Paul:
<Snip>
water
and any resulting chemical changes or just to the slower initial phase =
of 
the roast profile.
Indeed.  It raises questions about batch size, too.  I normally roast =
150g
in a Rosto . . . so do I weigh 150g of bean and add 15g of water and =
roast
165g or weigh 136g of bean and add 14g of water and roast (my normal) =
150g
batch (either of which will, as you note, necessarily take either more =
time
or more heat in the early stages of the roast to evaporate away that =
added
water)?  Different initial moisture content will effect the roast in =
several
different ways  . . .
We had extensive discussion of bean moisture content on this list some =
time
ago . . . this is a revisit to that subject.  It may well be that
re-hydration is appropriate for over-dried beans (and that "over-dried" =
is
the best state for storage, to prevent spoilage).  It would be a grand =
and
unlikely accident if the optimum moisture content for roasting and the
optimum moisture content for storage were the same (especially since we
already know that storage at above normal (for storage) moisture content =
is
likely one of the mechanisms of "aging" or "monsooning").
Deward

At 10:45 AM 7/27/2004, you wrote:
<Snip>
Looks like the best indicator will be when a bunch of us try it and some 
consensus develops.
Paul
Paul Goelz
Rochester Hills, MI USA
paul
www.pgoelz.com

At 7:45 AM -0700 7/27/04, Deward Hastings wrote:
<Snip>
Here is my guess. Since a five minute soak appears to be the 'magic amount' of soaking, it seems likely that the effect has less to do with chemical changes and more to do with heat transmission. The impact would be two fold: easing the startup ramp AND evening out the radiation of heat towards the inside of the bean. Water has a high specific heat -- so the water absorbed by the outer parts of the bean will allow the heat to equalize more evenly in the bean until the water is driven off. That early moisture may just provide the perfect heat curve for the early roast -- which seems critical from my experiments on full flavor development.
That probably wasn't too well explained -- but I have a suspicion that the answer lies in there somewhere.
Jus' my 'pinion,
--Edward

Roasted some last night on the stovetop using the whirly-pop after
rehydrating. The first batch I let sit in the water for approximately 5
minutes, tossed the beans around a bit in a colander. Lots of steam in
popper during the first 5 minutes of the roast. The total roast time was
lengthed by a minute or two. The beans look great. I've had some sinus
dificulties as of late, but it seems as though the resting aroma of the
beans is not as strong. Did 4 more batches with other varieties lessening
the time of rehydration each time until the last batch was merely a good
rinse in the colander. All roasts were affected basically the same by the
rehydration independent of the time spent soaking. Once again, it may be my
nose, but the resting aroma seemed weak and I don't have roaster's hands
this morning like I normally would using the whirly-pop. Will start the
tasting tommorrow morning...

Edward,
     For what it is worth, your explanation seems to make sense to my 
"mind's eye view" of the physics of roasting.   I just tested my first 
five minute soak heat gun in a wok on a roll of hog wire roasting and I 
too find it a fuller and smoother coffee than the same bean roasted in 
the same way, yes complete with the hog wire, just a few days earlier.
          Jim Gundlach
On Jul 27, 2004, at 9:56 AM, Edward Spiegel wrote:
<Snip>

Anyone using the the soaking method with the I-roast?  Any problems?  Thanks
Dave Echelbarger

Edward:
<Snip>
Have you weighed the beans before and after soaking to see how much =
water is
absorbed?
Deward

