To make ganache using cream and 70% dark chocolate needs no sugar for taste.
However, if one uses 99% bittersweet/dark chocolate, can one make ganache
and still taste allright without adding sugar; but if you use sugar, how
would it be prepared?
Thank you.
Dee

You really have to check it out if its suited for your taste.
But if you plan to add a sweetener.
I suggest that you add very fine icing sugar into the cream instead so
that it will be partially dissolved in its water content and the rest
bound by the milk fat phase. .
Roy

"Roy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You really have to check it out if its suited for your taste.
> But if you plan to add a sweetener.
> I suggest that you add very fine icing sugar into the cream instead so
> that it will be partially dissolved in its water content and the rest
> bound by the milk fat phase. .
> Roy

Thank you, Roy, for your answer.
I have put regular sugar into a food processor and processed it into a fine
sugar; would this be fine enough?

Dee Randall wrote:
> "Roy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > You really have to check it out if its suited for your taste.
> > But if you plan to add a sweetener.
> > I suggest that you add very fine icing sugar into the cream instead
so
> > that it will be partially dissolved in its water content and the
rest
> > bound by the milk fat phase. .
> > Roy
>
> Thank you, Roy, for your answer.
> I have put regular sugar into a food processor and processed it into
a fine
> sugar; would this be fine enough?

The most that you can obtain with such treatment is slightly finer than
normal granulated sugar. I am not sure if processors can reduce the
particle size further.I seldom do that technique. I had ground sanding
sugar( In the past due to the sudden lack of granulated sugar) in the
vertical cutter mixer( STephan VCM a form of large scale food
processor) and I was not impressed with the fineness either.
In any case try it anyway and see the result if there is still the
distinctive grittiness in mouthfeel.
You do not add heaps of sugar to cream anyway, so if you add just
enough ( to confer some perciptible sweetness) and stirring it well it
might do the trick.
I was thinking that extra fine granulated sugar would be satisfactory,
but needs to be confirmed by actual test.
Good Luck!
Roy

Dee,

I've done this many times (i really like the 99%) but usually put in
some sugar or honey so that it's palatable to others.
You can use caster sugar or sugar ground in a food processor - add it to
the cold cream before you heat it. The sugar will dissolve.
you don't need much so it should not be a problem. Try adding a few
tablespoons of sugar for 200g chocolate and see how it tastes.
Honey will dissolve more easily and gives a different but intense
flavour - if you can get a light floral honey so much the better (eg
orange blossom or blackberry or clover).
Good luck!
Viviane

Dee Randall wrote:

>To make ganache using cream and 70% dark chocolate needs no sugar for taste.
>However, if one uses 99% bittersweet/dark chocolate, can one make ganache
>and still taste allright without adding sugar; but if you use sugar, how
>would it be prepared?
>Thank you.
>Dee
>
>
>
>

at Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:39:35 GMT in >,
deedoveyatshenteldotnet (Dee Randall) wrote :

>To make ganache using cream and 70% dark chocolate needs no sugar for
>taste. However, if one uses 99% bittersweet/dark chocolate, can one
>make ganache and still taste allright without adding sugar; but if you
>use sugar, how would it be prepared?

You can definitely make truffles using 99% (such as Michel Cluizel Noir
Infini, surely the best of such chocolates) and it's great. Super-strong,
thus not necessarily for all, but sure to attract the confirmed chocoholic.

Adding sugar is to some extent somewhat defeating the point - why not just
use 70% instead? Perhaps the only reason you might decide to do so is if
you were completely out of 70%, with no hope of rapid resupply, and had
prior, urgent commitments you couldn't alter.

Finer is better with sugar, because it does yield better dissolution. Don't
use powdered sugar unless it's free of cornstarch. You will be able to
identify cornstarch-free powdered sugar because it's got big lumps in it.
(I recommend using cornstarch-free powdered sugar when you can get it for
just about anything calling for powdered sugar - cornstarch gives powdered
sugar a very slight gelatinous feel). Otherwise, caster sugar or superfine
will be OK. You should heat it along with the cream. Stir the cream in with
the sugar until you've minimised grains, then heat and stir. Heat slowly to
let the sugar dissolve - any undissolved grains at the time the hot mix is
added to the chocolate will remain in the finished product.

If you add a small amount of invert sugar or corn syrup, this will improve
your texture. Don't go crazy, however, or the truffles will become soft,
and eventually will never solidify, remaining as a sauce. Another poster
recommended honey and this also works but requires similar discretion as
invert sugar/corn syrup: going overboard will soften the truffles
unacceptably.

As for sugar quantities, that's fairly easy to judge. Be aware that there's
only so much sugar you can add, unless you have more cocoa butter on hand,
without compromising the texture severely. Generally speaking, reducing the
net cocoa butter percentage in the chocolate/sugar mix below 35% yields
rough results. Now, the unsweetened chocolates have about 50% cocoa butter,
which means that about the most sugar you can add is 3/7 of the chocolate,
yielding a final sweetening ratio equivalent to a 70% chocolate. Anything
above that, however, is possible. Thus you can simply add whatever sugar
amount yields a net chocolate percentage equal to what you'd like to
simulate.


