Jim D.

I'm still thinking about PdF with less sugar. It would seem the taste of the fruit would be fresher than my experiment with mango PdF made using apple pectin (I threw out the remnants today). I have reread all the threads on PdF. There does not appear to be any definitive answer to successful PdF, unless one wants to use a huge amount of sugar and apple pectin. But I was intrigued by the discussion (http://forums.egulle...at-is-g-pectin/) in which tammylc discussed experimenting with Pomona's pectin, a pectin that requires much less sugar. I am wondering if others have tried it and if in fact it produces PdF that tastes more like the fruit from which it is made. There is not the large number of recipes using Pomona's that there is for apple pectin. Obviously one needs a recipe as dependable as those using apple pectin (from Boiron and Albert Uster, for example). Host's note: this topic is part of a larger topic that is split into parts in order to reduce the load on our servers. The next part is here: Pâte de Fruits (Fruit Paste/Fruit Jellies) (Part 2).

Those are beautiful. What is the "skin" made from? And what did you paint it with?

Pate de fruit uses a ton of sugar - it's very sweet - but part of the function of the tartaric is to counteract that a bit. It likely succeeded due to pectin and acid - it might not have a good shelf life. Thanks for the quick reply. I just tasted it again and am liking the tartness. I will try the recipe with some pear purée and use the amount of sugar suggested. I'll also take a look at the Boiron proportions and see if they are more or less the same. Speaking of Boiron, did you know that L'Epicerie has quit carrying them and now offers a different brand? Another question: how thick should the mixture be when it is removed from the heat? Mine was on the edge of not being pourable. But I would think more sugar would have made it even thicker.

My apple pectin and tartaric acid arrived today from Chef Rubber, and so I made my first try at pâte de fruit. I used Notter's recipe and some mango purée I had. The result isn't bad, but I'm not sure why it worked. I didn't have enough sugar on hand--and also thought the amount given in the chart for various fruits that Notter includes was incredibly great. So I used what sugar I had and increased the amount of glucose a bit (I was only experimenting and fully expected a total failure). I got the mixture close to the 221F. called for, but it was getting really thick, so I took it off the heat and poured it. It thickened immediately, but the texture isn't too rubbery. The flavor is OK, though I think you would have to tell people it's mango (but to me mango is a somewhat subtle flavor). It has a nice tang, not too sweet. But why did it succeed? I probably used 1/4 of the sugar in the recipe and not a lot of extra glucose. I think it would have too sweet to eat if I had used all the sugar. Is pâte supposed to be very sweet? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I have let my friends in Rome know this important detail. So, when it's warm, is this pastry as good as it looks?

Thanks for that video. It shows the pastry can be made in a normal kitchen. I wonder why they use melted lard instead of butter--seems to me butter would give a better flavor. Too bad there isn't a recipe, though--or maybe it's a good thing since the pastry maker makes the process look doable and I would probably have to try it.

I have to report that, so intrigued was I with sfogliatelle--and recalling that I have two friends staying in Rome for a while--I could not resist suggesting they look for this pastry. They immediately went out to the closest bakery and found it. But their report was decidedly mixed: the filling was great, but the pastry was tough. I couldn't believe that was the same pastry the original poster was referring to when he raved about sfogliatelle. So my friends went out the next day and found the pastry in a different shop. This sample was better, though still somewhat tough. I did notice in the comments from someone that the dough has to be "tough" to withstand all the stretching, but I didn't assume this meant tough tasting. Maybe what that same poster said is true, that most pastry shops don't make their own any more but purchase the dough (if not the entire pastry). Of course, when you stop and think about it, cold puff pastry can be very tough (perhaps sfogliatelle should be warm?). In any case, it was an interesting experiment. If the original poster reads this message, perhaps he can report at what bakery he found the wonderful pastry.

