Ken Fox wrote:...one should mind one's own business except in matters of extreme importance.

I say farming is pretty damn important. I'm thankful that now some are starting to realize their choices do matter. I was partially on the commodity side of farming before the direct sales movement kicked in and believe me it wasn't pretty in fact it was cruel and nobody cared.

another_jim wrote: If you chose to live in a de gustibus non disputandum universe, you should not post on threads discussing taste.

I'll disagree with that based on the idea of building sandcastles....

Discussions of taste are very relevant for those that wish to engage but in the end of it, even a seasoned coffee geek can come to a conclusion that SO shots are just plain bland. How can that be explained to me in a way that makes sense when I've experienced loads of exciting SO's? Looks like individual taste might just be what it is unless everybody that does not agree with me is wrong.

And so, should people stop building sandcastles? Because as best I can tell when it's all said and done they just tumble into the sea....eventually.

Discussions of taste tumble into de gustibus non disputandum ultimately don't they?

farmroast wrote:I say farming is pretty damn important. I'm thankful that now some are starting to realize their choices do matter. I was on the commodity side of farming before the direct sales movement kicked in and believe me it wasn't pretty in fact it was cruel.

I don't buy commodity coffee and I'm sure you don't either. As non-consumers of this product category, we can have zero impact on this market.

I'm a strong believer in rewarding quality in coffee, as I am in other foods and beverages; I show this by my purchasing behavior.

There are systems propagated by what I will call "well meaning do-gooders," perhaps the most illustrative of which is the one supporting "Fair Trade" coffee. The problem is that like most agricultural commodities, the production potential for coffee (and wine grapes and milk and and and . . . . . . .) worldwide exceeds the quantity that can or will be sold at a price that will provide a good income to those producing it at the level of the raw commodity. This is fact, this is reality. We might wish it were different but this is the situation we find ourselves in.

If we follow the model of an organization such as Transfair, which promotes "Fairly Traded coffee," all we do is to pick winners and losers in this mass of producers, and we do so without regard to the quality of what it is that they produce. The real effect of this is that we waste our money by perpetuating this situation where there is too much production, and the product that we buy is no better than average. What we should want, if we really care about these people, is for production to drop to a level where it is more in line with demand, and for the worst producers to stop producing. It will be a temporary hardship for their workers to have to find another line of work, but in the end they will be better off because of it, as whatever they do later on will be more appreciated than what they are doing right now (picking bad coffee).

What we should be doing is to have faith in the discipline of the marketplace. Since we here are almost by definition high end coffee consumers, we should be looking for quality, and we should be willing to pay for it. This means we will buy the "best" coffees and assuming that the marketplace works, these "best" coffees will sell at a premium to the average ones, the people producing them will get better compensated, and everyone wins -- we get better coffee, and the producers get more income. In fact, that is what we do when we buy "relationship coffees" from cafes, roasters, and green sellers that we respect.

But to go beyond this, to try to have an impact beyond the impact that we can realistically expect to have -- for example, ruminating about how we are going to be sure that XXX amount of what we paid per pound goes to the coffee pickers -- that is just a conceit. To think that we have any comprehension at all of what life, as perceived by the inhabitants, is like in rural Indonesia or Ethiopia or Guatemala -- is such an example of cultural imperialism that it nauseates me.

In fact, what it is, is a holdover of colonial paternalism, the idea that because we in the developed world are better educated and smarter and whatever, in comparison to these 3rd world coffee pickers, because of this we know what is best for "them" -- that's just an insult to my intelligence and an insult to their dignity as human beings.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:I don't buy commodity coffee and I'm sure you don't either. As non-consumers of this product category, we can have zero impact on this market.

What I meant was any older farmer that has always produced the very highest quality will have stories of when they had no choice but to sell some best product into the commodity market and get a couple extra peanuts for it. It was kept sorted and was like one of the rare great coffee finds within a large importer. We often wondered who got it where. The caring about coffee or any other farmer is fairly recent. And I'm sure is very welcome and appreciated by them.

