Jim D.

Kerry, In the discussion above, you wrote about a water ganache and said: I have noticed previously that you mentioned oil as an ingredient, and I am curious as to what purpose it has. There is a black currant ganache from Wybauw that uses just black currant purée as the liquid and an apricot ganache somewhere on the Callebaut website that uses apricot purée plus puréed dried apricots as the liquid (no oil/fat in either one, aside from the chocolate, of course). I just wanted to know if the oil helps with the emulsion or has some other purpose. I do find that when I am not using cream, it takes an immersion blender to help the emulsion along.

There was a previous discussion of creating a single line to decorate a chocolate shell. Here is a brief quote from the person who did it successfully: I was never able to locate that adhesive. I experimented once with Scotch transparent tape just to see if something like that would work, but the liquid cocoa butter got underneath the tape enough to ruin the line, even after many attempts. It's such a great effect that I keep thinking about ways to do it. No success so far.

Good idea, thanks. On my first try with this filling, I just melted milk chocolate and added the nuts, so there would not be any significant softening of the pinenuts (I cut it with a long knife). Adding cream to make a real ganache would, if my understanding is correct, tend to soften the nuts. In any event, I will not let the ganache firm up completely and will try a small piece first, then the slab. If you hear a loud groan, you will know what happened to the guitar.

It's funny, I expected the answer to be "don't worry, no problem." So I'm glad for the caution. I haven't yet had a wire break, but you know it will never be when there is lots of time to repair it. I might grind up the pinenuts and make more of a gianduja as I have had no trouble cutting hazelnut or almond gianduja. Thanks for the replies.

I have a very specific question about cutting with a guitar: I am experimenting with a simple milk chocolate ganache (about 2 parts chocolate to 1 part heavy cream) to which I add ground anise seeds and toasted pinenuts. Do those of you with Dedy guitars think there is any substantial chance of breaking the wires with the pinenuts? Thanks for any help.

I too bought some lemon verbena to grow this year (I think I got the real thing) to make a ganache from a recipe by Michael Recchiuti and Fran Gage. My only puzzle is why they insist the verbena must first be dried. The aroma from the living plant is so wonderful that I am loathe to dry the leaves and risk losing that smell/taste. I don't have a huge plant but may try just a few fresh leaves in ganache to see how it works (I sound a little like Kerry--try it and see what happens). Jim

A question on the "Genin caramels": If I don't use passion fruit and mango and want to make plain caramels, what liquid would I substitute for those two fruit purées? Cream seems an obvious choice, but would that cause an imbalance in the recipe (such as providing too much fat)? Any help would be appreciated. A followup to my effort of yesterday: This morning, after they were left out on the counter all night, the caramels are still soft yet hold their shape perfectly, and they are a bit sticky but not at all oily. As for understanding how they differ from traditional caramels, I assume the cooking of cream, fruit juices, sugar, and glucose together (without a separate caramelizing of the sugars) slows down the Maillard reaction; I wonder if eliminating the flavor provided by the fruit will produce something rather bland in taste.

I have now completed making the Genin caramels (using the recipe in post #132). Some people say not to stir caramel too much, so I tried to avoid that, and, as a result, got a little scorching in the bottom of the pot. I mostly left that part in the pot. How are the caramels? I am not thrilled with the taste. The mango and passion fruit are quite prominent, but there is not much caramel taste. If I make it again, I will try plain (with vanilla, of course) or maybe something more subtle than passion fruit. The texture, on the other hand, is quite amazing. This must come from the unusual method of cooking the liquids and the sugars together from the start, as that is the only substantial difference from other caramel recipes. The finished product cuts easily, does not stick to one's teeth, and so far has held its shape well at room temperature in spite of its softness. There was separation of the butter from the caramel at two points in the cooking, but I used a whisk and all came together again.

Is this a slightly different recipe for apple caramel than the one you posted in another thread (I don't recall lecithin in that recipe)? You may remember that you and I discussed apple caramel, and I have made your apple caramel (with a bit more apple cider jelly) with great success. But I use it to fill shells, so the firmness doesn't matter so much. I have no issues with recooking caramel; in fact, I did it just last week with some caramel that was too firm. I added a little cream (but others recommend just plain water), and the caramel melted without a problem. I do have continuing issues with getting a caramel that is meant to be firm enough to hold its shape but soft enough to eat easily. As the caramel nears the temp I am aiming for, it becomes quite difficult to get an accurate reading of the temp of the contents of the pot. I use the "drop a bit into water" test, but the caramel keeps cooking while I do the test.

chanjying, Thanks very much for that response, exactly what I wanted to know. Someone in this thread said that supposedly a reason that Genin has not opened a U.S. shop is pessimism about the quality of American butter. I will get Plugra or Kerrygold (which are, I think, "European-style" butters, though probably far from the best French butter) when I make the attempt. I have always wondered about the distinction between passion fruit juice and purée, as the "purée" I have purchased has always been quite thin (many ganache recipes call for reducing it by half to increase the flavor).

