IP Paper with page numbers

Organic and Conventional Coffee/Cattle Farms in La Legua de Aserrí, Costa Rica:
Comparison with a Permaculture System
By Madeleine Morley
Institute for Central American Development Studies
Spring 2007 Field Course
Costa Rica
Abstract
Permaculture systems are inherently sustainable because they are ecologically
sound while also economically viable agricultural systems. Since coffee and beef are two
of Costa Rica’s most significant exports, it is important to learn more about ways in
which coffee and beef farmers can use the ideals of a permaculture system on their farm.
In order to learn more about the flow of inputs and outputs on a conventional
coffee/cattle farm and an organic coffee/cattle farm, I observed a 27 hectare conventional
coffee/cattle farm and a 100 hectare organic coffee/cattle farm in La Legua de Aserrí,
Costa Rica and also interviewed the two farmers and the organic farmer’s wife in April
2007. In order to learn more about bird diversity in the two farms, I surveyed birds along
a 50 m transect in each farm. I also set out eight bee traps in each farm (four with a
funnel design and four with a two-hole design) in order to learn more about bee pollinator
abundance. Fourteen different bird species were observed at the conventional farm while
21 different species were observed in the organic farm. Eight orders of invertebrates
were sampled in each farm, yet the organic farm had 31 morpho species while the
conventional farm only had 20 morpho species of invertebrates. The organic farm also
had over 140 individuals in the traps while the conventional farm only had slightly over
30 individuals. Based on this data, the organic farm seems to provide more habitat for
both bird diversity and invertebrate diversity and abundance most likely because the farm
has more shade trees and leaf litter. There are many ways in which both farms can close
the loops on their farm and become more in line with a permaculture system. Based on
the interview data, the organic farm is more similar to a permaculture system than the
conventional farm and is thus saving money and limiting its impact on the environment.
Possible biases in this study were small sample size for the bird and bee studies, difficulty
in properly identifying bird species, and inaccurate estimates of the amounts of inputs and
outputs on the two farms.
Resumen
Los sistemas de permacultura son inherentemente sostenibles porque ellos son
ecológicamente viables y a la vez económicamente viables. Puesto que el café y la
ganadería están entre las exportaciones más significativas de Costa Rica, es importante
aprender acerca de otras maneras en que los agricultores de dichos productos pueden usar
los principios de un sistema de permacultura en sus fincas. Para aprender más sobre los
procesos cíclicos que involucran los insumos y las salidas o los llamados “desechos” de
producción en una finca convencional de café/ganado y una finca orgánica de
café/ganado, observé una finca convencional de café/ganado de 27 hectáreas y una finca
orgánica de café/ganado de 100 hectáreas en La Legua de Aserrí, Costa Rica y también
entrevisté a los dos agricultores y a la esposa del agricultor de la finca orgánica en abril
2007. Para aprender más sobre la diversidad de pájaros en las dos fincas, observé las
aves a lo largo de un transecto de 50 m en cada finca. También, puse ocho trampas para
captuar abejas en cada finca (cuatro en la forma de embudo y cuatro de un diseño con
agujeros) para aprender más sobre la cantidad de abejas polinizadoras. Catorce especies
diferentes de aves fueron observadas en la finca convencional mientras 21 especies
diferentes fueron observadas en la finca orgánica. Ocho ordenes de invertebrados fueron
muestreados en cada finca, pero en la finca orgánica hubo 31 morfoespecies mientras en
la finca convencional sólo hubo 20 morfoespecies de invertebrados. La finca orgánica
también tuvo más de 140 individuales en las trampas mientras la finca convencional sólo
tuvo un poco más de 30 individuales. Basado en estos datos, la finca orgánica
proporciona más habitat para tanto la diversidad de aves como la diversidad y la cantidad
de invertebrados, probablemente porque la finca tiene más árboles y hojarasca. Hay
muchas maneras en que las dos fincas pueden fortalecer los ciclos en sus fincas y llegar a
parecerse más a un sistema de permacultura. Pero por los datos de las entrevistas, la finca
orgánica es más similar a un sistema de permacultura que la finca convencional y por eso
está ahorrando dinero y limitando el impacto al medioambiente. Los sesgos de este
estudio fueron el pequeño tamaño de muestra de la abejas y las aves, dificultades en la
identificación de las especies de aves, y estimaciones inexactas de las cantidades de los
insumos y las salidas o desechos en las fincas.
Introduction
Coffee and beef are two of Costa Rica’s most important exports (Central
Intelligence Agency). Coffee is also an especially important crop for achieving
sustainable development. Sustainable development is “development which meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (Harris et. al. 2001). An important aspect of sustainable development is the
ability to reduce energy use and waste. As the second law of thermodynamics states,
energy is always being degraded. Thus, it is necessary to completely capture, reuse, and
store as much of the energy in a system as possible in order to achieve sustainability.
Managing nutrient and energy flow in an area is an important part of a system known as
permaculture farming (Mollison 1991). According to Bill Mollison (1991),
“permaculture is a design system for creating sustainable human environments.” These
systems aim to create “ecologically-sound and economically viable” agricultural systems
which can be achieved in a coffee agricultural system (Mollison 1991). By selecting
appropriate plants and animals and by placing them in strategic areas of the farm, one can
produce a landscape that reflects a natural system (Mollison 1991).
