| |
Main
Date: 05 Jun 2006 12:54:40
From: Jefe
Subject: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
I can easily hear each crack on my SC/TO, so why do I need a temp
probe? Which is more reliable, 30 seconds into second crack, or 465
degrees? Are the two directly related? Does second crack occur at a
specific temperature? BTW, I'm getting FC at 8 minutes and SC at 14
minutes and stopping at 15 minutes with a Vienna roast and its pretty
bland stuff.
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 14:18:25
From: Heat + Beans
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
An interesting excercise to inform this subject (but not answer the
question) is to estimate the number of data points that are a)
important; b) you can actually keep track of; and c) you can retrieve
in a way that is efficient enough to be useful for analysis. As Jim
notes, a major advantage of temp tracking is replicability.
"for repeating a successful roast in subsequent lots, a temp probe
is
> better than cracks, since it's easier to read a digital "443F" than
> hear the "fifth pop of the second crack;"
But if you are a "typical" homeroaster, you probably are not doing too
many "subsequent lots." You change batch size. You have a stash with
many varieties. Even when you reorder a variety, you may be getting a
different crop. You often blend and tweak your blends. Your cupping
skills are rudimentary. Your obsessive data recording has lapses.
Your memory fails.
Even with my HG/DB roasting, I like to have external data to inform my
senses. I never roast without a timer, and for several months I kept
(and learned from) a real-time temp readout on my roasts that was, at
least, internally consistent. Crack, color, temp, smell, time, cupping
sensibilities, and experience are all necessary but not sufficient.
Martin
jim schulman wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2006 12:54:40 -0700, "Jefe" <jefralston@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I can easily hear each crack on my SC/TO, so why do I need a temp
> >probe? Which is more reliable, 30 seconds into second crack, or 465
> >degrees? Are the two directly related? Does second crack occur at a
> >specific temperature? BTW, I'm getting FC at 8 minutes and SC at 14
> >minutes and stopping at 15 minutes with a Vienna roast and its pretty
> >bland stuff.
>
> Your roasts sound like they are on the slow side; and the blandness
> may be from baking. You should try reduced loads.
>
> As to measuring how done the beans are; this is a tough question.
>
> A temp probe in the bean mass will respond to boith the bean
> temnperature and the inflowing hot air temperature. If you keep the
> load and profile the same, the temp reading will be consistent from
> roast to roast; if you don't, it will not.
>
> The second crack can start at any true bean temp of 420F to 455F;
> since it has to do with the breakdown of cellulose, not the bean temp
> itself. In a slow roast, the 2nd crack starts with a cooler bean, in a
> fast roast, the bean has to be hotter. Since the environmental
> temperature in a fast roast is usually higher, the bean temp probe
> will exagerate these differences.
>
> So, transferring precise profiling advice from one roaster to another,
> batch size to another, or bean to another, is very difficult. BUT ...
> for repeating a successful roast in subsequent lots, a temp probe is
> better than cracks, since it's easier to read a digital "443F" than
> hear the "fifth pop of the second crack;" moreover, if you ever do a
> roast that doesn't get into the second crack (gasp!), bean temp is a
> lot easier. However, for giving someone else roasting tips, cracks and
> roast time are usually better than temperatures, since these tend to
> be more variable from roaster to another.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 16:40:23
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On 5 Jun 2006 14:18:25 -0700, "Heat + Beans" <heatgunroast@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Even with my HG/DB roasting, I like to have external data to inform my
>senses. I never roast without a timer, and for several months I kept
>(and learned from) a real-time temp readout on my roasts that was, at
>least, internally consistent. Crack, color, temp, smell, time, cupping
>sensibilities, and experience are all necessary but not sufficient.
I admire your committment to doing it right **every time**. I mostly
do the stopwatch, read out and sniff routine; but often I'm distracted
and in a hurry, and appreciate having a roaster I can run "ful-auto."
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 23:59:16
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:40:23 -0500, jim schulman
<jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:
>I admire your committment to doing it right **every time**. I mostly
>do the stopwatch, read out and sniff routine; but often I'm distracted
>and in a hurry, and appreciate having a roaster I can run "ful-auto."
Jim,
Would you, or anyone interested in sharing, please elaborate on "the
smell" attribute that you, Barry, and a few others have mentioned?
What would I be trying to discern or detect from the smell?
