Agro-ecological transition in rural settlement in Chapada dos Veadeiros

Farias, Luciano Ferreira; Soares, João Paulo Guimarães; Junqueira, Ana Maria Resende; Malaquias, Juaci Vitória

doi:10.1590/1806-9479.2023.272017

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rural 62 (4) • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2023.272017 copy

Agro-ecological transition in rural settlement in Chapada dos Veadeiros

Transição agroecológica em assentamento rural na Chapada dos Veadeiros

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The sustainability of organic production and the agroecological transition of farmers in the Chapada dos Veadeiros region was evaluated using the Environmental Impact Assessment System of Agricultural Technological Innovations (AMBITEC-AGRO). The evaluation process consisted of three stages: 1st survey and data collection, 2nd application of questionnaires and 3rd individual interviews. Data were entered into electronic spreadsheets, generating quantitative results of the impacts of activities carried out on rural properties. The indicators of the data obtained are organized in weighting matrices and automatically transformed into impact indices expressed graphically. These indexes resulted in the Percentage of Impact of Technologies - PIT, which characterizes the percentage gain of technology for each of the criteria of the environmental, economic and social dimensions of the productive units. For the environmental dimension, the PIT showed a reduction of -3.73%, where the general index of impact of the activity was 0.95 and after the transition to organic and/or agroecological production it went to 1.29, with a difference of 0.34. In the economic dimension, the PIT was 7.70%, the employment variable with 0.73 and income with 3.89 were the ones that most contributed to this percentage. In the social dimension, the PIT was 7.19%, the most prominent criteria being the consumer with an average of 3.74 and health with an average of 2.99. In this sense, the transition to organic and/or agroecological management, mainly due to the reduction of environmental impacts, provided greater sustainability for agricultural activities in the region.

Keywords:
agroecology; organic; sustainability; AMBITEC-AGRO

Impact criteria	Performance coefficients of family producers (AF)
Impact criteria	AF1	AF2	AF3	AF4	AF5	AF6	AF7	AF8	AF9	AF10	Avarage
Change in direct land use	2.5	1.0	0.5	-0.5	1.0	0.8	2.0	2.0	-0.8	1.0	1.0
Change in indirect land use	0.0	0.5	-1.0	0.5	-0.8	-0.5	0.5	3.0	-0.5	-1.0	0.1
Water consumption	-13.0	-1.0	-2.0	9.0	-5.0	5.0	-4.0	-3.0	-3.0	-7.0	-2.4
Use of agricultural inputs	-15.0	15.0	-6.0	0.0	-5.0	-5.0	4.5	0.0	1.5	-8.0	-1.8
Use of veterinary supplies and raw materials	15.0	1.0	-12.0	-7.0	5.0	-15.0	7.5	-3.0	-7.5	0.0	-1.6
Energy consumption	-5.0	10.5	-1.5	1.5	1.0	2.0	11.5	6.0	4.5	-5.0	2.6
Own generation. use. reuse. and autonomy	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.1	0.2	-0.6	0.0	-3.9	1.1	0.2	-0.1
Emissions to the atmosphere	3.0	-0.6	-1.6	0.0	-1.0	0.0	0.4	-0.1	-0.8	1.0	0.0
Soil quality	7.5	15.0	-12.5	3.8	-5.0	-5.0	-12.5	0.0	-2.5	-5.0	-1.6
Water quality	15.0	3.0	-0.2	-0.6	0.8	6.0	0.6	9.6	-1.8	3.0	3.5
Biodiversity conservation and environmental recovery	-3.8	-2.3	-2.0	-5.2	-1.4	-3.0	-11.1	-1.0	-1.5	3.1	-2.8
Product quality	-15.0	-3.5	5.5	-0.8	-0.3	2.5	-0.8	10.0	3.0	5.0	0.6
Share capital	-2.1	2.5	1.7	1.2	-0.1	1.6	-1.4	-0.5	1.2	-2.3	0.2
Livestock welfare and health	-1.0	12.0	13.5	5.0	-5.0	13.5	3.0	-15.0	4.3	4.5	3.5
Training	-8.3	1.5	8.3	3.8	2.8	1.5	8.3	11.3	1.3	-3.8	2.7
Qualification and job offer	0.8	2.6	0.6	0.9	-0.4	-7.2	0.0	-0.5	0.5	0.8	-0.2
Quality of job/occupation	0.0	5.8	1.0	0.0	2.3	4.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	-6.0	0.8
Equity between genders. generations. ethnicities	-2.5	5.6	10.0	-2.5	-6.3	-15.0	8.8	-12.5	7.5	-8.8	-1.6
Income generation	-4.0	6.0	0.0	-7.0	-15.0	-15.0	-4.0	15.0	1.0	-5.0	-2.8
Property value	-10.5	6.5	13.0	5.0	5.0	-10.5	5.5	8.0	0.0	-5.0	1.7
Occupational health and Safety	1.5	-5.0	-1.5	0.0	1.5	-0.8	-5.0	0.0	-5.0	0.0	-1.4
Food safety	-3.0	3.0	2.4	1.0	0.4	3.0	1.0	-3.0	3.0	1.0	0.9
Dedication and profile of the person responsible	-8.3	8.3	10.8	8.3	-4.3	9.8	8.3	8.5	2.8	-1.0	4.3
Marketing condition	-1.3	3.8	6.5	4.5	1.3	5.3	0.8	-1.8	4.8	3.5	2.7
Waste disposal	0.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	-2.0	8.0	-2.0	-6.0	13.0	-2.0	1.8
Chemical input management	0.0	0.0	3.8	0.0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5.0	1.1
Institutional relationship	0.0	11.3	11.3	0.0	0.0	2.5	0.0	1.3	-3.8	0.0	2.3
General Activity Impact Index	-1.40	4.28	0.91	1.34	-1.19	0.09	1.65	1.87	0.66	1.28	0.9

