If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular cocoa
without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary chemical
interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there an actual
difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these earthshaking questions?
Thanks!

Fran

"Franfogel" > wrote in message
...
> If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular
cocoa
> without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary chemical
> interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there an actual
> difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these earthshaking
questions?
> Thanks!
>
> Fran

Yes there is a difference and recipes usually call for one or the other
because of the chemical reaction.

See Below:

Dimitri

cocoa powder
[KOH-koh]
Both CHOCOLATE and cocoa powder come from cocoa beans that grow in pods on
the tropical Theobroma cacao tree, which is found in Southeast Asia,
Africa, Hawaii, Brazil and other South American countries. Once cocoa beans
are fermented, dried, roasted and cracked, the nibs are ground to extract
about 75 percent of the cocoa butter, leaving a dark brown paste called
chocolate liquor. After drying again, the hardened mass is ground into the
powder known as unsweetened cocoa. The richer, darker Dutch cocoa has been
treated with an ALKALI, which helps neutralize cocoa's natural acidity.
Cocoa powder is sold plain or mixed with other ingredients such as milk
powder and sugar, forming an instant cocoa mix. Cocoa mixes should not be
substituted for cocoa powder in recipes. Store cocoa powder airtight in a
cool, dark place for up to 2 years.
© Copyright Barron's Educational Services, Inc. 1995 based on THE FOOD
LOVER'S COMPANION, 2nd edition,

"Franfogel" > wrote in message
...
> If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular
cocoa
> without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary chemical
> interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there an actual
> difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these earthshaking
questions?
> Thanks!
>
> Fran

Yes there is a difference and recipes usually call for one or the other
because of the chemical reaction.

See Below:

Dimitri

cocoa powder
[KOH-koh]
Both CHOCOLATE and cocoa powder come from cocoa beans that grow in pods on
the tropical Theobroma cacao tree, which is found in Southeast Asia,
Africa, Hawaii, Brazil and other South American countries. Once cocoa beans
are fermented, dried, roasted and cracked, the nibs are ground to extract
about 75 percent of the cocoa butter, leaving a dark brown paste called
chocolate liquor. After drying again, the hardened mass is ground into the
powder known as unsweetened cocoa. The richer, darker Dutch cocoa has been
treated with an ALKALI, which helps neutralize cocoa's natural acidity.
Cocoa powder is sold plain or mixed with other ingredients such as milk
powder and sugar, forming an instant cocoa mix. Cocoa mixes should not be
substituted for cocoa powder in recipes. Store cocoa powder airtight in a
cool, dark place for up to 2 years.
© Copyright Barron's Educational Services, Inc. 1995 based on THE FOOD
LOVER'S COMPANION, 2nd edition,

>(Franfogel)
>
>If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular cocoa
>without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary chemical
>interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there an actual
>difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these earthshaking questions?

No reason you can't use either; for baking I prefer high fat cocoa, for
beverages Dutched cocoa is supposedly smoother... but that's subjective... use
what ya got.

cocoa powder [KOH-koh]
Both CHOCOLATE and cocoa powder come from cocoa beans that grow in pods on the
tropical Theobroma cacao tree, which is found in Southeast Asia, Africa,
Hawaii, Brazil and other South American countries. Once cocoa beans are
fermented, dried, roasted and cracked, the nibs are ground to extract about 75
percent of the cocoa butter, leaving a dark brown paste called chocolate
liquor. After drying again, the hardened mass is ground into the powder known
as unsweetened cocoa. The richer, darker Dutch cocoa has been treated with an
ALKALI, which helps neutralize cocoa's natural acidity. Cocoa powder is sold
plain or mixed with other ingredients such as milk powder and sugar, forming an
instant cocoa mix. Cocoa mixes should not be substituted for cocoa powder in
recipes. Store cocoa powder airtight in a cool, dark place for up to 2 years.

© Copyright Barron's Educational Services, Inc. 1995
based on THE FOOD LOVER'S COMPANION, 2nd edition, by Sharon Tyler Herbst.

---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

>(Franfogel)
>
>If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular cocoa
>without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary chemical
>interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there an actual
>difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these earthshaking questions?

No reason you can't use either; for baking I prefer high fat cocoa, for
beverages Dutched cocoa is supposedly smoother... but that's subjective... use
what ya got.

cocoa powder [KOH-koh]
Both CHOCOLATE and cocoa powder come from cocoa beans that grow in pods on the
tropical Theobroma cacao tree, which is found in Southeast Asia, Africa,
Hawaii, Brazil and other South American countries. Once cocoa beans are
fermented, dried, roasted and cracked, the nibs are ground to extract about 75
percent of the cocoa butter, leaving a dark brown paste called chocolate
liquor. After drying again, the hardened mass is ground into the powder known
as unsweetened cocoa. The richer, darker Dutch cocoa has been treated with an
ALKALI, which helps neutralize cocoa's natural acidity. Cocoa powder is sold
plain or mixed with other ingredients such as milk powder and sugar, forming an
instant cocoa mix. Cocoa mixes should not be substituted for cocoa powder in
recipes. Store cocoa powder airtight in a cool, dark place for up to 2 years.

© Copyright Barron's Educational Services, Inc. 1995
based on THE FOOD LOVER'S COMPANION, 2nd edition, by Sharon Tyler Herbst.

---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

Franfogel wrote:

> If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular cocoa
> without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary chemical
> interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there an actual
> difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these earthshaking questions?
> Thanks!
>
> Fran


That should work, but if it calls for regular cocoa you cannot
necessarily substitute dutched cocoa. Regular cocoa is acidic, and
dutch process cocoa is alkaline; they react differently with the baking
soda in the recipe.

-bob

Franfogel wrote:

> If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular cocoa
> without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary chemical
> interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there an actual
> difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these earthshaking questions?
> Thanks!
>
> Fran


That should work, but if it calls for regular cocoa you cannot
necessarily substitute dutched cocoa. Regular cocoa is acidic, and
dutch process cocoa is alkaline; they react differently with the baking
soda in the recipe.

