Chocolate: The Best Known, Least Known Food

(Photo above: Porcelana Sapling at the Estacion Experimental Chama in Zulia state Venezuela--December 2006)

Not long ago, during a friendly conversation about chocolate--as if there were any other kind--culinary historian, and NYC chocolate tour director, Alexandra Leaf, said to me that she thought of chocolate as the "best known, least known food in existence.” That comment got a chuckle out of me as I realized that not only is it true, but that the reason it is funny in the first place is due to the irony that something as well-loved as chocolate, a food to which people are exposed, in one form or another, virtually from infancy, a food that impassions a large part of the the human community with its complexity, unique flavor and texture, is virtually a stranger to us in terms of how it actually comes to be chocolate!

To some extent this is to be expected; after all, with expanding globalization it is rare nowadays that many of us know from whence all, or even most, of our food comes. Still, it is probably safe to say that even if we are not sure whether the orange that we are eating comes from Florida, most of us are reasonably certain that the orange did originally come from a tree. Even this much is not generally known about chocolate. In conversations I’ve had over the past several years, with people of all backgrounds, levels of education, economic statuses, sexes, and everything in between, most people truly are astonished when I tell them that chocolate has its ultimate origin in the bitter, pulp-covered seeds of a fruit that grows on a tree. This need not be the case!

Personally, I have dealt with the issue of chocolate’s complex provenance many times, and in many ways, in the posts of this blog, and there is a good chance that all of you reading this post have seen me mention these facts in one way or another. However, my blog posts are not enough. They simply cannot reach the majority of the population. That is why you, as the choco-literati, must take it upon yourself to help educate others about the glory and the beauty of cacao and its long and difficult voyage to chocolate. You can do it! You can spread the good word, the chocolate gospel, the truth about the best known, least known food in existence! The next time a friend of yours bites into a chocolate bar in front of you, by all means drop a little chocolate knowledge in their general direction. After all, though most people know only a little about chocolate, it is a subject that few can resist. You might even get to share a bit of their chocolate as a sign of appreciation.

Enjoy,

Alan
P.S. My utmost appreciation goes to Alexandra Leaf for the inspiration for this post, and for her work as a culinary and chocolate educator!

The Chemistry of Chocolate Part 2: General Cocoa Bean Chemistry

Chocolate doesn’t just grow on trees. Well, actually it does…kind of. Chocolate is made from the fermented and dried seeds--often called cocoa beans--of a fruit, a large berry in fact, that grows on a tropical tree between approximately 20ºN and 20ºS. It was once commonly thought that two subspecies of cacao trees existed, Theobroma cacao ssp. cacao—commonly called Criollo—and Theobroma cacao ssp. sphaerocarpum—commonly called Forastero. However, more recent research suggests that the idea of two separate subspecies is incorrect, since though Criollo and Forastero populations certainly have differing phenotypes, they are sometimes far more similar than different, with some Criollo and Forastero populations being much more alike than either is similar to various hybrid populations. We will touch on this issue more in this installment of The Chemistry of Chocolate, as it is quite relevant to the chemistry-based role that genetics can play on the flavor of cacao. First, however, let it be noted that it is common in the chocolate industry, and especially in chocolate marketing within the industry, to talk about the following three categories of cacao: Criollo, Forastero, and Trinitario.

We have already seen the terms Criollo and Forastero, and the name “Trinitario” stems from the hybridized trees of Criollo and Forastero parentage in Trinidad following a “blast”—either disease-based or hurricane-based—in the first half of the 18th century. Because the name Trinitario had relevance in speaking of the first well-known hybrids of cacao, it gradually also came to be used in a generic sense by many people, for almost any hybrid, despite the fact that many hybrids have nothing to do with Trinidad as their origin. Therefore, though in Trinidad there is still said to be true Trinitario cacao, in the sense of it being closely genetically related to the original, and though some of this cacao was spread to other geographical regions, the term is generally more confusing than it is helpful. For this reason, I will not use the term Trinitario, but will use the more generic term “hybrid,” which, though leaving much to be desired, since it lacks the specificity needed to delineate the hundreds—at least—of cacao hybrids that now exist, will serve the purposes of the Chemistry of Chocolate series just fine. Finally, then, for ease of discussion, we can generally say that there are three main categories of cacao: Criollo, Forastero, and hybrids, and within each group there are certainly countless populations with divergences in phenotypes and flavor profiles of prepared samples, and this means that none of these categories can be seen as a single homogeneous "variety." However, there are also some general rules that can be stated, which are gleaned from a study of the various populations that are generally seen as fitting within the three categories listed above. Let us first discuss Criollo.

