in article , Steve D. at
wrote on 4/24/04 7:48 PM:

> Is it possible to use sweetened chocolate instead of unsweetened, if
> you decrease the sugar? Theoretically, if you use 2 oz. sweetened for
> every 1 oz. unsweetened and just subtracted about 15g of sugar from
> the recipe, it might work. Semisweet Baker's chocolate is 50% sugar,
> with 7g sugar in every 14 g (or 1 oz) square, so I'd assume that 2 oz.
> semisweet has the same amount of unsweetened chocolate as 1 oz.
> unsweetened. Has anyone tried this? Does anyone think it would work?

Those are a lot of assumptions and you're forgetting one thing:
Baking is a science. Sugar is not just about sweetening in baking, there is
a chemical reaction, and it also contributes to texture.

I would either find a new recipe that calls for what you have, if you must
use the semi-sweet chocolate.
Or follow your recipe and buy some unsweetened.

at Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:31 GMT in <3d253be0.0404241548.521ed2c6
@posting.google.com>, (Steve D.) wrote :

>Is it possible to use sweetened chocolate instead of unsweetened, if
>you decrease the sugar? Theoretically, if you use 2 oz. sweetened for
>every 1 oz. unsweetened and just subtracted about 15g of sugar from
>the recipe, it might work. Semisweet Baker's chocolate is 50% sugar,
>with 7g sugar in every 14 g (or 1 oz) square, so I'd assume that 2 oz.
>semisweet has the same amount of unsweetened chocolate as 1 oz.
>unsweetened. Has anyone tried this? Does anyone think it would work?

You can substitute, but it's not as straightforward as you might think. You
have to account for several factors.

First, as you calculated, you need to figure out the percentage of sugar in
the chocolate. Virtually all dark chocolates these days list the cocoa
percentage, and it's fairly safe to assume that the rest is virtually all
sugar. It's going to be most successful if you can get the lowest-sugar
chocolate you can find: these days, a 70% cocoa solids chocolate is easy to
get hold of, and 85% chocolates are also becoming relatively common.

Then you need to determine the cocoa butter content of your substitute.
This is critical because it's going to determine how you need to adjust
both the chocolate and other fats like butter. This figure is less often
publicised. However, as a general rule, chocolate chips contain the least
cocoa butter, the "baking chocolate" sold in boxes in which there are
individually wrapped squares a little more, and bar chocolate, along with
"couverture"(really just a fancy name for bar chocolate sold in larger
blocs) the most. Meanwhile, pure unsweetened chocolate contains, generally,
around 50% cocoa butter. That's more even than couverture, which usually
has about 40% cocoa butter. In practical terms, this means it will be
easiest to adapt your recipe if you use bar chocolate or couverture.

Having determined the cocoa butter content, you now need to subtract that
percentage *and* the percentage of sugar from 100%. This is the total
percentage of defatted cocoa solids. Unsweetened chocolate, meanwhile, has
about 50% defatted cocoa solids under the 50% cocoa butter average above.
Then you determine the ratio of defatted cocoa solids between the 2
chocolates. For instance, if you were using a 70% couverture with 40% cocoa
butter, then you would have 30% defatted cocoa solids and your ratio would
be 5/3. This number is what you need to multiply the amount of chocolate in
the original recipe by in order to get the adjusted amount.

Now that you have the adjusted amount, you need to multiply that figure by
the sugar percentage in your substitute, and subtract that amount from the
recipe you were using. Next, you need to take the cocoa butter percentage
and multiply that by the adjusted chocolate amount. Do so likewise for the
unsweetened (assuming 50% cocoa butter you can simply divide the amount of
chocolate by 2) and then add this figure to the amounts of all the other
fats (butter, oil, etc.) in the original recipe. From the figure you
obtain, subtract off the amount of cocoa butter you calculated for the
substituted chocolate. This gives you the amount of other fats you need to
have in your modified recipe. If the number is bigger than that the recipe
originally called for, add enough butter to make up the difference. If it's
smaller, take away as much fat as will make up the difference. When
removing fat, it's best to start with the solid fats first, then proceed to
liquid fats if no solid fats remain.

