Good Work in Coffee

This short essay was originally published in the 14th issue of Coffee People Zine (September 2021) and is used here with permission.

My name is Matthew Ehresman and I am a coffee roaster. I have been working in this capacity for some sixteen years and it’s the closest thing to a “calling” that I’ve ever known.

I find beauty in its complexity. In its diversity. In its ability to connect people a world away. Yet, this too is why I find my work to be troubling. For as I find peace in the process; I am also aware of my complicity in the commodification of agriculture. I am aware of the immensity of waste in my work, both here as well as at origin. I am aware that in speaking of “origin” I am speaking of a global industry that on its whole cares seemingly little of its impact on local ecosystems or of the people that work that land on which coffee grows.

Yet still I feel at home in my work. I feel value in my efforts to do good work in my own community as well as in my efforts to purchase coffees from peoples and communities who think likewise. To live and work within my means. To showcase frugality over lavish wastefulness.

But my impact is minuscule and the industry continues to ravage native biodiversities both here at home as well as, to perhaps a greater extent, abroad with oppressive acts of waste and pollution; all in the perpetual search for profits.

So then, are my efforts to do good work little more than self-congratulatory vanity? Is it even possible to do good work in an endeavor that necessitates a global exchange of goods?

Alas, to these questions, I do not know.

However, I do know that, as an industry, we must do more to end our complicity in acts of waste, pollution, and inequality.

Together we have marched against oil companies… Yet we continue to subsidize them by powering our machines with their product and by lining our green, roasted, and brewed coffee in their byproducts. We have marched against inequalities in the supply chain… Yet we continue, in many cases, to pay farmers (even with our “premiums”) well under cost of production. We have marched against the use of pesticides and deforestation… Yet we continue to purchase coffees that are grown with these methodologies.

I ask here that we use our cumulative purchasing power to move the needle towards true sustainability and away from these eminently avoidable acts of waste, pollution, and inequality.

In short, we must learn to value this good work as much, if not more, than how much we value a point improvement in cup quality.  To this end, let us all (myself very much included) stop writing of our company’s “sustainability efforts” and truly do the good work necessary to just be sustainable. Today.

Cups. A Deep Dive. “Reusables”. Part 2 of 4.

Reusable cups are, by definition, reusable. This typically means that they are made of a more durable material than paper and can be washed and reused.

However, herein lies its biggest environmental concern, it must be reused. The environmental impact (the intensity of ecosystem destruction during resource extraction, the amount and type of material required, and the energy required to produce the product) of production is generally much greater than a paper cup and will also end its life in a landfill.

When comparing reusables to disposables one to one, the disposable product will nearly always have a lower impact at production.

So how many times must a reusable cup be reused to become less impactful than a paper cup?

Well, it depends greatly on material used.

According to an often cited study conducted Martin Hocking in 1994 discussing this very topic, you would have to use a porcelain cup about 50x or a glass cup about 15x to offset this initial deficit.

How the study came to this conclusion is by assigning a per-cup energy use total. At point of first use, Hocking surmised that paper cups embodied 0.55 megajoules (the equivalent of about 153 watt hours) of energy while a porcelain cup embodied 14 mj and glass embodied 5.5mj.

From here, Hocking used the specifications of an average dishwasher to measure whether the porcelain/glass would ever overtake the paper cup accounting for the energy used during the wash cycle.

As previously stated, Hocking concluded that the paper cup was more energy efficient for the first 15-50 uses, at which point the reusables would become superior; though it must be noted that the continuous need to wash the reusable will keep it at a relatively thin beneficial margin.

This study has been referenced by many, including in a video by James Hoffmann on his very popular YouTube channel, to illuminate the issues with the concept of switching to reusables.

However, what Mr. Hoffmann and others have failed to account for is the immense improvement in the efficiency of dishwashers since the study was conducted.

Using this chart from GE, a late 80’s or early 1990’s dishwasher used between 11.4 and 7.5 gallons of water as compared to between 2.8 and 5 gallons with an Energy Star dishwasher of 2022.

This improvement is due, in no small part to the increased ability to recycle water used within a cycle (which retains both water and heat!).

If we assume that we are dealing with two top of the line (in regards to efficiency) washers from the both eras, we can assume a 2.7x improvement in water/energy consumption per wash bringing the total use deficit down to under 20 uses to break even.

This is a nice upgrade and brings an already manageable number into an eminently doable one - even for perennially breakable items like porcelain.

The Price of Coffee.

I often have chats with my friends about coffee (shocking, I know).

In seemingly every one they lament about how “coffee has gotten so expensive these days” or how they would love to purchase better coffee, but “fancy coffee is just so pricey”.

Is this true? Has coffee gotten so expensive? Why? If so, who benefits from a price increase?

Now, this is an incredibly complex topic, one whose details teeter on matters out of my personal wheelhouse; and on top of all that, I’m trying to explain it in a self-imposed limit of a few paragraphs (starting now) so as to not bore you all out of your skulls (however, If you are interested in a more thorough look at coffee pricing, I highly recommend the book, Cheap Coffee by Karl Weingold).

Now, Has coffee gotten more expensive?

No. Next question.

Okay, I’ll go a little more in depth. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the price of a pound of roasted coffee when adjusted for inflation has gone down by almost 9% since 1980.

Why?

This is because on a large scale, what drives the average price of coffee is the commodities market. This is the same as oil or corn, etc. Shortages or worries of a deficit in product drives the price of the product up. Conversely, surpluses will create-price drops.

Much of this play in the market originates with Brazil.

Brazil exports more than twice as much coffee as any other country (“they grow an awful lot of coffee in Brazil”) and thus can make the market move considerably on its own- much like Saudi Arabia or the US with oil. This means that the price paid to a farmer in Burundi is inextricably tied to crop levels in Brazil.

The primary exceptions to this are third-party certifications and the specialty market. In the specialty market farmers, in theory, are paid a premium by co-ops/exporters/buyers for a higher quality product. With certifications farmers are, in theory, similarly paid a premium for meeting a set of standards – environmental and/or humanitarian. But a premium based on what?

