Forum Activity for @Clay

The pros and cons, ins and outs, ups and downs, and good and bad of existing social certification programs have been an ongoing topic for discussion here on TheChocolateLife, most recently in this discussion sparked by a thesis examining a Fairtrade coffee co-op in Laos.

Let's step back for a moment, and rather than try to dissect what's bad (and good) about existingsystems, let's start from scratch and outline what the elements of an ideal system would be.

I started a discussion around a specific approach (a VAT-like system) at 5percent4farmers.ning.comfor anyone who is looking for a little inspiration.

Magrietha:

If you're working with chocolate in any capacity, understanding tempering should be considered a starting point - even if you're using automatic tempering machines. They're not perfect and it's fundamentally necessary to be able to recognize good temper (and when the chocolate is not in good temper!) and to be able to temper by hand when necessary.

It gives you far greater control, yes - but also far greater confidence, and that's not to be underestimated.

:: Clay

One of the things I really love about what I do is that people send me chocolate to taste.

Sometimes they call me up in advance and ask me if it's okay - but sometimes I show up at the post office and there are boxes waiting for me.

What's not to love?

Lindt Excellence 70%

I got an e-mail from Lindt's PR agency asking me if I wanted to taste three new products in the Lindt Excellence line - a new recipe 70%, 70% with almond brittle, and 70% with nut crunch (caramelized walnuts and hazelnuts). Me not want to taste chocolate?

Irrespective of what you may think about some Lindt products (I personally am not a fan of Lindor "truffles") they are one of the three largest players in the gourmet chocolate segment. They've done a phenomenal job in distribution and, overall, the Excellence stands tall among the brands with broad distribution.

The package I received did not include a bar of the old recipe 70% so I did make a direct comparison against the two. The new 70% has a faint, pleasant note of bright fruit on the front that gives way to a not overly assertive pleasant chocolate flavor. The long finish is long with a hint of the up front fruitiness returning before fading away.

There's no indication if the 70% almond brittle is made with the same new formula 70% - but the chocolate is branded differently (the new 70% is "smooth dark" and the chocolate in the almond brittle (and the nut crunch) is "intense dark." Whatever recipe is used, the upfront fruitiness is a more assertive and lasts longer and the finish contains a touch of (not unpleasant) astringency. Personally, I like chocolate with my inclusions in a bar like this, not inclusions with my chocolate and I wanted there to be more there, there with the brittle. That said, there is a very lovely toasted almond note on the long finish.

The fruitiness and astringency are both more obvious in the nut crunch bar, as is the flavor profile of roasted nuts in the long finish - especially the walnut which, like the pecan, is very much underused, in my opinion, in high end chocolates.

I think part of my issue might be the relative thinness of the bars. If they were thicker the inclusions could be bigger and they would be more to my preference.

That said, like all Lindt chocolates this trio is impeccably made and bears all the textural hallmarks we've come to expect (and demand) from a Swiss-brand chocolate (even when it's made in New Hampshire). The new 70% in particular makes a pleasing, affordable addition to the list of "everyday eating chocolates" for people looking to make a step up from mass-market domestically produced options to something more sophisticated.

Good Cocoa

I met the founder of Good Cocoa , Paul Frantellizi, over on LinkedIn where we participated in discussions about "healthy" chocolate (X**ai) and other issues. Paul sent me samples of two bars that are labeled as Superfood Chocolate.

Those of you who know me know that I am not a fan of turning chocolate into a nutraceutical delivery vehicle for the simple reason that I want to feel good eating chocolate, not feel good about eating chocolate. Most "enhanced" chocolates might enhance the nutritional value of chocolate but tend to do so at the expense of flavor and texture.

What I can say about Good Cacao is that if I blind tasted it the first time I would not have put it into the category of either raw chocolate (which the label says it contains) or nutritionally-enhanced chocolate.

And nutritionally enhanced it is. In addition to Maca, the bars contain about a half-dozen nutrient blends and additions including a blend of marine phytoplanktons. In addition, the outer wrap is made from a recycled paper wade with FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified components and Green Power offsets are used to power the factory. So you can feel really good about eating this chocolate.

But, not only were the bars not bad, they were actually quite good. The lemon version had small pieces of Meyer lemon zest in it that provided nice bright bursts of flavor and the earthy funk common to most bars that contain raw cacao was missing entirely. The coconut bar had visible flakes of coconut that added a nice texture, too.

However, I do have some issues with the wording of the labels, specifically around the use of the word raw, which, in the absence of any standard on the subject I will construe to mean "not subjected to temperatures above 118F."

The ingredients list on both bars mention Organic Rainforest Alliance Single Origin Ecuadorian Cacao Paste AND Organic Raw Fair Trade Single Origin Ecuadorian Arriba Nacional-Fino de Aroma Cacao Powder.

Actually this is kind of interesting, suggesting that the paste is made from roasted beans and that the powder is used to add some oomph to the antioxidant rating. It makes sense in a way, but it's potentially confusing to someone who sees on the front that the bar contains raw cacao but raw cacao is not the main ingredient.

