|
|
Welcome to FoodBanter.com forums which provide access to the finest food and drink related newsgroups. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most newsgroup discussions and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics to the food related newsgroups, communicate privately with other FoodBanter.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support. |
|
|||||||
| Chocolate (rec.food.chocolate) all topics related to eating and making chocolate such as cooking techniques, recipes, history, folklore & source recommendations. |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
11-12-2005, 10:55 PM
posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
Sometime in the near future, I was hoping to make some truffles and
other types of chocolates. In the past, I've been pretty much dealing with mediocre brands, supplies, and even recipes for fondant and ganache. So does anyone have any good fondant or ganache recipes? Also, what kind of brands do you prefer to make yours? (Premium chocolates or specific creams... flavoring... syrups...) Got any tips for making them come out the best possible? Thanks in advance. =) *Shan* 
|
|
13-12-2005, 06:01 PM
posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
So does anyone have any good fondant or ganache recipes?
Making fondant by hand cannot duplicate the quality of institutionally made item, so IMO I prefer to buy a pail of ready made fondant instead if I make a lots of fondant containing chocolate centers. Another option is to use the DryFond which makes a better textured product than using powdered sugar fondant alternative. Regarding Ganache, IMO it does not need the use of expensive good tasting chocolatew which is better consumed IMO as is, by eating.grin. If I make those filled ganache based chocolate confections. I would improve tastes by adding certain liqueurs/ or flavors to the formulations instead. I would rather spend the money on procuring refined hazelnut paste ( as homemade paste is rather gritty ( 600-1000microns and cannnot attain the desired particle range of 20-40 microns on that nut paste processed through a three roll or even by a Macintye refiner conche. Got any tips for making them come out the best possible? In your case I would recommend to understand the recipe and its procedures before you even think of doing it yourself. grin. Then you are likely to get a good product that you can be proud of. But it takes a bit of practice and you better use less expensive ingredients initially. A lot of beginners are deluded into thinking that expensive ingredients will result in excellent product which is not absolutely true.; Indeed good quality materials will reflect on the end product but its better if you have already attained enough skill on chocolate confectionery before you invest your money on such costly ingredients. There are lots of chocolatiers( chocolate confectioners) who can produce really good tasting products due to their skill and not due to the ingredients they use.
|
|
15-12-2005, 06:49 AM
posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
Alex Rast wrote Although it must be said that making one's own fondant is instructive for the same basic technique used to temper chocolate (at least the slab and spatula method). Hand-making fondant is certainly labour-intensive so if you want to minimise effort it would be better to buy it. There are 2 reasons to try making it at home: if you want to gain technique in making fondant yourself, or if you have certain flavour and/or ingredient specifications you can't find in something you can buy. .... A base fondant is supposed to be neutral not flavored .... besides what ingredients specification in particular would you expect from an institutionally made fondant.? Its just sugar, glucose and enough water cooked to a certain temperature , then cooled to the right temperature then agitated to create the required sugar crystals size responsible for its desirable qualities in confections. IMHO ganache definitely benefits from using good-tasting chocolate, because in a ganache the flavour of the chocolate really stands out and if you're using one that doesn't taste good, it will be instantly apparent. Well if a certain chocolatier is not experienced or skilled enough that he will plunge into using ersatz chocolate then that will be the case.; but that is unlikely for a competent chocolate craftsman as the first qualification of his craftsmanship is to be able to understand what a good chocolate as based on his experience but it does not mean that its necessarily expensive. However, "good tasting" is not synonymous with "expensive". There are many cheap chocolates that also taste good, e.g. Guittard Gourmet Bittersweet and Ghirardelli Bittersweet. It's best, I think, to start with one of those cheaper but still good-tasting chocolates while you get good at making the ganache. Even when first starting out, though, I don't think it's a bad idea to experiment with different brands at different price points, to get ?an idea for what the range of flavours and handling characteristics are. If you have the money to spare for such venture why not? the bottom line of chocolate confectionery business is that you earn a margin out of your efforts to sustain your business not to be doing Santa Claus grin.. However if you are just a chocolate lover and had a money to splurge to satisfy for a certain chocolate cravings .... Then go for it! One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more often than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how characteristic it is. An expensive, varietal chocolate from a high-end manufacturer (think Amedei Chuao or Domori Porcelana) is very specific in its flavour profile, which means that although it might not taste any better than a cheaper but still quality chocolate, you'll be able to identify signature characteristics. \ I never had any attachment to any chocolate brands as I leave those notions to t people who can't make the chocolate( for themselves) from the raw materials. It just chocolate chemistry and technology....pure and simple ....not esoteric names that has nothing to do with chocolates but only to improve its packaging value. Besides only those People who don't understand the chemistry of chocolates are likely to be emotionally attached to any fancy sounding names.grin. So the essence of chocolate is not based on the b rand name but what type of cocoa beans being used , the degree of roast, the degree of grinding and refining as well as not to be forgotten the extent its subjected to conching and other equally important parameters in chocolate manufacture. . In the end the cost of the raw materials the prestige of the manufacturer , the quantity being made and the variation and uniqueness in processing will reflect on its price. Consumers might disagree..... they say....we are willing to pay the price but how large is the market and will the demand sustain the investment for a widespread manufacture of expensive chocolates ? Besides the supply of well flavored cacao beans used to attain this well flavored chocolates is scarcer or produced in least quantity compared to the bulk beans. Depending on what you want to achieve, this could be either a plus or a minus. For instance, if your intent were to create a truffle with good basic chocolate flavour, using something like Chuao might disappoint because its signature taste would be so self-evident. But if you wanted a truffle bursting with the sort of molasses/blueberry taste this chocolate has, it would be a great choice. It's not going to be an "average" taste though - which means that some people are likely to like it more than others. Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in many cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the chocolate . The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of the normal consumergrin. Therefore I never rely on that. I never rely on that... ..I leave that area to the objective assessment of the trained taste panel (who are setting aside their emotion ) to give me reliable scientific and statistics based information as a basis for a particular new chocolate formulations. The scientifically trained taste panel report coupled with rigorous statistical analysis carries more weight than what a hordes of individuals from the consumer panel says.... These same characteristics means that if you're making flavoured chocolates, picking a good matching varietal can make or break your chocolate. For instance, if you wanted a cinnamon chocolate, picking Domori Porcelana as your chocolate base would be a disaster. The cinnamon would completely overwhelm Porcelana's fine delicate flavour. But Domori Carenero Superior would be a match made in heaven for the same piece, with a powerful, assertive mix of fruit and spice that would really match the cinnamon. Meanwhile, choosing a cheap and good, but less characteristic chocolate like Guittard Gourmet Bittersweet would yield good results no matter what the flavour choice, but they wouldn't be quite so inspired as a well-matched varietal. This means that before using varietal chocolates for confectionery, it's vital to taste and assess them carefully to understand the flavour profile. Those fancy names never excite me...If supposing I am one of the panel personnel .I would rather have those items titled under a code name so that it will not excite the tasters nor influence their decision making. Fancy sounding chocolate names may delude an ordinary American consumers but may fail to gain appreciation from overseas consumers. Therefore those ideas based on brand influence Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different perspective that is meant by a good chocolate I disagree sharply on the idea that adding a liqueur is an effective default strategy to improving flavour. At least to me, alcohol and chocolate tend to clash, and so most liqueurs end up diminishing the chocolate flavour, making it taste inevitably somewhat boozy, and not really showing their own flavours that well either. That is only your personal and incidentally a subjective assessment. There are many exceptions such for some Belgian and even Swiss type filled chocolates the use of good quality liqueurs is common and if used properly these spirits enhanced the taste of chocolates not overpower them. It also depends on the skill of the chocolatier, and the use of alcohol of spirits in chocolate is an art in itself , With *careful* choice some liqueurs can be introduced, but only in the case where the objective is to highlight the liqueur itself, not as a background flavour enhancer. Some chocolates, ganache in particular, are quite perishable and so some commercial chocolatiers use the liqueurs as a preservative, which again I think isn't warranted for most situtations. Better to have realistic expiration dates. Preservative action of liqueurs is based on its ability of ethanol to lower water activity of the fillings and there are other means to attain that in the industry not strictly relying in dairy cream but in combinations also on industrial fractionated butter fat and sometimes the use of glycerin and sorbitol to confer the same water activity lowering.. The chocolate confectionery manufacturer who uses ganache then had many options to improve the shelf life of the product while still retaining the characteristics of dairy cream in terms of sensory qualities . If you are just a chef you may seldom or even will never had the opportunity to experience such unique ingredient application. Adding other flavours is fine when you want that other flavour to be the dominant note. However, when you want the chocolate to be the dominant note, it's not warranted. For instance, some people add coffee in order to "perk up" an otherwise uninspired chocolate flavour. If the idea is to have a chocolatey flavour, IMHO that's better done by using a better chocolate, rather than by resorting to enhancement agents. But again, if the piece were intended to be a coffee chocolate, or a mocha chocolate, then of course using coffee would be perfectly in order. Chocolate consumes in every region throughout the world have varying perception about flavors so its not right to conclude that what is good in your area is good for the rest of the world. Definitely worth the trouble to get the refined paste. There are no units suitable for an in-home application that can do even a halfway decent job at grinding nuts. I think it's a bit frustrating in this age of every conceivable kitchen gadget that you can't buy a halfway decent grinder, although I'm guessing that the reason for this is that the market is microscopic. Well many consumers don't understand the importance of nut paste in chocolates and being difficult to improvise its preparation then it will never be a part of an ordinary chocolate connoisseur repertoire of chocolate confection preparation . ..
|
|
16-12-2005, 02:03 AM
posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:49:35 GMT in
.com, (Chembake) wrote : Alex Rast wrote Although it must be said that making one's own fondant is instructive for the same basic technique used to temper chocolate (at least the slab and spatula method). Hand-making fondant is certainly labour-intensive so if you want to minimise effort it would be better to buy it. There are 2 reasons to try making it at home: if you want to gain technique in making fondant yourself, or if you have certain flavour and/or ingredient specifications you can't find in something you can buy. ... A base fondant is supposed to be neutral not flavored .... besides what ingredients specification in particular would you expect from an institutionally made fondant.? That's kind of the point, isn't it? The idea would be that your requirements need to be pretty exotic in order for making it at home to be useful from a *specifications* POV. But there are people who want certain things done in a certain way. So there's no harm in experimenting to see if you can meet your objectives with the DIY approach. IMHO ganache definitely benefits from using good-tasting chocolate, because in a ganache the flavour of the chocolate really stands out and if you're using one that doesn't taste good, it will be instantly apparent. Well if a certain chocolatier is not experienced or skilled enough that he will plunge into using ersatz chocolate then that will be the case.; but that is unlikely for a competent chocolate craftsman as the first qualification of his craftsmanship is to be able to understand what a good chocolate as based on his experience but it does not mean that its necessarily expensive. Unfortunately, for people in a home setting, quite often they really haven't tasted enough chocolate to know right away that changing the chocolate itself may be necessary. They can readily identify the difference, and will instantly know that one chocolate is good and another bad when you have them try it, but they might be mystified as to why a given recipe or item isn't turning out as well as what they can get from a professional. I've seen a lot of people have a tendency to lump things into very broad categories, so that chocolate is chocolate (or perhaps they make the distinction between dark and milk and that's as far as they go), they use something truly bad in a truffle or other sensitive confection, and then are puzzled as to what to do to improve it. They then embark on a lot of ill-fated ventures that achieve nothing, sometimes giving up in frustration. That's why it's worth it when starting out to try at least a variety of chocolates and also not to go only for the cheapest brands. Even when first starting out, though, I don't think it's a bad idea to experiment with different brands at different price points, to get ?an idea for what the range of