Forum Activity for @Clay

Geetha:

Hundreds and hundreds of hobbyists and working professionals get Chocovision Rev1, Rev2, X3210, and Rev Deltas to work reliably, day in and day out. I am not sure why you're not getting it to work properly and it seems as if you've taken the steps of getting them on the phone. I wonder, reading what you wrote, if it has to do with the blending. You might not be getting the chocolate warm enough (some Valrhonas really want to melt out at 60C not 45C) and whether or not there is enough mixing in the bowl. Try melting the chocolate in a bowl and then pouring it into another container and giving it a really, really, good stir then put it back into the bowl and restart the tempering cycle.

The discussion about moving up to a continuous temperer depends (in part) on the quantity of work you plan to do. Continuous temperers are more expensive, but one upside is that there is no real wait cycle between batches as you have with batch tempering machines. This can translate into huge productivity gains when you factor in the measured depositor which enables you to put a measured amount of chocolate into mold cavities by pressing a switch.

If "lots and lots" means hundreds and hundreds, then the difference in productivity is going to be worth the higher price of the continuous temperer.

The easy answer is yes. But it's a lot more complicated than that, and FBM does make a machine, the Unica, which has 3-zone tempering.

From looking (and working with) the control panels of various FBM machines I can tell you that the temperature range is far wider than 30-45C. I know that the upper end of the range is closer to 60 and that can be modified. One customer here in the US is working with a chocolate that wants to be at 70C! FBM provided a way to override the default programming to accommodate the higher melt point as well as provide additional heating elements to the working bowl to reach and maintain that temperature. If you are working with a chocolate made with no extra cocoa butter, then the working temperatures are going to be on the low side. Perhaps surprisingly low.

It also makes a huge difference where the final temperature sensor is, and how heat is applied to raise the temperature of the chocolate coming out of the tempering (cooling) pipe. It does no good to have it right at the top of the pipe, you need it as far along the output path as possible and you need a method of warming that is highly responsive and very precise.

It turns out that the geometry of the 2-stage systems is such that the third temperature zone happens automatically. Interestingly, the FBM Aura with its extra-long spout does a really, really good job in this respect.

What most people don't realize about continuous tempering machines is that there is a delicate balance that needs to be created to effect the continuous tempering cycle. More reactive and more precise control over temperature is most important. Also, the geometry of the auger in the tempering pipe is important because that determines the ability of the crystals that are formed along the pipe walls to spread to more chocolate. You can make the core diameter smaller to increase the amount of chocolat being pumped, but that means fewer crystals in the chocolate when it leaves the pipe. Making the core diameter of the auger greater reduces the amount of chocolate being pumped in any given time, but the quality of crystallization is better. If you have the ability to control the rotation speed of the auger, even better.

So - you can't just look at one specification and say that machine A is better than machine B. Tempering is a dynamic system and all of the elements play a role. Keeping the temperatures balanced precisely within a narrow range over the course of the day could be more important than the issue of 3 zones over 2.

Joseph: The $5400 is for the PLC model?

For comparison.

An FBM Prima continuous tempering machine with a ~15lb capacity working bowl (~50lb/hr throughput) costsabout US$8000 (before shipping and with ChocolateLife member discount). Delivery time is 60 days from order.

Two advantages of the Prima:

1) you can easily attach an enrobing belt after the fact and
2) the vibrating table is built in

Rob:

Ben is right in pointing out that the Chocovisions are not continuous tempering machines - they are batch tempering machines.

Okay - tempering basics. First. Tempering is the chocolate equivalent of annealing in metallurgy.

There are six different crystal structures that cocoa butter can assemble into when it cools down. Forms I-IV (one through four) result in a substance that melts very easy and is soft, even when at the correct temperature. Form VI (six) crystals don't melt easily and are what give chocolate a hard brittle crunch texture and sandy/pebbly texture in the mouth when melting (not very well as the melt point is at or just above body temperature). What we want is for Form V (Form Five) crystal to predominate in the mix. (Technically, there are usually always some lower form crystals floating around and like entropy, everything tends towards Form VI in the long run.)

The tempering process is all about forcing the majority of crystals that form to be Form V crystals. This is done by raising the temperature of the chocolate to melt out all the crystals (usually to about 115F), then cooling the chocolate down under controlled conditions, then warming it back up slightly to a working temperature all the while agitating (mixing) the chocolate in a controlled fashion.

This can be done entirely by hand on a marble slab. Warm chocolate is spread out on a cool surface and as it cools down it is moved around by hand. It is the agitation of the chocolate that is part of the key to proper crystal structure. Because the relationship between the temperature of chocolate, the temperature of the slab, and the speed at which heat is transferred from the chocolate into the slab, the hand-tempering process is one that requires a high degree of skill. When the chocolate is tempered it is usually added into a bowl of melted chocolate. The tempered chocolate acts as seed - coercing the crystals in the mass of melted chocolate to form preferentially into the desired form - Form V.

Batch tempering machines take the hand work out of the process. It IS possible to temper the chocolate through agitation and precise control over the temperature during melting/cooling/warming, but it's much easier (and more consistent as Ben points out) to use seed chocolate during the cooling phase. The Form V crystals in the seed chocolate "nudge" the crystals being formed in the cooling chocolate to preferentially form in Form V. The basic concept of batch tempering is that you have a fixed amount of chocolate (a batch). You temper that and use it, and when it's gone, you temper another batch.

