More Espresso Arguments
I know I rail on this a lot, but I think it's important.
Isaiah and Garth went to the regional barista competition (SCRBC) the weekend before last, and they experienced the same thing as usual. They really went this year trying to play the game. They changed almost everything about the way we make coffee in order to follow the strict and unbending rules laid out by the... whoever. I'm not sure who came up with these rules. Intelligentsia?
One of the many reasons I dislike the barista competitions is that I see them quelling the creativity and individuality in the industry. It SHOULD be that things are done slightly different at every shop you walk into. Heck, each of my employees have creative freedom to put their own spin on the way we make coffee. And occasionally we change the way we do things because one of them found a better way. This doesn't happen at the barista comps. If someone does something even SLIGHTLY different, they are penalized and berated by the "judges." And we see people who do things we love, change those things because they are told they are doing it wrong. But, as Isaiah always says, it should be in the cup. If it's good in the cup, you did it right.
One of the things looked down upon in the specialty coffee industry is the way we tamp. We tamp as hard as we can. Who taught me that? No one taught me that. I started noticing years ago that the harder I tamped, the sweeter the coffee tasted. And I like that. Hard tamp = sweet espresso. I promise you that's true. I'm not exactly sure why.
At the comp, my boys always get marked down for crema that's not the color the judges are looking for and the crema doesn't persist as long as they want it to. They always say our coffee is "too fresh." I'm not kidding about that. As soon as we get the score sheets, I'll post them so you can see it for yourself. The coffee is too fresh? Yeah yeah, we've been through this. Well, I have a couple theories about all this. And I think as time goes on, you're going to see that I'm right. Because I learned it, not from Intelli, but from experience and experiments.
So listen to this.
Basically crema is a bunch of small oil bubbles with carbon dioxide inside them. The carbon dioxide exists in the coffee bean after roasting and preserves the oil, protecting it from oxygen which causes the oils to go rancid. The carbon dioxide contains the fresh coffee smell that we all love. So when the coffee is fresh, before it has "degassed," espresso will have crema composed of fresh coffee oils containing carbon dioxide and that beautiful aroma. Because ambient air around the fresh crema contains a lot of different elements and the crema contains mostly co2, it would make sense to me that there is a pressure difference and the crema won't persist as long. When the coffee degasses, the co2 is replaced by ambient air. The oxygen in the ambient air reacts with the coffee oils causing them to go rancid. When you make espresso with degassed coffee, the crema should be rancid oil with ambient air inside. At this point there will be no pressure difference and no reason the crema should dissipate from an air pressure standpoint. So if coffee freshness (and deliciousness) causes crema to dissipate faster, I say crema persistence should be considered a negative.
Secondly, I was reading David Schomer's blog the other day. We often wonder around here where David Schomer has disappeared to. He was one of the original influences on the technique I developed in making espresso. I really respect him for consistently testing and making discoveries about espresso and coffee. He's definitely a smart guy. I don't agree with everything he says and does, but I respect his opinions because I feel that they are based on testing and sound judgments.
In Schomer's blog entry he was saying that they took a monsooned robusta out of their espresso blend, and in doing so the espresso became much sweeter. Another thing that happened was the crema began to dissipate much faster. He called a friend of his who is a food scientist and they guy told him that the increased sugar content in the espresso would have a negative effect on crema life. The sugars break the long-chain surfactant molecules responsible for stable crema. That's what Schomer says. Again, if sweetness in espresso causes crema to dissipate faster, it seems that crema persistence should at least be irrelevant and at most be considered a bad thing.
Another thing he talked about in his blog is the flow rate. When he took the monsooned coffee out of their blend, the overall moisture content of the blend went up and they had to increase the grind size to account for this. When the grind size was smaller, micro-particles would migrate downward during the brew cycle and eventually choke the shot. He says by using a larger grind size, there are less of these micro-particles and they don't have the choking problem. Thus, they have a much greater control over flow rate and when to end the shot. And Schomer says that is a "truly dominant factor in a perfect cup."
I harken back. Harder tamp, coarser grind, less micro-particles, more control over shots, sweeter espresso.
Sweeter espresso, fresh coffee, less crema persistence.
Should we really concern ourselves so much with crema persistence?
Just drink it when I give it to you.
(Schomer's blog: http://www.espressovivace.com/schomerblog/)
posted by Brian at 6:56 AM
34 Comments:
Interesting stuff... would like to hear more thoughts on espresso theory. What kind of dose do you typically use when pulling shots from really fresh coffee? Do you change your technique as the coffee ages, or do you simply keep a really tight freshness window in the shop? (Say, 1-3 days rather than the 4-9 days you might see elsewhere).
Also... is it possible that the peak window for your coffee is different than other roasters? i.e. maybe your espresso tastes best on day 2 and Intelligentsia's tastes best on day 8 and this is a function of blending and roasting style? I've definitely had espresso that tasted flat on day 2 and improved on days 3 & 4.
For what its worth, I had some Black Cat @ LA/Silverlake last week and I wasn't impressed.
I think I said something to you about this before-- when I was pulling shots from your Ambergris Blend, I definitely thought it was better the fresher (as in, closer to roast date) it was. Literally, grab it from the mailman, open the bag, pull a shot from it, and that was the best it would be until the next delivery.
Anyway, I mention this because, while I agreed with you before, I think I am now on a new level of agreement with you. This post makes more sense than anything else I've heard. Before it was simply anecdotal. I hadn't heard an actual theory that made me think, "Yeah, okay, I buy that."
Now open a damn shop in Stillwater already. We're dying out here.
Whether or not "persistence of crema" is a value that the industry should be promoting or not is definitely a debatable point. More and more, you hear about baristas questioning the "status quo" and raising doubt about whether crema is all it's cracked up to be.
That said, this was Isaiah's third competition. What's the point in bangin your head against a wall? Did you want the judges to throw out the published rules and turn the competition into the "United States Hardest Tamp Championship?"
