modern technology and small family farms

8/2/2019 Modern Technology and Small Family Farms

1/6

Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics Vol. 3(10), pp. 498-503, 26 September, 2011Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/JDAEISSN 2006- 9774 2011 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Influence of modern technology on small family-ownedfarms in the Brazilian savannah region: A case study o

a settlement in Mato Grosso do Sul State

Arcelei Lopes Bambil and Olivier Vilpoux*

Catholic University of Campo Grande (UCDB), Mato Grosso do Sul Brasil.

Accepted 20 August, 2011

The Savannah region is the second biggest biome in Brazil after the amazon forest. Today, thesavannah is Brazils largest region responsible for commodity production. Nevertheless, thisproduction is concentrated around large-scale farmers. Most of the small farmers representing thelargest group of producers encounter many problems ranging from low levels of production to incomedifficulties. The objective of the research was to verify the influence of technology in problemsencountered by small farmers installed in the Savannah region. The research has been realized with acase study in a cooperative from the settlement So Manoel, in the Mato Grosso do Sul State, Centre ofBrazil. Praxeology, knowledge of how to use technology, has been identified as the most importantcharacteristic to explain the cooperative problems. For annual crops, in fertile soils, technologies canbe traditional and therefore the use of modern praxeology is not necessary. In poor soils, typical of theBrazilian savannah, the necessity of modern technology requires the domination of more complexpraxeologies. Perennial crops and investments in special structures, such as green houses also requiremodern technologies and adequate praxeologies, which were not available in the cooperative. The

results indicate the importance of extension services and training methods adapted to the technologiesused. Otherwise, the small producers of the Brazilian savannah are limited to traditional technologies,useful only for crops with good climate and fertile soil, which represent a small part of the biome,mainly near rivers.

Key words: Technology, familiar agriculture, savannah.

INTRODUCTION

The Savannah occupies an area of approximately 2million km and is the second largest biome in Brazil(Ribeiro and Walter, 1998). Small parts of the savannah

are also found in the Amazon, Caatinga, the dry region ofnortheastern Brazil, and the Atlantic Forest, whichoccupies much of the coastal region of the country(Aguiar et al., 2004). The Savannah has providedconditions favorable to human settlement since ancienttimes. According to Barbosa and Schmitz (1998), theremains found in archeological sites, such as thoselocated in the municipality of Serranpolis, state of Goisin central Brazil, indicate that the occupation of the biome

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].

began some 11 thousand years ago. The first inhabitanwere hunters and collectors of fruit, eggs, shellfish another products of the rich biodiversity, which began to b

strongly affected by the arrival of colonizers of Europeaorigin. Of these, the most famous characters are thBandeirantes who penetrate into the hinterland in searof precious minerals and Indians for slavery. Extensivlivestock has continued that process of occupatioprevailing as the main economic activity until the adveof modernization, with the introduction of netechnologies in agriculture in the decades of 1960/7(Shiki, 2000).

According to Bourlegat (2003), modernization agriculture in the Brazilian Savannah is an exogenouprocess which did not arise from self-evolution of prexisting models. The introduction of a new pattern


2/6

production is a consequence of external entities, and theFederal Government has been a dynamic element of thisprocess. In the context of public policy, the FederalGovernment initiative led to the creation of EMBRAPA -Brazilian agricultural Research Agency, and the Brazilian

Technical Assistance Agency - EMBRATER andincentive programs to the territorial occupation of theSavannah by agribusiness capital. As mentioned by Silva(2000), citing Shiki (1997) and Salim (1998), theDevelopment Program of the Brazilian Savannah(Polocentro), created in 1975, was the most emblematicand comprehensive Federal Government program totransform the Savannah as a major producer ofcommodities. The resources of Polocentro intended toresearch and provide technical assistance to rural credit,to mechanization and soil correction and other benefits.The credit had a low interest rate, no monetary correctionand long grace periods. The biggest beneficiaries were

the large landowners, contributing to the exclusion of asignificant portion of the rural population who suffered anintense process of deterritorialization (Bourlegat, 2003).The rural settlements deployed from the 1980s are aresult of this process, which can be interpreted as a formof reterritorialization.

