Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:53:14.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Soybean crop profitability: biodynamic vs conventional farming in a 7-yr case study in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2019

Eliane Araujo Robusti
Affiliation:
Depto. Agronomia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, CCA, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid, Pr 445 Km 380, Campus Universitário Cx. Postal 10.011, CEP 86.057-970, Londrina, PR, Brazil
Vagner Antonio Mazeto
Affiliation:
Depto. Agronomia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, CCA, INSTITUTO EMATER––PR, extension service, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid, Pr 445 Km 380, Campus Universitário Cx. Postal 10.011, CEP 86.057-970, Londrina, PR, Brazil
Maurício Ursi Ventura*
Affiliation:
Depto. Agronomia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, CCA, Rodovia Celso Garcia CiD, Pr 445 Km 380, Campus Universitário Cx. Postal 10.011, CEP 86.057-970, Londrina, PR, Brazil
Dimas Soares Júnior
Affiliation:
Instituto Agronômico do Paraná, IAPAR, Rod. Celso Garcia Cid, 375––Conj. Ernani Moura Lima II, Londrina, PR, 86047-902, Brazil
Ayres de Oliveira Menezes Jr
Affiliation:
Depto. Agronomia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, CCA, Rodovia Celso Garcia CiD, Pr 445 Km 380, Campus Universitário Cx. Postal 10.011, CEP 86.057-970, Londrina, PR, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Maurício Ursi Ventura, E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract

Organic/biodynamic agriculture has been reported worldwide as a suitable system to conserve or even regenerate natural resources. Due to the lack of long-term studies regarding the profitability of tropical organic vs conventional farming, the economic performance of biodynamic vs conventional soybean was studied using data from a consecutive 7-yr case study in a farm with 48.4 ha of biodynamic soybeans in Paraná State, Brazil. Analyses of production costs and financial indicators were adjusted at updated values according to inflation in the period. Effective operational costs were 4.4% higher in biodynamic than in conventional farming. The biodynamic yields were lower (3.6%) than those of conventional. Prices were 57% higher in biodynamic than in conventional, making biodynamic farming more profitable than conventional farming, as shown by financial indicators (gross revenue, gross margin, net margin, net income and capital income were 50.7, 99.9, 122.9, 150.4 and 166.9%, respectively, higher in biodynamic than in conventional). The price equilibrium point (PEP) was 3.4% higher for biodynamic farming; the leveling point was 36.9% higher for conventional farming. Manual weeding and plowing increased organic costs. Higher biodynamic trading prices than those of conventional triggered a PEP suitable for covering higher costs and thus boosting profitability. Further investigations and policies are suggested to further improve biodynamic farming efficiency and sustainability.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Birkhofer, K, Bezemer, TM, Bloem, J, Bonkowski, M, Christensen, S, Dubois, D and Mäder, P (2008) Long-term organic farming fosters below and aboveground biota: implications for soil quality, biological control and productivity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40, 22972308. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder, DW and Reganold, JP (2015) Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 76117616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Ponti, T, Rijk, B and Van Ittersum, MK (2012) The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agricultural Systems 108, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Domenico, D, Magro, CBD, Zanin, A and Boschetti, F (2015) Viabilidade da cultura da soja orgânica versus soja convencional em uma pequena propriedade rural. Custos e @gronegócio on line 11, 229248. Available at http://www.custoseagronegocioonline.com.br/numero2v11/K%2012%20soja.pdf (Accessed 12 June 2017).Google Scholar
Forster, D, Andres, C, Verma, R, Zundel, C, Messmer, MM and Mäder, P (2013) Yield and economic performance of organic and conventional cotton-based farming systems–results from a field trial in India. PLoS ONE 8, e81039. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jariene, E, Vaitkeviciene, N, Danilcenko, H, Gajewski, M, Chupakhina, G, Fedurajev, P and Ingold, R (2015) Influence of biodynamic preparations on the quality indices and antioxidant compounds content in the tubers of coloured potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.). Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 43, 392397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jariene, E, Levickienė, D, Danilcenko, H, Vaitkevičienė, N, Kulaitienė, J, Jakštas, V, Ivanauskas, L and Gajewski, M (2018) Effects of biodynamic preparations on concentration of phenolic compounds in the leaves of two white mulberry cultivars. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 17, 11. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.15835/nbha4329695.Google Scholar
