A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
seriouseats.com
A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
#2In 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 the opposite of what should be happening. But I am using light-to-medium roasted coffee, and this article notes that bloom and roast are interconnected, so perhaps this is normal? All I know is, coffee brewing seems to be much more an art than a science, regardless of how much you try to focus on the science. Dial it in to what tastes good to you, and that's all that matters.
Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
#3I’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.
Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
#4I’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.
TFA seems to agree with you; it says that bubbles are an indication that the coffee was unevenly wetted.
Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
#5In 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.
Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
#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
Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
#7In 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…
Perhaps you're letting your water cool? If the water in the kettle cools, and the water in the grounds cools while you let it bloom, then when you combine them they'll have a lower strike temperature then if you were to introduce the water all at once.
Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
#8In 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…
Could this be a result of low-strength brew draining through during the bloom, which then has to be compensated for with a stronger brew for the rest of the cup? Or is the bloom being done upside down?
Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
#9In 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.
Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming
#10I’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.
TFA seems to agree with you; it says that bubbles are an indication that the coffee was unevenly wetted.
I’ve taken to stirring my coffee as I pour the hot water in. Definitely seems to ensure that all the coffee grounds ate wetted.