There are published standards and rules for the competition. Nobody's telling you what you can or can't do in your shop.
Did any judge score lower because of the hard tamp? I don't think so. It's about consistent technique.
I'd love to see a DoubleShot barista make a go of the competition by showing mastery of the rules and standards and delivering on it. Isaiah's a great barista for sure. I hate seeing the Haterade flowing from what sure seems like sour grapes.
I like the idea of Nick Cho, but in practice, NIck, I find you to be a joke. You don't listen. You aren't in touch with reality. You don't listen. I wrote that twice because I figured you skipped it the first time. I'm sick of listening to you. You don't seem very smart. Your arguments are extremely lame.
Do they take away on points for the way Isaiah tamps? Yes they do. Do they take away points for our fresh coffee? Yes they do. Did he try to follow the arbitrary rules this time and tamp the same lame way every time? Yes. Did they still count off on points because he polished too hard? Yes.
Nick, until you get your head out of your ass I'm not going to publish any more of your comments. No one cares what you think.
Brian-
Way to stand up to the status quo. If you do something unheard of and it tastes good, I'd say you are correct. Theory is nice and can lead to great experiments, but it's the result of those experiments in the end that count.
Standards *can* be good, and standards can be stifling, as we saw in Austin. I think that if the barista competitions don't evolve at the same pace coffee evolves due to stubborn dogma, they will either die off or become a joke themselves. Just my $0.02.
You asked so I will leave a brief comment on a few issues you raised:
1. Crema - this isn't a foam of oils. Oils destroy crema. Crema is the result of CO2 coming out of water (that became supersaturated with it under pressure) and being trapped by compounds called melanoidins. These are byproducts of the roasting process, and lend coffee some of its brown colour.
2. The more oil you have the weaker your crema. This is the primary reason the arabica produces a less stable crema than robusta. Nothing to do with sugars - of which there are none left in roasted coffee, certainly not simple sugars which react away through maillard, caramlisation and strecker degradation reactions. Arabica has about twice the lipid content by weight as robusta. This would explain Schomer's experiences.
3. Freshness and crema persistance. Fresh coffee has more CO2, and as a result the bubbles are crema are larger. When it comes to foam stability bubble size is a massive factor. The smaller the bubble the stronger it is - think milk foam - as it has a smaller surface area upon which it is vulnerable. Pulling short shots from a lot of coffee will yield very poor crema persistance as a combination of the factors above: lots of CO2, lots of oil, not a lot of water to disperse the oil. If you ever pull an ugly lungo you'll notice the crema lasts a very long time.
Onto competition stuff:
In my experience the competition does embrace different. I turned up to the WBC with a single estate Costa Rican coffee for espressos, a single estate Kenya for capps, I poured table side and I had some fun. The judges seemed to enjoy that.
When it comes to the definitions of espresso in competition they've never been more open. Your dose is up to you, your shot times can be anything you want as long as they are consistent.
As for the tamping thing. The rules do not stipulate a correct tamping procedure other than it be level.
If the score sheets have "tamped too hard" written on them then you have legitimate grounds for a complaint. What exactly was written? That box covers both dosing and tamping - were points definitely lost for tamping and not consistency of dose?
And finally - to wrap it all up - the competitions now embrace something you request. Competitors can serve the drinks one by one, two by two or however they like. The judges have to drink it as soon as they get it. As you ask: "Just drink it when I give it to you." As a competitor you can push stop on a shot, pick the cup up and put it in front of a judge. They must immediately evaluate it. If your crema doesn't last this long then I'm sure we'd all agree there were serious problems with the shot.
Sadly I can't find a free to read copy of the paper that did the research on melanoidins, I did once upload a copy to coffeed but it has gone now. For a great read on foams I'd recommend Sidney Perkowitz's book "Universal Foam" which is usually a dollar secondhand online.
Brian-
I've spend a considerable amount of time over the past six years competing and volunteering for the USBC, doing calibration for the WBC and judging national level barista competitions across the world, and while I'm not necessarily a proponent of the competitions, I do think they offer value to the barista craft as a whole (on a worldwide scale).
I think the hope is that the requirements of the barista competitions will encourage and teach baristas without the knowledge or guidance to improve their craft. Many of the technical requirements on the sheets are good, basic skills that anyone concerned about craft and quality should have an understanding.
Of course, when you're dealing with baristas from developing nations, much of the guidance necessary to master these scoresheets is missing and I see all sorts of wild (and sadly lackluster) results during my travels as a competition judge. But the awareness is increasing and the skills are improving.
Within the confines of the United States, the barista competitions are a different beast entirely. The USBC is dominated by highly competitive companies and baristas whose seemingly sole focus is to win the competitions by exploiting the rules in their favor. To be honest, I don't begrudge them for taking that approach. Winning the USBC is everything to them and to do so cannot be simply dismissed as a non-event because the level of competition is very high. I've risked stating in the past that perhaps winning the USBC is even more difficult than winning the WBC - not that the USBC Champion has ever won the WBC, but the competition is that challenging.
The question I ask you is: how important is winning the USBC (or regional) to you and your company? Is that the measure by which you define yourself? If so, why?
Regardless of my involvement with the competitions and my extreme enjoyment of working with baristas outside of the United States in both training and competitions, I do not encourage my own staff to compete in the USBC. If they're interested and want to pursue that path, then I will support them - but I do not encourage them to compete.
For me, I'm not interested in winning some title of "barista champion" of a region, nation or world. It's a non-event. While in Atlanta for the SCAA/WBC this past April, I watched none of the WBC. Even after years of being involved, the competition presentations are still extremely dull as entertainment - and I just cannot watch because I'm simply a barista. I'm bored.
To my mind, I consider those who have inspired me - people like Thomas Keller of The French Laundry. Successful and considered one of the greatest chefs on the planet today. He never did the ACF or won Iron Chef or participated in Culinary Olympics. Keller produced at the highest level on a day-to-day basis for his customers and built his formidable reputation on the quality of his food and excellence of his service.
