January 2012

Coffee regions / Research on coffee growing

The curse of the spud

“Potato taint” in African coffees

Some East African coffees, especially those from Rwanda, but also Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia, and Kenya, are afflicted by the strong flavor of potato peels, not a desirable taste in coffee.  This defect is said to be ultimately caused by one of the pyrazine chemical compounds. How do coffee beans end up with this chemical? The prevailing theory is that coffee cherries are damaged by insects, most notably several species of stink bugs. The damage facilitates contamination of the cherry, which leads to formation of the potato taint compounds.

The connection between the bugs and the taint are not completely understood. Let’s take a super-geeky look at what we know about the bugs — which, whether they cause the potato defect or not, do a lot of damage to coffee cherries — and how they might be responsible for the potato taint.

Bugs that make a stink

The insects that cause damage to coffee cherries in East Africa that are usually associated with potato taint are in the order Hemiptera, the true bugs.  This order includes various bugs that suck plant juices, including cicadas, leafhoppers, aphids, scale insects, shield or stink bugs, and many others.  The stink bugs that are coffee pests are collectively called “Antestia bugs,” after their former generic name (many species in the genus Antestia have been reclassified under another genus, Antestiopsis). Two primary culprits are Antestiopsis orbitalis (formerly Antestia lineaticollis) and Antestiopsis intricata.

A. orbitalis (above right) is a colorful bug about 7 mm long. Various subspecies have slightly different patterns.  This and related species that also attack coffee have similar life histories; for the sake of simplicity I’ll refer to them collectively as variegated coffee bugs. Some species are found in India and southeast Asia. We’ll focus on the ones usually found in Africa.

Three variegated coffee bugs on coffee in Burundi. Photo by Tim Hill of Counter Culture Coffee.

Variegated coffee bugs can complete four generations a year, and reproduce best at temperatures between 19 and 24 degrees C (66-75 F) and humidity between 35-50%.  Eggs are laid on the undersides of leaves. The young are called nymphs, and are similar, but smaller, than the adults. Average life span is three to four months. Like all Hemipterans, variegated coffee bugs have piercing mouthparts adapted to sucking plant juices. Arabica coffee (rarely robusta) is the preferred host, but other plants in the coffee family (Rubiaceae) are also used. Variegated coffee bugs feed on shoots and leaves (causing damage and bud drop) but primarily on unripe coffee cherries.

Not only does this type of feeding itself cause physical damage to the cherry, but fungi (yeast) in the genus Nematospora (N. [=Eremothecium] coryli and N. [=Ashbya] gossypii) can secondarily infect the cherry. Nematospora fungi are not specific to coffee, but when these two species infect coffee, it’s usually called coffee bean rot. The fungi only cause rot in unripe (green) cherries.

It’s believed that the bugs are vectors of the fungi;  that is,the bugs carry the spores and the fungi are dependent on the bugs (though not variegated coffee bugs exclusively) for dispersal. There is some dispute over whether the spores are present internally in the bugs and thus inoculated into plants, or if they are present on the surface of the bugs. Not all cherries pierced by the bugs become infected. It could be that the fungal spores are not present in/on all bugs, or that if they are present internally, they may be too large to pass through the mouthparts of younger (smaller) individuals.

Physical damage to the coffee cherry and the associated rot cause significant losses (up to 45%) on coffee farms infested with variegated coffee bugs. Do these bugs also cause potato taint?

Chemicals that make a stink

A number of chemical compounds produce potato-like odors. The most notable is a methoxypyrazine: 2-methoxy 3-isopropylpyrazine (or “MIPP”*). The odor threshold of MIPP is very low, so it’s easily detected in very small quantities. MIPP has been found in nature in some plants and higher organisms. Various pyrazines can be synthesized chemically and biologically, and MIPP has been produced by cultures of at least one bacteria, Pseudomonas perolens.

Other Pseudomonas cultures also have potato odors. This group of bacteria are free-living, and widely found in soil and water (at least one strain infects the leaves of coffee trees). Several other bacteria, such as some strains of Serratia and Cedecea, produce potato-like odors that are the result of a combination of pyrazine compounds.

Despite my access to vast quantities of scientific literature, I was surprised to find virtually no published research on the chemical processes of coffee bean rot. Does it produce MIPP or a similar compound with a potato odor? If other bacteria are involved in the potato defect, are they connected in some way to the fungal infection that is typically introduced by variegated coffee bugs? Where to the bacteria come from?

