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

16 Pages·2012·0.34 MB·English

AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242
DOI10.1007/s10457-011-9452-x
Strategies and economics of farming systems with coffee
in the Atlantic Rainforest Biome
Helton Nonato de Souza • Jan de Graaff •
Mirjam M. Pulleman
Received:14April2011/Accepted:31October2011/Publishedonline:19November2011
(cid:2)TheAuthor(s)2011.ThisarticleispublishedwithopenaccessatSpringerlink.com
Abstract IntheZonadaMataofMinasGeraisState, data on the production value and costs of labour and
Brazil,familyfarmersareadjustingtoagroecological material inputs. The results showed considerable
principles to reconcile sustainable agriculture, liveli- diversityinfarmingstrategiesandmanagementamong
hood improvements and biodiversity conservation. the farmers. Early adopters of AF had diversified
Starting in 1993, experimentation with coffee agro- towards production of different marketable products.
forestrywasgraduallyinitiatedonanincreasingnum- TheuseofnativetreesinAFforthispurpose,andfor
beroffarms(37intotal),resultinginthesimultaneous restorationofsoilfertility(e.g.,leguminoustrees),had
management of sun coffee (SC) and agroforestry increased since the start of the experiments, while
coffee(AF)plots.Weaimed(1)toidentifyfactorsthat exotic tree species were eliminated. Over a period of
determine the farmers’ selection of trees used in AF; 12 years AF was more profitable than SC due to the
(2)todescribetheagroecologicalfarmsintransition; productionofadiversityofagriculturalgoods,despite
and(3) toperform aneconomiccomparison between somewhat higher establishment costs. Other ecosys-
AF and SC. These objectives were addressed by temservicesdeliveredbyAF,suchasbiodiversityand
combining data from botanical surveys in 1993/1994 culturalservicesarecurrentlynotvalorized.Payment
and2007,byinterviewswithfarmersandbydetailed schemes for environmental services could further
improve the economic benefits of AF for family
farmersandalleviateestablishmentandlearningcosts.
Keywords Familyagriculture(cid:2)Coffee
agroforestry(cid:2)Productivity(cid:2)Profitability(cid:2)
H.N.deSouza(cid:2)M.M.Pulleman Ecosystemservices
DepartmentofSoilQuality,WageningenUniversity,
P.O.Box47,6700AAWageningen,TheNetherlands
PresentAddress:
H.N.deSouza(&) Introduction
QMSW4,lote3,Apto103,SetorSudoeste,Bras´ılia,
DF70.680-400,Brazil
e-mail:[email protected] Povertyandfoodsecuritydependonthefunctionsand
services that local ecosystems supply (Sala and
J.deGraaff Montes 2007; SSNC 2008). However, the ability of
LandDegradationandDevelopmentGroup,Wageningen
ecosystems to secure human well-being has declined
University,P.O.Box47,6700AAWageningen,
TheNetherlands (MEA 2005). Increasing food production while
123
228 AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242
reducing the dependency on fossil fuels, protecting opportunities for certification of shade-coffee (Per-
wildlifespeciesandenhancingenvironmentalquality fectoetal.2005;Vaastetal.2006).
is an important challenge for today’s society. As an However,on-farmstudiesoftheeconomicaspects
alternativetothecurrentmodelthatfocusesprimarily (including productivity, labour inputs and profitabil-
onmaximization ofproductionofagriculturalgoods, ity) of AF are scarce and documentation of local
new forms of agriculture that strengthen the delivery knowledge on management strategies and tree selec-
of multiple ecosystem services (ES) are being advo- tionislargelylacking(Molua2005;Jose2009).This
cated (Lundberg and Moberg 2008; Brussaard et al. typeofknowledgewouldbecrucialforscalingupAF
2010).Interdisciplinaryscience,agriculturalmanage- coffee production and to inform agri-environmental
ment interventions and institutional development at andruraldevelopmentpolicies(Molua2005;Bennett
local and global scales are needed for ecological andBalvanera2007).
