Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T12:03:53.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the capacity of small farmers to adopt aquaponics systems: empirical evidence from Brazil

Part of: RAF Social Disadvantage Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2021

Alexandria Brewer ,
Jose F. Alfaro Open the ORCID record for Jose F. Alfaro [Opens in a new window]  and
Tadeu Fabricio Malheiros
Alexandria Brewer
Affiliation:
Center for Sustainable Systems, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Jose F. Alfaro*
Affiliation:
Center for Sustainable Systems, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Tadeu Fabricio Malheiros
Affiliation:
Department of Water and Sanitation, School of Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Jose F. Alfaro, E-mail: jfalfaro@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aquaponics technology has recently been offered as a good option for sustainable food systems among small-scale farmers, particularly those seeking an organic production or dealing with land quality constraints, such as urban farmers. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence for the capacity of small farmers to adopt the technology. The unique requirements of aquaponics may create technical, economic and even cultural constraints and opportunities. This paper uses empirical evidence gathered with small-scale farmers in São Carlos, State of São Paulo, Brazil, to present the capacity of adoption for the technology, including possible limiting factors and incentives for farmers. The study conducted interviews with owners of ‘agriculturas familiares’ (Portuguese for small family owned farms) within 30 km of São Carlos. The interviews revealed that there is widespread interest in the potential profitability of aquaponics systems, significant interest in environmentally friendly practices, familiarity with organic production and hydroponics and a large base of agricultural knowledge in the community that can drive adoption. However, lack of initial financing, limited human power and concerns about product placement were significant barriers to adoption. For settlement farmers (those working on land formerly abandoned) poor soil quality and water scarcity are key issues that could be alleviated by the technology. The city of Sao Carlos present program for purchasing specific types of products from these farms could be used as a model for increasing aquaponics adoption and relieving success concerns.

