Dry Beans and Pulses Production Processing and Nutrition 2Nd Edition Muhammad Siddiq Full Chapter

Dry Beans and Pulses Production,
Processing, and Nutrition, 2nd Edition

Muhammad Siddiq
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/dry-beans-and-pulses-production-processing-and-nut
rition-2nd-edition-muhammad-siddiq/
Dry Beans and Pulses
Production, Processing, and Nutrition
Dry Beans and Pulses
Production, Processing, and Nutrition
Second Edition
Edited by
Muhammad Siddiq
Research Associate Professor, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Mark A. Uebersax
Professor Emeritus, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition,
Michigan State University, Perry, MI, USA
This second edition first published 2022
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Edition History
Wiley-Blackwell (1e, 2012)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice
on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Muhammad Siddiq and Mark A. Uebersax to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this
work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Office(s)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at
www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in
standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

The contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are
not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting scientific method, diagnosis, or treatment by
physicians for any particular patient. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental
regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is
urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine,
equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added
warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make
no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and
specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for
a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or
promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a
citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the
information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work
is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and
strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where
appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between
when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or
any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Siddiq, Muhammad, 1957– editor. | Uebersax, Mark A., editor. | John
Wiley & Sons, publisher.
Title: Dry beans and pulses : production, processing, and nutrition / edited
by Muhammad Siddiq, Mark A. Uebersax.
Description: Second edition. | Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, [2022] | Publication
date from ECIP data view. | Includes bibliographical references and
index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021027853 (print) | LCCN 2021027854 (ebook) | ISBN
9781119777113 (cloth) | ISBN 9781119777120 (adobe pdf) | ISBN
9781119777137 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Dried beans. | Dried food industry.
Classification: LCC TP444.B38 D79 2021 (print) | LCC TP444.B38 (ebook) |
DDC 664/.0284–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021027853
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021027854
Cover Design: Wiley
Cover Images: Courtesy of Derrick L. Turner, Michigan State University (USA); James D. Kelly; Mark A. Uebersax;
Jose De J. Berrios
Set in 10/12 pt Times by Strive, Pondicherry, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Contributors vii
Preface xi
PART I: OVERVIEW, PRODUCTION AND POSTHARVEST

TECHNOLOGIES1
1. Global Production, Trade, Processing and Nutritional Profile of Dry Beans
and Other Pulses 3
Muhammad Siddiq, Mark A. Uebersax, and Farihah Siddiq
2. Dry Bean Breeding and Production Technologies 29

Phillip N. Miklas, James D. Kelly, and Karen A. Cichy
3. Physical and Physiological Characteristics and Market

Classes of Common Beans 57
Mark A. Uebersax, Carlos Urrea, and Muhammad Siddiq
4. Harvesting, Postharvest Handling, Distribution,

and Marketing of Dry Beans 81
Mark A. Uebersax, Muhammad Siddiq, Joe Cramer, and Scott Bales
5. Hard-to-Cook and Other Storage-Induced Quality Defects in Dry Beans 105

Mark A. Uebersax, Muhammad Siddiq, and Makafui Borbi
PART II: COMPOSITION, VALUE-ADDED PROCESSING AND QUALITY 129

6. Composition of Raw and Processed Dry Beans and Other Pulses 131
Elham Azarpazhooh and Jasim Ahmed
7. Hydration, Blanching and Thermal Processing of Dry Beans 159

Dharmendra K. Mishra, Norm J. Matella,
Rabiha Binti Sulaiman, and Kirk D. Dolan
8. Processing and Quality Evaluation of Canned Dry Beans 191

Brittany L. White, Luke R. Howard, Mark A. Uebersax, and Kirk D. Dolan
9. Extrusion Processing of Dry Beans and Pulses 225

Jose De J. Berrios, Jack N. Losso, and Irene Albertos
v
vi Contents
10. Processing and Functional Properties of Dry Bean Flours and Fractions 247
Xin Rui and Sharon Hooper
11. Optical Sensing Technologies for Nondestructive Quality

Assessment in Dry Beans 277
Fernando A. Mendoza, Jason A. Wiesinger, and Karen A. Cichy
12. Utilization of Dry Beans and Other Pulses as Ingredients in Diverse

Food Products307
Heather Hill
13. Cowpea Composition, Processing, and Products 331

Robert D. Phillips, Firibu Kwesi Saalia,
and Nicole Sharon Affrifah
14. Faba (Broad) Bean Production, Processing, and Nutritional Profile 359
Sanju Bala Dhull, Mohd. Kashif Kidwai, Muhammad Siddiq,
and Jiwan S. Sidhu
15. Production, Processing, and Nutritional Profile of Chickpeas and Lentils 383
Jiwan S. Sidhu, Tasleem Zafar, Patnarin Benyathiar,
and Muhammad Nasir
16. Processing and Utilization of Dry Beans and Pulses in Africa 409
Jose Jackson, Joyce Kinabo, Rosemary Lekalake,
and Kebadire Mogotsi
17. Processing and Nutritional Profile of Mung Bean, Black Gram, Pigeon Pea,
Lupin, Moth Bean, and Indian Vetch 431
Muhammad Nasir, Jiwan S. Sidhu, and Dalbir Singh Sogi
PART III: CULINOLOGY, NUTRITION, HEALTH BENEFITS,

AND FOOD SECURITY 453
18. A Culinology® Perspective of Dry Beans and Other Pulses 455
Samir Amin and Carl P. Borchgrevink
19. Nutrition and Human Health Benefits of Dry Beans and Other Pulses 481
Chelsea Didinger, Michelle T. Foster, Marisa Bunning, and Henry J. Thompson
20. Health Implications and Nutrient Bioavailability of Bioactive

Compounds in Dry Beans and Other Pulses 505
Jason A. Wiesinger, Frédéric Marsolais, and Raymond P. Glahn
21. A Systems Perspective of the Role of Dry Beans and Pulses in the Future
of Global Food Security: Opportunities and Challenges 531
John Medendorp, David DeYoung, Deepa G. Thiagarajan, Randy Duckworth,
and Barry Pittendrigh
Index 551
Contributors
Nicole Sharon Affrifah Patnarin Benyathiar

Department of Food Process Engineering Department of Food Technology
University of Ghana, Legon Mahidol University (Kanchanaburi campus)
Accra, Ghana. Sai Yok, Kanchanaburi, Thailand.
Jasim Ahmed Jose De J. Berrios

Food & Nutrition Program Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research United State Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Safat, Kuwait. Albany, CA, USA.
Irene Albertos Makafui Borbi

Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Department of Food Science & Human
Universidad Catolica de Avila Nutrition
Ávila, Spain. Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI, USA.
Samir Amin
Department of Food Science and Carl P. Borchgrevink
Nutrition The School of Hospitality Business
California Polytechnic State University Michigan State University
San Luis Obispo, CA, USA. East Lansing, MI, USA.
Elham Azarpazhooh Marisa Bunning

Agricultural Engineering Research Department of Food Science and Human
Department Nutrition
Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Colorado State University
Resources Research and Education Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Center, AREEO
Mashhad, Iran. Karen A. Cichy
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Scott Bales United State Department of Agriculture
Department of Plant, Soil & Microbial (USDA), and
Sciences Plant, Soil & Microbial Sciences
Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI, USA. East Lansing, MI, USA.
vii
viii Contributors
Joe Cramer Sharon Hooper

The Michigan Bean Commission Department of Plant, Soil & Microbial
Frankenmuth, MI, USA. Sciences
Michigan State University
David DeYoung East Lansing, MI, USA.
Feed the Future Innovation Lab for
Legume Systems Research Luke R. Howard
Michigan State University Department of Food Science
East Lansing, MI, USA. University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Sanju Bala Dhull
Department of Food Science and Jose Jackson
Technology Alliance for African Partnership
Chaudhary Devi Lal University Michigan State University
Sirsa (Haryana), India. East Lansing, MI, USA.
Chelsea Didinger James D. Kelly

Department of Food Science and Human Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences
Nutrition (University Distinguished Professor
Colorado State University Emeritus)
Fort Collins, CO, USA. Michigan State University
Kirk D. Dolan
Department of Food Science & Human
Mohd. Kashif Kidwai
Nutrition; Department of Biosystems &
Department of Energy and
Agri Engineering
Environmental Sciences
Chaudhary Devi Lal University
Sirsa (Haryana), India.
Randy Duckworth
Global Pulse Confederation Joyce Kinabo
Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Department of Food Science and
Technology
Michelle T. Foster Sokoine University of Agriculture
Department of Food Science and Human Morogoro, Tanzania.
Nutrition
Colorado State University Rosemary Lekalake
Fort Collins, CO, USA. Department of Food Science and
Technology
Raymond P. Glahn Botswana University of Agriculture and
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Natural Resources
United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Sebele, Botswana.
Ithaca, NY, USA.
Jack N. Losso
Heather Hill School of Nutrition and Food Sciences
Prairie Research Kitchen Louisiana State University
Red River College Agricultural Center
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Contributors ix
Frédéric Marsolais Barry Pittendrigh

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Feed the Future Innovation Lab for
London, Ontario, Canada. Legume Systems Research
Norm J. Matella East Lansing, MI, USA; and
Research & Development Department of Entomology
Campari Group Purdue University
Lawrenceburg, KY, USA. West Lafayette, IN, USA.
John Medendorp Xin Rui

Feed the Future Innovation Lab for College of Food Science and Technology
Legume Systems Research Nanjing Agricultural University
Michigan State University Nanjing, Jiangsu Province
East Lansing, MI, USA; and P. R. China.
Department of Entomology
Purdue University, Firibu Kwesi Saalia
West Lafayette, IN, USA. Department of Nutrition and
Food Science
Fernando A. Mendoza University of Ghana, Legon
Advance Development Food Preservation Accra, Ghana.
AB Electrolux
Stockholm, Sweden. Farihah Siddiq
Food Packaging Specialist
Phillip N. Miklas
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Muhammad Siddiq
United State Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Food Science and Human
Prosser, WA, USA.
Nutrition
Dharmendra K. Mishra East Lansing, MI, USA.
Department of Food Sciences
Purdue University Jiwan S. Sidhu
West Lafayette, IN, USA. Department of Food Science and
Nutrition
Kebadire Mogotsi College of Life Sciences, Kuwait
National Agriculture, Research and University
Development Institute (NARDI) Safat, Kuwait.
Gaborone, Botswana.
Dalbir Singh Sogi
Muhammad Nasir Department of Food Science and
Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Technology
FrieslandCampina Engro Pakistan Ltd. Guru Nanak Dev University
Lahore, Pakistan. Amritsar, India.
Robert D. Phillips Rabiha Binti Sulaiman

Department Food Science & Technology Department of Food Technology
University of Georgia University Putra Malaysia (UPM)
Griffin, GA, USA. Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
x Contributors
Deepa G. Thiagarajan Brittany L. White

Department of Food Science & Human Research and Development
Nutrition Department
Michigan State University Simmons Pet Food
East Lansing, MI, USA. Siloam Springs, AR, USA.
Henry J. Thompson Jason A. Wiesinger

Cancer Prevention Laboratory Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
Colorado State University United State Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Fort Collins, CO, USA. Ithaca, NY, USA.
Mark A. Uebersax Tasleem Zafar

Department of Food Science and Human Department of Food Science &
Nutrition (Professor, Emeritus) Nutrition
Michigan State University, College of Life Sciences, Kuwait
Perry MI, USA. University
Safat, Kuwait.
Carlos Urrea
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture
University of Nebraska
Scottsbluff, NE, USA.
Preface
Common beans and other pulses are diverse food sources of high nutritional value (protein,
energy, fiber, and vitamins and minerals) with broad social acceptance. These legume crops
demonstrate global adaptability, genotypic and phenotypic diversity, and multiple means of
preparation and dietary use. Beans and pulses are produced in regions as diverse as Latin
America, Africa, Asia, and North America. Traditionally, these food crops have not been
afforded their due importance to a scale similar to some other crops such as soybean and
staple crops, such as wheat, corn, and rice. However, in recent years, pulse crops have
gained increased importance due to their value as plant-based proteins and meat alterna-
tives. Moreover, pulse flours and ingredients are finding new uses in diverse food applica-
tions with enhanced nutritional and sensory properties.
Numerous factors influence utilization of grain legumes, including type and cultivar
selection, cropping environment and systems, storage conditions and handling infrastruc-
ture, processing methods, and final product preparation. Further, nutrient content and bio-
availability are dramatically influenced by these diverse factors. In recent years, beans and
pulses have been cited for imparting specific positive health potentiating responses, such as
hypocholesteremic response, mitigation of diabetes and colorectal cancer, and weight con-
trol. Enhanced dry bean utilization focused on improved dietary health is an opportunity
within both subsistent and developed populations.
This revised book edition provides a contemporary source of information that brings
together current knowledge and practices in the value chain of bean/pulse production, pro-
cessing, and nutrition. This work provides an in-depth coverage on a wide variety of perti-
nent topics: breeding, postharvest technologies, composition, processing technologies, food
safety, quality, nutritional profile, significance to human health, and food security. An expe-
rienced team of over 50 contributors from North America, Asia, and Africa has written 21
chapters. These contributors come from a field of diverse disciplines, including crop sci-
ences, horticulture, food science and technology, food biochemistry, food engineering,
nutritional sciences, Culinology®, environmental sciences, and agricultural extension.
The book is divided into three sections. Part I, Overview, production and postharvest
technologies of beans and pulses, contains 5 chapters. Topics include global production and
consumption; breeding and production technologies; market classes and physical and phys-
iological characteristics; postharvest handling, packaging and distribution; and storage
induced quality defects. Part II, Composition, value-added processing, and quality, has 12
chapters, which cover composition of processed beans/pulses; hydration, blanching, and
thermal processing; canning and canned products; extrusion processing and products;
processing of flours and fractions; optical sensing technologies for nondestructive quality
assessment; utilization of dry beans and other pulses as ingredients in diverse food products;
cowpea processing and products; faba bean processing and nutrition; chickpeas and lentils
xi
xii Preface
processing and nutrition; utilization of beans and pulses in Africa; and other common
pulses, including mung bean, black gram, pigeon pea, lupin, moth bean and Indian vetch.
Part III, Culinology®, nutrition and significance in human health, and food security, has
four chapters, which include culinary perspective of beans and pulses; nutrition and human
health benefits; health implications and nutrient bioavailability of bioactive compounds;
and roles of dry beans and pulses in global food security. Overall, this value-chain approach
to the presented topics is a distinctive feature of this book.
The editors acknowledge many individuals for their support from conception through
final development of this book. Foremost is our sincere thanks and gratitude to all authors
for their contributions and for bearing with us during the review and finalization process of
their chapters. Thanks are due to Imaad Thasin for providing library and literature search
support. We are grateful to our family members for their understanding and support, ena-
bling us to complete this work. We dedicate this work to the worthy contributions of the
numerous researchers and students throughout the world for their decades-long devoted
efforts to improving the quality and utilization of dry beans and pulses.
Muhammad Siddiq
Mark A. Uebersax
Part I
Overview, Production and
Postharvest Technologies
1 Global Production, Trade, Processing
and Nutritional Profile of Dry Beans
and Other Pulses
Muhammad Siddiq, Mark A. Uebersax,
and Farihah Siddiq
Introduction Health benefits

