Wet Mill

I think what is another step in quality in this industry is individual farm single varietal coffee. Four varieties blended on a farm is a lot of variation to work with (in my opinion). I think the proposed type of a lot would have a smaller spread in the distribution of green moisture, surface area, water activity (increased consistency with processing/drying at origin), ect. This would in my experience would make roasting, grinding and brewing more consistent, allowing for more control/quality.

petergiuliano — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:58:02 -0400

A very few farms have a single variety planted on them. Since coffee plants can live for decades, and replanting is a significant cost both in hard costs and productivity, it’s not an easy thing to do to convert a mixed-variety farm to a single-variety farm. In addition, it can be tough to find reliable, variety-specific seedlings to plant on your farm. So, advocating for single-variety farms might be a tall order for many farmers.

Although I am personally a strong advocate for varieties- and single-variety farms, it should be noted that some of the greatest coffee origins in the world- particularly the Yirgacheffe region- practice mixed-variety farming. You’re probably right that growing a single variety would lead to increased drying consistency, but there is no evidence that this consistency would either increase or decrease quality. A strong argument againstsingle-variety farming would be increased susceptibility to disease of single variety farms: heterogeneity is a proven way to protect a population from disease epidemics.

My point is that, while I agree with you that variety-conscious farming would be a significant positive step in coffee quality, that we should expect to support variety-specific with increased premiums for these coffees. It’s a significant expense and risk for farmers to engage in variety-specific farming, and this should be supported by roasters, coffeeshops, and consumers.

-Peter G.

I'd like to ask the community of coffee professionals, how do you evaluate coffee? On the day to day, when green buying, or when evaluating a roast what do you focus on? Do you actually use a Cupping Form like the SCAA's form, or do you have you're own informal or specialized criteria? I'm a little less concerned with defects/taints/faults and more interested in what you look for in an excellent coffee seed. Thanks!

petergiuliano — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:13:48 -0400

This is a great question!

I’ve always used a variety of systems to evaluate coffee day to day, depending on the situation and need. The most thorough way to evaluate a given coffee is using the SCAA form, which helps give a complete picture of coffee: both defects and attributes. Often, I use a sort of “screening” cupping, based on the SCAA categories, which focuses on attributes (fragrance, aroma, acidity, clean cup, sweetness, body, aftertaste) rather than detailing defects or technical aspects (a defective or non-interesting coffee might simply be rejected unscored).

There are also production cuppings (designed to evaluate roast levels, consistency, and trueness to intention) and descriptive cuppings (focused primarily on building descriptive/experiential language); as well as blend cuppings, cuppings intended to evaluate coffee age, etc.

-Peter G

Has research been done by anyone to determine at what temperature the green beans are 'holding' and not deteriorating? I fear that freezing them might be encouraging processes that could be deleterious to flavour and its development. Vernalization (mimicking a winter environment in the freezer) is something we do to seeds to encourage boreal vegetable seeds to germinate. I would be very interested to hear about a particular lot that had part of it frozen and part of it refrigerated.

timwendelboe — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:45:00 -0400

I have no idea what research has been done in this regard.

I remember talking with the “coffee breeders” (researchers) at the FNC (Colombian Coffee Federation) research plantation where they have over 800 Arabica varieties. They told me that in order to keep a gene pool of coffee trees, you need to keep the trees and not the seeds. The embryo in the seeds will slowly die when kept in room temperature and will quickly die when frozen as it is a tropical plant. Although we have one of the biggest seed banks in the world in the perma frost in Svalbard in Norway I did not really question why the coffee seeds die when they are frozen but I am sure they have a good answer to that.

When it comes to quality, you can definitely keep coffee fresh in a freezer for a while, but if you defrost it I am not sure for how long the coffee will stay fresh. I am sure George has better experience here than me.

Tim Wendelboe

Awesome discussion on freezing greens! Personally, I would be interested in finding out about peoples experience and thoughts in freezing roasted coffee as I think it is a more perishable product.

timwendelboe — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:34:00 -0400

Hello.

We are trying to keep this debate about freezing green coffee.

I can answer shortly that I have not had any good experiences with freezing roasted coffee. Only after 8-10 weeks will the frozen coffee taste better than coffee kept at room temperature for the same amount of time. That is my experience from several experiments.

Tim W

Freezing

timwendelboe — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:33:00 -0400

There are many good points in George’s post, and I do agree with a lot of what he is writing.

When it comes to the economy, I agree that freezing is cheap for very expensive coffees, but for most of my coffees, like George said, it does not make a lot of sense. Looking at George’s numbers break down, it seems cheap when you calculate per lb. I did the same maths 2 years ago, and unfortunately freezing storage, labour cost and packaging is a bit more expensive in Norway, but not if you do it with coffees you pay about USD 10,- per lb and up. (which is why I did freeze my COE coffee that I payed USD 14,- per lb. for) I do see George’s point on making sure those spectacular coffees last longer as it is hard to sell big volumes fast when the coffees are that pricey. I also see that it can be a logistical nightmare for a small farmer to sell several small lots to several buyers, as the paperwork, etc is the same for one bag as it is for 300. I guess we need to be better at educating consumers that they need to pay more for quality coffee. But that is a different debate.

