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 Chris on
-
Construction could vary, but drink names should be the same I mean, a double espresso should be a double espresso, right? There are some places where the double shot is their standard pull (very few shops, in my experience, will pull a single) but if you ask for a double, they pull a second doppio.
So, here's y list:
Espresso : self explanatory
Macchiatto : The above with a dribble of microfoam, enough to leave a mark.
Cappuccino : Larger than six ounces is criminal. This includes the volume of milk after foaming.
Latte : Any drink larger than six ounces consisting of steamed milk and espresso, with the exception of;
Double Cappuccino: Same as two single cappuccini, but residing in the same cup.
Lexicon : Figure out what 'dry' and 'wet' mean. In some places asking for a dry cappuccino gets you stiff, meringue like foam, and wet gets you microfoam. In others asking for a dry cappuccino will get you one with less milk in it, while a wet one will get you a capp with more milk in it. I don't care which you mean, but post your shops lexicon in bright, big, bold letters near the menu so your customers know what the hell you mean. Or, we could standardize.... And what the hell is a 'double' in your shop? You'd be amazed at how many different answers there are to that simple question. A double shot cappuccino is the same as a single shot cappuccino, but with both shots in it. A double cappuccino is a cappuccino, and then another one.
Rant off...
-
Permalink Reply by Brady on
-
I do think that WBC standards merit consideration, as do the SCAA standards. Sensory descriptors here would add as well.
I'd also suggest that, for clarity's sake, metric to "English" units conversions should be done carefully and with minimal rounding. Google is a good resource for this, by the way...
I'll work up my list and post here... just wanted to throw those considerations out there first.
-
Permalink Reply by Jared Rutledge on
-
brady, the scaa didn't seem to have anything regarding espresso in its download section on the site. am i missing something? and the WBC is very close to what i wrote, with the only exception they allowing brewing at up to 96 C. other than that, the standards are the same.
and chris, espresso isn't self explanatory. this site wouldn't exist if it was.
-
-
I submit for consideration this excerpt from the 2010 USBC Rules. Not saying that this is the be-all-end-all, but its a start...
6.0 BEVERAGE DEFINITION
6.1.1 Espresso
A. An espresso is a one-ounce beverage (25 to 35ml including crema).
B. An espresso is prepared with various grams of coffee (depending on the coffee and the grind).
C. The espresso will be brewed at a temperature between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit, 90.5-96 degrees Celsius.
D. The espresso machine brewing pressure will be set between 8.5 to 9.5 atmospheres.
E. Extraction time is recommended to be between 20 to 30 seconds; however not mandatory.
F. Extraction times must be within a 3.0-second variance of each other within each category of drinks.
G. The espressos must be served in a two- to three-ounce (60 to 90ml) cup with a handle.
H. Espressos must be served to the judges with a spoon, napkin and water.
6.1.2 Cappuccino
A. A cappuccino is a coffee and milk beverage that should produce a harmonious balance of rich, sweet
milk and espresso.
B. The cappuccino is prepared with one (1) single shot of espresso, textured milk and approximately 1
centimeter of foam depth (assessed vertically).
C. A traditional cappuccino is a five- to six-ounce beverage (150 to 180ml).
D. The cappuccinos may be served with latte art or traditional style.
E. The cappuccinos must be served in a five- to six-ounce (150 to 180ml) cup with a handle.
F. Any additional toppings, sugar, spices or powdered flavorings are not allowed.
G. Cappuccinos must be served to the judges with a spoon, napkin and water.
and from the sensory judging sheet:
Taste Evaluation of Espresso
74.1.1 Color of crema
Judges will visually evaluate the appearance of the crema for correct colour and appearance. The colour of crema should be hazelnut, dark brown and/or have a reddish reflection. Crema that is pale or not present is unacceptable, and should result in zero (0) points.
74.1.2 Consist ency and persistence of crema
Crema must be present when espresso is served. The crema should be dense and smooth. Judges will gently stretch the crema by tilting the demitasse in one direction. This will help the judge determine the thickness of the crema, and whether it is persistent and long lasting, with no centre break-up.
