| Summary: | <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 120%; text-decoration: none;" lang="pt-BR" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="color: #000000;"><span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The objective of this study was to evaluate the production cost and profitability of the second season corn crop in the M&eacute;dio Paranapanema region, S&atilde;o Paulo State, Brazil, under two technological levels (middle and high technology), crop 2008/2009, and compare the results with the 2006/2007 agricultural year. Effective and total operational cost as well as five profitability indicators were used. It was concluded that the high technology production cost for corn crop (direct seedling, sowing during the recommended period, use of simple hybrid seed, application of side-dressing fertilization, and treatment of seeds with different insecticides) was superior to the middle technology production cost (direct seedling, sowing after the recommended time, use of double hybrid seed, and no side-dressing fertilization). However, the average cost was inferior (US$ 8.5), due to a higher yield (4 t). The high technology corn crop was profitable (gross income and profitability index of 14% and 12%, respectively). For the middle technology crop, profitability indexes pointed out that the cropping system needs to be reevaluated by technicians and research institutions, regarding the adequate technical recommendations. Profitability indexes decreased considerably in both cropping systems. It was verified that, in relation to the 2006/2007 harvest period, the total operational cost increased for both technologies, mainly because of the increase of supplies prices.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 120%; text-decoration: none;" lang="en-US" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="color: #000000;"><span><span style="font-size: small;">KEY-WORDS: <em>Zea mays</em>; second corn crop; economic return; technological level; profitability.</span></span></span></p><br><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 120%; text-decoration: none;" lang="pt-BR" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="color: #000000;"><span><span style="font-size: small;">Objetivou-se estimar o custo de produ&ccedil;&atilde;o e a rentabilidade do milho safrinha, em dois n&iacute;veis tecnol&oacute;gicos (alta e m&eacute;dia tecnologias), safra 2008/2009, e comparar os resultados com os do ano agr&iacute;cola 2006/2007, na regi&atilde;o do M&eacute;dio Paranapanema, Estado de S&atilde;o Paulo. Foram utilizadas estruturas do custo operacional efetivo e total e cinco indicadores de rentabilidade. Concluiu-se que o custo de produ&ccedil;&atilde;o do milho cultivado com alta tecnologia (plantio direto, semeadura no per&iacute;odo recomendado, uso de semente de h&iacute;brido simples, aplica&ccedil;&atilde;o de aduba&ccedil;&atilde;o em cobertura e tratamento de semente com inseticidas diferenciados) foi superior ao do plantio com m&eacute;dia tecnologia (plantio direto, semeadura ap&oacute;s a &eacute;poca recomendada, uso de semente de h&iacute;brido duplo e sem aduba&ccedil;&atilde;o de cobertura). Por&eacute;m, o custo m&eacute;dio da produ&ccedil;&atilde;o com alta tecnologia (R$ 18,4) foi menor, em fun&ccedil;&atilde;o da maior produtividade por &aacute;rea (4 t). Os indicadores de rentabilidade mostraram-se favor&aacute;veis ao cultivo com alta tecnologia (margem bruta e &iacute;ndice de lucratividade de 14% e 12%, respectivamente). No cultivo com m&eacute;dia tecnologia, os &iacute;ndices de lucratividade apontaram que o sistema produtivo precisa ser reavaliado por t&eacute;cnicos e institui&ccedil;&otilde;es de pesquisa, para fins de recomenda&ccedil;&atilde;o t&eacute;cnica adequada. Verificou-se que, em rela&ccedil;&atilde;o &agrave; safra 2006/2007, houve aumento no custo operacional total, nas duas tecnologias, devido, principalmente, ao aumento do pre&ccedil;o dos insumos. </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 120%; text-decoration: none;" lang="pt-BR" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="color: #000000;"><span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">PALAVRAS-CHAVE</span><span style="font-size: small;">:</span><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><em>Zea mays</em></span><span style="font-size: small;">; segunda safra</span><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">; retorno econ&ocirc;mico; n&iacute;vel tecnol&oacute;gico; lucratividade.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
|
|---|