Ask the Alchemist #72

This video shows that I can use a spice grinder but you say it won’t work. I don’t understand. How did this guy do it with a spice grinder, then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUjc6fLnfmM

What I could really use, though, is a more complete shopping list. Besides the melanger, what is the complete set of equipment I should invest in at this point to get started?

What is the bare minimum equipment I need to make chocolate?

A number of people have sent me that video and I’ve wanted to comment on it for some time, so now it is. I personally feel it is misleading in a number of ways. Since you can’t taste or feel the chocolate he makes you really can’t appreciate how little like chocolate it is. I will grant he mentions it is kind of coarse but the lasting impression is that I get from it is that you really only need a few items that are available in most kitchens to ‘make chocolate’ and that sadly just isn’t so.

I will say it is a nice over view. You see roasting and getting the nibs clear of the husk and the basic steps to make a tiny amount of gritty chocolate. But from a practical stand point it is novelty level only. It isn’t practical for any real amount of chocolate. He is making a few ounces. And I will bring up one major pet peeve I have about it which is down right bogus. His bit on conching. Stirring your ‘chocolate’ around in mortar and pestle for a few minutes is NOT conching. No way. No how. It’s the equivalent of getting out of your chair and stretching and calling it yogi level yoga. Sorry, no.

Regardless, it does give me a place to jump off and make a few things clear. Definitions really. When I talk about making chocolate, that is what I mean. Smooth, silky, modern chocolate. And even ‘make’ I will talk about. I’m meaning both a significant (over a pound) amount of chocolate and in a way the is reasonable easy (no hand peeling of beans) and not ridiculously onerous (like using a mortar and pestle) and does not destroy equipment after only a couple uses. Basically something approachable.

Using those pre-requisites, a spice grinder fails the litmus test of making chocolate on all levels. It can only process a few ounces. It does not make modern smooth chocolate. It can easily burn out. And where I am counting you lose with one failure, this is a full three strikes you are out.

That all said, on to the next part of the question. It turns out it is not an easy answer. It’s full of choices and some are easier, but cost more. Some are more laborious (but still not onerous) but will save you some cash. It’s your call. And there are different stages you can start. But hopefully after reading this, you will at least have the information to make those choices.

There are four basic processes you need to perform. You need to roast. You need to crack. You need to winnow. You need to refine and conche.

Roasting: You can roast in your oven. I don’t know anyone who lives in a house that does not have one. It is a little more tricky (turning the beans, changing temperatures, etc) then having a dedicated roaster, but it’s free since you already own it. Certainly feel free to use it are just getting into this. Or if you decide you want to hold off on cracking and winnowing and are buying raw nibs. So bare minimum. Nothing extra. But a roaster (the Behmor 1600 is really the only one on the market that will do it) is great and easy and repeatable. That is $299.

Cracking. Let’s start off saying I am not going to suggest you hand crack the beans. It’s a pain. Technically you could put the bean in a bag and do the rolling pin thing but I’ve tried it and it just isn’t user friendly and gets old quick. As mentioned in the roasting part, you can always just buy nibs at first. If you do that, you are again at the bare minimum of no extra equipment since you can skip this step. But say you do want to go for the whole process. In times past I would have suggested the Crankandstein cocoa mill, but those are currently not being made. After that, the Champion juicer is your other alternative. Leave the screen off and it cracks the beans just great. And there is the added advantage that it will make liquor if you want. That is $265. I’ll note that I’ve tried food processors. Pulsing them and such and they just don’t do the job. Maybe you will have better luck but I always made too much dust and lost a lot of good product.

Winnowing. You really have two options here. Either you do it by hand with a bowl and blow dryer or you buy a sylph winnower ($195). Hand peeling I already mentioned is just a pain. But I used a bowl and blow dryer for years. It’s a touch messy, but not that hard. Or to repeat, if you went with nibs to start, this step gets skipped.

Refinging/conching. You have one option here (with two choices). You need a Melanger. No if, ands or buts about it. If you are going to make modern chocolate, there is NO SUBSTITUTE. NONE. I’ve tried different equipment for 10 years. I won’t say something else might turn up, but know right this moment, no other ‘basic’ kitchen equipment will do the job. Really. Think about it. Ask yourself why would I hide that information if I had it? Seriously. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth from you. I’m not hiding it because I want you to buy what I sell. I WANT YOU TO MAKE CHOCOLATE! I make very little on the Melangers. If I could offer you another alternative, which in turn would allow you to buy more beans, don’t you think I would put it out there? There, I’m off my soap box. You need a melanger. Your choice is then scale. There is the smaller Premier for $195 or the larger Spectra for $479.

There. Here is the quick run down.

If you want to take baby steps (and that is totally cool) you should buy nibs and roast them in your oven and get a Premier Grinder.

Total minimum: $195.

If you want to go 100% bean to bar, you need at the minimum,

• Your oven $0.00
• Champion : $265
• Winnowing: Bowl and blow dryier.
• Refining: Melanger. $195 or $479.
• Total minimum: $460

And finally, if you want to do it ‘easy’ and have the cash, then go for:

• Champion: $265
• Behmor: $299
• Sylph: $195
• Melanger: $195 (or $479 but we are still holding to ‘minimum’)
• Total Deluxe minimum: $954

I hope that helps and clears things up a bit.

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

Ask the Alchemist #71

My cocoa butter arrived melted. Is it ruined?

