The Science of Chocolate

Comment

Comment by Frank Homann on November 12, 2010 at 1:18pm

To John and Xinhong regarding differences between bean types/tree varieties and regional or farm origin labelling: This question is at the center of a lot of confusion among chocolate makers and consumers alike.

In my company, Xoco (www.xocogourmet.com), we are inclined towards the belief that gene types of trees are the determining factor for flavour and aroma of the beans. Conditions, such as altitude, sunshine, rainfall and soil, have some influence on flavour and aroma but it seems to be relatively small. This is at least the experience from Central America, and I hear from colleagues in Trinidad and Venezuela that they have made the same observations. However, there are thousands of different tree types/varieties of cocoa. Cocoa trees tend to morph, principally because of the way that they are planted (with seeds transported either by animals or humans) and how the seeds come from crossings of neighboring trees. A much debated example is the so-called Nacional of Ecuador. Apparently, 100 years ago, Nacional was one tree variety (or at least, if not genetically identical, a group of trees with relatively similar characteristics and therefore similar flavour and aroma), but recently I heard that more than a 100 "Nacional" varieties can be found in Ecuador today. Likewise with "Criollos" and "Trinitarios". Within these broad categories there are hundreds if not thousands of different tree varieties. Each probably with very or at least different flavour and aroma. In Central America we identified some 20 different varieties with Trinitario genes. When doing micro-fermentation on their beans, we found that they each were very different in flavour/aroma. Some were rather "flat" and un-interesting, others vibrant, complex, fruity, nutty and intense. As a general trait we find that trees with forastero genes, produce beans that even when well fermented, tend to be "flat", earthy and simple. Which is not bad for most chocolate, but not good for 70% dark chocolate that aims to be "gourmet".

Is a bean from a "Criollo" tree better than a "Trinitario" bean? The question is very broad and impossible to answer. As noted below there a perhaps thousands of different Triniatario trees that produce beans that are different in flavour and aroma. Some are not so good, others really really interesting. In my experience, Criollo-like beans produce flavours that are relatively mild and complex in a very subtle way. Flowery notes the more Criollo, and nutty notes the more "Trinitario". Trinitario beans, on the other hand, tend to have a stronger, more intense, profile. They generally tend to be "fruity" and sometimes "nutty".

Today, as we are in the very early phases of getting to understand flavour and aroma and the causes, few chocolate manufacturers write about the tree variety they have used for their chocolate, except in very general terms like "Criollo" and "Trinitario". Only Hacienda San Jose in Venezuela have single-tree varieties, so when Domori, for example, makes a chocolate with Ocumeare 61, it means they have used beans from a single tree variety (again not identical trees, but trees with similar genetic characteristics, hereunder physcial pod characteristics (fenotypes if you want)). This tree variety they call a "recent Criollo" (CIRAD calls them "modern Criollos") which means that they are somewhere along the scale from the Criollo benchmark (the so-called "Criollo-13" from a clonal garden collection, I believe) -- they could also be called Trinitarios as they are in fact not "pure" relative to the benchmark, but we are here down to relatively useless semantics, really.

Most farms that deliver "fine cocoa beans" have a mixed bag of trees, ranging from trees close to the Criollo benchmark to forasteros. This is the case of Chuao farms, for instance. In Chuao there are some 37 different tree varieties. "Porcelana" farms in Venezuela also have many tree varieties. In Trinidad, most farms have a mix of ICS clones (I believe a 100 varieties were chosen, originally). My guess is that this is true for most "Trinitario" plantations in the Caribbean as well. What does that mean? Well, for one, they will probably not deliver a consistent flavour/aroma profile of beans. It will depend on the random mix of beans from different trees that were ready for one particular fermentation batch. The fermentation is often stadardized, in Chuao for instance it is always 5 days with a set number of turns, but as different bean varieties will need slightly different fermentation protocols, the end result will often be that some beans were well fermented, others under-fermented and again others over-fermented. This again will affect the flavour/aroma of the fermentation batch. I think beans from specific farms will tend to have a profile, but not always. I was, for instance, told a story that the french chocolate society had one of their chief cuppers do a blind-folded test of the same fermentation batch of beans from Chuao -- first he couldn´t identify the origin, secondly he couldn´t identify that the samples were from the same batch/origin. So, randomness probably prevails.

Country-origin is in my opinion close to useless. Most beans coming from Venezuela and Ecuador, for example, are forastero beans, mostly flat and astringent stuff that is used for making cocoa butter that is identical to the butter that comes out of, for example, The Ivory Coast or Indonesia or Brazil. Producer organizations, like the ICCO, contribute to the widely held myth that country-origin means anything. If tou ask producers in Ecuador, for example, if they think they produce fine cocoa, they will answer yes, hoping that myth = making more money. But just claiming something without any facts to support it, is of course rather absurd and only contributes to the general confusion.

