Background information

Resources for BirdWatching Magazine readers

Welcome to BirdWatching Magazine readers who are exploring Coffee & Conservation for the first time after reading my article “The True Cost of Coffee” in the February 2013 issue. There are many ways to find more information on the connection between coffee, birds, and biodiversity here.

I have also assembled links to information I think you might be especially interested in. They are listed below; feel free to leave other questions in the comments.

How is coffee grown, and why is it important to birds and other biodiversity?

What do all the certifications mean?

Why should I pay more for certified or environmentally-friendly coffee?

Where can I get environmentally-friendly coffee?

The True Cost of Coffee

The February 2013 issue of BirdWatching Magazine (formerly Birder’s World) is in bookstores and other retailers now. It contains my article on the connection between coffee, birds, and biodiversity, The True Cost of Coffee. It can be read at the magazine’s here.

I have been answering questions from readers, and you can submit your own on the BirdWatching Magazine Facebook page, via an email to the magazine (ask@birdwatchingdaily.com), or here in the comments. I’ll may be able to publish the more broad-based ones in my “Since You Asked” column in the magazine.

Coming up, I will post a page of resources for BirdWatching Magazine readers who want to know more about the issues I covered in the article.

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.

When birders drink Folgers, part 2

(Part 1 here)

Last Saturday was International Migratory Bird Day. This annual event coincides with the peak of spring migration and is intended to increase awareness of birds and their conservation throughout the Western Hemisphere. Lots of organizations, parks, and refuges have birding events. I was reading about one of these celebrations (I later heard 15,000 people showed up) and the author made this comment on a picture of a throng of birders lined up on the trail: “There is tens of thousands of dollars of camera hardware in this photo, and the total value of optics and camera equipment on the trail would be utterly staggering if it could be tallied.”

I immediately wondered how many of these affluent people spent a few extra bucks to make sure that the coffee they drank supported the birds they were photographing, watching, and enjoying so much.

Probably not that many; I’ve written before about how resistant birders can be to changing their coffee-buying habits. The top reasons I’ve heard over and over are that shade-grown/sustainably-grown coffee is too expensive, or too inconvenient (certified shade coffee, in large part due to lack of demand, can be hard to find). The latter is really related to the former. I can’t imagine anything more easy than ordering coffee online to be delivered to my door, and there is plenty of sustainable coffee available this way. But this adds shipping to the cost, so it again comes down to price.

For the most part, this is a flimsy excuse coming from most active birders. Here are some facts:

  • A 1991 profile [1] of American Birding Association members showed that 46% of members responding to the survey had incomes over $50,000.
  • The same study showed that ABA members spent $3,374 annually on birding, with 74% of that total going toward travel to see birds, and 17% on equipment.
  • Around the same time, a survey of active birders [2] in the general public showed 16% had incomes greater than $50,000 (at a time when the average U.S. income was $20,000).
  • That study provided an annual expenditure per birder of $1,852, of which 71% was travel related.
  • A more recent survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [3] found that 27% of people who lived in households earning greater than $75,000 identified themselves as bird watchers.

I’ve already pointed out that great, sustainably-grown coffee doesn’t actually cost that much on a per cup basis. How about on an annual basis, to put the expense in line with the figures above?

While your mileage may vary, a pound of coffee generally yields about 40 to 45 eight-ounce cups of coffee. If you drink two cups a day, you go through 18 to 20 pounds of coffee a year. If you buy cheap, unsustainable supermarket coffee you probably pay between $5 and $7 a pound. I’m asking you to buy tasty, sustainably-grown coffee from a smaller specialty roaster, at around $10 to $13 a pound, or somewhere around $100 to $150 more a year.

Another report [4] described birders as “… the major, perhaps only, user-group of neotropical migratory birds.” Many of the active birders I know wouldn’t blink an eye at gassing up the car and taking off to see a rare bird hundreds of miles away, and many I know do this several times a year. But they are unwilling to spend the money to make sure those birds are around in years to come. Maybe the goal is to make all birds rare. If so, by drinking cheap coffee, they are doing a good job.

[1] Wauer, R. 1991. Profile of an ABA birder. Birding 23:146-154.

[2] Wiedner, D. S. and P. Kerlinger. 1990. Economics of birding: a national survey of active birders. American Birds 44:209-213.

[3] Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis. Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Report 2001-1). 2003. 24 p. (PDF)

[4] Kerlinger, Paul  1993.  Birding economics and birder demographics studies as conservation tools.   In: Finch, Deborah M.; Stangel, Peter W. (eds.). Status and management of neotropical migratory birds: September 21-25, 1992, Estes Park, Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service: 32-38.(PDF)