August 2011

Coffee news and miscellany / Coffee regions

New Kenyan coffee varietal

Last year the Coffee Research Foundation (CRF) in Ruiru, Kenya released a new disease-resistant arabica varietal that has been in development for more than an decade. Named after the highest peak on Mt. Kenya, Batian is resistant to coffee berry disease and coffee leaf rust, the two common fungal diseases affecting coffee in Kenya and much of Africa.

The parentage of Batian is predominantly arabica, and it is closer genetically to the well-regarded SL28 and SL34 varieties than Ruiru 11, the rust-resistant varietal introduced in 1985. Varieties used in the development of Batian include SL4, N39, N30, Hibrido de Timor, Rume Sudan, and K7. They were repeatedly backcrossed with SL28 and SL34. The Hibrido de Timor is the naturally-occurring hybrid of arabica and robusta, and is often used in disease-resistant breeding due to its robusta heritage.

Of course, it is the robusta lurking in the background that tends to lower cup quality. According to the CRF, however, Batian cups far better than Ruiru 11 and even the parental SL varietals. Here’s a slide from a presentation by Dr.  Joseph Kimemia of the CRF (click to enlarge):Should we take that with a grain of salt (so to speak)? A tasting of these four varietals by the guys from Tim Wendelboe at the CRF did find Bastian rising to the top, but the cupping was a little suspect (e.g., poor examples of the SL28, for instance).

Why a new varietal?

Kenyan coffee production has been declining since at least 2001. There are a number of reasons for this, but in recent years part of the problem has been instability in the weather. Drought and heavy rain disrupt flowering and fruiting, and wet conditions also cause an increase in fungal diseases. Thus, a varietal that has more resistance to these diseases is welcomed by farmers.

In the case of Batian, it also matures faster than other varieties — in two years versus three. It is high yield, but Batian’s ability to boost production is in large part due to the fact it can be planted at twice the density of other typical varietals in Kenya, up to 2500 trees per ha. The end result is a yield of up to 5 tons per ha under optimal management, versus an average of 2 tons/ha. Batian also has a large bean size, which must also contribute to yield estimates.

What does this mean for the environment?

On the plus side, if Batian does show good resistance to fungal diseases (one news piece implies Batian has complete resistance), it may reduce the use of copper fungicides. While often considered allowable under many organic standards, their extensive and prolonged use on coffee in Kenya has resulted in soil contamination. Copper fungicides are already applied many times a year on Kenyan coffee. If rain is frequent, it must be reapplied more often because it is washed off (and fungal diseases are worse in wet conditions). If dependence on fungicides can be reduced or eliminated, this would be a huge accomplishment, and very positive for the environment.

There is a growing movement in Kenya, where most coffee is grown in the sun, to plant shade trees and also reforest many areas. I am not sure it is possible to grow many shade trees and also grow Batian at the recommended density, which is essentially a coffee tree every 2 m. But, (as pointed out in the comment section below and amended here) if farmers don’t have to worry about fungal diseases they may be more apt to plant shade trees.  (I will do a post on coffee berry disease and shade similar to the one on coffee leaf rust some time this fall.)

The CRF and government is also encouraging the planting of Batian in areas where it is currently not being grown, particularly in western Kenya.  Bungoma, Kasii, and Nyanza are current western coffee regions and I have not found details on whether these are the areas being targeted, or some other districts. It’s my understanding that west Kenya gets more rain than the central region where most coffee is grown, and that may be why Batian is being pushed there — coffee planted at high densities usually requires more moisture. Unfortunately, densely planted coffee often also requires heavy fertilization and the trees need to be replaced more often.

Combating diseases, declining yield, and climate change while maintaining quality in a sustainable manner is a challenge to coffee growers worldwide. One can hardly fault farmers for wanting to sustain or improve their livelihoods, or governmental agencies for working to stabilize or increase the production of a primary export crop.  Is another potentially sun-grown, high-input varietal the answer, or environmentally sustainable? We will have to wait and see.

Update: Download a PDF of a detailed 2012 presentation from the Coffee Research Institute seminar series.