I know that vanilla needs to be fermented and I am also pretty sure that the fermentations are above 118F - I've never heard of "raw vanilla" before. On the same note, I've never heard the term raw applied to cinnamon before, and it's on this label.

I also have a problem with the "no trans-fats" label on the front. All cacao is free of trans fats so making the claim this way is misleading. I would prefer "naturally trans-fat free" or nothing.

The packaging says "organic" on it though nowhere does an organic certifiers mark appear on the labels, just on the web site (USDA seal). Similarly the bars are labeled "Fair Trade Conscious" which is a term (with a "seal" that looks remarkably like their own "Be Good to Yourself logo) I had not run across before, but the web site also specifically refers to Fairtrade (as in FLO) with no explanation of what that means with respect to the Rainforest Alliance certification.

Finally, the cut (sell) sheet I received included the line "USDA Certified Organic & Raw Ingredients" which pretty strongly implies that there is a USDA certification for raw. As there is no such certification (though it's possible to interpret the line differently), for clarity's sake, it would be best to separate the two claims.

So - while I think that Paul and crew have done a very good job of creating a tasty nutraceutical chocolate (it is one of the top two or three best-tasting chocolates in this genre that I have tasted), the labeling and marketing materials are more than a little overwhelming and in the density of information there is the potential for more than a little confusion.

Zokoko

Based in NSW Australia, Zokoko is - to the best of my knowledge - the first new bean to bar producer in Australia working with refurbished European equipment, including a Barth Scirocco roaster and a Lehman melangeur.

The proprietors (ChocolateLife members Dean and Michelle Morgan) have crafted an award-winning collection of chocolates from different origins that have a lot to recommend them.

One of the challenges I have about writing about a lot of chocolates (including these) is that they're not generally available in the US and I have a general policy of not creating a demand for a chocolate that you can't get easily get your hands on. That said, these chocolates are very well made and very much worth trying to get your hands on in part because there are some very unusual chocolates to be tasted that really do deserve to be tasted this side of the Pacific.

Two of the best examples of this are chocolates made from Bolivian beans. Not the ones from El Ceibo or from the Hacienda Tranquilidad (though there is a chocolate made from those beans) - but two chocolates made from beans that come from the Alto Beni around the town of Palos Blancos. There (and in the area around Chimore west of Santa Cruz), Volker Lehman has been involved in a fascinating project with the Danish chocolate maker TOMS that involves two different fermentation techniques - one using conventional boxes and another involving trays. As to be expected (when you think about it), the two different fermentation techniques yield two different tasting chocolates and, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time anywhere that there are commercially available chocolates that demonstrate these differences.

From a larger perspective, this demonstrates that the concept of terroir (in cacao) is not just limited to genetics and environment, but also includes post-harvest processing techniques. This conflation is well understood in wine, cheese, and other foods, but not so strikingly and clearly before this in cocoa.

One exception I do take with the marketing presentation is that it's unclear if Zokoko is pressing its own cocoa butter. If they are, then presenting the chocolates as "pure origin" is perfect appropriate. However, if deodorized cocoa butter from another manufacturer is being used, the origin of the beans used to make the cocoa butter is unknown and, rightfully, the chocolate can't be called "pure" origin or "single" origin.

Amano

Art Pollard is generally regarded as one of the better artisan/craft chocolate makers on the planet. That makes me wonder what was he thinking when he produced his new Morobe bar, made from beans from Papua New Guinea.

This one is over the top in your face bright fruity acidic - citrus fruits, too; lime mainly, plus some grapefruit. After tasting it, it's not a chocolate I would knowingly buy for myself to eat, nor choose to buy or gift for someone else. I did not like it at all. I can appreciate how well made it is ... but I do not like it.

My one sincere hope is that this does not signal a trend to see who can outdo the next and produce overly acidic chocolate for ... the shock value? It's definitely niche.

Jim -

Richard Foley mentioned that Qzina was selling the Keller shells. I would start there. Qzina also has operations in Canada if I recall correctly.

For anyone interested in learning a tiny bit more about one-shot, try this page on the A w ema web site.

Have you ever walked into a chocolate shop and seen perfectly round (except for a flat bottom) truffles? They were done either using a one-shot machine or by filling shells.

You identified the key issue for you - if there was any negative impact on taste or texture you would not use them. As there is not, then why not? A long time ago I learned that it was important to understand what I was "willing to fall on my sword" for when it came to production. Yeah, I know I could make my own puff pastry, but, there are so many good ones that are frozen, by using those I could concentrate on what really set my work apart and allowed me to increase production (or reduce the number of hours I spent in the kitchen).

One of the most famous chocolate companies in Chicago (whose name also starts with a V and is not Valrhona though the name is French) used shells from the very beginning - although they may be doing them on one-shot machines now for production and shelf-life reasons.

The only problem that I see is representing them as one thing (100% hand-made) if they are not.

