Forum Activity for @Clay

Demise of Joseph Schmidt Brand?!!

Posted in: News & New Product Press (Read-Only)

Everyone:I started a discussion on this topic a couple of days ago here. I am closing this topic to replies, so please share your comments there.

Mixed News From Hershey: Recession is Good - Closing Plants

Posted in: News & New Product Press (Read-Only)

There is historical precedent for this. In the first third of the 20th century hundreds of small chocolate makers, chocolatiers, and candy makers were bought out and closed down - deliberately to eliminate competition - by the Hershey, et al. I don't think that was the case with these three, however.I am sure that all of the people who reaped the rewards of the buyout packages (like Mr Schmidt in Gwen's comment below) have mixed feelings. They are sad to see the companies they worked so hard to build falter or fold. On the other hand, they have been rewarded well and the companies' current difficulties are no fault of their own.Personally, I would have liked to see Schmidt offer to buy back the company for 10% of what Hershey paid for it and continue it for what it is: a strong local player that was never strong enough to go national on the scale that Hershey, as a public company, needed it to be.
updated by @Clay Gordon: 06/10/15 06:14:18

Mixed News From Hershey: Recession is Good - Closing Plants

Posted in: News & New Product Press (Read-Only)

Cybele:One of the things that I had hoped would happen with the expiration of John's and Robert's contracts would be more transparency about the history of Scharffen Berger. Here's what I "know" from piecing things together from many sources. It many not be 100% accurate but in general it checks out.In the very beginning, John and Robert approached Guittard to produce chocolate for them and, in fact, the earliest SB chocolate was produced by Guittard. Very quickly, Guittard backed away from the business, I think for several reasons, including they did want to create their own competitor, and people were heaping praises on the SB chocolate that they never heaped on Guittard.Guittard really missed the boat here. By not entering the market aggressively after giving up the SB business, they let SB determine what "good" chocolate tasted like. I think that this has overall been a bad thing for the artisan chocolate maker business here in the US because there are more flavors in chocolate than red fruit and most SB chocolate (to my taste) has a pronounced acidic red fruit bias. This bias is not surprising given John's background as a champagne blender for Veuve Clicquot.If you study carefully the plant in SF, it becomes very evident very quickly that the numbers don't match up. There is no way SB can produce the amount of finished chocolate they needed to reach the sales numbers they were quoting. In particular, the reliance on a single small (250kg) melangeur and two small (1tonne) conches tell the real story of their production capacity.You will also notice that there is no cocoa butter press, so they were buying both butter and powder, and there was no filling machinery, so someone else was packaging their powder and nibs. Also missing was any wrapping machinery, so the vast majority of that was outsourced as well.As near as I can tell, the only products reliably produced from bean to bar in the SB factory were the limited edition bars. The entire plant is geared towards that production, from my perspective.I did have a long talk with John about production capacity about 8 months before the Hershey announcement. From that talk I gleaned a couple of nuggets:The capacity of the plant, running a single shift, five days a week, was about 20 tonnes of LIQUOR. SB shipped this liquor to others to finish. Among these other companies was Blommer, an industrial manufacturer. In particular John told me that they searched long and hard for the milk used in their first milk chocolate bar. Because the SB Berkeley plant is certified kosher pareve there is no way the milk product was being made there.If you taste the SB milk chocolate against most European milks, and even the Guittard Orinoco, you'll notice that the SB milk has a distinct sour taste that mirrors the taste of Hershey milk. It is my conclusion that the milk chocolate was a deliberate attempt to update and upmarket a "grown-up" version of plain old Hershey milk chocolate.As far as the factory closing is concerned. Hershey is a public company that is under pressure to perform up to analysts' expectations. Hershey has an army of accountants and others who analyze all of the (money) variables around decisions to move production and close plants. The decision to move production from Berkeley to Illinois instead of keeping it in Berkeley or moving it to another Hershey facility nearby was made as a result of examining hundreds of different factors. In the end, the one that was "cheapest" in the long run is the one they went with.Of course, straight financial decisions like these never take into account that intangible known as "good will." Examined from that perspective, the decisions to close down and move may cause irreparable damage to the brands. And not just SB, but Schmidt (which is being shuttered entirely) and Dagoba as well as the Artisan Confections brand. This is a disastrous move for Hershey and a lesson for the entire artisan chocolate industry.When I learned about Hershey's acquisitions I opined that they were good for the industry because they were an indication that if someone built a thriving business that there was an exit strategy. These moves indicate the downside of giving up control - the potential to completely destroy a business that took years (decades in the case of Schmidt) to grow.PS. Ironically, two days after the news I received an envelope with two new SB bars. A 68% milk (that high because it contains nibs) and a new Brazilian origin bar.

Mixed News From Hershey: Recession is Good - Closing Plants

Posted in: News & New Product Press (Read-Only)

Heres another opinion from me . (not that its worth anything): Ill bet that in 5 years there will be dozens of small bean-to-bar manufacturers of very, very good chocolate. Some will supply high end pastry chefs, some will sell retail over the internet and from their specialty shops and some will process their country of origin chocolates into artesian confections for sale over the counter in their store front shops. How could there be such a radical change in a stodgy old industry as bulk chocolate processing?

I agree that there is an untapped market for small, local, artisan chocolate makers. Few of these will provide couverture as it takes a great deal of skill to make chocolate with consistent workability.Why is this happening? People are becoming more interested in supporting local food businesses, people are interested in knowing more about the food they eat, people are more interested in origins, people are more interested in experimenting, people are interested in sharing experiences.Why do brew-pubs exist when there are all these big breweries? The big breweries obviously don't meet some needs. Same with chocolate.However - and this I caution everyone who wants to start making chocolate to sell - comparing chocolate making with roasting coffee, or brewing beer or making wine doesn't work. The processes are very different.Three things are holding up the movement:1) Educational infrastructure2) Easy access to small-scale equipment3) Easy access to quality beansI am working an all three and it's taking a lot longer than I thought to put things into place.

Mixed News From Hershey: Recession is Good - Closing Plants

Posted in: News & New Product Press (Read-Only)

The following was posted by Truffles in a discussion about the Demise of the Joseph Schmidt Brand. Because I had already started this discussion I closed that one to further comments, asking people to reply here. Here is Truffles' post:

I saw the news that Hershey's was closing the San Francisco chocolate manufacturing of Scharffen Berger and Joseph Schmidt chocolates.Scharffen Berger manufacturing is being moved to Hershey's revamped Illinois plant. But no news on what's happening with Joseph Schmidt.I just spoke with a wholesale customer service representative at Joseph Schmidt and she said that the employees were just told today that the Joseph Schmidt brand was being discontinued by Hershey's and all production will stop by summer 2009.I'm so sad about this news. Joseph Schmidt is a strong brand name and made good truffles at a reasonable price point. Yes, there are other artisan chocolatiers and truffles that are superior, but Joseph Schmidt was really good for the price.Why would Hershey's kill off the brand?

