Brazilian poultry production system is predominantly integrated and concentrated in Santa Catarina. This is the state where the majority of small-scale farmers (less than 10000 birds) is found. The lowest number of birds found in a farm was 6000, probably the minimum size accepted by integrators. In the center west no farm with less than 10000 birds was found. See Table 6.27.
Table 6.26 Distance form farm to the major regional city.
State |
Data |
101 - 1000 |
> 1000 |
Total |
||||||
Coopera-tives |
Indepen-dent |
Integra-ted |
Total |
Coopera-tives |
Indepen-dent |
Integra-ted |
Total |
|||
GO |
Max |
|
|
|
|
|
100,0 |
280,0 |
280,0 |
280,0 |
Avg |
|
|
|
|
|
65,3 |
165,8 |
121,1 |
121,1 |
|
Min |
|
|
|
|
|
50,0 |
42,0 |
42,0 |
42,0 |
|
MG |
Max |
|
180,0 |
|
180,0 |
|
220,0 |
90,0 |
220,0 |
220,0 |
Avg |
|
180,0 |
|
180,0 |
|
82,6 |
49,8 |
74,7 |
78,8 |
|
Min |
|
180,0 |
|
180,0 |
|
15,0 |
14,0 |
14,0 |
14,0 |
|
MS |
Max |
160,0 |
|
|
160,0 |
185,0 |
200,0 |
70,0 |
200,0 |
200,0 |
Avg |
160,0 |
|
|
160,0 |
86,9 |
200,0 |
47,4 |
66,2 |
69,6 |
|
Min |
160,0 |
|
|
160,0 |
3,0 |
200,0 |
17,0 |
3,0 |
3,0 |
|
MT |
Max |
|
|
|
|
270,0 |
180,0 |
|
270,0 |
270,0 |
Avg |
|
|
|
|
203,6 |
133,3 |
|
182,5 |
182,5 |
|
Min |
|
|
|
|
150,0 |
70,0 |
|
70,0 |
70,0 |
|
PR |
Max |
8,0 |
|
|
8,0 |
150,0 |
115,0 |
|
150,0 |
150,0 |
Avg |
5,0 |
|
|
5,0 |
108,8 |
56,2 |
|
79,6 |
66,0 |
|
Min |
2,0 |
|
|
2,0 |
5,0 |
7,0 |
|
5,0 |
2,0 |
|
RS |
Max |
|
40,0 |
|
40,0 |
36,0 |
30,0 |
50,0 |
50,0 |
50,0 |
Avg |
|
27,3 |
|
27,3 |
28,0 |
18,5 |
37,5 |
26,4 |
26,6 |
|
Min |
|
12,0 |
|
12,0 |
20,0 |
8,0 |
15,0 |
8,0 |
8,0 |
|
SC |
Max |
15,0 |
|
47,0 |
47,0 |
18,0 |
50,0 |
45,0 |
50,0 |
50,0 |
Avg |
10,5 |
|
27,8 |
25,6 |
9,0 |
42,0 |
20,1 |
22,0 |
23,5 |
|
Min |
6,0 |
|
6,0 |
6,0 |
4,0 |
38,0 |
6,0 |
4,0 |
4,0 |
|
Total |
Max |
160,0 |
180,0 |
47,0 |
180,0 |
270,0 |
220,0 |
280,0 |
280,0 |
280,0 |
Avg |
38,2 |
65,5 |
27,8 |
36,6 |
105,2 |
71,2 |
50,8 |
70,5 |
64,9 |
|
Min |
2,0 |
12,0 |
6,0 |
2,0 |
3,0 |
7,0 |
0,0 |
3,0 |
2,0 |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Table 6.27 Number of sampling farms by state and production scale
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(>10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
PR |
2,0 |
5,9% |
17,0 |
8,7% |
19,0 |
8,3% |
SC |
22,0 |
64,7% |
50,0 |
25,6% |
72,0 |
31,4% |
RS |
3,0 |
8,8% |
23,0 |
11,8% |
26,0 |
11,4% |
MS |
0,0 |
0,0% |
26,0 |
13,3% |
26,0 |
11,4% |
MT |
0,0 |
0,0% |
28,0 |
14,4% |
28,0 |
12,2% |
GO |
0,0 |
0,0% |
29,0 |
14,9% |
29,0 |
12,7% |
MG |
7,0 |
20,6% |
22,0 |
11,3% |
29,0 |
12,7% |
Total |
34,0 |
100% |
195,0 |
100% |
229,0 |
100% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
The integrated system uses a homogeneous production package so that practically no expressive difference in productivity between small and large farms can be detected. See Table 6.28 The state with the worse conversion rates is Minas Gerais, probably because farmers in that state have not been adopting innovations at the same rate as other states.
