Here's another mod con we've been conned into: recipes that use chocolate (meaning by that bars of ready made chocolate) in order to flavour something that is supposed to taste of chocolate when it's finished. This is a dotty idea.
Of course, if you want chocolate chips in something you need to put bits of chocolate in. If you want a chocolate coating on something, you need to coat it with chocolate, or something that ends up like chocolate. In those cases it may make sense to start with something that is a bit like the finished article. But if you want to make something taste of chocolate, it isn't chocolate you want to put in it, but the stuff that makes chocolate taste of chocolate.
I mean, think of it this way. If you start with chocolate that tastes nice, nice and chocolatey, and then you mix it with something else that is not nice and chocolatey, the end result will be less nice and chocolatey than it was before. No matter how much chocolate you put into a pudding or a cake it will always be less nice than pure chocolate, because it will have a lower proportion of cocoa solids. So how do you increase the proportion of cocoa solids? Well, clearly the way to do that is to add cocoa solids. If you add more chocolate, you will also be adding sugar (mainly sugar) and fat and a few other tasteless things: this won't help to make your cake or pudding tasty. It will make it sweet and tasteless. Besides which it's difficult to use, because chocolate is made to be hard and snappy, so you can't mix it into a recipe without melting it first, and that is a very tricky job. Why choose to use that then? It's mad, because it wasn't designed for the purpose and is very ill suited to it.
Here's another mad example: someone gave me some supposedly luxurious "hot chocolate", which was supposed to be nice because it was made of flakes of "real Belgian chocolate". What a stupid idea! For, (a) flakes of chocolate do not melt well, and certainly don't mix into hot milk. There is no easy way to generate a mug of hot chocolate from a mug of milk and a pile of chocolate flakes. And (b) however much chocolate you put into the milk, it will never taste sufficiently of chocolate, because if the chocolate tastes right on its own it will taste of virtually nothing when you've diluted it with half a pint of milk.
The way to get something to be luxuriously chocolatey is to put lots of chocolate powder into it: by which I mean plain cocoa powder. Cocoa powder contains no sugar, just cocoa solids. 100% cocoa (not 90% or whatever the best of chocolate has). Cocoa powder contains 21.7% fat: that's the cocoa butter that comes naturally. It contains no sugars. It has 23.1% protein. 1375 kJ energy per 100g. It's good stuff: rich and tasty. If you put three 5 ml spoons of it in a mug of milk, and one spoon of sugar, THEN you get a really luxurious rich chocolatey drink. Yum.
85% plain chocolate (which is certainly among the best) has 2515kJ per 100g, 9.7% protein, 15.9 % sugars, and 51.5% fat. In most cases you will also find it has some rubbish in it, such as emulsifier and so on. And that's before you've mixed it with whatever else you are supposed to be adding in your recipe.
So why do we get tempted to buy something when it says "made with real Belgian chocolate"? There's no reason to suppose it will be at all nice. In fact, rather the opposite.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Totally (or at least 89% cocoa solids) agree.
The chocolate cakes I make with Lindt 90% Excellence chocolate taste far nicer than those I make with cocoa powder -- and I haven't noticed you complaining yet ...
What happens if you make the same recipe but substitute 100% cocoa powder in the same quantity as the 90% Lindt chocolate? Or if you mix 90% cocoa powder with 10% hot water and use that in place of the Lindt?
Well, I might try it sometime, but I have to say that I find cocoa powder dry and dusty (even when mixed in with hot milk to make hot chocolate I can still taste the dustiness) and I'm one of those mad fools who actually gets satisfaction from melting chocolate in a bain-marie. Is there any particular brand of cocoa powder you recommend? -- it may be that I am judging it unfairly by using lousy stuff to start with. I have to say that the only thing that saves the Schwarzwalderkirschtorte (the cake I *do* make with cocoa powder) is the rum/cherry juice mixture drizzled over/into the chocolate sponge making it less dry ...
The thing is, if it's true that the cake is better when made with chocolate, this should have some chemical explanation. I can't myself see what the explanation is, because if it isn't the cocoa (ex hypothesi we're putting the same cocoa in only without the other ingredients when we avoid using ready made chocolate) and it isn't the bit of sugar that's in the chocolate (because we can and do add sugar to the cake anyway), then the only option is that it's the additional bit of cocoa butter, but that seems too minimal to have much effect (and how does it differ from the butter we add?) Some chocolate also has rubbish like emulsifiers, but that seems to make absolutely no difference (since chocolate without them is just as smooth and nice). Do you have an idea what the chemical significance of using ready made chocolate is?
Post a Comment