Mixed News From Hershey: Recession is Good - Closing Plants

Posted in: News & New Product Press (Read-Only)

Today, the Hershey company announced in an article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that their "Profits Jumped 51% Amid Signs Consumers Are Trading Down but Not Giving Up Chocolate."However, yesterday in an announcement reported in the San Francisco Gate that shocked many who live in the San Francisco Bay Area it was revealed that Hershey is planning to shutter BOTH the Scharffen Berger plant in Berkeley and the Joseph Schmidt plant in San Francisco.From the article:

Hershey already makes the majority of its Scharffen Berger products in its newly upgraded plant in Robinson, Ill., said spokesman Kirk Saville from the chocolate giant's headquarters in Hershey, Pa. He said the plant closures will affect a total of about 150 employees from both facilities. Saville said Hershey intends to maintain the quality of the brands, which make up the company's wholly owned subsidiary, Artisan Confections Co."We will continue to source the world's best cacao to create our rich and distinct chocolate," he said. "We will maintain the highest quality standard for all our artisan productions."That provided little solace to Bay Area fans of the chocolate-makers. Both brands have created a strong legacy and helped increased the popularity of high-end, gourmet chocolates around the country.

What say you? Is this the beginning of the end for Artisan Confections Company brands? And what are your thoughts about how they are doing maintaining the quality of the brands?From the Wall Street Journal article:

But, as with coffee, eating out, and apparel, the recession has consumers trading down with chocolate. Supermarket sales in the premium chocolate category in the fourth quarter were flat versus last year, Hershey Chief Executive David West told analysts Tuesday.Mr. West said he expects that to continue, adding that manufacturers have been making premium chocolates faster than consumers have been buying them and that retailers probably will devote less shelf space to them.High-end chocolatiers have noticed. Katrina Markoff, president and founder of Chicago-based Vosges Haut-Chocolat, said sales slowed in the fourth quarter. People aren't splurging on offerings that cost $100 and up, she said, although sales of products in the $25-to-$50 range are growing.Last Valentine's Day, she said, people spent an average of $75 to $80 on online orders; she thinks they will spend an average of just $50 this year. "People still want to have a little taste of luxury and decadence," she said.At a Fannie May chocolate counter Tuesday in downtown Chicago, accountant Karen Martin said the recession hasn't dimmed her taste for chocolate -- but she is cutting back on price."I still indulge but not on huge items," she said. "When I want a really nice treat, I go out and buy it. It's like $2 -- maybe." Even thriftier, her friend Nora Wideikies snapped up four Santa Claus chocolates on sale for a dollar.However, Jim Goldman, chief executive of Yildiz Holding's Godiva Chocolatier Inc., said he expects sales to grow. "One of our best-selling products this holiday season was the 'Ultimate Collection,' a $130 offering of the best of Godiva truffles, chocolate and biscuits," Mr. Goldman said in an interview. Lower-priced items also sold well during the winter holidays, and he said he expects strong Valentine sales.Swiss chocolate maker Lindt & Sprngli AG, maker of premium Lindt chocolates, reported a 5.8% sales increase in 2008, saying that was at the low end of its long-term goal of 6% to 8% annual sales growth."Considering the market conditions, this result is encouraging," the company said last week in a news release.

updated by @Clay Gordon: 12/13/24 12:16:07

measuring cocoa question

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

DIAA:Actually you're not being a jerk, but if I read the question correctly, Rosalind wants to know how to measure 900 milligrams of cocoa powder - or 9/10 or 0.9 grams. That's a very good question. A scale is the way - the question is finding a scale that can accurately measure this quantity.Which turns out to be not all that difficult and they are surprisingly inexpensive. Here's one with a 55gr capacity and a .01(one one-hundredth)gr resolution.So what I want to know Rosalind is if you really do need to measure 900 milligrams I am very curious about the recipe that requires this kind of precision.:: Clay

This just in: Scharffen Berger Baking Chunks Press Release

Posted in: News & New Product Press (Read-Only)

NEW FROM SCHARFFEN BERGER CHOCOLATE MAKER: ARTISAN CHOCOLATE CHUNKS ESPECIALLY FOR THE HOME BAKERBERKELEY, CA, January 13, 2009 Scharffen Berger Chocolate Maker, one of the first US artisan "bean to bar" chocolate maker founded in fifty years, introduces a line of premium dark chocolate Baking Chunks produced especially for the home baker.Available in Scharffen Berger's classic 62% cacao semisweet chocolate and 70% cacao bittersweet chocolate, these chunks will allow chefs everywhere to use Scharffen Berger's flavorful premium chocolate in cookies, brownies and breads. Packaged in a convenient 6-ounce pouch, Scharffen Berger's Baking Chunks are one of the only super premium chocolate chunks currently on the market for non-professional use. Their large size and shape make them especially flavorful in baked goods.Each pouch features an exclusive chocolate chunk cookie recipe created by cookbook author and celebrity chef, Jacques Pepin. "I love to work with Scharffen Berger chocolate because it has such intensity," says Pepin. "The Baking Chunks are particularly exciting as they bring that wonderful rich Scharffen Berger flavor to cookies and brownies, making them extraordinary."
updated by @Clay Gordon: 12/13/24 12:16:07

open book accounting

Posted in: Opinion

Sarah:This is a very good question and I will ask Shawn to join TheChocolateLife and comment on his take. Before then, however, Shawn tells me that he uses this accounting practice in all aspects of his business, not just with growers.In fact, Shawn practices it weekly in his factory. Everyone in the company meets and they learn about where the company stands, financially. This helps them better understand some of the decisions that get made, and it also shows everyone how their actions affect the company's finances. People can see the direct effect their jobs have on the bottom line. Shawn told me that knowing this information makes his employees more responsible workers with more of a stake in the business.In fact, you may wish to look up A Stake in the Outcome by Jack Stack, a business philosophy book that inspired some of Shawn's thinking.

WSJ: Premium Chocolate Holds Steady in Tough Economy

Posted in: News & New Product Press (Read-Only)

There was an interesting article in the NYTimes or WSJ in the last week or so that indicates that while overall alcohol sales have not dropped what's happened is that instead of buying one $200 bottle people are buying six $35 bottles. An article on wine auctions in today's NYTimes corroborates that prices at the high end are well off their highs and it's time to go bargain hunting (comparatively speaking and if you (still) have the money for it).The market research company Packaged Facts puts out a research report on the chocolate industry penned by ChocolateLife member Curtis Vreeland. That report is the source of the market segmentation I and many other people use:Mass Market : up to $15/lb retail.The Premium Market is everything over $15/lb and it is segmented in three distinct markets:1) Mass Market Premium - $15-25/lb2) Gourmet - $25- $40/lb3) Prestige - > $40/lbI think that this is not fine enough any more and there needs to be a $40-$70 range and a $70+ range (Luxury).You might try what I did for a while which is to aggregate orders. Tell everyone you'll special order the Hannah for a minimum number of pieces but you won't place the order until you've got enough orders to meet the minimum. Contact them when you place the order and then again when it arrives. Sure it's high touch but that's one of the things that really generates customer loyalty.