Table 6.28 Index of average feed conversion by state and production scale
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Mean Total |
|
PR |
Min |
1,870 |
1,792 |
1,630 |
Max |
2,041 |
2,023 |
2,299 |
|
Mean |
1,955 |
1,912 |
1,852 |
|
SC |
Min |
1,668 |
1,630 |
1,792 |
Máx |
2,199 |
2,299 |
2,041 |
|
Mean |
1,865 |
1,846 |
1,917 |
|
RS |
Min |
1,954 |
1,473 |
1,473 |
Máx |
2,064 |
2,067 |
2,067 |
|
Mean |
2,003 |
1,774 |
1,800 |
|
MS |
Min |
0,0 |
1,750 |
1,750 |
Máx |
0,0 |
1,984 |
1,984 |
|
Mean |
0,0 |
1,870 |
1,870 |
|
MT |
Min |
0,0 |
1,784 |
1,784 |
Máx |
0,0 |
2,126 |
2,126 |
|
Mean |
0,0 |
1,918 |
1,918 |
|
GO |
Min |
0,0 |
1,798 |
1,798 |
Máx |
0,0 |
2,139 |
2,139 |
|
Mean |
0,0 |
1,903 |
1,903 |
|
MG |
Min |
2,320 |
1,845 |
1,846 |
Máx |
1,945 |
2,280 |
2,320 |
|
Mean |
2,151 |
2,006 |
2,041 |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Table 6.29 shows the animal weights at slaughtering time. There is a trend of animal be lighter for large-scale farmers. However, the final weight of the animal is not a good indicator of productivity because that weigh will depend on the destination of the bird.
Regarding mortality rates (shown in Table 6.30), the lowest rates are observed in Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul. In the center west, probably due to its high temperatures not favorable to production, the rate may be relatively higher. It is possible also that circumstantial (seasonal) factors may be affecting the sample results of some of regions in the sample.
Table 6.29 Index of average weight per broiler by state and production scale.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Mean Total |
|
PR |
Min |
2,443 |
2,064 |
2,064 |
Máx |
2,838 |
3,168 |
3,168 |
|
Mean |
2,641 |
2,546 |
2,556 |
|
SC |
Min |
1,370 |
1,207 |
1,207 |
Máx |
4,071 |
3,769 |
4,071 |
|
Mean |
2,451 |
1,957 |
2,107 |
|
RS |
Min |
1,997 |
1,473 |
1,473 |
Máx |
2,747 |
2,920 |
2,920 |
|
Mean |
2,469 |
2,065 |
2,119 |
|
MS |
Min |
0,0 |
2,175 |
2,175 |
Máx |
0,0 |
3,220 |
3,220 |
|
Mean |
0,0 |
2,632 |
2,632 |
|
MT |
Min |
0,0 |
1,697 |
1,697 |
Máx |
0,0 |
2,319 |
2,319 |
|
Mean |
0,0 |
2,114 |
2,114 |
|
GO |
Min |
0,0 |
1,920 |
1,920 |
Máx |
0,0 |
2,666 |
2,666 |
|
Mean |
0,0 |
2,236 |
2,236 |
|
MG |
Min |
1,954 |
1,835 |
1,835 |
Máx |
2,842 |
3,144 |
3,144 |
|
Mean |
2,363 |
2,244 |
2,244 |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Table 6.30 Taxes of mortality by state and production scale.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Mean Total |
|
PR |
Min |
6,1% |
2,2% |
2,2% |
Máx |
6,5% |
12,7% |
12,7% |
|
Mean |
6,3% |
7,0% |
6,9% |
|
SC |
Min |
1,1% |
0,7% |
0,7% |
Máx |
7,7% |
11,6% |
11,6% |
|
Mean |
3,7% |
3,8% |
3,8% |
|
RS |
Min |
5,7% |
1,1% |
1,1% |
Máx |
8,8% |
8,2% |
8,8% |
|
Mean |
7,3% |
3,8% |
4,2% |
|
MS |
Min |
0,0% |
2,2% |
2,2% |
Máx |
0,0% |
9,7% |
9,7% |
|
Mean |
0,0% |
5,1% |
5,1% |
|
MT |
Min |
0,0% |
1,5% |
1,5% |
Máx |
0,0% |
5,7% |
5,7% |
|
Mean |
0,0% |
3,6% |
3,6% |
|
GO |
Min |
0,0% |
0,1% |
0,1% |
Máx |
0,0% |
19,5% |
19,5% |
|
Mean |
0,0% |
4,8% |
4,8% |
|
MG |
Min |
1,7% |
1,8% |
1,7% |
Máx |
11,0% |
9,4% |
11,0% |
|
Mean |
5,4% |
4,4% |
4,6% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
The price of manure apparently follows the balance between supply and demand. Table 6.31 show that in the south manure is cheaper due to its relative abundance when compared to what happens in the center west and Minas Gerais, for instance.
