Discover Chocolate and Live La Vida Cocoa!
What is quality?
I decided to start this thread because of the direction that a couple of other discussions were heading in.
In the thread about Chloe Doutre-Roussel's book, Clay wrote:
"I am 100% satisfied that well-fermented Forastero beans are different from properly-fermented Criollo beans"
In the thread about the reclassification of cacao varieties, Volker Lehmann wrote:
"I can confirm that chocolate experts were very surprised about the Baure cacao (apparently a forastero type) almost insisting it must be criollo as it was too good. The genetic classification is one area to be looked at, but also to classify the qualities of existing varieties, by defining quality first."
The question I'm asking is, what is quality?
I have plenty of ideas on this subject, but I'm also very interested to hear what other people think.
Quality versus personal taste
If you gathered a room full of chocolate experts, and provided 10 cocoa bean samples, and 10 chocolate bar samples, and asked the experts to place every sample into one of two categories - namely "High Quality" and "Not High Quality" - would the resulting categorisation be unanimously agreed upon by every expert in the room?
I think it should be possible for experts to categorise products in this way without disagreement, but I think that in reality it's highly unlikely that you would actually get unanimous agreement on what constitutes high quality.
I'd love to know what others think.
ICCO spends 5 years and millions of dollars to define quality ... and fails
I find it fascinating that ICCO (the International Cocoa Organization) spent 5 years on a "Project to Establish the Physical, Chemical and Organoleptic Parameters to Differentiate between Fine and Bulk Cocoa". But the results apparently weren't what they had expected.
THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE: "to develop the capacity of all involved in the cocoa sector to adequately differentiate between fine and bulk cocoa, thus improving the marketing position of fine or flavour cocoa. The specific objectives of the project were to establish physical, chemical and organoleptic parameters enabling the evaluation of cocoa quality in relation to genotype and environment, and to disseminate selected parameters, methodologies, standards and instruments to be used in the evaluation of cocoa quality."
THE PROJECT CONCLUSION: "The results of the project clearly indicated that the physical parameters measured had proved to be inconclusive in differentiating fine from bulk cocoas. [...] The project produced a spectrum of unique sensorial attributes for samples from each fine cocoa producing country that had participated in the project, concluding that the countries were not competing against each other but satisfied different flavour niche markets."
Forastero versus Criollo
I'm really pleased to see that the chocolate community finally seems to be abandoning the overly-simplistic mantra that "Criollo is good, Forastero is bad".
But there still seems to be this residual idea (alluded to by Volker) that if a cocoa bean is high quality, then it must be a variety other than Forastero.
Just like Volker, we at Tava have had professional buyers comment on the high quality of our Forastero beans, and ask whether our beans are really Forastero. (The beans we sell are actually West African Amelonado beans, grown in the volcanic soils of Vanuatu. And, incidentally, I can vouch that our Vanuatu beans taste quite different to a sample of West African Amelonado beans that we recently received from Ghana - but the Ghana beans are also lovely, with a distinct honey / molasses aroma, and a hint of fresh-cut grass).
Freshly-picked Criollo and Forastero beans are obviously different from each other. But I believe that correct fermentation reduces that difference much more than most people realise. The clearest reference I have to support this belief is a study that I've referred to more than once recently: Relationship between Procyanidin and Flavor Contents of Cocoa Liquo..., by Counet et al.
Smoky cocoa
The issue of smoky cocoa is surprisingly controversial. (As many people on this forum know, cocoa beans can pick up a distinct smoky flavour if they're exposed to smoke during drying). Some people like smoky-tasting chocolate, but, according to the international cocoa standards, smokiness is a defect.
Can a smoky chocolate ever be regarded as high quality?
Chocolate flavour
One of the strangest comments I ever read (on another chocolate forum) was a criticism of TCHO chocolate because it tasted ... chocolatey. The reviewer actually said that: ""chocolatey" is probably my least favorite characteristic in chocolate".
WTF?!
The classic "chocolate" flavour is unique, very complex, and, in my opinion, utterly delightful.
As Gary Reineccius (a professor in food science) has said: "It's very difficult to synthesise a totally natural chocolate flavor, because the chemicals comprising chocolate flavor aren't available in natural form, and the flavorist won't even get close to a mediocre natural chocolate flavor by putting together pure chemicals without adding chocolate products."