At 9:38 AM -0700 7/27/04, Deward Hastings wrote:
<Snip>
s
<Snip>
It was a roughly 10% weight gain. My scale is only accurate within 2 grams.=
 The weight went from about 82 grams to about 90 grams.
I am -- as I write this -- sipping my first 'soaked bean roast' -- Yemen=
 Mokha Ismaili Hirazi that was soaked for five minutes, drained and roasted=
 in a Pumper to Full City (Yemen roasting as it does that means some beans=
 are in City to City + and some are also in Full City+).
While I don't have last week's roast of the same to A/B compare, this=
 roasting does seem to have addressed some of my quibbles with my last=
 roast. This roast tastes very Yemen but the winy notes are not overplaying=
 the chocolate. There is a nice full body and smooth finish that I am=
 liking. I wish that I had taken the roast a tiny bit farther (so that the=
 darkest beans are in vienna), but overall am very pleased with the results=
 and I suspect that the water soak played a role.
[Historical aside: last week a close friend and fellow coffee amateur did a=
 blind cupping of some Yemen that I roasted and  Peet's Yemen Mokha Sanani=
 -- I hope that I am not revealing myself as some sort of hillbilly for=
 saying that I think that Peet's roast of this bean is a worthy goal. In the=
 cupping, my roast was judged far more aromatic pre-brew -- both beans and=
 ground -- but -- surprisingly to both of us -- the Peet's was every bit as=
 flavorful in the cup. My roast was much brighter and winier than the=
 Peet's. The Peet's made up for the lack of wine with a wonderful chocolaty=
 body with hints of the brighter tones. I believe that yesterday's roast=
 would have been much closer to the Peet's roast than to my earlier roast as=
 the chocolate is well-established here and the 'wine' notes don't dominate=
 the other flavors. Another note about that tasting that surprised was that=
 my roast had a darker appearance than the Peet's but the Peet's tasted=
 'darker'. After reading a bunch about Alfred Peet's roasting philosophy and=
 technique, I think that owes itself to the way that he slows the end of the=
 roast.]
At 10:18 AM -0700 7/27/04, Douglas H. Boutell wrote:
<Snip>
 on  the water soaked beans.
<Snip>
 roasted. The final roast time for both methods  were  within 2-10 sec for=
 the same final temp.
That about jibes with my experience, the time to first crack was extended by=
 about 30 to 45 seconds but the final roast time was not much longer than=
 usual. This isn't surprising -- and I think supports my contention about=
 the influence of the water -- the added water will be all gone by the time=
 one gets to first crack. During that time, I think that heat may be=
 radiating more evenly into the bean. (Which also probably means that the=
 beans don't need quite as much heat afterwards to get to second crack). It=
 looks like my time to first crack was longer and my time between cracks was=
 a bit shorter.
--Edward

At 11:55 AM -0400 7/27/04, Tom Ulmer wrote:
<Snip>
Interestingly, (or not) in a blind cupping a friend and I did last week, we found that the strength of bean aroma did not directly translate to corresponding amounts of flavor.
This was quite a surprise to us. The big test will be in the cup. Let us know the results.
--Edward

When I tested the water soaking I use the same weight of beans
and just soaked them for 5 min and started the roast. From my data
I measured the bean temp at 1 min and their was about 4-8 deg lower temp 
  on  the water soaked beans.
  At 2 minutes the  water soaked bean temps were  2-4 deg lower than the 
dry roasted. The final roast time for both methods  were  within 2-10 
sec for the same final temp. The first crack was within a 15 sec time 
for both roasts. The roasting was in a FR+ and P1 and I have no info for 
the other roasters.
Doug Boutell
Deward Hastings wrote:
<Snip>

