VST has released a series of new and updated products in connection with the 24th Annual Exposition of the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) being held this week in Portland, Oregon.

New VST LAB Coffee II Refractometer

VST is now shipping an updated version of the LAB Coffee Refractometer introduced in 2011. Identical in appearance, the new LAB Coffee II sports improved precision (repeatability) and accuracy for both coffee and espresso modes and double the original battery life.

• Improved Precision – 3x better than previous generation, +/- 0.02% typical
• Improved Accuracy –  +/- 0.03% typical
• Longer Battery Life –  2x first generation

MoJoToGo™ v1.1 for iPhone®, iPad® and iPod touch®

MoJoToGo won the Best New Product award at the SCAA Expo in 2010. Version 1.1 is a free upgrade and includes a number of updates and new features, including keypad recipe entry for trouble-shooting pre-existing protocols. MoJoToGo v1.1 is expected to post on the Apple iTunes App Store within the next week. More new features are in the works for release this summer.

New VST 20g Precision Espresso Filter Chosen by Nuova Simonelli for 2012 WBC

VST’s new 20g precision filter has been adopted by Nuova Simonelli on the new Aurelia II T3 for the World Barista Championship to be held this June in Vienna, Austria. The result of a collaboration between VST and Nuova Simonelli announced in 2011, the new 20-gram precision filter is available now in both standard (ridged) and ridgeless models. The 20-gram capacity addresses the most commonly used dose in WBC competitions and many specialty cafés. VST’s Precision Filter Baskets have been chosen by the world’s top roasters, cafés and world barista champions for improved espresso beverage quality and consistency.

VST’s precision filters are on sale during the SCAA event at discounted prices.

VST Precision Espresso Filters Selected by Kees van der Westen for new Spirit

VST’s precision espresso filters have been selected by Kees van der Westen for the new Spirit line of espresso machines introduced this month by ESPRESSONISTIC WORKS B.V.  The Spirit will be on display at the Melbourne International Coffee Expo , May 4th-6th. VST’s precision filters offer improved espresso beverage quality and consistency, and are designed for proper extraction yield over a wide range of concentrations. Each VST filter is inspected on a VST Digital Filter Imaging System and warranted for zero defects and to meet or exceed published specifications.  Available in 15, 18, 20 and 22-gram capacities and available from www.keesvanderwesten.com or www.vstapps.com

Integrated Universal Refractometer

VST has announced plans for an integrated USB connected universal refractometer that automatically plots data to the Universal Brewing Control Chart or other device(s). Future plans also include Bluetooth 4.0 (low energy) wireless integration to MoJoToGo for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

Intended for coffee equipment design, research and development and coffee program development for large scale institutions, the new laboratory-grade universal refractometer is capable of use for virtually any type of beverage process or equipment design application, including in-line applications. Watch VST’s website for additional information.

It’s been a very busy few weeks in SCAA Houston. Happily we are delighted to see our new filter baskets making it out around the world, and getting a hugely positive response.

The first place to start is probably in Barista Magazine (starting on page 74). If you want to learn about the theory and research behind the baskets this is where to go.

Mark Prince, CoffeeGeek, asks Can These Filters Change The World Of Espresso?

James Hoffman shares his experiences, and goes into significant detail here.

Tim Wendelboe announces a new Espsresso Blend and shares his espresso videos and VST Filter recommendations here.

Mike White says “You can continue using the same espresso baskets you’ve always used, or you can finally get some good ones.” We like that.

Dan Yee shares a lot of very nice shots of his set of baskets via flickr.

RM from Ministry Grounds near Sydney Australia shares comments and photos on their excellent blog.

Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, from regional and world champion baristas, top cafes and specialty roasters from around the world and individual enthusiasts alike. Looking forward to hearing more reports as the new VST Precision Filter Baskets continue to make it out to new users! Below we’ve posted a few short messages, eMails and tweets.

Peace,

~Vince

We have been using these for months. All I can say is GET THEM!–Tim Wendelboe 5 May 2011   WBC World Champion 2004, Nordic Roaster 2008, 2009, 2010  Tim Wendelboe Coffee OSLO

I’ve had great results with the VST baskets with a fair range (17-19g in the 17g and 19-22g in the 21g). I’m generally keeping the brew ratio the same (brew weight is approx 1.5 that of dose). Brew time is usually 27-29s, using a normal 9 bar profile with flow restricted preinfusion.  Grinding finer than other baskets which generally helps up the extraction yield to high levels of tastiness when dealing with shots that short.–James Hoffmann WBC World Champion 2007, Square Mile Coffee Roasters, LONDON  08 May, 2011

….We’ve done some basic testing of the new VST Precision Filters side by side with Synesso baskets. …. blind tasting has always put the VST ones with the comments, “More clarity of flavours, a lot more even pour and a really even coloured, efficient extraction.”  Flavours are less muddied and more definitive … Exact same doses, exact same brew time. They’re also cleaning really well. So initial impressions are obviously positive. We do not plan to change our filters back over to the Synesso ones, the VST are here to stay.–Daniel Yee, 11 May, 2011   AIR Roasters, Castle Hill, NSW Australia

