You are on page 1of 8

WFL Publisher

Science and Technology Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.1(3&4) : 239-246. 2003

www.world-food.net

Technical and economic aspects in conventional and alternative agriculture: A case study on coffee
Fernando Eovdio da Rosa Figueiredo1, Renato Linhares de Assis2 and Bastiaan Philip Reydon3
EcoSigma Solues Integradas em Gesto de Meio Ambiente Ltda.e-mail: fernando@ecosigma.com.br. National Center for Agrobiology, Brazilian Agricultural Research Organization (Embrapa Agrobiologia). e-mail:renato@cnpab.embrapa.br. 3Institute of the Campinas University (IE-Unicamp). e-mail:basrey@eco.unicamp.br
2

Received 18 February 2003,accepted 15 September 2003.

Abstract
This paper is an attempt to answer questions from farmers and consumers about the feasibility of an alternative model for agriculture production. An alternative model should be able to revert the present environmental degradation as far as agriculture is concerned. The article is based on theoretical discussion of current literature and field experiences on coffee. From literature review two favourable factor for this model is detached: one standing market with higher prices for its assets, together with the fact that there is basically no difference between the current model and the alternative one, regarding labour needs. In the studies on coffee, it is observed the technical and economic efficiency of alternative methods for phytosanitary control, as much as it provides a quite positive result on its costs. According to local conditions, there are many alternatives to be developed. So it is necessary to develop research integrating the economic, social and ecological features, not limited to the cause-effect mechanisms. Key words: Environment, farming, productions, crops.

Introduction Agriculture is the basis of our civilisation and of human life on Earth. The production has been growing much faster than human needs, using increasingly industrialised inputs. Nevertheless, the present way of agricultural production can not go on ad infinitum. It would be dangerous to have a continuos increase of this type of land use that does not take in account the needs of the producers, of the society and of the environment. Currently, this model (Conventional Model - CM), is being contested by many experts in a variety of different issues, such as its management and its technological contents. These critiques are not only aimed at the producing items alone, but also at its environmental, social and economic results. Alternative Agricultural Models (AM) to be improved, or at least not to worsen these situation, are being studied and employed in many cases. However, even in scientific discussions there are many doubts and controversies on these alternative proposals that still need more scientific studies. The supporters of the conventional producing system looks doubtfully at the alternative proposals as not being capable of having similar results. Striving to find an answer to these questions and verifying the feasibility of alternative proposals in opposition to current conventional models, under the need for changes in nowadays agricultural production, we have examined parameters such as producing costs and inside-property inputs management, among others. Examples of case data from actual experiences of some producers employing alternative techniques were also used. In order to compare the agricultural models, this article handles the data of operational costs for coffee production, from Agricultural Research Organization of Minas Gerais State (EMATER-MG) together with the Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), in addition to data collected by us. In the sequence we present examples on two field studies for coffee planting. The first one shows results for a producing process with alternative phytosanitary hanFood, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.1 (3&4), August-December 2003

dling. The second case consisted of a program for soil reconditioning on one property using organic mineral fertilisation, but synthetic chemical fertilisers was not totally released.

Experiment for Phytosanitary Control With Alternative Products in the Monte DEste Farm The experiment was accomplished at the Monte DEste farm, in Campinas in the State of So Paulo, Brazil, in order to test the replacement of chemical products on coffee plants1. There was tested 2 alternative products (natural products at basis of extract of compound enriched by micro-organisms called EPN-II and Bordeaux mixture), used for phytosanitary handling in the attack to insects and diseases, in comparison to the conventional handling in the property*1. For the aims of this study we decided to present only the results that showed the variation occurring between the beginning and the end of the evaluation. Figure 1 shows the first appraisal that determinates the percentage of live rust or total rust (live + dead). The results is that, the 3 doses of the alternative handling (TR 1%, TR 2%, TR 4%) presented a lower incidence (average of 20% of live infection for the three handlings), than the T0% and the TCv, both with 49% and 34.4% of infection by live rust, respectively. In this first estimation of the amount of alive and dead pustules per leave, as it can be observed in Figure 2, the results obtained for the different handlings evidenced that the three dosages of the alternative handling (TR 1 %, TR 2%, TR 4%) presented a similar incidence (average of 13% of live pustules for the three handlings), to the TCv, with 11.7%. The T0% was the case of lesser incidence, with 8.5%. This first estimation of the amount of miner parasites and mines per leaf, as can be observed in Figure 3, showed that the three
*

Part of this area was let aside, with no treatment, as the zero testimony.

