Hmm I think I know what you are describing there because my chocolate reacts the same way, as if there's too many bubbles inside the chocolate, I've never had grainy though. I'll try to take a picture of it just to make sure we're talking about the same thing. But I don't know why some chocolates like to keep the air bubbles, a lot of them, maybe it's the way you're tempering the chocolate?
Can you post a photo of what you are describing?
Hi,
My wife has recently enrolled in a chocolate making course being taught online, and now in the tempering (table method) stage.
While tempering the we are noticing some bubble (or grainy look) in the chocolate. But it seem todisappearwhen we bring the chocolate together, but shows up when we start tempering again. Is this normal. Please advise.
I have seen in Youtube videos that they use a Pastry scraper (attached). Is that what its is called. Because I am having a difficulty finding one in my place. Please advise
Thanks
There are no formal industry standards as to what "single-origin" means. It's probably not a bad idea because of the widespread use of the term and the potential for misleading buyers.
I stopped using the phrase "single-origin" when talking about chocolate a long time ago because, for me, it's no longer either meaningful nor helpful. I now just use the single word "origin." An origin chocolate is one where the place where the beans come from is indicated on the label.
The origin may be big - an entire country: Venzuela. It could be a region: Carenero, Sur del Lago (by Lake Maracaibo), Ocumare. It could be small: a village/community (Chuao) or a farm (Hacienda Concepcion, Hacienda San Jose).
Is a chocolate a single-origin chocolate if it is a blend of beans from two different growing areas of the same country?It might be if your definition of the origin is an entire country. Otherwise not.
Another nuance to consider for companies adding cocoa butter to their chocolate: To be a "true" single origin the cocoa butter has to come from the same place that the beans come from. It's not single-origin if the beans are grown in Venezuela and the cocoa butter is Ghanaian deodorized.
If you really wanted to be picky about it, a "true" single origin would have ALL of the ingredients come from the same origin. Should a "single-origin" from the Dominican Republicbe made with Dominican sugar?
Finally,a varietal name is not an originand can be confusing. Ocumare is also a varietal - and they grow in other places besides Ocumare. (I've seen them in a gene bank in Bolivia - at least they were identified as Ocumare, but that's another story.)
In the end, you have to trust everyone in the supply chain to be telling the truth. Traceability is supposed to be part of agri- and social certifications. Does that mean that accidents and fraud don't happen? Of course not.
Sebastian is totally right about genetic variability within a pod. It depends, from what I have been told, on how many times the flower has been successfully fertilized. This more times, the greater the genetic diversity within the pod. From what I have been told, cacao is nearly unique, if not unique in this respect.
Hi Anne,
I can only agree with the previous comments, single origin is a marketing tool. I doubt any chocolate maker will go through a genetic testing session before using this "single origin" term to scientifically validate the premise.
In the end, I feel nowadays it comes to trusting the chocolate makers you deal with. I have moved to Chile and I work with various chocolate makers from South America that I believe trustworthy. If you want some names, just send me a private message asking what chocolate "origins" you're looking for and I'll send you what I have.
In addition, if you don't know it yet, you'll find some rich information around chocolate strains on Mark's website: www.c-spot.com
Cheers
Olivier
Wow, great conversation. Opens a lot of spots for exploring.
It seems on the note of 'single origin' - with there being no standards - it is in the best interest of the chocolate maker/chocolatier to explore these details of the cacao they are sourcing themselves. This may take more rigourous research depending on how specific we want 'single origin' to mean for us. And for us to define/be transparent about what is does mean for us if we use that label on our product. To continue educating and encourage 'consumers' to question when the 'label' is used vaguely.
Thought?
Sebastian,
You should be able to see photos of some of the process we use in Fazenda Venturosa
Jim Lucas
Thanks Jim - looking forward to it!
You can absolutely have genetic variation w/in a pod. All of the seeds will not be genetically identical.
Sebastian,
I'll put together a few shots and post as requested. I'll try to get it done by weeks end.
Jim Lucas
Interesting question Ruth. I think I have read that it is possible but I am not even close to being an expert on this topic . . . . hopefully Sebastian can chime in with a moredefiniteanswer.
Sebastian, is it possible for seeds in one pod to be different types, like cross-pollination?
Again it's possible to determine definitively. There's not a great deal of value in doing so however.