One very interesting clue comes from Tim Hill, of Counter Culture Coffee, who provided the photo above left. He said that the potato odor was apparent in the air during a rainstorm in Burundi. This is suggestive that a/the taint-producing bacteria may be present in the soil. While I have been unable to pin down the range of Pseudomonas perolens, there are nearly 200 species of this bacteria worldwide. I have to wonder why the potato defect is largely (exclusively?) considered an East African problem and why it has been historically linked to variegated potato bugs, but not, for instance, coffee berry borers which also penetrate the green cherry. The borers and Pseudomonas are fairly ubiquitous in  coffee-growing nations. It seems to me that there must be a link between the variegated coffee bugs and a bacteria that facilitate the production of stinky pyrazine compounds.

Bringing us to this compelling clue: MIPP (usually going by its synonym IPMP*), is found in some grapes and contributes to pleasant flavors in wines in small amounts, but at higher levels is associated with the off-flavor known as “ladybug taint.”  The ladybugs (Asian multicolored lady beetles, Harmonia axyridis, the non-native species that can be a household pest) do not actually attack or harm the grapes. IPMP is part of the chemical make-up of the ladybugs, and when the insects get mixed in and processed with the grapes, the taint occurs in the wine.

IPMP is present in lots of ladybug species, and many other insects that are “aposematic” — those possessing some kind of warning signal to potential predators. Usually, this is some sort of bright coloration, very often red and black. I have not seen any variegated coffee bugs or close relatives on lists of insects that have been confirmed to have any pyrazines, but their colorful patterns are consistent with other aposematic insects, and some other Hemiptera are classified as aposematic. Recall this group of bugs is known as “stink bugs.”  This is precisely because most have the ability to release a nasty chemical when molested. So further exploration of the chemical make-up of variegated stink bugs surely seems a promising avenue of research.

However these compounds end up in the coffee cherry, they end up altering the bean, which itself does not show damage. (This fact — that the damaged cherries must be identified and discarded prior to processing, after which they cannot be detected until the coffee is roasted or ground — is what makes this defect so frustrating.)

Recent news out of the University of California, Riverside announced that one of their entomologists was going to Rwanda to help solve the mystery of the potato defect. That item said, “there is no definitive link between potato taste and antestia bug, only hypotheses.” While the research I’ve cited (see below) is not very current, the dots seem to be connected right up to the end point of why and how MIPP or a similar compound is produced.

The battle of the bug

Given the fact that one way or another, variegated coffee bugs are pests of coffee, control methods for them will continue to be important. Fungicides do not control the type of infection caused by Nematospora, given that the fungi are introduced within the coffee cherry. Small infestations of the bugs can been battled with hand-picking. Since the bugs like dense foliage, pruning is often recommended. In the long run, both natural and synthetic pyrethrum insecticides have proven ineffective in many cases. The bugs have typically been controlled with multiple applications of pesticides, usually fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, malathion, trichlorfon, and diflubenzuron. All but the last are organophosphate pesticides that are especially dangerous (to humans and the environment) when not applied according to instructions with full protection, which is often not the case in less-developed nations.

Fortunately, because they are native to East Africa, variegated coffee bugs do have many natural enemies which may be exploited for biocontrol; they are especially vulnerable to a number of native parasitic wasps that attack the eggs. With persistence and luck, reliable biological and cultural control of variegated coffee bugs will hopefully be developed.

As the Rwandan and Burundian specialty coffee sectors grow, the urgency to defeat the potato taint will grow. I’ll be following any progress and research on the exact mechanisms of potato taint and any methods of control and detection that emerge.

Photo of Antestiopsis orbitalis by Lambert Smith, used with permission.

*This compound has several synonyms: 2-Isopropyl-3-methoxypyrazine, 3-Isopropyl-2-methoxypyrazine, or IPMP. The CAS Registry number is 25773-40-4.