I try to keep an open mind on all things but I think I can say from a 
bit of experience that soaking green coffee is going to have a very 
bad effect on cup quality. I am not saying it won't make coffee roast 
differently or even look better, but you have this dried seed that is 
a sponge, waiting to readily absorb water and it will do so quite 
quickly. This is going to transfer heat through the coffee 
differently and probably compromise the cell walls sooner in terms of 
the cracks. But I tried this a long time ago in a triagular, blind 
cupping, just for fun, and the wet coffee had lost so much character 
it was amazing, and it had a bad roast taint too. There's a bittering 
compound called trigollene (sp?) and I felt like that is what I was 
tasting - its something you get in underroasted coffee and it 
diminishes as the coffee develops, but in this case the coffee was 
developed and the trigollene taste was there, acrid. Theres a guy who 
soaks coffee saying that green coffee is dirty and needs to be 
cleaned before it is roasted. If you wet green coffee the water will 
turn off-color but this is not dirt, its colored by the remaining 
chaff on the coffee ... so the "cleaning" of greens is a gimmick 
really, and in the meantime his roasts must taste awful! Oh well ...
In any case, I love the spirit of inventiveness and I can ALWAYS be 
wrong about anything, as I have ,learned. Maybe theres a technique 
that actually enhances cup quality? Then again, nobody has ever done 
it professionally, no roast device employs it, and even water 
quenching post-roast for cooling is looked down upon so...
The moisture content of ummolested (read as non-soaked)  green coffee 
is a big issue though, and makes roast times vary. For my part in 
this- I just bit the bullet (finally) and bought an $800 moisture 
tester for coffee. I have been thinking about it a lot; every 
roaster, home roaster or not,  need to know the moisture content of 
coffee because it can affect roast time dramatically. On my Probat I 
can intuit the mositure content by looking at the coffee, but I have 
been using the tester and some of my "intuitions" were a bit off. 
There is a place for science! Moisture can also suggests the 
freshness of the green coffee - a big issue with green coffee 
floating around out there ... so I am going to add a dated moisture 
content reading on every coffee review, then update it at intervals 
(3 months) to log any change. Then again, most lots don't last 3 mos. 
(even our constant supplies of coffees like Sulawesi etc are replaced 
buy new lots every 3-4 mos.) but I think this will be very useful 
data ... one trick is that, like all things in coffee, you can't 
apply a number universally and draw a conclusion. A wet processed 
Central that measures 8.5% is a big problem - that is old coffee. 
Other coffees can measure around 9 and be fine. The general rule for 
wet processed hard bean coffees is 9-11.5 or 12 maybe. Sumatras can 
arrive with more, but when you get up to 14% you have problems fore 
sure.Anyway, it should be interesting but is going to take me a few 
weeks to implement. This machine also allows me to measure moisture 
in roasted coffee which will be interesting.
Tom
-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   "Great coffee comes from tiny roasters"
            Sweet Maria's Home Coffee Roasting  -  Tom & Maria
                      http://www.sweetmarias.com                Thomspon Owen george

I reported that the wet bean roast did not work in the Z&D roaster. The wet
beans jammed the auger. I let the wet beans dry out on a paper towel for 18
hrs on my countertop then roasted them. This morning my wife and I did a
blind test of the dry vs. wet bean. We both agreed the wet bean was fuller,
smoother and tastier than the dry bean. The coffee used was Brazil Fazenda
Ipanema Dulce.

If this were the reason, maybe keeping the beans in the freezer for a time 
(to be determined) would have the same(better?)effect?
A.
<Snip>

On 27 Jul 2004 at 7:56, Edward Spiegel wrote:
<Snip>
Very nicely explained, I'd say. I think I agree, since it took 
over an hour for the beans to absorb the 5% of weight of water I 
added to them. 
Also, I get a real difference in successive roasts using the 
same (PIDed) supply air ramp. In the first roast it takes a long 
time for the bean temperature to respond early in the roast, but 
the finish is fast, while in later roasts the beans get to 300F 
much faster, but their ramp slows down from there on up. My 
guess is that in the later roasts the beans aren't heating up as 
evenly.
Jim

At 2:23 PM -0400 7/27/04, Angelo wrote:
<Snip>
If the reason is related to the heat curve and heat radiation, putting them in the freezer would not have the same effect that would only change the initial ramp but not the radiation of heat into the bean -- btw, probably a better way to accomplish the same thing would be a slower ramp to first with a slight stall during first to make sure that the heat is evenly distributed within the bean.
Now, I should point out that I did not A/B test my roasts -- so I might be subject to some placebo effect. The next time that my friend (whose taste buds I trust more than my own) is in town, I will have him blind cup a pre-soaked vs. a soaked roast to see what he comes up with -- and I won't tell him anything about the issues involved -- just that I did two roasts of the same bean and wanted his take on what the differences are.
--Edward

