78 Search results

For the term "rust".

Coffee news and miscellany

The Annual Year in Beans summary

2014mugshotAnnual recap of how much we spend on coffee in a year

Here we are on our 6th year of standardized tracking of how much the two-person Coffee & Conservation household spends on coffee. We keep track of each bag we buy, including shipping, since we purchase the majority of our coffee online. As we’ve noted, we never buy cheap, fast-food, commodity, or mystery coffee. If we don’t know where it comes from, we don’t drink it. Usually, most have eco-certifications.

I’ll cut to the case. In 2014, we bought 61 bags (54 pounds) of coffee and spent $0.46 per six-ounce cup, which includes shipping. We spent a little over $1000 on coffee (also including shipping), and the average price per pound was $19.13.

Our six-year costs are shown in the graphic below.

Over the six years our average price per pound is $19.89 and our average price per cup is $0.48.

2014-summary-costsLast year we wanted to prove that you could buy only certified coffee for reasonable prices, and indeed our year’s supply came out to $0.44 per six-ounce cup. This year, 89% of the coffee was certified, with all but one bag of non-certifed coffee being purchased in the last six weeks. The price of coffee has climbed a bit higher this year, and the availability of certified coffee — particularly organic coffee — has started to decline a little. I think this is likely due to the impacts of the coffee leaf rust fungus crisis; production has been decreasing which can lead to higher prices, and in an effort to combat the fungus some farmers have resorted to non-organic methods and have to give up their certification.

These carefully calculated, long-term results are so consistent, I think my point has been proven: it’s a myth that environmentally-friendly, sustainably-grown coffee is “too expensive.” (Of course, the willingness of people to buy the insanely expensive, poor quality, environmentally destructive K-Cups also proves that high cost is just an excuse when it comes to buying sustainable coffee.) At any rate, the results have been so boringly uniform that I was going to discontinue this exercise…although I am curious how the effects of coffee rust will continue to impact the market. If you think I should carry on for at least one more year, let me know in the comments.

Meanwhile, don’t forget that you can calculate how much a cup of coffee costs, based on the price of a bag of beans, using the spreadsheet below.

Posts summarizing previous years are listed here:

  • 2013 (the year of all certified coffee)
  • 2012 (includes comparison to the high price of K-Cups)
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009

Happy New Year from Coffee & Conservation.

Keurig Green Mountain / Retail and specialty roasters

Greenwashing at Keurig Green Mountain

keurig-logoKeurig Green Mountain (KGM) has released its 2013 sustainability report. This is the company formerly known as Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. The CEO notes that the name change “better reflects who we are as a Company…” In other words — they are now focused on single-cup brewers and coffee. It’s hard to imagine how a company whose primary products dominate one of the most spectacularly wasteful trends in consumer products in decades can make many sustainability claims. Unfortunately, the way KGM did it, in part, was by making statements that qualify as greenwashing.

First, let’s get one fact straight: K-Cups are not recyclable. People still argue with me about this but hey, just because you throw the thing (or some of its parts) in the recycle bin, does not mean it gets recycled.

Keurig Green Mountain noted they recovered 4.7 million K-Cups in 2013…without disclosing that is only 0.05% of the total number of K-Cups that they produced that year.

KGM states that they have a target date of 2020 to make 100% of K-Cups recyclable. They have been talking about this since shortly after they took over Keurig in 2006. I asked them about it in 2007 and they replied they were working on finding renewable materials for the K-Cups.

If not recycling, then…

The report explains, “While we continue to work toward a 100% recyclable K-Cup pack, we also offer programs for responsible disposal of the K-Cup packs that are currently on the market.” KGM went on to describe their Grounds to Grow On program where workplace customers can return K-Cups for composting and energy-to-waste processing; I wrote about in detail here.

KGM goes on to tout that in 2013, the program recovered an estimated 4.7 million used K-Cup packs. That number may seem impressive, but in 2013 KGM produced 8.3 billion K-Cups.  Providing a large figure of the number of K-Cups diverted from landfills in a sustainability report without noting that it only represents 0.05% of the K-Cups produced in a year is not only misleading, but actually represents a huge failure of sustainability.

Comparing apples and oranges

The Assessing Product Impact page explained KGM’s Life Cycle Assessments on their K-Cup packs, and incorpates obfuscation as a means of greenwashing.

My emphasis added to this statement: “On average, when compared with competitive batch brewers, customers waste less brewed coffee when they use a single serve Keurig brewer than when they brew a full pot of coffee”.

  • For home use, they compared one of their at-home single serve brewers (no model specified) to a cheap ($21), 12-cup Mr. Coffee with no small-batch setting; they didn’t specify their own or the other competitor’s commercial models.
  • Obviously, it is wasteful for me to buy an extra large, 12 slice pizza if I only want a slice or two. KGM knows that waste is not an issue if a consumer simply makes one or two cups of coffee using a pour-over or other dead-easy method.  How much was wasted? They didn’t say. It is a FACT that using K-Cups is a WASTE of money. I gave an example that I would have to dump 11 gallons of coffee in a year before it became more cost effective to use K-Cups.