Birds and other biodiversity / Know Your Coffee Birds series

Know your coffee birds: Hispaniola’s Palm-Tanagers

Black-crowned Palm-Tanager. Photo by Pat Johnson, taken during field work he performed with the Vermont Center for Ecostudies. VCE has done incredible work in Hispaniola.

There are two species of palm-tanagers (Phaenicophilus) found on Hispaniola, the island comprised of the Dominican Republic (DR) and Haiti.  One is the widespread Black-crowned Palm-Tanager (P. palmarum). The other is the only species of bird unique to Haiti: the Gray-crowned Palm-Tanager (P. poliocephalus). The latter is restricted primarily to the Tiburon Peninsula, the long arm of land in that forms the southeast coastline of the island, where it replaces the Black-crowned. At one time, the peninsula was separated from the rest of the island by the sea, allowing many endemic species to evolve. It is believed this is when the Black-crowned and Gray-crowned Palm-Tanagers diverged into two species. The two species are similar, with the Gray-crowned having (as you may have guessed) a gray rather than black crown, less white on the throat, and some smaller physical features.

Both of these resident species will use many kinds of forest habitats, from humid deciduous to pine, from sea level to upper montane elevations over 2000 meters. They will also use well-vegetated gardens and farms. In many regions, this adaptability would provide the birds with some habitat security. However, deforestation has been so severe on Hispaniola that in many places wooded areas, including agroforests, are so fragmented, degraded, or just plain uncommon that many forest bird species are struggling. The situation is particularly precarious in Haiti, where it is estimated that only 1.5% of the original forested areas survive.

The palm-tanagers forage on insects, often found in dead leaves or under bark, and some fruit. During the non-breeding season, Black-crowned Palm-Tanagers are typically found alone or in pairs, while Gray-crowned Palm-Tanagers are often found in groups of four to six birds.

Portrait of a Gray-crowned Palm-Tanager on a Haitian postage stamp.

Gray-crowned Palm-Tanagers (known locally as “Kat Je Sid” or “Cuatro Ojos”) really deserve special mention. They are locally common on the Tiburon Peninsula, especially in Pic Macaya National Park — little is known about their current status outside this tenuously-protected area. In fact, recent research has not revealed conclusive evidence that they occur east of a line extending south from Port-a-Prince, but historical reports indicate that their range may extend closer to the DR border.

A combination of reforestation and agroforestry crops such as shade coffee would certainly facilitate the conservation of this species. Coffee is produced in the Pic Macaya region. At one point it was roasted and sold by Barrington Coffee Roasting (see our review), Irving Farm Coffee, and Wicked Joe, but I could not find it available at the time of this writing.

However, shade coffee is currently being produced and exported by the Cooparative des Planteurs de Café de l’Arrondissement de Belle-Anse (COOPCAB) based in Thiotte, close to the DR border. This is a group of seven cooperatives representing 5000+ members. It is typica coffee grown at 1300-1350 m in mixed pine forest near Gras Cheval, north of Thiotte, and is usually branded as Blue Forest coffee. It is being most widely promoted and distributed by La Colombe Torrefaction. La Colombe is assisting COOPCAB in getting Rainforest Alliance certification.

The pine forests are critical for endangered Hispaniolan Crossbill, Loxia megaplaga, an island endemic. This bird, once considered a subspecies of the White-winged Crossbill of northern coniferous forests, feeds exclusively on the seeds of Hispaniolan pine (Pinus occidentalis). Forested areas in Haiti and the DR are also essential to North American migrant birds, especially the rare Bicknell’s Thrush. Birds do not represent the only important or unique species that rely on Haiti’s dwindling habitats. The country is host to many other endemic species, including one of the smallest frogs in the world.

The importance of income-producing, habitat-restoring agriculture to Hispaniola’s people, flora, and fauna cannot be underestimated. Given its history and potential, shade coffee is an excellent candidate.

Learn more:

Literature:

McDonald, M. A., and M. H. Smith. 1994.  Behavioral and morphological correlates of heterochrony in Hipaniolan Palm-Tanagers.  Condor 96: 433-446.