Does anyone on this forum think that a chocolatey flavour is an indicator of a poor quality chocolate??
In the thread about Chloe Doutre-Roussel's book, Clay wrote:
"I am 100% satisfied that well-fermented Forastero beans are different from properly-fermented Criollo beans"
In the thread about the reclassification of cacao varieties, Volker Lehmann wrote:
"I can confirm that chocolate experts were very surprised about the Baure cacao (apparently a forastero type) almost insisting it must be criollo as it was too good. The genetic classification is one area to be looked at, but also to classify the qualities of existing varieties, by defining quality first."
The question I'm asking is, what is quality?
I have plenty of ideas on this subject, but I'm also very interested to hear what other people think.
Quality versus personal taste
If you gathered a room full of chocolate experts, and provided 10 cocoa bean samples, and 10 chocolate bar samples, and asked the experts to place every sample into one of two categories - namely "High Quality" and "Not High Quality" - would the resulting categorisation be unanimously agreed upon by every expert in the room?
I think it should be possible for experts to categorise products in this way without disagreement, but I think that in reality it's highly unlikely that you would actually get unanimous agreement on what constitutes high quality.
I'd love to know what others think.
ICCO spends 5 years and millions of dollars to define quality ... and fails
I find it fascinating that ICCO (the International Cocoa Organization) spent 5 years on a "Project to Establish the Physical, Chemical and Organoleptic Parameters to Differentiate between Fine and Bulk Cocoa". But the results apparently weren't what they had expected.
THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE: "to develop the capacity of all involved in the cocoa sector to adequately differentiate between fine and bulk cocoa, thus improving the marketing position of fine or flavour cocoa. The specific objectives of the project were to establish physical, chemical and organoleptic parameters enabling the evaluation of cocoa quality in relation to genotype and environment, and to disseminate selected parameters, methodologies, standards and instruments to be used in the evaluation of cocoa quality."
THE PROJECT CONCLUSION: "The results of the project clearly indicated that the physical parameters measured had proved to be inconclusive in differentiating fine from bulk cocoas. [...] The project produced a spectrum of unique sensorial attributes for samples from each fine cocoa producing country that had participated in the project, concluding that the countries were not competing against each other but satisfied different flavour niche markets."
Forastero versus Criollo
I'm really pleased to see that the chocolate community finally seems to be abandoning the overly-simplistic mantra that "Criollo is good, Forastero is bad".
But there still seems to be this residual idea (alluded to by Volker) that if a cocoa bean is high quality, then it must be a variety other than Forastero.
Just like Volker, we at Tava have had professional buyers comment on the high quality of our Forastero beans, and ask whether our beans are really Forastero. (The beans we sell are actually West African Amelonado beans, grown in the volcanic soils of Vanuatu. And, incidentally, I can vouch that our Vanuatu beans taste quite different to a sample of West African Amelonado beans that we recently received from Ghana - but the Ghana beans are also lovely, with a distinct honey / molasses aroma, and a hint of fresh-cut grass).
Freshly-picked Criollo and Forastero beans are obviously different from each other. But I believe that correct fermentation reduces that difference much more than most people realise. The clearest reference I have to support this belief is a study that I've referred to more than once recently: Relationship between Procyanidin and Flavor Contents of Cocoa Liquo..., by Counet et al.
Smoky cocoa
The issue of smoky cocoa is surprisingly controversial. (As many people on this forum know, cocoa beans can pick up a distinct smoky flavour if they're exposed to smoke during drying). Some people like smoky-tasting chocolate, but, according to the international cocoa standards, smokiness is a defect.
Can a smoky chocolate ever be regarded as high quality?
Chocolate flavour
One of the strangest comments I ever read (on another chocolate forum) was a criticism of TCHO chocolate because it tasted ... chocolatey. The reviewer actually said that: ""chocolatey" is probably my least favorite characteristic in chocolate".
WTF?!
The classic "chocolate" flavour is unique, very complex, and, in my opinion, utterly delightful.
