CP: Split-oil / oleic batter “masterbatch”

Soapmaking Forum

Help Support Soapmaking Forum:

ResolvableOwl

Notorious Lyear
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
6,926
Location
Germany
Sounds too easy for nobody to have done this before?

Castile-style soap batters can be annoying at times with their tendency to move slowly, and can need quite some mechanical work to emulsify/trace/harden. What if we can turn this into an advantage?

[ETA tl;dr: Emulsification of the lye with liquid oils alone, and only afterwards whisking in melted hard oils.]


Full recipes (multiple soft & hard oils) batters can be sensitive to under-/over-stickblending, separate, rice, traverse trace too quickly for one's needs etc.

The following idea could ease control over/need for temperature protocol (gelling or not gelling), easier SB cleaning, and temper stearic-spot-prone butters without messing up the overall temperature protocol:
  1. Weigh liquid oils in one container, and the hard fats into another separate container (optionally with some of the liquid oils added to the hard fats).
  2. Pour the lye water into the liquid oils only, and stick-blend to anything between barely stable emulsion to medium trace, whatever you need. Take out and clean the stick blender.
  3. Melt up the hard oils/butters, and thoroughly stir/whisk them in by hand, just as you do with colourants/fragrances/late additives.
In step 2, the dissolution heat of the lye water might help kick-starting the reaction. Choose whatever temperature treatment you like.
For step 3, you can heat up the butters to absolute clarity (looking at you, stearic spots!) and let it cool under visible observation without having to worry about accelerated saponification.

Having a very slowly moving castile-like batter also makes it easy and relaxed to prepare everything else (batter splitting, swirl designs, multiple recipes at once, etc.), but still enjoy reliable emulsion consistent over the full batch. No fears of unintended true or false trace at any time. Think of a “masterbatched” oil/lye emulsion (but based on just the “slow” oils). And you decide when you want to “activate” the batter with adding all the fast(er) tracing oils and additives (coconut, palm, stearic acid, accelerating FOs, …).

Essentially any CP recipe can be modified in such a way, from simple castile-with-privileges (Aleppo etc.), over Basic Trinity & variants, up to the most sophisticated five-colour swirl split-batter dual-lye triple-butter goat milk hemp hydrosol aloe poppy designs.

The only drawback I see (besides cleaning another pot that was used to melt up the fats) is an ever so slight deviation of the oil composition and amount of lye (surface losses on the pot and SB).

Sounds too easy to be true? We'll see!


Edit: re-worded for better clarity.
 
Last edited:

earlene

Grandmother & Soaper
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
9,781
Reaction score
11,980
Location
Western Illinois, USA
Sounds too easy for nobody to have done this before?

Why not turn the annoyance of castile batters into an advantage? Better control over trace and temperature (gelling or not gelling), less troubles with over-stickblending, probably prevent ricing/separation, easier SB cleaning, special treatment of stearic-spot-prone butters without messing up with the overall temperature protocol:

I am confused right at the outset. What annoyance of Castile batters?

The only Castile soap I make is 100% Olive Oil and I have never found the soap batter to be annoying. Ever since my third or so batch of Castile, I use 50% pomace and 50% non-pomace OO, so it traces quickly even without a SB. Many others who use only OO in Castile, do not use pomace, and granted it can take longer to trace, so that might be annoying, but not as long as hand stirring took prior to the introduction of SBs to soaping. My Castiles have never riced or separated. Depending on amount of water used, it sets up quickly (or not when high water) and there is no reason for stearic spots (3% stearic in OO). Am I being too literal in my reading of your introduction? Am I missing the nuances or unstated implications?

Then to go on, you mention butters, I don't understand your progression from Castiles.

Perhaps I am missing something in your introduction or not understanding the meaning as related to the thread title.

Are you talking about ANY soap formula, not just Castile soap? I am NOT trying to be dense, but I truly am not understanding what your focus is here.

As I read on, I think, 'Okay, RO is talking about starting out as if making a Castile soap, then after the lye solution & OO are at emulsion or later, then adding the hard oils to the mix for the purpose of ...." Still not sure what the purpose for doing this is and if it is reasonable. It seems a bit to me like adding an additional unnecessary step to making a multi-oil soap (which is then not a Castile in my understanding of Castile.)

But if you are inclined to experiment, and you obviously are (been there myself), of course you will because experimentation is often fun and usually instructional.
 

ResolvableOwl

Notorious Lyear
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
6,926
Location
Germany
@earlene Sorry, you're right. I reformulated my post.

Are you talking about ANY soap formula, not just Castile soap?
I'm talking about all the recipes except Castile, that have a liquid oil and hard fats in them.
My concept only begins with a (lye-heavy) Castile batter, which then turns into a basic trinity-like batter when I stir in melted palm/lard + coconut oils after emulsification.

Essentially, swapping the lye addition and the mixing of the oils/fats. I want to evaluate if there are fundamental flaws hidden within this.
 

Latest posts

Top