Reducing the use of chemicals within a farm can also help the area to seem more
like a natural system. Having a farm that is similar to a natural system usually means the
farm has a smaller environmental impact. The reduction in chemical use can also greatly
improve the health of the farmers. More specifically for crops such as coffee, the use of
shade trees enhances the biodiversity of the farm and provides habitat for migrating birds
while helping to maintain a permaculture system. If enough trees of different species are
present, it may be possible to use the farm as a biological corridor linking protected areas
2
of forest. In addition, Taylor Ricketts (2004) found that bee pollinator diversity and
activity increased in coffee farms near forest fragments. Thus, it is beneficial for coffee
farms to at least have shade trees, if not be near a forested area.
In the mountains south of San José, Costa Rica in the area of La Legua de Aserrí,
organic farms are interspersed with traditional coffee and cattle pasture in an area largely
deforested many decades ago. Many of the organic coffee producers created an
organization named Asociación de Familias Agrícolas Orgánicas de la Región Caraigres
(AFAORCA) which has taken the initiative to work towards a more sustainable farming
future. Based on their ideals and lack of chemical use, it might be possible that
AFAORCA’s members have farms that are run more like a permaculture system than
conventional farms. This brings me to my research questions: 1) Since not using
chemicals (via organic farming) shows farmers are thinking more about the future and
leaving a smaller ecological footprint, do these farmers also have a smaller impact by
better closing the cycles and converting output and so called “waste” into inputs? 2) Is
there a difference in bird diversity between the two farms? 3) Does a difference exist
amongst the number of pollinating bees in the two farms? I will evaluate all of these and
make suggestions as to ways in which to further reduce the ecological footprint of the
farms and create a more permaculture-like system.
Materials and Methods
Interviews
I conducted three interviews in La Legua de Aserrí, Costa Rica. The interviews
were based on the questions found in Appendix A. On 7 April 2007, I interviewed
Cecilia Mora and Juan Egerico Mora. The Mora family owns a farm with three hectares
of organic coffee and 97 ha of cattle pasture. On 10 April 2007, I interviewed Evanjelista
Espinoza. The Espinoza family has 1 ha of organic coffee, 15 ha of conventional coffee
in addition to 10 ha of cattle pasture and one ha of sugar cane. I also observed the two
properties for four days each in order to confirm the interview results.
Bird Diversity
I observed birds in each farm from approximately 8:00AM to 9:00AM using a
Pentax 8 x 40 6.3° pair of binoculars and A Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica by F. Gary
Stiles and Alexander F. Skutch (1989). Each farm was sampled for birds four times in
total during a 15-day period. The slow walking method was used to observe the birds. I
slowly walked back and forth along a 50 m transect in the middle of each farm. The
transect was paced out using my steps. Birds were identified by morpho species and if
possible, to the specific species using A Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica. The weather
was relatively stable throughout the periods of bird watching with mostly sunny skies.
Bee Collection
Traps for collecting bees were made using plastic pop, juice, and water bottles
based on two designs: one with a funnel design and another with two holes in the bottle
(Penny 2005). The funnel design was made by cutting the top portion of the bottle and
putting it in upside down to create a funnel. The two-hole design was made by cutting
two holes approximately 2.5 cm in diameter a little more than halfway up the bottle. A
3
thin wire was used to hang the bottles in the coffee trees about 1.5 meters off the ground.
Approximately one teaspoon of white sugar was mixed with 100 mL of tap water, and
approximately 75 mL of sugar water was put in each trap. The traps were placed on
coffee branches in the two farms. There were eight traps in total for each farm: four of
each type. The traps were placed approximately five meters apart along a row of coffee
in the middle of the farm with the type of trap alternating every five meters. The five
meters were paced out using my steps. The traps stayed in the farms for 14 days, and the
sugar water was changed two times during the 14 days. The traps were checked three
times to collect organisms. The organisms were placed in two separate jars of ethyl
alcohol for preservation: one jar for the conventional farm and one for the organic farm.
The organisms were later classified into orders and morpho species.
Results and Discussion
General Information About the Two Farms
The organic farm has three ha in coffee and 97 ha with 70 cattle. The organic
farm has approximately two ha of coffee located about one kilometer from the house.
Another hectare of coffee is located at a slightly higher elevation approximately 0.5
kilometers from the house. The closest part of the cattle pasture to the house is located
approximately 180 meters from the house. The farm has two types of coffee: caturra and
catue. Caturra is a type of coffee that produces a large fruit set, but requires at least
partial if not complete sun in order to grow properly. Located on the farm is a small
beneficio where workers process the coffee fruit using two machines and drying racks.
One machine (called the chanqueadora) is used to separate the seed from the coffee
cuticle (the red skin of the fruit). The seed is then dried in the sun using the drying racks.
Afterwards, the seed is run through another machine in order to separate the pergamina
(another layer of the fruit) from the seed. The seed is then ready for toasting. The organic
farm is also part of the organization of coffee growers named AFAORCA.
The organic farm has an approximate 140 m2 vegetable garden located next to the
house. The garden has chives, celery, cilantro, potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, medicinal
plants like lemon grass and rosemary, lettuce, green beans, chayote, spinach, carrots,
mustard greens, and strawberries. In addition to the vegetable garden, there is a pigpen
with two pigs, a chicken coop with 20 chickens, and a small pool of water with two
geese. The Mora family also has a biodigester where they produce methane gas using the
pig excrement.
