So the other way that anaerobic fermentation is confusing is that when you label something, you open up the linguistic possibility of its opposite. If anaerobic fermentation is something, then its opposite aerobic fermentation must also be something, right? But in coffee, it's not. When the breakdown of glycolysis uses oxygen, it's called respiration. We humans use respiration. We break down glucose in the presence of oxygen and yield 36 ATP. That's 36 energy units. And microbes break down glucose to produce ATP, but they do it without the presence of oxygen and they only produce 2 ATP. So it's a much less efficient system for energy, but that's the one that produces the flavors that we are interested in. I will mention that certain yeasts can metabolize sugars in the presence of oxygen, so in this instance you could call it an aerobic fermentation, but this is a modified cellular metabolism most notably found in cancer cells. So this means that it's most common when things have gone wrong. If you look deep in the corners of science, you can find evidence for all kinds of exceptions. We are discovering new microbes all the time and they have different metabolisms. So if you want to write to me about a specific microbe that has this metabolism, I'd love to know about it. But my point is, the kind of fermentation we are talking about when we talk about coffee flavor is a regular old anaerobic kind. It's a process that doesn't require oxygen, so we don't need to say that it's anaerobic because that's the definition of it. That's why it's redundant. For example, we don't need to describe water as wet because that's an inherent property of water. So if you choose to describe a particular fermentation as anaerobic, you do have science on your side. You are technically correct, but you should also use it to describe the honey process and the naturals that are drying on a patio. Because in an attempt to be more specific and describe something with seemingly more accuracy, we inadvertently do the opposite and advertise our ignorance. So it's not a helpful distinction. It doesn't address the heart of the matter. But what is the heart of the matter? Why are we tempted to name the fermentation in the first place? I think we do this because we are trying to use a word that describes what we noticed. We notice that when you put coffee in a different tank, the flavor of the coffee changes. We know that we get different flavor outcomes when we ferment coffee in a traditional open concrete tank versus a closed stainless steel tank. Whether the tank is open to the environment or protected and closed off clearly impacts the flavor. You don't need to be a scientist or even a coffee professional. Anyone can taste these two coffees and find a difference in flavor. So let's say you've gotten this far and you still want to label your fermentation to distinguish it. I suggest you use the term anoxic. This refers to the environment that the fermentation is happening in, not the type of fermentation. And while anoxic is more accurate, I still don't believe it's a satisfying solution. When we describe the environment, it's a step closer to narrowing down the responsible agents, it could still be tens of thousands of microbes that are present in that anoxic environment. When we talk about over fermentation and double fermentation and lactic fermentation and acetic fermentation and aerobic fermentation, and even now maybe we'll start to see anoxic fermentation on coffee bags, labels, and social media, I think that this is a mistake because we keep looking for language to modify the fermentation part, but that is the element that remains the same. So any attempt to embellish the fermentation, I think fundamentally puts us on the wrong track. We are not isolating the right elements. We are not describing the right difference. This reminds me of the Buddhist teaching. The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon. Meaning we need the finger to point and show us where to look, but we mustn't mistake the finger for the moon itself. Because if you stop to focus on the finger, then you will never keep going and see where the finger is pointing and you'll miss the truth of what we are looking for. Because the truth is oxygen does matter, but not for the reasons that we think. It is the finger, not the moon. The oxygen does not change the type of fermentation. It changes the type of microbes that are present. For example, acetic acid bacteria are obligate aerobes, meaning they can only grow if oxygen is present, so by obligation they need air. Air are the ones that create this fruity, sometimes boozy quality found in natural or dry process copies. If we exclude oxygen from the environment, the yeast and other bacteria that are also present can grow more easily. So it's not about the type of fermentation, and it's not exclusively about the environment. It's the identity of the yeast and bacteria that changes the flavor. And if it seems like I'm nitpicking, it's because I am. Remember, we're trying to get to the scientific narrow definition, not the cultural broad language that is open to interpretation. But this distinction is especially important to me, because when we don't credit the microbes for the flavor change, when we say it's the type of fermentation, that's when we can make the easy and counterproductive leap to equipment. So we just zoomed in real close to the level of yeast and bacteria. But before we leave this topic, let's zoom out again to the producer, to the farm, because I want to share with you what I see happening. So for example, say there's a flavor in the cup that we like, maybe it's bright, it's as this like sparkling acidity, or maybe we tasted rose or bubble gum. And maybe you were told it was an anaerobic fermentation, and you probably assumed that it was made in an enclosed manner that avoided having oxygen, or maybe you even dug a little bit deeper, and you saw that the coffee was made in a stainless steel tank with hoses sticking out. So now what happens is you've linked the two, you've linked the flavor with that equipment, and then we think that the equipment is responsible for that flavor. But the equipment is inert, it can't do that. Again, that's the finger, not the moon. It's not the equipment, but the microbes that thrive in the environment created by the equipment that results in that flavor. The identity of the microbes is the moon. So many producers see these pictures on social media or are advised to get these tanks to achieve a particular flavor. And I think this is a problem because it's an investment of money that few producers have. But even if they did have the extra fun money to spend, it's still unnecessary. It's money that could be invested elsewhere. And I believe that even if it doesn't harm the producers who could afford to make this investment, it raises the bar on expectations and can exclude the producers who can't afford or have access to that equipment. It can lead some producers to believe that they will not be able to be specialty producers until they can purchase this equipment. But the truth is beer or wine tanks are terrible coffee tanks. I mean, few things bum me out more than when I see a coffee producer who has fallen for this because it's so unnecessary. Many producers can achieve that flavor profile with few modifications of their existing equipment because we're talking about the identity of the microbes, not special tanks. And this is why I believe so strongly in the power of microbes to democratize quality. And this is why I despair when I see a picture of these tanks circulated on social media. It bums me out so much when this is praised as innovation instead of seen as ignorance. So here is my public service announcement. Producers, please do not buy these tanks for your mill. Buyers, importers, exporters, please do not encourage producers to buy these tanks. And coffee drinkers, please do not be impressed by these tanks if you see them in a mill or on social media. For me, one of the goals of specialty coffee is to value processing. When consumers care about how their coffee is processed, it allows a producer to play a larger role than has been historically possible. A producer can now share the spotlight with the roaster. They can be peers and partners in quality. They can work together to co-create flavor. And this is how we can begin to shift the power imbalance.