Coffee

What’s Brewing – Fifty K Christmas Blend

/ Pete Denison / 1 Comment

With another year having come and very almost gone, it was time to create the annual Christmas Festive Roast Blend for distribution to family and friends. Mind you, with things getting a little hectic towards the end of the year, the creation of this years blend was completed just a little close to the line.

Although not helped by a last-minute change to the composition of the specific coffees I’ve put together for this year, it was preferable to wait a little longer and produce something, which I feel, is a little more well-rounded and nicer in the cup. So without further ado, the details.

The Name

The finished product heading out the door.

The finished product heading out the door.

“What on earth is the Fifty-K reference in the name?” you would be well within your rights to ask. Although only the third time I have done this, the idea of putting together a festive Christmas blend with a specific name is based on two things.

First and foremost, given my own interest in roasting and brewing coffee, it is nice to give something to family and friends who take that little bit more care in how they brew theirs, whether through a home espresso machine, french press, Aeropress or other manual brewing methods.

Secondly, coming up with a name for the blend which reflects either the year I’ve had, other events of interest, or something which has perhaps captured my thoughts in the previous 12 months.

This year, as regular readers (and without a doubt my immediate, and very understanding family) will be well aware, November was a big month, swallowed up entirely by my participation in National Novel Writing Month, or NaNoWriMo. Managing to meet the 50,000 word deadline by the end of November certainly wasn’t easy, however I was pleased to get there, and finished with a small novel of just over 55,000 words by months end, along with the inspiration to name this years blend in honour of that very challenge.

So, without further ado, what makes up this years festive roast, and how does Fifty-K Blend taste in the cup?

The Coffee

As usual, the green beans were sourced from Ministry Grounds, with the plan to put together a blend worthy of the season, with berry, stone and dried fruits, along with nuts and honey the key components of this year’s tasting notes list.

IMG_3294

Green bean selection

IMG_3300

Roasted bean blend testing

Finalised on December 21 - just made it!

Finalised on December 21 – just made it!

Searching through the many single origin coffees on the Ministry Grounds site, after a false start with the Guatemala Las Illusiones (a fine coffee in its own right, however wasn’t quite right in the blend), the individual coffees below made the final cut, and make up Fifty-K Blend in equal one-third portions.

Ethiopia Sidamo Bulga

  • Region: Oromiya – Southern Bale Mountains
  • Area: Bulga
  • Variety: Various heirloom cultivars
  • Processing: Fully Washed

Rwanda Nyarusiza

  • Region: Nyamagabe district, Southern Province
  • City: Between Butare and Cyangugu
  • Altitude: 1,935 metres above sea level
  • Variety: Red Bourbon
  • Processing: Fully washed, sun-dried on African raised beds

El Salvador San Cayetano

  • Region: Ahuachapán, Apaneca Ilamatepec Mountain Range
  • Altitude: 1,500 metres above sea level
  • Variety: Bourbon
  • Processing: Honey processed and greenhouse dried

The Rwanda Nyarusiza returns, having been part of last year’s Keeper’s Blend, however the above combination is a departure from the red berry dominance of the 2013 blend.

Individual tasting notes and further background can be found on the Ministry Grounds website by clicking on the above links, however as far as the blend itself tastes, below is what I have found.

The Taste

A standout - the AeroPress

A standout – the AeroPress

When combined with milk in a flat white or latte, it is a lovely rich and creamy drink, with the dried fruits and honey at the forefront, and a mild, nutty aftertaste. Overall, the honey really carries through when consumed with milk. Perhaps it may have gained something from a little more “fruitiness”, however overall I think it works well to kick things off in a morning latte.

A little surprising to me was how well the blend suited the AeroPress, and had I not been running dangerously low on filters, would have consumed a lot more through this type of brew method. Whilst remaining rich and creamy with a lovely mouthfeel, the AeroPress really brings out the stone fruit and black tea flavours which hide a little in the milk based drinks. A pleasantly robust blend, which holds up really well in this form of brewing.

Upon brewing through the Hario V60 filter, the taste profile is similar in nature to that described above with the Aeropress, however I would not necessarily say it was any better, which is not what I usually find when comparing the two. As espresso (think green apple, a little honey again), well, you can’t please everyone, and let’s just say when consuming the Fifty-K black, a longer form of brewing is probably the best option, as it is probably a little too bright to be considered a really good espresso.

In Conclusion

With another year and another festive roast blend all but complete, perhaps it is time to reflect on the year gone by, and what might lay ahead for you in 2015. Or, as is the case with me, simply enjoying a few days off with family, the cricket and a some new toys to play with, courtesy of some thoughtful gift givers.