-bob

(Franfogel) wrote in
:

> If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use
> regular cocoa without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some
> necessary chemical interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In
> fact, is there an actual difference in taste? Anyone know the answer
> to these earthshaking questions? Thanks!
>
> Fran

Well I prefer the taste of the Dutch process. There is a difference
though...Regular Coca is more acidic.

--
Once during Prohibition I was forced to live for days on nothing but food
and water.
--------
FIELDS, W. C.

(Franfogel) wrote in
:

> If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use
> regular cocoa without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some
> necessary chemical interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In
> fact, is there an actual difference in taste? Anyone know the answer
> to these earthshaking questions? Thanks!
>
> Fran

Well I prefer the taste of the Dutch process. There is a difference
though...Regular Coca is more acidic.

--
Once during Prohibition I was forced to live for days on nothing but food
and water.
--------
FIELDS, W. C.

at Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:16:25 GMT in
>,
(Franfogel) wrote :

>If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular
>cocoa without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary
>chemical interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there
>an actual difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these
>earthshaking questions? Thanks!
>
>Fran

To a certain extent, it depends on the recipe. Dutch processed cocoa (which
has been processed with potassium carbonate, an alkali), is as you'd
expect, more alkaline than "natural process". Now, some recipes depend on a
reaction between alkaline baking soda and an acid in the ingredients, and
if that acid is supposed to be cocoa, using natural process is the only way
it's going to turn out correctly. An example, for instance, is Devil's Food
cake. But your recipe calls for Dutch process, so it's not depending on
that sort of reaction. However, if you use natural process instead, it's
possible that the extra acidity will imbalance a leavening action. You
could get maddeningly inconsistent results, such as extreme cake doming,
uneven texture, large bubbles, stratification (where the top is very light
and airy, while the bottom is dense, often not even baked through,
resulting in a fudgy texture) and other problems.

As to flavour, there is a considerable difference. Dutch-process has a
milder overall taste with a distinct metallic twang. Generally it's blander
and more uniform. Natural-process is much more lively and more powerful. It
can deliver a potent bitter kick with some brands, especially if the amount
of cocoa you use is considerable. Natural-process is also more variable in
flavour - it's useful here to try different cocoas and see which one you
like best.

Dutch-process cocoa also makes for a darker colour. This is deceptive,
because it can lead the unsuspecting eater into the belief that the cake
will be stronger in flavour than the usually redder, lighter colour of a
cake (or for that matter, anything else) made with natural-process, but it
will in fact be less strong for the same amount of cocoa.

Natural-process cocoa is more heat-sensitive, which means you need to pay
closer attention to the actual state of the cake in the oven and ignore
stated baking times. The best rule is: when the smell of cocoa from the
oven becomes INTENSE and deep, the cake is done.

If the cake has other flavours, different types of cocoa make a better
match. For cream, custard, blueberries, bananas, white chocolate, and
caramel, Dutch-processed cocoa is better. For strawberries, raspberries,
cherries, blackberries, coffee, cinnamon, and nuts, natural-process is
better. The idea is to choose the cocoa whose flavour most complements the
other flavouring and doesn't overwhelm it. That's why chocolate cakes with
white frosting are usually made with Dutch-process cocoa: besides the
visual appeal of the dark, almost black cake against the white frosting, a
natural-process cake would overwhelm the flavour of white frosting.

Finally, cocoas come in 2 fat contents: high-fat (~24%) and low-fat (~7%)
Low-fat cocoas always have a more subdued flavour, and lead to drier cakes,
as well as being more heat-sensitive. High-fat cocoas are richer in flavour
and will make a cake lighter as well as moister.

Among common brands, Hershey's and Ghirardelli are high-fat, natural-
process. Scharffen Berger is also natural-process, high-fat. If you want to
pay the big bucks, Michel Cluizel "dark" is perhaps the best high-fat,
natural process cocoa in the world.

Meanwhile, Droste, Van Houten, Van Leer, and Hershey's "European Style"
(silver can) are high-fat Dutch process, as are Pernigotti and Valrhona.

Most of the organic cocoas, such as Rapunzel and Ah-laska, are low-fat,
natural process. Dagoba, probably the best organic cocoa, doesn't seem to
specify or give any sort of hint.

Guittard makes both natural and Dutch process cocoas, in both fat levels.
You usually find this in bulk bins. It's best to ask to look at the bag to
find out what type the store stocks because the stockers may not know.

All these subtleties are exactly that - subtle. Most of the time the impact
on a cake won't be large, so usually experimenting with a different type of
cocoa won't be disastrous. The effects become more pronounced as the amount
of cocoa in the recipe increases. In your case, you're probably OK to
substitute, but why not post the recipe and then we can tell you for sure?
--
Alex Rast

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

at Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:16:25 GMT in
>,
(Franfogel) wrote :

>If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular
>cocoa without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary
>chemical interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there
>an actual difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these
>earthshaking questions? Thanks!
>
>Fran

To a certain extent, it depends on the recipe. Dutch processed cocoa (which
has been processed with potassium carbonate, an alkali), is as you'd
expect, more alkaline than "natural process". Now, some recipes depend on a
reaction between alkaline baking soda and an acid in the ingredients, and
if that acid is supposed to be cocoa, using natural process is the only way
it's going to turn out correctly. An example, for instance, is Devil's Food
cake. But your recipe calls for Dutch process, so it's not depending on
that sort of reaction. However, if you use natural process instead, it's
possible that the extra acidity will imbalance a leavening action. You
could get maddeningly inconsistent results, such as extreme cake doming,
uneven texture, large bubbles, stratification (where the top is very light
and airy, while the bottom is dense, often not even baked through,
resulting in a fudgy texture) and other problems.