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Dee Randall wrote:
> To make ganache using cream and 70% dark chocolate needs no sugar for
> taste. However, if one uses 99% bittersweet/dark chocolate, can one
> make ganache and still taste allright without adding sugar; but if
> you use sugar, how would it be prepared?
> Thank you.
> Dee

Just add some normal white granulated sugar to the cream and stir while
warming until it is dissolved, then continue to heat your cream to the
desired point. It is not necessary to use superfine, and you certainly
wouldn't want to use powdered, because of the cornstarch. It would be a
good idea to stir in a small amount of glucose, perhaps a tablespoon to a
pound of chocolate, after bringing the cream to a boil.

You can also use raw sugar, and you can caramelize your sugar and glucose
before adding warm cream to it if you want darker notes.

Alex Rast wrote:

> Adding sugar is to some extent somewhat defeating the point - why not just
> use 70% instead? Perhaps the only reason you might decide to do so is if
> you were completely out of 70%, with no hope of rapid resupply, and had
> prior, urgent commitments you couldn't alter.
>
> ...
>
> If you add a small amount of invert sugar or corn syrup, this will improve
> your texture. Don't go crazy, however, or the truffles will become soft,
> and eventually will never solidify, remaining as a sauce. Another poster
> recommended honey and this also works but requires similar discretion as
> invert sugar/corn syrup: going overboard will soften the truffles
> unacceptably.
>

Valrhona have a range of "grand cru" couvertures ranging in cocoa
content from 64% to 72% (cocoa butter from 40.5% to 43.5%; sugar from
36% to 28%). These are delicious, distinctive, and well balanced
couvertures. I use them to create fresh cream ganaches.

I continually experimented with recipes, the results of which are
critiqued by a regular tasting group of 50 plus people. I recently
trialled a pure cocoa ganache - five different recipes; tasted at one
week old, and then again at four weeks old.

At the first tasting, tasters overwhelmingly preferred (A) a near 1:1
ganache (chocolate:cream) with no added sugar. But three weeks later
this chocolate had dried significantly. Tasters now preferred (B) a
3:2 ganache with 7% added invert sugar. Interestingly, the original
first choice (A) had become tasters' least preferred, and conversely
what had been the least preferred (B) came out tops at the second
tasting. Compromises (C) and (D) based on 3.5% added invert sugar made
up the middle ground; as did (E) a 1:1 ganache with 7% added invert
sugar (less chocolate to compete with the added sugar than the 3:2
ganache I guess).

Thus my dilemma - how to create the perfect pure cocoa ganache, one
which conveys, unadulterated, the distinctive, well based taste of its
constituent couverture (ie ganache A in our tasting). But also one,
which lasts at least four weeks in tip-top condition.

Could this be an advantage of 99% dark chocolate? As Alex points out,
sugar can be added to taste, a percentage of which could/should be
invert sugar. Two downsides: 1) the choice of couvertures at 99% is
far less than that at circa 70%; 2) the ability to create a ganache to
show case a producer's (eg Valrhona's) distinctive, and well balanced
couvertures is lost.

Alternatively, is their a humicant other than those based on sugars
(eg invert sugar, honey), whose inclusion with a chocolate ganache
decelerates the drying out of chocolate centres?

Simon

Alex Rast wrote:

> Adding sugar is to some extent somewhat defeating the point - why not just
> use 70% instead? Perhaps the only reason you might decide to do so is if
> you were completely out of 70%, with no hope of rapid resupply, and had
> prior, urgent commitments you couldn't alter.
>
> ...
>
> If you add a small amount of invert sugar or corn syrup, this will improve
> your texture. Don't go crazy, however, or the truffles will become soft,
> and eventually will never solidify, remaining as a sauce. Another poster
> recommended honey and this also works but requires similar discretion as
> invert sugar/corn syrup: going overboard will soften the truffles
> unacceptably.
>

Valrhona have a range of "grand cru" couvertures ranging in cocoa
content from 64% to 72% (cocoa butter from 40.5% to 43.5%; sugar from
36% to 28%). These are delicious, distinctive, and well balanced
couvertures. I use them to create fresh cream ganaches.

I continually experimented with recipes, the results of which are
critiqued by a regular tasting group of 50 plus people. I recently
trialled a pure cocoa ganache - five different recipes; tasted at one
week old, and then again at four weeks old.

At the first tasting, tasters overwhelmingly preferred (A) a near 1:1
ganache (chocolate:cream) with no added sugar. But three weeks later
this chocolate had dried significantly. Tasters now preferred (B) a
3:2 ganache with 7% added invert sugar. Interestingly, the original
first choice (A) had become tasters' least preferred, and conversely
what had been the least preferred (B) came out tops at the second
tasting. Compromises (C) and (D) based on 3.5% added invert sugar made
up the middle ground; as did (E) a 1:1 ganache with 7% added invert
sugar (less chocolate to compete with the added sugar than the 3:2
ganache I guess).