Referring to environmental issues, the modernization ofthe savannah brought serious problems for biodiversity,soil and water resources. After analyzing the process ofdeforestation and fragmentation of vegetation whichoccurred in the decades of 1970/80, Bourlegat (2003)notes that environmental problems began with theselective extraction of timber and continued with thefelling and windrowing. In the first operation, thevegetation was removed using a chain or a bulldozerblade. During a second time operation, the plant remainswere pushed into a windrow and later burned, leaving theground without its thin layer of organic matter, as quotedby Coutinho (2000). These new techniques resulted inlarge-scale deforestation, soil depletion, which favoredthe emergence of new pests and, most likely, potentiatedthe effects of existing ones due to the reduction of naturalenemies and the introduction of exotic species(Bourlegat, 2003). This set of unfavorable factors inagriculture has created a social and environmentalimpasse which has limited the development ofsettlements in the Brazilian savannah.

Objective of the study

The research aimed to investigate the influence oftechnology on the results achieved by small family-ownedfarms implanted in the Brazilian savannah. To this endwe used the case study.

METHODOLOGY

For Grawitz (2001), this type of research is characterized by the

Bambil and Vilpoux 49

collection of the maximum amount of information about a particuand limited subject. The case study allows the development hypotheses about an issue without providing scientific evidencwhich should be raised later in a more experimental type research. The case chosen was from settlers, group of smproducers which represents a large proportion of family farming

the savannah region. The producers came from the settlement SManoel, in the Municipality of Anastcio, in the Brazilian State Mato Grosso do Sul. All had been members of a producecooperative, the Cooperative of Agricultural Production CanudosCOPAC, which made several attempts to organize the productionthe settlement, using different types of technology and diversificrops. The organization of small producers into a cooperativwhich is rare not only in the Midwest of Brazil, but in many parts the world, as reported by FAO (2009 a, b), conducting experimenwith different technologies, from the most traditional to the momodern, with cultivation of different crops, from annual to perennican explain the selection of this case.

The Hacienda San Manoel, City of Anastcio, was occupied landless peasants in October 1989. While waiting for texpropriation of the area, the occupants had installed a camp the banks of the Criminoso River, where they established smcommunity plantations for subsistence in the fertile soil near triver. Each plantation was under the responsibility of a groconsisting of four to five families. Among these groups of familietwo are worthy of mention, the group named Padroeira and the ocalled Bonito. Later, they joined and formed the group that garise to the Cooperative of Agricultural Production Canudos COPAC, founded in October 1993. Data was obtained throustructured interviews with all remaining members of tCooperative, with a total of ten families. The research also includan analysis of documents on the Cooperative available in the StaExtension Entity (AGRAER) and the Bank of Brazil, a public baand main financier of small family-owned farms in Brazil. Visitssettlements allow the realization of direct observations on site, wevaluation of the production processes adopted and the equipmeavailable.

Importance of technology in the development of the BraziliSavannah

The quasi-stagnation and difficulty in responding to social demanin most of the settlements located in the Savannah of the BraziliaState of Mato Grosso do Sul can be considered a paradox in froof the technological standard of modern agriculture, which reachhigh productivity and is located in the same area. After two decadof the early establishment of settlements in the state, most of theare weakened economically and socially and are environmentadevastated as well. Without minimizing the positive aspects Brazilian agrarian reform, the fact is that in the State of MaGrosso do Sul the economic and environmental dimensio

contradict the expectations created around it. In the period priorthe modernization of agriculture in the Savannah, most of it woccupied by extensive breeding of cattle and the extraction species of economic interest. Agriculture was practiced mainly the most fertile soils, near the rivers. There are strong indicatiothat the technology that allowed the Savannah to become viable fagriculture does not fit the model of small family-owned farms. Thtechnological matrix, or modern technology for large scaproduction, was available for land reform, which may hacontributed to the unsustainability and stagnation verified in mostthe reformed, or settled areas. The experience of the case stuexamined in this research is emblematic in this regard. Desphaving the basic productive resources - land, organization, credtechnology and technical assistance - the experience was nsuccessful.


