I've been playing with some techniques using pour-over (using V60 but any pour-over would work). and I've been using the largest brewer for a 20g dose with a goal of 300g brew weight. I do a standard bloom and then a single pour technique using a pour-over stand so only what enters the cup gets weighed rather than the combined total of cup and brewer. I then do a continuous pour always keeping the cone full of water keeping an eye on my brew weight. When it reached 300g I remove the cone and put it aside (still full of water). My theory is a way of keeping a high and consistent brew temp in the brewer and rather than stopping the pour causing it to lose heat I just keep pouring so that the heat remains stable. You need a pour-over stand for this in order to focus on the brew weight so you know when to pull the brewer off. There are no spins and stirs as the constant pouring eliminates the need to further agitate and you don't care about flat beds because all the coffee is immersed during the brewing window you're capturing and when you're finished with it you don't care about the leftovers.

My first attempt was using off the boil water and it produced a harsher coffee. My initial thoughts were since I've stabilized a higher brew temp I'm actually getting the harshness common in high temps where before there was such a temperature drop that the harshness was eliminated. So now I can actually brew strategically with the temps rather than just accepting huge temp losses and shrugging my shoulders. The temp could be even more stable than an immersion brew since water is constantly leaving while at the same time being replaced with fresh hot water. The brews are a bit quicker since the flow remains consistent and there is no slow drawdown when it gets close to the bed. I suspect channeling might be problematic with this method and after the drawdown finish the beds haven't always been flat so perhaps a tap to settle the grinds would be useful to keep the bed flat and keep more even extraction.

So far the brews are turning out and the cup is noticeable hotter so playing with lower temps is still an option. the downside of course is it's a waste of water so not suitable for a cafe but its easy enough to do at home. I've never heard of this method... not sure if it's been around for a while or not. has anyone tried it of heard of it? because I can't see this being new. what has been your experience?

Have you used a thermometer to keep track of the brew slurry temp? I think you should try that, and then compare results to different levels of preheating your brew cone and using water off boil. I have definitely gotten too high of a brew temp before based on how well I've preheated.

A thought, the declining brew temp is also beneficial in that as you get to the end of the brew, the lower temp is less likely to bring out compounds you don't want. Akin to the declining ROR during roasting, it isn't that it's necessary, just that it's beneficial for getting to a targeted stopping point.

I did 2 back to back brews today. Brew 1 was a typical method, ending with filling the brewer with the exact amount of water and waiting for the drawdown to complete. For Brew 2 it was a continuous pour until the cup was full and then I removed the brewer to keep the temp high. I took the temp using a digital meter meant for drinks (like for milk). I'm sure it's not as accurate as probs like Hoffmann uses but at the very least it shows a relative result

Brew 1
starting temp: 93c
high slurry temp: 88c
lowest temp after it reached the highest temp: 80c

Brew 2
starting temp: 93c
high slurry temp: 88c
lowest temp after it reached the highest temp: 88c

and both cases I used the same plastic brewer and they were well preheated. loosely it confirmes my assumption although it would be more interesting to have temp probs that plot the temp during the duration of the brew. Essentially adding hot water to the slurry resulted in a spike of the slurry temp (no surprise) but when no more water was added the drawdown began to lose temp dropping 8 degrees (not a big surprise either). When using the continuous pour method, after it reached the high temp, fresh hot water continued to be added, there was no temp drop and it maintained the high temp.

If you want a consistent extraction than a consistent temp is going to accomplish this better than a declining temp during the drawdown. 88c extracts at a different rate than 80c. It also doesn't force an off the boil approach to try and force capture higher temps for longer periods inevitably extracting harsh bitterness and hoping its balanced with the lower temp extractions. If this continuous pour method gives you harsh bitterness common from high temps then the fix would be to use a lower temp and since you don't lose temp this can be controlled better. There seems to be an initial drop from the temp of the water in the kettle to the slurry but once you reach the max temp of the slurry you can keep that max temp until you pull the brewer.

the cons are it wastes water, perhaps twice as much water so it may not be for everyone. You also need to keep an eye on the cup because if you forget about it everything is going to spill all over and make a mess.

