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

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.

Cassava root yield variability in shifting cultivation systems in the eastern Amazon region of Brazil

“…These systems require, however, a considerable initial capital, which is frequently not available to the smallholder farmers in the Eastern Amazon region. Moreover, it may take several years for farmers to begin making a profit from these systems above that achievable with the traditional slash-and-burn shifting cultivation systems (Lojka et al, 2008;Mburu et al, 2007). In this context, and to reduce the contribution of smallholder farmers to deforestation, there is an urgent need for supporting more sustainable production systems through local and national public policies (Tremblay et al, 2015).…”

A Systematic Review of Slash-and-Burn Agriculture as an Obstacle to Future-Proofing Climate Change

“…Figure 6 Schematic illustrating the conceptual framework derived from GEF project for the development of the alternatives to slash-and-burn (Brady, 1996) In general, there are two main methods for alternatives to slash-and-burn, namely land preparation, and landuse systems. In terms of land preparation, a few of its approaches include addition of cover on top of the soil/mulching (Eastmond & Faust, 2006;Kato et al, 1999;Mburu et al, 2007), improved forest conversion , mechanized land preparation (Denich et al 2004, Mburu et al, 2007Panosso et al, 2009;Reichert et al, 2014), and simple slash-and-char system (Liang et al, 2018). Eastmond and Faust (2006) had mentioned that according to SEMARNAT, the federal environmental protection agency of Mexico, the application of fire in agriculture can primarily yield conflagration.…”

“…This confirms that the fire-free agriculture can be applicable to some crops, and this may result in the reduced adoption of slash-and-burn practices in agriculture. Mburu et al (2007) revealed that mechanical mulching technology in Bragantina area of Brazil was generally profitable financially and economically. However, in order to make it a feasible alternative to the slash-and-burn practices in eastern Amazon, there are a few criteria to be met, one of which is abandonment of the single cropping cycle and the selection of profitable crop combinations for agriculture.…”

“…Denich et al (2004) evaluated the effects of mechanized land preparation on smallholders in eastern Amazonia and highlighted that the utilization of machines for harvesting fallowed vegetation and chopping it could eliminate the usage of fire for land clearing, manpower for labor, and increase the agriculture productivity. Mburu et al (2007) investigated mechanical mulching technology in Brazil. Panosso et al (2009) compared the mechanized harvesting method with slash-and-burn in Sao Bento farm, in Sao Paulo, Brazil.…”

Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Mulching in Rainfed Maize—Wheat Cropping System in the Western Himalayan Region of India

“…Lantana mulching gave greater financial returns and P-use efficiency than polythene mulching in wheat (Sharma & Parmar 1998). Mulching technology has been found to be profitable, both financially and socially, in the eastern Amazon region of Brazil because it was able to produce yields that were high enough to offset the costs (Mburu et al 2007). The economic benefits of mulching considered only the increase in productivity of crops; the improvements in physico-chemical properties of soil were not accounted for.…”