flavours and handling characteristics are. If you have the money to spare for such venture why not? the bottom line of chocolate confectionery business is that you earn a margin out of your efforts to sustain your business not to be doing Santa Claus grin.. Well, the key point here is that in a professional setting, you want to have enough margin in your core business to afford some small-scale experimentation. Most of this will be stuff that never reaches the shelf or display case. You're just trying out a variant to see what you can do. That, in any case, shouldn't be very expensive, because you're not actually making this on a production scale. Sometimes if an experiment is particularly successful you would do a small production run to test-market and see what the reception was. It might then make it to full-scale production if the results of the test market showed that it could sustain a profit. However if you are just a chocolate lover and had a money to splurge to satisfy for a certain chocolate cravings .... Then go for it! Meanwhile on the home level that kind of experimentation tends to be more sporadic but every now and then it's worth it - just so long as you're not planning on making the results a critical piece for, say, a dinner where the boss is coming over, or a wedding reception, or some other encounter where you need to be certain of your outcome. One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more often than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how characteristic it is.... I never had any attachment to any chocolate brands as I leave those notions to t people who can't make the chocolate( for themselves) from the raw materials. Generally, that's the majority of both consumers and confectioners. As you know the number of actual chocolate producers themselves is small and so by and large you must choose some suppliers. It just chocolate chemistry and technology....pure and simple ....not esoteric names that has nothing to do with chocolates but only to improve its packaging value. The esoteric name by itself means very little but if a chocolate manufacturer can establish a strong brand identity and style then it can mean something. For instance, I can know that a Cluizel chocolate is likely to be very balanced and refined, that a Scharffen Berger chocolate is likely to be strongly fruity, and that an Hachez chocolate will have superiour texture but mild flavour. I can also know that, as a general rule, Cluizel is somewhat better, overall, than Hachez, which in turn is somewhat better, overall, than Hershey's. These are broad categorisations but they help put each brand into a position. Some larger companies, however - e.g. Callebaut and Lindt, have a very wide array of different formulations with different flavours, so you can't pin them down. They're good as primary sources because they tend to be cheap and you can usually find a chocolate that matches the style you're looking for, unlike the "higher-end" chocolatiers where the style they choose is the style you get. .... . In the end the cost of the raw materials the prestige of the manufacturer , the quantity being made and the variation and uniqueness in processing will reflect on its price. Which can be a plus or a minus. A high-priced chocolate from a boutique manufacturer can end up being only average, in which case you've blown a lot of money for a chocolate you could just as readily have gotten anywhere. But a recognisable chocolate of extreme quality from such a manufacturer might be able to justify its cost - even if it's only in the marketing value of bringing customers in the door. Amedei Chuao is my favourite example of that. A 1kg bloc isn't cheap - indeed, it's sufficiently expensive that you have to ask seriously whether this is justified. No doubt they're making a pretty hefty margin on their brand name. But the chocolate is supreme - one of the best anywhere - and it's got strong brand- and type- identification, enough that it will both bring people in the door and have them coming back for more. From a home standpoint, again, such a chocolate is worth it for specific occasions because yes, it's expensive, but it delivers the goods. But you could just as easily end up spending far too much for Dagoba Conacado and be stuck with what is really a very poor chocolate indeed. It's vital not to buy into a brand name. Consumers might disagree..... they say....we are willing to pay the price but how large is the market and will the demand sustain the investment for a widespread manufacture of expensive chocolates ? Well, to judge by the emergence of multiple boutique chocolatiers within the last few years, the answer to that would seem to be "yes", at least from a standpoint of overall market. If, OTOH, you're thinking of starting your own business to get in on the action, you really have to find some sort of unique sales position because otherwise you'll probably be competing with a host of other, equally talented, people. Besides the supply of well flavored cacao beans used to attain this well flavored chocolates is scarcer or produced in least quantity compared to the bulk beans. It must be said that this is one reason why you can advance at least some rationale for the belief in brand names. A smaller chocolate manufacturer can afford to be more selective with supply, and thus potentially create better chocolate. However, the end result isn't a given. Dagoba Conacado and Domori Chacao Absolute get beans from the same source, but where the first is abysmal, the second is divine - which goes to show you that source material isn't enough by itself. Depending on what you want to achieve, this could be either a plus or a minus....It's not going to be an "average" taste though - which means that some people are likely to like it more than others. Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in many cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the chocolate . I disagree strongly. If "quality" is such an esoteric concept that it can only be understood by a few initiates, then of what value is it? In the final analysis, a quality chocolate should taste good. From my POV the only realistic criterion for tasting good that makes sense is that there would be broad consensus among the people who tried it that their reaction was positive. So if a relatively inexperienced person tried a chocolate and was put off by it, that chocolate isn't as good as it's made out to be. And just as the danger of excessive brand identification is strong with the novice, the danger of overintellectualising the experience is strong with the cognoscenti. People with lots of experience and jaded palates get led into believing that something unusual or exotic is good and pronounce it a resounding success - and this distinction is lost on the common man who quite plainly observes that it's bad - usually just plain wierd. Hopefully a tasting panel can be conducted so as to minimise either preconceived notions or the presence of bias. The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of the normal consumergrin. Here I do unfortunately have to agree. It's a sad reality that all too many "tastings" are conducted not to *form* an opinion but to *justify* one. They've set up the tasting so as to lead the tasters to a predetermined conclusion, one that exhalts the value of their product. That's not an accurate or scientific study, nor, do I think, is it in the best interest of the company. A company learns nothing if it produces an only so-so product and conducts "surveys" intended to prove its superiority. In that case they're willfully blind to their own mediocrity and will find out their error when sales in the market are tepid (or no better than the competition). Unfortunately by that point they may already have too much invested into their product line to be able to change, something that could easily have been done to