As to flavour, there is a considerable difference. Dutch-process has a
milder overall taste with a distinct metallic twang. Generally it's blander
and more uniform. Natural-process is much more lively and more powerful. It
can deliver a potent bitter kick with some brands, especially if the amount
of cocoa you use is considerable. Natural-process is also more variable in
flavour - it's useful here to try different cocoas and see which one you
like best.

Dutch-process cocoa also makes for a darker colour. This is deceptive,
because it can lead the unsuspecting eater into the belief that the cake
will be stronger in flavour than the usually redder, lighter colour of a
cake (or for that matter, anything else) made with natural-process, but it
will in fact be less strong for the same amount of cocoa.

Natural-process cocoa is more heat-sensitive, which means you need to pay
closer attention to the actual state of the cake in the oven and ignore
stated baking times. The best rule is: when the smell of cocoa from the
oven becomes INTENSE and deep, the cake is done.

If the cake has other flavours, different types of cocoa make a better
match. For cream, custard, blueberries, bananas, white chocolate, and
caramel, Dutch-processed cocoa is better. For strawberries, raspberries,
cherries, blackberries, coffee, cinnamon, and nuts, natural-process is
better. The idea is to choose the cocoa whose flavour most complements the
other flavouring and doesn't overwhelm it. That's why chocolate cakes with
white frosting are usually made with Dutch-process cocoa: besides the
visual appeal of the dark, almost black cake against the white frosting, a
natural-process cake would overwhelm the flavour of white frosting.

Finally, cocoas come in 2 fat contents: high-fat (~24%) and low-fat (~7%)
Low-fat cocoas always have a more subdued flavour, and lead to drier cakes,
as well as being more heat-sensitive. High-fat cocoas are richer in flavour
and will make a cake lighter as well as moister.

Among common brands, Hershey's and Ghirardelli are high-fat, natural-
process. Scharffen Berger is also natural-process, high-fat. If you want to
pay the big bucks, Michel Cluizel "dark" is perhaps the best high-fat,
natural process cocoa in the world.

Meanwhile, Droste, Van Houten, Van Leer, and Hershey's "European Style"
(silver can) are high-fat Dutch process, as are Pernigotti and Valrhona.

Most of the organic cocoas, such as Rapunzel and Ah-laska, are low-fat,
natural process. Dagoba, probably the best organic cocoa, doesn't seem to
specify or give any sort of hint.

Guittard makes both natural and Dutch process cocoas, in both fat levels.
You usually find this in bulk bins. It's best to ask to look at the bag to
find out what type the store stocks because the stockers may not know.

All these subtleties are exactly that - subtle. Most of the time the impact
on a cake won't be large, so usually experimenting with a different type of
cocoa won't be disastrous. The effects become more pronounced as the amount
of cocoa in the recipe increases. In your case, you're probably OK to
substitute, but why not post the recipe and then we can tell you for sure?
--
Alex Rast

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

I'm not the original poster who asked, but I'm still thanking all of you
for these excellent explanations. I had no idea. My last Penzey's
order hasn't come yet, but I did order Dutch process cocoa. At the
time, I was thinking that it sounded like better flavor and would
substitute for the Hershey's that I was about to run out of. The timing
of this thread is excellent. I'm glad I haven't had to learn the hard
way that they're not the same product.


Now. If I want to avoid those maddeningly inconsistent results, is
there some rule I should follow? I don't have a recipe in front of me,
but say I was making cookies that call for baking powder and natural
process cocoa. Would I need to add an acid to the recipe like sour
cream or vinegar to make it work?


Something comes to mind. I never bake from a mix, but long ago I
learned a tip in case I ever did. That was to substitute white wine for
the water when making chocolate cake from a mix. Apparently, something
acid is very good for bringing out the flavor of chocolate. I've
noticed that many recipes call for cultured buttermilk where another
(non-chocolate) recipe would call for fresh milk. Sour cream, yogurt
and vinegar show up in chocolate cake recipes. Is it possible that the
"add something acid to chocolate cake recipes for best flavor" rule is
based on Dutch process cocoa?


--Lia

I'm not the original poster who asked, but I'm still thanking all of you
for these excellent explanations. I had no idea. My last Penzey's
order hasn't come yet, but I did order Dutch process cocoa. At the
time, I was thinking that it sounded like better flavor and would
substitute for the Hershey's that I was about to run out of. The timing
of this thread is excellent. I'm glad I haven't had to learn the hard
way that they're not the same product.


Now. If I want to avoid those maddeningly inconsistent results, is
there some rule I should follow? I don't have a recipe in front of me,
but say I was making cookies that call for baking powder and natural
process cocoa. Would I need to add an acid to the recipe like sour
cream or vinegar to make it work?


Something comes to mind. I never bake from a mix, but long ago I
learned a tip in case I ever did. That was to substitute white wine for
the water when making chocolate cake from a mix. Apparently, something
acid is very good for bringing out the flavor of chocolate. I've
noticed that many recipes call for cultured buttermilk where another
(non-chocolate) recipe would call for fresh milk. Sour cream, yogurt
and vinegar show up in chocolate cake recipes. Is it possible that the
"add something acid to chocolate cake recipes for best flavor" rule is
based on Dutch process cocoa?


--Lia

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> All these subtleties are exactly that - subtle. Most of the time the
impact
> on a cake won't be large, so usually experimenting with a different type
of
> cocoa won't be disastrous.

why would it have to be all one or the other for that matter? a mix of dutch
and regular cocoa may prove the optimal thing.

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> All these subtleties are exactly that - subtle. Most of the time the
impact
> on a cake won't be large, so usually experimenting with a different type
of
> cocoa won't be disastrous.

why would it have to be all one or the other for that matter? a mix of dutch
and regular cocoa may prove the optimal thing.

>"Dan Levy"
>Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:47:02 -0600
>Organization: Lucent Technologies
>Lines: 13
>Message-ID: >
>References: >
>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: drlevy.lra.lucent.com
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
>
>
>
>
>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
.. .
>> All these subtleties are exactly that - subtle. Most of the time the
>impact
>> on a cake won't be large, so usually experimenting with a different type
>of
>> cocoa won't be disastrous.
>
>why would it have to be all one or the other for that matter? a mix of dutch
>and regular cocoa may prove the optimal thing.