239

dosages of the alternative handling (TR 1%, TR 2%, and TR 4%) presented a similar incidence (average of 16 % of miner parasite for the three handlings), higher than T0 %, that in this case had the lowest incidence (12.5%). Under conventional handling, the incidence of miner parasite (47.9%) was significantly higher than in the other handlings. The results presented in Figures 4 to 6 were accomplished in the third appraisal concluded in 05/14/96, and shows the evolution in the process of infection by rust and infestation by miner parasite during the productive cycle. There was evidenced the evolution of these in comparison to those observed on previous estimation.As observed in Figure 4, in the second estimation to determine the percentage of live rust or total rust (live + dead), the results showed that the three dosages of the alternative handling (TR 1%, TR 2%, TR 4%) conferred a virtually equal incidence (average of 51% of live infection for the three handlings), to the incidence on TCv, with 53%. The T0% presented the higher value of 69.8% of infection by live rust than other handlings, denoting that the alternative handlings, as much as the TCv were in the same proportion efficient to control the rust until the end of planting cycle. In this second estimation for determining the amount of live and dead pustules per leaf, it happened (Figure 5), that the accomplished results showed that the three dosages of the alternative handling (TR 1%, TR 2%,and TR 4%) caused a lower incidence (average of 5.4% of live pustules) than the TCv, with 8.1%. There was an increase of 65.3% more live pustules in the TCv, than to TR 1% and TR 2%. While T0 % presented a significantly higher incidence of 11.7%, showing a tendency contrary to what occurred in the first appraisal. It is yet noted the accentuated decrease occurring from the first to the second estimations in the alternative handlings which diminished from an average of 13% to an average of 5.4%. In the second estimation of the amount of miner parasite and mines per leaf (Figure 6) the three dosages of alternative handling (TR 1%, TR 2%, TR 4%) presented a lower incidence (average of 21.6% of miner parasite), than T0%, that in this case showed a lower incidence (31.3%). The TCv, with 43.8% was higher than the other handlings. It can be outlined the performance of TR 2% handling with an incidence of only 15%, lower than 20% presented in the first appraisal, as long as it was in the end of the cycle when the trend is of a higher number of leaves to be infested by miner parasite. As it can be seen in two estimations represented by the Figures above, the control effectiveness to rust, as much as to miner parasite was equal or better in the alternative handling (TR 1 %, TR 2 %, and TR4 %), than to the TCv and to T0 %. In the end of the estimations there was no significant differences between the conventional handling from property (CvT) and the alternative handling, regarding the natural product EPN-II plus the Bordeaux mixture, in the smallest dosage (TR 1 %) for rust percentage, in the live criterion as much as in the total one (CvT = 53.1% and 83.3% and TR 1% = 52.5% and 76.7%, respectively). As to miner parasite the results were also similar, where it is noticed a low influence or even a benefit from alternative control practice on the natural enemies which were, in the case, the best controlling source for these insects, as long as the absolute testimony, with no handling (T0% = 31.3%), was 40% less infested than the conventional one (CvT = 43.8%). In this feature, the alternative handlings did not differ (TR 1% = 30.0%) or they were better than T0% (TR 2% = 15% and TR 4% = 20%). It can always be noticed, in the alternative handling area, the
240

80 60 40 20 0

78,1 52,1 34,4 29,2 20,0 30,8 17,5 32,5 22,5

49,0

T 0%

T Cv.