Can you ship cocoa beans in the summer? I’m worried they will melt.

Will you ship my order on ice packs so it won’t melt?

With the summer months approaching and some days starting to heat up around the country, addressing these various concerns seems like perfect timing.

In short, the weather, hot or cold, won’t adversely affect any of the products I sell and ship. First and foremost, cocoa beans and cocoa nibs do not melt. Yes, they are 50% cocoa butter, but that cocoa butter is all encased in the cells of the bean. Think about it. We roast cocoa beans. If we can do that, in a 300 F oven or roaster, why would a blazing day of 100 F (or even 130 in certain trucks) melt the beans? They won’t.

Cocoa butter will melt of course. But that is really not a problem. Over the years we have learned to tape up the bags with care so if you are somewhere warm, even if the cocoa butter does melt, it won’t leak. And the heat itself won’t affect the cocoa butter. It’s not like tempered chocolate. There is nothing to ruin. Just let it set up (room temperature is fine) and you are good to go.

Basically the same goes with the lecithin. It might melt or get a little gummy, but it’s not gone bad and it is perfectly fine to use.

Finally, sorry, no. We can’t pack your order with ice packs. It’s huge overhead, and basically, it just does not serve any purpose.

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

Ask the Alchemist #70

I’m so glad you have the Premier Grinder now. But I now don’t know which one to pick. Which is your favorite?

One day in, and I’ve already had this question multiple times. Fair enough.

Neither.

It’s kind of like asking which of your children you love more. Or for those of you without children, which parent. Or brother. Or sister. You get the idea. You might get along with one more than the other. You might go to one over the other in certain situations. But one rarely is a ‘favorite’.

It’s the same thing here. Really, it’s your call. But here are my thoughts on them laid out.

I like the price ($195) of the Premier vs the Spectra 11 ($479)

I like the 9 lb capacity of the Spectra 11 vs the Premier at about 6 lbs.

I don’t like that the Spectra 11 seems to have a tendency to go through belts faster than I like.

I don’t like that the cone on the Premier’s bowl strip its threads after some time (mine was over a year of heavy use) (they are looking at addressing this – and keep in mind this is an unmodified Grinder, not officially a modified Melanger).

I like that they both have Warranties.

I like that they both can grind nibs, although I’ll admit because of the Spectra’s belt appetite, the Premier does do a more efficient job.

I like the foot print of the Premier.

I like the larger grinding area (larger wheels) of the Spectra.

That’s about it. And counting up, it’s basically a wash. It comes down to preferences, budget and need.

New Products and a new Origin

First there is a new origin.  Organic Uganda.  Dry tannins offset by a good backbone of chocolate. I also have an old favorite back.  The smaller size Escali Scale.

Plus there is a new IR Thermometer.  I've absolutely fallen in love with this for roasting, grinding and tempering.

And finally, for the newest, most exciting BIG reveal, we are now offering, WITH WARRANTY, the Premier Wonder Grinder!!

Enjoy everyone!

Ask the Alchemist #69

Chocolate molds, better ones anyway, are made with polycarbonate, which generally contains BPA or a related chemical. These chemicals have gotten a lot of press for mimicking hormones. I have seen some BPA free molds but they're still a rarity.

Does BPA enter the chocolate during molding? Is contact too brief? Temps too low? Or are we just turning a blind eye?

In short, the answer is we don’t know.

There is just no data out there so it leaves answering the question to speculation and my background in chemistry. In some places that is called ‘speculation’. Or an ‘educated guess’. Basically, I’m ‘theorizing’. But since I’m not giving concrete conclusions, it can at least be said that I am not ‘making sh!t up’ !

I am rather glad you didn’t get into asking my thoughts on whether BPA is a concern, but that is a real hot spot of contention. Regardless, there was some good data I was able to collect along the way.

BPA is the friendly abbreviation for Bisphenol A. Which is also a friendly name for it’s IUPAC name of 4,4'-(propane-2,2-diyl)diphenol. And thank goodness for standardization as its original name was either p,p'-isopropylidenebisphenol, or 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane.

It has a solubility in water between 120 and 300 mg/L. It is freely soluble in oils, fats and organic solvents. Because of this later piece of data, it is theorized that the contamination to oily or fatty products (like fish in oil vs fish in water) would be higher, but I could not find one single piece of data to support that assersion….which means to me that people most likely are ‘making sh!t up’.

Part of the reason I say this is there is precious little data to support a direct link between solubility and leaching. They are two different animals as it were. Leaching in the most simplistic terms might be considered surface solubility. But only kind of. Solubility involves a solvent (let’s say water) surrounding and encapsulating the solute (the BPA). It requires the solvent to get between the molecular spaces of the solute in order for it to surround it and carry it off into solution. With leaching, it’s more a matter of what can the ‘solvent’ shake loose and carry away. Analogy time. You have dirt rubbed into your shirt. And the dirt here is powdered rock and sand but also clay and hummus. Stuff that isn’t soluble in water (the rock) and stuff that is soluble in water (the hummus). If you put that shirt in a bucket of water and don’t agitate it you will find that the water starts to color. The soluble hummus is being surrounded by water molecules and carried off. But the sand and rock stay imbedded. It takes agitation to shake them loose or ‘leach’ them from the shirt. Kind of make sense?