3/6

500 J. Dev. Agric. Econ.

According to Santos (1997), farmers who migrated to the Midwestduring the modernization of agriculture, mainly from the South, feltdisplaced in front of an environmental reality different from that inwhich they lived and grew. They were unaware of the potential ofthe natural environment such as fruits, medicinal plants, animals,soil characteristics and climate. This statement is consistent with

the proposition of the survey, with one exception: it was not onlyimmigrants who felt displaced. Traditional farmers from thesavannah region also had the same experience, due to the changeof the natural environment of agricultural production. During thisperiod, with the adoption of modern technology such as chemicalfertilization, occurred a displacement of cultures from the fertilesoils, in the banks of the rivers, located in more sloping area, to thesavannah part, with large and flat areas, where the use ofmechanization is easier. The technology is developed according tothe socio-environmental context. As a result, according to Jequier(1979), technologies developed in the core countries can beeffective, but when released in the peripheral countries often causemore problems than solutions. The management of machines andequipment produced in other realities can be simple, which doesnot mean technological mastery over them in regards to theeconomic, cultural, environmental and other kinds of differences.

The so-called appropriate technology is presented as a way toovercome the productive deficiencies, without resorting toexogenous technologies. It is often treated as low-cost,intermediate or traditional technology. "The appropriate technologyshould be, first and foremost, an indigenous creation in developingcountries, and the main problem encountered is to form anindigenous capacity to innovate and not to import more technology..." (Jequier, 1979).

Concepts of technology adopted in the research

According to Jequier (1979), technology does not refer only tophysical components, such as factories, machines, products orworks of infrastructure (roads, warehouses, dams, etc.). These

technology components are only the visible aspects of thetechnology which goes further and includes the logical, orintangibles, components such as information, knowledge, technicalskill, education, administration as well as other institutionalarrangements. For Vargas (1994), apud Vitorette (2001),technology is defined as the symbiosis of technique with modernscience and is therefore a set of human activities. These activitiesare associated with symbols, instruments and machines aimed atthe construction of works and manufacturing of products, accordingto the theories, methods and processes of modern science. Basedon the concepts of productive forces and production relations,Gama (1987) identifies four components that constitute moderntechnology: "Technology of Work, Materials Technology,Technology of Work Tools, Basic Technology or Praxeology.

The Technology of Work refers to the administration of workingtimes, the division of labor, relations between workers, safety and

occupational medicine (GAMA, 1987). The author cites the exampleof ergonomics (for the design of equipment compatible with comfortand efficiency) and the Rational Organization of Work (the study oftime, fatigue, environmental conditions of work, standardization ofmethods and machinery). The Materials Technology treats theobject of work, which is [...] upon which carries the action of man.[...]. The object of a work stage may be the product of a previousphase: a log of wood is a product of the work of timber, but is thesubject of work at the sawmill which provides [...] carpenters and joiners with beams (GAMA, 1987). This component of moderntechnology studies the materials, whether natural or synthetic,which will be transformed into products. Always, according to Gama(1987), the Technology of Work Tools refers to tools, implementsand machines used. It also includes energy use in its various forms.Basic technology, or Praxeology, is knowledge. According to Gama

(1987), the praxeology is [...] the study of methods to arrive operational conclusions. It is the logic of rational activity driven action. Negro (2000) states that the praxeology refers to tdisciplines and techniques that support the other areas technology, which may include among them some applisciences. [...] It is the study of all aspects that affect the action, th

is questions of methods, standards, representation, measuremerepertoire and vocabulary, etc., in order to make effective action.