How many people in our own industry can name the past (or current) USBC/WBC Champion? How many in our own industry even care? I know the number is low, how about amongst the coffee drinking public?
(cont'd)
(continued from last due to blog restraints)
When viewed in that context, the idea that the USBC/WBC Championship is that important is really quite laughable.
From our discussions in the past, I've gathered you march to a different beat. You're not following the status quo - and as you've seen, the USBC is all about the status quo (it is run by the SCAA, afterall). Why waste your time with such tomfoolery?
Many people have asked why I competed when winning was never a priority. Sadly, the USBC is the only semi-public venue for baristas to display their craft and vision on a (somewhat) national stage. It is the venue I've used to present my vision of coffee. Coffee as I see it: gin, juice, lobster, tobacco - whatever.
I encourage you to damn the rules, full speed ahead. Think about those competitors who played it safe and played by the rules at the competitions you've been to - remember their names and what they were about?
No? I thought so...
"United States Hardest Tamp Championship?" Now you have to admit that was funny. :)
If you are genuinely interested in knowing more about the competition process, then why not judge one yourself? You would learn exactly what to look for, and what the evaluation process is like.
I don't know about leaving an intellegent
comment your Twitter post invited, but your product is good . I like it. I buy it. I drink it.
Jay Caragay.
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my blog. As usual, I appreciate your perspective and it brings me some hope to hear from you. These competitions are not important to my business. Isaiah and Garth wanted to compete and Isaiah really wants to win. He wants to win for personal reasons and he wants to win in order to represent the DoubleShot in a favorable national light. The competition isn't important to me. I don't even like it. But my employees are VERY important to me and I stand behind them, whatever they want to do.
James, thanks for the response. I'm certainly no scientist, just a guy who does a lot of experiments. I'll do some research on melanoidins. It's very difficult for me to believe sugars are not present. That's contrary to what I've heard in the past.
One thing I think you would benefit from trying is increasing your grind size and tamping really hard. It sounds like you've never tried this. It's the way we make espresso and it's sweet and delicious.
If you don't mind my asking, James (and whoever else out there would like to answer this question), what are the age constraints you maintain on your roasted coffee? I roast twice or three times per week. We never sell (or drink) coffee over 7 days out of the roaster. I just don't like the taste of it. And our coffee (espresso and all) is anywhere from an hour out of the roaster to 7 days, but usually not more than 4 days.
How long do you use your coffee?
When do you think the coffee is best for espresso?
No one has commented on grind size and tamp pressure yet...
Oh, Ryan... We pull shots at 19-20grams. Sometimes we change one of the coffees in our espresso blend and it changes the way the coffee pulls. Last substitution I made, we had to overdose a bit more in order to get good shots. Everyday and every pull we see what is going on with the espresso and on the next shot, if it didn't pull exactly like I wanted it to, I might change my grind size or dose up or down and try again until I get it right. I haven't found that there is one change that needs to be made as it ages. I suspect there are a LOT of things that effect the extraction besides hours out of the roaster. Weather, for instance.
Brian-
I certainly can appreciate Isaiah's desire to represent DoubleShot in a favorable light and win the competition. However, do actually win the competition means that one must know and exploit the rules to their benefit.
While I know you cringe at the reference, Intelligentsia has been very successful at doing just that. Sure, you can work yourself up into a frenzy because their greater resources give their baristas greater opportunity, but is Isaiah exploiting those resources available to him?
I resigned myself long ago to the fact that if one wants to win, one must play by the rules of the game - regardless of whether or not he agrees with said rules. Isaiah needs to do this as well, if he desires to win.
This means that you may have to change your style of roasting and consuming coffee. Perhaps to achieve the style of espresso that wins the USBC you'll have to use older than "fresh" coffee. Or use more coffee with a lighter tamp pressure. Or do whatever it takes to preserve a thick layer of crema on the surface.
An important question I have is: did you guys take the time after the competition to meet the judges and discuss the scoresheets?
As a judge, I've spent many a competition waiting for the competitors to come forward to discuss their scoresheets to see where things went awry and where they succeeded. 9.9 times out of ten, the barista competitors choose not to engage the judges.
Truth be told, there's lots of judges I know who want to meet with the competitor to discuss the scoresheets and potentially strategize on how they can improve. As a competitor - even one who isn't concerned about winning - I always meet with my judges to hear their feedback. Sometimes, I agree with them, sometimes I think they're effin' crazy, and then sometimes they deliver some truly amazing insight into something that I missed.
And I don't even care about winning.
If Isaiah can land a spot in the USBC, I strongly urge you to contact those judges and see if they have the time to discuss their scores with you. See where improvement could have been made to achieve better scores and perhaps even win the USBC...
Imagine DoubleShot winning the USBC at the SCAA Show in Anaheim. Imagine how many people you can tell to suck it afterwards.
That alone has to be worth the effort.
It's interesting to hear complaints about competition scoring, when it seems that competition (at least on a macro level) isn't that important to your shop.
Looking at the competition score sheets, 50 out of a possible 62 points revolve around taste and correct presentation. It's obvious that crema color and persistence matter, but overwhelmingly, taste matters more, so far as scoring is concerned at least. Even in the official rule book, attention is paid to not marking competitors down for different tamping styles. If anyone watched the Canadian National competition, there were many competitors who had, what appeared to me to be, bizarre tamping techniques. But if it's in the cup, it's in the cup. My speculation would be that anything that held your competitors back, simply was what was in the cup.
Beyond anything, as a consumer, one of the things I love about competitions is, at least in the Great Lakes region, the attention paid to the coffee and those who grow it. When you argue that the coffee tastes "sweeter" what does that really mean? Is it fruity, if so, what kind of fruit? Is it sweet spicy? Is it...sugary? What can you say about the specific roast profiles of your espresso, and why using them as "fresh" as you do is a benefit? Do you acknowledge that some coffees taste better 8, 10, 12 days out?
there should be an "innovation" camp in addition to the USBC. baristas and roasters coming together to hold hands, sing cum-by-yah, and tell tall tales of experiments both success and failures. Then at the end of the camp. everyone gets an "innovation self esteem booster" award.
