Re: Organic Roaster Question
- From: "Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:33:58 -0600
"Dan Bollinger" <danNObollinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> the recommendation that i've heard is "run roaster empty @500F for 30
>> aside from wasting a lot of energy (at just about the worst time ever)
>> what exactly is this purported to accomplish?
> Ken, Of course the true answer is, "It doesn't matter." If that's what
> it takes to obtain certification then that's what it takes. It would make
> me want to consider a dedicated organic roaster so I'd never have to do
> it. Dan
I'll go back to the real point and the type of audience this product serves.
Of course it is a good thing to watch what you put into your body, and
perhaps there are some benefits to some people from eating "organic" foods
of one sort or another. When you have a foodstuff that cannot be consumed
in raw form but must be processed, than the only rational thing to do is to
look at the processed product. If the processing given to the raw foodstuff
eliminates whatever it is that would cause a group of people to prefer one
type ("organic" vs. "non-organic") over another, then you have to have
another reason to want to buy one type over the other. In this case you
could make an argument about environmental damage in the growing areas from
the use of pesticides. I myself would not trust most of these producers (in
areas where their growing practices would be hard to verify) that what they
are selling is being honestly represented, especially if they can get a
higher price per pound for "organic" vs. "non-organic" green coffee, but
that is just me.
The residue left on a roasting drum after a 440 degree F roast, that could
transfer over to the next batch, is effectively zero as far as I understand
it. If I am mistaken that should be pointed out here and I'll stand
corrected. Therefore, anything that you do to the drum after a batch of
"non-organic" coffee and before an organic one, is a complete waste of time
and energy and is merely to satisfy the need of some people to have a
procedure in place to provide a solution in search of a problem.
Undoubtedly, there is a small percentage of people who can't look at this
sort of stuff rationally and who put faith in certifications that mean
nothing. Those sorts of people can have their "needs" met by the occasional
"organic-only" roaster. The remainder of the people who would want organic
coffee can be reasoned with and they should be able to understand that this
is a non-issue, that it is silly to waste energy and time heating up a drum
to get rid of stuff that simply wasn't there in the first place.
Rather than coming up with some silly procedure that does nothing, I suggest
either coming up with a "non-procedure" like I originally suggested, or
trying to convince the authorities of the fact that it doesn't matter what
you do because the problem takes care of itself in the roasting process.
As an alternative, one could label the organic beans for sale with something
to the effect of, "made from organic green coffee beans," without claiming
that the end product is "organic." Rational customers could be given a
little bit of explanation, or there could be a stickie or a hand out sheet
explaining all of this, for those who care. Those who are not rational are
not worth trying to convince, and they will seek their own providers.
Just my opinion.
- Prev by Date: Re: Gulf Coasters...what can we say?
- Next by Date: Re: Organic Roaster Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Organic Roaster Question
- Next by thread: Re: Organic Roaster Question