Processing and origin flavours

[K.C. O'Keefe]

For the farmer the importance is:

1. Tell me what you want.
Declare and define what cup profiles we want to pay more for . . . be it super clean and sweet; or aged earth; or multiple profiles for distinguished purposes.

For example I can put out 3 "types" 1. Sweet Clean Washed 2. Fruity Natural 3. Earthy Washed . . . now flush that out, put flavor descriptors behind them. What is a great Fruity Natural, and when is it over the line? What is a great earth taste and when is it too dusty? . . .

Our brothers in wine walked before us and created a great path; still retaining origin creadibility, but defining the tastes which result from specific varieties and processing.

2. Be fair.
Be fair and let all farmers compete for those profiles . . . do not allow our taste experiences to be discrimitory towards any part of the world; put them on the table and let our palates decide (not the "name of a region or country")Truly blind cup; eliminating our preconcieved expectations of any one origin.

3. Pay.
Pay up when the cup profile is outstanding; at least $2.00+

4. Repeat purchase.
Try to repeatedly buy from the same farmers; giving them economic sustainability. Long term relationships?

[Tim Dominick]

Then there are the other group ( I haven't got a good name yet, let's call 'em the Esoterics for now but I welcome a better name) who have a high tolerance (or straight-up appreciation) for coffees whose characters stray a little out of bounds--the extremely fruity Coban coffees that straddle the fruit-or-ferment line....
g

Perhaps "romantics" fits better? After all, romanticism stresses freedom from classical correctness and rebellion against social conventions where esoterics would rather limit understanding to a very small group and keep their knowledge confined from public disclosure.

I agree, most people move towards the purist camps. This is true in most any craft, the longer you search for perfection the less able you become to accept flaws.

Natural processing is a huge risk indeed, but can it be refined, and in turn, repeated? Are some varieties more likely to produce a repeatable result? Can the risk be made worth the taking? Is the reward ever worth the race?

KC, our kin in wine did create a great path, yet it is under the constant threat of homogenization as medium and large producers pander to the tastes of a limited number of critics. I can attest to a camp of producers with the conviction to hold true to the traditions of their regions, eschewing the push to modernize. It leads me to ask, can purists be romantics?

[Jaime van Schyndel]

A topic for the ages!
g

Geoff. That was a fabulously honest post and I think it really represents what is going on here. I think often times I myself forget coffee is essentially a fruit. It's what we do to it that alters that fruit character. I personally want to see more CoE style clean, sweet, defect free and amazingly coplex coffees. The earth, dirt, and ferment have been around for years. Why not let us explore what happens flavor wise when we get ripe cherries and process them cleanly? How many of those coffees really exist today anyway?

[sweetmarias]

Geoff, Peter G., K.C, And EVERYONE - thanks for a fine thread. Good stuff, and I feel compelled to add a little, although all the main points I would contribute have been covered comepletely. Geoff, you start to discuss the development of your taste and how you now avoid these dangerous coffees, the unrepeatables. I just want to interject a reminder about how much taste is a function of culture, as much as it is personal. I have always guessed that those "clean cup" fantatics grew up sweetening Lipton tea with white sugar. In other words, consistent, repeatable, boring, with a particular type of sweetness; processed cane sugar sweetness. I think I can sell you guys on the idea that there isn't one kind of sweetness in coffee, and that even the most "neutral" sweetness is in fact only one of many examples of this particular attribute. Well, what about "cleanliness" in coffee. Isn't that a relative attribute too? I grew up in a healthfood family. If you like unsulphered dried fruit, where every package is an adventure with a dramatic mix of pain and pleasure (or a gameshow, as geoff suggests). You get good at spotting the potentially musty dried apricots in advance, and leave them for the less adept sucker in the family. But nontheless, it is russian roulette. That gives me a greater tolerance for Yemen and Harar and DP Ghimbi, Sidamo, Yirg, etc. I think that's a little example of cultural incluence on taste, california healthfood culture vs. supermarket notions of taste. And supposing as I do that we have less regional/cultural taste groups to chose from than other countries with more local culture, what is a sweet, clean cup of coffee? Anyway, we all know this, have thought about it, but I thought the relativity of taste belongs in this discussion too.

Each of us on the consuming side, representing our clients, deciding what is "good", are making small influences on producers. That's not new, coffee is largely an export product for cash. But this here internet thing, and cell phones, and those big airplanes, allow us to have such a rapid and profound influence upon producers. Among us little guys who care dearly about quality, and who have diverse opinions, I see the great benefits of this, but it scares me when I think of more nefarious interests. We are dealing with soft technology in 2 senses: human organizations, agricultural technology. Using all our abilities to rapidly communicate and mobilize, it seems we are so incongruous with what our product is, with the way a farmer needs to act and make changes in production. We just change a name on a label, while they spend years replanting cultivars, transitioning to organic, rebuilding a mill, etc etc. A few years ago I imagined mosquitos herding cattle as a good model for the coffee business, but now I just don't know. Anyway, a fine discussion, and KC, your point about us deciding which production practices are positive aspects of a "coffee tradition" and which should be considered inisidious when, in fact, both DAMAGE the coffee... that's a funny and interesting point. -Tom

[Jim Schulman]

Then there are the other group ( I haven't got a good name yet, let's call 'em the Esoterics for now but I welcome a better name) who have a high tolerance (or straight-up appreciation) for coffees whose characters stray a little out of bounds--the extremely fruity Coban coffees that straddle the fruit-or-ferment line, the Sumatrans that have musty and earthy tendencies, the famous Ethiopian 'blueberry' taste, the leathery, sweet tobacco tastes of Brasilian naturals...this group chooses to reward tastes based on a raw, disembodied 'pleasure' factor that is not concerned with the source of those tastes but simply celebrates their existence.
Most cuppers I know fall somewhere in-between, but most tend to migrate slowly over time towards the purist camp.