Further reading:

    • Cheng, T.-B., G. A. Reineccius, J. A. Bjorklund, and E. Leete. 1991. Biosynthesis of 2-methoxy-3-isopropylpyrazine in Pseudomonas perolens. J. Agric. Food Chem. 39:1009-1012.
    • Cilas, C., B. Bouyjou, and B. Decazy. 1998. Frequency and distribution of Antestiopsis orbitalis Westwood (Hem., Pentatomidae) in coffee plantations in Burundi: implications for sampling techniques. Journal of Applied Entomology. 122:601-606.
    • Crowe, T.J., G.D.G. Jones, and R. Williamson. 1961. The use of pyrethrum formulations to control Antestiopsis on coffee in East Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 52:31-41.
    • Greathead, D.J. 1966. A taxonomic study of the species of Antestiopsis (Hemipteea, Pentatomidae) associated with Coffea arabica in Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 56:515-554.
    • Kirkpatrick, T. W. 1937. Studies on the ecology of coffee plantations in East Africa. II. the autecology of Antestia Spp. (pentatomidae) with a particular account of a Strepsipterous parasite. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 86:247-343.
    • Le Pelley, R.H. 1932. On the control of Antestia Lineaticollis, Stal (Hem., Pentatom.) on Coffee in Kenya Colony. 1932. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 23:217-228.
    • Le Pelley, R.H. 1942. The food and feeding habits of Antestia in Kenya. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 33:71-89.
    • McNutt, D.N. 1979. Control of Antestiopsis spp. on coffee in Uganda. Tropical Pest Management. 25:5-15.
    • Mehrotra, R. S., and Aggarwhal, A. 2003. Plant Pathology, 2nd Ed. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
    • van der Meulen, H.J., and A.S. Schoeman. 1990. Aspects of the phenology and ecology of the antestia stink bug, Antestiopsis orbitalis orbitalis (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), a pest of coffee. Phytophylactica. 22:423-426.
    • Mitchell, P.L. 2004. Heteroptera as vectors of plant pathogens. Neotropical Entomology. 33:519-545.
    • Nixon, G.E.J. 1941. New Braconid parasites of Antestia Lineaticollis, Stal, and of Sylepta Derogata, F. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 32:93-101.
    • Pickering, G. J, M. Spink, Y. Kotseridis, D. Inglis, I. D. Brindle, M. Sears, and A. Beh. 2008. Yeast strain affects 3-isopropyl-2-methoxypyrazine concentration and sensory profile in Cabernet Sauvignon wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 14:230-237.

 

Coffee awards and competitions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality – Dec 2011

The Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality award is designed to recognize exceptional coffees carrying the Rainforest Alliance seal and to highlight the linkage between sustainable farm management practices and cup quality. There are now two annual cuppings and awards, divided by geography. In December, coffees from the southern hemisphere — including Brazil, Peru, Kenya, Tanzania and Indonesia — compete. These are the results of the December 2011 cupping.

This year, there were 45 coffee samples from eight origins submitted.

  1. Tunki, Peru (87.92). This organic, Fair Trade coffee, from the Tunkimayo sector in Puno, also won in 2009. It consists of mostly typica and bourbon grown at 1300 to 1800 m. Tunki is one of the coffees from CECOVASA (Central de Cooperativas Agrarias Cafetaleras de los Valles de. Sandia), a group of cooperatives totaling nearly 5000 members. CECOVASA has been working with Conservation International, and has won an award for their work preserving biodiversity. ”Tunki” is the local name for the national bird of Peru, the spectacular Andean Cock-of-the-Rock, depicted in their logo. Equal Exchange has a good article on a visit to CECOVASA.  Peru is not one of my favorite origins, but I had this coffee at a blind tasting at an SCAA event, and it was outstanding.
  2. Deep River, Kwanyoka Estate, Kenya (86.06).
  3. Ururi, Peru (85.25). This is another organic, Fair Trade CECOVASA coffee (see #1, above), grown at 2000 m from the Pata Inambari Valley.  As outlined in this Equal Exchange post, CECOVASA has really been working on quality. Just two years ago, Ururi only scored at 75.48 in the Cupping for Quality competition. What an improvement!
  4. Mihando, Kenya (85.19).
  5. Madan Coffee Plantation,  Papua New Guinea (84.56). Located in the Western Highlands of PNG, this 320 ha, privately-owned estate was acquired by Highland Arabicas in 2003.  They grow primarily Blue Mountain typica, but also Arusha and Mundo Novo.
  6. Githaka, Kenya (84.50).
  7. Kihuri Estate, Kenya (84.41).
  8. Machure Estate, Kenya (84.33).
  9. Muthaite, Kenya (84.31).
  10. Parry Estate, Kona Gold Coffee Plantation, USA (Hawaii)  (84.25).  A family-owned, 354 ha estate at 610 m on Kona (not to be confused with Perry Estate, also on Kona).

