

Brazilian agriculture

The miracle of the cerrado


See article

Readers' comments



Congratulations on a very interesting article.

On the issue of transfer to Africa, it might not be as easy and as fast as some would like, I personnaly experienced the initial "system based research" of Embrapa and one should note that it took over 30 years to reach the present results. Help from some friends are also useful, as early as 1976-1980 Agriculture Canada was assisting Brasil in analysing its early planting of brachiaria to idendify nutrients and adaptability to local conditions, we also assisted with animal health issues which were numerous, and provided insemination material to improve the dairy capabilities of the nelore breed. All this and much more came at the request of Embrapa, a proof that good diplomacy and strong friends is often better than World Bank projects.

As i instinctively support Andyvbl's comments, and others on the eco-system, i cannot help but remember the solitary efforts of Dra Clara Gandolfo and her students from Belem U to explore the best ways to protect land quality in tropical climate (they pursued their reasearch alone after FAO left the Santarem research center). I am confident that other researchers are pursuing their goals.

Finally, my greatest worry is about the protection of bio-diversity, for example, the great variety of fruit trees found in the Cerrado and which could disappear easily. There is nothing more satisfying than a cajù juice on the farm. The balance between large industrial units and family farming would greatly benefit from better support to women in agriculture.

What a change one can operate in 30 years with the right instruments and direction, mostly human neurones. In the late '70 the most popular bumper sticker in Brazil was "O ultimo a sair, fecha a luz!" (the last to leave, close the light!)


the miracle will be a next generation of obese chinese and dunes and bedouins at the mato grosso in Brazil Bravo!


What a biased article. Didn't mention about biological importance of the Cerrado, it's diversity's importance and the environmental impact of turning an extremely important biodiversity into world big farm.
It was horrible when the author made this argument "
And Brazil has done it without deforesting the Amazon. The great expansion of farmland has taken place 1,000km from the jungle."
How dummy is the phrase, no? you destroy another biodiversity, but preserve a little bit of the rain forest.
There are many animals and plants threated by this farm's expansion, there is a climate change impact of deforestation that has not been considered here, not to mention water resources.
Please, if I was you, author, I would write an article about the effects of deforastation of the Cerrado.


It is a nice article, demonstrating the significance of investing in agricultural research, based on farm-household systems approach. However, if this model is only oriented to suit large-scale farmers (as appears to be the case), it would have to be significantly modified before it suits even the Savannah farmers in Africa, which are mostly small in nature of their production and are hardly integrated into the market.


A very interesting article.

I too have concerns about loss of biodiversity and future environmental problems. I think those have been voiced sufficiently already in previous comments.

However I'd add the point that globally if people limited their meat intake, much of the current cultivation in Brazil would not be necessary. As I am sure most people are aware, modern meat production is a very inefficient use of edible crops such as soya and maize.

So those commenting negatively here on what Brazil is doing would do well to examine their own habits. If your meat consumption is above the global average, you are part of the problem.


Over-expliotation of the land and water resources could lead to future desertification. Africa should go for more sustainable agriculture development rather than follow blindly the large agri-business model of Brazil.


I read a couple of comments mentioning the benefits of leaving land fallow and bemoaning the fact that Brazil's agriculture strategy involves year-round farming that is unsustainably soil-depleting. I offer that proper crop-rotation is usually more restorative than simply allowing the land to "rest"; this is not incompatible with year-round farming.


I found this article very informative and share many of the concerns of other commentators. I live in a main agricultural area of western Canada where no-till farming is ever more widely practised. The main purpose here is to conserve soil moisture and reduce wind erosion. The dark side is the subsequent reliance on herbicides to control weeds.

That being said, it seems to me that the Brazilians have developed this area through application of the same practises that have revolutionized European and North American agriculture. As a result, the now will have to deal with similar consequential issues. It is fine to have concern for sustainability and preservation of the natural ecosystem, but these matters are for the Brazilians to deal with. I get a bit fed up with people weighing in on the environmental side of this from wealthy countries where there is almost no natural ecosystem remaining. Europeans and North Americans need to look to their own backyards. The Brazilians will get there in their own time. First, they need to educate and economically empower a vast population which is in need of everything we take for granted.

This model could probably be transplanted to Africa with great positive affect. When I say the model, I refer to the establishment of a research institute dedicated to agricultural development. In Africa, this would probably mean centres specific to each country, and one might reasonably wonder why a body like the U.N. has not already acted on this need. Surely the many millions squandered by corrupt government officials over the decades could have accomplished a similar miracle in many African countries. At the edge of the Southern Sahara, the main issue would probably be water management. The payoff would be recovering desert land for agriculture and ending the recurrent food insecurity in that area. As regards the preservation of environments, the overriding issue remains too many people at the world's trough.


This article fails to point out some key pitfalls of brazilian current production model, as already noted in some comments. Despite the positive increase in productivity, there are major costs and risks embedded in the brazilian model. For example, the rural debt of Brazilian farmers is enormous and has been rolling for over a decade now. In 2008, it was estimated at R$87 billion, 85% of which from large producers (http://www.reporterbrasil.org.br/exibe.php?id=1495). Furthermore, the arable land pointed out by the author as available for expanding production is covered by cerrado, one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world.