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 19:23:07
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:59:16 GMT, Steve <not@use.net > wrote:
>Would you, or anyone interested in sharing, please elaborate on "the
>smell" attribute that you, Barry, and a few others have mentioned?
>What would I be trying to discern or detect from the smell?
Good question. I don't think this is an area where there's a lot of
concensus; but this is what I find happens.
1. As the first crack tails off, the grassy and bready smells
disappear, and one gets a whiff that's quite close to the aroma of the
brewed coffee. For my cupping gigs, this is the first spot I actually
start judging the coffee, since I nice smell here usually means a nice
cup. Stopping here gets a good cinnamon or beduin roast, tea-like,
light bodied, very sweet, no roast taste whatsoever. Unless the roast
was slow and drum like, the beans won't do this. This happens around
405 to 415 as I measure bean temp.
2. Caramelization odors start at 420, and stay light, toasty, and
plaeasant till around 430; this is roughly a light City roast
3. From 430 to 440 one gets more acrid odors, "nutty or "woody" would
be a charitable description. I rarely stop roasts here, since the
beans smell so unappetizing.
4. At close to 440, one gets distillate odors, and the first pops of
the secoind start shortly thereafter. I like to stop espresso roasts
when these distillates get "heady," tough to describe, but a bit like
smelling good liquor.
5. Smoke and burning oil starts around the time the 2nd rolls. If I
get that, I know I've gone too far (at least for my taste), so I stop
immediately.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 00:42:13
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:23:07 -0500, jim schulman
<jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:59:16 GMT, Steve <not@use.net> wrote:
>
>>Would you, or anyone interested in sharing, please elaborate on "the
>>smell" attribute that you, Barry, and a few others have mentioned?
>>What would I be trying to discern or detect from the smell?
>
>Good question. I don't think this is an area where there's a lot of
>concensus; but this is what I find happens.
Wow. Thanks. This gives me something to experiment with, and your time
on this is truly appreciated.
I'm guessing you appreciate the break from your dissertation, somehow.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 09:46:05
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
jim schulman <jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:59:16 GMT, Steve <not@use.net> wrote:
>
>>Would you, or anyone interested in sharing, please elaborate on "the
>>smell" attribute that you, Barry, and a few others have mentioned?
>>What would I be trying to discern or detect from the smell?
>
>Good question. I don't think this is an area where there's a lot of
>concensus; but this is what I find happens.
>
>1. As the first crack tails off, the grassy and bready smells
>disappear, and one gets a whiff that's quite close to the aroma of the
>brewed coffee. For my cupping gigs, this is the first spot I actually
>start judging the coffee, since I nice smell here usually means a nice
>cup. Stopping here gets a good cinnamon or beduin roast, tea-like,
>light bodied, very sweet, no roast taste whatsoever. Unless the roast
>was slow and drum like, the beans won't do this. This happens around
>405 to 415 as I measure bean temp.
>
>2. Caramelization odors start at 420, and stay light, toasty, and
>plaeasant till around 430; this is roughly a light City roast
>
>3. From 430 to 440 one gets more acrid odors, "nutty or "woody" would
>be a charitable description. I rarely stop roasts here, since the
>beans smell so unappetizing.
>
>4. At close to 440, one gets distillate odors, and the first pops of
>the secoind start shortly thereafter. I like to stop espresso roasts
>when these distillates get "heady," tough to describe, but a bit like
>smelling good liquor.
>
>5. Smoke and burning oil starts around the time the 2nd rolls. If I
>get that, I know I've gone too far (at least for my taste), so I stop
>immediately.
Great stuff there, Jim.
I might add, that for folks who don't have the best sense of smell and
are trying to exprience these aromas, try standing "downwind" of the
roaster ten feet or so (more for larger capacities) and then slowly
moving towards the roaster. Trying to differentiate the aroma in close
to the roaster can be difficult because of the concentrations of the
smoke and the heat.
Randy "Oooooo, ooo that smell" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 12:31:05
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:46:05 -0700, Randy G. <frcn@DESPAMMOcncnet.com >
wrote:
> try standing "downwind" of the
>roaster ten feet or so (more for larger capacities) and then slowly
>moving towards the roaster.
Good point: get the aroma withoput the smoke.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 14:01:59
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:59:16 GMT, Steve <not@use.net > wrote:
>Would you, or anyone interested in sharing, please elaborate on "the
>smell" attribute that you, Barry, and a few others have mentioned?