I’ve been using the VST Precision Filter baskets and they seem to be paradigm shifting our extraction protocols. It seems to me that you can pull a ‘decent’ well balanced shot at a wide range of grind sizes. We’re using a Robur E and have decided to deploy them with our strada EP today. We intend to roll out the baskets to our other outlets, and after that we’re going to recommend our trade customers switch to the new VST precision filters (hence my additional purchase)–Keith Loh Singapore National Barista Champion

We’ve done some blind taste tests here.……three seasoned local baristas and two consumers over three testing sessions. It was a lock for the VST baskets and a serious eye-opener on how important the filter basket is to the brewing process…….And the taste? In a word: improved. In two words: major improvement. In another two words: consistently improved.–Mark Prince 29 April, 2011 Vancouver BC    CoffeeGeek.com

The VST baskets have a feel and look of superior quality, far better than any other baskets I have ever seen (and I do have other microfine machined baskets).  … For my morning’s shots I did notice that they tended to build flow VERY uniformly across the face and also that they ran longer without blonding.  … Also, pucks knocked out very easily, cleanly, and whole. …. for the moment I will say that my initial impression is quite positive.  After just a few days with the new baskets I feel like my shots are overall fuller and rounder with smoother edges (i.e. reduced “edginess”).–Jon Rosenthal 13-16 May, 2011 Houston, TX   CoffeeGeek.com

The company I work for just received your baskets and after only a few days of making espresso with them I am thoroughly impressed: Better mouth feel, more gradual blonding, higher quality acidity, and more balanced shots.–Benjamin Put

Bought this based on a review at CoffeeGeek.com. Thought that expecting a big difference was a little far fetched; boy was I wrong. This wonderful little basket makes a huge difference. Decided I needed to order the triple basket as well –Telly Stroumbis

The [VST Precision Filter] baskets are wonderful. They make my life easier as they aren’t as picky making my efforts less important and giving me more consistency. Using with a LM GS/3.–Dave Howe

Shortly after our last MoJo Mentions Mike White, blogging on ShotZombies updated his progression.

In September, Matt Buchanan writing for Gizmodo, delivered a great piece. If you haven’t seen it, it’s still well worth a read.

Shortly after, Jennifer Welsh, writing for Discover Magazine blog, commented on MoJo and Matt’s article here.

More recently, back again at Gizmodo, delighted to find MoJo was chosen as one of Gizmodo’s top ten coffee-related gifts – here, page 44.

Finally, for now, the current issue of Barista Magazine (accessible here) features MoJo under it’s best bar tools article (comments from Josh Boyt of Dillanos).

Thanks to everyone for the kind words. If we have missed anyone, please let us know (drop a comment below).

*edit* James Hoffmann’s excellent blog post – Dialling in without timings – noted with thanks to Gary.

Subscribe here:  http://vstapps.com/

Under the NEWSLETTER Banner, just enter your eMail address to keep up to date!

New Coffee Features:

- Design Coffee by Beverage Size
(Double-Tap to toggle mode from Brew Water to Beverage amount)
- Full conversions in all units
- Wireless Import/Export for database & backup from csv files
- Water Loss Preference
- Additional TDS Range
- Remember last used Grinder Setting

New Espresso Features:
- Remember last used Grinder Setting, Pressure and Shot Temp

Fixed:
- Corrected iPad slider controls
- TDS markers and range tracking
- Improvements to user interface
- Corrected minor bugs

MoJoToGo™ for iPhone® launched on April 1st on the Apple iTunes APPs Store
Use MoJoToGo™ to meet internationally accepted Gold Cup standards
Save, share recipes/measurements with friends via eMail using CONTACTs
Fully integrated with MAPs & location services using GeoTags
MoJoToGo™ works with both Coffee and Espresso using either VST Coffee or VST Espresso refractometer
Compatible with ExtractMoJo™, import recipes to MoJoToGo™
Compatible with Reichert COFFEE and/or ESPRESSO Refractometers

Sample New MoJoToGo™ Features

Brew by Beverage Size

Example: Single Serve 12 fl-oz Beverage Size

Select 12 fl-oz Finished Beverage Size           Portions for 12 fl-oz converted to Metric Weights

Perfect for setting portions on:
Marco Uber, Bunn Trifecta, Chemex, Hario v60, French Press, Abid, Vac-Pot or any other single-serve or pour-over method

Example: Import/Export & Share MoJoToGo Coffee and Espresso Data

Achieving desired final beverage concentration (% TDS) is up to the barista in order to satisfy the consumer’s request. Depending on the beverage being served, the coffee and its characteristics, there are primarily two ways to move final beverage concentration up/down.  An fundamental goal should be to keep Extraction Yield sweet, in a range of [approximately] 18-21%. This is a guideline, not an absolute, however, at these concentrations espresso served below 17% extraction yield tends to be very sour, and more than 22% will tend toward harsh and bitter.