In the case study of COPAC, some modern technolocomponents that characterize the modernization of Braziliagriculture were considered from the decades of 1960/70 such athe use of credit, machinery, motor sprayer, chemical inpumechanized deforestation, trash blanketing and use of improvseeds. Also considered as modern was the practice administrative planning, the use of tax accounting and methods atechniques that are not part of the peasant tradition, such investments in infrastructure (greenhouses, dams). Technolocomposed by productive tools and procedures that are part peasant culture since before the modernization of Braziliagriculture, even if they are industrial products, has beconsidered as traditional technology. This category shall cover hoax, plow, animal traction, rake, manual sprayer, insecticide use, trfelling, manual harvesting, the use of a community task forbetween farmers and the practice of a simple accounting or noteIn the cases where there was no clear predominance of one type technology over the other, indicating balance between the use traditional and modern technologies, the technology used wconsidered as mixed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In its creation in 1993, the Cooperative was composed 24 persons belonging to 14 families with a total area 334.48 ha in the settlement So Manoel. In the arethere were 44 ha of crops like corn, rice, cassav

banana, cotton, vegetables, and 10 ha of pasture addition to large areas of savannah. This area consisteof the entire capital of the cooperative members. Thproduction was organized into five productive sectors: vegetable garden, 2) machinery, 3) livestock, beekeeping and 5) farming. In the months following thbeginning of activities, the number of cooperativmembers had reached 30 people, but the participatiodeclined, to be reduced to 10 families in the first years operation. According to Jequier (1979), one of thdifficulties faced by cooperatives in many developincountries is the requirement of a high degree of technicskill needed to manage the organization. It is essential f

people responsible for the administration to have deeexperience and motivation. For this purpose, sommembers of COPAC were sent to the states of Paranand Santa Catarina, States in the South of Brazil whecooperatives of small farmers are very strong, to attentechnical courses in cooperative development anaccounting.

With the legalization of the cooperative, the cooperatimembers had access to the Special Credit Program fAgrarian Reform - PROCERA. The amount of resourcedevoted to COPAC, released by the Bank of Brazil, waR$ 41,490.00. This loan was used to purchase dabreed cattle, wire, a chain saw, deforestation and tillag


4/6


Table 1. Results obtained from annual crops, which do not require an investment in infrastructure, according to the technologies adopted.

CropsWorkingmaterial

Predominanttechnology ofwork tools

Predominanttechnology of work

More complexpraxeology

Final results

Community crop Fertile soil Traditional Traditional Absente Good productivityCotton plantation Poor soil Mix Mix Absente Low productivity

Slash-and-burn cotton plantation Fertile soil Traditional Mix Absente Good productivity

Cotton plantation Poor soil Modern Modern Precarious Low productivity

Cotton plantation Poor soil Modern Modern Absente Loss of plantation

In the same period, two additional credits were alsoreleased, totaling R$ 19,037.00, for the drilling of a semi-artesian well. Thus, COPAC has contracted a totalinvestment credit equal to R$ 60,527.75 (equivalent to R$100,000 in 2011 values, or around US$ 55,000.00).

Beyond the resources described, each of the ten familieshad the right to an individual credit of R$ 3,192.00,totaling R$ 31,920.00. These financial resources wereused to buy a medium sized tractor and implements, andfund the construction of dams, a reservoir, expansion ofdeforestation, acquisition of lime and phosphorusfertilizers, as well as to purchase cotton and corn seedsand poisons for the 1994/95 harvest. Table 1 shows theresults achieved from annual crops, depending on theadopted technologies.

