I think, in the realm of information that is likely to be publicly shared with you or freely available, what you find is going to be heavily influenced by the type of mfr you speak to (ie the refiner guys will tell you that their product is the best, ball milling guys the same). It will be heavily influenced by tradition and unproven beliefs (you will find folks in every camp that believe their way is the best simply because that's what they've always done, or that's what their predecessor or admired teacher told them - chefs are notorious for this). You yourself are already predisposed towards roll refiners; however in the above text you're only comparing it to one other production method (i can think of at least 8 particle size reduction technologies that are used commonly), and chances are very high that at least some of the chocolates you've consumed, you have no idea what process was used to convert it. Additionally, you will find that those who have spent the time and resources to do a scientific study to determine and quantify the differences in the various production methods will guard their results closely, as there are distinct competitive advantages that can be leveraged if one understands the options at a detailed level.
I will tell you that it is quite possible to make very similar (read: indistinguishable via the consumer) chocolate via multiple production methods (for example, i can make a dark chocolate on a refiner as well as another type (or types) of production kit that you will not be able to distinguish from one another. There are also chocolates that require a very specific type of kit to make, and that you simply can not make via another method. It is very dependent upon the type of chocolate you are making, and the specifics of that chocolate's physical and sensory components become very important. There is no single answer to the question you seek.
Generally speaking, each approach will have thematic pros and cons associated with it. Some are more heavily weighted towards product (ie how it handles raw materials and converts to finished product) while others are more heavily weighted towards throughput and energy utilization. Chocolate processing has far more science behind it than most admit to, as quite frankly most don't understand it, and the industry abounds with myth and misperception. Many companies continue to do things 'because that's the way it's always worked' and have, over time, created hypothesis as to why something does or doesn't work - but by and large, those theories haven't really been tested or challenged in a valid fashion. There are exceptions, of course, and those exceptions will, for the most part, be treated as trade secrets due to the advantage the understanding offers.
no, but i know most of the contract mfrs. i'm trying to gauge which of them might be appropriate for you to discuss with - you must have some sense of your volume potential...
What's your initial reaction if i say a ton (2200 lbs)? Let's use this as a litmus test..
also should ask, what type of product (solid bar, filled, filled with what kind of materials, how flexabile are you, etc). Sorry, on the other side of the world this week, jet lags' wreaking havoc.
Can you give a ballpark annual volume estimate?
'tis true, poor genetic stock will never result in good chocolate. however, simply having good genetic stock does not guarantee you'll get good chocolate. there are many many ways to completely screw it up 8-) good genetic stock + good post harvest practices = a good thing. good genetic stock + poor post harvest practices = disaster. there are many shades of grey between the two.
Ask your farmers to provide you with a number of samples using their standard post harvest practices and evaluate what you get. the best case scenario is you like what you get, and thus don't have to ask them to do anything different. changing behaviors is one of the most difficult things you can ask anyone, not just a farmer, to do.
It's a bit like asking which car manufacture is the best - ford or chevy? you're information has a lot of yield information present, which makes me think you're getting your info from breeders - who almost never focus on flavor. breeders serve farmers, and farmers are most interested in yield, often at the expense of flavor. which is the finest? a significant portion of flavor is developed AFTER the beans are harvested - i can make any one of the above beans taste like 15 separate chocolates, even though they'd all be the exact same bean. i'd recommend identifying what characteristics you WANT to have, then source some beans from the geography you're considering, and have them prepared a number of ways postharvest, so you can get a feel for what they're capable of.
It's very difficult for anyone to say that ICS39 planted in, say Ecuador, will give a fruity chocolate. There's just too many variables. If you're going to be planting, remember there may be self incompatibility issues, and you may want to consider planting a variety of clonal materials to ensure a hedge against disease/pest pressures (if you go monoclonal, a single disease event could wipe you out). Remember also, that it will take 2-5 years for you to realize beans from new planting material as well.
