|
CB Workflows
You are not authorised to view this resource. You need to login.
Google Analytics Tracking Module version 2.0
|
Coffee
|
Written by Jerry Baldwin
|
|
A great article by Jerry Baldwin, one of the founders of Starbucks:
Many of the more macho coffee drinkers think that all decaffeinated coffee is beside the point. “Why bother?” they ask.
But those who value the taste of coffee as well as the stimulation
may disagree. Then, there are those people who, despite their love and
appreciation of coffee, can’t tolerate much caffeine; others, who
tolerate it well in the early part of the day, can’t sleep if they
drink coffee later in the day. Caffeine metabolism varies widely among
individuals. Generally, men process caffeine faster than women,
especially pregnant women, who are slowest. The liver metabolizes
caffeine, so age and liver health also affect one’s tolerance. (See
“Caffeine and Decaf” in the curator’s Joy of Coffee, or the Wikipedia entry on caffeine.)
All this brings us to decaffeinated coffee.
All decaffeination methods adversely
affect flavor, but careful selection of green beans along with
competent roasting and brewing can produce a cup that may fool the
experts.
As recently as the mid-’80s, people were drinking more decaf,
thinking that caffeine was bad for them. As more and more research
showed the health benefits of coffee, people began to switch back to
caffeine. Sales of decaf in the late ’80s for some roasters were as
high as 25 percent of total coffee sales. Today, among both commercial
and specialty roasters, the percentage is more like 10 to 15: lower,
but still a significant portion of coffee drinking.
Please suspend any chemo-phobia you may have while reading this.
Don’t let the technical words for chemicals put you off, and don’t play
into the hands of the irresponsible scare tactics of unscrupulous
advertisers of Swiss Water-process decaffeination.
There are four main methods of decaffeination in wide use today,
each named for the solvent used: di-hydro-oxide (aka water), ethyl
acetate, supercritical CO2, and methylene chloride (dichloromethane in
Europe). Even if you remember your high school chemistry, the words may
be unfamiliar, but keep that chemo-phobia in check. (A new method using
ultraviolet light is coming to the market. Don’t get your hopes up–poor
flavor, so far.)
All methods produce a range of quality primarily due to bean
selection (garbage in = garbage out) and process temperature, which
affects the speed and thus the cost of processing. The American
standard for decaffeinated coffee is to remove 97 percent of the
original caffeine. Since caffeine content of individual coffees varies
widely (see my earlier post
on the topic), the amount of residual caffeine will also vary.
Unfortunately, all decaffeination methods adversely affect flavor, but
careful selection of green beans along with competent roasting and
brewing can produce a cup that may fool the experts.
For decades, we have preferred coffees decaffeinated with methylene chloride
(MC) because time after time, year after year, they have produced the
most flavorful cup. The method is simple enough. First, steam swells
the beans to make it easier for the caffeine to be removed. The solvent
is then circulated through the beans and then into distillation to
remove the caffeine and wax that have been removed from the beans. The
cleansed solvent is recirculated and re-distilled until the caffeine
has been removed. The beans are then rinsed with water and vacuum-dried.
The most sensitive test for detecting residual MC detects as little
as one part per million. I have never seen a test result that detects
any amount in specialty decaf. Furthermore, the boiling point of the
solvent is 104 degrees F and coffee is roasted at 375 to 425 degrees F.
Any remaining solvent, if there were any, would be vaporized during
roasting. MC has been eliminated from cosmetics and has stringent
worker safety regulations in Europe, but the procedures used in coffee
processing and roasting leave nothing to cause any concern.
Most important, after safety, is taste. MC is the most selective solvent, leaving the greatest coffee flavor in the beans.