intensificationofagriculturalproduction(Perfectoand Our study focused on the Zona da Mata (ZM)
Vandermeer 2008; Carpenter et al. 2009), but many region,locatedintheAtlanticRainforestbiodiversity
questionsconcerningthetrade-offsbetweeneconomic hotspot (Myers et al. 2000) and characterized by the
andecologicalbenefitsremain. predominanceoffamilyfarms.Sustainableagriculture
Indevelopingregionsfamilyagricultureisusually is of vital importance for the ZM, where the side
based on low external inputs and therefore strongly effects of the ‘‘green revolution’’ have caused severe
linked to internal resources and ecological processes environmental,agriculturalandsocialproblems(Fer-
(SalaandMontes2007).Fortheseconditionsfarming rari 1996). Biodiversity loss in ZM is the result of a
practices based on agroecological principles (i.e., hugeloss andfragmentationofforestcover ofwhich
optimizingtherecyclingofbiomassandnutrientsand only 12–14% remains today (Ribeiro et al. 2009;
enhancingspeciesandgeneticdiversityandbeneficial Teixeira et al. 2009). Participatory experimentation
interactionsamongbiologicalcomponents)inorderto with agroecological principles has started in 1993,
maintainproductivitywithminimaluseofagrochem- with the aim to enhance crop diversification, soil
icals and other external inputs have been promoted restoration, and biodiversity conservation on family
(Egohetal.2008;Schrothetal.2009).Agroecological farms.Furthermore,farmers,togetherwithNGOsand
practiceshavebeenadvocatedastechnologiesthatcan university researchers started an agroecological
simultaneously offer environmental, social and eco- transition process, making gradually adaptations on
nomic benefits to human beings and support the their farms converting them from the conventional
conservationofwildlife(Harveyetal.2008;Ouinsavi approachtomoreecologicallybasedsystems.Aspart
and Sokpon 2008). In particular, agroforestry (AF) ofthisexperimentationAFcoffee(CoffeaarabicaL.)
can combine production functions with biodiversity systems have gradually been established on an
conservation by connecting fragments of remaining increasing number of farms (37 in total; Souza et al.
naturalforestinthelandscape(Bucketal.2006). 2010,Cardosoetal.2001).
In the past, coffee in most areas in Latin America Considering low external input systems and the
was grown under the shade of a diverse tree canopy, relationships between biological components of an
providingvarious environmental benefits.Inyearsof agroecosystem in terms of supplementarity, comple-
lowcoffeeprices(andrelativelyhighfertiliserprices) mentarityorcompetition(Conway1987;Filius1982),
thetreeswereallowedtoprovidemoreshade,whilein we hypothesized that AF systems have a higher
years of high coffee prices the shade trees were productivity (here defined as the harvested products
severely pruned, more fertilisers were applied and perunitofarea)andprofitability(definedasthegross
higher coffee production was obtained. With the marginperunitofareaandpermanday)thanSC.
introductionofnewhighyieldingcoffeevarieties(mid Theaimsofthisstudywereto:(1)identifyfactors
of twentieth century) full sun coffee was more that determine the farmers’ selection of trees in
generally applied and this is particularly the case in agroforestrysystems;(2)describethefamilyfarming
Brazil. In more recent years renewed attention is systems in agroecological transition and (3) perform
paid to the environmental and biodiversity benefits aneconomiccomparisonbetweencoffeeagroforestry
of intercropping with multiple tree species and systemsandconventionalcoffeeproductionsystems.
123
AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242 229
Materialsandmethods conventionally managed systems to systems based
onagroecological principles.One ofthese systemsis
Studysite coffee agroforestry (AF), in which coffee plants are
intercroppedwithtrees,shrubsandherbaceousplants.
TheZonadaMata(ZM)islocatedinthestateofMinas The main functions of the trees are protection of the
Gerais(MG)andhasatropicalhighlandclimate.The soil against erosion, recycling of nutrients and diver-
average daily temperature is 18(cid:3)C and the average sification of production. AF and SC systems are
precipitation is 1,500 mm year-1, with 2–4 dry managedside-by-sideonthesamefarm.
months. The slopes range from 20 to 75% and the
altitudefrom200to1,800 m(Golfari1975).Themain Selectionofthefarmsandfarmingsystemsforthis
soil types are Oxisols, which are deeply weathered, study
well drained, acidic and poor in available nutrients
(Cardosoetal.2003).Around18%ofthepopulationin Within ZM there is a group of about 600 families,
ZM lives in the countryside, mainly on family farms distributed over 20 municipalities, involved in agro-
(IBGE2000).Theaveragefarmsizeis18 haand91% ecological transition throughcollaboration with local
of the farms has less than 100 ha (IBGE 2000). The non-governmental organizations (NGOs), farmers’
characteristics of agricultural production in ZM are: organizations and research institutes (Cardoso et al.
long-term land use, small-scale production systems, 2001).Thesefarmsserveasaplatformforknowledge
and conventional agricultural practices, mainly for exchange and study of the effects of agroecological
coffeeproductionandcattle. practices on productivity and profitability of farming
In the nineteenth century the rainforest was systems and of the environmental services provided.
