Espresso Brew Formula. Useful, or internet quasi scientific BS?

UNM

I read elsewhere about an espresso brew formula (EBF), that is supposedly useful for characterising shots.

I confess to being highly sceptical.

EBF (%) = 100 * (dosage in grams)/(espresso mass in grams

I agree that mass rather than volume of the eluted fluid is a more suitable measurement, but don't feel EBF really adds much.

Other opinions?

FreshCoffee2

Mayyyyyyte! Yeah I also read that. Do you think perhaps it could be for people that have read all the hype in the forums, have bought the machine of their dreams, but just cant quite seem to get those god shots they keep reading about and assume everyone else is getting? IE, spent a lot of money, havent yet understood the jist of making coffee, are unhappy with the brew they are getting especially in consideration of the amount of money spent, and have started looking at details. ie they didnt "get it" yet. Not that there is anything wrong with that, they just dont have the experience and understanding yet and need someone to show them how (and really.....pay for and take a lesson). But really....does it need to be that difficult? So I am afraid I dont agree (that we shouldnt be talking about volume but weights). Get three or four variables in coffee making nailed (as in understood as in....get it), and your barometer for characterising shots becomes your.....palate. This formula stuff is way too hard and gives yet more and more information to people that cant handle it. KISS is for me and my clients.

mouse_75

I was only talking to my boss about this today. I know some companies are starting to send out daily recipes including water temp to their customers, but I can only see this helping if the customers are on the same equipment and roast date. EBF is only useful as a starting point. As Fresh Coffee says, the most important tool is your palate!

UNM

I assumed the original post was suggesting that using a brew ratio (or EBF), would improve communication when people are trying to describe shots. I get what you are saying Attilio, but there will always be people wanting advice when their early shots are not what they hoped for. If they give more data rather than less, you/we can offer more useful advice. I can see using mass rather than volume having value if you want to refer to the output as mass doesn't change over time. Actually stating BOTH would convey quite a bit more info - for example I pulled a ristretto this morning of 50ml or 25g. If I had waited, it would have become around 24-25ml as the crema dissipated. This indicates the shot was seriously frisky and perhaps the beans need longer to mature. Suggesting that a simple percentage ratio somehow conveys the necessary info seems at best misleading. I tend to prefer asking for a complete description in the requestors own words, then ask additional questions as needed to clarify. Can be amazing sometimes what people do or don't think is important and that in itself is useful data. Another concern for me is that apparently beyond a certain percentage, shots are 'sour'. Weird as I don't get that with well extracted ristretto (I have noticed it with bad ristretto shots though, hmm)

FreshCoffee2

UNM wrote:

................I tend to prefer asking for a complete description in the requestors own words, then ask additional questions as needed to clarify. Can be amazing sometimes what people do or don't think is important and that in itself is useful data.....

:thumb: I dont do prescriptions, although I know some can. But those I know that can, then are not flexible enough around the edges to chase the best possible result around within the total "organics" of the product and process. When their prescription fails (because coffee and the equipment and your technique are not static), they dont seem to be able to adjust then get bogged down in details. Just my opinion, and I know we are all individuals and there are plenty that do the opposite to what I do. Whatever works 😉

Brett_H

When we teach singing pedagogy the first thing we teach is the anatomy, then the function, then scales and exercises, then basic repertoire and lastly some fault diagnosis and potential correction. It's a very scientific approach to a very scientifically intensive activity that can be, taught largely out of a text book. It is also a huge steaming pile of bollocks where average singers who are technically useless can with some intense hoping and wishing and by working really hard attain some level of mediocrity and collegial acceptance. This is garnered with big words, thoughtful dissertaion and rarely garnered by student success or achievement. The smart teachers learn from truly great singers who are artistically brilliant and able to communicate. Great teachers train their ears first and formost because the rest can be learned by any fool. They then build up a concrete sequential set of steps/ tools to train the student one simple step at a time scaffolding new knowledge and experience to prior understanding. It takes a long time for teachers to build their own skills to associate and differentiate sounds with function; but, if the basis of a good technical understanding through good teaching, good mentoring and excellent aesthetic understanding is there, success is more likely. What a funny old world of parallels in which we live eh! Train the palate and keep it simple! Green apples for everybody!