# Providing a brew recipe with beans



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

Hello team,

I've recently been pondering whether roasters should provide brew recipes with their beans. I was thinking about how Square Mile provide a starting set of parameters with their espresso beans, and why they don't with their filter.

In reality, there are a limited range of brewers frequently used on the market. Aeropress, v60, french press, and maybe chemex. MikeHag's thread on using a refractometer shows how easy it is to mess up a brew. So, as consumers, we spend upwards of a fiver on some beans, and are able to get the best out of them in maybe 5% of the brews? Is this right?

I don't think so. At the moment, I don't have time to work on my brewing technique. I wish I did. In the morning, I have time to throw together an aeropress, and if it comes out badly, ho hum. I don't have time to tinker with water temperature, brew time, grind size. I imagine that I represent 95% of the people who buy speciality coffee beans.

I would love to see roasters provide brew recipes, in a similar vein to the Aeropress World Championship recipes. I'm sure they could if they wanted to. And I bet they would want to - they love coffee, and want consumers to enjoy it too. Its just that for the majority of consumers, we don't have to time to invest to really appreciate each bean!


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

I asked Steve Leighton about this, he said it would be ''too prescriptive '' and would prevent people experimenting + there is no right or wrong way. On the other hand if asked he will openly suggest what recipe/parameters he personally likes (you might not like it)


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

Hmm. I personally think that's wrong-headed. It is prescriptive, but that's what some people need! I know we're in our own little isolated community here, where people are willing to spend HOURS working to get something just right, but the vast majority of the coffee-drinking public aren't like that. I would be more encouraged to hear roasters saying "this bean tastes great. I want you to taste how good it is. By doing X, Y and Z, you will get something great in your cup". I think it would be an important step to spreading great coffee out of our own little community.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

I too agree that a starting point recipe is a good thing. Many times I have wasted over half a bag finding the sweet spot!


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Thanks Fran









I need to think about this one!! I'd love it if there was a standard format for roasters to communicate key info to help brew correctly. A recipe is one way, and there could be others. With regards to a recipe I could immediately foresee pushback from roasters as after all it is not their job to define how to brew... that is the barista's job and the onus is on us to do that part right... but maybe there's a way to do it that doesn't make the roaster's life more difficult. An additional challenge is the constantly changing state of the beans. It could only ever be a starting point.

But on reflection I think there are some things that would potentially help with dialing in beans for manual brewing.

I think it would need a summary of how green bean characteristics and roast profile affect extraction. For example (and these examples may not be correct!):

- A dark roasted bean will extract easier/faster than a medium roasted one (so grind coarser or reduce dwell time)

- A Strictly High Grown Bean is more dense so will be a little tougher to extract solids from (hence grind finer perhaps)

- In larger beans (eg Maragogype) the cell structure is less dense, more fragile, as are the aromatics. Therefore a light roast can be best. With light roasts it is sometimes better to use slightly hotter brew water.

- Naturally processed beans retain a higher proportion of moisture after roasting than wet-processed (I could be wrong): What are the implications of this on grind, extraction etc?

In truth though I suspect that unless this is communicated in a very prescriptive way (e.g. a recipe) then the number of people who would use that info when brewing would be very small, and at the moment it might be a big ask. Maybe things will improve if green bean prices get higher and people take steps to get more for their money, and so demand better brewing.


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

Exactly. Why should we have to waste half a bag? What if we NEVER find the sweet-spot! I'm currently drinking SQMs Musasa, and I still haven't got it, half of the way into a bag! I had to head into Notes, Music and Coffee in order to taste what it's meant to be like! Crazy!


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

MikeHag said:


> With regards to a recipe I could immediately foresee pushback from roasters as after all it is not their job to define how to brew... that is the barista's job and the onus is on us to do that part right...


I think this really gets to the bottom of the issue. Not everyone is a barista! 99% of people just want to drink good coffee. Without the faff!

Roasters have to ask themselves who they're trying to achieve. What are they providing? An INGREDIENT, or a BEVERAGE.

If the former, then don't provide a brew recipe. Leave it up to the consumer. But also, don't tell us what we're going to taste, like all those beautiful berries, or deep chocolate flavours, or delightful acidity. Because, most of us won't get most of that. We won't know how.

But, if they're selling us a beverage, we need information how to get it from their raw product into the cup. Because then we will be able to taste all of those nice things they have written on the packages. they won't just be empty promises!