In a continuous tempering machine, the physics is pretty much the same. You melt the crystals out, then cool the chocolate down in a controlled fashion while agitating/mixing it. What is happening in the cooling pipe of the continuous tempering machine is that the chocolate is being pumped through using an auger. The chocolate in contact with the inner surface of the pipe is subjected to a temperature below the temper point and is subject to shear and mixing as it is transported through the pipe. The combination of temperature and shear/mixing causes (when the geometry and speed of the auger/pipe and the physics of the cooling system are correct) Form V crystals to predominate as the chocolate cools down completely.

When the chocolate comes out of the spout - when the tempering cycle is in its active phase - it is tempered. Any unused chocolate is returned to the bowl where the crystals are melted out.

At this point it's helpful to realize that not all of the crystals in the chocolate are of the desired form, even though the chocolate is "in temper." What happens is that the dominant tendency for Form V crystals in the melted chocolate coerces the preferential formation of Form V crystals over other forms in the chocolate as it cools down.

Chocolate really never stops crystallizing, even when it's solid. In a batch tempering machine crystals will continue to form, even when the temperature is not allowed to cool. This results in the chocolate thickening and becoming more difficult to use over the course of a shift. Therefore, it's necessary, in most batch tempering setups, to be aware of the thickening process and to play with the temperature in the working bowl to melt out crystals as the chocolate thickens.

This is not an issue for most continuous tempering machines because the crystals are continuously being melted out in the working bowl. If you have a continuous temperer and the chocolate starts to thicken up (over-crystallize) during a shift, there is something wrong with the tempering machine (either it is poorly designed and so it's not capable of keeping the tempering cycle in balance or it needs repairing).

Felipe/Ben:

Ben - you are right, this is not a continuous tempering machine, it is actually a melter and instead of a wheel to move the chocolate around there is a stirrer.

In a wheel machine, the wheel serves two functions

1) mixing the chocolate
2) transporting the chocolate to a spout for dispensing

In the case of this Savage, there is a take-off valve at the bottom where you drain tempered chocolate out of the bottom of the bowl. (You can add a pump and/or a depositor.) But tempering requires adding seed and/or controlling the temperature via the water jacket. There is a version of this machine with a PLC control panel which makes it into a semi-automatic batch tempering machine.

One of the clues that you have a continuous tempering machine is the visible presence of a dispensing spout over the working bowl. The continuous tempering process (in these machines) relies on pumping the chocolate from the working bowl through a cooling pipe and then back into the working bowl. If you don't see the machine operating that way, it's not a continuous tempering machine

Does anyone know the price of this melter with the PLC controls ?

Rob:

Continuous tempering machines (like the ones from FBM, Selmi, and others) do not require the use of seed chocolate, as is required in batch tempering machines. You do not need to purchase a large capacity machine to get the advantages of continuous tempering technology, you can get machines with bowl capacities of 4-12 kg, which can translate to 10-35kg of tempered chocolate per hour.

Continuous tempering machines work by keeping the chocolate melted in a working bowl. The chocolate is pumped through a cooling pipe and subject to shear force to start the formation of the proper crystal structure and then spread the crystals through the chocolate. When the chocolate leaves the cooling pipe and exits the spout it is in temper. Unused chocolate is returned to the working bowl where the crystals are melted out before the chocolate is pumped through the cooling pipe again.

Without going into too much detail (which would fill a book - which I am in the process of writing), there is a balance that needs to be maintained between the temperature of the melted chocolate in the bowl and the temperature of the cooling pipe. The temperature of the cooling pipe is lower than the temper point - what is important is that the temperature of the chocolate as it leaves the cooling pipe is correct. Often (usually), the melting point and the temper point are different in a continuous tempering machine than they are when hand or batch tempering.

The advantages of continuous over batch tempering (in addition to not requiring seed) are:

From a cold start, you can start work in 20-30 minutes or less in a continuous temperer. From a warm start (melted chocolate in the bowl) it can be less than 10. In even a small batch temperer you can be talking 30 minutes to an hour or more.

No long waits between batches. In a batch temperer, when you finish a bowl of chocolate you have to wait for a new batch to temper - which may or may not involve manual intervention. That might take an hour or more to get ready - a long break in the middle of a busy production schedule. With a continuous tempering machine the warm restart (add melted chocolate when the bowl is down by 25-33%) is extremely fast. This is why you can get 2.5 to 3.5x the bowl capacity in hourly throughput.

More consistent crystallization. Because of the nature of the system, most continuous tempering machines are better at holding a chocolate in temper throughout a long working day and can tolerate changes in the ambient environment automatically. Especially, the chocolate has a tendency not to thicken up over the course of a long shift. This is because the crystals are constantly being melted out and the chocolate is being re-tempered. All modern continuous tempering machines have computers on them to regulate the tempering process. With a batch or in hand-tempering, the operator has to have the experience to know what to do when the chocolate goes out of temper.

Please note that a continuous tempering machine (or any tempering machine, actually) is not a substitute for knowing how to hand-temper chocolate. Anyone who is experienced at hand-tempering chocolate will be able to get the best out of any tempering machine, irrespective of the technique employed.

Ahhh, Brad - that makes so much more sense . I am glad this got straightened out - ammonium hydroxide is pretty nasty stuff. Not that sodium hydroxide (aka lye, caustic soda) is a cakewalk.

