I have been hand dipping ganache centres in tempered chocolate for
sometime now. However, I have always been disappointed with the
thickness of the enrobing - too thick.

I use Valrhona Equatoriale Noir for my enrobing. I have considered
adding more cocoa butter to the couverture, but have shied away from
doing so - not wanting to waste a large vat of couverture.

However, what has worked for me is a hairdryer - a quick blast of warm
air removes excess chocolate from the freshly dipped ganache centre,
but (with the right hairdryer) does not heat the couverture out of
temper.

I allow the excess chocolate to fall back into my vat of tempered
chocolate. The chocolate remains in temper fine for many hours (I
temper on a granite slab). However, once the chocolate has been
allowed to cool after use, and then is remelted (to 58 degrees Celcius
as recommended by Valrhona) to begin the tempering process again, it
becomes thick and somewhat lumpy.

I have strained out the lumps and used it ok. But the lumps reoccur
without fail each time the chocolate in my tempering vat is allowed to
cool and set after use and then is reheated to 58 degs.

I had never encountered this problem before using the hairdryer, and
have encountered it every time since.

Any ideas, suggestions or explanations?

Simon

Simon Mitchell wrote:

> as recommended by Valrhona) to begin the tempering process again, it
> becomes thick and somewhat lumpy.
>
> I have strained out the lumps and used it ok. But the lumps reoccur
> without fail each time the chocolate in my tempering vat is allowed
to
> cool and set after use and then is reheated to 58 degs.
>
> I had never encountered this problem before using the hairdryer, and
> have encountered it every time since.
>
> Any ideas, suggestions or explanations?
>
> Simon

58 degree C is too high to melt any forms of chocolate for tempering.
No wonder you got lumping problems .
It should be only in the range of 45-50 degree C.
A sair dryer is only used to soften chocolate that has started to set
after being tempered not to use it for melting chocolate.
Roy

Hi Roy

Valrhona recommend that their couvertures are melted over night to 58
degrees C. 3/4 of the couverture then cooled to 28.5 degrees on marble
(I use granite) before being added back to the remaining 1/4. The
couverture should then be held at 32.5 degrees C until use. Working
temperature 31 degrees C.

Don't ask me why Valrhona should be different, but having used this
method and temperatures successfully for over a year I'm not going to
question it. Actually that is not true. I have tried various different
tempering methods and temperatures. The one they recommend really is
the best.

My problems only started recently when I started using a hairdryer to
remove the excess chocolate from a freshly dipped centre. In a way I am
trying to ape the roll of hot air in an enrobing machine.

Fundamentally my desire is to have a 0.5 enrobing of couverture. What
are your thoughts on using hot air as opposed to adding extra cocoa
butter to the couverture?

Simon

wrote:
<snip>
> Fundamentally my desire is to have a 0.5 enrobing of couverture. What
> are your thoughts on using hot air as opposed to adding extra cocoa
> butter to the couverture?
>
> Simon

0.5 of what? I haven't used that particular chocolate, but does Valrhona
recommend it for enrobing/dipping?

If I were you, I would simply add some cocoa butter. That is the usual way
to thin good chocolate.
--
Janet

Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a Sna/Bedlam has many Mansions:have a
ca/ Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:/ You think your
self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.

wrote:
> Hi Roy
>
> Valrhona recommend that their couvertures are melted over night to 58
> degrees C. 3/4 of the couverture then cooled to 28.5 degrees on
marble
> (I use granite) before being added back to the remaining 1/4. The
> couverture should then be held at 32.5 degrees C until use. Working
> temperature 31 degrees C.
>
To me its pretty odd to having such higher temoerature for melting.
I agree that two third to three quarters of the bulk chcolate are
melted and then poured on the marble /granite slab to supercool it and
allow the formation of the desired crystal form.
Your holding temoerature is notmal and within range like any other
chocolate.
Now with such a high temoerat9 for melting)ure it implies that the
nature of the cooca butter used in such chocolate formutation has lots
a higher melting point fractions of the symmetrical triglycerides and
less of the lower melting fractions.
I was wondering if these Valrhona contains a higher amount of cocoa
butter equivalent fats( CBE) compatible with cocoa butter.Or they have
some sort o f higher melting fractions cocoa butter equivalent
improvers in the chocolate formula to be for it to withstand such
higher melting temperatures. Having said that does this chocolate
exhibit a waxy feelin in the palate.