The conventional farm has one ha of organic coffee, 15 ha of conventional coffee,
one ha of sugar cane, and 10 ha of pasture for 17 cattle. About one hectare of the coffee
farm is located next to the house while the rest of the land is located about 1.5 km away
at a slightly higher elevation. The conventional farm has only the caturra type of coffee.
Located on the conventional farm are four pigs and 13 chickens. The farm also has a
small chanqueadora for processing the coffee seeds and a trapiche to process the sugar
cane. However, the farmer hardly uses the chanqueadora because he sells his organic
coffee fruit directly to the beneficio of AFAORCA and sells his conventional coffee to a
beneficio in San Rafael, Heredia, Costa Rica. He only uses the chanqueadora for the
coffee he consumes in the house.
4
There are many more trees mixed in with the coffee at the organic farm although
the farm would only be considered “partial shade” in that it does not closely resemble a
forest. Banana, cas, avacado, lemon, orange, guanabana, mango, and jocote trees can be
found in the farm. Also, the farm has timber trees such as laurel, bitter cedar, and
Mexican cypress. The conventional farm, on the other hand, has mainly banana trees
with some orange, lemon, mango, and jocote trees interspersed amongst the coffee. As a
result, there is much more leaf litter in the organic farm compared to the conventional
farm. It should be noted, however, that there were small patches of forest-like vegetation
amongst the coffee in the conventional farm but trees were not widespread (See Figure
1).
Figure 1. Photographs Displaying the Difference in Tree Density in the Two Farms
A) Photograph of the organic farm. B) Photograph of the conventional farm. 11 April 2007. La
Legua de Aserrí, Costa Rica.
A
B
Notes About the Presentation of the Results
The volume of inputs and outputs and their directions can be seen in Figure 2 and
Figure 3. In some cases an input is not directly used for the item highlighted in blue in
the figure, but may be used indirectly such as in the case of water and electricity used for
the chanqueadora on the organic farm. In these cases, I will note in the text whether an
input is used indirectly. In addition, some of the numbers do not reflect actual
consumption per month throughout the year. In some cases, an input or output is only
used or produced during part of the year. This way of displaying the data has been done
to aid in comparison between the two farms. For example, coffee is only produced
during at most five months of the year. In the organic farm, 1,380 kilos of coffee are
produced during the five-month harvest. However, for comparison’s sake, I have divided
the 1,380 kilos by 12 months in order to get a general average number of kilos produced
per month. The text will indicate which volumes have been adjusted for better
comparison.
5
Figure 2.
This flow chart diagrams the inputs and outputs for the conventional farm. The diagram displays
the direction of the inputs and outputs while also detailing the volume used and produced per
month. Inputs that are not connected to the “Outside of Farm” bubble are taken directly from the
farm such as water and grass. 11 April 2007 through 25 April 2007. La Legua de Aserrí, Costa
Rica.
Figure 3.
This flow chart diagrams the inputs and outputs for the organic farm. The diagram displays the
direction of the inputs and outputs while also detailing the volume used and produced per month.
Inputs that are not connected to the “Outside of Farm” bubble are taken directly from the farm
such as water and grass. 11 April 2007 through 25 April 2007. La Legua de Aserrí, Costa Rica.
6
Water Use
Both farms could greatly improve their water consumption. The majority of the
water used on both farms comes from streams on their own land. On the conventional
farm, all of the water except for in the house is from the farm. The organic farm is
similar except the water used in the bathrooms is from their land, but the water used in
the kitchen is from a government authorized water distributor.
The conventional farm uses 11,356 L per month of water for processing the sugar
cane, another 11,365 L (2,841 L per person) for use in the house, 200 L for the chickens,
1,000 L per month for the pigs, and 2,000 L for the cattle totaling 24,712 L per month.
The organic farm uses 100 L per month for the chanqueadora (only for five months of
the year during the harvest), 20,000 L for the house (2,500 L per person with 8,700 L of
the 20,000 L coming from the farm), 300 L per month for the chickens, 568 L for the
pigs, 8,300 L for the cattle, and 300 L for the garden (only during the dry season) totaling
between 29,268 L and 29,468 L per month depending on the time of year. The
conventional farm produces approximately 10,000 L (2,500 L per person) of greywater
from the house per month while the organic farm produces approximately 18,000 L
(2,250 L per person) per month.
First, the conventional farm uses more water and expels more greywater per
person per month from the house. The first step in conserving water (in both the
conventional and organic farm) is to take measures such as taking shorter showers and
turning off the sink when not in use (for example, while brushing teeth). The organic
farm has already taken steps to reduce the amount of water used on the farm. The
organic farm has developed a method for the chanqueadora so that the water put into the
machine every day is reused continually throughout that day. Therefore, instead of fresh
water being used for every batch of coffee fruit, the same water is used repeatedly
throughout the day. Fresh water is put in the following day. This method does not really
apply to the conventional farm since they only use their chanqueadora for very small
batches of coffee for household consumption and thus use little or no water.
There are other ways in which the farms can reduce overall water consumption.