Please note, everyone, that this provides a very good reason to RTFM (that is, read the material safety data sheet, or MSDS) on any chemical you are considering using. I was looking at the MSDS for ammonium hydroxide and wondered what others knew about it that I couldn't find out.

In doing some follow up research on sodium hydroxide I ran across the following ( Red Lightning degreaser ), which might be a good (and perhaps safer and easier to handle) alternative for anyone who's at all skittish about using lye as a degreaser. I plan to try it - and I will let people know what I find out.

Someone came to me asking about sourcing ammonium hydroxide. I can find semiconductor grade, 99.5% pure 29% dilution - but the MSDS is pretty frightening for a product at that concentration.

What are people sourcing for the original strength before diluting to what level?

Ben -

Are you washing after every use? Or only when you need to.?

:: Clay

Ben -

For the benefit of other ChocolateLife members, can you post the link to Brad's discussion on mold washing?

Thanks - Clay

Nestor:

I've seen anywhere between 10% and 50%. I created a worksheet and shared it so you can model the cost of selling a chocolate bar from the cost of cocoa beans through ingredients and overhead to distribution costs. If you're not making chocolate from the bean you can download and modify the worksheet to reflect your cost structure.

Daniel -

Yes, the higher the price the smaller the audience. It's worth it - on occasion - to purchase one of the Bonnat Porcelana or vintaged Valrhona bars, and it's also important to remember that even at those prices, high end chocolate are still among the most affordable luxury goods on the planet. Think about, for about $20 bucks I can go into a store and get some of the best chocolate anywhere. Can't do that for any alcoholic beverage I can think of ...

My personal opinion is that most people who think about melting chocolate into bars are stuck in the single-origin mindset, which translates into one bar = one chocolate. People may not consider domestic producers like Guittard as quality producers, but they are. Now - you may not like the flavor profiles compared to others. That's a different question.

Most people when they say they don't like the flavor profiles look elsewhere. The creative melter will consider blending chocolates to achieve flavor profiles that are unique to their line. Don't like the intensity of a 55%? Add a small amount of 90%. Want to make a dark milk? Go ahead - and blend.

All but one or two of Guittard's couvertures, in bulk, cost under $5/lb. You can do the same with Barry-Callebaut, Kakao Berlin, Belcolade ... all of which are in the $3-4/lb range. Think something's too sweet or too bland? Blend (with something that has a higher cocoa content). It's easier to do this when all the chocolates come from the same manufacturer, but that's a generalization that can easily be overlooked.

Daniel -

There are several European imports (Bonnat, Valrhona) that sell for $20-35 for 80gr or 100gr bars. Bars of Fortunato #4 (Peruvian beans converted to chocolate in Switzerland) that are melted here in the US easily cost upwards of $12 for a 56gr bar.

Materials cost is a part of it, and European chocolates are very dependent on exchange rates. Up there are labor costs, the cost of packaging, and fixed overhead. Short of moving, you probably can't do much about fixed overhead, so you have to look at the cost of the chocolate itself, and find ways to reduce labor and packaging costs.

Dylan:

I urge you to reconsider only a 100% markup from wholesale and build in some distributor margin - at least one tier - into your pricing structure from the beginning. From the start you can keep it, or offer it as an incentive discount for volume commitments. Later on, when you decide you do need help distributing, you have the margin built in and don't have to either raise prices or reduce your margin.

Dylan:

I am assuming that you are making chocolate and looking to sell it to stores for retail?

A couple of things to consider when pricing.

You might not always be selling direct to the retailer, so build at least one (and preferably two) layers of distribution into your model, a broker and a distributor. You can decide whether to keep all this margin or "give" some of it away to the retailer. I have seen many chocolate businesses fail because they did not account for middlemen in the distribution chain and there wasn't any slack in their cost structure so scaling the business was extremely difficult.

Rule of thumb would be that the wholesale cost of the bar, including ALL your profits, should be about one-third of the retail price allowing a 100% markup for the retailer. The spread is what you have to play with to offer distributors, but get to keep until you get to that point.

Also, keep in mind that markup and gross margin are not the same thing.

A 25% markup on $1 gets you to $1.25.

A 25% gross margin on $1 gets you to $1.33. Knowing the difference can be the difference when it comes to being profitable or barely breaking even and struggling.

Maria:

Free water (also known as water activity) can be a good proxy for longevity. The more water, the shorter the shelf life. There are some (comparatively) inexpensive water activity meters that will let you know precisely what the water activity of any particular batch is. "Raw" sugar often has, in my experience, much more water in it than refined sugar.

I don't remember, off the top of my head where you want the water activity to be. I'll get in touch with Sebastian and ask him to voice his opinion on this topic.

It's also fair to say that storage conditions will affect shelf life - generally too hot is worse than too cold except for the issue of moisture and condensation.

It's also helpful to remember that chocolate never stops crystallizing and much dark chocolate will eventually become brittle in texture (form VI crystals predominate). This can happen well within two years, for many reasons. Melting the chocolate down, keeping at 115F (~45C) for at least an hour with agitation to melt out all the form VI crystals then temper and the chocolate (as long as there is no other defect that affects taste) should be good to go for some applications.

Daniel -

Brad makes some very good points, but I think it makes some sense to generalize them.