We have also cupped many samples that have been decaffeinated using either ethyl acetate or carbon dioxide
(CO2). Neither method has consistently produced satisfying flavor in
the cup. Ethyl acetate, a synthetic fruit ester, leaves a fruity
aftertaste in the coffee–unfortunately nothing like the berry and
citrus flavors we find in East African coffees. And we had high hopes
for the CO2 process in the early ’90s. Carbon dioxide is the
carbonation in sparkling water, but it is forced into the coffee at
pressures well in excess of 1000 pounds per square inch to extract the
caffeine. Perhaps it’s the pressure that also forces out the coffee
flavor.
The last method to discuss is dihydro-oxide–water.
At one time, water process was the most damaging to coffee flavor. That
general statement is no longer true, due to improvements in the
processing by some companies. Although some water-process decaf has
flavor approaching methylene chloride (and a relatively new North
American company is making great strides in cup quality), further
development will be required before it can be methylene chloride’s
equal.
In general the process uses water as the solvent, supersaturated
with soluble solids from green coffee beans, except caffeine. The idea
is that when the warm solvent is circulated through the coffee, it will
extract only caffeine, which in turn is removed from the circulating
fluid with activated carbon. It’s a thesis that in practice has not
produced great cups of decaf.
The old standby water decaffeination company, Swiss Water
(the only attempt to brand a process), of Vancouver, Canada, is doing
all the advertising while others are improving their process. We prefer
the cup quality of other companies, and I deplore the marketing tactics
of Swiss Water.
In the late ’80s, when I first wrote to the previous owners, I
decried their deliberately misleading advertising. Here they go again.
They are falling back into advertising tactics that assume the
ignorance of the audience. Their attempt to associate the chemical
names of the other processes with some chemo-hysteria is unethical.
To summarize, of the four major processes for decaf, only methylene
chloride and water are widely used in specialty coffee (here, by the
way, Wikipedia on decaffeination is less strong than it is on
caffeine). Methylene chloride can produce the best cup results when
good coffee and careful processing are used. Good coffee and careful
processing also produce the best results from dihydro-oxide, but the
best is still second in cup quality to MC.
Source: http://food.theatlantic.com/coffee-culture/in-defense-of-decaff-1.php
Forum Discussion
|
|
|
Written by John Brinkman
|
|
By Yun Xie
| Published: November 25, 2008 - 01:36PM CT
Used coffee grounds may be garbage to most of us but, to
chemical engineers at University of Nevada, they are a versatile source of
green energy. Narasimharao Kondamudi, Susanta Mohapatra, and Mano Misra proposed
that the solid waste from coffee brewing can do a lot more than act as compost for
gardens. They set out to see if they could extract oils from old coffee grounds
and chemically convert those oils to biodiesel.
Spent coffee grounds are about 15 percent oil, which is only
slightly less than many of the other biodiesel feedstocks. Since the world
produces over 16 billion pounds of coffee per year, there is a constant
and cheap supply of solid coffee waste. Kondamudi, Mohapatra, and Misra also
predict that biodiesel from coffee grounds would be more stable than those from
other sources because coffee contains antioxidants that would slow down
degradation.
The researchers extracted oils from Starbuck's spent coffee
grounds, and went on to perform a standard transesterification process to
convert
the oil to biodiesel using methanol (a type of alcohol) and potassium
hydroxide (a base for catalyzing the reaction). They were able to
convert 100 percent of the oil
in the grounds into biodiesel; both the extracted oil and
biodiesel were stable for more than a month, which is sufficient for industrial applications.
Ground Coffee.
After the oil is extracted, the grounds can still be used
for compost or fuel pellets. The authors estimated that, if spent grounds
were converted into biodiesel and fuel pellets in the U.S., it’s possible to make
about $8 million in profit per year. On a worldwide scale, based on the amount of
coffee that is used, 340 million gallons of biodiesel can be produced from
spent grounds.
The authors showed that used coffee grounds are much more
than a waste product and can be a source of green energy. Of course, to know if
this process is truly green, every step of the conversion would need to be
analyzed in detail, but the initial results are promising, especially given that the
waste products from the process can be used further as compost or fuel pellets.
Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2008. DOI: 10.1021/jf802487s
|
|
|
Written by Trevor Ou Tim
|
 Coffeegeeks are known to be strange bunch. They like to take their coffee skills to new levels by constantly pushing themselves to learn as much about coffee and the art of making coffee as they can. That quest for that ultimate “God Shot”, or producing the most glorious latte art that would make any coffee lover openly state: “That’s the most beautiful thing I have ever seen since viewing the world from the top of Mount Everest – You can just hear the non-coffeegeeks thinking: “Get a life”. As a home barista who is on his quest to make that ultimate coffee drink (being espresso or latte with the ultimate latte art) that would satisfy him to such an extent as to proclaim that he’d made the greatest coffee drink that has ever graced this planet, I’m sure I can speak for many other home baristas who have asked the question to themselves: “I wonder what it would be like to have a coffee shop.”
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by John Brinkman
|
|
I found this awesome article on the coffeegeek web site that I thought a lot of people would be interested in.
Author: Mark Prince
Posted: May 21, 2008
You
may have never heard of siphon coffee making. Then again, you may have
read about it in the New York Times and thought it was some $20,000
gizmo used by crazy coffee nerds in San Francisco. You may have heard
of it under a plethora of other names - vacpots, vacuum brewed coffee,
siphon brewer, siphon vacuum coffee, and all sorts of word combinations.
This
brewing method fell out of favour in the US and Canada by the 1960s,
and with only a few holdovers making devices for the next few decades.
Most of the major brands that used to make siphon coffee makers eased
them out of production during that time, including General Electric,
Silex, Sunbeam, Cory and others. Still, the brewing method maintained a
hard core set of fans, maybe just in the hundreds, or dozens, and a few
manufacturers continued to produce them: Bodum has continuously made a
siphon coffee maker since the 1970s. Cona, out of the UK, has been
making them since before World War II. Nicro, a commercial small
appliances maker, was manufacturing them right up through the 1970s
when demand finally disappeared, at least for cafes and restaurants.
In
the late 1990s, a bunch of coffee nerds started talking up the joys of
siphon coffee makers, or "vacpots", in places like alt.coffee and with
the aid of rudimentary photos and pretty basic short video clips, a new
(albeit small) generation of people cottoned on to this brewing method,
if not for anything else than the show it provided.
And now,
well into the first decade of the 21rst century, and some 160 years
after the siphon coffee maker was first invented in France and Germany,
the technique is set to explode (figuratively, not literally) with
almost everyone in the specialty industry taking interest. Peter
Guiliano, the famed green bean buyer for Counter Culture Coffee and
acknowledged as one of the best cuppers in the business today, lists
the siphon coffee method as one of his favourite ways to make coffee.
Back
in 1998, I saw my first ever siphon coffee maker in action. I make no
joke about this - it was a seminal moment for me in coffee. I was very
much into all things espresso at the time, and I still recall the first
time I brewed a cup. I'd been reading about vacpots for a few years -
mostly in the newsgroup alt.coffee, but also in books like Ken Davids'
Joy of Coffee - but it wasn't until I stumbled upon a used Bodum Santos
in a flea market that I bought one, took it home and set it up for the
first brew.
Almost everything about using a vacuum coffee maker
is sensory involved: aromas, fragrance, motion, touch, action. Grind
the coffee, add it to the top vessel. Add cold (or hot) water to the
bottom. Put the bottom on a heat source. Add the top vessel with its
attached siphon. Watch. Liquids defy gravity. The brew gurgles, but
it's not boiling. Remove from heat source. Watch the coffee move back
down, or "south". Watch the bottom vessel's brewed coffee gurgle as air
is drawn through the spent grounds to release the built up vacuum.
Remove top vessel. Smell. Ahhh. Pour. Taste. More ahhhh.
So much
science. So much sensory involvement. So much fun. And the taste... Do
it right, and you'll wonder not at the fact that so many specialty
industry leaders consider this "the best".