Tom & Maria - Sweet Maria's Coffee  wrote:
I try to keep an open mind on all things but I think I can say from a 
bit of experience that soaking green coffee is going to have a very 
bad effect on cup quality. I am not saying it won't make coffee roast 
differently or even look better, but you have this dried seed that is 
a sponge, waiting to readily absorb water and it will do so quite 
quickly. This is going to transfer heat through the coffee 
differently and probably compromise the cell walls sooner in terms of 
the cracks. But I tried this a long time ago in a triagular, blind 
cupping, just for fun, and the wet coffee had lost so much character 
it was amazing, and it had a bad roast taint too. 
Tom,
I wouldn't have believed it unless I did a blind test.  Doug has spent 7 months testing.  I was amazed at the improved quallity in a full-city blend of Brazil Poco Fundo / Uganda Bugisu.  Before I got to do this test, I was given a test by Doug to identify the beans in one of his blends.  I got two out of the three right, and the third I was close on.  I had never had the third bean before.  Not that my tasting skills are as good as yours, but I don't think they are too bad either.  I have been given the title "Dr. Crema!"  I just finished a comparision between a Dog Bowl Roast and an hot air popper roast.  It helped the popper more.  I also think the dynamics in our small batches are much different than in a big roaster.  Little things make big differences.  I just changed the stack in my souped up Pumper.  I went to an empty tennis ball tube for a nice tall stack!  It slowed my profile by a minute!  4-8 oz of coffee soaked for 5 minutes is going to be different than 20-30 p
 ounds in
 a big roaster.  By the way, in a side by side test of  the Brazil Sul de Minas -Carmo Estate roasted by you and roasted by me on the same day to the same (very close) degree, they were almost identical.  I did this test the day after the PNWG 2.  I could detect a little more brightness in my roast.  This was a blind test.  My conclusion is that commercial roasts and homeroasts can be just as good as the other.  However, we can really tweek our small batches.  What I love about DB roasting is I can see everything happen!  After all those words, maybe you out to try a 5 min soak again!
Les

At 1:26 PM -0700 7/27/04, Lesley Albjerg wrote:
<Snip>
I wonder if this perhaps supports the contention that the benefit (when present) of the pre-soak is a softening of the temp curve early in the roast since the heat differential between the beans and the popper temp is really high. It is well possible that with more controllable roasting equipment that the pre-soak would have no benefits -- or even detriments such as Tom mentions.
I will do a roast this weekend -- not presoaked -- using my various cooldown techniques early in the roast to lengthen the time to first and see if there is a similar rounding out of the roast. I will also do a straight roast for comparison.
There is a technique I employed this weekend that seemed to work well and I am wondering if other popper roasters have tried it. As the popper approached first, I turned on the popper entirely (and put an oven mitt on the top for several seconds, shook the popper then turned it back on. I did the same at the end of first. The roast that I did that on was the tastiest that I have done of that bean. I did it because when I was measuring bean vs. air temp in the popper, I noticed that the differential was so high that it might work well to let the beans 'coast' for a few seconds and let the heat distribute itself inwards before pumping more heat into them. I was seeing if I couldn't imitate a little more closely some cool roasts I remember from Italy that were 'vienna' judging by the shine but were more like City++ by color.
While my result wasn't exactly what I was aiming for, it developed more in that direction than others that I have done. (I also stalled again shortly before second commenced).
If other air poppers have experimented with stalling (turning heat and fan off not just the heat), I would love to hear about your techniques and results.
--Edward (the information hog)

Edward,
I would agree with you, but Doug has a PIDed roaster and is doing a very controlled ramp of each roast.  Personally, I am just going to enjoy a better tasting coffee that takes 5 min. longer to roast.  I really don't want to suffer from over analysis.
 
Les
Edward Spiegel  wrote:
At 1:26 PM -0700 7/27/04, Lesley Albjerg wrote:
<Snip>
I wonder if this perhaps supports the contention that the benefit (when present) of the pre-soak is a softening of the temp curve early in the roast since the heat differential between the beans and the popper temp is really high. It is well possible that with more controllable roasting equipment that the pre-soak would have no benefits -- or even detriments such as Tom mentions.
I will do a roast this weekend -- not presoaked -- using my various cooldown techniques early in the roast to lengthen the time to first and see if there is a similar rounding out of the roast. I will also do a straight roast for comparison.
There is a technique I employed this weekend that seemed to work well and I am wondering if other popper roasters have tried it. As the popper approached first, I turned on the popper entirely (and put an oven mitt on the top for several seconds, shook the popper then turned it back on. I did the same at the end of first. The roast that I did that on was the tastiest that I have done of that bean. I did it because when I was measuring bean vs. air temp in the popper, I noticed that the differential was so high that it might work well to let the beans 'coast' for a few seconds and let the heat distribute itself inwards before pumping more heat into them. I was seeing if I couldn't imitate a little more closely some cool roasts I remember from Italy that were 'vienna' judging by the shine but were more like City++ by color.
While my result wasn't exactly what I was aiming for, it developed more in that direction than others that I have done. (I also stalled again shortly before second commenced).
If other air poppers have experimented with stalling (turning heat and fan off not just the heat), I would love to hear about your techniques and results.
--Edward (the information hog)

