Green-Seeds.com
Fruits & Others

Technical Forum Flowers Veg. & Herbs Fruits Cultivation technical Publication Home

Coffee

Cultivars

The predominant cultivar (variety) grown in Kona today is Guatemalan, Coffea arabica var. typica. It was introduced in the early nineteenth century presumably from Guatemala. The so called Hawaiian cultivar introduced earlier has been replaced by the better yielding Guatemalan.

Kona coffee derives its quality both from the Guatemalan cultivar, which has grown for over 100 years in Kona, and from the unique growing conditions in Konathe climate, soil, and cultural practices. It is not known whether the same quality can be produced by Guatemalan or other cultivars grown elsewhere in the state.

There is no immediate danger to the industry in Kona due to its dependence on one cultivar. It is prudent to identify several replacement cultivars in the event that Guatemalan is threatened by a new pest or a change in cultural practice. Cultivars with equal or improved quality, higher and more stable yields, or concentrated ripening for mechanical harvesting would be very useful even in Kona.

Anticipating this situation, CTAHR has collected and tested other cultivars at the Kona Experiment Station in Kainaliu for over 25 years. There was some grower interest in the semidwarf cultivars, Red and Yellow Caturra (C. arabica var. Bourbon). They have high yield potential; however, DOA's coffee quality laboratory in Captain Cook found them to have a smaller bean size and less acceptable cup quality than Guatemalan, whose character is the standard in Kona. The USDA Clonal Germplasm program maintains a large collection of coffee cultivars for distribution in Miami, Florida, and in Puerto Rico.

The increasing price for Kona coffee renewed interest for the expansion of Hawaii's coffee industry both inside and outside Kona. Two farms in Kona were planted in former pasture lands with the assumption that mechanical harvesting would be used.

In the mid1980s land companies and new agribusiness ventures revived interest in the expansion of the coffee industry beyond Kona. These groups were interested in the new high yielding, semidwarf Catuai cultivars, hybrids of Caturra and Mundo Novo from Brazil. Several companies began importing these cultivars under quarantine for coffee production in areas formerly planted to sugarcane and pineapple.

Though it was not a high priority in CIA 2, CTAHR scientists proposed to these new coffee growers who were planning largescale (50 to 5000 acre) farms that a statewide cultivar experiment be started on their farms. This was a unique opportunity in the history of coffee in Hawaii. The objective was to determine how the yield and coffee quality of a wide range of cultivars responded to a wide range of climates, soils, and management practices. The experiment would provide information never before available in Hawaii. The results would be used in conjunction with CTAHR's Hawaii Natural Resources Inventory System, a computer database of climate and soil in Hawaii to predict cultivar response in virtually any location in the state. The cultivars to be included were Guatemalan, Catuai, and 19 other cultivars that had been under observation and had cupped well or yielded well at the Kona Experiment Station. This trial is known as the Hawaii State Coffee Trial (HSCT).

Cultivars in the Hawaii State Coffee Trial.

1	Blue Mountain	6433	From Jamaica
#	Name	HAES #	Comments
2	Bourbon, Pink
3	Bourbon, Red	6434
4	Bourbon, Yellow	6618
5	Robusta	6621	C. canephora
6	Caturra, Red
7	Caturra, Yellow	6620
8	Guadalupe	6436
9	Guatemala	6432	Standard in Kona
10	Margogipe
11	Kents	6550
12	Mundo Novo	6592	High yielding in Latin America, parent of Catuai
13	Pacas	6789
14	Preanger	6657
15	Pretoria	6443	Large bean
16	Progeny 502	6843	A single seed selection to similar Guatemalan collected in Central America
17	San Ramon	6444	Very dwarf
18	S.L. 28	6552	Rust resistant from S. Africa
19	K7	6549	Rust resistant from S. Africa
20	H66	6661	Good yield in Kenya, selected by G. Harrar
21	Catuai, Red Supplied by Coffees of Hawaii. This may be Baron Goto Red (BGR) grown at several sites.

Yield, adaptability, and cupping quality will be compared across sites. Project was funded under special legislation in 1988. Major problems facing success in this experiment are the shortage of labor in many areas to collect good harvest data and lack of genetic purity of the cultivars due to the crosspollination in the Kona Experiment Station collection. Though coffee is a self-pollinated crop and the cultivars are probably stable, the Kona planting is a small mixed planting and crosspollination occurred between cultivars, notably the Blue Mountain. Under some conditions in Brazil, 20% outcrossing has occurred (reference Carvalho, from R. Osgood, HSPA). Cultural practices and quality of plantings has varied across sites.

The first harvest season was 198990. Average yield as pounds per tree of trees planted in 1987 and spaced at 3' x 12' is below. Not all cultivars were at each location so yields may appear higher for some cultivars that were not planted at many sites.

Table is from HSCT Annual Report 1989-90 by H. C. Bittenbender.

Hawaii Island#	Location	Cooperator
1S. Kona	MacFarms2700'	unirrigated
2S. Kona	Farms of Kapua3200'	unirrigated
3Kainaliu	Kona Mountain Coffee2300'	irrigated
4Kealakekua	Greenwell Ranch1500'	3 cultivars
5Peck Rd	Mtn ViewAmfac1925'	unirrigated
6Pszyck,	Mtn ViewAmfac1650'	unirrigated
7Kukui Camp	KurtistownAmfac1350'	unirrigated
8Puna Mill Kauai	KeaauAmfac300'	unirrigated
9Eleele	McBryde Sugar (A&B)300'	irrigated
10Honomalu	Lihue Plantation, Amfac450'	unirrigated
11Maki	KapaaLihue Plantation, Amfac100'	irrigated
12Kekaha Lanai	Lihue Plantation, Amfac650'	irrigated
13maukaDole Maui
14Lahaina	Pioneer Sugar, Amfac950'
15Waikapu	Maui Molokai	Trop. Plantationsingle plants
16KualapuuJ Oahu	Coffees of Hawaii1000'	irrigated
17Maunawili	HSPAfew plants
18Kunia	HSPA & Amfacirrigated
19HSPA Kunia	SubstationHSPA irrigated

New cultivars strains of Mundo Novo, Catuai, ICATV Costa Rican 1, Acaya, and Riaru 2 are being introduced for production scale testing by Amfac. This may limit the value of the trial if these cultivars are not included in the HSCT.

HSPA is interested in developing a breeding program for coffee, with some emphasis on low caffeine content. Initial results to developing a rapid screening procedure to identify low caffeine seedlings by comparing the caffeine content of leaves and beans were not encouraging. However, because low caffeine cultivars were not available, the effectiveness of this process has not been tested. A noncaffeinated coffee relative, Mascocoffea bengalensis, is being grown in quarantine and for future testing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cultural Practice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The year-to-year variation in coffee yields and the number of harvests necessary to realize the potential yield are in response to factors such as rainfall patterns, size of previous crop, crop vigor and health, pruning, are fertilization and irrigation practices. We lack knowledge of how these factors can be integrated to reduce the yield variation, to control the amount of coffee produced, and to schedule the harvest period to better manage labor.

Preliminary results of research on irrigation methods to control flowering have been reported in several KCC annual meetings by Dr. Kent Kobayashi, Horticulture, CTAHR. Overhead and drip irrigation appear promising to control and concentrate flowering in the dry season in Kona.

Working at Kunia, Oahu, a hot, dry area with cool, moist winters, Drs. Carlos Crisosto and David Grantz have characterized the conditions necessary to force coffee flowering (Chapter 10, Other Crops, 1990, 99193 Aiea Heights Drive, Aiea, HI 96701). Just as coffee farmers around the world have known, coffee flowers best after a period of drought followed by rain. They developed a rating scale for coffee flower bud development. Only flower buds in the open white cluster stage, about 3/16 inch (>4 mm), will respond to drought followed by rain or irrigation and move to the next stage of development and then flower in eight to 10 days. This knowledge will be essential for developing cultural practices for Hawaii, both for Kona and areas with cool, moist winters.

In Kona, Ursula Schuch, working with Dr. Mike Nagao, Horticulture, CTAHR, found that flowers at the open white cluster stage don't need drought and rain to to flower (U. K. Schuch and L. H. Fuchigami, 1990, Gibberellic acid causes earlier flowering and synchronizes fruit ripening of coffee, Plant Growth Regulation 9:59-64). She could make these buds flower by treating them with a solution of 100 parts per million (1.25 oz in 100 gal) gibberellic acid (GA3). Gibberellin is a naturally occurring hormone in all plants. Furthermore, more of the fruits from the GAtreated buds ripened together instead of being spread over several weeks. The GA apparently satisfied a fruit dormancy that occurs after fruit set and spreads out the ripening period of fruits even if they flower on the same day.

Pruning practices have changed over time to save labor during harvest. In fact just prior to statehood, coffee yields per acre were 15,000 lb of cherry; today the average farm gets 4000 lb per acre. Today's Kona style pruning system removes verticals before they grow too tall and difficult to harvest, but yields on good farms are still high by world standards. However, a system developed for mechanical harvesting will be necessary as newly planted are as come into production. Bittenbender has a pruning experiment at Waimanalo, Oahu. His objective is to develop mechanical pruning methods for mechanical harvest.

