Cook's Illustrated Reviews
Baking Ingredients...

Chocolate:
The type of dark chocolate you choose can make a huge difference in the cookies or desserts you make. The best choice balances cocoa butter, cocoa solids, and sugar.

The Truth About Dark Chocolate

This Tasting Lab appeared in the Jan/Feb 2008 issue of Cook's Illustrated magazine.Does spending more for "gourmet" chocolate buy richer, more complex flavor and yield better baking results?
Just a few years ago, selecting dark chocolate for your dessert recipe seemed pretty simple: You went to the supermarket and bought a bar of baking chocolate. These days, there are dozens of choices, and you can spend hours poring over the cacao percentages and exotic provenances on the labels. You can pay a lot more, too. But does any of it really matter? Does spending more get you better chocolate flavor? And can your choice of chocolate change your baking results?

Chocolate Basics
First, we looked into the definition of "dark chocolate" and discovered it's a pretty loose term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't distinguish between bittersweet and semisweet chocolate-it simply requires that products by either name contain at least 35 percent cacao (the cocoa solids and cocoa butter from the cacao bean). Companies use the names cacao and cocoa interchangeably, but in general, when there is more cacao in the chocolate, there is less sugar, and bittersweet chocolate tends to be less sweet and have more cacao than semisweet. Even darker chocolates, with higher cacao percentages, will be correspondingly less sweet (100 percent cacao chocolate is completely unsweetened).

Any number of variables-the type of bean, where it's grown, and when it's harvested; the length and conditions of fermentation; the roasting and grinding methods; and the quality and quantity of any additives (such as vanilla)—can contribute to differences in flavor and texture. Chocolate makers claim that every detail is critical-and are loath to share too many specifics.

We'd heard a lot about the type of cacao bean being extremely important. There are only three types. The most prized (and expensive) bean, the criollo, grown mainly in the Caribbean and Central America, makes up less than 2 percent of the world's cacao. Most chocolate is made from forastero beans, generally from Africa. These beans are harvested from hardier trees, which makes them cheaper. The third, trinitario, is a hybrid of the other two beans and comprises about 5 percent of the total harvest.

The Cook's Chocolate-60 Percent Cacao
To choose chocolate for our testing lineup, we ignored "bittersweet" or "semisweet" nomenclature and concerned ourselves with chocolate containing roughly 60 percent cacao-the type that most recipes calling for dark chocolate have been developed to use. (Even darker chocolates, with 70 percent or more cacao, usually require recipe adjustments to get good results; see "Understanding Cacao Percentages," below). Not confining ourselves to baking chocolate, we included chocolate from the candy aisle in selecting 12 widely available brands. Prices varied wildly: We spent from 44 cents per ounce to nearly four times as much.

Seeking a chocolate that would perform well in various applications, we held three blind tastings: first eating the bars plain, then melting them into chocolate pots de cräme, and finally baking them into brownies. In each tasting, we rated the chocolate on sweetness, intensity of flavor, texture, and overall appeal. And since many chocolate makers are secretive about their proprietary methods and formulas, we sent samples of each to an independent laboratory to confirm levels of cocoa solids, cocoa butter, and sugar.

Chocolate Myths and Chocolate Truths
So which chocolates won favor with our tasters? The results were surprising. The chocolate with the fanciest pedigree in our lineup, El Rey, made exclusively from Venezuelan criollo beans, wound up in the lower half of the rankings. The other single-origin sample, produced by Lindt from criollo and trinitario beans grown in Madagascar, came in last. Our two top-rated chocolates, Callebaut and Ghirardelli, came from blends relying primarily on the inexpensive forastero bean. Both were purchased at the supermarket, and they cost just 53 cents and 75 cents per ounce, respectively.

