Forum Activity for @Sebastian

It's more fearmongering for attention, and, ultimately, probablyn driven by a laywer who's looking for business.  Likely in california.  They claim that 'no one knows how they got there' - which is simply wrong. it's been understood for decades where the trace heavy metals comes from, and it happens with literally all crops that are grown in the vocanic soils.

Edited to add - a little information is a dangerous thing, and if it's not driven by a lawyer looking to create an environment where he can create litigation, if they are ultimately successful in legislating the warnings they feel are needed, chocolate companies will likely cease commercial activities in California.  The list of companies they had tested shows a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of the supply chain, as many of those companies aren't making their own chocolate.

I'd map your static oven with data loggers, as the airflow in box ovens tends to be very uneven and you get hot spots.  Convection ovens help to mitigate this.

Bed depth, temperature, time, airflow, and thermal mass (1kg of beans will roast differently than 2kg of beans..) are all good things to start understanding.

Clay, thanks! Your comments are invaluable. Will have to digest that over later.

Daniel, beans are moving vigorously in the fluid bed roaster, so you are right in that air flow can be simulated through other equipment, like the modern combi ovens. but I can't think of a good simulation for the movement and tumbling of the beans, other than to use a fluid bed to test it out.

Ah, so I guess I'll have to try a bunch of experiments. Besides doubling up beans on a pan and trying lower air-flow, could you suggest variables to change that might not be obvious?

Others I can think of: perforated vs non-perforated pans, adding thermal mass, nibs vs. whole beans. I will also try to get access to a coffee roaster to see differences with convection ovens.

Anything I'm still missing?

not really.  there's a TON of knowledge known by large producers, who will keep that by and large as a trade secret.  outside of the large producers, very few have the resources to understand it well, and as such you'll find a very wide range of opinions backed up by very little science, and, as a result, a great deal of disagreement. this is further complexed by the fact the bbs community doesn't have an agreed upon sensory lexicon with which they can use to describe the sensory attributes - resulting in divergence of information as your definition of, say, 'bright' may be very, very different than my definition of it.  This leads individuals to think they are talking about the same thing, when in fact they are not.

I've had the same issue, It's water in your baffle. I've bought a new one and the problem is gone. 

I'd like to fine a way to restore my old baffles though.

This air flow causing brightness is news to me. At 2kg per pan, that means it's not just a single layer of beans, further reducing air flow and maybe taking more time. It does use less labour and makes ovens more compelling. Is there a good reference on the topic of roasting cacao?

More press: http://www.healthnutnews.com/lead-cadmium-found-in-chocolate-is-anything-safe-anymore/ 

Thoughts? 

You will get higher roast levels with these types of roasters.

The enrober attachment is an option for the Prima. It plugs into the Prima and not into the wall, if that's your question. The functions of the enrober are controlled by the control panel on the Prima, except for the stop/start using the pedal.

The Prima is available 220V 60Hz single-phase or 3-phase as well as in 50Hz versions.

Part 1 can be found  here.  Part 2 can be found  here.  

Note : When in Amsterdam for CHOCOA in early February, I spoke with someone who knows chocolate quite well, is a native German speaker with a very good command of English, and who is familiar with both the most recent German and the English–language versions of TRS. I was told that many of the factual flaws I point out in the English–language version are present in the most recent German-language version, and that at least some of the poor quality of the English–language translations can be traced to the original German: It’s just not that well written to begin with.

A Raw Deal

I have eaten a lot of brands of “raw” chocolate and, like Bernardini, find most of it to be unsatisfying. I don’t eat chocolate primarily for its health benefits and I tend not to eat things I don’t like the taste of just because of health benefit claims.

Those who follow TheChocolateLife know that I am skeptical of many if not most of the claims concerning raw chocolate. One reason (apart from the fact that the claims are not backed up by any reputable science) is that there is no definition for what is raw and what is not: There is even disagreement among the raw food community about what it means. I have seen temperatures as low as 40C suggested as the upper bound for being raw, though the most widely–accepted figure I have heard is 118F (48.7C).

Furthermore, there are no legal definitions in food law as to what constitutes raw. There is a legal definition in the US for white chocolate ( CFR 21.163 .124), but no definition for raw anything. There is no definition for raw in European food regulations that I can find.