Milk contains lactose, a sugar, which we perceive about one fifth as sweet as sucrose (table sugar). Keep in mind, however, we use ~4:1 milk to espresso in a traditional cappuccino.  Sweeteners tend to offset sour or bitter flavor defects that can arise in improperly brewed espresso. Conversely you could make the case that sour or bitter flavor defects offset the sweetness of lactose, diminishing the overall beverage sweetness. Either way, in my experience (yours may differ), the sweetest cappuccino is realized when as espresso extraction yield of 18-21% is achieved.

The brewing ratio determines the CONCENTRATION,  which you will set to what ever you need.  For example, many people prefer to drink straight espresso as a Normale (~10%)  or Lungo (~5-7% TDS) when served w/o milk.

However, when served with milk, the espresso beverage is diluted (i.e., making it weaker, but not changing the Ext YLD).   Therefore, when served with milk, many barista will try to increase final beverage strength by a stronger concentration (~ 12-13% TDS) of the same or similar amount of espresso (i.e., a Ristretto)  or

In the process, many times, a barista will tend to go from a sweet normale to a very sour ristretto, by attempting to achieve too high a concentration (i.e., >13%).  This is not necessary, as you will see, below.

The final concentration (Cf) is simply: Cf = (Ci * Wi)  / Wf

Where: Ci = initial concentration

Wi = initial weight

Wf = final weight

Example (Note: all units are expressed in weight, not volume)

Let’s start with a 50% espresso brew ratio in a typical cappuccino, as follows:

Start with 14g Dose/28g Beverage and pull to 20% Ext Yield  =  10.0% TDS

Add 4-oz (weight = 112g) steamed milk (total 140g ~ traditional 5-oz cappuccino)

Final %TDS after milk = (10% * 28g) / (112g + 28g)  =  2.0% TDS

(this is the coffee strength of the final beverage)

If you’re not satisfied with the final coffee strength, and prefer a more dominant coffee taste, you can increase concentration as follows:

22g Dose/34g Beverage and pull to ~19.2% Ext Yield  =  12.4 % TDS (a Ristretto)

Add 106g of steamed milk (total 140g ~ traditional 5-oz cappuccino)

Final %TDS after milk = (12.4% * 34g) / (106g + 34g)  =  3.0% TDS

(this is the coffee strength of the final beverage)

The 50% increase in final strength will result in a significant boost in coffee flavor in the final cappuccino beverage (even though it is only 6-gr of additional espresso, because it is at a higher starting concentration).

Final observation: The [Caffeine] Fixx is in

A typical American cup of [specialty] coffee (in the U.S., a 12 fl-oz cup volume) is served as ~11-oz of coffee by weight (leaving room for milk/cream) and is usually in the range of ~ 1.35% TDS.

The total coffee soluble solids consumed, a.k.a. “the fixx” is about 4.2 grams in this cup of coffee.

A typical cappuccino served at 2% final beverage concentration, as noted above, is only about 2.8 grams, often leaving many wanting for a second serving. However, when served instead with a Ristretto as in (a) or as a double as in (b) above, total coffee soluble solids is…… 4.2 grams, generally a more satisfying beverage in terms of “the fixx”.

Similarly:

A single-serve pour-over Coffee:

22g Dose

340g Water

~300g Beverage @ 1.40% TDS

= 4.2g soluble solids

Espresso:

22g Dose

42g Beverage @ 10.0% TDS

= 4.2g soluble solids

One of the perks of being in this line of work is sampling many coffees from some of the world’s finest roasters. While in the process, I’ve had many tremendous coffees. More recently, however, I’ve observed a significant, damaging trend emerging among some roasters operating at the highest level. I speak of underdevelopment at roast.

While not strictly limited to ultra-light roasts, underdevelopment is certainly a more common defect of lighter roasts as compared to roasts taken further. While at first I was disappointed, lately I’ve been getting more dismayed with the number of specialty roasters delivering underdeveloped coffees.

I applaud and respect anyone who goes through the immense efforts required to run a specialty roasting business. Being in the roasting business can at times be an unforgiving, full throttle and exhausting effort that requires constant change and learning continuously for many years in order to develop all of the skills necessary to survive, let alone succeed. However, specialty roasters have a responsibility to taste and test their products before releasing them for sale, and setting a minimum standard of quality control. Yet, in the past few weeks I’ve received three premium espresso blends (out of six) that were markedly underdeveloped.

No one wants their products to shine more than the roasters themselves. This is why it’s so critical to add rudimentary procedures for QC that ensure only quality coffees are released for consumption. Refined further, simple QC procedures to check extraction levels at brew can help address underdeveloped coffees and aid in checking adjustments to roast profiles to address the issue.

One of the most noticeable symptoms of underdevelopment, apart from often tasting vegetal, is the requirement for drastic adjustments to grind, temp and or brew time to try to achieve good flavor and normal extraction levels. Despite unusual adjustments beyond the norm, coffees underdeveloped at roast will still not extract fully at brew, via any method. All things being equal, with coffees of similar roast levels, there should only be a reasonably limited range of adjustments necessary to dial it in; a couple of increments +/- on the grinder collar or a couple of degrees +/- in water temperature and/or +/- brew contact time. Jumping through hoops to get a normal extraction yield should raise flags.

Shots 1-4 were from original espresso (shipment 1). In this case the original espresso serves as the experimental control. Shots 5-8 are same espresso (shipment 2), same crop, same roaster, different date and batch. Brewing Protocol and equipment were identical for both batches.

