We are going to buy cacao liquor, cacao butter, milk and sugar, and we are going to have a machine, intended to be used before the refining process as blender (mixer) and after for the conching process.
Im afraid to but I think its a "need to have". At this point Im just want to make the best choice.
Thanks.
A grind gage will do ok for rough and dirty process control. will do a terrible job at PSD.
Lots of different types of colloid mills. Be sure you run your product, at your formulation, through the mill before you spend a lot of money to buy it. You'll want to understand if it makes what you think it will before you own it. Regardless, after coilloid or ball milling, you're going to have another grinding step, i assume? Or are you planning on running your milk, sugars, and nibs through the colloid mill? Probably not what you want to hear, but i don't think i'd treat a colloid mill as a 'one stop grinding shop'.
Edit - i'm afraid omar, that you'll find that any tool, used to measure micron precision, that's worth using at all, will likely cost more than you think it will, and take longer than you'd like it to for it to arrive. You'll have to decide if it's a need to have or a nice to have.
I didnt knew about this kind of tools (I do know). Have you test it?.
I think this will be more difficult to find in Venezuela but I am going to look for. I couldn't find in Amazon either.
We order a balls mill to refine chocolate but our "machine maker" (a temperamental one) tell us that he was going to do a colloid mill. He said that the colloid mill will do the same work. If it didnt he will build the balls mill. We need the micrometer to see if the colloid mill realy works.
What do you think of the grind gage ? also measures PSD.
The most appropriate ones are those with built in pressure guages to avoid overtightening. Mitotoyo (spelling?) can make them but i believe they're special order.
I need to buy a micrometer to measure the chocolate thickness.
Which one do you use?
Which one shouldwe use?
Best,
Omar Montilla
chirag,
No need to swich of your wet grinder in intervals just remove its plastic cover and put one table fan facing electric motor , now you can run your grinder non stop.
Ricardo:
though I'm fiarly new to making chocolate,,I have to agree with Brad and Sebastian and Clay.. a stone grinder can definately give you the smoothness your looking for.
i dont even use a factory modified grinder. i use a locally available brand(well not really brand, company) thats easily available to me here in India.. as far as the heat goes, all i do is give the machine a 10 minute break every 3 hours..
now to some that may not seem practical, but keep in mind that the machine cost me less than 100 US$, for me (who is working on a tight budget )it works very well..
i cangenerallyget 48 hours of refining/conching done in 2.5 to 3 days.
-Just the opinion of a newbie who recently discovered a great passion for good chocolate 
I recently bought an Ultra Grinder. I must say after 15 or so batches most folks have no idea which chocolate was made by me in the Ultra and that bought top shelf at a retail shop. Granted we are not experts, except we know what tastes good and what doesn't , what's gritty and what isn't. This machine does a mighty fine job, and for home use.. this is economical and small in size and 10lbs is a great batch size! best wishes.
I wanted to share how to modify the stock Ultra Grinder machine. Here are the resulting pics showing the stand, bottom ventilation and the ventilation/heating mini-tower ( 1 , 2 , 3 ). This video shows a way to drill the top ventilation holes and a reference to the Santha Air Flow Modification . Even though it was fun and educational to do it myself I feel that buying the chocolate machines from an authorized dealer provides warranty is good value.
So these machines are perfectly capable of producing fine chocolate, but with a limited yield per week depending on the conching time. I assume about 10 kgs per machine.
Brad brings up a great point in time (over 36 hours) decreasing acidity and developing flavor. I have been wondering if ventilation and temperature play an important role when conching with the Santha/Ultra machines. I recently processed a Colombian Santander (fron ChocolateAlchemy) for over 36 hours at 120-130F with a closed lid in my Ultra. The result was still acidic, which I didn't find in previous test with Ecuador cacao.
Do you think it is a good practice to open the lid and have a small fan blowing air on the chocolate?
Your particle size is just fine. I admit i've not had a bar in a while, so i'm going from memory (and i eat far more chocolate than your average bear...) - but from recollection, i'd put the max particle size somewhere in the 20um range, which is a nice place to be. I do think you've got too much much cocoa butter in the last bars i tasted (which you already know 8-))
of course, always willing to give a sensory/phsyical analysis update on fresh samples 8-)
Hey Sebastian, FYI: my conche/refiners go right from nibs and granulated sugar to chocolate with no pre-refining. You've tasted it. From a texture perspective what do you think? (I already know you think my 70%'s are too high in fat! haha!).