>What would I be trying to discern or detect from the smell?
it's really hard to relate the target aroma without having a roaster
at hand. consider, too, that jim and i are smelling different things,
as he is smelling the exhaust and i'm smelling the beans. i get *no*
"coffee" aroma during a roast... at least not what others would
usually correlate with coffee. the aroma progression in the beans is:
wet wheat
baking bread
toast
burnt toast
popcorn
burnt popcorn
roasting coffee -- sharp (i don't know how else to describe this; it's
just prior to 2nd crack)
roasting coffee -- smooth (typically just at 2nd crack)
roasting coffee -- full (during 2nd crack, but before oil)
from then on, i go by oil stages, if i'm roasting that dark.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 20:26:34
From:
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
In alt.coffee, Jefe <jefralston@gmail.com > wrote:
> I can easily hear each crack on my SC/TO, so why do I need a temp
> probe? Which is more reliable, 30 seconds into second crack, or 465
> degrees? Are the two directly related? Does second crack occur at a
> specific temperature? BTW, I'm getting FC at 8 minutes and SC at 14
> minutes and stopping at 15 minutes with a Vienna roast and its pretty
> bland stuff.
Throw away your stopwatch and your thermometer. Us your ears and your
nose.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 20:47:14
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> Throw away your stopwatch and your thermometer. Us your ears and your
> nose.
Rather than throwing them away, perhaps sell the items on eBay and
donate the proceeds to charity? :-P
-Andy S
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 19:28:04
From:
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
In alt.coffee, Andy Schecter <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:
> EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> > Throw away your stopwatch and your thermometer. Us your ears and your
> > nose.
> Rather than throwing them away, perhaps sell the items on eBay and
> donate the proceeds to charity? :-P
You rightly called me on my hyperbolic excess :)
The most interesting thing to do would be to use them all together, in an
attempt to train your senses, and once that is accomplished, to
recalibrate your senses as needed.
I'll admit that when I cook big hunks of meat, I use a thermometer. But
if the reading doesn't jibe with what my senses are telling me, I ignore
the thermometer.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 22:13:28
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com > wrote in message
news:e64l04$ru6$1@reader2.panix.com...
> >
> I'll admit that when I cook big hunks of meat, I use a thermometer. But
> if the reading doesn't jibe with what my senses are telling me, I ignore
> the thermometer.
>
those big hunks of meat, when alive and attached to hooves, emit great gobs
of greenhouse gases via either cow farts or cow belching (I'm not sure I
could tell the difference not having been around a cow at the "magic
moment.")
Have you considered becoming a vegetarian?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 23:00:15
From: Rob van Loenhout
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
"Ken Fox" <morceaudemerde@snipThisPleaseHotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4en239F1fo243U1@individual.net...
> <EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> news:e64l04$ru6$1@reader2.panix.com...
> > >
> > I'll admit that when I cook big hunks of meat, I use a thermometer. But
> > if the reading doesn't jibe with what my senses are telling me, I ignore
> > the thermometer.
> >
>
> those big hunks of meat, when alive and attached to hooves, emit great
gobs
> of greenhouse gases via either cow farts or cow belching (I'm not sure I
> could tell the difference not having been around a cow at the "magic
> moment.")
>
> Have you considered becoming a vegetarian?
I thought Andy was the Vegetarian around here?
Rob vL
NZ
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 11:12:55
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
Rob van Loenhout wrote:
> I thought Andy was the Vegetarian around here?
Yup, me, Randy, and Jeffrey P are a few of the folks who prefer not to consume
cruelly murdered, rotting animal corpses laced with fecal matter, antibiotics
and synthetic growth hormones.
Now that I've given Ken an easy segue into a devastating critique of my eating
habits, you all have a nice day! :-)
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 09:12:52
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:Xwyhg.10185$3B.857@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>
> Yup, me, Randy, and Jeffrey P are a few of the folks who prefer not to
> consume cruelly murdered, rotting animal corpses laced with fecal matter,
> antibiotics and synthetic growth hormones.