TR 1%

TR 2% TR 4%

Mean percentage of leaves with alive rust Mean percentage of leaves with alive and dead rust
T 0% TCv TR 1% TR 2% = Control with no handling = Conventional control (normal handling from property) = Handling with EPN-II a 1 % + Bordeaux mixture = Handling with EPN-II a 2 % + Bordeaux mixture

TR 4% = Handling with EPN-II a 4 % + Bordeaux mixture

Figure 1. Mean percentage of leaves with living rust e and total rust (live + dead-) in the estimate from 02/28/96.
15,1

15 10 5
1,0 8,5

11,7

12,2

12,0

3,4

4,0

4,2

5,0

0 T 0% T Cv. TR 1% TR 2% TR 4%

Mean percentage of alive pustules per leaf Mean percentage of dead pustules per leaf
T 0% TCv TR 1% TR 2% TR 4% = Control with no handling = Conventional control (normal handling from property) = Handling with EPN-II a 1 % + Bordeaux mixture = Handling with EPN-II a 2 % + Bordeaux mixture = Handling with EPN-II a 4 % + Bordeaux mixture

Figure 2. Mean percentage of death and live pustules of rust in the estimate from 02/28/96.

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

47,9

19,2 12,5 1,0 1,4 1,1

20,0 10,8 1,1 1,1

T 0%
Leaf miner
T 0% TCv TR 1% TR 2% TR 4%

T Cv.

TR 1%

TR 2% TR 4%

Mean percentage of mines per leaf

= Control with no handling = Conventional control (normal handling from property) = Handling with EPN-II a 1 % + Bordeaux mixture = Handling with EPN-II a 2 % + Bordeaux mixture = Handling with EPN-II a 4 % + Bordeaux mixture

Figure 3 . Mean percentage of leaves with miner parasite and number of mines per leaf in the estimation from 02/28/96.

presence of higher number of insects from Chrysopidae family, which are very good natural enemies in the control of miner parasite, besides many other insects and animals, denoting a wider diversity of species than in the conventional area. We then observe, from the results, a difference in the costs comparative between the lot managed with alternative products in the control of plagues such
Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.1 (3&4), August-December 2003

as the miner parasite (Perileucoptera coffeella) and the coffee borer (Hypotenemus hampeii) and of diseases such as rust (Hemileia vastatrix), thus indicating that the alternative agricultural management from the phytosanitry standpoint, may be technically as much as economically profitable. It emerges the need for a further deepening of researches in order to implement technologies of this kind, also taking into consideration other factors that affect the farming producing and productivity, such as fertilisers, the need for hand labour and other costs. Program of Organic Mineral Fertilisation for Coffee: The Leblon Farm Case For this property, it was accomplished a research based on a program to recover the soil physical, chemical and biological conditions through organic mineral fertilisation, using organic composting as the basis for the program, along with other procedures from alternative handling. In 1991, by the time the alternative conducted program started, the property counted on the Mundo Novo variety, 12 years old, planted in a spacing of 4 m x 1m (around 2,500 plants ha-1and a total of 16 ha). The area is relatively declivous and, in the beginning of this research, the soil was quite depleted. Besides, the farmer utilized low fertilisation and small number of cultivation handling. The results from the last 5 years are presented in Table 1 and they express the programs accomplishments. For the comparative calculus, the results from 94/95 and 95/96 crops were employed, with an average of 37.57 benefited sacks / ha, similar to the results generally achieved by CvM, for well mechanized producers, for regions of similar conditions. In this case (Table 1), the same can be defined as low crop yields, as related to the ordinary biannual coffee crops (high yields year followed by low yields year and so on). On the other hand, the results from 92/ 93 and 94/95 were quite higher than ordinary ones, hardening comparison to average producing values in the region. Notice that the average of large yields (92/93 and 94/95) was of 52,81 of processed coffee sacks/ha (60 kg ha-1), expressing a very good productivity for the region average. All fertilisation recommended was based on the soil analysis results and according to Matiello et al.2, however, for the amount of fertiliser employed, the same parameters of conventional chemical fertilisation were used, for yields average of 35 sacks ha -1. The costs comparison of different agricultural models were made from data on operational costs for conventional farming, detailed by EMATER MG and UFLA, for 1 ha of coffee in medium fertile soil and 30 s. ha -1 productivity for the month of September, 1995, and are presented in Tables 2-6. For the CM (Table 2), the item MATERIALS-A on fertilisation factor, the fertiliser and correctives summation represents 50.96% of the simple percentage and 20.31% of total percentage, while the agrotoxic (pesticides) factor items represent 38.23 and 15.27%, for simple and total percentage, respectively. Yet on CM the most noteworthy individual factor is chemical fertiliser (ammonium sulphate), with 33.39% of simple percentage and 13.32% of total percentage, followed agrotoxic (Fungicide + soil grained insecticide) with 26.72 of simple percentage and 10.65 of the total one. The Fungicide + soil grained insecticide factor individually represent quite high percentage on MC, but it is absent on MA, where the individual most outlining factor (Tables 3 and 4) was Fertilisation with Organic Compound with an
Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.1 (3&4), August-December 2003