replaced by agriculture, mainly due to favorable From these 600 families, a group of 100 families
climate and market conditions for coffee production belongtoa‘‘MonitoringProgramontheSustainability
(Dean 1995). Few forest fragments are conserved as ofAgroecosystems’’conductedbytheNGOCentreof
forestreservesandcoffeeplantationsextendtothetop Technologies Alternatives of Zona da Mata (CTA-
of the hills. Such deforestation has caused loss of ZM) and partners (CTA-ZM 2006) with the aim to
biodiversityandsoilerosion,leadingtodrasticlossof document changes in management practices on the
soilfertility(Dean1995). farms. From these 100 families, three sets of farms
Conventional full-sun coffee (SC) is the predom- wereincludedinthestudypresentedhere(Table 1).
inant type of coffee production. However, family Thefirstgroupwasformedbythosefarmsonwhich
farmers that have participated in a participatory botanical surveys were carried out in AF plots in the
projectthathasrunsince1993(Cardosoetal.2001), early stage (1993/1994, 15 farms, group 1a) and
have changed at least part of their land from approximately 13 years later (2007, 7 farms, group
Table1 Studydesignforthispaperconsideringthedifferentgroupsofselectedfarmers,datasetsusedforeachtopicofinvesti-
gationandtherelatedobjectives
Group Numberof Dataused Topicofinterest Objective
familyfarms
1a 15 Botanicalsurveyconductedin:1993/94 Determinantfactorsfortheselection 1
1b 7 2007 oftreestoimproveperformanceof
regionalagroforests
2 6 Farmingactivities,management,farmlayout,inputs Descriptionoffamilyfarmsin 2
andoutputsobtainedthroughparticipatory agroecologicaltransition
techniques(interviews,flowdiagram,maps)
3 3 Coffeeproduction,labour(demand?costs), Economiccomparisonbetween 2and3
sales,spending agroforestryandconventionalsystems
a Regionalreferencesofcoffeeagroforestryexperimentsestablishedatinitialphase
b Bestregionalperformersofcoffeeagroforestryexperimentsatlaterstageofexperimentation;inthisgroupof7,twofarmsofthe
groupof15areincluded
123
230 AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242
1b). Although the overlap between the two groups is the early adopters. These three farms maintained
only two farms, the use of two sets of representative parallellong-termAFandSCexperimentswithineach
farms allows for the interpretation of changes in farmandwerecomparableintermsofslopeandageof
compositionofcoffeeAF,byconsideringtheexisting the coffee plants. These three families were living
data on tree species and their uses by local farmers undersimilarsocialandeconomicconditions.
overalongperiodofexperimentation(objective1).
A second group of farmers implemented agroeco-
logical practices in the period 2003–2005 and was Datacollection
composed of 6 families (Farms 1–6; Fig. 1), which
volunteered (one family per municipality) to partici- Changesintreecomposition
pate in a specific activity inserted in the monitoring
program mentioned above, which should reveal Twobotanicalstudieswereusedtoassessthechanges
‘‘indicatorsofsustainability’’. that occurred in tree family composition across the
Athirdgroupwasformedbythreefamilies(Farms AFs established between 1993 and 2007. Franco
A1, A2 and D1; Fig. 1). These belonged to the early (2000)conductedthebotanicalsurveyin15ofthe37
adoptersofAFinZMandstartedin1993/1994(Souza initial AF experiments established in 1993–1994 and
2006).Informationonfarmingpracticesandmanage- Siqueira(2008)studiedthe7bestdevelopedAFplots,
mentfromthesecondandthirdgroup(9farms)were assuggested by local farmersin2007. Thefarms A1
usedtoaddressobjective2. andA2wereincludedinbothsurveys.Informationon
For the economic comparison of AF versus SC uses of trees was obtained through a participatory
systems (objective 3) we focused on the third group, appraisalamongfarmers.
Fig.1 LocationoftheselectedfarmsinsixmunicipalitiesoftheZonadaMata(ZM),MinasGeraisstate,Brazil
123
AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242 231
Farmcharacterization calculatedbasedonthefarmers’individualnotesand
the number of trees existing in each AF system was
The six farmers of group 2 recorded the data on counted. Elevation and slope of the farms were
consumption, production, income, farm layout and measuredwithGPSandclinometers.
subsystems, crops, inputs, outputs and the annual Thestepsusedfortheanalysisofproductioncosts
calendaroffarmingactivitiesandsharedthemduring are based on Duarte et al. (2004), in which the
several meetings held between 2005 and 2006. The Production value A minus the costs (B ? C?D ?