>
> Now that I've given Ken an easy segue into a devastating critique of my
> eating habits, you all have a nice day! :-)
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
those delicious mouthwatering creatures regularly deficate and pee on your
beloved vegetable matter; do you autoclave them first before making a
composed sprout salad or tofurkey burger?
ken
;-)
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jun 2006 01:28:25
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
Ken Fox wrote:
> those delicious mouthwatering creatures regularly defecate and pee on your
> beloved vegetable matter
Hmmm...I didn't know that; I must be used to the flavor. Anything to enliven
those bland veggies. :-)
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 14:01:59
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:28:04 +0000 (UTC), EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com
wrote:
>I'll admit that when I cook big hunks of meat, I use a thermometer. But
>if the reading doesn't jibe with what my senses are telling me, I ignore
>the thermometer.
gosh, i hope you never have to fly IFR.
--barry "i'll take another flight, thank you."
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 20:28:31
From:
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
In alt.coffee, Barry Jarrett <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:28:04 +0000 (UTC), EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com
> wrote:
> >I'll admit that when I cook big hunks of meat, I use a thermometer. But
> >if the reading doesn't jibe with what my senses are telling me, I ignore
> >the thermometer.
> gosh, i hope you never have to fly IFR.
> --barry "i'll take another flight, thank you."
BBQ ain't life and death. Not only that, every hunk of meat is different
from every other one, while the plane is (or should be) the same every
time. Not only that, the environmental conditions of cooking vary as well
- it depends on how hot the fire is and where the RH is at.
Temperature at one point in a roast is only one data point. There are many
other factors which come into play, and I try to be conscious of as many
as I can.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 15:22:56
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On 5 Jun 2006 12:54:40 -0700, "Jefe" <jefralston@gmail.com > wrote:
>I can easily hear each crack on my SC/TO, so why do I need a temp
>probe? Which is more reliable, 30 seconds into second crack, or 465
>degrees? Are the two directly related? Does second crack occur at a
>specific temperature? BTW, I'm getting FC at 8 minutes and SC at 14
>minutes and stopping at 15 minutes with a Vienna roast and its pretty
>bland stuff.
Your roasts sound like they are on the slow side; and the blandness
may be from baking. You should try reduced loads.
As to measuring how done the beans are; this is a tough question.
A temp probe in the bean mass will respond to boith the bean
temnperature and the inflowing hot air temperature. If you keep the
load and profile the same, the temp reading will be consistent from
roast to roast; if you don't, it will not.
The second crack can start at any true bean temp of 420F to 455F;
since it has to do with the breakdown of cellulose, not the bean temp
itself. In a slow roast, the 2nd crack starts with a cooler bean, in a
fast roast, the bean has to be hotter. Since the environmental
temperature in a fast roast is usually higher, the bean temp probe
will exagerate these differences.
So, transferring precise profiling advice from one roaster to another,
batch size to another, or bean to another, is very difficult. BUT ...
for repeating a successful roast in subsequent lots, a temp probe is
better than cracks, since it's easier to read a digital "443F" than
hear the "fifth pop of the second crack;" moreover, if you ever do a
roast that doesn't get into the second crack (gasp!), bean temp is a
lot easier. However, for giving someone else roasting tips, cracks and
roast time are usually better than temperatures, since these tend to
be more variable from roaster to another.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 15:35:42
From: bernie
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
jim schulman wrote:
>
> So, transferring precise profiling advice from one roaster to another,
> batch size to another, or bean to another, is very difficult.
and the batch has to want to be roasted...Sorry, Jim. It's just that I was reading profiles
somewhere the past few days and wondering how your work/education/degree stuff was coming along.
Bernie
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 16:46:33
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:35:42 -0600, bernie <bdigman@zianet.com > wrote:
>wondering how your work/education/degree stuff was coming along
Unfortunately, it's progressing at an alarming (for me) pace. Soon I
won't be able to use "writing a dissertation" as an excuse for endless
loafing.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 02:08:59
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:46:33 -0500, jim schulman
<jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:35:42 -0600, bernie <bdigman@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>wondering how your work/education/degree stuff was coming along
>
>Unfortunately, it's progressing at an alarming (for me) pace. Soon I
>won't be able to use "writing a dissertation" as an excuse for endless
>loafing.
I've been thinking we should be able to find you lucrative employment
in the guerilla marketing division of one of the big roasting houses.
Marketing through social networks is all the rage now. You would tell
them which trendy bars they need to visit to give away sample bags of
coffee, so that they reach their target demographic in the minimum
amount of time and at the least cost.
Marshall "almost not kidding"
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 21:17:36
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:08:59 GMT, Marshall
<mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
>
>I've been thinking we should be able to find you lucrative employment
>in the guerilla marketing division of one of the big roasting houses.