produce a more acceptable product that would have garnered greater market share had it been done earlier in the process. .I leave that area to the objective assessment of the trained taste panel (who are setting aside their emotion ) to give me reliable scientific and statistics based information as a basis for a particular new chocolate formulations. The scientifically trained taste panel report coupled with rigorous statistical analysis carries more weight than what a hordes of individuals from the consumer panel says.... As I point out, even the "best-trained" panel can come in with preconceptions, or at least be jaded. You definitely want to be rigourous in your analysis, however, I think you want to do that with statistics drawn at least in part from common consumers whenever you can. These same characteristics means that if you're making flavoured chocolates, picking a good matching varietal can make or break your chocolate. For instance, if you wanted a cinnamon chocolate, picking Domori Porcelana as your chocolate base would be a disaster. The cinnamon would completely overwhelm Porcelana's fine delicate flavour. But Domori Carenero Superior would be a match made in heaven for the same piece... Those fancy names never excite me...If supposing I am one of the panel personnel .I would rather have those items titled under a code name so that it will not excite the tasters nor influence their decision making. It's not the brand name that counts but the profile of the chocolates involved. Domori's Porcelana and Carenero Superior make for a particularly instructive comparison in this case because their characteristics are clear-cut within the stylistic choices of a particular manufacturer, but that they are from Domori is material only insofar as the particular style Domori uses makes these chocolates a good or a bad fit for a particular application. In a tasting setting, however, yes, you'd want to mask the brand as much as possible. Unfortunately, since most brands come in readily identifiable formats (often their logo is moulded into the chocolate piece), that's hard. Fancy sounding chocolate names may delude an ordinary American consumers but may fail to gain appreciation from overseas consumers. Right there I think is an example of a bias based on ethicity - the assumption that U.S. audiences are more easily duped. I think it's probably the same everywhere - that populations in every country you care to name are about as easily influenced by marketing tactics as any other. Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different perspective that is meant by a good chocolate I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than Americans, at least not when devising a survey. It's very, very difficult to design a scientific study to measure sophistication - because what is meant by that is itself variable. There are probably national preferences as to basic chocolate flavour, but I don't think one can conclude anything as to what that implies about their perception of quality. I disagree sharply on the idea that adding a liqueur is an effective default strategy to improving flavour. At least to me, alcohol and chocolate tend to clash... That is only your personal and incidentally a subjective assessment. Definitely. I point it out to illustrate that, given that subjective tastes vary, adding liqueur isn't a good *default* strategy - i.e. one that you apply semi-automatically, with the belief that it is going to be an overall improvement to the general population. .... With *careful* choice some liqueurs can be introduced, but only in the case where the objective is to highlight the liqueur itself, not as a background flavour enhancer. Some chocolates, ganache in particular, are quite perishable and so some commercial chocolatiers use the liqueurs as a preservative, which again I think isn't warranted for most situtations. Better to have realistic expiration dates. Preservative action of liqueurs is based on its ability of ethanol to lower water activity of the fillings and there are other means to attain that in the industry not strictly relying in dairy cream but in combinations also on industrial fractionated butter fat and sometimes the use of glycerin and sorbitol to confer the same water activity lowering.. Yeah, you sometimes see that as well. Techniques which have less impact on the flavour I tend to prefer. The use of alchohol is one that on an ingredient list doesn't stand out quite so obviously because people tend not to think of it as an "additive" in the same way. It's a prime illustration of the underlying point - the concept of an "additive" as such is a vague term. Really, *any* ingredient in a recipe is technically an "additive". .... Definitely worth the trouble to get the refined paste. There are no units suitable for an in-home application that can do even a halfway decent job at grinding nuts. I think it's a bit frustrating in this age of every conceivable kitchen gadget that you can't buy a halfway decent grinder, although I'm guessing that the reason for this is that the market is microscopic. Well many consumers don't understand the importance of nut paste in chocolates and being difficult to improvise its preparation then it will never be a part of an ordinary chocolate connoisseur repertoire of chocolate confection preparation . I would like to see a greater availability (or at least visibility) of certain things for the home user. Part of the difficulty facing such an individual is his inability, unless he goes to extraordinary lengths, to get and/or indeed even know about certain key components, tools, etc. etc. On this NG you regularly get people asking how they can make chocolate from scratch at home, and then you have to explain to them the ins and outs of the industrial process and how unless they're willing to make a hefty investment they're not going to be able to do it. And yet there's no reason, *a priori* that this should be impossible - it's just that the equipment-makers aren't building anything for low-volume output. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
|
|
17-12-2005, 11:26 PM
posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
Alex Rast wrote
.. ... A base fondant is supposed to be neutral not flavored .... besides what ingredients specification in particular would you expect from an institutionally made fondant.? That's kind of the point, isn't it? The idea would be that your requirements need to be pretty exotic in order for making it at home to be useful from a *specifications* POV. But there are people who want certain things done in a certain way. So there's no harm in experimenting to see if you can meet your objectives with the DIY approach. Well, doing things in small scale is the beginning of any project to check the feasibility if it works,..... but often the results does not comes out similarly when its scaled up using an equipment suited for such purpose. In the past I made fondant from half a kilogram to 5 kilogram batch where in the latter I used a big wooden paddle/oar to stir the mass on a water cooled cooling table. It's a lot of work and even with the care of the operation I still can't come identical to the characteristics to the fondant made institutionally. The only importance for such operation is its instructional value so that anyone can get a feel how the sugar mass gradually become opaque due to the agitation and formation of very fine sugar crystals. In those cases I made it using the low dextrose equivalents syrups such as DE ( 36-43 )and high DE( 55-63) glucose syrup but the results are not that different. Now as the regular standard grade glucose was the norm( 42-43 DE) then I never bothered to use the 63 DE for that reason again. Now if you use the sugar cubes and granulated sugar, I did not see much difference either the end products become opaque when manipulated to attain the fondant desired qualities . One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more often than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how characteristic it is.... I never had any attachment to any chocolate brands as I leave those notions to t people who can't make the chocolate( for themselves) from the raw materials. Generally, that's the majority of both consumers and confectioners. As you know the number of actual chocolate producers themselves is small and so by and large you must choose some suppliers. It just chocolate chemistry and technology....pure and simple ....not esoteric names that has nothing to do with chocolates but only to improve its packaging value. The esoteric name by itself means very little but if a chocolate manufacturer can establish a strong brand identity and style then it can mean something. For instance, I can know that a Cluizel chocolate is likely to be very balanced and refined, that a Scharffen Berger chocolate is likely to be strongly fruity, and that an Hachez chocolate will have superiour texture but mild flavour. I can also know that, as a general rule, Cluizel is somewhat better, overall, than Hachez, which in turn is somewhat better, overall, than Hershey's. These are broad categorisations but they help put each brand into a position. Some larger companies, however - e.g. Callebaut and Lindt, have a very wide array of different formulations with different flavours, so you can't pin them down. They're good as primary sources because they tend to be cheap and you can usually find a chocolate that matches the style you're looking for, unlike the "higher-end" chocolatiers where the style they choose is the style you get. ....I thinks this selections of different chocolate brands as raw materials for their confections is true to small cholatiers but rare for large manufacturers. However, the end result isn't a given. Dagoba Conacado and Domori Chacao Absolute get beans from the same source, but where the first is abysmal, the second is divine - which goes to show you that source material isn't enough by itself. Beans from the same source does not mean that cocoa beans bought by two manufacturers are used in equally the same manufacturer. A chocolate formulation is not as simple as : Cocoa beans, sugar milk etc... but there are specific bean blends for every chocolate types made by them. Besides Most of these institution don't buy from one supplier but from a wide lot. Then they blend the beans according to its attributes as dictated by their formulation requirements and in the end it will never be the same for two manufacturers It's the same with the bakery, large bakeries can get the same flour from the same source ( and uses the same branded name) but the bakery product come out with different tastes and other qualities .! I disagree strongly. If "quality" is such an esoteric concept that it can only be understood by a few initiates, then of what value is it? In the final analysis, a quality chocolate should taste good. From my POV the only realistic criterion for tasting good that makes sense is that there would be broad consensus among the people who tried it that their reaction was positive. So if a relatively inexperienced person tried a chocolate and was put off by it, that chocolate isn't as good as it's made out to be. And just as the danger of excessive brand identification is strong with the novice, the danger of overintellectualising the experience is strong with the cognoscenti. People with lots of experience and jaded palates get led into believing that something unusual or exotic is good and pronounce it a resounding success - and this distinction is lost on the common man who quite plainly observes that it's bad - usually just plain wierd. Hopefully a tasting panel can be conducted so as to minimise either preconceived notions or the presence of bias. In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer panel is just taken secondarily and is always done by the marketing people to measure if the product is liked by the consumers before the eve put in their marketing programs . The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes. .. .I leave that area to the objective assessment of the trained taste panel (who are setting aside their emotion ) to give me reliable scientific and statistics based information as a basis for a particular new chocolate formulations. The scientifically trained taste panel report coupled with rigorous statistical analysis carries more weight than what a hordes of individuals from the consumer panel says.... As I point out, even the "best-trained" panel can come in with preconceptions, or at least be jaded. You definitely want to be rigourous in your analysis, however, I think you want to do that with statistics drawn at least in part from common consumers whenever you can. Indeed decision relies not only from the result of technical assessors but also from potential customers inputs ; and in many cases marketing people will even follow their gut feel and think that if the public wants it , it must be good for the business? They will do everything ( including )urging the management that the new product should be produced \Wholly technically based assessment is not risk free; developers can be become attached to the attributes of the product from their technical evaluation that the sometimes forget if the consumers still wants the product. This is true in some specialty chocolates such as for certain clientele( diabetics, those with food allergies etc). Unfortunately the market in this section is not that large. It's not the brand name that counts but the profile of the chocolates involved. Domori's Porcelana and Carenero Superior make for a particularly instructive comparison in this case because their characteristics are clear-cut within the stylistic choices of a particular manufacturer, but that they are from Domori is material only insofar as the particular style Domori uses makes these chocolates a good or a bad fit for a particular application. In a tasting setting, however, yes, you'd want to mask the brand as much as possible. Unfortunately, since most brands come in readily identifiable formats (often their logo is moulded into the chocolate piece), that's hard. That's what make it sell....good marketing strategy and good labeling/packaging. Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different perspective that is meant by a good chocolate Well it had been my experience that many Europeans chocolate connoisseurs don't like American chocolates. I am not sure if its politically motivated or what....but they have these notions that Hershey destroyed the American palate.grin I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than Americans, at least not when devising a survey. It's very, very difficult to design a scientific study to measure sophistication - because what is meant by that is itself variable. There are probably national preferences as to basic chocolate flavour, but I don't think one can conclude anything as to what that implies about their perception of quality. From the point of chocolate formulations....American and European chocolates are not the same Many chocolatiers from the European continent had some aversion for the American made chocolates; The same also with other chocolate manufacturing institution from countries such as Australia ,Japan. Etc.. Definitely. I point it out to illustrate that, given that subjective tastes vary, adding liqueur isn't a good *default* strategy - i.e. one that you apply semi-automatically, with the belief that it is going to be an overall improvement to the general population. ....Preservative action of liqueurs is based on its ability of ethanol to lower water activity of the fillings and there are other means to attain that in the industry not strictly relying in dairy cream but in combinations also on industrial fractionated butter fat and sometimes the