Newbie Wondering About Bonbon Filling Shelf Life

[wannabechocolatier]

Hey guys, I was just wondering if there are any rules of thumb I should follow with regard to the stability of a filling. 

 

If I'm going to give bonbons as gifts, I wouldn't want the fillings to spoil before they're eaten. Would make a great gift into a terrible one pretty quickly. 

 

At the same time, having total creative freedom to make fillings however aqueous I'd like would be great. I'd just keep in mind that they'd have to be eaten before X days. 

 

Any tips on how to navigate this process? What have you learned by doing so on your own? Thanks!

 

(Note: I don't plan on selling)

Edited August 16, 2021 by wannabechocolatier (log)

[Jim D.]

10 hours ago, wannabechocolatier said:

Hey guys, I was just wondering if there are any rules of thumb I should follow with regard to the stability of a filling. 

 

If I'm going to give bonbons as gifts, I wouldn't want the fillings to spoil before they're eaten. Would make a great gift into a terrible one pretty quickly. 

 

At the same time, having total creative freedom to make fillings however aqueous I'd like would be great. I'd just keep in mind that they'd have to be eaten before X days. 

 

Any tips on how to navigate this process? What have you learned by doing so on your own? Thanks!

 

(Note: I don't plan on selling)

 

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.

[wannabechocolatier]

18 minutes ago, Jim D. said:

 

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.

 

Yeah, I've gone through a few Aw posts, I was just wondering if there were any rules of thumb to be followed to give a rough idea about where you're at with regard to water activity. Things you can control for reasonably well, like maybe ratios of water to glucose syrup to get to particular Aw values. Or maybe charts for common ingredient combinations and ratios leading to a particular Aw. I know there's some software out there, but that, along with the Aw meter, is out of my teeny-tiny hobbyist budget. I haven't even gotten around to figuring out which chocolates I'm going to get

 

Guess I'll just have to follow prewritten recipes for now! I assume most of the formulas in Greweling's book are stable for at least a week or two. I wish he included Aw along with each recipe. He does provide this graphic, however, which is somewhat useful: 

Edited August 16, 2021 by wannabechocolatier (log)

[Jim D.]

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).

[wannabechocolatier]

8 minutes ago, Jim D. said:

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).

Thanks for the tips! Will check that Wybauw fellow out.

[keychris]

On 8/17/2021 at 12:22 AM, wannabechocolatier said:

 

 

The pedant scientist in me needs to point out that the symbol that's been used there in the bottom left cell is > which is "greater than". They mean < (less than). Obviously.

[Jim D.]

3 hours ago, keychris said:

 

The pedant scientist in me needs to point out that the symbol that's been used there in the bottom left cell is > which is "greater than". They mean < (less than). Obviously.

 

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.

[minas6907]

2 hours ago, Jim D. said:

 

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.

That's very interesting, do you have a link to that interview? Recently I got the second edition on Kindle, I saw a sentence under 'Fats' on page 272 that is clearly missing spaces. I was thinking no way this is in the printed edition, and yep, it sure is. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by minas6907
Forgot to put the page number! (log)

[Jim D.]

2 hours ago, minas6907 said:

That's very interesting, do you have a link to that interview? Recently I got the second edition on Kindle, I saw a sentence under 'Fats' on page 272 that is clearly missing spaces. I was thinking no way this is in the printed edition, and yep, it sure is. 

 

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.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Jim D. (log)