So, if the original called for 8 oz. chocolate, 8 oz. sugar, and 8 tbsp (4
oz) butter and you made the substitution as above, then the new recipe
would have 13 1/3 oz chocolate (5/3*8), 4 oz. sugar (0.3*13 1/3), and 4
tbsp, 2 tsp (2 2/3 oz) (0.5*8 + 4 - 0.4*13 1/3)butter.
In practice you wouldn't need to be nearly so exact, and 13 oz chocolate, 4
oz. sugar, and 5 tbsp butter would be the way to go.

You shouldn't expect the results to be *exactly* the same. This will depend
a lot on the type of sugar and whether the other fats went up or down. If
the sugar was a brown sugar of some sort, your results will be somewhat
more tender, and a bit drier. Meanwhile, if the fat went up, then you will
generally get something with a richer, softer mouthfeel, while if it went
down it will be drier and crumblier. If the fat was butter, expect a
crisper result if the amount went up, a softer result if it went down.
However, the differences will be slight in most cases.

Before you even start, do yourself a big favour and ditch the Baker's
chocolate. Baker's chocolate is inexcusably poor, quite simply the worst
chocolate on the market. I've talked to several people who, having tried
Baker's chocolate straight from the packet in their youth, and found it to
be yucky, concluded that chocolate for baking wasn't good for eating. In
fact, the reverse is true - if a chocolate isn't good for eating, it isn't
any good for baking either. The problem with Baker's chocolate isn't that
it's for baking: it's just *bad* chocolate. Meanwhile, it's easy to get
good chocolate virtually anywhere. The easiest in the USA is Ghirardelli,
virtually ubiquitous. There are plenty of others as well.
--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

in article , Alex Rast at
wrote on 4/25/04 4:38 AM:

> at Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:31 GMT in <3d253be0.0404241548.521ed2c6
> @posting.google.com>, (Steve D.) wrote :
>
>> Is it possible to use sweetened chocolate instead of unsweetened, if
>> you decrease the sugar? Theoretically, if you use 2 oz. sweetened for
>> every 1 oz. unsweetened and just subtracted about 15g of sugar from
>> the recipe, it might work. Semisweet Baker's chocolate is 50% sugar,
>> with 7g sugar in every 14 g (or 1 oz) square, so I'd assume that 2 oz.
>> semisweet has the same amount of unsweetened chocolate as 1 oz.
>> unsweetened. Has anyone tried this? Does anyone think it would work?
>
> You can substitute, but it's not as straightforward as you might think. You
> have to account for several factors.
>
> First, as you calculated, you need to figure out the percentage of sugar in
> the chocolate. Virtually all dark chocolates these days list the cocoa
> percentage, and it's fairly safe to assume that the rest is virtually all
> sugar. It's going to be most successful if you can get the lowest-sugar
> chocolate you can find: these days, a 70% cocoa solids chocolate is easy to
> get hold of, and 85% chocolates are also becoming relatively common.
>
> Then you need to determine the cocoa butter content of your substitute.
> This is critical because it's going to determine how you need to adjust
> both the chocolate and other fats like butter. This figure is less often
> publicised. However, as a general rule, chocolate chips contain the least
> cocoa butter, the "baking chocolate" sold in boxes in which there are
> individually wrapped squares a little more, and bar chocolate, along with
> "couverture"(really just a fancy name for bar chocolate sold in larger
> blocs) the most. Meanwhile, pure unsweetened chocolate contains, generally,
> around 50% cocoa butter. That's more even than couverture, which usually
> has about 40% cocoa butter. In practical terms, this means it will be
> easiest to adapt your recipe if you use bar chocolate or couverture.
>
> Having determined the cocoa butter content, you now need to subtract that
> percentage *and* the percentage of sugar from 100%. This is the total
> percentage of defatted cocoa solids. Unsweetened chocolate, meanwhile, has
> about 50% defatted cocoa solids under the 50% cocoa butter average above.
> Then you determine the ratio of defatted cocoa solids between the 2
> chocolates. For instance, if you were using a 70% couverture with 40% cocoa
> butter, then you would have 30% defatted cocoa solids and your ratio would
> be 5/3. This number is what you need to multiply the amount of chocolate in
> the original recipe by in order to get the adjusted amount.
>
> Now that you have the adjusted amount, you need to multiply that figure by
> the sugar percentage in your substitute, and subtract that amount from the
> recipe you were using. Next, you need to take the cocoa butter percentage
> and multiply that by the adjusted chocolate amount. Do so likewise for the
> unsweetened (assuming 50% cocoa butter you can simply divide the amount of
> chocolate by 2) and then add this figure to the amounts of all the other
> fats (butter, oil, etc.) in the original recipe. From the figure you
> obtain, subtract off the amount of cocoa butter you calculated for the
> substituted chocolate. This gives you the amount of other fats you need to
> have in your modified recipe. If the number is bigger than that the recipe
> originally called for, add enough butter to make up the difference. If it's
> smaller, take away as much fat as will make up the difference. When
> removing fat, it's best to start with the solid fats first, then proceed to
> liquid fats if no solid fats remain.
>
> So, if the original called for 8 oz. chocolate, 8 oz. sugar, and 8 tbsp (4
> oz) butter and you made the substitution as above, then the new recipe
> would have 13 1/3 oz chocolate (5/3*8), 4 oz. sugar (0.3*13 1/3), and 4
> tbsp, 2 tsp (2 2/3 oz) (0.5*8 + 4 - 0.4*13 1/3)butter.
> In practice you wouldn't need to be nearly so exact, and 13 oz chocolate, 4
> oz. sugar, and 5 tbsp butter would be the way to go.
>
> You shouldn't expect the results to be *exactly* the same. This will depend
> a lot on the type of sugar and whether the other fats went up or down. If
> the sugar was a brown sugar of some sort, your results will be somewhat
> more tender, and a bit drier. Meanwhile, if the fat went up, then you will
> generally get something with a richer, softer mouthfeel, while if it went
> down it will be drier and crumblier. If the fat was butter, expect a
> crisper result if the amount went up, a softer result if it went down.
> However, the differences will be slight in most cases.
>
> Before you even start, do yourself a big favour and ditch the Baker's
> chocolate. Baker's chocolate is inexcusably poor, quite simply the worst
> chocolate on the market. I've talked to several people who, having tried
> Baker's chocolate straight from the packet in their youth, and found it to
> be yucky, concluded that chocolate for baking wasn't good for eating. In
> fact, the reverse is true - if a chocolate isn't good for eating, it isn't
> any good for baking either. The problem with Baker's chocolate isn't that
> it's for baking: it's just *bad* chocolate. Meanwhile, it's easy to get
> good chocolate virtually anywhere. The easiest in the USA is Ghirardelli,
> virtually ubiquitous. There are plenty of others as well.

Wouldn't it just be easier for this guy to use what the recipe calls for, or
find a recipe for what he wants to use???

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> in article , Alex Rast at
> wrote on 4/25/04 4:38 AM:
>
>> at Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:31 GMT in <3d253be0.0404241548.521ed2c6
>> @posting.google.com>, (Steve D.) wrote :
>>
>>> Is it possible to use sweetened chocolate instead of unsweetened, if
>>> you decrease the sugar? Theoretically, if you use 2 oz. sweetened
>>> for every 1 oz. unsweetened and just subtracted about 15g of sugar
(snip)
>> Having determined the cocoa butter content, you now need to subtract
>> that percentage *and* the percentage of sugar from 100%
(snip)
>
> Wouldn't it just be easier for this guy to use what the recipe calls
> for, or find a recipe for what he wants to use???

