zlacker

>>sebg+(OP)
This was such a fascinating read—it really resonated with me. A few years ago, my girlfriend and I started a small coffee shop in Hanoi as a fun side project, and I was struck by the parallels between Vietnam's coffee history and the issues you outline here about Kenya.

Vietnam, like Kenya, emerged from a coffee industry shaped by colonial-era inequities. Yet through reforms, robust state support for smallholder farmers, and a focus on infrastructure, Vietnam has positioned itself as a global coffee powerhouse. While the initial focus on robusta was quantity-driven, there’s now a shift toward quality, which is helping Vietnamese coffee expand into new markets.

Kenya’s situation feels similar yet distinct. It has an unparalleled coffee heritage, and with thoughtful reforms—empowering smallholders, encouraging direct trade, and finding the right balance between quality and disease-resistant hybrids—it could reclaim its standing on the global stage.

The article beautifully captures the systemic challenges and the hope for transformation. I really believe Kenya’s coffee can rise again, stronger and fairer, just as Vietnam is starting to do. It’s inspiring to see how coffee connects people and places across the world in such unique ways!

>>MKober+1f
All the vietnamese coffee that I tried in europe (even in hype shops) tasted like american “french” roast aka burnt bad coffee. Could you recommend ways to try nice coffees from vietnam?

>>retina+Jk
Find another roaster that doesn’t burn it?

Most coffee is shipped in raw bean form and roasted at the destination. So bad roasts are not the fault of Vietnamese coffee per se.

>>loloqu+cw
The problem is if it is bad, they have to burn it to mask the taste. Same with most meats too.

>>throw_+uG
This is a common cliche in the hipster coffee community. The truth is darker roasts change the acid profile of coffee, and many people prefer that taste. To them, drinking a "good" coffee is like drinking a "bad" coffee with a lemon squeezed into it.

>>searea+Xb1
not really a cliche. that is why starbucks does it. they can cover up taste of poor beans especially when adding milk. most prefer a dark roast because corporations want to make profits and made our tastebuds lazy by force drinking it everyday. just like food with sweeteners or msg. it just kills the purpose of food as a craft. nowadays its even more the opposite there is an hipster revival of dark roast or msg hyping culture as marketing tool to sell it. but lets be homest those things are cache-misère

>>retina+1m1
"poor beans": This is the first time that I heard that Starbucks has poor beans. Can you explain more? To be clear: I am not here to shill for Starbucks.

Also: What do you say about Italians drinking a cappuccino or macchiato (expresso shot with a splash of steamed milk)? From what I have seen while traveling in Italy, most Italians drink coffee at small coffee shops. Or French people drinking cafe latte?

>>throwa+2P1
Like what you like, I think that is great. Some people really like dark roasted coffee. Nothing wrong with that, they aren't wrong/unsophisticated/whatever.

However, roasting coffee dark does homogenize the flavor of the coffee, and you do lose more and more of what that coffee tastes like. Coffees have a ton of different flavor compounds, and no two coffees are the same. There are quality issues and processing issues though that don't help to highlight this too, so it's hard to find coffee - even from people who know how to roast - that can shine in this way.

I think everyone should try a good coffee that has some punchy flavors - I'm not saying everyone should like it. It's a fun thing and should be experienced if you're interested.

>>roflye+mR1
You can make this argument for all cooking. You could even substitute "light roast" for "dark roast" in the above and it would read exactly the same. Why not brew raw coffee berries?

>>searea+r12
When you say "cooking" here, do you *only* mean roasting coffee beans? Or do you use the term "cooking" more generally? If specific, I agree with your point. If general, I would say that cooking proteins fundamentally changes the food and makes it more digestible (meat, fish, eggs, etc.).

>>throwa+242
>If general, I would say that cooking proteins fundamentally changes the food and makes it more digestible (meat, fish, eggs, etc.)

Applies to vegetables and other vegetarian foods, too :)

Ever tried eating raw wheat, rice, pulses or vegetables? Only some vegetables are okay in salads.

>>fuzzte+ub2
And cooking fundamentally changes the food because cooking is a chemical and physical reaction caused by the heat on the food being cooked. Proteins get denatured, food gets softer or harder (depending upon the amount of liquid and heat added or removed), etc.

I am not a expert on the science of cooking, these are just my casual, slightly scientific observations as a layman :)