What's a coffee ingredient that causes the bean's price to skyrocket? The answer is feces. Coffee makers have been known to fake this exotic blend, so scientists have created a new "poop test."
The coffee, is made from beans that have been extracted from the excrement of an animal called a civet, USA Today reported. The coffee goes for betwee $150 and $227 a pound.
It is said to have a "high aroma, smooth taste, and low acidity," Espresso Coffee Guide reported. It also has a sweet taste.
Some people aren't impressed by the concept behind the coffee, or its taste.
"One of the strongest arguments against this coffee - and one that seems to meet a general consensus within the industry - is that it just tastes bad," Lily Kubota of the Specialty Coffee Association of America wrote on the society's website, NPR reported.
Others can't get enough.
"Kopi Luwak is exquisite," biotechnologist Sastia Prama Putri, of the Osaki University in Japan told NPR. "I normally can't drink black coffee. I need milk and sugar. But I can drink Kopi Luwak black."
Researchers believe the civet coffee is actually cleaner than most blends.
"If anything, I would say it would be less risky coffee health-wise, because I don't think the civet is going to consume anything that smells like bad fertilizer when it has lots of cherries to choose from." Rocky Rhodes, president of International Coffee Consulting, told USA Today.
A team, from the lab called Eiichiro Fukusaki, measured the citric acid content and did a taste test on 21 of the Indonesian coffee beans, NPR reported.
They found the civet droppings didn't do much for the coffee's taste, but it did effect the acidic levels in the ground beans.
The Scientists found a "metabolic fingerprint" that identified substances present in the civet's digestive process, the beans could be tested to make sure that fingerprint is there and verify the authenticity of the coffee, USA Today reported.
Researchers agree the test is a step in the right direction, but needs more work.
"It's the first study of this type, and it's not clear to me that they were really rigorous in terms of sample selection," Stanley Segall, a spokesman for the Institute of Food Technologists, who did not participate in the study, told USA Today.