I guess this is all related to what was discussed in the thread on the new Bodum brewer. It's meant to make a great cup of brewed coffee at home, automatically. That would be brilliant. That's what people want. What they need. And that's why so many people run to Nespresso. Ease of use! even though it tastes like dirt!


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

The ONLY method I have found to be consistent in delivering a *tasty cup ,regardless of which quality beans im using, is Steve's Aeropress guide. Although Ive no idea if his version of 'course sand' is the same as mine,,,,so my end result, no matter how tasty, might be way off his intended end result. Therein lie one major problem with a recipe, or starting point = communicating grind size.

*Might not get all the tasting notes supplied on the bag but its always sweet and delicious with no bitterness


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

I agree about grind size, Gary. I've been thinking about grind size for a while now, and find the whole issue frustrating. SURELY, somehow, we must be able to discuss grind size in a consistent manner across the internet. In the same way, as I said above, there are certain pieces of kit LOTS of people use, i.e. Porlex, or Baratza Maestro, or Mazzer, could the recipes have a setting for each grinder? Probably not, but it would be nice. Or, could we become more objective? I've dreamt about writing a program in which you input a picture of some ground coffee, and it uses image processing techniques produce a histogram from the grind profile. Hmm.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

I can see your point. If I can relate it to something Steve Leighton has said previously (sorry for paraphrasing and hope I'm not misquoting!)... he isn't in favour of retailers (coffee shops) also being roasters as he feels they should specialise in the customer-facing side (brewing and selling). Well arguably the opposite might apply... a roaster should perhaps focus solely on their wholesale customers rather than also sell retail to non-baristas... or at least if they do sell retail then they should provide those customers with better ways to get the most from the product.

I have to say, I don't know where my own opinion lies on this. I've used Steve as an example, but really the above point concerns all roasters who sell beans retail. Steve himself goes to great lengths already to give his retail customers a fighting chance of getting it right... certainly more than any other roaster I can think of. And there is no easy answer to the question "how should this be brewed?". I do think it is an ingredient, not a beverage.

Let's put it another way... if the retailing roaster doesn't provide a recipe then perhaps there's scope for someone else in the chain, between roaster and non-barista customer. Somewhere in the process there has to be someone who knows how to brew, otherwise the coffee will never be brewed correctly. If there was someone, a barista, who provided a service of saying how a particular bean should be brewed... a brew recipe... would customers be prepared to pay for that?


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

To add more complexity : There are many ways to successfully skin a cat.

Steve's aeropress guide which dilutes a concentrate using a medium grind of 17g @ 85c= tasty cup

St Ali's aeropress method using a 13g grind FINER than their espresso(!) full [email protected] 94c = tasty cup

Both result in tasty cups of coffee , albeit differing cup-profiles

Only, with the former I have been able to replicate at home and get good results. Neither my Porlex or Mazzer can grind as fine and consistent as Ali's Tanzania.


----------



## CoffeeMagic (Aug 7, 2011)

Fran said:


> I think this really gets to the bottom of the issue. Not everyone is a barista! 99% of people just want to drink good coffee. ...


I don't want to take sides here, but perhaps learn something from the consumer (so to speak). From a roaster perspective I would like to say that not all roasters are baristas, either. When I buy my green beans, noone tells me how to roast them. When I roast them I am looking to emphasize particular characteristics that the bean is expected to provide. The same bean can be roasted in different profiles to acheive different results. It would be a nightmare to express a multitude of brew methods (especially on a bag label) to allow each customer to experience the same flavours I did when I cupped it - unless of course you cup it in the same way.

In the same light, I accept your comments and recommendations and would say there is scope to provide information in some way. Personally, I started work on a pamphlet some weeks ago (to use at farmers markets) which has a page of brew methods. It started off with around 8 possible methods, but then I had to ask myself, "do I have the time and equipment to test these on every roast?". The short answer is No!

Since I cannot account for how my future customers will drink their coffee, I can only provide a guide to what I tasted and the brew methods I recommend.

Do you still want to try the Abricadabra?


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

I do

I must admit to a certain cynicism when I read brew recipes from roasters and they recommend dosing at 20g rather than the traditional 14g (so a near 50% increase per double shot)


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Was thinking this morning - something you never really see in this market - brew-method-specific blends or roasts. 'Filter blend' or 'espresso blend' for sure, but never 'v60 blend' or 'french press blend'. Interesting.