In the chocolate business, there are (very broadly speaking) the creative side, the production side, and the sales side of the business. It is often the case that the person who starts the business is really good in the first two, and not so good on the third. In the end, to grow the business, you need to decide what your personal core competencies and interests are and what you are not good at and don't like doing.

For the long-term success of the business, you need to find people with complementary skills and interests to fill those gaps.

It also helps to understand your definition of what success is - your visions for a) where you want the business to go and b) what you personally want to achieve from and through the business ... keeping in mind that, first and foremost, it has to be a real business in order to achieve either a) or b).

If what you want to do is make a respectable living and support yourself and your family - that's an okay goal. What does that mean to you? $100,000/year after taxes? What level of sales and its underlying cost structure - and people resources - are required to get you there? Do you want to grow a $10 million business? Then a different focus is required.

But never, never, never lose focus on the fact that it has to be a real business and part of making it a business is putting aside your ego and acknowledging that you will make mistakes about what the market wants to buy, and that you actually have all the skills to make it work. If you're great at selling and can close large orders, it makes sense for you to be selling if you're the only person in the organization who can - even if your heart and soul is in the kitchen doing production. If you want to be in the kitchen then you need someone to do the sales to support that decision.

Alec:

If Hershey was sincerely serious about doing something, they'd be working in the Ivory Coast, where the documented problems are far more severe and widespread than they are in Ghana. Also, the monies involved would be in the hundreds of millions over decades.

The Gates Foundation ponied up US$750 million last month to keep a global AIDS organization from collapsing.

If the industry (and consumers) are sincere about doing something, the entire supply chain needs to be re-examined from the farm to the factory and the price the grower actually receives for his cocoa needs to accurately reflect the actual local cost of production AND the work required to make the farms self-sustaining. Thinking about self-sustaining requires a 100-year mindset, not a focus on quarterly results.

The "Fair" trade world is abuzz this week with an announcement by Hershey that it is expanding efforts in the area of cocoa sustainability in West Africa. Hershey is one of the last of the major international players to make such a commitment.

While skeptics are cautiously optimistic about the ultimate impact of the move, at least one, Global Exchange, points out that Hershey's choice to support Rainforest Alliance over a "real" "fair" trade certification does not bring with it "guaranteed" improvements in the quality of life for farmers:

"Fairtrade labelling standards are designed to tackle poverty and empower producers in the worlds poorest countries, giving them a guaranteed price for their products. Rather than emphasizing how products are traded, Rainforest Alliance certificationfocuses on how farms are managed."

Thus, while Hershey has announced that it will make it's Bliss product line with 100% Rainforest Alliance certified cocoa, it's unclear what this will actually mean for growers. Historically, we can suspect that it will be Hershey (and Rainforest Alliance) will benefit more than growers will.

The CocoaLink program, which is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, will earmark US$10 million dollars over the next five years for:

"... a first-of-its kind farmer outreach program that uses mobile voice and SMS text messages to connect cocoa farmers with important information about improving farming practices, farm safety, child labor, health, crop disease prevention, post-harvest production and crop marketing."

Additional efforts will be made to establish:

"... the Hershey Learn to Grow farm program in Ghana to provide local farmers with information on best practices in sustainable cocoa farming."

Before we go and congratulate Hershey too much, or thank Bill and Melinda G for their assistance, let's take a short moment to think about the very important topic of where the US$10 million will be spent (and ask how much of the ten million is actually Hershey money, anyway?). Not surprisingly (at least to those of us who follow such things), most of the money will not be spent on aspects of the program that directly benefit growers .

Where will the money be going then? To pay for CocoaLink's infrastructure, in part. Someone has to pay for the SMS gateway, the cost to deliver the messages (which might be paid for at least in part by growers depending on their plan), and the cost of producing the content that will go into those messages. Looking for a real-time feed of commodities exchange prices for cocoa that can be mashed up and sent by SMS to phones? It's not free. And where do the people developing the tools, content, and technology and who will be managing the program live? Mostly not in Ghana.

It's quite possible that 50% or more of the US$10 million will never the leave the US or will go to large telecom, technology service, and operations management oversight providers in West Africa and will not, in fact, benefit growers in the long run.

Furthermore, to have even a hope of succeeding, Hershey would need to make a generational (20 year, minimum) commitment to the program. 5 years is not enough, and what happens 5 years from now when the current commitment expires? Will Hershey re-up? Will it re-assess the impact of the program? If it does re-assess will it have the institutional courage to man-up and do the right thing and fix things and move forward? Or will it decide that the program failed (not their fault!) and drop it?

I would not say that I am cautiously optimistic about the success or future of this program. Call me cautiously pessimistic . I want it to work, but don't believe it has enough of the right elements to achieve meaningful results. For anyone other than Hershey.

A couple of things suggest themselves as this sounds like it might be inconsistent distribution of crystals in the chocolate.

1) Keep the chocolate at the melted point for a while longer, 10 minutes? before starting the cool-down part of the cycle (when you add the seed chocolate). This will help to ensure that the chocolate is completely melted. Remember, the temperature is only being measure where the little sensor probe is located. Waiting a while will make sure that the chocolate is a more even temperature and that the crystals are all melted out.

2) When the temper cycle is over, do two things: a) stir the chocolate a bit to mix it, evening out the temperature and spreading the crystals around; and thenb) wait a while before starting to use the chocolate - remember, the temperature sensor measures the temperature in only one place.