BTW - just because you start using shells doesn't mean there is no longer room for a 100% hand-made product - a real truffe nature au chocolat.

Is being "smug" a part of the challenge that needs to be overcome?

Earlier today, Equal Exchange posted the following table on their Facebook page:

and then bragged about the fact that their pay ratio (the ratio between the highest-paid and lowest-paid workers in the company) was only 4:1.

I asked them if their computation of the pay ratio included what growers got paid.

They poasted no, but then tried to justify their position in a very long reply by saying that, when they included an estimated annual income for an average grower at US$3000 that their pay ratio was still "only" 33:1 - a much more "egalitarian" figure than companies whose CEOs would have pay ratios of thousands:1 or more if the wages of foreign farmers were considered in the mix.

Is "egalitarian" "fair?" Is that the measure of the success of these programs?

For me, trumpeting the pay ratio is a symptom of an attitude that is prevalent in programs like FLO, and reminds me of a shell game where our attention is deliberately distracted so we can't see what's actually going on.

Kristy:

The moral mafia I am referring to is not FLO, it's supporters of "Fair" trade who have not actually spent any time to learn what is really going on.

It's the general consuming public that assumes that "Fair" trade MUST BE FAIR just because there is a certificate and who demands that products/ingredients must be FT & Organic without really understanding what that means. Like many minorities, they can be very vocal and tend to be passionate, so they garner a lot of attention and can exert outsize influence.

Chocolate Life Nat Bletter posted a link to a very interesting thesis on FT coffee in Laos that clearly reveals some of the potential (and real) flaws in certificate programs as well as some of the unintended consequences of such programs. ChocolateLife member Cristian Melo has posted a link to a fabulous thesis he did on cocoa in Ecuador.

Your numbers above clearly show that the direct economic benefits are hard to justify. My contention has always been that if FT was so great why aren't there many, many, many more co-ops who are FT certified? Could it be that the value - delivered to the grower - is not as rosy as the picture painted to the consumer? Could it be that it's so expensive that a significant percentage of certification fees is paid by third parties (including NGOs and taxpayer-funded aid programs)? Perhaps more importantly, the finances of these certification organizations is far from transparent. Given their demand for traceability up the supply chain you'd think that delivering reliable numbers for quantities of product moved and the value of the social premium paid would be easy to publish (and would be something they would be proud to publish). Yet, getting such figures is NOT an easy task. I have been waiting since May for "reliable" numbers from FLO's press office and have been politely stonewalled every time I have asked.

I think that FT (as practiced by FLO, RA, and others) is a part of an answer, but not the answer. Critical examination of the value these programs actually deliver - relative to the value reaped by the program itself and upstream actors in the supply chain - needs much closer examination. At the moment, it costs a company like Kraft almost nothing to gain FT certification. However, they can charge a premium for FT certified product (the market will pay for the perceived social benefit), so in the end, Kraft makes millions more than the producers do.

Is that "fair?"

IB -

The first link is to a 223 page document. Please let me know which page(s) you refer to in this document. Likewise, the second document is 210 pages long. Please provide the direct references.

I don't think that it is necessarily a good thing that an NGO pays for certification ... even when there is a commitment to cover the cost of certification in perpetuity. This is rarely the case (in my personal experience) as most NGOs project time horizons are very short, often only two years, with the stated goal of improving things to the point where the co-op gets to the point where it can cover those costs on its own. Then the NGO leaves, usually taking the market/buyer with them along with the $$ and technical support necessary to sustain progress. To be truly effective, program support has to last at least a decade and preferably longer - not just "appear" to be ongoing.

What the short term commitment to pay for certification does is create artificial, unsupportable, conditions. At the end of the commitment period the co-op must either be in a position to cover the costs themselves, lose their certification, or go begging for further subsidies.

I can also argue that having NGOs cover the cost of certification is anti-competitive because the certification bodies see no need to lower costs.Creating a culture where the answer is NGO support is not a good solution, IMO.

IB -

Please take a look around at my work and writings here and other places and you will know the answer to that question. But - the answer is very clearly that I am working to find alternative solutions to ethical supply chain certification in cocoa that address what I perceive to be the drawbacks in the existing Fairtrade model. I recently registered the domain name www.cocoassure.com in support of my efforts in this regard.

One of the necessary steps I see is to shake people out of bland complacency and acceptance. Most people (if you asked them) will think that "the problem has been solved" and Fairtrade is the solution.

Part of what I am trying to do is to get people to acknowledge is that there is still more work to do in finding ways to approach the issues at hand.

-- Clay

PS. Also, I find it frustrating that you know my name and I don't know yours. It's not listed on your web site that I can find and none of the articles linked to mention your name. Care to share?

IB -

The problems are not from having been spun off. The challenges are inherent in the Fairtrade model.

You quote one pervasive misunderstanding of the Fairtrade process, "The vast majority of the money goes back to the farmers ... " While it is true that the co-op purchases the coffee from the farmers, paying them the Fairtrade minimum, the premium that gets paid goes to the co-op and is typically used to cover overhead and invest in infrastructure to increase production.