I have read through this entire thread (and another one on the same subject) but am left hanging at the end. Supposedly Jacques Genin's actual recipe for his famous passion fruit mango caramels was found (in English, post of July 24, 2014). Did anyone ever try this recipe and find out how it compared to the original? Meanwhile another poster (Schneich) came up with a recipe that produced results similar to Genin's but using sorbitol and lecithin. I'm wondering if anyone has followed up on this effort to make a caramel that is very soft yet can still be cut. I bring this up because my first effort at "stand-alone" caramels (not piped into molds) tasted OK (I used some cherry flavoring) but was too firm; I think I overcooked it by 1 or 2 degrees--it's very difficult, I discovered, to get all the caramel in the pot to the same temp simultaneously.

A reminder to those who signed up for the webinar presented by Decagon Devices on "Water Activity for Candy and Confectionary Products": The event is scheduled for tomorrow (June 9) 9-10 a.m. PDT. You should have received information from Decagon on how to access the webinar.

Many thanks for making that video, Kerry. It makes the process very clear. You could probably use this on the EZtemper website (an idea that has undoubtedly already occurred to you). Jim

Kerry, Thanks for the experiment. Impressive that the chocolate for that shell was never taken down to anywhere near 29C/84F. In the particular case of Valrhona Opalys, I have concluded (from many unfortunate episodes with chocolate that refuses to come out of an upside-down mold) that Valrhona's working temperature is too low. What brand of chocolate were you using in the photos? Since the issue of over-crystallization always comes up with making shells over an extended time, do you have any information on the impact of using the EZtemper silk and keeping the chocolate (I am thinking of white now) at 33.5C/92.3F? In other words, does it take longer to over-crystallize or is the time about the same? I can't imagine it would be safe to take the chocolate above 33.5C/92.3F when it starts to thicken.

Kerry, We discussed the Valrhona issue in a "Molded Chocolates" thread--which was a merged topic. Thanks very much for remembering to ask the question when you were in France, and in a way I'm relieved to read that it's a "known problem." Oddly, that kind of problem is comforting (meaning I'm probably not the only one having the difficulty). Recently I have begun adding some cocoa butter to Opalys when using it for molding, but I don't like doing that because really it's changing the flavor from what the manufacturer intended--and, in my opinion, no matter what is said, cocoa butter (Cacao Barry in my case) does have a taste of its own. By the way, have you posted any photos from that Valrhona workshop? So, when you are adding the cocoa butter from the EZtemper to white chocolate, do you just bring the melted chocolate down to 33.5F/92.3F, add the "silk," then stir for a minute or so, and use it at that temperature? No need to bring it down to the manufacturer's recommended working temp--as one does with Mycryo or any other tempering method? Not that I don't believe you, but it would take a little courage the first time to use white chocolate at that temp. But it does sound promising.

Kerry, This is a significant figure for white chocolate--33.5C/92.3F, well above the usual figure given for working with it (29C/84F). If it's not a trade secret, can you explain how the tempered cocoa butter is able to make that possible? (You may recall that I have often had a lot of trouble molding with Valrhona Opalys--so much trouble that you offered to speak to the Valrhona folks when you were there this year).

I use Chocosphere.com. They have a very wide selection and good customer service. If you want a well-known brand such as Callebaut or Valrhona, there are many other sources.

That's why I suggested the ganache will come closer to what you want. The cream used in a ganache (if you use enough) will keep it from getting so firm. A common ratio suggested for milk chocolate ganache is 2.5:1 (chocolate to cream), but you might aim for something closer to 1.5:1. I did find a recipe online that called for heating the peanut butter and cream together, then emulsifying with the chocolate (that recipe specified dark chocolate--I think I would use milk). If you find the chocolate taste is overwhelming the peanut butter more than you like, you can substitute some cocoa butter for part of the chocolate. I think experimenting is the way to go. I make up 100g batches of a ganache to see what the flavor is going to be like; that way you are not wasting too many expensive ingredients--but you do have to keep a record of what you do.

As pastrygirl said, you can either make a softer gianduja (a higher ratio of peanut butter to chocolate) or use cream and chocolate to make a ganache and add peanut butter. I think the gianduja will give a more intense peanut butter flavor, but the ganache will probably come closer to the texture you want. I would try a small amount of each to see which you prefer. Once you find out (keeping a record of your ingredient weights), it is easy to scale the recipe up to the quantity you need. As for adding butter or cocoa butter, butter will add a little firmness but not a lot, but although cocoa butter will at first thin the mixture, it will end up making it considerably more firm. Many ganache recipes call for adding cocoa butter because it adds firmness without contributing (much) flavor. I don't think that is what you want.

