United States 

Department 

of Agriculture 

www.ers.usda.gov 

 A Report from the Economic Research Service

Steven Zahniser, zahniser@ers.usda.gov

Marcela Vera Torres, José Alberto Cuéllar Álvarez, 

Nicolás Fernando López López, and Rhea Bhatta

The U.S. and Mexican 

VGS-341-01 Dry Bean Sectors

December 2010

Contents

Approved by USDA’s 

World Agricultural 

Outlook Board

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Bean Classes and Varieties 

Covered by NAFTA’s Last 

Set of Import Restrictions . . . . 4

The Importance of Dry Bean 

Trade to NAFTA Countries . . . 6

Price Data Reveal Similar 

Movements in Two Markets. . . 9

Geography and Farm Size 

Differentiate U.S. and Mexican 

Dry Bean Sectors . . . . . . . . . . 11

Smaller, More Productive 

Dry Bean Sectors Have Emerged 

in Both Countries . . . . . . . . . . 17

Mexico’s Dry Bean Policies 

Aim To Increase Sector 

Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

U.S. Agricultural Income 

Supports Exclude Dry Beans . 23

Dietary Changes Shape the 

Prospects for Demand . . . . . . 25

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Abstract

Liberalization of U.S.-Mexico dry bean trade, as part of the North American Free 

Trade Agreement (NAFTA), has enabled U.S. dry bean producers to provide a steadier 

and larger portion of Mexican supply. Long-term prospects for the newly integrated 

market are shaped by various factors. On the supply side, the future structure of Mexico’s dry bean sector will be comprised of a smaller number of producers who work 

larger plots of land for higher yields. U.S. dry bean production is already characterized 

by large-scale farms, and recent yields exhibit a modest upward trend. On the demand 

side, per capita disappearance of dry beans in Mexico is declining over the long term 

as consumers shift away from traditional staple foods. U.S. per capita consumption is 

relatively stable but only at about a fourth of Mexico’s average level, even though dry 

beans are a low-fat source of important nutrients.

Keywords: Dry beans, Mexico, United States, NAFTA, North American Free Trade 

Agreement

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Patricia C. Aguilar Méndez (independent consultant); José Luis 

Jaramillo Villanueva (Colegio de Posgraduados, Agricultural Sciences); Raúl Caballero and Violeta Picazzo (Marketing Solutions Firm); Robert Green (Michigan Bean 

Commission); Braulio Serna Hidalgo (United Nations Economic Commission for 

Latin America and the Caribbean); Benjamin Juárez Trueba (USDA Foreign Agricultural Service); Rick Snare (USDA Risk Management Agency); and John Dyck, 

Molly Garber, Gary Lucier, Mary Anne Normile, and Tom Vollrath (USDA Economic 

Research Service) for their feedback and useful suggestions. We also thank David 

Nulph (USDA Economic Research Service) for constructing the map of dry bean 

production locations and Angela Anderson and Cynthia A. Ray (USDA Economic 

Research Service) for editing and production. Opinions expressed in this report are 

those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect the opinions of the institutions with 

whom the authors are affi liated. Some information used to produce this report was 

obtained through activities funded by the Emerging Markets Program of USDA’s 

Foreign Agricultural Service.
2

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

About the Authors

Marcela Vera Torres, José Alberto Cuéllar Álvarez, and Nicolás Fernando 

López López worked on this report as members of the Agrifood Sector 

Studies and Support to International Trade Negotiations Unit of Mexico’s 

Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fishing, and Food, 

Support and Services for Agricultural Marketing (SAGARPA/ASERCA); 

Rhea Bhatta is a graduate student in economics at Lehigh University and 

contributed to this report while serving as an ERS intern during the summer 

of 2009.
3

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Participants in U.S.-Mexico dry bean trade are steadily gaining experience 

with how the North American market operates under conditions of regional 

free trade. The last transitional tariff-rate quotas (TRQs)1 on U.S.-Mexico 

(and Canada-Mexico) dry bean trade were removed at the start of 2008, in 

accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As a 

result, the outlook for the U.S. and Mexican dry bean sectors is now shaped 

by more fundamental forces of supply and demand, rather than anticipated 

reductions in regional trade barriers.

In this report, the authors examine the signifi cance of dry bean trade to the 

NAFTA countries; provide a detailed understanding of supply, demand, and 

policy in the U.S. and Mexican dry bean sectors; and consider the outlook for 

these industries. Special attention is given to the changing importance of dry 

beans within Mexican society. Dry beans continue to be an important source 

of protein, carbohydrates, and other nutrients in many Mexican households, 

particularly those of modest means. Nevertheless, consumption has declined 

over the past two decades in both aggregate and per capita terms, and this 

trend is likely to continue. Moreover, while producers working less than 5 

hectares of land account for roughly half of Mexico’s dry bean farmers, the 

sector is gradually becoming more consolidated, smaller in terms of area 

planted, and more effi cient in terms of yields.

1A TRQ is a quota for a volume of 

imports at favorable tariff rate. After the 

quantitative limit is reached, a higher 

tariff is applied to additional imports. 

In many TRQs, the in-quota tariff rate 

equals zero, and the over-quota tariff 

rate is prohibitively high.

Introduction
4

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Mexico and the United States produce a diversity of dry bean varieties, not 

all of which were covered by the transitional import restrictions that expired 

in 2008 as part of NAFTA. The production statistics collected by USDA’s 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cover the following commercial classes of dry beans: large lima, baby lima, navy, Great Northern, small 

white, pinto, light red kidney, dark red kidney, pink, small red, cranberry, 

black, blackeye, small chickpeas, and large chickpeas. Each class includes 

multiple varieties; for instance, the United States cultivates over 15 varieties 

of black beans. NAFTA’s TRQs for U.S. and Canadian dry bean exports to 

Mexico for the period 1994-2007 (tariff line 0713.33.02 in Mexico’s NAFTA 

tariff schedule) covered beans belonging to the species Phaseolus vulgaris, 

or “common” beans. The dry bean classes covered by these TRQs—pinto, 

navy, red kidney, black, Great Northern, small red (excluding Adzuki), pink, 

cranberry, and small white—account for about 90 percent of U.S. production. 

Within this framework, the leading classes of dry common beans produced 

in the United States are pinto (48 percent), navy (17 percent), black (13 

percent), and red kidney (8 percent) (fi g. 1). 

Given the focus of NAFTA’s restrictions and longstanding interest in U.S.-

Mexico trade in dry common beans, the authors primarily examined dry 

common beans, and the statistics presented in this report for U.S. dry bean 

exports, imports, and production cover only common classes and varieties 

of dry beans. Appendix table 1 identifi es the tariff lines considered as dry 

common beans for the purposes of this report.2 2 Matching tariff lines to dry bean 

varieties is not a precise science. For 

instance, the tariff line for small red 

beans (0713.32.2000) includes varieties 

that belong to the species Phaseolus

vulgaris as well as Adzuki beans, which 

belong to the species Vigna angularis. 

Moreover, it is not certain that the tariff 

classifi cations have been consistently 

and correctly applied to the different 

varieties of dry beans over the years.

Bean Classes and Varieties Covered by

 NAFTA’s Last Set of Import Restrictions

Figure 1

U.S. dry bean production, by variety, 2007-09

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Crop Production, January 2009.

Pinto

48%

Navy

17%

Black

13%

Red kidney

(light or dark)

8%

Great Northern, 5%

Other, 9%
5

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Mexico produces about 50 different varieties of dry beans, and these may 

be divided into four major groups (fi g. 2). Black (negros) is the group with 

the largest share of total consumption (38 percent), followed by pintos (26 

percent), pink (rosas, also referred to as claros or light-colored beans, 20 

percent), and yellow (amarillos, also referred to as azufrados or sulfurcolored, 16 percent). The most commonly produced varieties of pink beans 

in Mexico are Flor de Mayo and Flor de Junio. Mexico’s dry bean exports 

to the United States include some varieties that once were rarely produced 

in the United States, such as the yellow variety known as peruano or mayocoba (Wingett, 2006). U.S. and Mexican trade statistics are not suffi ciently 

detailed to specify the actual volumes of this trade, however.3

Some producers in Mexico are adopting different varieties of dry beans. 

In the State of Durango, for instance, the Government and the dry bean 

sector are encouraging producers with a medium to high level of potential 

productivity to plant certifi ed varieties better suited for precipitation conditions in Durango (Guzmán, 2010). Production in the State of Zacatecas 

has shifted toward pinto beans and away from the traditional light-colored 

varieties of Flor de Mayo and Flor de Junio. Pintos are projected to account 

for 23 percent of Zacatecas’s dry bean production in 2010, compared with 3 

percent in 2002 (Vallejo Díaz, 2010). Since 2004, the Idaho Bean Commission has worked with Mexican producers to test varieties suited for specifi c 

Mexican growing regions—fi rst in the State of Sinaloa and later in the States 

of Chihuahua and Zacatecas—with the intent of increasing sales of certifi ed seed to Mexico (Idaho State Department of Agriculture, 2006; StewartWilliams, 2009; and Wilkins, 2009).

 3 Interest in the market opportunities for yellow beans in Mexico and 

the United States has motivated the 

Idaho Bean Commission to partner with 

researchers at Idaho State University 

and Oregon State University to develop 

virus-resistant yellow beans. This research was funded by a Specialty Crop 

Block Grant awarded to the Idaho Bean 

Commission by the Idaho Department 

of Agriculture and USDA (Ag Weekly 

Online, 2009). Some producers in 

Michigan are also growing mayocoba 

beans.

Figure 2

Distribution of Mexican dry bean consumption, by variety, 2008

Source: Author calculations based on data from Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, 

Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera 

(SAGARPA/SIAP).

Black, 38%

Pinto, 26%

Yellow, 16%

Light colored, 20%
6

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Dry bean trade is a key component of sales for U.S. and Canadian producers 

and an important source of supply for Mexican consumers (table 1). Mexico 

is the destination for about 35 percent of U.S. dry bean exports and 10 

percent of U.S. dry bean production, while Canada receives about 10 percent 

of U.S. dry bean exports and 3 percent of U.S. production. For Mexico, 

imports from the United States account for about 10 percent of national dry 

bean supply (calculated as imports plus domestic production), stabilizing 

consumption when downturns in production occur. For Canada, exports to 

the United States and Mexico combined to account for about 14 percent of 

dry bean production.4

According to Mexican trade statistics, the United States is Mexico’s principal 

foreign supplier of dry beans, with a 95-percent share of Mexico’s total dry 

bean imports. U.S. trade data contain detailed information about the classes 

and varieties of dry beans exported to Mexico, although there is some question as to whether these details have been consistently and correctly identifi ed 

over time. According to available data, black beans were the leading dry bean 

class exported to Mexico during U.S. marketing years5 2006/07 to 2008/09, 

accounting for 52 percent of U.S. dry bean exports to Mexico (fi g. 3). Pinto 

beans accounted for 32 percent.

