Perception of grain farmers in the Brazilian Cerrado region regarding the adoption or non-adoption of bioinputs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36517/contextus.2025.94664Abstract
Background: The adoption and expansion of the use of bioinputs on rural properties appears to be one of the paths to achieving more ecological cultivation and production, based on the three pillars of sustainability: the environment, society and the economy. Therefore, understanding the motivations and barriers that lead rural producers to adopt (or not) and expand (or not) the use of bioinputs is essential.
Purpose: The objectives of this study are to determine the profile of rural grain producers in the Brazilian Cerrado that contributes to the adoption or non-adoption of bioinputs on their properties; which sources the rural producer uses to learn about bioinputs technology; and which barriers or limitations prevent the adoption or increase in the use of bioinputs by grain producers in the Brazilian Cerrado.
Method: This study collected data from 122 farmers who answered closed questions on a 5-point Likert scale related to the producer's profile, limitations and motivations regarding the topic of bioinputs. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, graphs and binomial logistic regression (Logit), Mann-Whitney test and chi-square test.
Results: According to the data presented, there is evidence that non-family farmers may be the most suitable audience for the adoption and expansion of bioinputs; in addition, rural producers who chose to adopt the use of bioinputs on their properties were informed and kept updated through events, training courses, lectures, teaching and research institutions and regenerative agricultural organizations; on the other hand, there is a lack of understanding of how the adoption and continued use of these products should be carried out.
Conclusions: The main conclusions show that non-family farmers are the main consumers of bioinputs under the conditions studied and that efficient rural technical assistance can promote the adoption and increased use of bioinputs.
Keywords: regenerative agriculture; bioeconomy; motivations; bioinputs.
Downloads
References
Adesina, A. A., & Zinnah, M. (1993) Technology characteristics, farmers’ perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics, 9(4), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5150(93)90019-9
Brasil. Decreto N° 10.375, de 26 de maio de 2020. Diário Oficial da União, 27 de maio de 2020. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2020/decreto/D10375.htm
Brasil. Decreto Nº 11.940, de 07 de março de 2024. Diário Oficial da União, 08 de março de 2024. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/decreto/d11940.htm
Cerveira, R., Pompeu, G. B., & Cunha, C. F. (2024). Perception of grain farmers in the Brazilian Cerrado regarding the consumption of bioinputs: a case study. Contribuciones a Las Ciencias Sociales, 17(1), 2576–2589. https://ojs.revistacontribuciones.com/ojs/index.php/clcs/article/view/4261.
Day, C., & Cramer, S. (2022). Transforming to a regenerative U.S. agriculture: The role of policy, process, and education. Sustainability Science, 17, 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01041-7
Ejjem, A. A., Aremu, C., Ajakaiye, O. O. P., Ben-Enukora, C., Akerele-Popoola, O. E., Ibiwoye, T. I., & Olaniran, A. F. (2023). Perspectives on communicating 21st-Century agricultural innovations to Nigerian rural farmers. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 11, 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100511
Getahun, A. A. (2020). Challenges and opportunities of information and communication Technologies for dissemination of agricultural information in Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Extension, 8(1), 57-65.
Hair, J. F. et al. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson: New York, 7th Ed.
Hardoim, H., Martins, E., & Martins, E. (2023). Remineralizadores e a fertilidade do solo. Informe Agropecuário. 44(321), 79-92. https://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/bitstream/doc/1156764/1/Eder-Agricultura-sustentavel-tropical.pdf
Hurley, P. D., Rose, D. C., Burgess., P. J., & Staley, J. T. (2023). Barriers and enablers to up-take of agroecological and regenerative practices, and stakeholder views toward ‘Living Labs’. In: Evaluating productivity, environmental sustainability and wider impacts of agroecological compared to conventional farming systems. Cranfield University and UK Center for Ecology and Hydrology. (pp. 33).
Isaya, E. L., Agunga, R., & Sanga, C. A. (2018). Sources of agricultural information for women farmers in Tanzania. Information Development. 34(1), 77–89.
Januário, T. R. (2023). Comunicação para o agronegócio: Estratégias e perspectivas profissionais no Rio Grande do Sul (Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso.). Curso de Relações Públicas: Bacharelado, do Departamento de Ciências da Comunicação da Universidade Federal da Santa Maria, Campus Frederico Westphalen, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/31170
Kivlin, J. E., & Fliegel, F. C. (1967). Differential perceptions of innovations and rate of adoption. Rural Sociology, 32(1), 78–91.
