Baking chocolate math assistance requested.

January 21, 2025 9:18 PM

I'd like to modify a recipe to reduce its cost by replacing two packages of an expensive ingredient with a single package of a similar ingredient, plus some of a staple pantry item I already stock. Can other bakers have a look and see if my plan makes sense?

Lately I've been making a new (to me) cookie recipe. These Brownie Cookies (courtesy of the Sally's Baking Addiction site) are quite good - a very rich chocolate cookie with pleasing texture and appearance. However, as written, the recipe calls for two four-ounce (113g) packages of semi-sweet baking chocolate. This is a drawback for me for two reasons:

• the baking chocolate I use costs $4-$5 per package at our local grocery stores, so that's $8-10 worth of chocolate for a single batch of cookies
• I regularly stock a different grade of baking chocolate (unsweetened, rather than semi-sweet) to use for other recipes I make. To the extent it is reasonable to do so I would like to stock fewer types of raw ingredients.

Recently I messed up a batch of cookies by inadvertently grabbing the unsweetened chocolate from the cupboard rather than the semi-sweet. They were edible but definitely less sweet / more bitter than they would have been had I followed the recipe as written. But it got me to thinking: the brand of baking chocolate I use claims the unsweetened chocolate baking bar is 100% chocolate, whereas the semi-sweet baking bar is 56% chocolate.

The "nutrition facts" panel on the back of each package says 0g added sugars per 1/2 oz (14g) "serving" of the unsweetened bar, whereas the semi-sweet bar's "nutrition facts" claim 6g added sugars per 1/2oz (14g) section of the semi-sweet bar.

Am I missing something or could I plausibly switch the two 4 oz bars of 56% baking chocolate with a single bar of 100% baking chocolate plus 96g of sugar (16 * 6g per half oz "serving") and come pretty close to achieving the same raw ingredients? The math seems to come out relatively close. I'd be replacing two 113g 56% semi-sweet bars with a single 113g 100% unsweetened bar plus 96g of white sugar.

I realize I might have to adjust a little bit to taste with small quantities of additional cocoa and perhaps a drop or two extra vanilla extract to mimic the semi-sweet bar. Or perhaps I might need to add a bit of extra fat (butter) to ensure the ratio stays close for texture purposes. But I'd be in the right ballpark, yes?

If I'm way off-base, what additional factors I am I missing? Because otherwise this seems like a relatively simple way to save $5 per batch of cookies and save some space in my pantry.

posted by Nerd of the North to Food & Drink (11 answers total)

you would have to adjust what would happen physically/chemically to the cookie if you increase the amount of sugar. it would most likely have an effect on the spread and the consistency. i would also think that there would be bites of the cookie consisting of almost pure chocolate every once in a while that sugar cannot help disguise and that would be noticeable. i prefer dark chocolate in my cookies but i keep it between 70-80% dark. 100% seems a bit high and maybe asking too much of anyone's palate (but we all have different tastes).
posted by alchemist at 11:14 PM on January 21

I'm not baker enough to answer from my own experience, but I've always wondered if I could substitute semi-sweet chocolate chips for the semi-sweet baking squares.

This website says that it won't work for every recipe, but that a better substitute can be made; with 1 TBS of unsweetened cocoa powder, 2 tsp of sugar and 2 tsp melted butter being the equivalent of a 1-oz semi-sweet chocolate square.

Melted shortening or vegetable oil can be used instead of the melted butter.
posted by wjm at 11:19 PM on January 21

Best answer: Yes, you absolutely can and should switch your semi-sweet chocolate for unsweetened chocolate to save some money. One bar of unsweetened chocolate plus the equivalent weight of sugar will give you exactly the same as two bars of semi-sweet chocolate at 50% because 50% chocolate is by definition 50% sugar and 50% unsweetened chocolate. I'd simply start there and then adjust as needed, as 50% is well within the range of semi-sweet chocolate.

Realistically, with a recipe like this, you can up the chocolate a little or reduce the sugar a little without worrying about them being perfectly balanced and it should come out fine. If you want to do calculations, to end up with the equivalent of two bars at 60%, you'd want 8oz * 0.6 = 4.8oz of unsweetened chocolate plus 8oz * 0.4 = 3.2oz of sugar. Plug in any percentage you like (56% gives you 4.5oz and 3.5oz). This is basically the result you are getting from the nutrition facts, but it's simpler and less error prone to just calculate it directly from the chocolate percentage in the bars. But you're already changing the ratios in the recipe by changing the chocolate bars anyways because it's not actually the amount of chocolate that matters but the amount of solids, fat and sugar, so you don't need to worry about being that precise.

