Pectin
Posted in: Tech Help, Tips, Tricks, Techniques
Is it apple pectin for pate de fruit you are looking for?
Is it apple pectin for pate de fruit you are looking for?
Hi everyone.
I feel like I haven't participated in the forums for ages...
I have a quick question. I am looking into pectin, but there are a few varieties available and I am not sure the one I should get, as I need to get a small amount to test some recipes.
I found a lot of options on Amazon.com - and that's the issue: too many options.
What brand do you use? And where do you get it from, if not from Amazon.com
Thank you all!
Andre
Ben -
It's possible to put a digital thermometer in the chocolate and attach it to a device that will turn the power on and off. However, you will only be measuring the temperature at one point, so I don't know how useful it will be.
:: Clay
Sorry to hear it didn't work for you. I've been using it for a couple months now and haven't had any problems with it. I haven't left chocolate in it overnight, though. Generally, I'll put a pan of chocolate in it in the morning for tempering a few hours later.
I wonder if there's a way to have the power cut when the chocolate reaches a certain temp and then turned back on if it drops.
While I haven't attempted to temper in it, I have been using it for the past couple months as a chocolate melter, and can say that it works great. I stick to the lowest 2 1/2 settings and have had no issues with scorching. At level 2 1/2, the bottom of the warmer (where the heating element is) got over 180, but the bottom of the pan of chocolate never went above 140.
I have tried it, and it didn't work for me. It didn't work for melting either. I left it overnight on the lowest setting and by morning the chocolate and cocoa butter had completely separated (way too hot)
That's for the webrestaurantstore.com melter, not the dessertshouse.com one.
Just wondering if anyone has tried tempering chocolate in the food warmer mentioned in this discussion.
Good point, Brad. I haven't yet, but I'll test it and post my results. I could use water with this as well, but wanted to avoid that if possible.
One other data point: on its lowest setting, it warmed the pan of water to 100F and held it there. It took a few hours to reach that temp.
Ben;
Did you check the temperature that the bottom/sides of the pan get while heating the contents? It's one thing to heat water and see that it's holding the temperature at around 140. HOWEVER.... Chocolate burns VERY easily. Did you take the temperature of the walls of your food warmer while it was getting the contents to the "stand by" temperature? If the walls go higher than 180 F, you're going to have some burnt chocolate on your hands.
It is this exact reason that almost everychocolate melter on the market uses eitherwarm water, or a gentle, non direct heat source and not the heating elements used in food warmers.
Just food for thought....
Brad.
So, I tested the food warmer using a hotel pan of cool water. I started by setting the warmer to 4. This brought the water up to 140 and held it pretty consistently for an hour or so. The next day, I set it to 3 and it held it right at 130 for several hours.
So, it looks like it can hold temp pretty well and can go low enough to be used to melt chocolate. I haven't had a chance to actually melt chocolate with it, but it looks like a viable alternative to more expensive melters.
I ordered one last night around 7:30 and it's already on the truck for delivery today.
This one can be operated wet or dry, so moisture shouldn't be a problem. Dry operation, like most of the 'true' chocolate melters, was one of the characteristics I was looking for. Most of the food warmers that I found required water.
I don't have any chocolate needing melting today, but I'll try to do some tests with water in the pan to see how well it works.
I realize you don't need a stable temp.
The question is: "How long will it take for any given approach to melting chocolate take to melt X weight to desired temp?" This melter might be real fast - too fast, in fact in that it will melt far more chocolate than you need far more quickly than you need to a temperature much higher than you need.
If so, then whatever money you're saving on the equipment you're losing in increased energy costs.
Or maybe not. There could be ways to much more closely monitor the equipment, but it won't be "set and forget" especially at the beginning.
Thanks Clay. Definitely good points. I've got an email in to them. I'll post their reply when I get it. I'm mostly looking for something to pre-melt chocolate to load into my tempering machine--not really hold it at temp once melted.
To everyone looking to shave a few bucks off a purchase, capital acquisition costs are only a small part of the total cost picture, or total cost of operation (TCO).
Operating a piece of equipment can cost more than buying it.
If one piece of equipment is less energy efficient than another, then it may make more sense to buy the more expensive piece of equipment as it will be cheaper in the long run
Ben - the unit you're looking at is a food warmer. It wants to hold food above 150F. That's real high for chocolate. I'd contact the company (or the web site) and ask them what the bottom end of the range on the thermostat is. Even is 150F is okay, you'll pay more to keep it at that temp than at 120F - and it will cost more in the long run, even if you saved a few bucks up front.
I don't have any experience with that melter, but have been thinking about getting this food warmer to use as a chocolate melter:
http://www.webstaurantstore.com/apw-wyott-w-3v-12-x-20-countertop-food-warmer-120v/135W3V%20%20%20%20%20%20120.html
Has anyone used one of these? How did it work?
Does anyone have any experience with these melters? They seem to be a great price at less than $500 for an 18kg chocolate melter.
I just want to make sure I'm not throwing money at a melter that won't hold a stable temp.
