All Cocoa Is Not Created Equal
 

I've been looking at the FAQ for this newsgroup, and decided
(surprise, Victor!) to see if I could gather some information for the
chocolate substitutions section. I found out that, according to our
governments, what people in the US call cocoa powder and what people
in the UK call cocoa powder are two different things. I haven't
looked at other countries' standards, because my brains already hurt.

The UK's "cocoa" has at least 20% cocoa butter. The US's "cocoa" has
between 10% and 21% cocoa butter. Is this a meaningful difference
when baking is concerned? If so, what correction would give accurate
results when preparing a recipe from one country with a product from
the other?

(US) [cocoa] less than 22% cacao fat, but not less than 10% cacao fat
(UK) [fat-reduced cocoa] less than 20% cocoa butter

(US) [breakfast cocoa] not less than 22% cacao fat
(UK) [cocoa] not less than 20% cocoa butter

I've never heard of breakfast cocoa before, BTW.

Thanks,
Carol

All Cocoa Is Not Created Equal
 

"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
...
> I've been looking at the FAQ for this newsgroup, and decided
> (surprise, Victor!) to see if I could gather some information for the
> chocolate substitutions section. I found out that, according to our
> governments, what people in the US call cocoa powder and what people
> in the UK call cocoa powder are two different things. I haven't
> looked at other countries' standards, because my brains already hurt.
>
> The UK's "cocoa" has at least 20% cocoa butter. The US's "cocoa" has
> between 10% and 21% cocoa butter. Is this a meaningful difference
> when baking is concerned? If so, what correction would give accurate
> results when preparing a recipe from one country with a product from
> the other?
>
> (US) [cocoa] less than 22% cacao fat, but not less than 10% cacao fat
> (UK) [fat-reduced cocoa] less than 20% cocoa butter
>
> (US) [breakfast cocoa] not less than 22% cacao fat
> (UK) [cocoa] not less than 20% cocoa butter
>
> I've never heard of breakfast cocoa before, BTW.
>
> Thanks,
> Carol

Do you think they might be talking about the Dutch process cocoa compared
to, um, whatever the non-Dutch process is called?

"Breakfast cocoa" makes me think of chocolate drink mixes, but that can't be
it, can it?

The whole cocoa thing confuses me, anyway, without adding in UK versions.
The last time I was looking for the stuff, I accidentally bought some that
was cocoa with ground chocolate in it. I don't know what that was about, but
it didn't do the recipe any good, whatever the heck I was making.

Good luck figuring it out.

Donna

All Cocoa Is Not Created Equal
 

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:58:21 -0600, "D.Currie"
> wrote:

>Do you think they might be talking about the Dutch process cocoa compared
>to, um, whatever the non-Dutch process is called?

No, Dutch-process adds alkalinity to the cocoa.

>"Breakfast cocoa" makes me think of chocolate drink mixes, but that can't be
>it, can it?

Nope. According to the US Government, breakfast cocoa is a high-fat
cocoa powder, and what is normally referred to merely as cocoa is a
middle-fat version.

This is gonna be fun!
Carol

All Cocoa Is Not Created Equal
 

I love Fry's Cocoa. When I visit Canadian relatives. I always go to the
grocery store to get some.

Debbie in Indiana


"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
...
> I've been looking at the FAQ for this newsgroup, and decided
> (surprise, Victor!) to see if I could gather some information for the
> chocolate substitutions section. I found out that, according to our
> governments, what people in the US call cocoa powder and what people
> in the UK call cocoa powder are two different things. I haven't
> looked at other countries' standards, because my brains already hurt.
>
> The UK's "cocoa" has at least 20% cocoa butter. The US's "cocoa" has
> between 10% and 21% cocoa butter. Is this a meaningful difference
> when baking is concerned? If so, what correction would give accurate
> results when preparing a recipe from one country with a product from
> the other?
>
> (US) [cocoa] less than 22% cacao fat, but not less than 10% cacao fat
> (UK) [fat-reduced cocoa] less than 20% cocoa butter
>
> (US) [breakfast cocoa] not less than 22% cacao fat
> (UK) [cocoa] not less than 20% cocoa butter
>
> I've never heard of breakfast cocoa before, BTW.
>
> Thanks,
> Carol

All Cocoa Is Not Created Equal
 

at Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:36:20 GMT in <4t1gb29u7add195qgdnbfvtmd9p90qjsji@
4ax.com>, (Damsel in dis Dress) wrote :