74.1.3 Taste balance
Judges should listen to any explanation given by the competitor and look for taste that matches the competitor’s explanation. There should be a correlation between the coffee beans used in the espresso and its taste profile. An espresso will score high if it has a harmonious balance including sweetness, acidity and/or bitterness.
74.1.4 Tactile balance
The balance should be full bodied, round and smooth. Judges perception of viscosity will have an influence.
74.1.5 Correct espresso cups used
Espressos must be served in a two- to three-ounce (60 to 90 ml.) cup with a handle.
Cappuccino
75.1.1 Visually correct cappuccino
Judges will visually evaluate the cappuccino to determine the visual score. On the surface, the cappuccino should have a colour combination of milk and coffee, with a smooth and possibly glossy/glass like appearance.
This score is for visual evaluation (surface review) only. Look for symmetrical design, a contrast of colour with crema colour all the way around the rim of the cappuccino cup with a smooth, glossy, appealing appearance.
75.1.2 Consistency and persistence of foam
Using a spoon, the sensory judges will gently but quickly push back the foam to get a sense of the depth and texture of the foam. The foam should extend at least 1 cm into the cappuccino to achieve a score of very good
(4) or higher. The foam should be smooth, silky and consist of only micro-bubbles.
75.1.3 Taste Balance
The cappuccino is a hot beverage that should be served at a temperature that is immediately consumable. Sensory judges will choose a spot on the cup different from the area that was disturbed in the foam evaluation and will take a sip from the cappuccino. The texture of the foam, temperature of the beverage, and the taste of the coffee and milk will be included in the taste evaluation. After the initial tasting sip, the sensory judges will revisit the cappuccino for at least one additional sip. The taste balance should be a harmonious blend of the sweetness of the milk and an espresso base that works well with the milk
75.1.4 Correct cappuccino cups used
Cappuccinos must be served in a five- to six-ounce (150 to 180 mL) cup with a handle.
-
-
Jared Rutledge said:brady, the scaa didn't seem to have anything regarding espresso in its download section on the site. am i missing something? and the WBC is very close to what i wrote, with the only exception they allowing brewing at up to 96 C. other than that, the standards are the same.
and chris, espresso isn't self explanatory. this site wouldn't exist if it was.
The SCAA Definition of Espresso (from last year's version of Hands On Espresso)
"Espresso is a 25-35ml beverage prepared from 7-9 grams of coffee through which clean water of 195-205 deg-F (92-95C) has been forced at 9-10 atmospheres of pressure, where the grind of the coffee is such that the brewing "flow" time is approximately 20-30 seconds."
"While brewing, the flow of espresso will appear to have the viscosity of warm honey and the resulting beverage will exhibit a thick dark, golden crema. Espresso should be prepared specifically for, and immediately served to its intended consumer."
I believe this definition is being tweaked a bit at present...
For the record, 25-35mL of espresso = 0.8-1.2 fl-oz
-
-
I think that the USBC definition for espresso is a good one for use here in the US. Its a touch broader than the Italian definition, and captures some of the variation that you'd see in better cafes... yet lets the proof remain in the cup.
I do think it is useful to use this definition along with the ristretto and lungo variations, rather than to try to stretch the definition to include wider volume ranges.
-
-
Brady said:I think that the USBC definition for espresso is a good one for use here in the US. Its a touch broader than the Italian definition, and captures some of the variation that you'd see in better cafes... yet lets the proof remain in the cup.
One of the problems with broad definitions (and the WBC def got 'broadened' as a result of that vagary) is that it starts to lose meaning. Basically, the issue at hand is the discussion between customer and barista. If I say 'Cappuccino' and the barista says, 'cappuccino', the picture of what I want and the picture of what he's thinking of making should match pretty darned closely. If they don't, the customer walks away thinking, "This place sucks", and the barista is left there thinking, "That guy's and idiot".