What's wrong with you? Generally someone with the name "Levy" doesn't have
such a low IQ... you sure one of your granddaddy's last name didn't end in a
vowel, ie. Guido, Carmine, Buffone, Pastofazulli Bafongooli!

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .



---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

>"Dan Levy"
>Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:47:02 -0600
>Organization: Lucent Technologies
>Lines: 13
>Message-ID: >
>References: >
>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: drlevy.lra.lucent.com
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
>
>
>
>
>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
.. .
>> All these subtleties are exactly that - subtle. Most of the time the
>impact
>> on a cake won't be large, so usually experimenting with a different type
>of
>> cocoa won't be disastrous.
>
>why would it have to be all one or the other for that matter? a mix of dutch
>and regular cocoa may prove the optimal thing.


What's wrong with you? Generally someone with the name "Levy" doesn't have
such a low IQ... you sure one of your granddaddy's last name didn't end in a
vowel, ie. Guido, Carmine, Buffone, Pastofazulli Bafongooli!

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .



---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

at Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:56:13 GMT in <NcL8c.9698$JO3.16108@attbi_s04>,
(Julia Altshuler) wrote :

>I'm not the original poster who asked, but I'm still thanking all of you
>for these excellent explanations. I had no idea. ...
>
>
>Now. If I want to avoid those maddeningly inconsistent results, is
>there some rule I should follow?

No. If you use a different type of cocoa, there's no way to predict what
adjustments you'd need to make to make it turn out exactly as the recipe
specified. But a little experimentation would suffice. In other words,
you've got the right idea. A little lemon juice or sour milk or whatever
made sense could head you in the right direction. Remember, again, though
that the impact of using Dutch instead of natural cocoa is generally going
to be relatively small and easily overlooked by people who aren't concerned
with professional-grade consistency.

>Something comes to mind. I never bake from a mix, but long ago I
>learned a tip in case I ever did. That was to substitute white wine for
>the water when making chocolate cake from a mix. ...Is it possible that
> the
>"add something acid to chocolate cake recipes for best flavor" rule is
>based on Dutch process cocoa?

Yes, it is. If you look at the ingredient labels for virtually all box
mixes, as well as most commercial baked goods made with cocoa, you'll see
that they say cocoa (processed with alkali) - i.e. Dutch cocoa. The reason
for this is that you can get by with lower-quality Dutch cocoa and still
have acceptable results, because the Dutch process masks any flavour
defects of the beans, but with lower-quality natural-process, any flavour
problems of the underlying beans have nowhere to hide. So they stand out in
sharp relief, and the result is very harsh taste (which is a warning to you
- never buy low-quality natural-process cocoa. Always buy premium natural-
process cocoa). Unfortunately, very few commercial companies seem to be
interested in anything except getting the lowest possible cost, and since
they can thereby get by with cheaper cocoa, if they use Dutch-process, this
is what they do.

The most irritating place this happens is in "chocolate" ice cream. I've
*never* seen a commercial ice cream (including the "super premium" ones)
that didn't use Dutch process cocoa. And using Dutch cocoa in ice cream is
about the worst thing you could do. Truthfully, for a great chocolate ice
cream, you really should use chocolate, not cocoa, but the recipes at that
point become so fine-tuned in order to get good results that it wouldn't be
fair to expect a commercial company to do it. But if they must use cocoa
instead, at least they could use natural-process. Cold subdues the flavour
of chocolate, and with the Dutch process already subduing the flavour, the
ice cream is off to a bad start. To make matters worse, lots of cream and
milk also subdue the taste of chocolate, and so if you use Dutch process
cocoa in "chocolate" ice cream you're essentially guaranteed to get a very
pale, washed-out taste - at best a poor shadow of chocolate. There seems to
be common knowledge that chocolate ice cream isn't very good, but this
isn't because it couldn't be good, it's because nobody seems to be willing
to put in the extra effort and expense necessary to actually make it good.


--
Alex Rast

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

at Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:56:13 GMT in <NcL8c.9698$JO3.16108@attbi_s04>,
(Julia Altshuler) wrote :

>I'm not the original poster who asked, but I'm still thanking all of you
>for these excellent explanations. I had no idea. ...
>
>
>Now. If I want to avoid those maddeningly inconsistent results, is
>there some rule I should follow?

No. If you use a different type of cocoa, there's no way to predict what
adjustments you'd need to make to make it turn out exactly as the recipe
specified. But a little experimentation would suffice. In other words,
you've got the right idea. A little lemon juice or sour milk or whatever
made sense could head you in the right direction. Remember, again, though
that the impact of using Dutch instead of natural cocoa is generally going
to be relatively small and easily overlooked by people who aren't concerned
with professional-grade consistency.

>Something comes to mind. I never bake from a mix, but long ago I
>learned a tip in case I ever did. That was to substitute white wine for
>the water when making chocolate cake from a mix. ...Is it possible that
> the
>"add something acid to chocolate cake recipes for best flavor" rule is
>based on Dutch process cocoa?

Yes, it is. If you look at the ingredient labels for virtually all box
mixes, as well as most commercial baked goods made with cocoa, you'll see
that they say cocoa (processed with alkali) - i.e. Dutch cocoa. The reason
for this is that you can get by with lower-quality Dutch cocoa and still
have acceptable results, because the Dutch process masks any flavour
defects of the beans, but with lower-quality natural-process, any flavour
problems of the underlying beans have nowhere to hide. So they stand out in
sharp relief, and the result is very harsh taste (which is a warning to you
- never buy low-quality natural-process cocoa. Always buy premium natural-
process cocoa). Unfortunately, very few commercial companies seem to be
interested in anything except getting the lowest possible cost, and since
they can thereby get by with cheaper cocoa, if they use Dutch-process, this
is what they do.