These changes can also reduce the costs per month to the farmers by making it possible to
use water only from their land. The conventional and organic farms both spend 3,000
colones per month (exchange rate: 518 colones per U.S. dollar) on water which could
easily be reduced to zero using the following techniques: reuse their greywater and
collect rainwater. Allowing greywater to leave the system without reusing it is
detrimental to the environment and also not resourceful. The organic farm could reuse
the greywater from their showers, sinks, and laundry machines in order to water the
garden during the dry season. Both farms could use their greywater in order to fill the
cisterns of their toilets (Mollison 1991). This could reduce the need for at least 6,000 L
of fresh water per month per farm.
The collection of rainwater for use on the farm is very important and could
essentially reduce all dependency on the city for water. During the wet season, water
should be located away from the house into gravel-filled channels so as to reduce erosion
to the garden and surroundings of the house. During the dry season, roof gutters should
lead to a storage tank in a shaded area so as to have cool drinking water. The storage
tanks could easily provide for all water needs in the house at both farms (Mollison 1991).
By doing this, the farms could not only save 3,000 colones per month but also potentially
7
eliminate their household dependency on a stream and the city for water. In addition,
rainwater storage tanks can be used to provide water for the pigs, chickens, and cattle on
both farms. The organic farm could set up a storage tank at the beneficio in order to
provide water for the chanqueadora. The same can be done for at least part of the 11,365
L of water per month necessary to process the sugar cane at the conventional farm.
Use of Energy and “Waste Products”
As mentioned above, reusing a supposed “waste product” such as greywater can
greatly benefit both farms. There are other waste products that could be utilized on the
farms, especially the conventional farm. Currently, the conventional farm uses
approximately 100 kilos of firewood from their farm for cooking. This is good in that
they are using products from their farm, but could be improved upon. Since burning
firewood as fuel has negative impacts such as deforestation and augmenting climate
change, it would be beneficial to use a different source such as methane gas from a
biodigester. The organic farm currently has a biodigester where they produce methane
gas from pig excrement. The conventional farm could move their pigs closer to their
house and set up a biodigester and cook with the resulting methane gas. The pigs could
produce enough gas to cook for the entire family. The organic farm is one step ahead in
that they already have a biodigester, but could still improve their situation. They
currently use about 60 kilos of the methane gas per month to cook food which requires a
lot of cooking time such as beans. However, they could be cooking all of their food with
methane gas. They would only need to hook the gas line up to the main stove in their
kitchen. This could also save them money since they spend 8,000 colones per month on
11 kilos of gas for cooking. In addition, a simple way to reduce the need for cooking fuel
is to use an insulated cooking container as described on page 92 of Introduction to
Permaculture by Bill Mollison (1991).
The organic farm is already utilizing their food waste in the correct manner by
feeding about two kilos per month to the pigs and making compost with about 30 kilos
per month. The conventional farm, on the other hand, does not even have a garden for
which to make compost. My first suggestion would be to create a garden. Many of the
reasons for this suggestion will be explained in the next section, but one reason would be
to absorb the approximate 25 kilos of food waste per month from the household. The
garden can also absorb much of the greywater produced by the conventional farmhouse
as mentioned in the previous section.
The farms should also try to limit their electricity use since this is one of the
biggest monthly expenses they have. The conventional farm spends 13,500 colones per
month on 375 kilowatts of electricity for the house while the organic farm spends 9,000
colones on 250 kW for the house and 90 kW (3,240 colones per month) for the
chanqueadora (which is only used during five months of the year). First, the
conventional farmhouse could emulate the organic farmhouse by using compact
fluorescent light bulbs in order to take a step towards reducing the 375 kilowatts of
electricity used every month. In order to further reduce costs, both farms could take
advantage of the streams on their land and produce electricity during the wet season by
installing hydroelectric turbines such as the simple Pelton wheel.
One more suggestion for overall reduction in costs would be to use alcohol fuel
instead of gasoline in machines such as cars. Both farms could use fruit from their fruit
8
trees to produce fuel by fermentation. All waste products would then go back into the
farm in the form of mulch, animal feed, and soil additives (Mollison 1991). This is
another way in which the farm can reduce its monthly costs while also closing a loop in
the system.
Food Inputs
As mentioned above, I highly recommend that the conventional farm start a
garden. In addition to the ability to absorb household food waste and greywater, a garden
can produce many of the basic food staples for the house. This could help to reduce the
200,000 colones (50,000 colones per person) the conventional farm spends on food per
month. In comparison, the organic farm only spends 40,000 colones (5,000 colones per
person) per month on food. There is a ten-fold difference between the amounts spent per
person per month. Thus, this would be an important change for the conventional farm.
In the garden the conventional farm should plant a range of species for insect
control and not necessarily in neat lines. A helpful structure to use in a garden is an herb
spiral set close to the kitchen door for easy access. An herb spiral is essentially a mound
of earth approximately 1.6 meters wide and between one and 1.3 meters tall. The
benefits of the herb spiral include varying aspects of drainage and sunlight. These
microhabitats allow the user to grow different types of herbs with differing requirements
in the same small area. Even though the organic farm already has a wonderful garden
from which they consume approximately 12 kilos of produce per month, they could
improve upon it by building an herb garden close to the kitchen door. That way it would
take less energy to cut fresh herbs for cooking since the cook would not need to wander
very far from the kitchen for the herbs (Mollison 1991).