I agree wholeheartedly! It's chocolate; find a recipe that works with what
you have/can buy and go on.

Jill

(Alex Rast) wrote in message >...
> at Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:31 GMT in <3d253be0.0404241548.521ed2c6
> @posting.google.com>, (Steve D.) wrote :
>
> >Is it possible to use sweetened chocolate instead of unsweetened, if
> >you decrease the sugar? Theoretically, if you use 2 oz. sweetened for
> >every 1 oz. unsweetened and just subtracted about 15g of sugar from
> >the recipe, it might work. Semisweet Baker's chocolate is 50% sugar,
> >with 7g sugar in every 14 g (or 1 oz) square, so I'd assume that 2 oz.
> >semisweet has the same amount of unsweetened chocolate as 1 oz.
> >unsweetened. Has anyone tried this? Does anyone think it would work?
>
> You can substitute, but it's not as straightforward as you might think. You
> have to account for several factors.
>
> First, as you calculated, you need to figure out the percentage of sugar in
> the chocolate. Virtually all dark chocolates these days list the cocoa
> percentage, and it's fairly safe to assume that the rest is virtually all
> sugar. It's going to be most successful if you can get the lowest-sugar
> chocolate you can find: these days, a 70% cocoa solids chocolate is easy to
> get hold of, and 85% chocolates are also becoming relatively common.
>
> Then you need to determine the cocoa butter content of your substitute.
> This is critical because it's going to determine how you need to adjust
> both the chocolate and other fats like butter. This figure is less often
> publicised. However, as a general rule, chocolate chips contain the least
> cocoa butter, the "baking chocolate" sold in boxes in which there are
> individually wrapped squares a little more, and bar chocolate, along with
> "couverture"(really just a fancy name for bar chocolate sold in larger
> blocs) the most. Meanwhile, pure unsweetened chocolate contains, generally,
> around 50% cocoa butter. That's more even than couverture, which usually
> has about 40% cocoa butter. In practical terms, this means it will be
> easiest to adapt your recipe if you use bar chocolate or couverture.
>
> Having determined the cocoa butter content, you now need to subtract that
> percentage *and* the percentage of sugar from 100%. This is the total
> percentage of defatted cocoa solids. Unsweetened chocolate, meanwhile, has
> about 50% defatted cocoa solids under the 50% cocoa butter average above.
> Then you determine the ratio of defatted cocoa solids between the 2
> chocolates. For instance, if you were using a 70% couverture with 40% cocoa
> butter, then you would have 30% defatted cocoa solids and your ratio would
> be 5/3. This number is what you need to multiply the amount of chocolate in
> the original recipe by in order to get the adjusted amount.
>
> Now that you have the adjusted amount, you need to multiply that figure by
> the sugar percentage in your substitute, and subtract that amount from the
> recipe you were using. Next, you need to take the cocoa butter percentage
> and multiply that by the adjusted chocolate amount. Do so likewise for the
> unsweetened (assuming 50% cocoa butter you can simply divide the amount of
> chocolate by 2) and then add this figure to the amounts of all the other
> fats (butter, oil, etc.) in the original recipe. From the figure you
> obtain, subtract off the amount of cocoa butter you calculated for the
> substituted chocolate. This gives you the amount of other fats you need to
> have in your modified recipe. If the number is bigger than that the recipe
> originally called for, add enough butter to make up the difference. If it's
> smaller, take away as much fat as will make up the difference. When
> removing fat, it's best to start with the solid fats first, then proceed to
> liquid fats if no solid fats remain.
>
> So, if the original called for 8 oz. chocolate, 8 oz. sugar, and 8 tbsp (4
> oz) butter and you made the substitution as above, then the new recipe
> would have 13 1/3 oz chocolate (5/3*8), 4 oz. sugar (0.3*13 1/3), and 4
> tbsp, 2 tsp (2 2/3 oz) (0.5*8 + 4 - 0.4*13 1/3)butter.
> In practice you wouldn't need to be nearly so exact, and 13 oz chocolate, 4
> oz. sugar, and 5 tbsp butter would be the way to go.
>
> You shouldn't expect the results to be *exactly* the same. This will depend
> a lot on the type of sugar and whether the other fats went up or down. If
> the sugar was a brown sugar of some sort, your results will be somewhat
> more tender, and a bit drier. Meanwhile, if the fat went up, then you will
> generally get something with a richer, softer mouthfeel, while if it went
> down it will be drier and crumblier. If the fat was butter, expect a
> crisper result if the amount went up, a softer result if it went down.
> However, the differences will be slight in most cases.
>
> Before you even start, do yourself a big favour and ditch the Baker's
> chocolate. Baker's chocolate is inexcusably poor, quite simply the worst
> chocolate on the market. I've talked to several people who, having tried
> Baker's chocolate straight from the packet in their youth, and found it to
> be yucky, concluded that chocolate for baking wasn't good for eating. In
> fact, the reverse is true - if a chocolate isn't good for eating, it isn't
> any good for baking either. The problem with Baker's chocolate isn't that
> it's for baking: it's just *bad* chocolate. Meanwhile, it's easy to get
> good chocolate virtually anywhere. The easiest in the USA is Ghirardelli,
> virtually ubiquitous. There are plenty of others as well.