>Marketing through social networks is all the rage now.
I can think of about 20 people better qualified than I this wonderful
job, fortunately.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 18:03:39
From: Heat + Beans
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
OK, suppose I could pick up this gear on Ebay for $11.95 including
shipping. To make use of the data derived would I
a) have to establish my own baselines? That is, for each bean/crop, I
cup in order to establish a particular weigh/loss--moisture content
ratio for my target degree of roast?
b) would I continue to use the "usual" parameters to establish my roast
profile, and would that require an in-roast monitoring of moisture
and/or weight? (can't be)
b) look to an industry table that gave me a degree of roast/dry
weight quotient?
Or is the matter way simpler and/or mind-boggling than that
Martin (willing to accept, at this point, even a bad reason)
jim schulman wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2006 15:02:47 -0700, "Heat + Beans" <heatgunroast@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >ve also weighed for post-roast loss and recorded these--until I
> >realized that I didn't have a good reason
>
> The best indicator of degree of roast, acording to the coffee science
> texts, is "dry weight loss." In order to get at this one must measure
> the moisture content of the green and roasted beans as well as the
> weight; unfortunately, the gear that measures moisture is expensive.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 21:01:26
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On 6 Jun 2006 18:03:39 -0700, "Heat + Beans" <heatgunroast@gmail.com >
wrote:
>OK, suppose I could pick up this gear on Ebay for $11.95 including
>shipping.
That cheap? I'll have to get some.
>To make use of the data derived would I
>a) have to establish my own baselines? That is, for each bean/crop, I
>cup in order to establish a particular weigh/loss--moisture content
>ratio for my target degree of roast?
>b) would I continue to use the "usual" parameters to establish my roast
>profile, and would that require an in-roast monitoring of moisture
>and/or weight? (can't be)
>b) look to an industry table that gave me a degree of roast/dry
>weight quotient?
First off, the bad news: obviously, this information is useless for
stopping a roast at the right time. The industrial roaster builders
(Probat, Neuhaus-Neotec, etc) are busy trying to come up with a real
time measure that correlates to dry weight loss. Thet seem to focusing
on using on-line mass spectrometers analyzing the exhaust gasses.
Now the good news. It's very difficult to assess degree of roast
versus length of roast. A coffee roasted a long time to a lower
finishing temperature may taste the same as one done for a shorter
time to a finishing higher temperature. Apparently, dry weight loss is
the measure that correlates best to the taste.
I actually am hesitant to trigger a buying spree on this (unless it's
too cheap to hurt), since I have zero experience myself, and am simply
repeating the coffee science texts. These carry the usual "evil
empire" warning label of being knowledge bought and paid for by the
Nescafe et al crowd.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 14:01:59
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:01:26 -0500, jim schulman
<jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:
>I actually am hesitant to trigger a buying spree on this (unless it's
>too cheap to hurt), since I have zero experience myself, and am simply
>repeating the coffee science texts. These carry the usual "evil
>empire" warning label of being knowledge bought and paid for by the
>Nescafe et al crowd.
even w/o a moisture meter, weight loss serves as a good indicator of
roast level. of course, w/o the meter, precision is lacking, but it's
still a good indicator. yes, there are differences between bean
types, and batches/bags/lots/ages, but one gets to know the beans and
what to expect, and some of that gets lost in the lack of precision,
anyway. for me, centrals almost always come up at 14-15% loss at or
around 2nd crack; sumatra is "wetter", so loses 17-18%, typically.
take a colombian to 14%, 16%, and 18% and the roast distinctions will
be obvious. of course, the weight loss is correlated to cracks and
bean development during the roast (and smell), and it is a useful
verification of roast, and a good data point for "doneness" for the
roasting log when one doesn't have an agtron.
--barry "weighing roasts for 17 years"
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 15:02:47
From: Heat + Beans
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
Yes, for several months I had a "fold-out" probe digital thermometer
fastened to the stirer----- it took a few tries to get one that would
fasten nicely and find one with a large enough display so I could
follow the course of the bean mass temp while the stirer was moving.
The temps were, as near as I could surmise, entirely replicable and
consistent with what others report about "standard" temp markers.
However, the bottom line is that these data were informative in only
the most general way. Significant, but not important. If I were
formally cupping my roasts, I might use the temps to distinguish 10
degree increments in order to establish an optimal degree of roast that
I would then repeat. But that's not my real-life practice.
