If I remember correctly (I've tossed the paper) the article said 4 times
as much coffee could be grown in sun (coffee plants only) compared to
shade (a mix of coffee and orchard trees like avocados). Which made me
wonder, which is worse: One acre devoted exclusively to coffee or 4 acres
(presumably carved out of forest that supports a different suite of bird
fauna) devoted to orchards and coffee?

It's the same dilemma, with different details, that surrounds numerous
farming methods. Leave half a farm fallow and thus use less fertilizer
and irrigation water, but keep twice as much land under cultivation as
you would without leaving a field fallow? Etc.

REAL conservationists wouldn't worry about whether their coffee was grown
in the shade. They'd eat only beans, rice, cabbage, and their useless,
resource-consuming pets. And they'd drink only water, and none of that
imported stuff, either!

Kelly Cassidy
(and, no, my dog will not be on the menu any time soon)