Coffee for Justice:
Chemistry in service to
small-holder coffee farmers
ACS Science and Human Rights
Webinar
presented
October 9, 2012
Susan C. Jackels
Seattle University
Telling the story of collaboration with
Nicaraguan small-holder coffee farmers
The “Coffee Crisis”
of 2001
 Nicaraguan
Farmers’ response
 Involvement in
coffee quality
improvement with
farmers, using
chemistry

Coffee Crisis: Volatility in the Price
of Coffee on the World Market
NYBOT Arabica Coffee
Futures
Price (cents/lb)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
“Coffee
Crisis”
N. Luttinger and G. Dicum, “The Coffee Book,” Norton, 2006
2015
Response to the Coffee Crisis
in Nicaragua since 2001



Small holder producers have strengthened cooperative
organizations in order to:
– Improve coffee quality (hope for access to specialty
quality market)
– Gain certification (Fair Trade and Organic)
– Gain access to international markets
International relief and development organizations
began providing assistance. (USAID, Catholic Relief
Services, others)
In 2002, I became involved through association with
ISJACHEM, University of Central America Managua and
Catholic Relief Services
Why improve coffee quality at
some expense to quantity?
Gain access to specialty
market (quality must
be higher than 80 on a
100 point scale so the
global buyers get
interested)
 Hope for a relationship
with a buyer that
persists year-to-year
 Direct trade can get a
good price but must
have a connection and
good quality

Why improve coffee quality at
some expense to quantity?
Organic/Fair Trade
market: producers
still can’t find a
buyer for all organic
coffee (our coffee
coops this year sold
70% of their coffee
on conventional
market)
 Small differential
between organic and
conventional market
prices (2012)

•A research /service project in service to Nicaraguan
small-holder coffee producers
•The goal is to help producers get out of the Coffee
Crisis by improving their coffee so it can be sold on
the Organic /Fair Trade or Specialty market (or
direct trade).
Partner Organizations








Catholic Relief Services
Nicaragua/ Caritas Matagalpa
Nicaraguan farmer coops
CECOSEMAC and ADDAC
University of Central America
Managua
National Science Foundation
Seattle U
UW Bothell
Winds of
Peace
MJ Murdock Charitable Trust
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Locations of Cooperatives
We were connected with these coffee farm cooperatives through Catholic Relief Services
First and foremost, make good
relationship with the community
Focus groups: We asked the
farmers for their questions

What is the effect of
over-fermentation on
coffee quality?

How can fermentation
be controlled to
optimize coffee quality
and maintain
consistency?
What did you say? Fermentation in
coffee processing?
Coffee
Cherry
Anatomy
Mucilage Layer removed by fermentation
after outer skin and pulp are removed
mechanically.
Coffee Processing on the Farm
How can we answer the
farmers’ question about over
fermentation and whether it
affects their coffee quality?
We began by doing a field
study on the farms to find out
changes happening during
coffee fermentation.
A field study of coffee
fermentation on small farms in
Matagalpa in 2004
SC Jackels and CF Jackels, Journal of Food Science, 2005, Vol. 70, pages C321
– C325.
Developed tests for pH,
ethanol, lactic acid and
glucose
pH profiles of coffee
fermentation
Fermentation pH
pH
6.5
D-1
6
D-2
5.5
D-3
C-1
5
B-1
A-1
A-2
4.5
4
3.5
3
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
t-tc(hrs)
All batches were ready to
wash at the same pH.
Conclusions from field study
The regular pattern of pH change during
fermentation may be useful for producers.
 The results provide the basis for a simple
method to control fermentation on the
farm by monitoring pH.
 Necessary to determine the relationship
between roasted coffee quality in the cup
and fermentation time (over
fermentation).

2006 controlled fermentation
experiments
Does a relationship exist between
fermentation pH at time of washing and
coffee quality?
On each of eleven days divided one
large batch of pulped coffee into six
small buckets for fermentation
 Each day: Fermentation stopped at
three different pH ranges
 “Cupped” the coffee to determine
quality

Controlled fermentation
experiments
Three pH ranges each day
Wash 2 buckets in each pH range:
 Range 1: pH = 4.5-4.8
 Range 2: pH = 4.1-4.4
 Range 3: pH = 4.0-3.6

pH
el tiempo
la fermentacion
Phdurante
during the
time ofdefermentation
6
5.5
1
pH
5
2
4.5
3
4
3.5
3
Time
Tiempo
pH monitoring and washing
Stephanie Kleven, testing in lab.
Stephanie Kleven and Roberto
Rivas, washing coffee.
Coffee Quality by Cupping
in Laboratories
Scores on 66 coffee
batches are in the
range 75- 88
 “Good coffee, but not
outstanding”
 Are there significant
changes with
systematic over
fermentation?

