It's taken me a few days to gather my thoughts after SCAA 2006. Not to get all mushy or anything, but I must say I am overwhelmed with gratitude after Charlotte.
It was such a thrill to have everyone in our backyard last week. I could not possibly summarize highlights, although I was stoked and inspired hourly by nearly everyone. Thanks to those who made it by the Counter Culture party, I had a great time, and you guys barely made any mess! It is always a thrill to experience a little bonhomie with my coffee friends, and it was especially gratifying to have it happen in North Carolina! I'm all verklempt!
For me, the intellectual highlight was a class given by David Roche, of the Coffee Quality Institute, Geoff Watts, you know him, and Peter Baker, a scientist who has done a tremendous amount of work on coffee biology, including genetic research of our favorite plant.
The rub came when Mr. Baker described a particular experiment, which pitted the Bourbon variety against a very closely related coffee variety, Caturra. Caturra is a dwarf version of Bourbon which appeared spontaneously in a field of Bourbon which was planted in Brazil. Because it has more branches per foot than Bourbon does, it is much more productive. In fact, Mr. Baker revealed a genetic analysis of the two plants that shows that the plants are genetically identical with the exception of a single gene, which regulates branch spacing and overall height. However, most cuppers find Bourbon varieties to produce better quality coffee than Caturra. Why?
Well, here's how the experiment went. They gathered coffee from Caturra and Bourbon plants from a single farm, harvested on the same day, processed the same way, roasted the same way etc. etc. Indeed, they found that the Bourbon consistently outcupped the Caturra. So, there must be a connection between the branch-spacing gene and quality, right? Then, they repeated the experiment. This time, though, they removed enough of the Caturra's flowers so it produced the same amount of total fruit as the Bourbon. This time, there was no statistical difference in the cup quality from the two plants.
This experiment strongly suggests what is intuitive to many: that high productivity and high quality are mutually exclusive, and that you can increase quality by reducing output. Of course, this is probably one of the reasons that shaded coffees, high altitude coffees, stressed coffees, and small producer coffees tend to be of higher quality. Eureka!
However, this presents a huge economic problem for coffee. Farmers who want to increase quality, and theoretically garner a quality premium, must keep their productivity in check. This, of course, runs contrary to the normal farmer mentality, which thinks of increased productivity as increased profit. This is especially true of coffee farmers who are at the rugged edge of survival as it is: can you imagine intentionally reducing your total crop yield in hopes of creating higher quality? This is doubly true when most farmers are not guaranteed a quality premium even if they achieve high quality. Plus, coffee quality can be ruined at the mill. It's a big big gamble.
This also presents a built in challenge for those of us who like to enter into long term relationships with coffee growers. Let me tell you, it's a tough conversation to have with a coffee producer, broaching the idea of limiting production to increase quality. Most farmers strongly believe that their quality is due to thier soil, their altitude, or the tender loving care they give to the plants. They really think they can increase quality and productivity at the same time.
At the end of the day, of course, the answer is in our wallets. As we continue to get clarity on the cause and effect of quality coffee, great coffees will begin to fetch the kinds of premiums they deserve. The only solution to this conundrum is to pay up for great coffees. We all have a long way to go here.
Peter G
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI was also in the same class and was struck by how long it has taken for that experiment to take place.
It is really exciting to realize that we are at the dawn of a new era of coffee when these things are being discovered.
As long as roasters and consumers are willing to shell out the bucks, who knows what quality improvements are possible.
Thanks for sharing that one Peter. The economics of it all is going to be a challenge to overcome for the farmers. But you're right, if we are prepared to pay for these intriguing, low production beans they will thrive... I know I'll continue to pay for them.
ReplyDeleteThanx for bringing that experiment to our attention.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that opportunities to do such elegant experiments in the messy botanical field are rare. If such opportunities occur infrequently, the idea of doing that particular experiment would not be obvious, and I'm very impressed that anyone had the insight to do it and do it right.
Peter G, I'm not shy about speculating that we'd all love to read anything else about what you learned at the conference.
Ron
I know this isn't necessarily the forum for this, but please keep the Coffee Farming class as part of the curriculum for future shows, the Roasters Guild retreat, etc. There were many eye-opening moments during each presentation, some encouraging, some depressing. I took it for accreditation but also so that I am more informed when I do travel to origin. Due to a hectic schedule, I had time for one class and that's the one I picked. Many thanks to all three instructors for sharing their knowledge.
ReplyDeletepeter:
ReplyDeletedid the experiment show that reducing the amount of total fruit from the caturra plant to an identical or nearly identical amount as the bourbon was the key? or could you improve quality incrementally by merely reducing the total fruit output of each caturra tree, thereby still producing equal quality with slightly higher yields?
good question, the speaker did not go into that much detail. I suspect that we are only at the beginning of this kind of experiment. There is an assumption in the experiment which is not perfect, in my view, and that is a kind of binary "better" or "worse" assumption. What we need are much larger data sets of productivity and cupping information.
ReplyDeleteexactly, peter g. it's not binary at all. (what experiments such as this ever are?) that's what i meant when i mentioned incrementally improving quality...along a scale there are many degrees and many points of departure. at some point those types of experiments will be done, captured for the sake of improving quality AND quantity and trickled up the chain to all of us.
ReplyDeletei applaud the start of the experiments. i am new to this level of specialty coffee but in my short time here i have recognized that we seem to be entering a golden age of experimentation and knowledge sharing for the betterment of the industry.
thanks again for sharing. btw, how did your exhaustive cupping (was it the el salvador's?) come out? were you able to finalize a blend you were happy with?
i meant nicaraugas. nicarauga, not el salvador.
ReplyDeleteOnce again a parrallel between coffee and wine. Top wine producers have long known that limiting the yield from grape vines leads to more concentrated flavors in the wine. This is regulated by law in many wine growing countries- yields must be kept below a given mass of grapes harvested per hectare of vines, in order to label the wines with the name of the apellation. These production laws in areas like Champage, Chianti, Rioja, Alsace, just to name a few, have played a dominant role in the improvement and maintenatance of wine production techniques in these areas, and subsequently, the price these wines have been able to fetch on the market year after year.
ReplyDeleteI love this article.
ReplyDeleteugg store
ugg boots store
Replica watches
discount ugg boots
UGG Classic
nike outlet