There are two points I would like to raise. First is that the available arable land pointed out by the author is currently covered by cerrado, one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world (please checka a map from CI - http://www.conservation.org.br/arquivos/RelatDesmatamCerrado.pdf). Secondly is that the rural debt of Brazilian farmers is enormous and has been rolling for over a decade now. In 2008, it was estimated at R$87 billion, 85% of which from large producers (http://www.reporterbrasil.org.br/exibe.php?id=1495). These two issues, added to the points made by others on the importance of cerrado, illustrate some of the costs embeded on brazilian model. Despite the positive increase in productitivity , the model should be seen with care and more criticism than what was shown by this article.

Sense Seeker

While I agree that the increase in production is near-miraculous and that the EMBRAPA model is great, I share the concerns of others on this forum regarding the ecogical and social impacts of this kind of agribusiness.

From the tone of this article, one might get the impression that the Cerrado is nothing but useless bush and that small farmers are nothing but an unproductive nuisance.


This article was very informative. But it would have been much better if it had addressed some big questions such as:
- what is the effect on biodiversity in the Cerrado, and what more can be done to mitigate habitat loss?
-what is the effect of this intensive farming on soils? Are their nutrients and bitrogen-fixing bacteria being depleted or maintained? Is it sustainable?

- is over-reliance on single crops like African grass going to pose the risk of crop failure in the future?
- Does monoculture, as opposed to diversified farming, reduce the financial stability of farmers?

Also, the article says that half the farms in Brazil are small and "produce just 7% of farm output". But that statistic doesn't prove that 'bigger is better'. What is their productivity per hectare for the same crops? Small farms are often more intensively worked, with a higher labour to land ratio. Trees and market-garden crops are more productive per acre than cereals, and less suited to mechanisation. Mixed-farming can be more productive than monoculture. And obviously, productivity will depend on the soil quality at each site.


Quite impressive what a government sponsored research and development program can change, even while the rest of the world tries to spoil the party by subsidizing directly their own production or more precisely the dumping of agricultural surplus output on the inernational markets.
A very good example also for the rich parts of the world of what kind of success an industrial policy could achieve in different areas of science & technology as well without spending billions for eternal 'cradle' subsidies.


It is impressive that Brazil has become this agricultural power house of the tropics. Too bad that nothing is being done to protect the Cerrado ecosystem. Brazilian savanna is beautiful.


I lived there, in the west of Bahia for almost 18 years, in the city of Barreiras. What I can say is that the region grows more than China, some studies say 16% per year. But as China, remains a poor region compared to other regions of Brazil. There is a paradigm change, but it will take some years for the region to enjoy its full potential.
The path is right, but still the problem of infrastructure disrupting the Brazilian farmer. Fact that may change soon with the construction of railroads for the disposal of agricultural production.


The article makes it seem deplorable to devastate the Amazon (correct) but OK to destroy the cerrado (incorrect)... Both are equally important natural environments, but why is it that, (seemingly) in the view of the article's writer, only the former deserves to be preserved?


But Mr Collaco, - it's far too simplistic to call the Cerrado unused, it is a major ecosystem. Some ecologists call it the upsidedown Amazon because most of its biodiversity (and carbon) is below ground.

This is now a major problem for our planet, because people in most countries think like you do. It is leading to destruction of ecosystems that ultimately we depend on for a range of vital services. Everywhere they are degrading and globally net primary productivity is declining so that ultimately we are destroying the very places from which we evolved.

We surely have to have a more serious discussion than you or The Economist seems capable of mustering.

Carlos Collaco

The diversity of public opinion is well reflected in the comments posted to this article.

However much opinion may differ on issues ranging from the environmental impact of such large-scale farming to the driving factors for its commercial profitability, I prefer to stress and dwell on what is essentially a success story.
One that, because it is about as sensitive an area as food production, should principally be regarded with respect and hope.

When a single entity - EMBRAPA - is set up with the specific objective of working towards improving soils ahead of mechanized farming factoring in huge economies of scale, I can only praise the men who had this vision.
The fruits have now riped 30-40 years on.

Brazil will never be the same again after this massive transformation of large tracts of disused savannah to useful agricultural use.
All discussion, debate or confrontation henceforth - no matter in what form, shape or pitch - takes place from a higher platform of wealth already created.
A large country that has achieved self-sufficiency in multiple commodities and moved on to bring them to world markets for sale as well.

Many will try to downplay the transformation by pointing out to the country's size and still plentiful arable land availability.
Others will stick to the environmental cost of meddling with Nature's own ways and bounty.

While most may have a point, at the end of the day the outstanding one truly is that land has been made green to feed the mouths of millions in the country and across the world.

On balance a major win-win story that confirms how important key policy decisions are that may ultimately impact the greatest number.
Brazil's vibrant private sector rose to the challenge but it was EMBRAPA - its corps of scientists, researchers and all who are part of the body of knowledge and expertise in agriculture - who made it possible by doing the groundbreaking work. Literally.

Brazil as a whole and the larger world are winners beyond any rational doubt.

AB ve

Good for Brazil.
For reasons of geography, ecology and social structures, Brazil cannot be repeated in South Asia or Africa.

Geography, a single farm of thousands of hectares is difficult due to highly uneven terrain.

Ecology, the rainfall pattern is very different than Brazil.

Social Structures, people are emotionally attached to their village, farm and cattle. They worship cows in India and keep feeding the ones which don't give milk. Cattle are like family members to many Indian villagers.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Crimea votes to secede: Ukraine's amputation
Eastern approaches 17 mins ago
Car ban in the French capital: Paris in the smog
Charlemagne 1 hrs 21 mins ago
Bitcoin: New money
Free exchange March 17th, 8:18
The Economist on China: Weekly round-up
Analects March 17th, 4:34


Products & events