So, this morning I was emailing with Mike McKim of Cuvee Coffee Roasting and I asked him about recommended dose/temp for his Medici Blend. He responded immediately with a suggested temp, brew time and volume, and this got me to thinking.

Why don't roasters include this info with every coffee, or at least every espresso-targeted coffee? Of course, we all have different machines, grinders, taste preferences, etc., and best brew profiles can of course change a bit as the coffee ages, but wouldn't it still be useful to have a good baseline to start from in the tasting experience of the roaster? I see (and have participated in) threads on the best brew parameters for different coffees, but I think it would be a great thing to have a place to start right from the source. They could also modify the suggested profile for blend changes, so, e.g., when a roaster like Intelligentsia makes changes to the Black Cat, they could change the suggested brew profile to match rather than having us find out by experimentation. (You'd still end up modifying for your own setup and taste, but if they told you it did better 2 degrees cooler than last year's, it might make for some better shots before you figured this out yourself, or decided the new version was not as good.) You could also potentially provide non-espresso suggested brew info, e.g., whether a particular coffee does really well in a press, for time X, or better as drip or vac pot, etc.

This info would be especially useful not just for the types who hang around here, but for people trying espresso at home who DON'T read forums like this. Just a thought - do people agree? Is there some reason I'm missing for coffee retailers/roasters not to provide this info?

I have often thought how useful it would be to have a thread for roasters only so they could post this info, update parameters if their blend changes or for new coffees, etc. It is slightly more commercial than what is usually seen here, but would anybody mind? If this is not the right place for something like this, they might as an industry provide a website with the info. I have often been frustrated that it was not posted very reliably on their own sites.

Jim, sounds like a great idea. Although everyone has their taste preferences (some like it hot some like it ...), I think a roaster's choice would at least give us all a good starting point.

Cheers

Ian

The last 2 bags of SO espresso I got from Counter Culture had suggestions for dose and temp along with a detailed description of the flavors they find in the coffee. Even without knowing my exact brew temperature their recommendations gave me something to start with.

Philg wrote:The last 2 bags of SO espresso I got from Counter Culture had suggestions for dose and temp along with a detailed description of the flavors they find in the coffee. Even without knowing my exact brew temperature their recommendations gave me something to start with.

Nice to hear Phil!

I haven't yet tried Counter Culture coffee, but this will certainly warrant a look. I see lots of coffees with flavor descriptions that I can sometimes reproduce, sometimes not (and always wondering if I'm missing some brew parameter that would reveal it if not), but let's hope others follow the CC example and start adding dose/temp/timing/other info to their blends. For my part at least, I think this would be a great addition and probably wouldn't cost them a dime to add to the packaging, once they take the time to figure out how the beans are best brewed.

JimWright wrote:This info would be especially useful not just for the types who hang around here, but for people trying espresso at home who DON'T read forums like this. Just a thought - do people agree?

Tim suggested a similar idea in ROASTERS, please publish recommended temperature ranges by coffee. The recent Ecco Caffe Experimental Espresso offerings have included very detailed brew parameters, but I question their value beyond general recommendations because of the variability among equipment. For example, their recommended brew temperature of 200.3F was only helpful to those having equally calibrated equipment. Something along the lines of "cool / medium / medium-hot / hot" for brew temperature and "downdose/ regular dose / updose" are about as good as it gets.

JimWright wrote:Is there some reason I'm missing for coffee retailers/roasters not to provide this info?

For most of their blends, I think roasters targeting "popular" brew temperature, dosage, and extraction volumes because their clientele doesn't have the skills or necessary calibration equipment to replicate precise recommendations.

JimWright wrote:Why don't roasters include this info with every coffee, or at least every espresso-targeted coffee? Of course, we all have different machines, grinders, taste preferences, etc., and best brew profiles can of course change a bit as the coffee ages, but wouldn't it still be useful to have a good baseline to start from in the tasting experience of the roaster?

Because if the back of the bag says something like ...