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

11,7 8,1 6,3 4,9 1,8 2,7 2,0 4,9 2,5 1,7

T 0%

T Cv. TR 1% TR 2% TR 4%

Mean percentage of alive pustules per leaf Mean percentage of dead pustules per leaf
T 0% TCv TR 1% TR 2% = Control with no handling = Conventional control (normal handling from property) = Handling with EPN-II a 1 % + Bordeaux mixture = Handling with EPN-II a 2 % + Bordeaux mixture

TR 4% = Handling with EPN-II a 4 % + Bordeaux mixture

Figure 4. Mean percentage of leaves with live rust and total rust (live + dead) in the estimation from 05/14/96.

50 40 30 20 10 0 T 0%
Leaf miner
T 0% TCv TR 1% TR 2%

43,8 31,3 30,0 20,0 15,0 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,3 1,3

T Cv.

TR 1%

TR 2%

TR 4%

Mean percentage of mines per leaf

= Control with no handling = Conventional control (normal handling from property) = Handling with EPN-II a 1 % + Bordeaux mixture = Handling with EPN-II a 2 % + Bordeaux mixture

TR 4% = Handling with EPN-II a 4 % + Bordeaux mixture

Figure 5. Mean percentage of leaves with pustules of live and dead rust in the estimation from 05/14/96.
88,5 83,3 53,1

80 60 40 20 0

69,8

76,7 52,5

76,7 51,7

75,0 50,8

T 0%

T Cv.

TR 1%

TR 2% TR 4%

Mean percentage of leaves with alive rust Mean percentage of leaves with alive and dead rust
T 0% TCv TR 1% TR 2% = Control with no handling = Conventional control (normal handling from property) = Handling with EPN-II a 1 % + Bordeaux mixture = Handling with EPN-II a 2 % + Bordeaux mixture

TR 4% = Handling with EPN-II a 4 % + Bordeaux mixture

Figure 6. Average Percentage of leaves with miner parasite and number of mines per leaf in the estimation from 05/14/96

average of 56.36%, followed by Chemical fertilisation(20-0020), with an average of 17.93% of simple percentage. For total percentage, they represent 18.99% and 6.10% respectively. For AM, the agrotoxic items (fungicide on copper basis, in the case) represents the averages summation from Tables 3 and 4, only 4.21% and 1.41% for simple and total percentage, respectively. For item
241

