Sebastian

This is probably more info than anyone wanted, but the only reason i'd touch mannitol is when my daughter was very young, she'd tend to constipate badly all the time. I'd stir in a tbsp of mannitol into her drink to help... clear that problem up. Mannitol's got one of the worst laxative tolerances, and in my opinion, has a very poor taste relative to your other options.

That's an interesting question scott - I'd never thought about it. Caramaliztion is a specific reaction that takes place between specific groups (carbonyl) on sugars and specific groups (amine) often found in proteins. My guess is that as this type of reaction occurs (mailliard), that there's going to be a slight decrease in the sugars content, but it's probably not significant, unless you take the reaction to it's extreme, in which case it's probably not going to taste very good. I'll think about it some more though..it'd be easy enough to test with an HPLC. As far as carbon goes, there's a difference between caramalization and carbonization rxns. Carbonization is essentially when you heat something high enough or react it with another compound that preferrentially uses up the oxygen and hydrogen (the other elements of sugar). If heated high enough, you'll end up with water and carbon, and the water boilis off. You can also react sugar with, say, sulferic acid which essentially does the same thing, leaving you with a blackened mess that's mostly carbon. In the case of carbonization, there's definately a reduction in sugar. Chef Woody - again, going from memory (which is increasingly untrustworthy 8-) ) I believe tagatose is produced by acid hydrolysis of milk by products (arla's a pretty large dairy presence in Europe).

I would'nt think isomalt would caramalize - isomalt is a blend of two hydrogenated sugars, which by default means they've already been reduced (the chemical group that takes place in the mailliard rxns isn't available to do so any longer). That said, I've never tried to do it, but would be very surprised if you could caramalize it. Tagatose is a neat sugar (i think you can get it from arla foods), but if memory serves, it's limited to a usage level of 10% is confections. Re: erythritol and 7-10% - how sure am i? i'd put a bet on it, but wouldn't stake my life on it, how's that 8-)? soluability levels that you're able to achieve would be heavily dependant on a host of other factors, i'd think - what types of fats you've got present, what other types of solids, how much, temperatures. I'll stick to my guns with saying that as a general rule, i'd expect a 7-10% max lvl before you get reversion. I would not expect polydextrose to inhibit reviersion more than any other solid. I think i've seen erythritol fudges, but if memory serves, you're going to have to use it conjunction with another type of sweetners..

Yup, it's total sugars. What you may wish to consider doing is labelling them as No Sugar Added products, assuming of course, you're not adding any sugars 8-) I'm not very familiar with how regulatory bodies approach areas such as deserts in restaraunts - but i've never heard of an action taken for mislabelling there, so my guess is that from a regulatory perspective you're probably pretty safe. However, from a pure informational standpoint, if you're wanting to give as much info to your customers as possible, NSA is probably the way to go. There are sources online (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/) where you can go to get a pretty good idea of what the nutritional makeup is of various foods. Re: sucralose - there are essentially 3 versions of sucralose. Liquid (25% soln.), commercially available (think the stuff in the packets - it's a mixture of sucralose and maltodextrin), and the industrial powder (this is straight unadulterated sucralose, 600x sweeter than sugar). The latter is what I always use, but given the state of supply right now, it's probably going to be fairly difficult to source this if you'd not had an allottment from the previous year.

Due to the basic nature of stevia, it's going to have a strong, non-sweet flavor associated with it. Many people think of it as anise like. It's just the nature of the beast..

levoglucosan doesn't ring a bell to me..are you buying your pdx straight from the mfr, or is it being repackaged? If repackaged, perhaps they're trying to communicate that it's got a max level of 4% sugars (which is in line with cultor's litesse II, btw). I may even have some recipies at work that incorporate pdx into cookies with crunch, i'll try to remember to look them up. Erythritol has a pretty low soluability, as someone mentioned. It seems to work ok up to about 7-10%, then you're going to get reversion back into it's crystalline state..