As for numbers to show leaching has little correlation to solubility, let’s look at that solubility of BAP vs what is found in two different ‘solvents’. Recall the solubility in water is 120-300 mg/L or ppm. That is the maximum that can go in. The levels found in water are 0.1-10 ug/L. The levels found in liquid baby formula were 0.8-11 ug/L. There are two things to notice here. The first is that the amount found is roughly 1/10000 the solubility level. Hundreds of parts per MILLION vs parts per BILLION. Next, to me, those two leaching values are basically identical. The ‘high’ fat formula had no noticeable effect on how much was leached. Now, please know, I am NOT saying oil won’t leach more…just that I can’t find any evidence of it. Which is a good thing for chocolate since it is 30-50% oil.

The next bit of good ‘evidence’ for chocolate comes from ‘modes of transmission’. We have looked at how BPA leaches into a liquid over time. But there are other ways for it to transfer. Solid to solid is another way. In the same study that liquid baby formula was looked at, they also examined powdered (high fat) baby formula in lined containers….and only found BPA in one of 14 of the samples. That’s good news. My suspicion why is because the container was rigid and the ‘solvent’ (being a solid) could not knock, brush or liberate any BPA from the surface of the lining (sort of like in a chocolate mold).

And this is kind of confirmed, or at least not contradicted by the fact that one of the highest forms of transfer was from thermal receipts that contain BPA. In this case, although both surfaces (the paper and your hand) are both solids, the contaminated surface was highly flexible so was able to ‘slough’ off BPA readily. Think again to our shirt example. It’s dirty. And so is a rigid baseball cap. If you pick up and handle both, which is going to get more dirt on your hands? Most likely the shirt. It gives, the dirt cracks, and readily falls onto and transfers to your hand. It has a reason to move because it’s being dislodged by physical means.

Temperature does play a role in leaching.  Higher temperatures (150-210 F) leach more (2-10x more) but chocolate is not molded anywhere near those temperatures.  Good for us. And one final note on leaching. It takes time. When I was in the lab we performed an extraction called a Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). In the procedure, we added what we wanted leached into a container with a leaching solution (not even called a solvent) and this was agitated (tumbled actually) for 24-30 HOURS. Which makes sense as the highest contamination is found in water bottles and canned foods where they sit for quite a while and are moved and agitated. My main point here is that time is a critical factor. In a few circumstances we did ‘instantaneous’ leaches for curious customers and found radically reduced leaching rates. Again on the order of 1/100 to 1/1000 times less.

So, here is what I see and could find in regards to BPA contamination and leaching.

• Leaching is not directly related to solubility so oil vs water is does not matter.
• Leaching is related to the surface of the material in question. Solid surfaces show much less contamination than highly flexible surfaces.
• Leaching is related to time to some degree, with instantaneous leaching from solid/liquid boundaries being very low.
• Leaching from one solid to another solid (powdered baby formula in a rigid container) is very low.
• Leaching increases as temperature increases.

With all that in place, my gut feeling is that the contamination from polycarbonate molds to chocolate should be very low because:

• The mold is rigid.
• The chocolate although oil based does not increase transfer.
• The time it is fluid is VERY low.
• Chocolate is molded at 'cool' temperatures.
• Solid/solid contact shows nearly no transfer potential.

Basically I can’t find any good reason that there should be hardly any transfer at all from polycarbonate molds to molded chocolate. But I want to re-iterate, I am just following a logic and data trail and we don’t know. To know for sure would take an actual analysis. Which honestly I am stunned has not happened and been published. Anyone?

So, to specifically answer your questions:

I don't know if BPA enters chocolate during molding, but evidence indicates probably very little

Yes the contact is too brief and of the 'wrong' type.

Yes the low temperature helps keep it to a minimum No, at this point now, we are not turning a blind eye...but maybe someone should test. That’s my take.

Ask the Alchemist #68

Thanks to you, I am now winnowing my own beans. I LOVE the Slyph. Thank you!! To crack and feed the beans, I am using the champion juicer like you use for the Aether. I’m not complaining, but I’ve noticed that my nibs, although basically free of husk, don’t quite look as nice as the ones I used to get from you. Do you know what I might be doing wrong? Is it the deluxe cracker you use?

Very observant grasshopper.

And thanks for the perfect introduction to something I’ve wanted to talk about. Yes, a few of you notice that the nibs I send have changed recently. They are a bit smaller. And just a touch cleaner, especially the raw nibs. The answer is that I use a slightly different system than I’ve told anyone about…up until now. But first a little back story.

I’ve mentioned before that raw beans don’t winnow quite as well as roasted beans. It’s partly because the husk is heavier and partly because the nib and husk don’t separate as well when cracked. The laborious solution I’ve used is a screen when I deem that there is too much husk coming through. Basic 1/8” hardware cloth. And what was left on the screen was put back through the Champion and winnower until most passed through the screen.

While working on a different project, I tried fitting different sized screens to the bottom of the Champion juicer. What I was working on failed (but I learned a lot) but the result was inspiration that if added the 1/8” screen (I’d been working with much smaller screen) maybe it would recycle the larger nibs until they passed through the screen….and that is exactly what they did.

The result, to my mind, is a much cleaner, more even nib.

So, feel free to give it a try. I’ve been experimenting and here are a few observations.

It does slow the feed rate up a little; More so with raw beans.