SERVICES-B, on CM (Table 2) the remarkable item, let alone the harvest procedures, is by Zoning + Scattering with 10.55% of simple percentage and 6.34% of total percentage, followed by Agrotoxic Applying with 6,33% of simple percentage and 3,80% of total percentage. The third higher cost is represented by item Manual Weeding, with 4.22 % and 2.54% for simple and total percentage respectively. In the AM (Tables 3 and 4), the individual most noteworthy factor on SERVICES, included the harvest procedures, also the Zoning Scattering with 9.62% of simple percentage and 6.25% of total percentage, followed by Manual Weeding (review), with 8.98% and 5.84% for simple and total percentages respectively. The higher cost was represented by Unbudding and Grazing, with 5.77% for simple percentage and 3.75% for total percentage. The items summation, disregarding the harvest and transport procedures, makes SERVICES-B costs in AM (38.79%) higher than in CM (33.37%) by 16.24%. In order to better compare all the existent relations between costs and its percent, for the different agricultural models, we have made Table 5, detailing the producing factors and specifying how much products and services represent for each one and the percentage relation between them. The results in Table 5 clearly show where the most stressed differences have occurred for CM and AM costs. It observed for Fertilisation item an increment by 38.2%, mainly due to high cost of (organic compound + chemical fertiliser) PRODUCT, on AM percentile cost as compared to CM. Nevertheless, there was basically no difference in comparison to SERVICE, as long as labour has been employed the same number of times as for Fertilisation item in both models. As to Agrotoxic Item, an inverse relation is observed, where cost percentile from PRODUTO, was lower on AM than on CM. Labour was less used by 73.72%. However, it is worth clarifying that the remarkable difference from this study may not be as expressive as to other cases, it should be lower in principle, as long as well balanced farming tends to employ less agrotoxics. With respect to the item Other Cultivation Handling (OCH) (Table 5), the higher difference was on SERVICES item, where AM was higher by 57.37% than CM. These costs are done to predominance of Grazing and Manual Weeding on AM, to the detriment of Herbicide Applying that had demanded less labour. Nevertheless, there are studies in progress as to half cut grazing and manual weeding handling, what makes this producing factor on AM become virtually identical to CM. The results presented in Table 6 evidence that the Costs List from EMATER-MG (Total Cost, Gross Unitary Cost and Total Unitary Cost), on conventional producing (CM) (Table 2), were percentile higher than the values taken from alternative producing costs (AM) for the 93/94 period, (Table 3) and 95/96, (Table 4), except referring to total cost on 1994 period, lower by 0.99%. These variation on costs, are mainly done to lesser use of MATERIALS by alternative process, that lowered by 14% in the first year estimation (SUBTOTAL A in (Table 3) and by 22.5% in the second year (SUBTOTAL A on Table 2). The work computed general costs, accomplished from the operational costs from EMATER/UFLA, presented a quite positive result, as long as a small amount of alternative agrotoxic was used to control insects and diseases in this period. No kind of conventional agrotoxic was employed, especially the grained kinds, the most expensive ones, representing around of 10.7% of total producing costs, or 26,6% of costs from materials employed on conventional producing.
242

Conclusions The two studies on coffee showed that the alternative agricultural model, as to Brazilian conditions, can be both economic and technically effective. It has been observed that alternative uses for phytosanitary control has added for the presence of important natural enemies, regarding agroecosystems balance, so allowing a lower incidence of pests and diseases. These practices also induce quite favourable results referring to the general costs analysis, indicating the possibility of alternatively producing, at lesser costs and better quality. However, there is still an urgent and a great need for research on the alternative production model. Nevertheless, a strategy of rational administration of natural resources extrapolates the agricultural producing situations and technical issues, arriving to cultural, ethical and other spheres. This survey was focused in the integration of the economic social and ecological matters. Maybe even the current science is not able to face these current facts and has even difficulties to guideline for solutions (show the way) in short or medium terms to these problems. In conclusion, answering the initial questioning, we consider that there is no such alternative agricultural model implying a formula or ready-touse prescription supplying all together producing techniques, prices and sustainability needed; there are many possibilities and alternatives that may and must be developed according to actual conditions and adapted to each of either cultivation, producer or region requirements; this is the only way to obtain production with sustainability in time and space. References
1

Figueiredo, F. E. R.. 1996. Relatrio Tcnico: Programa de Agricultura Alternativa na Conduo de Cafeeiro para a Cia Agropecuria Monte DEste. Campinas, Relatrio no publicado. 2 Matiello, J. B., Santinato, R., de Camargo, A. P., Almeida, S. R., Fernandes, D. R., DAntonio, A. M., Garcia, A. W. R., Cortez, G., Viana, A. S., Miguel, A. E., and Caravalho, S. P. A .1987. Moderna cafeicultura nos cerrados. Instrues tcnicas sobre a cultura de caf no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. SEPRO/COTEC/DIPO/IBC, n. 21: 148.

Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.1 (3&4), August-December 2003

Table 1. Results obtained in the crops from 1991 to 1996 for a total production, number of plants, size of sieve and productivity.

Crop 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96

Production (kg) 18700 36100 22500 33900 30400

N. plants 40.000 40.000 30.000 28.000 32.000

(%) Sie. > 16,17,18 * --35 - 25 - 09 17 - 26 - 37 16 -28 -39 ---

Productivity (kg/ha) 1169 2256 1875 3025 1882

*List of percentage of grains retained in the sieves larger than sizes 16, 17, and 18.Source: research data.

Table 2. Operational Cost for 1 ha area of coffee farming, planted on medium fertile soil, south Minas Gerais state Brazil, for 1994/95 crop.
lot: 2.500 plants/ha (4m x 1m) Productivity: 1800 kg/ha SPECIFICATION A-MATERIALS Simple Super phosphate Ammonium Sulphate Potassium Chloride Zinc Sulphate Boric Acid (soil) Calcareous Insecticide Fungicide (Copper Oxi) Fung.+ Insect.(Grain. soil) Herbic. (Post-emerg.) New Sacks (T. Export.) Tools SUBTOTAL-A B-SERVICES Agrotoxic Applying Zoning + Scattering Calcareous Applying Coat fertilisation Unbudding Herbicide Applying Manual Weeding(Review) Harvest Drying Processing Transport SUBTOTAL-B TOTAL (A + B) OTHER INFORMATIONS Financial Costs Gross Total Cost Payment Factor Total Cost Gross Unitary Cost Total Cost Unitary Gross Unitary Margin Total Unitary Margin Equilibrium P/Reference P. Equilibrium Price Producer-Type 6 Paid Price
Source: research data.

UNITY kg kg kg kg kg t kg kg kg l unity 2.4%

Region: South Minas Gerais Date: 09/08/95 Elaboration: EMATER-MG e UFLA technicians COEFIC. PRICE VALUE % % TECHNIC UNITRY TOTAL SIMPLE TOTAL 150.00 0.13 19.50 2.58 1,03 1200.00 0.21 252.00 33.39 13.32 300.00 0.25 75.00 9.94 3.96 4.80 0.37 1.78 0.24 0.09 25.00 0.73 18.25 2.42 0.96 2.00 9.00 18.00 2.39 0.95 1.5+1.5+1 8.48 33.92 4.50 1.79 6.00 4.45 26.70 3.54 1.41 40.00 5.04 201.60 26.72 10.65 3.00 8.98 26.94 3.57 1.42 30.00 1.30 39.00 5.17 2.06 41.93 5.56 2.22 754.62 100.00 39.87 6.00 15.00 2.00 4.50 6.00 1.00 6.00 63.00 15.00 30.00 12.00 8.00 12.00 8.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.88 72.00 120.00 24.00 36.00 72.00 12.00 48.00 504.00 120.00 26.40 103.44 1137.84 1892.46 196.81 2089.27 626.77 2716.04 69.64 90.53 54.36 33.47 21.90 90.53 124.00 6.33 10.55 2.11 3.16 6.33 1.05 4.22 44.29 10.55 2.32 9.09 100.00 3.80 6.34 1.27 1.90 3.80 0.63 2.54 26.63 6.34 1.40 5.47 60.13 100.00

work hour day work work hour day work day work work hour day work day work day work sack. 10%

16% R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/kg R$/kg R$/kg

Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.1 (3&4), August-December 2003