The most irritating place this happens is in "chocolate" ice cream. I've
*never* seen a commercial ice cream (including the "super premium" ones)
that didn't use Dutch process cocoa. And using Dutch cocoa in ice cream is
about the worst thing you could do. Truthfully, for a great chocolate ice
cream, you really should use chocolate, not cocoa, but the recipes at that
point become so fine-tuned in order to get good results that it wouldn't be
fair to expect a commercial company to do it. But if they must use cocoa
instead, at least they could use natural-process. Cold subdues the flavour
of chocolate, and with the Dutch process already subduing the flavour, the
ice cream is off to a bad start. To make matters worse, lots of cream and
milk also subdue the taste of chocolate, and so if you use Dutch process
cocoa in "chocolate" ice cream you're essentially guaranteed to get a very
pale, washed-out taste - at best a poor shadow of chocolate. There seems to
be common knowledge that chocolate ice cream isn't very good, but this
isn't because it couldn't be good, it's because nobody seems to be willing
to put in the extra effort and expense necessary to actually make it good.


--
Alex Rast

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

Alex Rast wrote:
Remember, again, though
> that the impact of using Dutch instead of natural cocoa is generally going
> to be relatively small and easily overlooked by people who aren't concerned
> with professional-grade consistency.
>

At this point in my life, that's me. I'm a home cook now. Once again,
thanks for all this excellent information. A degree from the Culinary
Institute, an interest that keeps me learning, all these years, and I'd
never known about these intricacies to chocolate. A whole new world has
oepned up. I've got to start experimenting.

--Lia

Alex Rast wrote:
Remember, again, though
> that the impact of using Dutch instead of natural cocoa is generally going
> to be relatively small and easily overlooked by people who aren't concerned
> with professional-grade consistency.
>

At this point in my life, that's me. I'm a home cook now. Once again,
thanks for all this excellent information. A degree from the Culinary
Institute, an interest that keeps me learning, all these years, and I'd
never known about these intricacies to chocolate. A whole new world has
oepned up. I've got to start experimenting.

--Lia

Alex wrote:

> Cold subdues the flavour of chocolate, and with the Dutch process already
> subduing the flavour, the ice cream is off to a bad start. To make matters
> worse, lots of cream and milk also subdue the taste of chocolate, and so
> if you use Dutch process cocoa in "chocolate" ice cream you're essentially
> guaranteed to get a very pale, washed-out taste - at best a poor shadow of
> chocolate.

Right. If you want intense chocolate flavor, make chocolate sorbet instead
of chocolate ice cream. Orwell posted the following recipe which works fine
for me:

Bring 2 cups water to a simmer.
Whisk in 1 cup cocoa powder and 3/4 cup sugar.
Chill, then churn.

Bob

Alex wrote:

> Cold subdues the flavour of chocolate, and with the Dutch process already
> subduing the flavour, the ice cream is off to a bad start. To make matters
> worse, lots of cream and milk also subdue the taste of chocolate, and so
> if you use Dutch process cocoa in "chocolate" ice cream you're essentially
> guaranteed to get a very pale, washed-out taste - at best a poor shadow of
> chocolate.

Right. If you want intense chocolate flavor, make chocolate sorbet instead
of chocolate ice cream. Orwell posted the following recipe which works fine
for me:

Bring 2 cups water to a simmer.
Whisk in 1 cup cocoa powder and 3/4 cup sugar.
Chill, then churn.

Bob

at Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:07:08 GMT in
>,
(Bob) wrote :

>Alex wrote:
>
>> Cold subdues the flavour of chocolate, and with the Dutch process
>> already subduing the flavour, the ice cream is off to a bad start. To
>> make matters worse, lots of cream and milk also subdue the taste of
>> chocolate, and so if you use Dutch process cocoa in "chocolate" ice
>> cream you're essentially guaranteed to get a very pale, washed-out
>> taste - at best a poor shadow of chocolate.
>
>Right. If you want intense chocolate flavor, make chocolate sorbet
>instead of chocolate ice cream. Orwell posted the following recipe
>which works fine for me:
>
>Bring 2 cups water to a simmer.
>Whisk in 1 cup cocoa powder and 3/4 cup sugar.
>Chill, then churn.
>
IMHO this is still really *cocoa* sorbet. Without actual chocolate,
including the cocoa butter, it doesn't really taste like chocolate - it
tastes like cocoa, which has a distinctly different flavour. If you make
your own chocolate ice cream at home, you're not at all limited by the
strictures that govern commercial ice cream manufacturers and you can make
chocolate ice cream that actually has an intense chocolate flavour.

--
Alex Rast

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

at Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:07:08 GMT in
>,
(Bob) wrote :

>Alex wrote:
>
>> Cold subdues the flavour of chocolate, and with the Dutch process
>> already subduing the flavour, the ice cream is off to a bad start. To
>> make matters worse, lots of cream and milk also subdue the taste of
>> chocolate, and so if you use Dutch process cocoa in "chocolate" ice
>> cream you're essentially guaranteed to get a very pale, washed-out
>> taste - at best a poor shadow of chocolate.
>
>Right. If you want intense chocolate flavor, make chocolate sorbet
>instead of chocolate ice cream. Orwell posted the following recipe
>which works fine for me:
>
>Bring 2 cups water to a simmer.
>Whisk in 1 cup cocoa powder and 3/4 cup sugar.
>Chill, then churn.
>
IMHO this is still really *cocoa* sorbet. Without actual chocolate,
including the cocoa butter, it doesn't really taste like chocolate - it
tastes like cocoa, which has a distinctly different flavour. If you make
your own chocolate ice cream at home, you're not at all limited by the
strictures that govern commercial ice cream manufacturers and you can make
chocolate ice cream that actually has an intense chocolate flavour.

