bX recipe / technical standards collaboration
hey all, i thought it'd be nice to get some discussion going on drink standardization so we can perhaps get a .pdf written up and posted. hopefully good basic recipe standards will help limit the amount of "LOL CAPUCHINO" threads here on barista exchange, as well as providing a platform to eventually implement standards on a larger level than just barista competition.
i suppose we should start with espresso, then, right? thanks chris for posting the espresso italiano standards, which i suppose is a good definition with which to begin. here's what they say:
Necessary portion of ground coffee 7 g ± 0,5
• Exit temperature of water from the unit 88°C ± 2°C
• Temperature of the drink in the cup 67°C ± 3°C
• Entry water pressure 9 bar ± 1
• Percolation time 25 seconds ± 2,5 seconds
• Viscosity at 45°C > 1,5 mPa s
• Total fat > 2 mg/ml
• Caffeine < 100 mg/cup
• Millilitres in the cup (including foam) 25 ml ± 2,5
i would propose a couple modifications to this standard. first, dosage for single should be a range of 7g-11g (so 14-22g for a double, depending on the bean). second, exit temperature of water from the group head should be 88°C-94°C. third, i propose a percolation time range of 20-30 seconds, and fourth, a final volume of 25-35ml including crema. it seems like the italians aren't allowing enough variation in variables for different coffees. perhaps that's because of the way a traditional italian espresso might be blended, i'm not sure. variables like viscosity or fat i don't know much about, so anyone with expertise in that area, speak up.
anyways, let's hammer out the espresso and get some generally agreed upon guidelines before we turn to anything more complicated. cool?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jared Rutledge on
-
well it wasn't my intention to develop a global standard, more something that allows people who are new to bX to read in 5 minutes and glean the wisdom of the countless threads we've had on this subject. if that makes sense.
and while we certainly do need to be very concerned with what serves each coffee best, i think there are reasonably firm borders we can stay within. you wouldn't brew an entire double shot at line pressure, probably. or if you did, you'd be very aware of the 9 bar standard and you'd be consciously breaking it for a good reason. you also would have tried that coffee at 9 bar BEFORE you dropped everything to line pressure, and you would know it was bad at 9 bar.. you gotta know the rules to break them.
i remember in college a professor talking about martha nussbaum's theory that moral law should be firm enough to be consistent, but flexible enough to adapt to the different situations forced upon it. she believed it was possible with ethics, i believe it is possible with coffee. everyone in this thread so far understands that different coffees need different variables but what is the range within which 95% of coffees would do well? that's my question.
and please, let's just find a reasonable set of variables for espresso now, we can worry about capps and stuff later. basics first.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris on
-
Jay Caragay said:. The WBC/USBC standards are strictly for competition and may or may not apply in the real world.
I encourage you not to waste your time trying to develop standards for everyone to follow, but rather spend that time developing your own.
*sigh* Everyone developing their own standard is antithetical to 'standard'.
While your idealistic lofty goals are admirable, Jay, the resulting confusion in your customer far more than outweighs it.
Yeah, your product is great, and they tolerate wading through new nomenclature for the same old thing, or getting something completely different than what they ordered (at least in their mind), because it ends up being worth it. Some will even go as far as to change their order to what it is they want rather than what you have on the menu, but rest assured, they're annoyed about it.
They'll *not* see it as innovation and your own personal style and flair. They'll see it as pretension at best, and ignorance at worst. You can kid yourself all you want, but as a coffee customer that talks to a lot of coffee customers, the SCAA, the BGA, and quite a few of the top baristi and innovators around the country haven't really a clue as to what the serious coffee consumer is feeling as he orders....
Standards are a good thing. They allow folk to communicate better, converse easier, and transact more happily. If you're against that, fine, carry on.
If you want to create something that isn't standard, you can now more easily describe how it varies from the standard, AND EVERYONE WILL UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY WHAT IT IS! Imagine that. clear, concise communication between purveyor of fine coffee products and specialty coffee consumer.
Or smoke and mirrors and the secrets of the high priests. Whichever you like.
-
-
well it seems this thread was a wasted effort. enjoy your flood of "what syrups are good in lates," "coffee fermentation super spam," and "which expresso machine is best" threads instead
-
Permalink Reply by Kathy Fadorsen on
-
I just served a customer a carmel macchaito and he said and I quote I was surprized when I realized a cappucino was not the gas station verision but something much better. Sell quality and they will come.
Jared Rutledge said:well it seems this thread was a wasted effort. enjoy your flood of "what syrups are good in lates," "coffee fermentation super spam," and "which expresso machine is best" threads instead
-
Permalink Reply by Jay Caragay on
-
Chris-
You write a lot of verbiage but practically nothing.
The only thought I can offer you is that I'm willing to risk investment and a company on what you label as "pretense."
Standards are the hallmark of what we do as professionals. Perhaps you are unable to understand this. I contrast what we do as a niche to those in the culinary world - Keller, Ripert, Bras, Blumenthal, Ramsay, Passard and others offer very different and contrasting experiences for their customers (experiences that people such as yourself would probably label as "pretentious"), and while their standards are different, they share commonalities.
Visiting my establishment or that of baristas whose work I tremendously respect, like Piquet, Ultimo, Rue and Defurious should result in differing experiences with a common quality standard. I prefer and choose to champion this level of coffee. However, if you're interested in the Starbucks/Applebee's level of coffee, that's okay too.