I have accumulated detailed data on the Cupping for Quality competition going back to 2007. Including these current results, this consists of seven competitions because Rainforest Alliance went from one to two annual cuppings in 2009. While not all countries were represented in each competition, even within the geographically-limited events, the mix of countries changes from one year to the next. So while this isn’t a totally homogenous data set, the numbers I’ve compiled are still interesting.

The average score for the top ten in this current event was 85.08, which is slightly below the previous average of 85.22. The top score of 87.92 was also below the average of previous top scores (88.35).  So far (as this data goes), none of the scores has broken 90 points yet. I don’t think this is necessarily a reflection on the quality of Rainforest Alliance-certified coffees in general.  Not all farms compete, and some well-known certified farms don’t or haven’t competed  for some time. In fact, I suspect that some of the well-known farms don’t feel they need to, and that entrants may be biased toward up-and-comers that are striving for recognition.

Congratulations to all these farms for their commitment to sustainability and quality.

The next round will be announced in late April at the SCAA event, after which I’ll update the averages and perhaps present some additional data.

Certifications / Corporate coffee / Data summary tables

Corporate coffee: How much is eco-certified?

How much eco-certified coffee is purchased by the big coffee companies?

Not to be used without permission. Latest update March 2021.

The focus here is on the major world buyers and others with top U.S. market share.  These players change over time, and the table is updated to reflect this. The latest update reflects the past several years of major coffee mergers and acquisitions, primarily by JAB Holding and its subsidiaries. As this is a private company, much of the data that was once public is now unavailable.

Certified purchases include only those that include environmental standards. Organic is a primary consideration; since Smithsonian Bird-Friendly must be certified organic, it is included in the organic category. I’ve included Fair Trade if it is also designated as organic. Rainforest Allaince is included, although the new standards for certification have weakened their ecological criteria. Other certifications or considerations are included in the notes.

Data sources will be linked or included in the footnotes. I’ve converted all volumes to metric tons for comparison; some volumes and percentages are calculated or extrapolated from closely related figures. As a point of reference, world coffee production in 2020 was about 10.5 million metric tons.

Company
Purchases
Certified
purchases
Nestlé
Purchases about 9.1% of world volume. Relatively small U.S. market share (<9%)1,2
2008: 780,000
2010: 870,0001 (49,020 tons was Nespresso3,6)
2013: 860,0003
2014: 842,0003
2015: 849,0003
2017: 870,000
2018: 845,4907
2019: 907,0001		2010: 2000 Fair Trade, Utz, Rainforest Alliance, and/or organic1 (0.2%), see note.
2013: 2000 Fair Trade/organic1 (0.2%).
2017: All certifications combined, including Fair Trade, approx. 81,000 (9%)
2018: Over 56% of their purchases were "sustainable" coffee, but that includes mostly 4C and their proprietary Nespresso AAA purchases, which don't count here as eco-certified.7
2019: 606,000 tons (66.8%) was "sustainable" including 115,000 tons under their own Nespresso AAA plan (see below).1 Not broken down by other certifications or sustainability schemes.
Nestlé has stated, "There are no plans to market certified coffee to consumers... We believe that our own Responsible Sourcing platform...offers a more targeted approach than certification alone." (2011 "Creating Shared Value" report3.)

In their 2015 Creating Shared Value report3, Nestlé reports that 56% of their coffee is traceable back to the farm or plantation, and is therefore "responsibly sourced." They define responsibly sourced green coffee as verified against the 4C Code of Conduct (read about these very marginal standards here) or equivalent or more demanding standards, private or public. In their 2019 Creating Shared Value Report, the company merely states that their 2020 goals of 70% of Nescafe coffee being "responsibly sourced" and 100% of Nespresso coffee being sourced under their AAA program are "in progress" with few metrics provided. Their "no deforesation" commitment and progress does not include coffee.

Their private standard is the Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality program, based on Rainforest Alliance principals (not certification). Their goal is to source 100% of their Nespresso coffee under these standards by 2020. In 2017, approximately 77000 metric tons of coffee was sourced under the AAA program. See this post for details. In 2019, a total of 115,000 metric tons were produced under the AAA program (12.7% of Nestlé's total purchases), but only 87,000 tons were sold as such.1
JAB Holding Co.
I have tried to combine some companies and brands owned by JAB Holding or in which JAB Holding is a majority shareholder, whether under this name or one of its subsidiaries (including Acorn Holdings, Pret Panera, JDE Peet's, Keurig Dr. Pepper, etc.).