Thanks!
Have you tried making your bark thin and sprinkling the inclusions onto it? Like mendiants, very large mendiants.
Do you temper the chocolate before you make the ganache? I've learned that ganache needs to be made with tempered chocolate to get the proper consistency.
Thanks
Thomas,
i was addressing the worker...worker, not farm owner.
I don't ubderstand your math. If the worker receives US$5.25 per day, it seems difficult to arrive at
US$210 per month. 210/5.25=40 days per month? Do day labors work every day...7 days per week?
normal work weeks are 5.5 days that would earn US$ 28.87 per week or US$115.00 per month.
Workers in Brazil work 44hr weeks, holidays and Sundays are 2X normal salary and night service is 1.5
times normal salary.
Is the US$25000 gross or net profit?
Cacao plantations are generally considered sustainable environmentally speaking if chemicals are not used? The areas in the DR will cacao are very forested and allow for complimentary crops to be grown for personal consumption. Plantanos, bananas yucca, and other root vegetables, citrus mango and zapote to name a few are found scattered all over the place with and around the cacao.
From a cultural perspective. I find the cacao regions to generally be better off economically, are organized, have good schools and access to health care. Those that own a decent amount of land travel to the US when they want and are often leaders in their communities. They tend to take care of each other and everyone does their part. I would argue that cacao areas that I am associated with in the Dominican Republic are sustainable. The income provided to these areas by cacao production is their base.
The minimum wage in the Dominican Republic is listed at RD$4,900. That is inaccurate information. In May of 2011 it was raised and the campo worker minimum wage is about RD$200/day, about US$5.25. That comes out to about RD$8000 a month or about US$210. They way it works in the area I work is that people are available as day labors for the busy times. Each cacao producer generally have their trusted employees who work full-time on aspects of running a farm and harvesting other products. These trusted employees almost become part of the family and are often related in some manner. My guess is that a 300 tarea cacao farm (60 acres) will bring about US25,000 a year in profits with a land value of US$70,000-100,000. It is a lot of work and then you need to have fermentation and dryers if you do not sell it wet.
So who are we talking about getting the fair price for their labor and investment, the farmer/worker or the worker/employee?
i agree with jim,
sustainable should be for the workers, sustainable should be as well for the land/nature.
we notice that more and more people knows about fair trade and also understand that fair trade doesn't always mean "sustainable".
I think that the world of chocolate is ready for a new change: too many organization requiring money for a "stamp", too many different ones.
If anyone comes up with a fair priced -sustainable for the worker and for the land- "stamp" it would be very good. but only one, not one for germany, one for Usa one for Asia ect... just one, world wide that is sustainable for the farmers.
Clay, I am reluctant to use the term sustainability when referring to cacau. I am more prone to apply the word to cacao workers. Far too long we have wrung our hands and searched for way to obtain cocoa beans that meet some imaginary standard. It is not the trees that suffer from abusive producers and governments, ITS THE WORKER!!!! Take a look at the salaries for selected cocoa producing countries. Does this look sustainable to you?
The Harkin-Engel Protocol made a watered down attempt to protect children that were working in cocoa plantations, but, I hear very little mention of the thousands of adult workers who are working for pennies a day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
Benin 30,000 CFA francs (46) per month
Bolivia 647 Bolivian bolivianos (66) per month
Brazil R$ 545.00 about US$ 348.39 per month, paid 13 times a year one monthpaid vacation plus 8.5% retirement deposit
Burkina Faso 30,684 CFA francs (47) a month in the formal sector; does notapply to subsistence agriculture 182,000
Chile Chilean pesos (258) per month for workers aged 1865 ;
Columbia 535,000 Colombian pesos (207) a month (2011);
Costa Rica 131,907 Costa Rican colones (186) a month
Ivory Coast it varies by occupation, with the lowest set to 36,607 CFA franc (56)
Dominican Republic 4,900 Dominican pesos (91)
Ghana Ghanaian cedis (1.95) a dayGuatemala Guatemalan quetzales (4.78) per day for agricultural work
Indonesia 1,410,000 rupiah (116) per month in Papua; as low as 675,000rupiah per month in West Java
Madagascar 70,025 Malagasy ariary (25) per month for nonagriculturalworkers; 71,000 ariary per month for agricultural workers[9]
Mexico 54.47 pesos (3.49) in Zone C (all other states)
Nigeria 18,000 naira (81) per month, nationally (with a 13 month year as the lawmandates an extra month's pay for the Christmas holiday)
Peru 550 Peruvian nuevos soles (139) per month[52]
Sao Tome 650,000 So Tom and Prncipe dobras (27) per month for civil servants
Is this Fair Trade? Is this good for natural habitat? Is this good for the rain forest? Is this organic? It;s time we look past the glitzy organizations with certified backgrounds and insist that the actual producers are treated in a SUSTAINABLE manner.
Jim Lucas
Jim Lucas
While UTZ may be less well known (to some) than FLO, RA, and others, the question is really about your feelings about the definition of sustainable.