243

Table 3. Operational cost for area of 1 ha of coffee planting from Leblon Farm, south of Minas Gerais state-Brazil, for 1993/94 crop.
SPECIFICATION A-MATERIALS Simple Super Phosphate Formula 20-00-20 Organic Compound Zinc Sulphate Boric Acid (soil) Calcareous Insecticide* Fungicide (Copper Oxic) Fung.+ Insect. (grained - soil) Herbic. (Post-emerg.) New Sacks (T. Export.) Tools SUBTOTAL-A B-SERVICES Agrotoxic Applying Zoning + Scattering Calcareous Applying Coat Fertilisation Debudding Grazer (3 times) Manual Weeding ( twice) Harvest Drying Processing Transport SUBTOTAL-B TOTAL (A + B) OTHERINFORMATIONS Financial Costs Total Gross Costs Remuneration Factor Total Cost Gross Unitary Cost Total Unitary Cost Gross Unitary Margin Total Unitary Margin Equilibrium pr/Reference Pr. Equilibrium Price Paid Price- Producer-Type 6 16% R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/kg R$/kg R$/kg 196.81 2115.71 626.77 2742.48 56.42 73.13 141.58 124.87 13.85 73.13 198.00 work hour day work work hour day work day work work hour day work day work day work sack 10% 4.00 15.00 2.00 4.50 6.00 6.00 14.00 63.00 15.00 30.00 12.00 8.00 12.00 8.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.88 UD kg kg t kg kg t kg kg kg l unity 2,4% TECHNI COEFIC. 156.00 700.00 15.00 4.80 25.00 2.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 UNITARY PRICE 0.13 0.21 23.85 0.37 0.73 9.00 8.48 4.45 5.04 8.98 1.30 TOTAL VALUE 20.28 147.00 357.75 1.78 18.25 18.00 0.00 26.70 0.00 0.00 39.00 42.30 671.06 48.00 120.00 24.00 36.00 72.00 72.00 112.00 504.00 120.00 26.40 113.44 1247.84 1918.90 % SIMPLE 3.02 21.91 53.31 0.26 2.72 2.68 0.00 3.98 0.00 0.00 5.81 6.30 100.00 3.85 9.62 1.92 2.88 5.77 5.77 8.98 40.39 9.62 2.12 9.09 100.00 % TOTAL 1.06 7.66 18.64 0.09 0.95 0.94 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.00 2.03 2.20 34.97 2.50 6.25 1.25 1.88 3.75 3.75 5.84 26.27 6.25 1.38 5.91 65.03 100.00

Source: research data. h d OPERATIONAL COST - 1 ha coffee Leblon Farm Lot: 2.500 plants /ha (4m x 1m); Region: South of Minas; Date: 10/ 15/ 94 Productivity: 2250 kg/ha;by:. Figueiredo; F.E.R Elaboration: from UFLA data

244

Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.1 (3&4), August-December 2003

