JulieCraves

Corporate coffee / Dunkin Donuts

P&G to provide Dunkin' Donuts coffee

Big corporate coffee monger Procter & Gamble has partnered with Dunkin’ Donuts to offer a Dunkin’ Donuts branded coffee for sale at retail outlets including Wal-Mart, Costco, CVS, and Kroger. Although some articles say that P&G will "produce" the coffee, and others note that P&G will "distribute" the coffee, it sounds like P&G will roast the coffee to DD specifications. It will not, therefore, be exactly the same coffee sold at Dunkin’ Donuts outlets. Regardless, neither Dunkin’ Donuts nor P&G will reveal where they source their coffee, if it is sustainably grown, or whether they pay farmers anything near a living wage. (Hint: who knows, no, and no.)

Recall that I mentioned this deal when I wrote about the purchase of Dunkin’ Donuts by a private equity firm. These entities are concerned with one thing: making profits, a situation not conducive to sustainable coffee growing. Nor is P&G concerned with offering good-tasting quality coffee. For more on why this is completely bad news for sustainable coffee, you can take a look at my recent post on the connection between quality, price, and sustainability.
 

Coffee reviews / Latin America

Coffee review: Brown Coffee Co. Finca Vista Hermosa

Plainspoken Coffee. A Coffee Review for Ordinary People by Ordinary People, #26.

I first read about Guatemala’s Finca Vista Hermosa in Roast Magazine, in a series written by Edwin Martinez, Diary of a Grower. FVH is the Martinez family farm, and it was interesting to get a first-hand look at various aspects of coffee growing. Edwin also writes a blog about FVH. FVH has to have one of the most visible Internet presences of any coffee farm in the specialty coffee world!

FVH is in northwest Guatemala, in the Huehuetanago region. The growing area of the farm is around 35 ha, and they have just added some additional plots. Altitude ranges from 1600 to 2000 meters. Although not certified, FVH is “is ecologically sound and healthy, a model for many shade grown and organic plantations” according to the web site. I’ve gleaned from various sources that weeds are controlled the old-fashioned way (machete), a flock of sheep contribute natural fertilizer, and photos depict a jungle-like setting.

FVH coffee is used by ANACAFE (the Guatemalan coffee trade organization) to represent the Huehue region at trade shows, etc. FVH has won many awards, most recently placing 8th in the 2007 Cup of Excellence. The Japanese snapped up the CoE lot, but other lots of FVH coffee are available. Here we review:

Brown Coffee Co. Guatemala Huehuetanengo, Finca Vista Hermosa.

We chose Brown Coffee Co. because they have a great relationship with FVH, much of which is outlined in owner Aaron Blanco’s blog, the Coffee Press. In fact, to commemorate that this is the 50th anniversary of FVH, Brown put out a pretty cool t-shirt honoring this fact. It’s not easy for a smaller roaster like Brown to have direct relationships with growers, and they are to be admired and supported for their efforts. The whole Brown philosophy and manifesto is also right up our alley.

Brown’s crop comes from a section of the farm called El Eden, a pretty rugged plot with much intact natural habitat. It was a light roast, which we have concluded is a must to bring out the subtle flavors in Central Americans. The beans had an intoxicating aroma, with a hint of spice; one person also smelled fruit, perhaps cherry.  In the cup, it was another classic coffee –with notes of chocolate and caramel — and felt a little fuller on the palate and richer than many Guatemalas we’ve had. This was one of the sweetest Centrals we’ve ever tasted. Sweetness is not surprising in a Central, but we all noted the very long finish, which we tend to associate with Asian, African, or more complex coffees. That lingering sweetness gave the FVH a depth that we found pretty unique and very enjoyable. 3.25 motmots.  Here’s another review of Brown’s FVH, at Barisimo. And P.S. — Brown’s service is outstanding.

As an aside, now that we’ve reviewed over 30 coffees (yes, this post says #26, but short reviews are usually not numbered), something is obvious. There are a few dogs at 2 or fewer motmots, very few exceptional coffees at 3.75 or above, and a whole lot bunched up in the middle. Not only is the process of reviewing coffee this way (= amateurs!) really subjective, but providing a lot of ratings between 3-3.5 isn’t especially useful.