We know that Criollo cacao was historically cultivated by the Olmecs--perhaps as early as 1000 BCE-- and then the Maya in Central America and Southern Mexico, and it is likely that these Central American cacao populations had originally come from populations in western Venezuela and the surrounding areas, where such Criollo populations continue to exist, though often in slightly hybridized forms. Interestingly, Criollo matures more slowly, produces fewer fruit, and has low disease and pest resistance. With all of these seemingly negative qualities related to Criollo, one might wonder why the Olmecs and those pre-historic peoples who came before them even bothered to propogate it. The answer is likely in the flavor, in that the Criollo cacao populations are generally particularly nutty, mild, lacking bitterness and astringency, and therefore are often more subtle and pleasing as regards flavor. This being the probable case, despite the drawbacks of such cacao, it gradually came to be favored by certain indigenous peoples of Central America, finally making its way from its likely origin in Venezuela, up to Guatemala, Belize and southern Mexico. The underlying chemical reasons for the flavor of the Criollo cacao, which are related to the genetics of this type, are also quite interesting, and will give us a foundation for dealing with the chemistry of the other cacao types.

One clue that helps to unlock the mystery of the general flavor differences between categories of cacao, is that while Criollo seeds have white interiors prior to fermentation and drying, Forastero seeds have purple interiors. The missing purple chemical in Criollo is the same one that colors polyphenol-rich blueberries: a flavonoid bound to a sugar that, when taken as a whole, is called an anthocyanin glycoside. Though this compound itself is not thought to be bitter or astringent, it has been noted that where it is present in cacao, certain other flavonoids are present as well, and in higher amounts than in cacao with no purple pigment. These other flavonoids, such as catechin and epicatechin, tend to be bitter in their simpler non-complexed form, and in their complexed forms, somewhat less bitter but more astringent. Astringency is a dry/puckery feeling in the mouth caused by the higher molecular weight flavonoid polymers--often referred to as tannins--reacting with protein in the saliva and on the tongue, and though always present in cacao, in excess, the sensation can be quite unpleasant.

Interestingly, not only does the relative lack of these particular flavonoids lead to a less harsh product in the case of Criollo, which has about 2/3 of the amount that Forastero has, but the balance of flavor is shifted even further, as other flavor notes within the cacao become more noticeable in the absence of the flavonoid harshness. Therefore nutty, fruity and other positive qualities of the cacao tend to be more noticeable. However, flavonoids aren’t the only bitter chemicals that are present in Forastero. Theobromine, an alkaloid related to caffeine, is also quite bitter, and present in perceptible quantities in Forastero. We will touch upon theobromine in more depth when discussing roasting later in the series, where it will have a large role to play. Another potential difference between Forastero and Criollo cacao, though the amounts of data present to support it are still limited, is that Criollo or Criollo-heavy hybrids may generally have more free amino acids in their composition. This could well play a role regarding flavor differences between Criollo and Forastero during roasting, a possibility that we will also discuss later in this series.

As for hybrids, they can have many different combinations of the above Criollo and Forastero traits. They can seem remarkably similar to Criollo, with only slightly bitter and astringent, very light, pink cotyledons, or they can seem far more like Forastero, with purple, more bitter seeds, and sometimes hybrids can actually include many more bitter and astringent compounds than even average Forastero populations. Hybrids can, thus, not be lumped into one category for the sake of flavor description or internal seed chemical composition, especially since the degree of variation within the whole range of hybrid populations far exceeds variation within Criollo and Forastero populations. This is one reason why, though all three terms--Forastero, Criollo, and hybrid--can be tricky in terms of usage, almost always requiring a bit of supplementary definition, the aforementioned term "Trinitario" is almost useless unless very clearly defined. That said, Criollo also risks becoming a useless term as some people have tended to refer to any hybrid with some amount of noticeable Criollo parentage as Criollo, when, as a hybrid, it obviously cannot be. It is reasonable, therefore, to want to know the whole story behind someone's usage of the terms Criollo or Trinitario before taking them at face value.