While still at the stage of community crop, withpredominance of traditional technology such as that usedin the exploitation of the lowlands, the most fertile soils ofBrazilian savannah, or with the slash-and-burntechnology, without mechanical removal of organicmatter, farmers have been successful in production. Withregard to cotton fields, the difference is flagrante betweenthe results achieved between areas deforested with abulldozer blade and those deforested with slash-and-burn technology, utilizing manual labor. The result of thelatter exceeded the regional average of productivity, whilethe other areas have comparatively low yields, includingfields where soil analysis, correction and fertilization havebeen conducted. The information collected in the surveyindicates that farmers who were members of COPACproduced satisfactorily with small surfaces where the soilis more fertile, in an area which represents less than 20%

of the total area belonging to the Cooperative. This areawas used for subsistence crops, repeating the peasanttradition of exploiting these kind of land existing in theSavannah mainly for consumption and sale of anysurplus in local trade. On the other hand, the farmingintroduced by COPAC in other parts of the Savannah,with poor soil was traditionally reserved for livestock buttoday it is used for large modern soybeans, cotton andcorn plantations, were barely able to produce to pay forinputs, except for cases in which a low of technology hasbeen used, such as slash-and-burn. In these cases, themechanization process responsible for the removal of thetopsoil, where the organic matter is located, is not

realized, maintaining natural soil fertility for a longperiod.

Table 1 indicates some factors that may have had greimportance for the production performance for thCOPAC cooperative. In the case of the most fertile lan

the adopted work and work tools technologies were motraditional. It can be considered that for cultivation in higfertility soils, the traditional method is sufficient and theis no need for more complex praxeology in order obtain good productivity. In the lands of lower fertilitraditional technologies are inadequate, makinnecessary the use of more modern technologies. In thcase, the control of more complex praxeology becomesnecessity, which was not observed with the members COPAC, as indicated in Table 1. In this case, loproductivity is primarily due to a lack of suitabpraxeology, not allowing for the proper use of work anwork tools technologies. Table 2 presents the results fperennial crops and other specific enterprises, requirinadditional investments, such as greenhouses and a damThe construction of the dam is a case that attracteattention because it is not an activity typically peasant. Ait has been planned and executed by inexperiencepeople, without technical expertise, it can be assumethat there was malpractice during the construction. Wcan cite the absence of studies of the micro water basupstream from the work being done, of the characteristiof the damming and of the construction planning. Thesaspects are part of the technology (praxeology) requirefor the construction of a dam technology, that membeof COPAC did not dominate, even if a small one.

The search for alternatives to traditional crops, drive

by the need to produce for market commercialization, leCOPAC to opt for enterprises which required greatinvestments, with necessities of modern works and wotools technologies. These agricultural enterprises relieon poor professional technical assistance and sufferefrom technological setbacks, some of which should habeen predictable and manageable with existintechnology. In the case of greenhouses, the buildinmodel was imported from Rio Grande do Sul, a SoutheBrazilian State. In this region, climate is very differenand the building project did not make any adaptation fthe Mato Grosso do Sul region, mainly concerning thoccurrence of strong winds. The sensitivity of plast


5/6

502 J. Dev. Agric. Econ.

Table 2. Results achieved in perennial crops and enterprises that need investment in infrastructure, according to the technologies adopted.

Enterprise Working materialPredominanttechnology ofwork tools

Predominanttechnology ofwork

Praxeology Final results

Dam construction Land, water (heavyrain) Modern Modern Precarious Destroyed by flood

Greenhousesconstruction

Local, weather (strongwind)