Sly, N. D., Townsend,  A. K., Rimmer, C. C., Townsend, J. M., Latta, S., and I. J. Lovette. 2010. Phylogeography and conservation genetics of the Hispaniolan endemic Palm-tanagers (Aves: Phaenicophilus). Conservation Genetics 11: 2121-2129.

Rimmer, C. C., Townsend, J. M., Townsend, A. K., Fernandez, E. M., and J. Alamonte. 2005. Avian diversity, abundance, and conservation status in the Macaya Biosphere Reserve of Haita. Ornithologia Neotropical 16:219-230.

Townsend, J. M. 2009. Gray-crowned Palm-Tanager (Phaenicophilus poliocephalus), Neotropical Birds Online (T. S. Schulenberg, Ed). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; retrieved from Neotropical Birds Online: http://neotropical.birds.cornell.edu/portal/species/overview?p_p_spp=46132

Corporate coffee / Smucker's

Folgers owner: not waking up to sustainability

Since acquiring Folgers from Procter & Gamble in 2008, Smucker’s has balked at providing meaningful sustainability reporting. Pressure from corporate investors prompted a first-ever corporate sustainability report. The single page on coffee was disconcertingly deficient in details. The Smucker’s board opposed a second shareholder proposal to produce a sustainability report specific to coffee.

Only a tiny fraction — half a percent — of the coffee purchased by Smucker’s is certified Fair Trade or organic.

Background

J. M. Smucker’s, the jam and jelly folks, now owns some of the best-known coffee brands in the world. In 2008, Smucker’s took over Proctor & Gamble’s (P&G) coffee division — Folgers and Millstone coffee brands and Dunkin Donuts retail distribution. When it took over P&G’s coffees (in a cleverly constructed piece of corporate tax avoidance) Smucker’s became one of the corporate Big Four coffee companies. Even prior to their recent acquisition of Café Bustelo, Café Pilon, and other brands from Rowland Coffee Roasters, coffee made up 44% of Smucker’s product sales.

P&G did not score high grades in corporate responsibility among its peers. So I have been waiting to find out if Smucker’s would be more transparent about coffee sourcing than P&G, and do more to promote sustainability in their coffee supply chain. Looks like I’ll have to keep waiting.

First CSR report – vague and lacking details

In 2010, large investors Trillium Asset Management and Calvert Investments put forth a shareholder proposal requesting that Smucker’s prepare a sustainability report. The previous year, Smucker’s sustainability reporting efforts amounted to a single page in their annual report, described later by Trillium and Calvert as “grossly inadequate.”

When Smucker’s pledged to begin substantive and meaningful annual sustainability reporting, the proposal was withdrawn. In the ensuing months, Trillium and Calvert met several times with Smucker’s. The company provided no details on what would be included in the promised first report, which was released in late July, and the company denied Trillium and Calvert’s request to review it prior to publication. When it was released, the CSR had only one page is devoted to green coffee sustainability. It says very little. Smucker’s describes their two areas of focus:

1. “We have set goals to substantially increase the purchase of certified green coffee over the next five years.”

They provide no specific goals, no timeline, no roadmap or strategy. The other members of the Big Four at least provide actual numbers, however modest they may be (see my posts on the latest from Kraft, Sara Lee, and Nestlé). Smucker’s coffees span nearly 75 varieties and flavors. A mere four are Fair Trade certified, with three (formerly five) of those also certified organic. In 2007, one was Rainforest Alliance certified, but that was discontinued. As of 2009, Smucker’s purchased the smallest amount of certified coffee — 0.05% of their 280,000 metric tons — of any of the major coffee companies.

2. “Our plan’s second area of focus supports Technoserve…” Smucker’s commits to five more years of support.

Most of the rest of the page describes the work Technoserve performs relating to coffee. These are not specific partnerships with Smucker’s, which is one of many donors to the organization. While technically true, it is misleading for them to say “Our coffee brands’ commitment to Technoserve began nearly 10 years ago.”  P&G was a donor, pledging $150,000 a year for ten years starting in 2002. Smucker’s has only donated the last two years, since they became owner of the P&G coffee brands, honoring P&G’s previous commitment.

For some perspective, their $150,000 (tax-deductible, I assume) annual donation is less than 0.03% of Smucker’s profit from their U.S. Retail Coffee segment alone.  Presumably, their continuation for the next five years will be at or near the same level.