Lemke, S., Smith, N., Thiim, C., & Stump, K. (2024). Drivers and barriers to adoption of re-generative agriculture: Cases studies on lessons learned from organic. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 22(1), 2324216.
Lima, J. S. (2023). Avaliação econômica das práticas agrícolas: um estudo comparativo de custos na agricultura regenerativa e tradicional no cerrado (Dissertação de mestrado). Mestrado em Agronomia. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Agrárias. Instituto Federal Goiano, Campus Rio Verde, Goiás, Brasil. https://repositorio.ifgoiano.edu.br/handle/prefix/4307
Marques, G. V. (2022). Um breve estudo sobre a agropecuária regenerativa e a sua viabilidade econômica em pequenas e médias propriedades (Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso). Bacharelado em Ciências Econômicas. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. http://hdl.handle.net/11422/22270
Mpanga, I. K., Schuch, U. K., & Schalau, J. (2021). Adaptation of resilient regenerative agricultural practices by small-scale growers toward sustainable food production in north-central Arizona. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 100067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100067
Mtega, W. P. (2021). Communication channels for exchanging agricultural information among Tanzanian farmers: A meta-analysis. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 47(4), 570–579.
Munyua, H. M., & Stilwell, C. (2013). Three ways of knowing: Agricultural knowledge systems of small-scale farmers in Africa with reference to Kenya. Library and Information Science Research, 35(4), 326–337.
Negatu, W., & Parikh, A. (1999). The impact of perception and other factors on the adoption of agricultural technology in the Moret and Jiru Woreda (district) of Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 21(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5150(99)00020-1.
O’Donoghue, T., Minasny, B., & Mcbratney, A. (2022). Regenerative agriculture and its potential to improve farmscape function. Sustainability, 14, 5815. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105815
Prager, K., & Posthumus, H. (2010). Socioeconomic factors influencing farmers’ adoption of soil conservation practices in Europe. In Napier, T.L. (Ed.), Human dimensions of soil and water conservation, (pp. 388). New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ruzzante, S., Labarta, R., & Bilton, A. (2021). Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Development, 146, 105599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105599
Ryan, B., & Gross, N. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15–24.
Silva, L. C., Leal, J. P., Neto, & Santos, I. A. (2020) Comunicação rural e internet: Protagonismo da população do campo. Revista Internacional de Folkcomunicação, 18(41), 186-203. https://doi.org/10.5212/RIF.v.18.i41.0010
Soto, L., Cuéllar Padilla, R. M., Rivera Méndez, M., Pinto-Correia, T., Boix-Fayos, C., & De Vente, J. (2021). Participatory monitoring and evaluation to enable social learning, adoption, and out-scaling of regenerative agriculture. Ecology and Society, 26(4), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12796-260429
StataCorp. (2023). Stata Statistical Software: Release 18. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
The Jamovi Project (2022). Jamovi Software (Version 2.3). https://www.jamovi.org
Valente, F. (2024). Insumos Biológicos no Brasil. AgroAnalysis, 44(3), 33-37.
Vidal, M. C., Saldanha, R., & Veríssimo, M. A. A. (2020). Bioinsumos: o programa nacional e a sua relação com a produção sustentável. In D. M. Gindri, P. A. B. Moreira & M. A. Veríssimo (Orgs.), A Sanidade vegetal: uma estratégia para eliminar a fome, reduzir a pobreza, proteger o meio ambiente e estimular o desenvolvimento sustentável (pp. 486). Florianopolis: CIDASC.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal: only for the 1st publication
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The authors, while doing the submission, accept the notice below:
We authors hold the copyright related to our paper and transfer Contextus journal the right for the first publication with a Creative Commons’ international license of the modality Attribution – Non-commercial 4.0, which in turn allows the paper to be shared providing that both the authorship and the journal’s right for initial release are acknowledged.
Furthermore, we are aware of our permission to take part in additional contracts independently for non-exclusive distribution of the version of our work published in this journal (e.g. publishing it in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), while acknowledging both the authorship and the journal’s initial publication.
We also certify that the paper is original and up to this date has not been released in any other journal, Brazilian or of another nationality, either in Portuguese or another language, as well as it has not been sent for simultaneous publication in other journals.
Last, we not only know that plagiarism is not tolerated by Contextus but also certify the paper presents the sources of passages from cited works, including those authored by ourselves.
3.png)
1.jpg)
1.jpg){kind=small}
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
2.png)
1.jpg)
2.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
