I'm increasing production of a butter ganache, and I'm concerned about the melted chocolate crystallizing on the sides of the mixing bowl. Is there a common technique folks use to warm up their mixing bowls to avoid this?
Thanks!!
Dale -
If you go to the Good Food Awards site and look at the entry guidelines they should provide all the information you need. If not, contact the organizers by sending e-mail to info (at) goodfoodawards (dot) org.
Please also note that the September 1st entry deadline refers to the 2011 awards. The entry date for 2012 is August 31st.
Winnowing is not 100% effective. In fact, in some cases, it's pretty darn ineffective. You will always have some level of shell material in your nib. And your prewinnowed stream always will have some nibs in it. Meaning that some % of the nibs would come into direct contact with any foreign material (in this case, pnuts) - so removing the shell, even if it were 100% effective, wouldn't guarantee a soln for contamination.
Of the two companies you mention, one makes chocolate, one does not. We can throw out the company that doesn't make chocolate as they really have no feel for what's involved, and are making assessments based on the information they have (incomplete). It's a bit like me selling used cars and guaranteeing the previous owner(s) never took it on a trip longer than 30 miles - i have no idea. I can provide you a statement to that effect, but it doesn't mean it's true. The other company you mention doesn't really have the technical competencies to provide an accurate assessment (sounds harsh, i know, but most companies fall into this category. not meant to be harsh).
Regarding the challenge study - what size was the sample tested? How many studies were done? On multiple lots? Over extended periods of time? What was the test used and it's minimum detection level? Are you certain that because the test didn't register above the minimum detection level that it's not present at slightly below the detection level? When a given lot does test positive, what are the appropriate clean-out and flush procedures to guarantee 100% elimination of any residual proteins? Are you confident they even can be removed 100%? And now we're back to the threshold of detection level question - if post clean-out it's not detectible by the assay, does that guarantee it's completely gone, or just that it's below the detection lvl of the assay - but still high enough to kick off the IgE cascade?
I've spent some time on the allergen issue (not just nuts, but dairy and soy as well), and know the answers to the above questions. It is my professional opinion that it is simply impossible to guarantee - with any level of validity - the absence of nuts in chocolate. A written statement by a company to that effect is simply reckless.
Ah, someone bites 8-) Really the only thing they can guarantee is that they're not intentionally bringing peanuts into their facility (ie they're not mfg peanut fillings or coatings). In many origins, it's quite common for a farmer, grader, middleman, dockworker, or ship-hand to eat nuts as a snack. The shells and meats of those nuts are often tossed aside, and i can't count how many times I've seen them land in piles of cocoa or in bags. In some cases the equipment used to handle the material is often shared between nuts and cocoa.
How does the mfr propose to keep that material - which they're not even aware of - out of their plants?
If they make the argument that it's too small an amount to be reactive - how do they know what the acute dosage threshold for an immuno-reaction is for each person? How do they know that even if they're testing it via ELISA or some other assay, that a given persons threshold for a reaction isn't below the threshold of the testing kit (ie absence of assay reaction doesn't guarantee it's not there, it just says it wasn't in that sample or that it wasn't enough for that particular kit to detect)?
I would be very skeptical of any non-artisinal mfr (who isn't in complete control of their supply chain) guaranteeing the absence of nuts in chocolate. I don't believe it can be done on a large scale, and would thoroughly challenge any mfr who claims they can do so.
Thank-you Clay!
I'm not sure how to achieve c,d and e, but will keep this in mind, I guess it all has to do with getting the right exposure ( and white balance? ). I seem to have the best luck with natural light so I'm going to stick with that for a while, then try for some more atmospheric shots... we shall see what happens.
I wonder if milk chocolate might be easier to work, I usually photograph dark but I do have contrast issues.
Have a great weekend, and thanks again for all of your help
Cheebs,
Thanks for the reply,
What kind of diffuser do you use? good point about the color card. I found this website you might enjoy, she has a lot of good info on food photography for the beginner http://veganyumyum.com/category/photography/ her photos are beautiful and very inspiring. Although, she doesn't mention photographing chocolate specifically, I'm going to try some of her ideas and see how successful I am.
My first project is just getting the camera off auto! Very excited about learning all of this, who knows... maybe I'll start a blog of my progress ( or just post on this one ). I know how I want the photos to look ( drippy, sexy, provocative and delicious! ), just need to figure out the technical side. So here I go !
There are no recommended standard angles for food or for the number of light sources.