WSJ: Premium Chocolate Holds Steady in Tough Economy

Posted in: News & New Product Press (Read-Only)

More-Selective Consumers Make Each Morsel Count With Emphasis on Ingredient Sourcing and Artisanal ProductionBy HOLLY HENSCHEN

Even in a recession, frugal consumers shell out cash for popular premium chocolate, but the variety they purchase depends on its value, quality and manufacturer. Analysts said trendy, pricier premium cocoa varieties promote chocolate consumption growth. Throngs of products from smaller specialty as well as major chocolate manufacturers line store shelves. But consumers are buying the sweets less often and more discriminatively as household incomes contract with the U.S. recession and world economic crisis.

The text of the full article is here .I don't agree with everything the article says:

Large chocolate manufacturers Barry Callebaut and Hershey Co. delved into the premium chocolate realm previously occupied primarily by smaller-scale specialty manufacturers. In 2008, Mars Inc.'s Mars Snackfood US introduced M&Ms Premiums in flavors such as mint chocolate and raspberry almond, as well as dark chocolate varieties.

It's just too weird to seriously consider M&Ms - whatever flavor - a premium chocolate product.
updated by @Clay Gordon: 12/13/24 12:16:07

Is chocolate a part of the traditional Mediterranean diet?

Posted in: History of Chocolate

You can do some research on what was eaten during the period before the 1950-1960 period, albeit unscientifically, by taking a look at the cookbooks of the time and relating that to contemporary written records that talk about meals, etc.And/or you can qualify your terminology by saying that the "traditional" diet is actually a very modern, post-WWII, artifact. When I think of culturally-based food traditions I think back several centuries, not several decades.

Is chocolate a part of the traditional Mediterranean diet?

Posted in: History of Chocolate

Steve:Many of what are thought of as the traditional components of the Mediterranean diet pre-date the 1900s and in fact can be traced back hundreds if not thousands of years.Taking that as the starting point, chocolate can not possibly be a part of the "traditional" Mediterranean diet because cacao did not make it to Europe until the late 1500s and did not spread much beyond Spain and its holdings until the mid-1600s or thereabouts. Other staples of the "traditional" Mediterranean diet are also relative newcomers, lycopene-rich tomatoes for example, are also a New World food and would not have been a part of any European's diet until at least the mid-1500s if not later.It is important to keep in mind that until at least the 1840s (and really more like the 1870s in Europe and the 1890s in the US) chocolate was not readily affordable by the general population as well as the fact that during cacao's early history in Europe, physicians strove to fit cocoa and chocolate into the prevailing medical canon, based on Galen's "humors." Was chocolate hot, cold, wet, or dry? Simultaneously it was hailed as a miracle cure-all as well as to be avoided at all costs. (The True History of Chocolate by Sophie and Michael Coe has quite a bit to say on this subject.) So there was a lot of confusion about whether cacao was healthy or not (remember, tomatoes at one time were considered deadly poisonous).Given all of the above, I would have to say that neither dark nor milk chocolate can be considered to be a part of the "traditional" Mediterranean diet but that dark chocolate (e.g., chocolate without any dairy protein or fats) does - in moderation - deserve a place in the "modern traditional Mediterranean diet." (NOTE: I am not a doctor and this does not constitute medical advice. It's merely my opinion based on meta-analysis reading lots of papers on the subject. Check with your physician first. YMMV.) Coincidentally, there is a very interesting article in today's (January 13, 2009) New York Times Science Section, the Personal Health column by Jane Brody titled New Thinking on How to Protect the Heart . The article confirms the value of the Mediterranean diet with a twist:The traditional Mediterranean diet is NOT low-fat, it's the type of fats that are consumed that are important. Reducing saturated fats (fats that are solid at room temperature) and replacing them with fats from fish, olives, nuts, seeds, and certain vegetables is one of the key beneficial elements of the diet.Technically, cocoa butter is a saturated fat. However, the molecular structure of cocoa butter is such that it is metabolized by the body as if it were unsaturated. Several studies have confirmed that the consumption of cocoa butter does not contribute to elevated serum cholesterol levels.As many may now, cholesterol is not a single number. There is LDL (low-density lipoprotein - bad) and HDL (high-density lipoprotein - good) to consider (not to mention VLDL (very low density-) and IDL (intermediate density-) but I just did) and it is not just the relationship between these but also the ratio between these and blood triglyceride levels. "Good" fats such as olive oil and cocoa butter work to reduce LDL, increase HDL (which transports cholesterol back to the liver for processing), and improves the ratio between these and triglycerides. While I am not an expert in the area, one of the effects appears to be that they also somehow reduce inflammation as well as affect blood's ability to coagulate.CRP (or C-Reactive Protein) is apparently a better indicator of risk than absolute levels of LDL or HDL.

Is like or dislike for dark chocolate genetically determined?

Posted in: Tasting Notes

Steve:You are on to something here. From what I have read, bitterness receptors in the mouth develop over time: as children we don't have them (or not many of them) and it is not until we hit puberty that they start to develop, and we start to develop a taste for bitter foods.Something similar happens with Brussels sprouts, broccoli, etc. People who are missing a receptor or enzyme in the tongue generally don't like a class of foods; without the enzyme or receptor these foods taste nasty. For example, as a kid if you don't like Brussels sprouts it's highly likely that you won't like other cruciferous veggies: cabbage, collard greens, broccoli, kohlrabi, kale, etc. As their bodies mature, many people develop the receptors or the enzyme and find that foods they have long found they have never liked can actually taste good.One thing I suggest you try in getting your family over the hump so to speak is to take a look at some very high cocoa content milk chocolates. Bonnat makes three milks with 65% cocoa content. They deliver the intensity of chocolate flavor we expect in a dark chocolate and the creaminess we expect in a milk - and they tend to be less sweet than dark chocolates of the same percentage because the milk replaces some of the sugar.

FAIR TRADE AND ORGANIC CERTIFICATION FROM THE EYES OF A PRODUCER

Posted in: Opinion

Alan:There are a number of statistics about fine flavor cocoa production but if you do the math yourself you'll see that - at the commodity level as not all sales to small producers are reported - fine flavor cocoa runs to less than 10% of production (which would be around 300,000 tonnes of beans). Other stats I've seen put it closer to 3% which is probably closer when you consider blending which often happens in the country of original when buyers purchase from multiple growers and mix them together to dry on their patios.Also - and here's a real fun one, does unfermented 100% Nacional out of Ecuador count as fine flavor cocao? From a genetics perspective yes, from a post-harvest processing quality perspective? In my opinion no.Bean genetics is only one part of the fine flavor equation, which is why I tend to agree with the 3% number.:: Clay:: Clay

FAIR TRADE AND ORGANIC CERTIFICATION FROM THE EYES OF A PRODUCER

Posted in: Opinion

Here's to Fair Trade for chocolate makers, too.

