Forum Activity for @Clay

Russ -

Given the time of year I generally do not recommend that you try and put a brand new machine with a different technology into production right now. The time you spend to get it integrated into your work flow can lead to production interruptions. You are right to worry about being down at the busiest time of year, but that should not be an issue for a brand new/demo/refurbished machine. Going forward, good preventive maintenance is the issue to keeping the machines in production at the busiest times of the year - something that many people neglect to do.

The challenge I see (and that you neglected to mention in your post) is that your chocolates are sweetened by honey. It's a challenge to temper honey-sweetened chocolate. FBM does have customers who do, but in general it takes larger machines - with longer tempering pipes and greater cooling capacity - to handle this kind of specialty chocolate because of the moisture in the honey, which inhibits crystal formation and spread.

As you may know, I represent FBM, in part because I believe that they are technically superior machines to Selmis. I don't think I have a machine in the US that is kitted out to handle honey-sweetened chocolate reliably. It would require testing and I don't think we could get that done in time to get you into production before Christmas. Because of the way I know that Selmis are built internally, I think that would be no more effective than FBM. The same is true of Gami, Bakon, Pomati and every other company that uses the tempering screw approach.

I'd like to say it was easy, but it's not. If you were working with conventional couverture I have at least one small demo machine (a PRIMA) here in the US (220V, 3-phase power) that I could get to you in a week or so. However, I could not in good faith recommend it for honey-sweetened chocolate without extensive testing. 

I know of no measured depositors that attach to your Chocovision machines.

:: Clay

PS. Here's the link to the FBM web site where all of their chocolate machines are listed. The one being used for honey is the Maestria, outfitted with the craft chocolate upgrade and the pneumatic doser. The list price on that machine is about €31,000 which is a lot for 80kg/week of bar production.

Good luck on this, my quick research into this shows only one company - Real Food Source in the UK - offering something like this. I doubt they are making it themselves, though, so the challenge would be to find out who's making it for them. Also, the prices are in pounds - that's 50% higher than USD$ prices right off the bat.

I need a supplier of couverture sweetened with coconut sugar instead of pure cane for a particular customer of mine.  Initial requirements are low - @ 20 kg for the initial order, but potentially could grow to the 1000 kg/month range.  Does anyone have a lead on a source?  Please email me at troy@lajoliesse.com or post in reply. 

Thank you,

Troy Lapsys.

I know there are a lot of opinions about what tempering machines to run and the answers vary widely based on capacity and needs.

We've been running several Chocovision 3z's for almost 2 years now and I love them. However, my business is growing and their shortcomings are starting to cut into my efficiency. Most importantly, we are making on average 300-400 chocolate bars twice a week and hand pouring each one is quite labor intensive. I know there are machines out there with depositors and I'm hoping to find one that is metered so we can dial in various amounts based on what types of molds or products we are making.

Another factor is that the 3z's take quite a long time to heat up even though we are pre-melting a large portion of our chocolate. Idealy we want to upgrade to a larger capacity machine with the ability to deposit and at least has an option for enrobing as that is something we are interested in moving towards. I've been looking at Selmi machines and some Hilliards as well. Are there other good machines people have experience with? My biggest concern is reliability so we aren't down a machine in the busiest time of year.

Mack -

The uploading problem was probably not a filetype issue - but a matter of your profile not having full privileges. I have move you out of the "unassigned" user category to the "chocolate maker" category so you should now be able to upload.

GIF, JPG, and PNG are all supported.

 You guys seem to know a lot about chocolate melter units. I just ordered this one with the promotion of a chocolate sprayer. Has anyone ever used one of these products?

https://www.facebook.com/KREASwissFoodEquipment/photos/a.527730707280305.1073741825.353907527995958/908041275915911/?type=3&theater

Thank you!!!

Hi again, this time it looks like it accepted my photo, yay!