Modern Modern Precarious Destruction ofgreenhouses by wind

1.st harvest oftomatoes

Greenhouse, goodclimate

Modern Modern Precarious Good production

2.nd harvest oftomatoes

Greenhouse, warmclimate, pests

Modern Modern Precarious Low production

1.st harvest ofpassion fruits

Fertile soil, good

climate

Modern Modern Precarious Good production

2nd harvest ofpassion fruits

Fertile soil, pests Modern Modern Precarious Low production

Banana crop Fertile soil,contaminated plants

Modern Modern Precarious Plantation lost

greenhouses to climate variables is well known, andclimate conditions should have been analyzed verycarefully. The first tomato crop benefited from a favorableclimate, allowing for good production. In the second crop,held in the summer, excess temperatures inside thegreenhouses damaged the crop. Besides this problem,the lack of proper care during the first crop has facilitatedthe development of pests, particularly of the whitefly. Theperiod of the attack of the whitefly coincides with theentry of this pest in the Mato Grosso do Sul State. In thisperiod, the pest was new in the region and there were notmany technological control resources. Its occurrence wasconsidered as a major problem for local agriculture.

The first crop of passion fruit provided a good yield forthe Cooperative. The second year, however, saw theappearance of pests and diseases in this crop, due to

lack of proper care in the first year. Despite awareness tothe fact that the banana chosen by COPAC producers,the banana-ma, is susceptible to Panama disease,which was already present in the region, the preventionmeasure was limited to disinfecting of the plants withbleach, which proved to be insufficient to preventcontamination by the fungus. The choice of pest-resistantvarieties with good market acceptance would have beenmore appropriate. The results of Table 2 identify the needfor the use of technologies qualified as modern, in worksand tools of work. However, the proper use of thesetechnologies requires adequate praxeology. In the event

of severe weather (heat, excessive rain, strong winds), the appearance of pests, the results of the projects havalways been negative. In this case, as for Table 1, thlack of praxeology was of great importance. The adoptioof modern technologies of works and work tools does nrespond positively, if the use of these technologies is ncombined with appropriate praxeology.

Conclusion

COPAC technological setbacks did not happen due differences between the environmental conditions, befoand after the settlement. Although most farmers habeen born in other regions of the state and count

outside of the Savannah, at the time of deployment of thsettlement all Cooperative members were alreadadapted to this biome. The data indicates that farmers dnot stop to produce, according to tradition, in favor modern technologies. They instead tried to associaboth technologies. Initially, at the phase of collective ancommunity crops, there was a predominance traditional technology. Little by little, as the farmers trieto commercialize more and more of their productiogreater weight was given to modern technologies, whicoccurred mainly from the release of credit. This did nimply the abandonment of traditional technologic


6/6

resources nor the increase of productivity. What reallyhappened was a failure to comply with the requirementsfor the application of modern technology, causingsuccessive negative economic impacts which exhaustedthe resources and discouraged the producers.

The praxeology proved to be the most important pointto explain the problems encountered by the Cooperative.In annual crops, soil quality was a major factor. In fertilesoils, the use of more modern praxeology is notnecessary, as the work and work tools technologies maybe traditional. In poorer soils, typical of the savannah, theuse of modern technologies is essential, makingnecessary the domination of appropriate praxeology,which was not dominated by the members of theCooperative. Perennial crops and investments in a morecomplex infrastructure, like greenhouses, also needmodern technology and appropriate praxeology;praxeology not dominated by farmers in the cooperative,

despite participating several training sessions. In thiscase, the first year of crops, characterized by adequateworking material, gives good results. However, the lack ofappropriate practices to maintain the working material ofthe following years, favored the appearance of pests anddiseases, affecting incomes. As in the case of annualcrops on poor soils, modern technology is indispensablefor production with unfavorable working materials, but apraxeology able to dominate the technological needs isalso required.

This conclusion does not mean that availability ofmodern technology with appropriate praxeology wouldnecessarily lead to the sustainability of the productivesystem. It is important to pay attention to the fact thatsmall family-owned farms are subject to the market laws,including consumer demand, competition, capitalintensive use and the need for technological innovation.The use of appropriate technologies with the necessarypraxeology is useless without the existence of a marketdemand. The producers of COPAC participated inseveral training sessions for management and productiontechnology (labor), but these sessions were not enoughto meet the requirements of material production (climate,soil, crops), works and work tools technologies. In thiscase, the adopted praxeology can be characterized asinadequate to the socio-environment and therefore didnot lead to the expected results. The results of the

research indicate the importance of rural extension andtraining adapted to the used technologies. Withoutadequate knowledge, small producers of the savannahare limited to the use of traditional technologies, suitedonly for annual crops, favorable climate, fertile soil andthe lack of pests and diseases.