The architects of NAFTA recognized the possible sensitivity of Mexico’s dry 

bean producers to import competition and provided for the liberalization of 

Mexican dry common bean imports from the United States and Canada over 

a period of 14 years (1994-2007), the longest transitional period specifi ed by 

the agreement for agricultural products. Other varieties of U.S. and Canadian 

dry beans, such as garbanzo, lima, blackeye, and Adzuki, have enjoyed dutyfree access to the Mexican market since 1994, when NAFTA initially took 

effect.6

4 Mexico’s 2007 Agricultural Census 

(INEGI, 2009b, 2009c) suggests that 

the country’s dry bean production is 

roughly 15 percent larger than the 

production statistics presented in table 

1. According to that census, Mexico 

produced 1.1 million tons of dry beans 

during the 2007 agricultural year, 

compared with 994,000 tons as stated 

by the annual production statistics. If 

the census fi gures are more indicative 

of the sector’s true size, then imports 

from the United States play a somewhat 

smaller role in the Mexican dry bean 

market. For Mexico’s 2010/11 marketing year (January to December 2010), 

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service 

(see Juárez and Ford, 2010) forecasts 

Mexican dry bean production of 1.1 

million tons.

5 The U.S. marketing year for dry 

beans runs from September to August. 

Thus, the 2008/09 marketing year ran 

from September 1, 2008, to August 31, 

2009.

6 Appendix table 2 lists the quotas 

and over-quota tariffs associated with 

NAFTA’s TRQs for dry beans, along 

with the actual trade volumes governed 

by the TRQs. In-quota volumes under 

these TRQs received duty-free treatment.

The Importance of Dry Bean Trade

 to NAFTA Countries

Table 1

Overview of North American dry bean production and trade: 

Annual averages, U.S. marketing years 2006/07 to 2008/09

Reporting country Production Exports to: Imports from: 

World Canada Mexico U.S. ROW World Canada Mexico U.S. ROW

Metric tons (thousands) 

United States 1,164 * 330 33 116 -- 181 72 34 7 -- 31

Mexico 1,027 ** 20 *** -- 17 3 116 9 -- 107 ***

Canada 305 * 216 -- 7 37 172 34 -- *** 29 5

Total, North America 2,496 566 33 123 54 356 222 43 7 136 36

ROW = Rest of world. 

-- = Data not applicable.

* = Annual average for 2006-08. 

** = Annual average for Mexico’s 2006-08 agricultural years.

*** = Less than 500 metric tons.

Source: Author calculations based on data from Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, Servicio de 

Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SAGARPA/SIAP, 2010a) (Mexican production); Secretaría de Economia, as cited by Global Trade 

Information Services, Inc. (2010) (Mexican trade data); Statistics Canada, as cited by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (2009) (Canadian production); Statistics Canada, as cited by Global Trade Information Services (2010) (Canadian trade data); USDA, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, Crop Production, January issues (2009-10) (U.S. production); U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics, 

as cited by USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (2010) (U.S. trade data).
7

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

NAFTA has facilitated an important change in the U.S.-Mexico trading relationship for dry beans. Before NAFTA, the Mexican Government tightly 

regulated dry bean imports from the United States through a system of import 

licenses. As a result, imports fl uctuated widely from year to year, with little 

to no trade when Mexican production was ample and large volumes of trade 

when Mexican production was limited (fi g. 4). Since NAFTA’s implementation, U.S. dry bean exports to Mexico have become far more consistent, 

averaging 116,000 metric tons (mt) per year during 2006/07 to 2008/09. 

Nevertheless, trade continues to fl uctuate in response to weather conditions in 

either country.

Trade liberalization also has facilitated the participation of Mexican and 

Canadian producers in the U.S. market, although current U.S. most-favorednation (MFN)7 import tariffs on dry beans are quite small, with ad valorem

values of 2 percent or less. Imports from Mexico averaged about 7,000 mt 

per year during 2006/07-2008/09, compared with less than 1,000 mt per 

year during the 3 marketing years immediately prior to NAFTA (1990/91-

1992/93). Imports from Canada also have increased, averaging 34,000 mt per 

year during 2006/07-2008/09. Prior to the implementation of the CanadaU.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSTA)8 in 1989, these imports had never 

exceeded 15,000 mt per year.

Exports to countries outside NAFTA—the rest of the world (ROW) in 

table 1—are a signifi cant outlet for U.S. and Canadian dry beans, but not 

for Mexican dry beans. During 2006/07-2008/09, such exports accounted 

for 16 percent of U.S. production and 56 percent of Canadian production. 

In markets outside the NAFTA region, U.S. producers have faced heightened competition from China, Burma, and Canada, each of which increased 

its annual dry bean exports by 100,000 mt or more between 1991-93 and 

2005-07 (appendix table 3).9 In this context, U.S. dry bean exports to the 

ROW declined from 256,000 mt in 1998/99 to 132,000 mt in 2004/05, 

7 As members of the World Trade 

Organization (WTO), each NAFTA 

country generally is required to apply its MFN tariffs to all other WTO 

members. Important exceptions to the 

MFN obligation include preferential 

trade agreements, such as NAFTA, and 

special access for developing countries.

8 CUSTA liberalized almost all aspects of U.S.-Canada agricultural trade 

over the 9-year period that ended on 

January 1, 1998. CUSTA was subsumed 

by NAFTA in 1994.

9 Appendix tables 3 and 4 summarize changes in dry bean exports and 

imports, respectively, for the leading 

exporting and importing countries 

between 1991-93 and 2005-07, while 

appendix table 5 describes changes in 

dry bean production among the leading 

producing countries between 1991-93 

and 2006-08.

Figure 3

U.S. dry bean exports to Mexico, by class, 

marketing years 2006/07-2008/09

Source: Author calculations based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census 

Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics, as cited by USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (2010).

Black, 51%

Pinto, 32%

Navy/pea, 2%

Red kidney (light and dark), 

1%

Other, 13%
8

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

a decrease that corresponded with about 9 percent of U.S. production in 

1998. Much of this decrease is linked to declining exports of navy beans to 

the European Union (EU). Canada, in particular, has become much more 

competitive on a cost and a volume basis, vying with U.S. products in both 

the EU and the United States. A strengthening of the real value of the U.S. 

dollar vis-à-vis its Canadian counterpart during 2002/03 to 2006/07 boosted 

the competitiveness of Canadian products. Over the past 4 years, however, 

the area planted with dry beans in Canada has experienced successive annual 

declines, driven partly by reductions in white and navy bean area (Lucier, 

Dettman, and Da Pra, 2009: p. 19) and a strengthening of the Canadian 

dollar in 2007/08 and 2008/09. These developments have facilitated a modest 

rebound in U.S. dry bean exports to the ROW. These exports reached 233,000 

mt in 2008/09, their highest level in 8 years.

Figure 4

U.S. dry bean exports to Mexico and Mexican production of dry beans, 

1983/84 to 2008/09

Notes: The production statistics in this figure correspond to Mexico’s agricultural years. Mexico’s 

agricultural year is divided into two production cycles: fall/winter and spring/summer. To 

compare U.S. exports with Mexican production, we matched U.S. marketing years and Mexican 

agricultural years so that the starting year of the marketing year is the same number that 

denotes the agricultural year. For instance, the U.S. marketing year 2008/09 is matched with 

Mexico’s 2008 agricultural year. This allows us to compare the quantities of U.S. and Mexican 

dry beans that are on the market at roughly the same time.

Source: Author calculations based on data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (2010); 

Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, Servicio de 

Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SAGARPA/SIAP, 2010a).

1983/84 1988/89 1993/94 1998/99 2003/04 2008/09

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

U.S. dry bean exports to Mexico

Mexican production

Exports in metric tons (thousands) Production in metric tons (thousands)

Marketing year (September - August)
9

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

A close relationship between the prices of a specifi c good in two geographically distinct locations is viewed by many economists as a defi ning characteristic of integrated markets (Vollrath, 2003). While a formal analysis of 

price integration is beyond the scope of this report, the available data suggest 

some similarities in U.S. and Mexican dry bean price movements during U.S. 

marketing year 2008/09 (table 2). Practically all of the consumer, producer, 

and wholesale prices for dry beans listed in table 2 increased between 

2007/08 and 2008/09, refl ecting the broader phenomenon of higher prices 

for many agricultural commodities during that period. In both countries, 

the price paid by urban consumers for dry beans increased at a much faster 

rate than the overall consumer price index (CPI) in 2008/09. For Mexican 

consumers, however, the increase in the dry bean CPI was proportionately 

larger than for U.S. consumers; 39.5 percent in Mexico, compared with 19.2 

percent in the United States.

For the two leading classes exported to Mexico (pinto and black), U.S. bids 

to growers and dealer prices increased for black beans but decreased for pinto 

beans between 2007/08 and 2008/09.10 In Mexican wholesale markets, as 

exemplifi ed by the Central de Abasto in the Iztapalapa delegation of Mexico 

City, the prices of domestically grown pinto and black beans increased at a 

faster rate in 2008/09 than corresponding prices of imported product. At the 

same time, the increases in the wholesale prices of imported products (30.7 

percent for pinto beans and 25.2 percent for black beans) were substantially 

less than the 39.5-percent increase in the Mexican CPI for dry beans. Thus, 

the availability of U.S. dry beans in the Mexican market may have tempered 

the impact of higher prices of domestically produced dry beans on Mexican 

consumers.11

10 The U.S. price series data collected 

by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) for dry beans may be 

divided into two main groups: bids to 

growers and dealer prices. For each 

major commercial class, there are usually price series data that correspond to 

the States that are the leading producers and marketers of that class, such as 

North Dakota and Minnesota for pinto 

beans and Michigan for black beans.

11 Mexico’s large wholesale markets 

(centrales de abasto) are the marketing 

channel for roughly 40 percent of the 

country’s dry bean production. Both 

wholesale and retail activities take 

place at these markets, as many Mexican consumers buy produce directly 

from distributors at these locations.

Price Data Reveal Similar Movements 

 in Two Markets
10

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

T able 2

Selected price data for the U.S. and Mexican dry bean sectors

 U.S. dry bean marketing year 

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Change, 

2008/09

versus 

2007/08

Consumer price indices: Indices Percent

United States, overall 

(1982-84 = 100) 200 205 214 214 0.2

United States, dry 

beans (1997 = 100) 119 127 147 175 19.2

Mexico, overall 117 121 127 134 5.9

Mexico, dry beans 

(2Q 2002 = 100) 99 102 111 155 39.5

Exchange rate: Pesos per dollar Percent

Nominal 10.84 10.93 10.64 13.25 24.5

Real (2005) 10.87 10.78 10.48 12.33 17.7

Pinto beans: Dollars per mt

Bids to growers 307 466 617 593 -3.8

Dealer prices 517 651 852 901 5.6

Unit value, exports 

to Mexico

560 670 785 880 12.2

Pesos per mt

Unit value, exports 

to Mexico

6,070 7,327 8,326 11,640 39.8

Wholesale price, 

imports, Mexico City 10,243 9,574 11,723 15,321 30.7

Wholesale price, 

domestic product, 

Mexico City 9,365 8,191 10,150 14,556 43.4

Black beans: Dollars per mt

Bids to growers, 

Michigan

461 528 685 741 8.1

Dealer prices, Michigan 651 682 958 1,029 7.4

Unit value, imports from 

U.S.

583 656 858 987 15.1

Pesos per mt

Unit value, imports from 

U.S.

6,329 7,169 9,116 13,098 43.7

Wholesale price, 

imports, Mexico City 11,289 11,396 12,995 16,274 25.2

Wholesale price, 

domestic product 

(Veracruz), Mexico City 8,758 8,438 8,490 14,018 65.1

mt = Metric ton.

Note: Mexico City prices are for the Central de Abasto, Iztapalapa.