Thus my dilemma - how to create the perfect pure cocoa ganache, one
which conveys, unadulterated, the distinctive, well based taste of its
constituent couverture (ie ganache A in our tasting). But also one,
which lasts at least four weeks in tip-top condition.

Could this be an advantage of 99% dark chocolate? As Alex points out,
sugar can be added to taste, a percentage of which could/should be
invert sugar. Two downsides: 1) the choice of couvertures at 99% is
far less than that at circa 70%; 2) the ability to create a ganache to
show case a producer's (eg Valrhona's) distinctive, and well balanced
couvertures is lost.

Alternatively, is their a humicant other than those based on sugars
(eg invert sugar, honey), whose inclusion with a chocolate ganache
decelerates the drying out of chocolate centres?

Simon

Simon Mitchell wrote:
> Alex Rast wrote:

>
> Alternatively, is their a humicant other than those based on sugars
> (eg invert sugar, honey), whose inclusion with a chocolate ganache
> decelerates the drying out of chocolate centres?
>
> Simon

A few years back I made sugar free chocolates from the scratch
starting with cocoa beans. After I made the chocolate liqour, I used
sorbitol / maltitol and polydextrose in the dark and milk chocolate
formulations. It was a good chocolate tho, but not all people like
chocolates containing alternative sweeteners.It had a selected
clientile more of a niche product line.
One thing important about these alternative sweeteners had a laxative
effect and you had to clearly declare that on your product labelling
that it contains such other materials aside what is present in normal
chocolates.
Indeed these sorbitol,maltitol and polydextrose have good humectant
properties and really make a good ganache filling for molded pieces,
that turn out to have good shelf life and texture ;and it had also a
cooling effect on the palate due to the hegative heat of solution of
theose other sugars which makes this chocolate feels slightly
different( in the mouth) if compared with the standard chocolates.
Roy

at Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:04:18 GMT in
>,
(Simon Mitchell) wrote :

>Alex Rast wrote:
>
>> Adding sugar is to some extent somewhat defeating the point - why not
>> just use 70% instead? ...
>>
>> ...
>>
>> If you add a small amount of invert sugar or corn syrup, this will
>> improve your texture. ...
>>
>
>Valrhona have a range of "grand cru" couvertures ranging in cocoa
>content from 64% to 72% (cocoa butter from 40.5% to 43.5%; sugar from
>36% to 28%). These are delicious, distinctive, and well balanced
>couvertures. I use them to create fresh cream ganaches.
>
>I continually experimented with recipes, the results of which are
>critiqued by a regular tasting group of 50 plus people. I recently
>trialled a pure cocoa ganache - five different recipes; tasted at one
>week old, and then again at four weeks old.
>
>At the first tasting, tasters overwhelmingly preferred (A) a near 1:1
>ganache (chocolate:cream) with no added sugar.

That must have been pretty soft. I'm guessing your tasters were people
that, as a group prioritised texture over flavour (which, is in fact, the
common prioritisation - studies show a majority of people find texture more
important than flavour in food)

> But three weeks later
>this chocolate had dried significantly. Tasters now preferred (B) a
>3:2 ganache with 7% added invert sugar. Interestingly, the original
>first choice (A) had become tasters' least preferred, and conversely
>what had been the least preferred (B) came out tops at the second
>tasting.

I suspect this is simply the normal process of deterioration. Generally
speaking, the more cream a ganache has, the more quickly its flavour
diminishes - basically because cream is more perishable than chocolate and
its higher moisture content means greater evaporation and hence faster
transport of flavour and aroma compounds. Any sugar will retard flavour
deterioration because it tends to trap flavour compounds as well as
moisture.

> Compromises (C) and (D) based on 3.5% added invert sugar made
>up the middle ground; as did (E) a 1:1 ganache with 7% added invert
>sugar (less chocolate to compete with the added sugar than the 3:2
>ganache I guess).
>
>Thus my dilemma - how to create the perfect pure cocoa ganache, one
>which conveys, unadulterated, the distinctive, well based taste of its
>constituent couverture (ie ganache A in our tasting). But also one,
>which lasts at least four weeks in tip-top condition.

Use a stiffer ganache - the classic 2:1 (chocolate:cream) ratio is ideal.
2:1 ganaches last a lot longer and also deliver a more powerful flavour
punch. I think you can also see that by adding some invert sugar you could
soften the texture, if that were a concern, and even extend the shelf life
a bit more. At 2:1, it's still going to deliver a strong chocolate flavour
even with added invert sugar.

You can soften the texture of the ganache also by adding clarified butter
(butter oil), if your group finds the stiffness of 2:1 too much. Using
butter oil is certainly the way to the smoothest, softest texture, although
the ganache is more heat-sensitive.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)