I do agree that as roasters we need to make our effort in order to maintain quality of the green coffee and I think both George, myself and a whole lot of other roasters spend a great deal of resources in how to maintain the quality of the coffee until it reaches the end consumer.

There are for sure some great farmers around the world doing a spectacular job producing very high quality, but I also know for a fact that a lot of these farmers needs to improve how coffee is dried and stored, etc. I have several times received coffee that is woody coming straight from the container, even from some of the best farmers, and in my opinion the potential to improve quality at farm level is much greater and makes a lot more sense than to stick those problems in the freezer. I think the more value a farmer is able to add to their product the better and more sustainable it will be for their businesses in the long run. (Yet another debate)

Regarding when to decide when a coffee peaks, George said:

“Tim and I simply disagree on peak flavor for green coffee - that is for coffee which is perfectly ripe; this means, in my book, that the coffee has no “green and astringent” notes just a few weeks after harvest nor does it have any woody notes, something I have become very sensitive to in my search for perfect clarity of flavor. After green coffee has been properly rested at origin it is at this peak flavor.”

I have a very interesting experiment going in Colombia at the moment. We processed perfectly ripe coffee, dry fermented, soaked it and dried it slowly in shade next to the same coffee dried in sun in hot conditions like the farmer normally does. What was interesting was that the shade dried still tasted green and astringent after a couple of weeks and the sun dried was already fruity and showed signs of age in the cup. I know that those green flavors in the shade dried coffee will disappear and the coffee will open up. I would rather follow that development when the coffee is already in Norway rather than resting it at origin, then ship it at what George calls the peak, and then have to freeze it to preserve the flavour. I do find the green flavours in freshly harvested fully ripe coffees to be an interesting and delicious flavour, and that is why I think the wine / coffee analogy is interesting as to me all coffees have a development in flavour that can be positive if you know your products well and how they are processed. The danger of this is like George said that most coffees develop towards the negative too quickly, and freezing will prevent that from happening for sure.

Another example I have recently cupped is a Natural processed experiment from Fazenda Ambiental Fortaleza in Brazil. One was dried in the shade, one in the sun. The one in the sun tasted pulpy from day 1, the shade dried tasted clean and sweet. After a year, we cupped them again. The sun dried tasted like wood and pulp, the shade dried still tasted fresh, sweet and clean with no sign of woody flavours.

These are examples that really makes me motivated to focus more on preserving quality at farm level and so far has made freezing for me an unnecessary measure to keep green coffee quality for 6 months. (Band aid reference)

All in all I guess the debate on wether or not to freeze the green coffee is all up to what makes sense for each individual roaster and lot of coffee. I am not saying I will never freeze my coffee ever again and I will definetly be happy to run an experiment together with George as there is no doubt in my mind that freezing green coffee in most cases will preserve the quality of the green coffee for a longer time than if you don’t freeze it.

Tim Wendelboe

Freezing is only for APEX quality coffees!

georgehowel — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:45:00 -0400

Tim brings up a number of interesting points. I try to answer them in the order he set. His mains points, as I understand them, are in Bold.

Freezing is expensive; money needed to pay higher prices; better to improve quality at farm level.

I do not find freezing that expensive in the northeast US: under $0.02 per pound per month – and under $0.12 per pound per year for a one-year supply, assuming a steady drop in inventory each month. I consider that cheap insurance when I pay $4.00 and up for a great coffee. What if the coffee is far more expensive?

What is a great coffee? For me it is a coffee that I score 90 or over in at least two consecutive cuppings. These are the coffees I am in this business for and these motivate me to do everything I can to keep at peak flavor (more on this term below) during the time I offer it, which, with freezing, I can do over the year. This means I buy more from that farmer who has produced this great quality and to whom I have paid a high price, rather than leaving him to find fifteen other buyers (I exaggerate!) who buy fractions because they want it “in season,” adding cost and time for the farmer. For small roasters direct-trade buying small amounts gives them less weight and leverage as buyers. I also buy 86 score coffees and up. I do not typically freeze coffees scoring under 90 points. I keep such coffees in GrainPro. In this case “in season” makes sense.

Regarding what is better to do – improve quality at the farm level or the roasting level: the farmer has his tasks and we have ours – as roasters. I agree that improving quality at origin is critical – but that does not negate that there are really great coffees and farmers out there right now – and we should do everything we can to deliver their coffees to our customers in the best way we know how over the whole year to really get their farm name across to the consumer (we help create farm reputations and desirability); again I am speaking only for truly great lots and for farmers who are, as Price Petersen has said, “compulsive artisans “. I think the balance beam Tim seems to be suggesting between farmer improvements (time & money) and our improvements (ditto) seems weighted on the farmer side! I write as a roaster, not an importer. To use a wine analogy, borrowing a page from Tim, great coffee farmers should be free of exclusive “relationships” just like great wines have become. We certainly have made great strides in brewing over the past two decades; storage is another essential challenge, from origin to roasted coffee.