When you go low on the continuous temp to avoid harshness, what if that requires going too low to extract some of the things you do want which you would get from a higher temp at the beginning?

What if you compare a brew that started high (normal brew), and then took the average temperature (mode, most common temperature that occurred), and then performed a brew that targeted that average temp and compared them?

Is keeping a consistent-but-lower temp similar to pulse pour methods? Those make smaller pours so the temp is more consistent throughout the brew and it is a lower temp than you would get with a large single pour method.

that perhaps is a good point but I would think an even extraction is more efficient using an even temp, not a regressive temp. a pulse pour would have more extreme ups and downs and I would think capture more of an extraction temp range. I would love to test it more with better equipment like a VST but I don't own one of those however it would be an interesting project, that and proper temp probs to show the temp changes.

if in fact, an exact temp through the duration of the brew is not the best solution then why is temp management even a conversation? It seems everyone favours keeping the temp as consistent as possible over allowing a large temp drop. But perhaps the temp drops of over 10c are too significant and even within temp drops, there is a Goldilocks range. If that's the case this method would only help to confirm a goldilocks range because you don't need to do a full continuous pour and you can stop pouring at different points to see how it affects the cup. I've been doing a continuous pour for the duration of the brew but I could stop earlier and still get the added benefit of a more stable temp with perhaps a smaller temp drop than a typical drawdown.

But I'm not declaring this is the best method, I'm simply starting a conversation. pour-overs have 3 phases, 1. the bloom phase, 2. dilution phase and 3. drawdown phase. in reality, there is a continuous drawdown so long as there is water being added but the drawdown phase isolates just the drawdown. my proposed method of course still inherits a continuous drawdown but effectively it eliminates the drawdown phase and just has a continuous dilution phase which may negatively impact the extraction that makes it into the cup. Since I'm stretching the dilution phase the slurry just gets more and more diluted and although running more water through something will increase extraction there will be a point of diminishing returns where I just have a whole pile of water with a little bit of coffee mixed in. When I reach my brew weight and remove the brewer but in the brewer, there is still a whole pile of extracted coffee that didn't make it to the cup.

in all brews, there is an interstitial liquid, which is trapped liquid in the coffee bed that doesn't make it to the cup. so all brews have some extraction that doesn't leave the brewer. this continuous pouring method can't really be called interstitial liquid but in a sense, it's a ramped-up version of that because it's about an extracted coffee mass that doesn't make it to the cup. The extraction that matters is the extraction in the cup, not the extraction that you toss away. if I had a VST I would want to isolate the point where I would stop pouring or choose to keep on pouring, this way I would know if a stable temp is worth the cost of a diluted slurry. I best I can only do a taste test on these.

I think the discussion around temp management is to get the high temp at the beginning - but I've seen methods utilize adding cooler water for later pours in order to drop the temp later in the brew. Or taking the lid off the kettle to allow the water to cool more during the pour time, to reduce brew temp later in the brew. I think peak temp will add to the acidity of the brew, and overall brew time adds to the body, and finding the right brew time is how you adjust for balance. Your idea of 3 phases is interesting, but I wonder if temperature in each phase should be different, is all. With peak temp affecting acidity, and wanting to get a high volume of water in the beginning to bring the slurry up to temp, and then adjusting brew length for body and sweetness, but still wanting to avoid bitter/harsh compounds then it seems to me the lower end temp with a higher start temp might be beneficial. However I am interested in you studying this because I've just never gotten the brew stand in order to do so. I have, however, preheated my cone to different levels and personally found that at a certain temp you start to get roasty flavor and harshness along with sweetness. This was at a 204 F slurry temp, though I did this so long ago I do not remember how much the slurry temperature varied throughout the brew.