It is my hope and goal that much of the value in these reviews lies in the background information provided about the origin/region, farm, growing methods, and roaster. It’s my way of educating consumers on how to make responsible, sustainable choices, and highlight sources of coffee to seek out — or avoid. It’s the most time-consuming part of writing these reviews, and quite unusual (unique?) in the realm of coffee reviews. So don’t just go by motmots alone — the other stuff is just as important!

Retail and specialty roasters / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Caffe Pronto goes Bird-Friendly

One of C&C’s favorite roasters, Caffe Pronto in Maryland, has just received Bird-Friendly certification from the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. Most people associate the SMBC certification with farms, but roasters may also participate. Obviously, they need to sell SMBC certified coffee (although not exclusively), and contribute $0.25 per pound of certified SMBC coffee to Smithsonian, which goes to support the certification program.

Background information / Certifications / Rainforest Alliance / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Quick look at differing shade criteria

[NOTE: Rainforest Alliance standards have undergone several revisions since this post was first written. There is now no criteria for canopy cover and tree diversity, and native vegetation criteria do not have to be met for six years. The Bird-Friendly standard outlined below has been slightly revised, in part to align with requirements for certifying chocolate; while the older criteria are listed the new standard is still much more stringent than the RA standard. This post should only be for historical reference.]

I recently reviewed a paper, Field-testing ecological and economic benefits of coffee certification programs, that included a  summary table of the criteria used for shade certification by Rainforest Alliance, and Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (under the “Bird-Friendly” trademark).  I thought it would be useful to post a summary here, with a little commentary.

SMBC’s criteria are mandatory, while RA has no required criteria for shade management — the standards below are one of the optional criteria (more on the RA standards and scoring can be found here).

Criteria SMBC RA
No. tree species >10 >12/ha*
No. trees/ha (mean) na >70*
% allowed to be Inga trees <60 na
% shade cover >40 >40*
No. of shade layers 3 2
% leaf volume in each shade layer
….. >15 m (emergent) >20 na
….. 12 to 15 m (backbone) >60 na
….. <12 m (understory) >20 na
Epiphytes required? Yes na

*As of April 2009, standards were modified from the previous version, February 2008. In the old standards, one requirement was for at least 12 native tree species and at least 70 trees per hectare; now it is an average of 12 native tree species, with no minimum number of trees per hectare. Previous criteria stated a minimum of 40% shade cover, now the standard specifies this minimum only on cultivated land.

As noted in the previous post, the criteria having to do with vertical stratification — the number of layers of vegetation and the leaf volume in each — are critical components for preserving a rich mix of species.  Many ecological studies support the key role of structural diversity (sometimes referred to technically as floristic heterogeneity) in increased biodiversity — of many types in many ecosystems well beyond the realm of coffee growing. This is the classic schematic illustrating the various coffee production systems and their layers of shade diversity, from a paper by Patricia Moguel and Victor Toledo [1].

Here is a new graphic from SMBC that also illustrates this continuum:

As you can see from the table above, Rainforest Alliance requires (if this criteria is used) only two layers of shade, while Smithsonian requires three. RA has no standards for leaf volume in the shade layers. In short, RA certified farms that use these criteria would have still have structurally-simpler habitats (closer to commercial polyculture) that would likely not support as much biodiversity as farms that met SMBC criteria (closer to traditional polyculture).

A further note. SMBC inspectors visit farms and set up a number of plots and measure various vegetation parameters following methods used in typical ecological studies. The aforementioned paper reports that “Rainforest Alliance inspection auditors rely heavily on data provided by farm managers” (who are not ecologists), and confirm data provided during visits by various estimates and extrapolations.

As an ecologist myself, I am more comfortable that SMBC offers the more stringent, reliable assurance that coffee is grown sustainability if one is comparing certification schemes. And not to beat a dead horse, but the usual caveats apply: there are pros and cons of certification, and many uncertified farms grow coffee sustainably, meeting or exceeding the strongest criteria.

More on SMBCs criteria here, and in the “certifications” category of C&C.

[1] Biodiversity Conservation in Traditional Coffee Systems of Mexico. 1999. Conservation Biology 13:11—21.