threefarmsofgroup3werevisitedin2008toobtain E ? F ? G)isequaltoGrossMarginI.Belowmore
the same information. During the visits the flow detailsaregivenfortherespectiveitemsAuntilJ:
diagramtechnique(Geilfus2000)wasused.Theflow
A. Total production values: the production values
diagram provides an evaluation of all inputs and
were obtained by considering all marketable
outputs of the agroecosystems, including both the
products produced during 1 year. The prices of
material inputs and services and the products pro-
theseproductswereverifiedinthelocalmarketof
duced. It also allows the identification of the links of
ArapongaandDivinoduringFebruaryandMarch
farmingsystemswiththeotheragroecosystemsofthe
2008.
property(Geilfus2000).Thediagramsweredrawnby
B. Annuities of establishment costs were calculated
thefamiliesduringtheinterviews.Thiswasfirstdone
based on the activities (person days) and mate-
for each individual subsystem, and thereafter for the
rials (material costs) required to establish the
wholefarm.
differentcoffeesystems.Onefarmerbelongingto
The nine farmers of groups 2 and 3 provided the
the first group of 6 farms had accurately docu-
resultsofthelastsoilanalysisforthecoffeeplots(SC
mented allactivities related tothe establishment
and AF) carried out in the labs of the Soil and Plant
of his SC and AF systems. We used his data to
NutritionDepartmentofFederalUniversityofVic¸osa
calculatetheestablishmentcostsoveraperiodof
in2005/2007.Therange ofsoilcharacteristicsof the
3 years.Basedontheinformationprovidedbythe
farmsispresentedinTable 2.
farmerswesetthelengthoftheproductioncycle
Thethreefarmsofgroup3fellwithintherangeof
at12 yearsforbothsystems.
soilcharacteristicsfoundforgroup2(Table 2).Group
C. Labourfor croppingcoversthe annual activities
3 (early adopters) presented less variation in nutrient
requiredforthecashcrop(coffee),othercropsor
andorganicmattercontentandgenerallyhighervalues
products, and the production of compost. The
thangroup1(Table 2).
prevalentdailywagerateintheregionisR$20.00
adayorUS$11.00dollar(March2010).
Analysisofproductivityandprofitability D. Intermediate consumption included all expenses
forexternalinputsnotproducedonthefarm(e.g.,
DuringthevisitsoffarmsA1,A2andD1inFebruary fertilizers, lime, bio-fertilizers, compost, bags,
and March 2008, more detailed information used for andboxes).
the economic comparison (objective 3) was also E. Processing costs were the total cost of post-
collected.Theannualaverageproductionofthemost harvestactivitiesforallproductsonthefarm.The
important products over 3 years (2005–2007) was costs of coffee drying on the ground was
Table2 RangeofsoilcharacteristicsforselectedfarmsinZonadaMata,Brazil
Farms Period pH P K Ca Mg CEC1 BSat2 OM3
(1:2H.25O) (cmolcdm-3) (cmolcdm-3) (mgdm-3) (mgdm-3) (mgdm-3) (%) (%)
Group2a 2005/6 4.9–6.6. 0.4–7.6 29–161 0.3–5.4 0.2–1.7 7.2–19.0 6.3–85.0 2.7–5.3
Group3b 2007 5.6–6.0 2.7–4.8 89–164 2.8–5.7 0.6–1.5 3.6–7.6 30.0–76.0 4.3–5.7
Codes:CECcationexchangecapacity,basesaturation,OMorganicmatter
a Farmsinagroecologicaltransition(1–6)
b Farmsofearlyadopters(A1,A2,D1)
123
232 AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242
calculatedatUS$1.67bag-1(onebag = 60 kg) (Souza2006).Changesintreecompositionovertime,
for coffee in the early processing stages called since the start of the on-farm AF experiments in the
‘‘cafe´ emcoco’’(Bliskaetal.2009). early1990s(Franco2000)until2008(Siqueira2008)
F. Overheadswereconsidered2.5%ofintermediate are shown in Fig. 2. The respective uses of each tree
consumptionfollowingBliskaetal.(2009). familyareindicatedatthebottomofthegraphandare
G. Interest on circulating capital was defined as based on the information provided by the farmers
12%ofthesumofintermediateconsumptionand during semi-structured interviews (Fig. 2). Several
overheadcosts(Bliskaetal.2009). exotictreespeciesthatwerefoundintheAFsystems
H. Total person days is the time spent (including in 1993/1994 were not present in the AF systems
temporaryworkers)onfarmingactivities. monitored in 2007 (e.g., Casuarinaceae, Ebenacea,
Myrsinaceae, Pinacea and Caprifoliacea) (Fig. 2).