Thankfully, no one gave me a fountain pen for Christmas. As someone who does love a good fountain pen, why would I be thankful for this? Well, there are a few reasons, and tomorrow (29 December), you can read about what those are in a guest post I wrote for one of my favourite pen blogs, On Fountain Pens. The article is one in a series of 12, which began on Christmas Day, and I’d encourage you to head over and read them – it’s a great series of posts (and yes… if I do say so myself!).

I do hope you have had a Merry Christmas, thanks for stopping by, and best wishes for the coming year.

One discussion on speciality coffee

/ Pete Denison / Leave a comment

Having recently linked to an article by James Hoffmann (What message do I want to send?), and a subsequent response written in reply by Tim Williams (Mayfielder), I was keen to read the next chapter in the discussion, a follow-up post, again by Hoffmann.

Selling speciality coffee

Hoffman’s original topic? What it means to try to educate consumers, and “sell” for want of a better term, speciality coffee, the assumption being that such coffee is indeed, superior to what many consumers currently purchase and drink. For example:

The problem with selling what we have as “better” is that it requires the consumer accepting that what they are currently buying, drinking and enjoying is an inferior product.

The overall tone of the article was aimed squarely at the end consumer. The customer who buys, brews and drinks…, well, whatever they currently drink, which in many cases, would not be considered speciality coffee. As all final thoughts probably should do, Hoffmann’s closing sums things up pretty well:

What those of us in speciality coffee offer isn’t necessarily unilaterally better coffee, but amongst our offerings are lots of coffee someone will probably enjoy more than what they’re drinking now.

As I mentioned in my previous link, the response from Williams, I thought, probably interpreted Hoffmann’s words a little differently. Writing a response in disagreement, whilst conceding it is critical for speciality coffee purveyors to acknowledge consumers entry points to such coffee, also stated:

There is a difference between good coffee and bad. There is a point at which people who have chosen to position and market themselves and their products as elevated in quality, price, taste, experience must deliver on the promises they make to those consumers.

Williams continues, explaining how, in many cases, sub-standard coffee is being marketed in exactly the same way as vastly superior speciality coffee.

In further follow-up, another post by Hoffmann (Quality and customers), seeks (and probably achieves) to clarify his position, highlighting again there are probably two facets to his original.

Some thoughts

Myself? I tend to agree with both points of view, simply because in my experience (note here reader, a decidedly non industry viewpoint), I see examples of both, and further, I think there is also scope for improvement in both points of view in this discussion.

As far as quality within the industry is concerned, well, that is for the industry, and I have never put forward the notion that I, as a consumer (an enthusiastic home roasting and brewing consumer mind you), would (or should) have anything to offer experts within that very industry.

From a customer perspective however, things are different. As I have alluded to in previous posts, if we accept certain cafés are third wave or serving speciality coffee in any city, these continue to be far outnumbered by those which are not.

Every day, fellow colleagues walk into my office with takeaway cups ranging from 7-Eleven, McDonalds, Starbucks, varying juice bars, and any of the local cafés which by any definition, are not serving what I would call speciality coffee.

These people are intelligent enough, so why are they drinking what they are drinking? For some, I’m sure the price has an allure. For others, I believe they simply don’t care that much, and are quite happy with whatever is closest and the “I like that one better than this one” approach. Seeing an A-Frame touting the latest Guatemalan on offer with its cocoa, brown sugar and plum tasting notes does nothing for so, so many people.

Visiting a speciality coffee establishment with anyone who is yet to experience one, invariably leads to comments about how nice the coffee is, often to the point of “that’s the nicest coffee I’ve ever had” or similar. The next day, that same person is yet again walking in with their takeaway cup bearing the golden arches logo. Why? Because to them, it still does not matter enough to pay a little more for their coffee or walk a little further to get it.

Then there are those of us looking to further our knowledge, understanding, and palates in relation to the world of speciality coffee. As time goes on, this group becomes a little bigger.

I believe Hoffmann’s original post was referring to the entry point for members of this group, who, with a warm welcome and a little guidance rather than judgement, will realise themselves just how much better speciality coffee is, and be willing to walk an extra half-block with a little more money to enjoy the experience.

Genetics – coffee’s saviour?

/ Pete Denison / 1 Comment

Coffee. Black coffee.

Could there really be anything more natural? Lacking additives, chemicals or other compounds, save for those perhaps used in managing pests and/or disease when growing crops on the many farms around the world.

A seed grown; a crop harvested; the fruit processed; the ‘bean’ roasted; the coffee brewed. Ground coffee and hot water. The extent of any additions? Perhaps milk in espresso based drinks.