Jasmine -

Not sure if you mentioned this before, but what kinds of machines are you using for tempering and what exactly are the symptoms (visual and otherwise) of the temper being off.

I have to agree with Jeff about low humidity, as chocolate is not supposed to have any water in it anyway. The only issues I have ever seen with humidity is when it's too high, and the chocolate, being hygroscopic, absorbs moisture and thickens making it difficult to work with.

Another issue - I suppose theoretically - is that you're not melting out all the crystals before starting to cool the chocolate down. This would result in "bad" (unwanted) crystals still being in the chocolate, forcing improper crystal structure. When you warm the chocolate up, to what temperature and how long do you keep it there before starting to cool it down?

Sebastian:

Is there a reasonably priced option that addresses these limitations of micrometers?

What do you think of the grind gage ? also measures PSD.

Ricardo -

I have to agree with Brad and Sebastian on this issue.

Despite your skepticism, I have personally tasted many, many chocolates made with the modified stone grinders and most (though not all) of those chocolates had no detectable grittiness in them. I have also had chocolates made in expensive "universal" machines that did exhibit grittiness.

It's not the "fault" of the machines, they are both capable of producing good results. More can be attributed to the way the machines are used - the experience of the chocolate maker - and maintained (or not).

I also don't see 30 microns as an absolute number. I believe that part of the mechanical effect of conching is to coat all of the particles with fat. So - you could have a paste where the particle size was below 30 microns with extremely uneven fat distribution and it could taste gritty.

Brad also correctly points out that particle size is just one characteristic to consider.

Ian:

It's not a question, of "we all may have" it's "there are."

The issue of the makeup of the panel whose judgments are the basis of awarding the ... ahh ... awards is always of interest to people. If the judge is you, I think people will want to know your bona fides. Especially because these are being billed as "The World Chocolate Awards."

I have this concern with many people who rate chocolate (and everything else for that matter) have no background or training in sensory analysis. I spent a lot of time thinking about this issue - over the course of several years - before I started publishing my ratings and reviews on chocophile.com back in mid-2001. I had no formal training so I need justification for my hubris in anointing myself a chocolate "critic."

The Club has its own biases, which are obvious when you know what to look for. I don't know that 100 is better than 1 - I'd need to know the makeup of the 100, or the 1.

But the question is not about me - it's about you. I am content to wait until the book comes out and not judge until I have a chance to see the explanation of the methodology and how the awards are presented. Until then it's just a matter of gathering some background so I don't try to make the deep dive into the book cold.

Not sure exactly what qualifies these as "awards" then, based on your description. Sounds more like the guide to French chocolates produced by the Club des Croqueurs de Chocolats, but with only one taster, maybe? You are the sole taster and judge - and your agents helped you source the chocolates?

Ian -

One really important series of questions to answer before the book comes out. (And when will that be?)

Who are the judges?Who is "we?" How were they selected and recruited? Who selected them? How many were there?

There are many more, of course, but - having thrown down the gauntlet on this one - everything you are saying is open to scrutiny, and this is a very knowledgable community.

:: Clay

Chris -

You assume that anyone who's seen the tour sees the entire manufacturing operation - and that they are sophisticated enough to know what they are seeing and can evaluate what they are being told. That's not always the case, in my experience.

The updates to the TCHO web site are recent - they post-date the date of my original post on this subject by several months. To the best of my knowledge and ability to ascertain, I act on information that is correct as of the time I post it. If things change I am happy to acknowledge that things have changed, address the changes, and then move on.I appreciate your noticing that things have changed and bringing those changes to my attention.

TCHO's opinion regarding their being bean-to-bar is not one that is universally shared by the craft/artisan chocolate community. Just because they believe that it does, doesn't make it so in the eyes of their peers. Their position was undermined because their marketing position at the beginning was bean-to-bar on the pier and that message did not evolve as their manufacturing situation evolved.

I was with Shawn on his first bean buying trips (April 2006) and was also involved, very early on, in helping him get the business started. My assistance included working on marketing communications and I can assure you, from the very beginning, that the level of openness about sourcing and other aspects of the business has been integral to the operation both in their packaging and on the web site and electronic communications. The operation has evolved in many ways, so he's doing a better job at communicating than at the very beginning, but he has always been at the vanguard, at least in the US, IMO.

From the beginning, Shawn wanted to take personal responsibility for the relationship with the growers he sourced from, not abdicate that responsibility to a third party that, in his opinion, did not deliver the value (and the values) that he was interested in providing. His Chocolate University project in Tanzania is just one aspect of the work he does that would never be recognized within an institutionalized fairtrade model. The world (of chocolate) is way too complex to reduce to formulas on a general consumer web site.

Chris:

TCHO is one of the most exasperating chocolate companies in the US today. A bit of background.I first met the founder of TCHO, Timothy Childs, three to four years before he started the company, at a previous chocolate startup called Cabaret. I met sourcing director, John Kehoe, back in 2003 in Ecuador. I met Jane Metcalfe and Louis Rossetto (co-founders of Wired) back in 1990.

Back in late 2007 I wrote the first serious coverage (from inside the chocolate industry) on the company. Their go-to-market strategy was brilliant, and they muffed it. I so much wanted them to succeed and it seemed like they couldn't get out of their own way. They were vaporware for over a year and then, when they did start production, it was not as the bean-to-bar manufacturer on the pier in SF that they claimed to be, so they misrepresented a basic brand positioning and have been slow to address it. I think their new web site does a better job of discussing what they are doing than the old one did. But, oneof the points I've made to them repeatedly since their post-beta vaporware period is that the founders of Wired don't get a free pass when it comes to communicating via the Internet.