Producers	Total property area	Start of activity	Activities on the property
AF 1	18,2 ha	1992	Cultivation in the garden and garden with cassava, sugarcane, pineapple, sweet potato, silver and dwarf bananas, dry rice, lemon, orange, guava, lime, jackfruit, mango, jabuticaba¹ 1 The jabuticaba, also known as the Brazilian grape tree, is a fruit-bearing tree native to Brazil. Its scientific name is Plinia cauliflora, and it belongs to the Myrtaceae family. , acerola² 2 Acerola is a fruit native to tropical regions of the Americas, particularly South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. Scientifically known as Malpighia emarginata, it is also commonly referred to as the Barbados cherry or West Indian cherry. , acaí³ 3 Acaí is a fruit native to the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, scientifically known as Euterpe oleracea. It is a small, dark purple berry that grows in clusters on the acaí palm tree. , guariroba⁴ 4 Guariroba, also known as the Brazilian palm or Syagrus oleracea, is a species of palm native to Brazil. It typically grows in the cerrado biome, a tropical savanna region. , coffee, cotton, pitanga⁵ 5 Pitanga, scientifically known as Eugenia uniflora, is a tropical fruit native to Brazil and other regions of South America. It is commonly referred to as Surinam cherry or Brazilian cherry. , lettuce, carrot, beetroot, cabbage, tomato, eggplant, okra, mangarito, yam, arrowroot, chili pepper, garlic, onion. Breeding a dairy herd (17 animals: 2 lactating cows, 8 heifers, 7 calves. Raising chickens (20 laying birds) and fish (tilapia).
AF 2	156 ha	1987	Livestock farming activities including beef cattle, dairy cattle, and chickens. Cultivation of cassava and crafting slate stone handicrafts for commercialization.
AF 3	74 ha	2020	Dairy and beef cattle breeding activities, fish farming. Vegetable, corn, banana and cassava crops.
AF 4	33 ha	2003	Corn, pumpkin, beans, cassava crops. vegetable garden (lettuce, arugula, cabbage, carrots, radishes). Dairy cattle (18 animals), chickens (70 laying birds) and 2 pigs are raised.
AF 5	23 ha	1993	Dairy cattle, guinea fowl, horses and cassava, sugar cane and banana farming activities.
AF 6	24,8 ha	2007	Subsistence vegetable garden, conventional corn, cabotiá pumpkin, dairy cattle.
AF 7	121 ha	1950	Exclusive and extensive breeding of beef cattle without knowledge of the total number of heads.
AF 8	5 ha	2017	Poultry and pig farming. Vegetable cultivation.
AF 9	24 ha	2019	They produce goat's milk (fresh and cured cheese), yogurt, ricotta, dulce de leche), vegetables (leek, carrot, beetroot, onion, garlic, cabbage, cauliflower), corn, beans, oranges, jabuticaba.
AF10	18,5	2003	Cultivation of a 2 ha field with green beans, beans, corn, pumpkin, cassava. 1 ha of vegetable garden with cultivation of zucchini, carrots, beets, sweet potatoes, cauliflower, broccoli, leeks, parsley, cabbage, coriander, chives, flowers (angel carnation and carrot flower). Raising 27 animals - 4 lactation with 20 liters of milk/day. 8 calves and heifers, 3 heifers, 5 males (1 year old), 7 males (3 being 1.5 years old and 4 males being 2 years old.