When I started using Hoffmann's V60 method, for instance, it was a longer brew time than I would normally do. When playing with it, I took temps at the end of the brew and found it dropped considerably. Similarly, in his FP method, once the temp drops low enough you don't have to worry about extraction as much, but it does continue to add to the body. So while you are able to cut off the extraction by removing the cone (rather than allowing for the temp drop off), I think you are just going to have to play around with getting the right grind size to hit the right brew time, and that will affect the optimal slurry temp, but I'm not sure how low it might have to be and if it will affect the acidity considerably or not. I think once you do the work to get this style dialed in to it's best possible flavor, then comparing it to a normal brew would be interesting to see the actual difference and what benefit/harm there might be.

What's normal in a PO? There's so many different ways.

that's a good point. whatever you do as a routine could be called normal for you. I think a contrast would be best with a single pour technique but preference for the bloom or shakes, stirs or swirls don't affect the comparison just keep them the same on both. since the continuous pour method skips the drawdown phases and just has a really long dilution phase you wouldn't be doing things like the rao spin but feel free to do whatever it is you do for your "normal" if you wanted to compare them.

When I did the quick temp test my "normal" po I did 1:16 ratio a 40 second 1:3 bloom with agitation in first 10 seconds to get the grinds quickly wet, single pour, stirred the slurry gently, then a rao spin at the halfway mark and let the drawdown finish. the continuous pour was exactly the same except there was no stirs/spins since there was no drawdown phase. I removed the brewer when I reached my brew weight.

MikeTheBlueCow wrote:I think the discussion around temp management is to get the high temp at the beginning - but I've seen methods utilize adding cooler water for later pours in order to drop the temp later in the brew. Or taking the lid off the kettle to allow the water to cool more during the pour time, to reduce brew temp later in the brew. I think peak temp will add to the acidity of the brew, and overall brew time adds to the body, and finding the right brew time is how you adjust for balance. Your idea of 3 phases is interesting, but I wonder if temperature in each phase should be different, is all. With peak temp affecting acidity, and wanting to get a high volume of water in the beginning to bring the slurry up to temp, and then adjusting brew length for body and sweetness, but still wanting to avoid bitter/harsh compounds then it seems to me the lower end temp with a higher start temp might be beneficial. However I am interested in you studying this because I've just never gotten the brew stand in order to do so. I have, however, preheated my cone to different levels and personally found that at a certain temp you start to get roasty flavor and harshness along with sweetness. This was at a 204 F slurry temp, though I did this so long ago I do not remember how much the slurry temperature varied throughout the brew.

When I started using Hoffmann's V60 method, for instance, it was a longer brew time than I would normally do. When playing with it, I took temps at the end of the brew and found it dropped considerably. Similarly, in his FP method, once the temp drops low enough you don't have to worry about extraction as much, but it does continue to add to the body. So while you are able to cut off the extraction by removing the cone (rather than allowing for the temp drop off), I think you are just going to have to play around with getting the right grind size to hit the right brew time, and that will affect the optimal slurry temp, but I'm not sure how low it might have to be and if it will affect the acidity considerably or not. I think once you do the work to get this style dialed in to it's best possible flavor, then comparing it to a normal brew would be interesting to see the actual difference and what benefit/harm there might be.

I can only take testing so far without a refractometer and at best will only be subjective. Right now the biggest difference is the temp and I've had to drop the starting temp so as not to get the harshness of hot brews. I'm using a fairly acidic coffee so it may not be the best to compare with. It's a medium roast but a lot of malic acid and the biggest take away in the cup is noticeably hotter otherwise they are similar.

I normally use a hoffmann/rao method but rao has just updated his method to a 2 pour technique. This continuous pour would never be adopted in professional circles like rao/hoffmann/perger because although they are interested in the best and most repeatable result they're not interested in a method that wastes a bunch of water or potentially spills hot water all over the place.