Finally, assume a small roaster wants to buy one 300 lb. lot of La Esmeralda selling for $50 a pound at auction. That roaster will have very few buyers at any one time and typically will watch the aromatics and sweetness diminish with each month or he will roast amounts he cannot sell. Freezing allows that roaster to sell the same great quality in timed precise small batches stretched over the year and make a profit feeling she served her customer to the best of her ability (a small ice cream freezer would easily fit 300 lbs, by the way).

Vacuum sealing required: expensive; sometimes must do it yourself. Does vacuum Kenya to keep whole year. Great processing insures storage longevity. Not a sign of wood w/2010 coffee cupped recently.

Kenyas, Ethiopians, Cup of Excellence vacuum sealing came at my request many years ago, so I do understand what lobbying for improving at origin is about. Tim is right that we still have to vacuum seal and box a number of coffees we receive. At our simple facilities (we have one sealer, that’s it for mechanical help) it takes one hour to do 855 lbs with two people. At, say, $20 per hour for each person, that is $0.05 per pound, rounded up. We vacuum three 20 lb bags which go in one box. The box is $0.05 and each bag is $0.78. This translates to $0.04 per pound. So a year’s supply of coffee is approximately $0.21 per pound ($0.12 +$0.05 + $0.04) cost over the year. If you pay $4.00 per pound green, that is 5% of cost – cheap insurance for great coffee! At $8.00 per pound green that is 2.5%.

Yes, great processing improves longevity and make for great coffees, as long as they are perfectly ripe. We are in agreement! However, no Kenya, no coffee, period, in my experience retains its aromatics intact over six months after arrival at port, vacuum sealed or not, let alone a year. It is increasingly layered over with wood notes due to chemical breakdown of the oils and the drying off of aromatic precursors. I just have to differ with Tim on this point. Of course, Tim’s Kenya may have had an edge that few roasters can match: his basement naturally at 53 F (12 C) when it arrives and progressively colder until freezing at 32 F (0 C) in the winter; what a cooperative cellar! I would be happy to do a comparative cupping with Tim, using the same coffee, frozen vs. only vacuum-sealed next year; we would have to agree on the exact same coffee in the next week or two and also agree on the exact protocols. I am always excited to learn.

There is no peak for green coffee, but many peaks over time (watching it “open” like a glass of wine).

Tim and I simply disagree on peak flavor for green coffee - that is for coffee which is perfectly ripe; this means, in my book, that the coffee has no “green and astringent” notes just a few weeks after harvest nor does it have any woody notes, something I have become very sensitive to in my search for perfect clarity of flavor. After green coffee has been properly rested at origin it is at this peak flavor. Keeping it in parchment at origin in the right conditions prolongs this peak. Once it is dry milled, in my experience, the green coffee should remain at peak – or very near it (no wood notes, perhaps a slight drop in intensity) for one to three months after – four months at the outside - , depending on bean moisture content and water activity.

Regarding the glass of wine analogy I would rather use it with a cup of coffee: a light roasted coffee opens up as it cools. It should be savored over twenty to forty minutes if it is a great coffee!

Did not make sense to freeze as some coffees did not keep well regardless. Drying, storage at origin, shipping. Freezing like a “band-aid.”

The decision to freeze a coffee very much depends on its quality, including stability. Again, I typically do not freeze a coffee I do not find exemplary. We freeze a small percentage of all the coffee we buy and sell – the exemplary ones which we have put under our Terroir® brand.

I do not understand Tim’s band-aid analogy. I am not trying to patch over the problems farmers have in producing better coffees. Freezing is to support those rare coffees which should be prized by roasters and consumers. To prize something is to treat it as very special. An exemplary coffee is the tip of the arrowhead we aim at consumers to amaze them with how extraordinary a coffee can be – all year round.

Buying less and buying fresher.

We always buy the freshest coffees we possibly can. We make sure all our coffees are truly fine and the very best ones of the year we freeze. We want our customers to have access to the great coffees all year without those coffees degrading: this leads to a more informed customer.

George Howell

I stopped freezing

timwendelboe — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:24:09 -0400

I have some experience freezing vacuum sealed green (unroasted) coffee. There is no doubt that it keeps coffee fresh for longer, if done right. I had a very good experience especially with one lot from honduras that kept fresh for well over a year. Regardless of this, I stopped freezing my greens. (Although I might use freezing in the future, if I feel it is necessary.) There are many reasons for this that I have listed below:

1. Freezing is expensive. In Norway I keep my green coffee in a basement. The temperature is between 0C to 12C during a year with slow change of temperature making it quite stable. Freezing would add a big cost to my storage, which means I have less money to pay farmers as it is hard to compete with higher prices in a saturated market and we are already one of the most expensive coffee roasters in Norway. I would rather invest more money in to improving the quality at farm level rather than spending it on cold air. (also see point 5 below)

2. Freezing means I need to vacuum seal all my coffee. This is expensive and creates a lot more waste than keeping coffee in grain pro bags. Some Origins still don’t offer vacuum packaging, which means I need to do it my self which adds even more to the costs.