Gross margin (GM) was calculated by deducting
Farmers reported that they had been eliminated
the variable costs and also some fixed costs
because of their different requirements in terms of
(B ? C ? D ? E ? F ? G) from the total produc-
climate and soil conditions that led to increased
tion value (A). A distinction is made between ‘‘GM
competition with, or damage to, coffee plants. Tree
including labour’’ (I), whereby labour costs are also
familiesthatprovidemultipleproducts,suchasfood,
deducted and ‘‘GM excluding labour’’ (J) whereby
wood, green manure, medicine and other products
labour costs are not deducted. The gross margin per
(e.g., fibre, oil, seeds), were kept or added (e.g.,
person day is obtained by dividing ‘‘GM excluding
Bignoniaceae, Rutacea, Myrtaceae, and Euphorbia-
labour’’,bythetotalnumberofpersondays.Thiscan
ceae).Localavailabilityandmarketopportunitiesare
becomparedwiththeprevalentwagerate.
determining factors for selecting those trees with
multipleuses.
The initial AF experiments on 15 family farms
Results (group 1a) started with a minimum of 2 and a
maximum of 72 tree species per AF plot, belonging
Treecompositionandtreeselectioncriteriaattwo to a total of 34 different tree families (Fig. 2). This
differentstagesofimplementation widerangeinthenumberoftreespeciesreflectsahigh
diversityofapproachesbydifferentgroupsoffarmers
DuringimplementationoftheinitialAFexperiments, due to the high uncertainty resulting from lack of
thefarmerstogetherwithalocalNGOanduniversity experience. One group decided to start with planting
researchers, focused on the following factors when fewtreespeciestoavoidrisks.Intheoppositeextreme
selecting trees for the AF systems: (a) stability/risk there was another group of farmers that decided to
alleviation, (b) avoiding nutrient competition, and experiment with a large pool of tree species to be
(c) maintaining or increasing coffee production intercroppedwithcoffee.Thirteenyearslater7family
Fig.2 Theproportional 30 2007
distributionandtheusesof 15
treesinAFsystemsas 8 1993-1994
Food
obtainedfrom15and7
Wood
6
farms,surveyedin Fertilizer
1993–1994and2007, % Other products
4 Medicine
respectively
2
0
LeguminoseaeMusaceaeAnacardiaceaeLauraceaeMalvaceaeSolanaceaeBignoniaceaeRutaceaeMyrtaceaeEuphorbiaceaePalmaeCaricaceaeRosaceaeAnnonaceaeSapindaceaAraucariaceaeBixaceaeVerbenaceaeLamiaceaeUrticaceaeMoraceaeMeliaceaeelastomataceaeRhamnaceaeAsteraceaeApocynaceaeMoringaceaeCannabaceaeMalpighiaceaeCasuarinaceaeEbenaceaeMyrsinaceaePinaceaeCaprifoliacea
M
Uses:
123
AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242 233
farms(group1b)reporteddifferentcriteriaforselect- AFcoffeeproductionin2005becausethatwasthefirst
ingtreesthanthoseinitiallydefinedatthestartofthe yearinwhichcoffeewasplanted.
project. Selected trees included then species that Alargevarietyofcropswasproducedoneachfarm
(a)arecompatiblewiththecoffeecrop;(b)producea in AF areas. Food, firewood, water and construction
good amount of biomass; (c) are soft and easy to materials are the most common needs for the family.
manage (e.g., cutting, pruning, transporting), and Although such diversity contributes to local agrobi-
(d) provide extra products such as food and animal odiversity, it also increases labour intensity in the
feed, or (e) stimulate wildlife, as reported during the beginning, which was indicated as a constraint by 6
interviews. outof9farmers.
Forest within the farms is also called ‘‘reserve’’,
Generalcharacterizationofthefarmsandtheir followingtheBrazilianenvironmentallaw.However,
coffeesystems wood and non-wood products can be harvested for
familyconsumptiononly(e.g.,honey,seed,medicines
A compilation of the individual flow diagrams (not and fibre). Together with AF as a subsystem they
shown) that was obtained for each of the 9 family representedthemainsourceofwoodforconstruction
farmsofgroups2and3demonstratedthatallofthem (Table 3).
had diversified their farms as part of the agroecolog-
icaltransition,withtheobjectivetomakethedifferent
components of subsystems more closely connected ManagementofSCandAFcoffeesystems
and mutually supportive to reduce the need for
external inputs. These 9 families represented a range Moredetailedinformationoncoffeemanagementwas
of different farm settings in family agriculture in the obtainedforthethreefarmsofgroup3(Table 4).Ona
ZM. The farm size ranged from 6 to 90 ha. The yearly basis, the management activities could be
number of family members, indicative for labour divided into three main periods. From January to
availability,rangedfrom2to7.Sixfamilieswereland April,theactivitiesincludedthefirstsowingofsome
ownersandthreeweretenants.Thetotalareaofcoffee annual crops, weeding, fertilizer application, tillage,
cultivation on the different farms ranged from 1.5 to and trimming. The harvesting of beans, maize, and
9.5 ha,correspondingto4–47%ofthetotalfarmarea. cassava is done from May to July. From May till
The density of coffee plants ranged from 2,310 to September,themainactivitiesaretosoilpreparation,
7,500 ha-1inSCandfrom1,785to5,333 ha-1inAF. cropmanagement(routine),foliarfertilizationandthe
Thelandowners,especiallytheearlyadoptersofAF, secondsowingofbeansandmaize.