It would be optimal not only if the household were able to survive with most of its
food produced on the land, but also the animals. A large cost for both farms is feeding
their animals. The organic farm spends 30,964 colones per month on food for their pigs,
cattle, geese, and chickens (2,000 colones for four kilos of corn for the geese; 9,130
colones for 60 kilos of pig feed concentrate; 4,000 colones for 50 kilos of chicken feed
concentrate; 2,500 colones for 38 kilos of salt for the cattle, 2,500 colones for 4 kilos of
minerals, 5,000 colones for 50 kilos of cow feed concentrate, 8,333 colones for 63 L of
waste molasses for the cattle). The conventional farm spends 258,637 colones per month
on food for their pigs, cattle, and chickens (28,000 colones for 160 kilos of pig feed
concentrate, 1,637 colones for 25 kilos of salt for the pigs; 28,000 colones for 160 kilos
of chicken feed concentrate; 140,000 colones for cow feed concentrate, 25,000 colones
for 189 L of waste molasses, 36,000 colones for 90 kilos of salt for the cows).
The vast majority of the money spent on the farm goes towards the animals,
especially in the conventional farmer’s case. Thus, it would be very important to reduce
these costs and find ways to feed the animals using only products of the farm. The
conventional farm could first start out by feeding food scraps from the house to the pigs.
The organic farm already does this by giving about two kilos of food waste to the pigs
every month.
Both farms could also benefit by allowing their pigs to be more free range instead
of living in small cement housing. Free-range pigs are cheaper to feed and healthier. For
each pig, you would only need approximately 200 square meters (0.02 ha) of land. So,
the conventional farm could set aside 0.08 ha of land for their 4 pigs and the organic farm
9
could set aside 0.04 ha of land for their two pigs. The basic set up for free-range pigs is
to have a pigpen and tree rows with fences that have angled and buried bottoms to keep
pigs from damaging tree roots. The tree row should have fruit trees in order to provide
sustenance for the pigs and should surround at least two separated areas for the pigs to
forage. Legumes such as clover, comfrey, chicory, and young grasses should be planted
for pig consumption in the range areas. Pigs should be alternated between the separated
forage areas once the area is sufficiently scratched and rooted. The areas can be rotated
from sowing to pasture, then cattle grazing, and then back to pigs (Mollison 1991).
Because of the steep slopes in the area of La Legua de Aserrí, the farmers should take
extra precautions against erosion. For example, the farmers should dig sediment traps
and rotate the pigs more often, particularly during the wet season. This type of system
can potentially eliminate the need for pig feed concentrate. The organic farm currently
spends 9,130 colones for 60 kilos of pig feed concentrate per month and the conventional
farm spends 28,000 colones for 160 kilos of pig feed concentrate per month. Therefore,
if pig feed concentrate could even be reduced, the costs to the farm would be greatly
reduced.
Chicken feed concentrate (which costs 4,000 colones for 50 kilos per month for
the organic farm and 28,000 colones per month for 160 kilos for the conventional farm)
can also be reduced and possibly eliminated by using a strawyard and rotating run
system. The organic farm is already doing a better job at reducing outside chicken feed
by giving the chickens 83 kilos per month of pergamina (the papery covering on the
coffee seed which is taken off before export) and 0.23 kilos of fruit from the farm. A
strawyard can still be helpful and is essentially an area attached to the hen house where
there are productive trees, bushes, forage plants, and spiny shelter for raising young
chicks. The strawyard should have rough mulch of twigs or stones around the trees in
order to protect them. The strawyard should be heavily mulched continually with things
such as wood shavings, small branches, leaves, weeds, and bark. Also, clippings from
the garden can be thrown over the fence to the chickens (Mollison 1991).
The organic farm already has a small area which could be transformed into a
strawyard. The conventional farm could easily clear an area for a strawyard. The
strawyard should be attached to at least two runs which have been planted in succession
with greens, grains, roots, and fruit. The chickens are rotated either when the vegetation
is ready or on a seasonal basis. The chickens can also be let into the tree rows of the pig
forage system to forage for fallen fruit (Mollison 1991).
In addition to the strawyard system, chickens need a source of protein which can
be easily met by consuming insects. There are two easy ways in which to provide the
chickens with the insects. First, laying down old logs or flatboards in the strawyard and
then turning them over occasionally can provide a feast of insects. Second, the farmer
can put rolled up newspapers in the trees and shrubs at night and then shake them out the
following morning (Mollison 1991).
Food inputs for the cattle are also an expense that can be reduced using the ideas
of a permaculture system. The organic farm spends a total of 13,333 colones per month
on cow feed concentrate for the milk cow and waste molasses. The conventional farm
spends 165,000 colones per month on cow feed concentrate and waste molasses for 17
animals. Waste molasses is a waste product from processing sugar cane and resembles a
10
sticky, honey-like substance. The cow feed concentrate is bought from local stores, but is
most likely made from corn and soybeans grown in the United States.
The organic farm is doing a better job at keeping their costs down and using food
from their own land since they only buy cow feed concentrate for their milk cow and not
for the entire stock. However, both farms could still utilize a new system in order to
eliminate or at least reduce the need for the waste molasses and the conventional farm’s
need for the cow feed concentrate. Tree crop infills can be used to supplement the diets
of the cattle. Essentially, there should be more trees in the pasture that can provide food
for the cattle during the dry season and in times when pasture is not enough. The best
types of trees to plant would be species like carob and tagasaste because of their highenergy foods and ability to withstand animal feeding. The pasture should also be broken
up into sections using hedges of species such as mulberry, tagasaste, and acacia. The
pastures can also be sowed to forage crops. The cows should be allowed to enter the
different areas every month or so during plant growth and for short periods of a time after
that. As mentioned above, soil erosion can be a problem in these types of systems.