Given that there is a lack of agreement about what raw is and is not, and there are no legal definitions, it's somewhat surprising that Bernardini singles out one company above all others for “lying” about a product which does not fit a definition that does not exist. The question in my mind is, “Why this singular focus?”

Bernardini devotes four full pages of TRS to raw chocolate and superfood (pp102-105). In this discussion of raw he mentions two companies, Pacari and Pana. Of Pana he writes, “If the very likeable and successful Mr. Pana Barbounis from Pana Chocolates assures me that he manages this [staying under 116F], I have to believe him. He can’t prove it to me and as there is no legal regulation, he doesn’t need to prove it to anyone else. As I still believe in goodness and honesty in people, I also believe Mr Barbounis.”

But, on the prior page, he is much less forgiving in his analysis of Pacari.

Apparently Bernardini believes the claims of every so-called “raw” chocolate company in the world, except the “very likeable and successful Mr. Santiago Peralta from Pacari Chocolates.” If you read the section on raw chocolate closely, and then follow it up immediately by reading the section on Pacari, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that Bernardini has a specific axe to grind with respect to Pacari. Especially when you read what he has to say about other raw chocolate companies and other Ecuadorian chocolate makers.

The Unconfirmed

I took the time to reach out and ask some of the companies listed as “Unconfirmed” with respect to their processing status. Rather than my defending the practices of any of them, I asked them to prepare a statement responding to what was written about them so you can judge what Bernardini has written against the statements I received.

I have not edited the responses [other than to remove unneeded spaces], so any misspellings and errors in grammar are in what I received. I have translated some terms, they appear within [square brackets].

In alphabetical order:

Cacaosuyo
Contributor: Sam Giha

If I were to comment on Georg Bernardini's book I would actually say I like it, but I'm not quite sure it is actually a Referrence Book (unconfirmed). 

We purchased Georg Bernardini's book and find that the idea is a good one, but in line with what you mention, it could have been more thorough in order to leave out the unfortunate false rumors and rather offer verified information. We have always been "bean to bar" and not only that, but the beans we used have always been fermented and dryed by our team. We invested over a year of work with renown venezuelan specialist Gladys Ramos (mother of Guasare cacao) to find the right cacao and learn how to get them to be the best possible dry beans.

In our case he did write that he liked our chocolate and that was what I take from it, but since we have met and exchanged business cards, it was surprising that he didn't just call me and clear up his doubts to find that we are in fact "bean to bar" and even have two post harvest facilities to do our own post harvest process, so we more likely would be considered "tree to bar" because we work directly with small farmers picking our fruit and processing everything from there to get a prime bean that is later taken to our own factory to make our chocolate.

So you see, even with a website under construction, a simple phone call could have given an accurate reference about our company and our chocolate.

By the way, from 2013 we have had a plantation in Piura, eventhough the cacao wasn't ready for harvest. I don't believe owning the tree is what makes your chocolate from Tree to Bar.

I hope this answers the question.

Note: I visited the Cacaosuyo factory in July, 2015 and saw all of the equipment necessary to roast, grind, refine, conche, and deposit chocolate bars as well as many sacks of cocoa beans.

Chapon (Patrice Chapon)
Contributor: Patrice Chapon

Indeed, the book of Bernardini is a tissue of mensonge [lies].

He never came into my fabrique [factory].

[He] interviewed one of my ladies on an exhibition.

D'ailleurs [moreover] how can he write a book on as many chocolatiers in the world without validate their information and take time to meet the chocolatiers?

In addition, it mixes the chocolate that does not make their cocoa with other critère.

Gobino (Guido Gobino)
Contributor: Loredana Ligori

http://guidogobino.it/en/artisan-chocolate/
http://guidogobino.it/en/the-new-production-unit/

Note:  I visited the Gobino factory in Turin in October, 2015 and saw a complete bean-to-bar line in operation.

Pacari
Contributor: Santiago Peralta

Pacari chocolates is a vertically integrated company working consistently from tree to bar in a cacao-growing country. We don't just buy cacao beans. We collaborate with farmers directly in farm management, genetic conservation and improvement, and we have a say in every aspect of production starting with the implementation of the organic agriculture methods that we have helped create with farmers all over Ecuador through intensive training and the personal involvement of our technical staff. We don't need to own farms, and we have never made such claims. What we have done is create sound socially and ecologically responsible agricultural systems involving not only cacao but other raw materials like the fruits we use in our flavored bars, which are all made in our factory not elsewhere. Pacari not only has helped create cooperatives of farmers, mostly women, who grow and harvest organic forgotten Andean crops uvillas [goldenberries] and harvest wild mortiños [blueberries], but has also helped them established a plant to process and dehydrate the fruit that we buy for our factory.