Often, there is a very large softbox (diffused light source) which is designed to mimic a natural (i.e., sun coming through a high north window) light source. Lamps/flash are preferred by many studio photographers because the color temperature and output is consistent throughout a shoot. Flash units are often used because they generate less heat - useful when photographing food. In the architectural model work we did in the studio it was almost all hot lights.
Now you have ambient overall lighting covered. The next questions are how big is what you're shooting and what to do you want to emphasize? So, there's generally at least one "key" light that is "flagged" (to keep the light off parts of the scene you don't want illuminated). Instead of another light, depending on the effect you're looking for, you might have one or more "bounce" cards that take the ambient light and reflect it into the scene to reduce contrast.
As I alluded to earlier, if you don't have a view camera so that you can really master depth of field effects, you want to stop down as far as you can and make sure that everything in the scene is tack sharp. Then you can go back into Photoshop (or similar) and add the depth-of-field focus effects after, if desirable.
I agree with you that use a standardized reference color target makes an enormous amount of sense, as is using a white card to set white balance - especially when you are shooting film. These days, however, the auto-correct feature in many programs these days is so good that it'll take care of 95% of situations. Without a recognizable iconic color in the scene (we used to shoot a Kodak box on the first frame of every roll for this purpose) then the most important things in the image (technically):
a) no motion from the camera
b) tack-sharp focus, at least on the key element(s) of the scene
c) a pure black (RGB 0,0,0) somewhere in the scene
d) a pure white (RGB 255,255,255) somewhere in the scene
e) clean whites (i.e., whites without a noticeable color cast)
Of course, any or all of these "rules" can be broken - if and when you know what you're doing and WHY you're breaking them.
I don't have any samples of tabletop work - I do very little of it. Early on in my career I first-assisted for two of the best in NYC, one who specialized in architectural models. I realized that my interests in photography lay elsewhere, but I absorbed a lot about the techniques.
You can see some of my very recent work at my personal web site, www.claygordon.com .
This is an excellent topic! Funny how sometimes people are thinking the same thing? I was JUST about to post something along these exact same lines.
One item that has become indispensable in my lighting repertoire is a diffuser. It makes photographing shiny objects a lot easier by putting it between your light source and product.
Another item I now can't live without is a color card. It makes setting your white point so much easier, and from that you can make all your pictures look very similar, as far as color is concerned.
Also, for the vast majority of my pictures I use a tripod and slower shutter speeds. This lets me play around with the aperture (and therefore depth of field).
Clay, one thing I don't see mentioned much are lighting angles... what are the recommended or standard angles and how many light sources should on use or food photography (as a general and not ironclad rule?)
Clay,
Wow, thank-you so much for the awesome detailed reply, the photos I have here are a few years old, I think I've gotten a little better, although it's only until recently I've decided to get more serious about this and actually learn the controls on my camera ;) In the past I mainly just wanted quick snap shots of my work ( always staying on automatic ). But now I have this chocolate book idea, and I really do enjoy photography and want my chocolate photos to look as amazing as they can.
Great tip about cold lighting the new LED lights, I try to use natural light as much as I can. I was also thinking about trying Photoshop Lightroom for editing ( I'm pretty good with Photoshop ). The iPad idea for lighting is way clever! I don't have one though, but if it's cheaper than buying a lighting kit, I might have to check into it. However, I'm really too poor to buy anything right now, so I'm stuck with what I have. Luckily I have a Canon 20D camera to fiddle with.
Do you have any examples of your photography ? I would love to see. Maybe on your choco page, I will take a gander. Thanks for the feature also, and for creating such a great platform for chocolate lovers to come and get inspired ! I always mention the site on my FB page and people who visit, love it here ( just like me ).
~katreece
Kat:
Tabletop product photography is its own special art form. It used to be that special lenses were required to manipulate depth of field, but these days as long as the entire image is sharp, Photoshop and plugins can take care of most view camera type effects.
The one place where I think people tend to underestimate their needs is in lighting equipment and in understanding that literal representation is not what it's about, it's about interpretation. In looking at some of your photos, what I miss is contrast range. There are neither pure whites (what used to be called "paper white" when people actually printed negatives on paper) and pure blacks - the contrast range is compressed. Of course, to work with chocolate you need cold lighting, so the new generation of LED lights is just what you need.
If you want to go small-scale there is a cool iPad app called SoftBox you might look into. You can use it (running on an iPad) as a light table and then with two more iPads you have a small - extremely portable and surprisingly flexible - lighting studio.