Our second discovery also defied expectations. We assumed that if one brand of chocolate is 60 percent cacao, it would be pretty similar in sweetness, chocolate intensity, and creaminess to another brand's 60 percent cacao chocolate. Not so. When chocolate makers grind shelled cacao beans, known as nibs, to create the thick paste called chocolate liquor, this paste contains both cocoa solids and cocoa butter. Most manufacturers then add even more cocoa butter, in varying amounts, to help create the texture of the final chocolate. A few, like our winner, also add extra cocoa solids to intensify the chocolate flavor. Ultimately, however, the cacao percentage on the label of a chocolate bar is a total that includes both cocoa solids and cocoa butter-meaning that different chocolates can have different proportions of each and still share the 60 percent cacao designation. As our lab tests showed, the cocoa solids in our lineup ranged from about 17 percent of a bar's total weight to more than 30 percent, while fat ranged from a third of the weight to nearly half of it. Sugar levels varied by nearly 20 percent as well.

So would the chocolate with the most cocoa butter make the biggest splash, bringing richer, extra-creamy flavor to your desserts? No. In fact, our lab results revealed that the chocolate with the lowest fat won the day, while the one with the most fat came in dead last. And would having the most cocoa solids make a chocolate superior? Again, no. Our tasters preferred chocolates with only a moderate amount. Sweetness wasn't the explanation, either: Chocolates in the middle range of sugar levels were preferred over those with the most sugar, though overall the top half of the rankings had more sugar than the bottom half.

In the end, we preferred dark chocolate that achieved the best balance of all three major components-cocoa butter, cocoa solids, and sugar. Callebaut Intense Dark Chocolate L-60-40NV was favored for its rich chocolate flavor, moderate sugar and cocoa solids, and comparatively low fat. Tasters appreciated its "intensely chocolaty," "rich," "espresso" flavor and "caramel aftertaste." It excelled in every application. San Francisco-based Ghirardelli's Bittersweet Chocolate Baking Bar came in a close second, with praise for its "smoky," "fruity" notes. It also demonstrated that balanced chocolate flavor derived from moderate levels of sugar, cocoa solids, and cocoa butter.

UNDERSTANDING CACOA PERCENTAGES
In a recipe specifying a bittersweet or semisweet chocolate, can you substitute a chocolate with a higher cacao percentage than the 60 percent generally used for cooking, making no other adjustments? Not if you expect identical results. We tasted brownies and pots de crème made with our two top-ranked dark chocolates, by Callebaut and Ghirardelli, which have 60 percent cacao, alongside ones made with the same brands' 70 percent cacao offerings.

While all four versions were acceptable, tasters strongly preferred the 60 percent cacao chocolates in these recipes, complaining of the 70 percent versions' dryness and lack of sweetness (and in the case of the pots de crème, a thicker, stiffer consistency), although some tasters noted their "deeper" chocolate flavor. When chocolate manufacturers increase cacao content, they correspondingly decrease the amount of sugar and usually add less cocoa butter. With less sugar and fat, it's no wonder the results were distinctly different.


Flour:

Can white whole-wheat flour be substituted for regular white flour? Sometimes. Our tests revealed when it's possible and when it's a bad idea.

White Whole Wheat Flour

This Tasting Lab appeared in the Nov/Dec 2003 issue of Cook's Illustrated magazine.To see how white whole wheat flour would perform in the kitchen versus white (all-purpose) flour and regular whole wheat flour, we used all three flours to make sandwich bread, oatmeal cookies, and scones.

"White flour" refers to refined flours, such as all-purpose, bread, and cake, which are made from the starchy, largest part of the wheat kernel--the endosperm. "Whole wheat flour" refers to flour made from all three parts of the wheat kernel--the endosperm as well as the fiber-rich bran, or outer shell, and the tiny, vitamin-packed germ. The presence of the germ and bran in whole wheat flour make it not only more nutritious but grainier, heavier, and more flavorful. In the United States, whole wheat flour has traditionally been made with red wheat, hence its dark color. White wheat is essentially the same plant as red wheat, it's just missing the three genes that give red wheat its color. Because that red pigment contains bitter, tannin-like compounds similar to those found in coffee, tea, and wine, when you remove it, you also remove some bitter flavor.