If Georg Bernardini had asked us about the way we work, we would have gladly furnished him the required information. Instead, he has chosen to rely on malicious hearsay from undisclosed sources. Georg Bernardini has only asked me personally about the making of our Raw chocolate. I have explained that it is minimally processed. He claims that we have not made this definition public. In fact, we have done it consistently in public presentations and on our packaging.

Our factory has been photographed and filmed for numerous publications and televised programs and visited by colleagues and journalists who have seen and experience every step of our work. Much of this information is public. In addition, all our production methods from farm to factory, have been audited by organic certifying organizations like BCS Oko-Garantie based in Germany. 

The day that I lose touch with the land and sit in an office and start ordering beans only from brokers over the phone, I will stop calling Pacari a tree to bar company.  But for as long as we function as an entirely hands on company with a direct involvement in every step of the production of our raw material, we will continue to define ourselves as a tree to bar company.  We have won that right since we started exporting our chocolate in 2008.

A Unique Point in Time

This is a unique point in history for food lovers of all flavors: This is not a modern craft chocolate movement. It’s not a renaissance or a rediscovery because chocolate as we know it is a product of the industrial revolution and before the industrial revolution there was no established history of connoisseurship in chocolate. Chocolate as we knew it is a product of the industrial revolution.

The craft chocolate “movement” is quite young. Arguably, we can pinpoint 1997 as the year it began, with the opening of Scharffen Berger Chocolate Maker in Berkeley. Prior to roughly 20 years ago there was no tradition of connoisseurship and literary criticism about chocolate on a par with that for wines, beers, spirits, balsamic vinegars, olive oils, and cheeses, among other foods and beverages.

We are making up what it means to be a ‘modern’ ‘craft’ chocolate maker as we go. We are at the very beginning of trying to figure out what that means, trying to define chocolate on its own terms, not in comparison with something else.

So I find it completely incomprehensible that, at this point in time, anyone should be narrowly defining what “good” chocolate is or should be. The idea that so-called “two-ingredient” chocolate is the purest form of chocolate and should be elevated above all other forms—as Bernardini explicitly states—is not what we should be doing right now. It’s way too soon, in my opinion, for definitions whose boundaries are hard–edged either/or.

That said, authors are entitled to define terms as they want, even bucking industry norms (ref the discussion re: Sanchez and Hispaniola). We may not agree with those definitions, but we need to understand what they are and how they inform and guide the writing and editing processes. Which brings me back to an earlier observation, “How many people closely read anything other than the reviews?”

Bernardini writes on p100 and p107 that, in order to be considered a true Bean-to-Bar chocolate company, all processes—from roasting to depositing—must be performed in-house on equipment the company directly supervises and controls.

I strongly disagree.

Roasting and grinding at origin adds value, generating more income at origin than simply exporting cocoa beans as an agricultural commodity. Roasting and grinding at origin also reduces the carbon footprint of the chocolate as the company is not transporting excess water and shell (in many cases, about 25–30% of the gross weight of the whole beans). Cocoa liquor is also denser than beans and nib (more product in a container) and is not as subject to damage during shipment by insect infestations or mold and mildew.

In my opinion, as long as the roasting and grinding are personally supervised on-site by the company’s chocolate maker for every batch (the chocolate maker is not just phoning in orders) I have zero problem with a company saying that they work from beans as opposed to liquor.

I have similar thoughts on what it means to be a Tree-to-Bar chocolate maker. A strict literal definition requires that the chocolate maker own the farms on which the trees are planted (exposing the chocolate maker to accusations that they are imperialistic landowners exploiting their workers), the trees are grown, the pods are harvested, and the seeds which get turned into chocolate in a wholly–owned–and–operated factory are fermented and then dried.

But the strictly literal Tree–to–Bar definition overlooks the very real fact that many chocolate makers work very closely with the farmers and co-ops they source from. These chocolate makers provide technical assistance and training, access to markets, access to capital, and more. TCHO is an excellent example with their flavor labs and innovations in fermentation approaches, which I have personally seen in Perú in several locations. Pacari works similarly in Ecuador: These companies work directly with farmers on their farms, helping them to improve their farming techniques to increase yields, helping them to improve post–harvest processing techniques to improve quality, and then buy the cocoa from the farmers they work with. Are these chocolate makers not working from tree-to-bar? In my eyes they are. Do they have to own the land on which the trees are grown and employ hired labor to work the trees? In my eyes they do not.