use of glycerin and sorbitol to confer the same water activity lowering.. Yeah, you sometimes see that as well. Techniques which have less impact on the flavour I tend to prefer. The use of alcohol is one that on an ingredient list doesn't stand out quite so obviously because people tend not to think of it as an "additive" in the same way. It's a prime illustration of the underlying point - the concept of an "additive" as such is a vague term. Really, *any* ingredient in a recipe is technically an "additive". This issue of additives sometimes get blurred with chocolate manufacturers....If it does not sound like a chemical.... Or just too commonly used its forgotten as a food additive for functional reasons. .... Well many consumers don't understand the importance of nut paste in chocolates and being difficult to improvise its preparation then it will never be a part of an ordinary chocolate connoisseur repertoire of chocolate confection preparation . I would like to see a greater availability (or at least visibility) of certain things for the home user. Part of the difficulty facing such an individual is his inability, unless he goes to extraordinary lengths, to get and/or indeed even know about certain key components, tools, etc. etc. On this NG you regularly get people asking how they can make chocolate from scratch at home, and then you have to explain to them the ins and outs of the industrial process and how unless they're willing to make a hefty investment they're not going to be able to do it. And yet there's no reason, *a priori* that this should be impossible - it's just that the equipment-makers aren't building anything for low-volume output. DIY chocolate manufacture is not an impossibility ... In the past I had toyed with making chocolate in a way suitable for home users interested in making their own chocolate from the scratch... Using the wok to roast the beans, then using the meat mincer to grind the beans to paste by repeated passes, and in other cases using the food processors to do the particle reductions but the results were unsatisfactory. Its gritty . .. I have used a pasta machine as an improvised 2 roll refiner but the resulting products is still gritty. One major reason is that the chocolate manufacturing equipments are made with high precision such as the roll distances , roll speed, roll temperatures and roll speed differentials. Etc. Conche machines does not come in small sizes that any home chocolate "would be"manufactuer could afford as its expensive and has no other uses. With conching..... there are ways to improvse such process....you can conche the chocolate by using the planetary mixers which run continuously for at least 8 hours. Would(it be wise enough to destroy) your kitchen aide mixers to do such things aside with the cake paddle improvised to sweep the chocolate paste around the mixing bowl evenly? But How can you attach a heat jacket to your mixing bowl? A hot water bath is not good as the steam may condense may come into contact with partially destroying it,nor you could apply that to many kitchen aide and even Hobart made machines designed for chocolate use. Another thing is How can you measure miniscule quantity of lecithin and PGPR( polyglycerol poly ricinoleate) if you don't own an analytical balance as one of your measuring equipmentsn for home scale chocolate manufacture. Another very important question is how can you attain the 15-30 microns unit particle size of your chocolate before you try to conche it in your supposedly strong planetary mixers with the cake paddle and bowl modified for such purpose for hours? Its more common for home bakers or small bakery businesses to buy the institutional Hobart mixer and even ovens as they are cheaper and had many other uses than special precision chocolate manufacturing equipment like Conche and refiner machines made by such names like Macintyre, Friggessa,Lehmann and Buhler that has a very limited application potential outside its specified use. But if anybody is determined to make his own chocolate from cacao beans you can invest they should insure that they can get at least a laboratory scale 3-roll refiner( or much better a 5 roll refiner if there is ) to insure they can practically get the same particle size and resulting mouth feel as the institutionally made chocolates feasibly. Then they should ensure that they have a really extra sturdy mixer with the bowl with a electric heat jacketed ( 50-70 degree C) mixing bowl to conche the chocolate for several hours non stop. IMO That is reason ...why chocolate is considered not only food of the gods but also.....MADE BY THE GODS!grin... as only the institutional chocolate manufacturer ( the 'gods') could do it properly grin.
|
|
18-12-2005, 08:33 AM
posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:26:40 GMT in
.com, (Chembake) wrote : Alex Rast wrote . deletia I disagree strongly. If "quality" is such an esoteric concept that it can only be understood by a few initiates, then of what value is it? ...Hopefully a tasting panel can be conducted so as to minimise either preconceived notions or the presence of bias. In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer panel is just taken secondarily and is always done by the marketing people to measure if the product is liked by the consumers before the eve put in their marketing programs . The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes. Which is, IMHO, Mistake #1. I don't think developers should assume that they "know" what the customer will want, because unfortunately, past or current sales aren't a good predictor of future sales of a new and previously unknown product. For all the manufacturer knows, they may tap into a pent-up reserve of previously unmet demand for a particular product or style that never existed before. Or, conversely, they may end up producing the innovation that nobody wants, even though other products had some mix of similar attributes and sold well. When consumer panels are secondary and done entirely by the marketing people, I think this indicates an attitude of corporate arrogance and condescension. When a "test" is done merely with the hopes that it will confirm an already-formulated expectation, it tends to end up being biassed by that preexisting belief so that - surprise surprise! the test ends up confirming what they already "know". If you're really going to test a product, you need to do so *before* there are any expectations as to result. It's not the brand name that counts but the profile of the chocolates involved. ... In a tasting setting, however, yes, you'd want to mask the brand as much as possible. Unfortunately, since most brands come in readily identifiable formats (often their logo is moulded into the chocolate piece), that's hard. That's what make it sell....good marketing strategy and good labeling/packaging. Well, it probably helps to make the initial sale, but in terms of attracting repeat business the taste factors in much more strongly. People may be sucked into nice packaging and slick marketing campaigns initially, but in terms of what they buy regularly, they're not going to be so easily fooled in the long run. If a company wants to try to make it entirely on new and/or casual customers they're welcome to it, but usually it's the establishment of a core repeat clientele that ensures their long-term profitability. Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different perspective that is meant by a good chocolate Well it had been my experience that many Europeans chocolate connoisseurs don't like American chocolates. I think there's a risk of characterising "American chocolates" far too broadly. Just like any other country, the styles of different U.S. manufacturers varies widely. Guittard is generally balanced and on the dark side, Scharffen Berger is fruity, bright, and smooth, Ghirardelli is very dark, and well-finished, Hershey's tends to be sweet and relatively bland... there are several others each with their own peculiar style. And you get quality that similarly spans the gamut - Guittard is among the top few chocolatiers in the world, Scharffen Berger is clearly high-end, Merckens and Ghirardelli aim for a mid-range class, Hershey's and Baker's are low-end. You'll find similar divisions in just about any country. Nation of origin is rarely a reliable indicator of style or quality. I am not sure if its politically motivated or what....but they have these notions that Hershey destroyed the American palate.grin There are certainly plenty of Europeans who don't like Hershey's, but there are also plenty of *Americans* who don't like it either. I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than Americans, at least not when devising a survey.... From the point of chocolate formulations....American and European chocolates are not the same Again, I would consider this an overly broad characterisation. Of course American and European chocolates don't have the same formulation - any more than Callebaut and Nestle - 2 European chocolates - don't have the same formulation - nor even Valrhona and Cluizel - 2 French chocolates, nor Ghirardelli and Guittard - 2 San Francisco chocolates. You can narrow the geographic scope as much as you like and it makes little difference - different companies use different formulations. deletia I would like to see a greater availability (or at least visibility) of certain things for the home user. Part of the difficulty facing such an individual is his inability, unless he goes to extraordinary lengths, to get and/or indeed even know about certain key components, tools, etc. etc. On this NG you regularly get people asking how they can make chocolate from scratch at home... DIY chocolate manufacture is not an impossibility ... In the past I had toyed with making chocolate in a way suitable for home users interested in making their own chocolate from the scratch... As I can attest! However for most people the effort doesn't justify the result. Using the wok to roast the beans, then using the meat mincer to grind the beans to paste by repeated passes, and in other cases using the food processors to do the particle reductions but the results were unsatisfactory. Its gritty . . I have used a pasta machine as an improvised 2 roll refiner but the resulting products is still gritty. I have been able to make extraordinarily smooth chocolate...with extraordinary effort. In previous posts, I've detailed the laborious process involved, and pretty much laid out the case for why, for your average home user, it's not worth it. But again, this is a case of no available machines. What I'm saying is there's no reason these machines couldn't be reduced to home capacities, it's just that they're not. .... Another thing is How can you measure miniscule quantity of lecithin and PGPR( polyglycerol poly ricinoleate) if you don't own an analytical balance as one of your measuring equipmentsn for home scale chocolate manufacture. Well, most home users are probably not going to add extra emulsifiers. Cluizel and Domori have gone emulsifier-free, with excellent results, showing it can be done, so for the home user this is probably acceptable as well. The difficulty of finding good balance scales for home use is another irritant. The sorry excuses for "scales" that get passed off in the consumer sector are usually inexact spring scales good for a rough approximation at best. And they usually have similarly inexact digital readout. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
|
|
18-12-2005, 11:58 PM
posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:26:40 GMT in
Alex Rast wrote In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer panel is just taken secondarily and is always done by the marketing people to measure if the product is liked by the consumers before the eve put in their marketing programs . The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes. Which is, IMHO, Mistake #1. I don't think developers should assume that they "know" what the customer will want, because unfortunately, past or current sales aren't a good predictor of future sales of a new and previously unknown product. For all the manufacturer knows, they may tap into a pent-up reserve of previously unmet demand for a particular product or style that never existed before. Or, conversely, they may end up producing the innovation that nobody wants, even though other products had some mix of similar attributes and sold well. When consumer panels are secondary and done entirely by the marketing people, I think this indicates an attitude of corporate arrogance and condescension. When a "test" is done merely with the hopes that it will confirm an already-formulated expectation, it tends to end up being biassed by that preexisting belief so that - surprise surprise! the test ends up confirming what they already "know". If you're really going to test a product, you need to do so *before* there are any expectations as to result. That is a narrow perspective about confectionery related R&D. But yes,,, its common for the customers who initiated the new idea for a product but it can equally can come from the within the company specialists. Food product developments is not like theoretical physics...looking for the fundamental structure of matter . but 100% applied science...based on the customers wants and needs! Every food product developer is a practical person....he thinks and creates things for the customers. There are many reasons for doing a confectionery related applied research where the end products can be made available to the consumers. Food scientists are always on the lookout for new ideas and many of those concepts comes from the consumers out of suggestion and feedback .. It can come from the ranks within the company who by inspiration can come up with a new idea that can be applied to a new product that is gestating in the mind of the food scientist. It can come from regular meetings and brainstorming sessions on how to improve the company productivity. Even serendipitous comments from anybody who happens to expect something that is within the product line. These latter suggestion originate from the marketing people through their interaction with clients with and product performance survey which in time reaches the ears of the food designer/ product developer. They will inquire about their product performance if its satisfies their customers which will likely extract from the individual consumers their preferences how a certain confection should be. It may not be practical but still worthy to be take note of it. Then that will become the germ of an idea which can come up in board meetings or informal conversation with other personalities from the different divisions. Food designers in the confectionery lines also relies of patent files for ideas; Others may rethink the existing food items and see if it can be coaxed out to produce a certain attribute that the customer have not realized but exists in theory. To be a specialist in this line your ultimate focus is what the customer wants or expects and he had to convert all those consumer based concepts into technically structured information where he can use the fabrication of unique food item. It may not be a novelty but just an improvement of an existing product but it had some qualities that the customers is expected to like. Now having this in mind he will look at the ' library/database ' for a certain product and use that as a basis if the new concept he had in mind had a likelihood of success. It must not be forgotten that food product design is not a solitary effort by the food scientist in charge of ,making an abstract idea feasible. It's a team effort and involves a wide range of skills from that company hierarchy. The food designer will create the product in the laboratory