Jump to content

Sebastian

participating member
  • Content count

    360
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sebastian

Recent Profile Visitors

614 profile views
  1. Well, it could be any of the above, or all of the above i'm afraid. Without having a temper meter, the reality is you don't know where along the tempering spectrum you are. Tempering isn't a simple binary 'yes/no' answer - there's a whole range of temper. From the photo it appears that you're somewhere along that spectrum, but you could be sufficiently over or under tempered to cause some problems. I suspect that's not the main driver of what you're seeing however. I tend to think it's more along the lines of Edward's thought - where the cavities in your mold may not be perfectly clean - either residue from past moldings if the moulds have been previously used, contaminants from the factory if they're now, or even mineral deposits from your water if you've cleaned them prior to use. It could be some combination all the above. They do look delicious!
  2. Peter's Chocolate Source / Subs?

    High fat and high viscosity don't really go hand in hand. I'm afraid it's simply a variation of a standard formula, processed in a standard fashion. It's a fine chocolate, but won't have magical rheological properties i'm afraid. ALL milk chocolate has milk proteins. While it can be true that higher protein chocolate can have higher yield, it's not always true, and emulsification plays a huge role. It will not have the texture or rheology of a ganache. If it did, Cargill would not be able to pump and mould it. I'm quite familiar with the formulation 8-) The cadbury's product is more a function of packaging + processing - the processes used by Cadbury are quite different than those used by Cargill, and of course in this instance, the packaging is irrelevant.
  3. Caramel for chocolate filling

    It can be done; however it will be very easy to denature your milk proteins and may impact your sugars glass transition state (depending on the formulation), which may result in a really good tasting product that's increased it's viscosity quite a bit, or it may also end up getting very hard, granular 'bits' in it that you'll have a tough time processing out.
  4. Caramel for chocolate filling

    Chocolate mfrs who go for a caramalized milk chocolate are doing it through one of two ways: 1) a crumb process (proprietary process(es) that combine milk, sugar, sometimes liquor, and often other ingredients. the goal here is to get the milk proteins and the reducing sugars to react, and do so in a way that's storable and transportable and suitable for use in chocolate. 2) the second is not that different - there are a couple producers of dried milk powder out there - most are spray dried, but there are some roller dryers as well. they'll do much the same thing - combine reducing sugars with their liquid milk stream with the intent of getting them to react during the drying process. Both approaches can work wonderfully. Both can be very expensive, which is why more people don't do it. Most people in the western world (ie the world that consumes chocolate) prefer 'modern' caramel flavor profiles as opposed to the more purist classical caramel (ie no dairy) flavor profiles. This is a generalization of course, and not true for everyone, just general demographics. If you're looking to make your own caramel and combine it into the chocolate, your biggest challenge will be that the moisture of the caramel will wreak havoc with your chocolate viscosity and potentially water activity (important because higher Aw can lead to micro issues). Viscosity will be your barrier before Aw is most likely.
  5. You may not, i would. It's defiantly not production quality. She's inferring that she's got a 'new' way of 'tempering' that doesn't require one to actually temper. Which would be new science, and against physical laws that we know to be true. Quite amateurish at best, terrible research and misleading at worst. I applaud you for looking at new ways to do things, don't get me wrong, it's the piece i'm criticizing. We do, however, already know the answer to this one.
  6. Cacao Noel

    if you're finding $7/lb to be normal, you're either: 1) in an incredibly remote place 2) battling with terrible currency exchange rates 3) buying really, really, really small quantities 4) paying too much I'm not going to comment on who's making what product, but you can get literally the exact same thing for 1/2 the cost. I'd urge you to shop around.
  7. I think it's fair to assume that a homemade video off the NYT web site probably isn't going to break new scientific ground. If it sounds too good to be true, chances are..... NYT should definitely get some feedback on this one.
  8. Cacao Noel

    $7/lb is extraordinarily high. I know a fair bit about them - the powder is fine, but you can find much more cost effective alternates that are, quite literally, exactly the same.
  9. Mycryo is a very, very expensive way to temper (or add cocoa butter). It's a per-crystallized cocoa butter that acts as a seeding agent (ie labor saving device for those who hand temper). It's 100% cocoa butter that is spray frozen in a cooling chamber to shift the crystallization envelope towards the higher end (much like freeze cone technology does for finished chocolate). As Edward notes, because it's precrystallized, if you add it to chocolate that is too warm, you'll just melt out the crystals and turn the whole thing into pure liquid cocoa butter, negating the reason for using it, so knowing how and when to use it are important. Personally, I'd just use regular good old fashioned cocoa butter and save the 60% mark up.
  10. Hi - Hopefully you've been following the thread for the 2012 conference in Woodbridge. I've had several people ask if you were going to be able to join us - I'm just making that inquiry and hoping I can twist your arm to do so - Please let me know

    Bob

  11. lecithin is an ampiphillic emulsifier - which means it has two ends - one that is attracted to water (hydrophillic), and one that's attracted to fats (lipophillic). It works to reduce surface tension (ie make things slippery) by the reducing the old addage of 'oil and water don't mix' - so it effectively works to form a slippery bridge between the oil in a recipe and the water in a recipe so that they don't turn into a sticky syrup (reduces the surface tension of a phase transition). Bread staling, i think (i'm not a baker), comes about from the absorption of atmospheric moisture - the hydrophillic component of lecithin would likely preferentially bind some of that water; however lecithin is used in such small quantities that I don't think it'd be an effective anti-stalent in bread. I've never seen a test looking at that; i'm sure someone's done the science to look at it.
  12. Wilbur chocolate

    I can tell you a great deal about it. what specific questions do you have? Just as with any supplier, some of their products will be better than others.
  13. most industrially produced cocoa powder is very finely ground, in the single micron range. While i've never looked at shawn's powder, it could very well be that he's simply having trouble grinding it that finely, and may be, by nature - coarser. most 'little guys' aren't going to have the equipment to grind that finely. A second possibility (related to the first), may be that he could be experiencing difficulties in his winnowing (the parts that removes the shell from the nib - or the good part of the cocoa bean), and his powder may have a higher than typical shell content - which will be very, very difficult to grind into a fine powder. If it's either one of these scenarios - i'm afraid you're not going to get it much smoother. hard to say definitively w/o looking at it personally however.
×