Perhaps we should recognize that the problems might stem from the terms themselves?

Is “bean-to-bar” helpful? (After all, it was coined back in 1997, before anybody had any idea how the industry would evolve.) Does using it, and tree-to-bar, craft, and artisan, among other terms create more confusion than clarity? If we are having problems stuffing 100kg of industry into a 65kg jute sack, maybe the problem is the sack.

Do the problems lie in the narrowness of the definition of the categories and forcing companies into too–small, awkwardly–shaped pigeonholes? I submit that these are discussions worth having.

I advocate for being inclusive, not exclusive, for expanding the realm of what chocolate is and can aspire to be and not say definitively, “This is what good chocolate is (or how it has to be made) and everything else, ipso facto, is bad or wrong. At this point in history, strictly literal and narrow definitions are: Bad for chocolate, bad for cocoa farmers, bad for chocolate makers, and, ultimately, bad for consumers.

While Bernadini may think that the evidence presented in his book is unequivocal and that he is being “fair” by branding some companies with the label (Unconfirmed)—the reasoning is unconvincing to me, and tinged with bitterness, astringency, acidity, and, with respect to one particular company, Pacari, with surprising venom.

As I was finishing up part 2 I started receiving private, confidential emails from people around the world telling me that one particular company—Ecuador’s Pacari—was a complete and total fraud. They were not raw, they were not bean–to–bar, they hired out all their production, and they were not tree–to–bar. Following up on the claims presented in those emails is the reason this third part has been delayed.

What I can say is that the people making the accusations have been unwilling or unable to provide any substantiating evidence to back up their claims and/or to introduce me to the representatives of companies they cite to whom I can talk to corroborate their claims.

Therefore, I have to treat those communications as hearsay, rumor, and innuendo sent to me to enlist my support in discrediting a single company: Pacari. More disturbingly, I have learned that I am not alone in having been approached.

I am not implying that Bernardini is in anyway involved in this.

What I am saying is that some people who contacted me cited my giving Pacari the benefit of the doubt in the first parts of my review of TRS as the reason for getting in touch with me. They felt compelled to share with me information about Pacari’s business practices. There was no mention of Cacaosuyo or Chapon or any of the other companies who were bestowed with an (Unconfirmed) status. Just Pacari. Which raised my suspicions, and my hackles.

The politics of cocoa and chocolate in Ecuador are hard for an outsider to comprehend, but it is a real shame that some in Ecuador feel compelled to reach outside of Ecuador to get people to choose sides. This is just sad. It’s sad for the reputation of Ecuadorian cacao. It’s sad for the reputations of Ecuadorian chocolate makers. It’s sad for chocolate lovers who appreciate Ecuadorian cacao and chocolate. And it has to stop, right now, for the good of the chocolate industry worldwide.

To everyone who wrote to me, if you have actual evidence to back up your claims, disclose it publicly so the claims can be independently corroborated. If your claims turn out to be true, I will be the first to acknowledge that I was wrong. But I will not be a party to presenting innuendo as fact.

In Conclusion ...

I have been accused—by readers of my review of TRS—of being a fanboy for this company or that one, and that the primary motivation, if not sole motivation, for writing my review of TRS was to take down the author.

Anybody who has knows me, and my work in chocolate since 1998, knows that if I am a fanboy of anything, I am a fanboy of and for good chocolate. If I write about a company or a chocolate it is not because I am paid, it is because of my honest opinions of the product and the people involved. I do get paid by companies (my consulting clients), but I only work with people and companies I trust and believe in. My opinions are not for sale. I am not going to sacrifice my credibility and reputation for a few bucks.

My motivation in writing my review of TRS was that I was astonished that a book with so many factual errors and inconsistencies in it thought to title itself The Reference Standard.

I am appalled that a book that is ostensibly about chocolate appreciation and connoisseurship contains sentences of such arrogant disdain as (p854): “It is not reprehensible on principle, when manufacturers use natural flavorings.” Reprehensible is defined as “deserving censure or condemnation.” Really? Wow. I am so happy to know that chocolate makers and confectioners don’t deserve to be censured or condemned in principle for using natural flavorings. Thanks for giving them your permission!