But mostly it's about attitude and style, which takes practice and editing. In this day and age of essentially unlimited storage, people have gotten out of the habit of deleting photos. To improve, you have to be a relentless editor, trashing every photo that doesn't "work." That's my experience, anyway. (I have a BFA in Photo from Rhode Island School of Design and it was one discipline I learned then that I practice to this day. I ruthlessly edit my photos and delete the ones that don't measure up.)
While you personally have a "style" I don't sense that style coming through in your photographs. What is the "Kat style" and how does it translate into photos? It takes practice. Lots of it. With enough, setting things up will become instinctual.
Does anyone have experience with photographing chocolate ? I photograph my own pieces and they look pretty good, but I would love to get my photos looking drop dead gorgeous so I can do a book someday, as well as offer this as a service ( since I love to photograph it so much ), any tips would be appreciated ...
Thank-you!
Katreece
Emily, I am so glad that someone else is doing what I want to do. I am in Ecuador. Me and my wife have a chocolate company( we make chocolate) it is called Mindo Chocolate Makers. Recently I have focused on trying to help the small farmers by finding small chocolate makers that are interested in using extremely good cacao. I want to train the farmers to do the fermentation and drying. We want to do an inspection after they are done with the dry cacao. They are only using the Nacional variety. The idea is to have the chocolate makers meet the farmers and start a relationship that would be beneficial to both of them. We in turn would qualify the beans and set up the shipping to the US via ocean boats. If enough chocolate makers can be found we can ship one container at the time. Containers are usually 20 tons. I have met with many farmers so far, they are all interested. So as far as the farmers are concerned, there are enough of them.
If there are any chocolate makers out there that may be interested, please email me. Joemeza117@gmail.com
Very interesting discussion. I run a cacao post-harvest processing and export center in southern Belize that is focused around ethical, direct trade and connecting specialty chocolate companies to smallholder farmers. We were founded basically to address the problem this forum has been addressing through the lens of social enterprise.
We seek to establish direct relationships between chocolate companies that deeply value the work of cacao farmers and the farmers themselves, allowing for an exceptionally high-quality product and a growing source of quality income for the farmers. We're just entering our second year of operation, but if you're interested in checking us out visit: mohocacao.tumblr.com. We are working with a solid line-up of specialty chocolate makers that have a sincere interest in connecting with cacao farmers. I'd be happy to chat directly with anyone who wants to learn more, and I'd also love to hear from anyone else doing a similar thing in other countries--
Cheers,
Emily
emily[at]mohocacao.com
Unfortunately, if we want to be objective, we must make the case for most small farmers of cocoa, of course there are small groups trying to get ahead based on improving both its production and handling of it, but I'm talking about the vast majority of those that both their economic and intellectual, not allowed to use these mechanisms.
As I said earlier, the involvement of exporters and multinational chocolate manufacturers in improving the techniques of planting and harvesting cocoa, more permeated with the farmer training, logically supported by investment and recognition of higher prices, are the guidelines to be followed to achieve a better cocoa bean quality is obtained and the farmers to improve their living conditions.
I am currently working with cocoa growers' association interested in improving their production, making longer periods of fermentation and technicians, which might achieve the aroma and taste that requires a quality cocoa, but that can only be achieved by paying more their product, supporting them in their projects, since otherwise much work to achieve the same market prices only serve to discourage and allow everything to remain as before. I think here is the opportunity to start work as discussed in this forum, that people or companies that buy cocoa back to look at these people, allowing payment by a more just and financial support for their projects, the vindication of their aspirations and this is the beginning of a more equitable relationship between producer and manufacturer, because most people want to get their land to produce more at the expense of the quality of cocoa, as the price is the same.
Those wishing to have a permanent high quality grain in time, paying a price that will encourage the farmer can contact me for my coordination and agreements, to get from Ecuador, under my warranty, quality cocoa that will benefit both the producer and the manufacturer.
This is the first step we must take if we want any change in the future.
Ivan thanks for your response. However you paint a very grim picture of the state of the farmers in Ecuador. You are right to certain extent, but the majority of farmers that I have met are much more optimistic and informed. They also see the big picture, if they change some of their practices, they can improve their lot. Not all are living from hand to mouth.
What we have to realize here is that as producers of chocolate (I consider myself a very small producer) we are looking for the best cacao we can find. We cant all grow our own cacao. Over 90% of cacao is grown in small lots 1 to 2 hectares, by individual farmers. That is the reality. They can grow exceptional cacao if given the chance, but it wont happen unless they earn more for their troubles. I have met with them, seen their farms, they want to change.