I've also weighed for post-roast loss and recorded these--until I
realized that I didn't have a good reason. Moisture content differs
among varieties, crops, and time on the shelf. These data were even
less useful since, as I say in my previous post, roasting different
varieties and the occasional blend, coupled with the vagueries of shot
production and cupping limitations, not to mention the small percentage
(maybe 1 to 4 percent) weight loss difference among roasts makes the
record keeping and the extra weighing step not worth the effort.
All of which brings me to my parsimoniously-induced intransegence: I'd
love to add some wires, dials, software, and dignity to my roasting,
but not until I'm convinced that it would make life simpler or better.
Martin
leaver_@no-spam-plse-sympatico.ca wrote:
> Heat + Beans wrote:
> <snip>
> > Even with my HG/DB roasting, I like to have external data to inform my
> > senses. I never roast without a timer, and for several months I kept
> > (and learned from) a real-time temp readout on my roasts that was, at
> > least, internally consistent. Crack, color, temp, smell, time, cupping
> > sensibilities, and experience are all necessary but not sufficient.
> >
>
> With hgdb roasting, another thing I do, beyond the all important timer,
> is a before & after weight measure to assess moisture loss in the roast
> process - generally with hgdb I get 15-16% reduction, on 500g 12 minute
> roasts that are just beginning a strong rolling 2nd crack. I try to
> mentally co-relate the weight loss to the roast appearance and the
> other more subliminal realtime roast indicators.
>
> Previously when I was using a moded FR, I employed a tc temp probe but
> with hgdb I couldn't find any way to get useful readings (I had the tc
> probe mounted to the tip of my wooden stirrer).
>
> Can you outline what your experiences were with hgdb temp readouts.
>
> (PS. I hope this post gets to the ng - my ISP has just replaced the
> uesent service and I've just realized that the new "service" allows
> read only - no positn unless you subscrive to a fee based advenced
> package - so I'm trying this through Google groups)
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 19:28:15
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On 6 Jun 2006 15:02:47 -0700, "Heat + Beans" <heatgunroast@gmail.com >
wrote:
>ve also weighed for post-roast loss and recorded these--until I
>realized that I didn't have a good reason
The best indicator of degree of roast, acording to the coffee science
texts, is "dry weight loss." In order to get at this one must measure
the moisture content of the green and roasted beans as well as the
weight; unfortunately, the gear that measures moisture is expensive.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 17:37:58
From: Johnny
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
"jim schulman" <jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:d97c82hjv74o494a078bak10sjqq2m3239@4ax.com...
> On 6 Jun 2006 15:02:47 -0700, "Heat + Beans" <heatgunroast@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >ve also weighed for post-roast loss and recorded these--until I
> >realized that I didn't have a good reason
>
> The best indicator of degree of roast, acording to the coffee science
> texts, is "dry weight loss." In order to get at this one must measure
> the moisture content of the green and roasted beans as well as the
> weight; unfortunately, the gear that measures moisture is expensive.
Jim,
is it possible to measure bean moisture content the same way they do with
wood as electrical conductance?
Johnny
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 12:52:30
From: leaver_@no-spam-plse-sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
Heat + Beans wrote:
<snip >
> Even with my HG/DB roasting, I like to have external data to inform my
> senses. I never roast without a timer, and for several months I kept
> (and learned from) a real-time temp readout on my roasts that was, at
> least, internally consistent. Crack, color, temp, smell, time, cupping
> sensibilities, and experience are all necessary but not sufficient.
>
With hgdb roasting, another thing I do, beyond the all important timer,
is a before & after weight measure to assess moisture loss in the roast
process - generally with hgdb I get 15-16% reduction, on 500g 12 minute
roasts that are just beginning a strong rolling 2nd crack. I try to
mentally co-relate the weight loss to the roast appearance and the
other more subliminal realtime roast indicators.
Previously when I was using a moded FR, I employed a tc temp probe but
with hgdb I couldn't find any way to get useful readings (I had the tc
probe mounted to the tip of my wooden stirrer).
Can you outline what your experiences were with hgdb temp readouts.
