Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
agronomy
Review
Bases for the Establishment of Robusta Coffee (Coffea canephora)
as a New Crop for Colombia
Luis F. Campuzano-Duque 1, Juan Carlos Herrera 2, Claire Ged 2and Matthew Wohlgemuth Blair 3, *
Citation: Campuzano-Duque, L.F.;
Herrera, J.C.; Ged, C.; Blair, M.W.
Bases for the Establishment of
Robusta Coffee (Coffea canephora) as a
New Crop for Colombia. Agronomy
2021,11, 2550. https://doi.org/
10.3390/agronomy11122550
Academic Editors: Antonello
Bonfante, Luca Brillante and
Alessia Perego
Received: 14 November 2021
Accepted: 11 December 2021
Published: 15 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria (AGROSAVIA),
Villavicencio 500003, Departamento Meta, Colombia; lcampuzano@agrosavia.co
2Plant Science Research Unit-Nestle Research, 37100 Tours, France;
juancarlos.herrerapinilla@rdto.nestle.com (J.C.H.); claire.ged@rd.nestle.com (C.G.)
3Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Tennessee State University,
Nashville, TN 37209, USA
*Correspondence: mblair@tnstate.edu
Abstract:
Robusta coffee (C. canephora) covers 36% of world coffee production and has strategic
relevance as a beverage that it is produced by thousands of small-scale producers around the
world. Although mainly grown in Africa and Asia as opposed to Latin America, this situation
is changing. Colombia is recognized as a producer of high-quality Arabica (C. arabica L.) coffee,
however we argue that Robusta represents a great economic opportunity for small scale producers,
for the industrialization of new products and for emerging coffee chains. Therefore, the objective
of this review is to outline the agronomic value of Robusta coffee as a “new crop” in Colombia.
As background we compare the better-known Arabica to the Robusta coffees from a Latin American
perspective. Robusta shows differences in geographical distribution, genetics, originating species,
physiology and phenology. Robusta and Arabica also differ in their chemistry, sensory attributes,
industrial use, segments of market and price. Despite the marked differences between the two coffees,
the popularity and consumption of Robusta has been on the increase due to the expansion of markets
in emerging economies and in developed markers for home espresso preparation where it is used
in high quality coffee blends. Robusta is currently replacing areas of other coffees due to hotter
temperatures to which it is adapted. Although Robusta is still new to Colombia, this species has
potential adaptation in lowland areas considered “non-traditional” for Colombian coffee cultivation
and as a valuable component of agro-ecological production systems. Robusta is a novel crop option
for certain regions that is needed for the future of coffee in Latin America and for growth of coffee
production and consumption in Colombia.
Keywords:
agronomic adaptation; coffee blends; ecological regions; market opportunities; new crop
1. Introduction to Difference between Robusta and Arabica Coffees
Coffea canephora (syn. Coffea robusta), known as Robusta coffee, is a species from the Ru-
biaceae Family (Order Gentianales) that has its origins in central and western sub-Saharan
Africa. Native to the tropical forests around Lake Victoria in Uganda, it was introduced
to Southeast Asia in 1900 after leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix Berk. and Br.) destroyed all
of Ceylon’s arabica coffee crops in 1869 and most of the low-lying plantations of Java
in 1876 [
1
,
2
]. Currently, it represents 36% of world production and is grown in tropical
countries from Indonesia and Vietnam, through Sub-Saharan Africa to Brazil.
The genetic structure of cultivated Robusta coffee parallels natural populations of
C. canephora and in ex situ germplasm collections with specific studies by geographic
regions, phylogenetic groups, phenotypic, biochemical, and molecular evaluations that
determine the existence of wide genetic diversity with population structure composed
of two groups: the Congolese group and the Guinean group. The Congolese group is
subdivided into five subgroups: SG1, SG2, B, C, and UW. In the production chain of
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122550 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 2 of 12
caffeinated coffee, those of the SG1 subgroup are known as C. canephora var. kouilou (in
Brazil, known as conilon coffee), and the others are known as C. canephora var. robusta (or
Robusta coffee) [3]. The Guinean group is less well studied.
Robusta differs from Arabica coffee in being two different sub-species, but also shows
important differences in their origin, geographical distribution, genome conformation,
ploidy level, genetic variability, morphology, physiology, and phenology (days to flower-
ing, etc.), as well as in chemistry and organoleptic quality, industrial uses, market segments
and price [
4
]. Table 1shows 44 characteristics and/or attributes of Robusta and Arabica
coffees, with the species C. canephora compared to C. arabica, recognizing that despite overall
similarity between the two species as sources of coffee products there are many differences
amongst them.
Table 1. Main differences between Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora.
Specie C.arabica, Arabica C.canephora, Robusta
Origin Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya Guinea and Congo
Altitude of origin in meters above sea
level (masl) 1300–2000 0–1000
Genetic variability Low, due to its origin from few plants
and its self-pollinating condition.
High, due to outcrossing
(natural interbreeding between and
within populations).
Genetic structure
Segmental allotetraploid
(cross C. eugenioides ×C. canephora).