FAIR TRADE AND ORGANIC CERTIFICATION FROM THE EYES OF A PRODUCER

Posted in: Opinion

Duffy:This is an interesting idea, but you need to take it a step further, which is how does the benefit the farmer in Ghana - or wherever? It's easier to see how a system like the one you outline above works where everyone has electricity, Internet access, and computers, but that covers only a very small fraction of all the cacao farmers in the world.In the end, money and/or goods have to change hands and there has to be a mechanism for reliably getting the benefits to the farmers. As I mention in the comment on my experience in Venezuela, there are many cultural challenges to overcome and they will vary from country to country and region to region. You also have to keep in mind that farmers have heard it all before and are tired of promises that never get kept. There's a lot of well-deserved mistrust out there.About two years ago I started noodling around with what I thought of as a "Direct Trade" certification using a group I created - the New World Chocolate Society - as the vehicle. I did get a bit of interest from several quarters but I was not able to figure out how to finance the effort to get it started. [One thing people may not know about Fair Trade (as in FLO - the Fair Trade Labeling organization) is that it is not (or has not been at least was not until recently) self-sustaining. In other words it did not cover its overhead costs through licensing fees: They relied (and may still rely) on corporate and other forms of support.]One element of Direct Trade that people seemed to really like was that "voluntourism" was a key component of being certified. Certified Direct Trade growers/co-ops had to provide a way for outsiders to come and work on their farms in order to be able to witness first-hand what was going on. My feeling is that having a couple of hundred eyeballs a year spread out over many months is a more "effective policing effort" than relying on a single visit by a single inspector once every year or two. Besides, volunteers would pay the farmers for the opportunity to voluntour, making it, in effect, a revenue stream for the farmer/co-op.I still think that there is room for a "fair" alternative to "Fair Trade" and there is no reason why - given the membership of this group - that we can't figure something out, including how to finance the startup costs.

FAIR TRADE AND ORGANIC CERTIFICATION FROM THE EYES OF A PRODUCER

Posted in: Opinion

Langdon:I have a question about the mechanics of the top-down process ... how do you envision getting retailers to agree to pay premiums and then how do you see the mechanism for getting those premiums to the farmer? While the bottom up approach returns less to the farmer, in theory it should be easier to get the money to the farmer (though in practice, as we know, it's not).I could imagine it working in the case of a private-label chocolate for a large chain like Whole Foods, but I can't imagine how it might work for a manufacturer selling to hundreds of outlets.I have always been a fan of Shawn Askinosie's approach but I don't see how it is scalable to hundreds of thousands or millions of farm families.I went with Shawn on his first bean-buying trip to Soconusco and to Venezuela and I can tell you from personal knowledge (and I think you'd agree based on the time you spent with us in Ecuador) that he is totally sincere and committed to the health and welfare of the farm communities he buys his beans from. In Shawn's case, Askinosie Chocolate practices open book accounting both in the factory and with the farmers. Shawn visits the communities where he buys his beans once a year and shows them how much money he made from the sale of chocolate made with their beans and then write a check for 10% of the profit. Farmers get paid for the beans when they are shipped and they receive a bonus. When I was in Soconusco with him, I also heard him make two additional offers: 1) He would pay the equivalent of a US$600 (about 6000 Mexican pesos at the time) bonus on signing the contract that would be put toward improvements in the co-op's fermentation facility and that could be used for all of the co-op's beans not just the ones they were selling to him; and 2) He offered to buy an option on a crop that would not be available for two years - he wanted the right of first refusal to buy none, part, or all of the crop and would pay for it now, no strings attached.But sometimes the culture of the cacao farmer in a country can get in the way of making things better for the farmer. Immediately after leaving Soconusco Shawn and I traveled to the Barlovento region of Miranda State around the town of Rio Chico. Not far from there we met with a farmer to negotiate for beans. The terms the farmers wanted were FOB the farm, in other words cash before we load your truck. We tried for hours over the course of two days to see if they would accept other terms - terms that here in the States we would jump at - if they would allow us to get the beans to port in order to assess their quality as Shawn did not have an agent in the country. In the end, he offered 50% upon signing the contract (six months before the beans were to be picked up), 25% on pickup, and the rest when the beans checked out okay and before they left the country - plus a bonus on signing the contract to build a drying pad and shed.The answer was always no, 100% cash on pickup. Even getting the farmer's pastor involved did not change the farmer's mind. We left marveling at the difference in sophistication of the groups we were negotiating with. One understood the worth of an option contract, the other couldn't conceive of any form of financing - even when the financing worked to their advantage.This brings me to one of my major disappointments about certifications like Fair Trade, Fair for Life, Rain Forest Alliance, et al - they are culturally insensitive. They impose the same set of rules everywhere in the world, the same commodity-based pricing structure everywhere in the world. In my mind, this is one of the reasons these programs will never be as successful as they need to be in order to offer meaningful benefits to a meaningful number of farmers.

FAIR TRADE AND ORGANIC CERTIFICATION FROM THE EYES OF A PRODUCER

Posted in: Opinion

Langdon:A trip to Jim's farm is one the locations I am looking into traveling to in 2010. I know that there is a lot of interest in Bolivia ... hmmmm I wonder if I can do the two of them back-to-back?:: Clay

FAIR TRADE AND ORGANIC CERTIFICATION FROM THE EYES OF A PRODUCER

Posted in: Opinion

Jim:This is a phenomenally valuable and interesting post and I am looking forward to a spirited discussion here not just about the issues involved, but of ways to address the issues in meaningful ways.For several years, I have been trying to let people know just how unfair "Fair" trade can be .One of the reasons I like to lead groups to cocoa growing regions and give them first-hand experience is so that they can experience personally the conditions that farmers live and work in, just how much work it is to grow cacao and process it into cocoa - and just how little the farmers receive in return.:: Clay

Travel Planning - Where Would YOU Like to Go?

Posted in: Travels & Adventures

Jim has kindly posted some photos of his farm - the Fazenda Venturosa - in a photo album .He also posted a forum thread detailing some of the recent history of his farm and some of the challenges and concerns he has with organic and Fair Trade certification.

Travel Planning - Where Would YOU Like to Go?