We do vacuum seal our Kenyan coffees, but that is because we want to keep it for the whole year. The co-opreratives we buy from do a great job drying and processing the coffee which ensures me that the quality will be maintained for a long period. I recently cupped my 2010/11 kenya against some fresh 2011/12 kenyan lots together with the Coffee Collective guys in Denmark, and everyone was blown away how great the 2010/11 lot tasted. I dear say it was by far the best coffee on the table. Not a sign of wood at all in that cup. Vacuum packaging helps preserve well processed coffee, even without a freezer. Badly processed coffee will not keep fresh in vacuum bags in my experience.

3. Freezing at the coffee’s “peak” is for me a statement that reminds me of phrases like “perfect espresso”. It is difficult to state when a coffee is peaking and people have different opinions on when the peak occurs based on personal taste. (I am all for personal taste that is why I have my name on my coffee bags as it should reflect my taste.) The 2010/11 Kenyan lot mentioned in my second point on this list has definetly changed since I bought it, but not necessarily for the worse. Like a wine changes after it is opened, I find it interesting to follow a coffee from when it is slightly too green and astringent when it is fresh until it opens up and then develops over some months. For me it would be difficult to state when that lot had peaked. It had many peaks.

4. Freezing and vacuum sealing can be good, but for me it did not make sense as some coffees did not keep well regardless. I felt there was bigger improvements that could be done at origin in order to prevent coffee from fading too fast. I could write a long blog post on this alone. To sum up I have been working on improving drying techniques, improving storage and packaging while coffee is stored at origin. Taking control over shipping conditions is next step. So far this seems to me to be a lot more efficient in order to keep coffee fresh for a little longer than normal. It also improves the overall quality of the coffee a lot, which is a bonus. Not only do I get fresher coffees, they taste better as well. My old employee, Ola Brattås (now green buyer at Solberg & Hansen) once said that “Freezing is like putting a band aid on an open sore. Instead of buying band aid, we need to focus on preventing the sore from occurring.” That pretty much sums it up for me.

5. We changed our buying strategy to buying less and buying fresher coffee more often from various origins that harvest on different times of the year. This way we change coffees more often, but rarely have coffees that tastes woody. Last year we had 2 lots that started to fade right before we sold out of it. My goal for this year is to not have woody coffees at all. It is more risky, and more difficult logistically, but a lot more fun.

These are some of the points explaining why I don’t freeze my coffee. I could go on and on, but wanted to keep this short and hoping that we could get a discussion going. I do endorse implementing new technology to coffee production. Therefore I have nothing against freezing coffee, but for me it doesn’t make a lot of sense right now as I try to work differently and get better at buying coffee and coffee logistics. I do see the benefit of keeping coffee from one year in order to taste it next to coffee the following year, but I feel that this is more of a curiosity and fun as an experiment to see the difference between one crop vs another.

Tim Wendelboe

Freezing Green Coffee Basics

georgehowel — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:35:00 -0400

First, could you give us a quick history of when you started to freeze? And when you feel you figured it out?

In the year 2000 I was a green coffee quality consultant working with USAID in Peru. I received several hundred samples (several pounds of each) from many regions during June of that summer through late August. Many samples came in at too high a humidity - well over 13%. These in particular did not keep their flavor profiles for longer than two or three weeks and I wanted to be able to compare the best coffees throughout the harvest season. While drying was a huge quality problem in Peru at that time there were samples that had unique profiles which often quickly disappeared, indicating an underlying wealth of great coffees.

I tried vacuum sealing 100 gram green samples of each coffee sample for single roasts (100 grams - Probat), using a simple Food Saver vacuum machine, but even these samples turned woody quite quickly. My assistant at that time, Jill Pellarin, suggested freezing our packets so we used my home freezer. The problem vanished and we were able to compare earlier samples with recent ones.

When I started George Howell Coffee in 2003 - 2004 I immediately started freezing our best coffees targeted at Mail Order customers.

Second, could you outline your protocol for freezing coffee? How do you decide which coffees to freeze; how do you prepare them; and how are they frozen?

The protocol is quite simple, primitive really, compared to what it might become as we learn more and gather more resources.

All coffees arriving in vacuum sealed bags (20 lbs per bag maximum, ideally, often three per box) are cupped and every bag is inspected for leaks. These are resealed. Assuming the quality is what we expected, the boxes are then immediately shipped to a frozen food commercial warehouse, located a few miles away. The coffees are kept at 0 F (-18 C). All other coffees arriving in GrainPro or jute (rare these days!) are immediately cupped and, assuming they pass, are repackaged in our warehouse and sent to the same freezer.

We do not freeze all our coffees, - only exceptional coffees representing the apex of a quality region’s production. They have almost always been estate coffees. These coffees are labeled Terroir™. Most of our coffee, mostly sold to cafes and restaurants, are not frozen - they are regionals some estates, blends and darker roasts (very little). They are stored in GrainPro at our climate-controlled warehouse. There are a growing number of establishments who are opting for our Terroir™ brand coffees, such as Marlow & Sons.

We take two weeks-worth of coffee out of the freezer warehouse. They defrost over the weekend, while being kept in vacuum. They are then roasted as needed. The more stable the coffee (moisture percentage and water activity) the more perfectly the coffees hold over a year and well beyond.

Third, what have you found?