The biggest problem is - how do you define criollo? It's been done, there is an answer - but almost no one knows what it is or how to do it. 99.99% of folks use a very loose, ballpark-ish gut feel based on visuals, yield, disease resistance, or flavor - which is a very good way to get it wrong 8-) plus, your pod has 40(ish) seeds in it - are they all the same? If it tastes wonderful and is differentiated - does it matter? 8-)
My understanding is this is the same issue with bars marked, for example, as Criollo strain. There might be 10% criollo or 100% but who knows - there is no standard to say what it should be. And often the farms the beans comes from might have more than one type of tree on the plantation anyway, so criollo stock could actually have other beans mixed in with them.
Correct, no legal requirements.
There are a few who can tell if it's true or not; it's certainly possible 8-)
From what I've read (which admittedly is limited) there doesn't appear to be a "standard". Ie., you don't need to have a certain % of single origin beans in your chocolate to claim the whole bar is single origin. I guess this goes to what Jim is saying - if you source some of your beans from Madagascar, then you can probably claim single origin Madagascar chocolate - but who knows if it is 10% Madagascar beans, 50% or 100%????
Anyone heard/know different?
Jim, would you be willing to post some photographs of your trees and fermentation and drying areas? I'd love to see them...
Kalibri Anne,
The answer depends on how you frame your question. Single Origin is another advertising "buzz word" that tries to imply a special status for the beans that are used to make chocolate. I am a bean producer and have the ability to produce single origin beans which are Estate Single Origin, single origin beans which are Regional Single Origin, single origin beans which are Country Single Origin, etc. In our situation, since we produce several varieties within our farm, we could produce Variety Singe Origin. The term simply has no meaning when you fail to define "Single Origin What". It becomes more complicated when you try to impose the term when referencing "chocolate". Most commercial or mass chocolate producers do not acquire and process beans from a single farmstead and therefore simply are unable to attest to the origin other than that of the location of their plant. Few bean producers have ample capacity to provide feed stock required to create the imaginary "Single Origin Chocolate". There are cooperative processors that collect beans from various producers and advertise "Single Origin", however, the methodology of post harvest processing of beans differ with each farm taking away the "Single Origin" myth.
Until one controls farm production, post harvest process, warehousing logistics and the ultimate steps of producing chocolate....."Single Origin" can only be described as two words used to promote retail sales.
Jim Lucas
Floresta Azul Brazil
Hello! I am seeking reliable sources of South American Single Origin chocolate. I have been using a Colombian and a Venezualan chocolate that claim to be single origin. As I continue my research I am questioning what does it mean, are their standards to claiming Single origin on the labels OR by the distributor? My question is does anyone know where I can get reliable information about this? or what do you know about the 'Single-Origin' chocolate world? Thank you!
M
Awesome tidbit!
Thanks Sebastian!
My suspicion is that they're trying to control the formation of nitrosodimethylamines, which are by products of the marriage of chlorine + proteins, and are pretty genotoxic at low levels. Now, your inspector probably doesn't know that, he's just been given a form that he needs to check off. Your average inspector is going to take the most risk-adverse road available, and probably doesn't understand much of the 'whys' behind what they're doing. Could be a good opportunity to bring them along for the ride to build the relationship a bit, raise the bar, and create a win/win for everyone 8-)
Chlorox is an interesting example of a grandfathered product. if invented today, it'd likely not be allowed on the shelves 8-)
2% is the threshold.
Thanks, Thomas. I like your idea of a collaborative effort. I'm not really big on the idea of starting a war with my inspector. I realize she is trying to do her job, and I know that if there were a public health problem, she would be held accountable. I just wish there were more collaboration and effort on their part to help me. Every time I ask a simple question about how to be compliant I can't get a straight answer. I think part of it is that our county recently underwent a change from having all city inspectors to being goverened at the county level. So, unfortunately, there were some job losses. I'm sure this adds a lot of pressure. I think your suggestion of working with the state is really a great idea. Thanks!
Man, I really feel bad that you're having this tough of a time with your inspector! I've had exactly the opposite experience with the Health and Ag departments here where I'm at. They've both been as helpful as possible in helping us get set up in the co-op kitchen we started in, and also in the planning of the kitchen we're putting into our church where we'll have more room and storage space and less overhead. Their attitude is that the more licensed commercial kitchens in the area the better, and they'll work with you as much as they can to help you accomplish your goals!