There are far more subtle forces at play here that rarely get looked at or reported. One thing that most people don't understand is that the amount of labor, water, and energy required to produce coffee to the Fairtrade quality standard is significantly greater than that which the farmers are normally used to.

In fact, the labor demands (as reported in the thesis) are so much greater that coffee farmers now spend a significant portion of their income on food, whereas before they would grow it themselves and hunt and fish for it. Apparently, the price of rice has trebled in the last few years. Thus, while there has been a rise in income, an unintended consequence is that now the farmers are dependent on the world food market. Whereas now they might be making more than the per capita income, they are working far harder for it and many find themselves with expenses they never faced before - and are, in actual fact, poorer for it.

There are other trade-offs - while the farming practices may be organic, the associated production practices may not be sustainable because of the increases in water usage and energy. I am sure these figures are not properly accounted for in the the ASEAN figures you link. Another way in which they are an example of poor statistics is that they don't indicate how many farmers are involved from year to year and don't include the number of dependents. So, we don't know anything about how much of the growth in sales is due to an increase in the number of farmers.

These are just a few examples of why the situation is not simple: there are no simple answers, no simple fixes. The blindness is built into the system, which is a lot about forcing western consumer culture values on to farmers in producing countries. Furthermore, the social and economic contract is essentially the same worldwide: it is culturally insensitive and therefore cannot be equitable.

The real issue is that most consumers don't take the time to go an look for themselves in any depth or examine the situation with any critical facility. We want to believe that by spending a few extra bucks at the grocery store that we can make a difference in the lives of farmers. Sometimes it works that way - but many times it does not. Who benefits most from Fairtrade (in coffee)? The companies near the top of the supply chain who, between them account for more than 80% of the increase in value of the commodity once it is exported.

I maintain that while "Fair Trade" as it is currently constituted by FLO/Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, et al, may A part of AN answer, it is not THE answer. However, the institution of Fairtrade has garnered so much weight and prestige from unthinking adherents that other legitimate attempts to address the very real issues at stake are not given a chance in the market because of the suasion of an informal "moral mafia" that has arisen around Fairtrade and organic certification.

IB -

Thank you for asking. I am already in touch with FLO about a far more fundamental issue. One of the supposed "advantages" of Fairtrade is traceability up the supply chain. If that's the case, it should be a simple matter of putting together a report on how much cocoa was purchased, by country, and therefore how much was paid in the way of the social premium.

I asked for this information over a month ago and am still waiting for an answer. True, I was told that they were in the process of preparing their annual report and that took precedence. However, figures like this should be readily available, IMO.

Contrary to your belief, there is no simple explanation. The issues are far more complex than most people ever stop to consider.

Rodney:

You are right - one of the most-cited benefits of the Fairtrade system is the pricing floor. That was really helpful when commodity prices were below that level. Now that prices are far above the floor, that argument is not as valid as it does not currently apply.

It should be pointed out that, in most instances, the $750,-/MT differential still did not cover actual production costs, especially if you're looking to promote environmentally responsible, sustainable, methods.

I agree with you that different models of pricing need to be developed but I don't think that this can be done within the existing Fairtrade system as they would have to publicly acknowledge the flaws in the system to date which I have doubts can be sustained politically.

The only long term fix for the inequities inherent in the Fairtrade model are to implement a system that has, as one of its primary focuses, improving quality all the way around. This may be a part of the Fairtrade system for coffee, but it is not a part of the system for cocoa. To avoid dependence on world market pricing you have to get out of the trap of producing commodity product and move to specialty product.

Fairtrade (i.e., FLO Fairtrade, not "'Fair' Trade" - there is a very important difference) is A part of AN answer. It is not THE answer. One of the profound ironies of the Fairtrade system is that there are tens of thousands of people around the world who owe their own livelihoods to the system being broken and seeing Fairtrade as a fix. They don't want to "fix" Fairtrade because it might mean losing their jobs. It's kind of perverse, actually. Their jobs depend on perpetuating, to some extent, the existing inequitable system (making the "best of a bad situation").

IB:

The Fairtrade certifications in Laos are likely handled by FLO-CERT ( www.flo-cert.net ). According to their web site, "FLO-CERT GmbH is an independent International Certification company offering Fairtrade Certification services to clients in more than 70 countries." They may be independent but they are located at the same address as FLO. (GmbH stands for "Gesellschaft mit beschrnkter Haftung" which is similar to an LLC (limited liability company) here in the US - they are not a non-profit company.)

There is a list of fees FLO-CERT charges to producers in PDF documents linked to from this page. There is a Scope of Certification page , but it is missing a link to the scope for cocoa. It should be noted that Transfair USA (the FLO licensee that handles Fairtrade business in the the Americas) is far less transparent when it comes to making it's fee structure available to the general public.

