Resumo
Utilizando noções metodológicas desenvolvidas por Costa (2009), o presente artigo delimita trajetórias tecnoprodutivas rurais na Amazônia e compara sua evolução com dados dos censos agrícolas de 1995, 2006 e 2017. Destacando o crescimento de cada uma dessas trajetórias, discute seus fundamentos no contexto de variantes tecnológicas que dependiam criticamente da terra ou do trabalho, eram mais ou menos intensas em componentes mecânico-químicos ou no uso de recursos florestais ou plantações permanentes. Os resultados destacam o peso que as trajetórias com base em culturas temporárias e bovinos de corte assumiram na região, bem como os riscos e as mudanças estruturais que isso envolve. Os resultados também demonstram o contraponto representado pelas trajetórias baseadas em sistemas agroflorestais e culturas permanentes.
Palavras-chave:
Amazônia brasileira; Desenvolvimento Agrário; Trajetórias Tecnológicas Rurais
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.