Source: Author calculations based on data from Banco de Mexico (2010) (Mexico CPI); 

Secretaría de Economía (2010) (Mexico wholesale prices); USDA, Foreign Agricultural 

Service (2010) (unit values); USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service (2005-09) (bids to growers 

and dealer prices); USDA, Economic Research Service (2010b, c) (exchange rates); and U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009) (U.S. CPI).
11

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Mexico and the United States are similar dry bean producers in terms of total 

output. Mexico ranks sixth among the world’s leading dry bean producers, 

with average annual output of 1.05 million metric tons (mmt) during agricultural years 2007-09;12 the United States ranks fi fth, with average annual 

output of 1.16 mmt during 2007-09.13 At the same time, dry beans account 

for a small portion of the total value of crop production in the two countries: 

about 3 percent in Mexico and 0.5 percent in the United States (SAGARPA/

SIAP, 2010a; and USDA/NASS, 2010a). But the geographic and socioeconomic conditions under which dry beans are cultivated in the two countries 

are quite different in many respects, and these differences are refl ected in the 

production statistics.

Climate’s Impact on Yields

Figure 5 indicates the location of U.S. and Mexican dry bean production, 

using U.S. county-level data from the 2007 Agricultural Census and Mexican 

municipal-level data for agricultural years 2006-08 (see box, “Where Are Dry 

Beans Grown?”). U.S. production takes place either in regions with a humid 

continental climate—marked by cold winters and warm summers—or in 

semiarid places where irrigation is available. In contrast, Mexican production 

tends to take place either in a semiarid climate—often without the benefi t of 

irrigation—or in a tropical savannah climate featuring a dry season and a wet 

season and the possibility of severe weather in either season. Some Mexican 

producers use irrigation to compensate for the dry climate, but most lack 

access to large amounts of irrigated water. Rainfed lands accounted for 86 

percent of Mexico’s area harvested with dry beans and 69 percent of Mexican 

dry bean production during agricultural years 2007-09. As a result of these 

cross-country differences in climate and availability of irrigation, U.S. dry 

bean yields are substantially higher than Mexico’s. U.S. yields averaged 1.98 

mt per hectare during 2007-09, while Mexican yields averaged 0.76 mt per 

hectare during agricultural years 2007-09 (fi g. 6). 

Lower yields are important to the Mexican dry bean sector for several 

reasons. First, they contribute to the persistent fragmentation of the sector by 

reducing the economic gains from consolidating smaller plots and spreading 

the fi xed costs of production across a larger quantity of output. Second, they 

represent an agronomic challenge that is not easily surmounted. Irrigated 

lands generate roughly 30 percent of Mexico’s dry bean production, and 

the costs of this irrigation are often borne by persons outside the dry bean 

sector. The electricity used by farmers to pump irrigation water is subsidized, 

and the charges for water often do not refl ect its true economic value.14 In 

the absence of irrigation, the prospect for higher yields lies squarely in the 

development of technological innovations suited for rainfed lands, such as 

improved seed varieties.

 12 The Mexican production statistics 

in this report correspond to Mexico’s 

agricultural years, while the U.S. production statistics correspond to calendar 

years. Mexico’s agricultural year is 

divided into two production cycles: 

fall/winter and spring/summer. For dry 

beans, planting in fall/winter begins in 

October and ends in March, while the 

harvest begins in January and ends as 

late as September. Planting in spring/

summer begins in April and ends in 

September, while the harvest begins in 

June and ends as late as March. Thus, 

Mexico’s 2008 agricultural year covers 

dry beans planted from October 2007 

to March 2008 (fall/winter 2007/08) or 

from April to September 2008 (spring/

summer 2008).

 13 Appendix table 5 lists the world’s 

leading dry bean producers, using information from the FAOSTAT database of 

the Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations (FAO, 2009a). 

Note that FAOSTAT’s defi nition of dry 

beans differs somewhat from the defi nition used in the production statistics 

of the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican 

governments.

 14 For an assessment of the economic 

value of irrigation to the Mexican dry 

bean sector, see pp. 45-7 of World 

Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development Team, Sustainable Agriculture 

Department, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, and Instituto Mexicano 

para la Competividad (2007).

Geography and Farm Size Differentiate 

 U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors
12

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 6

U.S. and Mexican dry bean yields have trended upward 

during the NAFTA period

Notes: The straight lines represent the linear trend lines for each data series. The Mexican 

production statistics in this report correspond to Mexico’s agricultural years, while the U.S. 

production statistics correspond to calendar years. Mexico’s agricultural year is divided into 

two production cycles: fall/winter and spring/summer. 

Source: Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, 

Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SAGARPA/SIAP, 2010a); USDA, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Crop Production, January issues (1997-2010).

B

B B BB

B

B B

B B

B

B

B

B B B

J J J J J J J J

J J J J

J

J J

J

H H H

H H H H H H H H

H

H

H H

H

F F F F

F F F F

F

F F F F

F F F

1994 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

U.S. national average yield

Mexico, national average yield

Mexico, rainfed

Mexico, irrigated

Metric tons per hectare

Figure 5

Locations of dry bean production in the United States and Mexico

mt=Metric ton.

Note: The Mexican production statistics in this report correspond to Mexico’s agricultural years, 

while the U.S. production statistics correspond to calendar years. Mexico’s agricultural year is 

divided into two production cycles: fall/winter and spring/summer. U.S. county-level data are for 

2007; Mexican municipal data are annual averages from agricultural years 2006-08. 

Source: Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, 

Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SAGARPA/SIAP, 2010a); USDA, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, 2007 Census of Agriculture.
13

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Where Are Dry Beans Grown?

Dry bean production in Mexico and the United States is concentrated 

in certain regions. In Mexico, three regions are responsible for about 80 

percent of the country’s dry bean production: (1) North-Central Mexico 

(the States of Zacatecas, Durango, Chihuahua, San Luis Potosí, and 

Guanajuato); (2) the Northern Pacifi c Coast (the States of Sinaloa and 

Nayarit); and (3) the State of Chiapas. North-Central Mexico accounted 

for 52 percent of Mexico’s dry bean production during 2007-09. Much of 

this region’s production takes place under semi-arid conditions, although 

in some parts of the region, dry bean production takes place in a variety 

of climates (Vallejo Díaz, 2010). For instance, in Zacatecas, dry bean 

production occurs in arid, semi-arid, and subtropical areas. Roughly 6 

percent of North-Central Mexico’s bean area is irrigated, and nearly all 

(99 percent) of the region’s bean production occurs during the springsummer agricultural cycle.

The Northern Pacifi c Coast region accounted for 21 percent of Mexico’s 

dry bean production during 2007-09. This region’s climate ranges from 

desert and semi-arid in Sinaloa to tropical savannahs in Nayarit. Production in the Northern Pacifi c Coast region takes place almost entirely 

during the fall-winter agricultural cycle, and about two-thirds of the 

region’s bean area is irrigated. Chiapas, located primarily in a tropical 

savannah climate, accounted for 7 percent of Mexican production during 

2007-09. Roughly 62 percent of Chiapas’s production occurs during the 

spring-summer cycle, and very little of its production is irrigated.

Similarly, three regions account for about three-fourths of U.S. dry bean 

production: (1) the Northern Great Plains (North Dakota and Minnesota); 

(2) the States along the Platte River (Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming), 

and (3) Michigan. The Northern Great Plains region accounted for 53 

percent of U.S. production during 2007-09. North Dakota, the top 

producing State, grows several classes of dry beans—including pinto, 

navy, and black—while navy and dark red kidney beans are the main 

classes produced in Minnesota. According to the 2007 Agricultural 

Census, only 2 percent of North Dakota’s area harvested with dry beans is 

irrigated, compared with 18 percent in Minnesota (USDA/NASS, 2010b).

Production in Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming takes place primarily 

along the western portion of the Platte River, including both the North 

and the South Platte Rivers. This region, which accounted for 17 percent 

of U.S. dry bean production during 2007-09, primarily produces pinto and 

Great Northern beans. In contrast to other dry bean producing regions in 

the United States, Platte River States account for a relatively high proportion of irrigated production—90 percent of area harvested.

The third region, Michigan, accounted for 14 percent of U.S. dry bean 

production during 2007-09. Michigan is second in U.S. navy bean production and the Nation’s leading producer of black beans. Producing about 

57 percent of U.S. black beans, Michigan is also the leading U.S. supplier 

of black beans to Mexico. Very little of Michigan’s dry bean production 

(4 percent of area harvested) is irrigated.
14

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. dry bean yields differ substantially by commercial class. During 2007-

09, the average yield ranged from 1.72 mt per hectare for cranberry beans 

to 2.68 mt per hectare for small white beans (appendix table 6). This wide 

range in yields is due to the infl uence of irrigation and region of production 

on yields. Black beans are generally produced on nonirrigated lands in some 

States, such as Michigan and North Dakota, while irrigated lands in Idaho 

and Oregon account for a large portion of U.S. production of small white 

beans. Classes that are commonly irrigated (primarily because of where they 

are grown) include Great Northern, small white, pink, and small red beans.

Units of Production

Another key difference between Mexico and the United States is the scale 

of a typical dry bean operation. A typical U.S. dry bean producer works 

about fi ve times as much land as a typical Mexican producer who is focused 

primarily on the commercial market—about 100 hectares in the United 

States, compared with roughly 20 hectares in Mexico.15 Moreover, Mexico 

has a large number of dry bean farmers who operate on an even smaller scale 

and thus have limited marketable surpluses. According to Mexico’s 2007 

Agricultural Census (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI), 

2009b,c), about 622,000 farms grow dry beans in Mexico, with an average 

area planted of 3.1 hectares and an average area harvested of 2.8 hectares.

Over the past two decades, dry bean production in the United States and 

Mexico has become concentrated on a smaller number of farms. In the 

United States, the number of farms producing dry beans dropped from 

about 15,900 to 6,200 between 1987 and 2007, while the area of dry beans 

harvested per farm climbed from 42 hectares to 94 hectares (table 3). In 

Mexico, the decrease in the number of farms growing dry beans has coincided with a decrease in the area planted of this crop. The average size of a 

dry bean parcel in Mexico’s spring-summer agricultural cycle increased 9.4 

percent between 1991 and 2007, while the average parcel size in the fallwinter cycle decreased 7.6 percent (table 4). 

An analysis of these production trends at the State level reveals that a consolidation of the Mexican dry bean sector has taken place in two of the leading 

producing States. In Zacatecas, the average size of a parcel cultivated with 

dry beans increased from 7.7 to 9.5 hectares between 1991 and 2007, while 

in Sinaloa parcels increased from 8.9 to 12.2 hectares. At the same time, the 

State of Chiapas continues to be one of Mexico’s larger dry bean producers, 

even though its average dry bean parcel size remains around 1 hectare, well 

below the national average.

Data from Mexico’s main direct-payment program suggest that roughly 

half of Mexico’s dry bean producers devote 5 hectares of land or less to dry 

beans. Producers of this scale tend to focus on local markets, including the 

subsistence of their own households, and consolidating their supply with 

other producers. About 20 percent of Mexico’s dry bean production is used 

for home or local consumption, while 70 percent enters regional and national 

commercial circuits (fi g. 7). Among the latter groups, the main destinations are wholesale markets and packing houses. While many of Mexico’s 

smaller dry bean producers focus on local markets, the producing regions for 

a particular variety are often quite distant from the destination markets for 

 15 Since many dry bean producers 

also raise crops other than dry beans, 

production statistics indicate the average dry bean area per farm, rather than 

the average size of a farm that grows 

dry beans.
15

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 3

U.S. dry bean sector: Number of farms and area harvested, 

1987-2007

Census year Number of farms Area harvested Average dry bean 

area per farm

Hectares 

2007 6,236 589,040 94

2002 8,647 684,637 79

1997 11,348 700,874 62

1992 13,201 626,763 47

1987 15,914 675,864 42

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2009a, 2004, 1999, 1994).

