Características del mercado de frijol en México. El consumo per cápita está disminuyendo Costos de producción Altos costos logísticos

Tamaño: px

Comenzar la demostración a partir de la página:

Download "Características del mercado de frijol en México. El consumo per cápita está disminuyendo Costos de producción Altos costos logísticos"

Sofia Herrera Moreno
hace 5 años
Vistas:

1 Beans

2 Características del mercado de frijol en México El consumo per cápita está disminuyendo Costos de producción Altos costos logísticos Almacenaje Transportación Alto riesgo asociado a temporal 45% de la producción en Zacatecas siniestrada en 2005

3 El frijol pierde importancia en la dieta del mexicano Gramos al día Consumo de alimentos per capita Carne de pollo Huevo Carne de cerdo Carne de res Frijol Fuente: FAO

4 México esta rezagado en su productividad Ton/ha TAAC EU 0.4% China Myanmar Brasil México 4.9% 3.6% 3.6% 0.7% India 0% Fuente: FAO, SIAP

5 Esta no parece despegar especialmente en temporal Productividad del frijol x tecnología TAAC PV riego.86% OI riego 1.35% OI temporal -0.28% PV temporal -1.54% Fuente: SIACON

Estructura de costos comparada entre México y Estados Unidos $6,573 pesos/ton Agua Costo financiero Combustibles Otros costos Mano de obra Costo financiero Reparaciones

6 Estructura de costos comparada entre México y Estados Unidos $6,573 pesos/ton Agua Costo financiero Combustibles Otros costos Mano de obra Costo financiero Reparaciones Combustibles Seguros $4,045pesos/ton 1.6x Fertilizantes Seguros Pesticidas Transporte (cosecha) Fertilizantes Semilla Transporte (cosecha) Pesticidas Semilla Mano de obra

7 Una parte de la producción quedaría fuera de mercado ante la apertura Pesos - ton Curva de costos variables + transporte frijol en DF Precio Central* $8,700 Promedio ponderado $7,520 Chihuahua Ver Zacatecas US con Tarifa 8,954 US ,404 Sinaloa Mean anual price in Central de Abasto Supply curve constructed for 14.5 million tons, more than double the 6.9 million tons consumed in the 5 states considered (DF, Edo de Mexico, Puebla, Hidalgo and Morelos) Fuente: FIRA, SIAP Se estimo el arancel de 2006 de 36% % de mercado

8 Una parte de la producción quedaría fuera de mercado ante la apertura Curva de costos variables + transporte frijol en DF (A nivel municipal) Pesos - ton US con arancel 8,954 US ,404 Mean anual price in Central de Abasto Supply curve constructed for 14.5 million tons, more than double the 6.9 million tons consumed in the 5 states considered (DF, Edo de Mexico, Puebla, Hidalgo and Morelos) Fuente: FIRA, SIAP Se estimo el arancel de 2006 de 36% % de mercado

9 Oportunidades en frijol enlatado Toneladas Producción de frijoles en lata en México Consumo de frijol en Estados Unidos

10 Recomendaciones Mejorar infraestructura de transporte Marketing Promoción del consumo de frijol Exportación de frijol en lata Reconversión Producir variedades con mejores márgenes de comercialización Reforzar programas de reconversión a forrajes Biotecnología Reducción de costos con semilla mejorada Escala Economías de escala en plantas beneficiadoras y empacadoras Seguros

11 Source: FAO Graph 1. Dry bean production in the world, average Thousand tons TAAC=2.2%

12 Source: FAO Trade Database Graph 2. Dry bean trade flows in 2005 Principales flujos en el comercio del frijol >95% of dry bean imports in Mexico come from US 3 % of imports and exports per country > 85% 60-85% 35-60% 10-35% < 10% 2 Main importers Main exporters

13 Graph 3. Dry bean yield evolution in main producing countries (last 10 years) Ton/ha CAGR US China -0.4% 2.7% Myamar Brazil Mexico 3.1% 4.1% 2.0% India -1.3% Source: FAO and SIAP * CAGR for World is estimated to 2004 as their is not data for 2005 nor 2006

14 Graph 4. Evolution of dry bean yields by technology and harvest season last 10 years Source: Sagarpa with information from SIACON Ton / ha Spring-irrigated Autum-irrigated CAGR 0.9% 0.9% Autum-rainfed Spring rainfed 1.2% 2.1%

15 Graph 5. Main bean producing States and percentage of rainfed and irrigated production in each of them 2006 Source SIAP % 99% 72% 61% 99% 66% 80%

16 Graph 6. Evolution of dry bean prices in Mexico and the US (pinto and black beans retail prices) Pesos / ton Source: IMCO with information from SIIAP USDA

17 Source: FAO Graph 7 bean consumption in Mexico (kg per capita) Grams consumed per day Chicken Eggs Beans

18 Graph 8. Main consumption centers and producing States Tijuana Canned bean plants Main consumption markets Main producers (States) CD Obregón Torreón Monterrey San Luis Potosi Guadalajara DF y Edo mex Puebla Sources: Fira; Siacom

Graph 9 Dry bean imports and cupos (1997-2007) tons Source: IMCO,

19 Graph 9 Dry bean imports and cupos ( ) tons Source: IMCO, elaborated with data from IQOM, Secretaría de Economía, FAO and forecasts of SIAP

beans Source: IMCO with information from Sagarpa,

20 Graph 10 Percentage change of relative prices of agricultural products if NAFTA was interrupted for beans Source: IMCO with information from Sagarpa, INEGI, USDA and Secretaria de Economia Agricultural GDP** 45 Million pesos

21 Graph 11 Change in prices of other agro industrial products if NAFTA was interrupted Cambio en precios de productos agroindustriales Source: IMCO with information from Sagarpa, INEGI, USDA and Secretaria de Economia

Graph 12 Average Field Cash Cost for a ton of beans in Mexico and US (2006/07) Excluding collection costs as no comparable information available x 2.

