That 500-dollar cake lesson about cocoa percentages

So I finally read the fine print on the cocoa powder I've been using for years. It says Dutch-processed with 22% fat, and I always thought that meant richer flavor, turns out it also kills the rise in recipes that need baking soda. I found this in a baking science blog last Tuesday after my third flat chocolate cake in a row. My customer for the wedding samples even asked if I forgot the leavening agent, which was embarrassing since I charged 500 bucks for the order. Has anyone else been burned by a specific cocoa brand's specs or am I the only one who trusted the label too much?

2 comments

2 Comments

hunt.leo25d ago

Wait, 22% fat?? That seems really high for cocoa powder, at least from what I have seen. The stuff I get is usually around 10 to 12% and even that feels rich to me. So the fat itself was messing with your rise on top of the Dutch processing killing the baking soda reaction? That is a double whammy and honestly I would not have caught that either. Labels really do not make any of this clear, they just slap "premium" on there and call it a day.

charles_chen9325d ago

That 22% fat number is doing two things at once and both work against you. Higher fat coats the flour proteins so they can't link up into gluten, which means less structure to trap gas, and then the Dutch processing already neutralized the acid that baking soda needs to fire. I keep a little notebook now with the fat percent and whether it's natural or Dutch written on the lid with a sharpie, because Guittard and Callebaut sit right next to each other on the shelf and the numbers are totally different. If a recipe calls for baking soda and you only have Dutch, you can swap in a bit of cream of tartar or use baking powder instead to get some lift back. It won't taste exactly the same but at least the cake rises instead of sitting there like a brick.