The three premium espresso blends in question did not behave within any normal adjustment range, extracting to only 15-16% yield. In essence, the coffee behaves as if there is less coffee than dosed in the basket. The innermost core of the bean, the densest part, has failed to fully develop during roast, and is not able to deliver soluble solids –extract normally– the equivalent to the removal of a portion of extractable coffee. I frequently suspect the full batch didn’t properly make it through first crack before flame is reduced, but there are a myriad of ways coffee can be underdeveloped at roast. The “trend” to roast ultra-light is ruining as much as half of the coffees and espressos I have received from specialty roasters in the past several months, both from within and outside of the U.S. Bean color, and or agtron numbers are meaningless, they can all be spot on, but the coffee tastes and measures underdeveloped.

Most roasters are unaware they can use the Coffee Refractometer and MoJo to test their coffees, to confirm whether the roast is fully developed. MoJo will not provide any indication of “degree of roast”, but it will certainly measure accurately a roast that fails to extract normally. The following is a simple process that works and one any roaster can use as part of their QC routine:

1) Brew, taste and then measure the espresso and chart the result. If the coffee tastes under-developed and measures under-extracted using normal adjustments (see example charts), then continue with the next two tests.

2) Brew, taste and measure the espresso brewed as drip coffee. Many espresso roast profiles are slightly darker than those for drip, as such, an espresso is usually very easy to brew as drip well w/in normal drip adjustment parameters. Frequently, the water temp can be lowered slightly and or the grind coarsened because the slightly darker roast profiles (as compared to drip) allow a faster extraction to normal levels. However, if the same coffee that under-extracted when brewed as espresso also under-extracts when brewed as drip, it is highly likely there’s a problem with under-development at roast, rather than a problem with brewing equipment, settings or technique.

3) Finally, use an experimental control as your final test. That is, use a coffee “standard” that extracts properly using your normal brewing protocols, whether they be espresso, drip or both. For this we use Illy ICN Medium Roast beans. They are 100% Arabica, always roasted consistently and fully developed, and always extract as expected w/in normal adjustment ranges in either espresso or drip modes. These are available in 8.8-oz tins. We use the 3kg tins, which ensures enough to make it through a long series of tests w/o changing batches (variables).  Illy has incredibly reliable production roast level controls in place, and every batch we’ve tried always behaves predictably. If the control coffee taste returns to normal, and MoJo measurements confirm typical Extraction Yield and TDS for your standard shot, then you have confirmed with a high degree of confidence you have a coffee that was underdeveloped at roast, and no matter of brewing as espresso nor coffee will provide an acceptable result.

Any remaining coffee from the batch in question should be saved, and the roaster notified, in case they request it be returned to be tested [and hopefully addressed one way or another]. Unless you provide this important feedback, the roaster will be unaware there might be a problem. Obviously, you must be careful during the process to confirm your protocols and measurement are consistent. That said, this quickly uses up a small 250-gram or 12-oz bag. Keep the feedback positive, and document your results.  This can only help future products are improved.

Same Espresso brewed as Drip Coffee. Note similar Extraction Yield

I regularly chart and save most of the espressos and coffees I brew using either ExtractMoJo or using MoJoToGo. ExtractMoJo allows multiple plots on a single chart, which is useful for direct comparisons. MoJoToGo allows the full set of measurements, and detailed notes which may be emailed to yourself or any other MoJo user, and automatically added to the database of measurements for future reference. You can also export all coffee and espresso measurements from MoJoToGo as an excel .CSV file for database use outside of the APP. I add roast dates and if available batch numbers to the Notes. I frequently find the same coffee from the same roaster and from the same crop is delivered with vastly different [effective] roast profiles (see chart). In the case of  underdeveloped roasts, my previous brews of the same coffee that extracted normally can serve as the experimental control coffee.

Comments:
It is understood that very light roasts often take longer to extract during brew (or require slightly finer grind and sometimes hotter brew temps) to normal levels than a comparatively darker roast. Making severe brewing adjustments in order to “coax” a normal extraction by using very high water temps and or extremely fine grinds can be done, but should raise flags if you find such severe changes in degree of adjustment is necessary. In my experience, this results in even more pronounced taste defects, but under no circumstances have I ever found it to result in an acceptable final quality. This, I think, is where most [perhaps less experienced] baristas fall prey to a roaster’s defective product, and what leads to the roaster never being taken to account for the lack of consistent roast quality in their product(s). The term “candied lemon” is, to me, too frequently an excuse to describe a failed roast. Candied implies a balancing level of sweetness with citrus, and can and does frequently accurately describe some  fully developed, light roasted coffees, but these underdeveloped coffees are extraordinarily sour, grassy, vegetal– “candied” is more often not even in the equation.