To respond to a couple of things.
I see no evidence in a change in flow rate once I go past a certain pressure when tamping. I am guessing any further compaction would likely be undone during preinfuse when the cake swells and absorbs water. Are you using flow restriction?
As for rest - we roast pretty light, rarely even touching 2nd. I am not sure how dark or how long you are roasting your espresso - it has an impact on the rate that it degasses, as darker roasts are less dense and degas faster. For the first three days after roasting I often get a smoke note in the coffee that I really don't like, that disappears after that.
Beyond that - I am pretty open. I've had shots I liked 3 days out, I've had shots I liked 22 days out. Had I believed absolutely in one way being right I would have missed out on an experience I ended up enjoying a great deal.
Freshness is complex, evasive and not as definable as we would like. We like what we like, and hopefully that is what we sell our customers.
I have been pulled up on the sugars thing - so I should probably clarify:
As I understand it there are virtually no low-molecular weight sugars left in roasted coffee. They react away/degrade/get involved. There are higher molecular weight carbohydrates in roasted coffee, but they have a very low impact on sweetness perception compared to low weight sugar (mono & disaccharides for example).
However the long chain polysaccharides have been shown to increase foam stability. Check your Illy books for references.
Sipp... The barista competition is important to my baristas, so it's important to me. But I'm not so self-focused that I only think about things that directly affect me. I do want the industry to grow and change. I simply feel, right or wrong, that the competitions do more to stifle change than encourage it. Y'all keep telling me we should listen to the judges and learn. Learn how to make coffee the way they want us to. We have listened to them and their comments have spurred my opinions. It's entirely possible the reverse is also true, that the judges and committees should listen to the collective coffee community a bit more. You're right, I could forget all about the competition tomorrow and never look back. As far as taste, the competitors are subjected to various palates and varying opinions. If you think there is consistency in taste comments, you should read the score sheets. Not to mention, as Jay says, instead of presenting something that all of my customers think is good, we are supposed to present something that we don't think is as good in order to please the palates of people who have been jaded. It's almost like if George Howell entered a coffee into a competition where all the judges only liked naturals.
What do I mean when I say sweeter? I mean sweeter. It's one of the four or five known tastes we are able to perceive.
And I will say this: I have never tasted a coffee I thought tasted better 8, 10 or 12 days out. And I have a really difficult time believing that is even possible, considering science and my preferences. But please note, I've also been known to throw out stale bread.
James, I'm not using flow restriction. And you may be right that flow rate doesn't change much (depending on tamp style) after a certain pressure is reached. BUT the taste still changes as you tamp harder. I've experienced this a lot with new baristas. The flow rate may look right, but if they're not tamping hard enough, the espresso doesn't taste the same. As I was saying, it's got a harder edge to it. And not as sweet. Is it possible that flow rate is relatively stable, but taste changes? Indeed. I have ideas why, but I won't go into that now.
I always stay either just shy of second crack or a bit further to the light side. Could be that you're actually roasting a bit "darker" than I am. In a way, I am glad you have had such a range of pleasant experiences with different ages of coffee. I wish I could say the same. I'm writing another blog entry to explain a little of why I think this is.
Sugars. Again, if you say there ARE sugars in coffee, why do you think they don't impact the perception of sweetness? For one thing it seems like sugars, of all compounds, would be the MOST likely to cause the sweet sensation. For another thing, I'm not sure there is any way to actually test and see which compound is causing the taste buds to detect sweetness.
Further, do you think there is a technique in making espresso that causes a more complete extraction of whatever compound you think is causing sweetness in the coffee? Because I think that is a pleasant experience and I'd like to further exploit it.
Jay, I wasn't in Austin. I'm only reporting what I've been told. Isaiah told me he and Garth talked to the judges afterward. I do think though, they were a bit blown away by some of their comments and didn't even know what to ask after hearing things that were unexplainable. But I know they talked and tried to understand...
Dr weighs in...
I know nothing about the chemistry of coffee outside of what I've read from Brian's Blog over the past year.
But question was raised about what tastes sweet...
Other compounds DO stimulate the "sweet receptors" on our tongues... perfect example: ASPARTAME!!! It is the methyl ester of the dipeptide of the natural amino acids L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine... so a basic building bloc of a protein, with an extra component stuck on the end! not a sugar.
as for large sugars... umm. rice, wheat... STARCH!!! These are polysaccharide carbohydrate consisting of a large number of GLUCOSE units joined together by glycosidic bonds. They aren't really sweet at all. It's all about a molecule's shape and polarity being able to fit into a receptor on the tongue's surface.
As for what sugars are left in roasted coffee, I haven't the foggiest. As for what in coffee other than a sugar could taste sweet... I haven't the smoggiest... this is where my medical school training is of no use.
trust me...
david
Brain,
Plenty here to digest. I've done a bit of research, however, that still doesn't entitle me as an authority. Logically, it's hard to argue with your superb and clear explanation of espresso, degassing and the process therein. Which I realize is debatable. As a customer, critic... well, and a nobody to your industry, having learned and tasted many coffees (Yes, CoffeeFest Chicago), I must admit, your "too fresh" & "hard tamped" espresso is second to none.
Yes, I stand against my home city, Chicago, on this one.
I was a sensory judge for both Isaiah and Garth, including Isaiah's finals round. Since there's been plenty of speculation about the judging of their performances, I'll offer a few facts as I saw them from my side of the table.
-Neither made any attempt to talk to me about their scores.
-I never saw either person's tamp, nor would I care to know about it. Not a tech judge, not my concern.
-As a sensory judge, I believe that our panels were in solid calibration with the head judges.
-I can only evaluate the drinks put in front of me, not the drinks served in your cafe. Anyone can speculate, but it comes down to the shot served the judge, and that judge's calibration with the head judge. If you didn't taste the shot, no swiping from the gallery.
