Jim D.

Chris, On the heating invert sugar issue, there was a thread about this previously. From Kerry Beal: We have had this discussion before about overheating invert sugar - which seems to have originated with something Wybauw said. Is there any evidence that overheating invert sugar really does change it's chemical structure in a way that negatively impacts shelf life and taste? Answer from lironp: I asked him about that in the course I took with him- He said that he found that to be true only for one type of inverted sugar he had worked with that had been inverted with some sort of chemical, (that is not really available to purchase), instead of the traditional way (which is what confectioners usually buy). I don't remember the details of the whole explanation, or the differences between the sugars, but at the end he explained that there is no problem boiling the invert sugar that we usually buy, and the one we used in the course.

It must be true that he doesn't mean this as a general rule, BUT the rule I mentioned occurs on page 151 under the heading "butter ganache ratios," where he says, "A basic milk or white chocolate butter ganache must contain approximately 2.5 parts chocolate to 1 part liquefier in order to create a similar texture to the 2:1 dark chocolate butter ganache." That is fairly definitive. Even if we accept that he says "approximately," a discrepancy of 850 g vs. 360 g is quite a discrepancy. I am bringing all this up because I am in the process of trying to devise a fruit ganache that has strong flavor and had more or less settled on butter ganache as the best way of accomplishing the goal. I would like to use as little chocolate as possible so as not to hide the fruit flavor, but I don't feel that I understand Greweling's proportions enough to trust the recipes in his book, which seem to deviate so much from his basic directions..

In his introduction to butter ganache in Chocolates and Confections (1st ed.), Peter Greweling says clearly that there must be 2.5 times as much white or milk chocolate as liquefiers in the formula. Yet in all his recipes that use white or milk chocolate, the amount of chocolate is nowhere near 2.5 times the amount of liquefiers (flavorings + butter). In the strawberry balsamic, e.g., the liquefiers add up to 340 g, so the amount of chocolate should be 850 g, yet he calls for 360 g of chocolate. And these recipes I am speaking of are for slabbed ganache, not piped. so they are not meant to be especially soft. I had a problem when I tried to make one of the ganaches (it never really hardened), and given his 2.5 rule, I am no longer surprised. Am I missing something, or is there some problem with the recipes? Any insights would be appreciated.

I made invert sugar with more or less the same recipe (used cream of tartar instead of lemon juice, as recommended by Chef Eddy in his blog) and cooked it to 236F. Mine has crystallized quite a bit in the refrigerator, but I just melt it enough to liquefy it and go ahead and use it. Does yours stay liquid even when chilled? I wonder whether mine is OK to use or whether the crystallization has harmed it in some way. I would guess that the temp rose too far above 236 after I took it off the heat.

Actually, Kerry, it is helpful to know that the MEC3 strawberry is good. I like the fact that Qzina posts their prices and would be inclined to go with the Gustosia (MEC3) products. I'm not a fan of sites that don't provide prices. What is the source for the fruit powders you use?

I have been reading postings on fruit compounds and powders for use in getting more intense flavors in ganaches (to be used for chocolates, specifically in cream centers) and have a few questions: FRUIT COMPOUNDS A number of posters do not like compounds, saying they contain artificial flavorings. I looked at the Amoretti site, and their ingredients (insofar as I could find them) seem to be natural. All opinions of Amoretti products on eGullet appeared to be very positive. I also saw good things about MEC3 products, which appear in Gustosia compounds, available at Qzina for fairly moderate prices--as these things go--but I couldn't find any ingredient lists. Albert Uster sells compounds (a kilo of raspberry is $77), but ingredient information is not provided. Pastry Chef Central carries Dreidoppel (which has received one less-than-stellar review on this site). Most posts on these subjects, however, are rather old. So my questions on compounds are: 1. Are Amoretti and Gustosia products still rated high by eG members? The Albert Uster compounds? Any others you would recommend--or not recommend? 2. I could not tell from the Amoretti site whether they sell directly to (small) consumers. Does anybody know that? And, assuming they do: Since there are no prices on their site, approximately how much does a 1-kilo container of fruit compound cost? FRUIT POWDERS Some chocolatiers like fruit powders (freeze-dried) to flavor fillings (for one thing, they do not add any liquid), and here there appear to be many sources. Van Drunen Farms looks promising for these products, but they state online that they do not sell directly to individual consumers. L'Epicerie and Chef Rubber carry fruit powders as well. So my questions on powders: 3. Do these powders have an authentic fruit flavor? 4. What sources for them do you recommend? Many thanks for any help in my continuing quest ("obsession" is such an ugly word) to obtain a real punch of fruit taste in cream fillings for chocolates. I am seeking to avoid use of much fondant as I think it gives a "flat" taste to things, much like making buttercream frosting with confectioner's sugar, and it dulls the taste of fruit.

Kerry, I just tried the raspberry centers. Unfortunately I didn't have time to get the raspberry compound, so I am sure I am lacking the raspberry punch that would provide. The color is beautiful. My concern is that the filling is not yet firming up (just slightly firmer after about 45 minutes). I know some fillings take longer than others. I had not used fondant before, so am not sure I did it correctly. I made my own, and it was quite firm, so I heated it, finally microwaving it to get to the temp. you specified (which, I am assuming, was in Celsius). It finally liquefied, but the second I poured it into the food processor, it got hard again and didn't fully mix with the soft butter. But I persevered and poured in the white chocolate, then added the raspberry purée. With an immersion blender (which has saved my derrière many times) I got it very smooth, and some raspberry eau-de-vie added flavor. The citric acid (my first time for using that) also added a punch and counteracted the sweetness of the fondant. My questions are: did I use the fondant correctly? And, most importantly, since I promised someone raspberry-filled chocolates, what can I do to firm it up enough to use? Add butter? Add white chocolate? White choc. can be so temperamental, but it would certainly make the filling firmer (though it would hide some of the raspberry flavor I now have). Any suggestions would be most welcome. I don't want to fill the shells until I know if the filling will work. Jim I use this one in molded shells - so it's not firm enough to scoop. To make it firmer you could add some cocoa butter +/- more white chocolate. The fondant that I start with is not hard - so it isn't really difficult to get the butter to incorporate. Cocoa butter is a great idea (that I should have thought of). Thanks.

Kerry, I just tried the raspberry centers. Unfortunately I didn't have time to get the raspberry compound, so I am sure I am lacking the raspberry punch that would provide. The color is beautiful. My concern is that the filling is not yet firming up (just slightly firmer after about 45 minutes). I know some fillings take longer than others. I had not used fondant before, so am not sure I did it correctly. I made my own, and it was quite firm, so I heated it, finally microwaving it to get to the temp. you specified (which, I am assuming, was in Celsius). It finally liquefied, but the second I poured it into the food processor, it got hard again and didn't fully mix with the soft butter. But I persevered and poured in the white chocolate, then added the raspberry purée. With an immersion blender (which has saved my derrière many times) I got it very smooth, and some raspberry eau-de-vie added flavor. The citric acid (my first time for using that) also added a punch and counteracted the sweetness of the fondant. My questions are: did I use the fondant correctly? And, most importantly, since I promised someone raspberry-filled chocolates, what can I do to firm it up enough to use? Add butter? Add white chocolate? White choc. can be so temperamental, but it would certainly make the filling firmer (though it would hide some of the raspberry flavor I now have). Any suggestions would be most welcome. I don't want to fill the shells until I know if the filling will work. Jim

Was the first mold placed under a window or a cool place? To get a nice shine, you want the mold to be within 10C of the working temp of the chocolate - so waving a heatgun over the mold quickly before you pour the chocolate in can help too No, the first mold was placed on the counter where the second mold was waiting. It was a magnetic mold, but that is the only difference. I have been cautious about heating the molds because either they have a transfer sheet in them or are decorated with colored cocoa butter, and I have read so many horror stories about chocolates not unmolding with cocoa butter in the bottom that I have stayed away from heat. Do you think I should ignore any concern about heating the molds? Jim

I was afraid you were going to say you scrape the mold while it is still upside down. I have seen others do that in videos. It looks very difficult to do, especially with larger molds, given that one is holding them on only one end with one hand (some are narrow enough that I can hold them with a spread hand, but the ones with 4 rows across are another matter). In any event I will certainly give it a try. It is a good idea to wait a while for the chocolate to get mixed thoroughly. I will try that next time. Thanks for all the tips. Jim

As I have continued to practice with making shells, I have improved in some ways but have run into problems as well and thought I would ask once again for any suggestions: I won't ask for help with one problem because I feel sure there is no rational explanation: Yesterday I used my Chocovision machine to temper enough chocolate for two molds. The first was almost a disaster: too much chocolate stayed in the cavities (confession: before the chocolate set, I used a small spoon to dig out enough room for the filling--I think the finished product will look fine, but it doesn't please me). The second mold, poured from the same chocolate a couple of minutes later and filled with the same technique and timing, came out perfectly--nice thin shells. So I don't think it was my technique, and I am sure it was not the viscosity of the chocolate that was an issue. That is what makes working with chocolate such a challenge. But I do need help on this: After I turn the mold upside down and tap it and wait for the chocolate to drop, I turn the mold right side up and scrape it. (Here I must express appreciation to pastrygirl for her recommendation of the 8" scraper from Chef Rubber--it has made a huge difference.) I have read that it is best to leave the mold upside down for some time for more of the chocolate to fall out so that the bottom won't get too thick from the settling chocolate. So I have devised a way to prop the mold up on two supports. I found that if I placed it upside down directly on parchment, the drips were "folded under" and became hardened as projections on the cavities--they did not show in the end, but made filling the cavities more difficult. So with suspending the mold I thought I had eliminated that problem. I wait for the chocolate to get somewhat firm, then turn the mold over and scrape it once again, removing the "stalactites" that have formed. But as I scrape, those projections get pushed into the cavities, and I end with the same problem as before. I notice in one of the above photos from chocolot that she has very tiny projections on some of the tops, but they are very minor (mine are not). So am I waiting too long to remove the drips or am I not waiting long enough? Any help would be appreciated.

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. .