Comments on: Espresso Extraction Ratios

By: Hallie Taylor

Hallie Taylor — Tue, 31 May 2011 23:38:00 +0000

Thank you so much for this post! I have understood the importance of weighing espresso for consistency but was never very clear on articulation of the concept. So helpful!

And just because the details matter, “weight” in the second sentence of the third paragraph should be “weigh,” no?

By: Calling the Shots « {have a nice} coffee time

Calling the Shots « {have a nice} coffee time — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:33:24 +0000

[...] to what an espresso should be, in terms of dosed ground coffee and/or brewed beverage weight (or volume, tsk tsk tsk). Some customers are interested in dosing techniques, brew ratios, and extraction yields… [...]

By: jimseven - a barista blog | 2007 - A review of the year

jimseven - a barista blog | 2007 - A review of the year — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:54:04 +0000

[...] The year started like every year started with the UKBC heats and once again I was part of the crack team (read Steve Penk and me) driving up and down the country building stages and setting up the heats. Ed Buston won in a quiet Midlands heat, and Se Gorman won convincingly in Northern Ireland. Meanwhile people argued about Teflon killing you and I had a pleasing moment of enlightenment thanks to Andy Schecter’s idea of extraction ratios. [...]

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 06:20:14 +0000

Yes it is a double ristretto, around the 1 ounce mark by the looks, so if you split it into two singles you would have around 1/2oz in each cup

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 12:41:03 +0000

I still don’t really get this. If I calculate with the images in this post. It’s 75% so a ristretto. But if this is 18 grams of coffee it would have to be a double. Since the double should give a double ristretto and I where to give these ristretto out in two cups, the cups would both have 1 drop of espresso in them, let alone when it’s up to 100%

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:30:56 +0000

Jim, for me it’s the same as experimenting with different tamping techniques, extraction speeds, whatever. It’s something to experiment with after hours or first thing in the morning when I have time to weigh shots, play around etc. Then once you’ve got a feel for the ratios, you don’t need to be weighing each one.

Alastair, for me, a ristretto is a slower extraction (ie. I actually make the grind a bit finer), and I would probably cut it off a little earlier (time-wise i mean), so it’s less liquid, sweeter, and more concentrated than espresso. And I would say that your description of 1 1/2 ounces from a double shot probably fits the bill. But again, different machines, etc mean different crema and therefore different volumes, so the weight ratios help define the beverages more accurately.

I would have thought that from a naked pf, you get better, finer crema. And as we know from jim’s excellent articles, the finer the bubbles, the lighter the colour. So with a naked it should look lighter, which would explain peeps cutting shots shorter. Just my two cents…

By: jim

jim — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:54:46 +0000

Thanks for the comments Andy. I can’t believe I’d written up the way to get the ratio wrong in the post (now corrected) – I had been doing it the proper way during my measuring session.

So – the real question is how does one practically get this working in a bar scenario – should we be pulling shots onto scales or will it remain the tool of the blender/tester/enthusiast?

By: AndyS

AndyS — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:47:34 +0000

“I have always worked on the fact that a Ristretto is about 1 ½ ounces of drink made from a double shot of coffee. Is this wrong?”

It’s not wrong, Alistair, it’s just hard for others to duplicate what you’ve done because it’s so imprecise. Measuring espresso volumetrically is highly variable (crema varies), so it’s far better to weigh it in grams. Ditto with “a double shot of coffee.” Is that 14g or 19g?

“I guess the problem I am having is that there doesn’t seem to be a fixed definition of what an espresso should be, which makes all this more confusing (or is this table trying to solve to problem of the definition?).”

I think what an espresso should be is whatever pleases you and your customers. But yes, the chart is trying to find a way for us to develop a common descriptive language. In the long run, that makes everyone more productive.

By: AndyS

AndyS — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:41:59 +0000

James, as you know, I posted a simplified chart on HB that hopefully makes the concept a little simpler. But please note, in order to be in harmony with established SCAA literature, I dropped the name \”extraction ratio\” in favor of \”brewing ratio.\” This is more realistic, because the simple ratio doesn\’t really control the degree of extraction, which is of course affected by time, grind, pressure etc.

Also, to be compatible with SCAA protocol, I flipped the ratio upside down. So instead of what you said (Divide the weight of the liquid by the weight of the dry coffee and multiply by 100 to make a percentage), it\’s now the inverse (divide the dry coffee by the liquid beverage weight and multiply by 100).

You\’re absolutely right, the chosen numbers ARE too neat and convenient, but it was a place to start. Why not make it look like coffee brewing ratios were the result of \”Intelligent Design?\” :-)

I agree with what you said, that much (although not all) of the perceived difference between naked and spouted shots is due to people misjudging the shot \”volume\” and pulling shorter naked shots.

Rock on, James.

By: Alistair

Alistair — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:50:27 +0000

I have always worked on the fact that a Ristretto is about 1 ½ ounces of drink made from a double shot of coffee. Is this wrong? When you set up your machine for a particular blend what are you using as the constant, time or volume? You have to choose one or there are too many variables. I guess the problem I am having is that there doesn’t seem to be a fixed definition of what an espresso should be, which makes all this more confusing (or is this table trying to solve to problem of the definition?).