Impact criteria	Performance coefficients of family producers (AF)
Impact criteria	AF1	AF2	AF3	AF4	AF5	AF6	AF7	AF8	AF9	AF10	Avarage
Change in direct land use	0.0	0.5	2.3	0.0	1.3	-0.3	-0.3	0.0	1.8	6.3	1.2
Change in indirect land use	0.0	-0.3	1.5	-0.8	-2.3	-4.3	0.0	-4.5	0.0	-8.8	-1.9
Water consumption	-4.0	-9.0	-6.0	-9.0	-12.0	-4.0	4.0	2.0	0.0	-12.0	-5.0
Use of agricultural inputs	9.5	-5.0	12.0	0.0	0.0	8.0	-4.5	0.0	-0.5	10.5	3.0
Use of veterinary supplies and raw materials	3.0	-9.5	4.5	-9.0	-7.0	15.0	1.5	-7.5	0.0	6.0	-0.3
Energy consumption	6.0	-9.5	-12.0	-10.5	-7.0	-12.0	-7.0	-7.0	-7.5	-9.5	-7.6
Own generation. use. reuse. and autonomy	1.4	-0.6	0.2	0.9	-0.5	0.6	0.0	-1.2	0.0	0.2	0.1
Emissions to the atmosphere	-1.8	-0.2	0.0	0.0	-2.2	0.0	-1.2	-0.3	0.3	-1.6	-0.7
Soil quality	-7.5	-15.0	12.5	3.8	3.8	12.5	11.3	0.0	0.0	7.5	2.9
Water quality	-9.0	-1.6	0.6	-0.6	0.4	-7.6	-0.6	-1.2	1.6	-0.2	-1.8
Biodiversity conservation and environmental recovery	3.8	1.1	0.4	2.6	0.8	5.0	10.4	0.3	0.1	0.3	2.5
Product quality	12.0	2.3	0.0	10.8	1.5	11.3	2.3	7.5	0.0	0.5	4.8
Share capital	5.3	-0.4	0.0	0.2	1.1	3.6	0.6	1.5	0.4	6.8	1.9
Livestock welfare and health	12.0	-0.8	0.0	15.0	0.0	0.0	2.3	15.0	0.0	11.5	5.5
Training	5.3	0.0	0.0	1.3	8.3	6.8	-3.8	0.0	-1.3	3.8	2.0
Qualification and job offer	-1.5	-0.3	0.0	0.3	0.4	7.2	0.0	0.5	0.0	-0.7	0.6
Quality of job/occupation	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	6.8	-12.0	0.0	-6.0	0.0	6.0	-0.5
Equity between genders. generations. ethnicities	-5.6	-0.6	0.0	8.8	7.5	6.9	-5.6	8.8	0.0	12.5	3.3
Income generation	3.0	-2.0	0.0	15.0	11.0	9.0	3.0	1.0	4.0	9.0	5.3
Property value	6.0	6.0	0.0	15.0	15.0	10.5	8.0	8.8	7.5	10.0	8.7
Occupational health and Safety	-3.8	-0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.5	0.0	-0.3
Food safety	3.0	0.0	0.0	3.0	2.4	0.0	3.0	3.0	0.0	3.0	1.7
Dedication and profile of the person responsible	6.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	9.3	0.0	0.0	5.8	1.0	3.3	2.6
Marketing condition	4.5	0.0	0.0	4.5	1.3	0.0	2.3	4.5	-1.8	10.5	2.6
Waste disposal	10.0	-1.0	0.0	12.0	2.0	0.0	3.0	12.0	1.0	6.0	4.5
Chemical input management	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Institutional relationship	3.8	-8.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.8	1.3	12.5	1.3
General Activity Impact Index	1.76	2.65	0.75	1.30	1.13	1.25	0.29	0.83	0.16	2.81	1.3

Dimension	Activity impact criteria	Before	After	Avarage variation
Socio-environmental	Water consumption	-2.4	-5	-2.60
Socio-environmental	Energy consumption	2.55	-7.6	-10.15^* * Indicates statistical significance using the non-parametric Wilcoxon test, at a probability level of 5%.
Socio-environmental	Livestock welfare and health	3,475	5.5	2.03
Socio-environmental	Quality of job/occupation	0.75	-0.5	-1.25
Socio-environmental	Food safety	0.88	1.74	0.86
Socio-environmental	Dedication and profile of the person responsible	4.3	2.55	-1.75
Socio-environmental	Marketing condition	2,725	2,575	-0.15
Socio-environmental	Waste disposal	1.8	4.5	2.70
Economic	Use of agricultural inputs	-1.8	3	4.80
Economic	Own generation, use, reuse and autonomy	-0.145	0.095	0.24
Economic	Soil quality	-1,625	2,875	4.50
Economic	Biodiversity conservation and environmental recovery	-2.8	2,465	5.28*
Economic	Property value	1.7	8,675	6.98*
Economic	Occupational health and Safety	-1,425	-0.3	1.13
Social	Change in direct land use	0.95	1.15	0.20
Social	Change in indirect land use	0.075	-1,925	-2.00
Social	Use of veterinary supplies and raw materials	-1.6	-0.3	1.30
Social	Emissions to the atmosphere	0.03	-0.7	-0.73
Social	Water quality	3.54	-1.82	-5.36
Social	Product quality	0.575	4.8	4.23
Social	Share capital	0.175	1,895	1.72
Social	Training	2.65	2,025	-0.63
Social	Qualification and job offer	-0.205	0.59	0.8
Social	Equity between genders, generations, ethnicities	-1,5625	3.25	4.81
Social	Income generation	-2.8	5.3	8.10
Social	Chemical input management	1,075	0	-1.08
Social	Institutional relationship	2.25	1.25	-1.00
General Activity Impact Index		0.95	1.29	0.34

Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural Av. W/3 Norte, Quadra 702 Ed. Brasília Rádio Center Salas 1049-1050, 70719 900 Brasília DF Brasil, - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: sober@sober.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Source: Authors.