Table 6.31 Average price manure by state (R$/ton.)
Estados |
R$/ton |
PR |
14,37 |
SC |
12,04 |
RS |
6,42 |
MS |
29,29 |
MT |
34,38 |
GO |
45,29 |
MG |
61,08 |
Mean |
28,98 |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Table 6.32 shows that the majority of poultry farmers owns their lands. Part of the small-scale producers operates on a partnership basis.
Table 6.32 Number of farms by land type and production scale.*
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
Own |
33 |
73% |
181 |
81,5% |
214 |
80,1% |
Rented |
7 |
16% |
39 |
17,6% |
46 |
17,2% |
Partner |
5 |
11% |
2 |
0,9% |
7 |
2,6% |
Other |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0,0% |
0 |
0,0% |
Total |
45 |
100% |
222 |
100% |
267 |
100% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
*Multiples response
The use of available land, as indicated in Table 6.33, does not differ much between large and small-scale poultry farmers: the proportion of areas dedicated to crop, pasture and forest are rather similar.
Table 6.33 Number of farms by products and production scale.*
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
Crop |
29 |
26,6% |
141 |
27,2% |
170 |
27,1% |
Pasture |
31 |
28,4% |
160 |
30,9% |
191 |
30,5% |
Planted Forest |
18 |
16,5% |
67 |
12,9% |
85 |
13,6% |
Native Forest |
25 |
22,9% |
135 |
26,1% |
160 |
25,5% |
Reposition of native forest |
6 |
5,5% |
15 |
2,9% |
21 |
3,3% |
Total |
109 |
100,0% |
518 |
100,0% |
627 |
100,0% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
*Multiples response
Table 6.34 shows that poultry farmers are predominantly married
Table 6.34 Manager civil status by production scale.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
Single |
1 |
2,9% |
7 |
3,6% |
8 |
3,5% |
Married |
33 |
97,1% |
182 |
93,3% |
215 |
93,9% |
Divorce |
0 |
0,0% |
4 |
2,1% |
4 |
1,7% |
Widow |
0 |
0,0% |
2 |
1,0% |
2 |
0,9% |
Other |
0 |
0,0% |
0 |
0,0% |
0 |
0,0% |
Total |
34 |
100% |
195 |
100% |
229 |
100% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
The pattern of schooling differs between large and small-scale farmers (Table 6.35). It is possible to say that the typical small-scale producers (85%) has not completed the primary level. Another relatively small part (almost 9%) completed the primary level. Portions of the large-scale farmers, on the other hand, completed the secondary level (15.4%) and more than nine percent graduated from college.
Table 6.35 Level of education the farm manager by production scale.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
None |
0,0 |
0,0% |
3,0 |
1,5% |
3,0 |
1,3% |
Incomplete primary |
29,0 |
85,3% |
112,0 |
57,4% |
141,0 |
61,6% |
Complete primary |
3,0 |
8,8% |
19,0 |
9,7% |
22,0 |
9,6% |
Incomplete secondary |
0,0 |
0,0% |
6,0 |
3,1% |
6,0 |
2,6% |
Complete secondary |
1,0 |
2,9% |
30,0 |
15,4% |
31,0 |
13,5% |
Incomplete college |
0,0 |
0,0% |
2,0 |
1,0% |
2,0 |
0,9% |
Complete college |
0,0 |
0,0% |
18,0 |
9,2% |
18,0 |
7,9% |
Post college |
1,0 |
2,9% |
5,0 |
2,6% |
6,0 |
2,6% |
Total |
34,0 |
100,0% |
195,0 |
100,0% |
229,0 |
100,0% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Regarding training courses the patterns between large and small-scale producers are rather different, as indicated in Table 6.36. In Santa Catarina were 80% of small-scale poultry farmers who attended courses. In other states small farmers attendance to these courses was very low. Large-scale farmers attendance to such courses is much better distributed over the country, although a concentration is observed in Santa Catarina.