22 Graph 12 Average Field Cash Cost for a ton of beans in Mexico and US (2006/07) Excluding collection costs as no comparable information available x 2.2 $4,693 pesos /ton Other 1% Financial Cost Insurance Water Energy Machinery Other 1% Labour 2% Financial Fuel Insurance Fertilizer Machinery Pesticides & Herbiscides $2,134 pesos / ton Fertilizers Pesticides & Herbicides Seeds Labour Seeds Source: IMCO with data from Sagarpa SIAP and. North Dakota State University

23 Graph 13 Average Cash Cost* of bean production in Mexico with different technologies 2006 $5,323 pesos/ ton Machinery 47% Seeds $3,626 pesos /ton Fertilizers Other Pesticides & Herbicides Water Energy (Electricity) Fertilizers Machinery Labour Seeds Labour Source: IMCO with information of SIAP and FIRA

24 Graph 14 Average Cash Cost of bean production considering 2 shadow prices for water 2006 Machinery $5,323 pesos/ ton 6% $5,033 pesos /ton Seeds Fertilizers $3,626 pesos /ton Water cost* Water cost** Labour Other Cash costs Source: IMCO with information of World Bank and SIAP

25 Durango Source: IMCO with information from SIAP, Aserca and Secretaria de Economia Zacatecas Nayarit Chihuahua Graph 15 Average cost curve of supplying beans in Mexico City 2007 Pesos / ton Average price fall 8.6% Wholesale US price black beans US black Mx US black Mx2008 US Pinto Mx US Pinto Mx2008 Pinto Mex Black Mex producer price (black) Sinaloa Production Costs Total costs Market share

26 Source: IMCO with information from SIAP, Aserca and Secretaria de Economia Graph 16 Average cost curve of supplying black beans in Mexico City 2007 at municipal level for (Zacatecas, Durango and Chihuahua) Pesos / ton US black Mex US black Mx2008 Black Mex producer price (black) Total costs Market share

27 Graph 17 Canned beans production in Mexico tons CAGR 32% Fuente: INEGI, Encuesta Industrial Mensual

28 Graph 18 Dry bean apparent consumption in the United States tons tons Source: USDA

29 Graph 19 Differences in pinto beans prices in main consumption markets in 2006 Pesos kilo wholesale market Source: Secretaria de Economia SNIM

30 Graph 20 Bean stocks (thousand tons) Source: IMCO with data from SIAP. This is a simple average of the monthly data of Stocks reported in Siap. Thius in 2006 we have 70% more stocks than the spring stocks reported by Aserca which were 122 thousand tons for all beans.

31 Durango Zacatecas Nayarit Chihuahua Graph 21. Changes in production cash costs of dry beans with the use of technology for Mexico City 2007 Pesos/ ton Fall in costs 14% US blackmex US black 2008 US Pinto 2008 Pinto Mex Mex Black Increase production 18% Sinaloa With certified seeds Original curve Market share Source: IMCO with information of INIFAP, SIAP, ASERCA Secretaria de Economia

32 Graph 22: Improvements of biotechnology in the long run in the GEM (changing the mean yield from.83 to 1 tons per hectare) Change in production Change in quantities produced Source: IMCO with information from INEGI and Sagarpa

33 Source: IMCO with information from INEGI and Sagarpa Graph 23 Change in relative prices of agricultural inputs Change in the use of inputs for corn production

34 Graph 24 Imported beans in Mexico 1000 tons CAGR = 2% Source SIAP 2006

35 Source: IMCO with information from SIAP, Aserca and Secretaria de Economia Zacatecas Nayarit Graph A.3 Average Variable cost curve for Guadalajara 2007 Pesos / ton Average price fall 8.6% US black Mex US Pinto Pinto Mex Black Mex Sinaloa Producer costs Total costs Market share

36 Durango Source: IMCO with information from SIAP, Aserca and Secretaria de Economia Zacatecas Chihuahua Graph A.4 Average Variable cost curve for Monterrey 2007 Pesos / ton Average price fall 8.6% US Pinto US black Mex Pinto Mex Black Mex Sinaloa Producer costs Total costs Market share

37 Source: IMCO with information from SIAP, Aserca and Secretaria de Economia Graph A.5 Average Variable cost curve for Torreon 2007 Pesos / ton Average price fall 8.6% US Pinto US Pinto 2008 Pinto Mex Sinaloa Chihuahua Producer costs Total costs Market share

38 Source: IMCO with information from SIAP, Aserca and Secretaria de Economia Chihuahua Graph A.6 Average Variable cost curve for Cd Obregon 2007 Pesos / ton Average price fall 8.6% US Pinto US Pinto 2008 Pinto Mex Sinaloa Producer costs Total costs Market share

39 Source: IMCO with information from SIAP, Aserca and Secretaria de Economia Chihuahua Graph A.7 Average Variable cost curve for Tijuana 2007 Pesos / ton Average price fall 9.3% US black Mex US Pinto Black Mex Pinto Mex US Black 2008 US Pinto 2008 Sinaloa Producer costs Total costs Market share

Documentos relacionados

Metodología de Curvas de Costos

Metodología de Curvas de Costos 1 Modelo de Curvas de Costos para maíz frijol y azúcar Objetivo Cuantificar el aumento en bienestar de la población por introducción de biotecnología para maíz reflejados