At what logical point can purity end? Soil microbiology is "in" right now. Next week it'll be: "yech, you're doing biodynamic sheep's skull vodoo to get more germs into the coffee? Pretty soon it won't be wine (fermentation adds microbial byproducts), but hydroponic grapejuice. Roast the coffee? That really changes the origin taste! The end point of all purity is an empty cup, or maybe even a zen-like dispensing with that -- purely imaginary coffee.

I think it's taste, just taste, that counts. Adding Terroir is adding 19th century Voelkisch German mysticism in modern guise; adding various organic concerns is adding folk pharmacologies of even more outmoded vintages. All these exploded bits of archaic lore make for nice colorful description when marketing the coffee, but they should not intrude on the cupping table.

Don't get me wrong: sustainable farming and sustaining farmers is immensely important; but tasting mythologies are just that, myths. It's one thing to notice that as one cups more, ones taste shifts, and one gets pickier about distracting "taste noise." It's another thing to build a whole up a whole cult around which tastes are pure and which are impure.

[SL28ave]

If you have a filter for my philosophical tangents, consider if you want to turn it on now!

I think the "correct" answer to all this would be 1,000 pages long, even if Occam's Razor were applied. Coffee is a complex world. This is why I love Geoff's consistent writing of 30 paragraph posts! (I may seem like a flip-flop at times, but I don't really care, because coffee really isn't war, and I readily admit to being a "learnophile". So please forgive any self-contradictions, even contradictions of tone, to what I may have written 2 years ago.)

I confess to USUALLY subscribing to a specific culture, or a specific disciplined construct, far from being a myth; culture is a great concept, thanks Tom. In general it's a culture of ripe coffee, without OVERWHELMING extrinsic flavor, with a fresh harvest taste and roasted lightly. I value cleanliness, but it's by no means what I live by. I value elegance, uniqueness, diversity and purity. I value pleasure. I value craftsmanship. I value the natural coffee flavors inherent to the extremely rare occurence that is a perfectly handled coffee: countless myriad of pleasant floral, fruits, nuts and chocolate flavors. I explore every inch of flavor in all coffees. But the coffees I love are judged to be the absolute pinnacle of quality (raw pleasure in a way) within the parameters of the culture I subscribe to; which almost always corresponds to the pinnacle of quality from my raw pleasure approach anyways.

I'm tired of bashing, because all here in this forum are at least somewhat or extremely chained by coffee's history. NONE of us have lived on a coffee farm for an extensive amount of time, with real financial resources, done incredible research, AND fulfilled a labor of love over every inch of a coffee's life from seed to the cups of its thousands of consumers. Rising startup stars like Arturo from El Injerto are a new rare breed. Until I gain like experience and the alluring necessity that is beyond, I'm through with the bashing.

In the place of bashing I'll facilitate the specific, INCREDIBLY valid and time-tested culture that I love. Like Tegu and El Aguacate. Like the bombingly perfumed and mouthwatering washed Yirgacheffe that I had 2 years ago. The boring and too distracting flipside is that people should just not expect the current manifestations of blueberry and earthiness from coffees I love. It's almost as simple as that.

And I think you'd be wrong to think a "learnophile" is narrowminded

Adding Terroir is adding 19th century Voelkisch German mysticism in modern guise

accidental capitalization?

[Jim Schulman]

And I think you'd be wrong to think a "learnophile" is narrowminded

Nothing wrong with learning or having preferences. But I think it's wrong to draw a circle and say everything inside is a legitimate source of coffee flavors and everything outside is illegitimate.
-- Coffee preps like cardamum and honey in barely into the 1st crack roasts in the middle east (DPs do rather well at this white wine like roast level -- I'm playing with matching these ultra-light roasts to foods), or for that matter, Robusta laden Italian espresso blends, ultimately influence growing and processing practices.
-- In the 19th century US, it was common for roasters to discount new crop coffees just as young wines are discounted now. This makes no sense given current methods of roasting and making coffee, but probably would have been quite obvious if one drank the coffee according to that time and place's standards.
-- Is the Bremen/Hamburg penchant for black coffee, which provided washed Cemtrals their earliest market, any more legitimate or traditional?

The mutual influence of methods of coffee consumption and processing on each other falls within any normal definition of terroir. What counts as a legitimate origin taste in a certain place, as a violation of processing norms, or as a taint added by faulty processing, will be relative to these norms and methods of consuming coffee. I think cuppers should be both aware of all these factors, and, usually having customers who consume the coffee in all sorts of ways, let their taste trump most rules or norms.