Much of the green coffee I buy is organic – some certified, some not. I am generally happy in the quality, traceability and again, for want of a better word, “purity” of the coffee I buy, roast and brew.

Science typically plays a significant role in large-scale agriculture, and the idyllic view (or misconception) of the small-scale coffee farmer producing the crop for my humble brew perhaps requires re-thinking.

Saving Coffee, an article published in the October 2014 edition of Scientific American (paywall), either carries a sensationalistic title, or perhaps is legitimate cause for concern:

Scientists are now hurrying to introduce helpful new genes into the crop through crossbreeding methods. They are mining gene banks and wild plants for as wide a variety of genes as they can find to fortify the crop against looming trouble.

What exactly is the hurry? Why are men in white coats scurrying about the lab to save coffee from impending doom?

Saving coffee?

Firstly, the above article, upon which this post is based, is but one viewpoint on some of the issues facing the future of coffee. It is, however, worth highlighting for anyone with more than a passing interest in the industry.

Further, it is not my intention here to debate the merits of organic and non-organic farming, nor, more specifically related to the topic at hand, the benefit or evil that may exist within genetic modification techniques in agriculture.

My interest in this type of article runs more towards gaining a better understanding of the coffee industry as a whole, beyond simply which beans I buy, roast and consume next. Also, reading about the next unique brewer, or the coolest new cafe or roastery in town does interest me, however these are merely the superficial facade of something that runs much deeper, and affects the livelihoods of many people far less fortunate than you or me.

The subject article by Hillary Rosner outlines four main threats to the coffee plant, and therefore the industry itself:

  • Disease (for example the recent coffee rust or roya epidemic in Central America)
  • Insects (the coffee cherry borer, whose range is now increasing due to climate change)
  • Deforestation (mainly affecting wild coffee trees and is reducing the possible genetic diversity which may be critical to fortify cultivated crops)
  • Climate change (both excessive rainfall in some regions and drought in others affecting global yield)

Coffee’s susceptibility

Although the impression of the coffee industry is often one of robust invincibility, those coffee producing countries through the “bean belt” which exists around the world between the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer, appear very much in the grip of an “eggs in one basket” susceptibility.

As Scientific American describes:

Coffee crops around the world are incredibly alike genetically. This homogeneity leaves cultivated coffee particularly susceptible to threats from diseases, pests, and shifts in temperature and rainfall.

It is this lack of genetic diversity which poses the greatest threat to the coffee industry. With almost all of the world’s cultivated coffee originating from a small number of plants in the birthplace of coffee – Ethiopia, there is an inherent lack of resilience in many of the crops grown around the world to disease and/or climate inconsistency or progressive change.

Learning more about diversity comes through genetic research, however identifying strains currently known, will of course do nothing to improve the diversity which will ultimate be coffee’s saviour. Unfortunately, where the real diversity exists – in the wild, up to 70% of plants are already endangered, mostly due to clearing of forests.

Time it would seem, is of the essence.

The way forward

Clearly, there is much to be done to ensure coffee’s long term future. Should the situation worsen, it may significantly influence not only the price of a cup for the average customer, but the very existence of some of our favourite single origin coffees.

Will the increased involvement of science in any way impact on what myself and many others consider to be so “natural”? Perhaps. Though when looked at objectively, it appears to be a necessity for at least the health of, if not the very survival, of such an important industry.

Whether or not researchers are able to harness the diversity they are seeking, and “develop a plant that has the flavor of C. arabica and the temperament and yield of C. canephora” (robusta) remains to be seen. Whether they will be able to overcome other barriers, such as the Ethiopian government’s refusal to grant access to a large collection of unique coffee plants, or the fact that coffee seeds cannot survive to be studied, rather, must either be grown or cryopreserved.

We should therefore be thankful for organisations leading the charge in this research, for example those at World Coffee Research, and the agricultural university CATIE in Costa Rica, with it’s 10,000 strong arabica plantation providing a “living gene bank” for use in research.

Final thoughts

Genetic modification of crops for human consumption can be a very emotional topic, and one I have traditionally observed from a passive standpoint. Although that is unlikely to change, perhaps when the crop involved is one I am quite passionate about, I should take a little more notice – and most likely will.

The final word should belong to Ric Rhineheart, executive director of the Speciality Coffee Association of America, as quoted in the article:

If we don’t start today, every day that we wait is more time. And we could be facing an existential threat.

