Jim D.

I will second what others have said about domes. They are also the bane of my chocolate existence. They are beautiful, make decorating with cocoa butter a pleasure, look great after unmolding. That is, if they unmold. Following @Kerry Beal's rule, all shells should be refrigerated after they have begun to crystallize at room temp so as to dissipate the "latent heat of crystallization." When I have filled domes, sealed them, and am ready to unmold them, I leave them in the fridge for a long time, hours even. This idea (thanks @pastrygirl) has helped a great deal. Putting them in the freezer for a few minutes is the last resort, but it usually releases the really stubborn ones. Of course, the "solution" I omitted was to tap them (pound them actually) on the counter--fortunately polycarbonate is very sturdy. Unless I am using a mold that is fairly shallow (demispheres, the so-called quenelles, or flattened domes), I don't have a lot of luck releasing just made empty shells. Experience suggests getting them out is not a reliable indicator of how they will eventually release after being filled. When someone like Andrey Dubovik picks empty shells out and shows off the shine of his decoration, he is almost always using a demisphere. So I would recommend getting some demispheres or molds of shapes other than domes. And for domes, if you can find a mold you like with a design, even a small feature, in the bottom, they will release much better. I just came across Chocolate World 1016 and ordered a lot of them; in preliminary tests, they released without a hitch. Same for a "cinnamon bun" design (Cabrellon 6442)--though Cabrellon molds are difficult to find in the U.S.--bonbons just fall out of the mold. And finally CW 2207--a somewhat flattened dome--is also easier than a non-flattened shape. For a really thorough discussion of the problem of releasing dome molds, you might check out this thread --from 2009, so it's a longstanding issue. In that discussion, it was Kerry who mentioned the fact that domes are so smooth that they "get kind of a suction effect going." I think it's always consoling to see that others, even very talented others, have these same issues. Aside from giving domes more time to contract from the sides of the cavities, I have found only two solutions: always make extras because you will probably lose some of them or find domes with a design in the bottom.

Here's the Youtube link. It's one in the series of Tomric interviews with chocolatiers, and the discussion of the second edition occurs at about the 40-minute mark (you have to ignore the frequent interruptions by his interviewer to get to what Greweling is really saying). Upon rewatching it, I see that he is not quite as negative as I said; he is more subtle and emphasizes how pleased he was with the first edition, referring to mistakes introduced in the second.

Good catch. I checked both editions of the book, and this is an error that crept into the second edition. The first has the correct "less than or equal to" sign in front of 60. No wonder that (in an interview I watched with Greweling) he said he was not thrilled (I'm paraphrasing) with the way the second edition turned out.

When people ask how I got started making chocolates, I always tell them the simple answer is "eGullet." The amount of information people share without cost on this forum is amazing, and I never cease learning more all the time. In the celebratory photo below, all of the items, whether decoration or filling, reflect some of what I have learned here:

I would definitely follow recipes from reputable sources for now. Wybauw provides Aw readings for his fillings, though of course readings will differ a bit depending on all sorts of factors. I think you can trust Greweling's recipes as far as Aw goes. Basically caramels are very safe for a long time. Giandujas are also low in free water activity and provide a great nut flavor undiluted by cream--I use them a lot. A butter ganache lasts longer in general than one based on cream (Greweling has some good recipes for butter ganache). I suggest you also look at Greweling's proportions for the various types of ganache--to boil the information down as far as possible, a ratio of at least 2 parts chocolate to 1 part liquid will work. There are tricks to preserving the luscious quality of a ganache without increasing the water activity level: adding some refined (no coconut taste) coconut oil is one--coconut oil has no water and keeps chocolate from firming up so much. Using invert sugar will also help with the consistency of a ganache (I don't think Greweling ever uses this ingredient, but Notter and Wybauw do).

Have you read this series of posts on shelf life? And there are many other threads dealing with the issue. Unless you are going to tell recipients to eat the chocolates within a day or two at the most--and be fairly certain they will follow your instructions--you definitely do have to pay attention to how "aqueous" they are. The only way to know for sure is to use an Aw meter, which measures the available water content. Basically it comes down to increasing the solids and decreasing the liquids in a filling. It is sometimes (maybe always) necessary to juggle how "luscious" your filling is vs. how soon it will mold. In the case of pâte de fruit, which has a higher Aw reading than one might assume, I add some pulverized dried fruit to the fruit purée. Not only does that "punch up" the fruit flavor, but it also lowers the Aw significantly.

I have used both and have seen no significant difference at all.

Good to know that you have had more or less the same experience. And thanks for catching the error in the Pawkit readings.