----------



## fatboyslim (Sep 29, 2011)

MikeHag said:


> Thanks Fran
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To me, Mike has the answer right here. The roaster gives us as much information about the bean as possible e.g. Natural processed, varietal, high grown etc etc, then we use information like dark roasts extract faster and high grown beans are more dense to not so much offer a brew recipe but at least point you in the direction.

For example....Special Coffee Forum Blend...benefits from a slightly lower brew temperature and longer brew time due to X, Y and Z.

The roaster will obviously have all the information necessary and I'm sure people out there (looks at Mike) have the relevant information about each bean type and roast profile in order to make a reference guide for brewing.

Perhaps a wiki entry?


----------



## Ian_G (Nov 10, 2011)

One question that comes to mind is: do all coffee machines make the same tasting brew. I think the answer is no, and so differing machines will provide different flavours. How would that then relate to a single recipe of brew parameters?

I take the point from the OP that there should be some way of avoiding a crap pour and at least getting in the ballpark first or second time, and I agree it would be good to avoid sink shots completely. But is it do-able without recourse to a refractometer? I'm not knowledgeable enough to know.

And what about the drink itself? Will the coffee be the same as an espresso as say a cappucino? Not forgetting the grinder - not all grinders are created equal. So if the roaster is using a £1500 conical and you are using a £100 flat, are you even on the same page before you start?

So the sweet spot in my opinion is elusive and bound to vary by machine, drink type, grind distribution and total dissolved solids. Can all of this be remedied by a brew recipe? Could finding the sweet spot even be hindered by such an approach?


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Gary said:


> ...brew-method-specific blends or roasts.


I like the concept of a blend that is specific to a brew method, and you might recall I started a thread about matching the beans to the brew method several months ago, which led onto a lengthy series of experiments involving different brew methods and different beans with different characteristics.

http://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?4232-Matching-the-brew-method-to-the-bean&p=21627

and

http://haggieslab.blogspot.com/2011/12/keeping-manual-brewing-log.html

My own conclusion was that it can't really be done, as Glenn told me at the start (I should listen to that fella more often







). Beans keep changing and something that one day is good for AeroPress, then next day isn't, and is better in a V60. In my experience, that is, and I'd love to hear contrasting views.

As for brew method roasts, this has intrigued me before. Steve Leighton said he won't do it. There is a roast profile that is best for the beans and that is what he aims for... roasting to method (e.g. darker for espresso) means the beans could be sub-optimal. Conversely, Square Mile often offer the same beans two ways (filter/espresso), with espresso roasted slightly darker. Can they both be correct? Is there even a 'correct'?



fatboyslim said:


> The roaster will obviously have all the information necessary and I'm sure people out there (looks at Mike) have the relevant information about each bean type and roast profile in order to make a reference guide for brewing.
> 
> Perhaps a wiki entry?


Hey, don't look at me!







I certainly don't have enough knowledge to compile it, but as a team effort then I think such a wiki could be a useful tool to help people understand how bean characteristics and roast profiles impact how the beans should be brewed. It would bring together a lot of scattered thoughts in one place.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Good post Mike and some key points you've raised.

I have definitely noticed that beans have a 'window of opportunity' to be tasty in certain methods, and beans do change as they age etc...however they usually retain a common theme which you can find at 1 day past roast and 20 days past roast.

This topic is certainly a can of worms.

If the roaster is bothering to provide tasting notes , then they could state how they found those notes...''we found in the chemex at 60g per litre, using 94c water & a medium grind there were notes of tangerine and caramel on the finish etc''


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

It sounds good, and seems like an easy thing in theory, but I think that the current standard (tasting notes coming from a single brew method... cupping) provides a common mothodology... a kind of industry standard... for identifying bean characteristics, and there is possibly a risk that if roasters' tasting notes start to come from a wide range of brew methods then the common standard is lost and tasting notes would actually mean less, not more.

But I agree it would be nice to have that info, perhaps in addition to cupping notes.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

The majority of consumers will not be cupping the coffee but agree thats where the notes probably come from most of the time.