Foam Cacao4.pdf - 1.4MB

Hi, with my latest batch of cacao powder and butter, I have noticed a "foam" that floats on the surface of the chocolate while it is being tempered. It is bubbly, but very small bubbles in texture, can be skimmed off the top till eventually it is gone, but if left ruins the bars. I skim it off the top, and the bars are ok, but it is a lot of work, as it requires skimming for perhaps ten minutes, and wastes a lot of product.  If I leave the foam, the bars have spots on the tops of the bars when removed from the molds. Any ideas as to if it is the powder or the cacao butter that is the issue? The powder has clumps in it when I open the bag fresh, and newly delivered. These are 14 kilos bulk bags from a respectable wholesaler. Should cacao powder be considered acceptable if it has clumps and lumps? I have tried to upload a photo, but I can't figure out the extension acceptable on this site. tiff, jpg, jpeg and pdf don't work.

Hi,

Selling a used Hillard 240 with 6inch coater/enrober belt. Looks same as the unit in the picture but doesn't have the extra end table or lamp. The unit is used, but works well. I purchased about 6 months ago and have not used it at all, it has remained covered in storage, the unit is at least 10 years old. It appears to have a brand new heater/blower unit installed. I can send pics upon request. I will deliver up to 200 miles away for $150 fee, we are located in Norwalk, CT 06850. 

Specs are here:

http://www.hilliardschocolate.com/pages/cfEquipment_SixInchCoater.cfm

New this unit costs about $13k

$6950 + delivery charges

Contact - Trent Lewis

trentlewis@gmail.com

T 203-822-7792

on ebay as well at http://www.ebay.com/itm/301803553364?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

You want a real good laugh?

Here are some Brooklyn Water Makers (Wow, the parallels!  LMAO)

Timmy Brothers – Water Makers

[Note: Edited to correct typos on 11/21/2015.]

Another fun substitution game. Substitute hipster for expert!

“Thousands of chocolate lovers make the journey to visit our factory every week,” says Mast. “These are our chocolate [experts|hipsters]. If it is the perspective of a(n) [expert|hipster] that you seek, I encourage you to become that [expert|hipster].”

For those ChocolateLife members and others who do not know ...

there is more than a little controversy surrounding the Mast Bros.

Quelle surprise!

Much of the backlash (from people who know what good chocolate actually is) stems from the astonishing hubris of the Bros marketing and PR apparatus. In an article in Vanity Fair , Rick Mast grabs hold of that hubris, pins it to the breast of his chef coat, and wears it as a badge of honor: 

“I can affirm that we make the best chocolate in the world.”

WTF? Says who? Not any acknowledged, reputable, chocolate experts, anyway.

In an  article on Slate.com the very next month, that: 

“We are a dangerous company because we are outsiders to the chocolate industry, never leaning on industry norms.”

Um, no. The Mast Bros are dangerous, IMO, but not because they ignore industry norms. The danger is when other chocolate makers copy them, thinking that if they make chocolate like the Mast Bros they too will be successful, as I point out in the Slate article. Rick jumps through the open door willingly to sum it up: 

“Thousands of chocolate lovers make the journey to visit our factory every week,” says Mast . “These are our chocolate experts. If it is the perspective of an expert that you seek, I encourage you to become that expert.”

I was reading Ethan Siegel on Medium this morning when I ran across this quote in an article on NASA's EM drive :

“No man is so foolish but he may sometimes give another good counsel, and no man so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master. ”  [Emphasis is mine.]
— Hunter S. Thompson

Freakin Hunter S. Thompson of all people just nailed it. On. The. Head. In the immortal worlds of Emeril - “BAM!”

I encourage everyone to read the entire article, substituting 'cocoa' and/or 'chocolate' for 'any word vaguely related to maths, science, history, and/or physics.' Here is an edited version  [text in brackets]  of Siegel's text to show you where this leads, if you are too busy in your workshop actually educating yourself about chocolate with an open mind and curious heart:

“We like to think, as human beings, if we can only keep an open mind, that anything is possible. That if we put our minds to it, buckle down and do our research and apply ourselves 100%, we can not only understand what’s going on as well as any expert, but that we ourselves can make valuable contributions to whatever field we’re interested in. We think this about ourselves when it comes to [energy|chocolate] , [the environment|chocolate] ,   [health and medicine|cocoa and chocolate] , and even   [physics and mathematics|cocoa and chocolate - refer to the title of the article that spawned this thread ] .