Roasted beans work fine with the screen on and you barely notice the reduction in speed, and in the scheme of things, if you are only doing 2 lbs, what’s 2 minutes vs 2.5 minutes?

I like the performance better with raw beans if I put them through once (not worrying too much about efficiency). Then add the screen and put them through again. The second time through really flies and to my mind makes up for the extra pass since it gives such a nicer product.

Some beans that are a little less than perfect in preparation, namely Dominican Republic, really need two passes. Once without the screen, once with it. Otherwise the system just kind of bogs down and one slow pass ends up taking longer than two quick passes.

Finally, and with a rather awkward transition, people have also been asking when (and if) I will be bringing the Cocoa mill back. For those that had not heard, Crankandstein is moving to a new shop and decide with 2 days notice to stop making these ‘until the end of summer’. And it has given me time to consider the Mill. And honestly I’m leaning in toward the frame of mind that the manual cocoa mill’s time has run it’s course. At first I had made some conclusions that the Cocoa mill was better than the Champion. But as time went on, and both my winnowing technique got better and two winnowers because available, I’ve reversed my conclusion. Hands down, the Champion performs faster, with less trouble and more efficiency than the Mill. The only item really in favor of the mill is that in some places (such as some cocoa origins) where power is scarce, the mill is the only option. Ok, two items. The cutter wheel on the Champion wears out over time. But for the occasional home chocolate maker, this can be years. And for the professional, there is the Deluxe cracker (with new tool steel blade that have about 1 MT of cocoa beans of life to them).

So I guess I want input from you my customers and readers. Has the Cocoa mill become obsolete? Or are some of you looking to get one once they become available?

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

Ask the Alchemist #67

Hey I am interested in the chocolate winnower. I saw that it didn't include a shop vacuum, and wondered what kind of shop vacuum you recommend/used for testing? Also how did you arrive at your pipe diameters? I would like to know in case we decide to increase the total output.

The answers to these questions in some ways may be disappointing. Mostly because they are true answers , but not helpful answers. But I’ll answer them and then move onto what I hope and think you want to know.

And first off, I tell you right on the pages with the winnower what I recommend.

“ It was designed around a Shop-Vac brand wet/dry Hang-up Mini with a 1.25" vacuum hose” and

” It requires the use of a 6.5 hp Shop Vac, with a 2.5" vacuum hose”.

What kind of shop vacuum did I use? What I had in the shop. I had four different ones around from the smallest 1hp all the way up to the largest 6.5 hp I could find. And I used the one that worked best (i.e. gave the best result of winnowing) for the size winnower (I have two and tested others) I was working on.

How did I arrive at your pipe diameters? Trial and error. And also there are only so many options. And if you want to get picky, I took the cross section area of the rectangular prototype winnower I had built (and worked out from 5 years of observation, trial and error) and worked out what the equivalent circular cross section area would be, and went with the closest size. But again, after that, it was a matter of what was available, and it had to fit into the space constraints of a viable design.

Right now there are two designs. One with 2” and 3” pipe and one with 1.5” and 2” pipe. I’m looking/thinking about both a larger one and a smaller one, but both present non-straight forward issues that have to be overcome.

Next, you are making a HUGE assumption that the pipe size is related intimately to the output.

It is related, but not as simple as your question seems to make it out to be. If you move to a 4” pipe (the next size up) you have suddenly increased your cross sectional area 78%. The result of that is that you will most likely need to increase your vacuum somewhat. The good news is that rarely do you need the full 6.5 hp of the vacuum, so you have room to play (there is a vacuum control valve that is rarely more than 2/3 closed, and when running well, it is 2/3 open), but then again, you may need a larger one. You won’t know until you try it. And 6.5 hp is the largest they go on a 15 amp circuit. But really, we are getting away from another major issue. How are you going to feed the beans in? The assumption you made is that the pipe size is the limiting factor…except the two winnowers can have nearly the same output but one is 1/2 the size of the other.

The limiting factor turns out to be feed rate. In the small winnower you hand feed (and I’ve seen some people use the Champion with good results). In the larger one you use the Champion juicer to crack and feed the beans in…..and it has one speed. About 1.5 lbs/min….the quoted output of the winnower. See the dilemma?

In short, I’ve yet to find any good way to increase that feed rate that does not cost more than a second winnower. Or take twice as long to use. Or jam. Or break. Or give you a poorer cracking. Or less efficiency.

If your goal is to increase output, increasing the pipe size is not the way to go. Using another winnower is really the easiest and most cost effective way to go. At least as far as I have found.

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

Cocoa pods

Just a reminder that this is the last day for ordering Cocoa pods.  Then it will be another month or so.  No fooling :) And as I keep forgetting to mention, I've had really good luck drying the whole pods.  I accidentally let a couple in my refrigerator, wrapped in the paper they come in, and a couple months later they had dehydrated very nicely, with rattling beans inside (as one lump, not individual beans).  They turn a rather nice chocolate brown.

Champion Juicer Price increase

If you have been thinking about getting a Champion Juicer NOW is the time.  Plastaket has introduced a MAP policy, so as of April 1 (no joke again - I'm going to get my mileage out of that phrase this year) the new price for the USA will go from $240 to $265.  But until then I'm leaving it at the $240 price.Also, this is a reminder about the April 1 deadline for Cacao Fruits.

Ask the Alchemist #66

I am trying to find cessium(sic) free cacao beans or nibs. 

