Genuine scientific investigations of coffee, like anything else, must be based on a clear hypothesis and tested to statistical significance in an environment where all contaminating variables are controlled. It’s really tough, it’s boring to most of us, and  for the most part I think we don’t even know how to formulate questions with sufficient precision to conduct real scientific work. I know I have trouble being rigorous enough in my thinking.

That’s all ok. I don’t think we should try to be who we’re not. Most of us are more like chefs than lab nerds. BUT, I do get annoyed hearing pseudo-claim after pseudo-claim about extraction, filtration, brewing temperature or recipe based on one person’s discovery in the last 48 hours. I’m not bashing coffee-fueled buzz, I’m just asking for it to stay buzz and not veer into the realm of the objective. Look honestly at your brew: can you know your tongue isn’t lying? Especially when lying makes you look good? I can’t. If I’m honest, all I can measure are weights, time, and a little bit of temperature at one spot in the brew / bed. Yes, measuring extraction percentage with Extract Mojo is a huge advance forward for the industry, but again that’s a single data point dependent on other parameters (like accurate temperature). It can’t be an oracular answer to the question: what is good coffee?

Finishing up, here’s a meditation on the pretense of knowledge by economist F.A. Hayek. Yes, of course it has nothing to do with coffee. But it’s appropriate.

Analysis first, and then the raw data at the bottom of the post.

1. What the heck happened to my TDS readings? That’s an awfully weak brew. In particular, how come this same cupping process works for cupping coffees, but apparently does not extract properly for brewing? Here’s my draft answer: I think about 1/3rd of extraction happens AFTER the 4 minute mark in cupping. Even though temps are below the standard brewing range, I think the grounds do continue to interact with the brew and strengthen it until it’s closer to 1.25% by the time the cup has cooled sufficiently to taste (say, +10 minutes from the break).

2. TDS only varied .04%, but scores varied by 10 points. My brew was consistently weak, but seemed to be evaluated a bit differently by the three judges. There’s not really a lesson learned here, except that using three independent judges is a good practice, since it minimizes this sort of score variance. Also, it’s interesting but not conclusive that the highest score was for the coffee with the highest TDS reading.

3. Also, considering TDS was close to equal, why were tasting notes so varied? Fruity from one judge. Dry and nutty from another. Those aren’t taste experiences I would describe as comparable. And my brew was “muddy” to one and “clean” to another. Go figure. I’m not sure how to account for that at all, except by judges’ preference. It might have been my brewing, but if so, why was TDS so close together? If anything, I think this shows the interesting variability of the human palate.

I’ll be posting more material on this thread as I work it out. In particular, I’m actively solving for a stronger brew, so we’ll see if I can push those TDS figures up to a respectable range.

Cup 1 Scores: Total = 67.5, TDS = .86%

Cup 2 Scores: Total = 67.25, TDS = .87%

Cup 3 Scores: Total = 77, TDS = .9%

What you need to cup steel-filtered coffee... it looks pretty!

I referred in my last two posts to my new Brewers Cup method, and that very rightly got some folks to ask what exactly I was doing with a glove and a bunch of bowls on stage.

Here it is, and the first 3 steps are pretty much just cupping:

1. Grind dose of coffee at slightly finer than standard cupping grind (21 on Virtuoso)

2. Weigh 12.7 grams of ground coffee into a ridged cupping bowl (ridged to control initial agitation)

3. Rapidly fill cupping bowl with approximately 216 ml. water at 201ºF (94ºC). This is a 1:17 ratio.

4. Wait 3:20, then gently and rapidly break any crust with the back of a spoon. You should be finished before 3:25.

5. At 3:55, pick up the bowl (with a glove!) and gradually, gently tip the coffee through one of our fine steel mesh filters into the cup. You should be finished pouring between 4:00 and 4:03, and 95% of the grounds should stay in the bottom of the cupping bowl.

6. At 4:30-4:40, gently stir the cup a couple of times, touching the bottom of the cup with your spoon. I’ve found this sweetens the cup noticeably by re-integrating fines into the brew (in a good way).

7. Serve. Sip. Enjoy!

Why did I choose this brew method? I think it’s simple, it’s consistent, and it can be very tasty (if the coffee is good). If you have questions, you should try it and form your own opinion.

- Nate

I can’t over-emphasize how good it’s been for me to prepare to compete. I previously estimated I spent about 1,000 minutes preparing for each minute on stage, and I’ve already reaped the true value of that preparation: the ability to quickly and beautifully brew any coffee while offering an excellent customer experience.

The process pushed me to search for a time-efficient way to brew any coffee accurately with minimal adjustments. Hence my decision to use a cupping method variant, with an inert steel mesh medium to ensure a consistent and transparent picture of the coffee in the cup. I came to enjoy and respect cupping’s transparency, and cupping against other methods made me very aware of the distinct flavor emphases caused by various brew methods. That was invaluable in itself.

The preparation process also became much more aware of the variance in extraction parameters of brewed coffee, particularly between paper / cloth-filtered coffees and non-absorbent filters. Simply put, traditional brewed coffee is a paper or cloth-filtered extraction which contains only dissolved solids and little or no oils. That’s not bad, or good. It just is. And over time I’ve come to enjoy brewed coffee very differently than most: I like filters that let the oils through. I find the resulting brewed coffee fattier and better balanced, with a fuller flavor reminiscent of the best of crud-free French press.

