Kelly,

If sun grown coffee supports no birds, requires mucho chemicals, and the
plants don't last as long, then what's the point except for big, rich
companies getting fatter? Every tiny bit of conservation is an
investment in our future. If millions of birders vote for the songbird
instead of the double tall this would force the Starbucks of the world
to change. I guess am getting really sick of two faced corporations
that appear to be environmently repsonsible until you look at their
business practices.

Debbie


Kelly Cassidy wrote:

> 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)