Brazilian agriculture

The miracle of the cerrado


See article

Readers' comments



Very important article. I was born in Alagoas, close to this area and I know quite well the transformation that is happening in the North-East of Brazil by now. This country is amazing. Brazil is a superpower in richness, prosperity, natural resources, peace and liberty. Miguel - Campinas - Sao Paulo - Brazil.


wonder what effect climate change will have, any shift in the hadley cells will have huge effects on percipitation and water will be key


@people worried about the environment

soil exhaustion is a concern. however, with the use of no-till and crop rotation, brazil will surpass problems in earlier American agricultural history such as the dust bowl. Allowing these root stalks to rot and be returned to the soil is also adding organic matter and nutrients to the soil, rather than full scale depletion of nutients. Also, with some of the early additions to the soil to make it usable for production, less fertilizer is needed as stated in the article. The alternate uses for forage land and animal production as well as trees in turn rows and in filter strips, runoff tendencies are reduced as these act as a filter for agricultural runoff. in crop rotation some fields ARE taken out of production, and are used to raise livestock. this can help regain forage land and also add nutrients to the land.

Brazil found an unpopulated, low income region and are starting to utilize it to benefit not only the region, but also the world. With growing populations across the globe, areas of increased production (due mostly to advances in seed variety) are needed to meet that future demand. The use of GM seeds are needed This has also turned Brazil around economically, and the fact that they needed no state backed subsidies to attain this level of production speaks volumes. Good for Brasil to find ways to use land once deemed unusuable.

Their short run model shows great success, as jslacy stated, however studies need to be done on the long run viability of the region. their farm makeup sounds very similar to the of the US, with few large farms creating most of the productivity, and many small hobby farms filling the gaps. We will see how long these yields are achieved without govt backed subsidies for crop disaster payments.

Here is the part where i satisfy all the left wing readers of the Economost and say, "Damn George Bush". i will have to say that on many accounts, the article could have nothing to do with our past president yet you feel a need to bring his name up. its like doing that bring validity to your argument. grow up. liberals want to show how great they are by pointing out the shortcommings of our past conservative administrations. i don't see our current administration spurring growth comparable to Brasil.


Yes - well written, but as usual with The Economist, one-sided; why don't they employ a decent environmentalist, or, God forbid, an ecological economist?

Here's the summary of a paper by CARLOS A. KLINK & RICARDO B. MACHADO,
Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade de Bras´ılia (UnB), Caixa Postal 04457 published in Conservation Biology, Pages 707–713 Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005:

"The Cerrado has the richest flora among the world’s savannas (>7000 species) and high levels of endemism. Species richness of birds, fishes, reptiles, amphibians, and insects is equally high, whereas mammal diversity is relatively low.

"Deforestation rates have been higher in the Cerrado than in the Amazon rainforest, and conservation efforts have been modest: only 2.2% of its area is under legal protection. Numerous animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, and an estimated 20% of threatened and endemic species do not occur in protected areas.

"Soil erosion, the degradation of the diverse Cerrado vegetation formations, and the spread of exotic grasses are widespread and major threats. The use of fire for clearing land and to encourage newgrowth for pasture has also caused damage, even though the Cerrado is a fire-adapted ecosystem.

"Ecosystem experiments and modeling show that change in land cover is altering the hydrology and affecting carbon stocks and fluxes. Cerrado agriculture is lucrative, and agricultural expansion is expected to continue, requiring improvements in and extension of the transportation infrastructure, which will affect not only the Cerrado but also the Amazon forest.

"Large-scale landscape modification and threats to numerous species have led to renewed interest from various sectors in promoting the conservation of the Cerrado, particularly through strengthening and enlarging the system of protected areas and improving farming practices and thus the livelihoods of local communities."


Congratulations! Excellent article! It is amazing how companies like this can really change the scenario of poverty in the most remote places of the Country. Unfortunately, last Monday (August, 23) President Lula (probably influenced by Dilma Rousseff) made a move towards the opposite of the main idea enlightened in this article, it is seriously restricting foreign investments in agribusiness sector, benefiting some specific groups like Blairo Maggi and others.

