Fact or Fiction: Is there such a thing as “pure Criollo”?
We often get inquiries from chocolate makers whether we have Criollo beans in our range. The first question we ask ourselves is “why do customers specifically want Criollo beans?” Are they looking for unique beans? Complex flavors? White beans? Because of the fascination many people have with Criollo beans, we thought it would be a good idea to take a closer look at the origin of Criollo, the typical associations that are often made with Criollo (think delicate, expensive, super aromatic, etc.) , and why we prefer to talk beyond genetics.
The four thousand year old myth
The first big misconception associated with Criollo dates back nearly 4,000 years. The first wild Theobroma Cacao trees are found in the Upper Amazon basin in the rainforests. Cacao was spread throughout the Americas by indigenous peoples and later by settlers and colonizers. The Spanish settlers who first found cocoa in Mexico and Central America labeled it “Criollo” which means “Indigenous” in Spanish without any reference to possible genetics of the beans. It is also in Mexico that cocoa was first cultivated and processed into chocolate. Cocoa from other regions was labeled “Forastero”. Linking an arbitrary name like “Criollo” to a region is already a first big misconception.
For centuries, conventional wisdom made us believe that cocoa can be divided into three groups: Criollo, Forastero and Trinitario (referred to as the child of Criollo and Forastero that arose through cross-pollination in the late 17th century). This subdivision is actually almost as superficial as the subdivision of “white, milk and dark chocolate” most people have, and purely done on the “shape” of the pods, or so called “phenotyping”. In 2008, a group of researchers from the “Geographic and Genetic Population Differentiation of the Amazonian Chocolate Tree” study immediately overturned the conventional subdivision and came up with a new proposal. They argued that the subdivision “Criollo, Forastero, Trinitario” was too simplistic and even partially incorrect. According to them – the famous study of Motamayor – , DNA from cocoa trees had not yet been sufficiently researched, so they did a molecular analysis of the genetics “genotyping” and came up with 10 predominant genetic clusters: Amelonado, Criollo, Nacional, Contamana, Curaray, Cacao guiana, Iquitos, Marañon, Nanay, Purús. Today we known that in reality there are even more than 10 genetic clusters. The DNA analysis shows the proximity of a certain cacao to the mapped existing cluster.
Is Criollo really the “King of Cacao”?
To answer this question, let’s go back in history again. About 2000 years ago, all cacao that was cultivated was called “Criollo”. However, these trees had a poor resistant to diseases, yields are low and variable, which often made it difficult for farmers to grow. Certainly from the 20th century, many old and non-productive trees were destroyed and had to make way for the more robust high productive and disease-resistant hybrids and clones. This is often referred to as the “Chococide”. Cocoa was bought on the basis of quantity instead of quality. Farmers who often had no knowledge on genetics, post-harvesting, or how to add value to their products by improving the final cacao quality, easily made way for high-productive hybrids to earn a decent income.
The fact that cacao with proximity to the genetic cluster of “Criollo” was not conserved, and plants cross-polinate makes it much scarcer, which off course also drives up prices. Many people often associate scarcity and high prices with exclusivity and top of the top quality. Though genetics is only one of the paramters to for the potential of quality and flavour complexity. However, if you considering the foregoing, you can quickly see why people tend to label Criollo as “the king” and Forastero as “the cheap stuff”.
The genetic diversity of cacao
Earlier we talked about that conventional subdivision of Criollo, Trinitario and Forastero. Cross-pollination is also the main reason why we prefer not to speak about Criollo. Motamayor divides Criollo into two groups named “true” or “ancient” Criollo and ‘’modern’’ Criollo. Ancient Criollos were probably only found in Central-America (Mexico, Belize, Nicaragua, Honduras) in South-America (Venezuela, Colombia) and in Madagascar. Some so-called ‘‘modern Criollo’’ clones are quite close to the ancient Criollos but arising from hybridization with other groups. They display a certain number of morphological characteristics of the ancient Criollos, but they are in fact hybrids that are relatively close to Criollo.
Today, finding 100% pure Criollo is very difficult – not to say impossible – anyway, we will rather find a mix, and genetics change over time. The difficulty also lies in the fact that you can almost never be absolutely sure about the genetics of cacao beans without DNA testing. The logic behind this is that cocoa trees cannot produce beans without pollinating the flowers on the tree. With cross-pollination, pollen from one plant are transferred to the ovules of the other plant with the help of midges. This produces seeds that will always have different genetics from the parent plants. What we can take away from this is that today most modern Criollo has a different fingerprint than their pure ancient criollo forms of centuries ago. So, pure criollo is nowadays a very seldom encounter.
So, do you have to write off Criollo completely?
Criollo is usually associated with the very best quality and flavor. It is believed to have complex aromas that are low in chocolate and bitterness and characteristic of fresh fruit, nuts, caramel, bergamot, etc. The variety is often also associated with white beans. Tough white beans simply mean the absence of anthocyanin. Though as soon as this cross-pollinates with 1 tree that has anthocyanin beans the beans will be coloured. To make it even a bit more complex, white beans do not necessarily refer to Criollo. Catongo, rooting back due to a mutation of an Amelonado, has no anthocyanin and so 100% white beans. Our take away: colour does not necessarily says something about the final quality.
Although genetics can certainly play an important role in quality and flavour experience, this is only a small part. To our knowledge, the vast majority, about 70%, of the final quality is determined by the harvest and post-harvesting skills of the farmers. So if you’re looking for Criollo for the interesting story behind it or for the exclusivity, go for it! If you’re looking for special flavours, then also! But keep in mind that the final quality of the beans will not only depend on genetics, also on a proper post-harvest and not the so-called 100% Criollo genetics.