Moving on--so far we have taken a brief look at what role genetics can play in terms of determining cacao chemistry and flavor, but though genetics play a large role regarding cacao flavor, due to flavonoid, theobromine, and, potentially, free amino acid levels, the environment and climate in which the cacao trees grow also substantially impact the chemistry of the cacao seeds and therefore their flavor. As with all fruit trees, the health of the tree itself is important, and so weather patterns that impact temperature, rainfall, humidity and solar radiation levels all play a role in the flavor of the seeds within the cacao fruit. In addition to these various climactic conditions, soil-type, other plant species growing in close proximity--for example shade trees or leguminous atmospheric nitrogen-fixing plants--and even mycorrhizal fungi in the soil that have a symbiotic relationship with cacao, all make substantial impacts on the health, and therefore the cellular chemistry, of the tree and its fruit. In fact, all of these conditions could arguably be combined underneath a single umbrella-term that the French call “terroir”, a word that one normally hears used in relation to grape vineyards and wine. However, it is equally applicable to other crops, and cacao among them. Terroir is responsible, to quite a degree, for the flavor of cacao that comes from different regions, origins, or even given plots of land within regions. Additionally, the various impacts that terroir can have on cacao stretch beyond the growing location and reach into post-harvest processing, as each location, or origin, has different microbial populations that impact the chemistry and flavor of the cacao in dramatic ways. The next part of the Chemistry of Chocolate series, therefore, will delve into this realm of post-harvest processing, as we cover harvest, fermentation, and drying.

New York City Patric Chocolate Events in March

I will be in New York City on the 30th of March for two chocolate-related events. First, I will be speaking at 5 pm, at one of chocolate expert Clay Gordon's Meet-Ups. The talk will cover both fine chocolate in general and Patric Chocolate's processes in particular, and of course we will be tasting both the 67% and 70% bars. This event will be limited to 30 people due to room-size limitations, so please don't wait too long before registering for the event or it may be full. More information can be found HERE.

If two chocolate events in one day doesn't phase you, then plan on making it to The Chocolate Collection: An Evening of Tasting at 7:30 pm, led by culinary historian Alexandra Leaf, chocolate expert Clay Gordon, and wine expert Costas Mouzouras of Gotham Wines, wherein Patric Chocolate will be tasted, discussed, and paired with various fine wines. I will be on hand in order to field any questions related specifically to the manufacture of the chocolate.

I hope to see many of you at both events!

Best,

Alan McClure

Chocolate: If It Isn’t a Candy, Then What Is It?

There are many things about chocolate that stand out for me over the span of my life as I have gone from a novice lover of most things chocolate to a bean-to-bar fine chocolate maker. I remember clearly the first time I saw a cacao fruit in Tabasco State, Mexico. I recall my first smell of roasting cacao as I stirred it in a cast-iron skillet, and I will never forget the joy of tasting my first batch of European-style chocolate, as I slowly placed a spoon of the molten goodness into my mouth. If there is a heaven, it must include the feelings I associate with these experiences. Yet, there is one chocolate-related memory that came before all of these, and whose power still grabs hold of me today when people ask me what types of “candy bars” I make: In my early twenties, I was sitting in a university French course as the instructor asked us to name types of candy, the idea being that she would tell us what they were called in French, if there existed something comparable. Almost immediately I said “chocolate!” The response came just as quickly: “Non, le chocolat n’est pas un bonbon, mais il y a des bonbons qui se font avec du chocolat.” Even for those of you who don’t speak French, the response is probably clear enough; chocolate was apparently not a candy at all.

Still, despite the bluntness with which we were told of chocolate’s status as non-candy, I found myself shocked nonetheless that anyone would claim such a thing. I couldn’t imagine hearing those same words coming out of another person’s mouth ever again, and certainly not out of mine; chocolate obviously was a candy after all, French instructor opinion notwithstanding. That said, this seemingly obvious truth was not about to remain so clear to me for long.