This is today, and the historical reason/the logic of the market, is that interest in finer flavours of chocolate is a relatively recent phaenomenon. After the 2nd ww, chocolate itself was a luxury commodity. "Fine chocolate" was = filled chocolates. Today, consumer have much more purchasing power and have taken an interest in finer foods. Specialty coffee, high end wine, luxury cheeses, micro-brewed beers, etc. are all good examples of this consumer trend. In chcolate this is starting, but it hasn´t reached a point where feedback has been trickled down to producers of cocoa beans. Part of that feedback has to be pretty hard: Producers paying substantial premiums to get farmers to invest time, money and general efforts into fine cocoa. Because it is not easy to do on the producer end. You need to identify which varieties really are the best ones. Then you need to reproduce these varieties through resource-intensive and difficult techniques like grafting trees. Then you need to re-plant on your land and wait for about 3 years before you have the first production and wait another 4 years before you reach peak production. So it is a long-term business plan for farmers who mostly are small-holders and have a very short-term business horizon, often associated with serving basic needs.

But, to summarize: Consumers CAN tell the difference. The chocolate manufacturers that can actually name the tree varieties and/or the haciendas where the beans they use come from, sell their chocolate at substantially higher prices than manufacturers who can´t or who can just say that they are "organic" (no influence on flavour) or "fair trade" (absolutely no influence on flavour, rather an indication that the bean quality was poor and the farmers had to appeal for a better price, pointing to the fact that their product is of poor quality and that they, the farmers, themselves are poor and need the money (one step up from begging!)).

Hope this was helpful. As the industry is emerging, and there seems to be a bad divorce between cocoa scientists, NGOs, producer organizations, and market players, there are few answers that are thoroughly fact-based and many efforts to improve flavours are done on a trial- and error basis. But I think we are only seeing the beginning and that the future is promosing for producers and consumers alike. I think we will see more variety, hereunder more heirloom varieties, and more conscious consumers. Not everyone will always want the high-end chocolates. But the ones who do, will be better at knowing what to look for and they will hopefully also be able to find it as the cocoa bean industry evolves.

Comment by Nat on November 9, 2010 at 6:55am

From my friend Lisa, here's a new study in the Archives of Internal Medicine that bolsters the case for the benefits of cacao, attached. Interesting methodology and significant risk reduction among high-consuming groups.

Below is the comment / conclusion, to cut to the chase:

The data from this prospective cohort study of elderly women are the first, to our knowledge, to show an association between chocolate consumption and carotid atherosclerotic plaque prevalence and provide further evidence that chocolate intake may be protective against atherosclerotic vascular disease events. These data also suggest that weekly chocolate consumption may be as effective as daily consumption to obtain the cardiovascular benefit, since we found similar risk reductions of 24% among daily and weekly chocolate consumers. Furthermore, the association between atherosclerotic plaque prevalence but not CCA-IMT suggests that the effect of habitual chocolate consumption may be primarily on ischemic heart disease risk rather than cerebrovascular disease risk, which is more strongly associated with CCA-IMT.8 The observed association between chocolate consumption and atherosclerotic vascular disease is from a prospective study and as such cannot prove causality. However, given the size of the observed risk reduction associated with frequent chocolate consumption for atherosclerotic plaques and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, it would be possible to mount a well-designed randomized controlled trial to determine if indeed cocoa or chocolate would be a safe, acceptable method of reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in addition to current approaches to the treatment and prevention of atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Comment by Sacred Steve on October 26, 2010 at 11:19pm

I like to look at it this way...
peanuts, the seed of a plant, are a food. And, you can grind them into peanut butter, which is also a food. Cacao beans are seeds, and you can grind them into a 100% cacao content chocolate bar. Therefore, chocolate is a food. Of course, you can add sugar to either.

Comment by Mann Made Chocolate on October 22, 2010 at 3:25pm

@Glorious Chocolate - it turns out that "food" is variously defined by different governments. In the U.S., the FDA defines food as: "a raw, cooked, or processed edible substance, ice, beverage, or ingredient used or intended for use or for sale in whole or in part for human consumption, or chewing gum." (source: Food Code 2009).

For reporting purposes, the FDA lumps three categories together as
"Chocolate/Confections/Candy" and any of those are, legally, "food."

Yet, I suppose I'm not alone in feeling there SHOULD be some kind of a distinction between chocolate (which has nutritive as well as bioactive compounds beyond the supply of calories) and simple candy that provides only calories (and maybe a tiny bit of protein in some cases).