History and origin Beans and pulses use in
Production and trade weaning foods
Global production and trade Constraints to utilization of beans
US production and trade and other pulses
Consumption trends of dry beans Legumes and sustainability of
Dry beans and other pulses as a diverse food agricultural systems
resource Beans and other pulses in world
Traditional utilization food security
Value-added processing and products Dry beans in food aid programs
Nutritional profile and health benefits Summary
Nutritional profile References
INTRODUCTION
Legumes (dry beans and other pulses) occupy an important place in human nutrition, espe-
cially among the low-income groups of people in developing countries. Although terms
legumes, pulses, and beans are used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings. For
example, a legume refers to any plant from the Fabaceae family, including leaves, stems,
and pods, while edible seeds from the legume plant are called pulses, which include beans,
cowpeas, chickpeas, lentils, and peas, to name a few (HSPH 2020; Perera et al. 2020). Food
legumes have significant importance in human diet and animal feed worldwide and occupy
an important place in the global food supply chain besides promoting sustainable agricul-
tural production systems (Pratap et al. 2021).
Dry Beans and Pulses: Production, Processing, and Nutrition, Second Edition.
Edited by Muhammad Siddiq and Mark A. Uebersax.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
3
4 Overview, Production and Postharvest Technologies
Legumes typically have pea-blossom type flowers, herbaceous to woody stems, a generally
well-defined taproot, nitrogen-assimilating bacteria within nodules associated with the fibrous
root system, bivalved seeds in varying numbers borne in single-celled pods that readily sepa-
rate into halves at maturity, an annual lifecycle, and grow throughout the world from the tropics
to high mountainous regions (Hardenburg 1927). Legume plants serve as hosts for nitrogen-
fixing bacteria (Rhizobium) through symbiotic colonization within nodules that develop among
the plant root system. Thus, legume crops are soil nutrient enhancers that build soil nitrogen
levels through suitable crop rotations of legumes with non-nitrogen fixing cereal grains
(Bliss 1993; Martinez-Romero 2003).
Dry beans and other pulses are a good source of protein (significantly higher than
that of cereals), dietary fiber, starch, minerals, and vitamins (Kutos et al. 2002; Hayat
et al. 2014; Kamboj and Nanda 2018). They are a staple food and are a low-cost source
of protein in developing countries where protein energy malnutrition (PEM) is preva-
lent (Van Heerden and Schonfeldt 2004). The inclusion of pulses in the daily diet has
many beneficial physiological effects in controlling and preventing various metabolic
diseases such as diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and colon cancer (Tharanathan
and Mahadevamma 2003). Further, pulses belong to the group that elicits the lowest
blood glucose response and contain considerable contents of phenolic compounds. The
role of legumes as therapeutic agents in the diets of persons suffering from metabolic
disorders has gained a significant interest in recent years (Mudryj et al. 2014; Yao
et al. 2020).
Figure 1.1 shows comparative nutritional benefits of dry beans versus cereal grains.
Nutritionally, the higher content of protein and dietary fiber and lower content of carbohy-
drates and fat of legumes offer better dietary options and health benefits. In recent years,
beans have been cited for imparting specific positive health potentiating responses (hypocho-
lesteremic response, mitigation of diabetes and colonic cancer, and weight control) when
properly positioned in the diet (Hayat et al. 2014; Clemente and Olias 2017; Kamboj et al.
2018; HSPH 2020).
Numerous factors influence utilization, including bean type and cultivar selection,
cropping environment and systems, storage conditions and handling infrastructure,
3.98
Fat Cereal grains
0.83
Dry beans
9.10
Dietary fiber
24.9
72.59
Carbohydrates
60.01
12.21
Protein
23.58
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Content (g/100 g)
Fig. 1.1. Nutritional benefits of dry beans versus cereal grains (data for dry beans is average of pinto,
navy, red kidney, and black beans, and average of wheat, corn, sorghum, and oat for cereal grains).
Source: Based on data from USDA (2021).
Global Production, Trade, Processing and Nutritional Profile of Dry Beans and Other Pulses 5
Desi Chickpea Lentil Dhal

Navy
Light red kidney
Pinto
Small red
Great northern
Kabuli chickpea
Cowpea/Black eye pea

Black
Cranberry
‘Soup Mix’
Dark red kidney
Mung bean
Chickpea Dhal
Fig. 1.2. A selection of common dry beans and pulses. (For color detail, please see color plate section.)
Source: Original image by author, M.A. Uebersax.
p rocessing, and final product preparation. Further, nutrient content and bioavailability are
dramatically influenced by these conditions. Antinutritional factors (trypsin inhibitors,
lectins, and phytic acid) have long been recognized as concerns and require appropriate
processing conditions to ameliorate adverse effects. However, it is noted that some of the
antinutrients may have therapeutic value, e.g., tannins and phenolics (Uebersax et al. 1989;
Sathe 2012).
Legume crops demonstrate global adaptability, genotypic and phenotypic diversity, and
multiple means of preparation and dietary use. Figure 1.2 shows a selection of common dry
beans and other pulses. The common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is considered the most
widely grown among more than 30 Phaseolus species described in the literature. It has
undergone wide production distribution from its origins in Mexico, Central America, and
the Andean region of South America. Beans have extensive domestication and cultivation
and has been utilized in a variety of food preparations (Hidalgo 1988). Scientific (genus
and species) and common names for various food legumes are:
• Phaseolus vulgaris L. (common bean, field bean, haricot)

• Vigna unguiculata L. (cowpea, black-eye pea, crowder pea)
• Cicer arietinum L. (chickpea, garbanzo, Bengal gram, gram, Chana)

• Lens culinaris Medik. (lentil, Masur)
• Vigna aureus (mung bean, green gram, golden gram)
• Cajanus cajan L. Millsp. (pigeon pea, Congo pea, red gram, Angola pea, yellow dhal)
• Phaseolus lunatus L. (lima bean, butter bean)
• Vicia faba L. (broad bean, faba bean, horse bean)
• Vigna aconitifolia Jacq. (moth bean, mat bean)
• Pisum arvense sativum L. (common or garden pea, pois, arveja, Alaska pea,
muttar)
• Glycine max (L.) Merr. (soybean, soya, haba soya)
This chapter provides an overview of important aspects of the production and global
trade of legumes, production and consumption trends, use as a diverse food resource, value-
added products, nutritional and health significance, constraints to utilization, and the role of
legumes in world food security.
History and origin

Beans may be called “the food of the ancients,” with literature recording the cultivation
of beans, lupins and lentils in the Nile Valley dating as early as 2000 bce. Common beans
originated in Latin America (high Andeas, Guatemala and Mexico) where its wild
progenitor (P. vulgaris var. mexicanus and var. aborigenous) has a wide distribution rang-
ing from northern Mexico to northwestern Argentina (Gepts 2001; Grigolo and
Fioreze 2018). Phaseolus beans are recognized as an exclusive New World Crop of
American origin despite their wide distribution worldwide. Secondary centers of diversi-
fication are East Africa and Europe, since the Phaseolus beans were introduced by
Spaniards and Portuguese in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Angioi et al. 2010;
Schumacher and Boland 2017). Beans have played a part in the superstitions, the politics,
and the warfare of ancient peoples. Magistrates were elected in Greece and Rome by the
casting of beans into helmets. Certain kinds have been credited with medicinal value
(Hardenburg 1927).
Originally domesticated in Central and South America, dry beans moved northward
through Mexico and spread across most of the United States. These beans were com-
monly grown with corn and sometimes squash (Schumacher and Boland 2017). The
early Europeans, first in the New England States of the US, then generations later in
the upper Midwest (Great Lakes region), found that the white pea bean and many other
dry beans provided a fine staple for a subsistence diet. The settlers explored and
adapted to growing dry beans that the native Indians apparently had never exploited.
They traded their excess production to non-bean-growing neighbors for goods, services,
or cash.
The Iroquois Indians grew a small, round pea bean (Indian bean) with corn and squash
(“three sisters” cropping system); this bean later became known as the “navy bean”
because of the large demand that developed for this bean for naval and marine food sup-
ply purposes.
PRODUCTION AND TRADE
Dry beans and pulses are grown widely in different regions of the world. Table 1.1 shows
regional production of dry beans, cowpeas, and other pulses in 2019. The total world produc-
tion of these grain legumes was over 68 million metric tons, with Asia alone contributing
50.67%, followed by Africa (27.80%, and Americas − North, Central, and South (15.62%).
The major regionally produced legumes were lentils, chickpeas, mung beans, pigeon peas,
and other local pulses (Asia), cowpeas and vetches (Africa), dry beans, lentils, and chickpeas
(Americas), lentils, lupins, vetches, and other pulses (EU region), and lupins and vetches
(Oceania).
The significance of dry beans and pulses is made clear by the worldwide distribution of
their production and consumption, as summarized below:
• East Asia: China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Korea Rep., Myanmar, Philippines,
Thailand, Vietnam
• South Asia: Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
• West Asia/Middle East: Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen
• North America: USA, Mexico, Canada
• Central America and Caribbean: Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
• South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru,
Uruguay, Venezuela
• Europe: Albania, Austria, Benelux, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Russian
Federation
• East Africa: Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda,
Zaire
• West Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia
• South Africa: Angola, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Republic of South Africa,
Swaziland, Zimbabwe
Table 1.1. Regional production of dry beans and other pulses in 2019 (metric tons).
Pulse crop Asia Africa Americas Europe Oceania
Beans 14,369,312 7,052,612 7,039,866 367,412 73,470

Cowpeas 197,970 8,616,443 65,039 23,877 nr1
Chickpeas 11,879,525 693,369 876,132 516,069 281,200
Lentils 2,438,955 188,545 2,446,103 124,756 535,842
Vetches 94,569 324,719 97,230 239,487 6,790
Pigeon peas 3,680,651 666,875 78,443 nr nr
Lupins 91 75,381 63,595 393,146 474,629
Other pulses 2,063,857 1,432,126 41,065 1,003,043 12,938
Total 34,724,930 19,050,070 10,707,473 2,667,790 1,384,869
1
Not reported
Source: FAO (2020).
Global production and trade

The world production of dry beans was 28.9 million metric tons (MT) in 2019, which rep-
resented an increase of 64.74% as compared to 17.5 million MT in 1990 (Figure 1.3). From
2010 to 2019, dry bean production increased by 4.3 million MT, or 17.33%, whereas in the
preceding 20-year period (1990–2009), global production increased only by 4.5 million MT
(17.33%). Note: The percentages shown are slightly off in this section since these were not
calculated from the rounded off data (to one decimal point) reported here. Regionally, Asia
accounted for 49.72% of global production, followed by Africa and Americas (North,
Central and South), with 24.40% and 24.36% share, respectively. The total area under dry
beans cultivation was 33.1 million hectares in 2019, which represented an increase of 25%
compared to 1990’s 26.5 million hectare. These figures illustrate that most of the produc-
tion increases during nearly three decades were achieved through genetic improvements
and applying good agricultural practices (GAPs) rather than through increases in area under
cultivation.
The total world production of pulses (chickpeas, lentils, lupins, pigeon peas, vetches,
and other minor pulses) in 2019 was 30.7 million MT, which represented an increase of
66.42% compared to 18.4 million MT in 1990 (Figure 1.3). Chickpeas (14.3 million MT)
and lentils (5.7 million MT) accounted for 65% of the total pulses production. From 1990
to 2009, pulses production increased by 4.5 million MT, whereas a 7.9 million MT increase
was reported in just a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019. With respect to regional distribu-
tion, Asia led the global production with 65.60% share, followed by Americas (11.72%),
and Africa (11.00%).
The total area under pulses cultivation was 31.4 million hectares in 2019, which
showed an increase of 6.3 million hectares or 25.20% since 1990. However, area under
cultivation decreased significantly from the preceding year (2018), which was an all-time
high of 38.1 million hectares. It is noted that most of the increase in area was recorded
from 2010 to 2019, while it remained somewhat flat during the preceding 20 years
(1990–2009).
The total world production of cowpeas was 8.9 million MT in 2019, which was more
than four times as compared to 2.1 million MT in 1990 (Figure 1.3). However, from 2010
to 2019, an increase of only 25.47% was recorded, compared to 7.1 million MT in 2010.
The area under cowpeas cultivation since 1990 exhibited a significant growth, i.e., from
5.7 to 14.4 million hectares. In contrast to dry beans and pulses, the boost in cowpea
production appeared to be related mainly to the increases in the cultivated area.
Nonetheless, technological advances too have contributed partially to higher production
of cowpeas globally.
The average yield of dry beans, all pulses, and cowpeas was 874, 1124, and 616 kg/
hectare, respectively, in 2019. As was the case with the total production and area under
cultivation, yields of dry beans, all pulses, and cowpeas since 1990 have recorded a 32.26,
32.08, and 60.78% increase, respectively.
Leading producers of dry beans, cowpea, chickpea, lentil, lupin, pigeon pea, vetches,
and other minor pulses are shown in Table 1.2. Myanmar, India, Brazil, China, and Tanzania
top-five dry beans producing countries in 2019, with a production of 5,846,622 MT,
5,310,000 MT, 2,906,508 MT, 1,297,867 MT, and 1,197,489 MT, respectively. Combined,
these five countries contributed about 57% of the total world production. Uganda, USA,
Mexico, Kenya, and Burundi were the other countries among the leading dry beans produc-
ers. Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya were the top-five cowpea producers,
Production (million metric tons)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1990 2.1 5.7 1990 18.4 25.1 1990 17.5 26.5
20.1 18.0
Source: FAO (2020).