Table 4. Operational Cost for an area of 1 ha of coffee plantation on Leblon Farm, south of Minas Gerais state - Brazil, for 95/96 crop. p
SPECIFICATION A-MATERIALS Simple Super phosphate Formula 20-00-20 Organic Compound Zinc Sulphate Boric cid (soil) Calcareous Insecticide* Fungicide (copper Oxic.) Fung.+ Insect. (Grained -. soil) Herbic. (Posts-emerg.) New sacks ( Export. T) Tools SUBTOTAL-A B-SERVICES Agrotoxic Application zoning + scattering Application Calcareous Coat Fertilisation Unbudding Grazer (3 times) Manual weeding (2 times) Harvest Drying Processing Transport SUBTOTAL-B TOTAL (A + B) OTHER INFORMATIONS Financial Costs Gross Total Cost Payment Factor Total Cost Gross Unitary Cost Total Unitary Cost Gross Unitary Margin Total Unitary Margin Balance Pr/Reference Pr Balance Price Paid Price- Producer-Type 6 16% R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/ha R$/kg R$/kg R$/kg 196.81 2046.68 626.77 2673.45 54.58 71.29 60.42 43.71 23.25 71.29 115.00 hour work day work hour work day work day work hour work day work day work day work sack 10% 4.00 15.00 2.00 4.50 6.00 6.00 14.00 63.00 15.00 30.00 12.00 8.00 12.00 8.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.88 UN kg kg t kg kg t kg kg kg l unity 2.4% TECHNIC COEFIC 122.00 400.00 15.00 4.80 25.00 2.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 UNITARY PRICE 0.13 0.21 23.85 0.37 0.73 9.00 8.48 4.45 5.04 8.98 1.30 TOTAL VALUE 15.86 84.00 357.75 1.78 18.25 18.00 0.00 26.70 0.00 0.00 39.00 40.69 602.03 48.00 120.00 24.00 36.00 72.00 72.00 112.00 504.00 120.00 26.40 113.44 1247.84 1849.87 % SIMPLE 2.63 13.95 59.42 0.30 3.03 2.99 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 6.48 6.76 100.00 3.85 9.62 1.92 2.88 5.77 5.77 8.98 40.39 9.62 2.12 9.09 10000 % TOTAL 0.86 4.54 19.34 0.10 0.99 0.97 0.00 1.44 0.00 0.00 2.11 2.20 32.54 2.59 6.49 1.30 1.95 3.89 3.89 6.05 27.25 6.49 1.43 6.13 67.46 100.00

Source: research data. Lot: 2.500 plants /ha (4m x 1m);Region: South of Minas; Date: 11 / 04 / 96 Productivity: 2250 kg/ha; by: Figueiredo, F.E.R. whit data from EMATER-MG e UFLA

Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.1 (3&4), August-December 2003

245

Table 5. Percentile relation for the two agricultural models (CM and AM), from producing factors regarding items: Products and Services, the percentile data were taken from total % on Tables 2, 3 and 4. Prod Factor. Specif. % from"CM" % from "AM" "AM"Average Relation 95 94 96 94/96 "MA/MC" Product 20.31 29.34 26.80 28.07 >38.20 Fertilisation Service 3.17 3.13 3.25 3.19 >0,63 Subtotal 23.48 32.47 30.05 31.26 >33.13 Product 15.27 1.39 1.44 1.42 <975.35 Pesticide Service 4.43 2.50 2.59 2.55 <73.72 Subtotal 19.70 3.89 4.03 3.96 <397.47 Product 2.22 2.20 2.20 2.20 <0.90 OCH * Service 12.68 19.59 20.32 19.96 >57.37 Subtotal 14.90 21.79 22.52 22.16 >48.69 Harvest 26.63 26.27 27.25 26.76 >0.49 Harvest Drying 6.34 6.25 6.49 6.37 >0.47 Benefit. 1.40 1.38 1.43 1.41 >0.36 Subtotal 34.37 33.90 35.17 34.54 >0.49 Others Subtotal 7.55 7.94 8.24 8.09 >7.15 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
* OCH = Other Cultivation Handling (zoning, scattering, unbudding, grazing, weeping) , Source: research data.

Table 6. Costs: Total*, Gross Unitary**, Total Unitary*** and Relation for both agricultural models ("CM" and "AM"), percentile data were taken from Tables 5, 6 and 7. Cost Type "CM" 95 "AM" 94 "CM" 95/"AM" 94 (%) "AM" 96 "CM" 95/"AM" 96 (%) Total 2.716.04 2.742.48 -0.99 2.67345 15.93 Gross Unitary 6964 56.42 23.43 54.58 27.59 Total Unitary 9053 73.13 23.79 71.29 26.99
*Total Cost = It is the summation of all producing costs/ha ; **Gross Unitary Cost = Material's , services, and Financial Cost Summation, divided by number of benefited produced sacks/ha; ***Total Unitary Cost = Total Cost divided by number of processed/ha. Source: research data.

246

Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.1 (3&4), August-December 2003

You might also like