but IMO that is overkill and really isn't a good way to sort beans. I understand trying to minimize moldy nibs, but cracks and germination don't necessarily lead to that. In short, I don't supply beans that I find mold in. Some beans in particular are rather dry (Conacado is a good example), so they are friable and simply cracks more. It's no indication of them being inferior. It's just their nature.

The California wine industry started off making wine by the numbers. They ‘cherry picked’ their grapes. Ran everything by the numbers. Everything was perfect, and even and ‘just so’….and totally uninspiring and lacking in character. They used the same grapes as those of a great Boudreaux, had all the same numbers and it was not the same. They had sorted all the vibrancy out of it. I feel the same way about beans and chocolate. A heavily sorted crop of beans seems to lose character. Sure, it does not have any defects…but it seems too often to be lacking soul and vibrancy.

This leads me to another aspect of sorting. What criteria are you using and is it really appropriate. In the industry there is something called a cut test. You take 100 beans, slice them in half and look inside. You can see moldy beans. Slatty beans. Unfermented beans and good beans. The point here is if you could tell those characteristic from the outside you would not have had to cut them in half and the cut test would not exist. But it does for just that reason. You can and do have beautiful looking beans that look like they have no need of sorting, but upon cutting, show a whole host of defect. Mold, slatty and unfermented. And on the other side, you have cracked and mis-shapen beans that upon cutting open look just great. Do you see the inherent flaw in sorting by eye? This is the other huge reason I advocate not sorting. You have really nothing to use as a valid criteria….unless you want to cut every single bean open…but that is insane.

But….isn’t there always one? But I do sort. Naturally. When I roast, really damaged beans, especially ones with moths (yes, that happens, particular in organic ones) tend to break in the roaster and drop out into the chaff tray. Those that don’t drop out, tend to over roast, and break up further. The majority of these drop through the 1/8” mesh screen I cool on. And anything left over is so extra brittle it basically shatters in the cracker and is carried over into the husk stream. Natural sorting. Flats and slatty beans don’t roast right, nor crack right and are caught on the filter screen I use in the winnower. And mold? All I can say about this is that it is a particular characteristic I taste for when evaluating beans to sell. And if I can’t taste it and it does not detract from the chocolate, why bother trying to remove it. Oh, and the occasional twig or bit of debris? Sure, if I see it post roast (so much drops out during a roast) I ‘sort’ it.

So much of this sorting and such seems to come from applying the right tools at the wrong time. If you are buying beans of unknown quality direct from a farm, then sure, you might want to sort. And if you are deciding whether to purchase a large amount beans (like a container) then a cut test in the field can be a helpful tool and one that will allow you to measure certain quality parameters so that you can legal reject a lot of beans. But everything you buy here has had cut tests. And passed. And have been evaluated for defects. And passed. And been deemed to have a good flavor. It is why I don’t even do cut tests. The data us useless to me. I need to decide if a bean is ‘good’ and the only criteria at the end of the day, at this stage of the game, is does it taste good. I trust my suppliers (through experience) that I won’t be offered beans that show a poor cut test. That is their job. My job is to make sure I offer beans that are not flawed (it’s hard to say taste good because everyone’s taste is different) and that are good to go ‘as is’ without additional sorting. I’m not offended if you sort…but think you are potentially doing everyone up the line a disservice in not trusting them to do their job. And if you don’t have trust in whom you buy from, then you really don’t have much of anything in my opinion.

So if you like the description of a bean, go for that bean as is. Trust that I’ve rigorously tested and tasted and approved what you are buying. And don’t delude yourself that you ‘have’ to sort because it’s what you are ‘supposed’ to do to be a great chocolate maker.

Oh. And if you are getting them somewhere else and you REALLY have to sort the beans to make them good, do yourself a favor and just pass on them. None of us need to support that kind of bean on the market. It’s what I do. I just ‘sort’ the entire lot into the reject pile and move on. I suggest you do the same.

Ask the Alchemist #73

What do you think about the Cocoatown Roaster? Why don’t you sell them? Well, I make it a point to answer questions truthfully. That can be tricky to do with tact when there isn’t much good to say. But I will try. I have some very definitive opinions about roasting and what makes a good roaster based on over a decade of roasting, and having personally built 7 different roasters....some that worked and some that didn't and I learned from. These all resemble the later.

I don’t like the Cocoatown roasters from what I have seen of them. This is from seeing them operate a couple times at various chocolate events. And from what I can gather from their website. My biggest issue is that the basic model is iso-thermal. This means it ‘roasts’ at one temperature setting, that is not controllable by the user. Basically, that is no way to roast. That is a way to heat beans. That is a way to bake beans. Those are radically different things.