Also on scientificamerican.com:
Coffee Crisis Spurs Hunt for Helpful Genes (Slide Show)

What’s Brewing: Guatemala Don Antonio

/ Pete Denison / 1 Comment

Whilst things seem to have been all Santa Clara lately in terms of Guatemalan coffees, this offering from the Don Antonio farm in the Huehuetenango region has certainly been no less enjoyable in the cup.

There have been some fine central American varieties on offer at Ministry Grounds in recent times. The latest newsletter being no exception, containing no less than fifteen coffees, largely from El Salvador, Guatemala and Panama, with a few Cup of Excellence varieties to boot. Choosing which one or two (or few) to buy will be the next challenge.

The Region

The Huehuetenango municipality lies in the highlands west of Guatemala City, towards the Mexican border (map below courtesy Worldlink). Huehuetenango (originally called Xinabahul in the Mam language) was originally a Mayan settlement.

guatemala_map

Many people of Mam descent still live in and around Huehuetenango, and the nearby ruins of Zaculeu have become a tourist attraction. These ruins are markedly distinct from other Mayan archeological sites; the original unearthed stones, comprising only a small portion of the original structures, were coated with plaster during restoration works carried out in the 1940s. There is also a small museum at Zaculeu which includes statues and small artifacts found on the site.

image.php

Information and Image above Courtesy Wikipedia

The Coffee

  • Coffee: Guatemala Don Antonio
  • Altitude: 1700 – 2000 mtrs
  • Crop Year: 2013
  • Varietal: Bourbon
  • Processing: Washed

The Sanchez family commenced their coffee business in 1966, with current owner Antonio (Don Antonio) taking over from his father and continuing to run the farm, located in the district of San Pedro Carcha, Huehuetenango.

Information courtesy Ministry Grounds Coffee

Brew Methods

Aeropress, Hario V60

Impressions

I had originally planned on roasting this a little darker for use in the espresso machine, however the planned filter roast that day (an Ehtiopian Yirgacheffe) got away from me a little and inherited the espresso roast somewhat by default. Therefore, to avoid filter withdrawal, a lighter roast for the Don Antonio it was. I cannot say I am overly sorry, as the Yirgacheffe has made a great morning latte (good body, hint of chocolate with a nice berry finish) this past week.

As for the Guatemalan? More below.

There are times when I feel like a good, full-bodied brew. Sure, the Don Antonio is certainly not as bright nor clean as the Santa Clara was, and perhaps suits a diner mug more than a stylish glass, though for me, there is certainly nothing wrong with that. Overall, through the aeropress or the V60, this is a very well-balanced, enjoyable cup of coffee.

The flavours are quite subtle, with a little caramel and brown sugar, a hint of apple, and perhaps a some stone fruit, though I could not get any more specific than that. Whilst some were no doubt downing 6-packs during the recent Australian Rules Football Grand Final over the weekend, my viewing was accompanied by a jug of Don Antonio, brewed through the Hario V60

As I have noted in the past, the Aeropress probably blunts some of those subtle flavours a little, however this coffee was a welcome daily addition to kick off the 4pm hour of power at the office through to knock-off time.

Final Thoughts

Probably the impression I have given above is that this Guatemalan Don Antonio coffee is a less than subtle variety perhaps better suited to a filer pot. That could not be further from the truth. The fact is, each and every cup brewed (with a few left to go), has been thoroughly enjoyable, and if I were given this as the only coffee I could drink for a year, I would not be disappointed, perhaps just a little uninspired – eventually.

Coffee Roasting: Development-time Ratio

/ Pete Denison / 8 Comments

Although not for everyone from either a time or inclination perspective, one of the benefits of roasting coffee at home can also be it’s simplicity. True, there are many variables to consider (and hopefully control), however, if a few core principles are followed, it is certainly a process achievable to many.

In saying this, I mean no disrespect to the many professional specialty roasters out there. My point is simply this: for the home roaster, there are a few key inherent markers which occur when roasting, providing the ability to roast by “sight and sound” (as opposed to computerised tracking), without the necessity for complicated equipment. If you have a suitable means of applying enough heat to green beans, they will crack, you pull them out some time after that, and assuming this is done within a reasonable time, you end up with drinkable brew.

I have previously written about my home roasting set up, which although needs updating in a new post, is beyond the scope of what I wish to talk about here. The remainder of this post will look at one element of roasting which I have recently read about, and decided to apply myself: the development-time ratio.

Development-time ratio

One aspect of my roasting I have always tried hard to achieve is some level of consistency between batches. I was therefore particularly interested to read a guest comment on the Cropster blog by Scott Rao, who is highly regarded in the coffee industry, and has published numerous books on many aspects of coffee preparation, and most recently, roasting.