Luz, JMQ, Shinzato, AV and Diniz da Silva, MA (2007) Comparação dos sistemas de produção de tomate convencional e orgânico em cultivo protegido. Bioscience Journal 23, 715. Available at http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/6842/4531 (Accessed 29 June 2017).Google Scholar
Mäder, P, Fliessbach, A, Dubois, D, Gunst, L, Fried, P and Niggli, U (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296, 16941697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maneva, V, Atanasova, D and Nedelcheva, T (2017) Phytosanitary status and yield of kamut (Triticum turgidum polonicum L.) grown in organic and biodynamic farming. Agricultural Science and Technology 9, 4244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, EA, Campos, RT, Campos, KC and Almeida, CS (2016) Rentabilidade da Produção de Acerola Orgânica Sob Condição Determinística e de Risco: estudo do distrito de irrigação Tabuleiro Litorâneo do Piauí. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural 54, 928. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1234-56781806-9479005401001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsunaga, M, Bemelmans, PF and Toledo, PEN (1976) Metodologia de custo de produção utilizada pelo IEA. Agricultura em São Paulo 23, 123139. Available at http://www.iea.sp.gov.br/out/verTexto.php?codTexto=11566 (Accessed 29 January 2017).Google Scholar
McBride, WD and Greene, C (2009) The profitability of organic soybean production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24, 276284. Available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170509990147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, B and Schurmann, A (2018) Risky business: growers’ perceptions of organic and biodynamic farming in the tropics. Rural Society 27, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabi, A, Narayan, S, Afroza, B, Mushtaq, F, Mufti, S, Ummyiah, HM and Magray, MM (2017) Biodynamic farming in vegetables. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 6, 212219.Google Scholar
Nemes, N (2009) Comparative analysis of organic and non-organic farming systems: A critical assessment of farm profitability. Organização das Nações Unidas para Agricultura e Alimentação (FAO), Rome, Italy. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/ak355e/ak355e00.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2017).Google Scholar
Ortega, E (2006) A soja no Brasil: modelos de produção, custos, lucros, externalidades, sustentabilidade e políticas públicas. Cadernos de Agroecologia 1, 831836. ISSN 2236-7934. Available at http://aba-agroecologia.org.br/revistas/index.php/cad/article/view/1637 (Accessed 29 January 2017).Google Scholar
Picone, G, Trimigno, A, Tessarin, P, Donnini, S, Rombolà, AD and Capozzi, F (2016) (1) H NMR foodomics reveals that the biodynamic and the organic cultivation managements produce different grape berries (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese). Food chemistry 213, 187195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponisio, LC, M'Gonigle, LK, Mace, KC, Palomino, J, de Valpine, P and Kremen, C (2015) Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceeding of the Royal Society B 282, 20141396. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Post, E and Schahczenski, J (2012) Understanding organic pricing and costs of production. Butte: National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. Available at https://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2-ATTRA-Understanding-Organic-Pricing-and-Costs-of-Production.pdf.Google Scholar
Reganold, JP and Wachter, JM (2016) Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants 2, 15221. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/signup.SignUp.html (Accessed 10 February 2017).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ronque, ERV, Ventura, MU, Soares Júnior, D, Macedo, RB and Campos, BRS (2013) Viability of the holding of the strawberry crop in Paraná-BR. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 35, 10321041. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452013000400014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandhu, HS, Wratten, SD, Cullen, R and Case, B (2008) The future of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecological Economics 64, 835848. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleco.2007.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secretaria da Agricultura e do Abastecimento do Paraná––SEAB/DERAL (2017) Custos de Produção. Available at http://www.agricultura.pr.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=228 (Accessed 25 October 2017).Google Scholar
Seidel, R, Moyer, J, Nichols, K and Bhosekar, V (2017) Studies on long-term performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in Pennsylvania. Organic Agriculture 7, 5361. Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13165-015-0145-z (Accessed 25 July 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar