Coffee yields
How much coffee a hectare gives – how yield is measured and reported, national averages of the main producing countries, the gap between smallholder and technified farms, and why yields swing from year to year.
Across the chain: Sustainability
Contents
In brief
- Yield is reported as kilograms of green coffee per hectare or as bags per hectare; the USDA counts bags of 60 kg, but some national bags differ.2,11
- In FAO statistics for 2024, national averages ranged from 344 kg/ha (Central African Republic) to 2,970 kg/ha (Vietnam) among the ten largest producers.1
- Measured yields span from about 200 kg/ha in Ethiopian forest coffee to over 100 bags/ha in a dense clonal robusta trial in Brazil.5,8
- Arabica alternates between high-yielding on-years and lower-yielding off-years; in Brazil this biennial cycle is pronounced and moves world supply.2
What a yield figure measures#
Yield is the amount produced per unit of land.1 For coffee, the unit of land is the hectare (10,000 m²). The amount is usually green coffee: the hulled, dried seed that is traded.1,5
The same harvest can be written in several ways:
- Kilograms of green coffee per hectare (kg/ha). FAO statistics publish yield per hectare for the item “coffee, green”.1
- Bags per hectare. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) counts production in 60-kg bags.2 One bag per hectare is 60 kg/ha (our calculation). Not every bag is 60 kg: a Nicaraguan trial reported its yields in bags of 46 kg.11
- Cherry or parchment. Producers often weigh fresh cherry or dry parchment, not green coffee. Their mass must be converted before yields can be compared.3,4
- Grams per tree. Variety trials often report yield per plant, for example in grams of green coffee per tree per year.10 Yield per hectare then depends on how many trees stand on each hectare.
A yield figure therefore needs three labels: the material (cherry, parchment or green), the unit (kg or bags of a stated mass) and the period (one harvest or an average of several).
Converting between units#
Most of a cherry’s weight is lost before green coffee is reached. The steps are covered in cherry-to-green conversion; this entry uses its factors.
In a Colombian study of washed coffee, 6.23 kg of selected ripe cherry gave 1 kg of green coffee.3 The International Coffee Organization (ICO) converts parchment coffee to green coffee by multiplying by 0.80, and dried cherry by multiplying by 0.50.4 Standard trade ratios give about 6 kg of fresh cherry per kg of green coffee for naturals.5
So a farm that sells 1,000 kg of green coffee per hectare produces 16.7 bags of 60 kg per hectare. It harvested about 6,230 kg of fresh cherry if processed like the Colombian washed coffee, and dried about 1,250 kg of dry parchment per hectare (our calculation from the factors above3,4).
National average yields#
National yields are averages: the production of a country divided by its harvested area. FAO publishes them yearly, country by country.1 Among the ten largest producers in FAO statistics for 2024, average yields differed almost ninefold.1
Data table
| kg green coffee per ha (2024) | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Vietnam | 2,970 | 1 |
| Brazil | 1,743 | 1 |
| Honduras | 1,215 | 1 |
| Colombia | 1,003 | 1 |
| Peru | 851 | 1 |
| India | 739 | 1 |
| Ethiopia | 667 | 1 |
| Indonesia | 636 | 1 |
| Uganda | 546 | 1 |
| Central African Republic | 344 | 1 |
Vietnam had the highest average, 2,970 kg/ha, about 50 bags per hectare.1 Brazil, the largest producer, averaged 1,743 kg/ha, about 29 bags.1 Colombia and Honduras were between about 1,000 and 1,215 kg/ha.1 Indonesia, Ethiopia, Uganda and India were between about 550 and 750 kg/ha.1 The bag figures are our calculation.
A national average hides very different farms. It mixes young and old trees, arabica and robusta, and farms with and without inputs. It cannot show what a single well-run farm achieves.
The yield gap#
The yield gap is the difference between what farms actually harvest and what they could harvest under good management. Measured yields span more than an order of magnitude.