Synchronizing or scheduling the ripening of the crop can help reduce harvest costs by reducing the number of harvest cycles. One way to approach this problem is to concentrate flowering and early fruit development by managing irrigation and perhaps the use of gibberellin. Another way is concentrating the final ripening of the cherry after the bean is mature. HSPA scientists Crisosto and Grantz used ethephon, a chemical the produces ethylene a hormone produced by all plants, to ripen turn red, and soften cherries. They reported that 50 to 100 ppm of ethephon applied at the onset of ripening concentrated ripening and reduced the force necessary to remove the ripe fruits. They reported that a greater percentage of fruit was ripe during the first harvest, and fewer green cherries were removed by mechanical harvesting, cupping quality was not affected, but bean size was reduced by ethephon. More research is required to register ethephon for coffee.

General information on cultural practices is paraphrased from Cultivation and harvesting of the coffee tree by H. W. Mitchell in Coffee: Vol. 4 Agronomy editors R. J. Clarke and R. Macrae, (1988) with comments on the Kona experience.

Environmental requirements

Coffee evolved in the cool, shady forests of Ethiopia under a single cool, dry season. The optimum temperature range for production is 59 to 76F (15-24C). Ideally rainfall should well distributed over a period of nine months with a single dry season of about three months coinciding with the harvest.

Where there is no such drought, coffee is liable to flower sporadically throughout the year, resulting in year round cropping.

Coffee grows on a wide range of parent materials from limestone, and sandstone to lava and volcanic ash to a'a lands (stony mucks) of Kona. Volcanic ash is the most productive owing to a high cation exchange capacity, open texture, and permeability. Coffee roots have high oxygen requirement, explaining why they do poorly on poorly drained and heavy clay soils. Nursery practices

Most commercially grown cultivars are selfpollinated and propagated from seed. Vegetative propagation is not used in Kona. Micropropagation may be used in the development and multiplication of successful new cultivars in Hawaii, however. Techniques are being developed that may permit production and nursery planting of artificial seeds from encapsulated somatic embryos cultured from leaf tissue (K. Redenbaugh. 1990. Application of artificial seed to tropical crops, HortScience 25:251-255).

Under well ventilated conditions, dried seeds, parchment not milled green beans, can still germinate after six months storage. Germinability can be extended up to 24 months if seed is stored at 41% moisture in airtight polyethylene bags at 59F (15C). Seed germinates in four weeks; after six to eight weeks it can be transplanted in bags if started in nursery bed. Germination can be accelerated by removing the parchment or pregerminating the seeds by keeping them moist until the root (radicle) breaks through the parchment or seed coat. Seeds are sown thickly and covered with less than a half inch (1 cm) of soil and thin mulch or vermiculite in the nursery bed or flat. Once seedlings are 1 inch tall (2 cm) with the cotyledons still in the parchment, they can be pulled from the nursery bed or flat without root damage.

Container-grown seedlings are faster and stronger, though more expensive unless automated, than bedgrown or volunteer seedlings for field transplanting. Small seedlings 8 to 10 inches (20-25 cm) tall can be produced in six to nine months; taller seedling will bear earlier in the orchard but take 12 to 14 months to produce. Black plastic bags, 10 x 5 inches in diameter (25 x 12 cm), are common. Rigid containers used for production of forest tree seedlings are easier to handle for mechanical transplanting. A free draining potting mix high in organic matter but not mulched and kept damp is best (no cycles of extreme drying out). Orchard preparation

Coffee was not shaded in Hawaii until orchards were abandoned or overplanted with macadamia and avocado when coffees prices fell in the 1960s and 1970s. Wind breaks are not used in Kona, but have proved necessary in the more windy areas of Molokai, Kauai, and Maui. New plantings are not shaded though generally planted in hedgerows to facilitate mechanical harvesting, to simplify weed control, fertilization, and irrigation, and to provide mutual wind protection. A single tree spacing of 8 x 8 feet, or 680 trees per acre (1680/ha), is typical in Kona. Beyond Kona new plantings will be spaced 10 to 12 x 3 feet, or 1210 to 1452 trees per acre (3025 to 3630/ ha). Some Kona growers have tried doublerow hedges for hand harvest. Research in Kenya and Costa Rica indicated that single row hedgerow with 980 trees for multiple stem pruning (Kona style) to 1690 trees per acre for rotational stumping by row (Beaumont Fukunaga pruning) had high yields. Planting

Hedgerow coffee can be planted in a trench that has been backfilled. Sites with heavy clay or hard pan that are likely to flood or drain poorly should be ripped with a subsoiler. Deep planting should be avoided because if the base of the stem is below ground and kept moist it is susceptible to the collar rot form of Fusarium bark disease. Grass mulch should be kept away from the stems of seedlings and young coffee. Pruning

The objectives of pruning are to keep the trees manageable for harvest and other cultural practices, remove old unproductive verticals and laterals, encourage new growth, maintain an open tree, and regulate the intensity of alternate bearing to minimize overbearing dieback.

Characteristics of the coffee tree affect its response to pruning. Two types of shoots, vertical (orthotropic) and lateral (plagiotropic), are produced. Verticals grow taller and produce new laterals and verticals, but verticals don't flower. Laterals grow longer and produce new laterals and flowers. When the tip of a vertical is cut off, more verticals are produced just below the cut; when a lateral is tipped, more secondary laterals are produced. More flower buds are produced under full sun than shade. Flower buds are produced on second year wood, but under conditions that are too warm flower buds are produced in first year wood, which easily leads to overbearing dieback.

In general, coffee has a biennial bearing habit, producing heavy and light crops every other year. During years with heavy crops there is little growth; the following year flowering is light and growth is greater. The growth is limited by insufficient starch (carbohydrate) production. Insufficient starch in the wood during harvest leads to overbearing dieback. Proper fertilization helps to insure sufficient starch.

Kona style pruning maintain multiple verticals of different ages to reduce dieback and alternate bearing. New verticals are brought up each year (allowed to remain after suckering trees in the spring and summer). Pruning is in the winter and spring to remove old unproductive verticals at the main trunk, which is 1824 inches high.

CTAHR horticulturists developed a different style of pruning, rotational stumping, today called the Fukunaga style in Latin America. They reported this in a out of print bulletin, J. H. Beaumont and E. T. Fukunaga. (1958). Factors affecting the growth and yield of coffee in Kona, Hawaii, HAES Bull. 113. In this early early description they talked about dehorning coffee trees to study the yield pattern of verticals. For hedgerow plantings, stumping the trees back to 18 to 24 inches every four to seven years is common. While stumping by blocks in the orchard makes for easiest management, in windy areas without adequate windbreaks stumping by rows (e.g., one row per year is stumped in this order: rows 1, 4, 2, 5, 3) may be useful. Don't stump during a drought; wait for a wet period if unirrigated. Cover crops and mulching

Experiments in East Africa indicate that cover crops generally reduce yield but mulching increases it. Mulches can be coffee pulp or parchment. Cover crops, probably grass, will be needed in mechanically harvested areas to minimize soil compaction and erosion. Irrigation

Critical periods for irrigation if rainfall is inadequate are at flowering to prevent flowers aborting, during cherry growth seven to 17 weeks after flowering to reduce fruit aborting and increase bean size, and during bean filling. Irrigation should not be applied during the dormant dry, cool season (this situation exists in Kona only) as it may cause outofseason flowering. Coffee's water requirement is 80% of net evaporation from open pan evaporation at ground level adjusted for percent ground cover.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current Status And Potential Of The Industry --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(July 1990) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Growers in Kona received $1 per pound during the 198990 season the highest average cherry price in history. Note: The events which led to the drop in cherry price during the 199-91 season occurred after the information presented here. This was equivalent to a farm-gate price for green bean of $5 per pound. The green bean price for Kona averaged $6.10 per pound at Hilo before shipping, with about 90% of the crop in high quality grades. World coffee prices sank to 60 cents per pound delivered at New York and San Francisco. The price for Kona coffee seemed insulated from commodity coffee prices.

Marketers of Kona coffee have an expanding market for gourmet (specialty) coffee. Today, affluent middle-class consumers in the United States, Japan, and Europe demand products that they perceive to have high value. Gourmet products range from bottled water to wine, from beer to blue jeans. Coffee is no exception. The market for specialty coffee started with the 1975 frost in Brazil, which caused prices for coffee sold in the institutional market to rise. Interest grew for better quality coffee that cost a little more than expensive commodity coffee. The specialty coffee market grew dramatically in the mid 1980s. More specialty coffee stores opened. Demand for Kona coffee increased; this caused cherry prices and crop values to increase.

The lure of profits increased the number of processors in Kona. In 1980 there were only four or five processors in Kona; today the estimate changes monthly and at last count was 25. Competition among processors increased cherry prices. Higher prices increased farm incomes. Gross sales for the average farm in Kona approached $20,000 per farm in 1990. At the beginning of the decade the value was $4000 per farm.

Grower response to rising prices and coffee farm income is more complex than the steady increase of processors. Kona has fewer coffee farms today than in 1981. If fewer growers are growing, then has farm size increased? Yes, farm size has increased from 2.6 acres harvested per farm in 1981 to fewer than 3.6 acres today.