For about a year from 2003 to 2004, I found myself in Lyon, France. The reasons for which I was there had nothing to do with chocolate at all, but upon finding the time to do a bit of reading about French gastronomy, I soon found myself wondering if I was perhaps in the ultimate fine chocolate country in the world. Unlike the national preferences in many countries—Germany, the US, Switzerland and Belgium included--the French prefer dark chocolate, and there are quite a few respected bean-to-bar chocolate makers to be found in France. True, the average French citizen is not necessarily familiar with the names of the makers of these fine chocolate bars, but the chance of accidentally running into their bars while shopping is not infinitesimal either. Taking this into consideration, I began to seek out many of what I read were the “greats” (to learn more about French chocolate makers read the last part of this post). I tried many bars from a variety of different companies, and over the course of the year I began to realize that though I had been convinced that I preferred milk chocolate, dark chocolate was quickly beginning to spend much greater amounts of time filling my thoughts. By the time I headed back home in early 2004, I had developed a taste for French dark chocolate that the variety of bars I was bringing back with me would not be able to satisfy for long.

Back in the US, I set to work trying to figure out if there were some websites devoted to French chocolate. I came across one called SeventyPercent.com, and soon absorbed much of the information there, from forum discussions on various chocolate makers, to the reviews of single bars themselves. I discovered that there were also Italian chocolate makers doing amazing things with cacao, and after finding a site from which to order French and Italian dark chocolate online, I ordered a number of the most respected bars, and then some others made by the same manufacturers. If the average, more easily available, French dark chocolate that I had already tried was a true eye opening experience, then this selection of the “best of the best” was a revelation. Each bar was so different from the next, and I was finally beginning to be able to taste various flavor notes in the chocolate, as I came to better understand what the French term terroir meant: that cacao from different regions had unique flavor qualities, even across manufacturers, that could be tied to climate, soil-type, nearby foliage, and naturally occurring microbes in the air and soil, not to mention other factors such as cacao variety and post-harvest processing. One might start to think that I am talking about wine rather than chocolate, and the confusion would be justified as there are clearly similarities between grapes and cacao on many levels. In fact, it is this complexity in cacao, and therefore chocolate, that so intrigued me, that I soon began to wonder about making my own chocolate and shortly thereafter started to experiment with the preliminary processes that eventually led to my first attempts at making European-style fine chocolate.

You may be wondering at this point how a blog post on the difference between chocolate and candy has turned into a story of my progression from chocolate lover to chocolate maker. Well, as I wondered how best to write a piece about the issue, I realized that virtually every reason that I could put forth was almost entirely subjective, as are many food-related opinions. Where the classification for chocolate ends and candy begins is a judgment call that is made by every individual, and I certainly cannot force my beliefs upon others. However, I think that my subjective experience, from seeing chocolate as candy for so much of my life, to finally seeing fine chocolate as a complex and delectable food quite far removed from candy…well, I thought that it might carry more weight than simply trying to come up with a set of objective criteria by which one might come to the same opinion. I thought that my experience might be more persuasive. As I think about why this might be, I realize that the definitions of candy and chocolate are both inextricably linked to time and place, and right here and right now in the US candy is often seen as cheap, sugar-filled, and bad for your health. That is not to say that all things called candies do have these qualities, but fine chocolate, for example, has none of them. It certainly isn’t cheap to manufacture, in its 70% and higher incarnations it is hardly what anyone would call sweet, and we are finding out more and more reasons why it is good for us. Of course, there is also the fact that chocolate has one of the most complex, if not the most complex, flavor profiles of any food in existence, certainly rivaling wine, cheese, coffee and tea in the quantity of volatile flavor components that can be ascribed to it. What candy can claim the same? Of course, I am careful to continually say “fine chocolate” because much mass-market chocolate, whether made in the US or elsewhere, has more in common with candy than the chocolate of which I am speaking. A warning sign would be a chocolate bar with sugar as the number one ingredient, no mention of the origin from which the cacao comes, no specific mention of cacao content, milk flavor that drowns out the cacao, and excess vanilla or even worse, vanillin, or other flavorings.