Any cacao beans or nibs from 2010- or earlier- before fukishima?

I don't have any beans from that time period.   And you are unlikely to find any.  Hurricane Sandy from 2012 wiped out nearly all the back stock that was stored on the USA east coast.

But also, although there is valid concern not wanting to eat radioactive cesium, there is no data I have seen to think there is any cesium in any cocoa beans above natural levels from Fukishima.

Personally, I believe your best bet is to simply pick a bean not from the Asia area (like Africa or South and Central America) and have it tested.  It's the only way to be sure.  Everything else is speculation.

Ask the Alchemist #65

What were the winning numbers for the Auction?

They were:

4956, 5312, and 2300

And before you go looking, I just tell you it was none of the ones I sold.  Sorry all, but thanks so much for the support.

Fresh Cacao Fruits available for Pre-order - Round 2

This time around you have the option of your choice of different sizes, shapes and colors....or take your chance with a discounted price with and "Alchemist's Choice". Cacao Fruits

Will be taking orders until April 1st...no joke.

Ask the Alchemist #64

One question that is nagging and I can’t find a definitive answer to, stems from my tempering experiments.

 Does the humidity level of your cooling location affect sugar bloom when cooling tempered chocolate?

After repeatedly finding varying levels of bloom on different pieces of the same batch of chocolate (either swirls of dots, a ‘dusting’ of fine dots or the circular blotches) after two tempering attempts, I tried a test cooling at room temperature and in the fridge. I today read your article on your tests at fridge, room and outside temperatures and noted from the similar results, I’m probably cooling at too high a room temp. (70F+) Next test is with the same room at 50-60F..

I should note that the temper appears reasonably good otherwise, nice snap, reasonable shine, not quickly melting and of course, tastes divine. In some respects my mouth says “so what?” but I’d like to get that perfect finish.

Being in the UK in mid-winter, I imagine a centrally heated house has a lower relative humidity level than that quoted in weather reports. I did note though that in the past day or two when humidity was reported at +90%, the bloom seemed far more prominent than in the first temper a few days back when humidity was lower. If I turn off the heating for that room and keep it closed, I was concerned I may be replacing one cause of bloom (too high a cooling temp) with another (higher levels of humidity).

I do understand that there are many other variables which are in play and I have nagging doubts after reading about moisture in the chocolate or tempering a batch of milk chocolate without lecithin so I realise there may not be a simple answer or I’m just making it harder for myself. I’ll continue to experiment and am about to embark on my first batch from nibs and to try refining another batch from the same base milk chocolate batch but with lecithin to compare the temper.

Sugar bloom seems to be the new ‘hot’ issue. And, somewhat accordingly, not greatly understood. Or maybe more to the point, it is moderately well understood, but that is from a technical standpoint and not a practical standpoint.

Let’s take a step back. What is sugar bloom? First off, what it isn’t. It’s not like cocoa butter or fat ‘bloom’. That form of bloom is the changing of one form (V) of cocoa butter crystal to another (either VI or IV usually). In sugar ‘bloom’, what is actually happening is that sugar on the surface of the chocolate is dissolving, and recrystallizing in a different shape, but with the same type of crystal. But it is still called bloom as it’s similar in appearance to fat bloom. Clear huh?

Let’s get to some background information.

Generally, fat bloom is more common but sugar bloom also occurs and is not necessarily distinguishable from the fat bloom by appearance. In freshly sugar bloomed samples, it is often easy to feel the surface difference; sugar bloom feels dry and does not melt to the touch, while fat bloom feels slick and melts more readily because there are different, lower melting point crystals (type IV). Usually you can see the difference by touching a small droplet of water to the surface. With fat bloom, the droplet simply beads up. With sugar bloom, the droplet will flatten out and spread, as the water dissolves the sugar particles on the surface. Alternatively, gentle warming of the surface (with a hairdryer, for example) will cause the crystals of fat bloom to melt, removing the appearance of bloom, while leaving sugar bloom unchanged.

Next, it’s helpful to know what causes it. Once we know that, we can work out how to fix the issue. These are a few of the not very helpful items you will find about the cause.

1. Storage of chocolates in damp conditions

2. Deposit of "dew" during manufacture from damp cooler air or allowing chocolates to enter a packing room at a temperature below the dew point of that room

3. Use of hygroscopic ingredients (low grade or brown sugars) High-temperature storage conditions of chocolate-covered confectionery, where the centers have a high relative humidity and the water vapor given off is trapped in the wrappings

Personally, I don’t find this really helpful, but that is about all there is out there. The reason is two fold. First, they are just too damn generic. “It hurts when I do this doctor” ”Then don’t do that”. Right!! Let’s get some practical solutions going. Well, before we get there, I need to put in a disclaimer here. We are discussing theory there and this is going to be a 2 (or more) part answer. I’m going to lay out things I think will prevent bloom, and then test them and report back. Following the list:

1. We are talking humidity here. Basically, you need to isolate the chocolate from the ambient water in the atmosphere. That’s either a controlled chiller (that most people don’t have) or getting the chocolate into sealed bags. With a note that refrigerators are notoriously humid. I’ll be testing this by storing chocolate that is setting up in both in and out of a seal zip lock bag in a humid environment.

2. This one is just evil. Dew point. Have you ever seen the equations and multi variable plot for dew point?

Give me a break. And that is the ‘estimation’. Maybe we can do just reference a chart? How’s this lovely?