Starting in 1983, old acreage was removed and new plantings started. The new acreage is now bearing. From 1988 onward, most of the increase in harvested acreage was from a few large farms in Kona and one very large plantation on Kauai.

The price of land plus cost and availability of labor restricts further expansion in Kona. Though cherry prices were the highest in the world, income from the average coffee farm was $19,500. That's not sufficient to support most families. The average family growing Kona coffee has more than one source of income. Husbands and wives also have wage jobs, pensions, or other businesses. In other words, they are multiple-income farm families. Time demands and profitability of the coffee farm must compete with the time demands and profitability of other income sources.

Growers in Kona are not responding to higher prices by increasing farm size. Expansion of acreage is beyond Kona. When prices increased growers did not respond by increasing yield per acre either.

In fact, the price and shortage of labor have decreased yields per acre in Kona since statehood. This situation may change dramatically in the 1990s. Interest in mechanical harvesting resumed in 1986 when two Kona growers contracted for development of overtherow harvesters. Previous interest in mechanical harvest faded in the mid1960s. Even more feasible, both economically and physically from the viewpoint of smaller farms was the beginning of importation of seasonal migrant farm labor to harvest coffee in 1989.

Today, Hawaii's fruit and to a lesser extent the ornamental and vegetable industries are developing and marketing high value or valuedadded products. Kona coffee, macadamia, guava, and papaya are successful examples; perhaps Sharwil avocado and cocoa for chocolate will be next. Hawaii has a positive image as an exotic tourist destination. It is our strongest advertising advantage.

The future of coffee in Hawaii is bigger than Kona alone. Kauai, Maui, Molokai, Oahu, and perhaps other areas on the Big Island are planting large coffee plantations. A total of 10,000 even 20,000, acres or more by the year 2000 in new coffee is possible. Coffee's record as an export crop in Hawaii is as old as sugar's; exports began in 1845.

Coffee has been a boom and bust crop, however. The largest and shortest boom was around 1898. The change in green bean production was barely noticeable, but note how much acreage was planted and then abandoned. The current coffee boom is tied to the contrasting profitability of sugar and specialty coffee. Dollar-a-pound cherry coffee is not necessary for profitable large-scale coffee. Major food companies such as Nestle and General Foods want to offer gourmet coffee products to their supermarket and institutional customers. Furthermore, the United States is still the world's largest importer of coffee.

Expansion of coffee will impact the Kona industry; however, the impact need not be negative. Coordinated promotion may help all coffee growers. Growers in the expanding part of Hawaii's coffee industry share several issues with Kona's growers. The industry has concern about the introduction of new pests and diseases. When new pests and diseases arrive, the Guatemalan must be replaced by new cultivars. Growers need more effective controls for old pests like weeds, green scale, and ants. Growers need research on fertilization, irrigation, pruning, and mechanical harvesting to make production more profitable. There is a shortage of scientists. Extension must transfer new technology to all growers as quickly as possible. The bottlenecks that follow identify areas that Hawaii's coffee industry must address to become the leading crop in the state. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Diseases --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no serious disease of coffee in Hawaii at this time. Other coffeegrowing regions throughout the world have serious disease problems such as coffee rust (Hemileia vastatrix) and coffee berry disease (Colletotrichum coffeanum) which require costly control measures.

State regulations require a permit to import green coffee for roasting; afterwards coffee bags or other containers must be destroyed. A permit and oneyear quarantine of seed or plants are required for importing seeds or plants for production. This quarantine are Hawaii's isolated location have prevented the introduction of diseases and pests. Instances of members of the general public acquiring imported green coffee sacks and containers have been reported. Moreover, rust spores are readily carried on clothing and hair and can remain viable for several weeks. People traveling from coffee areas anywhere in the world to Hawaii need to take precautions if they have been on a coffee farm or mill. Washing clothes (or better yet destroying them) and showering before leaving and immediately afterwards elsewhere before arriving in Hawaii is recommended. State agencies including the HVB are aware of this situation and industry concern. A video describing Hawaii's vulnerability to introduced pests and diseases is being produced. But more aggressive enforcement and stiffer penalties such as those employed by Australia must be weighed against an negative impact on Hawaii's visitor industry image. Expenditures by visitors in 1988 exceeded $7 billion.

No green coffee for roasting can be imported to the Big Island or Kauai. There is some grower support to close the state to all imports, in part to protect the emerging industry on Kauai, Maui, Molokai, and the new plantings at Waialua Sugar on Oahu, but also to encourage the use of Hawaiiangrown coffee in Kona blends (see N. Marketing).

Development of the industry beyond Kona has demanded new cultivars and seed in volume beyond the immediate capability of the Hawaii State Coffee Trial. The need for seed plus changes in quarantine management has resulted in modification of Hawaii quarantine. A private, commercialsize quarantine greenhouse was approved and developed on Kauai. Later a private, commercialsize quarantine greenhouse was approved and developed in California. These facilities and plants are inspected by DOAapproved inspectors.

This is a summary of diseases of coffee taken from an abstract of a paper by Susan Schenck (1990), Major Diseases of Coffee, Other Crops Report No. 4, Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Assn. 99193 Aiea Heights Drive, Aiea, HI 96701.

Brown eyespot, Cercospora coffeicola. This fungus is found worldwide in coffeegrowing areas. It is common but not economically important in Hawaii. Good growing conditions, adequate fertilization, and irrigation if necessary control it. Copper fungicides and benomyl sprays (not registered in Hawaii) are used in areas with serious outbreaks. Symptoms are small chlorotic (yellowish) leafspots (lesions) on leaves that expand to 3/16 to 5/8 inch (5 to 15 mm) in diameter. The outer portion of the leafspot become brown; the center becomes greywhite. Its eyelike appearance distinguishes it from other leafspot diseases. Lesions can occur on the cherries. The disease is favored by high humidity, rain, and warm temperatures. Exposed unshaded trees and nursery seedlings are most susceptible.

Damping off disease of seedlings occurs.
Several fungus diseases are common to vegetable, ornamental and coffee seedling nurseries. In coffee they are controlled by cultural practices, the most important is not to let the plants dry out.
American leafspot disease, Mycena citricolor. This fungus was found only once in Hawaii. It can be severe in Mexico, Central and South America. Symptoms are leafspots that are round to oval with clear margins without a halo. Yellow fruiting bodies develop from the spot. These are flathead pinshaped and 1/16 to 1/8 inch high. Infected leaves turn dark, and heavy leaf drop may occur. The disease is most severe in wet areas with heavy shade. Reducing shade and widening rows to increase airflow and drying helps to control this disease.
Coffee leaf rust, Hemileia vastatrix. This fungus is the most widespread serious coffee disease everywhere except Hawaii and Australia. Symptoms are yelloworange lesions under the leaves that may grow together. Tiny spores (seeds) produced by the lesions give a dusty appearance to leaves. Spores are spread by wind, rain, coffee bags, and clothing and hair of people in the area. Control is by copper fungicides. Kocide (copper hydroxide) is registered in Hawaii to control coffee rust. Breeding and selection of rustresistant cultivars are the best control, and selections have been imported by CTAHR. Others imported by HSPA or private companies may be in quarantine (see Cultivars). If this disease should reach Hawaii, prompt destruction of infected plants can stop the disease. Therefore, it's important to report symptoms to the DOA, your County Agent, CTAHR, or HSPA immediately.
Coffee berry disease, Colletotrichum coffeanum. The aggressive strain of this fungus is found only in Africa. Other less dangerous strains are widespread. Symptoms are brown sunken lesions on green cherries. Sporeproducing bodies appear as very small black dots in the lesions. The lesions grow, covering the green cherry and causing it to shrivel and blacken, destroying the bean. The dried shriveled cherries called mummies may drop or hang on the tree. Flowers can also be infected. The ability of the fungus to remain dormant for a long time in healthy plants and cherries makes detection and destruction of all infested plants impossible. Quarantine remains the best control.
Ceratocystis dieback, Ceratocystis fimbriata. This fungus attacks many plants in South America. It has not been reported in Hawaii. Symptoms are wilting and chlorotic leaves and eventually severe leaf drop. The disease kills the wood beneath the bark on main branches, even the stem, and spreads around a branch it girdles, producing the symptoms. In less severe cases removing bark and applying copper sulfate solution is beneficial. The fungus spreads through wounds and pruning cuts, particularly in cool wet areas. Infected plants should be removed and burned or buried outside the orchard. Quarantine is the best control.

An unidentified trunk disease characterized by collapse of the tissue beneath the bark on trees one to four years old is observed in warm areas with high rainfall.