1991 2.5 6.3 1991 26.7 1991 27.4
1992 2.6 8.5 1992 17.1 25.2 1992 17.2 25.4
1993 2.5 8.3 1993 18.4 25.0 1993 18.5 24.6
1994 2.7 7.4 1994 18.8 24.8 1994 17.6 26.6
1995 2.7 8.5 1995 21.0 26.3 1995 17.8 25.9
1996 3.0 8.8 1996 19.8 25.9 1996 17.1 25.8
1997 3.0 8.8 1997 20.7 25.2 1997 16.5 25.5
1998 3.8 10.3 1998 20.0 25.7 1998 16.8 24.3
1999 3.7 9.2 1999 21.8 26.5 1999 18.0 23.7
2000 3.3 8.9 2000 20.4 24.6 2000 17.8 23.8
2001 3.8 9.2 2001 19.3 24.5 2001 18.5 24.0
Pulses, production
2002 4.3 9.9 2002 20.8 25.1 2002 20.1 27.7
Dry beans, production
Cowpeas, production
2003 4.4 10.4 2003 18.9 24.3 2003 21.4 28.5
Pulses, cultivated area

4.2 21.6 2004 18.7 27.3
Cowpeas, cultivated area

Dry beans, cultivated Area
2004 9.2 2004 25.2

2005 4.8 10.4 2005 21.3 24.9 2005 19.3 26.8
2006 5.2 11.3 2006 22.0 25.2 2006 21.2 27.9
2007 5.6 11.9 2007 21.4 25.8 2007 21.7 29.3
2008 6.4 12.9 2008 20.9 25.4 2008 21.9 26.7
2009 5.1 9.7 2009 22.9 25.7 2009 22.0 25.5
2010 7.1 11.8 2010 25.0 27.2 2010 24.6 30.8
2011 5.3 10.9 2011 25.8 29.5 2011 23.8 30.3
2012 8.9 11.8 2012 26.3 29.5 2012 24.2 29.0
2013 8.9 12.7 2013 29.1 29.6 2013 24.7 29.2
2014 6.2 13.0 2014 29.7 30.8 2014 26.8 30.4
include chickpeas, lentils, lupins, pigeon peas, vetches, and other minor pulses.
2015 6.4 12.4 2015 27.8 29.4 2015 27.6 30.8
2016 8.3 13.9 2016 28.2 30.6 2016 28.4 34.3
2017 8.5 14.7 2017 34.4 34.3 2017 30.8 36.3
2018 8.8 14.4 2018 36.0 38.1 2018 30.4 34.5
2019 8.9 14.4 2019 30.7 31.4 2019 28.9 33.1
0
5
0
2
4
6
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10
12
14
16
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
(1990–2019). Dry beans data include pinto, navy, kidney, lima, black, great northern; pulses data
Cultivated area (million hectares)
Global Production, Trade, Processing and Nutritional Profile of Dry Beans and Other Pulses
Fig. 1.3. World production (bars) and area under cultivation (lines) of dry beans, pulses, and cowpeas
9
Table 1.2. Leading dry beans and pulses producing countries in 2019 (metric tons, MT).
Dry beans Cowpeas Chickpeas Lentils
Myanmar 5,846,622 Nigeria 3,576,361 India 9,937,990 Canada 2,166,900

India 5,310,000 Niger 2,386,735 Turkey 630,000 India 1,227,820
Brazil 2,906,508 Burkina 652,454 Russian 506,166 Australia 533,755
Faso Fed.
China 1,297,867 Ethiopia 374,332 Myanmar 499,438 Turkey 353,631
Tanzania 1,197,489 Kenya 246,870 Pakistan 446,584 Nepal 251,185
Uganda 979,789 Mali 215,436 Ethiopia 435,193 USA 244,400
USA 932,220 Cameroon 215,016 USA 282,910 Bangladesh 175,384
Mexico 879,404 Ghana 202,735 Australia 281,200 China 164,239
Kenya 747,000 Senegal 184,137 Canada 251,500 Ethiopia 119,329
Burundi 619,151 Sudan 161,000 Mexico 202,846 Russian Fed. 116,618
World Total1 28,902,672 World 8,903,329 World 14,246,295 World Total1 5,734,201
Total1 Total1
Lupin Pigeon pea Vetches Other pulses
Australia 474,629 India 3,315,440 Ethiopia 312,680 India 912,609

Russian 166,271 Malawi 464,787 Russian 163,163 U.K. 230,139
Fed.
Poland 145,690 Myanmar 347,395 Mexico 97,230 Mozambique 221,886
Morocco 67,928 Tanzania 90,088 Turkey 51,767 Spain 213,420
Chile 45,606 Kenya 87,912 Syria 33,978 Kyrgyzstan 180,379
Germany 25,600 Haiti 44,868 Belarus 31,739 Viet Nam 160,186
Greece 22,900 Dominican 25,322 Serbia 28,018 Poland 154,760
Rep.
Peru 16,458 Nepal 16,538 Morocco 7,795 China 143,177
Ukraine 10,760 Uganda 14,223 Palestine 6,914 Tanzania 142,289
South Africa 7,224 Congo 6,510 Australia 6,790 Thailand 134,123
World Total1 1,006,842 World 4,425,969 World 762,795 World Total1 4,553,029
Total1 Total1
1
Including all other countries not listed
Source: FAO (2020).
with Nigeria and Niger together accounting for 67% of the total world production. The
cowpea production in the USA has been on a decline in recent years, with 2019 production
of 11,750 MT, which was 65,570 MT in 2010.
Among pulses, India ranked first in chickpea production with 9,937,990 MT, or about
70% of total world production in 2019. Turkey, Russian Federation, Myanmar, and Pakistan
were the other countries in the top-five chickpea producers. Lentil production is led by
Canada (2,166,900 MT) followed by India, Australia, Turkey, and Nepal. Canada’s share of
total lentil production in the world was nearly 38%. Australia was the top producer of
lupins, with a 47% share of total world production, followed by Russian Federation, Poland,
Morocco, and Chile; these five countries accounted for 89% of lupins produced in 2019.
India, Malawi, Myanmar, Tanzania, Kenya were the top-five pigeonpea producing coun-
tries, with India alone producing about 75% pigeonpeas. Ethiopia, with 41% of total world
production, was the top producer of vetches in 2019, while India led in the production of
other minor pulses with 20% global share.
Among all pulse crops, only dry beans, chickpeas, and lentils are traded globally on a
wider scale (FAO 2020). Cowpeas and other pulses are traded in the world market on a much
Table 1.3. Leading dry beans, chickpeas, and lentils exporting and importing countries in 2019
(metric tons).
Exporters:
Dry beans Chickpeas Lentils
Myanmar 1,097,218 Russian Fed. 470,439 Canada 2,116,910

Argentina 457,041 Australia 406,157 Australia 498,992
USA 451,733 Turkey 212,598 Turkey 308,545
China 350,649 USA 154,784 USA 262,404
Canada 342,563 Mexico 133,309 UAE 209,780
Uganda 175,000 Canada 129,922 Kazakhstan 181,809
Ethiopia 165,265 India 123,493 Russian Fed. 150,818
Mozambique 164,055 Tanzania 111,459 Syria 19,678
Uzbekistan 151,077 Argentina 103,928 Egypt 17,401
Brazil 123,106 UAE 61,830 India 17,338
World Total1 4,587,193 World Total1 2,177,431 World Total1 3,899,913
Importers:
Dry Beans Chickpeas Lentils
India 520,965 Egypt 5,672,922 India 822,398

Brazil 150,660 Pakistan 410,083 Bangladesh 472,411
Turkey 145,240 India 371,883 Turkey 401,168
USA 139,850 Bangladesh 241,076 UAE 268,139
China 134,956 Turkey 114,770 Sri Lanka 167,810
Italy 131,527 UAE 105,076 Pakistan 123,735
Mexico 123,653 Iraq 77,083 Iraq 100,059
UK 116,543 Algeria 75,377 Colombia 86,475
Pakistan 103,871 Saudi Arabia 60,786 Canada 83,154
Viet Nam 94,559 Spain 56,979 Sudan 79,353
World Total1 3,453,050 World Total1 7,796,178 World Total1 3,770,132
1
Including all other countries not listed
Source: FAO (2020).
smaller basis but FAO does not report data on these pulse crops. The major exporting and
importing countries for dry beans, chickpeas, and lentils are listed in Table 1.3. Myanmar,
Russian Federation, and Canada were the top exporters of dry beans, chickpeas, and lentils
in 2019, with 23.92, 21.61, and 54.28% share of total exports, respectively. Other countries
among top-five exporters were Argentina, USA, China, and Canada (dry beans), Australia,
Turkey, USA, and Mexico (chickpeas), and Australia, Turkey, USA, and UAE (lentils). The
top-five importing countries were India, Brazil, Turkey, USA, and China (dry beans), Egypt,
Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Turkey (chickpeas), and India, Bangladesh, Turkey, UAE,
and Sri Lanka (lentils). It is noted that UAE, which is not a major producer of chickpeas and
lentils, imports these quantities in bulk and exports them in bulk and retail size packaging.
US production and trade

The total US production of dry beans was 1.78 million MT in 2020. North Dakota,
Michigan, and Minnesota were the three leading dry beans–producing states in 2020
(Table 1.4); together, these three states represented about 76% of total US production,
with 41.62%, 17.27%, and 16.69% share, respectively. Michigan was once the leading
Table 1.4. Leading dry beans producing states in the US for selected years since 1990
(metric tons).
State1 1990 2000 2010 2020 % Change (1990–2020)
North Dakota 254,270 386,765 521,500 739,683 +190.90

Michigan 276,623 209,563 192,273 306,847 +10.93
Minnesota 89,820 121,928 139,182 296,635 +230.26
Nebraska 254,219 163,586 145,136 177,148 −30.32
Idaho 180,859 87,178 115,727 84,637 −53.20
Colorado 217,184 100,590 57,000 55,425 −74.48
Washington 46,333 32,514 62,545 52,835 +14.03
Wyoming 49,025 38,712 46,545 32,361 −33.99
California 155,356 104,604 66,455 31,701 −79.59
Other states 121,267 102,521 99,136 nr2 --
Total (U.S.) 1,644,956 1,347,961 1,445,499 1,777,272 +8.04
1
Ranked by 2020 production data
2
Not reported (USDA stopped reporting data since 2019 for Montana and Texas, which comprised other states)
Source: USDA-ERS (2011), USDA-ERS (2020a).
dry beans–producing state; however, North Dakota has now been the leader for over
two decades. Since 1990, Minnesota and North Dakota have recorded significant
increases of 230.26% and 190.90%, respectively. Five states have shown a decrease in
dry beans production since 1990, with percent decrease shown in parenthesis: California
(79.59%), Colorado (74.48%), Idaho (53.20%), Wyoming (33.99%), and Nebraska
(30.32%).
Lucier and Davis (2020) reported that the US imported dry beans from 69 countries and
the top-five countries reported by the Department of Commerce include Canada, Mexico,
Nicaragua, China, and India, which together represented 72% of all US dry bean imports.
The most predominant dry bean classes imported in the 2019–2020 season were mung
beans (23%), kidney beans − dark red, light red, and other kidney beans (19%), black beans
(12%), and pinto beans (9%). Mung beans in the United States are mostly used for bean
sprouts in salads or used in soup mixes and bean flour. US dry bean exports overall are
down by 4% in 2020, which continued a downward trend in recent years.
Pinto and navy beans have been the two leading classes of dry beans produced in the
US (Figure 1.4). While pinto beans continue to lead all classes; more recently, chick-
peas, lentils, and black beans have surpassed navy beans, as per 2019 production figures.
Both pinto and navy beans have recorded significant decreases in production since 1990,
i.e., 50% and 54%, respectively. By contrast, since 1990 chickpeas have experienced a
phenomenal growth of about 230-fold increase in production as the popularity of plant-
based proteins and products (e.g., hummus) continues to grow among consumers.
Similarly, both lentils and black beans have recorded a 4.6-fold increase in production.
Kidney beans production has remained fairly flat over a 30-year period, whereas great
northern and lima (baby and large) beans have experienced a significant decrease over
the same period.
Small red, pink, and blackeye beans are other classes of commercial significance, with
28,805, 14,784, and 13,158 metric tons production, respectively, in 2019. Data on cowpeas
was not reported for 2019 by USDA, most likely, due to decreasing production; however,
65,570 metric tons of cowpeas were produced in the USA in 2010.
700
1990 2000 2010 2019
701.8
693.5
547.5
600
500
'000' Metric tons
343.9
334.9
400
316.9
273.7
257.5
242.4
300
153.9
153.9
143.4
200
126.4
120.2
122.1
119.1
67.8
67.9
59.0
55.5
52.8
52.3
49.7
100
24.1
1.4
0
o
ea
e)
av
il
ac
)
nt
er
rk
nt
kp
rg
Pi
Bl
rth
da
Le
la
hi
no
t+
+
C
y
at
gh
ab
re
(li
(b
G
ey
a
dn
m
Li
Ki
Fig. 1.4. Different classes of dry beans and pulses produced in the US for selected years since 1990.
Source: USDA-NASS (2020).
CONSUMPTION TRENDS OF DRY BEANS
The per capita average bean consumption was 2.58 (5.68 lbs) kg in 2017 in the world. Several
African nations were shown to be among the highest per capita consumers of bean products.
Rwanda ranked the highest in bean consumption per capita, with 34.80 kg (76.56 lbs), followed
by Uganda with 24.80 kg (54.56 lbs) and Tanzania with 15.30 kg (33.66 lbs) in 2017 (Anon. 2020).
The regions of highest bean and other pulses consumption in 2013, according to FAOSTAT,
included all of Latin America. The highest per capita consumption of 21.40 kg (47.08 lbs) was
in Nicaragua, followed by 17.32 kg (38.10 lbs) in El Salvador, 16.07 kg (35.36 lbs) in Brazil, and
10.08 to 12.12 kg (22.18 to 26.66 lbs) in Costa Rica, Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.
The per capita consumption of dry beans and other pulses in the United States, Europe
(encompassing the EU), and other industrialized economies has generally and consistently
been substantially lower than that observed in other regions of the world (Schneider 2002).
Bouchenak and Lamri-Senhadji (2013) reported that among European countries, higher
legume consumption was observed around the Mediterranean, with per capita yearly con-
sumption between 2.92 kg (6.42 lbs) and 8.40 kg (18.48 lbs), while in Northern Europe, the
per capita consumption was significantly lower, i.e., less than 1.83 kg (4.03 lbs) per year.
Watson et al. (2017) noted that due to decreasing consumption of legumes in EU countries,
the share of cultivated area under grain legumes out of total arable area has decreased from
about 7% in 1960 to under 3% in 2013.
Since 1970, the US per capita consumption of dry beans has ranged from a high of
7.65 lbs (3.48 kg) in 2000 to 5.40 lbs (3.48 kg) in 1980 (Figure 1.5), with the most recent
figure of 6.90 lbs (3.14 kg) in 2019. Cooked bean consumption is recognized to be greatest
in the southern and western areas of the country. About 55% of black beans, one of the
fastest-growing classes in terms of per capita use, are consumed in the southern region of the
country. People of Hispanic origin consume 33% of all cooked dry edible bean products.
7.65
7
7.51
7.20
6.91
6.90
6.79
6.83
6.80
6.72
6
6.07
5
Pounds/year
5.40
4
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2019
Fig. 1.5. US per capita consumption of total dry beans since 1970.
Source: Adapted from USDA-ERS (2020b).
Relative to their share of the population, low-income consumers consume substantially more
navy, lima, and pinto beans than those consumed by mid or high-income groups (Lucier
et al. 2000). A 2017 survey reported that less than 5% of US population consumed legumes
daily, and that legume consumption declined in US adults, which warrants improved com-
munication about the benefits of regular legume consumption (Perera et al. 2020).
Perera et al. (2020) further reported that although research has shown that regular con-
sumption of legumes can prevent obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular diseases, and
colorectal cancer, regular legume consumption in the US is so low that such levels of con-
sumption were unlikely to confer any nutritional and health benefits. These authors indi-
cated that a limited knowledge about ways to conveniently incorporate legumes into the diet
may constraint consumers from eating recommended amounts of legumes to fully realize
their nutritional and health benefits.
Dry beans are not a staple in the United States and per capita consumption has shown
mixed trends since 1970. Rising incomes, urbanization, single adult household structure
and numbers of women in labor force have adversely affected bean consumption. Most
consumer preferences are shifting in favor of convenience foods and commodities, which
require reduced food preparation time. Traditionally, dry bean products did not lend them-
selves to these emerging trends in consumer choices; however, advances in complex formu-
lations and complete baked beans recipes have been innovative and greatly improved the
convenience and high-quality acceptability (Siddiq and Uebersax 2012).
DRY BEANS AND OTHER PULSES AS A DIVERSE