Things like this are very useful and I applaud Hands-On for their efforts:-

http://www.hands-on-coffee.co.uk/news/four-extractions-one-cup/

http://www.hands-on-coffee.co.uk/news/two-roasts-one-cup-slight-return/


----------



## MonkeyHarris (Dec 3, 2010)

I think a simple "This is how we brew it... 17g, 23 seconds, 27g extraction" would be nice. Then it just gives someone like me who doesn't have a lot of time or money to medal something to try out if I wish.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Good to see you back Monkey


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

Thanks for a great discussion, guys! Ron: I fully understand how a roaster like you, who's a one-man band, doing it all for himself, would find what I'm proposing at the bottom of your list of priorities. But there are bigger roasters out there, and they make a big deal out of publicising the spread of good coffee, and home brewing is part of that.

I'd simply like to see something as MonkeyHarris suggests. A starting point for each method. For the larger roasters, this isn't a big deal. And SQM do it for espresso anyways.

I also think that providing information is cheap. Sure, the bag might only have room for a few words, but a short web address can take you to a page with a wealth of information. Including brewing recipes.


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

fatboyslim said:


> To me, Mike has the answer right here. The roaster gives us as much information about the bean as possible e.g. Natural processed, varietal, high grown etc etc, then we use information like dark roasts extract faster and high grown beans are more dense to not so much offer a brew recipe but at least point you in the direction.
> 
> For example....Special Coffee Forum Blend...benefits from a slightly lower brew temperature and longer brew time due to X, Y and Z.
> 
> ...


See, I think this goes in the opposite direction. Sure, the information is interesting, but giving pointers to a guy who just wants a good cup is a waste of time. He just wants to be told to do x, y and z.

I think the wiki is a great idea. And it reminds me of the Hasbean in my mug subscribers forum. There's a community there who discuss the coffee. all we need is for those people to describe how they make their tasty brews, and we're sorted! A wiki would only be needed to plug the gap left by roasters - I think it's down to them to guide people. They're selling an experience. The least they can do is tell us how to get what we're paying for!


----------



## drk (Nov 22, 2011)

Sheesh guys! You should try using a La Pavoni! My grind size needs to change with the temperature.

I certainly can see the argument for a recipe, just not for me though. I would prefer not to waste beans....and geez....I waste beans. Yesterday, I finished my Has Bean (North Tea Blend) and swapped for Artisan Roast's Janzoon. With something like 20 turns of adjustment from my previous setting on my Ascaso, the grind is still not fine enough! May take another 2 days to dial in the grind but that's part of the fun! When I hit the spot.....woweee! Much more pleasure.

A few tips are nice......as is guidance on whether a bean can handle a wide range of temperatures or not....I'm a scientist by trade but I have only started to get more to grips with life by exploring different art forms. Making coffee is one such art form, which is still underpinned by science. The recipe is "the science" for me but learning to savour flavour and using an iterative process to see what works is the "art" and where the beauty comes from!

Without the art, you can never truly appreciate the science. (or so say I)


----------



## James Hoffmann (Jul 24, 2008)

I'll happily explain why we offer an espresso brew recipe and not a filter recipe.

Espresso recipes, as they currently are, do a reasonably good job of communicating all the requirements. The key thing that can't be easily communicated is grind size - which is absolutely the key to good extraction. With espresso, because flow rate is tied to dose and grind size, you can give the other important bits of data and easily enough reverse engineer the correct grind size - thus having a comparable experience to the one we are having at the roastery when tasting coffee.

In filter coffee there aren't the same constrictions on brewing as espresso has. In brewed coffee recipe is about strength, and strength is an entirely personal preference. At the roastery I would brew everything we have at 60g per litre. For me this is a nice balance of strength, mouthfeel and clarity of flavour. (For extra nerd points this is usually extracted to a cup strength of 1.4% - an extraction of around 19-20%.)

I use the same starting recipe for every brew method. However, I've yet to find conclusive ways of brewing with various devices. The way I currently brew V60 is about speed, temperature and consistency - but you can easily argue some flaws in it. The grind size I use is directly tied to the method/technique, but also a function of the grind profile. I could give time from filling the cone, to a dry coffee bed as a good indicator but some grinders can choke the brew with fines at the last few seconds.

Right now, with brewed coffee, I can't communicate the most important thing with any reliability. Grind size/distribution lacks any units of measurement that are accessible to the home user. I think the internet will struggle to find a way to overcome this hurdle. It really needs to be done in person.