hadamorediversifiedfarmintermsofthenumberof In AF the spontaneous vegetation is kept or
commercialized products and the presence of own trimmed, no pesticides or herbicides are used and
forest(Table 3). limestone is applied biannually. The use, type and
Coffeewasthemaincash cropanddifferenttypes quantityoffertilizersdependonwhethertheAFcoffee
ofcoffeeplotswerepresentatallthefarms.On7out is certified for organic production or not. Family
of9farms,theareaunderSCwashigher(rangingfrom members do most of the field operations in the AF
0.9to7.9 ha)thantheareaunderAFonthesamefarm systems.TheSCsystemsdonothavetreesshadingthe
(0.3–2.6 ha). Coffee planting density was distinctly coffee. In this type of system liming is done biannu-
higherinSCthaninAFonfourofthefarms(farms2, ally, fertilizers are applied annually and herbicides/
5, 6 and A2), more or less similar on the other four pesticidesareusedwhenconsiderednecessary.Some
farms(farms1,4,A1andD1)andlowerinSCthanin farms apply tillage and some farms do not. Some
AF on farm 3. The number of commercialized farmersintercropthecoffeewithherbaceousplants(in
productsandthepresenceofforestonthefarmvaried few cases even with annual crops). It is common to
depending on land tenure. Based on the farms employ temporary workers for field operationsin the
considered in our study, coffee production (parched) SC systems. Soil preparation includes limestone
underAFrangedfrom120to1,644 kg ha-1andunder broadcasting and manure application. In some cases
SC(basedonlyontheearlyadopters’farms)itranged manual tillage is used, especially when maize is
from1,320to1,602 kg ha-1.ForFarm1therewasno cultivated. All coffee systems are biannually limed
123
234 AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242
1 n e
FarmD Divino 2 Owner 6 2.8 2.5 2,310 1,602 0.3 2,310 1,644 1993/4 Banana Beans Citrus Coffee Maize Pumpki Wood Yes 5%ofth
s
u
systems FarmA2 Araponga 2 Owner 43 8.7 7.9 2,730 1,320 0.8** 1,785 313 1993/4 Avocado Banana Beans Cassava Coffee Maize Sugarcane Wood Yes 91.5m)pl
ee 3
(AF)coff FarmA1 Araponga 4 Owner 90 9.5 6.9 3,465 1,350 2.6** 3,465 1,650 1993/4 Banana Beans Coffee Guava Maize Papaya Pumpkin Wood Yes armD1=
y F
str m,
andagrofore Farm6 EsperaFeliz 7 Owner 8.8 2.8 1.2 7,500 NA 1.6** 1,875 630 2005 Banana Beans Cassava Coffee Eggs Maize Peanut Sugarcane Yes C3.291.2
C) S
S m,
ncoffee( Farm5 Guiricema 4 Owner 68 2.7 1.4 4,545 NA 1.3 2,308 1,380 2004 Beans Coffee Livestock Eggs Pumpkin Wood Yes 491.5
u F
withtheirfull-s Farm4 Carangola 5 Owner 12 1.8 0.9 4,500 NA 0.9** 4,444 450 2005 Banana Coffee Honey Livestock Vegetables Yes FarmA2=A
m,
3
ofgroup Farm3 Tombos 4 Tenant NA 1.5 1.2 2,833 NA 0.3 5,333 1,080 2005 Beans Cassava Coffee Maize Cassava flour No =391
s 1
m A
ar ck d
threef Farm2 Divino 2 Tenant 29 1.6 1.1 3,636 NA 0.5 1,800 120 2005 Beans Coffee Eggs Livesto No 1–6an
d m
an ar