WOW!! Haha I was just thinking about replacing a few squares but
you're right, it's a science. I'll just go pick up some unsweetened
chocolate, thank you very much ;-) Also, where can I buy Ghirardelli
in boxes? I only see the bags of chips/chunks. I've always thought
Baker's chocolate was the only way to go (but I agree, it's not as
good as I'd like it to be).

Thanks a bunch,
Steve

+In article >,
says...
> WOW!! Haha I was just thinking about replacing a few squares but
> you're right, it's a science. I'll just go pick up some unsweetened
> chocolate, thank you very much ;-) Also, where can I buy Ghirardelli
> in boxes? I only see the bags of chips/chunks. I've always thought
> Baker's chocolate was the only way to go (but I agree, it's not as
> good as I'd like it to be).
>
>
Don't know where you are, but the Cost Plus near me carries the
Ghiradelli Baker's Bars. Of course, the fact that it's two blocks from
Ghiradelli Square might have something to do with that, but it's worth a
try, if you have a CP locally.
--
Donna
A pessimist believes all women are bad. An optimist hopes they are.

jmcquown wrote:
> Sheryl Rosen wrote:
>
>>in article , Alex Rast at
wrote on 4/25/04 4:38 AM:
>>
>>
>>>at Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:31 GMT in <3d253be0.0404241548.521ed2c6
>, (Steve D.) wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is it possible to use sweetened chocolate instead of unsweetened, if
>>>>you decrease the sugar? Theoretically, if you use 2 oz. sweetened
>>>>for every 1 oz. unsweetened and just subtracted about 15g of sugar
>
> (snip)
>
>>>Having determined the cocoa butter content, you now need to subtract
>>>that percentage *and* the percentage of sugar from 100%
>
> (snip)
>
>>Wouldn't it just be easier for this guy to use what the recipe calls
>>for, or find a recipe for what he wants to use???
>
>
> I agree wholeheartedly! It's chocolate; find a recipe that works with what
> you have/can buy and go on.
>
> Jill
>

The problem is if the recipe calls for bakers chocolate and you want to
use good chocolate -- which usually has some sugar in it. I have a
large block of fancy bittersweet chocolate, and I don't know how to use
it except for nibbling.

All my recipes call for unsweetened baking chocolate (which sucks) or
semisweet chocolate chips (which also suck). The recipes turn out good
using the sucky chocolate, but they could be much better using good
chocolate. I think the original poster was in the same predicament.