Adding Terroir is adding 19th century Voelkisch German mysticism in modern guise

accidental capitalization?

Sorry, absolutely no evil intended; I slipped into German in that sentence and left a few nouns unintentioanlly capitalized.

Back to Geoff: I really hope you haven't gotten so pure as to turn down lots like that multicolored lot of Ghimbi you put in the Xmas blend a few years back. They looked more like jelly beans than like green coffee.

[aaronblanco]

does universal cleanliness in the cup that some are touting here eventually lead to the homogenization of coffee in some sense? what happens when wp coffees become the only coffees influential buyers will look at? what if eventually there are no wild yirg's, yemens, et al? won't we all then sit around and pine for those days of wonderful surprises in the cup?

i'm not predicting. i'm only wondering.

[SL28ave]

does universal cleanliness in the cup that some are touting here eventually lead to the homogenization of coffee in some sense?

The word "universal" makes it easy to sit back and theorize a "yes" answer. (unfortunately, I think there's also an inherent negative connotation in the word "clean" that makes people want to pose the question.) Universal uncleaniness is also an easy road to homogenization. But no one should doubt the potential heterogeneity of clean coffees: Mamuto, Esmeralda, El Injerto special lot X, El Injerto special lot Y, El Mirador Pacamara, Ngunguni, Yirg Hafursa Coop etc. etc. And no one should doubt the potential heterogeneity of "unclean" coffees: every cup of a lot can have the flavor of a different jelly bean! I'm pushing myself away from broad sweeping answers, or making superfluous statements about the needs of Madagascar coffee when I've never even had a cup. While I see the need for consensuses, serious quality statements and some real progressive standards, I see no need for universalities.

what happens when wp coffees become the only coffees influential buyers will look at?

Maybe people will stop diverting their focus and realize what the heck is going on with these coffees. Most people's notion of "clean" specialty coffee is skewed because most "clean" specialty coffees are "ruined" by a number of quality barriers before they ever reach the cup. It's complex. And the current status is somewhat perverse and backwards, though the likes of CoE has the potential to turn this around.

what if eventually there are no wild yirg's, yemens, et al? won't we all then sit around and pine for those days of wonderful surprises in the cup?

There should be enough to interest you for the next 200 years either way, especially if you look in the right places. We need to keep moving forward. I, for one, can't be an expert on everything because I don't have 200 years to spare, and I don't think I'm stupid for not investing my time in a rubbled pile of Yemen beans.

[Peter G]

I love having this discussion with you people, and I love that it has taken a philosophical turn.

I think Tom is right on to draw parallels between the vagaries of 'natural� food and 'natural� process. There is no question to me that there is a real connection between the 'clean� flavors of the more stringent types of coffee processing and the 'clean� flavors of processed white sugar, white flour, white rice, white corn syrup, etc. The quest for 'purity� in food is an interesting one; because people (and cultures) are so different in the way they interpret it. Some interpret 'pure food� as the absence of modern agro-industrial processing techniques, like refinement and pesticide use. Stone-ground whole grains; sometimes misshapen apples from the local orchard; unsulphered apricots; THAT's pure food. If you roll the clock back 50 years, you would find a different interpretation of 'purity� in food. White flour and sugar were thought of as capturing the pure essence of the foodstuff. Pesticides and fungicides prevented 'impure� worms and organisms from spoiling the perfect apples the trees were capable of producing. There are many variations on this theme: my Japanese mother-in-law insisted that brown rice was food fit only for animals, and she turned up her nose at the zany, long-grain Jasmine and Basmati rices, which had that weird, 'non-rice� smell to her.

Back to coffee. The apotheosis of clean processing is the mechanical demucilage method, where (presumably) ripe coffee is turned into wet parchment within minutes using only (hopefully) clean water as an expedient. If the coffee is dried promptly, there is no opportunity for fermentation, for good or ill. So, then, should the washing stations and fermentation tanks in the world be replaced by demucilagers, which by their very nature do not add or subtract anything from the coffee's original 'off the tree� quality? (interesting note: the Esmeralda Jaramillo Gesha, our industry's current epitome of coffee perfection, is processed by this method; doing near-fatal damage to my thesis that many positive fruit notes are a byproduct of the fermentation tank.)

For me, the answer is no. I still believe strongly in the value of the earthy Indonesian and the fruity natural Ethiopian, even though I might not prefer them for my morning cup. Why? In part, because they are the best way to illustrate to consumers that the world of coffee is wide and wonderful, and full of diverse flavors and experiences. Most people have the secret suspicion that they are incapable of tasting the difference between coffees (how many times have you heard something like 'You must have a great palate, working in the coffee business. I just like what I like.�) You put that person in front of a cupping table with blueberry Harrar, a forest-floor Sumatra, and a crystal-clean Panama or something and they get it. And 8 times out of 10 these folks will identify Harrar as their favorite. (I am taking for granted that these coffees are fine examples of their type.) Why do they choose the Harrar? Because they can instantly identify the blueberry, and at that moment, they have become a coffee taster.

