Unsweetened chocolate

[BettyK]

I know very little about chocolate...so I would really appreciate your help here.

When a recipe calls for unsweetened chocolate, can I use Lindt 58% Bittersweet?

I'd rather stick with Lindt as that's what is the most available here.

Is unsweetened same as couverture?

[Carolyn Tillie]

Nope. Bittersweet is sweetened. Unsweetened has no sugar whatsoever.

Definitions of Couverture on the Web:

a term generally used to describe high-quality chocolate used by professionals in confectionery and baked products. In Europe, by law, Couverture must contain at least 32% cocoa butter. No other fats or oils can be used.

www.burdickchocolate.com/glos.shtml

Couverture is a term used to describe professional-quality coating chocolate with a high percentage of cocoa butter, at least 32%, and as high as 39% for good quality couverture. The extra cocoa butter allows the chocolate to form a thinner coating shell than non-couverture chocolate.

www.chocolatesource.com/glossary/index.asp

A term describing professional quality coating chocolate that is extremely glossy. It usually contains a minimum of 32% cocoa butter, which enables it to form a much thinner shell than ordinary confectionary coating. Couverture is usually only found in specialty candy making shops. You often find it as the chocolate that surrounds chocolate covered fruits, or as the shell of fancy filled chocolates.

www.chocolatemonthclub.com/glossary.htm

very high quality chocolate with at least 32% cocoa butter making it ideal for coatings and other decorating techniques. It must be tempered (see Techniques) before use.

chocolate.allinfo-about.com/features/glossary.html

Couverture means that the chocolate is of premium quality. Chocolate must contain a minimum 31% cocoa butter.

www.belgiandelights.com.au/information/glossary.htm

The French word for chocolate raw material used by pastry chefs and chocolatiers.

www.gigischocolates.com/definitions.html

chocolate that contains at least 32 percent cocoa butter

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

[skrattypants]

i do not think lindt has an unsweetened product at retail (or food service, for that matter, but i might be wrong).

if you're in a small town, you may need to stick to baker's unsweetened chocolate if you have no other choices. scharffen berger unsweetened is a good, readily available choice. dagoba prima materia is the best if you have access to it.

if you can find NO unsweetened chocolate, depending on your recipe you can substitute cocoa powder with a certain amount of fat, but this isn't ideal.

[scott123]

i do not think lindt has an unsweetened product at retail (or food service, for that matter, but i might be wrong).

if you're in a small town, you may need to stick to baker's unsweetened chocolate if you have no other choices.  scharffen berger unsweetened is a good, readily available choice.  dagoba prima materia is the best if you have access to it.

if you can find NO unsweetened chocolate, depending on your recipe you can substitute cocoa powder with a certain amount of fat, but this isn't ideal.

←

I've heard from a few sources that a high end cocoa like valrhona is good, but I'm fairly skeptical. The processing involved to extract the cocoa butter has to effect the flavor of the chocolate solids in some way. And then replacing that cocoa butter with a different kind of fat? Well, that's just asking for trouble.

I wouldn't feed baker's unsweetened chocolate to my worst enemy. It is that vile *shuddering* Bitter, chalky, and harsh. If you're going to go with an typical supermarket chocolate, go with Nestles baking chocolate. Although the texture is a bit grainy, the flavor is far superior to bakers.

Scharffenberger is not for everyone. Although it has the strongest flavor of any chocolate I've eaten, it has a very noticeable acidic twang to it. Raisiny.

Lindt is not the ultimate in chocolate, but it is a good grade none the less. Would it be possible to go with the bittersweet and then compensate by adding some extra lindt and subtracting sugar from the recipe?

What is this for? What other brands of chocolate do you have access to?

[Prueitt]

For basic baking uses, you may substitute sweetened chocolate for unsweetened as long as you subtract 1Tbs of sugar for each ounce of chocolate.

[BettyK]

I've heard from a few sources that a high end cocoa like valrhona is good, but I'm fairly skeptical. The processing involved to extract the cocoa butter has to effect the flavor of the chocolate solids in some way.  And then replacing that cocoa butter with a different kind of fat? Well, that's just asking for trouble.