We have not conducted scientific tests regarding freezing - but we realize this will be critical down the road. Our experience is strictly empirical and based on regular cupping assessments for all lots over time. I wrote an article on freezing back in 2007 for our website for those who might be interested: http://www.terroircoffee.com/content/view/144/28/

George Howell

Deep Freeze

oliverstrand — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:53:39 -0400

Two weeks ago, I posted a column on the New York Times website, a meaty Q + A between George Howell and myself that covered a range of topics, from what Peet’s was like in the 1960s to why the Frappuccino was creamier (and, according to George, better), when it was first introduced at the Coffee Connection in the 1980s.

It was interesting to see that much of the Twitter chatter was about one topic: that George freezes green coffee to preserve its flavor.

George feels strongly that freezing the very best green coffees - what he calls supercoffees, the “apex of the pyramid” - is the best solution available, and Tim Wendelboe suggested turning it into a discussion on this Tumblr. I’ll let George explain the reasons behind his conclusion; hopefully, he’ll also get into some of the nuts and bolts of the process - information that I felt was too wonky for a column that was mostly about the news that his coffee has a starring role at Reynards in Williamsburg, but that’s catnip for the audience here.

I expect that Tim will have some thoughts to share as well. As will you: if you have any questions or comments, please send them to us using the bar on the right. (As a side note, it’s helpful if you let us know to whom your question or comment is addressed.)

I’ll end this post with three questions for George.

First, could you give us a quick history of when you started to freeze? And when you feel you figured it out?

Second, could you outline your protocol for freezing coffee? How do you decide which coffees to freeze; how do you prepare them; and how are they frozen?

Third, what have you found?

- Oliver Strand

Why is Coffea canephora called robusta

jimseven — Tue, 15 May 2012 12:16:01 -0400

Brian Jones of Dear Coffee I love you was asking about the two names of robusta on twitter. Let’s look for some answers:

It seems wise to start closer to the date of discovery. According to Ukers (in “All about coffee”, 1935):

Emil Laurent, in 1898, discovered a species of coffee growing wild in Congo. This was taken up by a horticultural firm of Brussels, and cultivated for the market. This firm gave to the coffee the name of Coffea robusta, although it had already been given the name of the discoverer, being known as Coffea laurentii.

…

Among the robusta varieties, Coffea canephora is a distinct species, well characterised by growth, leaves, and berries. The branches are slender and thinner than robusta; the leaves are dark green and narrower; the flowers are often tinged with red; the unripe berries are purple, the ripe berries bright red and oblong. The produce is like robusta, only the shape of the bean, somewhat narrower and more oblong, makes it look more attractive. Coffee canephora, like C. robusta, seems better fitted to higher altitudes.

This is a little confusing, and almost contradictory. Let’s look at someone else:

Andrés Uribe C. in “Brown Gold” written in 1954 appears to back up Ukers:

A third species of coffee is grown in Java and Africa. Coffea canephora, commonly known as Robusta, was first discovered growing wild in the Belgian Congo and was developed for commercial cultivation around the turn of the twentieth century.

Frederick Wellman, writing in 1961, disagrees on a few points and gives a little more detail.

In some quarters, the specific name C. canephora is used in a confusing manner with C. quillou, C. ugandae, C. robusta, and others. It should be pointed out clearly that historical study shows that C. canephora is the original name, given by L. Pierre in 1895, which antedates the other names, later found to be synonymous.

So now we have contradictory information across the board - including the date of discovery and the name of the discoverer. It seems that Pierre wins out…

A. E. Haarer, in his 1958 book “Modern Coffee Production” writes:

Systematic botanists will now not accept the name Coffeea robusta Linden, for anything more than a form or variety of C. canephora Pierre ex Froehner, and this at once creates a difficulty, because growers and trade the world over have grown accustomer to use the term ‘robusta’ to cover all the varying form of, and ultimate product of, C. canephora. Coffea robusta, as understood by various authors, seems to include all the forms now referred to as C. canephora, and it is necessary to examine the names from the points of view of the type method. Thus Coffea Robusta Linden, must be regarded as synonymous with, or as a variety of, C. canephora Pierre ex Froehner.

Looking over to R.J. Clarke and R. Macrae’s seminal 6 volume set ”Coffee” from 1985:

C. canephora. This species was cultivated after 1850 on the African Atlantic coast, from south Gabon to north Angola, and especially near the Kouilou river. Independently, it was discovered by Grant in 1861 at Bukoba (Tanzania).

This is now getting frustrating - the later people write about it, the earlier it seems to have been discovered…

These days we pretty much use the term interchangeable, and looking back there had clearly been an issue about which term was correct.

Somehow I feel more confused about all this than I was when I started looking for some answers.

- James Hoffmann

Has anyone accumulated a generalized list of taste notes from each cultivar? Bourbon - orange citrus and caramel, SL28 - blackcurrant, gesha - floral and the list goes on etc etc

Tue, 01 May 2012 18:51:50 -0400

Krismwood- I have published an informal list, but I think a more collaborative project would be a great idea!