At 02:12 PM 7/27/2004 -0700, Edward wrote:
<Snip>
popper roast.  It helped the popper more.
<Snip>
present) of the pre-soak is a softening of the temp curve early in the
roast since the heat differential between the beans and the popper temp is
really high. It is well possible that with more controllable roasting
equipment that the pre-soak would have no benefits -- or even detriments
such as Tom mentions.
<Snip>
Seems to me that the pre-soak stalls the roast longer at the drying stage
allowing the beans to reach a more even temperature overall before
proceeding to the rest of the roast.
  IOW with pre-soaking there will be a lower temperature differential
between the outside and inside of the beans at the end of the drying stage
and this may be translated into a more even roast development later on.
 However, as Tom has suggested, it will be hard to make a rule that works
for all beans as there are so many variables at play, not the least of
which is initial moisture content before the pre-soak. If the moisture
content is already optimum, pre-soaking might be detrimental. This is not
to say that there won't be improvements in some cases but just that it's
not guaranteed.

At 2:34 PM -0700 7/27/04, Johnny Kent wrote:
<Snip>
Well put!

<Snip>
<Snip>
Doug just sent me two bean samples - the first is one of your "Plum
Blends", Jim, and the other is a Poco Fundo. Each one came in a soaked
version and an unsoaked version (I think... he hasn't told me
much...he hasn't even identified which was soaked and which wasn't, if
that's what he sent). All I know is "A" and "B" for each type. So
that's four samples in all. I will open-bowl cup them all and then
pull shots for the Schulman blend and vac pot the Poco. I will cup
them all blind so you might call this a "double blind" test.
After the evaluation I'll ask Doug which was which. With Doug's
permission, we can post the results here. Should be interesting.
Bob Yellin

<Snip>
It definitely could be removing a variable that leads to poor roast 
results, and the whole discussion is really interesting. I am going 
to try a couple roasts myself and refresh my memory about the cup 
results last time I tried something similar. Last time I wet the 
coffee for longer period and this time I will do something more like 
we are discussing here... -Tom
-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   "Great coffee comes from tiny roasters"
            Sweet Maria's Home Coffee Roasting  -  Tom & Maria
                      http://www.sweetmarias.com                Thomspon Owen george

Tom:
<Snip>
results
It might be interesting, now that you can easily measure the moisture
content of the test beans, to add measured amounts of water to bring
moisture content to pre-determined levels.  The "soak five minutes" =
method
adds yet another uncontrolled variable (how much water is absorbed).  =
Better
(since you can) to take beans at 9% (or whatever) and add 5g/100 (or
whatever) of water to bring moisture content to (approx) 14% (or =
whatever).
Better still if you could compare to the same bean at that moisture =
content
that hadn't gone through the dry-rehydrate cycle.
I've long suspected that storage of green bean in the typically low =
humidity
residence can result in over drying, to the detriment of subsequent =
roasts.
Deward

On Jul 27, 2004, at 4:21 PM, Lesley Albjerg wrote:
<Snip>
<Snip>
<Snip>
I agree with Les, I'm willing to take the risk of being driven to 
ecstasy  by the placebo effect.
      Jim Gundlach

At 11:01 AM 7/27/2004 -0500, Pecan Jim Gundlach wrote:
 >I just tested my first
 >five minute soak heat gun in a wok on a roll of hog wire roasting and I
 >too find it a fuller and smoother coffee than the same bean roasted in
 >the same way
Jim, that is a mouthful.  Do you mind if I abbreviate that down
to FMSHGWRHW Roasting?  ;-)
You guys are inspiring me to turn off my fancy new equipment and
hang out at the hardware store.  Or better yet, take a cue from
"Junkyard Wars".  I'd love to see a coffee roaster battle!!
Allen
am

At 10:33 AM 7/27/2004 -0700, Tom & Maria - Sweet Maria's Coffee wrote:
 >
 >There is a place for science!
Tom, I often borrow an expression I learned from an air conditioner
technician on another list.  This was in the context of repairing
difficult to solve A/C problems.  He said:
"If you aren't measuring, then you are just guessing!"
This not only holds true for diagnosing A/C problems, but
many things in life.  Good luck with your new instrument!
May your readings be accurate and your results be rewarding!
Allen
am

