History

Have you ever stopped to reflected how curious the process of washing coffee is? Sure, we know now that it improves consistency and can reduce defect prevalence, but who exactly looked at a pile of natural coffee and thought, “you know what they need? They need a bath.” What provoked this evolution in post-harvest processing?  What need in the industry was addressed?

While natural coffees are occasionally vilified in the specialty coffee community for being less sensorially refined and for their defect propensity, they could also very easily be lauded for their full bodied complexity, ecological benevolence and for being economically accessible to farmers.  Consequently, it is interesting to consider why an industry would increase production costs and complexity in this way. 

Literature on the origin of wet processing seems quite conflicted, with some authors claiming that it originates in the Americas (Pereira et al., 2017), while others credit Asia (Borém et al., 2014).  Statements that, “This process emerged when Arabica coffee began to be cultivated in tropical regions, such as Colombia, Central America and Hawaii” (Pereira et al., 2017), remain inaccurate as coffee can only be cultivated in tropical regions, i.e. the coffee belt. 

Digging into coffee archives reveals that wet processing was originally referred to as the West Indies Process (WIP) (Walsh, 1894).  Ironically while the West Indies are named after India, and India was an early coffee cultivator, the process does not originate from this region of the world.  Rather than any direct cultural inheritance between the two, Europeans labelled what we now recognize as the Caribbean as the West Indies during their attempt to find a western route to India. 

In the 1700’s, when Coffea arabica was initially cultivated in the Americas (Herrera, J.C. and Lambot, C., 2017; Anthony, F.y, Combes, M.C., Astorga, C., Bertrand, B., Graziosi, G. and Lashermes, P. , 2002), the Caribbean was a constellation of islands occupied by numerous European nationalities; Dutch, English, French, Portuguese and Spanish, so who invented the washed process? 

A French gentleman[1] from Normandy by the name of de Clieux is credited with bringing the first coffee plant[2] to the Caribbean, specifically Martinique, in 1723 (Gomez, 1894), which aligns with genetic studies (Herrera and Lambot, 2017; Anthony et al., 2002).  Shortly thereafter coffee cultivation spread to the other French colonies.  The first English language record of wet processing originates from the French colony Borgne in Saint Domingo (Laborie, 1789) modern day Haiti.  Producing over 50% of the world’s coffee in the 1700’s, Laborie (1789) recorded Haiti’s coffee practices for posterity, as well as to support the future development of coffee cultivation throughout British colonies.  Laborie (1789) mentions Jamaica repeatedly in his writing, giving one the impression that the island was positioned as an emerging coffee economy at the turn of the nineteenth century [3].  These presumptions are complemented by accounts relating to the founding fathers of Ceylon’s coffee industry, e.g. Robert Boyd Tytler, who spent multiple years being trained in Jamaica before being stationed in the East Indies in the 1830’s (Marquese, 2023).  Amongst Tytler’s career accomplishments, Rjawella Estate waterworks was accredited as his “brainchild” (Colin-Thome, 2023); and also recognised for disseminating West Indian practices in Ceylon (today Sri Lanka) (Marquese, 2023).  Wet processing was so widely adopted in Ceylon that when Sabonadière wrote the guide for Ceylon coffee-planters there was no mention of an alternative processing method (Sabonadière, 1870).  The chronology and the complementary nature of these events align seamlessly with wet processing being referred to as West Indies Process in Ceylon in 1894 (Walsh, 1894).  Washed coffee consequently was likely an innovation spurred by the introduction of coffee to the New World at the beginning of the 1700’s. 

Originating from Ethiopia as well as neighbouring countries where the average elevation is above 1000 m, C. arabica is native to cool tropical countries.  Washing coffee was likely an adaptation to cultivation in hot tropical countries, but not immediately as coffee was cultivated in Eastern countries for almost a hundred years before being introduced to western countries with similar climates. The high humidity and temperatures encouraged microbial growth, accelerating spoilage, rendering it challenging (not impossible) to dry coffees in their skin (pericarp, exocarp, mesocarp), while retaining quality. 

*bruised and/or soaked in water and left to ferment on platforms

While Laborie (1789) outlines the economic advantages, refer to above Table, for the “coffee planter” to adopt the practice, he does not outline why the town of Borgne implemented these changes, leaving this question outstanding and open to conjecture.   So let’s indulge in some speculation: 

Heinrich Koch, better known as Robert Koch, who discovered the germ theory of disease, was born in 1843, making it unlikely that the association between microbes and disease would have been made at the time wet processing was invented.  Nevertheless, if diseases were associated with evil spirits and washing or baptising the beans was associated with cleansing the beans of these negative influences, than a New World disease certainly could have been a driver of innovation. 

The discovery may have occurred by pure chance through someone’s curiosity.  One can easily imagine someone becoming impatient while waiting for the coffee to dry, deciding to remove the husk, only to find the mucilage layer.  Trying to remove the mucilage layer they attempted to wash the coffee only to end up annoyed at the materials stubbornness.  Finding themselves again impatient and frustrated they abandon their pursuits, leaving the beans in the water.  Having forgotten about the beans they returned a day, or days, later only to peer into the water to find the mucilage layer had degraded, magically cleaning the beans.  This may seem far-fetched, but many successful innovations originate from observations made in the aftermath of unsuccessful trials.