Here are the results from the latest tests: Time Frame of Readings: A = immediately after ganache was made B = 3 hours later C = 12 hours after reading B Readings for Each Sample: 1 = sample was left uncovered for all readings and was not stirred until before reading C A = 0.69 B = 0.58 C = 0.69 2 = sample was covered between all readings and was not stirred until before reading C A = 0.69 B = 0.75 C = 0.75 3 = sample was left uncovered for all readings and stirred before readings A and C A = 0.67 B = 0.70 C = 0.69 The instrument was the Pawkit from Meter Group (previously Decagon Devices). The readings are supposed to be accurate within 0.2 [correction: 0.02] units of water activity. For me, Sample 1 is the most relevant because the readings clearly show that my previous conclusion, that by simply letting a ganache sit for a while its Aw will decrease, was inaccurate. I should have thought of the fact that the meter was measuring the top surface (at least I think that's what it does). The 0.69 reading stubbornly remains the same when the sample is stirred. I am puzzled by the readings for sample 2 (which was covered throughout): they actually rise over time, whether stirred or not. I would think sample 3 most clearly parallels what the chocolatier experiences since stirring the sample before readings brings more of the ganache to the top for measuring each time (why the second reading rose I cannot explain). My (disappointing) conclusion: The Aw reading of a ganache remains approximately the same throughout the process--what you initially make is what you get. There are, it would seem, no magic factors in getting the water level activity lower.

You mention a perhaps-crucial issue: Is it just the surface of the ganache that is drying out, therefore leading to the possibility that the later reading is not a true reflection of the Aw? Today, as it happens, I am making your cinnamon bonbon ganache, so this time I will take three samples, measuring one as I have done with the recent ones, keeping one covered between the two readings, and stirring up the third one before the second measurement.

I am leaving them uncovered. As I said above, this is what happens when a ganache is piped into a shell that is not going to be sealed for another day, so I thought it was a quite similar situation. Even allowing for variations in meter accuracy, there is no question readings are dropping. Next time I'll cover the sample between readings, but I don't think this would accurately reflect what happens in real production.

Yes, room temperature (about 70F). The Aw meter doesn't allow a reading unless the meter and the sample are at approximately the same temp.

I have performed the experiment once more and am getting what one might call a "consistent inconsistency." I made Wybauw's pear recipe (Fine Chocolates Gold, p. 309). The Aw reading immediately after the ganache was piped was 0.78. Approximately three hours later, the same sample produced a reading of 0.64. For someone who is quite cautious about shelf life issues, these readings are very good news.

Glad to hear you have also had "wild fluctuations." Just for the record, my samples yesterday were sitting in their little testing cups, not in the bowl in which I had made the ganache, so evaporation would have been minimized. Ordinarily I measure Aw early because it's much easier to get a sample into the cup when fluidity is at its maximum, but it had certainly never occurred to me such a change in Aw was likely, even possible. There is a Wybauw recipe for black currant ganache that I like very much (especially paired with hazelnut gianduja), but I have avoided making it very often because of the Aw reading of 0.83 that resulted. The ganache has always puzzled me because the ratio of chocolate+cocoa butter to liquid (which is all black currant purée) is about 2.5 to 1, thus it should not be problematic. Next time I make this I will do the retest and see if it improves over time. I do think leaving the test cups uncovered between readings makes the most sense because that is, as I previously stated, what happens after a filling has been deposited into a shell, but I am certainly open to corrections of my assumption (I am not a scientist, I just pretend to be one with my Aw meter).

As @Muscadellesuggested, letting ganaches crystallize for a while might produce a different Aw reading. I have now done that. Today I made my new "custard ganache" with fiori di Sicilia flavoring and tested it. To my dismay, the reading was 0.85, much higher than the numbers from my experimental batch with this filling. This recipe was for 50% custard (cream with custard powder) and 50% white chocolate. After a few hours had passed, it occurred to me that this was a good time to try the experiment. And the second reading was 0.68, an amazing difference. I had a second sample, and it produced a reading different by only 0.1. The ganache samples had been sitting in open containers, but I can't imagine there was that much evaporation from a substance so relatively viscous, after only a few hours had passed, and in a cool space--a situation that basically emulates a ganache sitting in a shell waiting to be sealed.

I agree about white chocolate (and so many customers just reject it without even tasting it). I think sometimes it is the best choice (strawberry comes to mind). Thanks for the tip about elderflower extract.

Thanks for that helpful information, which is exactly what I guessed would be the case. As I said previously about a "custard ganache," the egginess probably gets lost with the other flavorings of the ganache since the flavoring has to be strong enough to stand up to the chocolate used in the shell (and likely the ganache as well). So many flavors that seem as if they would be delicious in a ganache--elderflower comes to mind--get lost when molded (or are so subtle as to be recognizable only when the chocolatier points them out). Elderflower popped into my mind as I just finished a piece of toast with delicious rhubarb and elderflower jam made by a friend. I had to stop myself from the first thought that came to mind: wouldn't this be delicious in a bonbon?

Very helpful information, Ruth. Yum! for the lemon curd idea.

You definitely have a point. I use sugar cookies (which include eggs) as inclusions in bonbons, so what would be the difference? But both Greweling and Notter specifically exclude egg ganaches from their books (Wybauw does not). Perhaps overly cautious? In the case of the ganache I described above, eggs aren't really necessary for the taste. They would make the custard mixture taste "richer," but I doubt that aspect of the taste would be noticed by most people (pastry cream and similar products are a different matter).