Amphidiploid
True Diploid with polymorphic
populations and highly heterozygous
heterotic groups
Number of chromosomes 2n = 4x = 44 2n = 2x = 22
Fertilization and compatibility Self-pollinated (more than 90%
autogamous) and self-compatible
Self-incompatible gametophytic type
of monogenic nature and
synchronized flowering
Plant type Shrub Tree and/or shrub
Growth habit Erect Umbrella shape
Propagation type Sexual (seed) Asexual (cuttings-clonal) and
sexual (seed)
Canopy structure Pyramidal Irregular
Root type Deep-rooted Shallow-rooted
Symbiotic associations Dependent to obligate Dependent, mycorrhizae obligate
Stem type Uni-caulate (woody) Multi-caulate (woody)
Grain-color (before roasting) Greenish tone Pale and yellowish tone
Grain-shape (dry) Larger, oval, flat and elongated
Small, rounded, oval or elliptical; notable
tips; domed or convex
Retention of grain by the plant Lower Higher
Inflorescences (number) Lower (2–3 peaks/crotch) Higher (3–5 peaks/crotch)
Flowering (regularity) Regular (after rains) Irregular
Flowering (months) 9 10–11
Photoperiod sensitivity (hours) Short days (13.5) Shorter days (11.0)
Grain earliness (months from anthesis to
fully ripe) 6–8 (earlier) 9–11 (later)
Time to induce the inactive
flowering-period (months) 2–4 2–4
Biannual production Present Absent
Latitude range (degrees) Less than 10 N and 10 S Between 10 N and 10 S
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 3 of 12
Table 1. Cont.
Specie C.arabica, Arabica C.canephora, Robusta
Optimal temperature (◦C) 18–21 22–30
Optimum precipitation (mm) 1500–2000 2000–3000
Relative humidity required (%) 70% 85%
Altitude for cultivation in meters above
sea level (masl) 1000–2000 0–700
Genetic improvement scheme Hybridization, inbreed, backcross
(per autogamy)
Reciprocal recurrent selection
(per allogamy)
Yield (kg/ha) of green coffee Usually lower performing (1500–3000) Higher performing (2300–4000)
with intensive production 6000
Cherry (fresh): green coffee Lower (4:1 to 5:1) Higher (5:1 or above)
Rust resistance Susceptible Wide resistance spectrum
(source of resistance in Timor hybrid)
Nematode resistance Susceptible Source of genetic resistance
Planting density High Low
Cup quality Subtle taste, aromatic Stronger taste, fragrant
Caffeine content average (%) 1.7 3.4 (2×more content)
Isoflavones (micrograms) 40 285 (7×more concentrated)
Total reducing sugars (%) 0.10 0.40 (4×higher)
Saccharose (%) 8.0 4.0 (less than 50%)
Chlorogenic acid (%)
Green grain (6.4–7.1);
semi-ripe grain (4.7–7.9);
ripe grain (5.5–6.9)
Semi-ripe grain (7.8–8.0);
ripe grain (8.2–10.6)
Trigonellin (dry matter basis) 0.79–1.06 0.66–0.68
Market segment Premium and mainstream Instant, blended coffees, washed
Production cost Higher Lower (17%) (no irrigation costs)
Price High Low
When we compare the two coffees for production statistics, we see that Arabica is
currently the dominant type. Arabicas represented 64% of world production in 2020/2021
with 6.1 million tons (measured as 101.9 million bags) produced. By comparison, Robusta
coffee has a 36% market share, with 4.4 million tons (or 73.5 million bags) [
5
]. In terms
of quality, Arabica is known for a pronounced aroma and acidity that is favored in the
gourmet and international markets. Sometimes it is considered mild coffee. Robusta is
known for having greater body but lower aroma [
6
], and it is consumed in emerging and
developed markets as a mixed product or instant coffees.
The two types of coffee are planted in different geographical areas: Robusta in low-
lands with high humidity and hot conditions, compared to Arabica under moderate
temperatures of highland regions. Robusta is used as a substitute for Arabica in some
places in mid-elevation Africa, lowlands of Asia, island nations and territories of the
Caribbean (CARICOM) and the Pacific (Hawaii and Papua New Guinea), and increasingly
in Latin America (notably Brazil and Mexico) given better adaptation to warm environ-
ment and resistance to leaf rust [
7
]. The edaphoclimatic conditions and the flat topography
that occur in lowlands together with the architecture of the Robusta coffee plant allows
potential mechanization and therefore higher productivity of this type of coffee [
8
]. This is
important in Colombia and Brazil where labor prices are significantly higher than in Asia
or Africa. C. canephora coffees, of either Robusta or Conilón type, can produce between
2 to 4 t/ha/year with a technological management, compared to 1.5 and 3 t/ha/year
for Arabica.
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 4 of 12
In the international market, the price of Robusta coffee is 25% lower than Arabica
products, but this is offset by higher production, higher industrial conversion due to the
high content of total soluble solids and a higher ratio of parchment “gold” beans compared
to pulp or cherry. The Robusta beans are smaller, but heavier [
9
]. Most Robusta genotypes
are resistant to rust and nematodes. Furthermore, they do not present biannual production,
but rather provide either continuous monthly production or a single harvest per year in
the case of synchronous varieties, which allows mechanization of all its cultural processes
(depending on the topography of the region and variety) [
10
]. Arabica coffees sometimes
produce in two seasons in regions with bimodal rainfall in Colombia and Kenya where they
must be hand-picked by seasonal labor. Therefore, Robusta coffees can be more efficient
to grow, allowing the problem of the low labor availability at picking times to be solved
by mechanization or by employing labor that works continuously on Robusta along with
harvesting other crops at other times of the year. This adapts Robusta to production on
family farms.
2. Possible Agro-Ecologies for Production of Robusta Coffee in Colombia
Colombia is known for its production of high-quality “premium” 100% Arabica coffees.
This has been a mainstay of a national marketing campaign to promote coffee exports to
Europe and North America from the South American country. Very little Robusta coffee
has been produced in Colombia despite an internal market for the lower priced beans as
compared to the Arabica which are selected and sent abroad. However, the situation of
Arabica coffee is changing due to a series of societal and environmental factors.