Upon discussion with various roasters about this problem, and having designed installed and used sophisticated roast profiling hardware and software systems for small batch roasters, a few common threads prevail. One refers to a previous [excellent] roast being from a different (i.e., normal) batch size versus the underdeveloped roast, done at something smaller than the “normal” size. Batch size, moisture content, water activity, starting green batch temperature must all be strictly monitored if a “standard roast profile” is expected to deliver a “normal” result. Changes in local weather conditions and barometric pressure can easily be enough to change convection performance of a small roaster, and drastically change final results, even if the profile is managed with great precision. The other common thread I heard was that “we were looking for a brighter taste profile”. There is a very big difference between a light roast and an underdeveloped one. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.

This is a problem all roasters struggle with. In all fairness to the roaster(s), an occasional problem is to be expected. For most small batch roasters, lack of adequate instrumentation and sophisticated profiling apparatus means roasting is not an exact science, so the problem of consistency is an extremely challenging one. However, since all coffees can be brewed, tasted and measured prior to shipment, end consumers have the right to expect reasonable consistency and quality. This may require a change to the way small batch specialty coffees are processed. In  order to QC a coffee, a roaster needs wait 18-24 hrs post roast, grind and allow the coffee to out gas for thirty to sixty minutes, then brew, taste and measure to see if it extracts normally. Pre-grinding and post roast time is necessary in order to allow CO2 to out gas prior to brew (as opposed to waiting 4-5 days post roast), especially in espresso. CO2 outgassing is very high immediately post roast. As much as 70-psi of CO2 can be contained within some of the densest [whole bean] coffees. Hot water [and pressure ] are catalysts that accelerate outgassing and can cause excessive foaming when brewed too early post roast. The ground coffee should be placed in a sealed bag with one-way valve so that it may out gas, but not absorb moisture from the air. Yes, this would delay fresh-roasted coffee deliveries by one day, perhaps that’s part of the problem – rushing the coffee to market before QC tests can be properly conducted.  Personally, I would much prefer a coffee one (1) day later, but properly developed than a 50/50 chance a day earlier.

Finally, another symptom I’ve noticed is that coffees underdeveloped at roast frequently fail to out gas in the sealed bag, even after 7-10 days. Most bags these days use a one-way valve. Assuming the coffee is bagged and sealed promptly post roast, i.e., w/in a few hours at most, the valve operates at a low pressure, but one that is higher than normal atmospheric (sea level) pressure. Without the valve, the seams of the bag can actually split.

As the coffee outgases, the bag should inflate noticeably before the valve operates. Some coffees are so dense, they can continue to out gas for 104 days in the whole bean state, but most of the outgasing occurs early. This CO2 helps to preserve the coffee, as it is partially inert, and displaces any oxygen in the air of bags not flushed with Nitrogen. Ground coffee will give up most of its CO2 in just 8-16 hours.

Coffee underdeveloped at roast fails to outgas at all; even after several days have passed, the bags are completely flat. Assuming the valve is working correctly, and the coffee was packed promptly after roast, and the sealing machine  is sound, there should be CO2 partially inflating the bag, until the valve operates.

More formal research needs to done to quantify these general observations. Note, this observation does NOT apply to coffees intentionally or otherwise allowed to out gas prior to packaging. What I’ve read to date about outgassing comes from the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany, and is extensive, relating outgassing, age and oxygen levels in sealed bags to freshness as conducted by a jury of cuppers.

I welcome your thoughts and comments.

We are happy to note the level of online discourse regarding all things Mojo related is gathering a head of steam. We’re getting a lot of really positive feedback from new MoJo adopters around the globe.

Following on from David Walsh, James Hoffmann and Andy Schecter’s early reports, MoJoToGo has made its debut appearances on Sprudge (here and here), has been further debated on Portafilter.net courtesy of Nick Cho, and Mike White has been charting his progress over on ShotZombies (here and here). [edit - also Glenn has been reporting his experiments on the 5M Coffee blog]

We love reading and hearing about these kind of reports, the findings and even the questions raised. If you have your own MoJo experience to share please comment below, or if we’ve missed any blogs let us know.

-Vince

ICED Coffee is a favorite summertime refresher. It’s easy to make Fresh-Brewed ICED coffee that accentuates the coffees’ natural sugars. Coffees you know and love hot are amazingly different cold, it’s a whole new experience I hope you’ll try. Once you taste fresh brewed ICED coffee that has been properly set up, you’ll never go back to your old method.

© Carl Tremblay Images

Cafes and Coffee Houses will see an increase in summer coffee sales if they serve properly brewed ICED Coffee. The process is simple, and takes no more time than brewing hot coffee.

Basics of Process
Modeled after an ICED Coffee technique originally from Japan, coffee is brewed as a concentrate (3.6-4.0%) directly over ICE.  ExtractMoJo computes the amount of brew water, ground coffee and ICE required such that the final dilution is at the targeted concentration (about 1.8-2.0%), while simultaneously at 4 Deg C (just above freezing) to that the concentrate may be served immediately. The process takes 5-6 minutes, the same as brewing a standard batch of hot coffee.

Coffee concentrate is brewed directly over the specified amount of ICE, in an open top lemonade pitcher. The pitcher is covered immediately after brewing and stored in the fridge.

Example
This example uses a FETCO CBS-2042e or CBS-2041e Brewer to make Fresh-Brewed ICED Coffee. The process is similar for other brewers.