One of my goals this year is to help in any way to increase the number of home brewing workshops run by cafes, that are cheap, fun and useful. (These should, I think, appeal to both people who use coffee forums and those who are simply interested in why coffee sometimes tastes better than others, and how to make it beter at home.)


----------



## vintagecigarman (Aug 10, 2009)

James Hoffmann said:


> I
> 
> One of my goals this year is to help in any way to increase the number of home brewing workshops run by cafes, that are cheap, fun and useful. (These should, I think, appeal to both people who use coffee forums and those who are simply interested in why coffee sometimes tastes better than others, and how to make it beter at home.)


And I, for one, think that's a mighty fine ambition. I've never lost sight of the way one-to-one tuition increased my espresso-making skills. I'd really welcome the opportunity of having the same hands-on approach to learning about other methods.


----------



## MonkeyHarris (Dec 3, 2010)

garydyke1 said:


> Good to see you back Monkey


Cheers. Not really been anywhere just been busy looking for a job


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

There you go, a recipe from a roaster (or perhaps NOT a roaster).

Leaping on the nerd points, here's a ready-reckoner for everyone interested in reproducing James' recipe. It shows the doses you could use to brew a single cup at 1.40% TDS, with five options for Extraction ... 18%, 19%, 20%, 21%, 22% (approximately). So for example to aim for 20.1% extraction yield you would dose 12.9g of grinds.










Of course, that's fine if you hit your target TDS. I just brewed some Red Brick in a V60 using this recipe and my TDS only came in at 1.11% - hence an Ext% of only 17.3%... underextracted - which is due to my not having dialed in my brewing technique to these beans. As James said, grind size plays a part and it was not included in the recipe. Temperature. Dwell Time. Pouring Technique. Bean density (James said in another thread that Red Brick beans don't extract as readily as some others). All further factors that make a recipe difficult to provide.


----------



## James Hoffmann (Jul 24, 2008)

The problem with communicating through TDS/extraction is that grind profile will have a massive influence on TDS. If you're grinder produces a lot of fines then a 20% extraction will taste awful. Also - it doesn't communicate evenness of extraction - you can hit the right number with a very wonky technique, underextracting some and overextracting some and end up in the right place on average.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Agreed, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. Using TDS and Ext % has to be encouraged in my view (in conjunction with tasting), as a solid foundation for subsequent improvements in other variables such as grind profile. One day at a time.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

The fines from my grinder is something which is holding me back. As good as the Porlex is I want to relegate this for work and travel only! Roll on Baratza Maestro Plus!


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

James Hoffmann said:


> I'll happily explain why we offer an espresso brew recipe and not a filter recipe.
> 
> Espresso recipes, as they currently are, do a reasonably good job of communicating all the requirements. The key thing that can't be easily communicated is grind size - which is absolutely the key to good extraction. With espresso, because flow rate is tied to dose and grind size, you can give the other important bits of data and easily enough reverse engineer the correct grind size - thus having a comparable experience to the one we are having at the roastery when tasting coffee.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply, James. Your arguments are very convincing, and I'm reassured by your efforts to expand brewing classes for home users - I already have a voucher for Taylor Street Baristas.

My post was borne mostly out of frustration. I'm happy to spend money on coffee, just sometimes it feels like I pay a premium from a standard product. That's wholly down to me, and the mismatch between expectations (i. e. tasting notes on bags) and what you get in the cup.

The problem with my approach, as you say, is all about communicating grind size. What this becomes possible, then maybe my approach could be taken.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Perhaps what would help is a grind-size 'selection box'. A pack of beakers containing grinds of various sizes, which could be used as an industry standard reference point for grind size. For example, SQM might say on their bags "We like to use this in an AeroPress with 13g of grinds, 210g of water, and universal grind size 4". Customers then grind their beans to be the same size as the ref pack. I claim this idea in the name of Scotland, by the way


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

Fran said:


> My post was borne mostly out of frustration. I'm happy to spend money on coffee, just sometimes it feels like I pay a premium from a standard product. That's wholly down to me, and the mismatch between expectations (i. e. tasting notes on bags) and what you get in the cup.


Bear in mind that coffee merchants are trying to sell you something, and part of their attempt to encourage you to buy their product instead of their competitor's is what they choose to write on the bag. They can write what they want, given that taste is largely unquantifiable, and so if you place too much faith in the description you are almost certainly setting yourself up for disappointment.