I have read the threads on tempering but did not find the answer to this question: If you are using the seed method to temper a certain amount of chocolate (for a ganache, for example), how do you deal with the unmelted seed? Before starting, I remove some of the chocolate to use as seed. I add it at the appropriate time, but it doesn't always melt entirely by the time the chocolate has fallen to the tempering range. Since I need all of the chocolate to make the correct amount for the recipe, I end up returning the bowl to the heat to continue the melting, but I realize that I risk overheating the chocolate and losing the effect of the seed. So what do people do? Just temper more chocolate than you need and then measure out the correct amount? The transfer and measuring process seems a bit messy--and also cools off the chocolate.

Interesting suggestion that I had not considered, but will try. The amounts in my effort were quite small as I was making half of Greweling's recipe. I really want to master butter ganache as I find its texture and the almost infinite possibilities for flavorings of great use in making chocolates. The only one I had made previously was pear ganache, and since I was using it to fill molded shells, its soft texture didn't matter so much. But when one is trying to cut and then dip ganache, it is a different matter.

I think your 2 pence is worth quite a lot. Those experiments cover all the possibilities and are very helpful. Even though my butter was room temperature, it was not all that soft, and I agree that must have been the problem. The issue for me was that, as a person working alone, I really couldn't manage to warm the butter, temper the dark chocolate, and temper the milk chocolate all at the same time. I thought my stick blender would emulsify the mixture no matter what I did, but such was not the case--no matter how long I beat it, those little choc. lumps stayed there--and, more to the point, the ganache never hardened. I saw in another thread that Kerry recommended combining the two chocolates in such a situation (starting with the dark, then adding the milk). At least that would reduce the complexity of the technique required.

Perhaps you can suggest what went wrong with my butter ganache. As I said previously, lumps formed when I added the (supposedly) tempered milk and dark, then I added the brandy. I put the bowl over warm water and used the immersion blender to make it (mostly) smooth. It was quite soft in texture when I spread it in the frame (and, by the way, the quantity Greweling calls for was not sufficient to fill the frame, which made it impossible to get it completely level). I hoped the ganache would be firm today, but it was still soft. I was able to cut it, but not neatly, and dipping the pieces was very difficult. The texture of the filling makes it wonderful to eat, but it was much too difficult to work with. I assumed that using tempered chocolate would make it set firmly. I'm thinking the lumps formed because the chocolate was indeed tempered, but why didn't it set up? Perhaps you can suggest what went wrong with my butter ganache. As I said previously, lumps formed when I added the (supposedly) tempered milk and dark, then I added the brandy. I put the bowl over warm water and used the immersion blender to make it (mostly) smooth. It was quite soft in texture when I spread it in the frame (and, by the way, the quantity Greweling calls for was not sufficient to fill the frame, which made it impossible to get it completely level). I hoped the ganache would be firm today, but it was still soft. I was able to cut it, but not neatly, and dipping the pieces was very difficult. The texture of the filling makes it wonderful to eat, but it was much too difficult to work with. I assumed that using tempered chocolate would make it set firmly. I'm thinking the lumps formed because the chocolate was indeed tempered, but why didn't it set up? I would guess that putting the bowl over warm water caused the chocolate to go out of temper. I would think it lumped because something was too cold. When I've used Greweling's method for butter ganache, I've mixed the sweetener with the butter and whatever else I'm flavoring with. I place the bowl of butter on my scale, then scoop the tempered chocolate out of the machine. I just dump it on there to get the weight, and mix it in. I've never done it gradually, just doesn't work for me to "stream" it in. Never had any lumps I couldn't get rid of by stirring well. And yes, Greweling's amount is not accurate to fit in the size frame he says, at least for one layer. I very rarely slab ganache though. I use it for filling molds. You can see it start to set up fast if it's done properly. Thanks for describing what you do and for the insights on my problem. I was suspecting that my heating of the mixture was too much. But cream ganache isn't in temper, is it? Surely pouring boiling cream onto chocolate takes it out of temper, yet it still hardens.

Perhaps you can suggest what went wrong with my butter ganache. As I said previously, lumps formed when I added the (supposedly) tempered milk and dark, then I added the brandy. I put the bowl over warm water and used the immersion blender to make it (mostly) smooth. It was quite soft in texture when I spread it in the frame (and, by the way, the quantity Greweling calls for was not sufficient to fill the frame, which made it impossible to get it completely level). I hoped the ganache would be firm today, but it was still soft. I was able to cut it, but not neatly, and dipping the pieces was very difficult. The texture of the filling makes it wonderful to eat, but it was much too difficult to work with. I assumed that using tempered chocolate would make it set firmly. I'm thinking the lumps formed because the chocolate was indeed tempered, but why didn't it set up?

Ewald Notter calls for using tempered chocolate in his butter ganache recipes. Peter Greweling calls for using it not only in butter ganache but also in all slabbed ganache. Today I made Greweling's "Raspberry Bites" (a butter ganache recipe). I dutifully tempered milk and dark chocolate to make the ganache. But when I added the chocolates to the butter (all more or less at the prescribed temperatures), the mixture developed small lumps. I went ahead and added the raspberry brandy, and it got worse. Thankfully I had my immersion blender and beat the mixture over warm water until the lumps melted. There appeared to be no harm done from heat or blender; I had no other idea of what to do. I am wondering if the tempered chocolate is really necessary. I understand from Greweling's book that the difference is one of improved texture, but I could put up with a less-than-perfect texture rather than lumps in the ganache. Any ideas would be appreciated.

I have both aluminum and stainless steel bars that were cut to order. The SS bars definitely have that "rough" look to them but I simply clean them with soap and water. I may have any extraneous metal ground off. After using both, I think I prefer the aluminum bars as well. Could you tell me why you prefer aluminum? After having completed my first batch using the bars, I have a better perspective on what I am doing. First, wrapping the bars in foil does not work. It made me feel better, but when I started to cut the ganache free from the bars, little bits of foil were embedded in the ganache. So today I took some steel wool to the bars (not that it smoothed them off, but my theory was that it was getting off any dirt), then washed them thoroughly, and used them bare for the second batch. If any of my friends die from SS poisoning, I'll let you know. I used your idea of gluing the bars to the base and to each other with chocolate. Worked quite well. I do like the heft of the SS because it doesn't move around. I am using Kerry's idea of putting the foot down first, then I lay the bars in place on top of the chocolate, then add the ganache, but I ran into the problem of knowing how much space the foot needs to cover (the area of the finished product inside the frame plus the width of the bars). The first time I thought I was being clever in drawing guide marks on the back of the parchment, never realizing that the chocolate would cover up the guide lines. Today I found some tape that will stick to parchment and so will outline the area with that before laying down the foot. I'm hoping I will learn what I am doing as time passes. Good thing I am just doing this for my own satisfaction. .

Thanks for both of those useful ideas. Straining hazelnut paste through a chinoise! I am impressed. And I thought getting the seeds out of raspberries was tedious. Actually I don't mind the nut remnants in the paste as far as taste goes. One of the great advantages of dipping ganache, it seems to me, is that it opens up a whole new world of what ganache can be since there isn't the limitation of making it pass through the tiny tip of a pastry bag into a shell. But as I said, cutting the ganache when it is contains nuts is another matter. Jim

I just completed my first effort (aside from truffles) at dipping ganache in chocolate (Andrew Shotts's Coffee-Hazelnut). Fairly successful, tastes great, but the hazelnut praline paste (homemade, as he suggests, but you can't really get it smooth at home) made cutting neat squares difficult, so some of the finished product is a little rough (can we say "homemade-looking"?). Another issue in cutting was that for the bottom I used untempered (as many people recommend) milk chocolate (I heated it to around 104 F. and then used it), but it still became quite firm and did not cut cleanly. But my question is what to do with the chocolate used for dipping? Ordinarily I let such chocolate harden and reuse it another time, but there are decidedly bits of praline in this. I wouldn't bother asking, but I had to use a sizable amount of chocolate to get the pool deep enough for dipping, so what would you do with the leftover? Just turn it into filling for another batch of chocolates? I'm assuming it should not be used for future dipping, except perhaps for the same recipe. Thanks for any advice.