Posted in: Travels & Adventures

I know that things aren't looking their brightest at the moment, economically speaking and it's also the middle of winter, but one of the ways I get through rough times is to imagine trips to places I've always wanted to visit. Perhaps many of you enjoy doing, this, too.On the off-chance you do, following are some of the places I been doing research on planning trips to in 2009 and 2010. Please let me know the top 1 or 2 if any of them you'd seriously consider traveling to in 2009 or 2010 (this is not a commitment to go on the trip, just a strong expression of interest - likely or very likely) and/or places you want to visit that are not mentioned.1) The Dominican Republic (April-May 2009 and/or 2010)Highlights: Hacienda Elvesia (the source of the beans for Felchlin Cru Hacienda), Los Haitises National Park, Cano Hondo eco-lodge, Hacienda Camino Ramonal, make chocolate from the bean using traditional and modern techniques, beaches2) Bolivia (mid-February, 2010)Highlights: Hacienda Tranquilidad (the source of the beans for Felchlin Cru Sauvage), the Beni region of Bolivia. Volker Lehmann is a ChocolateLife member.3) BrazilHighlights: Voluntour during peak harvest season on a 2500-acre cacao farm which includes 500 acres of virgin rainforest; nearly endless stretches of pristine beaches - See first comment from ChocolateLife member Jim Lucas for more details.4) HawaiiHighlights: Plantations and chocolate factory on the island of Hawaii; plantation visit on Kauai5) MadagascarHighlights: Sambirano Valley region6) Sao TomeHighlights: Claudio Corallo7) LondonHighlights: All the hot players in the local chocolate scene.8) Turin/PisaHighlights: All the hot players in the local chocolate scene.9) MexicoTabasco State, Oaxaca, Chiapas (Soconusco)?) Your destinations of interest are ...Depending on the size of the group (Bolivia and Brazil are 7 people max; the DR is 20) and prevailing exchange rates, the prices per person, not including R/T airfare will vary between $1500 and $2900 per personThanks,:: Clay
updated by @Clay Gordon: 04/09/15 14:20:40

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

Chirag -

They shouldn't, actually. That they do is as a result of irresponsible marketing or incomplete understanding, or both. But the expectation is not founded in the reality of chocolate.

There is no direct correlation between cocoa content and flavor intensity. None. That's precisely because there are many variables that cocoa content does not cover.

Think about two 80 proof bourbons. One can be nice and smooth, the other harsh and biting. But they are both 80 proof. Should a consumer have any expectation that all bourbons at 80 proof should display any of the same sensory characteristics?

No. So why should someone expect a QUANTITATIVE measure (of cocoa content) to say anything meaningful about a QUALITATIVE assessment of the chocolate.

Try the range of chocolates from Bonnat (who uses a lot of added cocoa butter) or Pralus (who tends to like high roast profiles). All the same percentages within the line - each very different from the others. It's a kinda zen place to put your mind - not to expect a particular anything from a particular percentage.

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

Chirag:

I have to disagree with you that it's misleading. Cocoa content is general, not specific. It means the percentage, by weight, of the product that comes from cocoa beans. It does not specify how much is non-fat cocoa solids (i.e., the powder part minus all fat) and the "fat" cocoa solids. Just total content.

Some manufacturers add cocoa butter, some do not. Often the decision is technical (fluidity) at times its aesthetic (nothing added). In any event, all you have to do is to look at the ingredients label. If "cocoa butter" is not listed as an ingredient you know that 100% of the stated cocoa content comes from the cocoa mass.

Not that that is an indicator of anything truly meaningful in a consistent way. But it can be a clue when trying to figure out why a particular chocolate has a particular mouth feel or a "diluted" flavor profile.

updated by @Clay Gordon: 06/25/15 08:46:24

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

All of the major manufacturers have patented processes for product in this area. Mars calls their CocoaVia, for example.

There are a bunch of MLMs that tout their products as being minimallyprocessed (e.g., "cold-pressed") and that tout high ORAC ratings.

As I stated in another comment on this thread, the "raw" chocolate community - whatever raw really means in this context - is all about minimal processing. However, with only one exception that I am aware of, none of the raw chocolate companies have done any testing to actually support their claims of superior nutritional content (which does not relate to efficacy), and that one company has only done one ORAC panel, not a detailed analysis of what actually happens to cacaofrom a nutrition perspectiveduring its transformation into chocolate.

The big guys - Mars, Barry Callebaut, etc., have all spent beaucoup $$ on gaining a very fine understanding of the processes, but most of it is proprietary and much of it is patented or patent pending. (And a lot more is probably trade secret and we will never learn about it.)

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

According to what I believe is the most widely accepted interpretation of the standards, yes. Your recipe contains 500gr of ingredients that are sourced from the cocoa bean, so it would be 50% cocoa content.

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

There has been a lot of research in this area ... but as Sebastian replied in the discussion about "How Chocolate Gets Its Taste" most of this research is proprietary and not available to the general public.

Yes, some varieties have more polyphenols than others, but much of that may be due to soil conditions as much as varietal.

Post-harvest processing does affect polyphenol content. Basically, everything that's done to improve flavor reduces some health-giving properties. However, it's important to note that processing creates compounds that are also beneficial.

I think it's also important to focus on the fact that residual levels of some compounds are so high after processing, and there is no dietary intake guidance about antioxidants, that to fixate on maximizing levels doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There's some evidence that suggests that as little as 1/4 ounce of a quality dark chocolate, consumed daily, has clinical effects. Replace the chocolate with 1 Tbsp of a good natural (not alkalized) cocoa powder and you're already getting many times the benefits of that 1/4 ounce of dark chocolate - especially when drunk, not eaten.

There is a rampant debate over "raw" in the chocolate community (and elsewhere), but if you go with the idea of minimally processed (and don't fixate on 118F) then that's an alternative. The numbers are so off the charts good for you, that worrying about 10% here or there makes little difference.

My personal opinion is that there's not supposed to be anything virtuous about chocolate. I want to feel good eating, not feel good about eating it. My advice? Enjoy the chocolate you like, and then marvel in the fact that it also delivers some health benefits - one of the most important (and overlooked) is that it makes you feel happy.

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

Mars, and others, have spent tens of millions in researching polyphenols/flavonoids/antioxidants in cacao and methods to increase (or at least minimize loss of) said substances during post-harvest processing.

And patenting them.

A look at the patents will shed light on what they are doing and how they are doing it - though some stuff is being protected as trade secret so it's not being published.

In the long run, chocolate is not supposed to be virtuous. I want to feel good eating chocolate, not feel good about eating chocolate. The fact that there are health benefits should be secondary, IMO, not primary, when it comes to making decisions about consuming.

In general, everything that is done to improve flavor does so to the detriment of many health-giving properties of cacao, while those same processes also give rise to beneficial nutrients not found in the undermented and unroasted cacao. If you really want to maximize the health benefits of cacao, drink it. Preferably beverages made with natural (unalkalized), low-fat cocoa powder. The body digests what you drink differently from what you eat, and cacao beverages tend to make it through the stomach into the intestine faster and more nutrients can be extracted. At least, that's the theory based on looking at metabolite markers in the bloodstream - which is more to the point that looking at ORAC numbers. What makes it into the bloodstream is what counts, not what goes into your mouth.