And that is for one elevation. Not much help there either. Except I think it will help in that I plan to dig in and suss out helpful generalities.

3. I’ll tell you, I don’t believe this one. It sounds good on the surface, but once you have refined, any compounds that are hydroscopic are going to have been bound up. I’ll test it but I’m thinking this one is bunk. That’s a mouthful isn’t it? Basically we can write this one off for our conversation as it doesn’t have anything to do with bars of tempered chocolate. It’s for enrobed items.

Here are a few thought I have about what I will be testing and seeing if they make any difference.

1) Store the tempering chocolate with a desiccant. Lecithin comes to mind. Plus some classics like rice, flour and desiccant packs.

2) I’ll also look at covering each tray with maybe paper towels and maybe wrapping in plastic wrap. The first to ‘catch’ any condensation. The second to seal out any moisture.

3) Finally, I’ll dig into those equations and see if I can find some common, easy to match conditions that will allow you to just temper and not fret.

Stay tuned. This may take some time.

Ask the Alchemist #63

Not sure where else to post this but wondering if water can ruin finished chocolate (not melted)

I had packaged up a bunch of chocolate and placed in a cooler that had ice in the bottom. I didnt break the ice bag at all and most of the chocolate was either in cellophane or double bagged in cellophane and then placed in ziplock baggies for labeling/sorting purposes.

The chocolate bars however, were simply wrapped in wax paper and placed in the cooler. When I got home and unloaded the unsold/undelivered chocolate, 3 bars of chocolate were pretty well soaked with water. I quickly removed the wrapping and set the chocolate on some paper towels to sop up any excess water.

The question I have though is: did this just ruin these bars? It was milk chocolate and it was already properly setup and hardened; and it was cold water, so no melting took place. There was some discoloration where you can see the chocolate was just sitting in water, but it seems to have only affected the 2 bottom bars, one was completely submerged, but wax paper prevented a total soaking and the one above that just had the bottom soaked. The one above that just had some water from splashing around.

After this dries out, I'm going to attempt to melt and re-temper the chocolate, but use only this tainted chocolate first; so it doesnt taint anything else. Was just curious if that was the right way to fix this or not.

First off, no, you most likely did not ruin the chocolate. What you did though was to cause some version of sugar bloom. That discoloration was dissolved sugar that either washed out or re-crystallized.

The good news is that since chocolate is oil based, and you did not melt the chocolate, only the outer layer was affected. Nothing soaked in.  There should be no reason that you can not re-temper the chocolate after it is 100% thoroughly dry.

On a related note, as you found, ice is not the best way to keep the chocolate cool in hot weather. What you saw was a large amount of condensation. What I have had work for me is to first off use cold packs. Next, wrap them in thick cloth towels (bath towel sized) at the bottom of the cooler, and then also wrap your plastic wrapped or bagged chocolate in another towel on top of this. This will keep your chocolate cool in even the hottest weather and soak up any stray moisture as it forms. Keep in mind, you don’t have to keep it COLD. You just need to keep it cool, and in moderate weather, you don’t even need the ice pack. The cooler will do the job just fine. You are just trying to keep it from melting and loosing temper.

This leads me into a segue to next week’s Question. What is sugar bloom and how to prevent it. I was going to do it this week, but found that although I had a bit to say, I didn’t have solid solutions….just vague suggestions. And there is enough of that around the internet. So stay tuned and I’m going to try and give some more substantial information.

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

Raffle tickets to Hawaii

How would you like to go to Kauai Hawaii for a week?  There is cocoa there you know.  That is the Grand prize for this raffle. GRAND PRIZE: A Hawaiian vacation.  It includes airfare for two (up to $600/each) and a week long stay in a beachfront Condo on Kauai that sleeps four.  $3200 value.

That is the main draw for me offering these tickets.  But there are other prizes.

2nd Prize:  GoPro Camera ($200 value)

3rd Prize: Gift Certificate to Carmelita Spats Restaurant ($40 value) (Really only useful if you are in Eugene Oregon where this is out of)

Are you wondering yet why I am offering this and/or have the ability to?  Well, it is a for a Benefit Auction for the Eugene Waldorf School where my daughter attends 7th grade.  That simple really.

I will post the winning number  Tuesday March 17.  The drawing is 9:30 pm March 15.  Tickets will be available until then.

Traveling 2/14/14-2/24/14

I will be gone 2/14/14-2/24/14 traveling to China (with my daughter).  I'll be leaving the stores open, but there will be no shipping on orders that are in after 2/13/14 @ 6:00 am for Retail, and 2/12/14 @ noon for Wholesale (and that may be tight). Likewise, email responses will be spotty while I'm gone.  I'll be connected somewhat, but limited in what I can do.

See you are the other side.  And get the Ask the Alchemist questions ready since I'll be taking two weeks off for the trip.

Ask the Alchemist #62

I recently made my first 9 lb batch of dark chocolate (just beans and sugar) in my Santha Spectra 11. Prior to that I had only made 2 - 5 lbs for about a year. For my tastes, I observed that typically I would melange around 5-6 hours per pound of chocolate. That seemed to provide the smoothness that I liked while mellowing out the acids in the beans giving the chocolate great flavor. However, I melanged this 9 lb batch for 41 hours, which is about 4.5 hours per pound of chocolate. This produced a decent chocolate, but it has a solidly bitter bite at the start of tasting as well as a touch of astringency. That bitter bite is also a bit oddly flavored. Fortunately, this chocolate tastes great on the finish/back-end so it leaves me wanting to try more.