Purchases at least 7-8% of world volume (this figure is the JDE-Peet's holdings alone). Relatively small U.S. market share (<4%).1,2,8		2008: 740,000
2010: 700,0001
2013: 500,0001
2016: 728,000 for JDE alone based on 8% of world production
2017: 710,000 for JDE alone.
2019: 730,000 for JDE Peet's alone1

2008-2013 figures are historical and reflect purchases of some acquisitions.		2008: 29,500 Rainforest Alliance (4%)
2010: 50,000 Rainforest Alliance (7%)
2012: 52,000 Rainforest Alliance
2013: 55,000 Rainforest Alliance (11%)1
2017: All certifications combined, including Fair Trade, approx. 142,000 (20%)
2019: For JDE Peet's, 153,000 tons (20.9%) were under some sort of "sustainabilty" scheme. This includes 4C, Fairtrade, UTZ, Rainforest Alliance, and other verifications.1,8

2008-2013 figures are historical and reflect purchases of some acquisitions.
JAB is privately held, and thus data on purchases and certifications is generally not publically available. Some brands are continuing their own sourcing.

The CSR report of their JDE division (prior to the merger creating JDE Peet's) in 2019 stated a goal of working towards 100% "responsibly sourced" coffee by 2025 (accompanied by a nice photo of sun coffee.) Rainforest Alliance aids them in their "Common Grounds" responsible sourcing efforts. 8

Prior to their purchase by JAB, Caribou Coffee was the first major coffee shop to source 100% Rainforest Alliance certified coffee. For a time, they continued their own sourcing of certified coffee, but now many coffees on their site do not bear the seal of Rainforest Alliance or any other indication of certification, nor do they publish an annual report of their own.
JM Smucker

Purchases about 3.6% of world volume. Largest U.S. market share (nearly 20%), nearly all of which is one brand: Folgers.1,2		2008: 280,000
2010: 250,0001
2013: 300,0001
2017: 350,0001
2019: 360,0001		2008: 1,500 (0.5%) was certified either Rainforest Alliance, Fair Trade, and/or organic.
2010: Data not disclosed. See note.
2013: Apparently, none.1
2015: 10% of some unknown amount from all sources (UTZ, Rainforest Alliance, and Fair Trade.4
2017: Approx. 35,000 UTZ and Rainforest Alliance (10%).
2019: 36,000 tons (10%) were Rainforest Alliance or Utz certified.1
Smuckers' purchases of various coffee brands now make up the largest portion of the company's product sales. In response to heavy shareholder pressure and criticism -- at the time the Tropical Commondity Coalition1 noted, "[Smucker's] seems to lack a clear and concise CSR stategy, ... does not provide verifiable procurement figures of certified coffees, has no specific goals for a more sustainable coffee sector, and its future commitment is extremely vague"-- the company set a goal to buy 10% of total retail coffee from certified sources. Upon reaching this goal in 2015, they only committed to maintaining, not improving, this level 4. This was reiterated in their 2020 report.
Starbucks
Purchases about 3.1% of world volume. U.S. market share data of about 9% includes retail sales which are distributed in North America by Nestlé. I believe Starbucks still sources much of this coffee, but how much is unclear at this time.1,2,5
2007: 160,000
2008: 175,000
2009: 166,000
2010: 122,000
2011: 193,776
2012: 247,208
2013: 179,623
2014: 209,106
2015: 251,744
2019: 310,0001		2007: 103,000 CAFE Practices (64%)
2008: 134,000 CAFE Practices (77%) + 4536 organic
2009: 136,000 CAFE Practices (82%) + 6350 organic
2010: 103,000 CAFE Practices (84%) + 4400 organic
2011: 167,000 CAFE Practices (86%) + 4354 organic
2012: 230,878 (90%) CAFE Practices + 3946
organic
2013: 171,004 CAFE Practices (94%) + 1996 organic
2014: 199,696 CAFE Practices (95%) + 2091 organic
2015: 249,929 CAFE Practices + other certifications
2019: 310,000 CAFE Practices produced (99%, although another 140,00 metric tons were produced under CAFE Practices but apparently sold to other buyers).1
All data comes from Starbucks annual reports unless otherwise noted. Organic totals are provided, but some may be included in CAFE Practices purchases due to multiple certifications, so I've only given percentages for amounts noted in reports as CAFE Practices. Fair Trade purchases are not included in the figures above.