I would think producing greatly desired SO would be the best challenge from the farmers perspective. I sold into a high end blended market and actually got nervous about what it was getting blend with.

Great farming is fine art and every painting that goes out really means something to the farmer.
Being a poor farmer anywhere is tough but often forces them to farm smarter often with better results.

Ken,

Some of your point taken on relevance to thread. I obviously have a more libertarian view of on-topic vs. off.

But back on topic:

Ken Fox wrote:As to what goes to what end of whatever distribution chain of whatever product we buy; why is that of concern here? When you buy a pair of underwear at Costco do you ruminate in your mind about whether the farmer who grew the cotton god-knows-where got the 23 cents you think he should have gotten for that ingredient? How about when you have a steak? Do you worry about the rancher who might have gotten less than his cost of production back when he sold the cow because meat prices are now depressed? Do people here have so little to worry about in their own daily lives that they can't trust the marketplace to allocate resources, and to mind their own business about the rest? The law of unintended consequences is as likely to produce a "bad result" by focusing on stuff like this, than it is to produce a good one.

Ken Fox wrote:I don't buy commodity coffee and I'm sure you don't either. As non-consumers of this product category, we can have zero impact on this market.

I'm a strong believer in rewarding quality in coffee, as I am in other foods and beverages; I show this by my purchasing behavior.

You first equate discussion of the value chain of coffee with commodity cotton, mass produced into products sold in a big box warehouse to cover your tuchas. You then state that the discussion is not about commodity coffee. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

I'll attribute your response to lack of clarity on my part. What I said was:

cfsheridan wrote:...but I'd be satisfied with slow and steady penetration of single origin, differentiated coffees more into the mainstream, with continuing focus on increased REAL resource return to the front end of the coffee chain.

which led to a discussion of why do I care, and that unintended consequences could make things worse...and a few post later, with others interjecting led to a small treatise on the woes of socialistic engineering projects like Transfair vs. the power of the market. (yeah, I'm simplifying, I'm sure).

I wasn't clear in my assertion--I was not suggesting a mandated approach, and truthfully, while I care about the plight of the farmers, I wasn't even approaching it from that aspect. I'm being selfish.

As someone who sources coffee, I want to continue what forces in the market are pushing, seeking, and rewarding quality coffee. Better and more real money to the producer provides an opportunity for better coffee--the results are clear in any project in which I've been involved (and I'm a very small bit player). While I am sure there is some pleasure center that is stimulated by the notion that my efforts have helped someone less fortunate than me, I am rational enough to know that my motivation is more likely the result of a more personal desire to find more distinct coffees. In that context, SO means more attention to differentiated coffees, which in my view improves our lots as coffee snobs.

You are correct though, the discussion has no bearing on whether SO espresso is better or worse than a blend.

Of course, it is very relevant to the last point in the opening post...

Ken Fox wrote:If I was buying roasted coffee on a regular basis, I'd be much more interested to find a roaster who was constantly seeking out the very best single varietals and who could recommend to me the best ones he had in stock at any given time, rather than monkeying around with blends that can never remain consistent for long.

another_jim wrote:This is why people like Geoff Watts and Peter Guiliano have reject Fair Trade and other socialist or paternalistic models for their Direct Trade coffees. On the whole, they are looking to get the money to the best subsistence farmers themselves, so they can use it to maintain their communities in their own customary ways.

Absolutely. Pretty much what all real farmers want anywhere.

other Duke Ellington quotes:

Critics have their purposes, and they're supposed to do what they do, but sometimes they get a little carried away with what they think someone should have done, rather than concerning themselves with what they did.
Duke Ellington

and

"Put it this way: Jazz is a good barometer of freedom... In its beginnings, the United States of America spawned certain ideals of freedom and independence through which, eventually, jazz was evolved, and the music is so free that man people say it is the only unhampered, unhindered expression of complete freedom yet produced in this country."

I doubt he would have implied it should be guided and appreciated by the cognoscenti.