Most importantly, the production areas for Arabica coffee in Colombia have been
in decline in terms of overall area and green coffee yields; due to increasing limitations
placed on Arabica coffee producers by climate change, the need for forest preservation and
urbanization or divisional land holdings which squeeze the zone in which the crop can
be grown into a smaller and smaller altitudinal zone between 1750 masl and 2000 masl.
Traditional areas of Arabica coffee production in the Andean zone down to 1500 masl
and up to 2250 masl are surrounded by high biodiversity and it is neither possible nor
desirable to substitute higher elevation forested regions for coffee production. Meanwhile
the potential production regions for Robusta coffee are growing and widespread [9].
Studies were undertaken by the project “Macro CaféCanéfora” elucidating the future
of this species as a new crop in Colombia by evaluating indicators of adaptation and
ecoregional productivity. The goal was to determine if Robusta coffee would do well in
non-traditional areas for coffee cultivation following the certain socio-economic guidelines:
(a) expansion of the coffee zones across areas with a history of civil conflict violence, (b) ar-
eas with comparative and competitive advantages for Robusta production; (c) potential to
increase per capita consumption and open new market niches in lyophilized instant coffees,
and (d) potential uses of bioactive products in pharmaceutical and cosmetic products.
One of the first justifications for Colombia promoting the planting and production
of Robusta is import substitution. Although little publicized, Colombia imports Robusta
coffee to supply the needs of the domestic market. Colombia had a production in the
2020/2021 period of 14.1 million bags with an unsatisfied internal demand of 2.2 million
bags [5].
This unsatisfied domestic demand is half-way supplied by imported Robusta coffee
(Table 2). These imports replaced products such as off-grade “pasilla” coffee that have been
traditionally used in Colombia for domestic consumption and for the soluble and freeze-
dried instant coffee industry. Robusta production locally in Colombia could substitute
these imports [
11
] and therefore satisfy the needs of national coffee consumption. The
participation of Robusta coffee to satisfy the estimated domestic demand in Colombia in
2021 would be 286,000 bags (2021), rising to 712,500 bags by 2025 [
12
]. The results of the
study for demand of Robusta coffee in Colombia by Collazos et al. [
12
] are summarized in
the table below.
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 5 of 12
Table 2. Projection of domestic demand for coffee in Colombia 2021–2025 (million bags of 60 kg).
Year Imports Domestic Consumption Total
Arabica Coffee Robusta Coffee
2021 924,000 990,000 286,000 2,200,200
2022 921,140 998,086 417,764 2,332,000
2023 903,774 1039,217 519,609 2,462,600
2024 869,550 1,106,700 658,750 2,635,000
2025 712,500 1,425,000 712,500 2,850,000
In addition, Robusta produced in Colombia could be exported, considering that at
present a good part of the world’s instant coffee industry uses Robusta beans have higher
overall green coffee yield but higher ratio of cherry to green coffee compared to Arabica
beans. Robusta has high efficiency for industrialization based on high total soluble solids
contents and other quality characteristics. Another advantage for producing Robusta
coffee in Colombia is that it can be produced over a large land area at a low overall
cost, even when comparing other countries in which this type of coffee bean is produced.
Simulated production costs for Robusta type coffee in Colombia are 27% less per ton thank
in Vietnam and Brazil [
11
]. One of the main comparative advantages is also open farmland
availability. Colombia is blessed with many areas suitable for planting Robusta coffee both
in the foothills of the Andes Mountains and on the humid Pacific and Caribbean coasts.
Indeed, any region with unimodal precipitation that is higher than 2500 mm/year would
be adequate for Robusta coffees. The rainy season in humid areas of Colombia is sufficient
for non-irrigated coffee.
Water stress is a main limitation to Robusta coffee production and a major part of
the cost structure in Vietnam and Brazil is taken up by irrigation needed across most
phenological stages of the crop, representing 17% of farm costs. This indicates that the
model for Robusta coffee in Colombia is under rainfed conditions with no supplemental
water but in wet regions. High rainfall is an important comparative advantage of Colombia
over further South American or Southeast Asian producers.
3. Marketability and Further Production Advantages of Robusta Coffee from Colombia
Robusta coffee demand has been increasing worldwide due to several factors: First,
a greater expansion of emerging economies with a significant trend towards the consump-
tion of soluble coffee. Second, the growing trend in the consumption of instant coffees
worldwide, which has all resulted in a doubling in consumption of Robusta beans in the
last twenty years. Third, coffee roasters have begun to make blends and mixtures that
supply the North American market for single serving coffees. All this favors the use of
Robusta due to its price and industrial conversion efficiency which is due to a higher
degree of total soluble solids compared to Arabica. Shipping of Robusta coffee is favored
by a cherry/green coffee ratio 5 and above compared to Arabica which is in the range of
4:1 to 5:1. Finally, worldwide coffee is increasingly consumed outside the home and the
preparation of espresso has become fashionable, which mostly uses Robusta coffee [13].
An internal advantage for production of Robusta in Colombia, according to Leibovich
and Llinás [
11
] is based on the prevalence of small to medium sized farms and the low
competitiveness of other export crops in these areas (palm oil, corn and soybeans in Ori-
noquia and palms of various species in the Pacific region) in contrast to the comparative
opportunity of Robusta coffee. In this regard, it is important to mention the maximum
average values of the Family Agricultural Unit in each of the departments where the exper-
imental crops of Robusta coffee can be established: Meta (696.34 ha), Córdoba (33.35 ha)
and Nariño (13.3 ha). Additionally, the business of producing Robusta coffee is attractive
since the price of imported material is US $2600 per ton and the estimated production costs
are US $1650 to as low as $1100 per ton, allowing a profit margin of at least 57%.