Table 6.36 Number of farms that attended training courses in last two year by state and production scale.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
PR |
1,0 |
6,7% |
2,0 |
1,9% |
3,0 |
2,4% |
SC |
12,0 |
80,0% |
38,0 |
35,2% |
50,0 |
40,7% |
RS |
1,0 |
6,7% |
16,0 |
14,8% |
17,0 |
13,8% |
MS |
0,0 |
0,0% |
3,0 |
2,8% |
3,0 |
2,4% |
MT |
0,0 |
0,0% |
17,0 |
15,7% |
17,0 |
13,8% |
GO |
0,0 |
0,0% |
21,0 |
19,4% |
21,0 |
17,1% |
MG |
1,0 |
6,7% |
11,0 |
10,2% |
12,0 |
9,8% |
Total |
15,0 |
100% |
108,0 |
100% |
123,0 |
100% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Table 6.37 shows that small-scale farmers that employ family labor are predominantly in Santa Catarina. The use of family labor by large-scale producers is also observable in large-scale farms, specially in Santa Catarina.
Table 6.37 Number of farms using family labor by state and production scale.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
PR |
2,0 |
6,1% |
16,0 |
11,0% |
18,0 |
10,1% |
SC |
22,0 |
66,7% |
45,0 |
31,0% |
67,0 |
37,6% |
RS |
3,0 |
9,1% |
22,0 |
15,2% |
25,0 |
14,0% |
MS |
0,0 |
0,0% |
20,0 |
13,8% |
20,0 |
11,2% |
MT |
0,0 |
0,0% |
21,0 |
14,5% |
21,0 |
11,8% |
GO |
0,0 |
0,0% |
10,0 |
6,9% |
10,0 |
5,6% |
MG |
6,0 |
18,2% |
11,0 |
7,6% |
17,0 |
9,6% |
Total |
33,0 |
100,0% |
145,0 |
100,0% |
178,0 |
100,0% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Small-scale poultry farmers, except in Minas Gerais do not use hired labor. See Table 6.38. States in the center west are those where the use of hired labor were observed more often.
The use of credit by small-scale farmers is mostly concentrated in Santa Catarina. See Table 6.39. Tha use of credit by large-scale farmers is better distributed among states, with some concentration again in Santa Catarina.
Table 6.38 Number of farms that they use hired labor by state and production scale.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Holder |
% |
|
PR |
0,0 |
0,0% |
3,0 |
5% |
3,0 |
4,5% |
SC |
0,0 |
0,0% |
8,0 |
12% |
8,0 |
11,9% |
RS |
0,0 |
0,0% |
2,0 |
3% |
2,0 |
3,0% |
MS |
0,0 |
0,0% |
6,0 |
9% |
6,0 |
9,0% |
MT |
0,0 |
0,0% |
11,0 |
17% |
11,0 |
16,4% |
GO |
0,0 |
0,0% |
23,0 |
35% |
23,0 |
34,3% |
MG |
2,0 |
100,0% |
12,0 |
18% |
14,0 |
20,9% |
Total |
2,0 |
100,0% |
65,0 |
100% |
67,0 |
100,0% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Table 6.39 Number of farms that use credit by state and production scale.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
PR |
2 |
6,1% |
15 |
8,3% |
17 |
8,0% |
SC |
21 |
63,6% |
48 |
26,7% |
69 |
32,4% |
RS |
3 |
9,1% |
18 |
10,0% |
21 |
9,9% |
MS |
0 |
0,0% |
26 |
14,4% |
26 |
12,2% |
MT |
0 |
0,0% |
27 |
15,0% |
27 |
12,7% |
GO |
0 |
0,0% |
29 |
16,1% |
29 |
13,6% |
MG |
7 |
21,2% |
17 |
9,4% |
24 |
11,3% |
Total |
33 |
100,0% |
180 |
100,0% |
213 |
100,0% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Table 6.40 indicates that public banks are the major source of credit for poultry farmers, particularly for the large ones. Small-scale farmers obtained more expressive parts of their credit from private banks and credit cooperatives.
Table 6.40 Number of farms by credit source and production scale.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
Public bank |
16,0 |
47,1% |
130,0 |
73,9% |
146,0 |
69,5% |
Private bank |
10,0 |
29,4% |
20,0 |
11,4% |
30,0 |
14,3% |
Credit cooperative |
6,0 |
17,6% |
13,0 |
7,4% |
19,0 |
9,0% |
Integrator |
0,0 |
0,0% |
10,0 |
5,7% |
10,0 |
4,8% |
National bank |
0,0 |
0,0% |
0,0 |
0,0% |
0,0 |
0,0% |
Other |
2,0 |
5,9% |
3,0 |
1,7% |
5,0 |
2,4% |
Total |
34,0 |
100,0% |
176,0 |
100,0% |
210,0 |
100,0% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
The destination given to the credit - as shown in Table 6.41 - differs between small and large farms. The latter tend to use credit for investment (88% for buildings and equipments). Small-scale farmers also use credit more for investment (67%), but use an important fraction (23.5) for operating expenses.