Several harmful parasitic nematodes attack coffee. Root knot nematodes Meloidgyne exigua, M. africana, M. coffeicola, M. decalineata, and M. megadora are considered serious pests. M. javanica and M. incognita are found in Hawaii but have not been serious pests to date, however it is not known if the more serious root knot species have been introduced. A lesion nematode Pratylenchus coffee is a serious pest, we don't know if it has been introduced but a less serious species P. brachyurus is here. A burrowing nematode Radopholus similis which attacks coffee is here. A reniform nematode Rotylenchulus reniformis which attacks coffee is quite common. A root lesion nematode has been identified at low levels in new plantings on former sugar lands. The extent of damage from nematodes and the possible link with difficulty in replanting coffee of in older coffee orchards has not been determined. CTAHR plant breeder Dr. Phil Ito has established a nematode resistant rootstock trial at two sites in Kona. Guatemalan and a closely related selection Progeny 502 are grafted at the cotyledon stage to four different rootstocks, C. purpuree, C. congensis, C. deweveri, and Kaffe. CTAHR and HSPA nematologists will cooperate on surveys Grafted plants from the rootstock experiment were planted following kenaf, which is highly susceptible to root knot nematode, on Oahu by HSPA

. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fertilization --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coffee requires nutrients to grow and produce a crop. Based on Kona's average coffee yield per acre in 198990 of 4000 lb of cherry, the average crop would remove 25 lb nitrogen (N), 5 lb phosphorus (P) as P2O5, and 27 lb potassium (K) as K2O. These same trees absorbed about 100 lb of N, 24 lb of P, and 80 lb K to produce that much cherry. Most growers have higher yields than this and hence will remove even more nutrients per acre.

Several complete fertilizers have been formulated for coffee on the soils in Kona. Coffee Cherry has been the traditional mix for many years. It is 10:5:20, or 10% N, 5% P2O5, and 20% K2O. Other complete fertilizers also sold for Kona are Coffee Super (14:7:28) and plus versions. These contain different combinations of zinc (Zn), magnesium (Mg), and iron (Fe). Coffee grown in other parts of the state, particularly the weathered mineral soils previously in sugarcane, will require different programs not only to suit the soils but if irrigation and fertigation are used. Soils with less than 20 ppm P are low; <10 is deficient. Deficiency level for potassium is 0.4 meq % K, for magnesium 0.8 meq % Mg, and for calcium 1.6% meq Ca. Dr. Lee Ingamells is studying the response of these soils and coffee to high levels of Ca and K fertilization. Foliar sprays are effective with micronutrients that are required in only small amounts, but growers should seriously question the economics of applying N and K as so much is required unless sprays are very frequent.
The following fertilization recommendation for coffee grown in Kona is revised from CTAHR's All about Coffee Series No. 2, 1961 Coffee Fertilizer Guide for Typical Mature Orchards in Kona. The recommendation is made in pounds of fertilizer* per acre per month and assumes the grower is seeking a yield of 10,000 pounds of cherry or more per acre. CTAHR scientists are analyzing on farm research to determine if a modification is needed.

Key to fertilizers mentioned below:

*CC is 10520 fertilizer, also sold as CoffeeCherry
CS is 14728, also sold as called Coffee Super.
** Ap is ammonium phosphate;
As is ammonium sulfate. Suggested application rates by month:

Farms above 1400 ft

Annual minimum amount is:
270 lb N
100 lb P as P2O5
400 lb K as K2O

Jan- 0
Feb- 1000 lb CC* or 600 lb CS
Mar- 0
Apr- 500 lb CC or 300 lb CS
May- 0
Jun- 500 lb CC or 300 lb CS
Jul 0
Aug- 200 lb Ap** or As or 100 lb urea
Sep- 0
Oct thru Dec- 300 lb Ap or As or 150 lb urea some time during this period. Farms below 1400 ft

Annual minimum amount is:
300 lb N
100 lb P as P2O5
400 lb K as K2O

Jan- 0
Feb- 1000 lb CC or 600 lb CS
Mar- 0
Apr- 500 lb CC or 300 lb CS
May- 0
Jun- 300 lb Ap or As150 lb urea
Jul- 0
Aug- 300 lb Ap or As 150 lb urea
Sep- 0
Oct- 0
Nov- 0
Dec- 500 lb CC or 300 lb CS

*CC is 10520 fertilizer, sometimes called Coffee Cherry; CS is a 14728 fertilizer, sometimes called Coffee Super.
** Ap is ammonium phosphate; As is ammonium sulfate.

Optimum fertilization recommendations have not been developed for highly weathered soils formerly in sugar and pineapple, particularly on Kauai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. A fertilization experiment is underway involving HSPA and CTAHR scientists investigating effects of increasing soil levels of Ca, K, and Mg on tissue levels of these nutrients. The cultivars, Guatemalan and Caturra, at several Hawaii State Coffee Trial sites are involved. Information from this research is essential to develop fertilization recommendations as detailed as the one above.

CTAHR soil scientists Drs. Hue, Yost, and Bittenbender are initiating a project investigating nutrient ratios in tissue (leaves) and soil and the cherry yields using a process called DRIS. If successful more accurate fertilization recommendations from soil and leaf analysis should be possible. This research is funded by a USDA section 406 grant for coffee, macadamia, and guava.

Fertilizer is generally spread just beneath the drip line of the leaves, not close to the trunk. However banding the fertilizer in a line below the drip line is satisfactory if trees are closely spaced or a spreader is used to reduce labor.

Tissue analysis of the nutrients in coffee leaves is recommended to determine if changes are needed in the fertilization program. Its important to collect the leaves from only certain parts of the tree and at certain times during the season. Choose verticals that will have their first harvest this year. Choose laterals on these verticals that are 8th to 12th below the top of the vertical. Pick recently matured leaves (3rd to 5th pair) from the end of laterals. Take leaf samples after flowering but before the cherries ripen. Take a one to two leaves from 20 average trees per acre. If the farm is large and uniform, 20 leaves from five acres is sufficient. If there are parts the orchard where trees are doing poorly, collect at least two samples, one from the normal and one from the poor area.

The following table was based on on farm research by CTAHR horticulturist Dr Nagao in Kona. It lists leaf nutrient levels for well grown, above average yielding coffee in Kona, and coffee deficient in specific nutrients.

Nutrient Concentration (% of leaf dry weight)
Adequate Deficient
Nitrogen (N) 2.63.0 1.461.92
Potassium (K) 1.92.5 0.361.07
Phosphorus (P) 0.14 0.17 0.050.08
Calcium (Ca) 0.81.5 0.360.55
Magnesium (Mg) 0.300.32 0.040.11
Sulfur (S) 0.150.22 0.040.05
Micro nutrients are listed in ppm- parts per million
Iron (Fe) 4361 ppm 125
Boron (B) 3152 9
Zinc (Zn) 1825 1015
Manganese (Mn) 204 < 25

Another way to identify nutrient problems, particularly if the problem is severe and involves only one nutrient, is by looking for deficiency symptoms. The following is a key or method to identify nutrient deficiency symptoms of coffee. It is reproduced from a 1986 CTAHR publication, Research Extension Series 073, Mineral Deficiency Symptoms of Coffee, by Mike Nagao, Kent D. Kobayashi, and George M. Yasuda. After symptoms are described, the deficient nutrient is given in CAPS.

Problem seen on older leaves or generally on the entire plant.

A. Uniform chlorosis or light interveinal chlorosis.

1. Lower leaves exhibiting slight chlorosis, young leaves remaining darker green; faint interveinal chlorosis of older leaves at advanced stages; small necrotic spots may be present. PHOSPHORUS B. Localized necrosis or interveinal chlorosis evident on older leaves.

1. Marginal chlorosis followed by development of dark brown necrotic spots on the margins; necrotic areas coalescing until entire margins are dark brown while the areas along the midrib remain green. POTASSIUM

2. Faint marginal chlorosis with sunken, yellowbrown to light brown necrotic spots developing in a wide band along margins; interveinal chlorosis evident in affected leaves, particularly along the midrib. MAGNESIUM Problem seen on younger leaves near shoot tips.

A. Uniform chlorosis to faint interveinal chlorosis; plants with sparse vegetative growth.

1. Leaves rapidly becoming pale green; emerging leaves uniformly pale green with a dull green sheen. Entire plant becoming pale green, with sparse vegetative growth; leaves becoming yellowgreen at advanced stages; whitish veins may be present in lower leaves. NITROGEN

2. Leaves light green to yellowgreen, with faint interveinal chlorosis; deficient leaves retaining shiny luster. SULFUR B. Sharp interveinal chlorosis of youngest leaves; older leaves unaffected.

1. Leaves expanding normally, with vein network remaining green and clearly visible against the light green to yellowgreen background; background becoming nearly creamy white at acute stages. IRON

2. Leaves not expanding normally; narrow, often strap shaped; veins visible against a yellowgreen background; failure of internode to elongate properly, giving plants a rosette appearance. ZINC C. Bronzing, mottling, or necrosis of youngest leaves; dieback of terminal buds.

1. Leaves bronzed along margins, cupped downward; emerging leaves necrotic; eventual dieback of terminal buds. CALCIUM

2. Youngest leaves light green, mottled, with uneven margins and asymmetric shape; emerging leaves with necrotic spots or tips. BORON
Organic matter should be returned to the orchard whenever possible. Coffee pulp and parchment can be used composted or fresh depending upon which is easier to handle.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harvesting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The DOA/Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service (HASS) estimated yield for the 198990 season at 2,200,000 lb of parchment (1,800,000 lb green coffee, or 11 million lb cherry); average yield per acre was 5000 lb cherry.

Hand harvesting requires as much as three quarters of the labor in coffee production. The labor situation has been getting worse. Recent small harvests have prevented a disaster, but a large harvest is expected in 1990-91. Shortage of labor for harvesting a large crop could put a tremendous strain on the current labor market (see Labor), resulting in very high labor costs, reducing returns to growers (one grower report total labor cost for harvesting was $0.66/lb of cherry), or worse, preventing the harvest before a loss in quality.