In Colombia, research on coffee is mandated by the central government to be in the
hands of the producers of this important signature crop. In this case, the Federation of
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 6 of 12
Coffee growers, a nationally and regionally supported organization located in Manizales,
Caldas set up Cenicafé(CC), as its research center in the early 20th century. As an institution
CC conducts breeding on Arabica coffee and promotion of this type of bean. In their
strategic framework, research on Robusta coffee is not prioritized. Therefore, germplasm
of Robusta coffee has so far only been used in breeding to create interspecific hybrids
between C. arabica XC. canephora for resistance to leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix). However, CC
introduced only 60 Robusta genotypes from Costa Rica during the 1970s, only evaluating
them under field conditions such as those of Arabica coffee at the El Naranjal Experiment
station [
14
]. That study was carried out in three trials (1971, 1975, and 1978) under the
names Canephora I, II and III. In each trial, 18 genotypes were evaluated in comparison with
control varieties Borbón, Mundo Novo and Caturra, all C. arabica. In the three experiments,
even under less than ideal conditions, the Robusta genotypes significantly out-yielded the
Arabica controls starting from the second-year harvest and in the accumulated five-year
period (Table 3).
Table 3.
Average production in bushels/ha of 18 Robusta coffees and two varieties of Arabica coffee
during five years of production (by harvest and accumulated as % of Mundo Novo yields) from
unpublished work [14].
Species or Variety Year of Production Accumulated
Production %
12345
Robustas 130 327 344 149 261 1209.8 139
Caturra 1159 176 175 68.7 109 688.9 79
Mundo Novo 1134 246 185 169 138 871.9 100
L.S.D. 2(0.05) 25.7 43.4 45.9 29.3 38.9 114.1
Footnotes: 1/: varieties of C. arabica.2/: Least Significant Difference (L.S.D.).
The three initial trials were an important point in recognizing the yield potential
of Robusta coffee in Colombia [
14
,
15
]; however, the introduced Robusta genotypes were
evaluated in the regional conditions of an Arabica coffee production zone and unfortunately
were not promoted in other regions. Green coffee yields of Robusta are known to reach
4000 to 6000 kg/ha in other parts of the world. Therefore, there is a need for studying
Robusta coffee in the lower elevation areas known to be recommended for this species. For
this reason, the national government directly entrusted its national research arm of the
Ministry of Agriculture now known as AGROSAVIA (previously as Corpoica) to estimate
the feasibility of production in non-traditional areas outside the Coffee Zone. This initiative
is called the “Coffee Mission”, and is in charge of future testing of Robusta coffee.
4. Potential Experimental Sites and Production Zones for Robusta Coffees in Colombia
The Coffee Mission, mentioned above, includes experts from AGROSAVIA and the
National Coffee Research Center. So far, it has conducted two studies to determine potential
areas for Robusta coffee cultivation in non-traditional Arabica regions of Colombia with the
required climatic characteristics [
15
,
16
]. In both studies, two important variables required
for the growth of Robusta coffee were assumed: (1) precipitation would need to be 2000
to 3000 mm and with unimodal distribution that allows for a single annual harvest and
possible mechanical harvesting and (2) average temperatures would be in the optimal
ranges between 24 and 30
◦
C. Likewise, both studies coincided in defining three ecoregions
with potential for cultivation: Orinoquia to the East, Pacific coast region to the West and
humid Caribbean to the North of the country. Both studies emphasized the need for a
research program into production constraints and varietal adaptation.
According to Herrón [
15
] when it comes to planting coffee in “non-traditional areas”
it is very important to ensure that the selected areas comply with the environmental
conditions that the plant requires for its normal growth and production. In the case of
precipitation, the proximity of Colombia to Pacific Ocean currents and the layout of its
mountain ranges, means that the rainfall has an intra-annual distribution in two totally
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 7 of 12
different conditions, (1) Unimodal (with a single maximum peak in the year) or (2) Bimodal
(with two maximum rainfall peaks in the year). The rainfall regimes with only one rainy
period in the year occurred in the following regions: Eastern Plains and Amazon region
with maximum rainfall in the months of June and July; and the Caribbean Plains, in the
regions of influenced by the Northern Trade Winds such as the, Guajira and the Catatumbo
River basin, where the rainfall peaks occur in the months of October and November.
Bimodal-type distributions occur in the regions where the Intertropical Confluence
Zone (ITCZ) passes at two times of the year, with rain peaks in the months of April and
May and in the months of October and November. This is the rain regime that occurs in
traditional Arabica coffee growing areas. The areas that are selected for planting Robusta
coffee must meet the characteristic of being Unimodal since it is an essential requirement
to be able to concentrate a single annual harvest and thus be able to use the mechanical
harvesting of the crop in the potential areas where the topography allows it [15].
In the second work carried out by Cenicafé[
14
], five non-traditional areas with
adequate environmental offer for the potential production of Robusta coffee were identified,
with a total potential area greater than 4.5 million hectares: (1) Cesar River valley (between
the rancheria river and the Cesar River). Between 100 and 400 m above sea level, 4000 ha;
(2) SinúRiver Valley (between the Abibe and San Jeronimo mountains), between 100
and 200 masl., 10,000 ha; (3) Urabá(León River basin, municipalities of Turbo, Apartadó,
Chigorodó), 100 masl., 20,000 ha; (4) Sabana de Torres (municipality of Sabana de Torres),
400 masl., 10,000 ha and (5) Orinoquía (Departments of Arauca, Casanare, Meta, Vichada),
between 200 and 500 masl., 4.5 million ha.