Aw refers to what's known as the 'water activity' of a product. It's a measure of how 'available' the moisture is in your product, measured on a scale of 0-1. 1 means the water is fully available, and it will be very easy for critters (molds, bacteria) to grow. Essentially for a shelf stable product you're going to want to shoot for an Aw less than 0.6. Most folks don't have the equipment required to measure this, however, and you probably have a good sense of how long you can keep something you make before it goes bad...

one other note i forgot to mention - in order to be labelled sugar free, your total sugars content must be less than or equal to 0.5g of sugar / serving size (RACC as defined by the FDA). Note that sugar is not just sucrose, but all sugars (lactose, sucrose, etc).

Polydextrose is what's known as a 'fiber like' material. Technically, it's not recognized as a fiber under currentl FDA methodologies (it tests to roughly 50-90% fiber); however it belongs to a class of materials that physiologically behaves like a fiber. that is, even though it's technically a carbohydrate (all fibers are), your body treats it more like a plant fiber than it does a sugar. Polydextrose (PDX) is made from dextrose. Think of it as a chain, each link being made of dextrose. The longer those links are, the more 'fiberous' it behaves. Since the ends of that chain aren't linked to anything, those ends behave much as traditional sugars do - they'll take place in mailliard rxns, increase your blood sugar, etc. From a diabetic standpoint, many do use PDX. Bear in mind that not all PDX is created equal - there are essentially 3 grades, differing mainly in residual sugar content and chain length, ranging from 0.5% residual sugars to 10%. Danisco/Cultor is the main domestic producer of them. Another similiar ingredient you may wish to consider is inulin. Inulin is essentially a chain (oligomer) of fructose. It's the same concept as PDX, only the links in the chains are made of fructose, not dextrose. Some refer to it as oligo-fructose (literally, chains of fructose). The same is true of differing grades of inulin as it was for PDX. I personally use inulin over PDX as it's proven to be less hygroscopic in my applications. Both of these are very low in sweetness, but excellent bulkers. You'll likely find them very useful to work with when using erythritol. Erythritol has a very negative heat of solution (means it tastes cold when you eat it). PDX and inuln have positive heats of solution (warm up) when you eat them. When used in tandem with erythritol, they allow you to achieve the sugar like characteristics associated with a crystal (erythritol), but tone down the undesireables (usually the coldness). you're likely to still need a high intensity sweetener to boost the sweetness. Note: while erythritol is great from a digestive tolerance standpoint (your kidneys handle 95% of it - you pee it out), because inulin and PDX are fiberous in nature, your body will treat them as such. You're not going to be presented with 'urgent' digestive issues, but there certainly will be a regularity aspect when consumed regularly. It should also be noted that many of the 'natural' high intensity sweeteners aren't approved for use in foods in the US (stevia, thaumatin (tallen), etc). They are allowed for use in dietary suppliments, however, and tallen is allowed for use as a flavor modifier, but not as a sweetener. yeah yeah, regulatory mumbo jumbo, i know 8-)

Actually, as of 1/1/04, white chocolate technically *is* chocolate, at least in the united states. It's in the Code of Federal Regulations - prior to 2004, there was a proposed standard of identity for it, which meant that you had to petition the gov't for permission to call it white chocolate. Not any more. From a technical and legal perspective, white chocolate is indeed chocolate. Of course, it's not the nice brown *chocolatey* chocolate...