-Scott and Loni ran a tight ship, and the scores directly reflect what is required on the score sheet.
Finally, as the owner and working barista at an independent shop working in relative isolation, I am sympathetic to anyone who rails against the status quo-- but I am not particularly swayed by any dogmatic pronouncements about the one true way to pull a shot. If anything, we need to be much more flexible in realizing that as an agricultural, seasonal product, perhaps no two coffees should be pulled the same way as espresso. It really shouldn't matter one bit as long as the final shot best shows the coffee's qualities.
anthony rue
volta coffee
Anthony, glad you posted. And I'm glad we see eye to eye. I'm also not swayed by any dogmatic pronouncements about the one true way to pull a shot. Absolutely I agree with that. Precisely why, when they critiqued Isaiah's tamp style (again, even though he TRIED to play by the "rules" and sissy tamp), I disagreed with the dogmatic, specific form they find acceptable.
All I'm asking about the tamp is... have you tried it? It's almost as if tamp pressure is indisputable. You can question water temp, brew pressure profiles, and many other things about espresso, but NOT tamping pressure.
So Anthony, do tell. What did you think about the El Boton Natural Isaiah served? I'm curious. Tell us about the flavor profile and characteristics you experienced in the espresso.
Brian,
I stuck around for an hour after the competition both Saturday and Sunday to discuss specifics about the scores with the baristas. In all honesty, I was judging full slates for all three days. That's too many individual shots for me to be comfortable recalling specifics about any given shot ten days later, especially without my notes. Unfortunately, I don't see the score sheet again once I turn it over to the head judge. When your guys get their score sheets, I'd be happy to discuss it with them via email or phone if they could mail me a copy of my own notes.
I'm not in the coffee biz but I do involve myself in some coffee-related things, including barista championships (sensory judge at regional and national) and numerous discussions with coffee artisans. In other words, I'm nobody important.
In a way, I "come from" the worlds of beer and coffee homebrewing. In coffee circles, I like to introduce myself as a homeroaster and blogger.
(I'm mostly an ethnographer, meaning that I do what we call "participant-observation" as both an insider and an outsider.)
There seem to be several disconnects in today's coffee world, despite a lot of communication across the Globe. Between the huge coffee corporations and the "specialty coffee" crowd. Between coffee growers and coffee lovers. Between professional and home baristas. Even, sometimes, between baristas from different parts of the world.
None of it is very surprising. But it's sometimes a bit sad to hear people talk past one another.
I realize nothing I say may really help. And it may all be misinterpreted. That's all part of the way things go and I accept that.
In the world of barista champions and the so-called "Third Wave," emotions seem particularly high. Part of it might have to do with the fact that so many people interact on a rather regular basis. Makes for a very interesting craft, in some ways. But also for rather tense moments.
About judging...
My experience isn't that extensive. I've judged at the Canadian Eastern Regional BC twice and at the Canadian BC once.
Still, I did notice a few things.
One is that there can be a lot of camaraderie/collegiality among BC participants. This can have a lot of beneficial effects on the quality of coffee served in different places as well as on the quality of the café experience itself, long after the championships. A certain cohesiveness which may come from friendly competition can do a lot for the diversity of coffee scenes.
Another thing I've noticed is that it's really easy to be fair, in judging using WBC regulations. It's subjective in a very literal way since there's tasting involved (tastebuds belong to the "subjects" of the sensory and head judges). But it simply has very little if anything to do with personal opinions, relationships, or "liking the person." It's remarkably easy to judge the performance, with a focus on what's in the cup, as opposed to the person her-/himself or her/his values.
Sure, the championship setting is in many ways artificial and arbitrary. A little bit like rules for an organized sport. Or so many other contexts.
A competition like this has fairly little to do with what is likely to happen in "The Real World" (i.e., in a café). I might even say that applying a WBC-compatible in a café is likely to become a problem in many cases. A bit like working the lunch shift at a busy diner using ideas from the Iron Chef or getting into a street fight and using strict judo rules.
A while ago, I was working in French restaurants, as a «garde-manger» (assistant-chef). We often talked about (and I did meet a few) people who were just coming out of culinary institutes. In most cases, they were quite good at producing a good dish in true French cuisine style. But the consensus was that "they didn't know how to work."
People fresh out of culinary school didn't really know how to handle a chaotic kitchen, order only the supplies required, pay attention to people's tastes, adapt to differences in prices, etc. They could put up a good show and their dishes might have been exquisite. But they could also be overwhelmed with having to serve 60 customers in a regular shift or, indeed, not know what to do during a slow night. Restaurant owners weren't that fond of hiring them, right away. They had to be "broken out" («rodés»).
Barista championships remind me of culinary institutes, in this way. Both can be useful in terms of skills, but experience is more diverse than that.
So, yes, WBC rules are probably artificial and arbitrary. But it's easy to be remarkably consistent in applying these rules. And that should count for something. Just not for everythin.
Sure, you may get some differences between one judge and the other. But those differences aren't that difficult to understand and I didn't see that they tended to have to do with "preferences," personal issues, or anything of the sort. From what I noticed while judging, you simply don't pay attention to the same things as when you savour coffee. And that's fine. Cupping coffee isn't the same thing as drinking it, either.
In my (admittedly very limited) judging experience, emphasis was put on providing useful feedback. The points matter a lot, of course, but the main thing is that the points make sense in view of the comments. In a way, it's to ensure calibration ("you say 'excellent' but put a '3,' which one is more accurate?") but it's also about the goals of the judging process. The textual comments are a way to help the barista pay attention to certain things. "Constructive criticism" is one way to put it. But it's more than that. It's a way to get something started.
Several of the competitors I've seen do come to ask judges for clarifications and many of them seemed open to discussion. A few mostly wanted justification and may have felt slighted. But I mostly noticed a rather thoughtful process of debriefing.