Therefore, it would be most beneficial to have a thick line of trees at the bottom of slopes
to catch eroded soil and to also have fences built alone ridges instead of in valleys.
Having more trees not only provides more food for the animals, but also protects them
from weather and extreme temperatures in addition to providing more habitat for
biodiversity and preventing soil erosion and nutrient loss (Mollison 1991).
My final suggestion for food inputs is for the organic farm. They have two geese
which feed on grass and four kilos of store-bought corn feed per month at the cost of
2,000 colones. The organic farm can plant more palatable grasses such as bermuda or nut
grass and clover for the geese to eat in order to avoid buying corn feed (Mollison 1991).
Coffee Production
The conventional farm produces 15 ha of conventional coffee and one ha of
organic coffee. The inputs for the organic coffee are limited to compost made on the
farm using 10 kilos per month of coffee cuticle (the fruit pulp taken off the seed using the
chanqueadora) and 9 kilos per month of cow manure. The conventional farm therefore
uses approximately 19 kilos of compost per month for the organic coffee. This is the
only input. As of now, this is a perfectly functioning system, but it is on a very small
scale. The bigger part of the conventional farmer’s land is the conventional coffee which
comprises 15 ha of the land. The farmer purchases 1,333 kilos of chemical fertilizer per
month at a cost of 33,333 colones per month (which is only applied twice a year for a
total of 16,000 kilos per year). The conventional farmer also purchases five liters of
herbicides per month for 8,750 colones.
In contrast, the organic farmer uses microorganisms (16 L per month) and liquid
fertilizer (83 L per month) in addition to 250 kilos of compost made from coffee cuticle
from the beneficio and cow manure from the farm. The liquid fertilizer and
microorganisms are only used twice a year. So, in total the organic farm uses 192 L of
microorganisms per year and 1000 L of liquid fertilizer per year. Since the organic farm
is a member of AFAORCA, these two inputs (the microorganisms and liquid fertilizer)
are free. The compost is, of course, free because it is made on site. Therefore, the
organic farm is greatly saving money by not buying outside products such as chemical
fertilizer and herbicides.
11
In addition, the conventional farm spends more money on labor. The
conventional farm employs seven full-time workers for a total of 1,288 hours per month
(46 hours per week per person) to help with all aspects of the farm including the sugar
cane, organic and conventional coffee, and cattle. The organic farm only employs three
full-time workers for help with the coffee for a total of 360 hours per month (30 hours per
person per week). The organic farmer also hires one more person to help with the cattle
for 30 hours per week (120 hours per month). The conventional farmer spends 708,400
colones on labor per month while the organic farmer only spends 288,000 colones per
month on labor. Thus, even though the conventional farm has a much smaller piece of
land (27 ha in total compared to 100 ha at the organic farm), they are paying for almost
twice as many workers. This may be due to the strains of working with more coffee
and/or the need for extra help with the sugar cane.
My suggestion for the conventional farm would be to switch to organic
coffee so as to reduce costs and also safeguard his and the environment’s health. The
conventional farmer can also make more money buy producing organic coffee. The
organic farm makes approximately 362 colones per kilo of coffee while the conventional
farmer only makes 90 colones per kilo of conventional coffee. It surprises me that the
conventional farmer has yet to convert completely to organic coffee since he is making
approximately 905 colones per kilo of his organic coffee. The organic farmer receives a
higher price not only for having organic coffee but also because his farm is Fair Trade
certified. Thus, the conventional farmer could attempt to receive this certification as well
so as to increase his income.
However, the conventional farmer produces slightly more coffee per hectare than
the organic farm. The conventional farmer harvests 4,140 kilos (276 kilos per hectare) of
conventional coffee and 138 kilos of organic coffee in three months while the organic
farm harvests 575 kilos (192 kilos per hectare) of coffee fruit during a five-month
harvest. Nonetheless, the conventional farmer only makes 23,288 colones per hectare per
year on average for both organic and conventional coffee while the organic farm makes
41,630 colones per hectare per year. Therefore, in the end the organic farmer is making
much more money per hectare than the conventional farmer.
Bee Traps
Over the 14-day period, eight different orders of invertebrates were found in the
organic farm and eight different orders were also found in the conventional farm. There
were 31 different morpho species found in the organic farm and only 20 different morpho
species in the conventional farm (See Appendix C). Of these morpho species, one was
definitively a pollinator of coffee. This morpho species (termed Meloponini) was found
in both farms with two found in the conventional farm and one in the organic farm.
There were also many more individuals in general in the organic farm. The traps caught
over 140 individuals in the organic farm and only a little over 30 individuals in the
conventional farm.
It is obvious that the organic farm houses more organisms and has a higher
diversity in terms of morpho species. This supports the conclusion that the organic farm
has more habitats for these organisms. This is most likely due to the increased amount of
trees and the resulting cover from these trees such as leaf litter and dead logs. It is
difficult to make a conclusion about the bee pollinators (Family Apidae) since so very
12
few were collected. It should be noted that one of the traps in the organic farm fell off
the coffee tree during the last week. Therefore, the organic farm probably had even more
organisms than reported above. Another thing that might have affected how many
invertebrates were caught was the time of the flowering of the coffee. The coffee
flowered twice in both farms during the duration of the independent project and flowered
approximately one day earlier in the organic farm.