This is how people learn to explore food. As humans, we have a period where we are extremely conservative with what we eat, limiting our diet to what we perceive as 'normal� (this is usually defined by our parents in childhood). We start to experiment with more intense flavors (including grown-up coffee) and become adventurous eaters. Most people go through a phase where we overdo it: young cooks experimenting with ethnic cuisine always go nutso with the garlic, but learn later that judicious use of strong flavors is a better way to go. Same with wine and coffee.

Almost everyone I ever met has a similar story: their first 'favorite coffee origin� is an Indonesian of some kind. It seems like the coffee taster's journey usually begins in Indonesia and ends with the washed coffees of East Africa. Geoff's speculation over why is as good as any, but the important thing is that broad differences in coffee styles make this journey an adventure. This is why I am dedicated to preserving origin character, and including processing tradition as an integral part of the 'origin�. If we accept the 'clean� Costa Rican washed process as the perfect solution, or the demucilaged process, or whatever, we risk narrowing the spectrum of coffee qualities to the most nuanced.

It is true that we coffee buyers have a profound influence on two parts of the coffee trade: we communicate imperatives to the coffee growers (usually stressing the values of altitude and cleanliness), but we also tend to define quality for our customers. While it is often said that the consumer ultimately defines quality, the reality of the food world at the moment is that people are searching to learn what 'good� means. And, in coffee, they frequently look to the coffee buyer as the expert; and in fact the buyer/director of coffee/master roaster/whatever is usually convinced of their own ability to determine quality. It is for this reason that the coffee buyers I admire most; the Wattses and the Owenses and the Sorensons etc etc. have their roots behind the coffee bar counter. The combination of coffee lover and daily connection with coffee consumers, I think, has the effect of creating a sort of ultra-consumer, and is a good thing. I think we must be careful, though, not to let our personal journey as tasters define what we declare as 'quality�, and respect diversity, even though this diversity may include coffees that stray from our personal preferences.

I apologize if my thoughts are rambling; as I said before it is a pleasure to engage in this discussion with you folks.

Peter G

[Tim Dominick]

The drive to produce the perfect apple leaves us with a giant, shiny piece of symmetrical fruit that holds up well to being trucked, flown, stored in a nitrogen flushed refer trailer until it is stacked in a giant pyramid at safeway. Technically a superior piece of fruit in every way, crisp 5 months off the tree with the proper moisture content because it was waxed and handled with all of the advances food science has to offer.

Taste that apple, it is "clean" and it will offer a consistant flavor, texture and shape this year and next.

This apple next to the tree-fresh heirloom apple growing in our back yard is far more beautiful...If I were to paint a picture it would be the obvious choice. However, under the skin the flesh of the ugly apple is sweet, malic and kissed by the soil while the apple of beauty is transparent and devoid of earthly character.

Tradition and lack of clean water are two reasons we have dry processed coffees, surely there are many more. I am not opposed to advancing technology to clean the cup, however when I sip a DP Ethiopian coffee I can't help but feel I am communing with the roots of our evolution. Celebrating the old ways is all too often forgotten in the face of a "better way"

[aaronblanco]

uncontrollable jaw reflex...keeps dropping to the ground reading these amazing posts, everyone.

a delicate counterpoint to the notion that purists begin to gravitate toward less "defect" over time(i'm paraphrasing)...one can as easily say that the more a serious student delves into one's subject matter the more they crave something they've never seen before. i'm not the seasoned professional most in this thread are, but i've been seriously tasting and caring about coffee for almost ten years and while i appreciate the beauty of a well constructed central, the thrill seeker in me still looks around every corner for the next big one--the next wave of "ferment" (read: blueberry!) from a wild harar or buttery morel mushroom from a lintong or kalossi. for me, it helps keep it all fresh and exciting.

[geoff watts]

tip o the hat to all of you writing here...this is an extremely vibrant discussion that has been waiting to happen for a very long time. I've had similar discussions many times in other contexts, but this forum and the ability it gives us to sit and reflect, compose our thoughts, and theorize in the presence of great coffee thinkers is unbeatable.
Peter L made a great point about being careful not to let our debates get messed up with absolute statements and or allow thought lines to become ungrounded and take on a 'universal' thrust. The words 'purity' and 'clean' both come with a certain negative semantic charge to them we should be careful about, because they seem push us to extrapolate towards a polar extreme.
Perhaps we should take time to define 'clean'. I'll give it a start, let's see where it gets us. To me 'clean' coffee is coffee that is:

1. physically free of visible defects--meaning no black beans, no insect damaged beans, no sours, no fungus damaged beans, broken beans, etc. Just intact, fully formed seeds. (Peaberry count in my book as fully formed, but those mutated beans that separate to make 'elephant ears' do not)
2. uniform from cup-to-cup (within reason of course). If there is a lack of taste uniformity despite physicaly clean coffee then it could be the result of: uneven drying, presence of unripe coffee, or perhaps just poor mixing at the mill--ie, failure to homogenize the coffee lot. (forgive my use of the H word).
3. the taste/character of the coffee is articulate--one can zero in on very specific traits/tastes that seem suspended in the brew, connected to the whole but identifiable. The presense of, for example, a light mustiness in the coffee could be a 'noise' of sorts that muffles the citrus and the ripe pear-like sweetness ito make them less perceptible.
4. the cup character is dominated by tastes that are intrinsic to the coffee seed. Various combinations of citric, malic, lactic acidity, etc. This as opposed to flavors picked up post harvest due to contact with earth, extreme fermentation, etc.

