(**b**) Professionals

**Figure 3.** Word cloud using Atlas.ti for (**a**) agricultural producers and (**b**) professionals in the middle-north region of Mato Grosso state, Brazil surveyed during the spring of 2019. **Figure 3.** Word cloud using Atlas.ti for (**a**) agricultural producers and (**b**) professionals in the middle-north region of Mato Grosso state, Brazil surveyed during the spring of 2019.

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression results for both agricultural producers and

professionals explaining the proportion of public training used (dependent variable) are

those specializing in only soybeans were not significant in explaining use of public (versus

private) training sources. For producers, years spent in agriculture and being from the city

of Sorriso were also not significant. Agricultural professionals who received training from

private companies selling agricultural inputs (resale) did not have any significantly


**Table 6.** Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression for proportion public training for both agricultural producers and professionals from middle-north region, Mato Grosso state, Brazil in 2019.

<sup>a</sup> Denotes significance at confidence level (α) of 0.10 (\*), 0.05 (\*\*), and 0.01 (\*\*\*). <sup>b</sup> Independent variable question not asked. <sup>c</sup> For producers, this is managed by them, while for professionals this is related to the producers that they consult.

Agricultural producers that had significantly higher proportions of public training sources were less likely to receive training from chemical and resale companies, but they were more apt to be from the city of Sinop, female, and single. Producers that managed less area were more likely to use more public training sources, through this was marginally significant (α = 0.10). Similarly, agricultural professionals that used more public training sources were less likely to receive training from private chemical companies and be from the city of Sorriso. Agricultural professionals that used public training sources significantly read more technical articles per year, consulted on a larger number of crops, and managed less agricultural area (Table 6).

#### *3.4. Financial and Technical Assistance for Producers*

As summarized in Table 7, most surveyed producers use rural credit (81.7%) and technical assistance (83.5%) to support their farms. Banco do Brazil and SICREDI combined to make up 80.7% of responses for sources of rural credit, with bartering (11.6%), other types (6.2%), and Agricultura de Baixo Carbano (ABC) or the Low-Carbon Agriculture program (1.6%) making up the difference (Table 7). ABC is used by farmers in Brazil who are implementing sustainable agriculture, such as low-carbon practices [48].


**Table 7.** Producer use and preferences for financial and technical services in middle-north region, Mato Grosso state, Brazil in 2019.

<sup>a</sup> Producers could specify multiple categories.

Responses to sources of technical assistance were led by private companies (33%), followed by other private entities such as producer associations (25.6%) and rural unions (16.5%). Public sources of technical assistance (SENAR, Universities, EMPAER, and Embrapa) only totaled 23.7% of responses. Preferred technical assistance topics were cost/benefit (37.4%), new technologies/science (28.3%), and basic technical knowledge (21.2%) (Table 7).

Producers indicated a preference for presentations with social gatherings, exchange of experiences, and emphasis on practical dynamics in a familiar environment. Preferred agricultural extension formats as a percentage of responses were field days (30.2%), presentations (29%), congresses or seminars (19.6%), and fairs/exhibitions (18.4%) (Table 7). From October 2016 to May 2022, AgriSciences at the University Federal de Mato Grosso has organized numerous presentations, four field days (2019–2022), and one international congress (2016). There were 538 people that presented and/or attended the VIII SIMBRAS (Simpósio Brazileiro de Agropecuária Sustentável) from 6 to 8 October 2016 [49]. From February 2019 to December 2021, AgriSciences held 56 training events involving a total of 3649 people.

A total of 263 + 786 + 275 = 1324 people attended the first, third, and fourth Agricultural Field Days (2019, 2021–2022). Even though the second live event was canceled in 2020 due to COVID-19, more than 800 people downloaded the inaugural book for this [50], with book publication occurring the year after the field day (e.g., the third live event in 2021 had a book published in 2022 [51]). The total number of AgriSciences program participants have been 3649 + 2124 + 538 = 6311 since 2016. The most participants attended presentations (57.8%), followed by field days (33.7%) and congresses (8.5%).

#### *3.5. Agricultural Professionals' Training*

Agricultural professionals' responses to questions on their baseline training as well as time availability for training are summarized in Table 8. The number of trainings that agricultural professionals attend per year was bi-modal. There were 40.9% of respondents that attend 0 to 3 trainings annually, while 40.9% attend 5 or more. Most professionals also read technical articles and books. Only 1.1% of respondents do not read technical articles, while 98.9% read such articles at least occasionally. Almost half (47.2%) of professionals that responded read 1 to 2 books per year (Table 8).