From the post:

Roasters have traditionally referred to the time from the onset of first crack until the end of a roast as “development time.” Lengthening development time to mute acidity or increase development is a common practice, especially when roasting coffee intended for espresso. However, adjusting development time without considering it in the context of the entire roast profile often destroys sweetness and creates “baked” flavors.

Rao goes on to say:

After collecting roast data of over 25,000 batches over 20 years, I noticed a pattern among the very best batches: in all of them, first crack began at between 75%–80% of total roast time. Alternatively, development time was always between 20%–25% of total roast time.

I recommend reading the original post, which also demonstrates the concept graphically with a typical roast profile.

Upon reading the article, it became clear the development-time ratio might provide a means of achieving the level of consistency I had been aiming for, or at the very least, give some indication my roasting criteria approximate some accepted parameters.

Application to my home roasting

Reading Rao’s post may at first seem to refute my point that home coffee roasting can be a simple process, however I am not suggesting we all need to rush for our calculators either. I would also note the above percentages are saying the same thing, so if you have the inclination to look at your own data, there is no need to calculate both.

In searching for some element of consistency in my roast batches, I have typically been a little uncertain around exactly which variables were the most important. Total roast time, time to first crack, development time, or a combination?

The principle of development-time ratio provides a consistent approach to every roast batch, notwithstanding changes in other variables. It requires no additional equipment, nor recording or measurement beyond the data I currently have in a log of my previous roasts.

My historical roast data

Given I have recorded sufficient data about my past roasts to assess the development-time ratio retrospectively, with the assistance of a spreadsheet, I proceeded to analyse 30 of my most recent roast batches. My initial thinking was along the lines of “these roasts will mostly fall within the 20–25% parameter”.

The result could not have been more different, and highlight the inherent flaw in assumption. Of those 30 roasts, only 11 fit Rao’s recommendation for a development-time ratio of 20–25% of total roast time (range 9.8 – 33.3%). Although the average was 21.6%, this is not particularly relevant when we are considering individual batches. A couple of things to point out here. One, I am an amateur remember! Secondly, further 17 batches were within a band of + or –5% (that is either 15–20% or 25–30%), and a number of these were pretty close to the 20 or 25% cut-off.

You will note from the data these figures are based on varying batch sizes, with considerable variation in overall roast time. As I roast outdoors with an open “drum”, I have found variation exists due to ambient temperature, time of day and the cumulative heat of the drum with successive roasts.

As expected, considerable variability in the cup was evident in relation to differing origin, processing method, roast level and brewing technique. Naturally, some were better than others, and I have not had the opportunity to compare the development-time ratio findings with my tasting notes on the particular coffees in this sample. I do not plan to spend a significant amount of time on this, as any valid results would rely on assessing the same coffee roasted in separate batches, standardising the variables from the previous paragraph. I doubt I have any current data fitting this criteria.

I have included a snapshot of the data below. As you can see, it contains both time of first crack as a percentage of total roast time, and development time as a percentage of total roast time. As I have noted above, there is no need to measure both, however for completeness I have included them here. Roasts falling within the criteria (by either measure) are shaded green.

Table 1: Development-time ratio (historical data).

Table 1: Development-time ratio (historical data).

Where to next?

There are probably a few answers to this question, the first being further reading, with Scott Rao’s The Coffee Roasters Companion high on my list. Although a good deal of the content may relate to far more sophisticated setups than mine, I find the science behind coffee roasting quite a fascinating topic. A review of the book can be found on James Hoffmann’s blog.

I thought I would also use the development-time ratio to standardise the total roast time in future batches, and determine whether this influences the overall quality of my roasting, and ultimately, drinking. Yet another spreadsheet here, this time to avoid the need for any complicated maths during the critical part of a roast (a printout of which is fixed firmly inside my roast record notebook).

The table below uses time to first crack (column 1), to produce the range of minimum (column 2), and maximum (column 3) roast times required to fall within Rao’s criteria for the ideal development-time ratio.

Screenshot 2014-09-07 21.03.35

Table 2: Total roast time guide based on time to first crack.

Finally, the weekend’s roast data utilising the above prediction chart (Table 2) to cease the roast based on desired development-time ratio:

RoastData_2

Table 3: Roast data from 6 September 2014 using Table 2 prediction chart.

Conclusion

Although this post is a little more lengthy than originally planned, the development-time ratio is a concept well worth exploring. In finding additional ways to assess, influence and standardise my roasting parameters, my skills in this area can only improve.

In the end, the proof will be in the cup, which I am looking forward to testing out.