Even if research on other settlements and cooperativesof small farmers is required to extend the results obtainedin this study, as outlined in earlier in the description of thegoals of the case study, it is possible to estimate that thepraxeology limitations can be a barrier to thedevelopment of the small family-owned farming in the


Brazilian savannah region. This result could partiaexplain the difficulties encountered in numerousettlements in the region, where the soil is not very fertand the level of producers praxeology is inadequate.

REFERENCES

Aguiar LM de S, Marinho FJ, Machado RB (2004). Diversidabiolgica do Cerrado. In: Aguiar LM de S, Camargo AJA de. Cerradecologia e caracterizao.Planaltina, DF: Embrapa Cerrados, p. 24

Barbosa AS, Schimiz PI (1998). Ocupao indgena do Cerrado. IAlmeida SP, Sano SM. Cerrado: ambiente e flora. Planaltina, DEmbrapa CPAC, p. 556.

Coutinho LM (2000). Aspectos do Cerrado. Available in: . Access in:March 2011.

FAO (2009a). The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2009: Higfood prices and the food crisis experiences and lessons learned.FAO, Roma: pp. 68. Available in:. Access in:January 2010.

FAO (2009b). The state of food and agriculture: Livestock in thebalance. FAO, Roma: pp. 180. Available in:. Access in: January 2010

Gama R (1987). A tecnologia e o trabalho na histria. So PauNobel, p. 213.

Grawitz M (2001). Mthodes des sciences sociales, 11 ed. PaDalloz, p. 1019.

Jquier N (1976). Tecnologia apropriada: problemas y promessaParis: Organizacin de Coperacin y Desarrollo Econmicos, p. 10

LeBourlegat CA (2003). A fragmentao da vegetao natural eparadigma do desenvolvimento rural. In: Costa RB. FragmentaFlorestal e alternativas de desenvolvimento rural na regio CentOeste. Campo Grande: UCDB, p. 246.

Negro JFRK (2000). A quem serve o servidor? O ensino da lnginglesa na formao para o trabalho e a tecnologia. Master Science in Technology Teses. Centro Federal de Educa

Tecnolgica do Paran, Curitiba, p. 95.Ribeiro JF, Walter BMT (1998). Fitofisionomias do bioma Cerrado.

Almeida SP, Sano SM. Cerrado: ambiente e flora. Planaltina, DEmbrapa CPAC, p. 556.

Santos JVT dos (2004). Efeitos sociais da modernizao da agricultuIn: Curso de ps-graduao latu sensu em desenvolvimenagricultura e sociedade para tcnicos do IDATERRA/MS. Agricultufamiliar e sustentabilidade (Parte II). Campo Grande, pp. 92-98.

Shiki S (2000). Globalizao do domnio dos cerrados: sustentabilidado sistema agroalimentar sob regulao privada. Projeto BraSustentvel e Democrtico. In: Shiki S. O futuro do cerraddegradao versus sustentabilidade e controle social. Rio de JaneiFASE, Srie Cadernos Temticos, nmero 2.

Silva LL (2000). O papel do estado no processo de ocupao das rede Cerrado entre as dcadas de 60 e 80. Caminhos de Geograf1(2): 24-36.

Vitorette JMB (2001). Implantao dos cursos superiores de tecnolog

no CEFET-PR. Centro Federal de Educao Tecnolgica do ParanCuritiba, p. 133.

Yin RK (2005). Estudo de caso: planejamento e mtodo. 3.ed. PoAlegre: Bookman, p. 212.

modern technology and small family farms

Documents