Apart from the studies described above the national agricultural research system,
AGROSAVIA (a.k.a Corpoica) conducted a preliminary review of Robusta coffee and
reported the crop as: “a promising option to intensify and diversify production systems in
the tropical lowlands of Colombia”. The same entity carried out a third complementary
study [
16
] that made it possible to determine, the Corporation’s research centers in the
country that could provide support for the first evaluations of Robusta coffee genetic based
on the variables of altitude, temperature (maximum and minimum) and radiation (Table 4).
A map of these centers’ locations is shown in Figure 1.
Table 4. AGROSAVIA research centers suitable for the evaluation of Robusta coffee in Colombia.
Research Center Altitude (m) Minimum Average
Temperature (◦C)
Maximum Mean
Temperature (◦C)
Radiation
(µmol photon m−2s−1)
Potential
Production
Carimagua 149 22.5 30.9 862.5–958.3 high
El Mira 21 22.6 29.3 670.8–766.6 high
La Libertad 340 21.5 29.6 862.5–958.3 high
Motilonia 111 23.3 33.5 958.3–1054.1 high
Nataima 377 22.1 32.8 862.5–958.3 high
Taluma 168 22.3 31.0 862.5–958.3 high
Turipaná11 23.5 32.4 766.6–862.5 high
Caribia 11 22.8 32.8 958.3–1054.1 medium
El Nus 828 19.4 28.9 862.5–958.3 medium
Palmira 996 18.3 28.7 862.5–958.3 medium
Cimpa 1572 15.1 25.6 n/a unsuitable
La Selva 2120 12.3 22.0 n/a unsuitable
La Suiza 1628 15.6 23.3 n/a unsuitable
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 8 of 12
Figure 1.
Optimal, moderate suitable and unsuitable National Agricultural Research System
(AGROSAVIA, a.k.a Corpoica) experimental stations for the evaluation of Robusta coffees in
the 32 political divisions (departments) of Colombia. Best selected research centers highlighted
by bullseye.
Among the best centers to test Robusta coffee, the Taluma Experimental Station and
the Carimagua Research Center are two representative sites for the soil conditions of the
Colombian “altillanura”. This is a region of flat terrain of moderate elevation (around 150
and 500 masl) adjacent to the Andes mountains that covers more than 4 million hectares
and with a productive potential of 1.5 million in Robusta coffee, subtracting the foothill
or high slope areas as unproductive. The soils are very acidic (pH between 4.5 and 5.5),
and have low base saturation, high aluminum saturation and high phosphorus binding
capacity. However, the development of technologies for soil improvement has made it
possible to overcome the physical and chemical limitations of the soil and its low fertility.
As one advantage the soils are level, allowing for easy mechanization.
Research carried out by various partners for more than 30 years has allowed the
generation of management technologies that have led to a notable increase in meat and
grain production (soybean and corn) in the region [
17
]. The two stations of Carimagua
and Taluma have similar average annual temperature of 26
◦
C (average annual rainfall
of 2400 mm) and 26.8
◦
C (average annual rainfall of 2135 mm) respectively with relative
humidity between 65 and 90% [
18
]. Therefore, the Colombian “altillanura” presents good
environmental conditions for the establishment of commercial Robusta coffee plantations.
The region has experience in mechanization and improved soil management technologies.
However, it is necessary to evaluate the accessions of the Robusta type under field condi-
tions and evaluate the economic viability and sustainability of the system in the medium
term (5 to 6 years).
Meanwhile representative of the Northern coastal region, the TuripanáResearch
Center, located at an altitude of 11 m, is defined by an average annual temperature of 28
◦
C,
with unimodal-bi-seasonal precipitation pattern (average annual rainfall of 1218.2 mm and
monthly average of 101.5 mm). The rainy season runs from May to October and represents
79% of the annual total; June has the highest recorded rain with 176.5 mm falling. The
period of lower rain intensity is from November to April. January, with 12.6 mm falling,
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 9 of 12
is the month with the least precipitation. Relative humidity averages 80.1% with very
little variation throughout the year, with March being the month with the lowest value
(76.2%) and November the highest (83%). The climate according to the Thornthwaite
classification is C1d’A’a’, semi-dry tropical forest with no water surplus. The potential
evapotranspiration (ETP) values of the dry period are above the precipitation values and
indicate a water deficiency of 544.6 mm that becomes noticeable between January and
February. The month that presents the maximum ETP value is July with 162 mm and
corresponds to the wet period; the minimum value of 132.8 mm is recorded in November.
Finally, among the best locations for Robusta research, the experiment station named
El Mira is an AGROSAVIA research center representative of the humid tropical forest of
the Pacific region of Colombia. Most soils are acidic Ultisols and Inceptisols with high clay
content and variable soil fertility [
19
]. The station is located at an altitude of 16 m, with
a rainy season in the first months of the calendar year. The least rainy months are from
July to November and a dry season occurs between the months of August and November.
The average annual rainfall is 2792 mm/year. Annual average temperature is 26.1
◦
C
with a solar intensity of 1374.1 h/year. The temperature coincides with the summer of the
southern hemisphere and maximum average value is 31.8 ◦C. Relative humidity presents
an average value of 84.3%; evaporation is 600 mm/year in the shade and 1000 mm/year
outdoors. The landscape is dominated by native forests located on in hilly or flat terrain.