(PS. I hope this post gets to the ng - my ISP has just replaced the
uesent service and I've just realized that the new "service" allows
read only - no positn unless you subscrive to a fee based advenced
package - so I'm trying this through Google groups)
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 11:43:57
From: CoffeeGreek
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
jim schulman wrote:
> 3. From 430 to 440 one gets more acrid odors, "nutty or "woody" would
> be a charitable description. I rarely stop roasts here, since the
> beans smell so unappetizing.
Jim, thanks for this useful post. Point 3 raises a couple of questions:
1. Have you noticed a direct relationship between the "unappetizing"
smells at this temperature range and the aroma and flavour attributes
of the finished product, if stopped at that point?
2. I assume this temperature range corresponds roughly to full city.
This is probably the most popular end point for a roast. Are you
suggesting it is a tricky territory that one should avoid?
Thanks
George
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 15:38:10
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On 7 Jun 2006 11:43:57 -0700, "CoffeeGreek" <coffeegreek@in.gr > wrote:
>1. Have you noticed a direct relationship between the "unappetizing"
>smells at this temperature range and the aroma and flavour attributes
>of the finished product, if stopped at that point?
This is a darkish city roast in the 10 degree range below the first
pops of the second. I used to do cupping roasts in this range, since
it sort of works for espresso too. However, the unappetizing smell
directly correlates with my least favorite roast taste -- wood & nuts
(I have had some wonderful marzipan tasting coffees, but hardly ever
manage to roast them myself) -- so I avoid this zone. I cuo at a light
City where the roast taste is still more like toasted grains, and
roast espresso so the roast taste is more caramel and distillate
>
>2. I assume this temperature range corresponds roughly to full city.
>This is probably the most popular end point for a roast. Are you
>suggesting it is a tricky territory that one should avoid?
See above for the roast level. As to avoiding it, or it being tricky;
that's just me, I like both the lighter and darker roasts more on most
beans, so the trickines is my problem alone.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2006 07:05:28
From: gscace
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
Ah yes, rotting corpses of animals for me. I'm sad thinking of all of
those plant babies stripped from their defenseless parents, who
themselves were born and raised in unnaturally close proximity under
artificial circumstances, with the express pre-meditated idea of
killing and eating the babies.
Starvation is the only moral course here (first and last).
-Greg (fighting for the rights of defenseless plants unless it's too
difficult or it doesn't serve my purposes or I get hungry for a snack)
Scace
PS - Save the Guinea Worm!!
Andy Schecter wrote:
> Rob van Loenhout wrote:
> > I thought Andy was the Vegetarian around here?
>
> Yup, me, Randy, and Jeffrey P are a few of the folks who prefer not to consume
> cruelly murdered, rotting animal corpses laced with fecal matter, antibiotics
> and synthetic growth hormones.
>
> Now that I've given Ken an easy segue into a devastating critique of my eating
> habits, you all have a nice day! :-)
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
> http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jun 2006 03:53:23
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
gscace wrote:
> Ah yes, rotting corpses of animals for me. I'm sad thinking of all of
> those plant babies stripped from their defenseless parents, who
> themselves were born and raised in unnaturally close proximity under
> artificial circumstances, with the express pre-meditated idea of
> killing and eating the babies.
>
> Starvation is the only moral course here (first and last).
>
> -Greg (fighting for the rights of defenseless plants unless it's too
> difficult or it doesn't serve my purposes or I get hungry for a snack)
> Scace
Hey Greg:
Gotta admit I was trolling for Fox (and rather unsuccessfully, at that).
But I understand your point and I will begin fasting immediately.
Uh-oh. Is killing and drinking poor defenseless coffee seeds also verboten? :-(
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Jun 2006 02:22:53
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Roasting to temp or roasting to sound.
|
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 03:53:23 GMT, Andy Schecter
<schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:
>Uh-oh. Is killing and drinking poor defenseless coffee seeds also verboten? :-(
Greg was referring to the little known fact that plants, despite not
having nervous systems, have slow-motion sensations mediated via tiny
currents in their electrolyte flows. This is why the prefer Mozart to
Jazz or rock -- more stately rhthms. (When they went overboard at
Auburn university and tried using Bruckner's 5th symphony, the result
was kudzu.)
This is really good news for coffee lovers and other ethical people
not wanting to starve to death -- plant seeds almost certainly are
insentient and eating them is not a moral lapse. **But** you can't
pick them, they have to fall from the parent plant first. With
coffees, there's a few Brazilian facendas that use "tree drying," and
these coffees are free from the taint of plant torture.
|
|