St Peter was giving a tour of the coffee plantations in Heaven. The group came to a brick wall behind which could be heard the sounds of steam, vibratory pumps, coffee grinders and slurping. There was a sign that asked for silence. When one of the tour members asked what asked what was it was all about.

St Peter responded "That is the members of (pick your coffee group). They think the're the only ones up here."

I think there is a lot more room for different approaches in coffee heaven than has been the tone here. There will be the Illuminati of coffeedom but the people that will have the biggest impact on what happens in the coffee world will be those a long the borders of specialty coffee convincing consumers of commodity coffee that what they are drinking isn't worth paying for and that the premium on specialty grade coffee is worth it.

Bigger tent = overall improvement in all stages of coffee production.

I think that the political comments about Fair Trade to some extent miss the point. If someone can do better, that's great, but Fair Trade has helped consumers gain focus on the idea that value and values can mix, and that such a mix can be achievable. That doesn't have to be either socialist or paternalistic, though it is a blend

And it would be perverse to claim that Fair Trade has not had a positive impact (although not without its problems) at the farmer end of the chain, either.

That said, there's no denying much more could be done - and all kudos (and support) to those who are doing it.

On the whole, I'm with Ken in this discussion. I prefer a one-sided distinctive character, a fine catherine wheel to a symphonic firework display. I feel the same about wines (something I was taught to distinguish in Italy, funnily enough). And I'm the same about people: I prefer eccentric to balanced.

Getting away from myself to some general consensus, I find it interesting that most posters seem to acknowledge that "gourmet"/"boutique"/"third/fourth wave" blends are moving in a "single-origin plus" direction and that this is appreciated in the cup. That to my mind in many ways substantiates exactly what Ken is saying rather than the reverse.

Nevertheless (and this obviously doesn't help), SOs are still a minefield for espresso, since much of the taste profile assessment at distributor level (at least in the UK) tends to rely on cupping and does not take espresso into account, or if it does, doesn't roast or roast well for it (quite dark typical). The commercial roaster often buys on hunch or the wholesaler's recommendation and it is rare for a roaster to bin or not recommend a bean they have bought for espresso unless it is dramatically unsuitable. Even buying from "artisan roasters" here, it is with only a couple of rare exceptions pot luck, so that if you really want to know, you simply have to try. That doesn't help people appreciate the potential of SOs to be really special.

Now and again I do enjoy a week or so with a good blend, sometimes almost for nostalgia as much as anything else, but for the most part I find a variety of single origins much more exciting.

Cheers

Mike

tekomino wrote:Couple of thoughts that were percolating...

- There is lot of talk about respect for farmers, terroir etc. I find that curious since everyone in that coffee value chain makes more money than farmers. Buy from them for $1 sell for $5 roast then sell for $15. If you were living with those farmers for a year you'd see that they don't care about respect and empty talk. They would like to get paid more and have better life... It is not about respect, it is about making living.

- Putting story around Single Origins coffees is marketing move 101. It is designed to appeal to snobs that need a talking point for their next dinner party. "Oh dear, this espresso you are drinking is grown by Manuel in remote village on Kilimanjaro. He carefully plucks every coffee cherry and massages it while it grows for best flavor. His best picker is his 5 year old daughter that loves picking coffee so much that she does it all day long. So cute. Great guy!"

- There is no need to look at coffee as anything other than what it is. All that talk about terroir, farmers etc. is empty. It is what it is, which is raw material. It is treated like that by everyone in value chain. Money Talks, Bull**** Walks.

Please don't be Frasier Crane of coffee.

PS. SO or blend it does not really matter as long as result in cup is enjoyable.

I have tried to clarify some of the things you are adressing on my blog here: http://timwendelboe.no/2010/08/transparency-and-coffee-prices/

If you want to do something about this issue, I suggest you start becoming a coffee snob too.
Roasteries like Stumptown, Intelligentsia, Ecco, The Coffee Collective, Solberg & Hasnen, etc, etc, are all proof that if you invest in your farmers we all win in the end.

The challenge is to get all roasters in the world to think like this, but you have a choice of which roasters and farmers you support.