Parts of the Cauca, Nariño and Valle de Cauca departments have similar coastal rain
forest environments.
During the last few years, the Pacific Coast region has experienced a rapid expansion
of oil palm and cocoa plantations under agroforestry systems or clear cutting by colonists
growing coca to produce cocaine fueling a need for more legal alternatives for small farms.
Robusta coffee could be planted as an addition to cocoa in the hillside regions. Together
coffee and cocoa could be planted on 10,000 ha and become a substitute to replace the illicit
production of coca that currently dominates the region.
5. Regional Advantages and Limitations of Robusta Coffees in Colombia
Several of the regions discussed have limitations but most have advantages overall
for Robusta coffee. As for limitation in the Pacific zone, some of the flatter lowlands are
prone to excess moisture that could limit plant growth. Growth of Robusta with cocoa in
the same plot is not recommended as they have different shading requirements and both
demand fertilization, competing in the same layer of topsoil for nutrients. However, being
more deep-rooted than coca, the two tree crops would improve soil quality and protect the
soils from nutrient loss which is occurring in the area.
The coffee management systems developed in the Amazon region of Brazil in the state
of Rondonia in particular, based mainly on Robusta-type clonal varieties [
20
], is a refer-
ence for the viability and profitability of production model under similar agroecological
conditions to this rain-forested area of Colombia.
Economically, Robusta coffee has great potential in lower altitude regions of Colombia.
With investments, Robusta coffee in regions such as the Altillanura, the Pacific coast, the
humid Caribbean region and Orinoquia, another rainforested region of Eastern Colombia,
could replicate the development and well-being that Arabica coffee has brought to the
highland Andean region for more than a century. A holistic approach to agricultural
production would use Robusta coffee as an income generator and one of the pillars of
small-scale agriculture in these areas. Robusta coffee production would not require large
productive areas to be competitive and various production schemes could be proposed
based on the size of the Family Agricultural Unit (FAU) in each region. For example, in the
department of Meta the FAU averages 314 ha, in Casanare 140 ha and in Vichada 1237 ha.
Given the impressive tradition of coffee in Colombia, Robusta would not be starting
from scratch, as there is a large body of knowledge that could be adapted to the production
of this coffee in these potential regions and with new farming communities. Regarding
the labor required in the production process, this may come in part from the small farm
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 10 of 12
population of the region, or colonists/refugees coming in from other regions of Colombia.
The possibility of involving ex-paramilitary and guerilla fighters trained to now grow
Robusta coffee [
9
–
13
] would reintegrate these people into society. The achievement of
higher incomes and safety compared to illicit crops was an essential part of the peace
agreement signed between previous combatants and the national government. Likewise,
Robusta coffee represents a chance to introduce on-farm small scale mechanization which
would help all areas of agricultural productivity, another reason for the promotion of this
“new” crop for Colombia.
A reasonable question for potential investors in the Orinoquia is the following: How
profitable would the production of Robusta coffee be compared to current products and
production systems? An approximate answer is given by Leibovich and Llinás [
9
]. Coffee
generates more income than corn and soybeans, although it is much less than palm oil,
with palm being more attractive from an income point of view. However, it is important to
bear in mind that this crop in the Altillanura is not profitable in small areas of land, while
coffee is (Table 5).
Table 5. Comparison between coffee and the representative productive systems of Orinoquía.
Productive System Yield
(Mt/ha)
Producer Price, 2011
(USD/Mt)
Income
(USD/ha)
Robusta Coffee (DPC) 0.91 4225 3845
Maize/Corn 4.50 434 1953
Soybeans 2.40 632 1517
Palm oil 3.1 1148 3100
Source: Leibovich y Llinás [9]; DPC = dry parchment coffee; USD = United States Dollars.
Therefore, under the current regulatory framework and given the current debates
on land tenancy, deforestation and farmland holdings in Colombia overall and more
specifically on the Caribbean and Pacific coasts or in Orinoquía, it is very likely that
palm expansion will be restricted while Robusta coffee planting will grow in the region.
Oil palm is a strategic product for areas near processing plants but has been severely
affected by phytosanitary problems such as bud decline. Likewise, in the areas where lack
of commercial plantation crops or coca production are issues, the Robusta coffee crop could
become an alternative to diversify agricultural production.
A breeding program to address the specific needs of each major area of possible
production for Robusta coffee in Colombia is recommended [
2
]. For this, knowledge of
diversity in the species is needed especially as there are different groups of C. canephora
in the primary centers of origin in West and Central Africa [
3
,
21
] along with additional
germplasm of interest in secondary centers of diversity where the crop has a tradition
of production such as in Brazil [
22
,
23
] and India [
24
]. A breeding program will have to
consider adaptation plus current abiotic, biotic, climate-related and edaphic stresses [
25
].
Adaptation is suggested to be better for Robusta coffee production in Equatorial regions
such as Colombia than in Central America, another Arabica growing region [
26
]. South–
south technology transfer and technical exchanges from Indonesia and Vietnam in Asia
may be useful for fertilization recommendations and agroforestry methods involving shade
trees that may adapt to Colombian conditions [
27
,
28
]. Use of shade trees has also been
studied in India and Uganda [
29
–
31
]. In the Americas, Brazil and Mexico, are also looking
at growing Robusta in lower elevations. Wild Robusta coffees seem to have high diversity
and adaptability [32–34].
