Perception of grain farmers in the Brazilian Cerrado region regarding the adoption or non-adoption of bioinputs

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36517/contextus.2025.94664

Abstract

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

Author Biographies

Ricardo Cerveira, State University of Campinas (FCA/UNICAMP)

CEO of the Biosystemic Institute

PhD in Administration from the Postgraduate Program in Administration (PPGA) at the Faculty of Applied Sciences of the State University of Campinas (FCA/UNICAMP)

Georgia Bertoni Pompeu, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP)

Undergraduate student in Administration at the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP)

PhD in Science from the Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture of the University of São Paulo (CENA/USP)

Christiano França da Cunha, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (FCA/UNICAMP)

Professor of the Postgraduate Program in Administration (PPGA) at the Faculty of Applied Sciences of the State University of Campinas (FCA/UNICAMP)

PhD in Administration from the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting at the University of São Paulo (FEA/USP)

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.

Downloads

Published

2025-06-18

How to Cite

Cerveira, R., Pompeu, G. B., & Cunha, C. F. da. (2025). Perception of grain farmers in the Brazilian Cerrado region regarding the adoption or non-adoption of bioinputs. Contextus - Contemporary Journal of Economics and Management, 23, e94664. https://doi.org/10.36517/contextus.2025.94664

Issue

Section

Articles