Board fights 2011 Shareholder Proposal for coffee sustainability report

It’s time to wake up to the need for sustainability in your supply chain.

Based on their unsatisfactory discussions with Smucker’s, Trillium and Calvert anticipated that the CSR might not meet expectations. When it was evident the CSR would probably not be released prior to the deadline for filing proposals for the 2011 annual meeting, Trillium and Calvert filed another shareholder proposal in March.

This request was more specific. It pointed out that coffee represents a large percentage of Smucker’s profits (48%) and net sales (40%). The request emphasized the risk of climate change to the coffee supply chain. This was entirely appropriate. Last year the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a guidance document outlining instances when corporations may be required, under existing rules, to disclose to investors business risks to due to climate change.

The entire text is of the proposal here. The bottom line was that

“…within six months of the 2011 annual meeting, the Board of Directors provide a report to shareholders … describing how the company will manage the social and environmental risks and opportunities connected to the company’s coffee business and supply chain. We recommend the Board include in the report a concise discussion of how it will address temperature changes, changes in rainfall patterns, and the company’s responsibility for its impact on the coffee farming families in its supply chain.”

Upon receipt of this proposal, the Smucker’s board petitioned the SEC to allow them to exclude the proposal from the proxy materials, in part because a CSR would be forthcoming. The SEC denied their request, stating “it does not appear that Smucker’s  public disclosures compare favorably with the guidelines of the proposal.”

In their letter to shareholders, the Smucker’s Board unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this proposal, stating that they felt the forthcoming CSR was adequate. In contrast, Trillium and Calvert’s letter to shareholders, recommending a “yes” vote, called the CSR “a significant disappointment.”

Results of the voting on the sustainability proposal

At the annual meeting on August 17, roughly 20% of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal. Combined with the 13% abstaining, a third of Smucker’s shareholders did not agree with the company position. This is actually a strong showing for a first-time environmental proxy issue. Given that the CSR was published less than three weeks prior to the meeting, many shareholders probably did not even get a chance to read and digest it.

Shareholder proposals are not legally binding, but used to send a message to corporate boards that their investors want change.

Maybe the younger generation of the Smucker’s family will adopt a more modern view of sustainability efforts, and the vintage outlook can be shelved.

What’s next?

Smucker’s is a company that manufactures and markets agricultural-based products. Coffee makes up a huge portion of their business. Should their coffee division continue to grow at the rate of the last few years (in 2011, coffee profit increased 11% over 2010), aided by the Rowland brands, Smucker’s could find itself primarily a coffee company. Their supply chain is clearly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Further, since companies are required to disclose information that influence investment decisions, and the SEC has indicated climate change is a risk factor that must be considered, Smucker’s may eventually need to get off the dime.

As noted, Smucker’s main competitors, Kraft, Nestlé, and Sara Lee, each have well-defined, very public sustainability initiatives (however miserly they may be relative to the size of their overall businesses). Smucker’s lags far behind them, and that is really saying something. Perhaps the only good news is that they have nowhere to go but up.

To take a look at the report and financials yourself, download these PDF documents, which should also be linked at their web site:

  • J. M. Smucker Co. 2011 Annual Report (see page 50 for coffee sales, pages 24-25 for profits, page 50 for product sales)
  • J. M. Smucker Co. 2011 Corporate Sustainability Report (see page 18 for coffee)

Certifications / Organic coffee

Canada now has own certified organic seal

Two years after passing an organic standards law, Canada’s organic certification is now being fully implemented and enforced. It covers all agricultural products labeled as organic in import, export, and inter-provincial trade — thus, coffee is included.

Part of the standards law included a trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada recognizing each other’s standards as equivalent (which they appear largely to be, from my reading). Thus, products meeting organic certification standards in one country may be imported to the other. This summer, Canada entered into an organic equivalency arrangement with the European Union as well.

Like the National Organic Program in the U.S., accredited third-party organizations certify organic products to the standards.The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is the authority over this program in Canada, and the official Organic Canada/Biologique Canada seal is pictured here.