- Ethiopia, forest coffee. In Yayu, south-western Ethiopia, five cooperatives averaged 200 kg of green coffee per hectare in 2017/18, an off-year.5 In on-years, field trials and survey information put yields between about 207 kg/ha and 650, perhaps 750 kg/ha.5
- Uganda, smallholders. A 2025 study gives the national average as 700 kg/ha of green coffee per year, which it puts at only 20–30% of the yield potential.6
- Vietnam, robusta farms. A 10-year survey of 558 farms in the Central Highlands found average yields of 2.01–4.21 t/ha across groups of farms sorted by fertiliser rate and yield level; the paper does not state whether the yields are green coffee.7
- Brazil, clonal robusta. In a trial in Rondônia, dense planting of clonal robusta gave 71.84–105.76 bags of 60 kg of processed beans per hectare, averaged over three harvests.8
Data table
| Point | kg per ha (green coffee unless noted) | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethiopia, forest coffee, Yayu (2017/18, off-year) | 200 | 200 | 5 |
| Ethiopia, Yayu, on-year range (trials, survey) | ≈207–750 | 207–750 | 5 |
| Uganda, national (as cited, 2025) | 700 | 700 | 6 |
| Nicaragua, Marsellesa and Starmaya (46-kg bags) | ≈1,398–1,891 | 1398–1891 | 11 |
| Vietnam, robusta farm groups, 2008–2017 (material not stated) | 2,010–4,210 | 2010–4210 | 7 |
| Brazil, clonal robusta trial (1,666–3,333 plants/ha) | ≈4,310–6,346 | 4310–6346 | 8 |
| Maximum, elite arabica (review; dry beans) | ≈8,000 | 8000 | 9 |
| Maximum, elite robusta clones (review; dry beans) | ≈12,000 | 12000 | 9 |
The ceiling is far higher still. A 2007 review, from the authors’ observations, puts the maximum yield of elite arabica cultivars at about 8,000 kg of dry beans per hectare, and of elite robusta clones at about 12,000 kg.9
What drives yield#
Many factors set the yield of a hectare. Each has its own entry; one sentence each here.
- Variety. In 15 Central American trials, F1 hybrids yielded 58% more than pure-line cultivars under agroforestry and 34% more in full sun.10
- Planting density. In the Brazilian robusta trial, yield per plant fell as density rose from 1,666 to 3,333 plants per hectare, but yield per hectare rose.8 See planting density and layout.
- Nutrition. Vietnamese robusta farms applied more chemical fertiliser than recommended, Indonesian farms well below the recommendations.7 See nutrition and fertilisation.
- Shade. A 2022 meta-analysis found that low to moderate shade, about 10–40%, in many cases costs little yield.12 See shade and agroforestry.
- Tree age. Cenicafé reports that in Colombia coffee grown without pruning reaches its highest productivity at 6–8 years of age.13 See branching and fruiting wood, and pruning and renovation.
- Biennial bearing. A heavy crop one year is often followed by a light one.2 See below.
Biennial bearing and year-to-year swings#
Arabica trees alternate between high-yielding on-years and lower-yielding off-years, according to the USDA.2 The USDA attributes this to energy shifting between fruit and vegetative growth.2 A 2007 review notes that the greater the fruit load, the greater the plant’s demand for carbohydrates.9 Under normal conditions, Brazil’s arabica crop can rise by 5–10 million bags in an on-year and fall by a similar amount the next year.2
The pattern is pronounced in Brazil. According to the USDA, frost, heat or drought can push trees across large areas into an off-year at the same time, and mechanised pruning and harvesting further align the farms.2
Data table
| Series | Year | kg green/ha | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2000 | 839 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2001 | 779 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2002 | 1101 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2003 | 830 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2004 | 1041 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2005 | 920 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2006 | 1113 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2007 | 993 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2008 | 1259 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2009 | 1143 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2010 | 1346 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2011 | 1257 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2012 | 1433 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2013 | 1422 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2014 | 1404 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2015 | 1339 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2016 | 1515 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2017 | 1489 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2018 | 1906 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2019 | 1650 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2020 | 1952 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2021 | 1629 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2022 | 1703 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2023 | 1758 | 1 |
| Brazil | 2024 | 1743 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2000 | 943 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2001 | 931 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2002 | 981 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2003 | 962 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2004 | 875 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2005 | 827 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2006 | 923 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2007 | 949 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2008 | 940 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2009 | 612 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2010 | 688 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2011 | 647 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2012 | 664 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2013 | 846 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2014 | 916 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2015 | 1033 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2016 | 1051 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2017 | 942 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2018 | 927 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2019 | 1037 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2020 | 987 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2021 | 667 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2022 | 789 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2023 | 809 | 1 |
| Colombia | 2024 | 1003 | 1 |
The national statistics show the cycle. From 2000 to 2021, Brazil’s average yield in every even year was higher than in the odd year after it (our reading of the FAO series1). Over the same period the average more than doubled, from 839 kg/ha in 2000 to 1,952 kg/ha in 2020.1
Weather and disease also move yields. Colombia’s average fell from 940 kg/ha in 2008 to 612 kg/ha in 2009 and stayed below 700 kg/ha until 2012.1 The fall coincides with the coffee leaf rust epidemic, which a 2015 review dates to 2008–2011 in Colombia and traces to economic and meteorological drivers.14
Reference values#
Values as reported, in the source’s own unit; conversions to kg green coffee per hectare are our calculation (1 bag of 60 kg/ha = 60 kg/ha).