KGM contends the disposal of K-Cups is a small portion of the total environmental impact because “significant impacts occur in the cultivation of coffee beans, use of brewing systems, and the material used in the products’ packaging.”

  • Since the specific thing they are assessing is a brewing method and the packaging, it is misrepresentative to consider steps prior to that (cultivation, processing, transport to roasting facilities…things that are similar among most brewed coffee products) when evaluating the environmental impact of the K-Cup.
  • They listed four areas of environmental impact they did evaluate (admitting in a footnote that one is “not a true environmental impact category,” although they showed a graph for it).  None of them showed impacts of waste disposal, product-to-packaging ratio, or for that matter toxicity of their proprietary #7 plastic blend used in the K-Cups.

What about certified coffee sourcing?

The amount of Rainforest Alliance coffee purchased by KGM has been decreasing, from 9% in 2011 to 5% in 2013. In the past, KGM has indicated how much of their Fair Trade certified coffee was organic, but the last two years have been lumping it all together.  Fair Trade standards themselves have very few specific and measurable environmental criteria, and none related specifically to coffee, so knowing the amount of organic coffee purchased is important. I calculated a five-year average of 72% of the Fair Trade total, but it has ranged from 59% to 87%. I don’t see the figures presented by KGM as misleading or greenwashing, but I do wonder why they are now lumping all Fair Trade coffee and not showing how much is organic.

KGM is going the way of using their own supplier guidelines as an alternative or supplement to third-party certifications, with a goal of 100% of their primary agricultural products sourced under these guidelines by 2020. These guidelines are no substitute for strong (or even so-so) certification criteria. Their brief, generic environmental section has no specific requirements, goals, or metrics (“All suppliers should protect and restore biodiversity” and “We encourage agricultural partners to protect and restore soil and water resources”). These are weak non-standards that offer little in the way of providing a framework for clear, meaningful, measurable criteria for environmental sustainability.

Pablo Escobar Conundrum

Writing about KGM’s use of greenwashing pains me. This is a company that has a long history of supporting and promoting social and environmental justice and sustainability in so many ways. They still do amazing work in coffee communities, including access to clean water, food security for coffee farmers, and the fight against coffee leaf rust. These are powerful and important initiatives, for which KGM deserves praise. And one can certainly argue that when KGM makes a pile of money on K-Cups and single-cup brewers, they have more money to invest at origin.

Do the positive things that KGM does offset the hundreds of thousands of pounds of non-biodegradable plastic K-Cups being dumped in landfills each year? I call this the Pablo Escobar Conundrum, after the notorious drug lord who built hospitals, schools, churches, and soccer fields, and frequently contributed to charity. I’m not equating KGM with Pablo Escobar, only the dilemma of entities that do both tremendous good as well as substantial harm. We all know two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t know how to figure out how many “rights” it takes to cancel out a “wrong.”

Corporate coffee / Smucker's

Update on JM Smucker’s coffee sustainability

rusty-folgersIn 2011, I profiled JM Smucker’s (lack of) approach to coffee sustainability issues. Since the company acquired Folger’s and some other brands, coffee has become the company’s biggest profit-maker. For two years, major investors pressed the company to develop and report on a coffee sustainability plan.

Last year, Smucker’s began to outline small steps toward a green coffee sustainability vision. In their 2012 Corporate Sustainability Report, they offered,

  • A goal for certified coffee purchases to reach 10% of its total retail purchases by 2016. This would be primarily UTZ Certified coffees, which don’t have strong ecological criteria (it’s the most popular certification for the big commodity coffee buyers), but will greatly improve transparency.
  • Partnerships with organizations that offer smallholder support: TechnoServe, the Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung Foundation, and World Coffee Research.

You can read my whole recap and analysis of the 2012 report here. As for the current 2013 Corporate Sustainability Report (PDF), it’s pretty much a rehash of the points above.

There are no further data on what progress they are making on reaching their 10% goal, e.g., how much certified coffee they are currently buying.

Regarding their partnerships, there is also no new information. The report does go into some detail discussing the goals and achievements of the organizations they support. While the company makes no claims about their specific role in these good deeds, I find this overall approach misleading.

Let’s put it this way:  I do some volunteer work and make an annual donation to a local environmental non-profit. While my contribution may be valuable to the whole, I would be called a fraud if I tried to pad my resme with this organization’s accomplishments.

Two new items are largely symbolic, in my opinion. First is their $50,000 a year membership in The Sustainability Consortium, originally established with funds from WalMart. Many very large corporations are now touting their association with TSC, who states that their mission is “to design and implement credible, transparent and scalable science-based measurement and reporting systems accessible for all producers, retailers, and users of consumer products.” Indeed, transparency is mentioned a lot on their website. For instance, they state that consumers desire “…product transparency” and are confused about “…what constitutes a sustainable product” — and that these were major motivations behind the formation of the organization. Alas, when I try to access the Key Performance Indicators and Category Sustainability Profile for coffee, I find it requires member login. I confirmed with TSC that these data are not available to the public. TSC could very well be doing fantastic work but although their website is extensive, I could not find or access any specific material to help me as a consumer determine whether member coffee companies are taking meaningful steps to improve their supply chain sustainability.

