• Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create an account.

  • product-image-quickten.png.a40203b506711f7664fc62024e54a584.pngDid you know that these all-volunteer forums are operated by the 501(c)3 not-for-profit Society for Culinary Arts & Letters? This holiday season, consider a tax-deductible Quick Ten Bucks to support the eG Forums and help us remain completely advertising-free. Thanks to all those who have donated so far!

paulraphael

Spherified chocolate

15 posts in this topic

So, half a decade or so after everyone got sick of spherification I decided to start doing it. I needed to bring something to an erotic dessert party, and thought chocolate truffles that explode in the mouth would be the ticket.

It worked pretty well. People loved them, and made incredible faces, wondering about what was going on in there. One friend said they were like "yolks of the ganache vulture" ... a name that has stuck.

Unfortunately, making them was a gross process. My assumption that a mellon baller would work for scooping the cold ganache into the alginate was thwarted by their crumbly texture. I ended up forming the balls by hand, which left me looking like I was covered in poop.

Here's the recipe (it's for reverse spherification):

175g heavy cream

30g liqueur

15g sugar

3.2g calcium chloride

100g dark chocolate, chopped

The chocolate is chilled in the freezer before making balls, and then

soaked in hot water to melt the centers before serving.

Two thoughts I had are substituting invert syrup for the sugar, and adding gelatin (enough to give them better adhesion while cold, but not so much as to thicken them noticeably while melted).

Any better ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erotic dessert party?

Never tried thickening the spheres with gelatin, but xanthan gum works like a charm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could freeze the base in sphere (or any other shape, i.e. the mini savarins Johnny Iuzzini used when he made mini donuts using this method) molds.

As an aside, you didn't experience any unpleasant taste from using calcium chloride in your base?


It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about freezing in molds but was hoping for something easier.

I don't want to use xanthan because i want to mimimally influence the texture when it's melted. I just want it to adhere to iteself better so it's not just a mess when making the balls. If I could use a mellon baller that would be great.

No unpleasant taste in the chocolate from the calcium chloride, but I made some spherized straweberry this morning that tasted like road salt. It's an acquired taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine anything easier than freezing the base in molds. It's faster than scooping frozen or liquid base and easier to work with. Just pop what you need out of the molds, drop them in the bath and go do something else for a few minutes.

I don't know if I have some sort of mutant sensitivity to calcium chloride but when I tried using it in reverse spheres several years ago following recipes from big-name chefs, I had to throw the results in the trash every time. I remember thinking "How are they getting away with this in their restaurants?". Then I began to wonder if it was just me since people were obviously eating these dishes at the restaurants. The unpleasantness I experienced would not have been overlooked in favor of cool factor so I never really found an answer to why it was so offensive to me. I've since used calcium lactate and lactate/gluconate exclusively for those projects. I've never used calcium chloride in a base like you're doing so maybe what you use it in is a factor.


It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I like the idea of avoiding the calcium chloride flavor. In the chocolate it just tasted like salt, but it ruined the fruit.

Do the lactate and gluconate not have flavor? Are there problems with making those substitutions?

I'd be grateful for recommendations on sphere molds. never used them. Sounds like they're easier Than i had assumed.


Edited by paulraphael (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making it too hard. Try this:

  • Make simple syrup by adding 3 cups of sugar to 3 cups of water, stirring, and boil until the sugar is completely dissolved. Cool the syrup, which can be made up to a week ahead of time and chilled, covered.
  • Wash and dry 4 ripe mangoes. Using a sharp knife, cut the mangoes lengthwise alongside the pit. Scoop out the flesh, and cut the remaining flesh from the pit. Put in a blender along with one cup of the simple syrup and 3 tbls of lime juice. Puree until smooth. Pour into an ice tray with spherical compartments (Gourmac.com), put the lid on, and wrap with rubber bands to tightly close it. Freeze overnight.
  • Mix 75% cocoa butter with a 25% white chocolate (Valhrona), and a little coconut milk powder if desired. Heat in the microwave, stirring occasionally, until just melted and a uniform consistency. If you don't like the color, add a little chocolate powder.
  • Put a plate in the freezer and remove the ice cube from the trays. Wearing latex gloves, roll them in your hands to smooth them out and return to the freezer (on the plate). When the cocoa butter/chocolate mixture is ready, start dipping the sorbet balls. Just drop them in, and take them out one at a time. The cocoa butter will set up immediately.
  • After dipping, let them thaw in the refrigerator, so that the sorbet melts but the cocoa butter/chocolate doesn’t.
  • Serve on a spoon, and instruct the guest to pop the entire ball into their mouth all at once. They will almost explode.

To complete the erotic dessert theme, you could try peeling and chilling (but don't freeze) a banana, into which you inserted a bamboo skewer. Dip the banana (all but the last inch) into the cocoa butter and white chocolate. Poke the bottom end of the skewer into something that would hold it upright -- perhaps a sliced raw potato? Put it into the fridge to chill the chocolate. Once chilled, and before serving, remove the skewer.

Soak coconut shavings in lukewarm coffee to stain them a dark brown.

Serve the banana, mango/chocolate balls, and the coconut shavings -- well, use your imagination.

I've served the mango/chocolate balls as a nice intermezzo, but haven't tried the banana. Let me know how it works out.

Happy Valentines Day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds great, Robert, but it's a different dessert. It also sounds harder, not easier. Hand-rolling to make smooth balls was one part of my process I'm trying to eliminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't you make/keep the base more liquid, and just drop it into the solution with, say, a turkey baster, or even a small ladle/portion scoop? Also, since you mention submerged the spheres to warm them, it sounds like rinsing them wouldn't be an issue, and direct spherification might be worth looking into, since any residual calcium chloride would be rinsed away.


Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't you make/keep the base more liquid, and just drop it into the solution with, say, a turkey baster, or even a small ladle/portion scoop?

This may be the simplest solution. I should probably try it before the others. The recipe could stay the same; it will be liquid enough when it's still warm.

Also, since you mention submerged the spheres to warm them, it sounds like rinsing them wouldn't be an issue, and direct spherification might be worth looking into, since any residual calcium chloride would be rinsed away.

Is this true? Does all the chloride get rinsed off? I thought spheres made this way would continue to thicken over time. Especially with ganache, since the cream must have some calcium in it.

If this isn't an issue I'll try standard spherification. If not I'm interested in other sources of calcium, like the lactate Tri 2 Cook mentioned.


Edited by paulraphael (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spheres continuing to gel over time is an issue with the standard method but it may not be an issue in this case depending on the result you want. Johnny Iuzzini's Chocolate Donuts are just a sphered (or, in this case, donuted) ganache stabilized with methylcellulose (to avoid seperation when heated). He uses an alginate solution in the ganache and a calcium gluconate bath. They're frozen in the mini savarin molds, dropped in the bath, breaded with panko and chilled in the fridge until ready to fry. After frying, they're crispy on the outside and warm and creamy on the inside. They are not approaching a liquid-state that will burst from the gel skin when bitten though. I haven't tried it but I'm pretty sure the reverse method and dropping the methylcellulose would allow for that. The ganache softens in the fryer but the gelling from the methylcellulose and the alginate don't allow for a return to liquid.

Subbing lactate or lactate/gluconate does require some minor adjusting. The lactate doesn't have a taste I notice in all but the lightest of flavors but requires using more for a given recipe than the chloride. The gluconate doesn't have a taste in anything I've tried it in but requires even more than the lactate. The lactate/gluconate is a good balance if you're doing a lot of really lightly flavored projects, otherwise you'll probably be fine with the lactate.

Cheap and effective sphere molds... http://www.gourmac.c...ceballtray.html


It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . .

Also, since you mention submerged the spheres to warm them, it sounds like rinsing them wouldn't be an issue, and direct spherification might be worth looking into, since any residual calcium chloride would be rinsed away.

Is this true? Does all the chloride get rinsed off? I thought spheres made this way would continue to thicken over time. Especially with ganache, since the cream must have some calcium in it.

If this isn't an issue I'll try standard spherification. If not I'm interested in other sources of calcium, like the lactate Tri 2 Cook mentioned.

MC on direct spherification (4-186):

'Rinsing [with clear water] slows the gelling process and washes away any lingering flavors from the setting solution. Rinse the spheres at least twice. Remove with a perforated spoon. Optionally, heat to 85 °C / 185 °F for 10 min to stop further solidification. Store the spheres in water or oil until needed.'

I don't speak from experience, since I've only attempted reverse spherification, but my next effort in this direction is definitely going to involve direct spherification, since I'm hoping the results will be a bit sturdier.


Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was expecting that calcium in the milk and cream would be enough for the reverse spherification (100 gr chocolate, 100 gr 35% fat cream and 100 gr milk), but it did not form and gel at all in the 7% alginate solution. Is it possible that chocolate reacts with the calcium in the milk/cream so there is none or little left for the spherification?

Any recommendations for the amount of lactate or lactate/gluconate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I estimate that there's just over 110mg calcium in this recipe from the cream, which wouldn't be enough. I did some calculations and came up with the following:

175g heavy cream

30g liqueur

15g sugar

9g calcium gluconate-lactate

1g salt

100g dark chocolate, chopped

This is assuming the mixture sold as gluconate-lactate is 50:50. This brings the total calcium to just below where it was with the chloride recipe (I didn't even take the cream into account when I worked it out before).

I'll see how making spheres from liquid ganache goes. If I flub that, then I'll try the freezer molds. Thanks for all the great advice.


Edited by paulraphael (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By TdeV
      Is it possible to put a rub on a sous vide item?
       
      I'm cooking pig wings here and I'm trying to figure how to finish them. This looks good but would require a rub.
    • By Choky
      At least in Europe comercial chocolate tablets are getting thinner. Usually 6mm thick and of course bigger in area.
       
      But I don't manage to find that kind of molds at manufacturer's sites (80 or 100g). Or at least choice is very limited.
       
      Why? Maybe too thin for manual unmolding? Or they just use bigger molds and fill partially? 
       
      Thanks!
    • By Damnfine
      I have a box of truffle shells that were not stored properly and have bloomed. If I fill and dip them in tempered chocolate, will the newly dipped chocolate bloom due to the layer underneath it, or will the outer layer seal the under layer and keep them looking nice?
    • By eG Forums Host
      Introduction

      Welcome to the index for the Sous Vide: Recipes, Techniques, & Equipment topic, one of the largest and most influential topics on eG Forums. (The topic has been closed to keep the index stable and reliable; you can find another general SV discussion topic here.) This index is intended to help you navigate the thousands of posts and discussions to make this rich resource more useful and accessible.

      In order to understand sous vide cooking, it's best to clear up some misconceptions and explain some basics. Sous vide cooking involves vacuum-sealing food in a plastic bag and cooking it in a water bath at precise temperatures. Though it translates literally as "under vacuum," "Sous vide" is often taken to mean "under pressure," which is a misnomer; not all SV cooking involves food cooked in conditions that exceed atmospheric pressure. (See below.) In addition, calculations for SV cooking involve not only time and temperature but also thickness. Finally, due to the anaerobic conditions inside the bag and the low temperatures used, food safety issues are paramount.

      You can read the basics of SV cooking and equipment here. In the summer of 2005, Nathan Myhrvold (Society member nathanm) posted this informative, "I'm now going to answer my own initial questions" post, which addresses just about everything up to that point. For what came next, read on -- and be sure to order Nathan Myhrvold's highly anticipated Modernist Cuisine book, due in spring 2011.

      As with all indexes of on-going discussions, this one has limitations. We've done our best to create a user-friendly taxonomy emphasizing the categories that have come up repeatedly. In addition, the science, technology, and recipes changed over time, and opinions varied greatly, so be sure to read updated information whenever possible.

      Therefore, we strongly encourage you to keep these issues in mind when reading the topic, and particularly when considering controversial topics related to food safety, doneness, delta T cooking, and so on. Don't read a first post's definitive claim without reading down the topic, where you'll likely find discussion, if not heated debate or refutation, of that claim. Links go to the first post in a series that may be discontinuous, so be sure to scan a bit more to get the full discussion.

      Recipes were chosen based solely on having a clear set of information, not on merit. Indeed, we've included several stated failures for reference. Where possible, recipes include temperature and time in the link label -- but remember that thickness is also a crucial variable in many SV preparations. (See below for more information on thickness.)

      History, Philosophy & Value of SV/LTLT Cooking

      Over the years, we've talked quite a bit about SV as a concept, starting with this discussion about how SV cooking got started. There have also been several people who asked, Why bother with SV in the first place? (See also this discussion.) What with all the electronics and plastic bags, we asked: Does SV food lack passion? Finally, there have been several discussions about the value of SV cooking in other eG Forums topics, such as the future of SV cooking, No More Sous Vide -- PLEASE!, is SV "real cooking," and what's the appeal of SV?

      Those who embrace SV initially seek ideas about the best applications for their new equipment. Discussions have focused on what a first SV meal should be -- see also this discussion -- and on the items for which SV/LTLT cooking is best suited. There's much more along those lines here, here, and here.

      Vacuums and Pressure in Sous Vide Cooking

      As mentioned above, there has been great confusion about vacuums, pressure, and their role SV cooking. Here is a selection of discussion points on the subject, arranged chronologically; please note that later posts in a given discussion may refute earlier ones:

      Do you need a vacuum for SV cooking, and, if so, why? What exactly is a "vacuum"? Click here, here, and ff. Are items in vacuum-sealed bags "under pressure"? Does a vacuum sealer create a vacuum inside the bag? Do you really need a vacuum, or can you use ZipLoc bags? Also see here, here, and here. If "sous vide" means "under pressure," aren't the items in the bag under pressure? There is more along these lines to be found in this discussion.  

      The Charts

      We've collected the most important of many charts in the SV topic here. Standing above the rest are Nathan Myhrvold's charts for cooking time versus thickness and desired core temperature. We worked with him to create these three reformatted protein tables, for beef, fish, and chicken & pork.

      Nathan provides additional information on his charts here. Information on how to read these charts can be found in this post. For an explanation of "rest time" in Nathan's tables, click here.

      Other Society members helped out as well. Douglas Baldwin references his heating time table for different geometric factors (slab/cylinder/sphere) here; the pdf itself can be found here. pounce created a post with all three tables as neatly formatted images. derekslager created two monospace font charts of Nathan's meat table and his fish table.

      Camano Chef created a cumulative chart with information gathered from other sources including Thomas Keller's Ad Hoc. Douglas Baldwin shared this chart devoted to pasteurizing poultry. PedroG detailed heat loss and steady state energy consumption of sous vide cookers in these charts.

      Finally, there is also an eG Forums topic on cooling rates that may be of interest.

      Acknowledgment & Comments

      This index was built by Chris Amirault, Director, eG Forums. It was reviewed by the eGullet Society volunteer team as well as many Society members. Please send questions or comments to Chris via messenger or email.
       
       
    • By TdeV
      Wikipedia defines pork wings as: a pork product made from the fibula of a pig's shank - a single bone surrounded by lean, tender meat.
      Images from the internet look like a finger-size bit of meat around a bone.
      Mine, however, look more like the meat (lots) which surrounds a bone. My butcher called this cut pork wings.
      You can see on the right that there's a small amount of bone.
         
       
      My butcher said he regularly ate SEVERAL of these. But this one measures 15 oz (425g).
      He also said it had to be cooked slowly.
       
      So, if I cook these sous vide, what temp and for how long?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.