To see how white whole wheat flour would perform in the kitchen versus white (all-purpose) flour and regular whole wheat flour, we used all three flours to make sandwich bread, oatmeal cookies, and scones. The bread made from white whole wheat flour was indeed pale gold in color (versus tannish brown for the regular whole wheat) and was described by tasters as "cleaner" and "sweeter" in flavor than the bread made from regular whole wheat. (It's important to note that some tasters nonetheless preferred the stronger tasting regular whole wheat; they liked the nutty, slightly sour, almost rye-like flavor that is characteristic of regular whole wheat.) Its texture, however, was just the same as that of whole wheat, and so it was also more dense (as well as more wheaty tasting) than bread made from all-purpose flour. We found that white whole wheat flour--just like regular whole wheat flour--worked best in bread when combined with all-purpose. The white whole wheat gave the loaf a sweet, pleasantly wheaty flavor and a hearty texture, while the all-purpose lightened it up, allowing the bread a much better rise.

Oatmeal cookies made with 100 percent white whole wheat flour did just fine. They were a bit heavier and perhaps a bit drier than a batch made with all-purpose, but they were completely enjoyable. Cookies made with regular whole wheat flour just tasted wrong--like rye or sourdough. Scones made with 100 percent white whole wheat and scones made with a 50/50 mixture of white whole wheat and all-purpose were disappointing. Even the 50/50 scones were heavy and doughy (as were all of the scones made with regular whole wheat flour). Neither whole wheat flour, even when mixed with all-purpose, seemed appropriate for a baked good that is generally liked for its meltingly tender crumb.

In general, then, white whole wheat flour is not a cup-for-cup substitute for all-purpose, and any source that says they are identical and can be used interchangeably in baking is just plain wrong. The oatmeal cookies likely turned out well because they are hearty cookies; we would not recommend white whole wheat flour for chocolate chip or sugar cookies any more than we would recommend regular whole wheat flour. Overall, white whole wheat flour performs like regular whole wheat flour. But that doesn't mean it's not worth a try--it's milder, sweeter flavor may turn some white-bread-only eaters in your family into fans of whole wheat. You can purchase white whole wheat flour in some supermarkets and from www.kingarthurflour.com, where a 5-pound bag costs $3.15.



Sugar:

Turbinado sugar shouldn't be used in batters or doughs, because its large crystals don't readily dissolve. Here are more guidelines for using the most common types of sugar.

Sugars

Why we always have several types of sugar on hand in our kitchen.
Sugar has uses other than just sweetening. In the test kitchen, we use it to accelerate the browning of meats, vegetables, and baked goods; to tenderize doughs; for textural contrast; and to stabilize meringues. Because different types of sugar taste and behave differently in cooking applications, we stock several kinds in the test kitchen. Here are the sugars we always have on hand, with notes on usage.

White Granulated Sugar
This common "table" sugar is (like all sugar) refined from sugar cane or beets; in taste tests, cane and beet sugars were indistinguishable from each other. The relatively fine crystals and neutral flavor make this sugar the most versatile sweetening agent. When processed to a smaller size, white sugar is known as superfine sugar.

Brown Sugar
Brown sugar, whether light or dark, is simply white sugar with molasses added. Dark brown sugar has more molasses and thus a stronger flavor than light brown. If brown sugar is exposed to air, moisture in the molasses can evaporate, causing the brown sugar to dry out. To revive hard brown sugar, spread the sugar on a pie plate (or square of aluminum foil) and place in a 250-degree oven for 3 to 7 minutes, checking often. Cool the softened sugar before using.

* To approximate 1 cup of dark brown sugar, add 2 tablespoons of molasses to 1 cup of granulated sugar and pulse three or four times in a food processor; to approximate light brown sugar, add 1 tablespoon of molasses to 1 cup of granulated sugar and pulse.

Confectioners' (Powdered) Sugar
This sugar is ground to a fine powder and mixed with a small amount of cornstarch to prevent clumping. This sugar is preferred for icings and candy because it dissolves very easily; it is also used as a decorative dusting for baked goods.
* To approximate 1 cup of confectioners' sugar, grind 1 cup of granulated sugar and 1 teaspoon of cornstarch together in a blender (a food processor will not work) for about 3 minutes.