When it comes to organic certification, the are many different organizations that offer the service. Organic certification is something of a racket in that not all countries recognize all certifications equally. In the US, companies really want the USDA organic certification so they can use the USDA organic symbol on their packaging. If you have a different certifier, you cannot use the USDA logoeven though some other organic certifier certifies your product as being organic. You have to pay separately for USDA organic certification.

This can have some serious unintended consequences on producer organizations as I outlined in a post about some implications for the TCGA in Belize about Kraft buying Cadbury and shifting some production from Italy to Canada, requiring a shift in organic certifiers. The new organic certifier had much stricter standards for handling "transitional" cocoa and the TCGA lost their buyer for cocoa from farms in the process of attaining their organic certification.

You ask a very interesting question about who is picking up the costs of certification. In a small number of cases, someone other than the co-op is paying for the certifications. Even then, often the companies are picking up the costs in the short run with the intent of turning over responsibility for picking up the ongoing fees ASAP. (This is common with NGOs who tend to have very short time spans - two years is typical - for their programs.)In the case of the thesis cited, the members of the co-op in Laos are picking up all the costs of certification.

Also from this thesis:

In addition, organic and Fairtrade certifiers also need to examine how to make certification more affordable and more culturally appropriate to small producer organisations [emphasis added], as well as to non co-op members

Antonino:

I am not sure what you mean by your response. The first part I get (and I don't really know the answer to it) ... the other two parts I don't know what you're saying.

:: Clay

I was sent an interesting thesis analyzing Fairtrade (i.e., FLO) in coffee in Laos.

The chapter titled Economic Sustainability contains the following information:

In addition to the overload of work the farmers must invest to gain 34 cents per pound extra, they also have to pay the Fairtrade Certification fee of US$3,460 per co-op (Euro2,378) per year and the administration fee and other fees of around US$5,000 per co-op which is not paid for by buyers (Wilson, 2006; Fridell, 2007B). Moreover, to gain the 15 cents per pound extra for organic coffee, they have to pay the Organic Certification fee of US$3,000 plus other administration fees of US$6,000. There are only 500 farmers in the co-op (JCFC, 2008), hence, it costs each farmer about US$35 to keep the certifications up to date.

This indicates that regardless of the higher gross incomes that result from higher Fairtrade prices, there is no guarantee of a positive net household income for these farmers who are charged the high costs of foreign inspectors and certification.

If these figures are correct, it costs this co-op (JCFC) over US$17,000/year to maintain both Fairtrade and organic certification. At a combined premium of US$0.20/lb it means the co-op must sell about 42 tons of coffee just to recoup the cost of certification out of the premiums paid.

The thesis also reports that the per-capita annual income in the region is US$580. This means that co-op members spend the equivalent of about 7% of their annual income to pay for certification. Many farmers report that they won't join, or have dropped out of, the co-op because the amount of work involved to meet Fairtrade standards for quality is not worth the extra effort involved.

Can anyone tell me how this is "Fair" trade?

Richard:

We really are talking apples, oranges, and kumquats here. I think the first question is what market you intend to address?

IMO, there aren't a lot of people looking to set up production facilities in par with the scale of TCHO. Their Universal is a 3MT machine and is fronted by a ball mill. Theoretically, they could be producing 15-20MT/week in their plant - from liquor as they have no roaster and, on the pier, they are not likely to.

The real growth in the market (as I see it) is how to help companies that are in their real startup phase (i.e., producing in 5Kg batches) or in small production (e.g., producing 40-50kg batches) move up to the next level of production and to do so cost effectively. Going the Mast Brothers route (without the Selmi) a used convection oven, Crankandstein, CPS (or similar) winnower, and a 65L CocoaTown costs about $10k.

What's the next step? Spending over $70K for the basic (15Kg) BLT setup is too big a jump for most startups. It's not enough increase in production to justify the price differential. The cost structure goes up but the throughput to pay for the increased costs does not go up at the same rate.

The 50Kg Netzsch ChocoEasy is about $95K right now (about 60K Euros). That number is low, because you still need the support equipment (roaster, cracker, winnower, grinder) to support it.

If I was looking to spend roughly 110K Euros on new equipment there are solutions which offer up to 400Kg/day throughput (not including tempering/molding) for that amount of money. The throughput increase is great enough to justify the cost difference.

It's also really, really, really important to note that once you get above a certain production size, what really matters is materials handling. Everything can be moved around by hand when you're doing up to a couple of hundred kilos a day, but above that you really do need to consider where you're going to be storing beans (receiving/cleaning, storage, staging before and after roasting), where you're going to be storing chaff and nib, how you're moving/pumping (and storing) liquor and finished chocolate. The issues associated with materials handling are critical when considering growth above a certain size.

Where's the tipping point? I don't know - it depends on how much experience you have. I visited Pralus's factory in 2009 and they still move everything around by hand. They have 3, 250Kg Universals (two dark, one dedicated to milk). There's a 35kg ball roaster and a cracker/winnower. I did not see where they store/age their chocolate after it comes out of the Universal and before it gets molded or what they store it in. But Pralus did not start out at this production level, he's grown into it over many years. If he started from scratch today, with little experience is that how he'd set it up? Probably not.