I hope you figure out a solution to the problem you're having with your inspector there. Maybe complain to his\her boss? Maybe collude with the State Health Dept. to organize a committee to publish a clear and concise set of requirements and rules? If you don't get satisfaction at the level you've brought your complaint to, there's almost always a way to escalate the situation to provide a solution.
Shannon;
I feel for you. The harsh reality is that what you "know" to exist in other places can't be proven.
What CAN be proven however is that your inspector is incompetent, given that she's questioning the items you mentioned. What can ALSO be proven is that you are genuinely concerned as a small business owner, that her incompetence could affect your livelihood. These are both issues that can and SHOULD be addressed with her direct supervisor. After all, she wouldn't hesitate to write YOU up for a minor violation, now would she? It's ok to demonstrate to her that shit flows both ways, and she's just as accountable for her actions as you are yours.
Will this create an enemy with her? Probably. Someone wise once told me to keep my friends close, and my enemies closer. Do EVERYTHING right, and put controls in place to make sure your staff ALWAYS do everything right.In the long run is it bad that you have the "Health Nazi" looking over your shoulder? Probably not. After all, killing customers is uncool. It makes her job easy, and your case beyond reproach when complaining to her management. It's perfectly ok to squak if you are following the rules to a T.
Cheers.
Brad
Oh... another tidbit for you: If you use chlorine bleach spray as a sanitizer, you will most likely be written up if you use the kind for home use. Our limit for chlorine is 200ppm, (about one cap of regular bleach per spray bottle), whereas the home disinfectant sprays (such as Fantastic) practically eat the test strip once it's sprayed on. My Inglewood shop was written up for using TOO MUCH sanitizer! HAHA! Sorry Mr. Inspector. We were a little too anal! Jerk!
I would like to thank each of you for your thorough and candid responses. You confirmed the information I already knew to be the case -- but given that I am not a chemist or food scientist by nature, I don't speak to something as fact unless (like the health dept) I have indisputable documented evidence. You have given me all of the information I need to speak to this with my inspector in complete confidence.
I should note that thus far I have not received a written violation but a concern raised. She is coming back to review her findings with me and want to be sure I am covered since the concern was expressed. I am disappointed that I find myself in the position of educating my heath dept resourcesmore often than being educated by them in this aspect; however, confectioner's are very very few and far between in my area. I am certain to be the only candy production she's ever been responsible for. I just wish it were more of a joint effort to investigate and educate together as opposed to the"guity until proven innocent" I've been receiving. Sadly, this appears to be the common nature of the beast.
It is my strong opinion that there is a great deal of "nit picking" occuring. I am in my chamber of commerce and someother FSO operators have made the same mention of my individualinspector. Others have said she is a breeze and very easy to deal with. The differences seem to be mom & pop shops versus corporate owned places. Most inspections take 10-15 minutes, while mine and the others who have complained have her company for an hour or more per inspection. I watch the restaurant shows, I know what's out there. Believe me, I am quite certain there are more than a few FSO owners that are very lax in their food safety. My team is NOT one of them. It is run by myself, my husband, and 2 employees who have all been certified in safe food handling. Our life savings is in this place; our livelihoods are on the line. We are well aware of the consequences to just one single food safety incident -- we would lose everything!! We show remarkable diligence, above and beyond what most other places have done according to my conversations with other owners. And yet there is still the constant "picking" of things that do not affect actual safety of food or product, and infrastructure that was in place as-is for YEARS before we took occupancy (years of which SHE was the very inspector that passed those items previously -- like hot and cold water taps being on opposite sides of 1 hand sink, yet still clearly labeled in text and color).
I find myself constantly searching google for validation on items of concern such as the chocolate and having to prove that I am following the rules. My state refuses to publish clearcommercial kitchen requirements and rules as well, so each inspector is given the authority to interpret the code as they see fit. The "code" is never enforced in the same manner from one location to another. In my opinion this gives a distinct competetive advantage of one business over another and should be illegal, but my expression of concern over that went unaddressed.
Anyway, I greatly appreciate each of you for your information and insight. The forum has been a godsend for us as we started up and continue our journey of growth!
That's how my inspectors described it to me. Since the chocolate outweighed the bacon, I didn't need to get any additional certifications...
It DID, however, take about 3 weeks of emails back and forth between me, Dept. Of Ag, and Dept. Of Health! Worth the hassle, IMO. I just need to get a vacuum-sealer to improve the shelf-life of the bacon (after about 10 days, it gets too stale to keep in boxes).