D Brazilian

So people are saying that those methods are irresponsible?

Those Embrapa technicians didn't anticipate problems with water and the environment?


Thank God for the many insights in "Andyvbl's" comment. Lost in the euphoria of agri-business/biotech boosterism are those nagging questions about soil and water--not the facile observation that nature blessed Brazil with an abundance of both, but the impact of heavy industrial agriculture on soil health and water quality.

As "Andy' pointed out, Brazil's absence of a northern style winter combined with vast expanses of monoculture crops makes for an insect paradise. No mention of the amount or toxicity of pesticides required to keep the rapidly mutating bugs at bay. Nor of the fact that in the US, we're already seeing the rise of "super weeds" as resistant to the herbicide Round-up(glyphosate)as the gm-soya itself,forcing farmers to apply increasing amounts of chemicals to combat soya's unwanted and rapidly-mutating competitors. Thus, the critical headwaters of Brazil's two major rivers become heavily freighted with toxic agricultural chemicals, with "externalized" consequences for river ecology and downstream users.

There's a strong current of irony flowing from the fact that most of Brazil's "low-value" soya crop ends up feeding cattle and poultry in China, where wanton oversue of fertilizer and pesticides has already wreaked havoc on that's country's waterways, destroying fresh water fisheries and proliferating "cancer villages." And where failure to protect and preserve valuable farm land from unsustainable practices and urban development threatens to place enormous pressure on the world's granneries.

Given that the "miracle" in the cerrado is actually a profound and precarious experiment, I'd caution the technophiles to rein in their triumphalism a bit, lest, like our former president, a premature declaration of "Mission Accomplished" leaves much egg on the face. And far worse, points policy makers down a road to disaster.


Great article! "lr9" shows interesting facts especially where their increased production actually came from with total factor productivity, not just their ability to create arable land. Greater efficiencies in seed type that allow for these crops to grow in their climate is probably mostly to blame for increaed yields. Also, it shows that they are becoming more streamlined in the whole agricultural process from farm to market. Perhaps they should shift their focus on making their processes more sustainable for the long run as we see their model is obviously working in the short run.


Yesterday Dilma, our future PresidenTa was in Rondonópolis to give support to Blairo Maggi, a "Modern Bandeirante" of the Brazilian frontier and our future Senator. The Brazilian Lebensraum will feed the world and our manifest destiny in our own lands will be accomplished ! It's our time !

dave of the coonties

In the 1960s, soil scientists at North Carolina State University realized that their state's ancient red clays soils were not much different from many Brazilian soils, and that farming techniques being developed for their own state might be relevant elsewhere.


Please do Brazilians a favor and go tell Lula how productive the Brazilian "bourgois" farmers are. That's his description of anyone who does not vote for him or has something that was not acquired through the official bureaucracy or direct theft.

The only thing his government does towards "helping" them is to incentivate land grabbing by rouble-rousers, the "Sem-Terra" whose great majority do nothing but destroy productive structures and lay waste the land which they will later sell or rent.

Carlos Collaco

A great article that should make every human being happy.
A major country is doubtless doing a lot of things right to arrive at the staggering figures presented.

Food production will always be of paramount importance to any self-respecting nation.
It should go without saying but no reminder seems ever enough that each one of us needs to, simply put, eat from cradle to grave.
Brazil - having a relatively large population and to its shame still facing albeit dwindling pockets of undernourished people - is now able to feed millions elsewhere through its booming exports.

The country has become an accomplished agricultural powerhouse with vast potential to raise volumes higher in the decades ahead.

Alas, an outstanding success story of fields turned green delivering ever higher yields.
Yes the territory is vast, arable land could hold many countries put together.
The point is that large-scale commercial farming is thriving making the best of the lands with strong scientific and technological inputs.
Ultimately the objective is to fill man's most perennial basic need.

