Why Do We Export Coffee Beans?

If you were sitting in a meeting, brainstorming on how to make a beverage out of a cherry, what ideas would come to mind?  Chances are you will draw on your past experience with apples, berries, cherries, oranges, plums and a variety of other fruit, leading you to propose squeezing the flesh (exo-, meso or endo-carp) to release the juice.  You wouldn’t immediately jump to removing and discarding the fruits’ flesh, collecting the seeds, drying them, tossing them into a pan, roasting them, grinding them, extracting the resulting brown powder with hot water and finally drinking the dark brown beverage.  Even if this idea were pitched in a meeting, it would be considered so bizarre you would require repeated insistence to get someone to write it up on the board, and even if it made it up there, it would be quickly rejected for other reasons.  Typically ideas that make processes more complicated, and thereby expensive, e.g. by converting a one step process into a six step process, or by literally throwing away what many would perceive as the most valuable component of the fruit, the flesh, are unlikely to receive funding in current innovation assessments.  Generally ideas that are perceived as throwing away money are not funded.  Nevertheless, this curious idea evolved into a lucrative multidimensional global industry; roasting, equipment, shops, academies, trading and even water. . . etc., responsible for the careers of millions of people, so it’s interesting to consider, how we came to be exporting the bean.

We know from La Roque’s writings of his trip to Moka in 1709 that all his shipmates preferred a beverage only consumed by the upper class in Yemen called, Café à la Sultane.  

'". . . there is something in it very palatable and delicious; adding, that there is no need to use Sugar, because it has no Bitterness to correct; but that, on the contrary, one is sensible of a moderate sweetness, which is very agreeable."

La Roque, 1732

Composed of the bruised (we will see shortly why I am using this term) and lightly roasted coffee cherry husks this beverage demonstrates that the flesh of the coffee fruit was initially valued over the beans within.  For those interested in the recipe as related by La Roque, the figure below contains the original passage in French (1716) (left), as well as an early English translation (1732) (right).  

The association of this beverage with social rank is especially significant as when early Europeans travelled abroad their survival relied on their diplomatic skill to be perceived as a foreign authority figure.  This is clearly conveyed in La Roque’s writing where on several occasions he relates how leveraging this skill was essential in trade and on more than one occasion saved his life.  Part and parcel of being perceived as an authority figure was through convincing others of the importance of the ruler you served[1],

“. . . our Emperor, the most powerful, and most magnificent, and the most shining with Glory of all Princes in the West, always full of Goodness, and Justice, had given Permission to his Subjects, of a Company honour’d with the Name of Royal, to come for the first time to open a Trade in the Kingdom of Yaman . . .”

La Roque, 1732

Therefore, unless there was a very good reason for buying a product perceived to be of inferior quality, denoting a lower social status, such a purchase may be perceived as disrespectful to your ruler, and through proxy the ruler of the kingdom with whom you are trading with.  It certainly could and may have bred suspicion regarding the quality of goods given to them by their foreign visitors.

La Roque’s (1732) writing suggests that several attempts were made at exporting the more precious commodity, coffee’s husk, in its fresh and dried form to Europe.  While it is almost certain that transporting fresh coffee husks failed miserably due to the product’s moisture content, which makes it vulnerable to spoil, there is some reservation that this was the case for the dehydrated form.  Dried cascara should have been more amenable to the journey, not to mention in replicating a respectable quality beverage[3] abroad.  Considering all attempts to transport coffee husks were discontinued, one is left with the impression that either the cargo spoilt repeatedly, never making it to its destination, or if it successfully arrived in Europe the resulting Café à la Sultane was so appalling[4] and unlike the desired outcome that it failed to justify making any further efforts.  This led Café à la Sultane to remain a regional Arabian beverage, with the use of fresh husks. 