Sol Café Laboratory
Cupper with international
reputation
Cupping Results
Qualities:
Fragrance
and Aroma
Acidity
Flavor
Body
After-taste
Balance
Ranges: 90 – 100 (excellent); 80 – 89 (very good);
70 – 79 (commercial); 60 – 69 (poor); <60 (not acceptable)
Do the averages differ
significantly?
Change (12) Change (13)
Sol Café
Results
Paired
sample ttest
-1.1
(t=1.41;
p=0.10)
-1.5
(t=2.00;
p=0.04)
One-tail probability
Quality changes of individual
paired samples
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (one-tail):
Range 1  2 (p = 0.043)
Range 1  3 (p = 0.055)
Controlled fermentation
experiments: Conclusions
Does a relationship exist between
fermentation pH at time of washing and
coffee quality?
Weak relationship is observed: lower values
of pHterm (over-fermentation) correspond to
reduced coffee quality:
-1.5 point change in quality for pH change
of approximately -0.5 units.
 A more powerful study, with more replicates
would strengthen this conclusion.

S. Jackels, C. Jackels, C. Vallejos, S. Kleven, R. Rivas and S. Fraser-Dauphinee,
Proceedings of the 21st ASIC (Association Scientifique Internationale du Café)
Meeting 2006, pp. 434 – 442.
Transferring knowledge to
the coffee farmers…
Fermentation optimization by
coffee producers
Can producers themselves use pH
measurements to improve coffee
quality through “fermentation
optimization”?
100 kits for small farmers: pH paper, watch, instructions, materials
Workshops for Coffee
Producers
Treatment applied by
producers
Before: Measure pH at time of washing
coffee, making no change from usual
routine. Then submit a sample for drying,
roasting and cupping.
 Make changes in fermentation to optimize.
 After: Measure pH at time of washing an
optimized batch. Then submit a sample
for drying, roasting and cupping.

The producers’ changes in pH
and fermentation time were
correlated
Change in Fermentation Time (h)
Ferm Time
pH: Step
- Step –
A “Before”
Fermentation
Timevsversus
pH:C“After”
15.00
Producer Data
10.00
5.00
Spearman rank
correlation:
rho = -0.341, N = 69
0.00
-5.00
Inverse Correlation is
significant (P = 0.004)
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
Change in pH
1.00
2.00
Did the coffee quality improve?
Average Cup Scores
All Samples Included
Lab
Samples
Before
(SD)
After
(SD)
Change
(SD)
P test
Sol Café
71
81.1(4.2)
81.5(3.5)
0.43(3.8)
.17
Damaged Samples Removed
Lab
Samples
Before
(SD)
After
(SD)
Change
(SD)
P test
Sol Café
69
81.4(3.6)
81.8(3.1)
0.43(2.6)
.09
Was the fermentation optimized
by coffee producers?
Answer: Maybe
•Farmers successfully controlled
fermentation with kits
•No statistically significant change in
quality, however.
•Crop quality problem: Before-step was
mid-harvest at peak of quality, After-step
was end of harvest when quality
diminished.
S. Jackels and C. Jackels, Proceedings of the 21st ASIC (Association Scientifique
Internationale du Café) Meeting (Montpelier) 2006, pp. 434 – 442 (2006)
Cup scores by cooperative
Name of
Average
Average
Cooperative Score Before Score After
Las Nubes 83.1
83.0
P Value
Payacuca
81.4
81.9
0.13
San
Antonio
Siares
78.6
81.1
0.07
83.5
83.5
0.47
Pacayona
80.4
81.2
0.12
El Castillo
81.3
80.7
0.07
0.46
2012 harvest: all of these cooperatives were in the 82 – 83 range.
Social Analysis:
What did the coffee producers
learn from us?
•Increased awareness of the importance of quality
control and potential for improvement
•Increased involvement and interest of the children
•Higher morale and more hope for the future
2009 Engineering project to
build a coffee mill
M.D. Marsolek, J.T. Alcantara, P. Cummings, L. Quintero, M. Wynne, C. Vallejos, C.F. Jackels,
S.C. Jackels, International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, June 2012.
Acknowledgements to
International Scientific Teams

Faculty






Prof.
Prof.
Prof.
Prof.
Prof.
Susan Jackels, Seattle University (USA)
Charles Jackels, Univ. of Washington Bothell (USA)
Carlos Vallejos, Univ. of Central America Managua (Nicaragua)
Cipriano Lopez, Univ. of Central America Managua (Nicaragua)
Michael Marsolek, Seattle University (USA)
Students
 Seattle University: Stephanie Kleven, Jack Chacon, Joshua Alcantara, Patrick
Cummings, Luis Quintero, Michael Wynne, Angelica Omaiye, Zachary Kamine,
Kathleen Bacarro, Czarina Franco, Diana Heaney, Spencer Ubben, Stella Navia,
Jody Cook, Britt Mueller, Tam Pham, Ivon Octavia, Jessica Angginasah, Fera
Widjaja, Amy Sly, Kerina Powell
 University of British Columbia (Canada): Scott Fraser-Dauphinee
 University of Central America Managua (Nicaragua): Roberto Rivas, Diana
Zelaya, Gema Medina, Maria Auxiliadora Castillo, Ervin Garcia

Farmers and NGO’s
 Coffee farms and families of Matagalpa, Nicaragua
 CECOSEMAC and ADDAC Cooperatives and Caritas Matagalpa
 Catholic Relief Services/Nicaragua
Acknowledgements for
Support








US National Science
Foundation (CHE-0512867)
Engineers Without Borders
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Winds of Peace Foundation
MJ Murdock Charitable Trust
Seattle University
University of Central America
Managua
Catholic Relief
Services/Nicaragua
Questions