I think it is best to disregard any preconceptions about what is in the bag, and that would include being impressed by a cool website that cost a lot of money. Just taste what is inside. Calculate the cost per 250g, and if you think the £5.30 gets you a nicer tasting coffee than elsewhere then buy again. If not, and the £4.50 bag from whoever was nicer then don't.

I'm not against flowery descriptions on the bag per se, it's not as useful as bean variety and roast level, but trust your taste buds rather than words


----------



## Ian_G (Nov 10, 2011)

Grinders produce distributions of grind particles - they're not all the one size. A further complicating factor is that the distributions are twin peaked, so you have a predominance of several sizes among many other sizes. Different grinders produce different grind distributions and that affects flavour in da cup.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

True, and the requirement for uniformity varies with brew method, but I'd say that in general there is a 'mode' (most popular) grind size/peak around which there is a normal distribution, so it should be possible to use that as a reference point.


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

MikeHag said:


> Perhaps what would help is a grind-size 'selection box'. A pack of beakers containing grinds of various sizes, which could be used as an industry standard reference point for grind size. For example, SQM might say on their bags "We like to use this in an AeroPress with 13g of grinds, 210g of water, and universal grind size 4". Customers then grind their beans to be the same size as the ref pack. I claim this idea in the name of Scotland, by the way


I had thought about this already, but there's a problem due to particle size distribution. You'd need the roaster to say "13g, 40% which is grind size 4 and 60% which is grind size 6". But even so, the roaster is probably grinding with a Ditting, so it's not an issue for them. The question is, if you're grinding with a porlex, what's the best mode to operate in.

I'd really like to see roasters say "if you're grinding with an porlex, go for setting 6' and do X Y Z. If a maestro, do A B C". This then covers the issues which James mentioned. It takes into account each grinders particular Particle Size Disibution (PSD).

I wonder how much demand there is for a device which can measure PSD for coffee geeks. I've been reading about it on wiki, and it's an interesting subject, with lots of different ways of doing it. Optically, with filters, or even with ultrasound. I wonder if roasters or baristas bother measuring the PSD of their grinders. Maybe it's just the manufacturers who bother measuring it.

Maybe it jus comes down to the quality of grinders, too. James had a blog post bemoaning the lack I advancement of grinding over the past 100years. Maybe this will all be solved when someone bothers to develop the nex generation of grinder!


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

MikeHag said:


> True, and the requirement for uniformity varies with brew method, but I'd say that in general there is a 'mode' (most popular) grind size/peak around which there is a normal distribution, so it should be possible to use that as a reference point.


Quality strongly depends on the standard deviation of the distribution though, Mike! (if you can even use a Gaussian in the first place...)


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

If I send you three pots of coffee ground for espresso, one that gives a perfect pour, one that is 5 seconds too short and so overextracts, and the other 5 seconds too long and so under extracts; would you be able to tell the difference by touch and sight? I wouldn't


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

Expobarista said:


> Bear in mind that coffee merchants are trying to sell you something, and part of their attempt to encourage you to buy their product instead of their competitor's is what they choose to write on the bag. They can write what they want, given that taste is largely unquantifiable, and so if you place too much faith in the description you are almost certainly setting yourself up for disappointment.
> 
> I think it is best to disregard any preconceptions about what is in the bag, and that would include being impressed by a cool website that cost a lot of money. Just taste what is inside. Calculate the cost per 250g, and if you think the £5.30 gets you a nicer tasting coffee than elsewhere then buy again. If not, and the £4.50 bag from whoever was nicer then don't.
> 
> I'm not against flowery descriptions on the bag per se, it's not as useful as bean variety and roast level, but trust your taste buds rather than words


Hmm. You're right. But at the moment, I'd rather question my ability to brew over the authenticity of the enthusiasm you see modern roasters have. Sure, they could just be pulling a massive fast-one on me, but would rather maintain my faith in mankind and keep spending £5.30 on a bag of coffee!


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

I think maybe I wasn't clear regarding my suggestion of a grind size reference tool. The purpose would be to enable simple communication of grind size. It would obviate the need for roasters to say "if you're using a porlex" etc, because all the porlex owner would need to do is match each reference grind size to a corresponding setting on the porlex (or any grinder), so there is an immediate cross reference. If SQM said "universal 4", then I would know to use "MDF 16".