--
Alex Rast

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

"Franfogel" > wrote in message
...
> If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular
cocoa
> without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary chemical
> interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there an actual
> difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these earthshaking
questions?
> Thanks!
>
> Fran

It helps first to know what the difference is between them. After cocoa
beans are roasted, they are crushed to separate the nibs from the hulls.
Next the nibs are ground to a thick paste called chocolate liquor, which is
cocoa butter, plus the solids. When the cocoa butter (most of it anyway) is
extracted, the solids are pulverized, and that is natural cocoa. Because
chocolate is naturally acidic and somewhat tart, these flavors are more
pronounces in the natural cocoa. Dutch process (aka Dutched, or European)
cocoa takes it a step further. The Dutch process cocoa is treated with an
alkali to reduce the acidity, making it more mild than natural cocoa. It
also changes the color. "Black" cocoa, like that used for Oreos, is an
example of extreme "Dutching".
You shouldn't interchange the cocoas in many recipes because they respond to
different leaveners. Recipes calling for baking soda will need natural
cocoa, and recipes calling for baking powder will need dutched cocoa. If the
recipe depends on the chemical reaction between the leavener and the cocoa,
it is a good idea to use the correct one. If the recipes uses both baking
soda and baking powder, you can generally use either cocoa with good
results. That being said, you can generally get away with subbing dutched
for natural, but it is more difficult to do so the other way around.

kimberly

"Franfogel" > wrote in message
...
> If a cake recipe calls for "Dutch processed" cocoa, can one use regular
cocoa
> without a problem? I'm not sure whether there is some necessary chemical
> interaction or it's just a matter of taste. In fact, is there an actual
> difference in taste? Anyone know the answer to these earthshaking
questions?
> Thanks!
>
> Fran

It helps first to know what the difference is between them. After cocoa
beans are roasted, they are crushed to separate the nibs from the hulls.
Next the nibs are ground to a thick paste called chocolate liquor, which is
cocoa butter, plus the solids. When the cocoa butter (most of it anyway) is
extracted, the solids are pulverized, and that is natural cocoa. Because
chocolate is naturally acidic and somewhat tart, these flavors are more
pronounces in the natural cocoa. Dutch process (aka Dutched, or European)
cocoa takes it a step further. The Dutch process cocoa is treated with an
alkali to reduce the acidity, making it more mild than natural cocoa. It
also changes the color. "Black" cocoa, like that used for Oreos, is an
example of extreme "Dutching".
You shouldn't interchange the cocoas in many recipes because they respond to
different leaveners. Recipes calling for baking soda will need natural
cocoa, and recipes calling for baking powder will need dutched cocoa. If the
recipe depends on the chemical reaction between the leavener and the cocoa,
it is a good idea to use the correct one. If the recipes uses both baking
soda and baking powder, you can generally use either cocoa with good
results. That being said, you can generally get away with subbing dutched
for natural, but it is more difficult to do so the other way around.

kimberly

Alex Rast wrote:
>
> IMHO this is still really *cocoa* sorbet. Without actual chocolate,
> including the cocoa butter, it doesn't really taste like chocolate - it
> tastes like cocoa, which has a distinctly different flavour. If you make
> your own chocolate ice cream at home, you're not at all limited by the
> strictures that govern commercial ice cream manufacturers and you can make
> chocolate ice cream that actually has an intense chocolate flavour.

And do you have such a recipe? BTW, I always look forward to your
posts--esp. when it comes to chocolate.
--
Jean B.

Alex Rast wrote:
>
> IMHO this is still really *cocoa* sorbet. Without actual chocolate,
> including the cocoa butter, it doesn't really taste like chocolate - it
> tastes like cocoa, which has a distinctly different flavour. If you make
> your own chocolate ice cream at home, you're not at all limited by the
> strictures that govern commercial ice cream manufacturers and you can make
> chocolate ice cream that actually has an intense chocolate flavour.

And do you have such a recipe? BTW, I always look forward to your
posts--esp. when it comes to chocolate.
--
Jean B.

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:NcL8c.9698$JO3.16108@attbi_s04...
<snip>
>
> Now. If I want to avoid those maddeningly inconsistent results, is
> there some rule I should follow? I don't have a recipe in front of me,
> but say I was making cookies that call for baking powder and natural
> process cocoa. Would I need to add an acid to the recipe like sour
> cream or vinegar to make it work?

No, because dutched cocoa is used in recipes with baking powder. Natural is
generally paired with baking soda. In general you can sub the dutched cocoa
in any recipes that use baking powder. Dutched cocoa does not react with
baking soda, because it is alkalized. However if the leavening ingredient is
baking soda, you can still use the dutched cocoa if there is some other
acidic ingredient in the recipe, such as vinegar, buttermilk, soured milk,
etc.

>
>
> Something comes to mind. I never bake from a mix, but long ago I
> learned a tip in case I ever did. That was to substitute white wine for
> the water when making chocolate cake from a mix. Apparently, something
> acid is very good for bringing out the flavor of chocolate. I've
> noticed that many recipes call for cultured buttermilk where another
> (non-chocolate) recipe would call for fresh milk. Sour cream, yogurt
> and vinegar show up in chocolate cake recipes. Is it possible that the
> "add something acid to chocolate cake recipes for best flavor" rule is
> based on Dutch process cocoa?
>
>
> --Lia

Using acidic ingredients, again, allows for use of baking soda as a
leavener. Ingredients like buttermilk affect the manner in which the cake
rises, making for a more tender crumb, and a bit finer texture than recipes
without it. To substitute dutched cocoa for natural, add 1/8 tsp of acid
(cream of tarter, lemon juice, vinegar) for each 3 Tbsp of cocoa.
For better chocolate flavor in recipes calling for either cocoa, don't sift
it with the flour. Instead, warm a small amount of water or coffee and
combine it with the cocoa. Just remember to reduce the liquid in the recipe
to adjust for the liquid used.

kimberly
>

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:NcL8c.9698$JO3.16108@attbi_s04...
<snip>
>
> Now. If I want to avoid those maddeningly inconsistent results, is
> there some rule I should follow? I don't have a recipe in front of me,
> but say I was making cookies that call for baking powder and natural
> process cocoa. Would I need to add an acid to the recipe like sour
> cream or vinegar to make it work?