Turbinado Sugar
Turbinado is a type of raw cane sugar: It's made from the residue remaining after sugar cane has been processed into granulated sugar. We don't use turbinado sugar in batters or doughs, because its large crystals do not readily dissolve in those applications. We prefer this sugar for topping muffins or other baked goods where its crunchy texture is desirable.


Butter:

We purchased 11 premium butters and six new butter substitutes and headed into the kitchen to find out if any could compete with our favorite brand.

Tasting Premium Butters—Updated

This Tasting Lab appeared in the Nov/Dec 2004 issue of Cook's Illustrated magazine.We purchased 11 premium butters and six new butter substitutes and headed to the test kitchen. Here is what we learned.

The American food industry loves to replace delicious, natural products (take butter, for example) with substitutes made from cheap ingredients that require processing (margarine) in an effort to increase profit margins and market share.

These new products are often sold under the dubious guise of claims that they are "healthy--low fat, low sugar, low carb--and the strategy has proven enormously successful. In 1909, butter outsold margarine by a factor of 15 to 1; by 1993, margarine was outselling butter by nearly 3 to 1. Here in the test kitchen, we are usually immune to the charms of "new" and "improved" products, but two recent developments have given us pause to reconsider. First, premium butters (with higher percentages of milk fat) are now widely available in supermarkets. Second, the margarine industry has lately introduced "healthier" spreads that do not contain trans fats, ostensibly making them a more attractive alternative to butter. We purchased 11 premium butters and six new butter substitutes and headed to the test kitchen. Here is what we learned.

Margarine Gets a Makeover
Margarine has long been touted as a healthier alternative to butter, which has two to three times as much saturated fat. Until recently, that pitch has been working. But margarine has had a rough time of late. During the 1990s, more and more health experts started to sound the alarm about margarine, especially the solid versions sold in sticks. Margarine is vegetable oil that has been turned into a solid by means of a process called partial hydrogenation, the same process used to make vegetable shortenings such as Crisco. While margarine contains less artery-clogging saturated fat than butter, it also contains much more trans fat, which is a product of partial hydrogenation. Researchers have warned that trans fats may be more dangerous than saturated fat. (Saturated fat is thought to raise total cholesterol, both the "good" kind, known as HDL, and the "bad" kind, known as LDL, but trans fats are thought to raise bad cholesterol while lowering good cholesterol--a nutritional double whammy.) In general, the more solid the margarine, the more trans fats it contains.

During the past decade, per capita consumption of margarine has declined by about 25 percent. In contrast, butter consumption has climbed more than 10 percent since 1997. As might be expected, the margarine industry is fighting back. It has responded with a new generation of spreads--sold in tubs rather than sticks--that don’t contain trans fats. (A product qualifies as "margarine" if it is 80 percent fat, like most butters; it’s considered a "spread" if it’s less than 80 percent fat.) Some spreads even contain additives that are supposed to reduce cholesterol. Because these butter substitutes contain little or no hydrogenated oil, however, gums, emulsifiers, and/or tropical oils (which are naturally solid at room temperature) must be used to make them solid. These products (we tested five of them) are designed for more than just spreading on toast; most manufacturers claim that they can also be used in baking and cooking.

In our tasting, we also included Land O’ Lakes Soft Baking Butter with Canola Oil. Although not really a butter substitute, this product doesn’t qualify as a true butter, either. The pitch is pretty simple. Any avid baker knows that successful cakes and cookies often start with butter brought to room temperature. Soft Baking Butter is designed for cooks who would rather not wait an hour. We also wanted to see how these new products stacked up against real butter, so we threw two of them into the test: Land O’ Lakes regular unsalted butter and Land O’ Lakes Ultra Creamy, the company’s entry into the boutique butter business.