Oh by the way, I had Jean-Jacques Berjot and a few other Barry Callebautexecs in my shop the other day doing a tasting. He thought the Cuyagua 80% you tasted was amazing too. In fact I had to laugh.He crossed his eyes, did a couple of arm pumps, and ended up leaving with a couple of the Cuyagua 80 bars.
Cheers.
Brad
I've got a laser particle size distribution of chocolates made with the melanges somewhere. If i can find it, i'll post it. To be honest, when these first began to be used, i was inordinately skeptical. i didn't think it could be done either. What i've observed is that they're able to make chocolates that, from a particle size reduction standpoint, exceed almost everything that's commercially available via conventional processing. Now, that's not to say conventional processes can't do it - they can - but in order to get that fine, it takes a long time - same as with these machines. If time is not an issue for you, you can make exceptional product with them.
From reading your material, you appear to be at the same level of skepticism i was 10 years ago. Do this for me - there's any number of artisinal chocolate products available today that are made via this fashion. Select a few to purchase, and taste them. If you have the knowledge and resources, analyze them. Then make your assessment. If you've never used the equipment, and you've never assessed product made on the equipment, it may not be fair to judge it.
Disclaimer - I have no vested interest in the home chocolate maker, the equipment used to do it, or the ingredients that go into it. Quite the opposite actually.
Enjoy your "site". Ciao.
Ricardo -
I have to agree with Brad and Sebastian on this issue.
Despite your skepticism, I have personally tasted many, many chocolates made with the modified stone grinders and most (though not all) of those chocolates had no detectable grittiness in them. I have also had chocolates made in expensive "universal" machines that did exhibit grittiness.
It's not the "fault" of the machines, they are both capable of producing good results. More can be attributed to the way the machines are used - the experience of the chocolate maker - and maintained (or not).
I also don't see 30 microns as an absolute number. I believe that part of the mechanical effect of conching is to coat all of the particles with fat. So - you could have a paste where the particle size was below 30 microns with extremely uneven fat distribution and it could taste gritty.
Brad also correctly points out that particle size is just one characteristic to consider.
Hi Adamandia:
I am a little skeptical that the Santha grinder ( or any little stone grinder ) will produce completely smooth, under 30 micronchocolate. These cute machines look like an old phonograph. Material ismilled between a spinning disk and one or two fist-sized "wheels" that revolve around it. Chocolate is odd ( a non-newtonian fluid ). That means, like cornstarch, the more you compress it, the more dense it becomes. This generates resistance and heat, lots of heat. Little machines are hard pressed to deal with this. Nothing wrong with the technology, just the scale. Also, if you grind too long, your chocolate may turn into a ropey, tar-like consistency.
Maybe Brad and Sebastian have some techniques that overcome these problems. Bottom line - I wouldn't buy any machine that did not come with a guarantee that it could grind chocolate to 30 microns or less. If you hear: " Well our machine wasn't made for chocolate per se, but it should..." don't walk, run away.
A note on micrometers: one reliable and economic way to get an objective measurement of particle size is to use a microscope. Retailers can provide a fliter with a line grid that fits into the eye tube. You make a thin smear of your chocolate onto a glass slide and the lines in your field of view will indicate the size of particles. You can preserve your slides by adding one drop of marine varnish. By preserving slides, you cansee how various chocolate brands vary not only in particle size and percentage of sizes but also particle shape.
Bottom line on a grinder-- get a guarantee that is enforceable.
Best, Ricardo
The Science of Chocolate is a good book for sure. So is Cocoa Chocolate & Confectionary by Minifie. My personal favourite is Chocolate & Confections by Peter Greweling. Peter's book is a great foundation for actually doing stuff with the chocolate you make.
Now, when it comes to particle size, I agree with Sebastian, and would also like to add that your claim about the modified home grinders on Chocolate Alchemy producing gritty chocolate is unfounded. I used a modified version of one of the Chocolate Alchemy machines for almost 3 years in my home kitchen until I purchased true commercial grade chocolate refiners, and with those little machines produced some of the smoothest milk and dark chocolate I've ever had. Following Sebastian's advice I actually kept chocolate I'd made in my little Santha, and occasionally go back to it for comparison. It's just as smooth as my commercial machines' product.
There is one thing to point out here, which I'm surprised nobody has touched on - and that's acidity and taste. Who cares if the chocolate is gritty when it hasn't been conched enough and is acidic and vinegary? Most machines I have used can grind cocoa beans down to the point where my pallate can't detect any grittiness at all in less than 12 hours. However I've found that to produce truly "great" chocolate, it can take at least another 36-48 hours of conching to round out the flavour.
