CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentRural Development and AgricultureLatin American rural development

Convergence and Contrasts in the Adoption of Cattle Ranching: Comparisons of Smallholder Agriculturalists and Forest Extractivists in the Amazon

Open access
Gomes, Carlos Valério Aguiar, Perz, Stephen G., Vadjunec, Jacqueline Michelle·2012·Journal of Latin American Geography
DOI 10.1353/lag.2012.0018
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

O setor pecuário da Amazônia está se expandindo devido ao seu poder na esfera da economia política, o que tem levado diversos grupos sociais a adotar a pecuária. Este artigo baseia-se em dados multi-temporais de entrevistas com pequenos agricultores e extrativistas florestais e apresenta uma análise comparativa dinâmica das suas práticas de criação de gado. A primeira parte da análise confirma a expansão de pastagem e rebanho bovino entre duas regiões e grupos sociais. A segunda parte da análise compara aspectos das práticas de pecuária, e mostra diferenças em capitalização e venda. Os fatores que promovem a pecuária afetam diferentemente os grupos sociais e seus territórios, ocasionando implicações diferenciadas e específicas para o futuro do setor da pecuária na Amazônia.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/lag.2012.0018

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The prestige associated with cattle ranching in Amazonia can mask its low returns, creating an informational and cultural barrier to change.

    “The prestige associated with cattle ranching in Amazonia can mask its low returns, creating an informational and cultural barrier to change (Hoelle 2011, Gomes et al. 2012).”

    From Explaining the persistence of low income and environmentally degrading land uses in the Brazilian Amazon (2017) · cites this paper as Gomes et al. 2012