If I were to repeat this study, I would use only the two-hole trap design. On
problem with the funnel trap was that it was much more likely to collect water after rain.
The extra water dilutes the sugar water, which could influence the effectiveness of the
trap. Also, it was slightly more difficult to take the organisms out of the trap because of
the way it was constructed. Thus, I would choose to use the two-hole version since it is
easier to collect the bugs and also does not fill with rainwater.
Bird Watching
In total, there were 14 different morpho species of birds at the conventional farm
and 21 different morpho species at the organic farm. The following species were found
at the conventional farm: Acorn Woodpecker, Golden Bellied Flycatcher, Brown Jay,
Eastern Kingbird, Turkey Vulture, Red Crowned Woodpecker, Torrent Tyrannulet, Sooty
Robin, Ochraceous Wren, Clay-colored Robin and an Emerald Toucanet. In addition to
the abovementioned species, there were 3 other morpho species seen but were unable to
be identified specifically.
The following species were seen at the organic farm: Turkey Vulture, Black and
White Becard, Acorn Woodpecker, Black and White Warbler, Hoffman’s Woodpecker,
Social Flycatcher, Brown Jay, White Eared Ground Sparrow, Blackburnian Warbler,
Spotted Barbtail, Torrent Tyrannulet, Cerulean Warbler and Plain Breasted Ground
Dove. There were eight other morpho species seen, but were unable to be identified to
species (See Appendix B for information on the number of sightings of each species in
the two farms). The higher diversity of birds in the organic farm suggests that the shade
trees used in the farm are helping to provide habitat for more species than the
conventional farm.
There were biases, however, in the data collection. First, this was my first time
identifying birds so I may have made errors in my identifications. Second, it was often
difficult to see birds in the organic farm because of the greater amount of trees. Third,
many of the birds seen at the conventional farm were not actually seen amongst the
coffee, but rather in the small forest-like patches near the data collection site. Thus, since
many of the birds recorded in the conventional farm were not actually in the coffee part
of the farm and often birds were unable to be identified in the organic farm because of the
shade trees, the data may be more revealing as to the capacity of the two farms to house
birds. The data would most likely show even more the difference in bird diversity in the
two farms.
Conclusion
Despite possible biases in the volume of inputs and outputs recorded (due to the
inability to correctly estimate the amounts), my data suggests that the organic farm has
kept more in line with a permaculture system and has therefore saved money. In
13
addition, because of the shade trees and possibly because of the lack of chemicals on the
farm, the bird diversity and number of invertebrates on the organic farm is much higher
than the conventional farm. The conventional farm should plant more trees amongst the
coffee so as to provide more habitat for birds and other organisms such as bee pollinators.
In order to become more like a permaculture system, both farms need to make
changes, although less so for the organic farm. Although probably not feasible for the
farms, the fact that the different areas of their land are not located close to their houses
means they have to spend that much more energy getting to them. One of the ideals of
permaculture is to have concentric zones of land for different use levels. For example,
the garden and animals such as chickens (which need tending often) should be close to
the house with the coffee in the next zone. Cattle would be in one of the zones farthest
away from the house since the farmer does not need to visit them very often. Thus,
having the different areas of the farms so separated causes the farmers to use a lot more
energy than necessary.
However, this kind of change is most likely not plausible since it would mean a
large rearranging of their house and land situations. The suggestions mentioned in the
body of this paper are much more feasible. The conventional farm should first start by
producing only organic coffee, and then follow the suggestions detailed above. Both
farms can also still improve on their use of “waste products,” energy, and water use. In
conclusion, the conventional and organic farms both have the ability to keep many of
their inputs and outputs within the farm and create a functional permaculture system
which could not only help the farmers, but also the environment surrounding them.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank David Norman and Carrie McCracken for their invaluable
input and direction on my project. I would also like to thank the Mora family for their
wonderful hospitality and Mr. Evanjelista Espinoza for allowing me to use his farm as
one of my sites. In addition, I would like to thank Ronald Zuñiga from the Instituto de
Biodiversidad de Costa Rica (INBio) for classifying possible coffee pollinators found in
my bee traps. A big thanks goes out to the wonderful students of the Spring 2007 Field
Course for their moral support and input.
Appendix A. Interview Schedule
1. ¿Cuántas hectáreas tiene Ud. en su propiedad? (incluyendo una huerta, ganado,
café, caña de azucar) ¿Cual es el uso de las partes de su propiedad? ¿Cuántas
hectáreas tiene con ganado? ¿café? ¿el huerto y la casa?
2. ¿Qué tipo de matas hay en la finca (como café, árboles, caña de azucar, en el
huerto, etc.)? ¿Cuánto ganado tiene? ¿El ganado está en la misma tierra todo el
año o es diferente durante el año?
3. ¿Cuáles son los insumos de la finca (como abono, fertilizantes, combustibles,
agroquimicos, agua, equipo y implementos como rastrillos, sus trabajadores,
comida para las vacas, cerdos y gallinas, el costo de la tierra (como alquiler)?
4. ¿Cuántos insumos Ud. usa por mes? (por volumen o por el numero de personas en
el caso de mano de obra) ¿La cantidad cambia durante el año?