For both, the baseline price over which a premium is paid is… drumroll …. The C-market.

So, for example, with a Fair-Trade (USA) Certification, farmers are paid a $0.20 premium on the C-market price. With an Organic certification, you can add another $0.30 for a total of a $0.50 premium for an FTO/Fair trade Organic coffee. There is also a price minimum associated with the certification, currently set at $1.40 (not including premiums) per lb. Meaning that should the C-market price fall below $1.40, farmers can be guaranteed at least $1.60 per pound.

However, this presupposes that there is a buyer for the FT(O) product. A 2019 article in the Guardian showed that this is a substantial issue with the Fair-Trade model.

“In 2016, of all the coffee grown as Fairtrade, only 34% of it could be sold at the minimum price. There were no takers for the rest; farmers had to unload the surplus into the standard “unfair” market.”

This same model applies to the Specialty industry. Companies and buyers will pay a premium based on cup quality, often establishing benchmarks for specific cupping scores (for example +$0.20 over C-market per point). These coffees do not have minimum pricing unless established by the individual companies.

However, this model also falls into the “only if there is a buyer” issue. With a substantial amount of coffee scored as “specialty” ending up in the commodities market.

All this is to say that coffee prices to the consumer in the US haven’t risen since 1980 because the commodities market hasn’t risen.

Conversely, for farmers the average price received for their coffee has decreased over the same period.

Here is a chart that I compiled to illustrate the average prices for coffee from 1974-present:

So, what am I getting at (in this much longer than expected explainer)?

Economies of scale work extremely well for large companies. They can lower costs for these industry leaders because they are buying literal tons of coffee from a trader or exporter who, in turn, gives them a steep bulk discount.

But it important to consider that the average coffee farmer, who owns less than 1 hectare, or 2.47 acres, does not benefit from this scheme. In fact, these arrangements often mean that the farmer makes less than market price. This is because often times the trader paints this as their “only option” or rather a “guaranteed price” in an uncertain market (for an interesting look at some issues facing coffee farmers, check out this article written by one).

In short, cheap coffee is cheap for a reason; and that reason is likely never to include everyone being paid fairly.

So, now that I’m thoroughly depressed, what can I do?

I very much wish I could simply say, “all you have to do is buy X product and you will save the world!” But as is so often the case, the truth lives more in the grey than we would like. It requires some diligence and trust to help farmers out of this situation.

However, as a baseline effort, one could try to purchase high-quality coffees that are traceable to at least the co-op level, though ideally to the farmer level.

These coffees are much more often (though not guaranteed to be) part of a supply chain that has at the very least, paid a quality premium above the C-market.

Similarly, if the coffee is certified FT(O), you can be assured that the farmer was paid at least $1.90 per pound (Fair Trade USA temporarily announced that their minimums would rise, only to rescind the change a month later at the behest of coffee buyers. It is likely that the issue will be revisited in the near future).

There is no way around it, these coffees will be more expensive than their “conventional” counterparts.

It seems to me that in order for people to justify paying more for a product that they are already getting for a cheaper price requires a seachange in how we look at coffee.

A commodity is by its very nature interchangeable; meaning one unit is the same as any other. But coffee is not this.

Coffee is the seed of a fruit of a shrub; grown by real people that live in the tropics. Real people with families and loved ones, favorite songs and favorite foods. These people and the coffees they produce are not interchangeable. They are unique. And they deserve to be paid fairly for their labor.

Cups. A Deep Dive. “Introductions”. Part 1 of 4.

Of all the things I that knew would be challenging when opening Little Martian CP; everything from sizing a battery bank, to learning the ins and outs of a small solar set up, to building a cart from scratch using (subjectively) “sustainable” sources, to permits and all the rest… I underestimated one fundamental issue: Cups.

Gosh.Darn.Cups.

Seriously, this is a cornerstone product of this project. It is the means required to sell anything; a container to hold coffee. And yet, for much of this process it has been something of an afterthought.

For the past few months, however, it has been the primary subject of my (albeit limited) intellectual capacity.

…And these cups… They are breaking me.

You see, the paper cup is darn near perfect in its design. It is cheap to manufacture, light weight and stackable (easy/cheap to ship), which translates to cheap per item cost for the consumer. Beyond simple economics, it does its job remarkably well. It keeps hot liquids inside without leaching plastic flavors or leaking.

On top of all this, it has become a ubiquitous symbol of modern coffee culture; anyone who’s anyone has a fashionably stamped or otherwise customized paper cup from a desirably hip shop.

You may now understandably be asking, “well, if it’s so perfect, why is it causing you such problems?” Because being cheap and easily disposed of are the keystone prerequisites of an ecologically destructive product.

In the US alone, we throw out about 50 billion paper cups a year, averaging out to almost 137 million per day. To make these cups annually requires 29 billion liters (7.9 billion gallons) of clean water and 20.7 million trees; the equivalent of almost 2,700 Sequoia National Parks and nearly 850 *full* volume Lake Meads (at 9.3 million gallons).

___

Surely, I could quell my reservations in the knowledge that I am not responsible for this; that on a good day at the market, I can expect to sell a mere 20-30 cups of coffee, hardly a dent in the grand total of the day.

However, according to this article from startmycoffeeshop.com, which quotes statistics from the National Coffee Association, 53% of coffee drinkers purchase their morning cup from a local, independent shop. This means that the majority of the cup waste generated in the US doesn’t come from giant, multinational chains, they come from us; small shops with “limited individual impact”.

In short, small shops/stands like mine hold a substantial amount of power in the quest to end cup waste.

___

So, what are the potential alternatives to traditional PET-lined paper cups?

The simple answer, as described in my previous post on the subject of “eco-friendly” products, is that there is no simple answer. An “eco-friendly” replacement product is never (prove me wrong) “eco-friendly” in its own right, rather only when viewed in comparison; and even then, only sometimes.

However, as “nothing” makes for a pretty poor vessel (maybe I should rename LM to “Handful Coffee”, Tagline: “Hold out your hands, feel the burn!”), we need an alternative. But what?