Just a start. I'm sure ya'll can make this better, and I know straightaway that 3 and 4 will be contested. There are certain things to consider--can, for example, Aged coffee be considered 'clean'? The starchiness and woodyness are I suppose, intrinsic...but enabled over time by the influence of outside elements and the chemical breakdown/degradation of the seed? Perhaps 'fresh' is simply another thing we would add to the specialty coffee guideline. What about coffee that was dried in sun that was slightly too intense/hot, lost acidity as a result, and has a very mild sweet taste with little else. I would think it qualifies as clean, but it has lost a lot of flavor as a result of processing carelessness and no longer displays any of it's 'original' character.

one thing I would argue strongly is that 'clean' should not ever be confused with 'boring' or 'standard', and Peter supplied us with some very compelling examples. There are loads and loads of coffees out there which are pristinely clean, almost overwhelmingly flavorful, and decidedly different than other coffees. No one will ever confuse the Geisha with the Bambito (2006 2nd place winner)--but both are stunning and world class, for different reasons. There is, in my opinion, no danger of coffees becoming too similar because of emphasis on processing standards or protection of the intrinsic--there are simply so many things that affect the development of the seeds (botanical varietal is I think #1, followed by all the nutrition, rainfall, sun variables) Sitting on many CoE juries has hammered this point home--we taste 50+ coffees, most of them very 'clean', and the taste differences are profount.
That said, i think the biggest danger to coffee diversity is the continuing push for hybrid super-varietals bred for strength and productivity rather than flavor. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of unexplored varietals sitting in storage in Ethiopia, Costa Rica, Brasil, Colombia and elsewhere, not to mention many accessions / natural mutations growing on farms around the world which have not really been isolated or identified) Those varietals alone along with their potential interaction with various climate factors offer the promise of more flavor diversity than any of us could probably deal with in a lifetime. We as buyers should probably be encouraging exploration of these--but it comes with so much risk, as Tom pointed out...the farmer must invest 3+ years and plenty of resources to cultivate a new coffee, and there is no guarantee it will work. it would be irresponsible to go around consulting growers to plant this and that without a strong belief (based on experience) that it will pay off. But the ones who can afford to take some risks (like, say, the Petersons at Esmeralda) can help the industry by proving the potential of a particular varietal. Now farmers can begin playing around with planting Geisha with some degree of confidence.

Still, I have nothing against naturals that are basically uniform and deliberately cared for. Take the Idido Misty Valley coffee from Yergacheffe or the Maraba natural from Rwanda as examples--these are dry processed, but not in the traditional way. Coffee is picked at especially high altitude towards the end of harvest season (meaning more sun, not much rain--better drying conditions!!), ripeness is strictly controlled, coffee is hand sorted...resulting in a very delightful cup, fruity as can be but uniform, sweet, and free of unpleasantries. I have scored these coffees in the 90's on several occasions, despite my lack of love for ferment. So the argument is not that DP coffees should be discouraged, but rather that better practices should be employed to handle them, leading to better results. However, even these come with a caveat. They are great for a few months, but do not have staying power. I have found that after 4 months or so they really start to fall apart--meaning they should probably be considered a rare treat that can only be enjoyed in specific months, much like some extraordinary mushrooms.

What I do have something against are the traditional Yemen/Harar lots that are the norm in our industry and are full of problems. Sure, you can have a nice cup once in a while, and sure--it is intellectually interesting to deconstruct even the shady ones. But for ever great cup you will get several mediocre ones and at least one downright awful one. When cupping Yemens I routinely find very rubber cups, starchy cups, bitter and harsh cups, rotten dirty sock cups, and almost sickening garbagey cups. I have cupped hundreds of Harrars and Yemens over the years, but have never found a Yemen without some of these negative traits and have only occasionaly found Harrars that don't display an ugly face from time to time.
This begs the question--if we are encouraging consumers to pay more and more for exceptional specialty coffees, how could we give them something that will sometimes taste nice and sometimes lead to horrible fright? Would you still plunk down 40 bucks for that nice Cab or serve it in your restaurant if you knew for fact that one out of four cups will suck and every now and then you will serve a disgustingly bitter cup to your client?
As roasters and retailers, we do expect our customers to trust us as we take them by the hand and lead them through the world of specialty coffee. We ask them to take a leap of faith sometimes, and we ask them to pay double or triple what they are used to paying--not just once in a while but every week! Is it perhaps dangerous to allow coffees that are flawed and will assuredly deliver both pleasure and pain to masquerade as super quality, top shelf items?

Part of Specialty is craftsmanship, in my opinion...and the reality is that most dp coffees available in today's market are not very well crafted. Is this what we want to encourage? Or do we ask for better DP standards on par with those existant for Washed coffee?