Keywords

AquaponicsBrazilintegrated systemssmall-holder farms
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2021 , pp. 375 - 383
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amann, E, Baer, WT and Lora, JV (2016) Infrastructure and its role in Brazil's development process. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 62, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amosu, AO, Robertson-Andersson, DV, Kean, E, Maneveldt, GW and Cyster, L (2016) Ulva armoricana (Chlorophyta) in a land-based aquaculture system. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 18, 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, M, Little, D, Telfer, TC and Price, C (2014) Scoping the potential role of aquaponics in addressing challenges posed by the food-water-energy nexus using the maltese Islands as a case-study. in Acta Horticulturae. International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), Leuven, Belgium, pp. 163–168. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2014.1034.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CENTRO DE ESTUDOS AVANÇADOS EM ECONOMIA APLICADA (CEPEA) E CONFEDERAÇÃO NACIONAL DA AGRICULTURA E PECUÁRIA (CNA) (2019) PIB do agronegócio brasileiro de 1996 a 2018. Available at https://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br/br/pib-do-agronegociobrasileiro.aspx.Google Scholar
Decerega, J (2017) Agriculture sector gives Brazil hope in 2017. Think Brazil. Available at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/agriculture-sector-gives-brazil-hope-2017.Google Scholar
dos Santos, MJPL (2016) Smart cities and urban areas—Aquaponics as innovative urban agriculture, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embrapa (2020) Modulos fiscais, codigo forestal. Available at https://www.embrapa.br/codigo-florestal/area-de-reserva-legal-arl/modulo-fiscal (Accessed 10 September 2020).Google Scholar
FAO (2015) Aquastat Country profile: Brazil. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome,Italy.Google Scholar
FAO and IFAD (2019) United Nations Decade of Family Farming 2019–2028. The Future of Family Farming in the Context of the 2030 Agenda. Food and Agriculture Organization and International Fund for Agricultural Development. Rome.Google Scholar
Finizola e Silva, M and Van Passel, S (2020) Climate-smart agriculture in the northeast of Brazil: an integrated assessment of the aquaponics technology. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12, 3734. doi: 10.3390/su12093734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddek, S, Delaide, B, Mankasingh, U, Ragnarsdottir, KV, Jijakli, H and Thorarinsdottir, R (2015) Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability (Switzerland) 7, 4199–4224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, S, Narayanan, T, Alfaro, JF and Palit, D (2018) Solar microgrids in rural India: consumers’ willingness to pay for attributes of electricity. Energy for Sustainable Development 42, 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfeld, A, Becker, N, McIlwain, J, Fotedar, R and Bornman, JF (2019) Economically viable aquaponics? Identifying the gap between potential and current uncertainties. Reviews in Aquaculture 11, 848–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBGE (2010) Censo Demografico 2010 . Santa Catarina. Available at https://censo2010.ibge.gov.br/.Google Scholar
IBGE (2017) Censo Agropecuário 2017. Available at: https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/agricultura-epecuaria/21814-2017-censo-agropecuario.html?=&t=sobre.Google Scholar
International Fund for Agricultural Development (2011) Conference on new directions for smallholder agriculture. Available at http://www.ifad.org/events/agriculture/background.htm.Google Scholar
Jonas, G, Da, C, Humberto, S, De, E, Martins, P and Dantas, H (2016) Investimentos em infraestrutura de transportes e desigualdades regionais no brasil: uma análise dos impactos do Programa de aceleração do crescimento (Pac) * Transport infrastructure investment and regional inequalities in Brazil: an analysis of the impac. Revista de Economia Política 36, 840–863.Google Scholar
Kloas, W, Groß, R, Baganz, D, Graupner, J, Monsees, H, Schmidt, U, Staaks, G, Suhl, J, Tschirner, M, Wittstock, B, Wuertz, S, Sikova, A and Rennert, B (2015) A new concept for aquaponic systems to improve sustainability, increase productivity, and reduce environmental impacts. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 7, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laidlaw, J and Magee, L (2014) Towards urban food sovereignty: the trials and tribulations of community-based aquaponics enterprises in Milwaukee and Melbourne. Local Environment 21, 573–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mano, A and Boadle, A (2017) Brazil agriculture, agribusiness contributed 23.5 pct to GDP in 2017—CAN. Reuters. Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-agriculture/brazil-agriculture-agribusiness-contributed-23-5-pct-to-gdp-in-2017-cna-idUSE6N1ND008 (Accessed 21 February 2019).Google Scholar
Marizin, J, Bonnet, P, Bessaoud, O and Ton-Nu, C (2016) Small-Scale Family Farming in the Near-East and North-Africa Region. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available at http://www.fao.org/publications.Google Scholar
Rapsomanikis, G (2015) The Economic Lives of Smallholder Farmers. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. doi: 10.5296/rae.v6i4.6320.Google Scholar
Ray, DE and Schaffer, HD (2015) Is Brazil the reservoir of future agricultural productive capacity? Ag Decision Maker NEwsletter 17, 5–6.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, DS, Santos, NDA and Faroni, W (2018) Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC): um estudo descritivo sobre os desperdícios ativos e passivos. Revista Catarinense Da Ciência Contábil 17, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, S and Parsons, S (2014) A new tool for low-carbon agriculture in Brazil. Available at: https://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/new-tool-low-carbon-agriculture-brazil.Google Scholar
Somerville, C, Cohen, M, Pantanella, E, Stankus, A and Lovatelli, A (2014) Small-scale aquaponic food production. Integrated fish and plant farming, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. Rome.Google Scholar
Turcios, AE and Papenbrock, J (2014) Sustainable treatment of aquaculture effluents—what can we learn from the past for the future? Sustainability (Switzerland) 6, 836–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villarroel, M, Junge, R, Komives, T, König, B, Plaza, I, Bittsánszky, A and Agnès, J (2016) Survey of aquaponics in Europe. Water (Switzerland) 8, 3–9.Google Scholar
Wu, F, Ghamkhar, R, Ashton, W and Hicks, AL (2019) Sustainable seafood and vegetable production: aquaponics as a potential opportunity in urban areas. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 15, pp. 832–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Brewer et al. supplementary material

Brewer et al. supplementary material

Download Brewer et al. supplementary material(File)
File 199.9 KB