> Don't ask me why Valrhona should be different, but having used this
> method and temperatures successfully for over a year I'm not going to
> question it. Actually that is not true. I have tried various
different
> tempering methods and temperatures. The one they recommend really is
> the best.
Hmnn, I still find it odd and different from other chocolates. IMO I am
not brand conscious person,( I donot want to be under the mercy of this
chocolate manufacturers and suppliers dictating things to me )if one
chocolate have a unique prescribed meting temoeratures than the rest I
will not use that on my chocolate manufacturing systems as you have to
modify your parameters just to fit it in.
Indeed its risky to melt chccolate at higher than 50 degree C and in my
experience specially with hand tempering there is the propensity for
lump formation once that temoerature barrier ( I stated in my first
post) is surpassed.Besides you may have to agitate at higher speed if
you heat the chocolate at higher temperatures and that will introduce
air bubbles that will sometimes serves as nuclei for lumps to form.
> My problems only started recently when I started using a hairdryer to
> remove the excess chocolate from a freshly dipped centre. In a way I
am
> trying to ape the roll of hot air in an enrobing machine.

In my experience with enrobing machines, there is indeed the so called
temperature difference within the different zones in the cooling
tunnel of such equipment, but that was for the purpose of improving the
efficiency of the process.Often you cannot easily simulate that by
hand.
Unnecessary heating and cooling cycles may affect the nature of the
chocolate temper and may ins some cases promote fat bloom.So I don't
see the need of imitating machine performance if it can be done simply
without it.
> Fundamentally my desire is to have a 0.5 enrobing of couverture. What
> are your thoughts on using hot air as opposed to adding extra cocoa
> butter to the couverture?

I do not find the use of hot air recommendable for hot tempering. Once
the chocolate centers are enrobed they should be allowed to set
immediately and prevent temperature fluctuation to occur.
Regional superheating by blowing hot air may introduce some moisture
laden air into the chocolate making the pregelatinized starches in the
chocolate to sieze up and form lumps. Ambient humidity is fluctuating
and if the air is humid you will have difficulty getting your chocolate
free from lumps with such procedure.
I reitirate that I use only the hot air dryier to soften some chocolate
that had hardened on sides of the pot and stirring it back to the bulk
to make it uniform in consistency; but never for mass melting of the
already soldified chocolate.
If I need to melt small quantities of hardened tempered chocolate in
the pot I carefully use the bain marie or other suitable heater for
it.
Adding cocoa butter may help thin the chocolate but to me that is a
very expensive process. You can do that if expense is not your
problem.
For me I would rather make my own chocolate with the type of
institutional scale equipment for manufacturing chocolate I had in my
disposal and the range of cocoa bean types I had in stock.Then I had a
firm control with the chocolate properties that suits best my needs.
Or if supposing ,the purchased bulk chocolate in the holding tank, I
had, has the propensity to be thicker than what the product
specification says I add some polyglycerol polyricinoleate( PGPR about
0.1-0.3% depending on the thinness of the chocolate viscosity I need(
either for spinnnng cast products like easter egg and bunnies or
enrobed and molded chocolate pueces.

Roy

Roy, thank you for your most informative post. Given that I have cocoa
butter to hand, I shall try adding this to the couverture. I guess
(wildly?) that adding 1% may be a good place to start, and iterate to a
final quantiy from there.

Janet, apologies for my continued poor typing. I wish to achieve an
enrobed shell 0.5 mm thick. I also wish to avoid the couverture
slipping down the sides of the chocolate, once it has been laid to
rest, creating a thicker enrobing at the base of the chocolate. A
problem that we colloquially call "fat arsed chocolates".

On a new, but related theme, have either of you tried hand dipping (or
otherwise enrobing) a tray of centres. I have tried this with only
partial success, but read recently of someone advocating this approach.
The article mentioned setting out a matrix of centres on a wire tray
(similar to a cake cooling rack I guess) and pouring the tempered
couverture over the top. When I tried this, my problems arose when
trying to remove the freshly enrobed chocolates from the tray.

Simon

wrote:
> Roy, thank you for your most informative post. Given that I have cocoa
> butter to hand, I shall try adding this to the couverture. I guess
> (wildly?) that adding 1% may be a good place to start, and iterate to
> a final quantiy from there.
>
> Janet, apologies for my continued poor typing. I wish to achieve an
> enrobed shell 0.5 mm thick. I also wish to avoid the couverture
> slipping down the sides of the chocolate, once it has been laid to
> rest, creating a thicker enrobing at the base of the chocolate. A
> problem that we colloquially call "fat arsed chocolates".
>

I am more of a feet and inches person, but if the ruler I just consulted is
accurate, that is a *very* thin shell for a dipped center. You would find it
much easier to achieve using a mold, I think.

If you are dipping centers, it is inevitable that the couverture will be at
least slightly thicker at the bottom, although you can certainly affect the
degree of this by the length of time you let it drip and the amount of
tapping you do, and so forth. The more liquid your chocolate, the thinner
the shell, but also the quicker it may run down to the bottom! <G> I would
think that extremely thin couverture may also lead to higher incidence of
the bottom of the center poking through the covering.