scale and invite marketing people to offer their frank feedback if the idea is feasible and would bring good returns for its productions. If it appears there is a potential then more test and some scale up to the pilot plant scale to give more samples for evaluation and feedback. More brainstorming will bring up more ideas related to the product such what would the customer want from such product based upon the library/ that includes information database and experience; from the specialist on that line such the color,, the texture, taste and flavor; how to combine it in such a manner that the product is unique from competition or if it fit a specifications that the customers would end up buying it due to its desired attributes One the product had reached that level and tendency of success is thought to be highly feasible. If there are no security issues such as industrial espionage They may even invite some trusted consultants and critics to assess the products from their professional point of view. Then it will be subjected to trained sensory evaluation against what is supposed to be a near competitor ( if the product is related) or if the product supplies new attributes and see if there is an edge to make the product worthwhile a venture. After all these tedious evaluation procedures the results are statistically evaluated to gauge the likelihood that it will succeed in the market because of more positive attributes than the negatives then it will sent to the highest echelon of the company management for final decision At the same time another specialist will have their share of giving the product its personality , such as how will the product be packaged, what is the catchy labeling that will arouse customers attention. Does it need more publicity before the product is to be launched? Even before the product has reached the point after a pilot scale run the economics of doing it is evaluated if there is a need to invest in additional equipment etc., and what are the potential problems that may occur and do risk evaluation/ risk analysis for such new item. At this point more feedback may be needed a random sampling from customers who are urged to taste the product and offer their comments about it. The aggregate data will be again statistically analyzed and will then confirm if the product is ready scale up or needs to be reformulated for the improvement of its attributes. Etc. Once all the problems and ancillary issues are sorted out and the product is ready for production and even launched Thus in these steps mentioned, the confirmatory status of the new product feasibility is done through random sampling consumer panel evaluation. Never in a way that the group of customers have to dictate what they want as its messy and counter productive. Consumers don't have the structured thinking pattern like the experts and specialist in the particular firm that conduct the food t product development. It's a sheer waste of resources letting the consumers decide on a new product without considering the fact that the consumers thinking pattern is capricious Therefore from the point of practicality .No firm will waste their resources just to satisfy a lot of customers wants and needs from a certain products which all cannot be considered as a basis for product development. They firm must be selective and be pragmatic about the customers requirements if they want their business to survive. A product developer had to establish specifications what the product will offer to the customer at a certain price . Well, it probably helps to make the initial sale, but in terms of attracting repeat business the taste factors in much more strongly. People may be sucked into nice packaging and slick marketing campaigns initially, but in terms of what they buy regularly, they're not going to be so easily fooled in the long run. If a company wants to try to make it entirely on new and/or casual customers they're welcome to it, but usually it's the establishment of a core repeat clientele that ensures their long-term profitability. Long term profitability as the goal in confectionery related business has a downside ...I reiterate ....that means that you cannot completely satisfy all the customers wants and needs for a certain product The customers demand can be quixotic in many cases so the manufacturing company had to be aware that there are limits that the prospective company can to the customers as dictated by practicality. Well it had been my experience that many Europeans chocolate connoisseurs don't like American chocolates. I think there's a risk of characterising "American chocolates" far too broadly. Just like any other country, the styles of different U.S. manufacturers varies widely. Guittard is generally balanced and on the dark side, Scharffen Berger is fruity, bright, and smooth, Ghirardelli is very dark, and well-finished, Hershey's tends to be sweet and relatively bland... there are several others each with their own peculiar style. And you get quality that similarly spans the gamut - Guittard is among the top few chocolatiers in the world, Scharffen Berger is clearly high-end, Merckens and Ghirardelli aim for a mid-range class, Hershey's and Baker's are low-end. You'll find similar divisions in just about any country. Nation of origin is rarely a reliable indicator of style or quality. As I am not a marketing person I cannot concur on that nor I am impressed with those fancy brands ! I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than Americans, at least not when devising a survey.... From the point of chocolate formulations....American and European chocolates are not the same Again, I would consider this an overly broad characterisation. Of course American and European chocolates don't have the same formulation - any more than Callebaut and Nestle - 2 European chocolates - don't have the same formulation - nor even Valrhona and Cluizel - 2 French chocolates, nor Ghirardelli and Guittard - 2 San Francisco chocolates. You can narrow the geographic scope as much as you like and it makes little difference - different companies use different formulations. This is a fact...that different continents have different chocolate formulations and therefore different product requirements DIY chocolate manufacture is not an impossibility ... In the past I had toyed with making chocolate in a way suitable for home users interested in making their own chocolate from the scratch... As I can attest! However for most people the effort doesn't justify the result. I have been able to make extraordinarily smooth chocolate...with extraordinary effort. In previous posts, I've detailed the laborious process involved, and pretty much laid out the case for why, for your average home user, it's not worth it. But again, this is a case of no available machines. What I'm saying is there's no reason these machines couldn't be reduced to home capacities, it's just that they're not. Really....? Extraordinarily smooth means the particle size range is 8-15 microns? ...IMO .thats kinda gives a slimy mouthfeel .....not extra smooth. From the chocolate quality standards that is already considered a fault and not a desirable attribute. I don't know how you did it , but I am certain it's an impractical and a sheer masochistic effort! IMO 99.9 % perspiration and 0.1% inspirationgrin. I have doubts about if you were really able to make it with available home equipmentsgrin. Unless you're some sort of a Thomas Edison reincarnation grin.? Well, most home users are probably not going to add extra emulsifiers. Cluizel and Domori have gone emulsifier-free, with excellent results, showing it can be done, so for the home user this is probably acceptable as well. No added emulsifiers means a higher amount of cocoa butter which makes the product more expensive per unit weight. ..
|
|
19-12-2005, 08:56 AM
posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
|
