Today’s coffee experimentation: a one-note samba?
Posted by TheShot on 27 Dec 2010 | Tagged as: Quality Issues
Over the holiday, a friend asked about the “is crema bad for coffee?” question that we recently posted. We provided an answer in the form of one of our Christmas dinner dishes. This then lead to a debate about the methodology used by today’s coffee tinkerers who are on a discovery mission to improve coffee.
As we wrote previously, some coffee professionals are questioning all assumptions — including whether crema is any good for espresso. The logic behind this last example being that crema, on its own, tastes rather bitter. And while there’s agreement that a healthy crema is a sign of a properly extracted espresso, some would even say the resulting espresso tastes better if you skim the crema off the cup.
How does our Christmas dinner fit into this? My wife decided to make a dish from The French Laundry Cookbook. Like many accomplished chefs, we’ve long considered Thomas Keller to be a great coffee pretender. However, earning three Michelin stars simultaneously at two different restaurants suggests that he knows a thing or two about food.
The dish in question is a Dungeness crab salad with a recipe that calls for daikon radish. Why did Mr. Keller opt to add the radish to a naturally sweet crab salad? On its own, the radish has a bitter flavor. But taste his recipe in its aggregate form, and the radish adds both a complexity to the flavor as well a texture the dish would otherwise lack.
To our own subjective taste buds, skimming the crema off an espresso is akin to Mr. Keller throwing out the daikon radish. An espresso without crema loses some of its flavor complexity, even if those components tasted on their own aren’t terribly appetizing. And as far as texture is concerned, espresso is a rare emulsion of gas, liquid, and solids all coming together with aromatics originating from each. Skim off the crema, and you’re merely left with the liquid minority.
In pursuit of independent variables
This crema-or-no-crema question typifies the sort of experimentation going on with coffee these days; the approaches we hear about are very binary or one-dimensional. But there’s good reason for that. Simple, baby-steps science encourages us to explore constituent influences in as much isolation as possible so that we may draw direct conclusions of cause-and-effect.
Thus we get primitive experiments such as crema vs. no crema, put portafilter handles in the freezer vs. leave them warm in the espresso machine group head, etc. And we get one-dimensional manipulations such as pressure profiling. Experimentalists are incented to fix all independent variables save for the one they’re monkeying with — to see how it contributes to the overall result. Tweak multiple things at once, and you cannot be sure what gets credit for the difference.
The problem with this deconstructionist approach is that it leads to a lazy, mistaken belief in superposition — i.e., the idea that all variables are entirely independent and that the whole is the mere sum of all the parts. Nature rarely works this way. Take something as multifaceted, subjective, and broad as coffee flavor. Optimizing your coffee growing, roasting, extraction, etc., for one characteristic — say, sweetness — often has major side-effects on the other characteristics — say, body. We’re certain that our past criticism of deconstructionist approaches must sound like some snobbish critique of post-modern art, but this is precisely what we mean by all that.
Today’s disproportionate appeal of single origin coffees and, more to the point, single origin espresso shots reflects the value currently placed in this simplistic, deconstructed approach. It is well-suited to the early developmental stages of today’s coffee consumer palates. Many single origin coffees exhibit simplistic one-note or two-note flavor profiles, offering basic building blocks for consumers’ budding flavor vocabularies.
Of course, not everyone prefers orchestral music to chamber music. But complex systems are so named for a reason. Saying “crab salad: sweet, good” and “radish: bitter, bad” reflects only the most primitive flavor profiling. Appreciating complex systems, where the sum may differ from the contributions of its constituent parts in isolation, means the difference between recognizing Thomas Keller for deliberate genius rather than for a random mistake.
3 Comments »
Oh, yeah, this… I was reading through a backlog in the order they were posted and didn’t see this until I’d already made my saucier comment.
I just knew that there’s single origin espresso (pardon my amateur-ism)! So are you saying that espresso should be a blend of different origins/beans/other variables?
About the isolation, maybe I could make an analogue of it with soccer/football. 11 people playing together in harmony = good play. Take only one person and telling him to attack the opposing team alone… would not yield a good result. It’s because of the combined play of 11 person in a team that the one person can make the goal.
And if you take that one person into another team, he’ll play a different style. One man (one isolated variable), different teams (different blends), different play (different results).
Bad analogue? Yeah.
Nope. Didn’t mean to say that espresso had to be a blend. But there’s clearly a current interest in single origin espresso shots that are faddishly out of proportion with the quality of the shots they produce.
I can run with the football analogue though. In recent years, Real Madrid has (over)spent hundreds of millions of dollars amassing brand-name forwards and attacking midfielders. They’ve sold a lot of jerseys to eight-year-olds with this strategy, but they’ve won very few La Liga championships as a result. Because to their detriment, they’ve often treated their defensive line and defensive midfield as a necessary annoyance. And when you can’t defend well, you’re hobbled against a worthy opponent who can.
Which is why the club resembles a weightlifter with the chest and biceps of Atlas but the scrawny lower body of Mark Zuckerberg.
A simplistic approach to a complex system often yields unsatisfying results, and simultaneously throwing fifty simplistic approaches at a complex system doesn’t necessarily yield much better results.