Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:53:38.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feasibility of mulching technology as an alternative to slash-and-burn farming in eastern Amazon: A cost–benefit analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2007

John Mburu ,
Jan Börner ,
Bettina Hedden-Dunkhorst ,
Arisbe Mendoza-Escalante  and
Klaus Frohberg
John Mburu*
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, D-53113 Bonn, Germany.
Jan Börner
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, D-53113 Bonn, Germany.
Bettina Hedden-Dunkhorst
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, D-53113 Bonn, Germany.
Arisbe Mendoza-Escalante
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, D-53113 Bonn, Germany.
Klaus Frohberg
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, D-53113 Bonn, Germany.
*
*Corresponding author: jmburu@uni-bonn.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses the question as to whether it is profitable to apply a mechanical mulching technology (MT) in the Bragantina region of Brazil and assesses the technology's feasibility as an alternative to the slash-and-burn practices of the Amazon. Using empirical data collected from a prototype assessment and a few secondary sources, the paper employs a cost–benefit analysis of ‘with’ and ‘without’ technology cropping systems (plots that applied the technology are compared with those that did not) to assess the financial and economic feasibility of investing in the MT. The analysis showed that the technology is profitable, both financially and socially, mainly because it is able to produce yields that are high enough to offset the costs, including the hiring of the mulching equipment. However, it may not be a feasible alternative to slash-and-burn farming unless certain conditions are fulfilled by farmers. Most of these conditions relate to farmers' adherence to a set of rules for the successful application of the technology. These rules include the abandonment of a single cropping cycle, typical for the traditional slash-and-burn system, and the adoption of two cycles of crop cultivation. In addition, farmers have to choose profitable crop combinations, such as cassava and beans for both cycles. Since most of the trial farmers did not meet these conditions, the technology received a notably low acceptability (8%). Further analysis indicated that the main reason for this trend was the increase of total labor requirement (by 32%), though the technology reduced labor demand during land preparation to almost zero. Similarly, there was a 22% increase in requirement for inorganic fertilizers. Thus, compared with the slash-and-burn practices of the Amazon, the MT can be regarded as a more intensive method of farming which gives higher crop yields but demands higher quantities of inputs such as labor and inorganic fertilizers. The paper concludes by deriving policy implications for the feasibility of the MT as an alternative to slash-and-burn agriculture in the Amazon. Among these is the importance of creating incentives to extend the cropping period from one to two consecutive cycles. Moreover, the necessity to conduct further studies after the technology has been adopted by the farmers is underscored.

Keywords

alternatives to slash-and-burnAmazonBrazilcost–benefit analysismulching technologysustainable agriculture
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 125 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Denich, M., Kanashiro, M., and Vlek., P.L.G. 2000. The Potential and dynamics of carbon sequestration in traditional and modified fallow systems of the eastern Amazon region, Brazil. In Lal, R., Kimble, J.M., and Stewart, B.A. (eds). Global Climate Change and Tropical Ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Washington. p. 213–229.Google Scholar
2 Nepstad, D.C., Moreira, A.G., and Alencar, A.A. 1999. Flames in the Rain Forest: Origins, Impacts and Alternatives to Amazon Fires. The Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian rain Forest. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
3 Mendonca, M.J.C. de, Diaz, M.del, C.V., Nepstad, D., Seroa, R., Alencar, A., Gomes, J.C., and Ortiz, R.A. 2004. The economic cost of the use of fire in the Amazon. Ecological Economics 49:89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Denich, M., Vielhauer, K., Kato, M.S. de A., Block, A., Kato, O.R., Sá, T.D. de Abreu, Lücke, W., and Vlek, P.L.G. 2004. Mechanized land preparation in forest-based fallow systems: The experience from Eastern Amazonia. Agroforestry Systems 61–62(1–3):91–106.Google Scholar
5 Kato, O.R. 1998. Fire-free Land Preparation as an Alternative to Slash-and-burn Agriculture in the Bragantina Region, Eastern Amazon: Crop Performance and Nitrogen Dynamics. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
6 Kato, M.S. de A. 1998. Fire-free Land Preparation as an Alternative to Slash-and-burn Agriculture in the Bragantina Region, Eastern Amazon: Crop Performance and Phosphorus Dynamics. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
7 Sommer, R., Denich, M., and Vlek, P.L.G. 2000. Carbon storage and root penetration in deep soils under small-farmer land-use systems in the eastern Amazon Region, Brazil. Plant and Soil 219:231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Mendoza-Escalante, A., Börner, J., and Hedden-Dunkhorst, B. 2003. Adoption potential for fire-free agricultural practices by smallholders in the eastern Amazon of Brazil. Paper presented at the Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Deutsher Tropentag, October 8–10, 2003, Goettingen, Germany.Google Scholar
9 Hanley, N. and Spash, C.L. 1998. Cost-benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
10 Gittinger, J.P. 1982. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. The International Bank For Reconstruction And Development. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
11 Withelm, D. 1993. Die Nutzung der Sekundärvegetation in der Region Igarapé-Açu (Bundesstaat Pará, Brasilein) durch die lokale Bevölkerung. Diplomarbeit am Fachbereich Biologie, Universität Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
12 Sommer, R. 2000. Water and nutrient balance in deep soils under shifting cultivation with and without burning in the Eastern Amazon. PhD thesis, University of Göttingen, Cuvillier, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
13 Gaspary, U. and Schmidt, B.C. 1984. Planung von Entwicklungsprojekten. Eine Einführung. Sprint Druck, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
14 Börner, J. 2006. A bioeconomic model of small-scale farmers's land use decisions and technology choice in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. PhD thesis, University of Bonn.Google Scholar