If only large parts of Africa could follow in Brazil's footsteps.


Great article.

I was the World Bank Country Director in Brazil from 2005 to 2008 and saw this "miracle" at first hand. I have five comments.

First, a study of sources of production increases by eminent Brazilian economist Delfin Netto showed that over 90% of increase in output of Brazilian agriculture over the last 30 years has been due to total factor productivity and less than 10% from increased use of land, labour and capital.

Second, whereas Brazil maintained a consistent level of public investment in agricultural research for over 30 years, official development assistance (from the World Bank and others) for agriculture plummeted from 20% of all lending to less than 5%. Brazil was lucky (and smart) to go alone on this.

Third, a $20 million "mutlistakeholder" study of tropical agriculture (the IASSTP) recently endorsed the Prince Charles model -- small is beautiful and organic only -- and pilloried the Brazilian model. As the World Bank's Country Director in Brazil at the time it was my challenging task to explain to an incredulous Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture how the donor community (the World Bank hosted the secretariat) could produce such nonsense.

Fourth, the logistics of grain transportation in Brazil is crazy, both economically and environmentally. They have two of the biggest rivers in the world (the Amazon and the Parana) which adjoin a good part of the main agricultural area. But there is very little transport by river -- about 15% of grain is transported by water in Brazil, versus about 60% in the US.

Fifth. Brazil knows that small farmers cannot manage the challenges of credit, technology and marketing. In the northeast the new generation of irrigation projects is experimenting with a model of reverse concessions, with the primary weight in the bidding process going to ways in which the "anchor enterprise" incorporates small farmers in the productive chain in about 30% of the area being concessioned. This is another creative way Brazilian agriculture is attempting to charter new territory.


As already mentioned on other comments, this arcticle is very good.

However, I`m concerned that it only focused the economical aspects of the development of modern agriculture throughout the Cerrado.

The Cerrado - Brazilian Savanah - is the second largest area of Biodiversity in Brazil. Second only to the Amazon. Hence, large areas are being destroyed in order to produce commodities.

Moreover, I point out to the fact that this agriculture is conducted in a tropical country, where there are no low temperatures, which would prevent the development of the crops during winter and allow the soil to "rest".

Thus, as mentioned on the arcticle, there are two crops. So, the soil is being used over its capacity. Due to this aspect, Brazil has the highest rate of soil destruction (erosion) in the world because it is not using in a sustainable way.

Furthermore, the Cerrado is where the rivers that feeds the Amazon and also de Platina Region - Rivers Paraguai, Paraná and Uruguay - are born. It is an area that disperses water through the Amazon Basin and the south of Brazil, giving life to the north and the South of Brazil and also Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentine.

The way this modern agriculture was structurated in the Cerrado is no way near being sustainable. The soil of the Cerrado is very delicate and without proper technics, such as mixed crops - not only soybeans and cotton - , alowing productive areas to rest, et al, there will be major loss of usable soil for agriculture and impacts on the flow of water to the Amazon and Platina Basin.

The consequences of the unsustainable use of the Cerrado are impossible to predict, but logic suggests that it would affect major areas of the continent.


Half a century ago the Austrian writer Stephan Zweig wrote a book with the title "Brazil, country of future". Now, indeed, we are coming to it. Zweig committed suicide in Petropolis, Brazil. Even many Brazilians were critical of the book title. Fortunately he was right. Congratulations to The Economist for its excelent articles.


An outstanding article.

Nevertheless, as I read through it, I kept wishing that there had been some discussion of the environmental impact of taking what was virgin disused land and converting it to hard industrial agriculture, with its monocultures and soil additives and fertilizers and herds of cattle.

While the "no-till" method must aid in decreasing run-off, I can only imagine so many hectares in use and so many heads of cattle must be having a signficant impact on the environment that has yet to be measured.


Superb article, the kind that makes The Economist so well-respected in the field of analytical reporting. More, please.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