Solutions to the problem vary. Two new large growers in Kona contracted with equipment manufacturers in 1987 to develop mechanical harvesters. A processor and farm management company in Kona hired over 20 Mexican migrant farm laborers from California in the 198990 season to pick. The labor agreement covering transport and lodging plus an hourly wage cost about $7/hr. If labor is unavailable other growers respond by reducing the size of the farm harvested.

CTAHR research on mechanical harvesting in the late 1960s using handheld shakers was never accepted by farmers, due to technical and economic problems. This and other research on coffee was abandoned in the early 1970s when the industry almost disappeared for economic reasons. Several growers in Kona have reexamined the handheld shakers, but their success is not known. A problem with handheld shaking in Kona has been catching the cherries. The uneven orchard floor is not suitable for wheeled catching frames.

In 199091 there will be three or more different overtherow harvesters working on the Big Island and Kauai. These are privately financed and based engineering designs for harvesting blueberry and raspberry bushes and adapted for coffee. This is a unique opportunity for comparing different designs to rapidly advance development. There has been good cooperation between growers who own machines in Kona and new growers beyond Kona.

Major problems facing the economic feasibility of mechanical harvesting of coffee in Hawaii are removing only ripe cherries, not green and raisins (dried or rotten overripe cherries); preventing tree and orchard floor damage by minimizing harvest rounds; operating on sloping contours; and separating green and raisin cherries from ripe cherries.

Development of a technology to uniformly ripen the crop on a given tree would reduce the harvesting costs. HSPA has resumed research on ethephon to ripen coffee (cherry turns red and force needed to remove the cherry is reduced) and minimize removal of green cherries during mechanical harvesting. Both HSPA and CTAHR have projects to control flowering either by irrigation or growth regulators. See also Cultural Practice.

Separating green and raisin cherries, which reduce the quality good quality ripe cherry, can be done in several ways. Raisins can be floated. Furthermore, raisins produced in dry conditions may not show the same degree of quality loss as raisins that produce the black beans in Kona's rainy summer and early harvest season. Commercial separators called classifiers can be purchased in Latin America; these mechanically remove the hard green cherries from the softer ripe cherries before pulping. This permits separate processing of the green for caffeine or other byproducts. Optical sorting machines are also commercially available to sort poor quality green beans at very high speed.

If over the row harvesting is shown to be feasible, the cost savings in harvest labor may be so great as to permit growers in Kona to remove old orchards, shape and replant, and begin harvesting in four years. Landshaping costs are $1000 to $2000 per acre. Custom mechanical harvesting or a mechanical harvesting cooperative would be feasible, particularly if harvester manufacturers lease instead of selling machines. ----------------------------------

---------------------------------------------- Information System --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information needs and forms of delivery are quite variable depending on the age, acreage and economic status of the farmer. Profiles of Kona coffee farmers range from elderly farm families to recently retired, economically secure but new farm families, from younger farmers earning the majority of their income to those earning only a portion of their family incomes from coffee; some are new to Kona while others grew up farming coffee.

Several new growers on other islands are corporate farms; some are HSPA members and have access to HSPA research and extension personnel; others are not members. These farms are managed by paid agricultural professionals. Development of a coffee research capability by HSPA will result in new knowledge. HSPA and corporate coffee scientists are invited members of the CTAHR multidisciplinary coffee group. Several collaborative projects are in progress. Formerly knowledge generated by HSPA was the exclusive property of its members. HSPA will receive over $74,000 for 199091 for coffee research from the GACC under Sugar Industry Analysis No. 5. Mechanisms are needed to share research results with non-HSPA coffee growers and CTAHR scientists on a timelyand automatic basis.

One extension agent was assigned to fruit, nut, and ornamental crops from South Point to Kohala. Individual grower assistance was limited. A new agent will be hired in 1990 to handle only fruit and nut crops in Kona and Kohala districts.

Two extension specialists are assigned statewide to fruit and nut crops. One is assigned coffee, macadamia, cacao, guava, and avocado, thus limiting his ability to assist the industry. He needs a technician to assist in writing industry analyses and applied research.

The return of coffee to other islands involves new responsibility for other extension agents. Four other agents, some with vegetable and ornamental responsibilities, will be involved. To date only Maui has seen significant interest from small growers. Most growers in Kona and small growers elsewhere can be characterized as multipleincome farm families (MIFFs). One or more adults in the family have a wage job, and the farm provides an opportunity for land for a home, different lifestyle, tax benefits, and extra income. MIFFs are the majority growers of fruit and nut crops; they are not necessarily responsible for the majority of crop sales for all fruit crops nor does farming bring in the majority of their income. The production strategies of MIFFs are quite variable. Standard economic analysis is frequently inappropriate to understand production strategies; this limits the effectiveness of extension efforts.

The combined effect of extension bulletins on coffee production being out of print, the resumption of coffee research in 1985 after a 20year hiatus, and the large numbers of new coffee farmers in Kona had been a lack of uptodate production information relevant to the current situation in Kona. Bittenbender slightly revised five coffee extension bulletins (numbers 354-359), which Norm Bezona had revised previously. Mineral Deficiency Symptoms of Coffee by Mike Nagao, Kent D. Kobayashi, and George M. Yasuda, was published in 1986 as CTAHR Research Series 073. Chemical Weed Control in Coffee by Drs. Chia and Nishimoto, was published in 1987 as HITAHR Brief 061. HSPA publishes its research in its annual report, technical notes and at the Sugar Technology annual meetings. Scientists from both institutions are beginning to have papers published in the technical science journals as well. CTAHR, HSPA, and industry scientists meet once or twice a year to update one another on research activities in coffee.
The increasing need for updating information led Horticulture Department scientists to make two significant changes in its technology transfer system. This industry analysis narrative is much more comprehensive than previous coffee analyses. It will be published as a comprehensive bulletin and automatically revised at the next industry analysis. Second, the same information was available shortly after the conclusion of the analysis and several months before the bulletin on the Web-based information system, the Farmer's Bookshelf.

HITAHR Brief No. 075 discusses the principles behind the Farmer's Bookshelf.
Coconut Telegraph, CTAHR's computer bulletin board system (phone 956-2626), is operated by Dr. Scott Campbell (956-6971) of the Agronomy and Soil Science Department. This system is accessible by anyone with a computer and modem. Users can copy computer files and open them on their own computers. Currently, Industry Analysis materials on coffee, guava, and macadamia as well as the macadamia book from Farmer's Bookshelf are on it. In the future, bulletins and other timely materials can be placed on it.

Computer equipment at the Kona district, Coconut Telegraph, CTAHR's computer bulletin board system (phone 956-2626), is operated by Dr. Scott Campbell (956-6971) of the Agronomy and Soil Science Department. This system is accessible by anyone with a computer and modem. Users can copy computer files and open them on their own computers. Currently, Industry Analysis materials on coffee, guava, and macadamia as well as the macadamia book from Farmer's Bookshelf are on it. In the future, bulletins and other timely materials can be placed on it.

CTAHR has developed video editing capability. A preliminary video on innovative coffee production was made in 1988. A second video on fertilizing coffee was funded by GACC in early 1990; production began in summer 1990.

Because so much new research is being done on coffee and other horticultural crops, including macadamia, guava, papaya, banana, avocado, and soon cacao, not to mention ornamental and vegetable crops, there is a need for a statewide horticulture society. At its annual meeting CTAHR, HSPA, and industry scientists could present new research. Technically advanced horticulturists including agents, private consultants, farm managers, state officials, interested growers, and the public could hear at one meeting all the new information. This and a proceedings of the annual meeting would help disseminate new information quickly. Having separate annual commodity meetings for (HMNA, Hawaii Sugar Technologists, KCC, HAA, HPIA, HBGA, etc.) scientists to present technical information is boring for many growers yet essential but very expensive to attend for agents and other CTAHR and industry scientists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Labor --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Labor costs per acre for coffee farms in Kona range from 60 to 90% of operating cost if hired labor is used but much less if unpaid family labor is utilized. The largest labor component is harvesting.

Lack of labor for harvest is a major obstacle preventing expansion, even survival, of the coffee industry in Kona for several reasons. The visitor industry pays better wages on a yearround basis than coffee. Farm family labor is limited because many farmers are elderly and their children have left home. Schools have no provision for releasing children in Kona to harvest coffee as in the past.

Labor requirements per acre are very seasonal. The peak period for labor, the harvest, can occur during September through January depending on altitude and year. Requirements range from one person per acre early and late in the season up to three or four persons per acre during a four to six week segment of the harvest period.

Hired laborers are frequently accompanied by their children. This arrangement saves child care costs and the children may assist in the harvest; however, under current labor laws this practice is discouraged.

Fringe benefits, workers' compensation and temporary disability insurance increase costs, forcing some farmers to avoid this cost by paying cash.

Solutions to the problem vary. Growers are trying three different strategies. These are mechanical harvesting, importing migrant labor, and reducing farm size. Two new large growers in Kona contracted with equipment manufacturers in 1987 to develop mechanical harvesters. A processor and farm management company in Kona hired over 20 Mexican migrant farm labors from California in the 198990 season. The labor agreement covering transport and lodging plus an hourly wage cost about $7.70/hr. Other growers respond if labor is unavailable by reducing the size of tree and farm harvested (see yields per acre graph in section J). The DOA believes it important to maintain family size operations of two to five acres, depending on the size of the family and how many acres the family can harvest comfortably.