With respect to your question about conching. It's really about three things: final particle size reduction, breaking up agglomerates and covering all the powder particles with fat, and flavor development. The "beauty" of the Netzsch approach is that it decouples the physical processes from the flavor development processes. You run it through the ball mill until you get the particle size you want and then stop pumping the chocolate through the ball mill and only beat it and aerate it to evaporate out aromatics you don't want.

You could do the physical processes another way (e.g., a grinder into a roll refiner then into a universal for a short while) and then use a device like the Duyvis-Wiener taste changer for final flavor development. (You could also blow a lot of air through the universal using both push and pull fans.)

What's important to know - and this is where having a variety of equipment on hand helps - is that the optimum time required for the the physical processes is not the same as the optimum time required to develop flavor. If it takes 48 hours of continuous grinding to get the texture where you want it you run the risk of driving off a lot of interesting flavors.

Ben:

I would be more than happy to share what we're doing. At the moment, if this were a software project, I would characterize it as "we're still in the early design phase, have a direction, and want to do one proof of concept before we open things up to the community." Very definitely when we get to the point that we have our first physical prototype - we'll open it up for community review.

I can tell you that we are working on the impact principle. There is a long way to go from your description of a drill with plates to something that works ("hoping" the beans crack is not an option unless you have an automatic return for uncracked beans on your winnower - otherwise huge amounts of extra manual labor are involved). We actually took a look at four different approaches that I had come up with after talking to a lot of people with a lot of experience cracking cocoa and building machines, and narrowed it down to one approach that we can easily prototype.

There are a bunch of fun challenges to solve, including finding an inexpensive way to control the rate at which the beans enter the cracker. The brute force method the Crankandstein relies on won't work for this method.

Another thing we're set on doing is incorporating a small digital controller - based on an Arduino - so that users can program the speed of the central cracking mechanism as well as the feed mechanism. We'll open source that, too.

Richard:

There are differences in flavor and texture with every different combination of equipment used in the production chain. Most people never have the luxury to experiment with different production methods until they outgrow one and have to step up to a new one.

It's not always true that roll refiners and ball mills are mutually exclusive: I know of one Italian equipment manufacturer that offers a "turnkey" system that includes a roaster, cracker/winnower, roll refiner (used a liquor grinder), AND a ball mill. One of their customers has purchased an old-style melangeur and goes from the ball mill (particle size reduction) to the melangeur (using it like a conche for flavor development).

You will also find a difference between two otherwise identical roll mills - one that uses steel rollers and the other granite.

I've been working with another company that uses a large Indian-sourced wet mill to turn nibs into liquor and then uses a "universal" to convert the liquor, after it has aged, into finished chocolate.

There are some well-known and respected companies that use ball mills: Domori is one; of course, Netzsch's ChocoEasy machines incorporate their ball mils - ball mills are ideally suited to continuous production lines. One of the knocks against most conventional ball mills is uneven particle size distribution. The peak tends to be wider than other methods and their is often a bump in the tail where there are large sizes.

I would have to disagree that most startups use ball mills, though. Apart from the Netzsch machines, which are very expensive - a 50kg machine costs over $90,000 - the only other small ball mill unit I know of is from BLT. At close to $100k their "turnkey" systems are still too expensive for most startups.

My experience is that most startups start out with a small (5kg) kitchen appliance wet grinder and then graduate to one or more of the larger ones as it is comparatively economical to grow the business this way and, because the technique is essentially the same the finished product is not too different. The challenge is the support equipment. Finding comparably scaled (and priced) roasters, crackers, and winnowers is not so easy. I just solved the winnower problem (~50 lbs/hr for about $5k) and am working on an alternative to the most-used small cracker that uses an entirely different principle and should create much smaller quantities of "fines" (which increases yield). I will have a prototype sometime this summer. If it works, we plan to open-source the plans as well as offer it in kit form for those who don't want to build one themselves.

We've corresponded privately about your soon-to-open school in Irvine and I think it's something that's absolutely necessary for the industry. I applaud Qzina for taking the initiative on this. I think that starting small (with respect to batch sizes) and offering the widest possible variety of equipment to work with is a sound approach. Making good chocolate is as much (or more) ART as Science. No one way is better than another; they're all different and can all produce good chocolate. Which way (if any) is better depends on what the desired outcome is.

Three ways:

1) You can include a short note in a friend request.

2) You can add a comment to their profile and they will be notified that the comment has been added to their profile.

3) If neither 1) or 2) works, ask me to do it. As moderator, I can send messages to everyone.

Sunita:

RE: liquor/liqueur. It's a fairly common mistake, but, regardless, liqueur is only for truly alcoholic beverages.

As for how Gerard is doing what he does, I will leave it to him/Anne to tell the story.

I know search is not great. I added the Google Search box to the home page to address part of the problem and whenever you're looking for members it's best to start out using the search function on the Members page.