What I have been astounded at is how bad the company has been at highlighting one of its major contributions, which is the TCHOSource program. IMO, it's one of their strongest assets (always has been) and they still don't understand how to leverage it to their best advantage. I've had discussions with several members of the company about that point in the last six months, in fact.

The thread you cite in your link was started in 2008 and it looks like my last contribution was late in 2009. As I state above, I have been in contact with the company recently about many of the issues you raise.

Last week I was made aware of a web site called GuideGuide.com by Shawn Askinosie. The About page says that the site's mission is to "provide the worlds largest and most reliable source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of consumer products." (Note: Shawn objected to the ratings of his products and they are no longer on the GoodGuide web site, pending review I assume. The observations that follow are based on notes I took before the listings were removed.)

GoodGuide claims that they have more than 100,000 products in their database and an extensive roster of scientists who review every product (or, more likely, set the criteria for what "good" is and then computer programs parse data about the products and come up with ratings).

There is a problem, though with the ratings methodology, in my mind.

A great deal of weight for the environmental and social rankings is placed on the presence of eco-label certifications. No organic certification? Then you get bad environmental ranking. No social certification? Then you get bad society ranking. It doesn't matter what other programs a company might have in place. It doesn't matter what actual benefit a company delivers to its suppliers.

All that matters is the certifications.

If there is a chocolate company on the planet that - measured by dollar of revenue or per employee - delivers more positive impact to the communities it works with than Askinosie, I'd like to know about it. I've traveled with Shawn on bean buying trips and knew about the way he wanted to do business before he made his first bar of chocolate. We've talked regularly since we first met in mid-2005 about how he runs his business, influenced by Jack Stack's A Stake in the Outcomeand his practice of open-book accounting and profit sharing with the communities he buys from. Shawn takes personal responsibility for doing what he knows to be the right thing to do.

Let's take a chocolate company that got higher Good Guide ratings, TCHO. One of the things that has never been clear (to me - and I know the founder and major funders) about TCHO is how closely the actual manufacturing processes match the claims on their web site. I am pretty confident that they have never manufactured any significant amount of product - from the bean - in the factory on the pier in San Francisco. They can't fire up their roaster and I don't know anyone who's seen the entire line in operation. Their TchoSource program is interesting, but it's meaningless unless they can stay in business - probably one of the reasons that the funders ousted founder Timothy Childs. They've always had a small lab producing their beta samples and pre-production runs so they can claim to be manufacturing bean-to-bar on the pier, but the quantities are not commercial quantities.

But TCHO has several products that are made with both FT and organic certified beans. They get great marks on the environmental and social scale, while those that are not get much lower marks (which is to be expected).

Askinosie uses packaging that is quite environmentally friendly. TCHO uses less environmentally friendly paperboard and gold foil imprinting for their boxes. But there is no place in the Good Guide methodology for any chance to think about the marketing messages and other aspects of the companies' businesses - like packaging and ethics - affect factors like environment and society.

Jif peanut butter got higher ratings than Askinosie. Is that a "good" thing?

The Good Guide health rating for chocolate is dominated by one factor - the saturated fat in chocolate. What the scientists fail to recognize is that the triglyceride structure of the saturated fat in chocolate makes it a "healthy" fat (like olive oil and coconut oil) and not a "bad" fat like saturated animal fats. (Specifically, "the nutritional value of the food, as characterized by a standard method of nutrient assessment called the Ratio of Recommended to Restricted Nutrients (RRR)." Easy to write a program to do that, hard to take into account differentiations that make a meaningful difference.)

While there are issues with the density of calories in chocolate and the percentage of calories that come from sweeteners, the Good Guide has no place in its ratings methodology for the growing science into the very real health benefits of chocolate: they make no meaningfully useful distinction between chocolate (i.e., a bar of chocolate from a craft producer) and candy (i.e., a Snickers bars) in their ratings.

Their shopping tips for buying chocolate bars are way too general on the issues of child and slave labor, entirely misrepresent issues in traceability, and confuse the need for fertilizer with the use of pesticides.

They also place way too much emphasis on certifications saying that, "Certifications ensure the chocolate has been produced under industry leading labor and environmental conditions." I BEG YOUR PARDON? You're confusing cacao growers and chocolate makers here in a way that is not defensible.

Which, for me, these issues make the entire Good Guide methodology for all products suspect. I can tell you that I will never be using their service and will never recommend it to anyone, either.

If that weren't enough, I received a confusing press release from a magazine called Organic Monitor over the weekend. Organic Monitor is hosting the Sustainable Foods Summit in San Francisco next week (January 17-18). I won't be attending as members of the press who are not employed by the media sponsors of the event must pay to attend (though the rate is discounted.)

In taking a look at the list of presentations one thing becomes instantly clear: There are no producers making presentations. The only people talking are the companies and organizations who have made millions of dollars successfully selling eco-labeling.

The absurdity of the situation was further highlighted in the press release, in which Organic Monitor posits that consumers are becoming disillusioned and confused by what organic certification really means and what the meaningful differences are between FLO Fairtrade, FTUSA Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, Utz, Fair for Life, and more.