Best regards,
Bob

at Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:59:05 GMT in
>,
(Steve D.) wrote :

(Alex Rast) wrote in message
>.. .
>> at Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:31 GMT in <3d253be0.0404241548.521ed2c6
>> @posting.google.com>, (Steve D.) wrote :
>>
>> >Is it possible to use sweetened chocolate instead of unsweetened, if
>> >you decrease the sugar? ...
>>
>> You can substitute, but it's not as straightforward as you might
>> think. You have to account for several factors.
>>
>
>WOW!! Haha I was just thinking about replacing a few squares but
>you're right, it's a science. I'll just go pick up some unsweetened
>chocolate, thank you very much ;-)

Actually, there's not much effort involved. I explained the process very
step-by-step, resulting in a long description, but if you've got basic math
skills, calculating the substitutions shouldn't take more than 15 minutes,
worst-case. It looks overwhelming when it's described like that, but it's
really pretty elementary.

> Also, where can I buy Ghirardelli
>in boxes? I only see the bags of chips/chunks.

Ghirardelli isn't sold in boxes. It's sold in bars, generally 4 oz in size,
suitable for straight eating as well as for baking (this should be a clue.
Any chocolate sold in a box, so that there's no convenient way to eat it
straight, is pretty worthless. If they're trying to discourage you from
eating it straight, there's usually a good reason...) The bars are wide and
flat. In their current form, they have wrappers with a broad gold band in
the middle, and the sides are colour-coded for the type : black sides =
unsweetened, dark brown = bittersweet, dark gold = semi-sweet, red = sweet
dark, blue = milk. Supermarkets aren't consistent about where they put it -
some put it on the candy aisle, some in the baking aisle, some next to the
checkout stand.

> I've always thought
>Baker's chocolate was the only way to go (but I agree, it's not as
>good as I'd like it to be).

I'm curious. A lot of people seem to imagine this. Why do people think that
they have to use Baker's brand? It's not as if the baked goods are going to
explode. Chocolate is, after all, chocolate. The differences are in
quality, not in what it does in baked goods. (at least, in the main)

Other people have commented that most quality chocolate is sweetened at
least to some extent. Undoubtedly, there are more quality semi-sweet and
bittersweet chocolates than there are unsweetened, but a few companies do
make unsweetened chocolate that is the equal of the very finest
bittersweet. Of unsweetened chocolates worth buying at all, you find 3
segments: the "premium" - cheap but still excellent, the "high-end" -
somewhat more expensive, but still affordable, sometimes with more
distinctive flavour signatures, and the "elite" - very expensive, but if
you want the absolute best, this is where to go.

The "premium" brands include Ghirardelli, Guittard, and Callebaut.
"High-end" brands include Scharffen Berger, Valrhona and Dagoba.
"Elite" brands include Slitti, Domori, and Michel Cluizel.

I find Ghirardelli and Callebaut to be about the same, and better than
Guittard. None of the high-end brands immediately above them seem to offer
significant improvement, so for general baking these 2 brands work fine. If
you are ready to splurge, the Domori and Cluizel chocolates are *much*
better than the others - worth every penny you spend, at least for special
occasions. I have to give the nod to Cluizel - Noir Infini is IMHO perhaps
the ultimate baking chocolate.

Most of these can be ordered from Chocosphere (http://www.chocosphere.com)
if you have difficulty finding them locally.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:56:31 -0500, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>The problem is if the recipe calls for bakers chocolate and you want to
>use good chocolate -- which usually has some sugar in it. I have a
>large block of fancy bittersweet chocolate, and I don't know how to use
>it except for nibbling.

Go to epicurious.com. Enter "bittersweet" into the recipe search. 543
hits from Gourmet and Bon App. Bittersweet chocolate is similar in
composition to semi-sweet (just with less sugar), and can be used in
many recipes calling for semi-sweet. Knock yourself out! And put down
that bare chocolate. :-)