Unfortunately, the complexity of this question is often undervalued.

For, in order to make a determination as to what is “better”, a host of metrics, some outside the bounds of what some would consider “sustainability”, must be considered.

For example, a theoretical “cup A” is a fully biodegradable vessel, manufactured with FSC certified recycled wood pulp and produced by solar power. Is it better than a theoretical “cup B”, produced with un-sustainably clear cut forests made using coal power?

An easy “yes”, right?

However, what if “cup A” was made by people working in conditions akin to a Uyghur camp? Is it still “better” than the ecologically inferior cup if that one was made by well payed union workers somewhere in the US?

How can we possibly be asked to balance our values in a decision that pits the killing of a forest (and all of the biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and benefits it holds) with the unimaginable conditions faced by human beings in some factories that our everyday items originate.

And how is this a blog post about cups? When I first began to think about writing this post, my plan was to speak of deforestation and ecological peril. The more research I did for the piece, however, the more I realized that, like most things we must consider both the human toll as well as environmental degradation in our quest for true “sustainability”.

___

In the coming weeks, we will look at the two main challengers to the paper cup monopoly: reusables and compostables. The environmental and social impacts as well as the monumental task of us(l)urping the status quo.

Where Have I Been?

It’s a fair question.

After all, when I last spoke to you all, I was saying “I’ll be serving coffee here next week!” and “check the website or instagram for updates”. Yet, here we are, more than a month later and I’ve posted nothing thing to either.

Why?

Shortly after the first market of the year, my 2-month old son was diagnosed with a congenital heart defect that was to require surgery. Because of this, I have spent the majority of the past month and a half splitting time with my wife taking care of our older son and/or being with our younger son at the hospital.

It has been an incredibly challenging time.

Thankfully, however, the surgery was performed a little over a week ago and he has shown great progress. He is receiving wonderful care and will hopefully be cleared to go home in the near future.

I want to thank our wonderful family, friends and anyone else who has reached out; you all have been incredibly supportive.

I hope to be seeing all of your faces soon.

Thank you all for your patience and understanding.

-Matt Ehresman, Little Martian Coffee Project

FAQ: Why Call it “Little Martian”?

The most common question I have received since I announced my intention to launch (no pun intended) the LM Coffee Project has been: “Why call it ‘Little Martian’?”

(Though, conversely, to those that know me personally, it’s been more of a “of course it’s called that, Matt”)

You see, I love space. I love everything about it.

I love the history of astronomy; from the ancient mythologies (especially those of Native Hawaiian lore, and Irish, and Chinese, and…okay, I love it all!), to the scientific probings of the Greeks, to the early telescope age, to the spacecraft era…

I love the philosophy of contemplating our place in all this vastness- the “cosmic perspective” as Carl Sagan would call it.

I love the fact that during the Cold War, implements designed to launch and detonate nuclear weapons upon enemies were repurposed instead to explore other worlds.

—

In the days before telescopes, when the night sky held the markings of the tales of the people (constellations), there were points of light that wandered among the fixed stars in the sky. Among these wanderers, one stood out as different; Mars.

Likely due to its blood red tinge, even to the unaided eye, Mars’ movements were thought, in many cultures across the globe to bring war, suffering, and/or misfortune.

However, upon the invention of telescopes, Mars fortunes changed from a harbinger of doom to a place of hope; a potentially “habitable” world where parallels were seen between our own planet and this distant one.

Observers described seas, highlands, lowlands, and polar caps. They even saw what they believed to be vegetation. Then, in the late 1800’s, Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli noted the existence of “canali” or deep channels running across the surface of the planet.

Upon reading Schiaparelli’s work, American Percival Lowell built an observatory in Flagstaff, AZ and soon thereafter inferred a species of inhabitants that had engineered vast canal networks from the white, “snow covered” polar regions to the more temperate equatorial regions. He envisioned an ancient species desperately attempting to stay alive on the face of a dying planet.

From these ideas came the stories of H.G. Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs and countless others, imagining this barren world with Martian inhabitants, often mirroring our own best or worst attributes.

—

I realize now that I’m space-rambling (you see now why I choose to write analytical pieces. Otherwise I end up in long winded, stream-of-consciousness musings), so I’ll do my best to wrap this up (however, if you are interested in the history of Mars and Mars exploration, may I suggest Jim Bell and William Sheehan’s newish book, Discovering Mars).

—

Back to the original question then: why did I choose the name Little Martian (other than for my fascination with space and a lingering soft-spot for Mars)?

Well, (and I have to be careful or else we will quite quickly find ourselves in the midst of another rambling thicket…) because I believe that we must start looking at our doings on Earth much as we would on Mars.

Mars exploration can very much serve as a blueprint.

For, not only will it cost a lot of money (in the ballpark of $30k) per kilogram to get to Mars (so even something as insignificant as an oversized wrapper can have a huge, negative effect), but also living 2 years without a resupply (conversely, the ISS gets resupplies multiple times a year from multiple countries) is an incredibly challenging endeavor.

Without getting too technical, this means that a Martian space station would have to be immensely efficient in their waste management (in other words generate next to no garbage), with the key being reusability.

You see, a trip to Mars requires meticulous planning. Each mission can only really occur during specific points in our orbits. These transfer windows, which spaced about two years apart and last only a short while, are the only time a Martian astronaut could expect to receive supplies or even a ride home.

You can see now why these Martian inhabitants would need to minimize (understatement) waste, be ultra-efficient with their energy (solar efficiency is, at its very best, a little more than half as efficient as here on Earth), and make as much energy, food, equipment, etc. as possible on site rather than to lug it along (this is called “in situ resource utilization” which is a fancy way of saying that it’s much more volumetric and mass efficient to bring a seed than it is a tomato [however, it must be noted that there is a lot of complexity in this relatively simple principle]). Imagine trying to take 2 year’s worth of water with you anywhere!

In short, Martian astronauts will have to, by necessity, view their resources as finite; their lives will depend on it.