(For more background on TSC, see a couple of Joel Makower’s great pieces at GreenBiz, Inside Walmart’s Sustainability Consortium, and Driving the Sustainability Consortium’s ambitious agenda.)

Finally, Smucker’s is producing “Life is Good” branded coffee, which is is UTZ Certified.  You may know Life is Good for their t-shirts and stickers, etc., whose raison d’être is to spread the power of optimism, with 10% of its net profits going to their own foundation for children.  At $6.99 to $7.99 per 11-ounce bag, the coffee won’t fill the foundation’s coffers (or those of the farmers it was sourced from). While promoted as a premium coffee, it’s safe to be suspicious of the quality of a brand that sells banana bread-flavored and s’more flavored varieties.

I also believe in the power of optimism, but I am not optimistic that JM Smucker will ever be a significant purchaser/purveyor of truly ecologically-sustainable coffee.

Coffee can photo by Travis S. under a Creative Commons license.

Coffee regions

Update on coffee growing in China

In early 2010, I wrote a post outlining coffee production in China. In it, I provided the following figures:

  • China produced about 3600 tons of coffee in 1997.
  • This increased to an estimated 28,000 tons (perhaps up to 40,000 tons) in 2009.

A recent article in the trade journal Global Coffee Review reports that the 2012-13 crop year could be upwards of 60,000 tons, and that the projection for 2019-20 is as much as 200,000 tons. Another estimate gives the 2012 output of Yunnan province (where 98% of arabica coffee is grown) as 82,000 tons. It’s likely that the coffee tonnage and perhaps acreage would have been much higher between 2008 and today had it not been for a severe drought in 2009-2011.  The reservoir of the new Nuozhadu hydroelectric dam in Yunnan, however, can provide irrigation water to local farmers. (Ironically, people displaced by the flooding of their land by the reservoir are being encouraged by the government to become coffee farmers.)

china-coffe-mapAll of this increased production takes lots of land, of course. Experts quoted in the Global Coffee Review piece expressed concern about the environmental impacts of all this planting, as well as a flooding of the market with so much coffee when the plantings being to yield fruit. I’d like to give an update country’s coffee production which fuels both China’s increasing domestic consumption as well as exports.

Coffee farms and deforestation

Although accurate figures out of China are hard to come by, let’s take a look at published reports on land devoted to coffee.  In my previous post, I noted that China planned to increase the land devoted to coffee to 16,000 ha in the next 15 years.  A report* released only a few months after I found that data indicated that as of April 2010, there were already 29,000 ha of coffee planted in Yunnan province alone. As of August 2012, the Coffee Association of Yunnan calculated the area to have grown to nearly 67,000 ha, ahead of even its 2015 goals. We can safely say there is between 40,000 and 70,000 ha of coffee being grown in Yunnan, China now, and that this figure has been and will be growing rapidly.

Nearly all of the coffee grown in China is sun coffee, monocultures of coffee grown without the protection of shade trees and utilizing high levels of chemical fertilizers and pest control. In China, sun coffee plantations are often created from clearing forest or other habitat, even in areas with logging bans. A great piece on the SCAA web site notes that in Pu’er, organic fertilizer is not readily available, the soil is poor, and requires 2 or 3 applications of fertilizer annually.

China is already suffering from severe deforestation, and it is a serious problem in Yunnan province.

Enter Starbucks

Nestlé has been the big player in China, where the majority of coffee consumed is still instant coffee, of which Nestlé has a dominant market share. Due to relatively low altitudes and the threat of coffee leaf rust, Nestlé has distributed a lot of rust-resistant coffee (of the robusta-derived Catimor variety) and has encouraged farmers to plant some shade trees, conserve water, and helped with other ecological endeavors, according to the SCAA piece. They also plan to construct a Nescafé Coffee Center that will include an education center in addition to warehouses and other infrastructure to support their instant coffee empire. Apparently, many of Nestlé coffee sustainability activities in China are being done largely under the framework of the ecologically-anemic 4-C standards.  And we know that third-party certifications have been rejected by Nestlé. So while their efforts may be better than nothing, it doesn’t make me optimistic about environmental stewardship in China’s coffeelands.

Meanwhile, in late 2012, Starbucks established a farmer support center in the Pu’er region of Yunnan (others are located in Costa Rica and Rwanda). These centers allow Starbucks to work directly with farmers to improve yield, quality, environmental sustainability, and to help them meet the company’s CAFE Practices.  The company press release specifically mentions a goal of “help[ing] reduce the environmental impact of the region’s coffee-growing activities.” This is perhaps the most promising news out of China regarding coffee production, as assessments of CAFE Practices have shown good compliance with the eco-criteria included in the program.