Kerry, Those are beautiful. I especially love the marble effect on the second ones. When you have a chance, could you let me know what mold you used for the domed chocolates? Thanks.

I just received my stainless steel bars to be used for a frame. Although they are nice and heavy, they are very rough in looks and touch. Obviously nothing was done in the factory to polish them. I guess I was naively expecting something like a nice SS pot and would not feel comfortable putting these bars in direct contact with ganache. Does anyone have suggestions? The only thing I can think of is to wrap them in foil or plastic wrap. But this would be a nuisance--would have to be repeated each time I use them. So even if I found a place to polish them, would they be considered food safe? I have never given food safety a consideration with SS pots and pans, but these bars are a different story.

Thanks for that suggestion. It also appears that Keylink ships to the US, so I will pursue this option. I appreciate your help.

Thanks very much for those ideas. I have ordered stainless bars. My concern remains how stable they will be when I am smoothing the ganache, but I will soon find out. Someone mentioned taping them down if necessary. I will have to do something like taping when making a two-layer ganache. If you happen to have melted, tempered chocolate on hand, it makes a handy "glue" for the bars to the "table" and between the first set of bars and the 2nd set on top. You don't need much, and it cleans off rather easily with warm water and soap! Thanks very much for that idea. I will definitely give it a try.

Kerry, That appears to be the only copy of that book available anywhere. With shipping and duty, it will be over $100 (and I am not yet sure that the seller will ship to the U.S.). If you have a minute, can you give me your opinion as to whether it is worth it for learning about a variety of fillings. It sounds as if it would be very helpful, and I am puzzled as to why it is not more readily available, even in the U.K.

Thanks very much for those ideas. I have ordered stainless bars. My concern remains how stable they will be when I am smoothing the ganache, but I will soon find out. Someone mentioned taping them down if necessary. I will have to do something like taping when making a two-layer ganache.

I realize that I am coming to this thread very late but am just getting to the point where I want to try slabbed ganache and other items for which a frame is required. So I hope someone will reply to my questions about frames. There are significant differences among authors on the size of the frame required: Greweling's recipes call for a 144 sq. in. frame, Notter's are for 112.5 sq, in., and Shotts's are for 64 sq. in. Fixed-size frames that I saw online vary significantly in size: J.B. Prince's are 90.25 sq. in., Tomric's are 225 sq. in. So unless I am willing to do some rather complex calculations and adjusting of recipes to match a fixed-sized frame, it seems that movable bars are the way to go. On the thread to which I am replying Chris Hennes and David J. use this method. I found some stainless steel bars for a reasonable price online and have a few questions about them: 1. If I pour the chocolate "foot" first (the method Notter and many others use) and put the bars in place before the chocolate hardens, they should stay put while I am pouring and leveling ganache. And it would seem the bond between the chocolate and the bars would contain the ganache without leakage. But what about occasions when I am making something more liquid, such as pâté de fruit, when there is no chocolate? How could I keep the bars in place, and how could I keep the liquid from leaking under the bars? 2. What about recipes that call for adding a second layer to a ganache? How would keep I the four upper bars in place? I will be grateful for any thoughts on these issues. Jim

Thanks very much for replying. It is exactly the information I needed.

I intend to purchase a couple of magnetic molds for chocolates. Most standard places (J.B. Prince, Bakedeco, e.g.) have them for around $47, but I note that Tomric's are $67. Is there some significant difference I should be aware of? Perhaps metal vs. plastic base? It appears that most produce chocolates that are approx. 1/2" tall. Is that a correct assumption? (I ask because I have had trouble with buying regular molds that vary too much in size--not all sites provide the weight of chocolate the cavity holds (J.B. Prince does not) and the dimensions of the cavity have limited usefulness for judging how large the praline will be). Thanks for any help.