Table3Generalinformationaboutthesixfarmsofgroup2 ItemsFarm1 1.MunicipalityAraponga 2.#offamilymembers2 3.LandtenureTenant 4.Farmsize(ha)NA*5.Totalareaofcoffeesystems(ha)1.6 a.Full-suncoffee(ha)1.3-1DensityofcoffeeplantsinSC(plantsha)3,230-1Coffeeproduction(kgha)NA b.Agroforestrycoffee(ha)0.3**-1DensityofcoffeeplantsinAF(plantsha)3,333-1Coffeeproduction(kgha)– c.YearofadoptionofAF2005 6.CommercializedproductsBeans Coffee Honey Propolis 7.ForestonfarmNo NAnotavailable *Thesizecalculationwasbasedonthecoffeeplantspacing(Ftotaltocompensatespaceforinternalroads **Partofitiscertifiedfororganiccoffeeproduction
123
AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242 235
as as andannuallyfertilized.Thefarmerssprayhomemade
e e
tre tre liquid compost called ‘‘supermagro’’, as biological
ng ng fertilizer in AF at least twice a year. Spontaneous
OctNovDec Pruni Chemicalfertilizera,bapplication Applybiologicala,bfertilizerbSowingmaize/beansa,baLimingWeeding a,bLimingPrunia,bApplybiologicalfertilizer aAnimalmanureapplicationa,bWeeding vpatbaChnleeuhsegrdtoateyrorrtpaeeenacrseatuitisrfdeon,airunersmimedsdisatnoiiiacAnnntrslhee2Jyoeufltfreilhcnoyfsoetm.etfohlbfenDeeocettetphteceofiedermeimslSooddCbbilierNsasarunnwotorcdvfehMaeeAecmdsaeFebr.odcecTfhroahtfottehfonelepeeFarateulrslbentferiatunswragmaircoryseef,,
systemsusedforeconomicevaluation
b
Sep a,bLiminga,Weeding manureaation Tsyhsetesmpescoififcgrcohuapra3ctfearrimstiscsaroefsthhoewAnFinanTdabSlCe 5c.ofTfheee
malplic systems in each farm were established at similar
ug niap elevation (ranging from 1,040 m at farm A2 to
A A
1,160 m at farm D1). Slopes were steeper on farm
a,beans agtrees a,bstinga,beans ATh2e(7si5z%e)otfhtahneocnofAfe1easnydstDem1s(arpapnrgoexdimfraotmely0.3445%t)o.
utonthethreefarmsovertheyear MayJunJul a,bCoffeeharvesting Harvestingb a,bCleaningrowsofcrops a,bCoffeeharvesting BiologicalfertilizerPruninaapplicationbMaize/beansharvestinga,bHarvestingbeansCoffeeharve Harvestingb iAlap0shtnohyre.aF7ecasrd7Taan7.tf6eoa’th’itm%Ihroelhnmotaneshdwh,afaaieSionnwedtgnCrcrdthsahehpSiiele(.ttewl2rCiyraoeFc,pan6noaaoyrtt0fshonirsn0eteddcotgauoochA0fcffdoift.fFstehe1Afeifcnio5ewfe1stsan–ee,piara0dtpmslpnyt.ahe7ldenen(are2s1ertnDut,sg,athf7n1saatbwa0ih.trlhti0amIeifvaasnsoceh-remrAeotler1hyaAfda)2efsi,fteFwntthosweah.ahertegpameiScosplAdaCeharanFoltfrtt‘dho‘hesswucaysrahocautsnbasottl-oittefloehoettm1dhoner)r
o rehabilitate the area by controlling soil erosion. Any
carried a,bement ebxetcraoncsoifdfeereepdroanduacdtvioanntoabgtea.inOendtfhreomfarthmastAar1eaawndouDl1d
s g
coffeesystem Apr a,bFertilizing a,bCleaning Coffeemana a,bRoutine afertilizer tahhnaed-Tc13h,o%effbeAhueiFtgphrstoeyhrdsetufyeocmrtisoAdniFfcfopetnehrretaadnhinefecoidtnrarSoeCtnawx(aaTovsnaerobreamlsegpiec5ec)3.t3irvi5cehltynree1es8ss
4Mostrelevantactivitiesforboth JanFebMar bWeeding Chemicalfertilizera,bapplication Applybiologica,bfertilizeraPruningtrees Sowingbeans/bmaize a,baWeedingPruningtreesa,bApplybiologicWeedingafertilizeraPruningtreesApplybiologicala,bSowingbeans bSC o(hfirbtsOmrTaiusiecenrsabageepmtnboiflncaseulsrcepnury.mdomeliaO5tnlecoiu)gnvniAwfbe,taaesr2eftlsnidaiaronHotedrnhihemnlodeia,cnvwdaAo(AeutesnamnbsFo1rsdeieppbaesctlcoryahanodaosnnsevsufidtdttifeeleeailecro)mdgrete,ienosrdrasa,wa(Itdtbounnwwaheypvgdsedhhpaaoigie-aenmcrrrdfedthaetsrolqesoyet-uAsroisdjsiawssFusrpipeepclriravi˜tmeeaeoshoelcnddae)ridtut,anethaeoclstGnSedseydhaCl.ceanoatIoaonldfnwIfrtdnfsettttteughhhhhorelaeeeeee-f.