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by John Brinkman
|
| An awesome article from CoffeeGeek.com by James Hoffman, 2007 World Barista Champ. This article was brought to our attention by Cuth Bland, Thanks Cuth!!
|
For
my opening article I wanted to discuss a subject relevant to anyone who
enjoys espresso, and maybe debunk a few myths in the process. I’ve only
been a barista for about three years, starting off in the industry
retailing domestic machines in a department store and somehow ending up
head of training for a machine manufacturer in the UK.
Early on
in my involvement in espresso, I realised that a lot of people around
the world were spending a lot of time and money researching coffee, but
I also realised that very few people who were actually brewing and
serving the stuff were reading the fruits of the researchers' efforts.
In short course I became slightly obsessed with food science, going
above and beyond espresso and coffee, and I hope this column is one way
to spread the word about not only my own thoughts on espresso and the
preparation of the beverage, but also the words and deeds of many of
these researchers.
This obsession of mine became part of my
signature when it came to barista competitions. This doesn’t mean that
everything I am going to write will be from a scientific point of view
- while this article is about crema - I plan to cover all aspects of
being a barista from competitions (both individual and team) through to
the changing landscape and challenges of the shop barista. With this
article in particular I want to present information as best as I have
been able to discover. I am not going to claim to be absolutely right
and I hope each article I write fosters healthy debate on the subject
discussed.
|
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by John Brinkman
|
|
Following on my new found interest in roasting coffee, I started looking for some more tools to assist me in my roasting quest <grin>. I found a very useful coffee roasting database program, it is freeware so there is no charge and looks to do everything a home roaster could want.
Can be downloaded free of charge from - LINK
|
|
|
Written by John Brinkman
|
|
I have been battling with all of the factors which come into play when making an espresso and thought it was about time that I try and put together a formula and open it up for comments.
All of the factors in the forumla effect the extraction time & flavour of the coffee and it is only by balancing all of these factors that you will get the best out of the coffee. Some of the factors should remain relatively constant controlled by the barista, whilst others are environment based and are subject to almost constant change, the final extraction should however always be around 25 seconds.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by John Brinkman
|
|
Article courtesy of Mark Prince @ CoffeeGeek.com
How to Use a Press Pot
The ubiquitous press pot. It's everywhere. It's seemingly easy to use,
right? Well, yes, but a little understanding of the device, how it
works, and maybe a bit about the history of the product will get you
using yours better. If you want some of the richest coffee you can get,
a press pot can deliver. What may surprise most is that you can also
get a relatively clean brew from it as well, if you have the right
tools and prep everything correctly.
The Press Pot History
First, a bit of my own history. I wrote an article on this site some time back that I called Why I like Bodum.
You see, press pots were my initiation into the world of quality
coffee, at least in North America. I have a lot of loyalty and fond
memories of this brewing method and the coffee (and situations) it
delivered me.
But how about the real history of the Press Pot?
How about this question - which came first, the vacpot or the press
pot? It might surprise you, but the press pot came later. It is, of
course, a much simpler design than a vacuum brewer, but there were
problems. In the 1840s, when the vac pot and balance brewers were first
introduced, the concept of a press, or plunger brewing system was
around, but the technology to make a tight enough fitting filter
didn't. Even the first models by Mayer and Delforge in France were met
with limited success.
By the early 1900s, the press pot, called
a "Cafeolette" starting becoming more popular and was showing up on
grocery store shelves. In the 1930s, Melior introduced the first model
with a stainless steel filter and a metal body, then soon they
introduced a model reminiscent of Bodum's current day "Chambord" line.
Why is it reminiscent? Because Bodum bought that design!
In
fact, Bodum is probably more responsible for the common day occurrence
of the press pot than any other company. In the seventies, they started
introducing their whacked out colours in their plastic, metal and glass
press pots. In the 1980s, fueled by their profits, they bought lines
like Chambord and brought out more classical-look press pots. The rest
is, as they say, history.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 15 of 19 |
|
|