Note the screen-shot, below. ExtractMoJo has been set up to brew a Half-Gallon (1.89 Liters, 64 oz weight), in the “Brew by Ground Coffee Amount” mode.  This is because we can set the MAX capacity of the brew basket, and MoJo computes everything else from there.  We happen to know that 9.4-oz is the MAX capacity of the FETCO 2040-series brew baskets.

Program and label a dedicated brew button on any FETCO 2040-Series brewer as follows:

Program
Step       VALUE    Description/Notes
1.1            0.5-G  or 1.89-Liters. Be certain to calibrate the brewer to dose 64-oz of water
1.2            3.30   Pulse-Brew Time (+/- 0.30) depending of coffee grind and degree of roast
1.3            0        No Bypass (the ICE is serving as the Bypass water)
1.4            15      Pre-Infusion, set to 15% due to the amount of coffee needed for concentrate
1.5            0.40   Up to 0.50 may be needed if extraction % is low
1.6            1.00   End Drip Delay

Weigh out 42-ounces of ICE and then MARK the fill level on the pitcher using a label maker or indelible ink marker (i.e., a Sharpie). Simply fill to this line in future batches, there is no need to weigh the amount of ICE each time.

Grind 9.4-oz of coffee and brew directly over the ICE.  At the end of the brewing cycle virtually all of the ICE will be melted.  Stir, cover and serve.

To serve, pour at a ratio of 1:1 over ICE.
Example, 8-oz of concentrate over 8-oz of ICE, or 10-oz concentrate over 10-oz of ICE, etc.

Coffees recommended for ICED include high elevation grown coffees (for their relatively higher sugar content), such as Colombian and Kenyan, as well as coffees with floral notes, such as those from Panama and Ethiopia.

NOTEs:
- Set Extraction Yield for 19% to emphasize the natural sugars, and avoid over-extraction.

- ExtractMoJo computes the total Yield, 89-oz, which will provide eleven 16-oz servings. Sold at $2.69ea, cafes can compute gross margin at approx 80% or better, depending on coffee cost per pound.

- For other batch sizes, simply enter the MAX ground coffee capacity of the brew basket, and ExtractMoJo computes the remaining values required.

ExtractMoJo users are welcome eMail me with any questions about this protocol:
support@mojotogo.us

Both ExtractMoJo and MoJoToGo allow the user to set the target extraction yield as a preference wherever you like, and also allows you to define your own ROI range limits.

I’ve tried to locate the original research from the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) who created the region of interest (ROI) adopted by the CBC in the 1960’s.  The CBC used it to replace the earlier ROI created by the National Coffee Association. The MRI ROI survives to this day as the SCAA “Region of Optimum Balance”, and was the starting basis for the SCAE and Norwegian Coffee Association’s ROIs, all pictured on the same chart, below (Fig 1). The archivist at MRI was unable to locate the original research criteria, and I have been unable to uncover it anywhere else, but fortunately, the SCAE has embarked on an effort to re-verify this ROI, and the SCAA and NCA have started an R&D effort to define an ROI for espresso.

Figure 1

The essence of the importance and usefulness of the brewing control chart is lost in many of the criticisms. I can’t tell you the number of specialty cafes in the U.S. and around the world where I have been served coffee that was undrinkable, not even on the page, literally off the chart, i.e., 0.90% @ 14% yield. I haven’t met anyone yet that thought this tasted acceptable. A simple exercise of measurement and plotting adjustments on the chart produces measurable improvements that patrons are thrilled about when they taste sweeter, richer coffee that blooms in the cup after an adjustment is made to move the extraction yield to somewhere near or w/in the region of interest. When you’re off the page, the coffee is usually unacceptable, when you’re in or near or in the region of interest, the coffee nearly always tastes better. Where it tastes best is entirely up to you. How you brew is up to you, but the basic science behind the chart is sound, measurable and repeatable, which is the fundamental point of the tool(s).

The chart assumes proper technique i.e., uniform extraction. Why would anyone encourage uneven extraction (i.e., over-extracting from the center, and leaving dry powder at the perimeter)? Doing so wastes large amounts of coffee (over time), and produces widely inconsistent results, cup-to-cup. There are a number of formulas out there that seem to indicate this is common practice, even encouraged by some, but it does not produce the best nor the most consistent results, IMO. Your opinion may be different, that’s fine. I also don’t share up-dosed brews to raise the concentration, which nearly always produces a stronger, but still under-developed finished result. This navigates up the brewing control chart, rather than up the brew formula line. If uneven extraction methods were used in cupping, professional cuppers would never be able to compare and evaluate results accurately. We can learn from this example. If you up-dose, and extract unevenly, you might get numbers off the chart that could taste okay, but it’s likely they won’t be consistent, and is generally an anomaly. Once you land on a preferred formula, the general idea is to repeat with precision in order to achieve similar results; that’s usually what we’re after.  One simply cannot do that if the ground coffee is unevenly extracted from batch to batch, regardless of the size or technique used to brew.

Even extraction and relatively uniform grind help maintain consistency. Accurate dose of water and coffee weight and technique (contact time, temp, turbulence, wetting) contribute consistency to the final result. Both the SCAA and SCAE offer Gold Cup programs to teach these methods, and they’re invaluable.