The environmental standards of Starbucks CAFE Practices preferred buyer program are more detailed and stronger than many third-party certifications, including Fair Trade and UTZ Certified. See also my post on recent CAFE Practices assessment reports. The Tropical Commondity Coalition1 noted, "Starbucks appears to be far and away the best in terms of sustainable coffee procurement [of the top ten buyers]..."
Kraft Heinz

Large U.S. market share of nearly 10% dominated by one brand: Maxwell House.2		Amount of coffee purchased by Kraft Heinz is unknown.None of the Maxwell House branded coffee is flagged as certified on packaging, and no information on certified purchases is provided. They did not respond to the 2020 Coffee Barometer survey.1
For many years, and as it was going through mergers and acquistions, Kraft did not publish a corporate responsibility report, or make mention of coffee on their website. Coffee is still not mentioned on their Environmental Social Governance Strategy & Goals page, or specifically regarding responsible sourcing.

In the 2020 Kraft Heinz Environmental Social Governance Report they only highlight their Ethical Bean acquisition, which sources only organic and Fairtrade certified beans. The volume is unknown, but undoubtedly a small enough portion of their total purchases to qualify as greenwash tokenism.

References:

1 The Coffee Barometer Reports supply data approximately every other year. First published by the Tropical Commodity Coalition, they have had several different authors/publishers. Past years are found here: The Coffee Barometer 2009 (PDF).  Coffee Barometer 2012, Coffee Barometer 2014 (PDF); 2018 and 2020 (and hopefully future issues) are now available on this page. Much of their data comes now from companies responding to a survey. Their purchase data is used to calculate percentages of world volume, as provided by the International Coffee Organization statistics. However, these figures should be considered approximate due to company self-reporting, and some changes in definitions of volumes and market shares. Nonetheless, they likely accurately reflect ranking and relative proportions and provide adequate context.
2 Much market share data derives from statistics updated via Euromonitor International, the global market research company.
3 All of Nestlé’s Creating Shared Value Reports as well as other press releases and documents are available on this page.
4 JM Smucker Corporate Responsibility / Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosure reports are available on this page.
5 Starbucks Global Responsibility / Social Responsibility Reports are available on this page.
6 Accelerating progress on the Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality Program in Central America. March 2011.
7 Global Coffee Platform, Sustainable Coffee Purchases, Snapshot 2018.
8 JDE Jacobs Douwe Egberts 2019 Corporate Responsibility Report.

Coffee reviews / Latin America

Review: AgroEco Coffee

Plainspoken Coffee. A Coffee Review for Ordinary People by Ordinary People, #49.

The Community Agroecology Network (CAN) seeks to to link farming communities in Latin America to consumers in the United States. Researchers from five universities partner with faculty and organizations in Latin America to forge long-term community-based relationships. Researchers, organizations and farmer members address questions related to sustainable farming systems. Student interns work with farming communities and cooperatives. Often the work revolves around coffee farms themselves — such as mapping farms and surveying shade trees, orchids, or other fauna. Interns may also work on social projects, other aspects of sustainable agriculture in the community, or training members on computers, etc.

Among CAN’s projects is the AgroEco Coffee Initiative, in conjunction with the Union of Farming Cooperatives Augusto Caesar Sandino (UCA San Ramon) in San Ramon, Matagalpa, Nicaragua, an organization of 21 coffee cooperatives and over 1,000 members.  Research projects include tree biodiversity conservation, establishing a local herbarium, and food security issues. Part of CAN’s efforts include trade innovations, and in this case they work with Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting to bring AgroEco Coffee to market.

The coffee is available in both light and dark roasts, and can be purchased one-time, or by recurring subscription. CAN sent a bag of light roast for us to try.

This is a bag of coffee that does not have tasting notes, but instead has a “sustainability facts” label similar to the Nutrition Facts labels found on food products in the U.S.  What a great idea! It gives data on the coffee-growing community and its environmental, social, and economic conditions. You can see the environmental section on the label at right: there are 541 shade trees of 14 species per hectare. For comparison, Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certification requires at least 10 shade species in the production area (beyond that, how much canopy cover/shade is provided by a given density of trees depends on the height, species, and structure of the trees).