BOLO

I’ll just repeat here my wrap-up of my previous post:

One need only look next door to Vietnam to see what a no-holds-barred coffee production policy can do to world coffee prices and farmer livelihoods worldwide and the environment. Unfortunately, nearly all the same elements that precipitated the catastrophic coffee crisis of the late 1990s are once again in place: world development agencies and a national government encouraging and subsidizing the planting of huge amounts of coffee which could lead to a glut in supply, large multinational roasters eager to have a source of cheap mediocre coffee, and poor rural minority farmers hoping to get rich. As we have learned, a drop in world coffee prices due to oversupply from Asia means people and habitats suffer all over the world.

*International Trade Center. 2010. The Coffee Sector in China: An Overview of Production, Trade, and Consumption. Technical Paper. Doc. No. SC-10-188.E. 23 pp.

Coffee awards and competitions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality — April 2013

ra-sealThe Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality recognizes Rainforest Alliance certified coffees, highlighting the linkage between sustainable farm management practices and cup quality. There are two annual cuppings and awards, divided by geography. In December, coffees from the southern hemisphere compete. The April cupping covers countries in Latin America, as well as Ethiopia and India.  The following results were announced last week at the annual Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Coffee Breakfast at the Specialty Coffee Association of America’s annual event.

This spring’s cupping included 77 coffees from 12 countries. The top scorers were:

  1. Hacienda La Esmeralda (Panama ) – 89.94. This farm is famously known for its “discovery” (or at least popularization) of the Geisha variety, and it used to sweep all awards where it was entered. The last time it was in this competition was in 2009, when it took first place with a score of 88.99.
  2. Banko Gotiti (Ethiopia) – 89.69. This farm that is part of Ethiopia’s Yirgacheffe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union (YCFCU), which currently represents over 43,794 farmers belonging to more than 300,000 families.
  3. inambariInambari (Peru) – 87.38. Inambari  is one of the organic cooperatives that is part of CECOVASA (Central de Cooperativas Agrarias Cafetaleras de los Valles de Sandia), a group of Fair Trade cooperatives totaling nearly 5000 members. CECOVASA has also been working with Conservation International. CECOVASA has won coffee quality awards before, with members winning Cupping for Quality awards the past several years, as well as an award for their work preserving biodiversity. The Inambari logo is a stylized hummingbird.
  4. mordo_logoMoredocofe (Ethiopia) – 87.06. Family-owned, also organic and UTZ Certified. Their logo features a Northern Carmine Bee Eater (Merops nubicus).
  5. Teppi Green Coffee Estate (Ethiopia) – 86.84. A very large (10,000 ha) farm managed by Green Coffee Agro Industry. Despite its large size, a portion of the coffee is still grown in fairly rustic conditions, as the company is a major exporter of “forest coffee” in the country.
  6. Ururi (Peru) – 86.05. Another CECOVSA branded coffee.
  7. Manantiales del Frontino (Colombia) – 86.13. Growing 10 varieties (including a Geisha which won the SCAA’s Coffee of the Year in 2011) at 1500-2000 meters; the farm includes 170 ha of forested area. Scored 84.48 in last April’s competition.
  8. Biloya (Ethiopia) – 85.94. Another member of the Yirgacheffe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union (YCFCU).
  9. Los Cedros (Colombia) – 85.84.
  10. Finca Kassandra (Mexico) – 85.81. In central Veracruz, at 1200 to 1500 m. Scored 85.46 in 2011 competition. Their logo has a stylized bird, perhaps a motmot.

The average score of the 9 past winners from the last 6 years is 87.95, so the winner this spring is above average. The average score of the top ten from the past 6 years is 85.20, while this year it was 87.11.

Previous results are available here in the archives in the Coffee Awards and Competitions category.

Birds and other biodiversity / Blends/Multiple / Coffee reviews

New orchid species named for coffee company

puro-orchid-1A new species of orchid, Teagueia puroana, was discovered in central Ecuador in the eastern Andes, and named for the Puro Coffee company.

I was once active in orchid growing and writing for the American Orchid Society, so when I read about an orchid discovered with a coffee connection, I was naturally interested. This orchid was discovered in 2002 in the Cerro Candelaria Reserve, a nearly 3000-ha area protected through a partnership between FundaciÁ³n EcoMinga and the World Land Trust.  Since 2005 when the brand was launched, Puro Coffee, the Fairtrade coffee brand of Belgium-based Miko Coffee, has contributed 2% of the retail price from each bag of coffee sold to the World Land Trust for the protection of rainforest. To date, this funding has helped purchase over 3200 ha in Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Borneo, and Guatemala. In honor of this support, the new orchid species was named Teagueia puroana. The official description of this new species was published in 2011 along with another new Teagueia species in the journal Lankesteriana.

Teagueia is a genus in the orchid subtribe Pleurothallidinae, a group of mostly miniature New World orchids usually found at high elevations. Despite their small size and specific, fussy cultural demands, Pleurothallids are popular with orchid aficionados for their fragile and delicate beauty. Until recently, only six species of Teagueia were known. Now over two dozen species have been discovered (along with new representatives of other orchid genera) all in the same Rio Pastaza watershed, many on Cerro Candelaria. The effort to map the distribution of orchids in this region was spearheaded by botanist Lou Jost.