6. Conclusions
Robusta coffee is originally from West Africa (DR Congo and Guinea) but has potential
as lowland and heat stress environment germplasm for South America, especially in the
equatorial areas that include most of warm-season Colombian agriculture. The crop is
of interest in tropical regions where climate change is increasing temperatures at mid-
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 11 of 12
elevations and pushing out highland Arabica coffee. Colombia is prominent in production
of quality Arabica coffee and could also become a major producer of Robusta coffee.
Compared to Arabica that is typically grown in central Colombia, Robusta can be grown
along the Caribbean and Pacific coasts or in the Eastern lowland region of Orinoquía and the
Altillanura. Robusta coffees have higher caffeine levels than Arabica and some organoleptic
properties that could complement the high-quality beans grown in the country. This
review discussed the benefits and limitations that Robusta coffee may have in Colombian
production regions. Overall, the ecological adaptation of this “new” type of coffee makes
them ideal for drought tolerance and they have natural resistance to some of the major pests
and diseases of Arabica coffee allowing them to thrive under harsh conditions of drought or
hotter-temperatures. Climate change is likely to further induce disease epidemics and insect
spread. As a result, Robusta coffee is a promising new crop for production in Colombia.
Like other countries in equatorial regions of Africa, Asia or the Americas, Colombia could
have significant production for the domestic and foreign market of Robusta coffee given it
has large areas suitable for this crop.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, L.F.C.-D. and M.W.B.; methodology, L.F.C.-D. and J.C.H.;
investigation, C.G., J.C.H., L.F.C.-D. and M.W.B.; data curation, L.F.C.-D. and J.C.H.; writing—original
draft preparation, C.G., J.C.H., L.F.C.-D. and M.W.B.; writing—review and editing, J.C.H., L.F.C.-D.
and M.W.B.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This review was funded by Colombian Agricultural Research Corporation (AGROSAVIA),
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Colombia (MADR), Nestléand United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) through the
Evans Allen grant TENX-07. MWB was funded by a Fulbright Specialist grant to visit AGROSAVIA
in 2019 and acknowledges ICETEX of Colombia and the State Department of the United States.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not Applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
Data from this research can be made available by the corresponding
authors upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Coste, R. Coffee: The Plant and Products; Macmillan Press Ltd.: London, UK, 1992; 328p.
2.
Montagnon, C.; Cubry, P.; Leroy, T. Amélioration génétique du caféier Coffea canephora Pierre: Connaissances acquises, stratégies
et perspectives. Cah. Agric. 2012,21, 143–153. [CrossRef]
3.
Bikila, B.A.; Sakiyama, N.S.; Caixeta, E.T. SNPs Based Molecular Diversity of Coffea canephora.J. Microbiol. Exp.
2017
,5, 00136.
[CrossRef]
4.
Montagnon, C.; Guyot, B.; Cilas, C.; Leroy, T. Genetic parameters of several biochemical compounds from green coffee, Coffea
canephora.Plant Breed. 1998,117, 576–578. [CrossRef]
5.
ICO. International Coffee Organization. Coffee Market Report 2021. Available online: https://www.ico.org/es/Market-Report-
20-21-c.asp (accessed on 1 October 2021).
6.
Souza, C.; Rocha, R.; Alves, E.; Teixeira, A.; Dalazen, J.; Aymbiré, F.A. Characterization of beverage quality in Coffea canephora
Pierre Ex A. Froehner. Coffee Sci. 2018,13, 210–218. [CrossRef]
7.
Herrera, J.C.; Alvarado, G.A.; Cortina, G.H.A.; Combes, M.C.; Romero, G.G.; Lashermes, P. Genetic analysis of partial resistance
to coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix Berk & Br.) introgressed into the cultivated Coffea arabica L. from the diploid C. canephora
species. Euphytica 2009,167, 57–67.
8.
Melese, Y.Y.; Kolech, S.A. Coffee (Coffea arabica L.): Methods, Objectives, and Future Strategies of Breeding in Ethiopia—Review.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10814. [CrossRef]
9.
Buck, N.; Wohlt, D.; Winter, A.R.; Ortner, E. Aroma-Active Compounds in Robusta Coffee Pulp Puree—Evaluation of Physico-
chemical and Sensory Properties. Molecules 2021,26, 3925. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Rocha, R.B.; Ramalho, A.R.; Texeira, A.L.; Souza, F.d.F.; Cruz, C.D. Adaptability, and stability of Coffea canephora coffee bean yield.
Cienc. Rural. 2015,45, 1531–1537. [CrossRef]
11.
Leibovich, J.; Llinás, G. La Producción de CaféRobusta en Colombia. Econestudio/Asesoria y estudios académicos. 2013.
Available online: https://www.urosario.edu.co/Mision-Cafetera/Archivos/Produccion-de-Cafe-Robusta-Jose-Leibovich.pdf
(accessed on 5 October 2021).
Agronomy 2021,11, 2550 12 of 12
12.
Collazos, E.; Piñeros, C.; Gutierrez, W. Estudio de Viabilidad Económica Para la Producción y Comercialización de CaféRobusta
(Coffea Canephora) en Colombia: Caso Sabana de Torres, Santander. Universidad Católica de Colombia Facultad de ciencias
económicas y administrativas, Bogotá, Colombia. 2020. Available online: https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstream/10983/
24562/1/TRABAJO%20FINAL%20DE%20GRADO%20%281%29.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2021).
13.
Holmes, M.J.; Otero, J. A tale of two coffees? Analyzing interaction and futures market efficiency. Stud. Econ. Financ.
2020
,37,
89–109. [CrossRef]
14. Alvarado, G. Atributos de valor de la especie Coffea canephora para la agricultura colombiana. 2017. Unpublished work.
15.