| Parameter | Value reported | Conditions | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| National average, Vietnam | 2,970 kg/ha (≈49.5 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| National average, Brazil | 1,743 kg/ha (≈29.1 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| National average, Honduras | 1,215 kg/ha (≈20.3 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| National average, Colombia | 1,003 kg/ha (≈16.7 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| National average, Peru | 851 kg/ha (≈14.2 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| National average, India | 739 kg/ha (≈12.3 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| National average, Ethiopia | 667 kg/ha (≈11.1 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| National average, Indonesia | 636 kg/ha (≈10.6 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| National average, Uganda | 546 kg/ha (≈9.1 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| National average, Central African Republic | 344 kg/ha (≈5.7 bags) | FAO, 2024 | FAOSTAT1 |
| Uganda, national (as cited) | 700 kg/ha green per year; 20–30% of potential | Cited from earlier studies | Mukasa et al.6 |
| Uganda, farmer types (baseline survey) | Robusta 107–715 kg/ha; arabica 211–913 kg/ha | 2016 survey; material not stated | Mukasa et al.6 |
| Ethiopia, forest coffee | 200 kg/ha (2017/18, off-year); ≈207–750 kg/ha in on-years (field trials, survey) | Five cooperatives, Yayu; clean coffee (green bean equivalent) | Schuit et al.5 |
| Vietnam, robusta farms | 2.01–4.21 t/ha | Means of groups by fertiliser rate and yield level; 558 farms, four provinces, 2008–2017; material not stated | Byrareddy et al.7 |
| Brazil, clonal robusta | 71.84 bags/ha (1,666 plants/ha) to 105.76 bags/ha (3,333 plants/ha); ≈4,310–6,346 kg/ha | Rondônia, clonal C. canephora (robusta and conilon types), four stems per plant, bags of 60 kg of processed beans, mean of three harvests 2016–2018 | Espindula et al.8 |
| Nicaragua, F1 hybrid vs line | Starmaya 41.1, Marsellesa 30.4 bags of 46 kg/ha (≈1,891 and 1,398 kg/ha) | Commercial field, Matagalpa, three harvests 2015–2018 | Georget et al.11 |
| F1 hybrids vs pure lines | 754 vs 562 g/tree (full sun); 460 vs 290 g/tree (agroforestry) | 15 trials, Central America, green coffee per tree per year | Bertrand et al.10 |
| Maximum yield, elite arabica | ≈8,000 kg (dry beans)/ha | Review; the authors’ observation | DaMatta et al.9 |
| Maximum yield, elite robusta clones | ≈12,000 kg (dry beans)/ha | Review; the authors’ observation | DaMatta et al.9 |
| Biennial swing, Brazil arabica | 5–10 million 60-kg bags up, then down | National crop, normal conditions | USDA2 |
Converting yield units#
All conversions use published factors; the arithmetic is ours.
| From | To | Operation | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| kg green coffee/ha | 60-kg bags/ha | ÷ 60 | Bag of 60 kg2 |
| Bags of 46 kg/ha | kg green coffee/ha | × 46 | Bag mass stated in the source11 |
| t/ha | kg/ha | × 1,000 | FAO unit1 |
| kg dry parchment | kg green coffee | × 0.80 | ICO factor4 |
| kg dried cherry | kg green coffee | × 0.50 | ICO factor4 |
| kg fresh cherry (washed, selected ripe) | kg green coffee | ÷ 6.23 | Cenicafé, Colombia3 |
| kg fresh cherry (natural) | kg green coffee | ÷ 6 (3:1, then 2:1) | Standard trade ratios5 |
| g green coffee/tree | kg/ha | × trees per ha ÷ 1,000 | Needs the planting density |
Worked examples (our calculation):
- Bags to kilograms. The Rondônia trial’s 105.76 bags of 60 kg per hectare8 equal 6,346 kg/ha. If the same number were read as 46-kg bags, it would be 4,865 kg/ha: the bag mass matters.
