Using sweetened chocolate instead of unsweetened.

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

Quoted message said:

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.

hmmm.... If your recipe calls for unsweetened you may be
better off making it from cocoa... ie 3 tbsp cocoa with 1
tbsp melted butter for each one ounce square.

I had a recipe once that called for unsweetened chocolate
for the topping of a nanaimo bar - didn't think that was
right, after I bought the unsweetened chocolate squares. I
melted the unsweetened chocolate and added sugar - it was
terrible - (turned into a big blob) - so, its already ruined
i thought, why not add some milk - started adding milk
(while still on the warm stove) a little at a time until it
was the texture that seemed right. They were the best
nanaimo bars I've made.

Baking may be a science but its not an exact science.

take care Liz

Hey! Look what Sheryl Rosen <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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>, [email hidden] (Steve D.) wrote :

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden] (remove d., .7,
not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

in article [email hidden], Alex Rast at
[email hidden] wrote on 4/25/04 4:38 AM:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 said:

in article [email hidden], Alex
Rast at [email hidden] wrote on 4/25/04
4:38 AM:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having determined the cocoa butter content, you now need
to subtract that percentage *and* the percentage of sugar
from 100%

(snip)

Quoted message said:

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

[email hidden] (Alex Rast) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Sheryl Rosen said:

in article [email hidden], Alex
Rast at [email hidden] wrote on 4/25/04
4:38 AM:

Quoted message said:

at Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:31 GMT in
<3d253be0.0404241548.521ed2c6 @posting.google.com>,
[email hidden] (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)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having determined the cocoa butter content, you now need
to subtract that percentage *and* the percentage of sugar
from 100%

(snip)

Quoted message said:

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
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Steve D.) wrote :

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Alex Rast) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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
(chocosphere.comchocosphere.comOpen ↗) if you have difficulty finding
them locally.

--
Alex Rast [email hidden] (remove d., .7,
not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:56:31 -0500, zxcvbob <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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. :-)