:: Clay

#1 - Having visited the workshop in Ashford, Kent and spoken at length with Gerard and Anne I can tell you that the liquor is sourced from various companies - it depends on the origin of the liquor. From my memory, the beans are sourced and roasted to their specs and are not "stock" products can be purchased.

#2 - It's properly spelled liquor (cocoa liquor, chocolate liquor), not liqueur.

Origin liquors are pretty widely available, but usually not in small quantities or commitments. There are people who will make them (in relatively small quantities) bespoke for you if you are interested in purchasing them and finishing the chocolate yourself.

Also from the discussion, I know that Gerard is using his chocoeasy in some pretty interesting ways to incorporate his flavors into their chocolates.

Sunita - why don't you ask them to respond to this post directly? They have a membership on TCL.

Cheebs -

Don't you think tempered cocoa butter will work a little differently? My understanding is that the crystals in Mycryo are pretty much all Form VI which accounts for their "aggressiveness" in setting up.

I don't have much experience using Mycryo in pastry, just in savory.

:: Clay

Mickey:

Without going into too much detail (i.e., specific equipment names/brands - unless you want to share) can you give us a breakdown of where you're spending that $50/100K?

So -

• Permitting and professional services (e.g., architect)
• Buildout (construction - other than electrical and plumbing)
• Electrical andPlumbing
• Cleaner
• Roaster
• Cracker / Winnower
• Grinder
• Refiner/Conche (any holding tanks?)
• Tempering / Molding
• Startup supply of beans

Just curious to see what the relative allocation of costs is.

:: Clay

BTW: There are no startup calculators/books that cover this topic specifically, though Pam Williams may go over it in her classes at Ecole Chocolat.

This is in response to another discussion that was started over in the Classifieds group asking about the cost of setting up a small confectionery kitchen.

There is a lot of interest in making chocolate from beans, both in-country and out. There are many challenges, not least of which is securing the necessary equipment. It's easy and relatively inexpensive to find equipment for the kitchen hobbyist making 5lb-5kg batches.

It's also easy (but expensive) to find equipment that can be used to make large batches (1MT) at a time.

However, it's not so easy to find equipment for most everything in between that is both affordable and where each piece is scaled to the same throughput.

Yes, there are "turn key" systems you can purchase that are scaled properly. These might cost anywhere from $80-100k on the low end, for a system roughly capable of up to 50 kg/day up to 100,000 Euros for something capable of producing between 250-400kg/day.

It's also possible to piece together systems using a combination of commercially available machinery and home-grown pieces where needed, but this requires a certain mechanical ingenuity that not everyone possesses or has the patience for.

Jim Lucas over in the thread in Classifieds , asked about what it takes to produce in-country (in Jim's case, Brazil).

New member James Swanwick asked a very good related question , which is how much does it cost to produce a single bar of chocolate. Another way to ask this question - which may be more useful - is, "What is the minimum level of production (and sales) you need to get to in order to have a real (i.e., sustainable) business?

I am really looking forward to the discussion on this.

Jeff:

I set up a country page and made you the editor ... you'll have to sign up for an account and let's talk about what the page should contain.

http://www.discoverchocolate.com/wikilists/doku.php

:: Clay

For some time, I've been striving to maintain databases of chocolate makers, blogs, and more and have been frustrated with the lack of good tools for doing this (i.e., flexible database tools that did not require huge amounts of expensive customization).

Therefore, I've decided to change things up and open things up and start something that could eventually become " the Wikipedia of Chocolate " (and be much more useful).

TheChocolateLife Resource Wiki is not a place to engage in discussions or make blog posts.It's a place to aggregate resources for community access. At the moment there are sections for Chocolatiers (chocolate makers), Confectioners, Blogs, Cocoa Merchants, References, and more. As the Wiki grows, it will include more categories.

If this is a project you'd like to get involved with, I am interested in working with people who are interested in becoming section editors. Let me know.

As with any Wiki, the respect of the community is vital. It's not a place to flame. For the most part I am interested in collecting facts - opinions can be expressed here on TheChocolateLife.

Please note that your ChocolateLife login will not work automatically on the Wiki. You'll be asked to create a new account.

:: Clay

The container of the Thermomix is 2 quart (the same as a small Blixer); however the motor is not really designed to handle dense high-fat products like marzipan and pralins. Some things can be done, in small batches - much smaller than the max capacity of the container. Questions are - a) what kind of strain does it put on the motor (reducing working life) and b) do the quantities that can be produced match the quantity needed?

Ganaches are not hard to make over the stove with an immersion blender to guarantee the emulsion.

If I could afford to have only one it would be the Blixer. If cost were not an issue, I might go with both and experiment with producing a variety of other items such as pates de fruits.

Andrea:

I have looked at the Thermomix on a number of occasions over the past couple of years trying to assess its place in a chocolate kitchen. While it can be used to make ganaches and other fillings if you take a close look at all the videos I don't see anything that involves very dense fat-heavy applications like nut pastes - marzipan, pralins, etc.