After the discovery of the Teagueia on Cerro Candelaria, Jost and some of his colleagues founded FundaciÁ³n EcoMinga, and obtained funding through the World Land Trust to establish the preserve. So far, Cerro Candelaria is the only place T. puroana has been found. It lives on the stunted trees in the alpine grasslands known as pÁ¡ramo at 3700 meters. While some of the new Teagueia are abundant as creeping ephiphytes on low vegetation and mosses on different nearby mountains, T. puroana is very rare, with only a few plants located despite much searching.

While this is the first orchid I have heard of named for a coffee brand, orchids are often important components of shade coffee farms, and shade coffee farms can be important refugia for orchids.

puro-miko-logosMore on the coffee

Miko Coffee, part of the Miko Group, was founded as a grocery business in 1801, with coffee roasting becoming its main business around 1900 (plastic food packaging is the other main activity of the Miko Group). Miko coffee primarily focuses on the  “out of the house” market, providing beans, equipment, and related products for food service, restaurant, and office coffee in over 20 countries, mostly in Europe and Asia. Retail coffee is a relatively small portion of their business, and Puro Coffee is their Fairtrade and FT/organic/ethically-sourced brand.

Puro offers three different blends. The current compositions are given below, but they sometimes change. Puro provides updates on their web site, so you know what you are getting.

  • Puro Organic, certified organic and Fairtrade. Currently sourced from Peru (CEPICAFE) and Honduras (COSAGUAL and COCAFCAL).
  • Puro Noble, certified organic and Fairtrade; 80% arabica, 20% robusta. Currently sourced from Peru (CEPROAP), Honduras (COAGRICSAL and COPROCAEL), Guatemala (FEDECOCAQUA), and Congo (CDI Bwamanda). Also available in decaf.
  • Puro Fuerte, certified Fairtrade; 50% arabica, 50% robusta. Same sources as Noble.

We tried all three coffees, provided to us by Puro. Our expectations were not sky-high, as we most often drink single origins and find the more generic blends nice but not as interesting (especially to the more jaded panel members).  We were pleasantly surprised.

3.5motmotThe Organic blend was everybody’s favorite. Two adjectives were mentioned by nearly all reviewers: “smooth” and “milk chocolate.” Soft and creamy also came up. Personally, I usually don’t like Peruvian coffees too much, because the catimor variety is commonly grown there and I find I seem to be able to taste the chemical flavor of the robusta heritage. CEPICAFE, however, grows 95% typica, and the sweetness came through. When prepared in a Clever Coffee Dripper, we additionally found an initial hit of cinnamon and spice which we also enjoyed. Overall, this coffee earned 3.5 motmots.

3newmotWe approached the Noble with some trepidation due to its robusta content. We were all surprised we could not detect any hint of rubbery, chemical flavor familiar to us from other robusta offerings we’ve tried, and least when the coffee was fresh and hot. The flavor deteriorated a little bit as it cooled. Overall, we found it very similar to the Organic blend, just not as bright. This lack of some liveliness and the flavor change when cool dipped the score to 3 motmots.

2newmot75Upping the robusta content to 50% was clearly the tipping point for us, as nobody was really enthusiastic about the Fuerte blend. I’m really not sure exactly what was going on here, as some of the flavors our more experienced tasters were finding seemed beyond the usual bold, rubbery type of flavor that is a more normal characteristic of robustas. In a French press in particular, it seemed dirty and oddly astringent, with a most peculiar flavor/aroma that reminded me of rubbing alcohol. Not sure what might have caused this. Medicinal flavors can come from over-fermented beans; perhaps this batch may have had some bad beans in it, as it seemed at odds with what must be a really well-processed robusta from the CDI Bwanmanda group in Congo. Some grocery-store-coffee drinkers we dragged into this panel didn’t really detect these flavors; perhaps it might also be more suitable for an espresso prep than a drip. This blend ended up with 2 motmots.

Right now, Puro Coffee does not have a U.S. distributor, but a new web site for online purchases is being rolled out in multiple languages: Puro at Home. Their U.S. brand home page has an almost overwhelming amount of information. The Puro blog is an especially good source of information on their rainforest and habitat projects (e.g., cool moths and beetles in Brazil, giant monkey-eating eagles in Ecuador). There is also an entire page with links to the many short videos they’ve created on their coffee, rainforest projects, social initiatives, partnerships, and worldwide clients.

I have found that some coffee companies that support a cause as strongly as Puro Coffee does the World Land Trust tend to focus more on the cause than the coffee. Puro is certainly an exception to this: very committed to the cause of conserving rainforest and sustainably-grown coffee, and very satisfying coffee as well.

Jost, L., and Shepard, A. 2011. Two new species of Teagueia (Orchidaceae: Pleurothallidinae) from east-central Ecuador. Lankesteriana 11(1): 9-14.
Photo courtesy of Puro Coffee. All rights reserved.