And I have a pretty big problem that it doesn’t allow any control (except when to stop the roast) at all. Cocoa beans and how people roast are just too varied to make that even close to feasible.

They do have a larger Commercial roaster that in theory roasts 30 lbs of beans and has temperature control. But really all that is is a thermostat setting a maximum temperature. Much like a standard oven. Sure, I suggest you roast small batches in an oven…but that is so you can get an introduction to roasting. To my mind, that rudimentary control is embarrassing in a professional roaster that is nearly $5000. To my mind, any good roaster should have variable power control.  You don't drive a car by only having the option of flooring it or coasting.  You should be able to 'give it gas' and 'tap the brakes'.  And flooring it with a maximum speed limiter is not control. Next is the power requirements and capacity. For the standard model they list 12 amps at 110 v for 4-6 lbs. Yeah, right. Maybe if you don’t mind baked beans. My personal sample roaster is 20 amps 110v and roasts 5 lbs in 15-18 minutes. You can do the math. Either their roasts are nearly twice as long or the batch size is exaggerated.

Side note: Most of the same points above go for the cocoa Cucina roaster. It lists this as a capacity.

Capacity: 15 kgs/30 lbs per batch (allow 45 minutes to 1+ hour for cycle, depending on bean/roast)

Excuse me? 45 minutes to an hour to roast a batch of beans? Maybe there are some people that want that kind of ‘roast’ but in my experience that is far and few between. To my mind, if you can’t get a roast done in 20 minutes (or extend if you want to 45 minutes) then it just isn’t suitable.

Back to the Cocoatown Commercial roaster. It also lists a 30 lb batch, but does not give any roast times and has a power requirement of 220v 3 phase….but they don’t list a load. That is a crazy amount of power. Maybe it roasts ok, but propane or NG would be so much better at that level. Regardless, I really can’t speak to how it roasts or the roast times, but there is little to give me hope it is going to be different than their small models....and still no control.

A couple of last items.

When I saw these operate, they rotated VERY slowly and in a direction that takes the beans away from the heating elements. Even with token convection from a fan, this is a great way to have a roaster that is sluggish and slow (hrm…45 minute roast time you say?). In my experience you need those beans close to the elements to take advantage of radiant heat and you need them moving fast enough to loft the beans so you don’t scorch them. Neither of these do either.

Finally, in regards to both, but especially the larger roaster I find it….silly? dangerous? awkward? I’m not sure what word I want. How about I find it ‘interesting’ that you are required to hand load and unload the beans. I do this with my 5 lb roaster…and have the burns to prove how well that works (note, this is my personal roaster, not for sale, and I accept the risks, but would never expect any one else to take them). For 30 lbs? No.

That’s what I think. These are basically glorified rotisserie ovens. Ok if you are making your own, but certainly not what is appropriate for supplying to the consumer to my mind. And not even ok when you have no control at all.

Oh, as for why I don’t sell these or any other cocoatown product…let’s just say we don’t see eye to eye on many items and leave it at that, shall we?

Major restructuring of the stores

The Retail and Wholesale stores have been rather significantly restructured.  And it is more than just a cosmetic facelift. In both cases the goal was a better shopping experience and the ability to better find information. In addition, for the Retail store, I have added a major new class of items that at first glance may go unnoticed.  Chocolate Alchemy is now offering the option of all cocoa beans as roasted nibs!  That means you have in all cases four (4) different options to choose from.  Raw and Roasted whole beans (2), and Raw and Roasted nibs (2), plus in some cases, Brewing cocoa for a 5th option.

The other major change is that all nibs (Raw and Roasted) are now offered in pound increments.  In the past you ordered a pound of beans, had them winnowed (for free), and received  the resulting nibs (about 12 oz) for the same price as 1 lb of beans.  Now, you simply order 1 lb of nibs and get one pound of nibs (Raw or Roasted).  But I will point out that it may at first glance look like I have raised prices or have begun charging for winnowing.  Rest assured, that is not the case.  One pound of nibs is more expensive then one pound of beans because I have to start with 1.25 lbs of beans to give you 1 lb of nibs, so the nibs are 1.25 times more.  I hope that makes sense.  The winnowing is still a free service for Retail purchases.  It is my way to help you get going.  On the other hand, I am charging for roasting.  But it is at a discounted scale, so the more you purchase, the less the per pound roasting fee.

Mostly unrelated to the Stores, I have also cleaned up the Alchemist Notebook - the basic 'how to' of chocolate making and you will find those (along with  other "Important Pages") across the new top navigation bar, which now also include all those lovely miasma of legal jargon (Return Policy, Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, etc), which I guess is Store related. Finally, if you find anything amiss, don't understand something or just want to give feed back, a brand new fancy pants Contact Us page is in place.