Organic Monitor suggests that mobile apps that enable consumers to use QR (quick response) codes and other techniques to look up information about products as they are making their purchases and make better, more informed, decisions.

They point to Good Guide as being an exemplar of the way the industry seems to be going.

But wait. Don't the Good Guide ratings rely on the very eco-labels Organic Monitor predicts they are going to supplant?

What's an informed chocolate consumer supposed to do?

1) Buy from small producers who work you like and that you can get to know personally or through close friends and/or people you trust.

2) Don't blindly assume that because a product is organic means that it was produced in an environmentally sustainable fashion.

3) Don't assume that "Fair" trade means that smallholder farmers are treated fairly. Even when organized, growers lack the economic leverage to ensure they receive the benefits the fair trade certification process says that they are entitled to and that they have paid for. AND, remember, all of the "Fair" trade certifiers are non-profit organizations that rely heavily on industry support. Kraft pays dearly for the use of the Fairtrade label on their bars and probably pays nearly as much in licensing fees as it does in premiums. That is a fundamental conflict of interest that people blithely ignore - to the detriment of producers.

In other words - do your homework and develop the personal relationships necessary to understand what is really going on. Certification is a huge business with the backing of huge corporations. Follow the money. Who controls the economic leverage?

And this from Bloomberg news today: Fair Trade Proving Anything But to Farmers With $6 Billion Sales at Stake .

And if that weren't enough, FLO CEO Rob Cameron has resigned .

In a move that has sent shockwaves of disbelief throughout the "fair trade" industry worldwide, Fair Trade USA (until recently TransFair USA), is separating from FLO (Fairtrade Licensing Organization) and the Fairtrade International movement.

The primary reason (the actual decision-making process was done behind closed doors and FTUSA does not feel "comfortable" releasing the names of those involved in the process: So much for transparency!) for the schism appears to be a disagreement over the inclusion of hired labor organizations (i.e., estates and individual farms) in the coffee industry into the fair trade souk.

At the moment, all of the producer entities who have Fairtrade certification - in coffee - are SPOs (small producer organizations). There are other products that already allow estates that use hired labor to "enjoy the benefits" of Fairtrade certification - bananas is one (cocoa is not, for now, included in FTUSA's push to embrace hired labor organizations). FLO/FI does not want to extend certification to hired labor organizations in coffee; FTUSA does. FTUSA's rubric for their new movement is "Fair Trade for All."

Who could possibly object to "Fair Trade for All?" But, of course, there are those who do. [My opinion is that the fairtrade business model is fundamentally flawed and there are better ways to achieve address systemic issues than the premium "aid" model, which, in practice, acts to extend Western economic imperialism.] There are arguments on both sides ... that are convincing to the supporters of their respective positions. In the end, no-one knows what the schism will mean in practice, either for their respective movements for consumers, or producers. But I have a sinking feeling that I know who will lose out: the very people whom "Fair" trade is supposed to help.

I have one more prediction - and I would like to hear the thoughts of members of TheChocolateLife community about the split.

My sense is that this can only be confusing to consumers who will now have to understand and recognize the differences between FTUSA certification and FLO certification. FTUSA has to come up with an entirely new logo and convince their current sub-licensees to switch to the new system. Products with the FLO symbol will continue to be imported into the US and there is every likelihood that an "official" FLO organization will arise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of this (unfortunate but ultimately fated) implosion.

Perhaps most unfortunately is that monies that should be going to help people who need the help (growers and producers) will now be going to designers, printers, and PR and marketing firms to educate the buying public on the need for the change, to (try) to reduce the confusion in the marketplace, and to convince people that the new logo can be trusted.

Once again I ask: "How is this 'fair?'" In the end, the millions and millions of dollars that will be spent on this will be ill-spent; a testament to massive organizational hubris and naught else. Who will benefit most in the end? FTUSA and ad agency/PR executives who sit in air-conditioned offices and drive around the San Francisco Bay area in "PC/environmentally friendly" cars pulling down hefty six-figure salaries.

Not subsistence farmers who do not (and cannot) earn a living from the fruits of their labor.

Becca -

Try getting close to one of the craft chocolate makers in the UK -- Duffy, Willie, etc., and see they will offer them to you.

The way it was explained to me (by people associated with Tomric, Selmi's distributor here in the US) is that there's not enough clearance (back to front and left to right) to fit the standard dosing plates. I can't see any real technical reason why it shouldn't work - but there might also be issues with the amount of pressure generated by the pump and auger (it might be insufficient to push the chocolate through the dosing plates). Personally, I think it's more likely a marketing decision.

I know the export manager from Selmi is a ChocolateLife member, so perhaps Tom can provide a more precise answer to this question.

Brian - I think this is a really excellent idea and a way to incorporate the cocoa-infused vodka in the same beverage! Not a Black Russian ... what might a good name be?

I've been thinking about this, too, and playing around with grinding them up to a very fine, smooth, paste (they're pretty soft) and adding them cake/brownie batter. I haven't made any in a while - but it's on my list for something to do the next time I make a batch.

Davy:

If you can grow cacao in New York City, you can grow it in Belgium. Indoors, under a daylight grow lamp (12 hours/day, regular cycles). You will probably want to start out on top of a heating mat, too. This will keep the tree warm and if you put a tray on top of the mat and put water in the tray the warmthwill help keep the moisture level up, too.