On the topic of buying coffee based on country, variety, processing & roast profile, I notice that you all seem to agree on taking advice from a "trusted coffee professional". As a coffee professional myself, I often see consumers mislead or given false information, the salesman putting their own preference in front of the consumers wishes. I find this an endlessly maddening source of frustration. What do you guys think we can do to stop the "Barista Opinion" problem?

oliverstrand — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:15:00 -0400

You’re right to point out the problem. But I don’t think it’s particular to coffee.

I live a couple of blocks away from what is arguably the most celebrated cheese store in New York City - it’s the famous one, the one that’s on TV, the one with t-shirts, the one included on the walking tours - and I will do everything in my power to avoid going there because the staff makes shopping a crap shoot. Sometimes the person behind the counter has some instructive insight, but most of the time he or she seems fresh out of a training session with a still-wet veneer of knowledge that gums up the transaction: it’s great that you’re really into cheeses of Spain, but the Manchego you’re pushing is plasticky and unpleasant, the Kraft of Madrid. Often I have to demand to be sold the cheese I want. The place drives me nuts.

But I’ll go out of my way to go to Saxelby Cheesemongers in the Essex Street Market. It’s much smaller than the famous shop (there’s a second, larger Saxelby Cheese uptown), and it’s not on any of my daily routes, but the members of the staff there are so engaged and thoughtful that every visit is a delight, a learning experience - if they’re excited about a cheese I want to try it too. Just as important, every purchase is a pleasure: I give them money, and I’m so happy with what’s wrapped up in the waxed paper that I feel I’m coming out ahead.

It’s up to the consumer to work out who the coffee professional (cheese professional, sneaker professional) might be who that guides them best. It’s up to the coffee professional to become that person.

I’d like to hear from the others here as to how one becomes that person.

- Oliver Strand

Last week, Meister tweeted the following question: question: Do interspecific hybrids (e.g....

petergiuliano — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:30:27 -0400

Last week, Meister tweeted the following question:

question: Do interspecific hybrids (e.g. Catimor) create conflict for “100% Arabica” roasters? #varieties

The thought of people claiming “100% Arabica” brought to mind the “100% Italian” T-shirts they sell on Mulberry street:

I think there are problems selling a product based on a purity claim (100%) and a species description (Arabica) because nothing is quite that simple. That’s not to say it’s not important- the 100% Arabica claim comes from a time when most roasters were “cutting” their coffee with as much Robusta as they could without being objectionable, in a time when price competitiveness was a race to the bottom in terms of price.

I see the 100% Arabica declaration as a statement of pride and commitment, not a claim that should be challenged legalistically; just like I would be hesitant to challenge the mother of the little baby in the t-shirt above (are you REALLY Italian? Is Sicilian Italian? etc.) I think what the 100% Arabica folks are trying to say is “we don’t use robusta” which is a more easily defensible claim, but which markets less easily (it’s a negative statement, for one)

But it’s fun to consider this idea from a legalistic standpoint. Here’s what I see as the arguments:

For “100% Arabica”:

-draws attention to the very real differences between two coffee species

-helps differentiate roasters who focus on Arabica instead of price-cutting with Robusta

Against “100% Arabica”:

-Catimor (a common coffee variety) has some Robusta genes in it

-one of the genetic parents of the Arabica species is Canephora (Robusta), so all Arabica has robusta parents anyhow.

I dunno. I guess I don’t see this as a profound problem for specialty roasters, since the only ones I regularly see making a strong claim about Arabica are commercial roasters like 8 O’clock, etc.

-Peter G.

It seems that you guys are searching for something that is easily to describe to a customer (me) so that I can make better buying choices and therefore keep coming back your shop to buy coffee. One thing that I do not recall seeing at the many roasters I have bought from is something akin to, if you like this, you should try try that. Is that something that has been thought of? At the end of the day coffee is very complex and I don't think something so simple as terrior or varietal can describe

oliverstrand — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:54:00 -0400

The good shops do what you describe: If you like this, you should try that. The best shops do it well.

On the flip side you’ll find shops where members of the staff are seemingly incapable of pointing you to another interesting, engaging choice either because of stock (they don’t have it) or because of taste (they don’t have it). It’s annoying to be told to give something a try only to go home and find that it’s nothing special.

In part, it’s because of circumstance. You play roulette if you buy small-lot seasonal coffees with limited availability. While there’s a lot to be said for going with the seasonal flow, sometimes there’s a lull when nothing on the shelves is that exciting, and at these moments I would appreciate a little more candor from the shop: If you like this, you should try that when we get it in at the end of the month, but in the meantime this one will hold you over.

Chances are you won’t hear that. I rarely have. Sometimes the coffees covered in discussions like this one are treated like members of the sophomore class at Princeton - they’re all the best, every single one of them.

- Oliver Strand

I thought the latest post by Peter G was very interesting, and poses a new direction/sub-path/ish: training of sales-personell/baristas. Would it be possible, or desirable with a better, more accessable training for baristas with more focus on... "farmwork", so if someone comes and say "I liked this", then the barista can reccomend based on what logically would be similar? You have an established somlier-education, now even beer-somliers... is it room for this in coffee?

oliverstrand — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:55:00 -0400

Oh God, yes!!!

