October 2008

Research on coffee growing

Research: Meta-analysis of biodiversity loss in coffee farms

Biodiversity loss in Latin American coffee landscapes: review of the evidence on ants, birds, and trees. 2008. Philpott, S. M. et al. Conservation Biology 22:1093-1105. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01029.x

At a recent ornithological conference I attended, I saw a presentation on this paper by one of the authors, my friend Tom Diestch. The authors examined multiple studies of biodiversity impacts of shade coffee management in Latin America (excluding the Caribbean). They wanted to see if there were any patterns to biodiversity loss in these systems. Their results were not surprising. For all taxa (trees, ants, and birds), there was a loss in the number of species as shade management went from rustic to highly-managed shade monoculture or sun coffee.

Compared to forests, there are losses of ant and bird species in most coffee systems, with the exception of rustic shade coffee farms, which had equal or greater ant and bird species richness (number of species) than nearby forests. Most sensitive to habitat changes of the three taxa were ants.

Resident birds, and species specialized in foraging in the canopy or understory, were more impacted by increased management (e.g., less shade) than were migratory species or those that are able to forage in multiple strata. Thus, the diversity of tree species and vegetation characteristics associated with less intense shade management — higher tree density, more vegetation layers, height of canopy and understory — were very important to birds.

The authors made several recommendations:

  • Since species are lost whenever forest is managed, remaining forest patches should be preserved.
  • Rustic coffee should be encouraged — but not to the point where forest is being cut down or substantially disturbed to grow coffee.
  • Sun coffee and similar intensively managed farms should be restored to multi-story canopies with more diverse shade to provide more habitat, and native trees should be included in the restoration.

Many farmers believe that shade coffee results in a lowering of coffee yield. Studies have indicated however that optimum yields come in at around 40-60% shade, and that shade actually helps farmers due to decreased pests (if predators are present) and increased pollination services.

The authors speculate that low production in rustic shade might actually be due to a lack of attention to the crop, and measures can be taken to increase yield without removing vegetation. If there is lowered yield and farmers do take an economic hit, then consumers or other funding mechanisms (e.g., a “payment for ecosystems services” program) should pay a premium to farmers who grow coffee under rustic conditions.

You get what you pay for. I know I’m willing to pay a little more to preserve biodiversity.

Housekeeping

Welcome ProBlogger readers!

Darren Rowse ran a little experiment on his excellent site, ProBlogger, last weekend. He invited folks to promote their blogs in 140 characters or less. There were 1400 responses, and Darren picked 10 of his favorite pitches. First on his list was…

Are your beans for the birds? Learn about eco-friendly, sustainable coffee, and how your morning cup can change the world.

If you are reading this because you were also intrigued by my pitch, welcome! I know Coffee & Conservation can be a little daunting. How could there be so much material on sustainable coffee?! Where should you begin?

First, a brief bit about why I believe that making the choice to drink sustainable coffee can bring real change to the world. Then please visit the User Guide for a list of background posts that help you understand what defines sustainable coffee. They include What is shade coffee? and What is sun coffee and why is it a problem? You may also want to check out the post on the coffee crisis (why cheap coffee is being grown on sun plantations) and how this cheap coffee perpetuates poverty. If you only read one post here and put what you learn into action, make it The Top 5 Indicators of Sustainable Coffee.

I hope ProBlogger readers find this site useful — and I welcome feedback.

Coffee cup photo based on an image by Klaus Post.

Retail and specialty roasters

Two roasters, two new marketing approaches

Two of my favorite responsible roasters have come out with new tools to market their coffees.

Intelligentsia has launched In Season, a web site emphasizing that coffee is a seasonal crop, and highlighting the coffees that are currently within 10 months of harvest, and which are upcoming. Clicking on each coffee provides a flavor description; the name of the farm, producer, and region; varietal, altitude, and harvest season.