Yet simultaneously, we’re also aware of the years — if not decades — of study that’s typically required in order to become a legitimate expert [in any one of those fields|in chocolate] . We know it’s difficult, even for the smartest and most talented among us, to make groundbreaking discoveries in a field we’ve spent our entire lives working on.

But there’s this romantic notion we all hang onto, nonetheless, that if some talented maverick with a novel perspective comes along, even without the proper background, they (or possible we, ourselves) can change the course of  [history| chocolate] forever.

This is the story we tell ourselves about a genius like Albert Einstein, whose general theory of relativity turns 100 this year. It’s the story we tell ourselves about Tesla, Edison, Faraday, Newton and more [are the Mast Bros in this category?] . We all know the danger of following the crowd, of a herd mentality, and of accepting what’s presently known in science [chocolate] as absolute, indisputable truth. And that’s why, when it comes to the biggest lies and hoaxes of all, it’s often the [most intelligent|hippest]  among us who are the most gullible.”

Amirite? Or Amirite?

[Note: Edited to correct typos on 11/21/2015.]

I wish there were like buttons.  Like to all the above  posts.

I chuckled when I read this.  I have Bernard Callebaut.  You have Rick Mast.  Let's unite and declare Jihad on such despicable chocolate infidels!

behold, the power of marketing!

It just keeps getting better - a gift the keeps on giving!

"Another step is tempering, where chocolate goes from its naturally bumpy texture to the smooth surface we are used to as consumers."

Chocolate has a naturally bumpy texture. Who knew? Wonder what branch of topology that belongs to? But is topology maths, not physics?

Pretty Stupid, Apparently.

In a June, 2014 article on the World Science Festival website entitled, The Mast Bros Unveil the Physics Behind Chocolate , some rather amazing claims are made, and not all of them about the physics of chocolate. To be fair, it's impossible to know if the quotes attributed to Rick Mast are accurate or whether the reporter took a liberal interpretation. Either way, the site, which encourages visitors to "rethink" science [sic], is presenting a revisionist version of chocolate  physics.

"... raw beans have a much higher acidity level so it’s a more botanic flavor,” Mast said. “Roasting brings out other flavors to balance out the acidity.” The bean’s sugar and protein molecules gain energy in the higher temperature, and that increased activity leads to new atoms coming together and new molecules being formed."

There is so much unnecessary obfuscation in the above paragraph I don't know where to begin. Sugar and protein molecules gain energy creating new atoms? Okay, the beans heat up and chemicals in the chocolate change. Why not give the compounds names? Pyrazines, furans, esters, and ketones are among the classes of compounds formed during roasting, Rick, via processes knows as the Maillard reaction, Strecker degredation, and pyrolysis/polymerization, among others. It's science, not sex education, you can be explicit - the more explicit the better - with chemical names and processes, they are not pornographic, are they? Are they too explicit for young scientists' ears?

Furthermore, the flavors created do NOT directly balance out the acidity. Which acid? Acetic or citric? Some of the acetic acid evaporates out [during roasting], but enough remains so that the Dutch had to invent alkalization to neutralize it  (oops, that's history, not physics) . Conching does reduce acidity among other things (and arguably, the Mast Bros do not conche properly if at all) - and conching effects acetic acid more than citric acid which is why some chocolates have bright fruity notes and others don't. Fruitiness is not a generally-recognized flavor trait of alkalized chocolate, however.

"... For that to happen, the particles have to be just a miniscule [sic] 20 microns across (for comparison, the width of a strand of hair is 50 microns) § . The grind “is still acidic until all the sugar crystals have slowly emulsified with the cocoa butter so it tastes like one thing" 

​I am sorry. Could. Not. Stop. Laughing. The chocolate is still acidic until the sugar has emulsified with the cocoa butter? No. That's not the way it works.  

First off, chocolate is not an emulsion. Chocolate is a suspension of particles in fat. Emulsifiers are used to reduce the surface tension of the fat molecules so the chocolate flows more easily. There is no physical process (and no chemical process) that I am aware of that reduces the acidity in chocolate by simple grinding, emulsification or no.  There is a reason why the chocolate is just so bad.