I am mystified how, on the one hand, that the author can rant on about how bad lecithin is at every opportunity and yet still give a five-pod rating to a subsidiary of Japan’s Meiji where, in his review of the company’s single-origin bars (p142 – the very first review in the book) he lists the ingredients: cocoa liquor, sugar, cocoa butter, and soya-lecithin.

I am similarly mystified that a book dedicated to “The best chocolates and pralines in the world” [cover copy] would spend even a quarter–page on mass-market chocolates given a zero-pod rating. Those are certainly products I would gladly forego [more cover copy].

I am stunned that an entire subcontinent—Central America—can be overlooked during editing and fact checking (pp32-36) in the discussion about cocoa aromas [flavors].

IS there value in reading TRS? I have to give it a qualified yes. TRS is a compendium of hundreds of companies (not all of whom are still in business) and products (not all of which are still available and that you can taste) that can serve as an introduction and guide to the glorious variety that is chocolate ... coupled with one person’s highly–personal opinions, some recent, some not so recent, about many of the products listed.

What TRS i s not is reliable when it comes to presenting facts, and it presents opinion as gospel. If it is the reference standard, then that standard has been set very low.

Roaster tech like the one Selmi employs results, I am told from someone who uses a similar machine, in a roast that is "brighter" than other roasters. This is in line with what I know about technical coffee roasting and the effect of changing the airflow in the drum - more air == brighter roasts.

If you are okay with this approach and it's okay to work in smaller batches, then something like the Artisan-6 from Coffee Crafters could work for you - and save you a lot of money.

I am very impressed with the new line of combi ovens from Unox - Mind.Maps. You can inject steam into the cavity, control the level of humidity ±10% and duration for an enhanced microbial kill step, and you also have control over the speed of the fans. All of these parameters, plus temperature, are programmable and you can create combinations of at least three steps for a roasting profile and save them for use. The largest one (16 pans) should be able to handle ~30kg batches. If you are looking for flexibility in terms of roast profile and fan control take a close look. I have reports that a chocolate maker in Mexico was very impressed. Plus - it can be used as a dehydrator when not being used as a cocoa bean roaster, and you can roast nuts and bake in it. Finally, it is self-cleaning. Push a button and it cleans itself.

Mill City Roasters in the US works with a company in China making what appear to be very nice gas roasters - and inexpensive for their feature set. Here's the link  to info on their 10kg machine.

As for the CocoaTowns. If you want the same footprint, I recommend you look at the machines from Premier/Diamond Trading. They are better built and are less expensive. If you are interested in a machine that uses real granite (same as in Lehmann melangeurs) for the base and stones, take a look at FBM's RUMBO - which has a capacity of ~60kg/batch. Pricing is in line with the additional capacity, and there are other features that make the RUMBO a very interesting option. Plus I helped design it.

Hello Mathieu,

I am interested with your Selmi package , how to contact you? May I have your email address and your contact number ? I am located in Jakarta , Indonesia . My email is ongko_w@yahoo.com . ThankYou 

Thanks! Would I need to buy the Single phase 220V 60Hz and the Enrobing attachment seperate? 

Attaching pictures ...

 IMG_7575.JPG.jpg - 501KB

Nothing like good ol' elbow grease  8-)  those are the two most commonly used ways.  obviously one is more thorough than the other!

Beautifully answered, Sebastian & Clay. Here goes:

not interested with alkalization
mild to mid roast but would like the flexibility of temp curve control, and fan control
bean roasting
30lb to 60lb batches would be ideal to keep in line
with potentially the cocoatown 65lb grinders
but roasting in batches of 8-10lb is fine too

My original question was to try to find out if there are any quirks with this style of roasters (fluid bed):
does it produce higher acidity compared to drum or oven roasting, or lower (from coffee's perspective would be higher, but would like a confirmation nonetheless)
is it more temperature responsive (guessing yes, since it is faster to heat up air than say a drum, also would like a confirmation)
do the beans winnow better (not sure about this one)
is convection roasting at the same temp more volatile friendly or otherwise. (not sure)

My first batch of Oko Caribe had some lingering taste from the previous batch of Nacional, despite "cleaning" with a few kilos of cocoa butter. I'm considering heating it up to 30C and scraping the inside after each origin change, just before starting the new batch.

