Environmental impacts of the conversion to organic honey production in family units of small farmers in Brazil

  • Euclides Reuter de OliveiraEmail author
  • Elaine Barbosa Muniz
  • João Paulo Guimarães Soares
  • Marisa de Fátima Lomba Farias
  • Jefferson Rodrigues Gandra
  • Andréa Maria de Araújo Gabriel
  • Juaci Vitória Malaquias
  • Thaís Lemos Pereira


The objective of this work was to evaluate the ecological and environmental impacts of a group of family farmers in converting to organic production of honey, using the Ambitec method of animal production. A group of eight family production units were evaluated, with a comparative approach between the years of 2012 and 2014. The data for the survey was obtained through questionnaires applied to the representatives of the family production units, which attributed, for each variable studied, the value that represented the change provided by the implementation of the technology. After the insertion of the coefficients of change of each variable of environmental and ecological indicators per unit of production, the impact coefficient was automatically calculated through the Ambitec spreadsheet constructed by weighing matrices. It was observed that of the 25 indicators analyzed, 17 presented statistical differences (P < 0.05), but three indicators did not contribute to the improvement of the transition from the conventional to the organic. The average overall impact index for the conventional system was μ = − 1.5 and for the organic system μ = 3.7. There was a 17.79% increase in technology (PIT) for the transition from conventional production to the organic honey production system. There was a positive socio-environmental and ecological impact for beekeepers with the use of technologies introduced in the process of transition to organic honey production system.


Agroecology Family agriculture Ambitec Organic honey 


Funding information

Financial support was received from CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development), MEC (Ministry of Education), CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) and UFGD (Federal University of Grande Dourados) via PROEX (Dean’s Office for Community Outreach and Culture), and the Center of Agroecology and Organic Production in Vegetal and Animal System of the UFGD.