Table 4

Mexican dry bean sector: Number of farms and area planted, 

1991 and 2007

Agricultural cycle

Units of 

production

Area planted 

with dry beans

Average parcel 

size

Number Hectares

Fall-winter 1991 155,856 433,669 2.78

Spring-summer 1991 814,095 2,384,856 2.93

Fall-winter 2007 95,854 246,366 2.57

Spring-summer 2007 526,410 1,686,680 3.20

2007 compared with 1991: Percentage change

Fall-winter -38.5 -43.2 -7.6

Spring-summer -35.3 -29.3 9.4

Source: Author calculations based on data from Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía 

(INEGI), VII Censo Agrícola, Ganadero y Forestal, 1991, and VIII Censo Agrícola, Ganadero y 

Forestal, 2007.

Figure 7

Destinations for Mexican dry bean production, 2008

Source: Author calculations based on data from Plan Rector Sistema Producto Frijol 2008.

Packers, 34.2%

Wholesale markets, 31.5%

Home or local

consumption, 18%

Industry, 6.3%

Losses, 5%

Seed, 5%
16

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

that variety (fi g. 8); a feature that some observers view as a marketing and 

competitiveness problem (at least for some producers) due to high transportation and storage costs (World Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development 

Team, Sustainable Agriculture Department, Latin America and the Caribbean 

Region; Instituto Mexicano para la Competividad, 2007: pp. 38, 56-9).

The extent to which small-scale production continues in Mexico’s dry bean 

sector will have a marked impact on the sector’s future. In 2007, the average 

age of a Mexican farmer (for all crops) was 51 years, compared with 57 years 

in the United States, and the retirement of older, small-scale farmers without 

their full replacement by a younger generation will necessarily result in a 

more consolidated dry bean sector where producers that are more closely 

oriented to the commercial market play a larger role. At the same time, Mexico’s traditional diet based on white corn and dry beans was linked closely to 

small-scale agricultural production, so the retirement of small-scale dry bean 

producers could also accompany further reductions in per capita dry bean 

consumption in Mexico.

Figure 8

Production and consumption of dry beans, by variety and region

*=Includes principally the varieties known as azufrado, garbancillo zarco, mayocoba, and 

peruano.

**=Includes principally the varieties known as Flor de Mayo and Flor de Junio.

Note: The circles identify the major States where a particular variety is produced, while the 

triangles identify States where a particular variety tends to be consumed.

Source: Author presentation of data from Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo 

Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, Apoyos y Servicios a la Comercialización Agropecuaria 

(SAGARPA/ASERCA), General Coordinator of Commercialization.

Yellow* Light colored**

Black Pinto
17

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Dry bean production varies considerably from year to year as a result of 

changes in area planted, area harvested, and yields. Nevertheless, several 

long-term trends are visible in Mexican and U.S. dry bean production, 

broadly characterized by less area devoted to the crop and higher yields. In 

Mexico, area planted with dry beans has trended downward, from 2.2 million 

hectares in 2002 to 1.7 million hectares in 2009 (fi g. 10), as farmers reallocated some land to alternative crops and/or livestock production—sometimes in response to market price signals and sometimes with governmental 

support. Area harvested also has trended downward, from 2.1 million hectares in 2002 to 1.2 million hectares in 2009. Rainfed lands account for about 

80 percent of these decreases.

Programs that encourage dry bean farmers working marginal lands to shift 

toward other agricultural activities may have reduced the loss rate (the 

percentage difference between area harvested and area planted)16 in Mexico’s 

dry bean sector, although the lower loss rate may also be the result of favorable weather conditions. The median loss rate was 10 percent during 2000-

09, compared with 13 percent during 1990-99. Dry beans are extremely 

sensitive to excessive humidity, frost, and drought, and this vulnerability 

leads to very high loss rates in certain years. For example, the loss rate 

reached 28 percent in 2005 and 2009, years in which droughts negatively 

affected dry bean production in some parts of Mexico.

Mexico’s dry bean yields on irrigated lands have experienced a fairly steady, 

upward trend since 1980, while yields on rainfed lands have shown only signs 

of a sustained improvement over the last decade (see fi g. 6). Still, national 

yields have grown at a suffi cient rate so that, together with the decreased loss 

rate, they offset the decrease in area harvested. As a result, Mexican production 

has fl uctuated around the level of 1.2 mmt over the past 15 years, even though 

many of the year-to-year changes in output have been dramatic (fi g. 9).

In the United States, the dry bean sector is much smaller than it was a 

decade ago (fi g. 10). During 2007-09, production averaged 1.0 mmt per year, 

compared with 1.2 mmt during 1996-98. During these same two periods, 

area harvested averaged 526,000 hectares and 686,000 hectares, respectively. 

U.S. dry bean production has risen and fallen over the past decade with the 

competitiveness of navy bean exports and domestic consumer preferences for 

dry beans. As discussed in the trade section, U.S. navy bean exports experienced a modest rebound during marketing years 2005/06 to 2008/09, and this 

improved export performance was refl ected in higher production of both navy 

beans and dry beans. Production of dry bean classes other than navy has fl uctuated from one year to the next, but the long-term trend is stable. 

The national loss rate in the U.S. dry bean sector is usually several 

percentage points less than that found in Mexico. During 2005-09, the 

median national loss rate in the United States was 5 percent. U.S. dry bean 

producers are fortunate to avoid the high loss rates that their Mexican counterparts occasionally see. Over the past two decades, the highest national U.S. 

loss rate was 13 percent for 1993 and 2001.

 16 Loss rate refers to the ratio between area harvested and area planted. 

When expressed as a percentage, it is 

calculated by subtracting the ratio of 

area harvested to area planted from 1 

and then multiplying the result by 100.

Smaller, More Productive Dry Bean Sectors

 Have Emerged in Both Countries
18

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Compared with leading U.S. fi eld crops, such as corn and soybeans, less 

research has been done to develop new dry bean varieties over the past 

several decades. Nevertheless, U.S. dry bean yields (for all varieties) have 

been on a gradual upward trend over the last quarter century, which is due 

partly to favorable weather (see fi g. 6). When considering individual varieties 

and major producing States, there are only isolated instances where there was 

a strong tendency for yields to rise over the past 15 years. A key example is 

pinto beans in Nebraska, where much of dry bean production is irrigated.

Figure 9

Mexican dry bean area and production, 1989-2009

Notes: The Mexican production statistics in this report correspond to Mexico’s agricultural 

years, while the U.S. production statistics correspond to calendar years. Mexico’s agricultural 

year is divided into two production cycles: fall/winter and spring/summer.

Source: Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, 

Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SAGARPA/SIAP, 2010a).

Hectares (thousands)

Agricultural year

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

1989 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Area planted Area harvested

Metric tons (thousands)

Production

Figure 10

U.S. dry bean area and production, 1989-2009

Notes: The Mexican production statistics in this report correspond to Mexico’s agricultural 

years, while the U.S. production statistics correspond to calendar years. Mexico’s agricultural 

year is divided into two production cycles: fall/winter and spring/summer.

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Crop Production, January issues 

(1990-2010).

Hectares (thousands) Metric tons (thousands)

Calendar year

Area planted Area harvested

Production

H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H H H

1989 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800
19

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

The future of the dry bean sector is a vital issue to many Mexicans, partly 

because of the large number of small-scale producers, but also because the 

commodity takes on great economic importance in States, such as Zacatecas, 

Durango, Chihuahua, San Luis Potosí, Sinaloa, and Nayarit, that have 

substantial surpluses in dry bean production and are seeking additional 

market opportunities for their output. In light of the perceived importance of 

the dry bean sector, the Mexican Government operates a number of programs 

designed to increase its productivity, focusing on direct income support, 

commercialization, access to credit, adoption of superior technologies, and 

the organization of productive chains and product systems.

The Program of Direct Support for the Countryside (PROCAMPO—Programa 

de Apoyos Directos para el Campo) is Mexico’s main program that provides 

direct income support to agricultural producers. PROCAMPO was developed 

in 1993 to compensate farmers for possible losses they might experience as 

a result of NAFTA and to improve their competitiveness in the face of other 

countries’ farm supports. Under PROCAMPO, any producer who cultivates a 

legal crop on eligible land or uses that land for livestock or forestry production or some ecological project can receive payments, which are made on a per 

hectare basis. Eligible land is defi ned as that which had been cultivated with 

corn, dry beans, wheat, rice, sorghum, soybeans, cotton, saffl ower, soybeans, or 

barley in any of the three agricultural cycles prior to August 1993.

Since its inception, PROCAMPO has been modifi ed several times to make 

the program more progressive in terms of income distribution. As a result of 

these modifi cations, PROCAMPO now gives preferential treatment to smaller 

producers during the spring-summer cycle so that they may receive larger 

transfers per hectare. According to operational rules published on April 8, 

2009, the standard PROCAMPO payment rate is 963 pesos (about U.S. $77) 

per hectare for both the fall-winter and spring-summer agricultural cycles, 

while the spring-summer payment rate equals 1,300 pesos (U.S. $104) for 

those producers with less than 5 hectares of eligible land. Until December 

2008, the opportunity also existed for producers enrolled in PROCAMPO to 

access their payments in advance to receive fi nancing for productive projects 

from banking institutions. This program, known as PROCAMPO Capitaliza, 

also gave preference to farmers with less than 5 hectares of eligible land.

Mexico’s dry bean farmers also count on a series of Government programs 

designed to facilitate the commercialization of their product and to avoid the 

negative price effects of excess production or market downturns. Specifi c 

commercialization programs for dry beans in 2009 included:

1. Support for Crop Storage: Partially or totally covers the costs of storage 

and fi nancing for a period of 6 months and, in some cases, up to 9 

months.

2. Support for the Transport of Bean Harvests: Partially or totally covers the 

shipping costs associated with transporting beans from the production 

region to consumption region.

Mexico’s Dry Bean Policies Aim 

 To Increase Sector Productivity
20

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

3. Support for Value Added: Partially or totally covers the costs incurred 

from improving the quality and presentation of the product for sale.

To remedy excess production, the Mexican Government has established 

mechanisms for surplus management, utilizing pledge schemes to avoid price 

volatility. These schemes are oriented toward producer organizations in States 

with surpluses and/or marketing problems and provide assistance for as much 

as 25 percent of the total harvest volume.

Access to credit is one of the main challenges facing Mexico’s dry bean 

sector. This problem arises partly from the inherent risks of agricultural 

activity, such as adverse climatological situations, pest or disease infestations, and marketing risks; in some cases, these are not fully covered by 

agricultural insurance or other risk management tools. To address this limitation, the Mexican Government has implemented the Program of Induction 

and Development of Rural Financing (Programa de Inducción y Desarrollo 

de Financiamiento al Medio Rural) to broaden the availability of fi nancial 

services in rural areas. This program is directed toward fi nancial intermediaries as well as people who traditionally have had diffi culties obtaining loans 

from commercial banks. Federal resources for this program are dispersed in 

the form of Government guarantees, with maximum supports of 10 percent 

on total contracted credit, and up to 20 percent in highly marginalized and 

very highly marginalized regions. The program plays a fundamental role 

in fostering credit access for producer organizations that wish to sell crops 

housed in storage centers.

