# Bloom/de-gas/pre-wet...



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I know many hold to the idea that the bloom/pre wet should be around as much water as the grinds can hold (~2g of water per 1g of grinds) and that often the idea is to not have any liquor drip through before the brew proper...but it frequently does.

Why do we want this initial run-off to make it into the cup? I've been tasting it and it's often pretty foul (oily, bileous, tree sap, pithy)...it strikes me that much of the following extraction's job is to balance this intial output.

I've been letting the excess from the bloom run off and I need to do more tasting but, the resulting coffee seems noticably brighter, livelier, fruitier (from a couple of Aeropress back to back A/B tests). It strikes me that there may often be components in the very earliest part of the extraction that can "fog over" the cup in general.

We tend to pay a lot of attention to making sure we don't get unhelpful, bitter components in the end of the extraction...what about sharply bitter components in the beginning?

It has made me also think about the reputation of the French press for delivering snappier, fruity, acidic flavours (though these seem dulled as you get to the bottom of the pot). Whilst the agricultural filtering must play some part, is there not also the possibility that these early, perhaps heavier components are simply part of the brew that typically remains retained in the grounds (whereas in a V60/Chemex it would be the more watery, later components)?

Questions, questions,...I have more than I do answers & am open to the idea I may just be looking for "shortcuts" to delicious extractions ;-)

I'd be curious to see what others find in a similar back to back comparison, one regular technique, the other binning the very first issue of the bloom stage?


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Very interesting, ive never thought to try those few initial drips from the bloom!


----------



## jimbow (Oct 13, 2011)

Jim Schulman and others often used to discuss doing similar with espresso - letting the first few drips go straight into the drip tray.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Indeed Jimbow...the more I mess with brewed, especially pourovers, the more common factors I see between espresso & brewed, things mainly happen at a different concentration, pace & in a less "volcanic", blink & you fudged it, environment. I'm even getting to the stage where I think I'm going to focus more on weighing the output & time, over weighing the water input...not because I necessarily think it "better", just because it makes more sense to me personally (re. variations in water retained in grinds etc).


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

I have to say since discarding the bloom drips from my pourovers the end results all have one thing in common - delicousness!

Im still sticking to 12g / 200g for now , but will give 20g / 333g a go next week , to try the effect on a bigger scale


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Good news Gary!

I'm definitely finding my strike rates improving when making larger brews at work, where there is a larger variation between 1st & last cup flavours. Cutting out that first issue is just stacking the odds in my favour, less sourness/pithyness in the first cup out (which I normally take) without any ill effect on the latter cups.

For my part, I see the next logical progression as getting away from brewing directly on the cup/carafe, by way of a stand/brew station. This may then allow "dip-stick" tasting of the liquor on the way out of the brewer, for a more accurate way of determining when to cut the brew (as well as tighter control on final beverage weight)...just thinking out loud here...until payday! ;-)


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Still waiting for the decorators to finish up (when I say "finish up" I mean "start"...or "call to confirm when they are starting"...but that's another story...), so have most of my paraphernalia stashed away, so gave the Hario Cafeor permanent filter (love this) and "coathanger brew station" a whirl...15g James Gourmet Estate Kenya blend & a kettleful of water @ 95deg start.

Bloom with enough water to wet all the grounds, wait for dripping to slow down, taste the run off & when the more bileous flavours have subsided start brewing proper, pulse pouring until desired volume was achieved (scales timed out, otherwise I would have said "weight"). Dip stick tested the tail end of the brew & removed the mug when the bitter flavours began to show through.

Ended up with 200g in the cup, stronger than I was aiming for (probably under slightly or low side of normal) but great fruity flavours, like a blackcurrant/blueberry boiled sweet. Could have let it run longer in hindsight, or done a regular, faster, 2 stage pour so the grounds coated the filter cone, reducing risk of bypassing through the filter mesh.