-
Permalink Reply by Phil Proteau on
-
I am reminded of a recent experience with differing "shop standards" (as opposed to the type of standards being discussed here). In the morning I visited Ultimo Coffee in South Philly and had his preparation of our (Counter Culture Coffee's) Espresso Aficionado. He (Aaron Ultimo) said that on that particular day, as usual, he had his machine adjusted to a temperature around 192F at the group. He pulled a pretty slow shot (28-30 seconds), and I believe his dose was around 21 grams. The result was a short (1oz-1.25), viscous, molasses sweet, hint of pomegranate acidity. It was dark, round, and smooth.
Later that same day, I visited Perk on Main in Emmaus, PA. The owner, Jill Killo, made me a shot of the same espresso blend, virtually the same roast date, on an identical espresso machine set to 199F at the group. The resulting shot was a 19 gram dose, at 25-27ish seconds, and with about 1.4-1.6 oz in the cup. This shot was maple sweet, with a zing and pop of tropical fruitiness. It was clean, silken, and bright.
Both shots were each in their own right a great culinary experience. One matched pretty close to the WBC standards, and the other would have been disqualified as not being espresso (in a competition setting).
I should hope that I am never able to use 3 syllables to order a nearly identical beverage in size, ingredients, and proportion in all quality oriented coffee shops across the Western hemisphere, let alone the whole world. I get enough of that kind of homogenization at the corporate eateries and beverage franchises.
From what I have observed over the years, it is inexperience with quality customer service techniques that lead to disagreements at the bar between customers and Baristas over what a particular drink is or isn't.
-
Permalink Reply by Brady on
-
Jared Rutledge said:well it wasn't my intention to develop a global standard, more something that allows people who are new to bX to read in 5 minutes and glean the wisdom of the countless threads we've had on this subject. if that makes sense.
and while we certainly do need to be very concerned with what serves each coffee best, i think there are reasonably firm borders we can stay within. you wouldn't brew an entire double shot at line pressure, probably. or if you did, you'd be very aware of the 9 bar standard and you'd be consciously breaking it for a good reason. you also would have tried that coffee at 9 bar BEFORE you dropped everything to line pressure, and you would know it was bad at 9 bar.. you gotta know the rules to break them.
i remember in college a professor talking about martha nussbaum's theory that moral law should be firm enough to be consistent, but flexible enough to adapt to the different situations forced upon it. she believed it was possible with ethics, i believe it is possible with coffee. everyone in this thread so far understands that different coffees need different variables but what is the range within which 95% of coffees would do well? that's my question.
and please, let's just find a reasonable set of variables for espresso now, we can worry about capps and stuff later. basics first.
Jared, I think there is alot of confusion around what your intention was. You've cleared it up quite a bit for me with this post.
Let's please leave the debate for what experienced baristas SHOULD be doing for another thread, and set out to just make some good baseline definitions. Something that you'd teach a newer barista.
If we approach it from a "know the rules before you break them" perspective, can we all agree on some good baseline definitions?
For espresso, I think that what Jared proposed is a pretty good start.
Thoughts?
-
-
but see, what phil said DID fall within the definition i proposed. both of them. it was within 88-95 C, within 20-30 sec shot time, and the volume we'd consider a double espresso or ristretto (i think most people would call a 1 oz. double a ristretto without any problems). all i'm trying to do is weed out the factors we'd never use in 95% of situations to pull something that tastes good.
i'm trying to create a standard bX definition that eliminates "here's a 9g double in a 21g synesso basket ground like a french press, 3 bars of pressure, 211 degree F water, 5 second pull." you wouldn't do that unless you had a REALLY good reason to, and knew exactly what you were doing. if we can create a standard set of concise guidelines, based on the RANGE we ourselves use 95% of the time for drinks, we can then have something to refer newbies to in order to start them off right.
i wanted to get some discussion going about the parameters we use to pull espresso. i didn't want this to turn into a discussion about the usefulness of standards.
-
Permalink Reply by Lorenzo Perkins on
-
Phil Proteau said:From what I have observed over the years, it is inexperience with quality customer service techniques that lead to disagreements at the bar between customers and Baristas over what a particular drink is or isn't.
Hit the damn nail on the head. Instead of drink standards, we should all be discussing service standards.
-
-
Brady said:
Jared, I think there is alot of confusion around what your intention was. You've cleared it up quite a bit for me with this post.
Let's please leave the debate for what experienced baristas SHOULD be doing for another thread, and set out to just make some good baseline definitions. Something that you'd teach a newer barista.
If we approach it from a "know the rules before you break them" perspective, can we all agree on some good baseline definitions?
For espresso, I think that what Jared proposed is a pretty good start.
Thoughts?
Oops... Sorry, Jared, I was unclear with that post. Only the first paragraph was directed at you. I think what you've proposed is a good idea.
-
-
i thought it was a good idea too but it looks like i overestimated the ability of people on this message board to focus and thoughtfully discuss anything.
-
-
Jared Rutledge said:i thought it was a good idea too but it looks like i overestimated the ability of people on this message board to focus and thoughtfully discuss anything.
I think the reason why there aren't many relevant posts on this particular discussion is that "standards" already exist. From the SCAA, the WBC, Illy's "Science of Quality", et. al. What's wrong with trying to champion the ones already in place? Instead of reinventing the wheel, shouldn't we just utilize the resources available? If you want a .pdf file for bX'ers to read and understand what the brewing standards are for espressos, caps, etc., put together a list of what is already available in an easy to read and digest format. Then talk to Matt about creating a page or link to access the information. I guarantee that will be more productive than bashing the baristas who frequent this site.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Barista Exchange Partners
Barista Exchange Friends
Keep Barista Exchange Free
Are you enjoying Barista Exchange? Is it helping you promote your business and helping you network in this great industry? Donate today to keep it free to all members. Supporters can join the "Supporters Group" with a donation. Thanks!
© 2024 Created by Matt Milletto.
Powered by