In a related effort, the Mexican Government is organizing dry bean producers 

using the framework of production systems (sistemas producto). Production 

systems are mechanisms of coordination among Mexico’s Federal, State, and 

municipal governments that encourage the association and socioeconomic 

organization of producers and other economic agents involved in specifi c 

production chains. In the Production System for Beans, the development of 

activities is guided by a master plan that specifi es short-, medium-, and longterm strategies; these activities range from the creation of statistical databases 

to competitiveness-enhancing activities, such as the consolidated purchase of 

inputs and advertising campaigns that promote dry bean consumption.17

Consistent with the objectives of the Production System for Beans, some dry 

bean producers receive support from the Program for the Sustainable Use 

of Natural Resources in Primary Production (Programa de Uso Sustentable 

de Recursos Naturales para la Producción Primaria). This program was fi rst 

applied to the dry bean sector in 2004, after Mexico’s National Institute for 

Forestry, Agricultural, and Fishing Research (INIFAP—Instituto Nacional 

de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas, y Pecuarias) discovered that of the 

1.2 million hectares planted with the crop in the States of Durango, San Luis 

Potosí, and Zacatecas during 1990-2003, 700 thousand hectares were located 

in areas of low or very low levels of potential productivity. This fi nding led to 

the implementation of a regional project that focused on the dry bean sector 

of these three States.

The Program for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Primary 

Production features two main strategies for the dry bean sector. The fi rst is 

to foster the use of improved seeds to produce varieties that are in greater 

17 More information about the Production System for Beans is available at 

http://www.sisprofrijol.org.mx/.
21

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

demand, increasing domestic production and participation in the national 

market. The second strategy—sometimes referred to as “conversion” or 

“reconversion”—is to encourage dry bean farmers in areas with low or 

medium levels of potential productivity to switch to other crops that are in 

greater demand and have lower environmental impacts, such as a better use 

of water. This strategy converted about 477,000 hectares from 2004 to 2008. 

In place of dry beans, these areas now produce almost 980,000 mt per year of 

fodders, such as oats, triticale, and corn.18

Supporting investments in various aspects of the productive chain is another 

approach used by the Mexican Government to assist the dry bean sector. In 

2007, the Strategic Project of Support for the Productive Chain of Corn and 

Bean Producers (PROMAF—Proyecto Estratégico de Apoyo a la Cadena 

Productiva de Maíz y Frijol) was established to support landholders in areas 

with medium and high productivity potential. To access the program, benefi -

ciaries must: 1) prove that they are the legitimate owners of the land; 2) 

organize themselves into a producer’s organization; and 3) contribute to the 

establishment of guarantee funds.19

PROMAF supports investment projects in corn and dry beans through two 

methods. The fi rst method is to provide direct partial payments to fi nance 

technical assistance (70 percent of the project’s cost), the strengthening of 

organizations (up to 60,000 pesos or about U.S. $4,800 per organization), and 

the support of newly graduated professionals (5,000 to 7,500 pesos or about 

U.S. $400 to $600 per month, depending on the area’s poverty rate). This 

method also supports the acquisition of basic farm machinery and infrastructure by providing liquidity guarantees to producers in rainfed and irrigated 

areas. Projects in zones with high or very high poverty rates receive guarantees up to 70 percent of the project’s cost, with a limit of 2 million pesos 

(about U.S. $160,000) per project. In areas with low or medium poverty 

rates, each project receives a guarantee of up to 50 percent of its cost, also 

with a limit of 2 million pesos. The main types of acquisitions supported 

by this program include machinery for gathering, harvest, and post-harvest 

activities and irrigation equipment.

The second method is to support the application of technological packages in 

zones of medium or high productive potential using a risk-sharing approach. 

For fi rst-time participants, PROMAF provides 25 percent of the package’s 

cost, with a limit of 800 pesos (about U.S. $64) per hectare. For returning 

participants, PROMAF provides 10 percent of the package’s cost, with a limit 

of 400 pesos (about U.S. $32) per hectare, conditional on the Government’s 

recovery of at least 60 percent of the support provided during the fi rst year of 

participation. For all participants, the maximum amount of land that may be 

supported is 20 hectares of rain fed land and 5 hectares of irrigated land.

Information on PROMAF’s impact on the dry bean sector is gradually 

emerging. From 2007 to 2009, PROMAF provided improved technology 

and technical assistance to almost 1 million benefi ciaries, corresponding to 

about 2.3 million hectares of corn and dry beans, 23 percent of which was 

cultivated with both crops (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, Fideicomiso de Riesgo Compartido, 

(SAGARPA/FIRCO) 2010: p. 8). On average, dry bean producers participating in PROMAF in 2008 obtained higher yields and lower costs of 

18 A third possible strategy is to fi nd 

new uses for dry beans. In an activity 

prompted by discussions in 2007 and 

2008, just prior to the end of NAFTA’s 

TRQs for corn and dry beans, USDA 

and SAGARPA fi nanced efforts to 

encourage some dry bean farmers in the 

State of Zacatecas to use their product, 

blended with prickly pear cactus, to 

feed sheep imported from the United 

States (Figueroa Sandoval, 2009). 

Also, the U.S. Dry Bean Council has 

promoted several nutritional studies of 

tortillas made partly from dry beans.

 19 A guarantee fund consists of money allocated by SAGARPA that serves 

as collateral so that a prívate bank can 

lend money to a rural producer who 

otherwise would be ineligible.
22

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

production on a per ton basis than in the previous year (table 5). These results 

differed substantially by State, however, with only participants in Jalisco and 

San Luis Potosí (during the spring-summer production cycle) and in Chiapas 

(during the fall-winter cycle) experiencing both an increase in their average 

yields and a decrease in their average costs (again on a per ton basis). On 

average, both participants and nonparticipants in Jalisco, San Luis Potosí, 

and Chiapas experienced yield increases between 2007 and 2008. Caution 

should be exercised when interpreting the program statistics in table 5, which 

refl ect no effort to disentangle the infl uence of factors, such as favorable 

weather, that would affect PROMAF participants and nonparticipants alike or 

to address the representativeness of the participants.

Table 5

Indicators of dry bean production by PROMAF participants during spring-summer 2008

and fall-winter 2008/09 agricultural cycles

 All dry bean 

producers PROMAF participants only

 Yields Yields Cost of production Sale price Cost of production

Production 

cycle/State 2007 2008 Change 2007 2008 Change 2007 2008 Change 2007 2008 Change 2007 2008 Change

Tons per 

hectare Percent

Tons per 

hectare Percent

Pesos 

per hectare Percent Pesos per ton Percent Pesos per ton Percent

Spring-summer

Total, 

seven 

States 0.53 0.62 17 0.48 0.59 23 3,013 3,895 29 6,013 8,574 43 10,280 9,817 -5

Chihuahua 0.77 0.86 12 0.53 0.87 64 2,409 4,175 73 6,225 9,400 51 4,688 5,051 8

Coahuila 0.37 0.31 -16 0.42 0.39 -7 3,772 3,756 0 8,000 10,000 25 8,981 9,631 7

Durango 0.54 0.57 6 0.64 0.70 9 3,448 4,474 30 6,829 8,908 30 6,301 8,330 32

Jalisco 0.92 1.00 9 0.48 0.59 23 2,737 3,056 12 6,000 10,275 71 6,296 5,587 -11

Queretaro 0.52 0.90 73 0.55 0.53 -4 2,621 3,859 47 8,000 8,169 2 5,273 11,364 116

San Luis 

Potosi 0.36 0.65 81 0.31 0.52 68 3,068 3,927 28 5,388 8,216 52 16,871 12,751 -24

Zacatecas 0.52 0.57 10 0.45 0.54 20 2,562 3,298 29 5,898 8,618 46 8,485 9,653 14

Fall-winter

Chiapas 0.59 0.61 3 0.68 0.90 32 4,008 4,534 13 8,557 10,922 28 6,315 6,086 -4

PROMAF= Proyecto Estratégico de Apoyo a la Cadena Productiva de Maíz y Frijol.

Notes: The Mexican production statistics in this report correspond to Mexico’s agricultural years, which are divided into two production cycles: fall/

winter and spring/summer. Yield data in this table are for the fall-winter 2007/08 production cycle, which was part of Mexico’s 2008 agricultural year. 

All participants during the fall-winter 2008/09 cycle were located in the State of Chiapas.

Source: State-level production data from SAGARPA/SIAP (2010a); PROMAF data from tables 18 and 19 in Colegio de Posgraduados 

(2009: p. 116, 118).
23

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Dry beans do not belong to the set of “program crops” supported by the main 

agricultural income support programs—direct payments, marketing loans, 

and countercyclical payments—operated by the U.S. Federal Government. 

Although some pulses20 were incorporated into the set of program crops 

starting with the 2002 Farm Act (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002) and continuing with the 2008 Farm Act (Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008), dry beans were not among these crops. Under the 2008 

Farm Act, countercyclical payments, marketing assistance loans, and loan 

defi ciency payments are available for dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas, while 

direct payments are not available for any pulse crops.21 In addition, since 

some dry bean farmers have base acreage22 for program crops other than 

pulses, they can participate in the income support programs associated with 

those crops.

Planting-fl exibility restrictions within U.S. agricultural income support 

programs may actually limit the size of the U.S. dry bean sector. The 2008 

Farm Act continues restrictions on the planting of fruits, vegetables, and 

wild rice (excluding mung beans, dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas) on base 

acreage. Dry beans are considered a vegetable within this framework, and the 

planting of dry beans on base acreage is prohibited unless the producer has a 

history of dry bean production.

Some research indicates that eliminating planting-fl exibility restrictions 

would foster increased dry bean production in the United States. In a study 

focused on Michigan’s fruit and vegetable sectors, Thornsbury, Martinez, 

and Schweikhardt (2007) found that the barriers to entry associated with 

converting from program crops to dry beans were low in comparison with the 

other fruits and vegetables studied—pickling cucumbers, processed tomatoes, 

fresh-market tomatoes, squash, and blueberries. Thus, the authors concluded 

that ending the restrictions could lead to the entry of new dry bean producers 

in Michigan, a State that is already home to a prominent dry bean sector.

In a farm- and market-level analysis, Johnson et al. (2006) suggest that the 

effect of eliminating the planting-fl exibility restrictions on dry beans would 

vary across regions, since the variability of dry bean revenue differs across 

regions. While the authors’ partial equilibrium model of the U.S. dry bean 

sector showed that eliminating the restrictions would increase U.S. dry 

bean area by 27 percent and lower the sector’s revenue by 13 percent, the 

authors emphasize that the increase in dry bean area by some farm program 

participants would be partially offset by reductions in dry bean area by some 

nonparticipants.

The Federal Government also operates a number of programs that broadly 

benefi t the vegetable sector, including producers of dry beans (Lucier et al., 

2006). Examples of such programs include ad hoc disaster payments (Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program—NAP), crop insurance, marketing 

and promotional assistance, food aid purchases, export promotion, and costshare and other types of assistance for implementing conservation measures. 