After eight years, Rick still appears to know very little about the real science - physics and chemistry - of chocolate. To give him some benefit of the doubt ... maybe he does know the science but chooses not to communicate it clearly. I don't know - but the end result is the same. 

§ - Or maybe not. According to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_micrometres) the average width of a human hair is 100 microns. Footnoted as: ^According to The Physics Factbook, the diameter of human hair ranges from 17 to 181 µm. Ley, Brian (1999). But - maybe red beard hairs average 50 microns? Yeah. That has to be it.

[Note: edited to fix typos on 11/21/15.]

Sebastian:  I'd compete for sure if you were that voice.

Keith:  Clay's definition is really close for sure, but....  his statement of "all stages of the transformation of raw cocoa beans into finished chocolate..." needs to be clarified, or at the very least the word "raw" removed.  Raw can be interpreted many ways, and in fact today, almost NO manufacturer, large or small has complete control over the raw product.  They/we all get cocoa beans after they have been fermented and dried by the grower - a process which is crucial in the step of making good chocolate.  (in the case of large manufacturers, some of the beans they get aren't even fermented, as the grower has no idea they need to do so!)   In my case, two of the varieties of cocoa beans I buy, I do have some say in how they are fermented and dried, but in two other cases I don't.  However, I still get the cocoa beans whole, and in sacks, and still have to roast, crack and fan, and then grind them up into chocolate, which I then sell at full retail price in my store.  Whether I control the fermentation process or not should be irrelevant, as I still get the beans and turn them into bars, ergo, bean to bar.  The quality of the bean when I get it is, in my opinion and for the purpose of definition of the competitive category, irrelevant.  In fact this is why the competition is in place.  It's hard to make a good chocolate out of crappy cocoa beans!

I also agree that a company should never play with a consumer's trust.  Frankly it's a shame that I have to compete in a market where at least one of my peers (and a well known one at that), has lied to consumers for many years, and to this very day continues to do so.  When I stand up and speak the truth, I'm often looked upon as the bad guy.  It's sad really....

Cheers and thanks for your input.

Brad

The Cocoa Research Center in Trinidad and Tobago has some courses. I don't know if that's what you're looking for but here's the link : 

https://sta.uwi.edu/cru/training.asp

Regards,

José

The cocoa's where all the money is anyway - the chocolate business was nice to have (who doesn't like to say they have a chocolate company), but the reality is the money maker was - and is - the cocoa side of the business.

I'll start a new business model around 'certified bean to bar' validation.  I'll be the 3rd party voice of credibility 8-)

Not sure I have a place here, as I'm just a layperson and consumer who likes really good stuff, but to me, "bean-to-bar" is Clay's definition, as he stated above.  Not complicated.  Bean-to-bar is bean-to bar, period.  You have a handle on it from start to finish.  If you don't, then that's fine, too.  Good chocolate doesn't always have to be bean-to-bar, but just say what it is. 

To a lay consumer, a little honesty goes a long way.  And if we find out you're lying or being deceptive.....it's REALLY not good for business.  A company should never play with a customer's trust.

According to a recent press release,

Cargill’s acquisition of ADM’s global chocolate and compound business in August of this year included the deZaan-branded line of premium gourmet chocolate, but the acquisition did not include the deZaan trademark itself. As such, we have decided to discontinue selling these products in North America [beginning in November].

There is a link in the attached update that can be used to learn (a little bit) more about the decision.

DeZaan Gourmet Update.pdf - 121KB

I use the Mol D'art 6Kg melter http://www.moldart.be/en/producten/chocolate-machinery/chocolate-melters/. It is not a tempering maching like the Mini Rev. I only use it to keep chocolate that I manually tempered at a constant temperature while I mold. Take a look at the www.chocolatealchemy.com for more information about making chocolate. There is also a forum on that site that has lots of info.