<Snip>
I made up a corollary to that one, Allen...it goes "If you can't measure
what counts, you count what measures."  Which is to say, sometimes the
variables we concern ourselves with are more related to ease of measurement
than acute relevance.
Gene Smith
riding the wild learning curve, in Houston

--- Gene Smith  wrote:
<Snip>
 Did you really make that up yourself, Gene?   Cool.
  Charlie
=====
Brick Oven Roasting in British Columbia
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

At 10:04 PM 7/27/2004 -0500, Gene Smith wrote:
 >>
 >> "If you aren't measuring, then you are just guessing!"
 >
 >I made up a corollary to that one, Allen...it goes "If you can't measure
 >what counts, you count what measures."  Which is to say, sometimes the
 >variables we concern ourselves with are more related to ease of measurement
 >than acute relevance.
 >
I like it!!  Sorry Gene, but I'm definitely going to have
to borrow that one!  :)
Allen
am

<Snip>
Thanks, Charlie...I actually did.  Wouldn't be a bit surprised that it has
occurred to someone else as well, but it struck me as important enough to
beat into some sort of aphorism.  It's the scientific/statistical expression
of the Sufi story about the fellow who is walking home one night and sees
his good friend in front of his house on his hands and knees, obviously
looking for something.  He inquires what he is doing and his friend replies
that he has lost his keys.  He then asks just where he thinks he dropped
them, perhaps in an attempt to help.  The friend indicates another location
in the yard.  When then asked why, if he has dropped the keys over there, he
is looking over here, the friend replies "The light is much better over
here."
We love quantifiable information so much that I do believe that, in the
absence of relevant data, we are often tempted to, shall we say, 'amplify'
the significance of available data...
Gene Smith
riding the wild learning curve, in Houston

<Snip>
Borrow away, Allen.  My other great invention, the Irony Alert, which is a
sort of anti-emoticon, has never caught on, alas.  It's intended use is to
indicate the possible presence of ironic material for the irony impaired.
Made like this: (i!)
Gene Smith
riding the wild learning curve, in Houston

At 10:33 PM 7/27/2004 -0500, Gene Smith wrote:
 >> I like it!!  Sorry Gene, but I'm definitely going to have
 >> to borrow that one!  :)
 >>
 >
 >Borrow away, Allen.  My other great invention, the Irony Alert, which is a
 >sort of anti-emoticon, has never caught on, alas.  It's intended use is to
 >indicate the possible presence of ironic material for the irony impaired.
 >Made like this: (i!)
 >
You can keep that one Gene.    :)
Seriously, you are quite a master of list etiquette IMHO..  I have
admired at least 2 of your posts today, both of which I am saving
in my notes for my own twisted purposes.
What feels odd about saving notes tonight (I do it all the time) is
that I admired/saved these 2 posts for reasons that had nothing to do
with coffee whatsoever.
The categories read more like, "how to deal with list issues" and
"cute catchy phases for technical speaking sessions".  ;-)
Allen
am

I can see it now.  With Tom including the % water on his beans, some are 
going to start finding the perfect level of moisture. "...yeah, this one 
only take 3% extra, but that one is way low and I need to add 11.3% 
water".  I am not sure this is somewhere I want to go.  It is fun for the 
scientist in me, but really I enjoy the natural variations as they 
come.  Reminds me of  the California wine industry some years ago.  Tested 
to death, all levels adjusted for "perfect and optimum" and there was lots 
of mediocre wine.  There was always that "something" missing that it seems 
only nature can nail down.  I can see adding a little water now and then 
for kicks, put not trying to optimize every bean.
Sometime around 02:55 PM 7/27/2004, Edward Spiegel typed:
<Snip>
--
John Nanci 
AlChemist at large
Zen Roasting , Blending & Espresso pulling by Gestalthttp://www.dreamsandbones.net/blog/http://www.chocolatealchemy.com/