Herron, A. Producción de Caféen Áreas no Tradicionales. AherO Estudios Técnicos Agrícolas S.A.S. 2013. Disponible en. Avail-
able online: https://www.urosario.edu.co/Mision-Cafetera/Archivos/Zonas-no-tradcionales-antonio-Herron.pdf (accessed on
8 October 2021).
16.
Ayarza, M.; Alvarado, G.; Castilla, C. Coffea canephora: A promising options to intensify and diversify production system in the
tropical lowlands of Colombia. 2019. Unpublished work.
17.
Garcia, O. Carimagua: La investigación y el desarrollo en ecosistemas de baja fertilidad. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu.
2009
,22, 74–78.
18.
Podestá, P. Transformación Productiva de las Sabanas de la Altillanura Colombiana [en línea]. Trabajo Final de Ingeniería en
Producción Agropecuaria. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Católica Argentina. 2016. Disponible en. Available
online: http://bibliotecadigital.uca.edu.ar/repositorio/tesis/transformacion-productiva-altillanura- colombiana.pdf (accessed
on 5 October 2021).
19.
Ibarra-Ruales, L.; Reyes-Cuesta, R. Crecimiento en vivero de las palmas aceiteras Elaeis oleífera
×
Elaeis guineensis y Elaeis guineensis
×Elaeis guineensis en Tumaco Colombia. Corpoica Cienc. Tecnol. Agropecu. 2015,16, 239–250. [CrossRef]
20.
Moraes, M.S.; Rocha, R.B.; Teixeira, A.L.; Espindula, M.C.; Silva, C.A.; Lunz, A.M.P. Adaptability and stability of Coffea canephora
Pierre ex Froehner genotypes in the Western Amazon. Ciência Rural 2020,50, e20190087. [CrossRef]
21.
Kufa, T. Environmental sustainability and coffee diversity in Africa. In Proceedings of the InICO World Coffee Conference,
London, UK, 3–8 October 2010; pp. 26–28.
22.
Souza, F.D.F.; Caixeta, E.T.; Ferrão, L.F.V.; Pena, G.F.; Sakiyama, N.S.; Zambolim, E.M.; Zambolim, L.; Cruz, C.D. Molecular
diversity in Coffea canephora germplasm conserved and cultivated in Brazil. Crop. Breed. Appl. Biotechnol.
2013
,13, 221–227.
[CrossRef]
23.
Giles, J.A.D.; Partelli, F.L.; Ferreira, A.; Rodrigues, J.P.; Oliosi, G.; Silva, F.H. Genetic diversity of promising ‘conilon’coffee clones
based on morpho-agronomic variables. An. Acad. Bras. Ciências 2018,90, 2437–2446. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Prakash, N.S.; Combes, M.C.; Dussert SNaveen, S.; Lashermes, P. Analysis of genetic diversity in Indian robusta coffee genepool
(Coffea canephora) in comparison with a representative core collection using SSRs and AFLPs. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol.
2005
,52,
333–343. [CrossRef]
25.
Herrera, J.C.; Lambot, C. The coffee tree—Genetic diversity and origin. In The Craft and Science of Coffee; Academic Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–16.
26.
Bunn, C.; Läderach, P.; Rivera, O.O.; Kirschke, D. A bitter cup: Climate change profile of global production of Arabica and
Robusta coffee. Clim. Chang. 2015,129, 89–101. [CrossRef]
27.
Van Long, N.; Ngoc, N.Q.; Dung, N.N.; Kristiansen, P.; Yunusa, I.; Fyfe, C. The effects of shade tree types on light variation and
robusta coffee production in Vietnam. Engineering 2015,7, 742. [CrossRef]
28.
Piato, K.; Lefort, F.; Subía, C.; Caicedo, C.; Calderón, D.; Pico, J.; Norgrove, L. Effects of shade trees on robusta coffee growth,
yield and quality. A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020,40, 38. [CrossRef]
29.
Nath, C.D.; Pélissier, R.; Ramesh, B.R.; Garcia, C. Promoting native trees in shade coffee plantations of southern India: Comparison
of growth rates with the exotic Grevillea robusta.Agrofor. Syst. 2011,83, 107–119. [CrossRef]
30.
Kiyingi, I.; Gwali, S. Productivity and profitability of robusta coffee agroforestry systems in central Uganda. Uganda J. Agric. Sci.
2012,13, 85–93.
31.
Baggio, A.J.; Caramori, P.H.; Androcioli Filho, A.; Montoya, L. Productivity of southern Brazilian coffee plantations shaded by
different stockings of Grevillea robusta.Agrofor. Syst. 1997,37, 111–120. [CrossRef]
32.
Cubry, P.; de Bellis, F.; Avia, K.; Bouchet, S.; Pot, D.; Dufour, M.; Legnate, H.; Leroy, T. An initial assessment of linkage
disequilibrium (LD) in coffee trees: LD patterns in groups of Coffea canephora Pierre using microsatellite analysis. BMC Genom.
2013,14, 10. [CrossRef]
33.
Gomez, C.; Dussert, S.; Hamon, P.; Hamon, S.; de Kochko, A.; Poncet, V. Current genetic differentiation of Coffea canephora Pierre
ex A. Froehn in the Guineo-Congolian African zone: Cumulative impact of ancient climatic changes and recent human activities.
BMC Evol. Biol. 2009,9, 167. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Akpertey, A.; Padi, F.K.; Meinhardt, L.; Zhang, D. Effectiveness of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Markers in Genotyping
Germplasm Collections of Coffea canephora Using KASP Assay. Front. Plant Sci. 2020,11, 612593. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