Depends on what you want to test:
Guillotine - at the level you're at, you'd only really be able to use it to get a feel for degree of fermentation. It will be useless to determine insect damage or mold at this stage. It's more of a qualitative test for fermentation, and not a terribly accurate one at that.
Moisture meter - get a dickey john portable, or an aquaboy with a small sample adapter. Good for rapid, nondestructive testing for moistures < 20% (good to quickly determine if drying is sufficient or not). Be prepared to spend a few hundred bucks.
pH meter. Lots of small hand held devices available. Question would be why do you want it? What is it you're measuring - pulp pH? Whole bean? And what would you do with the results - how would you use them? <$200. Get calibration fluids for 1, 5, 7 pH. You won't need alkaline.
Refractometer - similar to the handheld pH meter. What would you do with it, how would you use the results? < $200.
I'd start with identifying what parameters you want to control / track, then determine what equipment you need to do so.
It's a very large topic, that, in short - the answer is a qualified yes (it could be), but for a wide variety of reasons.
You'd need to provide more information on the type of chocolate you manufacture (basics of formulation and physical parameters that are important to you), the type of equipment you currently use, and the type of equipment you'd be considering to migrate to, to effectively begin the discussion.
it's 100% about control of water activity. if you start with fresh cream and boil off the water in the cream, for example, you've got very little shelf life concerns from a micro standpoint. if you add sufficient soluables such that any remaining water has had it's Aw lowered, you're in similiarly good shape.
Can you use fresh cream and make a shelf stable product? Absoultely. Just understand what drives the mode of failure and how to control it.
technical point of clarity - while canola and rapeseed are closely related, they are different and legal definitions that distinguish them, chief of which is the fatty acid distribution. Also, his issue of shelf life will be primarily one of flavor - not food safety - as there's no water present and will be solely due to oxidation - no one's likely to get sick; it's just taste bad.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming!
Those solid coconut oils you're seeing have a melting point of approximately 96F - the natural coconut oils have such a range of fatty acids that, even though they're 'designated' a melting point of 76, it's really a huge range - meaning that in the 60-70's ish - they'll start to solidify, take on a pasty consistency, and look very strange. Jessica does make a good point about eutectics below - which is absolutely true - sort of a strange phenomenon where the sum of the two parts is less than the whole. You're best to experiment with different fats - however going with a fractionated/hydrogenated coconut oil for use as a centering fat will not, in my experience, deliver a great meltaway type texture. That said, acceptable texture is not up to me to decide for your product 8-)
Other options to consider include palm kernal and palm oils. Soybean if you want to start playing with the laurics; although now you've got to be more careful of what you use as your flavorants to ensure you're not wading into the realm of enzymatic degradation.
Although this goes against conventional wisdom, a chocolate shell really isn't a great oxygen barrier - it certainly does help, but it's not as good as one might think.
Canola oil isn't going to be great for long shelf life as it's so highly unsaturated. Coconut oil - depending on what type you get - will vary quite a bit - you're really not going to want something that's highly fractionated or hydrogenated - you don't want it to have a high melting point (or read another way - you don't want it to approximate cocoa butter) as the whole reason you're using it is as a replacement for cream - you want it to be soft. Now, normally, softer oils have lower shelf life (they'll oxidize more rapidly due to lower saturation). I'd look for a high oleic oil - high oleic canola oils do exist commercially. If you go as Clay suggests, i'd consider a natural coconut oil (has approximately a 76F melting point) - it should not appear solid at room temperature - if it does, it's either been highly fractionated or hydrogenated, and isn't likely to give you the texture you're after. Anhydrous milk fat may be another option to consider, but will likely have more exposure to both price volatility as well as oxidation - it will, however, make a very good center.
You are not emulsifying anything via your approach. You're only looking to homogenize it via vigorous mixing.
My strong suspicion is that what you're experiencing has absolutely nothing to do with the canola oil (although w/o knowing exactly what it is you're using, it's hard to say for certain). Additional soy lecithin will not help in the least. Canola's freezing point is somewhere between -20 and -40F, so it's not likely 'fat balls' you're getting, unless your oil has been tainted (much of store oil is, actually). The microwaving may be denaturing some proteins, which could be part of your problem - be very gentle with your melting. Be very thorough with your mixing, and do your cooling very slowly.