- Per tree to per hectare. The hybrids’ 754 g per tree in full sun10 would be 3,770 kg/ha at 5,000 trees per hectare, or 1,508 kg/ha at 2,000. The trial paper reports per tree; the densities here only illustrate the arithmetic.
- Cherry to green. 10,000 kg of fresh cherry per hectare, washed with the Colombian factor, gives 10,000 ÷ 6.23 = 1,605 kg of green coffee per hectare, or 26.8 bags.3
- National yield to bags. Brazil’s 1,743 kg/ha in 20241 is 29.1 bags of 60 kg per hectare.
Reading national statistics#
FAO describes yield as the amount produced per unit of land used.1 A national figure is therefore a ratio of two estimates – production and harvested area – and both carry the uncertainty of each country’s reporting. We show the FAO values as published and did not check how each country’s figures were collected.
Three points matter when comparing countries:
- Species mix. The USDA lists Vietnam mainly among robusta producers and Colombia among arabica producers.2 The 2007 review puts the yield potential of elite robusta clones above that of elite arabica.9 National averages compare systems as well as management.
- Single and split years. The FAO series is indexed by single years,1 while the USDA uses split years such as 2026/27.2 Years in the two datasets do not match one to one.
- One year is not a trend. Brazil’s national average fell by 13% from 2018 to 2019 and by 17% from 2020 to 2021 (our calculation from the FAO series1). Averages over several years, or on-years compared with on-years, show trends more reliably.
Biennial bearing in detail#
According to the 2007 review, the greater the fruit load, the greater the plant’s demand for carbohydrates.9 Heavy crops may impair the function of the root system and can worsen dieback, the death of branches from the tips; dieback in turn may accentuate the biennial cycle.9 The review notes that shading decreases profuse flowering, overbearing and biennial production.9 It also states that biennial production is reduced or buffered in conilon, the Brazilian robusta, where stems are regularly pruned and renewed.9 For the physiology of overbearing, see overbearing and dieback.
Robusta can still alternate. In the first phase of the Rondônia trial, 2014 production was higher than in 2013 and 2015, which the authors describe as a biennial production effect.8
The USDA describes how weather can turn a normal cycle into a deep swing. Since 2021/22, Brazil’s yields have been inconsistent: drought and high temperatures cut that off-year crop by 13.3 million bags, and the following on-year rebounded by only 3.4 million.2 The FAO series shows the same break: from 2022, the even-year peak no longer appears.1
| Year | Brazil, kg/ha | Colombia, kg/ha |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 1,259 | 940 |
| 2009 | 1,143 | 612 |
| 2010 | 1,346 | 688 |
| 2011 | 1,257 | 647 |
| 2012 | 1,433 | 664 |
| 2018 | 1,906 | 927 |
| 2019 | 1,650 | 1,037 |
| 2020 | 1,952 | 987 |
| 2021 | 1,629 | 667 |
| 2022 | 1,703 | 789 |
| 2023 | 1,758 | 809 |
| 2024 | 1,743 | 1,003 |
Selected years from the FAO series1; the full series is in the figure’s data table.
Yields and sustainability#
Yield links land, income and environment. A higher yield produces the same coffee on less land, but the inputs that raise yield have their own costs.
- Fertiliser balance. The ten-year survey in Vietnam and Indonesia found unbalanced fertiliser use in both directions: Vietnamese farms applied more chemical fertiliser than recommended, Indonesian farms well below the recommended rates.7 The study links the low Indonesian rates to poor access and financial support.7
- Forest coffee. In Ethiopia’s Yayu forest coffee, yields were about 200–250 kg/ha.5 The 2021 study looked at how to bring household incomes to around or above the global poverty line. It found that income could be raised, in some cases substantially, through the specialty market, with environmental benefits.5
- Shade. The 2022 meta-analysis found that low to moderate shade often costs little yield,12 so some of the benefits of trees described in shade and agroforestry come at a small yield cost.
- Closing the gap. The Ugandan study describes a stepwise approach to help smallholders adopt climate-smart practices, in a country where it puts national yields at 20–30% of their potential.6
- Overbearing. According to the 2007 review, heavy crops may impair the root system and worsen dieback and tree decline; in Catimor progenies in Brazil, dieback after high-yield years exacerbates the biennial trend and limits the productive life of the crop.9
Open questions#
- No study consulted for this entry compared smallholder and technified farms within one country under one protocol; the yield gap above is assembled from different studies, systems and years.