Costa Rican coffee can be great--really great. Some of the trouble with 'overly clean' tasting cups or lack of excitement probably owes itself to overuse of certain varietals grown in full sun, over-planting (CR farmers get incredible yields per hectarefrom their land which is necessary because the land value and Cost of Production is high...but varietals that overproduce have been shown to have less quality in one study I know of and it makes sense that too many trees planted in too little earth will result in competition for resources, overuse of chemical fertilizer, and a disruption of the biological activity in the soil. ) But this has nothing to do with the washed process, which the Ticas do so very well.

With Sumatran coffees, I do not worry about losing earthiness because I am excited about what would take it's place. Will Sumatran Jember, Garungdang, Ateng and other varietals (if anyone can trace their heritae I'd love to know...probably typica?) grown in Lintong taste just like a Costa Rican caturra if the Sumatran farmers adopted different processing practices? I really, really doubt it. More likely would be the establishment of a new "Sumatra character" along with better consistency and uniformity. I need to argue this point also from an economic perspective--while I agree with Peter G that sometimes earthiness can taste quite pleasing, I think about my experience sourcing Sumatran coffees and realize that it is really hard to find a very good one. I cup a lot of them, and many are just not good, and then once in a while find a winner. But what happens with all those sucky ones? Do they sell at a good premium? Would Sumatran farmers not benefit by adopting practices which would afford them better control over their crop? Those of them who stay with the status quo might benefit also, because the supply of 'earthy' coffee could drop (giving them some rarity) and the fans/traditionalists would compete to acquire them, driving prices up. Dunno, just speculation, but doesn't sound all that crazy.

Tim, I do like Romantic as the better fit than Esoteric. Reminds me of a trip to Nica several years ago with a lot of coffee bredren where we were discussing cupper preferences. At the time I came up with three categories:
1. The Pragmatists: cuppers who are looking to ensure that there are no problems, off-flavors, etc and reward coffees which clear the 80 point hurdle and are certain to be saleable in the marketplace. The must not be especially bitter, should have discernable sweetness, and from there anything goes. Apricots, nuts, apple...bring it on, let's appreciate it for what it is. A four category form and room to make some notes is just what the doctor ordered.

2. The Scientists: cuppers who want to dissect the coffee into the smallest number of parts, deconstructing it piece by piece. A CoE form is great for this--put everything in it's place, score individual categories and get to know that coffee inside and out almost to the point where you could draw a blueprint. Consideration of pleasure can even be temporarily suspended for the sake of analysis and understanding, sometimes looking to connect flavors good and bad with possible root causes.

3. The Romantics: cuppers who are always seeking thrills in nuance, look for emotional reaction to certain characteristics in the coffee, speak in a poetic way when describing flavor and sensory traits. Concerned about particularities in the coffee and how they strike the palate, but still wanting to be wooed and seduced by the overall experience and willing to accept some odd idiosynchrasies because they are in love's grip.


I think all cuppers combine some traits from all three, like overlapping circles, but are predisposed more to one or two of them according to their own personal background and context.

Anyway, I second Peter's thought about refraining to be too categorical at this point because of how much we don't know about coffee, how much is yet to be understood. I've changed my mind a lot over the last couple of years because of things I've learned from other coffee lovers, farmers, roasters, buyers, baristas, traders, etc and am very sure that that will happen a lot, now and in the future. Don't like bashing, either, although it can be fun to ridicule and insult a horrible and nasty coffee in retaliation for the unpleasantries it caused in the mouth.

[Jaime van Schyndel]

Geoff,
Thank you for that post.

[Tim Dominick]

Thanks Geoff, insightful as usual.

You mamaged to articulate a major concern of mine as we move towards defining expectations.

The word "homogenize" isn't the least bit offensive when you use it to describe mill blending practices, that is an art in and of itself. It is a bad word in my book when we talk about high yielding hybrids and a push to increase production, in the process pushing more attractive (to us) genetics aside. Coffee can be bred to meet or exceed any visual grading process. Uniform bean size, perfect color, and reproduceable, predictable results from season to season are sold to farmers as their best friends. The coffee roasts like a dream and every cup will taste the same. The rub is a very basic cup of coffee, conforming to the idea that a solid 80 will get it sold for specialty prices. (pragmatist/oldschool cupper?)

Does this come from a misguided interpretation of "clean?" This is what I was driving at with my grocery store apple story. While I like where Geoff's 4 points are leading, I'm concerned that if a majority of people just accept the first two points as the bare minimum (free of visable defects and uniformed cup consistancy) we are headed right for the nasty "H" word

I agree with the assertion that it is irresponsible to ask farmers to take a three year risk... unless we are willing to live with the results. As an example, if you request farmer "A" to try something different it is being done on your behalf. When harvest comes and the coffee is in the cup for the first time, you own the results...good, bad, or ugly. Asking for a risk to be taken requires an investment on all sides. Nothing would make a farmer twice shy faster than a roaster or importer turning their backs when the results were not up to our expectations.