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

Cocoa content refers to the chocolate component, not the inclusions. A bar made with 70% cocoa content chocolate is always 70% cocoa content.

The use of a hypothetical 100gr bar is confusing in some contexts, as you point out. In a chocolate bar with nothing else added, if the cocoa content is 70% then 70 grams will be derived from the cocoa bean.

In a 100gr bar of chocolate made with 70% cocoa content, if 40% of the weight of the bars is, say hazelnuts, then the remaining 60gr will consist of 42gr of cocoa (60gr x 70%). The remaining 18gr will be sugar, vanilla, lecithin (if used), and any other added ingredients.

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

Sam is making a good point here.If you go into a store and buy cocoa powder you will never find a totally fat-free powder. Typical ranges for cocoa butter content in cocoa powders used by professionals are 10-12% (low-fat) and 22-24% (high-fat). In some chocolate products that say "Fat Free" FDA regs allow there to be some fat - up to, I think, 1 gm per serving - and still allow manufacturers to claim that it is fat free on the label.However, when we're talking in the abstract, technically, about the composition of cocoa content, it is possible to be quite precise about how much of the cocoa content is fat and how much is not fat. This is why the not-fat component of a chocolate can technically referred to as non-fat cocoa solids.It makes sense in the lab and factory but is confusing on the supermarket shelf.

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

Ilana:Yes, it is confusing.1) Cocoa content (in percent) is the total amount of cocoa butter and cocoa powder by weight in a chocolate.2) Cocoa mass = chocolate liquor = ground cocoa beans with nothing added. 100% cocoa content. What is not known (to most consumers) is the ratio of fat (cocoa butter) to non-fat cocoa solids (see my response to Sam's comment for more on this).3) Added cocoa butter is 25% of the weight of the finished chocolate.4) The math here is more difficult because we're dealing with a milk chocolate, not a dark chocolate.Total cocoa content is 41% - minimum. It can be more. Total fat content is +/- 1% so with rounding errors and fudging you should see these numbers as averages, not absolutes. FDA regs say that manufacturers have to be within a certain percentage +/- of the published numbers, recognizing that because manufacturers are dealing with agricultural products, the exact composition of the ingredients used is subject to change.

Deconstructing Cocoa Content

Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques

The term "cocoa content" refers to the combined total percentage, by weight, of all the ingredients in a particular chocolate that come from the cocoa bean. In most cases it is the combination of the quantity of cocoa mass (or cocoa liquor or chocolate liquor, etc.) plus any added cocoa butter.Cocoa beans naturally vary between 45-55% cocoa butter content depending on the type of bean and where the bean is grown.Technically, cocoa butter is referred to as cocoa solids and cocoa powder is referred to as non-fat cocoa solids. Most people find it easier to think in terms of cocoa butter and cocoa powder, but when you come across a reference to non-fat cocoa solids it's referring to the brown stuff that gives chocolate its color.Cocoa butter is added to the base quantity of cocoa mass to influence mouth feel and make the chocolate less viscous. Lecithin - which is an emulsifier - is also used to reduce the viscosity of chocolate and so reduces the amount of extra cocoa butter that must be added (lecithin is a lot cheaper than cocoa butter).The exact ratio of cocoa mass to added cocoa butter to total fat content is usually not included in the information you'll find on the package. However if you get a chance to look at the technical spec sheet for a chocolate it will usually list out the percentage of cocoa mass, percentage of added cocoa butter, and total cocoa butter content.For Guittard's Orinoco (a 41% milk) the ingredients list is:Pure cane sugar, cocoa butter, full cream milk, cocoa beans, soy lecithin, vanilla beansThe technical spec is:Total cocoa content: 41% minimumCocoa mass: 18%Added cocoa butter: 25%Total fat content (including milk fat): 39% =/- 1%Sugar: 38%Lecithin and vanilla together typically total about 1%. The rest is non-fat milk solids.It is important to keep in mind that there is no correlation between cocoa content and chocolate quality. Cocoa content is a quantitative measure, not a qualitative measure.In this respect it's more like the proof (percentage) of a spirit such as gin or vodka. Knowing that a gin is 40 proof tells you nothing about the quality of the ingredients used to make the gin or the care and attention that went into its manufacture. Similarly, about the only thing you can confidently infer from the cocoa content of a dark chocolate (i.e., a chocolate with no dairy ingredients) is the percentage of sugar in the chocolate. There is no magic percentage amount that separates semi-sweet from bittersweet chocolate.Cocoa content tells you nothing about the beans used, how the beans were fermented and dried, nor does it say anything about any of the steps in the manufacturing process (all of them) that affect flavor.There is no consistent correlation across the board between cocoa content and any sensory aspect of chocolate: not texture (mouth feel), aroma, or taste. Even the perception of sweetness between two bars of chocolate with exactly the same sugar content will be different (this is one of the first things I noticed back in 1994 tasting six different Bonnat bars all with the same cocoa content; the difference in sweetness was startling) depending on the beans, the roast, and the presence (or absence) of vanilla and the kind and form of vanilla used.70% is a marketing hook - or gimmick, if you prefer. A 70% chocolate is not necessarily better than a 68% chocolate or a 65% or a 64% just because it has a couple of more percent cocoa.
updated by @Clay Gordon: 04/11/25 09:27:36

New York

Posted in: Travels & Adventures

Greger:The SoHo area where Kee's is located (and I heartily second Carol's recommendation, btw) is one of the neighborhoods in the city where it is possible to hit a number of different chocolate shops on foot in close order.On Broadway (corner of Spring or Prince) is Dean and Deluca's where you'll find one of the better selections of bars in the city. Not far from there is Vosges. Kee's is on Thompson just south of Spring (#80) and if you head down Thompson away from Spring and turn left on Broome in a block or two you'll find Marie Belle's.From there, it's a 10-15 minute walk to Jacques Torres on the corner of Varick/King.Down in the financial district you'll find Christopher Norman and further uptown (on 49th I believe) is a Food Emporium that boasts a wide selection, including being the only place to purchase Coppeneur bars at retail in NYC.In Rockefeller center there is a Teuscher store and a La Maison du Chocolat boutique.On the Upper West Side it sometimes pays to wander in Fairway and Zabar's. I once saw bars from Oriol Balaguer in Fairway. They were under a checkout counter, not in the aisle where the chocolate was displayed so it really does make sense to explore.Please let us know what you find out on your trip and post photos and make a photo album.Thanks!