FOOD RESOURCE
The common dry bean and other pulses demonstrate global adaptability, genotypic and
phenotypic diversity, and undergo multiple means of preparation and dietary use. Dry bean
consumption patterns vary dramatically by geographic region and among cultures.
Determinants include a broad spectrum of social interactions and traditions that discrimi-
nate among bean types (color, size, and shape) and among means of preparation and end
product use. These patterns of use have significant public health impact (Uebersax 2006).
Numerous culinary quality traits of beans contribute to their acceptable use but are fre-
quently underestimated in their influence. These include: Accessibility and Storage − local
indigenous versus commercial production and open marketplace versus packaged procure-
ment (on-site point of purchase quality assessment, frequency, and quantity of purchase).
In-home storage and meal-planning dynamics (stability, knowledge, water availability);
and Preparation and Quality − the extensive constraints associated with preparation and
cooking (water and fuel availability, sanitation, and time). Characteristic palatability attrib-
utes include integrity, texture (firmness and consistence), taste, and flavor (Uebersax 2006).
The use of dry beans and pulses may be considered from either a traditional or a value-
added perspective. Traditionally, dry beans are cooked, fried, or baked to be in soups, eaten
as vegetables, or combined with other protein foods to make a main dish. Commercially,
beans have commonly been packaged in dry-pack form intended for home preparation or
processed by canning in brine or tomato-based sauce (Siddiq and Uebersax 2012).
Traditional utilization
Utilization of dry beans and other pulses in many regions still entails long and tedious
preparations. The consumer has traditional purchase criteria that include appearance (color,
gloss, or sheen), size and shape (typical of the expected class), and overall quality (splits,
defects, and debris) of the seed. A significant concern is in purchasing “hard beans” or “old
beans,” since these beans take longer to cook and lack desired quality attributes after
cooking (Borget 1992; Sozer et al. 2017).
In many developing countries, women provide a central role focused on sustaining the
family’s food security. Traditional cooking of dry edible beans in these countries involves
excessive expenditure of time and fuel. The development of appropriate preparation
technologies for use at the household and village-level would facilitate processing and die-
tary availability of beans and other pulses (Siddiq and Uebersax 2012).
Beans and maize in blended dishes are deeply imbedded throughout Latin American
cultures and transcends to other people groups. This is due in part to the inherent
complementation of amino acids resulting in a more complete protein food. Sub-Saharan
Africa utilizes a wide range of dry beans and other pulses (i.e., cowpea, chickpeas, lentils,
and others). These are typically water cooked and eaten as porridge. The subcontinent of
India uses the greatest quantity and most diversity of pulse-based foods as staples, prepared
in very specialized recipes and forms. The consumption of legumes in Southeast Asia is
somewhat moderate, where both mature seeds and immature pods are consumed. Further,
sprouted legume seeds are consumed fresh or dehulled and roasted or ground for use in
soups or side dishes (Khader and Uebersax 1989; Borchgrevink 2012).
Value-added processing and products

Beans typically require dry cleaning and sorting, gentle handling to assure a minimum
degree of mechanical damage, and soaking and blanching prior to filling and thermal
processing. The popularity of convenience foods such as dehydrated, extruded, frozen, and
microwavable food products has provided a venue for the development of new bean prod-
ucts or bean formulations (Figure 1.6). The use of pulses was projected to expand as plant-
Value-Added Beans Processing/Products
DRY SEED CANNING PRECOOKED PRODUCTS MILLED FLOURS &

PACKAGING CONCENTRATES
Dry pack Soaking/ Extrusion Hydration and cooking Pin Wet extraction
(Single class blanching (soak/blanch/cook) Milled
and mixtures)
Extracts
–Alkali
Home or Filling Forced-air
Frozen beans Air –Acid
foodservice (with Brine dehydration
classified –Salt
cooking or Sauce)
Ultra-
filtration
Can isoelectric
closing Meals/
IQF* ppt
powders Protein
Sprouting
Block Fractions concentrate
Structured -Protein
Thermal formed -Starch Protein
processing particles -Fiber isolates
Fig. 1.6. A sampling of valued-added dry bean products (*Individually quick frozen)
Source: Adapted from Uebersax et al. (1989, 1991).
based protein alternatives for meat. Further, in combination with cereal raw materials, they
may find new applications, meeting both sensory and nutritional needs of consumers world-
wide (Sozer et al. 2017).
Selected categories of dry bean-based products utilized in industrialized regions include
packaged dry beans, canned beans (beans in brine or specialty sauces), precooked bean
products (precooked and dehydrated bean flakes and powders), extruded and pasta-type
products, specialized food ingredients (meals, flours, concentrates, powders, and flakes),
quick-cooking beans, and frozen beans. In the developed nations, canned products consist-
ently dominate bean usage (based on individual frequencies of use data and total sales
volume) compared with dry beans distributed in prepackaged retail offerings or through
direct bulk dispensing (Siddiq and Uebersax 2012). Legume derived ingredients, i.e., flours
and isolates, are being used on increasing levels for processing a variety of products, such
as baked goods, fried products, and extruded snacks (Fernando 2021; Hall 2021).
NUTRITIONAL PROFILE AND HEALTH BENEFITS
The characteristics that make beans and pulses a good food value are health and wellness.
It is noteworthy that consumers are increasingly selecting healthy and balanced diets pro-
portionally higher in plant–based foods. Dry beans and other pulses have significant nutri-
tional and health advantages for consumers since they are high in proteins and dietary fiber
and very low in fat; and are environmentally sustainable, e.g., advantages associated with
nitrogen fixation in soils by legumes (Uebersax 2006; Clemente and Olias 2017). Generally,
rural populations consume greater levels of legumes than the contrasting urban populations,
because of the dependence on locally produced foods. People of subsistent or lower-income
levels generally consume larger quantities of beans, which furthers the stereotype that
“beans are poor man’s steak,” which often stigmatizes and denigrates bean use and reduces
expanded utilization (Siddiq and Uebersax 2012).
Nutritional profile
Legumes are a good source of protein, dietary fiber, starch, minerals, and vitamins (Kutos
et al. 2002; Hayat et al. 2014; Venkidasamy et al. 2019). Table 1.5 shows a compositional
comparison of dry beans with major cereal grain crops. In comparison to these cereal grains,
beans are relatively high in proteins and dietary fiber while low in carbohydrates and fat.
Detailed composition of selected dry beans and pulses in presented in Table 1.6.
The 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for US Americans (DGA) classify mature legumes as
a food group with a weekly recommendation of 1.5 cups (equivalent to 37.5 g cooked mature
legumes/day) for nonvegetarians and 3 cups (equivalent to 75 g cooked mature legumes/day)
for vegetarians (USDHHS and USDA 2021). The most recent DGA (2020–2025), issued in
December 2020, make similar recommendations for legume consumption; however, further
emphasize on reduction in added sugars and a greater focus on stages of life requirements
(infants, children and adolescents, adults, pregnant/lactating women, and older adults).
Health benefits
Health benefits of legumes have been researched extensively and reported in the literature
(Mudryj et al. 2014; Maphosa and Jideani 2017; Kamboj and Nanda 2018; Perera
et al. 2020). The role of legumes as therapeutic agents in the diets of persons suffering from
metabolic disorders has gained some research interest (Chugh et al 2017; Budhwar and
Chakraborty 2020; Tiwari et al. 2020). Public health officials recommend increasing the
proportion of legume-based polymeric plant carbohydrates in the diet. For example, regular
consumption of dry beans in the USA, where obesity is on the rise, has been suggested to
significantly improve the diet quality (Mitchell et al. 2009). In recent years, heightened
consumer awareness has led to the promotion of less saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar, and
salt in the diet and the preference for complex carbohydrates such as fiber from legumes.
However, with growing urbanization even in the developing countries, ready-to-eat foods
play a major role in the food consumption pattern (Njintang et al. 2001).
Table 1.5. Comparison of nutritional profiles of dry beans, chickpea and lentil with other grains (per 100 g).
Nutritional profile Dry beans1 Chickpea Lentil Wheat Oat Corn
Energy (kcal) 341 378 352 339 389 361

Protein (g) 21.97 20.47 24.63 13.7 16.89 6.93
Carbohydrate (g) 61.74 62.95 63.35 72.57 66.27 76.85
Dietary fiber (g) 15.38 12.2 10.70 12.2 10.6 7.3
Total lipid/fat (g) 1.30 6.04 1.06 1.87 6.9 3.86
Iron (mg) 5.57 4.31 6.51 3.88 4.72 2.38
Potassium (mg) 1355 718 677 405 429 315
Folate (μg) 432 557 479 44 56 25
1
Average of pinto, navy, red kidney, and black beans
Source: Adapted from USDA (2021).
Table 1.6. Composition of selected dry beans and pulses (per 100 g).
Unit Pinto Navy Black Red Cowpea Chickpea Lentil

bean bean bean kidney
bean
Proximate:
Water g 11.33 12.1 11.02 11.75 11.05 7.68 8.26
Energy kcal 347 337 341 337 343 378 352
Energy kJ 1452 1411 1425 1408 1435 1581 1473
Protein g 21.42 22.33 21.6 22.53 23.85 20.47 24.63
Total lipid (fat) g 1.23 1.5 1.42 1.06 2.07 6.04 1.06
Carbohydrate g 62.55 60.75 62.36 61.29 59.64 62.95 63.35
Fiber, total dietary g 15.5 15.3 15.5 15.2 10.7 12.2 10.7
Total sugars g 2.11 3.88 2.12 2.1 10.7 2.03
Minerals:
Calcium mg 113 147 123 83 85 57 35
Iron mg 5.07 5.49 5.02 6.69 9.95 4.31 6.51
Magnesium mg 176 175 171 138 333 79 47
Phosphorus mg 411 407 352 406 438 252 281
Potassium mg 1393 1185 1483 1359 1375 718 677
Sodium mg 12 5 5 12 58 24 6
Zinc mg 2.28 3.65 3.65 2.79 6.11 2.76 3.27
Vitamins:
Vitamin C 1 mg 6.3 0 4.5 1.5 4 4.5
Thiamin mg 0.713 0.775 0.9 0.608 0.68 0.477 0.873
Riboflavin mg 0.212 0.164 0.193 0.215 0.17 0.212 0.211
Niacin mg 1.174 2.188 1.955 2.11 2.795 1.541 2.605
Vitamin B-6 mg 0.474 0.428 0.286 0.397 0.361 0.535 0.54
Folate, DFE2 μg 525 364 444 394 639 557 479
Vitamin A, IU IU 0 0 17 0 67 39
Vitamin E3 mg 0.21 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.82 0.49
Vitamin K4 μg 5.6 0.17 5.6 5.6 9 0
1
total ascorbic acid;
2
dietary folate equiv.;
3
as α-tocopherol;
4
as phylloquinone
Source: USDA (2021).
A diet high in beans can potentially reduce the risk of developing a chronic disease (Wu
et al. 2004). Chronic diseases are conditions that typically take many years (10–30 years) to
develop and include certain types of cancers, type-2 diabetes mellitus, heart disease, and other
diseases of the blood system. These diseases are the most common causes of death in the United
States and many other parts of the world (Geil and Anderson 1994; Hangen and Bennink 2002).
Legumes elicit the lowest blood glucose response as compared to cereal grains. The inclusion of
dry beans or other pulses in the daily diet has many beneficial effects in controlling and preventing
various metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and colon cancer
(Dilis and Trichopoulou 2009; Raju and Mehta 2009; Hayat et al. 2014; Kamboj and Nanda 2018).
Antioxidants – chemicals that destroy free radicals – are found to be very high in many
types of beans. Wu et al. (2004) investigated the oxygen radical absorbance capacity
(ORAC) of over 100 common foods consumed in the US. Their data showed that red kidney
beans had the highest total antioxidant capacity per serving size as compared to all other
foods, including many fruits and vegetables. Among all the foods analyzed in that USDA
study, dry beans (small red, red kidney, pinto, and black beans) were found to have high
levels of antioxidants. Generally, anthocyanin-rich fruits, such as blueberries and plums, are
associated with having higher antioxidant content; however, the above three types of beans
were found to have higher antioxidant capacity than even blueberries. It is noted that the
ORAC data for dry beans is for uncooked seeds – cooking or canning can result in signifi-
cant losses of antioxidant capacity.
The potential protective effects of dry beans in disease prevention, such as against can-
cer, may not be entirely associated to dietary fiber, but to phenolics and other non-nutritive
compounds (Oomah et al. 2006), which can act as antioxidants, thereby hindering the for-
mation of free radicals (Boateng et al. 2008). In addition, legumes belong to the food group
that elicits the lowest blood glucose response. The large amount of water-soluble fiber is
particularly effective in lowering cholesterol in the blood, whereas the water-insoluble fiber
provides bulk, pushing food through the digestive system at a faster rate. Common beans
are low in sodium (Buttriss and Stokes 2008), so this could be a healthy food choice for
persons on a low-sodium diet.
Beans and pulses use in weaning foods