The AgroEco light roast was heading toward a medium, with some beans showing oil. I’d say this was closer to a full city roast. The varietal was not mentioned, but UCA San Ramon grows caturra, bourbon, and maragojipe (and some of these beans did look quite large).

Everyone found this coffee to be a well-balanced, not-lively-but-sturdy, good breakfast coffee. Chocolate and subtle cherry came up more than once in people’s descriptions. Brown sugar and fig were also mentioned. It got the most favorable ratings as a drip. In a French press it seemed a little sharp, but mellowed as it cooled. Nicaragua is a favorite origin of mine for dependable, quietly mid-tone, chocolate-based coffees. The AgroEco is a classic example of this cup profile.

For the first time, we are able to incorporate an evaluation of a review coffee as an espresso drink, as we’ve been supplied with a consumer-level espresso machine by Hamilton Beach (for consistency in our reviews, we won’t be incorporating espresso drinks into our ratings, but will provide our thoughts on them for completeness).  A light roast Nica is probably not the greatest choice for an espresso shot, but while the body and crema were a little thin, a nice sweetness was evident and it was quite tasty and enjoyable. However, it didn’t quite hold up to the addition of milk and/or foam in a latte and cappuccino, although the chocolate tones were nice in with the sweetness from the milk. The medium roast of this coffee might be a better choice for espresso drinks.

As of our review, it’s harvest season in Central America; this bag was no doubt from last crop season. I was in the San Ramon area last March at the end of harvest, and many coffee trees were very afflicted with fungal diseases due to the wet weather in the preceding months. This coffee had no flaws, and I can only imagine that with better growing conditions it could really shine. Certainly I expect that a newer sample would be perkier and demonstrate a little more complexity that this sample. It came in at a solid 3.25 motmots, and obviously supports a program that has done an excellent job at establishing a broad program of assistance that benefits farmers, students, and consumers.

Coffee news and miscellany / Coffee reviews

Favorite coffees of 2011

I was going to include a briefer version of this list in my post on “My year in beans: 2011,” which focuses on cost. But as I began to compile it, I noticed some common threads regarding the characteristics of my favorite coffees of the year that were interesting enough to warrant a separate post.

These are some of the coffees I considered outstanding in 2011. They are in no particular order. The price is converted to per-pound, and the flavor descriptors were from the roaster or reviews — the opinion of others, not my own.

  • Nombre de Dios, El Salvador (single estate) by Kuma Coffee. Washed, 1500 meters, bourbon. $21.33/lb.  Floral, honey, brightly acidic, citrus, apricot, apples.
  • Capucas, Honduras (cooperative) by Irving Farm. Organic, Rainforest Alliance; washed; 1400+ meters; caturra, pacas, catuai, bourbon; $19.33/lb. Honeysuckle, apple, honey, cashew, pineapple.
  • Carmen Estate 1750 Reserve, Panama (single estate) by Klatch Roasting. Rainforest Alliance; washed; 1750 meters; caturra, catuai, typica; $15.93/lb. Honey, tangy bright, citrus acidity, floral.
  • Cafe Takesi, Bolivia (cooperative) by Zoka Coffee Roasters. Organic; washed; 1900+ meters; $25.33/lb. Citrus acidity, floral, fruit (raisins), honey, graham.
  • La Golondrina, Colombia (cooperative) by Counter Culture. Organic; washed; 1500+ meters; caturra, castillo; $18.07/lb. Bright citrus, fruit (cherry), caramel.
  • El Manzano, Colombia (single estate – microlot from one farmer in a cooperative) by Kickapoo [now Wonderstate] Coffee. Washed; 1700 meters; caturra, colombia; $17.67/lb. Mandrin citrus, caramel, toffee.
  • Haru, Ethiopia (cooperative) by Counter Culture. Organic; washed; 1700+ meters; $17.27/lb. Lemon, honey, tea.
  • Kenya Karibu (specific origins unknown) by Caribou Coffee. Rainforest Alliance; washed; $14.99/lb. Sparkling brightness, blackberry, current.

