JulieCraves

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.

Background information

All about robusta: what it is, and what it might be

A primer on robusta coffee on a blog with over 400 posts seems a little tardy. For the most part, the message to consumers who are looking for high-quality coffee grown in a sustainable manner has been to simply avoid nearly all readily-available coffees containing robusta. But the world is changing, and we may all be getting to know robusta a little better in the future. It seems fitting to offer a little introduction.

What is “robusta”?
There are over 100 species of the genus Coffea in the world, and all are native to tropical Africa and some Indian Ocean islands. Two species, C. arabica and C. canephora, are commonly grown commercially. Coffea canephora is commonly referred to as “robusta,” and makes up about 25 to 40% of the coffee grown for consumption. Some consider only the upright forms of C. canephora to be called robusta, with spreading forms called “Nganda.”

Robusta grows in hotter (22 to 26 C), more humid climates than arabica coffee (18—21 C), and at lower elevations (from about 200 to 900 m). It has large leaves, deep roots, and flowers and fruits in globe-like clusters. It tends to be more hardy and disease-resistant and grows better in the sun than arabica, and it also tends to have higher yields. Robusta has a higher caffeine content (30 to 50% more) than arabica. While arabica coffee  is self-pollinating, robusta requires cross-pollination by insects or wind. Robusta cherries take a little longer to ripen, ten or eleven months versus around nine for arabica. Robusta is a diploid with 22 chromosomes, as are all other species of Coffea except arabica, which is a tetraploid with 44.

Because of its heat tolerance, and the desire to produce high yields, robusta coffee is often grown at high densities in full sun. Large yields require high inputs of fertilizer and water. In countries where robusta cultivation has been encouraged and expanding, such as Vietnam, shade agroforestry systems and native forests have been removed in favor of growing the coffee in full sun.

History

Native to equatorial Africa, robusta was not really planted until coffee leaf rust wiped out much of the arabica coffee in the world in the late 1800s. Robusta was found to be quite resistant to the fungus, as it is to some other troublesome diseases and pests. Now, robusta is grown in Africa, including in Uganda, Cote d’Ivoire, Cameroon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo; and in Asia, including Java, Timor, Sri Lanka, Sumatra, and above all, Vietnam. India, Mexico, Brazil (where a mild variety called Conilon/Kouillou is cultivated), and Guatemala grow both robusta and arabica. The largest grower is Vietnam, with over a half million ha devoted to robusta coffee, versus fewer than 30,000 ha in the mid-1980s.

Quality

Robusta beans tend to be more bitter and harsher than arabica. Words often used to describe robusta include rubbery, cereal or-grain like, flat, musty, or woody.

There are two primary uses for robusta. One is to add body and crema potential to espresso blends, and the other more widespread use is as a cheap filler in grocery store blends. Since so much is used in blends, yield and low cost are emphasized, not quality. Instead of focusing on only ripe cherries during harvest, robusta is often strip-picked, where all cherries are removed from the tree whether they are ripe or not. Less care is taken in processing; usually cherries are laid out to dry after harvest, without any further sorting.

In order to counter the unpleasant flavors of the robusta used in inexpensive coffee, multinational roasters have devised various methods to treat the beans, such as pre-drying, steaming, mixing it with a fatty material then soaking it in acetone, or roasting it so that “heavy, roasted burnt notes are developed” before blending. Yum.

Another way robusta is used is genetically — to confer some resistance to coffee rust and other pests and diseases into higher-quality arabica coffee. A hybrid between robusta and arabica from Timor, called Hibrido de Timor (HdT), has become the basis of a number of other varieties bred for their resistance to rust and other diseases. Generally, HdT is back-crossed with various arabica varieties such as caturra. Examples of varietals with robusta heritage include Catimor, Colombia, Sarchimor, Costa Rica 95, Castillo, Tabi, Icatu, and Ruiru 11.  Improving the cup quality of robusta-derived hybrids is a major challenge, especially because…

…We may be seeing more of robusta

Climate change may be driving us towards robusta. Unpredictable weather, including more frequent and prolonged rainy periods and higher temperatures, increase the incidence of coffee rust, coffee berry borer, and other pests and diseases. The replacement of heirloom varieties of arabica with disease-resistant varieties is already underway in countries like Colombia and India. Researchers are also exploring drought and heat tolerant coffee — and again, robusta genes play a role.