Malnutrition is prevalent in many regions of the world, often leading to stunting and wast-
ing. Globally, 45% of 5.9 million deaths in children 5 years and under in 2015 were directly
linked to malnutrition. Moreover, the malnutrition also significantly retards childhood
growth (UNICEF, 2015). Therefore, nutritionally balanced weaning food must provide all
the essential nutrients to meet young children’s dietary needs. Generally, plant-based foods
(including legumes) are used to meet the protein needs of infants and preschool children
(Kumari and Sangeetha 2017; Borbi et al. 2020).
Dry beans and other pulses, due their nutrient-dense nature, serve as an important base
for weaning foods. The use of appropriate preparation techniques (such as soaking/cooking,
dehulling, fine grinding, roasting whole beans, germination, and fermentation) has been
found to improve digestibility and reduce flatus from beans and pulses (Donangelo
et al. 1995; Twum et al. 2015). The United Nations’ WHO/FAO has detailed guidelines for
preparation and use of weaning foods. Further, numerous US public-and private-sector
groups (e.g., USDA, USAID, Gates Foundation) have made significant impact in develop-
ing weaning food mixes and guideline.
CONSTRAINTS TO UTILIZATION OF BEANS

AND OTHER PULSES
A number of factors limit the use of beans and other pulses, including long soaking and
cooking times necessary to adequately soften the beans, loss of valuable nutrients during
bean preparation, low levels of the sulfur amino acids, low digestibility of unheated proteins,
presence of antinutrients (e.g., lectins, trypsin inhibitors), high levels of phytic acid, various
flatulence factors, and hard- to-
cook (HTC) defects (Lucier et al. 2000; Lajolo and
Genovese 2002; Uebersax et al. 1989, 1991; Maphosa and Jideani 2017). Table 1.7 presents
a summary of constraints associated with legume utilization and possible solutions to mini-
mize negative effects related to each constraint.
Numerous factors influence the quality of the final dry bean product. These include cul-
tivar, seed source, agronomic conditions, handling and storage of the dry product, and pro-
cessing procedures during cooking or canning. Quality changes in dry beans during cooking
and processing are associated with their inherent physical components and chemical
Table 1.7. Typical constraints associated with legumes utilization, their negative effects and
possible solutions.
Constraint Negative effect Solution
Trypsin and amylase Decrease protein and starch Boiling dry beans generally reduces the
inhibitors digestibility content by 80–90%
Phytate Chelates with minerals Dehulling, soaking, boiling, steaming,
resulting in poor mineral sprouting, roasting and fermentation,
bioavailability autoclaving, gamma irradiation
Lectins, saponins Reduced bioavailability of Most destroyed by cooking, soaking,
nutrients boiling, sprouting, fermenting
Oligosaccharides Flatulence and bloating Soaking, cooking, germination, and
changing boiling water
Hard-to-cook phenomenon Energy and time consumption Soaking legumes before cooking
Low levels of sulfur- Incomplete protein source Consuming in combination with cereals
containing amino acids (high in sulfur-containing amino acids)
Low iron bioavailability Poor source of iron Consuming in combination with vitamin C
rich foods to increase iron absorption
Lack of convenient food Boredom of eating the same New and convenient product development
applications food repeatedly using whole legumes or legume ingredients
Lack of awareness and Low intake of legumes Increasing consumer awareness of the
understanding of nutritional and health benefits of legumes
nutritional benefits of
legumes
Reluctance to try a new Low intake of legumes Development of innovative, attractive
food or to change eating legume-based products to entice
habits consumers
Source: Maphosa and Jideani (2017).
c onstituents (Hosfield and Uebersax 1980; Uebersax 1991). It must be noted that cooking
and processing techniques improve the palatability, digestibility, and bioavailability through
cellular separation and inactivation of antinutrional components.
A comprehensive assessment of strategies and procedures used for processing dry beans
is prerequisite to improved utilization of dry beans. Implementation of a given protocol can
be maximized through an understanding of the physical and chemical components, the
inherent constraints and diversified processing techniques available to develop economi-
cally viable alternative and innovative products (Uebersax et al. 1991). Improved utilization
of dry beans can be maximized through an understanding of how physical and chemical
components function and react under given process conditions. Further, variability in the
physico-chemical composition of dry beans occurs, warranting research and quality control
programs directed to provide a consistent product possessing characteristics of acceptable
flavor, bright color, attractive appearance, uniform texture, and high nutritional quality.
LEGUMES AND SUSTAINABILITY OF

AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
Pulses provide environmentally sustainable source of nutrients-rich food for humans and
animals, as summarized in Figure 1.7 (GAP.org 2016). Sustainability of agricultural sys-
tems embrace long-term environmental consequences that transcend short-term productiv-
ity and efficiency objectives. A truly broad-based construct associated of sustainability
PULSES
THE HEARTBEAT OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Healthy Planet Healthy People Healthy Animals
Pulses are an
Pulses are an affordable
important part of a Pulses can be grown
source of plant-based
sustainable cropping specifically for
protein and micro-
system. They fix animal fodder.
nutrients (folate, iron
nitrogen to the soil, Moreover, the crop
calcium, B-vitamins, and
reducing the need residue of pulses
antioxidants). Pulses
for water and grown for human
score low on the
improving soil consumption can
glycemic index and
health. Many pulse also provide an
increase satiety, making
species are drought- economical source of
them ideal for people
tolerant, making nutrients-rich food
struggling with diabetes
them an ideal crop for the animals.
and weight management.
for dryland regions.
Fig. 1.7. Pulses as environmentally sustainable food source for healthy people and healthy animals.
Source: Adapted from GAP.org (2016).
promotes the integration of food production practices and social needs. Thus, globally,
agriculture sustainability must be considered as a social process besides technological prac-
tices and innovations. The production of legumes (dry beans and other pulses) has a rich
and diverse history and serves as a global food resource within both industrially developed
nations and indigenous populations. Since producing plant-based foods are by far more
environmentally conservative than the animal-based ones (Gogoi et al. 2018), legumes will
continue to play an increasingly major role to meet human food needs. Several elements of
agricultural sustainability are clear or inherent in the production of pulses due to the consid-
erably high total calorie and protein contents derived per unit of energy input:
• Nitrogen fixing. Legume crops are distinguished by their unique ability to “fix nitro-
gen” and thus have significant impact on their need for soil-borne nitrogen (Liu
et al. 2011). By contrast, typically, major crops such as corn, wheat, and rice require
added nitrogen to be productive and yield sufficiently to be economically viable. A
progressive crop rotation is essential to maintain vital soil health and for managing
weeds and disease pressure. Growers are generally diversified among several crops
(e.g., corn, wheat, soybeans) – they are not exclusively dry bean producers on their
farm acreage. Therefore, most fields are used for dry beans or other pulses every 3–5
years depending on the prescribed rotation. Not only do pulses directly benefit from
the root-nodulation encapsulated symbiotic bacteria, rhizobia, that generate soil
nitrogen, but there is significant carryover nitrogen levels that benefit the subsequent
rotation crop.
• Drought tolerance. Dry beans and other pulses are much more drought tolerant (GAP.
org 2021) than many other major crops, particularly cereal crops. Dry beans require
less total water and significantly less irrigation than alternative crops since arid and
semi-arid lands require the use of supplemental water to sustain plant growth (Ye
et al. 2018). Dry beans require differential levels of water during various stages of
growth, which is precisely determined and controlled. Moreover, dry beans and other
pulses will reproduce seed under the most drought stressed conditions where the
cereal grains will fail to reproduce.
• Field drying. Legumes are efficient at harvest because they require no or very limited
external/additional seed drying as is common with corn, wheat, rice, and other cereal
grains. Beans and other pulses are naturally dried to a moisture content of around 18%
prior to harvest. By contrast, typically, corn and cereal grains require artificial, forced
air drying, which requires huge fossil fuel (propane) energy input to reduce moisture
content suitable for stable storage without mold/bacterial development and spoilage.
• Harvesting efficiency. Dry beans are increasingly produced from plants possessing an
upright architecture that allows for more rapid drying and direct cutting with mecha-
nized combines rather than traditional pulling of the plants and windrowing for air
drying. This energy-efficient innovation reduces overall fuel consumption compared
to traditional harvest systems and avoids multiple field passes, which compact soil
thereby requiring additional energy input for tillage.
• Biodiversity and productivity. Legumes are a world resource of biodiversity, provid-
ing significant land races of dry bean types providing genetic diversity within wide
ranges of populations (Yang et al. 2021). The cultural practices associated with dry
bean production, procurement, and preparation are very efficient. Additionally,
research continues to enhance the productivity and efficiency of dry beans and other
pulse crops that use reduced energy and agricultural inputs.
BEANS AND OTHER PULSES IN WORLD FOOD SECURITY
Global food security continues to be a worldwide concern. Beans and pulses contribute to
world food supplies and food intake significantly. The significance of agricultural research
for crop improvement and enhanced utilization of dry beans and pulses is evident through
the scale and diversity of programs (Siddiq and Uebersax 2012). Under CGIAR (Consultative
Group on International Agriculture Research), there are a number of research centers
focusing on dry beans and pulses; e.g., International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT,
Cali, Columbia), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi- Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India); International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry
Areas (ICARDA, Alleppo, Syria); and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
(IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria). According to CGIAR (2011), “impressive gains have been made
with improved common beans, developed with farmer participation through regional
networks in East, Central and Southern Africa; e.g., 30–50% yield increase from 1995 to
2010. This improved bean production, while strengthening household food and nutrition
security, also provides women with surplus grain to sell in local markets.
In addition, numerous other countries through their international development agencies
emphasize and support similar research programs on beans and pulses improvement.
Selected such agencies include: Australian Agency for International Development
(AusAID), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), International Development
Research Centre (IDRC, Canada), German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ),
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (SIDA), and Department for International Development (DFID,

United Kingdom).
The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) endeavored to
make people more aware of the nutritional value of pulses, of their contribution to
sustainability, and more reliable food by declaring 2016 as the International Year of Pulses
(IYP 2016). This declaration intends to facilitate cooperation within food production sys-
tems to better use protein in pulses. The IYP 2016 aimed to heighten public awareness of
the nutritional benefits of pulses as part of sustainable food production aimed towards food
security and nutrition (Figure 1.8).
In the United States, the USAID (Agency for International Development) has long
played a role in the dry beans and pulses improvement programs globally. Significant
impact has been achieved through the collaborative research support program (CRSP)
efforts on dry beans, cowpeas, and pulses. Current research foci are: increasing pulse
productivity through genetic improvement, increasing pulse productivity through integrated
crop management, increasing pulse utilization for improved nutrition and health, and
strengthening pulse value chains (USAID 2012). The Pulse CRSP contributes to economic
growth and food and nutrition security through knowledge and technology generation that
strengthens pulse value chains and enhances the capacity and sustainability of agriculture
research institutions that serve pulse sectors in developing countries of Africa and Latin
America. Overall, the Pulse CRSP supports over 30 projects in about 20 countries (USAID
2012). Figure 1.9 shows the geographical distribution of these projects.
In 2018, USAID-funded Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Legume Systems Research,
a five-year research capacity building development program, was established at Michigan
State University (FTF 2021). This current initiative builds on prior USAID-funded research
and training. Past programs include the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative
Research on Grain Legumes (2013–2017), which was an extension of the USAID Dry
Pulses are highly nutritious.
Pulses are economically accessible and contribute

to food security at all levels.
Pulses have important health benefits.
Pulses foster sustainable agriculture and contribute

to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Pulses promote biodiversity.
Fig. 1.8. Nutritious pulses for sustainable future – key messages.

Source: IYP (2016)
Guatemala
Haiti
Senegal
Mali Niger
Honduras
Nicaragua Nigeria Uganda

Burkina faso
Benin Kenya
Rwanda
Ecuador Tanzania
Angola
Zambia
South africa Mozambique
Fig. 1.9. Countries with USAID’s Pulse CRSP supported projects.