No, because dutched cocoa is used in recipes with baking powder. Natural is
generally paired with baking soda. In general you can sub the dutched cocoa
in any recipes that use baking powder. Dutched cocoa does not react with
baking soda, because it is alkalized. However if the leavening ingredient is
baking soda, you can still use the dutched cocoa if there is some other
acidic ingredient in the recipe, such as vinegar, buttermilk, soured milk,
etc.

>
>
> Something comes to mind. I never bake from a mix, but long ago I
> learned a tip in case I ever did. That was to substitute white wine for
> the water when making chocolate cake from a mix. Apparently, something
> acid is very good for bringing out the flavor of chocolate. I've
> noticed that many recipes call for cultured buttermilk where another
> (non-chocolate) recipe would call for fresh milk. Sour cream, yogurt
> and vinegar show up in chocolate cake recipes. Is it possible that the
> "add something acid to chocolate cake recipes for best flavor" rule is
> based on Dutch process cocoa?
>
>
> --Lia

Using acidic ingredients, again, allows for use of baking soda as a
leavener. Ingredients like buttermilk affect the manner in which the cake
rises, making for a more tender crumb, and a bit finer texture than recipes
without it. To substitute dutched cocoa for natural, add 1/8 tsp of acid
(cream of tarter, lemon juice, vinegar) for each 3 Tbsp of cocoa.
For better chocolate flavor in recipes calling for either cocoa, don't sift
it with the flour. Instead, warm a small amount of water or coffee and
combine it with the cocoa. Just remember to reduce the liquid in the recipe
to adjust for the liquid used.

kimberly
>

"Dan Levy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alex Rast" > wrote in message
> ...
> > All these subtleties are exactly that - subtle. Most of the time the
> impact
> > on a cake won't be large, so usually experimenting with a different type
> of
> > cocoa won't be disastrous.
>
> why would it have to be all one or the other for that matter? a mix of
dutch
> and regular cocoa may prove the optimal thing.


The reasons for using one or the other are chemical. One reacts to leaveners
that the other does not. You can make adjustments if you are in a pinch, but
for the best results, use what the recipe calls for.

kimberly
>
>

"Dan Levy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alex Rast" > wrote in message
> ...
> > All these subtleties are exactly that - subtle. Most of the time the
> impact
> > on a cake won't be large, so usually experimenting with a different type
> of
> > cocoa won't be disastrous.
>
> why would it have to be all one or the other for that matter? a mix of
dutch
> and regular cocoa may prove the optimal thing.


The reasons for using one or the other are chemical. One reacts to leaveners
that the other does not. You can make adjustments if you are in a pinch, but
for the best results, use what the recipe calls for.

kimberly
>
>

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:16:00 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:

>Alex Rast wrote:
>>
>> IMHO this is still really *cocoa* sorbet. Without actual chocolate,
>> including the cocoa butter, it doesn't really taste like chocolate - it
>> tastes like cocoa, which has a distinctly different flavour. If you make
>> your own chocolate ice cream at home, you're not at all limited by the
>> strictures that govern commercial ice cream manufacturers and you can make
>> chocolate ice cream that actually has an intense chocolate flavour.
>
>And do you have such a recipe? BTW, I always look forward to your
>posts--esp. when it comes to chocolate.

Here is a very nice chocolate ice cream recipe. It is adapted from the
recipe book of my Simac Gelataio ice cream maker. I use more chocolate
that the original calls for and bittersweet instead of semisweet. I
used Callebaut most recently

Boron

Custard base
1 cup whole milk
3/4 cup sugar
4 egg yolks
3 cups heavy cream

Heat the cream, milk and sugar in a heavy-bottomed saucepan, stirring
occasionally until the sugar is dissolved and the mixture is hot.
Place the egg yolks in a bowl and whisk briefly. Still whisking,
slowly pour in about 1 cup of the hot liquid. When the mixture is
smooth, slowly pour it into the liquid in the saucepan, whisking
constantly. Cook over medium heat, stirring constantly, until the
mixture thickens slightly and coats the back of a spoon, about 8
minutes. Be sure not let the mixture boil at any time or will curdle.
Strain into a clean bowl.
..

4 ounces bittersweet chocolate
1 ounce unsweetened chocolate
1 recipe Custard Ice Cream Base, warm

Melt the chocolate together in a saucepan over low heat, stirring
occasionally until smooth. Gradually add some of the ice cream base to
the chocolate, whisking it frequently to keep the chocolate smooth.

Add the remaining ice cream base and cook over low heat until the
mixture is well blended. cool thoroughly (I make this the night
before).

Pour the mixture into the bowl/dasher of the machine and freeze.
Makes 1 quart.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:16:00 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:

>Alex Rast wrote:
>>
>> IMHO this is still really *cocoa* sorbet. Without actual chocolate,
>> including the cocoa butter, it doesn't really taste like chocolate - it
>> tastes like cocoa, which has a distinctly different flavour. If you make
>> your own chocolate ice cream at home, you're not at all limited by the
>> strictures that govern commercial ice cream manufacturers and you can make
>> chocolate ice cream that actually has an intense chocolate flavour.
>
>And do you have such a recipe? BTW, I always look forward to your
>posts--esp. when it comes to chocolate.

Here is a very nice chocolate ice cream recipe. It is adapted from the
recipe book of my Simac Gelataio ice cream maker. I use more chocolate
that the original calls for and bittersweet instead of semisweet. I
used Callebaut most recently

Boron

Custard base
1 cup whole milk
3/4 cup sugar
4 egg yolks
3 cups heavy cream

Heat the cream, milk and sugar in a heavy-bottomed saucepan, stirring
occasionally until the sugar is dissolved and the mixture is hot.
Place the egg yolks in a bowl and whisk briefly. Still whisking,
slowly pour in about 1 cup of the hot liquid. When the mixture is
smooth, slowly pour it into the liquid in the saucepan, whisking
constantly. Cook over medium heat, stirring constantly, until the
mixture thickens slightly and coats the back of a spoon, about 8
minutes. Be sure not let the mixture boil at any time or will curdle.
Strain into a clean bowl.
..