The duration (number of hours) that professionals considered ideal for technical and online courses was also bi-modal. While over one-third of professionals (36%) considered one to four hours as the ideal time, 23.6% favored 8 h and 29.2% of respondents preferred trainings more than 8 h long. A minority (11.2%) did not know. Most professionals (51.7%) reported having only up to one hour per day available for online trainings. Others reported having one to three hours available (29.2%) or a half day (6.7%). The remaining respondents (12.4%) reported having no interest in online trainings (Table 8).

Agricultural professionals preferred trainings to be scheduled during times of the day, day(s), and month(s) that they were less busy, presumably when they were not consulting with producers. Saturday mornings were the most preferred, followed by weekday evenings compared to mornings and afternoons (Figure 4a). July and August are the most preferred months (Figure 4b) after second-crop maize (*safrinha*) has already been harvested or prior to cotton harvest. These two months correspond to the commodity cropping off-season in Mato Grosso during the middle of the dry season.


**Table 8.** Professionals' participation and availability for training in middle-north region, Mato Grosso state, Brazil in 2019.

**Table 8.** *Cont.* **Professional Participation and Preferences** *n* **%** Preferences for training: Ideal length for agronomic course (*n* = 89): 1–4 h 32 36.0 8 h 21 23.6 >8 h 26 29.2 Do not know 10 11.2 Hours available for online training (*n* = 89): Up to 1 h 46 51.7 1–3 h 26 29.2 A half day 6 6.7 Not interested in participating in online program 11 12.4 0 0.2 Agricultural professionals preferred trainings to be scheduled during times of the day, day(s), and month(s) that they were less busy, presumably when they were not consulting with producers. Saturday mornings were the most preferred, followed by weekday evenings compared to mornings and afternoons (Figure 4a). July and August are the most preferred months (Figure 4b) after second-crop maize (*safrinha*) has already been harvested or prior to cotton harvest. These two months correspond to the commodity cropping off-season in Mato Grosso during the middle of the dry season.

Not interested in participating in online program 11 12.4

The duration (number of hours) that professionals considered ideal for technical and

online courses was also bi-modal. While over one-third of professionals (36%) considered one to four hours as the ideal time, 23.6% favored 8 h and 29.2% of respondents preferred trainings more than 8 h long. A minority (11.2%) did not know. Most professionals (51.7%)

reported having one to three hours available (29.2%) or a half day (6.7%). The remaining

respondents (12.4%) reported having no interest in online trainings (Table 8).

1–4 h 32 36.0 8 h 21 23.6 >8 h 26 29.2

Do not know 10 11.2

Up to 1 h 46 51.7 1–3 h 26 29.2

A half day 6 6.7

0 0.2

*Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22

Ideal length for agronomic course (*n* = 89):

Hours available for online training (*n* = 89):

**Figure 4.** *Cont*.

**Figure 4.** Agricultural professionals' preferred (**a**) days and (**b**) months for training. **Figure 4.** Agricultural professionals' preferred (**a**) days and (**b**) months for training.

#### **4. Discussion**

**4. Discussion** 

#### *4.1. Improved Participation for Sustainable Agricultural Systems*

*4.1. Improved Participation for Sustainable Agricultural Systems*  According to prior research, the Brazilian challenge is to maintain the capacity to produce and use soybeans profitably and sustainably [52]. Greater sustainability here involves crop rotation diversification and/or integrating commodity crops like soybeans and maize with perennial pasture for livestock grazing [53,54] or using soybeans during the pasture finishing of beef cattle in the region [55]. Integrated crop–livestock (ICL) According to prior research, the Brazilian challenge is to maintain the capacity to produce and use soybeans profitably and sustainably [52]. Greater sustainability here involves crop rotation diversification and/or integrating commodity crops like soybeans and maize with perennial pasture for livestock grazing [53,54] or using soybeans during the pasture finishing of beef cattle in the region [55]. Integrated crop–livestock (ICL) systems have had low participation due to the management complexity of adding another enterprise or due to the coordination needed between specialized crop and livestock producers [56,57]. In addition to encouraging greater adoption of ICL, addressing social factors can also more broadly impact farm persistence and growth [58].