Source: USAID (2012).
Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program (Pulse CRSP) (2007–2012) and
various earlier awards under Bean/Cowpea CRSP (1980–2007). This sustained federal sup-
port of research programs on grain legumes is due, in part, to important role legumes play
in improving the livelihoods of smallholder farmers through income and farm productivity.
The overall goals of the program project management are to increase sustainable and inclu-
sive agricultural growth, strengthen the resilience of communities and agricultural and eco-
nomic systems, and enhance the diets of individuals living in West and southern Africa
(Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Ghana, Benin, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Mozambique, Malawi, and
Zambia) and the United States (FTF 2021).
The Legume Systems Innovation Lab focuses on collaborative projects associated with two
primary crops, common bean, and cowpea. These crops provide exceptional levels of nutrient
dense staple foods. Further, it is fully recognized that legumes are especially important for
women in many regions of the world, as they are often the producers, traders, and consumers of
the crop. Collaborating international legume scientists and partner institutions enhance the
global mission of improving livelihoods and nutritional impacts throughout legume value chains.
Support of graduate student research training is critical to improving the research capacity of
scientists in developing countries and is an important goal of this program (FTF 2021).
Dry beans in food aid programs

Dry beans are an important component of US foreign food aid programs. The USAID list
the following beans and pulses as eligible for food aid programs in selected developing
countries: black, blackeye, great northern, kidney (dark and light), navy, pink, pinto, small
red, garbanzo, (chickpeas), lentils, and peas (USAID 2018). The targeted use of food aid
programs and assistance with procurement and distribution of dry beans and/or partially
prepared ingredients (flours, powders, meals, or extrudates) or fully prepared products
(canned, precooked-dehydrated, and extruded) will directly expand use in the most urgently
needed populations. Utilization of prepared dry edible beans has consistently been advo-
cated by both governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGO). These nutrition
programs are particularly important to infants and children. Dry edible beans are also fre-
quently considered for applications in regions experiencing sustained crop failure (Siddiq
and Uebersax 2012).
Several organizations within other nations provide significant levels of food aid to area of
need, and most convey direct shipments of pulses because of the high nutrient density. These
organizations/nations include Canadian International Development Platform (CIDP), UK
Department for International Development (DFID), German Corporation for International
Cooperation (GIZ); French Development Agency (AFD), Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA), and Swedish International Development Cooperation (SIDA), to name a few.
SUMMARY
The trends in the production and consumption of legume-based products are dynamic and are
influenced by the challenges of global production. Increased use can be readily influenced by
public policy, educational strategies, and industrial innovation. The evidence for health pro-
moting aspects of legume-based foods is strong and should receive more attention by consum-
ers. In developed countries of Europe and North America, beans are generally prepared by
commercial food processing operations and consumed as canned beans in brine or sauce. The
market and overall consumption of beans and formulated bean products are expected to
increase and to further segment as they are positioned as nutritionally rich and healthy foods.
However, the development of high-quality bean products in convenience foods categories
such as dehydrated, frozen, and extruded formats appear to be an open opportunity.
The food industry, in cooperation with public research programs (universities and
research centers) and other professional organizations, should focus efforts to incorporate
dry beans and other pulses into innovative products that are economically viable, readily
accessible to consumers, convenient to use, and of high culinary quality. The clearly
recognized healthy attributes of beans deliverable in both subsistent and developed diets
should be exploited for long-term improvement in positive health outcomes. The factors
limiting the consumption of dry beans in industrial economics may, in part, be attributable
to an inadequate level of innovation for developing value-added products adapted to modern
consumer needs for convenience while specifically linked to high-quality eating experiences.
Opportunities to improve the use of dry beans and pulses require integration and expansion
of public and private sector interventions that are socially and culturally appropriate.
REFERENCES
Angioi, S. A., Rau, D., Attene, G., Nanni, L., Bellucci, E., Logozzo, G., Negri, V., Zeuli, P.S. & Papa, R.
(2010). Beans in Europe: origin and structure of the European landraces of Phaseolus vulgaris L.
Theoretical and Applied Genetics 121: 829–843.
Anon. (2020). Bean consumption per capita. Available at https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/bean-

consumption-per-capita/ (accessed December 30, 2020).
Bliss, F.A. (1993). Breeding common bean for improved nitrogen fixation. Plant and Soil 152: 71–79.
Boateng, J., Verghese, M., Walker, L.T. & Ogutu, S. (2008). Effect of processing on antioxidant content in
selected dry beans (Phaseolus spp. L.). LWT − Food Science & Technology 41: 1541–1547.
Borget, M. (1992). Food Legumes. In: Tropical Agriculture (ed. R. Coste), pp. 16–96. London: CTA
Macmillian Press.
Borbi, M.A., Dolan, K.D., Siddiq, M., Hooper, S. & Sami, A. (2020). Development and quality evaluation of
banana-rice-bean porridge as weaning food for older infants and young children. Legume Science 2: p.e41.
Borchgrevink, C. (2012). Culinary Perspective of Dry Beans and Pulses. In: Dry Beans and Pulses
Production, Processing and Nutrition, first edition (eds. M. Siddiq, M.A. Uebersax), pp. 313−334.
Ames, IA: John Wiley & Sons.
Bouchenak, M. & Lamri-Senhadji, M. (2013). Nutritional quality of legumes, and their role in cardiometa-
bolic risk prevention: a review. Journal of Medicinal Food 16: 185–198.
Budhwar, S. & Chakraborty, M. (2020). Novel dietary and nutraceutical supplements from legumes.
Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 45: 53–70.
Buttriss, J.L. & Stokes, C.S. (2008). Dietary fiber and health: an overview. Nutrition Bulletin 33:
186–200.
Chugh, C., Gosavi, G. & Kapoor, S. (2017). Biopharmaceutical aspects of legumes: A Review. Trends in
Biosciences 10: 1970–1973.
CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research). (2011). The CGIAR at 40 and Beyond:
Impact that matters for the poor and planet. Washington, DC: CGIAR Fund Office.
Clemente, A. & Olias, R. (2017). Beneficial effects of legumes in gut health. Current Opinion in Food
Science 14: 32–36.
Dilis, V, Trichopoulou, A. (2009). Nutritional and health properties of pulses. Mediterranean Journal of
Nutrition and Metabolism 1: 149–157.
Donangelo, C.M., Trugo, L.C., Trugo, M.F. & Eggum, B.O. (1995). Effect of germination of legume seeds
on chemical composition and on protein and energy utilization in rats. Food Chemistry 53: 23–27.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2020). Crop Production and Trade Data. Available at http://
www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed December 30, 2020).
Fernando, S. (2021). Production of protein-rich pulse ingredients through dry fractionation: A review. LWT
141: p.110961.
FTF (Feed the Future). (2021). Innovation Lab for Legume Systems Research. Available at https://www.
canr.msu.edu/legumelab/index (accessed January 20, 2021).
GAP.org (globalagriculturalproductivity.org) (2016). GAP Report – 2016: Sustainability in an Uncertain
Season. Available at https://globalagriculturalproductivity.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/2016_
GAP_Report.pdf (accessed January 26, 2021).
GAP.org (globalagriculturalproductivity.org) (2021). Pulses: The heartbeat of nutritious, sustainable
agriculture. Available at https://globalagriculturalproductivity.org/pulses-the-heartbeat-of-nutritious-
sustainable-agriculture/ (accessed January 26, 2021).
Geil, P.B. & Anderson, J.W. (1994). Nutritional and health implications of dry beans: a review. Journal of
the American College of Nutrition 13: 549–558.
Gepts, P. (2001). Plaseolus vulgaris (Beans). In: Encyclopedia of Genetics (eds. S. Brenner & J.H. Miller),
pp. 1444–1445. Cambridge, Academic Press.
Gogoi, N., Baruah, K.K. & Meena, R.S. (2018). Grain legumes: impact on soil health and agroecosystem.
In: Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management (eds. R.S. Meena, A. Das, G.S. Yadav, R. Lal),
pp. 511–539). Singapore: Springer.
Grigolo, S. & Fioreze, A.D.C. (2018). Potential of hybridization among cultivars of common beans of
different gene groups. Colloquium Agrariae 14: 67–78.
Hall C. (2021). Pulses: milling and baking applications. In: Breeding for Enhanced Nutrition and Bioactive
Compounds in Food Legumes (eds. D.S. Gupta, S. Gupta, J. Kumar), pp. 221–228. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Hangen, L. & Bennink, M.R. (2002). Consumption of black beans and navy beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
reduced azoxymethane-induced colon cancer in rats. Nutrition & Cancer 44: 60–65.
Hardenburg, E.V. (1927). Bean Culture. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. 238p.
Hayat, I., Ahmad, A., Masud, T., Ahmed, A. & Bashir, S. (2014). Nutritional and health perspectives of
beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.): an overview. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 54:
580–592.
Hidalgo, R. (1988). The Phaseolus world collection. In: Genetic Resources of Phaseolus Beans (ed. P.
Gepts), pp. 67–90. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluver.
Hosfield, G.L. & Uebersax, M.A. (1980). Variability in physico-chemical properties and nutritional compo-
nents of tropical and domestic dry bean germplasm. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural
Scientists 105: 246–252.
HSPH (Harvard School of Public Health) (2020). Legumes and Pulses. Available at https://www.hsph.
harvard.edu/nutritionsource/legumes-pulses/ (accessed December 30, 2020).
IYP (International Year of Pulses). (2016). Nutritious Seeds for Sustainable Future. Available at http://www.
fao.org/pulses-2016/en/ (accessed January 01, 2020).
Kamboj, R. & Nanda, V. (2018). Proximate composition, nutritional profile and health benefits of legumes
− A review. Legume Research-An International Journal 41: 325–332.
Khader, V. & Uebersax, M.A. (1989). Legumes in Indian diets. Michigan Bean Digest 13(4): 10–13.
Kumari, P.V. & Sangeetha, N. (2017). Nutritional significance of cereals and legumes based food mix-A
review. International Journal of Agricultural and Life Sciences 3: 115–122.
Kutos, T., Golob, T., Kac, M. & Plestenjak, A. (2002). Dietary fiber of dry processed beans. Food Chemistry
80: 231–235.
Lajolo, F.M. & Genovese, M.I. (2002). Nutritional significance of lectins and enzyme inhibitors from
legumes. Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry 50: 6592–6598.
Liu, Y., Wu, L., Baddeley, J.A. & Watson, C.A. (2011). Models of biological nitrogen fixation of legumes.
Sustainable Agriculture 2: 883–905.
Lucier, G. & Davis, W. (2020). Vegetables and Pulses Outlook. Publication VGS-365 (December), U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.
Lucier, G., Lin, B.H., Allshouse, J. & Kantor, L.S. (2000). Factors affecting dry bean consumption in the
United States. Publication VGS-280 (April), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, Washington, DC.
Maphosa, Y. & Jideani, V.A. (2017). The role of legumes in human nutrition. In: Functional Food-Improve
Health through Adequate Food (ed. M.C. Hueda), pp. 103–121. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
Martinez-Romero, E. (2003). Diversity of Rhizobium–Phaseolus vulgaris symbiosis: Overview and per-
spectives. Plant and Soil 252: 11–23.
Mitchell, D.C., Lawrence, F.R., Hartman, T.J. & Curran, J.M. (2009). Consumption of dry beans, peas, and
lentils could improve diet quality in the US population. Journal of American Dietetic Association 109:
909–913.
Mudryj, A.N., Yu, N. & Aukema, H.M. (2014). Nutritional and health benefits of pulses. Applied Physiology,
Nutrition, and Metabolism 39: 1197–1204.
Njintang, N.Y., Mbofung, C.M.F. & Waldron, K.W. (2001). In vitro protein digestibility and physicochemi-
cal properties of dry red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) flour: Effect of processing and incorporation of
soybean and cowpea flour. Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry 49: 2465–2471.
Oomah, B.D., Tiger, N., Olson, M. & Balasubramanian, P. (2006). Phenolics and antioxidative activities in
narrow-leafed lupins (Lupinus angustifolius L.). Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 61: 91–97.
Perera, T., Russo, C., Takata, Y. & Bobe, G. (2020). Legume consumption patterns in US adults: National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011–2014 and Beans, Lentils, Peas (BLP) 2017
Survey. Nutrients 12: 1237.
Pratap, A., Das, A., Kumar, S. & Gupta, S. (2021). Current perspectives on introgression breeding in food
legumes. Frontiers in Plant Science 11: 589189.
Raju, J. & Mehta, R. (2008). Cancer chemopreventive and therapeutic effects of diosgenin, a food saponin.
Nutrition & Cancer 61: 27–35.
Sathe, S.K. (2012). Chemistry and implications of antinutritional factors in dry beans and pulses. In: Dry
Beans and Pulses: Production, Processing and Nutrition (eds. M. Siddiq, M.A. Uebersax), pp. 359–377.
Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.
Schneider, A.V.C. (2002). Overview of the market and consumption of pulses in Europe. British Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 88(Suppl 3): S243–S250.
Schumacher, S. & Boland, M. (2017). Dry Edible Bean Profile. Available at https://www.agmrc.org/
commodities-products/grains-oilseeds/dry-edible-bean-profile (accessed December 2, 2020).
Siddiq, M. & Uebersax, M.A. (2012). Dry Beans and Pulses Production and Consumption – An Overview.
In: Dry Beans and Pulses Production, Processing and Nutrition, first edition (eds. M. Siddiq, M.A.
Uebersax), pp. 3−27. Ames, IA: John Wiley & Sons.
Sozer, N., Holopainen-Mantila, U. & Poutanen, K. (2017). Traditional and new food uses of pulses. Cereal
Chemistry 94: 66–73.
Tharanathan, R.N. & Mahadevamma, S. (2003). Grain legumes – a boon to human nutrition – Review.
Trends in Food Science & Technology 14: 507–518.
Tiwari, P., Chintagunta, A.D., Dirisala, V.R. & Kumar, N.S. (2020). Legume derived bioactive peptides.
Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 45: 29–52.
Twum, L.A., Kottoh, I.D., Torby-Tetteh, W., Buckman, E.S., & Adu-Gyamfi, A. (2015). Physicochemical
and elemental analyses of banana composite flour for infants. British Journal of Applied Science &
Technology 6: 276−284.
Uebersax M.A. (2006). Dry Edible Beans: Indigenous Staple and Healthy Cuisine (pp. 1–27). Ottawa,
Canada: Public Policy Forum.
Uebersax, M.A., Reungsakulrach, S. & Hosfield, G.L. (1989). Uses of common dry field beans. In: Food
Uses of Whole Oil and Protein Seeds (eds. E.W. Lusas, D.R. Erickson, W. Nip), pp. 231–253. Champaign,
IL: The American Oil Chemists Society.
Uebersax, M.A., Ruengsakulrach, S. & Occena, L.G. (1991). Stratergies and procedures for processing dry
beans. Food Technology 45(9): 104–111.
UNICEF /WHO. (2015). UNICEF /WHO and World Bank Group joint child malnutrition estimates: Levels
and trends in child malnutrition, 2015 edition. Available at http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/jme_
brochure2015.pdf?ua=1 (accessed January 20, 2021).
USAID (US Agency for International Development). (2012). Pulse CRSP (Collaborative Research Support
Program). Washington, DC. USAID.
USAID (US Agency for International Development). (2018). Food Aid Product Descriptions. Available at
https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/resources/food-aid-product-descriptions (accessed January 26,
2021).
USDA (US Dept of Agriculture). (2021). Food Data Central (Nutrient Database). Available at https://fdc.
nal.usda.gov/ (accessed January 26, 2021).
USDA-ERS (US dept of Agriculture, Economic Research Service). (2011). Dry Edible Beans. Available at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/DryBeans/PDFs/DBnOutlook.pdf (accessed December 24, 2011).
USDA-ERS (US dept of Agriculture, Economic Research Service). (2020a). Vegetables and Pulses Outlook.
Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/100102/vgs- 365.pdf?v=6710.9 (accessed
January 26, 2021).
USDA-ERS (US dept of Agriculture, Economic Research Service). (2020b). US per capita consumption
data. Available https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/
(accessed January 26, 2021).
USDA-NASS (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, National Agri. Statistics Service). (2020). US Commodity Data.
Available at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php (accessed December 27,
2020).
USDHHS and USDA (US Dept. of Health & Human Services and US Dept. of Agriculture). (2021). The
2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for US Americans (Eighth edition). Available at https://health.gov/sites/
default/files/2019-09/2015-2020_Dietary_Guidelines.pdf (accessed August 6, 2021).
Van Heerden, S.M. & Schonfeldt, H.C. (2004). The need for food composition tables for Southern Africa.
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 17: 531–537.
Venkidasamy, B., Selvaraj, D., Nile, A.S., Ramalingam, S., Kai, G. & Nile, S.H. (2019). Indian pulses: A
review on nutritional, functional and biochemical properties with future perspectives. Trends in Food
Science & Technology 88: 228–242.
Watson, C.A., Reckling, M., Preissel, S., Bachinger, J., Bergkvist, G., Kuhlman, T., Lindström, K.,
Nemecek, T., Topp, C.F., Vanhatalo, A. & Zander, P. (2017). Grain legume production and use in
European agricultural systems. Advances in Agronomy 144: 235–303.
Wu, X., Beecher, G.R., Holden, J.M., Haytowitz, D.B., Gebhardt, S.E. & Prior, R.L. (2004). Lipophilic and
hydrophilic antioxidant capacities of common foods in the United States. Journal of Agricultural &
Food Chemistry 52: 4026–4037.
Yang, G., Roy, J., Veresoglou, S.D. & Rillig, M.C. (2021). Soil biodiversity enhances the persistence of
legumes under climate change. New Phytologist 229: 2945–2956.
Yao, Z.D., Cao, Y.N., Peng, L.X., Yan, Z.Y. & Zhao, G. (2020). Coarse cereals and legume grains exert
beneficial effects through their interaction with gut microbiota: A Review. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry 69: 861–877.
Ye, H., Roorkiwal, M., Valliyodan, B., Zhou, L., Chen, P., Varshney, R.K. & Nguyen, H.T. (2018). Genetic
diversity of root system architecture in response to drought stress in grain legumes. Journal of
Experimental Botany 69: 3267–3277.
2 Dry Bean Breeding and Production
Technologies
Phillip N. Miklas, James D. Kelly, and Karen A. Cichy
Introduction Abiotic stress tolerance