The major dilemma facing the use of migrant labor in Kona, whether from the mainland, foreign, or even weekly commuters from East Hawaii, is lack of housing. Zoning laws may need to be modified to accommodate economical migrant labor housing needs. Social ramifications of labor camps in Kona are not known.

All corporate farms beyond Kona plan to use mechanical harvesters and other laborsaving equipment. As yet no farm has developed a completely satisfactory set of cultural practices for mechanized coffee production. If these farms cannot mechanize sufficiently, coffee will not be grown.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 19th and early 20th century coffee was grown throughout the state. Kona on the Big Island of Hawaii has always been known for the quality and high yields of its coffee. The GACC (Governor's Agriculture Coordinating Committee) is assisting member companies of the HSPA (Hawaii an Sugar Planters' Association) seeking to diversify their agricultural enterprises. Interest has focused recently on growing coffee in other regions where sugar plantations are less profitable. Which specific areas have the greatest probability for good coffee yields and quality is unknown. The Hawaii State Coffee Trial, a statewide coffee cultivar (variety) experiment coupled with HNRIS (the Hawaii Natural Resource Inventory System), a meteorological and soil inventory database of the state may identify those areas with greater promise.

In early 1990 acreage planted to coffee on Kauai (McBryde Sugar, A&B) was about 1000 acres. Coffee nurseries were established in California for Maui by Pioneer Sugar (Amfac, JMB Hawaii), on Molokai by Coffees of Hawaii, on Oahu by Waialua Sugar (Castle and Cooke), and on the Big Island by Kau Agronomics (C. Brewer). The purchase of Superior Coffee and Foods, the largest roaster of Kona coffee and producer of Kona blends, by C. Brewer & Co. Ltd. suggests sizable acreage in Kau district just south and east of Kona. Acreage planned (planted or in nurseries) for the next three years is:
Kauai +5000 acres
Kau, Big Island ?
Maui +700 acres
Molokai +700 acres
Oahu ?

Nevertheless, because of the vagaries of the market and as yet unperfected technology, total acreage beyond Kona by the year 2000 is impossible to predict. It could range from zero to over 10,000 acres; the biggest coffee boom went from 14,000 to 6000 acres in two years.

Coffee on the Big Island is grown currently in a unique region in Kona. The socalled Kona coffee belt is approximately 2 miles wide from 700 to 2,000 feet in elevation, and 20 miles long. Within this area more than 6000 acres are suitable for coffee production. A rough estimate of coffee acreage in Kona in early 1990 was 2300 acres. Farm size averaged 3.6 acres.

Most coffee in Kona is on leased land. New leases are for less than 20 years and do not guarantee a renewal even if the land has been profitably farmed. The demand for land for residential or resort development has increased the uncertainty of the future of leaseheld coffee orchards. This serves as a disincentive for capital investment in these farms.

Discussions between the major landlord in Kona, Bishop Estate, and several agricultural groups has continued. Some growers view landlords of small parcels to be more difficult regarding lease renewal than Bishop Estate.

There is some support for creation of an agricultural park in mauka Kona to protect coffee and macadamia lands. H.C.R. No. 12, H.D. 1, and S.C.R. No. 35, S.D. 1, of the 1990 Legislature call on the DLNR to discuss and enter into a land exchange with Bishop Estate for this agricultural park.

A new land classification system was proposed by the Hawaii Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Commission. The LESA (Land Evaluation and Site Assessment) system if accepted might designate as much as 6,000 acres in Kona as unique and important agricultural lands for coffee. Such a designation might reduce speculation on land for development purposes and stabilize the fee and lease prices for this area of Kona. The LESA bill failed to pass in the 1990 Legislature.

Leaseholders are the main supporters for LESA. Many landowners in Kona and elsewhere do not support LESA which would limit the landowners' options on land use

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Laws and Standard --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The high price paid for Kona coffee has led to the development of coffee products for sale both inside and outside Hawaii called Kona blends which are not pure Kona coffee and may, in fact, contain no or very little Kona coffee, and Kona style, which is counterfeit.

Hawaii Administrative Rules, Standards for Coffee 4431 to 9, was established in 1986 by DOA in cooperation with the KCC for cherry, parchment, and grades of green coffee separate by for Hawaiian and Kona grown coffees. It defines Kona coffee as coffee grown in North and South Kona districts.

Preliminary analysis of new cultivars in the Hawaii State Coffee Trial and unpublished data on the use of ethephon (Ethrel) to ripen coffee for easier mechanical harvesting found that bean size (diameter) will be smaller than Kona grown Guatemalan. By current Hawaii standards, coffee is graded on bean size and percentage of defects. Without consideration of defects, grades are:

Kona/ Hawaii GradeScreen size (round hole, in 64ths inches)
Extra Fancy>19
Fancy>18
No. 1>16
Hawaii Prime<16

The smaller bean means lower grade coffee, which generally means a lower price. Current standards will reduce the price received by growers with smallbean cultivars or those who change cultural practices. Standards should be modified to reflect smaller beans from new cultivars or cultural practices.

Standards for coffee products including blends still await a cooperative effort between industry and the DOA. Blending legislation was vetoed in 1986 for lack of approval by the industry.

Organically produced agricultural products are sold nationwide. Several growers in Kona have expressed an interest in producing organically grown coffee, fruits, and vegetables. Hawaii does not have laws defining organically produced food products. A bill before the U.S. Senate (S2108) proposes to establish Federal standards to accredit state programs. This legislation is being prepared for the 1990 Federal Farm Bill.
Federal laws and regulations for registering pesticides are more stringent today than four years ago. This adds to the expense and time necessary to register or reregister agricultural chemicals. Public concern about chemicals is both justified and unjustified in some cases. The Hawaii Agricultural Alliance formed in 1988 to help Hawaii's agricultural industries educate the public on the truths and untruths about agriculture. The Hawaii Farm Bureau organized Third Party Inc. to accept liability for special local needs registrations to enable registration and use of new and old pesticides by Hawaii's growers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marketing of Kona coffee changed dramatically in the 1980s. To the relatively uncompetitive roasted coffee market dominated by the Superior Coffee and Foods Co. Hawaii operation (purchased by C. Brewer in 1990) was added Lion Coffee and Hill & Hill (purchased in 1987 by a joint venture of Japanese firmsMisuzu Coffee, Sumida Corp., and Mitsubishi Corp.). Japan's major roaster of Jamaican Blue Mountain, Ueshima Coffee Co., expanded its Hawaii operations to include production, advice, and processing in Kona in 1988. Cherry and parchment processing, once dominated by Kona Farmers' and Pacific Coffee Cooperatives, has grown more competitive. Over a dozen new processors and/or roasters in Kona have started in addition to Kona Kai Farms, Captain Cook Coffee Co., United Coffee Co., and Bong Brothers Coffee Co., which were in existence in 1986 during the previous coffee industry analysis.

Whereas Superior formerly sold only roasted Kona or Kona blend in Hawaii and on the mainland, these new processors sell green and roasted coffee to mainland specialty coffee roasters, wholesalers, and retailers, and sell roasted coffee to consumers, visitors, and institutions in Hawaii.

A marketing study, Markets and Marketing Issues of the Kona Coffee Industry by Drs. Stuart Nakamoto and John Halloran (1989) Information Text Series 034, was conducted and published by CTAHR under DOA contract for $40,000, funded by special legislation. Its objectives were to:

Identify current and potential markets for Kona coffee.

Identify constraints to achieving market potential.

Identify possible strategies and activities to penetrate or develop and maintain markets.

The study was presented to KCC in September 1989. Copies are available from KCC and DOA, Marketing Division.
Brief findings from the study were:

The Kona coffee market is far from being a single, uniform market.

Several market segments can be identified based on product form, distribution, and final consumer. These are institutions (hotels and restaurants), local residents (supermarkets and specialty shops), tourists (U.S. vs. Japan) and exports (outofstate sales including mail order).

Universal concerns for the industry should be product quality, reputation, and image. The biggest external threat is Kona style or counterfeit coffee.

Fluctuating prices resulting from fluctuating production have a negative influence on the priceforvalue perceptions of roasters and are a major cause of instability in the market.

There is inadequate evidence to prove that Kona blends help or hurt growers; therefore, it could not support or refute minimumcontent legislation for Kona blends.

Study recommendations:

Certification program. Individual market segments and overall Kona industry will be best served by a certification program for pure Kona coffee. A voluntary program would put the burden of proof on nonparticipants.

Inventory/stock control. This would stabilize supply and price during the year.

Promotion and advertising tied to certification program and more effort on activities in Kona.

Recommendations are best implemented by a strong industrywide organization such as the Kona Coffee Council.

The DOA believes that orderly, cooperative marketing with a certification program is the top priority. KCC or a similar strong central organization supported by the industry to enforce the Kona coffee certification program to maintain quality and Kona brand control must be reactivated.