A serious problem in the past is that accurate measurements had not been easy to make, because the apparatus with the requisite accuracy and resolution is difficult and expensive to build. Experienced baristas and café owners cannot predict how a particular coffee will extract. The same coffee roasted slightly differently from week to week will extract differently. Green coffees change as they age, roast behavior fluctuates and extraction yields move around with these changes, and must be constantly monitored. Having a way to measure this to keep the targeted area in check is a great way to maintain coffee sweetness and brew quality. There is tremendous room for improvement in commercial and home brewing and grinder equipment. Brewers do not dose water with as much precision as we’d like (time-based rather than measurement bases), grinders are even worse (same reason).  Consider that a -5% error in the weight of coffee along with an error of +5% too much water produces a cumulative Brew Formula error of 10%.  That’s enough to take you from sweet @ 19% to bitter @ 22% Ext Yield.  Precision is important, even more so with smaller batches, especially so w/single-serve.

The brewing control charts used by specialty coffee organizations around the world are all based on the American standard developed in the 1950’s. One of the most important aspects of the charts are the taste defect notes in the regions outside of the ROI in question, i.e., to the left of 18% Extraction Yield and to the right of 22% Ext Yield (Fig 1).

Consider the brewing control chart as a map – for brewing coffee/espresso. When you go to a foreign city, how do you get around? Usually with a Map or perhaps a GPS.  What’s the first thing you do with either one? Determine where you are. Why? So that you can navigate to where you want to go. This is exactly what the brewing control chart is for, and how it can be used to improve the quality of your brewed coffee. If you’re not brewing to extract in a range at or near the so-called gold cup standard, like it or not, your coffee is probably not as good as it could be. This is really the key essence of the tool. Use it wisely, and you will improve and maintain higher quality coffee, whatever your purpose.

Note that each specialty coffee organization does not share the same range of concentration (i.e., strength a.k.a. % TDS).  What they all do share in common, on the other hand, is that coffee extracted to much less than 18% is considered [by most people] to be under-developed (a taste defect that tends to sour as concentrations are increased, as in espresso) and they also agree that coffee extracted to much greater than 22% is considered [by most people] to be over-extracted (a taste defect that tends to bitter as concentrations are increased).  Also note that one can have weaker or stronger concentrations of sour or bitter, these taste defects first identified in the 1950’s are still relevant today.

Strength, on the other hand is purely a personal preference.  Take a look at the brewing control charts with ROIs  the SCAA, SCAE, NCA (Fig 1):

                                                Min      Max     Min      Max

                                                Ext      Ext      TDS     TDS

Norwegian Coffee Association                    18        22        1.30     1.55

Specialty Coffee Association of Europe          18        22        1.20     1.45

Specialty Coffee Association of America         18        22        1.15     1.35

While each has a particular preference for the range of preferred strength, they all agree to a common range of extraction, not surprising since no one wants a sour or bitter cup of coffee, while most don’t mind slightly stronger or weaker strength–as long as it’s sweet.

Bitter (over-extracted) taste defects are the primary reasons people add sugar or milk/cream to their coffee beverages. Milk contains lactose, molecularly, similar to sucrose (both are C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁, with different solubility’s in water), IOW, milk is a sweetener. If we brewed our coffee to about 19% extraction yield, it would be naturally sweet (assuming ripe cherries ended up in the final green). Under-extraction does not fully develop the sugars and desirable soluble flavor components. Over-extraction [measurably] lowers the pH as more acidic and bitter components are over-extracted and overpower the natural sugars (sweetness).

Has this chart moved, no but the effective ROI has, but not due to a change in where most people perceive the sweet spot. Rather, it’s due to a small error introduced when commercial drip brewers began to dominate the brewing process. The original CBI/CBC brewing control charts never took into consideration the density of water as a function of temperature. When you build in this correction, the range shifts about a full percent to the LEFT.

When the brewing control chart was first created under the direction of Earnest Lockhart in the 50’s at the CBI/CBC, water amounts were measured in volume and calculations done at ambient temperature. Water measured in units of volume weighs more at ambient than when measured at brewing temps such as in today’s tank-style brewers, so in actuality, the sweet spot is really closer to 19%, and the left edge of the start of acceptability is closer to 17%.  So if corrected for this shift, the charts should really be showing the ROI (Region of Optimum Balance) in the range of 17-21, which many skilled cuppers I know have noted by taste, i.e., that they find 17% acceptable even though it’s outside the 18-22% range (because 17 is the “old” 18), and the most skilled cuppers I know all think 19% is the center of the sweet spot.  Further, 22% is slightly bitter to most people.  The ExtractMoJo and MoJoToO software takes into account the density of water as a function of temperature, and keeps the brew formula constant regardless of starting water temp, so, for example, if water is measure at ambient, you’ll note that there is about 4% more coffee required than if measured in volume at brewing temp. In effect, this means the actual ROI is really 17-21%.