Why? Because we started letting Starbucks define our lexicon, and changed our definitions to incorporate 'Buckspeak and their customer base into the Specialty Coffee driver's seat. Maybe not all the time, but I can see plenty of places where they get to choose where the industry goes...
-
-
Chris said:Brady said:I think that the USBC definition for espresso is a good one for use here in the US. Its a touch broader than the Italian definition, and captures some of the variation that you'd see in better cafes... yet lets the proof remain in the cup.
One of the problems with broad definitions (and the WBC def got 'broadened' as a result of that vagary) is that it starts to lose meaning. Basically, the issue at hand is the discussion between customer and barista. If I say 'Cappuccino' and the barista says, 'cappuccino', the picture of what I want and the picture of what he's thinking of making should match pretty darned closely. If they don't, the customer walks away thinking, "This place sucks", and the barista is left there thinking, "That guy's and idiot".
Why? Because we started letting Starbucks define our lexicon, and changed our definitions to incorporate 'Buckspeak and their customer base into the Specialty Coffee driver's seat. Maybe not all the time, but I can see plenty of places where they get to choose where the industry goes...
I don't really believe that we let them define our lexicon. They did what they wanted, now we're left to choose how to handle the situation.
Your point is well made about the cappuccino discrepancy... but I think this speaks more to the need to understand what the range of things a customer *may* intend is, in addition to what can more legitimately be considered the real deal. Perhaps that should be the approach we take here - to define what is central where we can, but also the range of things within a broader definition?
In the case of the cappuccino, how about this:
Classically, it is a single espresso in a 5.5oz cup topped with a mixture of milk foam, enough foam to create a reasonably thick layer on the top of the drink. This is the drink as defined by Italian, WBC, and USBC standards (among others).
Common variations include:
drinks of the same size, using milk textured the same way, but containing more espresso (a 6oz double cappuccino).
drinks of a larger size that are made with espresso and the same highly-foamed milk (Starbucks, etc)
drinks of various sizes that are made with only milk foam (a "dry" cappuccino).
This way, we might be able to capture the range of things that are commonly considered to be a certain drink, and help everyone understand what kind of variation, history, and other stuff is associated with each of these drinks.
Thoughts?
-
-
Brady said:this speaks more to the need to understand what the range of things a customer *may* intend is, in addition to what can more legitimately be considered the real deal. Perhaps that should be the approach we take here - to define what is central where we can, but also the range of things within a broader definition?
In the case of the cappuccino, how about this:
SNIP
This way, we might be able to capture the range of things that are commonly considered to be a certain drink, and help everyone understand what kind of variation, history, and other stuff is associated with each of these drinks.
I think that you're missing the point of having some standards. The whole idea behind having a standard lexicon is to make things mean things. If a word has five and six different definitions, it is a remarkably inefficient standardization.
I'm not sure, but I think that you may be missing the point of this thread, Brady.
Standardization, by definition, is a direction diametrically opposed to broader ranges and multiple and vastly different results from the same request.
Those wide ranging definitions that you're suggesting are the problem that is being addressed here.
And there was no need for those definitions before Starbucks introduced 'short', 'tall', 'venti', and 'grande'. They have set the lexicon, and their practices have changed the WBC's approach to drink definitions, as well as the shops here in Tucson, and some of the best shops in the country. If we're OK with that, then let's just admit that it's happening and move on. If we're not, well, then let's do something about it.
-
-
Chris said:Brady said:this speaks more to the need to understand what the range of things a customer *may* intend is, in addition to what can more legitimately be considered the real deal. Perhaps that should be the approach we take here - to define what is central where we can, but also the range of things within a broader definition?
In the case of the cappuccino, how about this: SNIP
This way, we might be able to capture the range of things that are commonly considered to be a certain drink, and help everyone understand what kind of variation, history, and other stuff is associated with each of these drinks.
I think that you're missing the point of having some standards. The whole idea behind having a standard lexicon is to make things mean things. If a word has five and six different definitions, it is a remarkably inefficient standardization.
I'm not sure, but I think that you may be missing the point of this thread, Brady.