On the subject of bacon and chocolate, check out this enterprising entrepreneur! http://www.thestickypig.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=1823
Sebastian -
I was talking through this with a ChocolateLife member who makes a bacon bar and his understanding - as it was explained to heim by federal inspectors - was that as long as the percentage of bacon was below a certain level then getting a USDA meat license is not a requirement.
He is on his way to becoming what he says is the first small-scale chocolate and confectionery producer to be USDA licensed.
Here in Canada, the CFIA requires the bacon to be double cured before useable in chocolate. I knowof a couple of shops that have had to pull their "bacon bars" off the shelves as a result.
That knowledge gap can work both ways - in most places, working with bacon in a confectionery capacity will require you to have extra meat licenses - most inspectors don't know that... so it's a double edged sword 8-)
I had a similar issue with our health department, but it turned out very well. I was asking about chocolate covered bacon (I had several customers asking for it), and the answer I received was very informative. Like Clay and Sebastian said, it's all about the AVAILABLE water, or water activity. The inspector just had me make up a few samples for them, and they took em to conduct testing on them. A week later, I had results (all of the samples were under the .85 that the health department requires here, but some were just not crisp enough to work well in chocolate) and had em on the shelves that day.
I feel for you that your inspector wasn't as knowledgeable as he should be on the subject. 
Clay and Sebastian are both spot on with their individual points. I JUST dealt with that same issue with my regional health inspector when I opened my third location. He was young and unaware. I found it very annoying that he has the power to refuse food permits, revoke permits, and essentially close a business down, and the ignorance to do it without justification. I voiced that concern of his incompetencein a fashion one could well imagine, having read some of my posts on this forum in the past.
If your health inspector causes you flack, ask for his supervisor's name, so you can discuss with them how it is that one of his inspectors can visit a business having no understanding of pathogen contamination of food in the establishments they are inspecting.
I got the permit without further issue and opened that day.
Cheers.
Loads of documentation out there on the role of water activity and food safety - do a google search for water activity chart, for example, and you'll get a handy printable wallet card you can give your friendly food inspector. water activity (Aw) isn't a measure of how much water is present - it's a measure of how much water is *available*. For chocolate/compounds, they're essentially the same thing. Your typical coating will have an Aw of approx 0.2-0.3 - which is 2-3x lower than is required to support the most basic forms of microbioogical growth (the minimum Aw required to support growth is slightly above 0.6 Aw)
If you're talking something like milk, sauces, soups, etc - things that are mostly water - 100F is where mesophilic bacteria love to play - likely your food inspector is looking at it through the lens of the buffet line at your local old country buffet - where if you leave almost anything there at 100F for very long, you're likely to get very sick. since there's only tenth's of a percent of water in compound, and any of the water that's there isn't available to support growth anyway (ie it's either in the form of water of crystallization, surface monolayers adsorbed to milk/sugars, etc), there's absolutely zero risk of micro growth. as long as you're not adding anything with moisture into it. Your supplier can give you the exact Aw, moisture content, and ingredient label that you can then give to your inspector to prove there's no risk.
EDITED to note that frequently washing your chocolate melters can actually INCREASE the risk of microbiological contamination. if seems many cases where post washing, equipment has not been dried properly - and that'll lead to problems. certainly not saying you shouldn't be washing your equipment, but many folks overwash or wash improperly and unintentionally increase their risk exposure. Large scale enrobers NEVER get water washed. Water is quite often the enemy in a chocolate plant.
Shannon:
This is a case of the food inspectors not knowing much (or anything) about chocolate (or compound).
There is no water in chocolate so there is nothing for bacteria/yeast/molds/spores to grow in.
You can leave a bar of chocolate out "in the danger zone" for months or years and nothing will grow on it (or in it), unless it gets wet.Cross contamination is really only an issue if you introduce something with water in it - dairy ingredients for example. You always want to make sure to keep things clean, including your hands, but most importantly you want to keep everything that comes in contact with the chocolate/compound dry.
That said, you are right. There is no easily accessible documentation from a source that a health inspector would believe was an authority. (However, this discussion is up in Google search results in about 3 hours.)
However, keeping chocolate and compound in melters all day long is standard for the business. It's done everywhere, all day long.
Maybe Sebastian has some documentation that would address this issue?
I recently purchased a chocolate melter from TCF sales.I am currently using Mercken's compound melts in this melter.