The Americas were amongst the last to cultivate coffee and consequently it seems odd that this process was invented almost immediately upon introducing coffee to the region.  What would explain the immediacy of the innovation is if a known process from a different product was being applied to the new commodity.  Coming from the Northern hemisphere I can certainly not claim to be familiar with the diversity of goods and processes in the region, nevertheless, the archives do reveal that these same regions produced cacao.  As cacao is indigenous to the Americas one can expect that there were pre-existing processing methods in the region at the time. 

Coincidently, Governor Melville of Grenada recounts that after Martinique's cocoa industry had been obliterated in 1727 it was replaced by coffee.  Making it evident that those experienced in processing cocoa transitioned into coffee production.

"All the lower classes of people in [Martinique] before this time cultivated the Cocoa ; but, by a contagion, as difficult to account for, as the effect of it was general, all the Cocoa-trees perished in 1727.  The inhabitants, half ruined, after having tried several schemes, resolved at last to plant Coffee ; and the French East India Company having lowered the duties, this cultivation was much encouraged."

 John Ellis (1774) 

Laborie’s (1789) never mentions that the practices employed in coffee processing were adaptations of those used for cacao; nevertheless, the vocabulary used conveys an undeniable intent and competence, yet is incongruent with the meaning, coming across as out of place.  The strange use of vocabulary melts away once you start interpreting the coffee process as paralleling that of cacao.  For example wet processing was seen as preventing fermentation, rather than introducing or manipulating it.  The etymology behind the word ferment originates from the formation of bubbles, yet it is used for coffee’s dry process where it is hard to imagine where the bubbles would be found.  The use of this term remains odd unless you associate fermentation with air exposure to the mucilage layer, like in cacao processing.  Wet processing was introduced to prevent fermentation by literally washing the coffee and dissolving the mucilage “gums” layer in the water, i.e. removing the layer responsible for fermentation in cacao.  We now know that wet processing introduces fermentation of anaerobes and facultative anaerobes, with those that produce pectolytic enzymes being considered essential for the process by gently degrading the mucilage layer.  Fermentation will be covered in a separate section. 

If we further entertain that practices within cacao processing were being applied to coffee manufacturing than this may also explain additional peculiarities in Laborie’s (1789) writings, including:

Nevertheless, without knowing the practices in both coffee and cacao throughout the world at the time we may never be able to verify the sequence of events, leaving these suppositions in the realm of conjecture.

Further evidence that culturally familiar practices were being applied in the coffee industry can be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911),  where the description of wet processing includes the phrase, “Slight fermentation and subsequent washings, accompanied by trampling with bare feet . . .”.  There are two things to note in this entry: 

Unfortunately, I have an active imagination and can imagine the French winemakers examining the coffee cherries and discussing how to turn them into a tasty wine.

Coffea arabica and Coffea liberica were known to the world at the time wet processing was introduced, Coffea canephora was not.  C. canephora would only be discovered in the 1890’s (where it may have been initially referred to as “The Bastard” variety (Gomez, 1894)), preventing its integration during the adoption of wet processing.  The washing process significantly improved C. arabica quality, suggesting that a similar introduction of the washed process to C. canephora may give similar results.  Nevertheless, washed C. canephora remains uncommon, causing one to reflect whether the late introduction of C. canephora’s into the world market influenced innovation around the refinement of its quality, instilling the industry with the perception that C. canephora is of poor quality.

This section will be expanded on in the future.

Specialty roasters are often considered artisans, drawing people with varying degrees of creativity towards the profession.  It is this creativity that the history behind coffee innovation speaks to. 

If washed coffee evolved out of the application of cacao processing, or a similar indigenous process, to coffee, than one could consider this innovation to be culturally inspired.  This not only teaches us to draw upon our own personal heritage for inspiration, but also to be more receptive of other cultures.  Assuming my supposition is correct, had there not been a pre-existing process present in the New World, or if the French had not been open minded enough to adopt an alternative process, washed coffee may have never come to pass[1].  Now washed coffee is arguably the most successful innovation within the coffee industry, with its own segment of the global commodity market – quite an accomplishment!

While the success of these processes are inspiring it is important to proceed with caution when becoming inspired or adopting practices from other cultures.  ‘Traditional knowledge’ is protected under the Convention of Biological Diversity, an international treaty signed by almost every country, and consequently such knowledge belongs to the country and culture it originates from.  Therefore, one can draw from one’s own cultural knowledge, but you cannot take ownership of foreign cultural knowledge without extensive negotiation.  Naturally there are a myriad arguments that need to be taken consideration, easily creating a legal grey zone, which some ignore as international laws are challenging to enforce across borders.  Nevertheless, it is important to understand that these laws were introduced so that the regions and cultures, i.e. the origin of the knowledge, also benefit from the innovation.  For instance if Haiti had intellectual property rights on wet processing, a patent, and licensed it out globally for 1% of the revenue, the economic evolution of the island may look considerably different than it currently does.