Within a reasonable range it doesn't matter whether the grinder has a slightly wide particle size distribution because the purpose is not to improve the grind distribution, it is to allow you to brew with a grind size approximating to the same as the roaster.

Of course, the coffee may still subsequently taste bad, but at least now you know it is not because you are grinding too fine or too coarse. It could indeed be because the particle size distribution is terrible on your grinder, and at least now you are in a better position to judge that.


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

But doesn't coarse/medium-coarse/medium/medium-fine/fine already do that job for most people, and if it isn't enough for a handful of obsessives (yes, that's us) wouldn't we be far more likely to experiment anyway?

With reference to that last point, it is interesting to note the variations of 'recipe' that people are reporting as being succesful on the 'Red Brick' problems post, and how some of them are about as far away from the roaster's suggestions as is possible (within the parameters of espresso)


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Expobarista said:


> If I send you three pots of coffee ground for espresso, one that gives a perfect pour, one that is 5 seconds too short and so overextracts, and the other 5 seconds too long and so under extracts; would you be able to tell the difference by touch and sight? I wouldn't


No I wouldn't. But I think we are talking about the full spectrum of coffee grind sizes, not just espresso, and so the level of detail that is needed is not that deep.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Expobarista said:


> But doesn't coarse/medium-coarse/medium/medium-fine/fine already do that job for most people, and if it isn't enough for a handful of obsessives (yes, that's us) wouldn't we be far more likely to experiment anyway?


I don't personally think that 5 settings covers the whole spectrum and thing 20 or 30 is about right


----------



## fatboyslim (Sep 29, 2011)

This is an interesting discussion and I agree some way to give universal grind measurements may be a step to being able to perfectly recreate the brewing experience of the roaster or barista at home.

At Taylors we assess our grind size using a series of sieves (of different particle sizes) one on top of another. We then add a known dose of ground coffee on the top sieve and place the whole stack of sieves onto an automated shaker.

The shaker then forces the different particle sizes through each sieve until it is too large to pass through to the next stage. Each sieve is then weighed.

For our omnigrind (ok for drip/cafetiere) we have a set of grind parameters called CR4. This allows a % weight of the original dose to be within each sieve plate to make it acceptible for use in a drip or cafetiere coffee maker.

If a grind is 'out of spec' it is tested in various brewing methods and if it all comes back ok then it is passed.

But this, to an extent, is grind size standardization; even if it is not perfect.

I'd be interested to know what people think of this method and whether a simpler version could be created for the home user (since we all have scales anyway).

A roaster could then say something like:

'In the first week after roasting, use something like a CR3-CR3.5 (predetermined parameters widely posted online). After that move to a CR4 to keep a good balance'.


----------



## rodabod (Dec 4, 2011)

Would anyone be interested in a new thread where you simply post your extraction methods for a given bean available in the UK?

Could be handy as a reference if it was formatted consistently.

Eg. bean/machine/dose/duration/volume, followed by relevant comments.


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

rodabod said:


> Would anyone be interested in a new thread where you simply post your extraction methods for a given bean available in the UK?
> 
> Could be handy as a reference if it was formatted consistently.
> 
> Eg. bean/machine/dose/duration/volume, followed by relevant comments.


I would be very interested in this. Its essentially a community wiki. If we demonstrate ourselves how the recipe system would work, then maybe it would be taken up by the roasters!


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

MikeHag said:


> I don't personally think that 5 settings covers the whole spectrum and thing 20 or 30 is about right


Do you think you could tell the difference by touch from the finest of those 30 to the next finest? Would you be able to relate that to knowing what setting on your grinder would replicate that?


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Yes I do. I realise that there's a point at which it would become impossible, but I believe we could stop short of that and still have enough scale to communicate grind size better


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

fatboyslim said:


> This is an interesting discussion and I agree some way to give universal grind measurements may be a step to being able to perfectly recreate the brewing experience of the roaster or barista at home.
> 
> At Taylors we assess our grind size using a series of sieves (of different particle sizes) one on top of another. We then add a known dose of ground coffee on the top sieve and place the whole stack of sieves onto an automated shaker.
> 
> ...


It's really interesting to see how industry deals with grind issues. I was thinking about a series of sieves for a home user. But all it would do is characterise the different settings on our home grinders. Is that useful? To a certain degree, yes, but how would we use the information to improve our brews?