As for candy, I certainly think that it is possible for a culture to exist where candy or confections are taken so seriously, that they rise to the status of gastronomic triumph, and many would argue that confectioners in the French tradition have created items--some including chocolate and some not—that approach or fully attain this level, with confections so complex and delicious that they certainly deserve their own place next to the other great foods of the world. However, I have to believe that even in this case, there is something about the complex beauty of a masterfully-crafted fine dark chocolate that is lost when it is combined with other products. A world-class chocolate, at its best, deserves to stand on its own, and like a great wine, is not improved when combined with other ingredients, where the full depth of its bouquet could never be completely experienced. As always, there will be people who will disagree, and I can certainly appreciate other points of view, but still, if ever I were to ask someone to name their favorite type of candy, and “chocolate” came back as a response, there is a good chance that I might think to myself “Non, le chocolat n’est pas un bonbon, mais il y a des bonbons qui se font avec du chocolat.”

Best,

Alan McClure

Nibs, Cacao Seeds and Cocoa Beans, Oh My!

These words are thrown around indiscriminately at times, and I am probably also guilty of it, even as I try to clarify, rather than obfuscate, chocolate-related issues. So, here is my attempt to create some order out of this chaos. Luckily, this topic is one of the least complicated ones of which I have written as of late.

The journey of "cacao" starts with a tree, also called “cacao,” or more specifically, by its scientific name, Theobroma cacao. On the trunk and lower branches of the cacao tree’s canopy grow beautiful, if a bit odd-looking, fruit. These fruit are slightly smaller than a large papaya and roughly the same shape, though some of them have quite a few bumps, ridges, and curves that give them a bit more character (see photo above). As mentioned in a previous post, these fruit are actually large berries, and within these berries one finds tart pulp-covered seeds that are approximately the size of an almond, though a bit plumper. These seeds are, therefore, called "cacao seeds," or often simply "cacao." So far, so good.

The cacao seeds must be removed from the fruit, and fermented and then dried. This processes leads to a product that can then be roasted and refined to make chocolate. At this stage it can still be called "cacao," but in English speaking countries, is often referred to as “cocoa beans” or simply “cocoa.” It is easy to see that the word “cocoa” is quite similar to “cacao,” and that the terms are related, but this does not help solve the confusion related to the fact that “cocoa” can also be used in ways other than to refer to “cacao seeds” or “cocoa beans.” Often “cocoa” is used to refer to “cocoa powder,” which is roasted and ground “cocoa beans” that have had much of their natural fat removed. And speaking of “cocoa beans,” why is it that they are called “beans” anyway, when they are actually not beans at all? The reason is probably quite simple, despite the confusing common usage: the seeds are somewhat bean-shaped, and apparently the English were not the only ones to think so, as the French terminology--fève de cacao--references a fava bean in its description of the seed shape.

So, all confusion about “cacao seeds” and “cocoa beans” aside, what are “nibs?” The term “nibs” is one that is cropping up quite a bit lately, but many people, perhaps most, are still not familiar with it. To understand what “nibs” are, let us discuss just a bit about the structure of a cacao seed. The seed has a thin seed-coat that when dried is quite brittle. This dry seed-coat is usually called the “shell.” This shell is removed, generally after roasting, and what is left--the internal part of the bean, or botanically, the cotyledons--is 100% pure unground chocolate. This unground, shell-less seed can be broken into pieces quite readily, and these pieces are called “nibs.” When roasted, as they usually are, these nibs have a pleasant chocolate-like aroma and flavor, though since they are unsweetened, also have some additional bitterness. Their nut-like texture, however, does moderate the strength of the nibs, and so they tend to be far more munchable than refined 100% chocolate. Nibs can be found in bars of chocolate, where they take the place that nuts might normally fill, and also in small bags to be eaten out of hand, or mixed in with fruit, or even cooked with. They are a tasty and satisfying food, and one that Patric Chocolate will be offering in the near future.

I hope that this brief essay helps to clarify the differences between some very commonly used words, despite the large degree of overlap. For an article that touches on a few of these terms in relation to the percentage that we often see on the chocolate bar wrapper, please see my previous post called Chocolate and Percentages: What Does it All Mean?