Oaxaca

Posted in: Travels & Adventures

James:Thanks for the notes. Any pictures to go with them? Post them in Photos - don't forget to geotag them - and if you don't want to create an album for them I will.:: Clay

The Fine Art of Chocolate ... Criticism

Posted in: Opinion

Langdon - to your point I certainly agree that, overall, the body of reviews has done a lot for the business of wine as well as for wine lovers everywhere.To open and frank I would add that approachable and understandable are values that I look for in reviews. - Clay

The Fine Art of Chocolate ... Criticism

Posted in: Opinion

Gwen:If I may edit a quote from your post ..."I abhor the use of art as a status symbol. I refuse to watch others take something that is a simple pleasure and turn it into something that can only be understood by "special" people. ..."This is the essence of Dewey's point and why I saw the connection between "Art" and chocolate. What I think we have to be mindful of is not letting words - or the people writing them - become more important than what is being written about. When that happens, the world becomes a poorer place.The recent back and forth between you and Langdon also brings up another very good point when it comes to reviews: it is important to know the background, biases, and related views of the person doing the reviewing as well as having a body of reviews to look at. That way, you can determine if the person doing the reviewing a) shares your views about things generally, and b) has any axes to grind.Reviews can be helpful, but they can also be detrimental, hurtful, or both, and it is often difficult to discern what factors motivate the person doing the reviewing. The challenge we face is to pick a source of reviews to trust. It is the lack of a basis for establishing trust in a reviewer that is problematic. For me, the tone of a review is often enough for me to dismiss a review as well as a reviewer (that's my basic problem with what Mark wrote - the tone just irritates the heck out of me; others will certainly react differently - YMMV). From what you wrote I sense you have similar experiences.I have to agree with Mark that it is possible to make objective comparisons - this bar of chocolate is not as good as that bar of chocolate and this is why. If someone paying close attention does this often enough, it's possible for them to develop an objective sense for what constitutes a "good" or "great" bar of chocolate as opposed to an "ordinary" or "bad" bar of chocolate and to explain why.However, that does not give the reviewer the right to make anyone feel bad for liking something they don't like. That's where I find reviews cross the line - when personal opinion somehow becomes objective "truth." I may not like white zinfandel, but it's not my place to ridicule someone who does. I may not like white chocolate all that much, but it's not my place to ridicule someone who does. It is possible to objectively "know" that a chocolate is not all that good, but still like it anyway.As I wrote my book, my feelings about my role as a chocolate critic changed. I no longer saw myself as needing to "own" the best rating system and most comprehensive collection of reviews. In part because, unlike with Robert Parker, there is no economic value in the rating: giving a bar a high rating does nothing to affect the market price of the bar. Also unlike Parker (and this is where I disagree somewhat with Langdon's opinion on wine reviews specifically), it is unlikely that I am going to be able to influence chocolate makers to make chocolate that appeals to my taste preferences just to get a good review from me. Because there is no economic value to them in doing so. You are right, Gwen, in perceiving that this is because there is no collector market for chocolate; chocolate does not increase in value with age, only perceived scarcity.Today, I perceive my goal not as being "the" arbiter of good and bad chocolate (which is where I started out in February, 1994 when I first got the idea to do this in the first place). Instead, I strive to help people understand what it is they like about the chocolate they like to eat. This is a very different goal and a very different process.Nonetheless, people ask me to rate and review specific chocolates. I now do this in two parts - one part is personal, whether I do or do not like it and why; the other is to compare the chocolate, using scales I have devised, with the characteristics of the uncounted hundreds of other chocolates I have eaten, that "objective sense" I wrote about a few paragraphs back.

The Fine Art of Chocolate ... Criticism

Posted in: Opinion

It's now about a week since Sam posted this and I have to admit that my feelings about this post and its content have been all over the map. I have to thank Casey, again, for her advice to me just after I started TheChocolateLife that TheChocolateLife will only thrive if I let go of controlling everything that goes on here. So I did not immediately respond telling myself to wait a week before doing anything.In reading all of the comments, corresponding with Sam, and thinking about the way the thread has evolved I have come to the conclusion that it was inappropriate for me to include Mark's post anonymously, out-of-context, and without letting him know about it. Without trying to get into a he-said/he-said argument, I don't think that Mark's representation of our correspondence is complete. It's not inaccurate, but it's not complete.To everyone who's read this and felt any unease at all, I apologize.One thing I did not contemplate was that there would be ChocolateLife members who would recognize Mark based on the small snippet I quoted.I went looking on the Internet for information about Mark and could not find anything that provided anything useful about him with respect to chocolate. All I could find was references to his other business, an online travel booking service.I did ask Mark to provide some background about himself so I could know what his experience and credentials were and where he was coming from. He replied that he would but eventually I got no response from him. I was interested in knowing what ChocolateLife members thought about Mark's approach, so I made the original post unaware that anyone here would be able to figure out whose writing I was quoting. (If anyone can point me to a collection of Mark's writings on the Internet, I am still very interested in reading them.)One of my main complaints with what Mark has to say is not what he said but how he chose to get them posted - through a third party. By posting his remarks that way, Mark effectively removed himself from having to take responsibility for what he posted. He had his say and said, in effect, that he did not care enough for the community here to care to hear how we might respond. Citing Groucho Marx ("I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members") is startlingly unoriginal.You may not know that it is not my decision to require people to become members in order to post. That is the way the software is set up; I don't do it to be exclusionary or to force anyone to do anything, the site is set up that way because that's how the software is set up. Same principal as Facebook. However, I believe that joining is a good requirement because a) it reduces spam posts exponentially, and b) it requires members to take some measure responsibility for what they write.One of my primary goals with TheChocolateLife was to create a place that wasn't all about me and what I thought. That's what I'd been doing for seven years on chocophile.com. Many of you may not know that even though you are required to join TheChocolateLife to contribute, I do not moderate anything that is posted before it goes live on the site. I do respond to complaints about content that members think is inappropriate and try as hard as I can to resolve those complaints privately. Several times this year, members have taken me aside (figuratively) and told me that I had made a mistake responding publicly in a particular way. I have taken steps both public and private to reach out and make amends.I wonder, when Mark get's the C-Spot up and running, whether he will have the same respect for others who take issue what he has to say and how he says it.:: ClayBTW, I am copying Mark on his private e-mail so he'll know my response.