5. ¿Cuánto cuesta cada insumo (por unidad)?
14
6. ¿Cual es el uso de cada insumo (café, ganado, los dos, otro)? Si ambos, cuanto
insumo Ud. usa para café y cuanto para ganado?
7. ¿Hay insumos que sean reciclados en la finca? ¿Cuáles y como son reciclados?
¿Cuánto es reciclado por mes?
8. ¿Cuales son los productos de la finca? (los granos de café, leche, queso, carne,
cosas para consumir en la casa)
9. ¿Cuánto de cada producto es producido por mes? ¿La cantidad cambia durante el
año?
10. ¿Cuánto dinero recibe por cada unidad de producto?
11. ¿Su finca tiene certificaciones como Fair Trade, orgánico, o Europgap?
12. ¿Ud. recibe dinero de alguna organización o del gobierno? ¿Ud. recibe pagos por
servicios ambientales (PSA)?
13. ¿Cuánto cuesta la comida de la casa, electricidad, y combustibles para cocinar
cada mes (en promedio)? ¿Cuántas personas viven en su casa?
Appendix B. Number of Sightings of Each Avian Morpho Species in the Two Farms
In total, there were 87 bird sightings at the organic farm and 83 bird sightings at the conventional
farm. 11 April 2007 through 25 April 2007. La Legua de Aserrí, Costa Rica.
Organic Farm
Acorn Woodpecker
Bird #1
Bird #2
Bird #3
Bird #4
Black and White Becard
Black and White Warbler
Black Morpho Species
Blackburnian Warbler
Brown Jay
Cerulean Warbler
Eastern Kingbird
Elaenia sp.
Emerald Toucanet
Flycatcher Morpho Species
Golden Bellied Flycatcher
Clay-colored Robin
Hoffman’s Woodpecker
Hummingbird #1
Hummingbird #2
Ochraceous Wren
Plain Breasted Ground Dove
Red Crowned Woodpecker
Social Flycatcher
Sooty Robin
Spotted Barbtail
Swift (species unidentified)
2
1
1
2
2
7
2
0
1
15
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
6
5
0
1
0
5
0
2
2
Conventional Farm
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
12
0
2
2
1
1
4
6
0
0
0
12
0
1
0
3
0
7
15
Torrent Tyrannulet
Turkey Vulture
White Eared Ground Sparrow
2
23
3
4
7
0
Appendix C. Diversity and Abundance of Invertebrate Morpho Species at Both Sites
This table displays the different orders and morpho species found in the two farms. The morpho
species with an asterisk (*) indicates a morpho species different from the morpho species with the
same number in the same Order. 11 April 2007 through 25 April 2007. La Legua de Aserrí,
Costa Rica.
1
Morpho Species 1
0
1
Morpho Species 1*
Morpho Species 2*
Morpho Species 3*
Morpho Species 4*
Morpho Species 5*
Morpho Species 6*
Morpho Species 7*
Morpho Species 8*
Morpho Species 9*
Morpho Species 1
Morpho Species 2
Morpho Species 3
Morpho Species 4
Morpho Species 1*
Morpho Species 2*
Morpho Species 3*
Morpho Species 4*
Morpho Species 5*
Morpho Species 6*
Morpho Species 1
Morpho Species 2
Morpho Species 1*
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
6
1
2
5
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
Morpho Species 2*
1
0
Morpho Species 1
0
1
Morpho Species 1*
1
0
Morpho Species 2*
1
0
Order Diptera
Order Coleoptera
Morpho Species 1*
Conventional Farm
0
Orde
r
Hom
opter
a
Order
Hemiptera
Class Insecta
Class
Arachnida
Organic Farm
16
Order Hymenoptera
Order
Lepidoptera
Order
Neuroptera
Order
Orthoptera
Morpho Species 1
0
1
Morpho Species 2
0
1
Agelaia
Vespidae agelaia sp.
Componotus sp.
Pachycondyla sp.
Morpho Species 5*
Morpho Species 6*
Meloponini
Morpho Species 8*
Sphecidae
Mischocyttanus sp.
Morpho Species 1
3
5
3
2
9
2
1
Many
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
Morpho Species 1*
1
0
Morpho Species 1*
Morpho Species 2*
Morpho Species 1
Morpho Species 2
Morpho Species 4
Morpho Species 5
11
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
References
Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook. (17 April 2007). Retrieved 27 April
2007, from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cs.html.
Harris, Johnathan, Timothy Wise, Kevin Gallagher, and Neva Goodwin. (2001) A Survey
of Sustainable Development: Social and Economic Dimensions. Island Press:
Washington.
Mollison, Bill. (1991) Introduction to Permaculture. Tagari Publications: Tyalgum,
Australia.
Nutrition: What is an egg? Retrieved 27 April 2007, from
http://www.goldeneggs.com.au/nutrition/what_is_an_egg.html.
Penny. “Homemade bee traps – foofna.” iVillage Garden Web. (12 September 2005).
Retrieved 27 April 2007, from
http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/hummingbird/msg0905060132669.htm
l.
17
Stiles, Gary F. and Alexander F. Skutch. (1989) A Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica.
Comstock Publishing Associates: Ithaca, New York.
Ricketts, Taylor H. (2004) Tropical Forest Fragments Enhance Pollinator Activity in
Nearby Coffee Crops. Conservation Biology 18 (5), 1262–1271.
18