For what it's worth, I just got another marble slab today for free (3.5'x1.5'). Basically I called a couple of places, asked about their scrap or sink cutouts. First place wanted a hundred bucks for it, the second gave it for free (they had, quite literally, i'm guessing 2 tons worth of scrap in the back). It's a beautiful black marble, i wish i had enough to do my entire kitchen in it 8-)

Chocolate has a standard of identity as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21. Semisweet chocolate is defined basically as chocolate that contains no less than 35% liquor. It lists bittersweet chocolate as being synonymous with semisweet -so from a legal standpoint, bittersweet is the same as semisweet. That said, industry practice has taken on a sort of self regulation, whereby bittersweet is typically thought of as those semisweet products which have, at minimum, 50% chocoalte liquor present. Hope that helps

Black cocoa is indeed a dutched, or alkalized cocoa. Think of the dutching process as a line - if you're near the beginning of the line, the resulting cocoa powder is only slightly darker and slightly fudgy. Towards the middle of the line, you get the reddist colors and the most fudgy flavor development. at the end of the line, you've so severly alkalized it, that it's turned very dark and has lost almost all of it's chocoalte/fudgy flavor characteristics. Black powders are tyipcally valued more for their color as opposed to their flavor, and their pH's are often in the 8 range. As a note, if you're reading a book that has a particular cocoa rated as #1 from years ago, you can be fairly certain that it doesn't taste today what it tasted like years ago. This is due to a number of reasons, but the most significant of which is cocoa is an agricultural product, prone to seasonal variations. The beans they used to make that particular cocoa years ago may not even be available today. Industrial processes change as well. It's commonly seen in the industry that the target changes from year to year.

If you really want one, visit your local counter top refinishing place. They've often got excess laying around from previous jobs that's scrap, and you can get decent sized pieces for 10 or 15 bucks..the edges likely won't be all nice and shiney (at least, not all of them..), but for 10 bucks and a chisel you can finish it off nicely yourself!

It's like i said in the original post, there are few hard and fast rules when it comes to chocolate 8-) However, there are paths of least resistance, if you will, and there are multiple ways of tempering chocolate, as I'm sure you're aware of. It often comes down to the background of the person you're talking with and the equipment they have to work with. Did you know you can temper chocolate in a metal bowl in the microwave as well? I wouldn't run out and try this, but it can be done (yes, w/o blowing up your microwave!). Even though it's possible to do it, there's a reason why I don' t recommend it to most people. Purists gasp at using a microwave at all, and insist that all you need is a good flat piece of stone and a spatula. Other's use hot plates and fans; whereas still others use waterbaths and jacketed vessels or heat exchangers. The important thing, I think, is to understand the mechanics behind *why* you're doing what you're doing, and then experiment with a few methods to find what works for you. I'm a hard and fast physical scientist, and struggled for a lot of years with exactly trying to quantify chocolate. It really is as much art as science, and once i accepted that, I've been much happier 8-) My experience has taught that those who use glass bowls for microwave tempering, while they may not be able to iterate exactly chemically what's going on, have worked with chocolate long enough to understand what's going on. They can 'feel' it, get to know the subtlties of it's appearance, how it strings at various phases, how much is needed for a given bowl size given the amount of latent heat in the bowl, etc. It's not a great way to start to learn the process, however 8-) but it absolutely, certainly can be done. Play with it. Unless you're microwaving it way too long, you're not going to hurt the product, and you'll be able to reuse it again and again until you've got it down. If you've gotten it too hot, the process for reusing it will be different than if you're starting with tempered product, but there's a learning curve and it's a process you go through. Keep at it, and all of a sudden the light'll go on and the frustration will go away, and you'll be one with the chocolate. chocolate zen?