I'm wondering if melanging times when scaling-up batches of chocolate, in the same machine, should be linear or have folks experienced a non-linearity when scaling-up? I keep questioning whether I should've melanged for 45 - 54 hours, which would've amounted to 5-6 hours per lb of chocolate that I had previous success with. At 34 hours, the texture was still a bit gritty, but the flavor was atrocious. At 41 hours, the texture was pretty smooth and the flavor was considerably better. I decided to stop at 41 hours because I was concerned that the batch would be refined so much that it would taste gummy/plasticy. (I've never melanged that long with my Spectra 11.)

What have any of you been successful with regarding scaling-up in the same machine? Linear or non-linear melanging times?

These are very difficult questions. Mostly it’s because it’s not simple, and partly because I don’t have the concrete answer you desire. The short answer is that the time spent in the Melanger is not linear and is also not linear. See. Not much help. It is somewhat partly non-linear, but unfortunately it non-linear in a multi-variable way. What that translates to is that you have multiple non-linear processes that are going on (1st, 2nd and 3rd order chemical reactions plus particle reduction) at the same time and some are dependent on others and some are not. Further, they are temperature dependent, but to different degrees.

In more laymen’s terms that means the doubling the refining time doesn’t work if you double the amount of chocolate. And that is because each process deals with the doubled amount differently. Think of 5 cars going on a trip. 2 in one lane (cars 1 and 2), and 3 (cars A, B and C) in other lane. They have to stay in the order they start in. 2 is dependent the speed of 1. C is dependent B which is dependent on A. And 1 and A go at different speeds. Think of your batch size the terrain. Hills. And the flavor and texture of the chocolate are the positions of all the cars at a given time. If the terrain is mostly flat (1-2 lbs) all the cars will be grouped pretty well together at 40 hours. If the terrain is a little more steep, it may take 45 hours for car 1 (texture) to reach the same location, car 2 will be a little further behind, and A will be a little farther behind, but B and C will be farther behind again (safe driving distance after all). The result is that where they all are at 45 hours is similar to 40 hours, and recognizable. Basically the chocolate tastes close enough to the same.

But if on the next trip it’s very steep, it’s going to take car 1 50 hours to be where it needs to be. But everyone else (taste) is WAY behind. So the trip continues to 60 hours. Car 2 is about where it should be, but Car A is past where it was before, B is right on target, and C is lagging. The result? A totally different position for everyone with, and no way to get them into the same position since if one car moves they must all move. What’s one to do? We you can give the cars higher octane gas (higher heat) and the Letter group can keep up better. Oh, but that makes the Number group (refining) go a little faster too (they are also warmer so viscosity is lower). What to do? Maybe don’t add that extra cocoa butter at the beginning so the chocolate is a little thicker and add it at the end where it makes little difference.

Is that making sense? That in a way, each batch that is not exactly the same has the potential to be a little different. But that you DO have a few tools to make changes (temperature, time, recipe) and try and keep it at least similar.

The final thing I’ll say is that at some point, and as the trip continues, the lead cars start to slow down naturally. They plateau and start to kind of coast. You can only refine to so small a particle size and at least in the melangers we have, over refining rarely if ever happens. I have taken a tiny batch (1 lb) to the gummy stage in a few days, but I’ve run a larger batch (5 lbs) for 8 days with no sign of gummy at all. But at 10 days all the cars ran out of gas, coasted to a stop together, and I had pretty flavorless chocolate. But that was 10 DAYS (it was an experiment). Your goal is to go long enough that there is flavor left and in about the profile you want. But I’ve found you don’t have to worry about over refining.

Like I said. It’s a hard question with no good answer except that there is no easy answer. Oddly, I sometimes find that comforting. I hope you do to.

Ask the Alchemist #61

What is your opinion on trade secrets? I am surprised by your willingness to share what you know. Why don’t you write a book?

Warning, Ranting/Rambling Alchemist ahead.

I am always amused when questions like this come up. And more so after the Chocolate Fest event this last weekend. While wandering around, I heard more than once that hushed conspiratorially toned conversation. “what did you use?” “how did you do that?” “how did you roast that?” “What did they do to get that flavor?” and without an exception the answer was some variation “I can’t tell you, it’s a trade secret” or “wouldn’t you like to know”.

Um, yeah, that’s why they are asking.

I can’t quite wrap my head around these answers. Sure, I know it’s not uncommon. It’s just that it isn’t how I deal in chocolate or much of anything. Information is to be shared. Maybe it is so many years in the scientific community. Maybe it is how I am wired. Whatever the case, I know I am not alone. Chocolate Alchemy would not be where it is if not for the selfless giving and sharing of knowledge of Fredrick Shilling, fellow founding Alchemist of Dagoba Chocolate.

We had many a long conversation about just this subject and how at the end of the day, there were both very few rules in chocolate making (we agreed you can’t add sugar in a liquid form and still get a classic temper) and how all this secrecy doesn’t do anything but hurt the industry and harbor ill feelings. And 90% of the time, the secrecy had nothing at all to do with trying to protect your product, livelihood, intellectual property or anything of those common excuses.