systems have had low participation due to the management complexity of adding another enterprise or due to the coordination needed between specialized crop and livestock producers [56,57]. In addition to encouraging greater adoption of ICL, addressing social factors can also more broadly impact farm persistence and growth [58]. Access to rural credit in the Brazilian state of São Paulo increased the probability of adopting the ICL-Forest System (Sistema Integrado Lavoura-Pecuária-Floresta—ILPF) [59]. In our study, 81.7% of producers depend on financing for rural credit as a source for Access to rural credit in the Brazilian state of São Paulo increased the probability of adopting the ICL-Forest System (Sistema Integrado Lavoura-Pecuária-Floresta—ILPF) [59]. In our study, 81.7% of producers depend on financing for rural credit as a source for investment (Table 1), with 30.1% of surveyed producers using ICL systems (Table 3). Our ICL percentage was less than a prior assessment of integrated systems in Mato Grosso state where 89% of integrated systems involved just crops and livestock (rather than agro-forestry) and such ICL systems involved roughly 40.5% of 134 total producers (61 integrated + 73 non-integrated) surveyed [60]. Integrated systems are beneficial, diversifying rural revenues, recovering degraded pastures, improving physical, chemical, and biological attributes of soil, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions [61].

investment (Table 1), with 30.1% of surveyed producers using ICL systems (Table 3). Our Increased participation of private companies in the development of agricultural markets in the 2010s was a major driver of production cost increases, which interfered with the

ICL percentage was less than a prior assessment of integrated systems in Mato Grosso state where 89% of integrated systems involved just crops and livestock (rather than agro-

integrated + 73 non-integrated) surveyed [60]. Integrated systems are beneficial, diversifying rural revenues, recovering degraded pastures, improving physical, chemical,

markets in the 2010s was a major driver of production cost increases, which interfered with the direction of technologies and producers' decision-making power [62]. Our results suggest that while most rural producers use strategies that may have more limited sustainability, many have adopted sustainable practices such as cover cropping. Sixtynine percent of producers we surveyed used no-till which relies on glyphosate (i.e., Roundup®) [63]. Glyphosate use in Brazil for soybeans has been shown to reduce erosion but increase herbicide resistance in weeds [64]. The prevalence of producers using

Increased participation of private companies in the development of agricultural

and biological attributes of soil, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions [61].

direction of technologies and producers' decision-making power [62]. Our results suggest that while most rural producers use strategies that may have more limited sustainability, many have adopted sustainable practices such as cover cropping. Sixty-nine percent of producers we surveyed used no-till which relies on glyphosate (i.e., Roundup®) [63]. Glyphosate use in Brazil for soybeans has been shown to reduce erosion but increase herbicide resistance in weeds [64]. The prevalence of producers using *Crotalaria juncea* as a cover crop (46.3%) was similar to those using biological nitrogen fixation (47.6%). More complex and expensive strategies such as integrated crop–livestock systems and recovery of degraded pasture lands were used by only 17.9% and 7.1% of producers, respectively.

#### *4.2. Increasing Participation in Public Sources of Agricultural Training*

Our study identified factors influencing the use of public (versus private) sources of agricultural training by agricultural producers and professionals in the middle-north region of Mato Grosso state, Brazil. The entities that most contributed advisory support and capability toward developing programs were private agricultural companies and business support organizations (e.g., syndicates, associations). Public entities were less utilized, such as universities like Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT), as well as state (e.g., EMPAER-MT) and federal (e.g., Embrapa) institutions. Brazilian agricultural commodity production lends itself to more dependence on the support industries for Brazilian agribusiness [65].

Our results suggest that UFMT and EMPAER-MT should continue to prioritize professional development activities for producers in rural areas (Table 3), such as on-farm field days [66]. Producers are more likely to be from smaller towns (30.8%) outside of the four major cities in the region compared to professionals (12.4%) and this difference is significant (*p* = 0.005, Table 3). In addition, AgriSciences also needs to hold on-farm events closer to Sinop where area producers are more likely not to use public training sources (*p* = 0.006, Table 6). Similarly, public training outreach to professionals from Sorriso needs to improve, since this group has lower participation with such extension (*p* = 0.0144, Table 6).

Well-structured technical assistance and rural extension can enhance field activities and improve rural development [67]. Publicly and privately funded agencies working in technology diffusion tend to become mediating or border organizations, assuming hybrid configurations such as multidisciplinary participatory platforms rich in partnerships, building innovations [68]. When training rural extension professionals, it is important to have continuity in conceptual discussion, systematization of innovative educational practices, and research on education, training, and results [69].

Hybrid learning platforms are also important, such as online videos and audio lessons, although such media are not widely deployed due to lack of internet connectivity in rural areas in Brazil [70]. Improved development of social media to enhance agricultural innovation and rural development in Canada has been limited by mobile telephone quality, having compatible technological equipment, and specialized technical assistance [71]. Keeping up with increasingly fast technological advances can ensure that rural producers and professionals are able to access updated information.