I wouldn't feed baker's unsweetened chocolate to my worst enemy. It is that vile *shuddering* Bitter, chalky, and harsh. If you're going to go with an typical supermarket chocolate, go with Nestles baking chocolate.  Although the texture is a bit grainy, the flavor is far superior to bakers.

Scharffenberger is not for everyone. Although it has the strongest flavor of any chocolate I've eaten, it has a very noticeable acidic twang to it.  Raisiny.

Lindt is not the ultimate in chocolate, but it is a good grade none the less.  Would it be possible to go with the bittersweet and then compensate by adding some extra lindt and subtracting sugar from the recipe?

What is this for? What other brands of chocolate do you have access to?

←

That's why I've been avoiding any recipe calling for unsweetened chocolate as the only one available here is Baker's. I live in the boonies so my only access is through the internet and for now the only Canadian source I know is Golda's. Any other Canadian source would be very helpful.

I don't have any particular recipe in mind - just for future reference.

When I go to the big city I'll see if I can find some baking chocolate other than Baker's.

[scott123]

Callebaut is my favorite chocolate (unsweetened or otherwise). They have some stores in Canada, as well as online catalog sales based in Canada, but I couldn't find unsweetened chocolate on the list.

Until you find something better, the lindt will serve you well. The tablespoon/ounce conversion Prueitt mentioned is a good ballpark, or, if you want to be more exact about it, 1 tsp. of sugar weighs 28.35 grams. Take a look at the Lindt nutritional label. Take the sugar grams per serving and then multiply that by the number of servings in the recipe. Then divide that by 28.35 to find out how many tsp of sugar to subtract.

Edited September 13, 2004 by scott123 (log)

[Wendy DeBord]

I wouldn't feed baker's unsweetened chocolate to my worst enemy. It is that vile *shuddering* Bitter, chalky, and harsh. If you're going to go with an typical supermarket chocolate, go with Nestles baking chocolate.  Although the texture is a bit grainy, the flavor is far superior to bakers.

I haven't used Nestles, to compare it to Bakers, but I've never experienced a poor taste when using Bakers brand...yet alone "vile".

[Fernwood]

Until you find something better, the lindt will serve you well.  The tablespoon/ounce conversion Prueitt mentioned is a good ballpark, or, if you want to be more exact about it, 1 tsp. of sugar weighs 28.35 grams.  Take a look at the Lindt nutritional label.  Take the sugar grams per serving and then multiply that by the number of servings in the recipe.  Then divide that by 28.35 to find out how many tsp of sugar to subtract.

←

I agree with Scott that this is the most rigorous approach to adjusting the sugar, but I think the correct weight for each teaspoon of sugar is only ~4g.

28.35g is the metric conversion for one ounce (weight), but I believe that a cup of granulated sugar (8oz volume) weighs only about 200g, which calculates out to 4.16g/tsp.

Hope that helps. Fern

[Edited for silly typo]

Edited September 13, 2004 by Fernwood (log)

[chocophile]

I haven't used Nestles, to compare it to Bakers, but I've never experienced a poor taste when using Bakers brand...yet alone "vile".

←

Most unsweetened chocolate is made to be baked/cooked with, not eaten, and therefore most of it -- including Baker's -- is, not surprisingly, not suitable for eating. It's often very gritty and/or chalky, bitter to the point of being harsh, and sometimes surprisingly acidic. Virtually all of those characteristics (or defects) will be hidden when the chocolate is added to flour, butter, sugar, leavening ingredients, and flavorings. What is important is the intensity of the flavor that the unsweetened chocolate provides.

MOST consumer recipes assume commercially available chocolate. ALL of the recipes in Marcel Desaulnier's books are made with chocolate that can be purchased in just about any grocery store in the country: Baker's and Nestle's, usually. "Higher end" recipes might be formulated with a gourmet couverture, what's important is that the other ingredients complement/contrast/hide the particular characteristics of the chocolate

There are unsweetened chocolates (100% cocoa content) chocolates that are made to be eaten. They are an acquired taste, can be used for baking, but they are usually much to expensive in a commercial setting.

Some percentage of chocolate is made from cocoa powder and cocoa butter, not directly from cocoa liquor. This is because by processing the liquor into powder and butter, the manufacturer can use lower-cost ingredients and has far more control over all of the physical, chemical, and organoleptic characteristics of the intermediate and final products. For example, cocoa powder that is extracted using a hydraulic press as opposed to an expeller (screw) press requires less butter to reconstitute as the pressure changes its surface characteristics and it absorbs less butter. Slight changes in the amount of alakali and roasting temperature markedly change the color and flavor of powder and butter.

