Strategies and economics of farming systems with coffee in the Atlantic Rainforest Biome

Abstract

In the Zona da Mata of Minas Gerais State, Brazil, family farmers are adjusting to agroecological principles to reconcile sustainable agriculture, livelihood improvements and biodiversity conservation. Starting in 1993, experimentation with coffee agroforestry was gradually initiated on an increasing number of farms (37 in total), resulting in the simultaneous management of sun coffee (SC) and agroforestry coffee (AF) plots. We aimed (1) to identify factors that determine the farmers' selection of trees used in AF;(2) to describe the agroecological farms in transition; and (3) to perform an economic comparison between AF and SC. These objectives were addressed by combining data from botanical surveys in 1993/1994 and 2007, by interviews with farmers and by detailed data on the production value and costs of labour and material inputs. The results showed considerable diversity in farming strategies and management among the farmers. Early adopters of AF had diversified towards production of different marketable products. The use of native trees in AF for this purpose, and for restoration of soil fertility (e.g., leguminous trees), had increased since the start of the experiments, while exotic tree species were eliminated. Over a period of 12 years AF was more profitable than SC due to the production of a diversity of agricultural goods, despite somewhat higher establishment costs. Other ecosystem services delivered by AF, such as biodiversity and cultural services are currently not valorized. Payment schemes for environmental services could further improve the economic benefits of AF for family farmers and alleviate establishment and learning costs.

Economic Analisys of a Coffee-Banana System of a Family-Based Agriculture at the Atlantic Forest Zone, Brazil

“…Other study reports that the human labor either in coffee agroforestry Graaff;Puleman, 2012) or conventional and organic (Siqueira;Ponciano, 2011) systems in the same region is the largest part of the cost as it is in other coffee production regions, where household labor is one of the most important input of family farmers (Coelli;Fleming, 2004). On those systems, coffee also requires most of services, especially in post-harvest activities and the input costs vary with the adopted management with the Bananas require labor every month, but on coffee crop there is a concentration of labor demand in the (Figure 1), the harvest season.…”

“…Agrotec., Lavras, v.39, n.3, p.232-239, maio/jun., 2015Pulido, 2010Graaff;Puleman, 2012). Smallholders rely on flexibility of their production systems, which comes from diversification of farming activities (Coelli;Fleming, 2004).…”

“…Smallholders rely on flexibility of their production systems, which comes from diversification of farming activities (Coelli;Fleming, 2004). In the Atlantic Forest region of Minas Gerais state, predominantly a hilly landscape, Arabica coffee is the major source of income for the family farming Graaff;Puleman, 2012). In the Araponga County, there are few experiences of agroforestry, where family farmers are adapting the system to their needs, introducing native trees and fruit species, including banana (Souza et al, 2010).…”

“…There are reports of coffee agroforestry systems with higher net income than coffee monocrop (González;Perilla;Pulido, 2010;Perdoná et al, 2013;Santos et al, 2000;Graaff;Puleman, 2012), and a trend to higher technical efficiency (Kilian et al, 2006), when considering other products besides coffee production. However, there are insufficient data on costs, revenues or economic indicators for coffee agroforestry systems either in the world (González;Perilla;Pulido, 2010;Kilian et al, 2006) or in the Atlantic Forest Region, Minas Gerais state, Brazil.…”

Sistemas agroflorestais como alternativa para as reservas legais

“…The widely recognised socioeconomic benefits (AS-PTA; ILEIA, 2011;NAIR, 2007;SANTOS, 2010;SOUZA et al, 2011;VIVAN, 2010;YAMADA;GHOLZ, 2002) stem mainly from alternating and diversifying production, from use and reuse of the resources intrinsic to the system and more involvement of farmers in the production system (MACEDO, R. L. G., 2000; MAY; TROVATTO, 2008).…”