The very first soap I ever made two plus years ago was a HP Castille soap (I believe Kaleb's oat & honey???). I know I overcooked that batch and wasn't too sure about Castille in general after using. I also didn't let it age much since, at the time, I had heard that HP soap was ready immediately. I know better now. I decided to make another HP batch last night, my own recipe with coconut milk, honey and ground oats added. The oats and 1/3 milk went in before the lye water was added and before the cook. During cooking it separated and had to be stick blended back together. After zap testing, I added honey, then cooled for a bit and added oatmeal, milk & honey cibilla (BB) and spooned into my mold. Those of you who make both HP and CP with the same recipe, is there a noticeable difference between the two after a good cure? I really hope all the extra effort was worth it.
Not sure about HP yet...
- Thread starter kisha
- Start date
Help Support Soapmaking Forum:
LBussy
Well-Known Member
My HP soaps are a lot uglier, and they are cured faster (dried anyway). I have not however tried a HP castille. I suspect there's not a chemical difference between the two, heat would just speed the reaction.
Castille is going to be more creamy than bubbly, some people are just not fond of it. My wife's skin is just awesomely soft when she uses it but she says she doesn't feel clean unless there's bubbles.
Castille is going to be more creamy than bubbly, some people are just not fond of it. My wife's skin is just awesomely soft when she uses it but she says she doesn't feel clean unless there's bubbles.
Chefmom
Well-Known Member
Ooo...I've done this test. I made a hot process recipe and used mint scent. Then I made the exact same recipe on the same day and used a grapefruit scent, but I cold processed it.
Mold...unmold...cut, cure etc and 8 weeks later started testing side by side. except for scent and the slight difference in the look of the bar I can't quite tell the difference.....maybe...just maybe the hot process one seems to bubble quicker in your hand, but honestly that might just be me as well.
I will tell you tho, putting the milk into the oils before cooking in a crock pot is asking for issues and separation and burning etc. If I make a hot process milk added soap, I always add my milk, icy but not necessarily frozen in the end after the cook and a cooling period.
Mold...unmold...cut, cure etc and 8 weeks later started testing side by side. except for scent and the slight difference in the look of the bar I can't quite tell the difference.....maybe...just maybe the hot process one seems to bubble quicker in your hand, but honestly that might just be me as well.
I will tell you tho, putting the milk into the oils before cooking in a crock pot is asking for issues and separation and burning etc. If I make a hot process milk added soap, I always add my milk, icy but not necessarily frozen in the end after the cook and a cooling period.
LBussy
Well-Known Member
Awesome, thanks Chef!
I've done this, too! If the two recipes are EXACTLY the same, then no, there's not any real difference between HP and CP. (At least not that I've noticed.)
Where they really differ is in scenting and superfatting. You can use less FO in HP, since the FO is not exposed to the lye if you add it after the soap has passed a zap test. And you can't "superfat" CP, exactly; you can only lye-discount it. And you DEFINITELY cannot control which oils your superfat is made of in CP.
But if you're superfatting your HP after the cook, then you're not really comparing apples-to-apples anymore; your recipes are no longer the same, since your SF is not saponified, and that changes the fatty acid profile of the part that IS saponified. That's my understanding, anyway.
When I did my side-by-side test, I did a lye discount up-front, split the batch, and oven-processed one half. I did NOT add more oils to the HP after the cook, but I did add the FO after the cook. Six months later, the only difference I can find is in the fragrance. The HP soap smells brighter and "truer," if that makes any sense.
DeeAnna! I've gathered you're one of the math-and-chemistry types around here; IS there a difference between HP and CP on a chemical/molecular/structural level? (My thought is no, there's not, but I don't KNOW for certain.)
Where they really differ is in scenting and superfatting. You can use less FO in HP, since the FO is not exposed to the lye if you add it after the soap has passed a zap test. And you can't "superfat" CP, exactly; you can only lye-discount it. And you DEFINITELY cannot control which oils your superfat is made of in CP.
But if you're superfatting your HP after the cook, then you're not really comparing apples-to-apples anymore; your recipes are no longer the same, since your SF is not saponified, and that changes the fatty acid profile of the part that IS saponified. That's my understanding, anyway.