Regarding the use of Bird's custard powder: I made the powder from an online recipe (confectioner's sugar, cornstarch, nonfat milk powder). First you mix the powder with a little cold milk (I used cream), then whisk it into the rest of the milk/cream and bring to a simmer. Of course at that point it has no taste (but then neither does crème anglaise nor pastry cream at that stage--the flavoring is essential). I then treated the mixing of the custard and some white chocolate as one would a regular ganache. I used proportions of about 55% Opalys chocolate to 45% custard. It formed an emulsion, but the fat in the Opalys was too much, and it separated. So I beat in some more custard, and that fixed the issue. Therefore it seems that a 50-50 mix might work. That would be a significant change from the usual proportions required for a cream ganache. Then I tried out my new fiori di Sicilia flavoring; the resulting taste was very good. But would this ganache set? Within a few hours It had set enough that cavities could have been sealed, and by the next day it had set even more but was still creamy and somewhat soft. I can see this ganache paired with an apricot pâte de fruit. Another crucial question: would this creamy, custardy ganache have the high water activity level I anticipated? It did not--the reading was 0.70. I'm guessing that the added solids (cornstarch and milk powder) were responsible for that. I haven't begun experimenting with added sugars (glucose, invert, sorbitol). The breaking of the ganache would also suggest that even less chocolate could be used. The advantage to this filling for me (over, say, a regular vanilla cream ganache such as Notter's or a buttercream using fondant, butter, and chocolate) is that it needs less chocolate to get it to set, thus allowing for more flavoring to come through. Perhaps even that elusive blueberry flavor or, the most challenging for me, peach flavor? Further experiments will involve using dark chocolate instead of white and adding vanilla seeds and extract for a buttercream/crème brûlée filling. If anyone can point out any pitfalls in this experiment, I would welcome that information. For example, does cornstarch do something terrible inside a bonbon? Is this filling more likely to have mold grow? I don't think Aw can fully predict mold growth, but am not sure about that. This recipe reminded me a bit of Notter's lime ganache, in which he uses pectin to thicken the ganache, allowing for less chocolate to be used and for more lime juice to be added for a stronger flavor.

@Rajala has been kind enough to send me the link to the cinnamon bun bonbon recipe on his website. One rather humorous note: If you have Google translate the page from Swedish to English, the "Krisplager" (crisp layer) gets translated as "crisis layer." But all is well--no crisis developed. The mold, which is perfect for the bonbon, suggesting the swirl on top of a cinnamon bun, is Cabrellon 6442. I could not find an importer of Cabrellon in the U.S., but the mold can be ordered directly from Cabrellon or from Chocolat Chocolat in Montreal, Canada (4-6 weeks delivery time). Side note: too bad Cabrellon molds are so difficult to obtain in the U.S. They have a large catalogue with lots of tempting molds. One interesting fact I discovered in the process of getting the molds from Europe: anything with a value under $800 enters the U.S. duty-free--I did not know that. I had the shipment within three days of placing the order. I served this bonbon recently with other chocolates at a party. It was the item that got most of the attention and positive comments. After a lot of experimentation and tasting, I made a few changes to the recipe (which Rajala and I have discussed). For the ganache, I used Valrhona Orelys, which has some brown sugar/molasses notes, instead of the mixture of dark and milk chocolate in the recipe. For the crispy layer, I could find nothing like the Swedish crispy cinnamon buns Rajala included, so used a recipe for cinnamon bun cookies (sugar cookie dough with cinnamon and sugar, rolled up, sliced, baked until crisp, then ground coarsely in a small food processor). To the crumbs I added Valrhona Opalys and spooned it on top of the ganache (the crumbs were much too coarse to pipe). I used 65% dark chocolate for the shell to reduce the sweetness. I'm about to try a version with a 72% dark to reduce the sweetness further. This is a delicious chocolate, and I send my thanks to Rajala for sharing it and discussing it in innumerable back-and-forth emails. Top layer is dark caramel with sea salt, next layer (not really visible) is a few toasted pecans, large middle layer is cinnamon, browned butter, and Orelys ganache, thin bottom layer is coarsely crumbled cookies surrounded by a little white chocolate.

Thanks for digging that out. As a bonbon filling, I think we might be talking a day or two! I happened to see a co-worker of my kitchen/recipe inspector last night, and I brought up the issue of using eggs in bonbons. He agreed that the inspector would have a stroke for sure.

I do the shards thing, too, covering them with a little thinned-out white chocolate to keep them crunchy. But for the cream part, I have always used your buttercream recipe with lots of vanilla. If I could make something more custardy, however, that would be better. I'm thinking Aw may be an issue with the liquid it will take to mix with the Bird's. Probably add in some white chocolate.

Are you able/willing to share that recipe or a description of how you made the filling?

That is a very good price (savings of about $100). I also checked with Jerry Carter Airtools, and they have the same pricing, so it must be a universal drop in price. It's almost worth buying a second one "just in case." Of course, it might also mean that Grex is planning to introduce a new model soon. The "Choco-Grex" with built-in heating unit at long last?