Chocolate can be horribly frustrating until you understand what it is you're doing, then once you've got the hang of it, you'll be just fine. The solid chocolate you're getting should already be 'in temper'. Cocoa butter is a fat, and when this particular fat solidifies, it can do so in 6 different ways. The problem is, that only one of them will yield a finished product that has nice gloss, doesn't melt when you touch it, and doesn't turn whitish (bloom). The process of handling it to end up with this one particular form, is called tempering the chocolate. There are a number of different methods of tempering, and there are few hard and fast rules (although there are some, we'll get to that). You don't mention how you're doing it, and Steve gave some good pointers (if you're using a microwave, use a plastic bowl - not glass as glass tends to hold excess heat and throw your temper). Usually when I temper, I've got a hot plate and a cooling tunnel (think 'fridge). I'll melt the chocolate completely to about 120F - this melts out any and all traces of the solid cocoa butter crystals. I'll then put it in the cooling tunnel, stirring intermittently, until the chocolate reaches a temperature of about 80-83 - again, no hard and fasts here - different chocolates will require you to handle them differently. Dark chocolates usually are closer to the 83 degree point here; milks typically require that you go lower in temp at this phase. What you're doing is forming 3 of the crystalline forms that are possible for the cocoa butter to take - with one of them being the final one you need for temper. The reason milk chocolates need lower temperatures are that they usually have higher amounts of milk fat (butter) in them, which makes it more difficult to form the temper, but once you've got it, milk fat makes your end product more bloom resistant. You'll recognize that you're at the correct temperature here as you'll often start to see the chocolate forming small clumps, take on a duller looking appearance, and leave a thin film behind on your vessel as you scrape it with a spatula. It often thickens up quite a bit here as well, but should still be plastic and semi fluid, if not entirely fluid. Once at this temperature, I'll take it out of cooling and put on on a hot plate (double boiler is fine), and heat - usually to around 88-89F. NEVER* go past 92F, as that's the point where your going to melt out the form of cocoa butter that you absolutely need to have for temper. The lumps you began to form will melt out, the product will thin a bit, and you'll be good to go. *IF you go past 92F, you may be able to 'save' it by adding in finely ground tempered chocolate (grate your purchased chocolate with a cheese grater), and add in perhaps 1/3 of the wt. This will melt, lowering the temperature of your chocolate as well as 'seeding' it with good temperred material.

maltitol, lactitol, and mannitol are much more effective 8-)

I'd think you'd be just fine with a 1-2 tbsp amount..

It should also be noted that the moment you add it to chocolate, you've lost the legal right to call it chocolate. Not so important for you folks at home, but if you're selling it, it no longer meets the standard of identity for chocolate, not just in the US, but anywhere a SOI exists for chocolate, which is most of the world. Paraffin won't make chocolate softer, per se, it'll make it somewhat more pliable (due to eutetic effects of mixed fats), and will substantially increase it's melting point. If you're looking to soften chocolate, milk fat works wonders. You can use non-lauric type fats (soy, cottonseed) or a natural lauric (coconut, say) - but if you go that route, you should either be freezing it (won't appear nice at room temp - freezing it allows for nice setup, and the softer oils will make it less likely to shatter upon biting it) or using it liquid (fountain) - but again, you've lost the ability to call it chocolate as those fats aren't permitted under the standard of identity for chocolate.

Thanks LB - I'm going to try this either tomorrow or next Monday with my daughter!

Paraffin itself is not carcinogenic, but when burned, it does oxidize to a number of degredation products, some of which are carcinogenic. As for it's use in chocolate, there's really no reason for it, and while not harmful, will quite obviously affect texture (waxy - wax candles are often literally made from this stuff), as well as flavor release (if you can't melt the fat in your mouth, you don't release the flavor). If you wanted ease of use, you should simply stick with a confectionery compound, which while not chocolate, certainly isn't wax..

My 5 year old daughter and I have begun to make a lot of candy at home (i'm in the chocolate mfr industry, she just likes to get elbow deep in chocolate - who doesn't!). We're on a toffee binge this month - what's the best toffee recipe you've come across? Regardless of the recipe, I think our next attempt will have about 8% small cocoa nibs added to the toffee instead of nuts, coated in chocolate (of course!) and rolled in almonds.