Coffee-related products / K-Cups/Keurig brewers: alternatives

ekobrew: another alternative to K-Cups

I have mixed feelings about writing about Keurig single-cup brewers and K-Cups. Yet single-cup brewers are wildly popular, and Keurig owns 80% of the North American market share. If I’m going to talk about consumer coffee choices and how they impact the environment, I feel I should talk about Keurig and K-Cups.

Over the years, I have written about how to minimize or eliminate the waste in the disposable K-Cups themselves:

In the past I’ve stated that I believed that K-Cups are the most environmentally-friendly product in the single-use arena because of the strong corporate responsibility and environmental record of Keurig parent Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. However, now that Folgers, Millstone, and Dunkin Donuts coffees are available in K-Cups and GMCR seems willing to license to anybody, no matter how bad or mysterious the sourcing, I no longer have this view. Ergo, it’s even more important to emphasize ways to use your own carefully chosen sustainably-grown coffee if you have a Keurig brewer.

A new contender

This brings us to the latest generation of reusable coffee filters/brew baskets to use in (most) Keurig brewers: the ekobrew Cup. [Note – product is now discontinued, but company still survives and makes ancillary products]. I’ve not yet tried this product, as it was just released, but it is receiving very favorable reviews and has a number of benefits over competitors which are obvious to those of us who have fiddled with the various alternatives:

  • It has a larger capacity than the others. It can hold up to 14 grams of coffee (versus 9 grams of a regular K-Cup, and around 11 for Solofill). You may not want to jam the max in there, though, but take advantage of the fact that the extra room will provide for more complete infusion of the coffee and get you a stronger brew, especially for < 8-ounce cup settings. Weak coffee is a major complaint with many of the K-Cup alternatives (and K-Cups themselves).
  • It has a flat bottom, and is easy to fill. The Solofill has a big “nipple” on the bottom and won’t stand up by itself. Also, that depression can hold wet grounds and make the Solofill harder to clean than the smooth interior of the ekobrew.
  • It is BPA-free. So is the Solofill. The My-Kap is not.
  • You don’t have to remove the holster in the brewer to use the ekobrew (or Solofill) as you do with the Keurig My K-Cup.

Other reviewers have commented on the overall positive design aspects and durability of the ekobrew, including details of the brew basket, hinge, and stay-cool handles. There have been a few other products in the interim between the Solofill debut and the ekobrew, but the ekobrew seems to be the most significant recent step forward in this product arena, having improved on the few shortcomings of the well-liked Solofill.

This product could lure me into plugging in my Keurig at the office once again.

The future

I have been a fan of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters and their effort to source coffee sustainably, their support of farmer communities, and other green initiatives.  But Keurig brewers and K-Cups are now making up 88% of the company’s revenues, and most of this is from the K-Cups. Their willingness to license to big corporate coffee roasters is seemingly profit-driven; they receive $0.064 for every K-Cup sold. In my eyes, and to others I’ve talked to, this seems like a contradiction of Green Mountain’s values.

Further, when I first wrote about K-Cups in 2007, Keurig was working on sustainable (recyclable/renewable/biodegradable) packaging. There has been no meaningful progress on this front (I don’t consider the release of one flavor of one brand of tea in a paper K-Cup truly significant). Currently, three billion K-Cups head to the landfill a year.

The patent on the K-Cup runs out in 2012, ushering in the era of even more crappy, cheap coffee being available in these dreadful little cups. Will there be any incentive for other manufacturers of K-Cup clones to develop sustainable packaging? Of course not. They’ll all be competing for a slice of the market, and cheap will win out. This cheapifying of coffee has broader implications, and I can do no better than to refer you to Jim Pellegrini’s excellent blog post on the topic, Why the Keurig K-Cup is the beginning of the end for great coffee.

My final recommendation is at least use your own coffee if you already own a Keurig brewer. Use a good product in place of K-Cups, like the ekobrew. Even better — go for the dead-easy way to craft excellent single cups of coffee tweaked to your individual taste with your own beautiful, sustainably-grown beans: try a Clever Coffee Dripper. Low initial investment, low tech, great coffee.

Used K-Cup photo adapted from a Creative Commons photo by Randy Read.