4 ounces bittersweet chocolate
1 ounce unsweetened chocolate
1 recipe Custard Ice Cream Base, warm

Melt the chocolate together in a saucepan over low heat, stirring
occasionally until smooth. Gradually add some of the ice cream base to
the chocolate, whisking it frequently to keep the chocolate smooth.

Add the remaining ice cream base and cook over low heat until the
mixture is well blended. cool thoroughly (I make this the night
before).

Pour the mixture into the bowl/dasher of the machine and freeze.
Makes 1 quart.

"Jean B." > wrote in message ...
> Alex Rast wrote:
> >
> > IMHO this is still really *cocoa* sorbet. Without actual chocolate,
> > including the cocoa butter, it doesn't really taste like chocolate - it
> > tastes like cocoa, which has a distinctly different flavour. If you make
> > your own chocolate ice cream at home, you're not at all limited by the
> > strictures that govern commercial ice cream manufacturers and you can
make
> > chocolate ice cream that actually has an intense chocolate flavour.
>
> And do you have such a recipe? BTW, I always look forward to your
> posts--esp. when it comes to chocolate.
> --
> Jean B.

I know I'm not Alex, but for a truly intense chocolate experience, you
should try chocolate gelato. One of my favorite recipes!

Death by Chocolate Gelato


Ingredients:
2 cups fresh whole milk
5 egg yolks
3/4 cup granulated or superfine baker's sugar
2 tablespoons light corn syrup
4 ounces best quality bittersweet chocolate, chopped + 2 ounces finely
chopped
1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa, sifted(Dutched will blend easier and produce a
darker color)


Instructions:
Pour the milk into a medium-sized, heavy saucepan. Bring to a simmer over
medium-high heat. Remove from the heat and stir in cocoa powder. (Note: If
using natural cocoa, mix with a small amount of hot milk first, then whisk
into the remaining milk.)

In a metal bowl, whisk together the egg yolks, sugar and corn syrup until
blended. Form a kitchen towel into a ring and place the bowl on top to
prevent it from sliding around while you whisk. Gradually pour the hot milk
into the yolk mixture, whisking constantly. Return to the same saucepan and
place over medium-low heat. Cook, stirring slowly and continuously with a
wooden spoon or spatula, until the custard thickens and leaves a path on the
back of the spatula when a finger is drawn across it, about 6 minutes; do
not allow to boil.

Pour the custard through a medium-mesh sieve set over a clean metal bowl.
Add the chocolate and stir until the chocolate melts. Refrigerate until
cold, about 1 hour.

Transfer the custard to an ice cream maker and process according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
In the meantime, melt the additional 2 oz chocolate in a cup set in a pan of
hot water. Allow to cool some, but not set up. When gelato is nearly
finished, you're going to add the chocolate. While ice cream maker is still
churning, drizzle in the chocolate so that it flakes into the gelato,
distributing itself throughout.

For the best texture, serve the gelato immediately. Or transfer to a
container, cover and freeze until firm, at least 4 hours or for up to 3
days. (Note: Longer freezing results in a texture more like that of ice
cream, which is to say, harder.)

"Jean B." > wrote in message ...
> Alex Rast wrote:
> >
> > IMHO this is still really *cocoa* sorbet. Without actual chocolate,
> > including the cocoa butter, it doesn't really taste like chocolate - it
> > tastes like cocoa, which has a distinctly different flavour. If you make
> > your own chocolate ice cream at home, you're not at all limited by the
> > strictures that govern commercial ice cream manufacturers and you can
make
> > chocolate ice cream that actually has an intense chocolate flavour.
>
> And do you have such a recipe? BTW, I always look forward to your
> posts--esp. when it comes to chocolate.
> --
> Jean B.

I know I'm not Alex, but for a truly intense chocolate experience, you
should try chocolate gelato. One of my favorite recipes!

Death by Chocolate Gelato


Ingredients:
2 cups fresh whole milk
5 egg yolks
3/4 cup granulated or superfine baker's sugar
2 tablespoons light corn syrup
4 ounces best quality bittersweet chocolate, chopped + 2 ounces finely
chopped
1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa, sifted(Dutched will blend easier and produce a
darker color)


Instructions:
Pour the milk into a medium-sized, heavy saucepan. Bring to a simmer over
medium-high heat. Remove from the heat and stir in cocoa powder. (Note: If
using natural cocoa, mix with a small amount of hot milk first, then whisk
into the remaining milk.)

In a metal bowl, whisk together the egg yolks, sugar and corn syrup until
blended. Form a kitchen towel into a ring and place the bowl on top to
prevent it from sliding around while you whisk. Gradually pour the hot milk
into the yolk mixture, whisking constantly. Return to the same saucepan and
place over medium-low heat. Cook, stirring slowly and continuously with a
wooden spoon or spatula, until the custard thickens and leaves a path on the
back of the spatula when a finger is drawn across it, about 6 minutes; do
not allow to boil.

Pour the custard through a medium-mesh sieve set over a clean metal bowl.
Add the chocolate and stir until the chocolate melts. Refrigerate until
cold, about 1 hour.

Transfer the custard to an ice cream maker and process according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
In the meantime, melt the additional 2 oz chocolate in a cup set in a pan of
hot water. Allow to cool some, but not set up. When gelato is nearly
finished, you're going to add the chocolate. While ice cream maker is still
churning, drizzle in the chocolate so that it flakes into the gelato,
distributing itself throughout.

For the best texture, serve the gelato immediately. Or transfer to a
container, cover and freeze until firm, at least 4 hours or for up to 3
days. (Note: Longer freezing results in a texture more like that of ice
cream, which is to say, harder.)