Sometime around 04:03 PM 7/27/2004, Tom & Maria - Sweet Maria's Coffee typed:
<Snip>
Tom, I did find from my two tests, I like adding the 5% - 10% water, 
letting it soak in and then roasting.  I did not care for the roasting 
properties of the wet beans, and I figured if some of the intention is to 
use the water, give it time to equilibrate in the bean.  Finally, even on 
the Ugandan that I found tasted better, I think the aroma was equal or 
lesser but it is hard to tell.  I have  a feeling the wetting may be muting 
high notes, so a "low" coffee like a Ugandan would be affected less in  the 
aroma category than a bright Kenya or Central.
<Snip>
--
John Nanci 
AlChemist at large
Zen Roasting , Blending & Espresso pulling by Gestalthttp://www.dreamsandbones.net/blog/http://www.chocolatealchemy.com/

[snip]
<Snip>
to 
<Snip>
on 
<Snip>
muting 
<Snip>
the 
<Snip>
A few months ago Doug Boutell suggested this soaking method to me but
it sounded a little too kooky, even for me. Then a few weeks ago, Jim
Schulman sent me some A-B samples to try and I found that the soaking
had, quite clearly, flattened the high tones. I was happy about that -
I didn't want to start having to soak beans. But on Monday, Doug sent
samples to evaluate and I was surprised at the results. He sent soaked
and unsoaked samples of a Brazil (Poco Fundo) and an espresso blend.
The bags were just marked A and B with no hint about which was soaked.
I cupped them, vac-potted them, and tried them as espressos and
cappas.
I sent the results to Doug today and then he revealed the identities.
The bottom line is that the unsoaked espresso blend was way better
than the soaked beans. The soaked version tasted like a "dumbed-down"
version of the unsoaked beans. If I didn't have the benefit of an A-B
comparison, I would have said that the soaked beans tasted fine, but
the comparison really brought out the difference. But the big surprise
was the Brazil. In this case the soaking actually enhanced the cup
quality. It was lively and complex compared to the unsoaked beans.
I think the key may be the acidity of the beans. The blend consisted
of 40% Uganda Bugisu, 30% Sumatra Iskander and 30% Kenya Mbwinjeru and
every one of these coffees has a higher acidity than the Poco Fundo.
So when you say;
<Snip>
coffee like a 
<Snip>
Kenya or Central.
that may be close to the reason for the enhancement. Perhaps this
technique enhances low acid coffees and flattens out more acidic ones.
I've never soaked a bean myself but I guess I'll have to give this a
try (dammit).
Bob Yellin

On 28 Jul 2004 at 13:09, Bob Yellin wrote:
<Snip>
This would be in line with my soaking experiment. I noticed that 
one thing the soaked coffees had which the unsoaked ones didn't 
was a complex and pleasant wine/ferment note in the aroma. If 
there's little or no top end being flattened, this could add to 
the cup.

<Snip>
So...would one of you more experienced gents (or ladies) give us a
short-list breakdown of which coffees are likely to fall into those two
broad camps?
Gene Smith
riding the wild learning curve, in Houston

This morning I tried using this method on some Ugandan Bugisu, and I 
felt it was flatter and duller than usual.  I didn't do an A/B 
comparison but I'm pretty used to the flavor, and this morning it was 
noticeably flatter.
Kevin.
Bob Yellin wrote:
<Snip>

<Snip>
You must have been peeking at my notes. That's exactly what I sensed
in the aromas from the soaked Brazil; "winey pruney, and complex".
Bob

<Snip>
For low acid I would avoid the high grown, hard bean Centrals and East
African coffees. I will probably start by soaking low-grown, low acid
greens like Brazils (obviously), some of the Indonesians (Sumatra
Mandheling, for example), Indian coffees, especially the monsooned
types etc. I suggest you look at Tom's acidity ratings and when you
see an 8.0 or below, that may be a candidate. He gave the Poco Fundo
Brazil that I tasted a 7.5. You can also drop the acidity somewhat in
the roasting process.
Bob Yellin

<Snip>
Bugisu was 40% of the soaked blend that tasted flat to me. It has a
relatively high acidity. Tom gave it an 8.4 - that's fairly high.
Bob
<Snip>
coffee like a 
<Snip>
Kenya or Central.
<Snip>
unsvbscribes) go to =http://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings

Hi,
The Devil in me asks could it be an advantage to do a roasting with some
proportion of soaked and unsoaked beans!!
The Devil made me ask of course!!!!
As a punt I would go for a 1 to 2 ratio either / both ways. Soaked /
unsoaked sets of beans.
More work I hear you say. Generally though there is a tone in comments that
indicates this could a benefitial spread of advantages. Similar to a blend
of bean varietals.
Comments to date encourage me in this thinking rather than put me off.
Peter.

