在咖啡生产方面，最初奴隶主采用阿拉伯的作物种植制度，无视当地的作物生产。该地区不同的土壤需要不同的生产方法。奴隶主有任务系统和奴隶团伙来控制工人(Morgan, 1988)。在这个体系中，工人没有任何发言权。他们被要求服从命令，破坏森林系统来创造土地，他们遵循垂直的咖啡生产系统。奴隶们在咖啡生产协议中没有任何发言权。这反过来又导致人们破坏原有的景观(Dean, 1997)。然而，在该地区发展咖啡生产的技术被提供给了在该地区经营的奴隶。这就是马科斯暗示奴隶与该地区的咖啡生产关系不大的原因。奴隶们被迫做苦工，在起义前受到压迫。它们最初是按照阿拉伯种植园主在7世纪实行的一种制度制作的，后来根据土壤发生了变化。
在这整个过程中，尽管当地人对当地的土壤有了更多的了解，但是奴隶们并没有得到任何关于不同种植园开发方法的发言权。在朱迪思·卡尼(Judith Carney)的分析中，它指出，大米和奴隶已经成为一个单一的排他身份。由于西非奴隶的知识，水稻得以种植和大规模生产。在奴隶和水稻生产之间存在着一种二元关系。它已经成为奴隶和他们的苦难的转喻(Carney & Carney, 2009)。在卡尼的论证中，它建立在一个隐含的论断之上，即奴隶导致了所有权的范式转变。水稻的种植有着复杂而模糊的任务。这是一个多学科的方法，把不适宜居住的湿地变成了水稻种植区。这是因为奴隶的知识和劳动，因此它已经成为该地区奴隶生产的同义词。
In the case of Coffee production, initially the slave owners resorted to following the Arabian system of plantation of the crops by disregarding the indigenous crop production. The different soils in the area required differential methods of production. The slave owners had the task system and slave gangs to control the workers (Morgan, 1988). In this system, the workers did not have any voice. They were made to follow orders, destroy the forest system for creation of the agrarian lands and they followed the vertical system of coffee production. The slaves did not have any voice in the protocols for the coffee production. This in turn leads to the people destroying the original landscape (Dean, 1997). Yet the technology for developing the coffee production in the area was given to the slaves operating in the region. This has been the reason alluded by Marques to state that the slaves had little to do with the coffee production in the area. The slaves were made to do hard labor and were treated to oppressive conditions before the uprising. They were made to follow a system practiced by Arabian plantation owners of the 7th century initially and had subsequently changed based on the soil.
In this whole process, the slaves were not given any voice about the different plantation development methods, even though the locals made more awareness of the soils in the region.In the analysis by Judith Carney, it states that the rice and slaves have become a single exclusive identity. Rice was grown and the large scale production of the rice cultivation was possible owing to the knowledge of the West African slaves. There has been a dichotomous relationship between the slaves and the rice production. It had become a metonymy for slaves and their hardships (Carney & Carney, 2009). In the case of Carney argument, it was founded on the implicit assertion that slaves caused a paradigm shift in the ownership. Cultivation of rice has a complex and obscure mandates. It is a multi-disciplinary approach that had turned the inhospitable wetlands into cultivable rice plantation areas. This was because of the knowledge and the labor of the slaves, and hence it has become synonymous with the slave production in the areas.