Coffee and the environment

More pollinator research for Pollinator Week

My last post summarized research on current and historical pollinators and their role in robusta coffee fruit set in India, and I noted it was in recognition that this is Pollinator Week — an international celebration of the valuable ecosystem services provided by bees, birds, butterflies, bats and beetles.

I’ve summarized a couple of other papers on pollinators and coffee:

These are by no means the only research done on pollination, pollinators, and coffee! Below I have listed many peer-reviewed papers specifically dealing with bees and coffee pollination, and often the role of preserving shade in and near the coffee farm to preserve the habitat of pollinators and improve the fruit set of the coffee and other crops on the farm. If you are especially interested in one of the papers and do not have academic access, please let me know and I can try to provide you with a copy.

Meanwhile, I also encourage everybody to head over the the website of the Pollinator Partnership, which sponsors Pollinator Week. They have every resource you can think of regarding pollination and pollinators — not just bees, but all the other insects and animals that perform this incredible service — and their conservation and status. New this year is a free app (iPhone or Android) called BeeSmart, a database of hundreds of North American native plants for attracting pollinators.

(more…)

Research on coffee growing

Research: How landscape influences coffee pests

Landscape context and scale differentially impact coffee leaf rust, coffee berry borer, and coffee root-knot nematodes. Avelino, Romero-Gurdian, Cruz-Cuellar, and DeClerk. 2012. Ecological Applications.

In ecology, context is important. Ecosystems are comprised of many interdependent organisms, and those interactions are influenced by the environment at different scales. In the case of coffee pests, that can mean the conditions on an individual coffee plant, in a particular patch of coffee, or on one or many neighboring farms. This study looked at how the surrounding landscape — up to 1500 m around coffee plots — impacted the incidence of several coffee pests.

The authors looked at 29 small plots of coffee within larger plantings in Costa Rica. They wanted to see how different land use practices at different scales might influence coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix), the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei), and root-knot nematodes (in the genus Meloidogyne).

Populations of the virtually immobile root-knot nematodes did not appear to be correlated with landscape. Not surprisingly, coffee plots embedded in a landscape with a high proportion of other coffee plots facilitated the movement and spread of coffee berry borers.

I found the response of coffee leaf rust to be the most interesting: there were increased epidemics of coffee leaf rust in areas where coffee plots were in a landscape that had open uses such as pasture. The rust spores are spread by wind. The air turbulence produced by gaps of pasture among plots of coffee promoted the release of the rust spores which then dispersed in the landscape.  When the wind turbulence released clusters of spores, they did not travel as far and resulted in locally intense outbreaks of rust.

The landscape-scale effects on the rust and borer varied depending on the distance of the plots from the various landscape features, and also fluctuated during the season, so the effects of landscape are not simple; these are outlined in the paper. However, the results suggest that growing coffee in plots that are separated from others by native forest could hinder the spread of both the borer and the rust, as well as act as reserves and corridors for other biodiversity.

Avelino, J., Romero-GurdiÁ¡n, A., Cruz-Cuellar, H., & Declerck, F. (2012). Landscape context and scale differentially impact coffee leaf rust, coffee berry borer, and coffee root-knot nematodes Ecological Applications, 22 (2), 584-596 DOI: 10.1890/11-0869.1

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 reviews / Indo-Pacific

Review: Coffees from India

Plainspoken Coffee. A Coffee Review for Ordinary People by Ordinary People, #47.

In the overview of coffee growing in India, I promised some reviews. The crew here at C&C has, in fact, been busy drinking multiple offerings from India. We hope to do at least two posts, each with several short reviews.

We start off here with reviews of several non-traditional coffees. We purchased these from Muddy Dog Coffee Roasting in Morrisville, NC.

Sethuraman Estates Liberica

This is certainly one of the most unusual mainstream coffees (versus novelty coffee such as Kopi Luwak) currently available. Two species of coffee make up nearly all coffee on the market today: arabica (Coffea arabica) and robusta (C. canephora). Coffea liberica is a species native to west and central Africa, and accounts for only about 1% of world trade. It is a large tree with big, leathery leaves often grown on roadsides or as a windbreak.

Sethuraman Estates is in the Chikmagalur region of Karnataka state, near the town of Magundi and the Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary. By all accounts, including this excellent one by Muddy Dog owner Jim Pelligrini, there is ample shade and lots of wildlife on the farm. Much of the coffee at Sethuraman is grown organically, and part of the estate is in the process of being certified. Coffee is fertilized with estate-produced worm compost, and other environmentally-friendly practices have been initiated, including the installation of new water-conserving processing equipment.

This coffee is grown at about 900 m, and prepared as a pulped natural. The aroma of the ground coffee as well as the first taste is very fruity — there is the strong suggestion of blueberries, as in a dry process Ethiopian, but there are components of other dark fruit (plum was mentioned by one taster) as well as cherry. A fruit brandy or liqueur flavor was agreed on by multiple tasters, leading a couple of people to say it would be good as an after-dinner coffee.