—

So, again, why Little Martian?

Well, I suppose it’s an ode to the history of Martian exploration and to the wonder, fear, and hope that Martian musings have held over the eons.

Furthermore, it’s an ode to the idea that we need to think of our planet as finite. That we can’t simply create more and more waste and pollution and expect to be okay. Another wrapper, another bottle, another battery, another…well, you get the idea. We must think like Martians.

Also, it is, I think, a cool name: “Little Martian”.

[Excuse the Tired Pun, But…] Finding Common Grounds

As I’ve mentioned previously, we often get off into the weeds of discourse when discussing our “climate conundrum”. Instead of discussing facts and figures, we often divert into discussions about political ideologies.

However, there are many issues in which - if given the ability to remove our own ideological filters and propensity for debate – we would see eye to eye with each other.

For example, I remember quite clearly a time in which a co-worker and I, despite our differing political leanings, were the only employees at a business to turn the light off when we left a room.

He did so to save the company money. I did so to leave coal in the ground.

Now, had we gotten into a debate about the merits of climate change or the need to lessen the company’s ecological burden, we undoubtedly would have disagreed (who am I kidding, we most certainly had these conversations and most certainly disagreed). However, in this case, rather than discussing our motivation behind our actions, we realized that we both wanted the same thing - to turn off the light when it was not in use – and worked together to do so.

I believe that there are many instances where our necessity to “be right” outweighs our need to (by our personal metrics) “do right”; and often these impulses are satiated at our own peril.

-

So where are other opportunities to “do right” by our own imperatives?

Well, in speaking exclusively about the end-user preparation of coffee (and putting aside for now the footprint disparities in different methodologies of cultivation), the largest opportunity to save ourselves money and/or to keep coal in the ground is in the heating of brew water. This remains true regardless of brewing method and thus gives us all equal opportunity to make simple changes.

The most simple of which being to only make (heat) what you intend to drink.

This may seem simplistic, however, it is a remarkably effective tool to conserve (again, money and energy).

Let’s assume that I brew one morning and one early afternoon pour over for myself every day, filling up my .65L (22oz) electric kettle each time to do so.

Heating the water (in my Hario electric gooseneck) from 63°F (17.2°C) to boiling takes about 67.8 watt hours (880watts for 4.6minutes [.077 hours] =  67.76wh).

If I’m making myself a 650mL (22oz) pour-over (or slightly less if one includes a preclusion of the pre-wetting of filters), then all 67.8wh are going into my cup.

If, however, I am only brewing a 325mL (11oz) pour-over but still filling my kettle to the fill-line for simplicity sake (and to not experience the dreaded “run dry” moment), there is now a considerable amount of daily waste energy. Heating 325mL in the same Hario kettle requires only 37.1wh to boil, meaning that in this scenario there is a daily waste product of 61.32(30.66x2)wh.

This equates to a yearly excess of 22.38kwh, or a little over 25lbs of coal (should the grid be 100% coal fired. To see your own impact in this scenario, check the make-up of your power-suppliers portfolio and multiply 25.29xcoal percentage [in decimal form]) as waste.   

Furthermore, depending on where you are in the world, this can cost you an extra of almost $10 per year.

To some, I realize that these totals can seem trivial.

However, it is an expenditure with no benefit- no use – other than useless extravagance. One in which a simple solution (like pouring your water into a measuring cup [or, if you’re fancy, a scale] to accurately gauge the amount of water you will need to brew your coffee [a task that can be done the previous evening if you’re not a morning person]) is all that is needed to avoid it.

It’s the equivalent of lighting a $10 bill and 25lbs of coal on fire just to watch it burn (there’s definitely a sidetrack here, specifically the science/parlor trick of lighting a dollar bill on fire but also not actually burning it).

In short, let’s not get into pointless, meandering debates on the merits of climate change or even the broader topic of “environmentalism” when discussing these matters on a peer-to-peer level; as the only outcome from these clashes tends to be animosity and obstinate behaviors.  Rather, let us work together to make small, mutually beneficial changes to our day to day lives.

The impetus for our actions - monetary or conservational - matters not. For in the end, everybody (human or otherwise) wins when we conserve.

FAQ: Is [Enter Any Product Here] “Eco-Friendly”?

No.

Well, okay. Sorry. Allow for me to briefly expound upon this.

One of the most common questions that I receive, both in my personal life as well as in my professional life, is whether or not a product is eco-friendly (or "earth friendly" or "sustainable" or what-have-you).

The answer, to borrow from the great philosopher Marcel the Shell, is "compared to what?"

A biodegradable, single-use piece of cutlery is, on its own, extremely eco-unfriendly. Huge tracts of land, large supply chains, energy intensive manufacturing, extensive shipping/handling, and often some form of plastic packaging (with its own similar supply chain) are all needed to get a single fork into your hand; and all just for a single use.

However, if we are comparing a “well produced”, biodegradable fork to a “poorly produced” plastic single-use fork, then we can potentially start to have an argument as to whether the biodegradable fork is “eco-friendly”, however only when compared to this specific alternative.

If we are then comparing a biodegradable fork to using no single-use fork whatsoever; it is unequivocal, the biodegradable fork is excessively eco-unfriendly.

You see, it’s all about the comparison.

What I am trying to say is that, when one asks whether a product is "eco-friendly" they are, in actuality, missing half of the thought.

The real question should be: Is [Enter Any Product Here] more or less "eco-friendly" than [Enter Any Alternative Product Here]? For, we already know that [Enter Any Product Here] is eco-unfriendly when compared to no product whatsoever.

-

In conclusion, eat more finger foods and save the world.

On Roasting Coffee: Charge Temperature

Definitely not recycling generic “roaster” images from Hart Coffee.

If there’s one term in coffee circles that has extreme fluidity (and thus extreme and undue confusion), it is charge temperature.

Sure, most people are referring to the same part of the roasting process; the point at which green coffee is added to the roaster, however, what is meant by this term is vastly different from roaster operator to roaster operator.