When I did my side-by-side test, I did a lye discount up-front, split the batch, and oven-processed one half. I did NOT add more oils to the HP after the cook, but I did add the FO after the cook. Six months later, the only difference I can find is in the fragrance. The HP soap smells brighter and "truer," if that makes any sense.
DeeAnna! I've gathered you're one of the math-and-chemistry types around here; IS there a difference between HP and CP on a chemical/molecular/structural level? (My thought is no, there's not, but I don't KNOW for certain.)
I was under the impression that "superfat" is unsaponified triglyceride (and possibly - depending on the formulation - fatty acids).
I was also under the impression that (from a very very high level) how the unsaponified fats got there, whether a result of "lye discount" (in HP or CP) or adding extra fats at the very end of a HP, is not really relevant.
-Dave
It is unsaponified fat. From two ways -
First, a lye discount in cp or hp, which gives a set % of the oils as unsaponified oils. A mix of the different oils in the recipe at amounts based on their % of the recipe and their speed/ease of saponification.
Second, a superfat in hp, where a 0% lye discount is used and then an amount of oil is added after the cook.
With the latter, it becomes very relevant. I made a shaving soap of stearic, lard and co but then superfatted with Shea and avocado oils. Using a straight lye discount would not have let me do this.
It *is* relevant insofar as with HP you can control the type of fat that is the SF. I agree there.
But ... not my point, which was to point out that from a "big picture" standpoint that SF is the unsaponified fat remaining in finished soap - regardless of how it got there. Yes, as you "drill down" into the details then distinguishing characteristics are made to differentiate the finished soaps.
Regards-
Dave
Right. If my earlier post sounded like I was saying something different, it was not intentional. I guest I should have said "since your *particular/special fat* is unsaponified. . ." Because of course your "SF" is unsaponified.
Let's say you have a CP soap made of 500 grams of olive oil, 100 grams coconut oil, and 31.5 grams shea butter, with a 5% lye discount. Your superfat/lye discount will be composed of some mixture of olive, coconut, and shea. It is highly likely that at least some of the shea butter will be saponified, and we know that the same fat can bring different qualities to the bar, depending on whether or not it's saponified.
Then you do an HP soap made of 500 grams olive oil and 100 grams coconut oil with zero lye discount, and you add 31.5 grams of shea butter after the cook. In this scenario (theoretically, anyway) none of your saponified fats are made of shea butter, and none of your unsaponified fats are made of olive or coconut oil. Thus, if you're looking at the characteristics of the fats when they're saponified vs. unsaponified, your HP soap has a different composition than the CP, even though the recipes use the exact same ingredients in the exact same amounts.
(I didn't bother to calculate whether 31.5 grams of shea butter in this example is actually equal to 5% unsaponified fatty acids, and not just 5% of the weight, but I hope the concept is clear anyway.)
Kisha, you asked "But wouldn't it make a difference in the chosen fats unsaponified as compared to not having a choice in CP because of the different qualities in each oil?" In my opinion, yes, absolutely! (Assuming your post-cook SF oil is in a meaningful quantity, etc.) So I don't think the difference between CP and HP is necessarily minimal at all. Depending on how you approach it, it can be very different indeed!
I'm curious: if you weren't superfatting after the cook or using a FO that's known for very bad behavior, and you knew that HP doesn't equal "instant cure". . .why did you hot process your soap?
I haven't done any HP batches since the first soap I ever made and have been wanting to try again and with my recipe that I regularly use to see how it would cook. I also figured I would try it with an FO that I didn't mind messing up. If I venture into the HP world again, I want to try superfatting after the cook. (And adding the milk after as well.)
janzo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2014
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 104
If I want to use Cocoa Butter as a super fat in HP soap do I add it with the other oils etc on the soap calc to work out the lye and water and set the SF to 0%, or do I just put in the oils that go into the cook In the soap calc and omit the cocoa butter. First time to do this so I want to make sure I get it right. Thank you
LBussy
Well-Known Member
This is how I do it:
I set the superfat to what I want (5% in this case) and then use 10% of the oils I want in my superfat as part of the recipe. This makes any variances in lye a little more forgiving while still expressing the qualities of the superfat. A little too much will consume some of the butters I use; a little too little and some more of the butters are available. Kinda hard to describe; I included a graphic in the article I'm writing.
I reserve 5% (half of the butters) for the superfat after cook.
Similar threads