Thanks, Kerry, for the information. When you say the "technology is used currently in industry," could you give some examples? Are you, for example, referring to something like mass-produced chocolates?

Ruth, Does the machine hold the (almost-but-not-quite-melted) cocoa butter at the right temp forever--or at least as long it stays inside the machine? Any harm done by removing a little "silk" and then returning the container to the machine? I'm thinking of situations where a user works on many different projects (lining molds with chocolate, making ganaches, closing molds, dipping chocolates) and might wish to keep the cocoa butter ready over a period of many days. As was pointed out in another thread, this is very much like Mycryo, but by the time one brings the chocolate down to the right temp, the Mycryo is rather difficult to dissolve--I often have to use an immersion blender to get those last grains of cocoa butter to melt. And speaking of Mycryo, why didn't Callebaut think of this? Jim

Chris, Perhaps someone on eGullet with a smartphone will record the seminar and then send it to you. I would, but I don't have a smartphone. Jim

I received an e-mail from Decagon, maker of the Pawkit (which some on eGullet own) as well as other water activity meters, about a free online seminar the company is offering, and I thought other eGullet members might be interested. I checked with Decagon, and it is open not only to those in business but also to hobbyists (when registering, the latter can enter "self-employed" or "hobbyist" in the Organization field). Decagon also said that the seminar is not specific to a particular water activity instrument but focuses on how water activity can be used as a tool for product formulation and quality control. Here are the details: Water Activity for Candy & Confectionery Products Most candy has a well defined "moisture sweet spot"—an ideal range where texture properties are perfect. And surprisingly small changes in water activity correlate with big differences in a candy product’s texture. Attend this seminar and learn: The relationship between texture and water activity in a wide variety of candy productsHow to identify a candy product's "moisture sweet spot"How to use water activity to maintain consistency and quality in your product Presenter: Dr. Brady Carter, Senior Research Scientist, Decagon Devices Date: June 9, 2015 9-10 AM PDT.Those interested can register at this link. Click here for the terms under which this event is listed in eG Forums.

Somewhere on this forum I have a post discussing the issue of whether to make ganaches ahead of time or not. At that time I said I was making all the ganaches, then vacuum-sealing and freezing them, and melting them again when ready to fill shells. Incidentally, I could be wrong, but I don't see that melting the ganaches adds a lot of air if one stirs gently. Now I wish I could erase that post. Although the system worked very well for workflow and chocolates were ready to distribute in a shorter time, gradually I discovered that the ganaches (especially those made with white chocolate) tended to separate and/or become grainy in texture. They just were not of the same quality as freshly made ones--or so it seemed to me. Therefore I reverted to what I think is the method most chocolatiers follow, namely, making the ganaches "on demand." But with experience I have reduced the amount of time the whole process takes. I should add that I am working on a small scale (unlike what it sounds that you are about to do)--I make 12 different fillings, with about 40-50 pieces of each. From decorating the molds to boxing the finished product now takes me 10 days. I do not worry at all about leaving the empty shells in a cool place for even as much as several days. I spend a day or two decorating, then mold all the shells (dark, milk, white) over a two-day period. After that, I begin making ganaches, about three a day. Of course the slabbed and dipped items take longer, especially if they have more than one layer. I leave a day toward the end for any necessary redoing of molds or fillings, then a day for photographing the individual pieces and boxing them. I should add that I don't kill myself (almost, but not quite), so I don't work 8 hours a day--this is still a hobby for me. All things considered, I am happier with this method than with making the fillings in advance, but I am concerned with shelf life more than I was before. I have read what Wybauw has to say about this issue and have bought a water activity meter to be sure ganaches are at least starting off with a decent shelf life. Of course, in the final analysis, one can't control how long those who get the chocolates take to eat them or how they store them. Actually I still have some that I made for Easter, and although the fillings are beginning to decline in quality, they still appear--as of last night--safe to eat. I'm not sure this information will translate to your more commercial situation.

I too recently made the Greweling pistachio marzipan (I love his name for the recipe, "Pistachio Homage"). I think pistachios naturally have a kind of flat taste, so I was not surprised at the final taste. Maybe a little salt would be helpful? Or perhaps some sweetener? I too was concerned for the survival of my Cuisinart. I was about to give up when, all at once, the marzipan came together and looked the way it is supposed to look. I like the piece, but--maybe this is heresy--I'm not sure it is good enough to justify the amount of work involved. It does look great. I had never peeled pistachios before, and it made a huge difference in the appearance.