Table 6.41 Number of farms by credit destination.
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
Operating expenses |
8,0 |
23,5% |
19,0 |
10,8% |
27,0 |
12,9% |
Buildings |
19,0 |
55,9% |
118,0 |
67,0% |
137,0 |
65,2% |
Building maintenance |
0,0 |
0,0% |
1,0 |
0,6% |
1,0 |
0,5% |
Equipment acquisition |
4,0 |
11,8% |
37,0 |
21,0% |
41,0 |
19,5% |
Machinery acquisition |
0,0 |
0,0% |
1,0 |
0,6% |
1,0 |
0,5% |
Waste treatment |
0,0 |
0,0% |
0,0 |
0,0% |
0,0 |
0,0% |
Others |
3,0 |
8,8% |
0,0 |
0,0% |
3,0 |
1,4% |
Total |
34,0 |
100,0% |
176,0 |
100,0% |
210,0 |
100,0% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Table 6.42 indicates that poultry farms tend to locate farther from the cities in the center west. It is not clear in the Table whether larger farms locate farther form the cities than the small-scale ones.
Table 6.42 Distance the farms for the city by state and production scale (km).
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Mean Total |
|
PR |
Min |
3,00 |
0,50 |
0,50 |
Máx |
10,00 |
7,00 |
10,00 |
|
Mean |
6,50 |
3,38 |
3,71 |
|
SC |
Min |
3,00 |
2,00 |
2,00 |
Máx |
26,00 |
27,00 |
27,00 |
|
Mean |
9,20 |
9,62 |
9,49 |
|
RS |
Min |
3,00 |
1,40 |
1,40 |
Máx |
8,00 |
18,00 |
18,00 |
|
Mean |
6,17 |
7,97 |
7,77 |
|
MS |
Min |
0 |
1,60 |
1,60 |
Máx |
0 |
30,00 |
30,00 |
|
Mean |
0 |
9,60 |
9,60 |
|
MT |
Min |
0 |
2,00 |
2,00 |
Máx |
0 |
45,00 |
45,00 |
|
Mean |
0 |
12,41 |
12,41 |
|
GO |
Min |
0 |
5,00 |
5,00 |
Máx |
0 |
68,00 |
68,00 |
|
Mean |
0 |
28,66 |
28,66 |
|
MG |
Min |
4,00 |
3,00 |
3,00 |
Máx |
23,00 |
40,00 |
40,00 |
|
Mean |
12,00 |
21,60 |
19,21 |
Source: Cepea/FAO
Table 6.43 shows that the dominant mode of disposition of dead animal is through composting, particularly among small-scale farmers. Among large -scale farmers three is an expressive use of cesspool and to a lesser degree of burying.
Table 6.43 Number of farms by disposal dead animals and production scale
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
Mode of disposition of dead animals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cesspool |
1 |
3 |
46 |
24 |
47 |
21 |
Composting |
26 |
76 |
118 |
61 |
144 |
63 |
Bury dead |
0 |
0 |
19 |
10 |
19 |
8 |
Not response |
7 |
21 |
12 |
6 |
19 |
8 |
Total |
34 |
100 |
195 |
100 |
229 |
100 |
Source: Cepea/FAO
* Multiple responses
Table 6.44 shows that both small and large poultry farmers tend to use the manure on the farm or sell it. A lower proportion would use both strategies. In addition it is apparent that small farmers tend to use a larger fraction of the manure on the farm, the opposite happening with the large farmers.
Table 6.44 Number of farms by disposal manure and production scale
|
(<=10000 birds) |
(> 10000 birds) |
Total holder |
|||
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
Contract |
% |
|
Mode of disposition of the Manure* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold |
16 |
32% |
141 |
49% |
157 |
46% |
Used at Own |
22 |
44% |
94 |
33% |
116 |
34% |
Both |
8 |
16% |
47 |
16% |
55 |
16% |
Not response |
4 |
8% |
7 |
2% |
11 |
3% |
Total |
50 |
100% |
289 |
100% |
339 |
100% |
Source: Cepea/FAO
* Multiple responses
Source: Cepea/FAO
Source: Cepea/FAO