Further, rising global temperatures also mean that areas that are appropriate today for the cultivation of arabica coffee — cooler, upper altitudes — will likely become unsuitable within a few decades (arabica could move upslope, if land is available). However, these areas may support robusta production. If this conversion occurs, will robusta be grown under shade, or will shaded arabica coffee plantations or forests be replaced by robusta grown in sun monocultures?

So more robusta may be in our future. Some initiatives regarding improving the quality of robusta are already underway. In 2009, a number of workshops were held focusing on establishing standards for high quality robusta. Right now, this initiative is centered around cupping protocol and vocabulary, physical grading, and roasting profiles. Then energy needs to be directed at researching what creates high quality, including growing conditions and husbandry. Hopefully, that will lead to cultivation methods that incorporate biodiversity preservation.

Resources and further reading

DeMatta, F. M. 2004. Ecophysiological constraints on the production of shaded and unshaded coffee: a review. Field Crops Research 86:99-114.

Eakin, H., Winkels, A., and J. Sendzimir. 2008. Nested vulnerability: exploring cross-scale linkages and vulnerability teleconnections in Mexican and Vietmanese coffee systems. Environmental Science and Policy 4:398-412.

Leroy, T., R. Fabienne, B. Benoit, P. Charmetant, M. Dufour, C. Montagnon, P. Marraccini, and D.Pot. 2006. Genetics of coffee quality. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 18: 229-242.

Marsh, A. 2007. Diversification by smallholder farmers: Viet Nam Robusta Coffee. Agricultural Management, Marketing, and Finance Working Document No. 19. FAO, United Nations, Rome.

Van Der Vossen, H.A.M. 2009. The cup quality of disease-resistant cultivars of arabica coffee (Coffea arabica). Experimental Agriculture 45: 323-332.

 

Flowering robusta in India from Wikimedia Commons; robusta beans by Michael Allen Smith, under a Creative Commons license.

Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Bird-Friendly certifies coffees in Nicaragua

Approximate locations of Bird-Friendly certified producers in Nicaragua.

From my accounts of previous trips, readers know I have a soft spot for Nicaragua. So I’m happy to report that the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center has now has three Bird-Friendly certified coffee producers in the country.

Selva Negra — Selva Negra, near Jinotega, is 450 ha that consists of an ecolodge, organic gardens, ponds, 150 ha of preserved cloud forest, and a coffee farm (actually named Finca La Hammonia, although usually referred to as Selva Negra).  About 120 to 150 ha are in shade coffee production, much of it organic; 87 ha is now certified Bird-Friendly. Finca La Hammonia grows bourbon and caturra between 1200 and 1300 m.  The sustainability efforts of Selva Negra are extensive and well-known, the farm has long been Rainforest Alliance certified, and the coffee has been well-represented in the U.S. by multiple roasters, including Allegro/Whole Foods.

The forested area has numerous trails (I have been there twice), hosts over 500 tree species, 130 species of orchids, and at least 280 species of birds. A number of restricted-range, rare bird species that are hard to find elsewhere are common at Selva Negra, including Three-wattled Bellbird (conservation status “Vulnerable”) and Resplendent Quetzal (Near Threatened).

Read more at their excellent web site.

UniÁ³n de Cooperativas Agropecuarias San Juan del Rio Coco — This cooperative is located in the northern department of Madriz, near the towns of San Juan del Rio Coco and Telpaneca. The certified area covers 709 ha and 128 growers, and the co-op is also certified Fair Trade and Utz Certified.

Gaia Estate (Finca Bosques de Gaia) – This small, 18-ha farm owned by Jefferson Shriver and Gabriela Navarez is located outside the familiar central highlands of Nicaragua, south of the capital Managua near Diriamba, Carazo department.

Birds & Beans has contracted with all of these producers and will incorporate the beans in two of their coffees this fall.  They purchased all of Gaia’s current crop, and it will appear in the Wood Thrush variety, and Selva Negra’s coffee will be in the Chestnut-sided Warbler variety.  San Juan del Rio Coco should show up next year.

A list of all current Bird-Friendly certified farms can be found here.