Very Best,

Alan McClure

Chocolate and Percentages: What Does It All Mean?

I often get asked what the percentage on the front of a chocolate bar means. As is the case with many things chocolate-related, the answer is not quite what I would call simple:

Percentages on chocolate bars get tricky because there is no clear and consistent legal standard for their usage. You may see one or more of the following terms on the front or back of the chocolate bar packaging:

cacao (or cocoa) content
cacao (or cocoa) mass
cacao (or cocoa) solids
chocolate
chocolate (or cocoa) liquor
cacao
cocoa

“Chocolate” is defined by the FDA as a product containing ground up cacao--cocoa beans--minus their shells. It can be 100% chocolate with nothing added, or there can be some other ingredients added such as sugar, vanilla and other natural flavorings, cocoa butter, cocoa powder, and some additional dairy products as well as emulsifiers such as lecithin.

The funny thing is that sometimes on the back of a chocolate bar you’ll see that the ingredients list includes “chocolate” as the first ingredient. You may wonder how the first ingredient of "chocolate" can be "chocolate," but this oddity is simply because the roasted and refined cocoa beans can be called “chocolate” by themselves, even without sugar added. However, the FDA prefers the controlled term “chocolate liquor” which signifies the same thing (i.e. ground up cocoa beans). Sometimes if the cocoa beans have too low an amount of cocoa butter—as in the case of low quality cacao—cocoa butter must be added, but need not be listed in the ingredients because it is seen as a correction rather than an addition.

“Cocoa mass” is a controlled term used in the EU to signify the same thing as “chocolate liquor” here in the US (i.e. ground up cocoa beans). This term, like “chocolate liquor”, does not include "added" cocoa butter or cocoa powder. These items must be listed separately.

“Cocoa content” signifies a combination of cocoa beans, cocoa butter and cocoa powder altogether, but it has no legally defined meaning.

“Cocoa solids” is the really tricky term. It also has no legally defined meaning and some companies apparently use it to signify the same thing as cocoa content—again butter, beans, and powder—but other companies use it to signify only cocoa powder, or more accurately, the non-fat solid portion of the cocoa bean--and this is how I have seen the term used by most people. However, it is apparently not always used in this way.

Here is an interesting blog post by Emily Stone of Chocolate in Context, based on statements by several chocolate professionals with different ideas of what this term means.

Note that the first two comments are from Americans, and the last one is Australian. There could well be a difference in general usage of these various terms between the two countries. Note also that all three disagree to some extent; however, I believe that the first person, Ed Seguine from Guittard Chocolate, is the most accurate in terms of legally-defined terminology and general usage of terminology as regards chocolate in the United States. Still, as I mention, there is obviously inconsistency in usage in the industry, which is why there is really no completely correct way to use these terms in relation to each other without clarifying what one means by them, and such lengthy descriptions will certainly not find their way onto a chocolate bar package.

"Cocoa" is another tricky term because in common language, it often refers to "cocoa powder," which is ground up cacao that has had some of the fat pressed from it, but it is also sometimes used generically as a catch-all for anything derived from cacao, and therefore the cacao itself, cocoa butter, and cocoa powder.

"Cacao" seems clearer, as one would think that it surely refers to only the fermented and dried seeds of the cacao tree, or what often are called "cocoa beans," but do not expect that every time you see the word "cacao" that it will only include the ground up cacao seeds. "Cacao" is becoming quite a buzz-word now, and so it is just a matter of time before even more confusion sets in as it becomes the #1 catch-all term to describe a combination of all cacao-derived products. The shift in usage and meaning has already begun.

One small US chocolate maker has noted that he sees "cocoa beans" as the clearest way to differentiate the roasted seeds of the cacao tree from other cacao-derived products. This may be the case, but at the moment, the terminology is still rarely used.

Because of this, out of all of the above terms, the clearest commonly used phrase may be “cocoa content,” as it is openly and obviously inclusive of all cacao-based products, which is what the percentage on the bar will almost certainly signify anyway--as companies generally want to use as high a number as possible--and doesn’t risk confusing as does the term “cocoa solids” due to multiple possible meanings since molten cocoa butter can certainly be thought of as a liquid.