Jeff - as someone noted, it's a pretty large topic to cover in a 5 minute web post on Christmas eve 8-) Mass of fermentation, length of ferment, is it co-fermented with something, the type of container used (is a container used?), the degree of aeration, the degree of 'weep' removal, temperature control, type of microorganisms used and when introduced, etc all factor into it. Of course, don't forget that the most important factor is, of course, the bean itself and it's genetic heritage. One of the issues you're dealing with in Indo (and they're legion i'm afraid), is that the majority of the genetic material that has been planted is simply not that good for flavor or fat levels, but it can be a high yielding variant. Of course you've got pod transportation issues, CPB pests, emerging phytophthera issues, and not many people ferment. The majority of indonesian stock can, however, be fermented in such as way as to produce a flavor profile that emulates many other origins - but even so, the fat levels will be depressed.
What's right or wrong? It depends on what you want to get - the question in and of itself is sort of like asking if a red car or a blue car is better 8-)
So, as you're aware in Indonesia - there's not a huge ingrained culture of heavily fermenting beans - in fact, most of Indonesians don't ferment their beans at all (at least not intentional fermentation, there may be some incidental fermentation occuring during transit).
Different parts of the world have taken on different post-harvest practices. In Africa, 100-300 kg heaps on the ground are common - there's really no 'standard' fermentation time or practice any longer in W. African, i'm sad to say - however historically a 5 day fermentation with routine turning had been the norm. Today, it's all over the map, and is part of what's contributing to the many quality issues arising out of W. Africa.
Many other parts of the world have taken to using boxes - some box fermentation can be found in your neck of the woods actually, although it's rare. C. and S. Americans often use boxes, usually of wood. Plastic boxes have been known to be used in the Carribean routinely. There are a number of techniques that can be applied to the fermentation itself to direct flavor development - for how you choose to ferment your beans has a significant impact on the type of flavor that they produce.
The best way to dry is solar drying, indirect heat. The rate of drying is terribly important to the flavor of the bean as well. Some geographies - such as Malaysia - have taken to burning things as the heat source to dry the beans. This results in what is typically regarded as defect beans, as the beans absorb the resultant odors of whatever's burned. Forced air gas and infrared heaters have also been known to be used. I prefer raised beds with a specific design, covered by opaque fiberglass/plexiglass with open ends to keep the rain out and keep air flow moving myself. The Ivory Coast has, in recent years, installed huge drum dryers at the ports - this has been a terrible thing in my opinion, as it's sent the message to tretants that quality procedures - such as drying at the farm - aren't important. What then happens is that wet beans are moved about the country, resulting in high molds, and then speed dried in a drum (essentially low roasted). If CdI doesn't resolve this - i predict a huge decline in their exports in years to come.
Yes. Lecithin is called an amphiphillic emulsifier, which means one end likes to stick to fat, and one end likes to stick to water. if your chocolate has adsorbed some ambient water, it thickens the chocolate by dissolving some of the sugar (even though it's a very small amount), and makes a syrup,, and as we all known, water (syrup) and oil don't mix - and it gets thick. The lecithin can 'bind up' some of the water in that syrup, making it 'slip' past the oil so it doesn't get thick - but if you use too much (hence the suggest to use vey small quantities), it can actually make the chocolate thicker. It's not a cure all by any stretch, but can help tweak viscosities when small amounts of moisture have been taken up.
Once your chocolate has adsorbed ambient moisture, it's very difficult to get it to give it up. You may be able to compensate by adding a little (0.05-0.1%) more lecithin to get it to bind up the moisture, but that only works to a certain extent. Prevention by keeping the RH low is the best medicine to cure this problem. If you can't prevent it, you may be able to make it better by adding lecithin. If that doesn't work, a high shear high temperature mixer can be effective to a smaller degree, but i'd keep that the last resort option, and you risk other damage via this method if your temperatures are too high.