To many roasters that I have spoken to, charge temperature simply refers to the moment when the temperature readout on the front of the machine matches some pre-determined value.

But this is not charge temperature. Rather, this is merely the air temperature inside your drum.

Charge temperature is critically tied to the thermal energy of the system and thus, just because your bean probe temperature readout says 400°F (204°C) this does not mean that the thermal energy of the roaster is the same as was during your last 400 degree charge.

The thermal energy of your roaster is dependent on how you get to that temperature mark and, critically, if your thermal energy is different from batch to batch, you will have problems replicating roasts.

But a quick primer; what is thermal energy?

Simply put (very simply put [for a slightly more thorough run-through of thermal energy check out this previous post]), thermal energy in coffee roasting is the retained heat stored in your machine.

Think about it with this analogy; imagine you’re relaxing at the beach on a blustery but sunny day. You decide that the direct sun is too hot, so you put up an umbrella to block the direct rays/energy of the sun.

As you stand in your now shady spot, will the sand burning your feet or the air around you cool quicker?

The answer, as your blistering feet will likely tell you, is that the sand will remain hot longer. This is because of thermal retention. The sand is going to retain its energy/heat longer than the air around you.

Similarly, while the cooling effect of the air inside the drum may tell you that your temp is all set at your 400°F drop point, your thermal energy has the potential to be still too hot (or in some anomalous cases, too cold).

All this is to say that in order to consistently roast batches either in progressive profiling or in production, you must be able to have a charge temperature that effectively resets the bean probe, drum temperature, AND thermal energy of the drum.

“Okay, I get it, thermal energy is important and I shouldn’t just rely on the readout. But how do I ‘reset’ the drum?”

Well, one effective way I’ve found to do this is to bring the bean probe temperature to idle at your intended drop temperature for 2 minutes with airflow through the cooling bin. The tighter you can make your idle, the more easily you can replicate turnaround from batch to batch. I’ve also found that using periodic spurts of airflow through the drum to set your idle point can help to equalize the system. Perhaps going so far as to allow the temp to rise to set point, killing the input energy, then using airflow to “parachute” the momentum back to setpoint before kicking the input back on to min and closing airflow through the drum. Repeat for 2 mins.

This procedure may vary from roaster to roaster, the main point here is that you must be consistent with your inter-batch protocols.

Going further, and to effectively prove that this drum-reset methodology was accurate, I set up an experiment where a proxy for thermal energy could be monitored.

I took an infrared temperature reading of the thickest piece of metal on the faceplate of the roaster and found different ways to approach the drop temperature.

In 50 batches recorded, despite the fact that the bean probe consistently read “400” for every drop, the batches where the “proxy” read higher at the charge point turned around at higher temperatures (and subsequently required less energy throughout the remainder of the roast, and looked to “take off” until thermal energy lowered) whereas batches with lower proxy readings turned around at a lower point.

While not a perfect measurement of stored thermal energy, this proxy reading allows for an interestingly accurate approximation. When I measured in different places around the faceplate, the numeric values of the proxy changed, however, the trends of the data remained constant.

All this to say that if you are experiencing issues with your batch consistency - i.e. fluid turnaround times, momentum shifts from batch to batch with the same coffee, etc - a likely issue point is with your interpretation of the term charge temperature. Perhaps look into your interbatch protocols and make changes to attempt to make more consistent coffees.

With Climate Change, It is Imperative That We Ignore the Sensationalism.

image taken from planetary society spacecraft: LightSail2

——

I wrote this piece in August with the intention of posting it immediately. After some consideration, I chose not to release it for fear that in doing so, it would be received by some as “political” (which is against a foundational element of LM Coffee Project; to be approachable to everyone, regardless of political affiliation).

However, in re-reading this post, and in special consideration to the fact that today marks the 25-year anniversary of the death of Carl Sagan (of who’s thoughts appear here), I chose to publish it.

I hope that you will find it illuminating.

___

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released part of its sixth assessment report this past Monday, August 6. The response in the media, both local as well as national, has been extremely predictable.

Left leaning media outlet The Hill, posted a video with the caps-laden headline “SOUNDING The Alarm On Climate Change: IPCC Report Blames HUMAN ACTIVITY” while right leaning Fox News posted a video with the title “Goal of UN report on climate change is to ‘scare everyone,’ says author”.

These self-serving titles, and subsequent video content, do nothing more than feed into their respective echo chambers and elicit pre-programmed feelings of either ambivalence or an overwhelming sense of fear and anger.

I personally believe that it is imperative that we ignore these click bait entries and instead remember, as we approach the 25-year anniversary of his death, Carl Sagan.

I believe that Dr. Sagan, perhaps more so than any contemporary public figure, successfully stressed a scientific, facts-based approach to political debate (a beautiful representation of this eloquence can be found here).

Today, however, this sort of discussion has devolved to the point to which the mere mention of the two word phrase “climate change” is enough to incite an emotional reaction within persons on both sides of the debate.

Furthermore, it seems increasingly certain that these reactions are based not on the science of the issue, but rather on the political figure, television host, or YouTube personality to which the individual relates most.

Absent the late Dr. Sagan, one side of the conversation now often features Bill Nye “The Science Guy” donning a pompous bow-tie, speaking with vulgar condescension, and all the while claiming that he’s off to “save the world”. On the other side of the dialogue, you have those like Senator Ron Johnson, who recently said, while speaking freely at a Republican Women of Greater Wisconsin Luncheon, "I don't know about you guys, but I think climate change is — as Lord Monckton said — bullshit. And by the way, it is."

People across the political spectrum who view these spectacles then dig in their heels on one side of the argument. However, they do so, not based on the science put forth by the IPCC, or NASA, or the ESA, or any other scientific entity, but rather they do so based on who they like more in the debate of Ron Johnson vs. Bill Nye The Science Guy.

I understand that it is hard, very hard, to look away from all of this and that it is potentially even harder to find the time and mental fortitude to read through the IPCC reports or peruse the data put forth by other scientific institutions.

However, is it not worth it?