So, it is perfectly reasonable to say: “This bar is a 70% cocoa content dark chocolate”, which would mean that 70% of its weight comes from ground up cocoa beans with the possible addition of cocoa butter, and/or cocoa powder in some combination. The simplest 70% bar would be ground up cocoa beans and sugar, which is what one the Patric Chocolate 70% Madagascar is.

But, now we have run into a further problem:

The fact that "70% cocoa content" can mean different things is exactly why, though its meaning may be clear, it is still quite imprecise. In fact, 10 different bars that all use the same terminology (i.e. 70% cocoa content), can all have very different proportions of cacao, cocoa butter and cocoa powder in them. Fine chocolate generally does not include cocoa powder, but even so, different brands have highly variable proportions of cacao to cocoa butter. In fact, it is possible, for example, to have a 74% bar that has less cacao--due to added cocoa butter--and is therefore less robust in flavor, than a 71% bar with no cocoa butter added. The problem is compounded by the fact that most chocolate makers/manufacturers do not include the varying percentages of the different components added. Though texture and flavor can give some indication, one would hope that the lack of transparency in the chocolate world as regards percentage will, at some point, be a thing of the past; on this note, please see our web store for in-depth descriptions of the actual contents of our bars.

One final thing to mention, which is something that is probably clearer to most people than what we have already discussed, is that a high percentage does not guarantee quality chocolate. Many mass market brands have caught on to putting percentages on their bars as a marketing technique, because up to a point, only the European fine chocolate companies were listing percentages. As you can imagine, there is a very large difference between a 70% made with what is called "bulk" cacao, from a mixture of many uninteresting origins, and filled with massive quantities of vanilla, and a bar that is made from what is called "fine flavor cacao" from one of many different interesting origins, and that really showcases the beauty of the flavor of the cacao due to the artisan's hand in the manufacturing of the chocolate. This being the case, the oft-quoted term "buyer beware" is certainly relevant here.

Best,

Alan McClure

Slow Food St. Louis: Chocolate and Beer; What More Could You Ask For?

(Above: Speaking to STL Slow Food at the Schlafly Tap Room)

Due to Valentine's craziness I am a week behind on reporting about the event, but it was so much fun that I'm going to belatedly share anyway.

The chocolate talk and tasting seminar was held at the Schlafly Tap Room in conjunction with the St. Louis convivium of Slow Food, and upon arriving, we--my wife and I--got a warm welcome from the Tap Room's head brewer Stephen Hale. Stephen showed us around the brewery as we got to talking about the combination of beer and chocolate and the difficulties involved in creating a chocolate-flavored beer, including issues such as iron content of chocolate--it's high--which could dissolve into the beer, oxidize, and create a hazy appearance--an unwelcome occurrence in most beers. After talking beer, we got set up for talking chocolate.

Following a brief Slow Food meeting things really got moving as a long and interesting discussion commenced, with participants asking countless perceptive and intriguing questions from the role that terroir plays in cacao flavor, even including natural yeast strains that could impact fermentation, to the various processes employed in small-scale or "micro" chocolate manufacture. After the discussion, we continued with the education by tasting the two currently available Patric Chocolate offerings as we talked about what tastes and aromas set them apart despite their shared origin--Madagascar. As usual, it was a true joy to see the expressions on people's faces as they searched for and identified various flavor notes and, often, realized that they had never tasted them in chocolate before.

If you would like to read more about the night and the reactions of some of the attendees, it has also been written about on the St. Louis Slow Food site, and a blog called the Cupcake Project.

Also, since--due to a recent article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch--many of you who are reading this blog are located in and around St. Louis, let me urge you to seek out Slow Food St. Louis if you are a lover of fine food. If you would classify yourself as gourmet, gourmand, or foodie, and you want to meet and talk with like-minded people who are making a difference in St. Louis food--and beverage--culture, then please contact them! It really will be worth your time.