>I've been looking at the FAQ for this newsgroup, and decided
>(surprise, Victor!) to see if I could gather some information for the
>chocolate substitutions section. I found out that, according to our
>governments, what people in the US call cocoa powder and what people
>in the UK call cocoa powder are two different things. I haven't
>looked at other countries' standards, because my brains already hurt.
>
>The UK's "cocoa" has at least 20% cocoa butter. The US's "cocoa" has
>between 10% and 21% cocoa butter. Is this a meaningful difference
>when baking is concerned? If so, what correction would give accurate
>results when preparing a recipe from one country with a product from
>the other?
>
>(US) [cocoa] less than 22% cacao fat, but not less than 10% cacao fat
>(UK) [fat-reduced cocoa] less than 20% cocoa butter
>
>(US) [breakfast cocoa] not less than 22% cacao fat
>(UK) [cocoa] not less than 20% cocoa butter
>

It's actually the cocoa manufacturers who for the most part set standards
of cocoa processing. Government regulations don't intrude that much. There
are actually only 2 common fat ranges in cocoa processing - high-fat,
between 20 and 22% cocoa butter, and low-fat, between 9 and 10%. The US
system may have a "standard" called "breakfast cocoa" but you never see it
in actual practice because the cocoa processors target their high-fat
process for the 20-22% range.

High-fat cocoa has considerably more flavour, in general, and its flavour
is rounder and fuller, as opposed to the thin, generally somewhat flat,
flavour of low-fat cocoa. The principal benefit of low-fat cocoa is its
ease in mixing with low-fat ingredients, e.g. milk (especially if it's low-
fat milk). This may play into a few baking recipes but in general isn't
going to mean much - the main impact being if you make cocoa drinks where
the low-fat version requires less pre-mixing and stirring.

Visually, a high-fat cocoa also has a more saturated colour, very dark in
the case of Dutch process, usually very red in the case of natural process
(more on that in a minute). A low-fat cocoa leans towards grey in colour,
often looking much like dust.

Most of the common U.S. brands - e.g. Hershey's, Ghirardelli, etc... are
high-fat cocoa, and as an aside most of them are natural-process. In an odd
quirk, though, most *organic* brands in the USA - e.g. Dagoba, Rapunzel,
etc... are low-fat cocoa. In Europe, you find more variability. A fair
number of cocoas are Dutch-processed: this is particularly commonplace of
Continental manufacturers. One finds both low-fat and high-fat types. So
for instance in France Valrhona is Dutch-processed, high-fat, while
competitors Cluizel have both high-fat and low-fat cocoas available, both
of which are non-Dutched. In Britain, it's more common for cocoa to be
high-fat and non-Dutched.

Overall, when it comes to substitutions, the bigger difference tends to be
between Dutched and natural-process. Dutch process is treated with alkali
(potassium carbonate) which improves solubility in liquid and cuts down on
bitterness, at the expense of flavour intensity. It's deceptive because
Dutch processed cocoa always has a darker colour, almost black, once
incorporated into something but less flavour. Some recipes, such as Devil's
Food cake, rely on the acidity of natural-process cocoa in order to produce
leavening effects, and thus it is critical to use natural-process for these
cases. Other recipes need Dutch process for the solubility, in order to
reduce lumps, and sometimes for the dark colour. Oreo cookies are a good
example, btw, of the colour contrast - that black-and-white look wouldn't
happen were they to use natural-process cocoa, which would give a less-
dramatic clay-red and white combo.

In drinks, as you can see, the differences are pretty strong - and a low-
fat, Dutch-process cocoa should need minimal pre-mixing, while a high-fat,
natural-process cocoa will likely first need to have a small amount of
liquid mixed in to form a paste, then the rest incorporated. This may also
be a factor with a few low-density cakes like genoise, with a high liquid
proportion, where high-fat cocoa often causes lumping when the egg foam is
folded into the flour mix, resulting in either a poorly mixed genoise or
one that is flat and leaden because too many folding strokes were necessary
to eliminate lumps. Apart from those special cases, you can interchange
freely. But again, in the USA, if you're buying standard, off-the-shelf
brands, expect the cocoa therein to be high-fat. If you're buying organic
brands, expect low-fat. You can always check the "Nutrition Facts" label to
determine which type it is, too - just by comparing portion size against
fat grams.