Time? Irrelevant....well, not entirely - I guess when I perfect the technique I'll time it to get a ball-park scenario...but really, as you are tasting as you go, the need for timing is reduced...if you think the coffee is still tasting underdeveloped, keep adding water. At extremes of grind at the coarser end you may hit issues (or end up with a weak cup), but this technique may give greater flexibility regarding grind. Too fine a grind? As you have killed the brew at the point of your choosing, based on flavour, you still won't go "over", just "strong"...if the strength of beverage is too much, dilute with water back up to a normal ratio (60g/l start for filter brewing typically results in 6.8 to 7% in the cup, but

Any thoughts, observations & comments appreciated.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Observation - Funny how with espresso we (the geeky and/or professional coffee bods) measure coffee input & beverage output, but, with brewed coffee, we measure water and coffee inputs.

A more repeatable pour-over brewed coffee method would be to tare the scales, pop the empty cup/carafe on and keep pouring until we have (in your case) 200g beverage. Technique if at all consistant would mean time would take care of itself


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

GaryDyke wrote: "Observation - Funny how with espresso we (the geeky and/or professional coffee bods) measure coffee input & beverage output, but, with brewed coffee, we measure water and coffee inputs."

Indeed, with brewed it's only what's in the cup that matters, just like espresso...of the water you add, some will evaporate during brewing (maybe 4-5g with CCD?), some will be retained by grinds...the only thing you can be certain of is, if you start with 250g water, the beverage will be less. It strikes me as odd to focus on adding a specific amount of water, when water is the cheapest, most plentifull ingredient...why run the risk of a poor cup & wasted coffee (~30p/cup) based on this?

Aiming for a specific brew weight makes sense when you are dialling in & perfecting a specific technique, or grind...but, if you taste during extraction, to some degree it doesn't matter what the final beverage weight is. That 200g can still carry under/overextracted flavour elements. This way you're only aiming to extract what you want, so you should be able to eliminate the possibility of going "over"...whether you end up with say 180g, or 230g you should still get a good cup. If you like, say a 7.3% final ratio, correct after brewing...which I must admit I didn't do just now! ;-) Last attempt at this method saw me at about 180g at end of brewing (~8%), stronger, chewy cup...but not over extracted, nor perceptibly under, just strong & round (a TDS meter would be needed to give that official over/under verdict, but then that still ony tells you extraction yield, good to know, but not 'what' is extracted).

In short the only 2 weight measurements required are dose and final brew weight at consumption (rather than at end of brewing). It still doesn't mean that every cup wil taste identical, just builds in a safety margin for avoiding "go/no go" situations.

Obviously, if you were making pour-overs commercially, you can't taste every cup (though you could occasionally to ensure a datum)...but for the home barista, we're only making one brew at a time, so we can spend a little more time to eliminate failure modes? I guess I was getting frustrated with a great brew now & then, but a lot of the time waiting 3-4 minutes for "passable" or worse. It struck me that in that 3-4 minutes you have time & opportunity to take remedial action.


----------



## tribs (Feb 21, 2012)

I somehow missed this thread. I was intrigued by your idea, so tried it this morning.

I rigged a brew station using one of those cup stacking frames and caught the bloom drips with an espresso cup using a spoon to catch the odd drip to taste to decide when to remove it and let the drips fall into the mug below. The first drop tasted was foul and then following drops increasingly less foul until the bloom drips stopped. I removed the espresso cup and tasted and it was surprisingly not that bad. I guess it could have been the worst of it was caught on the spoon but judging by the amount there was, I'm not sure how much difference it would make when diluted with the rest of the brew. Possibly not worth going to the trouble of removing it anyway. I tried checking the drips towards the end, but it was still tasting good when I ran out of water. Will try with more next time

Figures:

12g Honduras Cerro Azul ~9 clicks porlex

220g brew water Waitrose / Carreg 50/50 straight from the boil into pouring vessel.

~30g bloom ~30 secs

5 mins > 150g final brew weight


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Similar approach with fine teas. first infusion often discarded


----------