As Gary Reineccius (a professor in food science) has said: "It's very difficult to synthesise a totally natural chocolate flavor, because the chemicals comprising chocolate flavor aren't available in natural form, and the flavorist won't even get close to a mediocre natural chocolate flavor by putting together pure chemicals without adding chocolate products."
Does anyone on this forum think that a chocolatey flavour is an indicator of a poor quality chocolate??
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Volker Lehmann on -
Well, it doesn't surprise me that the quality discussion is getting out of hand.
I think the old system is still valid and good (criollo, trinitario, forastero - national is nothing, it is like Peru against Ecuador). This system is good to see how much of each variety is grown around the world. Nothing else. (It reminds me of the discussion of how to safe old forgotten apple varieties in Europe.)
When it comes to taste it is the fermentation technique and timing, drying technique and timing and the chocolate making process and timing, not to forget the tempering. All these procedures define the taste and "feeling" (however it is) of the finished product. One can argue about the contribution to the final product of each step. A chocolate maker could say his work counts for more than 70% because of his knowledge, also pointing out the expensive machinery he has used.
The physical quality of the beans are defined already by the cutting test procedure (ICCO standard). There is nothing more to it.
The taste-quality discussion will lead us finally to a system like "the cup of excellence" and that is what some newcomers and the project community (International Cooperation) want, but does it bring anything good. It is all about to get a bigger piece of the action, by taking it away from the old guys, so they have to pay them out again look at Scharfenberger, Dagoba, Black & Green etc.)
Where are the producers in that equation?
In the end I might be able to auction my beans instead of selling them the old fashion way. That would make the Cru Sauvage maybe the most expensive and desired chocolate in the world, but not necessarily the best.
Outlook - take it to the limit: I would like to invite you Sam and Clay to design with me the ultimate cacao farm and chocolate factory. Opus One concept - here it comes again.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Durtschi on -
I have a product that I make from cacao beans and, though it is not traditional chocolate, the one that is the best received and has the most complexity of the three varieties is the forastero. The chocolate "experts" don't believe me when I give them an unlabeled Cuyagua, Nacional, criollo from Nicaragua, Puerto Cabello and then a forastero "bulk" bean from Ivory Coast and they usually pick the Ivory Coast as being the best and the most complex. I routinely have people tell me that they can taste; toasted hazelnut, cinnamon, vanilla, coconut, pina colada, sesame and other flavors out of this "bulk" forastero. It really is difficult to say that one is "better" than another.
Another example is Art Pollard's (Amano Chocolates) new Jembrana bar. It is made with Indonesian beans, but they are from Bali and are not traditional. They are processed much better than the majority of Indonesian beans and make an exceptional chocolate. Fig, pepper, nutmeg and sun-dried tomato just to name a few.
Processing is really key to determining a good cacao bean, from drying and fermentation all the way to proper roasting, conching and refining.
-
Permalink Reply by James Cary on -
If you set a quality standard then anyone who achieves the standard could be said to have a good quality product. The trouble is taste is subjective. Probably cultural as well, as evidenced by the many differences in what is considered a delicacy. Things may be in now, but passe later. So the standard shifts as the salespeople's (to borrow from The Tipping Point) taste shifts.
It's interesting that all these revolutions occur -- craft beer revolution, new American food revolution, etc. I think it's a backlash to the heavily mass-marketed consumer production of the 50s,60s,70s. We're entering the Third Wave. The market is fragmenting to individual or small market tastes. So, my guess is that there will be several quality standards -- one for each market. As in the world of craft beer, one salesperson says that's a good pale ale and their friends (the connectors) pass it on and as they continue to drink it that becomes the standard for that particular group, until someone produces something that hits a different note.
Of course, there will be a group (maybe the largest) that falls into the quick fix category -- the pop music, bumiller beer drinking group -- which will push a quality standard that is maybe not so 'quality.'
Therefore, I think smoky chocolate could be a desired ingredient for some, but not the majority.
Maybe chocolatey flavor's too much a reminder to others of a mass market brand? It seems to me that chocolatey flavor should be an indicator of a good quality. I was reading somewhere (was it here?) that chocolate is one of the hardest flavors to reproduce in a lab. Not sure how true that is, but it seems that if you were to treat chocolate as a spice then it would seem more important to reproduce its own flavor than to have flavors that could be added by other spices.