We are extremely happy with the increased productivity, but our health inspector expressed concern at the contents sitting at 100 degrees being in the "danger zone". I always understood this to apply to raw or cooked temperature sensitive foods (meats, eggs, etc). I always understood chocolate and compounds were not TSF (temperature sensitive food) by point of food safety. I have never seen chocolate or compounds to be a concern for bacterial growth as long as the product is not contaminated by another substance.
When we use this melter, a sanitized dipper is used to scoop compound out. The compoud is NEVER introduced back to the melter once it has been used, and only sanitized utensils over touch the melted chocolate. It is completely cleaned every-other day by washing the containers and replacing with fresh compound.
My concern is that my inspector is not familiar with confectionery as opposed to restaurant food safety requirements. We don't use food borne illness prone meats and other bacteria-prone agents. Unfortunately, I cannot find ANY documentation -- not even from ADM Cocoa (the maker of Mercken's) -- that will explicitly state that compound is not conducive to bacterial growth at 100 degrees consistent melted temperature; nor anything stating the contrary.
Does anyone happen to have expertise in this area that could help me locate any sort of back up that says what I'm doing is the right way? I know they wouldn't be able to sell these melters for commercial use if it were really true that storing chocolate or compound at 100 degrees for 4+ hours causes bacteria and food borne illness! I need something in writing though 
Any direction would be wonderful!
Thanks!!
Clay, thanks for your input, yes the ganache is for cake filling. I want to try different things. I would like very much to use Brad's recipe which would mean leaving out the dairy, I don't mind doing that. Your advice on pasteurizing the cream is very helpful as I always understood that because the cream was brought up to almost boiling was enough for pasteurization. I will certainly try honey. Thanks for being so specific on temperature and mixing of the ganache, these things are all new to me so I'm really learning good stuff here. When I say a cool room I mean one which is totally heat free, in fact it's almost as cold as the refrigerator, brrrrr, that's my kitchen! I think what I'll do is make very small amounts and keep out on the counter covered up to see how it behaves. Not all of my cakes take three days to enrobe, however it's good to learn whether it will be ok with ganache filling. I have to also take into account how it will be stored once out of my tender loving care! I much appreciate all the advice, from yourself, Brad and Andrea. I'll get back and let you guys know how I did.
Clay;
My recipe doesn't call for extra water, nor does it call for cream.
I can only assume here you're talking about a situation where Rosanne uses a different recipe...
Brad.
Rosanne:
I just want to make sure that I understand that you're looking for this ganache to be the filling between layers of the cake.
And - how cool is cool?
The observation about glucose is interesting ... but did you know that honey is also an invert sugar and that it can be used the same way that glucose/trimoline are used? Try Brad's recipe with a neutral-flavored honey (or replace some of the sugar with honey) and use as little extra water as possible when heating the fruit to incorporate the sugar/honey.
Also, once you open your containers of dairy, technically they are no longer pasteurized. So while heavy cream has a lot more water than butter does, you can put it on a stove and re-pasteurize it (bring it to a boil, take it off the heat for 1 minute, return it to a boil a second time, take it off the heat for one minute, re-boil, take off the heat and let cool to 160F (70C) then use the heat of the cream to melt the chocolate.
When you mix the ingredients together - cream, chocolate, sweetened fruit puree - take care to mix in as little air as possible. Use a wooden spoon or spatula and not a balloon whisk. There are spores in the air that will grow in the water in recipe. The more air you mix into the recipe the more spores there will be.
Yes. It's fine.
Let me know how it works out for you.
Cheers.
Hey Brad, that is so generous of you, I will definitely make this up and get back to you. So this is ok for filling a cake which needs to be decorated over a period of say three days without refrigeration? Thank you soo much!
Rosanne
Try this:
1kg milk chocolate broken into small pieces
500ml of raspberry puree'
125g granulated sugar
190g unsalted butter (optional)
Bring the raspberries and sugarto a boil on your stove, and simmer for 5-10 minutes.
Put into a food processor to break down all of the fibres in the fruit.
Strain through a very fine siev to get the seads out.
while hot, mix into the chocolate and stir until smooth.
Let set in the fridge.
If you find the ganache too thick to work with at room temperature, you can add the butter, and that will soften it up considerably, and give it a velvety texture.
This is essentially one of my company's truffle fillings (almost), with the exception that we whip it like whipping cream to incorporate air into it and make it very fluffy before we make it into truffles. It's one of my shop's most popular centers.
Cheers
Brad