However, most chocolate made this way is used for coating purposes (e.g., the outer shell of a candy bar) rather than made into a blocks of chocolate for baking or for making confections.

:Clay

[Wendy DeBord]

Most unsweetened chocolate is made to be baked/cooked with, not eaten, and therefore most of it -- including Baker's -- is, not surprisingly, not suitable for eating. It's often very gritty and/or chalky, bitter to the point of being harsh, and sometimes surprisingly acidic. Virtually all of those characteristics (or defects) will be hidden when the chocolate is added to flour, butter, sugar, leavening ingredients, and flavorings. What is important is the intensity of the flavor that the unsweetened chocolate provides.

Goodness, it never occured to me that someone would be refering to eating it as is. Thanks Chocophile.

[scott123]

I agree with Scott that this is the most rigorous approach to adjusting the sugar, but I think the correct weight for each teaspoon of sugar is only ~4g. 

28.35g is the metric conversion for one ounce (weight), but I believe that a cup of granulated sugar (8oz volume) weighs only about 200g, which calculates out to 4.16g/tsp.

Hope that helps.

←

Thanks for catching that. I was going by the numbers posted on netgrocer for a packet (teaspoon) of sugar. BTW, 8 oz. is 226.7 grams, which calculates out to 4.72g/tsp.

[scott123]

I haven't used Nestles, to compare it to Bakers, but I've never experienced a poor taste when using Bakers brand...yet alone "vile".

←

I'm sure that a talented pastry chef like yourself could perform some alchemy and make it seem less inferior than it really is, but for the rest of us mortals, I'd say look for something else. You should give Nestles a try, though.I highly recommend tasting Bakers next to Nestle, and, at the same time, tasting other unsweetened chocolates such as Hershey's, Ghirardelli, Callebaut, and Scharffenberger. In this context, the inadequecies of the Baker's should be glaringly evident.

And I don't 'eat' unsweetened chocolate. I taste it before I bake with it, like I do with all my other ingredients, to make sure everything is up to snuff.

Edited September 14, 2004 by scott123 (log)

[scott123]

Most unsweetened chocolate is made to be baked/cooked with, not eaten, and therefore most of it -- including Baker's -- is, not surprisingly, not suitable for eating. It's often very gritty and/or chalky, bitter to the point of being harsh, and sometimes surprisingly acidic. Virtually all of those characteristics (or defects) will be hidden when the chocolate is added to flour, butter, sugar, leavening ingredients, and flavorings.

←

I disagree. Inferior ingredients make inferior baked goods. Unless of course you're using the chocolate in such small quantities that it can't even be detected. A chocolate's defects, much like a wine's defects, do not disappear when combined with other ingredients. Any recipe, regardless of it's target audience, will improve with a better grade of chocolate. Bake something, anything, with Baker's Chocolate and then make the same thing with unsweetened Scharffenberger or Callebaut. Not only will the latter be superior, but the difference will not be subtle.

Edited September 14, 2004 by scott123 (log)

[beans]

I disagree. Inferior ingredients make inferior baked goods. Unless of course you're using the chocolate in such small quantities that it can't even be detected. A chocolate's defects, much like a wine's defects, do not disappear when combined with other ingredients. Any recipe, regardless of it's target audience, will improve with a better grade of chocolate. Bake something, anything, with Baker's Chocolate and then make the same thing with unsweetened Scharffenberger or Callebaut.  Not only will the latter be superior, but the difference will not be subtle.

Certainly not intended to gang up, but I'm of the GIGO effect myself. My mother will bake a chocolate cake from time to time, which is dry (she over bakes everything which is why I got to love darker sugar cookies) and uses Baker's stuff for the chocolate frosting.

At least she doesn't use the premade canned frosting....

I've been a staunch user of most Callebault, but sprinkle in Valrhona or Guittard for some extraordinary efforts. Depends.

[chocophile]

Certainly not intended to gang up, but I'm of the GIGO effect myself.  My mother will bake a chocolate cake from time to time, which is dry (she over bakes everything which is why I got to love darker sugar cookies) and uses Baker's stuff for the chocolate frosting.