As the coffee cooled, several drinkers who tended to favor milder coffees were put off by the sour notes that emerged. It wasn’t harsh or sharply sour — in fact, overall the coffee was remarkably smooth. On the other hand, the finish reminded one German taster of sauerbraten — in a good way. “I did not expect to have this kind of experience from coffee!!!” was his remark. I have seen this coffee described elsewhere as “meaty.” This may represent savory or umami aspects of the profile. We (gratefully) did not come up with “animal-like flavors of jackfruit…and mint.”

The first few sips are indeed powerful, and perhaps could be considered challenging to many. We found it was more approachable in a French press than as a drip.

I was a little surprised that such an assertive coffee was liked by so many people. Nobody dismissed it, and most people agreed that while they wouldn’t want to drink it every day, they’d try it again. A few were very enthusiastic. When scores from the larger-than-usual panel were averaged, the final score was 3.25 motmots, very respectable for such an unusual coffee. Please give it a try!

By the way, liberica has a higher caffeine content than arabica (beans at about 1.4% caffeine versus around 1%), but less than robusta (1.7%)[1], although nobody thought it produced any more buzz than usual.

Monsooned Malabar

I think for Americans, Monsooned Malabar is the coffee most associated with India. The name is a legal Geographical Indication, indicating that the coffee comes from a particular region. In this case, Monsooned Malabars are processed coffee beans (usually, maybe always, dry processed) exposed to the annual monsoon winds in warehouses along the Malabar coast of India. This unusual treatment is deemed necessary to replicate the unique taste and character of Indian coffees that were once transported to Europe on sailing vessels and subjected to months of humidity on the journey. As the beans absorb moisture, they swell and turn pale. Again, Jim of Muddy Dog has a great blog post on how the process proceeds in modern times: How Stuff is Made: Monsooned Malabar Coffee.

There are a number of adjectives that invariably pop up in descriptions of Monsooned Malabars: earthy, woody, pungent, wild, funky, low-acid, and heavy or syrupy-bodied. Unadventurous coffee drinkers might balk at a coffee described this way. Usually roasters don’t recommend Monsooned Malabars to people who like sweet, bright coffees. I consider myself solidly in that group, yet I really enjoyed this coffee.

The tasting panel did find some of those flavors in this coffee, but they were nowhere near as odd, unpleasant, or unappealing as this coffee’s reputation had lead us to expect. We found this coffee well-rounded, with pleasing tones of earthiness, leather, and smoke. There was a very agreeable rustic, musty nuance that added character to the overall mellowness of the coffee. Really no hint of fruit, despite the dry processing.

Nobody gave this coffee less than 3 motmots, and the average score was between 3.25 and 3.5 — so we’ll go with 3.5 to encourage people to give it a try. Whereas many Indian coffees are hard to come by, Monsooned Malabars are not terribly hard to find. Some roasters even offer single-estate origin Monsooned Malabars. On the other hand some also have monsooned robustas, and many roasters are just not sourcing very high quality monsooned coffees, or have the skill to roast them correctly. I assume that’s why so many Monsooned Malabars are described as extreme or intense. Choose a roaster carefully. I know our positive experience with this coffee was due in large part to Muddy Dog’s honoring the bean’s interesting profile.

Kaapi Royale Cherry Robusta

This robusta selection is also from Sethuraman Estates, grown lower than the liberica, at 750 m. “Cherry” in regards to Indian coffee means a natural or dry process. Much of the world’s bad supermarket coffee is made up of cheap robusta. However, there are some carefully grown and processed robustas used in espresso blends. Typically, people don’t drink robusta straight, with the exception of the occasional single-origin espresso shot. Since we have so far not branched out into espresso prep reviews, we bravely prepared this sample as a drip and in a French press.

Robusta beans have a distinctive rubber flavor, and a bitterness that comes from the high caffeine content. When prepared in my Technivorm drip coffee maker, these characteristics were a bit more emphatic than they were when prepared as a French press. Because a sourness also developed as the coffee cooled, making this coffee in any typical consumer drip coffee maker would surely accentuate the most formidable aspects, while drowning out the intriguing properties. Thus, we proceeded with several trials in the press.

Although a dry processed coffee, fruit was not the dominant feature. There was no mistaking it was a robusta — the “rubber” was there — but it was tempered by semi-sweet chocolate, wood, and earth. It was not bitter, but very, very smooth. Nobody found this offensive. While everyone agreed this wasn’t something they’d go out and buy a bag of, they liked the idea of a cup now and then, and very much appreciated an opportunity to taste a high quality robusta, rather than the crap in supermarket coffees. It ended up with a respectable 2.75 motmots.

A future review will cover some more traditional, single-estate arabicas from India.

We’d like to thank Jim Pelligrini for putting together a great package of Indian coffees for us to buy and try out. Nor can we neglect to also thank Allen Leibowitz of Zingerman’s Coffee Company for inspiring us to embark on exploring Indian coffees.

[1] Ashihara, H. and A. Crozier. 2001. Caffeine: a well known but little mentioned compound in plant science. Trends in Plant Science 6:407-413.