While legally both chocolate and candy are "food," I think the "common sense" distinction is that candy connotes a substance that is composed of compounds that are only distantly related to their original plant source (e.g. sucrose, palm kernal oil, agar, etc.) while 100% chocolate is essentially just a processed plant product. Chocolate can be thought of as existing in nature - it is in some sense just a seed that is fermented, roasted, pressed, etc. (i.e. processed). Thus, all the mysterious compounds (known and unknown) that characterize plant life are, to one degree or another, part of chocolate which makes it feel more like "food" to me. Candy per se doesn't exist in nature (although certainly sweet things do). I can artificially create a candy; no one can artificially create (real) chocolate.

But again - blurry lines. What about candied orange peels vs. say a 70% chocolate bar? Candied orange peels are an original plant-derived product mixed with sugar. The chocolate bar is also an original plant-derived product mixed with sugar (and some vanilla and lecithin). Are candied orange peels more or less "food" than a chocolate bar?

Perhaps asking how many angels can dance on the tip of a cocoa nib will be easier to figure out.

Comment by Mark J Sciscenti on October 22, 2010 at 1:46pm

Hi Glorius, that answer I suspect is complicated. My studies all point to the high phenolic compounds (or in shorthand - antioxidants); biochemicals that effect the body and brain plus the high mineral content that points to chocolate being food. That is of course if you consume a high cocoa percentage chocolate, I.e. low in sugar, no dairy, etc... If you eat the cocoa nibs or even unroasted cacao beans you will get more of these compounds.

Comment by Gloria "G Chocolate" on October 21, 2010 at 8:49pm

what makes chocolate a food vs a candy?

Comment by Deanna Pucciarelli on August 29, 2010 at 5:12pm

Maria
The reason that the higher Kcal count for the 100% cocoa, is that cocoa is high in fat which has 9kcal/g versus sugar 4kcal/g. The more the sugar in a product and the less the fat (cocoa butter) the lower the total kcal. But also the lower the mineral/polyphenols, etc that comes from the cocoa bean.

Comment by María Soledad Troya on August 29, 2010 at 3:40pm

An answer for Ilana about calories in liquor. We just exported 100 % coberture and 77% coberture. The official tag said that the 100%'s have 7260 calories per k. , while surprisingly the 77%'s have 5100 calories per k. I would have thought that more sugar , more calories, what seems clear is that chocolate alone is got more calories than sugar.

Comment by John Hepler on August 29, 2010 at 12:06pm

A few issues:
Unfermented cacao is used locally (within the countries of Mexico and Nicaragua, and liekly the rest of them in Cent Am), I'm thinking because its less trouble, thus cheaper.
This is very rough stuff, I made 20 lbs of chocolate from it and it was inedible, very acid. The locals get around this-- I've seen it plenty firsthand-- by roasting right up to the point of burning the stuff. Terribly sad to see. Then they have a near-burnt cacao, very strong which they can dilute greatly, add a lot of sugar and make a quite passable beverage.
ALL cacao for export is Fermented
By the way, the chocolate I made 3 years ago from raw beans is almost palatable now, the amazing power of aging the chocolate.

Distinguishing criollo from forastero: my guess is that these names represent the two endpoints on a genetic spectrum and there are 1000s of hybrids in between. The USDA has a program of testing, contact
Dapeng.Zhang@ARS.USDA.GOV who says they can distinguish the gene content by percentages.

This is not to say that the very old time criollo types are superior to the ubiquitous forastero. In fact the purple color of the forasteros are surely more loaded with ORAC, and all that colored goodness that nature provides-- moreso than the pale colors associated with criollos.

But I am interested in the tastes of the criollo. And it looks like they need some help to survive.

And finally, for the Atkins diet question, I think it is clear that apart from the substantial recognized health benefits of eating almost ANy chocolate, the problem of weight control, hunger and satiation remain.

Briefly, there is likely a cutoff point of sugar content relative to the fat/protein combination: the high sugar side leads to faster absorption, more insulin stimulation (thus greater tendency to fat storage), more hunger sooner thereafter, and less long term satiation.
I think it is safe to assume that this cutoff point is about 25% sugar, aka the 75% bar. Maximum satiation per unit ingested is what we are looking for. The 70% bar is probably close but it all looks pretty impossible to get more specific.
Total carbs in a 100 gram 70% bar (by an interesting net calculation, see www.Proteinpower.com) is 120 calories. However, this may well be mitigated by all that fat that slows down the absorption.

Comment by Ilana on March 6, 2010 at 11:37am

a friend of mine is on the Atkins diet. He asked me about carbs in chocolate. I just don't know! Does anyone know for 70% and also for 100%(liquor)? Interesting...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page