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) provides insurance coverage 

20 In North American agriculture, the 

term “pulse crops” commonly refers to 

dry (mature) peas, lentils, and small and 

large chickpeas (garbanzo beans) that 

are used as food by humans or as feed 

for animals.

21 Appendix table 7 lists the payment 

rates, target prices, and loan rates associated with the 2008 Farm Act.

22 Base acreage is defi ned as “a 

farm’s crop-specifi c acreage of wheat, 

feed grains, upland cotton, rice, oilseeds, pulse crops, or peanuts eligible 

to participate in commodity programs” 

(USDA, Economic Research Service, 

Farm Policy Team, 2009).

U.S. Agricultural Income Supports 

 Exclude Dry Beans
24

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

for dry beans through a program called Actual Production History (APH), 

which is designed to protect against yield losses due to natural causes. Under 

this program, producers decide the amount of average yield as well as the 

percentage of the predicted crop price that they wish to insure. If a producer’s 

harvested yield is less than the insured yield, they are paid an indemnity 

based on the difference.

Table 6 summarizes APH coverage statistics for dry beans. These statistics 

suggest that a large portion of U.S. dry bean producers buy crop insurance. The net area insured corresponds to roughly 85-95 percent of the area 

planted, and the number of policies sold exceeds the number of dry bean 

producers tallied by the agricultural census, suggesting that some producers 

purchase multiple policies for different parcels of land. Little research has 

been conducted on the effects of crop insurance on the U.S. dry bean sector, 

but in general, crop insurance is thought to have a small, positive effect on 

area planted (see, for instance, Young, Vandeveer, and Schnepf, 2001).

On occasion, USDA will purchase dry beans and other agricultural commodities for use in nutritional assistance programs. For instance, in May 2009, 

USDA announced that it would buy up to $25 million of dry beans for this 

purpose, following a request from Nebraska’s dry bean industry. By the end 

of June 2009, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) had purchased 

about 11,800 mt (valued at $12.2 million) of Nebraska’s Great Northern 

beans—an amount that corresponded to 16 percent of the Nation’s 2008 

Great Northern crop. The Great Northern crop of 2008 was unusually abundant—about 72,000 mt, compared with 54,000 mt in 2007.

Table 6

FCIC APH coverage and summary for dry beans, 2004-09

 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Number of policies earning 

premium 7,485 8,665 7,893 7,116 6,600 6,882

Hectares (thousands)

Net hectares insured 490 614 584 555 517 544

Dollars (millions)

Liability1 206 266 277 292 411 429

Producer premium 12 16 17 18 25 27

Subsidy2 17 23 25 27 36 39

Total premium 29 39 42 45 61 66

Indemnity3 45 35 37 24 25 60

APH=Actual Production History program.

Note: Data as of October 18, 2010.

1Amount insurer would pay in the event of a total loss.

2Amount of total premium paid by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC).

3Amount paid out by insurer based on loss suffered by insured. 

Source: USDA, Risk Management Agency (RMA) (2010).
25

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Long-term prospects for U.S. and Mexican dry bean demand will depend on 

future dietary patterns in each country. In Mexico, the key questions yet to be 

answered about the outlook for dry bean demand are: 

1. To what extent will the country’s traditional diet based largely on white 

corn and dry beans persist? 

2. What role will dry beans play in the nontraditional diets that emerge over 

time?

Currently, annual per capita consumption of dry beans is about 11 kilograms 

in Mexico, compared with 3 kilograms in the United States.23 Dry beans are 

consumed throughout Mexico in households of every income level and in 

communities large and small (table 7); and something akin to the traditional 

diet is still prevalent in rural communities (less than 2,500 inhabitants), 

where households that indicate they are consuming dry beans report annual 

dry bean consumption of about 21 kilograms per capita.

Mexico’s lower-income households tend to consume more dry beans. For 

members of these households, beans provide an important part of their daily 

intake of proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrients, as well as a means 

for coping with higher food prices and/or lower earnings via increased bean 

23 The Mexican statistic was calculated using estimates of dry bean 

consumption for food purposes from 

SAGARPA/SIAP (2010b) and population estimates from CONAPO for the 

period 2006-10; the U.S. statistic was 

obtained from USDA/ERS (2010a).

Dietary Changes Shape the Prospects 

 for Demand

Table 7

Annual Mexican consumption of dry beans in grain or processed form 

by households that indicated that they consumed dry beans, 

by size of community and income decile, 2008

 Size of community 

Income decile > 100,000 15,000- 

99,999

2,500-

14,999

< 2,500 National 

total

Kilograms per capita 

I 18.8 20.4 21.4 26.7 24.4

II 17.0 18.4 17.2 21.0 19.2

III 16.0 16.2 19.0 20.1 18.1

IV 14.8 17.0 16.6 24.1 18.1

V 16.3 16.2 14.6 16.5 16.0

VI 14.9 13.9 14.7 18.6 15.4

VII 14.4 15.6 14.0 17.1 15.0

VIII 14.3 15.2 13.4 16.9 14.7

IX 14.5 13.1 13.8 16.1 14.4

X 13.7 14.7 19.1 19.1 14.8

All deciles 15.0 15.8 16.4 21.4 17.1

Note: Decile I refers to the poorest 10 percent of Mexican households in terms of income, 

while decile X refers to the wealthiest 10 percent.

Source: Author calculations based on data from Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de 

los Hogares (ENIGH) 2008, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI, 2008).
26

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

consumption. Among Mexican households that reported consuming dry 

beans, the poorest decile (tenth) of households devoted 15.3 percent of their 

expenditures on proteins in 2008 to dry beans and other vegetables, compared 

with 6.8 percent for all households (INEGI, 2008).

Nevertheless, the long-term tendency is indicative of lower dry bean demand 

in Mexico. Between 1992 and 2008, real per capita expenditures on dry beans 

decreased at a compound annual rate of 2.7 percent (fi g. 11). This decline is 

observable in all income deciles and in both rural and urban areas. Factors 

behind this decline include rising incomes, greater affordability of chicken 

and other meats, and increased consumption of alternative low-priced foods 

with a high caloric content, such as instant soups and noodles (Dickerson, 

2005). Increased consumption of processed dry beans, such as canned beans 

and ready-to-eat meals that include dry beans, is offsetting some portion of 

the decreased consumption of dry beans in grain form.

Although the long-term tendency is one of lower demand, Mexican expenditures on dry beans tend to increase during periods of economic diffi culties. 

Table 8 compares changes in Mexico’s gross domestic product (GDP) with 

changes in dry bean expenditures. The three periods in the table in which 

dry bean expenditures expanded include years when Mexico’s real GDP per 

capita contracted: -6.16 percent in 1995, -0.03 percent in 2001, and -1.65 

percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 (compared with fourth quarter 2007).

Overall, the correlation between GDP growth and expenditure growth is 

negative (correlation coeffi cient of -0.79), which suggests that dry beans are 

an inferior good.24 This negative correlation also is present across income 

deciles for a given year: in general, the higher the income decile, the lower 

the household expenditures on dry beans.

24 Economists defi ne a good as 

inferior when consumption is negatively related to income—when income 

rises, the quantity consumed decreases, 

and when income falls, the quantity 

consumed increases. Figure 11

Mexican household expenditures on dry beans, 1992-2008

Sources: Author calculations based on expenditure data from Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos 

y Gastos de los Hogares (ENIGH) in Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI, 

1992-2008) and population data from Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO, 2009).

Pesos per capita, 2002 pesos

Calendar year

1992 96 98 2000 02 04 06 08

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200
27

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

In the United States, the future of dry bean demand hinges largely on the 

extent to which people adopt diets that feature higher levels of dry bean 

consumption. U.S. dry bean demand is substantially lower than Mexican 

demand on a per capita basis. Annual per capita availability of dry beans 

in the United States peaked around 5 kilograms in 1942 and has never 

approached the level currently observed in Mexico (fi g. 12). Still, U.S. dry 

bean producers face a challenge similar to that of their Mexican counterparts—little if any demand growth in their domestic market. During the early 

2000s, annual per capita dry bean availability in the United States dropped as 

low as 2.7 kilograms, caused partly by the increased popularity of low-carbohydrate diets. At a national level, this change corresponded to a total decline 

in annual availability of roughly 150,000 mt (300 million people times 0.5 

kilograms), or 13 percent of U.S. dry bean production in 2006.

U.S. dry bean demand has experienced a modest resurgence since 2004, 

with annual per capita dry bean availability stabilizing just under 3 kilograms. Factors behind this development include the declining popularity of 

low-carbohydrate diets, higher than average consumption by the country’s 

growing Latino population, and efforts to promote dry bean consumption 

(Lucier and Jerardo, 2006). The most recent observation of annual per capita 

availability is 2.8 kilograms in 2008.

Further efforts to publicize the health benefi ts associated with dry bean 

consumption may hold the key to increasing U.S. dry bean demand. The 

2005 edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends the 

consumption of 2-1/2 cups of vegetables per day for a reference daily 

intake of 2,000 calories, as well as the selection of vegetables “from all fi ve 

vegetable subgroups (dark green, orange, legumes, starchy vegetables, and 

other vegetables) several times a week” (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2005: p. 24). Lossadjusted data indicate that daily per capita vegetable consumption in the 

United States continues to be around 1.7 cups (USDA, Economic Research 

Table 8

Change in Mexican Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

versus change in dry bean expenditures, 1992-2008

 Compound annual growth rate

Period Real GDP per capita Dry bean expenditures

per capita

Percent

1992-96 1.24 4.68

1996-98 5.90 -8.98

1998-2000 5.16 -19.66

2000-02 0.37 4.42

2002-04 2.77 -4.24

2004-06 4.00 -9.18

2006-08 2.33 11.62

 Correlation -0.79

Source: Author calculations based on real GDP data from Instituto Nacional de Estadística y 

Geografía (INEGI, 2009a), population data from Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO, 

2009), and expenditure data from Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI, 1992-

2008).
28

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Service, 2010d). Thus, increased per capita dry bean consumption would be 

one way to move toward the recommended level of vegetable consumption 

(Young and Cantor, 1999). As a low-fat food, dry beans also can play a role 

in meeting dietary recommendations to “make choices that are lean, low-fat, 

or fat-free” when “selecting and preparing meat, poultry, dry beans, and milk 

or milk products” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2005: p. 30).

Figure 12

Annual availability of dry beans in the United States, 1970-2008

Source: Author calculations based on data from USDA, Economic Research Service (2010a).

Kilograms per capita

Calendar year

1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0
29

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Liberalization of U.S.-Mexico dry bean trade concluded on January 1, 2008, 

with the removal of NAFTA’s transitional TRQs. The gradual loosening of 

these trade restrictions during 1994-2007 enabled U.S. dry beans to provide a 

larger and steadier share of Mexican supply. Today, imports supply about 10 

percent of Mexico’s dry bean consumption, compared with 5 percent during 

the decade that preceded NAFTA (1984-93).

With the completion of NAFTA’s transition to regional free trade, the outlook 

for the integrated North American dry bean market is shaped primarily 

by market forces and domestic agricultural programs, rather than anticipated reductions in tariffs and quotas. On the supply side, the restructuring 

of Mexico’s dry bean sector will continue, most likely toward a smaller 

number of producers working larger plots of land. Recent improvements 

in yields, especially on irrigated lands, suggest that further yield growth is 

possible. The Mexican Government operates a number of programs designed 

to improve the competitiveness of the dry bean sector, focusing on direct 

income support, commercialization, access to credit, the adoption of superior technologies, and the organization of productive chains and production 

systems. Some of these programs have encouraged dry bean producers to 

pursue other agricultural activities instead.