One reason you won't get pods is no pollinating insects, not just climate. I have seen pods on the trees at the NY Botanical gardens - never more than one or two. But they keep the ground under the tree completely clean of leaf litter and don't like many kinds of insect in the greenhouses, so no pollinators.

Maria -

It's not so much the difference in gross origin (Venezuela vs the DR), it's differences in the variety (genetics) of the bean modified by various aspects of terroir, and I include post-harvest processing techniques as a part of terroir.

If 15min at 140C is what works for you - then that's what works for you. Your beans, your roasting technique.

The exact times and temps for others does not really matter.

EXCEPT ... in the absence of testing, 15min at 140C does not guarantee that pathogens (e.g., salmonella) on the outside of the beans are killed to an "acceptable" level. So, you probably want to do some lab analysis on a regular basis (e.g., each new shipment of beans at least) to make sure that everything is safe.

Maria: There is no direct correlation between conching time and quality across machine types. Modern conches are built in a way to produces very high quality results in surprisingly short periods of time.

How long you conche depends on a lot of factors, based on the flavor profile you are looking to achieve. The beans you use provide the starting point, and proper roasting is the first phase. Different roasts will bring out different flavors which will be affected differently by the conching. When starting out, check every hour for the first 4-8 hours and you will be astonished at the change. From there, every couple of hours for the next 24-36 hours (if you are using one of the CocoaTown machines or Santha, or longitudinal conche).

The challenge is to get the flavor you want in the same time frame as getting the texture right. You can overdo either quite easily.

The key point is that 72 hours (or 96 hours) is not better because it's longer. It's very possible that at 72 hours all of the "life" in the chocolate will be evaporated out. As a chocolate maker, it's up to you to determine what results you're looking to achieve and to experiment until you hit upon the combination of times and temperatures that deliver the results you want. You want to conche for exactly the right amount of time that is correct for the chocolate you are making. It may be different for different chocolates.

One thing you can do to affect conche times is to blow (warm) air into the conche bowl. This can accelerate the evaporation of undesirable aromas (such as acetic acid). This can shorten conche times by getting flavor development ahead of texture development.

Scott -

Thanks for the update on this. Given Walsh's history (which Dr Martin lays out in exquisite detail in her post), I have trouble believing that anyone would do business with him. I have never met him, so maybe he's intensely charismatic. I have met people like that and I know intelligent, diligent, investors who've plunked down large chunks of cash on things that, to someone with some inside knowledge of chocolate would know instantly to be false.

I see that the article was updated today with some new photos posted by Steve DeVries of the Biosana project. Kudos to all who are working to expose what appears to be a huge fraud and con.

Posted by BusinessWire (a Berkshire Hathaway company - BH also owns See's):

LOS ANGELES, Dec 08, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Intentional Chocolate's Organic + line is the first ever chocolate to be certified organic, use cocoa from Rainforest Alliance farms with the added bonus of carrying the official Intentional TM certification. The Organic + dark line is also certified Vegan and Kosher and is gluten free.

The press release goes on to state:

The chocolates [are] embedded with this new ingredient "Intention" have been shown to significantly decrease stress, increase calmness, and lessen fatigue in those who consume it. This is the result of findings from a scientific pilot study conducted by The HESA Institute (Human Energy System Alliance) and a full year of consumer testing. With the introduction of this groundbreaking new product, creator and founder Jim Walsh aims to create an entirely new category of chocolate that both enhances its already beneficial qualities and brings our understanding of nutrition to another level. Breakthrough licensed technology helps embed the focused good intentions of experienced meditators and then infuses those intentions into chocolate -- some who have trained with the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama himself stated, "I think this chocolate will bring great happiness to mankind." Their hope with Intentional Chocolate(TM) is to reintroduce this ancient wisdom and galvanize a shift in the food industry to bring greater health and food that restores us, renews us and heals us.

An interesting historical footnote here is that Intentional Chocolate creator and founder Jim Walsh was behind the somewhat infamous Hawaiian Vintage Chocolate company. The HVC web site is still up and running and is a confusing mish-mash of the original HVC vision and its new intentional direction. Can anyone tell me what's unusual about their singular farming method ?

Apart from all of the other claims, any thoughts on "intentional" chocolate and what a "breakthrough licensed technology helps embed the focused good intentions of experienced meditators" might look like? I am also kind of wondering if this happens before tempering and if the good intentions get locked in as the chocolate crystallizes ... or if the meditating over the chocolate happens after.

Your (intentional) thoughts?

Full release here .

Mary:

There is no lab-scale machinery at 20kg/hr throughput for chocolate production. Only batch. You can get continuous temperers in that capacity, but that's trivial compared with the machinery for producing chocolate.

Unfortunately, there is no "system" of equipment scaled to that is scaled to that level of production. You can get a 20kg "universal," but there no complementary options for roasting/cracking/winnowing and, optionally, pre-grinding. It's easy to find 1 tonne/hr winnowers, hard to find 20 kg/hr, for example. Easy to find 1 lb sample roasters, hard to find inexpensive 20kg roasters.

It's also probably a good idea to know how you want to scale up in terms of production method/equipment. If you're not careful, not everything you do in the lab will translate into production if you use very different approaches.

Do you have even a ballpark budget in mind? You can't do this for $10,000. You could easily do it for $100,000.

:: Clay