Currently it costs about $13/hr for DOA to certify the grade that coffee is labelled. Already DOA's grade enforcement inspection program covers most of the coffee produced in Hawaii. More than 400 inspections were made in the 198990 season covering over 1,100,000 lb of green beans. Less than 5% of inspections resulted in regrading coffee as labelled by the processor. The inspection process could be speeded up if the defective beans were weighed instead of counted. This would require changes in the grades and standards regulations. Assuming the average lot size inspected was 3000 lb of green and total cost for inspecting was $25, this would increase the cost of wholesale green coffee by about one cent per pound! For this the industry would gain a legal document attached to every bag attesting to the authenticity of the coffee.

In 1986 the estimated market volume for Kona coffee was Hawaii 25%; West Coast, East Coast, and Central U.S. mainland 65%; Japan 8%; Canada 1%; and Western Europe 1%. The exact situation today is unknown.

Dramatic growth in the Kona coffee market stimulated the development of several vertically integrated companies growing and processing coffee. These grower/processors have a different marketing perspective than firms that simply grow or process coffee.

The grower/processor company is also the basis of the emerging industry beyond Kona. McBryde Sugar began marketing its coffee through Hills Bros. Coffee in 1989. It is uncertain how production from Coffees of Hawaii and Amfac will be marketed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Kona Coffee Council (KCC) founded in September 1984, is a nonprofit trade organization composed of over 200 members, including the Kona Farmers Cooperative, the Pacific Coffee Cooperative, independent growers and processors, to promote Kona coffee. Its immediate objectives are an educational program for its members through workshops, newsletters, and library; promoting Kona coffee to retailers and wholesalers through trade journals, market research, and conventions; and working with the legislature, government agencies, and CTAHR in developing standards and monitoring the industry to maintain quality.

The board of directors of the KCC is composed of coffee growers and processors. The mission of the KCC demands the board's close attention to issues both inside and outside Kona, such as dealing with state agencies, companies, trade associations, and KCC members. The board lacks a fulltime executive director to address its responsibilities on a daytoday basis and has lacked the ability to assess its members to support a director and fund activities. In 1988 KCC reviewed and rejected forming a Federal Marketing Order for Kona coffee.

GACC funded an executive director for KCC at $15,000/yr in 198688. This was Priority No. 1 in CIA 2. Various activities were organized including field days, annual meetings, expanding and coordinating the Kona Coffee Festival, and lobbying for legislative funding to support promotion and research. Difficulties in funding KCC's activities from the its assessment program, however, forced the layoff of the executive secretary in late 1988.

Since late 1989 a group of coffee growers representing the KCC and growers on Kauai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu has been meeting to discuss formation of the Hawaii Coffee Growers Association (HCGA) to represent coffee growers throughout the state. It is considering hiring an executive director. HSGA will have islandbased general members, each island selecting representative(s) for a statewide board of directors. Board votes are allocated as shown: Big Island
Kona as KCC 2
Kauai 1
Maui 1
Molokai 1
Oahu 1

General membership and board expansion is anticipated for other islands. Board members are responsible for organizing other growers on their islands.

HCGA's objectives are:

To support funding and guidelines for research and development,

To aid establishment of quality and standards,

To aid the state in setting and enforcing quarantine laws that protect coffee from imported pests and diseases,

To promote Kona and Hawaiian coffees,

To be concerned with environmental issues related to coffee production and processing,

To liaise with other organizations that have similar purposes and objectives, and

To guide and support good legislation at the state, county, and Federal levels. HCGA must hire an executive director, to meet its purpose and reach its objectives. HCGA has prepared bylaws and will be applying for nonprofit status this year

. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pests --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Green coffee scale, Coccus viridis, is the most serious insect pest of coffee in Hawaii. Insecticides approved for use on coffee as of December, 1990 are Mavrik Aquaflow, Safer's Insecticidal Soap Concentrate, Volk Oil and Pyrenone. A mix of Safer's Insecticidal Soap Concentrate and Pyrenone can be used. Follow the label.

Pending labels are: An SLN label on nonbearing coffee for Logic was submitted to DOA review in August 1990. Note: Logic is not effective on the longlegged ant common in Kona.

American Cyanamid manufacturer of Amdro is requesting letters from industry to support its petition for SLN label on nonbearing coffee.
Green coffee scale is an occasional but most important insect pest of coffee in Kona. It will be a serious, almost yearround pest in dry areas beyond Kona. A major outbreak of green scale nursed by ants, longlegged ant, Anoplolepis longipes (also known in Kona as the crazy ant), and bigheaded ant, Pheidole megacephala, occurred during the drought of 198788. Ants may also have weakened the root systems by nesting at the base of trees. Hardest hit were newly planted and young trees prior to the first harvest on unirrigated land. Since the spring of 1988 the scale population in Kona has returned to normal or below normal levels with the return of wetter weather, which favored development of Verticillium lecanii, a fungus introduced for biocontrol of the scale.
Why was the coffee industry unable to control the green coffee scale in the 1987 outbreak? Materials previously used to control scale and ants were not registered for coffee when the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) began requiring this in the 1960s and 1970s. During this period the coffee industry was in decline; growers abandoned orchards or began intercropping with macadamia and avocado, which seemed to have better economic potential than coffee. The industry did not request that materials be registered because scale and ants were an occasional problem and coffee prices would not cover the cost of pesticides. In the 1983 Coffee Industry Analysis No. 1, registering insecticides for any insect problem was voted priority 15 out of 18. In 1986, in CIA 2, the scale/ant problem was still voted priority 18 out of 21 by the industry. Hence when the problem occurred in 1987 there were no pesticides registered for coffee. Now that coffee is expanding into areas that are much drier than Kona, the green scale/ant problem will be continual in some areas.
In the early 1980s CTAHR entomologist Dr. Ronald Mau realized the industry was defenseless against return of the scale/ant problem or a new pest, and he started field trials in Kona to provide residue data on Mavrik Aquaflow, a new broad spectrum insecticide. Data were supplied to the EPA via the manufacturer in 1986. Finally, in May 1990, more than six years after CTAHR began the registration process the DOA approved a special local needs label (24c) for Mavrik. This was not an unusually long period to register a pesticide in the United States for minor crop like coffee.

Mavrik is very effective but may reduce natural insect predators. The label as of May 1990 says to apply 2 oz in 100 gal/ acre, no more than two applications per growing season, and do not apply within 30 days of harvest. The current label was developed for Kona conditions. HSPA urges the manufacturer, Sandoz, to change the label from 2 to 4 oz per acre and from 2 to 4 times per year. This improves scale control in the dryer and warm conditions on its members' plantations.

The return of normal summer weather and even wetter springs in 1988 seriously hampered a resumption of CTAHR research on scale control in Kona under the direction of Drs. Jack Beardsley and Neil Reimer. GACC funded CTAHR's ant/scale control project for coffee initially from the pineapple mealy bug (and ant) wilt project. Later, special legislation for coffee and most recently GACC funded this work from its budget.

HSPA's Dr. Vincent Chang reported on green scale control experiments in the Hawaii an Sugar Planters' Association Annual Report for 1989 (Chapter 10, Other crops. 1990. 99193 Aiea Heights Drive, Aiea, HI 96701). Working in the hot, dry, windy conditions of Kauai, Dr. Chang found that Mavrik, with as little as 0.04 lb active ingredient per acre, gave almost 90% control. A single application at 6 gal/acre of Volk Supreme Oil gave better than 80% scale control. Safer's Insecticidal Soap Concentrate (49% potassium salts of oleic acid, a fatty acid found in some vegetable oils) is less effective (70%) on scale in a single application; however, weekly applications are effective. Reimer, working in the wetter conditions of Kona and with a different ant species, the longlegged ant, had different results. Mavrik eliminated scale, whereas single applications of 2% Volk, 2% Superior Oil, and 2% Safer's Insecticidal Soap Concentrate reduced scales by 33%, 63%, and 43%. Because Volk oil is exempt from residue tolerance only a phytotoxicity trial at two sites in Hawaii was necessary to obtain a label. Mycogen Inc. submitted an application to the EPA to register Sun Spray Oil for use on coffee in 1989; approval is pending.
Natural biocontrol has not been effective in dry areas due to low humidity, direct sunlight, and high winds. The best method to control scale in dry areas is to control the ants. Clean cultivation and sticky tree bands are not effective considering ants' adaptive nature. Amdro (hydramethylon) is the most effective ant control pesticide. On Kauai Chang found that ants disappeared one month after application of 1.5 lb bait per acre. Amdro is unlikely to be cleared for on farm use, though it is readily available for household use. Registration is held up by a dispute between the manufacturer and EPA. Hawaii's pineapple industry was nearly destroyed by mealy bug wilt, which is spread by ants, earlier in this century. Pineapple has won a one-year emergency exemption but after trying for almost 10 years. To get an emergency exemption an industry had to document the level of the damage that would occur and that nothing else was effective.

Logic fire ant bait (fenoxycarb) and two similar experimental products are being tested in Kona and on Kauai. Reimer found that the 1% Logic (bait was corn grit and soy oil) actually inhibited feeding of the longlegged and Argentine ants common in Kona. A special toxic bait based on sweetened protein has to be formulated. Chang found 0.5 and 1.0% Logic controlled bigheaded ant. A Logic residue experiment begun in September 1989 on Kauai and in Kona to obtain registration data has been completed. No residue was found on processed green beans, even if collected immediately after application of Logic at 10 times the normal annual rate, 60 lb/acre.

