1996 Results

Results from this portion of the research were obtained by the comparison of results obtained in 1986 and those obtained in 1996.  The surveys covered approximately 250 agro-socio-economic and environmental variables.  At the moment, only one part of the data has been treated and analyzed.  The main results were as follows:

1. In 1986, the heterogenity of the production systems were great.  The number of crops produced was great.  Priorities for the farmers were very distinct, with each case practically a case of its own.  In 1996, the situation had changed tremendously in terms of both land use and production systems. The definition between systems and production structures was much clearer.  Five principal systems were identified.  

2. In terms of land use, there was an enormous increase in the amount of area used to cultivate coffee (255%) and for cattle (1,300%), as well as a reduction in the amount of area set aside for the production of grains (less than 22%).

3. The amount of land used for agricultural purposes for each property increased from 2,874 ha to 9,876 ha: a 6,993 ha increase in less than 10 years for 392 small agricultural properties.  This means that, on average, there was a yearly increase of 1.78 ha exploited per farm, either for the purpose of cattle or new crops.  It is difficult to imagine another region of Brazil where small farmers could increase the area cultivated by nearly 2 hectares per year.
4. In 1996, five relatively steady production or itinerary systems could be identified:
   • Production System 1: based on perennial crops and cattle.  Practiced in 32.7% of the properties;

   • Production System 2: based on perennial crops.  Found in 24.8% of the properties;

   • Production System 3: based on bovine cattle.  In 18% of the properties;

   • Production System 4: based on perennial crops, annual crops, and cattle.  In 13.6% of the properties;

   • Production System 5: a highly diversified system, including agrosylvicultures.  In 10.9% of the properties.

5. Changes in the level of environmental impacts and production performances corresponded to this socio-economic differentiation.  During this stage of the work this variability can be analyzed in terms of the various sustainability indicators.  The capitalization provides the generalized, yet differentiated, facets between the five systems.  The same occurred in terms of environmental impacts.

Ten years after the beginning of this inquiry into the agricultural occupation of Machadinho d'Oeste, producers that had started development with a base restricted by surrounding natural resources and socio-economics had moved to differentiated productive systems. Machadinho d'Oeste is not an example of agriculture failure in the humid tropical zone.  Nor is it a model to be followed.  It is an example of a gigantic multilocal and multifactorial experiment managed by small producers which is arriving at steady results.

One should consider that all of them came as small agriculturalists and continue to remain poor in Machadinho d'Oeste. They are, however, away from the line of misery and continue to capitalize on their productive units.  They do not think of abandoning their lots.  In 1996, there existed distinct areas of poverty as well as distinct environments in Machadinho d'Oeste, each time more influenced by agricultural practices.  The production systems are the concrete and objective materialization of the existing relations between the poverty and environment in this region - not resulting from a hypothetical relation between man and nature, but as the fruit of the relations between men in the midsts of nature.