> On a new, but related theme, have either of you tried hand dipping (or
> otherwise enrobing) a tray of centres. I have tried this with only
> partial success, but read recently of someone advocating this
> approach. The article mentioned setting out a matrix of centres on a
> wire tray (similar to a cake cooling rack I guess) and pouring the
> tempered couverture over the top. When I tried this, my problems
> arose when trying to remove the freshly enrobed chocolates from the
> tray.
>
> Simon

I always hand dip, but what you describe is to me enrobing, not dipping. I
can't imagine that it would work for round centers, not only because they
will stick to the wires, but because it won't cover the bottoms. If your
centers are flat and you have already covered the "bottom" side, it might
work well if you can remove them from the grid fast enough. Doing only a few
at a time would be essential, I would think. (I think I'll try it sometime.)

For round, non-molded centers, one way to get a very thin covering with very
little "foot" is to roll the center in some couverture between your palms,
instead of dipping it. I occasionally use this method to "undercoat"
truffles. I think that you could do two coats this way, and get something
like the result you desire, although I doubt that the finished item would be
as smooth as a center dipped in the usual way. The other possibility would
be to use a mold, and to thin your chocolate as necessary with cocoa butter.
--
Janet

Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a Sna/Bedlam has many Mansions:have a
ca/ Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:/ You think your
self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.

>I guess (wildly?) that adding 1% may be a good place to start, and
iterate to a
>final quantiy from there.
Give it a try and see how it goes.
BTW,
That amount is small and I remember in the past that I used several
times more than your starting quantity in order to get the desired
thinness in some chocolates and lesser quantity in some items.
Roy

Roy wrote:
> Simon Mitchell wrote:
>
>
>>as recommended by Valrhona) to begin the tempering process again, it
>>becomes thick and somewhat lumpy.
>>
>>I have strained out the lumps and used it ok. But the lumps reoccur
>>without fail each time the chocolate in my tempering vat is allowed
>
> to
>
>>cool and set after use and then is reheated to 58 degs.
>>
>>I had never encountered this problem before using the hairdryer, and
>>have encountered it every time since.
>>
>>Any ideas, suggestions or explanations?
>>
>>Simon
>
>
> 58 degree C is too high to melt any forms of chocolate for tempering.
> No wonder you got lumping problems .
> It should be only in the range of 45-50 degree C.
> A sair dryer is only used to soften chocolate that has started to set
> after being tempered not to use it for melting chocolate.
> Roy
>
That is an interesting idea. I use Callebaut 835 semisweet chocolate
with 35% cocoa butter 54% chocolate solids. It makes for a nice thin to
medium coating and of course white chocolate coats thin as it has so
much cocoa butter.

The Holdermans wrote:
>
> That is an interesting idea. I use Callebaut 835 semisweet chocolate
> with 35% cocoa butter 54% chocolate solids. It makes for a nice thin to
> medium coating and of course white chocolate coats thin as it has so
> much cocoa butter.
>
Thanks for your recomendation. I am aware that Callebaut have a large
number of formulations and it is good to hear a recommendation from a
user. At present I just use Valrhona's Equatoriale Noir (55% Cocoa,
44% Sugar, 37.5% Fat) for enrobing/dipping. Following Janet's and
Roy's recommendation I have tried adding cocoa butter. In my first
experiment I added an extra 3 parts per 100 cocoa butter. This has
thinned the coating somewhat. I will try 6% extra next time.

(NOTE: Callebaut's 7811 [43% cocoa butter] adds 7% extra cocoa butter
to their basic 811 [35.7% cocoa butter] formulation.)

I have become rather a fan of Valrhona, so I will persevere with their
couverture for the moment. Though Equatoriale Noir is too sweet for my
taste. I may try their Extra Bitter couverture [61% cocoa], or use the
same grand cru couverture [64% - 72%] for the coating as I use to make
the ganache centre.

Eighteen months ago when I returned to chocolate making after a break
of 19 years, we blind tasted couvertures by five producers, including
Callebaut and Valrhona. To our taste (three tasters), Valrhona beat
Callebaut hands-down across the board for each type tried (single
origin vatieties included).

Simon Mitchell wrote:
<snip>
> Eighteen months ago when I returned to chocolate making after a break
> of 19 years, we blind tasted couvertures by five producers, including
> Callebaut and Valrhona. To our taste (three tasters), Valrhona beat
> Callebaut hands-down across the board for each type tried (single
> origin vatieties included).

That doesn't surprise me--I find Callebaut rather bland.