Production practices and trends Breeding for direct harvest systems
Production practice Symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF)
Production trends Processing quality
Bean genetics Micronutrient content
Bean species Niche markets
Gene pools Organic dry beans
Wild bean germplasm Slow darkening (SD) pinto beans
Breeding procedures and practices Heirloom beans
Breeding procedures − hybridization Genomic research and transgenic
Breeding methods beans
Seed multiplication Genomic research
Breeding for specific traits Transgenic beans
Breeding for yield Future directions
Disease resistance References
INTRODUCTION
Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) includes a wide array of edible dry bean seed types that
differ in size, shape, and color and are known collectively as dry beans; and the many horticul-
tural pod types that also vary in color, size, shape, and flavor known collectively as snap, or
garden, or green beans. The major focus of this chapter will be on dry bean breeding, but many
of the characteristics discussed are common to both horticultural types. Common bean is a self-
pollinated diploid crop (2n = 2x = 22) with a small genome size of approximately 587 million
base pairs distributed along 11 chromosomes (Schmutz et al. 2014). The breeding systems used
Dry Beans and Pulses: Production, Processing, and Nutrition, Second Edition.
Edited by Muhammad Siddiq and Mark A. Uebersax.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
29
to improve the crop and the genetic structure of the varieties released to farmers is dependent
on the pollination system and flower structure. Varieties are highly inbred homozygous pure
lines that maintain their genetic integrity and stability for generations. Bean varieties do not
‘run out’ or change due to genetic drift, but perceived changes due to inadvertent seed
mixtures that go undetected, low levels of outcrossing in the field, and the accumulation of
seed borne bacterial, fungal and/or viral pathogens can occur. More subtle changes may
result in differential performance from changes in climate or from the emergence of new
pathogen strains to which the variety is not adapted or lacks resistance. Since beans are an
inbreeding species, with no effective mechanism to transfer pollen, hybrid bean varieties
are not a viable option at this time.
The first dry bean breeding program in the US was established at Michigan State
University (formerly Michigan State College) in the early 1900s (MSU 2009). This was
followed by the establishment of a breeding program at the University of Idaho in 1925
(Singh et al. 2007). The most recent bean-breeding program was established at North
Dakota State University in the early 1980s. Currently, there are four public bean-
breeding programs at major land grant Universities, four USDA-ARS programs that
focus on bean genetics and pathology and four private companies actively working on
bean breeding. The reader is referred to a few reviews where different aspects of bean
breeding are summarized (Kelly 2004, 2018; Miklas et al. 2006; Singh et al. 2007;
Beaver and Osorno 2009; Singh and Schwartz 2010; Kelly and Bornowski 2018; Beaver
et al. 2020).
PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND TRENDS
Production practice
Dry beans are a short season crop that matures in 85–100 days. Consequently, beans are
produced largely in northern states or at higher elevations in the intermountain and western
states. Approximately 70% acreage planted to beans in the US is grown under rainfed con-
ditions in the East, Midwest, and Upper Midwest, whereas essentially all western produc-
tion in semiarid states is grown under irrigation. Yields reflect the availability of water
resources and the highest yields are produced in irrigated regions. The major production
areas and seed types grown in these states are shown in Figure 2.1. Beans are grown as a
row crop in all states, and row widths vary by location, irrigation systems, and harvest
methods. In recent years, growers in the Midwest have moved from wider 70–75 cm to nar-
rower 35–55 cm row spacings as newer varieties are more upright, thus better suited for
direct harvest. To optimize productivity and better utilize water in western states, growers
tend to plant higher plant population densities in 55 cm row spacing. Few producers drill
beans (18–25 cm rows), because it often results in shorter, more difficult-to-harvest plants
and inconsistent yield advantages.
US planting time depends on the speed of warm up in the spring and the length of grow-
ing season. Beans require soil temperatures of 13 °C at 5 cm depths to ensure favorable
germination and growth. Dates can vary from mid-May in the Pacific Northwest and Upper
Midwest to mid-June in the East and Midwest to early July in California, which has a longer
growing season. Seeding rates vary by seed types; small-seeded navy and black beans at
Dry Bean Breeding and Production Technologies 31
IDAHO NORTH DAKOTA MINNESOTA MICHIGAN

4% of US acreage. 51% of US acreage. 12% of US acreage. 14% of US acreage.
Pinto, small red, pink, Pinto and navy Navy, dark red kidney, Black, navy, small
and seed beans. beans. pinto, and black beans. red, cranberry beans.
WASHINGTON
2% of US acreage.
Pinto, small red
and seed beans.
CALIFORNIA
2% of US acreage.
Misc dry bean
lima beans and
seed beans.
COLORADO
3% of US acreage.
Pinto beans.
NEBRASKA
9% of US acreage.
Great Northern
and kidney beans.
Fig. 2.1. Bean production states comparison based on harvested acreage in 2020 and most
common seed types grown.
Source: USDA-NASS (2020a).
40–60kg/ha; medium-seeded pintos, red beans at 50–65 kg/ha; and larger-seeded kidney
and cranberry beans at 75–90 kg/ha.
Most growers use a starter fertilizer (50 kg N/ha) based on soil type and analysis. Pre-and
post-emergence applied herbicides are widely used to control weeds as fewer farmers cultivate
the crop so as not to disturb the soil surface for purposes of furrow irrigation in the western
states or for direct harvest in the Midwest. In recent years, growers in Michigan have taken
to rolling fields after planting to ensure a flat surface suitable for direct harvest and to bury
stones to reduce damage to harvest equipment. Depending on production region, insecticides
are applied at recommended rates to control an array of insect pests, including potato leaf
hoppers, spider mites, thrips, bean beetles, western bean cutworms, and tarnished plant bugs
that may appear in that region. Seed treatments with a mix of insecticide and fungicides, and
often a bactericide, are used to control early season insect pests and diseases. Foliar fungicides
are applied largely to control Sclerotinia white mold in more humid regions of the Midwest
and Upper Midwest. For direct harvested beans, harvest-aid chemicals are often used to
ensure uniform dry-down and desiccate weeds (Gaultier and Gulden 2016).
Two contrasting methods are used to harvest beans, depending on plant type and seed
size, location, local weather conditions, and irrigation systems. The traditional harvest
method widely used throughout the US is to mechanically undercut (pull) beans into wind-
rows of 6–12 rows and then thresh windrows when plants are dry using a pickup header on
commercial combines. In the western states, to avoid large seed losses from pod shattering
due to low humidity conditions, beans are pulled at physiological maturity when they are
still green and left to ripen in the windrow for 7–10 days before being threshed. In the
Midwest, where erratic rains are problematic, growers cut/pull and windrow mature plants
early in the morning (4:00–11:00 a.m.) when dew adheres to the plant, thus preventing pod
shattering, and the windrowed plants are threshed the same afternoon. Prostrate vine-type
varieties or those severely lodged are particularly suited to the traditional pulling system, as
they would suffer major seed loss if direct harvested. In those areas where furrow irrigation
is used and the soil surface is uneven, the ridged rows facilitate knife-pulling, as do hilled
rows for weed control. Conversely, rod-pullers have the action of grabbing and pulling the
plants out of the ground rather than cutting them. Bean roots are still attached to the plant
following both pulling operations and enter the combine at threshing. This extra plant mass
has a cushioning effect during threshing, which is particularly advantageous for larger-
seeded kidney beans, which are easily damaged at harvest.
With the development of upright lodging-resistant varieties, an increasing number of
growers are direct harvesting the bean crop, which saves time, fuel, labor, and equipment.
In Michigan approximately 90% of the dry bean crop is direct harvested. But only small-
seeded and a few medium-seeded varieties can be direct harvested as larger-seeded types
are better suited to traditional harvest methods. Following harvest, beans are transported in
bulk to local elevators where the crop is cleaned, stored, graded, sold, and shipped into
national and international markets. Since bean varieties from the same commercial class are
often comingled at the elevator, all commercial varieties need to meet similar quality stand-
ards for seed size, shape, color, and canning quality. Although the largest production areas
are located east of the continental divide, the majority of bean seed for planting is produced
in the semiarid states of Idaho, Washington, and California. The occurrence of endemic
seed-borne diseases such as common bacterial blight and anthracnose limits seed produc-
tion in the Midwest as plants may become infected, preventing their sale as seed. The
absence of these pathogens and strict quarantine in states such as Idaho ensures that disease-
free seed can be produced. Higher yields in these irrigated production areas help offset
transportation and irrigation costs of western-produced seed. Commercial growers in the
Midwest generally prefer western-grown seed, as it has the assurance of being disease free.
Some growers are willing to pay the higher price for western seed by spreading the cost
over more than one growing season as they will plant bin-run seed the second season,
assuming no disease problems arise.
Production trends
Dry bean yields from the onset of early breeding efforts in the early 1900s to now have seen
just less than 1% yield gain per year, a value commonly reported for soybean (Figure 2.2).
In most crops, yield gains are attributed equally to changes in genetics and management and
a similar combination of management and genetic factors contributed to bean yields.
Periods of increasing yield gains and lulls have occurred along the way. A plateau with
1500 kg/ha average yields occurred from 1960–1979, followed by a modest upward trend
to 1900 kg/ha in 2000. Since 2000, yields have oscillated around 1900 kg/ha even though
higher yielding varieties have been released (Vandemark et al. 2014). The movement of
production from highly productive hectares grown under irrigation in the western US (a
50% decline) to less productive regions in North Dakota the last 20 years, has likely con-
tributed to the recent lull in yields and a perceived lack of genetic yield gains.
A major wake-up call for bean breeders in the US came in the 1972 report on genetic
vulnerability of crops published by the National Academy of Sciences (NRC 1972) that
2,300
y = 12.983x + 634.37
2,100
R2 = 0.9249
1,900
1,700
Yield (kg/ha)
1,500
1,300
1,100
900
700
500
1909
1912
1915
1918
1921
1924
1927
1930
1933
1936
1939
1942
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Fig. 2.2. Dry Bean yields (kg/ha) in the US over 110 years since 1909.
Source: Updated from Vandemark et al. (2014) using USDA-NASS (2020b) data.
Table 2.1. Major bean breeding programs in the US, location and seed type focus prior to 1980.
Institution State Seed types Breeders
Cornell NY Light red kidney, black D. Wallace

