Brazilian crop forecasting agency CONAB released its third of four estimates for the 2026/27 crop on September 24. Yes, CONAB revised its Arabica estimate upward again, despite torrential rains that delayed harvesting and knocked ripe cherries to the ground. Yields rose, even though farmers could not pick the crop in a timely manner and some cherries dried prematurely on the trees, reducing volume. The Arabica estimate of 48.213 million bags was 4.122 million above the initial February estimate. This is the second largest Brazilian Arabica crop, falling shy of 48.484 million in 2020/21. Yields fell short of that year, but the coffee park is greater, with increased area and trees per hectare.
But this isn’t the data I am zeroing in on or what I found most surprising in the report. CONAB total crop estimates are notoriously low compared to USDA and other trade figures, with a 6-8 million bag difference normally, and in recent years that spread widened out to 10.37 to 11.72 million bags. For Arabica production, the 25-year average difference is 3.83 million bags, with the USDA always higher; in the past decade, the crop estimate spread increased to 4.35 million bags. For 2025/26, the two agencies were closer in agreement with the USDA, only higher by 2.237 million bags. Since the CONAB figure was consistently below the USDA and published twice before the USDA released its first estimate, one just added an assumed difference to reasonably guess what the USDA data would eventually show. That became the way to benchmark the Arabica crop with reasonable assurance. Yesterday, history was made: for the first time, the CONAB Arabica estimate is 710,000 bags higher than the USDA estimate. I don’t think it will stay that way, and the USDA will adjust its estimate upwards in the next official report, scheduled for January, with the Brazilian attaché report to be released in December. By then, CONAB will also be publishing its fourth and final estimate for 2026/27.
What changes? CONAB Arabica data can no longer be dismissed as too low or biased by a government agency in the world’s leading coffee-producing country, while attacks on the USDA for being too high and favoring consumer constituents also need to be set aside. The dialogue can finally shift to something more constructive.
