# Steeped methods - fast v. slow pour...?



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I've just made 2 French press brews, same beans, grind, dose (65g/l), water added, start temp & total steep time (4min). One I added all the water in one quick pour, the other I did a pulse, pour-over type pour (1:30+). Otherwise FP technique was straight forward, "off the box" (no breaking & cleaning, etc.), plunge & pour @ 4min.

Fast pour, with a jug - substantially hotter at the end of the 4 min steep (this one formed a crust which keeps in the heat, the slow pour was designed to allow the grinds to sink, like in a pour-over), more aggressive bitterness, sharper acidity & an overall drier flavour in the finish, more dark cocoa. Sturdy but a couple of stronger, more defined flavour components overriding everything else.

Slow pour, with a kettle - Rounder, juicier, smoother, milk-chocolate/nut rather than bitter cocoa, perhaps more complex? Didn't really taste like I'd expect an FP to taste until I started getting silt at the bottom of the cup & that was more down to mouthfeel. More like a filter brew flavour-wise? I preferred this cup in this instance.

Differences still evident when both cups were cold.

I did a similar but not A/B comparison with my CCD last week, and 'felt' there was a difference, but only having 1x CCD I couldn't check it out back-to-back.

I did previously feel that the "benefit" of a steeped method was being able to add all the water in one quick hit and maintain the thermal mass & hopefully hit a more even extraction...but now I think it is more of a case of just being a perameter for tweaking the flavour profile.


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

I'd hazard a guess that the taste differences are temperature and contact related. The greater heat in the fast pour one would extract more, but than the grinds at the top of the crust are probably extracting less? Maybe this is leading to a kind of mixed bag of flavours from different parts of the extraction.

You could try comparing two fast pour brews, same steep time etc. but having one with the plunger down a centimetre while brewing to make sure all the grinds are fully submerged.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Earlepap said:


> I'd hazard a guess that the taste differences are temperature and contact related. The greater heat in the fast pour one would extract more, but than the grinds at the top of the crust are probably extracting less? Maybe this is leading to a kind of mixed bag of flavours from different parts of the extraction.


Indeed. James Hoffmann did some tests on cupping extractions and found that the majority of the extraction happened in the first 30 seconds & only rose relativley little over the remaining steep, (my guess) possibly due to lack of agitation after the water is added. With the long pour, there will be some additional agitation and as you say a decreasing temperature...but extraction may be taking place over a longer period, with a more gentle "slope" (for want of a better phrase, less solvent in the early stages and cooler as volume increases). I can't help wondering whether the thermal dynamics play some part too...with a crust & good heat retention there may be less going on in the the brew, in terms of eddying etc., I have measured much less loss to evaporation with steeped brews that develop a crust in FP & Aeropress, as compared to, say CCD.



Earlepap said:


> You could try comparing two fast pour brews, same steep time etc. but having one with the plunger down a centimetre while brewing to make sure all the grinds are fully submerged.


I'll give it a go, probably be the weekend before I get a chance though.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Earlepap said:


> You could try comparing two fast pour brews, same steep time etc. but having one with the plunger down a centimetre while brewing to make sure all the grinds are fully submerged.


I gave this a crack today, all other factors being equal, the brew that was just allowed to form a floating crust was more acidic, perhaps to the point that the acidity masked anything else. The brew with the plunger 1cm deep still had good acidity, but was richer, a little more depth, choc & spice coming through that were largely absent in the "floater" brew. It was subtle but certainly tangible. Differences weren't so great as to suggest a different brew method/wildly different profile, the plunger 1cm deep perhaps tasted like a fuller extraction (I preferred this cup, of these two)...which I guess is pretty much what you were expecting?


----------