MSU MI Navy, dark, light red kidney M.W. Adams
UNL NE Great northern D.P. Coyne
CSU CO Pinto D. Woods
UI ID Pinto, pink J. Kolar, M. LeBaron
USDA-ARS WA Small red, pink D. Burke
UCD CA Kidney, pink, cranberry C. Tucker
emphasized the need for greater genetic diversity to combat genetic vulnerability. Prior to
the 1980s, the seven bean-breeding programs across the US were small, isolated efforts
(Table 2.1). These programs focused largely on local needs in a range of diverse seed
types that resulted in limited exchange and use of bean germplasm from other programs.
Many programs expanded breeding and testing programs in that era, as the need to change
the status quo was obvious. The positive genetic changes resulted from the use of wider
crosses that exploited greater genetic diversity and improved germplasm from other pro-
grams. The International Center – CIAT, established in the late 1960s in Cali Colombia
was an important new source of wider genetic diversity of improved germplasm during
this time. In 1973, CIAT sponsored a conference on ways to enhance the “Potential of field
beans and other legumes in Latin America.” The approach of using “Plant architecture and
physiological efficiency in the field bean” (Adams 1973) to enhance yields opened the
door to new breeding approaches, and the development of new architectural types with
broader adaptation and higher yield potential (Adams 1982; Kelly 2000). The liberal use
and exchange of materials between CIAT and US breeding programs revitalized many of
these programs. In addition, funding from Rockefeller Foundation in the mid-1970s also
encouraged the utilization of new germplasm, which led eventually to the establishment of
USAID funding of the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (B/C

CRSP) project in 1980 (Adams 2003). The B/C CRSP and recent iterations, the Feed the
Future (FtF) Pulse CRSP; Legume Systems Innovation Lab (FtF 2021a); and USDA-ARS
Bean Research Team (FtF 2021b) projects have not only encouraged better longstanding
integration among breeding programs in the US, but among many institutions in the
Caribbean, Latin America, and Eastern and Southern Africa, where the common currency
was germplasm exchange and utilization. For example, landrace bean germplasm from
Malawi was introduced for testing in Michigan (Martin and Adams 1987) and added to the
National Plant Germplasm collection. A summary of the new varieties developed through
these different CRSP programs in a number of countries including the US was published
by Beaver et al. (2003, 2020).
BEAN GENETICS
Bean species
The genus Phaseolus is New World in origin in contrast to Old World Vigna species, which
includes related grain legumes such as cowpea, adzuki, and mung beans. Bean breeders are
limited in their improvement efforts to working within the genus Phaseolus due to specia-
tion barriers that prevent successful hybridization. Phaseolus includes five cultivated spe-
cies separated into four gene pools (Figure 2.3) and over 70 wild species (Freytag and
Tertiary:
Secondary:
Primary:
P. vulgaris
(Common bean)
Quaternary:
P. lunatus (Lima bean)
P. coccineus (Scarlet runner bean)
P. dumosus (Year bean)
P. acutifolius (Tepary bean)
Fig. 2.3. Genus Phaseolus includes five cultivated species that reside in four separate gene pools
based on genetic distance. There is no restriction to intercrossing between members of the primary gene
pool; crossing between primary and secondary gene pool requires that P. vulgaris is used as the pollen
parent; crossing between primary and tertiary gene pool requires special techniques to rescue hybrid
embryo; crossing is not possible between the primary and quaternary gene pools. In addition to the five
cultivated species, there are over 50 wild Phaseolus species (Freytag and Debouck 2002). Figure
adapted from Gepts (2000).
Debouck 2002). Within the five species of cultivated Phaseolus, common bean is the most
widely adapted and economically important member compared to other species that include
lima and tepary beans. Breeders have successfully transferred traits from the scarlet runner
bean (P. coccineus) and P. costaricensis in the secondary gene pool (Schwartz and
Singh 2013) and from members of tepary bean (P. acutifolius) in the tertiary gene pool
(Singh and Miklas 2015; Kusolwa et al. 2016), but no successful introgression with lima
bean (P. lunatus) in the quaternary gene pool has occurred.
Gene pools
Common bean originated from central Mexico (Bitocchi et al. 2012). From that region,
wild P. vulgaris moved north and south and can be found today from northern Argentina to
Chihuahua in northern Mexico (Ariani et al. 2018). There were more domestication events
in the Mesoamerican than Andean gene region, which may explain the narrower genetic
variation within the Andean gene pool observed in many genetic studies. The two gene
pools of common beans have been clearly defined based on morphological, biochemical,
and molecular characterization (Gepts 1988). One of the most noticeable differences is the
larger seed sizes found in Andean gene pool in contrast to members of the Middle American
gene pool. Interestingly, similar seed size differences are observed between the Andean
(large-seeded) and Middle American (smaller-seeded) gene pools for lima bean. A further
classification of gene pools of common bean into six races based on agronomic and adap-
tive characteristics was proposed by Singh et al. (1991). A fourth race, named Guatemala,
was added as the climbing beans from Chiapas, Mexico, are unique from the three other
MA races (Beebe et al. 2000). Beans also differ in plant growth habit, ranging from deter-
minate types to climbing pole beans that require support.
Singh (1982) classified beans into four types that differ in growth habit (Table 2.2). The
typical type-I determinate bush bean does not produce a vine and vegetative growth ceases
at flowering. Most large-seeded kidney and green beans are determinate. The other three
types have an indeterminate growth habit and differ in vine extension. Type-II is an upright
short vine habit similar to soybean that is best suited to direct harvest. Type III is a decum-
bent long vine habit best suited to semiarid production areas where harvest loss due to wet
weather is rare. Type-IV is the climbing bean that is not grown commercially in the US
Table 2.2. Gene pools, races, and growth habits of US dry bean market classes.
Gene pool Race Growth habit US market class
Andean: Nueva Granada Determinate Type I Kidney

Bush cranberry
Chile Indeterminate Type III Vine cranberry
Peru Determinate Type I Yellow, Mayacoba
Middle Mesoamerican Indeterminate Type II Black

American: Indeterminate Type II & Determinate Navy
Type I
Durango Indeterminate Type II & III Pinto
Great northern
Jalisco Indeterminate Type II & III Small red
Pink
Guatemala Climbers Type IV Red and blacks – Mexico,
Central American only
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Alcohol, physiological action of,
580
586
Alcoholic beverages, varieties and characters of,
578-580
Exciting causes,
578
Heredity, influence on causation,
576
Moral, social, and personal condition, influence on causation,
575
578
Predisposing causes,
575
History,
574
Pathological Action of Alcohol
586
Acute Alcoholism
586-598
Symptoms,
587
Effects in persons of unsound mind,
594
Effects of different alcohols,
589-591
of acute narcotic poisoning,
597
of acute poisoning in lethal doses,
596
of convulsive form,
593
of corrosive poisoning,
596
of irregular form,
592
of maniacal form,
592
of ordinary form,
587
Pathological anatomy,
595
Varieties,
588
Chronic Alcoholism
598-633
Symptoms, anatomical changes, etc.,
599
Alcoholic cachexia in,

616
Atheroma in,
612
Biliary catarrh in,
607
Blood, disorders of,
615
Blood-vessels, disorders of,
612
Cerebral,
616
Delirium, alcoholic, and delirium tremens,
626
,
630
Dyspeptic,
601
602
Genito-urinary disorders,
612-614
Glands, disorders of,
602
Heart, disorders of,
610-612
Insanity, alcoholic,
630-633
Intestinal disorders,
601
Kidneys, disorders of,
613
Larynx, disorders of,
607
Liver, disorders of,
603-607
Locomotive apparatus, disorders of,
614
Lungs, disorders of,
608
Moral sense, perversion of,
624
Motion, disorders of,
620
Mouth and throat, disorders of,
599
Muscles, disorders of,
614
Nervous system, disorders of,
616
Obesity in,
615
Paralysis, alcoholic,
621
Pleuræ, disorders of,
610
Psychical disorders,
624
Respiratory system, disorders of,
607
Sensibility, general, disorders of,
619
Skin, disorders of,
615
Special sense, disorders of,
622
Spinal disorders,
619
Stomach, disorders of,

600
Tremor in,
620
Visceral derangements,
599
Will and intellect in,
625
Dipsomania
635
Symptoms and nature,
636
637
Hereditary Alcoholism
symptoms and forms
634
Prognosis,
639
Synonyms,
573
Treatment,
640
Alcohol, withdrawal of,
642
,
644
Ammonia, use of,
641
642
645
Baths and douches, use of,
641
642
643
Bromides, use of,
642
645
,
646
Cannabis indica, piscidia, and hyoscyamus, use of,
645
Chloral, use of,
641
645
646
Coca and cocaine, use of,
643
646
Diet in,
643
,
644
Emetics in,
642
Iron, use of,
643
Hypophosphites and cod-liver oil, use of,
644
646
of acute form,
641
of chronic form,
642
of delirium tremens,
644
of dipsomania and hereditary forms,
645
Paraldehyde, use of,
641
642
645
646
Prophylaxis,
640
642
Quinia and opium, use of,
642
643
645
646
Strychnia, use of,
641
643
646
Alcoholism, influence on causation of insanity,
119
Allochiria in tabes dorsalis,
832
Alum, use of, in lead colic,
691
Amaurosis in chronic lead-poisoning,
689
Amenorrhœa in the insane, treatment,
136
Ammonia, use of, in acute alcoholism,
641
,
642
643
in thrombosis of cerebral veins and sinuses,
989
Ammonio-sulphate of copper, use, in neuralgia,
1229
Ammonium chloride, use, in neuralgia,
1229
Amnesia in nervous diseases,
28
Amputation, question of, in tetanus,
559
Amyl nitrite, use of, in angina pectoris,
1238
in catalepsy,
338
in cerebral anæmia,
788
in chorea,
456
in epilepsy,
502
in hysteria,
286
in hystero-epilepsy,
311
in migraine,
414
1232
in vaso-motor neuroses,
1256
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,
867
Anæmia as a cause of neuralgia,
1218

Dry Beans and Pulses Production Processing and Nutrition 2Nd Edition Muhammad Siddiq Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dry Beans and Pulses Production Processing and Nutrition 2Nd Edition Muhammad Siddiq Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dry Beans and Pulses Production Processing and Nutrition 2Nd Edition Muhammad Siddiq Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dry Beans and Pulses Production,

Processing, and Nutrition, 2nd Edition

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data

Set in 10/12 pt Times by Strive, Pondicherry, India

PART I: OVERVIEW, PRODUCTION AND POSTHARVEST

2. Dry Bean Breeding and Production Technologies 29

3. Physical and Physiological Characteristics and Market

4. Harvesting, Postharvest Handling, Distribution,

5. Hard-­to-­Cook and Other Storage-­Induced Quality Defects in Dry Beans 105

PART II: COMPOSITION, VALUE-ADDED PROCESSING AND QUALITY 129

7. Hydration, Blanching and Thermal Processing of Dry Beans 159

8. Processing and Quality Evaluation of Canned Dry Beans 191

9. Extrusion Processing of Dry Beans and Pulses 225

11. Optical Sensing Technologies for Nondestructive Quality

12. Utilization of Dry Beans and Other Pulses as Ingredients in Diverse

13. Cowpea Composition, Processing, and Products 331

PART III: CULINOLOGY, NUTRITION, HEALTH BENEFITS,

20. Health Implications and Nutrient Bioavailability of Bioactive

Nicole Sharon Affrifah Patnarin Benyathiar

Jasim Ahmed Jose De J. Berrios

Irene Albertos Makafui Borbi

Elham Azarpazhooh Marisa Bunning

Joe Cramer Sharon Hooper

Chelsea Didinger James D. Kelly

Frédéric Marsolais Barry Pittendrigh

John Medendorp Xin Rui

Robert D. Phillips Rabiha Binti Sulaiman

Deepa G. Thiagarajan Brittany L. White

Henry J. Thompson Jason A. Wiesinger

Mark A. Uebersax Tasleem Zafar

Introduction Health benefits

Desi Chickpea Lentil Dhal

Cowpea/Black eye pea

• Phaseolus vulgaris L. (common bean, field bean, haricot)

• Cicer arietinum L. (chickpea, garbanzo, Bengal gram, gram, Chana)

History and origin

PRODUCTION AND TRADE

Pulse crop Asia Africa Americas Europe Oceania

Beans 14,369,312 7,052,612 7,039,866 367,412 73,470

Global production and trade

Source: FAO (2020).

Pulses, cultivated area

Cowpeas, cultivated area

2004 9.2 2004 25.2

Dry beans Cowpeas Chickpeas Lentils

Myanmar 5,846,622 Nigeria 3,576,361 India 9,937,990 Canada 2,166,900

Lupin Pigeon pea Vetches Other pulses

Australia 474,629 India 3,315,440 Ethiopia 312,680 India 912,609

Dry beans Chickpeas Lentils

Myanmar 1,097,218 Russian Fed. 470,439 Canada 2,116,910

Dry Beans Chickpeas Lentils

India 520,965 Egypt 5,672,922 India 822,398

US production and trade

State1 1990 2000 2010 2020 % Change (1990–2020)

North Dakota 254,270 386,765 521,500 739,683 +190.90

CONSUMPTION TRENDS OF DRY BEANS

DRY BEANS AND OTHER PULSES AS A DIVERSE

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

2. Dry Bean Breeding and Production Technologies 29

3. Physical and Physiological Characteristics and Market

4. Harvesting, Postharvest Handling, Distribution,

5. Hard-to-Cook and Other Storage-Induced Quality Defects in Dry Beans 105

PART II: COMPOSITION, VALUE-ADDED PROCESSING AND QUALITY 129

7. Hydration, Blanching and Thermal Processing of Dry Beans 159

8. Processing and Quality Evaluation of Canned Dry Beans 191

9. Extrusion Processing of Dry Beans and Pulses 225

11. Optical Sensing Technologies for Nondestructive Quality

12. Utilization of Dry Beans and Other Pulses as Ingredients in Diverse

13. Cowpea Composition, Processing, and Products 331

20. Health Implications and Nutrient Bioavailability of Bioactive

Value-added processing and products

Anon. (2020). Bean consumption per capita. Available at https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/bean-