They had everything to do with ignorance and fear and not being willing to admit when you don’t know something. It’s often said in the belief that the speaker will come across as more knowledgeable and somehow that desire for their knowledge will transfer to their product.

Right!

I’ll admit I’m guessing here. I’m making up reasons why someone would not share a roasting profile or a fermentation time or even the proportions in a recipe. I go to great lengths to give that kind of information. I can’t even count the number of words I’ve written and spoken trying to describe the exact way I roast, what to look for to modify the roast and how to change it to suit your own tastes. And most of the times I can’t do it. It and so much of this process is so out of our control (growing conditions, weather, bean age, etc) that it’s just pompous (or ignorant) to think your one little link in the chain from bean to bar makes THE difference.

I brew ale, mead and sake. Cook a wide variety of foods. Make, build and invent things. And as you might have heard, make chocolate. Over the course of my life I’ve heard all these things before. And over the course of my life I have tried to teach people how to do what I do when they ask. And without an exception, I can’t do it. Nor have I met anyone else that can either. The best I (or anyone) can do is show them what I do and why I do it. The result is a passing of knowledge…of a sort. More than once I’ve entered into a friendly competition to make something. We all use the same ingredients, the same recipe, the same basic equipment…and the result is a multitude of different end products. Each is flavored by our own perceptions of what we see, smell, hear and think and that makes each product unique.

If I am actively and earnestly trying to show someone how I have created something, and it does not work perfectly, how is it anyone has anything to fear about trying to share how they created what they made?

And further, if what they did is so simple that it can be explained in a couple minutes, someone else is going to work it out in short order. At least that is my take.

Somehow, I think people get caught into the thought process that you can only succeed if other people fail, and whatever you do (not sharing) to not help them succeed will increase your own potential to succeed. Like success is a limited commodity. At some point, sure, there is a point where the market will only bear so much, but in the microcosm of sharing information, I don’t see how that applies.

Ok, before I end, I do want to say I understand there are indeed times and places to keep secrets. Real trade secrets. Complex, unique processes. Unique pieces of code. Truly new ideas. And being bound by a NDA (non-disclosure agreement). That’s what patents are for. I’m bound by a few myself. I get that.

But whether it’s is a 5 or 6 day ferment, at 125 or 130 F, or a 17 minute roast profile to 325 F or 21 minutes to 332.6 F, or you use 6% cocoa butter vs 4%, please recognize those aren’t secrets. And what do you gain by keeping them to yourself? Or better yet, what do you lose by sharing?

Nothing I’ve ever found.

I’m sorry, if your entire product line is basic on that one, little piece of knowledge, you are on shaky ground to start with and there is a good possibility your business model is as sturdy as a house of cards. And if you are not even in business there is no reason at all not to share all you know.

Personally, what I have found is that if you share openly, honestly and with passion, people will appreciate it, and share back….if they recognize (and most do) that you are helping them succeed, and that by doing so, they are not giving up their own ability to succeed.

So, the next time someone asks you for information, take a moment and think about where you got that knowledge (did someone share it or the kernels of knowledge with you?) and if what you can tell them actually is anything you even have the ability to share (sometimes it’s beyond words) and if you can share it, will it REALLY diminish or take away from what you have created or are you simply sharing the wealth? As they say, what goes around comes around, if you need more of a reason to share what you know.

And finally, it’s ok you don’t know why something came out as it did. Sometimes ignorance is not a sin. Sometimes (often) something wonderful is just a culmination of years of hard work that can’t be distilled over in a few minutes. Say that. Don’t hide behind “it’s a trade secret”. Knowledge is limitless. Share the wealth.

Oh, and no, I currently don’t plan on writing a book. Just not enough time.

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

Ask the Alchemist #60

Can I also ask you about experience in making raw chocolate from the bean without roasting? Some companys slightly roast them. Why?I have certainly talked about this in the past, but the questions keep coming in, so here is a bit more. .

First off, it is a potentially dangerous endeavor. Raw beans can contain both e.coli and salmonella. The beans are air dried on patios and everyone involved in the process assumes they will be roasted to kill anything present.

If by chance you are using clean beans, the raw beans will not winnow nearly as well as roasted beans and the lifetime on your blades will be less and separation may not be complete, causing you to have to screen the nibs, further increasing your risk of contamination. Roasted beans, even lighted roasted bean, separate better. .

As for processing and refining, the moisture in raw cocoa is too high in most cases to turn into liqueur. It will most likely cause your chocolate to seize as it starts to liquefy. Some people have some success with dehydrating beans, but roasting light also works. .

I have always found the flavor of raw chocolate to be very little like chocolate. Many of the flavors we note as chocolate are developed in the roasting process. Without roasting, everything I have tasted has been 'green' flavored, rather bitter and/or astringent and lacking in anything I think of as chocolate. .

Finally, whereas there is some data that supports there is more total antioxidants in some raw cocoa beans, compared to it's roasted counterpart, there is little evidence it is actually bio available. So in the final count you end up with a product that does not taste very good and is no better for you than tradition chocolate and in some case my be an actual health risk. That's my take on raw chocolate and why cocoa needs to be roasted.

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

Fresh Cacao Fruits are now available for Pre-order

I will be bringing in a small shipment of Cacao Pods.

Make sure you read the fine print, but the short of most of it is these can only ship to the mainland USA, are perishable and this is for pre-orders, closing January 21, 2014.

Please let me know if you have any questions.