I am also in a very unique position; I have a place in Ecuador. I do all my post harvest process in Ecuador in my property. I buy the cacao en baba and ferment and dry on my site. I also show the farmers how they can do the fermentation and drying. At this time I dont trust anyone to ferment and dry for me, but that can change.
Just like cacao is produced in very small lots, the small chocolate maker is making some of the best chocolate. The small chocolate maker or craft chocolate maker doesnt really know where to buy their cacao. However they know a few things that they want. They want good quality cacao, they want organic cacao, and they want to know that the farmer is being compensated fairly; they are smart enough to know if the supply chain breaks somewhere, the cacao will cease to come.
Some of the larger craft chocolate makers have invested in finding the right farmers and buying a large portion of their harvest. Also they educate those farmers and give them parameters that they have to meet. Others have found a good supplier that they trust.
The world of chocolate is changing and fast. The demand for good chocolate is very strong. All that is needed is to tweak things a little.
Unfortunately, in Ecuador as any country producer of cocoa, the small farmer, be it rural poor, needy, trying to sell their cocoa when is baba (wet, fresh from the cob), because it needs and is always in need of money to cover their most urgent and obviously does not care that you choose their cocoa as this will decrease your income. Rarely given the job of fermenting (5 to 7 days) and even worse dry the grain, he needs money urgently, so that the acopiador(collector) from the nearest town buys it solely based on their degree of moisture-reducing price of course-which allows the farmer to have money for their most urgent expenses.. Such is the state of liquidity, often finds it expensive to buy pesticides for their high cost, forcing it to grow semi-organically, however which it can not be credited as an organic producer by the high costs of accreditation, making it reluctant to form partnerships with other peasants, because that means waiting longer for sale, and if the market demands high levels of quality, does not care if the grain is chosen or mixed.
No poor farmer has gone out of their poverty, partnering or cooperative, which is why everyone tries to survive as he can, that's what everybody knows, however from which cocoa is still buying the big multinationals, regardless of destination those who work the land, keep track of plants, care for and harvest their fruit, after which still prostrate in his misery.
The small Ecuadorian farmer, planted their cocoa, without being conscious of the unrivaled quality of the grain, because it knows that the world of fine cocoa aroma is highly priced, and whether they knew it, in its simplicity and humility would have no greater importance, he sees it simply as his means of livelihood.
To help the small farmer, it is first necessary to invest in training, seed selection, crop mechanization, but this means putting money in advance so that after a long period, see results. That does not interest any exporters or multinational, because it means fail to gain immediately by that investment.
In short, our poor farmers will remain in poverty despite being the creators of agricultural wealth, becoming victims of our famous globalization means to them a new chain of slavery.
Enjoying the discussion, I can tell you that in Ecuador there are some farmers and several Asociaciones- the word used for co-op- that are getting a premium for their beans, which is around $450-500 per ton. Of course this is based on quality, and post-harvest process. It would be great if the fine chocolate makers get into a buyers coop, but it is great too that at the other end of the chain, the farmers negotiate as a group and see themselves as business people.
There are some inspiring cases, and I prefer to be an optimist and believe that they will resist problems and live for many years. One is the Kallari Asociacion, in the Amazonian province of Napo-Ecuador. They are 850 families producing Nacional beans, with a centralized collection center where fermentation and drying is properly done. Their beans are used by top chocolate makers in Europe. And to add value to their crops, they have decided to make their own chocolate.
I know them for many years and these days I distribute Kallari chocolate in the UK, and I have witness huge changes and improvements in their community. Of course there has been external support from foreign aid, the Ecuadorian government, and NGOs, but they started from scratch. It is a process.
Some very interesting thoughts here. I definitely agree that very few people know how to differentiate between a poor quality bean and a high quality bean. There are so many factors that determine the final flavor.
However, there are a few people that have been travel the world looking for high quality beans. I have found many farmers that are already doing fermentation and drying themselves and are willing to "custom" ferment and dry for me. I have sources from several countries where I am doing this and I have tried to group purchase. As mentioned before, several fine chocolate makers do not want their sources known so it has been rather difficult getting the bigger players to cooperate. I definitely understand this. A friend of mine who makes very fine chocolate, had to stop putting the origins on his chocolate because, the next year, his prices would be higher due to the increased demand on an origin that he had made a name for. Once that happened, the producers, stopped the superior techniques they had implemented because their beans were going to be purchased one way or another and they no longer needed to spend the extra time and money making superior cacao.
it is a very difficult game and I am happy to see so many people trying to find solutions. I just got back from Venezuela and Ecuador where i met with a few farmers about processing some beans to my specs. However, I will be paying more than twice the typical amount they would get from the local coop so they are more than willing to spend the extra time and effort for me.