Are there any techniques or work-arounds those using this equipment can share?

Agree Clay. I am keeping this option open depending on the volume I reach.

Sebastian is spot on in his observations, and I would also ask about the quantity of chocolate you want to make.

If you are looking for a fluid-bed roaster then there are options that are far less expensive (like one-fourth the cost) than the Selmi roaster. Having asked I can also tell you that this style of roaster will not handle nibs.

There are some decent relatively inexpensive drum roaster options I've found, plus a line of combi-ovens that are compact, inexpensive, and feature programmable temperature curves, humidity control, and fan speed.

But - how much chocolate do you want to make?

Tony -

I don't disagree with your points.

However the value in the Chocolate Wave is the ability to work with lots of different chocolates quickly and easily with fast cleaning which means minimal times between batches. Can't do that with a 50lb Savage tank, and the Chocovision machines are not fast. EZTemper is a good option but you expressed worry about changing the fat content of recipes.

The cleaning thing is why you probably would not want a small continuous tempering machine as complete cleaning beteween batches might be easy, but it's not fast.

Interested in the TTDF table-top die-fold wrapper and TTRB bander by Package Machinery, or feedback about same from current owners.  Thanks!

I think you need to identify first what type of chocolate you want to make, what attriburtes you want it to have, and THEN select your roaster (amongst other things).  Asking 'is this a good roaster' is similiar to asking 'is a red car a good car' - the answer is, it depends on what  you're trying to do with it.

Do you want to make high roast or low roast chocolate? Do you want to nib roast or whole bean roast?  What are your expected throughputs (how much do you need to make)?  Are you interested in alkalization? Etc.

Can it roast beans to produce a good chocolate?  Certainly.  However since everyone's definition of 'good' is different, it's critical that you understand what your definition is to guide you in selecting the right components to get there.

I'm considering alternatives to oven roasting, and recently seen a vertical airflow roaster from Selmi.
Has anyone worked with the Selmi roaster: http://www.selmi-chocolate.it/en/prodotti.asp?id_categoria=2&id=25
or a similarly designed roaster?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Agree Clay it is a nice looking front-end machine (and pricey as well - I can buy a Savage 50 lbs fully auto for this price )

I am going to work with the EZt (with Milk & White based) and hand tempering/seedless tempering on the Chocovision (for Single Origin Dark couvertures) and take it from there.

Many thanks!

Tony

The machine was purchased brand new directly from the Manufacturer back in May 2015 and comes with the BAKON USA heated vibrating table option and is i n excellent working condition, used only few times.  The unit is completely cleaned inside out and ready to ship.

The unit is very robust and completely made of stainless 304 and other food grade components

Technical Specifications:

Capacity: 50 lb. of chocolate Power: 2.2 kW 115V/ 60 Hz 19 Amps

Dimensions: 19 3/8 in. x 30 5/8 in. x 59 in.

Machine details are found on:

http://bakonusa.com/chocolate-machines/choco-lution-110

Video about operating the machine can be found at:

Bakon USA Choco-lution 110 - Automatic Chocolate Tempering Machine

If interested, please send inquiries privately to: tony.najjar@xocolla.com 

I will provide you with pictures and any other details about the machine, upon request. 

PS -The buyer is responsible for any shipping cost, the machine is located in Houston, TX if you happen to live around, I will be more than happy to arrange a local pickup.

The enrobing option for the Chocovision machines is not well thought out, unfortunately. It would be great if it worked.

The least-expensive continuous tempering machine / enrober combination is the FBM Prima, I believe. Hourly tempering capacity is up to 30kg and, depending on the dimensions of the bars you can easily put hundreds an hour through the machine.

You can download a catalog page  here .

All of the enrober belts with FBM machines are complete - pre-bottomers (which you want for your product), net beaters, air, take-off belts, and double-curtain veils to ensure complete product coverage.

TCF Sales in Texas is the US dealer for these machines. I can put you in touch directly if you like.

The only lower-cost alternative I can think of is a used machine.

Hello, 

I recently started a nutrition bar company. We cover our nut butter centers in dark chocolate. I purchased the chocovision revolation 3z as well as the chocovision enrober. 

After several attempts I returned the enrober because the curtain of chocolate would not properly cover my bars. Our chocolate is thin and therefore had trouble coming out as a solid curtain of chocolate. Are there any other cost efficient enrobers? Or is there a good/fast way to cover bars in chocolate? Right now I am toothpicking each bar, dipping them, removing the toothpick, and dotting each hole. 