It seems like the height of hubris to not take seriously this threat. To take the word of sensationalists and politicians at face value and without a healthy amount of skepticism. And perhaps most importantly, to not read through the data when it is so readily available.

I speak here to those on both sides of the issue. Do not take climate change as fact based upon what Bill Nye, Stephen Colbert, or Bernie Sanders tells you. Conversely, do not conclude climate change is a hoax based on the words of Ron Johnson, Tucker Carlson, or even the former President of the United States.

Rather, allow yourself to put aside your red or blue filters, as they are irrelevant to the issue, and instead allow for the data to come through unmolested.

In short, I seek here the hope that people will follow Dr. Sagan’s lead, to press pause on the pseudoscience and sensationalism, press pause on the politicking and grandstanding and simply ask themselves the purely scientific question; “Is the indisputable recent change in our climate anthropogenic (caused by human activity)?” and then from there, actively seek the truth.

On Roasting Coffee: Probing the Merits of the “Convective Soak”

[Some of the research included in this piece was initially derived from my 2018 Roaster’s Championship Presentation]

Over the past couple of years, I have become quite enamored with probing the merits of technique known as the soak.

In a nutshell, the soak is a method of slowing down heat transfer from the roasting system to the coffee early in the roasting process. This is achieved by utilizing the thermal energy stored within the system to supply early momentum to the batch rather than with the added application of heat.

One central reason for desiring to achieve this slowed heat transfer is that, very simply, it seems to produce a sweeter cup.

But why? Why should coffee roasted using this technique produce a sweeter cup?

My hypothesis to explain revolves around the heating of sucrose.

Sucrose is the compound that is best known as table sugar, the same type of sugar that most people put into their coffee after roasting. Coffee in its unroasted state contains anywhere from 5-9% of this sweet compound as a percentage of its total weight.

By slowing down the initial conductive heat transfer from the drum/roasting system to your green coffee, you lessen the amount of immediate and aggressive surface heating that the seed and its cache of sucrose undergoes.

High speed heat transfer produces a blackened coloration (as proven by a hot pan home roast with little agitation)and a bittering impact on flavor; this is one reason why a high heat, short duration roast will often produce a darker surface color than a similar roast degree with a longer duration and incremental heat application.

This coloration is indicative of burnt sucrose (extreme pyrolysis) rather than the more desirable Maillard reaction (which requires input from amino acids) and leads to a sliding scale of potentially negative flavor inputs on your final product.

All this is to say that high amounts of heat, when applied rapidly, can make the sugars on the surface of the coffee seed burn.

This negative (my opinion) change happens to varying degrees depending primarily on how much early heat is applied.

For this reason, the implementation of a technique such as the soak slows the decomposition of the sugars, therefore minimizing the possibility of extreme pyrolysis on the bean surface.

This hypothesis gains validity with testing.

There are situations, however, such as those concerning small bean size (less than 15 screen), where even this technique can have its limitations. If the percentage of surface area to total bean mass is too high (testing in progress to ascertain the range in which these negative effects begin to take a noticeable stance) you are still left with a noticeable, albeit perhaps minimal, tinge of overly developed sugars. This also appears to be true for larger bean sizes, such as in Pacamara or Maracaturra.

For these cases, I have developed a technique that I am calling the “convective soak”. In this method, instead of using a low gas setting to temper the speed of heat transfer, one can use airflow.

I am aware that per conventional wisdom, early airflow can “excessively dry out” coffees early in the roast. However, we have tested this on multiple occasions and have found no measurable evidence to corroborate this long held belief.

It seems likely that this is due to the fact that at this early stage in development, the green coffee is still too dense to release anything but the minute amounts of surface moisture from the seed.  

The cases in which a difference in weight loss percentage occurred could be readily explained by the excess heat applied to sustain a pre-determined roast curve.

Furthermore, when utilizing this method one can still hit the coffee with a good amount of energy from the start, however, the air more evenly distributes this heat into the entirety of the system rather than directly into the coffee itself.

Thus, the beauty of this method is in the fact that this distribution of energy still imparts momentum to the batch, but it protects the seeds from extreme pyrolysis.

This is especially true if one only utilizes the airflow in the first few/couple minutes of the roast before removing it from the equation until again opening it up during mid-Maillard.

The resulting cups have had varied outcomes.

Small bean sizes utilizing the convective soak have resulted in nearly unanimous instances of very sweet cups with a high/mid acid and round/juicy body. 

Larger bean sizes have resulted in cups with a lowered perceived acid and an increase in sweetness and body (when compared to a “desirable” no-soak profile).

Middling bean sizes have been quite varied. Though again, it seems relatively conclusive that there is an increase in body and sweetness in comparison to no-soak scenarios.

More testing is undoubtedly necessary to hone this technique. However, enough has been done to prove that the convective soak holds merit in exploration and consideration.

Vintage RePost: Low Cost Home Coffee Makers

Some people play video games in their spare time, I, on the other hand, like to dissect $8 coffee makers. 

It occurred to me the other day, upon spotting a brewer on sale at the grocery store for $7.95, that in all my time in the industry, I’ve merely repeated blindly the theory that cheap coffee makers “don’t get hot enough”, without any due diligence on my end.

What kind of coffee geek would I be if I let this golden opportunity to explore firsthand go to waste? A poor excuse for one, that’s fact.

So, about an hour after this realization, I had my new Proctor Silex on the table. However, before I go into my findings, let me give a quick overview on how drip coffee makers such as this work (for a quicker overview, click on Fig. A below).

From the reservoir, the cool water travels downward through tubing into the heating element. This is usually comprised of two fused aluminum pipes: one filled with a stressed filament surrounded in plaster to act as the heat source, and the other is where water comes to a quick boil.

Fig.A

From here, the water passes through a one-way valve, blocking its pathway back into the reservoir. As it continues to a boil, pressure builds, and the water is forced upwards towards the only available exit left, the brew head. The water is then dispensed over the grounds and down through into the pot.

There is deviance from brewer to brewer, but this is the essential process: reservoir, heating element, brew head, pot.