This is a fantastic discussion.
I am interested in working with both the farmer/cooperative as well as other smaller chocolate makers that would be interested in group purchasing. I would like to focus on beans from South and Central America with delivery to Seattle. Full (or at least half full) containers will result in transportation cost savings that could be used to offset the costs of distribution from Seattle as well as towards a quality premium for the beans/farmers.
I have had some discussions with a few smaller chocolate makers that may be interested in group purchasing, but have not gotten firm requirements (including quantities, specific qualities, etc.) or commitments (for quantities or money). Feel free to contact me again if those I have spoken to before are still interested.
If there were enough interest, it would be ideal to have several origins and deliveries throughout the year. This would help reduce storage costs for interested parties as well as diversify offerings (and reduce overall impacts associated with drops in availability from any one source).
Interested parties (i.e. farmer/cooperative and chocolate makers and not bean brokers, middle men, etc.) should feel free to reply and/or send me a message. Please indicate where you are located, if you are a farmer and/or buyer, what quantities of beans you are interested in/have available, and timing for those quantities (such as twice a year beginning in October, etc.) as well as what your requirements are (quality of beans, etc.).
Thanks
This summer Dominican cacao farmers are earning US$145 for a 100 lbs. (quintal) of dried Sanchez beans. They earn about US$158 for fermented, Hispanola. I paid $190 for a quintal of dried Hispanola beans from a cooperative to make into paste. The tree type seems to be of little importance because the price is the same. What is a fair price for the farmer for premium beans? People in the campo tell me a tarea (X 6 to get an acre) produces from 1up to 3 quintales. Medium sized farms are usually between 300 and 1000 tareas and rarely their only source of income. Small parcels can be any size and many times managed by others due to the owners lives outside the country. So someone with 300 tareas (50 acres) of cacao probably has at least US$500,000 worth of land, and at least $45,000 in revenues a year and maybe $30,000 in cacao profits if it is Sanchez. You raise you revenues $4,000 minus additional costs by fermenting. Those of you who know more, please adjust or add to anything I have posted.
Few farmers have fermentation boxes and when they do ferment, it is with plastic tarps. In recent years, cooperatives and the larger buyers are purchasing the beans wet from the farmer and they do the fermentation. Not sure about how they price it.
I have not seen any incentive to produce higher quality beans for the farmer. Just produce more or maybe ferment. I am told there is an $800 differential per ton in premium cacao prices and the commodity price in the DR. If that is the case, that would the the $.40 difference per pound I paid at the cooperative. I do not know if individual farmers are getting more $$ for select beans or the cooperative takes the difference.
I am glad that there is good interest in this topic. My mail motivation for posting this was to try to come up with some solutions, mainly to the problem of the farmers not having more choices for selling their product, but also to find solutions for all the small chocolate makers that are beginning to appear everywhere.
Good quality cacao is hard to come by. Good post harvest practices are almost nonexistent in this part of Ecuador. Educating the farmers is key. The good thing is that they are willing to do whatever it takes to improve their product, as long as they are being compensated for doing so. The other good thing that is happening, at least in the US, is that customers realize that good quality has a premium price and they are willing to pay for it. Also I have noticed that my customers in the US care deeply about the farmers and that they get fair, or even generous compensation.
As a businessman, I also know that for me to support my employees and myself, I have to make a profit. So, customers have to be happy with the product that we provide, employees have to be happy with their work, suppliers have to be happy with their compensation. And we have to be happy with our compensation. A win, win, win, and win for all of us.
The beginning of the solutions has been expressed by your posts:
Sebastian said A solution for those interested in long term supplies of high quality beans is to invest in the farms and take an active role in its operations. Any takers?
Brian Horsley said as Jim says, the only way to have growers interested in growing fine cacao, organic cacao, fermenting and drying, or doing anything other than low quality high volume, is to make it more profitable for them by paying a premium price for beans. And the only way to do that is to have a high end market to sell the higher priced beans to
Clay Gordon states Sebastian brings up a very interesting point, which is that maybe it makes more sense for small chocolate makers to get together into a PURCHASING co-op rather than forcing the growers to organize. By doing so, the purchasing co-op drives larger volume purchases, which can start driving the critical mass of volume necessary to move away from commodity market pricing to specialty market quality, and the higher prices quality can command.
I would like to hear from some of the small or new chocolate makers and get their opinions.