They're not cheap either and not available directly in the US; you have to buy them from Canada but they do honor the warranty from what I hear.

If you're going to be working with nuts, and you only plan on getting one machine, the Robot Coupe is the better choice. You're going to want one with a "Blixer" designation - blender/mixer.

:: Clay

Linda:

I know several people who would be interested in a metering pump that could handle larger inclusions ... perhaps there's a way to get it done sooner rather than later? ... Let me know. What kind of diameter are you planning to be able to handle?

:: Clay

The butter press operated by a hydraulic jack has been around for a while. I saw my first one in Venezuela in 2006 and I recently met the guy who designed and fabricated them. Right now, the political situation in Venezuela makes it difficult to work with people there.

What you can't see here is that there is a tap hole drilled in the plate of the piston/plunger and there is a plastic tube attached to this tap hole. The cocoa butter is expressed through this hole. The plunger/plate is to the right of the press.

These are simple and relatively inexpensive to make and do not have any means to heat the pot that contains the cocoa liquor.

Tom:

What is very expensive for what you can produce? Cacao Cucina? We've moved off of the original topic of this post.

Mark -

When you get a chance, a video of the machine in operation would be fun to see, also a photo of whatever hoper design you put together. I wonder if you can make a simple hopper from a 5-liter water bottle?

This is great news for small craft producers.

A 35 kilo batch of 70% chocolate at 10% added cocoa butter is what ... about 2-3 kilos? This could easily be done in short order it sounds like.

Real, single-origin chocolate ... where the butter is from the same origin as the beans ... on a budget.

Jessica -

It's been about 3 years since you started this thread, where are you on your journey?

There are some reasons to like the CC equipment here in the US - one of the most compelling is that it's UL and NSF certified (which has added to the cost). That said, as Brad and others have pointed out, the equipment is expensive for the throughput it provides (the possible exception is the Win45 winnower).

Mark says that he was quoted over US$100,000 for his system, and I would really like to know what CC is saying is the daily maximum throughput for that price.

It is possible to put together a system (without a cocoa butter press but including a tempering machine) capable of producing up to 100kg per day for under US$50,000. I don't know that I'd want to spend less than this (though many people do - the tradeoff being more labor).

Mark:

If you have a link to the cocoa butter press I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Nat:

There is food-grade silicon used to make ... molds. It can probably be colored, too. Available through Chef Rubber, among others.

:: Clay

Robyn -

The health department regulations are going to vary state by state, county by county, and city by city (where is Scandia?). The only way to find out is to go ask, or if you are lucky, go on-line. NYC government bureaucracy is messed up in a lot of ways, but the nyc.gov web site does an excellent job of letting any who wants to open a food business in NYC know that they need to know to open any kind of food business. Unfortunately, none of that applies to where I live in Westchester if I wanted to open up exactly the same business in Westchester.

The only way to know is to ask your local health department. Oh, and keep in mind that there may be state and/or county permits and/or licenses that may be required as well as local ones.

As for the type of mobile unit you're talking about ... decide what you want to do, then choose the vehicle (pun intended) that will let you do it. A small hot-dog cart may be good only for selling prepared items. A food truck would mean that you can prepare stuff to order ... if that's what you want to do. Another thing to consider is that except for storage (ingredients, finished product to be sold), a food truck, kitted out properly, could be large enough to produce product for a million dollar plus business and could cost less than the same amount of space in a commercial structure.

As for farmer markets, there are a number of ChocolateLife members who've started successful businesses at the markets and I will let them tell their stories ...

I am writing the second in a series of articles for Dessert Professional magazine on "Perfect Kitchens" (the first was on ice cream and gelato kitchens).

When you think about your "perfect kitchen" for making confections, what comes to mind?

When you think about your current work space, what things come to mind that you wished you knew before you made some critical decisions ... before you went ahead and implemented them?

The answers can be on any topic from design and construction (including utilities), to licensing and permitting, to equipment and tool selection. This isn't an article about ingredients so opinions about specific chocolates is not something I am looking for.

I am also interested in hearing some real-life stories of good (and not so good) experiences using rental kitchens. You don't have to name names, just let me know what did and did not go well - and how you might approach this issue in the future now that you have more experience.

The article is for the June-July issue and the editorial deadline about May 1, so any thoughts you have would be greatly appreciated. I know it's the Easter rush so I've waited this long in the hopes that in the relative quiet of early next week you might have some time to help me out.

I am going to try to work a deal on discount subscriptions to the magazine not only for everyone who contributes but also for any ChocolateLife member who contributes.

Thanks in advance,
:: Clay

PS. Contributions can be attributed or anonymous, and I will send everyone whose writings I use a heads up on how I used them before I submit the article for final approval.

Arnold:

Did you keep the label / outer wrap? If so, please take a picture with your phone (or scan) of the entire label and post it here.

The description you provide is very, very general and could apply to many chocolates - translated it basically means "74% cocoa Superior Dark Chocolate Square."