Abstract
By applying methodological notions developed by Costa (2009), the present article sets out to define rural techno-productive trajectories in the Amazon, and compares their evolution with data from the agricultural censuses of 1995, 2006 and 2017. By highlighting the growth of each trajectory, the article discusses their fundamentals, set within the context of technological variants that have critically depended either on land or on labour, and were relatively intense, either in mechanical-chemical components or in the use of forest resources or permanent plantations. The results have underlined the significance that trajectories based on temporary crops and beef cattle have assumed within the region, as well as the risks and structural changes that this has involved. Results have also demonstrated the contrast represented by trajectories based on agroforestry systems and permanent crops.
Keywords:
Brazilian Amazonia; Agrarian Development; Rural Technological Trajectories
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Source: IBGE, Agricultural Censuses 1995, 2006 and 2017. Notes: The units are in parentheses, followed by the growth rates of the variables in the following sequence: between 1995-2006, 2006-2017 and 1995-2017.
Source: IBGE, Agricutural Censuses 1995, 2006 and 2017. Notes: Values in R$ billion at 2019 prices and relative structure in% of the total; in the legends, the percentages refer to the annual growth during the periods 1995 to 2006, 2006 to 2017 and 1995 to 2017, respectively.
Source: IBGE, Agricultural Censuses 1995, 2006 and 20017.
Source: Table B2. Notes: 1-CI = Chemical Intensity; 2-MI = Mechanical Intensity; 3-LI=Labour Intensity; 4-Total: Total of the trajectory; 5-PI = Pasture Improvement; 6-HI = Herd improvement; 7-AFSs-F=AFSs with the presence of forest management; 8-AFSs-A=artificially developed AFSs; LoadC=Load Capacity of Pasture; 9- “+” after the atribute=attribute clearly verified; 10-If “-“=attribute clearly absent; 11- If is “0”, an uncertain attribute. 12-See descriptions of the different patterns in the notes in Table B1.
Source: Table B2. Notes: 1-CI = Chemical Intensity; 2-MI = Mechanical Intensity; 3-LI=Labour Intensity; 4-Total: Total of the trajectory; 5-PI = Pasture Improvement; 6-HI = Herd improvement; 7-AFSs-F=AFSs with the presence of forest management; 8-AFSs-A=artificially developed AFSs; LoadC=Load Capacity of Pasture; 9- “+” after the atribute=attribute clearly verified; 10-If “-“=attribute clearly absent; 11- If is “0”, an uncertain attribute. 12-See descriptions of the different patterns in the notes in Table B1.
Source: IBGE, Agricultural Census 2006 and 2017. Costa, 2009.
Source: Table B2. Notes: 1-CI = Chemical Intensity; 2-MI = Mechanical Intensity; 3-LI=Labour Intensity; 4-Total: Total of the trajectory; 5-PI = Pasture Improvement; 6-HI = Herd improvement; 7-AFSs-F=AFSs with the presence of forest management; 8-AFSs-A=artificially developed AFSs; LoadC=Load Capacity of Pasture; 9- “+” after the atribute=attribute clearly verified; 10-If “-“=attribute clearly absent; 11- If is “0”, an uncertain attribute. 12-See descriptions of the different patterns in the notes in Table B1.
Notes: 1-CI = Chemical Intensity; 2-MI = Mechanical Intensity; 3-LI=Labour Intensity; 4-Total: Total of the trajectory; 5-PI = Pasture Improvement; 6-HI = Herd improvement; 7-AFSs-F=AFSs with the presence of forest management; 8-AFSs-A=artificially developed AFSs; LoadC=Load Capacity of Pasture; 9- “+” after the atribute=attribute clearly verified; 10-If “-“=attribute clearly absent; 11- If is “0”, an uncertain attribute. 12-See descriptions of the different patterns in the notes in Table B1.