"Dose: 12.3 g
Extraction volume: 50 mL
Extraction time: 25 seconds
Brew temperature: 93.4 C"

... Joe average thinks "crikey, what a finicky coffee; I'd better buy something else." As much as roasters LOVE people who appreciate their product, I don't think that they would want to pick up a handful of transient hardcore enthusiasts at the expense of alienating some of their repeat customer base.

Logistics is probably also another consideration.

JimWright wrote:This info would be especially useful not just for the types who hang around here, but for people trying espresso at home who DON'T read forums like this.

I doubt that people who don't read forums like this have the necessary equipment to hit a given brew temperature or even weight to any sort of meaningful level. If they do, there are at least four further considerations. First, they might actually prefer to extract the espresso differently. For example, some people might prefer to bring out more chocolate and nuts in a particular roaster's fruit-bomb espresso blend. Second, and perhaps more importantly, numbers can create a false sense of security that might prevent people from experimenting with different styles of extraction or even just making sure that they have the basics right. Thirdly, machine differences might well affect it. I find it hard to believe that an e61 with 12 seconds of dwell time would give you the same results with the same numbers as a saturated group machine with 4 seconds before first drops. Fourthly, the people who would really derive the most benefit from these sorts of numbers are probably good enough to get it right in a few shots anyway!

... all of that said, I don't think that it's a huge deal either way.

Cheers,

Luca

Interesting perspective Luca, thank you. I'm not sure I agree on several points, but to accommodate the scared off customers possibility, perhaps the best answer, rather than putting it on the bag, is something like what EspressoObsessed suggested.

They could just put something on the bag that says "For suggested extraction parameters, see http://www.roaster.com/suggestedextractions", and that way those of us who are interested and able to use the info could do so. This would also then hopefully draw in "regular" consumers whose curiosity is piqued, who could then realize that there's a whole other world out there, or at the very least, figure out that there's something to be gained by experimenting with temperature, dose, grind, etc.

You could also just use more basic descriptors as Dan suggests - of course, people are looking for different things and have different equipment and abilities, but at least for my part, clues are a good thing...

HB wrote:Tim suggested a similar idea in ROASTERS, please publish recommended temperature ranges by coffee. The recent Ecco Caffe Experimental Espresso offerings have included very detailed brew parameters, but I question their value beyond general recommendations because of the variability among equipment. For example, their recommended brew temperature of 200.3F was only helpful to those having equally calibrated equipment. Something along the lines of "cool / medium / medium-hot / hot" for brew temperature and "downdose/ regular dose / updose" are about as good as it gets.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one thinking such things. I agree completely on the inherent variability in different equipment, etc., but I'd still be very happy to have these as a starting point! Even the basic descriptors you suggest would likely be pretty darned useful in this regard, IMHO.

HB wrote:For most of their blends, I think roasters targeting "popular" brew temperature, dosage, and extraction volumes because their clientele doesn't have the skills or necessary calibration equipment to replicate precise recommendations.

I tend to agree, esp. as to blends, although even with my very limited ability and equipment (at least until the new baby arrives ), I've been able to observe significant differences based on temp, updose/downdose, etc., and I think some of the SOs I'm buying lately are sometimes showing better at ranges which are at the edges of, or outside, the typical average. I also think that even within the typical preparation ranges, there can sometimes be nontrivial differences, so that maybe, e.g., telling someone to run it cooler, perhaps by a longer flush, would be a great hint even if they can't be precise.

For what it is worth, we have our recommended extraction parameters posted on our website for our main espresso blends (La Bella Vita and Capre Ballanti). These parameters are mainly for commercial machines, but hopefully they provide a good starting point for home baristas. This discussion is a good reminder that we should probably post parameters for our other coffees as well, especially the SO espressos. They can be somewhat tricky to figure out, and if the roaster has already gone through 5-10 lbs or so figuring it out, it is a shame not to share that info. So thanks for the reminder. You should be able to find that info on our website in the future, and always feel free to call us up if you have any questions.


Bryan