Having said that, there are competitors who are surprised by differences between two judges' scores. "But both shots came from the same portafilter!" "Well, yes, but if you look at the video, you'll notice that coffee didn't flow the same way in both cups." There are also those who simply doubt judges, no matter what. Wonder if they respect people who drink their espresso...
Coming from the beer world, I also notice differences with beer. In the beer world, there isn't really an equivalent to the WBC in the sense that professional beer brewers don't typically have competitions. But amateur homebrewers do. And it's much stricter than the WBC in terms of certification. It requires a lot of rote memorization, difficult exams (I helped proctor two), judging points, etc.
I've been a vocal critic of the Beer Judge Certification Program. There seems to be an idea, there, that you can make the process completely neutral and that the knowledge necessary to judge beers is solid and well-established. One problem is that this certification program focuses too much on a series of (over a hundred) "styles" which are more of a context-specific interpretation of beer diversity than a straightforward classification of possible beers.
Also, the one thing they want to avoid the most (basing their evaluation on taste preferences) still creeps in. It's probably no coincidence that, at certain events, beers which were winning "Best of Show" tended to be big, assertive beers instead of very subtle ones. Beer judges don't want to be human, but they may still end up acting like ones.
At the same time, while there's a good deal of debate over beer competition results and such, there doesn't seem to be exactly the same kind of tension as in barista championships. Homebrewers take their results to heart and they may yell at each other over their scores. But, somehow, I see much less of a fracture, "there" than "here." Perhaps because the stakes are very low (it's a hobby, not a livelihood). Perhaps because beer is so different from coffee. Or maybe because there isn't a sense of "Us vs. Them": brewers judging a competition often enter beer in that same competition (but in a separate category from the ones they judge).
Actually, the main difference may be that beer judges can literally only judge what's in the bottle. They don't observe the brewers practicing their craft (this happens weeks prior), they simply judge the product. In a specific condition. In many ways, it's very unfair. But it can help brewers understand where something went wrong.
Now, I'm not saying the WBC should become like the BJCP. For one thing, it just wouldn't work. And there's already a lot of investment in the current WBC format. And I'm really not saying the BJCP is better than the WBC as an inspiration, since I actually prefer the WBC-style championships. But I sense that there's something going on in the coffee world which has more to do with interpersonal relationships and "attitudes" than with what's in the cup.
All this time, those of us who don't make a living through coffee but still live it with passion may be left out. And we do our own things. We may listen to coffee podcasts, witness personal conflicts between café owners, hear rants about the state of the "industry," and visit a variety of cafés.
Yet, slowly but surely, we're making our own way through coffee. Exploring its diversity, experimenting with different brewing methods, interacting with diverse people involved, even taking trips "to origin"...
Coffee is what unites us.
Why would you throw away stale bread? what a waste! Steam it and throw it in a toaster. Good as new.
Moving on... this is my 3rd year of being involved in competitions. I've judged 2 regional and 2 national competitions and I competed in the Midwest region this year. I continue to be involved because of the people I meet and the things I've learned. Competitions are supposed to be fun. Have you ever wondered why the same person doesn't win ever year? that's because it's not designed to find the BEST Barista. It's designed as a starting point for people in the industry to demonstrate what they've done and challenge each other to keep trying. You're not going to agree with everyone and everyone's not going to agree with you(that's kinda the point isn't it).
I seriously recommend judging. Getting another perspective of the competition is extremely important and it is critical if you want to win.
Think of the judges as your customers. That's what they are. If a customer comes into your store and says "I want my coffee this way" you wouldn't say to them "sorry we make our own rules here" or wait would you...
You have ultimate freedom to do things your own way. As long as the paying customers are happy then you have reassurance that what you're doing is right. The competition is just a simulation of this. Take it for what it is and do your baristas a favor and give them a reality check.
@tamakins: Though your thing about stale bread is probably a joke, it does raise a few interesting issues.
Wasting bread is disrespectful to the baker. Wasting coffee beans is disrespectful to the grower, roaster, etc. Any kind of wastefulness is counterproductive.
A problem with focusing on "the very best," for those who care about other people, is what to do with the rest. Especially if we want the whole thing to be sustainable.
So, is there room in this world for mediocre coffee? Apparently not. But, then, what happens to the subpar crops? Should we send those to Charbucks?
Going back to the specifics of staling...
Sure, we want to avoid staling at all costs. Those who enjoy stale coffee know nothing about real coffee. Sure, sure, sure...
But, then, we can think of oxidization in other contexts.
Beer is the one I know the most. In beer, oxidization causes a large set of off-putting flavours, including something which is technically described as "wet cardboard." Yuck!
Yet, those who love aged beers may enjoy a barleywine which is full of sherry-like notes. Same process of oxidization. Different result.
Is port bad wine? The fact that it historically comes from a process you want to avoid is besides the point. Are those who enjoy port failing to appreciate what wine really is?
Then, we can think about cheese in continental Europe and in North America. To the typical North American, the typical European cheese is way too old. It's smelly! Yuck! To a typical European, the typical North American cheese isn't ripe. Tastes like plastic!
Same difference can be found with many fruits (bananas, for instance) and even meat.
The obsession with freshness, in the so-called "Third Wave" is easy to understand. So is the obsession with bringing out the flavours from the varietal. Or emphasizing brightness and/or sweetness. Or even the idea that there isn't life outside of espresso, any other brewing technique is a pale imitation. But coffee is different things to different people.
The point about customers is important. When you do everything at home (which I could grow coffee!), you're your own customer and your idiosyncrasies don't matter. If you start telling others about your approach to coffee, they may quickly stop listening, if your ideas don't mesh with theirs.
In a shop, it's probably useful to give people something to latch on, to hang to. Someone who's used to Charbucks flavoured milk may not be ready to taste the full array of flavours offered by coffee. But she may be ready to try something different.
In a way, most of us are trying to make others happy so that they can "grok" coffee. The most efficient way to do it might be to "open our doors" to them, even if it means listening to inane thoughts on what they think coffee should taste like.