    The Political Economy of Cattle Ranching in the Brazilian Amazon (page unavailable) says ranching profitability in the Amazon exceeds that elsewhere in Brazil, contrary to the claim of low returns. The Discussion (page unavailable) describes extractivists learning from ranching neighbors and viewing their improved housing and electricity as evidence of greater wellbeing; it does not describe prestige masking poor returns or creating a barrier to change. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Allegretti, M. H. 1990. Extractive reserves: An alternative for reconciling development and environmental conservation in Amazonia. In Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps toward Sustainable Use of the Amazonia Rain Forest, A. B. Anderson, ed. pp. 252-264. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
  2. Bakx, K. 1988. From Proletarian to Peasant: Rural Transformation in the State of Acre, 1870-1986. The Journal of Development Studies, 24: 141-160.
  3. Barbosa, R. I. and P. M. Fearnside. 1996. Pasture Burning in Amazonia: Dynamics of Residual Biomass and the Storage and Release of Aboveground Carbon. Journal of Geo- physical Research-Atmospheres, 101: 25847-25857.
  4. Calaça, M. 1993. Violência e Resistência: O Movimento dos Seringueiros de Xapuri e a Proposta de Reserva Extrativista. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rio Claro, SP: Universidade Es- tadual Paulista.
  5. Cavalcanti, F. S. 2002. A política ambiental da Amazônia: Um estudo sobre as Reservas Extrativistas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Campinas, SP: Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
  6. Dean, W. 1987. Brazil and the Struggle for Rubber: A Study in Environmental History. Cam- bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Ehringhaus, C. 2005. Post-Victory-Dilemmas: Land Use, Development, and Social Movement in Amazonian Extractive Reserves. Ph.D. Dissertation, New Haven: Yale University.
  8. Fearnside, P. M. 1986. Human Carrying Capacity of the Brazilian Rain-Forest. New York: Columbia University Press.
  9. Gomes, C. V. A. 2001. Dynamics of Land Use in an Amazonian Extractive Reserve: The Case of the Chico Mendes Reserve Acre, Brazil. Master Thesis, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. __________. 2004. Cattle Ranching Expansion Among Rubber Tapper Communities in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve in the Southwestern Brazilian Amazon. Rio Branco, Acre, Report for WWF-Brazil. __________. 2009. Twenty Years After Chico Mendes: Extractive Reserves' Expansion, Cattle Adoption And Evolving Self-Definition Among Rubber Tappers in the Brazilian Amazon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
  10. Hall, A. L. 2008. Better RED than Dead: Paying People for Environmental Services in Amazonia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 363: 1925-1932.
  11. Homma, A. K. O. 1992. The Dynamics of Extraction in Amazonia: A Historical Per- spective. In D. C. Nepstad (ed.), Non-Timber Products From Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy, pp. 23-33. New York: The New York Botanical
  12. Laurance, W.F. 2008. "Can Carbon Trading Save Tropical Forests?" BioScience 58(4): 286- 287.
  13. Moran, E. 1981. Developing the Amazon. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  14. Perz, S. G. 2002. The Changing Social Contexts of Deforestation in the Brazilian Ama- zon. Social Sciences Quarterly, 83: 35-52.
  15. Perz, S.G., M. Caldas, E. Arima, and R.T. Walker. 2007. Socio-spatial Processes of Unof- ficial Road-building in the Amazon: Socioeconomic and Biophysical Explanations. Devel- opment and Change 38(3): 529-551.
  16. Rêgo, J. F. 1999. Amazonia: do Extrativismo ao Neoextrativismo. Ciencia Hoje, 25 (147): 34-37.
  17. Rueda, B. L., R. W. Blake, C. F. Nicholson, D. G. Fox, L. O. Tedeschi, A. N. Pell, E. C. M. Fernandes, J. F. Valentim and J. C. Carneiro. 2003. Production and Economic Potentials of Cattle in Pasture-based Systems of the Western Amazon Region of Brazil. Journal of Animal Science, 81: 2923-2937.
  18. Salisbury, D., Schmink, M., 2007. Cows versus Rubber: Changing Livelihoods among Amazonian Extractivists. Geoforum 38 (6): 1233-1249.
  19. Sassagawa, H. S. 1999. Técnicas de Sensoriamento Remoto e Sistema de Informações Geográficas (SIG) para Estudo de Ocupação do Espaço Físico e dos Tipos Florestais da Reserva Extrativista Chico Mendes, Estado do Acre. MA Thesis, São José dos Campos: Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais.
  20. Schmink, M. and C. Wood. 1992. Contested Frontiers in Amazonia. New York: Columbia University Press.
  21. Schwartzman, S. 1989. Extractive Reserves: the Rubber Tappers' Strategy for Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest. In Fragile Lands in Latin America: Strategies for Sustainable Development, ed. J. O. Browder, pp. 150-165. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  22. Toni, F. 1999. Relations on the Agricultural Frontier: The Struggle for Credit in the Transamazônica Region. Ph.D. Dissertation, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. __________. 2003. Uruará: Pecuarização na fronteira agrícola. In Municípios e gestão florest- al na Amazônia, eds. F. Toni and D. Kaimowitz, pp. 175-217. Natal, Brasil: A.S. Editores. __________. 2007. Dinâmica da pecuária na região de fronteira agrícola do Alto Rio Acre. Bra- sília, DF: UnB.
  23. Toni, F. and C. A. Souza. 2003. Xapuri: Movimentos sociais no poder. In Municípios e gestão florestal na Amazônia, F. Toni and D. Kaimowitz (eds.), pp. 337-372. Natal: A.S. Editores.
  24. Tourrand, J. F. and J. B. da Veiga (eds.). 2003. Viabilidade de Sistemas Agropecuários na Agri- cultura Familiar na Amazônia. Belém: Embrapa Amazônia Oriental.
  25. Vadjunec, J. M. 2007. The Role of Institutions in Land-Use/Cover-Change in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre, Brazil. Ph.D. Dissertation, Worcester, MA: Clark Uni- versity.
  26. Vadjunec, J. M., C. V. A. Gomes and T. Ludewigs. 2009. Land-Use/Land-Cover Change among Rubber Tappers in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre, Brazil. Journal of Land Use Science, 4(4): 249-274.
  27. Viana, J. 2004. Foreword. In Working Forests in the Neotropics: Conservation Through Sustainable Management?, D. J. Zarin, J. R. R. Alavalapati, F. E. Putz and M. Schmink (eds.) pp. xiii-xvi. New York: Columbia University Press.
  28. Wallace, R. 2004. The Effects of Wealth and Markets on Rubber Tapper Use and Knowl- edge of Forest Resources in Acre, Brazil. Ph.D. Dissertation, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
  29. Weinstein, B. 1983. The Amazon Rubber Boom, 1850 -1920. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni- versity Press.
  30. Wu, X. B., T. L. Thurow and S. G. Whisenant. 2000. Fragmentation and Changes in Hydrologic Function of Tiger Bush Landscapes, Southwest Niger. Journal of Ecology 88: 790-800.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gomes, C. V. A., Perz, S. G., & Vadjunec, J. M.
Affiliations
Oklahoma State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Latin American Geography
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2012
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
99-120
ISSN
  • 1545-2476 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-5811
DOI
10.1353/lag.2012.0018
OpenAlex
W2126281827
Cited by
38
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Latin American geography (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0137020, 9511965)
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rural Development and Agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Latin American rural development
Keywords
cattle ranching, Amazon, smallholder farmers, livestock expansion, pasture expansion, livestock marketing, social capital, territorial differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review