The Fine Art of Chocolate ... Criticism

Posted in: Opinion

James:Cogent and to the point.I do agree with you, that simple, understandable, descriptors and some sort of rating, whether it is numerical (as most are) or descriptive (as mine is) can be a great help.My only quibble with what you write is that if I had a bar that I described with -flavors: mold, dirt; crumbly texture;- on a scale of 1-5 I might be tempted to give it a 0 as I like the idea of a ratings system that offers assessments that are literally "off the charts" for truly good (and bad) experiences.With respect to your comment on Dewey I happen to think that the only thing lacking in my characterization of a chocolate as "tastes like crap only crap tastes better" is the assignment of the lowest possible rating (Bad, I could find nothing remotely redeemable about this chocolate) on the 7 position ratings scale I use. At that point, "crap with hazelnut and roasty notes" doesn't seem to match my opinion; however "crap with an oppressive, lingering finish that attacks the tonsils with the tenacity of a pit bull" seems completely on-target because humor is always appropriate in these situations, showing that I am serious about the review, and I don't take myself too seriously which is an issue I have with the review I cite here.:: Clay

The Fine Art of Chocolate ... Criticism

Posted in: Opinion

While I knew before I entered high school that I wanted to pursue photography as a career, it wasn't until I was in my freshman year in college that I was exposed to a formal philosophy of Art in the form of John Dewey's Art as Experience. To paraphrase Dewey:1) Art "works" because all humans share the same emotions. Granted, we experience those emotions differently, but we all experience the same range of emotions.2) Art consists of two things:a) The process a person goes through to make an art objectb) The experience a viewer has with an art objectDewey is emphatic that the art object (painting, drawing, sculpture, bar of chocolate, etc.) has no intrinsic value. Art objects "become valuable" because of their ability to evoke responses in viewers. Because we all experience emotions differently, the same art object might be more valuable (i.e., it evokes strong emotions) to some people and less valuable to others (i.e., evokes weak or no emotions). Art objects are neither good nor bad in any abstract universal sense; they are more or less successful depending on a viewer's experience of them, or, as Dewey says, "with and in" a person's experience.Above all, Dewey cautions, art is not words or ideas and it is important not to let words and ideas become more important than our experiences and emotions. To do so, he suggests, puts "Art" at arm's length, removed from our every day experience of life and places it in a realm that is accessible only to those who know how to manipulate the vocabulary of "Art." Dewey believes that art is in everything and everyone all the time - that any act that anyone derives any sort of aesthetic satisfaction from is art - for them. And that the audience of one is enough.I bring all this up as a prologue to a question I want to ask anyone on TheChocolateLife who wants to answer it. It concerns writing about chocolate and what sorts of descriptions are useful and usable. I've been having a correspondence with someone who was copied on an e-mail that I was also copied on last week. The e-mail asked if any of us had tried a particular bar of (raw) chocolate. In a few hours, the following response was sent to everyone:Had the 78% with Nibs. Clearly CCN material (no matter what the new chocophiles try to proclaim ["if well-processed... ba ba ba"], it ain't the Ecuador of yore).Decent temper held out hope that maybe this received a proper conch ala Divine Organics. Alas, no such luck. Raw as it ever was: evasive chocolate flavor typical for raw bars with agave hard on its heels controlling the progression to... nowhere really, except reflecting back to that sweetener's prickly self. Then comes a cold bitter in rear recesses. Eventually tuberose & sisal, camacho plant, groaning vines & brambles in the dirt of the after-math toward a microbial fest (worms digesting molds, spores, bacteria, etc.)At 22% agave annhilates cacao until that after-life when the dregs react to the beating by discombobulating the bowels, wrenching then pulling out the intestines Bruce Lee style to show you your guts. It takes massive balls to sell this stuff at all... let alone for $11.Even though I've been eating chocolate with the intent of figuring out how to describe what I was experiencing, this description lost me in the first sentence because I was put off by my perception of the author's disdain for people who disagreed with one of his beliefs. I certainly do know that the author does not like the chocolate, but I was left with the impression that the author was trying to be too clever by half. With reference to Dewey, the words had somehow become more important than the chocolate.For as long as I can remember, my father has been telling me, "If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well," and I realize that I would apply that approach to a review of a bar that I disliked as much as this author did. Rather than waste time performing feats of linguistic gymnastics, my tendency would be to write something like, "This bar of chocolate tasted like crap only crap tastes better." I think this conveys the essential critique of the chocolate (i.e., don't waste the money or the calories). It does not provide, however, any descriptions of what I thought the chocolate actually tasted like. But - if it's not worth doing, why do it well?My question to all of you is - what do you want to see?
updated by @Clay Gordon: 04/24/15 11:12:59

Sources for (natural) cocoa powder

Posted in: Classifieds ARCHIVE

I just put the info out there. I did notice the price difference (Domori is somewhere in the middle, but probably closer to the Askinosie). In the end, it's about whether or not you think the taste is special enough and you'll never know until you taste it. You might be able to purchase the powder in bulk at a lower cost without the fancy package. I have a bag of it here (Shawn sent it to me cause he's my friend and he sends me most everything he makes for me to taste). It's the same origin as the Soconusco bars and nibs so the beans are something unusual.

Sources for (natural) cocoa powder

Posted in: Classifieds ARCHIVE

Vintage Plantations origin Ecuador Askinosie Chocolate origin Soconusco, MexicoI also believe that Valrhona's "Cacao Gastronomie" is also natural.

Special Holiday Chocolate Offers for Chocolate Life Members

Posted in: Classifieds ARCHIVE

A ChocolateLife member e-mailed me last week asking if it would be possible to let other ChocolateLife members know of a special offer she was willing to make - to provide a discount to ChocolateLife members who place an order this Holiday Season.It's taken me a few days to figure out how to fit this in to the site neatly and cleanly because I am determined to keep TheChocolateLife as spam-free as possible. I don't want to do anything to compromise the flow of communication among and between ChocolateLife members that is developing by overwhelming everyone all the time with ads and such like.So I am trying an experiment this year. If you are a ChocolateLife member who sells chocolate products, I invite you to make a special offer to other ChocolateLife members this holiday season and post a link to the offer as a reply to this discussion. Please be very specific about the nature of the special offer (see my examples, below). It could be an upgrade to free shipping or a discount, or a bogo (buy one, get one) - whatever you feel like offering other ChocolateLife members. Please identify yourself (either by your real name or your ChocolateLife member name) as well as the name of your company. Please also limit the number of special offers to 5 or fewer. You may post up to one photo for each item as long as they are no larger than 300x300 pixels and are under 100k each. Finally, your offer must have something to do with chocolate - any offer for non-chocolate items or that misleadingly links to an offer for non-chocolate items will be deleted.This experiment is FREE to all ChocolateLife members who wish to make Special Offers to other ChocolateLife members. All I ask that you do in return is:A) Use a special coupon or promotion code so that you can track the referrals from the site.B) After the holidays share some information with me - how many orders and the value of the orders. I don't want you to give me any money (this year), and I don't want to know the names of the ChocolateLife members who placed the orders.Happy Holidays every one!:: Clay Special Offers from Clay Gordon/TheChocolateLife.com 1 bar Felchlin Criolait 38% milk - $15 includes FREE USPS regular mail shipping. 3 bars Felchlin Criolait 38% milk - $45 includes FREE Upgrade to USPS Priority Mail shipping. ON SALE NOW - $40. 1 lb Guittard Cocoa Rouge Cocoa Powder . $10 includes FREE USPS regular mail shipping. 3 lbs Guittard Cocoa Rouge Cocoa Powder . $30 include FREE Upgrade to USPS Priority Mail shipping.
updated by @Clay Gordon: 04/07/25 13:00:14