at Thu, 25 May 2006 10:41:48 GMT in
<[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
(Michael Archon Sequoia Nielsen) wrote :
Quoted message said:aem said:Alex Rast said:4 oz - 2 cups milk? Not a very strong dip. That's more like a mild
chocolate pudding recipe. If you want a strong flavour, therefore,
you need a powerful chocolate, especially since it has added sugar.
Really, you should consider a quality unsweetened chocolate.
Unsweetened? Does dark chocolate come both sweetened and unsweetened?
I gather you're saying unsweetened is stronger flavored....
Yup - dark chocolate comes in both. Unsweetened is stronger flavoured - and
not just by the percentage difference. Here's why. Chocolate itself has 2
parts - cocoa butter (the fat) and defatted cocoa solids. It's the latter
that contribute the vast bulk of the flavour. Now, when a manufacturer
lists cocoa solids percentage on the label, it means the percentage of both
of these ingredients.
However, for good texture, a chocolate has to have a certain minimum of
cocoa butter - often considered to be around 35%, and some have up to 55%.
Meanwhile, pure chocolate has about 50-55% cocoa butter. So it has
something in the neighbourhood of 45-50% defatted cocoa solids. Meanwhile,
a sweetened chocolate must perforce maintain the approximately 35-40% cocoa
butter minimum. If, then, you add sugar, say, to create a 70% bar, then
that leaves 30-35% of the total bar left for defatted cocoa solids. Hence
the ratio of cocoa butter to defatted cocoa powder is somewhere from 1:1 to
4:3. 1:1 is a close approximation to unsweetened chocolate, but 4:3 favours
cocoa butter - and so the chocolate tastes even weaker, relative to its
percentage, than an unsweetened chocolate would at the same concentration.
Below 70% cocoa solids, then, as I think you can see, things will quickly
get worse in a hurry - so that at a seemingly robust 50% cocoa solids the
chocolate can have at most a feeble 15% defatted cocoa solids (flavour
component) and will certainly end up tasting pretty weak in comparison.
Diluting it still further by mixing it in with other ingredients
(especially milk) only would make a bad situation worse. That's why
unsweetened chocolate gives you far more chocolate punch.
Quoted message said:When a chocolate has a percentage and 100- that percentage (say, C %) is
the amount of sugar. So when 100 - C % approaches zero, it is
approaching the unsweetened state. Usually C is max 99%.
Domori, Bonnat, and Slitti all make full-fledged 100% bars. Cluizel's is
99% as is Lindt's.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I'm writing these brand names down, thanks.
I would like to add, the Cruizel Mitchel tends to have a smokey hint,
which I do not like.
Michel Cluizel has comparatively little smokiness compared to the really
dark roasters like Pralus. But he does roast a little darker than the light
roasters - Valrhona and Scharffen Berger.
Quoted message said:I adore Valrhona (France), but think it is a pitty to cook with it, even
though my chocolate book calls for specific Valrhona chocolates for each
recipe.
Yeah - so you like a light-roast, fruity chocolate. If you want to get
really specific, you might try to head for the fruitiest beans - Sur Del
Lago Clasificado, Porcelana, and Colombia Nacional. Guittard produces
superb versions of the Sur Del Lago and Colombia varietals, and although
you might be tempted to splurge for the Valrhona Porcelana instead get
Domori's Porcelana which is not only cheaper but far better (and fruitier)
Valrhona is very good to cook with, and while in some ways nothing beats
straight chocolate, it pays off to use a high-quality chocolate in baking
and cooking as opposed to a cheap brand. You will notice the difference
easily as long as you're not clumsy and scorch the chocolate. Valrhona is
particularly well-suited, btw, because with its light roast it will take
more baking time before the flavour starts to diminish.
Quoted message said:Like, filled chocolates calls for a specific chocolate which has
a higher fat content than the others, so it shines better. The mousse is
made with one which is purely the criollo cocoa bean.
Manjari? Manjari is sourced from Madagascar beans which I agree are
particularly well-suited for mousse. I actually have to say, though, that
there are better Madagascar chocolates. Best is Amedei's - and it will be
wondrous indeed in a mousse. Next best is (surprise!) Lindt's.
Quoted message said:The hot chocolate
is made with one which is purely the trinitario bean, etc...
Caraibe. Again, good choice. Trinitarios tend to have a spicy
characteristic which in a hot chocolate comes out very well. However, for a
hot chocolate I'd dial up the intensity over the comparatively mild Caraibe
and use something like Dagoba's Eclipse 87%. And with hot chocolate a dark
roast is also desirable: dark roast complements dairy very well. In this
regard Pralus is the clear winner, especially Pralus Indonesie.
Quoted message said:I would not use cornstarch or any other starch to thicken a chocolate
sauce, I would just find the ratio between chocolate and liquid (nothing
less fatty than whole-milk) that still has the desired viscosity.
Yeah, as I said before it's like chocolate pudding. However, Spanish
tradition commonly puts cornstarch in chocolate so I'm not disputing the
authenticity of the approach.
Quoted message said:Lindt (Switzerland) is ok for cooking and they have a 99%, but 85%
should be fine for a chocolate sauce.
The 85% is an awe-inspiring chocolate, the best 85% in the business.
Lindt' 99% isn't quite as good as Cluizel's or Domori's 100% but it's not a
bad effort by any means. However, it does taste suspiciously Dutch. This is
something you'll either like or not. Dutch chocolate always has a much
darker, almost black, colour and a distinctive metallic twang to the
flavour. The flavour is inevitably milder, belying the dark colour, and
generally less bitter.
Quoted message said:Dolfin (Belgium) is also really good and have interesting packaging.
Dolfin's 70% is excellent, although IMHO a poor match for this particular
application.
Quoted message said:Neuhaus (Belgium) is boring to eat pure, but fine for cooking.
The new Neuhaus origin chocolates are in a completely different stratum
from their regular chocolates which are pretty ho-hum. Both Occumare 71%
and West Africa 73% are great. Sao Tome is also very good. I was blown away
- I was never expecting this level of quality from them.
Quoted message said:Novi (Italy) has some dull standard chocs, but some excellent single
region chocolates. The one from Ghana is amazing.
Valrhona's single estate chocolates are number 1, and it is a sin to
ruin them by mixing with other things.
Actually, single-estate chocolates work very well mixed with other things -
you just have to be very particular and careful about what you mix with
them. Single-estate chocolates have very characteristic flavours, which
means they harmonise well with some ingredients, badly with others. So, in
Valrhona's case:
Gran Couva : particularly superb with mint, berries. Disastrous with coffee
and nuts.
Ampamakia : a good complement to cinnamon and raisins. Don't mix with
peanuts, butter, bread, or blackberries.
Palmira : Perhaps even better than Ampamakia with raisins and currants.
Also good with sweet, caramelly flavours. Mixing with dairy tends to make
it washed out. Spices like cinnamon or clove will also clash.
Porcelana : Literally a match made in heaven for chestnuts. Very suitable,
in fact, with all varieties of nuts. Cream however will really obliterate
the flavour. Never use with citrus either.
Chuao : Now gone - because all the supply goes to Amedei, and I think
rightfully so. Amedei's Chuao always ran rings around Varhona's, and is
surely among the best chocolates ever made. However, Valrhona's Chuao would
have been a good complement for coffee and brown sugar. But why waste time?
Amedei's Chuao will also work for that, is still available, and is a better
chocolate.
--
Alex Rast
[email hidden]
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