Table Site A1 A2 D1 aAF, asodivlaanncdeddeeproossiitoendpthroecseosisl,mwahteicrihalhtaodthreemloowveedsttphaerttoopf
123
236 AgroforestSyst(2012)84:227–242
Table5 Characterizationoftheagroforestryandfull-suncoffeesystemsofthethreeearlyadoptersintheZonadaMata,Brazil
Systems Elevation(m) Slope(%) Area(ha) Coffeeplantation Trees
(#/ha)
Plants(#ha-1) Spacing(m) Age(year) Production*
(kgha-1)
AFA1 1,062 33 0.15 3,300 3.091.0 12–14 1,650 380
SCA1 0.75 3,300 3.091.0 12–14 1,350 0
AFA2 1,040 75 0.72 1,700 4.091.5 12–14 317 370
SCA2 0.77 2,600 3.291.2 12–14 1,320 0
AFD1 1,160 35 0.27 2,200 3.091.5 10–14 1,644 257
SCD1 0.45 2,200 3.091.5 10–14 1,600 0
Codes:AFagroforestry,SCfull-suncoffeesystems,AAraponga,DDivino
*Consideredtheaverageover3years(2007,2008and2009)
the farm where it had damaged the roads and farm citrus, pumpkin, wood, and organic compost repre-
buildings. The farmer planted some trees belonging sented 30% of the total production value in AF-D1,
to a pioneer succession and several fruit species, whereas in AF-A1 the products banana, wood,
mostly avocado (Persea americana). The farmer has avocado, cassava, sugarcane and organic compost
harvestedbananas,oranges,avocados, sugarcane and representonly14%oftotalvalue(Table 6).
pumpkin from the AF. This system is converted into Theannuityofestablishmentcostswasonaverage
an organic system and the coffee plants have been 17% higher for the AFs than for the SCs due to the
rejuvenatedonce,inthebeginningoftheexperiment. increased labour for other crops (Table 6). Labour is
The system has a low density of coffee plants the most expensive factor during this phase contrib-
comparedtotheothertwofarms.Chemicalfertilizers uting on average 58% of establishment costs in both
werenotappliedinthissystem. systems,overthefirst3 years.Theestablishmentcosts
ThefarmerofD1plantedsomepioneertreesinhis of other crops are on average 11% of the total
AFsystemandtherewerealready somematuretrees establishment costs (data not shown). The labour
from secondary succession, such as Zeyheria tuber- required for annual cropping was higher for AF than
culosa (ipeˆ-preto), Tabebuia sp. (ipeˆ-amarelo) and for SC, varying from 136 to 202 person days ha-1
Vitex montevidensis (maria-preta). This area was year-1 in AF, and from 99 to 134 person days ha-1
originally an abandoned pasture. Bananas, oranges year-1 for SC. The intermediate consumption val-
and avocados have been harvested from the AF. The ues largely depended on the management, arrange-
trees also supply wood for construction, firewood, ment and level of external inputs of the farming
fencingandanimalfeed. systems (e.g., chemical fertilizers, lime, liquid com-
post, fuel and electricity cost). While AF-A1 (US$
ProductionvaluesandgrossmarginsinAFandSC 641 ha-1 year-1), SC-A1 (US$ 631 ha-1 year-1),
systems AF-D1 (US$ 851 ha-1 year-1) and SC-D1 (US$
841 ha-1 year-1)havequitesimilarexpensesinboth
The total production value was higher for all AFs systems, in AF-A2 the intermediate consumption
(ranging from US$ 4,976 to 6,281 ha-1 year-1) in value is much lower (US$ 158 ha-1 year-1) than in
comparison to all SCs (ranging from US$ 3,534 to SC-A2 (US$ 522 ha-1 year-1), mainly because no
4,284 ha-1 year-1) (Table 6). The production value chemicalfertilizersareusedinAF-A2.
forAF-D1wasabout20%higherthanforAF-A1and Regarding the processing costs, more labour is
AF-A2. For SC-D1 the production value was about required for coffee than for other products (e.g.,
17%highercomparedtoSC-A1andSC-A2. drying, bagging, post harvest preparation, transport).
In AF-A2 other products than coffee, including Thecostsoftotalmaterialinputsdependedonthetype
banana, papaya, pumpkin, citrus, wood, and guava, of crops, frequency of cultivation and care needed.
made up 73% of the total production value. Banana, The values were higher for AF on all three farms.
123