Saturday, April 17, 2004


a differing view too good to be overlooked in the comments

my notes are in brackets to help people who may be new to bccy understand technical coffee terms. the links are provided by me for reference as well:

"Dear Fortune,

I have been reading with great interest your thoughts on the coffee crisis, fair trade [FT], and the various mechanisms to correct the market.

While I agree with you on many points (quality is the answer, relationships, engaging in dialogue with the big 4 [multi-national coffee roasters: sara lee, kraft, p&g, nestle], etc.), I believe that much like Dean and Equal, you too are looking at this problem with a narrowed vision.

While quality coffee will always be a great way to move prices upward, we as an industry continue to have trouble defining it. I am not suggesting that the industry can not define and detect defects, taints, faults etc., I am saying that the bulk of the industry defines quality as bright, clean, sweet and free of defects.

The industry prefers washed, fermented coffees to naturals and semi-washed (except in the case of some Africans and Indonesians) and coffees that rate as HB [hard bean] or SHB [strictly hard bean, or "strictlies," a most desirable kind]. It considers "Quality" to be high quality for the drip market.

I have been doing a lot of work with organic and biodynamic growers in Nicaragua, Colombia and Peru over the past five years. What these growers are being told is, "If you are growing coffees under 1000msm[altitude] you may as well quit and plant corn and beans to sell to the farmers on higher ground." While this advice is great for a world that consumes drip coffee, it is narrow and not accurate.

If you were a 3rd generation coffee farmer who happens to live at 800msm [altitude], should you be denied technical assistance or quit growing coffee and search out a new vocation? Just because Mr. Gringo in the north is now in love with brighter coffees, you should change your whole way of existing?

We, in the north, change our preferences for wine, chocolate, coffee and bread on a whim and then ask cultures to shift their ways of creating products because we've decided to follow a new trend. On top of that, we do little if any work to find alternatives for these farmers we are abandoning. We also complain when we follow a new trend in these products and then find that their is not enough of a high quality supply channel.

There is an entire espresso culture that is developing and has the potential to erode the SHG [strictly high-grown] market. [this "anti-espresso" stance is not unknown in specialty coffee; was most recently and famously promoted as a broadside against yours truly and my pal mark prince et. al. here.] Soon we could possibly be abandoning the folks in the higher ground because their coffees are far too bright for espresso blends and seek out who ever is left in the lower ground and ask them to start natural processing, semi-washing or aging their coffees so we can make rich, syrupy blends that cater to our like of sweet espresso.

This is already happening on a small scale and as you know, this movement is growing rapidly. Just look in the growth in popularity with the USBC [U.S. Barista Championship], the WBC and the Barista Guild.

I have been teaching elevationally challenged farmers to look at alternative processing to create coffees not for the drip market, but for the espresso market. As this movement grows, espresso buyers will be snapping up sweet and mellow coffees and paying good prices to distinguish themselves from their competitors.

These farmers, who would normally get paid [US$0].35 cents for low grown washed coffees, could start receiving [US$]1.00 and up for the same coffees processed for espresso. This would not only triple their income, but it would drastically reduce the water pollution created from washing coffee.

How about purity laws -- if that would be passed, it could not only remove 500 million bags from the market, but it could instantly rebound the market. Studies show that this rebound could be as much as [US$0].20 cents. This would literally force the big 4 to buy higher quality -- much more pure coffee.

How about stimulating the coffee markets in coffee producing countries. Hardly anyone drinks coffee in Colombia, Brazil, Guatemala, Costa Rica, etc. This is similar to no one drinking wine in Sonoma and Napa (my hometown). If just Colombia would embrace coffee drinking as a cultural pursuit, the market could rebound as much as [US$0].15 cents.

The big 4 will go where the market is. As long as the public has a thirst for cheap coffee, those companies will continue to thrive. Even though I have been roasting 100% certified-organic specialty coffee for over 12 years and believe in organic and biodynamic agriculture, I realize that it is a niche and it will never be the norm.

The U.S. market is in love with: fast, cheap, fatty and sweet. The market does not live on Alicante Buochet wine, Humboldt Fog cheese, single origin dark chocolate and heirloom organic produce.

Why is FT having problems? Partly because their whole concept has holes in it, enough so that both small and large roaster have issues with it. FT will never save the world because by its design it can't. While 70% of my organic coffee is also FT certified, I know that it is doing little if nothing to correct this crisis.

Just some of my thoughts. I love your site and look forward to your future posts.


Mark Inman, President
Taylor Maid Farms, LLC

P.S. While I do appreciate your insistence on high-quality coffee, I also feel that it is important that the coffee is grown in a way that is environmentally responsible --- organically if possible.

I have cupped a lot of coffees that many would consider to be incredible coming from farms that are eco disasters. Coffee buyers have a responsibility to ensure that they are not contributing the the continued environmental and ecological destruction of developing nations."

posted by fortune | 8:04 AM | top | link to this | email this: | | | 0 comments