There is some indication within the language used by La Roque (1716) that fresh husks were not only used due to locality, but may have been essential for generating Café à la Sultane’s distinct quality.  In La Roque’s (1716) original recipe he describes a step as, ”on la brise”.  In the English translation, provided above, the verb briser is interpreted and translated as “grinding”, but would be more accurately translated in future versions as “breaking” or “bruising” of the husks.  The French have separate verbs for grinding, including among others moudre, routinely used with respect to grinding dried spices and seeds, e.g. coffee.  As briser is unlikely to be used in the context of a dried product, and takes place before the roasting step, this strongly suggests that the husks used were fresh.  From a scientific perspective breaking the cellular structure would trigger intracellular enzymes, e.g. polyphenol oxidase, peroxidases and anthocyanases (Lara & Bolanos, 2015), giving the cascara a bruised appearance, agreeing with later translations.  As this step is conducted immediately before roasting, these enzymatic processes are very brief as roasting will likely denature the enzymes, rendering them inactive.  

If you are wondering what Café à la Sultane tastes like, it is likely[5] to be sweetly aromatic, like Oolong tea as they follow almost identical processes[6].  This is not only consistent with La Roque’s description of the beverage (in the excerpt above), but also the Dutch engineer Mr. Niebuhr’s who travelled through the region half a century later and would describe the beverage as, “tast[ing] like tea” (Niebuhr, 1792c).  While similar, Café à la Sultane and Oolong tea are likely to be distinguishable through the character of their aromatics.  Café à la Sultane likely having a more fruity character, whereas Oolong is famous for its delightfully delicate floral bouquet. 

Interestingly, Oolong tea is said to have been developed during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), overlapping with an increase of trade with the West, as well as with the introduction of coffee to Yemen, around 1450.  As Arabians have been familiar with China and its tea industry for several centuries, from around 850 A.D., prior to the first European coffee records, it is difficult to establish which came first, and whether the innovation of these beverages influenced one another in any way.  Nevertheless, it is a fascinating parallel and potential coincidence.

Descriptions of Café à la Sultane are only sporadically found in literature and when they are, they are often incomplete and referred to using different names, which makes it of no surprise that one is left speculating what was used to “break” the husks. 

Fortunately with the growing popularity of coffee in Europe, Niebuhr was spurred to take a coffee mill[8] with him on his travels through Yemen in 1779.  There he discovered a stark contrast in cup quality between coffee prepared by the European method versus that of the Yemenis’.  Upon comparing the protocols he found that they were almost identical, with one exception, the equipment used to grind the coffee.  While the Europeans used a grinder, the Yemenis used a mortar and pestle.  So impressed was he by the superior quality resulting from the Yemenis’ method, Niebuhr abandoned his grinder completely (1779a/c).  He goes on to speculate that the quality improvement found was due to the mortar and pestle crushing the coffee’s cellular structure improving the release of coffee oils.  Niebuhr’s casual association of coffee lipids with flavour, gives one the impression that this was common knowledge at the time.

Niebuhr’s theory, in conjunction with the use of, “pounding” or the French verb “piler” to describe the preparation of coffee and Café à la Sultane, implies further that the equivalent operation was being conducted, likely with the same piece of equipment.  This allows us not only to infer that Café à la Sultane was also prepared with a mortar and pestle, but that perhaps the original method used to prepare what we now recognize as Turkish coffee may have evolved out of the protocol for Café à la Sultane.

The adoption of coffee into the Arab culture is said to be in part due to their religious devotion.  Coffee’s stimulant properties, i.e. caffeine, supported those desiring to remain alert during prayers -  Muslims pray five times a day.  As drugs are “haram” or forbidden by the Muslim faith this has led to many debates surrounding coffee, but what about Café à la Sultane?  How much caffeine is in the brew compared to coffee?

According to the specifications for the import of coffee husks into the European Union, dried husks are allowed to have between 100-1000 mg caffeine for every 100g containing less than 17% moisture content[9].  Green beans contain between 0-2.5% caffeine, with similar moisture content, depending on the variety.  C. canephora generally containing around 2.2%, whereas C. arabica contains ~1.5%.  Therefore coffee obviously contains more caffeine than the husks, right?  No, because it depends on the recipe.  If we use La Roque’s recipe; 250g of coffee husks to 750 ml of water, than the caffeine concentration will be between 0.3 and 3.3 mg caffeine per gram of brew (assuming no water was absorbed by the husks).  If we compare this with a filter coffee using 19 grams of water per gram of coffee than a cup will contain between 0.4 and 2.6 mg caffeine per gram of brew[10].  Therefore the caffeine content of the beverages, and likely the stimulant effect will be similar.