In the U.S. dry bean sector, the number of producers has steadily decreased 

over the past two decades, and the area devoted to the crop has stabilized 

over the last several years to around 534,000 hectares. Output growth is 

constrained by market opportunities as well as competition for land and other 

inputs. Recent yields exhibit a modest upward trend, due partly to favorable 

weather. U.S. producers who aspire to increase their dry bean sales outside 

the NAFTA region must contend with strong competition from other major 

producing countries, such as Burma (Myanmar) and China. Over the last 

several years, U.S. producers have had some success in recouping some of 

the previously lost share in the international navy bean market because of a 

contraction in Canadian production and a weaker U.S. dollar. Nevertheless, 

Mexico will remain a major destination for U.S. dry bean sales given Mexico’s high levels of per capita dry bean consumption, the close proximity of 

Mexico to the United States, and the duty-free access to the Mexican market 

afforded by NAFTA.

On the demand side, the prospects for dry bean producers and marketers are 

challenging in both Mexico and the United States. Per capita net disappearance of dry beans in Mexico is likely to decline even further from its current 

level of about 11 kilograms per year, as consumers diversify their diets and 

shift away from the traditional staples of beans and tortillas. Further declines 

in per capita consumption will limit the opportunities in Mexico’s dry bean 

market for both Mexican producers and U.S. exporters. For the time being, 

however, beans are an indispensible source of protein and other nutrients for 

many Mexicans, particularly in households of modest means. Expenditure 

data suggest that beans are an inferior good in Mexico: consumption declines 

when income increases, and consumption increases when income declines.

Conclusions
30

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

In the United States, per capita annual availability of dry beans has 

rebounded to about 3 kilograms per year—about a fourth of the level in 

Mexico. Greater U.S. consumption of dry beans on a per capita basis could 

potentially have tremendous impacts on dry bean demand. For example, a 

1-kilogram increase in annual U.S. per capita consumption would translate 

into an additional 300,000 mt in annual demand, requiring over 150,000 hectares in additional dry bean area. Over the long term, the demand-side challenge facing U.S. and Mexican dry bean sectors is fundamentally the same: 

how to cultivate demand for a product that is such a small dietary component 

for many higher-income consumers.
31

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Specialty Crops Section. Statistical Overview of the Canadian Pulse Industry: 2008, June 24, 2009, http://www.

ats-sea.agr.gc.ca/can/4753-eng.htm.

Ag Weekly Online. “Bean Commission awarded specialty crop grant,” 

October 5, 2009, http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2009/10/05/commodities/crop/crop41.txt.

Banco de México. Índices de Precios al Consumidor y UDIS: Índice de 

Precios al Consumidor: Por Objeto del Gasto y Actividad Económica: 

INPC Nacional: Mensual, 2010, http://www.banxico.org.mx/politicamonetaria-e-infl acion/estadisticas/infl acion/indices-precios.html.

Colegio de Posgraduados. Proyecto Estratégico de Apoyo a la Cadena 

Productiva de los Productores de Maíz y Frijol 2008: PROMAF II: Acompañamiento Técnico e Indicadores de Impacto: Informe, 2009 (circa). 

Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO). “República Mexicana: Indicadores Demográfi cos, 1990-2050,” spreadsheet, 2009, http://www.conapo.

gob.mx/00cifras/00indicadores/00.xls.

Dickerson, Marla. “Steeped in a New Tradition,” Los Angeles Times, 

October 21, 2005, http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/21/business/

fi -ramennation21.

Figueroa Sandoval, Benjamin. “Engorda de ovinos con productos regionales: 

raciones a base de nopal deshidratado y frijol extrusado,” presentation, 

2009.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT: 

Production: Crops, 2009a, http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.

aspx#ancor.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT: 

Trade: TradeSTAT: Crop and Livestock Production, 2009b, http://faostat.

fao.org/site/535/default.aspx#ancor.

Global Trade Information Services, Inc. World Trade Atlas, internet version 

4.7 b, Columbia, South Carolina, 2010.

Guzmán, Abel. “El Cultivo de Frijol en Durango,” presentation at the 2010 

International-U.S. Dry Bean and Other Specialty Crop Congress, Cancún, 

Quintana Roo, Mexico, February 12, 2010.

Idaho State Department of Agriculture. International Trade and Domestic 

Market Development, 2006, http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/

AboutISDA/ annual_marketing.php.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). Banco de Información 

Económica, 2009a, http://dgcnesyp.inegi.org.mx/bdiesi/bdie.html.

References
32

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). “Cuadro 8: Unidades 

de Producción con Cultivos en el Ciclo Primavera-Verano 2007 Según 

Superfi cie Sembrada, Cosechada y Producción Obtenida por Cultivo 

y Entitad Federativa,” Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Censo Agropecuario 2007: VIII Censo Agrícola, Ganadero, y Forestal, Aguascalientes, 

Mexico, 2009b, http://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/TabuladosBasicos/

Default.aspx?c=17177&s=est.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). “Cuadro 9: Unidades 

de Producción con Cultivos en el Ciclo Otoño-Invierno 2006-2007 Según 

Superfi cie Sembrada, Cosechada y Producción Obtenida por Cultivo 

y Entitad Federativa,” Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Censo Agropecuario 2007: VIII Censo Agrícola, Ganadero, y Forestal, Aguascalientes, 

Mexico, 2009c, http://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/TabuladosBasicos/

Default.aspx?c=17177&s=est.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). Encuesta Nacional 

de Ingresos y Egresos de Hogares, 1992-2008, http://www.inegi.org.mx/

inegi/default.aspx?s=est&c=10656. 

Johnson, Demcey, Barry Krissoff, Edwin Young, Linwood Hoffman, Gary 

Lucier, and Vince Breneman. Eliminating Fruit and Vegetable Planting 

Restrictions: How Would Markets Be Affected? U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 30, 

November 2006, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err30/. 

Juárez, Benjamin, and Mark Ford. Mexico Grain and Feed Annual, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Report No. MX0017, March 12, 2010, 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20

and%20Feed%20Annual_Mexico%20City_Mexico_3-12-2010.pdf.

Lucier, Gary, and Alberto Jerardo. Vegetables and Melons Outlook, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Electronic 

Outlook Report VGS-314, April 2006, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/vgs/2006/04apr/vgs314.pdf.

Lucier, Gary, Rachael Dettmann, and Michelle Da Pra. Vegetables and 

Melons Outlook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, Outlook Report VGS-333, June 25, 2009, http://usda.mannlib.

cornell.edu/usda/current/VGS/VGS-06-25-2009.pdf.

Lucier, Gary, Susan Pollack, Mir Ali, and Agnes Perez. Fruit and Vegetable 

Backgrounder, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, Electronic Outlook Report VGS-313-01, April 2006, http://www.

ers.usda.gov/publications/VGS/apr06/vgs31301/vgs31301.pdf.

Rodríguez Gómez, María Guadalupe. La Comercialización en la Cadena 

Agroindustrial del Frijol: Los Casos de Zacatecas y Sinaloa, Guadalajara, 

Jalisco: Universidad de Guadalajara, 2006.

Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, Fideicomiso de Riesgo Compartido (SAGARPA/FIRCO). 
33

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

PROMAF 2010, January 12, 2010, http://www.fi rco.gob.mx/promaf2010/

docs/Presentacion_PROMAF_2010.pdf.

Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SAGARPA/

SIAP). Agricultura: Producción Annual: Cierre de la Producción Agrícola por Cultivo, 2010a, http://www.siap.gob.mx/index.

php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=350.

Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación, Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SAGARPA/

SIAP). Balanzas Disponibilidad-Consumo de Productos Agrícolas and 

Históricos de Balanzas Disponsibilidad-Consumo, May 19, 2010b, http://

www.siap.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58

&Itemid=379.

Secretaría de Economía. “Anuarios Estadísticos de Mercados Nacionales: 

Granos y Semillas,” Sistema Nacional de Información e Integración de 

Mercados, 2010, http://www.economia-sniim.gob.mx/Nuevo/.

Stewart-Williams, Kathy. “Idaho Certifi ed Bean Seed for Mexico,” presentation at Expo Agro Chihuahua, August 14, 2009, http://www.expoagrochihuahua.com/expo/kathy%20stewart.pdf.

Thornsbury, Suzanne, Lourdes Martinez, and David Schweikhardt. Michigan: 

A State at the Intersection of the Debate Over Full Planting Flexibility, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Contractor 

and Cooperator Report No. 29, February 2007, http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/

dspace/bitstream/10113/33691/1/CAT31036247.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock 

and Seed Division, Market News Branch. Bean Market News, GL_

GR851, Greeley, Colorado, various issues, 2005-09, http://search.ams.

usda.gov/mnsearch/mnsearch.aspx.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2008 Farm 

Bill Side-By-Side, April 15, 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/

FoodConsumption/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Food Availability: Spreadsheets: Legumes, February 1, 2010a, http://www.ers.usda.

gov/Data/FoodConsumption/FoodAvailSpreadsheets.htm#vegfr.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Nominal 

Monthly Country Exchange Rates, September 22, 2010b, http://www.ers.

usda.gov/Data/ExchangeRates/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Real Monthly 

Country Exchange Rates, September 22, 2010c, http://www.ers.usda.gov/

data/exchangerates/.
34

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. U.S. Per Capita 

Loss-Adjusted Food Availability: Custom Reports, March 19, 2010d, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/app/loss_adjusted.aspx.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Farm Policy 

Team. Farm and Commodity Policy: Glossary, September 21, 2009, http://

www.ers.usda.gov/Briefi ng/FarmPolicy/Glossary.htm.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Global Agricultural Trade System, 2010, http://www.fas.usda.gov/gats/Default.aspx.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Crop Production, various issues, January 1991-2010, http://usda.mannlib.

cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1047. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

“Table 33. Specifi ed Crops by Acres Harvested: 2007 and 2002,” 2007 

Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data: Volume 1, 

Geographic Area Series: Part 51, AC-07-A-51, December 2009a (updated 

version), http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/

Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_033_033.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Crop Values: 2009 Summary, February 2010a, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.

edu/usda/current/CropValuSu/CropValuSu-02-19-2010_new_format.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

2007 Census of Agriculture: Quick Stats Ad-hoc Query Tool, 2010b, 

http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

“Table 34. Specifi ed Crops by Acres Harvested: 2002 and 1997,” 2002 

Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data: Volume 

1, Geographic Area Series: Part 51, AC-02-A-51, June 2004, http://

www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/

st99_1_034_034.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

“Table 42. Specifi ed Crops by Acres Harvested: 1997 and 1992,” 1997 

Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data: Volume 1, 

Geographic Area Series: Part 51, AC97-A-51, March 1999, http://www.

agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/Vol_1_Chapter_1_U._S._National_

Level_Data/us-51/us1_42.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

“Table 42. Specifi ed Crops by Acres Harvested: 1992 and 1987,” 1992 

Census of Agriculture: Volume 1, Chapter 1: U.S. National Level Data, 

October 1994, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1992/v1-tbl42.

pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency (RMA). 