-
Permalink Reply by Samantha Madell on -
Volker, Eric, and James - thanks very much for your insights on this subject.
Volker - thank you for your invitation to help design "the ultimate cacao farm and chocolate factory". This sounds like a very interesting project to attempt - but is it really possible? Isn't the term "ultimate", in this context, a subjective one? In any case, Clay has been in touch with me about a possible visit to your corner of Bolivia ... and I'd dearly love to see where Cru Sauvage begins its amazing journey!
Eric - thank you for sharing the results of your taste tests. I'm not surprised that people often prefer Ivory Coast Forastero in your blind taste tests, but it's really gratifying to hear somebody other than myself saying something positive about Forastero (I often feel like a one-person Forastero cheer squad, and I'm well aware that I'm seen as being totally biased on this subject!)
James - I like your observation that "the market is fragmenting to individual or small market tastes". But I think we've still got a long way to go before many "experts" will accept that fact.
Plenty of chocolate commentators out there still seem to believe that quality is defined by their own personal taste. And I suspect that many commentators have been more heavily influenced by marketing and herd mentality than they'd care to admit. (Just to clarify: I don't think Clay is one of those people. In fact, Clay would win my vote for being the least snobbish connoisseur on the chocolate circuit).
-
Permalink Reply by James Cary on
-
Unfortunately, marketing and conformism play a pretty big factor in consumerism. And after enough consuming, the taste is then acquired.
Maybe renaming the Ivory Coast Forastero to Suprema and getting it to appear in tv and movies might push it to the new quality standard. Hmm, why does this thinking sound familiar? :)
-
Permalink Reply by Volker Lehmann on
-
Hallo Samantha:
About 15 month ago I came again across the story about Rothschild and Mondavi and why they started "Opus One" vinery http://www.opusonewinery.com . The work I am involved in and my wine making experience I had in the past, kept me thinking along these lines and I think, this concept is transferable for cacao production and chocolate making. To build this dream it needs a lot of money, knowledge, dedication and time, but every now and then when I speak to people from the industry I find interest in the concept. Not too enthusiastic of course, but some serious nodding. Also the discussions we are having here in this community are telling me, that it is worth while to keep digging and maybe find some people, like you and Clay and maybe others, to see if we could join forces and at least come up with a more concrete design or plan.
Like you say in the US: one has to shoot for the stars to land on the moon. I hope that when we meet here in Bolivia we could start thinking together about all this, while having a nice Norton Malbec as long as the vines from Mondavi are not getting here.
Have a nice Christmas.
Volker
-
Permalink Reply by Samantha Madell on
-
There's been quite a bit of discussion on this forum lately about quality, personal taste, and The Fine Art of Chocolate Criticism
I'd like to extend the discussion to include the subject of formal chocolate judging.
Clay has just posted a new event: the 2009 Academy Of Chocolate Awards in London
I took a look at the Academy of Chocolate website, and was a bit disturbed to see that the previous awards seem to have been dominated by Academy committee members and their friends (plus Amedei).
From what I can gather, Amedei has taken out the award for best bar on all three occasions that the awards have happened (twice for the Chuao bar, and once for the Toscano 63%). Those awards may be well-deserved, but the outcome seems to be getting a bit predictable and boring.
And perusing the list of other winners, I see an awful lot of awards going to Academy committee members such as Chantal Coady (of Rococo), Paul A Young, and William Curley. And there are commercial relationships between other committee members and winners (for example, between founding member Chloe Doutre-Roussel and multiple award winner L’artisan du Chocolat)
This all seems a bit too ... cosy, or nepotistic, or something.
From looking at the past results, I personally wouldn't bother entering this competition, because it looks like the outcome is pre-determined.
I expect that the Academy would vehemently deny that this is the case ... but that's how it looks to me, from the outside.
I wonder what other people think?
-
Permalink Reply by James Cary on
-
Such things are known to happen in the world of competitive food making:
http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/1139.html#1139-3
In the Great American Beer Festival case, it may have provided some extra added publicity to the craft brew world. Also, in the GABF case, as a result of the collusion, there were a few splinter competitions set up, which I would love to see in the craft chocolate world.
Member Marketplace
Share TheChocolateLife
Badge
© 2010 Created by Clay Gordon.
