Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

seriouseats.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 57 posts

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#11

Post by fellowniusmonk »

aidenn0 wrote: post #5
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #2

In my own attempt to bloom coffee in an Aeropress, the result is, strangely, that it takes much longer to extract the coffee to 'full strength' if I bloom it, compared to not blooming it. If I bloom the coffee, then fill up with water and stir, the result is under-extracted unless I brew for longer. If I just fill up the water immediately and then stir, it takes much less long to brew to the same 'strength'. This is…

Blooming in an Aeropress would seem to be unneeded to me if you are agitating.

Any type of immersion brew benefits from immediate agitation in my experience, aeropress and french press (which gets aggressively swirled under my hot water tank while it's filling.) You can aggressively stir aeropress as well, you just need to manage it dripping from the bottom using more filters, finer grind, invert method, etc.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#12

Post by kitotik »

elwell wrote: post #6

> 30 grams of coffee, 500 grams water at 205°F Woah, that's too hot IMO, and a bit watered-down. Me: 33g coffee, 350g water at 190°F

16:1 water:coffee ratio is a pretty common starting point. Your brew is pretty intense!

I’ve found that darker roasts are much nicer around 195F, I mainly brew very light roast and almost all of them come out under extracted at temps below 200F

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#13

Post by code_biologist »

elwell wrote: post #6

> 30 grams of coffee, 500 grams water at 205°F Woah, that's too hot IMO, and a bit watered-down. Me: 33g coffee, 350g water at 190°F

Obviously immersion brewing is different than percolation, but the 16g water : 1g coffee ratio is exactly what James Hoffman recommends in his "Ultimate French Press Technique": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st571DYYTR8

For OP's light medium roast (dark roast prefers cooler temps) Hoffman says high temps aren't a problem and shows hard boiling water lead to peak brewing temperatures of 90-93C: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_r5kpXPRYo Other youtubers have done blind taste tests and found they liked boiling water brews best with light roast coffee.

Not saying your taste is wrong either, just that OP is doing things a way described as ideal by at least one coffee expert! Lots of ways to brew.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#14

Post by rangerelf »

carabiner wrote: post #9
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #2

In my own attempt to bloom coffee in an Aeropress, the result is, strangely, that it takes much longer to extract the coffee to 'full strength' if I bloom it, compared to not blooming it. If I bloom the coffee, then fill up with water and stir, the result is under-extracted unless I brew for longer. If I just fill up the water immediately and then stir, it takes much less long to brew to the same 'strength'. This is…

I mean 90% of coffee brewing is meaningless rituals. Could you taste the difference between a burr grinder and a blade grinder in the resulting brew? Nope, but endless pages of debate exist on this, grain size distribution, quality of burrs. It has a strong resemblance to the audiophile community.

Of course you can detect the difference between a blade and a burr grinder: how much sludge is at the bottom of your cup?

That said, is it really meaningless if it gives you personal satisfaction and peace? Is it any different than any other routine or ritual, like going to church on Sunday?

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#15

Post by kitotik »

vundercind wrote: post #3

I’ve long assumed that the main effect of the bloom is to soak the grounds so the rest of the water you pour in goes through slower, and all the other alleged effects were minor compared to that. But maybe the CO2 removal stuff really is a big deal.

> But maybe the CO2 removal stuff really is a big deal.

It’s definitely a thing. There are some super light roasts that if you try to brew them without enough resting time, you can sort of cheat by just grinding the coffee about 30mins before you brew for a hacky quick degas. It really helps get rid of that grassy vegetal taste.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#16

Post by zer00eyz »

carabiner wrote: post #9
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #2

In my own attempt to bloom coffee in an Aeropress, the result is, strangely, that it takes much longer to extract the coffee to 'full strength' if I bloom it, compared to not blooming it. If I bloom the coffee, then fill up with water and stir, the result is under-extracted unless I brew for longer. If I just fill up the water immediately and then stir, it takes much less long to brew to the same 'strength'. This is…

I mean 90% of coffee brewing is meaningless rituals. Could you taste the difference between a burr grinder and a blade grinder in the resulting brew? Nope, but endless pages of debate exist on this, grain size distribution, quality of burrs. It has a strong resemblance to the audiophile community.

>> burr grinder and a blade grinder

Come on over and we can do just this in my half assed home espresso machine.

There will be a difference.

The process, roast and general quality of coffee matter.

Can one make magical claims about all of this. They sure do and charge an arm and a leg for it. But you can get a quality product an a consistent cup at a reasonable price if you shop around.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#18

Post by decafninja »

I went through my coffee hipster phase. But I eventually came to the conclusion that my palate is just too unsophisticated to tell the difference between supposed “hints of blueberry and molasses” in third wave hipster coffee from a boutique roaster versus the cheap coffee that my local newsstand brews every morning.

Now my only concession to coffee is brewing a cup on a Technivorm. Also Hawaiian coffee is super smooth and mellow which I like, but serious coffee aficionados apparently don’t like it for the same reason.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#19

Post by mikestew »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #11
aidenn0 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blooming in an Aeropress would seem to be unneeded to me if you are agitating.

Any type of immersion brew benefits from immediate agitation in my experience, aeropress and french press (which gets aggressively swirled under my hot water tank while it's filling.) You can aggressively stir aeropress as well, you just need to manage it dripping from the bottom using more filters, finer grind, invert method, etc.

Aeropress should make this acessory standard-issue with their coffee makers, so that we don’t have to rely on other methods to reduce drip-through:

https://aeropress.com/products/aeropress-flow-control-filter...

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#20

Post by jascination »

vundercind wrote: post #3

I’ve long assumed that the main effect of the bloom is to soak the grounds so the rest of the water you pour in goes through slower, and all the other alleged effects were minor compared to that. But maybe the CO2 removal stuff really is a big deal.

There was a post here a few months ago saying that blooming prevented static electricity build up within the coffee grounds which made them clump together (or something like that anyway), I thought it was interesting.
Post reply on HN