44. "To Sort or Not To Sort" - That is The Farmer's Question

Dec. 16, 2015

Our team of researchers refined and debated the wording of each question on our instrument that will guide the interviews of 2024 smallholder coffee farmers. The questions where we try to quantify the farmer's number of hours spent sorting cherry brought out interesting details from the researchers who have worked with coffee farmers a long time. There is a lot of variability out there. Some sort at home, some don't. And "sorting at home" might mean sorting in among the coffee trees, or it might mean carrying the cherry to the household compound and then sorting. Some sort at the washing station before they can get paid; other washing stations "buy everything" so the farmer does not spend time sorting at the washing station (but the washing station probably does).

Recently, Ben Carlson from Long Miles Coffee Project (LMCP) in Burundi implemented a very interesting "market test" related to sourcing quality cherry from Burundi's smallholder coffee producers. I love his story because as we work on quality issues in Rwanda and Burundi, a key point I am trying to show is that coffee washing stations do not clearly communicate their quality requirement. Communicating a quality requirement to suppliers is a key principle of "Lean at Origin."


Ben's story:

1. LMCP was very strict last season (2015). We told coffee producers we needed 100% red ripe cherry. We showed them with Brix meters why. We conducted an open cupping at select hills and let them taste the difference in 'ripe' (high Brix reading) vs. 'not ripe' (low Brix reading).  

2.  From the first day we opened the washing station, we strictly enforced the "only red" rule. What did this enforcement look like? We didn’t tell them they couldn’t deliver.  Rather we floated and sorted each farmer's cherries and wouldn’t purchase any that didn’t meet our standard.  Sometimes this meant sending home over half of a farmer's a daily harvest*.  Farmers were encouraged to come back, but only with red cherries. 

 *these would be hulled at home and sold as “semi washed” to a local buyer.

Results: 

• About 400 total families stopped delivering to us (between our two stations). Over-all numbers didn’t end up reflecting the exact difference, as we did end up actually adding a few hundred different farmers also, based on our reputation and coffee scout interaction.  Yet from the  farmers recorded as delivering at least one day in 2014 and then zero in 2015, we lost 400 families.

• We also saw a tremendous increase in quality at the station!  The most quantifiable test was winning #3 and #8 at the COE with the delivered cherries to the station. In 2014 we did not place in the top 10. 

• Farmers received an increase in price per kg of 20%-45% compared to other washing stations allowing any cherries to be delivered in 2015.

• Farmers in the area haven taken note of the higher prices! Our managers, coffee scouts and agronomists have had farmer interaction and commitments that will add a significant increase of volume and number of farmers in 2016 based on the price and timelines of payment of LMCP.

Interesting side note on Collection Points.

Our collection points are run by cooperatives.  The same strict measures were expected  in these locations but were not adhered to. We did not have a clear daily communication program at collection points like we had at the washing stations. Thus we received lower quality cherry, more triage and under-grades. The result was a noticeable cup quality decrease from collection points pre-triage and a huge difference in the volume of A2 and A3 parchment. Bottom line, profits on cherry from the collection points were lower.

Thus LMCP will be hiring more scouts and placing Coffee Scouts with Brix meters to train farmers at every collection point and oversee rejection of cherries there in 2016.  Another decrease in farmer delivery??? Perhaps. And with that feared decrease in numbers of farmers delivering, will certainly come the proven increase in prices to those farmers who achieve the requirement, and they will gain new producer families who are up to the challenge to deliver only quality cherry!

7. How Artisan Got Involved in Counter Culture's Research Project

Jan. 22, 2014

I was honored to be allowed to work with Counter CultureCoffee (CCC) to analyze the data in their study, "Impact of Microlot Premiums on Smallholder Coffee Producers in Southern Colombia: How Premiums Are Invested and Farming Practices Employed." As a coffee importer (www.ArtisanCoffeeImports.com) and a master’s student studying sustainable development for coffee communities (www.csus.msu.edu/), studying the impact of any program designed to benefit coffee producers would be of interest. This one was extra tantalizing for a few reasons:

 

1. I had not yet seen any research on the impact of microlot premiums using parametric (i.e. numerical) data, so this seemed to be ground-breaking. 

2. I myself was very curious to see some rigorous analysis of the assumption that “paying more helps the producers.” When Kim Elena Ionescu lead the roundtable discussion at the Roasters Guild Retreat in August 2013 on “microlot myths”, it was frustrating to me that research results in that workshop were so vague compared to the next workshop. In the following workshop, SCAA’s “coffee scientist” spent two hours walking us through her randomly controlled trial experiments to test the effects of roast degree on coffee taste. My interest was to see impacts on producers investigated with the same care and validity, and here was an opportunity to be part of helping that happen. 

3. The research combined quantitative and qualitative methods in a way that, in my experience so far as a development economist, is rare. However, qualitative research has come a long way in the 20 years since I studied for my first masters degree (in international development). So I was curious to see how the combination could work.

 

4. The data was already collected, cleaned and formatted. It was just waiting in spreadsheets to be analyzed. In other words, much of the hard work of primary research was already accomplished. This meant getting the work into a final report was realistically doable – even within the three month timeframe it would need to be, to fulfill the criteria of a final paper for one of my classes. In other words, timing was perfect.

5. The study was done with a participatory mindset. From the outset, CCC promised to share the results with the producers who participated in the survey. They made good on that promise. This week (as I write), Hannah Popish (from CCC in North Carolina) is in Colombia presenting the findings to the growers in Huila, Cauca and Tolima. And it's not just presenting, it's visiting. Each meeting includes small groups and the intention is to learn as much as it is to share the research results so far.

6. I said at the beginning of the blog I was 'honored' to work with CCC. That deserves an explanation. For me it's an honor because I admire CCC's boldness in reaching for and developing resiliency. They have been instrumental in developing direct trade relationships in Burundi and now Democratic Republic of Congo. Now I learn Tim Hill has worked on iterations of cupping forms to find a method that will more effectively help him communicate with producers about growing quality coffee. I believe CCC is on the Collaboration for Food Security Council and now participating in an innovative collaboration between Food for Farmers, Root Capital and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters to bring focus and resources to battling leaf rust in Latin America. I understand they will also support the 2014 Potato Taste Conference in Kigali, Rwanda. I could go on, but I'll just say that they also have great  coffee. Try some!

7. In case you feel like this is getting to be a bit too boring, reading about the great things CCC has done, don't worry. My critical side will include them, too. Stay tuned...