At least she doesn't use the premade canned frosting....

I've been a staunch user of most Callebault, but sprinkle in Valrhona or Guittard for some extraordinary efforts.  Depends.

←

Ah, yes. Garbage in, Garbage out. It does make a difference with chocolate but, sadly, only to some people in some situations.

Don't believe me? Try this test for the average consumer walking into your place of business. If it's a restaurant and you're making dessert, you have to try this test after a full meal, not standalone.

Make a recipe, any recipe that calls for unsweetened chocolate -- twice. The only difference is in the brand of unsweetened chocolate. For this test, it should be a baked good with flour. Serve the two different desserts and ask the diners a) if there is any difference between the two; b) if there is a difference what the difference is; c) which one they prefer. (You have to work to not to give away the answer you want with your body language or other subtle clues.)

Point is, the average person (not non-smoking pastry chef with trained palate) usually can't tell the difference after a couple of drinks, coffee, and the average restaurant meal replete with salt and fat. Also, many people will actually prefer the taste that is familiar to them and some of the most familiar chocolate flavors are Nestle, Hershey, and Baker's - not Callebaut, Cocoa Barry, Schokinag, Belcolade, Cocoa Noel, etc.

Now, if someone comes in and just orders the dessert, then it might well be different, but again, my experience suggests that it will make a real, substantive difference only to many fewer than half of all diners and even then mostly in fine dining establishments, not casual or family, where "value" (tonnage) is a key attribute.

Now, don't get me wrong, I wish it were different and my whole business is predicated on moving people up the food chain to learn to appreciate higher quality chocolate. But that's my experience.

:Clay

[alligande]

My favorite subject choclate. I think you also have to take into account what peoples "base" taste is, I am English and have lived in the states for 15 years, and still find Hersheys gross, it is not what I grew up, I really do think it makes a diffrence. (I was also a strange child and loved Terrys dark choclate over cadburys dairy milk which tastes entirely diffrent here).

On another note I was working as a PC at an Inn that was developing afternoon tea (no guessing why I was hired) and I had been getting grief for my expensive choclate habits, untill we had a travel writer from the New York times stay and rave about the fact the choclate eclairs had real choclate on them, end of bitching about ingredient costs.

[jgarner53]

Doesn't it also depend on the market? I remember liking Hershey bars with almonds as a kid (as well as Kisses). But now that I've developed a taste for darker chocolate, I find the Hershey's overly sweet, grainy, and insipid. I don't really even like any milk chocolate anymore (which is why I have two uneaten See's Easter bunnies at home)

My point is that if you're serving to a pack of hungry 5-year olds craving a sugar fix, they're probably not going to be discerning. But that's a different market than a dessert in a high-end bakery or at a high end restaurant.

I'd probably be pretty disappointed to pay top dollar for a dessert, especially one that's about the chocolate, only to find out that it was made with Baker's chocolate.

[alligande]

I fully agree, but it also depends on the item, you dont notice crappy (sorry)choclate as much in a regular cake, but use the same choclate in a mouse and it is vile

[chococrazy]

Having never bought unsweetened chocolate, I was eager to purchase some Callebaut since my father was recently diagnosed as pre-diabetic. A little taste ended up in a napkin... definitely not eating chocolate.

A question... I was planning on sweetening it with an articifical sweetener. Is Splenda the best to use? How is Splenda for baking, and for making unbaked items like chocolate truffles and sauces?

chococrazy

[Wendy DeBord]

Welcome chococrazy! How splenda works with chocolate is on topic...........but I suggest starting a new thread to answer any of your general baking questions concerning splenda. Someone with specific knowledge of splenda might not read this whole thread.

I tend to agree with alligande's point, in baking you don't notice the chocolate nearly like you would with a mousse (that's comparing apples to oranges). And I do agree it depends upon what your baking too. A flourless chocolate cake or a molten cake where your chocolate is everything-I can see using a high end chocolate and charging for it. But baking brownies........na I can't see where your going to recoupe your costs (although my brownie recipe doesn't use unsweetened choc.).