[K.C. O'Keefe]

Amigos,

Panama and "Clean"
I believe the 2nd place Panama was also processed demuscilage remover. Making the comparison of the 1st and 2nd place Panama iconic in the proof that "clean" (which they both emulated) does not mean boring or similar in any of the sense.

I spent a considerable amount of time this spring on the Bambito farm and one day on the esmeralda farm. Both are at similar elevations, in the same country, in the same part of the country (western pan), separated by the Volcan Baru mountain. In the vast coffee world pretty much on top of eachother.

That said soil analysis and micro-climates of these two are completely distinct, as well as the varieties. These three factors alone (without further processing distinctions) allows for endless variety in flavor developments. So I (as Geoff) would propose that "Clean" allowed both of these coffees to reveal those detailed differences.

You cannot get more distinct that than these two in the cup . . . yet both "crystal clean" and Pure!

The point being, maybe a "clean" baseline is actually a huge portal, gigantic kingdom gates waiting to be opened so we can exit (not enter) and explore what is in the OUTSIDE wilderness compared to our tiny coffee world within the current city gates. . . maybe adopting a clean baseline will actually FREE us to explore fruit expressions that we have not even began to encounter? Maybe our fears of encouaging "clean" is actually trapping us on a cloudy day, trapping farmers to unsustainable/non-repeatable incomes?

Exploring outside the city does not mean the familiar "city" will, or has to, disappear. Earth dried and "clean" can both have a place in the coffee universe. But they must be identified and explained to the coffee production world. . . and financially rewarded when done well.

I'm sure we are all happy that the Panamanians have addopted "clean" as a rule?

Clean List:
I would like to add to Geoff's "clean" list as to what possible farmer process are that lead to those cups:
Regardless of the processing (wet vs dry) "purity" takes 1. Ripe Cherries, 2. Adequate drying, 3. quality packaging&storage. In the little of my coffee travels I can honestly say I've seen very few "ripe" cherry protocals being followed. . . and this has been Latin Amercia "clean coffee" country.

Good vs Bad Practices:
Classifying "clean" practices does not necessarily mean calling all other practices "bad" . . . but Reality is famrers want to know how to get a repeatable higher value income . . . I don't know any other way to tell them to do it with more assurance that "clean" practices. . . so maybe the other is default "negative."

Trying to be an advocate for the farmers I believe that "good" practices are those which have the opportunity to give more money to farmers. "bad" practices are any practice which might reduce the farmers ability to get a sustainable price. I belive in the coffee farmers world this IS (and justifiably is) the definition of "good" practice vs. "bad" practice.

Can anyone provide an example of farmers (not exporters or importer) who earth dry and are verifyably getting more than $2.00 a lb (farm gate) for their coffee on a repeat (2+years) basis? How about a wild fermenty coffee? How about an aged coffee?

[SL28ave]

In the little of my coffee travels I can honestly say I've seen very few "ripe" cherry protocals being followed. . . and this has been Latin Amercia "clean coffee" country.

We really need to open our eyes to this possibility. Since I'm a 23 year old with 23 jobs in one company, I haven't been to origin enough to gather evidence. Some of you have though and I'd love to hear what you've observed! I know that Sr Howell thinks that many of these coffees aren't as ripe as could be.

I can somewhat tell the general ripeness of some lots by the way the beans look. So two examples of evidence of unripeness I've gathered:
1. I've spent many hours handsorting a few super Guatemalan lots (not El Injerto). Unripe beans took up an easily perceptible percentage. The unripe beans tasted absolutely dull compared to the riper counterpart, or rottenly fermented because unripe fruit doesn't easily wash off. This is lurking behind and, at least somewhat, holding back some of the best tasting Guatemalans I could find!
2. I visually inspect all the CoE samples. The top-scoring lots often look generally riper than the lower scoring lots; which somewhat further validates the scores and prices.

I cupped the CoE El Injerto at our warehouse (it did taste different than it did in Guatemala) and boy was it sweet! I can only wonder what they did to make it even better than their usual great offering. I'm not suggesting the coffee was any riper than they usually do, I'm just saying that CoE lot tasted RIPE!

I hear that in Kenya and Yirgacheffe (and Rwanda?) they do the best job at hand selecting the ripe cherries, which stems from the (unfortunate) cheap labor.

Can anyone shed light?

[sweetmarias]

once again, amazing thread ... difficult too because we are trying to bite off/ digest a big topic here. each reply offers so many nodes from which we could branch off. i want to go back to 2 possibilities interjected into our "clean vs dirty, washed vs. natural, culture/tradition vs. refined taste". i am scared and excited about the possibilities offered by a. exotic cultivars and b. new benchmarks for naturals. the upsides are clear in both cases, but the overall effect on coffeeculture (meaning producers), the trade, and consumer coffee culture is large, and less sure.