But, of course, Brian is a crusader. That's why we love his work so much. We all need him. Doesn't mean we should agree with everything he says. Just that we can listen to what he has to say and make our own way in the worlds of coffee.
I feel a little overwhelmed by all the assertions made in the comments of this blog. And I wrote another blog post that I haven't published yet. Because I'm nervous about saying too much. What happens when I read some of the comments here is that I have a myriad of thoughts on each subject. I could dissect each point and write a page on every one of them. That's why, when I'm asked to speak at an event, I have to try to keep it short. I can talk (or write) on and on and on about things I'm excited about. So I confess, I'm not really sure where to start.
Tamakins: I'm not going to judge a competition. For many reasons. I'm waaaaay too busy, for one. And I don't drink any dairy products (and quite frankly, don't like the thought of dairy in my coffee). Ha. I do think the point is that we're not all going to agree. When I watch these competitions or even when I go to other coffeeshops, it seems like we (you guys) all DO agree. There's been some silent agreement on certain things.
When I read your comments about thinking of the judges as our customers, I had to laugh. And my customers probably all fell on the floor laughing. Because we are professionals. We work VERY hard to make the coffee what WE think is really good. That's the product we serve. We serve coffee that I think is great. So when a customer comes in and says "I want my coffee this way," we DO say, "sorry we make our own rules here." You're exactly wrong. There are a lot of other coffeeshops in town, and if people want it a different way they are welcome to go to the others. You don't go into a nice restaurant and ask them to change items on their menu I hope. If you do, the chef (and probably the servers) hate you.
Our customers ARE happy. Because they know we are the professionals, not them. We serve them great coffee and it's really easy for them. So the competition is NOT a simulation of this. I'm not sure what you mean by giving my baristas a reality check. It's a COMPETITION. Sounds like the judges need a reality check. No offense.
Alexandre: You say a lot. I appreciate your perspective, and the perspectives of all who have chimed in. I like this thread.
To start, I think it's disrespectful to the baker to LET the bread go stale. If he's a good baker, he would tell you to eat it fresh and if you let it get stale, you should throw it out. I agree that wasting coffee is disrespectful to the grower. We talk about that. But it's disrespectful to our customers to sell stale coffee. So I roast 2-3 times per week and we make sure all the coffee is used up before it hits that 7 day mark. But there is always going to be a little waste. What about samples? We have to taste the coffees before we buy them. And if you want to go all the way down the chain, there are always going to be really terrible lots of coffee (usually relegated to domestic consumption in producing countries), and though it's good that every bean is sold, is it actually good that producing countries drink such terrible coffee? Should anyone drink coffee that's that bad? Maybe we should find a different use for really, really bad coffee. Auto fuel maybe.
As for your beer analogy, I think it's different. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think barleywines and ports are both high in sugars, which the yeasts feed upon. You're also talking about aging alcoholic beverages, for the most part, sealed up and away from oxygen and certain bacteria that would react (acetobacter) and create vinegar. When you age beef, some of the moisture evaporates, creating slightly more intense flavors and the enzymes in the beef begin to break down the proteins, creating a more silky mouthfeel. Parts of the beef actually react to the air around it and spoil. The butcher cuts off the spoiled (and sometimes moldy) parts of the beef before selling it.
But we're splitting hairs, aren't we?
The important question is, what happens to coffee between the time it is roasted and infinity? Well, infinity might not be important. But what happens inside the coffee bean within the first 30 days might be. Can anyone give us insight into the chambers of the coffee bean and explain how changes take place after roasting? How do these changes effect the characteristics of brewed coffee?
Brian says: "The important question is, what happens to coffee between the time it is roasted and infinity?"
I guess my main point is: if we are to participate in broad changes to make the coffee industry more socially conscious and financially sustainable, this important question is just one of many.
We do know about several things which happen between roast and grind, then between grind and brewing. Some of these are general knowledge, others are more specialized. I'm an anthropologist, not a biochemist. But I did notice differences in the way coffee beans will change over time, after roasting. Many factors are involved but the general pattern is pretty much the same. There's a moment at which coffee beans "peak" in that they produce their full potential of pleasant aromas and flavours without producing too much off-flavours and/or unwanted physical effects. In most cases, there's a period before that peak during which the beans produce something which can be really good but isn't exactly the optimal output. After the peak, there's a rather sudden decay in all sorts of flavours and aromas until you reach something of a "plateau" at which coffee has lost much of what some people find interesting but it may still produce something other people would recognize as coffee and, sometimes, as pleasant coffee.
This "curve" in the beans' flavour and aroma contributions varies quite a bit, depending on a large number of factors. Varietal, roast level and profile, brewing method, grind coarseness, moisture content, storing method, etc. If one keeps several of these parameters constant, it seems possible to produce something which gives relatively consistent results. I'd say that it's more of an art than a science, though, and the AA Café discussion about tasters at big coffee-producing companies seemed to go in that direction.
In these contexts where relatively-consistent results are produced, it's quite conceivable that the bean contribution curve would be relatively similar from batch to batch, even across varietals. In other words, it's really easy to imagine that a certain roaster would produce coffee which reaches its peak extremely rapidly and decays extremely rapidly after that.
But people's "mileage" varies and there may be other people who have experience with coffees which take "a little while" to reach their peak and decay a bit more slowly. In fact, it's even conceivable to say that there are contexts in which brewing coffee while the beans are at their peak is simply too impractical under the conditions in which they work and they end up tweaking everything so that the results they get near the end of the curve are at least decent.
It's a very crude representation of the diversity in the coffee world and I do have several examples in mind which would fit in these broad categories.
The main point I'm trying to make, here, is that none of these categories is "all that there is about coffee." Someone might argue that the absolutely best coffee only exists in one of these categories, but quality isn't the only thing we should consider. Especially if we want the coffee world to improve.