In fact...........there are NOT alot of recipes I use that do use unsweetened chocolate. Actually what comes to mind when I think of recipes I use with unsweetened chocolate is a couple chocolate cookie recipes that I've used that were published by bakers brand, they're pretty good. For the most part I use semi sweet in 99% of my baking because my average client prefers that over a bittersweet choc..

I can definately appreciate the fact that in different regions people have different tastes depending upon what they've been exposed to. I recall traveling South and thinking someone put extra sugar in my name brand ketchup and cola drinks, the formulas were so different then what I'm used to up North. Living in the mid-west US I'm certain I have a mid-western palate. Europeans certainly like darker coffee and chocolates then my neighbors.

I'm not so sure that our American mass produced chocolates are gigo. I agree completely with Chocophile and have written this many times.........you'd be supprised at how the average consumer can't tell the difference in many quality products verses lower end: again, probably due to exposure. I see it day in and day out at work...........sometimes it pisses me off quite frankly, but I adjust and put forth my best efforts into items where the quality is recognized.

[Sebastian]

Most recipies that call for chocolate liquor don't use just a whole lot of it. Liquor (unsweetened, baking chocolate, etc) can be very, very harsh, hence the reason a little goes a long way. There is a *huge* variability in types of liquor, depending on origin (where the cocoa tree was grown), how it was processed after picking (fermentation and drying - there are many different methods of doing this, all of which greatly affect flavor), and finally how it's processed by the manufacturer (it is blended with other liquors? is it alkalized? degree of roast? aerated? etc). Some liquors are quite good, and I've been known to nibble on them straight from time to time. No, i'm not the average consumer. No, these aren't typically available at your supermarket. But, that said, because liquors are so strong and so little is often used in recipies, those differences are more often than not simply lost. While *you* may well be able to detect if they're in there (an interesting test would be to make two side by side, have someone give you a blind taste test to see if you really can determine 8-) ), chances are pretty good that your consumer won't be able to, unless you're catering to the 'not your average joe' crowd, or you've got a high level of liquor present, and not many other interfering/masking ingredients.

Regarding splenda - it's an excellent high intensity sweetener. It's bake stable, and i find that while all HIS's have definate usage levels beyond which they contribute off flavors, sucralose seems to stand out a bit. You may also want to try combinations of HIS"s as often times they work synergistically with one another to maximize sweetness and minimize off flavors. That said, you also need to keep in mind that they're not a substitute for bulking agents (you're only using very, very small quantities of them), and that some are application dependant (some are less heat stable, less stble in high moisture applications, etc).

The average american was raised on hershey bars, and that's what they expect chocolate to be. Palates are beginning to change as folks become more well travelled (or their food becomes more well travelled, and instead of them going to the food, more foods are coming to them to give more options), but by and large, when you say 'chocolate' the first thing you're neighbor's going to think of is 'hershey'.

[prasantrin]

I just made some brownies made with Baker's unsweetened chocolate, and the flaws of the chocolate are shining through. They'd be amazingly good brownies, but because of the chocolate, they're just good. (I'm sure I'll have plenty of takers for them at work, though!)

Does anyone know a Canadian source (online) of unsweetened Callebaut chocolate or some other good quality unsweetened chocolate? Golda's doesn't seem to carry unsweetened. I'm looking primarily for online sources, since I'll be in Winnipeg this summer and I know Winnipeg doesn't have a huge selection (they do have Bernard Callebaut, but last I checked they don't carry unsweetened).

[Kerry Beal]

I just made some brownies made with Baker's unsweetened chocolate, and the flaws of the chocolate are shining through.  They'd be amazingly good brownies, but because of the chocolate, they're just good.  (I'm sure I'll have plenty of takers for them at work, though!)

Does anyone know a Canadian source (online) of unsweetened Callebaut chocolate or some other good quality unsweetened chocolate?  Golda's doesn't seem to carry unsweetened.  I'm looking primarily for online sources, since I'll be in Winnipeg this summer and I know Winnipeg doesn't have a huge selection (they do have Bernard Callebaut, but last I checked they don't carry unsweetened).

←

Qzina has unsweetened Callebaut, they call it cocoa mass. The downside is that the smallest block is a 5 kg bar. I have a 5 kg block (with about 4 ounces used out if it).

[artisanbaker]

little off topic but unsweetened makes for a great joke