One of the largest differences you will find in dissecting increasingly expensive brewers is the quality of the components;  rubber tubing is replaced by higher and higher quality metals, aluminum heating elements doing the same. Herein lies the difference.

Back to the operating table:

First I drilled symmetrical holes on either side of the brewer, through one I fed a digital probe thermometer an inch into the brewhead. Through the other, I fed a k-type thermocouple down into the ground coffee. I also drilled a hole and inserted another probe into the reservoir to get base readings and to see how warmed the waiting water got due to the poor insulation around the heat sources.

I then made similar accommodations on a commercial Fetco cbs-2031e to act as a control.

There are a lot of words written here to say simply that I was right in my blind trust, but the numbers really don’t lie.

The Fetco’s results were surprisingly accurate, even by commercial grade standards. The slurry remaining almost constant at 199 degrees and the brewhead at 203. Incredibly impressive. The Silex, however, was pretty damned awful. The brew head during the 6 and a half minute cycle varied by as much as 35  degrees, starting at 155 and ending at 190 (this actually is a very kind assessment, seeing as though it didn’t reach 123 degrees until :20 seconds into the cycle; 155 @ :30 and staggeringly only reached its 190 plateau @ 4:00).

My conclusion in all of this is simple; coffee requires hot water to extract flavor oils. The wide sweet-spot of this reaction is between 195-205 degrees and the sweet-er spot is 199-204 degrees. Also, consistency in this temperature is nearly as important as consistency in grind. Fluctuations in temperature during brewing will result in different levels of extraction throughout the cycle and result, on a base level, in a flat, flavorless cup; the coffees full potential still locked in the brew basket.

I know that this blog will not convert people into buying hundred dollar machines when brewers like the Silex will “get the job done” for a fraction of the cost.

I do hope, however, that this will open your eyes to the fact that your cup can get so very much better.

Why I Chose LiFePO4 Batteries to Power the Project

There is no way around it, extractive industries such as those of the mining of petroleum, coal, uranium, and yes… lithium have large-scale negative effects on our environment.

So, from that perspective, it could (and should) be said that the most environmentally sound manner of having a business that relies on these industries is to not have it. That is, that from an exclusively environmental perspective, it would be best if the coffee industry (which relies heavily on extractive industry [one could even make a strong case in labelling the agri-business methodologies in coffee growing to be an extractive industry in of itself]) ceased to exist.

However, we do not look at things from an exclusively environmental perspective. We must realize in our considerations that millions of people throughout the world depend on the continued existence of the coffee industry for their livelihoods.

In short, coffee is not going anywhere. (* / ** / *** / and many, many more. Simply do a Google scholar search for “coffee production climate change” and you’ll find some 438,000 results [admittedly, you’ll find a lot of “chaff” here, but also a lot of “wheat”. I personally tend to throw out any study that starts with a paraphrase to the claim “coffee is the second most traded commodity in the world after oil” – It is NOT. Not even close. And that usually gives me, perhaps unfairly, something of a “chaff filter”.])

So, if the ongoing existence of the coffee economy is taken as a given, the question then becomes “how do we continue to produce roasted coffee to customers while minimizing our environmental impact?”

It is here that we must concede that our impact will never be zero sum; as even putting a spade to ground will alter the tenuous equilibrium derived of millions of years of niche-making. So, to make the coffee economy continue whilst also being conscious stewards of the land, we must make a compromise between our environmental obligations and the demands of the consumer (economic obligations).

As for us here in the consuming countries, and personally as a roaster, the most immediate and basic need to make a coffee business work (other than coffee itself) is a heat source to roast the coffee.

The most ubiquitous heat source is, of course, the combustion of methane (CH4), more often referred to as natural gas (tangentially, a fascinating study conducted by Yale on the public perceptions of the terms “natural gas” and “methane gas” can be found here); and it’s easy to see why, it’s cheap to procure and relatively efficient in heat transfer.

However, methane is a fossil fuel whose extraction and combustion is extremely detrimental to every facet of our environment. Furthermore it is a greenhouse gas, some 25x (to 80x when viewed on a 20 year time-scale as opposed to the 100 year cycle used by the EPA) more potent than CO2 (here is a quick video on the “heat capturing” ability of CO2).

For these reasons, I chose to power my roaster with electricity (I hear you, person screaming “but where does that electricity come from??!!” Hold your horses. I’ll get there).

Electricity has the potential, unlike other heat-energy sources in the market, to be an incredibly clean fuel. However, it is unfortunately also true that most of the energy across the country is still derived from the burning of fossil fuels (60.3%). Here in Milwaukee, that number is even higher, with somewhere between 68.6% and 90.4% of our energy being derived from fossil fuels; depending on the derivation of ”Market Sources” at 16.0% and “Other” at 5.8%.

So, I knew that in order to maximize the relatively positive impact of utilizing electricity to power the operation, I would need to generate my own power. However, being at 44 degrees north, this decision would also mandate a means of energy storage. For it would be hard, especially in the winter months, to harness enough solar power at any given moment to continuously power the roaster.

Here too, unfortunately, we run into environmental concerns. As previously stated, lithium mining; and for that matter, the extraction of cobalt, lead, and other resources needed for common battery chemistries are all fraught with environmental, not to mention humanitarian, issues.

So, what then to do?   

(If I had lots of land and/or access to water or an artesian well I might be tempted to play with a less “COTS” [Commercial, Off-the-Shelf] solution, however…) We must therefore, once again, compromise.

If the continuance of the coffee economy is taken at a given, what chemistry will do the least amount of harm while giving us the needed amount of energy storage to produce a roasted product? Let’s see our options:

The most prevalent battery solutions in use today are Alkaline (single-use, Non-rechargeables like AA, AAA, C, D, etc.), lead acid (your [and full disclosure, my] internal-combustion engine car almost certainly has one), Lithium Ion (this is a blanket that covers a lot of different specific chemistries [LiCoO2, NMC, etc.], your phone and laptop run on these), and Lithium Iron Phosphate (though also technically a “Lithium Ion” battery, LiFePO4 batteries have stood out enough to become something of a category in of themselves, especially in solar applications. Those solar powered highway speedometers often use them).