Both agricultural producers and professionals in the middle-north macro-region of Mato Grosso are more receptive to practical, in-service training while still being receptive to online training such as webinars, videos, etc. Professionals indicated the off-season period as the best time to improve their education and competencies. Therefore, the characterization provided in this study can be an excellent support to institutions in Mato Grosso state, Brazil and beyond that provide technical training, development, and assistance. Our results presented here can provide insight on how similar institutions can improve their training programs to both agricultural producers and professionals.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Identifying how to best meet the agricultural training needs of both agricultural producers and agricultural professionals from public extension sources is critical to improving the economic and environmental sustainability of commodity cropping systems. We surveyed 94 such producers and 89 agricultural professionals in the middle-north region of Mato Grosso state in Brazil's midwest, which specializes in the production of soybean, maize, and cotton. Most producers were male, married, and varied in age, with 59.1% using a soybean–maize annual rotation. Relative to producers, agricultural professionals were more educated, with 52.8% having a college degree compared to only 22.8% for producers. Agricultural producers were more likely to use public versus private sources of training if they received less training from chemical companies and retailers, were from Sinop, female, unmarried, and if they managed less farm area. Agricultural professionals were more likely to use public agricultural training sources if they received less training from private chemical companies, were not from Sorriso, read more technical articles, and if they consulted producers on managing more crops on less farm area.

Our research is a start for better understanding the agricultural training needs of farmers and farm consultants in our region. However, our analysis could be repeated in the future to allow for pre–post testing of improved extension outreach over time, since we have contact information for all survey participants. Other regions in Mato Grosso (MT) state as well as Brazil can conduct similar surveys of agricultural producers and professionals in the future to compare to our results. Future public research and extension activities (e.g., field days on Saturday mornings and presentations on weekday evenings) in the middlenorth region of MT need to continue to support producers and professionals involved in more diversified cropping systems. However, more targeted outreach to more specialized producers is needed, ideally on-farm in more rural areas. Future work can improve our understanding of how to better balance private sector training with agricultural extension outreach from the public sector (e.g., universities, state, and federal agencies) to encourage greater sustainability in commodity cropping systems in Brazil and elsewhere.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www. mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15064712/s1, Farmer's survey (pp. 1–4); Professional's survey (pp. 5–7).

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, D.C.d.A. and J.A.V.d.R.; methodology, D.C.d.A. and J.R.V.; software, D.C.d.A. and J.R.V.; validation, D.C.d.A., J.A.V.d.R., J.L.V. and V.A.M.d.B.; formal analysis, A.K.H., J.A.V.d.R. and L.M.; investigation, D.C.d.A. and W.M.d.S.; resources, A.K.H., D.C.d.A. and W.M.d.S.; data curation, J.A.V.d.R. and J.R.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K.H. and J.A.V.d.R.; writing—review and editing, D.C.d.A. and A.K.H.; visualization, R.A.d.O.; supervision, A.S.d.O. and D.C.d.A.; project administration, D.C.d.A.; funding acquisition, D.C.d.A. and W.M.d.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Rural de Mato Grosso (SENAR-MT), Programa Global REDD Early Movers de Mato Grosso (REM-MT), Projeto Rural Sustentável—Cerrado (PRS—Cerrado), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for granting a masters scholarship, Grupo Bragança Agronegócios (Mato Grosso) and Grupo Osvaldo Sobrinho.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Study data can be obtained by request to the corresponding author or the second author, via e-mail. They are not available on the website, as the research project is still under development.

**Acknowledgments:** We thank all cooperating producers and professionals in addition to the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT) in Sinop, MT, Brazil, Empresa Mato-grossense de Pesquisa, Assistência e Extensão Rural de Mato Grosso (EMPAER-MT), and the University of Minnesota for institutional support. Special thanks the Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Rural de Mato Grosso (SENAR-MT), Programa Global REDD Early Movers de Mato Grosso (REM-MT), Projeto Rural

Sustentável-Cerrado (PRS-Cerrado), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Fazenda Taguá Agropecuária (Grupo Osvaldo Sobrinho) and Fazenda Bragança (Grupo Bragança Agronegócios) for financial support. We also thank four anonymous reviewers whose comments and edits improved this work.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. Supporting entities had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

### **References**


**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

### MDPI

St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 Fax +41 61 302 89 18 www.mdpi.com

*Sustainability* Editorial Office E-mail: sustainability@mdpi.com www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Academic Open Access Publishing

www.mdpi.com ISBN 978-3-0365-8179-8