Hi Balpreet,

You probably just need to run the grinder longer. I make chocolate (bean to bar) using the Premier wet/dry grinder and it comes out very smooth. However, I run it at least 24 hours. You may want to look at www.chocolatealchemy.com. It's a great resource for making chocolate and the forum there has much discussion about equipment including wet/dry grinders. Most of the people there are home or small chcocolate makers.

Regards,

Thomas

Balpreet:

Wet grinders are just small melangeurs. However, melangeurs purpose-made for chocolate were designed and built to process cocoa beans. Small wet-mill grinders used in making chocolate were designed to handle much softer materials (think cooked lentils) and to run for short periods of time (think less than thirty minutes).

"Real" chocolate melangeurs use much harder granite and are designed to run for hours at a time. There are also some very specific differences with respect to axle design that separate the two – wet grinders have a single axle, for example.

One thing they do share in common is that they are not conches. And they never will be conches. Despite what the manufacturers claim. Despite what chocolate makers claim. They are not conches. They may deliver some of the benefits of conching, but very inefficiently.

Hi i just want to know what is the difference betweeen a wet grinder and a melanguer.

I have a wet grinder with capacity 5 litre (image as link under, its almost like this) but while making chocolate ( from cocoapowder, cocoa butter, sugar ) and making it run for around 8-10 hours it still feels gritty ... is wet grinder different from a melanguer?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Wet_grinder.JPG

I would like to package our hot chocolate recipe so that our clients can make it at home. I need it to be able to be sold outside of a fridge, on a shelf. The base that is usually used is a water based ganache and a 65% chocolate. That is then added to hot milk or just heated on it's own as a thick hot chocolate drink. I am looking to either sell it as a dry mix or as a liquid ganache with instructions to add to hot milk. Is there a way of "canning" the ganache? Any advice on hot chocolate that is sold to the public  as a mix is greatly appreciated.

Hello!

I was wondering if someone knew of Chocolate Technology courses other than the one that Chocolate Academy and ZDS Solingen offer.

Thank you  

I arrived quite late in this subject but I'm very interested. I'm reading and re-reading The Science of Chocolate book, it's one of my all-time favorites but I haven't gotten to the part that speaks of beta 6 crystals and its tendency to bloom.

How can you know if your packaged chocolate blooms and it's due to change in temperature or crystals? Why is the 6th called "the more stable" if it blooms with time? I haven't read about this topic anywhere else.

Just wondering what kind of cases everyone uses to display chocolate.  The standard deli cases would be too cold.  Is there a manufacturer for chocolate cases?  I'm going to have a booth selling chocolate at a fall festival outside and most days will be chilly but it can get close to 80 and sunny sometimes. 

Clay;

Thanks.

FWIW, I think bean to bar should be defined as "...all steps in the production of chocolate, including but not limited to purchasing. roasting, cracking and fanning, refining and conching cocoa beans into chocolate, must be done in-house.  No step can be contracted to a third party.  Furthermore, all steps in the production of the chocolate confections submitted for competition must also be done in house, with only the chocolate made in-house."  This is truly a definition of bean to bar.

Cheers.

Brad

Brad Churchill:
Hi Adrienne I hope to be able to increase volume enough in the new year to offer my bars over the web all over North America.  I've already bought some of the equipment.  Now I just need a place to install it and put it to work!   The reason I don't ship right now, is because I can't meet local demand.   Cheers Brad

Brad,

      I d love to try some of your chooclate as well. I trade you some of my santas and snowmen for some samples!!!!

Brad -

I reached out to a member of the Academy of Chocolate and shared my observation that the guidelines, as written, enabled pretty much everyone to qualify as "bean-to-bar" even if what they were doing was sourcing cocoa beans from a broker and shipping them for private label production.

The response I got was tepid, but my guess is that they will look at the issue more closely before the next competition. They will be holding their bi-annual meeting next October and I am going to suggest that this is a topic that gets discussed. In public. With everyone contributing.

Thanks sebastian for your help

Wow Gerhard congratulations you have some really nice work in your website

Hi there check out the Swiss chocolate melter. It's Swiss but not that expensive I think 

https://www.kreaswiss.com/en/food-equipment/chocMELTER20kg