Close Menu Navigation
Open Categories Menu SCOPE OF FILTER COFFEE RESEARCH
- 21 December, 2009 -
- Uncategorized -
- Tags :
- 7 Comments
I posted recently about the Gold Cup Research Group. I have now completed the scoping document for this research which has been given the nod by the SCAE Education Committee. Some difficult times lay ahead re. funding and objectivity. Exciting none the less.
You can download the research project structure here. Comments are very very welcome.
Hi Paul, a very nice outline. The only issue I would raise would be the panel of coffees. What is the reasoning behind including a robusta (which isn’t a varietal of C.arabica – it is a different species)? Would a naturally processed typica / sumatra from that region of the world be a better representative?
The other coffee, perhaps is less surprising, but the choice of a natural Sidamo, vs I presume a washed Yirg as an Ethiopian representative. For me, the washed Yirg would be the more classical taste profile (the lemon, grapefruit, bergamot, jasmine etc).
Nonetheless – very exciting stuff…
A couple notes:
re: Using “recognized cuppers.” : it is my understanding that the 18-22% (or similar) taste preference range was based on consumer preference studies, not professional taste studies. I would fear that even a diverse pool of professional cuppers would skew the results in a particular direction, compared to a large pool of consumer tasters.
Using a particular Agtron number (58 or otherwise) on whole bean would be an insufficient control point. While using a target *ground* coffee Agtron point would be an improvement, neither spectrophotometer score would represent a sufficient control point. A wide diversity of flavors could be achieved through a diversity of roast profiles to achieve the same Agtron number.
Excited to see that further research into Filter Coffee is proposed.
The SCAE Brewmasters course heavily references the earlier research and some of the points seemed a bit ‘woolly’ so a new set of evidence to either concur with, or to challenge previous findings is very welcomed.
Great feedback!
The following things were considered when choosing the coffees:
1)It should reflect a broad specter of varietals, processing and terroir.
2)It should be coffees that is accessable across the world, in case someone wants to replicate the research.
and of course the most difficult point of all,
3) The number of coffees should not exceed 6.
There was some discussion weither to include the Robusta and the Pacamara, but we concluded that this is a Coffee study – not necessarily Arabica – and that all of the coffees would be analyzed as seperate data sets, making it less necessary for the coffees to be alike. I actually see this as a strength rather than a weakness for the research – if we discover that the box is irrelevant for certain or all coffees, than that is a good start for a whole series of other research programs. On the other hand, if the box holds, it means that it’s either too wide or incredibly correct. Both outcomes give results we wouldnt get if all the coffees were too alike.
A washed Yirg would definetaly be in if there were more than one from Ethiopia. But I think that while a it certainly holds a classic coffee taste profile, it’s the naturals of Ethiopia who stands out from the rest of the world tastewise. It’s back to 1) if you like, trying to get an as wide selection as possible.
Nick Cho, I personally find this to be a speciality coffee research rather than a wide consumer research. I think we are better off discussing what we want to achieve with preparing a coffee rather than worrying to much what the majority of the world believes is a better coffee.
Hello All,
Great comments and feedback. Thanks.
Rasmus captures it pretty well in terms of coffees, cupping panel and core objectives.
Alf Kramer, who also sits on the Gold Cup Research team with Rasmus and I, had these parameters for coffee choice:
The coffees must reflect what is generally accepted as quality coffees with finer flavour components
They should reflect various processing methods.
They should reflect botanical varieties.
They should ideally represent a stable, accessible and reproducible quality over time.
They should ideally come from different parts of the world.
Must be able to shipped in one 60 bag.
Nick – Speciality vs. Consumer is where we want to start. Might be a good idea to compare consumer vs. expert preferences at a later date?
Thanks
Paul
I would say that a washed Robusta, from India, even if I’m guessing of the Kaapi Royale ilk, still doesn’t meet “finer flavour components”, and unless you are foreseeing a huge upswing in the consumption of filter brewed Robusta, then I would ask what question are you trying to answer with its inclusion?
While it might be interesting and geeky to see what the effect on Robusta is, it I expect will be of little practical use. I’m all for science for science’s stake, I would just wonder if you are sacrificing one space on a limited panel for a flight of fancy…
I’m all for the Pacamara though. The effect of bean density/structure is worthy of consideration.
In the Research Project Structure, under “SCIENTIFIC TESTING,”
you say:
“Measure and chart the extraction of each coffee using the Coffee Brewing Control Chart.”
Two questions:
1. What instrumentation do you plan to use to make the measurements?
2. What Coffee Brewing Control Chart do you plan to use? The old, error-laden charts?