Summary of Business Reports and Data: Pregenerated SOB Reports: 
35

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

National Summary by Crop, October 18, 2010, http://www.rma.usda.gov/

data/sob.html.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, 2005, http://www.

cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2005/2005DGPolicyDocu

ment.pdf.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price 

Index: CPI Databases: All Urban Consumers (Current Series), 2009, 

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/#data.

Vallejo Díaz, Jesús. “Producción de Frijol en Zacatecas,” presentation at the 

2010 International-U.S. Dry Bean and Other Specialty Crop Congress, 

Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico, February 12, 2010.

Vollrath, Thomas. North American Agricultural Market Integration and Its 

Impact on the Food and Fiber System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 784, 

September 2003, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib784/.

Wilkins, Dave. “Trade Trip Provides Optimism on Seed Beans,” Capital 

Press, September 6, 2009, http://cps.live.mediaspanonline.com/idaho/

dw-seed-beans-090409.

Wingett, Yvonne. “Latino Importer Knows His Beans,” Arizona Republic, 

January 28, 2006, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/

articles/0128beanimporters.html.

World Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development Team, Sustainable Agriculture Department, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, and Instituto Mexicano para la Competividad. Mexico: Integration of the North 

American Market for Sensitive Agricultural Commodities: Policy Notes 

Overview and Dry Bean Market–Implications for Mexican Producers 

and Consumers, December 2007, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/

EXTLACREGTOPRURDEV/Resources/503766-1225476272295/publicacion4.pdf.

Young, C. Edwin, and Linda Scott Cantor. Moving Toward the Food Guide 

Pyramid: Implications for U.S. Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 779, 

May 1999, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer779/.

Young, C. Edwin, Monte L. Vandeveer, and Randall D. Schnepf. “Production 

and Price Impacts of U.S. Crop Insurance Programs,” American Journal 

of Agricultural Economics Vol. 83, No. 5, Proceedings Issue (December 

2001), pp. 1196-1203.
36

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 1

Tariff lines considered as dry common beans in this report

HTS code Description

0713322000 Small red (Adzuki) beans (Phaseolus or Vigna Angularis), 

except seed, dried, shelled

0713333000 Navy or pea beans, except seed, dried, shelled

0713335000 Kidney beans, except seed

0713335020 Dark red kidney beans, except seed, dried, shelled

0713335040 Light red kidney beans, except seed, dried, shelled

0713335050 Pink beans, except seed

0713335060 Kidney beans, NESOI, including white pea beans 

(Phaseolus vulgaris), except seed, dried, shelled

0713335070 Kidney beans, except seed, other

0713395010 Black beans (Vigna spp., Phaseolus spp.), except seed, 

dried, shelled

0713395020 Great Northern beans (Vigna spp., Phaseolus spp.), 

except seed, dried, shelled

0713395050 Pinto beans (Vigna spp., Phaseolus spp.), except seed, dried, 

shelled

0713395060 White beans (Vigna spp., Phaseolus spp.), NESOI, 

except seed, dried, shelled

0713395070 Cranberry beans, except seed

0713395080 Beans (Vigna spp., Phaseolus spp.), NESOI, except seed, 

dried, shelled

0713395090 Beans, except seed, other

HTS = Harmonized tariff schedule.

NESOI = Not elsewhere specifi ed or included.

Source: Author compilation of tariff lines in USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (2010).

Appendix Tables
37

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 2

NAFTA’s transitional TRQ for Mexican dry common bean imports from the United States and Canada, 

1994-2008

Year Over-quota 

tariff

Minimum duty-free quota, 

originating from: Imports from United States Imports from Canada

United States Canada U.S. statistics

Mexican 

statistics

Mexican 

statistics

Canadian 

statistics

Percent Metric tons

1994 133.4 50,000 1,500 34,310 -- -- --

1995 127.8 51,500 1,545 17,712 24,049 696 68

1996 122.3 53,045 1,591 105,592 119,974 4,877 361

1997 116.7 54,636 1,639 61,892 86,649 1,685 60

1998 111.2 56,275 1,688 169,922 189,980 6,336 2,791

1999 105.6 57,964 1,739 73,006 121,619 1,736 1,918

2000 93.9 59,703 1,791 58,855 84,708 1,791 2,257

2001 82.1 61,494 1,845 72,860 115,675 8,600 5,526

2002 70.4 63,339 1,900 68,816 99,463 4,189 3,204

2003 58.7 65,239 1,957 61,001 76,232 4,389 2,117

2004 46.9 67,196 2,016 39,193 58,292 1,946 288

2005 35.2 69,212 2,076 62,681 74,323 1,867 1,169

2006 23.5 71,288 2,139 108,067 122,936 6,149 7,102

2007 11.8 73,427 2,203 79,994 85,341 4,113 3,309

2008 Free Free Free 99,110 87,339 5,486 3,867

TRQ = Tariff rate quota.

-- = Data not available.

Source: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) tariff schedule (TRQ information); Statistics Canada, as cited by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. (2010) (Canadian trade statistics); Mexico, Secretariat of Economy (Mexican trade statistics); U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics, as cited by USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (2010) (U.S. trade statistics).
38

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 3

Leading world exporters of dry beans: 1991-93 and 2005-07

 Annual average exports 

Rank Country 1991-93 2005-07 Change

 Metric tons (thousands) Percent

1 China 455 779 71

2 Burma 

(Myanmar) 376 511 36

3 United States 357 312 -13

4 Canada 90 302 237

5 Argentina 187 236 26

6 United Kingdom 13 53 319

7 Kyrgyzstan -- 41 --

8 Thailand 105 37 -65

9 Australia 16 36 130

10 Nicaragua 2 32 1,356

11 Ethiopia * 32 81,988

12 Egypt 2 32 1,290

13 Colombia 9 27 194

14 Peru 3 26 671

15 Bolivia 8 25 199

16 Indonesia 2 22 999

17 Belgium 4 20 405

18 Uganda 24 19 -21

19 Netherlands 32 18 -43

20 Mexico 8 18 109

 World total 1,976 2,755 39

-- = Data not available.

*Exports averaged less than 500 metric tons during 1991-93.

Notes: Countries in bold designate NAFTA countries. Data exclude broad beans, horse 

beans, and cowpeas. The defi nition of dry beans used by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) differs somewhat from that used by USDA, so the data above 

do not necessarily match other fi gures in this report.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009b).
39

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 4

Leading world importers of dry beans: 1991-93 and 2005-07

 Annual average imports 

Rank Country 1991-93 2005-07 Change

 Metric tons (thousands) Percent

1 India 53 470 791

2 United States 17 157 824

3 Cuba -- 135 --

4 United Kingdom 95 121 27

5 Japan 105 120 14

6 Italy 41 101 148

7 Mexico 13 101 702

8 Brazil 91 89 -2

9 Pakistan 24 77 225

10 South Africa 54 70 28

11 Venezuela 60 68 14

12 Spain 35 54 53

13 Korea, 

Republic of 25 52 105

14 Algeria 31 51 63

15 France 59 48 -18

16 China 58 48 -17

17 Malaysia 23 42 84

18 Kenya 19 40 109

19 Portugal 21 39 90

20 Costa Rica 1 38 3,091

21 Angola 30 37 23

22 Netherlands 67 36 -45

23 Turkey 3 35 979

24 Indonesia 45 35 -22

25 Canada 11 35 206

 World total 1,626 2,766 70

-- = Data not available.

Notes: Countries in bold designate NAFTA countries. Data exclude broad beans, horse 

beans, and cowpeas. The defi nition of dry beans used by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) differs somewhat from that used by USDA, so the data above 

do not necessarily match other fi gures in this report.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009b).
40

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 5

Leading world producers of dry beans: 1991-93 and 2006-08

 Annual average production 

Rank Country 1991-93 2005-07 Change

 Metric tons (thousands) Percent

1 India 3,558 3,710 4

2 Brazil 2,673 3,363 26

3 Myanmar 471 2,501 430

4 China 848 1,305 54

5 Mexico 1,128 1,167 3

6 United States 1,183 1,137 -4

7 Tanzania 223 487 118

8 Uganda 404 433 7

9 Kenya 420 409 -3

10 Argentina 206 329 59

11 Indonesia 761 322 -58

12 Canada 126 305 142

13 Korea, Democratic People’s 

Republic of 310 300 -3

14 Rwanda 174 281 62

15 Iran 176 223 26

16 Burundi 341 206 -39

17 Ethiopia 32 201 536

18 Cameroon 90 200 122

19 Nicaragua 71 176 147

20 Pakistan 92 173 89

 World total 16,168 20,321 26

Notes: Countries in bold designate NAFTA countries. Data exclude broad beans, horse 

beans, and cowpeas. The defi nition of dry beans used by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) differs somewhat from that used by USDA, so the data above 

do not necessarily match other fi gures in this report.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009a).
41

The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors / VGS-341-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 6

Area harvested, production, and yields of U.S. dry beans, 

by commercial class: Annual averages, 2007-09

Commercial class Area harvested Production Yield

Hectares 

(thousands)

Metric tons 

(thousands)

Metric tons 

per hectare

Navy 86 177 2.05

Great Northern 24 57 2.39

Small white 1 2 2.68

Cranberry 3 5 1.72

Pink 12 25 2.10

Light red kidney 21 42 2.05

Dark red kidney 18 38 2.06

Black 70 132 1.88

Pinto 261 498 1.91

Small red 14 31 2.18

Total 527.. 1,041 1.98

Note: Total represents only those classes considered as common beans in this report.

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Crop Production (January 2010).

Appendix table 7

Payment rates, target prices, and loan rates according to the 2008 Farm Act for calendar years 2010-12

Commodity Direct payment rates

Target prices for 

countercyclical payments Commodity loan rates

English 

measure

Metric 

equivalent (per 

metric ton)

English 

measure

Metric

equivalent (per 

metric ton)

English 

measure

Metric 

equivalent (per 

metric ton)

Wheat $0.52/bu $19.12 $4.17/bu $153.31 $2.94/bu $108.09

Corn $0.28/bu $11.02 $2.63/bu $103.54 $1.95/bu $76.77

Grain sorghum $0.35/bu $13.78 $2.63/bu $103.54 $1.95/bu $76.77

Barley $0.24/bu $11.01 $2.63/bu $120.64 $1.95/bu $89.45

Oats $0.024/bu $1.66 $1.79/bu $123.45 $1.39/bu $95.86

Upland cotton $0.0667/lb $147.05 $0.7125/lb $1,570.80 $0.52/lb $1,146.41

Long-grain rice $2.35/cwt $51.81 $10.50/cwt $231.49 $6.50/cwt $143.30

Medium-grain rice $2.35/cwt $51.81 $10.50/cwt $231.49 $6.50/cwt $143.30

Soybeans $0.44/bu $16.18 $6.00/bu $220.59 $5.00/bu $183.82

Peanuts $36/ton $39.68 $495/ton $545.64 $355/ton $391.32

Other oilseeds $0.80/cwt $17.64 $12.68/cwt $279.55 $10.09/cwt $222.45

Dry peas None $8.32/cwt $183.43 $5.40/cwt $119.05

Lentils None $12.81/cwt $282.41 $11.28/cwt $248.68

Small chickpeas None $10.36/cwt $228.40 $7.43/cwt $163.80

Large chickpeas None $12.81/cwt $282.41 $11.28/cwt $248.68

bu = bushel; lb = pound; cwt = hundredweight; and ton = short ton.

Note: Converted to metric equivalent using conversion factors from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2009).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (2009).