What does this say about my coffee tastes? I strongly favor washed coffees. In fact, one of my biggest disappointments is the trend to pulped natural (“honey”) and natural process coffees now coming out of Central America. I’m not a big fan of the berry-like fruitiness that tends to be imparted by these types of preparation, except on occasion. I’ve had quite a few of these new preps, and some of them were quiet nice. But my go-to coffees have always been bright Centrals, and I have sometimes found nice washed options hard to find lately.

The high elevations of my favorite coffees also stood out to me. The average elevation of these coffee was over 1600 meters! Higher elevation slows bean development, resulting in a denser bean and typically more well-developed flavors. Alas, we may be seeing more coffee grown at these high elevations in the decades to come. This doesn’t mean there will be a proliferation of coffees with characteristics like that of high-grown coffees today. Climate change will mean the temperatures required by fine arabica coffee will move upslope, but of course conditions at 1600 meters may soon be the same as 1200-1400 meters today. And sooner rather than later, we will run out of “up.”

The average price per pound of these coffees was $18.74 or $0.78 per 6-ounce cup. If I had only purchased these coffees at my typical (family) consumption of 62 pounds a year, I would have been enjoying fantastic, sustainably-grown coffee for $3.18 a day. As I said in my previous post, if only all of life’s simple luxuries were so cheap!

Note that all but two of these coffees had eco-certifications (organic and/or Rainforest Alliance).

A number of flavor characteristics were also common to many of these coffees, in particular bright citrus acidity, and honey or floral tones. Caramel or apple also factored in. So many coffee descriptions use very arcane terminology (which is why we’ve tried to make our reviews here more approachable). Yet these particular descriptors are broad, basic, common, and understandable enough that they can act as a good guide to choosing coffees I know I’ll probably like.

Finally, it’s exciting to me that some of my favorite coffees came from roasters I tried this year for the first time: Irving Farm and Kuma Coffee, and there was a runner-up from Olympia Coffee. Some people find a roaster they like and stick with them, and certainly I have a handful that I turn to frequently. But one of the joys of coffee to me is the discovery of new coffees, and new roasters that are bringing them home. More and more roasters are looking to source great-tasting, sustainably-grown coffee. I love drinking it, and making new friends along the way!

Here’s to more coffee adventures in 2012.

Bean photo by David Joyce under a Creative Commons license.

Caribou Coffee / Rainforest Alliance / Retail and specialty roasters

Caribou Coffee: 100% Rainforest Alliance

Caribou Coffee has achieved its goal of becoming the first major coffee company in the U.S. to source 100% of its coffee from Rainforest Alliance-certified farms. As I verified in 2010, this means every variety of coffee at Caribou consists of 100% RA-certified beans. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the coffee is organic or shade-grown, but Rainforest Alliance farms do comply with a variety of environmental, social, and  sustainability standards.

Based on 2010 green coffee purchases, this represents about 9100 metric tons. While this amount of coffee doesn’t even put Caribou in the top ten green coffee buyers in the world, it does mean they purchase more genuinely eco-certified coffee than at least five of the seven biggest buyers that disclose this data. They’ve accomplished this without compromising quality:  The average score for the ten varieties reviewed by Coffee Review in the past two years is 90, and in 2008 Caribou’s Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Roastmaster’s Reserve won the Roaster’s Choice award at the annual SCAA event. I think two of their coffees are especially good. A favorite at our workplace is the Guatemala El Paraiso (92 at Coffee Review). One of my favorite coffees of the past year was their Kenya Karibu (93 on Coffee Review), unfortunately now sold out.  This coffee is especially noteworthy since eco-certified coffees from Kenya are few and far between.

Caribou Coffee is the second largest coffee shop company, behind Starbucks, with over 550 stores in 20 states as well as some international markets, most in the Middle East*.  Caribou plans on adding another 20 to 25 stores in 2012. If you don’t live in a state with a Caribou store, you can shop online. This is a company worth patronizing for their sustainability achievements and great coffee.

You can read other posts I’ve written about Caribou, including reviews, here.

*The Middle Eastern presence was no doubt influenced by the fact that for many years, Bahranian-based Arcapita Bank was Caribou’s major shareholder. This meant that Caribou was a Shari’ah-compliant company which, along with a general paranoia about Muslim ownership, resulted in Islamophobic boycotts of Caribou.  As someone who is completely secular but living in the most Muslim city in the U.S., I can tell you that stance is totally asinine. But the hand-wringers can get caffeinated again. As of last summer, Aracapita sold off its remaining stake in Caribou.