I would have to say that if your chocolate is gritty to the point where you need a micrometer to test for size, you haven't refined and conched it NEAR long enough. When you get to the point where texture isn't an issue, and your focus turns to amazing, rich, deepflavour,THEN you're getting closer.
...but that's just my experience.
Cheers
Brad
I would disagree with your statement that the stone mills aren't able to produce a chocolate <30 um. I've had results as fine as 8um by micrometer, and that method measures the largest particle (meaning most of the particles are <8um). Now, the grinders are exactly standardized, so your results will vary from grinder to grinder, which may be why you're saying what you're saying. However, it is quite possible to make a fine particle size chocolate using one.
Hi Adamandia:
Might I first suggest the book The Science of Chocolate by S.T. Beckett who I believe teaches in York. His book can be very technical in places, butit is thorough.
The Web site 'chocolate alchemy' is fine, but they are selling gear for home bean to bar chocolate making -- and not all that cheap.
Small scale home bean to bar chocolate making is doable in all except maybe one regard. Washing, roasting, winnowing, making nibs, conching, tempering and molding can all be done small scale with reasonable inexpensive equipment. The hard part is getting the ground nibs into a liquor that has particles less than 30 microns ( a human hair is about 50 microns thick). Sites like chocolate alchemy offer various grinders that were created to grind herbs and spices for Indian (UK would say Asian) food. Theproblem is that these machines just can't get chocolate down to 30 microns, and you end up with gritty chocolate.
The small scale chocolate lab solution is to use steel rollers spaced just under 30 microns apart. Easy peasey. Unfortunately, even a re-built bench type roller mill runs about 25K U.S. last I checked. Bay Area Scharffen Berger (now owned by Hershey's)uses a stone wheel like the sort you might see in a flour mill. If you are determined to make home bean to bar chocolate, I would suggest considering a stone roller grinder ( like the ones they use for olive oil extraction ). These should be available on the continent and for considerably less than $25K. Here's another suggestion: why not buy bulkchocolate or liquor and work on tempering? This is a valuable sub skill in chocolate making that you can start on without too much fuss. And you can temper by hand using a Bain Marie (water bath), seed chocolate, and a chocolate thermometer.
Hope that helps! Ricardo
| | books.google.com S. T. Beckett , Royal Society of Chemistry (Great Britain) |
Thanks for that Felipe. Hope I find something soon. B rgds, A
Hi Adamandia,
You should check the Chocolate Alchemy site, it's forums and archives. Using the search you can read back on the archives and follow through several good chocolatier's careers like Brad or Alan, who started with home chocolate making and moved on to larger operations.
That being said, it would be easier to learn from someone locally, so maybe you can find someone to help.
I am just going through the process and even without formal lessons, the results are way beyond my original expectations.I'd be happy to help.
Regards,
Felipe
Hello. Does anyone know where in UK teaches how to make chocolate from the bean to bar process ? Thanks. Would even pay for private lessons
Hi Jeff
Thank you for your points. I'll respond to them one by one below. If you have any other questions or suggestions please do not hesitate.
Since new chocolate will be coming out: the World Chocolate Awards book will be published on a 2-3 year basis.Thisis an appropriatetime span for the rate at which the marketplace changes significantly for milk, flavoured, flavoured drinkingand the other types of chocolatewe are including.An annual award would see a very high number of repetitions compared to a very low number of new entries. It also requires time to do due diligence to sourcing and testing chocolates from all over the world. Finally, no matter how ofteninformation on any subjectis published there will always benew information coming forth the next day. So the best way to deal with thisis to keep right up to date until themoment of publishing. In thecase of a chocolate going out of production, the recognition of the chocolatier for making exceptional chocolate, of something thatthey have already achieved, is significant. Thereader can become familiar perhaps with a new brand, see what the chocolatier is capable of, read interesting infromationabout them and look at their range.
Set parameters of what chocolate you will and will not test: This will be clarified when the main website opens and in the book. But in brief for the World Chocolate Awards only testschocolatesdo notuse substitutes for real vanilla, or for cocoa butter.