You certainly can adjust with cocoa powder and butter as well.
posted by ssg at 11:21 PM on January 21 [1 favorite]

Response by poster:

you would have to adjust what would happen physically/chemically to the cookie if you increase the amount of sugar. it would most likely have an effect on the spread and the consistency. i would also think that there would be bites of the cookie consisting of almost pure chocolate every once in a while that sugar cannot help disguise and that would be noticeable.

Perhaps I should have clarified that one of the first steps of the preparation, as the recipe is currently written, is to melt the semi-sweet chocolate.

If I am substituting unsweetened chocolate I would plan to melt the (smaller amount of) unsweetened chocolate plus the additional sugar that would make up the remaining mass from the two bars of semi-sweet and add them together at the same point in the recipe. I don't think the heat of the melted chocolate is particularly crucial (as part of the instructions are to let it cool after melting before adding to the base of butter/sugars/eggs/vanilla one has constructed by the time the chocolate is added to the mixture) so it shouldn't be a concern that I am adding less thermal energy when I add only half the amount of melt-temperature chocolate.
posted by Nerd of the North at 2:32 AM on January 22

Chocolate substitution chart.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 3:45 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]

Here’s a recipe for brownie cookies that calls for 4 oz of unsweetened baking chocolate and cocoa powder, in case you want to use it to check ratios, although it does use mostly brown sugar, not granulated. (And is so, so good.)
posted by misskaz at 4:39 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]

Do you have access to Trader Joe's? I have baked with the Pound Plus 72% Cacao Dark Chocolate for years, substituting it for semisweet chocolate. It is much less expensive (currently $6.99 US for 17.6 oz.) than the baking chocolate recommended in the recipe and yields excellent results. It may be easier and cheaper for you to substitute the Trader Joe's chocolate than to revise the recipe. Even if you don't have a Trader Joe's local to you, some companies sell the chocolate online.

I couldn't get the link to work; to find it, go to traderjoes.com and search for "pound plus."
posted by FairviewPark at 10:10 AM on January 22

Response by poster:

Do you have access to Trader Joe's?

I don't, except for a few times a year (either when I am passing through an area that has one, or occasionally when a friend in the contiguous 48 states sends me a Trader Joe's-specific care package) but other people might find generalized suggestions on baking chocolate and chocolate conversion useful if they find this AskMeFi post in the future, so I encourage people to chip in with whatever info is reasonably relevant.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:00 PM on January 22

Response by poster:

I'm not baker enough to answer from my own experience, but I've always wondered if I could substitute semi-sweet chocolate chips for the semi-sweet baking squares.

This website says that it won't work for every recipe..

That has been my experience (subbing chocolate chips for semi-sweet baking chocolate works properly only some of the time.) I suspect it has a fair amount to do with the chips one is using and the emulsifiers they use. Not all chips are created equal. Most of the time it's close enough in a pinch but there have certainly been times I could tell the difference in the way the resulting dough turned out.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:04 PM on January 22

Semi-sweet chocolate chips tend to be a lot lower in cacao content than semi-sweet chocolate squares or bars. Same name, different composition. So while your squares might be 55% cacao and 45% sugar, your chips might be 35% cacao and 65% sugar. Not a surprise that these will give different results. You could compensate by adding a little more butter and cocoa powder and reducing the sugar in the recipe.
posted by ssg at 2:16 PM on January 22

Response by poster: I am pleased to report, based upon an experimental sample size of one batch of cookies, that a substitution of 56%/44% by weight of 100% unsweetened chocolate/white sugar to replace the 56% semi-sweet baking chocolate does yield a very similar finished product to the recipe prepared using two of the semi-sweet bars.

The resulting dough seemed a little bit lower in moisture content than the original, so I might wish to experiment a bit with future batches, but the straightforward substitution produces cookies that are good enough, while reducing the ingredient cost 30-40%.
posted by Nerd of the North at 9:58 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]