(above: Trying to pluck a cacao pod off a photo of a tree
through sheer force of will--it didn't work)

I'd like to thank all STL Slow Food members, Sara Hale for organizing things, Rebecca Marsh for her input, and the aforementioned Stephen and Sara Hale for their incredible hospitality!

George Washington "Patric Chocolate" Cherry Pie

Renowned Kansas City chef Jasper Mirabile of Jasper's was on KC Fox 4 today to demonstrate his recipe for George Washington "Patric Chocolate" Cherry Pie with Amaretto. Click below and then hit play to watch his demonstration and hear his description of Patric Chocolate. He says: "This is micro-chocolate, this is unbelievable, it's like buying a bottle of wine, you'll taste the cherries, you'll taste the berries, you'll taste everything in there..."

We send Chef Mirabile our gratitude for continuing to help spread the word about Patric Chocolate!

Patric Chocolate's Saturday in KC:

Yesterday I spent a beautiful, chocolate-filled day in Kansas City. I had the fortune to be invited by Jasper Mirabile for his Valentine's Day radio show Live! from Jasper's Kitchen on 710 AM. We talked a bit about micro-batch fine chocolate, the processes employed here at Patric Chocolate, and what makes them different from those of mass-market chocolate. It was really a great time, and after the show I was lucky enough to have a group of about 75 fine chocolate loving Kansas City residents give me their undivided attention back at Mirabile's KC restaurant--called Jasper's--for a fine chocolate talk and tasting seminar that expanded upon many of the themes from the radio show.

Though I was expected to talk for about 45 minutes, I, due to my notorious wordiness when it comes to chocolate, was unable to keep it to under about an hour and a half. To my delight, however, everyone was not only patient but filled with a multitude of incredibly perceptive questions that really helped to drive the point home about the differences between fine chocolate and what one may find in the supermarket aisles.

And the chocolate tasting that came at the end of the talk truly seemed to be an eye opening experience for many people, which made me happy to no end. We all sampled Patric Chocolate's micro-batch 70% and 67% Madagascar bars and two supermarket bars. It was a joy to watch everyone's faces as they tasted flavors in the Madagascar bars that they had never experienced before, but also as they realized how little flavor of the cacao is actually present in common chocolate. One attendee, upon tasting the difference between the four bars, proclaimed that one of the common market brands didn't even taste like chocolate! Imagine that: chocolate that doesn't even taste like chocolate; Quelle horreur, the French would say!

Anyway, I had such a great time and got to meet so many warm and enthusiastic chocolate lovers that I would gladly return to KC--and Jasper's whose Italian cuisine is good enough to make a grown man cry--anytime!
(above: One section of the KC chocolate talk crowd)

Comments from attendees of the Patric Chocolate, Jasper's-hosted chocolate seminar are welcome!

Two New Products!

Well, actually that is one new bar and a Valentine's Day Collection that includes both of the bars currently in production.

As of February 1st, we released a 67% Madagascar bar that is made with the same cacao from which the 70% bar is crafted. The new bar is brighter in tone, with various fruit notes playing more of a role in the bouquet, such as lively plum preserves, fruits rouges--think cherries and raspberries--and butter-hazelnut toffee, as well as notes of licorice and subtle spice.

As for the Valentine's Day Collection, there are two bars of each percentage--67% and 70%--and the idea is to be able to taste the bars side by side in order to better appreciate how percentage can impact chocolate made from the same origin. This is a great way to educate your loved ones about the joys of fine chocolate. Complimentary gift wrap is included.

One interesting point about the 67% Madagascar bar is that, in addition to the cacao and pure cane sugar, there is a bit of cocoa butter added. However, whereas most companies buy cocoa butter from another company, our cocoa butter is pressed right here in the Patric Chocolate workshop from the same origin of cacao that is used in the chocolate. This ensures that the flavor profile of the bar is clear and consistent. As usual, no vanilla or other flavorings are added.

Here are links to the new products mentioned above:
The Valentine's Day Fine Dark Chocolate Collection
The 67% Madagascar bar


Just remember to order by 8 am EST this coming Friday, February 8th, in order to ensure that your, or your loved one's, chocolate is delivered by Valentine's Day!

Very Best,

Alan McClure
Bean-to-Bar, Fine Chocolate Maker