This exact issue is what drove us to build our Coffee Steward training program. The whole point is for coffee stewards/baristas to be able to make those connections for themselves, and share them with consumers.

It was actually through writing this program a few years ago that it really became crystal clear to me that much of the flavor we associate with country of origin is usually actually flavor-of-variety. That distinct Kenya-ness is actually the flavor of SL-28, etc. The reason we did the Varieties video and tasting is for the same reason- so baristas and coffee stewards can understand the impact of variety on flavor. Our program offers similar classes on process, roasting, and tasting.

-Peter G.

On "a Mass of Data"

petergiuliano — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:20:00 -0400

It’s tough to predict flavor in coffee. There are so many variables. However, rarely do consumers have the opportunity to taste coffee immediately before buying: so they rely on labeling to help guide their choices. We can’t really avoid that- and we all make choices about how we label coffees, and how we talk about them.

Let’s focus on what we agree on here for a second:

We all probably agree that the ultimate way for a consumer to predict flavor, and make a good purchase would be to have a coffee person they trust make recommendations to them. This is what you suggest, James, at the end of your article. You’re right, for sure.

Second to that, it’s probably most trustworthy to predict flavor by farm identity and roaster. A farm name often suggest many important elements: variety, process, microclimate, harvest technique. The roaster name represents their commitment to roasting style and freshness. If you know you like Finca Kilimanjaro, it is very very likely that you will like the next Finca Kilimanjaro you see; next year.

That’s why you and I, James, both use farm name first when labeling coffee. As Oliver pointed out, that’s probably the best way for the attentive customer to find coffees they like: a roaster they like and a farm they like.

The vast majority of specialty coffee, however, isn’t sold by farm name, nor is it recommended by consulting coffee professionals. It’s labeled by country. Finca Kilimanjaro would be known as “The El Salvador” in most specialty coffee contexts. I spend a lot of time around baristas, and the shorthand is often “The El Salvador from Intelligentsia” or whatever.

Here’s my point: that someone who is nuts about Kilimanjaro- of the mysterious “Kenia” variety (perhaps related to SL-28) is more likely to love an SL-28 coffee from Nyeri, because of the varietal connection between the two. A Bourbon planted on a farm next door will taste totally different from the Kenia-variety Kilimanjaro.

Let’s use another obvious example. A person who loves a Pacamara from El Salvador will be more likely to love a Pacamara from Guatemala than a Bourbon from El Salvador.

My point is simply that there is a lot more logic in grouping coffees together by variety than grouping them together by country- particularly Latin American coffees- as the norm is today. Obviously any grouping is less useful than a personal consultation for a coffee professional, or a specific coffee from a different farm.

-Peter G.

A mass of data

jimseven — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:50:00 -0400

I am going to follow up to Oliver’s last post answering the question posed by portlandcoffee:

At the consumer level, assuming that I have already decided on my brewing method and price point, should variety be the most important element in guiding my choice of beans from a roaster (rather than country/region of origin, or tasting notes)?

I’m also going to answer “no”, aware that this may take our conversation off down a different path.

The reason that some commenters on here, and I am going to use Peter for this example, express such strong opinions about the value of variety, and its contribution to cup quality is experience.

I could use opportunity as much as experience here, because their experience tasting coffee has been much more focused and intense than a typical coffee consumer. A coffee professional will taste hundreds upon hundreds of coffees a year. This means that you can pick up the commonalities across the 50+ lots of bourbon you may cup from different countries. With a mass of data the trends become clearer.

Peter will also have a unique opportunity to taste the same coffee many times - perhaps initially at origin, then upon arrival, and then through various iterations of production. This again gives more data, for both variety as well as geography.

Very few consumers will taste as many different coffees in a decade as someone like Peter will taste in a quiet year. They don’t have the opportunity to quickly form strong associations of variety and flavour.

This is why I am uncomfortable with the idea of variety predicting flavour, especially when it comes to how we market and sell coffee. So from here we inevitably move to how we do choose to label our coffee…

I believe key information like variety should be kept transparent, and made available. If someone pays attention, and is sufficiently interested, they may learn that they enjoy lots of Caturra way more than lots of Castillo. This is no bad thing, as it will be an effective tool when it comes to judging the suitability of future purchases.

The same goes for key aspects of post harvest production - such as whether the coffee is washed or perhaps a natural process. I’m aware that having rigid opinions (such as “all naturals are bad”) is a problem as it may halt exploration, or experimentation - but from a consumer perspective the pain of a bad purchase is magnified, compared to that of a coffee professional.

Ultimately there is no single piece of information that is going to communicate how a coffee is going to taste. I’m somewhere between a typical consumer, and someone like Peter. I taste a lot of coffee, but even with a lot of advance information I’m unlikely to accurately predict the exact cup qualities. Also, back to the world of buying coffee from a shelf, all manner of unique characteristics are all too easily smothered by bad roasting.

We should work to convey its provenance, as well as give some indication of who was responsible for key aspects of a coffee production and ultimate quality.

I’m aware that in writing this post, on this blog, I’m likely preaching to the choir. To finally answer the question posed - I believe that one should allow oneself to be guided by those who’ve worked to gain your trust. Share with them your previous experiences, good and bad, and your expectations and they should be able to guide you to something you’ll enjoy.