- The Ugandan farmer-type yields do not state whether they are green coffee, dried cherry or another material.6
- Why Brazil’s even-year peak disappeared after 2021 in the FAO series is explained by the USDA with weather;2 no study consulted for this entry tested whether the cycle has returned.
- The FAO figure for the Central African Republic, 344 kg/ha on a production that places it among the ten largest producers,1 was not checked against national sources.
Key studies#
Schuit et al., 2021 – Specialty coffee and income in Ethiopia. Followed five forest-coffee cooperatives in Yayu and measured yields, costs and prices. Yields were about 200 kg of green coffee per hectare in an off-year; income could be raised, in some cases substantially, by selling into the specialty market.
Byrareddy et al., 2019 – Ten years of fertiliser use on robusta farms. Surveyed 798 farms in Vietnam and Indonesia every year from 2008 to 2017. Vietnamese farms applied more fertiliser than recommended and reached average yields of about 2–4 t/ha across groups by fertiliser rate and yield level; Indonesian farms applied far less.
Espindula et al., 2021 – Spatial arrangement of clonal robusta. Tested stem numbers and plant densities of robusta in Rondônia, Brazil. Four stems per plant were best; doubling density from 1,666 to 3,333 plants per hectare lowered yield per plant but raised yield per hectare to 105.76 bags.
DaMatta et al., 2007 – Ecophysiology of coffee growth and production. Reviews how climate, shade, fruit load and plant architecture shape coffee yield. Sets out yield ceilings for elite arabica and robusta and explains how heavy fruit loads drive dieback and biennial bearing.
- Average yield in Ethiopia: a 2021 study of five forest-coffee cooperatives estimated about 250 kg/ha of green coffee in an on-year and measured 200 kg/ha in an off-year, and called the on-year estimate similar to the 268 kg/ha it quotes from an earlier report5; FAO statistics give Ethiopia 667 kg/ha for 2024.1 The figures cover different systems, years and methods (one forest area against a national ratio of production to area).
Coffearium (2026). Coffee yields. Coffearium – The open coffee compendium. Retrieved 4 November 2026, from https://coffearium.org/entries/coffee-yields/
@misc{coffearium2026-coffee-yields,
author = {{Coffearium}},
title = {{Coffee yields}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {Coffearium -- The open coffee compendium},
url = {https://coffearium.org/entries/coffee-yields/},
urldate = {2026-11-04},
note = {Retrieved 4 November 2026}
}Entries are updated when the evidence changes; the retrieval date tells your readers which version you used. Changes are listed in the Change log.
Change log
- – Ethiopia (Yayu): the 207–750 kg/ha range is now given as on-year yields from field trials and survey information, not a range across years; the 250 kg/ha on-year estimate is described as similar to (not below) the 268 kg/ha the study quotes. Reason: Schuit et al. 2021 say “in an ‘on’ year yield can be as high as 650 kg/ha, or perhaps even 750 kg/ha, but as low as 207 kg/ha” and call 250 kg/ha “similar” to 268 kg/ha.
- – Vietnam survey: the 2.01–4.21 t/ha are means of groups by fertiliser rate and yield level, and the paper does not state the material; text, table and yield-gap chart now say so. Reason: Byrareddy et al. 2019, Tables 7–8, define yield only as “average coffee yield (ton ha−1)” and group farms by yield level as well as rate.
- – Colombia: the rust epidemic is dated 2008–2011 for Colombia, as in the 2015 review, instead of 2008–2013; overbearing bullet now limits the shortened productive life to Catimor progenies, as in the 2007 review. Reason: Avelino et al. 2015 abstract: “Colombia, from 2008 to 2011”; DaMatta et al. 2007 state the productive-life effect for Catimor.
Sources
- AFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); processed by Our World in Data (2026). Coffee bean yields; Coffee bean production (FAOSTAT, Crops and livestock products, item Coffee, green). FAO via Our World in Data.
- AUSDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2026). Coffee: World Markets and Trade (July 2026). United States Department of Agriculture.
- AMontilla-Pérez, J.; Arcila-Pulgarín, J.; Aristizábal-Loaiza, M.; Montoya-Restrepo, E. C.; Puerta-Quintero, G. I.; Oliveros-Tascón, C. E.; Cadena-Gómez, G. (2008). Propiedades físicas y factores de conversión del café en el proceso de beneficio (Avances Técnicos 370). Cenicafé (Colombian Coffee Research Centre).