To add to the already good information pertaining to lecithin in chocolate, lecithin is known as an emulsifier. It's an ampiphilic molecule (meaning one end likes to hold on to water or hydrogen-binding capable ingredients) while the other end likes to hold on to fat. Because chocolate is a suspension of largely water soluable materials in a lipid (fatty) fluid phase, there are frictional interferences that occur at those phase boundaries. What lecithin does, largely, is to act as a sort of lubricating bridge between those materials, reducing that frictional force and allowing materials to become 'slippery', so that net:net, less fluid phase is required to keep or get things flowing. Economically, as mentoined already, it's a huge advantage to the manufacturer as it keeps costs down. Practicaly, it's an advantage in situations where high moisture is present - obviously oil and water don't mix, and when you get water - even very small amounts of water - in chocolate, you're going to have very serious viscosity issues arise. Lecithin can act as a sort of moisture scavenger to collect excess moisture and prevent rheological thickening as a result of additional phase changes due to excess moisture. There are also identify preserved sources of lecithin that are GMO free - most industrial manufacturers aren't using them because they're expensive. The could use them specific to certain products or product lines, but because manufacturing plants are also very expensive - in almost all cases many products are made on shared equipment that's impossible to clean entirely to remove all vestiges of trace materials. If a mfr were to run product specific GMO free lecithin products, it wouldn't be possible to certify that it was indeed GMO free as there would undoubtedly be cross contamination due to shared equipment..and the cost to convert the entire facility to GMO products can be very hard to pass on to customers, many of which don't at this point care one way or the other. They're not opposed to GMO free lecithin - many would gladly accept it as long as it didn't necessitate a label change - they just don't want to be asked to pay more for it.

Most recipies that call for chocolate liquor don't use just a whole lot of it. Liquor (unsweetened, baking chocolate, etc) can be very, very harsh, hence the reason a little goes a long way. There is a *huge* variability in types of liquor, depending on origin (where the cocoa tree was grown), how it was processed after picking (fermentation and drying - there are many different methods of doing this, all of which greatly affect flavor), and finally how it's processed by the manufacturer (it is blended with other liquors? is it alkalized? degree of roast? aerated? etc). Some liquors are quite good, and I've been known to nibble on them straight from time to time. No, i'm not the average consumer. No, these aren't typically available at your supermarket. But, that said, because liquors are so strong and so little is often used in recipies, those differences are more often than not simply lost. While *you* may well be able to detect if they're in there (an interesting test would be to make two side by side, have someone give you a blind taste test to see if you really can determine 8-) ), chances are pretty good that your consumer won't be able to, unless you're catering to the 'not your average joe' crowd, or you've got a high level of liquor present, and not many other interfering/masking ingredients. Regarding splenda - it's an excellent high intensity sweetener. It's bake stable, and i find that while all HIS's have definate usage levels beyond which they contribute off flavors, sucralose seems to stand out a bit. You may also want to try combinations of HIS"s as often times they work synergistically with one another to maximize sweetness and minimize off flavors. That said, you also need to keep in mind that they're not a substitute for bulking agents (you're only using very, very small quantities of them), and that some are application dependant (some are less heat stable, less stble in high moisture applications, etc). The average american was raised on hershey bars, and that's what they expect chocolate to be. Palates are beginning to change as folks become more well travelled (or their food becomes more well travelled, and instead of them going to the food, more foods are coming to them to give more options), but by and large, when you say 'chocolate' the first thing you're neighbor's going to think of is 'hershey'.

I'm giving my first shot at making truffles, have a few questions. I'm adding 1/2 cup heavy cream to 1/2lb chocolate and 4 tbsp butter. After a few hours in the fridge, it's solid enough to roll into balls, but they're very, very soft at room temperature - to the point where they don't hold their shape on their own, much less when you pick them up. I've got a second attempt in the fridge now, omitting all the butter and cutting back slightly on the cream - i've not had a chance to eval it yet, but my guess is that it's still going to be very, very soft. Are trufffles meant to be consumed cold, straight out of the 'fridge, or at room temp? I can see it both ways - the downside of eating cold is that it'll inhibit flavor release, but your shelf life is much better. Room temp will have better flavor release, but you can't keep them that way for very long (by the way, how long would one expect to keep cream truffles at room temperature anyway?). Look forward to your thoughts and expertise!