how are we going to define "ethiopian cultivar x, grown in panama" when we have it grown in nicaragua, salvador, honduras too? how will it reflect on the panama type as it has been defined for years. i have always avoided terroir as a term (absolutely no offense, peter l.!) simply because it wasn't familiar to me, and i didn't want to glom onto the wine model. I used "origin character" and that, i think, has meant closer to what peter g. was talking about earlier in the thread- traditional processing for that region, traditional cultivars, etc. exotic cultivars are a great (perhaps unavoidable) answer to the newly forming central america coffee crises, that is, pressure to convert land to subdivided retirement living for n. americans! seriously, i think c. america will become an extension of florida in our lifetimes (not politically, economically and, sadly, culturally) and boquete is just a preview. if you can get 2x to 5 x the price for an exotic cultivar you might have incentive not to subdivide. but how confusing is this going to become? and, as jim s. hinted, how much will any of us consider these influences on plant material "pure" - can we just inject gesha flavor into the system at some point and get the same results? a joke, but how far is that from using seed stock that reliably produces particular coffee flavors? It seems like quite a manipulated production system that starts to reminds of us all other engineered and adulterated foods. it definitely buts up to genetic manipulation too.

on my other topic, i have been cupping those natural idido yirgs and i fully appreicate them; natural processing is largely accidental processing. we all know that. my impression (correct me if i am wrong) is that much ethiopian natural that comes later in the crop is sourced from leftovers that farmers have simply socked away in their sheds, it is old, mistreated seconds. you pick ripe cherry and sell if for wet processing, and anything extra, or that ripens later, or what have you, gets stored in a sack until the buyer swings by 3 months later - not what we imagine as diligent processing with cup quality as a driving factor. So, as in the case of misty valley, what if you have ripe cherry being promptly screen dried in a central location, uniform and with care. What if you used all the dry milling techniques that a good washed central would be subjected to ... well, you end up with something compelling, but it is unlike any natural ethiopia coffee i have ever had. again, the market determines taste, and coffee has always been grown to serve the taste of an export market, but our ability to effect changes has rapid and profound consequences on producer coffee culture.

on the plus side, i think of all the producers i met who totally disregard everything i say, disregard everything everyone says, and keep doing what they have done for the 50 previous years.

again, everybody, so many good, thoughtful posts it is hard to digest it all in one sitting... but even though i have 20 things to do right now and a pile of new monday morning samples i should be roasting, it is REALLY worth it to take 30 minutes and read/think/contribute to this topic.

tom

ps: when i reread my last post ... i didn't mean to sound so snarky about "clean cup" people, essentially calling them part of a white sugar/white bread culture. i was just trying to find a way to communicate my point about a "culture of taste". peter g - you expressed it a lot better, and more clearly than i.

[Jim Schulman]

on my other topic, i have been cupping those natural idido yirgs and i fully appreicate them; natural processing is largely accidental processing. we all know that. my impression (correct me if i am wrong) is that much ethiopian natural that comes later in the crop is sourced from leftovers that farmers have simply socked away in their sheds, it is old, mistreated seconds. you pick ripe cherry and sell if for wet processing, and anything extra, or that ripens later, or what have you, gets stored in a sack until the buyer swings by 3 months later - not what we imagine as diligent processing with cup quality as a driving factor. So, as in the case of misty valley, what if you have ripe cherry being promptly screen dried in a central location, uniform and with care. What if you used all the dry milling techniques that a good washed central would be subjected to ... well,

Since I started homeroasting, I've always loved DPs for their lush and complex flavors. Obviously, as my experience grew, I started tasting the downside (dirt, hides, manure, mushrooms, spam etc) and getting a lot more picky, as well as nostalgic for the days when I wasn't as fussy.

Now life is suddenly good again. These screen dry process coffees from the Sidamo region are in a new category, and, to me, represent the new state of the art in coffee processing. If I had to list the top ten coffees I ever drank, three or four of them would be these, and they all came in this year.

I have no idea whether screen drying alone is what's doing this. What Tom is saying, that previous DPs have been made from the rejects after the WP lots were sorted out, while these are prime selections, makes a whole lot of sense.

I'm just praying we're paying enogh for them so they keep making them, and so I can get my persoanl stash filled with them every year.

[Jim Schulman]

Botrytified coffee?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,20191730-5005961,00.html

Sorry, no way I could resist this.

(edit:) a more detailed article -- apparently, friendly, terroir bound fungi are responsible for chocolate, caramel, and citrus notes:

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1720888.htm

[Jaime van Schyndel]

So here I am reading about the 'Rio defect' in Brazils, off notes in Puerto ricans... and up pops this little mention of 2,4,6 trichloroanisole andGeosmin as sources of earthy musty cellar flavors in coffee.

I found several references to geosmin as a product of post harvest treatments of the green in Mexican coffees also. Also referenced with geosmin, 2-methylisoborneol, and 2,4,6-trichloroanisole. Seems to be a big problem in the catfish market!

So if those are all possible factors in earthy/musty flavors, where do the over ferment blueberries come from?

Ethyls???


I will be looking more carefully for β-damascenone. I could swear that Terroir's previous yirg had some of this.
Damascenone in roses and in wines. I read in my coffee flavor chemistry book that it is a source of tea like and fruity flavors in raw coffee that resists roasting.

[Robert Goble]

And another fungi link:
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2006/0 ... ungus.html

[Jason Haeger]

I found this article linked on Arizona Coffee today.

Interesting stuff.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 724648.htm