The Roasterie has set up a cool tool called My Blend. Answer 10 questions about your coffee preferences, and a blend will be developed for you. You can even design the label. I thought the questions were both straightforward and the “right” questions to ask. I’m going to have to try this out! If you give it a try, let me know how your blend turned out.

Research on coffee growing

Research: Higher beetle diversity in shade coffee, more pests in sun

Simplification of a coffee foliage-dwelling beetle community under low-shade management. C. E. Gordon, B. McGillb, G.Ibarra-NÁºÁ±ezc, R. Greenberg, and I. Perfecto. 2008. Basic and Applied Ecology, in press. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2008.04.004

This study looked at beetle abundance and diversity in coffee farms with high shade or low shade in the Soconusco region of the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico. Farms with low shade systems had lower or equal number of individual beetles, but fewer and more similar species than high shade systems. One beetle species, the dreaded coffee berry borer, la broca (Hypothenemus hampei), however, was far more abundant in the low shade farms (201 total on the low shade farms versus 23 on the high shade farms).

Another example of how shade may help reduce costs to the farmer, in this case, pest control.

Background information / Corporate coffee

Fight poverty: Quit drinking corporate coffee

If you are one of the 160 million coffee drinkers in the U.S., you can make a decisive, positive impact on poverty by refusing to buy coffee from, at least, Nestlè, JM Smucker, and Kraft Heinz. They sell over 30% of the retail volume of coffee in North America. Their brands include Folgers, Maxwell House, Nescafe, Gevalia, and others.

Here is how your grocery store coffee perpetuates poverty

  • Over 25 million people are directly dependent on coffee growing for a living, with another 100 million indirectly involved, including seasonal or temporary workers.
  • The majority of the coffee in the world is grown in 50 developing nations by producers that each farm less than 5 hectares of land [1].
  • Under good conditions, it costs a farmer around 30 cents (for the cheapest robusta in Vietnam) to 80 cents (for ordinary arabica from Central America; both are included in grocery store coffee) to produce a pound of coffee [2,3,4,5].
  • In 2007, even if farmers received the full market price for their coffee (and typically they do not), their profits amounted to 20 to 50 cents a pound [6,7].
  • Another way to look at it, is that only 5 to 10% of the retail price of a pound of coffee goes to the farmer [8,9,10], and the average retail price for a pound of ground coffee is well under $4.00 a pound.
  • Remember, this is a crop grown on a small plot of land harvested once a year that is probably the main source of income for an entire family.

The big multinational coffee companies perpetuate low coffee prices. Under the free market system, these four main buyers pit 25 million sellers against each other, creating a race to the bottom. They have funded and encouraged the expansion of the low-cost, low quality robusta coffee, and have spent millions of dollars developing technologies to make this bitter variety palatable. They use increasing amounts of this coffee in grocery store blends, further fueling deforestation and dragging down prices. A Wall Street journal article quoted officials from both Nestlè and Kraft as saying that they believe increasing consumer demand for coffee is the best way to help farmers, rather than paying above-market prices for their beans.

This situation is beginning to worsen, as production costs for coffee farmers around the world are rising due to the skyrocketing costs of petroleum-based fertilizers, and the global credit crunch.

The International Coffee Organization notes that low bean prices fueling corporate profits cause “entire rural communities to disappear…forcing desperate peasants into everything from crime and illicit crops to illegal migration.” [3]

Why should you care about the incomes of coffee farmers?

When coffee ceases to be profitable, the coffee fields — which for a large number of small holders are a mix of coffee, food and timber trees, and native shade trees — are cleared. They may be replaced with barren cattle pasture, subsistence crops, or some other crop less eco-friendly than coffee.

There is a direct link between environmental degradation and poverty. There is also a substantial overlap between coffee growing areas and biodiversity hotspots. Deforestation in these areas has severe consequences for loss of biodiversity. Tropical forests, even agroforestry systems, sequester many tons of carbon and help buffer against climate change.

Often the only alternative cash crop is drugs. In Latin America, the crop of choice is coca, the raw material for cocaine.