Rather interesting that we agree that it changes, how it changes but come 
to different conclusions about the result based on our preferences.  I am 
also drinking it this morning and find it "less sharp and rounder" with 
better chocolate notes than the unsoaked bean.
Sometime around 02:04 PM 7/28/2004, Kevin Pompei typed:
<Snip>
--
John Nanci 
AlChemist at large
Zen Roasting , Blending & Espresso pulling by Gestalthttp://www.dreamsandbones.net/blog/http://www.chocolatealchemy.com/

Had a nice blend this morning of soaked brasil & yirg along with some
unsoaked gayo mountain. I am quite pleased with the result.

This morning (day 2 after roasting) it tastes a lot better to me.  
Yesterday I had it as a 5+5 americano.  This morning I'm having it as a 
2+2 americano.  Maybe it's the extra day of rest, or maybe it's the 
drink method, but either way, it tastes excellent this morning.  Much 
more the way I expect the Bugisu to taste.
Kevin.
AlChemist John wrote:
<Snip>

I tried the soaking routine with some Rwanda 7 Lakes (acidity 8.3 on 
Tom's scale).  Roasted Tuesday evening.  About 5 minutes to 1st crack, 
and outliers of 2nd crack at about 8 minutes for city to full city roast.
I usually roast 180g in my modded Poppery.  I dropped to 160g, but had 
to shake for the first minute or so to get any circulation.
First sample Wednesday morning, about 8 hours later.  Nicely drinkable 
and smooth for such a short rest.
Second sample Thursday morning, about 32 hours rest.  Flat and not so 
attractive at this point.  If it continues on this trend, it's going to 
be pretty blah by the weekend.
I'll have to try with a non-acidic coffee, maybe the aged Sumatran.
=S
<Snip>

This mornings cup was nice, except for a woody note near the beginning 
of the cup -- it seemed to fade away after a few minutes.  Not very 
bright, but smooth with some fruit and a hint of chocolate.
Spencer W. Thomas wrote:
<Snip>

AlChemist John wrote:
<Snip>
I was also wondering if a 'muted' coffee was being percieved as a 
'smoother" cup.

Did you happen to weigh the beans at the beginning and end of the 18 =
hours?  I'm just wondering how much of the absorbed water was still =
present after 18 hours. . .
Jean  :~)

Sometime around 07:33 AM 7/31/2004, Ben Treichel typed:
<Snip>
That could definitely be.  What I really want to do is try some Harar as 
that one was supposed to be brighter and more intense I recall.
<Snip>
--
John Nanci 
AlChemist at large
Zen Roasting , Blending & Espresso pulling by Gestalthttp://www.dreamsandbones.net/blog/http://www.chocolatealchemy.com/

I did when I dried mine over night.  Same exact weight.  I added 19 g to 
190g, and still had 209 the next day but the beans were dry.
Sometime around 09:18 PM 7/31/2004, Jean typed:
<Snip>
--
John Nanci 
AlChemist at large
Zen Roasting , Blending & Espresso pulling by Gestalthttp://www.dreamsandbones.net/blog/http://www.chocolatealchemy.com/

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Go to tools/options/read/ select (read all messages in plain text.) then =
click on apply.
RK

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
<Snip>
then click on apply.
RK

See follow up post re: Wine and Tom's response

AlChemist John wrote:
<Snip>
In a similar vein; when I was Forced to roast with a Z&D for SCAA demo 
or roasters it took 3 times to get it right, and then it turned Yirg 
into a standard cup of coffee. I think it was Ed N who described it that 
way when I said that the Z&D was the worst of the bunch; and he thought 
it was okay --- until he found out that it was a Yirg.

Yeah...I thought..."Hmmm, a pretty drinkable coffee", then Ben said it was
Yirg.  It completely neutered the Yirg, taking pretty much all of the
varietal distinction from it and leaving just a drinkable, pleasant cup of
coffee.  Thumbs down on the Z&D for developing those critical 'high note'
flavors.  Possible reason is the slower cooling and longish roast time (as
compared to other air roasters).
*******************************
Ed Needham
"To absurdity and beyond!"
ed at homeroaster dot com
*******************************