Standardization, by definition, is a direction diametrically opposed to broader ranges and multiple and vastly different results from the same request.
Those wide ranging definitions that you're suggesting are the problem that is being addressed here.
And there was no need for those definitions before Starbucks introduced 'short', 'tall', 'venti', and 'grande'. They have set the lexicon, and their practices have changed the WBC's approach to drink definitions, as well as the shops here in Tucson, and some of the best shops in the country. If we're OK with that, then let's just admit that it's happening and move on. If we're not, well, then let's do something about it.
I understand what the intention is here - narrowly define drinks in an attempt to clarify things and reduce variation.
I also understand how so many previous attempts (here and elsewhere) to do this have turned out, and feel like perhaps we can learn a bit from them.
I agree that a really broad definition achieves nothing. However, I also feel that a super-narrow definition that only 30% of the community buys into achieves even less. This is why I'm suggesting that we should go for a narrow central definition that has roots in something concrete (WBC standards, Italian law, whatever) in combination with a set of common variations and some info on them. Like my cappuccino example. It achieves the same result, but adds more info and helps people understand how the version of a drink that they are more familiar with fits in to the spectrum.
Yes, this is a little different approach than Jared suggested. If you guys don't want to go this route, that's cool... I'm happy to help in any case. I'm just suggesting an approach that I think may be more useful.
Your double cappuccino is a great example. I doubt I'll be able to convince you that your definition is wrong, and you won't convince me that yours is right... so how do we agree on a standard definition?
Look, we're not going to change the world here. We're not going to change what Starbucks says, or what their customers will expect when they come into an independent. What we CAN do though is create a good reference for baristas to understand the spectrum of drinks as well as what the legit version is. Variation is reality... lets understand it so that we can at least know what we're dealing with.
Regarding your comment on the broadening of the WBC spec for espresso... I thought that this had been done to accommodate the updosing trend, with the understanding that the judges kinda know what an espresso is in the cup anyway. Sort of a "just make an espresso, we care less how you get there" approach. I'm not sure that what Starbucks thinks or says is even relevant to those guys. Perhaps I'm mistaken though.
-
-
Brady said:Your double cappuccino is a great example. I doubt I'll be able to convince you that your definition is wrong...
Relax all those doubts. You give me three or four syllables that I can walk into any third wave shop in the known world and order with and get a cappuccino with a double shot and four ounces (at the absolute outside, preferably three) of microfoamed milk, and I'll convert right danged now. My issue is that if I order off the menu, I'll get something other than what i really want. If I tell the barista what I want, they want to crowbar me into some variation of what's on the menu. If I tell them that I want a xBC competition cappuccino with a doubleshot in it instead of just a single, I usually get a Nipper.
Brady said:Regarding your comment on the broadening of the WBC spec for espresso... ...I'm not sure that what Starbucks thinks or says is even relevant to those guys. Perhaps I'm mistaken though.
It used to be a (if memory serves) tasse a caffe sized cup with thirds. It was changed after all the baristi were having issues with what they pour in their cafes and shops as opposed to what the comp standards were.
-
Permalink Reply by Jay Caragay on
-
As someone who's traveled around the world teaching coffee and espresso making "standards", I think you guys are wasting your efforts attempting to develop a "standard" for everyone to follow.
"Standards" such as the SCAA, WBC et al were developed for different criteria. The SCAA standard was designed to give a baseline standard to help cafes around the world develop some level of consistency. The WBC/USBC standards are strictly for competition and may or may not apply in the real world.
As many of you probably know, every coffee performs differently as espresso. As such, it becomes ridiculous to develop narrow standards for everyone to follow when everyone is using different coffee. Because of this, I think it's important to review the known "standards" then tailor and adapt them to meet the needs of your operations.
While my company standards share similar traits with those of the SCAA and WBC, they are not the same and they were forged over the years learning about coffee and other standards. I encourage you not to waste your time trying to develop standards for everyone to follow, but rather spend that time developing your own. A standard that will highlight your vision of coffee.
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