  1. Almeida LMA, Rigolin TB (2002) Geografia. Ática, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  2. Ávila AFD, Rodrigues GS, Vedovoto GL (2008) Evaluation of the impacts of technologies generated by Embrapa: reference methodology. Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, Brasília (DF)Google Scholar
  3. Bacaxixi P, Bueno CEMS, Ricardo HÁ, Epiphanio PD, Silva DP, Barros BMC, Silva TF, Bosquê GG, Lima FCC (2011) The importance of beekeeping in Brazil. Rev Cient Eletr Agro 20:34−56Google Scholar
  4. Barreto HFM, Soares JPG, Morais DAEF, Silva ACC, Salman AKD (2010) Environmental impacts of the agro-ecological management of the caatinga in Rio Grande do Norte. Pesq Agrop Brasileira 45:1073–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barros AIRNA, Nunes FHFM, Costa MMF (2009) Manual of good practices in the production of beeswax: general principles. Portugal: FnapGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasil (2003) Lei Federal n° 10831, DE 23 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2003. Dispõe sobre a agricultura orgânica e dá outras providências. Brasília, Diário Oficial da União de 24/12/2003, Seção 1, Página 8Google Scholar
  7. Brasil (2011a). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Instrução normativa n 46. Legislation for Organic Animal and Plant Production Systems. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 23 dez. 2011. Brasília: MAPAGoogle Scholar
  8. Brasil (2011b). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Honey and bee products. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Secretaria Executiva. Brasília: MAPA/ACSGoogle Scholar
  9. Campolin AI, Feiden A (2011) Participatory Methodologies in Agroecology. Corumbá: Embrapa Pantanal, 2011. 14 p. (Documentos, 115)Google Scholar
  10. EMBRAPA (2003) Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Produção de Mel. In: SISTEMAS DE PRODUÇÃO, 3. Embrapa Meio Norte, Teresina−PI. URL:−3.PDF. Acessed  22 Feb 2019
  11. Feiden A, Almeida DL, Vitoi V, Assis RL (2002) Processo de conversão de sistemas de produção convencionais para sistemas de produção orgânicos. Cad Cien e Tecno CC&T 19:179−204Google Scholar
  12. Figueiredo EAP, Soares JPG (2012) Organic animal production systems: technical and economic dimensions. Proceedings of REUNIÃO ANUAL DA SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE ZOOTECNIA, 49., 2012, Brasília. Animal production in the changing world: Annals Brasília, DF: SBZ, 2012Google Scholar
  13. Hötzel MJ, Nogueira SSC, Machado Filho LCP (2010) Animal welfare of animals: from animal needs to human possibilities. Rev de Etol 9:1−10Google Scholar
  14. IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, (2016) Municipal Livestock Production. URL: Acessed 22 Feb 2019
  15. Irias LJM, Gebler L, Palhares JCP, Rosa MF, Rodrigues GS (2004) Assessing the environmental impact assessment of agricultural technological innovations − An application of the AMBITEC System. Agric São Paulo, São Paulo 51:23−39Google Scholar
  16. Mariani CM, Henkes JA (2015) Organic agriculture vs. conventional agriculture solutions to minimize the use of industrialized inputs. Rev Gest Sust Amb 3:315−338Google Scholar
  17. Matos EJA, Santos HC, Silva, SEM, Correia RC (2014) Good beekeeping management practices. Petrolina: UNIVASF: Embrapa Semiárido, ChesfGoogle Scholar
  18. Mendes CG, Silva JBA, Mesquita LX, Maracajá PB (2009) Honey analysis: review. Rev Caatinga 22:07−14Google Scholar
  19. Mie A, Andersen HR, Gunnarsson S, Kahl J, Kesse−Guyot E, Rembiałkowska E, Quaglio G, Grandjean P (2017) Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: a comprehensive review. Environ Health 16:111.
  20. Monteiro RC, Rodrigues GS (2006) A system of integrated indicators for socio-environmental assessment and eco-certification in agriculture. J Technol Manag Innov 1:47–59Google Scholar
  21. Porter AL (1995) Technology assessment Impact Assessment, 13, 135−151Google Scholar
  22. Rodrigues GS, Campanhola C, Kitamura PC (2003) An environmental impact assessment system for agricultural R&D. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:219–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodrigues GS, Buschinelli CCA, Avila AFD (2010) An environmental impact assessment system for agricultural research and development II: institutional learning experience at Embrapa. J Technol Manag Innov 5:38–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SENAR (2010) Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Rural. Honey: management of apiary for honey production/Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem rural. 2nd ed. Brasília: SENARGoogle Scholar
  25. Soares JPG, Rodrigues GS (2013) Social and environmental evaluation of Embrapa technologies: Ambitec-Agro methodology. In: Workshop on Economic Evaluation of Projects and Impacts of Embrapa Technologies. Pereira, MA; Malafaia, G. Campo Grande: Embrapa Gado de Corte, 95–112Google Scholar
  26. Soares JPG, Aroeira LJM, Fonseca AHF, Sanávria A, Fagundes GM, Silva JB (2011) Organic milk production in Brazil: technologies for sustainable production. In: Lopes, BC, Machado CHC, Josahkian LA. Congresso Brasileiro das Raças Zebuínas pp45-67Google Scholar
  27. Soares JPG, Sousa TCR, Malaquias JV, Rodrigues GS, Borba Junior JKF (2015) Environmental impacts of the transition between conventional and organic bovine milk production in the Integrated Development Zone of the Federal District and Environment (RIDE/DF) – Planaltina, DF: Embrapa CerradosGoogle Scholar
  28. Tupy O, Primavesi O (2006) Evaluation of the economic, social and environmental impacts of technologies of Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste. 3. Strategic analysis of milk production costs. São Carlos: Embrapa Pecuária SudesteGoogle Scholar
  29. USDA (2018). United States Department of Agriculture. National honey report. Feb. 2018. Acessed 08 Mar 2018Google Scholar
  30. Willer H, Lernoud J (2019) (Ed.) The world of organic agriculture: statistics and emerging trends. Research institute of organic agriculture (FIBL), Frick, and IFOAM. Organic international, Bonn. URL: Acessed 22 feb 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Euclides Reuter de Oliveira
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elaine Barbosa Muniz
    • 2
  • João Paulo Guimarães Soares
    • 3
  • Marisa de Fátima Lomba Farias
    • 1
  • Jefferson Rodrigues Gandra
    • 1
  • Andréa Maria de Araújo Gabriel
    • 1
  • Juaci Vitória Malaquias
    • 3
  • Thaís Lemos Pereira
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal da Grande DouradosDouradosBrazil
  2. 2.UNIOESTE, Universidade do Oeste do ParanáMarechal Cândido RondonBrazil
  3. 3.Embrapa Cerrados, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa AgropecuáriaPlanaltinaBrazil

Personalised recommendations