- AInternational Coffee Council (2011). Rules on Statistics: Statistical Reports (ICC-102-10). International Coffee Organization.
- ASchuit, P.; Moat, J.; Gole, T. W.; Challa, Z. K.; Torz, J.; Macatonia, S.; Cruz, G.; Davis, A. P. (2021). The potential for income improvement and biodiversity conservation via specialty coffee in Ethiopia. PeerJ 9, e10621. doi:10.7717/peerj.10621 · other copies
- AMukasa, D.; Rusinamhodzi, L.; van Asten, P. J. A.; Amwonya, D.; Sseguya, H.; Okiror, F. A.; Kirungi, D.; Wodada, W.; Komakech, V.; Margiotta, S.; Jassogne, L. (2025). A stepwise approach to facilitate adoption of climate smart practices for smallholder coffee production in Uganda. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 23(1), 2513790. doi:10.1080/14735903.2025.2513790 · other copies
- AByrareddy, V.; Kouadio, L.; Mushtaq, S.; Stone, R. (2019). Sustainable Production of Robusta Coffee under a Changing Climate: A 10-Year Monitoring of Fertilizer Management in Coffee Farms in Vietnam and Indonesia. Agronomy 9(9), 499. doi:10.3390/agronomy9090499 · other copies
- AEspindula, M. C.; Tavella, L. B.; Schmidt, R.; Rocha, R. B.; Dias, J. R. M.; Bravin, M. P.; Partelli, F. L. (2021). Yield of robusta coffee in different spatial arrangements. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 56, e02516. doi:10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2021.v56.02516 · other copies
- ADaMatta, F. M.; Ronchi, C. P.; Maestri, M.; Barros, R. S. (2007). Ecophysiology of coffee growth and production. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 19(4), 485–510. doi:10.1590/S1677-04202007000400014 · other copies
- ABertrand, B.; Alpizar, E.; Lara, L.; SantaCreo, R.; Hidalgo, M.; Quijano, J. M.; Montagnon, C.; Georget, F.; Etienne, H. (2011). Performance of Coffea arabica F1 hybrids in agroforestry and full-sun cropping systems in comparison with American pure line cultivars. Euphytica 181(2), 147–158. doi:10.1007/s10681-011-0372-7 · other copies
- AGeorget, F.; Marie, L.; Alpizar, E.; Courtel, P.; Bordeaux, M.; Hidalgo, J. M.; Marraccini, P.; Breitler, J.-C.; Déchamp, E.; Poncon, C.; Etienne, H.; Bertrand, B. (2019). Starmaya: The First Arabica F1 Coffee Hybrid Produced Using Genetic Male Sterility. Frontiers in Plant Science 10, 1344. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01344 · other copies
- AKoutouleas, A.; Sarzynski, T.; Bertrand, B.; Bordeaux, M.; Bosselmann, A. S.; Campa, C.; Etienne, H.; Turreira-García, N.; Léran, S.; Markussen, B.; Marraccini, P.; Ramalho, J. C.; Vaast, P.; Ræbild, A. (2022). Shade effects on yield across different Coffea arabica cultivars – how much is too much? A meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 42, 55. doi:10.1007/s13593-022-00788-2 · other copies
- AArcila Pulgarín, J. (2007). Crecimiento y desarrollo de la planta de café. In: Arcila Pulgarín, J. et al. (eds), Sistemas de producción de café en Colombia, Cenicafé, ch. 2.
- AAvelino, J.; Cristancho, M.; Georgiou, S.; Imbach, P.; Aguilar, L.; Bornemann, G.; Läderach, P.; Anzueto, F.; Hruska, A. J.; Morales, C.; et al. (2015). The coffee rust crises in Colombia and Central America (2008–2013): impacts, plausible causes and proposed solutions. Food Security 7, 303–321. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0446-9 · other copies
Tier A · authoritative · B · trade and expert · C · general. Supporting quotes for every source are in the data version of this entry. If a publisher’s site refuses access, try the doi link or “other copies”.
The literature for this entry was last searched on 23 Oct 2026. A statement that no source consulted for this entry shows something refers to the sources above; newer or missing work may exist.
Discussion
A space for readers to share experience from the farm, the roastery or the bar, ask each other and offer other views. The Coffearium team does not reply here. Please keep to the community rules; to change the entry itself, use Suggest a change.