Chocolates that are easily obtainable to the public:The objective is to rate as many of the finest chocolates in the worldas we possibly can, based soley on their taste. This is a unique concept and a level playing field for all chocolatiers no mater how big or small, no matter their marketing budget,skill at securing distribution, or how they package their chocolate.As a result of theWorld Chocolate Awards bookrecognising and honouring thosechocolatierswho crafttheworld's best tasting chocolates, demand for them may increase, whichwill give us all a better chance of being able to obtain them.I believe that a large percentage of the public have not even heard of many of the best chocolatiers, who have little chance to expand distribution without an increase in demand coming first. It is a chicken and egg scenario that our book will help to resolve. What is easily obtainable isalso subjective: it depends on where we live, where we travel, where our relatives live, how effectively we use the internet and how resourceful a person is.
This sounds like it will be a very interesting read and informative. Since new chocolate will be coming out and more and more people out there are making chocolate, my suggestion would be to set parameters of what chocolate you will and will not test, so that way this isn't a one time thing. I think since this is designed for the consumer in mind, you should only taste chocolates that are easily obtainable to the public, IE they ship worldwide. I would be disappointed to see your number one choice is only available by flying to europe and going to some obscure town and buying the chocolate from their shop, or if the best chocolate hasn't been in production for 2 years and is now gone.
Just a suggestion is all. It's your book.
[Quote by Ian]
The award is for the best.
For an example if a chocolate is intended by to be a light milk chocolate with pieces of hazelnut in it, then the question has to be asked is it the best "light milk chocolate with pieces of hazelnut."
So how many categories of chocolate bars do you give awards for? And how do you decide when to split award categories? Using your example, is "Milk chocolate with hazelnut" a distinct category that gets an award? What about bars with dark chocolate and hazelnuts-- is that another category? And is "Dark chocolate with almonds" still another category?
I hope I don't sound critical, because I'm really just trying to understand your methodology based on what you've explained so far.
It must have been a wonderful project to taste over 1000 bars and compare them! Can give a few more specifics about how many months you spent on this, and how many bars you tasted per day? Because I review chocolate I'd also like to know more about your process. I always find new things that I can learn from from others. Did you make any attempt to control and standardize as many of the variables as possible? By this I'm referring to the sample sizes, the temperature of the chocolate tested, the time of day, the number of chocolates per day, the time since last eating, refreshing the pallette...
This is fascinating to me, and I sincerely hope that your book helps to educate more people about fine chocolate that they might enjoy! That can only be good for everybody!
Hi Clay, I don't see anycomplicated issues here:
World Chocolate Awards is exactly what is says on the tin: awards for chocolates from all over the world.
A person needsto criticise chocolate to be a chocolate critic; you need to have children to be a father/mother; you need to wash cars to be a car valeter; you need to make a sign to be a sign maker; you need to make chocolate to be a chocolatier; you need to award chocolate to be a chocolate award.
Oncesomeone does any of those things then the public get to decide their opinion about how well that car is washed; how good a sign is; if the criticism is interesting; orif theawards are of interest.
Now with regards to being independentthen I would agree this is a quality that is less self-evident: qualifying/clarification of those qualities and what they are intended to mean is essential.This is what I highlighted in my initial points about an ideal award.
The World Chocolate Awards are different from all of the other awards that I am aware of: It is independent, does not use donated chocolate,and is on the side of the consumer.
Facts, such as my agents and I not being related to, or paid by,any of thechocolate makers will be clarified in the book and on the website,but if more detail is required then I will not hesitate to help.
To clarify what agent means, it is somebody who is assisting me: who has on my behalf received and forwarded chocolates to me, withouttipping offa chocolate maker that thechocolates are for an award.
Hi Adrienne
I agreee, particularly regarding dark chocolate. But it is an amazing time to have so many on offer to try and discover. It makes things a lot more exciting and fun than a stagnant marketplace.
As you say it is possible to find it complicated, buttheWorld Chocolate Awards will inform people of the amazing variety there in a way that is enjoyable and different. It must be an enjoyable experience and provide quality information in a fun and easy presentation. There will be interesting facts and hundreds of colour photos to make it an enjoyable read as well as substance.
Ian:
It's not a question, of "we all may have" it's "there are."
The issue of the makeup of the panel whose judgments are the basis of awarding the ... ahh ... awards is always of interest to people. If the judge is you, I think people will want to know your bona fides. Especially because these are being billed as "The World Chocolate Awards."
I have this concern with many people who rate chocolate (and everything else for that matter) have no background or training in sensory analysis. I spent a lot of time thinking about this issue - over the course of several years - before I started publishing my ratings and reviews on chocophile.com back in mid-2001. I had no formal training so I need justification for my hubris in anointing myself a chocolate "critic."