--
Alex Rast

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

All Cocoa Is Not Created Equal
 

Alex Rast wrote:
> at Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:36:20 GMT in <4t1gb29u7add195qgdnbfvtmd9p90qjsji@
> 4ax.com>, (Damsel in dis Dress) wrote :
>
> >I've been looking at the FAQ for this newsgroup, and decided
> >(surprise, Victor!) to see if I could gather some information for the
> >chocolate substitutions section. I found out that, according to our
> >governments, what people in the US call cocoa powder and what people
> >in the UK call cocoa powder are two different things. I haven't
> >looked at other countries' standards, because my brains already hurt.
> >
> >The UK's "cocoa" has at least 20% cocoa butter. The US's "cocoa" has
> >between 10% and 21% cocoa butter. Is this a meaningful difference
> >when baking is concerned? If so, what correction would give accurate
> >results when preparing a recipe from one country with a product from
> >the other?
> >
> >(US) [cocoa] less than 22% cacao fat, but not less than 10% cacao fat
> >(UK) [fat-reduced cocoa] less than 20% cocoa butter
> >
> >(US) [breakfast cocoa] not less than 22% cacao fat
> >(UK) [cocoa] not less than 20% cocoa butter
> >
>
> It's actually the cocoa manufacturers who for the most part set standards
> of cocoa processing. Government regulations don't intrude that much. There
> are actually only 2 common fat ranges in cocoa processing - high-fat,
> between 20 and 22% cocoa butter, and low-fat, between 9 and 10%. The US
> system may have a "standard" called "breakfast cocoa" but you never see it
> in actual practice because the cocoa processors target their high-fat
> process for the 20-22% range.
>
> High-fat cocoa has considerably more flavour, in general, and its flavour
> is rounder and fuller, as opposed to the thin, generally somewhat flat,
> flavour of low-fat cocoa. The principal benefit of low-fat cocoa is its
> ease in mixing with low-fat ingredients, e.g. milk (especially if it's low-
> fat milk). This may play into a few baking recipes but in general isn't
> going to mean much - the main impact being if you make cocoa drinks where
> the low-fat version requires less pre-mixing and stirring.
>
> Visually, a high-fat cocoa also has a more saturated colour, very dark in
> the case of Dutch process, usually very red in the case of natural process
> (more on that in a minute). A low-fat cocoa leans towards grey in colour,
> often looking much like dust.
>
> Most of the common U.S. brands - e.g. Hershey's, Ghirardelli, etc... are
> high-fat cocoa, and as an aside most of them are natural-process. In an odd
> quirk, though, most *organic* brands in the USA - e.g. Dagoba, Rapunzel,
> etc... are low-fat cocoa. In Europe, you find more variability. A fair
> number of cocoas are Dutch-processed: this is particularly commonplace of
> Continental manufacturers. One finds both low-fat and high-fat types. So
> for instance in France Valrhona is Dutch-processed, high-fat, while
> competitors Cluizel have both high-fat and low-fat cocoas available, both
> of which are non-Dutched. In Britain, it's more common for cocoa to be
> high-fat and non-Dutched.
>
> Overall, when it comes to substitutions, the bigger difference tends to be
> between Dutched and natural-process. Dutch process is treated with alkali
> (potassium carbonate) which improves solubility in liquid and cuts down on
> bitterness, at the expense of flavour intensity. It's deceptive because
> Dutch processed cocoa always has a darker colour, almost black, once
> incorporated into something but less flavour. Some recipes, such as Devil's
> Food cake, rely on the acidity of natural-process cocoa in order to produce
> leavening effects, and thus it is critical to use natural-process for these
> cases. Other recipes need Dutch process for the solubility, in order to
> reduce lumps, and sometimes for the dark colour. Oreo cookies are a good
> example, btw, of the colour contrast - that black-and-white look wouldn't
> happen were they to use natural-process cocoa, which would give a less-
> dramatic clay-red and white combo.
>
> In drinks, as you can see, the differences are pretty strong - and a low-
> fat, Dutch-process cocoa should need minimal pre-mixing, while a high-fat,
> natural-process cocoa will likely first need to have a small amount of
> liquid mixed in to form a paste, then the rest incorporated. This may also
> be a factor with a few low-density cakes like genoise, with a high liquid
> proportion, where high-fat cocoa often causes lumping when the egg foam is
> folded into the flour mix, resulting in either a poorly mixed genoise or
> one that is flat and leaden because too many folding strokes were necessary
> to eliminate lumps. Apart from those special cases, you can interchange
> freely. But again, in the USA, if you're buying standard, off-the-shelf
> brands, expect the cocoa therein to be high-fat. If you're buying organic
> brands, expect low-fat. You can always check the "Nutrition Facts" label to
> determine which type it is, too - just by comparing portion size against
> fat grams.
>
> --
> Alex Rast
>
> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)


Interesting, cheers.

All Cocoa Is Not Created Equal
 

at Tue, 18 Jul 2006 04:20:06 GMT in
>,
(Damsel in dis Dress) wrote :

....
>
>Alex, may I write to you about this?

No problem. Please do.

>
>Carol
>


--
Alex Rast

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