What we REALLY need it a new brew method! Imagine a brewer where you put the grind in, it sorts it by size, and steeps it in water for the appropriate time. Longer for coarser, shorter for finer. The sorting could be done using sieves, for example.

Food for thought.


----------



## funinacup (Aug 30, 2010)

It would certainly be better than a shot in the dark (excuse the pun) at guessing grind size. I think it would be a good idea for roasters to give the option when ordering of including a sample grind in a very small resealable bag for comparison purposes. Just a few beans worth would be fine.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

funinacup said:


> It would certainly be better than a shot in the dark (excuse the pun) at guessing grind size. I think it would be a good idea for roasters to give the option when ordering of including a sample grind in a very small resealable bag for comparison purposes. Just a few beans worth would be fine.


Great idea and wouldn't burden the roaster too much. The only problem I foresee is roasters who didn't actually dial in and brew at that grind... They just picked a grind setting somewhere in the vicinity on their grinder.

I wonder how many conversations like this have taken place over the years!


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

MikeHag said:


> Yes I do. I realise that there's a point at which it would become impossible, but I believe we could stop short of that and still have enough scale to communicate grind size better


I think my sausage fingers aren't so well calibrated as yours. On a scale of 1 to 30, with 30 being the finest, I reckon I'd struggle to notice a difference in up to about 5 increments, and having a guess at where that would be in my grinder would probably, again, be within a 5 increment range. So, for me, that pretty much renders a 5 point scale as useful as a 30, but I appreciate that others may have a finer eye.

In any case, in my experience, it is espresso that is really fussy. There is considerably more leeway with other methods before I can discern a difference.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Well this is part of the problem Fran was talking about at the beginning. If you're the kind of coffee drinker who wants to find all those descriptors on the bag when you make your V60, French Press or Chemex, then it helps if you pick grind setting 17 rather than setting 19. The taste is different, because the amount of solids in the cup is different.

It probably isn't relevant to anyone who just wants a coffee without any palava.


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

That isn't what I'm saying at all. Im pretty sure that anybody interested enough to post on this forum will be willing to investigate and experiment to try and find the optimum inputs for the chosen method of brew. I think experimentation will be needed regardless of what information is on the bag, because I suspect it is not possible to communicate it with any precision. I realise there is a range of 30 or whatever grind settings but this thread is about communication.

It is interesting to relate this back to the Red Brick thread, where you said you had to wait until 8 days for a decent pour. The grind needed will have changed in those 8 days. See where I'm going with this?


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Absolutely and I agree... whatever grind setting written on the bag is, it will have completely changed in due course.

I also do agree with you that at the end of the day unless the person making the coffee spends time dialing it in and brewing it correctly then it will never fulfil its potential... I said that earlier in this thread.

But that doesn't mean there isn't scope for improvement. Fran wants to avoid wasting half a bag to get it dialed in, and better grind size communication... and also other parameters... would help.

I don't think it's the roaster's job to do all the hard work though... Every bean, every grinder, every brew method... Impossible. I just think we can have ideas about improvement without dismissing them immediately.


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

Fran's half a bag isn't waste, it's the price of an education. We've all been there.

If this thread can bring about a way to circumvent that learning experience I'm all for it


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Just following up on earlier comments regarding roasters providing information. Here's a fairly typical extract from some beans on Has Bean's website. Excellent info, and it seems to me the onus is now on us to translate this into brewing technique. Wiki ho.

Farm: Machacamarca BV

Farmer: Maria and Mario Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade

City: Chulumani

Region: Sud-Yungas

Country: Bolivia

Farm Size: 67.00 Hectares

Coffee growing area: 5.00 Hectares

Altitude: 1790 masl

Variety: Criollo (80%), Caturra (20%)

Type of Soil: Clay

Average Annual Rainfall: 1,790 mm

Type of Shade: Hardwoods, citrus

Weeding: Twice per year

Pruning: Sanitary pruning

Processing System: On-site wet processing, solar drying


----------



## fatboyslim (Sep 29, 2011)

If we are going to make a wiki entry about each widely available bean/blend in regards to brewing techniques, I totally think Macha should be the first









Don't know if I've previously expressed my undying love for this coffee.

Copy that to wiki post and let brewing discussions begin?


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Need to discuss structure? A wiki can mean lots of things, and I must admit although I'm keen on the idea, I'm struggling with the logistics of it. It sounds like a massive relational database. If you have a clearer picture than me then let's all discuss


----------