The Club has its own biases, which are obvious when you know what to look for. I don't know that 100 is better than 1 - I'd need to know the makeup of the 100, or the 1.
But the question is not about me - it's about you. I am content to wait until the book comes out and not judge until I have a chance to see the explanation of the methodology and how the awards are presented. Until then it's just a matter of gathering some background so I don't try to make the deep dive into the book cold.
Hi Lowe
Excuse the delay, I have been away.
Thishas got to be one of the most interesting points raised.
The award is for the best.
For an example if a chocolate is intended by to be a light milk chocolate with pieces of hazelnut in it, then the question has to be asked is it the best "light milk chocolate with pieces of hazelnut."
For eg. thetaster should not give more favour one with Brazil nuts because Brazil nuts are their favourite.
Ido like your view on this and I am on the other end of selling chocolate and have tasted many bars a long the way. For me it is either I like a bar or don't but also chocolate has gotten very complicated these days andI try to make things simple for myself and to alsohave fun a long the way. There are so many new bars coming out and also at times the old standards do change in taste or for me my taste buds have changed over time.
There are just many ways to look at all of this now.
Not sure exactly what qualifies these as "awards" then, based on your description. Sounds more like the guide to French chocolates produced by the Club des Croqueurs de Chocolats, but with only one taster, maybe? You are the sole taster and judge - and your agents helped you source the chocolates?
Ian,
Am I correct that you're responding to Clay's question about the judges? Knowing who the judges are is definitely a key component to any award. Are you the sole "judge" who determines these awards? And for transparency how many "agents" do you have? Since the word "agent" has several meanings please clarify what your agents do. Are they literary agents since this is a book? Did the agents do more than buy chocolate?
If you tasted over 1000 bars and the average cost is $7/bar then the ~$7000 invested is quite a chunk of cash to invest in chocolate. But what could be more fun? How many bars did your agents buy for you? And where can I get some these agents to buy me chocolate too? ;>)
Ian,
In your book are you attempting to list the "best" chocolates or your "favorites"? To me there's quite a difference between those 2 aims.
Itis unwise for anyone to stand on a pedestal andassert that they havespecial tastebuds.
We all are most happy with our own perception of taste. It is a subjective thing as you know.
I amahuman beingwho tastes chocolate. Nobody requires any further qualification in order to talk about the flavours and excellence of chocolates, write, sing, or do whatever they like on the topic.
The real selector is the public who has the option to read, watchor listen to someone else's opinion from the sources availible.
What a person can do is give their opinion. They can state their perception of flavour and so on. Your questionseems to be implying there are people whoshould be looked at assuperior to others and I do not share that opinion: anyone who takes the time to reallytaste what is in their mouth has a valid opinion about taste.
I have judged the chocolates. "We" means my agents, people who have assisted me in purchasing chocolates posting them across the globe. The word "we" is also used inEnglish writing instead of I.
Maybe some people willjudge it important that I and my agents are independent and find the World Chocolate Awards book more interesting because of that.
It does seem that you have given it a great deal of thought.
Hi Tom
Coppenuer is a very good example of one I have had to completley updaterecently.
All one can do it the very best possible with the resources availible. I would rather let everyone make up their own mind about how effective I have been, but Iaim to please. I hope it will be apparent I have made a great deal of effort!
Regarding taste: it would be reasonable to say that no two bars taste exactly the same even on the same day, ditto for one I keep for a year later. The reasons for this range from our mood to the conditions in the mouth, our health, the variation in batches, memories, what flavours we conciously or subconciously decide to focus onand so on. And therefore it is also reasonable to say that the more occasions you try a chocolate on, the fuller picture you can build of thecharacter.
A chocolate may become unavailible for a time or forever, this is beyond our control. Perhaps thecelebration ofthat chocolate will help the chocolatier to go on to produce more of it, or similarly fine creations and provoke the public to take and interest in a talented chocolater.
Ian -
One really important series of questions to answer before the book comes out. (And when will that be?)
Who are the judges?Who is "we?" How were they selected and recruited? Who selected them? How many were there?
There are many more, of course, but - having thrown down the gauntlet on this one - everything you are saying is open to scrutiny, and this is a very knowledgable community.
:: Clay
(Repost with spelling correction. I will reply to the new post later)
We all may have varying opinions on what will qualify as an award.
Istated at the outset a number of factors important to me and people I have spoken to.
If you are of the view that 100 tastersaveraged out are better than one taster I would be interested to know how you arrive at that conclusion and how this is possible to carry out in the real world under satisfactory circumstaces.