Fair and Direct Trade

Fair Trade USA muddies the waters

When it comes to the world of Fair Trade (FT), Coffee & Conservation tries to stick to providing basic information to consumers on what the certification means, the specific environmental standards in FT certification, and major news. A recent announcement qualifies as major news that changes the meaning of “Fair Trade” certification in the U.S., and which may mean changes to environmental standards for coffee certified as FT by Fair Trade USA.

Background

Fairtrade International (FLO) is the organization that coordinates labeling initiatives around the globe. FLO develops the FT standards for all FT-certified products, including coffee. Member organizations in other countries use the standards to license and promote FT-certified products. In the United States, the member organization is Fair Trade USA (formerly TransFair USA).

One of the strengths of FT certification was that FLO provided global standards for FT-certified products (coffee being just one of many). Whether or not you agreed that the standards were the right ones to achieve the stated goals, at least you knew that FT-certified products all conformed to the same standards — everyone was on the same page. Even if many consumers don’t have a full understanding of the purpose and means of FT, this single system, applied consistently, has built their trust in the certification.

Break up

Last week, Fair Trade USA (FTUSA) announced it is resigning its membership in the FLO system effective December 31, 2011. The main departure point is that FT certification for coffee has been restricted to cooperatives; for other agricultural products such as bananas or tea, larger estates and other producer models have been able to get FT certification. FTUSA wants to expand the availability of FT certification, starting with coffee.

FTUSA noted that it may revise some of the standards currently being used for FT-certified products. The language in FLO’s response was much clearer:

“Fair Trade USA has announced a new initiative under the banner Fair Trade For All.’ We wish to clarify that the proposals it contains regarding major changes on coffee certification are the views of Fair Trade USA alone, and do not constitute a change to the policy or standards of Fairtrade International (FLO).”

Therefore, FLO has stated as of January 1, 2012, they (FLO) will “no longer be able to accept FTUSA’s certification for sales into other Fairtrade markets under the global Certification Mark.” FTUSA will continue to recognize producer organizations who hold FT certification from FLO.  Eventually, then, a product in the U.S. may have FTUSA’s seal, the FLO seal, or both. Consequently, consumers will have to figure out what the standards are for the certifications.

The FLO global certification mark (seal).

Recap of current standards

At least initially, it appears that the major changes will have to do with who qualifies for FT certification. How or if this will effect the environmental standards is not known at this time. Update: Please see the Quick Guide to Coffee Certifications for graphs that  illustrate that FLO has more criteria or requirements related to the environment and biodiversity than FT USA.

FT environmental standards developed by FLO, as I outlined in a previous post, are fairly generic. They cover ( with a very broad brush) pest management;  general soil, water, and waste management; GMO policy; energy use; and very broadly and non-specifically, biodiversity protection.

New FLO standards were rolled out in early 2011, but not much has changed.  The revised generic environmental standards for all small producers (which apply to coffee), while re-worded, expanded, and providing more detailed guidance, did not substantially strengthen biodiversity protection from previous versions. FLO said this upon the revision:

“Revised environmental requirements: Putting people first

The revised environmental requirements in the New Standards Framework keep people at the heart of the Fairtrade system. Strong core criteria protect producers’ health and safety, conserve nature and ban the use of GMOs and dangerous chemicals. Then, through the benefits received through Fairtrade, producers are encouraged to work on development priorities of their choice which lead to even greater sustainability.”

The Fair Trade USA seal.

As before, the standards specific to coffee do not have any additional environmental criteria (e.g., any sort of shade tree, density, species, or pruning requirements).

Here are the links to official statement by FLO and FTUSA. As the coffee industry responds, I’ll add links to especially relevant content.

Updated news links:

Additional links:

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.

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.

Climate change

Mitigating climate change with coffee

The Decision and Policy Analysis (DAPA) Program of the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) recently released results from a research project on mitigating climate change in Mesoamerican coffee production. You can download a PDF of the report, The Potential of Mesoamerican Coffee Production Systems to Mitigate Climate Change. This document is actually the thesis project of a Dutch student. The paper is a straightforward look at the how different shade coffee systems store carbon and their levels of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as how a few certifications (organic, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ Certified) influence those metrics.

Here are two slides from a presentation to whet your appetite (click to enlarge).

Traditional rustic shade has a larger carbon footprint than commercial polyculture because yields are lower per unit area, and all the contributing factors are allocated to less product. Note that biomass (below 0 on x-axis) denotes “credit” subtracted from factors that add to the carbon footprint.

Certifications other than organic don’t do much to reduce carbon footprint over conventional farming, suggesting that standards need to be modified to encourage footprint-lowering practices. Note that biomass (below 0 on x-axis) denotes “credit” subtracted from factors that add to the carbon footprint.

For an explanation of these interesting graphs take a look at the full report.  While it is over 100 pages, it is not a difficult read and I especially encourage people to take a look at page 68, which outlines coffee production practices that result in lowered greenhouse gas emissions, and page 70, which gives overall conclusions.