Not that my preference should be normative. I understand that most palates instinctively connect brewed coffee with a paper or cloth-filtered beverage, and that’s fine. But here’s where the irony of the Brewers Cup process strikes home: my preparation for Brewers Cup led me to develop a brew method that (in retrospect) was probably doomed to failure in the first round. Simply put, the challenge of the “mystery coffee” round is is to take a strange coffee and make it taste as good as possible – not necessarily to extract that coffee accurately (flaws and all).

The challenge of a steel-filtered cupping method is that it is both ridiculously good to outstanding coffees, showcasing the full range of flavor curated by roaster and farmer, and yet ridiculously unforgiving to coffee flaws. It is, after all, a brew method in the cupping family, a process designed to show the truth about a bean.

So that’s what I did. I extracted a coffee that was very quiet hot, and that gradually gave off a delicate sweetness and pomegranate-fruitiness when cooled, with just a little acidity. It was specialty coffee, but it was nothing especially special, and believing that the quality of extraction mattered more than extra juicy, sour or salty flavors that come from up-dosing, I just left it as it was.

That, I think, was a mistake from a competitive point of view. But I think it was the honest choice for the coffee, and part of me wonders if the standings on Saturday would have been different if we all received a mystery 95 point coffee instead of what we had.

Things might also have been different if the Brewers Cup was organized like it’s cousin, the Barista Championship, with baristas allowed to select their own coffees in the first round. As I write this, the best roast of one of the best coffees I’ve ever enjoyed is sitting on my kitchen counter (Gichathaini by Kuma Coffee). It will never be presented, and that’s a shame and a disgrace.

The current Brewers Cup process is incredibly wasteful of delicious coffees. 16 competitors worked hard with specialty roasters to develop outstanding roasts of delightful coffees. Ten of those roasts were completely wasted. Ten competitors in the northwest alone slaved to prepare specific extractions and presentations showcasing their passion for a particular coffee, exemplifying barista dedication and craftsmanship at its best, and their work was never seen.

Furthermore, the first round of Brewers Cup seems suspiciously like a concession to cost-effectiveness rather than an honest test of barista skills. True baristas get to know their coffees, and learn over time how to present them best. Adjusting in 30 minutes to a mystery coffee is no more a skill required to brew coffee than it is required to brew espresso, and yet the espresso competition notably does not include a mystery grab-bag first round.

What would it take to do the Brewers Cup properly? Ten minute presentations, our own coffees, and the top six move to the finals. It doesn’t seem that hard. I’d volunteer to help, except I’d probably be competing again. I’ll be waiting for that day, anyways.

And one more thing: congratulations to the (as yet) uncrowned 2012 NWRBC Brewers Cup champion. Whoever you are, you will deserve the trophy and be an awesome representative of our region at nationals!

Ben was kind enough to post his Kaffeologie steel mesh doodle right away, and you have got to look at it. Go. Now. Stop looking at these gorgeous teaser shots of his work. How does he get ink to stick to steel anyways?

Ben's Intricate Inkwork on Steel Mesh.

Ben's Ink on Our Steel Mesh, Up Close

1. We all enjoyed the fragrant welcome afforded by a Tacoma low tide today. My nose was definitely voting down the lunchtime walk (it got over-ruled because Mt. Rainier was out).

2. Can you say dead crowd? We were a small and under-caffeinated crew, probably due in part to the dramatic winnowing of barista talent between last year and this. Expect the noise to pick up come day two and three, when we’ll all be so caffeinated we’ll be cheering / crying at the sponsorship thank you’s. Or not.

3. Where are the pour overs? Clevers out-numbered Chemexes on the brew line, and I used a cupping variant (recipe to come after Sunday). No AeroPresses or siphons in sight.

Plenty of photos for the day over at Sprudge’s day one tweet / picture roundup, including this lovely animated GIF of me wearing one glove and looking like a shortstop waiting for the batter. Brewer’s Cup is an athletic event. Really. I’m just glad the judges merely evaluated my coffee!

One Glove Only, like Michael Jackson!

Nate Brews a Chemex (not his actual brew method!)

Kaffeologie Co-Founder Nate Jones will be competing in the Northwest Regional Brewers Cup, sponsored by the US Barista Championship. The competition will be held at the Tacoma Convention Center from 27-29 January.

Nate’s first round will be Friday the 27th at 1:20 PM. If he makes the finals, he’ll compete on Sunday the 29th, serving Kenya Gichatha-ini by Kuma Coffee.

For the second year in a row, Nate will be competing with a new brew method he developed himself. Last year, Nate reached the finals using a modified French press technique. This year, he hopes to advance and compete at nationals in Portland.

Happy brewing, Nate!

Here’s what happened while we were away:

• We got a top nav! (nice to be able to click around the site, isn’t it?)
• There’s better info on the product pages: video, lots of pictures, and clearer text.
• New header and sidebar: now we are clear about who we are, and what we do!

We wanted to make the whole site clean, clear and easy to use. So check it out, and if you have any comments (or find any bugs!) send us a note.

For the record, this site wouldn’t have happened without the design chops of Oliver Kuy at Kuydigital and the developer blood, sweat and tears of James McGrath of McGrath Media Solutions. Thanks a ton guys!