Both ExtractMoJo and MoJoToGo allow the user to set the target extraction yield as a preference wherever you like, and both also allow you to define your own ROI range limits. MoJoToGo even alerts you if you fall below the min or above the max limit you’ve selected, whatever it is. So the software tools are there for you to do as you please, not, as implied in much of the criticism, forcing a fixed 18-22% ROI that dates to the 50’s on the printed version of the charts, although with the caveat stated above, I believe 17-21% (a.k.a. 18-22, circa 1952) is indeed the sweet spot for nearly all coffees, regardless of brewing method.

Brewing method has nothing to do with the chemistry, assuming the coffee was brewed uniformly, and with good practices. Different brewing methods do, however, impart different mouth feel, clarity/sediment, lipids and oils, but that’s not the point of this post. I think you’ll find that when accurately measured, very few people skilled in the art would find a 15% extraction yield nor a 23% one acceptable with any coffee nor method. On the other hand, nearly all would be happy with a good coffee served in the range of 17-21%, and I’d lay odds that they would find the sweetest spot at about 19% Ext Yield for most coffees, regardless of roast degree, region, terroir, etc….

I originally intended to sit on this until the SCAE completed their Region of Interest research (out of curiosity to see if they agreed in the end, w/o any bias), but since it keeps coming up, el gato está fuera de la bolsa. This is documented in several presentations I have given, most recently at the SCAA Symposium in Anaheim this past month. You’ll notice that when ExtractMoJo was first introduced, there was a region called GHCC.  George Howell, and his daughter Jennifer at Terroir, along with Ben Kaminsky at Ritual are three of the top cuppers in the world I have had the pleasure of working with. Jennifer placed a cliff-hanger 2^nd to Ben in this years U.S. Cup Tasting Championship in Anaheim, and Ben took 1st for a second year running. The competition couldn’t have been closer. Dave Walsh is also a skilled cupper, and winner of the Cup Tasting Championship in Ireland this year. While I am not even close to their skills as cuppers personally, over three years tasting and cupping hundreds of coffees with them, we all tend to agree that the sweetest coffee is almost always at 19% Ext Yield (at any strength). Interestingly, the cupping standard used today around the world (developed originally by George Howell), nine times out of ten measures between 19.0-19.7% Ext Yield and 1.25-1.30% TDS consistently over hundreds of measurements (Fig 2).

Figure 2

Hopefully this sheds some light on why that is, in other words, the work done in the 50’s is actually 17-21% when taking into account the density of water as a function of temp while keeping the brew formula constant and using modern brewers (Fig 3). Personally, after more than two full years and thousands of measurements at hundreds of cafes and coffee houses all over the world, as well as in the lab, my personal preference for maximum sweetness is also 19% so I use a target of 19 % with a range of  +/- 1%. I have found dozens of the world’s best cuppers, roasters, café operators and baristi nearly all agree on that number, which is further assurance that the gentlemen who conducted their science in the 50’s did their homework, and understood very well the chemistry of brewing coffee. They deserve a great deal of credit for providing a repeatable method of visually charting it.

Figure 3

I have had the pleasure of personally designing and setting up literally hundreds of cafes in an around Boston over the past three years, and can tell you that year one (prior to ExtractMoJo) was a extremely frustrating, whereas the past two years has offered a vast improvement to quality and repeatability, now that repeatable tools are available. Making coffee at home is relatively easier than running a café or coffee house. Consider a typical café serving just three coffees, each in four batch sizes (including ICED). That’s twelve (12) combinations that all need to be set up and calibrated so that the 2-Liter batch is extracted to the same TDS and Yield as the 4-L & 6-L batch, and the same as the single-serve pour-over. It’s a lot of work, and nearly impossible to manage correctly w/o the instrumentation and tools to help measure and set it up. Once set up, however, it’s far easier to maintain.

There were no regions of interest for espresso on the Universal Brewing Control Chart, until ExtractMoJo was released in April, 2009, but the same general range of 17-21% applies to espresso [IMO], again, with personal preferences for the concentration required for the particular drink being prepared.  A significant educational contribution I learned about espresso was that the taste defects developed in the ‘50’s are greatly amplified at the palate by the concentrations of  typical espresso, so under-developed becomes decidedly sour and over-extracted becomes very sharply bitter at these higher concentrations.

There is huge value in using the brewing control charts, and in educating the industry to the basic high school chemistry of brewing coffee. If you don’t believe in it, I suggest you actually try it in your daily work. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. The MoJoToGo software for the iPhone, iTouch and iPad is now only one-tenth the price it was just 60-days ago for the PC version, so it’s much more within reach for the rest of us. Yes, you still need a decent refractometer, but the software now includes a TDS calculator, so one (1) refractometer works for both Coffee and Espresso, yet a further reduction in cost.

Peace,

Vince F

GotMoJo?

VST received the Best New Product award at the SCAA Exposition in Anaheim for MoJoToGo™ in the Education and Training Category.  On display during the three day event, the largest of its kind in the U.S., both MoJoToGo™ and ExtractMoJo™ were being demonstrated by developer Vince Fedele at booth 2831.  Mr. Fedele also gave a technical presentation on New Approaches to Brew Analysis at the Executive Symposium during the exposition.

See the full list of SCAA Product Awards here.