It can be hard to make a clear distinction between "quality" and "taste." My point about the oxidation of alcoholic beverages and about meat was mostly about this. In connection to diversity in context and paying attention to more than one form of the product.
In the abstract, you might say that any French croissant is a better-quality product than any biscotto, cracker, or crouton. The biscotto, cracker, and crouton are equivalent to dry bread, even though they're not produced in the same way. In all cases (croissant, crouton, biscotto, cracker), you use pretty much the same basic ingredients, wheat flour being the main one by weight. Are biscotti a lower form of "flour" than croissants? In France, in my experience, the same people eat extremely fresh croissants and rather stale baguette, sometimes during the same breakfast. Does it mean that they've misunderstood wheat? That they don't understand that baguette is supposed to be eaten fresh? That they can't afford fresh baguette?
For some people, extremely fresh coffee made as straight espresso can be the very best thing there is. It's the "true essence" of coffee. In some cases, they may even think of blending as the worst thing someone can do with high quality coffee beans. They may even get other people to share their passion for those drinks, like some wine people who want to limit their experience to the very best pinot noir there is. Nothing wrong with that. It's one perspective.
Across the World, there are people who drink a variety of drinks made with coffee beans and there are people who don't drink coffee at all. Among those who do drink coffee, there are some who prefer it with milk. From some people's perspective, adding milk to coffee is pure heresy, it's debasing the coffee, making it impure, and it probably comes from the fact that these people probably don't have that sophisticate a palate in the first place. But there are some people who have such a passion for a specific combination of milk and coffee that they make movies about it.
Who's right?
In Northern Italy, people manage to make something quite flavourful with beans that would be considered stale by other standards. Not too long ago, as Ken Davids tells us, most Italian families were roasting coffee at home. Nowadays, most coffee in Italy is probably store-bought, possibly even preground. We can be dismissive about Italy's current coffee scene and see this as a pure degradation. If we do so, we might also miss the point about what may happen across the World, what the risks are.
Which leads me to that core point: coffee made with extremely fresh beans of an extremely high quality can be the best thing on Earth, but what about the rest? What about these other coffee beans? What about these lots which turn out bad? What about roasted coffee which stays on the shelf for too long because demand didn't meet expectations? What can we do about those coffee producers who try to maintain higher yield instead of focusing on quality? What's the range of effects, in the coffee world, of an emphasis on absolute (and not relative) freshness? How about these people who actually prefer coffee produced with beans which are further along the curve?
As you should know, Brian, I truly respect you and your quest. I'm not disagreeing with you in principle. I don't even have access to the biochemical knowledge which would enable me to explain the discrepancies between your own experience and those of several other people. And I salute your success, as a business owner.
Haven't tried coffee made with DoubleShot beans (and I care too much about my carbon footprint to want some shipped to me), but I'm sure they're awesome. Possibly better than everything else I've tried (Stumptown, Tim Horton's, Metropolis, Illy, Vivace, Starbucks, JJ Bean, Nespresso, 49th Parallel, Lavazza, Klatsch, Carte noire, Terroir, Nabob, Intelligentsia, Maxwell House, Zoca, and a large range of other roasters, from tiny cafés to large industrial corporations).
I'm just a guy doing coffee at home and trying coffee in diverse places. Some of my most pleasant coffee experiences were with beans coming right out of a popcorn popper. Others were with commercial blends of unknown freshness.
I don't claim to have the answer to any "important question." I do argue that there is more than one "important question."
Just finished listening to AACafé #65. Pretty nice (apart from the allusions to your status as a single man). The part which pertains to this thread is nuanced and useful. You say, half-jokingly, that your coffee's degree of freshness can be a marketing strategy, and there's something to that.
Because there is a specific taste which is difficult to achieved with coffee too many days after the roast. If people are trained to love it, it might work. As some have said, this might be the reason Charbucks originally bought the Clover.
It's also possible that people's palates have been trained to prefer coffee that you'd personally call stale. Which might mean that the path toward better coffee will take a lot of tact and tactic.
Getting more and more people to enjoy coffee at a specific place is already not that easy. For instance, they may care more about peaberry/caracol than about the actual taste of the coffee. They may think of "fair-trade" as the ultimate guarantee for quality. They may even ask for a mix of drip and espresso. And chances are that they're used to adding all sorts of things to their coffee. But it's possible to welcome them into the world of coffee. With just the right attitude, they may not even notice that their habits are changing.
Getting everyone to change their taste is much more difficult. Even if everyone is completely off and they just don't understand coffee, it's really difficult to make them change their ideas about what tastes good. For instance, after years of eating unripened cheese, people in the US tend to have a difficult time with ripened cheese despite many attempts to make them understand that cheese is supposed to be flavourful. There are people out there who think Subway is what food freshness is all about, and it's hard to get them to try something which doesn't taste like Play-Do. It's not really because one marketing campaign or the other is more effective than anything else. It's that, in aggregate, marketing has been skewing people's tastes.
One thing which is hard to tell is whether the cruisade is about transforming as many coffee drinkers as possible into knowledgeable coffee connoisseurs or if it's about participating in broader changes affecting coffee-based industries, including the fate of farmers and local economies as well as social phenomena surrounding coffee as a commodity.
For what it's worth, I do drink coffee right after roasting it (still warm) and at different points thereafter. Sometimes, I do prefer the very first cup, usually made with the AeroPress. Other times, the coffee reaches its peak later on, from twelve hours to two or three days (usually made with a moka pot). With commercially-roasted coffee, a similar experience happens to me as some coffees seem to reach their peak later than others (though I didn't really get the chance to try coffee right out of a commercial roaster).
And though you may not consider homeroasting to be capable of achieving the same level of results as a commercial roaster, I've had coffee roasted at home which was better than most of what I've had from "big name" roasters (Terroir, Intelli, Zoka, Klatsch, Counterculture, 49th, Novo, Stumptown...). Again, it's always possible that my palate is off. But I'm enjoying the full palette of coffee flavours and aromas.
Post a Comment
<< Home