Insect pests of coffee in Hawaii are discussed in two publications. CTAHR Extension Bulletin No. 9 (1931) by J. F. Illingworth, Insects Affecting Coffee in Kona, is out of print. The most recent comprehensive report on coffee insect pests for Hawaii is by Dr. Vincent Chang (1990), Coffee Insect Pests and Status of Their Control,. Subject Report, Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Assn., 99193 Aiea Heights Drive, Aiea, HI 96701. The rest of this section following is a summary of these publications. 1) Green scale, Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae).

The problem was first observed in 1905. Green scale was introduced to Hawaii on lemon seedlings imported from Fiji. It was the cause of the coffee blights in Kona, or black sooty molds. This first dramatic symptom of a scale problem is a black fungus that grows on the scale's honeydew.. The fungus blocks light but is more striking in appearance than directly damaging. Ants are attracted to these scale insects by the honeydew, which the ants eat. Ants herd and protect the scales. Ants, therefore, are chiefly to blame for the spread and increase of the green scale. If ants are prevented from getting to a coffee tree, the green scale disappears.

The adults are oval, bright pale green, legless, with short, curved black marking on the back. They are found on leaves, stems, and cherries. They are commonly found on the underside of leaves along the veins. Sometimes as many as 500 can be found on one leaf. Scales suck the sap. When infestation is severe, leaves and fruits drop, growth is stunted, and young plants can even be killed.

Green scale attacks more than 70 species, including guava, mango, plumeria, and gardenia. Females reproduce without males, in fact, males are unknown. Eggs hatch within minutes after being laid. Scale has three stages or instars. The first has two long taillike structures; it wanders over the plant before settling to feed. The life span from egg to adult is two months in Hawaii.
Five introduced ladybird (ladybug) beetle species feed on the scale. The most common is Azya orbigera Mulsant. The adult has a black back except for two circular spots and short hairs. Legs and abdomen are orangebrown. The young look like mealy bugs. Seven wasps parasitize the green scale, but they are not effective in hot, dry, windy areas.

The most successful biocontrol is the white halo fungus, Verticillium lecanii Zimmerman (Moniliaceae, Deuteromycetes), introduced from Florida around 1910. It destroys millions of scales in Kona during the more humid periods of the year. It also attacks other scales, aphids, and occasionally beetles, flies, and mites. When no insect host is available it lives in the soil on dead plant material. It can be cultured on basal dextrose, salts, and inorganic media.

It invades and destroys scale within two days. After 10 days it grows out of the scale to produce the characteristic white halo around the scale that growers see before the scale disappears in the rainy season. The fungus requires high humidity to germinate and rain to spread the spores. Even at 96% relative humidity, germination drops to 30%, hence the lack of fungus activity in Kona during the winter dry season and droughts like 1987. Temperatures above 77F reduce effectiveness, and at 85F (30C) germination and growth stop. Some countries culture the fungus for scale control. For this to be effective in dry, windy areas beyond Kona, overhead sprinkler irrigation might be necessary. 2) Black twig borer, Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).

This is not a serious pest in Kona at this time. The tiny brownishblack, cylindrical beetle was first found in Hawaii in 1961. HSPA reports light infestations on Oahu, Maui, and Kauai but a heavier infestation in wet areas such as Keaau. Black twig borer is a type of ambrosia beetle. It attacks live twigs and branches, unlike the type that attacks the trunks of macadamia trees dying or dead of quick decline, or MQD. Besides coffee, its hosts are avocado, cacao, mango, macadamia, hibiscus, tea, orchids, anthurium and other ornamental and forest trees and shrubs.

Typical symptoms are wilting and death of leaves on the lateral beyond the beetle's entry hole. The circular entry hole, less than 1/16 inch (1 to 1.5 mm) in diameter, is usually just above the last healthy leaf and first unwilted leaf on the dying lateral. The adult beetle, larvae and eggs maybe inside. This beetle generally attacks trees weakened by drought, girdling, heavy pruning, standing water, or lack of fertilizer. Production of sap by healthy trees is considered to repel beetle attack. Some cultivars are more susceptible.

Pregnant females bore into the twig to make a tunnel for eggs and to grow food for the larvae. The female carries a fungus, Fusarium solani (Mart), which she grows in the tunnel to feed her larvae. Dr. E. Trujillo, CTAHR, identified this fungus as the one responsible for killing the twig and leaves.

The best control is maintaining healthy trees. Infested twigs should be pruned back to healthy wood immediately and burned or removed from the orchard. Borers are very difficult to control with insecticides. Two parasitic beetles, Tetrastichus xylebororum and a Bethylid species, are reported in Indonesia. Several species of parasites were released by the DOA for black twig borer but they did not become established. 3) Fuller rose beetle, Pantomorus cervinus (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).

This is not a serious pest in Hawaii. The beetle first reached Maui in 1894 and has spread to all islands from sea level to 5000 ft (1500 m). Its hosts are avocado, coffee, citrus, koa, rose, corn, sugarcane, gardenia, and Hilo grass. The beetle feeds at night by eating out large pieces around the edges of leaves. Damage is different from that of the Chinese rose beetle Adoretus sinicus which eats small holes inside the leaf. Sometimes adults attack young shoots and flower buds. Larvae live in the soil and eat small roots.

The adults, all females, cannot fly and live in crevices and under dead leaves on the ground during the day. Adults lay pale yellow eggs covered with a spongy white material in crevices in the bark. When the eggs hatch, the larvae drop to the ground and bury themselves. From egg to adult takes less than a year.

In a wasp Fidiobia citri (Nixon), that parasitizes the egg is used to control this beetle. This wasp is not found in Hawaii but could be introduced if the Fuller rose beetle did become a pest. 4) West Indian flatid, Melormenis antillarum (Kirkaldy) (Homoptera: Flatidae).

This is not a serious pest. First found in Hilo in 1967, it is now found throughout the state, though more commonly seen on coffee in drier areas. The adult is powdery grey, and has square wings with one large dark spot on each wing. It feeds on a wide range of hosts, including castor bean, coffee, hibiscus, eggplant, mulberry, and tangerine. No information on its damage or biology in Hawaii is known. 5) Mediterranean fruit fly or Medfly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera).

This is no longer a serious pest. As late as 1913 the Medfly caused serious damage to coffee in Kona, but a parasitic wasp was introduced to attack the Medfly's larvae. Cherry loss is not a problem today, though coffee is the preferred host of the Medfly. 6) Crab spider, Gasteracantha sp.

A new species of crab spider whose webs are a nuisance and bites slightly painful was discovered in Hilo 1986. It spread to Kona and became a nuisance in coffee orchards by 1988. CTAHR and DOA entomologists found the population goes up and down quite drastically. Solutions of a household soap such as Wisk sprayed on the spider controlled the spider. Crushing the spider's green to yellow, quartersized egg masses also works. A parasitic wasp helps reduce the population. 7) Coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampeii.

This is a serious pest in Latin America, Asia, and Africa but is not found in Hawaii. Control methods have been developed for it using changes in cultural practices and a fungus, but no cultivars are resistant. Hawaii's best defense is quarantine. A closely related species, H. obscurus, called the macadamia shothole borer, was found infesting macadamia in Kona in 1988. To date there are no reports of shothole borer on coffee.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Processing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coffee can be processed by two different methodsthe wet method or the dry method. Dry processing is not done in Hawaii because it is thought to produce a lower quality coffee. In the dry process method the cherry is dried first, then the dried skin and parchment are milled off, leaving the green bean. Wet processing involves pulping the cherry to remove the skin while leaving the bean intact in the parchment covered with a slippery mucilage, fermenting and washing to remove the mucilage and drying in the sun or in dryers, and then milling. DOA believes that quality control, especially in the fermentation and drying stage at the processing plant, must be pursued.
On farm processing of coffee in Kona (selling dry parchment by pulping, fermenting, and sundrying the parchment) is practiced on decreasing acreage in Kona. While it adds value to the product, it adds costs and hassles for many. For a new grower the cost of producing parchment is $0.09 to $0.11 per pound of cherry when considering the labor, power, and capital costs over a 15-year period; for the established grower cost is less. Selling the parchment during the season can bring $0.02 to $0.04 profit per pound of cherry over the cost; later in the season when no cherry is available the profit can be higher (Kona Kai Farms Guide to Making Parchment, by Robert Regli, July 15, 1989). Most large and small growers in Kona sell cherry to processors. The parchment is milled to produce green coffee.

Steps in processing for traditional wet process. 1. Pulping

Red ripe cherries (See Harvesting) are dumped from bags into a pulper. Most pulpers in Kona are drumtype not disktype. It is important that only cherries not foreign objects such as stones or metal objectsenter the pulper to protect the surface of the drum, which is notched and breastplate. Damage to these surfaces will increase niching or cutting the parchment or bean itself and reduce green bean quality.

The pulper squashes the cherry; the mucilage covered parchment bean separates from the cherry skin and pulp. The beans and unpulped cherries (not every cherry is pulpe

Green-Seeds.com Fruits & Others

Coffee

Green-Seeds.com
Fruits & Others