Thanks!!!!

All -

The Chocolate Wave is a new product I saw at the FCIA meeting in January in San Francisco.

The circular granite or marble base rotates and you use a scraper to move the chocolate around. The IR thermometer tells you when you've reached the right temp. You can do 3-4kg chocolate at a time, very quickly, and it's supposed to be easy enough to learn to use in under 30 minutes.

This Chocolate Way looks to be a great option when working with small quantities of many different kinds of chocolate - including chocolate that does not have seed. It should also work for chocolates that are hard to temper, including two-ingredient chocolates, and doesn't require seeded cocoa butter, which changes the recipe.

Another place I think that the Chocolate Wave has application is front of house -it's pretty hypnotic to watch in use, and if put in a location that's highly visible would attract a lot of attention (traffic == sales).

If you're interested you can contact me - I have an arrangement with the inventor/manufacturer. Ex-works price is £3950.

I've got the blackest thumb in this side of the hemisphere, so i've never been very successful at maintaining good growth at home - but a number of my coworkers are much better at it have.  They've been successfull buy keeping it in a VERY high humidity environment - many times keeping it in the bathroom so the steam from showering humidifies the room.

Hello,

I am interested in molds. Please share the images and quantity of molds at sehgalbalpreet@gmail.com

I usually go down to 82F or so.

This is a great idea Ben! .. and I have already an additional bowl & baffle as well!

How many degrees lower do you usually cool it down?

You can also just use your Chocovision to temper. I temper test batches in it regularly with no seed. I just set the cooling temp lower and it works well. You could get extra bowls and baffles for quick changeovers. Definitely not as fast as hand-tempering, but another option.

Is it feasible to build a 'room in a room' - where you environmentally control the inner room, and discharge / draw from the outer room?  That way you're helping to mitigate your energy costs by focusing them on a smaller space.  Put an aircon unit through the wall and have it pull in air from the 'outer' room.

Good job - looks great. Tempering is all about practice and learning to see when the chocolate is doing what it should be. 

If you happen to run into trouble in the future, you could always try and find a local chocolatier and pay them for a 2-hour tutorial (seeing it "hands on" is sometimes useful).

Edit to add: I notice you do a lot of two ingredient chocolate (no added ccb or lecithin). You might find these don't look/feel the same as chocolate that does have those ingredients when tempering. In particular, it tends to be thicker while working on the table.

Digital thermometers, climate control, youtube videos sure helps

Thank you again Sebastian, you just saved me a decent chunck of change to spend on a tabletop full auto, I owe you on this one!

Way to go!  Keep at it, hand tempering will be one of the most useful things you can learn if you plan to be in chocolate.  It's not nearly as terrifying as many belive it to be 8-)

Sebastian/Gap,  just a quick update,  my first hand tempering experiment (with 2 lbs of bean 2 bar dark chocolate) went surprisingly better than I expected (I am sure my climate/humidity controlled chocolate room contributed to this)

I poured the samples in 2"x2"x2" mold (each cavity is 1/4 lbs block) and  I was able to obtain fairly descent shine and snap.  I need to keep practicing with a larger quantity to ensure better and consitent results. 

Thanks for your encouragement!

 IMG_4737.JPG.jpg - 1.1MB

Thanks Sebastian and Gap, I've just ordered an EZt It is a handy tool as It can handle the majority of my couvertures - As far as the 2 ingredient Single Origin Dark I have to practice on hand tempering and check results and take it from there

Cheers!

Tony 

I'd echo hand tempering.  A hot plate/cold box, an aluminum pan, a spatula, and a thermometer will go a LONG way for you.  A few days of practice and you'll have all the skill you need to keep going.  Having an EZ Temper on hand will also result in you being able to very rapidly work with small amounts.

Hi Clay,

Thanks for your response. 

No, there is nothing at the moment.  Its essentially just a concrete box.  An older mixed use building, cinderblocks with a roof is about it. 

The HVAC guy I talked to, said we could also look at just venting out air from the production area- but that would only really work during months where there was cooler air to draw from (outdoors I suppose).

He was very pro-heat pump in a general fashion, saying they are quite efficient energy wise, can provide heating and cooling, and would help to control humidty as well...  Also that as far as size goes, my needs were pretty minimal.