- James Hoffmann

At the consumer level, assuming that I have already decided on my brewing method and price point, should variety be the most important element in guiding my choice of beans from a roaster (rather than country/region of origin, or tasting notes)?

oliverstrand — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:07:00 -0400

Not yet.

That’s my opinion. Last week, Peter Giuliano tweeted “as a taster, variety, process, and producer mean WAY more to me than country name.” My list is different. I taste: roast, coffee company, process and producer. Preparation is important, too; that’s a different conversation.

(An aside: I find the roast profiles of some coffee companies to be so pronounced - and, at times, inconsistent - that they effectively edit the coffee, highlighting some notes and cutting out others: roasts are not neutral. A second aside: by coffee company I mean everything that happens between the port and the roaster, how the coffee is stored, shipped and sold - old coffees taste old no matter what they are or what the transparent price might have been. I’m not pointing fingers, just expressing a general observation.)

Where does variety fall in that lineup? I’m not entirely sure, in part because I’m not tasting it.

Then again I’m tasting coffee as you’re tasting coffee, and mostly picking up what’s on the shelves. The other participants here are tasting at origin, at auctions and at roasters. Their experiences are less mediated, which means what they taste has more clarity, but sometimes that clarity is a kind of bias.

I’d like to hear what the other participants think.

-Oliver Strand

There's a Place in France

oliverstrand — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:13:00 -0400

Earlier today, Robert Thoresen, Stephen Rogers and Aldo Sohm, spent the morning at my office cupping some coffees. Those who follow this Tumblr are probably familiar with Robert and Stephen; those who follow wine are probably familiar with Aldo, the sommelier at le Bernardin.

My guess is this was the first time that a World Barista Champion (Robert, 2000) and a Best Sommelier in the World (Aldo, 2008) cupped coffees together, and even if I’m skeptical of any competition with “world” in the title (not to sound cynical, but, really? the whole world?), it was a kick to stand at a table with people who possessed so much intimate knowledge of two of comparable but dissimilar drinks that I love dearly. Naturally, the conversation turned to coffee varieties.

Robert brought it up. I don’t want to speak for him, but he seemed to echo much of what Peter posted on this Tumblr, that the distinctive characteristics of coffee varieties are as important as (more important than?) place and process. Variety matters. Robert had some fantastic coffees with him: a Pacamara, a natural Geisha, a Catuai. There was a gorgeous Caturra on the table I took home to drink in the morning.

Remembering some of the tweets from last week, I asked Aldo about French wine, specifically if the red wines of Burgundy are one hundred percent pinot noir. They are, he said. Unlike Châteauneuf-du-Pape, a rustic wine from the southern end of the Rhône that’s a blend of thirteen varieties.

According to Aldo, the formulation depends on the year. Grenache plays the biggest role, but you would never up the Grenache past the tipping point to where you could call a Châteauneuf-du-Pape a Provençal Grenache. You wouldn’t want to. The name “Châteauneuf-du-Pape” not only evokes the character of the wine (shapely, pretty, moody), it allows the winemaker to respond to the year and adjust the grapes in the unmistakably regional blend while still coloring within the lines: you want to use all the Crayons in the Châteauneuf-du-Pape box because that’s what it takes to make a Châteauneuf-du-Pape.

I should note that viticulture in the area has been going strong for thousands of years and was refined in the early 1300s, after Pope Clement V moved the seat of the Catholic Church from Rome to Avignon. They’ve had time to work it out.

I should also note that Aldo is a terroirist.

How does this relate to coffee? I’m not sure there’s a clear connection for me to make, but I will cull some thoughts from the accounts above. For a Burgundy, the variety is fixed; for a Châteauneuf-du-Pape, the configuration of varieties is fluid; and for both, variety is one factor among many that determines how the wine tastes in the glass.

- Oliver Strand

an interesting post

petergiuliano — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:49:11 -0400

Jim McLaughlin posted an interesting thought on his tumblr blog.

It’s worth reading.

To answer his question at the end: I’m not a farmer, and it’s inappropriate for me to presume to answer your very good question. However, you asked, and in the hypothetical situation where I owned a farm in Brazil, I would probably choose to plant a variety of varieties (ha ha!) depending on the size of the farm, the altitude and the local varieties, I would probably choose Bourbon, SL-28 and Moka (if you can find reliable stock of these). I would build my soil by farming organically with shade. (which it sounds like you have already begun) I would partner early with a knowledgable roaster, even before I began to harvest.

I would mainly make those choices based upon personal preference developed over years of tasting coffee. If you’re planning on selling the coffee, it helps to be passionate about your coffee, and to love the way it tastes. You’ll fetch more for it if you love it and you are proud of it. As for the “varietal math” of productivity vs. premium, that’s a really complex equation. While Catuai or Catimor might seem more productive, they also require more inputs to produce. Buyers will pay premiums, but the market is imperfect, and it depends on finding a good match between the buyer and producer. I know that’s far from a satisfactory answer, but it’s the most honest one I have.

-Peter G.