Alkaline

This option was ruled out immediately.  It is untenable from every perspective; environmental, economic, and annoyance. Can you imagine replacing a battery bank’s worth of AA’s every half hour? Holy mackerel.

Lead Acid

Despite their particularly nasty chemical make-up, lead acid batteries had three huge pros in its favor; a much lower up-front cost, a protracted and proven track record, and a robust recycling infrastructure.

Lithium Ion (Particularly LiCoO2 and NMC)

These have a few major pros as well, namely their extremely high energy density (how much energy storage per kilo/lb, which is of particular importance in a mobile application such as this one). Also, their up-front price is low in comparison to LiFePO4 and they have a number of readily available “plug and play” solutions such as the Yeti Goal Zero series (which was the runner up in my decision making process), Bluetti series, and others.

Lithium Iron Phosphate

Despite the much higher up-front cost than the other options, these seem to me to be the best long-term investment (Battleborn website lists 80% initial capacity at 3000 to 5000 cycles). They last, under constant cycling, between 2 and 10 times longer than lead acid and between 2 and 5 times longer than NMC batteries (summary). Also, they are a more stable and less corrosive chemistry (i.e. safer) than either NMC or lead acid as they do not catch fire (higher “flash point”) nor leak poisonous residues and/or gasses when punctured, dropped, or otherwise mishandled. Lastly, they are capable of discharging to nearly 0% without damage to battery longevity. As a reference, lead acid batteries can only safely discharge to about 50%. What this means is that while a LiFePO4 battery and a lead acid battery may both say 100Ah, the lead acid is, in effect, 50Ah (usable energy) while the LiFePO4 is truly 100Ah (as shown in this video).

Overview

There are many other pros and cons to each system and I feel it important to state that none of these are “silver bullet” solutions (in fact, I find the very concept of a “silver bullet” solution to be paradoxical. For even if a solution works in a community, scaling anything up to serve 8 billion people is likely to be an ecological nightmare [even for something as ubiquitous as food]. This is why I buy into the “Think Little” ideal. The idea that many small scale solutions may be better than one giant, all-encompassing blanket “solution”. This goes not only for our power consumption needs, but our food as well, as eluded to in this wonderful essay by Wendell Berry).

For me, the decision to choose the LiFePO4 battery for was for a combination of the topics discussed; its longevity, its safety, its depth of discharge, its continuous amperage rating, its US-based operations, and a few more.  

However, it must also be said that there is a major problem in my ultimate choice.  This issue is centered around the fact that there is a conspicuous lack of an effective, large-scale recycling program. There are some startups attempting to take on this challenge (and others, and likely many others), but the amount of waste from EV’s and other commercial production is likely to overwhelm the amount of battery recyclers currently active, or even in early stages of development.

This said, I believe that they present the best environmental value for LM Coffee Project.

They allow me to operate at near capacity of my small roaster. Better still, they allow me to do so free of any ties to the local grid system which, as previously mentioned, generates up to 90.4% of its power using fossil fuels.

Lastly, to answer the question: are the batteries the best economic decision for the project when compared to alternatives, such as burning natural gas?

The answer is no.

However, it is important to remember that we do not look at things from an exclusively economic perspective. We must realize in our considerations that millions of people throughout the world depend on the continued existence of their local ecosystems for their livelihoods.

In short, we must learn to balance our potential economic prosperity with our environmental obligations.

On Roasting Coffee: Basics of Thermal Energy (pt.1-Overview)

This is not designed to be a complete guide to the intricacies of thermodynamics of the roasting process. There are further complexities that impact the system that will be discussed in subsequent posts.

It is quite accurate to say that in order to effectively manipulate the coffee roasting machine to suit your preferences and intentions it is required that the operator has an extensive understanding of thermal energy. 

However, contrary to what some “advanced” articles or books on coffee roasting would have you believe, I do not think it necessary for an operator to know the terminologies or equations that dictate the thermodynamics of the system. Rather, I believe it to be much more important that the operator have an intuitive understanding of applied thermodynamics.

What I mean is that I don’t think it any more necessary to be able to list off the definitions of the individual inputs of a system in order to successfully manipulate the thermal energy of a coffee roaster as it would be necessary to know the terminologies of advanced physics to successfully drive a car around town.

One simply need to know that these inputs exist; what happens when I do this? Or this? What happens if I don’t do this? Essentially, one need to know that the inputs exist and what the inputs do within their own system.

For example, when driving a car up a hill you are unlikely to be musing Newton’s Laws of Motion, but you are indeed instinctively applying inputs that employ them as you maneuver the vehicle safely throughout the cityscape.

You increase the application of gas (proportionally to flat land) in order to go over the hill and you decrease your application of gas (proportionally to flat land) to go down the hill.

If you approach a red light or stop sign and you remove your foot from the accelerator, you will not immediately stop. Momentum will continue to carry you and your vehicle forward until this momentum has spent itself entirely. If you are going up a hill, this momentum will spend itself rather quickly, if you are going downhill it will carry you further.

These concepts may seem “simple” but they all carry direct correlations to your experiences with a coffee roasting machine.

Furthermore, as you accelerate the vehicle you add momentum to both the car as well as the people inside or else you would remain stationary and the car would move out from under you. The same is true with a coffee roasting machine. As you add gas to the roaster, you are adding momentum to both the roasting machine as well as the batch therein.

Petal to the metal driving will add heaps of momentum to your vehicle and make it difficult to slow down when the time comes that you’d like to slow down. Similarly, adding heaps of gas for the first half of a roast will make the batch difficult to ease slowly into first (we’re not talking about curve preferences here, we’re talking about potential).

To make informed decisions while driving, you are given information like speed, measured in the U.S. in Miles per Hour (or M.P.H.) and distance traveled, measured in miles. Similarly, with your roasting machine, you are given your speed, measured in Rate of Rise (or R.o.R) and your distance traveled, measured in degrees (°F or °C).