Efforts to eradicate coca in the coffee-growing nations of Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia are funded by your tax dollar, to the tune of $5 billion so far. This effort has been unsuccessful, and coca production continues to rise. All of the cocaine destined for the U.S. is grown in the Andes, with 90% from these three countries. The cost of drug abuse to society impacts every single one of us.

As coffee prices fall, such as during the coffee crisis in the 1990s, some farmers simply abandoned their land. Some were forced to sell their assets, such as cattle. They took their children out of school. Child malnutrition climbed. Communities wrenched apart by the coffee crisis have not fully recovered. Many farmers that stayed in coffee continue to be in debt.

This was and is a humanitarian crisis. Thousands of impoverished coffee farmers made their way north, with many crossing the border into the U.S. to seek employment.

Can switching the coffee I drink really help?

The U.S. is one of the world’s largest coffee consumers. We can make a difference. Quit supporting the poverty and environmental destruction that cheap coffee from these large multinationals perpetuates.

Good coffee for which a fair price is paid is not too expensive for most Americans. In fact, 45% of Folgers and Maxwell House purchasers have incomes greater than $50,000 a year. Even coffee that costs $15 a pound works out to well under a dollar a cup, tastes great, helps preserve biodiversity, and provides a decent living for coffee farmers.

Drink sustainable coffee!

[1] Fitter, R. and R. Kaplinsky. 2001. Can an agricultural ‘commodity’ be de-commodified, and if so, who is to gain? Institute of Development Study Discussion Paper 380, Brighton, Sussex, England.
[2] Jaffee, D. 2007. Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability, and Survival. University of California Press.
[3] Fritsch, P. 2002. An oversupply of coffee beans deepens Latin America’s woes. Wall Street Journal.
[4] Marsh, A. 2007. Diversification by smallholder farmers: Viet Nam Robusta Coffee. Agricultural Management, Marketing, and Finance Working Document No. 19. FAO, United Nations, Rome.
[5] Anon. 2003. Guatemala Coffee Producers Cautiously Optimistic On Price Bounce, Volcafe Newsletter, Jan. 17023, 2003.
[6] International Coffee Organization. 2008. Coffee  Market Report, September 2008.
[7] Johnston, L. A. 2007. Using a value chain approach to empowering the rural poor in Kenya,Tanzania, and Mozambique.  TechnoServe presentation to Making Markets Work for the Poor, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
[8] Talbot, J. M. 1997. Where does your coffee dollar go?: The division of income and surplus along the coffee commodity chain. Studies in Comparative International Development 32: 56-91.
[9] Talbot, J. M. 2004. Grounds for Agreement: The Political Economy of the Coffee Commodity Chain. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
[10] FAO. 2006. Governance, Coordination, and Distribution along Commodity Value Chains. An FAO Commodities and Trade Division workshop, April 4 and 5, 2006, Rome.

Coffee beans by Rogiro, coffee cup by Chris Campbell.

Research on coffee growing

Research: Shade coffee = more pollinators = higher fruit set

Pollinator diversity increases fruit production in Mexican coffee plantations: The importance of rustic management systems. C. H. Vergara and E. I. Badano. 2009. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 129: 117-123.

Although arabica coffee is self-pollinating, it can benefit from the activity of insect pollinators. This study looked at pollinators in coffee farms in Veracruz, Mexico that used various types of shade management. Rustic shade had the highest number of pollinating species (12), closely followed by polyculture shade (11). Sun and specialized shade (shade monoculture) had the least number of species (5 and 4).  The more shaded farms also had significantly higher fruit set, which was positively related to the diversity of pollinators.

This has important economic implications. Coffee farmers need to see the economic advantages to any change in their management practices. It is often believed that shade results in lower yields. In this case, we see that increased shade (especially diversity in the shade management) encourages a wider diversity of pollinating insects, which in turn leads to higher fruit set in the coffee and thus higher yields.

Photo of bee pollinating coffee by Ganesh Subramaniam.