Certifications / Organic coffee

What does “organic” really mean?

Some time ago, I provided posts on pesticides that are commonly used on coffee, and a brief overview of organic coffee. A recent NPR story, Organic pesticides, not an oxymoron, put the topic of the definition of “organic” (at least how it is defined and regulated in the U.S.) back in the news. I thought it would be appropriate to clarify this as it pertains to organic coffee.

First, all organic agricultural products sold in the U.S. are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. All of these products, whether produced in the U.S. or not, must adhere to NOP standards. The USDA accredits other agencies to certify organic products using the same standards.

The use of the USDA Organic seal indicates a product is at least 95% organic unless 100% organic is specified. However, because coffee is a single ingredient product, a bag of organic coffee is 100% organic beans.  Mixing of organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient are expressly prohibited. If the coffee had flavoring or some form of secondary processing aid that was not organic, then it couldn’t be labeled 100% organic but that is an exception.

As the NPR piece points out, organic certification does not mean absolutely no chemicals are used in production. Organic certification excludes most manufactured pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. A list of substances that are allowed and prohibited are found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Examples of products that are allowed include soap-based herbicides and pesticides in certain circumstances, and botanically-based insecticides like neem and pyrethrum. It does not mean that any naturally-occurring toxin is okay to use or intrinsically safer just because it is natural. Plenty of natural toxins like arsenic or nicotine are prohibited. Allowable substances are on the list because they are typically less toxic in recommended doses than synthetics, more specific, and break down in the environment faster.

Many of these substances don’t apply to coffee, of course. Most relevant to coffee farming is that various copper- and sulfur-based products are allowed in some situations. This includes copper sulfate and hydrated lime (calcium oxide), the main ingredients in bordeaux mixture which is used as a fungicide, particularly against coffee rust. It is further specified in the rules that copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil.

There are two very important stipulations on the use of allowed substances. One, the producer must demonstrate that natural biological or cultural methods are insufficient to control or remedy whatever problem is to be addressed by an allowed substance.  Only after these methods have proven unsuccessful can producers turn to the allowed substances. The organic standards include practices that should help reduce, minimize, or eliminate the need for pesticides and other agrochemicals — organic agriculture is a whole approach to ecosystem stewardship, not just the absence of artificial chemicals.

Second, the rules state that the use of allowed substances must “not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water.” I’ll also add that most of the allowed substances are only permitted to be used in specific situations or on particular crops (or non-food uses).

I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. I don’t believe the danger of non-organic coffee production is to the people that drink the end product. By the time the coffee cherries are removed from the trees, the beans inside processed, roasted, ground, and brewed, little or no chemical residue is likely to remain. The potential danger of non-organic coffee is harm to people and the environment at origin. Improper storage, inadequate protection, and lack of training routinely expose farm workers to chemicals. Pesticides that are banned in the U.S. or Europe are still being used in many coffee-growing countries, especially older broad-spectrum insecticides which are highly toxic, but relatively inexpensive. Pesticides kill tens of thousands of migratory birds on their wintering grounds. Contamination and mortality of tropical resident wildlife is not well studied. And synthetic fertilizers, particularly nitrogen, not only have a large carbon footprint, but contribute to water contamination.

Organic certification is a commitment to sustainability. It deserves to be rewarded with our coffee-buying dollars.

As a result of researching posts I’ve written here, my thoughts on organic coffee have evolved. I have at times noted that many coffee farms may be considered “passive organic,” but are not certified, and that a lack of certification doesn’t mean the coffee is not sustainably grown. That may be true, but it is more nuanced than that. I’ve come to understand some farms may not use chemicals, but that doesn’t mean that they are following the principals that are encompassed in organic farming (practices that are codified and verified in organic certification standards).

Obtaining certification is a big accomplishment, especially for many farmers in the developing world where technical support and capital may be lacking. There are real barriers, including cost, and in sometimes lower yields.  It requires a lot of increased labor. Organic certification represents much more than not using chemicals — which are unlikely to show up in your coffee cup anyway. Organic certification is a commitment to sustainability. It deserves to be rewarded with our dollars.

Coffee bag photo by Chris and Jenni, used under a Creative Commons license.