The first taste test was simple enough: We spread each product on toast. The butter substitutes were clear losers. Several spreads tasted like fake movie- theater popcorn butter, and one reminded us of fish. When choosing a spread for toast, we’ll stick with the real thing. Next, we melted the products over green beans and used them to sauté chicken cutlets. To our surprise, Land O’ Lakes Soft Baking Butter actually bested the two real butters in both applications. We surmise that the small percentage of canola oil in the baking butter makes it melt better and protects against burning when used for cooking on the stovetop. Two of the butter substitutes, Olivio and Smart Balance, also received decent scores in these tests.

In the shortbread test, our panel had no trouble picking out the two real butters. Tasters thought that the Soft Baking Butter made mediocre shortbread, and the other butter substitutes fared much, much worse. In this test, real butter was a slam-dunk. Our results were decisive: The margarine industry just can’t compete with natural, unprocessed, no-additives butter in terms of flavor. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.

A Premium for Butter?
All right, but what about the "premium" butters? The principal differences between "regular" butter and "premium" butter are fat content and price. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture standards, all butter must consist of at least 80 percent milk fat. (The rest is mostly water, with some milk solids, too.) Because fat costs money, regular butters rarely contain more than 80 percent. Premium butters have a milk fat content of 82 to 88 percent, which is typical of European butters. They are often called "European-style."

Traditionally, butter was made from cream that had been allowed to sit for a few days and sour slightly before it was churned, giving the butter a subtly tangy and slightly acidic character. Some present-day butter makers attempt to reproduce this flavor by adding a bacterial culture to the cream before agitating it into butter. We included two of these "cultured" butters in our lineup, in addition to nine high-fat butters that were not cultured. As a benchmark, we included regular Land O’ Lakes butter. We divided these butters into two categories: salted and unsalted. In a preliminary tasting, we discovered that the differences between various premium butters were subtle and nearly disappeared once you started to bake or cook with them. As a result, we only tasted premium butters straight from the package.

Among the salted butters, Land O’ Lakes Ultra Creamy was the winner, followed by regular Land O’ Lakes butter, which easily held its own against butters costing twice as much. As for the unsalted butters, Land O’ Lakes Ultra Creamy was again the winner, although two French butters were close runners-up. This time the regular Land O’ Lakes butter finished in the middle of the pack. So, yes, the Land O’ Lakes Ultra Creamy butter is a winner (especially for spreading on toast, where its rich flavor can be appreciated), but you can save money and be quite happy with the company’s regular, cheaper product as well.


Pie Crusts:

Do you have to always make your pie crust at home? We found one store-bought pie crust that would do in a pinch.

Supermarket Pie Crusts—Updated


This Tasting Lab appeared in the Jan/Feb 2006 issue of Cook's Illustrated magazine.Are all store-bought pie crusts awful?

This updated a previous tasting.

A flaky, buttery homemade pie crust is the ultimate crown for our Chicken Pot Pie, but it's also a fair amount of work. How much would we sacrifice by using a store-bought crust instead? To find out, we tried several types and brands -- both dry mixes (just add water) and ready-made crusts, either frozen or refrigerated-in recipes for chicken pot pie and custard pie.

The dry mixes, including Betty Crocker ($1.69), Jiffy ($0.99), Krusteaz ($3.28), and Pillsbury ($1.39), all had problems. Some were too salty, some were too sweet, and all required both mixing and rolling-not much work saved. Homemade pastry isn't much more difficult, and its flavor and texture are infinitely better. Frozen crusts, including Mrs. Smith's (also sold as Oronoque Orchards, $2.69) and Pillsbury Pet-Ritz ($2.69), were the ultimate timesavers (zero prep needed), but tasters found them pasty and bland, and it was nearly impossible to pry them from the flimsy foil "pie plate" in which they are sold. The one refrigerated contender, Pillsbury Just Unroll! Pie Crusts, wasn't bad. Though the flavor was somewhat bland, it wasn't offensive, and the crust baked up to an impressive flakiness. Better yet, this fully prepared product comes rolled up and is flexible enough to top a pie or line one of your own (nondisposable) pie plates.